Why Ron Paul Sucks

reply to post by flyingwoody

---

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 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 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 to post by garyo1954

---

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

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.



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.



They can when we restore our constitutional liberties.



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?



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 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 to post by o22a6ar

---

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

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.

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.