I usually abstain from participating in online controversy but once and for all I want to put these allegations against Ron Paul to rest, which is why post #51 addressed it. The digg entry for that has created some controversy and some people from the Digg based Anti-Paul group have been posting this 10 reasons to not vote Ron Paul, which is filled with horrid misrepresentations of Ron Pauls views. Someone in the comments posted a great response to the 10 reasons and I though I'd copy and paste it. Although if your a fan or Ron Paul and your Civil Liberties...
PLEASE JOIN THE LIBERTY INDEPENDENCE ALLIANCE
comment from inspekt0rgadget
"Well well, what a great piece of obfuscation you've got there... now! Allow me to point out how you're being disingenuous throughout the entirety of your post.
1) Ron Paul does not believe in "Equal "Rights." This is partly true... but you're missing the important "crux" of the argument here. He believes in INDIVIDUAL liberty. This doesn't mean there are "equal" rights among "groups" of people.
(clarification: instead of group rights, Ron Paul believes in individual rights, that we all have the SAME rights despite group affiliation. Refer to my post on Isaiah Berlins concept of Negative/Positive Liberty to understand this.)
So, of course, you completely ignore that Ron Paul has been openly opposed to Don't Ask Don't Tell policies in our military. He is against Government licensing marriages AT ALL, because he see's it as a religious matter. And it is. He's not saying that churches can't marry Gays either... specific religions can do as they please. He also doesn't deny that he is of the personal opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he doesn't want the state to bother with "defining" it. That is why he was AGAINST THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT OF 2004, NOT FOR IT! The co-sponsor you're talking about? That was when the act merely stated that you couldn't force other states to accept a gay marriage licensed in one state, because he believes in states rights... the states can make these decisions, there should be no federal laws either way.
2) Yes, Ron Paul is indeed opposed to Abortion. He is against Roe Vs. Wade because he, consistently here, is of the opinion that the Federal Government cannot make these decisions for the entire nation. It's not what the federal government should be about. He thinks individual states can make this decision. Also, for you to pretend that doctors across the country "understand" where life begins, you're being completely disingenuous here. It is absolutely arbitrary, and if someone DOES believe that life 'begins' at conception, then I don't see why they should be compromising about the issue ... murder IS indeed wrong, isn't it? Me, though, sure, I feel like a woman should have the right to choose.
3) You explain to me how the Government has a right to take money from me and give it to someone else in the first place, and I’ll accept that all of this is wrong for him to vote against. By the way, I should point out that you're still obfuscating here... He's for a transition period. He doesn't just want to turn people out on the streets. I suspect you know this to be true, but since you're merely trying to manipulate your readers here I don't know why I'd expect anything less. The transition period would be apart of a long term goal of cutting the size and scope of government to its constitutionally allowed level. This includes drastically cutting the influence of the Military Industrial Complex and saving hundreds of billions of dollars that we could use to take care of our people at home who are dependent on government programs (letting young people opt out altogether), protect the borders from illegal immigration, and also strengthen our militaries ability to PROTECT us. You can speak of the constitution as being "alive" all you want... I don't know what that means, really. I suppose it's that you're of the opinion that we can interpret however we want to... which, to me, is ridiculous. It's not the fucking Bible, it's not poetry. It's written law.
4) Sounds good to me. (<---- referring to cutting taxes)
5) *sigh* at ALL of this. Pure obfuscation. You didn't even give his position on the matter at all. While he is against all this federal regulation, he's also against subsidizing the corporations who are polluting in the first place. Only large multibillion dollar corporations are able to "pay" to be able to pollute. You can't do that if you're enforcing property rights, can't do that at all. People could take the bastards to court every time they polluted our AIR or WATER. Government regulation is bad because it gets in the way of the free market solving the issue on its own. Why do you think we have Ethanol? Because corn is subsidized, if we stop subsidizing corn we could move onto something else that actually makes more sense. Right now, buying green is considered "in vogue" or whatever. Sure, it looks real "bad" when you bring up all this legislation that he voted against... he voted against giving a medal to Rosa Parks too. This all has to do with his general philosophy of government. A philosophy you fail both to mention and likely even GRASP.
6) Paul doesn't believe we need to be apart of the UN at all and that the ICC is a waste. It's really just a way for the victors to take all the spoils. No country with Veto power would ever be subject to international court law, either. It's completely worthless. And anyway, why would a candidate who is against Big Government in our country be for WORLD government? You're an idiot.
7) See point one regarding Paul's stance on gays and lesbians.
8) You obviously don't care what the original intent of the constitution was anyway. You want to treat it as a "living document." You think it can be "interpreted" to fit whatever you want to promote. Second Amendment allows me to have a gun, end of story. I should be able to have anything that doesn't, by its existence alone, threaten the liberty of people around me... like a nuclear weapon in my back yard for instance :). AK47 though? Sure, why not. And if everyone on my block had one, someone would be hard pressed to screw around with us now wouldn't they? We have aright to protect our property, by force if necessary. And if College Students were allowed to carry hand guns on campuses ... well, that asshole at Virginia Tech wouldn't have gotten very far. And pilots could have pwned the 9/11 hijackers, because the Air Lines wouldn't have had regulations, LEVIED BY GOVERNMENT, disallowing them to carry guns on an airplane.
9) Our current health care crisis as well as our awful educational system is a direct result of government interference. There wasn't even a health care crisis in this country until the government came in and MANDATED HMO's. They CREATED the HMO's. This means that everyone has an incentive to charge as much as they possibly can, because "someone else" is always paying for it. This is INEFFICIENT. Also, in our schools, we don't promote liberty - the government dictates everything, and we end up with Zero Tolerance policies and other complete nonsense that hurts children and leaves parents frustrated because they aren't allowed more say in their child’s education. Schools should be accountable to the parents, NOT to the government. As far as all of the government certifications and what not... man, get a grip. That's all I can say. You're way to dependant on this kind of nonsense. There's no need for the government to certify anyone of anything. People can learn and be certified in other ways ... like ... I dunno, college degrees?
"Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don't you think?"
No, he's not starting to look like anything more than the greatest voice for freedom I’ve seen since I started following politics. Your obfuscating has reached the point of hateful idiocy at this point. This all goes back to his PHILOSOPHY of government, in that the government doesn't ever make any distinctions between "groups" of people. Sure, we have De Factor Segregation going on in this country. This isn't changing no matter what the federal government does. Look at the inner cities like Baltimore, what do you see? And what causes all of these problems? Look into a little thing called The War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.
10) Yes, he has seen from certain special interest what he does personally view as Government getting involved in family life... and he RAILS against that. Again, you completely ignore the fact that he's against government having ANYTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE AT ALL! You are a lying obfuscating bag of -----, sir."