10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul

[Ebowed]

10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul

   1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens.

   2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents.

   3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.”

   4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.. He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens.

   5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”.

   6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”

Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes.

   7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

   8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47’s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy.

   9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!

Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?

   10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “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.”1 Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.

http://wwjv4.com/republicans/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-ron-paul-159

[MODU]

While I wouldn't vote for Paul to begin with, not all of the reasons listed above are bad:

1 - Affirmative Action has long since outlived its designed purpose and causes a problem by stoking racial tension when qualified people are passed over because of a numerical quota. 

2 - 100% open abortions and 100% anti-abortions are idealistic and will fail.  The best case scenario would be to allow abortions up through the 1st trimester, and then afterwards only in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the mothers life.  This position is more accepted by the majority than either of the two extremes.  And in order to do that, rulings such as Roe-v-Wade would need to be overturned.

3 - We're stuck with the minimum wage, for better or worse.  What should be done is the Federal rate be kept as low as possible and allow the states to set their own at any level equal to or above the federal.  The government cannot understand the local dynamics like the state can, and as such, the state deserves to have as much freedom to raise/lower their rates to compensate for the local economic variables.

4 - There is much improvement that can be made to the tax code, including the removal of numerous deductions that unfairly benefit one group over another.

5 - It is a travesty that our nation doesn't have enough refining capability, and of the capacity that we do have, we fail to reach peak efficiency due to regulations that tie our hands (again, to quotas) in how much product/grade we can refine.  Also, there is no reason why some of the offshore and Arctic regions cannot be tapped for domestic production (and not be sold overseas).

6 - Yeah, I agree with the overall generalization there.  Paul does make some points when it comes to international relations, but overall it's too idealistic.

7 - This isn't going to be resolved for decades by either side.

8 - "Unnatural obsession?"  Is there a natural one?

9 - There are examples out there of private education outperforming public education.  And if they can do it at a cheaper cost, then why not let them?  Where does it say the federal government HAS to run the education system?  Push it down to the state level, and let them handle privatization and/or coops.

10 - Considering that the only thing in the Constitution regarding religion is that the government isn't allowed to establish a natural religion and the individuals are free to practice whatever religion they choose, Paul is right.  And since prayers are held in Congress before session, the notion that religion itself has to be cut out of government (and as some wish, society) is someones misrepresentation of the law. 

[Ebowed]

7 - This isn't going to be resolved for decades by either side.

Twenty years and the left wins.

[MODU]

7 - This isn't going to be resolved for decades by either side.

Twenty years and the left wins.

Well, you could go with "Ok, if being gay actually is genetic and not a choice, they won't be able to reproduce and therefore there won't be many left in 20 years."  hahaha

[Ebowed]

7 - This isn't going to be resolved for decades by either side.

Twenty years and the left wins.

Well, you could go with "Ok, if being gay actually is genetic and not a choice, they won't be able to reproduce and therefore there won't be many left in 20 years."  hahaha

Of course, I am referring to the fact that same-sex marriage will be legalized and it will cease to be an issue except in backwaters like Alabama.

Senators who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 will be viewed in a similar light to the Dixiecrat delegation which filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

[AndrewTX]

10. He's Crazy
9. He's Crazy
8. He's Crazy
7. He's Crazy
6. He's Crazy
5. His supporters are crazy
4. He's Crazy
3. He's Crazy
2. Contrary to popular belief, Ron Paul can NOT win the internetz
1. DTWL likes him.

[MODU]

7 - This isn't going to be resolved for decades by either side.

Twenty years and the left wins.

Well, you could go with "Ok, if being gay actually is genetic and not a choice, they won't be able to reproduce and therefore there won't be many left in 20 years."  hahaha

Of course, I am referring to the fact that same-sex marriage will be legalized and it will cease to be an issue except in backwaters like Alabama.

Senators who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 will be viewed in a similar light to the Dixiecrat delegation which filibustered the Civil Rights Act.

That will only happen if there is a sudden shift in society where there is a massive population explosion of gay people, and then it would take a few decades to work through all the court cases over not only their legal status but the definition of marriage itself. 

[WalterMitty]

excellent reasons.

i bet fdr is rolling over in his grave because so many in his party think that some  crackpot libertarian is cool.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul

   1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens.

Um, Affirmative Action is discriminatory against worthy white males.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good for him!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Where in the constitution does the gov't have any control of a Social Security like program.  It should be privatized.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd rather have higher sales tax - that way at least the illegals would have to pay taxes too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree with him here.  I'm environmentally moderately liberal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The UN is worthless - we do most of the work there with a lot less representation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So if we get into a war with China, and we've destroyed all our missile silos, how are we supposed to fight?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Discriminates!!!  Marriage is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT!

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree w/ him here - but guns ARE a good thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Disagree w/ him here too.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The reason is probably that he follows the constitution - and most people fail to see that Sep. of Church and State is nowhere in the constitution.  The Constitution is the top governing document - so I don't care where else Sep of church and state is.  If it's not in the constitution (or legislation created through powers of the constitution), it doesn't exist in a legally binding matter.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm not going to bother with arguing the politics involved here, but reason #6 includes one very glaring factual error which I've italicized below.

   6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”

Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes.

A president's signature on a treaty does not make it applicable to the United States.  It requires the approval of that treaty by the Senate, which has not happened, and will not happen unless the Democrats somehow get a two-thirds majority in the Senate.  That will not happen anytime soon.  Even if the Democrats by some miracle get every single Senate seat in 2008 that isn't 100% safe for the GOP, they still won't be able to ram the Rome Statute through, and while I expect the Dems will likely make gains in the Senate in 2008, they won't be anywhere near that dramatic.

[Dr. Cynic]

excellent reasons.

i bet fdr is rolling over in his grave because so many in his party think that some  crackpot libertarian is cool.

I'm inclined to agree. I think Paul is just too looney toony for me, and how in the blue hell can people take him seriously?

[StateBoiler]

excellent reasons.

i bet fdr is rolling over in his grave because so many in his party think that some  crackpot libertarian is cool.

You could generate quite a number of kilowatts in power from all the rolling over FDR has done in his grave due to members of his own party.

Lets see: McCarthy, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry...

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

excellent reasons.

i bet fdr is rolling over in his grave because so many in his party think that some  crackpot libertarian is cool.

You could generate quite a number of kilowatts in power from all the rolling over FDR has done in his grave due to members of his own party.

Lets see: McCarthy, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry...

McCarthy was a Republican most of the time.

[StateBoiler]

excellent reasons.

i bet fdr is rolling over in his grave because so many in his party think that some  crackpot libertarian is cool.

You could generate quite a number of kilowatts in power from all the rolling over FDR has done in his grave due to members of his own party.

Lets see: McCarthy, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry...

McCarthy was a Republican most of the time.

Eugene, not Joe.

[Gustaf]

Doesn't this belong more to political debate or something like that? The post really only says "Ron Paul is a paleo-conservative and I'm not". It doesn't really say much about the 2008 presidential election (where Ron Paul will furthermore not play much part).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Stupid list. Sure it's accurate but it's all superseded by the one reason not to vote for Ron Paul:

1-You'll have as much chance influencing who's nominated in the 2008 elections by writing-in Donald Duck.

Of course if it wasn't for that I'd argue the one reason to vote FOR Ron Paul, that'd he'd lock up a Democratic victory in 2008 if nominated, but that's not going to happen, so voting for him is a waste of time, yet also harmless.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

10. He's Crazy
9. He's Crazy
8. He's Crazy
7. He's Crazy
6. He's Crazy
5. His supporters are crazy
4. He's Crazy
3. He's Crazy
2. Contrary to popular belief, Ron Paul can NOT win the internetz
1. DTWL likes him.

[Ebowed]

Ah yes, the liberal fallacy that the more time passes, the more "open-minded" people get.  Of course, you probably think in another forty years, pedophilia and bestiality will be commonplace, and those who look down on it in the present will be considered barbaric.

The fact that you have to resort to this reasoning just proves how morally bankrupt you are.

I don't advocate pedophilia or bestality, nor does anyone else.  Do you honestly think that the 50%+ of Americans who support civil unions are okay with those things?

There is one important different between the civil rights movement that the blacks had in the 60's and the queer movement going on today, and MODU brought this up.  While blacks are reproducing, gays are not.  They would rather spend their time flauting their aberrant sexuality and having orgies.

Nice generalization, but homosexuality has survived throughout human history, so it's a little silly to jump to the conclusion that the gay population will die out within the next century.  Do keep in mind that I, like any other reasonable person, accept the basic fact that two completely heterosexual parents can have a homosexual child.  Homosexuals don't "need" to reproduce, because they'll continue to be born in the first place.

Why did every succcessful society on earth adopt the same sexual morals?  Because they worked.

I haven't come across every successful society on earth possessing the same sexual morals on every single issue.  I will concede that there has generally been opposition to homosexuality, although up until a few centuries ago everyone believed the earth is flat.  My point being that tradition does not equal what is moral or what "works."

Either way, homosexuality has always been opposed because societies want to encourage everyone to reproduce as much as possible.  There have likely been millions of gay people throughout human existence who pretended to be straight, and had children.  This does not mean that their society's morals allowed them to stop being gay; they merely pretended to be someone else.  Now we are learning that the earth's population is beginning to get too big, as demonstrated by the disproportionate distribution of resources across the world.  We could make more room, but people like us would have to start living very differently.

In the Dark Ages, there was a sect of Christians who disagreed with the Church on abortion.  What happened to them?  They died out.

Are you able to prove that abortion was the cause of this sect's downfall?

You've also erroneously equated abortion with promiscuity, which is interesting as the majority of Protestant sects in the United States today are not actually opposed to abortion in all circumstances.

[Gabu]

We actually need to enumerate reasons not to vote for Ron Paul?

[Nym90]

While I wouldn't vote for Paul to begin with, not all of the reasons listed above are bad:

1 - Affirmative Action has long since outlived its designed purpose and causes a problem by stoking racial tension when qualified people are passed over because of a numerical quota. 

You do realize quotas are unconstitutional, and have been banned ever since the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke in 1978, right?

[Ebowed]

While I wouldn't vote for Paul to begin with, not all of the reasons listed above are bad:

1 - Affirmative Action has long since outlived its designed purpose and causes a problem by stoking racial tension when qualified people are passed over because of a numerical quota. 

You do realize quotas are unconstitutional, and have been banned ever since the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke in 1978, right?

It's more politically expedient for Republicans to group quotas and affirmative action together as the same thing.

If people understood affirmative action, they would either support it, or oppose it for different reasons than they do now (most people think a poor white man are going to lose their job to a greedy black guy).

[StateBoiler]

While I wouldn't vote for Paul to begin with, not all of the reasons listed above are bad:

1 - Affirmative Action has long since outlived its designed purpose and causes a problem by stoking racial tension when qualified people are passed over because of a numerical quota. 

You do realize quotas are unconstitutional, and have been banned ever since the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke in 1978, right?

It's more politically expedient for Republicans to group quotas and affirmative action together as the same thing.

If people understood affirmative action, they would either support it, or oppose it for different reasons than they do now (most people think a poor white man are going to lose their job to a greedy black guy).

I oppose affirmative action because it is an instrument used by African-Americans for them to be racist towards Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and Native Americans. 99% of all affirmative action is used to benefit only one race when that one race only make up around 40% of this country's minority population.

[Hash]

Point 10 is the main reason why not only I'd never vote for him, it's also why I don't regard him as "unique FF brave republican"

[MODU]

While I wouldn't vote for Paul to begin with, not all of the reasons listed above are bad:

1 - Affirmative Action has long since outlived its designed purpose and causes a problem by stoking racial tension when qualified people are passed over because of a numerical quota. 

You do realize quotas are unconstitutional, and have been banned ever since the Supreme Court ruled in Bakke in 1978, right?

Quota's do not have to be written down in order for them to exist.  Take public perception:  If a team of highly qualified quantum engineers who were making scientific leaps left and right were all White, there will be calls by some that  AA has failed to provide racial equality in the scientific community, when in fact there might not be any minorities that meet the qualifications for the positions.  And while that is a simplistic example, the fact exists that this occurs throughout our society.  So, for companies to reduce the risk of this happening, they do what they can to get a mix of gender, race, and physical abilities/disabilities into their organization; and to make sure that the public knows this, they report it in their annual reports and on their websites. 

Or take the school applications, such as the case up in Michigan (?) two years ago, where minorities were given extra weight on their applications.  Or the HR demographic data you have to supply for organizations that receive state and federal funding.  All of these have their roots in quotas, even if the term and a strict number/percentage aren't used.  As a result, those who might be more qualified for the position risk being turned down simply because their skin is too pale, doesn't have the right mix of chromosomes, or has fully functioning body.  That's why I say it's time to put AA to rest.  It did its job to integrate society and is now becoming a hindrance rather than a useful tool.