one plus one
Shared publicly•View activity
View 23 previous comments
- I think you may be misinformed about his stance on civil liberties and reaching a bit on the practical application of your interpretation of his philosophy. The current administration is downright the worst since Nixon on these matters and makes Bush look like a schoolgirl. Name one of these abuses that he voted for or supported.Apr 30, 2012
- - Deregulation would lead to exactly what Jeremiah is talking about. To have no balance or protection against the rule of corporations would cause a myriad of privacy and civil-rights issues. Just look at the recent mergers and anti-trust cases. He's basically pro-monopoly in every bit of his voting, legislation, and economic policy. He's consistently voted against network neutrality (HR 5252, Amdt. 7), and this sort of talk doesn't help:
"Paul: The government has no constitutional authority to interfere in market transactions. Legitimate concerns about the abuse of customer privacy should be addressed via private contracts between companies and consumers." and "Congressional hand-wringing about the violation of privacy by private businesses is a distraction."
He also has an ATROCIOUS record when it comes to women's rights. I mean...just read for yourself:
"I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that. "
"As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it. ”
Ron Paul on sexual harassment in the workplace:
"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity. Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable. "
He also also voted YES for HR 3396, secifically preventing homosexual marriages from being recognized in states that the marriage did not occur in (which was protected in the past until the law was passed). Also, sponsored HR 958, to prevent federal courts from enforcing any civil rights claim relating to sexuality, directly opposing the idea of civil unions.
Don't even get me started on his insane immigration policies. I don't want that man anywhere near my rights. He is not our friend.Apr 30, 2012
- It is not those abuses I am afraid Paul will pursue. I am not saying he will authorize wire tapping or monitoring by the government. I am saying he will authorize companies to do a lot of the same things. He wants to abolish all the bodies that are responsible for policing such things. That is well reported. FCC, FTC, DOE, Agriculture, and education are all on the chopping block. The FCC has been the only thing preventing the private internet providers telling you what you can see, monitoring your internet activity and sharing your email with anyone who has a financial interest. I am saying we will have our civil liberties violated by private organizations rather than the government, and have no one to go to about it, because Paul wants to get rid of them.
Even if I agreed with you on the Obama is worse than anyone since Nixon, which actually I don't(Bush2 and Reagan still out stretch him, not saying I liek what he has done, but there are worse), that still doesn't justify going with Ron Paul. I am on fire, is not a reason to cover yourself in in liquid nitrogen, to pout the fire out.
There are sane ways to get rid of the problems. Ron Paul is not one of them.Apr 30, 2012
- What's so sad is that this entire conversation can be reduced to: Obama is awful, Bush was awful, Ron Paul would be awful (as would Romney). In the end, there's no concensus as to who would make a legitimate, pro-liberty candidate.Apr 30, 2012
- Well it has long been said, the ones you want to lead, are never the ones who want it.Apr 30, 2012
- Also, I want to state the obvious which seems to be overlooked in nearly every Paul discussion: Ron Paul does not care about your civil rights. He cares about the Federal Government passing legislation regarding your civil liberties. This is a very big distinction that I never see made. In fact, he has pretty consistently either voted against, or not voted at all, any legislation that would protect liberties on the federal level - even while voting against legislation that would violate them. He wants a return to state's rights - including the state's rights to spy on you, incarcerate you, and dictate who you can and cannot fuck (as seen clearly in his opposition of repealing Texas' anti-sodomy laws). His platform is simple: Private institutions should be free to do whatever they want, with no regulation (or protection) by the federal government. Money is king in this land.
Again: Paul does not care about your liberties, except when it comes to having federal laws on the books. That's it. Plain and simple.Apr 30, 2012