Are these terrible things said about Ron Paul true?

reply to post by ISHAMAGI

Abolishing the board of education. Eliminating affirmative action equals not acknowledging racism even exists?...Rediculous far right positions.
.
Even better is no corporate tax and eliminate OSHA.

The DOE has lowered the accepted academic standards so much that it is now a joke. I have personally witnessed Cuban students coming over to the US, getting enrolled in a Public School in 5th or 6th grade, and being several years advanced compared to US students. It is ridiculous. I had a friend move here from the USSR at age 12, and he didn't speak any English, and he was still fared better in school than his English counterparts. At graduation, his school still hadn't caught up to the math, science, and literature he had already covered at age 12 in the USSR. Worse yet, he had a better grasp of US history, politics, and geography than any US student, and you can't even imagine the discrepancy when it came to European and Asian history and geography!! They don't learn any of that in US schools!

Corporations are already finding ways to avoid the corporate tax. They aren't paying it anyway. BUT, in order to not pay it, they have to move money off shore, to other countries. They can't reinvest it into their operating business here in the States. Ron Paul doesn't want to get rid of it, he wants to make it uniform. (Unless we implement the FairTax, but that's another subject). By lowering and simplifying the corporate tax, we actually INCREASE tax revenue by incentivizing payment instead of punishing it. We also open up many markets for new investment and new US jobs! Ron Paul is right on the money with that stance!

Eliminating Affirmative Action doesn't deny anything. It just gets the Federal Govt out of the way of letting the Free Market work. I will give you a little bit though. I think we need Fair Housing Regulations. I don't believe in the EEO in hiring, but I do believe it has a place in housing.

Looks like an online smear sheet.

Ron Paul seems on the surface to be a nice man who strongly favors independence and liberty in the typical Liberterian manner.

My cavet regarding Mr Paul is that he seems to have little empathy for the less fortunate amongst us. Some would call this heartless when set into practice by governments as policy. He would eliminate most checks and balances that are there to protect the weak from the mighty in the business world, for example.

Balance in all of life is needed to make life favorable for most and Mr. Paul would do well to expouse more compassion towards weak and vulnerable citizens.

Like a number of intelligent posters have been commenting.. First, this analysis of his views is obviously biased and many things are either taken out of context, or not fully explained. Second, in this day and age of 24/7 pro-establishment brainwashing, it's hard for a lot of people to comprehend the idea of uninhibited freedom and federal legislation confined to the powers given by the constitution. A perfect example.. You may remember Ron's son, Rand, taking heat for his criticisms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His problem with it was that it gave the federal government the ability to tell private business owners who they could or could not serve. But of course the mainstream media slaps up the ticker headlines and uses short soundbites implying that he's a racist because "he wouldn't have voted for the civil rights act" GASP!!! That's why Ron gets a bad rap with a lot of shortsighted people.. on capitol hill, they call him "Dr. NO" because he's known for voting 'no' on any bill that included even a small clause that overstepped the boundaries of government set by the constitution. So what this article does, is takes a lot of those bills and makes it seem like, because he voted no to them, he therefore disagrees with everything they stood for

Originally posted by romanmel
Ron Paul seems on the surface to be a nice man who strongly favors independence and liberty in the typical Liberterian manner.

My cavet regarding Mr Paul is that he seems to have little empathy for the less fortunate amongst us. Some would call this heartless when set into practice by governments as policy. He would eliminate most checks and balances that are there to protect the weak from the mighty in the business world, for example.

Balance in all of life is needed to make life favorable for most and Mr. Paul would do well to expouse more compassion towards weak and vulnerable citizens.

I disagree. True free-market capitalism (without government intervention) is actually the most humane system known to man. Let's not forget, this country was once the beacon of fairness and freedom.. until the government got too large and tried to take control of all matters, including matters that should be handled by society and public opinion (without the interference of an overbearing 24-hour propaganda news cycle)

Basically, all of those 10 points just manage to twist Libertarianism into a bad thing. That's all they appear to be, to me: the policies of a hardcore Libertarian who adheres to both the politically 'correct' and 'incorrect' aspects of true freedom. For example, affirmative action is a harmful policy to true equality - amazing how abolishing it can be made to seem like the work of the Devil.

Originally posted by Pseudonaut
I'll leave it to other posters to attempt to explain why all of Paul's social positions are positives.

I don't think they are, and that's one of the reasons I can't support the guy.

Love his economic policy, love his foreign policy.

He completely loses me on his social positions.

then vote barry, girlfriend!

lol.

reply to post by negativenihil

Hardly. I just expect them to have the brains to know NOT to accept money from actual big organized hate groups, such as Stormfront.

There is no way you can reasonably say with any certainty a single individual is racist, but you can choose NOT to ignore them money coming form an established and organized group - again - such as Stormfront.

Fair enough. But, this was a personal donation from Black, not Stormfront, and I'm satisfied with both Paul's campaign response and that from Black himself:

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.

Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

"We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice," Black said Wednesday.

"We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state," Black told The Palm Beach Post earlier.

Do I or Paul agree with all of Black's and his organization's views? Of course not. Do we agree with some of them? Apparently so, as hardly anyone holds nothing but insensible opinions. Is there any reason to return the money? No - what purpose would it serve other than caving to political pressure.

Non-issue.

You're not really this naive are you? It doesn't matter what Ron Paul personally believes - the fact is he took money from a hate group, and refused to return it to the average joe means he supports said hate group. Do you really think this won't come up if Paul gains any sort of real traction? Will the so-called "liberal media" not make sure this fact is repeated often and loudly?

Not naive, as I have to agree with you here even if I generally disagree on the issue itself - I've already agreed this was not the politically expedient way to handle it, and it could definitely be damaging to Paul. But that's one reason I can support him, he stands on what he believes - consequences be damned. It proves to me I can trust him, even though it's certainly a double-edged sword. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

Had any liberal candidate taken money from Stormfront, they would be eviscerated and they would be labeled a supporter of this group/cause. Can't you just imagine the headlines on Fox and the posts right here on ATS?

Oh, I can certainly imagine, indeed. And I have to say that I would give it as much weight there, personally - if Kucinich, Gravel, or any other 'liberal' (former) candidates I like but just can't think of at the moment ran into the same situation, I'd look into their history and judge them accordingly.

I will once again agree, though - the media can and would have a field day with it (as would a good many common citizens and ATS members, granted). I won't argue that point for you as it's obvious on the face, I can only speak to my views on the matter.

I'll have to hand it to my friend getreadyalready as he said it well. With Paul, the donation or it's handling is not an issue for me. The media fallout is definitely problematic, but for me having looked into it, merely adds to Paul's appeal.