10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by fredats
 


And do you really believe that anyone would work for a company that held that position? I mean come on, really?

Lets say company A is a burger joint and they need a burger flipper, but they only want to pay $2/hr. They have employees apply and work, but then company B moves in next door. Company B is like, "how do we get some of these burger flippers to come work for us?" Company B will not say, "Hey come work for us at $2/hr." The employees at company A will wonder what's in it for them." Company B will have to sweeten the deal, so raise wages or add perks. Then Company A will have to match or better to retain their employees and thus competition is born and no one will make $2/hr.

A fair business man that treats his employees right will pay them a fair wage, and those that are scum bag business men will find it hard to find employment.

Cream will always rise to the top. If you are a business man that does not treat your employees fairly, you wont have employees too long, and then you have to do all the work yourself.

Face it... Would you work for a company that did not treat you fair? I mean you don't have to work for McD's or BK or Wendy's, because there is Applebee's, Chili's, Outback, Ruth's Chris, Fish Bones, and others to choose from and if you are a hard worker you will always find somewhere else if these are not working out.




posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by fredats
 

You do see my points though about the negative side of a minimum wage though?
edit on 25-8-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)


Yeah most definitely! I just think that only works if you are making enough to handle the ebb and flow of the market. Hopefully, in a well adjusted economy, it works for the great majority of Americans.

However, there will always be a demand for jobs, (especially unskilled labor). It is my contention that the demand for minimum wage jobs is made up of equal parts of:

1. Uneducated immigrants (like my grandfolk who worked their arses off at minimum wage to give my parents an education)

2. People with different priorities (family, education (like you))

3. People born or fallen into unfortunate circumstances

4. Artists of all kinds

5. And of course lazy people (Some of whom may be the same as 2 depending on your perspective).

Most of those are viable and realistic ways that Americans (or any other peoples of a wealthy and free society) choose to live. And kudos to them... Some permanent, some temporary. It is important to have that floor for them. Otherwise we may lose those types of people! Or at least take away the opportunity for these kinds of people to live in the US. The burden of this on society is real... but it's not really that big. But the cost of not doing it is IMHO much worse.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by FusionInFL
reply to post by fredats
 

Lets say company A is a burger joint and they need a burger flipper, but they only want to pay $2/hr. They have employees apply and work, but then company B moves in next door.


That is assuming that the town has enough people and demand for a second burger joint. What if the town can only support one factory. No competition. Like almost all small towns in America...



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by fredats
 


See that's the thing about minimum wage though. I've considered asking my boss for a raise because I know my education and history (no arrests, college student, etc) makes me a little more desirable employee (i work security, by myself around expensive equipment) than a lot of people around here. However I'm very sure his reaction will be a big no because he knows others will work for that minimum wage with no complaint especially in this economy.

Just seems like there is a better solution.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
You want ten reasons?
I'll give you ten reasons why not to vote for him or any of the candidates.


  1. Career Politician.
  2. Career Politician of nearly forty years.
  3. Part of the system for forty years.
  4. Willing participant of a corrupt system for forty years.
  5. Funded by the same means as the rest of them.
  6. Beholden to the same bankers, businessmen and corporate lobbyists as the rest of them.
  7. As out of touch with the realities of life that the rest of the population must endure as the rest of Congress.
  8. Enjoys all the benefits of a Congressman at our expense, like the rest of them.
  9. Not subject to the consequences or the impact of the legislation he enacts, just like the rest of Washington.
  10. We don't elect the president anyhow, Congress does.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by dethduck
 

Pretty much everyone of your points is based upon your assumption that he's "just like the others" for "all the same reasons". To make such a claim you must have surely done all the research on Ron Paul's political history, voting records, etc, and how it compares to the "typical" politician, yes?

Seeing as you felt confident enough on the matter to make such a post, surely you can be more specific and outline your reasoning for each of those points? Because to be honest, to those of us who actually have a clue about the guy, your claim that Ron Paul is no different than all the other "career politicians" is about as ridiculous as it gets.
edit on 26/8/11 by Navieko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 


No more ridiculous than the claim that getting him, or anyone else in the presidents office for that matter, will somehow change the way the country has been run for the last sixty or so years.

No one single man, whatever his views our which ever office he runs for, is the panacea for all that ails our country, government or society.

You want real change, here's a hint, it's not going to come from changing presidents every four years.
That's not where change is going to come from. It's going to come from Congress and no where else.
Those are the elections we need to pay attention to.

This country is a never-ending example of the chinese definition of insanity.
Year after year we do the same things over and over, expecting things to change for the better each time.
We have a Congress full of career politicians, corporate businessmen, lawyers and former lobbyists as well as former investment bankers all turned ”politician”.

For decades we've elected he who has the largest campaign fund or he who spends the most on media. For decades in our apathy we've elected ”the lesser of two evils” rather than believe we could get better. Congress must be emptied and replaced before any real change can ever occur.
Replaced with other than the status quo. We don't need people legislating our lives that will never know or feel the impact of that legislation.

I'd rather elect a teacher, a factory worker or a scientist into Congress than another Corporate boardman or Wall St. flunky. Frankly, there's no reason we can't aside from having spent decades convincing ourselves that our only choices are the same old same old.
edit on 8/26/2011 by dethduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by dethduck
 


It may not, but it'd just be nice to know that it's possible to get someone that isn't the main stream republican or dem to win. It'd just be nice to not just know who the president is going to be heading towards the election.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by robyn
This is a really well put together piece of PRPAGANDA!

I can see the disinfo campaign is in full swing now.

Take half truths mix them with a heeping cup of out of context and sprinkle with scare tactics. Half-bake.

Shame on the OP, an elititist corporate plutocrat. Go eat your GMO and drink you flouride enriched water then bow in reverence to your corporate idols. But please, stop lying first.



Totally agree this thread is a troll tag team



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by dethduck
 


Your not totally wrong. If, though, RP was Pres, that would show those fools in Congress we the people are serious and maybe they might start listening to RP and stop some of the ridiculously idiotic things they've got going now, stupid wars and what not.

Who knows, bunches of these bums might have already voted themselves out of office. If our elections aren't rigged - and RP winning or at least getting the GOP nod would prove they aren't, which would be shocking in and of itself - RP might have a whole different set of folks up there to work with and not against.

Then again, maybe not.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TheLoony
 

If Ron Paul becomes president, it's because Congress, the Republicrat party, and all their corporate and financial partners want him to be. Not because of any vote we make. If they did put him in it would likely be to appease us.

We don't elect the president. We're supposed to, or at least be the determining influence behind the electoral votes that do put him there but we are not.

The electoral college, which consists of electors ”selected” by the political parties, makes the determination who gets in office. Of all the states in the Union, roughly only half actually have laws in there books requiring their electoral members to vote according to their states popular vote. Of course, of those, how many do you think actually do? How would we even know? What kind of oversight is there? An entire state could vote 80% for one candidate and the electoral representatives could vote for the other while the media, our only source to know, tells us we voted for the candidate we didn't vote for...how would we know?

You want to know who decides the president?
Look at your electoral representatives and ask yourself, whose interest do they serve.
Yours? Or their campaign donors?

There isn't a single part of our government anymore that isn't as dog and pony show.
Bread and circuses.
edit on 8/26/2011 by dethduck because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/26/2011 by dethduck because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Or it could be read as:

1. Ron Paul wants to get rid of racism, and have things based on merit and not gaining the system

2. Ron Paul values the rights of unborn children


3. Ron Paul will make the workforce more productive and and begin to tackle the broken entitlement system

4. Ron Paul will let you keep more of the money you earned at all levels of earning


5. Ron Paul will bring back manufacturing, and increase domestic resource production in the country


6. Ron Paul would End all US Wars and Foreign occupation bringing families together so the country can prosper once more.

I do agree with all the points I just see them differently than the titles given in the OP.

I laugh, I mean it’s an unfair peace to debate because I’m not debating a stance on an issue I’m debating whether RP is a racist, a sexist, hates the poor, hates the environment, hates education, hates gays, hates workers, is a religious zealot, wants violence, loves drugs, wants America to be attacked by a nuke. I mean come on people. If this was all true he would be worse than any dictator that ever lived. Use your brain, could it be the ideas have merit. I’m not going to sit here and tell you why, that’s not my job and anyone who takes this article serious doesn’t want to know why it might be wrong. Be smart, be human and figure it out yourself.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by dethduck
 
That's kind of amusing. You say not to support Ron Paul, or any of the others for a whole host of reasons, and then say the change will come from Congress. And then, about who to put in congress, you say:

I'd rather elect a teacher, a factory worker or a scientist into Congress than another Corporate boardman or Wall St. flunky. Frankly, there's no reason we can't aside from having spent decades convincing ourselves that our only choices are the same old same old.

It seems like you're unaware that Paul himself, a current member of congress as you point out;
1) was an OBGYN for a good chunk of his professional life;
2) refused to accept medicare/medicaid from his patients, instead working either pro bono or providing discounted services;
3) refuses to participate in congressional pension programs;
4) has never taken a taxpayer-funded junket;
5) actually served his country in the military, as well;
6) returns a portion of his congressional budget to the US Treasury every year
7) actually CARES for and helps his district - sources given on the wikipedia page:

Paul also spends extra time in the district to compensate for "violat[ing] almost every rule of political survival you can think of,"traveling more than 300 miles (480 km) daily to attend civic ceremonies for veterans, graduates, and Boy Scouts, often accompanied by his grandchildren. His staff helps senior citizens obtain free or low-cost prescription drugs through a little-known drug company program; procures lost or unreceived medals for war veterans, holding dozens of medal ceremonies annually; is known for its effectiveness in tracing Social Security checks; and sends out birthday and condolence cards...During 2001, he was one of only eight doctors in the House of Representatives; even fewer had continued to practice while in office. He is occasionally approached by younger area residents to thank him for attending and assisting their deliveries at birth.

8) has been doing what he can in Congress in attempt to SHRINK the size and power of federal government, restore self-autonomy to and relieve the burdens of US citizens, end the drug war, and stop our military aggression.

And the list could keep going. Ron Paul is not your usual congress critter. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. Senator Mccain even called Ron Paul "the most honest man in congress".

To actively proselytize AGAINST a brother-in-arms, even if he may also happen to be a multiple-term congressman (trying to fix the system from within, as I wish many others also would), is simply short-sighted and silly - for lack of a better term. I would like to see you present what you would consider a better idea for a congressman (examples and comparable records, please) OR president, so I can understand what I appear to be missing here. Paul's a good guy, and one of the best viable options we have for either position I can see at the moment, even if his preferences and policy goals confuse some here due to lack of in-depth examination of the issues themselves, or failure to actually grasp Paul's stances and the reasons for them.

Be well.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by dethduck
 
And since you want to emphasize this point, can you please clarify for us how many times the electoral college has selected a different candidate for president than the popular vote has chosen?

The fact is that in pretty much all cases, the state's electors are given to the winner of the popular vote in that state, although this is not binding.

By the way, the answer to the above question is twice. In all of american history, only twice has the electoral college differed from the popular vote. And one of those times was only because SCOTUS stepped in and stopped the recounting, which otherwise would have given us Gore in 2000 and dropped the number down to one. While it's a valid issue, in light of the facts it's nonetheless a silly point. You should be much more concerned about other shadiness behind the scenes, such as media manipulation of opinion by perversion or obfuscation of the facts, as well as vote fraud.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I pretty much agree with all of the stances he has taken that are listed in the article. Less government is better for everyone. Somebody needs to get in there and do some whittling away, lest it grow bigger.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
You missed one:

Every known liar thief and politician you love to hate wants you to believe he is unelectable.


edit on 26-8-2011 by Rosha because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jude11
So what is the one GOOD reason to vote for anyone else? There are none.

It's just that simple.


Yeah man you nailed it...

Hes a evil man conspiring against the United States and plans to kill it with Constitutional Freedom.


Bastards...



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
I like how some, or most of those bullet-point snippets don't even match up with the corresponding text.

It's almost like.. they just want people to read the bold-faced negative spin. But no... who would do such a thing? Journalism is fair and balanced.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
All of the headlines to the points are dramatized for propaganda purposes.


This.

And its extremely obvious how they exagerate each "claim". I wont even bother with this propaganda...and yes, its just that....I mean when the ONLY candidate with at least SOME sense and honesty AND consistency comes to the stage and HE is the only one who takes a massive amount of flak for his ideas out of everyone else...then something isnt right.

Really? RP is the bad guy? Really?...not the corporate sponsored bilderberg dick hugging slime out there?


Not to mention that all these concerns about RPs "policies" are kept in check by the constitution. FOR EXAMPLE: this painfully stupid notion that if RP was elected and enacted certain policies or got rid of regulations that we would experience segregation or some other such issue, would not happen simply because the constitution is there to ENSURE THE RIGHTS OF ALL PEOPLE.

ALL PEOPLE.










ALL. PEOPLE.


The Constitution....all people....get it?
edit on 26-8-2011 by Jugtalicus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManOfGod267

Originally posted by Anttyk47


10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul



  1. 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.
    This video is my answer and reply to the first statement on why not to vote for Ron Paul.


This was a very interesting video, and it really doesn't suprise me, especially with the "kids" that have been indoctrinated to have anti-white bias, pro-Marxist views. "Affirmative Action" is basically code for anti-white racism. And our Marxist masters and schools teach this, rather program this to their students.
edit on 26-8-2011 by tom502 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join