Why I will NOT vote for Ron Paul

‎1. Ron Paul doesn't go the gym. He stays fit by exercising his civil rights.
2. Ron Paul delivers babies without his hands. He simply reads them the Bill of Rights and they crawl out in anticipation of freedom.
3. Ron Paul doesn't cut taxes. He kills them with his bare hands.
4. Jesus wears a wrist band that says "What Would Ron Paul Do?"
5. When Ron Paul takes a shower, he doesn't get wet...the water gets Ron Paul.
6. Ron Paul could lead a horse to water AND convince it to drink, but he doesn't believe the government has the right to so he refuses.
7. Ron Paul's midi-chlorian level is off the chart.
8. When Chuck Norris gets scared, he goes to Ron Paul.
9. Studies by the World Health Organization show that Ron Paul is the leading cause of freedom among men.
10. Ron Paul makes the U.S. dollar want to be a better currency.

reply to post by TupacShakur

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

I understand that the EPA is in no way perfect, but here is my problem with his solution. Lets say you do go the "property rights" route. You live next door to a chemical plant, they are polluting your ground water. You are a paycheck to paycheck worker, and you have to go out and hire a lawyer to get them to stop, which since you are existing on an hourly wage, will just about bankrupt you. Not to mention you will have to hire someone to do the testing, to prove it in the first place, which would also be beyond the means of most people in 2012 America.The corporation on the other hand, has a legal department, to deal with such contingencies, and send 3 lawyers to deal with your one. Who do you think will win that case? How are individuals going to fight corporations in a courtroom? They wont be able to.

Originally posted by Annee

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.

As do I, the fact is you made a list of responsibilities to compare against the single attribute of being prior service, slightly disproportionate comparison. Don't bother responding, because I've swallowed enough of my words with my last post for my own military bias. One needs to look no farther back than by looking at Bush and McCain to see that military service does not constitute better military treatment. None of this however, changes the respectful relationship that the CIC would have with the Armed Forces when there is an obvious intention of policies for their benefit.

Ron Paul is the last shot this country has before Marshall Law is declared. Some people might enjoy living under Marshall Law I am not one of them. Wait till they declare a bank holiday this year - then maybe a few more people will wake up.

Peace

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by openminded2011


Very good point. I'd like to hear him address those concerns

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.

reply to post by Praetorius


I understand there are laws on trespassing. But this guy is running for president, and these are the people he is supposed to be representing. Why didn't Mr Paul's office just invite them to return at some later date to discuss the issues they were protesting? That is not what happened. They were asked to leave and when they refused they were arrested. They were not given any recourse to present their grievances to Dr Paul by his representatives there, they were instead told to leave. That just doesn't mesh well with open mindedness to free speech and ideas, which is what I am told Ron Paul is supposed to represent. I don't hate Ron Paul. I just question some of his positions, and I have been met with hostility for even doing that by some posters on here. If we are going to truly move into positive change, I think everyone should have the chance to be heard at least.

reply to post by openminded2011

I understand there are laws on trespassing. But this guy is running for president, and these are the people he is supposed to be representing. Why didn't Mr Paul's office just invite them to return at some later date to discuss the issues they were protesting? That is not what happened. They were asked to leave and when they refused they were arrested. They were not given any recourse to present their grievances to Dr Paul by his representatives there, they were instead told to leave. That just doesn't mesh well with open mindedness to free speech and ideas, which is what I am told Ron Paul is supposed to represent. I don't hate Ron Paul. I just question some of his positions, and I have been met with hostility for even doing that by some posters on here. If we are going to truly move into positive change, I think everyone should have the chance to be heard at least.

Do we have video or reporting on all that? I've only seen the two short videos of this case (not finding any more on DMR's youtube at the moment), so I can't say such an offer wasn't made, or speak to what discussion occurred with the police prior to the arrest video. And, honestly - the last one at least doesn't look all that bothered by the arrest.

Don't quote me on it, but I would say the arrest was likely expected from the start, if not also somewhat desired as a political point?

EDIT:
And most people do have questions on his positions, which is understandable - and for what it's worth (not much, admittedly...), I'll apologize for the hostility. Paul supporters are people like any other, and not all are the best representatives, myself included. We should all represent Paul as he would want us to, and too many fail.

reply to post by Praetorius


Yes the people involved in those things definitely understood that there was a high probability of getting arrested. They knew what they were getting themselves into.

I have said what I felt I had to say on this thread, I will say one more thing. IT IS YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE FOR WHOEVER YOU WANT, if you think Ron Paul is the man to be president, by all means vote for him. But make sure you look at every aspect of his platform, not just the ones that appeal to you. That is what has concerned me, and that is why I posted this thread. I agree on his position that we should keep our noses out of other peoples business and stop being world policemen But his domestic policies are troubling to me and I feel would harm a lot of people who are already barely making it. So I wanted to call attention to them. IT was not my intention to demean Mr Paul or anyone chosing to vote for him, I just wanted to bring to light some things I think people should pay attention to.


Peace and good luck to us all.

reply to post by openminded2011


There's probably very few people who will find a candidate that they agree with on 100% of the time. But you have to look at all of the issues, and compare his platform versus any other candidate. It's either more of the same stuff that doesn't seem to have an end in sight, like wars, the Federal Reserve working in secrecy, unconstitutional legislation, and all of that fun stuff, or an end to all of that stuff. It's a no brainer for me.

reply to post by openminded2011
Well said, openminded - I would also ask that everyone remember the actual powers and responsibilities (as well as the limitations) of the office of the presidency, in addition to the current state, needs, and trajectory of the US at this time.

There are big moves going on in the world, and a few wrong steps could easily throw quite a few other things very much further off track for all of us. Be blessed.

Originally posted by openminded2011
reply to post by yourboycal2

 

I am more in favor of thinking with the mind than the heart. He is just another right wing republican with a bend. He will continue the agenda of the 1 percent at the expense of everyone else. All you have to do is look at his positions and its plainly visible. He wants to cut taxes for the rich and corporations, gut environmental and labor protections, and eliminate the social safety net. This is just the same bag of goods they have been selling since Reagan, with disastrous results. You can pack manure in a pretty box and gift wrap it and spray it with perfume, but it still contains manure.

Excuse me, but if this doesn't convince you that Ron Paul isn't working for the 1% and isn't sold out, I'm not sure what will. The media doesn't support him, and billionaires run the media, along with everything else.

reply to post by jessejamesxx


www.opensecrets.org

Ron Paul's contributors are listed there (their PACs). I checked it out.

reply to post by openminded2011


Are you saying that you found something different than the graph I posted? Or are you agreeing with it?

The point was that individual billionaires (the 1%) don't support Ron Paul.

Originally posted by budcin

I think it is better to cherish ALL life

Great. You do that.

It is unfortunate not everyone is like you.

I listed my source, it has the information there if you care to look at it, where did you get the graph?

reply to post by CaDreamer

Amen.

US politics and presidents effect the whole world. I find Ron Paul refreshing. He is one of the few US politicians, who opposes the US Empire. This is for me the most important topic. But I am not an American and don't vote in your elections.

I respect Ron Paul's integrity and his consistency on foreign policy and his stance on civil liberties. But I fear, that his austerity policies and wish for a small federal government combined with his approach of Austrian economics might kill more people at home, than would be saved through his non-inventionist, non-militaristic policies abroad.

Although I don't believe he has deliberately designed his policies to serve the 1%, I believe his free market ideology might do this nonetheless. A recent example how the rapid destruction of a large federal state has negatively effected large parts of the society, while few ruthless robber barons profited could be observed in Russia. After the fall of communism, subsidies and regulatory practices were replaced by a “free market ideology”. State-provided services were rapidly privatized. As a result of these policies, the average life expectancy dropped dramatically (mens life expectancy dropped by 8 years from 1991 to 1994).
graduateinstitute.ch...

Small government means, many of those employed by the state will lose their state-provided jobs. In Russia, people lost also parts of their pensions. In Russia, the free market did not provide much alternative sources of income for those, who have only those skills they developed to cope with the previous environment. To hope for a different outcome in the United States is in my opinion wishful thinking. Most of your productivity has already been outsourced. Health care will become unaffordable for even more citizens than today. The unemployed often develop depressions. In Russia alcohol addictions skyrocketed and many depressed Russians committed suicide.

Compared to Ron Paul, Webster Tarpley is an ideologue from the opposite spectrum. While his criticism may be exaggerated, I nonetheless recommend listening to his analysis (Guns and Butter Podcast ca. 1hour length) which highlights some of the dangers and consequences of Ron Paul's economic plans.
www.kpfa.org...

As I said, US foreign policy and the abandonment of imperialism is for me the most important issue. Sadly I fear, that even with an elected genuine anti-imperialist Ron Paul, there would probably be no end to US-imperialism. Ike warned the world of the military-industrial-complex and the president after him tried to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds”. - We know how this ended.

The 76 year old Paul is not immortal and we know what kind of “serious contender” the establishment of his party would support to replace him. The establishment of the Democrats is equally bad. I think true change can only come from the bottom-up. It must completely bypass the corrupt parties. Trying to change the corrupted system for the better from within is doomed to fail.

Originally posted by CLOSEminded2011

Originally posted by openminded2011
I know a lot of people like him because of his 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. Even though he might be viewed as the underdog and an alternative to the mainstream GOP, a lot of his positions fall right in line with the republican agenda that has decimated our country for 30 years now. I know this will rub a lot of people the wrong way, but here are my 3 main reasons I will not vote for him:

Only 2 reasons we like him?? Pot and isolationist positions? This is obvious goading for a reaction from ONLY Ron Paul supporters. Is it that the others are so bad there is no point in pointing out the obvious? Of course you will rub people the wrong way, as you are purposely trying to do.

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.

Not only are you misinformed completely and drawing your own conclusions, but you stated them as FACT that the "oil spill would become one of many disasters." You are asking Ron Paul supporters to give you the information instead of researching yourself.. yet your conclusion is obviously firmly drawn already. More goading/trolling. You act as if no policing of polluters would be done at all, as if hes going to get rid of the EPA and that's it? No state level protection? Just free reign to pollute anywhere? That's laughable my friend because that is completely wrong, and I'm sure you know that. You're just trolling, its obvious.

2.He is no friend of working people. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” see the bills: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720

Seriously? So you are saying that he will make people work for nothing? Or that companies can make up whatever wages they want to pay people? Come on man.. you can't be dumb enough to think that's how it would be..You're going to notice the words "STATE CONTROLLED" a lot with Ron Paul. You are obviously following the election, so you obviously already know the answer to your "serious concerns" regarding his positions. Simple enough.. if rent costs (on avg) $400 a month in Ohio and $1000/month in Texas, how can you justify paying someone 7$/hr in Texas? Cost of living is different in every state, therefore every state should have its own minimum wage.

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

How is taxing ALL earners 10% unfair? That's a contradictory statement in itself. You just said ALL EARNERS, big and small. You can't cut only for middle class and you can't cut only for big business, you cut for both.That's what hes doing. Also he's repealing what's socialist and unconstitutional, have you ever heard of Ron Paul? He's not robbing anyone. If taxing and wages are fair then we won't need the extra credits and programs, the money will already be in our pockets.

I feel that Dr Pauls yearning for smaller government is just to facilitate removing the obstructions government poses to the top one percent and predatory capitalism. We would see a return to the guilded age where a small powerful elite rules over the country like feudal nobles over the rest of us. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing and I am worried that people dont seem to see this or want to see this. There is a war being waged against the working class in this country and this guy is NOT on our side of the fence.

You said Ron Paul would bring a "return to the guilded age of powerful elites???" TOO LATE! That's where we are now. That's why we want to elect Ron Paul, because he will change that.. Why do you think the media and powers that be don't want Ron Paul to be elected, because he will change that. Funny how your entire last comment was a REASON to VOTE for Ron Paul, you just got Dr. Paul confused with Newt Gingrich, I understand. Such an obvious TROLL thread you started here.

Ron Against the Machine!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher:
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.

So he would overturn the vote of our Constitutionally elected Congressman based on his opinion alone???

No thanks...I don't want a dictator.

So much for following that Constitution...huh???

Passing bills that are unconstitutional is just that. By what you just said, all politicians are ALLOWED to do whatever they want because they were constitutionally elected? Not that their job is to UPHOLD the constitution after being constitutionally elected? You've got it backwards my friend. When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty. A.K.A. My signature.