[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I don't think that Ron Paul is a candidate who really is all that interested in the Constitution. I have noticed that he tries to hide his racism by using the Constitution as the basis for his ideas.

The man opposes federal hate crime laws because he feels they infringe on someone having "thoughts." How much sense does that make? Hate crime laws don't make it a crime to have "thoughts." Hate crime laws make it a crime to ACT on those thoughts.

I see where you are coming from on this, and on the surface I would agree with you. The problem is, that there is too much opportunity for the government to abuse this to serve their own selfish ends and incite propaganda to the public through needless fearmongering. Hate crime laws do make it crime to act on initial thoughts. The problem is, all too often, the government intervenes when it appears that someone MIGHT perpetrate a hate crime based on some random frivolous detail, thus making it a crime to think such thoughts.

It is for this reason, I am against the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and TSA, because they promote and perpetuate this very same line of reasoning, except it's under the guise of "the boogey man" is out to get us that they conveniently label as "terrorism", be it through Bin Laden, Al Queda, or some other elusive monster the government tries to brainwash us to fear.

He also opposed making MLK day a holiday. That was not something written by a ghostwriter.

You are correct on this point, he is indeed again making MLK day a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RECOGNIZED holiday. Now he is not against the state or local government recogizing MLK as a holiday.

He is against affirmative action as well. Not a good thing because too many people fail to realize that there is a reason affirmative action was needed in the first place.

He opposed the celebration of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, being the only one in Congress to do so. Again, that was not something written by a ghostwriter. It came from his own mouth, along with the words "forced integration." In this instance he once again tried to hide his racism by saying that he was against celebrating it because it forced integration and essentially did not allow people to make decisions for themselves. It could be argued that the man is terribly naive, but the fact remains that he opposed celebrating it. Why would he do so?

That is also correct, because again, that put the federal government in charge of us, instead of us in charge of the federal government. Now if affirmative action was legislated on a state by state basis, he would definately be okay with that.

We put too much on the federal government to legislate what should be legislated at the state, county, and local levels, and it is for this reason that our nation is in the fouled up state of affairs that it is in. We need to stop relying on the federal government to baby us, breastfeed us, and hold our hands from cradle to grave and learn how to be self-sufficient while co-existing in a free market economy.

The Civil Rights Act may ultimately prove to be a moot point, as our civil LIBERTIES are slowly being taken away through all these government-sanctioned Executive Orders and rogue lawmaking "acts". So why argue about someone voting against federally-mandated civil rights acts when the federal government as a whole are making subsequent laws that ultimately takes your civil rights away? That makes no sense.

And please explain how Obama supports tyranny and fascism? That's a new one on me. I don't think the majority of Americans would support him if that really happened to be the case.

This issue is a thread in itself, but to say the least, he voted for the Patriot Act, one the most radical series of laws that ultimately serve to strip you of your civil rights and civil liberties, and makes you a slave to the federal government. The Hurricane Katrina fiasco served as a testament to that (and a dry run of what we can expect from the federal government in the future). Obama also voted for the war in Iraq and will most likely keep the war continuing. I have heard NOTHING about him planning to bring the troops home.

Finally, while you criticize voters who use their head instead of their heart, many times going by your heart will get you in trouble. It is far more wise to really use your head in making such a decision. That means you are actually thinking about the issues and what the candidates are saying.

Oh, I agressively weigh the candidates' stance on the issues to my personal belief system. I am just not using factors such as probability of being elected and the school of popular opinion, and how well they can wow and audience, and all that other superficial nonsense.

Good post.