-6 votes

Intelligent response needed for anti-Paul article

Here is a link to the article: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/3920196/2480645/name/Why_Cant_S...

Why I Cannot Support Ron Paul
by Bob Klauber
I seriously considered supporting Ron Paul. He has integrity and is the first candidate in my long lifetime
who is serious about, and not simply doing lip service to, keeping the US out of war.
All else being equal, I would back him. Alas, all else is not even close.
The Pros
1. Anti-war
Regarding war, he is 100% isolationist. I am 90%. I demonstrated against the Iraq and Viet Nam wars,
and agree with him on those, Afghanistan, WW I, and virtually every one of the many US interventions in
Latin America. I disagree with him on WW II, Libya, and every case where a crazed dictator tries to commit
genocide. (If I had a draft age child, however, this issue alone might put me in his camp.)
2. The Fed
He wants to audit and/or eliminate it. Long overdue.
3. Food freedom
He supports freedom of choice in food (though he does not seem to favor regulations against GMOs
being forced on us).
The Cons
1. His underlying philosophy of life
• A rabid follower of Ayn Rand, whose primary thesis was that selfishness is a virtue. Rand’s philosophy
permeates his political positions.
I believe the contrary – that we are here to learn selflessness and serve others (which, ironically, is
what Paul’s deity, Jesus, taught).
• Doesn’t accept the theory of evolution and apparently believes God created the world in 7 days. What
decisions would someone with such a world view make?
Is what he says about such other things as far from the truth as this?
2. The environment
• “The greatest hoax .. has been ..global warming”, says Paul. He believes internet self proclaimed
“experts” rather than 97% (in an independent poll) of professional climatologists.
Loss of life from runaway temperature rise would far eclipse that of any war. This, IMO, is the
bottom line issue of our age, and it alone prevents me from backing Paul.
• He would abolish the EPA. The EPA has problems due to corporate/political influence, but without it,
corporations would be completely free to pollute without constraint. Does this make sense?
3. Peace?
• “We had no business helping the Jews in WW II”, Paul told staffers, many times. Was it peace the Jews
were experiencing? How can any supposed advocate of peace and saving human life take this position?
• He opposed stopping Gadhafi from slaughtering 100,000 people. We shouldn’t have to pay even
minimum cost (some air support and no American lives) for someone else fighting for life and liberty? Is
this not unbridled selfishness bearing the label of “peace”?
• His peace position is actually an isolationist position, based primarily on US interests (in the “me first”
tradition of Ayn Rand). He does not truly care for peace for mankind, but rather for what is good for him
and his country, and this is sold by his campaign as “peace”. He is no adherent of the “world is my
family” philosophy. 4. Ravaging the lower and middle classes
• Abolish capital gains tax. Why should money people don’t work for (capital gains) be taxed at a lower
(zero in this case) rate than money people work for? The wealthy have a large part of their income from
capital gains, but the lower and middle classes have virtually none. This is a shift of the tax burden from
the wealthy to the non-wealthy.
• Institute a consumption (sales) tax. The lower and middle classes spend virtually 100% of their income
just to live. The wealthiest spend less than 10%. A sales tax means the wealthy would pay a far lower
percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else.
• Abolish government student loans. I and millions of others never would have gone to college without
government loans. Aside from the personal devastation, loss of earning power, and reduced ability to
realize the American dream for so many, the country as a whole would have lower average education
level, and thus be less competitive in the global marketplace.
Government aid to education is an investment in the country and its people, not an expense.
• Cut corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are paid on profit. They do not adversely affect a company’s
operation, which involves before profit expense. Profits are paid as dividends to shareholders, in large
part, to the wealthy. Cutting corporate profits would increase income to the wealthy, reduce federal
revenues, and effectively shift the tax burden to middle and low income folks.
• Paul believes fervently in Jesus, who tirelessly advocated helping the poor. Where is Paul’s concern for
the working poor? He has plenty of programs helping the wealthy, but none for the poor. He opposes a
minimum wage. I’d like one people who want to work can live on without food stamps.
5. Deregulation
• Remove regulations (however weak) recently put in place on Wall Street. Deregulation gave us the
savings and loan debacle of the 1980s and the present recession. How can anyone favor this?
• Remove regulations on corporations. He sees no need for regulations for such things as clean air/water
and safety testing Monsanto’s GM food. Do we really want to remove what little regulation exists
protecting the environment and consumers?
6. Health care crisis
• Tax credits for insurance premiums (after repealing Obamacare). This is no help to the 45 million low
income, low tax paying folks without health care, which I thought was the problem. The government
would essentially pay for health care for high income folks who already have it, but not for low income
folks who don’t. Is this a solution or a further shifting of resources from the non-wealthy to the wealthy?
• No plans to control costs, such as imposing price constraints on an out-of-control profit driven medical
industry that can with impunity charge anything they want. With your life on the line, you have to pay
whatever is asked.
7. Paul would be 77 on taking office.
• I’m a senior citizen myself, but ….
8. The economy
• Return to the gold standard. Economists note that monetary policy would be set by gold miners in South
Africa and Uzbekistan. As one said, "If you like what OPEC means for oil prices, you'd love what the
gold standard would do to financial markets."
9. Most ultra-right member of congress over 65 years
Based on statistics in Am Jour Polit Sci, Paul had the most conservative voting record of over 3,000 house
and senate members from 1937 to 2002. Does the country really need more extremism?




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bob is a Progressive Economic Historical Ignoramous

There is not much that can be done for this senior citizen.

Move on.

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

GREAT SUCCESS!

This one posting chewed up HOURS of precious time from several of our key posters here!

Mission accomplished.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
What is begun in anger, ends in shame.

The guy's an idiot. Let him

The guy's an idiot. Let him remain one.

Don't bother

Author states pros and then contradicts every point. Waste of time.

Politiks

Too much work, but...

I was gonna take a stab at this, but man, there are more fallacies and absurdities per sentence in this thing than even the typical Paul Krugman column. I only got through 3 of 9, but I'll post it here. Maybe someone with more time and patience can take up the rest of it... or we can just not waste our time on someone with such an advanced case of craniorectal syndrome.

My responses are in italics.

Why I Cannot Support Ron Paul
by Bob Klauber

I seriously considered supporting Ron Paul. He has integrity and is the first candidate in my long lifetime who is serious about, and not simply doing lip service to, keeping the US out of war.

All else being equal, I would back him. Alas, all else is not even close.

You have thus framed your argument as “I would like to oppose U.S. wars, but…” Let’s take your “buts” one at a time.

The Pros
1. Anti-war
Regarding war, he is 100% isolationist.

I already have to hit pause. What is “isolationist” about wanting to trade with people rather than bombing them or bribing their governments? You already need to define your terms here.

I am 90%. I demonstrated against the Iraq and Viet Nam wars, and agree with him on those, Afghanistan, WW I, and virtually every one of the many US interventions in Latin America. I disagree with him on WW II, Libya, and every case where a crazed dictator tries to commit genocide. (If I had a draft age child, however, this issue alone might put me in his camp.)

So you aren’t really antiwar on principle, but more like only if it doesn't affect you personally or the flimsy excuse for it doesn't appeal to you? In case you haven’t noticed, practically every U.S. intervention everywhere has been sold as stopping “a crazed dictator trying to commit genocide.” The unasked question (well, there are more than one, but let’s just take this one for now) is: Why is it the job of Americans to go off to kill or be killed in some far-off land to take on the newest Hitler of the Week? I see nothing in the Constitution about it being the job of the U.S. government to militarily intervene in other countries. We’re told constantly we need this government to defend us, and that’s why we pay its exorbitant taxes, don’t you know. Well, I don’t feel threatened by what happens in East Whereverstan, and neither should you. (If you do, maybe you can pick up my “share” of the bloated military tax bill.) At what point did “defense” morph into butting into the internal affairs of any and every country not liked by federal neocons?

Let’s look at it from another angle. Are you familiar with the Just War doctrine, where war is an absolute last resort? You think it’s OK that one guy (Obama) on his own say-so initiated death and destruction on another country, Libya, without even making any diplomatic effort at all? Regarding World War II, that’s an enormous subject but suffice it to say it is at the very least arguable Americans needed to be fed into that European meat grinder for us to enjoy peace and prosperity in this country. As for the results of the conflict, half of Europe handed over to the Soviet Union wasn’t exactly a good outcome for the unfortunate people of those countries. Check out “Human Smoke” by Nicholson Baker and consider thinking beyond the cartoon version of history we were all taught.

2. The Fed
He wants to audit and/or eliminate it. Long overdue.

Word, especially since it enables all of those wars.

3. Food freedom
He supports freedom of choice in food (though he does not seem to favor regulations against GMOs being forced on us).

You’re right, because freedom means absence of government controls. How exactly would GMOs be “forced” on you in the absence of government controls?

The Cons
1. His underlying philosophy of life
• A rabid follower of Ayn Rand, whose primary thesis was that selfishness is a virtue. Rand’s philosophy permeates his political positions.

I’ve read plenty of things written both by Ayn Rand (yes, including “The Virtue of Selfishness”) and by Ron Paul, and I think your idea that Dr. Paul is a “rabid follower,” apart from being a needlessly goofy and emotion-laden value judgment, is incorrect. Rand was an outspoken atheist (as are her actual followers, Objectivists), to take just one example, while Ron Paul is a devout Christian. How does the “rabid follower” of Rand believe in Christ? Oh right, he probably manages it because he’s not really a “rabid follower” of Rand.

Also, what is usually ignored by critics of Rand’s philosophy (who probably have never bothered to read any of her arguments but instead rely on other critics’ mischaracterizations of them) is that she advocated something she called RATIONAL selfishness, or ethical egoism. Her moral philosophy is a lot more nuanced than “OMG SELFISHNESS!!1” If you had any interest in understanding the subject, versus just coming up with a stupid “gotcha” argument, you could spend 30 seconds on Google and read here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html

I believe the contrary – that we are here to learn selflessness and serve others (which, ironically, is what Paul’s deity, Jesus, taught).

You are so noble. Serve others, unless your lying government tells you it has to go murder some of those others because there's another one of those darn “crazed dictators trying to commit genocide.” Then it’s time to serve them some bombs!

And thanks for pointing out in your own piece that you don’t really believe that “rabid follower” of Rand stuff since you acknowledge Ron Paul is a Christian. (And by the way, if you ever do learn how to use Google to do some research, try doing a search of Ron Paul and Objectivism to find out what Objectivists – the real, actual “rabid followers” of Rand – think of Dr. Paul. You’ll be pretty surprised.)

• Doesn’t accept the theory of evolution and apparently believes God created the world in 7 days.

Man, for a “rabid follower” of Ayn Rand, it turns out Ron Paul believes a lot of that crazy Christian stuff instead, doesn’t he? This is one of those red herring arguments that pretty much has nothing to do with anything but is rather designed to make the subject of a hit piece look like he’s nuts. Christians believe God created Man. This is not a secret, nor is it nuts. And the theory of evolution is just a theory. That is why it’s called a theory. For some great skeptical questions that reveal some of its problems, see the atheist Fred Reed: http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed59.html.

What decisions would someone with such a world view make? Is what he says about such other things as far from the truth as this?

Is this such a wild proposition?: An adherent of one of the world’s most well established religions, whose namesake you note taught “selflessness and service to others,” a moral code you further indicated is your own, is probably going to make better moral decisions than any of the psychopaths who are vying to beat him out for the presidency.

You’re really more concerned about what Dr. Paul, a man with a track record of Christian integrity, might do with power than you are with what a Newt, Romney, or Obama, all of whom are confirmed liars and grifters (and in Obama’s case, at least, a murderer), might do? All because you’ve convinced yourself the theory of evolution is the Absolute Truth, and you imagine you know how life originated? News flash: You don’t know any such thing. No one does. So you’re in no position to prattle on about how “far from the truth” Ron Paul is.

2. The environment
• “The greatest hoax .. has been ..global warming”, says Paul. He believes internet self proclaimed “experts” rather than 97% (in an independent poll) of professional climatologists.

So that whole “climategate” thing from a couple years ago completely went by you unnoticed I guess. You know, the one where all the “scientists” (more like political operatives with degrees) were caught red-handed just cherry-picking or even outright making up data to support the anthropogenic global warming thesis? Missed it all, did you?

Look, even if it were established that the earth’s overall temperature were rising, it’s important to note that the earth and its atmosphere are complex systems. We don’t understand or even know all of the inputs and how they interact. It is not “proven” that man is somehow responsible for any change in the temperature. Even if it were proven, we don’t know (see complex systems above) exactly what the impact would be. And if it were determined to be anything worth worrying about, it is furthermore not a foregone conclusion that giving more money and power to politicians and bureaucrats would be the answer. (In fact, given how well that’s worked to “solve” every other problem, if anything, it’s a safe bet that that is NOT the answer.)

Further, despite what the people who peddle this tripe say about how “unanimous” scientists are in their belief in it, I keep running across scientists who don’t believe in it. Funny, huh?

Loss of life from runaway temperature rise would far eclipse that of any war.

Assertions and fanciful what-if scenarios are not evidence of anything.

This, IMO, is the bottom line issue of our age, and it alone prevents me from backing Paul.

Fair enough. You have this opinion, as you note with “IMO,” that a likely non-problem is really the “bottom line issue of our age.” So… I wonder what you think about such other things as far from the truth as this?

• He would abolish the EPA. The EPA has problems due to corporate/political influence, but without it, corporations would be completely free to pollute without constraint. Does this make sense?

No, it doesn’t make sense, because you apparently don’t understand the role of property rights, but believe instead that some federal bureaucracy (influenced by politics, no less! whodathunk?) is all that’s keeping us from inhaling poison and drinking death. Trouble with this opinion is it doesn’t explain how places with the least well defined or protected property rights, like the former Soviet Union, ended up being the most polluted places. (Hint: look up the old problem known as “the tragedy of the commons.”) There is actually a lot of research on the subject of property rights and pollution. Because on this subject you appear to be as lazy a researcher as you have been on everything else so far, you can find an overview here: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarketEnvironmentalism.html

3. Peace?
• “We had no business helping the Jews in WW II”, Paul told staffers, many times.

What staffers? When? In what context, please? You use quotation marks – is this an exact quote?

Was it peace the Jews were experiencing? How can any supposed advocate of peace and saving human life take this position?

You do know that Jews weren’t the only people who died in World War II, right? And I can’t imagine you mean to imply that the lives of Jews are somehow more important than the lives of the non-Jews who perished, either to save some Jews, achieve various military objectives, or as part of Hitler’s pogroms.

It is intellectually permissible, contra your simplistic view, to take different positions on the historical clusterf*** that was World War II. I’ll refer back to “Human Smoke” again as just one example of the moral ambiguity. Lesson: “The Good War” is an oxymoron. No war is “good.”

• He opposed stopping Gadhafi from slaughtering 100,000 people. We shouldn’t have to pay even minimum cost (some air support and no American lives) for someone else fighting for life and liberty? Is this not unbridled selfishness bearing the label of “peace”?

No, it is not unbridled selfishness bearing the label of peace. It is the unbridled naivete of some guy who thinks cheering on the spending of other people’s money and the risking of other people’s lives by the documented serial liars of Washington, D.C. somehow allows him to pat himself on the back for his own moral righteousness.

If you really believe this is what the intervention in Libya is all about, then we may as well stop talking about geopolitics and begin a discussion about something like the Tooth Fairy, where your childlike belief in myths can be channeled into something more suitable than a grave subject like war.

• His peace position is actually an isolationist position, based primarily on US interests (in the “me first” tradition of Ayn Rand). He does not truly care for peace for mankind, but rather for what is good for him and his country, and this is sold by his campaign as “peace”. He is no adherent of the “world is my family” philosophy.

Already addressed the “isolationist” thing. And I don’t really know what’s wrong with expecting the U.S. government, geographically located in the U.S., paid for by the people of the U.S., and ostensibly established by same to “insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” to, you know, have as its institutional aim the interests of Americans. I don’t see anything about any “the world is my family” philosophy in any of the founding documents. And in any case, if you really think the world is your family, why are you the one advocating that they should be bullied and bombed by the U.S. government? Maybe you have a pretty scary and violent family, but most of us don’t…

(By the way, according to your own world-is-my-family standard, why did you not want to save people dying in Vietnam, in WWI Europe, and in the other wars you say you opposed? Perpetual war for perpetual peace, baby... be consistent!)

As for your caricature of Rand's philosophy, let me say that this sort of “altruistic” posturing is indeed what she critiqued because she saw something wrong with people who perpetually called on others to make sacrifices just so they could keep engaging in their own moral self-congratulation. Guess what? So do I.

Maybe this really is Pau; Krugman?

I mean really!

"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"

LearnRonPaul

The really sad thing is he

The really sad thing is he refers to his "long lifetime" (including, apparently, opposition to the Vietnam War), which means that he's been this effing dense for many decades.

Let me address each of the "Cons"

1. His underlying philosophy of life
• A rabid follower of Ayn Rand, whose primary thesis was that selfishness is a virtue. Rand’s philosophy
permeates his political positions.
I believe the contrary – that we are here to learn selflessness and serve others (which, ironically, is
what Paul’s deity, Jesus, taught).

While Rand used the word "selfishness," she was actually talking about "self-interest". There is a big difference,
as "self-interest" takes into account consensus for mutual
benefit. If by "selflessness," and "Jesus," you are speaking of a "martyr complex," that is NOT Christianity.
Your life is just as important as others.

• Doesn’t accept the theory of evolution and apparently believes God created the world in 7 days. What
decisions would someone with such a world view make?
Is what he says about such other things as far from the truth as this?

This is an absolutely bogus argument, since all of the candidate's running at least give "lip service" to this belief. Besides, Darwin's theory is based on scientific observations and doesn't provide absolute answers.

2. The environment
• “The greatest hoax .. has been ..global warming”, says Paul. He believes internet self proclaimed
“experts” rather than 97% (in an independent poll) of professional climatologists.
Loss of life from runaway temperature rise would far eclipse that of any war. This, IMO, is the
bottom line issue of our age, and it alone prevents me from backing Paul.

Guess you have never heard of "Climategate" or that the former head of the National Weather Service doesn't buy "global warming," either. Besides, if carbon emissions are
the cause, how come the ENTIRE solar system is rapidly experiencing "climate change"?

• He would abolish the EPA. The EPA has problems due to corporate/political influence, but without it,
corporations would be completely free to pollute without constraint. Does this make sense?

No, your argument certainly doesn't. The WORST polluter in the US is the United States Government, from the radioactive muck in Hanford, Washington to the US military shipyards.
Besides, Paul would eliminate much of the "crony capitalism," which makes it so easy for corporations to avoid litigation as a result of "class action suits". If the BP Gulf of Mexico oil cleanup is any example, the EPA is an utter failure.

3. Peace?
• “We had no business helping the Jews in WW II”, Paul told staffers, many times. Was it peace the Jews
were experiencing? How can any supposed advocate of peace and saving human life take this position?

According to the NEW YORK TIMES, Roosevelt and Churchill knew about the concentration camps, yet made NO effort to
stop the internment and extermination of those in the camps.
Worse, most governments around the world refused to accept
Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc as "political refugees". See the movie "Voyage of the Damned" (true story) from a dramatization of this abomination. Besides, before Roosevelt began committing economic "acts of war," the US was not even a target for attacks by the AXIS powers.

• He opposed stopping Gadhafi from slaughtering 100,000 people. We shouldn’t have to pay even
minimum cost (some air support and no American lives) for someone else fighting for life and liberty? Is
this not unbridled selfishness bearing the label of “peace”?

Watch some of the videos of what NATO "peacekeepers" have done to civilians in Libya. Many of the rebels who fought Gadhafi are Al Qaeda or some other group of radical Islam.
If you are so willing to fight for "life and liberty" in Libya, why don't YOU pick up a gun and go over there and do it. Ron Paul is fighting for "life" and "liberty" right here in the good old USA, thank you very much.

• His peace position is actually an isolationist position, based primarily on US interests (in the “me first”
tradition of Ayn Rand). He does not truly care for peace for mankind, but rather for what is good for him
and his country, and this is sold by his campaign as “peace”. He is no adherent of the “world is my
family” philosophy. See my previous answer, plus the fact that the US has been involved in one "no-win," undeclared war after another since we joined NATO and that "family of nations," the UN.

4. Ravaging the lower and middle classes
• Abolish capital gains tax. Why should money people don’t work for (capital gains) be taxed at a lower
(zero in this case) rate than money people work for? The wealthy have a large part of their income from
capital gains, but the lower and middle classes have virtually none. This is a shift of the tax burden from
the wealthy to the non-wealthy.

Why isn't taxation based on who benefits the most from them?
Seems to me that would be those who get handouts from the government. Besides, Dr. Paul supports the Constitution, which allows for direct taxation ONLY when it is proportionally but evenly distributed throughout the population. In other words, every pays the same.

• Institute a consumption (sales) tax. The lower and middle classes spend virtually 100% of their income
just to live. The wealthiest spend less than 10%. A sales tax means the wealthy would pay a far lower
percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else.

Without our overseas meddling and unconstitutional government programs, neither an income tax nor a national sales tax would be necessary.

• Abolish government student loans. I and millions of others never would have gone to college without
government loans. Aside from the personal devastation, loss of earning power, and reduced ability to
realize the American dream for so many, the country as a whole would have lower average education
level, and thus be less competitive in the global marketplace.
Government aid to education is an investment in the country and its people, not an expense.

Why should a farmer in Iowa, a waitress in Indiana or an
auto worker in Detroit, none of whom has a college education,
pay for you to go to a university and major in "frat parties"? Besides, the cost of education has skyrocketed since the advent of student loans and government involvement in education. As a result, students today are graduating with huge personal debts and the jobs they expected to have to pay for the loans have been destroyed by an economy the government and the banks ruined.

• Cut corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are paid on profit. They do not adversely affect a company’s
operation, which involves before profit expense. Profits are paid as dividends to shareholders, in large
part, to the wealthy. Cutting corporate profits would increase income to the wealthy, reduce federal
revenues, and effectively shift the tax burden to middle and low income folks.

The US has one of the highest corporate taxes in the developed world. Most of the other countries with lower corporate tax rates are doing better than us, as corporations are like consumers, they go for where the savings are. Besides, corporate taxes are ultimately paid by the consumer in the form of higher costs. There is no "free lunch" unless you have friends at the Fed.

• Paul believes fervently in Jesus, who tirelessly advocated helping the poor. Where is Paul’s concern for
the working poor? He has plenty of programs helping the wealthy, but none for the poor. He opposes a
minimum wage. I’d like one people who want to work can live on without food stamps. Dr. Paul proposes legislation to prevent the IRS from collecting taxes on tips and wants to ultimately abolish the income tax. The "minimum wage" discourages employers from hiring that "extra worker." However, labor unions LOVE increases in the minimum wage, because they can "ratchet up" their wage demands when it increases. Besides, a "minimum wage" is a form of "price fixing" and is unconstitutional.

5. Deregulation
• Remove regulations (however weak) recently put in place on Wall Street. Deregulation gave us the
savings and loan debacle of the 1980s and the present recession. How can anyone favor this?

"Crony capitalism" gave us the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s and the present recession, and Ron Paul steadfastly
opposes "crony capitalism".

• Remove regulations on corporations. He sees no need for regulations for such things as clean air/water
and safety testing Monsanto’s GM food. Do we really want to remove what little regulation exists
protecting the environment and consumers?

Since corporate lobbyists WRITE the regulations, many, if not most regulations are designed to drive out competition, not protect the consumer. Besides, Dr. Paul has been highly critical of the "corporations are people" philosophy that has
permeated the political and judicial processes since the beginning of the Progressive era.

6. Health care crisis
• Tax credits for insurance premiums (after repealing Obamacare). This is no help to the 45 million low
income, low tax paying folks without health care, which I thought was the problem. The government
would essentially pay for health care for high income folks who already have it, but not for low income
folks who don’t. Is this a solution or a further shifting of resources from the non-wealthy to the wealthy?

Dr. Paul, who I am sure knows a bit more about the delivery of medicine than you, wants "health care freedom". Our present system plays to the drug companies, insurance companies and AMA, who practice the most inefficient health care imaginable. Dr. Paul wants to eliminate the present restrictions on "insurance pooling," which prevents affordable health care insurance to be available to more people.

• No plans to control costs, such as imposing price constraints on an out-of-control profit driven medical
industry that can with impunity charge anything they want. With your life on the line, you have to pay
whatever is asked.

Price controls don't work. They simply produce shortages. Always have. "Health care freedom" would introduce competition to "main-stream medicine," thus driving down costs.

7. Paul would be 77 on taking office.
• I’m a senior citizen myself, but ….

Ronald Reagan was 70 when he took office and was, arguably, one of our best presidents. Besides, life expectancies are up considerably over the last century and "70 is the new 50".
Of course, this is also a good reason for Dr. Paul to take a like-minded person as his VP.

8. The economy
• Return to the gold standard. Economists note that monetary policy would be set by gold miners in South
Africa and Uzbekistan. As one said, "If you like what OPEC means for oil prices, you'd love what the
gold standard would do to financial markets."

Presently, monetary policy is set by the same people who gave us the Great Depression, the Savings and Loan Debacle and every recession since the Fed was created. Besides, wouldn't you prefer to carry real money rather than IOUs from crooked bankers?

9. Most ultra-right member of congress over 65 years
Based on statistics in Am Jour Polit Sci, Paul had the most conservative voting record of over 3,000 house
and senate members from 1937 to 2002. Does the country really need more extremism?

No, the country needs someone so principled he has received praise from notables of all political persuasions, such as Barney Frank, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Dylan Ratigan, "Morning Joe" Scarborough, Barry Goldwater, Jr., Pat Buchanan, Governor Jesse Ventura, Jon Stewart, Joy Behar, Bill Maher Jay Leno, Oliver Stone, Sarah Palin and Meghan McCain, Senator John McCain's daughter.

I would keep it short

And sweet. Being a polite as I could muster, I'd simply reply. Some of what you state is true, some merely conjecture, some totally incorrect. Rather than go point for point, and enter into needless argumentation, let me ask you a few questions instead.
Since it's obvious to you that Ron is the most conservative candidate as well as the only candidate who is "different" than those we've been seeing for decades, might I inquire why you would even consider voting for someone who represents the status quo? Didn't Einstine say "insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results."? If the "status quo" is the same thing, isn't it time to change the method by voting for their polar opposite, in Ron Paul?
What does he have to lose, but an insane result?

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington

You can't really

form an intelligent response to this without writing a response five times as long as the article covering history, etc.

There are category errors galore here, along with numerous logical fallacies and broad based assumptions that are verified by zero real-world data.

This is the kind of case I usually give up on because they are shoulder-deep in the nether regions of not understanding the world through a lens of reality. Move on.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Progress is precisely that which the rules and regulations did not foresee. - Ludwig Von Mises.

Yep...

You'd have to start with what a logical argument is and.... blah, blah, blah.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Poor Bob:

His only real PRO about Ron Paul is food. Bob is a food snob. LOL Bless you Bob.

The Cons
1. His underlying philosophy of life

Let's face it, if you don't agree with someone's underlying philosphy of LIFE, you're not a fan, and you're not going to be. So let's look at what ails this poor liberal, Bob who says behind his bullets:

• A rabid follower of Ayn Rand, whose primary thesis was that selfishness is a virtue. Rand’s philosophy permeates his political positions. I believe the contrary – that we are here to learn selflessness and serve others (which, ironically, is what Paul’s deity, Jesus, taught).

Here is perfect proof that Bob doesn't understand Ayn Rand or Ron Paul, and probabaly NEVER read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. ALL humans are selfish. Jesus put it this way, ALL MEN ARE SINNERS. One can not help but think of themselves. Sometimes people like to think that they are doing for others. This is not correct, for people only do by CHOICE what FEELS GOOD. Ayn Rand points out in, "Letters of Ayn Rand", Peikoff, that if a man loved his dying wife and sacrificed all his money to have her live, he did not sacrifice his money FOR her. He sacrificed it FOR HIS FEELINGS for her. Note, that Bob points out the Jesus is Paul's diety, not Bob's. Ayn Rand's diety was Ayn Rand. Who is Bob's diety? In his first "con", he misrepresents Ron Paul and Ayn Rand. Liberals like to believe they are helping people, and the planet, by being nice to their face, while employing government FORCE to stop people from living thier lives. Liberals want to FORCE people to pay taxes, stoop to regulations and bad laws that they believe are spent on the poor, that they created with their unselfish FORCE of regulations, Government Departments and Taxes.

• Doesn’t accept the theory of evolution and apparently believes God created the world in 7 days. What decisions would someone with such a world view make? Is what he says about such other things as far from the truth as this?

Someone with such a world view of Ron Paul would make decisions that reflect the preservation of ALL life on the planet, including the unborn and deathbeds. That ALL PEOPLE have rights, God given, and man given rights/priledges, and that the people who respect BOTH are the people he would esteeme and listen to. Bob, on the other hand, thinks there is no God, and he hasn't witnessed a miracle in his life. Bob does not understand that THEORY is NOT FACT.

2. The environment
• “The greatest hoax .. has been ..global warming”, says Paul. He believes internet self proclaimed “experts” rather than 97% (in an independent poll) of professional climatologists. Loss of life from runaway temperature rise would far eclipse that of any war. This, IMO, is the bottom line issue of our age, and it alone prevents me from backing Paul.

How hard is it for the global greedy elite to witness the world's population as a cancer that is destroying THEIR property? So they invent and report studies from "climatologists" who NEVER report Chemtrials, or weather enhansing, or wars as huge polluters. Bob thinks wars don't pollute. Like Al Gore, they blame people. I'd like to ask Bob, "Which uses more energy Bob, you or the USN?" People are not a cancer on the Earth. Global corporations who aspire to control the planet and the people are. Bob believes in the UN Agenda 21. Ron paul does not.

• He would abolish the EPA. The EPA has problems due to corporate/political influence, but without it, corporations would be completely free to pollute without constraint. Does this make sense?

No, Bob, you do not make sense. The EPA FORCES Americans to pay them to work (If you are a caterer/chef, you MUST have a HACCP certificate to be able to BUY a lisense to pperate from the EPA and then be subject to EPA inspections). It costs hundreds of dollard just so you can have a business that the government controls. For example, EPA closed all but ONE deep pit BBQ in CA. Deep Pit WAS CAs signature dish for centuries. What good did closing all the businesses do? It gave fast food businesses (Monsanto) an opportunity to take over Mom and Pop shops. And then, the fast food shops had food born illness outbreaks that harmed thousands of people, some killing hundreds... but because it's the government, the class action law suits didn't bring back one life, and the fast food chains not only remained OPEN, but thrived. The EPA is just another form of FORCE. It protects NO ONE. It never did.

3. Peace?
• “We had no business helping the Jews in WW II”, Paul told staffers, many times. Was it peace the Jews were experiencing? How can any supposed advocate of peace and saving human life take this position?

Wow, where did you get that information about what Ron Paul told staffers and not the public? Someone can take his position Bob, because "Jews" were only some of the victims. The physical and mentally disabled, the Muslims, the Catholics, the anti-war, the farmers, the artists, the writers of truth, were also VICTIMS. Why would you leave them out? Ron Paul advocates saving ALL human life, and while Jews are definately a human life worthy of saving, so are we all, furthermore, we do not save life by bombing the crap out of it in the name of peace.

• He opposed stopping Gadhafi from slaughtering 100,000 people. We shouldn’t have to pay even minimum cost (some air support and no American lives) for someone else fighting for life and liberty? Is this not unbridled selfishness bearing the label of “peace”?

America made Gadhafi, empowered him, protected him, and then made claims they could not prove, to assassinate him. Minimum cost is "air support", climate change be damned Bob? Whose life and liberty are you saving? Gadhafi was not Hitler, and assassinating him does not Make Obama Jesus, but Bush. The selfishness is here Bob, with YOU trying to be a hero for other people but not America's, rather the global corporate elite.

• His peace position is actually an isolationist position, based primarily on US interests (in the “me first”
tradition of Ayn Rand). He does not truly care for peace for mankind, but rather for what is good for him and his country, and this is sold by his campaign as “peace”. He is no adherent of the “world is my family” philosophy.

Bob, before you fix everyone else, you should make sure your own home is OK. That is what Ron Paul is trying to do by restoring America to it's Constitution and Bill of Rights, establishing FREE trade, and not being the global police and assassinator. One wages PEACE by having PEACE. The world is not our family Bob, afterall, you just said you wanted to assassinate Gadhafi in the name of Global Peace. You can't have your cake and eat it too. To Christians, like Ron Paul, EVIL is real, and EVIL is all the lying, cheating, confusion, baby killing, selfishly giving a bum a dollar and pretending it wasn't for your own feel good moment. The UN Agenda 21 claims that the world can only sustain a human population of 500 million Bob. There's your family, and guess what... my bet is, like me, you're not one of the 500M.

4. Ravaging the lower and middle classes
• Abolish capital gains tax. Why should money people don’t work for (capital gains) be taxed at a lower
(zero in this case) rate than money people work for? The wealthy have a large part of their income from
capital gains, but the lower and middle classes have virtually none. This is a shift of the tax burden from
the wealthy to the non-wealthy.

Capital is what makes the world go round Bob. Why should someone who has a good business be punished by the government for those who don't have any business and can't afford to try because government regulations, departments, fees, fines, and taxes prevent them? We are all taxed through sales and property, unless you are poor, and then you pay some sales tax. But by taxing those who have a good business, your plan is to have the government take that business as if government can do a better job. It can't. Take Disneyland, it's been operating in the black, making millions of people happy, while our national and state parks, with hundreds of millions of tax money, can't sustain or stay open even though WE THE PEOPLE have paid and paid and paid.. pay to go in, $6.00, pay to camp $32.00 (more than some hotels), Pay for a license plate $50.00, pay a additional tax per year for property owners, and still, the parks are neglected when they are not abused for marijuana growing, meth making, hiding illegal activities and giving breaks to other departments, Native Americans be damned. Taxes are not making them better or keeping them open. But Disneyland, we need to tax, to do what? Put them on par with national and state parks?

• Institute a consumption (sales) tax. The lower and middle classes spend virtually 100% of their income just to live. The wealthiest spend less than 10%. A sales tax means the wealthy would pay a far lower percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else.

I did not know about a consumption tax. The lower and middle classes to not create jobs, Bob. The wealthy do, and if government would stop being a vulture, they could do more. This is such a LIBERAL idea... it's hard for me to think Ron Paul is for this..

• Abolish government student loans. I and millions of others never would have gone to college without government loans. Aside from the personal devastation, loss of earning power, and reduced ability to realize the American dream for so many, the country as a whole would have lower average education level, and thus be less competitive in the global marketplace. Government aid to education is an investment in the country and its people, not an expense.

Unlike you Bob, I worked three jobs to pay my way through school. I did not go into debt. I know many people who did, and that debt kept them poor, unable to afford health insurance, or being married, or buying a home. Did you know it used to be FREE to go to school? State schools were FREE. Why aren't you proposing that for students? Government needs to get OUT of education because it makes the costs go up. Students loans do one thing, keep a graduate poor. It's NOT an investment, it's a ponzi scheme.

• Cut corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are paid on profit. They do not adversely affect a company’s operation, which involves before profit expense. Profits are paid as dividends to shareholders, in large part, to the wealthy. Cutting corporate profits would increase income to the wealthy, reduce federal revenues, and effectively shift the tax burden to middle and low income folks.

Bob, I'm not a business major, but I do understand that business/ corproations, pay State, Federal, County, city, Property taxes and more. If you are a caterer, not only did you have to buy a HACCP certificate, but you had to pay the EPA for a license, and then, you pay taxes for your tools, energy, containers, vehicles, advertizing and even some foods. I took a Small Business class recently and learned that profit was not a goal, cash flow was, so I could pay short term and long term LOANS I was expected to make. The class convinced me it is better to be an employee than a businessman, because Bob, the bankers rule, and they rule with THEIR regulations. These regulations do not make a caterers' food better or safer, but they make it impossible for the caterer to actually make a living. To make it Bob, a caterer needs to sell their best recipe to a major corporation who has paid lobbiests that help make regulations to break the small guys and protect them. How fair is that? Monsanto lobbiests know.

• Paul believes fervently in Jesus, who tirelessly advocated helping the poor. Where is Paul’s concern for
the working poor? He has plenty of programs helping the wealthy, but none for the poor. He opposes a minimum wage. I’d like one people who want to work can live on without food stamps.

Jesus established a Church, and though there are now over 300 denominations of Christian Churches, the Churches continue to work hard helping the poor, the abused, neglected masses the State won't help. As for the working poor, Ron Paul understands that because government has gotten into the business of being an employer, unless one has a government job, or a government subsidized job, one is going to be, "the working poor", because most businesses, at this point, can not compete with government operated and subsidized businesses. A good example is healthcare. Since Medicare and Medicade, which the government has decreased benefits for the poor, the poor have poor healthcare at a greater cost to the tax payer, and person. Where cosmetic surgery on the other hand, is booming in business, prices and coming down and proceedures are getting better, faster, cheaper, and the government is not competing, If it were, this trend would reverse.

5. Deregulation
• Remove regulations (however weak) recently put in place on Wall Street. Deregulation gave us the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s and the present recession. How can anyone favor this?

Wall Street is controlled by the Federal Reserve Bank and their Globalist Central Banks whose goal is to enslave everyone with debt. Sure Wall Street shouldn't have taken the bailouts, but a corporation doesn't go through all the red tape to close down. They want to compete. This is why Ron Paul wants to audit the Fed, which you agreed, eh, Bob? What was your reason? Why is it long overdue? My guess is you want a global central bank. I don't. Wall Street would thrive if government's regulations were to honestly correct fraud.

• Remove regulations on corporations. He sees no need for regulations for such things as clean air/water and safety testing Monsanto’s GM food. Do we really want to remove what little regulation exists protecting the environment and consumers?

How have the regulations we have stopped Monsanto, or CalAgra who feed the Armies and prisons we operate globally? The Free Market, where consumers can make businesses on FOIAs, and expose the truth so consumers can make desicions is what Ron Paul is advocating for. Regulations keep Monsanto in business and keep the small farmers OUT.

• Tax credits for insurance premiums (after repealing Obamacare). This is no help to the 45 million low income, low tax paying folks without health care, which I thought was the problem. The government would essentially pay for health care for high income folks who already have it, but not for low income folks who don’t. Is this a solution or a further shifting of resources from the non-wealthy to the wealthy?

It's easy Bob, It's an incentive for people to BUY Insurance, rather than wait for government to give it to them, because it helps make it affordable and gives people OPTIONS, CHOICES. Choices are important in healthcare. If you were ever in the military, which is socialized medicine, your choice comes to going to a VA hospital or not. Some VAs are excellent, many are OK, least we forget the Walter Reed fiasco. By buying health insurance, you support people, and by being given a tax break, you are able to afford better insurance, or if you are young and don't really need it, you can afford other things. Also Bob, there are millions of Americans on medicare and medicade and not getting the care they desperately need. "Death panels" are NOT a joke.

• No plans to control costs, such as imposing price constraints on an out-of-control profit driven medical
industry that can with impunity charge anything they want. With your life on the line, you have to pay whatever is asked.

Right, by government controlling costs, prices never come down. I know people who receive medicare and medicade and they cross the border to Mexico to see a doctor. It's affordable. Competition brings the price DOWN Bob.

7. Paul would be 77 on taking office.
• I’m a senior citizen myself, but ….

But what Bob? Age discrimination works for you? You really think a 1 term Senator has more government experience and policy know how than someone who has won many elections, sat on and chaired many committees, already raised his family, and has an M.D., served in the military as a flight surgeon saving the lives of troops and has experience in war, didn't just study the Constitution, but is an EXPERT and could teach at any respectable University? Obama-Bush are ruining this great nation... so much for youth.

8. The economy
• Return to the gold standard. Economists note that monetary policy would be set by gold miners in South Africa and Uzbekistan. As one said, "If you like what OPEC means for oil prices, you'd love what the gold standard would do to financial markets."

It would actually regulate them honestly Bob.

9. Most ultra-right member of congress over 65 years
Based on statistics in Am Jour Polit Sci, Paul had the most conservative voting record of over 3,000 house and senate members from 1937 to 2002. Does the country really need more extremism?

Bob, the country was based on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Lets restore what this nation was based on, and stop playing Global Occupiers and king makers with a UN Agenda, Sustainable Development designed to eliminate life on Earth in the name of "Earth Family". The truth is, Obama is refining Bush policy. Why is Obama your president but Bush wasn't? You are not looking out for the poor. YES Bob, YOU are poor. You got suckered into a student loan, and bad jobs, and in the name of "love" adopted a liberal mantra that is not working. The wars are still raging, we have more prisons, more torture, more censorship, less healthcare, less prosperity, our youth are being killed and maimed for OIL, so the USA can occupy the world for what Bob? You Ron paul for believeing in Jesus. You slam Ayn Rand, who at least told the truth. You lie to yourself so you can think you really got something for that student loan besides debt. Wake up Bob. I give you credit for looking at Ron Paul's platform, but it takes more than looking to attack. It takes some study time. You have to apply what Ron Paul is saying to real life.

1. Ron Paul's philosophy: is FREDOM IS POPULAR.
2. environment: UN Agenda 21 is a global elite card to depopulate the planet in the name of saving the Earth.
3. Peace?: YES!
4. Ravishing the lower and middle classes: It's what the government does Bob, and why you're there, damn that student loan!
5. Deregulation: Free Market really works
6. Health Care Crisis: was established by, for and of government meddeling. GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY Drs. Office!
7. Paul would be 77 when taking office: Yep! Gives all us Boomers hope for a future (there's LIFE after govt. age discrimination).
8. The Economy: Ron Paul is an EXPERT, LEARN FROM HIM!
9. Most ultra-right member of congress over 65 years: Ultra right... Sigh.. It makes me love him even more Bob. All those years he's been there for me, and you, though you don't appreciate it. I'm so proud of him, I joined the GOP because I want this ultra right conservative for 65 years (He was 12 years old when he began voting in congress? LOL Bob, come on) to be the first president in my life that I truly am grateful to God to have.

God Bless you Bob, good luck with that loan and bad jobs and all... I wish I could tell you your guy Obama-Bush would fix it, but that would be a lie. VOTE RON PAUL 2012

There's a ton of fallacies

There's a ton of fallacies and misconceptions, really too many to go over. But Dr. Paul is by no means a fanatical devotee of Ayn Rand. His big libertarian influences are von Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Bastiat, etc. A lot of people seem to equate Ayn Rand with libertarianism, and it's really ignorant and stupid. Also, Jesus never said anything about the government "helping" the poor, he was talking about what people should do in their own lives, and as a doctor, he helped the poor through free care far more than this self-righteous guy did in his life.

Some of the dumbest things ever written!

I only scanned this but this one popped out as being pretty idiotic and there are probably a dozen ways to attack this one.

Here is an example:

• Cut corporate taxes. Corporate taxes are paid on profit. They do not adversely affect a company’s
operation, which involves before profit expense. Profits are paid as dividends to shareholders, in large
part, to the wealthy. Cutting corporate profits would increase income to the wealthy, reduce federal
revenues, and effectively shift the tax burden to middle and low income folks.

reedr3v's picture

Too many distortions in his list of cons

The guy is committed to Obama and hopeless. You won't find an analysis of all the horrendous, real-life Cons committed by Obama from this author. He doesn't want to know.