| | | Page 1, 2 | If You Support Ron Paul..
| Yojimbo
User ID: 312514
11/6/2007 3:58 AM
 | | Re: If You Support Ron Paul.. | Quote |
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.
Yojimbo, I didn't see anything "bad" in your original post. He votes his conscience and his constitutional beliefs. He is a man true to his word. I support guns. I hate abortion but I don't think the gov't should legislate it.
Basically, Ron Paul votes to keep gov't out of as much of our personal business as possible.
Now, I find it hard to believe that you support the man and you post the crap you just did. I think you're lying and I think you're part of the same loser crew as PACNfudge and LS.
There is ALWAYS going to be some idiot who doesn't agree with everything Ron Paul does, usually because he/she doesn't understand it. And, from your own words, you really need to re-read the Constitution and try to get a better understanding of it. It's self explanatory, REALLY. no need to interpret...especially the ORIGINAL parts. Anything after the civil war is just fueling the big brother gov't. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 140243
No im not lying, your full of shit. Nothing wrong with doing research on a presidential candidate. Eitherway I think abortion should be legal, i do not support guns, i believe in a seperation of church and state. Therefore i dont agree with these aspects of RP but yet he is still the lesser of the many evils. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 287388
11/8/2007 12:33 AM | | Re: If You Support Ron Paul.. | Quote |
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 |
| Yojimbo
User ID: 312514
11/9/2007 6:17 PM
| | Re: If You Support Ron Paul.. | Quote |
Now thats the kinda reply i was looking for. Thank you very interesting points u brought up. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 298785
11/9/2007 6:19 PM | | Anonymous Coward
User ID: 323080
11/9/2007 6:45 PM | | Rabbit
User ID: 305078
11/9/2007 8:23 PM | | Re: If You Support Ron Paul.. | Quote |
In my research, I too found many votes that conflicted with his proclaimed views and my personal views. Especially, on abortion and a few others BUT then I looked closely and remembered his stance on strictly following the constitution.
It seems if the matter is truly a "state" issue he'll vote NO...no matter what the topic is---even emotionally charged ones.
I noticed some proposed bills were ambiguous and vague and he voted NO but once the bill was re-worded realistically he voted Yes. He may personally be FOR something BUT depending on the wording of the bill...he is forced to vote NO because it isn't written correctly, is too broad, or unconstitutional.
One other thing I must remember...he must balance the wishes of the locals who voted him in. If they flood his office and demand he votes Yes on a particular bill then he may vote based on what they want if it is can be justified...if he constantly goes against those who elected him then...you better believe he'll lose on the next election. His party, the committees, pressure from party leaders, etc. Influences most definitely plays a part--but does he cave in or stand ground is the question. Can his votes be bought or does he have the reputation of not "going along with the program"?
If he can separate his personal feelings and ideologies, stick to the rules, remember who he is serving and be consistent then he should be okay.
Nevertheless, I am still researching him for consistency. But, I have to remember the duties/powers of a senator and those of a president differ and so...I must remember to keep that in mind, as well. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 275365
11/9/2007 9:33 PM | | Re: If You Support Ron Paul.. | Quote |
Go Ron Paul!!
 |
| | Page 1, 2 | |
|
