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

reply to post by Freenrgy2

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.

More of the same from Ron Paul supporters...we are right, you are wrong. If you don't agree with us...then you don't understand the constitution

I'll repeate it again...people have different opinions and different interpretations of the constitution.

You can think you are the only one who is "right"...but it just shows that you don't comprehend that everyone has different beliefs and values.

Of course, your position might be different if you feel that the piece of paper and ideals that formed this nation, is outdated and open to broad interpretation of what the founders intended.

LOL...and I guess you and Ron Paul are the only people that know what the founders "intended".

But yes...IMO it is outdated and needed to be interpreted for modern times. OH...look at that...I have a different OPINION than you do. Guess which one of us is wrong and which is right...I'll give you a hint...you are neither right or wrong...and neither am I.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
I know this will get removed....but heck, in the face of idiocy? I have to call them out.
Can we please have an MSM forum? You know, a place to put threads like this.
Then, everyone would be forewarned.

Why? Dont like it when someone has facts to make a point other than idol worship?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Success = Having a unpopular viewpoint, engaging in debate, and deftly replying to opposing views

Success = Making many people aware of your viewpoint, regardless of how it affects your popularity

Success = Having conviction in your belief that you are "doing the right thing"

...in case there was any confusion, I was referring to Doctor Ron Paul

Education and the lack thereof seems to be a problem here. You need to go back to basic US government class to learn what you are attempting to debate.

Ron Paul desecrated the Constitution in that Bill, totally nullifying his claim to be a strict Constitutionalist forever.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Mississippi should support abortion because they take a lot of welfare money from folks up North.

If they won't give their people that option, then they have no right to bitch, moan and cry about what the rest of the country does.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

LOL...and I guess you and Ron Paul are the only people that know what the founders "intended".

The whole argument from this point is crap to begin with. Who wants some slave owning douchebags hundreds years dead to dictate what we cant and can do?

reply to post by MrWendal

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

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.
...
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?

Up for consideration..sure...eventually passed...no.

I never said none of his bills where ever considered or debated...but only ONE was ever eventually passed.

This is just fact...but nice try.

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

Does it matter?

Most bills have co-sponsors...but they only have one main sponsor. I did my search on the bills that Ron Paul SPONSORED...I even made that clear that they are bills that Ron Paul SPONSORED.

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.

Here are facts that can't be denied...even you haven't denied these facts.

Ron Paul has sponsored 464 bills in the past 14 years.

Ron Paul has only passed one of those sponsored bills in the past 14 years.

I know you don't like these facts...because it makes Ron Paul look like an incompetent leader...but facts are facts.

And I thought none of this mattered anyway...but since you are trying to get this moved to hoax, , it appears that it does matter...and you know how bad it makes Ron Paul look.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


What happens when the STATE decides that black students and white students cannot attend the same schools?

It violates the rights of people in that very state.

You could say "Oh, they should move somewhere else if they don't like it!"

But, what if ALL 50 states pass the same law (highly unlikely but you get my drift?)?

That's why the feds step in to maintain a balance of equality.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


How dare you post something negative about the messiah Ron Paul? Don't you know you are not suppose to bring up the past?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Apparently, Ron Paul is a very qualified leader of the people. He has submitted bill after bill, fighting a corporatocracy that you don't even know exists, all for you.
And you don't even realize it.
Shame.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You don't make much sense, as many people here have rather eloquently pointed out. (Just look at the number of stars your OP received, and how many the first response to you has received.)

Obviously you are angry over something, as it is fairly clear that you wrote this out of anger than a true commitment to 'facts.'

Again, the congress has been bought and sold for at least the past 100 years. You really think most, if any, of the people of congress truly care about YOU or ME or THIS COUNTRY? No. They care about their wallets and their own @$$. Of course legislation that promotes PEACE and LIBERTY and FREEDOM and MINIMAL GOVERNMENT have been met with resistance, if no downright contempt, from most of our congressman.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN RON PAUL IS THE INFERIOR ONE.

You're trying hard. But how about you take some humility with this one, admit that perhaps your post lacks rational merit, and grow as a human being. Chances are though, you're going to continue to argue and defend and cling to your 'opinion.' (The ego is a b*tch, eh?)

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

What happens when the STATE decides that black students and white students cannot attend the same schools?

It violates the rights of people in that very state.

You could say "Oh, they should move somewhere else if they don't like it!"

But, what if ALL 50 states pass the same law (highly unlikely but you get my drift?)?

That's why the feds step in to maintain a balance of equality.

Do you actually fear this happening?

If so, then the civil rights movement was in vain.

You know, they can make a Constitutional Amendment to abolish segregation if they wanted. Why don't we just start tacking on amendments?

reply to post by AGWskeptic


John McCain was a "maverick".

Didn't mean # to the voters.

This is basically Obamamania 2.0 except that instead of Obama, it's Ron Paul.

reply to post by westcoast

I am so SICK of hearing promises from these greasy liars in office, Obama being at the top of that list. You know what's sad? We have come to EXPECT it.

So you are sick of Ron Paul making all of his promises that he knows he won't be able to get accomplished because he has no history of being able to successfully lead people to pass his ideas???

He claims he is going to do all of these things...but his record shows that he has no chance of being able to accomplish anything he is saying he will do.

Don't you wish he would be honest with you and say, "these are things I would like to do, but I know I won't be able to because the entire congress on both sides disagree with me on almost every issue."?????

reply to post by StarPeace


Your sarcastic tone is noted.

But, in this instance, how does 'the past' prove that Dr. Paul is an incompetent leader? The bills and legislation he has sponsored have stood for peace, liberty, freedom and minimal government, all of which are looking out for YOU, and you think just because the other corrupt, sold out, greedy congressman didn't like his message that somehow Ron Paul is in the wrong?
If anything, the past proves, to me, that Ron Paul has true character, moral beliefs and the persistence to stick to what he believes.

Please, show me otherwise.
And if you can't, just resort to more sarcasm.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


I don't fear it but you have to consider all of the possibilities when you talk about states' rights.

As I said, it's highly unlikely but the fact that it COULD happen should give one pause.

Substitute segregated schools with gay marriage, abortion and gay adoption (and anything else you wish) and you get the drift.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


What is his motive then to get give the decision to the states???

The current federal laws forbid segregation and discrimination....apparently that doesn't sit well with Ron Paul...to the point that he makes it one of his big issues that he wants to get those decisions back to the states.

You ever here the phrase "don't fix what's not broken"??? Well the laws prevent segregation and discrimination...they aren't broken...unless you feel like segregation and discrimination SHOULD be allowed...then in fact they are broken if that is your opinion and you would want to "fix" them.

Ron Paul wants to "fix" these laws that prevent segregation and discrimination....take a walk down the logical path...there is only one reason why he would want these laws changed.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
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

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

Perfectly constitutional.
Please tell me how this is not.

It attempts to remove a Constitutional Power from one of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court.
This is the smoking gun that even proves he is a liar when it comes to defending the Constitution.
The only way to change the powers the Supreme Court has is through a Constitutional Amendment.

HAHAHA actually TP you could not be MORE wrong if you tried.

First off all the part you are quoting does not strip power from the Supreme Court, it enforces the power of States Rights and the power of the State to decide for themselves without fear of having the Supreme Court overrule the State. A perfect example would be California's medical marijuana laws. The State has decided it is ok. The Federal Government has decided it is not. Something like what you have quoted is saying that the Supreme Court (since such a law is not a matter of constitutional law, but policy) has no right to tell California they can not make medical marijuana legal. Get it?

Besides that, I dot not read anything you quoted in the link provided. If anything what is linked proves you wrong about Ron Paul being a supporter of the Constitution. You might actually want to read it. Let me give you some highlights...

Prohibits Federal preemption of State laws relating to child or spousal abuse, or juvenile delinquency. Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds for the operation of any programs dealing with such problems. Defines "child abuse" as physical maltreatment, and psychological or emotional neglect. Excludes from such definition discipline or corporal punishment applied by a responsible parent or an individual authorized to act in the place of such parent.

Title IV: Taxation - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to permit married individuals to be taxed separately on their income under the same rates as are applicable to unmarried individuals.
Allows an income tax deduction for adoption expenses.
Allows an income tax deduction for contributions paid to a tax-exempt trust fund established for the care of a taxpayer's parents or handicapped relative.
Repeals the estate tax, the gift tax, and the tax on generated-skipping transfers.
Increases the amount of the personal tax exemption for dependents from $1,000 to $3,000.
Provides for the establishment of tax-deferred rollover savings accounts for the exclusive benefit of the taxpayer or beneficiaries.

Title III: Constitutional Guarantees - Prohibits the Federal Government from imposing any obligation or conditions upon any child care center, orphanage, foster home, emergency shelter for abused children or spouses, school, juvenile delinquency or drug abuse treatment center or home, or similar program which is operated by a church or religious institution.
Amends provisions of the United States Code relating to judicial procedure to establish a legal presumption in favor of an expansive interpretation of a parent's role in supervising and determining the religious or moral formation of his or her child, in cases involving such issue.
Repeals the Selective Service Act of 1967.
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.

Can you guys misrepresent facts and spin this a little more... or should I say a little more effectively? Your attacks at this point are just flat out silly.