2012 Election | Afghanistan | Military | Ron Paul

BigGayDeal.com

Ron Paul On Assassination

RonPaulExecutions

It was the best moment of last night's Republican presidential debate, and one of the very few moments of that grim slog in which the audience was neither condescended nor pandered to. Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP ...

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Regardless of what you think about Ron Paul's policy positions or some of his wackier ideas, the guy is principled, forthright, and sincere.

    Posted by: Jason 2 | Nov 13, 2011 9:07:18 AM


  2. What we need is the criteria for declaring the war on terror to have ended.

    Posted by: anon | Nov 13, 2011 10:31:37 AM


  3. I picked up a friend from a small regional airport the other day. The security entrance had two screening stations and 18 agents.

    18. Welcome to the police state.

    Posted by: RWG | Nov 13, 2011 10:39:18 AM


  4. I agree with Jason 2.

    Posted by: Cinesnatch | Nov 13, 2011 10:39:37 AM


  5. Taken out of context, I have no clue what he's taking about.

    Posted by: Daniel | Nov 13, 2011 11:01:20 AM


  6. Did he just link health care to assassination?

    Posted by: Dan Collier | Nov 13, 2011 11:22:24 AM


  7. Agree with Daniel.

    Posted by: oliver | Nov 13, 2011 11:29:14 AM


  8. Jason 2

    If he was principled and sincere he would run as a Libertarian Indie

    Bwernie Sanders is principled and Sincere...proven by his running as what he is = socialist. Bernie also always wins his elections as a socialist

    Paul is a chicken who obviously realizes a libertarian would never get elected

    Posted by: say what | Nov 13, 2011 11:31:28 AM


  9. Coming from a guy whose corporatism ideals got us into foreign quagmires in the first place. Do you really think we don't forget that the blood thirst for oil made us go to Iraq and the greed for oil and heroin drug trade keeps us in Afghanistan? When corporations say jump, Ron Paul jumps. And btw, take a look at his real record and history. He's no friend of minorities, including gays/lesbians. Look it up and stop the worship of this nut.

    Posted by: Lew | Nov 13, 2011 11:31:52 AM


  10. @LEW
    Actually, Ron Paul is a very consistent and pure "Libertarian". There have been more-radical Libertarians, but Ron Paul is about as radical a Libertarian as could be elected in State-wide races most places.

    I think many Libertarian principles (limited government, personal freedoms, personal responsibility) are great. But the difficulty comes when applying those "ideals" to the real world.

    From what I know of Ron Paul, I strongly disagree he's in ANYONE's pocket, and that may be what makes him most appealing to many folks.

    Among a long list of issues I disagree with Ron Paul on are: abortion, foreign policy, government so limited in scope that it's ineffective).

    Ron Paul is in favor of Gay Marriage. And he's against government discriminating against anyone.

    I will NOT be voting for him, but he has interesting ideas, and firm principles.

    Posted by: Chris | Nov 13, 2011 11:49:30 AM


  11. @ LEW
    I didn't really address your core point, and your biggest error:

    Ron Paul is AGAINST all meddling in foreign countries. His foreign policy is probably more-radically isolationist than any President we've ever elected.

    Paul would NEVER support, as you say:

    "corporatism ideals got us into foreign quagmires in the first place. Do you really think we don't forget that the blood thirst for oil made us go to Iraq and the greed for oil and heroin drug trade keeps us in Afghanistan"

    Posted by: Chris | Nov 13, 2011 11:53:29 AM


  12. Because of the fact that most people don't want to re-register with another party, Ron Paul stays a Republican. And that's understandable to a point.

    Where he's really gain some ground, however, is if he'd simply change parties and be a Democrat. But he's afraid to run against Obama and that's undertandable to a point.

    As an independent or a libertarian, he'd never make it. As far as being in a wrong party, look how far Karger has gotten. It's a pretty sick world when Frothy and Bachmann are allowed into the debate but he's not.

    Posted by: johnny | Nov 13, 2011 12:04:51 PM


  13. Ron Paul does have principles, they are a part of his "core values" and he does not forget them...oops. Too bad he's up there with those clowns and idiots.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Nov 13, 2011 12:41:25 PM


  14. This guy's ideas are dangerous and would NEVER work for 300+ million Americans ... He's in a fairytale land.

    Posted by: Reality | Nov 13, 2011 12:46:56 PM


  15. he's still against gay rights

    Posted by: Grover Underwood | Nov 13, 2011 1:14:35 PM


  16. "Ron Paul is in favor of Gay Marriage. And he's against government discriminating against anyone."

    That is incorrect. Ron Paul supports DOMA, a discriminatory law that, among other things, prohibits legally married gay couples from receiving any of the federal benefits and protections married straight people (such as Ron Paul) take for granted. I'm not sure why gay people keep perpetuating this myth that Ron Paul would be good for gay rights--not that he'll ever get near the White House, but let's keep it real.

    Posted by: Ernie | Nov 13, 2011 1:24:31 PM


  17. oh RIGHT. Such a typical racist remark: it was fine when Dubwa did this but now it's out of control because Obama's in office? What a loon. Yes, let's make our government completely irrelevant, that'll fix everything. Just hand over the country to corporations! SMH

    Posted by: wtf | Nov 13, 2011 1:34:11 PM


  18. "Ron Paul is in favor of Gay Marriage. And he's against government discriminating against anyone."

    No, he isn't in favour of gay marriage. He's critical of government involvement in what he views are voluntary associations. The breadth of his personal statements indicate that he is personally social conservative but he is willing to defer his beliefs within the states rights framework. His support for states rights and his isolationism are the only two policy positions which he is consistent on; on almost every other issue, he exhibits a contradictory mishmash of paleolibertarianism, paleoconservatism, social conservatism, and libertarianism.

    Posted by: Nat | Nov 13, 2011 2:36:46 PM


  19. His comments on Lawrence v Texas are also salient:

    "Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards"

    I know many libertarians, and for most of them, the liberty principle means that, regardless of their views on federal overreach, they supported the outcome in Lawrence because of their views on the importance of personal liberty. But Paul is a libertarian positivist. He believes that states have an inherent legitimacy - originating in some first principle - to make whatever laws they deem fit. To Paul, there is no inherent rights that are not subject to state scrutiny - provided that they are exercised at the right level of government.

    Posted by: Nat | Nov 13, 2011 2:43:48 PM


  20. @ JOHNNY
    You're kidding, right? Ron Paul is the antithesis of a Democrat. Dems want big government, and believe government is good at solving problems and managing things.

    Paul wants Federal Gov't so small you'd have trouble finding it.

    @ NAT
    I think if Ron Paul were a Texas State senator, he might say the State government should not recognize some voluntary unions and not others.

    That would be an interesting test of his Libertarian ideals.

    Posted by: Chris | Nov 13, 2011 3:29:46 PM


  21. "I think if Ron Paul were a Texas State senator, he might say the State government should not recognize some voluntary unions and not others.

    That would be an interesting test of his Libertarian ideals."

    I don't really care what Ron Paul would do as an individual state senator, I care about what his imposition of the proper government order would do for civil rights in the United States. I have serious concerns about turning 50 states into 50 social laboratories. Most liberals diverge from libertarians on the 'but at what cost' juncture; Paul's advocacy of states rights certainly fits the bill for me.

    On a general note, I think the proper libertarian response to marriage is to want to remove the government's presence entirely, in keeping with freedom of contract. I'd support that myself - if a more efficient contract bundle was available to everyone. In the absence of that utopia, the proper libertarian response is to push for equal recognition of unions. But what I hear from too many libertarians is opposition to marriage equality simply on the basis of more government interference.

    "You're kidding, right? Ron Paul is the antithesis of a Democrat. Dems want big government, and believe government is good at solving problems and managing things."

    That is a fundamental misrepresentation of Democratic ideas. There are Democratic politicians and bureaucrats who may want a larger government for rent-seeking purposes, but Democratic ideas don't presuppose large government = good governance. Democratic ideas view large government as a necessary precondition to managing problems. You should not confuse ends with means.

    Posted by: Nat | Nov 13, 2011 4:51:20 PM


  22. President Obama has KILLED more people than Bush Jr. did in his 8 years while he was "in charge." I don't care if Ron Paul likes it or not! The world is better off without dictators, whether they're American born or not. Anwar al-Awlaki was a menace and his son would have turned out the same way; good riddance!!! Osama bin Laden is fish food, Al-Qaeda's No. 2 drone strikes for Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, Muammar Gaddafi, and many others to come among them Castro and his son!!! So, don't tell me that the President is bad at his job!!! Sharia law is a sham, and as far as mosques are concerned, there is intelligence that monitors that activity. Go Obama!!!

    Posted by: Jeffrey Dunivant | Nov 14, 2011 6:49:55 AM


  23. @NAT

    I agree with most of what you've said...but the reason I wondered what Ron Paul would do if he were a Texas State representative was to ponder whether he really is a Libertarian, or a religious right-winger who's Libertarian-leaning.

    I certainly don't know the answer...but we shouldn't condemn him as a religions right-winger if he isn't.

    From what I know about Ron Paul, there are signs he could go either way...if you made the Libertarian case to him, would he favor it over the religions right-wing?

    Posted by: Chris | Nov 14, 2011 9:28:05 AM


  24. Hmmm, the same Ron Paul who believes that DOMA is fine as long as states legislate for it, call that principled, Jason?

    Posted by: Robert in NYC | Nov 16, 2011 10:45:55 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «NEWS: Silvio Berlusconi Resigns, Republicans Debate, Cats Sell, And The Bombast Of Kylie Minogue« «