|
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 11:30 PM by sakabatou
Their quotes in bold
To you people supporting Ron Paul:
*supports abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service, most Cabinet departments, and the Federal Reserve. That means that federal programs will not get money (this will mostly effect the poor and middle-class).
The IRS is a bullshit company. The way people are taxed is unconstitutional. The Federal Reserve is just as Federal as Federal Express... it is a PRIVATE bank. They have a monoply on our money system and is no longer backed by gold... They sell the US money with a huge interest rate that we could never pay back... even though the money is worthless because it is printed out of thin air. Because of the Federal Reserve, our money is worthless and the rest of the world knows it. That is why Canadas dollar is worth more and we are being charged damn near 100 dollars a barrel for oil.
*He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax (which is actually a power in the Constitution)
Show me.
*He would eliminate many federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education<67>, the U.S. Department of Energy, the US Department of Commerce<58>, the US Department of Health and Human Services<58>, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service (so that means that energy will be run by corporations, commerce will not be monitered and kept at a relatively low price. There will be little or no money for psychiatric services.
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion" from the jurisdiction of federal courts.<98> If made law, this provision would permit state, county, and local governments to decide whether to allow displays of religious text and imagery. Which might mean if you cross the border of the state, and you have or don't have the 10 Commandments you could be arrested.
No. What it means is that Each State will have the power to vote on what they decide is good for them. Just like it ought to be. Each state ought to have its own identity. If you didn't like the state you lived in, you could move and be "freer" to express yourself.
In June 2003, Paul voted against a Constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. So what about burning of old flags which is part of the flag code. It's also protected as part of the First Amendment. So Paul is against the First Amendment.
I assure you that he will allow respectable burning of the flag. Don't be an idiot and suggest that he is against the Constitution in any way. He is the only Real Constitutionalist.
Paul voted against Net Neutrality. Paul has been criticized for voting against legislation to help catch online child predators.
He doesn't want anyone to own the internet. Mainstream media is owned by the same people that hold stock in everything you see, from pharmesutical drugs, to fucking cheetos. If there is something going on in our government that is the slightest bit shady(North American Union, National IDact), I garentee that you are going to find it online and very rarely on any mainstream media station/newspaper. If people were really worried about online predators, they ought to pay more attention to what thier kids are doing online.
Paul believes that the State, not the individual would decide on abortions. He also believes that you don't have any privacy from the state in abortion procedures (this might pretain to ALL of your medical history). He introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality.
No, He believes that the individuals ought to vote in thier state, weather or not to legalize abortions (going back a few paragraphs: if the next state over o.k.'s it, go over there for the weekend) and as far as ANY marriage goes, he thinks that it should be a Church function and that it is none of the Government's business. (if you can find someone to marry you to someone of the same sex, go for it)
He believes in the Death Penalty which most European countries have banned stating that it is in humane.
The point is that most EUROPEAN countries have banned the death penalty. We aren't European and I would like to keep it that way.
He believes that same-sex couples cannot adopt a child. Also says that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is good (thought it's cost many soldiers, especially intelligence, their jobs).
I don't know much about his stance on same sex couples adopting... I will look it up... but on his stance on the dont ask dont tell policy:"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."
He has said you have no right to privacy in your sexual lives (ie. sodomy laws).
When did he say that? References?
Rejected universal health care.
Check out his health care plan: Q: What does your health care plan contain to address racial disparities in access to care? A: We've had managed care in this country since the early 1970s, and it hasn't worked well. It's very, very expensive, and it's the fault that we changed our ERISA law and our tax laws that created this corporatism that runs medicine. Wall Street rakes off the profits. The patients are unhappy. The doctors are unhappy. And it's a monopoly now. Who lobbies us in Washington? The drug companies and the HMOs. They come. And now what is the cry for? Socialized medicine. That's not the answer. We need to get the government out of the way. Inflation hits the middle class and the poor the most. Those are the people who are losing it. We don't have enough competition. There's a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people. They ought to be able to make their own choices and not controlled by the FDA preventing them to use some of the medications. Why he opposes socialized medicine: You don't have to throw anybody out in the street, but long term you have move toward the marketplace. You cannot expect socialized medicine of the Hillary brand to work. And you can't expect the managed care system that we have today promotes and rewards the corporations. It's the drug companies & the HMOs & even the AMA that lobbies us for this managed care, and that's why the prices are high. It's only in medicine that technology has raised prices rather than lowering prices.
He opposes government regulation of vitamins and minerals (so who'll protect us from the companies?)
Protect you from what?... Vitamin C..? which CURES the "disease" known as Scurvy...? Give me a fucking break. Do yourself a favor and look up how many people have died from FDA APPROVED DRUGS
He opposed Civil Rights Act of 1964 (so blacks and other racial minorities might not be able to vote...)
Paul's reasoning? He doesn't believe that the federal government should be involved in enforcing civil rights laws. In 2004, Rep. Paul was the only member of Congress to vote against commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (Quote: "Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.")
***
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
|