Ron Paul's legislative successes (or rather lack of successes)

Originally posted by essanance
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

No this is a thread for you to Cloud the debate with BS facts that have nothing to do with anything ,I dont care who wins because in the end Big Money wins ..Why though do you seek to destroy the one person i see runnin that attempts to stand up to Big Money >?

Why do you think facts and his record of accomplishments (or lack of) is BS???

These are what people SHOULD be looking at to make their decision...to see how effective of a leader he would be if he won the election.


I don't see him as the savior like many Paul supporters do...I love how you and others make this claim that he is the "one person who will save us" like it is a FACT and not an OPINION.

Is it that hard to understand that not everyone, or more likely the majority, don't think like you do or agree with Ron Paul???

reply to post by Freenrgy2

Despite the threatening overtones issued by most feminist organizations, I can't realistically see ANY state not allowing for family planning NOR abortions in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother.

I believe, as Paul does, that this is something that the federal government has no business being a part of.

You have got to be kidding me. Bury your head in the sand much???

All the southern red states would outlaw things like this overnight...I wouldn't be surprised if they made it illegal to be gay or to be married to another race.

You have a very very optimistic view of our country...one I don't share at all.

reply to post by ThisFalseReality

I checked out your history of posts here, and they ALL seem to deal with bashing Ron Paul.

All of them huh???

Quit bashing on the guy, seeing is thats all you do here. At least dont make it so obvious, and you wouldnt be so suspicious. How about participating in other topics other than this?

I am so very sorry I am not living up to your expectations.


Ask yourself this question...why are you SO upset that I created a thread that had FACTS about Ron Paul??? So upset that you felt the need to reply just to rant at me for doing so???

If you don't like facts...I'm sorry...I can't help you.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

Despite the threatening overtones issued by most feminist organizations, I can't realistically see ANY state not allowing for family planning NOR abortions in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother.

I believe, as Paul does, that this is something that the federal government has no business being a part of.

You have got to be kidding me. Bury your head in the sand much???

All the southern red states would outlaw things like this overnight...I wouldn't be surprised if they made it illegal to be gay or to be married to another race.

You have a very very optimistic view of our country...one I don't share at all.

States are already attempting to ban abortion! It is currently being struck down in Mississippi (a state initiative being struck down by the Supreme Court) - so states already have the right to make their own laws. If a law is thought to be potentially unconstitutional it will have it's day before the state Supreme Court. If it is challenged again it will be heard before the Federal Supreme Court. This is really basic stuff, taught in like 5th grade when you start to learn US History....

Giving the states back the right to pass their own laws would still leave the federal courts to decide whether or not laws were constitutional. Checks and balances, something we need ALOT more of.

This is how the system was designed to work, and we see small glimpses of it working like this, every day. The Personhood amendment to the Mississippi Constitution is a great example of representative democracy at work.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You are taking things completley out of context!

There are REASONS he wants to do those things!

NOT because he's a racist, NOT because he's a drug dealer.

You seem smart enough to understand this, why don't you?

reply to post by semperfortis


Remember this?

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Yes...Ron Paul says "we shouldn't spend this money....but if you are gonna do it...give it all to me".

If he is so consistent with his views...he should refuse to take part in any part of it. It is honestly like someone yelling at someone for doing something wrong, but then telling them "but if you are going to do it anyway...I would like to profit from it".

Try to defend it all you like...he is as corrupt as the rest of them when he does things like this. And then he tries to double speak to justify it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Good luck my friend

I have not seen this much emotion in a political discussion since the last DNC

No arguing with emotions...Facts fall on deaf ears and this is a perfect example..

Unlike some others, I'm really out

Ciao

Semper

reply to post by TinkerHaus


A true leader compromises all the time.

A dictator doesn't ever compromise.

I don't want a dictator...I want a leader.

Not that I'm afraid that Ron Paul could ever be a dictator...because another flaw is his is that he has very weak character and doesn't seem to be able to stand up to strong personalities. Which is why he walks out on interviews.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Yes...Ron Paul says "we shouldn't spend this money....but if you are gonna do it...give it all to me".

If he is so consistent with his views...he should refuse to take part in any part of it. It is honestly like someone yelling at someone for doing something wrong, but then telling them "but if you are going to do it anyway...I would like to profit from it".

Try to defend it all you like...he is as corrupt as the rest of them when he does things like this. And then he tries to double speak to justify it.

This is just your opinion. I believe it is a perfectly reasonable and sound explanation. If Congress INSISTS on spending this money, then individual representatives have the right to point the money where they believe it should go. You should research Paul's earmarks, see how bad they really are.

When you've done that, do a little comparison.

Obama has flat out LIED to us on many occasions. LIED! Yet still you support him. I know you say this isn't about you, or Obama, but when the message is being delivered with such hypocrisy I think it's important we all have the ability to address and analyze all relative information. Your stance and support for Obama is relevant here, when you use arguments like this to attack Ron Paul and his supporters.

And again, Ron Paul votes against all of these types of spending bills.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Sensationalism, misrepresentation, flat out lies.

The truth hurts.

You can try to spin his misguided stances on issues...but not many people are buying into it.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Sensationalism, misrepresentation, flat out lies.

The truth hurts.

You can try to spin his misguided stances on issues...but not many people are buying into it.

No, actually a ton of people are buying into it.

Don't be afraid of change brother!

YES WE CAN

reply to post by TinkerHaus

It's time to elect based on actions, not words.

Exactly...and Ron Paul's actions prove he is an unsuccessful leader and a failure as a congressmen.

I don't think many of Ron Paul's views are constitutional...you see how that works...people have different opinions.

Just because you and Ron Paul say your opinions are the only correct opinions, doesn't make it so.

All it makes it is cult thinking that has no room for compromise or discussion. That is not someone I want as President.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


What about the freedoms of the people in those states to have an abortion?

I can't support Ron Paul when his supporters support limiting the freedoms of women. Isn't that highly hypocritical?

When it comes to abortion, leave it the # alone. Neither states NOR the federal government have the right to limit access to it.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


So basically, according to the OP, if only Ron Paul sucked up to AIPAC like the 98% of congress who votes against him, and passed some nice bills about Israel's right to bomb Iran, then everyone would think so much more highly of him. Great idea.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

What about the freedoms of the people in those states to have an abortion?

I can't support Ron Paul when his supporters support limiting the freedoms of women. Isn't that highly hypocritical?

When it comes to abortion, leave it the # alone. Neither states NOR the federal government have the right to limit access to it.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with you and so does Ron Paul that we do not have the right to make choices for other people.

I do not believe in abortion, but I also do not believe in oppression.

My statement was trying to show that states are already attempting to ban abortion, and that it is being challenged and will be heard before the supreme court. If Ron Paul were a Justice, he would vote against Mississippi's constitutional amendment.

I hope this has clarified for you.

Many of the things Ron Paul has DONE have been overshadowed by what CONGRESS wouldn't allow to pass or be voted against. That's the biggest issue with this entire argument. Most of what Paul has done is educate those in govt as well as Americans about our constitutional liberties that are being stripped beneath our feet on an almost daily basis now. Here are some examples of things he has done/TRIED to do, (which is way more than any establishment politician has ever dared) but since the tone set up in this thread seems a sorta lose lose situation for Paul supporters (like, aha gotcha you pesky "Paultards", I would bet lots of $$ it won't mean much to the OP anyway, but here are some examples.

Most of these are examples linked in the source provided (apologies if this link has already been shared, I'm just kinda jumping in on this, haven't read the whole thread):

creport-cobbreport.blogspot.com...

Voted against the Iraq war.

Voted against govt Bailouts. (recently)

Has consistently pushed for an audit of the federal reserve and has educated many in govt about the federal reserve. (Ie, even Rick Perry admitted that Ron Paul has influenced him on this issue.)

Introduced a bill that would offer tax credits to Firefighters & Police Officers

Stood up to Obama and sponsored a bill that would require Obama to receive Congressional approval prior to an attack on Libya 3/15/2011 (didn't work of course)

Wrote a bill called 'Cures Can Be Found' that gives tax credits for Stem Cell research and Stem Cell storage facilities

Has continually fought for protection of the 2nd Amendment which guarantees the right to bear arms

Voted no on constitutionally defining marriage between a man and a woman

creport-cobbreport.blogspot.com...

He has consistently decided not to bow down to the establishment or status quo agendas that strip us of our civil liberties or infringe on the constitution, which again is more than any other "establishment" politician can say.

The site has many more examples, those were my favorites tho. The problem again is that Paul votes/voted for and against things the status quo and the establishment refuse to change/fix. He can't do it alone and wouldn't be able to do it alone as president. (except end the wars, which is more right there than Obama did) What he could do as president is influence the nation in a dramatic fashion of the likes that have never been seen before.He could force new dialogue on issues the establishment refuses and has refused to address for decades.

Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, he's has a HUGE group of supporters who would back him. (and I'm not talking about ATS) Congress is voted in by the people, it would take lots of time for REAL change, but it's a start. People are sick of the status quo same old same old nonsense that keep digging us deeper and deeper into debt while the govt keeps coming up for excuses as to why we should sacrifice our civil liberties in the name of safety from "terrorism". People were sick of it with Obama, they thought he would bring change so they voted for him and he failed the people.

Will Paul fail? Well, given his consistent track record I would say no (at least in terms of his foreign policy) but anything is possible. If you don't like the guy, don't vote for him, but I'm getting awfully tired of ATS members talking down to Paul supporters for it. If you think Paul supporters are rubbing it in your face then the feeling is mutual.

Now, does anyone want to focus on his current proposals or are we going to just keep re-hashing the past in an attempt to make the man look bad?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


By saying you don't want Ron Paul as president, but not willing to stick your neck out in any way to offer an alternative to Ron Paul, and go on record liking anyone else, you lose your credibility. You are not here to lead, only to obfuscate. Be a man and lead for a change.