Ron Paul 2012 as a social experiment

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

He votes "NAY" to anything that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution or a direct benefit to his home district per the accepted rules of the Congress.

Have there been any other National Holidays he has had the opportunity to vote against? Has he voted YEA on any National Holidays?

Chances are, this is not a race issue, but a Role of Government issue.

Also, as far as not passing any legislation, his stance pretty much defines the fact that there is no need for further legislation. Of course he would not enact more and more laws like the rest of Congress. The country would be in much better condition if no Congressman ever passed any legislation! Just think, if we reset all of our laws to 100 years ago or 200 years ago? The country would be immensely better off. No Law ever helped the American People, they only help the government.

Thomas Jefferson can describe the platform of Ron Paul better than I can....

The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.

I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

Of course Ron Paul has not championed a bunch of legislation through the Congress. That would make him just another part of the problem instead of the solution. I wouldn't vote for him if he had written 1000's of pages of new legislation to further erode my rights. I will vote for him for precisely the opposite!

edit on 28-12-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)

Your argument would have an ounce of merit, except he did sponsor and introduce hundreds of Bills (Laws) into the record.
Why, if your argument is correct, would he try to clutter the system up with more useless laws that "only serve government"?
Your defense of him false flat on its face with the facts.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by The Sword

 

Honestly I don't care one way or the other on the National Holiday, but I do get offended when they turn it into a racist issue. If he had voted YEA on the National Holiday, I wouldn't have cared either way, but it would have alleviated all the attacks on him. Fortunately he has the integrity to make decisions and stick with them regardless of the backlash, and that is why I like him.

It goes hand in hand with the racism that is contained in his Newsletters. The positions match. Serial racism comes into play when you pair the racist voting with the printed racist material.
Then you got the homophobic law he tried to introduce, H.R. 7955
The Bill he made to try to resegregate schools, H.R. 4982
Then there is his view of Israel which matches the White Supremicist view, that Israel should not exist.
He is also on the record hiding behind the Constitution saying he would vote against the Civil Rights Act, which conveniently coincides yet again with the White Supremicist's position.

Funny that all of his so called strict Constitutional stances match perfectly with those of the White Supremicist's.

But wait, when it comes to the actual Constitution, Paul introduced a Bill that is absolutely undeniably Unconstitutional in its attempt to have Congress strip power from the Supreme Court
Good ole H.R. 7955 again.
Source

Denies jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States to review any State statute or regulation which relates to abortion. Extends such denial of jurisdiction to Federal district courts.

His argument that the Constitution forces him to be against MLK day because of his respect for the Constitution is shown to be a scam, once you see that he created a Bill that is so obviously unconstitutional.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


H.R. 7955 abolishes Dept of Education, provides tax credits for education expenses, forbids the courts from requiring any attendance based on race, color, creed, or sex. Adds a tax deduction for elderly depedendnts. Prohibits the government from requiring any individual to participate in any religious based program or home, and denies jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to preside over State laws and/or concerns.

Ohhhhhh.....

I see, along with denying Federal Funds to any Religious based organization, even though he is religious, and along with denying Federal Funds to group homes, shelters, and other organizations that require a religious participation, it also denies Federal Funds to organizations that promote homosexuality.

So, your issue is not with overall stance of Ron Paul. The stance that Federal Funds should not go to specific organizations that force participation, but your singular problem is that you think the Federal Government, should spend tax-payer money to actively promote homosexuality?

Please. You chose a single line, that is in line with the rest of the bill, and you decide it is homophobic? Is Ron Paul also education-phobic and religious-phobic, because the bill had a lot more limitations on those things!!

ETA:
As usual, when I take the time to investigate these baseless allegations, I find that I am almost always 100% in agreeance with Ron Paul's positions, and the allegations are patently false, mis-applied, or taken entirely out of context. Thank you for re-affirming my belief in the good Dr.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I notice you ignored the Unconstitutional part of the Bill.
You also think it is ok to insert a limitation to a minority group onto his bill amongst limitations to institutions. All you did was prove my point.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


What minority group? Homosexuals? They are certainly free to live the lifestyle of their choice, but they should not constitute some protected class like a disability. Sexual preference does not equal disability.

I'm actually even a fan of gay marriage, so is Ron Paul! Actually, not a fan, but at least we both believe in the right of each state to make the decision on their own, and there should never be a Federal ban on gay marriage anymore than there should ever be a Federal recognition of it. State's Rights.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

What minority group? Homosexuals? They are certainly free to live the lifestyle of their choice, but they should not constitute some protected class like a disability. Sexual preference does not equal disability.

I'm actually even a fan of gay marriage, so is Ron Paul! Actually, not a fan, but at least we both believe in the right of each state to make the decision on their own, and there should never be a Federal ban on gay marriage anymore than there should ever be a Federal recognition of it. State's Rights.

Sorry but you are wrong, In the US you cannot discriminate on a basis of race, religion, or sexual preference, law of the land.

Source

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Ron Paul would like to change that law, and single out a minority group.........this behavior would not be tollerated for anyone else in public life. But Ron Paul gets a pass hahahaha

PS, I fully expect you to move the thread to oblivion or close it as you usually do. And thanks for exposing your total bias on the issue,

Originally posted by getreadyalready
ETA:
As usual, when I take the time to investigate these baseless allegations, I find that I am almost always 100% in agreeance with Ron Paul's positions, and the allegations are patently false, mis-applied, or taken entirely out of context. Thank you for re-affirming my belief in the good Dr.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


#1, he doesn't get a pass, other than I agree with him on that particular issue.

But, why didn't you post the rest of that paragraph?

Other federal laws, not enforced by EEOC, also prohibit discrimination and reprisal against federal employees and applicants. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA) contains a number of prohibitions, known as prohibited personnel practices, which are designed to promote overall fairness in federal personnel actions. 5 U.S.C. 2302. The CSRA prohibits any employee who has authority to take certain personnel actions from discriminating for or against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. It also provides that certain personnel actions can not be based on attributes or conduct that do not adversely affect employee performance, such as marital status and political affiliation. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has interpreted the prohibition of discrimination based on conduct to include discrimination based on sexual orientation. The CSRA also prohibits reprisal against federal employees or applicants for whistle-blowing, or for exercising an appeal, complaint, or grievance right. The CSRA is enforced by both the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

It is NOT enforced by the EEOC, and the Office of Personnel Management only matters to those seeking employment with a Federal agency. In many states (not all), it is perfectly legal to discriminate based on sexual preference, and there is Federal Law prohibiting it. Also, according to this, Sexual Orientation is viewed the same way as Political Orientation.

reply to post by TinfoilTP

PS, I fully expect you to move the thread to oblivion or close it as you usually do. And thanks for exposing your total bias on the issue,

This is false, and dirty tactics. I have never once moved any thread relating to Ron Paul. I don't have a particular bias, but the appearance of such would be damaging enough, so I would never moderate in a thread such as this.

There is a flood of Ron Paul threads on ATS, and there is a concerted effort by staff, at the direction of Admin to move them to the more appropriate forum for Politicians/People on the old BTS side. I personally won't be moving any of those threads, but they will be moved regardless of whether they are pro or con Paul or any other candidate.

Now, that we have that part straight, can we get back to exposing your obvious biases instead of my imaginary ones?

reply to post by getreadyalready


It is sad that in order for you to defend Ron Paul, you have to attack a minority. Actually I am still unsure by your response if you think they deserve to even be considered a minority.
The bottom line is, Ron Paul evidenced in this Bill he made, would like to ensure that a minority group gets excluded from protections other minority groups enjoy.
What a cheerful and heartwarming position you share with him.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


How is it unclear?

Whether or not somebody is a minority is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of statistics. Homosexuals are in fact a minority.

The question is whether they deserve Federal protections, and my answer is a clear NO. I don't believe sexual preference deserves some special consideration. Would we at some point them apply affirmative action and guarantee that every employer has the correct allotment of homo to hetero in their employ? Would we then make it a question on a job application?

The Federal Government has a few, very specific duties entrusted to them by the Constitution ratified by the States. Nowhere in those duties does it say they should be in the business of approving everyone you hire or fire in your personal business.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

How is it unclear?

Whether or not somebody is a minority is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of statistics. Homosexuals are in fact a minority.

The question is whether they deserve Federal protections, and my answer is a clear NO. I don't believe sexual preference deserves some special consideration. Would we at some point them apply affirmative action and guarantee that every employer has the correct allotment of homo to hetero in their employ? Would we then make it a question on a job application?

The Federal Government has a few, very specific duties entrusted to them by the Constitution ratified by the States. Nowhere in those duties does it say they should be in the business of approving everyone you hire or fire in your personal business.

Next on the list to go, gender and race. Your argument applies to them just as equally. Discrimination laws according to you and Paul's theory should not exist at all.
Are you really trying to help his position?

reply to post by TinfoilTP


When it comes to gender and race, I do think the day and age of their need is quickly disappearing in the rearview mirror. I don't agree with affirmative action laws, although I do see a time in our past where they were highly necessary.

I would love to see a lot of laws go away. Drug laws, prostitution laws, 3 strike laws, mandatory sentencing laws, and many others. Affirmative Action belongs on that list at some point. I'm not entirely sure if that point is today or not, but it is certainly worth discussing.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Next on the list to go, gender and race. Your argument applies to them just as equally. Discrimination laws according to you and Paul's theory should not exist at all.
Are you really trying to help his position?

I am always amused by folks talking about "race issues" in American politics. We Americans are able to discuss race as if we've conquered that demon, but look around. We are a nation borne of slavery and genocide, and we've been in one racist war or another for the last couple hundred years. Of course Paul is a racist; we all are.