Convince me not to Vote for Ron Paul

I have been cruising the net and all I can find is great things about Ron Paul and how is he so different from everyone else. I like the candidate but I wanna know the bad stuff. I want to know the skeletons in his closet, his dirty secrets, his ties with reptilians... anything that can convince me he is not the best candidate out there.

I want to know the bad stuff for two reason.

1.) I am an informed voter with a full view of my candidate and not just a one sided happy go lucky view.

2.) Find out what is true and not true about Ron Paul. If someone says he eats babies I want to know thats not true and if it is I do not want to look like an ass trying to defend a baby eater.

convince "you"? reminds me of those atheist always wanting others to "proove God"
do your own research, your question hits me as being lazy. don't rely on others to prove it to you. prove it to yourself.
unless you are just trolling for anti Ron Pauls to start debating you. I happen to like RP.

(crap, i just realized you're a moderator so i'll probably get a warning or a PB...great!)

[edit on 22-10-2007 by icybreeze]

I have nothing specific to add to this thread regarding your request QuickSilver, but I will be watching this.

I've asked this questions several times in other threads and have never got a real answer. Even when asking why people think he is the greatest thing to ever happen to politics, the only answer I can ever get is "because he is a true constitution supporter."

I'd be very interested to see if you do in fact, receive anything on this. I commend the effort though.

Ron Paul is an Arab hugging godless closet gay.

Vote Guliani! Join Rudy!

www.joinrudy2008.com...

[edit on 22-10-2007 by Eclipse_Solar]

Originally posted by Eclipse_Solar
Ron Paul is an Arab hugging godless closet gay.

Vote Guliani! Join Rudy!

www.joinrudy2008.com...

[edit on 22-10-2007 by Eclipse_Solar]

Hmm...call me crazy, but I don't think it's smart to take political advice from someone with an avatar that states, "The south will rise again".

In a perfect world you would be right here and I could smack you senseless for flying that rebel flag.

But alas...

I personally support Ron Paul. Here are some arguments against him that I have run into.

Beware, they're quite weak, baseless, and at times, humorous.

I'll post the claim and the quote/information that sparked this claim by anti-Ron Paul people:


Ron Paul believes in conspiracy theories.

Argument: Paul believes Bush is “determined” to impose martial law through a bird-flu scare.

Quote:”They're determined to have martial law."

Well, all signs seem to point to "them" wanting Martial Law. Of course, the people faulting him for saying such a thing don't provide any proof that "they" aren't looking for martial law.

One would only have to look at the executive orders being signed.


Argument: Paul believes Bush will “concoct” something to scare the American people.

Quote: "I think freedom's been sliding for a long time and it got a lot worse after 9/11 and I'm always afraid of some concocted event that will scare the American people"

They're constantly scaring the American people. This propaganda with them saying Iran is determined to attack us, Bin Laden is determined to attack us, these food and product scares, disease scares. It's all fear mongering.


Ron Paul votes to protect constitutional rights of child predators instead of children rights.

Argument: Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert bill.

Ron Paul voted against, and always votes against, extra-constitutional bills that exceed the limits set by the constitution. Saying he's protecting the rights of child predators when he's delivered more than 4,000 children as a doctor is quite a stretch, and a weak argument at best.

Ron Paul wants the power in the states' hands, and not the federal government. A nation wide alert would be in the hands of the federal government.


Argument: Ron Paul voted against notifying parents if their minor child crossed state lines to get an abortion.

Again, Ron Paul wants the power in the states' hands. Simply because he votes against these things doesn't mean he is protecting criminals. He wants the states to have the power, not the federal government. We can't just allow them to have control over every single aspect of this country.


Ron Paul is a political opportunist.

Argument: In 1988 Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian, despite being a life long Republican. Now he’s running for president as a Republican. Seems he runs on the side that seems the most expedient at the time.

I love this one because it's so weak and pointless. It's grasping at straws.

As if Ron Paul is the only one that would run with a party that gives him the best chance to win.

What he stands for, his policies, his stances, everything, is more republican than the candidates who call themselves republican.


Ron Paul is a documented hypocrite.

Argument: According to his own House page, he introduced and voted for term limits. Yet Ron Paul has served ten terms. His followers might say he isn’t a hypocrite since It’s not the law. But if that’s the case, then Al Gore and Hollywood environmentalist types aren’t hypocrites when they have a huge carbon footprint. After all, it’s not law, so why follow your convictions?

I love this one too. The fact that they throw in and compare Al Gore's continued pollution of the planet with Ron Paul's run of ten terms is quite humorous.

There's a difference between polluting the planet and speaking out against others for polluting the planet, and running for multiple terms even though you've tried to get term limits.

If Ron Paul got such a bill passed, and then refused to leave office, THEN he'd be a hypocrite.

But currently, he's only a hypocrite in the minds of the corporate elite and the willfully ignorant Americans who support them.


Ron Paul thinks we’d be safer without the CIA.

Quote: Bill Maher - I would feel pretty naked without the CIA
Ron Paul - You'd feel naked, but you'd be a lot safer because you'd be less likely to be attacked by terrorists.

Considering the CIA started the very organization who supposedly attacked us on 9/11, really, how far off can Ron Paul's claim be?

The CIA is a criminal organization who basically has no oversight and does not have to abide by the law.


Paul has voted against funding our troops while in combat

Pretty obvious why. If Congress keeps on funding Bush's war, when will he ever pull out?

His hand has to be forced.

Of course, these people don't mention how Bush has declared war without the permission of Congress, but they bash Ron Paul for trying to end this illegal war.

Some other stuff is about some shrimping projects he's trying to get funding for. They have to trash him over shrimping projects

That's really how desperate these people are.:shk:


(this anti-Ron Paul information courtesy of the libel and slander site RonPaulExposed.com)









[edit on 10/22/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

Imo Ron heart is in the right place but I have to say a lot of the time his cures are worse then the disease and could even be counter productive . Think about it if the CIA gets canned it would just be replaced by an identical organisation. Ron is also way off base when it comes to the causes of Islamic extremism why anybody would believe what people who fly airliners into buildings say is beyond me.

But above all else it is a complete utter waste of time to look into the past for solutions to today's problems.

Originally posted by xpert11
Ron is also way off base when it comes to the causes of Islamic extremism why anybody would believe what people who fly airliners into buildings say is beyond me.

Care to explain?

The CIA, the organization that you are basically saying shouldn't be abolished, has said that blow back is a big reason why "they hate us" over in the Middle East. Meddling in their politics, overthrowing their governments, placing sanctions on them, bombing them, and threatening them, should be enough to piss them off.

Unless, of course, America is always the victim in your mind and you're never going to stray from that.

Okay I’ll give it a shot.
1) Ron Paul wishes to brake up the federal education board. One of the main functions of this part of government is to doll out cash to states to help with the financing of schools. And with out the federal funds many school systems in poor areas will fail. People with higher education are the crux of the economy.

2) Ron Paul wishes to quit the UN. Now I know the UN has its issues, it’s a massive bureaucracy rife with corruption. But it does serve two functions that no other place can.
First it gives a place for the little countries to be heard, seemingly unimportant countries can have an issue that could be blown out of proportion and have long term negative results on a large scale, the UN is a forum to discuss those issues and attempt to resolve them.
Secondly it gives a place for the more powerful nations that have beef with each other to talk and try to work things out with out killing everyone.
Thirdly the UN does a lot of good work through out the world, in the form of peace keeping rendering humanitarian aid war refugees and people that have suffered from disasters.

3) His isolationist stances, now admittedly this does in fact have some sweet benefits, but the cons out weigh them. With out an interventionist government going around the world butting their noses into other people’s business prices for certain goods will sky rocket, do you want to pay $5 a gallon? Because that is what will happen if the US stops propping up the Saudi regime and the people of Saudi Arabia take over, remember most of the hi-jackers on 9/11 were Saudi.

4) He won’t be able to do anything and the government will stall as long as he’s president. As president he cannot propose bills for congresses consideration, and a lot of the bill congress would want to pass he would veto. And a lot of the executive orders he would pass would be resented by congress, the net result would be no work would get done, really do you see Ron Paul allowing a budget giving money to Israel to pass, or congress not allocating money to Israel?

Really I think Ron Paul is one of the few politicians who you can trust to do what he says he’ll do, and stand by his principles, but think he’s just plain wrong on many issues.

Based on the discussions I have had with another member there is a school of thought that the terrorists would have you believe is that they are motivated by the Palestine - Israel situation personally I think such a notion is a load of rubbish. As for the CIA much of there melding in the ME was done on behalf of the US government.

Besides without the CIA how do you gather intel and conduct counter intel operations ?
The US isnt always the victim Iraq is proof of that much.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Okay I’ll give it a shot.
1) Ron Paul wishes to brake up the federal education board.

If I want to help out a poor school with my money then that is my right and I have many avenues with which to do that. This is just another example of the federal government robbing us and spending our money for us.

On top of all this, it is not money that schools need most. What they need most is good parents.

Maybe I can learn something here. Convince me how throwing money at these generally wasteful poor institutions is going to make up for the real problem (poor parenting/lack of good role models at home and in general) Kids find their role models on TV and magazines now, and that is so backwards, that is so wrong... And if anything is ever going to change, I'm sorry but the parents have to step up. It is their responsiblity! My money will never change that.

[edit on 22-10-2007 by Novise]

[edit on 22-10-2007 by Novise]

[edit on 22-10-2007 by Novise]

Originally posted by Novise
If I want to help out a poor school with my money then that is my right and I have many avenues with which to do that. This is just another example of the federal government robbing us and spending our money for us.

Ah I think I see where you are going with this, “if the government didn’t tax me then I would just donate my money to the schools and it would be my choice” let me be the first to tell you that that is a load of BS, now I can’t say that you wouldn’t donate to charity but the vast majority wouldn’t. already there are many schools and hospitals that are broke and can’t afford many basic things because people wont pay taxes to supply them. Now if people wont give kids the by being to by the government, what makes you think that they’ll just get up and do it on their own?

On top of all this, it is not money that schools need most. What they need most is good parents.

The job of schools is not to rase children it is to teach they about the world and how it works.
And by the way how could you possibly enforce good parenting?

Convince me how throwing money at these generally wasteful poor institutions is going to make up for the real problem (poor parenting/lack of good role models at home and in general)
Again the job of schools is to inform not to raise your kids. They can not and will not take the role of parent.
Now my question to you is if we don’t have schools by what means will we teach our children? Keep in mind that the media we are currently using would be almost impossible in a society based on home schooling.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Okay I’ll give it a shot.
1) Ron Paul wishes to brake up the federal education board. One of the main functions of this part of government is to doll out cash to states to help with the financing of schools. And with out the federal funds many school systems in poor areas will fail. People with higher education are the crux of the economy.

Schools are funded by the states. Schools are run by the states. Basically, the Education Department determines how the funds are used and what the kids are learning.

We don't need the federal government running every single thing in this country. The state governments are more than capable of doing so.

And you say that the federal government dishes out money? Even if that's true, you know where they get that money? We the people. Our income tax.

Guess what tax Ron Paul wants to abolish?

The income tax.

Guess what abolishing the income tax will do? It'll give the people more money to spend.

Guess what more money to spend means? It means that people will go buy things in stores and local businesses, boosting the states economies, and giving those states more money to cover these schools that you say will fail if the federal government doesn't have control.

So then you have to ask yourself - should we pay income taxes, allow the government to control one more aspect of this nation, and not vote for Ron Paul? Or should we elect him, not have to pay income taxes, and take away powers from the federal government, which will secure our freedom at least a little while longer?

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
2) Ron Paul wishes to quit the UN. Now I know the UN has its issues, it’s a massive bureaucracy rife with corruption. But it does serve two functions that no other place can.
First it gives a place for the little countries to be heard, seemingly unimportant countries can have an issue that could be blown out of proportion and have long term negative results on a large scale, the UN is a forum to discuss those issues and attempt to resolve them.

Keyword: attempt

The problem is they don't solve anything. They sit back and gain power silently. The UN is being set up to be the world government of this planet.

Yes, it'd be nice to have a place where the smaller countries can be heard. But you have to realize priorities.

A place to listen to smaller countries?

Or saving your national sovereignty from world government?

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Secondly it gives a place for the more powerful nations that have beef with each other to talk and try to work things out with out killing everyone.

They have each other's phone numbers.

Pick up a phone, not a gun.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Thirdly the UN does a lot of good work through out the world, in the form of peace keeping rendering humanitarian aid war refugees and people that have suffered from disasters.

To slowly gain the rights to land and resources. They're already trying to control international waters.

I mean, they snapped their fingers and gave Israel Palestinian land. And that was in their first couple years of existence.

That should be worrisome.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
3) His isolationist stances, now admittedly this does in fact have some sweet benefits, but the cons out weigh them. With out an interventionist government going around the world butting their noses into other people’s business prices for certain goods will sky rocket, do you want to pay $5 a gallon? Because that is what will happen if the US stops propping up the Saudi regime and the people of Saudi Arabia take over, remember most of the hi-jackers on 9/11 were Saudi.

You basically contradict yourself with this. You mention we should have an interventionist government, and then you mention 9/11 in the same paragraph.

9/11 happened BECAUSE we are an interventionist government. The CIA admits this.

If we trade and talk with all nations rather than screwing nations over, as Ron Paul advocates, then we will have better relations with everyone, and we will be less likely to go to war. Better relations will mean we won't have to be an interventionist government. Better relations will mean we won't get screwed over on prices.

Think about it. If we increase trade with nations, we're helping out their economy. If we have better relations with nations, we're offering them protection in case of war. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. They won't sky rocket prices on us.

Besides, we don't need to be so dependent on foreign oil anyway. We can easily make a conversion to an alternative energy source.

So then it becomes which you'd rather have -

An interventionist government to keep prices of goods cheap while potentially sacrificing your people in terrorist attacks

Or a government that trades and talks with all nations, not pissing anyone off, which makes you safer, and you probably end up having the same, if not cheaper, prices of goods than you would if you were forcing prices to be cheap.

Seems an obvious choice to me.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
4) He won’t be able to do anything and the government will stall as long as he’s president. As president he cannot propose bills for congresses consideration, and a lot of the bill congress would want to pass he would veto. And a lot of the executive orders he would pass would be resented by congress, the net result would be no work would get done, really do you see Ron Paul allowing a budget giving money to Israel to pass, or congress not allocating money to Israel?

First of all, what is your proof that Congress wouldn't pass his bills?

Second of all, we don't need to give money to Israel. We need to keep the money HERE. Help AMERICA FIRST! The rest of the world second.

Israel is fine, and they'll be in even better shape if we start talking with nations rather than bombing them.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
but think he’s just plain wrong on many issues.

Well I think you're wrong on what you consider wrong, but I guess we have to agree to disagree.




[edit on 10/22/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

reply to post by xpert11


We need an all powerful organization with no oversight that can't be held accountable or restricted by law to do basic intelligence gathering?

We don't need the CIA to gather intelligence. The more we start talking with nations, and the less we bomb and meddle in other nations' politics, the less we'll need an all powerful intelligence agency.

Ron Paul would not have enough support to disband the FBI, CIA, Department of Energy, etc. His term(s) in office would see the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, troop cut backs around the world with the US pulling out of A FEW military bases. He would probably be able to privatize social security and free up the healthcare market place for some healthy competition.

The Department of Education needs to be scrapped ASAP. So many tax dollars wasted on something that just isn't getting better. It's actually getting worse. We need to give education to the free market and let parents decide which schools to pay to teach their children. Everyone wants to oppose this argument with the poor and how they won't get a fair shake, but that's incorrect. Charitable Organizations will be born that serve to educate poor people, and i bet they'll be among the best schools in the world.

Two things. One, lots of people will donate money when Uncle Sam isn't reaching in the other pocket. Two, i forgot two.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
We need an all powerful organization with no oversight that can't be held accountable or restricted by law to do basic intelligence gathering?

Well it is the US government job to hold the CIA accountable and to make laws that spell out the agency's role. Making changes isnt the same thing as axing an agency like the CIA.

We don't need the CIA to gather intelligence. The more we start talking with nations, , the less we'll need an all powerful intelligence agency.

That is an extremely naive world view .
So while other nations gain advantage from spying and gathering intel on the US you would do nothing. When it comes to diplomacy it pays to know what the other guy is up to.

reply to post by xpert11


Your world view is a war motivated view. It seems you're not connecting the trading and diplomatic foreign policy under Ron Paul with a decreased foreign threat to the United States.

"Ah I think I see where you are going with this, “if the government didn’t tax me then I would just donate my money to the schools and it would be my choice” let me be the first to tell you that that is a load of BS, now I can’t say that you wouldn’t donate to charity but the vast majority wouldn’t. already there are many schools and hospitals that are broke and can’t afford many basic things because people wont pay taxes to supply them. Now if people wont give kids the by being to by the government, what makes you think that they’ll just get up and do it on their own? "

That is the very point. I would not send my money there willingly, but the federal government is glad to force me to send it there. And you think this is a good thing?

The reason I wouldn't, is because the city (city taxes) should simply fund it's own schools. This makes so much sense to me. As soon as your city school system starts spending more money than they have, or they try to sustain an education system that relies on outside (especially federal) funding they are in very dangerous waters and have brought it upon themselves. And if you ever lose some of that free money (that free ride), you are probably soon headed down a road of debt which Ron Paul is so against. This always seems to lead to further and further reliance on outside sorces.

My point is that it shouldn't even be a problem. The city should have a sustainable school system. The fact that there are pockets of society that cannot do this on their own is laughable in my view.

There is no reason the state government cannot make it's own dept. of education if so desired, if the people of that state decide to go for it. This is much more salient than a federal dept. of education.

"The job of schools is not to rase children it is to teach they about the world and how it works.
And by the way how could you possibly enforce good parenting? "

I would not have a way of enforcing good parenting, nor would I want to tell someone how to raise their kids. That goes against liberty and freedom completely if you ever tell somebody how to raise their kids. Now if they break the law, if they harm the kid and his rights and freedoms, then by all means it's time to step in.

The problem is that a poor home environment can undo everything the school has managed to teach the kid about the world and how it works. And I believe school is actually also about role setting (for lack of a better term) It is one of the big reasons parents are afraid of homeschooling, they want their kid to learn social skills at school. Behavior modelling...

NovusOrdoMundi I hope you know more about the subject matter then you do about my world view. If you have issues with the Iraq war take them up with someone who supported the invasion of Iraq from day one. As for the US staying out of world affairs in order to make itself more secure the US entrance into World War Two disproved that notion.

reply to post by xpert11


You misinterpreted what I said. What I meant by "war motivated view" was, you're thinking in terms of how the US is now. It's foreign policy now is war motivated. So you're keeping in mind the US policy now, and trying to connect that with achieving peace, rather than trying to assess Ron Paul's foreign policy with peace.

And because we entered World War II, we can't be forgiven? Is Germany still looked down upon because of what Hitler did?

I mean, Hitler ran across Europe and STARTED World War II, and they've seemed to take on a more peaceful foreign policy.

Simply because we entered World War II doesn't mean we should have a war driven foreign policy the rest of our existence, and it doesn't mean the world can't learn to forgive us. But continuing the same old things won't make them forgive us.