Troubling Ron Paul Votes

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I was looking over Ron Paul's voting record and some of his votes seem troublesome to me...

Perhaps a Ron Paul fan could elaborate on them...

Child Custody Protection Act... Voted..... NO

Vote to pass a bill that criminalizes the act of transporting a minor across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and obtain access to abortion services.


Voted NO on all Agricultural issues.. What does RP have against farmers?



07/27/2007 Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 N
05/02/2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 N
10/05/2001 Agricultural Act of 2001 N
06/08/1999 FY 2000 Agriculture Appropriations bill N
06/04/1998 Agricultural Research bill N


Horse Slaughter Prohibition Bill... Vote.... NO

I don't understand how anyone could not vote for this..

HR 503: To amend the Horse Protection Act to prohibit the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, and for other purposes.


Endangered Species Amendment.. Vote.... NO VOTE

He does not like animals??


H AMDT 588 to HR 3824: Amendment in the nature of a substitute sought to improve the use of science, providing certainty to landowners, providing flexibility on deadlines for listing species, creating a voluntary conservation program to promote species conservation on private lands, creating a technical assistance program to help small landowners, increasing the role of State and localities, ensuring accountability of the Department of Interior, ensuring that permit and license applicants fully participate in the consultations process, and requiring a balancing of risks in planning for species recovery.


National Endowment for the Arts....Vote...NO

Guess he doesn't like Art either...

H AMDT753 to HR 4193: Amendment restores $98 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts


527 Bill

Apparently he wants the 527 groups to remain hidden.. Vote... NO

Vote to pass a bill that requires political organizations known as 527 organizations to disclose their political activities. A 527 organization falls under Section 527 of the tax code.


Campaign Finance Reform.... Vote....NO

Now who doesn't want to reform campaign finance, well apparently not RP...

Vote to pass a bill that imposes campaign finance reforms on the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) in order to change certain Federal election regulations.


This is just a "snippet' of some troublesome votes by RP...

All "EX" tags reference this "URL"
Project Vote Smart

Have not even touched on Appropriations...but I will

More later....

Semper




posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
I'm not a Ron Paul fan but the impression I get is that he votes against anything that he thinks goes against his Libertarian ideas or that of the US constitution . I tried googleing the Agricultural bills in question but I didn't find any brief overviews so I cant comment any further.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Haven't looked into yet myself, but I'm quite certain it isn't Paul's personal opinions about these things that made him vote 'No' -- He's said it many times, he believes it should be up to the state to decide on these laws. The reason he is so strict in keeping to this view, is because he believes that giving exception to one, or a few things -- no matter how right they may seem... will eventually lead to the exception of far worse things. It makes future leaders think they can do the same, and he is very strict about leaving the power out of federal hands, and in the hands of the states & people.

I agree with him.

[edit on 30/11/07 by Navieko]



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 05:09 AM
link   
I flagged this thread because I feel that more needs to be known about Mr. Paul. I certainly need to know more about the man before I even begin to contemplate voting for him.

Threads like this, as long as they remain civil, will go along ways towards informing more of us who haven't made up our minds. So keep it civil, and informative...



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


Most of these votes I can understand if he thinks that they are against Congress' power under the Commerce Clause.

Some I don't understand because the interstate commerce effect is clear. Endangered species , for example. I don't remember the last time an eagle said "I really don't want to go to Portland, Oregon because they're really crazy on the tolls."

In terms of the campaign finance stuff, 527s are tax entities and therefore unquestionably within the scope of federal power.

I suppose there is consistency in his belief that the federal government should be restrained. I would be interested to see what role he thinks the states should play on each of these issues.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Good looking out Semper, and these are exactly the kinds of issues you'll see raised by candidates in opposition to Paul in the near future.

Dr. Paul votes no on a bill when he doesn't agree that it is an issue the Federal Government should be involved in. Regarding 527 organizations for example, I am assuming that he voted no because he doesn't think the federal government has a right to tax our income. He does want to abolish the IRS after all, doesn't that seem in line with voting no?

I think a lot of politicians like to use half-truths to get their point across. Take Rudy in the last debate for example, accusing Mitt Romney of having a Sanctuary Mansion. Are any of us really going to expect Mitt to personally make sure the employees of a landscaping company that works his lawn are legal immigrants? I know i expect the business owners to handle that, because it would be worse to go around profiling everyone with an accent and assuming they're illegal. If you let Romney explain, it makes more sense. But Giuliani doesn't want an explanation. He just wants to throw out some low-brow accusation and hope it sticks.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

If you let Romney explain, it makes more sense. But Giuliani doesn't want an explanation. He just wants to throw out some low-brow accusation and hope it sticks.


I also was "put off" by that as well.....

It was unnecessary and an obvious ploy..

I have some other issues with some votes that I will post later tonight..

Note: This is NOT a slam thread and it is my hopes it stays as positive as it is... I have not decided who to cast my vote for, or campaign for yet and I need to get on the horse..

I know it will not be any of the Democrat candidates...

So this is a good place to learn and express ideas...

Thanks for the input so far...

Semper



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
I was looking over Ron Paul's voting record and some of his votes seem troublesome to me...

Perhaps a Ron Paul fan could elaborate on them...

Child Custody Protection Act... Voted..... NO

Vote to pass a bill that criminalizes the act of transporting a minor across state lines to avoid parental notification laws and obtain access to abortion services.


Maybe I can help Semp.
First..How good of you to pick out the most emotional of issues.
Children, animals, food..LOL

I'll start the the children.
Actually..These are not my words. These are Ron Paul's words.
Again. He can be counted on to use the constitution as his guide.
Less Federal power, more states rigts:

Ron Paul's reasoning:

As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written extensively and publicly condemning this `medical' procedure. At the same time, I have remained committed to upholding the Constitutional procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and in control of the states. In the name of protecting states' rights, this bill usurps states' rights by creating yet another federal crime.


There is more:

The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating `The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Our nation's history makes clear that the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it differently.


And this is my favorite part:

It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read `It's ten o'clock; do you know where your children are?' I suppose we have devolved to point where it reads `It's ten o'clock; does the federal government know where your children are.'


So thats why he voted that way.
Not because he doesn't love children. But because he swore to uphold the constitution.

The entire text of this, is located here, in the congressional record:
www.house.gov...

I might be able to get on a bit later, to answer the other questions.



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 08:56 PM
link   
That makes sense...

Thanks Spacedoubt, looking forward to anything else you can provide..

ps.. Of course I picked emotional issues, the ones near and dear my friend..

Semper



posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 10:05 PM
link   
A little bit about the Farmers now:

Most of the farm Bill pay huge subsidies.
Not to individual farms, or family farms.
But to Corporate Farms.
He's against, Government subsidies. Especially corporate welfare style.

The funny thing is.
He represents a farm district in Texas.
Those farmers re-elect him time after time.


Here is is speaking to a group of small farmers. (actually the farmers are regular sized! , they just have less land)




[edit on 30-11-2007 by spacedoubt]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The vote on the endowment for the arts bill was due to the fact that they don't need government funding, just private financing. Paul consistently votes against these bills for the fact that they are unconstitutional in the fact that it uses tax money in a way that isn't beneficial to all taxpayers, therefore is not constitutional in his (and my) eyes.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The 527 and campaign finance reform bills were controversial because of their limits on our first amendment rights. Any infringment on free speech will get a no-vote or No from the doctor.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Good find Semper. I thoroughly beleive Ron Paul will destroy America. The man is fixated on devolving the society and government. Any Ron Paul zealots that disagree should OPEN their eyes and look more into him.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
SteveR,

I'm certainly not a zealot.
I'm pretty no-nonsense, and analytical.

I started looking into this particular candidate back in May.
What's interesting is that the more I look into him, the easier it is to support him.

Society is already in a "devolving" cycle.
Government is devolving even faster. Society fears the government now.
It's supposed to be the other way around.

Which part of Paul's platform is the part that will destroy America?
Perhaps you could post some of his other troubling votes?



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


If you cannot see his flaws alone then there is little chance I can help you.

1. Ron Paul is a social darwinist. There will be no compassionate conversatism. The hordes of ex-democratic voters registering with the GOP to vote for him are going to have a nasty shock indeed.

2. Ron Paul sees no reason for the Government to support or even subidize Arts, Culture, and many other things that make civilization and the country in particular great.

3. Ron Paul seems to think the unwarranted slaughter of horses is a good thing, to be continued. Do not claim he is limiting governmental power. He is elected to provide a voice of reason and accountability, not as a vote-no robot on anything that uses tax dollars.

4. Ron Paul has clearly stated he beleives the crisis in Darfur should be ignored by the United States. Millions dieing, being displaced, raped, pillaged and persecuted by islamic and ethnic tribes is not worth our mere consideration. Can you imagine his leadership in the 40s?

5. Ron Paul has said that he will abolish the CIA and FBI. I sense a pattern here, don't you? What Ron Paul advocates is a total devolution of modern society, into his backwards isolationist dark aged ideal.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Good find Semper. I thoroughly beleive Ron Paul will destroy America. The man is fixated on devolving the society and government. Any Ron Paul zealots that disagree should OPEN their eyes and look more into him.


I was going to make a long post explaining why you're so wrong. Then I noticed under your name the words "Illuminati Agent" and thought -- why bother!


I'm guessing you're all for global/centralised government and don't care about what it takes to get to that point, huh? You see it as a "needed" sacrifice in order to finally achieve "peace"... right?

You don't support Paul, because he wants to go back to the basics and do things the right way -- which means no suffering, the distinction between the 'rich' and the 'poor' becomes less obvious... no unnecassary 'conveniences', wars...excessive & pointless spending...etc etc. Too boring for you?


You prefer the more 'fun and exciting' status quo, where as long as it's not effecting you at the moment, all is good! Or maybe you're just so used to the Government running your life, you've become 'institutionalized'.

Am I right?! ...or am I way off and have completely mistaken you? Maybe you can clarify exactly what it is that Ron Paul would do, that in your opinion would 'destroy' America.


[edit on 2/12/07 by Navieko]



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


If you cannot see his flaws alone then there is little chance I can help you.


Thats ok. I figured it out for myself. But I appreciate the offer.
Thats true for a lot of people. We've "figured out" how to think for ourselves.



1. Ron Paul is a social darwinist. There will be no compassionate conversatism. The hordes of ex-democratic voters registering with the GOP to vote for him are going to have a nasty shock indeed.


We are already in a cycle of $ocial darwinism. It's based on who has the ability to lobby for money. Money that was collected from the States, given to the Fed, for the States to then fight over.
Compassionate Conservatism is merely a synonym for Liberalism.



2. Ron Paul sees no reason for the Government to support or even subidize Arts, Culture, and many other things that make civilization and the country in particular great.


This is not the federal government's role. All states can enact their own programs to support the arts. The states aren't, or were never intended to be a collection of homogenized entities. The states don't need a "nanny of the arts"



3. Ron Paul seems to think the unwarranted slaughter of horses is a good thing, to be continued. Do not claim he is limiting governmental power. He is elected to provide a voice of reason and accountability, not as a vote-no robot on anything that uses tax dollars.


Do you really think he likes the idea of slaughtering horses?
The president swears to uphold the constitution.
Human beings (voters), live in the states. Voters have MORE power at a state level, than at a Federal level. You should give them more credit than that.



4. Ron Paul has clearly stated he beleives the crisis in Darfur should be ignored by the United States. Millions dieing, being displaced, raped, pillaged and persecuted by islamic and ethnic tribes is not worth our mere consideration. Can you imagine his leadership in the 40s?


This is a wash.
We're ignoring it now. why is that?



5. Ron Paul has said that he will abolish the CIA and FBI. I sense a pattern here, don't you? What Ron Paul advocates is a total devolution of modern society, into his backwards isolationist dark aged ideal.


Yes, there is a pattern.
Giant, bureaucratic, tax sucking agencies, that compete with each other, instead of working together.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
We are already in a cycle of $ocial darwinism. It's based on who has the ability to lobby for money. Money that was collected from the States, given to the Fed, for the States to then fight over.
Compassionate Conservatism is merely a synonym for Liberalism.


You think it is bad now? Wait until Ron Paul gets in power. The abolition of the IRS, will enforce his ideology of social darwinism since the money needed for any and all social purposes will be gone! No government aid or benefits, certainly not on a comparable level to other western nations, and drastically underfunded and unequal state programs. He's a smart guy. Ending the IRS sounds pretty good to anyone, before it grinds civilization to a screeching halt.


This is not the federal government's role. All states can enact their own programs to support the arts. The states aren't, or were never intended to be a collection of homogenized entities. The states don't need a "nanny of the arts"


The states likely won't afford such luxuries with the financial pressure Paul will put on them.


Do you really think he likes the idea of slaughtering horses?
The president swears to uphold the constitution.
Human beings (voters), live in the states. Voters have MORE power at a state level, than at a Federal level. You should give them more credit than that.


Regarding the horses. If Ron Paul in good conscious has to vote against the bill, it proves his only purpose in congress is to vote down any federal activities. His political agendas come above compassion and common sense. Not a great reflection of character is it?


This is a wash.
We're ignoring it now. why is that?


It's a suprisingly big issue in the debates. Ron Paul once again stands out, in this case as the only candidate to blatently ignore the suffering and genocide in Sudan. A man without a heart should not be given votes of confidence! Ron Paul's Fortress America is going to be a very sore path for this country.


Yes, there is a pattern. Giant, bureaucratic, tax sucking agencies, that compete with each other, instead of working together.


You can reform all that without electing a politician who fantasizes about resurrecting Victorian America.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SteveR
 


On the IRS.
As long as people are ok, with an uncontrolled, unfettered agency, that collects large sums of YOUR money. I say we keep it around.

As long as there is extreme attention paid, to how much is collected, and almost no accountabilty on how the money is spent. We should keep the IRS.

After all. All we would accomplish by ditching this agency is to allow people to have more of a say, in how their money is spent. Imagine a 30-50 percent payraise, right off the bat. (unless you are rich, have a good accountant, and tax shelter)

The government spending massive amount of YOUR money, with you having minimal or NO say on how it's spent...Is that really Civilized?


On Financing the arts:
You called this a luxury. Is it the federal government's responsibility to finance luxuries?


On the horses:
His political "agenda" is to enforce the constitution.
And every vote he has made reflects that "agenda".
So yes, that is an outstanding reflection of character.

On Darfur:
I'm sure he is aware of what is happening there.
It's up to congress to determine if we were to go to war there.
Not the UN, not the president himself.
He would do what congress told him to do..which, indirectly is what the people would want him to do.


On CIA, and FBI:

I agree on reformation. But not in the way that you mean.
I'm talking RE-FORM..take it all down, and start over.
Something that might actually work.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
After all. All we would accomplish by ditching this agency is to allow people to have more of a say, in how their money is spent. Imagine a 30-50 percent payraise, right off the bat. (unless you are rich, have a good accountant, and tax shelter)


Even if Federal income tax was scarped in the US it would have to be a gradual roll back otherwise inflation(SP?) would go thou the roof.
Since they control the purse strings wouldn't Congress have to approve such a measure ?


Even if he is elected which is unlikely Ron policy's would never fly with Congress he would end up being a lame duck president .





top topics
 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join