It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why I will NOT vote for Ron Paul

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by Annee

Only said Vietnam war because that's when he served. Wartime or not, but if it makes anymore difference, it says he's seen through the lens of those affected by war from within the military, which is telling for veterans and active service members.

The importance of the president having a military background is more related to the disconnect a president who hasn't served may give to the treatment of the active and non-active military. I agree, I would like to have a president experienced in diplomacy and cultural differences, but having a president who is rather clueless to the environment of military service is a minus in my book for presidency.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:22 PM

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by Annee

Only said Vietnam war because that's when he served. Wartime or not, but if it makes anymore difference, it says he's seen through the lens of those affected by war from within the military, which is telling for veterans and active service members.

At one time it was vital that the leader of a country was the one who won battles. Like Richard the Lionheart

We evolve. Today IMO - - intelligence and understanding of international affairs - politics - and cultural diversity - - - far outweighs the need for America's president to have any military experience or background.

There are those who make it their business to know "military" - - - they work for the president. Commander-in-chief - - - has very little real military significance other then the position of president. A good leader delegates.

I am not disrespecting the military or veterans - - - but IMO giving it any real significance to the president doing his job is ridiculous.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:29 PM
Here is a link, I have provided a list of some other issues and Dr Pauls position on them.

Eliminate the EPA:

]Would abolish the income tax
Would place the U.S. on the gold standard
Would allow citizens to engage in trade using gold and silver instead of currency
Would arbitrarily cut government regulations and believes that regulations only hurt businesses
Would eliminate the taxation of foreign income
Is a global warming denier
Says that Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are unconstitutional
Would eliminate antitrust laws
Would eliminate the federal minimum wage
Would eliminate the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act
Would eliminate the estate and gift taxes
Would tax all earners at a 10 percent rate
Would eliminate tax credits to individuals who are not corporations
Would eliminate the elderly tax credit, child care credit and earned income credit
Voted to make it easier to decertify unions
Opposes Federal Deposit Insurance
Would revert government spending to 2004 levels and freeze it there
Opposes raising the debt ceiling for any reason
Would allow people to opt out of Social Security
Says that widespread bankruptcy is the stimulus the country needs
Opposed the auto industry bailouts
Favors tort reform
Opposes the regulation of tobacco
Would protect the 'privacy' of online sexual predators and child pornographers on public wi-fi networks
Would prevent federal courts from protecting citizens who have their rights denied
Opposed the Motor Voter law
Would allow states to ban gay marriage
Sponsored the Marriage Protection Act
Would repeal affirmative action
Would limit the scope of Brown v. Board of Education
Says that emergency rooms should be able to turn away undocumented immigrants
Opposes the Americans With Disabilities Act
Voted anti-choice more than 90 times as a member of Congress
Voted to eliminate all international family planning funds
Voted for the Stupak amendment banning abortion coverage by private health insurance companies
Voted in favor of fetal personhood laws
Would eliminate all funding for Planned Parenthood
Would ban flag burning
Would weaken regulation of dietary supplements
Supports a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
Opposes subsidies for prescription drugs for seniors
Opposes mandatory vaccinations
Would expand offshore oil drilling
Would increase mining on federal lands
Would weaken the Clean Air Act
Would repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act
Would weaken the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Would eliminate departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor
Would eliminate the Environmental Protection agency
Would eliminate FEMA
Would eliminate the Federal Reserve
Would eliminate the Occupational Health and Safety Administration
Would eliminate AmeriCorps
Would eliminate spending to combat AIDS overseas
Would eliminate gas taxes
Opposes the census gathering demographic data on Americans
Opposed the dismantling of U.S. nuclear missile silos
Wanted to withdraw the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
Wants to claim the Panama Canal as sovereign U.S. territory
Opposes the International Criminal Court
Would withdraw the U.S. from the U.N.
Supports the electoral college and believes that the U.S. is not a democracy
Believes that we have no right to health care
Would eliminate birthright citizenship
Believes that law enforcement can't help people, only armed citizens can prevent violence
Would allow the legal sale of unpasteurized milk
Believes that groups of people don't have rights, only individuals do
Believes that government cannot redistribute wealth in any way
Believes in the concept of 'jury nullification', the idea that a jury can judge not only the facts in a case but the justness of the law itself
Believes that social welfare should be in the hands of individuals only, not governmentreply to post by mrperplexed

edit on 1-1-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-1-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:46 PM
BO wants to kill people
MR wants to kill people
RS wants to kill people
MB wants to kill people
Rick P wants to kill people
NG wants to kill people

Ron Paul wants to cherish life.....
What am i missing? Christians should love Ron Paul, and so should everyone else on just that one issue.
Do you want other countries to bomb us just because we may hurt them sometime later in life?
We are just being bullies!
What are we going to do when we start being killed because other nations realize that if we aren't stopped then we never will stop. They will see this as OUR fault because we have a chance to change policy and we wont.
Common sense
Love of our fellow man

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:50 PM

Originally posted by budcin
Ron Paul wants to cherish life.....
What am i missing? Christians should love Ron Paul, and so should everyone else on just that one issue.

Idealism is a nice word.

You honestly believe minding our own business is the answer?

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:58 PM
Once all the fat, waste and abuse is cut away from the federal government, Congress is going to work a lot more efficient because they are going to have a lot less to do. Once Ron gets the nod, expect hords of old school politicians from both sides to announce their retirements ala Dodd and Frank.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by CaDreamer

So what do you think about removing the EPA, and getting rid of the minimum wage and OSHA? Do you think our country doesnt need environmental protections?

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.

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.

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)

As a lifelong Environmental Chemist and I am a Veteran, I see a need for some type of government oversight. The problem I see from the EPA is they are wrong and constantly are seen overreaching. Mostly for a good cause, kudo's for having the heart in the right place. Some of the data used is basically derived from new technologies that have yet to have years of field study IMHO. Worse, now their obvious Multi National goals have superceded common sense. We have a delima when the government overegulates the power company that provides electricity for more than just creature comforts or the severe treatment of manufacturing I've seen on most all types of businesses.This just forces new startups in China instead of Ohio or Michigan.

That same collectice group comes from the Federal Government which the EPA is a tool. But then somehow regulators under regulate how Wall Street Banks frauded the world. Bankrupting Mom and Pops of their savings, children of the college funds and some people their homes. ALL while making huge bonuses for our losses in their devious schemes. I wish the EPA could help us with with the smell from that too while the try to clean up smokestacks to be 100X cleaner than Chinese or Mexican factories. This can't be good for the USA and we must vote carefully or suffer the consequences of a power mad Federal Government our forefathers were desperate to minimize from their treasonous affects on a liberated society.
I see Ron Paul as one who might cause me to lose my job but I will vote for him because I believe he is the only one who has it the closest to what I think is right for individual freedoms. AND I do understand freedom for all costs a lot. Even the Russians certainly want what Washington and fellows started in the 18th Century.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by Zinky

I am sure glad you never got to pick our first few presidents.
The problem is all those people running are professional BS artists.
Only one man will tell you how it is, Ron Paul.
Everyone else will tell you what you want to hear.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:09 PM
Benefits of ending war on drugs:
Hemp would be legal to research.

Covering 6% of the continental US in hemp would eliminate your energy crisis.

People only see "omg potsmokers" and never think of the actual benefits of the hemp plant and its close sister.

Not to mention the elimination of the gang violence because of said substances. Seems like a no brainer.

"But..but..the children! We have to keep drugs out of schools!"

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:09 PM
Some people showed up at Ron Pauls office in Des Moines to peacefully protest his position on eliminating the EPA and the guy who says he stands for free speech and liberty was nowhere to be found when the police arrested them. Kind of flies in the face of what he is supposed to stand for. I dont understand that when protesters show up, instead of just listening to what they have to say, they are carted off.

Same thing happened when protesters showed up at this event. He actually shouts "freedom of speech, isnt it wonderful?" funny he doesnt even bother to hear them out and listen to their point of view. Instead they are shouted down and expelled. This is NOT freedom.

edit on 1-1-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by Annee

Well with that compound list of responsibilities of course it outweighs the need for a president to have been prior service.

In many cases the military advisors far surpass the president in terms of making informed military decisions, and I don't deny Ron Paul's time in the Air Force would probably not actually give credence to some tactical applications. However, returning to being fiscally responsible in regards to how the military would be taken care of, I imagine there is more sympathy from those that have served than not. This is just my biased opinion. I don't think Ron Paul's war stance is directly influenced by his service time, but more so his libertarian and economic philosophy.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:23 PM

Originally posted by AzureSky
Benefits of ending war on drugs:
Hemp would be legal to research.

I fear the war on drugs is far more complicated then simple.

It is one conspiracy I believe.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by openminded2011
First off, I would assume he was actually out campaigning, not at the office. Secondly, while Paul acknowledges non-violent resistance and activism, he is also quite clear on the record that sometimes people will have to pay the legal price for such, and blocking traffic access to a business or private property is illegal, while protesting itself is not.

As to the veteran's rally, the OWS protestors were interrupting a private event for the Veterans for Ron Paul coalition. I'm sure they were probably escorted from the event with that being that and they have other ways to address their concerns with Paul - which I'm sure he's probably already heard ad nauseum before anyway - than disrupting a campaign event.

Yes, this is freedom. And yes, disturbing the peace and related activities can be validly considered nuisances and appropriately dealt with.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by Annee

Well with that compound list of responsibilities of course it outweighs the need for a president to have been prior service.

When being serious and presenting a position - - I do try to use logic without emotional bias.

And facts if available.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:37 PM
reply to post by Praetorius

When the protesters showed up at his office he was on WHO radio. They were interviewing him. They told him that some people were at his office protesting, and he said that it was their right, and he understood their frustration over being screwed by big gov, but that he hoped they understood that he is fighting for their rights too.

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:48 PM
reply to post by budcin
Ah, thanks. It would be nice if they'd understand, especially as the president has no authority to do anything to the EPA. That would require an act of Congress, and the presidency is primarily (more or less exclusively) centered on foreign policy and signing legislation into law.

edit on 1/1/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by openminded2011

Before I even tackle your post, the very first line is wrong.

I know a lot of people like him because of his [color=limegreen]isolationist position on world affairs and his willingness to legalize weed, but there are some real concerns that people should have regarding some of his other positions.
Watch this to have non-interventionism and isolationism compared and contrasted by Dr. Paul:

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by openminded2011

1. Dr Paul wants to eliminate the Environmental protection agency. Our country is already heavily polluted and he would remove the remaining obstacles corporations face to pollute even further. The last thing we need is more power for corporations to pollute our air and water. The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico would become one of many disasters if this is allowed.
In a way, the EPA allows pollution to occur. They give out permits that allow an acceptable level of pollution. Were this handled through property rights, the penalties would be much more severe and strictly enforced:

3. 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. refer to bill H.R.05484
You're forgetting another element though: It would also benefit the middle and lower class. How much money is taken away from your paychecks due to the income tax? That will instead go into your bank account.
edit on 1-1-2012 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:01 PM
reply to post by Annee

Let me put it this way.
My son and your son go to school together.
My son is afraid of your son because he looks mean
He asks me what he should do?
I tell him to just go say hi too your son and try to be friendly
He takes my advise and they become friends, turns out that the got allot in common
Sounds like a good idea right
If he follows US policy
He sees your son as scary
he doesn't want to even try to talk to him for fear that he MAY get hurt
So he just gets a gun out of my drawer and takes it with him to school and hurts.
your son
Because that is what he is learning from the news .
We are the ones responsible for teaching our kids right from wrong.
Would you rather my son listen to me, or listen to what he learns from MSM on tv?
I would hope my son would use common sense, not only for himself and me, but also for you and your son.
I think it is better to cherish ALL life
Then to just pick and choose whose life is important.
Remember in those wars young kids are dying, and they have nothing to do with it.
So do we go to war just in case?
Not if you would truly feel bad about your son being hurt.
Seems simple to me

posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 10:08 PM
reply to post by TupacShakur
Thanks Tupac - I hadn't gotten around to digging into this thread yet, but I was going to get to this same point myself. Historically, from my limited view anyway, the regulatory agencies - EPA included - have been fairly impotent at achieving much as it appears regulations are generally crafted to either insulate the big parties with them being the only ones either able to meet them, or wealthy enough to ignore them by paying ineffective fines (additionally, Oklahoma at least has a Department of Environmental Quality - my brother in law works there - and I'm not sure why the states can't handle this directly. If the federal government wasn't taking so much money from us all on so many levels, the states would likely have enough funds to appropriately craft regulations to meet requirements suited to their needs?).

Additionally - and I need to watch Who Killed the Electric Car again, this reminds me - federal regulations (as discussed elsewhere on this thread regarding the minimum wage) are sometimes more lax than those imposed by the states themselves. I believe this was the case with California's emissions regulations, when the feds imposed their more-lenient ones and effectively trumped the more-stringent state requirements.

As to some people claiming that returning these requirements to the states would result in lower standards, the California emissions example as well as the discussed minimum wage cases are good evidence to the contrary - we have states setting higher-than-federal minimum wage (again, an issue not involving the presidency one way or the other, aside from legislation received from congress).

We've had some discussion on water-table pollution on-thread, but this misses the point of the property rights enforcement - just because the initial pollution is occurring on private property does NOT mean the polluters are immune from penalties for polluting those downstream or via the water cycle, as investigations can fairly easily determine the source of whoever is initially polluting at the root and address anyone whose property or rights are affected by it.

The concerns are valid, but the understandings are somewhat lacking, as far as I can see. I'll have to look further into the tax and OSHA issues myself, but I know Paul's stated goal is for less taxes on all, wealthy or not, as well as wanting to see the elimination of the income tax - these are again, however, issues the presidency cannot address directly to much effect, and as a result, more or less a non-issue in my opinion, as we have much bigger fish to fry.

If the aggressive foreign policy continues, we all continue to be much more likely targets for retribution. If the federal government continues trampling on states' rights as far as medi MJ laws and the like (which the presidency can order the DOJ to stop pursuing), a lot of good - and lives - are lost. The president can also rescind over-stepping and invalid executive directives previously issued.

It seems we're distracted from the presidency and focusing on somewhat peripheral issues (which definitely are important, but primarily need to be aimed at our representatives). What I don't really see in the presidential field right now are many candidates appropriately addressing the things a president actually CAN do.

edit on 1/1/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/1/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in