Why Ron Paul Sucks, page 2

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 09:18 PM by o22a6ar

reply to post by flyingwoody

Seems like just because you disagree with a few of his policies you decide that you hate him.

Seems like your agreement with some of his policies has caused you to come to the conclusion that he is the best candidate available.

reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 09:32 PM by o22a6ar

reply to post by scientist

Would you prefer: an atmosphere that is further polluted because of a lack of regulations; a new, entirely experimental school system that may or may not prove better than the one at hand; a racially segregated school system? If Ron Paul had placed his vote for the Civil Right Act of 1964 as it stands, you probably wouldn't have any of the [insert race] friends you have today. Regardless of property rights, the United States is much better off racially integrated.

reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 10:16 PM by o22a6ar

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

If Ron Paul is so opposed unconstitutional war, what would compel him to vote for an invasion of Afghanistan? Are you so blinded by you're devotion to Paul that you cannot see through his hypocrisies?

Just because abortion is an issue that "is far too divided"doesn't mean that it is an issue that should not be addressed. And yes it is a "personal decision." However, any governmental policies regarding abortion transform a personal decision into a governmental decision. What say you.

As for Paul's stance on pollution of another individual's private property, what does this do for the pollution and exploitation of federal property? As stated on this website "the Federal Government owns nearly 650 million acres of land - almost 30 percent of the land area of the United States" What does Paul have to say for the pollution and exploitation of these lands, as long as doing so doesn't affect anyone's private property? Do you really think that the states can combat what happens on federal land? They can't. And what's to stop states from succumbing to corporate pressure to preform environmentally detrimental activities within there state? For many money is more important than ethics.

As for the education thing, I already addressed it in a previous post.

reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 11:03 PM by o22a6ar

reply to post by garyo1954

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

How was I dishonest at all? Both things were pretty much the same. I just liked "sucks" better.

reply posted on 28-5-2008 @ 11:21 PM by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by o22a6ar
If Ron Paul is so opposed unconstitutional war, what would compel him to vote for an invasion of Afghanistan?

Because it was an attack on our country, therefore, a declaration of war.

Iraq did not attack us. Bush did not seek a declaration of war.

There's a huge difference. Don't take the only similarity (that its war) and attempt to make them both seem the same.

Originally posted by o22a6ar
Just because abortion is an issue that "is far too divided"doesn't mean that it is an issue that should not be addressed.

I never said that. I said keep it out of your rants when you are bashing candidates. Stick to facts. Abortion has no facts, just opinions.

Originally posted by o22a6ar
Do you really think that the states can combat what happens on federal land? They can't.

They can when we restore our constitutional liberties.

Originally posted by o22a6ar
And what's to stop states from succumbing to corporate pressure to preform environmentally detrimental activities within there state?

Thats why we need to elect someone who isn't backed by the corporations. Ron Paul is the only one not backed by Corporate America.

Don't you get it? You seem to realize that Corporate America is the reason behind all of the BS that we're going through, yet you trash the only candidate not backed by Corporate America. So you're against who they don't support, and you're against who they do.

Which is it?

Originally posted by o22a6ar
As for the education thing, I already addressed it in a previous post.

You acknowledged it. You didn't address anything. It seems you didn't even read the explanation on the educational system because you're still sticking to your pre-determined opinions on the matter.

reply posted on 29-5-2008 @ 12:27 AM by o22a6ar

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

Check out my new thread About Why Ron Paul Sucks. It explains why this post was created in the first place.

reply posted on 29-5-2008 @ 05:38 AM by scientist

reply to post by o22a6ar

so why exactly did that needs it's own thread, when it was a clearly a continuation from this one?

reply posted on 29-5-2008 @ 06:29 AM by QuetzalcoatlAlien

Ron Paul is insane. Uncontrolled Capitalism? No thanks.

reply posted on 29-5-2008 @ 02:36 PM by AgentStovkowski

reply posted on 29-5-2008 @ 03:14 PM by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by QuetzalcoatlAlien
Ron Paul is insane. Uncontrolled Capitalism? No thanks.

The rest of them are corrupt and controlled. Limited freedoms, poor economy and corporate control of the country? No thanks.

Its great how those who truly love this country and speak out against the status quo are "insane." You gotta love how the propaganda machine has made everyone a mindless slave just begging for more oppression.

reply posted on 29-5-2008 @ 07:32 PM by flyingwoody

Originally posted by o22a6ar
reply to post by flyingwoody

Seems like just because you disagree with a few of his policies you decide that you hate him.

Seems like your agreement with some of his policies has caused you to come to the conclusion that he is the best candidate available.

That's the best reply you can come up with?

I would like to have a better, complete answer to my questions if you are going to continue this slander campaign.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^