10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not going to bother with arguing the politics involved here, but reason #6 includes one very glaring factual error which I've italicized below.

   6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”

Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes.

A president's signature on a treaty does not make it applicable to the United States.  It requires the approval of that treaty by the Senate, which has not happened, and will not happen unless the Democrats somehow get a two-thirds majority in the Senate.  That will not happen anytime soon.  Even if the Democrats by some miracle get every single Senate seat in 2008 that isn't 100% safe for the GOP, they still won't be able to ram the Rome Statute through, and while I expect the Dems will likely make gains in the Senate in 2008, they won't be anywhere near that dramatic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least he'd leave the issue up to the states when you know someone like Huckabee would just try to ban abortion all together.

See, that's the thing.  Ron Paul will tell you that the federal government should have nothing to do with abortion-- he even said this in his speech during the debate of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban-- but he voted in favor of said bill anyway.

Roe v. Wade made the abortion issue a national issue until such time as we get either a court or a constitutional amendment that returns the issue to the States.  As such until then, expect people who would were prefer that it were a State issue to push at a Federal level for their views on this issue.  What should he do, abandon the issue to those who feel that it should be a Federal issue?  That would be totally ridiculous.

And he's way less homophobic then most of the other Republicans.

Mr. "Leave Everything Up to the States" supported the Defense of Marriage Act.

DoMA does two things.  One is that it determines when a marriage triggers Federal funds.  The other is that it guarantee's each State the right to decide for itself whether it wants gay marriage without having the back door opened for it by the full faith and credit clause.  How does either detract from his position that it would be best to leave as much as possible to the States to handle?

Despite your efforts to make Paul look like a hypocrite, you have failed.  There are a number of reasons an individual may think Ron Paul would be a lousy president, but hypocrisy does not appear to be a valid one, at least not based on the case you've presented.

Ebowed, you used to not be so shrill and overwrought.  I hope that come 2009 you return to your old self somewhat.  (I'd hope for 2008, but to expect people interested in politics to become less shrill or less overwrought in the middle of an election would be futile.)