I have a few words about Mr. Paul

Well according to Ron Paul only if you're white and male and own land. And if that was true than Howard Dean would've been the nominee in 2004 instead of John Kerry who did the work and campaigned etc. Right and before the federal government got involved everyone had that equality right? Oh wait....

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
That's why we have the right to vote and people need to get off their asses and vote. Of course if Paul had his way a good number of the people here in our country wouldn't be able to vote today.

First off that is the crux of this entire thread, does our vote really count?
Personally, I don’t think it counts as much as most believe it too. I think that big business gives the money to the people they wish to support, and they also own the media. As to the votes themselves, I sure hope that they count, but you know that the elite put in the “Electoral College” because they did not trust the uneducated masses to vote properly.

As to Ron’s voting against the Civil Rights amendment. Ron Paul is not afraid to vote down a whole bill if he sees a part of it that is Unconstitutional. Riders have become a big part of the problem with this country, and it is getting worse all the time. A good example is the REAL ID Act which was passed as a rider on a defense bill and would have been voted out if not for the troops needing body armor. The reason that he voted against the Amendment you mention is not because he thinks minorities should not get to vote, but because some of the “Equal Opportunity” language in that bill created not only “Reverse Discrimination”, but also was completely Unconstitutional. It is Unconstitutional to tell a company that they have to hire a less qualified candidate for a job because he/she is a minority.


[edit on 12/18/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
So again don't insult me because I have the nerve to disagree with you. Deal with it.

If the truth is insulting to you then the problem is yours to sort out. I could not, in any way shape or form, care less if you have a problem with facts, that is something you have deal with.

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
Well according to Ron Paul only if you're white and male and own land.

I'm starting to get mildly annoyed with your lies now.

In all of this, there is one thing about Ron Paul’s stance on things that does worry me somewhat. Let me put that out here so you all can pick on that one some. The idea of going back to the Gold Standard, sounds great on the surface, but I am not sure everyone knows what that entails. First off, we have to pay off the national debt, or continue paying it until its gone. We cannot just write it off.
Secondly, if the nation gets into some kind of trouble, we have no way to generate more money then we have gold. So if there were a war, national disaster, or other unforeseen event, we cannot just make money to get through that event, we are stuck with exactly what we have available.

All I can say is Ron Paul is the first candidate that I truly believe is not full of _hit, I can't believe anyone who looks into his record and background can honestly not be a believer. I hope all that have questions or dis-beliefs will do their own research and come up with the their own answer, which if they look deep inside themselves will point to joining a time when this country needs exactly this type of a revoloution. I can only hope Ron Paul will get the chance this country deserves.

And you have yet to prove that he isn't included. Your word a lone isn't proof. Socialism means little faith in each other? You really need to do some research on socialism hun. Please do it before you talk about socialism again k? People like to talk about brainwashing here but wow you guys are victims too of it as point your whole view of socialism and how ignorant you are of it. Oh and we're supposed to have a federal government. Once again read that Constitution you guys are always going on about k? And he'd let corporations pollute our waters too so goodbye drinking water.

Originally posted by captainplanet
reply to post by SouthernBelle82

 

If polls really didn't mean anything than why the bitching? If Paul supporters really believed that than they wouldn't care.

Because they are presented as being unbiased, and many people who participate in the polls disagree. If you are going to have them, they need to be fair and you can’t only down play them when he actually wins one. Either make them unbiased or get them off the screen and stop talking about them. Both choices are acceptable

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Several people have received national polling calls, others even had it recorded. In many cases Ron Paul is not even a choice on the national poll, in others, it's simply a "For another candidate, press 6."

that’s not uncommon to hear.

I have looked at Ron Paul's voting record hun. As a socialist it scares the # out of me. He will undue so much progress this country has made. I guess you'd like to go back to the Colonial period huh?

I think socialism is a result of people having little faith in each other. But you know, if the majority of your state feels that way then they could implement many of their own systems and not be slowed down so much by the federal government if Ron Paul was president. It ‘s all about restricting the federal government’s power over the state. It allows for more freedom and flexibility and less discontent among people.

So I ask you again: look at NAFTA, CAFTA etc. Those are creations of the so-called "free market."

Ron Paul would work to do away with both and the ect. I think that whole paragraph is in line with Ron Paul’s views. Here’s another quote:

We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.

Source: www.house.gov...

Well I think it's nice you're for someone but you need to look at his record yourself. This explains it all- youtube.com...

Oh and yes people do disagree with him. Imagine that!

Originally posted by sherfey
All I can say is Ron Paul is the first candidate that I truly believe is not full of _hit, I can't believe anyone who looks into his record and background can honestly not be a believer. I hope all that have questions or dis-beliefs will do their own research and come up with the their own answer, which if they look deep inside themselves will point to joining a time when this country needs exactly this type of a revoloution. I can only hope Ron Paul will get the chance this country deserves.

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
Well according to Ron Paul only if you're white and male and own land.

You show me where he said that, exactly…
Post proof of it, or retract it as what it is, a slanderous misquote because he did not pass some bill.

Its against the T&C of this site to knowingly post false information.

[edit on 12/18/2007 by defcon5]

And if we do have an event again like Katrina and all those hurricanes hitting he's against FEMA too so goodbye to that.

Originally posted by defcon5
In all of this, there is one thing about Ron Paul’s stance on things that does worry me somewhat. Let me put that out here so you all can pick on that one some. The idea of going back to the Gold Standard, sounds great on the surface, but I am not sure everyone knows what that entails. First off, we have to pay off the national debt, or continue paying it until its gone. We cannot just write it off.
Secondly, if the nation gets into some kind of trouble, we have no way to generate more money then we have gold. So if there were a war, national disaster, or other unforeseen event, we cannot just make money to get through that event, we are stuck with exactly what we have available.

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
And if we do have an event again like Katrina and all those hurricanes hitting he's against FEMA too so goodbye to that.

That is different, he would give the states the power and budget to deal with those emergencies on their own.

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
And you have yet to prove that he isn't included. Your word a lone isn't proof. Socialism means little faith in each other? You really need to do some research on socialism hun. Please do it before you talk about socialism again k? People like to talk about brainwashing here but wow you guys are victims too of it as point your whole view of socialism and how ignorant you are of it. Oh and we're supposed to have a federal government. Once again read that Constitution you guys are always going on about k? And he'd let corporations pollute our waters too so goodbye drinking water.

What a mess.

Government allows the pollution of land, air and drinking water. They regulate the amount of pollutant. It's ok to put "x" amount in the water, and "x" amount in the air. And if you get sick because of it, what do you do? Try and sue them, it'll go nowhere, because the law allows for them to do it. "I'm sorry mam, the law clearly allows for us to pollute". In fact the only recourse under socialism you would have is to go to your nationalized hospital to be treated for it, only to go right back out and get afflicted again. What a marvelous circle of sickness your system of government creates.

Wow did you fall asleep in history class? Did you forget who all could vote before the Civil Rights Act of 1964? PLEASE PLEASE read your history! And I mean actual history.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
Well according to Ron Paul only if you're white and male and own land.

You show me where he said that, exactly…
Post proof of it, or retract it as what it is, a slanderous misquote because he did not pass some bill.

Its against the T&C of this site to knowingly post false information.

[edit on 12/18/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
And if we do have an event again like Katrina and all those hurricanes hitting he's against FEMA too so goodbye to that.

Thank you for reminding me how successful FEMA was at addressing that tragedy. Maybe next time they will only wait 4 days instead of 5 to evacuate people who are starving to death.

Right and because big business always does the right thing! LOL! You should watch the documentary "Iraq for Sale." Paul wants to keep everything private and so this documentary is a good look at what would happen if it was our country instead of just the military. Oh and at least with the government if that is going on it's out in the open so you can try to stop it and fight it. With big business they don't have to tell you what's going on at all. They can just give you a big "# you." At least the government can make laws from the corporations polluting our water.

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
And you have yet to prove that he isn't included. Your word a lone isn't proof. Socialism means little faith in each other? You really need to do some research on socialism hun. Please do it before you talk about socialism again k? People like to talk about brainwashing here but wow you guys are victims too of it as point your whole view of socialism and how ignorant you are of it. Oh and we're supposed to have a federal government. Once again read that Constitution you guys are always going on about k? And he'd let corporations pollute our waters too so goodbye drinking water.

What a mess.

Government allows the pollution of land, air and drinking water. They regulate the amount of pollutant. It's ok to put "x" amount in the water, and "x" amount in the air. And if you get sick because of it, what do you do? Try and sue them, it'll go nowhere, because the law allows for them to do it. "I'm sorry mam, the law clearly allows for us to pollute". In fact the only recourse under socialism you would have is to go to your nationalized hospital to be treated for it, only to go right back out and get afflicted again. What a marvelous circle of sickness your system of government creates.

1) FEMA is supposed to be an independent part of the government. George Bush put it under Homeland Security.

2) One word: Brownie.

FEMA worked fine under Bill Clinton. Even rightwinger Joe Scarbrough praised him for that. Nice try though.

Originally posted by aravoth

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
And if we do have an event again like Katrina and all those hurricanes hitting he's against FEMA too so goodbye to that.

Thank you for reminding me how successful FEMA was at addressing that tragedy.

Maybe next time they will only wait 4 days instead of 5 to evacuate people who are starving to death.

And if they have hurricane after hurricane and lose money than I guess they're #ed. Uh and if he was president than he would have to do that through the Congress because he himself can't do it. It has to pass through Congress first. Huh here I thought again you guys were against the federal government doing stuff. Once again only with what you want!

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
And if we do have an event again like Katrina and all those hurricanes hitting he's against FEMA too so goodbye to that.

That is different, he would give the states the power and budget to deal with those emergencies on their own.

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
And if we do have an event again like Katrina and all those hurricanes hitting he's against FEMA too so goodbye to that.

[

since FEMA did such a good job

Pauls stance is that once the federal government gets involved, cutting through the red tape becomes nearly impossible and nobody can take any action. Katrina was a perfect example.
Paul would leave it up to the states to manage their own emergencies. imagine that, local people coming up with plans for their own safety.
relying on the federal government for your safety is akin to relying on Al Bundy's dodge to get you to work

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
Right and because big business always does the right thing! LOL! You should watch the documentary "Iraq for Sale." Paul wants to keep everything private and so this documentary is a good look at what would happen if it was our country instead of just the military. Oh and at least with the government if that is going on it's out in the open so you can try to stop it and fight it. With big business they don't have to tell you what's going on at all. They can just give you a big "# you." At least the government can make laws from the corporations polluting our water.

Laws that will not benefit you at all. Have they? Has any environmental law benefited you yet?

I'm so glad to see you brought up 'Iraq for sale' and tried to use it as an example of what the war would be like under a Paul administration. Especially since he voted against the War, and has said he would begin troop withdrawals immediately. It is because of this that I am somewhat confused by you bringing up such a fine documentary in an attempt to smear Dr. Paul.

I don't know, to this day, how your mighty ship of state has attempted to stop the abuses of power with regard to military contractors. Perhaps you have an example, I mean, At least the government will protect you from this sort of thing, right?

The question does remain however. Prior to 1913 we were the largest, most technologically advanced trading power the world had ever seen throughout the entire history of the human race. And we did it all under the same conditions that Ron Paul wants to return us too.

The only thing I can gather with absolute clarity in every post you have written in this thread thus far, is that your logic is severely flawed.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by aravoth]

[edit on 18-12-2007 by aravoth]

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
Wow did you fall asleep in history class? Did you forget who all could vote before the Civil Rights Act of 1964? PLEASE PLEASE read your history! And I mean actual history.

Acts are voted fore or against for a number of reasons, and often it’s the additional bits that are added on to the bill as riders. He has explained that he voted it down because of the fact that it provided for basically “Reverse Discrimination”. NOW, show where he stated this:

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
Well according to Ron Paul only if you're white and male and own land.

Again it’s a violation on this site to knowingly post false information.

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
PLEASE PLEASE read your history! And I mean actual history.

Oh, BTW, I don’t suggest that you harp on history considering that you don’t know that the Constitution was not set up to support Federalism.


[edit on 12/18/2007 by defcon5]