Monday, August 13, 2007

Honeymoon May Be Over for Ron Paul

Ron Paul's recent speech should be no surprise to those 'progressive' fans who have examined Paul's voting record. He's always been anti-abortion, pro guns, weak on civil rights, and for small government at the expense of the vulnerable.

Truthdig reports:
Ron Paul may have soured his antiwar appeal among progressives with a speech Saturday at the Iowa straw poll. Paul referred to Roe v. Wade as “that horrible ruling,” called for the abolition of the Departments of Energy and Education and the IRS, and attacked welfare and immigrants. But the most bizarre moment came when he suggested airline passengers should be allowed to carry guns, saying: “I think 9/11, quite frankly, could have been prevented if we had had a lot more respect for the Second Amendment.”

Watch it:

Hat tip to Al Buono.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , ,


Anonymous said...

"weak on civil rights"

Ron Paul is weak on civil rights, that's an interesting claim.

The Unknown Candidate said...

Anonymous, check out the link to Paul's voting record.

Anonymous said...

He is weak on national government civil rights so to speak. He believes that no one should get special treatment and that it is up to state governments to make their own rules. His message about the second amendment was the fact that the national government doesn't allow airlines to police themselves in the air. Their policy is to let the hijackers take the plane instead of having pilots able to carry a gun or stun weapon to protect the integrity of the cockpit. In terms of abortion he is against the government deciding what you can and cannot do. If states want to enforce different laws that is their responsibility. The government was created to be small and for states rights. That's all he wants. It is not the nationals government to dictate how you can live your life.

Don't jump to conclusions when you don't know the facts.

Anonymous said...

What civil rights are you talking about?

Ron Paul is strong on Civil Liberties.

Usually people use the term "civil rights" to dress up "special rights" or "special priviliges."

The fact of the matter is that nobody deserves special rights. Everybody deserves liberty.

Alfred said...

I agree with Ron Paul that we should abandon the FED; it's nothing but a central bank to which we pay exorbitant fees for printing money and to whom we've given over control (privatized) our currency and our financial stability. What does the Fed do that the Treasury could not do just as simply and far less greedily?
Jefferson warned us about letting bankers run our economy.
Also, agree we should abandon the IRS; it was never constitutionally meant to be; taxes were meant to be levied against capital gains and foreign/alien investment profits.
As for the rest of Ron Paul's thinking, I don't agree with much; 'defense of the cockpit' is unthinkable: what's worse than a shoot-out at 35,000 feet? besides, aren't teams of Air Marshals now aboard? and don't we have airport checkpoints to rival China's or Russia's?
In a democracy, even a fraudulent one like the US, the government must constitutionally defend and protect the people above all else, especially corporations and the MIC; and stay out of their private lives; and keep religion at bay.
Someone should ask Ron Paul and all the other 'candidates' how they feel about the US evolving from a republic to an Empire; what else do you call a country with 800 military outposts around the world? which invades unilaterally smaller countries with no real defense? which uses the CIA (and others) to infiltrate and destroy other nations whose politics we disagree with? which applauds and supports aggression in Israel and Colombia and Lebanon and elsewhere.
As for terrorists, if we removed ourselves (US) from their lives and their countries, we might allow them to remove themselves from any need to terrorize. No one, smart people especially, wants to blow themselves up for no good reason --- especially not god and country.