3 votes

I have been defending Paul on Facebook but

Don't know how to answer this website and issues. Help please! Any links would help also!


6 Rights You Could Lose Under President Ron Paul


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

With all due respect - this might be the most ridiculous post...

...I've ever seen here.

Talk about misconstruing the facts.

Are you sure you're not talking about Rick Santorum here???

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

States Rights

The Constitution clearly states the branches of Government, and limitations. Since when does it say the Supreme Court has the right to legislate. These rulings should have been challenged or approved by Congress immediately. The problem is when liberals are in control of all 3 branches is when you end up with all the confusion. Roe V. Wade has been ruled on 40 years ago so it is hard for Congress to reverse now.

Paul just wants to go back to the 3 separate branches so it would limit the power of the courts to legislate. There has been real bad decisions that came down from the courts that became law, because they weren't challenged by Congress.

He has also said he believes it is wrong for the President to have so much control, cost to much to micro manage from Washington. So return most power back to the State let them govern the people. That way if you don't like what your State has passed for laws you can always move to another State. You could escape the tyranny.

Ron Paul wants to be Commander In Chief which is matters of National defense. He has no passion to be a dictator like Obumer.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Tom seams to have his Head up his a$$

like most progressives normally do, when they refer to civil rights. The love the nanny state as they can't walk across the street by themselves. They need the government to provide them with big white stripes, a walk/wait sign with a timer to count if they can make it across in time. If they didn't have this guidence, they would all be standing on corner debating on where and if they could cross the street. They also believe, if the government didn't rob taxes from you wages, all those who are too lazy to work would starve to death.

Wow..of all the nanny state

Wow..of all the nanny state complaints, you chose to go with crosswalks?

You obviously don't live in a city where without crosswalks with the flashing WALK signs, pedestrican COULDN'T cross a street. It is not about people feeling they need their hand held. It is about some intersections would have people standing there for HOURS before there would be a safe gap to cross.

Ive run across this

I told them he wants to take it away from the Federal level..put it at a state level. They came back with..well its the Feds job...So my reply was...So your saying your to stupid and lazy to read about an issue, get yourself informed about it, drive to the voting booth, and cast a vote? Ok so when are you moving to a Communist country where you will no rights except what that government tells you you can have? Remember, you'll have NO CHOICE..NO VOTE..NO FREEDOM...
That shut him up..lol

I believe in Hope & Change..I Hope the government will Change
Spindale-Rutherford County-North Carolina

Walk in the park, Scott.

The man is libertarianism incarnate. On the contrary he will defend all the rights that the misguided (or filthy scum lying) author has proposed Americans would lose.

What does the consitution state? That's Dr Paul's answer and the answer ANY RP supporter can give by proxy.



You can't get clean in a dirty bathtub.

Something as ridiculous as

Something as ridiculous as this should not be hard to discredit in one fell swoop.

6 Rights You Could Lose Under President Ron Paul

By Tom Head

(Tom Head....lol)

#2. Your right to have sex.

Tom Head makes the argument that Ron Paul would prevent gay people from giving Tom head.

Ron Paul's message is quite clear. If Texans want to act like it's 1899 and so chooses to enforce sodomy laws, let them....they will suffer massive consequences just in public image alone. If Nebraska votes to outlaw abortion and make it a criminal offense, it is their right under the Constitution. If California voted to end the war on marijuana, so be it.

Ron Paul's main point is simple...follow the Constitution, let the States decide things for themselves and DON'T act like a King/dictator.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Giving Tom head..

sorry that really crack me up!

Thats easy.

A common misconception by Paul detractors is that he is for or against a bill or law.

All these are fairly easy to blow away, Paul is just saying to leave the law or whatever up to the states, not the federal government.

Lets reverse a law so you can throw it back at them. Paul thinks there should be no Federal Drug laws, leave them up to the states, but Paul himself does not do drugs and does not approve of anybody doing drugs as he is a doctor and says they are not good for you, but you have a right to do drugs as long as its legal in your state.

All these topics that your article links to have one thing in common, not allowing the FEDERAL law to tell you what to do, and allowing the states to decide.

Paul has not said if he personally believes in any of the issues mentioned.

lmao.... that guy is an

lmao.... that guy is an idiot.. tom head.. one of the biggest morons walking the face of the earth.


You cannot defend this sites positions?

These are misrepresentations.

Jut because something is left on the states influence does not mean it would be gone.

How about Abortion is an act of violence towards the child. All crimes should be handled by the states. The act mentioned would take the fed court and fed govt out of regulating this violent crime.

The guy that calls the patriot act for what it is, and wants to end the fed war on drugs; that is the guy after your privacy all right...

Just ask how the Fed Govt managing everything in our life has worked so far?

Liberty = Responsibility

I have mostly been saying

that Paul doesn't believe that the Government should be involved at all in the bedroom. Also that its up to the states to decide these issues if they want.

It is this article that I guess I am trying to answer to the most at this point.



Regulation and restrictions cost money to legislate and enforce. The Feds have no money so it makes sense to pass this on to the States. If the States don't have the budget to regulate, legislate and enforce, they would have to strike it down.

If they did have the Budget and decide to legislate, people could move from the State freely to avoid the bureaucracy

Preparation through education is less costly than learning through tragedy

And then

And then because of the people leaving, less taxes are collected and they then dont have the money to Police the Law, and they would then have to strike it down also.

Exactly Oz

...Same as the free markets...you screw with the customer (or in this case the electorate)or don't give them what they want , you pay the price.

Preparation through education is less costly than learning through tragedy