While Ron Paul may have it right about Iraq and a few other things, you might find some of his other policies rather shocking. This article details each of the 10 points listed below. They almost make Romney and Huckabee seem reasonable. Almost.
1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights
3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class
4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes
5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment
6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations
7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens
8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns
9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system
10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state
Phillep said, c) Brown vs Board of Ed. Not sure what the point is here. Bussing?
Brown vs. Board ended legalized apartheid of schools in the South.
It was a TERRIBLE system. THAT’S the point. I take it you’re not a Southern black.
What a load of biased/bullshit information.
Every American citizen that does not vote for him shares the responsibility of the ill fate of the US.
All supporters board the giant blimp! 2008 biatch!
Knowing that Libertarians do not have a clear chance of winning a presidential election I have always voted for them because I am disgusted with a choice of an evil between two lessers. Even though I do have Libertarian leanings I think that they would be a disasterous choice for this country. I just do not trust my fellow man enough I guess.
When Paul came around I was intrigued but quickly became disappointed when I saw that he actively courts 911 truthers and other New World Order conspiracy theorist. I don’t see any need to include this sort of thinking into any political base.
I also believe that Roe v Wade is already on shaky ground and sending the decision back to the states would be a horrible blow to women’s reproductive rights.
The Abolition of the Department of Ed., something I was for years ago, would be horrible because then it would open the door to the overturn of Dover Intelligent Design case and certain states , I’m looking at you Texas and Florida, would teach absolute nonsense instead of science.
He also calls for going back to the gold standard and ending central banking.Both would be the worst things to do for our economy.
It is sad because about 50% of what he says makes more sense than any of the other candidates but the other half I cannot abide by it.
Greg Allen:
# 32 Greg Allen said, on December 10th, 2007 at 8:35 am
umassdood said, Overturning Roe. v Wade would return the matter to the states, not make abortion illegal.
C’mon on. I expect more intellectual honesty from you.
Paul’s desired reversal of Roe would mean that abortion becomes illegal in a number of Red states that have legislation warmed-up-and-ready-to-roll the day after Roe is overturned.
You know that!
Fine, be a Paul supporter. But be honest about it.
————————————–
You haven’t disproved my point. The reversal of Roe v Wade would NOT make abortion illegal. It would return the issue to the states where it belongs according to the Constitution. If abortion were made illegal, STATES would make it illegal, not Ron Paul.
This whole list is slanderous. Ron Paul is the only one supporting a separating of State and Church. He says we should not have to get marriage licenses!!
I can’t believe that this article actually made it to the blog. Bullshit meter is pegged. TAKE HEED ADMINS, MORE OF THIS SLANTED QUASI-NEWS AND I’LL TAKE MY CLICKS ELSEWHERE!
Wow thanks for doing my thinking for me Uncle Dave! Guess I’ll go do something else now.
Wow…Paul supporters aren’t the brightest are they. I especially love #7, about all of the ‘special’ rights gays get. Gee, could someone point out some of these special Federal rights that would be cool? I can’t seem to find any. Gays can’t inherit social security benefits like straight people, even if they’ve been together for 50 years. Gay people don’t have any of the legal ‘family’ rights (marriage). Maybe you don’t consider gays, blacks or non-Christians to be ‘real’ couples, that’s fine, that’s your thing. But never the less, you can’t then say they have MORE rights than straight people when they don’t have MANY of the rights of straight people. Everyone has the same base coverage of rights (Constitution) but marriage gives a WHOLE HUGE class of protection, inheritance, power of attorney, etc type rights that gay people can’t get.
#34 Greg, no, I’m not a southern black. Nor are about 90% of the US population.
Take a look at the inner city schools and see how white kids are treated. They are being driven out of the schools by bigots and school boards who refuse to put a stop to the rampant bigotry and racial violence. Grass roots arpartheid.
What do you propose for dealing with this arpatheid? Bussing the inner city students to the suburbs?
Phillep: the Turner Diaries are fiction you know.
the guy writing the blog entry is a total douche bag, as is ron paul.
Are you telling me that Ron Paul, libertarian, isn’t a communist? He’s for individual rights and government rollback? Who knew? You need to spread the word amongst your fellow travelers!
That was no blimp, it was Oprah.
Isn’t this the standard list to be used against all Republicans? Then the writer just has to come up with examples to fit the list, and sell it to media writers who repeat the charges. Then this gets picked up by others and repeated, trying to trun it into a fact. This blog has repeated such charges in the past against others.
>>Isn’t this the standard list to be used
>>against all Republicans?
Inasmuch as it’s the standard list of Republican talking points, I guess you’re right.
The Republicans themselves phrase things in a way more palatable to non-Ditto Heads, but it seems to be pretty much what they mean.
Who cares. Ron Paul has about as much chance of becoming President as my left nut.
This article is completely misleading. The author twists Ron Paul’s stance on issues, and generalizes them as “fact” while really only stating his opinion. And what an incredibly false and disgusting opinion. This article is really an over simplified hit piece.
And shame on the editor for posting it.
That whooshing sound you hear is Dvorak.org’s credibility flying out the window.
Yeah, I’m sure foreign nations will hate America all the more when its government stops occupying sovereign countries, torturing prisoners and launching wars with zero justification.
That reminds me. I need to call my neighbor and complain: he hasn’t broken any of my windows in weeks, the asshole.
Dude…this is a junk list on a junk site.
Each enumerated item is already loaded, and often opinion. For example, it says “Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class” because he has voted against a federal minimum wage, but it doesn’t mention that he wants to completely repeal the federal income tax, which would actually help the middle class. Nice job on slanting the list though.
#51: “The author twists Ron Paul’s stance on issues, and generalizes them as “fact” while really only stating his opinion.”
Well, duh! Of course it’s opinion. What the hell else would it be? It’s some guy’s blog entry, not a news piece. Get a grip, dude!
And quite frankly, if you read Paul’s stances on the issues, I think many of those opinions are justified, if a bit exaggerated.
Its just entertainment no way could that fool ever be president.
All the assertions in this article would be just as valid against Clinton or Obama. Another words it’s complete bullshit. People will pull anything out of their ass when election time arrives.
What’s the Turner Diaries, and how do they relate?
Phillep: The Turner Diaries are the Bible for troglodytes like you.
All I’ll say is that it’s a shame that we can’t vote for both republican and democratic candidates, during the primary. Then I’d vote for Ron Paul, on the one side. And one of the democrats, on the other. Wouldn’t it be great if registering as an “independent”, let you pick both sides’ front runners? I don’t see why it wouldn’t be fair. Some lobbyists finance both sides. Let the purist party voters be restricted to supporting a single candidate.
Oh, that tells me so much. Actually, I read Weber, Drake, Flint, Stirling, and McCaffery, and about BSD and reloading more than anything else. Off line, anyhow.
What’s with the Turner Diaries, and how does whatever they are relate to anything I said?
I’m not going to bother looking them up without more reason than your juvenile name calling.
#41, David:
First point: a license is permission granted by an authority to do something that is otherwise illegal.
Second point: if you have to get permission, it’s not a right.
The state licensed, contractual union that we call “marriage” is not a right, and all benefits enjoyed by people who are “married” are privileges. Being that we are not talking about a right here, the government has no real obligation to recognize any people as “married” outside what it decides meet the criteria or qualification it has established. It’s the same as with all privileges.
It’s not an equal rights issue, it’s a “you don’t meet the qualifications we’ve defined” issue.
Now, if you want to live together and call yourselves whatever, then fine, that is a personal right and outside the scope of government. But since transfers of estates and visitation issues are dealing with the law, you will need to find a lawyer and fix yourself up with a Power of Attorney.
If a certified, card-carrying chimpanzee buggerer like Uncle Dave is attacking Ron Paul, then Ron Paul is my man for the White House.
This list is bogus. It is seriously misinformed on every single issue and designed to sway people away from Ron Paul. If you actually listen to what the man says about all these things, you would find none of these to really be true…
Man, the Dvorak blog is really scraping the bottom of the barrel here…
Dvorak’s blog is starting to resemble the National Inquire. I’m waiting for a “Bat Boy” story next. Of course, this is the same guy who doesn’t understand net neutrality.