Godlike Productions - Post New Thread

12:24 PM

Back to Forum

Back to Thread

REPLY TO THREAD

Subject

If You Support Ron Paul..

User Name

Font color: Font:

[quote:Anonymous Coward 287388]
Thanks for the informative post.
The time it took you to put together this post is definitely worth it.
----------------------------------------------------------
You said:
<“Paul has sponsored a Constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools”

If he is such a “constitutionalist” then why would he not vote to ban school prayer? The constitution says there should be separation between church and state. Meaning prayer is not appropriate or legal at publicly funded schools and should be banned..>

Actually the stance the RP took is the correct, 'constitutional' one.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You see, if he had voted to 'ban' prayer then it would be violating the first amendment. You know, the part that says 'or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'

----------------------------------------------------------
You said:
<“The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America's A+ rating, Paul has authored and sponsored pro-Second Amendment legislation in Congress. He has also fought for the right of pilots to be armed.”
“In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant." Paul believes that a weapons ban at the federal or state level does not work either. "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer." Rather, he sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense.”

So he is totally 100% pro-gun and he has no problem saying automatic weapons or a machine gun or hand gun, there all the same to him. He's also voted multiple times against gun control. That doesn't seem very responsible does it? He sees school shootings as results of prohibitions on self defense? Are you kidding me? Thats just what we need is more kids being able to carry hand guns around.>

I suppose you are of the mindset that guns actually kill people.

You see, in all my life, and the amount of time I've spent around weapons, I've never seen a gun go out and shoot someone.
From my experience the gun needs someone to pick it up and shoot it.
As soon as you realize that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I think you might be better off.

Also, I really don't see where RP supports kids with firearms.
Last time I checked, gun purchases were age restricted.
Did Ron Paul vote to remove age restrictions from weapon purchases? Yea, I didn't think so.
Your 'more kids with guns' comment is meaningless.
----------------------------------------------------------

You said:
<“In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[77] If made law, this provision would permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery.”

The problem with this is, what if you live in one of the states that allows prayer in school? And if you're not Christian you're forced to be in a classroom where prayer for something you don't believe in is taking place. That doesn't seem very fair to me.>

What isn't fair is an atheist telling me or my family that we can't pray.
More importantly Ron Paul thinks that this is a States rights issue and not a federal government issue.
If it is a states issue then at least you have a choice you can make.
What atheist wants to endue the pain and torment of listening to someone pray if the federal government mandates it for each state?
What religious person wants to be told they can't pray if the federal government mandates 'no prayer' for every state.

The decision should be at the state level.
---------------------------------------------------------
You said:
<“Paul is strongly pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion". He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”

“In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure". He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding”

If Ron paul is so pro-states rights then why is he voting in support of banning abortion on all levels? And his argument that states should decide is ridiculous. What if you lived in a state where it was completely banned? And you got a girl pregnant? Well in Ron Paul's world you'd be fucked.>

I don't see where he is supporting a ban on abortion for all levels.

What you said is that he voted to prohibit the US supreme court  from ruling on any 'abortion' case.

What this means is that he believes that it is a states issue and that the state supreme court is the final say so.
Again, more states rights, which is more in line with our founding fathers vision was instead of the "Empire' that is emerging now.

So if you lived in a state where abortion was banned, and you were dead set on killing your unborn child, then luckily for you, there are people like Ron Paul out there that want the choice to be made at the state level.
What this means is you would still have an opportunity to travel to a state that allows abortion.
Don't you think its better to have the states decide instead of the FED?

It really doesn't matter if its Ron Paul's world or not.
If you got a girl pregnant then the only conclusion I can make is that you've already been fucked. Thats how you get babies to begin with. Fucking makes babies.

--------------------------------------------------------
You said:
<“Paul has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private school of the taxpayer's choice, which would provide accountability and more money to America's schools from a local level.[113] Paul has also proposed tax credits of $5,000 per year for each family, which could be used for any school-related expenses, whether the children of the family attend public or private school or are home-schooled.”

That is not only a bureaucratic nightmare but it is also the start of Privatization for schools! Why not have equal distribution of tax dollars to schools so everyone has the chance to go to a decent school? In Ron Paul's system, how are you going to insure that money is actually going towards “school related” expense anyway?>

At least the money would be used locally, in my community.
Why should my money be used to fund a school in another state across the country?
Even if the money was used spread evenly, it is still a bureaucratic nightmare and I still have no way of knowing that my money is actually going towards “school related” expense
----------------------------------------------------------
You said:
<“He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, including Codex Alimentarius”

That makes no sense to me at all. Why would he oppose government regulations that are there to save us from harmful medicines? Do you really want unregulated medicine? Even if its just vitamins or supplements, the FDA should still make sure they're safe for consumption. Otherwise who knows what you're ingesting.>

Yea, we all know how concerned the FDA is with out health.
FDA approval is a sham.
"Safe for consumption" is relative.
------------------------------------------------------------
you said:
<We’ve all heard proposals for “privatizing” the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. "

"The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. We’ve all heard proposals for “privatizing” the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. "

Come on! Things like this are the exact reason of the 1920's stock market crash. Privatizing social security would cause a recession and another crash. It is inevitable. We cannot trust people to make their own investments. I do agree the system is failed at the moment, but making it private is just putting more money into the stock market, more money into big corporations. If we allowed people to keep more of their paychecks, do you know many people would be on welfare after they retired?>

Again, I can't tell where Ron Paul is for privatization of Social security.

What it looks like to me is that he wants the American people to have a chance to invest in their retirement themselves. Social Security will not do me any good at all once I reach retirement. So I still have to make my own investment decisions and investments.
So I'm paying both into the SS fund, (which will be long gone by the time I need it) and my private retirement account (which I will have to rely on) will be there.

I don't see why you can't trust people to make their own financial decisions. I an make my own decisions just fine.

You are beginning to sound like a socialist. That could be why you dislike the man.

--------------------------------------------------------
you said:
<Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
“It "not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."

What kind of person is against the civil rights act? That act made it so black people had a chance to be treated as equals and forced schools to stop denying students admittance to schools because of their race. The act also outlawed discrimination towards black people in all public establishments. Why would Ron Paul possibly be in opposition of this act? To me that is just blatantly racist and bigoted of him to say that.>

Im one that believes that success and knowledge should be rewarded.

If a white man is more qualified, has better credentials and knowledge of a particular job, then how is it fair that he would lose that job opportunity because his skin is not black?

How is it fair to the white student, who has excellent marks, to be denied access to a college, because the college is forced to enroll a certain percentage of black students.
Its not fair to the white student at all.

Shouldn't job opportunities and access to schools be based on your achievements on not your skin color?

Basing these things on Skin color is raciest no matter what color the skin is of the person that gets that job.

Instead of relying on a racist law to get into school or get that job, you should actually focus on good marks and good qualifications and bring YOURSELF up to equality.
----------------------------------------------------
You call him a hypocrite but he doesn't meet that definition either. Everything he has said he stands for, he has voted for.
That isn't hypocrisy its called integrity. That is something  that is seriously lacking in the leadership of this country.

Again, thanks for the time. There are several points you mentioned that I didn't know about, but after reading through them you have hardened my resolve to vote for him.

RP08
[/quote]

Message

Like I do. You should read this. Alot of disturbing things on his track record I did not know about. One of my friends sent this to me after we had a nice discussion about Ron Paul. I really do support alot of his views but with some of these I do not have a good rebuttle.

Heres the message:

I hope you read all this, theres some pretty juicy details on Ron Paul's track record. Anyway, Hope this changes your opinion!

“In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice. He based his argument on the First Amendment, Separation of Powers, and Constitutional authority, and the belief that such efforts are also counterproductive in reducing entrenched powers.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act)

Basically, he is against campaign finance reform. The act he voted against only supported restrictions on campaign contributions from big corporations and contributions that fell outside of the legal limits.

“Paul has consistently advocated that the federal government not be involved in citizens' everyday lives. For instance, he believes that prayer in public schools should neither be prohibited nor mandated at the federal or state level.[74][75]”

“Paul has sponsored a Constitutional amendment which would allow students to pray privately in public schools, but would not allow anyone to be forced to pray against their will or allow the state to compose any type of prayer or officially sanction any prayer to be said in schools”

If he is such a “constitutionalist” then why would he not vote to ban school prayer? The constitution says there should be separation between church and state. Meaning prayer is not appropriate or legal at publicly funded schools and should be banned.

“In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.[77] If made law, this provision would permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery.”

The problem with this is, what if you live in one of the states that allows prayer in school? And if you're not Christian you're forced to be in a classroom where prayer for something you don't believe in is taking place. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

“The only 2008 presidential candidate to earn Gun Owners of America's A+ rating, Paul has authored and sponsored pro-Second Amendment legislation in Congress. He has also fought for the right of pilots to be armed.”
“In the first chapter of his book, Freedom Under Siege, Paul argued that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to place a check on government tyranny, not to merely grant hunting rights or allow self-defense. When asked whether individuals should be allowed to own machine guns, Paul responded, "Whether it's an automatic weapon or not is, I think, irrelevant." Paul believes that a weapons ban at the federal or state level does not work either. "Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer." Rather, he sees school shootings, plane hijackings, and other such events as a result of prohibitions on self-defense.”

So he is totally 100% pro-gun and he has no problem saying automatic weapons or a machine gun or hand gun, there all the same to him. He's also voted multiple times against gun control. That doesn't seem very responsible does it? He sees school shootings as results of prohibitions on self defense? Are you kidding me? Thats just what we need is more kids being able to carry hand guns around.

“Paul is strongly pro-life, and calls himself an "unshakable foe of abortion". He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”

“In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure". He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding”

If Ron paul is so pro-states rights then why is he voting in support of banning abortion on all levels? And his argument that states should decide is ridiculous. What if you lived in a state where it was completely banned? And you got a girl pregnant? Well in Ron Paul's world you'd be fucked.

“Paul has proposed the use of education tax credits, included in his bill the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612), which provides a $3,000 tax credit to families to choose their own schools. He has also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act, which would provide for a tax credit for up to a $3,000 donation to the public or private school of the taxpayer's choice, which would provide accountability and more money to America's schools from a local level.[113] Paul has also proposed tax credits of $5,000 per year for each family, which could be used for any school-related expenses, whether the children of the family attend public or private school or are home-schooled.”

That is not only a bureaucratic nightmare but it is also the start of Privatization for schools! Why not have equal distribution of tax dollars to schools so everyone has the chance to go to a decent school? In Ron Paul's system, how are you going to insure that money is actually going towards “school related” expense anyway?

“He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals, including Codex Alimentarius”

That makes no sense to me at all. Why would he oppose government regulations that are there to save us from harmful medicines? Do you really want unregulated medicine? Even if its just vitamins or supplements, the FDA should still make sure they're safe for consumption. Otherwise who knows what you're ingesting.

"We’ve all heard proposals for “privatizing” the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. "

"The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. We’ve all heard proposals for “privatizing” the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. "

Come on! Things like this are the exact reason of the 1920's stock market crash. Privatizing social security would cause a recession and another crash. It is inevitable. We cannot trust people to make their own investments. I do agree the system is failed at the moment, but making it private is just putting more money into the stock market, more money into big corporations. If we allowed people to keep more of their paychecks, do you know many people would be on welfare after they retired?

“Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)”

So he voted against the possibility of saving peoples lives then. Embryonic stem cell research has the possibility of saving thousands of peoples lives. These cells are just sitting there, going to waste. They could be used to save people, but because of the ridiculous argument that these embreoys are human life and cant be destroyed there is a ban on research. But... I found this article that refutes Ron Paul's and all the other republicans arguments against it.

"There exists a widespread controversy over stem cell research that emanates from the techniques used in the creation and usage of stem cells. Human embryonic stem cell research is particularly controversial because, with the present state of technology, starting a stem cell line requires the destruction of a human embryo and/or therapeutic cloning. However, recently, it has been shown in principle that embryonic stem cell lines can be generated using a single-cell biopsy similar to that used in preimplantation genetic diagnosis that may allow stem cell creation without embryonic destruction."

Paul wrote of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
“It "not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife."

What kind of person is against the civil rights act? That act made it so black people had a chance to be treated as equals and forced schools to stop denying students admittance to schools because of their race. The act also outlawed discrimination towards black people in all public establishments. Why would Ron Paul possibly be in opposition of this act? To me that is just blatantly racist and bigoted of him to say that.

His voting track record:

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Opposes "hate crimes" legislation. (Sep 2007)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools.
Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO ..ing implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR.
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
Let airlines make rules about passenger guns to fight terror. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)

And these are just of a few of the votes he's cast. I found all that stuff here : http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

In conclusion:
Ron Paul is a hypocrite. He says one thing and does another. His record is very inconsistent and he has extremely disturbing opinions on very important issues, especially those that directly affect you and me.

Comments?

Pictures (click to insert)





View All (Slow!) \| Next Page >>

Disclaimer:
This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.

The content of post on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or administration of GodlikeProductions. This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.

Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.

This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.

Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.

We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!

Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information please visit:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.

This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.

Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.

Privacy Policy - Terms Of Use

Copyright 1999-2009 © GodLikeProductions.com

Page generated in 0.019s (4 queries)

Gallery