Hey guys, I'm new here. My name is Brieanna, I'm 17 (18 in June), and I'm from PA. Anyway, enough with the introduction! I wanted to see what fellow Ron Paul supporters had to say about my response to this post in musicsexual's journal about Ron Paul.
My response is under the cut. The questions in her post are bolded in mine :)

I honestly don't know where you got half of what you said.. so I'm going to deal with your statements one by one.

because he wants to deny amnesty to every one of the immigrants in the country and voted for the ridiculous US/Mexico fence?
No, actually he has no problem with legal immigrants. He wants to deny amnesty to illegal immigrants. He also doesn't want birthright citizenship. And please, explain to me how a fence between the US and Mexico is so "ridiculous"? Let me tell you a few things.
In Jan. 2000, CIS said that there's approximately 7 million illegal immigrants in the US. It grows by about a half million per year, so it's probably about 10.5 million by the end of 2007. In less than 50 years, the population of the US is expected to increase from 288 million to more than 400 million due to immigration alone. That being said, there's been over $42 million wired to the Mexico since January 2006 alone. The cost of social services for illegal immigrants since 1996 is over $397 million. There's about.. 351,000 illegal immigrants in our prisons, causing us to pay over $1 billion to incarcerate them, only since 2001. And over 10 million skilled jobs have been taken from LEGAL AMERICANS by illegal immigrants. If you think I'm bullshitting, please.. go look these facts up. One of the main places to find them is the CIS website.
So, you're telling me that with all the money and resources we're spending on illegal immigrants that a fence isn't a good idea? Right. I have no problem with legal immigrants. None at all. Get your green card and come here and work and pay taxes and live as an American, since that's what you want to be so badly. Otherwise, don't come here.

because he wants to do away with most of the cabinet and give the role of all the positions to the President, instead of enabling them to go to those who, in their specialization, might be just a little more knowledgeable in and have the opportunity to really give all their attention to their issue, rather than someone who has to focus on all of them as well as his/her other presidential duties?
Have you ever taken a government course? He wants to decrease the size of government in order to be able to lower taxes. Although he wants the size to decrease, it would still be much within Constitutional limitations. Do you know how far the US is in debt? Nine TRILLION dollars. Do you know how damaging to our economy and economical growth that is? It's all a part of fiscal/monetary policies, and low taxes/low spending in order to obtain a balanced budget with less debt. You do realize that if the economy keeps going the way it's going right now, that our money will be worthless, right? Oh, and maybe the fact that foreign banks are increasingly funding our spending, which puts us more at the mercy of their governments. You're forgetting that he wants to take away taxes on tips made by waitresses, etc.
Are we forgetting that Ron Paul is NOT the only person who wants (or wanted) to downsize the federal government? Bill Clinton announced in '93 that federal government would be downsized. In 1993, the government numbered approximately 2,999,000. In 1998, it was around 2,765,000. And yes, it was because of Clinton. Citizens AND people in goverment frequently pressure for downsizing of the federal government, if you hadn't known. And it happens to make your government work more efficiently.

because he wants to do away with income tax and instead take the same amount from both millionaires and the poor by taxing - among other things - food, and the petroleum used for heating systems?
Yes, he wants to do away with the income tax, but I'm not finding where it said he wants to tax food and petroleum. You may want to check out this. It goes much farther into depth about where he stands on tax reform (with all the separate parts of it explained) than I care to write here.

because he thinks the country is honestly waging a war against Christians? and doesn't believe in evolution?
He's religious, yes. And he's a very devout Christian, personally. But you can also obviously see that he wouldn't allow his personal beliefs to become entangled with life, liberty, and freedom. He's ALWAYS voted on what was laid out in the Constitution. Having proven this, you need to think about the fact that he's a Libertarian (he is only running as a Republican), which would mean that he agrees the country should be run how the Constitution and our forefathers intended. Therefore, he'd leave these choices up to the states. That's what is required by the Constitution. It doesn't mean he doesn't support freedom and religion; it only signals that he's got morals and values. Good values and morals should always be taken in a positive way, no? Also, remember that he doesn't believe in religion of the state.
So, since you're bringing up religion, what do you think about the fact that Obama is a devout Muslim?

because every decision he makes is based on whether or not something is constitutional, not whether or not it's necessary for today's society? Rousseau would be ashamed.
Do you realize that Constitutional decisions are used and applied every day? Supreme Court decisions are one example. That's part of being a Libertarian, you know. You believe that the country should be run how it was intended to be run, going by the Constitution.

because, on top of being a second amendment supporter for hunting purposes, he thinks civilians should be able to purchase, own, and use machine guns and other auto- and semi-automatic weapons, and carry concealed firearms in public?
Ahh, the right to bear arms. I love this topic. First off, if I have a clean record (which is required for firearms permits) and am a responsible citizen of legal age (18 to own a rifle, 21 for a handgun), should I not be able to own them? Should I not be able to protect myself, my home, and my family if anything were ever to happen? You're telling me that I shouldn't be able to have it to ensure MY OWN SAFETY? That's ridiculous. Paul has also introduced quite a few bills to protect you. Yes, wow. Ron Paul cares about your safety. Crazy, right? If you really are curious:
HR 1897 - Ends a ban on carrying firearms in National Parks. Remember, only competent citizens would be able to carry.
HR 3305 - Allows pilots and certain law enforcement personnel to carry firearms to protect airline passengers
HR 2640 - Allows psychiatrists, chosed by the government, to disallow US veterans who are experiencing even very small amounts of PTSS from owning a gun. Ever.
Like I said.. why shouldn't a competent citizen with no previous run-ins with the law be able to have a gun to protect themselves?

because he blames school shootings on the prohibition of self-defense weapons, not on the easy access the shooters had to the weapons they used to kill their victims?
I'm going to agree with you on this part. While I like the fact that Ron Paul is for the Second Amendment, I don't believe people should have guns (other than law enforcement officers, obviously) in places like schools, courthouses, etc.

because he wants to give bottom-rung judges the right to judge the constitutionality of a law as well as the facts of a case? and take away their rights to keep control of their courtroom, like instructing a jury to strike an out-of-order comment from the record or call for order?
Do you really need an example of why this works? Check out the Lawrence case. The Supreme Court decided that the state of Texas has no right to choose their own limits or standards for private sexual conduct. Why? Because the Supreme Court "interpreted" the 14th Amendment. The Constitution DOES NOT let the federal government overturn these laws. The thing is, the 10th Amendment gives Texas the authority to pass any law regarding social matters, up to par with their local standards, free of government intereference. This also affects the same-sex marriage argument. A lot of people are scared that the Supreme Court might decide that each state's laws which define the term "marriage" violate the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution.
As for the taking away their rights part, again.. I can't find ANYTHING that says that. I've googled several times to see if I could find things that you stated that I've never heard about. And, to no surprise, I can't seem to.

because he wants to do away with affirmative action, while the race-vs-class relationship is still drastic?
Affirmative action isn't only about race. It also affects females. So tell me something.. you probably believe that a scholarship for only Blacks or only Hispanics is okay, right? What about a scholarship for only Whites? You probably think that's racist, don't you? Why isn't there an NAAWP (National Association for the Advancement of White People)? You might argue that we're "advanced" enough, but I see tons of successful minorities around me. Hell, look at Obama. You can't even tell me that the race thing is a huge issues anymore, because IT'S NOT. There's certain instances where it may be, but guess what! You can take that to court if you think someone discriminated against you and, odds are, you're going to win. You would think that I'm for affirmative action, being a girl and all, because it's supposed to positively impact me. Guess what? I'm not. All affirmative action is, is an unfair advantage given out by the government based on minority status.
You show me a woman who can do the same amount of manual labor in the same time as a man and I'll tell you they deserve equal pay and equal opportunity at the same job. If it's not deserved, you shouldn't get it. You WORK for what you want. You go to school. You get educated. You keep yourself from doing wrong (raping, stealing, killing, drugs, etc) and advance your life.
Don't even start on the, "But a lot of minorities come from ghettos and they're at a disadvantage!" because guess what, honey? I came from a less than desirable area, too. Am I committing crimes, or not going to school, or claiming that I need an unfair advantage to get ahead? Nope. I don't think I deserve anything that affirmative action gives out. I know a lot of minorities who think the same.

because, as an obstetrician, he introduced the act stating that life begins at conception?
I'm not an obstetrician and I don't believe in abortion, except in cases where it's dangerous to the mother/child to have the baby. I'm pro-life, and yes, I believe that life begins at contraception. Something having arms and legs doesn't make it "life". It makes it DEVELOPED. Many other life forms don't have arms/legs/a head/etc, and they're still considered living, are they not?
If you're too goddamn irresponsible, maybe you shouldn't be having sex so you don't get pregnant. There's free clinics in or close to nearly every town in the US (I live in a small town and there's one about 5 minutes away). You can get FREE supplies there, if you're not under insurance and you just can't afford it. They won't turn you away, and the quality of care is nothing less than you'd receive at somewhere that you pay for it.

because he "understands the fear Americans have" of same-sex marriage?
You are so wrong about this it's funny. If you'd actually read anything about where he stands on this, you'd know that he said, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want." Also, the act he supported was the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed under BILL CLINTON. This act allows states to decide. Don't you think this is better than having a president who decides he doesn't want same-sex marriage, so it gets established for the entire US? He doesn't want to interefere in it; just leave it the way it is. In an ideal situation, government would enforce contracts and grant divorces. Other than that, they'd have no say whatesoever in marriage.
He did introduce the We The People Act, which takes jursidiction away from federal courts to decide any case based on the right of privacy. This obviously includes any case related to sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction. This makes me laugh. You're complaining about the fact that he doesn't want to get the federal government involved regarding same-sex issues, and let the states decide (which is what's going on RIGHT NOW), yet you also complain about him being a Christian, acting like his religious views are going to get in the way. Obviously they're not, seeing as how he'd be totally against gay marriage if he let them.

or, better yet, because he feels individual states should once again be able to pass sodomy laws if they so choose?
So you're saying that states shouldn't be able to decide what's legal or illegal in their state? Okay, I'll remember that next time anything about weapons laws come up. A different issue, yes; but the fact that these types of laws are regulated on a state-by-state basis is what makes them the same.
Say one state let you have.. oh, I don't know, brass knuckles and longer-than-palm knives. If you're so adamant about guns, which is just another issue of protection, do you think that citizens from said state should be allowed to bring these weapons into your state if it's illegal?

because, while he opposes universal health care, he supports the government's involvement in...various forms of universal health care? I still can't figure out what the hell is going through his mind here.
Um, what? He opposes universal/socialized health care, which would obviously be a system as they have in Canada. This type of system produces long wait times, with less choice and quality. Any person knows that you can't have extremely long waiting times in medicine; it's NOT practical and the people need medical attention more quickly. Ron Paul wants to give doctors the freedom to privately negotiate with insurance companies, destroy federal regulations which drive small businesses away from providing health coverage (small business employees need care too, right?), make every citizen eligible for an HSA (health savings account) and take away the high-deductible insurance policy requirement, make all medical expenses tax deductible, and change license requirements in order to let certain pharmacists and nurses perform some functions which would give citizens easier access and lower costs.

because he STILL speaks out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which outlawed racial, gender, religious, or ethnic discrimination in public areas, such as parks, schools, etc, as well as the workplace and various other private places)?
Here, this is exactly what he said about it:
It "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."
Oh, so.. it's okay for an employer to NOT hire me if I'm White and more qualified than a minority? Because THAT'S not based on race or anything. You need to stop contradicting yourself. You want affirmative action and racial equality, but it's okay for someone to hire a minority only because they're a minority, even if there's a more qualified person who doesn't happen to be a minority? Right. Realize what you're saying.

because, despite the ridiculously frequent instances of corruption that caused the seventeenth amendment, he thinks it should be repealed and regular citizens should be denied the role of electing their own Senators?
Okay, this one's pretty easy.
1. Let state legislatures vote for US Senators (this is CONSTITUTIONAL - see Article 1, Section 3)
2. Direct popular representation is maintained in the House of Representatives
3. Increased representation of States' interests at a federal level = greater balance of state/federal power and more state participation in federal government serves as a check against a too-powerful federal government
If you're going to argue corruption, look at other countries where too-powerful governments turned into dictators, and what presidents who may have had a little too much power or control over the federal government have done.

because he thinks private industry should be able to contribute as much money to political candidates as they would like to, despite, once again, the numerous instances of corruption that occurred before this practice was done away with?
Citizens would also be able to contribute as much as they want. And it's actually only to CAMPAIGNS, not at any other time. So, what's the problem with a rich person contributing a good chunk of money to their favorite candidate? There have been issues where contributions have caused corruption, but this is what the system of checks and balances was established for. If you think there's not corruption in your government now, you're naïve. The reduction of the size of government would also help with the "corruption" issue you're talking about. Look at how much money Romney, Obama, and Clinton have raised from private firms. Are you going to complain about that, too?


Any discussion or opinions, or even replies to her post, would be awesome. Thanks guys :)