Skeptic Project

Personally speaking, I find the worst part about Ron Paul is actually his fans. I'm not sure if he believes in a lot of the same conspiracy theories that his fans do... but at the very least he's trying to gain support of the fringe that hold these beliefs. I've seen videos of him (one posted on this site in another thread) where he tries "grilling" Ben Bernanke on some things... and just ends up sounding like a total fool. He seems to be ideologically blinded by his "love of the Constitution". I've heard that he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he believes it's unconstitutional. I believe there's always reasons to be concerned with monetary policy (and that means the Fed in the USA) and government involvement in our lives... but are they the same concerns raised by Ron Paul? Meh, I don't really think so.

My primarily problem with Ron Paul is that he is a conspiracy theorist, and when on Alex Jones show, basically agrees with everything he says; not to mention his little rants in congress and on committees. He's also written for white supremacist magazines/newsletters in the past as well.

I used to like Ron Paul.

My opinion first went down when I saw that he was a Creationist.

Another reason to question Ron Paul's judgment:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/12/ron_paul_quackery_enabler.php</p>

Plus the fact that Paul, like other Austrian economists, promotes a bunch of urban legends about how the economy works.

I disagree with Ron Paul politically, but I also dislike him because (as Edward pointed out) he is a conspiracy theorist, a white supremacist, and seems to hate anyone who's not white, straight and carrying a gun. I also find the way he conducts himself extremely disingenuous. I doubt that 10% of people who say they support him really know a lot about what he stands for. He's kind of a Rorschach test: he says one thing you like and then you start thinking he must agree with you on a whole lot of other things, when he probably doesn't. I also don't like that he pretends to be a Republican but is actually a Libertarian.

I recently wrote a blog about the shameless way Ron Paul pushes fraud and lies about global warming, especially that ridiculous "Oregon Petition" that global warming deniers seem to love so much.
http://muertos.blog.com/2010/03/17/ron-paul-promotes-fraudulent-petition-on-climate-change/

>> Need sources for these outrages claims, please and thank you.

Seriously? Are you a follower of Ron Paul and don't even know these basic things about him?

#1 fundamentalist stance on Christianity

Not sure where to look on this one.

#2 marijuana legalization

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3970423&page=1

#3 Paul and austrian economics

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-05-16/ron-paul-on-austrian-economics-vs-keynesian-economics/</p>

#4 War stance

Got nothing on this one.

#5 anti-abortion:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ijvdVPLMTXkJ:www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/+ron+paul+on+abortion&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

#6 gun control

http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=17

#7 voting no on pretty much anything ever, except guns, FRB, and related conspiracy stuff

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?_r=1&ex=1186459200&en=bf8dec405a435ea7&ei=5070

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul (all sourced in there)

Because of this, in congress, he's called Dr. No -- many times he'll be the only person voting no, such as when there's a vote to recognize a birthday or something.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7</p>

#8 mexicans, blacks, gays

I don't have anything on Mexicans, but blacks and gays:

http://www.bluehampshire.com/diary/2595/</p>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/4/151735/850/188/417817</p>

http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=898&PHPSESSID=5fcc4750ffc284dbf49756d2142c7cf6

http://www.decimation.com/markw/2007/09/05/ron-paul-on-his-religion-and-homosexuality/</p>

#9 NWO

Any episode of the Alex Jones show featuring Ron Paul

#10 GOLD!

http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-16/ron-paul-on-gold-and-sound-money/</p>

#11 Evolution is BULLSHIT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g

#12 climate change

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/</p>

#13 cripple goverment

I think Matt is referring to Paul's beliefs and voting record, rather than an actual stance, but I could be wrong.

--

So out of 13 things Matt said, I proved 10.7 or 11.7 depending how you count #13 -- and that was about 10 seconds of googling per item, given time you can find much worse.

By the way, I don't understand how "all politicians are in on it" oh except Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, Darrell Issa, and Denis Kucinich. Just because a politician agrees with auditing the federal reserve bank or something doesn't automatically mean they agree with fantasies (except Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul admit they believe this shit).

I just don't understand how people like Alex Jones and his followers can so easily say other people are disinfo, but blindly love people like Ron Paul who are a part of an establishment which they believe will do anything to kill 80-95% of the world's population. Apparently, they're just not strong enough to stop Alex Jones, Ron Paul, and others, but they're powerful enough to control all media and fake telephone calls from planes.

Thank you for the answers.

Evolution

The youtube link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g) could be a lot worse. It sounded to me like he was willing to keep an open mind to both sides. Regardless, I wonder if his stance on this has much of an impact on his current decision making. I could see how it would impact legislation involving teaching evolution in schools, but this seems to be more of a personal critique rather than a professional concern.

Blacks

Blacks in America have made up more of the lower class than the upper class. I think it can be statistically shown that they are more likely to commit crimes. This, however, is purely socio-economic and not inherent in dark-skinned people. If Paul was discussing the socio-economic issue, I could understand. It does seem, however, that he was stepping across the racial line with his comments in that 1992 newsletter.

Abortion

He considers it to be murder, but the interview Edward posted suggested that he isn't so hard-nosed about it. He questions Roe vs Wade and wonders why all states immediately accepted a court ruling as law. Is that not a worthwhile question?

Homosexuality

He doesn't seem so hard-nosed on this one, either. He doesn't seem to fully support it, but it also doesn't sound like he's out to call all homosexuals sinners and evil. During the interview, he did not include homosexuality in his list of poor moral character.

Also, how can you blame him for staying on the Republican ticket? His attempt in 1988 as a Libertarian failed, so why would he stay on the independent ticket? He would also have no chance of keeping his house seat unless he went with D or R. I can't blame him for this one.

"He questions Roe vs Wade and wonders why all states immediately accepted a court ruling as law. Is that not a worthwhile question?"

And no. It is not a worthwhile question.

The only decision Roe vs Wade made was that medical professionals should be able to provide the best care they see fit. It was not a moral decision whatsoever. It had nothing to do with a woman's right to choose, when life begins, or anything along those lines. It was to protect a professionals right to provide the best possible care for their patients.

So no. It is not a worthwhile question at all unless you are ignorant as to what Roe vs Wade was really about.

I'm some nerd online and I know that, but Ron Paul doesn't? Fuck Ron Paul.

@ Matt

Doesn't Roe vs Wade decide during which trimesters a woman may have an abortion?

Matt, I just read Roe vs Wade. It seems to give physicians the ability to perform abortions within the first trimester. Prior to the ruling, abortions were allowed in situations where the mother's life was at risk.

In totality, the ruling seems to have given physicians more lee-way, while maintaining the state's pre-ruling control during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters.

I just now noticed your question of how badly I want to like Ron Paul. I have been supporting him over the last year, and seeing some critical thinkers bash him has taken me aback. More or less, this is about figuring out why people disagree with him. The issue regarding Blacks is concerning. Other than that, he still comes off as a genuine, direct person. He also comes off as someone who supports liberty and personal choice.

I voted for Obama because I didn't want Palin running the show. My political philosophy has greatly changed since then, however. As someone who favors anarchy, perhaps you can see why I would be more inclined to support Ron Paul than Obama.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/

@aaronmhatch:

My problem with Rand Paul is that he subscribes to Austrian economics. Austrian economists oppose central banking and want a commodity backed currency (usually gold). Let me be frank, the United States had that from the period from the Jackson Administration to the creation of the Federal Reserve. During this time we had six major panics. The reason for this is because a growing economy needs a growing money supply. During the Great Depression the Federal Reserve allowed the money supply to shrink. This is isn't some guy who works in insurance claims telling you this, my research is based on Milton Friedman.

You can also see whom Ron Paul considers friends, check out his former staffer Gary North, http://people.smu.edu/acambre/garynorth/.</p>

Check out his friend Doug Casey and what he said in 1981: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949094,00.html.

In my own home state, his son Rand is running for senate. He is recruiting milita's some of whom are actively defending Hutaree, to support his efforts.

Here are Paul's own words regarding the newsletters:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

I posted an article against Ron Paul and then his personal response. How does that show that I'm willing to destroy my credibility?