Neither.<br />
I find him sort of coo coo kachoo.

Best Answer

he's nuts,please explain

Best Answer

First, he's pouring millions into a campaign that there is no way he's going to win. His radical beliefs about the military. His radical beliefs about most everything. Even the way he delivers his speeches...darting from one subject to another, and with the breathiness of a six year old boy. I do not understand how he's gotten as far as he had. The idea of that guy as leader of the U.S. scares me.

Best Answer

so you beleave that we should police the world with our military??? And how exactly do you think that we can afford that??? You do realize that our dollar is basically worthless rite now rite???
Everything he says is common sense,put the choices in the hands of the people (like it's supposed to be) stop this gross overspending and monitor our governments use of funds.Bring home our troops and use that money to fix our economy.... these sound like radical and crazy ideas to you???

Best Answer

I never vote conservative anyway, but I do have to wonder if he's a racist. There are documented sound bites over the years where he's made comments about most blacks being criminals. He's said he doesn't think the Civil Rights Act and integration were in the nation's best interests. He also allegedly received money and support from Stormfront (a white supremacist group); refused to return the money. May be smoke, but who knows ?

Best Answer

"He's said he doesn't think the Civil Rights Act and integration were in the nation's best interests"
He was talking about the act as a whole...abolishing segregation was only one of the things that the civil rites act did.On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.
this is the speech everyone is talking about
"Ron Paul: Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676."

Best Answer

Affirmative action was about righting a 200+ year injustice. It was the alternative to reparations and that "40 acres and a mule" during Reconstruction that never came to pass (btw, Ron Paul feels that the abolition of slavery wasn't worth the Civil War). Anyway, it wasn't only about a "colourblind society", but trying to give a group legally disenfranchised---no other race in this country has ever been classified as "3/5ths of a human being"---compensation for OVER 200 years of uncompensated labour. Native American tribes, and after WWII, Japanese Americans have received some compensation for the wrongs done to them, so there has a precedent for this. Affirmative action was diluted by being extended to both other racial minorities AND white women. (Statistically, it has to date benefitted white women the most, you can google the numbers). Yet people keep seeing the face of affirmative action as a black one, due to their misconception of the facts. Things can't be equal, and they are becoming less so because of the pushback from people like your candidate, who still basically think white males are by right entitled to the whole pie, and their followers who blindly support them without understanding ALL that came before.

Best Answer

firstly The civil war was fought over secession, not over slavery any serious student could tell you that,When Lincoln assumed office, he was entirely willing to allow slavery to continue. Lincoln even supported a constitutional amendment that would have given additional legal protection to slavery. When Lincoln issued his famous Emancipation Proclamation about two years later, he did so largely because he was under intense pressure from abolitionist Republicans in Congress, who were threatening to cut off funds from the army if Lincoln didn't issue some kind of emancipation statement.One only has to read the Emancipation Proclamation itself to see that it was a war measure that only applied to slaves who were in Confederate territory; it did not apply to any slaves who were in Union-controlled territory, not even to slaves who were in the four Union slave states........I will have to come back to this my children's nurse is here be back in a few hours to finish this thought.

Best Answer

as far as reparation to people who have been wronged by the government I truly agree ,I am Osage Indian/Black Dutch/white but I was raised Osage,my father gets a monthly check from the government "reparations" but it's not what you think it is.
Here is the problem, the native americans entered into hundreds of thousands of contracts with the americans government. To this date the american government has never fulled or upheld one of those contracts, ever. Even current contracts are openly dismissed by the current american government.
If the american government broken one contract with any american company, the universe would crack open and all hell would spill forward.
Once again, all americans are not equal.
If you are a whole company, you are more important then a white male. If you are a white man you are more important then a minority male. If you are a minority male you are more important then a white female. If you are a white female you are more important then a minority female.
Once the government strips a liberty from a group of people, you can never, ever expect it back.
So to answer your question, yes they should upheld the contracts they signed. But the history with the native americans had their liberties ******** away to the point where they will never get anything out the government.

Best Answer

we seen to share allot of the same views I only wish I could say this all in a way that would make you see him the same way that I and other Ron Paul supporters see him. Yeah he's a little goofy looking and he is very passionate about our freedoms and the Constitution but he only wants America to be what it's supposed to be.I honestly think that we need him because as it stands I am scared to think of what sort of America we will be leaving our kids,we need him.

Best Answer

A.) Never claimed the Civil War was fought over slavery, just telling you one of the things YOUR candidate is documented as having said. B) I have some Choctaw ancestry; you may or may not be aware some tribes forfeit the amount of compensation they receive by having too many black members. Nonetheless, the government has at least acknowledged wrongdoing by attempting to pay SOMETHING. A national apology for slavery was given in June 2009, and it was like pulling teeth. It's been said that true reparations would bankrupt the country, but even a small gesture like Affirmative Action was considered too much by people like your candidate. Slavery shouldn't even have been possible or thinkable in a country founded on "freedom", and they weren't even willing to APOLOGISE, until there was finally a black president. C.) I don't understand how a person of colour can be or vote conservative, so I can't imagine what views we could have in common. Respectfully---bijoux

Best Answer
3 More Responses

i like him because a lot of what he says makes sense. on the other hand i don't like him because you can't let anyone do whatever they want without any kind of regulations. can you imagine, the pharmaceutical companies having their own FDA.

Best Answer

There are things about him that I like, but he is a total maniac with a really stupid irrational belief.

Best Answer

irrational belief .... explain

Best Answer

He has the irrational belief that any problem that society could face will be fixed by a free market.

Best Answer

He reminds me of Orville Redenbacher without glasses and I love popcorn. I could vote for popcorn with extra butter.

Best Answer

pop corn is delicious

Best Answer

New Hampshire is primarily small business owners and no large employers to speak of I think he will do well there on the economy issues. I don't think Romney has as much likability as the media thinks. Paul appears to have a great appeal from democrats looking to cross over here in Texas.

Best Answer

HATE HIM DUDE IS A RACIST

Best Answer

explain,if you must call someone a racist you owe an explanation why you think that.

Best Answer

Is he? That's not nice.

Best Answer

he's not but I cant wait to hear this explanation

Best Answer

(waiting)

Best Answer

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.” “There is no such thing as a hate crime.”---Ron Paul

Best Answer

he's not talking about bringing back segregation hes talking about it being unconstitutional to make private business owners hire a minority with less experience and less qualifications over more qualified candidates simply because of race...I notice that fox is really playing up this Racist propaganda,there counting on the averaged american having limited understanding of all that went into Civil Rites act...yes if you think that all the civil rites act did was abolish segregation then I could see why you would think he was a racist...
As a minority I support Ron Paul and KNOW he's not a racist

Best Answer

feel free to read the rest of that debate to fully understand what is being said

Best Answer

thank u and that kind of thinking should not be allowed to govern our nation :)

Best Answer

it was answered

Best Answer

Betty, you already addressed my question about his opinion on segregation, I'm not going to agree, I'm a liberal and proudly support affirmative action. The quotes attributed to him are the issue here and about them you've said nothing. Reread them, and see if YOU understand what is being said, and implied by your candidate.

Best Answer
7 More Responses

I loved him.. but I fell for it. I'm soo stupid.. they had me right where they wanted me.. right in the palm of their hands. :( <br />
<br />
Just another puppet for the Illuminati. :(

Best Answer

lol ahhhhh

Best Answer

yea. laugh it up.. look it up yourself. go ahead. I hope I'm wrong.

Best Answer

where did you get this info??? I have to see this....you have heard the term misinformation have you not?

Best Answer

yes I have.. that's why I look things up.

Best Answer
1 More Response

I do not like Ron Paul because he would not let Bruno seduce him.

Best Answer

lol. that was classic.

Best Answer

Paul is not attracted to Bruno....but this dose not mean they cant be friends

Best Answer

Related Questions