Why I will NOT vote for Ron Paul

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The issues that concern me are:

His position on Abortion

I know abortion is a 'hot button' topic in any election, but it's not abortion per se that I am concerned about. It's privacy and freedom. I will never be in a position to decide on an abortion, so it's not relevant to me, but I am concerned for other women and young girls... Ron Paul has tried to get his "Sanctity of Life Act" passed every recent session, which would give the unborn the legal status of "person", which means it has rights and protections.

" We must stand for life – not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval." ~Ron Paul



Sanctity of Life Act of 2009 - Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases...


...effectively overturning Roe V Wade, which his website proudly states...


that is one of the points where Mr Paul and i disagree. i am not a blind follower of his, i just realize that finding a candidate that reflects my personal voice is impossible.
so you and i agree on at least one point.




posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
I am for workers protections on the FEDERAL level TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON GOOD as not to be circumvented by just moving to the state most friendly to the labor or environmental abuse a corporation wants to perpetrate.


Well how is this different than the influence companies like Monsanto or BP wield at the federal level? It's much harder to influence 50 organizations than it is to dominate 1.


TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE, THE POOR AGAINST THE ABUSES OF THE RICH. Thats my position and I am sorry to say its at odds with yours.


Hows is it at odds with mine? The idea of delegation of responsibilities puts more power into the common man's hand.

And a newsflash The US Government, is owned and operate by the wealthiest in this nation! Lock, stock, and barrel.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 





that is one of the points where Mr Paul and i disagree. i am not a blind follower of his, i just realize that finding a candidate that reflects my personal voice is impossible. so you and i agree on at least one point.


So, because I disagree on 3 of his positions, and that is enough to remove my willingness to vote for him, why is that a such a problem for you?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

Ahh, my position is the exact opposite of this. He's a half-assed anti abortionist. He's IMO definitely an opportunist who's trying to get it from both sides. He wants to be seen as a libertarian candidate and wants a strong support from christian voters as well. Yeah, right, baloney, what kind of christians like Ayn Rand anyway?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder


The EPA would be much more effective and powerful if there was a group for each state...instead of a massive overreaching federal agency...and this is from a biologist.


That is not what Paul wants though so what good does that argument do?


Also under common law it's illegal to dump ANYTHING into anothers' land, water, or air. It would seem that enforcing common law would go a long way towards fixing the mess this country is.


Right here in NYS that is working out wonderfully. The energy companies are only polluting their own private water so it is all legal. How is Ron Paul going to stop the water cycle from happening I wonder because ALL OUR water is getting polluted by them polluting their own private land.

GET IT??????

This from a person with polluted water from a private company that stayed within the law and only polluted on its own private property.

I guess biologists know very little about simple things like the water cycle? They teach it in 5th grade.

Hey, that company has private land with a river on it, Paul says they can pollute the river as long as it is on their land. It is not like it will go anywhere.


Hey, Kodak, want to spew cancer causing chemicals into the air? Are you doing it on your private property? No problem. Air does not move. All those brain tumor babies on that street were just unlucky. Private property and big corporations will protect you. Ron Paul will see to it.

I cannot believe you people say this stuff out loud and dont ram your face into a wall afterward.


Minimum wage also should be varied across this great nation, living in NYC is alot different than the backwoods of TN...see the recent story of SF raising the City's Minimum wage to over $10.
edit on 1-1-2012 by Shark_Feeder because: (no reason given)


Min wage IS VARIED across this nation. It varies from state to state. Geesh Ron Paul voters are starting to scare me.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 





Hows is it at odds with mine? The idea of delegation of responsibilities puts more power into the common man's hand.


Because its not a level playing field. Who is going to wield more power, the guy who lives paycheck to paycheck or the guy who is a billionaire? Why is the latter's life more important than the formers? We need laws that apply equally everywhere to be able to protect the weak from those who would abuse them.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011

So, because I disagree on 3 of his positions, and that is enough to remove my willingness to vote for him, why is that a such a problem for you?


...Waiting for a response to my last post again.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Shark_Feeder
 


We differ in philosophy. I believe the Federal Government is needed to set a minimum level of regulation and let the States do more if they choose.

You want to strip that minimum level of regulation...the only reason I can see for that is to allow States to lower that regulation for their own profit.


Do you disagree that the States could enforce more regulations if they wanted to???



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
We need laws that apply equally everywhere to be able to protect the weak from those who would abuse them.


They are meant to, problems is the rules CURRENTLY do not apply if you've got the money...money means fed in the pocket. See my post about fighting corruption above.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by openminded2011
We need laws that apply equally everywhere to be able to protect the weak from those who would abuse them.


They are meant to, problems is the rules CURRENTLY do not apply if you've got the money...money means fed in the pocket. See my post about fighting corruption above.


Thanks to the free market, it seems I cannot afford the same calliber lawyer that Exxon can and thus cannot prove fracking polluted my water. That is what Paul wants more of. Are you suggesting he is going to prevent Exxon from using their private wealth to protect themselves in court against say lil ol me? Or is Paul going to fund my legal team for me?

ETA, how did ya like that earthquake in Ohio? News is reporting it is the result of the actions of private industry operating on private land. Go Paul!
edit on 1-1-2012 by Algernonsmouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
That is not what Paul wants though so what good does that argument do?


Actually he does want to place the power back into state hands, and also enforce common law.


Right here in NYS that is working out wonderfully. The energy companies are only polluting their own private water so it is all legal. How is Ron Paul going to stop the water cycle from happening I wonder because ALL OUR water is getting polluted by them polluting their own private land.


GET IT??????


Under common law, you cannot pollute others' air with your nasty water vapor...GET IT?


I guess biologists know very little about simple things like the water cycle? They teach it in 5th grade.


Careful with the ad-hominems... I have been respectful to all here.



Hey, that company has private land with a river on it, Paul says they can pollute the river as long as it is on their land. It is not like it will go anywhere.


They do not own the river, so no they could not legally dump in it.


Hey, Kodak, want to spew cancer causing chemicals into the air?


Not under common law, see my above post.


Min wage IS VARIED across this nation. It varies from state to state. Geesh Ron Paul voters are starting to scare me.


I am aware of this
I pointed it out in an ealier post... answer this what good does the Federal Government assigning that value do?

Do they know your city or state?

Then why have the Fed MW?
edit on 1-1-2012 by Shark_Feeder because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-1-2012 by Shark_Feeder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
Thanks to the free market, it seems I cannot afford the same calliber lawyer that Exxon can and thus cannot prove fracking polluted my water. That is what Paul wants more of. Are you suggesting he is going to prevent Exxon from using their private wealth to protect themselves in court against say lil ol me? Or is Paul going to fund my legal team for me?


Under a State operated agency it would be much easier to apply the legal consquences, even without a lawyer. Kind of like calling the police? You don't need money to do that.

And State governments do listen to thier citizens more(generally) than the FED.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse
That is not what Paul wants though so what good does that argument do?


Actually he does want to place the power back into state hands, and also enforce common law.


Ron Paul wants each state to have their own EPA? I need a little link or something.


Careful with the ad-hominems... I have been respectful to all here.


Identify the ad hominems. You are the one who made a point to use your educational background as some sort of prop of credibility just before diving into what seems to be one of the most ignorant things I ever read. Just noticing.

if you want to brag that you are a biologist so you have a special understanding of things, then you should be careful before saying that anyone polluting their own private land is only a problem for them on their own private land. A biologist would know better, no?


They do not own the river, so no they could not legally dump in it.


Of course you cannot legally dump in the river. That would be just silly. The good altruistic corporations are going to go to the added expense of ensuring runoff is a thing of the past out of the goodness of their hearts. Ask the people in the gulf how they like all that fertilzer that is NOT dumped in the river.

Still gets there though huh? Again, a biologist would get why.




Not under common law, see my above post.


Yes under common law. See your own post and see if you can find the part that proves me wrong.


I am aware of this
I pointed it out in an ealier post... answer this what good does the Federal Government assigning that value do?


None.
What harm does it do?
None.
What difference does it make?
None.
Ron Paul is going to save the US by putting a stop to something you proved means nothing.
Damn, why are there not more of him. There must be all kinds of other things that mean nothing that can be stopped as well, saving nothing, doing nothing, accomplishing nothing. That sounds FANTASTIC!!


Do they know your city or state?

Then why have the Fed MW?


Why not?

Is that really your argument? He is going to save us a buck fitty in paperwork?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Human_Alien

He wants to legalize pot. That alone is reason to vote for him.


Really???

That is your biggest political issue you are concerned about.



If it would stop the incarceration and harrassment of millions of people across the nation I would say that IS a big political issue. What other candidates in this election share his view on that?


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

While I agree with Paul on the drug war issue, there's a lot more to life and our survival as a country than the legalization of a plant...


That one plant may be the most beneficial to anyone's survival and survival of civilization in a SHTF scenario. Survival of a government that locks people up for growing that plant is a low priority to me, counter-productive as it were.

It would restore my faith in the country if the federal government would at least respect the rights of the states and their citizens that passed laws to use it.

It may seem like small potatoes to some but I consider it a very important issue that most others would prefer to ignore. The only other candidate than Paul that respects this issue just left the Republican party to seek the Libertarian nomination.

An I think it is a HUGE issue here in Mexico to not be pressured to fight America's Drug War anymore.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder


Under a State operated agency it would be much easier to apply the legal consquences, even without a lawyer. Kind of like calling the police? You don't need money to do that.


What legal consequences? Under Ron Paul they will have no legal consequences.


And State governments do listen to thier citizens more(generally) than the FED.


So I should support a president who wants the corporations to have more power and more rights because he also wants my state to help me have more power and more rights?

So he just wants to sit back and watch people fight while he runs what? Oh, he will be busy ending things he runs.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by openminded2011
 


Headline , Jan. 1st, 2012


Obama Signs Martial Law Bill: NDAA Now Law .........





The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and unchecked grant of dictatorial power to the President in the name of protecting the security of “the homeland.” Ron Paul described the bill (soon to be signed into law by the President) as a “slip into tyranny,” one that will almost certainly accelerate “our descent into totalitarianism.”

For that Understanding Alone of the Implications of this Bill , I would have to seriously Consider Voting for this man . If he were to be Elected our next President , this Bill , which has Now become Law , would be repealed by a newly elected President Paul along with it's enabler the Patriot Act by Executive Order .

Do you think a President Romney or Gingrich would have the Intestinal Fortitude to do the same considering the Direction their both respective platforms come from ? the answer is No .

There is also an Option for you to Vote Democrat and Help reelect Obama , but do you seriously want to do that too considering the Man now as our President has Dictatorial Powers to Arrest Any American the Goverment " Might" deem a Terrorists because of the passage of this NDAA Bill ? .....Food for Thought........



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
"I know a lot of people like him because of his isolationist position on world affairs and his willingness to legalize weed,"

He is a non interventionist. He does not want weed to be legalized, he wants to leave it up to the states. How much do you know about Ron Paul again?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Algernonsmouse

Ron Paul wants each state to have their own EPA? I need a little link or something.


Ron Paul wants to put the descisions in the States' hands. Decentralizing authority and all that.



Identify the ad hominems. You are the one who made a point to use your educational background as some sort of prop of credibility just before diving into what seems to be one of the most ignorant things I ever read. Just noticing.


Just noticing that you were using my arguments of common law to imply that I have no knowledge of the water cycle, and to question my intelligence. All on the basis of another topic, that is ignorance my friend.


Of course you cannot legally dump in the river. That would be just silly. The good altruistic corporations are going to go to the added expense of ensuring runoff is a thing of the past out of the goodness of their hearts. Ask the people in the gulf how they like all that fertilzer that is NOT dumped in the river.


Hence the need to local enforcement...Imagine if there was ONE police department to contact for all crimes in the USA... seems silly huh?



Is that really your argument? He is going to save us a buck fitty in paperwork?


My argument is that he is reducing the UNCONSTITUTIONAL reach of out corrupt Federal Government.
Can you argue that the FED has not overreached it's Constutional authority?



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


If you read my post, you will see that I have chosen not to vote for Obama.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


If you read my post, you will see that I have chosen not to vote for Obama.


You just want to convince everyone to NOT vote for the one canidate who wants to fight the corruption in our country.





new topics
top topics
 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join