It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Ron Paul has openly said he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ron Paul opposed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul does not support strong environmental laws (like states alone can combat issues relating to global warming, and put pressure on other countries to do the same).
Ron Paul would like to eliminate public education.
Ron Paul has openly said he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Q: In a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, you said: "Contrary to the claims of supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.
A: Well, we should do this at a federal level, it'd be OK for the military. Just think of how the government caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II.
Q: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act, if it was today?
A: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--it has nothing to do with race relations. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.
Originally posted by o22a6ar
he believes we should not intervene in any foreign conflict ever, not because he believes this war is inherently evil or anything
The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war.
The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!
Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.
While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.
A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster.
As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases.
Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase.
As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.
It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security.
Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul does not support the right to choose, and hides behind some sort of wishy washy, supposed "principled" states right position, but indeed he authored a bill that would define life beginning at conception.
Originally posted by o22a6ar
Additionally, Ron Paul does not support strong environmental laws
The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.
The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.
In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.
Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul would like to eliminate public education.
The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn. We have turned their futures over to lobbyists and bureaucrats.
I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.
Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul does not believe in government funding of the arts.
Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul has openly said he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul opposed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Originally posted by o22a6ar
The reason I am going on this rant is because it pisses me off to no end that people can so blindly decide to vote for someone just because of few positive aspects of their campaign without knowing what is really going on and what the candidate really stands for.
Originally posted by o22a6ar
Do a little bit more research on the candidate
The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.
Originally posted by o22a6ar
\ not because he believes this war is inherently evil or anything), he holds zero liberal values - none.\
Originally posted by scientist
*Snip*, funding from coca cola *Snip*
Originally posted by o22a6ar
reply to post by garyo1954
Now if I put a title such as "Why Ron Paul is Not the Superior Candidate," I don't don't think I would have gotten as many replies or caught as many eyes.
"
He doesn't wish to end public education, just wants to cut the waste in the Department of Education, which has been proven to be a failure for our children.
How is giving the States the freedom to choose what is right for their populace concerning social issues such as abortion hiding behind anything?