Election 2012: Barack Obama 42%, Ron Paul 41%

[uscitizen]

You know, I know this may sound very odd, but I have never really minded Ron Paul all that much, as righties go.

At least he consistently sticks to his principles, and rarely is caught in hypocrisy.

True on that he has his principles wacky though they may be.
We probably need about 9 more like him in the right side of congress to help balance things a bit though.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I am shocked that 41% of Americans even know who Ron Paul is.....

Why doesn't Rassmussen poll that?

Ron Paul is one of the most well known politicians out there today. He's constantly doing interviews on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN not to mention his massive online presence. If you follow politics even a little bit you probably know who Ron Paul is.

Heck yeah he had a blimp!


About all he had going for him though.

Yeah those two record setting one day online fundraisers certainly weren't "going" for him.

 

[Modbert]

http://www.unscrewingtheinscrutable.com//node/1448?q=log/node/1448&q=node/1448

Ron Paul looks like a grandfatherly figure who wants less government, however there is good reason for it.

By Brent Rasmussen himself:

But does St. Paul really stand up for our civil rights? What about the first one? What exactly is his position on the First Amendment, for example? Separation of church and state and all that stuff?

[Ron Paul] The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.

One of the biggest pieces of evidence that Ron Paul is all about the Constitution, except when it suits him.

[link] But how well does he know the Constitution? He wrote:

[Ron Paul] The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.

Let us put aside for a second his opposition to "rigid separation between church and state" and concentrate, not on Constitutional theory, but on Constitutional facts. Mr. Paul claims that the Constitution is "replete with references to God". Now replete means abundantly supplied or filled. So if the Constitution is abundantly filled with references to God how many are there? Let's get precise. How many times is God mentioned in the Constitution?

Zero! And if you don't believe me you can go check Ron Paul's own congressional website where he has a copy of the text. Go to the page and read it yourself. It is worth reading now and then. But if you don't have time do a page search for "God" and see all the abundant references on your own. All zero of them.

War on Christmas believer: Christmas in Secular America

Authoritarian or Libertarian? Ron Paul on Church/State Separation, Secularism

Here's something else he's said:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage.

Here Ron Paul's hostility to secular liberty is made unambiguous: he envisages and prefers a society where the government is weak but churches are strong. Has there ever been such a society that wasn't filled with intolerance, repression, and violence? If churches had more authority over the lives of citizens, there would be less liberty for women, less liberty for racial minorities, less liberty for gays, and of course less liberty for atheists.

Let's look at how various conservative and Christian Right groups have rated Ron Paul:

Family Research Council, 2005: 75%
John Birch Society, Summer '06, Spring '05, Fall '04, Summer '03: 100%
John Birch Society, Spring 2004: 88%
Concerned Women for America, 2005-2006: 62%
Eagle Forum, 2005: 71%
American Conservative Union, 2005: 76%
Christian Coalition, 2004: 76%
National Right to Life Committee, 2005-2006: 56%
Then there are these ratings:

Secular Coalition for America, 2006: 20%
Planned Parenthood, 2006: 20%
American Civil Liberties Union, 2005-2006: 55%
NAACP, 2005: 52%
Human Rights Campaign, 2003-2004: 25%

Ron Paul has consistently opposed separating church & state and supported government actions in defense of Christian privilege. For example, he condemned the 9th Circuit Court ruling that the addition of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional:

On June 12, 2002, Ron Paul promised to introduce legislation forbidding federal courts from taking cases where people allege their religious freedom was violated by government agencies. Why would a "libertarian" object to people suing the government for infringing on their rights? This became the First Amendment Restoration Act and Ron Paul insisted that federal courts should have no jurisdiction over protecting Americans' religious liberties.

Ron Paul also unsurprisingly is against Roe V Wade and Gay Marriage, but also Civil Unions.

Let's face it folks, and I know Kevin will not agree with this conclusion, Ron Paul is much like his Republican counterparts. On the issue of religion, he is no better than most of them.

Be careful what you wish for, because you may not like it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except the separation of church and state doctrine isn't found in the first amendment, just as Dr. Paul says. The first amendment states, in regards to religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Meaning that they may not establish a national religion, may not give preferential treatment to any religion, and may not ban the practice of any religion. If the doctrine of separation of church and state were true we wouldn't have people sworn in on bibles, like say every President in the history of this nation.

His quotes about churches being more influential than the state are clearly taken out of context, as he's not saying churches should have more power than the government. He's saying that the government should not legislate morality, as it is the job of the individuals and their preferred religions to decide morality. He's also saying that private charitable institutions, such as churches, are a better way of giving than having the government force us to be charitable.

As for Ron Paul being "much like his Republican counterparts," let's get serious. Capitalism over corporatism, peace over militarism, and individual liberty over big brother are not hallmarks of the Republican Party.

 

[Modbert]

Except the separation of church and state doctrine isn't found in the first amendment, just as Dr. Paul says. The first amendment states, in regards to religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Meaning that they may not establish a national religion, may not give preferential treatment to any religion, and may not ban the practice of any religion. If the doctrine of separation of church and state were true we wouldn't have people sworn in on bibles, like say every President in the history of this nation.

His quotes about churches being more influential than the state are clearly taken out of context, as he's not saying churches should have more power than the government. He's saying that the government should not legislate morality, as it is the job of the individuals and their preferred religions to decide morality. He's also saying that private charitable institutions, such as churches, are a better way of giving than having the government force us to be charitable.

As for Ron Paul being "much like his Republican counterparts," let's get serious. Capitalism over corporatism, peace over militarism, and individual liberty over big brother are not hallmarks of the Republican Party.

For **** sake's Kevin, the guy wants a theology and you're more than willing to go along with him.

You say it's clearly out of context, prove it. And it isn't the job of religions to decide morality, are you whacked in the head?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Except the separation of church and state doctrine isn't found in the first amendment, just as Dr. Paul says. The first amendment states, in regards to religion:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Meaning that they may not establish a national religion, may not give preferential treatment to any religion, and may not ban the practice of any religion. If the doctrine of separation of church and state were true we wouldn't have people sworn in on bibles, like say every President in the history of this nation.

His quotes about churches being more influential than the state are clearly taken out of context, as he's not saying churches should have more power than the government. He's saying that the government should not legislate morality, as it is the job of the individuals and their preferred religions to decide morality. He's also saying that private charitable institutions, such as churches, are a better way of giving than having the government force us to be charitable.

As for Ron Paul being "much like his Republican counterparts," let's get serious. Capitalism over corporatism, peace over militarism, and individual liberty over big brother are not hallmarks of the Republican Party.

For **** sake's Kevin, the guy wants a theology and you're more than willing to go along with him.

You say it's clearly out of context, prove it. And it isn't the job of religions to decide morality, are you whacked in the head?

I assume you meant theocracy, and no I wouldn't be willing to go along with that. However, that's not what he said. He simply doesn't believe that the government has the authority to wipe out religion from public life.

Religions preach morality, and if you willingly choose to accept a religion into your life you're more than likely accepting their ideas morality as well. Private individuals make their own decisions over morality in their life, some have religion for guidance in that area. What Ron Paul is saying is that it isn't the job of the state to make those decisions for us against our will.

 

[skookerasbil]

I am shocked that 41% of Americans even know who Ron Paul is.....

Why doesn't Rassmussen poll that?

For the thousanth time......Rightwinger displays that he has the political IQ of a handball. Voters know that Ron Paul stands for lower taxes and smaller government = what the majority wants. This poll is as much about voter disdain for government control than anything else. The non-k00ks and the non-hopelessly duped know that this fraud of a president has broken dozens of campaign pledges and they dont like having been bamboozled.

 

[uscitizen]

Ron Paul is one of the most well known politicians out there today. He's constantly doing interviews on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN not to mention his massive online presence. If you follow politics even a little bit you probably know who Ron Paul is.

Heck yeah he had a blimp!


About all he had going for him though.

Yeah those two record setting one day online fundraisers certainly weren't "going" for him.

Yeah and he got how much of the vote?

 

[Modbert]

I assume you meant theocracy, and no I wouldn't be willing to go along with that. However, that's not what he said. He simply doesn't believe that the government has the authority to wipe out religion from public life.

Religions preach morality, and if you willingly choose to accept a religion into your life you're more than likely accepting their ideas morality as well. Private individuals make their own decisions over morality in their life, some have religion for guidance in that area. What Ron Paul is saying is that it isn't the job of the state to make those decisions for us against our will.

Yes, I meant theocracy. He wants a strong Church more than anything.

Also, religions preach what their idea of morality is. This coming from a Christian. However, I do not want this country to be ruled by religion, unlike Dr. Paul.

 

[rightwinger]

I am shocked that 41% of Americans even know who Ron Paul is.....

Why doesn't Rassmussen poll that?

Ron Paul is one of the most well known politicians out there today. He's constantly doing interviews on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN not to mention his massive online presence. If you follow politics even a little bit you probably know who Ron Paul is.

I'm surprised.

Ron Paul drew 9% of the vote in the 2008 primaries. He has a strong internet following but has not become mainstream. Relatively few Americans watch cable news and I still doubt if 41% of Americans could tell you who he is, let alone what his positions are.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Heck yeah he had a blimp!


About all he had going for him though.

Yeah those two record setting one day online fundraisers certainly weren't "going" for him.

Yeah and he got how much of the vote?

Not much. Regardless you can't say the blimp was the only thing he had going for him with a straight face. Any of the other candidates would have killed to have had the real grassroots support Dr. Paul had.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I assume you meant theocracy, and no I wouldn't be willing to go along with that. However, that's not what he said. He simply doesn't believe that the government has the authority to wipe out religion from public life.

Religions preach morality, and if you willingly choose to accept a religion into your life you're more than likely accepting their ideas morality as well. Private individuals make their own decisions over morality in their life, some have religion for guidance in that area. What Ron Paul is saying is that it isn't the job of the state to make those decisions for us against our will.

Yes, I meant theocracy. He wants a strong Church more than anything.

Also, religions preach what their idea of morality is. This coming from a Christian. However, I do not want this country to be ruled by religion, unlike Dr. Paul.

Again, you're simply twisting what he said.

 

[Modbert]

Again, you're simply twisting what he said.

Actually, I'm not. It's also become quite clear that he may be a Libertarian on many issues, but when it comes to do with anything related to religion, his belief in Christianity prevails.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again, you're simply twisting what he said.

Actually, I'm not. It's also become quite clear that he may be a Libertarian on many issues, but when it comes to do with anything related to religion, his belief in Christianity prevails.

Actually it's pretty clear that his libertarian beliefs fall perfectly in line with his religious beliefs. You twist what he says to mean that he wants the church to run America, which is obviously ridiculous.

 

[Modbert]

Actually it's pretty clear that his libertarian beliefs fall perfectly in line with his religious beliefs. You twist what he says to mean that he wants the church to run America, which is obviously ridiculous.

No, he twists the ideas of libertarianism in order to fall perfectly in line with his religious beliefs.

Or maybe you can explain to me how Ron "I'm for states right" Paul could vote for DOMA? And then co-sponsored a bill to ban any federal judges from hearing cases to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

And that's just for starters, but let's see you excuse this one away first.

 

[uscitizen]

I am shocked that 41% of Americans even know who Ron Paul is.....

Why doesn't Rassmussen poll that?

Ron Paul is one of the most well known politicians out there today. He's constantly doing interviews on Fox, MSNBC, and CNN not to mention his massive online presence. If you follow politics even a little bit you probably know who Ron Paul is.

I'm surprised.

Ron Paul drew 9% of the vote in the 2008 primaries. He has a strong internet following but has not become mainstream. Relatively few Americans watch cable news and I still doubt if 41% of Americans could tell you who he is, let alone what his positions are.

9% of the Republican vote then?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually it's pretty clear that his libertarian beliefs fall perfectly in line with his religious beliefs. You twist what he says to mean that he wants the church to run America, which is obviously ridiculous.

No, he twists the ideas of libertarianism in order to fall perfectly in line with his religious beliefs.

Or maybe you can explain to me how Ron "I'm for states right" Paul could vote for DOMA? And then co-sponsored a bill to ban any federal judges from hearing cases to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.

And that's just for starters, but let's see you excuse this one away first.

Well I don't agree with DOMA as the federal government shouldn't be defining marriage at all, it should be left to the private religions to define marriage as they see fit. But I support states' rights as well, and I don't think the state governments should be defining marriage either.

 

[uscitizen]

Nor should any taxes be based on marital status.

 

[Modbert]

Well I don't agree with DOMA as the federal government shouldn't be defining marriage at all, it should be left to the private religions to define marriage as they see fit. But I support states' rights as well, and I don't think the state governments should be defining marriage either.

You're deflecting a bit there Kevin.

How can Ron "I'm for states rights" Paul have not only voted for DOMA, which is a intrusion against states rights but then prevented a federal judge from judging on the constitutionality of a federal law?

Because his beliefs in Christianity override any real belief of states rights.

Ron Paul does not even support civil unions, why is that? Aren't all citizens suppose to have equal rights under the Constitution? Why is it a certain amount of citizens are not given the same rights as others? Over 1,100 rights and privileges in fact.

Or about the We the People Act of 2005 which he introduced, which would of removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.

This means that atheists can be banned from running for public office.

How do you justify such actions?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I don't agree with DOMA as the federal government shouldn't be defining marriage at all, it should be left to the private religions to define marriage as they see fit. But I support states' rights as well, and I don't think the state governments should be defining marriage either.

You're deflecting a bit there Kevin.

How can Ron "I'm for states rights" Paul have not only voted for DOMA, which is a intrusion against states rights but then prevented a federal judge from judging on the constitutionality of a federal law?

Because his beliefs in Christianity override any real belief of states rights.

Ron Paul does not even support civil unions, why is that? Aren't all citizens suppose to have equal rights under the Constitution? Why is it a certain amount of citizens are not given the same rights as others? Over 1,100 rights and privileges in fact.

Or about the We the People Act of 2005 which he introduced, which would of removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.

This means that atheists can be banned from running for public office.

How do you justify such actions?

I don't have to justify any such actions. I'd be interested to find out what he has to say on those subjects himself, however. Not your source which is obviously a hit-piece designed to twist the things he says.