I have heard from people, who are otherwise sensible and rational, that Paul is the only sane choice for Republicans and unhappy Democrats to make in the upcoming Iowa caucases and, ultimately, for America to make for the presidency.
Do people really listen to what Paul's actual words are? Or do they willfully ignore his extremism, unable to face the fact that he is out of the mainstream and dwelling in Crazy Town?
Here's an example of Paul's extremism:
Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy
Huffington Post - "Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it 'undermined the concept of liberty' and 'destroyed the principle of private property and private choices.' "
I've heard many people say they admire Paul for his consistency in his libertarian principles. But where are these people's heads? Do they actually believe this country would have been better served had the individual states allowed businesses to continue to discriminate against people with different skin color, religious preferences, or sexual orientation? Do these libertarians truly believe that racial descrimination, or any descrimination, would have ended voluntarily? That people would willingly give up their anti-American biases given enough time? And how long would this country have been willing to endure the shame of illegal racial descrimination that was practiced in many regions of this country? Should American citizens have looked to "the free market" to deliver justice and equality under the law that is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution?
Do libertarians really believe that the free market place should be the ultimate arbitrator of all illegal actions that are contra the Constitution? Ron Paul's belief that ending illegal racial descrimination intruded on people's privacy and concept of liberty is outrageous and worthy of ridicule.
Rep. Ron Paul is fiercely against anything that intrudes on a citizen's privacy, but he is against a woman's right to an abortion--one of the most private decisions a woman makes. He's inconsistent here, IMO, and an extremist in his position, since he stated that abortion is "the most important issue of our age."
Rep. Ron Paul is fiercely against anything that intrudes on a citizen's privacy, but he is against a woman's right to an abortion--one of the most private decisions a woman makes. He's inconsistent here, IMO, and an extremist in his position, since he stated that abortion is "the most important issue of our age."
His anti-science view on Evolution gives us a great insight into Paul's intellect. He values a religious belief, based on no evidence, over a scientific fact, based on mountains of evidence. This is something people should think about when chosing a president. Will a person who choses dogma over facts make rational decisions in other areas that affect citizens' lives? My opinion is that he or she should not be trusted to see issues clearly when a dogmatic religion informs his or her thinking. A president's decisions must be based on facts, not faith.
More on Rep. Ron Paul's extremism here.
From Politicususa:
"I have praised Ron Paul in the Republican debates for his consistency, but we should not mistake consistency for a rigid ideological inflexibility that promotes a decision making process where details and circumstances don’t matter. In the mind of Ron Paul, the ideology must be adhered to at all times."
To the winner of the Iowa caucases:
