Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

Reality Master 101's Journal: Why do people support Ron Paul? 14

Journal by Reality Master 101

Ron Paul has been getting a lot of attention as an "outsider" candidate, and in fact, even here at Slashdot I've seen a lot of Ron Paul in sigs.

So I decided to visit his web site and see what he's all about. Uhhhhhh... why is this guy getting so much geek attention? I can only assume that people are focusing on some single issue, and haven't checked what the guy actually *believes*. Much like people who support the Libertarian Party, actually, who have some seriously crackpot stuff in their platform. But I digress.

What's wrong with Ron Paul? Here's a sampling:

"So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. [...] And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever." link

Sheesh. Sure, the value of trade deals is debatable, but the rhetoric above is just silly. "Gone FOREVER" OH NOOOOO!! Typical Politician fear-mongering, if not out-and-out crackpottery. So far, I'm not impressed.

I oppose legislation that increases the FDA's legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements. link

Oh, geez. The FDA is certainly not perfect, but to say that the FDA "consistently" fails to protect the public from dangerous drugs is just a lie. If it wasn't for the FDA, we would be flooded with quack drugs. The Libertarian would say that the consumer should decide what's good and what's bad, but it's impractical for every citizen to have to review all the studies to know whether the thousands of drugs are effective or not. Again, I'll listen to how the FDA can be improved, but overblown words like the above don't give me confidence that there's any substance to the man.

And then, to top it off, he attacks *all* genetically modified foods broadly, showing that he has an anti-science agenda, and is completely ignorant of the issue.

I am committed to guaranteeing parity for home school diplomas and advancing equal scholarship consideration for students entering college from a home school environment. [...] I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. link

I'm a supporter of home schooling, but let me get this straight. He wants home-schooled kids to have equal parity for diplomas, equal consideration for scholarships, yet doesn't think they should be be tested to see if they learned anything?? How is that supposed to work? And is the government going to force universities to accept home schooled kids with no testing?

The framers of the Constitution never in their worst nightmares imagined that the words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech......." would be used to ban children from praying in school, prohibit courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or prevent citizens from praying before football games. The original meaning of the First amendment was clear on these two points: The federal government cannot enact laws establishing one religious denomination over another, and the federal government cannot forbid mention of religion, including the Ten Commandments and references to God. link

First of all, he's being disingenuous here. Nowhere are children "banned" from praying in school. What is banned is the SCHOOL leading prayer. That he doesn't seem to understand this (or is lying about it) is incredibly worrisome.

And then he doesn't seem to understand that freedom of religion means the government cannot advocate one religion over another, and in fact, should not be advocating religion at all. I don't feel like quoting more, but he then goes on to attack the idea of the separation of church and state. I think it's pretty clear that he's not going to be a big advocate of atheist rights.

This isn't everything I find disturbing. To be fair, I did see a lot I liked about the man (as I can say about any of the candidates, of any party). But as near as I can see, he is not deserving of the reputation that he seems to be building.

Can anyone tell me why they support Ron Paul, especially in light of the above?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why do people support Ron Paul?

Comments Filter:
  • "So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. [...] And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever."

    ~ Let me ask you a few questions, have you heard of the Amero ?

    ~ Have you heard about The Constitution of the United States is planning to be suspended ?

    ~ Have you heard
    • First of all, the Amero and the North American Union are not official government proposals. Anyone can propose anything. Who cares?

      I actually did watch that video, and it's just silly, not to mention a lot of it is inaccurate. One example is executive order 11921 [fas.org], which claims that Congress can't review a declaration for six months. The order never mentions "congress" or even anything having to do with "months". I didn't bother to check a lot of the other supposed facts.

      But really, the overall point is th

      • "First of all, the Amero and the North American Union are not official government proposals. Anyone can propose anything. Who cares?"

        If you really believe this, you are beyond help, and I wish you luck in the comings days.

        Enjoy the 2nd civil war, and the police state.

        "I didn't bother to check a lot of the other supposed facts."

        You might want to check the facts, I looked up the executive orders.

        "that would definitely happen in a lot of bible-belt schools if we rolled back the church/state separation"

        We do li
        • If you really believe this, you are beyond help, and I wish you luck in the comings days.

          I'm beyond help because I don't believe in secret conspiracies? How exactly can the "police state" even work? Do you think the military is going to enforce it? Is Congress and the Supreme Court just going to roll over because a President issues an Executive Order suspending the constitution? Will President Obama, puppet of the CFR, order the military to seize the traitorous Supreme Court when they declare the police

  • by Dlugar (124619) on Monday November 05, 2007 @11:54AM (#21241785) Homepage
    Because he is the only candidate in favor of a smaller federal government. So even if some of his crackpot ideas go too far, if you believe in a smaller federal government (e.g. you're an old-school republican or a libertarian, both of which are extremely common on the intarwebs), he is most likely the major candidate that agrees with you the most.

    Also note that many of his "crackpot" ideas seem less crazy if you simply add, "States should do that instead." For example, there should be no "national standards or national testing for home school parents or students"--individual states should do that instead. (And they currently do--each state has its own requirements for both parents and students who homeschool.) I think this gives a closer idea of what the man actually believes.

    Dlugar
    • Because he's a charismatic man who has an honorable set of beliefs which people agree with. Because he's a sharp contrast to the same-old politicians which give the president's office and congress an abysmal approval rating.

      I'm a very left-leaning guy, but I appreciate many of his ideas. I don't think he's a crackpot, even though I have difficulty understanding how someone intelligent would think the things he does.

      Dr. Paul isn't a nutjob. He believes that people should have maximum control over their li
    • The whole states thing makes me hate him even more. The only organizations more corrupt than the federal government are the governments of the states.
  • Funny, the first thing you mentioned is the only thing I agree with Ron Paul on. If you don't find the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA as a problem, you've got to visit South and Central America. Or at least read a thing or two concerning the situation caused largely by the US government's initiatives. Really, a simple search for any combination of those organizations will open up a wealth of strong concerns.
    I'm more concerned with him wanting to build a wall on the border.
  • If you do not support Ron Paul, who do you support and why? How are their positions better than those of Ron Paul? How are they more honest than Ron Paul? Based on their voting record in Congress or their record as a Mayor/Governor, what have they done to limit the scope of governmental influence in your life and help you maintain your freedom?
    • If you do not support Ron Paul, who do you support and why? How are their positions better than those of Ron Paul?

      Well, I have to admit you have me there. I don't know anyone significantly better. I guess I was primarily curious why he seems to be garnering some amount of enthusiasm from people. He has a lot of weird and disturbing interpretations of things (e.g., that freedom of religion means that the government and/or schools should be free to advocate Christianity), and he spews rhetoric like a stan

      • by nmos (25822)
        He has a lot of weird and disturbing interpretations of things (e.g., that freedom of religion means that the government and/or schools should be free to advocate Christianity)

        Even if he got his way on this issue I don't think it'd be a big deal. It would just push the decisions in this area down to the local community and if some communities actually want their schools to have a more Christian flavor I really don't see the harm. People who disagree still have the option of voicing their views or campaign
  • A lot of your disagreement is based on differing values, so I can't really speak to any of that. However, on the trade deals, I should clarify what Paul is getting at: like a lot of libertarians, he thinks that these "free trade" argreements aren't true free trade. What I don't understand, however, is why they won't support them, even when they offer free-*er* trade than the status quo.

    Though I consider myself libertarian, I get pretty depressed seeing actual libertarians confront issues like that. If y
    • So, I share your frustration with a lot of libertarians.

      Yes, one of the flaws of Libertarians is an obsession with orienting society around their absolutely rigid simplistic principles. Any deviation from that is unacceptable.

      An example I like to cite from the Libertarian Party platform is that they baldly state they want to sell off the national parks. Almost *no one* is going to be in favor of that -- it's too extreme, and most people see that the national parks are unique things that should be prot

      • Much as I'd like to debate the merits of various libertarian policies , I'm just going to say that you're going beyond the scope of what I was complaining about. I don't think libertarian principles are in error (remember, I consider myself libertarian!), but many libertarians are unable to think clearly on various issues, even accepting those principles as valid. Let's say I agree that 4. Taxes are bad. That tells me nothing about whether this tax is better than that tax, and no, not all taxes are equal

A modem is a baudy house.

Working...