you stand for things like
this?
well, okay then.
Yeah, that article isn't biased one bit. Read the opening statement and get back to me. "nut-job Libertarian views". Yes, I believe in Libertarian ideology. Clearly whoever wrote that blog does not. That's established in the first paragraph. Furthermore, the writer continues on about 'us left-wing types'. I'm not a 'left-wing type'. I'm an independent Libertarian with socially liberal and economically conservative viewpoints.
Yes, Ron Paul is absolutely extreme. I understand that. But the crap flowing through that blog is just full of crap. It's America's favorite thing to mock or skew Ron Paul's views in order to devalue him.
But I mean we can break it down point by point:
1. Civil Rights Act - Ron Paul's case on repealing it. You don't actually think he'd be successful on something like that, do you? He's merely making a point that
you can't force morality on somebody. You can't control them. Ron Paul has always been like that. Did you even read the link provided in that very blog?
2. American Disabilities Act
Okay I'm not going to go point to point here because I'll be saying the same thing. He's not some discriminatory animal like this article is trying to paste him as. If you bother to read any of the logic, he's about stripping down the government. He's an absolute extremist. He's not against the ADA because he doesn't like disabled people. He's against the ADA because it's telling people what they can and cannot do.
God, again. Did you even watch the video to decide for yourself, or did you just read the paragraph and accept everything it said and look at Paul with a dirty look? He promotes individual liberty. 'If a business chooses to mistreat its customers... no. Don't go. Boycott them'. It's fundamental thinking, where you have the freedom to choose morality. If you don't, others have the freedom to judge you.
Yes, it's extremist thinking. No, it would not see the light of day through Congress. That's just Ron Paul being Ron Paul. Being emphatic about his views.
This article paints the picture of Ron Paul as some Nazi. It's a joke. It refuses to tell the whole picture, or to see it from both sides. I can see it from both sides. I know Ron Paul is by no means ideal or perfect. There's not enough balance in his ideology. It's too extreme. But come on, I continue to read more and more from that page and it's just worse and worse. It concluded that he thinks 'Global Warming is a hoax'. Small conclusion for a deep thought, because that certainly does not tell the whole story of his viewpoint on Global Warming.
But more importantly, all of this is a bunch of shit because if you ask Ron Paul, he'll tell you that he's in favor of state's rights more than anything else. Cases like abortion, which Ron Paul is against, are cases where Ron Paul will say (and has said) that you should let the states decide.
The more that is said in that article, the more that continues to be ignored. He's against seat belts. Why? Why would somebody be against something that only saves lives? WHY WOULD YOU BUY A CAR WITHOUT SEAT BELTS? He's not against seat belts for God's sake. He's against the government telling us we cannot have a car without seat belts. Oh look. The article calls him homophobic. Yet the links provided in the same article state that he's for gay rights. And then the next point calls him a racist, yet the same article that was cited on the previous point clearly states that he was not.
But I'm not here to convince you that Ron Paul is a good guy or not. I don't know why I typed so much. You're entitled to your viewpoints. I'm entitled to mine. You're entitled to vote for whoever you please (but that would be hard for you, you're Australian, no?). I enjoy objectivity.
I do not expect you to believe that the objective side of this article is good. I do. You don't have to. That's an opinion. That's your viewpoints. But when you add bias and skew things, tailor make them to your tastes, etc. yes, you can paint Ron Paul as a lunatic all you'd like. That's really not the case.