Did you know that Ron Paul has been married for fifty years?
He is also a medical doctor. Intelligent and probably compassionate-(most people become physicians because of desire to care for others)-He seems to have some real morals. Which is a rare thing these days.
I do not know much about Ron Paul, but after reading a bit about him I feel a bit better about the night mare election a head of us.
Answers:
Well please don't interpret this as mean and nasty as these other posts have been. It may be true that he isn't going to win, however, that doesn't matter to an idealist (which is what you want to be during a primary) and I sense that you are an idealist because morals matter to you. I'm an idealist too, so I agree with your synopsis of Paul, however, there are important negative things you should know too. For instance, did you know that Paul strongly believes that 9/11 is America's fault? He believes that we deserved what happened because of our previous actions in the middle-east. I don't know how he can think that since it has always been the declaration of the extremist muslims to irradicate Israel and the west and anyone who does not adopt their way of life. And they have been doing that for centuries to anyone who gets in their way, so I don't buy the idea that when terrorists strike *innocents* in America and all over Europe that it's just because they're mad about us being over there. But he doesn't seem to have a good answer for that, because he has not accepted the very statements from these terrorists that we here over and over that this is a religious war..it is a *jihad* not a matter of national policy. For these extremists, borders are not physical, they are spiritual, and they are on a crusade to conquer you and I. Anyone in power who denies that is a dangerous, dangerous person in my opinion. It's a great thing that Paul is moral and has been married for so long, but if you look there are other candidates that are just as moral if not moreso than Paul. For instance Duncan Hunter is another 2nd-tier candidate with Paul's morals, as well as Mike Huckabee and others. I think Paul is great on just about every level. My problem with him is that he seems to very much have his head in the sand when it comes to the war.
Here's a video of Paul's controversial explanation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad7dnfddw...
Why would that make you feel better? Ron Paul is not going to win the election. What he is going to do is take away votes from other candidates. So the person who wins may not have won if Ron Paul hadn't run.
What a moron.
Why would you support an unqualified idiot just because he's been married a long time and he's a doctor??
It tells me that only a dumba$$ would quit medical practice to run for a job that he has no capability of winning, period.
Bill Clinton and Hillary have been married over 30 years ... BFD.
who cares?
I'm sorry who? I never heard of him. A doctor you say. where does he have his practice? His he accepting new patients?
I tried to narrow this list down but, I checked his voting records…
• Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
• Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
• Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
• Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
• Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
• Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
• Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
• Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
• Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
• Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
• Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
• Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
• No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
• Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Government out of regulating economy & out of our bedrooms. (Jan 2007)
• Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000)
• Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
• Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
• Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
• Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
• Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
• Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
• Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
• Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
• Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
• Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
I see some strong positives in his voting record but, he is lenient on punishment of crime but, very positive in the abortion and morals arena.
Then as Male-man pointed out there is the 9/11 thing. Very ugly in my book… If he could get away from the blame America crowd and do some research and reality check into Islam and its history of violence since its inception I would vote for him.
I didn't know how long he was married, but I knew he only had one wife (who actually got a pacemaker installed this weekend around the time he had to speak in Iowa, which he came late to).
In general, I agree with almost everything that Paul speaks about. To the posters worried about Paul blaming ourselves for 9/11, that has been debunked 100 times over. In fact, he gave Rudy a reading assignment, which stated from many reliable sources, that he was correct, and that your statement is actually twisting what he meant. It's our foreign policy, not "us".
If Ron blames "America", then so does the NIE, the CIA, and anyone with the ability to look at the situation even a little objectively. It does make a good sound bite for the disinformationalists out there however.
It would do the nation good, to get an ex-military, doctor, and well experienced statesman into office, but even if he does not, at the very least, it will force some of the career politicians to look at the issues he brings up.
Why does Paul get all the tough questions? Because he can answer them intelligently. He does not need to weigh his words in case he might piss someone off - that's the beauty of an educated and not calculated response. I've never seen him pander, flipflop or falter in answering something. That's a lot more than I can say for most of the rest of the field.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: