Don’t Fall for Ron Paul (https://dissidentvoice.org/2011/05/don%E2%80%99t-fall-for-ron-paul/)
by Pham Binh / May 16th, 2011
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul opposed the Wall Street bailouts, is against the (racist) war on drugs, and wants to dismantle the American empire by bringing all U.S. military personnel home from the 150 or so (https://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2009/12/02/Deployment-of-US-troops/UPI-93091259776903/) countries where they are deployed.
Sounds good right?
Sure, until those troops get home. Paul voted against providing housing assistance to very low-income veterans, against expanding education benefits for returning troops, and against improving how the Department of Veterans Affairs is funded.
(Click on the embedded link in the headline above for the rest of the article.)
Braggi
05-16-2011, 10:35 PM
Don’t Fall for Ron Paul (https://dissidentvoice.org/2011/05/don%E2%80%99t-fall-for-ron-paul/)
The fact that neither Ron Paul nor his misguided offspring would have voted for equal rights for black people is enough reason to shun them. The additional fact that Ron would make it a crime to have an abortion is also a non-starter.
Look to the serious candidates instead.
Let's see ... that would be Barak Hussein Obama.
Anyone else?
-Jeff
someguy
05-17-2011, 07:45 AM
The fact that neither Ron Paul nor his misguided offspring would have voted for equal rights for black people is enough reason to shun them. The additional fact that Ron would make it a crime to have an abortion is also a non-starter.
Look to the serious candidates instead.
Let's see ... that would be Barak Hussein Obama.
Anyone else?
-Jeff
Correction: Ron Paul would not make it a crime to have an abortion. He wants local governments to make that decision not a federal mandate.
On another note: On all major issues that are impacting our nation, debt, war, privacy, and jobs, Ron Paul by far has the most logical and effective approach to dealing with these problems. In fact, his solutions are truly appealing to the progressive community. I'd be happy to field any questions anyone has about Ron Paul.
Have a great day ya'll.
Peace, Freedom, Prosperity.... Ron Paul 2012!
Braggi
05-17-2011, 09:08 AM
Correction: Ron Paul would not make it a crime to have an abortion. He wants local governments to make that decision not a federal mandate.
That is what's called, in the business, a total and complete cop out. "I didn't do it! It was South Dakota that did it!"
Roe v. Wade isn't about making abortion safe and legal in California. It's about making abortion safe and legal EVERYWHERE.
Ron Paul doesn't get it.
Ron Paul will never be president and of that we can all be glad.
-Jeff
someguy
05-17-2011, 01:38 PM
That is what's called, in the business, a total and complete cop out. "I didn't do it! It was South Dakota that did it!"
Roe v. Wade isn't about making abortion safe and legal in California. It's about making abortion safe and legal EVERYWHERE.
Ron Paul doesn't get it.
Ron Paul will never be president and of that we can all be glad.
-Jeff
Oh I see, so you are just like the social conservatives who wants to impose their viewpoints on others such as banning gay marriage...
Braggi
05-17-2011, 01:42 PM
Oh I see, so you are just like the social conservatives who wants to impose their viewpoints on others such as banning gay marriage...
That is a completely ass backwards of interpreting what I said.
I'm for human rights. I'm against mob rule. I think that makes me pro-constitution.
I don't think a mob should be able to take away my rights or those of my daughter.
Does that clarify my position for you?
-Jeff
someguy
05-17-2011, 01:58 PM
That is a completely ass backwards of interpreting what I said.
I'm for human rights. I'm against mob rule. I think that makes me pro-constitution.
I don't think a mob should be able to take away my rights or those of my daughter.
Does that clarify my position for you?
-Jeff
Well who is trying to take away your rights? Surely not Ron Paul. Do you think he has the ability as president to overturn Roe V. Wade? All that he is saying that if it were overturned he would let the people decide for themselves rather than setting a federal mandate one way or another.
In other words, his philosophical position that abortion is wrong would not urge him to outlaw abortion for anyone. His obligation as president would not be to run others lives and impose his viewpoints but to allow the people to decide whats best for them on a local level... With this type of mind-frame we would have medical marijuana in several states without fear of DEA raids for example.
But to say that Ron Paul would do away with Roe V. Wade and outlaw abortion is just not a correct statement.
Does that clarify his position for you?
marko
05-17-2011, 11:42 PM
Correction: Ron Paul would not make it a crime to have an abortion. He wants local governments to make that decision not a federal mandate.
Oh, so Ron Paul would not make it a crtime to have an abortion---he just wants to make abortions impossible to get. Great difference. Oh, he'll
probably say abortions for men are okay.
Correction: Ron Paul would not make it a crime to have an abortion. He wants local governments to make that decision not a federal mandate.
On another note: On all major issues that are impacting our nation, debt, war, privacy, and jobs, Ron Paul by far has the most logical and effective approach to dealing with these problems. In fact, his solutions are truly appealing to the progressive community. I'd be happy to field any questions anyone has about Ron Paul.
Have a great day ya'll.
Peace, Freedom, Prosperity.... Ron Paul 2012!
Braggi
05-18-2011, 06:56 AM
... All that he is saying that if it were overturned he would let the people decide for themselves rather than setting a federal mandate one way or another. ...
Ron Paul would have it that restaurant owners could prevent people with dark skin from sitting in their establishment. Yeah, that's a great version of freedom. What Ron Paul and you, someguy, don't get is that rights are guaranteed by our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. You can't have "majority rule" take away people's rights. Our country was founded upon individual freedoms and equal rights for all.
I do NOT agree with Ron Paul that individual states should be able to outlaw medical or even recreational use of marijuana. It is a right that we should be able to consume substances that do not endanger society. Abe Lincoln and George Washington and Ben Franklin would have agreed. Thomas Jefferson was very likely a pot smoker.
Ron Paul is a racist and does not support equal rights for all. I'm against him.
-Jeff
someguy
05-18-2011, 04:41 PM
Ron Paul would have it that restaurant owners could prevent people with dark skin from sitting in their establishment. Yeah, that's a great version of freedom. What Ron Paul and you, someguy, don't get is that rights are guaranteed by our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. You can't have "majority rule" take away people's rights. Our country was founded upon individual freedoms and equal rights for all.
I do NOT agree with Ron Paul that individual states should be able to outlaw medical or even recreational use of marijuana. It is a right that we should be able to consume substances that do not endanger society. Abe Lincoln and George Washington and Ben Franklin would have agreed. Thomas Jefferson was very likely a pot smoker.
Ron Paul is a racist and does not support equal rights for all. I'm against him.
-Jeff
Hmm.. That is an interesting way of looking at things Jeff. Thanks for your input. However, I disagree immensely with just about everything you said.
You say that we can't have majority rule take away people's rights... What about our right to free speech and private property? Free speech is considered so important, that it is the first amendment in our bill of rights. And contrary to what you might you think, the first amendment is there to guarantee the rights of everybody no matter how terrible their ideas may be... Think of racist KKK members holding rallies in public. We don't just allow them to do it because we advocate it, we let them rally because we are a tolerant society that values freedom. I think it would be terrible for people to have a segregated restaurant, and so does Ron Paul, but the greater philosophy behind what Ron Paul is saying, is that if we take away the rights of some people just because we disagree with their point of view, anyone's point of view can be squashed no matter how noble you might find it to be.
Another point that was made by Oteil Burbridge (the bass player for the Allman Brothers Band and an african american) regarding this subject goes a little something like this:
"1. If someone in the Klan owns a restaurant and doesn't want to serve me, why on earth would I want to support him by giving him my money? I don't want my money going to buy little Klan baby clothes. I'd rather the privately owned establishments wear their racism on their sleeves so I know who to support. If they want to lose my money, and the money of all other minorities and people with brains and a conscience, then fine. Racism is bad business.
2. There's two facts none of us can get around. Churches are still the most segregated places in America every Sunday morning. Its called freedom of religion. There are still restaurants where you can't go in D.C. and I can't go in Georgia. That's called tribalism. Integration cannot be forced privately, only publicly. Tribalism cannot be defeated by legislation. Freedom of speech and of religion means also freedom of @!$%#s. I prefer them with their hoods off."
"Woolworth's should be allowed to be segregated. I will go on the record right now and state that I believe that Woolworth's and any other privately owned business should be allowed to be segregated. We Black's have a choice now that we didn't back before the Civil Rights Act. Why would I want to support cracker ass Woolworth's if that's who owns the store? I'll take my money elswhere. If you had your way, I wouldn't know one from the other. I hope we can one day agree to let Woolworth's be free to take off its Klan Hood so you and I both know where to spend our money. Its not like and oil company. We all "have to" buy gasoline for now. We blacks have a choice which lunch counter we want to sit at in 2010. Rand Paul stated that when violence occurred it was wrong. He said it was morally reprehensible and he would never support it? He shouldn't be smeared as a racist."
Ron Paul agrees with you that we should be allowed to consume whatever drug we like.. In fact he wants all drugs legalized. You can youtube him at the recent Fox News Republican Presidential debate where he advocated for same sex marriage, heroin legalization and more. What he and you disagree with, is forcing your common beliefs down other peoples throats. And that is the genius of Ron Paul's philosophy. He is sympathetic and tolerant of all points of view. Too often on either side of the spectrum, people want to outlaw what they disapprove of and legalize what they approve of. I'm sorry but that just causes more problems. You say that abortion takes away your daughters rights, conservatives against abortion say that it takes away the rights of the baby. I personally think abortion should be legal, but who am I to shove my point of view down another persons throat? They have a perfectly legitimate and reasonable viewpoint and I can respect that. And if their local community wants the same as them, who am I to take that away from them? A little compassion and tolerance is what we all really need, and that is why Ron Paul is the man for the 2012 election.
Braggi
05-18-2011, 05:48 PM
... You say that abortion takes away your daughters rights, conservatives against abortion say that it takes away the rights of the baby. I personally think abortion should be legal, but who am I to shove my point of view down another persons throat? They have a perfectly legitimate and reasonable viewpoint and I can respect that. And if their local community wants the same as them, who am I to take that away from them?...
I get it that you don't understand what rights and freedom are all about. I don't think I'll convince you. But riddle me this: what if businesses are allowed to be segregated? Where does it stop? Woolworths? Sears? AT&T? Bank of America? PG & E? Would it be OK for a city to outlaw blacks in your perfect world? See how complicated it gets? Nice that it's NOT complicated because we have a Constitutional form of government that recognizes the rights of individuals over mob rule.
BTW, that statement about churches being segregated does not mesh with my experience. I've been in dozens of different churches, temples and groves. Nobody ever questioned my credentials. Haven't tried a mosque yet and they may have different rules, but I really don't know where your quote was coming from.
Ron Paul is big on Libertarianism and I can tell you as someone who has plotted strategy with the founder of the Libertarian party that they are all about empowering big corporations and disempowering the people. It's all about the money my friend and the Libs are no better than the Republicans and far, far worse than the Democrats.
-Jeff
someguy
05-18-2011, 08:05 PM
I get it that you don't understand what rights and freedom are all about. I don't think I'll convince you. But riddle me this: what if businesses are allowed to be segregated? Where does it stop? Woolworths? Sears? AT&T? Bank of America? PG & E? Would it be OK for a city to outlaw blacks in your perfect world? See how complicated it gets? Nice that it's NOT complicated because we have a Constitutional form of government that recognizes the rights of individuals over mob rule.
BTW, that statement about churches being segregated does not mesh with my experience. I've been in dozens of different churches, temples and groves. Nobody ever questioned my credentials. Haven't tried a mosque yet and they may have different rules, but I really don't know where your quote was coming from.
Ron Paul is big on Libertarianism and I can tell you as someone who has plotted strategy with the founder of the Libertarian party that they are all about empowering big corporations and disempowering the people. It's all about the money my friend and the Libs are no better than the Republicans and far, far worse than the Democrats.
-Jeff
Well Im not sure about the libertarians you knew, but Ron Paul is no typical libertarian, and he definitely does not support empowering big bussiness.. And you imply that Ron Paul is worse than democrats... Well let's compare Ron Paul and Barack Obama on the main issues:
Barack Obama is militarily involved in 5 countries right now. Ron Paul has consistently spoke out against these military interventions and would get us out right away.
BO has continued raiding medical marijuana dispensaries with federal agents and prosecuting owners, growers and users even though he said he wouldn't... Ron Paul is completely against that.
BO has not done anything for the gay community as far as marriage goes. RP will end the governments involvement in marriage all together.
BO has said and done nothing about the recent citizens united case, while RP would put forth a bill to in congress to override it.
BO gave bailouts to big business and big banking, while RP spoke out against it and even offered his advice to just give those hundreds of billions to the tax payer directly to stimulate the economy.
BO has continued the patriot act, while RP would never renew that horrible legislation.
BO has expanded the department of homeland security, while RP would rather defund it all together.
BO said he would close Guantanamo but never did, where RP would surely take it down in no time at all.
As far as your question about Blacks being possibly banned from a city, well that negates private property laws since it prevents an owner of a property from selling to whomever they so please. Ron Paul is a huge private property proponent. That wouldn't work in his perfect world. And who said this world has to be perfect? Who has the idea to make it perfect? And what the heck is perfect anyways? Unfortunately/fortunately:wink:, perfection is found in the eye of the beholder, and when we empower people to take responsibility for their own lives, they can make their life as perfect as they want as long as they are not infringing on others abilities to live their life as they choose.
I'd like to know what issues you find to be most important. Maybe if you make a list of your priorities you'd see that on the major issues in politics today, Ron Paul has some great ideas that mingle well with our progressive values. After all that's why I'm trying to bring the info on RP here in this great progressive community. Be well Jeff.
Braggi
05-18-2011, 09:30 PM
... And what the heck is perfect anyways? Unfortunately/fortunately:wink:, perfection is found in the eye of the beholder, and when we empower people to take responsibility for their own lives, they can make their life as perfect as they want as long as they are not infringing on others abilities to live their life as they choose. ...
Theory is perfect someguy. You have to be able to talk political theory.
And there's that little imperfection to your perfect world. It's about infringing on others abilities to live as they choose. For instance, if a woman living in a state that outlaws abortion finds she needs one, there is a legal infringement on her ability to live her life as she wishes.
And yeah, Obama's doing a lot I don't approve of. Thankfully, he's also doing a lot of things I do approve of. I'm hoping he'll become more bold during Obama II: better change and hope realized. I won't hold my breath, but I'll certainly vote for him. There is no other acceptable candidate at this point.
-Jeff
podfish
05-19-2011, 08:25 AM
I disagree immensely with just about everything you said.
You say that we can't have majority rule take away people's rights... you disagree with that? are you suggesting that it's a right of the majority to take away the rights of the individual?? I'm confused...
What about our right to free speech and private property? I find it weird that people lump these together. The first one is essentially the right of autonomy - it affirms that an individual has control of his own actions. The second? That's a right of convenience. It has societal benefits because it simplifies the issue of who gets to control/exploit material objects and areas of land. Without it you'd be at constant risk of losing control of objects you use - or even created. But when applied to land-ownership, it's really a codification of the kindergarten "I was here first!!!". So exactly why does that make it right for you to deny others access?? It's a necessary convention, but I don't think it deserves the status of a natural "right".
Another point that was made by Oteil Burbridge (the bass player for the Allman Brothers Band and an african american) regarding this subject goes a little something like this:
"1. If someone in the Klan owns a restaurant and doesn't want to serve me, why on earth would I want to support him by giving him my money? He's not seeing the big picture, which is probably because he's too young to have experienced a world where this was the norm. With no social controls, with pure majority rule, there's no protection for minority rights. It's not like there's going to be a proliferation of services, with racist-only restaurants next to enlightened-humanist restaurants, for example. History shows that an intolerant majority will drive out those they find objectionable. There are barriers to success everywhere, some inherent, some thrown up by your competitors. Those who are already successful have the ability and the self-interest to limit the success of others. That's the nature of competition! often it's a zero-sum game, or at least it can be played that way.
This vision of a world where everyone happily gets along, putting their own interests first and disregarding those of others, ignoring(?) those they dislike, and yet somehow everyone still has equal opportunity to thrive, is bizarre at best. It has pretty much zero correspondence with any society made up of actual humans.
I want to pass on some clarity about Roe v. Wade that I heard from Ron Paul. The problem with it, is that according to the Constitution, only Congress has the right to pass a law. But this law was "passed" by the Judicial Department, the Supreme Court. It's a matter of wrong jurisdiction.
Now Ron, Let's Deliver Hope for America!!
www.ronpaul2012.com (https://www.ronpaul2012.com)
13825
Braggi
08-28-2011, 10:11 PM
... about Roe v. Wade that I heard from Ron Paul. The problem with it, is that according to the Constitution, only Congress has the right to pass a law. But this law was "passed" by the Judicial Department, the Supreme Court. ...
Except that Roe v. Wade isn't a law. So, no problem.
Thanks for your time.
-Jeff
theindependenteye
08-28-2011, 10:15 PM
>>>I want to pass on some clarity about Roe v. Wade that I heard from Ron Paul. The problem with it, is that according to the Constitution, only Congress has the right to pass a law. But this law was "passed" by the Judicial Department, the Supreme Court. It's a matter of wrong jurisdiction.
You might want to straighten out your terminology. Whether or not you agree with the Roe v. Wade decision, it is NOT a law passed by anybody: it's a decision by the US Supreme Court that restricts states' rights to regulate the abortion procedure, and it's been modified by other decisions subsequently but not rescinded. Anti-abortion activists object that the Supreme Court ruling was wrong, but they certainly have the right, in practice since Marbury vs. Madison, to make that ruling. Would you prefer that we have no Supreme Court and that every state and every federal adminstration can decide what the law means and whether to enforce it?
I find some Supreme Court rulings as repugnant as other people find that one, but the fact is that those are the guys who decide what the Constitution means, not Ron Paul.