What Fresh Hell Is This?

December 22, 2011

This is Ron Paul -- Deal with it!

For all those who over the years have told me how stupid and moronic I am for not understanding that Libertarian Ron Paul is more pro state rights than anti choice or that he isn't explicitly pro Christian, please view the following ad. Please note that the ad is called "Staying on the Right Path" which is identified in the ad as being Christian and anti choice. Also note that this ad was created by his campaign and approved by Ron Paul and not just some surrogate or PAC.

Yep, just another anti choice, Christian, male Republican -- deal with it.

(h/t to Shakesville)


Vannevar said...

The ultimate critique of the Republican slate's misfits is that they make Ron Paul look like the reasonable grown-up in the room.

Truly, which one of these people do you want answering the 0300 phone call?

I have to wonder if people in Pakistan aren't more worried about Newt/Fox having nuclear bombs than we are about the Paks having them.

Shawn Carter said...

Dr. Bush:

I worry when any child has control of a WMD.

I believe your namesake never envisioned contemporary politicians when he advised FDR to build and drop the nuke, otherwise, I am certain he would have advised them differently.

Zhou Fang said...

Although Paul is certainly pro-life, the ad does not appear to support the claim. Overturning Roe vs. Wade would mean that the states would be able to decide their abortion laws. Certainly in Texas, Paul's home state, it would probably be severely mitigated or even outlawed. His personal view differs from his policy, and ignoring the reasons behind his policies would be unfair criticism.

Maria Lupinacci said...

Let's overturn some random right for all people named Zhou Fang and leave it up to the states. Then all Zhou Fang's can "shop" what states they want to live in (when they're 18, of course -- before then it will be up their parents).

I see no problem with that.

And, if anyone has a problem with this, it would be unfair to criticize me.

Zhou Fang said...

I didn't say that it was unfair to criticize him. I simply said that your criticism was leveled incorrectly. For example, if you had argued against Paul on the grounds that state democracy is oppressive (see Jim Crow laws), that would have been legitimate. However, your post implies that Ron Paul would enforce pro-life policies at the federal level, which he has never advocated. Furthermore, some of the problems that you're talking about already exist in the status quo. Many states have guidelines that do not expressly prohibit abortion but make it significantly more difficult to do (for example, parental consent or forced ultrasound). It's unclear what exactly Ron Paul's policies would do in regards to that matter, so jumping to conclusions doesn't make sense.