Ron Paul has never voted to award the Congressional gold medal to anyone, so its not like Rosa Parks was singled out.  He is rather indiscriminate with this policy.  He doesn't consider the gold medal a legitimate government expense.

Well, except for the racist part, this is true, but for good reasons:

FDA:  FDA regulations prevent new drugs and medical devices from entering the market for years at a time, and at costs in the hundreds of millions.  In the case of drugs or medical devices needed to treat life threatening conditions, many people with life threatening conditions have died waiting for their treatment to receive FDA approval.  The regulations also act as a market entry barrier discourages new competitors from entering the market.  The high complaince cost and lack of competition are partly to blame for the astronomical cost of drugs and healthcare coverage.  And to add insult to injury, many drugs with harmful effects still make it to market despite all these sacrifices made to ensure there safety.

The reason drugs undergo such incredibly strict testing is because they often create massive side effects in certain people, and they have to test it against every combination of features they can think of to make sure they aren't killing people. It's not like a video game where you can release a buggy version and then fix it up as people discover errors; lots and lots of people can die if they miss something, either through insufficient testing or plain old negligence. Don't say "lots of harmful drugs" make it to the market, because LOTS more would make it to the market without them, and lots more people would be dead.

It is possible that through a combination of voluntary complaince measures, consumer information services, liability, and market competition that drug safety could still be ensured but without the huge cost, delays in life saving treatments and other problems that the FDA causes.

Hahaha, yeah right, voluntary compliance measures. Because big corporations are well known for their adherence to anything voluntary that costs them money, right? Market competition isn't going to magically solve the issue of dangerous drugs entering the market and neither is liability; when you can afford to hire fifty of the best lawyers in the world against some poor schlub who hired Joe Lawstudent to defend him you can afford to pretty much crush every lawsuit that comes you way. And the US legal system doesn't need more lawsuits being thrown around, as it is already crippled by them. The FDA does a pretty good job of keeping the things we (you) eat and the pill we (you) need safe. You live in a dreamworld if you think handing over the reigns to the free market is going to safe lives.

IRS:  Ron Paul wants to reduce the size and scale of the government to the point were Federal Income taxes are no longer necessary to maintain it.  Once this occurs, the IRS can go.

Income taxes pay for schools and roads and all that wonderful stuff in addition to government salaries. Once again, he is assuming the free market will step in to pay for all the things that income tax is paying for now; privately owned/subsidized schools and roads and God knows what else.

Healthcare:  While there has been a push of place the Federal government in control of funding healthcare, many of us would like to see the Federal government out of healthcare.  If anything, the Federal government has proven itself completely incompetent in matters of financing, wallowing in debt and unable to properly fund all of its current responsibilites.  That last thing we need is something as critical as our health dependent on the government's ability to properly finance its obligations.  Furthermore, one of the key problems with our health care system is rising health care cost.  A universal payer system will create a buffer in which our tax money is first pooled together for all Federal expenses and then distributed back to the health care system, which will effectively hide the cost from the taxpayer(especially because it is likely to be covered with borrowed money) but has no guarantee in actually reducing the cost or fixing the problem.

You obviously have no understand of how universal healthcare works. If a forty year old man with three kids has a heart attack and doesn't have health insurance at his workplace, he is fucked, because he can't possibly afford to pay for the treatment. However, if everyone else in the country donates 3 cents, he is fine. Is this forcing people to pay extra money? No, the money already exists, and everyone can use it under a universal healthcare system. The US has more than enough money in its healthcare budget to pay for universal healthcare, and it is the fault of (primarily) independent insurance companies that such high costs for hospital care exist. Universal healthcare isn't for Jack Middleclass who has healthcare through his work and private health insurance at home, it is for the hundred million or so Americans who can't afford it/aren't offered it. I am in favour of a reform in terms of how healthcare money is handled, but abolishing it and cockblocking the idea is just insane, and shows that you have no interest in protecting the welfare of a quarter of the population of the US.

Rather, what we should do is put health care money back in the hands of individual people.  Right now, the money used to pay for health care is twice removed from their control.  There health care is payed for by their insurance company, which is in turn payed for by their employer, by money would otherwise be received by and under direct  control of the individual.  The status quo is maintained because of tax benefits that can only be obtained through employer health coverage and the fact that many employers of forced to provide HMO coverage thansk to Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973.  Note that there has been a steady rise in health care prices since the passage of the HMO Act and the establishment of our current healthcare structure, so changing these circumstance might actually result in lower health care cost.  Ways to circumvent this situation include providing the same tax benefits to employes who personally pay for their health care and the establishment of Health Savings Accounts as an alternative to HMOs.

Again, this is just not a viable option for a huge number of Americans. "Twice removed from their control"? Give me a break. Individual people OFTEN cannot afford to pay the huge medical bills a simple accident can cause, and many insurance plans are setup entirely to screw people out of their money while not actually providing any benefits to people who do not fall exactly into their contract's conditions. What the government needs to do is crack the fuck down on health insurance providers instead of repeatedly turning a blind eye or even outright supporting them (as is the case with Kaiser Permanente).

Racism:  Ron Paul is not a racist as far as I know.  He is construed to be a racist by some by taking individual events or positions well out of context.

I don't really think he is a racist; I think he just hates everyone equally.

Do you not have any social conscience? Do you not have any love for your country? If so, how can you vote for someone who wants to return the US to the way it was in 1780, complete with laissez faire government that doesn't give a shit about its people? The free market exists to make the rich richer off the backs of the poor while the middle class stays more or less the same. While you can argue its strong points in terms of economics, when applied to politics it completely falls apart. When the founding fathers were writing the constitution, they should have added something about the separate of corporation and state next to the bit about the separation of church and state (not that anyone pays attention to that anymore, but whatever).

Also, remind me to never write a post this long ever again.

Links from the last topic on Ron Paul (including racism, etc).

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll764.xml

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/5/193414/2787

But i guess since he wants to get rid of the patriot act and get us out of iraq (hint: Obama and the awful hilary clinton want to as well and aren't fucking crazy...)

Actually, I seem to remember Obama is pro-patriot act. You can correct me if I'm wrong though.

The reason drugs undergo such incredibly strict testing is because they often create massive side effects in certain people, and they have to test it against every combination of features they can think of to make sure they aren't killing people. It's not like a video game where you can release a buggy version and then fix it up as people discover errors; lots and lots of people can die if they miss something, either through insufficient testing or plain old negligence. Don't say "lots of harmful drugs" make it to the market, because LOTS more would make it to the market without them, and lots more people would be dead.

Obviously the reason why drugs undergo testing is to protect the consumer.  However, there are multiple was to go about drug testing and quality control, and you do not necessarily need the incredibly complicated and expensive FDA oversite to achieve these goals.   Instead, other means such as those a previously mentioned can be employed.

Hahaha, yeah right, voluntary compliance measures. Because big corporations are well known for their adherence to anything voluntary that costs them money, right? Market competition isn't going to magically solve the issue of dangerous drugs entering the market and neither is liability; when you can afford to hire fifty of the best lawyers in the world against some poor schlub who hired Joe Lawstudent to defend him you can afford to pretty much crush every lawsuit that comes you way. And the US legal system doesn't need more lawsuits being thrown around, as it is already crippled by them. The FDA does a pretty good job of keeping the things we (you) eat and the pill we (you) need safe. You live in a dreamworld if you think handing over the reigns to the free market is going to safe lives.

Actually voluntary measures can be quite effective.  For instance, the safety of electrical appliances and non-portable electronics is acheived through compliance with Underwrite Laboratories standards.  The organization is private and businesses adhere to its standards of there own free will.  And yet, safety issues with electrical appliances and electronics are minimal.  In fact, just about any consumer or industrial product on the market is fairly safe, regardless of the level of federal regulation and oversite.  The FDA is doing, in effect, what the market does automatically, only at greater cost and with huge delays at bringing critical medicines and medical devices to the market.

As far as the legal system is concerned, handling cases is rather expensive, but that seems to be a problem central to how the civil legal system operates, not the fact that it occasionally has to deal with consumer safety cases.  Also, liability is likely to remain a concern of businesses regardless of the state of the legal system.  Many large businesses also adopt practices just to avoid letigation, meaning they are conscience of liability consequences despite any army of lawyers they might have at there disposal.

Income taxes pay for schools and roads and all that wonderful stuff in addition to government salaries. Once again, he is assuming the free market will step in to pay for all the things that income tax is paying for now; privately owned/subsidized schools and roads and God knows what else.

Actually, income taxes and Federal funding are not primarily responsible for paying for schools or roads.  Both of these services are funded primarily at the state and local level, and complete loss of Federal funding would likely have minimal effect on these services.

You obviously have no understand of how universal healthcare works. If a forty year old man with three kids has a heart attack and doesn't have health insurance at his workplace, he is fucked, because he can't possibly afford to pay for the treatment.

Well, unless of course the 40 year old man purchased personal health insurance, or the cheaper catastrophic health insurance, or has sufficient savings/disposable income, or is on medicare, or receives help from a charity, or receives emergency room care.

However, if everyone else in the country donates 3 cents, he is fine. Is this forcing people to pay extra money? No, the money already exists, and everyone can use it under a universal healthcare system. The US has more than enough money in its healthcare budget to pay for universal healthcare, and it is the fault of (primarily) independent insurance companies that such high costs for hospital care exist.

The problem is, the money does not exist.  The federal government is in the red, DEEP in the red, 9 trillion dollars in the red and sinking at a half-trillion a year.  Technically, the money to do what the Federal government currently does, does not exist, and many existing Federal activities are going to stop when it eventually reaches its borrowing limit.

I do however agree that it is partially the fault of insurance companies that healtcare cost are so high.  They do not properly represent their customers at the moment.  The most prudent thing to do would be to set of the system so that individuals purchase there health insurance directly, so that their insurance companines are beholden to them and not their employers, and to get insurance companies out of routine healthcare entirely.  Adopting Universal Health Care will further remove insurance companies from control of the individual.

Universal healthcare isn't for Jack Middleclass who has healthcare through his work and private health insurance at home, it is for the hundred million or so Americans who can't afford it/aren't offered it. I am in favour of a reform in terms of how healthcare money is handled, but abolishing it and cockblocking the idea is just insane, and shows that you have no interest in protecting the welfare of a quarter of the population of the US.

There are already systems in place to assist Americans who are too poor to reliably obtained healthcare, such as medicare and medicaid.  Perhaps it would be better try to fix these programs so they work as intended rather them implement another program that probably also would not work correctly.  Also, at least medicaid/medicare is localized to the segment of the population that needs it, limiting the cost, which is important when your health care is being paid for by I.O.U.'s.  This would also help us better avoid the various side effects of socialized medicine that have been observed in Canada, Europe.

Again, this is just not a viable option for a huge number of Americans. "Twice removed from their control"? Give me a break. Individual people OFTEN cannot afford to pay the huge medical bills a simple accident can cause, and many insurance plans are setup entirely to screw people out of their money while not actually providing any benefits to people who do not fall exactly into their contract's conditions. What the government needs to do is crack the fuck down on health insurance providers instead of repeatedly turning a blind eye or even outright supporting them (as is the case with Kaiser Permanente).

Well, for most people, it is "twice removed".  Instead of purchasing health care directly, your insurance company is purchasing it for you, which is in turned purchased for you by your employer.  A rather trivial alteration would be to grant individuals the same tax benefits when purchasing their health insurance directly, which would allow them to choose their own healthcare providers.  They could then at least choose a reliable healthcare provider, one that does a better job negotiating down the cost of health services and that properly honors contracts.  Their are plenty of reliable health insurance companies out there, people just need the freedom to choose which one to belong to rather then letting their employers make that decision for them.

Do you not have any social conscience? Do you not have any love for your country? If so, how can you vote for someone who wants to return the US to the way it was in 1780, complete with laissez faire government that doesn't give a shit about its people? The free market exists to make the rich richer off the backs of the poor while the middle class stays more or less the same. While you can argue its strong points in terms of economics, when applied to politics it completely falls apart.

Economic policy is hardly the only difference between now and then.  Like it or not, laissez-faire economics and what remains of a market economy today are central to the U.S. economy and have brought us from an agririan existence to the industrialized/mechanized/computerized existence that we know today, and to the benefit of all, not just a few rich.  Heck, the majority of the people in the country today are probably better off than the rich were in 1780, and that is not something you can achieve through any manner of socialist transfer of wealth.  I have no disregard for the poor, I just believe in going about benefitting the country as a whole using means other than socialism.
Links from the last topic on Ron Paul (including racism, etc).

When the founding fathers were writing the constitution, they should have added something about the separate of corporation and state next to the bit about the separation of church and state (not that anyone pays attention to that anymore, but whatever).

I agree.

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll764.xml

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/5/193414/2787

Talk about your biased articles.  The last one is literally titled "Ron Paul Hates You". 

Here is a rather large repository of articles written by and about Ron Paul: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/

And what you fail to understand is that there are ways to provide healthcare for the poor other than Universal Healthcare, whether that be charity or merely a government program limited strictly to the poor.  I have no problem giving the poor finanical assistance for healthcare, but there is no reason why that should entail placing the government financially in charge of health care for those who can provide for themselves, especially when the government is not in proper financial shape to manage its existing responsibilities, let alone any new responsibilities that are this important.

Actually, we managed to run the country for over two centuries without it, and it was done without running up a huge debt.  The Federal government was up to that point funded by tariffs and excise taxes.    This was more than enough to run our military.  Of course, at the time, are military was not stationed all over the globe, so it was much cheaper to maintain.

Schools and hosptials are run at the state and local level, and do not require Federal revenue to operate.