To All Ron Paul supporters - I am abandoning his support, here's why:

I explained why in the same post you quoted.

 

Nobody spending money does not necessarily cause deflation, and deflation does not necessarily cause less investment nor higher national debts nor less spending.

 

So TaoOfBill is unable to get specific about which Ron Paul policies would lead to the bad old days of dog-eat-dog and the rich exploiting children.

Just as I suspected...

 

Ron Paul has already come out and said the Civil Rights act was unconstitutional because businesses should be allowed to hire whoever they want. It would be inconsistent if he were not also against Child Labor laws.

 

Ron Paul has become a parody of himself, like ELVIS did in his later years, bigger side burns, more rhinestones.

Listen to Ron Paul speak long enough on just about any subject (except the FED) and he eventually mumbles and drools like an imbecile curled into a fetal position with excrement stained shorts.

It actually appears like he now has to "play the part of Ron Paul" for his cult followers. Either that or he is genuinely delusional.

 

The man who would be KING ??

I vote delusional.
I did not know he was Mormon...

 

Now you are extrapolating based on your view of consistency. Again I ask, which specific policy has Ron Paul announced that he would implement if elected are you referring to? Either he is advocating a policy that would return the country these so-called bad old days that you seem to believe in or he is not. If he is, which policy is it?

It really doesn't matter if Ron Paul says he thinks a particular law is unconstitutional since the president cannot unilaterally repeal laws. All that signifies is that he would not veto bills from congress that repeal such laws, which are unlikely to be passed even if Paul did win the presidency.

 

Antiauthoritarian,

It is a 1/2-truth to state and/or imply that the rich exploit children, with the strong implication that they are the only ones guilty of that. Historically, there is probably at least a 20 to One ratio, of those who cannot even remotely be considered "rich", exploiting children.

Just as with your disingenuous and continuous support and protection of the IslamoFascist Terrorist Swine of the MID EAST CULTS, the Shiites & the Sunnis, our avowed enemy ...... who blatantly holler that we, Americans, are the GREAT SATAN (and, Israel the Little Satan) .... you are now stating another inflammatory and eminently FALSE statement.

 

Do you even know what I was talking about? Or did you just want to throw some more BS jingo insults my way? Your rants are meaningless to me, give it up.

 

Ron Paul is smart enough to not say he is against child labor laws. (Though apparently not smart enough to not say he is against anti discrimination laws).

However it's not a far leap. In fact here is a blog from one of his supporters that came to the same conclusion.

http://www.dailypaul.com/168972/child-labor-laws-and-youth-crime

It's the EXACT same ideological reason he's against discrimination laws. Why would he have a different position for one than the other? In Ron Paul's eyes if a company is abusing their power or abusing their employees the free market will correct the situation. Why is child labor different? Are you saying because Ron Paul doesn't take the unpopular position of being anti child labor publicly that I can't make the logical step from his statements on free market policies?

 

I see how you are looking at it but I think you are wrong. To say that he's keeping some of his positions secret is to ignore all of the unpopular positions he has been talking about in public.

I don't see where you get the idea he thinks the free market would correct abuse. He's never said anything like that. I'm sure he'd agree that coercion and fraud most certainly are within the power of state and local governments to outlaw and prosecute.

Again, there's the fact that the president cannot legally repeal laws or refuse to execute them. Ron Paul, unlike the other candidates R or D, will restore rule of law. He's not going to unilaterally start repealing federal laws.

 

First of all SS is unconstitutional. Government can't (is not supposed to be able to) require me to invest into something.

Under SS, the government CAN deny my social security benefits... you have to apply to receive them.

When SS started the payer to receiver ratio was 40:1. It is now bordering on 3.5:1 and will be 2:1 in the next decade or so.

At some point SS WILL have to be fixed. There WILL NOT be enough money to pay out beneficiaries by 2027 (projected and the number keeps falling). To change this either the beneficiaries will have to take cuts or the SS deductions will have to rise from workers... or both

In the red is what makes it a ponzi scheme.

The civil rights act is unconstitutional. The government has no right to regulate private businesses.

If I own a business I should be able to do as I please. I should be able to allow people to smoke, etc.

And the point about the child labor laws is a red-herring by you. Ron Paul has never said anything about child labor laws... so until you can quote him on it, stop putting words in his mouths.