Aaaahahaha.

Another Bobesque tantrum post? How lovely.

Trying to equate the slight disappointment the international community has with Biden as president to the abject horror of Trump as president as if the disdain were equal. LMFAHS!! Ridiculously asinine.

As usual, right wing apologists can't read. Some gaps were left when construction halted after Biden halted funding, funding the courts had deemed illegal btw, but others were not. Some were planned, some were due to failures of the fence Trump chose, some were due to contractors doing half assed jobs or being incapable of the work, some due to topography, there were many excuses but in the end, it wasn't a wall, it wasn't complete, it barely extended border barriers, and many places were left less secure...none of which is Biden's fault. They knew full well the next administration wasn't continuing this plan. You don't think they should have planned for that maybe? Finished the parts they dismantled at least before the only supporter left power? Nope. Guess not. Perfectly reasonable to leave it half done and expect the next guy who campaigned against it to finish it or take all the blame for all it's failures. Didn't Donny promise to have it done his first term anyway?

🤦‍♂️

I read a few articles from multiple sources on both sides before responding...not just the one particular cherry picked one you linked...i know better.

Not half ever wanted the wall, and likely under 1/3 want more poorly built fencing now that we've seen how horrible it is. Over half want the border secured, but that's not the same as support for the dumb wall/fence. Border security isn't just a fence, it comes in all flavors. Indeed, many agree that the best way to stem immigration is not building barriers both physical and institutional, but to increase anti narco terrorism funding in central America and end the war on drugs. Starve the drug gangs of money, they'll lose power and stop driving families out.

It was absolutely NOT paid for, Trump had to use an executive order to redirect funds that were earmarked by congress to pay for military family housing, because he couldn't get congress to pay for his boondoggle, much less Mexico as promised. If it had been fully funded, it would have been fully built.

Biden is not doing well at immigration. In his defense, he was left a clusterfuck, but he hasn't solved any major problems yet. As an adult, I'm capable of admitting that easily. The level of incompetence between him and Trump, however, are worlds apart, and the approaches are as well. One dehumanized and demonized immigrants, the other seems to be at least trying to get a working immigration and refugee system back in place, but is moving slowly. Your implications that they're both equally awful indicates either a strong bias for Trump, or strong break with reality.

I and others have clearly said many times on other threads, Biden is failing at immigration, and failing at being prepared to accept immigrant children. As a seeming right wing apologist at best, you seem blind and deaf to those complaints from the left and pretend we are childishly hypocritical instead....so no, you're far from getting it right, you're getting it totally backwards and twisted. Derp.

Another empty complaint/accusation. What fake news did I spread? Pretty easy but also completely meaningless to shout "your wrong" with no explanation, no correction, no specifics. Very Trumpian of you sir.

Anybody who writes what you did about Biden must be a hypocritical and douchey Trump supporter or just a plain brown wrapper nutjob. Even with his speech impediment, Biden is clear, thoughtful, and coherent...unlike Trump who never said a complete sentence or even complete thought in four years. Your hyper biased characterizations and factless, pointless, non sequitor, insult ridden tantrums masquerading as an argument are what paint you as a Trumpster, not your baseless accusations of hypocrisy.

Now I remember why I had you on ignore. Thanks for the reminder.

LMFAHS!!!! Bobby? That is you, isn't it? This is the kind of total non sequitur, irrational, fact free, second grade level "argument" I expect from you. Not sure why you quoted me, you didn't address a single point I made with your rambling rant.

The delusion and lack of self awareness is strong with this one.

Sorry, there's no cult of Biden. Democrats still have functioning brains, unlike Trumpists who believe eating fresh babies make people younger and gives them magic powers, that vaccines have invisible Microsoft microchips that will take over their brains so George Soros can force them to become transsexual communists, and that when you lose an election the patriotic thing to do is stage a deadly coup. The right lost it's mind in 2015 and has never seen a doctor.

If Biden shot someone in cold blood, Democrats would demand prosecution and ostracize him. When Trump said it, he meant it, and the crowd of magamorons cheered in unanimous agreement. Derp?

Not a bit sure what you mean by linking an article about Biden considering completing some of the useless fencing Trump replaced existing barriers with. No surprise, most of the "wall" Trump brags about replaced existing barriers, many more functional than his fence design that is just gawd awful, easy to push down and drive trucks through and that can't even stand up in wind, but also weren't completed and often ended up being maybe 100 yards of fence, then 20 yards of nothing, then another 100 yards of fence, then more gaps, etc. Those unfinished repair/replacement projects are worthless wastes of billions if not finished, and often made the border more porous, not more secure, because they replaced functional (if imperfect) barriers. You think you have some point to make because Biden is considering finishing those projects to at least fix the holes Trump left, and plans to fund them legally through congress not by illegal executive orders taking money earmarked by congress for military family housing and handing it to his donors brand new construction companies for no bid contracts like Trump did, against court orders no less? I just don't know what you think that means, how it's a bad thing Biden is doing by not just ignoring problems created by the ineptitude of the previous administration but instead being presidential, or how it defends Trump's disastrous record, which seems to be your objective.

Hmmmm.....more snowflake tears, yummy.

@newtboy that is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of.

As for the kid (whose real name is Will Connolly) the defence fund is now around $30000, and part of the fund is earmarked for "buying more eggs". Will has stated he intends to donate most of the money to victim support*, once again being an absolutely top bloke. He's already been jokingly nominated for "Honorary New Zealander of the year".

Also to put his attack into context... in terms of victims per capita, if this had happened in the US, it would be the statistical equivalent of 9/11.

*there has already been nearly NZ$5m raised for the victims. https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/christchurch-shooting-victims-fund

I hear you brother. I have already earmarked an emergency "flights, tickets etc for Slayers last tour" fund. My wife is kinda annoyed that we might have to skip our 10th wedding anniversary, but she'll get over it

@CrushBug -- Very good arguments in favor of absorbing the cost, even IF hormone therapy / gender reassignment is paid for by the military / government.

@entr0py -- Links that I've read from conventional news outlets claim that hormone therapy and gender reassignment were covered by military healthcare IF a doctor signed off on them as being medically necessary. An article I read about Chelsea Manning specifically stated that the hormone therapy was definitely paid for by the military, but that it wasn't 100% clear who paid the bill for her gender reassignment. I can't find that exact article, but here's another one from 2015 that suggests the same things:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/12/chelsea-manning-hormone-therapy/23311813/

Another article I read said that Obama issued an order / proclamation / whatever that the military would pay for those things if they were deemed medically necessary, which was a change from the former system (not covered). Not sure when/if that went into effect, but I think it must have. I'll look and see if I can find a link to that one.

I'm not saying that my info is right and yours is wrong, but it seems unclear. They (gender reassignment and hormone therapy) definitely weren't covered for a long time, but it seems like the hormone therapy was for sure at least in Manning's case.

Again, just to my personal opinion, I think the old system of "welcome to serve but we ain't paying for that stuff" was fine (ideal?). CrushBug presents a good argument for the military absorbing those costs since they are such a tiny fraction of the military budget (even though trans soldiers are arguably also a tiny fraction of the total).

Strangely enough, I'd pretty happily agree to those services being covered (if deemed medically necessary) as part of single-payer universal health care available to ALL CITIZENS. That would still be paying for them with tax dollars, but not tax dollars earmarked for military, which seems better to me somehow.

And again, I think Trump is 100% in the wrong for barring trans people from service simply for being trans. I agree that he's really just trying to rile up his base and trigger their righteous indignation. But, I do still basically think that the military paying for those services (or viagra / hair transplants / botox / cosmetic stuff, etc.) out of their budget is wrong. Even if amounts to a drop in the ocean that is military spending.

IMO it's not all, strictly speaking, military spending.

A very large chunk of that money is earmarked for projects which are impractical in the extreme so uber-wealthy plutocrats who complain about how much they pay in taxes can siphon off billions into their own pockets and spend millions of the siphoned cash on managing their political influence.

Just like taxes for wars people don't support. Or subsidies and tax breaks for companies that wield political power and yet have no valid economic rationale for being subsidised. I hate to break it to you, but democratic societies have plenty of things that you pay for that you either don't support or don't use.

It's a fact that this point has apparently not dawned on a lot of people and the guy in the video doesn't put it eloquently, but you can bet at a state level when earmarks for generally wasteful expenses that only benefit a few come up, those few will suddenly become very supportive of the proposals that benefit their few over the many.

You could also take the perspective that since no one knows when they might get sufficiently sick to lose their job and their income, that it's an insurance policy for even the healthy. Even if you don't believe in that, the fact is emergency rooms are obliged to treat immediate health issues for free. Why should the healthy not be obliged to pay for this tacit insurance?

Perpetrators...That's rich considering the complicity of all whiners with better ideas for monkey control. Um, systemic being the operative word and widespread panic tinctured with feigned concern being relevant earmarks of the ineffectual.

Exactly! The earmark of a sheit comedian!! He's gonna end-up joining the ranks of some of the best....
Gallagher....Carrot Top...and Robbbb Schneiiider!

" That is typical of Texas rightwingers."

Oh and go and fuck yourselves, anyone who who uses the word "typical" when referring to large groups of (insert approved definition of "Texas rightwingers" here) people OR who begin a retort with "Actually, " when defending their point-by-point semantic breakdown of a paragraph with a view to using someone's state of residence as an earmark for their character. What a fucking tool a person like THAT would be.....

This only serves to aggravate me. Another taxpayer panel in which we enjoy the benefit of plausible deniability (or whatever there greased 300,00$K lawyers claim works for the current system of worked in loopholes). More so, because I know not a single one of these sons of bitches will do time or ever care--really care. They should be in jail for life. They should be in a federal prison, full security, no white collar bullshit.

They should live on a meager sum the rest of the entirety of their days with all their buildings, lands, businesses, capital, funds, CDs, IRAs, everything except their social security and even that should be looked at (as they should be allowed a low middle income and that is IT); they can gain no earmarks, no passes from their buddies or gifts (although he can live with him as long as his money is not being paid out), they cannot benefit from a will or other form of transfer ship at an appointed time or setting, and then ANYTHING I haven't covered. No politics, no books, no television, no movies, you're in the "white collar" death knell that is their true jail cell. He CAN enlist in the army, they may have a modest job, but the dream of riches are OVER. They chose the ultimate path of pressure that can be exerted on a white collar criminal.

If only we thought that crime like that could be as dangerous as a murderer (and trust me--I'm sure many of you do know already--but, if you don't white collar crimes can end up killing thousands of people, but their hands are virtually clean). Perhaps it is part of the taboo we have with mental disease, we'd rather it remain in the back-room or rather in the back of your mouth. Strangely many of these white collar criminals most likely all suffer from having almost NO empathy for others; they literally could care less what it is like to be me or you. This is a mental issue, but we never talk of such things--it's rude! But, violence has its own mental disease "shards" as well that cause it to start either young or later in life...

But, we refuse to deal with the main topic, so how about punishment(s) atleast? White collar crime is seen as something you do at your beach house in Florida on the weekend. Your lawyer tells you about it on your flight into Boston on Monday, you have three death threats sent to your e-mail, you mildly humming, "Hip To Be Square", send them to your spam folder and block the senders after you send them a death threat/repossession letter back through a company proxy, which then you use another proxy to feed the final bytes through. Your lawyer tells you you'll have to show up to an injunction and say this exact prepared statement, which of course, nicely enough they allow you to read from when they take your testimony. This is our guy. Right now he's eating a stake with a glass of Chardonnay from Italy in the early 90's--meanwhile, "Easy Lover", is booming in the background while his mistress takes a swim in his Penthouse's swimming pool. He doesn't have to get up early, so it'll be a long night--after all nobody is coming for him.

Attack them hard and they might take notice.



What a new punishment that would be for white collar criminals--a death sentence, for them.



Just institute what I said above and it may change things. Attack the problem psychologically, as jail-time is either meaningless or to them it's "Club Fed". But, this of course requires good lawmakers, which requires competent voters, which requires a great education system...

No calls, no businesses, no helping: they are burnt.

Actually went and looked up the law. Because as more evidence comes out, I still thought that a teenager being followed by a much older adult (~10 years) should result in that teenager being covered under the SYG (Stand Your Ground) Law.

So looking at the text. Trayvon could use justfied force, in accordance with 776.012 and deadly force if he met the criteria of 776.012 (1). He was the person SYG, being stalked for unknown reason by a complete stranger. This is ignoring Zimmerman's comments and just looking at his actions. He followed a kid heedless of advice and the standard op of a neighborhood watch - call it in and remove yourself if no crime is taking place.

776.032 should not apply to Zimmerman, because he caused the confrontation by following. There was no defensive nature in stalking someone to the point of them defending themself from you.

776.041 could apply to Zimmerman as he is the clear aggressor (Again lots of people feel that aggressor means you threw the first punch, that's not what the law says, it's all about reasonable belief that you are in danger and I think being stalked = reasonable). The police had to verify that under 776.041 (1) wasn't happening, which I don't think it is easily proven that Zimmerman was commiting a hate crime via the stalking/profiling/shooting. 776.041 (2) only grants immunity if (A) OR (B) are fulfilled. I have not seen that the police have established (A) or (B) were fulfilled.

(A) Did Zimmerman exhaust every reasonable means of escape the danger of Trayvon? Does yelling help count? My argument here is that persistent following and disregard of advice of written material for conduct PLUS verbal command from dispatch shows that he is incapable of acting reasonably. The reasonable act would be to call it in and leave it the fuck alone. Plus he had no reason to be out of his vehicle after Trayvon.

(B) There is no evidence that Zimmerman tried to withdraw from conflict. There is evidence he was getting thrashed on the ground by his victim after he forced the confrontation on Trayvon, but not that he tried to de-escalate the encounter by either (A) or (B).

So again, I wonder why Zimmerman was let go when he there is no evidence to suggest he didn't force the encounter by his rash and impulsive decisions to get the people "who always get away". Then you count the "fucking coons", which according to many is "fucking punks" or "fucking goons" because "coon" is something no one under 40 has said in a decade. But coons sounds nothing like punks and goons is what all the kids are saying these days (sarcasm).


I've had this discussion on other sites. And overall people seem to keep preaching that you should apply the evidence and the evidence shows that Zimmerman was attacked. Following isn't illegal and questioning someone isn't illegal, and calling the police isn't illegal, and saying "fucking coons" isn't illegal, and ignoring advice of dispatch isn't illegal, and using lethal force in defense of yourself isn't illegal, and.....blah. But taken together, it shows that Zimmerman did a lot of stupid shit to provoke an incident that WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if a reasonable and rational person had been in his place. And according to the SYG law, Martin was covered under it more so than Zimmerman. Yet far too many people are all about believing the police THIS TIME because......of some reason...whether it be Zimmerman is white, an adult, or is alive to "say so". Yet Martin is unbelievable because he is black, a teen, or hit Zimmerman (many believe unprovoked at that).

Over all, it has a lot of earmarks of a case of road rage. Where Martin does something to upset Zimmerman. Zimmerman follows Martin, violence goes down. In most cases I've heard, the guy who does the following and forces an encounter = guilty. Because it's unreasonable anger/decision making leading up to the event and there may not have been an offense in the first place...especially because there's no evidence of an offense to require that kind of action on the part of the guy following you to your home, work, or whatever destination...getting out and starting shit.


2011 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE[14]

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

@dystopianfuturetoday's list seems somewhat biased to me. I also appreciate him taking the time to provide links to his objections, kudos for that.

This is how I would honestly try to answer each of them, I think most can be dismissed, but some should be looked into.

Abortion

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on abortion, his political opinion is that it's not a Federal issue, it's a state's rights' issue because it's too controversial. So whether people like abortion or not, they have the choice of taking it up with their local governments.

Evolution

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter his personal opinion on evolution. If I were a Christian, I'd have trouble dealing with the theory of evolution too, because I'd believe in a book written by God that says the universe was created in 6 days. I don't see how would that negatively influence him as a president or his policies.

Does not believe in separation of church and state

Sounds like total BS to me. That is just a very biased interpretation of the linked article. Libertarians understand separation of church and state because having them together is even more dangerous than fascism (corporations and state together). It threatens many liberties they hold dear, including free speech, religious freedom, sexual freedom and not using laws to impose morality.

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools

Correct, unconstitutional, against libertarian ideals. Even though he'd like to privatize them all, he would have to stop at the Federal level and let states choose whether to run their own schools or privatize.

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones

Correct, probably because it would encroach on guns rights, besides, it's in accordance with the point above: Federal government has no business educating children anyway, and should not impose gun restrictions on state-run schools, that's up to the states themselves.

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

He does believe that global warming claims are a FUD tactic for environmental regulations at the Federal level.

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters

Correct about FEMA being dispensable, but "we" means the Federal government. States can help. Private charities can help. Churches can help. Concerned individuals can help. Insurance companies can help.

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border

Wierd, I mean, it's in accordance with defending our borders, but seems like a costly idea.

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy

I don't know what to say about that, sorry.

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US"

He presented more than one reason to pull out of the UN. I personally agree that the UN is not in alignment with american values. I wish the UN all the best in whatever they want to achieve, but I don't think they should do it with the US' money and military, specially since we're broke and fighting too many wars as it is.

Disband NATO

Link is not working. NATO is a remnant of the Cold War era, it costs us money to outsource our military protection to other countries, disbanding NATO makes sense to me.

End birthright citizenship

Sounds like a reasonable position to me. He's in favor of immigrants entering the country, but birthright citizenship is a legal shortcut that is often abused and imposes an unnecessary burden on American citizens and the welfare system.

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"

If he had his way, a lot of federal funding to all non-essential organizations would be denied, period. When it comes to the issue of homossexuality, regardless of his personal opinions, he seems to be arguing against using taxpayer money to promote or impose lifestyles taxpayers themselves might not approve of.

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign

I don't know, that's a tough one. That might reflect poorly on Ron Paul if this person was hired for being an anti-gay activist. Maybe he's just a good campaign director? I don't think Ron Paul is against homossexuals politically, and he's allowed the same level of homophobia as any other straight christian guy, as long as he doesn't project it into active anti-gay policies.

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard

Correct, even though he mostly talks about commodity-based currencies. He doesn't want to impose the gold standard, but allow competing currencies, in which case, I'm sure many people will prefer to use gold as money since it has been historically preferred for millenia.

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan

I don't understand that sentence and the link is broken, could you elaborate on it, please?

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys

Correct, as the linked article points out, he "frequently votes against measures expanding the federal government's reach". It doesn't mean Ron Paul is in favor of lead in children's toys, only that there are other more effective ways to ensure that children's toys don't have lead in them. Leave the Federal government out of this.

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal

Correct, not at the federal level, that is a states' issue. Whatever else he said on the subject is irrelevant.

Is against the popular vote

Correct, it's a libertarian thing. Libertarians like to protect minorities, namely the smallest and most numerous minority, which is the individual. That's why they always talk about individual rights. Democracy sometimes ignores and tramples over individuals in favor of the majority, so libertarians don't always regard democracy as this unquestionable improvement for civilization.

Wants the estate tax repealed

Correct, it's a useless tax in terms of revenue, most people waste as much money avoiding it than paying it, so it's destroying resources, and its not morally justified. Why would someone have to pay taxes when they die? Why pay taxes to inherit what someone rightfully gives you when they die?

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States

Don't know what to say about that. If it was built with US taxpayer money, maybe it should? Idk.

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website

This is bullshit. A picture of them together just implies they conspired to stand in front of a camera.

Keeps their donations
And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

Also, bullshit. Taking their money means he accepts their support, it does not mean that Ron Paul supports them. Like Ron Paul explained many times, it would be impractical to do a background check on all the hundreds of thousands of people who support him and send him money.

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,
But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,
And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."
...
Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

He didn't write it and they already found the guy responsible for the offensive content. Move on.

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...
Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.
However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts
AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War

Ouch, I don't know what to say, at first it seems inconsistent. Maybe he doesn't have a perfect voting record after all. I'll look into that. I don't buy that he's against Rosa Parks or that there is any race issues involved.

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

Endorsing the removal of federal regulations and the freedom that comes with that is not an endorsement of what people or states do with these freedoms.

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

Bullshit, an exageration of guilt by association. Thomas Woods is not the founder, he was present at the founding. He contributed in a limited capacity and is no longer involved with that group. He also publicly admits to being a textbook neoconservative before changing his mind and becoming a Ron Paul supporter. I only expect Ron Paul to be consistent, not everyone who works for him or endorse him, people can change their minds and their ways.

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

Bullshit, exagerated guilt by an even more distant level of association. The Mises Institute is about austrian economics, most likely they're associated only in regards to their opinions on economics.

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Very easy to misinterpret. He's partly against the Civil Rights Act regarding the regulations on private individuals and businesses that are open to the public because they reduce individual liberties. Makes sense for a libertarian to say such things.

Earmarks

I see it as Ron Paul making the most to get money back to the states and local communities using a flawed system.

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

Can be considered a testament to his innefectiveness, or as a testament to his backbone, and how screwed up Congress and Washington is.

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

And the guy who wrote that article is an Anti-Ron Paul nut.

Want more? Go here.

Maybe Slanderpedia.com would be more appropriate, btw I checked and the domain name is available!

Why so many people are choosing not to endorse Ron Paul (from reddit)

Ron Paul's beliefs and positions.

He defines life as starting at conception,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act

Lies to maintain FUD regarding Abortion by claiming he "saw doctors throwing a live baby away to let it die"...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/01/03/say-anything-to-take-us-out-of-this-gloom/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/29/the_ron_paul_fetus_rescue_test.html
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/01/01/why-iowa-caucus-is-about-abortion

Denies evolution, "At first I thought it was a very inappropriate question for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter ... I don't accept it as a theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4af9Q0Fa4Q @ 2:45
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/2007/12/22/ron-paul-backs-creationism-denies-evolution/

Does not believe in separation of church and state,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpaulseparation.html

Believes Education is not a right and wants to privatize all schools,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD8rJCbEVMg

Wants to repeal the federal law banning guns in school zones,

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2613ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr2613ih.pdf

Denies Global Warming, "There is no convincing scientific evidence..."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul537.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vbMly74cZ8

Wants to get rid of FEMA and says we shouldn’t help people in disasters,

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/ron-paul-you-dont-deserve-fema-help-also-im-running-for-prez-video.php
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/14/ron-paul-%E2%80%98why-not%E2%80%99-abolish-fema-since-helping-victims-of-disaster-is-compounding-our-problems/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6YQYhk3GRE

Wants to build a fence at the US/Mexico Border,

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll446.xml

Repeatedly has tried to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:

Pull out of the UN because "they have a secret plan to destroy the US",

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:
http://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/ron-paul-announces-new-run-for-us.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ArUoyuDd74
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-05-25/ron-paul-defend-the-constitution-not-the-u-n-security-council/

Disband NATO,

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm

End birthright citizenship,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
http://www.dailypaul.com/140490/ron-pauls-views-on-immigration-do-you-agree-or-disagree
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtDZZHrT8mY

Deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style",

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:

Hired former head of Anti Gay Group to be Iowa State Director of the campaign,

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/anti-gay-hate-group-chair-is-now-ron-pauls-iowa-state-director/politics/2011/12/29/32460

Wants to abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

He was the sole vote against divesting US Gov investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan,

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

Was also the ONLY vote against a ban on Lead in childrens' toys,

http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/article/U-S-House-votes-to-ban-lead-from-toys-1774056.php

He believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

He's against gay marriage,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/ron-paul-condemns-obama%E2%80%99s-decision-to-abandon-doma/

Will even legislate against gay marriage on a federal level and attempted to CRIMINALIZE efforts to overturn such a measure,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/274704/20111230/ron-paul-proposal-severely-curtail-supreme-court.htm

Has even made it a point to base his campaign on Religion and being against Gay Marriage,

http://imgur.com/11Q77

Thinks Sexual Harassment shouldn't be illegal,

http://www.politicususa.com/en/ron-paul-sexual-harassment

Is against the popular vote,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html

Wants the estate tax repealed,

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul328.html

Believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States,

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:h.con.res.231:

Believes that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control,

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:

Has associated with the founder of Stormfront, a White Power/Nazi Website,

http://www.freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/RonPaulStormfront.jpg

Keeps their donations,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/

And does nothing to prevent their association with his campaign.

http://patdollard.com/2011/12/white-supremacist-founder-of-stormfront-says-his-followers-are-volunteering-for-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-campaign/

Has gone on record that he had no knowledge of the content of the racist newsletters that bore his name AND signature,

http://www.vice.com/read/ron-paul-is-a-racist-leprechaun
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-denies-writing-coming-race-war-letter-he-signed/46622/

But has not only quoted them, but personally defended the newsletters in the past,

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/

And later admitted he WAS aware of the contents and that only "some of [it was] offensive."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuWXnI97DwE

His issues with race go as far as to vote against the Rosa Parks medal (sole vote, again), saying it is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that it was unconsitiutional...

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

Despite the fact that the bill itself is very clear about a separate fund. All profit from this fund is returned to the Treasury.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h106-573

However, he had no issues with using taxpayer funds to mint coins for the Boy Scouts,

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-5872

AND introduce legislation that would spend $240 Million making medals for EVERY veteran of the Cold War,

(Archive.org Mirror) http://web.archive.org/web/20090604122724/http://www.theseminal.com/2007/12/30/ron-paul-lets-spend-240-million-on-commemorative-medals/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_Victory_Medal
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-107hr3417ih/html/BILLS-107hr3417ih.htm

But didn't bother to repeat his previous argument those times that such an act would be unconstitutional as he had with the Rosa Parks Medal.

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/ron-paul-no-on-rosa-parks-yes-on.html

Introduced legislation, twice, that would allow schools to re-segregate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@D&summ2=m&

His SuperPAC is headed by Thomas Woods who is the founder of the League of the South, of which the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) labeled a "racist hate group."

http://www.revolutionpac.com/advisory-board/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_the_South

Also in association with the League of the South via Thomas Woods is the Mises Institute, of which Lew Rockwell is an Administrator...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Faculty_and_administration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mises_Institute#Criticisms

Is against Hate Crime laws,

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-07-02/ron-paul-collectivist-hate-crimes-bill-a-serious-threat-to-freedom-of-speech/

Would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/05/ron-paul-would-have-opposed-civil-rights-act-1964/37726/
http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2011/05/ron-pauls-position-against-civil-rights-act-of-1964-and-against-segregation-laws/

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/05/ron-paul-suggests-basic-freedoms-come-second-to-property-rights/

He also believes The Civil Rights Act destroyed Privacy,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html

Despite always "voting against earmarks," he was only one of four House Repubs to request earmarks in 2011 for over $157mil. (And in FY 2010, was one of the leading House members in requesting earmarks for a total of $398mil.)

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks
http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1033&Itemid=68

And during his entire tenure, he has managed only one, out of 620, of his bills to get signed into law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-pauls-house-record-stands-out-for-its-futility-and-tenacity/2011/12/23/gIQA5ioVJP_story.html

Ron Paul is not a constitutionalist. He is not a civil libertarian. He's a secessionist, a fundamentalist and a confederate.

http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-not-civil-libertarian-last.html

Want more? Go here.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Ron_Paul

Ron Paul's Newsletters. Scanned. See the originals for yourself. They're worse than they've been quoted for.

http://rpnewsletter.wordpress.com/

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Are earmarks in the constitution?
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks
http://www.americanin
dependent.com/160697/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget


Article One, Section 9:
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law."

So, yes. Actually following the Constitution, all spending should be earmarked.