Do You Really Support This Man?

[NeoRicen]

Do you really support this man??
​

Now, many of you may say yes, but I'm going to present a case that no, you really don't. I also apologize for another Ron Paul thread but I think this really needed it's own thread.

The reason I think you really don't support him is because so much of his positions aren't discussed. Most of the support he gets is from people who agree with him on the following issues:

• The War in Iraq
• The War on Drugs
• Taxes

Those are legitimate things to support him for because they are actually his positions. However as we go forward you need to consider the following:

• All the Democrats, at the current time, oppose the War in Iraq. While Paul is unique among Republicans in his opposition to the war, in the whole race he is not.
• Paul is most unique in his opposition to the War on Drugs, however he still not unique enough to be the only one with this position, both Kucinich and Gravel (Democrats) share this position.
• The entire Republican Party runs on an anti-tax platform, Ron Paul is not unique here either.

Now, I am not going to try and explain why Ron Paul doesn't hold Liberal positions and his new supporters are actually Liberals. I will accept the fact that Ron Paul's new supporters are probably Libertarians. What I will claim is that Ron Paul is NOT a Libertarian, and does not hold Libertarian positions. I will also try and present a side of Ron Paul that no sane human being, regardless of their political affiliation (except hardcore social conservatives, who I don't include as being sane), would support, and seeing as this is a forum primarily for skeptics, I will try and show that Ron Paul is not the candidate for skeptics.

So, is Ron Paul a Libertarian? if I use the following phrase from the Wikipedia page for Libertarianism, then my answer is NO.

The central tenet of libertarianism is the principle of liberty, namely individual liberty. To libertarians, an individual human being is sovereign over his/her body, extending to life, liberty and property

Homosexuality

First of all, Ron Paul really doesn't like gays:

And my subcommittee oversees, I say to my friend, the U.N., and nobody criticizes them more than I do. They have had recent conferences like the recent conference in Cairo and Beijing where some very egregious policies were being promoted and foisted on the developing world. These are consensus-breakers. The gay agenda, the abortion rights agenda, the developing world does not want it.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec97/cr060497-undebate.htm

Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm

How dare the Clinton Administration talk about sexual
deviance! It's officials could have had their own float in the
Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parade

So being Gay means sexual deviance does it?
http://groups.google.com/group/info.firearms.politics/msg/33f84434fbae4aa7?hl=en&



Abortion

And on Abortion? He'll leave it to the states to decide will he? A real Libertarian position? WRONG. He constantly votes to outlaw various forms of abortions even though it's not leaving it up to the states:

• http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3531&can_id=296 Vote: N
• http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3326&can_id=296 Vote: Y
• http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2333&can_id=296 Vote: Y

He even wants to make it harder in other countries, voting Yes on this bill:

• http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V1426&can_id=296

So much for 'Leaving it up to the states'. He's perfectly happy to go against his Libertarian principles when it conflicts with his own moral/religious beliefs.



Animal Rights

He also hates Horses, voting No on this bill:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3899&can_id=296



Separation of Church and State

Separation of Church and State? Forget about it. He obviously doesn't think we have a right to not have Religion forced down our throats. hardly Libertarian don't you think?

He voted Yes to pass a bill that:

...prohibits monetary awards and bans attorneys' fees in all civil action cases against any federal, state or local officials, due to an alleged violation of the “establishment of religion.”

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3907&can_id=296

He also voted against a bill to:

...clarify that neither the U. S. nor the individual states can establish an official religion and that the people's right to pray or recognize their religious beliefs on public property shall not be infringed.

The bill included the following:

- Bars the U.S. and the individual states from establishing an official religion

- Prohibits mandatory participation in prayer

- Requires equal recognition of all religious practices

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V1716&can_id=296

He also voted against a bill which included:

- Stipulates the duties of the Department, including advising the President and Secretary of State on the status of religious freedom abroad and the creation of an annual report to Congress on governments promoting or tolerating religious persecution

- Instructs the President to impose sanctions against countries listed in the annual report as grievous offenders of religious freedom

- Imposes multilateral sanctions upon Sudan in response to religious persecution

- Bans sales of crime control, detection, torture, and electroshock instruments and equipment to countries known for using them to conduct religious persecution

- Gives victims of religious persecution easier access to the United States as refugees and denies visas to violators of religious freedom

- Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to encourage spending on programs promoting the right to free religious belief and practice

Pay attention now, he voted against that stuff.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V1711&can_id=296

And he voted against a bill that:

...limits the government's ability to intrude into the religious practices of Americans.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2381&can_id=296

Twice he has voted to allow public places have the Ten Commandments on display also:

• http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V1170&can_id=296
• http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2287&can_id=296

Also note these statements that Ron Paul made in a 2003 article:

The Christmas spirit, marked by a wonderful feeling of goodwill among men, is in danger of being lost in the ongoing war against religion.

Bill O'Reilly? No, Ron Paul.

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.

The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

Bold = WRONG.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

Immigration

Ron also hates illegal immigrants.

He has voted for a bill that:

-Would prohibit Federal reimbursement of funds to hospitals that provide emergency services to undocumented immigrants unless the hospital provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with citizenship and employment records.

-Would make employers of some undocumented immigrants financially responsible for the medical treatment of these immigrants.

-Allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to remove undocumented immigrants under Federal immigration law.

He basically wants hospitals to rat out sick immigrants.
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3446&can_id=296



Ron Paul, Racist

Then there's the racism.

He's written many articles on the website if David Duke, radical white supremecist and former head of the Ku Klux Klan.

• http://www.davidduke.com/general/time-for-immigration-enforcement-now-says-ron-paul_1055.html
• http://www.davidduke.com/general/should-citizenship-be-an-entitled-birthright_1179.html
• http://www.davidduke.com/general/ro...f-of-tonkin-type-incident-may-occur_1693.html

Regardless of how relevant those articles are to David Duke or racism, the simple fact that he so strongly associates himself with the man by writing for his site is damning enough.

Let's not forget these statements from his newsletter that everyone's so familiar with by now.

our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin.

only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions...I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Sure he claims it was a ghost writer (notice he hasn't denied that it was his newsletter or that it existed), but how could a man be so careless as to allow this to be published under his name unless he actually supported this. if it really is just neglect, can you imagine how pathetically he'd run his administration if he can't stop a small newsletter from publishing such blatantly racist remarks.

Conclusion

That's FAR from everything, but it's enough for now I think. It shouldn't require any more to see what this man really represents.

Now, people here like Oliver and Matteo Martini, take a good look at this. Is this the man you REALLY support?

Do you support all these positions?

Are YOU racists? Do YOU hate gays? Do YOU hate women? Do YOU hate immigrants? Do you hate separation of church and state? Are you willing to sacrifice these issues just so you can get out of Iraq?

 

[New Ager]

(Neo)

Ron also hates immigrants.

He has voted for a bill that:

-Would prohibit Federal reimbursement of funds to hospitals that provide emergency services to undocumented immigrants unless the hospital provides the Secretary of Homeland Security with citizenship and employment records.

-Would make employers of some undocumented immigrants financially responsible for the medical treatment of these immigrants.

-Allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to remove undocumented immigrants under Federal immigration law.

(New Ager)

You claim he hates immigrants and those were bills about illegal aliens.

You should try writing for the leftwing kook websites. It seems you are qualified with your insane conclusions.

 

[Puppycow]

It's true that "immigrant" is not a synonym for "illegal alien."

Still, I voted "My opinion has not changed and I previously thought poorly of him." He's much too comfortable with David Duke and his ilk for my taste.

 

[NeoRicen]

Well that's my mistake, I meant to say Illegal immigrant. I'll edit.

 

[timhau]

I voted "My opinion has not changed and I previously thought poorly of him", so as not to give out the NWO plan to discredit Mr. Paul.

 

[Suddenly]

The David Duke stuff strikes me as a bit unfair.

One other thing is his forward for Michael Badnarik's book calling it "a detailed explaination of the true meaning of major constitutional provisions and amendments" and also writing that "Michael Badnarik has created a constitutional primer that will edify and entertain schoolchildren..."

As reflected here this book is full of militia style conspiracy theory jibberish.

a sample, from Chapter 20:

He also claims that the part of the Constitution that forbids titles of nobility also really forbids lawyers from holding public office. He ellipses the heck out of the text to make his point. Here is the full text with Badnarik’s edit in bold.

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State.

In his words from the text: “no person holding any office of... trust... shall... accept... any... Title, of any kind whatsoever...”

It is hard to argue with the power of the ellipse.

 

[Elizabeth I]

No "Planet X" option? How low we have fallen!

 

[Matteo Martini]

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c4/RonPaul.jpg/160px-RonPaul.jpg[/qimg]
Do you really support this man??
​

[..]

When I find another candidate, which is in favour of stopping the Iraq war immediately, stop messing with other governments, and close all the US bases abroad, I will drop RP and support the other one

P.S.
You have been using my avatar

 

[NeoRicen]

When I find another candidate, which is in favour of stopping the Iraq war immediately, stop messing with other governments, and close all the US bases abroad, I will drop RP and support the other one

P.S.
You have been using my avatar

So none of that stuff really bothers you? Really?

 

[leftysergeant]

The David Duke stuff strikes me as a bit unfair.

Not a bit of it. That he does not condemn Duke as a domestic terrorist indicates to me that he is useless against what actual terrorist threat does (and for decades did) exist inthis country. He is not likely to keep a watch on the KKK or the whackadoodle militias.

And that "constitutional" provision that Paul and Badnarak were banging on about does not exist. There are just a lot of nutters out ine countryside who think that one of the ammendments to the Bill of Rights was illegally left out of the constitution.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

When I find another candidate, which is in favour of stopping the Iraq war immediately, stop messing with other governments, and close all the US bases abroad, I will drop RP and support the other one

Here you go.

 

[Suddenly]

Not a bit of it. That he does not condemn Duke as a domestic terrorist indicates to me that he is useless against what actual terrorist threat does (and for decades did) exist inthis country. He is not likely to keep a watch on the KKK or the whackadoodle militias.

"...the simple fact that he so strongly associates himself with the man by writing for his site is damning enough." is unfair. He isn't, as anyone who wants to click a link or two can figure out. Duke is linking to Paul articles at lewrockwell.com, a site full of general libertarianism.

A claim that Paul "wrote" for Duke's website appears completely false. The truth about Paul is bad enough.

That Paul would turn a blind eye to racial problems is a given seeing his position appears to be that government should completely ignore questions of race. This is a different issue, however.

And that "constitutional" provision that Paul and Badnarak were banging on about does not exist. There are just a lot of nutters out ine countryside who think that one of the ammendments to the Bill of Rights was illegally left out of the constitution.

This is incorrect.

Article I section nine, in part: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."


The other provision (the hidden 13th amendment that was never ratified) says: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

 

[rtalman]

This is incorrect.

Article I section nine, in part: "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."

Bah, non-issue. As of 1966, Congress gave it's pre-approval for all of the above with the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act.

The Congress consents to the accepting, retaining, and wearing by an employee of a decoration tendered in recognition of active field service in time of combat operations or awarded for other outstanding or unusually meritorious performance, subject to the approval of the employing agency of such employee.

The Act defines "decoration" as an order, device, emblem, or award, and the DoJ ruled that those include knighthoods and other titles of nobility. That's why Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, and Alan Greenspan (among many others) were allowed to accept knighthoods while still in their positions.

 

[Suddenly]

Bah, non-issue. As of 1966, Congress gave it's pre-approval for all of the above with the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act.

That Ron Paul has endorsed Badnarik's reasoning as to the meaning of this provision isn't a non-issue. It gives some insight as to the true meaning of Ron Paul being big on the constitution.

Provisions mean what he believes them to mean, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Matteo Martini]

So none of that stuff really bothers you? Really?

It bothers me.
600000 Iraqis dead bother me more

Here you go.

Never heard

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Never heard

Pretty much sums it all up right there.