Hallack,
Well, I'm not really trying to debate the issues per se, only showing what Ron Paul has supported in the past. I've produced the actual bills that he supported to prove what he says. I'm not dealing in conjecture, I'm dealing in facts.
#1 Affirmative action was actually not legislated, if we're dealing in facts, it was an executive order that pertains only to federal contractors and its subcontractors.
Indeed, the points systems colleges used as admission criteria that is often pointed at by conservatives as an evil of affirmative action was ruled unconstitutional in "Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 US 306 - Supreme Court 2003".
The only "legislation" we have is the civil rights act of 1964, which actually just "prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[32])". It prohibits, it doesn't force an employer to hire anyone. Really, we don't have affirmative action in the private sector(including private schools) beyond that which has been self-imposed, and even that is on shaky ground constitutionally. As far as the affirmative action in government contractors goes, it was originally put into place to combat institutional racism and disparate impact in employment practices(which are still widespread).
It is important for members of a majority to ensure a diverse government more than anywhere else because we must maintain a diverse government when dealing with a diverse populace, in order to ensure that the rights given by said government are applied as equally as possible. YOU may not agree with my reason as to why it is important in government, but the fact is Ron Paul would remove it, and it is a position that is terrible and I personally can't support it.
the problem with private school segregation is that Ron Paul would do away with the public school system altogether, and private schools would be all thats left.
As to the bills, protecting parental rights is not as important as ensuring that we don't step backwards into an era where discrimination is sanctioned by government entities, be it at the state or federal level. Currently Parents now are free to home-school or put thier children into private schools that can freely discriminate as you suggest. But under Ron Paul, parents wouldn't have the option to send to a public school that doesnt' discriminate.
And unless you are a full blooded native american, your an anchor baby too.
#2 Roe v Wade is important, not only in the service of abortion, but also in that the government can not tell a person what to do with thier bodies. It is a libertarian ruling as much as it is a pro-choice ruling. It is also precicely the kind of issue the courts were meant to decide. To introduce legislation that would overturn it, would open the door to the government making other medical decisions for you. such as forcing doctors to treat you to save your life even if you don't want the treatment. its the same argument, "but we're saving a life?!?!". Beyond the liberty problems, if Ron Paul supports allowing even one state to outlaw abortion he is at least tacitly supporting a part of the government telling a woman what to go do with her body. And that is not right and it is certainly not in the interest of liberty. I agree there is inconsistency in the law, but that doesn't mean you strip away the right to choose that women have had for 40 years, you fix the inconsistencies, without trampling peoples rights.
#3 your article off clearly a conservative propaganda site, doesn't persuade me that your argument has any basis in fact. I'd rather look at peer reviewed studies, than just some BS about "economic logic" that some guy pulled out his ass. Here I can link sites too, except my article talks about peer reviewed studies on the impact of the minimum wage by major universities, not just made up conjecture:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/06/higher_minimum_wage.htmlGetting rid of OSHA is a great idea if you want to go back to the good old days of "the Jungle" where people daily lost thier lives in the meatpacking industry and the companies gave two shits.
as to your #4, the estate tax is lower than it has ever been, down from 50% to 35% at the top income levels. So you can leave 65% of your fortune to your beneficiaries, but most wealthy gift away alot of thier wealth through trusts tax free. and as to the 35% to the goverment? consider it a tax on being lucky enough to be born in a country where you can make that kind of fortune. I don't have much sympathy for wealthy children, who are only going to get 65% of 10 million dollars, they'll be fine. when I die I'm not leaving my children enough money to where they can just screw off the rest of thier lives they'll need to work and contribute something to society even if I had 40 billion dollars I wouldn't give them that much.
As to the rest of your argument you didn't really put up any proof of anything being misrepresented. you didn't quote any opposing resolutions, or put up any CRedible articles that anyone could believe. I challenge you to PROVE your points next time, don't just ramble on and say something is bullshit with no back up.
