Cú Chulainn wrote:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/20/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-ron-paul/
Ouch...
Well, let's break it down, shall we?
Quote:
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
Bolded: lie.
He doesn't believe (and I agree) that the federal government should force or coerce PRIVATE institutions to meet racial quotas... and if you are against instititions using race as a factor, how can you be for affirmative action?
And I agree with the idea that the whole anchor baby nonsense has got to go, as well. Do a little research on our Southwestern public schools (I know you won't because you are not interested in facts), aka, schools with an inordinate amount of english as second language students. They are at the bottom of the barrel.
Quote:
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
Bolded: another baldfaced lie.
Actually, there is very credible and substantial evidence that life begins when there is a heartbeat and brainwaves, which, if I recall correctly occur within the first month - month and a half, so yeah.
I will link this data, again, if necessary.
He's an MD, I think he has a little more knowledge on the matter than some judge or politician.
Quote:
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.”
This I am not too sure about, but going on his history and general principles, I'd wager that it has to do more with what is constitutional, and whether or not the federal government is overstepping its bounds.
I will look into this and refute, if I feel it is necessary.
Quote:
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
Bolded:
How is a flat tax of 10% for ALL "unfair"? Estate and gift taxes only affect the "rich" anyway, how is it unfair to the "lowest earners"?
Getting rid of all the "credits" is what is fair.
Why should "working class citizens" get special tax breaks? I say this as a working class citizen myself.
Quote:
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”.
Bolded: pure speculation.
What Paul is saying here is he wants less federal government bureacratic interference. Too many regulations = jobs going elsewhere.
As for the offshore drilling, I'm all for it. I don't really enjoy being dependent on other, often hostile regions for oil. It is part of the problem with our foreign policy.
I'd have to see the reasoning behind wanting to repeal the Clean Air act, but I would imagine it is not due to some nefarious plot to "harm the environment".
Quote:
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.
I am in agreement with all of this. The UN is an impotent joke, and we are not beholden to it.
As for the bolded:
Who gives a fuck what you guys think?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.”
He is right; the federal government has no business legislating or funding such matters. Nice try, though.
I particularly liked the loaded phrases, "bigoted", "discriminatory", etc... I wonder if the hack that wrote this drivel feels that the federal government should fund heterosexual "lifestyles", which of course there is nothing in the bill that even alludes to such a thing.
Quote:
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.
That is all I have to say about that.
Quote:
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?
Yeah, more bullshit.
Up until the DOE was intalled, we were doing just fine, education-wise... strange how once the government took over, our public education system went to hell double time...
as for integration; he is not "advocat(ing) for segregation in schools once again", he is against "
requiring (key word here) the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Big difference and all the hyperbolic nail biting won't change that fact.
Quote:
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.
Speculative alarmist bullshit, nothing more. there is nothing that indicates he is against the seperation of church and state... Even the bill is just the same one (I notice that this bill is used for at least three of the ten "reasons" list here) that has been cited repeatedly.
Nowhere in it is religion even mentioned, though.
In conclusion, this is a rather sad attempt at distorting what Paul has introduced as legislature. It's full of loaded language, it is downright dishonest, and it is an obvious hack job. The author is an idiot if he truly believes the things he wrote, and is part of the problem here.
I just lost what respect I had for you, frig, in posting that drivel.
I realize you couldn't care less about that, but nonetheless, I at least thought your were intellectually honest.
