Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRon Paul isn't really for limited government.
He's only for limiting the Federal government, and its civil liberties laws. He's fine with an overbearing, intrusive state government. That's how he manages to square his Libertarianism with his social conservatism.
His "Libertarianism" is just a revamped version of the old "states rights" credo, which was one of the underpinnings of slavery and continues to justify states' interference with civil rights.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 934 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (5)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Ron Paul isn't really for limited government. (Original Post)
pnwmom
Jan 2012
OP
shraby
(21,946 posts)1. Face it, the man is half a bubble off. He can't even be shimmed to
be on the level...come to think of it,
neither can all the rest of the republican candidates.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)2. That's how I read him. n/t
Spazito
(49,757 posts)3. Exactly right...
Paul's "civil liberties" stance is in opposition to civil rights, imo.
MADem
(135,425 posts)4. You are quite right. He's Mister States' Rights on steroids. nt