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]
