If You Support Ron Paul..

Well, I guess I'll just have to send him an extra Benjamin today.
Thanks for reminding me.

Anybody else notice that, the better Ron Paul seems to be doing, the more these loser trolls seem to bash him? I mean, really, the anti Ron Paul spam is getting so thick a guy almost needs waders now! I also love how these spam threads are so full of lies and misrepresentations. It's almost as if the people posting these threads know that they can't find anything negative to say about Ron Paul if they tell the truth. If you ask them, these anti Ron Paul shills will tell you that he has no chance to win and that voting for him is therefore a waste of time. If that's true, why do they spend so much of their time trying to dissuade people from voting for Ron Paul? It's almost as if these shills are afraid Ron Paul might win...

Ok, he voted no on every bill he voted on in 30 years.

Did that ever make a difference?

Out of thousands of bills he has submitted, can you name any bills he has gotten passed in the last 30 years?

:tigger2:

Well, I guess I'll just have to send him an extra Benjamin today.
Thanks for reminding me.

HM what about my right to pray in school. I mean I dont want to offend you but by god I don't want to give up my rights just because you want to cry over a raindrop sitting in the ocean. Im tired of seeing al of this goverment controled BS when america is for the peple by the people. Not for the corperations and by the traitors. Ill respect your opionion when you wusses respect ours..

Its sad that the almighty dollar has gods name in it but you idiots dont refuse to spend or take em because of that.

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.”
( [link to en.wikipedia.org]


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 : [link to www.ontheissues.org]

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?

you now 150 years ago you would not have been allowed to vote?
why you have no moral clearity plus you r not a christian
the founders inteded aonly christians to vote because we are the only noral people!! prove this wrong!! COMMY PRICKS!!!!

I am actually all for RP. This post was a message that my friend sent me so anything past "Here is the message" Is not me. And so really i was asking for other people in support of RP to comment on this so next time I see my friend we can have a nice good arguement and i could rebuttle some of her arguements. So dont assume things and read the message.

Anybody else notice that, the better Ron Paul seems to be doing, the more these loser trolls seem to bash him? I mean, really, the anti Ron Paul spam is getting so thick a guy almost needs waders now! I also love how these spam threads are so full of lies and misrepresentations. It's almost as if the people posting these threads know that they can't find anything negative to say about Ron Paul if they tell the truth. If you ask them, these anti Ron Paul shills will tell you that he has no chance to win and that voting for him is therefore a waste of time. If that's true, why do they spend so much of their time trying to dissuade people from voting for Ron Paul? It's almost as if these shills are afraid Ron Paul might win...



You moron. The threads are 10-1 spamming Ron Paul by his supporters. People like me are getting a little tired of seeing 100 of them a day here.

"Ron Paul sneezed today. Watch the video. What a guy"

He is a loser and so are you.

Watch and see.