Ron Paul's 15 Most Extreme Positions As if being too old, too ugly, too racist and two bigoted were not enough, he's too wacky for majority of Americans.

"too old, too ugly, too racist and two bigoted" ... I hope you realize the complete and total hypocrisy you demonstrate.

1. False, these things would not be taken away from those who already pay into them. People would simply be able to opt out. So you are just anti-freedom.

2. Yes, he does. Care to explain why spending less money is a bad thing, when we currently owe more per year on interest alone than we can possibly pay back, when all these departments do is limit our freedom?

3. Yes, that is how our country and Constitution work. That is called freedom. What is the difference between the state and the U.S. government? There are extremists in both. The difference is when one does something wrong, it ruins things for the entire country and even affects the world. When a state does something wrong, it only affects that state and possibly those around it to a small degree. On the other hand when something goes right, other states will notice the effects and follow suit. That's how it worked for a long time, and by relegating too much power to the federal gov you are claiming you do not believe in anything our founding fathers talked about. You are being anti-freedom.

4. In order to find out that they are looking at child porn, you have to spy on them to begin with. You can't just magically go straight to only the pervert's computer. If you support this at all, you are supporting a complete and total destruction to our right to privacy. Yet again, you are just being anti-freedom.

5. Nice try, but this is a straight up lie. Ron Paul voted to go after Bin Laden. There is no such thing as "rescinding" an action in this world. It already happened. Under Paul, it would have happened much, MUCH sooner. Regardless this whole situation is entirely hypothetical since he was not the one who made the decision, and we should not use hypotheticals with no basis in reality to pick our president.

6. Yeah, again, right to privacy. You either believe in it or you don't and this is a clear cut issue. I guess you just hate freedom.

7. This is a good idea. When we legalized alcohol, the death rate associated with it went down, and the crime associated with it went down. Just making something illegal does not mean people stop it, or even that necessarily less people do it (case in point: speed limit). It just means that the people who do it will be outlaws, most likely the thug type. It just means that people who do it will be introduced to the entire outlaw world when they otherwise may not have. There's really no good argument for having this illegal, it comes down to whether or not you believe in... *gasp* ... FREEDOM.

8. See above, the arguments are pretty much identical. There is no good reason to outlaw a substance. Would you make poison ivy illegal? No. Let people make their own decisions, be they stupid or otherwise. The more we clench our fists on this group, the more slip through the cracks.

9. No, the monopolies are far more protected under current law. You should stop taking his positions at face value. The entire system is set up to make you think it's working for you, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the way to fix it may *look* bad at first glance. The reality is, the antitrust laws help large corporations who can afford the lawyers to enforce them. There are TONS of regulations on book keeping the little guy down that Ron Paul wants to repeal. Ron Paul is not only not a corporatist, he is far and away the most anti-corporatist candidate.

10. He isn't going to just end the fed point blank. He wants to audit it, and then phase it out. Printing money causes inflation, it is bad. It does not work, and it is impossible to control someone who has that power. There certainly should not be a GOVERNMENT, yet NON-ELECTED organization that completely controls our economy. They have total control over it! They can squeeze it for elections, print a bunch to make it look good for a bit. But ALL of their actions have negative impact on the economy. This is quite a full argument to itself, and I will admit one of the only points on your whole list that is actually debatable and not just a misconception. But Ron Paul does know his economics, and the idea that you, a simpleton who can't even research most of Ron Paul's positions correctly, would happen to know how to fix our economy when no one in history has had much success in economics, is absurd.

11. EPA is unnecessary, that does not mean he would legalize pollution. Obviously, when you pollute, you infringe on other peoples' property rights, and Paul is vehemently for property rights. Just because he would do away with the wasteful and ineffective EPA does not mean any of the things you insinuate.

12. He would have voted against the Jim Crow laws through alternative legislation, or written it himself if he had to. The Civil Rights act itself, while widely lauded, did more harm than good. You have to understand, "The Civil Rights Act" is not a piece of paper that says "people can't be racist". It's a large piece of legislation with a LOT going on, most of which has nothing to do directly with civil rights or racism. Unless you've read the whole thing, you have no place saying Ron Paul shouldn't have voted against it. You don't know what's hidden in there. In the end it was actually quite harmful in a lot of ways to the cause of equality of opportunity.

13. He's voting for freedom. People have rights. There's no authority to force them to do things other than to stop them from infringing on those same rights of others. You act like "the market" is comprised of a bunch of evil greedy corporatists. That's not the case. YOU AND ME are "the market". And the idea that we can't do certain things without government is absurd, when government itself is just our creation.

14. Yeah, it's a highly debatable issue, but he also isn't going to deport them simply because they're not a citizen. And he wants to create more paths to citizenship. So, I mean this is not really an extreme position by any means, there are all sorts of positions about this topic and personally I don't see it as one of the major issues right now.

15. $30,000 for a medal for a religious leader paid for by tax dollars! Yes it's too expensive!!!! That could pay for a person on the street to live comfortably for 2 or more YEARS! Mother Theresa should be ashamed to even accept it, unless she plans on ebaying it and putting it to just that purpose.

Freedom and personal liberty are concepts you clearly do not understand. The idea is not to have anarchy, the idea is to have a society where people are able to do what they want to do as long as they don't hurt other people. There is no reason to be prosecuting people for victimless crimes. It is wrong that over half of our prisoners are completely nonviolent offenders.

Government is just another company, but worse in ways because it is not subject to the same limitations, and it does not have the same motivation. Almost everything it does is less efficient and comes out worse than when a company does it. To protect our liberty is its only purpose, for everything else the people you make out to be so evil -- "the market" -- will do a much better job in fact.

Ron Paul is the only person who will bring reason to this country and world.

Still flinging poop at the wall, eh?

Wow. This blog is so chocked full of logical fallacy. I assume its length is intended to discourage any sort of meaningful dialogue. But I'll give you one for free. lol

1.
Entitlement is just another word for "govt. dependency." And it is completely fallacious to insinuate that the intended purpose of entitlements is to "help" those struggling.

Subsidies only ever prove to produce surpluses and it's just not right to entice people into govt. dependency under the false pretense of helping them. The result - entire generations of unnecessarily subservient citizens. Govt. dependency doesn't help them - it subjugates them. Why would we ever want to expand dependency when we could foster personal independence?

Our Founders agreed...

"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, I observed in different countries that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves and became richer."
--Ben Franklin (November 27-29 1766)

That statement might have been meaningless were it made by anyone other than Ben Franklin. A man who was arguably the single most selfless individual to have participated in our Founding. This is a man who invented things which could have made him filthy rich and just gave them away to people with no expectation of anything in return. A man responsible for the first hospital, the first fire dept. (which was VOLUNTARY), the first library, the first militia. If even someone as blindly generous and compassionate as Ben Franklin could see the fatal flaw in subsidization - we'd serve ourselves well to heed his words.

On the question of Constitutionality, heed these.

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
--James Madison