Hello Beautiful!

It looks like you're new to The Community. If you'd like to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Ron Paul supporters?

MunchieMunchie Raw Newbie

Any Ron Paul supporters in the house?

Okay, I have to admit although I am always on the internet… I don’t like the excessive negativity that surrounds the usual daily news coverage, so, I avoid t.v., radio, etc. If I happen to notice an interesting topic when I am signing in to my e-mail, it’s gets a click, but that’s about it. Since I have been living in my own world, I never heard anything about Ron Paul.

Well, to my surprise a few days ago while looking up some information about alternative medicine, codex, raw, supplements, etc. I came across someone mentioning him in a forum. I followed the forum discussion and it read something like, you’re wasting your time. The only people that will vote for him are health nuts and another group that I choose not to include in this thread.

Now, I don’t know about you but since going raw, I have been called many of things by friends and family… and they all seem to fit into that category of “health nut.” So, I asked myself, “Why haven’t I seen anything about this on the sites I’ve been frequenting?” So, today I went on here and did a forum search and only 2 posts popped up mentioning “Ron Paul” in them.

I know people try to be PC and avoid talking politics, religion, etc. But I am looking for more information, so, that I can make an educated decision on my presidential vote.

I decided to post this on this site because, I feel it could directly impact a lot of the natural health issues and alternative ways of thinking that are shared and discussed on this forum.

This thread is not meant to start conflict. I simply was wondering what your stand is on Ron Paul and/or the other 2008 Presidential candidates? Thank you.

Comments

  • BluedolfinBluedolfin Raw Newbie

    I don’t know much about Ron Paul so no comment on his Presidential propects. The only thing I know about him is that he is a sponsor of H.R. 2117: Health Freedom Protection Act.

  • teadeteade Raw Newbie

    I’m kinda more towards Kucinich, but he’s a loooongshot.
    http://www.informeddissent.com is a great site for people interested in knowing things most mass media places don’t talk about.
    But Ron Paul is definitely an excellent man. My next choice after Kucinich.

  • skizzyskizzy Raw Newbie

    frankly, i’m utterly shocked whenever i discover ron paul supporters. it’s like people only see one tiny piece of his message and ignore all the racism, homophobia, and anti-choice spew the man puts out.

    has anyone asked the questions:

    ron paul says 95% of black males in LA are what? http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.afri…

    when does life start, according to ron paul? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:

    who can get married, according to ron paul? http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

    ron paul says what about the civil rights act? http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

    what kind of organization should be denied federal funding if ron paul has his way? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@L&summ2=m&

    i don’t want this kind of person anywhere near any kind of public office, let alone the presidency. i really, really cannot understand how he’s managed to get so many supporters.

  • MeditatingMeditating Raw Newbie

    I also prefer Kucinich but there is no way he is going anywhere. This country is not ready for him yet.

    John Edwards supports labeling of GMO foods but does not list that on his issue page. If agribusiness knew this was something he was running on, they would dump millions into other campaigns to make sure no one listened to him at all.

    No one is addressing how to make the health care system built on preventative medicine as good health is not profitable for that industry so I don’t think anyone is doing even a fair job of dealing with the issues surrounding healthcare.

    I too do not intend to start conflict with this thread but important issues must be discussed. I can’t support Ron Paul even though I find some of his ideas palatable. As a physician, it is shocking to me that he supports outlawing abortion since 1) illegal abortions killed more women of child -bearing age than anything else prior to legalization, 2) that position supports the notion that a potential person is always more important than any aspect of the life of a woman whose personhood should not be in dispute, and 3) that position also codifies a very specific perspective that is primarily religious in nature. In other words, while there is no real debate that things like murder and stealing are immoral in most religious groups, those ideas benefit society and individual autonomy (right to life and property) and there is no real debate as consensus has been reached. However, the notion that abortion should be illegal is based on a specific religious or spiritual perspective that encompasses how women are viewed and the limits of their autonomy. Passing laws based on specific religious perspectives is the equivalent of religious tyrany. It would be like those with my belief trying to pass a law forcing everyone to have an abortion under the “right circumstances” because we believed that was the moral way to address the situation. I would think a physician would understand that taking steps to make the procedure safe yet an undesireable option is the best way to handle it from a healthcare standpoint. A physician should be disciplined enough to not let his personal religious or spiritual views jeopardize the welfare of patient care and a politician should not be favoring the religious freedom of one group over another.

  • I fully support Ron Paul. His personal opinions on gay marriage and abortion aside… He is for the Constitution,he is for returning this nation to the proud Republic that it once was. Anyone who reads state law will realize that noone is required to obtain a marriage license anyway, gay or straight. He is for the rule of law. His voting record is impeccable. He wants less big government, less taxes (no IRS actually), no Federal Reserve (which isn’t even a federal agency), less nation building (don’t we have enough to work on here in america?) and no war.
    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
    check out his homepage and decide for yourself.
    I’ve never voted for the “lesser of 2 evils” main party candidate and my family always thought i’ve wasted my vote, but if RP gets the nomination, then my vote won’t be wasted this year!

  • skizzyskizzy Raw Newbie

    you might be able to put aside gay marriage and abortion, but racism? he has said some very shocking things about people of color.

  • Screw Ron Paul. Skizzy, you got it right. He is a complete racist, homophobe, and anti-woman.Mtnflwr, If you are concerned with taking America back to a time of less government, then I would suggest you start from the place of no laws, no government and no capitalism. As far as Dennis Kucinich concerned, I really would like to believe he could/ would do all the things he promises. History however has shown me that 1) people who seem to have good intentions but also want power, screw everyone over. 2) people who really do have good intentions dont win in presidential elections, they usually get incarcerted or killed. Kucinich also supported Obama, who wants to further imperialism by bombing Iran.
    So whats the solution? Don’t vote. Vote with a brick, or if your not that type, vote by planting a tree. To those of you who already want to respond with the ever played out “if you dont vote you cant complain” argument all I can say is by continuing the charade of voting, you are the one preventing change. You keep the system and support the oppressors.

  • MeditatingMeditating Raw Newbie

    MTNFLWR - As I said I also support many of Ron Paul’s positions; however, I don’t see how it can be said he supports the Constitution when his positions make it clear that he believes it’s okay to omit protection for religious freedom, women, homosexuals and ethnic minorities. We must be referring to two different Constitutions because the one I know about doesn’t only support white, hetrosexual men. The Constitution means absolutely nothing if it lets someone choose which “deserving people” should have rights in this country.

    CIRCLEAKITCHEN - I used to think that if I didn’t vote that people would revolt as this country swung to the hard right. don’t think that is going to happen. Personally, I have no faith in this country anymore. I would like to be optimistic and think that the there is hope, but the majority (not all, but most) of Americans are without the ability to think critically and are unconcerned about the rights of people who aren’t like them or don’t agree with them. If you look closely, religious tolerance is almost gone and people here are embracing facist thought and calling it freedom. If my son lives to be 70, I believe he will probably live to see a time when this country is ruled by the Christian version of the Taliban.

  • teadeteade Raw Newbie

    I read those articles (the ones that worked) and I think Ron Paul was misunderstood in a few.
    First, think of alot of the previous presidents.. they were mostly all racist homophobes but they didn’t run the country on that. (Not saying its a good thing, but you have to think logically)
    Ron Paul doesn’t say to ban gay marriages, he says he leaves the choice with the state… so, it can go either way.
    He doesn’t say he hates races, more so as saying that the force used to integrate caused alot of chaos (maybe he could give an example of a better way to go about it?)
    ...and if people were rioting in my neighborhood, whatever color their skin was, I’d think they were animals..
    And I read somewhere that Ron Paul is against the abortion personally, but he isn’t against a women’s right to choice..

    The only thing about Ron Paul I don’t enjoy is his public schooling…
    I agree that homeschooling and private schools should be viable options, but I think that people who don’t have that kind of money should have the same options..

    But everyone has a drawback, no one can be perfect. I think there’s not alot against Ron Paul and so people take these things and throw them out of context… but meanwhile if they looked at the other options they’d probably find a lot more of the same.
    After all, I think a lot of times when you see the first lady with impovered children.. its propaganda.

    I agree, all good presidents tend to get killed.
    And I am fearful of Obama, because he does seem inexperienced.. but there’s something about a man who was raised by just his mother that says something to me.

    I think we should do away with this two party system.. its mostly a money race anyways.. and find some new way of voting

    I could be wrong, feel free to correct me, I never cover my ears to learning more.

  • MeditatingMeditating Raw Newbie

    TEADE - A strong polictical leader should be just that – a leader. I know that his position seems like a compromise, but it isn’t. Saying he will leave the rights of women and homosexual to the states means he is trying to play both ends against the middle. Bottom line is he is still saying I will not fight for the proposition that certain people are entitled to civil rights and I don’t believe our Constitution should protect them. He is really saying that these people don’t count. At best he could be doing it because he doesn’t think it will help him get elected. It shows he is a politician first and a coward second, It shows he is unwilling to lead a nation on these important social issues.

    Many of the previous presidents didn’t stand up and say I am against homosexuals. Ronald Regan didn’t run for office and say he was targeting homosexuals for abuse. Despite this, he did nothing about AIDS when it was thought it was a gay disease because it was killing all the right people. His true intentions became obvious. He was more than content to ignore their plight and allow them to die off in number. This is why it doesn’t matter if a presidential candidate avoids an issue, the end effect is always the same – one group of people get to harm and abuse another group. A true person of conscience would never allow that to happen.

    Whenever a society allows one group to be targeted for abuse, which always happens when you ignore their civil rights, you are saying that the majority can rule a minority any way they want. The problem is that one day you will be the minority and then it will be too late to do anything about it. That is something our society became aware of in the sixties and its something most of us don’t seem to understand anymore as long as we see ourselves in the current majority.

    If Ron Paul is now saing he doesn’t want his personal religious position on abortion to become law, he is a liar too. He previously proposed a federal law that would outlaw all abortions, even in the case of rape or incent. He also loosely compared women who have abortions and doctors who perform them to agents of the Nazi death squads. (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron…). Women choose to have abortions for many reasons, including to save their own lives. This insinuation is an attack on all women and proves he is unwilling to consider their personal circumstances and fails to recognize their autonomy. It reduces women to being nothing more than a vessel for male procreation and takes away their voice. This same kind of position has always been the oppressive foundation for denying women rights in Middle Eastern countries. The primary thing that has allowed women to progress in America has been the ability to control their reproduction.

    I think we need more parties. I don’t think it is feasible to say there can’t be political parties. However, the democrats and republicans have colluded together and essentially set up a system that excludes the rise of a new party. This leaves us in the hands of one party that is both spineless and worthless and another that is outright dangerous and both of them bow to the corporate interest above all else.

  • Teade – very eloquent and well put, i wish i could’ve put my own thoughts down so well. I agree with you.
    who will you vote for dain? peoples “rights” aren’t secured in the constitution, our declaration of independence makes it clear that our rights are given to us by our creator, not gov’t, and they are inalienable and that all men (and that includes women) are created equal. why wouldn’t I support a candidate who supports that? no one person is going to be the perfect fit for president and be able to please all of the people all of the time, nor will they be able to fight for everyone’s rights or keep groups from being abused by others. that is not the gov’ts job, it never has been. there are laws in place to help people protect themselves & their rights. that is what makes this an independent republic, its my job to assert my rights, not anyone elses. and though i personally may feel a moral obligation to help others assert their rights,or show them how to protect them, there is no other or legal obligation there.
    I do agree that there is a lack of critical thinking in america, but as far as being unconcerned about the rights of others, no one and no gov’t is obligated to assert anyone’s rights for them. if you choose not be educated enough to know how to utilize the law to protect your rights, then that’s a choice.
    the bottom line is that Ron Paul wants to give sovereignty back to the states and the communities within them. as it should be. i don’t think he’s running on a platform of anti-abortion, removing people’s rights, hate, or racism. as with all candidates, you need to look at everything and them make your own decision.

  • I like freedom, choices, and power to the people….that also means less taxes.

    I like Ron Paul based solely upon hearing/watching him speak.

    There is not another canidate that excites me currently as much as Paul.

    I applaud you TEADE on reading those links for yourself and forming what seems to be a fair and honest opinion.

    When I hear Paul talk…I don’t hear his voice…I hear the opportunity for US to make the choice…

  • alpdesignsalpdesigns Raw Newbie

    Ron Paul is neither a homophobe nor a racist. The stories that have come out lately were written years ago by a ghost writer for an article that was not approved by Mr. Paul. The other team is trotting them out now for spin before the primary. He has never done anything to hurt any of the people in that article. He’s against the war, illegal immigration, Codex and FOR personal freedom, whether a person shares his personal views or not. A friend of my dad is a member of a Ron Paul support group and he keeps me informed. I got my Ron Paul bumper-sticker a few days ago and it is attached to the back of my wheelchair. Paul has groups of grass-roots revolutionaries working on his behalf. He has my vote! And besiudes that, Ron Paul is a meek person who isn’t after power. He wants to set things right.

  • MunchieMunchie Raw Newbie

    Thank you for ALL your opinions and information to help me research where my presidential vote for this primary is going. I think the fact that after reading and learning about Ron Paul, I am driven to actually vote in this election speaks volumes. I will continue to listen to all and to the candidates before I cast my vote. Thanks again all!

    Sorry, I was MIA after I started this thread. I was out of town for my birthday. ;o)

  • 123, you are absolutely correct. Sorry, skizzy and others, but you are way off. Ron Paul is not homophobic or a racist. There is a lot of slander out there against him, but none of it is true if you actually do a little research.

    I don’t agree with everything he says since I’m pro-choice. But he wants to leave issues like abortion (and gay marriage) to the states. That would be ideal because some states could have those things and others not. (And before you cry about how unfair it would be if states like Mississippi made abortion illegal, realize that there are currently zero clinics in that state, so practically, they already are.)

    Ron Paul also supports home schooling, raw milk, health freedoms, and many issues that affect raw foodists.

    Watch this youtube video:

    “Raw Vegans for Ron Paul”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGabvFcll78

  • heathermarsbombheathermarsbomb Raw Newbie

    I am voting Ron Paul in 2008.

  • This may sound awful but I don’t believe the US has a democracy. After Bush became president it was made clear to me.

    My approach to politics is to take charge of my own life, to the point where I don’t need a government and hopefully become an inspiration to others in the process. What is no longer needed, fades away.

    This is why I eat raw.

  • Dain, your writing and points are excellent! I too, believe Kucinich is the best man out there and he is sincere in his promises. I know a lot of good people who are supporting Ron Paul, and he seems the lesser of some of the other evils, but he does not resonnate in my intuition as truly trustworthy and fair-minded towards all people. And that is what our world needs in a true leader if we are to change for the best.

    Plumseed I am afraid you are right, too, that America has a farce democracy now. Very scary, and all the more reason we each need to speak up and fight back to bring change.

  • TomsMomTomsMom Raw Newbie

    “Euro-American civilization ” from the article mentioned above . . . ummm, maybe I’m just too old, but I find that the sort of term in articles filled with racism and hatred. It raises flags immediately.

Sign In or Register to comment.