Tell the world why we shouldn't vote for Ron Paul

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You're right, perhaps I should have clarified. There is an establishment clause, which prohibits the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion. That's all. I was using the popular version of "Seperation of Church and State," you know, the one where people get offended if they see a bible in a government building, or a parent is upset because her son told her that his classmate was praying in school.

Really, it has nothing to do with a statue of the ten commandments, or a painting of the last supper hanging in a government building. It has nothing to do with school prayer, or anything else.

Over 80% of Congress is Christian, so what does that imply about the popular version of the "seperation of church and state"?

There is no (I hope) government financing of Religion, or a State Religion, so there should be no National debate over it. It is just a distraction, and a complete waste of time. I'm appalled that this type of crap gets into the supreme court.

Let it be handled on the county level, I say.

ATS is a funny kinda place. On the one hand you find people railing against the NWO, NAFTA, CFR, The Bilderbergs and the Central Bank. And then when a lone Presidential candidate pops-up that ALSO rails against these same demons people balk: 'He wants to do away with the IRS. All the highways will collapse. Who will take cae of us?' 'There won't be any healthcare' 'All the underserved will be abandoned'.

That's crap people. RP simply wants responsibility for these things shifted back to the states where it was originally intended. The massive federal bureaucracy is NOT the most efficient way to handle these things. That should be abundantly clear. US students rank well behind students from the rest of the world. So much for the Dept of Education. FEMA? Are you kidding? The FDA admits that they can't do the job of protecting the population. They don't have enough inspectors and their systems are antiquated.

These functions need to be broken down into reasonably manageable operations (at the state or regional level) and coordinated at the national level. Rarely are you going to find a one-size-fits-all solution to a problem and that is exactly what a federal system is.

The current system is broken. It is ineffectual, corrupt, wasteful and riddle with special interests. Embrace change people. Either embrace change or stop bitching about the NWO and the Central Bank. The predators are not going to go away unless you take the system they built to facilitate their activities away first.

And electing someone like RP isn't an answer unto itself. To have real hope for change we're going to need to remove all the career politicians and bought-and-paid-for shills that currently populate our Congress.

Whadaya say? Change or business-as-usual to the bitter end?

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
You're right, perhaps I should have clarified. There is an establishment clause, which prohibits the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.

actually, it goes a lot further than that.

That's all. I was using the popular version of "Seperation of Church and State," you know, the one where people get offended if they see a bible in a government building,

i've never heard anyone complain of a bible being put in a library.

or a parent is upset because her son told her that his classmate was praying in school.

wow, 2 strawmen in a row, what a roll.

Really, it has nothing to do with a statue of the ten commandments, or a painting of the last supper hanging in a government building. It has nothing to do with school prayer, or anything else.

can you justify the display of the 10 commandments in a judicial building? that's a tough job, especially when only ...i think 3 of them pertain to american law

and how come your judgment on this supersedes that of many supreme court rulings

Over 80% of Congress is Christian, so what does that imply about the popular version of the "seperation of church and state"?

that we live in a country where there's still institutional bigotry towards religious minorities, especially atheists.

There is no (I hope) government financing of Religion, or a State Religion, so there should be no National debate over it. It is just a distraction, and a complete waste of time. I'm appalled that this type of crap gets into the supreme court.

really? what about the recent cases involving the airforce ramming evangelical christianity down people's throats?
it's not crap, it's a protection of freedom.

Let it be handled on the county level, I say.

yes, we'll have mini-talibans running small parts of the country. if it was handled on the county level, my homosexual friends would be hanged on the spot within 1 mile of where the lived when i grew up...

Originally posted by TheExaminer
When the man wants to make sure YOU have more money in YOUR pocket to buy the health care you want, stop bitching that the government isn't there to bail you out. Go and buy a plan that suits you with the money you aren't having to give to the IRS!

look at the 5 best healthcare systems in the world, they're all SOCIALIZED. i think there's a reason for that.

Originally posted by TheExaminer
Honestly, have any of you actually read ronpaul2008.com?

yes i read it, some of it i can support, not all of it.

When the man wants to make sure YOU have more money in YOUR pocket to buy the health care you want, stop bitching that the government isn't there to bail you out. Go and buy a plan that suits you with the money you aren't having to give to the IRS!

ok this is an honest question for you, and everyone else here. what would be the difference between saving money for health care over paying taxes for heath care. why does it matter? how many people make it through life without racking up big, ugly, depressing medical bills? why not just pay into a system that ensures you get taken care of...no matter what? how does paying out of pocket differ?

reply to post by Animal


Paying out of pocket rather than into a government program means you have control. You can shop the free market for the best product for your needs rather than buy into some huge package deal as the government would force you to. Why should a single elderly man be responsible for somebody else's maternity care? Why should a pregnant young woman be responsible for some old guys erection pills? Why should any one of us be responsible for an inmates Prozac?

Even having your employer's insurance is bunk. I did a few hours of research and found my employer is getting ripped off big time but thanks to me having to pay for everyone else is this god-awful state I'm in I can't afford the product I need without getting some of the money my state and my employer wasted back.

The same goes for education. Why should some single childless person be penalized for homeownership by being forced to pay into an education system? A miserable failure of one at that. Think of all the couples who could afford to send their kids to private school if they only got the thousands per year back from the state that stole their money to pay for education by the taxing entity. The guy in the cube next to me is going through this very struggle with his child right now. What's his solution? Financial aid to send his kid to private school. But he still has to pay into the public system through taxation. So taxpayers are getting screwed twice by paying to educate his kid that wont be in the school and by paying the financial aid he is using to pull his kid out of the school. Why the hell not just let him have HIS money back to use as HE sees fit?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
here's why i won't vote for ron paul:

1: health care
2: the "fairtax" system (though i do admit that they really did do the marketing to come up with the name) and abolishment of the IRS
3: he's still a conservative, regardless of his separation from the crowd of traditional conservatism

I just wanted to clarify that Ron Paul does not support the fairtax system.

Why you shouldnt vote for Ron Paul?

Thats easy. HE's a crazy old man who wants to go back to some anarchist past where there is no government and no taxes. I think he wants to get a job that has no responsibilities and no duties so that he can just cower under his desk after he has disbanded the military and the pentagon.

Seriously though, there is something extreemly wrong with him. Either he is trying to start some cult or is running for something else, but its not president.
He is an extreme isolationist and in a world of globalism his ideology lies in the past. His puritanical return to the constitution nonsense is also disturbing. He is trying to make the US constitution into some "holy book", when in fact is a flawed document filled with all kinds errors written by men in the 18th century. He wants to go back to life in the 18th century and drag America back there as well.

I think he is more of a cult leader than a presidential candidate and all the money being thrown at him is being wasted as the chance of him running for president is "slim to none".

reply to post by IAF101



No, REAL reasons. Not stuff you made up.
Study a little more. You might discover that you like his platform.

reply to post by spacedoubt


I wouldnt waste my time or my brain on the hypocritical nonsense and propaganda that Ron Paul wants his minions....er supporters to take on faith as if it were gospel. I see what he's doing and its wrong. I dont care what he claims to be and what his perspective is. I'm not voting somebody for their perspective, I vote for somebody who shares my perspective. He obviously doesnt get that simple fact or else he'd stop trying to preach and instead act like a normal person.

reply to post by IAF101


Well, I know it isn't necessarily part of the thread, but who does support your views? What candidate do you think will lead the US to a brighter future?

reply to post by Golack


thank you for clearing that up, i must have been misinformed.

however, he does have some wacky economic ideas... especially since he implied that returning us to the gold standard would have some effects that wouldn't be related to it....

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
You're right, perhaps I should have clarified. There is an establishment clause, which prohibits the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion.

actually, it goes a lot further than that.

The alphabet also goes a lot further than that sentance of yours.

i've never heard anyone complain of a bible being put in a library.

I've never heard a bird chirp at 3am. Never seen a kangaroo in real life either. Must be lies.

or a parent is upset because her son told her that his classmate was praying in school.


wow, 2 strawmen in a row, what a roll.

You must be confused. I'm speaking of actual happenings. Anyway, if you can recognize strawmen so clearly, why is it that you can't recognize the whole issue as being a strawman to divert attention away from more important things?

can you justify the display of the 10 commandments in a judicial building? that's a tough job, especially when only ...i think 3 of them pertain to american law

Can you justify spending money that would be better used elsewhere? Or is it worth it, just to make you feel better? Do you assume that a display of the 10 commandments is the secret driving force that converts everyone on the premisis into religious zealots and has magical poperties that imbues any legal activity with the "will of god"?

that we live in a country where there's still institutional bigotry towards religious minorities, especially atheists.

Spare me with the bigotry. 87% of Americans are Christian, and such proportions roll over in ratio to government representation, except for the case of Jews who are over represented some 13 fold.

yes, we'll have mini-talibans running small parts of the country. if it was handled on the county level, my homosexual friends would be hanged on the spot within 1 mile of where the lived when i grew up...

I see, because the display of religious items has everything to do with murder and overriding federal laws - like homicide. You know, it's a slippery slope. First we allow a statue, and the next thing you know all the gays are murdered!

Originally posted by benign.psychosis
The alphabet also goes a lot further than that sentance of yours.

though you can't seem to find an argument... honestly, i've pointed out rulings on the establishment clause and the separation of church and state many times on abovepolitics, just look in the "religion in government" section.

I've never heard a bird chirp at 3am. Never seen a kangaroo in real life either. Must be lies.

you know, instead of ridiculous hyperbole and attempts to belittle me, you could just provide evidence.

You must be confused. I'm speaking of actual happenings. Anyway, if you can recognize strawmen so clearly, why is it that you can't recognize the whole issue as being a strawman to divert attention away from more important things?

clearly you're unfamiliar with the concept of a strawman. a strawman is an argument that rests on a false version of the other side's assertion... which is basically what the "bible in a public building" and the "student praying" thing are..
and student prayer is constitutionally protected except in certain instances such as leading a class prayer or praying while giving a speech.

Can you justify spending money that would be better used elsewhere?

you're right, why did they bother wasting money on displays of the 10 commandments?

Or is it worth it, just to make you feel better?

it's worth it to protect the constitution.

Do you assume that a display of the 10 commandments is the secret driving force that converts everyone on the premisis into religious zealots and has magical poperties that imbues any legal activity with the "will of god"?

no, i just don't like seeing people wasting money on unnecessary, unconstitutional displays.

Spare me with the bigotry. 87% of Americans are Christian, and such proportions roll over in ratio to government representation, except for the case of Jews who are over represented some 13 fold.

except for the atheists and other non-religious folk, whose representation in federal government is just over 1/10th of 1%

I see, because the display of religious items has everything to do with murder and overriding federal laws - like homicide. You know, it's a slippery slope. First we allow a statue, and the next thing you know all the gays are murdered!

in a nation where federal narcotics laws were overridden on the basis of religious freedom... would it be that surprising if it extended to other felonies?

reply to post by Karlhungis


To answer your question, I need to add that firstly, none of the candidates are going to deliver what they promise. These are just words to deceive us into getting our votes.

So far, I have no real candidates in mind. I'll still wait another couple of months before I make up my mind. But so far, I'm interested in looking into Mc Cain, Clinton and Huckabee. I dont know yet, who is going to get my vote but I still need more time to pick the best from the worst.

ooo! ooo!

i found a good one! a REALLY good reason why you should vote for Ron Paul....

CREATIONIST RHETORIC!

reply to post by IAF101


Distrust doesn't count, it can be applied to anyone. Nothing they say they ever stick to? So what do you base your vote on? Who's jaw is straighter?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


It's a personal belief and he's entitled to it. I don't agree with his religious beliefs, but I don't feel threatened by them either. He doesn't want to shove them down your throat, he just answered a question honestly. Try and get an atheist elected, good luck.

I've been watching this thread and I'm still waiting for a reason...

[edit]
there was also a cut in the middle of that video, someone felt the need to cut his explanation a little short for some reason.



[edit on 28-12-2007 by captainplanet]

reply to post by Animal


There is a pretty good thread by Zoltan here: www.abovepolitics.com...

He addresses your question about healthcare pretty well.

alright, if open denial of scientific concepts from someone who is supposed to be a knowledgeable doctor isn't enough, here's another one. calling the civil was a needless war and saying that he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act.

sorry guys, my wife is from france. i am totally sold on their medical system. sure it could be inproved, but the medical care they get is excellent. no one worries about health there, because they know no matter what they are covered and they will be taken care of. this is one issue where the individual spirit of american's bugs me....

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


He wouldn’t have voted for the civil rights act until they wrote one that didn’t violate constitutional rights.

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.
www.lewrockwell.com...

He thinks we could have found a way around the civil war. So do many people.



Both issues are really kind of silly and speculative considering they are in the past, but the reasoning is sound. I really don’t want to argue hypothetical stances, we are smarter then the TV here, no?