Why Ron Paul Sucks

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:58 PM
link   
It doesn't make any sense to vote for Ron Paul because, apart from ending the war (because he believes we should not intervene in any foreign conflict ever [read: not even Holocaust II: The Quickening], not because he believes this war is inherently evil or anything), he holds zero liberal values - none.

Ron Paul does not support the right to choose, and hides behind some sort of wishy washy, supposed "principled" states right position, but indeed he authored a bill that would define life beginning at conception. So, I wonder how he'd really act if given the chance? Additionally, Ron Paul does not support strong environmental laws (like states alone can combat issues relating to global warming, and put pressure on other countries to do the same). Ron Paul would like to eliminate public education. Ron Paul does not believe in government funding of the arts. Ron Paul has openly said he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ron Paul opposed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

It makes no sense for someone who is liberally (or even soundly) minded to vote for Ron Paul. Yes, Ron Paul as president can not alone affect changes to institutions and ideals liberals hold dear...no president, alone, can do that. Yes, yes I know, I get it, I understand. However (as we've seen with this current administration) is that she/he can certainly affect the landscape deeply enough that those changes do happen. Do you need any further example than the nomination of two extremely right-wing Supreme Court Justices that will be around and voting when your kids have kids? I didn't think so. But here's another: agencies and rule changes. Look no further than the EPA, who has its head appointed by the president and whose rules change with the political wind every time a new president is elected (I really believe that agency heads should be elected positions because of this profound political influence a new administration has on the agencies, but I digress). Look at the changes made to air quality standards & water quality standards, the rule change that allowed the EPA to decide if new pesticides would harm endangered species without consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, increased logging in our national parks (Dept. of Interior), etc. So yeah...a president (and their administration), no matter who he or she is, can have a profound impact on our lives. So don't sell me that "Ron Paul can't alone do those things" line of B.S., because I'm not buying it.

Now, I am not going on this rant because I fear Ron Paul. I don't - snowball's chance and all that jazz. The reason I am going on this rant is because it pisses me off to no end that people can so blindly decide to vote for someone just because of few positive aspects of their campaign without knowing what is really going on and what the candidate really stands for. Do a little bit more research on the candidate, no matter your political views and no matter their party. There are a lot of people that consider themselves true-blue "democrats” and would still go out and vote for Lieberman just because it has a "D" next to his name on the ballot. There are fiscal conservatives who actually voted for Bush the second go round for the same reasons - so on and so forth. This, of course, doesn't just pertain to presidential politics, but your local politicians too. They can actually affect your personal landscape more immediately and importantly at times than your president, and locally is where your vote concretely makes an impact (especially with so few people actually voting these days). Just please, do a bit of research on these people before blindly supporting them. If you find someone you really like, actively campaign for them, work on getting them elected, etc. Your vote’s not enough.




posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
OK, liberal thinker.

You'd better do some more research before you belittle one of the greatest men to live in our time.

His viewpoints are hewn from a long life of experiences, and a love for the Constitution of the United States of America.

He doesn't wish to end public education, just wants to cut the waste in the Department of Education, which has been proven to be a failure for our children.

How is giving the States the freedom to choose what is right for their populace concerning social issues such as abortion hiding behind anything?

Who are you going to vote for?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:50 PM
link   
And where exactly are you getting your information on good ol' Ron from? Seems like just because you disagree with a few of his policies you decide that you hate him. This is just as bad as party voting. No candidate is going to stand for EVERYTHING you want, you have to go with who is the closest and do you really want another corporate pig in the office? That's why people like Ron Paul-he's not backed by corporations. Well, that and the fact that he has what I consider a good stance on many issues and he brings up the real issues.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
You people only see what you want to see, the naivety is laughable.

As per the OP's post.


Ron Paul has openly said he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ron Paul opposed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.


That alone should be enough to raise some serious alarm bells. And he doesn't care about the African genocides? Just imagine Ron Paul in WW2.


This man stepped through a hole in time and wound up a few hundred years later.


[edit on 2008/5/28 by SteveR]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Yes, life does begin at conception. We were all there at the
beginning of our lives. I'm sure everyone here is very
happy their embryo wasnt aborted because their mom wasnt up
to the task.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul does not support strong environmental laws (like states alone can combat issues relating to global warming, and put pressure on other countries to do the same).


GOOD.

So we can stop policing the entire world, and start rebuilding our own country. Or would you prefer the current hypocritical approach we've been taking?



Ron Paul would like to eliminate public education.


even BETTER!

So schools can stop relying on memorizing test results, funding from coca cola and limiting kids to the schools they are "zoned" for, regardless of what school is most suited for them. Or do you think the current public education system is satisfactory?




Ron Paul has openly said he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Do you know why? i'm guessing it's already been addressed.

edit: guess not

www.ontheissues.org...



Q: In a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, you said: "Contrary to the claims of supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

A: Well, we should do this at a federal level, it'd be OK for the military. Just think of how the government caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II.

Q: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act, if it was today?

A: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--it has nothing to do with race relations. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.


I could go on, but it seems you are just taking all of these stances at face value - going on the buzzwords echoed in the media and etc. How about sitting down and reading why these are his stances. I happen to share lots of his views, but not all. He is still absolutely the best candidate.

[edit on 28-5-2008 by scientist]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by josephine
 

He doesn't believe (in relation to abortion) in an individual's freedom to choose. However he's choosing to place a line between where a the life of a human begins and where it does not.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by o22a6ar
he believes we should not intervene in any foreign conflict ever, not because he believes this war is inherently evil or anything


How sure are you about that?


The United States invaded Iraq under false pretenses without a constitutionally-required declaration of war.

The United States should never go to war to enforce UN resolutions!

Our continued presence in Iraq is serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.

While we keep our focus on Iraq indefinitely, bin Laden remains free to plot his next attack, and can continue to portray us as occupiers and recruit more volunteers to his cause. Shortly after 9/11, I voted for the authorization to go into Afghanistan because it told the president to do what he already had the authority to do: go after the ones who directly hit us. I was extremely disappointed that the mission there changed to one of nation-building.

A weakened and over-committed military is a recipe for a national security disaster.

As if a national debt topping $9 trillion is not bad enough, each day this war is fought, deficit spending increases.

Make no mistake, as Congress spends more and more, there will be less and less to fund Social Security and Medicare, the programs Washington has made us dependent on, without a massive tax increase.

As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.

It is now time to bring our troops home. We must return our focus to finding bin Laden and making sure that we can be prepared for any future threats against our national security.


Ron Paul on Iraq

It looks like to me that he disapproves of the war, not just because we shouldn't "intervene in any foreign conflict ever," but because it was not approved by Congress, as the Constitution demands, it is serving the interests of Al Qaeda, we aren't focused on finding Osama Bin Laden, our military is stretched thin and over committed, our national debt continues to rise, our troops are being killed for a war that has no purpose and Social Security and Medicare are suffering because of the spending.

I don't know about you, but all of those things seem pretty bad to me. And 'bad' is not far off from 'evil'. So if I need to find a quote from Ron Paul where he says the war is 'evil' for you to consider your first point proved wrong, then I guess you are absolutely right.


Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul does not support the right to choose, and hides behind some sort of wishy washy, supposed "principled" states right position, but indeed he authored a bill that would define life beginning at conception.


You're using abortion as one of your points? The abortion issue is far too divided to even make a point. It comes down to personal opinion, not facts.

Stick to the points that you can prove are wrong. Stick to the points that most people disagree with, and prove how he is wrong. Don't jump on opinionated issues with no true facts that half the population agrees with and half the population doesn't, and assume that your opinion is the right one.


Originally posted by o22a6ar
Additionally, Ron Paul does not support strong environmental laws


Really?


The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.

The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.

In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.


Ron Paul on the Environment

Can you dispute that? Lets hear your solution. You seem free to just list things that you don't agree with him on, but you fail to back up your points with actual solutions or facts.

So lets hear it.


Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul would like to eliminate public education.


Ah, now we've gotten so desperate we're twisting facts. Thats amusing.


The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn. We have turned their futures over to lobbyists and bureaucrats.

I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.


Ron Paul on Education

Wait, whats that?

"By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources."

But if he eliminates public education, how can there be schools that need funding?

Can you provide any sources to your claim that he wants to eliminate public education? Or are you willing to admit you either A) didn't research it enough, or B) twisted the words to fit your argument?

Basically what he is saying is that the Government does not need to control everything; they don't own our children; they don't need to tell us what our children will learn and how they will learn it.

Its sad that people have gotten so used to total government control that any deviation from that towards, oh I don't know, ACTUAL FREEDOM, is completely evil.


Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul does not believe in government funding of the arts.


Government funding of the arts?

First of all, provide some sources so that we understand a little more.

Second of all, you're not going to vote for someone who would restore Constitutional freedoms and get us out of these corrupt wars, all because (assuming it is true) he wouldn't fund arts?

Are you kidding me?


Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul has openly said he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


Because it violated individual liberties and property 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.


Ron Paul on the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Are you really trying to go racial with this and claim he's a racist?


Originally posted by o22a6ar
Ron Paul opposed the renewal of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.


For the same reasons as above. He has stated that he is not against minorities being able to vote, but against clauses in the bill that reduce property rights.


Originally posted by o22a6ar
The reason I am going on this rant is because it pisses me off to no end that people can so blindly decide to vote for someone just because of few positive aspects of their campaign without knowing what is really going on and what the candidate really stands for.


You mean like people voting for Hillary because she's a woman? Or people voting for Obama because he's black?

Where is your rant on that? Why doesn't that piss you off? Why do you have to target, arguably, the most educated and passionate supporters of a single candidate, the Ron Paul supporters?


Originally posted by o22a6ar
Do a little bit more research on the candidate


Judging by how you did not back up your claims with facts, and even misinterpreted or twisted Ron Paul's stances on the issues, I would suggest you do a little more research yourself.

[edit on 5/28/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The only offense I take from this entire rant is in the title where you proclaim 'Sucks.'

It would appear to me you could come up with something much more descriptive and less offensive if you really wanted to discuss your ideas.

Dr. Ron Paul wrote 'The Republic, if you can keep it' ever heard of it?

When it was spoken it was called one of the greatest political writings of the last half century. It will swell you with pride to be a part of this great nation.

Here's a link

And a small sample:



The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights.


Yes, I've actually agreed with an Anonymous poster. Can I ever live that down?

Can we change the title of this thread now?
Or do we start a debate on who's candidate sucks the most?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by o22a6ar
\ not because he believes this war is inherently evil or anything), he holds zero liberal values - none.\


Excellent! Sign me up for the Ron Paul guy! Liberals are the most brainwashed sheep I have ever met.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by garyo1954
 

Now if I put a title such as "Why Ron Paul is Not the Superior Candidate," I don't don't think I would have gotten as many replies or caught as many eyes.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentStovkowski
 

Although it did seem implied, I never said, nor am I a "liberal."



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by o22a6ar
 


Care to address the tougher arguments against you that have already popped up in this thread, such as the posts by the Anonymous poster, "flyingwoody", "scientist" and my post? Or are you just going to respond to the simple points instead?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 

I'm working on it. Give me some time.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by o22a6ar
 


You know, I came in here ready to defend Ron Paul to the end.

But then I realised that my words will be lost upon you. You dont really care for the truth, do you?

Ron Paul doesnt need me to defend him... in a few years' time people will look back and see the opportunity and option of freedom that they did not choose. Remorse and hindsight are 20/20.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by scientist
*Snip*, funding from coca cola *Snip*


Wow...I was taken by surprise on that one...so I had to find out more.

Yup. Public Education is now being funded by corporate interest....


Coca Cola Contract for Colorado districts

I just thought, in my humble opinion, that a discussion of this sort could actually benefit from a detour to the actual topics...and not the people paid to represent them....my two cents...



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi
 


Evidently the OP has no answer for us on the points you have made here.
The Trilateral Commission is afraid of Dr.Paul.They are afraid that he is educating the voters to the truth of a despotic government.When enough people wake up to the farce we call elections,and do the right thing.We might just have a chance.

Write in Ron Paul for President!!



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by o22a6ar
reply to post by garyo1954
 

Now if I put a title such as "Why Ron Paul is Not the Superior Candidate," I don't don't think I would have gotten as many replies or caught as many eyes.


So rather than being honest, you.....uhhh.....fudged on the title?

Makes me wonder how much more fudge you posted.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 



He doesn't wish to end public education, just wants to cut the waste in the Department of Education, which has been proven to be a failure for our children.
"
Do you really think the states alone can provide a suitable, effective education for the youth of the United States?


How is giving the States the freedom to choose what is right for their populace concerning social issues such as abortion hiding behind anything?

What gives any governing institution the right to decide whether or not a woman can have an abortion? Even if the majority agrees, there are still those who will disagree. What can be said for them?



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by o22a6ar
 

I find that you are informed wrong www.ronpaul2008.com...

Please read Who Ron Paul is, and what he is about.

Ron Paul IS our only hope for a FREE AMERICAN.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join