Paul supporters: your disagreements with Paul?

G

GoSlash27

New member
I was asked this question in another thread. It wasn't on topic there, so I'll answer here. The rest of you feel free to join me.

I disagree with him on his view of abortion and his attempts to legislate a "one size fits all" solution through a Constitutional amendment. Yes, his approaches to solving the problem have been Constitutionally sound, but I disagree with the view.
I disagree with his support for civil unions because he hasn't backed civil unions for everybody. I'm a firm believer that the "sanctity" of marriage is a church issue and the state has no business meddling in it.
I disagree with his views regarding separation of church and state. I can read and know for a fact that the Constitution is not "replete with references to God" as he has stated. The founders who wrote the law governing our government were very explicit on the point that the Constitution as amended by the 1st was intended to erect a barrier between church and state.
I believe that energy independence is a national security concern and thus falls within the purview of the Federal government. Likewise maintaining the capacity to manufacture technologies critical to our defense.
I believe that tariffs can be a just recourse for mirroring unfair trade practices of other nations, but that they must only be used to "level the field".
I disagree with his view on capital punishment. Our founding fathers clearly envisioned capital punishment and as no amendment has been passed revoking it, it should remain a state's right.
I'm sure there's more I can't think of right now, but for me the only subject I can fault him on Constitutionally is the church/ state stuff.
Afterthought: He hasn't spelled out to me his thoughts on how the 14th ties into it either, but in all fairness I haven't asked.
 
Mine

I disagree with his views on abortion. I am willing to concede it should be a states rights issue and that the voters of a given state may vote for an abortion ban. That said I would not support an abortion ban in my state. I would also vote against a constitutional amendment banning abortion.
I have just spent the better part of a couple hours researching to see where else I might disagree with him and the best I can come up with is kinda disagreeing on the seperation of church and state.
 
has he stated he wants an amendment banning abortion? i thought i had heard him say a few times that abortion is a states issue.
 
There is nothing in the constitution that says there is a wall of separation between church and state. That phrase came from a letter that Jefferson wrote to the Danbury baptists. The 1st amendment says congress shall pass no law establishing religion. ie... a particular state religion or religion of the state. That means Ron Paul can be religious or non-religious and is running for POTUS not the head bible thumper. Haven't seen him pander or thump a bible yet.

As far as civil unions are concerned I think Dr Paul is indifferent. In a free society people can live how they choose as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

In the case of abortion, murdering a human being is definitely an infringement on someones life, liberty, and etc... Having delivered 4000+ baby's Dr Paul has a pretty good handle on what constitutes life. I have heard him say in person he would like to see Roe vs Wade overturned. As for the states having control, that would be constitutional but it does not solve the problem.

I was pro death penalty myself until I discovered Ron Paul. After studying him I must conclude the man is Christian in his actions more so than in his words and will have to go along with the words another famous man said. "He who is without sin cast the first stone"
 
I disagree with his stance toward Iran, though I agree with him that we need to end the war in Iraq. I think Iran poses a nuclear threat, and their leaders feel the end of the world is at hand. That is a dangerous combination.
 
One thing a lot of people fail to remember. When we were bombed on 9/11 the lunatics in Palestine were cheering but Iran was shocked and sympathetic. Now they are beating a drum to start another preemptive war. I think if I was Iran and some big bully was conducting an aggressive war in my own back yard I might try and build a nuke too.
 
unregistered said:
I disagree with his stance toward Iran, though I agree with him that we need to end the war in Iraq. I think Iran poses a nuclear threat, and their leaders feel the end of the world is at hand. That is a dangerous combination.
Click to expand...

you know, i thought this too, until i thought about it a little more. basically, a paul presidency would essentially let israel "take the gloves off" as it were. from what i hear/read, israel has made quite a few concessions because we have asked them to. i trust israel to look out for their best interests (and ours by proxy) and take out an iranian nuclear program.

i looked at ron pauls voting record on abortion from that one issues site that i now cant remember the name of :o. it looks like he voted for a ban on partial birth abortions and one other abortion ban. i dont know the exact situation regarding these bills, but i possibly disagree with him on that.
 
The 1st amendment says congress shall pass no law establishing religion. ie... a particular state religion or religion of the state.
Click to expand...

Read it again.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

There's a very big difference in severity between "shall not establish a religion", and "shall not respect the establishment of a religion".

And no, the Constitution is not replete with references to God. In fact, it mentions God or Jesus or Christianity exactly zero times, and on the two occasions where it does mention religion in general, it's in a proscriptive context ("shall not").

So he's mistaken about the Constitution...just like 99% of politicians and voters. Kind of disappointing.
 
And no, the Constitution is not replete with references to God. In fact, it mentions God or Jesus or Christianity exactly zero times, and on the two occasions where it does mention religion in general, it's in a proscriptive context ("shall not").
Click to expand...

But, this country was founded based on Judeo Christian PHILOSOPHY. Separation of church and state in one, but not the only reason, is that the govt. isn't to provide funding to further one specific religion.

I think there's a big difference in people that are elected using their best judgments based on the framers' intent as said above. One way or another, ALL of us are going to have to vote for an individual that has some kind of belief. Most don't get it, but atheism is just cause for religion as any other belief that there's a God.

I don't see Paul or any other candidate up there representing the Republican party that I'm afraid of concerning their personal Biblical beliefs and using it to impose on us that isn't sound.

His foreign policy in general is the major backbreaker for me. I don't agree with his methods of practice in this arena.

Most of what he believes in I do like. The key though, is I disagree with HOW he's wanting to carry it out...
 
Marko,
I wouldn't say he's
just like 99% of politicians and voters
Click to expand...
, just not perfect. There's Supreme Court justices I disagree with more and technically it's their JOB to be more correct than me :D

Re. the church & state thing, we're supposed to be disagreeing with him, not each other...
 
I disagreed with his vote for the partial birth abortion ban because I think that kind of thing falls well outside the scope of regulating commerce among the several states.

I disagree with him on the idea of immediately withdrawing our military from the 100+ countries where they are stationed around the world, and particularly in the cases of Iraq, Taiwan, and South Korea.

I can't think of anything else. Probably some domestic policy issues, but he's running for President, not dictator, so most of those would wind up in some compromise with Congress anyway, and don't represent things he wants to do AND could actually do.
 
Mark Kloos,
Didn't come here to argue semantics. But since you made me go find my pocket constitution to read again, I do see your point. However, I still interpret it as the fear and loathing the founders felt for the established state religions of the Old World and it was their intent to not let that happen here.

As for the things being said about God and Jesus coming from Ron Paul pertaining to the the actual content of the constitution, show me. Sounds like hearsay.

The only reference I have seen to Jesus by Ron Paul was that he did have a printed statement of faith where he acknowledged Jesus Christ. The fundamentalist faction of his supporters put a lot of pressure on him to do that. When he finally did, it was with much reservation. In the opening part of that statement he also said that he found it distasteful and a private matter to mix religion with politics. He kept it real short. At the Iowa Straw poll it was something you had to ask for and not something they were passing out everywhere.

Back to the first amendment. If you are of the Christian persuasion, you probably believe God gave you free will, therefore you are free to do as you please and God will let you. He may not necessarily approve and you may suffer some consequences, but still you have your own choice. I think that is what the founders may have intended as a lot of them were Christian men.

Also, there is another candidate way more worthy a griping about if you want to go looking for a pious bible thumper.
 
joey,
God and Jesus coming from Ron Paul pertaining to the the actual content of the constitution, show me. Sounds like hearsay.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I of all people wish it was only hearsay.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.
Click to expand...

I do, however, agree that it was never intended to drive religion from the public square. It means exactly what it says; "Congress shall make no law".
But that statement of fact is undeniably incorrect. The DoI has references to God. The Constitution has none other than in a proscriptive context.
In addition, the claim that "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers" is also patently false, as the very term was penned by Thomas Jefferson himself.
And also, their political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs, but they were Deists whose political views were shaped (more than anything else) by the excesses of the crown.

All in all a highly disappointing passage from an otherwise dead-on Constitutional scholar.
/ just keepin' it real.
 
Good God,
Gimme a break. I think we're wasting a lot of wind here. Actually, I had already read that one but it never occurred to me that it might be a religious pander. If you take God completely out of the equation what is left? Plus it was written in 2003 during the Christmas season by a Christian man and probably around the time when O'Reilly and John Gibson were foaming at the mouth about the war on Christmas. That statement from Ron Paul only raises my regard for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top