Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Ron Paul also doesn't know what Constitutional means.

He thinks it means, 'I agree with.'

Like when he said in 1999 that giving Rosa Parks a congressional gold medal was 'unconstitutional'.

He was the only congressman who did so. I dunno, I think he's the worst possible candidate and a paleoconservative.

 

Paul was correct, there is no authority contained in the Constitution that I can find. He was not against giving Rosa Parks the medal, and thought that each member of Congress should chip in and pay for it rather than bill it to the taxpayers.
He also voted no for spending taxpayers money on the medal for Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa, and Ronald Reagan. His vote was against Congress spending taxpayers money, not giving the medal which he thought should be paid for by the members of Congress, who were unwilling since they could pass the bill on to the taxpayers.

 

Should we ignore the lone congressmens who voted against giving a medal to Rosa Parks history of racism then?

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...onally-defended-racist-newsletters/?mobile=nc

And even that's not as bad as his policies. Paul fans are ravenously uneducated and brainwashed parrots. He is not a libertarian, he's a libertarian leaning paleoconservative.

 

no one 2012

 

most def

 

You need to understand why the establishment media is against him if you did you would not be saying what you are saying. I guess most people just let the media tell them what to think though because most of the people who say negative things about him are just parroting wwhat the media says about him. Sometimes I wonder if this place is really hip?

 

One of the founding principles of the hippie movement was the civil rights movement, something Paul is against.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

For example, your a woman right? Do you think women should be able to sue their employers if they're paid unequally for decades? It's basically a vagina tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilly_Ledbetter_Fair_Pay_Act_of_2009

Paul didn't.

Can you defend Pauls voting record? Every single time I've heard the guy talk he just shouts freedom a whole bunch of times, but his policies and voting record are awful.

 

i'm voting for roseanne!

 

Ok I agree his stance on the civil rights act is too extreem. But I do see where he's coming from. He's an all or nothing type of guy, and refuses to pick and choose when it comes to what he believes. I DO NOT respect his stance, but I do respect the face that he stands up for what he believes in, even when he knows he'll lose votes for it.

As far as the Lilly Ledbetter thing.....It seems youve misread that. From what I read, that was an issue of WHEN, not IF. It says it was about the statute of limitations, not the ability to sue.

 

So what your saying is that just because someone stands up for what they believe in, even though its clearly bad policy and not in the best interest of the public, this person deserves my vote. I am sorry but this is the problem, I do not want a all or nothing type guy as the president of America. Adding the scary environmental policies and throw in some racism Paul does not come off as presidential material.

 

If he gets rid of the foreign bank-owned federal reserve, I wouldn't complain.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/Billinfo/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House%20Joint%20Memorials/4010-Inflation%20by%20federal%20reserve.pdf

Well, who in their right mind would complain?

And the Fed can't account for fourteen trillion dollars. Of course, it went to bail out some banks.

 

I do concede that I represented it in an ambiguous way. The amendment to the law allows a person who was subject to discriminatory pay to sue based on when they're paid and not when they were hired.

The world isn't black and white though, I see that as a simplistic view which leads to extremism.

But okay, lets look at something philosophical.

America was leading the world in scientific advancements for a long time, and it could be very easily argued that this science, medical, and engineering investments pay dividends with a healthier, more educated, and affluent society.

Pauls political views would cut off all national funding for science and engineering, and he couldn't be more wrong.

 

More on that:

http://www.tax-freedom.com/ta24000.htm

 

In some ways Pauls right, the existence of a a fiat system able to create a money is a tax in that it can produce as much as it wants.

But it's much more versatile that the gold standard, which would not work today and favors gold producing countries back in the day.

It's defiantly not a single voting issue for me and I'll use one graph to show why it wouldn't work.

 

Of course I would. He is the best there is & he`s watch being president stands for. He goes by the constritution, not by opinion or beliefs. He`s righteous. I don`t care what anyone else has to say about him.

 

Here is a good example of when his paleoconservative philosophy is distinct from libertarianism.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/

And on his environmental record he would:

Lift roadblocks on coal power building
Allow unlimited drilling
Denies global warming
Eliminate the EPA


This last one is particularly crazy. Nobody has ever explained how this worked. He proposes suing a company directly.

Which makes sense if a company dumps nuclear waste on your lawn or something.

But the way most pollution actually affects people is in much larger ways, sulfur and carbon dioxide in the air making people sick for example, when all industrial activity leads to these air pollutants.

He truly believes there should be no environmental regulations at all.

 

Now why would anyone vote for a candidate that's been in the house since 1976 and authored one bill.

 

Is thaT right?? Thats almost 40 yrs. . . .I like some of his idea,s( even some of his wacky ones) but I would wonder about why only 1 bill in all this time? - -I gotta google it up- -and see what was the one bill he authored- -

 

FAIL !!

Paul served in the HR 76 - 77, 79 - 85, and 97 to present and has authored/sponsored "many" bills.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul

 

Ron Paul is the only candidate who would begin to return our Federal government to being based upon the Constitution, operating with the consent of the governed as opposed to lobbyists, and begin to get Federal spending under control.