Ron Paul/Constitution/Freedom/Liberty/Peace supporter? Take 60 seconds to read this!

[TechnoGuyRob]

Hi guys!

This is the Personal Development for Smart people forum, so I imagine there's quite a few Ron Paul supporters here who see through the usual neoconservative and political robot agenda. If you haven't heard, yet, Ron Paul just ran a $500k boost before the end of the quarter! In order for the media to notice him, we need to show he has a lot of tangible (to the media, this means money) support as well! Well, guess what? He raised $500k in a little over three days.

The goal has been upped to one million dollars before the end of the quarter (midnight at Sep 30), and if you have $1 or more that you can donate (whether through a credit/debit card, paypal, check, etc.) to showing that freedom IS still popular, PLEASE, PLEASE do! Everything counts, and we need to unite together and do all we can to restore the Constitution, stop wasting our (the taxpayers') money on quagmires such as Iraq and policing other nations' borders, and show that Americans are not just puppets of our government! We should not be afraid or policed by our government; our government should be afraid and policed by us!

Please help! :-)

N.B. I am not affiliated with the campaign or candidate. I have never, ever been interested in "politics" (I'm a grad student only interested in math), but this guy is really something.

EDIT: The only reason I'm posting this here (no, it's not a copy-pasted message, it was written fully in this text box) is because I've seen people like Steve (and by extension, people enthusiastic about his ideas) one of the most ardent proponents of rationality and freedom to handle one's own life.

[rinkuhero]

Already did so. Actually I'm surprised Pavlina himself hasn't said anything about him, I remember from the old dexterity.com forums that he was in favor of small government and especially personal responsibility and lack of restrictive regulations (I may be misremembering but I remember a thread where he mentioned Atlas Shrugged positively even).

[Erin Pavlina]

A friend of mine mentioned Ron Paul is very anti-abortion and would make any abortion illegal, and also that he doesn't like the separation of church and state. Is this true? Can anyone comment on his stance on these issues?

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

A friend of mine mentioned Ron Paul is very anti-abortion and would make any abortion illegal, and also that he doesn't like the separation of church and state. Is this true? Can anyone comment on his stance on these issues?

My understanding is that Ron Paul would not make abortion illegal per-se. What he would do, if he could, is take it out of the Federal Government's control and return the control to the States so the states would choose it. While he is pro-life in the sense that he personally is against abortion (he has delivered 4000 babies as a doctor after all), he believes abortion is not an issue to be decided on the federal level, but on the state level. He comes to that view as a "constitutionist" - he doesn't believe the constitution authorizes the federal goverment to take a stance on abortion. He did vote against partial-birth abortion, but I think that was against the method of abortion that bothered him. I myself am a big supporter of Ron Paul, while being completely pro-choice, but I can live with his preference to leave it up to the state. I'd much rather leave it up to the state then have someone come in and get the federal goverment to declare all abortions illegal.

As for the separation of church and state, that one is more involved to explain as it involves looking at his whole philosophy instead of that narrow issue. I think when Ron Paul talks about not having a seperation of state and church, you have to take the fact that he believes in a state that is infinitely smaller then it currently is. Thus, with Ron Paul, all schools would be private, all charity/welfare handouts would be private, marriage would be defined by churches, not governments, etc. He also strongly believes in the freedom of religion, etc. Thus his anti " separation of church and state" views means something completely different then what one may think if applied to a different politician that believes in huge goverment. Thus, this isn't like George Bush trying to finance Churches. Ron Paul's view of maximizing people's freedom include maximizing people's freedom to worship and be a Christian even if they are government employees. I think that ultimately Ron Paul is against the Federal goverment setting anti-religious laws like banning prayers in school, banning the teaching of morals from the bible in school, banning Christian Cross/nativity scenes on public land. If one only looks at that one dimension, it does seem alarming, but if looked at with the fact that he wants to drastically cut down the goverment to less then 1/20th of its current size and enhance people's freedom, it makes a lot more sense. At least it does to me, and I'm not a Christian.

BTW, I'm not interested in being in a debate over the goodness/awfulness of Ron Paul's views, so I will not respond to those criticizing these views. However there is the slight possibility I may have mis-stated his views, so please correct me if you are sure you know better.

[Erin Pavlina]

Thank you for the insight, that is very helpful.

I'm all for downsizing government control so I'll be looking into that.

[TechnoGuyRob]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

A friend of mine mentioned Ron Paul is very anti-abortion and would make any abortion illegal, and also that he doesn't like the separation of church and state. Is this true? Can anyone comment on his stance on these issues?

No. It's not true. Well, part of it.

Ron Paul is very anti-abortion. However, the key is that Ron Paul is, not his policies, or his votes. You can look at Ron Paul Library, his website, etc., but everywhere you will find the same thing: he fully supports letting the state decide the abortion issue, and he vehemently denies any federal ban or regulation on abortion--even though, personally, he doesn't like it. He thinks it should be up to the people (that is, let it be a state matter, not a Federal matter--note the latter is controlled by 435 elites known as "Congressman," whom Ron Paul is one of).

P.S. I'm very pro-choice. I do not agree with his anti-abortion stance, but I fully agree with his stance that the federal government should not be involved.

As for separation of church and state...well, I was born Catholic, and am now an atheist, let me say that first. Ron Paul, in this matter, thinks that there should be no federal restrictions or special privileges to churches and church groups compared to other organizations. However, he does not think the Founding Fathers intended for there to be a rigid separation between church and state. I disagree. Here's more on this.

However, if you look at Ron's voting record, it's very clear his personal convictions do not influence his legislation. He's voted against preference to Christians, against limiting abortion, etc.

[TechnoGuyRob]

One last thing to note.

States represent their population. People in California are likely to want the government to a lot more/less/different things than people in Alabama. That's why states should have the control, not the federal government.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

Thank you for the insight, that is very helpful.

You're welcome

[Jill]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

A friend of mine mentioned Ron Paul is very anti-abortion and would make any abortion illegal, and also that he doesn't like the separation of church and state. Is this true? Can anyone comment on his stance on these issues?

Erin, my daughter Corie wrote an interesting post on Ron Paul's Stance on Abortion which you might want to read. (It's a bit too high level for me, but provides interesting insights, nonetheless.)

[TechnoGuyRob]

He did it! Ron Paul raised $1.2 million in a week!

[Jill]

And 5 million in the last quarter. Was all over the news today.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Jill

And 5 million in the last quarter. Was all over the news today.

Yeah, that was sweet. All week long I did a search for Ron Paul news on news.google.com and little came. Then as Ron Paul's staff predicted, the news media took notice!

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Jill

Susan, I don't think that Ron Paul is saying that abortion should be outlawed. It is my understanding that he simply wants to leave it up to the individual states to decide, as that how it was supposed to be according to the US Constitution.

Correct ^^

[ticktockclok]

Ron Paul's the best out of the bunch, but this is beginning to look like the Soviet perestroika. Too little, too late.

[Nicketas]

Originally Posted by Erin Pavlina

A friend of mine mentioned Ron Paul is very anti-abortion and would make any abortion illegal, and also that he doesn't like the separation of church and state. Is this true? Can anyone comment on his stance on these issues?

His stance on abortion is to leave it up to the states, so that the people can vote on what they want at the local level.

He is actually very PRO separation of church and state.

He believes that, no matter what someone's beliefs or views are, the government has no business meddling with them.

He'll also eliminate the department of education (i.e. public schools) and the IRS, and put allllllllllll of that money (BILLIONS of dollars) back into people's pockets.

Why? So that parents have not only the choice but the resources to decide how and where they want their children educated.

The result? Smarter students, for one. And also the *END* of the irritating "religion in school" debates (on either side), and more personal responsibility for students, and free market competition.

The best schools stay, the ones that don't work go out of business.

[Nicketas]

Originally Posted by ticktockclok

Ron Paul's the best out of the bunch, but this is beginning to look like the Soviet perestroika. Too little, too late.

I disagree.

Perestroika, though radical in the context of communism, was still just economic reform.

Reform. Key word there.



Ron Paul wants to hit the reset button and put all of the money back into our pockets (read that to say YOUR pocket). It's only too late if he doesn't get elected.



Guess what happens then?

The North American Union in 2010 - ending our constitution without the approval of congress. Canada, Mexico, and the United states form one massive body of government which controls our food, waster, and resource supplies. The very food that you put into your bodies will be completely controlled and regulated by government.

You disobey, you don't eat. You obey, and you eat what they tell you to.

This isn't some chicken little doomsday conspiracy theory either, CNN has covered it numerous times, and you can look up PLENTY of legitimate sources on google.

It's even on the whitehouse's page (although very whitewashed).

[ticktockclok]

I'll look into that North American Union. Never heard of it before.

I have a question though. Say Paul becomes President. How much will he be able to do? He'll have to deal with an entire Congress opposed to his views.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Nicketas

Canada, Mexico, and the United states form one massive body of government which controls our food, waster, and resource supplies.

Sounds good.. do we get universal health care?

[Jerigan]

Originally Posted by Nicketas

Guess what happens then?

The North American Union in 2010 - ending our constitution without the approval of congress. Canada, Mexico, and the United states form one massive body of government which controls our food, waster, and resource supplies. The very food that you put into your bodies will be completely controlled and regulated by government.

You disobey, you don't eat. You obey, and you eat what they tell you to.

This isn't some chicken little doomsday conspiracy theory either, CNN has covered it numerous times...

Well there's a great reason to stop watching CNN. Very paranoid conspiracy type talk. I don't know of anyone in Canada who would allow such a thing to happen, especially not by 2010. We might be kind and gentle folk, but that's going too far.

If our government lost their minds and pushed for something like that, I'm fairly confident that government would be kicked out within a month. And if America comes to swallow us... well, it's been 200 years since we burned the whitehouse, maybe time for an encore?

That's not to say we would be opposed to joining into a massive country. I just don't believe we would allow that kind of government to stick around.

We like our freedoms.

[Nicketas]

Originally Posted by ticktockclok

I'll look into that North American Union. Never heard of it before.

I have a question though. Say Paul becomes President. How much will he be able to do? He'll have to deal with an entire Congress opposed to his views.

Congress can be swayed more easily than you'd think. As President, Paul's status is perceived as raised in their minds, and his voice can more easily be heard by all.

As president, *NO ONE* can ignore him for long, especially not congress.

Also, for this reason, constituents are more likely to vote in favor of legislation that he tries to pass.

If he wins, it sends a clear message to congress that this is who the american people want to listen to.

Politicians want to keep their jobs, so they'll bow.

[Nicketas]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Sounds good.. do we get universal health care?

Do you want your *food supply* controlled by the bush administration?

You don't get it. No constitution = no freedom of choice in what we say, do, or think. We lose.

[Nicketas]

Originally Posted by Jerigan

Well there's a great reason to stop watching CNN. Very paranoid conspiracy type talk. I don't know of anyone in Canada who would allow such a thing to happen, especially not by 2010. We might be kind and gentle folk, but that's going too far.

If our government lost their minds and pushed for something like that, I'm fairly confident that government would be kicked out within a month. And if America comes to swallow us... well, it's been 200 years since we burned the whitehouse, maybe time for an encore?

That's not to say we would be opposed to joining into a massive country. I just don't believe we would allow that kind of government to stick around.

We like our freedoms.

CNN Isn't the only place I got this news from.

The fact that this is being done without anyone's permission in a supposedly free-choice society is bad enough, bro.

As for Canada not putting up with this, I'd sincerely hope you are right.

But how can you stop something if you haven't heard of it?

How many people in your country know about it?

There's a reason for that; the meetings that bush has had with the canadian prime minister and the president of mexico have been very much out of the public eye.

Anyways, look it up, you'll see what I mean. Several sources available on google from all sides.

[Brutha]

You don't get it. No constitution = no freedom of choice in what we say, do, or think. We lose.

The britains have no patriotic act and no constitution. Your Americans have a constitution and a patriotic act.
Which country is better off in regards to freedom and democratic participation?

Canada, Mexico, and the United states form one massive body of government which controls our food, waster, and resource supplies. The very food that you put into your bodies will be completely controlled and regulated by government.

At the moment there is a massive body of goverment which controls the food, water and resource supplies in the US anyway.

While the EU certainly has it's problems I think it was a good idea to join multiple country's together in Europe. Nationstates are bad.
Border between states serve no useful purpose other then creating a "us against the foreigners"-mentality.

Having clear-cut borders doesn't give you any freedom it gives you a cage.
Fearing the loss of the borders between the United States and Canada is extremlly fear based.

[Jerigan]

Ok, so I've done some reading and I'm just not seeing any thing to get worked up about. No totalitarian government. No loss of freedoms.

The only negative things I've seen are from Americans who feel the addition of resources would somehow weaken their country. Now, I'm not very familiar with issues in Mexico so maybe someone could tell me what is so terrible about the people from that country.

It seems that Americans are just afraid of loosing their powerful identity. I think that here, the whole is far greater than its parts.

Having clear-cut borders doesn't give you any freedom it gives you a cage.
Fearing the loss of the borders between the United States and Canada is extremlly fear based.

Couldn't agree more.

[Dan.Linehan]

Originally Posted by Nicketas

Do you want your *food supply* controlled by the bush administration?

I don't really want my food (or water) supply controlled by anyone. But unless I grow my own food and run my own well it already is.

Originally Posted by Nicketas

You don't get it. No constitution = no freedom of choice in what we say, do, or think. We lose.

It seems to me that the lack of a constitution would result in anarchy, not authoritarianism.

[seeker5]

I'm so phyched that Ron Paul got $4.3Million yesterday. And he hasn't even seen the V for Vendetta movie! It was so thrilling yesterday to look at that Q4 fundraiser numbers break through $3M, then through $4M. I was hoping it'd break through the $5M and it did and went straight to breaking the $6M and the $7M mark. All that in one day - quite amazing to have watched it "live".

[Brutha]

It seems to me that the lack of a constitution would result in anarchy, not authoritarianism.

The Britains live fairly well in their "anarchy".

[TechnoGuyRob]

Encore on the 16th

[frankfortpost]

Wrote my first Ron Paul article here, if anyone is interested:

To those Considering and Supporting Ron Paul

[Dan.Linehan]

Last night the SF straw poll was canceled because there are too many Ron Paul supporters.

Check it out - Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > All I Want for Christmas is a Straw Poll



Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.