Jump to content

Ron Paul Is Going To Take This I Can Feel It

TheBeagle

By TheBeagle
in Volunteerism - MMMA Support

Recommended Posts

MightyMightyMezz Advanced Member

MightyMightyMezz

Posted
Posted

RP isn't playing to win, he never does...we won't even get to reimposing the Jim Crowe laws and moving civil rights back at least a few decades...

 

http://www.huffingto..._b_1200608.html

 

Ron Paul is the only candidate who champions personal freedom. Civil Rights: It is isn't just for Black folks anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Medcare Advanced Member

Medcare

Posted
Posted

Be careful not to burn people out on the volume of Ron Paul threads please. That could cause a backlash. On the subject of winning I'm not even sure Ron is playing to win. Romney/Paul ticket?

 

 

http://www.tomatobubble.com/id145.html

 

Didn't he say awhile back that he wanted his thoughts and Normal American ideas to be considered by all peoples and party's. He doesn't seem to be serious in being president but just that whomever becomes the president might pick up on some the ideas that he has talked about. Or another words I think he wants to get the ideas through to the other candidates more then he would like to win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CedarSpringsCG Advanced Member

CedarSpringsCG

Posted
Posted

I'd like to see these "racist writings", I keep hearing about on NPR. Even if he doesn' get the rep. nod I'm still ATM planning to write in Ron Paul for prez.

I'm not specifically saying racist writings here. he wants to remove all regulation saying that a woman can choose her own fate, meaning even if giving birth will kill her, she can't have an abortion. How is that freedom? No abortion for rape, incest, anything. If he is truly a believer in the feds staying out of the citizens lives, why would he force this upon us? Remove regulations except for things he doesn't agree with, but then remove all of the social programs that would help and support the sudden influx of children that are being born to unwanting parents.

 

And the problem here is that discrimination isn't just based on race, but also on gender. There would be no federal laws preventing sexual harrassment in the workplace. Women could be objectified with no recourse.

 

It is also curious as his biggest donors are defense contractors. If he is so anti-war, why would they support him? Maybe because he isn't anti-war, just anti-military, meaning he would cut all of the jobs from the military and give them to places like Blackwater(Xe or whatever they call themselves now) and Haliburton. Do you really think the job market would improve if 250,000 soldiers came home and had to look for work? Not saying that we should be at war, but the immediate removal of soldiers and flooding the market can't be good.

 

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-paul-versus-the-fourteenth-amendment/

 

Rp would allow states to reinstate the Jim Crowe laws. It might not be a problem in Michigan, but a president is overlooking the entire country, not just one state so when voting you have to think about all of it.

 

Then when you look at his econonic plan, it is scary. he wants to cut 1 trillion in federal spending in the first year in office. No more Department of education, no more paying for roadways, etc. So all of the taxes he cuts will end up having to be raised by the states. The feds pay for a lot of things in schools, via grants, etc. All of that would be gone, no more after school programs, forget about plowing side streets.

 

If you want to see the racist writings, just google it, Ron Paul Blast Em

 

As Medcare said, RP isn't really in this to win. He just wants to jostle some feathers. Personally I think it is good to jostle them a bit. Personally I just want to make sure Romney isn't in office because of his ties to Schuette, and because of RP's stances, I don't think he will get enough votes to beat obama. He's too far right.

 

huntsman on the other hand, has a lot of the same beliefs as RP, but is more middle of the road. I think his moderate stance on some of the issues could put him ahead of Obama and into the white house.

 

Anyway, attack me as you will, but I don't want 4 more years of the same ol crap, and would like to see something better in there than someone who will strip personal freedoms while saying he is defending them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheBeagle Advanced Member

TheBeagle

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Then when you look at his econonic plan, it is scary. he wants to cut 1 trillion in federal spending in the first year in office. No more Department of education, no more paying for roadways, etc. So all of the taxes he cuts will end up having to be raised by the states. The feds pay for a lot of things in schools, via grants, etc. All of that would be gone, no more after school programs, forget about plowing side streets

 

 

GOOD and GOOD

 

the DOE is a fraud,Feds don't need to pay for bunny muffin the whole united states educational system is a fraud...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpjNt_nNXnk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheBeagle Advanced Member

TheBeagle

Posted
  • Author
Posted

i can tell ya one thing I thought the same about college untill i went to college and ...came out of college ....with jack bunny muffin just 1 half of the semester 4 books ....cost me dam near close to $1000.... was like 967 bux er something ...no sorry....IM never going to college again in my life..unless THEY pay 100% of it for me...i did not learn jack bunny muffin from there I was older then most of my ....teachers...lol it was a horrible horrible and stupid thing for me to do I learned NOTHING now im well over 10k in debt for NOTHING...i can get a better education watching youtube videos

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CedarSpringsCG Advanced Member

CedarSpringsCG

Posted
Posted

Jim Crow laws mandated segregation. Ron Paul does not support allowing states to re-instate Jim Crow laws.

But, Ron Paul wants to remove any federal regulation from preventing it.

 

Who is to tell Alabama that they cant reinstate it....the federal government? you tear down the federal government and who knows what states would do.

 

And if you take away the federal goverrnments teeth on all little matters, then if it has to bite, its going to have to use military force....another civil war anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CedarSpringsCG Advanced Member

CedarSpringsCG

Posted
Posted

i can tell ya one thing I thought the same about college untill i went to college and ...came out of college ....with jack bunny muffin just 1 half of the semester 4 books ....cost me dam near close to $1000.... was like 967 bux er something ...no sorry....IM never going to college again in my life..unless THEY pay 100% of it for me...i did not learn jack bunny muffin from there I was older then most of my ....teachers...lol it was a horrible horrible and stupid thing for me to do I learned NOTHING now im well over 10k in debt for NOTHING...i can get a better education watching youtube videos

I feel for you Beagle. I really do, however I am going to go out on a limb here and assume this was a place like Phoenix or Davenport? Unfortunately those are a wall street cash cow to make money off of unsuspecting people. It's all about getting you in and giving you loans you can never pay.

 

The federal govt has opened up the door for these for-profit colleges. These wall street guys (Goldman Sachs) lobbied for less regulation on these schools, and now its a huge money making industry where wall street gets to play with all those student loans while defrauding the same government that allowed them to get all crazy to begin with.

 

Which is why deregulation is a bad thing. It allows for-profit schools to take advantage of people, and this is just a small chunk of what's possible with deregulation.

 

Here's some links, if anyone disbelieves me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/goldman-sachs-for-profit-college_n_997409.html

http://topics.bloomberg.com/bloomberg-investigation:-for--profit-colleges/

 

We need to fix the problem of these people screwing with students and stealing from the goverment. You dont shut down the dept of education

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheBeagle Advanced Member

TheBeagle

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I feel for you Beagle. I really do, however I am going to go out on a limb here and assume this was a place like Phoenix or Davenport? Unfortunately those are a wall street cash cow to make money off of unsuspecting people. It's all about getting you in and giving you loans you can never pay.

 

The federal govt has opened up the door for these for-profit colleges. These wall street guys (Goldman Sachs) lobbied for less regulation on these schools, and now its a huge money making industry where wall street gets to play with all those student loans while defrauding the same government that allowed them to get all crazy to begin with.

 

Which is why deregulation is a bad thing. It allows for-profit schools to take advantage of people, and this is just a small chunk of what's possible with deregulation.

 

Here's some links, if anyone disbelieves me.

http://www.huffingto...e_n_997409.html

http://topics.bloomb...rofit-colleges/

 

We need to fix the problem of these people screwing with students and stealing from the goverment. You dont shut down the dept of education

 

 

 

No its was henry ford community college,dearborn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MightyMightyMezz Advanced Member

MightyMightyMezz

Posted
Posted

Here you go CedarSrpings. Don't confuse hyperbole with reality.

 

 

 

http://thehill.com/b...ivil-rights-act

 

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) suggested Friday that he wouldn't have voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he were a member of Congress at the time.

 

Paul, the libertarian Texas Republican who formally announced Friday that he would seek the presidency for a third time, said he thought Jim Crow laws were illegal, and warned against turning strict libertarians into demagogues.

 

 

MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.

 

"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...