Would you vote for Dr. Paul?

[GhostWriter16]

The idea of two distinct spheres, economic and social, is a libertarian hobby-horse. Nobody else really takes it seriously, or at least not outside of the internet. You certainly can't appeal to the left-leaning with this rhetoric, who are generally able to recognise the tendency of "fiscal conservatism", as you would have it, to preserve social inequalities, regardless of how "socially liberal" you might like to present yourself.

I do agree that things are more nuanced than that. I would still think that people on the left would like Dr. Paul more than other politicians in the Republican Party due to his social positions.

Also, doesn't mean you have to vote for him, even if you were American, but you should at least respect him for putting himself out there and making his opinions clearly known, even if it may sabotage his campaign.

Wait, I've just noticed: Dr. Paul? I know that he's an MD, so it's not inaccurate, but since when did people refer to politicians with honorifics? Is this some American practice that I'm unfamiliar with, or just a cynical attempt to lend a bit more credibility to a candidate who looks and talks like somebody took a spade to Albert Steptoe?

Edit: In general, I mean, not on Domination's part. It seems to be fairly widely used, and by the looks of things it originates with his own campaign.

I don't know, I didn't start it. I can say that I personally wasn't using it for any reason other than its a common title given to him.

It could be because he thinks his positions through much more than anyone else and his supporters want to emphasize the fact. It could just be propagada (Note that I am using propaganda in the denotative sense, you can judge its quality for yourselves.) It could be something else. I don't have the answer.

 

[Godwynn]

Too many god damn options, just make it yes or no.

No, I would not. I support sane politicians.

 

[useless]

Let's take alook at some of his social views:

. He wants to deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"
. He is against Gay Marriage
. He believes that the left are Waging a war against Christians and trying to destroy Christmas
. Is against Abortion.
. He has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced)

Not much really for a Leftist to want to go to him, on social issues.

 

[Cutlass]

Let's take alook at some of his social views:

. He wants to deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"
. He is against Gay Marriage
. He believes that the left are Waging a war against Christians and trying to destroy Christmas
. Is against Abortion.
. He has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced)

Not much really for a Leftist to want to go to him, on social issues.

Nothing there a libertarian should tolerate either.

 

[useless]

And I've left out the matter of race.

Face it, he's really not much of a libertarian.

 

[IglooDame]

Let's take alook at some of his social views:

. He wants to deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"
. He is against Gay Marriage
. He believes that the left are Waging a war against Christians and trying to destroy Christmas
. Is against Abortion.
. He has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced)

Not much really for a Leftist to want to go to him, on social issues.

By the standard to which you're holding him, I'm against Gay Marriage too. "It is an issue to be decided at the state level, and really government ought to be uninvolved in marriage entirely" is my understanding of his position. But perhaps a Leftist would prefer his opposition to the War On Drugs and War On Terror? His opposition to capital punishment? Or his support of constitutional rights? The ACLU actually likes the guy, after all.

 

[pallas]

useless: But he isn't for the Patriot Act either.

 

[Tani Coyote]

He wants to deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"

...The interface on that site is a bloody mess. I can't even get to his suggestions.

Edit: I find.

Hmm. That is definitely a mark against him, though since American politics is about the lesser of the evils, he's still got a huge advantage on his GOP peers.

He is against Gay Marriage

No, I believe he's for states' rights, which lets some states ban it and some legalise it. A good mid-term solution given that a federal legalisation will take a LONG time.

And if you don't like your states' law on it? You can always move.

Sure, he's passively endorsing gay marriage bans. But I could claim that all anti-war Democrats in Congress were pro-Saddam using the same reasoning, really.

He believes that the left are Waging a war against Christians and trying to destroy Christmas

As far as I know, many on the Left do indeed want to secularise America.

Though that's different from destroying Christianity, which would involve burning down the Churches and prohibiting the beliefs. The Left merely strives to eliminate ANY religion from the halls of government.

Is against Abortion.

Hardly a sweeping condemnation, useless, given abortion's prominent status and thus being pro-life is by no means an extremist view.

For some, the fetus' status of eventually becoming a person makes it worthy of life. For others, the fetus' status of not being a person yet makes it unworthy of life. Simple as that.

He has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced)

Well this, I can't defend. But he's hardly a big government conservative. If he had a viable chance of winning, he'd be a ton better than most of the GOP candidates.

 

[GhostWriter16]

By the standard to which you're holding him, I'm against Gay Marriage too. "It is an issue to be decided at the state level, and really government ought to be uninvolved in marriage entirely" is my understanding of his position. But perhaps a Leftist would prefer his opposition to the War On Drugs and War On Terror? His opposition to capital punishment? Or his support of constitutional rights? The ACLU actually likes the guy, after all.

Ron Paul is OK with Capital Punishment, he just doesn't think the Feds should use it. I don't remember his personal opinion on it, but I do know he has the same opinion on Capital Punishment as he does on gay marriage (State decision.)

AFAIK the rest of your post is correct.

 

[Traitorfish]

Hardly a sweeping condemnation, useless, given abortion's prominent status and thus being pro-life is by no means an extremist view.

It means he's a misogynist, though, and I don't like misogynists. Just because you have a country full of them doesn't exactly change my mind on that.

 

[Tani Coyote]

It means he's a misogynist, though, and I don't like misogynists. Just because you have a country full of them doesn't exactly change my mind on that.

How is supporting the rights of the unborn a qualification for misogyny?

Pro-lifers believe the unborn child to be deserving of the right to life because it will eventually become a human being. Ergo, the female has no right to terminate its life any more than a mother could terminate the life of an infant outside the womb.

Also, the man created the baby too. So, following basic property theory, he has a voice in this matter as well.

Now, if the woman has a chance of dying herself, it's more analogous to a perverse self-defense, so she would have a right to terminate it for certain.

 

[useless]

It's inherently misogynistic because you are effectively denying women the control over their own bodies.

 

[Tani Coyote]

It's inherently misogynistic because you are effectively denying women the control over their own bodies.

Using that logic, Useless, denying the man a voice is inherently misandristic because you are effectively denying men the control over their own unborn child.

Sure, the women bears it, but the child is half the male's as well.

 

[Traitorfish]

How is supporting the rights of the unborn a qualification for misogyny?

Pro-lifers believe the unborn child to be deserving of the right to life because it will eventually become a human being. Ergo, the female has no right to terminate its life any more than a mother could terminate the life of an infant outside the womb.

What pro-lifers formally espouse and the actual substance of their ideology don't really meet up quite that evenly. To separate the movement from the general anti-feminist backlash of the last few decades, something which is intrinsically misogynistic, is to indulge in a serious sloppiness of an analysis. Dr. Paul is part of that backlash, however much he dresses himself up as a "social liberal".

Also, the man created the baby too. So, following basic property theory, he has a voice in this matter as well.

 

[Tani Coyote]

What pro-lifers formally espouse and the actual substance of their ideology don't really meet up quite that evenly. To separate the movement from the general anti-feminist backlash of the last few decades, something which is intrinsically misogynistic, is to indulge in a serious sloppiness of an analysis. Dr. Paul is part of that backlash, however much he dresses himself up as a "social liberal".

That may be the origin of pro-life sentiment, but I strongly doubt most pro-lifers are anti-feminist...

Like my mother. Oh, what a woman hater, typical ma- wait a minute. She's a woman and pro-life. Does not compute!

Maybe there's something besides sexism in the decision to be pro-life, eh?

People own what they make. Since the unborn is not a person, theoretically, that means it is an object. An object made from a man and a woman combining genetic material.

So, it is as much his as the woman's, really.

Sure, she bears it... but the man likely helps her out a lot. So it should definitely be a split-even decision.

 

[Traitorfish]

That may be the origin of pro-life sentiment, but I strongly doubt most pro-lifers are anti-feminist...

Like my mother. Oh, what a woman hater, typical ma- wait a minute. She's a woman and pro-life. Does not compute!

Maybe there's something besides sexism in the decision to be pro-life, eh?

I'm sorry, how exactly did you make the jump from "woman" to "feminist"? I mean, presumably you're aware of Margaret Thatcher, Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly, etc? (And let's not bring up Sarah Palin's quaint little brand of anti-feminist feminism up, because if I don't want to end up rolling my eyes so hard they come out of my ears.)

And, yes, I'm sure that individually there may be. But a as a movement? I don't think it can be meaningfully separated from the conservative, anti-feminist milieu which spawned it.

People own what they make. Since the unborn is not a person, theoretically, that means it is an object. An object made from a man and a woman combining genetic material.

So, it is as much his as the woman's, really.

Sure, she bears it... but the man likely helps her out a lot. So it should definitely be a split-even decision.

Yeah, I'm just going to leave this as a testament to its own grotesqueness. There's really nothing I could add to it.

 

[Tani Coyote]

And, yes, I'm sure that individually there may be. But a as a movement? I don't think it can be meaningfully separated from the conservative, anti-feminist milieu which spawned it.

That may have been the origin of it, but I doubt most pro-life individuals are anti-feminists this day and age. I have repeatedly heard, "unborn child" and whatnot, but have never really heard "women belong to men" and whatnot.

Yeah, I'm just going to leave this as a testament to its own grotesqueness. There's really nothing I could add to it.

What's grotesque about my wife having to consult me before killing my unborn son or daughter?

The fetus is not a person, so it is clearly property(read: object). And as such, the debate for who owns the property can be initiated.

 

[Traitorfish]

That may have been the origin of it, but I doubt most pro-life individuals are anti-feminists this day and age. I have repeatedly heard, "unborn child" and whatnot, but have never really heard "women belong to men" and whatnot.

Well, I'm not really interest in an extended debate about this, so just I'll just go back to the start and say that for the reasons I have given, Paul's anti-choice politics are more likely to turn away liberal voters than you seem to believe. They ten not to approach the issue with such credulity as to believe that Paul, unlike all the other anti-choice rightists, really does just care about unborn children.

What's grotesque about my wife having to consult me before killing my unborn son or daughter?

The fetus is not a person, so it is clearly property(read: object). And as such, the debate for who owns the property can be initiated.

A foetus is, in practice, part of a woman's body until it is born. You are suggesting that men can gain partial ownership of women by impregnating them. (Even if the pregnancy resulted from rape, I wonder? It would be the logical conclusion of your argument.) That is what I would call "grotesque".

 

[Tani Coyote]

Well, I'm not really interest in an extended debate about this, so just I'll just go back to the start and say that for the reasons I have given, Paul's anti-choice politics are more likely to turn away liberal voters than you seem to believe.

For not being pro-choice(many people make abortion a serious subject since it is, after all, a topic on whether the child is worthy of life). Not for being misogynist.

You are suggesting that men can gain partial ownership of women by impregnating them.

Ownership of the fetus, yes, because without them, it wouldn't exist.

(Even if the pregnancy resulted from rape, I wonder? It would be the logical conclusion of your argument.)

Rape isn't consensual. The woman relinquished any rights she had to full authority when she agreed to get pregnant.

 

[RedRalph]

Being against abortion does not a mysoginist make. Honestly, that's a ridiculously sweeping generalisation.