Spring Break
Ron Paul's extreme domestic policies would impoverish many
Justin Gero
Issue date: 11/9/07 Section: Ed-Op
|
The fundraising record drew media attention to the little-known Texas Republican. He drew praise from the media for his fundraising record, but critics questioned how long supporters held off donations so that they could attempt to coordinate to draw media attention.
Although it was hailed as a victory, what we didn't hear in media reports was that the effort failed to raise even half of its goal of $10 million.
Paul has a very loyal following, especially found on the internet (his internet following alone raised $4 million of the $4.3 million), but it seems that many, including Paul's most loyal supporters, don't really know where Ron Paul stands on the issues.
I want to start out by saying that Ron Paul seems like a very honest and genuine man, something of a rarity in politics. When it comes to foreign policy he is the most intelligent and well-informed Republican candidate. It is generally well known that Paul is against the war in Iraq, and a strong supporter of the Constitution, but there is much more to Rep. Paul than just that.
Ron Paul is actually the most conservative member of Congress. It may be appealing to hear him talk about having personal liberty and freedom from government taxation, but when we look more closely his views become somewhat concerning.
Perhaps the biggest hypocrisy of Paul's campaign is his position on homosexuals. Although he's built his reputation on fighting for freedom and liberty, that freedom apparently does not extend to homosexuals.
He has stood against government regulation, but favors defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and voted to ban adoption for same-sex couples. It's an example where Paul's religious views apparently trump his belief in a free society.
He has stood out among candidates for both parties as a candidate willing to end the "War on Drugs." This would end billions of dollars in government spending, which have failed to prevent the propagation of illegal substances in society.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 348
Will
posted 11/09/07 @ 7:08 AM EST
Did you read "Animal Farm"? Are you a complete socialist or only a little b it socialist? How is it that it's up the the US Federal government to prevent poverty and provide funding for so much around the world? Last I checked, the Constitution did not allow the federal government to redistribute wealth. (Continued…)
Jeff gumola
posted 11/09/07 @ 7:13 AM EST
I feel Ron Paul would only make the federal government smaller, every thing you said should be handled at the state and local level; as it says in the constitution. (Continued…)
ernest
posted 11/09/07 @ 7:14 AM EST
I gather from this editorial that you're in favor of taking my hard-earned money in taxation and distribute it to others who didn't work for it. Get out of college and into the real world, Pointdexter, and you'll change that tune real quick. (Continued…)
Bob
posted 11/09/07 @ 7:15 AM EST
I'm not sure you stated your case how RP would impoverish people. After all, according to Fox news, the economy is GREAT!! Unemployment is almost non-existent and consumer confidence is high. (Continued…)
seatex1
posted 11/09/07 @ 7:15 AM EST
Regarding the FDA's importance I am attaching a link to a Nov. 6. 2007 article from ABC News with reference to state food inspection programs that are doing more to protect their citizen's food supply than the federal government is or has. (Continued…)
Scott McDonnell
posted 11/09/07 @ 7:16 AM EST
You forgot to end that with: "And that's why I'm voting for Rudy Guiliani!"
Yes. I am aware that you are a socialist that won't be voting for any Republican, but it would certainly be a fitting end. (Continued…)
D
posted 11/09/07 @ 7:19 AM EST
"He has stood against government regulation, but favors defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and voted to ban adoption for same-sex couples. (Continued…)
Scott
posted 11/09/07 @ 7:24 AM EST
Wow... you have no idea what you are talking about. Paul is about freedom, limited federal government and letting the states local governments decide what best for that state. (Continued…)
Russell
posted 11/09/07 @ 7:31 AM EST
I'm sorry but i think you're way off base here, on many counts but most importantly his domestic poicy is that there should be no federal government oversight on healthcare and education. (Continued…)
Alan
posted 11/09/07 @ 7:32 AM EST
I for one am sick and tired of being told that I don't know what Ron Paul stands for!
I support him because I DO know exactly what he stands for. Unlike other candidates he says so, clearly, without waffle or distraction, along with logical and moral arguments why he holds that position. (Continued…)
Post a Comment