There are plenty of reasons why you should vote for Ron Paul but try talking to a Ron Paul supporter and ask them to mention 1 reason why not to vote for Ron Paul and you will be called all sorts of names. They almost appear like the Bushies (thats slang for the Bush supporters) and almost think Paul is an incarnation of Christ who can do no wrong. I find this blind allegiance scary. It is okay to question even someone you support and I would certainly vote for RP if it Kucinich and Gravel weren’t on the ballot list. He is right on a lot of things, but that doesn’t mean he is right on everything. Also, questioning some of his policies or stance, doesn’t make you any less loyal than another supporter.
So here’s my list of 5 reasons why I would not vote for Ron Paul and the RP supporters would be well advised to ask him these questions.
1. War Reparations: Ron Paul doesn’t believe in providing war reparations to the Iraqis. He just dismisses that issue with a very cavalier atttitude saying “it was a mistake”. Well, yes, it was a mistake. But what mistake did the Iraqis commit? Did they ask the US to invade them and free them? Did they ask Saddam to rule over them in a despotic manner?
This position of RP is absolutely morally reprehensible to me. I detest this whole idea that the US is better than other countries. Every nation in the past has provided War reparations and so should the US of A. Not all Germans were Nazi sympathisers nor were all Japanese imperialists and yet Germany and Japan provided war reparations and that is the first step that the US should take while asking for an apology from the Iraqis and the world. Check this video see his position on War Reparations.
2. Net Neutrality: Comcast recently blocked some torrent traffic and everyday we hear of a new corporation choosing and picking what net traffic gets preference. Net Neutrality will make sure the Net remains Neutral but Ron Paul voted against it. I understand Paul is for limited government and intervention, but who else will police these corporations? Should the corporatiosn be left to police themselves. This is another ridiculous policy position by Ron Paul.
3. Global Warming: Ron Paul is obviously out to lunch here. His positions of free market and the cavalier attitude of personal responsibility is fatally flawed. That is all we have been doing so far. Asking the corporations to own up to their responsibility and it has not worked in the least bit. His positions are almost similar to Bush. When a majority of scientists in the world are pleading for some action his attitude on global warming is very scary.
4. Abortion: Ron Paul is against government intervention in private space but he doesn`t mind intervening in a woman`s uterus. He wants people to vote on whether a woman can have an abortion or not. The fact that he wants the states to choose and decide doesn’t change anything. What about a woman’s right in this issue since he is so for life and liberty. Since he is also against welfare, who will help the woman from the poorer class to feed her child. Who is he or anyone else to pass moral judgement on what a woman can or can not do.
5. United Nations: Ron Paul wants to move out of the United Nations. It is a noble organisation and its credibility is in tatters and that is all thanks to the US. Yet he will choose to completely move out of the United Nations and never intervene anywhere except if the security of the US is threatened. That means he won’t intervene in cases such as Rwanda and Darfur. That is morally reprehensible and disgusting.
It is no different than Bush’s position of intervening everywhere for US interests, just happens to be on the opposite SELFISH extreme.
Think about it Ron Paul supporters and question Dr. Paul on some of these issues. As Albert Einstein said: Unthinking Respect for Authority is the Greatest Enemy of Truth.
There is also another list of 10 reasons why not to vote for Ron Paul. Do have a look.
28 responses so far ↓
adam // December 20, 2007 at 12:45 am
You could just go down his website listing all of the positive points about Ron Paul and use those as reasons not to vote for him.
These aren’t secrets, nor are they issues that he is wrong about. You just disagree.
People will make better decisions when they hear both sides of a contentious issue, rather than simply claiming your opponent is wrong.
aman // December 20, 2007 at 12:46 am
adam: The general comment is all fair and good. Care to respond to specifics though? And what is exactly how “right” and “wrong” are defined. “Right” is the collective agreement of a majority and “wrong” is a collective disagreement by the majority. You didn’t say nothing new over there.
theoceanisawake // December 20, 2007 at 12:48 am
I couldn’t agree more. While Ron Paul can be commended for his willingness to be honest (a rare trait in politics, especially in the Republican party), unfortunately honesty isn’t all we need right now. We need honesty and DRASTIC change in essentially all of our national policies.
aman // December 20, 2007 at 12:49 am
theoceanisawake: I support RP too and I respect him a lot as a honest politician. Only 3 candidates need to be supported and those are Gravel, Kucinich and RP, in that order. But I find it amazing that i am shot down as a neocon or called names if you dare mention some of these contentious issues and question RP’s position on them. He isn’t God. Well, I don’t believe in God anyways, but you see the point I am trying to make. And also these RP supporters see a conspiracy in almost everything.
Dr. Whizgig // December 20, 2007 at 12:51 am
You’ve made some great points and I’ve actually discussed some of these issues with a lot of my friends. I should preference this by saying that I am a Ron Paul supporter.
1. War Reperations
Ron Pauls main stance on these issues is simple: “We can’t afford it.” In order to pay war reperations we would have to borrow that money elsewhere. We are a bankrupt country. We have to stop borrowing money.
2. Net Neutrality
You have to look at the big picture here. When the governement interferes in one area then the government can continue to interfere in others. An unregulated internet is one of the reasons why Ron Paul has been able to get the attention he has. Imagine if the internet was regulated like the media is. Plus, the corporations have a right to protect their property without government interference. I say this and I download too.
3. Global Warming
Research Sun Spotting.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
Ron Paul simply believes that the global warming issue is being used to bring in a stronger global government. This is simply a philosophical view point. Do you believe in small government or large government? You can make an argument for either one. I prefer small government.
4. I agree with you. Pro-choice in my opinion represents a basic freedom that women should have and I disagree with Ron Paul on this point. I’m willing to overlook it because I agree so strongly in everything else he stands for.
5. Big government vs. small government? It’s as simple as that. You don’t have to be in the United Nations to have good relations with other countries, but if you are in the United Nations then you’re expected to follow their rules, which includes trading restrictions and international laws that can regulate what we do as individuals in our own country. I prefer small government. I want my voice to matter.
aman // December 20, 2007 at 12:52 am
Dr. Whizgig: Thank you for your comment. Let us look at it one by one:
1. War Reparations: Do you think Germany and Japan were in a position after WWII to pay for it all? Yet, they did. I can go into some detail about it but I am sure you will be able to find information on it yourself. It is a moral and legal obligation if you ask me. I detest Ron Paul’s argument and frankly speaking, it disgusts me to my core.
2. Net Neutrality: Lets say I agree with you for a moment. So who controls what these corporations do? The main stream media is already a f..king joke and we risk having the Internet usurped from us as well, if this is not stopped. If you have a better solution than allowing the corporations to police themselves, lets hear it.
3. Global Warming: Frankly speaking, the science is a bit over my head but then I ask you name one issue where there is a 100% consensus. Just one. I am merely going along with a majority of the science community (98% of scientists, if I am not wrong) who concur that we are contributing towards global warming and need to do something about it.
I’d like a small government too, but tell me the solution to what should and can be done regarding it. It is one thing saying this is what I want and quite another whether that is better in the long run or not.
4. Abortion: It actually isn’t very high on my agenda too, but it shows the apparent hypocrisy of Dr. Paul’s position and that is why it is on the list.
5. UN: I firmly believe in the UN. It is a noble organisation with noble aims and it was instituted with noble intentions in mind. Read the charter. Because the US and other powerful nations have used it as their mistress, doesn’t mean it is irrelevant. I don’t like it in its current form too and believe a comprehensive reform is needed including abolishing the veto power of the 5 nations. Btw, USA is the most guilty of flouting UN resolutions but yet it attacked Iraq citing that reason. It is quite another point that that was just a convenient excuse.
How about intervening in mass genocides like Darfur and Rwanda? Do you believe we should intervene to save hapless people being massacred?
Critical Thinking 101 // December 20, 2007 at 1:53 am
Ok, you have a point. Most people are so sick of our corrupt government and it’s politicians that when you critisize Ron Paul we get really mad. The fact is, any issue that you can come up with about Mr Paul is tiny by comparison. Look, I gave more than have of the money I had earmarked for my daughters Christmas presents because I firmly believe that the money contributed to the Paul campaign will have a positive effect on her future. Once you get your head out of that spin from Fox Noise and think critically you will come to our side. The only side. The side of the American people who believe in our Constitution.
aman // December 20, 2007 at 1:54 am
Critical thinking 101: You epitomise the unthinking that Einstein referred to when he said: “Unthinking Respect for Authority is the Greatest Enemy of Truth.” when you ask me to think for myself and mention Fox. Take a look on the right under the heading “REAL NEWS” to see where I get my news from. Do you see Democracy now, Raw Story, Common Dreams, Real News Network, Truthout, Counterpunch and Freespeech?
You realise how ridiculous your arguments are? And I am actually on your side, and you would have realised that if you were capable of thinking for yourself. And because I am capable of thinking critically, I can’t give Ron Paul a pass on everything unlike you.
Critical Thinking 110 // December 20, 2007 at 1:58 am
Wow, blogger… Where is it written that Government is to be the parents, bankers, crossing guards, doctors, baby sitters and blogging watchdogs for us? IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RAISE YOU… Actually, just move to a socialist country and quit whining.
aman // December 20, 2007 at 1:59 am
Critical thinking 110: Sure! You wanna suggest a country too for me? And …can you really say anything intelligent or comment on the post rather than the whining diatribe?
thisrevolutionwillnotbetelevised // December 20, 2007 at 3:03 am
Obviously, you haven’t actually sat down to read his writing on these subjects. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/
Oh, and check out his top contributors…http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008
Google? Microsoft? Apple? I think these guys are, um, fairly intelligent and supportive of net neutrality.
The bottom line is that the Federal government’s size is what is SELFISH and DISGUSTING. Even Ralph Nader, a HUGE supporter of Government regulations, likes Dr. Paul. He called him the “Enema of the State” Quite frankly I wanna get this status quo crap out of Washington too.
aman // December 20, 2007 at 3:04 am
thisrevolutionwillnotbetelevised: I have actually read a lot. And as I said above in another comment, tell me the solution. Who will police these corporations or rather ensure that the Net remains neutral. If you have a better solution, lets hear it and I’d be all for it.
socialjustis // December 20, 2007 at 3:54 am
Interesting view on Ron Paul. Support for any candidate may hinder on tunnel vision, I suppose. His approach of withdrawal from the United Nations may not be too altruistic but the UN is in need of some kind of moral re-alignment and really get behind their causes and not allow vetoes and other blockades to create dire human conditions. Leaving the UN may only further support and aid to the NATO which I really wouldn’t like to see happen.
aman // December 20, 2007 at 3:55 am
socialjustis: Very true! Actually RP is against staying in Nato too, so you aren’t quite right. And I don’t support UN in its current form. There really needs to be a comprehensive reform and should start with abolishing the veto powers of the 5 nations.
blogcruiser // December 20, 2007 at 6:36 am
I have no names to call you. I always question the good and bads about all the candidates I choose. There are many stances that concern me about Ron Paul. However, when it comes down to weighing him against the others; he still wins my vote hands down so far. I’m never going to find a candidate that fits all my beliefs.
aman // December 20, 2007 at 6:57 am
blogcruiser: That was the whole point of the post. A majority of RP supporters I have encountered are almost like zombies who feel RP can do no wrong. Well, he is just human and has his own flaws like the rest of us. And because he is right on many things doesn’t mean he is right on everything. I just wanted to highlight some issues where I think he is completely wrong or rather where I disagree with him strongly. Among all the issues, War Reparations and moving out of UN and this policy of non intervention even in case of dire human suffering stands out for me. However, I’d still vote for RP if Gravel or Kucinich weren’t in the running. Among all the others corporate puppets, these 3 stand out, but I have to say that Gravel is closest to my beliefs.
moderate // December 20, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Great article. I’m going to check out your other articles too now.
You’re very justified in trying to find the faults of Paul.
I know need to find the yang to all the ying I hear, I think you highlighted some key-points. The question is whether Paul is worth all these losses? Or do we want to keep some “big” government and fix them with someone like Kucinich or Gravel or Nader (if he runs)? Or is it too late to fix? These are questions I have no answer for them although I’m surprised there’s been little support for the democratic runners like Kucinich.
..and to the person who said Nader said Paul was the enema of the state, that was from a spoof site…not real news.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
@ moderate: Thank you! I support RP too and some of the zombies posting comments here would have realised it had they bothered to read the post rather than throw a hissy fit at the very mention that RP could be wrong on some issues. Personally Gravel is close to my belief system than anyone else but I would still vote for RP if it were a choice between him and the other corporate stooges. But as RP supporters I think everyone needs to question RP on some of his beliefs and understand them better or at least get RP thinking on some of his policy stances.
Zombies can’t be expected to understand subtlety or Irony. I guess that person also think TheOnion is a trusted news source.
aman // December 20, 2007 at 1:09 pm
moderate: Thank you! I support RP too and some of the zombies posting comments here would have realised it had they bothered to read the post rather than throw a hissy fit at the very mention that RP could be wrong on some issues. Personally Gravel is close to my belief system than anyone else but I would still vote for RP if it were a choice between him and the other corporate stooges. But as RP supporters I think everyone needs to question RP on some of his beliefs and understand them better or at least get RP thinking on some of his policy stances.
..and to the person who said Nader said Paul was the enema of the state, that was from a spoof site…not real news.
Zombies can’t be expected to understand subtlety or Irony. I guess that person also think TheOnion is a trusted news source.
thefullbug // December 20, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Wow! I’m suddenly kind of a Ron Paul guy. Tell me more!
aman // December 20, 2007 at 3:12 pm
thefullbug: I am glad it turned you to a RP guy. That wasn’t the intention of this post, but I’m still happy
sol // December 20, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Who is he or anyone else to pass moral judgement on what a woman can or can not do.
Abortion: It actually isn’t very high on my agenda too, but it shows the apparent hypocrisy of Dr. Paul’s position and that is why it is on the list.
There is no hypocrisy here. There is not a uniquely libertarian philosophical view on when life begins. Libertarians do not believe that murder is acceptable or that civil government does not have a valid role in preventing it.
Legislators pass all sort of judgments as to what both men and women can or cannot do in any number of areas of behaviour. Libertarians believe that government should limit itself as to the areas in which it should legislate, however, the protection of life is one of those areas.
Dr Paul is perfectly consistent in his view that like all other laws concerning the protection of life, this is a legislative decision for the States. If the legislatures of the States determine that the protection of life begins at birth, then that is their decision. Likewise, if they determine that it should be protected from an arbitrary point of “viability”, then that is the conclusion of the representatives of the people chosen to debate and decide such matters. And if they determine that the only philosophically and biologically tenable position is that life should be protected from conception, it is their legislative duty to enact that protection.
aman // December 20, 2007 at 11:00 pm
sol: What you are assuming is a libertarian view and hypocrisy are mutually exclusive. I don’t see the reason for making such an assumption. If that indeed is the “true” libertarian view then it in itself is hypocritical. Right to life is one area where the govt can intervene. Alright, granted for a bit, what about a woman who is living on minimum wage and can barely support herself and now has to support a baby. What sort of life will she be providing to this baby. Since RP is also against any sort of welfare and the like, the woman will have a hard time raising the baby and providing two meals a day. Who are you and me to pass judgment and vote on what this woman can and can’t do. It is a right of a woman and should remain so.
sol // December 21, 2007 at 12:50 pm
You are basing your reason that it is the right of the mother on the hardship that might exist in a limited number of cases.
First of all, either the child is a life or it is not, regardless of the circumstances into which it might be born. A lot of people have what might be considered a poor quality of life. This does not justify their murder.
Second, you are creating worst case scenario and suggesting that based upon this hypothetical situation, it is better for the woman to kill the baby.
Third, you assume that if there is not some sort of government welfare then people will be worse off. History has demonstrated that the welfare state only perpetuates the problem, creating generations of dependence.
Fourth, you do not take into account that no woman has to keep a baby she has brought into the world. There is a shortage of adoptable infants.
Fifth, you deny that people should take responsibility for their decisions. No one gets pregnant by accident. A tiny, tiny percentage of rapes result in pregnancy, so virtually no one gets pregnant by force. For the most part, women choose to have sex.
No one is saying they can’t have sex. No one is, as it were, passing judgment on what they can and can’t do. It just that like everyone else, they just have to take responsibility for their actions.
Patrick // December 22, 2007 at 4:26 am
eaman, we’ve had this conversation about these 5 issues and you were able to see that I don’t have blind allegiance, nor do I think most Paul supporters. I though you came to a new understanding on the Net Neutrality issue? I guess not.
I think it is funny that you accuse RP supporters of blind allegiance. They have positions way more thought out than supporters for any other candidate, on the whole. On the whole RP supporters are contrarian in nature; people who are sick of the establishment and of both parties.
You use incendiary language like “blind allegiance” and the Einstein quote and then act surprised that some people react strongly and use that as your proof that they can’t be rationed with and are “unthinking.” It’s like an agent provocateur in the blogosphere. I have to hand it to you it is an effective form of arguing. It is a good method to rope people in to have them react emotionally, then point out how “ridiculous” they sound. Then you do the kill with the kindness thing by saying you are on their side.
I raise it for a couple of reasons. First, I noticed it happened with us. Second, we ended up having a good dialog about the things we like and dislike about RP. Why he has certain positions and overall I found it to be productive. I do think you have good intentions and mean well. I just pains me to see this same scene play out again for others. I don’t know if you are even aware how it can come off to others.
Ron Paul is logically consistent on abortion and is consistent with libertarian principles too, you just happen to not like the position. And you know what? That’s perfectly fine.
Perhaps you have unthinking respect for authority (Al Gore and the UN) and that is why you find the UN to be “noble” and pulled some 98% number out for scientists who support man made global warming. Allow me point out that there are growing number (first a dozen, then 100 and now it’s 400 and growing) scientists who are coming out against doomsday Gore. That my friend is science, when there is debate. When Al says the debate is over, that is called propaganda. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
Sorry this is long, I’ll finish with a quote from Einstein since you seem to like his quotes and it sums up why I like Ron Paul. “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It is insane to vote for the establishment (that means both parties), and expect anything to change.
I apologize if I was too incendiary, but at the same time I wanted to challenge some things. I appreciate the dialog though because I am willing to concede h isn’t perfect.
aman // December 22, 2007 at 4:13 pm
@ Patrick
Yes, we have had this conversation but I feel very strongly about this and wanted to voice my opinion again and reach out to a larger audience. Surely, there is nothing wrong with that, is there?
I did learn to see it from a different angle, thanks to you, but I am not satisfied. I understand where he coming from, as you pointed out, but tell me the solution. So, since he is against govt intervention, should the corporations be allowed to police themselves? Should Comcast be allowed to block torrent traffic. Should they be allowed to choose what traffic gets preference? If not, who ensures that it doesn’t happen. Going further, where else would govt not intervene? This limited govt argument has no end and everyone has different understanding of where it should stop but if you are for abolishing a particular thing you have to provide solutions too and not just raise your hands in the air.
Also, I said, most RP supporters seem to ally blindly with RP and I didn’t say “all”. Maybe I should have said most RP supporters I have come across specially on blogs and social networking sites. I posted the same comment on at least 5 blogs that I did on yours and only you reacted positively and didn’t call me names. Based on my experiences, I do have the liberty of laying it out as I see it, don’t I? I agree that most of these supporters, me included, support him because all the others stand for the status quo.
If you talk to any Bush supporter, they get very defensive and I have noticed the same, more or less, with RP supporters as well. There are very few people like you. On this post, I had to delete about 7 comments, because of name-calling.
I wasn’t trying to be provocative or incendiary in the least bit and feel sorry that it seems that way to you. And I am on your side and I would be voting for RP if Gravel or Kucinich weren’t on the ballots, which in all likelihood seems to be the case. I disagree strongly with the issues I have mentioned above, but I would be overlooking it and voting for him because all others in the race don’t deserve a chance in the first place. So there is no false kindness that I am selling. But I do find it strange that some policy issues of RP are hardly ever questioned by his supporters.
Enlighten me! I don’t see any it coming off in any other way than shedding light on some issues where I think he is patently wrong. If you say, I should have written it in a different manner, maybe you are right from your POV, but each of us has a different way of expressing themselves, do they not? And please explain how it rubs people the wrong way except what you said above about being provocative and incendiary.
Global Warming:
Now that you have provided me a link, I should provide a few as well:
1. Profiles of 5 prominent global Warming skeptics
2. Time is running out literally say the scientists
3. The 400 scientists analysed
4. Richard Lindzen is the prominent skeptic - a little more info about him
5. More analysis of that report by the 400 scientists
Actually the report you quoted doesn’t doubt at all that “climate change is real and a problem”
Some more analysis of Lindzen - the so called champion against Global Warming. ()
Why also, do you think that more often than not these skeptics are funded by the oil and coal lobby? Is there the slightest chance they are being paid to voice a particular opinion? Some of the so-called scientists aren’t even scientists. They are PR guys. How can policy advisor for Margaret Thatcher be called a scientist?
If we use the same argument for the scientists for the global warming - who is paying them? Solar and Wind lobby? I haven’t seen any such cases, but if you have information on that, please share.
Btw, Lindzen also doubts that second hand smoke can lead to lung cancer. That is moronic if you ask me.
I am not willing to vote for the establishment at all and I think I made it very clear to you that I would also be overlooking these issues, when they still matter very deeply to me, but I will not turn a blind eye to them as I see a lot of RP supporters doing. Didn’t I already mention that. Gravel is not establishment. Kucinich is not establishment and RP is also not establishment and if I were to vote, it would only be for these 3 guys.
And no, Patrick I am not offended in the least bit, although I do feel you have misunderstood me completely with the post.
Patrick // December 23, 2007 at 9:51 pm
As far as enlightening you about how you come off, well I thought I made my case and explained it well enough. You don’t need to apologize to me coming off as incendiary. I know where you are coming from and that your intentions are not that. My purpose in mentioning it was that perhaps it’s words like that or “incarnation of Christ” that will incite people to call names back at you. Like the posters whose comments you had to remove.
As far as the global warming debate goes I had way too many thoughts to post here so I created my own. Keep in mind I am not trying to disprove man’s impact on the globe. I am just reacting very stongly to when people tell me the time for debate is over. I looked over the links above and some of them are good for me to see. Some of the connections that a few of the 400 have with oil certainly makes you question their science. So the 400 may be padded, sure, but at the same time the IPCC is guilty of their own padding that they haven’t answered for. See, when I hear things like this, it makes me want to go back to the science. Prove it to me.
Like Michael Crichton points out, the IPCC tests its own theories. That would be like a drug company testing its own drugs and not outisde independent tester. Kind of like the FDA does the testing of new drugs, not Merck. The IPCC is a political arm of the UN and they have their own agenda.
http://pursueliberty.wordpress.com/2007/12/24/the-great-global-warming-debate/
Jay // December 27, 2007 at 12:19 am
The reason Ron Paul is not for war reparations is that he thinks you should not have to pay for something a few crazy neo-cons started.
If you want to make Bush and Cheney pay, that sounds great! You didn’t do anything wrong, I didn’t, so why should we have to pay for it?
Jim // February 11, 2008 at 9:56 pm
RP’s position on abortion seems quite principled and consistent to me. He insists that the more complex/cumber the issue, the more plainly it should be dealt with at the local level. While against abortion personally (fatuous to expect a protector of newly generated life to condone dismissal of same) he respects others’ take on the subject, and does not think there should be a national umbrella policy on the issue. RPconsiders abortion an act of violence, and as such should be addressed at the local level like other act of violence.
Leave a Comment