Friday, August 26, 2011

Who is Ron Paul?

Ron Paul isn't getting as much attention this go round but if I were a single issue voter since his strongest issue is ending the wars Americais involved in (at least it is the one he is most outspoken about), then he might be the strongest candidate out there and I might vote for him. However, it's important to know all of his positions because when libertarian views are unloosed... well, the United States would look a bit more like, hmmm... 

You tell me... 

Ron Paul's 15 Most Extreme Positions" were listed in an article in Mother Jones (although I will add it's not the first time I've heard many of them it's just the most recent) so I thought I would go over some of them. One of the extreme positions held by Ron Paul and the Libertarians is...

 GET RID OF ENTITLEMENTS. That's right! Something even George Bush wasn't quite ready to do- cut off Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security... completely. Now to be fair he does think we need to be weened off of them- at least that's the way I heard him describe it in a radio address but he does believe they "are UNCONSTITUTIONAL". 

Another interesting idea... Get rid of half  of all federal agencies. Sounds good right? Get rid the Departments of Education, Labor, Commerce, Homeland Security (well that one might not be bad), Health and Human services, Labor, Agriculture, Energy to name a few because regulation? We don't need no stinking regulation! And jobs? Well, that won't affect the economy, will it????

"States rights! States rights!" Sounds great right? right up until you think about those states that would set policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in schools, etc.  back into the 50s. Care to be a rape victim in that state? 

Opposed the SAFE act which required anyone offering an open Wi-Fi connection to the public to report illegal images including "obscene" cartoons and drawings--or face fines of up to $300,000. It's called the Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act, or SAFE Act-- because it will "ensure better reporting, investigation, and prosecution of those who use the Internet to distribute images of illegal child pornography." BUt Ron Paul? He thinks it's a bad idea...

Keep the monopolies intact! Because we all know how well that works for the working people of this country. And we know how well the monopolies keep their promises! His big idea? "Voluntary Contract" It has truthiness written all over it.

You know how the climate is changing and the ice caps are melting? Not Ron Paul! At least it's still up for debate as to whether humans cause global warming or not. Remember less regulation. Less regulation. And ultimately, private property laws will take care of all that! He does think that "interstate issues such as air pollution are best dealt with through compacts between states." Don't ask me what that means. 

Would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Thinks the ADA should never have been passed and the treatment of the handicapped should be determined by the freemarket. In other words- "You can't make it up the stairs? Too damn bad!"

And, last (at least on my list) end birthright citizenship. Emergency rooms should have the right to turn away illegal immigrants.      

Still like him now?  

I think all that deregulation sounds like any country you can think of in Africa but maybe that's just me...


Anonymous said...

The status quo politicans have gotten us to where we are now....more or less screwed.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that
wants to remove the Banksters from control of our gov't..

The Banksters cultivate this false competition between Democrats and Republicans. They allow us to quibble about guns, gays, god, abortion, etc while they plunder the citizenry.

Ron Paul knows the things you listed about his beliefs will not happen and admits as much. He offers a program that could be a start of the correct path to travel.

I support his theme because he is so far to the right that he is actually on the left. If you want more of the same support a main stream candidate.

Danette said...

I'm sure that is what you believe but deregulation (which is a main staple of liberterians) is what got is where we are in the first place. If republicans AND democrats had not deregulated the banks the last 30 years they would not have been able to rob us all so incredibly. I don't see how more deregulation is going to save us from that.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the deregulation of the financial industry facilitated our economic collapse.

It is in fact testament to the complete power the Banksters have over both the Democrat and Republican parties that the deregulation was allowed to occur in the first place.

Let's not conclude that deregulation is bad based on this example. If anything, it supports the idea that getting rid of Bankster control is needed.

Danette said...

Everywhere that the feds deregulate big corporation (Pharmaceutical industry, the phone companies, the Airline industry) we see nothing but cutting corners on consumer and worker safety. Corporations will always do what is in their own best financial interest at great cost to society. It's easy to forget Love Canal now when government has clamped down on such events but they would not have stopped without regulation.

In fact the best examples you see of a society run without regulation might be Somalia or some other African country- and we see how well things work out for them. Not well.

The other thing you don't hear Ron Paul talking about (which makes him just as bad as the dems and republicans) is raising taxes on the rich. Without that- he's their man.

Anonymous said...

It seems that we agree.....when the Banksters are in charge they decrease regulation.

I'm looking for ANY candidate that stands for the removal of the Bankster cartel from our politics.

So far there is a grand total of one but I welcome any others and need someone to point that individual out.

Danette said...

I too am waiting. I have no intention of voting for Obama or a republican (obviously). I would vote Nader if he would run again or another third party candidate. I'm not sure even Kucinich running against Obama in the democratic primary would be a viable choice- it's just a symbolic move, made more to show disgruntlement than to show the real discontent. I intend to show real discontent. NOT voting with a mainstream party affiliation.