From left to right: two views on Paul – The Student Printz

Ashton Pittman writes:

Ron Paul is the only true champion of freedom in the current field of Republican contenders vying for the Oval Office. If we would just listen to Ron Paul, America would rise to heights of greatness hitherto left unfathomed.

At least, that’s what a lot of neo-hippie, college dropout basement dwellers keep telling me.

Under Paul’s definition of freedom, the kid in his parent’s basement would find himself on the short end of the stick. For the middle and lower classes, as well minorities, Paul’s idea of “freedom” would become bondage.

Paul has an extremely large populist following, his supporters argue. Gaining the allegiance of the very people whose freedoms and best interests he would subvert has been the plan all along.

Writer Murray Rothbard was a staunch champion of Paul’s brand of libertarianism. Along with Paul aide Lew Rockwell, he forged a strategy that sought to exploit racial tensions amongst the lower classes in order to “bring the rednecks” into the libertarian movement.

Rothbard wrote in 1994 that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a “socialist” and “vicious opponent of private-property rights.” King was also a communist puppet, apparently.

While it may be hard to believe that a politician in 2011 should need to clarify his or her views on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Paul’s official campaign site offers an explanation for why he opposes the act that granted blacks equality under the law: because it infringes on private-property rights.

What Ron Paul means when he says that the act violated private-property rights is that it forced businesses to stop denying service to black customers.

While he thinks we should protect the rights of businesses to discriminate, he has no problem undermining the civil rights of others.

For the duration of his entire political career, Paul has sought to exploit the fears of the lower classes in order to convince them to support policies that go against their own best interests.

Ron Paul routinely demonizes taxation and engenders “populist” outrage by convincing supporters that taxation is “theft” by the state.         He then offers an alternative system that would abolish the IRS and replace the income tax with a 23-percent flat tax for everyone. However, this bait-and-switch solution would do nothing to help those who live paycheck-to-paycheck — except force them to pay an outrageous sales tax on each trip to the grocery store.

The wealthiest people in the nation would pay the same tax rate. Theoretically, in the absence of an income tax, someone making millions a year could live comfortably and pay the same or less in taxes as a hardworking person struggling to reach a similar level of comfort.

Oh, and if your hard work isn’t enough to put food in your infant child’s mouth, well, that’s just too

bad because Paul intends to end welfare; we wouldn’t want to steal from (tax) a multi-billion dollar corporation just to take care of a child. Perhaps your little brat should learn about the miraculous power of individual self-determination and stop being such a lazy because, really, the ideals of kindness and compassion are actually nothing more than socialist plots meant to destroy America. Right?

Tyler Hill writes:

Ron Paul is once again a contender in the presidential elections. Paul has declared candidacies for the office of the presidency two times before, in 1988 and 2008. As the saying goes, “third time’s the charm,” right? I’m not quite convinced. While Ron Paul has many outstanding solutions for a prosperous America, other ideas alienate him outside both major parties.

Starting  on a positive note, a majority of his solutions for healthcare run perfectly in-line with the Republican Party, such as the repealing of “Obamacare,” providing tax credits for all medical expenses and allowing the purchases of health insurance across state lines. However, his unrealistic notion to eliminate the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) strays far from any party affiliation. For example, if eliminated, grueling, disgusting meatpacking industries like the one featured in Upton Sinclair’s novel, The Jungle, will emerge once again. It’s blatantly obvious that the FDA is still needed.

If Ron Paul became president, America’s foreign policy would be drastically altered. He would quickly withdraw every troop from all foreign countries, close down the majority of military bases and abandon all allies. Our troops would finally come home, but, again, how realistic is his approach? Sorry, Ron Paul, but it’s not 1776 anymore. Threats to our sovereignty are much greater. During his 2008 candidacy, Paul had interesting things to say about future attacks on America.

“There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today,” he said. “If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours.” One could argue that Americans believed the same thing after World War I. Paul would, however, effectively tackle illegal immigration on our borders by prohibiting amnesty, eligibility for welfare and birthright citizenship. Previous presidents have failed in implementing a secure system for our border, but Paul would not tread lightly. So while his border policies are top notch, his overall theme for foreign policy is slipping down a dangerous slope.

I’m not even going to begin to explain his preposterous thoughts involving the “War on Drugs.”