Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by dazedandconfused, Jan 8, 2012.
I have seen people throw this out there all the time but do not back it up. Please tell me how?
Most prominent example: If he had been in Congress he would've voted against the Civil Rights Act. Just take all of these bills he's voted against: Ron Paul's Remarkable No Votes: Holocaust Memorial Funding, Ethics Offices, Civil Rights Bills
Of course, there's his rhetoric as well on the Fed, foreign policy, Iran, etc. He's just very irresponsible.
He inspires people to start redundant threads.
Ron Paul: underestimated, overestimated, or both?
For other specifics, this page (cited in the thread cited above) contains the following handy index:
He's not kooky. He's a genius. The problems with some of his policies is that they would only work in a perfect, utopian society. That said, he is still my top choice of the 'Republicans'.
Social Security is unconstitutional. Before it went to the supreme court, FDR and his troupe used extra caution in their choice of thetoric because they knew it was unconstitutional. The FDR stacked supreme court ruled in favor of FDR and the majority opinion was basically just lifting the arguments verbatim given by the government. Now that we are in it, Paul just wants to allow younger people to opt out. His plan balances the budget in 3 years AND INCREASES social security and medicare.
We did just fine before the income tax. Now the government spends more money that it has.
The gold standard, again, forces us to spend money that we only have. There would be no boom and busts.
What is the federal governments business how and what I use to acquire what I want? If I want to use a cup of sugar to get a loaf of bread, that is between the traders and no ones business.
People feel we need regulations to stop businesses from doing caniving things. Well, if we lessen regulations and then BAIL OUT these companies for doing risky business, that weakens the incentive for businesses not do underhanded things. We should have let the banks fail. 2009 would have been hell, but our economy would be booming by now.
Favoring tort reform is a bad thing? Look at Texas since they passed a law saying "If you sue and lose, the court costs and lawyers costs are all yours." We have lawyers and judges sitting around twiddling there thumbs because people are not pressing baselaw lawsuits where companies are forced to settle because it is cheaper than trying to defend oneself in court.
Paul said himself he is in support with most of the civil rights laws. He is against the government telling people who and what do with their personal property.
Lets support acts even if we agree or are fine with 95% of it. But lets not care about a little thing passed about how an american citizen can be detained indefinetely and never charged.
Paul is against memorials because he feels the federal government should not pay for it but individuals who want to give to these things.
And in regards to marriage, the government as a whole should be out of it. It is not a federal issue, but there is nothing the federal government can do about what the state wants to do in that regard.
He is kooky because he is one of the most liberal independent candidates in a long fucking time yet he is running as a Republican.
I would vote for him if he wasn't running in the Republican party and would have to pander to the conservative base.
Pretty bad when people thinks his views are so far to the right he is liberal.
He is pretty much in line with barry goldwater and mr. republican himself, robert taft.
So, if you marry someone from another country, you're just out of luck? Without an interpretation at the federal level that a married couple is one entity, your spouse might not be able to come live with you. Maybe that's fine with Ron Paul, but it seems idiotic. Individual states have no say in immigration determination.
I assume you mean to the left, but yes it has gotten bad. Thank the neo-conservatives and the rise in popularity of people like Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and Rick Perry. The country has moved to the right so much so that someone like Ron Paul seems liberal.
And don't get me started on the Tea Party people...
Just consider the liberal equivalent of Rick Santorum.
A lesbian 1/2 black 1/2 Latina who supports abortion and universal healthcare.
Santorum is being considered for President. His liberal equivalent might be considered for a Senator's aide. But only because anti-discrimination laws that liberals were able to get passed.
Those votes don't mean he is against those issues.
The Civil Rights act for example, never changed law or how it is interpreted. All it did was spell out the Constitution in very specific terms so no one could deny rights to people while waiting for a Supreme Court decision on every little issue.
The rest he just thinks the Federal Government has no business in regulating.
I'm not defending the man, but the analysis of the ideas and intent behind them is bigger than what they appear to be at face value.
People just have a hard time with the idea that someone could support an idea, but believe it isn't their place to do anything about it.
In regards to the deficit, by raising it, we are just spending more money we do not have. Lets default and just start over. By raising the debt limit, we just continue to spend money on things we dont need.
There are people popping out more babies just because they get more money from the government. It is a sad thing to say, but quit handing them more money and maybe they will stop having kids...
Wrong. There were two cases that established the constitutionality of Social Security. Three of the justices who voted in favor were nominated by Hoover, one by Coolidge, and one by Wilson. Not one member who weighed in on the issue was an FDR appointee. And only two were Democrats at all (both appointed by Wilson).
Ah......Ronnie Reagan's infamous "welfare queens" rear their ugly heads again.
And with that you prove you are just as 'loony and kooky' as Ron Paul. Your screen name is just a little too close to the mark if not spot on.
You have a better idea? We cannot afford what we have now.
There was a news report out of washington on a woman where reporters went to a hotel and was doing a story on her and more than 10 children how they needed money and needed help. She just grabbed the camera and screamed how she needed more DESERVED more money per child from the government.
Yeah, those "welfare queens"
Links or it didn't happen.
Have any idea how much more it will cost to incarcerate those ten kids and their mom when they start home invasion robberies and passing bad checks to eat?
it costs many, many times the amount to jail a criminal than to teach a child how not to be a violent thug.
Nurse Crashit just came through looking for Ron ......draw your own conclusions.
It costs less than a dollar for a bullet.