10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul

[Nym90]

I agree with you that race based preferences need to end, and I suppose if the race based preference is strong enough it could amount to a de facto quota if no white candidates can possibly meet the standards. I feel that other preferences, such as for socioeconomic status, should replace race based preferences.

I was just trying to clear up the very common misperception that quotas can and do still exist legally.

[MODU]

I was just trying to clear up the very common misperception that quotas can and do still exist legally.

Yeah, I know, and I should had clarified it when I did my intial post. 

[MarkWarner08]

He's a crazy pro-life homophobic maniac who wants poor people to die from the capitalist health care system while the rich invest in diamond-studded swimming pools

Best reason ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Ebowed]

He's a crazy pro-life homophobic maniac who wants poor people to die from the capitalist health care system while the rich invest in diamond-studded swimming pools

Best reason ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, I definitely stand by that.

[Reluctant Republican]

He's a crazy pro-life homophobic maniac who wants poor people to die from the capitalist health care system while the rich invest in diamond-studded swimming pools

Best reason ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Oh, I definitely stand by that.

I still don't see how he's all that pro life to be honest. At least he'd leave the issue up to the states when you know someone like Huckabee would just try to ban abortion all together. I do believe Paul's wrong on abortion. I'm a male so I don't think I should have any say in the whole damn issue at all, let the women sort the thing out.

And he's way less homophobic then most of the other Republicans. I mean sure homophobia's sort of par for the course in the Republican field, but I can sort of see what Paul is saying refusing to give funds to organizations that try to promote homosexuality as natural. He believes its a lifestyle choice, and while I really really think he's off there, if you think homosexuality is a choice your not going to support giving funds to endorse it. Besides, to many people oppose homosexuality and see it as "sinful" for us to really be given any rights.  We can't even push civil unions through, and gay marriage would never pass at the federal level nowadays, which is one of the reasons I really support leaving it up to the states. At least you'd get a few states to allow it outright and could make some progress on that front. That's the best option I can see at the moment.

But anyway, I do respect Paul's view on things like abortion and homosexuality because he is a docter, so at least he has a little more evidence to back up his views then just the good book. He's a little too religious for my tastes but I think he's get the best ideas through congress while having all his extreme stuff be blocked. Best of both world's, IMHO.

[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.

Eugene, not Joe.

OK - thanks.  Because Joe was a Dem. for a little bit.

[Ebowed]

I still don't see how he's all that pro life to be honest.

He's toned down his views a little for this Presidential race, because of the massive support he's acquired from leftists over the Internet.  Which sort of illustrates a lack of convictions.

At least he'd leave the issue up to the states when you know someone like Huckabee would just try to ban abortion all together.

See, that's the thing.  Ron Paul will tell you that the federal government should have nothing to do with abortion-- he even said this in his speech during the debate of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban-- but he voted in favor of said bill anyway.

And he's way less homophobic then most of the other Republicans.

Mr. "Leave Everything Up to the States" supported the Defense of Marriage Act.

And if you want proof of how homophobic he truly he is, check out some of the racist publications he was dealing with in the 90s.  He disowns the statements now, of course (like that one saying 95% of black people in Washington, D.C., are criminals), but closet racists tend to be even bigger closet homophobes.

But anyway, I do respect Paul's view on things like abortion and homosexuality because he is a docter, so at least he has a little more evidence to back up his views then just the good book.

His views on those two issues are motivated entirely by the Bible.

A homophobic bigot who knows how to give you stitches is still a homophobic bigot.

[DownWithTheLeft]

He's a crazy pro-life homophobic maniac who wants poor people to die from the capitalist health care system while the rich invest in diamond-studded swimming pools

Best reason ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm sorry but this seems like a great reason to vote for him if you take out the spin
Wanting economic freedom and the weak to suffer for not bettering themselves?  Wow, what a novel concept.  And OMG he protects the rights of innocent children, we better just hang him

[Ebowed]

Wanting economic freedom and the weak to suffer for not bettering themselves?

It's comments like these which are turning me into a socialist.

The "weak" will continue to suffer because the only way to be successful is to have successful relatives.  Poor people have to pay for lower quality and less healthy food, environmentally unfriendly methods of transportation, and poorer quality goods and services because they can't afford better quality in the short term.  Thus, in the long term, they are paying more to replace all of these things (new car every few years, throwing out more food because it goes off more quickly), so they end up spending more money on basic needs than rich people.  This isn't something they can have any control over without going into massive debt and going bankrupt.

And thanks for admitting that Ron Paul wants the weak to suffer.

[War on Want]

He's a crazy pro-life homophobic maniac who wants poor people to die from the capitalist health care system while the rich invest in diamond-studded swimming pools

Best reason ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm sorry but this seems like a great reason to vote for him if you take out the spin
Wanting economic freedom and the weak to suffer for not bettering themselves?  Wow, what a novel concept.  And OMG he protects the rights of innocent children, we better just hang him

WTF?! You want the weak to suffer, because they do not "better" themselves.

[DownWithTheLeft]

He's a crazy pro-life homophobic maniac who wants poor people to die from the capitalist health care system while the rich invest in diamond-studded swimming pools

Best reason ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm sorry but this seems like a great reason to vote for him if you take out the spin
Wanting economic freedom and the weak to suffer for not bettering themselves?  Wow, what a novel concept.  And OMG he protects the rights of innocent children, we better just hang him

WTF?! You want the weak to suffer, because they do not "better" themselves.

If you don't have the work ethic to succeed, that is not the government's fault.  I would want those people to get help through private charity though on a necessity basis.  For example, if I had a lot of money to give away none of it would go to drug addicts or pedophiles

[War on Want]

He's a crazy pro-life homophobic maniac who wants poor people to die from the capitalist health care system while the rich invest in diamond-studded swimming pools

Best reason ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm sorry but this seems like a great reason to vote for him if you take out the spin
Wanting economic freedom and the weak to suffer for not bettering themselves?  Wow, what a novel concept.  And OMG he protects the rights of innocent children, we better just hang him

WTF?! You want the weak to suffer, because they do not "better" themselves.

If you don't have the work ethic to succeed, that is not the government's fault.  I would want those people to get help through private charity though on a necessity basis.  For example, if I had a lot of money to give away none of it would go to drug addicts or pedophiles

Oh yeah and private charity always works better than the government. This is why everything was great during the 1930's, and there were no poor right?
Oh yeah and it is the government's fault, if they do not try and help those poor who wish to better themselves. It is the Government's need,as stated in the Constitution, to provide for the General Welfare.

[DownWithTheLeft]

He's a crazy pro-life homophobic maniac who wants poor people to die from the capitalist health care system while the rich invest in diamond-studded swimming pools

Best reason ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm sorry but this seems like a great reason to vote for him if you take out the spin
Wanting economic freedom and the weak to suffer for not bettering themselves?  Wow, what a novel concept.  And OMG he protects the rights of innocent children, we better just hang him

WTF?! You want the weak to suffer, because they do not "better" themselves.

If you don't have the work ethic to succeed, that is not the government's fault.  I would want those people to get help through private charity though on a necessity basis.  For example, if I had a lot of money to give away none of it would go to drug addicts or pedophiles

Oh yeah and private charity always works better than the government. This is why everything was great during the 1930's, and there were no poor right?
Oh yeah and it is the government's fault, if they do not try and help those poor who wish to better themselves. It is the Government's need,as stated in the Constitution, to provide for the General Welfare.

We have a different interpretation of providing for the general welfare, I doubt the founding fathers intended for that to mean "blank check to crack addicts"

[War on Want]

He's a crazy pro-life homophobic maniac who wants poor people to die from the capitalist health care system while the rich invest in diamond-studded swimming pools

Best reason ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm sorry but this seems like a great reason to vote for him if you take out the spin
Wanting economic freedom and the weak to suffer for not bettering themselves?  Wow, what a novel concept.  And OMG he protects the rights of innocent children, we better just hang him

WTF?! You want the weak to suffer, because they do not "better" themselves.

If you don't have the work ethic to succeed, that is not the government's fault.  I would want those people to get help through private charity though on a necessity basis.  For example, if I had a lot of money to give away none of it would go to drug addicts or pedophiles

Oh yeah and private charity always works better than the government. This is why everything was great during the 1930's, and there were no poor right?
Oh yeah and it is the government's fault, if they do not try and help those poor who wish to better themselves. It is the Government's need,as stated in the Constitution, to provide for the General Welfare.

We have a different interpretation of providing for the general welfare, I doubt the founding fathers intended for that to mean "blank check to crack addicts"

So we can't force them to get off of crack and we don't want them starving to death just because we do not like their lifestyle. That would not be moral at all and its not like they are living great lives because of welfare, actually their lives suck really bad.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least he'd leave the issue up to the states when you know someone like Huckabee would just try to ban abortion all together.

See, that's the thing.  Ron Paul will tell you that the federal government should have nothing to do with abortion-- he even said this in his speech during the debate of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban-- but he voted in favor of said bill anyway.

Roe v. Wade made the abortion issue a national issue until such time as we get either a court or a constitutional amendment that returns the issue to the States.  As such until then, expect people who would were prefer that it were a State issue to push at a Federal level for their views on this issue.  What should he do, abandon the issue to those who feel that it should be a Federal issue?  That would be totally ridiculous.

And he's way less homophobic then most of the other Republicans.

Mr. "Leave Everything Up to the States" supported the Defense of Marriage Act.

DoMA does two things.  One is that it determines when a marriage triggers Federal funds.  The other is that it guarantee's each State the right to decide for itself whether it wants gay marriage without having the back door opened for it by the full faith and credit clause.  How does either detract from his position that it would be best to leave as much as possible to the States to handle?

Despite your efforts to make Paul look like a hypocrite, you have failed.  There are a number of reasons an individual may think Ron Paul would be a lousy president, but hypocrisy does not appear to be a valid one, at least not based on the case you've presented.

Ebowed, you used to not be so shrill and overwrought.  I hope that come 2009 you return to your old self somewhat.  (I'd hope for 2008, but to expect people interested in politics to become less shrill or less overwrought in the middle of an election would be futile.)

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Just a note on his vote on the DoMA.  He doesn't support a constitutional amdendment prohibiting gay marriage.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

We have a different interpretation of providing for the general welfare, I doubt the founding fathers intended for that to mean "blank check to crack addicts"

I know that the U.S welfare system is a little... strange... but I'm not aware of any programme that gives blank cheques to crack addicts. Details?