Ironslave
Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2006
- Messages
- 4,107
- Points
- 38
... I voted for Ron Paul
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to admit, was a better choice than all the other Rep. morons put together. But, R P does have some very extreme beliefs though.
You're new, so I'll go easy
Name one of his beliefs which are "extreme"? I worked for his campaign for 2 weeks down over xmas holidays, so I know his policies pretty well, and would be more than happy to correct you.
lol 2 whole weeks huh!I want to start out by saying that Ron Paul seems like a very honest and genuine man, something of a rarity in politics. When it comes to foreign policy he is the most intelligent and well-informed Republican candidate. It is generally well known that Paul is against the war in Iraq, and a strong supporter of the Constitution, but there is much more to Rep. Paul than just that.
Ron Paul is actually the most conservative member of Congress. It may be appealing to hear him talk about having personal liberty and freedom from government taxation, but when we look more closely his views become somewhat concerning.
Perhaps the biggest hypocrisy of Paul's campaign is his position on homosexuals. Although he's built his reputation on fighting for freedom and liberty, that freedom apparently does not extend to homosexuals.
He has stood against government regulation, but favors defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and voted to ban adoption for same-sex couples. It's an example where Paul's religious views apparently trump his belief in a free society.
He has stood out among candidates for both parties as a candidate willing to end the "War on Drugs." This would end billions of dollars in government spending, which have failed to prevent the propagation of illegal substances in society. Although I Agree on that one!
Also, he was against sending aid to the victims of Katrina.His reasoning was blame the victim. The Rep. SOP. However, Paul goes further and also opposes the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory power. One of the arguments that drug-legalization supporters most often make is that by making drugs legal we could make those drugs safer through regulation. But Paul's legalization policy completely dismisses the importance of drug safety.
Paul is right about one thing, the FDA is an ineffective organization, but the answer is not to further strip FDA regulatory power, which Paul has attempted to do while in Congress.
The FDA is ineffective because it lacks funding and public support, and has all too often buckled under pressure from large pharmaceutical corporations. Ending the rubber-stamp policies at the FDA starts by increasing their capacity to give people useful and scientific public health information. Why would we want to dismiss the importance of an organization charged with testing food and drug safety? When public servants, not political appointees, ran the FDA it was an effective organization.
lol 2 whole weeks huh!I want to start out by saying that Ron Paul seems like a very honest and genuine man, something of a rarity in politics. When it comes to foreign policy he is the most intelligent and well-informed Republican candidate. It is generally well known that Paul is against the war in Iraq, and a strong supporter of the Constitution, but there is much more to Rep. Paul than just that. Ron Paul is actually the most conservative member of Congress.
Perhaps the biggest hypocrisy of Paul's campaign
is his position on homosexuals. Although he's built his reputation on fighting for freedom and liberty, that freedom apparently does not extend to homosexuals.
He has stood against government regulation, but favors defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman, and voted to ban adoption for same-sex couples. It's an example where Paul's religious views apparently trump his belief in a free society.
He has stood out among candidates for both parties as a candidate willing to end the "War on Drugs." This would end billions of dollars in government spending, which have failed to prevent the propagation of illegal substances in society. Although I Agree on that one!
Also, he was against sending aid to the victims of Katrina.His reasoning was blame the victim.
However, Paul goes further and also opposes the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory power. One of the arguments that drug-legalization supporters most often make is that by making drugs legal we could make those drugs safer through regulation. But Paul's legalization policy completely dismisses the importance of drug safety.Paul is right about one thing, the FDA is an ineffective organization, but the answer is not to further strip FDA regulatory power, which Paul has attempted to do while in Congress. The FDA is ineffective because it lacks funding and public support, and has all too often buckled under pressure from large pharmaceutical corporations. Ending the rubber-stamp policies at the FDA starts by increasing their capacity to give people useful and scientific public health information. Why would we want to dismiss the importance of an organization charged with testing food and drug safety? When public servants, not political appointees, ran the FDA it was an effective organization.
your main points here seem to be dr paul's view on homosexuals. even though your right that this is somewhat contradictory to his other views,
Ironslave, i watched everyone of those vids....wow. you have really opened my eyes to what Dr Paul stands for. i really wish to learn more about him. thank you for these vids and the info you give us here. keep it coming man.
Wait a minute weren't you giving me a hard time for supporting Ron Paul!
it's always funny to hear people say they won't vote for Ron Paul because he has no shot at winning.i gave you a hard time for voting for someone who has no chance of winning, not because you voted for Ron Paul or because you supported him. my stance was, if your gonna vote, cast a vote for who you think is the least evil of the available candidates and has a realistic shot at winning. admittedly i did not know very much about Dr Paul though when i told you that.
I commend you all for your lucidity, and your points are all valid. Just would like to say that a discussion on politics doesn't have to be vile, and filled with hatred. I for 1 am glad to be here with such urbane characters. Yes Dr. Paul smokes all the rep. candidates out of the water, this I concede. Just listing some of his views I just don't agree on. But, there is much I do agree with like his calling GWB on his fake war in Iraq. This is my main concern today!
About his stance on gays. We as Americans have to stand up for our fellow americans no matter race, creed, sexual orientation. Because if we allow any 1 to be discriminted against WHO is next. ME, YOU. ( I had that same feeling, thank goodness we didn't sink to that level)! About, not letting same sex couples addopt. Now, me I consider myself an altruist. So, My main concern lies solely with the unwanted children of this country, it is better than not being loved at all. Yes, the constitution leaves this up to the states, so i don't believe any politician in any way should even mention this!
And yes my friend i can name a dozen gov. agencies. And, there all being headed by corrupt politicians!
As you can probably see, I am not a conservative, now there's an oxymoron for you! To quote Will Rodgers, "I belong to no organized political party, there for i am a Democrat".
One thing i know we can agree on. We need to make a drastic change in this country, These past 8 years have been a disaster, we need a new direction, we are at a cross roads, continue the failed policies of the Reps. Admin., or head in another direction? :ranter:
if you seriously think the Democrats are going to point this country in a different direction or change anything other than increase taxes and further increase government spending ... I have a bridge to sell you.