I like Ron Paul because of what Ron Paul says and stands for, not because of what other people — wackos included — have claimed. I say do your own homework, and learn what Dr. Paul actually says and why. He's written several books, and much more (see here and here, for example). For the most part, he has been consistent and true to the same perspective for decades, not caving to popular opinion or political winds. You can do your own homeowrk and like what he stands for and support him for it, or not. But please don't let the questionable claims of others — including EFers — serve as the basis of your judgment.
__________________ "Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant
The following 5 users would like to thank Texaner for this useful post:
Ron Paul for me is the only sane voice in Washington. I have listened to many speeches and debates of his on so many topics, he is very intelligent, has a lot of integrity and doesn't cater to specific audiences. That is enough to make me like him, even though I find he goes way too far in wanting to decentralise the US, privatise education and cut taxes.
I would like to second what Texaner sais, don't judge Ron Paul on recycled opinions or by some of his followers, just listen to him first hand and make up your mind.
The following 2 users would like to thank simon_ch for this useful post:
While in this speech (given to the left-wing-wacko-organisation called the U.S. Congress..) some of his points were somewhat valid on their own (the use of quota can create resistance), they actually apply to the consequences of the affirmative action legislation and not to ending racial segregation in public schools or the application of unequal criteria for voter registration.
This user groans at SamWeiseVielleicht for this post:
I can only agree with his views on this topic, especially this paragraph:
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
This user would like to thank simon_ch for this useful post:
Ron Paul for me is the only sane voice in Washington. I have listened to many speeches and debates of his on so many topics, he is very intelligent, has a lot of integrity and doesn't cater to specific audiences.
I wouldn't say the only sane voice is Washington, but I agree for the most part. It was so strange to see him actually making sense at the Republican primary debates and not resorting to empty words and talking points. The other candidates were dumbfounded, so was most of the audience.
By the time he said Americans should have never even been in Iraq, the audience turned on him.
It'd be great if he became President, but he'll die in an "accident" if he ever comes within a stone's throw of it.
@simon_ch: You have to take into consideration that the CRA was passed in 1964. This is not about 2010 (or 2004).
"this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife."
Efforts by whom? The opponents of the act in 1963-64. I have some serious doubts about that...
Was the CRA perfect? Probably not. But given the circumstances (in 1964) it was an important step forward.
HRES 676 (which Paul rejected) thus sought to "encourage all Americans to recognize and celebrate the important historical milestone of (...) the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
Well he does admit that the resolution was well-intentioned and has all the right goals but thinks that it failed to achieve what it was set to do and therefore disagrees with the CRA as it is today, or at least that's how I understand it. But let's agree to disagree and not get into technicalities.
the main stream media did an attack on Rand Paul and they make hypothetical questions up. You can follow the Constitution and let things progress at their own pace, or you can be a dictator and and cause threats and intimidate society. I prefer the Constitutional method. Besides Rachel Maddow is a feminist lesbian who asked Rand Paul about the Civil Rights Act out of nowhere, and everyone knows that feminism was created to destroy the family and take men away from women so as to tax twice the population, and create daycare camps, just like Hitler did. wake up you people. It's not about liberation. It's about control.