By Joseph Swenson on 11-09-07

Given that voter turnout in the republican primaries during the last presidential election was 6%, I think that Ron Paul has a very good chance of winning the nomination.

By Mike D - to J Davis on 11-09-07

j davis - no candidate is going to match up how you feel 100%.  You’re going to find a flaw with any candidate that you see running for President.  Atleast I hope you do, because that’s what makes you a individual.  So good for you!

But to find reasons not to like someone, rather than reasons TO like someone, isn’t a great idea.  You are pretty negative, and you don’t seem to be looking for positives.  Ron Paul has a ton of positives associated with him.  I love this guy.  I also don’t agree on everything, but knowing who he is, and his track record proves he stands for what he believes, I gotta love this guy!

By Roark on 11-09-07

I agree with most of Ron Paul’s issues, except for his foreign policy.

By j davis on 11-09-07

One of Ron Paul’s few positives is ending the ridiculous ‘war on drugs’ which is actually a war on otherwise law abiding pot smokers. The last I checked a majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal. (73%) The fact remains that Bush was elected by massive vote fraud in Ohio not his stance on ‘moral’ issues. He is easily one of the most amoral presidents in the history of this country. Having had a close relative die of ALS I am passionate about stem cell research and would hate to see research blocked because of believers in a bronze age superstition.

By Janet0116 on 11-09-07

Regarding Dr. Paul’s position on stem cell research, best to just read what he has to say on it rather than hearing sound-bites that he’s against it.  Not having federal funding of something DOES NOT MEAN that he would block stem cell research! When will Americans realize that the federal government should not be in charge of these things? THE PEOPLE should be in charge.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul252.html

By Joseph Swenson on 11-09-07

^^^
Janet0116 is right on.  The federal government has no say in our lives concerning these issues of marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.  Let those who want it have it and those who don’t can refrain.  Let’s not waste our precious tax dollars on a government that dictates which dictates our lives.

By Tannim on 11-09-07

Very good post, free of spin and smart-aleck comments that so often pervade articles about Dr. Paul on the web.  Well done!  Only thing I would take any exception to is the claim that’s it’s unlilely he’ll win.  He actually has a very good chance, and oddsmakers now have him at 3:1 at sportsbook to win the whole thing.

As for j davis, go do some reaserch please!  As others here have commented, being against federal funding for something doesn’t mean one is against the something, only that the federal government shouldn’t pay for it.

As for the Values Voters Debate, part of Dr. Paul’s job as a candidate is to be there and get his message out.  It doesn’t matter if the target audience of the debate is the Christian Right, because there was a larger audience to reach, and he did that.  You may not agree with VVD’s positions (I don’t either) but Dr. Paul knows that from a tactical approach he should be there.  That’s why he went to Morgan State as well and the no-shows were made out to be utter fools.

By Julian on 11-09-07

j davis - Ron Paul is in favor of stem cell research.  But like abortion, he wants it left to the states…since the federal government isnt supposed to be crafting one-rule-for-all laws on these things in the first place.

This latest attempt to keep him out of the Dec 4th debate is just pathetic.  If the crybabies have their way and it sticks, Paul should just upstage the whole event like he did the last time Iowa tried to snub him; throw a rally that draws way more people than the debate actually draws (and once again, it WILL), invite CNBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. out there, and have our own night.

Ive never seen such diehard, stubborn allegiance and tunnel-vision to ONLY FOCUS on the “scientific polls” than I have this year (you know, the landline-based “scientific polls” that the Center for Disease Control wont even use anymore because they say they are far too obsolete and inaccurate). 

Its funny…normally around this time we’re hearing all about Straw Poll numbers, who the active and retired military are donating the most money to, who placed first in post-debate polls, who is exciting young people and drawing the biggest crowds, etc.  For some reason this year the media has chosen to abandon every single one of these indicators and pretend they dont exist…while propping up landline-based polls of 400-800 people, drawing from a sample of what USA today called a “record low turnout” of Republicans in 2004, and often not even mentioning Paul as a candidate.

By GO RON PAUL! on 11-10-07

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Ron Paul is the only TRUE republican candidate.  I swore after George W. Bush that I would never ever vote republican again.  George Bush scares the republican outta me!  Ron Paul however is a true conservative.  His views on non-aggression, smaller government, lower taxes, less strict drug laws, etc. are hope for America!

http://www.lewrockwell.com

By Why I hate the Christian Right. on 11-10-07

Once again the Christian right wing evangelicals have managed to prove their utter hipocracy and blood thirsty war-mongering.  Yes, the Christian Right has chosen to support Rudolph Giuliani over Ron Paul.  Giuliani, an outspoken supporter and promoter of abortion, legalized Homosexual marriage and strict national gun control has won the nod of approval from the whack job name Pat Robertson as well as many of the leaders in the evangelical community.  Why would they overlook Ron Paul?  Ron Paul, a proven true Christian, non-aggressionist, anti-war (as was Christ), anti-gun control, anti-state intervention on individual liberties (including homosexual unions), and pro-free market conservative lost to the liberal neo-con Giuliani?  Yes he did.  Why?  Over one issue.  War.  The Christian right will only support war hungary candidates that have sworn to bomb and kill in the middle east at the cost of America.  You see, Ron Paul believes in avoiding foreign matters and entanglements, just as our founding fathers did.  He is not a flower toting pacifist, no.  He is a non-aggressionist, meaning Ron Paul does not believe in starting pre-emptive wars.  He believes in fighting to defend one self, but not just attacking other nations under false pretenses.  The evangelicals however, want a candidate who swears to fight their “Crusade”, their “holy war” against the evil muslims.  As long as the candidate will kill arabs then the christian right will support them.  The Christian evangelicals in their shameful confusion have lost their grip with scripture and reality.  They now are some of the most war-mongering people on earth.  The following articles by some of the worlds most respected scholars on the topic support this very view point and articulately argue against Christian support of war.  Vote against war.  Vote against the ignorant evangelicals.  Vote RON PAUL 2008!!  Read:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance37.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/carson/carson22.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance60.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/mckenzie2.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/dwyer9.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/vance1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory78.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/mckenzie1.html

By Blessed are the Peace makers on 11-10-07

Why should a Christian support Ron Paul and non-intervention, non-aggressionist foreign policy?  Why are the Christians so PRO-WAR?  These articles prove their case for war is baseless!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/mckenzie1.html

Charles Spurgeon on Christian War Fever by Laurence M. VanceWe know all too well about Christian war fever – that sickening blind worship of the state that elevates George W. Bush to Messiah status and seeks to ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance37.html

The Christian Case For War by Stephen W. CarsonBut to address the entire Christian case for war adequately is going to take some time. In this article I would like to start by summarizing the work of a ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/carson/carson22.html

The Early Christian Attitude to War by Laurence M. VanceSuch is the case with Cadoux’s 1919 book, The Early Christian Attitude to War: A Contribution to the History of Christian Ethics (London: Headley Bros. ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance60.html

Christian Enthusiasm for War by Ron McKenzieI have been surprised that a number of well-known Christian prophetic voices are supporting war with Iraq. I am not a pacifist and I believe there are ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/mckenzie2.html

The Anti-War Christian Right Must Speak Up by Bill BarnwellIf you are a pro-war Christian reading this, you need to understand that John Hagee, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and other “Big Name” celebrities of the ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell35.html

America and the Christian Theory of Just War by John J. DwyerFrom there, the war of extermination between “Christian” civilization and the Colorado Indians descended into a murderous abyss. “How reviving to a soul,“ ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/dwyer9.html - 76k - Cached - Similar pages

Christianity and War by Laurence M. VanceYet, the gullible Christian theologian Loraine Boettner (1901–1990), in his book The Christian Attitude Toward War, claims that the United States has “never ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/vance1.html - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

The Virtue of War: Reclaiming the Classical Christian Traditions ...The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism and the Austrian School of economics.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/virtueofwar.html - 38k - Cached -

Kill for Christ? by Anthony GregoryIf the answer is no on all counts, are any of the lessons taught by anti-war Christian scholars on the evils of war universally applicable and useful to ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory78.html

Defense and War: a Biblical PerspectiveThe idea of a Christian Holy War has no basis in Scriptures. The nation of Israel conquered and destroyed the Canaanite nations. This was only done after a ...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/mckenzie1.html

By Roark on 11-10-07

Ron Paul has his head in the sand regarding the very real threat if Islam.

By James on 11-10-07

By Roark on 11-10-07
“Ron Paul has his head in the sand regarding the very real threat if Islam.“

What threat?  Really Roark, is America that threatened.  Now before you roll your eyes back and go into a neo-con seizure rant about WMDs, smoking guns, yellow cake, dirty bombs, radical islamic fundamentalists and the threat level, please hear me out.  Question: If the muslims hate corporate hedonistic society, why haven’t they attacked the other 26 nations that are as decadent and “wealthy”.  Why us that past TWO WHOLE times in 20 years?  Have you ever sat down and wondered why?  Maybe there is a myriad of reasons why they do what they do, and why we do what we do.  Perhaps after the establishment of Israel in 1948, with the forced relocation of palesinians along with the extraction of Arab oil resources for mere pennies, and the construction of multiple military bases on Arab lands upsets them.  Yes they over react and blow things up.  Well America has the ability to over react as well. 

The fact is ROARK, is that the Arabs are primarily located in third world countries and practicing fourth generation warfare (look it up on google).  They have no navy, no air force and their ground troops at their peak could have been wiped off the planet by US forces in seconds.  To say they are a threat is an insult to the 8% of our GNP we pay in supporting the largest, most sophisticated military the world has ever seen.  You mean to tell me that you feel threatened by people on the other side of the planet, armed with rusting left over cold war weapons, sitting amongst camels and date trees?  Oh, now you are yelling about 9/11 and planes and nukes.  Calm down Roark.  We can put some $500 dollar .45s on every plane, with the pilots and or air marshals.  Then we can fire all of the semi-handicapped TSA people at the airport saving us all a bundle of cash.  Airplane vs. building problem solved.  Oh, the nukes in suitcases, CLOSE THE BORDERS AND BEEF UP BORDER SECURITY.  Ok, now whats left.  Oh an armed populace.  How the heck is any one going to threaten our sovereignty when America is as armed as it is.  You think the good ol’ boys of the US and A are going to sit back while muslim hoards gallop through the streets shooting all the white people (As Bush would have us all believe)?  The fact is ROARK, is that you feel and believe they are a threat because you are told to feel that way.  You feel and believe whatever Sean Hannity tells you to feel or believe.  You cannot think on your own.  You read nothing and watch nothing but that which you are instructed to watch and read by the pons of this military industrial complex.  So go ahead, flip on FOX news and get scarred.  Get cozied up with some cocoa and get scarred.  Maybe tomorrow is the end with a threat level of triple red or whatever.  Do yourself a big educational favor and watch the BBC documentary titled “The Power of Nightmares” parts 1, 2 and 3.  Each is about 50 minutes long.  You may need some mountain dew to stay awake through that mind blowing ordeal.  If you can read start going to http://www.lewrockwell.com and http://www.antiwar.com Here is the real news.

By Ron Paul For President! on 11-10-07

“The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.“

By j davis on 11-11-07

Ron Paul’s words on the abortion issue sound just like those coming from the vermin on the ‘religious’ right. I am old enough to remember what it was like pre Roe vs. Wade. I would hate to see women subjected to back alley abortions again. Life begins at conception? That is one of the more ridiculous statements he has made. If he’s such a ‘libertarian’ and supports ‘freedom’ then why doesn’t he just let individuals make their own decisions for themselves. This shoving spurious morality down everyone’s throats has got to stop. I am assuming that his campaign did not do any research before he went on inbred radio. They would have found out that Stokes is an anti Semite, a blatant racist, and an all around right wing lunatic. Even a bimbo like Judy Martz was smart enough to avoid Stokes like the plague he is.

By ATTENTION FELLOW RON PAUL FRIENDS! on 11-13-07

We all did very well contacting the Iowa GOP.  They stated that, “it looks like Ron Paul will be allowed to debate”.  I hope that is true.  Our job is not over.  USA today printed an article stating that all of Ron Paul’s support is “not real” but that it is “spam generated” from computer bots!  That accusation is outlandish and untrue!  They are insulting every one of us that supports and writes on behalf of Ron Paul.  The media is just continuing its attack of a man they feel threatens their power grip.  CONTACT USA TODAY as soon as possible.  Here is the link to this poorly written and unresearched article.  Please if you support Ron Paul email USA today with your absolute disgust. Link: http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/wired-magazine-.html

Another thing.  If Ron Paul is only supported by spamming computer bots, how did he break the all time republican record for taking in those 5 million dollars?  DId computers send him cash?  Please get your facts straight USA today.  This article only discredits you as another Faux news source.

By Gman on 11-15-07

J Davis, it’s perfectly logical for a libertarian to be pro-life. Ls believe that an individual can do whatever they like as long as it does not infringe on the natural rights of another individual. To allow a mother (barring some medical necessity) to terminate the life of an unborn baby is inimical to this position. So, it makes perfect sense for a libertarian to be pro-life. In fact, it’s fundamental to libertarian philosophy. We have laws against murder, do we not? Moreover, that points to the fundamental role of gov’t in a free society—protect the rights of individuals from violence from another individual. That is one thing that certainly comports with the “general welfare.“

By Gman on 11-26-07

Sure, some so-called pro-life advocates have violated their own principles by committing acts of violence. They are a considerable minority relative to the millions of people who are doing what they can to peacefully educate the public as well as influence the democratic policy making process. Ironically, there are 40 million plus pro-choice people who have committed quite obvious acts of violence—the ultimate act of violence (murder) against their own unborn children. To exculpate pro-choice advocates is amazing and laughable.

So, you suggest we allow individuals to define when life begins since nobody can figure it out. Why not watch the famous (or infamous depending on your ends) Miracle of Life DVD and then tell me it takes a scientist to define what is life and when it begins. If you really need empirical evidence of the obvious then this documentary is a decent place to start. Once you’ve watched it, switch for a moment to the logical end conclusion of your relativism—everyone has carte blanche to “define” when life begins. I imagine we’d live in a very different world. Although I’m not Catholic (I’m evangelical), I unequivocally agree with Evangelium Vitae (JPII encyclical) that any threat to the sanctity of life of the innocent (especially the unborn) is a threat to all life. Humans have the propensity to not confine embraced principles situationally. In other words, if it’s permissible to dispense with the unborn why would it not be permissible to do the same with, say, the old. Indeed, it’s the slippery slope argument, but we humans are good at taking a mile when given an inch.

In closing, j davis, you didn’t seem to respond to my argument that maintaining a pro-life comports with libertarian philosophy insofar as it acknowledges that one individual does not have the right to infringe of the rights of another individual. Your implied response (correct me if I’m wrong) was to say that even philosophers, of all people, cannot even agree when life begins, so let’s assume that it doesn’t begin until the child is born or, better yet, able to independently sustain its life. Well, if that’s the case, what will you do when a majority of “philosophers” conclude that life begins at conception, 1st trimester, 2nd trimester, when the baby is capable of living on life support, so on, so forth? Nothing like claiming that we shouldn’t draw conclusions because the specialists (read: those who know better) haven’t gotten around to it.

One more point that seems worth making: Abortion is a calamitous intrusion into the natural course of human life, regardless of whether you consider an unborn child life or not. Sure, pro-choice people will argue that an unborn child isn’t life because it can’t live on its own accord. Is this just obvious or is it some groundbreaking scientific discovery? Moreover, should this great discovery serve as the basis of ethics? A two-year-old cannot live on its own; neither can many senior citizens. Are they just as dispensable as the unborn?

By Gman on 11-27-07

I’ll answer your question more directly, although you can certainly guess where I’m going by my previous comments.

It’s imperative that I start by stating that it’s not me or any person doing the protecting of the unborn or any human life, it is the gov’t. Protecting one individual from the violent actions of another is a fundamentally legitimate role for gov’t. So, basically, I, as an individual, do not have the authority to prevent someone from having an abortion. The gov’t has such authority through the rule of law. On the other hand, I have a very clear right to tell an individual not to get an abortion. I have the power of persuasion (education) but not the power of coercion. It’s better known as the freedom of speech.

The impetus of the gov’t authority is justice. Innocence requires justice. Justice is achieved by outlawing all forms of violence that one person exacts on another (unless it’s clearly for self defense). An unborn child is innocent no matter how you define the meaning of life. The child didn’t choose to be conceived regardless of the circumstances. There are millions of parents that would be more than willing to adopt a baby that resulted from such unfortunate circumstances. I know not allowing an abortion for rape is a hard pill to swallow. Abortion could be construed as justice in such instances. Even so, you cannot get around the fact that it is the taking of innocent life.

I’m not against the death penalty (although it’s something I grapple with) and I’m not against war. Don’t equate the killing of the innocent with the killing of the guilty. If someone is clearly guilty of a capital crime, capital punishment is justified. If a nation is guilty of an agressive act of war, then a reciprocal reaction is justified. In either instance, there is clear guilt on the part of the acting agent, whether an individual or a nation-state. Is this distinction hard to grasp?

Medieval belief system? Can you elaborate a little? Christianity, which I assume you’re referring to, still exists today along with hundreds of other religions. Christ was resurrected and is the only living God. Christianity is a present belief system, not something stuck in the past. Moreover, teh value of life is objective and not subject to the vagueries of human understanding.

The question is, which belief system is more barbaric—one that protects innocent life or one that murders it?

j davis, your defense of your position is anemic at best. You have two areas of retreat: 1) dismiss Christianity as some oldfangled religion; and 2) moral relativism.

Tell me why you believe the world would be a better place if each and every individual had the authority to determine when life begins and, ipso facto, whether it is valuable? Can you imagine the court scene…. The accused’s defense is that he killed his neighbor because he held a belief that, in general, life is meaningless and hence his neighbor’s life was dispensable, not worth living. The accused claimed that he was doing his neighbor a favor by simply ending his delusion that life is worth living.

Can’t you even see the logical conclusion of the last sentence of your last comment?

I’ve answered your question, now you answer mine.

By Gman on 11-29-07

The rape situation is, as I said, a difficult one. I simply wanted to make the point that the unborn child is innocent, regardless of what happened. Isn’t adoption an alternative? I agree with you that’s it’s difficult to force that on a woman who is in such an unfortunate situation. But, don’t you think the victim is “punished twice” if she gets an abortion? We all know the terrible stories about women who have gotten abortions only to be haunted all their life with the decision. I know of such a woman.

As for imposing my beliefs on you, I assume you mean that the imposition comes through law. Correct? If so, am I imposing my beliefs on you if the gov’t says it’s against the law to murder a person? As you contemplate the question, consider that the 6th Commandment states that “thou shall not murder.“ I suppose we can look at this in two ways. First, should current law be based on some oldfangled religion? Second, we should do away with this particular law since it’s clearly a particular belief system being forced on citizens. Do you think through what you’re saying?

My point is that there is objective truth, whether you want to ground it in religion, the cosmos, nature, whatever, is up to you. Ultimately, whether the law of society acknowledges and enforces this truth is irrelevant. That truth exists independent of humanity’s fickleness because it is transcendent. Justice will be served because it has to be on account of the innocent. God is just and the eternal innocence of persons must be protected.

So, whether you embrace my religion doesn’t necessary make you a moral relativist. However, I have grappled with the thought whether a non-believer can embrace objective truth since their worldview is the self. Nonetheless, you cannot have your cake and eat it. If you state that an individual has the authority to determine when, of all things, life begins, then you are a moral relativist whether I state that fact from a religious perspective or not. If you simply stated that “society should not restrict an individual’s decision to have an abortion,“ I might let you off. But that’s not what you said. You made a preposterous claim that each individual defines when life begins. Stop and think about what you’re saying.

It’s interesting, as a Christian I have observed non-believer friends that are more moral than my believer friends. I appreciate that. But, Christianity is not about morality. It’s about faith in Christ. Through him we become like him. From him we become “moral.“ However, the way Christians put it is that we become obedient and holy. Don’t judge Christianity on what you see and hear from humanity; judge it on what you see and hear from Christ in the New Testament. If you find fault with him then you have the freewill to reject him.

By Gman on 11-30-07

j davis, I really appreciate your comments. I’m not surprised at all that you have friends that are pastors. I have friends that are rather liberal/progressive. Maybe we both operate on the same premise: the person comes before the philosophy. We are to love and respect all persons, as challenging as that is at times.

I believe we are both in the libertarian camp, which is not monolithic just like any camp, so we won’t agree on everything. I think one of the things we CAN agree on is that the gov’t should have a very limited role and scope in society. I believe in free people and free institutions and the ability of the private sector to address societal challenges. You may not conclude from my comments that I believe that part of living in a free society is accepting the behavior of free individuals that you don’t necessary agree with. I appreciate what Thomas Jefferson once said, “Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty.“ We have to temper Jefferson’s statement with those of many of our forefathers who understood that the sustainability of a free society depends on the moral fabric of the people. Do I want the government to be the enforcing agent of morality? Only in limited cases in which an individual’s actions would directly harm others. Beyond that, inculcation of morality should come from private institutions like churches, schools, civic groups, etc. We will never agree on which moral standard should be followed, but we have to at least agree on some basics for a free society to survive. There are consequences for an unvirtuous people—in particular, a despotic state. Edmund Burke observed that, “It is written in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate mind can never be free. Their passions forge their fetters.“ He was writing about the French Revolution. Frenchmen thought they were achieving freedom when they were really creating a society in which they could do as they pleased. That’s what we call license, not freedom. Lord Acton said, “Freedom is not the power to do what you want; it is the power to do what you ought.“ The standard for the “ought” in Western Civilization has been the Judeo-Christian ethic—for simplification call it the golden rule. This isn’t to say that we should establish something like a theocracy. You can’t dismiss the influence of the Enlightenment period on the American Founding. The American Founding is quite fascinating when you realize the various influences that brought it about. One of the best articles I’ve ever run across on the influences informing the American founding is right here:

http://www.mmisi.org/ir/30_02/sandoz.pdf

I’ll leave you with that. Thank you for the discussion!