As anyone with a blog, YouTube account, MySpace page, or web site knows Ron Paul supporters are everywhere! The internet is filled with them. Although we are a progressive blog and both William and I support Democratic candidates, vocally, we are constantly barraged with pleas and “stories” to win us over. The frightening thing that I have witnessed is that many liberal voters are giving some credence to Ron Paul’s campaign and message. He somehow comes across as different or better than the run of the mill conservatives filling the Republican ticket.
I do not support Ron Paul in ANY and I find his Congressional record and policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 10 reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul!
- Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.
- Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
- Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. 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.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720
- 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. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary
- Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936
- A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154
- Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.
- Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47’s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.
- Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?
- Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.
So there you have it, my 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Please take the time to thoroughly review the records of the people running for office so you know where they really stand. Ron Paul has good rhetoric and he opposes the war but he’s not a good man in the human rights sense of the phrase. He is pretty much like every other Republican but more insidious. Here is a video that you should watch after reading this article. Really listen to what he says and how he says it. Watch out for the sneaky ones and RESEARCH! (( Orcinus: Ron Paul’s Record in Congress ))
UPDATE: I am posting a blog entry response to some of the feedback a little after 1 pm CST. I am also working on a more thorough referenced response that will hopefully be up by this evening. Also, the majority of the comments on this post appear to be thoughtful and honest and we appreciate that, the dialog that takes place between two or more conflicting viewpoints is much more productive when done in this manner.
Add Comment![[Digg]](../../../wp-includes/images/digg.gif){kind=small}
![[Technorati]](../../../wp-includes/images/technorati.gif){kind=small}
![[del.icio.us]](./../../wp-includes/images/delicious.gif){kind=small}
![[Reddit]](./../../wp-includes/images/reddit.gif){kind=small}
![[StumbleUpon]](./../../wp-includes/images/stumbleupon.gif){kind=small}
![[Furl]](./../../wp-includes/images/furl.gif){kind=small}
![[Blinklist]](./../../wp-includes/images/blinklist.gif){kind=small}
![[Newsvine]](./../../wp-includes/images/newsvine.gif){kind=small}
2007-12-09 19:33:00
The ten reasons not to vote for Ron Paul that you cite all have positive sides that you fail to mention. When one is against something, the other side is that that person is for something else.
The something else that you fail to mention involves things that appear to be alien to you - things like freedom, liberty, the right to be left alone, protection of our rights, right to property and to use it in any way you see fit that does not interfere with other’s rights, right of contract, right to keep what you earn without government stealing it from you to give it to someone else that is too lazy to earn for themselves, etc, etc.
I work hard every working day, and would truly like to keep what I earn for support of my family. I believe in our Constitution. I believe government should protect my God-given rights and not steal from me. I believe that government shouldn’t be telling me what I must do at the point of a gun.
Your research was done with a very limited point of view. I suggest that you re-assess.
God bless.
2007-12-09 19:46:29
Thank you for your comment. Please tell me the positive side of allowing discrimination based on ethnicity? What could be good about destroying the environment and giving even more incentives and breaks to big oil? I’m not sure who’s rights and freedom you believe Ron Paul is for. Big business? Corporations? If you want to be left alone and have government out of your personal business then I would hardly recommend a candidate who advocates taking away a woman’s reproductive rights, does not support equal rights for glbt citizens, and who would push his religious viewpoints on the rest of us. That is hardly freedom.
Summer
2007-12-09 20:11:30
For one, we already allow descrimination. You think Oprah is stumping for Obama because of his message? Come on. Discrimination of whites against blacks or blacks against white is still discrimination. To allow a school to pick a minority who has a poor GPA to meet their quota so they can get more government subsidizing is still discrimination, so don’t give me that b.s. about equal rights. Discrimination exists and it will always exist so long as we look at skin color rather than the actions and thoughts of a person. Government doesn’t make it go away.
As for women’s rights…if the baby is not alive, then how come the DA can prosecute for homicide when a drunk driver kills a baby in a mother’s womb in a car accident? Fact is, a babe in the womb is a living entity, and as a country, it should be given recognition and all the rights afforded as any individual. In a way, you’re no different than the discrimination you talked about for minorities. It’s just that now you’re discriminating against babies. You’re a hypocrite, and you don’t know anything about freedom because you’re still living in your mom’s uterus, too lazy and fat, to want real freedom from tyrannical government that says it’s protecting us from terrorism while it passes stupid legislation like pdd 51, rex 84, patriot act, military commission act, real id act, defense authorization act, NAU, SPP, and spies on civilians while giving illegal immigrants amnesty.
2007-12-10 08:48:16
I would hesitate to make a pro-life argument based on current law - just because a DA somewhere can prosecute for homicide, and especially when the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on this specific issue, does not mean that the fetus has broad legal standing.
Of course discrimination exists. But Oprah is not our government, and although we may still have work to do as a society, it is important to keep government from getting too involved - if they actively discriminate against any race, there is a problem. Also, think back to pre-integration United States. It was what you call racism that turned the country towards an end to… racism. Integrating the schools, sometimes forcibly, was and is entirely appropriate.
2007-12-10 12:18:45
I think you hit the nail on the head when you say “it’s important to keep the government from getting too involved”. The very power that is used to enforce minority representation was used to discriminate, and is currently used to discriminate against homosexuals and transsexuals. This illegitimate, yes illegitimate, power should be taken away from the government. It was not granted under our constitution, and I and many would argue _should not_ be given the power to enforce virtues. I find racial and sexual discrimination abhorrent, and would not frequent any establishment that employed these tactics. At the same time, I understand a person’s right to live in a manner with which I may disagree, be they racist, sexist, atheist or catholic. I am curious as to why you feel that you have others don’t have that right.
2007-12-13 12:42:37
McGimp,
Maybe a fetus doesn’t have “broad legal standing.” However, does that mean it’s not a living being that should be given the opportunity to continue to live? Dr. Paul isn’t against all abortion, however he is against most abortions after the 3rd trimester.
2007-12-13 12:34:37
Could not have said it better myself, Jojy Igwaboo.
2007-12-09 20:35:19
You say Ron Paul discriminates but if you do your research you’ll find that is far from the case. Ron Paul is an advocate of individual freedoms no matter what color or orientation you happen to be. This works both ways. Affirmative action for example gives precedence to minorities over Caucasians even though their abilities may not be as good. You could say that minorities would have an unfair advantage in that case. Ron Paul definitely believes (as do I) that no one should get an unfair advantage especially mandated by the government.
Now I understand that this country isn’t perfect and people get discriminated against. However, trying to balance the unfair with the unfair just goes back to that old saying that 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Discrimination is a social issue that needs to be overcome but it should not be done at the expense of someone else’s individual freedoms.
As for the environment I do think you’re right when you say it is a concern. I even agree with you that Ron Paul probably isn’t the most environmental guy out there. However, what makes you think that big government is the answer to this? Just because there is a big powerful government doesn’t mean it’s going to get results. In fact it will meet obstacles of red tape and untold amounts of bureaucracy. I think our best bet to change the environment is awareness and technology. After all China has already said they don’t give a damn about the environment and what they contribute to it’s downfall. I believe in promoting the technology to go green would be the most beneficial. Getting everyone to work nicely together for a common cause isn’t exactly the world’s strong point.
I would also like to mention your stance. You have clearly stated that you’re a democrat. Democrats are typically for big government, entitlements, and regulation of everything… for the common good (sounds a bit like communism to me but hey to each their own). Ron Paul probably isn’t for you. It’s ok. Individual freedoms is not that important to everyone. Some people are hooked on the government doing everything for you. Pigs at the trough is what I would compare it to.
As for the rest of us who believe that the government shouldn’t intrude itself into every facet of our lives and that we should keep the fruits of our labor… well Ron Paul is for you. He is a straight talker who is almost the anti-thesis of what most people consider politicians to be. That is the first thing that attracted me to his campaign. I suggest watching some of his speeches because it’s after I heard him talk that he really got my vote. He says what he believes and it’s not sugarcoated or double talk. Yes we finally have the opportunity to vote for an honest man.
As for everyone else who wants to keep the status quo and vote for one of the other republicans or the democrats… good luck with that. Excuse me while I help Ron Paul bring freedom and integrity back to this nation.
2007-12-09 20:40:31
If you are not a woman, a minority, gay, or non Christian then you will have some sort of freedom under a Paul administration. If you are from one of the aforementioned groups, hopefully you don’t vote libertarian.
2007-12-09 21:08:14
This really just comes down to how you want to deal with the problem. I mean really passing laws does little to help the problem. Unfortunately, some people are just jerks and even laws don’t stop them from projecting their hate upon others. If anything these laws exacerbate the problem by creating resentment towards these groups because they get an unfair leg up. You may say it’s to balance the unfairness they receive at the hands of white males(basically that’s what it boils down to) but it’s not that simple.
Now take a white male who is looking for a job. He is the best qualified and worked his butt to get where he is. He comes up against a minority or woman whatever for his dream job. He doesn’t get the job. In fact it was given to a less qualified and less driven person for affirmative action reasons. Isn’t that unfair?
2 wrongs don’t make a right. Really it’s all about picking who you want to screw over. Race, color, sex, religion and orientation should not even come into consideration in these types of things and it is sad that it happens. However, helping one of those groups at the expense of another is just wrong. It’s a bad situation but how can you justify passing the suck on to someone who is not at fault? Shouldn’t it be the people who discriminate who get the consequences and not the hard worker who didn’t get his chance for his dream job?
Really if you believe passing the discrimination off to the majority is any better than discrimination of minorities then I think you need to have a moral rethink. After all… if you discriminate against the majority you’re discriminating against more people than you were originally. Both situations are not right! But only one is mandated discrimination… one required by law. The other is discrimination by people who also could use a moral rethink but at least it’s not required of them.
2007-12-10 00:50:22
after reading the HR’s it is clear to me that you do not understand Paul’s position because I see nothign negative in these proposals..it is all in your interpretation
2007-12-13 12:36:51
To John shepard,
It’s not about interpretation with these people. It’s about trying to spin in a negative light so people won’t vote for Dr. Paul. Peace
2007-12-10 01:06:03
I am not in any of those “groups” because I’m an individual with my own opinions, desires and rights, AND I RESENT BEING LABELED AS PART OF ANY GROUP. People only band together into groups (ie. “black rights”, “gay rights”, etc.) because they’re not getting the rights they deserve AS AN INDIVIDUAL. It’s called collectivism and it’s a disgusting concept that breeds bigotry and hatred.
Anyway, you’re essentially saying that by making the government smaller, it will become more oppressive. That makes no sense whatsoever (and runs contrary to numerous historical examples).
2007-12-10 08:51:03
No, but that by making government smaller, society will become more oppressive. Read John Stuart Mill’s _On Liberty_.
2007-12-10 08:38:32
Are you on crack?
2007-12-10 09:08:45
Summer, we do not inherit our rights as human being by our affiliation with some grievance group. People’s inalienable rights do exist because of their gender, race, or sexual orientation. I think that while your effort here was valiant, your arguments typical of leftist academia’s tired and illogical ideology. Do yourself a favor and start learning the fundamentals of critical thinking. Appeals to emotion are not effective with the Paulites (I am a Paulite, for the record). Presenting self-evidently correct premises (i.e. abortion is a woman’s right, and affirmative action is a good idea etc.) reveals your naivete, and shallow intellectual development up to this point. Cheers.
2007-12-10 12:42:13
@BM-
Presenting self-evidently correct premises (i.e. abortion is a woman’s right, and affirmative action is a good idea etc.) reveals your naivete, and shallow intellectual development up to this point.
Questions:
1. If the state can tell a woman what to do with her body. (by denying her access to abortion services) What does that say about her right to have the government leave her alone? It’s seems you are in favor of Affirmative Action for fetuses only.
2.If someone’s inalienable rights are violated, and the government is no longer in the business of protecting those rights. Who will ensure that those rights aren’t violated? Private security firms a la’ Blackwater?
All of the protections that we now have relatung to these and other issues that Paul mentions were put in place for very sound reasons. And at the request and demands of the citizenry. Paul supportors act a though they were set up in the dark of night by evil-doers. The politicians who instituted these programs were freely elected by people who wanted them to do the things they deemed important.
Younger Paul supporters weren’t around to see what this country was like before these, so called, “infringements” on your freedoms were in place.
Supporters of this misguided charlatan are seeking nothing more than freedom from responsibility. They are scared, greedy and will not step up to the plate to ensure the rights of their fellow citizens.
Paul’s ideas would make a interesting Poli Sci class, but is totally unworkable as a means to govern.
2007-12-10 14:51:12
>> 2.If someone’s inalienable rights are violated, and the government is no longer in the business of protecting those rights. Who will ensure that those rights aren’t violated? Private security firms a la’ Blackwater?
…
>> Supporters of this misguided charlatan are seeking nothing more than freedom from responsibility. They are scared, greedy and will not step up to the plate to ensure the rights of their fellow citizens.
Just a comment on this. It seems to me, actually, that Paulities are the few groups who go by the age old addage “I may disagree with your ideas, but I will fight to the death for your right to say them”. Seems to me that the abuse of our government comes from people being apathetic about the gradual appropriation of these powers created by the people by opportunistic politicians…and in order to counteract this trend, the winds of government must change and allow for a “refactoring” of the role/function of government. Our government is bloated, broken, dysfunctional, apathetic, narsccistic, and has sadly lost it’s way and sense of purpose/duty. People have lost sight of the reason for government. So if that requires us taking away the miles of government red tape we have wrapped ourselves in just so we can remember the reason we put those guards up in the first place, I for one feel that our country, and people, will be better off not being so babied and dependent. Ron Paul has lit a fire in our memories of what it is it be an independent American citizen, which, sadly, has been long lost ‘neat the suffocation of politic margin-grapple rhetoric.
2007-12-16 01:52:11
Zippity,
You state, “Paul’s ideas would make a interesting Poli Sci class, but is totally unworkable as a means to govern.”
Since Dr. Paul has the most constitutionally sound record of all the 2008 presidential candidates, are you saying that the Constitution of the united States of America is totally unworkable as a means to govern?
His views of true Liberty are entirely Jeffersonian.
-LB
ps: right on Tyler!
2007-12-20 09:54:56
>>1. If the state can tell a woman what to do with her body. (by denying her access to abortion services) What does that say about her right to have the government leave her alone? It’s seems you are in favor of Affirmative Action for fetuses only.
We’re talking about BIG government leaving people alone. Ron Paul is for states’ rights and individual freedom. If a state wants to outlaw abortion the state right next door is in its rights to make it legal.
>>2.If someone’s inalienable rights are violated, and the government is no longer in the business of protecting those rights. Who will ensure that those rights aren’t violated? Private security firms a la’ Blackwater?
Once again, BIG government. State government will still police and protect the people. You’re obviously not reading much into this concept.
>>Supporters of this misguided charlatan are seeking nothing more than freedom from responsibility. They are scared, greedy and will not step up to the plate to ensure the rights of their fellow citizens.
You’re an idiot. Freedom FROM responsibility? Ron Paul wants everyone to take personal responsibility. Privatized education lets people choose where they spend their money for education. No social security makes people take responsibility for their own retirement. No affirmative action enables employers the freedom to choose the best candidate for the job instead of filling the black/hispanic/female slot with someone less capable and with less experience.
2007-12-11 15:59:24
Equal discrimination is NOT equal rights!
2007-12-10 13:18:48
Right. The rich and the poor alike have the right to sleep under the bridges of paris.
fools.
2007-12-14 17:23:16
>>Democrats are typically for big government, entitlements, and regulation of everything… <<
More accurately, Democrats favor dependency on government. Republicans favor dependency on big business. Under Democrats, entitlements go to those on welfare. Under Republicans, entitlements go to corporations.
What the hell’s the difference? How is one form of dependency any better or worse than any other? Democrats will openly and arrogantly support more government regulation. Republicans will speak out against growing government, but will then grow it just as much in the dead of the night when they think no one is looking. Again, what the hell’s the difference.
You may as well vote for Elvis.
2007-12-10 00:05:24
If you are in favor of affirmative action, then you are the one advocating discrimination based on ethnicity, not libertarians like Ron Paul.
Advocates of affirmative action based on race argue that a wealthy black person who may be unqualified should get preferential treatment over a poor white person that is. What is the positive side of that?
If I were one of the minorities that advocates of “affirmative action” seek to help, I’d be insulted that someone would give me something based only on my membership of that minority group, rather than because of my abilities.
2007-12-10 00:56:51
I will just say, as a student in the NYC Public School System, I would suppoer Ron Paul’s policy of getting rid of the DOE. They are just a big problematic beurocracy that doesn’t care at all about individuals. They just want to feed us whatever they think is right and force us to memorize it. Why do you think certain colleges are so good? When a college is good, people attend it and give them money. Bad colleges don’t attract as many people, and therefore dont make as much money.
Maybe privatizing is not a great thing to do, but giving people choice in their school system is certainly a better option then just giving everyone a standard carbon-copy school. The world works with money. Get used to it.
More so, I think that you are taking the racial No Child Left Behind act a bit to seriously. You think it really makes sense to promote a child of minority status to a better college than a white student with equal credentials? This is unfair to majorities!! As a white student in New York City, I have seen first hand our government’s attempts at equilizing the races in our educational environment. For one thing, on almost every standardized test, you are forced to fill out a bubble that reads “Please identify your ethic background.” Because I am white, I must bubble in “Caucasian.” My asian friends can bubble in “Asian” and my latino friends can bubble in “Latino.” How is this fair at all!? Why should I be put in a separate category because of my race! Being fair and non-discriminant is one thing. Being tilted towards minorities is another. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN A BLACK ONLY SCHOLARSHIP EXIST!!! Imagine if I opened a foundation for the education of white males. How would that go over?!!?!
So stop taking our government’s actions at face value. Everything isn’t as it seems. Believe it or not, many people agree with what Ron Paul has to say. I am not a Jesus freak, I am not religious at all for that matter. I am not republican and I don’t own a gun. I can still understand where Ron Paul is coming from, though. Liberal geeks like myself fight for internet freedom. Why can’t a hunter fight for gun freedoms? Our world consists of people with ever conflicting views. You can either crush one point of view, or you can let them all reign free.
Mind you, I am too young to vote so my opinion means nothing. But if I could, I would probably vote for Ron Paul. He just has the right attitude to make some BIG changes in this government!
2007-12-20 11:50:43
yes I can understand your reluctance because he is not business as usual… but for every no there is a yes or a solution to wat is not in the constitution. please do not be offended read the constitution then compare your reluctance thats it. thats all I wanted to say remember the oath of office of preside is to protect and defend the constitution of the usa…I think that we have come far from that oh I know you will say the constitution is out of date and for me to get with the program.
2007-12-10 08:09:36
Ron Paul does not own any firearms, how can he have an unnatural obsession with guns?+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y_mDlUUCMo
2007-12-18 12:42:02
Sorry Boomer, but that video is of Duncan Hunter, not Ron Paul. Secondly, Ron Paul has said on video that he has firearms at his house.
On the other hand, the statement on this website that he has “an unnatural obsession with guns”, has no basis in fact, and is clearly intended to misinform people about Ron Paul.
2007-12-10 08:36:15
Thank you for your comment. Please tell me the positive side of allowing discrimination based on ethnicity?
What do you think affirmative action is? Yet you seem to have an issue with Dr. Paul wanting to get rid of it.
What could be good about destroying the environment and giving even more incentives and breaks to big oil?
You should watch the Google interview with Dr. Paul, he explains this very well. In short he says that no person nor business has the right to pollute other peoples air, property, or water…
I’m not sure who’s rights and freedom you believe Ron Paul is for. Big business? Corporations? If you want to be left alone and have government out of your personal business then I would hardly recommend a candidate who advocates taking away a woman’s reproductive rights,
Actually he is PERSONALLY opposed to abortion, but understands that the woman makes that choice not the FEDS.
does not support equal rights for glbt citizens, and who would push his religious viewpoints on the rest of us. That is hardly freedom.
Thats the thing about Dr Paul you don’t get.. He does not push his views on others.. And understands his personal opinions have no place in the office of the president.. And he has said at least 6 zillion times he would allow gays and lesbians the same rights as all other people, including Marriage! Amazing isn’t it.. I don’t think you did any research on Dr. Paul before you wrote this… Or watched even 1 interview… or any of the debates.. And if you did, you need to pay better attention.
2007-12-10 21:42:16
Here’s so information you may find startling. Politicians lie to get elected. I’d be more inclined to trust a pollie’s voting record than what they say in interviews.
2007-12-11 11:03:36
Voting record is very subjective….
Yes it does say where he stood on an issue. However who is to say that a represenative didn’t take the side of their constiuents, and vote for what the people that elected him think. I know this rarely happens in our republic, and normally most represenatives have agendas solely dictated by party agendas or lobbyists… But realize what state he was representing, and the view points from that state.
2007-12-10 10:24:13
And how is he in any way discriminatory towards any one group of people? As has already been stated by others, affirmative action, by definition IS discrimination….and your other bit of ‘proof’ is that he voted against something the IRS was doing??? He wants to disband the IRS, what part of that don’t you get?! Of course he’s going to vote against giving them authority to do ANYTHING….just because you found one instance where it happened to be related to minorities, I guess that gives you free reign to turn that into propoganda.
2007-12-10 21:59:41
Look, the reproductive right of choosing not to have sex or unprotected sex is still there in light of what Ron Paul would like to do in respect to Roe v. Wade. What you fail to understand is the underhanded nature by which Roe v. Wade has made it to a Supreme Court decision. If you would please do some research on that point, you may see the wisdom that Paul has on this.
2007-12-13 15:54:35
I have a question that I want to ask that I cant quiet get my arms around. And I am asking in scincer earnest for some opinions and thoughts.
On the subject of legislation being removed that would allow for segregation once more: If legislation must be in place to safeguard a society from segregation than wouldn’t that mean that the society has the problem with racism?
Really I have two questions:
1. Does any one think, that given the chance, the American society would through a free economy work out issues of segregation on its own and through local governments with out the need for an additional “big brother” watching over our sholders?
2. Does a politician’s desire to give the American people that chance mean that he is in fact a racist?
I have comments and opinions of my own concerning the above questions. Naturally there are pros and cons to every resolution.
For the first question, I know that in removing federal legislation, the doors would be open to increased crimes against civil liberties so it seems like removing the legislation is in fact harming our civil liberties. However, is that not what the Federal Judicial Branch is for? To protect our liberties where our autonomy and local governments have failed.
On the second question, it bothers me to read comments that personally label a person based on a desicion or a stance on an issue merely because it would allow others to act or live by that label. For instance, I have issue with allowing people to choose what sexual orientation they would like to choose. That does not make me gay.
As I said at the begining of this comment, I would truly like some feed back, as sometimes one’s own opinions can get in the way of seeing another’s views clearly.
Sincerly,
LS
2007-12-13 21:59:39
He may be anti-abortion personally, but if you really listen to what he says it’s that he feels the federal government doesn’t have the right to make the law. He believes that it should be left up to state law, which I agree with. If you ask me, the Federal Government has gotten way too big and that was not supposed to happen. If they start taking away small rights, like the right to bear arms, what’s to stop them from taking away bigger rights? No candidate is perfect, but there are good things about Paul and his intentions are the best that I’ve seen out of any of the candidates.
2007-12-10 02:22:53
Nice spin on the facts. Why not show both sides of the story? Your 10 points are very one dimensional.
Ron Paul for President 2008
2007-12-10 08:30:21
She won’t reasses. She is just attacking the Republican candidate that she deems most dangerous to her big government socialist buddies, like a good lil worker bee.
2007-12-10 09:29:24
this is a great well thougthout comment.
2007-12-10 15:45:48
I’ll preface this response by explaining that I am a very liberal college student.
I do not, however, agree with this.
Ron Paul’s support of guns is not an “obsession” so to speak; its the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. He has been noted several times as stating that his support for the second amendment is that WHEN THE GOVERNMENT BECOMES OPPRESSIVE of us we have a way to defend ourselves and our families.
Ron Paul’s views on abortion, same-sex marriages, federal funding, and the IRS are all because they are currently UNCONSTITUTIONAL. He states that no matter what his own personal opinions are, he will follow the CONSTITUTION. All of these issues would be regulated by state governments, which is how our government is set up to run.
Paul supports a small federal government.
Large federal governments are best understood by reading George Orwell’s novel 1984.
Personally, I support abortion and stem cell research. I support same-sex marriages. I support International Criminal Court. I’m extremely liberal, actually.
But the current government of this country is WAY TOO BIG and WAY TOO INTRUSIVE. Paul wants to limit that. Paul will run his administration by the CONSTITUTION. He also will follow the deceleration of independence which say such things as, “all men are created equally” and that we’re all entitled to, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Under that, all people are protected.
As for separation of church and state, Paul does support that they be separate. He does, however, want to keep “god” in our rights. The importance of this is that if our rights are not derived from a “god” or some type of higher power, then the highest power is the government. You do not want to highest power to be the government. Again, that’s Orwellian.
Paul’s tax issues are just typically republican.
All in all, Paul is the only candidate who supports the CONSTITUTION. He is the only one who is a step in the right direction. Liberalism implies that you want more rights, not less, and Paul is campaigning to give us just that.
He’s the only chance for a “real” change in government as he’s not a puppet like the rest of the candidates on both sides.
2007-12-19 23:51:26
Great rebuttal!!
2007-12-10 16:34:09
Dang. This list actually makes me WANT to vote for the guy. The ONLY reason I will not vote for him is because he is for taking our guys out of Iraq before the job is done for the people there to live free without terrorists blowing them up.
Every single other item that Ron Paul stands for is right on target. Too bad the WOT trumps abortion for me this election cycle!
2007-12-10 22:33:27
In my experience average people in the military are not Bush supporters and in fact do not want to be in Iraq. The portrayal that we believe in this war is utter bullshit. There are just as many of us that don’t believe in this war. However, we are motivated and dedicated individuals and when told to do a job we do it. That doesn’t mean we agree with it.
I’m not saying there aren’t supporters of this war in the military but when a politician puts words in all our mouths it is a damn lie. We are not a single minded entity but a group working toward a common goal because that is the mission presented to us. Our personal beliefs do not matter in that regard.
If you don’t think I know what I’m talking about I happen to be active duty Air Force. I may know a thing or two about it. I took an oath to defend the constitution and I take it seriously. Some have forgotten just what that means. Ron Paul has not and that is why you will never convince me not to vote for him. Not gonna happen.
2007-12-16 03:30:25
Active military personnel have donated more money to Ron Paul’s campaign than any other candidate. What does that tell you?
2007-12-16 19:01:02
Karenia,
You really seriously think that we should stay over there?! If you actually researched the reasons that we were attacked you’d have seen two key reasons: because we were currently occupying Al Queida’s (sp?) holy land, and we had troops in their country! This is why we need to pull ALL of our troops home! Not just because we’d give them some much needed rest and bring them home to their families, but to allow the other countries we’re basically “occupying” go about their business! How do you think we’d feel if China or Russia had military bases here in the US?! I for one would NOT want them here trying to impose their “power” upon me. I’d want them out! Granted, I probably wouldn’t go to extremes to remove them (unless extremes were used against me), but I’d most certainly object and develop a hatred for them for basically “occupying our country”. I can certainly understand the whole ideal of “we must finish what we started” but the problem with that is instead of CORRECTING our mistake we’re only ADDING to the mistake. I mean…for crying out loud, Bush now wants to go to war with IRAN!!!
One of our biggest problems is the fact that too many people rely on the very biased corporate media. And then they run off what they hear on the news to back up what they believe. The truth is that we need to also get rid of the bought-n-paid-for biased corporate media, and get some real news stations that tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. And that’s my two cents.
2007-12-11 08:43:35
You are right,most of the ten reasons listed are states rights issues,Ron Paul is my choice for sure.
2007-12-18 00:58:46
god does not exist, sorry for the reality check
2007-12-09 20:06:36
Thank you so much for writing this. i had no idea about how crazy his views were on homosexuality were, but you showed it in his voting record.
He relaly is much sneakier then he lets on.
2007-12-09 20:44:59
oh please, he’s against FEDERAL funding. He says government has no place in matters of marriage anyway. He’s not being sneaky, he’s being RIGHT.
In other words, he’s for whatever you want to believe because it’s in the constitution under your 1st amendment rights.
2007-12-09 21:53:32
That’s not true. He supported the Defense of Marriage Act and has vocally supported laws against gay sex acts….
2007-12-10 00:40:28
[citation needed]
2007-12-10 02:44:33
Actually, he said he would have supported it back in 1996, but upon further reflection found that a federal restriction on states’ rights to choose for their own people would be going to far.
In other words, he did, but learned and thinks better now.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
2007-12-10 05:46:02
The “Defense of Marriage” act states, basically, that a marriage claimed by one state does not have to be recognized by another state or the federal government.
Seems like he’s just keeping marriage out of the hands of the federal government.
In addition, what exactly does marriage mean, and what does the state have to do with it? The government’s opinion of marriage shouldn’t even matter, since marriage is a religious function, and to legislate it would mean that you’d be passing religious laws.
2007-12-10 07:42:34
Marriage is not a religious function. It is a personal function. Many people get married who do not believe in God. This is all the more reason for government NOT to interfere in marriage.
2007-12-10 06:40:02
Are you sure it wasn’t the federal involvement of government in marriage? Why don’t you go on youtube and hear it from his own words? The Federal government got involved in marriages due to health reasons, but that’s not the case anymore.
He believes the government should have no role in Civil Unions.
He also supports don’t ask, don’t tell because the government shouldn’t have to ask on the sexual orientation. Also, whether they are gay or not, if military personnel act wrongfully in a sexual manner they should both be treated the same.
2007-12-10 06:59:05
vocally has nothing to do with actions. Take a look at the track record of his voting against just about everything that would take away the decision from where it belongs, the state level. He is not called “Dr. No” for reasons other than he wants to restore the power to the state level so we as individuals have more control over deciding how and where we live. It restores lost ability to truly have our voices heard on a more local level that has been taken away from those who want big socialist level government and the other who wants money and power in the guise of reducing government.
While he nor I agree with everything, the fact remains that he wants to restore our freedoms on a local level so we can decide to, as a smaller unit, move if our local state goes the way we are uncomfortable with, or stay and try to work to change the laws so that we are more comfortable. Having one big giant blanket federal law removes our right to choose ANYTHING more than you seem to know. Where would we go if we disagree with the law that was passed? Should we be forced to leave the country? Well with the current state we re in, thats happening right now.
I suggest you take of your biased blinders and quit wasting time. Be more objective and open minded and maybe, just maybe, you will see that whatever Ron Paul believes, the whole point to his campaign is to restore our abilities to each individually believe what we want to believe. That is true freedom!
2007-12-09 20:26:35
You want government to intervene where it should not. This is a standard position of people who, like all of us, recognize the inequalities of real life. However accurate or otherwise right, it is not the place, nor was it written to ever be the place of federal government to regulate all of the things to which you have a problem. You say discriminate, rather than eliminate discrimination. As it is now the discrimination is against the majority. You say deny abortion - not true. If your state wanted to keep abortion legal it would be. Our foreign intervention not only doesn’t work, in many cases it makes things worse.
Your ideas are good, however with the federal government enacting them, the size of government swells and the power given to them increases. When that happens and the people who aren’t on your side get elected then worse things happen than if you were to leave social issues at the local level.
Ron Paul is about freedom. Its not about curing the social ills of America and the world, that is a losing battle. Only when people are free and responsible will this world truly be the place you want it to be.