It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul Voted "AYE" (Yes) To MLK Holiday. House Vote #625, December 5th, 1979. And Rosa Parks. Ra

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I just found it curious that Ron Paul voted YES in the 1979 version first submitted to the House in 1979.

www.govtrack.us...

Scroll down to Texas and you will note his "AYE" vote.

If someone was a closet racist, wouldn't they have found some way to vote "NAY" or to skip the vote entirely?

Nobody would have been the wiser...

And while I'm at it, people use the Rosa Parks vote as evidence of racism too. Yet he discusses it here:

www.youtube.com...

Ron is guilty of his strict interpretation of the powers Congress has, maybe to a fault in public opinion.?

NOTE:The Medal of Honor (back then at least) was made of solid GOLD. The value or cost of such a thing being in the tens of thousands of dollars.

NOTE ALSO: He voted against Medals of Honor for Mother Theresa, Reagan (one of his initial heroes and friend)

Him on Mother Theresa:

www.triviumpursuit.com...


RON PAUL: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H. R. 1650. At the same time, I rise in total support of, and with complete respect for, the work of Mother Teresa, the Missionaries of Charity organization, and each of Mother Teresa’s Nobel Peace Prize-winning humanitarian efforts. I oppose the Gold Medal for Mother Teresa Act because appropriating $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Mother Teresa who dedicated her entire life to voluntary, charitable work, particularly humanitarian.


and Ronald Reagan...

Sorry to prolong this crap, but I had to throw it out there.




edit on 26-12-2011 by PaxVeritas because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I read on another thread somewhere here ... (not going to hunt it down, I'm too tired and it's too early in the morning) .. that Ron Paul used ghost writers. I had thought he wrote all his own stuff but apparently not. While he was pushing his brand (himself being 'the brand) like all politicians do, he used ghost writers and they put his name on things. Ron Paul approved doing things this way. He got lazy and let things go out that shouldn't have.

It doesn't show him to be racist.
It shows he mismanaged and got lazy.
(which isn't presidental)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
The medal of honor is for military only. They suggested that they give her the congressional gold medal. And seeing how Regan openly supported terrorist while he was in office deserved a pair of handcuffs not a medal.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by PaxVeritas
 


I'm not sure people have this correct. (I could be wrong, and if so, I apologize) but the bill you linked is only to AMEND (change the date) of the MLK holiday to a SUNDAY, not to approve the holiday.

HR 5461 was the bill to make it a holiday on January 15. The vote you linked REFERS to HR 5461 and only changes it from Jan 15 to the third Sunday in Jan... Ron Paul didn't vote to approve MLK, just to move the date.


TO AGREE TO A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 5461 THAT DESIGNATES THE THIRD SUNDAY IN JANUARY EACH YEAR AS THE HOLIDAY TO CELEBRATE MARTIN LUTHER KING'S BIRTHDAY..


.
edit on 12/26/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Some people have a political agenda against ron paul irregardless of the facts. Their accusations are paper thin and im glad the majority can see through the attacks.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


And some people are blind to the facts and support him regardless. He didn't vote for a MLK holiday, he voted to change the date. That's all. He wanted it to be on a SUNDAY... Why, I wonder...



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


He "mismanaged" because he was in medical school. I'd like to see you run a newsletter while studying to be a doctor, and if you mess up I will say in twenty years that your actions a quarter of a century ago proves you are not presidential. Ha!



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Do you celebrate mlk day? If not you may be racist lol. Just kidding. Ron Paul usually has reasons for voting the way he does and its not based on racism. He often even votes against his own bills. Either way dont you think a racist would not want the holiday altogether?



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by filosophia
 


And some people are blind to the facts and support him regardless. He didn't vote for a MLK holiday, he voted to change the date. That's all. He wanted it to be on a SUNDAY... Why, I wonder...


That's easy to figure out. The government has enough holidays as it is now.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


en.m.wikipedia.org...

This should clear up the confusion. MLK jr day was to be on his birthday, but because of a previous act of congress federal holidays are to fall on monday. The OP's first link shows the bill passed, but was changed from mlk's birthday to monday because of the uniform monday holiday act.
edit on 26-12-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)


Govtrack says the bill passed but wikipedia says it fell five votes short, so maybe it failed in the senate. Either way it was the only bill of its kind and was later made official through a petition.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So the fact remains that Ron Paul voted for the mlk jr bill despite it not passing. But hes still a racist, right? Lol.


edit on 26-12-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Either way dont you think a racist would not want the holiday altogether?


Yes, I do. Paul voted AGAINST the actual MLK holiday bill. Source



A BILL AMENDING TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE TO MAKE THE BIRTHDAY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., A LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY.

Nay TX-22 Paul, Ronald [R]


I do not celebrate holidays at all... So, no, I don't celebrate MLK day, but I support it as a holiday.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
The OP's first link shows the bill passed, but was changed from mlk's birthday to monday because of the uniform monday holiday act.


No, it doesn't. The OP's link is to a bill that was to MODIFY an existing bill that was never even voted on. READ. The existing bill wanted the date to be Jan 15 (MLK's birthday) and this bill would have changed it to SUNDAY, not Monday. Read the source. Stop being so quick to jump to the defense of the man and READ the source...


It's irrelevant... Paul voted against the holiday in 1983.

THIS BILL wanted to change it to Monday. Paul voted for this one, too. But wanting to change the date and supporting the existence of the holiday are 2 different things...
edit on 12/26/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:19 AM
link   
When I posted in another thread relating to Ron Paul and made a point not actually relating to Ron Paul but to racists and racism in general, I was jumped on by RP fans and people just seem to attack anyone they perceive is against RP.

What is going on??


The guy is a politician.... he lies, cheats and will tell you anything you want to hear to get you to vote for him.

Politics is in disarray and I understand that people are looking to someone different and looking for someone who they think is on their side and will speak out for them... and RP may well be that person.

But don't be stupid.... don't be blind and don't just cling to him in spite of everything else and just blindly defend him.
He will have an agenda, he will have things in his past that would make most people not want to vote for him, he's a politician.

It's like those that are Pro or Anti Obama.... that stuff was just crazy.

"Obaama is the saviour of the world, if he gets in all our troubles are over"

"Obama is the anti-christ and will sell Americas soul to Russia and the communists"



This RP stuff is not quite at that level and most people outside of ATS couldn't give a crap either way.

But seriously.... if there is evidence that leads back to RP and there are things he's done or signed or authorised or involved with, that are dodgy, wrong, racist or whatever.... then unfortunately that's the way it is.
But to just blindly defend him and think everything is a conspiracy against him is just stupid.


RP mania is as perplexing as any other mania I've seen.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


docs.google.com...:3qAzRxvbJ0UJ:www.reagan.utexas.edu/education/For%2520Educators/Document%2520of%2520the%2520Month/Martin%25 20Luther%2520King%2520Day/Mem%2520for%2520Pres%2520Enrol%2520Bil%2520HR%25203706%2520MLK%2520B-day%252011-2-83.pdf+h.r.+3706+mlk+jr&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl &srcid=ADGEESgtza7gU5FKiV89F0pbPGW58AXBKn7_HOEq5PZoYIx6DOPPIuP9L7aUOpii6tKx25cS_gs_UdW4XJkUdoDB1AszdMfyHGpm7Fg8_8XCef0sRou2Ey3Gth1gj98uJAbLZFIvFLw2&si g=AHIEtbQiQl06UI-O9TMd6pZnlKCNOdnx_g

He probably voted agwinst it because it would cost the government 18 million dollars. If the link doesnt work google hr 3706 and look at the pdf view.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
He probably voted agwinst it because it would cost the government 18 million dollars. If the link doesnt work google hr 3706 and look at the pdf view.


Why YOU think he voted against it is not really a concern. I want to know why HE says he voted against it.


The link doesn't work and I don't know what you're trying to point out. Sorry. HR 3706 leads to the FHA Taxpayer protection act of 2009... ?
edit on 12/26/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
RP mania is as perplexing as any other mania I've seen.


It doesn't perplex me anymore. I'm starting to see it for what it is... Of course, I'll keep my thoughts to myself on that. Let's just say that I'm glad ATS isn't representative of the voting public as a whole.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic . That's all. He wanted it to be on a SUNDAY... Why, I wonder...


What is wrong with the day Sunday?
I think MLK would be in 90% of the sermons in the country if he were to be remembered on a sunday and that is why you honor a person with a special day.
How much do you think of MLK and what he did on the day off he has been given?
Not much. In fact it's a given that on MLK day off you don't discuss him at all so that day of his is effectively wasted.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Google h.r. 3706 mlk jr, scroll down to the fourth link and do a google quick view, the pdf says at the bottom that the holiday would cost the government 18 million dollars. That is most likely the reason why he voted against it.

The search is fo the reagan.utexas.edu

Sorry the link doesnt work but the financial reason is more plausible than the racist reason.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by VforVendettea
What is wrong with the day Sunday?


Oh, for Christ's sake! Nothing's wrong with Sunday.
All I'm saying is that Paul did NOT vote to enact an MLK holiday as the OP is suggesting. Can't people read anymore???



Originally posted by filosophia
Sorry the link doesnt work but the financial reason is more plausible than the racist reason.


I agree. I'm not trying to say that Ron Paul is racist. I'm trying to say ONLY that Paul did NOT vote to enact an MLK holiday as the OP is suggesting.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

It doesn't show him to be racist.
It shows he mismanaged and got lazy.
(which isn't presidental)

Well, when you're also running your practice full-time again and have been out of congress with the newsletter running just fine for about two years, I can understand the strict lack of constant oversight (as the questionable material was a very small portion - I believe about 2% - of all the various newsletters that went out over the decades).

And, not to quibbile, but as to your claim on mismanagement and laziness...have you paid any attention to our presidents for the last few decades? It's apparently VERY presidential (not that that's a *good* thing...): Fast and Furious, multiple vacations while the nation trembles, "isolated incidents" of torture and human rights violations, spending most of your time at Crawford Ranch instead of in the White House, Watergate...it really does go on and on, with things Paul directly opposes and that are much more significant that a small percentage of editorial oversight while working full-time otherwise.

Not justifying it outright, just saying it is understandable.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join