10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul

Originally posted by BellaMente
Many of those reasons are manipulated to appear negative. Ron Paul is for less control of the federal government and for states as well as individuals' rights for liberty. There are a lot more reasons to vote for him than not to...

No...you are manipulating them to try to make it sound positive by glazing it over as "less government".

When in fact, in these areas...less government is a very very bad thing.

People like to look to history so much around here and look to the founding fathers...let's look at history and WHY these laws were needed...and why they are still needed because people don't really change.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Notice none of the Ron Paul supporters are really denying any of these points.

Great post with informative facts.

I actually hope Ron Paul gets the nomination just to see him get destroyed in the general election.

But I think he will get destroyed in the primary because if he gains any traction...the other republican nominees will air out all this dirty laundry...and Ron Paul is not elegant enough to defend this positions in a positive way.

There are no points to deny. Less government and a less intrusive government is what Ron Paul is running on. It is what he has voted for for decades. It is what, in my opinion, is essential to help straighten this country out.

Im not sure why you would want Ron Paul to get destroyed in the general election should he win the GOP nomination. Unless you like the direction this country is heading, the downward spiral of our economy, lack of job growth, increase in number applying for welfare...etc....because liberal or conservative...everyone else LIES!

I suppose 4 more years of 'hope and change' and a 'transparent' government is exactly what this country needs.

PS...I voted for 'change and transparency' and boy do I feel screwed. Its just an extension of Bush being in office.

Originally posted by BellaMente
Many of those reasons are manipulated to appear negative. Ron Paul is for less control of the federal government and for states as well as individuals' rights for liberty. There are a lot more reasons to vote for him than not to...

I'm not sure you have to manipulate them. The problem is "less government" sounds great until you realize what that means in detail: then they "sound" bad. And they are. However I think the idea is to use a scalpel instead of an axe. Some policies are bad, some outdated, some new ones need to be there. It's a living thing we all ride on... ride it! Tame it. Don't kill it.

I don't care.
The man talks about the problems that WE the people are talking about.

I would take a chance and see what he could do.

Besides, who else is actually a reasonable candidate? All the other choices come off more as silly celebrity-wannabe's.

There's one thing I'm sure of, is: we will see some kind of change ( no not Obama's "change" ) if RP gets voted in.

RP2012!

Let me ask a question to all of you, Lets say RP makes it past GOP nom, who is his choice for VP?

reply to post by Anttyk47


I am following him for the right reason's. Like many on here, I do not believe Ron Paul is a "Savior" or the "Second Coming". He is a man and all men have their good qualities and their bad qualities. Every man is not perfect, and I do not expect him to be anymore then you would expect me to be. With that said, I honestly believe that regardless of how successful Dr. Paul would be at turning things around. It would give me a shred of hope that future elections are not based on a flashy smile, a huge wallet, or a silver tongue. There are many things that Dr. Paul and I do not see eye to eye, but I would much rather give him the benefit of the doubt then follow the status quo. What's the worst that can happen, we have another four years of what we have had the last 20+?

P.S.

Sorry for the negativity directed at you in my previous post. There are a lot of post as of late that will claim neutrality but are obviously exploring their agendas.

This is a really well put together piece of PRPAGANDA!

I can see the disinfo campaign is in full swing now.

Take half truths mix them with a heeping cup of out of context and sprinkle with scare tactics. Half-bake.

Shame on the OP, an elititist corporate plutocrat. Go eat your GMO and drink you flouride enriched water then bow in reverence to your corporate idols. But please, stop lying first.

This debate reminds me of that southpark episode...I'm sure you all know the one, they have to choose between voting for a douche and a turd sandwich, I honestly think most US elections are really like that.

Originally posted by DIDtm
Each of these points constitutes LESS GOVERNMENT.

He wants to leave such policies and laws up to the individual states.

I know this.
You know this.
Why the discussion?

Besides, out of all the other politicians running for President..who has policies and principles that everyone agrees with 100%?

Ill await your answer.

Why do you think it's less government? It's the exact same amount only now it's the States responsibility and not the Feds. You my friend are not going to see less government with Paul.

reply to post by robyn


Isn't that precisely what Ron Paul supports do also?

"Vote for him or it's the end of America," type of statements.

10 Reasons To Vote For Ron Paul

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
   Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens.
   
   
   Affirmative Action is unconstitutional because it provides special rights based on race (that is discrimination). Special rights are unfair and unequal. There are a lot of jobs you can't get in certain area if you are WHITE!
   
   Martin Luther King said "we can't solve the problems of racism with more racism" and would be against it.
   
   "There is nothing more damaging to a youth than to think he has an unfair advantage based on skin color." (paraphrase)...
   Founder of the Tusgagee institute.
   
   Affirmative Action is Racism and promotes collectivism and the subculture instead of true integration. All of us speaking the same, not eubonics.. Dr. King shure would agree..
   
   Opposing legislative favoritism and instead promoting individual liberty is always twisted by these types to claim racism. They believe that people are incapable of decency sans government control and forced compliance to their definition of right and wrong. These concepts are constants which should never be subject to the whim of politicians or the majority. Societies are not perfect constructs, but they cannot be made so by governments, either.
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.
   Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents.
   
   
   
   Roe v. Wade removes the right of the states to determine what is best for their residents. Notice that Ron Paul has never advocated for a ban on abortion, but rather the abolition of a federal mandate to not only tolerate it, but to accept it as a viable alternative to birth control. His opposition to federal mandates like this is the promotion of states rights, nothing more.
   
   Ron Paul has a personal belief against abortion but believes that the fed shouldn't tackle the issue. We shouldn't prevent it, we shouldn't make it a right, and we certainly shouldn't pay for it.
   
   
   
3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
   He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.”
   
   
   Ron Paul opposes federal mandates upon the states for matters which clearly fall outside the purview of the federal government. The federal government is, as the Founders stated repeatedly, the foreign agent for the states and an arbitrator in both interstate resolution and challenges to violations of the rights of individuals and the states.
   
   
   
   
4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
   He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens.
   
   Ron Paul's tax plan is to eventually eliminate the income tax as it is erroneously applied today. While his intentions are indeed good, he may or may not be aware that his plan is at least on the right path to restoring the proper application of federal tax law. The federal income tax, as it is written and as is the authority of Congress, applies only to a very limited scope of persons engaging in certain activities... none of which include merely living and working within the 50 states of the union.
   
   
5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
   Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”.
   
   
   Again, Ron Paul advocates the restoration of states rights. After all, the states are independent Republics which are members of a union of nation states. Where proponents of federal usurpation of states rights see a promotion of irresponsible behavior, Ron Paul sees the removal of the iron fist of tyranny from a central government overstepping its authority.
   
   
   
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.
   
   
   Article I Section 8 provides Congress with NO authority to contract or otherwise burden the states financially with membership to international councils.
   
   
   
7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.
   This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.
   
   
   Everyone is entitled to equal rights and protections under the law. What promoters of same-sex marriage and other "glbt" type considerations want is SPECIAL rights and privileges, separate from those of everyone else. What these dip#s don't realize is that marriage, at least with regard to legislative and regulatory recognition, is considered a privilege. Should this not be a states rights issue as well? The State's participation in a marital union is not necessary by law except when the parties to that union request special consideration from the government... do you really even understand what you're advocating here?
   
   
   
8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
   One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy.
   
   
   Read the 2nd Amendment and notice the last words... "the right of the People to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." We are ALL the "militia", and having our rights intact is indeed necessary for the security of a free state.
   
   
   
9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system
   The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?
   
   
   Again, Ron Paul feels that federal encroachment regarding matters clearly outside of Congress' Constitutional authority needs to be abolished. Among those encroachments is the Federal Department of Education, the Federal Department of Labor, and a myriad of other usurping entities illegally granted regulatory authority over the states' prerogative for self-determination... do you understand what a Republican form of government is?
   
   
   
10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.
    This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.
    

The Founders believed that the State (government in general) should be barred from creating laws or mandates which influence the People's right to the free exercise of religion. However, this does not mean that those of any faith are barred from using the foundation of their religious faith in the furtherance of their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The 1st Amendment is a one-way obligation, restricting the government... not the People. To address the remainder of your point... removing both obligations and restrictions regarding education provides a free market for education, where the People can choose, with their votes and tax dollars, how best to utilize the public trust with regard to their children's education.

Again, statists will fail to see the logic behind the removal of the federal government from their daily lives. They have become so enamored with the ability to legislate taste and to utilize the federal government to force their idealism upon the states, they wouldn't recognize true freedom if their life depended upon it... and in fact, their life as a free individual DOES depend on it!

The person who wrote this is a statist... they would probably see eye-to-eye with the likes of Hamilton.






Begins at 6:44

Originally posted by robyn
This is a really well put together piece of PRPAGANDA!

I find this ironic because it accuses, and yet it contains no facts to rebute the OP's points. Enlighten us please: why do you think this?

Originally posted by Anttyk47

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
   Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens.
   
   
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.
   Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents.
   
   
3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
   He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.”
   
   
4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
   He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens.
   
   
5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
   Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”.
   
   
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.
   
   
7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.
   This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.
   
   
8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
   One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy.
   
   
9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system
   The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?
   
   
10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.
    This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.
    

1) Considering that the definition of affirmative action is granting favoritism to someone based on their race or ethnicity, then opposing it actually does support equality for everyone, minorities included.

2)Ron Paul clearly says legality of abortion is up to states or local communities to decide. While he doesn't take it upon himself to make that decision for anyone else, he does not support abortion. This is based on decades of delivering babies and dealing directly with fetuses as a doctor. Not as some abstract concept.

3)Ron Paul opposes the federal government granting privilege to anyone, including large corporations. If government was much smaller, the Congress and Executive office would have less to offer the large special interests and thus would not be beholden to them. There would be no point in paying millions of dollars toward lobbyists and campaigns. The biggest critic of corporate bailouts and the crony Federal Reserve is Ron Paul.

4)If you look at Paul's whole platform, you'd realize that the point to this is that there shouldn't be need for these taxes in the first place. Government would be smaller. Under Paul's pre-Wilsonian standard, the rich would actually pay the bulk of taxes like they did before the Progressives moved to destroy the middle class(not necessarily intentionally).

5) See the point about the government not granting privilege. In reality, the government's role in corporate pollution is to look the other way while getting a nice campaign contribution or being buddy buddy with the "regulators" (see BP). Paul's "extreme" views on property rights could actually do more for the environment than deceptive regulation and cronyism of the current system.

6)That one is patently absurd. How is not causing conflict make us look bad. I think Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and all of Central and South America would laugh at this one. If you mean, taking away our sovereignty by placing us under any UN authority, I'd say that anyone with a drop of patriotism would have to take RP's position when considering that corrupt, inept institution.

7)Ron Paul's position on gays is that they have equal rights to other citizens . See point 1. When it comes to gay marriage, he thinks the feds should stay out, like with everything else.

8)The 2nd Amendment. Basic promotion of freedom. Nuff said

9) The education in this country began freefall about the same time the Dept of Education was created. I, like RP, don't think it is a coincidence. De facto segregation is working worse for black kids in the inner city than legal segregation did. It is not racist to say so, nor is it a call for legal segregation. It is reality. It's really time for liberals to give up these sacred cows. Or dead horse kicking, whatever hooved farm animal you prefer.

10)Again, the point of his views are to NOT enforce any particular view, pro or anti religion.

The tone and slant of this article are very clear. It has the legitimacy of FOX News doing an expose on Nancy Pelosi.

reply to post by noobgal


I did that when Obama was elected president.

Cried. It was a sad day =,(

reply to post by Anttyk47


1.) Wrong. He believes in equal rights for everyone. Also the fact that he intends to decriminalize drugs would keep a lot of young blacks and hispanics (as well as whites) out of jail and decrease drug murder cases.

2.) Wrong again. He is morally opposed to abortion yes, BUT he believes it should be decided on at the state level so it would be up to us and that means there would be plenty of places where women could get abortions done at.

3.) The federal minimum wage keeps workers from actually trying to get paid more and dismisses their credentials. It puts everyone on the same level and makes them expect to only be paid a certain amount so they don't go in with confidence and their college and schooling is worthless as they are put on the same level as drop outs.

4.) and 5.) are wrong but I'm gonna come back with that evidence.

6.) I highly doubt.

7.) THIS IS A FLAT OUT LIE! If you actually listen to him you will understand that he is saying the government should be out of it and they should be allowed. Again he is religious and somewhat morally opposed,BUT the fact that he still believes in equal rights and thinks they should be allowed to marry makes me respect him more.
If the government isn't in it then there will be churches that will marry gays and it will be legal.



8.) This is just opinion and I see nothing wrong with it if it were true.

9.) Wrong he would save it. It is bad get the government out of it and it will be so much better. Anyone with common sense knows that's true.

10.) This isn't true either. It's just b.s.

reply to post by Anttyk47


1. Affirmative action discourages employers from picking qualified candidates. In looking into Medical School, there seems to be an implication that being of minority is important. It doesn't however explain why minorities make better doctors.

Some of your points I agree on.. Honestly I think Ron Paul has shot himself in the foot. He's saying things that are considered crazy. And should be. But I do have respect for him, most of his policies and unless new relevant information comes to light, I will vote for him.

Here’s my condensed response to all 10 issues you raise. Might I say you have jumped to a few faulty conclusions
1. Federally mandated reverse discrimination (affirmative action) solves nothing. Judging a man by the content of their character DOES solve racial inequality. Secondly, the IRS has no business investigating schools! You cannot infer that he is a bigot because he doesn’t think the Federal Govt. should get involved demanding you hire a certain percentage of races over qualified applicants!
2. The good doctor is an obstetrician! The Federal Govt. has no business manipulating decisions made at the state level. If you demand an abortion, you simply travel to a state that allows it. If anyone believes in an individual’s rights to choose what’s good for their own bodies, Ron Paul does!
3. The super wealthy pay WAY less than 10% because of all the loopholes, write-offs, trust fund laws, and tax shelters (unavailable to the working classes). As far as minimum wages go, if an employer won’t pay a decent wage, he won’t get a decent employee!
4. The earned income credit is IRS welfare, unavailable to the self-employed. The other credits would be offset by lower taxes to all but the lowest wage earners. I suspect those earning poverty wages would not even pay the 10%
5. We haven’t built a new refinery in the country in AGES! This is how the oil companies keep a stranglehold on gasoline and heating fuel supplies, thus controlling the price regardless of the crude oil supply! Cracking down on polluters is the job of state and local agencies, fully able to penalize them at the point of discharge!
6. The Muslim world hates us for our interference in their business! Do YOU trust our government? War crimes? They only happen when you’re (CONSTANTLY) at war!
7. The Fededral govt. has no business saying who may marry whom. Leave it to the individual states. If you don’t like it, move to another state!
8. The government should fear the angry citizenry, not the other way around. Gun control should only apply to criminals! Registered gun owners will be the first folks visited when martial law is declared (ask the people of New Orleans!)
9. The education of Americans has eroded inversely with the increased power of the teacher’s unions and government involvement. I challenge you to take a high school final exam from 100 years ago. I doubt one in ten people could pass today! I would much prefer having my local schools controlled by local folks, rather than have the Federal govt. jamming their agenda down our throats. Get the govt. out of our schools!
10. Forcing a Christmas Manger Scene to be removed from a park or State facility really has nothing to do with separation of church and state! (“driven from the public view”) . Supporting “alternative views” sounds pretty tolerant to me.


Just my opinions!

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Anttyk47

 

3.) The federal minimum wage keeps workers from actually trying to get paid more and dismisses their credentials. It puts everyone on the same level and makes them expect to only be paid a certain amount so they don't go in with confidence and their college and schooling is worthless as they are put on the same level as drop outs.

Thank you for the thought out response to the OP. I take issue with 3, however: I don't believe anybody that is working minimum wage is satisfied with their income. I think Ron Paul believes this simply because he is fanatically ideological about private comapany's rights. Which sound good but it is incompatable with a free society. Without a floor, wages for unskilled labor would drop to look more like indentured servitude. (It it isn't already there already).

This is where a free market becomes inhumane: If the demand for jobs gets too high (like right now), the price for jobs goes down. Which is fair for people who make enough to live... but since $50 dollars a week is better than nothing, there will be people who will work way under market value. Not because they are lazy - simply because there is no choice at that time, and that is where the market is at that time.

We are a better nation than that... there needs to be a floor.

Originally posted by robyn
This is a really well put together piece of PRPAGANDA!

I can see the disinfo campaign is in full swing now.

Take half truths mix them with a heeping cup of out of context and sprinkle with scare tactics. Half-bake.

Shame on the OP, an elititist corporate plutocrat. Go eat your GMO and drink you flouride enriched water then bow in reverence to your corporate idols. But please, stop lying first.

Oh yeah, right on the money there buddy, major disinfo, they are all running scared because they know Ron Paul is gaining momentum....I can't wait for the day that we can finally out number these people I have uploaded on below video

reply to post by fredats


Yeah I understand that concern. I'm actually making minimum wage and going to school now. I think though that Ron Paul is smart enough to consider this and I'd like to hear his conclusion on why that won't happen. I can't imagine he would be ok with Americans making nothing. I don't know I'd like to see if anyone has a clip of him explaining. I will say though just because it's his idea doesn't mean it will pass and I think his other ideas are worth voting the man in. I mean people can be upset about this, but our other choices are either ruining this country with war and debt, a corrupt texan creationist in perry, and the gay bashing pro life idiot bachmann. What choice do we have?

You do see my points though about the negative side of a minimum wage though?