yes rat i know.. you know i was a constitutionalist before it was cool.. i understand the concept an the man has my vote. i do also know the entitlement mentality of this nation an some cant grasp the concept of letting the states decide such issues. then if you dont like the politics of the state your in,move to one that suits you better.. pretty cut an dry to me,,but you know how sheeple are..
It is apparent that the sheeple are so conditioned to accept the gigantic and intrusive role that the federal government has come to play in the average Americans life, that the idea of states rights so strongly supported by the founding fathers is almost incomprehensible to them. It's amazing to me that people have such knee jerk reactions to the disinfo being spread about Dr. Ron Paul...He is head and shoulders above any of the other candidates on either side, and if individuals would do their research (what a RADICAL idea!), they would find that he is the only choice in this race. There's another post on here about the campaign contributions from the 'white supremacist' that is so worthless that it's not even worth engaging someone who doesn't even think logically...
2 out of 4 of the "cons" that you listed are false, as pressed rat mentioned. If he was against abortion, he would try to get rid of it...right? But he's not at all. He wants to leave it up to each of the 50 states to make their own decision, as it should be.
Well is anyone going to post sources to back up what the initial post claimed about him being anti-stem cell research, anti-abortion or not? As said, i'm not American, I want to see if all these accusations and criticism about him on the net are true or not... I'm now getting the impression they probably aren't...
Hey Polish you and your friends worried he might get elected? Sounds like it, why not bring up flag burning too, that will get the rednecks riled up.
YES, this does not need much debate... even a quick overview of the very basis of each pres. campaign reveals this.... The issues are not important if the president can concede that his views are not neccssarily the views of the majority - Ron Paul does this eloquently, so that he allows and may concede to other opinions, but his remains a strong point. That, my friends, is TRUE political correctness... thats the RIGHT way to look at politics and the only man I can recall in my lifetime to put things that way. "then if you dont like the politics of the state your in,move to one that suits you better.." It would stand to reason, instead of putting the entire country under one system regardless of the wildly varying needs and desires of each state.... for example.. marijuana would likely be legal in california, at minimum for medicinal purposes... but this is not allowed on a federal level - WHY is it not allowed? Has anyone asked that question, instead of assuming thats just "how it is"? WHY does the federal government step on the toes of the states beyond keeping the peace? What was its intended role? I can assure the federal government was not designed to "rule" the country, it was designed to hold the states together.... as is the UNITED STATES of america... not just "america" as we have come to say it in recent years.
The man speaks democratic truth, you can't derail that message... anyone that looks beyond what they are fed can see the man for the visionary that he is. This is what gives ron paul, an otherwise "waste of a vote" so much possibility... he actually CAN run the country as it should be run, he CAN fill the position of president as we all demand. The view that "politics are naturally corrupt" is insanity, and that truth is coming to light.
Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. And that is a good thing. Regardless of Pressed Rat's typical insult-laced tripe, Ron Paul is a Reaganite. And everyone knows what that means -- war or no war -- you all know. It's called "DOG-EAT-DOG" individualism so much so that all you "individuals" FORGET that this is a goddamned planet FULL of other "individuals" and we have to help each other out, because we are all we've got. Human beings are SOCIAL CREATURES and we need each other, not just walling ourselves up in some bunker and pretending that our "individual rights" come before the WELFARE OF OTHERS and THE WELFARE OF OUR PLANET! We need to get over our self-centered "individual" bullshit, and GET REAL in the REAL world with OTHER PEOPLE. Love it OR Lose it, fookahs!
Not a chance he can win? Have you looked at the results of the straw polls? Oh, and if he doesn't have a chance to win -- then how in the heck could he raise 6 million dollars in ONE DAY?
Dog eat dog, or man fight dog against dog, someday the dogs will turn. I agree we do need to get over our self-centered bullshit, but we have to look past marketing and look at what actually benefits the other individual, and Wall Street and all the other markets have nothing to do with that. And the Global Marketing plan has little to do with what is right for the little man. Markets be pissed! Humanity is what will win in the end, and probably only when the rich bitches/bastards have been ruled out by mother nature...you can't fool her, you know. We are feeding our kids lead and asbestos right now and we are sitting back letting corporations tell us what to buy...sorry, but I hope my progengy don't rely on that. Global warming shit by the time they get done with us, there will only be a handful of hand picked rich folks deciding what the rest of us are exposed to or consume.
I donated some $ to him... I don't donate, ever, its against my beliefs... but I saw that donation as buying my way into a better country If he can grab the donation of a person like me, he can grab the votes of anyone that actually reads and thinks about what he stands for.
So you're saying you're against A woman's right to chose Possible cures for cancer Freedom of speech Healthcare for all Wow. Nice.
Agreed. He's manipulating the voters by trying to please everyone and call himself a Libertarian. A real Libertarian wouldn't try to control a woman's body.
He is opposed to Roe v. Wade because it overrides state laws. That doesn't mean he wants to outlaw abortion or create a federal law which outlaws it, rather simply return it to the constitutional standard by having the individual states decide. Your argument about him wanting to control a woman's body is null and void. As far as him being against net neutrality, he is because he sees it as nothing but price controls. To pass a bill that enforces net neutrality is simply more federal bureacracy that will actually lead to the opposite if what it proposes. So net neutrality IS a form of regulation. However, Ron Paul has made it explicitly clear that he is against regulating the internet, and why would he when almost all his support is on the internet? Ron Paul is against socialized medicine, which is a good thing, because some people don't want the government involved in their medicial decisions. It restricts choice and the quality of care. It seeks to eliminate access to ALTERNATIVE medicines and treatments by mandating big-pharma as the only way to go. The problem with healthcare today is the fact that there is too much bureacracy involved. A socialized health care system would only make it that much worse by adding even more bureaucracy.
