Why Ron Paul blows.

Ron Paul...is both socially...and economically conservative. However since he's also pro taking the government out of...everything, libertarians have fallen in love with this ancient douchebag doctor. I knew...well..next to nothing about the guy until a few months ago when my brother and all his friends decided to start talking him up. I don't like to jump to conclusions just becuase libertarians support him, or just because he's considered a 'conservative' or a 'republican'.
However, after doing a lot of research...I can safely say...fuck Ron Paul.
Here's some reasons why.
1. He wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act.
2. He's against the Americans with Disabilities Act.. Sidenote: He's not pro discrimination, he just thinks regulating people to not discriminate is bad...which I still disagree with . Heavily. Seriously. Fuck. Bigots.
3. He's against public health care. And evidently thinks that in a private system...doctors will just pro bono help poor people.
4. He wants to dissolve public education. No srsly.
5. He thinks Global warming is a hoax And he doesn't think evolution is valid. Which, considering he's a doctor, surprises and scares and confuses the hell out of me.
6. he's against Federal testingthat prevents products that will kill you from being sold in mass retailers.
7. He's radically pro life And wants to make abortion federally considered murder.
8. He wants to do away with Foreign aid as well as pull out of The United Nations because...well...hey...isolationism worked so well in the past, right?
9. He's against the minimum wage which was established for the exact reason he feels it's unnecessary. Paul thinks that companies should be able to pay whatever they want to their workers...it was established in the first place because CEO's and company owners are assholes that don't WANT to pay their workers well. That's how illegal immigrants get work.
10. He voted to build a fence along mexico's border to, in his words, keep americans in. And he wants to end Birthright citizenship. Fuck those babies, what have they done for 'MERRICA?!

Sources:

1. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPOgzl1wvSA
3. http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/
4. http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/health-care/
5. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/ron-pauls-economic-plan-eliminates-department-of-education-and-5-others/
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCc5Gk1nops
7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
8. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/politics/08republican-debate-text.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
9. http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/27/25741/
10. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/18/ron_paul_foreign_aid_takes_money_from_poor_in_us_given_to_rich.html
11. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html
12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jue6fNL0CaU
13. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/2/votes/446/
14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esp-ruhkZqQ
15. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

I've got more, if anyone gives a crap.

Ah, you're as bad as the mass media. Spewing out half-truths as if you never even bothered to read the documents that you so dutifully cited, or perhaps you didn't even bother to come up with your own thought, but just joined the bandwagon.

I don't even have to go further than your first point. You put it so blankly that people are inclined to read into the situation as "Oh God! Ron Paul is a racist!" When all he actually said was that he felt that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a poor piece of legislation because it gave the federal government too much power over the hiring policies of individual companies with the pretense that it was to ensure racial equality. He never said he had a problem with that, but has a problem with the fact that the act has become the fore-bearer for other bills that have allowed the federal government to have mandate over the hiring policies in the United States beyond what is socially or economically necessary. Consider how many business have to keep track of their ratio of male-to-female employees, keep in mind why so many applications ask you for your race. Ever wondered why something so irrelevant matters? Yeah, because of bills that have been inspired by the poor wording of that act.

Besides, he even stated that American has made great strides in race quality, but that he feels that it shouldn't be contributed to the Civil Rights Act, and I'd have to agree.

I might talk about the others later, but your first argument is so pathetic in it's attempt, I don't even want to bother. Should I have to facepalm that many times, with that level of ferocity, I might give myself a concussion.

Frankly, the bigoted one is you.

Big Lundi stated that Ron Paul wants to repeal the civil rights act... which is true. He never went into detail whether this was a good or bad idea, or why Ron Paul thinks it should be repealed.

However what he stated is true.
Ron Paul *does* want to repeal the Act.

You by comparison have immediately started an Ad-Hominem attack on Big Lundi instead trying to refute his claims or dispute them. You didn't refute his actual claim, instead you tried to skew things to show him in a bad light.

If you've merely sticked to disputing his claim that the repeal of the Civil Rights Act equals Ron Paul being a racist then your post would have been civil and would've stood as a piece of solid rhetoric. Since you didn't, it doesn't.

Yeah, except my post about the Civil Rights Act having an affect on future legistlation regarding hiring had nothing to do with attacking BigLundi. So, yeah I'm the bigot while you are sitting there assuming things about my post that may or may not be true. Yeah, that makes so much sense. At the very least, that makes you a bigot, too.

Off the topic I should have stuck with maybe, but that somehow equating me to a bigot who is only interested on attacking the OP, it is not.

So a person may think Paul horrible for wanting to repeal the act, well bloody good for them. Let's just be specific, since the masses are usually rather stupid and are going to assume that not supporting the Civil Rights Act = racist old bastard.

Do you want to know the reason why Ron Paul would repeal the Civil Rights Act? The same reason the Founding Fathers would have never approved of the Act in the first place. And the Fathers did want slavery/segregation and racial inequality to end.

However, it was of the Fathers firm belief that any social changes can only come from the whims of the people and not through legislation or through the sword. Simply put, Racial relations are a social matter and can only be evolved through social understanding and trust.

Anything that you force on a society or a civilization, whether the intentions are good or bad is always rejected and at best, apathetically followed. So, we say that racial relations have improved in America.

By creating a borg hive? By not acknowledging the cultural differences in the many minorities in America and by casting aside our European descent? This, is racial equality? No, it's the opposite. It's inequality for all, equality for none.

An excellent example is "press 1 for spanish, press 2 for English", last I checked this is an english speaking country. That's with no disrespect to the Spanish people or their origins but if they want spanish-speakers they should go to Mexico and actually improve the quality of life in Mexico.

The only way that America, the "cultural melting pot" can truly achieve racial equality is a racial/national identity that all cultures can agree to. Or in short, Americanism. Americanism cannot be achieved through a piece of legislation, it has not been achieved with the Civil Rights Act or with Affirmative Action.

All that the Liberals have achieved with those pieces of legislation and ideas is the illusion of equality, real equality can only be achieved through a social understanding and through social responsibilities.

So for example, if the African-American community were to take heed at the many African-American leaders in the country today and if they were to strive for that success there is nothing stopping them, not any legislation and not the Ku Klux Klan.

The African-American who took charge of his own destiny and went on to prosper in America is accepted as an American. The same is true for the Indian-American, the Hindu-American, the Japanese-American, etc.

THIS is racial equality, where the people of the nation come together in mutual interests and have a National Identity. This is Americanism and it cannot be created through legislation or through force.

Honestly, i agree with about %50 of Ron pauls views. Its the other %50 that scare me

Hard to believe considering they bought and sold and owned hundreds of slaves...each, and decided that freeing them took priority only AFTER they(the Founding Fathers) were dead : /.



And the Civil Rights Act was such a thing. It was a sign that consciousness was being raised, changing, and people in general were becoming more accepting of black people. It was also an acknowledgement that while people deserve equal rights, there are a good number of people that still exist today(20% of americans said they wouldn't vote for a black president simply because he's black, that's waaaaaay too much) and many more then that would dispute this, hold court cases, and try and trample on these rights in any seedy, slimy, greasy way possible (Jim Crow Laws, voting tests, etc.). And that there needed to be something to...prevent that.



Great. No more laws. Gotcha.

Srsly, anarchists confuse the hell out of me.



I'm getting a vibe from you that you're one of those 'race realist' types.

But more seriously, how is it not equality to say, "You know what? You're not 'the black people' and we're not 'the white people' we're all humans."?



[southern drawl] This is 'merrica! English 's our language god dangit!

Like it or not, there are a lot of people that speak spanish that come here and work her and do things for people in the country. the least we can do is say, "Don't feel like being totally bilingual? We've got you covered." People are different, the best way to acknowledge that isn't to put it under a magnifying glass, but to make it not an issue. Especially when genetically, the only differences between blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, etc. Is the alleles that change skin color, hair color, and eye color. That's it. And even that's blurry.



Says the guy that says, "Last I checked, we spoke enlgish here!" Well, maybe the spanish people don't want to speak english, why do you get to say, "NO! In america it's all english all the time or gtfo!"?

Though I do agree that affirmative action is balognae, even minorities make videos and put in votes and email their congresspeople that...they want it gone.



Right, like allowing people to speak their native tongue if they want to.



Yeah, but if there wasn't any legislation keeping people from doing back alley douchebaggery like...oh I don't know, constructing impossible tests for black people to complete to prove they're 'literate', and directly discriminating against them because of a priori knowledge of low income areas being primarily populated by African Americans...then people in power, are in the position to ACTUALLY ass fuck them. And they have before...and not that long ago.



Why can't we just call them all americans...without putting a stipulation of having to succeed? Seems kind of superfluous.



I think you've rehearsed this, because this FEELS like a speech someone might make. I mean, it's still wrong on many counts, and internally hypocritical, but...meh...nice try?

Wow this changes my view on things.

You and FPoD already debated this issue, I think in this thread



The governments involvement in public health care has caused the price of health care to be exceedingly more expensive than it should be. In a private health system, poor people could actually afford health care.


He wants to dissolve the department of education
I don't see how being a doctor means he must support evolution...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw#t=0m43s
Considering that evolution isn't believed by a large majority, I think this is a fair position on the issue.



could you post what Ron Paul said about this issue.

Testing does not have to be done by the federal government; it could easily be done by an independent organization.


He's pro life, but he doesn't intend to make a law saying that abortion is murder. He wants this to be decided by the states, and not get the federal government involved.


The government can't afford foreign aid, and I don't think foreign aid really helps poor people on other countries. If you want to help poor people in other countries, donate to charity.

I haven't studied economics enough to really say anything on this issue. if another member could respond to this, please do.


He was talking about what would happen if the suggested fence was built. the video didn't describe what the suggested fence was, which is kinda important. I don't think it's the same fence as the one he voted on, because that fence already exists, and he wouldn't be discussing it.


illegal immagrants have been taking advantage of this law. They illegally immigrate across our border, have children, and say "we can't leave because of our children". I live in Texas; illegal immigrants are a big problem, as they reap the benefits of taxpayer-funded services even though they don't pay taxes

I find it sad that the political efficacy of the people has been reduced to a piece of crap half-lies. Mainly part in due to Selective Perception and how we interpret things. So sir, let me say that you need to be more objective and READ ALL THE FACTS. Don't just spew half-truths if yo won't even take the time to read the other half and explain your case.

So I see after reading my first point, you just completely and utterly decided to skip the rest of my post, plug your ears and go, "La la la la la, you're just as bad as the mass media you bandwagon hopping half truth spewing guy who doesn't even read his sources."

Seriously, what part of "Side note: he's not pro discrimination, he just thinks it shouldn't be regulated that people not discriminate, which I still disagree with. Heavily. Seriously. Fuck. Bigots." don't you understand?



Yup, and I'm still staunchly opposed to his view. Just like I don't think murder should be legal because some murderers have their own arbitrary justification for murder, and we should just trust that they'll be punished by society, I don't believe that discrimination should just be allowed by any arbitrary justification with faith put in the human race to just 'do what's right'.





Source? Currently I know a lot of very poor people who have Obamacare to thank for being able to get ANY healthcare at all, and this includes myself. It's thanks to public regulation that things like...say...keeping people from being able to recieve coverage for 'pre existing conditions' isn't allowed anymore. Still though, Ron doesn't seem to agree with you. He doesn't think that poor people will just be able to AFFORD health care, just that doctors will be charitable and treat them anyway. Nonsense.





Yes, which includes public education. Again, I sourced it...go ahead and take a look. Seriously it's one of his policies, he doesn't think there should be any public education, and thinks it's a waste of taxpayer money.



Um...did you read your own source? You are aware that it says 95% of scientists believe in evolution...right? And those are the people who's opinions on scientific matters...matter. I don't care what the 'general public' thinks...I care about what the people who know what they're talking about think. All that source does is make me sad for america, but hopeful for scientists.





I did. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/politics/08republican-debate-text.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39a7mP1JoUA

That make it clearer? Also, independent study and regulation of product to protect citizens doesn't guarantee anything. Unlike if the federal government says something can't be sold, or has to be recalled, if an independent organization does the research, nothing's stopping people from going, "Yeah, that's not too bad a consequence for that product, we'll sell it anyway." And what about the general public that...you know...don't research that kind of stuff? That don't have the time or researches to keep up to date on that kind of stuff? Those people are kind of eff'd out of luck in that scenario now aren't they?





*sigh*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-personhood-pledge_n_1170373.html

Yeah he does. Now hush.





Ah, common libertarian rhetoric, "If you want poor people to be helped, you do it. Don't pay the government to give your money to them."

Why not? Seems like a valuable expenditure of resources to me.



He was talking about what would happen if the suggested fence was built. the video didn't describe what the suggested fence was, which is kinda important. I don't think it's the same fence as the one he voted on, because that fence already exists, and he wouldn't be discussing it.[/quote]

What fence already exists? And besides, this really doesn't justify "The fence would keep americans inside the united states". I mean...it's sort of like, "We're gonna ghetto off the border."





So what you're saying is that parents of children born in the united states are never deported. Source? You're saying that the parents reap the benefits of taxpayer funded services without being citizens. Source? And besides that do they not work? Do they not...do things to earn a small base of money? And if not...source?

I have illegal immigrants here in PA too. Lots of them, because oil's prevalent here. Or at least was, they've apparently drained this place dry.

Edit: Also, a note to all the people saying I'm spewing 'half truths' without...you know...explaining HOW I'm spewing half truths?

IF you can argue my points, do so. If not...saying I'm spewing half truths without backing up your claim is as pointless as saying, "I see all your points and sources, but nuh uh. You're a big doo doo head."

Responses to Big Lundi's post:


Have you ever heard of the 3/5ths Compromise rule? You didn't, okay so the Founding Fathers wanted to politically end Slavery. The South didn't like it due to loss of economic revenue at the time. And so they came up with the 3/5ths compromise. It was this incident, that made it clear to the Founding Fathers that there wasn't a Political Solution to Slavery, just as there isn't a Political/Military solution to Al-Qaeda.


One can't trample upon rights, if rights are asserted. The Civil Rights revolution was made wholly possible in the first place because the African-Americans asserted their rights and the American Public for the first time got to hear this out in the open. Government cannot prevent trampling of other's rights, because in order to do so it must trample upon another's right. All government can do is govern, to guide and to set a standard that society must uphold and must follow.

Big Lundi, you as the citizen of this country have the responsibility of being a responsible citizen in your community, as does every other citizen have this responsibility. When the citizens of the country take hold of this responsibility, government is most effective.

A government, a country is only as strong as it's people and right now, we are weak as a country. Even, including myself. We are weak.


Not no more laws, but rather that laws cannot enforce a social norm. The Liberal wholly doesn't understand this concept; but government cannot enforce a norm. I could take the position of upholding a social norm, but then my government is no longer a beneficial government. There isn't a free market or a free flow of information.

Liberalism is the death to all societies. Liberalist ideas, are the ones that are the most dangerous and radical ones. And it is because of Liberal Rule in America, that since the second world war we have declined


Because it's fundamentally lying to ourselves! The African-American holds a culture and a way of life that's utterly different from the Caucasian-American. This isn't wrong or illegal or immoral but rather a fact of Nature. And all Nations, without exception are molded by their social and ethnic origins.

Today in America, by assimilating the Caucasian-American and thereby America's European-English traditions we are left with a borg hive that has no identity and is filled with nothing but the liberal's "racial tolerance". Tolerated, perhaps. Openly engaged and in a society? Far from it. As I said earlier, it's a delusion and nothing more.





As I said, we're lying to ourselves. To be sure, yes DNA has universal similarities surrounding all races but why don't you visit a country in Asia and then a country in Africa. Fundamentally different, aren't they? We are fundamentally different beings by Nature's Law, it's our differences that allow for our evolution as a species. The least we can do/should do is respect our differences. The borg hive doesn't allow us to respect our differences. We "tolerate" them, tolerance and respect are two different things.


Because imagine if we were Americans massively flooding the gates to Mexico demanding the Mexicans to speak English? We'd be massively immigrated OUT of the country. All nations have a natural ethnic identity and a universal language. The Japanese speak Japanese, the Germans speak German. We might be the only nation where Americans are more than willing to allow another language to invade our homeland.

English itself is a universal language, easy to comprehend and if our minorities have true investment in America they should invest the time to learn English. Just as we'd invest the time to learn a foreign language when visiting a foreign country.

The Japanese have invested time to learn english, but they understand that first and foremost it's a secondary language. Since the Japanese are the majority in their homeland.

English must become the de-facto National Language for the homeland to reattain it's ethnic values and it's ethnic strength in the world community.

They can speak their native tongue, when surrounding their fellow minorities. But give or take, we're an english country with englishmen born in America. Even African-Americans speak mostly english rather than an African-esque language.

Minorities have the social responsibility and understanding to blend themselves in with the homeland, lest there isn't a country left.


It's been several decades since the passing of the Civil Rights Act, and these poor neighborhoods otherwise called ghetto's still exist. And the term 'impossible tests for black people to complete to prove they're 'literate' is so vague, what constructs as an impossible test? Furthermore, you said 'for black people' in that context my question now becomes: Would it be possible for Whites/Caucasians to pass the same test?

If you answer yes to this question, then check this out: it's wholly possible for the Black/African-American(or insert minority group here) to also pass that same test. Let's stay within the realms of reality: You cannot claim Universal Equality and then say that there isn't Universal Equality. If I can pass said test, so can he/she.

You might say that the African-American is at a disadvantage, but then I submit to you: I'm a Caucasian-American, having lived through the ghetto my entire life. I've rose myself up from nothingness to an intellectual. Was there something in my genetic pool? No, we both agree that DNA has several universal qualities.

The difference, was that I was determined not to take no for an answer! With Affirmative Action, and with groups like the NCAAP and the Southern Poverty Law Center it is wholly possible for African-Americans and other minorities to cry out "See, we're being discriminated."

Minorities that are discriminated, seek discrimination. They seek discrimination and then they cry foul. And the Liberal, in his political ignorance feels the need to respond to said cry and make it easier for the self-persecuting minority.

You didn't help this minority though, Big Lundi. All you've done is give him a bigger cushion and he'll continue to ask for one, and you the guillble Liberal will continue to give him one.

That's the flaw in Social Welfare and other programs, it doesn't help people to step back up. It doesn't bring them closer to a job, you have to actually be disabled, etc before you can access job centers and other programs to help you get a job! But if you're just a poor guy on Welfare? No assistance to you, just stay on Welfare like a good meager broke American.

The Liberal is an anti-thesis to America, he's against the free market enterprise, he is against a free-social system. The Liberal would like to believe his government can fix all of his problems for him and henceforth no none need put forth any effort.

But anything done without effort will never be sustained, the Liberal cannot comprehend this. No matter how much evidence to the contrary and no bigger evidence is evident than the downfall of America.

QFT, etc

Also, other people:
>arguing with BigLundi

I just want a president focused on personal liberty and the economy rather than "beating president Obama" .__.

How large is our debt? If we were to stack dollar bills like ||||||, we would build FOUR ladders to the MOON! I'm not joking. Measure the depth of a dollar bill, and calculate it.

16 trillion dollars is a debt that goes too often ignored by the media.

Realistically, we have THOUSANDS of bases stationed across the world. More than 6,000 military bases in 146 different countries!

And now Obama is trying to spend money for drones flying over U.S. skies!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57372329/congress-oks-bill-to-prod-us-aviation-into-new-era/

Isn't this insane? I don't agree with everything about Paul (I'm a Jack Layton supporter), but such militarism in the modern world is simply just crazy! Ever since the NDAA, we've been living under official marital law, and many don't even know it!

He's the only notable republican candidate to speak out against this.

Additionally, I'm getting tired of the government telling us what to eat, what to drink, what to look, and even what to feel! The war on drugs needs to end, and I'd like anyone to TRY and convince me why a federal ban on drugs is a good thing for society. It's just like the government telling you not wear red shoes, or not to eat chicken. "OH NO! I don't want to take Marijuana, so I need a federal law punishing users worse than murderers!"

I've never taken any illegal drugs before, admittedly, for health reasons. But I know people, and have friends who have, and I can see how ridiculous the crackdown on drugs is because of hypocritical American bureaucrats who have to impose their own nosy views on others!

And why is categorizing and stereotyping bad against everyone EXCEPT druggies? We are arrogant and condescending towards users, acting as if they're all a mess shaking in a corner, desperate to get high. That is NOT true!

The bias research done against drugs is extraordinary propaganda! Society's attitude towards the issue isn't even legitimate because we base it off of fear mongering from High School than true facts!

But the bottom line is that even if drugs are bad for you, why care what someone else does? Do we honestly need a law against it?

On the abortion issue, I remember a speech where Paul said unborn children have rights to be protected by the constitution. It has nothing to do with being pro-life, or pro-choice, but instead opening our eyes to the issue. He has no issue if people have an abortion a day or two after rape. In fact, he even explained during Piers Morgan what he'd do if one of his daughters were raped! (Give her a shot of estrogen as an "inner" condom to prevent a complete fertilization.)

Before conception there can be no abortion. RP would prevent the pregnancy before conception occurs.

I cannot vote for anyone like Obama, or the other candidates who have no consideration for our personal liberties and values, our money, or even other completely other sovereign countries!

Obama can be best described as this: He promises you $1000 dollars. Then he comes up behind you, STABS YOU IN THE BACK, kicks you to the ground, PISSES on you, then leaves ONLY $100 bucks. He might have given you $100 bucks, but he still attacked you! Just because he does one good thing doesn't mean he cares about us! If you do one good thing, it doesn't make up for the bad things! If he stabs you with a knife, he obviously stabbed you with a knife!

Please stop posting this bullshit about how "debt is ruining America". This is a Republican rhetorical tool to enforce even more cuts to social programs and push through the Randroit agenda.

I will now post this video for the millionth+2nd time:


Without debt our current monetary system wouldn't have *any* money. If you believe this is ridiculous you are not alone, but it's true never the less. To change this, monetary reform would be needed.

Ron Paul happens to be one of the people calling for this... however his prescribed "solution" would be almost sure to fail, as it has already failed in the past. Moving to a gold standard wouldn't fix the system and it'd give inordinate power to those with gold reserves.

It'd keep the value of the dollar more stable, however it'd also constrict credit at the same time. It'd also do nothing to alleviate the fact that the government can't make money, instead it has to literally borrow it from private banks creating out of thin air, then pay ever more debt service for this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_costs_in_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Spending
advancements in Technology cause the prices to decrease in every industry except for health care. This is because the government healthcare and regulations have kept the free market from healthcare. There is not motivation to lower the prices because the government makes the decisions instead of the market.


was your source that ABCnews source? that only said he wanted to eliminate the department of education. the department of education does NOT establish schools or colleges; Public schools existed long before the Dep. of edu. existed. Do you really think they're the same thing?



That's because the scientific community basically requires that you believe in evolution to be one of them. even so, Ron Paul wouldn't govern just the scientist, he would govern everybody; how the hell can you say "I don't care what the general public thinks".



I did more research on the FDA and why Ron Paul is against it. It seems more like an excuse to give the government control over the healthcare market. I strongly support alternative healthcare, which the FDA restricts. My older sister was dehydrated and couldn't hold down water. We took her to the emergency room where they spent $3000 testing on her; they found nothing. We went to a different doctor who uses homeopathic medicine and stuff. He found the problem right away and healed her.

independent study will protect people from dangerous medicine without restricting their options. It would be similar to the API certification that motor oil uses. An independent company researches medicine, and a medication can have the company certify it, so that the patient can know that it's safe.



"Um...did you read your own source?" he said in the above article that "it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does -- through state laws."



I question whether that money actually supports poor people, or if it just goes to the government leaders

people donate money to charity for foreign aid. people donated over 24 billion dollars in 2010. If the government taxed us less, we would be able to donate more.



First off, I didn't say that they were never deported; I'm saying that they use their children to argue for illegal immigrant rights.

you're asking me for a source that proves that something never happens? aren't you supposed to prove that it does happen?



http://www.chron.com/news/article/Public-schools-reminded-not-to-turn-away-illegal-1687878.php

From your own source:

"The Congressional Budget Office has found that "about half of all growth in health care spending in the past several decades was associated with changes in medical care made possible by advances in technology." Other factors included higher income levels, changes in insurance coverage, and rising prices."

So...yeah. See...the advancement in technology increases the prices...because it's expensive to install them, expensive to teach people to use them, expensive to actually implement them...so yes, the prices SHOULD go up with advancement in technology. Also, none of those sources said, "If we got rid of public health care, then prices would go down enough so the impoverished could afford it." at all.



No, they don't ESTABLISH schools and colleges, firstly, colleges are usually privatized organizations, secondly, they DO regulate the content,the level of education, and how schools go about their curriculum, to an extent. They keep schools from making huge inefficient budget cuts like grouping all the grades together into one auditorium to teach classes, or firing most teachers and putting most of the curriculum on the shoulders of one or two. These aren't allowed by public schools.

Plus, it's well known that public schools are better with their curriculum than private schools.

I'd provide more specific links than this, but for some odd reason, google's decided I don't get to click on anymore links.

http://www.google.com/search.php?hl=en&q=Public+v+private+schooling&btnG=Search




Ahhh that's the stuff, "IT's a conspiracy in the scientific community." So, in essence, even though you thought it was a reasonable position to deny evolution because the general public denies it in the united states at a rate of 44%, when I point out that people who are actually EDUCATED on the matter overwhelmingly accept evolution, and, the quote "Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution" was made over 40 years ago by a russian orthodox christian biologist, Theodosius Dobzhansk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_in_Biology_Makes_Sense_Except_in_the_Light_of_Evolution



With water and placebo. Clearly there was nothing seriously wrong with her if a homeopath could cure her. By definition, alternative medicine is either medicine that hasn't been proved to work or been proved not to work. You know what we call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine.



Right, it allows people to say, "Oh, that's a drug that doesn't work and could cause harm, but I believe in something as silly as homeopathy, so I'm giving it to my kid anyway."

I'm against that. So...yeah.



But there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from prescribing a medicine that doesn't work, or been shown by independent companies to not work, or really anything. There's absolutely nothing limiting the sales of medicine that doesn't do anything, or could even cause harm.



Did YOU read my source? He signed a pledge to protect fetuses under the 14th amendment. That's the constitution. That's federal. You're done.



And we'd take hits in other places. Seriously, can I ask you what you think happens to taxes? Do you think all taxes just go into government worker paychecks? And even then, you are aware that's the reason we have firefighters, police...literally all government workers that make your life better and more safe. Your belief is that "I don't believe all the money being put into foreign aid goes to poor people. I think they're keeping some of it for themselves" without any sources for that specific claim, and then you go off to say, "Screw it altogether, just donate if you want to help poor people." I want poor people helped, not just to help them personally. There's a bit of a difference there that the government's foreign aid can help.

Also I find it comical that you didn't feel Ron Paul's conspiracy theory that we need to pull out of the UN before "america disappears altogether" was worth addressing.



So they use their children, but it doesn't matter because they get deported anyway. IS THAT your argument?

And besides, you're the one making the claims here that the illegals are taking advantage of the system and being supported with taxpayer money without contributing. So yes, you DO have to provide sources to prove that.



http://www.chron.com/news/article/Public-schools-reminded-not-to-turn-away-illegal-1687878.php[/quote]

Yay! Children get to have a public education despite their parents not being legal immigrants. Good. I find this to be a POSITIVE thing. I WANT children to be educated. Thank goodness there's a supreme court ruling saying they have the right to have an education, legal or not.

Still though, you made it sound like the parents were the ones getting all sorts of taxpayer funded benefits. Still no sources on that front.

the increased technology increases the range of conditions they can treat. It should not increase the cost of treating something that they can already treat. Let's take a broken collarbone for example; The cost of X-rays, The cost of making a cast or whatever, the cost of having it examined, the cost of the brace, should all be lower, as we find cheaper ways to treat it. what kind of advancement makes it more expensive to do the same thing?



You changed your accusation. You said

"4. He wants to dissolve public education"

Obviously you don't understand this issue, and are now arguing the need of the dep. of Edu. to hide your lack of understanding. The federal government doesn't need to enact uniform rules that apply to every school in the entire U.S. If a state prefers one curriculum over another, they should be allowed to use it.


interesting choice of words. Our education system doesn't teach creationism, it teaches evolution, yet 44% still don't believe it.

I don't know why you're making such big deal out of this; Ron Paul has a very neutral stance on this issue.


[color=#2e1a6b]She couldn't drink water, people die without water, something was wrong with her. The emergency room spent $3000 running tests trying to figure out what was causing it. So all you can say is "nothing seriously wrong with her"

just stop



[color=#2e1a6b]I shouldn't suffer because people like you are against it.



This leads to a complex discussion on self-responsibility. If you want to discuss this further, feel free to start another thread.



You got me there

but constitutionally, the enforcement of abortion would still be left to the states.



I'm not saying we should cut taxes that pay for firefighters and police, I'm saying we should cut taxes that pay for foreign aid.

I can't prove that the money doesn't help poor people, nor can you prove that it does.



I don't really know much about the issues going on in the UN.



no... If all the illegal immigrants were deported, we wouldn't be discussing the issues of illegal immigration. my argument is that the ones that aren't deported "use their children to argue for illegal immigrant rights"



(see line below)


fixed

not really sure what to say... well, I find this to be a NEGATIVE thing. I don't want illegal immigrants to be able to go to a taxpayer funded school, and for the schools to be forced to teach them even though they're illegal immigrants.

I'm too tired to find sources; I didn't say "parents" anyways, so I don't feel obliged to find a source

Indeed. Let's make an example.

Say I'm able to mend your broken bones. This is represented by variable Y. Currently I only use bandages. Bandages cost...X.

Now say I have a more effective way of figuring out how exactly to BETTER mend your broken bones, along with the bandages.This new cost variable is represented by variable Z. This is represented by the equation X+Z=Y.

So yes, having new, improved ways to care for you will cost more. This is a logical, mathematical conclusion that is easily derived from what's going on. Your point is null.



*yawn* Ron Paul, take it away.

(Paul)" Public education is socialist!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xO2EA5KGOc

But no...he doesn't want to get rid of it. *facepalm*



Why do I have a problem with a doctor being scientifically illiterate in a theory that is the very foundation of his field of study?

...I don't believe you're that ignorant.

Oh, and again, the fact that 44% of the united states' public doesn't accept evolution despite evolution being taught in classrooms is...well...not something you might want to promote. That's...negative. That's...a bad thing. That's... embarrassing. The only country that denies science more than us is Turkey.



Well, that's what homeopathy is. It's diluting solutions in water and making them as nonexistent as possible, and passing it off as cures.

If the 'doctor' in question didn't use this to figure out what was wrong with her, it had nothing to do with homeopathy.

Let's just stop this particular discussion, because there's no way you can remain rational and logical about this, because you're personally connected to the topic. You're in the position of a christian who says, "You can never dissuade my faith because I have had a personal experience with Jesus Christ."



I'm supporting keeping you from being able to use harmful drugs on yourself, and I'm making you suffer by doing so?

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?



I think I said all that I needed to say on this subject in my argument with FPoD.



Great, so my point stands. Moving on.



So you're against taxes for anything that you can't personally see directly benefiting you or someone else.

Haven't you ever heard of, "Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not happening'? I mean I'm an atheist, I hear that argument often enough, I would think you would too...



The problem with illegal immigrants are those who usually don't have families. At least that's been my experience. It's the ones that come over with little to no connection with anyone and are able to travel all around the united states to try and support themselves.

*gets on soapbox*But whatever, the idea that illegal immigrants go, "We had a baby here, you have to give us stuff." and that you think this is bad is not only completely irrelevant to Ron Paul's policies, but I disagree with your position there as well. I don't want to deport illegals. I want to naturalize them, make them citizens, and make them pay the taxes they should, so that they can have jobs with good wages, and contribute to the society they want to live in so much. And guess what? That's THEIR position too. They think that the it's nonsense the process that must be gone through to become an official american citizen. To get a work visa, to have to pass tests of knowledge most actual Americans can't pass, to master the English language, it's insane. I don't support it. My view: if people want to come over here and work. Let them. We wouldn't have a problem with them being illegal if we gave them less reasons to remain illegal, like giving them insane processes they have to go through in order to be considered a citizen.*gets off soapbox*



Right, you support the idea of punishing kids and putting them in bad situations without any education because of who their parents are. I'm against that.



...Since we're talking about Paul's position on being born here and becoming a citizen, and you're saying that the ILLEGALS(which would be the parents of these non illegals) are recieving benefits...well...yeah, you very much implicitly said 'parents'.

Good thread. This changed my views from thinking that Ron Paul seems okay to thinking he's horrible.