Other than his views on Iraq.. What exactly would make Ron Paul a liberal??

Question

I rely confued.. der..

Answer 1

Nothing and I would even include his views on Iraq.He might end up with the same practical solution for that situation at this momnet but his reasons aren't liberal or progressive at all.
Progressives usually are internationalists.I sure don't believe in turning our back to the rest of the world.I can see how people are enchanted by Ron Pauls stand on the war after the Bush fiasco, but they don't fully understand why he stands there.I've said this before.If you understand what Ron Paul stands for and you like him you can be an strictly economical liberal but only in the calassical sense,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism but you certainly are not a progressive.

Isolationism has been tried and failed before.It's also very anti social,I don't think those who suppoort Paul and consider themselves liberal or progressive understand that.Isolationsim is definetely a right wing trait usually.Being in favor of Isolationism effects more than war alone.If you choose that you turn your back on Africa too
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Poverty.asp

He's against gay marriage and abortion rights.The reason he voted no on The Federal Marriage Amendment is because he fears it might give gay and lesbian people legal ground to demand equal rights not because he supports gay rights.He wants to give it to the states so they can discriminate.
"I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a constitutional amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage....
I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree"Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

He doesn't support seperation f church and state.From a text he wrote:"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

He's a white Christian intolerant male who hides his support for continued discrimination,soicial injustice and social darwinism behind states rights.
Liberals should wake up about this guy.Ron Paul believes states are the best bet for fighting progress liberals seek.His attempt to play both sides on every issue make him loose all credibility

Answer 2

I thought your article was great. I do think that Ron Paul could continue to change the way American's think even if he is not elected. But, I also think that Bush and his men, along with higher players(world bankers) don't want Ron Paul around. I believe he will be safe as long as the country is stable. But, if our economy goes under, or acts of terrorism are created to force society into chaos, then I think these people who don't want our constitution around will try to kill Ron Paul and others who are fighting the cause. Ron Paul has a bodyguard and there are good reasons for that. I hope he survives the evil that is trying to keep him hidden. I am doing what I can to help him.

Answer 3

well i did a little bit of research and dug up some dirt on him to make him the biggest idiot we've ever seen as a democrat republican on a national stage. This is the question and his answer from the republican debate a couple weeks ago. The link to this word for word is below.

Ron Paul: Eliminate FBI & DHS; interpret intelligence intelligently

Q: You say that you would eliminate the IRS, the CIA, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare. You used to want to end the FBI. But if you get rid of the CIA, let alone the FBI, how would President Paul have any idea, any intelligence of what our enemies, foreign and domestic, are up to?

A: Well, you might ask a better question. Before 9/11, we were spending $40 billion a year, and the FBI was producing numerous information about people being trained on airplanes, to fly them but not land them. And they totally ignored them. So it's the inefficiency of the bureaucracy that is the problem. So, increasing this with the Department of Homeland Security and spending more money doesn't absolve us of the problem. Yes, we have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering. But we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information.


This is just my opinion - but he should have wrote a book called who's your dummy?

Answer 4

If one uses what passes for "liberalism" nowadays - nothing.

However, using the classic definition of "liberal" (individual rights, limitations on government power, respect for the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, and a transparent system of government), he is extremely liberal .

True liberals are today's libertarians. Both derive their name from the Latin "liber" - meaning free.

Paul is truly liberal (in the classic sense) on some ideas, and conservative on others (like religion). He, like most sane people, does not fit neatly into either category.

He is a strict Constitutionalist. The gentlemen who wrote that document were considered very liberal in their time. His opinions rely heavily on the Bill of Rights, particularly the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In other words, if it is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights (or subsequent ammendments), Congress has no authority to legislate on it. His opposition to the Marriage Amendment and government sponsorship of stem cell research come from the belief that, because neither is mentioned as a power delegated to the government by the Constitution, both are States Rights issues, not federal ones. The Marriage Ammendment would strip power away from the States, forcing them to, in some cases, violate their own State Constitution and cede more power and authority to the federal government than it is Constitutionally entitled to.

I tend to agree.

Answer 5

I've noticed that Republicans and people who call themselves conservatives use the term "liberal" as an insult. By Ron Paul not supporting the war, the Republicans and conservatives look at him as a traitor. That's where the "liberal" name calling comes in. He is NOT a liberal. Look up the definition and beliefs of a liberal.

Answer 6

Ron Paul is NOT a liberal. Just beacuse he doesnt share the GOP's idiotic views on foreign policy that doesnt mean he is a LIBERAL. Ron Paul believes in very limited government involvement in peoples' affairs which is traditionaly conservative.

Ron Paul is really the only conservative republican running

Answer 7

He's not really a liberal(he called himself a libertarian in the 80s, though), he's actually republican
Most right-wingers don't understand the whole concept of the right wing. Limited government, more power for the people... less federal involvement with economy

Republicans of today are typically the liberals of yesterday.

Answer 8

He's not a liberal. He has a common sense issue on Iraq that anyone without their head up their you know what should see, liberal or conservative. It made and is making our country LESS safe. His statement against the Iraq war before it started was prophetic. He is also a social conservative.

Answer 9

not a dang thing

what is more conservative than "no one can take better care of me , than me

historian Charles Austin Beard once said "nothing will get you a quicker reputation as being a dangerous citizen these days is to go around repeating the same phrases that our founding fathers used in the struggle for Independence."

Answer 10

He's a true conservative. He believes in little government, and taking care of the US before foreign countries, not what the neoconservatives have made out of the republican party.