Vote Republican: Support Senator Ron Paul!

[mheslep]

By the way, what is your source for Ron Paul's denial? Can you provide a link?

Why don't you start by providing a link to your claims; you have posted nothing but self colored text in quotes.

 

[mheslep]

LOL where do you get this crap... illegal labor is the only reason our economy is still running

Good to know, as illegal labor is the 'only reason' I can bail out of my job and ... be a slug!

 

[mheslep]

The U.S. was birthed from immigrants that came from Europe...

^legal^ immigrants.

If you didn't pass medical standards assessed in an inspection lasting a few seconds you were quarantined, or sent home.

 

[ShawnD]

By 'cardio' I meant cardiologist -- is that type of care free or covered by the government?

Crap I missed the boat on this thread by weeks. Yes cardiology is free in Canada.

Because car insurance is a scam. You pay them monthly but when you get in an accident and try to have insurance cover it, they either make you pay ("deductible" lol) for it or threaten to raise your rates. This makes you sue the person who causes the damage. What's the point of insurance if we don't need it? Answer: dirty politicians and business (which is always dirty)

This is why only stupid people buy full insurance. Is it really worth $4500 per year to fully insure a Honda Civic? Hell no. As soon as the loan was paid off, that insurance was gone. Legal minimum is still $1800 for me, but that's liability insurance that specifically covers me against lawsuits. I hit you, I kill your 3 kids and your wife, I laugh at you, you sue me, my insurance pays. Everybody wins except you. Theft was a good idea, though. It's something like $70 per year. Since everybody I know (literally) has had at least 1 car stolen in their lifetime, I can say that theft is more likely to happen than a write off due to my own fault, and yet it costs less than 1/10th as much. Collision insurance is a scam. Plain and simple.Oh and anybody saying illegal immigration is good for the average worker is a total retard whos understanding of economics is lower than that of a 5 year old. Get this, increased supply of labour = lower wages for labour. OMG SUPPLY AND DEMAND EXISTS! Quickly, tell Stockholm! Nobel Prize, here I come!

 

[Evo]

I am registered "decline to state", so I can request any primary ballot I want. (only one) I have already decided to vote for him in the California primary. He is the only one so far in the Republican debates who is speaking the truth abut the war.

You'd vote for a nut simply because he's against the war?

He advocates holistic and homeopthic care instead of real medicine. Sorry, I don't see me wearing copper or magnetic bracelets or wearing crystals to fight off real diseases.

He is against vaccinations and immunizations.

He's against the FDA.

He's against women's health rights and the ability to choose.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

But it's ok to carry guns and kill people, even people with known mental problems can carry guns. Oh and he wants to end our membership in the United Nations.

I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.

H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.

H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.

H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.

Ron Paul IS A NUT! Worse than that, he's DANGEROUS.

 

[drankin]

It's ok to kill people, as in murder? It IS ok to carry guns, and guns can kill. I certainly wouldn't vote for someone who believed that "The People" should not have guns or "arms".

 

[Evo]

It's ok to kill people, as in murder? It IS ok to carry guns, and guns can kill. I certainly wouldn't vote for someone who believe that "The People" should not have guns or "arms".

Even mentally ill people? People with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? And he wants automatic assault weapons legalized? And he fears that the UN is trying to take our guns away, so we need to get out of the UN before they take over the country?

This isn't about allowing sane people to carry normal arms...

HE'S NUTS!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You'd vote for a nut simply because he's against the war?

He advocates holistic and homeopthic care instead of real medicine. Sorry, I don't see me wearing copper or magnetic bracelets or wearing crystals to fight off real diseases.

He is a physician...this doesn't sound right. Might it be only holistic medicine? That is popular in the mainstream now.

He is against vaccinations and immunizations.

He's against the FDA.

He's against women's health rights and the ability to choose.

I don't know about the other points, but he seems to be more a Constitutionalist than anti-women's rights.

But it's ok to carry guns and kill people, even people with known mental problems can carry guns.

He said that people with mental problems should carry guns?

Oh and he wants to end our membership in the United Nations.

I hadn't heard about that one. Are you sure about all of this? I have listened to several interviews and it never came up.

Ron Paul IS A NUT! Worse than that, he's DANGEROUS.

Up until now I have found him to be refreshing, but I don't have any real opinions about him yet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

sorry, I had missed a few of your quotes. I doubt that his position is as radical as you make it sound. But this is the first that I have heard about the UN. The Vet gun ownership diddy is likely quite specific. I doubt that he believes that people with serious or dangerous mental problems should be allowed to carry guns.

 

[mheslep]

...Ron Paul IS A NUT! Worse than that, he's DANGEROUS.

Maybe. But I think you miss Rep. Paul's point and his appeal on these issues: it is not so much that our society should, or should not favor position X on a given issue, but rather that US Constitution gives no invitation, nor grants any right to the federal government to engage in most of these areas. The status quo is to hell with the constitution. For instance, most supreme court justices consider the 10th amendment dead, killed off by the manipulation of the commerce clause beyond all recognition. Federal justification: this position X is important, its the 'right' thing do, so the federal government must do it. Now, my take is most people say, sure, 'got to stop the fed' when the fed happens to oppose position X but rant on about the end of civilization when calls go up to remove governmental support of their position Y. So a guy like Paul comes along who says, no, its not in the constitution, therefore the government shall not do X nor shall it do Y, then people are quick to call him a nut. So please no follow up posts saying, "yeah got stop that nut Bush from doing X" and in the same breath "hey Paul does not support Y, he's a nut!"

Its clear from the issues you cite that you are concerned about individual rights. I submit that every time government proceeds extra-constitutionally it weakens the one thing allowing us to govern ourselves, and I do mean the one thing in a nation founded on the rule of law. I'm mostly pro choice. But I believe Roe Wade is fabricated from thin air. Every attorney I've ever discussed it with, regardless of their position believes at least in private that it is just lousy constitutional law. It must be decided at the state level, and when/if it is I'll come out and help you convince our fellow citizens not to criminalize abortion. Finally, if that's not enough for you then we can AMEND the constitution. There's nothing to guarantee its perfect now that we are smugly into the 21st century. Let just not ignore it.

 

[Evo]

sorry, I had missed a few of your quotes. I doubt that his position is as radical as you make it sound. But this is the first that I have heard about the UN. The Vet gun ownership diddy is likely quite specific. I doubt that he believes that people with serious or dangerous mental problems should be allowed to carry guns.

It's all on the whacko's website. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Oddly he has no stance on climate change or the environment listed.

Ok, he doesn't know what they are, read my next post.

 

[Evo]

OMG! Listen to these interviews, he makes absolutely no sense, rambling on about soviets and the government taking over your property...did he ever get close to actually answering the question? No. The question was "what is your take on the environment and more specifically, what would you do to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil. Uhm, Earth to Ron, come in Ron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTr50dREplg&NR=1

Ron Paul Answers Global Warming Question

"The environments are always taken better care of with strict property rights". Communism was the most destructive environmental society we ever had.

Q)Do you think C02 is part of the air quality issue? Ron - I think there's a debate about it, I don't think anybody has the final answer on that, C02 comes from ocean waters and (the rest is rather garbled)



I'm sorry, did someone think this guy had the intelligence to run a country?? I wouldn't trust him running my lawnmower.

I was reading a debate on another forum and the Ron Paul supporters where tasked with explaining what besides his anti war statements they agreed with and it turned out almost 80% had no idea what ANY of his other views were, they just thought that anyone anti-government "was cool". Hoo boy.

 

[Evo]

Yikes! I know Ron Paul is an isolationist, (check out his website) likely to turn the rest of the world against the US that hasn't turned already.

I'm trying to find something that disproves he said this, but can't find anything.

Take the situation in Darfur, over there in Africa. Rather than threatening another invasion of a foreign country resulting in yet more American blood and treasure bleeding into distant sands, I believe the problems of this region can be solved by returning to the sensible vision of our Founders and the U.S. Constitution –- especially in the realm of fiscal and monetary policy. The most important elements in ending the genocide in Darfur are abolishing the Fed and restoring the Gold Standard. It is just plain Texan horse sense.

We hear a lot of talk and hand-wringing about human slavery in this part of the world. But it's time to step up and stand for market principles: a free trade in slaves for the Janjaweed will die out eventually because of natural market forces, not government fiat. Just as the Market should be left to decide the cost of wheat, so should the Market decide best how to rid the world of all this ethnic cleansing. I have no doubt that had WW II gone on much longer, even the statist Nazis would have stopped their Auschwitz business, because the economics just made no sense on the face of it.

Holy Cr@p!

http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=13684

 

[Ivan Seeking]

OMG! Listen to these interviews, he makes absolutely no sense, rambling on about soviets and the government taking over your property...

He only mentions the Soviets in the last ten seconds, and only as an example that government run industry was an environmental disaster, which it was. What he is arguing is that property rights include the right to clean air and water. His point is that the government allows industry to pollute, and this is a violation of everyone elses rights. I agree completely.

did he ever get close to actually answering the question? No. The question was "what is your take on the environment and more specifically, what would you do to get rid of our dependence on foreign oil. Uhm, Earth to Ron, come in Ron.

He did answer the question. He said that a truly free market would drive the price of oil high enough that alternatives would be viable, but the government funds the oil industry with among other things, wars and a free military, which is true.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTr50dREplg&NR=1

Ron Paul Answers Global Warming Question

"The environments are always taken better care of with strict property rights". Communism was the most destructive environmental society we ever had.

Yes, if i am entitled to clean air and water as a property owner, then the environment is protected in the process.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yikes! I know Ron Paul is an isolationist, (check out his website) likely to turn the rest of the world against the US that hasn't turned already.

I'm trying to find something that disproves he said this, but can't find anything.

Holy Cr@p!

http://exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=13684

Why are you using a Russian rag magazine as a source? A search reveals two sources for your quote: Your post and your link.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He is against vaccinations and immunizations.

That's not what he says. He's against forced vaccinations. He believes in freedom of choice, and that IS refreshing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So far, it appears to me that Ron Paul only seems radical because he is loyal to the Constitution, which sounds about right. True patriotism - loyalty to Constitutional principles and law - is a radical idea these days... in spite of the fact that this is what soldiers are sworn to protect with their lives.

No wonder he raised $4 million in one day!

 

[Moridin]

That's not what he says. He's against forced vaccinations. He believes in freedom of choice, and that IS refreshing.

Wonder what that would have gotten the world back in the days of smallpox...

So far, it appears to me that Ron Paul only seems radical because he is loyal to the Constitution, which sounds about right.

He is against state-church separation.

 

[Evo]

Ron Paul is a Christian Fundamentalist that seems to think that the Church should make the rules and run our lives.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html

 

[Evo]

In response to Ivans questions.

Here is my case against Ron Paul: he votes with the GOP 76.5% of the time. Not the nice freedom-loving Republicans of yesteryear, the crazy freedom-hating neo-cons of today.

Source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/

All he is is an over-hyped Republican...

He has voted against a women's right to choose, and he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade.

He has voted against gay's having the same rights as others. He even COSPONSORED a bill (Marriage Protection Act) to make it ILLEGAL for the courts to challenge another bill called the Defense of Marriage Act, and has repeatedly voted against gays having the same rights as everyone else.

He has voted against stem cell research.

He has voted against the environment consistently. Opposing things like an increase in fuel economy standards and the Kyoto protocol, and supporting things like protecting oil companies from lawsuits. "The Republicans for Environmental Protection" gave him a 17% on a recent scorecard and "The League of Conservation Voters" gave him a 5%, both indicating extremely anti-environmental votes.

He has voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He was one of only 33 who voted against it.

He has voted against the Separation of Church and State consistently. He wants "under God" kept in the Pledge of Allegiance, he wants prayer in school, and the Ten Commandments in the courthouses.

He has voted to get out of the United Nations.

He has voted against the United States doing anything about the genocide in Sudan and wants us to just ignore it.

continued...

http://politics.reddit.com/info/2eg79/comments/c2egbi

 

[turbo]

He has a few Libertarian leanings that can attract single-issue voters, but the fact is that he will kowtow to the neocons and to the religious right to the detriment of the majority of US citizens. This guy is a wild card. If he gains traction as a third party candidate, he will be a spoiler for the GOP, which may be the only circumstance by which Clinton could get win the general election. Her negatives are huge and the GOP is portraying her as THE Dem candidate because they know they can Swift-boat her relentlessly should she get the nomination. They remind me of Brer Rabbit pleading not to be thrown into the briar patch. There is no other Dem candidate that the GOP would rather line up against.

 

[mheslep]

Ron Paul is a Christian Fundamentalist that seems to think that the Church should make the rules and run our lives.

How do you draw that conclusion from those quotes? Fundamentalist? Make the rules?

 

[Evo]

How do you draw that conclusion from those quotes? Fundamentalist? Make the rules?

Read his quotes.

 

[Pythagorean]

I think Ron Paul is a personality vote. I like watching him in debates, and I never suspected he was a Fundamentalist Christian, but I never thought I should vote for him just because I like him.

It seems like a lot of work to research all the candidates. I don't really trust most of the easily available information about candidates (especially information produced after they've announced that they'll be running).

 

[mheslep]

Read his quotes.

Ok:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America,

They were overwhelmingly Christian or Deist, and they wrote the establishment clause in the 1st amendment. Sounds historically correct to me.

with churches serving as vital institutions

Churches were certainly vital in their time.

that would eclipse the state in importance.

A broad assertion, I doubt one could find historical support for this one, certainly not in Jefferson's case. None the less he does not say replace or usurp the government which would contradict the 1st sentence.

Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

Somewhat Jeffersonian, the government as a necessary burden - as little as possible to protect us from ourselves.

This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.

I say that's a fair assessment of the opinion of Marxist organizers circa 1917.

So, nothing in there saying:

the Church should make the rules and run our lives.

Do you retract?

 

[Evo]

Ok:

They were overwhelmingly Christian or Deist, and they wrote the establishment clause in the 1st amendment. Sounds historically correct to me.

Churches were certainly vital in their time.

A broad assertion, I doubt one could find historical support for this one, certainly not in Jefferson's case. None the less he does not say replace or usurp the government which would contradict the 1st sentence.

Somewhat Jeffersonian, the government as a necessary burden - as little as possible to protect us from ourselves.

I say that's a fair assessment of the opinion of Marxist organizers circa 1917.

So, nothing in there saying: Do you retract?

No, when you don't disect what he said and read it together, it means what I said. Tearing it into little pieces out of context is disengenious.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state.

Ron Paul wants to put Christianity back into government because he thinks we should revert to when the constitution was written when there was no tolerence for religion other than Christianity in America. He doesn't tout "freedom of religion", he's only supporting Christianity. He is not concerned about other religions, just puting Christian symbols back.

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. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

This doesn't sound like a stable person to me.

 

[mheslep]

No, when you don't disect what he said and read it together, it means what I said. Tearing it into little pieces out of context is disengenious.

Really? I'm not sure how I put your posted quote further out of context. Never mind, you're right, I see its a lot more fun to chuck careful scrutiny and go straight to 'it means what I said'. Hey let me try!

Ron Paul has fundamentalist bad breath!

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian ... [skip it - what he said doesn't matter]... faith in God before their faith in the state.

Ron Paul is a Nazi who wants to kill the jews!

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian ... [skip it - what he said doesn't matter]... faith in God before their faith in the state.

Ron Paul, an obvious member of the KKK, wants the Church to torture small animals!

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian ... [skip it - what he said doesn't matter]... faith in God before their faith in the state.

Now, please lock this thread, as there can be no further disagreement. IT MEANS WHAT I SAID.

 

[mheslep]

Ron Paul wants to put Christianity back into government because he thinks we should revert to when the constitution was written when there was no tolerence for religion other than Christianity in America. He doesn't tout "freedom of religion", he's only supporting Christianity.

He is not concerned about other religions, just putting Christian symbols back.

He clearly says "..religiously tolerant America". What shall I take 'tolerant' to mean?

 

[Evo]

Really? I'm not sure how I put your posted quote further out of context. Never mind, you're right, I see its a lot more fun to chuck careful scrutiny and go straight to 'it means what I said'. Hey let me try!

Ron Paul has fundamentalist bad breath!


Ron Paul is a Nazi who wants to kill the jews!


Ron Paul, an obvious member of the KKK, wants the Church to torture small animals!


Now, please lock this thread, as there can be no further disagreement. IT MEANS WHAT I SAID.

Sometimes I don't even have to say anything to prove a point.

 

[Evo]

He clearly says "..religiously tolerant America". What shall I take 'tolerant' to mean?

Where does he say anything about a religion other than Christianity? He doesn't. Tolerant perhaps to different forms of Protestant religions, perhaps a little tolerance for Catholics. Have you read much about the "religious tolerance" of that time period? I have. And that's what he keeps saying we should revert to.

He also doesn't include "secular" (non-religious) people as being due any tolerance or respect for their beliefs.

Again Ron Paul apparently has "no tolerance" for non-Christians.

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. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.