Theo Huxtable. Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 ron paul didn't care about kanye west's mother dying. he never offered condolences or attended the funeral. therefore, we can conclude that ron paul doesn't care about black people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
After School Special Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 ^^^^ Pfft haha So is this dude pro-life? Or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 yes. he is pro life. and supports over turning of roe v wade, just as he supports turning just about all other criminal matters back to the states, where they constitutionally belong. he does not support legislation banning abortion out right. he brought an amendment forth making life begin at conception, just like he brought an iraq war resolution. i know i know, states rights = nazi right wing hate crime support omg! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
After School Special Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 ZOMG NAZIS?! :shook: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 no, it's not awesome. I didn't mean it as what he was saying is awesome, but that HE said it is awesome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 ahh, ok. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOE-LESTER Posted December 3, 2007 Author Share Posted December 3, 2007 i am extremely anti gun control. this is why i dont want liberal dikes like hillary clinton getting electred. shit i cant even own an ak47 in my state pretty soon i wont even be able to carry sidearms legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigmatic Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 ^^^ What on gods green earth would you need an AK-47 for... The purpose of gun controll is to keep guns off the streets. Not the shooting ranges. Im neither for or against it... but come on... Everyone I know who has guns is very carefull with them, keeps them locked up and seperated from any amunition unless they are hunting or at a shooting range or whatever. Furthermore with screening prior to the sale of firearms its only going to deter thrill seekers who want to buy a hand cannon, would be gangbangers, and other people nobody wants to have a gun. but thats just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceLeroy Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 I'm going to have to read up on this dude before i make my final decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enigmatic Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 re:enigmatic “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” this is more of a hit against DC's justice system than blacks. read it again. "...our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin." do you have the rest of this, this seems like a quote that was taken horribly out of context. "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action" there could be an argument made here that considers the fact that he doesnt say he believes that himself and he is simply going by opinion polls. im unsure of the context of this one as well, any chance you feel like giving links to the full discussion? Wow I did completely misinterperate the first quote. It was obviously spoken sarcastically but lost in translation for me... Now whether or not Ron Paul actually dislikes any race for any reason is something only ron paul knows. I personally doubt it. But still, his veiws on Gun Controll and Education are desturbing enough to lose my vote (despite the fact that I will not technically be old enough to vote in the upcoming election) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iloveboxcars Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 Today, we will examine the educational record and stances of Congressman Ron Paul. Ron Paul has said markedly less than the other candidates about education; his website does not mention the word education or his stance on education issues. Nevertheless, he has made public statements about and voted for educational issues that reveal his beliefs about education policy. Most of Paul’s educational stances come from his stance against federal involvement in education. In fact, all of his views stem from this, making him appear the most ideologically consistent candidate I have yet seen. He supports the abolishment of the Federal Department of Education, and wants parents to have complete freedom in how to educate their children. Paul voted against mandating prayer in public schools, but also against preventing it—essentially he just wants the federal government out of the issue. He also voted against authorizing No Child Left Behind, believing it represented too much federal involvement in education. Ron Paul is strongly in favor of school choice, in his case defining school choice as parents have complete freedom of how to educate their children, and providing educational tax credits for all families with children. This plan, which he has proposed in 1997, 2001, 2003, 2005, and now 2007, has been repeatedly put forward in a bill that would provide $5000 yearly in tax breaks to every child who incurs educational expenses. The money is intended to compensate parents for educational expenses incurred, most likely at private schools (though I believe the credit would also apply to parents whose children are homeschooled, and possibly for some students in public school). Paul did not propose cutting public school funding in accompaniment to this bill, allowing him to put it forward as what he perceives a more favorable alternative to vouchers (which traditionally take money from public schools and apply them to private school tuition). These tax credit would prove most beneficial to families with higher incomes, as families of limited means do not pay much in income taxes. Paul is not opposed to vouchers, though, and has voted to allow states to use federal money for school vouchers. Conversely, he voted not to establish a federal voucher program for students in Washington, D.C. This could possibly be because the D.C. program would represent a greater deal of federal involvement in schools, while the national program would use money already being provided to states for voucher; Paul has not explained the differences in these votes, though. Paul is also for raising teacher salaries, in a roundabout way. Paul proposes a $1000 a year tax credit for all teachers in his tax credit bill. The interesting aspect of Paul’s support of tax credits is, while he is correct in asserting that they will not increase federal spending, they most certainly will decrease federal revenue, which seems to be a difference only of semantics. There are approximately 53 million school-aged children in the United States, and roughly 10% are in private school (a much smaller, but growing, number is homeschooled, which we will leave out of this calculation). If each of these children was given a $5000 tax credit, approximately $25 billion less would be raised in tax revenues every year. If we assume a teacher:student ratio nationwide of approximately 15:1 (which probably is a bit high, as other educators may be counted in the tax credit), we have another 3 billion dollars gone from the education budget (and thank you to Raymond, for catching a math error I made in the original post). This would almost equal the federal government's entire contribution to public education. Granted, this is a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation, so the actual amount may vary slightly, but it is startling. Paul also supports the abolishment of the IRS, which could explain this stance. There is a lot of speculation that Ron Paul would end public education, but he has never actually said that is what he wants to do (though it certainly is a popular belief amongst libertarians). Essentially, Ron Paul’s educational stance seems to be a complete abolishment of any federal role in education, in favor of a larger role of parents and localities in school policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 if the bad people are the only ones who have ak's, then what are all the good people to do? shoot them with 22's? you've got to understand it's our right to own them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iloveboxcars Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 more on RP's stance on education Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 ^^^ What on gods green earth would you need an AK-47 for... The purpose of gun controll is to keep guns off the streets. Not the shooting ranges. Im neither for or against it... but come on... Everyone I know who has guns is very carefull with them, keeps them locked up and seperated from any amunition unless they are hunting or at a shooting range or whatever. Furthermore with screening prior to the sale of firearms its only going to deter thrill seekers who want to buy a hand cannon, would be gangbangers, and other people nobody wants to have a gun. but thats just me. watch the movie 'innocents betrayed' and you will be a firm 100% supporter of gun rights. gun control is merely a victim disarmament scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 iloveboxcars is right on. as a federal politician he has no right to tell the states or localities what to do in these reguards. the federal governments powers are few and defined in article 1 section 8. as far as ron paul on education, it can be summed up simply by saying he is against the federal government being involved in it whatsoever, based on the 10th amendment. he is for local control of schools. i know i know, that is really code for....'he wants to lynch 12 year old black kids in public school classrooms' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.