Iowa: Paul closes in on Gingrich

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Rock said:
OK, I am willing for the sake of argument to find out why:
1 Ron Paul Supports the “right” of gay couples to marry.
2 Ron Paul supports the legalization of prostitution.
3 Ron Paul supports the legalization of drugs.
Click to expand...
Just because something is not illegal does not mean that you endorse it. For instance, making prostitution illegal encourages that industry to go underground where now the women have to use pimps for protection and have the danger of STD’s. It is a similar story with drugs. Making it illegal makes the industry go underground which encourages turf wars and violence. It’s fine to be against these things, as a Catholic I am morally against them, but we can’t deny the problems that legislating morality on these issues has caused.
 
To the Paul apologists here I would like to draw your attention to the following article:

foxnews.com/us/2011/12/06/republican-presidential-candidates-on-issues/
Paul: Says federal government should have no authority either to legalize or ban abortion. Yet signed pledge to advance only anti-abortion appointees for relevant administration jobs, cut off federal dollars for clinics that perform or finance abortions, and support a ban on abortions after the fetus reaches a certain stage in development.
Click to expand...
Is this an accurate description of his pro-life views and if so how can any sincere Catholic support it so vocerifously?
 
He’s being practical. He is personally against abortions, but realizes that change cannot happen in one fell swoop.
 
JMJSHJ said:
To the Paul apologists here I would like to draw your attention to the following article:

foxnews.com/us/2011/12/06/republican-presidential-candidates-on-issues/

Is this an accurate description of his pro-life views and if so how can any sincere Catholic support it so vocerifously?
Click to expand...
He is for overturning Roe V. Wade.

Return abortion to the states, let the states ban abortion. Most of them would right off the bat. The people in the states where abortion would remain legal have a much better chance of fighting it on their state level than they would the federal level.

Until then any ban/restriction on abortion we can get should be supported by anyone who is sincerely pro-life, regardless of their religion.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
I agree.

What I did interesting is that Ronald Reagan loved Dr. Paul’s ideas in foreign policy, yet nobody else does.
Click to expand...
But Reagan’s policy of “Rollback” (confronting and rolling back communism influence) is 180 degrees away from Paul’s.

As I’ve pointed out before, Paul’s foreign policy would lost the Cold War.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Just because something is not illegal does not mean that you endorse it. For instance, making prostitution illegal encourages that industry to go underground where now the women have to use pimps for protection and have the danger of STD’s. It is a similar story with drugs. Making it illegal makes the industry go underground which encourages turf wars and violence. It’s fine to be against these things, as a Catholic I am morally against them, but we can’t deny the problems that legislating morality on these issues has caused.
Click to expand...
And since when is “legalize (drugs, prostitution, etc) it, tax and regulate it” part of a “small government” platform?

The Paul libertarian paradox.
 
scipio337 said:
But Reagan’s policy of “Rollback” (confronting and rolling back communism influence) is 180 degrees away from Paul’s.

As I’ve pointed out before, Paul’s foreign policy would lost the Cold War.
Click to expand...
How? Reagan did nothing but speed up an inevitable process that at the same time lead to an economic crash at home. Communism was doomed from the start because it did not take into account the Economic Calculation Problem. At least if we had Paul as president we wouldn’t have the massive military budget that we have now.
 
scipio337 said:
And since when is “legalize (drugs, prostitution, etc) it, tax and regulate it” part of a “small government” platform?

The Paul libertarian paradox.
Click to expand...
It’s small government because it stops attempting to legislate morality.
 
scipio337 said:
And since when is “legalize (drugs, prostitution, etc) it, tax and regulate it” part of a “small government” platform?

The Paul libertarian paradox.
Click to expand...
I am No libertarian but I think the idea is that you put the decision of whether to legalize the activity and whether to tax it in the hands of smaller State and local governments. Thus the community has a larger say as to how their values will be reflected in the laws.

Also :The tax would be collected by the smaller State govt rather than the larger Fed Govt.
The idea being that you cut out a lot of the inefficiencies of large govt. since the Fed govt. must listen to Lobbyists, Unions, Interest Groups, etc. when deciding what the one size fits all policy will be, (people with less amount of influence are in a postion to get the shaft) Whereas the State and Local Govt officials must answer to their neighbors when deciding what the laws will be.
 
scipio337 said:
But Reagan’s policy of “Rollback” (confronting and rolling back communism influence) is 180 degrees away from Paul’s.

As I’ve pointed out before, Paul’s foreign policy would lost the Cold War.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul can run circles around anyone in this current government when it comes to foreign policy. He was there.

youtube.com/watch?v=PoYGAxF-zWE
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
How? Reagan did nothing but speed up an inevitable process that at the same time lead to an economic crash at home. Communism was doomed from the start because it did not take into account the Economic Calculation Problem. At least if we had Paul as president we wouldn’t have the massive military budget that we have now.
Click to expand...
Speculation.

“Containment” didn’t work for four decades. Reagan’s “Rollback” did.
 
scipio337 said:
Speculation.

“Containment” didn’t work for four decades. Reagan’s “Rollback” did.
Click to expand...
It’s not speculation. If Reagan’s policy worked, then what’s going on with North Korea and Cuba? We don’t have an arms race with them, yet their economies are horrendous. The Economic Calculation Problem is the explanation.

And it’s funny that you call my argument speculation while conveniently ignoring that your argument was even more speculative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top