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

**ATTENTION**

Please remain on-topic, which is Ron Paul's legislative successes (or rather lack of successes).

Further rude remarks, off-topic posts or any other T&C violations will be rewarded with a loss of posting privileges, spanning at least 72 hours.

Thank You.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator

Ron Paul introduced a Bill in 1984 to allow schools to resegregate.

Source Library of Congress

More evidence of his record, oh my my it could be interpretted as racist....

Re-posting because I kinda got the shaft on that last page.

Many of the things Ron Paul has DONE have been overshadowed by what the rest of 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 has done) 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 with 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?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by MidnightTide
and who has said Ron Paul has the solutions to everything?

We get all these Ron Paul threads, pro and con - where are the threads about the other candidates?

Go make one....no one is stopping you.

I decided to cover this topic on this candidate because I thought it was important information that not a lot of people knew about. It turns out I was right.

But you are free to do the same with other candidates...don't expect me to do it for you.

It should be pretty obvious who I support, so why would I make a thread about another candidate? I mean for all you people who dislike Ron Paul, make a thread about the candidate of your choice.

Lets see another candidate's solution to the problems we are facing.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Again, the argument has evolved beyond this petty platform - you should read the entire thread before posting.

The topic of this thread is Ron Paul and his accomplishments as a legislator.

It isn't about Obama...it isn't about what or who I support personally...I'm sure you have heard it said before "discuss the TOPIC, not the member".

And yes...this post is off topic...but since it appears you are so clueless as to what the topic of this thread is...I thought I should remind you.

If you want to discuss any thing else besides the topic...you are free to create your own thread.

reply to post by rival

Fact. Compared to a global consensus of opinion, you are wrong in your assessment of success.

Care to back that up with some...um...facts???

Or is that just your opinion???

It is amazing how people can't tell the difference between facts and opinion.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Ron Paul introduced a Bill in 1984 to allow schools to resegregate.

Source Library of Congress

More evidence of his record, oh my my it could be interpretted as racist....

edit on 27-12-2011 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)

The denial lies with you. Here is the summary of that bill:

Public School Civil Rights Act of 1984 - Eliminates inferior Federal court jurisdiction to issue any order requiring the assignment or transportation of students to public schools on the basis of race, color, or national origin.

This comes from his position that the federal government has no place in this. The federal government should have no authority in assigning or transporting students. This should be a STATE matter.

And if all of you who think that those darn southern states would do this in a heartbeat, then I suppose you think they would secede from the United States again if they had the chance.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Again, the argument has evolved beyond this petty platform - you should read the entire thread before posting.

The topic of this thread is Ron Paul and his accomplishments as a legislator.

It isn't about Obama...it isn't about what or who I support personally...I'm sure you have heard it said before "discuss the TOPIC, not the member".

And yes...this post is off topic...but since it appears you are so clueless as to what the topic of this thread is...I thought I should remind you.

If you want to discuss any thing else besides the topic...you are free to create your own thread.

Alright, so as you state in your OP, in his time he really hasn't passed anything. End of thread, everyone go to another thread. Wow, that was fun.

All the discussion that has taken place is why some of us think why little has been passed. If your looking for just posts in agreement with you, then perhaps some Liberal forum would be more to your liking, or a Conservative one.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I'd love to bring up the fact that Obama never had any important bills passed in his brief tenure, but of course, that's off topic, the topic is only 'Ron Paul is Lame', not 'Ron Paul isn't that lame when compared to other people'. My apologies for trying to broaden the conversation.

Here's another gem of a Bill that Ron Paul made,

Source

Bill Summary & Status
96th Congress (1979 - 1980)
H.R.7955
CRS Summary

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.

Proof of his homophobia.


He spends a lot of time sponsoring bills that are racist and homophobic for someone who claims to be neither.
This stuff is undefendable.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Again, the argument has evolved beyond this petty platform - you should read the entire thread before posting.

The topic of this thread is Ron Paul and his accomplishments as a legislator.

It isn't about Obama...it isn't about what or who I support personally...I'm sure you have heard it said before "discuss the TOPIC, not the member".

And yes...this post is off topic...but since it appears you are so clueless as to what the topic of this thread is...I thought I should remind you.

If you want to discuss any thing else besides the topic...you are free to create your own thread.

Please stop with the attacks, I'm not clueless. I'm 100% aware of the topic of the thread and I'm 100% aware of your reasons for working so hard in an attempt to keep the conversation within a very limited realm.

Anyone delivering a message is subject to character analysis. If your preacher is telling you not to gamble, but has a gambling habit, how good is the advice?

I understand the philosophy of discuss the topic, not the user, but in this case your support of Obama is very relevant to the topic. The topic was not only about Ron Paul's record in Congress, but you asked our opinions about the matter and challenged our support. You asked us to quantify why Ron Paul would be a good president if he can't even pass more than one piece of sponsored legislation - This opens the thread up quite a bit, in my opinion, and allows us to explore various lines of thought and even the intention of people posting in the thread. We need to decide if the subject is worth arguing, or is merely an attempt, to use ATS' favorite word, at trolling.

So lack of receiving sponsorship from big pharmaceutical, or oil means no success? I guess you are calling the voter of Texas idiots for re-electing him over and over?
They must have like him because he his NOT a sellout and sticks to his guns but I don't know he must have done something right!

I think you fail to realize how the system works or how the corrupt have been working it. So go right ahead and vote for the war loving economy crashing bankers that WILL destroy our way of life and sell out your kids to debt then send them to war to fight a lie.

On a side not you can tell when people create mutable accounts like OutKast Searcher because his posts all have the save # of stars no madder what he says.. LOSER?

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Here's another gem of a Bill that Ron Paul made,

Source

Bill Summary & Status
96th Congress (1979 - 1980)
H.R.7955
CRS Summary

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.

Proof of his homophobia.


He spends a lot of time sponsoring bills that are racist and homophobic for someone who claims to be neither.
This stuff is undefendable.

Proof of his position that the Constitution makes NO provision for the federal government to fund "alternative lifestyles".

Again, a STATE matter based on the tenth ammendment:

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.

If you wish to enlighten me as to where in the Constitution it provides for the powers of the federal government to do ANY of the things you are arguing against, please be my guest.

You literally attempt to derail every Ron Paul thread, and now post a thread which is discredited in the first page of responses..... With that said, yes his legislative 'success' is abysmal. For us supporters we don't care, because the very person we're supporting goes against the system that's biased against him. A system that embraces the erosion of the Constitution and civil liberties. Your thread is another great reason why we support Ron Paul so...thanks for reminding us.

Comparatively, I'll have to go take a look at Obama's legislative success, and I can tell you now that even if it were 99 percent, what does that prove. That he broke 90 percent of the vows he made before being elected? That he embraces assassination, war & the banking buddies which funded his campaign? That he conned his supporters? The fact that you support that pathological liar for another term is so dumbfounding it's difficult for the logical mind to comprehend.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Great find Outkast

This is a demonstration as to just how backwards Paul is, and how his policies are even extreme for the GOP constituency. Out of all his years in congress, 100's of bills introduced, and he only manages to get one sucessfully passed? To the Paul supporters insisting that his inability to get consensus on anything is a sign of his consistency, how do you expect him to get any of his policies during his term as president without working and leading people? Seriously?

I think there's plenty more about Paul we'll be hearing about over the course of the primaries.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Here's another gem of a Bill that Ron Paul made,

Proof of his homophobia.

He spends a lot of time sponsoring bills that are racist and homophobic for someone who claims to be neither.
This stuff is undefendable.

I've absolutely no party nor candidate affiliations whatsoever, but NO ... it does Not demonstrate nor 'prove' a damn thing .

Well, aside from openly and outright exposing one's self as having but mere strawman rhetoric , arguments and self-serving retorts...

... based upon the man's stated and historically demonstrable position ... it's more about those type BS issues and tissues which should've never been a federally-mandated legislative concern or issue in the first place. (?)

The actuality of this guy's history and priorities being more that of the return of governing powers to the individual states as opposed to the Federal Gov't.

...to attempt to portray or bastardize it as anything else is nothing short of a disservice to both one's self and the foundation on which this nation was built upon.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

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.

Yes, it is my opinion...congratulations on seeing the difference. Now...if you only admit that yours is also opinion.

My opinion is that he isn't a superhero...he isn't a savior that so many Ron Paul supporters claim he is. He is a politician...and he does things to get re-elected and tries to doublespeak to try to say he is doing the right thing. Voting against spending...saying that this spending is wrong...and then making sure you get as big of a chunk of that money as you can...that to me is dishonest.

I'd have more respect for him if he voted for the spending and put in the earmarks...but to be contradictory like that is just a demonstration that he is all talk and no different than others.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

Great find Outkast

This is a demonstration as to just how backwards Paul is, and how his policies are even extreme for the GOP constituency. Out of all his years in congress, 100's of bills introduced, and he only manages to get one sucessfully passed? To the Paul supporters insisting that his inability to get consensus on anything is a sign of his consistency, how do you expect him to get any of his policies during his term as president without working and leading people? Seriously?

I think there's plenty more about Paul we'll be hearing about over the course of the primaries.

What this should demonstrate to all of you is how far Congress has drifted from following the document that they are sworn to uphold! If anything, this should be a rallying cry for EVERY American. Educate yourself.

Of course, your position might be different if you feel that the piece of paper and ideals that formed this nation, is outdated and open to broad interpretation of what the founders intended.

Paul's positions and bill reflect the fact that the federal government is too big and is intervening in areas which should be reserved to the states.

Here is the one that will tip the scales.

Ron Paul claims to be in love with the Constitution and would not do anything against it.

Well, down the toilet with that one too.

Here is a Bill he made that would Strip power from the Supreme Court. We all know this is impossible, the Supreme Court overlooks the lawmakers and can revue any Law passed in the land to revue its Constitutionallity.

Well not if Ron Paul had his way....

Bill Summary & Status
96th Congress (1979 - 1980)
H.R.7955
CRS Summary

Denies jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States to review any State statute or regulation which relates to abortion. Extends such denial of jurisdiction to Federal district courts.

Source Library of Congress

This thread deserves to moved to the hoax section of this site.

After spending the last few hours combing through all the information I have come to a few conclusions.

1. A large majority of the bills presented by Ron Paul were then assigned to Committee. This following quote is from OS's own site and information presented.

Committee Assignments Committees are like "mini Congresses". Most bills begin by being considered by one or several congressional committees which may "report" the bill favorably or unfavorably to the Senate or House as a whole allowing it to receive consideration by the full body and move forward, or may fail to consider a bill at all preventing the bill from moving forward. Most bills never receive any committee consideration and are never reported out. House bills start in House committees and enter Senate committees only after being passed by the House and received by the Senate, and similarly for Senate bills. Information on committee proceedings is notoriously opaque: committees vary in what information they make public and often do not provide basic public information such as the results of votes electronically or in an understandable format. Furthermore, if your Member of Congress does not sit on any committee relevant to this bill, you generally have no opportunity to voice your opinion on the bill while the bill is receiving its most important consideration.

Did you read the part about what happens to most bills? No? Let me single it out for you.

Most bills never receive any committee consideration and are never reported out.

Now if you go back and look at the Bills presented by Ron Paul, it would seem many of them were assigned a Committee, so in essence does that not mean the bills were up for consideration?

#2. Did anyone bother to see how many co-sponsors these bills had? So what is a co-sponsor?

noun; a joint sponsor, as of a proposed piece of legislation

So by definition a co-sponsor is someone who supports a proposed bill. Now go back to the source in the OP and see how many co-sponsor each bill had. So if these bills did not pass and are a reflection of Ron Paul's "failures" then would that also not be a failure for the co-sponsors as well? If we were to hold the rest of Congress to the same standard that the OP is holding Ron Paul, then every single member of Congress is a complete and utter failure and they have zero leadership skills.

#3. Now let us click on ANY random Bill and what do we see? Well besides co-sponsors and seeing the a large majority of these bills went to Committee for debate, you will notice something at the bottom that says, "Related:. Has anyone bothered to read it?

See the Related Legislation page for other bills related to this one and a list of subject terms that have been applied to this bill. Sometimes the text of one bill or resolution is incorporated into another, and in those cases the original bill or resolution, as it would appear here, would seem to be abandoned.

Now I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong here, but does that not say that these bills may have been incorporated into a different bill and if that has happened, than it would be the related bill that would determine the success or failure of the original proposed bill? If this is the case, the burden of proof would lie with the OP to determine if these bills were in fact incorporated in other bills and if at that point they passed or not.

The more I dig into this, the more I am realizing that this entire thread is a complete misrepresentation of facts. With that in mind, this thread should be moved to the HOAX section until such a time that the OP can prove his claims and determine what actually happened with each of these proposed bills. Just simply linking a list which clearly states that these bills went to Committee (which is not common as most receive no consideration) and declaring them all as failures (when the OP's own source clearly states that these bills may have been incorporated with other bills) is completely misleading and disingenuous.

continued in next post... I am not even close to finished pointing out the lack of logic associated with this thread.