It might be a good idea to investigate a bit about Mr. Paul before so heartily endorsing him. He seems to have good friends on the far far right, has a problem with gays, environmentalists and the separation of church & state. He doesn’t seem to have much of a problem with cross burnings, and does seem to have the endorsement of David Duke.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/search?q=Ron+Paul

Thanks for the comment, Joe. I am for the record, not hopeful that Mr Paul will become president. I am, however, hopeful, that the blathering by all the other candidates will be shown to be so much hot air. Mr. Paul, in his appearances on the debate, on Real Time, and other shows, gives clear opinions. He does not equivocate. I read with interest what you cited, yet I think you do a disservice by not completing the thoughts. It appears he believes in personal freedom, not abridging the freedom of others. Also, since this report was 3rd hand, I am not sure SO much creedence should be given to it.

My comments weren’t intended to be an indictment of your observations regarding plain speech. They were merely a caution to take sound bites with a grain of salt and dig a little deeper. Since you called me on single sourcing my opinions, I looked around for additional insights into Mr. Paul’s political & philosophical leanings. I found several first hand accounts, some by Mr. Paul himself, & some from the public record (I think the Library of Congress is firsthand enough)

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm -statement against federal acceptance gay marriage

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01094:@@@P - a bill to declare the threshold for human life to be conception

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=122&chamber=H&congress=1091&state=tx
record of his vote for an amendment to an energy bill that would have allowed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

And finally… Oh look, he voted against Reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=374&chamber=H&congress=1092&state=tx

I too am all for plain speech & would certainly applaud the trend toward more of it, but sometimes, actions speak louder than plain words.

I’m not particularly a Ron Paul supporter, but I do consider myself fairly libertarian, so I’d like to take a poke at the list Joe presents, without necessarily “defending” Paul.

First, the statement against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Oh, wait. Joe left that part out. The statement is a good read, really. Paul seems to be opposing expanding federal power with regard to marriage recognition, and that is a fairly consistent argument. As regards his support of the Defense of Marriage Act, he’s saying that if government is going to be involved in recognizing marriage, for whatever reason, then it needs an objective definition, and the curent cultural norm seems the most rational choice.

Second, the “Conception = life” bill. Now, I think when most reasonable people think about it, they realize that there is no fixed “beginning” to life, and medicine is showing us that the end isn’t quite so clear, either. That being said, just like the first item, if government is going to act to protect people from each other, then it needs a clear definition of the word “person”. We certainly have a hellacious mess on our hands without one now. Nobody thinks that you automatically become mature enough to vote on your 18th birthday, but having that line in the sand makes it a lot harder for government to disenfranchise you.

Drilling in the NWA? Truth be told, Paul would probably like to see the entire NWA sold to private conservationist groups. Regardless, there are plenty of rational arguments for low-impact oil recovery on the reserve, and to broadly imply that suggesting it makes someone anti-environment is irresponsible, and indicative of the vapid media puffery theoracle decries.

I can’t speak to the VRA issue, as your link doesn’t include any data beyond his vote, but I suspect his reasons were as unconventional and rational as in the other cases.

You and I may not agree with the man’s personal opinions on some issues, but you cannot deny that he operates from a strong stance of individual rights and freedom, and his actions derive logically from that stance.

It matters not what words Ron Paul uses, he is a Republican. Need I say more!

I probably should simply agree with Bob & move on, who in their right mind would even listen to a Republican at this point, it’s just not worth the risk.

Will Rogers, or Mark Twain or maybe it was Robert Heinlein ( definite attribution doesn’t seem to be so easy to find tonight) said, ” Don’t try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

But….nah, BC has drawn me out. It’s facile to jump on the Libertarian bandwagon & shout, “Keep the Fed out of who can call themselves married!”
But, no, the title of the statement is “Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized” This doesn’t seem like an intro to an “objective argument”. I think BC’s “current norm” argument would have been very effective in preventing women & African Americans… from getting… the vote…. oh wait, that was settled some time ago, discrimination and all that…………………….riiiiiight!

“Second, the “Conception = life” bill.” Your argument doesn’t address the basic premise that women should have control over their own destinies, let alone their own bodies. And, while I don’t profess to speak for the Libertarian Party of the US, it seems as though that while they don’t feel that abortions should be subsidized by the government, they also feel it is out of the realm of government to prohibit them. The real issue is, does a woman have control, freedom, Liberty to decide what is the best decision for HER. I realize that this is an emotional issue, and I’m stepping on some religious toes. I’m not advocating abortion as a form of birth control, convenience, whim or however the “other side” chooses to paint the situation. As a parent, I state unequivocally, just try to hurt my kid, we’ll see some preservation of life. But to bring a pregnancy to term was my wife’s decision (I helped decide too, but it’s HER body) & she has that right. I don’t see HR01094 as Libertarian legislation.

Drilling in the ANWR - let’s see, 12 years of oh-so-careful exploration in one of the last pristine, fragile ecosystems left on earth, by the people who have been the conscientious stewards of every other place they’ve…..sorry, I just snorted coffee out of my nose. All that for by every reasonable account, a small fraction of the oil needed to run this country. How far would we get towards eliminating the need for ANWR oil through technology with the kind of cash it would take for 12 years of development in that region?

I guess I’m through now, it’s late & I’m tired of this thread. If personal freedom means the freedom to discriminate, oppress & spoil swaths of the earth, I guess I’d rather sleep with a clear conscience & go my own way.

I’ll close with some props for Mr. Paul. I applaud his opinion that we shouldn’t be in Iraq, I’ve seen too many pictures of too many brave Americans that will never come home again, and many more who will come home but never be the same as they were before they left. For speaking out, I thank him & I credit him for his courage to do so. But I’m sorry, I can’t vote for him.

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! iuxxavynyznq