Let's Be Clear, Ron Paul Fucking Sucks. Here Are 20 Reasons Why

Every single one of the candidates currently running for the Republican nomination is a walking disaster. But one of them, Texas congressman Ron Paul, seems to be getting a disturbing amount of support from liberals. Mostly that's because his nut-job libertarian views happen to not sound so nutty on a handful of issues. He wants to end the War on Drugs. He is against the death penalty. He would not support a constitutional ban on gay marriage. He was opposed to the War in Iraq and wants to end all American military intervention abroad. All of that sounds pretty good to us left-wing types — downright refreshing coming from a Republican. Some progressives have claimed they'd rather vote for him than for Obama. Even Occupiers have sung his praises.

But if you're a liberal who supports Ron Paul, you either haven't been paying enough attention or you're out of your fucking mind.

Here are 20 reasons why:

1. He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. That's the 1964 law that made segregation illegal and outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. Paul claims it infringes on people's freedom. If a restaurant or hotel wants to ban African-Americans, he believes they should be allowed to. As he put it in a speech to Congress: "the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."

2. He's also against the Americans With Disabilities Act. That's the 1990 bill passed by the first President Bush, which followed up the Civil Rights Act by making it illegal to discriminate against someone because of a disability. Paul wants it gone, too.

3. He is against public health care. You know how you think Americans are crazy because they can't do any better on universal health care than the watered down bill Obama got through? Well, President Ron Paul would do much, much worse. He thinks that in an entirely private system, poor people would have all of their needs taken care of by charitable doctors who would be willing to work for free. Ron Paul, by the way, is a medical doctor.

4. He wants to dissolve the public education system. He promises to eliminate the Department of Education entirely and leave the question of whether to offer any public education at all up to local governments. He calls public education "socialist" (which we actually agree with, but he, unlike us, doesn't think that's a good thing) and says, "I preach home schooling and private schooling." According to an interview, "The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that..."

5. He thinks global warming is a hoax. In his words, it's "the greatest hoax, I think, that's been around in many, many years — if not hundreds of years". But that's just the tip of the crazyberg. Ron Paul winning the presidency would be a disaster for the environment. He wants to completely disband the Environmental Protection Agency, abolish environmental regulation, and lift, it seems, just about all the restrictions on drilling for oil. Including in National Parks.

6. He doesn't believe in evolution. When asked about it in 2007, he was pretty clear: "I think it’s a theory. The theory of evolution. And I don’t accept it as a theory."

7. He's against federal safety standards. So that means no federal testing to make sure the products you're sold won't kill you. Or that, say, the airplane you're on won't fall out of the sky. In fact, he's in favour of completely disbanding the Federal Aviation Authority, which does stuff like hire air traffic controllers to make sure planes don't collide in the air. He has argued against the Food and Drug Administration, which makes sure pharmaceuticals are safe to take. ("People weren't dying from bad drugs before we had the FDA," he has said, "I mean, it just didn't happen.") And forget Ralph Nader's successful crusade to enforce the wearing of seat belts. Ron Paul is ideologically opposed to the federal government making sure cars even have seat belts. "I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car?"

8. He is radically pro-life. And vehemently opposed to a woman's right to choose. He signed the "personhood pledge" making the rounds on the current campaign, suggesting that abortion should be legally considered to be the same thing as murder.

9. He wants to do away with all foreign aid. Paul's isolationism sounds good to liberals when he's talking about his refusal to invade other nations. But the United States government, under President Paul, would send no funds to the developing world to help combat AIDS or famines or natural disasters or anything else.

10. He would pull out of the United Nations. He openly claims the United Nations is part of a plot to create one world government. "If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist." And not only does he want to withdraw the U.S. from membership, he wants to evict the United Nations from their headquarters in New York.

11. He's against the minimum wage. Instead of making sure that people are paid at least a minimum amount for their work, he believes companies should be allowed to pay whatever ever they like, with the law of supply and demand determining just how little. Lower wages, he argues, would actually help poor people by creating more jobs.

12. He is a gun nut. Our eyebrows are already raised by anyone who claims that having firearms is a "God-given right", like Ron Paul does. But he doesn't stop there. He wants to repeal the legislation that requires a background check when you buy a new gun — you know, to make sure you're not, say, a  fugitive from justice, a violent offender, or currently stalking someone. Back when there actually was a ban an assault weapons, he was, of course, against the ban. And now that there isn't, he wants to make sure Obama doesn't get the chance to bring a new one in.

13. He believes we're waging a war against Christmas. In his words, he claims that "the elitist, secular Left" are waging an "ongoing war against religion" to "transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." And as if that wasn't crazy enough, he adds, "Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

14. He wants to get rid of income tax. He is against taxation in general, of course, which most liberals would disagree pretty strongly with. Especially when it comes to the income tax. It's generally recognized as the most direct way to make sure that poor folk don't have to give up more of their earnings than rich folk do. But Paul wants to get rid of it entirely.

15. He voted to build a fence along the border with Mexico. In fact, he's pretty radical when it comes to the whole question of undocumented immigration. He has backed off on the fence issue (because, he says, it might be used to keep Americans in) but he has also argued that Emergency Room doctors shouldn't have to treat immigrants without documentation. And that he wants to end birthright citizenship, which says you're an American citizen if you were born in America, whether or not your parents were citizens themselves.

16. He's against the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That's the law that gives Americans the right to a safe workplace, and makes sure an employer doesn't force employees to work in a dangerous or unhealthy environment. That, Paul figures, is unconstitutional. It limits the employer's freedom to put workers in harm's way.

17. He wants to U.S. to seize control of the Panama Canal. Paul's isolationism doesn't seem to apply to the Panama Canal. The United States signed a treaty back in the 1970s gradually ceding control of the canal to the government of Panama. But Paul wants to overturn that. Because if the U.S doesn't seize control of it, he claims some hostile regime might seize control of it instead.

18. He thinks interstate highways are unconstitutional. You're probably getting the impression by now that Ron Paul thinks that pretty much everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. That's because Ron Paul thinks that pretty much everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. He has even argued against interstate highways, saying Eisenhower knew he was bending the law when he built them. Paul figures they're a violation of states' rights.

19. He seems pretty homophobic to us. Paul actually gets a lot of credit for being the one Republican candidate who isn't homophobic, mostly because he says that the federal government has no business telling people what to do in their private lives and he's come out against a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage. But it's really not that clear where he stands. His reason for being against the ban is that he believes marriage laws should be left up to individual states or to the church. When some states began to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage, he fought to make sure other states wouldn't have to recognize those marriages as legal. He's also for don't-ask-don't-tell and has voted to de-fund 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". As for his own personal attitude toward the gay community? Well, an ex-staffer who defended Paul against charges of homophobia did so by claiming he only knew of two times Paul did something homophobic: the time he swatted away a gay man's hand rather than have to shake it, and the time he refused to go to the washroom at the same time as a gay guy. 

20. And he seems pretty racist too. Paul has been haunted by accusations of racism pretty much the whole campaign long. And with good reason. He used to publish newsletters, under his own name, which said unbelievably racist things. Things like, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." For years, he refused opportunities to distance himself from those comments and those newsletters. Now, finally, he has, saying that they were written by other people, without his knowledge, and that he doesn't share those views. But that's not the only thing that makes us worried. More recently, he complained about the Transportation Security Administration hiring visible minorities to do airport screenings. Again, in his own words: "We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked... Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me."

So, yeah, as liberals, we wouldn't exactly have high hopes for the Paul Administration.

-----

Comments note: For some reason, Blogger doesn't seem to be showing any comments beyond number 200. New comments are still being recorded, though, so they will all appear as soon as we're able to solve the problem. We're working to fix it as soon as possible.



674 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 600 of 674   Newer›   Newest»
sinepopuli said...

Woman's right to choose means nothing more than the right to choose when to go to bed, with whom and where. If you are talking about woman's right to kill it is something way different than the right to choose. It's the right to avoid consequences of woman's previous choices. From the logical point of view, such 'right' doesn't differ from the right to kill 5 year old child or 80 year old grandma.

sinepopuli said...

Woman's right to choose means nothing more than the right to choose when to go to bed, with whom and where. If you are talking about woman's right to kill it is something way different than the right to choose. It's the right to avoid consequences of woman's previous choices. From the logical point of view, such 'right' doesn't differ from the right to kill 5 year old child or 80 year old grandma.

Nate said...

The most terrifying part of this article is the obvious perception this author has of their audience. If anyone reads this and becomes informed, and in the spirit of this author, informed is when you learn information about a subject, you have no business voting. The second amendment has little to do with robbery and god. It has everything to do with protecting ourselves from the army represented by this author that will shackle our liberties.

Anonymous said...

PEOPLE PLEASE DO SOME RESEARCH YOURSELF BEFORE YOU BELIEVE THIS!!

Anonymous said...

Freedom has it's price, and so does slavery. I don't agree with everything RP says but the alternative is a nanny state which will encroach/ is encroaching on basic human rights and privacy.

I would much rather work at refining a free (not perfect) system than trying to hold off neo-cons with connections and truckloads of bribe money. We already live in a Corporate State of America, do we want more of this?

As to the gun thing. Based on your comments it is obvious you have read no studies concerning gun control. Instead of putting you down for you lack of education on the subject I will simply refer you to the sources: 1.) search: Lott, Uni. of Chicago 2.) search "Gun Study Australia" 3.) search "department of defense gun control study"--this was a 15 + year study.

There are plenty of others if you are interested in actually being informed.

One thing to consider. Doctors kill more people in the US than accidental gun deaths
Police kill more people than accidental gun deaths.
Violent gun crime decreases as legal ownership of firearm increases--this is by the way, A FACT.

Some of the most violent places are places with strict gun control..

The average response time for a Police cruiser is 5.5 minutes, the average violent home invasion/crime/rape/murder etc.. is over in 3 minutes.

You go ahead and call the cops, I will call them after....LOL

mathew said...

You might be interested in a similar but shorter list I wrote.

Also, for those pointing out Ron Paul's anti-racist comments, I refer you to "Dodging issues the Ron Paul Way".

Anonymous said...

How come people just do whats 'popular', like in this case its become popular to smear Ron Paul with lies and twisted meanings. Are you just out of your mind ? or dont you have a mind ?.
If you guys dont vote Ron Paul in, we are all fucking screwed, and thats a fact. I can bring a list of a thousand reasons why you MUST vote Ron Paul in. Your are a fool not to vote on Ron Paul.
Love from Denmark.

Anonymous said...

It's like leading lambs to the slaughter. People please read up on Ron Paul and what he stand for and against. I find it funny and extremely alarming to read some of your responses on here completely consuming this article/blog as fact! You people are extremely mis-informed and dangerous. Not to mention STUPID! Educate yourself on facts and not on weak opinion peices!

Anonymous said...

Looks like others have done a good job at disputing a lot of the FUD in this article. Read the constitution... understand it... understand why Ron Paul believes the things he does. Don't over-simplify. When you look at Ron Paul's views simplisticly they seem bizzarre. When you look at them in context it's less bizzarre.

Let me ask you this... you have your view of a utopian world. Your view is different from probably most peoples... everyone views a perfect world differently. Following the constitution would give more people the ability to live in a closest version of their utopia. Arizona could do things differently from Nebraska... and from New York. If one of these states ends up more aligned with your views... you have the chance to live there! Right now no one but the super rich is living in their Utopia!

Anonymous said...

"I have not done enough research to know exactly where I stand on Paul, but it really bothers me that some of his big supporters on here (or one of?) feel the need to post as "Anonymous". If you stand by what you say, you should stand by what you say, by putting your name to it. Otherwise, you're not doing your candidate any favors by saying anything at all. "

Says MagicGingerBug? Is that your first or last name?

Anonymous said...

This could also be titled 20 reasons Ron Paul is not a liberal. Bad article.

Anonymous said...

Let's be clear- You fucking suck. As does this horrendous piece of misinformed garbage. Educate yourself, shithead.

Anonymous said...

You are a stupid idiot! Your allegations are false and have no fact checking behind them. Just like Obama's state of the Union. A fukken total bullshite article this is. No on even mentions PAUL in the main stream media. Everyone is so biased against him that they, like you, try to frame Paul as a communist or something. Its absolutely absurd you would actually even write this. I think paul would be the best thing for this country since JFK. YOU NEED TO OPEN YOUR EYES, and crawl out of the small box that you call your world. VOTE FOR PAUL!!!

Anonymous said...

You are a stupid idiot! Your allegations are false and have no fact checking behind them. Just like Obama's state of the Union. A fukken total bullshite article this is. No on even mentions PAUL in the main stream media. Everyone is so biased against him that they, like you, try to frame Paul as a communist or something. Its absolutely absurd you would actually even write this. I think paul would be the best thing for this country since JFK. YOU NEED TO OPEN YOUR EYES, and crawl out of the small box that you call your world. VOTE FOR PAUL!!!

Anonymous said...

Slanted misinformation and race-baiting garbage

Anonymous said...

That was the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Anybody who believes this, as written... I simply pity you.

This whole entry is classic.

"14. He wants to get rid of income tax. He is against taxation in general, of course, which most liberals would disagree pretty strongly with. Especially when it comes to the income tax. It's generally recognized as the most direct way to make sure that poor folk don't have to give up more of their earnings than rich folk do. But Paul wants to get rid of it entirely."

Are you serious? Really? LOL! Under the current tax system Somebody like Mit Romney who just released his tax returns made over 30 million last year and paid 13.9% income tax (or rougly 3.5 milion on 30 million)

versus "joe plummer" who made 30 thousand dollar and paid close to 50% of that income tax!

So under your system that apparently is "the most direct way to make sure poor folk don't have to give up more of their earnings that rich folk do" The "rich folk" are paying less 1/4 of what the "poor folk" are paying.

Most pathetic statement ever written and tried to be passed off as truth!

Income tax was created in 1913 as a direct result of the "federal reserve act" dec 24 1912. Once Woodrow Wilson signed this, congress lost control of printing us dollars, and now the FED printed each dollar and charged interest (where there was no interest on printed money before this) this INTEREST on each dollar made the US national debt skyrocket so much in the first year, they created the wonderful INCOME Tax to take american's hard earned money and give it directly to the banker's in control of the fed who hijacked the American Banking system.

Little red umbrella... you are a joke.

Anonymous said...

The very fact that most of these statements are based on nothing but the author's own ignorance. I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I don't agree with everything he has to offer to the American people, but by God, I was expecting to read a very thorough, insightful, argument against Dr. Paul. Instead this piece is nothing more than a personal attack against the man. Ron Paul Sucks, here's x amount of reasons why? Wow. How mature.

ziggy784 said...

http://newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/4337/The-USA-is-a-non-profit-RELIGIOUS-Corporation-The-IRS-CIA-Federal-Reserve-and-Social-Security-are-also-corporations.aspx
its a cult,run away from the corporate democracy back to the republic.abandon the uss citizen-ship.

Anonymous said...

"But if you're a liberal who supports Ron Paul, you either haven't been paying enough attention or you're out of your fucking mind. "

Are you sure YOU have been paying attention? I have read through all of your comments and followed Ron Paul extensively, and most, if not all, of your accusations are false. Anything to slander a man who has different views than you have. What nonsense!

I love how we can post whatever we wish to on the internet, however smut like this should be filtered out. Do your research!

Henri said...

"He is against public health care"
Reason enough to support him (speaking as someone who suffered the horrors of one).

Melvin M. said...

Either you're full of shit and you know it, or you're highly misinformed.

Duke said...

It's nice to have such articles, but the alarming tone misses the point: nobody said Ron Paul is all rosy, but if he gets such tremendous support it is because he's the only one that seems a credible threat to TPTB…
It is important to know all this, but don't go bitchin' around because your usual political convictions are hurt, and focus on the most crucial issues of our time: the built-in failures of our political and economic systems.

Anonymous said...

wow! look at all the posts!

Like they say "whether good news or bad news,it's all good publicity.

btw - any Afro-Americans out there feel like Obama is looking out for your best interests?

Now you know how us "Crackers" feel about nixon-ford-carter-reagan-bush1-clinton-bush2.

Anonymous said...

http://www.naturalnews.com/034630_Ron_Paul_democrats_liberals.html

Quote:

It's a seemingly absurd idea on the surface: Why would democrats and liberals want to vote for Ron Paul (a Republican) over President Obama? Maybe because they want freedom instead of tyranny, it turns out. Because if you're a total slave to the police state, it doesn't really matter whether you're on the left or the right, does it?

::

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yousef-abukhdair/ron-paul-liberal-voters_b_1177636.html

Quote:

If Mr. Paul was a legitimate candidate in a general election, we could finally have an honest debate about campaign finance reform, military spending, torture of enemy combatants, immigration, the Federal Reserve, free trade agreements, gay marriage and prison sentences for drug use.

These issues are just the tip of the iceberg of themes that are glazed over with gimmick answers and worthless slogans in normal presidential debates. With a candidate willing to stick to his convictions regardless of popularity, we can finally have an honest discussion, one that would finally make President Obama show his true colors, as either a leader with conviction, or as one that plays to the masses.

::

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/

Quote:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support)

in exchange for

less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

::

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html

Quote:

This is why Ron Paul can critique the Federal Reserve and American empire, and why liberals have essentially no answer to his ideas, arguing instead over Paul having character defects.

Rusty said...

You have to ask yourself why would a man want to be in charge of something he's totally against? So he can bring about the destruction of the United States from the inside?

leedav said...

I love all you people going back and forth on this like it actually MATTERS. Ron Paul couldn't get elected if the USA was around for another million years.

MrIndieDay said...

Did you seriously use his voting style from 32 years ago against him?

I wasn't even fathomable 32 years ago.

Anonymous said...

He's an idealist. Most of what he believes wouldn't see the light of day were he President. He cares more about the important issues of fixing our economy than disassembling the federal government. Congress and the House wouldn't let that happen, anyway. He's a brilliant man with some old fashioned beliefs, being 86-years-old, but he's a lot smart than any of the other Republican candidates running, in my opinion. This country is going down the shitter, and he's the only one willing to pursue radical changes while everyone else thinks doing the same old crap is eventually going to solve everything.

Anonymous said...

Yawn. This is propaganda. Vote for Ron Paul.

Anonymous said...

It's clear you lack the understanding of the principles of Libertarianism which is basically about keeping the government out of our personal business. It's interesting how your article leaves out Paul's stances against legalizing hemp and dismantling the HTA. He's also against the predator drones that the Obama administration wants to use on the population. IF you're a liberal, that's fine. You'd make a better argument on your side if you at least educate yourself.

Anonymous said...

Wonderful piece! Pundit or not the truth in this instance does nothing more than point to the hypocrisy that is growing amongst the ranks of "liberals" across the country. Confusing the romantic idea of civil libertarianism with pragmatic political recourse has seemingly created the narrative concerning the left and a Ron Paul presidency. As absolutely fed up with the "status quo" as I am I refuse to acquiesce to some non-sensical platform full of impossible solutions to contemporary political problems... the Department of Education, the Interior, the Fed? Really? How are these the targets for economic recovery, stability, and national prosperity? Furthering some phantasmic Friedmanesque model of economic "liberties" only furthers the current crisis... efficiency ought not be the target rather we should focus on sound policy concerning the protection of the public good. That is what government is for.

Anonymous said...

I should also add that the writer of this article and those who agree with him need not worry Even if Paul were to win, none of his ideas would get implemented. Both sides of the aisle are one in the same and seek to control everyone to hold on to power. That said, politicians are not to blame for what's happened to this country as they are a reflection of who we are and what we want and expect from them. Most of us now ask to be subservient and dependent on government for our sustenance and livelihood, and that's what we are receiving. Don't worry about losing your goodies and freebies. Not only will they continue but will increase as will your dependency for those who will control you as a result. And when the government is bled dry, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

Anonymous said...

I'm not an American, just a European who's interested in the politics. My opinion on this is that this article is a nasty little piece of attempted character assassination. Ron Paul has principles, and sometimes following those principles may mean the outcome isn't to everyone's liking. E.g. Don't believe in interventionist policies? Then stop intervening both militarily and financially (do you really, truly believe all "aid" money isn't tied with strings? C'mon now).

Shame on whoever wrote this. An honest debate is needed, with genuine give and take. This is not it. This is partisan, ad hominem politics at its worst. For shame.

Anonymous said...

WOMEN, LOL. Get back in the kitchen, make me a sandwich, and shut your mouth. Wireless internet is the worst thing ever invented. It makes women who stay in the kitchen where they belong think their opinions actually matter.

TheOne said...

This page is extremely unfair. There are two choices at this juncture in the existence of the U.S.A. 1. Continue supporting the status quo by electing big government republicrats and demonicons and watch this country slip into mass death and technocracy. 2. Elect a constitutionalist like Ron Paul, and more importantly support the Constitution and freedom at a grass roots level. This is obviously a smear campaign which can be refuted on so many fronts so easily. It is so easy, that I won't even insult your intelligence and do it all for you. Do a few startpage searches and find out the lies, half-truths, and disinfo in this article.

Anonymous said...

ron paul 2012 sure does get people excited. to bad no one is focusing on some of the current regime's of shit policy. sopa. detention. iraq iran afghanstian somlia blah blah blah. ron paul 2012...keep ur lousy change

Zach said...

This article..is terrible.

..."a fugitive from justice, a violent offender, or currently stalking someone."..."currently stalking someone"...background checks can't see what you are doing with your personal time...if you did some research, you'd know that. But, then again, if you did some research, you'd probably have nothing to write about.

I am a person that likes to look at the facts, you are obviously not. I think that if I tried to reference this article for a college paper, I'd be laughed out of the class with a big fat F.

Evolution? Are you serious? Your type says creationism is false because it can't be proven, but say that evolution is real...even though it can't be proven...that makes sense.

Income taxes? So, you think its better to get taxed when you EARN your money and get taxed when you SPEND your money? instead of just getting taxed when you spend it? ok....sounds smart....haha just kidding, it doesn't.

Fence along the mexican border? So, people coming accross our borders illegally is ok with you? I'm sure the fence would have a gate or two for those that want to come over legally...but that's just a fact you want to ignore....
....You want background checks on the people buying guns, but not on the people that are coming into our country... and you want people to take you serious?

He "seems" pretty racist.... he "seems" pretty homophobic.... you "seem" pretty dumb.

Frank Anthony said...

Re: States' Rights - It is a concept that is established in the Tenth Amendment largely due to its similarity to an earlier provision of the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled." As the wording is so similar, one can conclude that the 10th Amendment is meant to function in much the same regard.
From a linguistic perspective, the difference between a power and a right is that rights are passive and always in effect, whereas a power is actively exerted and not in effect otherwise.

The State has the power to legislate new laws that affect their constituent citizens.

The State has a right to representation in the federal legislature.

Is that clear enough?

Re: Climate Change - Fairly conclusive evidence points to solar activity as the largest influence on global temperature increases, not CO2 emissions.

Anonymous said...

i would love if you cited these "facts" because every one of his views goes along with the constitution and are based on history and have explanations for why he believes these things should happen. maybe if you described why and not just dog on him before you see his full plan then you would understand. better than some corporation candidate.

Anonymous said...

RON PAUL 2012

bedspirit said...

I'm a liberal and I would absolutely vote for Ron Paul. If Obama didn't behave like a moderate Republican, I'd probably vote for him.
It's true that Ron Paul would castrate the Federal Government, which would leave liberals to look to their own state for their ideology. That's fine with me, my state is liberal. Also, I didn't realize that liberals were in favor of foreign aid. I'm not and neither is anyone I know. Ron Paul is the only candidate who will do something about the Fed, which is probably the most important issue of the day. For that, I'll tolerate some of those things I don't like.

Anonymous said...

Obama lovers ..keep believing this race baiting nonsense and we will have China style government, non-freedom and labor before you can say speed-dial .... By the way, that seems to be the favored cliche of the Obama supporters to justify his destruction of our constitiution .... And yes it is true that we have the world in speed-dial... Problem is, we have went WAY over our minutes, and our phone is about to get turned off. Get properly informed, before it is too late for all of us!!!!!!!
Ron Paul 2012!

silencio tryhard said...

that's a good list from 1-18 - sounds great to me - and any talk of Ron Paul being racist, homophobic, or "against" the disabled or poor is simply false. don't be ascared of freedom, you turkey. embrace freedom - you'll thank Dr. Paul later after you get used to the initially terrifying prospect of the ability to do things for yourself and feel the consequences! AMEN!

Anonymous said...

This writer does no research. The writer is also a racist hack for race-baiting. Most of these items can easily be discredited just by going to ronpaulmyhs.com or whyronpaul.com

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul
Fighting top-down misinformation and deception daily!

Anonymous said...

ok

Anonymous said...

This is the most ignorant drivel I have ever read on the internet. That is saying a lot.

Anonymous said...

You're so mislead, poor sheep. Poor writing too.

Anonymous said...

can u say Hitler?

White Shoe Boy said...

You have a choice people.

Either vote for Ron Paul, or start digging a bunker.

White Shoe Boy said...

People, people relax.

All those departments mentioned above will cease to exist soon enough when the government goes broke.

You should all be concentrating on surviving what's coming. Even Ron Paul can't stop that, though he'll probably prevent you from being put in a concentration came "for your protection" (like the Stadium in New Orleans, only better).

White Shoe Boy said...

By the way, the President cannot just "repeal" a law or constitutional amendment so I don't know what you people are worried about.

Besides, everyone knows that minorities have lower abilities and can't make it without the resources of the United States government to help them. That's why we have that law. What's so bad about that?

White Shoe Boy said...

Yes, the states are governments but you have the freedom to move if you don't like that state and still live in The United States of America. The states act as experiments. They act as competition.

The Federal Government has a monopoly on everything it touches and you have no say, and nowhere else to go.

Don't like your dollar losing it's value? Tough shit. Don't like your children put in jail for carrying a plant? Tough shit. Don't like police harrassment? Tough shit. Don't like being drafted and killed in a foreign war? Tough shit.

States act as competition, giving you a choice. Those that fail as places where people would want to live lose their best and brightest to places where people do want to live.

Rickolus Magus said...

Nice Sources, dude.

Tim_othy said...

Ron Paul is the only Hope, as of right now, Close to the Presidency.

Anonymous said...

while its true I don't agree with some of his ideas, I know exactly what hes going to do. Its not lines for election years, no end the war, no torture, end getmo Obama. I would also think that if he were such a racist as the page said wouldn't it have been demonstrated by his public record? like how he speaks out about how the drug war and prison system are rigged against minorities. #3 Do you really think the federal gov has any hope of providing real health care. competition lowers prices. #4 We send billions to DC every year for education and what do we get? no child left behind and a system that teaches how to pass a bubble quiz and get 100K in student loans #5 there have been signs of warming throughout the solar system do in large part to sun spots. its not like humans caused the little ice age 200+ years ago. #7 OSHA is incredibly wistful states can set standards. ie forced to buy 400 dollar gas can that wont release fumes but leaks when poured #9 much of our foreign aid goes to arming the world and propping up puppet dictators. ie Mubarak, Saddam Hussein not to mention WERE FUCKING BROKE!!! #10 The UN's goal is to empower a one world government. Not to mention totally "UNable" to stop human rights violations ie Darfur. Plus WERE FUCKING BROKE! #14 The income tax is unconstitutional " the only two legal forms taxation are direct "which must be apportioned" and indirect ie gas tax tobacco tax. Income tax is a direct un-apportioned tax that pays interest to the fed for fake money. While I really don't agree with everything he plans to do, ending the federal reserve and taking the country back to constitutional money " gold and silver" bringing ALL troops home and dismantling our global empire, is worth dealing with what I don't agree with. Besides whats the alternative?!?! 4 more years of the Obama Bilderberg or Romney Bilderberg or god forbid Gringrich bilderberg.

Anonymous said...

STEP RIGHT UP, This article has it all: Red Herrings, Straw Men, Sacred Cows

1.) The author obviously prefers the fascist form of government we currently live under.
2.) The author exudes his overwhelming distrust of individuals’ propensity to “do the right thing” sans government coercion. .
3.) The author has some hidden agenda as much of this clap-trap is being generated from the Jewish Community and government employees.
4.) The author is evidentially oblivious to the fact Dr. Paul has an IQ of 150, has written more books on economics than the rest of congress combined, and is still a practicing OBGYN.
5.) The author obviously hasn’t read any of Dr. Paul’s books that eloquently explain the reasoning for his positions. Not the one sentence “context hack jobs” presented in this article.
6.) The author is oblivious to the fact Dr. Paul refuses to see lobbyists.


STEP RIGHT UP, This article has it all: Red Herrings, Straw Men, Sacred Cows

1.) The author obviously prefers the fascist form of government we currently live under.
2.) The author exudes his overwhelming distrust of individuals’ propensity to “do the right thing” sans government coercion. .
3.) The author has some hidden agenda as much of this clap-trap is being generated from the Jewish Community and government employees.
4.) The author is evidentially oblivious to the fact Dr. Paul has an IQ of 150, has written more books on economics than the rest of congress combined, and is still a practicing OBGYN.
5.) The author obviously hasn’t read any of Dr. Paul’s books that eloquently explain the reasoning for his positions. Not the one sentence “context hack jobs” presented in this article.
6.) The author is oblivious to the fact Dr. Paul refuses to see lobbyists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCNWGG0xoEQ

Anonymous said...

Sometimes there is so much stupidity in an article that the gargantuan task of refuting every stupid thing that is said is too great. This is one of those times.

Anonymous said...

I would also like to point out he supports the Gold Standard which is a terrible idea. It ties our currency to a very finite resource. Also Gold is worthless. Other then it being shiny it has no value what so ever. It is a weak material with an arbitrary value placed on it.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul 2012 !!

Anonymous said...

Whoever wrote this is smoking crack.

therevolutionstartsnow said...

just another zombie walkig thru life blind use your own mind not the media driven mind you used to write this article....................www.Ron Paul2012.com

Anonymous said...

"I want to use all my strength, to resist the notion that I can run your lives, or run the economy, or run the world. I want to use that strength to repeal and reject that notion, and stand up and defend the principles of liberty." -

Congressman Ron Paul

Anonymous said...

OUT OF CONTEXT!!! Do you work for FOX NEWS? Ron Paul has more DONATIONS to his campaign from troops than all other candidates combines.
Ron Paul has the courage to abolish these Federal regulations, because he knows they are designed to serve the rich. Since 2004 he has won many debates because people make these exact claims through EXTREMELY vague, Chopped up quotes (to fool the public)and he has the intelligence to explain in detail what the other candidates can't even conjugate because his thoughts are his own. He is not a puppet. He knows Himself and what he believes.

Anonymous said...

19, 20.
Facts, mate. Give -facts-. I couldn't give a bigger fuck about what "we" think. -Facts- might give me room to sway. What you think gives me more reason to ask you to shove it back up your ass.

Sensationalist tripe.

Anonymous said...

I think its funny that this author can't even take the time to proof-read this article. I counted at least five grammatical errors and spelling mistakes. Is this info all correct? Maybe.. but the fifth grade writing mistakes certainly don't ADD to your conviction, author.

Anonymous said...

Most of this is untrue or misunderstood. Please rewrite the article and realize your mistakes.

RON PAUL 2012

Anonymous said...

Anyone who believes any of the reasons stated above are totally retarded. The author outlines Ron Paul's positions, but doesn't not explain his reasoning. Instead the author, who obviously holds a strong Marxist bias, attacks their own opinions which they wrongly assumed to be behind the policies of Ron Paul.

Anonymous said...

First off it is Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), get the organization correct. Second off he does NOT want to get rid of the education system. Please.

Anonymous said...

One thing I will say for this post is at least it is (mostly) cited, however it is fairly distorted...

1. This is a distortion. He didn't say that he wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. He was explaining why he was voting against a bill recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. He made an excellent case as to why it should not have been passed. As Paul said, "the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." Further, Paul noted "Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." Paul's complete statement is here and is almost impossible to argue against. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

2. I didn't have time to watch the citation on this, but it goes without saying that the ADA is so widely abused and punitive to businesses, that it is a wonder how it has gotten this far.

3. Who is "for" public health care? Besides being unconstitutional, have you ever had anything provided "publicly" that was better than what you could obtain privately? Consider the DMV (slow, inefficient), Amtrak (broke), Post office (broke), Fannie Mae (broke), Freddie Mac (broke), State employee pension programs (broke), Dept. of Energy (failed - its "purpose" was to reduce US dependence on foreign oil), Dept. of Education (failed - we now spend more on education than every country but one - and our results are below some 3rd world countries), War on poverty (failed), War on drugs (failed - can't even keep drugs out of prisons), War on terror (has bankrupted us and created even more threats). And there are some that want to have the government now manage your healthcare? At least the senate and congress weren't stupid on this as they exempted themselves and their staffs from Obamacare.

4. Department of Education is a complete failure. Since its inception, more and more money has been spent and results get worse and worse. As he stated... "The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that..."

5. I can't justify his position. As with the question of "is there a God?", nobody really knows about Global warming. There is a lot of evidence both for and against. A lot of people believe they know, but nobody really knows. I personally think there is a human effect, however if this is the case, China is an exponentially greater violator and any efforts we could make are negated by their annual increases in carbon emissions.

Anonymous said...

7. Who would you believe more? UL?, Consumer Reports?, or the US Government? Does the health department keep you from getting food poisoning at your local restaurant? No, however someone telling you on Yelp! that they got food poisoning will. There is a lot of incentive to create products that won't kill you. People are willing to pay for these products.

8. Um... I'd consider "radically pro life" to be someone that opposes abortion even in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother. This is not Ron Paul. Paul has stated that abortion should be a states rights question. This way, backwater inbred states can outlaw abortion if they want to. It is a constitutionally correct position.

9. We should have eliminated foreign aid a LONG time ago. When you make $80,000 a year and your family's bank account is overdrawn by $1.7 million, do you then whip out your checkbook and write out a donation to the Salvation Army for $5,000? I mean, it's a good cause, right? I'm all about helping America first. Once all of our problems are solved and we have no more debt and a sound economy, then let's talk about charity to other nations. We've been footing the bill for way too long.

10. 100% Agree. How many stories of civilians being killed while United Nations troops stand idly by do you have to hear before one realizes what a useless pile of shit this organization is.

11. He's absolutely right. The minimum wage doesn't increase wages, but it does influence where companies do business, what kinds of jobs can be provided, and how many people are hired.

12. Protecting yourself IS a "god given right" - and having firearms is a constitutional right. The Constitution is like the bible... uncomfortable at times when you don't agree with something, but you need to accept the entire thing as a whole, or discount it completely. Every free nation that has ever fallen started with efforts to disarm the public. If Paul is wrong on this, then everyone who wants to adhere to the constitution is a "gun nut."

13. I have no idea on this. I'm an atheist (LOL).

14. Does anyone really have a problem with the elimination of the income tax? Personally, I don't like spending almost 1/2 of the year to fund hellfire missiles to lob into Afghani wedding parties - or funding studies to discern the mating habits of the african fruit fly. I don't see how letting Americans keep the 1/2 of what is stolen from them annually makes Paul "fucking suck." - Something like 10-15 years ago had the US government cut spending by like 30%, income tax wouldn't have been needed. Nothing stimulates the economy like more money in circulation and out of the hands of the government.

15. Paul is actually AGAINST the border wall - not for it. Agreed with Paul on this one... The fence is clearly intended to keep Americans in - not Mexicans out. Paul's solution for illegal immigration is that if you remove the free and welfare incentives for illegals (free food, free housing, free education, free legal representation, free healthcare), then they won't have a reason to come here unless they want to legally work and contribute to society. Anyone really have a problem with that?

Anonymous said...

16. Whether or not his position is right, OSHA is clearly unconstitutional.

17. It would be in the US interest to regain control of the Panama Canal as a strategic interest, and because we paid for it. Unfortunately Carter gave it away. We would need to "buy" it back now - unfortunate.

18. If you've ever driven a private highway vs. a government highway, then you know the difference. The interstate system is quite an achievement. It is broken though and bankrupt. If the government got out of the highway business tomorrow, don't you think there would be 20 companies stepping up to take over?

19. "He seems" is not really an argument. Nancy "you have to pass the bill to see what's in it" Pelosi "seems" like the fucking cryptkeeper, but she may just be a douchebag. He is the only GOP candidate not screaming for the anti-gay marriage amendment and says it is a states rights issue.

20. Enough said here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Cn4svUfd0

Anonymous said...

This is the worst written article on a politician.
This is just using semantics to make him look bad.
Do some fucking real research before you write a shit article like this, or BELIEVE this crap.

And these quotes are fragments of his whole point, of which NONE are bad or negatively outcome.

I am pro-choice, and anti-Religious and I still support Ron Paul... those are MINOR things than what is happening in our country. MINOR.

Anonymous said...

Naive Americans such as yourself, believing the mainstream ideals thrust into you by super conglomerate media companies, shame other Americans abroad into claiming that they are Canadian instead.

Anonymous said...

Affirmative action is racism, seeing how it treats races differently. The civil rights movement ended up creating a government sponsored movement of affirmative action. And as to why Ron Paul might not like Martin Luther King? Despite the Rev Doc. being a hero of Dr. Paul, King was an avid socialist, aiming to socialize WELFARE of all things, which has become a major problem today as now many people are dependent on the US govt. redistributing wealth (free market? I think not). The more politically attuned reading these comments might note that the federal War on Poverty has many similarities to the War on Drugs, War on Terror, and other wars on vague ideas that usually have the opposite effect (Patriot act was anything but patriotic)

Unknown said...

well now i know whos getting my vote go ron paul!!!! heres a campaign slogan "He's just saying, what we're all thinking." lol except for the christian shit i think the nation could do better with being secular and if they are gonna christian then be like australia and say fuck you to everyone else at the very least.

Jeff said...

This is a biased review that is a matter of opinion which is not based on facts. The title of Ron Paul Fucking Sucks in the URL says all you need to know about the poster of the article. Professionals don't use language like that about serious topics, especially while trying to persuade others to swing to their point of view. Fact is, Ron Paul is a true patriot and has fought to uphold the constitution, provide medical care as an obgyn and often is the only person in congress fighting for our rights. Even if it means standing up by himself to protect liberty. Ron Paul wouldn't be able to save America by himself but with thousands of passionate supporters, we sure could get the country pointed back in the right direction.

Anonymous said...

OH WOW...... how about in your defense you write a list of tweny reasons why Obama, Gingrich, or Romney fucking suck. For christ's sake, actually just for fun how about you write a list of reasons why they DON'T suck, have fun with that.....

Anonymous said...

This article was so full of fucking bullshit the author didn't even want to take credit for it. LOL!

Anonymous said...

Whoever wrote this a kook themselves. Although I don't agree with Paul entirely, the writer blatantly abuses Paul rather than debate points.

Anthony said...

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...........hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah I'm sorry im not going to give you more time then laugh at the assesment

Anonymous said...

The one thing all Americans agree on right now is that the way we are running things is deeply flawed and needs a complete overhaul. We are foolish to think that electing one politician over another will change this system. Obama was a person who I believe really wanted to change the system and got his ass handed to him trying to do it. Ron Paul wouldn't be able to do any better than Obama, and neither of the other Republicans would give a crap about anyone other than the multi-million dollar corporations and individuals that are keeping them in office. Believe that! Wake up and stop propagating this liberal/conservative nonsense. We the people need to change the system by whatever means available.

Anonymous said...

this is bull-shit, not ron paul. support your facts with links.

Anonymous said...

1-2. Yea I'm iffy about those.

3. I agree. And he's against public healthcare on a FEDERAL level. If a state wants public healthcare he's fine with it because he believes in the CONSTITUTION. If you read it you may see why he believes this.

4. Public Education is AWFUL. Private schools have it much better. Now you may be saying "They cost too much" well if there were now public schools the cost for private schools would be so low you could EASILY pay with cash.

5. It's not that global warming is fake, it's that all this "Go green" and "Buy this it's environment friendly" is shit. Company's don't care about being Eco-friendly. They just care about taking money from the consumer's pockets..

6. He's a creationist so what? It's not like he can legally stop schools from teaching it if they decide to teach it. Once again, because he believes in the Constitution.

7. The FDA has stopped so many medicines that they use in Canada and Europe that help patients from coming into the US. And yes I do realize Canada and Europe have federal safety standards. But hey have trustworthy governments, but, honestly, the US does not.

8. He is pro-life, but he will let states decide to make abortion legal. It was in his book. You should read it.

9.Foreign aid is a waste of money. The money goes to countries with leaders ha usually take the money and spend it on themselves. If you listen to what foreign countries actually want. They don't want our help! And we're in our own crisis we need to help ourselves first.

10. The UN is also a waste. They make threat but don't do anything.

11. He's a professional economist he has predicted so many things he's probably right on this. But hey Americans refuse to work for less than a certain amount off money, so why don't we have some foreigners do it for us?

12. I was born in LA was moved out to the South. I can gladly say I like have loose gun laws. I can go hunting and if anyone one every tried to hurt me I can protect myself.

13. So? He has religious beliefs.

14. The income tax goes directly against the Constitution. It's just modern serfdom. You work for your money and your forced to give it to someone else.

15,17,18. Hey I never said he was perfect though.

16.He's against any federal law that doesn't have to doe with coining money, foreign policy, and interstate commerce. It's in the Constitution...

19. Even if he is homophobic he won't let it stop gays having they same rights, and that's enough for me.And I'm bi

20. I'm half black, half, Hispanic and I don't believe he's racist. Yeah he slipped up in 1978 and that was the only dirt they get on him! And when he passes that drug legalization act, he wants to release all prisoners of nonviolent drug related crimes. Do you know what that will do for the minority community?

Yes. Ron Paul has a few dark spots. But no one is perfect. He's not a flip-flopper like everyone else(Democrat or Republican). He has the most support by US troop and foreign countries. And I'm not talking about the government of those countries, I'm talking about the citizens of those countries. The reason why I like him most though is because he wants to follow the constitution.The Constitution in A e sentences: Congrats, you have your morals. Go out and give charity. But you can not force those morals onto someone else. Not everyone has the same opinions.

Obama isn't bad but I think Ron Paul would be better. Cause he believes in true Liberty.

Now I hope you don't take this personally or anything. I just felt the need to sate my opinion as did you on your blog.

Anonymous said...

what's a red umbrella? Is that "code speak" for a condom for a lefty??

Jon in space

Anonymous said...

This must be an expensive smear website to maintain. Try finding the least corrupt person to be president is hard but Ron Paul offers hope of
a non bought corporate raider type that destroys freedoms. I assume most of these comments are by the same person with different alias. Sad People.

Anonymous said...

To all the people saying "citation needed," see those underlined words? Try clicking on them, you might be surprised.

Daniel Matos said...

My god, he belives people should be responsible for themselves! What a monster! What a monster!
Poor me, completely immersed in the left vs. right dialectic, and not that great as a researcher, I am outraged!

Anonymous said...

"Do some fucking research, he has completely denied writing them. Why would he publish them under his own name, and later deny writing them?"

To trick dupes who believe anything someone says, like you, into believing that he's not actually a racist? Even though he calls african-americans "Blacks".... only racists do that.

Anonymous said...

Submitted by Exavier

This article made me laugh. Allow me to educate you my friend.


“1. He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. That's the 1964 law that made segregation illegal and outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, colour, religion, sex or national origin. Paul claims it infringes on people's freedom. If a restaurant or hotel wants to ban African-Americans, he believes they should be allowed to. As he put it in a speech to Congress: "the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."”

This is very much a sad way to look at this and you know it. First of all Ron Paul is right because what these laws set the stage for his basically reverse racism. Ron Paul has made it clear that he supports property rights which he should. Most all segregation was started by government law to begin with. So it's a bit silly that government passes these laws causing these problems then the answer is to pass new laws to fix the problem they made. They shouldn't have made laws like that to begin with. But no one ever brings up that fact. No one also brings up the fact why a private business like a hotel or restaurant should be forced to service customers who they do not wish to serve. After all that business would lose customers and eventually shut down. People have the right to do what they want as long as they aren't hurting others. Also you fail to mention about laws which have followed this up forcing colleges and jobs to hire a certain number of minorities. So basically a school might accept someone simply because he's black over a white person because they are required to accept a certain number of black people for year. Even if the other person is a bit better. Does that seem fair? It's like this with all laws. There is a good book called “Disabling America,” which you should read which is written by a handicap person. He explains how a lot of these laws passed to protect handicap people in jobs are actually having the opposite affect and creating stigma, negative feelings and bad job outlook for handicap people like himself. Hence why these laws can be passed with good intentions but had a bad effect.



2. He's also against the Americans With Disabilities Act. That's the 1990 bill passed by the first President Bush, which followed up the Civil Rights Act by making it illegal to discriminate against someone because of a disability. Paul wants it gone, too.

Anonymous said...

See above. Like I said more and more people are actually complaining that laws like the disabilities act is causing more problems then it has fixed. Especially since its range is growing beyond people with legitimate disabilities and causing situations that burden places like a business.


3. He is against public health care. You know how you think Americans are crazy because they can't do any better on universal health care than the watered down bill Obama got through? Well, President Ron Paul would do much, much worse. He thinks that in an entirely private system, poor people would have all of their needs taken care of by charitable doctors who would be willing to work for free. Ron Paul, by the way, is a medical doctor.

This is said so poorly that it is startling. If you actually listen to Ron Paul he talks about how he practiced medicine when he was much younger (over forty years ago) making far little money for a hospital run church. And that in his day people weren't out on the streets dying of sickness. They treated everyone no matter how much or little money they had because although they needed profits their big focus was helping people. Ron Paul's problem with government being involved in healthcare is when they are the system is run purely by politics and money and who can pass what laws and regulations in your favor. Which is exactly what it is all about now. Lobbyists for companies or people who worked for these companies make sure politicians are working in their favor. This includes government forcing school to train a limited number of doctors per year to keep the supply low, forcing doctors to only give government approved treatments even if they have a low success rate and the person would prefer an alternative treatment and forcing doctors to only use pharmaceutical drugs and giving pharmacy companies a massive monopoly and captive audience. National healthcare does nothing to address these problems in fact if you look at it only adds to it by adding more government control and regulatory burden. Ron Paul believes that you should have minimal government involvement and let a free market with a sound currency, low inflation and lots of competition between doctors drive down prices and that people in a thriving and successful economy will help others. That aside you fail to mention how Ron Paul has already outline that he will keep Medicare, SS, etc and has no intention of phasing these programs out in the near future since people need them.

Anonymous said...

4. He wants to dissolve the public education system. He promises to eliminate the Department of Education entirely and leave the question of whether to offer any public education at all up to local governments. He calls public education "socialist" (which we actually agree with, but he, unlike us, doesn't think that's a good thing) and says, "I preach home schooling and private schooling." According to an interview, "The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that..."

If you actually do some reading you would see that he is right. Multiple states have tried and successfully done over and over again to forcefully medicate or inject kids with vaccinations even when the parent does not wish to do so. And if you measured education in this country in terms of success by money spent we would be a dismal failure. Under the Obama administration spending for public education has jumped by millions and yet our overall education level is lagging far behind most other developed countries. This fantasy that state governments can't run things is a bit silly. A lot of countries have a high success in largely mixing private school with public. So I'm not sure what the problem is in advocating less federal government intervention since it hasn't worked so far. He wants more state run and privatization of the public education sector which has been shown to help. Instead of giving reasoning you just go like, “Well he wants to do this,” okay, so what is wrong with that? You're not giving us any compelling reason why he is wrong. Public education has become socialist because it teaches kids in many ways the wrong things especially about history and we force people to go or put them in jail.

Anonymous said...

5. He thinks global warming is a hoax. In his words, it's "the greatest hoax, I think, that's been around in many, many years — if not hundreds of years". But that's just the tip of the crazyberg. Ron Paul winning the presidency would be a disaster for the environment. He wants to completely disband the Environmental Protection Agency, abolish environmental regulation, and lift, it seems, just about all the restrictions on drilling for oil. Including in National Parks.

I find it funny how yet again you don't back up any of this with fact. Just for the record RP hasn't called global warming a hoax. When most recently asked about it he admitted that he things humans have played some negative role on the earth but it's blown way out of proportion. If you read about it he is right because it has been proven that many scientist have actually suppressed info “proving” that global warming is not as bad as they say it is. Ron Paul wants to disband the EPA because they are corrupt which you fail to mention and pass regulations driving small and medium sized business out of business while passing laws which favor and basically ignore big business. But again he is not going to totally disband them but rather reduce their budget to 2006 levels and reduce their functions and let state governments have more say in what can be done in their state including if national parks can be used for oil drilling or not.


6. He doesn't believe in evolution. When asked about it in 2007, he was pretty clear: "I think it’s a theory. The theory of evolution. And I don’t accept it as a theory."

I fail to see the relevance of this. Ron Paul is a strong Christian and is simply saying that he doesn't accept the theory. He isn't calling it total BS. He just strongly believes in god. That in no way has never affected his political position since he himself has stated that your religion should only affect you as a person but not as a leader.

7. He's against federal safety standards. So that means no federal testing to make sure the products you're sold won't kill you. Or that, say, the airplane you're on won't fall out of the sky. In fact, he's in favour of completely disbanding the Federal Aviation Authority, which does stuff like hire air traffic controllers to make sure planes don't collide in the air. He has argued against the Food and Drug Administration, which makes sure pharmaceuticals are safe to take. ("People weren't dying from bad drugs before we had the FDA," he has said, "I mean, it just didn't happen.") And forget Ralph Nader's successful crusade to enforce the wearing of seat belts. Ron Paul is ideologically opposed to the federal government making sure cars even have seat belts. "I mean, do we need the federal government to tell us whether we buy a safe car?"

Anonymous said...

It's funny how you make that sound so bad without really explaining it. I dislike people trying to twist the truth so allow me to educate you. Ron Paul ha made it clear that be basically dislikes federal government one size fits all because it's always inefficient, always results in corruption, forces stuff on the entire country and it doesn't work. He hates the corruption in an all powerful federal government and feels that free market and consumes can decide if a product is good or not or if you really want to run it then do so at the state level. And a lot of this stuff was run this way. The FAA is a newer government agency who weren't always around. Yet we had airplanes before they existed. And I don't remember airplanes colliding in the air daily or falling apart in the sky, do you? I find if funny that you fail to mention that all of these things ran fine before the federal government began to run them. Same with the FDA. In fact we probably have “more” corruption now that we have the FDA instead of less. While they were made with good intentions they have spun totally out of control. The FDA has raided Amish milk farmers so selling raw milk to people who willingly wish to buy it and have had no health problems from it. Yet they go in full FBI, tactical gear and everything to arrest these simple farmers. The FDA has been shown multiple times to push drugs which do little to help people but line big companies pockets. Over in Europe many countries have banned GMO products due to proof that they are unhealthy for consumption but it has been shown that places like the FDA have worked hard so manufacturers “DO NOT” have to label GMO food. I'm not sure why you believe that so few of these things can be run at the state level. That aside RP has no intention currently to phase out the FAA or FDA. He would like to but his current plan only calls for a reduction in size. Same with the seat belt things. Manufacturing standards can be managed at state level. Basically Ron Paul is saying why do we need the fed to dictate common sense stuff to us at the federal level? If it's needed for safety purposes and people want it manufacturers will install it or it can be done at the state level. It's not like they are going to build cars which are going to kill people. Kind of bad for business.


8. He is radically pro-life. And vehemently opposed to a woman's right to choose. He signed the "personhood pledge" making the rounds on the current campaign, suggesting that abortion should be legally considered to be the same thing as murder.


Yes he is radically pro-life and has even said so. Most everyone running for president is pro-life and wants to try and make it illegal at the federal level. What is the problem with that? His thing is he wants it run at the state level and not the federal level even if he dislikes abortion. The person hood pledge would make the federal government recognize life at conception and give state governments the priority in how to handle it since the fed would have no say. Perhaps not the best way to get the fed out of it but it would in no way force state governments that they must consider abortion to be murder. Basically the bill dictates how the fed recognizes birth and that they have no say in it and only the state government does. So if the state wishes to legal abortion they can do so. Bottom line he wants the fed out of abortion. This is just one idea he suggested. Really he wants to just get Roe Vs Wade repealed so the states will have a say and the fed can mind their own business.

Anonymous said...

9. He wants to do away with all foreign aid. Paul's isolationism sounds good to liberals when he's talking about his refusal to invade other nations. But the United States government, under President Paul, would send no funds to the developing world to help combat AIDS or famines or natural disasters or anything else.

And what is wrong with that? Again you feel to mention multiple points. The biggest being that most foreign aid is wasted. It's sent with good intentions to help the people but why do you think these people suffer so badly despite all of this money and foreign aid. Look at Haiti. After the natural disaster there and millions upon millions they are barley better off. That is because the foreign aid is given out for political reasons to line the pockets of those who it will win favor with and very little of it ever gets to the people. What about places like Egypt were supposedly a portion of the foreign aid was supposed to help poor people but instead lined the pocket of the dictator who they get sick of and overthrew? The same dictator who we sent money to for years. Using money to help people sound good but we should worry about ourselves here at home first and sadly most of that money never helps the people like it's supposed to do so. Even if we did foreign aid we could do with a lot less then we do now and all of the dictators who we fund with “foreign aid,” to kill their own people. This includes places such as Libya. Also Paul believes in non interventionism which is not isolationism. Big difference. North Korea practices isolationism. Iceland and Switzerland don't send troops everywhere. Does that somehow make them isolationist as well? None they simply leave other countries alone.



10. He would pull out of the United Nations. He openly claims the United Nations is part of a plot to create one world government. "If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist." And not only does he want to withdraw the U.S. from membership, he wants to evict the United Nations from their headquarters in New York.

Well if you look at it Ron Paul is really right. The UN is used as a crutch/excuse for everything. We invaded Iraq under UN resolution, Libya under UN resolution. These invasions are done under claims of UN resolutions and that we have no choice but to take part in them even though they achieve little. Then the UN tries to pass these laws such as regulations on guns which their member nations including America must adhere to even though it's an international law being agreed upon by the UN council and not by our own Congress. People have no interest in laws being passed at UN level which will dictate things here America but more and more they keep trying to do so.

Anonymous said...

11. He's against the minimum wage. Instead of making sure that people are paid at least a minimum amount for their work, he believes companies should be allowed to pay whatever ever they like, with the law of supply and demand determining just how little. Lower wages, he argues, would actually help poor people by creating more jobs.


Ron Paul is right about this. If you'll notice people were employed just fine before minimum wage was made into law. Minimum wage is a bad law because it forces employers (especially small business) to pay our more then they can sometimes afford and possibly hire less workers when they could instead negotiate with workers for a price which suits them both. Especially if the person really needs work. Also it does nothing in the long run for people who are making above minimum wage because the fed adjusts minimum wage to try and make up for inflation which doesn't really help but it in no way increases income for people who are making above minimum already but ends up costing a business more money. If we had a health economy there would be little need for minimum wage laws and yes it would create more jobs. Part of the reason why unemployment is so bad right now.



12. He is a gun nut. Our eyebrows are already raised by anyone who claims that having firearms is a "God-given right", like Ron Paul does. But he doesn't stop there. He wants to repeal the legislation that requires a background check when you buy a new gun — you know, to make sure you're not, say, a fugitive from justice, a violent offender, or currently stalking someone. Back when there actually was a ban an assault weapons, he was, of course, against the ban. And now that there isn't, he wants to make sure Obama doesn't get the chance to bring a new one in.

This just sounds.. silly. Yes, in America a gun is a god given right. The Japanese decide to not try and invade America during WWII exactly because they figured that to many Americans were well armed to make sure a venture a good idea. Everyone has a right to own most every weapon which they wish to do so. The fed doesn't need to run legislation about such things the state governments can make requirements for such things if they want. That aside though he has no intention of repealing such laws simply he doesn't approve of them. And what's wrong with not banning assault weapons? If we ever really were invaded do you think people would want the worst gun they could fine for the best defense weapon they can fine. Do you think criminals buy weapons legally anyway? No. That is why with all of the gun laws we have there are still weapons on the streets because they buy them illegal for a reason. Law abiding citizens owning a gun is a true deterrent to crime. Not disarming the citizens and arming the criminals. Gun laws never stop criminals from getting guns if they truly wish to do so.


13. He believes we're waging a war against Christmas. In his words, he claims that "the elitist, secular Left" are waging an "ongoing war against religion" to "transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity." And as if that wasn't crazy enough, he adds, "Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

Anonymous said...

Yeah he is saying that Christian values are under assault by this propaganda we have these days for endless wars, endless fighting, killing at the drop of a hat. Pretty much he is saying to Christians, “Hey why don't we try that love thy neighbor thing? You know instead of assuming that we need to go fight with people to help make them free,” seems pretty basic to me. This need for violence we have these days is against the core beliefs of Christians and believing peace.




14. He wants to get rid of income tax. He is against taxation in general, of course, which most liberals would disagree pretty strongly with. Especially when it comes to the income tax. It's generally recognized as the most direct way to make sure that poor folk don't have to give up more of their earnings than rich folk do. But Paul wants to get rid of it entirely.

Yes he is against the income tax and taxes in general. I love how people always try to run this class warfare. Income tax is just one of many taxes he wants to cut back or abolish. This he plans to do by cutting government spending. And the income tax doesn't just negatively affect the rich but the poor as well. So I fail to see the problem in being true to his word in wanting to cut all kinds of taxes across the board including income tax. Everyone wants to make rich people out to be the bad guys and say we have to ta them more to fix all of our problems without commenting that run away government spending and printing is the real problem.


15. He voted to build a fence along the border with Mexico. In fact, he's pretty radical when it comes to the whole question of undocumented immigration. He has backed off on the fence issue (because, he says, it might be used to keep Americans in) but he has also argued that Emergency Room doctors shouldn't have to treat immigrants without documentation. And that he wants to end birthright citizenship, which says you're an American citizen if you were born in America, whether or not your parents were citizens themselves.

His views aren't all that radical. He considered a border fence but like you said changed his mind after realizing it was a bad idea. But basically he wants more troops along the border to protect us. Also he simply believes that states should not be forced to provide for illegals by the fed if they do not wish to do so. If a state gov wants to help illegals they can but they shouldn't have to do so by law since stuff like that can help encourage illegal immigration. Also he has said that he wants to consider ending birthright citizenship but is iffy since that might go against the Constitution. Basically he's considering ways to help deal with illegal immigration including that he wants to streamline and simply the process. But has never introduced any ideas or made any real intentions of ending birthright citizenship.

Anonymous said...

16. He's against the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That's the law that gives Americans the right to a safe workplace, and makes sure an employer doesn't force employees to work in a dangerous or unhealthy environment. That, Paul figures, is unconstitutional. It limits the employer's freedom to put workers in harm's way.

No, he is against the fed enforcing such laws. Again the state can do so if they want to do. And his other big problem is employers being forced to comply with stupid rules which cost them time and money. He has no problems with such laws if the state government wishes to do so but does not see that the fed has any business in saying a one size fits all deal for all fifty states.

17. He wants to U.S. to seize control of the Panama Canal. Paul's isolationism doesn't seem to apply to the Panama Canal. The United States signed a treaty back in the 1970s gradually ceding control of the canal to the government of Panama. But Paul wants to overturn that. Because if the U.S doesn't seize control of it, he claims some hostile regime might seize control of it instead.

He would only wish to try and seize control in anyway if the US was threatened by an actual attack and it was approved by Congress. Outside of that he could care less about the Panama Canal and has no intention to take it back. In his own words recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKse3W0Yt_k




18. He thinks interstate highways are unconstitutional. You're probably getting the impression by now that Ron Paul thinks that pretty much everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. That's because Ron Paul thinks that pretty much everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. He has even argued against interstate highways, saying Eisenhower knew he was bending the law when he built them. Paul figures they're a violation of states' rights.

Anonymous said...

That is because he is right. The Constitution makes it very clear that the fed government only has what powers are dictated to it in the Constitution and the rest lies with the states. The states used to be the ones to worry about being interconnected and work fine. He doesn't believe that we should not have roads, bridges and highways. Just that the state government can maintain and correspond on them fine instead which I fail to see a problem with. The fed is dumping more money then ever into infrastructure and yet the state of our roads, bridges and highways is the worst it has ever been in years.



19. He seems pretty homophobic to us. Paul actually gets a lot of credit for being the one Republican candidate who isn't homophobic, mostly because he says that the federal government has no business telling people what to do in their private lives and he's come out against a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage. But it's really not that clear where he stands. His reason for being against the ban is that he believes marriage laws should be left up to individual states or to the church. When some states began to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage, he fought to make sure other states wouldn't have to recognize those marriages as legal. He's also for don't-ask-don't-tell and has voted to de-fund 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". As for his own personal attitude toward the gay community? Well, an ex-staffer who defended Paul against charges of homophobia did so by claiming he only knew of two times Paul did something homophobic: the time he swatted away a gay man's hand rather than have to shake it, and the time he refused to go to the washroom at the same time as a gay guy.

One could question if he is homophobic at all or not since he is a deep christian. But bluntly, who cares? Even if he is he's made it clear that his personal feelings have no relevance in government law. He believes the government should not be in marriage and it should be a private contract or states should recognize how the people in the state please. Also he is not for Don't ask don't tell. He said it should be repealed and instead people both gay or straight should simply be disciplined for inappropriate behavior. And he simply believes that public education type places have no real business teaching homosexuality (or really sex all that much in general) to kids. Also you fail to mention that Ron Paul is the only one who anti-gay organizations are against becoming president since under him gay people would be allowed to marry by state law while no one else would do this. So clearly he is more in favor of not just gay rights but more human rights and equal treatment across the board.

Anonymous said...

20. And he seems pretty racist too. Paul has been haunted by accusations of racism pretty much the whole campaign long. And with good reason. He used to publish newsletters, under his own name, which said unbelievably racist things. Things like, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." For years, he refused opportunities to distance himself from those comments and those newsletters. Now, finally, he has, saying that they were written by other people, without his knowledge, and that he doesn't share those views. But that's not the only thing that makes us worried. More recently, he complained about the Transportation Security Administration hiring visible minorities to do airport screenings. Again, in his own words: "We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked... Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me."

The newsletters have actually already been taken care of. People like you take it way out of context. With over 500 newsletters written less then 80 had any racist content in them. Ben Swan a journalist actually did a story on this http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xngc2w_reality-check-fair-coverage-ot-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters_news

And found that the most racist of the newsletters had been written by someone other then Ron Paul and had his name on them. -_- Also you're taking his comment on the TSA out of context since he was simply complaining how the TSA is all for protection but seem to practice racial profiling on 80 year old woman and 6 year old little kids as much as they do on foreign people. It has been shown time and time again that he is very not racist by his stances on racial profile and similar ideas or laws.


Overall this was a funny piece and it was fun educating you. You seem to more just give an opinion on everything then citing actual facts and you twist the truth to make Ron Paul look bad. This is a very poor idea on how to report bad facts about a candidate. Until next time.

Anonymous said...

If the points are exacerbated or not (I think more not) they still have some rings of truth in the VERY least. Ron Paul is an extremist. He would make sweeping changes, He admits it, that is his platform.

What the county does NOT need right now, when perched precariously on the edge of collapse, is an extremist like Paul or from the other side either, like the Socialist party. Even Pauls' supporters can not deny that he would make sweeping changes. Anything that radical would destroy us in the short term, regardless of the [perceived] merits in the long term.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul follows the constitution. For each of your 20 reason involving law, please revise your post to include the excerpt from our constitution where it allows government to impose the laws Ron Paul is against. Also, understand that just because Ron Paul may be against these things as federal law, does not mean he is personally against them. He is simply following the rules our founders laid out.

Jonathan said...

This article represents an extremely shallow understanding of Paul's views and an intellectually lazy analysis.

Moreover, it completely ignores the point that Obama is more of a Neo-con that Bush ever was. More war. Less civil liberties. More bailouts, special interests, corporate interests, etc. Even though I disagree with Paul on some issues, I at least understand where he is coming from and have no doubt in his sincerity, so I can put aside the few issues that dont' quite jive with me in favor of the 80%+ that do. No one else in the race even comes close to hitting that mark. Not by a long shot.

The reason liberals are supporting Ron Paul is because they understand that their 80% friend is not their 20% enemy.

With Paul, we finally have a candidate who is serious about reigning in Wall Street and government corruption, ending our insane military empire, returning the country to fiscal solvency and sustainability, and most importantly abolishing the Federal Reserve. Show me one other candidate who is serious about even one of those.

Blaze said...

Right on! Thank you SO MUCH for writing this! It doesn't matter if you're consistent and consistently WRONG, Ron! Also, your citations are excellent; most of this stuff is on his web site anyway if people would just PAY ATTENTION. I don't know why folks get blinded by him: It's like he's a Rorschach test; people just see what they want to see because they like SOME of what he says SO MUCH -- and then ignore the rest.

Anonymous said...

The article is brilliant, the comment section is hilarious. Stewart Alexander people. You needn't turn to Ron Paul ::homophobic, racist, sexist

Anonymous said...

Sooooo ...Ron Paul fans don't want a Federal Government tohave some control over their lives and money. They instead want states and. businesses to have total control over your lives and money. Gotcha.

Anonymous said...

This piece is little more then ignorant, short sighted, hogwash. Trolls.

Anonymous said...

Keep your Canadian opinions to yourselves, none of you are old enought to grasp our history , problems, dealmaking, etc.
And if you have a better candidate in mind, run him in Canada

Anonymous said...

1.

Based on the spelling of "colour", this article isn't even written by an American. This is probably written by some NWO UN CFR internationalist over seas. The Civil Rights Act has little effect on people overseas. It's repeal would not make anyone less free, it treats people like children.

2.

Again, adults need not be treated as children or slaves

3.

And, Ron Paul, has provided free services to people in need as a GYNO, delivering babies. Everything government funds gets much more expensive. Government funded healthcare will make us all more dependent on the nanny state, and less in control of our own lives.
Paul got a life achievement charity award in 2010 apparently


4.

I fucking hate the public "education" system. It serves the elite to conform and condition youth to accept their enslavement.

5.

there is global nuclear genocide going on right now and Monsanto has taken over the food supply. WTF is the EPA doing to protect you or anyone else? Fracking and intentional fish kill offs go on all the time, Poison is intentionally put in our water, food, and air and the fucking EPA DOH and all of em, don't do a fucking thing. Fire them all, and try them in court.

6.

I believe the oldest written documentation of human origins sources us to an alien test tube. There is no complete fossil record proving conventional evolutionary theory.

7.

What have we learned about federal safety testing? LOL @ "Food and Drug Administration, which makes sure pharmaceuticals are safe to take."

Prescription drugs are a leading, if not the number 1 cause of death in the US.

8.

Yet he would enact no law legalizing or criminalizing abortion as president.

9.
Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non interventionist. North Korea is an isolationist, Switzerland is a non interventionist. Paul wants to have free trade with Cuba, and all countries, war with non.

RoHo said...

1. He wouldn't want to or try to repeal it. He would have voted against it. Sure, this act may have done some good. But what people don't realize is that a segregation was largely brought on by government itself. Look at the Jim Crow laws. Much of the racial tensions in our past were exacerbated by government. Voting against this act would have been consistent with the belief of liberty. Paul doesn't want the government to try to mold behavior or actions and infringe on freedom of choice and private property rights, as this act did. Hypothetically, a coffee shop owner should be able to reject a customer based on something superficial like skin color. This falls under basic property rights. But then this store owner would suffer the consequences of losing a customer and profit and possibly gaining a bad reputation; at the same time, a coffee shop could open down the street and be more successful if they don't discriminate. The underlying principle is that you should be able to pick and choose who can use your property, even if it's an unpopular choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4Evm4zY6xU

2. Very similar to the reasoning for #1. This does not mean he is unsympathetic to the disabled, as many insinuate. Government simply doesn't have the right to force private property owners, like employers, to do anything. Basic property rights. A business would lose support and popularity if it did not treat all people equally and would naturally suffer consequences in a free market society. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul+disabilities&oq=ron+paul+disabilities&aq=f&aqi&aql&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=143l965l0l1036l14l9l0l6l6l0l175l365l1.2l3l0

3. You wouldn't go into your neighbor's home and steal money to pay for your medical bills. Yet the government can do this. Also, universal health care has taken a huge toll on our economy. Quality of medical care has declined and costs have gone way up. There is government-sponsored monopolies on healthcare, which prevent any competition and any lowering of prices. These government interventions distort the market. This is also unconstitutional. Government has no right to interfere here. Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but health care is not a right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWnSjKrWSdw

4. Do you think the federal government has a better idea of what is needed at every school in the country than that school's own community? This is what is implied by the Dept. of Education. How many teachers do you know support No Child Left Behind? Is federal oversight, with all its complexity and bureaucracies, more attuned to what we need in education at the local level? Lets return this power to the states so the oversight of education can be more focused and effective.

5. Global warming is not as well-established as many people think. Do a search for "Climategate" and you will find hard evidence that data was altered by leading research institutions and evidence that it may be a scientific conspiracy. I believe in global warming, but I don't really care if Ron Paul doesn't. EPA has not been very effective and has been expensive; Paul wants polluters to answer for their actions, but not to Washington. In drilling for oil, he wants property rights to prevail, rather than government-sponsored interventions.

6. So? I find it a little weird that a medical doctor doesn't believe in evolution. Maybe he doesn't want to alienate hardcore religious nuts? What's the big deal though? I don't care whether the president believed in bigfoot, and I wouldn't care whether or not he believed in evolution because it would have no effect on his job.

RoHo said...

7. Consistent with his free market principles: the regulation will be that if a company doesn't do a good job in serving the consumers, the consumers don't buy the product and the company goes under. You don't need the federal government to make sure something is safe -- in the absence of the FDA, the company itself, for its own good, will test the product. Again, if anything, this power should be returned to the states. There was a farmer in Maine who got trouble with the federal government for sharing raw (unpasteurized) milk with some friends. What is so wrong with this? His friends know the small risk of raw milk, and why can't they drink it if they please? http://bangordailynews.com/2011/12/27/news/hancock/maines-case-against-a-blue-hill-farmer-and-his-cow-gains-national-attention/
Paul wants to privatize the FAA. Or to bring it to the state level. Same with the federal regulations on car manufacturing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE9sfT0Teqw

8. Dr. Paul has delivered 4000+ babies. Doesn't he have a right to his opinion? He thinks that when you take care of a woman who is pregnant, you are taking care of two patients. However, he would leave abortion to the states. The Constitution leaves issues over all acts of violence to the states, and he sees abortion as an act of violence against life. So why is it strange that he wants to leave this up to the states? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cypg0Qvh__8

9. This should be obvious. He doesn't want to give billions of our dollars to the government or military of other nations. We are in a TERRIBLE economic crisis. The value of the dollar has become microscopic in comparison to what it used to be. It astounds me how people would oppose the idea of keeping OUR money in the US. Our foreign aid has been ineffective. Again, I urge you to look at Egypt. With Israel, their Prime Minister doesn't even want our aid or us in their internal affairs. And it's strange that we gave more aid to Pakistan, an enemy of Israel, than Israel. With diseases and humanitarianism, we have our own problems at home and cannot afford to be the savior of every foreigner who is suffering. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPNKbr7hvoY

10. The U.N. is overrated. We do not need them to approve of or denounce the actions of every nation. They represent the opposite of freedom. They also impose many sanctions. I refer you to Dr. Paul: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html

‎11. Minimum wage has increased over the past decades. Eliminating it would allow businesses to create more jobs and create more competition. Wages of some people could be less than the current minimum wage, but these people would have jobs that they wouldn't otherwise have with the existence of the minimum wage. Also, there are alternatives to the minimum wage.

12. He supports the 2nd Amendment. And he does not want to repeal background checks. He just voted against decreasing the time limit on submitting to required background checks.

RoHo said...

13. http://www.americans-working-together.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/i_said_christmas.jpg You don't think this is silly? All this hubbub about political correctness or offending people... Teachers technically can't even say Merry Christmas. Yes, we should be a country of tolerance and religious flexibility, but we are also a country built on Christianity. And here is where those quotes came from: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

14. In the 150 years or so without an income tax, our nation has been prosperous. The median salary of the middle class has increased year after year. Since ratification of the income tax, government basically owns our income and tells us how much of our hard-earned cash we can keep. The fraction of government revenue that comes from income tax has risen over past years, and keeps rising in a useless effort to fund unnecessary spending. 0% income tax would lead to a huge insourcing of jobs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BjCq6woC_hg and http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/

15. Actually, he voted for this bill because it contained other, more important, legislation that he supported (to end amnesty). He has always been against a fence. He wants to eliminate incentives that illegal immigrants seek in order to decrease illegal immigration. He wants to end birthright citizenship, which people think is granted to the children of illegals through the 16th Amendment. If you read this Amendment, it says that the children of people under the jurisdiction of the U.S. will be granted citizenship. However, are people who come to this country illegally really under our jurisdiction? No, they still belong to their native country. Therefore, their children should not be instant citizens. And he wants to lower hurdles for legal immigration. He clearly outlines his views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y3zEP75kFM

16. It is unconstitutional. Again, give this responsibility to the states.

17. Panama Canal used to be ours and was built by us. http://www.ronpaulsbrain.com/1999/12/07/paul-questions-implications-of-canal-turnover/

18. It is unconstitutional. He thinks the states can do a better job at building and maintaining these roads.

19. There is no discrepancy that Ron Paul wants these decisions left to the states. And of course he would federally defund such organizations. And about his ex-staffer, we will not be able to find the truth about his accounts. But other people of his staff have said he has never shown any homophobic behavior. And it seems completely outside of his personality to swat a gay man's hand rather than shake it. About Don't Ask Don't Tell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJnRkUJjazU

20. The few racist quotes in these newsletters are in complete conflict with Ron Paul's decades-long Libertarian views. This issue has been addressed and debunked for nearly two decades. Most recent coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGH77lZsglU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE9VXaRYbFI&feature=related

It is due in large part to uneducated, biased rubbish like this article that Ron Paul's message gets terribly distorted. Most of what the federal government does he wants returned to the STATES, as specified by the 10th Amendment.

Anonymous said...

Liberals are so good a twisting things around. You guys sure are good at spending other people's money too. You always talk about spending on this and spending on that and taxing this person and that. No wonder, its because you lazy idiots who are to lazy to find legit news sources are also to lay to work. Yeah lets just keep electing the same idiots into office that have buried this country. Don't get me wrong most of the right wing republicans are idiots too, thats what makes Paul great. He is different, he wants to change our broken system that is clearly not working and move to something else. The federal government is simply to big, that is exactly why we are constantly at war with people and also why we are $16 trillion in debt. Sooner or later that debt has to be paid of and our current political leaders on both the right and left can't seem to figure that out. Ron Paul is the only one who has. As a matter of fact he predicted this economic collapse all the way back in 2003.
One more thing to add, isn't it funny that the person who linked this article on facebook is a hippy stoner who does nothing but sit around and smoke weed and play the banjo. No wonder he is broke. I'm all for doing what ever the hell makes you happy, I'll even smoke with ya. But don't come crying to me trying to take and spend my money because your lazy ass can't pay your bills. Go to work like I have been doing since I was 14.

Anonymous said...

RON PAUL 2012!

Anonymous said...

sure wish my post would show up....zzzz

Anonymous said...

This article makes me want to vote for Ron Paul even more!

Anonymous said...

He does want to repeal those acts because he doesn't feel it is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S job to make these rules. Any law making authority that is not explicitly stated in the constitution is automatically given to the states. He feels that these actions should be left up to the states to decide what their laws are. We should be a republic, with states that can make their own laws, with a federal government that is limited to is specified abilities in the constitution.

Anonymous said...

This should be titled 20 Reasons Why Ron Paul Fucking ROCKS! :)

Anonymous said...

I like all of this. Repealing laws that force me to do things I don't want to do (Yes!) Forcing me to give to charities (Yes!) and forcing me to give my children to a centralized government education program (Yes! Yes! Yes!)

Everything about this is beautiful. Read the constitution. Learn about FREEDOM.

Our liberties were robbed from us. And the same standards they used to rob the ones you DON'T agree with WILL BE USED TO STEAL FROM YOU THE ONES YOU DO AGREE WITH.

A SLIPPERY SLOPE, INDEED.

Ron Paul 2012!

Anonymous said...

The 20 reasons given in this article are short sited and false. Is the author semi-illiterate? Before passing such "opinionated/biased" judgement one could begin by reading Ron Paul's positions on his websites or in his books (i.e. "Liberty Defined" by Ron Paul). Paul gives much more elaborate explanations for his positions than the one sentence catch phrases this author-less article uses. Paul's plans are comprehensive, dealing with prevention and restoration rather than limiting oneself to endless symptoms treatment. Paul boldly push forward while others chase their own tails. Read up a little more and keep an open yet skeptic mind and then maybe one will begin to appreciate what this true warrior/doctor/father/philosopher/economist/statesman stands for.

Wilderman said...

The 20 reasons given in this article are short sited and false. Is the author semi-illiterate? Before passing such "opinionated/biased" judgement one could begin by reading Ron Paul's positions on his websites or in his books (i.e. "Liberty Defined" by Ron Paul). Paul gives much more elaborate explanations for his positions than the one sentence catch phrases this author-less article uses. Paul's plans are comprehensive, dealing with prevention and restoration rather than limiting oneself to endless symptoms treatment. Paul boldly push forward while others chase their own tails. Read up a little more and keep an open yet skeptic mind and then maybe one will begin to appreciate what this true warrior/doctor/father/philosopher/economist/statesman stands for.

Anonymous said...

The people that support R.P. are the ones who know more conspiracies, and behind-the-scenes government/federal reserve agendas then anyone else could possibly ever comprehend.
Heavily into politics since late 2007, they are
always trolling the internet, shouting down differing opinions with keywords such as : READ SOMETHING, LEARN SOMETHING, and, READ SOMETHING !
Only R.P. is apparently qualified to speak for these prisonplanet.com enthusiasts/pseudo geniuses because.... he just is.
That civil war era lookin', chosen one.
Well written article!

Anonymous said...

The author of this blog post is a sheep.

Seriously.

Jeff Rodriguez said...

Some have asked why there weren't point-by-point refutation. The answer is that it's like doing a point-by-point refutation of the merits of creationism.

This article is so horribly misinformed, shallow, and disingenuous that it isn't worthy of such a detailed response.

lzr said...

This article is appauling.

Anonymous said...

Rather be looked at as a nut job than a traitor as you look around in your complacency.

Anonymous said...

THIS IS SUCH BULLSHIT! DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND GAIN SOME KNOWLEDGE ON RP!

YOU SOUND LIKE AN IDIOT WITH ALL YOUR BS ON RP! YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE!!

Anonymous said...

Since when is it a bad thing to be a gun nut? Yes Ron Paul is a fucking psycho. He is one step away from being a full fledged conspiracy theory nut, but guns are good!

Joey Tranchina said...

JUST ON THE SCIENCE SIDE:

"The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase." National Academy of Science

Ron Paul is a doctor; he's not a scientist.

If he thinks Evolution is "just a theory" I wonder what he thinks of gravity?

You nailed the things he's right about... once you've sorted out that minority of his opinions Ron Paul is an old right-wing crank with an ugly racist past.

Anonymous said...

Thank god some people understand and don't just read what this stupid asshole who wrote this article says. Listen to Ron Pauls very rational explanation for each one of these, the answer and solution may be very surprising to some of you. Go to youtube type Ron Paul and what ever matter has you so twisted beyond any ability to understand. He will explain, and you just might learn something. But you really have to listen and understand what he is saying you cannot just lazily skim over it. That is how you end up with misinterpretations like this ass hole has created.

Anonymous said...

This article does suck maybe Cody McGraw wrote it.

Anonymous said...

The problem with everything is the internet. We should get rid of the internet. It should only be for games, awkward conversations between estranged family members, and pornography. No more of this stuff. All of these words and non-sense (other than a few cool, level-headed people and the OP) is just... non-sense. People have way too much time and way -- way -- too much internet. Read a book. Or go actually write one. Don't try to steal the thunder on some random blog. There are links to all of those things. It's not even mentioned how Paul is on the JD or JEC or whatever (the stupid creators of America's awesome budget). Embrace capitalism. That's the best advice. Money does buy happiness. Or at least a general sense of basic security. But, if you have the amount of time need to makes posts like most of these on the internet -- seriously don't vote for Ron Paul. It'd be like shooting yourself in the leg, which Ron Paul is also all for. I'm sure this has all been said. Go humans! Yay! You don't even get paragraphs, much less a proofread anymore. Meh! Go algae! I'm voting for bacteria in 2012. Morgan Freeman as VP. He can narrate for the bacteria, basically.

Anonymous said...

I second this guy ^

Anonymous said...

I think my favorite part of this blog is that Ron Paul believes evolution is a theory!! OH NO! It is a theory you uninformed dumb ass! It's called Evolution Theory!

Anonymous said...

You wrote Ron Paul is against health care he thinks docors would work for free for the poor and then you through in he is a medical doctor but you did jot write that he worked for free rather than take medicade

Anonymous said...

Whoever who this article is exceedingly ignorant. Every point has been taken out of context in an attempt of slander against Paul because the writer disagrees with his policies. This is why the author writes blogs and not credible articles. I could write an entire counter argument discrediting everything this author wrote it's all about perceptions. By slander like this is why good candidates are always brought down and the only way to eliminate these biases is to: 1. Collect the facts from CREDIBLE SOURCES 2. Consider the logic of these facts carefully 3. Form your own platforms..."I know of no safe despositor of the ultimate powers of [a] society but the people themselves; and if we thimk them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform the discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." -Thomas Jefferson

Alexander Jensen said...

great article, I cant help but feel I pulled a "rith" by achually reading all those....comments

Anonymous said...

the confusion lies in the thinking that there's two parties, really there's only one "The Party" and they act in opposition of each other. That way they get what they want and "WE" never get what we want..

Neven said...

posted a reply to your post

http://postwilliamsburg.com/2012/02/03/republican-candidates-affect-your-life-even-if-they-dont-win/

Anonymous said...

"The Little Red Umbrella" Sounds faggy. Just sayin'.

Anonymous said...

Watch your language you little basterd! Ron Paul is a Prophet and the American Sheeple like yourself don't deserve him, but we need him. So delete this stupid article NOW.

dragon1947 said...

bigger and bigger government creates bigger and bigger problems. wanna give up the last shreds of your freedom to the 1%? you have one more chance to be free with ron paul. you blew off ralph nader. when will americans stop trusting the 1% and their propangandists like the blogger here.

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to even waste my time refuting this, because anyone willing to believe it without checking the facts and context is to stupid to help.

Anonymous said...

i notice you completely left out his basic philosophies and misrepresented all of his positions. do you know or understand his philosophies?

none of his actual positions are mysterious if you understand liberty. individual (and by extension property) rights. and voluntaryism.

and calling it a choice doesn't make killing unborn babies any less immoral.

Anonymous said...

IF ANY OF YOU REALLY CARE TO LEARN THE TRUTH, WHICH THIS ARTICLE IS NOT, PLEASE READ LIBERTY DEFINED BY RON PAUL. THAT IS WHERE YOU WILL FIND THE TRUTH, UNFORTUNATELY I DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO GO THROUGH POINT BY POINT BUT HIS BOOK DOES.
SO IF YOU WANT THE SAME OLD PILE OF CRAP FOR OUR GOVERNMENT THEN DO NOT, I WARN, DO NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL. IF HOWEVER YOU WANT LIBERTY AND FREEDOM, HE IS THE PLACE TO START!

Anonymous said...

I hate LIBERALS! When we have another civil war I will protect my family from you people! You lIBS really know how to write SHIT! Get your facts in order before you start printing garbage like this!

Anonymous said...

@Rev Dr. Potato

There's Pro-life and Pro-abortion. We are all pro-choice. The thing that most pro-abortionists don't acknowledge is that in the majority of unplanned pregnancies, the real "choice" is made, whether or not to take the chance of having sex. That is the only "choice", plain and simple. You make that "choice", then you accept the possible outcome. There is no 2nd choice. The "choice" was already made.

Anonymous said...

You have just confirmed my decision to vote for NO ONE other than Ron Paul. We have had Socialists and One World Government people in power in this country for so long that only a hard-right conservative could make even minor changes during the 4 - 8 years of his Presidency. I say lets get started! But we also need to elect Conservatives to Congress because one man can't do much alone. And maybe we could elect Rand Paul after Ron, but we should move away from the Paul family after that so we don't form a Paul Dynasty!

Anonymous said...

I don't support Paul's extreme views, but I also don't see what's so great about having such a powerful federal government as we do. The reason Paul has so many fervent supporters on the left is because many of us are tired of seeing everyone, right and left, supporting an increasingly powerful and decreasingly accountable federal government, that taxes the crap out of us and uses that tax money to fund unjust wars. I like ideas like school vouchers, that allow poor kids to go to whatever school they want to go to, actually giving them a chance at getting a leg up, and of not being so very indoctrinated by state or federal interests. I don't see why more liberals don't have a more anti-authoritarian stance, too. -HK

Anonymous said...

I consider myself an idiot... I am an artist, a musician and sculptor I have no political science background or real education on the matter of governing... but I love what Ron Paul has to say. I don't want a government that is my parent, a government that tells me what substances I can ingest and I don't want to be represented by war mongers and death profiteers either.

Obama is a warmonger, he is a friend of the bankers and his voting record proves it, his is Bush jr. jr.

Ron Paul is huge among liberals in San Francisco all of my Burner friends are supporters.

Anonymous said...

go suck a dick

Lucas Temple (a.k.a. Armenia4ever) said...

Who wrote this? It looks like an establishment hit piece.

I don't understand why people fail to realize that legislation, no matter it's intention can be dangerous when it becomes law and sets precedents that can later be used to justify more henious acts and legislation.

That in itself is the primary problem with the civil rights act. Its intention was admirable, but the power it gave to the government to accomplish that has had horrible consequences that were not forseen.

Anonymous said...

Funny how we have been living in bondage so long that we interpret real freedom as a radical idea. Also, it is interesting how easily a false statement can look like the truth. People...RESEARCH THIS STUFF YOURSELF!! Take a few minutes to hear it from the source...understand the context of the conversation...that's all. :)

kiwijoe said...

Stupid Americans and your obsession with 'teh racism'. Vote Ron Paul or the world will continue to hate you. Who cares if someone is 'racist'. Racism is amoral, not immoral. You guys are so brainwashed by movies about teh KKKz and zee Nazeeeees.

Anonymous said...

This blogpost, unfortunately, is flooded with twisted words and half-truths. You also never give people a chance to see both sides, thus making this a pure propaganda tool.

To those willing to listen, do your own research before blindingly believing someone else's opinions.

Anonymous said...

to whoever wrote this, you lose an immense amount of credibility with the title alone. if you are going to make an educated argument, sound educated. you would benefit greatly from a class about rhetoric.
secondly, the majority of your "20 reasons," are either insignificant, out of context, or blown far out of proportion. it quickly became apparent that you are very biased, and at that point you loose all credibility.
i like your passion, but you need to work on conveying your message.

Anonymous said...

I found this article very interesting. Would the author, or anyone else for that matter, please provide the sources used to write it? I would definitely pass it along, but I need to make sure these statements are based on fact first.

Thank you very much,

Andres

Matt said...

My response to the article...
http://mattbeat.blogspot.com/2012/02/my-response-to-ron-paul-f-sucks.html

Anonymous said...

Firstly, how to respond to such a bullshit and biased article.
Half your crap comes from a lack of education and reasoning.
You seem to be fed the standard propaganda by the Left/Right and are too blind to actually learn philosophy.
It's all about the silent gun in the room, which nobody seems to address in most of the issues, he's for abolishing most departments because they're corrupt and maintained by the lobbyists, which are using tax payer dollars to funnel deregulation that only these corporations have written with special favors added. In any case, Ron Paul is pro freedom, so any notion that you get that he's against the right of women to choose an abortion is complete nonsense, he has been an OB-GYN, so I'd think ten times before trying to take on his medical knowledge. He's clearly stated this position many times, he is against LATE term abortion when the fetus has already matured. If a woman gets pregnant and comes early, he'd support a shot of estrogen, however if a woman comes a day before the child is to be conceived, it's called SAVING A LIFE as it has rights. If a mother wanted to kill a child a day after it was born is that acceptable to you because she has "choice"? This is clearly his position.
Apart from that I suggest you read on anarcho-capitalism, preferably look into Stefan Molyneux's work on youtube, you might learn something before spewing a bunch of crap that is completely baseless.
You obviously work for the establishment, or are clearly unaware of how the CIA control the media with regards to articles and content, so if you want to continue warfare and mass murdering of your fellow man, then don't vote for this man - any others would do, I really don't have time to explain every detail to you suffice to say you & anyone that buys into these lies is a complete lunatic and "intellectually dishonest" as they haven't even bothered to hear his point of view correctly.

Anonymous said...

You would think the left would have caught on to this man's words, he talks like a scientist(he is one).
He is a doctor.
He is a veteran.
He uses words like "osmosis", "graphs", "statistics", "facts", "philosophy", "liberty" and countless other scientific words to back the veracity of his claims.
He reads books, specially on economy and philosophy.
He teaches people.
Clearly the democratic side that bought into the left/right paradigm hasn't woken up.
Look at what Obama accomplished in his 4 years to erode civil liberties.
That's all I gotta say...

Anonymous said...

ROn PAul 2012 !!!!!

Anonymous said...

Ron has only recently denied the contents of his newspapers. In 1996 he defended the statements as factual and didn't answer whether or not he had written them. The denial on them is a new stance, a flip-flop (http://race42012.com/2011/12/17/ron-paul-1996-interview-regarding-newsletters/).

Ron also believes that states have the right to arrest people for sodomy. (http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=6327)

Anonymous said...

To be fair, this article takes quite a few liberties (pun intended) in explaining his positions.

A) Being against the Civil Rights act, Dept. of Ed., FDA, the UN, and the minimum wage doesn't mean that he hates civil rights, education, safe food, international relations etc., just as much as disapproving of Israel's policies doesn't make you an anti-Semite or opposing the "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers" act doesn't mean you like child porn. He opposes these things on constitutional grounds and would instead relegate these tasks to the states. Similarly, he probably is homophobic and is definitely pro-life, but again would leave decisions on abortion and gay marriage to the states.

B) America is still way too religious, and you're going to get a lot of this God, evolution, and Christmas crap from many politicians. I think the difference here is that Paul wouldn't force his religious ideas on anyone. He has said "my faith determines my character, but doesn't factor into my decisions," or something along those lines.

C) It seems he's the only honest one out there (ideally, Kucinich would be getting my vote). And he's one of the few who has been talking earnestly about the debt/deficit, imperialism, waning civil rights, and the failures of the "wars" on drugs and terrorism for some time. I would say these things alone make up for some of his less attractive qualities.

Yeah, I have nothing better to do on a Friday night.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for listing all the reasons why I should vote for Dr. Paul.

Anonymous said...

Seems like there are a lot of libertarian Ron Paul supporters on here, so I'd like to add some thoughts in favor of this article, though maybe not the title.

There are some issues that cannot be left to the states. They often have these characteristics:
- They apply to everyone equally (ex. Civil Rights Act)
- They are too important to allow for variation (ex. product safety)
- They are fundamental to a free society, and therefore must be the duty of those with the highest power (ex. Civil Rights Act)
- They require a lot of money, and the federal government has the best position in terms of economy of scale (ex. welfare)

If you are in favor of disbanding federal agencies, you really, really, really need to make sure you understand your history. Most of the major agencies that Republicans want to get rid of were created because the states were messing things up.

Want to get rid of the EPA? Do you remember what things were like before we had an EPA? The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland used to catch on fire. Then we passed the Clean Water Act, and that didn't happen anymore. Because nobody had the funds or the individual incentive to fix it privately.

Want to get rid of seat belt requirements? The free market will not create them on its own. That's why we had to pass a federal law. Don't be so naive as to think that manufacturers are sitting around trying to figure out how they can waste money to make products safer. They're looking at their marginal revenue and marginal cost. That's the failure of the free market: it doesn't deal with negative externalities.

Leaving these things to the states will fail, because states are in competition with each other. There is a sort of Prisoner's Dilemma that exists between states when they're trying to attract industry. The federal government is not in competition with other entities, and that's why it is the most trustworthy on important social issues.

If you don't understand the history of how hard Ralph Nader fought to keep you idiot anarchists safe behind the wheel, do some research. Not listening to Rush Limbaugh, not reading a conservative blog. Go to a public library and read a real book. Benjamin Franklin started the first public library, George Washington distrusted corporations, and Thomas Jefferson assumed we would rip up and rewrite the Constitution once every generation. READ SOMETHING.

Anonymous said...

The real problem is that people would rather elect a president who they think is going to solve there problems, than work on a State level. The Federal gov gets billions of are tax dollars every year, that go unaccounted for. If you want to better the world you start by your local government. All of theses problems could be addressed on the state level and thats his point. If the people of a state want workers rights they can pass bills to insure that. if the people of a state dont want weapons they could make laws to do so. At least at a state level they are held accountable to the Federal government and their constituents . wile are federal goverment is regulated by no one, and your vote only counts for 1/365,000,000. instead of 1/10,000,000 or so. The founders of the country wanted us to dictate law by the state level not the Federal. Because they knew what that much power does to men. or rather what men will do to keep that power. State > Federal!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Read the Constitution. Without it, we have no freedoms. When laws are selectively enforced, there is no guarantee of any freedom at all. All that Ron wants to do is OBEY the Constitution. He is not a Republicrat who just takes the parts he likes. He is the ultimate Freedom Preserver.

Anonymous said...

so you basically gave us 20 reasons why Ron Paul IS FUCKING AWESOME!!!!!!

thank you.

Anonymous said...

This is such a horribly written article... Have fun with your United States government bankruptcy goals in 2012.

Anonymous said...

these are most of the reasons why im voting for him, hes right the government has gotten too much god dam control, eve if you take little tid bits of information out of context and make him sound like a crazy person americans are waking up to the truth and if you think Mormons who have an uncanny ability to change thier policies with the atmosphere of the public opinion or the 3rd most corrupt senator in 2006 would be a more viable option than were fucked, besides these government programs that are supposed to be keeping us safe are just as vulnerable to corruption as the government itself, so quit jerking yourself and write the truth the whole truth, you call yourself a journalist,

Sandra said...

Anyone who believes this garbage is brainwashed by the mainstream media lacking the ability to think on their own and/or hasn't the mental capacity to educate themselves on the "Real World". MY advice to all here is to not listen to the moronic baseless claims made the author who's obviously ignorant of where Ron Paul stands on the issues and apparently has done no research at all on Ron Paul's speeches, voting records, interviews etc., On each of the issues listed above,please do some research on your own and you will see why he's a threat to the global powers that be. You will then begin to piece together why election fraud has run rampant and the FACTS have been misconstrued by the major print publications and mainstream media.
Ron Paul is far from a racist. Here's an example of how his views get twisted.
1.Ron Paul voted against using TAXPAYER money to spend $30,000 for a gold medal to Rosa Parks. He proposed all of Congress to put $100 each out of their OWN pockets. No one took up on his offer! Ron wanted to give her a medal with HIS OWN CASH. He greatly respects Rosa Parks - he calls her a HERO. Watch-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so

And another thing Ron Paul voted AGAINST a medal for Ronald Reagan! HA!

2.As far as the "letters" they've been debunked too! Watch-

http://youtu.be/h6C-mU2dVy0

As far as the civil rights act- Ron Paul is all about liberty and the constitution. The constitution is for men of ALL colors. He opposes the federal gov't on many different levels including forcing employers to have to meet a quota on race. "Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife. Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act."-Ron Paul

On Abortion-
He believes that the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to ban or regulate abortion.
He believes that the people of each state should decide for themselves how to regulate abortion, so as President he will ask Congress to remove jurisdiction over abortion from federal courts.
He believes prolife taxpayers should not have their taxes used to fund abortion, so as President he will ask Congress to ensure that the federal government does not fund or subsidize abortion.

Another common misconception is that Ron Paul wants to legalize marijuana and prostitution-FALSE!!! He wants to decriminalize them on a federal level and let the states regulate them.
Once you do a little homework (while you still can) on the internet you will understand pretty much everything about where he stands on the issues and ~WHY~
For every negative story on this man, there is the truth available as well. Take the time to look everything up and make a fair decision.

Anonymous said...

I was hoping to read something that was actually written by an informed person. Sigh, this is what i got. I really hope that you can do some research and learn a bit before you write crap like this, and waste people's time.

Anonymous said...

Hey, can you repost this with a cleaner headline?

A lot of grownups like me don't like to drop the f-bomb on facebook and other places.

Spot-on piece, otherwise.

Tony said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tony said...

The Constitution was written in the late 18th century, when slavery and indentured servitude were still legal.


It was also written before capitalism as we know it, before corporations became "persons" (ever hold the door for one?), before electricity, before nuclear energy, in other words before a lot of really, really complicated things started to happen in our nation.

In spite of all that, it is probably one of the finest intellectual feats in human history, politically speaking.

I seriously doubt the now fetish-ized Founders wanted a stale, inflexible document. That's why we have the amendment process and three branches of government. That's why slavery and indentured servitude are against the law.

People like Ron Paul are clever to offer so-called "Constitutional" answers to problems that I believe he has no interest in addressing. Good for him, good for his many acolytes. In this way Paul reminds me of Karl Marx. Woe to anyone who disagrees or has a concern.

So while we're on the topic, can anyone point me to an actual, functioning libertarian state on this planet? I don't think there is one. I wonder why.

Anonymous said...

Sounds to me like Ron Paul is absolutely right about all those things, except the things you imply are Paul's views that Ron Paul didn't even say.

Anonymous said...

All these things make me want to vote for him even more.

Anonymous said...

this article isn't accurate.

Anonymous said...

You are so blind and most of your statements in here are completely false. If you want to continue on the path that we have been on...year after year after year....continue to vote for people that do the same things over and over and over. You know what social media is telling you and nothing else. I suggest you do your homework before you talk such nonsense.

btw your a fkn idiot

Anonymous said...

This is written from an ignorant understanding of Ron Paul. For instance, although Ron Paul is personally opposed to abortion (see #8), he does not think it is something the federal government should even be involved in based on the 10th Amendment. It is a matter for states to decide. California presumably would choose different laws than Alabama on such issue. He would also oppose legislation for points 1,2,3,4,7,9,11,13,16, and 18 based on the 10th Amendment. Liberals and most Republicans choose to ignore the 10th Amendment. Ron Paul doesn't. Again, Ron paul wouldn't prevent states from developing their own health care plans, educational systems, etc.. Just because the 10th Amendment forbids such things on the federal level doesn't mean they can't function at the state level and states can honor each others laws as they often do with driver's licenses, marriages, etc..

Tom said...

The author of this article needs to take a good american history class. jeeesh. Starting from 1913-2012.

Tom said...

By the way everybody, take a look at whats been happening with Icelands economy. The governments solution wholeheartedly inspired by austrian economics, following their rules closely, and letting the market stabilize itself, which has never by the way been the suggested remedy to economic problems in government. The remedy suggested has always been to get more funds basically start more programs, growth.
But what is happening in Iceland is pretty amazing with all its renewable resources and new very well operating free market! This needs to get some light because what Iceland did is exactly what RP is suggesting and we are seeing it work wonderfully there, and it makes common sense, and dismantles so much corruption in the government.

By the way these statements make me want to vote for RP more! People need to get informed about the FED, bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, & the Trilateral Commission, and the more than criminal act of extracting trillions of dollars from the US economy. Has the Federal reserve ever made sense? The largest govt in the world borrowing money from a private company acting as a federal organization, and having to pay back that money they borrow at a higher rate, perpetual debt much? Why is that not alarming to anyone? Everybody seems to agree that money is power and is the ultimate tool for control, but so many are unable to do any real critical thinking and connect the fucking dots.

Anonymous said...

This article actually makes me want to vote for ron paul

Anonymous said...

i like the mostly random underlining of words. well done.

Anonymous said...

Ron Paul thinks most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional because well...most of what the federal government does IS unconstitutional!!!

Just because the federal government does it and gets away with it, doesn't mean it's constitutional, don't be stupid enough to make that assumption. (although by writing this article under the clear blinders of the status quo being awesome in our country's interests, you're probably quite stupid in fact).

Also, stop being a stupid liberal douche bag and maybe actually read the constitution, paying special attention to the Tenth Amendment. If you have a problem with that, then it's safe to say you aren't a liberal, you're just un-American and should probably seek citizenship in a country that upholds your shabby socialist ideals.

That is all.

Anonymous said...

You suck penis! Haha

Anonymous said...

Since when is voting to build a fence at the Mexico border a BAD thing? Keep them out!

Anonymous said...

Everyone's greatest hero is Martin Luther King, moron...that's not saying much.

Anonymous said...

Since the inception of hte dpartment of education our education has plummeted. Anyone for public healthcare is a socialist and not a believer in freedom. Freedom means freedom to choose, not let the governemtn choose for me. The same goes for education.
Seems homophobic. hahaha laughable, he's the only republican that opposes a gay marriage ban, he actually says to keep the state out of marriage perioed. I could tear this whole list a new asshole just from facts I know off hte top of my head. You should do more homework before you go writing a bullshit article.

Anonymous said...

Wow I actually think I like Ron Paul now after reading this! I hate niggers, I hate homosexuals, I hate pro evolutionist, I hate pretty much all of you fucking faggots on this website.

Thanks for the info scrub

Jake said...

I would take these past four years with Obama over four years of getting paid $0.01 a week at a job where you are constantly at risk of injury.

It seems to me a lot of internet-goers have willingly blinded themselves on these issues.

I mean, "Biased bullshit"? "the most ignorant person ever"? You are grasping at straws, people.

Anonymous said...

I discovered the link for this site/post in the Ron Paul site. It was posted Jan 23, 2012, and is still there today.
HMMM, I wonder if the other candidates will leave it there this long.
Either his people are sleeping on the job. Or, he truly believes in free speech.

Anonymous said...

The writer of this blog is aware that most of the sheeple will not research the points made. For those that do, isn't it funny that everything Ron Paul says makes sense, especially when looking at what the Constitution says. I may not agree with some, if not many of Ron Paul's personal beliefs, but his consistency, integrity and knowledge of the Constitution is an inspiration. He has been trying to wake up America for over 30 years. If we do not listen now, we are in deep trouble. This comes from a very liberal person, though I've never voted by party as I'm a thinking voter. That being said, I am more worried about what will happen if Ron Paul is not elected, than the long road of change that will happen if he is. Rex 84, Patriot Act and the NDAA should scare the shit out of everyone. The conspiracy theorists may be right about so many things that have been happening since the creation of the Federal Reserve and the CORPORATE OLIGARCHY that we are now in. Educate yourself and spread the word.

Ken McLeod said...

The writer is a goddamn idiot. Read a book before posting obviously false Obama backed rhetoric next time maybe?

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ron Paul on pretty much all the things you listed in this article, except that he isn't racist. He is the only one that gets it. RON PAUL 2012!!!

C. Unthater said...

Since you've failed to your article has cite the ALTERNATIVES that Ron Paul believes in to replace the various points you've brought up and since you've also reduced yourself to the kind of ramblings associated with those who don't yet have the words to express what is truly on their minds, I cant help but follow suit and say - Liberty means the same to everyone, ie. what you may find abhorrent, someone else may find otherwise, and visa versa. You can disagree, and disagreement isn't disastrous. You cunt :)

Anonymous said...

HOLY CRAP: Paulbots= If you don't like Ron Paul, you're wrong! Plus, you're against freedom and liberty!

Anonymous said...

A vote for big government is basically a vote that says 'I don't really care to partake in government, let someone else handle it, and hope they make the best choices for me'

That's the problem with liberals. You don't think anyone can be generous or charitable without the government telling them to be. The majority of the points you listed are PROS if you can imagine a world where you don't want a government telling you what to do at gunpoint.

All people should be, and are very capable of being, responsible for themselves. A libertarian paradigm is about small government because small government is manageable. Big government is oppressive, no matter how you slice it.

But don't take my word for it... See what happens when we continue to let the federal government gain more and more power while you nap, and pay taxes, and hope for the best.

Anonymous said...

Here we go let me see if my responses to all 20 statements work. Personally I think anyone who votes for someone on T.V. or from the republican party or democratic is a F*cking retard cuz ur only asking for another 4 years of the same thing.

1. The repeal.It makes sense because it does restrict freedoms. Seriously if your black why would you want to go into a place where whites dont want ya anyways, and the ACT has led to Hate crimes which is a hypocrisy cuz if u comit a crime against someone you obviously hate me.

2. Disabilities ACT, Seem you gave no examples for this other than Ron Paul said that, alot of people says sh**. And people still discriminate with it as a law so its pointless.

3. Health care must be univeral, to disagree means your evil because youn care for no life but your own, and a country is like a team, everyone must play ball or you will fail.

4. Education, I can fix that right now. There should be no failing system in education. Everyone must be educated no matter what. If they dont attend then that is their problem. The education system is a total failure here so anything to change that would be good. ASK NORWAY THEY GOT IT RIGHT!

5. Global warming, easy. We need to find a solution to obsolete oil and sun is the greatest source of energy, it would be better to find a way to harness that energy.

6. Evolution, uuuhhhh DUUUUHHHHH it is only a theory because no one here can tell us exact facts, of how we got herem its only based off study and theories!!! Its a long process that will change just like people didnt know if the world was flat, round, the center of the universe, it will take a long time to progress at figureing out.

7. Federal safty. I dont know about you but the feds sure dont make me feel safe, and to have places like Mcdonalds selling people food that will kill them isnt either, so that needs change and prescription drugs that kill more people than weed has since the dawn of man. The legal matters need to be switched there.

8.Abortion, it is murder. What other deffention do you need me to explain when it comes to taking life. So should it be legal to kill people then since that is a matter of choice too??

9. Foriegn aid. Getting rid of that will give the American people so much more money to better their lives. All these countries hate us so why bother giving them anything, Pakistan even refused it when they were getting mad at America. Stop giving away our money and give us the cure for cancer we can then give that to to other countries.

10.united nations is a one world government...I mean come on,what else would it be there for??/ duh!! We the people want to keep our freedom and not elect some weird emperor.

11. Minimum wage. This is one that I agree that needs to go up and not down. I think a salary cap should be in place because people dont need billions while some live off tens of dollars, greed this is.

Anonymous said...

Yup. Just close your eyes and picture all those manufacturers in jail for making unsafe products. It is in their sacrifice that we say, "any company that sells 10,000 cars that kill 5,000 people will fail, because nobody will buy a car that killed 5,000 people, DUH."

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 674   Newer› Newest» «Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 674 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment