Originally posted by Anttyk47
- Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a
factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship
for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens.
- Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.
Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life
shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and
- Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would
deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage
completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to
repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the
prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.”
- Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax
credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for
working class citizens.
- Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and
would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean
Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of
the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”.
- A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.
Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted
that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate
all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron
Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s
plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President
Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes.
- Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.
This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person
marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor
of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the
recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up
with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not
a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote
the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which
presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that
he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.
- Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have
happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity
ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be
allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our
founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That
just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our
society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their
parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is
seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert
- Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system
The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our
current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government
“from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from
States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to
“prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school
teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get
no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of
race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family
life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from
requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it
doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court
decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go
back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?
- Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.
This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that
there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed
to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My
President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative
views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American
family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is
attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.
1) Considering that the definition of affirmative action is granting favoritism to someone based on their race or ethnicity, then opposing it actually
does support equality for everyone, minorities included.
2)Ron Paul clearly says legality of abortion is up to states or local communities to decide. While he doesn't take it upon himself to make that
decision for anyone else, he does not support abortion. This is based on decades of delivering babies and dealing directly with fetuses as a doctor.
Not as some abstract concept.
3)Ron Paul opposes the federal government granting privilege to anyone, including large corporations. If government was much smaller, the Congress and
Executive office would have less to offer the large special interests and thus would not be beholden to them. There would be no point in paying
millions of dollars toward lobbyists and campaigns. The biggest critic of corporate bailouts and the crony Federal Reserve is Ron Paul.
4)If you look at Paul's whole platform, you'd realize that the point to this is that there shouldn't be need for these taxes in the first place.
Government would be smaller. Under Paul's pre-Wilsonian standard, the rich would actually pay the bulk of taxes like they did before the Progressives
moved to destroy the middle class(not necessarily intentionally).
5) See the point about the government not granting privilege. In reality, the government's role in corporate pollution is to look the other way while
getting a nice campaign contribution or being buddy buddy with the "regulators" (see BP). Paul's "extreme" views on property rights could
actually do more for the environment than deceptive regulation and cronyism of the current system.
6)That one is patently absurd. How is not causing conflict make us look bad. I think Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and all of Central
and South America would laugh at this one. If you mean, taking away our sovereignty by placing us under any UN authority, I'd say that anyone with a
drop of patriotism would have to take RP's position when considering that corrupt, inept institution.
7)Ron Paul's position on gays is that they have equal rights to other citizens . See point 1. When it comes to gay marriage, he thinks the feds
should stay out, like with everything else.
8)The 2nd Amendment. Basic promotion of freedom. Nuff said
9) The education in this country began freefall about the same time the Dept of Education was created. I, like RP, don't think it is a coincidence.
De facto segregation is working worse for black kids in the inner city than legal segregation did. It is not racist to say so, nor is it a call for
legal segregation. It is reality. It's really time for liberals to give up these sacred cows. Or dead horse kicking, whatever hooved farm animal you
10)Again, the point of his views are to NOT enforce any particular view, pro or anti religion.
The tone and slant of this article are very clear. It has the legitimacy of FOX News doing an expose on Nancy Pelosi.