Ron Paul is our last hope

Come on people, its time to wake up.

I agree that it's time for the general public to wake up. I keep wondering where is the outrage over all the ridiculosity that's going on..

However, is 'Ron Paul' the answer? Geesh, not in my book. And now that I think about it, I'm leery of the tone of this whole thread.. making the assertion that 'Ron Paul is our last hope' strikes me as the same as how some religious say theirs is The One True Religion and the only way to be Saved is to follow THAT religion. I have studied enough spiritual teachings to know that there are core principles in every religion, that there are good and bad points to every religion, and I think there is not One True Religion, but that instead as works of Man all the Religions have some flaws but that they all are pointing in the general direction of the Truth. I think the same would hold for any politician.

e.g...... Ron Paul isn't the only one who has taken strong stands against the war, nor the only one who has called for impeachment, etc. My preference, Dennis Kucinich, has done the same. Kucinich is a much closer match to me, heck he even believes in UFO's! Unfortunately Kucinich also ran into problems getting the media to pay attention to him, and eventually dropped out.

brother electron wrote

Ron Paul is the only one that makes sense if you know whats really going on.

:?

Hmmmmm; in the words of Charlie Brown

Oh Good Grief!!!!

You see, the problem with Ron Paul is that he says one thing, and does another in his private life. He makes it seem like what he wants is freedom and liberty from government, but what his personal agenda seems to display is a man who knows that "leaving it up to the states" and "eliminating unnecessary aspects of the federal government" is just another way to get the radical right-wing agendas implemented. He can't make it happen on a federal level (and he has tried) so he is trusting that if we leave something like abortion up to the states, that the "deep red" states will make it illegal. Same for prayer and creationism in public schools, and environmental concerns.

If you examine the man's record-- not just his voting record, but the bills he's put forth and the causes he has been involved in-- you see the bigger picture, and it's not a very pretty (or liberal) one.

Ron Paul is well-known as a neo-Confederate. Let me say that again: Neo-CONFEDERATE. Simply put: He is associated with groups that believe that the policies of the Confederate States (including their policies on civil rights) were the correct ones. This is why openly racists like the KKK, White Aryan Nation, and David Duke support him so fervently. He is not open about his racism, but he makes it clear with his neo-Confederate policies that he wouldn't have any problems with individual states, or communities, making discriminatory laws. That's all part of his "leave it up to the states" agenda.

Even if you ignore ALL the proof that the man is a neo-Confederate, you cannot ignore some of his more bone-headed policies:

He is a strict isolationist. Foreign policy? He really has none, except that he does not want to get involved with other nations at all. Not for good purposes, or for bad ones. He opposed the Iraq War not because he has an objection to the war itself, but because his America would not interact with the rest of the world at all unless there was no other choice.

He is a devout Christian evangelist. A Baptist, actually. He does not believe in evolution. He does not trust in science to find the answers, but to his faith (and his faith alone). That may be fine for him, but it's not fine for all of us. His religious beliefs guide his choices-- He opposes abortion. He supports prayer in public schools. He supports the teaching of creationism in public schools and does not believe evolution should be taught (because it's "only a theory", which is shameful talk for him. As a doctor, he should understand what "theory" means within the realm of science.)

As I said previously, his whole "Leave these matters to the states" stance on these issues is a backhanded way to make sure that SOME states and localities will make laws that reflect his personal religious view-- His own home state would likely be one of those.

Just take a gander at his "We The People Act" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_the_People_Act

Oh, and let us not forget the near anarchist goals he has... Abolish the Federal Reserve, IRS, FBI. and CIA?

The man actually wants to eliminate taxes and "allow" local communities to fund their own public works! I don't know about you, but as a proud American I have no problem paying my taxes-- I happen to LIKE having things like roads, police, firefighters, public health organizations, and--well-- an infrastructure. Under Ron Paul's policy of "no taxes" and few (if any) government-run agencies, we'd have PRIVATIZED police, firefighters, and other public services.

Of course, Ron Paul and his supporters say that in the absence of a tax-funded infrastructure, we'd have a country where communities come together and form these organizations because of a sense of civic duty. In their fantasy world, no private companies would come along and turn our police into mercenaries, or charge us on a per-fire basis for firefighting services. People would just volunteer out of the goodness of their hearts, and the corporations would NEVER take advantage of such an open playing field...

Riiiiight.

Worse, we'd have a country where the states can break off into little city-states each with their own laws regarding civil rights, religious freedom, and personal freedoms. In Indiana, for example, the state government could make abortions completely illegal, but in neighboring Michigan, they could make them legal.

Of course, then we'd see refugees leaving Indiana to go to Michigan for abortions. If the laws were really religiously biased, we might see members of other religions, or atheists rushing from one state to another to avoid persecution under their home state's laws.

Limited federal government under the "We The People Act" would mean that we couldn't protect our freedoms by going to the Supreme Court to challenge their Constitutionality. If your home state says it's illegal for your community library (non-tax-funded, of course) to carry the book "Lolita" because of their obscenity laws, you couldn't challenge it.

He says he's a "Constitutionalist" but he pretends to believe that allowing states the right to interpret the Constitution at a state or community level isn't going to become a complete mess, where some states allow some rights, while others forbid them.

I'm sorry, but he's an established racist. A proven neo-Confederate. An isolationist. A fundamentalist. He's in opposition to everything I believe in as an American. Under Ron Paul, America would be torn apart and people would be forced to fend for themselves. That's great if you're rich and powerful and white, but not so great if you're not rich, not powerful, not white, not straight, not Christian, and not part of the majority. Ron Paul's America would be a bleak place where private corporations would control even MORE of your life, because they'd be the only ones rich enough to rescue us from a land without tax-supported public works.

He lies because he knows that the propaganda film "Zeitgeist" has been viewed by a lot of younger people, and people who are just prone to believing conspiracy theories. But that movie doesn't tell the truth. It warps it. It bends it to support the conspiracy theories it sells. The film has no references, no evidence, and is largely hearsay. Large chunks of it have been debunked, and not just because some shadowy organization made it so.

I've got news for you: The Bilderbergs and Rockefellers don't want to put RFID chips in your body. They don't even know you exist, and what's more, they don't CARE. The Illuminati is not out to get you. The bleak picture painted by "Zeitgeist" is not a true picture. It's the stuff of science fiction. It's the stuff of cyberpunk novels and dystopian nightmares.

Sure, it is based in SOME truths, but most of these truths are not sinister plots-- They're the efforts of greedy people to make more money. These SAME people would waste no time taking advantage of a nation that would be so weakened and rendered lawless under Ron Paul's rule.

Oh, and finally, let us not forget that the man wants to legalize ALL guns-- Even fully automatic military-grade ones with armor-piercing rounds-- and ALL drugs.

There's a nice thought: A society where military-grade guns are legal (without a background check), and cocaine is 100% legal, and your local police department is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Blackwater corporation and they charge by the hour. Good luck with that when your coked-up neighbor comes over toting an AK-47 to complain about your radio being too loud.

And if he kills you, it's not even going to trial. Courts are tax-funded. No IRS. No courts. They'll just shoot him and send your wife the bill.

LaughsAtSpandex wrote

The man actually wants to eliminate taxes and "allow" local communities to fund their own public works! I don't know about you, but as a proud American I have no problem paying my taxes-- I happen to LIKE having things like roads, police, firefighters, public health organizations, and--well-- an infrastructure. Under Ron Paul's policy of "no taxes" and few (if any) government-run agencies, we'd have PRIVATIZED police, firefighters, and other public services.

I'd have to say that I agree with your statement, and thank you for pointing those things out.
If we didn't have any of these things there would be complete HAVOC everywhere (more so than normal).

Sorry to reply to my own post, but this is a very separate thought.

I just wanted to apologize for getting on my high horse and ranting up there. I see a lot of young people swaying toward Ron Paul, but not really reading up on the guy. All they know is what the propaganda videos on YouTube tell them, and that he will legalize drugs. That's no reason to vote for someone.

I honestly don't know what his stance is on alternate forms of energy, but considering his stance on so many other things, I cannot imagine that he would be a proponent for environmental concerns. His policies all seem to point toward handing the country over to private corporations and weakening the government so it CAN'T make laws regarding energy policies.

My rant above is not relevant to the EV Politics topic, and with Ron Paul, I don't think there's any real EV political point that can be made. I'm sure he'd say the same thing he always says: "Leave it up to the states to decide."

I liked Kucinich too. He was probably the best when it came to EV political policies (or at least general environmentalism) but he's no longer a choice. The media has decided he's "too liberal" and he has been pushed out of the election... Or maybe the People decided that. Either way, we won't see Kucinich in the White House any time soon.

I'm leaning toward Obama. He seems to see that the People are struggling, and that we need some significant changes in the way things are done. He seems to be on-board with environmentalism. He seems to "get it" when it comes to the fact that the voters are sick of politics all being about money, business, and who can afford the best lobbyist (and how much the lobbyist can promise the politicians).

Clinton seems to want to maintain that Washington D.C. status quo. She might lean it to the left a bit, but she's not doing much to convince me that her policies would be that different from John McCain's policies. Her campaign manager recently declared FOX News "Fair & Balanced" for supporting her campaign.

THAT makes me think again about my support for her. How deep into the machine is she? What happened to those idealistic people I saw in the 80s? Who replaced the Clintons with someone else?

Personally, I think Obama's the best bet for a solid environmental policy-- Not just supporting environmentally-friendly changes, but in appointing people to departments that impact the environment. Under Bush, we've got lobbyists from the industries that are under the jurisdiction of individual departments of the government being appointed to those positions. When you make former oil company lobbyists into environmental secretaries, you pretty much sell us all out.

WHOEVER wins the election, I hope the first thing they do in regards to the environment is to pull out all the EPA reports that were censored by the Bush Administration and enact measures in accordance with the EPA's recommendations.

The second thing they should do is appoint Al Gore to a cabinet position.

Looks like Wesley Snipes was listening to our sub atomic sibling on the federal tax issue.

Looks like Wesley Snipes was listening to our sub atomic sibling on the federal tax issue.

Yup doin' time in the slammer :) ya don't pay taxes it's a crime punishable by law which is considered a "White collar" crime. Just because you are a celebrity doesn't exactly mean that you will get away with not paying your taxes, you will eventually get caught. But three years isn't too bad