Oh boy! A reply from fredman555. His points are quoted. 

* The problem in Europe is much bigger and complex than simply austerity. besides, austerity includes increase of taxes, which RP isnt doing

We’re in a pretty big and complex issue as well. Both on the state and federal levels, in fact, we have been and still are facing issues in generally the same fields that Europe was some years ago. The difference is now that we see how catastrophic that is due to the broken system. The reason why programs don’t work here in America, and why they didn’t work in Europe, is that we tend to hire a bunch of douchebags to handle the money in different programs. So, cutting the budget in these fields doesn’t necessarily cut their wages, which makes it harder for the lower class to benefit from programs.  

*Obama campaigned on troop pull out day 1, dont forget. But this is ignoring the hundreds of thousands of troops stationed all across the globe and the impending war with Iran. Do a google for me and find how much we spend on military outside of the US 

Yeah, he took pride in something Bush promised. Welp. 

And by they way, you’re saying that the US is the sole country to have troops all over the world covering different issues? I’m pretty sure Britain, France, and several other EU countries are doing the same thing, and nobody seems to have a problem with them.

>impending war with Iran 

If you’re still concerned with Iran than the Sudan nations, get the fuck off mainstream media and The Daily Paul and start paying attention to actual foreign issues. 

* really? we sent foreign aid to Iraq and nearly every middle eastern country. How is that working out? 

Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t the only countries that exist out there. Countries such as Israel are actually doing pretty well thanks to our aid.  

*Again, its not simple cutting.

It isn’t. Ron Paul wants to cut a lot, and as easy as he makes it seem, it creates a lot of infrastructural issues. 

See, the way the USA has developed, we literally can’t afford to cut programs. Sound strange? Think of it this way.

Cutting budgets would cut many of the strings that keep the middle class hanging. The biggest issue right now in economics is the middle class - it’s slowly becoming polarized. In fact, there is no true middle class - it’s either lower-middle or upper-middle, and both are slowly moving respectively towards lower and upper class status in terms of assets. 

What’s the issue with this? Once we lose that lower-middle class, there will be a lot of loss of revenue. And that could means a potential collapse of the economy. Again. Which we totally need right now.  

*Yes, freedom of press, speech and religion are archaic ideas. They were great 200 years ago, but not today. 

Ah, but the question is, where’s the border between “free speech” and “being a general douchebag because fuck yeah religion”? Ron Paul tries to dance right over that line in the “big social issues” - evolution, global warming, abortion/women’s rights, racism, and sexuality. He takes an extremely conservative stance on such issues and opposes any kind of regulation regarding such things.

Now, if we were truly a  ”free nation,” we would be attempting to reassure that people of all backgrounds are protected under the Constitution. The Libertarian platform, in fact, essentially believes in one’s right to solicit any business he or she wants, but then it contradicts itself in that the business has the right to refuse the person on any terms. 

On another note, Ron Paul has made many attempts to limit the rights of gays and women (in abortion, really). Anyone who knows a scrap of what “states’ rights” implies and even the basic history of the USA knows perfectly well that on a state level, many states would allow discrimination of all kinds. What Ron Paul has attempted to do many times is stop the US Supreme Court from hearing any cases on such discrimination, such as his staunch opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

So basically, he is making it so that discrimination is not covered under the Constitution.

What our Founding Fathers did not realize when writing the Constitution was how much our country would diversify — they knew it would change, hence why Amendments are allowed. However, being strictly “Constitutionalist” would mean being extremely inflexible to change, which is what a politician is supposed to be. 

We as an advanced country must be flexible to change, because as we all know, things do change. On a state level, taxes are outrageous, guns can practically be sold like toys, and discrimination is still rampant. If we step power up to a federal level, we can reassure the well-being of all states. 

Basically, if we want to better the state of our nation, Ron Paul is not the right politician for that. 

First of all, Anon, the fact that you are Anon decreases my respect for you even more than just supporting Ron Paul does. 

• Look what beautiful wonders austerity did to Europe! 
• Implying military forces aren’t already being pulled out. The Bush Administration guaranteed all troops out by Winter 2011. The Obama Administration reassured this, plus guaranteed withdrawal from Afghanistan. 
• Foreign aid often reassures that we don’t have to get into any more wars. 
• And again, austerity’s doing really well in Europe, eh? 
• Though I can’t fight against the “destruction of personal liberties” thing… Unless you’re talking about the freedom of being a racist/homophobe. 
• The Constitution is over 200 years old. Its original clauses weren’t made for our time. Of course, it seems to do a better job at helping to create compromises than Ron Paul has throughout his entire career. 

>”Future Presiident Ron Paul”

Subverting the will of the people again, eh, Paulbots? 

…Oh, don’t spew bullshit about how “popular isn’t always better,” if Ron Paul were actually good for the Presidency he would’ve been elected years ago. 

And if you don’t understand why I hate Ron Paul, this is exactly why. He tends to do this sort of thing - pushing his own conservative beliefs into his bills and voting record. He was openly against NDAA and CISPA yet never voted against either of them, “wouldn’t be against gay marriage” but supported the Defense of Marriage act, and has proposed bills that make it so that gay rights and abortion cases are not allowed to reach the US Supreme Court. 

He’s had the same views for forty years - but a lot changes in forty years, and since he refuses to compromise due to his stubbornness in his views, he’s probably worse than the rest of the GOP. 

Honestly, if you’re a liberal and still voting for this guy, I don’t know what the hell you’re thinking. 

shitthatronpaulsays:

All the other candidates have already done so, or will do so soon.

cognitivedissonance:

After tonight, I’m convinced.

nonplussedbyreligion:

ashesaoirse:

Yep.

I’m going to go out on limb here and say that this is not new info for any of you.

>You’re probably getting the impression by now that Ron Paul thinks that pretty much everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. That’s because Ron Paul thinks that pretty much everything the federal government does is unconstitutional. 

I also had to restrain myself from facedesking at #13. 

Ron Paul Promotes Revisionist Civil War History in Front of Giant Dixie Flag

After a minute, he starts sounding like a conspiracy theorist. 

Not to mention he seems to forget that the South actually attacked the North to start the war because they wanted to separate themselves from the North and avoid slavery regulation, which we all know worked beautifully for the South. 

Seriously? 

anticapitalist:

Source

Oh reddit. 

shitthatronpaulsays:

>Prolife

How does that make any sense?

He claims that states have the right to make that decision for you. 

…That’s all he wants to say about it. 

But at the same time the libertarian platform is about unlimited rights for everyone… 

So he says that the Civil Rights Act is stupid because it takes away the shopowner’s right to not serve those of color… 

But then the people of color wouldn’t be able to have the freedom to choose which services they utilize… 

It doesn’t make sense when you think about it too hard. 

reallyronreally:

On the one hand, Texas congressman Ron Paul, Republican candidate for the presidency, is a zealous champion of limited government, free markets and low taxes. On the other hand, he reportedly thinks the U.S. should not have gone to war against Nazi Germany. What to make of this heresy? In a word, a great deal – for it may define Mr. Paul’s isolationism.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/neil-reynolds/the-dangerous-isolationism-of-ron-paul/article2302229/

politiciansstandingonthings:

Ron Paul being a moron er… I mean standing on a stage.

moronpaul:

“The Trouble With the ‘64 Civil Rights Act”    -by RON PAUL

“On June 4, 2004, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Act. Only the heroic Ron Paul dissented. Here are his comments.”

-Lew Rockwell

~ “heroic?”

Ron Paul: “Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”

Me- First of all, there was no “forced integration” but your choice of words says a lot. Maybe you forgot but people were fighting for this “forced integration” because they had been suffering through the hell of “forced discrimination”. They were “forced” to use separate benches and “forced” to sit in the back of the bus. Relations absolutely did improve but with social conditions, such as poverty and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, it took some time. What is wring with you? How can someone claim he’s not racist because he wants to end the “war on drugs” yet he opposes the Civil Rights Act? Right..

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.”

Me- This is hilarious for a few reasons. The Civil Rights Act had no effect of private property owners whatsoever. Desegregation laws allowed people on public property  including schools, hotels, and restaurants. Nothing about having to share private property. It sounds like you’re really just against Affirmative Action, but you’re skirting around it as per usual. So in a nutshell, you oppose Civil Rights because it infringes on your right to discriminate, and property rights for “those whose actions decent people find abhorrent” are a better way to “maintain a free society” then to actually give people freedom and protect their rights.. Oh. This is why you have such a huge white supremacist fan base p.s.he intended purpose of Affirmative Action is to

“This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.”

Me- We get it. You are obsessive about the federal government and you know what the framers of the Constitution “intended” because you’re psychic. Got it.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife”

Me- Again, you are so full of it! The Civil Rights Act did nothing to violate any laws and it protects people from discrimination. You seem to have a huge problem with this which concerns me. No the bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds, but hey, neither can you asshole! They don’t need to be able to read minds to investigate a crime. Ask Randy Gray or Don Black about the times they were arrested for hate crimes. .

“Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”

Me- Have I mentioned how full of shit you are? HOW DO YOU THINK PUBLIC ATTITUDES AND EFFORTS WERE INFLUENCE??? pfft..

“In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676”.

Me- And, fuck you very much Ronald. No one wants a “color-blind” society. It’s called “diversity.” This was the most flawed argument I’ve ever read. Furthermore, eat a dick. What’s wrong with you?? Take a Xanex or something and calm the fuck down.

me.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

What Paul fails to see whenever he discusses the Civil Rights Act is that these such acts not only removed discrimination in private businesses, but it also stopped any kind of violence against another person that is triggered solely by race. Essentially, if Paul were actually supportive of individual freedoms, he would support this for the safety of the blacks as individuals and citizens of the United States of America.