10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul

Author: January 4, 2012 11:30 am

Addicting Info posted an article several months ago regarding Ron Paul and his ties to white supremacy, and we were barraged with pleas and “stories” to win us over. In honor of Ron Paul’s obsessive fans we’re publishing the following article, showing his history of discrimination.

Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)

As anyone with a blog, YouTube account, MySpace page, or web site knows Ron Paul supporters are everywhere! The internet is filled with them. The frightening thing that I have witnessed is that many liberal voters are giving some credence to Ron Paul’s campaign and message. He somehow comes across as different or better than the run of the mill conservatives filling the Republican ticket.

I do not support Ron Paul at all, and I find his Congressional record and policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 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. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

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. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

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.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720

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. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary

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”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936

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. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154

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 John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.

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.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) 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.7955Besides 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.

So there you have it, my 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Please take the time to thoroughly review the records of the people running for office so you know where they really stand. Ron Paul has good rhetoric and he opposes the war but he’s not a good man in the human rights sense of the phrase. He is pretty much like every other Republican but more insidious. Here is a video that you should watch after reading this article. Really listen to what he says and how he says it. Watch out for the sneaky ones and RESEARCH! ((Orcinus: Ron Paul’s Record in Congress ))


facebook comments:


  • Ron Paul wants to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency and all environmental legislation.

    Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve system and return nto the gold standard. This would increase the shift of wealth from the many to the very few.

    Ron Paul believes in laissez-faire capitalism, unrestricted rule by big corporations and the rich, without government or the constraints on abusine corporate rule brought on by the labor movement.

  • Thank you for being a voice of reason in a world of crazy Ron Paul supporters!

  • This is the corrected post (without typos). Thanks.

  • Please erase this post. (It includes a typo “dick” instead of sick.) Sorry about that slipup

  • matthew dunhamy

    It should be “NEIN”reasons!

  • How can you have an unnatural obsession with something that isn’t natural?

  • Is anybody actually surprised by any of what the author is saying? It all sounds like pretty typical republican stuff. If you aren’t voting for a candidate for any of these reasons, you are most likely voting democratic. Giving left-wing reasons for not voting for a right-wing candidate seems……. ridiculous.

  • No. No, actually, that’s not what matters most. What matters is what it IS and what it DOES. If somebody passed a law forbidding you from wearing blue shirts, would you really give a rat’s ass as to WHY they voted for it? Of course not. This righteous holier than thou crap is ridiculous. I don’t care how honourable your REASONS behind doing something are, I care what it IS. “Oh, don’t worry. I had happy thoughts when I shot that person. It’s cool.” That kind of “logic” fails.

  • Paul also wants to eliminate the Department of the Interior, of which one of its functions is to oversee the Bureau of Indian Affairs. What does anyone suppose is his plan for the 66 million acres of the reservations? Consider that 70% of the resources in the US lie on reservation territory.
    Before assuming that the US government would not re-amend the reservation system at the convenient moment of stripping out its federal administration, one might want to remember that beginning in the 1940s into the 1960s under similar talk of austerity 2.5 million acres of native lands were stolen and 109 tribes de-listed. They called this act “termination”. Termination stripped the de-listed tribes of all the benefits guaranteed them by law in exchange for their quitting their war against the US government.
    Also, though this is his son Rand, not Ron Paul himself, I cannot help but wonder from where he developed his views. In any event, Rand Paul can certainly be considered as an associate of Ron Paul. If it matters where a candidate goes to church, from whom they receive support, the character of their associates, then this is worthy of consideration in scrutinizing Paul. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/02/08/sen-rand-paul-set-to-ignore-treaty-obligations-to-indians-16363
    I really question how sincere is Paul in his stated desire not to interfere in others’ affairs. As of yet he has made absolutely no statement of his intent toward our “domestic dependent nations”. Somehow, I’m envisioning something entirely different.

  • He is a paleolibertarian conservative sociopath, a doctor who doesn’t understand evolution

    • He understands that if we came from apes, then we would not have apes. Either that or we would have ape-men walking around everywhere. Some would be 90% ape and 10% human, some would be 30% ape and 70% human. Evolution makes sense, but at the same time it doesn’t make sense at all. And besides, more people believe in a higher power than don’t. Why would we teach a school of say, 70% Christian children that God doesn’t exist. Oh, yeah, that’s right, because the federal government told us to.

      • Yes, because we’d much rather have them lIed to, ans told the bIg man In the sky snapped hIs fIngers. fyI, thIs natIon was founded on relIgIous freedom. Have you heard of neandrerhals? Cavemen? Cuz them’d be the missing link. I’d much rather my child be taught we evolved from apes than lie and tell her fairy tales. Not at school. If thats what you believe, send your kids to private school.

      • Nathan, you give our species, and yourself, too much credit. Evolution does NOT hold that we came from apes, but that we share a common ancestry. From an evolutionary standpoint your anthrocentric world is a farce, because apes are as advanced as we are from an evolutionary standpoint.

        You really need to grow up and put things in proper perspective before you attack them.

        • … Brofist..

          When I was in biology class I was able to understand evolution. Unfortunately biology is not necessary in many cases and people therefore ignore what they cannot explain due to lack of information..

      • If you were born in Yemen and when you were a child in Saudi Arabia or Iran and the on ly thing they taught you was the islamic religion ,, there is a 97.% chance ,, mathematically caculated that you are going to believe in that religion ,the same goes for other religions ,what ever they brainwash you with,, that’s what you will bilieve,,but some intelligent people when they grow up can actually reverse the brain washing jprosess and become atheist and believe in science which is based if facts and evidence ..

      • I have never come across such a ridiculous misunderstanding of the theory of evolution.

        I am unaware of any school that teaches that God does not exist.

      • Exactly. And if Americans came from Europe, then we shouldn’t have any Europeans.

      • Evolution is slow, give it time Apes will be gone soon enough.

      • Your description of evolution is incorrect and demonstrates the poor status of science education in this country. Here’s a good place to start:


        Your intuition is partially correct though – if species do evolve, then there should be intermediate examples. In fact there are, and these links provide strong support for evolution. One great example is the link between whales and the land mammals they evolved from:


        And you’ve probably seen this picture depicting human evolution:


        Finally, evolutionary theory is not atheism (although many prominent atheists are evolutionary biologists, e.g. Richard Dawkins). In fact, Cardinal McCarrick, states the Catholic position: “As long as in every understanding of evolution, the hand of God is recognized as being present, we can accept that.” Catholic schools teach evolution. And over 13,000 religious leaders have signed onto the Clergy Letter Project, which supports the teaching of evolution and encourages participation in Evolution Sunday events, which are held on the Sunday closest to Charles Darwin’s birthday and where congregations discuss and reflect on evolution:


      • Read *something* about evolution before criticizing it. No scientist ever claimed we “came from apes.” The fact that you would say something like that tells us you have no idea what you’re talking about.

        And, what school “teaches” that “God doesn’t exist?” Most liberals I know would tell you any such educational material is and should be illegal. The statement that “god does not exist” is in itself a statement of faith and religious belief.

        The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The federal government most certainly did not tell public schools to “teach” children that god doesn’t exist. Liberals are only asking you to keep matters of faith out of the instructional material.

        Evolution is a scientific principle. The bible is an important piece of literature. As long as you keep the bible out of science class, and don’t try to tell anyone what they should or shouldn’t take on *faith*, then we have no issues.

        To teach the scientific method, or to give examples of its use, is unrelated to faith/belief/religion. Creationism is a belief. No one can come up with any sort of experiment to support or refute it. You are entitled to your beliefs, but if they are to be taught, they must be constrained to theology/literature/philosophy courses, and taught as such, not taught as the product of academic research.

        I did read from the Bible in my public school literature course… and I was taught evolution in my public school science (Biology) class. This is fine.

        To attempt to bring a bible into a public school science class should be illegal. *You* should go learn something about evolution.

  • It doesn't matter

    I’m not a Paul supporter; I’m not particularly politically active. However. Do not abuse science in political arguments, or you will burn in the lowest layers of hell.
    ““To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information”
    This, of course, is utter horse shit. Biologists define life by 7 traits common to all organisms. There is not an explicitly stated decision concerning the point at which human fetuses are considered “alive”. What you choose, and what Ron Paul chooses to believe about it are purely conjectural and personal. Do not tell me your opinion is “of course” aligned with “current medical and scientific information” and that Mr. Paul’s is “of course” not.

  • Watch and learn boys and girls

  • Curious… I mostly tend to side with the arguments that swear the less…

  • Hate to tell you these problems were not caused by the Free market and deregulation they were caused by government involvement. In a truly free market banks cannot do what they did because the gov does not bail anybody out so they are forced to do the right thing because if they don’t they go out of business. If you or anybody could create money out of nothing loan it out and the tax payers back it all we would all do the same thing. With the gov involved instead of loses stopping with just the depositors we have enslaved generations to come. I know freedom seems scary but even with all it’s down falls it’s still better than slavery.

    • You say it “can’t happen” because the banks wouldn’t have been bailed out, but the bailout happened *after* the banks failed.

      What you and many others fail to understand is that the banks were playing roulette with borrowed money. To “let the banks fail” doesn’t mean taking any money from wealthy bankers. The heads of these banks can walk away at the end of the day, regardless of if these banks succeed, fail, declare bankruptcy, or get bailed out. They are merely employed at a job. Sure they get a big bonus if the bank is very successful, but they are not personally liable if the bank “fails.”

      To allow the bank to “fail” means ending all payments to their depositors and lenders. It means cancelling the life insurance and health insurance policies a 60 year old has been paying premiums into for his entire life, because the bank maintaining that policy or account no longer exists. The money is gone. When the government “bails out” a bank, their intent is not to pay bonuses to employees of that bank, or to prevent that bank from losing money that actually exists somewhere. The intent is to ensure some retiree gets the benefits sold to him by this unregulated and bankrupt organization.

      Regulations serve to limit the amount of risk that can be taken on by an organization promising payment to a life-insurance policy holder thirty or more years into the future. These regulations serve to ensure an insurance company can meet their obligations. The failure of these banks was the direct result of *deregulation* that’s been going on only in recent history. The regulations being removed are the ones that were put in place just after the great depression. These regulations were reduced/removed *because* those who are old enough to remember the risks involved are themselves retired, deceased, or otherwise no longer involved in the regulatory process.

      As an American, a citizen of the wealthiest country in the world, I expect to be able to buy on an open market, a policy that can pay me when I’m old, pay for my health problems, and/or pay my heirs to take care of “my affairs” when I pass away. Without any regulations/laws, the companies selling me these policies can do anything they please with the money, and then just declare bankruptcy when I am old. How do you expect to solve this problem, and give me a market-driven capitalist policy without any sort of legal framework or “regulation?”

  • The responses to this article prove once again that facts are ignored by Paul’s supporters whenever they are inconvienient to Dear Leader. His hero worshipping acolytes creep me out too.

    • First of all, some of the bill links don’t work, so I just googled them. Some of the bills have nothing to do with the reason. The women’s rights thing is just abortion. That’s a debatable topic, but I’m pro life. He has stated in numerous interviews that he does not want to ban gay marriage and he wants to keep church and state separated. Also, the author stole this from a website called who would jesus vote for?

    • If you hate America so much, then leave.

  • Alan Batterman

    Ron Paul will not get the nomination; he is much too old. He will be 77 before the election. That means, if elected, he would be 80 halfway through his first term.

  • For all of you who support the essence of this article, I recommend watching an actual response, done by Adam Kokesh.

  • Seabiscuit Neigh

    Guys… go find a job. Get a new hobby, do something worth your time.

  • Affirmative action is racist. Reason number 1 listed already tells me that whoever came up with this list is not worth listening to. Treat everyone the same: that’s your civil liberty in full strength. Anything done to alter that is unfair.

  • The title of this article should be: “Ten Reasons Why Every American Should Vote For Ron Paul.” I would have voted the same way he did in all of those bills. More civil liberty and less big government is always a good thing.

  • It’s funny that there is so much hypocracy going on both sides here. I am an independent who respects both Paul and Obama, but I now want Paul to win in 2012 because Obama has backed on his many campaign promises and now with the NDAA he can arrest ANY US citizen he wants to. Do you guys expect me to vote for this guy? He took forever to end Iraq he wants to stay in Afghanistan till 2025, he does nothing to stop the Teabaggers from passing the crazy stuff they propose, he is now escalating troubles with Iran with the drone that should have never been there, and he has done nothing to help liberals, in fact the Left is quiet only because Obama is there to shut them up and let the neo-cons get away with all the crap they want. This article is so dumb because most of this legislation came from the 80s a time in which everyone hated Commies and Homosexuals, and bigotry was still strong. I am not surprised Paul sponsored such legislation, but you cannot expect me to believe he holds the same values he did from the 80s when he clearly is showing today that he respects everybody. Your other points like #2-#5 are inherently bias towards the Left and are not well warranted. Huntsman had a flat tax himself and he said that it worked for every economic class. While I am not too sure to believe him I think the flat tax cannot be assumed to be hurtful to the lower classes (I am a poor 17 year old btw). The UN thing is being blown out of proportion, and the UN has failed to do stop wars anyways which was its original purpose, and its not like we will stop trading with other countries. In fact, I think the people in the Middle East would enjoy us not bombing them everyday and wouldn’t give a damn as to whether or not we are in the UN. So its ridiculous to claim our image would be hurt. #10 is simply wrong since Paul has been fighting the religious right throughout his campaign and it would be fair to teach both intelligent design and evolution in schools. If you are against that then you are arguing that you should teach your views in school only and not teach any other opinion which is exactly what the religious right tries to do so you are being a hypocrite(I am strongly pro-evolution btw). And to the other jerks who claim that Paul supports are idiots, first you guys are no more than bigots like the neo-cons, second, what are you going to do? Vote for Obama again? As I showed earlier he literally did a political 180 so what is the point in voting for him? You might as well vote for Gingrich or Romney because there is no difference between the three if you look at their flip-flopping records. Lastly, most of the things you are against can be stopped by congress anyways. IF you disagree with Paul’s economic views its irrelevant since he needs congress for that. But Paul has more control over Foreign Policy and Social Issues and other than being pro-life (he witnessed the killing of newborns if you haven’t known that), Paul has many views that liberals should agree with. And at least you will have honesty from him as compared to Obama. I honestly think the writer of this article has taken things out of context and his “research” I bet wasn’t very through since he had a bias view to begin with. He is merely justifying his bias but in this approach he has more than likely not seen the entire record of Paul.

  • Geez, reading this extended drivel reminds why I don’t get into arguments with the Ayn Rand/Ron Paul fanatics anymore. It’s pointless, and mind-numbing.

    It was particularly entertaining, though, to see Mr. Desmond’s verbatim quote from the Constitution get disparaged as “butchering” it–by actually quoting the, you know, Constitution.

    I suppose some of the more thoughtful Paulites would not have made such a dumb statement, but there’s a common thread nonetheless: fanatic devotion to “the Constitution” that excludes any actual study of it (let alone relevant court precedents over the past 200 years, since they are of course part of the conspiracy blah blah blah).

    Thus a straightforward exposition of things Rep. Paul has supported (complete with dry factual links) is somehow propaganda–because you’re attacking their fictional hero, not the real, flawed, corrupt politician.

    There are actually things I admire about Ron Paul. There are times when the government needs to pull back, and even well-intentioned legislation can go seriously awry. But it’s clear, from his own legislative history, that, like other Big-L Libertarians, Mr. Paul is not a consistent supporter of freedom. Rather, he supports the “freedom” of the temporarily powerful to exploit the less so, and purport to believe (I think he’s a liar) that, contrary to the history of the last three decades, that simply letting the market dictate the fate of the world will produce an outcome beneficial to all.

    Yeah, I know, the acolytes of Hayek and Mises (who didn’t have the same benefit of history we do) will argue strenuously that some bullshit change–e.g. reinstatement of the gold standard–will prevent the legalized fraud that got us into this mess in the first place (read “13 bankers” by Simon Johnson and James Kwak, for a mercifully succinct synopsis). But it’s not the mere existence of the Fed (itself a flawed response to the panic of 1907), or monetary policy, that led to this mess.

    What we have is a international corporate economy that buys and bypasses governments, squeezes the citizens dry, and profits from all of it. This is not done via legislation, except legislation that keeps any of the major players from being inconvenienced.

    Do any of these idiot Paulites even NOTICE what’s happening in Europe?

    Mr. Desmond, kudos for your thoughful and calm responses, though I fear you’re wasting your time and intellect here.


  • A racist, sexist, homophobe. Sounds like he reflects American values.

  • antisocialist

    10 Socialist Lies Exposed:

    A. Read the Comments section of that article, Ron Paul’s supporters are very intelligent and have done much to debunk this article on it’s own page. Also youtube/google ‘ron paul ‘

    1. Ron Paul supports the Constitution which guarantees equal rights, and he supports the individual’s sovereignty over the State. Not only is the State the greatest violator of equal rights by far, but he’s opposed to that legislation precisely because it takes away liberties UNDER THE GUISE OF protecting minorities. Denying liberties is, in our system, the ultimate attack on minorities.

    2. Outright lie. What Ron Paul has said repeatedly is that the federal government has no authority in abortions whatsoever, and his voting record agrees. Ultimately I feel he thinks abortion is murder, but his message is that people should decide that locally.

    3. Very obviously reason why Ron Paul would be a savior for the working class. The minimum wage, for example, MANDATES UNEMPLOYMENT for precisely those who need it most by prohibiting you from working for less than the government allows. Social Security is a huge tax on the working class, an astronomically large future burden, and a Ponzi Scheme and a massive con and fleecing program. And so on. The author thinks socialism (mass government intervention) is good for the working class, Ron Paul (and economics) disagrees.

    4. He says Ron Paul’s tax plan is “unfair”, and proceeds to not say a single thing about Ron Paul’s tax plan. He says RP is opposed to certain tax credits, but doesn’t say WHY. Ron Paul is consistently opposed to legislation which is unconstitutional or which expands government. Ron Paul hopes to cut taxes by a trillion dollars in a single year. That’s more than the tax plans of all other candidates from both parties combined.

    5. I don’t need to say anything about this. “Already strained”? By what?—that’s Ron Paul’s question. The author wrote very eloquently precisely how Ron Paul would like to remove the government’s stranglehold on our “already strained” economy.

    6. The author believes the UN (a very strong move towards world government, and a thorough undermining of the Constitution) was a good thing. Socialists and communists alike have pushed this lie for a long time. Naturally, for sanity and liberty, Ron Paul strongly disagrees.

    7. Again, Ron Paul supports rolling back government, this time in the area of marriage, and the socialist author can’t fathom why.

    8. “Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns”. No, the US military and the Federal government have an unnatural obsession with guns. Naturally, the socialist author is scared of an armed, free populace, because armed, free people are scared of socialism.

    9. Ron Paul would get the government out of the way of education, so that kids can actually learn and become valuable and grow mentally and socially instead of being indoctrinated and imprisoned during the most important years of their young life. This part is funny because nobody believes our governments indoctrination system (aka “education” system) is anything but a joke.

    10. Another outright lie. In fact, it’s all the other candidates who use religious propaganda to get votes. Ron Paul votes the Constitution, and to shrink government or at least prevent its expansion, regardless of his religious views.

    In defense of the author, at least he’s a consistent hardcore socialist (communist?). Thankfully, we have youtube and google to dismantle socialist propaganda.

  • this article is total misinformation; ron paul is about personal freedom. he is about restoring the constitution and shut down big government. whoever wrote this article clearly also works for Fox news. ron paul is the only politician that is against invading another country (iraq/afganistan/libya), which has successfully bankrupt this country in the process and killed millions of innocent people. each american citizen carries a deb of $15,000 to the Chinese government. this is a very sad and difficult time to be an American. how does a first world nation owe money to a third world nation, of all places a communist third world nation? the other politicians are sell outs, they always flip flop. ron paul is unaffected by corporations and their bribes. ron paul is agains the patriot act, which has also successfully taken away all of our rights and freedom as US citizens. I don’t see any other politician standing up against the patriot act. I may not agree with everything ron paul has to say, but his major points and his voting record shows he is consistent with his believes and he is not a lieing SOB like every politician out there. the article is misinformed of the reason why he voted, and I am certain the reasons behid his votes is about personal freedom, let the state decide on the policies and it should not be the federal government’s job to have any type of regulations. when he votes against a certain item, it’s about protecting our freedom instead of government intervention. if you really listen to his message you would understand. look at the big picture, and understand the fundamentals of his believes. I was not born an american citizen, but I bought into the whole system of freedom and the constitution, but as I learn more about what the laws have been put in place to take away the rights of the americans today I realized freedom in the US is just a government propaganda. ron paul believes in the constitution and have a clear understanding of it, and I believe in his vision to restore america to the roots of what the founding fathers of this country intended. instead of fighting and arguing and reading misinformation on the internet, please youtube his videos and debates.

  • So most of the points on this list are not bad at all. Most of the points listed come down to this, Ron Paul wants to overturn unconstitutional laws.

  • You’re either wrong or misinformed about all ten issues.

    1. “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…”
    Affirmative action sets up special treatment/considerations for minorities. It disadvantages whites, white males in particular. Private schools should use whatever factors they want to include or exclude students. The Federal government should have NO say in this issue. These are private schools after all. Get the government out of education all together.

    2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.
    This is just a lie. Paul’s position is that the Federal government shouldn’t have an abortion policy, pro or con, at all. It’s a state and local matter. Without the Federal mandate, some states wouldn’t allow free wheeling abortion others would. Abortion would become a private matter again, as it should. (Even if abortion is considered a “right,” what is the obsession with making available death factories for women to abort their babies? How sick to make this the sine qua non of a women’s movement.)

    3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
    It would be the best thing in a long time for the working class. The government agencies you name lead to unemployment, especially for minorities. They also impose costs upon businesses that directly lead to the decision to outsource whatever labor can be. Workers would be free to strike and organize under Paul, so “greedy” bosses would still be punished/confronted. However, the most important thing of less Federal government is that the working class and unions would have to go back to building independent organizations to serve their needs.

    4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
    The government should have nothing to do with redistributing income, either from the rich to the poor or the poor to the rich. The obsession with giving politicians (viz., lawyers elected to office) the power to tax and redistribute income shows a lack of understanding about the real problems besetting America’s economy.

    5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
    Strong property rights based on individuals are the only protection to the environment. Contrast the environment in socialist countries, where there’s little to no individual property rights, to what exists here to understand the differences. However, if you are of the ilk that says all pollution is bad, then there’s no way to argue this with you.

    6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.
    If by “other nations” you mean the governments of other countries, you’re right. However, I don’t think the people of other countries hold the UN in as high esteem. Also, by what right do politicians here collect money and send it anywhere else? Do you have no limits on what politicians can do to you?… Other than leaving you free to make your own decisions, send money to where you want, oversee the education of your own children, work for the wage you agree to…

    7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.
    You’re right. Ron Paul is not “open” to same sex marriage or “new definitions” of marriage. He is for everyone being treated equally before the law. However, forcing others to legally recognize your definition of a personal arrangement, he is against. This is also his position on heterosexual marriage as well.

    8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
    There’s no way around it some Americans see weakness as a positive virtue. Ron Paul is not arguing that anyone be forced to own arms. However, why do you want Americans to be defenseless? As long as an individual gun owner is law abiding why shouldn’t he or she be able to purchase guns and as much ammunition as desired? Only criminals and a run-away government have anything to fear. And it was against government that the Founders wanted Americans to be armed against. By the way, 200 years ago people did walk around with the equivalent of today’s AK47 and as much ammo as they saw fit. What we didn’t have 200 years ago were citizens afraid of other armed citizens.

    9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system.
    You clearly don’t have children in public schools. The dismantling of the present government-run education is long overdue. Parents can decide who’s worthy of being called a teacher and what an education should look like. Comments like yours ignore the plain fact that education has gotten worse as Federal government involvement has increased.

    10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.
    There is war on religion. Perhaps this can be seen most clearly in US Mid-East foreign policy. In rhetoric, at least, we target the backwards religious beliefs as a prime reason for our killing there. In this country, the war is against Christianity. We don’t any longer allow prayer in schools or at many public events. The Cross is bared from many government offices. Easter is replaced with “Spring Egg Hunts.” However, Ron Paul believes in separation of church and state, which by its original meaning meant that government should not promote one religious belief over another, not that religion should be driven from public life. Religion, Christianity in particular its values, creeds and practices, has been one of the prime glues of America. Look around the world, it is difficult for major competing belief systems to exist harmoniously in the same nation. Today, the major competing belief system against religion is the belief that government has made religion obsolete. Politicians and bureaucrats jealously guard this belief and attack all others.

  • So, it’s okay for police in Atlanta to run motorcycles over harmless protestors (even though I find the whole Occupy movement idiotic at best), pr campus police to pepper spray silent vigilists, but it is not okay for citizens to have the means to protect themselves? Is our educational system, 17th in the industrialized world, so sacrosanct as to be above challenge? Are we having a serious discussion about “separation of church and state,” words, which, by the way, NEVER once appear in the Constitution. There was only a prohibition against a State-sponsored church, so that different denominations would not be discriminated against. By disallowing prayer in schools and expressions of faith in public ceremonies, the religion of the humanists, Statism , atheism, or whatever you wish to call it, has become a de facto State religion. Bah. why am I giving this nonsense my precious time…

  • Dear Summer.

    Do me a favour…don’t do me no more favours! People like you are the reason why there is so much poverty and inequality in this world. The well intentioned policies that you speak of like minimum wages etc. kept me out of work for over 24 months after I left school because no-one was legally allowed to hire me at the price I was willing to work for. I could not wield the one weapon I had to land my first job, which was to compete on price, because you ‘do-gooders’ took it from me – if I was worth $7.50 an hour I am sure someone would have hired me. I would happily have worked for less just to get a foot in the door.

    Maybe it’s no fun working for low wages but it’s a helluva lot better than being on benefits!!!

    I wonder how many other young people and minorities that your well-intentioned policies have shafted?! It’s no wonder that both youth and black unemployment rates are through the roof – because people like you, Summer, choke their opportunities, meaning they miss out on vital work experience and vital on-the-job training making it nearly impossible to climb the job ladder (hence more inequality than there would otherwise be). And even if there are racist or sexist employers out there (of course there are, I worked for one!) under minimum wages they no longer have to bear the cost of exercising their bigotry because there is no wage penalty for hiring the ‘whiter’ person (no offense intended) who may in fact be no more, if not less, productive.

    Summer, people ought to able to live their own lives without the likes of you meddling in one way or another.

    P.S. I also believe in a woman’s right to choose…but that’s another topic altogether!

  • One Reason Not to Read This Article
    Its full of manipulative lies……………

  • Hey, here’s a thought. Try having a conversation without bringing up queers every 5 seconds. It’s quite possible, but you might be seen as less idiotic/”hip”. The Bible is clear, you’re wrong and you need to get right. All your fag friends in the world can’t save you, only Jesus can. You know those fags are just using you like a useful idiot to push their agenda.

    • The “Bible” is a work of fiction so it is irrelevant what it says in the “Bible.” If it is not a work of fiction, prove to me that anything it says in the “Bible” actually happened, without using the “Bible” as a source document.

  • Sunshine Mellow

    This was a poorly written article. Let’s keep in mind that the president has limited powers and that the assumptions you make are unfounded. Maybe I won’t be voting for Ron Paul (mostly because I like Newt Gingrich), but this article will not affect my decision.

  • Most of the people who are knocking Ron Paul probably voted for Obama or George Bush. Enough said. STFU

  • I find it hilarious how when someone posts the truth about Ron Paul, all his nutty cheerleaders come out of the woodwork swearing up and down that they know what Ron Paul thinks. Any intelligent person would look at this article, read through the bills linked, and just have to agree with what is stated. As a minority, I can speak for my black and brown brothers. Fuck Ron Paul, he’s not getting the GOP nomination, and will be cast to the dust bin of history along with Ross Perot. Just you dumb ass RP sycophants watch the crumbling of your boy before your very own eyes. Before you wingnuts set up your strawmen against me, I am an anarchist and a nihilist. Your “insults” of fascists statist supporter don’t phase me, I just want to watch the world burn.

    • I agree with you 100%. His supporters get riled up and prove they have no idea what they’re talking about. The BEST thing I’ve found on the internet was a site with a link back to THIS article, from someone BEGGING their friends to discredit it, since they weren’t personally familiar with Ron Paul’s voting record. THAT is how stupid they are. Even if they can’t discredit the TRUTH about Ron Paul they still REFUSE to believe it. They’re lunatics.

    • and what about your white, yellow an tan brothers??? it’s all about one color????

      Who’s the nut? and the only one I see insulting anyone is you.

    • Louie, you speak for Louie. I am quite black, and proud of it, and need no one to speak for me; especially a self-proclaimed ararcho-nihilist. Thank you for your concern. Good day.

    • Except the bills don’t tell you why he voted the way he did which is what actually matters. Again addictinginfo shows why it is the blaze of the left lol

    • “As a minority, I can speak for my black and brown brothers.”

      The fact that you identifty “brotherhood” on the basis of similarity in skintone not only makes you a minority, it also makes you a racist. By definition.

    • I’m not going to address the article, I just wanted to reply to Louie’s comment.

      “As a minority, I can speak for my black and brown brothers.” First of all, that is an incredibly racist mindset. As a hispanic, I can tell you, you absolutely do NOT speak for me.
      It’s incredibly racist and ignorant to assume that simply because you are a minority, that you can speak for your “black and brown brothers.”

    • IF you really just want to be in a burning world, wouldn’t he be perfect?

      Fastest way to the collapse of america? Ron Paul 2012!

    • lol……

      If you’re an anarchist and you dislike Ron Paul, then you are the WORST anarchist in the history of anarchy, buddy.

    • Name calling is the first sign of a failing argument.

    • I find it ironic when you talk about reading the bills linked, since many of the ones submitted in 1979 don’t have text available on THOMAS.

      And the belief system isn’t to say Ron is anti-whatever_point, rather that the subject isn’t permitted by the Constitution. To say that Ron Paul hates a woman’s reproductive rights, is absurd. Yes, he would prefer Roe v. Wade not be effective, not because he wants a _federal_ law to say no abortions. Rather, that the federal government has _NO AUTHORITY_ to say one way or the other.

      Then again I don’t know what being black has to do with anything, I’d just stop pulling out the race card, if we want race to become a non-issue. But since it’s out, how do you determine Ron hates black people? And since when did you become Jessie Jackson, or, when did he get the right to talk on behalf of ALL black people? So, assuming hyperbole here, you’re referring to your personal belief system and the getting rid of affermative action clause of this article.

      If I’m safe to assume you’re talking about the affermative action point, and referencing my earlier point of missing text on THOMAS, we’ll look to Article point #1. The only available text is

      H.J.RES.42 “Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States.”

      If you read the bill, it would alter the ‘natural-born’ clause of the 14th Amendment, to allow citizenship to only people born or naturalized where parents of the born are legally inside of the United States. Far be it from me to call this guy a racist so far. The other bills have no text, so I can’t read to tell you how I feel.

      I could go on, but it’s really useless. You’ve clearly made up your mind to read some dudes post online, not click a link, and agree with what ever he linked to or talked about. I wish you the best in whatever rut you’re stuck in!

      r[LOVE]ution 2012

    • Tamra M Burgess

      and his fanatics talk about Ron Paul as if he can:

      1. walk on water
      2. they’re with him 24/7 and know his inner most thoughts & feelings.

      never put anyone on a pedestal like that, the fall for both will be inevitable

      but they never want to address his actual voting record which pays homage to Jim Crow, his white nationalist friends and his newsletters

  • Really… This article was ghost-written by Michael Moore, right?

  • I’ll try to keep this simple. The President is supposed to have limited powers, he can not magically make laws by the stroke of pen. Checks and balances prevent such a thing from happening.

    Withdrawing from the UN would not “continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations”. THE UN is 25% supported by us and votes against the constitution and the country’s interests a vast majority of the time. The UN doesn’t support private property, the right to bear arms, juries and has no elections.

    The Gun-Free School Zones Act, if someone is within a thousand feet of a school, gets pulled over and is caught with someone else’s pistol, there’s a chance that guy would be looking at prison time. The GCA has not deterred crime. Gun control never does that, it just weakens the weaker by disarming them.

    America went from the best and brightest to the bottom of the list since the feds got involved in education. HR 7955 simply reaffirms that no child should be forced to attend a public school, especially a drug and gang infested one, it has nothing to do with segregation.

    It’s simple you can vote for a shady Chicago-styled politician who is extremely Wall Street friendly, has renewed the Patriot Act, kept the Bush war machine going, invaded a country that didn’t attack us without congressional approval and left it vulnerable to terrorists, is accelerating the debt and erasing our sovereignty or you vote for a guy who knows his bounds and will end all occupations everywhere, will end torture, work to repeal the war on drugs, the patriot act, NAFTA, preserve our borders and our sovereignty and abolish the Wall Street owned Federal Reserve.

    • Orwell Stephenson

      HR 7955 “simply” says this first: “Abolishes the Department of Education and nullifies all regulations, contracts, licenses, or privileges issued by such Department prior to the effective date of this Act.”

      Then, just in case that wasn’t enough, it goes on to say THIS: “Prohibits the Federal Government from imposing any obligation or conditions upon any child care center, orphanage, foster home, emergency shelter for abused children or spouses, school, juvenile delinquency or drug abuse treatment center or home, or similar program which is operated by a church or religious institution.” That says the Federal Government can never, under any circumstances, EVER mandate, say, a national standard of education.

      And then there’s this gem: “Denies jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States to review any State statute or regulation which relates to abortion. Extends such denial of jurisdiction to Federal district courts.” That’s right, no hope of a Federal guaranatee of the right to terminate a pregnancy due to rape, incest, or threat to the mother’s life if you live in a state that decides to outlaw it.

      But getting back to the silly bits of the individual post here…

      “Gun control never does that, it just weakens the weaker by disarming them.” We’re talking about schools. Schools are typically places with children. For every twelve-year-old with the maturity and personal responsibility to safely take a handgun to school in case they’re attacked (this is why we’re talking about allowing guns on school property, right? So the “weaker” children will be able to shoot back when the barbarian hordes attack?), you’ll have at least 500,000 kids who lack that maturity, sense of responsibility, and impulse control. It’s reckless endangerment, period.

      Next: “Withdrawing from the UN would not “continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations”. THE UN is 25% supported by us and votes against the constitution and the country’s interests a vast majority of the time.” To respond to the first sentence: yes, it would. Nothing you say anywhere refutes this. You simply make a statement and refuse to back it up with… anything. Not even a supporting explanation or weak evidence just and we’re supposed to believe it? If prevailing world opinion is something along the lines of “The US doesn’t care about the UN and is willing to ignore even the loosely organized attempt at world government” then withdrawing from participation in the UN only serves to bolster that impression. Why? Because the US is then blatantly not caring about the UN and ignoring its efforts at global governance. If you can’t figure that out, there’s a problem.

      Regarding the second sentence in that quote, I suggest a couple things. First, cite some evidence or get out. Secondly, which of the “country’s interests” does the UN vote against consistently? Are we talking about global economic strong-arming, unilateral military actions, or what? The UN doesn’t support private property or juries? I don’t recall the UN trying to outlaw trial by jury in the US OR attempting to confiscate and “redistribute” anything owned by individuals within the nation.

      And, lastly, let’s address this piece of yours: “…and abolish the Wall Street owned Federal Reserve.” What you really mean here is destroy the Federal banking system as a whole. That’s happened before (look up Andrew Jackson; he and Ron Paul seem to have more than a few things in common) and it was, to put it mildly, rather ugly. Here’s what happens when you torpedo the Federal banking system: the world ceases to lend to you. When you have a national debt and deficit like the US, borrowing is how you manage to meet your budget. So, effectively, you want every bank in the world to either call due their loans or simply cease to lend to the US. Think about how much fun it would be to live through that collapse!

      But hey, at least we’d have shown those nasty Wall Street types who… already have more money than 80-90% of the rest of the country combined. And then when everything’s privatized, they can just BUY IT ALL and govern their own private state!

      Congratulations on your insightful refutation of arguments.

    • You’re obviously well informed and can see things as they are instead of how you want them to be. I point out the many similarities between Obama and Bush to people and I wonder how can they still be supportive of Obama when they strongly disliked Bush.

      In some ways Obama is even worse than Bush. At least Bush and Cheney had the ‘decency’ to lie about there being WMDs in Iraq in order to get Congress to approve killing over 500,000 Iraqis, but Obama didn’t even ask Congress if he could go kill Gaddafi. What nerve!

    • Totally right on. Seems to me the only ones offended by Ron Paul clearly don’t see the truth of the ones they think are cool. He is the only one who has consistently upheld the Constitution, instead of selling out to mega corporations and the UN whose lifelong intention is to dissolve any sovereign nation and become THE world’s ONLY ruling organization.(study the true history) Many don’t see the devious agenda of the UN(they are still under the delusion that they are going to ‘help’ people,when in truth they plan to rule, and mistakenly think they will have ‘rights’).Maybe if they actually had NOT had institutionalized education they could think;Maybe if they understood how history has been basically re-written to ensnare them into believing all this nonsense fed to them over the past 100+ yrs.;maybe if they understood that the Second Amendment is to protect us from tyrannical gov’t.,and has nothing to do with the false stats pushed about the ‘danger’ of arming ourselves…maybe if they knew factually true history, and not the one ‘taught’ by the institutional system of ‘education’ that was put into place to create a 95% population of ‘non-thinking work-force’, to be lead by the 5% who think they know what’s best(for them, obviously), then maybe they could see beyond the hyperbole being fed to them… To those who doubt, read The Underground History of America(a book), read Global Governance,How,Why,When(well researched internet article), read http://beaz-place.blogspot.com/ (facts on candidates)and then re-evaluate. Clearly, the ones fed the hyperbole don’t have a clue as to what the candidates are really about, and possibly have never actually read our Constitution or Declaration of Independence. “…bad government results from too much government”. The happiness of Americans is assured “if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people UNDER THE PRETENSE OF TAKING CARE OF THEM”. Our founding documents are ELASTIC so they are, and always will be, fitting for any time.

    • Are you insane? The UN isn’t a country, and it doesn’t have any jurisdiction over gun control or private property? What the hell are you saying with elections? Are you gonna elect countries? Who gets to vote? What’s this crap about “the country’s interests” ? There are more countries in the world than just this one. If we were to leave the UN, it would render the organization entirely irrelevant because of the size of our military and economy. Leaving the UN is just begging for WWIII.

      HR 7955 takes the crappy schooling responsibility of uneducated parents and grandparents and allows that responsibility to be transferred to a learning institution run by uneducated teachers. Wow! Let’s take religious propaganda and stop making submissive Christian mothers proliferate it at the kitchen table while alienating their kids from their peers! Let’s have those same submissive Christian mothers be hired as teachers so they can get a whole group of vulnerable children to believe it together!

      How can you blame Obama for keeping the Bush war machine going but then criticize him for leaving Libya vulnerable to terrorists? What exactly do you think Obama was trying to accomplish in Iraq? By the way, we didn’t invade Libya. Ever heard of leading from behind?

  • I can say from personal experience that this essay and the links provided will convince (or even give cause to reconsider to) not ONE Ron Paul supporter. His actual record is of absolutely no interest to those who have convinced themselves Ron Paul is the ideal, or as close to it as anyone is likely to find. It’s no different than trying to convince Cain’s supporters that he has no idea what he’s talking about, Perry fans that he’s dumb as a box of rocks, or Michele Bachmann zealots that she’s a dishonest, ill-informed hypocrite who favors a theocracy.

    When it comes to his well-documented record, Ron Paul’s acolytes are either proud white supremacists, or every bit as well-meaning, irrational, closed-minded and uninterested in the irrefutable facts as any neo-conservative who insists George W. Bush was a great President, second only to St. Ronnie Reagan. If Ron Paul said “You’re doin’ a heck of a job, Brownie,” his champions would repeat it as a chant with applause.

    I suppose we can at least be grateful their numbers are minuscule, though it makes life a bit tedious that each is so ardently devoted to spreading the silly propaganda about him where ever they find him mentioned. But they’re as informed and interested in the whole truth as the pranksters who call in to CSPAN and guffaw before they shout “Howard Stern rules!” and then hang up.

    • Perhaps only a buster could so well at writing such empty words. Although there are always simple followers in every group, the most honest and intelligent candidate will attract the most honest and intelligent supporters.

      With that being said, if Dr. Paul showed himself to be as dishonest, foolish, flaky, and out of touch as the other GOP candidates then his supporters would soon leave him. Fortunately, Dr. Paul hasn’t said anything as silly as your Brownie quote; he had many issues with Bush’s policies; and he’s even spoken out against some of Reagan’s actions.

    • Well said. But there is an image of Ron Paul as honest and consistent. This holds true. I liked the article because it went deeper into the public sound-bites and provided links to actual legislation instead of merely laying out abstract nouns and generalisations to make a point. I know the RP supporters will attempt to refute this – in an endless circle of strange logic but to those who are not rampant tea-party RP supporters no matter what and despite any rational argument, this article is helpful. However it will be necessary to hammer the facts, the real facts and distil the key points over and over and over again, because the tea-partiers will do that emotional tagging sound bite rallying the pitchfork carriers that they do so well to pull the crowds.

  • In response:

    #1 — that is a dream come true for every conservative American. Do you even know how “Affirmative Action” works? It’s essentially reverse discrimination against whites specifically. It focuses on racial quotas rather than equalizing the playing field, or considering the actual qualifications of an individual. It highlights race above individual ability, talent, and accomplishment. As far as bills aimed at delegitimizing and removing “anchor baby” status, I’m all for it. Those bills seek to restore order and consistency in the immigration process, keeping it legal and avoiding loopholes such as the “anchor baby” method.
    #2 — Rescinding the Roe v. Wade decision would not deny women “rights” over their own bodies. There are many ignorant statements in this item. Roe v. Wade was Unconstitutional and grossly perverted and misconstrued the concept of the “right” to privacy. Nowhere in the Constitution is the power to terminate life expressly listed. On the contrary, in the Declaration of Independence, which lays out the basic tenets of liberty and its principles in America, the very first UNALIENABLE RIGHT is the Right to Life. Nevertheless, Paul’s support of the bills mentioned only seek to remove Federal funding of abortions and give the power to determine those individual rights to the states themselves. Modern science has also shown that life does in fact start at conception, and multiple journals and research articles have pointed to this fact of life http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
    #3 — I don’t fully understand why the guy gripes about the deregulation Ron Paul wants in these areas, that is unless he’s actually a Socialist goon. OSHA is just another big brother style Fed agency, masquerading in the interests of worker safety, but seems to only contribute to stagnating business growth through excessive regulation and conformity to the point they can actually kill a business. Establishing safe work practices is one thing but OSHA is in the business of collecting heavy fines on businesses for finding any number of practices it deems unsafe or unlawful. If OSHA were in the business of ensuring safety, it would seek authority to fine the employee guilty of committing unsafe or unlawful work practices, rather than attacking the employer and forcing the employer to host training sessions that the employee could care less about because there is no liability to the employee as severe as the fines and punishment imposed on it by OSHA.
    #4 — Honestly, I don’t think the guy who wrote the article has even looked at Ron Paul’s 11 point plan to save America, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-trice/ron-paul-11-point-plan_b_947832.html And I don’t know where this person got the info that Ron Paul wanted to eliminate all those tax credits. In fact RP has consistently voted to uphold tax relief reforms for the greatest benefit for working families http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm What the writer describes is more akin to Cain’s 9-9-9 plan, which I won’t even get into because it’s just that stinking bad and is the plan that would greatly injure America’s working class citizens most!
    #5 — I have to LOL at this item. The writer says “he [Paul] supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel,” Anybody who has a problem with these sort of energy independence initiatives may need to check just how much red, white, and blue runs in their veins. People opposed to this sort of thing probably don’t understand just how beholden America has become due to its petroleum/oil dependency and investments in other countries, such as OPEC. Sure, we need a clean environment and measures should be taken to ensure the environmentally safest methods to drill and produce energy in America, but at what cost? Let’s have clean energy, but don’t kill the companies that are currently providing the electricity to run your nice air-conditioned homes, the gas to run your cars so you can get to work, etc. etc. Most importantly, let’s fund and keep the companies that want to create cleaner energy resources here in America by not regulating them to death.
    #6 — Ok, anybody who supports America being in the UN is definitely no friend of Constitutional America. The writer completely loses on this point, especially if he/she is trying to win over conservative Americans loyal to the idea that we as a country abide by our own laws. America should 110% remove itself from the UN for the sake of our national sovereignty alone! Not to mention the US provides the majority of the funding that goes to the UN, that hosts many states that are anti-American and anti-democratic, but still pressure the US to relinquish certain rights and enter into hostile treaties against America’s best interests, and that of Her closest allies.
    #7 — This is maybe the one area that Ron Paul may lose the more liberal, left-wing side of his supporters. Most of it is pretty much true, but people must understand that psychology science continues to shed light on the idea that LGBT persons suffer from mental and psychological disorders, such as was held by the American Psychiatric Association through the 1970’s until militant gay activists began disrupting APA conferences and threatened APA with lawsuits and bodily harm. Thus it was not the result of scientific research that caused the removal of homosexuality from the APA’s DSM (diagnostic manual), but political pressure and threats of harassment/violence. Proponents of “gay gene” theory have also failed to substantiate their claims with modern scientific research, and through the diligent work of various organizations aiming at rehabilitation of homosexual behavior, such as NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality), it has been shown that homosexuals can be reoriented to heterosexuality, thus validating the idea that it is a choice, that can be made on a subconscious level dependent upon varying levels of trauma and deviance in early child and identity development. So the real question should be not why the LGBT community is discriminated against, but should Americans be awarding “special rights” and “privileges” that no other citizens (See Heterosexuals) are eligible for? Rather than accomodating the idea of “same-sex marriage” to appease the wishes of those suffering from mental disorder, should we not much more be concerned with offering better avenues of treatment and reparative therapies? Would we entertain a pedophile’s fascination and fetish for sexual encounters with underage children? Why then entertain the fascinations of another mental illness, when doing so certainly influences youth involved in such a maligned coupling face a greater risk of reciprocating the same homosexual tendencies and behaviors http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_notinthebest.html
    #8 — Again, your argument on this item of gun ownership and availability to guns would only affect any Ron Paul supporters that do not believe in a strong reality of the 2nd Amendment and Constitution. I own several firearms and Ron Paul has my vote. I only wish “open-carry” would be passed in my state. Historical and recent studies have shown that countries with populations denied access to firearms experience dramatic increases in crimes with guns and violent crimes in general (to include rape, theft, assault, etc.) http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/flawed2.htm The Communist and National Socialist regimes of Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Lenin/Trotsky, Mussolini, and Adolf Hitler, among others, historically attest to the fact that once the citizenry is universally disarmed it is rounded up, genocidally “purged”, and enslaved. I’m keeping my firearms and my 2nd Amendment rights, thanks Mr. Writer.
    #9 — Getting rid of the bloated and UnConstitutional Dept of Education (DOE) would essentially return almost $35 Million to the US Treasury and perhaps be used towards our nation’s deficit. The DOE coupled with the “No Child Left Behind” Bush-era policy have gone down in America’s history as one of the most expensive community outreach failures. Ron Paul’s plan to gut the DOE would allow educational standards to be determined by local school districts and parents interested in home-schooling through voucher (scholarship) programs. In essence, it would give educational authority back where it belongs, in the hands of educators and parents, not the Federal government.
    #10 — Not sure where the writer pulled the Ron Paul quote from, or if can even be attributed to Dr. Paul, but the idea that Paul is against separation of church and state is a pointless argument since that phrase and idea is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or Declaration of Independence. Separation of church and state is a fallacy, and its origin can be found in Jefferson’s writings, specifically the 1802 letter written to Baptist Assoc. of Danbury, Connecticut. In it, Jefferson reassures the congregation that Anglicanism (or the predominant religion of the New Englanders) would NOT become the preferential denomination of the new states because of their overwhelming presence and voice. In fact, The First Amendment’s widely misunderstood Establishment Clause simply means that the state will not set up any Official state religion, but neither will it prohibit any person from freely exercising the religious dictates of his or her own conscience (whether they be Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, et al), so long as they do no infringe upon the rights or safety of other citizens. Dr. Paul understands this and the remark the writer attributes to him, “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.” can certainly be validated. It is a fact that the secular Left has been going to great lengths to remove religion from the public arena, here are just a few– (1) “The Federal Hate Crimes Bill that attacks religious liberty and freedom of speech.”; (2) An activist judge ordered a homeschool mom in New Hampshire to stop homeschooling her daughter because the little girl ‘reflected too strongly’ her mother’s Christian faith.” (3) “Police called to East Jessamine Middle School in Lexington, Ky., to stop 8th graders from praying during their lunch break for a student whose mother was tragically killed.” (4) San Diego-area high school math instructor ordered to take down banners celebrating America’s religious heritage, heralding “God bless America”. (5) An Ohio county middle-school science teacher fired for having Bible on his desk and teaching both sides of creation and evolution in class. (6) Veterans’ war memorial ‘Mojave Desert Cross’ and local graves desecrated by anti-religious criminals. (7) A California couple fined (initially $300, then increased for subsequent “offenses”) by the city of San Juan Capistrano for holding Bible studies and religious gatherings in their home, which has some wondering about the future of religious freedom in America.

    RON PAUL 2012

  • LOL, who the fuck believes this bullshit? If you are voting for cain you’re ok, stupid people have run countries before. If you’re voting for Romney… well, welcome to happy place end of the world, where you will be giving money to me. So I guess thank you! I love money from dumb ass fucks! I bet you guys will take me lightly and vote for Romney (which is what I want) since I get good $$ from this. If you vote for Ron Paul (which you will not, since you’re a dumb fuck) you’re life will be better, since he is clearly the more educated and intelligent individual, that truly cares about his country.

    This up here is too long, and you’re probably too stupid to even read. So vote for Romney dumb ass! :3 Ron Paul might be the best candidate, but you don’t want the big bosses angry. I need to get my bonus this year, a whole 3,00,000$


    Goldman Sachs

  • Well there’s a couple things wrong with what u say. He doesn’t want to get rid of the fed government, he wants to limit it, because the amount of government involved in each and everyone of our lives is insane. Did u know the US has the most laws out of any country in the world, and people call us the land of the free? :p and the fact that state can’t govern themselves without the fed government stepping in and stopping them is unconstitutional itself. If u took a history lesson u would know thats what the founding fathers had intended. Ur arguments contradicts the ideas that this very country was based on.

  • Where would our UNITED States be if there was no federal government regulation and everything was left ‘up to the states’? Firstly, you think our FEDERAL taxes are high? If you leave it all up to the states to provide the services for the people, state taxes would go through the roof! Secondly, if each of the 50 states can adopt any old legislation they want, we wouldn’t be much of a union. We might as well just become 50 little independent countries, all with different immigration laws, worker safety laws, banking laws…oh, and don’t go on vacation to another state and expect to get any money from an ATM – as all banking laws would differ from state to state. Do you people actually have a clue what happens when there is no federal oversight? Here’s one clue…the banks and financial institutions are free to almost single-handedly cause the 2007 economic crash! Think about that!

    • “….Do you people actually have a clue what happens when there is no federal oversight? Here’s one clue…the banks and financial institutions are free to almost single-handedly cause the 2007 economic crash! Think about that!”

      Ally, who do you think was responsible? Banking laws? Really? With banks charging ATM fees of up to $4, who cares. My credit union gives me a VISA check card with no fees and allows me to access my money from other credit unions around the country free of charge or for a small fee in some cases. Maybe it is YOU who has something to think about. States SHOULD be responsible for their constituents needs. If a state raises taxes too high and is irresponsible with state funds, people will only move to another state and leave that state penniless…..would you rather people had no choice but to leave the country entirely to avoid over taxation? Simmer down, unplug from your corporate sponsored fast food world, pick up a book by the Dr and educate yourself.

      I applaud Dr Ron Paul for his honesty, sincerity and straight-forward politics that uphold the Constitution rather than sucking up to whatever lobbyist comes his way. I appreciate his unwavering dedication to our troops, for serving our country and for his service to the people of this country who could not afford hospital treatment. He has donated thousands of hours of his services to people who could not pay, and he refused medicaid payments for those services. He does not take a federal pension or health insurance policy and he has been married to the same woman for over 50 years. If people cannot see the value of that, then it doesn’t matter who they vote for….everyone else is bought.

    • What services does the federal income tax provide?

      • Are you serious?

        Well, first, you get an army to defend the US with. Second, you get roads. LOTS of roads. And road maintenence. There are also many electrical power plants that are maintained with federal money. You get food inspectors so your food isn’t poisonous. etc.

        For more info, go here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

        The ONLY thing I like about Ron Paul is that he’s honest and consistent. Otherwise he’s a racist crackpot who wants to give other people the power to take away your reproductive rights.

  • I didn’t know the world was filled with such idiocy. The author of this article and anyone who agrees with this article have been raised in a society where it is okay to have their rights violated. Jaded by the actions and words of previous and current governments, it’s amazing we’re all still alive.

    How can any of you morons sit back and let your taxes go to foreign policy?!?!?! Did you know foreign policy was created to “contain communism”? Which is why our troops occupy countries like Vietnam, Germany, South Korea, Guam, etc etc etc. Containing Communism was established after world war 2, how many communist countries are there? actually, how many communist movements are there? not many…what…two countries? one country believes in Marxism and uses isolationism to operate in seclusion. the other country is 90 miles off the coast of the U.S. and they’re not doing much of anything.

    I’m pro-choice, but i believe in Ron Paul’s vision to leave that decision up to the states. If people don’t like it, then move to another state that does allow you to do it. This is another example of a free market and a competitive market, something jaded people know nothing about because they’re so used to having their lives dictated by the government.

    When are you nOblahma, McCain, and ROmmney and all these other knucklehead supporters going to wake up and get your collective heads out of your collective asses?

    This is the reason why our economy struggles, because supporters are so low on their knees, that they’ll do and say just about anything to have their lives dictated by the federal government.

    All of you who do not believe in Ron Paul’s cause should re-read the Constitution of the United States…remember what that is? that’s that piece of paper in which our country was founded on and limits the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS power over the people.

    Ugh, people like the author of this article make me sick. I will be voting for Ron Paul next year and when he win’s you should forward an apology to Dr. Paul for your idiocies and misjudgments.

    • We don’t occupy Vietnam. We occupied Germany after WWII for a time. By the way, that was after the defeat of Adolph Hitler, an avowed anti-communist. Guam is a territory of the United States and has never been Communist.

      We are a country, not a confederation of independent States. The 14th Amendment states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” That means the rights of citizens are the same in every state. No matter what Rick Perry says.

      What does the free market have to do with a woman’s right to choose what she does with her own body? One is an Economic principle, the other deals with personal privacy.

      The Constitution also limits the governments of “the several States” I have read this document, sir. I believe ALL of it should be followed; not just those parts I agree with.

      I will never vote for Ron Paul. And, when he is NOT elected next year, who will you apologize too?

      • We still have military bases in Vietnam and Germany, which can be considered occupying that country. East Germany was communist after WWII and the US military occupied West Germany to keep communism from spreading.

        We are a country that is made up of the individual states wanted to participate in a combined governance in order to provide equal rights and protection to all those individuals that live in those states. Those rights are spelled out in the Constitution. If states rights don’t matter, why do we have them? Just let the federal government make all the laws.

        The free market principles still apply to laws, including abortion laws. If you disagree with a law in your state you will move to a state that has laws you agree with. When companies and people start leaving a state because of the laws, the state will have no people left to govern and will lose power in the federal government because they have a small population. Thus creating pressure to make the state repeal the law.

        For most laws I feel this would take way too long and it would never really work like this. The principle still does apply though. If you don’t like it, move. In reality state laws would more accurately reflect the population of the state then a federal government law would. If you disagree with a law you can get it changed a lot more quickly at the state level than you ever can at the federal level. That is the beauty of states rights.

        Yes the states rights are limited in that the states cannot regulate commerce with foreign countries nor with other states, nor can they naturalize citizens, fix standards of weights and measures, declare war, nor raise or support an army or navy. No one is wanting the states to do that. That is the federal governments job. However everything else should be left up to the states.

        • Prithee tell me how we occupy Vietnam? We LOST that war, over 30 years ago, and were driven out of that now reunited country.

        • Aquarian Dreamer

          we have bases in Vietnam? I dont think so.

        • Who would vote for a sexist, bigot? I guess another sexist bigot. Thank you for outing yourself.

          Big business would disembowel you and sell your organs if they made money off it and were allowed. Learn some history. Like how workers were treated before the turn of the last century and during the beginning of it. That is what free market does. A free market with a non corrupt government of oversight is the ideal balance.

          Why do we not learn from history? We do not have to look far back. The 1980s recession was the worst since the great depression. The 1980s featured the S&L scandal and collapse. The S&L industry was deregulated and look what happened. They created a bubble and when it burst, they failed. Notice you don’t see a whole lot of S&L monikers anymore.
          So more recently we thought it would be a good idea to deregulate real banks and investment firms. Even though they have proven to be cheats and liars. In 2002 the industry paid $1.4 billion in fines for lying to people. Between 98-03 Fannie paid $400 million in fines for accounting fraud, Freddie paid $125 million for the same. Instead of tighter regulations we gave them even more freedom! The Commodity Exchange Act really screwed us all by deregulating derivative trading. This is the result people. Big business, banks, and investment firms WILL NOT regulate themselves. They succumb to greed and we all get screwed while they get bailed out. They are still in business, still making huge bonuses and they caused this mess, more importantly they KNEW what they were doing. This was all caused by deregulation. The proof of this lies in the fact that countries with adequate regulation, such as Canada, were almost completely insulated from this disaster.
          If you watched even an hour of the congressional hearings you would want to puke in disgust.

        • Where is your source for the US having military bases in Vietnam? that’s simply not true.

        • Not sure about Vietnam, but we do have military forces in Japan, South Korea, Afghanistan, and Antarctica and navel ships around several other countries waiting to invade or deal with another ‘conflict’. Our military powers cover the globe and yet we are broke. No one else sees a problem here?

        • why cannot we work towards ending military presence overseas, (the only place we now occupy is Iraq – but yes there ARE bases elsewhere, hardly an occupation) – . But why not come to an agreement about SOME laws, regulations and policies which need changing or rethinking without saying that the whole government and ALL regulations must go? why alll this all or nothing talk? I can understand some people not liking abortion but why should they have the say over everyone else? I can even understand people wanting to keep guns (even if I don’t like them) but surely a sane person cannot really think that means all and everything? Surely there must be limits? Why do ALL limits on ANYTHING signal a “lack of freedom”?

    • but what about civil rights? should states be responsible for their civil rights laws and enforcing them?

  • Not all black people are poor, not all white people are rich, and not all Asians ace the SAT, those are stereotypes that affirmative action supports, abolishing it would go a long way towards promoting equality.

    Abortion is immoral and wrong, you should be responsible to avoid pregnancy in the first place. if abortion wasn’t an option it wouldn’t need to be, condoms and birth control do just fine.

    The minimum wage is BAD for the working class. when employers lay off employees, it is because they cannot afford to keep them on at that salary. I do not know one person who would rather be out of a job completely right now than to have taken a pay cut back in 2008. allowing businesses to pay less allows them to keep more people on the payroll. and the employee can always decide if his time is worth more than what the job offers, and leave.

    You clearly don’t know how taxes, or anything to do with money at all works.

    Global warming is so scary. al gore said it should be around 700 degrees by now. it was about 98 today.

    Oh no not the UN, then we would have to stop bailing out failing nations and worrying about their petty disagreements.

    guns are good and only morons disagree, look at london. no guns there, still violent and rioty. baseball bat sales are through the roof. must really love baseball in soccer country eh? or perhaps they need to defend themselves with SOMETHING.

    tldr you are wrong on all points and wrong for all the wrong reasons. it is sad that your vote counts as much as mine, i hope you die before 2012.

    • “Abortion is immoral and wrong, you should be responsible to avoid pregnancy in the first place. if abortion wasn’t an option it wouldn’t need to be, condoms and birth control do just fine.”

      Well if I’m ever in a situation where I’m being raped, I’ll try to remember to ask my rapist if he has a condom because I don’t want to become pregnant.

      • Wow… just
        those are special cases.
        If special cases such as this exist, the government should take them into account.
        But in the VAST majority of cases, abortion should be abolished.
        Women HAVE to have a responsibility over their bodies.

    • “Abortion is immoral and wrong” – well, I think it is not. I don’t like it, but even worse is telling a woman what she must do or not do to/with her own body. I think THAT is immoral and wrong. I do not consider a life equal to the woman’s until it is OUTSIDE her body. Before that it is part of the woman. you claiming otherwise is difference of opinion and belief, yet you hold that yours must be enforced. that makes YOU the one against personal freedom. I say if you don’t like abortions, don’t have them. If you are a man, never have sex without a condom. Then shut up.

  • It’s funny how often statists talk about it as some vicious attack on freedom and justice when someone wants to deprive them of the right to violently force their beliefs on others. Lots of things that sound nice, compassionate and tolerant, are nothing but threats of violence. The “minimum wage,” “affirmative action,” the “Americans with Disabilities Act,” “gun control,” and so on, constitute politicians threatening violence against everyone, and pretending it has something to do with fairness and justice. Dr. Paul’s position on most things can be summed up as: “Government shouldn’t forcibly interfere.” Yet state-worshipers try to spin this as some heinous attack on the innocent, because they WANT “government” interfering, robbing and controlling people.

    • still no one saying anything about whether or not the federal government should be in charge of civil rights? should individual states be responsible for enforcing civil rights laws?

      • EVERYONE should focus on enforcing civil rights. God knows big or small government won’t back you up here… or maybe they will, while rupturing your spleen, kicking your fetus, and drowning you in teargas…

      • Civil rights? The right for all to be treated equally in all things? It’s guaranteed by the constitution. So the states would have to enforce.

  • Ron Paul is still a racist, and nobody can argue that. They can try, but the fact that the guy let things be written in his name, then claimed them to be “misunderstood” and “taken out of context” means he’s a racist. Sure, he later denied it and said that he didn’t do it at all, but the fact is, he admitted to writing them at one point, simply saying people didn’t understand what he meant.

    A racist, through and through. Fuck him.

    • He is no racist. Quit acting like you understand history or Ron’s words because it is obvious you do not have a high IQ.

      Know your history because Abraham Lincoln destroyed the 10th Amendment with the 14th and enslaved the states. The civil rights act was forced acceptance versus the release and freedom African-brits received. No federal mandate should have been past. Freedom of slaves and restoration of the union would have happened in time.

      • wow. so it would have been better to allow freedom of slaves to happen over time? what about the states that wanted to remain slave states? do you honestly believe they would have just decided one day to free their slaves?

    • Ron Paul a racist? On the contrary, Paul’s philosophy is that no “group” should be given special privileges. He is and has always been defender of individual rights. When we pass laws that promote group rights, we are actually practicing discrimination. Ssj12 has what I call cyber courage. He feels he can defame other people just because he has the safety of sitting behind a computer screen somewhere far away. Calling someone a racist is a terrible insult, and being an ardent supporter of a great statesman like Ron Paul, I take it personally. You better have your facts right before you say something as heinous as that. We’ll wait for your apology Mr. Cyber Courage.

    • He is not a racist, you however are a moron

  • Ok, I realise not everyone is gonna watch the debates and learn everyones policies, but I just wanna clear up the Prophets policies, as the media are trying very hard to distort them to the uneducated

    Myth 1: ISOLATIONIST Foreign Policy: FALSE. Dr Paul has proposed a NON-INTERVENTIONIST POLICY . Basically he wants to trade and be amiable with other nations – BUT NOT police and nation build. Makes perfect sense.

    Myth 2: LEGALISING ALL NARCOTICS: FALSE. He says he wants to only end the failed WAR ON DRUGS, as its costing billions and is not working. He will leave it up to the states to decide legality of drugs. Perfect sense again

    Myth 2: He is ANTI-ABORTION: FALSE. He only says in his personal/professional opinion that he doesn’t believe in it, which is natural as he is a OB/GYN. He doesn’t believe in interfering in people’s lives in that way.

    Those are the most pertinent myths I have seen , I hope this makes people more up to date with Ron Paul

    The only candidate who has NEVER CHANGED in his 30 years of being shunned in politics. Somebody has to stand for something : /

    Ron Paul 2012

    • Well, I won’t argue with you because you start this out on such a note as to discredit yourself. Ron Paul is NOT a prophet! He is NOT a religious figure, nor is he some kind of savior. Now, having called him “the Prophet” (with a Capital “P”, no less!), puts you right up there with Osama Bin Laden’s followers and, to be honest, as a devout Christian, it also labels you as a heretic. When someone puts demagogue status to a person, they are beyond reason. YOU are why Ron Paul cannot win. People of this far extremism cannot be allowed to run our country…

      • The Last Free American

        So blind you cant see the forest through the trees…

        Who would you rather side with? The white knight or the dark forces?

      • I believe he is alluding to the article written about Ron Paul that is entitled “The Profit”, which outlines the ways that Paul predicted the housing meltdown years before it happened.

    • Great points Tim. Ron Paul is the Jefferson of our time.

      • Thank you, though I wouldn’t make THAT comparison.

      • If you mean that he is into owning slaves and pro-creating with them while he blathers on about the inalienable rights of rich property owning white men… Yes he is rather a lot like the Jefferson of our times. All your hero’s are flawed at that point though. The founding fathers were only forward thinking for their time and place. We could do a lot better now. Ron Paul will not do a lot better he will do a lot like they would have. Which is fine and all, but I find it to be a little dated as far as the logic thing goes. Reverting back to the plan originally drawn up by the first 13 colonies/states is not what we need to do. We need to step into the future already. Paul won’t take us there. If Jefferson were alive right now, he wouldn’t take us their either. It’s time to embrace the future people. It’s been almost 240 years already. Stop dragging your feet.

  • Well written and researched.
    I do not agree with much of Ron Paul because he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Much of his agenda is very backward thinking.

    Any person of intelligence who stands up and denies the Theory of Evolution lacks a certain amount of intelligence. I do wonder what he thinks of the Theory of Gravity or does he have a flying carpet closeted away?

    How about Nuclear Theory? Will he dump this out with the bathwater, too?

    • 1) “Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities”

      Ron Paul does not value rights for groups, he values rights of individuals. To state or imply he does not value rights of “minorities” when he has railed against the drug war since it began as unfairly targeting the poor and minorities, and against the death penalty as unfairly targeting the poor and minorities is just ridiculous.

      2) “Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights”

      Ron Paul as the Executive has no power to overturn a Judicial decision so such a statement is completely false because he has no power to do so

      3) “Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class”

      He believes in personal property rights which means he believes in the right to sue companies that pollute our property. All these laws are written by the very people that are polluting so to believe they help is a fallacy.

      4) “Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes”

      I don’t really know how everyone having the same tax while stopping the wars which will lower our expenditures thus having no need for higher taxes is unfair, but hey to each their own

      5) “Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.”

      Again, Cap and Trade is written by the polluters to believe it will help, is a fallacy

      6) “A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations”

      LMAO!!!!! and belonging to an institution that was supposed to stop war, but has been the cause of more war than before it started is going to hurt our image? I would state bombing every middle eastern country, subsidizing Israel, and torture pretty much did us in on this front

      7) “Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens”

      That is just false. He believes it is a state issue not a federal issue which is why he voted for that bill. “The governments have no right to tell any consenting adults who they can marry. Call it what they want I don’t care, it is not the governments job to tell them what they can or cannot do”

      8) “Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns”

      This is just an ignorant assertion. Who is this person to say what is unnatural. It is rhetoric and ignorant rhetoric at that

      9) “Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system”

      Anyone that has looked at the statistics of our educational system knows that since the feds got involved it has gone down. No Child Left Behind anyone?

      10) “Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state”

      Again, the President cannot overturn 13 Supreme Court decisions nor the 1st Amendment so his beliefs are irrelevant

      • It’s not a matter of what the president walks into office with the power to do. It’s about what he would attempt to do. The fact of the matter is, if he was president, and the congress sent him a bill for approval that overturned Roe V. Wade for example, he could, and judging from his VOTING RECORD (that thing that shows the general ideological leanings of the people you elect), would, sign it into law. The bill would then have to be approved by the judicial branch to make sure that it met constitutional requirements, but then they might just go ahead and o.k. it too. It’s not that he could just wave a magic wand in the air and make it happen, it’s that it gets closer to happening with someone like him in the white house. That’s why I refuse to vote for anyone who claims to be pro-life. And if you actually think that privatizing the world is going to fix the problems we are facing, look at the global south. Where privatization is often mandated by the military and market might of the Global North. It DOESN’T WORK! For example private companies stop producing medicine to treat malaria, not because it doesn’t work, or it’s not needed, but because the people who suffer from malaria can’t afford the medication. Because of Privatization they can use that as a valid point. We live in 21st Century and we still have people dying from diseases that we’ve had beaten for decades! Because of the Invisible Hand of the Free Market! Whereas if it were mandated by government, we could have probably nearly eradicated the disease decades ago. Of course, isolationists like Paul, will claim that’s not our problem to do things like that. We pull out of the world, and give it the finger while it crumbles in upon itself. Sounds like a good solution? When are all these monkey’s going to wake up and realize that borders are just lines in the sand that someone made up. Oh whoops! Wait, I called us monkeys, and I forgot that Paul is anti-evolution too. Sorry for thinking that I may not have come from dirt. I guess I’d like to believe that I’m better than that. I guess I’m just another one of those Intellectual Elitists. Do you have a Gulag around that I could stay in? Wouldn’t want to shake up the private party all these backward thinking Statist-racist-sexist-creationist Paul supporters are throwing.

    • Well you are in luck because he does not deny evolution. He just does not believe that “God” and Evolution have to be mutually exclusive

  • This is bullshit…Ron Paul for President!!!

    • Any one who supports intelligent design and denies evolution is a wing-nut. Please, do not support another wing-nut for president.

      • completely disregarding anything else related in the post, it sounds like someone should look into fractals found in nature. you come off as ignorant.

      • People who deny evolution and promote Intelligent Design aren’t nuts. They’re just in denial. Intelligent Design is the last gasp of flat earth types who would seek to pervert the very nature of science by drawing a conclusion based on faith in something that cannot be tested and forcing the evidence to fit said conclusion rather than letting the evidence guide your direction. with the vast evidence supporting it i don’t “believe” evolution to be a fact i KNOW it’s a fact.

  • Well, I’m sorry to inform you that I disagree with your perspective on what has, for me, been the most inspiring and apathy curing politician I’ve ever been privileged to come across. Say what you like about his supporters, they at least have someone to support. The vitriolic nature of the anti-Pauls is obvious and is not persuading anyone to dislike him. In fact, I believe it is more beneficial than not. I couldn’t help but chuckle to myself reading this and the comments. I hope you think long and hard about your positions here and come to see that liberty, not control, and individual responsibility over governmental nannyism/i.e. control are the solutions not the problem. We are in the dire straits now precisely from incremental affronts to this true freedom. I can only express my opinion as have you though.
    You can not wake someone who is only pretending to be asleep. The make believe world you are clinging to is ending. I hope you are ready.
    peace and love…Ron Paul 2012!

  • Libertarianism is inherently unchristian, selfish, intolerant, and can be characterized by the simple phrase, Blow you Jack, I’m all right. That’s why I can never support, FOR POLITICAL OFFICE, anybody who publicly brags about being a libertarian. People who hold to this philosophy should also decline to participate as a citizen of any country, INCLUDING! (Ron Paul, are you listening?) accepting a heavy stream of largess from those hated feds. You either believe in a country in which all pull together for the good of the many in a union, or you don’t, and then you have no business running for political office in said union. I have no trouble with rugged individualists who want to lead their own lives in whatever way they choose, but I have BIG trouble with those who would force us into a milieu of ignorance about science, intolerance of certain religions and viewpoints, rejection of the poor and less fortunate as “unworthy,” canonization of Big Bidness as slightly short of Gawd Almighty, and, of course, the terrible pervasiveness of overt racism.

  • Jack Bouchard

    Is this a repost?

  • Type anything this dingbat says into ronpaularchive.com and see what Ron really believes and has said. this author just twists things so they look bad when it is not. I really would like factual information on Candidates and this is just full of lies.



  • Are you nuts? You literally have no clue WHATSOEVER who Ron Paul is, what he stands for, or what the Constitution is for that matter! You’ve got to learn that just because something is a “good thing” doesn’t mean it’s the government’s job to enforce it into every single person’s life!

    1. It isn’t the IRS’ job! You can’t be thought police! The society of today will actually take care of racism quite handily on its own. It simply isn’t a government function.

    2. That’s an ignorant way of putting it. Women have control of their bodies, it’s when they lose control that’s a problem. We have to draw the line for when someone is human somewhere, and since a huge segment of the population has a firm belief about that, I see no reason not to draw the line there. Once everyone knows where the line is there can be no excuse, it simply is murder in the eyes of many. And if you believed it was murder, how could you possibly let people get away with it?

    3. History shows that your apocalyptic doomsday view of a world that isn’t meticulously manipulated by dictators is less than accurate. A truly free market economy balances itself out quite well, instead of the 40% wealth in the hands of the top 1% we have right now. No, Ron Paul would not be disastrous for the working class, he’d be disastrous for the wealthy.

    4. You don’t even understand how his tax plan works… or the current system, for that matter, in which the rich pay the least taxes. All of these tax credits he’s trying to get rid of are what the wealthy abuse to cheat their income bracket!!! He’s doing EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you’re accusing him of.

    5. Ron Paul is an outspoken proponent of alternative fuel, his idea is not for the environment to get desecrated by millions of oil rigs shooting up! The idea is that, in a free economy, that is not being manipulated, we can and already could have had a huge variety of alternative fuels available. Again, these things simply aren’t the government’s job! They can’t regulate our lives like this, no one gave them the right, and things always work out better when they don’t meddle anyway!!!

    6. Um, you are just plain clueless on this one. Ron Paul is the only candidate the outside world has seen in years that they don’t view as an awful dictator. He’s the only one who wants to get our troops off their shores, and stop policing countries we don’t own. How would you feel if China stationed troops all over our country?! If they drove tanks around and had ships parked on all our shores?! WE ARE DOING THIS TO OTHER COUNTRIES, and you say they will be upset at our president when we pull out? YOU ARE SO NAIVE.

    7. No, Ron Paul does not discriminate, your statement is straight up slander. You have such a narrow view of the world, just accepting a bill at face value. Bills are never exactly what they seem, and even if it was, that wouldn’t mean “Ron Paul discriminates”, it would mean “Ron Paul doesn’t support the government discriminating”. NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S PLACE! Simply not their job.

    8. Guns are what protect our freedom. If Ron Paul was the psychopath you make him out to be, don’t you think he’d have tried to use his guns instead of sound logic and 40 hard years of campaigning the right, legal way, always supporting the exact same ideals? The Constitution is VERY clear as to whether we have a right to bear arms. Hint: we do. If you have a beef with that, I suggest you take it up with our forefathers, and/or move out the country, because this land is OUR land, and you will not strip our liberty because you think an artificial sense of security is worth your freedom.

    9. Our education system couldn’t be “butchered”, because it is completely and utterly worthless right now. If you actually look at the results of private schools versus public schools you would realize how full of crap your eighth point is, because private schools do MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better on average than the pile of steaming dung that is our public education. And once again, you are confusing the idea that the federal government shouldn’t have anything to do with a private business’ choices, with the idea that Ron Paul wants to have separate schools for blacks and whites and make all the women sit on the floor. You are simply trying to paint Ron Paul as something he isn’t. He never supported any of that or anything like it.

    10. You can’t “separate” church and state, and that idea was never in our constitution or any other meaningful legal document. Nobody even knows what it actually means, they just throw it around as a way of bashing the candidate they don’t like. If you look at Ron Paul’s views and what he’s actually trying to accomplish, it would be clear he has absolutely no goal to enforce his ideals on us! It is exactly the opposite!

    He just wants every single American to have absolute freedom! That’s what this country was founded on and that is what is so amazing about our great Constitution!!! Your freedom only ends where another’s begins. That is how it should be. The government does far more than it should, and it is not the only way to accomplish something in society. In fact in most cases, making something illegal has demonstrated to make the effects of it far more drastic than they should have been naturally (Drug war, prostitution, homosexual marriage, War in Iraq, War in Libya, etc etc etc etc back for almost a century now).

    For Freedom! For Liberty! For America! Ron Paul Revolution!

    • To quote:
      9. Our education system couldn’t be “butchered”, because it is completely and utterly worthless right now. If you actually look at the results of private schools versus public schools you would realize how full of crap your eighth point is, because private schools do MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better on average than the pile of steaming dung that is our public education. And once again, you are confusing the idea that the federal government shouldn’t have anything to do with a private business’ choices, with the idea that Ron Paul wants to have separate schools for blacks and whites and make all the women sit on the floor. You are simply trying to paint Ron Paul as something he isn’t. He never supported any of that or anything like it.

      Private schools get to pick and choose who they educate and teach. And if your kid is failing in his/her private school that private school can kick that kid out.

      It’s kind of stupid to compare private schools and public schools and claim that private schools do oh so much better when they get to game the system that shows that they’re doing better. Lets see them exist by the same exact rules that public schools have to abide by and then see if they do so much better.

      And you may believe in Ron Paul and his belief that a man who died of cancer and had $400,000 in debt shouldn’t be helped or the government shouldn’t step in…but that is a level of moral depravity that shouldn’t be allowed to exist.

      Ron Paul for President? He isn’t even qualified to be County Dog Catcher

      But if you so believe in Ron Paul then lets see you voluntarily surrender your medicare, mediciaid and social security. Surrender all the social safety nets that your boy Ron Paul wants to destroy…

      But don’t worry..I won’t be holding my breath on you doing so.

      • The U.S. test scores rank 25th in math and 21st in science among industrialized nations. We spend more than any country in the world on education. You automatically make it a race issue, when clearly it is a personal responsibility issue. A private school will not kick a child out based on their race. They will however kick a child out for being overly disruptive, or having poor performance in academics. (not without conferencing with the family first and trying to resolve the issue) Teachers unions and the federal government have driven our public school system into the ground. It is utterly impossible to fire a bad teacher. Many teachers get into the profession for the wrong reasons. They want the vacation and holiday time off and still get paid. They could care less about the children. Those who do care about the children are jaded by the system within a few years, and tend to lose their zest for teaching. Useless paperwork, and teaching to the test inhibit the teachers from challenging our children’s minds. less than half of the monies collected through taxes and federal funding go to the education of our children. A majority of that money goes to the administrations of the various school districts. Our schools are too top heavy. You are drinking the koolaid that the government is putting into your cup. It is people like you that perpetuate the race war in this country. We, as a nation, are capable of moving way beyond the race issue, if only you people would stop feeding into the governments BS in trying to continue the race hatred in this country. They know that a country that is divided cannot stand, and that is exactly where they want to keep us…. Divided. That is how they keep control of us. I realize that nothing will change, simply because there are people like you that will continue to drink the koolaid. I am very saddened by all the ignorance. I have no doubt you can read. I don’t think you have much comprehension. Wow! what a great job our public schools did with you!

  • Who wrote this article is very socialist and very pro-big government. The article states some of the 10 reasons I would vote for him. LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC RON PAUL 2012!!!

    • Cause anytime the government does something it’s “Socialist!”. If only they knew what socialism, communism, capitalism, free market actually meant. Metalflyer = moron. They’re under the delusion that the founders wanted an anarchist free for all. Or just a country where people could make $$$ any way they wanted. Then these socialists started abolashing slavery, enforcing safe working conditions, stopping child exploitation… how dare they!

      • A basis of everything you know starts at home, or when you were a kid correct? So say your parents were progressively liberal, as well as your school, so that’s what or how you re gonna think for the rest of your life, but you argue to say that Ron Paul is going to abolish social security, minimum wage, the IRS, etc, my question is what good has it done for you, personally?

        • Well, let’s start with the fallacy of your first statement:”A basis of everything you know starts at home, or when you were a kid correct? So say your parents were progressively liberal, as well as your school, so that’s what or how you re gonna think for the rest of your life,”

          Too easy. Incorrect. People are LEARNING creatures. As an example, my father was a heavy liberal. I rebelled and became a heavy conservative. Then I grew up and became a conservative moderate (with a short stint as a Ron Paul supporter in there). Basic psychology shows that, yes, we are influenced in our early lives, but it is NOT our manifest destiny.

          “but you argue to say that Ron Paul is going to abolish social security, minimum wage, the IRS, etc, my question is what good has it done for you, personally?”

          Again, too easy. my parents are retired (Social Security). My best friend has an extremely rare condition (hit him at age 25) that has left him blind and with more than 50% of his time heavily drugged due to severe migraines (social security Disability). Minimum wage? EASY! I have worked those jobs. They suck. I wouldn’t want to do them for less. Yet, as a kid, I would have had no choice. As an adult, I have worked them to pay for my schooling so I could GET a better paying job. Couldn’t have afforded school if they had paid less. Tie it all together…If (as Ron Paul would have) we expect individuals to tend to those problems, I would have NEVER been able to go to school because I would have been working for pennies, my parents could NOT have retired (they didn’t make very much over minimum wage and had little in savings), and my friend? God only knows…probably dead. The drugs he takes are very expensive.

          So, now, YOU tell ME…why would I even consider Ron Paul when he would let those I care for ROT?

          • The federal government has no right holding your friend or parents hands through life. The do not have to rot though. Everything worked 100% before social security. Medical care costs increased and quality decreased AFTER it existed.

            Still that does not mean states cannot provide sometime of system like SS or Medicare on their own. Just the federal government shouldn’t.

            • i agree ssj12, but can someone please tell me what they think should happen with regards to the civil rights amendments to the constitution? if you all who support ron paul (who i agree with on 95% of the issues) think that the federal government should not oversee enforcement of civil rights laws, that scares the crap out of me!!! im a black woman, and i have a son, and i’ve experienced racism on many levels (even if it wasn’t directed at me, i witnessed it)! the thought of having to research a states’ civil rights laws before deciding whether or not i’d like to vacation there is preposterous! what if a state decided that it was ok to discriminate against me? should i just suck it up and deal with not being able to visit a state in the country i was born in because they don;t like the way i look? im not trying to make this racial at all, but when i hear this type of talk, these are some of the things i think of…

          • Tim,
            Who pays for all of this? It is not like it is free money. Go ask your neighbors to give you money to buy a new car. Think about it on a local level. It seems crazy, but it is okay to ask the elites to redistribute income in the ‘honest’ way they see fit. Personally, I’d rather keep more of MY money and give out the way I see fit.
            My parents are retired too just like everybody else. Why do we want to keep supporting a broken system. I might be an outcast, but I actually plan for what my family will need in the future by saving. What if the minimum wage was set at $100/hr? Would everybody be sitting on easy street? This doesn’t work. Wouldn’t it be better that people with lower skills be allowed to work rather than pull an unemployment check? Without a minimum wage they could get a job and develop new skills and get a better job that pays more.
            Kudos to you if you actually paid your way through school and didn’t take a gov’t handout through Federal student loans.

      • socialism and communism are fascism, a free market and free market capitalism is called freedom.

        • Except communism and socialism are far left ideologies and fascism is a far right ideology. There’s a reason Hitler and Stalin didn’t get along.

          And communism would be freedom too – I’d think a stateless, classless society would appeal quite a lot to an ignoramus like yourself.

    • looks like the state run media has let loose all thier weapons to attack Ron Paul……. as can be expected, they pull the race card….when are the floride ridden brain dead ppl going to get it. Al Gore’s father was not a racist and nither was Sen. Robert Byrd. The Dems. have historicly been the racist party……. Ron Paul loves ppl and America too!!!!!! “end the fed”/ equal oppertunity destroyer

      • notbrainwashed

        Ayayay, brainwash, take a breath, buddy, will ya? “they pull the race card…”? “floride”? “Al Gore’s father was not a racist and nither was Sen. Robert Byrd…”? “The Dems. have historicly been the racist party…” (that is some sharp insight right there!!), “equal oppertunity destroyer…”?? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot! What the heck are you even talking about? As for the race card, please allow me to englighten you:


    • The only right way is mildly left.

  • Learn the truth instead of this what Progressive-liberal mouthpiece pushes. You can’t keep having a government how he would like when there is NO money to fund it & putting it upon taxpayers to support endless entitlement programs that I will never really get any benefit out of.

  • Ron Paul is a backwoods ostrich.

  • As for me, I’m heading back to Mises.org and Ron Paul.com where my preconceived notions and ideas are challenged on a daily basis. Where ideas are presented that contradict what I have been taught and leave it up to me to decide what I will think. This web site is for those who want to reinforce what they already believe. I’ll waste no more of my time here and leave this site to the addicts.

  • Dr. Paul spent time putting his ideas down on paper, filling them out fully in a number of books. If you don’t want to support him by buying one of his books, but want to educate yourself on his stands, which are deeper than a sound bite, check them out from the public library, you paid for it with your tax dollars, use it.

  • Question is, do the American people care enough to take upon themselves such an action? We’ve already suffered so many casualties overseas for this phony war on terror; do we dare take back our own country? Will we clean up our own back yard, or will we continue to allow the same forces who murdered our 35th ( & arguably last REAL) president to lead us further down the same path taken by ancient Rome? What say you, America? Is it (still) worth our blood? Are you prepared to stand defiantly on a gallows waiting for the trapdoor to fall out, or will you hide in the crowd of onlookers, hoping not to catch the hangman’s eye?

  • I’ve said it before & I’ll say it again, voting will NOT fix this. The only thing that will is the true reason behind the 2nd ammendment we were overthrown in November of 1963 & we never came back. Until we fix this, no vote can succeed. Until we fix this we all remain enslaved.

  • This is leftist propoganda at best. A shameful hit piece. Ron Paul supports workers rights to organize, to collectively bargain, etc. Not supporting OSHA, is not saying that he thinks safety of workers is not important. He is simply stating it should be up to the workers and the company, not a government bueracracy. Over regulation in this regard is forcing business out of this country. I for one work in an incredibly dangerous job and just so happen to think that safety is my own responsibilty. Imagine that. Furthermore, he doesn’t personally support abortion. But UNLIKE some ridiculous legislators he is not trying to ram through bills that make it a federal issue. This is a state’s matter, and should be handled as such. I hate to break it to anyone, but the supreme court has already ruled that being a “natural born citizen” is not the same as being a “born citizen”. If you are born in the United States you are a United States citizen. However, if both of your parents are NOT United States citizen’s than it is in “serious doubt” that you are a “NATURAL born citizen.” Only a NATURAL born citizen can hold the highest office in the land. One last point, if you were to do the research at all, you would find that the federal government’s involvement in education has been disasterous at best. Please read “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” by Charolette Iserbyt. Her credentials alone lend significant credence to the documented case that is presented in the book…You know, I am very much a social liberal…however I am fiscally conservative. Anytime someone wants people to take responsibilty for themselves AND their own community they are accused of being heartless. NOBODY wants the enviroment to be destroyed, by cruel and inhumane corporations and so on and so forth. But the reality of the situation, as clearly demonstrated by current circumstances, is a grave fallicy in the logic that the state can fix it all for us. Every program set up with good intentions seems to only further worsen the situation. This country has more programs to benifit the poor than ever, and more poverty than ever. It is unsustainable. Get a clue. Wealth can only come from productivity and work. It is not Big Brother’s job to take care of everyone from cradle to grave. It is OUR own job to take care of ourselves and look out for those who can’t. If government blundering is the only way to go about it, than it is first ineffective, and mostly a sign of the decedance that has become our crumbling population.

    • Oh horror of horrors! Pointing out Ron Paul’s voting record! Can’t have that.

      If his “ideals” are the only thing that separates him from someone who votes for these bills on grounds other than “small government”, why treat him like a messianic figure?

  • Jack Bouchard

    I’m really pissed that, on the day I find this article, the Library of Congress websites are all closed down.

  • All side issues, Summer you must be a tool for the banksters, what about the bill of rights? Ron Paul is about liberty, his district in Texas is overwhelmingly pro-life but as President he would likely support a woman’s right to do with her body as she pleases. Abortion, Affirmative action, etc are all outside the role of the US government, read the 10th amendment

    • Uh.. did you even read the article before you posted that asinine comment? If you had, you would know that Ron Paul does NOT support a woman’s right to choose. If you had read the comments, other than the ones from the people that disagree with him, you would ALSO see that even his supporters agree with his belief that a woman should not have the right to choose what to do with her own body. READ!!!!!

      • The Voice of Reason

        He leaves the choice up to the states to allow such things. So instead of a federal blanket policy on the restriction of abortion. A woman seeking an abortion may travel to a state that allows the procedure. It’s really an advantage for a woman to vote for Ron Paul.

        • Are yo kidding. That would make it incredibly difficult for a woman. Most states are trying, and succeeding, in making if as difficult as possible to get an abortion. If you repealed Roe V. Wade most states would outlaw abortion. It’s not easy or even possible in some cases for someone to go to another state. Are you rich? Do you not understand that some of us work constantly, have no vacation time, living pay check to pay check? There is no ability for a person in this position to do that.

        • Okay so HOW is it an advantage for a person of meager means to pay the expense of taking a trip to another state to get an abortion? If you live in say Alabama and Ron Paul has his way the entire Southeastern US would criminalize abortion overnight. You could have Planned Parenthood pay for the trips but under a Ron Paul administration they’d be gone too. Methinks Ron has not thought this out.

      • He only wants to stop public funding for abortions, not barring a woman to do as she pleases. If she wants to “accidently” get pregnant, then she should have to pay for it from her own pocket, not mine!

        • Ummm..what public funding for abortion are you talking about?

          And I am so happy that states rather than the federal government can decide what women can with their on bodies. What an improvement.

          Abortion is not an issue if one has money, but poor women may not have the option of travel (time and cost) to a distant state for a procedure. Only the wealthy having certain rights should not sit well with people.

          Sadly, the states that are most likely to restrict abortion also are the same that want to reduce money for education, children’s healthcare, welfare, etc. They want more money for prisons though…so it all balances out.

        • No public funds go to abortions. It’s been illegal since the 70s. Stop parroting right wing talking points. Not a dime of tax payer money goes to abortions. If you think so, show it. Also why is accidentally in quotes?

          • Health Bill passed in December of last year (H.R 3590)


            SEC. 1303

            • They make it too easy to discredit them…

              That’s what happens when you watch Fox News all day.

            • I believe you may be referring to this clause: “(A) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

              (1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES. (A) IN GENERAL. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title (or any amendment made by this title), and subject to subparagraphs (C) and (d) (i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan117 to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (b)(i) or (b)(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and (ii) the issuer of a qualified health plan shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph (b)(i) or (b)(ii) as part of such benefits for the plan year. (B) ABORTION SERVICES. (i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED. The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved. (ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED. The services described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based118 on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved. (C) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION. (i) DETERMINATION BY SEC- RETARY. The Secretary may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph (a) (ii), that the community health insurance option established under section 1323 shall provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (b)(i) as part of benefits for the plan year unless the Secretary (i) assures compliance with the requirements of paragraph”

              Now, maybe I don’t read so good (I’d say I think I read this PRETTY DARN CLOSELY)…But the VERY FIRST LINE says that it is VOLUNTARY (to the provider).

              THEN it says, “(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS. (A) IN GENERAL. If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1) (B) (i) , the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services” Let me translate: NO FUNDS FOR ABORTIONS.

              Wait, it gets better! Ron Paul wants the state in control, right? How’s this suit you? “(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.124”

              WOW!!!! Maybe you should ACTUALLY READ what you post as proof.

      • +1, Desmond I do believe you’ve been had on this issue, perhaps do some more research on his positions before you try to debate them… also LOOK at ME I can use CAPITAL letters too, take ME more SERIOUSLY!

    • Read more than just the tenth amendment. Congress has the right to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” (Article I, Section 7)

      Affirmative Action, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Civil Rights Act, etc. are WELL within the scope of the U.S. Government.

  • “Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.”

    That’s one of the most absurd claims I have ever seen. He values equal rights for every individual.

    “Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action”

    Which has nothing to do with “equal rights” and every thing to do with special privilege.

    Please stop trying to mislead the people with these false equivalences.

    “keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status”

    Because he doesn’t believe the government should be taxing racist private schools more than non-racist private schools. That’s just another form of punishment to control personal decisions. If I want to start a racist school, that’s my decision, and in a free society, any one that wants to patronize my racist business that I accept as a client can do so, and the government treats me equally before the law as long as I’m not violating any one’s contract rights.

    “would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education”

    That’s a lie.

    “and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens.”

    How does that deny “equal rights” for minorities? Being foreign born has nothing to do with skin color or minority status, it has to do with being foreign born. People are foreign born don’t get the same privileges for themselves and their children.

    Jus soli is a bad legal principle, and encourages illegal immigration.

    “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.”

    Paul would leave it to states to decide, because he doesn’t believe in an authoritarian federal government dictating to states that they must keep abortion legal, or must

    He believes the fetus has a right to not be murdered. I suspect you’re one of those who thinks a woman has a right to not provide 9 months of support to her own child, yet believes a perfect stranger should provide a life time of financial support to the poor who need medical care and can’t afford it.

    ” his, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents.”

    Legal precedent is not the end all and be-all of society. The legal state changes, and given Roe vs Wade was unconstitutional, its repeal would be a change in the right direction. The federal government should neither prohibit or force-legalize abortion.

    As for medical opinion, there is absolutely no consensus that life doesn’t begin at conception.

    “Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage”

    Your economic ignorance is showing. The minimum wage does not push wages up, it just makes teenagers unemployed. You can’t force companies to push wages up, or else we could get wages up to $1000 an hour through a high minimum wage.

    ” has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA,”

    So that corporations return from overseas and setup manufacturing in the US.

    “would deal devastating blows to Social Security”

    You’re just deluding yourself by thinking Social Security and Medicare can continue in their present form. Paul has done more than any one to protect Social Security and Medicare, by introducing legislation like the ‘Social Security Preservation Act’:


    He admits though that the obligations made, now at over $70 trillion, can’t fully be fulfilled.

    He also wants to give younger people the option of opting out of these entitlement programs, rather than tying them to the government wagon, like the liberals you support would.

    “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.”

    The Davis-Bacon Act is a Jim Crow law. It hurts the most vulnerable in society.

    “Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.”

    It’s fair in that it taxes people what they use in government services, rather than making one income class pay for the needs of another.

    Liberals don’t have a real understanding of fairness though, so you don’t grok this.

    “He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%,”

    He doesn’t believe in government taking so much of people’s money. This is a reason to support him.

    “Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.”

    This assumes falsely that the EPA is the only way that the environment can be protected. In his hometown of Pittsburgh, it was local ordinances that cleaned up the air and water, not an EPA that is in bed with big corporations.

    ” Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries,”

    Off shoring drilling and oil refineries are not a travesty, they are a source of income for Americans.

    “mining on federal lands,”

    Which is excellent.

    It seems you just don’t like industry.

    If your readers are against economic growth and prosperity, they will agree with you. If they favor modern industrial civilization and material wealth that gives us the luxury of being able to enjoy recreation and pursue the arts, then they will support Paul.

  • RON PAUL is for our Freedoms and against a corrupt government that is driven by greed. He is against ‘Special Interests’ and is for the US Citizen. The Dollar is being devalued everyday as more ‘Stimulus’ payments are printed (without adequate gold to back it). This is only stimulating a crashing economy. The IRS is an agency that we can do without. There are better processes for all of the above, and Dr Ron Paul is willing to show us the way (without a Special Interest in Control)! Go Dr Ron Go! Ron Paul for President 2012! LOOKING FORWARD TO THE NEXT MONEY BOMB DONATION! ;D

  • libertyismysanctuary

    People need to wake up! “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
    Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
    issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to
    whom it properly belongs.” — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.

    “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance.” — James Madison

    “If Congress has the right [it doesn’t] to issue paper money [currency], it was given to them to be used by…[the government] and not to be delegated to individuals or corporations” — President Andrew Jackson, Vetoed Bank Bill of 1836

    “Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are the United States government’s institutions.
    They are not government institutions. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign swindlers” — Congressional Record 12595-12603 — Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Currency (12 years) June 10, 1932

    “We have, in this country, one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board. This evil institution has impoverished the people of the United States and has practically bankrupted our government. It has done this through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it”. — Congressman Louis T. McFadden in 1932 (Rep. Pa)

  • While there are some issues that I find interesting in this article and would like to research more, I find the author simply does not comprehend or completely misinterprets alot of these bills, making it really hard for me to take this article seriously. I feel every candidate has his/her drawbacks, but comparatively this (were it true and found to be detrimental, which I doubt for the most part) is nothing compared to any of the other “top-tier” candidates I’ve seen. Ron Paul still has my strong support, and I do believe overall his policies are sound and would change this country for the better. He at least deserves the opportunity.

  • Don’t you believe you have to take the good with the bad? There are some things you will probably disagree with, like with every politician.
    But he’s one of the main runners for presidency that is actually wanting to destroy the Federal Reserve – the one causing this massive debt, forget that lying Rick Perry too, I wouldn’t trust Perry even if you paid me a Million dollars.
    Yeah, he’s a Libertarian, I don’t really think he should place himself in the Republican party either.

    • The Federal Reserve no more caused the massive debt then I caused the sun to eclipse.

      Want to concern yourself with the debt? Then look to Republicans, including Ron Paul, for the dimwitted tax cuts to the rich, the dimwitted tax cuts to corporations and their unpaid for wars.

      When Ron Paul says he wants to get rid of the Fed you might want to ask what master he’s attempting to serve.

      Because it sure isn’t you.

  • Jan Chemtrail

    I don’t think anyone that’s awake would believe any of these lies. Ron Paul is really the ONLY candidate that gives some hope of restoring this republic BACK to the great nation we once were by returning our freedom and self respect which is slowly being sucked out by this overbearing rogue government.

    • “Great nation”?
      You mean back when gays had to hide their true selves, blacks were slaves, women stayed in the kitchen, and children were unable to attend school because they were working in a factory all day?

      Yeah, those were definitely the good old days.

  • Y’know, I don’t actually have an opinion on Ron Paul himself but does anyone else find the degree of hero worship from his supporters slightly creepy? It’s verging on “Dear Leader” levels.

    • Were you not around for the 2008 elections? It was the same with Obama, but his “change” had little to back it up and turned out to be a political rouse anyway.

    • Oh my god someone who fights for our Constitutional rights, and doesn’t believe in our huge government bureaucracy that’s destroying the economy (which he predicted would happen)?! Who would dare find that appealing? That’s just absolutely bizarre…

      *end sarcasm*

    • I don’t think so at all. The reason he receives such passionate support from people is because he’s straightforward and consistent. Never in my experience of following his political career have I seen him step out of line of his ideology to satisfy the public. It’s that kind of consistency that every politician SHOULD have, but does not. Plus, Ron Paul has strong support from the younger population, who typically will show more energy and passion in their beliefs. I’m 19 myself, and most people I know who are supporters of Ron Paul are under the age of 30. We are the ones who say, “We’re gonna change this,” to all the wrong in the country/world, and we have the energy to do so. Paul must be doing something right if the youth are cheering him on, wouldn’t you say?

    • The Voice of Reason

      His followers feel oppressed by the government. The IRS takes a big chunk of their paycheck. They also believe that the bankers that comprise the Federal Reserve are somehow through inflation, stealing the value of the dollar people put into tier savings accounts. They like his message of freedom and liberty with less Government interference and less war.

      • Mayer Rothschild

        It runs a bit deeper than that. The most vocal Paul supporters are entrenched in some heavy conspiracy theories. These are the people that believe the Fed is an international cabal, mostly of Jewish bankers somehow linked to the Rothschild family, intent of destroying the value of the dollar to capsize our economy and bring a one-world gov’t/economy. Jew bankers? You see how he got the stromfront.org vote, right? Paul gives the dollar about 5 years before it loses its hold on the international stage. Its an interesting mix of end times theology, deep conspiracy theory, nationalist isolationism, and austerity. At a time when so many feel mistrust, betrayal, loss of faith, etc in the governement, these tin foil hat tales of banking cabals intent on destroying America take root much easier.

        • hmmm, this from a rothschild?

          one only has to do a small amount of reading to learn that these “conspiracy theories” have a very solid line of continuity with open admissions of their plans for R.F.I.D. chip implementation etc. and this is supposed to be fantasy?

          get over the cry baby tactics to defend banks that want to steal a nations controll of its currency by holding up cries of anti-semetic accusations when i have not once heard the word “jewish” utilized when people are very obviously pointing at the bankers business practices, not their religious beliefs.

          so what if ron paul recognises the decline of the dollar! he doesnt delude himself that an unbacked currency that is overprinted to the point of being worthless wont have any value around the world. there is a reason why russia and china will use the ruble instead of dollars for their trade with each other… america racks up it’s debts and wont pay them and then makes their money worthless.

    • I do. It’s scary how rabid his supporters are.

    • No creepier then the Obama Zealots we had in 2008.

  • I got tired of going through each falsehood this author misconstrued so i stopped with number five but he is obviously wrong on most counts and what he isnt wrong on is a personal choice for example= Ron Paul is prolife

    I appoligze for the formatting i wrote it up in MS word and is looked much clearer.

  • 1. How beneficial is it for a company (school) to ban races? Would you want your kid to go to that school? if its private, they really should be able to do what they want. Shame on us for sending our kids there. With less regulation, anyone can open up a school.
    2. yes he is anti-abortion, no a surpise considering he has delivered 100s of babies, but believes thats a state issue. What science do you subscribe to? When a baby becomes a human is up for debate.
    3. have you tried to open a business? Regulations stop anyone of us from just opening a shop out of our house. I can build solar panels, and dont have a certification. That means I cant work? Contracts with liabilities outlined will solve over regulation and red tape. -Most of this is Austrian economics, read up
    4. Paul is for abolishing the income tax and sound money. You must fix monetary policy before fiscal, otherwise the paper shell game continues. -Only politician who recognizes this, again austrian economics
    5. When someone pollutes the environment, they are stepping on the property rights of other individuals. This must be enforced. Off shore drilling is okay, assuming the states and countries and corporations surrounding those waters agree to be responsible for any mishap. No millions dollar settlements on billion dollars of damage. Full liablity
    6. The UN takes away the soveriegnty of the member countries. Look at Libya, UN resolution over rules our US constitution???
    7. Your source quotes FEDERAL FUNDING. No special interest group should get tax payer money. Funding should only go toward things that benefit ALL. How come theres no federal funding for straight people?
    8. If everyone had a gun, would you go around killing everyone, knowing that you would get shot immediately? When you ban guns, only the criminals have them. I dont know why people are so terrified of guns? Almost all people are not killers, and most are not stupid enough to mishandle a gun, especially when people are actually educated about them. many kids handle guns well, and arent going to shoot up their school, and wouldnt if he knew the staff were packing.
    9. the educational system is broken, and needs to be abandoned. Let states take care of it, localize it more. Ever since the dept of edu started, education of youth has decreased. Look into John Taylor Gatto. Our current system trains kids to be subservient robots who take in a spew memorized text, and not free thinkers.
    10. he isnt saying here are my beliefs, follow them. Or that family values are a religious thing at all. Why shouldnt a family be allowed to have their own beliefs and live their lives by it. Protecting the right to do that is what govt is for, not to shape the beliefe of anyone.
    Stop twisting the truths, understand the business cycle and austrian economics, and you will see the bigger picture behind the views Paul has. These still are all minor issues when speaking of Paul. MONETARY/FISCAL policy (Pork barrel spending), and ENDING WARS are the MAIN issues, and if repubs,democrats -THE PEOPLE, can come together on anything it should be these two things. NO ONE can debate him on these topics, which are THE MOST IMPORTANT in our current situation, you can’t deny that.

  • Casey could have legally killed Caylee while she was in her womb, but instead murdered her two years later so she could party. That was MORE than fair to Caylee don’t you agree?

    • 1) Stupid emotional appeals prove nothing.
      2) Rightly or wrongly, Casey Anthony was acquited and is innocent in the eyes of the law. Since it’s a stupid comparison in the first place and neither of us know what happened, it also proves nothing.

  • Most people posting in support of this absurd article do not understand Ron Paul’s ideology. He is AGAINST any form of collectivism; you may call that racism, he calls it liberty. He does not believe in group rights, hate crime laws, etc, because they do more to divide us. I do know his voting record quite well, and what you seem to leave out is that he has NEVER voted for a budget that wasn’t balanced; he does not request billions in pork like his colleagues; he voted against bringing us to the war in Iraq; he voted against the Patriot Act and is still one of very few politicians who even bring up the fact that it is possibly the greatest infringement on American civil liberties to date. You call him Racist, yet he received more donations from African Americans than any other GOP candidate in 2008. He understands monetary policy and the cause of booms and busts; something most politicians still do not understand.

    It’s funny how scared people are of Ron Paul; the man has only been right on just about every major issue facing us today.

    And Bon Jovi, if you want to pick one piece of legislation from a 30 year career to criticize fine; then I guess that means Barack Obama wants to euthanize babies after a botched abortion (see how easy it is to distort things)

    • If the only thing separating your voting record from people who would commonly classified as “bigots” is your “ideology”, you need to rethink your ideology.

      If one person wants to take away a tenuous protection of their liberties because “dem blax are an inferior race” and another wants to take it away to “protect the liberties of the individual”, is there really a difference? The end result is the same: Jim Crow all over again.

  • Thatdudewiththat

    So, the reasons are: Your abstract conjecture, hyperbole, baseless claims/assumptions, and ignorance/fear of libertarianism… I think I’ll vote for him then.


  • Ron Paul will never be the Republican party candidate, and he should not be. He is the heart of the Libertarian party and should run as a Libertarian.

  • The Federal Government cuts off highway funding to any state that lowers its drinking age below 21. States *need* this funding, so no states lower their drinking age. This is, in effect, coercion.

    • How can the federal govt give what they dont have (ie borrow to spend)? Why does the state NEED funding? shouldnt the state be able to take care of itself? Why does someone in alaska have to pay for a highway in texas? Making the alaskan pay for texans is coercion

  • 1. Conjecture. Ironic because voting against racist laws does not make one racist.
    2. Disenguous argument. As an OBGYN, Paul has delivered 4000 babies, some with complications where he has saved the life of the mother. He cares about the reproductive health of women. That being said, he believes abortion should be a state issue. Probably has a thing for fetuses, what with the whole doctor thing.
    3. Fair opinion.
    4. Not sure about this one but I do know that Ron Paul wrote, and is gaining sponsors for a bill that would ban federal taxes on tips for service workers.
    5. Property rights preserve nature more than a government bureaucracy ever could.
    6. Yeah, Obama is doing wonders for our image by making and killing orphans with drone attacks
    7. Gay Marriage shouldn’t even be a state issue. It should be a personal issue. The government should gtfo. That being said, a state’s decision is better than a federal government’s one size fits all mentality.
    8. Guns are awesome when they aren’t operated by the govt. They are a deterrent for criminals to commit crimes and for the government to take away civil liberties.
    9. The Dept of Education was created in the 1980s and has been a dismal FAILURE! Get rid of it and let states decide how to run their own schools.
    10. As religious nuts go, he’s not very religious and he’s not nuts.

  • You seem to have no problem using conjecture to start each point. Don’t you think that’s unfair? I would have more respect for you if you left your assumptions out and just presented the facts.

    When you say something like…

    “Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.”

    …it’s a bit ingenuous. Ron Paul bases just about everything he believes on the individual being the minority. He’s completely against collectivism.

    When Ron Paul says that a mob rule lets 51% take away the rights of the other 49%, and you say ‘Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.’, it simply makes you look the fool. How can you expect to be taken seriously even if you bring valid points to the table?

  • He wants to abolish the federal reserve and more or less end military occupation and colonialism abroad. That’s enough reason for me to vote for him – that is if I voted to begin with. But of course he wouldn’t likely get elected because he would bring about financial collapse, thereby giving the people a chance to rise up and create something with substance, instead of the garbage we are overwhelmed with day after day, “election” after “election”.

    10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul? How about 10 reasons to get up off your butt and stop expecting voting to accomplish anything?

    • If you’re that simple-minded that you believe Ron Paul’s rhetoric, and you support him because of what he says, not his ACTUAL record, you aren’t very bright.

      • He’s been saying this for DECADES! believing anyone else is ignorant. He didnt vote for IRaq, Afghanistan, and has been trying to audit the FED since the 80s. You look at his record. In a race, compare it to others. Who has a better record?

      • OH! Have you forgotten Barack Hussein’s ACTUAL record

    • Whenever people start trotting out talking points like that, I just want to check you know: What is the Federal Reserve, what does it do and why do you want to abolish it?

      • the fed is a private banking cartel with a monopoly on the money supply and it should be abolished to protect the value of the dollar. 98% of the dollar’s purchasing power has gone away since they tricked the american people and congress to allow their counterfeiting enterprise in 1913

      • Imagine you have one of the few authentic babe Ruth rookie cards. Scarcity makes it very valuable and there are people out there willing to pay big bucks for your card.
        Now suppose it is discovered in a box in someone’s attic, 10,000 authentic babe Ruth cards just like yours. they start slowly selling them into the market. they will get the full price for a while, but as the number of cards increases, more people will become aware of this. more cards will come onto the market, and over time the price will drop. what could once be exchanged for a house or luxury car, has been ‘inflated’ in numbers available and now can only buy a suit of clothes.
        now say, they weren’t originals found in a a box in an attic, but were in fact, printed up with original plates. eventually enough of them could be printed that they become worthless, worth-less. those who sold their cards first, when there were fewer of them, profited the most, and those who bought in good faith, have the value of what they bought, robbed from them, by those who continue to print cards over time. There would come a point when the paper they are printed on would become more valuable than the card itself. this is what the Federal reserve does with paper money. it is a private bank given a monopoly on the creation of money. for those who don’t agree with the above devaluation of the dollar, all one need do is look at monetary history.

  • Nicholas R. Neal

    The humanity of our own offspring (ie the Unborn) does not contradict scientific and medical knowledge.

    “[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”
    -Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

    Ron Paul’s opposition to abortion, war and the death penalty shows that, unlike both liberals and conservatives, Ron Paul is consistent about opposition to killing people (which is always good for a president.)

  • Sparky Santos

     » … Ron Paul is that “big government.” He has been for decades now without changing it whatsoever. From a naysayer’s POV, I don’t even see the illusion of change. He’s a fraud selling an utopian dream he himself doesn’t believe. A pie in the sky one.

    Do you really think he’s changing it from within? Seriously? He’s a doctor who refused to go to bat for stem cell research. Honest men would tell the truth that they can’t change the system. Yet, he’s still supporting a corrupt deeply flawed system he publicly rails against. 

    He’s also a Republican who refuses to change to Independent. That shows how committed he is. It’s telling he lacks the courage of Ralph Nader. Nor are his fellow Republicans getting behind Ron Paul. This is simply a way of bloating his “war chest.” He’s going to have another losing bid for Presidency just taking up people’s time and money again without results. …«

    Plus — I view him as a NAZI.

    • NAZI?? how is individual liberty a NAZI viewpoint? Running as a republican is his best bet. Too many retards vote rep/dem without even knowing who they are voting for, this is how the two party duopoly works. fight each other, and avoid the major issues. Paul brings the issues to the table. I wish he would run as independent, but how can he really win when there are so many who dont care about politics, and just vote for the guy they hear the most from on the TV.. Obama. Which is exactly why the media ignores Paul. Short of a revolution, there is no changing the system. Paul at least educates the masses. How many people knew about the FED before ’08??? No one even talked about it in politics, except for Paul, whose been talking about it for DECADES

    • Staunch supporter of the individual against the collective, holds human life sacred, is one of the most ardent pacifists to ever step into congress… clearly a NAZI.

    • His fellow Republicans aren’t getting behind him because does not pander to the mainstream republicans ideals which have gone very far askew. As far as I’m concerned his “top-tier” running mates come off as complete morons.His policies are very in line with the traditional Republican views of free market, small government, sound fiscal policy, and personal liberty and rights. I would really like to hear why you view him as a Nazi, that should be good for a laugh.

    • The Voice of Reason

      Check out the link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/22/ron-paul-ralph-nader-agree-on-progressive-libertarian-alliance/

      You are confusing Ron Paul as if he is like any other jerk off in the Republican party. He’s a libertarian.. that’s way different that a NAZI… which by the way, came from the leftist socialist Germany.

      • Leftist Socialist Germany?

        Gee, no wonder hitler allowed Unions and murdered communists.

      • You cannot be serious

        Nazis weren’t leftists, you idiot.

        • Technically, on the political spectrum, they were neither left nor right. On economic standpoints, however, they were socialist. The word NAZI comes from a shortening of the german “Nationalsozialismus” which means National Socialism.

          The state owned equipment and means of production, giving management to government officials and then spreading wealth through the nation.

          They were remarkably left in many different ways concerning the involvement of their government. The term ‘liberal’ in opposition of ‘conservative’ refers to the amount of government involvement brought on by the supporters. Traditional right-wing beliefs are focused on less government, less intrusion. Traditional left-wing is about more social programs and more social help. The Nazis put forth many social programs for their people.

          The issue here is that while our right-wing party is infiltrated with religion, their socialist party was lousy with racists. The beginning of the Nazi party came from Germany lamenting its failings and blaming them on other nations and races. They felt great national and racial tribalism. They despised jewish money-lenders and felt that they should be in control of their own destinies.

          They had reasons for doing what they did, just as every monster does… But their methods were incredibly stupid. Their actions were horrific and moronic.

          I can’t see Ron Paul as a Nazi… He doesn’t have any of their ideals. Let’s stop paring down the argument by focusing on the points we think we can defeat, shall we?

    • He is a Libertarian who runs as a Republican to be able to get on the ballot. He admits it himself.

  • Sparky Santos

     » … Ron Paul is that “big government.” He has been for decades now without changing it whatsoever. From a naysayer’s POV, I don’t even see the illusion of change. He’s a fraud selling an utopian dream he himself doesn’t believe. A pie in the sky one.

    Do you really think he’s changing it from within? Seriously? He’s a doctor who refused to go to bat for stem cell research. Honest men would tell the truth that they can’t change the system. Yet, he’s still supporting a corrupt deeply flawed system he publicly rails against. 

    He’s also a Republican who refuses to change to Independent. That shows how committed he is. It’s telling he lacks the courage of Ralph Nader. Nor are his fellow Republicans getting behind Ron Paul. This is simply a way of bloating his “war chest.” He’s going to have another losing bid for Presidency just taking up people’s time and money again without results. …«

    • The Voice of Reason

      You are confusing Ron Paul as if he is like any other jerk off in the Republican party. He’s a libertarian.. that’s way different that a NAZI… which by the way, came from the leftist socialist Germany.

      Do a websearch using “ralph nader” and “ron paul” as keywords.. you will find an alliance between the two.

      • Right….a leftist socialist US President defeated a leftist socialist Nazi. You know the Nazis who had paragraph 75 to get rid of homosexuals. Who was it again that wants that repeal of DADT and loves DOMA?

  • Only ten reasons!!??? Please! I can take ANY politician, and I really do mean ANY politician, and give you more than TWENTY reasons why you shouldn’t vote for them. If his voting record (and NOT his reason WHY he voted that way)is all you have….. This article was not worth the time it took to write this comment. Idiots! All of you!! America will never be free when the same-ol-same-ol group of politician puppets run OUR government. The best thing Americans can do now is get educated OUTSIDE the United States borders. You will see America as it truly is; ripped-off by the Bankers, broken, and poor.

  • Sorry, I’m voting for personal liberty and a much smaller government that obeys the constitution, I’m voting for RON PAUL !!!

  • Nice to see so many batshit libertarians arguing for Ron Paul like Creationist apologists.

    “Ron Paul isn’t like that! You’re taking his words (and supported bills) out of context! Ron Paul loves all people! Can’t you see that?! Give Ron Paul your blind faith!”

    Blah. Blah. Blah. Its so damn pathetic.

  • The title of this article reads “10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul” when it should read “10 REASONS TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL”…

    Did you mess up the title Summer? It’s O.K. – you have time to fix it :)

  • You are grossly misinformed and totally illiterate in your assessment of Ron Paul. He is a strict constitutionalist and never votes against the constitution, thus every one of your ten reasons equates to you believing the constitution is wrong. There is a huge difference between believing in Liberty and equality for all people, and not believing in selective benefits for certain groups and classes of people. Learn it. You stand corrected.

  • I never wanted to vote for him….I saw tighty whity from the get go……

  • musicalposter

    The writer may have been very enthusiastic,even to the point of exaggerating, but for the most part they are right (if you look at his voting record). His votes don’t lie but the words that come out of his mouth may just be processed for your consumption. Yes I like his stance on the war and on pot but even in the points that seem right, the devils in the details. To me, the only politics you can trust are in policy and voting records. All politicians hide the ugly bits. You can plainly see through his records that he is not following his own talking points.

    • His followers don’t care about his record, the believe everything he says like sheep.

    • If these 10 reasons were cited in an objective manner (i.e. “Ron Paul is pro-life” and not “Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights”) I would say that, for the most part, they are 10 reasons to SUPPORT the Presidential candidate.
      Take, for example, affirmative action. This is reverse discrimination, so Ron Paul is right to stand up against it.
      Dr. Paul does not believe that we should destroy life, whether they are still inside a womb or 35 years old… another reason to support the Congressman.
      Ron Paul’s non-interventionist approach to foreign policy would actually do more to improve our global image, not erode it.
      Ron Paul recognizes that our Constitution’s separation of church and state was put it in place to protect RELIGION from government, not the government from religion.
      Ron Paul understands that the 2nd amendment is a Constitutional right, and so he has proposed legislation to protect it… another reason to support Dr. Paul!

      • Thank you for clarifying why I will NEVER vote for Ron Paul.

      • Agreed, Josh. All those issues (giving benefit of doubt that all are, in fact, problematic) are *trivial in comparison* to the damage being done to the nation via fractional reserve banking and a debt-founded money supply. Ron Paul could be all 10 things listed and I would still vote for him because he’s the only one trying to yank the economic problems out by the roots.

      • Man, you are confused. Our founding fathers were masonic deists with very little interest in mainstream / organized religion, much less government with any religious leanings. Get your facts straight.

        • you are a liar. nowhere does RP say hes interested in pushing a religious agenda. yes he has faith, as do atheists. atheists have FAITH that nothing came from nowhere and nowhen and created everything, even nothing remotely similar has ever been observed in the natural world. this article is embarrassingly biased and ignorant. many of the alleged points against RP are in fact reasons why i would vote for him.

          • Athiests do not have faith they base their ideals off science and factual occurences. If you understood mathmatics, cosmotology and not to mention quantum mechanics you would know that everything can in fact come from nothing. It is a scientifically sound statement. Creationists have faith athiesm is based off facts and actual thinking

          • “as do atheists. atheists have FAITH that nothing came from nowhere and nowhen and created everything, even nothing remotely similar has ever been observed in the natural world. ”

            No matter what you have been told, atheist’s have no faith. The fact is that you have been told a convoluted description of something that you have absolutely no concept of – someone not relying on any being except themselves.

      • //If these 10 reasons were cited in an objective manner (i.e. “Ron Paul is pro-life” and not “Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights”)//

        That is an objective manner.

        //Take, for example, affirmative action. This is reverse discrimination, so Ron Paul is right to stand up against it.//

        affirmative action was established to protect minorities from being discriminated in the work place, and in education – it’s not as much of an issue as it once was, but statistically it’s still an issue

        // Dr. Paul does not believe that we should destroy life, whether they are still inside a womb or 35 years old… another reason to support the Congressman.//

        your bias for what constitute valid life is noted – I hope you’re also against eating meat?

        your fallacious attempt at forcing a dichotomy is also noted, there are a number of similarities alive humans have – consciousness, feeling for pain, five+ senses, the ability to reason – all of which a fetus has not developed, thereby not being a complete human

        all of that said it’s still not any of your business what a woman and her doctor does – it’s not your womb, not your family, not your fetus, and not your business

        //Ron Paul’s non-interventionist approach to foreign policy would actually do more to improve our global image, not erode it.//

        agree – though you conveniently misconstrued the arguments above

        // Ron Paul recognizes that our Constitution’s separation of church and state was put it in place to protect RELIGION from government, not the government from religion.//

        no, it makes impossible for government to show favoritism – which it’s doing for the most part – though a few instances such as churches being tax free are blatantly unconstitutional

        // Ron Paul understands that the 2nd amendment is a Constitutional right, and so he has proposed legislation to protect it… another reason to support Dr. Paul!//

        okay – you want a gun, join a malitia – otherwise you don’t get one … simple as that

      • Good job, Josh. I have some problems with Ron Paul but on the big things (anti-interventionism, drug decrim, audit the Fed, etc.) he’s great.

      • “We should destroy life, whether they are still inside a womb or 35 years old”—IRRELEVANT. So does your god and hero Ron Paul believe the government should FORCE a woman to give birth? personal freedom and liberty my ass.

        • No, he doesn’t. He believes that the people should vote on whether or not their state is one that should allow a woman to get an abortion. If a state votes that it should be ok, then he is ok with it. He believes, most of all, that the government should not FORCE anyone to do anything ever.

      • Tell me how it’s reverse discrimination when I took the civil service for my city, scored #1 on the physical and written exam, was a police officer with detective creds in sexual abuse and computer crimes in another town, and I had to sue with affirmative action to get the job I was qualified for just because I’m a woman?

    • I’ve leaned liberal a long, long time. But I’ve never been happy with the choices. And yeah, Crazy Uncle Ron is, well, crazy. But it doesn’t mean he’s wrong. I don’t think he’s really in it to win. He wants us to hear the truth. Can you try just to listen to what he’s saying. Get a copy of the Constitution so you’ll understand what he’s saying about liberty. Yeah, he’s Christian, but he’s not that kind, you know? The judgemental ones? Like a lot of us in the South who aren’t like batsh*t crazy, you know? We have to temper our words so we don’t get disowned. So here’s the thing. We need to talk about the things we agree on and debate it civilly. It’s not the man, it’s the message. Many of us are purple rather than red or blue and we just want to get along. And we all deserve saner choices than we’re getting. So don’t vote for him, that doesn’t matter… but do you really think they’re hiding him because he doesn’t have a chance? No, he’s telling us too much. Just because he’s crazy doesn’t mean he’s not right.

  • Hello Summer Ludwig and blog followers.

    There is ONE reason why I would not vote for Ron Paul or anyone… doing so is a crime according to section 2 of the 14th Amendment. By voting, you commit treason against your rightful (lawful) government. I guess they never taught you that in school. So naturally, I will not be voting. http://www.pacinlaw.org/error/

    Okay, I have viewed your 10 reasons and found every premise of yours flawed and/or lacking merit.

    1. I feel you do not understand what “rights” really are or where they come from. “Minorities” should NOT have any more or less rights than another. Who is to say that I am not a minority? If you understand the statement that all men(women) are created equal, then you would not be beating the dead horse with racist propaganda. Do you understand what a “US citizen” is? I urge you to find out because I believe that you do not understand the scope of that status of body politic. http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/US_Citizen_Examined.php

    2. You attempt to defy natural law and say it is okay to murder. Women do have control over their body… to screw or not to screw. Just because they make an unwise choice doesn’t mean it is alright for them to make another wrong decision. You want to talk about rights… what about the rights of that child? Life is a right! You want to argue for “human rights” but then deny them to a baby because you feel that a fetus is not a living being. I call that kind of thought hypocritical… contradictory in the least.

    3. Abolish minimum wage and get rid of OSHA? Wow, that would be a nice start. Your support for these federal oversights suggest to me that you support communism. Am I being too blunt? Although ideally a work place should be safe, you still have the choice of whether or not to work there. Also, you can do your part to maintain safety without being threatened or under duress. Have you ever worked in the field? Don’t you know the impact on the cost of insurance due to OSHA and other force agencies. Guess what? Your $10,000 bid on a job just went up to $30,000. Who again is this helping?

    4. Probably the worst of your examples yet. 10% tax… that’s better than the 30-40% currently taken out(not including other taxes, fees, etc.) yet you claim that is bad. Ideally, 0% would be best. Earned income credit = theft. You get something for nothing but someone else down the line pays for it. Okay, your premise supports theft. Government taxation is theft, but somehow they can legally do so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuz-hFKM_Ts

    5. I have no problem with off-shore drilling. Of course any company that does so should do so in a manner to prevent spills. I support alternative fuel sources… but mainly, I would love to destroy the government’s monopoly on energy altogether. Mining on Federal lands… do you even know what Federal lands are? There isn’t much federal land unless you believed in their fairy tales. If DC wants to control energy, then let the drilling/mining start in DC!

    6. Okay, I get it… you support the United Nations. You support a one world government (also referred to as NWO). The united states/republics of America should NOT be a part of any United Nations. You talk of international law as if you know what it is. Heck, you don’t even know that the “United States” is NOT a country. It is a few things (corporation being one), but a country, in itself, it is not.

    7. The government should not be in the business of providing permission for marriage period! It all comes down to greed. What are they (alternative lifestyles) really fighting for? Benefits! If it was just about being with someone you like, then go do it and be happy. But no, the de facto government has to entice people with benefits. Even for those who are religious let me remind you that a marriage via a license is NOT the same as Holy matrimony in the eyes of God. There is a reason why marriage is between a man and a woman. What next? A man can marry a horse and a woman can marry a cat? Once you start down that distorted, perverted road, it opens the door for anything no matter how ridiculous it may sound. http://hisholychurch.info/study/bklt/matrimony.pdf

    8. Common sense… guns don’t kill people. Bad people use guns to kill people. You could have a law to get rid of all guns tomorrow, but do you think the criminals would obey that law? Excuse me for being rude, but don’t be such an idiot! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo
    I don’t love guns, but I do realize that criminals will use whatever means they can no matter what legal man-law is created. Sorry, but I don’t care to be overrun by a Nazi-wannabe government.

    9. Educational system… not sure why they call it that since it is really an indoctrination system. They are not into providing truth and knowledge through wisdom. I advocate home schooling, though I know it is difficult because of how the system operates. So the problem must be the system. If you haven’t figured out by now that you are a slave, then let it be known that you have now been notified. Not that I endorse this site, but look at #10: http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

    10. Of course you would disagree with Ron Paul’s positions. Obviously, you are not a man/woman of faith so you disregard any notion that there is an attack on religion especially Christianity. Well, I have news for you. Christianity has always been under attack, but it has become more apparent now in the American States. So far from your arguments I have gathered that you support murder, theft, governmental collectivism (not a convenantal union of a Church body), and slavery. I am severely questioning your moral compass. I can define what “good” and “just” are, can you?

    In closing, I am NOT voting due to having the knowledge and understanding of what that action really is. I do NOT give consent to relinquishing my natural rights nor do I contract with those whom wish to place me into their jurisdiction. http://www.pacinlaw.org/dual/

    Peace be with you all.

  • Summer, I enjoyed your post for the most part. My only concern is your statements made during number eight, the gun control section. First, let me say that your conclusion isn’t wrong. He is a first class douchebag, but your argument focused on the typical view that scary guns with a lot of bullets are bad for society. That argument is why gun control advocates are losing ground all around the country. I’d be glad to discuss that point with you further if you’d like.

    Anyway, the reason he’s a real asshole re: gun rights is that he wanted to take away the mandatory background checks for guns. Even mega-political groups like the NRA claim they don’t want former violent criminals or mentally unstable citizens to possess guns, but they support the repeal of acts that make an honest effort to keep guns from unfit people.

    There are real reasons why he’s been backing the wrong laws for decades. Please mention those reasons in the future. I’d be glad to help you.

  • I’m not voting for Paul.. OBAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

  • So… Ron Paul says he doesn’t like Gay Marriage, Abortion, Drugs, etc. But Has said if a state wants to make them legal, he would have no problem with it.

    By that statement, he stands equal with Obama on Gay Marriage rights. He would be more accepting of Abortion rights. And FAR more accepting of Drug rights.

    Tell me if I’m wrong?

    • no kevin your right, obama had his chance, focused on healthcare instead of the economy, and failed alot of his campaign promises but with paul even though he is republican he has some radical ideas that the left likes i say we give him a shot at it and if he does anything thats too far right it wont succeed just like oabamas too far left healthcare

      • I say we don’t give him a shot. We can do better.

        • We can do better with Who … Obama more empty promises and lies more war mongering ..no thank you

          Bachman/Perry/Romney the so right and tight religious freaks that want to censor and sanitize everything aka The Pledge! more hate mongering in those 3 alone than the last 2 republican presidents.

          I may not agree with everything Dr.Paul says and does, but lets be honest here at least he says something so down the middle it scares both sides of the fence and even some way out in left field for that matter as well. Why is it no major news network will give the man his due and acknowledge what a very large portion of Americans are saying …because if they did, then their wet Dream candidates would be less likely than ever to have a fighting chance. “Shut down our borders bring our men and women home and stop worrying about everyone else s problems.” Anyone remember the old saying Mind your business and stay out of others ….That’s what he is saying Uncle Sam has way too much say in our lives.

          Do i agree on his stances on social security and medicare no but at 35 years old we’ve been warned for years it will not be there for us(my generation) when we need it, yet the govt. currently and consistently draws a loan from my paycheck in poor faith by saying it’s for my future… Women’s right to choose hell yes pro choice I say stop the tax payer funding of abortion though you want one pay full price out side of extenuating circumstances rape health concerns and so on. I’m an aiethiest in some peoples eyes because i believe there is something greater out there but i refuse to admit it has power over my choices if he wants to be christian Muslim, Mennonite Mormon Jewish or Wicca i could care less just understand i choose not to share all of your same beliefs …

          the way I am seeing it of all the evils in politics these days Dr.Paul is the least of all so he gets my vote and if i can vote 4-5 times extra here in Florida if Jesse Ventura is running mate i will vote even more for him

          • Yeah but how can you trust someone who believes theres a magic being in the sky who controls everything?
            This list is pretty damning, but I would still chose Ron Paul in the current lineup, and a corporate shill like o;bummer is even worse than all the crazy conservatives. But then I’m just an amused observer from europe.

    • have to disagree on abortion rights…he is a signer of the Susan B Anthony pledge. If you are not familiar… http://www.sba-list.org/2012pledge

      He has also signed the pledge to Grover Norquist. Correct me if I am wrong. Should our representatives be making oaths to anyone but their country and their constituents?

    • Leaving it to the states makes Paul a tenther, not a libertarian. To a libertarian, matters of individual liberty (like gay marriage, and drugs) are not properly matters on which any level of government can legislate. They are matters of PERSSONAL choice.

  • Thanks for the article, you have now convinced me, I love this site

    • Your convinced..please… most of these babblings are completely out of context. Ron Paul has always been a promoter of the constitution. He is a supporter of certain federal bills because they go against his beliefs in a SMALL government. He does not want to ruin the education system or have semi-auto weapons he just wants the STATES to get the power back in their hands. the U.S. has become an empire centered around a FEDERAL government that gives no more power to the STATE! get more facts before you center your beliefs around a propagandist.

      • A “promoter of The Constitution” would not want to change it in any fundamental way; The U.S. Constitution guarantees ANYONE born on American soil the right of full citizenship, regardless of parentage. Were you not paying attention to the portion of the article that states he wants to CHANGE this part of the CONSTITUTION?!

        • Steve Winburn

          Actually, the Constitution does not “guarantee ANYONE born on American soil the right of full citizenship, regardless of parentage.” That was an added amendment, and thus was the result of a change. Facts are pesky to fools.

        • Someone who enters this country illegally is not under the jurisdiction of it (that’s why they so often go without arrest); therefore, their children are not citizens. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html

        • hes not trying to change the Constitution, just enforce it. if children born here to parents that areillegals, why would their kids be legal? yr just interested in giving out more welfare and making americans pay all the bills for illegals, enbsuring that when they grow up they’ll vote for more liberal handouts.

          • Um, because that’s in the constitution.

            • Ummm. NO it’s not.

              “The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments [documents] is to construe them according to the sense and the terms and the intentions of the parties.”
              ~Justice Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Vol. III, p.. 383 §400 (1833)..the Father of American jurisprudence.

              In other words, in order to correctly understand what the parties to a contract intended, a court should look to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract, e.g., writings, phone calls, letters, memorandums, etc. In the same way, when analyzing any clause or amendment of the Constitution, the Supreme Court should first discover the “original intent” of the parties to the document by looking to the events surrounding the drafting and passing of the clause or amendment, including the records of the Constitutional convention and the writings of the Framers.

              What the Founders meant by “general welfare” was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals – rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths – would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

            • The child would be legal. Not the parents. I disagree with naturalization.

              • To an extent, that is. If you’re using your baby as means to get hand-outs from our government……. That’s not right. Same goes for US citizens as well.

  • How does prohibiting the expenditure of Federal funds in any way prohibit states from passing their own laws one way or the other? Oregon passed an assisted suicide law, Massachusetts passed Romneycare, Vermont is trying to get passed Obamacare to pass it’s own single payer health plan, various states have past laws allowing gay marriage. These are things accomplished by states without federal interference with Vermont’s plan pending. Most of these things wouldn’t have passed at the federal level.

  • It’s that writers opinion that the Constitution is bunk then. She believes in unfreedom and centralized power. As for the rest of us, we like the individual to be sovereign.

  • Wow, you MUST be getting paid by the media to put up an ignorant article like this. he is the ONLY candidate who points out the flaws of the United States Government and Federal Reserve. he gets NO MEDIA because they are afraid of him revealing the truth! He FIGHTS for OUR LIBERTIES and FREEDOMS and we sit there supporting the bastards who are putting us more in debt, becoming an unconstitutional national with the birth of the “super congress” and just being blind..WAKE UP PEOPLE! RON PAUL is the TRUTH and everyone else lying up their asses to yearn for your votes. if you don’t want your freedoms taken away and believe in the rights of the constitution, then you best believe that PAUL will fight for you. otherwise, good luck with a f* up government for 2012 and beyond.

    • Ron Paul supporters are SO funny. They complain when we don’t cover Ron Paul, and they complain when we do. The only thing you and your candidate seem to be good at is complaining. That should get you REALLY far.

      • The only problem is that when you cover him you distort his views. Most of these accusations in your article are refuted simply by realizing Ron Paul just doesn’t want the Federal government to be running these programs. Under the constitution states can run any of these programs if they like.

        When you take the power the states had and give it to the federal government you create a one-stop-shop for corruption. This is why decentralized power is better. This is why Ron Paul wants states to decide what programs they will run and not the Federal government.

        Do more research indeed! To all reading this…you should actually listen to Ron Paul himself to find out what his positions are, not what some third party like this site says they are. Go straight to the source. Youtube and listen to Ron Paul himself.

        • I think I’ve discovered the problem with Ron Paul supporters. It’s this statement, that you just made:

          “Youtube and listen to Ron Paul himself.”

          I have listened to Ron Paul, but unlike you and all these other rabid supporters I don’t just believe everything I hear, and I know what Ron Paul’s record is from paying attention to people other than Ron Paul, and looking it up.

          His supporters believe everything he says without ever questioning it. I don’t agree with the people I support 100% of the time because that is how it is supposed to be, no candidate is perfect, but you people believe Ron Paul 100% of the time without ever questioning him. Like sheep.

          • Matthew,

            I am quite surprised by your statement because a lot of Ron Paul supporters are skeptical of what we hear from more “main stream” candidates. We like Ron Paul because he has always fought for the same core values and Constitutional principles that have made America a great nation. This article disgusts me because, as Trevor said, you can refute all of these claims by merely observing that he is trying to reduce the scope of the Federal government by giving power to the people and to the states. All he is calling for is a peaceful return to our Constitution.

            We now have a president who has not stood by the principles for which he was elected but people still mindlessly follow him. That is why I have turned away from the Democratic party and started supporting Ron Paul. It amazes me that people are okay with keeping a man in office that promised such great changes, while delivering more of the same things that were despised when George Bush was in office.

            Ron Paul is the only candidate that truly supports liberty and peace. Other than him there are only big government Democrats and big government Republicans to choose from.

          • cmon man you hear the same bs everyday from the other politicians, at least Paul is bringing up REAL controversies that are wrong with the world today. He asked the Federal Reserve about WHERE did our 13.1 trillion dollars go to and they were not able to answer him directly because they have “not looked into that situation.” he brings up the idea of the Super Congress being unconstitutional which essentially will lead to loss of health care, thousands of students without an education, and the idea that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

            as for being a sheep, when was the last time there was a TRUE President who did absolutely what he told to do so? Kennedy? Lincoln? what’s sad is that there are a portion of Americans who actually vote for the candidate because their friends, media and ‘everyone’ is doing it. that doesn’t justify who or what that candidate is fighting for obviously but at least Paul is cracking and pounding down issues that just aren’t being solved by other candidates who are promising to solve this or that problem. Paul is challenging our rights as citizens to have these freedoms, to know what is going on with Government issues, to understand why is the nation in debt and no one can provide an answer why. He is the real deal who is fighting for US. all the other candidates are out there to better themselves, their peers and their money. They could care less about OUR feelings, our rights granted to us as citizens or our problems.

            The media is afraid of Ron Paul, that is why he is not getting coverage. He won numerous polls and is climbing to the TOP without being exposed. And yet the media disregards his wins and would rather show Palin’s tits on TV rather than cover someone who is fighting for our rights. The media is scared, they don’t want anyone to know the truth. They shut him down, they shut the people down, and they’re shutting down the Americans who deserve the right to know.

            tell me, what’s more important to you. money? or freedom?


          • “I know what Ron Paul’s record is from paying attention to people other than Ron Paul, and looking it up.” Obviously the former and not the latter. You watch too much of The Daily Show.

            • Actually, John Stewart is liking Ron Paul. Has him on the show and allows Paul to express his views clearly.

              I do believe now is the time for Ron and if his supporters can get out there and represent his views he will get there.

        • Ah, yes, “State’s Rights.” When have I heard this argument before? Hmmm… Could it have been when the yokels in the South didn’t want the children of African American descent to be able to attend quality public schools with their children? Yes. Kinda like when it was used in their argument defending SLAVERY.

    • why is nobody talking about the fact that he’s a John Birch Society puppet!?!!?! REASON #1!!!

  • 1. Affirmative action is racists. The government shouldn’t be involved in telling private entities who to let in and what criteria they need to have and quotas etc. Sorry, this is a free country, racists exist in the world. You can’t legislate it away, morality comes from people, you can’t legislate beliefs.

    2. Ron Paul personally believes abortion is wrong and that this is an issue for the states to decide, and because its not mentioned in the constitution, he he right on this.

    3. OSHA has done little for workplace safely if at all. go look at workplace accidents before OSHA and then look at them after. Workplace accident were going DOWN before OSHA was even enacted. Workplace safety comes from the free market when wages and productivity get higher some of wages that the employer would otherwise pay is put into increasing safety. This is why we have much safer jobs now then in the industrial revolution, its because of our higher productivity, not government.

    Same with minimum wage, wages rise with productivity. Most economics agree that the minimum wage does not help and is only a barrier of entry to employment. Places that did not have minimum wages saw extremely high rates of wage growth such as Hong Kong and Singapore. You can’t legislate prosperity, it comes from the market and the accumulation of capital.

    4. We have a way too complicated tax code. It tells you a lot when the secretary of treasury can’t file his taxes right even with a computer program to help him. Ron Paul supports lowering taxes on EVERYBODY. He supports shrinking our over sized bloated government so that we don’t sacrifice over 1/4 of the year working just to pay the federal income tax. This is somehow crazy?

    6. Ron Paul believes in the sovereignty of the United States. International criminal courts? No thanks. Our negative image comes from bombing other countries unnecessarily and policing the world. Ron Paul believes we should mind our own business, free trade without countries, stay out of their internal affairs. This is what the founding founders supported, they warned us about entangling alliances and going to war under other banners (The war in libya anyone?). Once again, Ron Paul is correct.

    7. Ron wants the federal government our of marriage and let it be decided by the states. The correct Constitutional view of course. Once again, Ron Paul is right.

    9. Ever wonder why our education system is so sad? Ever think that maybe, just maybe its BECAUSE of government and especially federal involvement one-sized fits all policy and the government enforced monopoly of private schools? No, of course you didn’t.

    10. Again, education system is a STATE issue. Ron would do nothing to education except get the federal government out of it, where it belongs.

    I don’t know enough about #5 to comment on.

    • You’re being a little naive. Take #7 for example. You’re suggesting that the bill that has been cited is simply asking that the government step out of marriage affairs. That is NOT in the spirit of the language here. It is quite directly targeting homosexuals and suggests that homosexual lifestyle is NOT acceptable.

      Notice that overall the bill has nothing to do with marriage. Much of it is about victims of child abuse, and for whatever reason, Paul has decided to slip in a line about telling the government that they cannot suggest homosexuality is OK. That’s the opposite of what you’re suggesting Paul is doing — he’s defining acceptability via the federal government rather than capping that power.

      • I Understand this, you have a legitimate point, how many people vote on a bill? do you think that all the people who vote, believe word for word what it says or do they believe in what the outcome could be if the bill would be passed. Im not saying its right but, Paul has said in many forums books, magazines, talk shows etc. he just doesnt feel the federal government should be telling anyone anything… the first step for him is to get the fed. gov. out of the issue so the states can decide.

      • James McMichael

        No, you still miss the point. The government shouldn’t be the ones to suggest homosexuality is OK. It is up to the states.

    • Aquarian dreamer

      as to #9 actually doofus its because for the last 20 years or so It has been about the Lowest common Intellect, and that is the problem, when people who are too intelligent don’t get the help they need, because thats UNFAIR, or are put on ADD medicine simply because they are ahead of the class and are BORED; and BTW the first Authority damn it is local school boards schmuck. the department of education(to my very limited knowledge) MAY set standards but is BASICALLY the PIGGY BANK for all the schools. if your school is failing look to the LOCAL SCHOOL BOARDS and a society where STUPID is enshrined and INTELLIGENCE is mocked and derided. this is not a GOVERNMENT problem, IT IS A SOCIAL PROBLEM.

      • I spent many years teaching high school in Florida, so let me try to be a bit calmer and rational, and make the same point as Aguarian Dreamer: Although the voters in Florida passed a referendum requiring caps of 25 students in high school classrooms, I often had 30 or 32 students. Those classes, because it was better for their ‘self esteem,” included ELL’s who couldn’t command the language, and ESE students who had a variety of special needs. In any given classroom, I would have about a half-dozen IEP’s to keep up with as well as the standard curriculum.

        President Bush’s “NCLB’ was supposedly all about “leveling the achievement gap.” It worked. The 1s became 2s, and the 5s became 3s. By concentrating all our resources on the students who might otherwise be “left behind,” we had no resources left to challenge the students who might be the brightest, best hope of our future. “2” is still below grade level.

    • 1) Actually, you CAN legislate it away. It just takes a while.
      2) I don’t have an opinion on.
      3) is just more “CAPITALISM RAWKS! FREE MARKETS CAN DO NO WRONG!” Rand-worshipping BS.
      4) You jumped there from “over-complicated tax code” (which is true) to “lowering taxes” (which doesn’t need to be done, you have the lowest tax rates in over fifty years) and then threw in some complete BS about the federal government.
      6) There’s two issues here. One is international isolationism. Now, we might agree on that but that’s rather too complicated to get into here. The other is a refusal to abide by the ICC because America wants the capacity to break international laws without any repurcussions.
      7) It stopped being a state’s issue when DOMA was passed. Repeal DOMA and we’ll talk.
      9) No, I never thought that because it’s complete BS.
      10) Ditto.

  • Fiona Mackenzie

    Typical of so-called “libertarians,” he would divest women, children, minorities, the earth, and the air of freedom and protection. The fantasy of libertarian “freedom” is in lock-step with the burgeoning reality of corporate control of the economy and, now, government and law, for the benefit of wealthy white males, at cruel cost to everyone else.

  • The Voice of Reason

    I agree with you.. but all that stuff is little stuff compared to losing our individual freedoms. He may be personally be pro religious anti abortion.. but he’s not going to make you a bible thumper or force you to pray in school… nor is he going to prevent you from having an abortion… he gave that decision to your state. If you want it to be a thought crime to be a neoconfederate.. that’s up to your state. If you want a free abortion.. that’s up to your state.

    You are worried about losing tax credits. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the IRS not keep it. Then you don’t have to pay federal taxes. Screw your tax credit.. that’s the little stuff. Get rid of taxation period. Frankly I’d like the IRS to get out of my pocket. I need the money more than the government. Frankly, we don’t need to spend our tax dollars on wars in other countries.. and we don’t need to be spending our money on misbehaving dictators. The media is scared of Ron Paul.. they tried to ignore him even though he was in a statistical tie with Bachman at the Iowa Ames. Now the media is on the attack. Every other candidate wants things to stay the same. Ron Paul is the exception.

    • Aquarian dreamer

      no taxes, not money, no money no government, no government-> chaos and anarchy. cant you do basic reasoning like this? no one on the republican ticket, as far as I can see is intelligent or SANE. why the hell would you vote for them?

      • Mythology.

        A government doesn’t inherently require taxation in order to exist, especially not income taxes. However, if one wanted to remove income taxes, the US federal government would lose roughly 70% of it’s funding; simple solution: cut expenditure by 70%. Axe military spending to 0 and you have around a 50% reduction of expenditure right off the bat, you can piss and moan all you want about how we NEED a military to protect us from boogie-men, whatever, that’s bullshit.

      • No FEDERAL TAXES, there are still going to be state taxes and such, thats inevitable, your “basic reasoning” skills are a little too basic to be used in any type of valid arguement.

  • Why do so many people want Ron Paul to be president? Because he doesn’t care! And through his not caring,… we can ALL live our lives the way WE want to. Destroy the DOE and the military industrial complex. Get out of Japan and Germany and every other country in the world. Stop telling businesses what they can and can’t do. Stop the fucking regulations that stifle EVERYONE except those that suck on the tit of government. Why do liquor stores have to be closed on Sunday? Why can’t we smoke in our own homes? I could rant on this for hours, days, weeks, but I know anyone reading this is calling me a fucking stupid racist. For that, you are all closed-minded bigots.

  • I understand the reasoning behind this post, and I appreciate some of the information that was put into it, and obviously from the title, you get what you should expect. I feel though that this entire mindset is the flawed misconception that is driving our political system in the wrong direction, we have lost focus on voting for who we want, and now are pushed to vote for who we don’t want. One person’s post made comments about the GOP being obstructionist, but can you expect politicians to do anything differently when we elect them and support them based on who they are not. We allow a mindset of negativity to be one of the strongest campaigning tools a politician can use, can you really expect them to switch their game plan and act positively once in office? I’m not saying all politicians do tis, so please do not misunderstand, I’m saying that this post is guilty of the same flaws that are rank in american politics that I originally thought I mainly saw on the right. It goes back to the same flaw of fundamentalist Christians arguing against kids reading the Golden Compass, “if you have so little faith in your own beliefs that you need to tear down one source of opposition, do you really have faith in what you believe?” I know that is an imperfect analogy, but I wonder if we spent the rest of this presidential campaigning time pushing the the reasons why to vote for the candidate we support, as opposed to putting our energies into why not to vote the other person, I wonder if you would start to see the political climate change. Also, if the reason for pushing why someone should not be voted for is to make sure other people know, because they are easily swayed, you are guilty of the same elitism that Paul was accused of possessing.
    As far as Ron Paul is concerned, he is not a miracle cure, he is not he messiah of presidential candidates, and in the end he is conservative, so people who are more liberal are going to disagree with him, and that is ok. However he is a fresh look into real conservative politics as opposed to the neo-cons, and the fact that you can cite multiple bills for why not to vote for him means that he is consistent, so that does mean that he is an anomaly among politicians. In the end disagree with him all day long that is fine, but respect him all the same. A president should not be elected simply based on being a respectable person, but that doesn’t mean you can respect those you wouldn’t want to see in office.
    Finally to close, I agree with an earlier post that I don’t feel that I receive and representation in government, but it is not because of who is where, or how awful this person is, it is because of lobbies and corporations. A bumper sticker I once saw sums it up perfectly: “Politicians should dress like race car drivers, at least then we’d know who their sponsors are.”

  • This was a very fair article. I sense the author is not biased and just wants to get the facts out. Now if you’ll just leave your brain at this table you can get your juice and cookies in the play room. Enjoy your drool!

  • Liberals hate Ron Paul because he exposes what statist system hack puppets they are.

  • This article should be insulting to anyone with an IQ over 79. Everyone one of those 10 points is a political spin and has a very rational explanation of each. The author of this hit piece obviously doesn’t want that though.

  • In the words of Dan A, on SNL…..
    Summer you ignorant slut. And that’s my one reason I’m glad your not voting for Ron Paul. I hear Rick Perry is looking for mindless drones. (Though I hear girls aren’t his first choice….wink, wink, nod, nod if you know what I mean)
    Ron Paul is the one.
    Don’t laugh, listen. Ya’ll be amazed at what cha been missin.

  • Ron Paul will NEVER be President. He is Sarah Palin’s DICKLESS and BALLESS BITCH and PUSSY! Palin is VASTLY SUPERIOR to this ass-clown geezer in every single way. Palin WILL PWN Ron Paul in the primaries and EXPOSE his PUSSY for the whole world to see! Palin will completely fix our broken govt and PURGE all the EVIL CORPORATE CORRUPTION OUT of DC! Palin has ABSOLUTELY SUPERIOR values, morals, integrity, principles, intestinal fortitude, balls, hutzpah over Ron Paul. Palin has the BIGGEST PENIS and TESTICLES on this planet and there are FILLED WITH GOD JUICES! Ron Paul just has a VAGINA!

  • Ron Paul support equal rights for minorities. That means he would allow freedom for all minorities to own property, run a business, and even decide how to run that business. He’d even go as far as defending that business owners right of association. That’s obviously very radical because we all know only the government knows how to run your business.

    Ron Paul would bring the very divisive and politically wedging issue of abortion to each individual state. It is a very dangerous and unacceptable idea that this be decided locally. The American people have no right to control what type of community they live in and making the presidential race about something other than abortion might give voters dangerous ideas.

    Ron Paul would grow the working class. The minimum wage, while on it’s face a good thing, limits the amount of workers that can be supported. This hurts students and minorities the most of all groups. See link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HTWy_vZfgE&feature=related But this is also too dangerous to allow people to work without the artificial employment ceiling.

    Ron Paul’s tax plan allows people to choose how much government they want. Wealth distribution is theft. You wouldn’t steal from your neighbor, so why do people justify using government force to steal for them? Well, obviously without theft on a massive scale, the governments GDP would decrease, then we’d all be afraid to invest and spend and whatever else Keynesians deem healthy to the economy.

    Ron Paul’s policies would give each of us the legal right to stand up for our environment. It was government policy in the late 1800s to stop allowing people to sue a company for dirty air and water. This violates all our property rights. It’s no wonder the government was so long ago corrupted to block this important defense of property rights. But if we had a right to defend our property, this could change the outlook of personal responsibility for everyone. Somebody stop him!

    A Ron Paul administration would improve the way we are viewed by the world as a whole, and would not worsen it by getting involved in deciding issues that have nothing to do with us. Well this is just obviously ridiculous. How would the world recognize us if we didn’t involve ourselves in their affairs.

    Ron Paul considers all groups equal under the law and would not use government coercion to favor one group over another. No money for anyone that has to be stolen from anyone else. Again, this shows what a dangerous anarchist he is. I couldn’t agree more.

    Ron Paul has an obsession with personal protection and localized national security. When the 2nd amendment was created, the best guns we had were muskets. Now the best guns we have are assault rifles. Ron Paul trusts it’s people more than he trusts corrupt politicians with this nations defense, and your personal defense. Therefor it is a citizens right to own the best weapons available for personal and national defense. Not only that, but Ron Paul can recognize that anyone can walk onto a school zone with a gun right now. Only law abiding citizens choose not to. Is it any wonder that almost every shooting rampage happens on these federal no gun zones? And if these killing sprees ceased, there would be nothing interesting to watch on the news and no self-contradictory justification for seizing everyone’s guns!

    Ron Paul would revive education. He would stop bribing our local schools with federal money. That means no more pointless and completely irrelevant testing! That means state and local control of our schools! That means alternatives and for the states smart enough, internet schools and non-coercive truancy laws. Can you imagine how much more dangerous the country would be if educated people were allowed to be left to their own devices and flourish. Terrible! Just terrible!

    Ron Paul doesn’t make laws against religion and free speech. He would allow students to bring their own bibles to school if they wanted to and even allow parents the decision how to educate their children. This is obviously very dangerous because only the federal government can decide what your children should be taught.

    Thank you for your excellent article. My faith in statism is renewed and energized. I have something to be really excited about this election: anything but Ron Paul.

  • Missing the point.

    For the most part, Ron Paul has repeatedly stated the reasons behind his votes and positions. There are plenty of written statements, and interviews and such available. There is no need to be confused by guessing or reading biased editorial.

    For example, on the issue of gay marriage, he has stated that personally he doesn’t agree with the idea of gay marriage, but that he also doesn’t feel it’s the job of the Federal government to be involved in it in the first place.

    Obviously, it’s understandable that some people *would* want the government to clearly and legally define what is socially acceptable and permissible – especially if it follows a definition they are comfortable with. Other people don’t feel it is the role of government to even contemplate such things. This is the heart of the wedge on Ron Paul – how much government should be involved in the lives of individuals and organizations – and it’s a very good wedge issue. Perhaps the best in current politics. You don’t need anything else.

    Personally, I like the idea of a President that would eliminate the Federal Reserve, reform the lobby process (perhaps the biggest problem facing our government right now) and strip back all government powers all the way up to and including the office of the President. I also find it horrifying to think that the government would no longer be able to keep oil companies from drilling in national parks, or that gambling, prostitution, and marijuana use would not be illegal at a federal level. I love a lot of the ideas the Ron Paul stands for – most based on individual freedom and less government, and a pure adherence to the Constitution. These are things that both parties could embrace a bit more and it would help us all.

    But Ron Paul is not electable – he is too extreme in his anti-government beliefs and does not allow for the practicalities and necessities of America in the world as it is today.

  • http://homebrewedtheology.com/ron-paul-porkmeister.php First of all people stop looking for saviors among career politicians of any party! Secondly every system is socialist in nature including America! Police Forces, Colleges, Armies, Prisons, Roads, Transportation, Public Works and FireFighters are owned and operated by Government or otherwise heavily funded by them! If you want real freedom then back the implementation of over 400 treaties with the Native Americans that were written in good faith in no uncertain terms and our on the books! Then you would have freedom to go to these lands and live outside the money system that has you living hand to mouth and are one paycheck or financial hit away from destitution while Paul and all the others have countless millions! Wake up People!

  • In fact, this’ll be the first time I vote in a Republican primary. And I will be voting for this candidate who is outspokenly Anti-war, Anti-PATRIOT Act and Aware of the limits of presidential power.

    I didn’t make this decision based on a blog, newspaper article, television show or website. I went to see him speak and asked questions

    He came across as genuine, had the patience to answer my issue with his personal stance on gay marriage (he told me thst despite his personal view he thinks the government should just be out of the marriage business). More than that though, I trusted everything he said, no other politician has had such an impact on me.

    For those in doubt (especially those who have only ever voted democrat like me), I would recommend attending one of his rallies and speak to others there why they support him…make your own mind up and be content that you sought out your own truth.

    – Ambrose

  • This is a terrible list.

    I’m no Paul fan by any means, but half of these talking points can be chalked up to libertarianism, not just Paul.

    There are MUCH bigger, more threatening fish to fry than this guy.

  • No need to counter every point, many others have.. And you probably wouldn’t be receptive anyways. All those reasons to not for Ron Paul, are actually reasons to vote for him when you spend the time to understand non violent political philosophy and not forcing your will on others at the point of a gun. The most important reason after correctly addressing our economic situation to support Ron Paul is the fact he is the only consistent anti war candidate out there. I would pick our Nation ending these horrific mass murders of innocent people all over the world any day over all the petty little ridiculous and distorted nitpickings you can find in his personal view of the world. I would rather have a President for once in my life time that actually treated me like a human being and when he said something he meant it, and you know you could rely on it because he’s never lied in over 30 years. Compared to nearly every other single politician we have before us. You nitpick and cry over trivial things, while innocent women children and people all over this planet are turned into goo and smashed in your name, have fun with that. You do nothing but separate people more when you endorse war.

  • This article pretends to be oh, so, well documented, as if that would cure the problem that the “logic” behind its every position cannot come to any correct conclusion.

    Aside from an astounding ignorance of economics, the pure insanity of practicing what you condemn in your target in order to condemn them is peppered throughout. Ludwig’s notion that Black people need quotas to succeed is racist. But in her concrete bound little world, she tosses accusations without even knowing the meanings of such words as ‘racist’. Her notion that reverse racism is not racism shows her pure shallowness. The notion that if someone does not favor a federal entitlement for some special interest group then they must HATE that group is beyond contempt. The idiocy that if someone does not receive a federal entitlement that they are being discriminated against, yet the person who must work to produce the taxes for that entitlement is guiltily getting away with something free if that burden were not imposed and steadily increased, is typical throughout.

    The klinker is the imbecilic notion that this unfortunate product of the DOE does not get the fact that the American educational system has declined steadily with the increasing interventions of the DOE. She seems unable to grasp that this could be more than a coincidence, it could be that bureaucracies inherently multiply the problem that they tasked with eliminating.

    This is the kind of garbage I expect from someone who STILL cannot see the handwriting of the wall, no matter how obvious, and it comes as no surprise that someone would hate the man who understands the problems and offers the only real solutions.

    Big clue for you, Summer, the solution is not more and more and more of the thing that created the problem.

  • Well, I am disappointed to see so many people brainwashed, thinking that our countries original government was meant to control our lives in every way possible instead of what it was meant to be- only there to protect and defend us. But, whatever, spew the lies, believe what you want. You call Ron Paul supporters whacks, but look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself, “what am I supporting?” I will tell you what your supporting, the DESTRUCTION of our COUNTRY. Now who’s whack.

  • Oh, and I forgot. Dr. Paul is for protecting “private property rights” and respecting contractual agreements which includes all environment protection. One person doesn’t have the right to pollute another’s private property and the government should protect our right to seek damages from those infringing on our private property rights. Sounds simple but at it’s simplest form, protects the environment on all levels.

  • 1. If you believe in individual rights, you believe in equal rights. Affirmative action is not equal rights based on abilities rather it is based on collectivism of race. If you believe in individualism, you are not a collectivist.
    2. Dr. Paul is an ob/gyn & knows life begins at conception. But he is not for telling people what to do although he is pro-life. The Constitution does not give the federal govt. the authority to legislate certain private matters (that’s why Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional). Dr. Paul believes it to be a state matter. If not prohibited in the Constitution but not listed should be left to the states.
    3. Not Constitutional to put so many regulations on businesses.
    4. Unfair? Dr. Paul has never voted to raise a tax. He wants to end federal income tax. Raising taxes in this environment would devastate the economy. Getting rid of estate taxes would be WONDERFUL! Stealing from one group of people to give to another is unconstitutional.
    5. If we don’t use our resources, guess what…..there are plenty of nations (like China) who would love to come over here and take over. We do owe them alot of money. And they don’t care about regulations.
    6. We are a sovereign nation. The UN is not our boss. When did we start answering to the UN? The UN doesn’t always have out best interests at heart either. The International Criminal Court is also not in our best interest. When did you want to give up our sovereignty so easily??? We can work with other countries without answering to them.
    7. As I said in #1, Dr. Paul believes in individualism and freedom; not collectivism. He has the right to say he believes that marriage should be between a man and woman. But he believes in the Constitutional freedom for others to make their own decisions; as long as their decisions don’t infringe on his rights. As far as prohibiting same-sex marriage across state borders, that’s because states have their own sovereignty to make those decisions (not the federal government). For instance, whatever New York feels is best for it, then fine but don’t force New Mexico to follow NY’s laws.
    8. If pilots were allowed to carry firearms on the planes (private business matter), it’s possible 9/11 might not have happened. He’s right. There should be no restrictions on the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, bad things can happen but you can’t stop every bad thing that can happen. Giving up liberty for safety was not the founders’ advice. I think carrying a concealed weapon in a park isn’t such a bad idea (self-protection). Our Constitution is not a “living document”. Congress does have the right to amend it if necessary but it is rock solid and stands true today as well. Prohibition was put in then taken out (and rightly so). If “We the People” want to amend the Constitution, then do it correctly.
    9. Our fed. govt is broke. It can’t keep going without cuts somewhere. Military would be a good first cut & Dr. Paul is all for that (and I agree). I believe schools would be far better if they were taken care of closer to home. Across-the-board federal standards only dumbs down the schools. Because as soon as certain districts don’t do well, those districts lose federal monies. Then they lower the standards overall just for certain districts. That should be stopped. Not everyone is going to be a genius or go to college. We all have different upbringings & opportunities. And the govt. should not restrict or infringe upon homeschooling either.
    10. Congress shall write no law respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXPRESSION thereof,….I’m not a religious fanatic but Dr. Paul is right. He doesn’t hate gays; don’t know where you got that (he’s not a collectivist). He doesn’t wear his religion on his sleeve. Funny how you say he is attempting to force his beliefs on others & that is exactly what our current president is doing. He believes in “collective salvation” & is attempting to force through legislation his beliefs of wealth redistribution (research his church). Dr. Paul is saying govt. cannot establish a religion but it cannot stop others from their free expression of religion. If someone wants to say “Thank you Jesus” after a speech in front of the Senate, by all means that person has a right to do it. But they can’t say “Today, we’re a Christian government” or use any denomination as the “established” religion (like Great Britain did).
    As far as your opening statements of how Dr. Paul does not support the war in Iraq, I am fully behind him on that. The war in Iraq was not declared. Constitution requires declaration of war by the Congress (that includes Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc). Dr. Paul did vote to go after those responsible for 9/11 in Afghanistan but he wanted to use Letters of Marque and Reprisal which were once used to go after pirates. It would only have allowed going after those responsible; not a full-out war or nation-building. The wars are bankrupting this country. Nations who embark on empire-building eventually collapse for economic reasons. Bringing the troops home makes a lot of sense (and brings back money to our country). Once you realize that a dollar collapse is FAR MORE DANGEROUS than a terrorist attack, you’d understand why we need to get our troops home.

  • nycgrlupstate

    Thank you, thank you thank you!!! The online Paul People are destroying what is left of my sanity after the last couple of years of Tea.

    • You obviously dont read for yourself. please note that paper money is a joke, and he is the only one who understands that the Federal Reserve needs to go away for us to succeed as a society. Otherwise, we all will die. dont you think its funny that everyone is buying gold and silver???? i bet you cant wait to be captured in a FEMA camp and run by a police state where you have no rights, and you will be in the next genocide…..its sad that you dont see this.

    • nycgrlupstate:

      If you believe this article, then you have no sanity.

    • Thank you for what? Giving you spin that ease your mind? Are you upset that the Democrats are actually all corrupt statist pigs just like the GOP?

  • Thanks for printing some true facts about Ron Paul. There is no wonder that Ron Paul is so beloved by the Klan and the American Nazis. Have you ever noticed how toxic his district is, how it always seems to be exploding because of the careless, greedy petrochemical industry? So much for the EPA not being needed. The small-government crowd wants to live in the stone age, when small government was practical. I grew up with guns and my father was a lifelong hunter (because that was one of the family’s main meat supplies, not because it was a sport or hobby) and he was a lifelong NRA member, but he never thought the average dude has the right to own an AK47 . It’s pointless, unnecessary, and certainly an idiotic misinterpretation of the Constitution. The libertarian crowd says the LOVE the Constitution, but they also want to change it in just a FEW areas…

    • everything in this blog is completely wrong. read for yourself his views and watch his campaigns. this person has such the wrong idea about Ron Paul. You have no idea what you are talking about, stop listening to the government bashings and actually find the true information. stop being such a follower.

    • jesse sublett:

      Since you and Ludwig obviously see everything from a collectivist viewpoint, it may interest you to know, not that you have any way of knowing since you gather your positions from nonsense like this article rather than the facts, that Ron Paul advocates Individual Liberty. Not that you know what that means, but it is opposite to collectivism.

      But guess what – racism, advocated by the Nazis and the Klan and by Ludwig merely in different directions, is a form of collectivism, and the wrongness of them is that they are collectivist. They look as clumps-by-race, rather than to see a person as an individual. Ron Paul considers each person as an individual, not as a member of a racial group thereby deserving of a handout or burdened with supplying that handout depending upon racial identity. It is you and Ludwig whose “thinking” is indistinguishable from the Nazis and the Klan, while Ron Paul has nothing in common with any such group as the Nazis or the Klan.

      Should I also mention that the rest of the “logic” in this article, such as the pseudo-economics, also stems from the idiocy of collectivism and most assuredly hates anything that is not collectivism? That is your form of compassion.

  • “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.”

    So what does the writer suggest by this?

    Do we honor the amendments are pretend its a living document? The Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND.

    Living document is code word for changing the meaning of things in order to create a loophole.


    The writer is also naive about the birthright citizenship issue.

    Paul argues that children of CITIZENS OF MEXICO are not under the jurisdiction of the United States

    • That’s such a simplistic and uniformed argument.

      If you REALLY think the only way that a law should be passed is through a constitutional amendment then you have NO IDEA how our Government is supposed to work, and you need to re-read the constitution a couple more times.

      • If it’s not in the Constitution and not prohibited in the Constitution, then it is up to the states to make those laws. The constitution IS the law of the land.

        • You REALLY need to read what powers are granted to congress under the constitution. They are VERY broad, and only narrow-minded people can’t see that.

          The Constitution was NEVER intended to be perfect, only to HELP create “a more perfect union”.

          • Good job Matt. Paul ppl are indeed wrong fanatical and delusional. They’d love to forget Thomas Jefferson words that a new constitution must be made with each changing time. Every ten or so years. Paul ppl you will never get your guy and never be able to best the left. Ever!

          • Uh…no. The Constitution specifically states that powers not granted explicitly to the Federal Government are reserved for the states or the people.

            • You people are so dumb it’s scary. Article ONE Section 8:

              The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

              To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

              To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

              To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

              To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

              To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

              To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

              To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

              To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

              To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

              To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

              To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

              To provide and maintain a Navy;

              To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

              To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

              To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

              To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

              To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

              • Smackdown! Paul is a wolf wrapped in a flag. Like most of them.

              • These are strictly limited. It can’t do any more than these things.

                The “necessary and proper” clause says that government can do what’s “necessary and proper” to fulfill these limited duties. It doesn’t give it carte blanche to do what it wants because they think it’s necessary and proper. Even court decisions have interpreted this as such.

              • Sean O'Donnell

                Ron Paul’s rhetoric and his voting record match up perfectly. That’s why I support him.

                This is a slick written article, but is unfortunately way off on the facts. It tells me the Democratic party has as much to fear about Ron Paul as its identical twin, the Republican Party.

              • Sean O'Donnell

                James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and the state ratifying conventions weighed in on this exact issue – what the powers of the new federal government were – and I’m quite comfortable following their lead and ignoring Desmond’s butchering of Art I, Sec 8.

                • How is copying and pasting the whole thing, VERBATIM, “butchering” it? You Ron Paul whackos are REALLY desperate, aren’t you?

                  • Jack Bouchard

                    He’s talking about your interpretation of these powers as being broad, as opposed to limited. The powers you have listed are the only powers given to Congress. Notice, for example, that nothing is said about providing for or regulating education. This means that Congress cannot do ANYTHING regarding education, a fact reaffirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution which states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Because Congress has not been given the power to regulate education, it is left to the states to do so. The same logic can be used to determine who is in charge of marriage, abortion, healthcare etc. If it isn’t in Article One, it can’t be done.

                    • You do know that our constitution also talks about providing for the general welfare, right? o.o

          • Actually, the only people who see that are people who don’t know how to read.

  • Hahahahaha! The author of this is a joke. Probably just wants more traffic.

    Did anyone read any of this? Is he kidding?!? Hahahahaa. It’s like he just picked out the names of bills and did no research on what they included. Using said names, he criticizes Paul. DO YOU NOT KNOW WHAT HE STANDS FOR AT ALL? Every time he opposes a bill, it is for an excellent reason. Just like the “Protect children from porn” bill. I mean, who would vote against that? But read it, and it says all SP’s are required to store every search from every IP address for up to a year. NOW WOULD YOU VOTE FOR THAT? Idiots like this guy would say “Paul wants kids to have porn!” When the fact of the matter is, you, sir, look like an idiot. DO YOUR RESEARCH. I shouldn’t even have to argue. All of your points fail to stand to the simplest scrutiny.

  • 1 what if qualified white and Asian students were denied admission on the basis of race? Can the IRS investigate then? Affirmative action is inherently unfair.

    2 instead of a national policy on abortion, he wants states to address this issue. It’s unfair to collect money from pro lifers to fund pro choice actions, isn’t it?

    3 minimum wages only prevent the willing from working. All osha does is create barriers for starting a small business – if you can’t afford to have a board of corporate compliance, etc, and a gov’t liason….
    4 flat tax is the fairest tax of them all. Let those who earn keep it, and let their choices be dictated by their desires, not some tax breaks.
    5 like the epa is not in the hands of special interests already. Not like the board of fda, usda, nih, etc are not already populated by industry people, right?
    6 – why should we relinquish our sovereignty and right of self determination to something like the UN or nato? So when they say they’ve decided to invade Syria, we go along and provide the bulk of bombs and drones for them? We would be viewed more favorably if we stopped bombing people.

    7 – he votes for the marriage protection act only because it PREVENTS the feds from declaring that a marriage is something they can define. Just because he’s been married for 50 years, doesn’t mean he believes that others should do the same.

    8 the 2nd amendment is critical for preservation of a free society. If you don’t have the right to defend yourself against the most plausible threat of an armed criminal, then other rights don’t even matter. Gun laws, by definition, are applicable only to those willing to abide by the law.

    9 dept of education? Leave no child behind? Hello? Centralized curriculum for the masses? No thank you.
    The health care model is in shambles because of medicare – centralized payor with no regard for the market or consequence. As long as someone is paying, doctors don’t care what they do, patients don’t care because they don’t have to pay. And insurance laws tend to favor insurance companies… otherwise, they would be allowed to cover across state lines and transfer across employment.
    I can write a whole essay on this but won’t

    10 ron paul is a libertarian. What he believes, he doesn’t’ feel like he can force you to believe. He doesn’t think the government should dictate the curriculum either. He does not force you to do anything, as long as it doesn’t encroach on another’s freedom and liberty.

  • Marko Freimann

    Wow, it is good to see that people are passionate about this.

    I wish addictinginfo would critic the President as much as they critic the GOP. But I am not getting my hopes up. This site is like Fox News but for Democrats; although to be fair addictinginfo tells far less lies than Fox.

    Stop being a mouth piece for the DEMs and start speaking for the people. The truth is that everything has not been all sunshine and roses under President Obama and people need to wake up and admit this.

    Stop with the party politics and come together as Americans!

  • What’s that I smell?… Why it’s Propaganda.

  • 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.)

    Very factual and non-emotional argument hahahah

  • (1) Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
    Equal Rights is not Special Rights. On a LEVEL playing field, EVERYONE has the same opportunity to get a job.

    (2) Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.
    Not True! Women can do whatever they want with THEIR bodies. But, they cannot make the rest of us foot the bill, for their sexual choices.

    (3) Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
    Not True! Ron Paul believes in a FREE market economy. In the present over-regulated system, the working-class cannot develop their OWN business, and are dependant upon the crumbs that fall from the Corporate Table!

    (4) Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.
    Another misrepresentation of the facts! Currently the U.S. has the most convoluted tax code on Earth. And it spans many thousands of pages. It is SPECIFIALLY written to allow the largest Corporations pay little or NO tax.

    (5) Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.
    Is the air in Mexico different from the air in Texas? Currently Mexico burns coal, that the EPA will not allow to be burned in the U.S. And then Mexico sells the electricity back to Texas.
    Buying FOREIGN oil, is breaking the working-poor. And it’s leading us into MORE WARS at a unaffordable cost in Human Life, and Debt!

    (6) A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations.
    Is this one a joke? Ron Paul wants to END foreign wars, and U.S. occupation of other countries.
    The current policy, under BOTH Democratic and Republican administrations is what has caused the U.S. to have a “negative image” around the world.

    (7) Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.
    Another Joke? Ron Paul supports Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for ALL American Citizens.

    (8) Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns.
    Absurd! Ron Paul agrees with what the Constitution says, about the RIGHT to bear arms period!

    (9) Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system.
    The American education system IS failed. Again because of the policies of BOTH parties. The Dept Of Education, has only made the level of education in America worse!
    Let educational decisions be made at the local level, by the people who are providing the education. Because they have a vested interest in providing the best possible education for THEIR children.

    (10) Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.
    That depends on what is meant by “separation”.|
    There is NO “separation” in The Declaration of Independence, nor in The Constitution.
    The 1st Amendment Guarantees, the RIGHT to Freedom of Religion.
    If by ‘separation” you mean that, no one may practice his/her religion in public, then you have taken an EXTREME and Unconstitutional position.

    • Aquarian dreamer

      did you even look at the links before spouting off the party line? if not then shut up. he gave you LINKS to prove his point, and all you do is regurgitate, what? Ron Paul’s talking points?

      • Not true..He is telling you what Dr Paul believes and what we believe. The links is what you want to believe. Go ahead keep voting for the status quo. More fascism, less civil liberties, more war. Democrats are against war and destruction of civil liberties only when there is a warmonger Republican in power, but not when there is a warmonger Democrat.

        We have to come together and take our country back. We don’t have to agree on everything, but our freedoms are at stake here. Visit dailypaul and other Ron Paul websites and see for yourself what we are about.


    • +1+1+1! thanks Will!

      Aquarian dreamer: did you even read the links before you became a sheep???? you obviously believe in teh federal reserve, and probably have massive C.C debts. you will be locked up in a camp for debt collection too….just you wait..

    • You’re not doing anything to help your side of the story here. Especially with point 4. The writer did a much better job of backing up her opinon than you did.

      • Ron Paul has repeatedly called for an end to the federal income tax made possible by ending expansive unconstitutional wars, commitments, and policies not enumerated in the Constitution. The author of the article is putting a spin on one vote in this case.

    • Great rebuttal!

      Noting the number of rebuttals, Paul is more in tune with literate America than this web site. I’m sending him more money tonight (Paul, that is).

      Hope you don’t mind if I cut & paste your points to rebut the Lib’s who mar my FB wall.

    • you do realize that mexico is notorious for their air pollution and in fact their pollution effects our border. you are not seriously using mexico as an example of goodness are you? mexico is so horrible their own citizens don’t want to stay there! seriously use your google and gain some knowledge. http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/issues.html

    • As someone who lives on the U.S./Mexico border, I can answer one of your questions, but not with the answer that you wanted: Yes, the air in Mexico IS different than in the U.S.! So is the ocean, so are the sewers, so are the beaches, so are the pathogens found in the average citizen’s bloodstream. Regulation can work.

    • Separation does NOT mean “no one may practice his/her religion in public”. It means that the GOVERNMENT may not tell us what our religious beliefs should be, may not require us to hold or express any particular beliefs, etc. “No establishment of religion.”

  • Ron Paul stands for the liberty of individuals rather than pitting groups against each other and defining everyone by their race. That said, despite Obama’s massive spending the economy is faltering and hurting blacks worse than whites. Black unemployment is now 16.8% and blacks are losing their homes at a faster rates than whites. How has the working class been doing under Obama? The new jobs are in Korea. President Obama set up a free trade deal with S. Korea and overrode the vote of Congress with an executive order allowing Mexican truck drivers to displace Teamsters. It must be more important to be a Democrat than to have a job or a house.

    Unlike the Senator who promised to end the Iraq war if it was still going on when he took office, Ron Paul would end the Iraq and other wars which have taken the lives of over 5,800 of our service people. You really could bank on that. He wouldn’t be starting wars with executive orders either. As Kucinich notes, Obama’s war on Libya is an impeachable offense.

    I don’t mean to suggest that the President is all bad. In fact, on Christmas Eve, 2009, the President signed paperwork transferring a lot of the mega-banks bad debts to Fannie and Freddie. HoHo Ho, the taxpayers got stuck with the debt but what an act of kindness to the bankers! I suspect that Ron Paul would be more of a scrooge with respect to Goldman Sachs and the rest of Obama’s contributors.

    We haven’t even mentioned civil liberties. How do you like having your daughters and wives molested at the airport? Maybe we can have some anti-10th Amendment scholars tell us how the 4th Amendment really doesn’t mean what it says either.

    • Paul’s “Liberty” stance is liberty for big business, not the rights of workers.

      There are more of us than there are of the greedy bougie CEO’s, therefore Paul is NOT for the people!

  • Exactly. There is a possibility of corruption in any position of power. The smaller the scope of the power the less corruption and the easy it is to correct when it does happen. This whole article is ridiculous. I ask anyone reading this to do your own research and don’t believe everything you read because the real corruption in this country happens in the Media. They distort facts for there own gains and for entertainment and appeasement purposes.

  • Well this country was run on corporate tax and tariffs. and a temporary apportioned flat tax @ one time, but for the most part the federal government wasn’t run by the Federal Reserve nor did they levy taxes on an individual’s labor, in fact it was considered that a man’s wages and labor was his private property and never taxed it until the 1900’s when we started building our world empire and policing the world for the league of nations and then NATO and the UN. We needed to borrow money from other countries and if they didn’t loan then we looked to the so called Federal Reserve bank to extend a line of credit and in return they would get the power through the IRS to collect revenue (taxes) for payment on the loan, but know it’s come to an end. Bad economic policies and an Empire we can no longer afford have bankrupted this country. And liberals want more taxes to help w/ our current economic catastrophe, but why throw more money to Washington when they and the Federal Reserve are the problem.

    • Aquarian dreamer

      we never joined the league of nations idiot. that FACT is the basis of one hypothesis as to the failure of the LoN stupid.

      the federal reserve bank was created in 1913, before we even became a first tier nation after WW1, doofus.

      then tell your congressman 25% is too much to spend on the DoD.

      the loss of taxes, de-regulation, AND A REPUBLICAN Big spender ARE the reason we have so damn many problems, schmuck.

      as to the “empire” well, your precious big business did feel threatened when Stalin declared that communism would come to rule over the world, and you don’t seem to like socialism or communism…

      as the world changed we had to change with it. if you can’t adapt you die…hey maybe thats this nations problem, the government isn’t adapting because a bunch of its ‘leaders’ cant get past the 1950’s. by the way, its 2010, we have to move on.

  • I love how this article says he will “gut an already sad educational system”. Did the author every stop to try to understand why it is so sad? Its quite simple, when the Gov’t gets involved in anything quality goes down (or progresses more slowly then it was before the intervention) and prices soar. The Dept of Education has ruined education in this country just as it has in Healthcare.

  • grinninglibber

    The comments here say a lot about his supporters too.
    Can you say RABID?
    They remind me of birthers and truthers.

    • Passion for Liberty is not a bad thing. I am not a birther or a truther and yet, I believe this to be a historic and generational shift.

      We call it “the brushfires of Liberty” in the minds of the people. This is a wake up call for civil liberty and financial liberty for all Americans. You can take it or leave it though.

      • Repeating things you hear.
        Here one Thomas Jefferson constitution must change for the times. Paul ppl are totally brainwashed with talking points they don’t even really get. Hey get passionate about facts finding out if the stuff you choose to repeat is at all cogent. Here’s a start point for you dolts its not if you support Paul. Thank you. Jesus wad a socialist Arab happy Sunday Paul nation

    • I gata a name for people who ridicule birthers and truthers: IDIOTS.

      It is not surprising, therefore, that it has not yet dawned on these same people that their government check won’t be very important when it can no longer buy anything. I’m sure to idiots, creating money out of thin air to pay entitlements sounds like a good idea, just like it did to Gideon Gono.

      • Uh…Social Security is an entitlement. I paid into it, therefore I’m entitled to it. And they’re running a HUGE surplus. Need proof? Congress has borrowed over 2 trillion from that surplus.

        • I said government checks. They are payable in federal reserve notes, almost universally (and incorrectly) referred to as ‘dollars’. When the ‘dollar’ gets trashed, it won’t matter how much you paid into SS. Your check won’t buy nothin’.

        • I can only assume that you’re referring to the recent Daily Kos article referencing a CSPAN interview. You seem to have forgotten this paragraph:

          “If Bloomberg’s analysis of the “fiscal gap” is correct, any cuts to Social Security benefits will simply increase the already projected surplus of $22 trillion. That surplus is highly vulnerable in a “debt crisis” to being purloined to cover the $212 trillion gap resulting from other government expenditures. That would make Social Security, at least in part, a regressive tax program for general expenditures, because lower income workers pay a higher rate than those with high incomes.”

          Which renders your supposed surplus completely meaningless.

      • what does GATA mean?

      • Birthers are, without exception, racist idiots.

        Truthers, I have no idea because I know little about the subject but I’d imagine they have the normal portion of idiots in their ranks.

    • You remind me of a member of the ignorant mass that could care less about facts, freedom, or common sense.

      • You remind me of someone who COULDN’T care less about precise language; If you say someone “could care less,” you are implying that they DO care a little bit at least, because there is a quantifiable amount beneath that, e.g., less. What you meant to say was that the fella reminds you of a member of the ignorant massES that could’NT care less about facts, freedom, or common sense. Which, by the way, is bullshit–Just because someone has a differing opinion on what the problems are, and/or how to best fix them, doesn’t mean they don’t care!

    • Ron’s supporters are enthusiastic about Ron because we have not heard anyone challenge the system they way he does. Some of us are younger an maybe a little bit more excitable. Please forgive us if in our desire to get people to listen him we get over the top sometimes.

      We are very worried about our country.

  • 1. Ron Paul, MD has delivered 4000 souls into this world many of them minorities, for free, since he refused to accept any form of government welfare. Those like Noam would have you believe that Paul would deny them healthcare in a world without government welfare. It’s a proven lie.

    2. Ron is against abortion, but does not intend to legislate against it. He has made it clear that this is a state’s rights issue.

    3. This is an attack on libertarianism itself, and of course is a lie, this country was built by working class libertarian minded people.

    4. Simplifying the tax code is not “unfair”, everyone knows this.

    5. The world’s largest polluter? The US government. It’s true.

    6. Ron Paul wants open trade and relations with all nations.

    7. Government doesn’t provide rights. Really. It says so right in your Constitution.

    8. Guns can’t be uninvented. Deal with it. Get one.

    9. So they admit it’s “sad”, but want to keep it…for what? nostalgia? Stop being such a Luddite…it’s unbecoming of a “progressive”.

    10. I’m agnostic and even I can see there is a war on religion, mostly against Islam in this country…

    • Well composed response,…appreciate it. I understand the libertarian model with all it’s perfect world shortcoming and i felt this 10 reasons list was just a hit piece.

    • Uh, he has repeatedly accepted Medicaid and Medicare. All of those patients he has seen for free keep asking the same question: If his services were free, why am I being billed by him? Why does he keep threatening to take me to small claims court?

      • That’s a cheap shot. You don’t know anything about RP’s private practice.

        You could just be using sarcasm, but even that is a foil for addressing the topic.

    • Aquarian dreamer

      7. Government doesn’t provide rights. Really. It says so right in your Constitution.

      absolutely right government is there to DEFEND rights. too bad you have to be a white heterosexual to have your rights defended. I understand that only 50-60 years ago we finally started trying to live up to the preamble of our own Constitution(well, ok, restarted) and the declaration of Independence, but we still have a long way to go. please lets not let idiots derail us from living up to the Ideal(AGAIN) this nations founding fathers created, and so many have died for, some needlessly.

    • Ron Paul isn’t a libertarian; he’s a republican. I cannot and will not vote any Democrat or Republican. If Ron Paul really means what he says then he would leave the GOP.

      • I don’t understand your logic. Are you saying you will not vote for him simply because his name is attached to a particular party’s ticket? Do you also believe that if nominated to run for President, he would choose a running mate that does not share his views & policies? If you answered “no” to either of these questions, then you shouldn’t have an issue.

      • BS dude.. you voted for Obama and will do so again next time… If you didn’t vote for Obama then you probably just didn’t vote – in which case I would contend you should keep on keepin on.. Your loss – not ours. And I bet when Ron Paul wins, turns this country around, brings world peace – you’ll proudly tell all your friends… “Hey, I voted for that dude!”

    • if ron paul has no plans to legislate his anti abortion stance why did he co sponsor four anti abortion bills? if co sponsoring bills is not legislating then i would like to know what you call it. check out the links on number two and use facts to think for yourself. at this point i don’t trust what words come out of a politicians mouth. let’s look at how they’ve voted and what they’ve done. every point in the article is backed with ron paul’s actions not just his promises. actions speak louder than words.

    • The states right defense is a pretty transparent way to say. . .”it’s fine with me, but ask your mother.” Cop-out.

      • what is so wrong with having the states decide on these issues? If you don’t like a state’s policy on abortion GO TO A DIFFERENT ONE, sure beats having the federal government deciding for you…

      • Jack Bouchard

        It’s also the only correct response for a Congressman to give on several issues. (see: 10th Amendment to the US Constitution)

  • Ron Paul is the only “ONE” I would trust to run our country. Bush, couldn’t do it, Obama couldn’t do it, and the reason why is because both were not obiding by the Constitution period, that is all I have to say on that. If you look at Dr. Paul’s record this man is a strict Constitutionalist, and if you as an American citizen, ex-military member or like-wise believe in what our founders put in the Constitution, and believe that our country needs to follow our Constitution, Ron Paul is the man that our country needs, and I say you should google him, and most definately vote for him.

  • Thank you for writing this article!!! We are having a huge bbq so we told our guests to turn all the negatives into positives and there you have a more honest article on Ron Paul. Thanks for providing the entertainment for our little shindig and convincing more people to vote Ron Paul. wooohooooooo!

  • I love the HUGE gun ad at the top of this article in which the author accuses Ron Paul of “unnatural obsession with guns”. Yeah, we can safely dismiss this shill…

  • The below says it all, the Supremacy Clause does not give them powers of all laws, they are still bound by the restrictions of the Constitution, especially the 10th amendment.

    “However, the Supremacy Clause only applies if the federal government is acting in pursuit of its constitutionally authorized powers, as noted by the phrase “in pursuance thereof” in the actual text of the Supremacy Clause itself.”

    And to Saje, about “the more localized the political structure, the more prone to corruption it is.” – that is just a complete idiotic statement. If a local government is corrupt, it only affects the people in that area. If 466 people in DC are corrupt (which most of them are), it affects EVERYONE. Do you really think it would be possible to have these horrendous wars if the Congress and Presidents weren’t corrupt and followed the Constitution?

    Wake up! The government is NOT your savior, the person in the mirror is!

  • THANK YOU for publishing this article. I’ve never trusted this guy. Never understood what the big fuss was all about. Finally, will never, ever vote for him.

    • Yea great point, I could never vote for someone who wants to restore the constitution and end the wars and the policing militarism of our empire, big bank schemes and bureaucratic, lobbyist ran Washington. The idea that I could keep all my wages from the federal govt. bothers me; I wish they would take more like, half of my labor. I pray that Paul never gets into office b/c we might head back to a prosperous nation again. Oh and to veto any un-constitutional legislation extensions like the Patriot Act that WILL show up on his desk to sign, how scary. Please help me my all powerful all knowing federal government, please tell me where to sign my life away b/c I don’t know how to take care of it myself!!!!

    • Too bad that you have not reseach Dr. Paul, and to be frank, you have no clue as to what he is about, nor do you understand anything that is going on with our monetary system right now, but then again you are just posting like you know something, but you don’t know shiiiittte.

    • Try reading up on libertarianism , that might help explain it. Google Mises or Lew Rockwell.

    • To women like Michele, the Fed Gov is Daddy, and she will have fun, fun, fun ’til China repossesses her T-Bill….errr…I mean T-Bird.

  • Linda Tegarden

    Well, you missed the most important reason…I’d say, reason number one–but keep what you already wrote and just say Reason 11. Ron Paul is effing nuts. How ’bout that? Could anyone who wasn’t demented, intellectually impaired, mentally fragile or otherwise compromised, think the Iranians should be left alone to acquire whatever nuclear armaments they wish?…as in “it is none of our business. Maybe they only want them for peaceful uses”

    • Benjamin Netanyahu has said recently to our House of Reps. and President in our Nations Capitol, “That we (Israel) don’t need your boots on the ground, we have a military, we don’t need your nation building, and we have a nation”. He made other comments, but it was clear that Israel doesn’t need our military influence over there. They can take care of themselves. Paul is not an isolationist, and he’s defiantly not working to win the hearts and minds of NATO leaders like Tony Blair or trying to b a WORLD LEADER IN THE UNITED NATIONS. Benjamin Netanyahu wants us to stay out of their affairs. We also give more aid to the Palestinian’s and every other Arab country than we do to Israel. Besides Israel has 300 nukes, Pakistan has nukes every country w/ any power has nukes in that region, and besides Mahmoud Ahmadinejad panders to his voters, they hate the Jews and for the most part I’m sure he doesn’t care for them all too well either, but there are pictures out there on the internet w/ him and extreme Sanhedrin Jews smiling and shaking hands. Nukes and guns exist and if you want to compete on the world stage you have to have them in order to get what you want. What are we going to do bomb em, you gonna sign up to go to that war?? Go ahead Rambo. But they aren’t going to risk an all out war w/ Israel who has one of the most powerful military’s on the face of the earth; they would be gone the day after they tried.

      • Ben your strong Israel bias is clear and your points are made up or totally out of context. Israel is the primary client enjoying many billions in official aid. As well as non official gifts like say billions in military hardware. Ben Zionism looks bad on anyone but especially a Ron Paul supporter.

    • What RP is saying is that we should only go to war reluctantly. He is countering the neocons in the Republican Party. If you dig deeper, you will see that he is not against war if it is declared. At that point, we would state the objective (like kill Bin Laden) and leave once we had accomplished that objective.

      I don’t see any substance in your post. It is otherwise known as name calling.

    • People like you really know nothing about foreign policy and what goes on outside of this country, do you?

      Iran doesn’t have an air force. Iran isn’t capable of converting their own oil. They’re not a threat to anyone. If they attack ANYONE, other than for self-defense, they will be wiped off the earth. Did you know America threw out Iran’s democracy? Ever studied the Coup? We put in a dictator all for oil.

      Have you ever stopped and considered the fact that no country has attacked us? China has nukes. We don’t stop them from creating them, and they’re a MUCH greater threat. Does this mean China could tell us to stop creating weapons? We’re dangerous. Heck, we USE our weapons without ever being attacked. We should be the ones others worry about.

      Seriously, what mentality do you have? Or what research have you done? If you don’t interfere with governments, but you allow free trade, guess what? Our economy feeds their economies. They become more prosperous thanks to us. And do you really think a country would randomly attack a nation that is helping their economy? NOT AT ALL. Now, attacking a country that has taken over your country…seems quite acceptable for them to attack.

      Look at things outside of whatever bubble you are in.

      • Exactly right. So far, in the history of this planet, the US is the only country that has actually used nuclear weapons against another country, yet the people here feel that we have the right to dictate who has them and who does not. Ron Paul wants to end all of the wars, end the nation building, and end our world policing. He also wants to end the federal drug war, audit the federal reserve, and abolish the IRS. I don’t see any other viable candidates that are making these kind of promises. Since the author of this idiotic blog has given us 10 supposed reasons not to vote for Ron Paul, I ask, who with your grand wisdom, do you suggest that we vote for?

        • You’re so right… Can you imagine how the U.S. would respond if representatives from some foreign government just showed up one day, demanding immediate access for a full inspection of our defense infrastructure, munitions plants, etc.? Ha ha ha ha… I’m sure we’d be REEEAAAL accommodating!

  • Saje Williams

    Ron Paul is EXACTLY like a stopped clock, politically speaking. He’s right about letting the military/industrial complex set the foreign policy agenda, and he’s right about the War on (some) Drugs. That’s where it ends. One thing none of these Libertarian nitwits don’t seem to grasp is that the more localized the political structure, the more prone to corruption it is. You think it’s bad now–wait until the corps can pay off local governments to do whatever the hell they want with no real oversight. You want a Libertarian paradise, move to Somalia. Otherwise catch a clue.

    • … how much white collar crime happens in this country without real prosecution? Is it really harder to control federal corruption over state corruption? Look at the current state at the federal government, and then get back to me

    • This is just name calling. I don’t see any substance in your post.

  • Why you shouldnt vote for obama:

    Stimulus bill – not a jobs bill but a democratic payback bill

    Refusing to prosecute the radical hate group; the Black Panthers for violations of others voting rights as well as hate crimes and inciting violence
    See this very good web post for further information:
    New Black Panther Obama DOJ refused to prosecute: “I hate white people – all of them!”

    Obama’s lies about the budget and constant blaming of Bush rather than taking any responsibility at all for his hand in the budget deficit and terrible economy:

    For Fiscal Year 2009, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.

    If the Obama & the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the Fiscal Year 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

    Obama and Attorney General Holder suing the Sate of Arizona over bill that only enforces US Federal Law (US code #1304; c, d, & f).
    See: Obama and Holder taking on Arizona’s SB1070

    Obama’s ties via Eboo Patel to the radical Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the controversial Muslim leader behind the plan to build the Islamic center and mosque two blocks from Ground Zero. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wrote the afterward to Patel’s 2006 book entitled, “Building the Interfaith Youth Movement: Beyond Dialogue to Action.”
    Eboo Patel the is religious adviser to President Obama. Obama’s adviser says, “America is the ideal place for a renewal of Islam”.

    *Barack Obama’s ‘Religious’ Advisor, Eboo Patel, is closely linked to the radical imam seeking to build the Ground Zero mosque
    *Obama religion adviser closely tied to ‘Ground Zero’ imam. Boasted of America as ‘ideal place for renewal of Islam’

    Extreme political correctness and inability to call Islamic Extremists and the tenants of Islam which they follow for what it is;
    An extreme religion of hate and intolerance:
    No Mosque at Ground Zero

    Lack of proper vetting

    Tax cheats in his administration; Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner

    Socialist in his administration;
    Here are just a few:
    Carol Browner (Energy Czar/Director), Rosa Brooks (Senior advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy), Ron Bloom (Manufacturing Czar).

    Obama File 87 Obama’s Socialist Appointees-Where is the Spotlight?

    Obama, Socialist with Communists in his administration

    Allowing radical racist communist in his administration – Van Jones; Special Advisor for Green Jobs in the Obama administration (Former now)
    This guy is so far out there that he signed his name to 911Truth.org which is a group that does not believe the accepted, proven, and established accounts of 9/11/01, this is a kin to denying the Holocaust, claiming the Earth is flat (there are those that still believe this), believe the Moon landings were fake, etc, ect.
    Reference (one of many);
    Wikipedia; Van Jones

    Shutting down of the oil industry in the Gulf of Mexico, along with his mishandling of the BP Oil Spill including turning down real help from the Dutch for Oil Spill Help; Obama says “Thanks, but no thanks”
    (see: Dutch Offered Oil Spill Help)
    Also with an economy that needs low oil prices for complete recovery, Obama continues to lock up viable oil reserves in the US.

    Sadly energy policy has been a failure of many presidents, including Bush. We need a leader to stand up to the communist environmental movement before it is too late (all the while China drills for oil just outside our waters and Canada does not have any of the issues with drilling that we have in Alaska)

    Obamas extreme arrogance toward those who do not fit his world view/profile. This includes his view that other than himself driving around in limos and flying in Air Force one, no one else is entitled to any luxuries in life and high fuel prices are just another way of separating the “serfs” from persons of his stature in his racist psychopathic narcissist world view.
    See this excellent video clip, this displays his extreme arrogance and racism:
    Obama Humiliated After Attempt To Shame SUV Driver

    Sadly, this picture below shows the height of his extreme hypocrisy; this picture is from 2008 (during the presidential campaign). I guess it is OK for him and his family to own an SUV, but nw others; Good job “Marie Antoinette Obama”
    Barack Obama Riding in SUV, Hypocrite

    No Olympics for Chicago – turned out to be a big ego trip instead

    Making race relations worse – (stupidly comment- professor gates)

    Fly over photo op in New York – scared New Yorkers

    Selling out other nations by removing missile defense

    Letting Pelosi and Reid write bills

    Lack of transparency

    Multiple czars with no accountability

    Lying about details of his healthcare reform bill – YOU LIE!!!

    Attempt to take over census

    Undecided about giving military what they need to win

    Association with acorn

    Worldwide apology tour (this borders on treason IMHO)

    Willing to bend over to our enemies while giving our allies the shaft

    Lack of support for Israel.
    While I, nor others advocate blanket support for everything Israel does, it does not take a genius to figure out the Israel is the strongest democracy in the region and our best ally in the region as well.
    One could also cite Genesis 12:2-3 for supporting Israel, although their adittedly is controversy as to the correct interpretation of these verses, I personally think it is clear from reading the Bible in context (not just the literal Hebrew of these verses) that the Nation of Israel is being spoken of via Abraham’s descendants through Jacob, NOT Ishmael (see: “I will make you into a great nation”)

    Took too long to speak out against violence against voters in Iran

    Getting the NEA to produce propaganda art for his agenda

    Firing inspector general for investigating his friends at americorp

    Shutting down voucher program in DC for poor school kids

    Firing the head of General Motors, this is not the job of the President to fire corporate heads no matter how bad they might be

    Lied about putting bills online for 5 days

    Allowing unions large share in businesses taken over by government

    Intimidating businessmen (I’m only thing standing between you and the pitch forks)

    Allowing his administration to threaten shareholders during bankruptcy of car dealers

    Extreme Anti small business & anti-family views/policies; remember Joe the Plumber?
    As well as a small businessman that struggles for every dollar, often working 80 hours per week I have already seen my taxes increase. As well Obama has lowered the child tax credit from $1000 to $500; how family friendly is that?

    Raised the deficit 3 times the amount it was last year

    Bailout of Fannie and Freddie

    Will not be able to repay tarp money to taxpayers as promised

    General Motors take over – GM had to eventually declare bankruptcy.
    The Federal Government had no right to pass over paying off “high priority” Bond holders and instead hand over much of the stock to the Unions
    See GM bondholders see raw deal in latest exchange offer

    Devaluing the dollar all over the world because of massive debt & spending

    Class warfare uproar over AIG bonuses but silent about bonuses for his pals at for Fanny & Freddie

    Spending more than any president in history

    And of coarse the failure of the American Electorate to actually vote for such a fool:
    “Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic . Someone over there has it figured out. We have a lot of work to do.

    Obama Pissing on America, USA”The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

    Hopefully the “Light Bulb” will go off in the head of at least 50% of Americans before it is too late for this once great nation

  • The good news is that Mr. Paul will never be president. The bad news is because the Republican party has developed a zero tolerance policy for heresy in any form

  • Christopher McDaniel

    Every one of these has one thing in common – the Federal Government being involved in the affairs of Americans. He is not shy about his willingness to vote no for anything that puts the government’s nose where it should not be.

    Amendment X – (That’s 10)
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
      Maybe Ron Paul and his supporters have forgotten about this? But, as they do with the Bible, conservatives pick and choose which parts of the Constitution they want to agree with and live by.

      • Well said Rusty, but you also forget that the Amendments to the constitution over ride all other parts of the constitution. Thus, the 10th amendment over rules the Supremacy Clause.

        Liberals love to pick and choose which parts of the constitution they will listen to.

        My your logic all black men are worth only 2/5 of a vote and women have no say at all.

        • Those were compromises that the founders agreed to so they could unify the colonies b/c the south wouldn’t join the union. Paul is against such compromises matter of fact he never compromises but stands for principle instead. And he’s not racist he just believes that the federal govt. has no right to dictate to the states, nor make any mandates that are not authorized in the constitution. So on abortion how can you achieve Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if some doctor kills you in your mother’s womb?? Government was designed w/ the constitution to protect civil liberties and to preserve rights not ordained by man nor God if you choose not to believe that, but by our humanity. if you believe that government is to take care of our every need and side step their enumerated powers in doing so than yes Paul is not the answer for you, maybe move to a fascist or communistic country where your needs might be met.

          • You cannot reconcile a respect for individual rights with pro-life rhetoric. They are mutually incompatible.

            • Jack Bouchard

              Unless you accept, as many of the Founders did, that the right to life extends to an unborn fetus.

              As Blackstone says:

              “Life is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual; and it begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother’s womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb… this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter. But at present it is not looked upon in quite so atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous misdemeanor…”

              If you are in agreement with this, then individual rights are inseparable from a pro-life ideology.

            • Considering Paul supported the 10th amendment he is pro-liberty on the issue. Im pro-choice and me and him both agree abortion should be handled by the states or completely left to moral choice.

        • “you also forget that the Amendments to the constitution over ride all other parts of the constitution”

          If they specifically make changes, sure. Otherwise, where are you getting that? Because writing the Supremacy Clause and then removing it with the 10th Amendment when both were adopted at the same time, seems like a huge waste of effort.

          • Jack Bouchard

            Nobody has said that the 10th Amendment negates the Supremacy Clause. What it does is separates federal powers from state powers. Congress has those powers that are enumerated in Article 1 Section 8, and the states and people have the rest.

        • Oh liberals love to pick and choose which part of the Constitution we listen to do we?

          Okay then..tell me..what is the first four words of the 2nd Amendment?

          Or for that matter…where is the conservative’s “love” for the US Constitution when it comes to them reinstigating poll taxes in order to block minorities from voting? Or talking about blocking poor people from voting at all?

          Sorry, conservatives are the ones that pick and choose.

    • Please go light a candle to him or do whatever it is that Paul cultists do. Isolating the 10th Amendment and quoting it as sacred text while supporting Paul – who wants to repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, all while claiming that there are limitations which actually ARE NOT in the constitution is enough to persuade me that he’s fringe nut who shouldn’t be able to get the time of day from people who call themselves liberal or progressive yet are willing to overlook virtually ALL of his flaws because they like his position on the wars and pot.

    • Remember though, the 10th Amendment is itself amended by the 14th. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ”

      Paul’s stance on same-sex marriage, and differing tax codes for corporations, do indeed violate the 14th.

      As for being willing to vote no for anything that involves government in people’s personal lives, that statement must be corrected. He is opposed to government being in people’s lives, provided those people are following “good, traditional, Christian values.” If they are not following those Christian values, say by embracing same-sex marriage, abortion, or religions other than Christianity (Islam, for instance) he is complete in favor of government stepping in.

      I DO agree with him about babies born to non-citizens, to a point. I would say, babies born to parents who have no intention of following the long-established path to citizenship we already have, should not be granted citizenship.

      Aside from that one point, everything Ron Paul stands for makes him a traitor to the United States Constitution.

      • Christopher McDaniel

        The only stance I have ever heard him take is that the Federal Government should stay out of defining what Marriage is and whether or not abortions should be legal.

        I have never heard him say, If I were President I’d push for a law defining marriage….never.

        And I defy you to show me where he said that.

      • There you go again…I suppose it’s understandable…Just because Ron Paul has a personal position against same sex marriage doesn’t mean he intends to legislate it…He makes it perfectly clear that the government should not be involved in any way, shape or form with the institution of marriage.

      • Christopher McDaniel

        And as for Tax codes? – – He wants to abolish the IRS…no more tax codes. Just one – 23% sales tax

        • co sponsoring bills that redefine when life begins in order to make abortion illegal are indeed legislating abortion. i don’t care what he said, what he did was legislate abortion. check out the links on number two. those are facts. he was an original co sponsor of the marriage protection act. how is that not government getting involved in defining marriage? actions speak louder than words.

        • Which will disproportionatly impact the poor, like every Libertarian idea on economics.

      • Libertarians, like most of the right these days, think only the first ten amendments count.

    • For being so dedicated to keeping the government out of people’s business, he sure is dedicated to keeping the government in people’s business.

      Anyone who says “The Government has no business ruling my life!” in one breath and then “I’m prohibiting gays from marrying and will enforce it BY FEDERAL MANDATE!” in the next is a hypocritical tool.

      This gentleman isn’t interested in keeping the government out of your life. He’s interested in selling it lock, stock and barrel to the new, “better” corporate government that would rise up amid the ruins of his administration if he came to power.

      Libertarians are only interested in keeping government from people’s business when it’s THEIR business government is dallying in. Otherwise, fuck the rest of us.

      • Exactly. Well said.

      • Speaks to the reality that “marriage” is a religious institution and should be left to only religious entities. Homosexuals and all others can enter into civil unions, just like any other contract. The only reason homosexuals want it to be called a marriage is because they want the government to stand in for society and validate their “love.” It’s pathetic.

        • You’re either ignorant of the thousands of extra rights and privileges that are automatically awarded to married couples, or you’re being disingenuous. Gay people don’t need the government to validate their love, they have each other and their friends/family for that, they just want to have access to the same rights and privileges that all other married people have.

          Also, in case you haven’t heard: they don’t need to have a “stand in for society” to feel accepted. Latest polls show that a majority of Americans are for same-sex marriage (the numbers in favor go up as the age of americans polled goes down).

        • No, you’re pathetic. Leaving the homophobic idiocy aside, the first written mention of marriage comes from the Code Of Hammurabi, a set of CIVIL laws.

      • Actually, he has never said anything CLOSE to “I’m prohibiting gays from marrying and will enforce it BY FEDERAL MANDATE!”.

        He has only said that the government should stay completely out of the marriage business, and has no right to tell anyone, including gblt, that they CAN’T marry.

        Please stop telling lies.

        • Christopher McDaniel

          Thank you. Good God, it’s no wonder a bunch of crooks can so easily run this country into the mud…..we’re surrounded by idiots!

        • Title V, Section V: “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.”

          This implies quite explicitly that his stance is anti-gay. As a co-sponsor for the “Marriage Protection Act” which explicitly protects DOMA from inquiry or jurisdiction by Federal Court, he also is against recognition of marriage as legally recognized by one State, just because another State doesn’t like it. He’s giving one State the right to supercede another’s final authority on a matter that was never carried out in the superceding State to begin with.

          I thought he was all about States’ sovereign rights, but I suppose it’s okay to ignore them if the subject is the horrible, horrible gays.

          Just because he hasn’t explicitly proclaimed that he’s anti-gay marriage doesn’t mean his legislative record doesn’t implicitly extoll this exact viewpoint.

          Or is it okay to say one thing and do another as long as it makes you look like a good guy in your version of America?

          • Edit: I meant to include the following link with the “Title V: Etc, etc”. Got caught up typing, forgot to pop it in there. Here you go.


            • Jon Bon Jovi with the facts, right on. I love how fervent Ron Paul supporters conveniently forget that while Paul spouts his rhetoric, he’s quietly issuing huge numbers of earmarks that funnel money directly to his district with practically no legislative oversight or direction. Such hypocrisy. And oh yeah, when one of you foolish supporters spout off about how the constitution “demands that we appropriate funds as approved by the treasury”, I’ll simply ask you to point out where earmarks, earmarking practice, or anything related is hinted at even vaguely in the constitution.

          • Umm, he voted to repeal DADT but he hates gays. Hmmm.

          • “Federal Funds” is the key. Why should federal funds go to gays and not straight people? he believes in federal funds for no special interest group. If funds are to be spent, it should benefit all, not select group, which do include, poor, rich, old, young. Only if all benefit, like roads, bridges, dams.

            • Exactly. Way to distort the bill and ignore the key words to prove your point! “no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) may be required to recognize as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered a marriage in another state.” Meaning some states same-sex marriage is recognized, some states it isn’t. They aren’t REQUIRED to recognize it because it’s up to that particular state to decide to recognize it or not, Is that not the definition of sovereignty???

            • Yet he had no problem not adding Liberty (Jerry Falwell) University, who got twice as much money to the list, when defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR.
              Are there any gays at that private religious school?

          • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/ron-paul-gays-military-dadt_n_1032990.html
            Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said that heterosexual military servicemembers were “causing more trouble than gays” due to their superior numbers in an interview with the Iowa State Daily released Wednesday.

            “Well, like I said, everybody has the same rights as everybody else, so homosexuals in the military isn’t a problem. It’s only if they’re doing things they shouldn’t be, if they’re disruptive. But there’s … men and women getting into trouble with each other too. And there’s a lot more heterosexuals in the military, so logically they’re causing more trouble than gays. So yes, you just have the same rules for everybody and treat them all the same,” he said, according to the paper.

            Paul was one of five House Republicans to vote for the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which officially ended in Septmber, and among 15 House Republicans in December. “To discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense,” he said in May.

            When asked by the Iowa State Daily on his position on gays, he said, “You know I just, I don’t think of people in little groups like that. I don’t think of people as ‘gay’ here and ‘black people’ there, or ‘women’ over here.”

            “Everybody is an individual person, and everybody has the same rights as anyone else. The government has no business in your private life, you know, so if one person is allowed to do something so should everyone else. The whole gay marriage issue is a private affair, and the federal government has no say.”

            Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004, which would have added an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning gay marriage. However, he continues to support the Defense of Marriage Act, which disallows the federal government from recognizing same-sex unions and allows states not to recognize another state’s same-sex unions. He has said that the legislation protects a state from having to recognize another state’s definition of marriage.

      • Yo, Jon Bon Jovi:

        You said:

        “Anyone who says “The Government has no business ruling my life!” in one breath and then “I’m prohibiting gays from marrying and will enforce it BY FEDERAL MANDATE!” in the next is a hypocritical tool.

        This gentleman isn’t interested in keeping the government out of your life. He’s interested in selling it lock, stock and barrel to the new, “better” corporate government that would rise up amid the ruins of his administration if he came to power.”

        Obviously you have no clue of what Ron Paul stands for. These are not his positions. But what can I expect from someone who believes the garbage “logic” of this article, where the citation of stuff means nothing because they have zero clue as to what those documents mean?

      • Jack Bouchard

        Would you mind dimming your halo a little bit? It’s hurting my eyes.

      • Jack Bouchard

        That’s one hell of a straw you made there.

      • Your brain is filled with detritus

    • Do you libertarians ever bother to read anything BEFORE the 10th amendment of the Constitution? You know the parts where it covers the powers that ARE delegated to the United States by the Constitution? Like the power to regulate interstate commerce or to levy taxes for the sake of the defense and general well being of the country?

      It is the tenther (10th amendment followers) view of the Constitution that is warped and inaccurate. And this view doesn’t come out of respect for the Constitution, but out of a need to provide justification for an agenda that is otherwise extremely difficult to justify.

  • Good to see some legit research behind it! This needs to open up “cool underground punk kids” eyes.

    • There is NONE behind this…..lol this article is a joke and only fools people with no ability for critical thinking…congrats lemming.

      • I’ve noticed before, and the comments here confirm that Ron Paul followers and libertarians in general are really quite vicious. They are the first to call their opponents morons for daring to even question Paul. And then they never provide much in the way of actual substance – just attacks.

        Whatever you may think of this article, it bothered to substantiate its claims and provided extensive links to bills that Paul has sponsored or voted for. It is an example of critical thinking.

        If you wish to have a real discussion regarding the issues then you could offer some kind of counter argument or defense of Paul’s beliefs, instead of assuming and asserting that everyone who doesn’t agree with Paul is a statist tool and a defender of the status quo.

        But with comments like these, how am I to take you seriously? You sound like a cult member who’s greatly insulted at any criticism of their holy leader. Or, as you say, a lemming.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.