Ron Paul speach at Liberty Forum, Jan 6, 2008

The only assumption that I have made is that you wrote words on the page that represented your OPINION about Ron Paul. Your chosen words were all I had to base my opinion on and are seemingly what are needed to demonstrate how you THINK about Dr. Paul.

Wikipedia defines a strawman as: "an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position"

Therefore I do not see how pointing out where your comments clearly misrepresented Dr. Paul's position(s) constitutes a strawman. As far as I can see I have made no assumptions about your person that are outside of conventional implications of your words

You made a comment that Dr. Paul's idea to get rid of the IRS would result in a "1.1 TRILLION dollar budget shortfall"> Yet his idea actually calls for cutting spending to match the EXACT loss of revenue- Therefore there is a balanced budget. So you have misrepresented his position!

You need to consider it is implicit that if Ron Paul considers the issue of evolution a "SCIENTIFIC MATTER"- his views are already outside of the Intelligent Design's paradigm - SO it is a full on misrepresentation to suggest "he may or may not" believe in ID when clearly his position is clearly CONTRARY to basic assumptions required to believe in ID.

Thus you had again misrepresented Dr. Paul's position.

Now I did assume that one reason a person might be found PUBLICALLY misrepresenting Ron Paul's position may be as a result of really NOT listening to his positions due to a BIAS against him- .
That is a safe assumption... If it helps I also assume that there are likely to be other reasons that I cannot know.

Yes I am sometimes quite funny- a real laugh a minute. BTW I'm sorry if you think I made assumptions about your person, I did assume you are "a person" writing in a public forum about Dr. Paul's position from your own point of view.

be well,

ken

PS. Well I can see were you might think that you "may or may not" have something to retract- but I think I will keep my opinion that you do... I will also assume you WON'T do so ;)

I have nothing to retract.

You wrote "It seems you so dislike Dr. Paul that you don't really care to listen fully to what Dr Paul has to say with respect to his SOLUTIONS." which is an erroneous presumption with regard to my person.

You wrote "As for Dr. Paul's position on evolution you really aren't listening to his words since you have already vilified him in your MIND", another erroneous presumption about my person, especially as you don't know me at all, and know my mind even less.

You wrote: "His point that "evolution" is a theory is his opinion- but this doesn't mean he believe in intelligent design(ID)! Your point is funny since Dr. Paul clearly states in the EDITED clip you linked that he considers it to be a SCIENTIFIC MATTER. Those who espouse ID would NOT say that." This is your strawman since I didn't state that he believes in intelligent design - what I said was "Paul may or may not believe in "intelligent design", a fallacy which mistakes a premise for a conclusion." Operative words: may or may not.

Yep, you're too funny! LOL!

Typing certain words in all caps does not make a point, they just make you look like a dick.
oh and yes, i do think Ron Paul will fail our country if he becomes president, i mean yea he is better than bush but thats about it.

Please show how I have misrepresented your stated views of Ron Paul or retract your comment. I have shown how your stated views are at odds with Dr. Paul's ACTUAL views. You provide a link to an EDITED youtube clip and you claim I'm the one using a strawman? Too funny!

LOL! Nice collection of erroneous presumptions about my person, and strawmen!

Paul may or may not believe in "intelligent design", a fallacy which mistakes a premise for a conclusion.

There is nothing wrong with limits to Federal intrusions on private lives. Those were spelled out succinctly in the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. It is the GOP which has run roughshod over those protections during the regime of George W. Bush. The problem with Paul is that while he may have espoused a strict construction of the Bill of Rights, his economics will be creating disastrous inequalities in almost every other area.

With regard to abortion, Ron Paul has:

* Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
* Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
* Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
* Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
* Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
* No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
* 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)

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

As for evolution, Paul's ideas simply stem from Paul's ignorance of the concepts of "natural selection" which may be found in the works of Charles Darwin and, secondly, the genetic basis for "natural selection" found in the works of Gregor Mendel, works that were unknown to Darwin at the time he wrote but which would have provided the genetic basis for Darwin's theory of natural selection had he known about them. Moreover, modern genetics have simply enlarged upon and strengthened Darwin's essential concepts. That's how science works. Besides - every farmer who has bred for specific characteristics knows the truth of evolution and the Darwinian principle that drives it. Every West Texas rancher who has opined "never kill a slow roach; you jest improve the breed" knows the truth of evolution and has, in fact, witnessed it. Indeed, killing all the slow roaches will result in a species of very, very fast roaches. Evolution is NOT a theory. It's an observable fact.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

As someone quite correctly stated in the comments: "The bacteria that 1945's Penicillin could combat no longer exist because the bacteria evolved, thus negating the beneficial aspects of the drug. This is why a doctor that doesn't believe in evolution is terrifying."

More below.

kennyJ - Ron Paul's idea to eliminate the income tax will create a 1.1 TRILLION dollar budget shortfall. See:

http://tinyurl.com/2p82hn

Moreover, his sales tax proposal is a REGRESSIVE tax, a greater burden on those who work for a living, a government giveaway to those who are among the nation's elite of less than 10 percent of the population. See: Paul Krugman: The Tax Cut Con at http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/TaxCutCon.html

The Ronald Reagan tax cut of 1982 was regressive and resulted in the great income inequalities since the Gild Age, the age of Robber Barons. There was but a brief slowing of that trend during Clinton's second term. Bush's tax cuts have put the nation back on the road to dramatic income inequities. A REGRESSIVE sales tax will accelerate pernicious trends that were already begun with Reagan. See Paul Krugman: Gilded Once More at http://tinyurl.com/2a8g6p

There is no one "system" of analysis. The works of numerous economist from John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, and, more recently Paul Krugman refute Paul's ideas which harken back to the 18th century --Adam Smith, specifically.

More below.

Vierotchka,

I'm curious on what economic principles your OPINION of a Ron Paul economy is based on? It seems you have concluded that "90% of the population of the USA would find itself in dire poverty". I'd like to know EXACTLY what system(s) of analysis you used to get to this conclusion.

Also you have totally misrepresented the implications of Ron Paul's position on EVOLUTION and ABORTION(not to mention his stated opinion of each).

I hate to have to point this out but it would seem that you have completely missed that Ron Paul's platform is based on the fact that there are CONSTITUTIONAL limits on the FEDERAL government and so his PERSONAL opinion can NEVER become FEDERAL LAWS!

I look forward to hearing about HOW you arrived at your economic figures... Until then-

Be well-

Ken

ivyleague28477, yes, Switzerland is a great country, one of the most prosperous in the world, where a woman in your position receives all the help and support she needs, including fully subsidized state-of-the-art medical treatment, a fully subsidized health insurance, a fully subsidized decent home to live in, excellent schools for her children, a decent income when she cannot work for medical reasons, university fees no higher than $5 thousand a year, and the list goes on and on and on. Libertarianism is the party for selfish and self-centered people who don't give a flea's fart for their fellow humans. If you were living in Switzerland, you'd have been free of cancer and in excellent health by now.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution, he is adamantly and hysterically against abortion. He would drag America back to the 19th century were he elected.

we're hoping for first.

amen kenny

It is a good speech indeed, but Ron Paul would ruin America completely. He is right only on the issue of the occupation of Iraq, he is a disaster on all other issues, especially the economy and trade - were his positions on these two issues implemented, over 90% of the population of the USA would find itself in dire poverty, it would only benefit the already very, very, very rich.

I hope Paul can take 2nd or 3rd tommorow night in NH.

Ron Paul represents a NEW way of thinking about the problems that have faced our nation for generations. However those who have PROFITED from the OLD ways of thinking have long prevented CHANGE.

If you simply believe political sound bytes shown in media, Ron Paul won't make much sense- However if you listen intently at length, without judgement- you just might hear WHY his ideas can provide BETTER solutions than trying the solve our nations problems with the same level of THINKING that created them!

gotta tell you, for what it's worth here in middle america - rural missouri - all i ever see are ron paul signs EVERYWHERE .. even in kansas city proper, all i see are billboards, stickers, guys on street corners, makeshift signs - this guy is a sleeper hope for many in America ..

If you want socialism, move to Switzerland. I know what Libertarian means. I am a single mother of two children who has two forms of cancer. I do not have health insurance, and I am not a recipient of any government assistance program. I work my ass off and I pay my bills. Libertarian = individual freedom and personal responsibility.

If you don't want national Health Care or Federal investments in education than Ron Paul's your guy. Don't forget what Libertarian really means.

I just saw a segment on Current showing the Iowa results were they showed Rudy in last place but they failed to metion Paul! I am disgusted by this and hope current pulls it from the air.

you're welcome. this wasn't the town hall meeting though, this was at Liberty Forum, which was just prior to the town hall meeting, so I hope this is what you were really looking for.

Thank you so much for capturing this. This was a late breaking story and I really wanted to see this given the remarkable attempt by the military industrial complex and Fox try to shut Dr Paul down. I tuned in just after the live broadcast was over and was very dissappointed that I missed it. I could not find the video until you posted it here.