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

Mr.Wendal, the OP already posted links showing RP's lack of success in passing his bills.

I don't think he's blind.

But I have to question your willingness to continue to cheerlead for Mr.Paul despite this.

I say this in the nicest way possible too.

I think that you need to do more research before you accuse people of attacking your idol.

reply to post by MrWendal

Considering Congress has an approval rating of 11% and as of July 2011 almost HALF of all Americans believe Congress is corrupt, would the content of a Bill that does not pass be important to look at as a factor?

If so many believe Congress is corrupt would you expect a Bill that works in favor of the people to be passed or would you expect a corrupt Congress to take the bill, give it consideration, and then kill it in Committee behind closed doors where no one can see what happened?

For me these questions are central in deciding if the OP's claims that these bills are a reflection of leadership and effectiveness, and if anyone answered "Yes" to the questions I raised, I would argue that it shows Ron Paul is a true leader.

It is illogical to believe that the 89% that disapprove of congress all disapprove of them for the same reason. Some think they aren't doing enough, some think they are doing too much, some think they work with the other side too much, some think they don't work with them enough.

Trying to claim that since 89% disapprove with congress so they MUST agree with Ron Paul is a ridiculous argument.

This may be the most illogical argument so far in this thread.


Let me recap your very flawed logic.
Premise 1 - Americans overwhelming don't approve of the job Congress is doing
Premise 2 - Ron Paul has failed in congress
Conclusion - Therefore the majority of Americans support Ron Paul and he is actually successfull in congress


Worst logic ever.

reply to post by The Sword

You wrote absolutely NOTHING that made any sense. You did not address Wendal's post at all.
What is this with "hero" worship?
Some of us don't look for heroes to worship, we look at the policies and the person.

Sometimes I think we should have to pass an IQ test to vote.

This thread is CLOSED pending a staff discussion and a moment for members to cool down and collect themselves.

Please refer to this post where we politely asked that members remain on topic. As this is seemingly impossible, this action is now required.

Thank You.

~Keeper

Oh my ...

Originally posted by The Sword

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

Again ... I'm not even registered to vote [haven't been for 30+ years], but that's about as apples and oranges a comparison as one could possibly make. (?)

A first-term nearly unheard of senator -vs- a long-since thorn in the side tenured congressman .... one who hasn't 'promised' change you can believe in ... but one who has always stood steadfast whilst speaking to and of the ever-growing bureaucracy, size and unnecessary red tape of the 'government' as we know, see and are left to deal with.

I dunno ... but to even attempt to compare 'the great orator of '08'; to the likes of Ron Paul would seem akin to comparing Opie's youthful antics and escpades to that of the wisdoms and handlings shown, demonstrated and put forth by his father, Andy Taylor. (?)

... and this aint even the 50-60s anymore.

:shk:

**ATTENTION**

This thread is now re-opened.

ANY further T&C violations will result in immediate posting bans for the members involved.

Thank You.

~Keeper
ATS Moderator

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Ron Paul's ONE success in Congress is that he got some land given to a historical society in his home district.

Well I'll be darn, I had no idea .

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Or he is saying it's a state matter because it's one of those hot button, "fake" voting points. Gay marriage, abortion, and so on. Those are state matters, and shouldn't be up to the president at all. It's not that he doesn't want to answer. He is giving the honest answer. Those things shouldn't even be issues, but they drag them into presidential campaigns to win the left or rights support. I am with him in making those state matters so the blind people that vote based on those issues (their religious stance or liberal beliefs) won't be voting a crappy president in due to them.

Gay marriage and abortion have become the bane of American politics existence. Those things are the tools they have used to get these puppets into office. Americans vote on those things and let the actual things that effect the state of the nation go by ignored. He wants to change that, so do I. It's a state matter, I have more important things to attend to.

Use your brain guy.. it's pretty obvious (unless you are spinning it to intentionally leave the reality out. Him not wanting to answer is such shallow thinking, you're better than that don't waste your mind on simple ideas).

This whole thread is bogus to begin with. Stating that Ron Paul has failed in congress is born of complete ignorance on Outkasts part. The implication is that his bills must be poor to not have support that is not true at all. Outkast if you are going to pull this and want to be considered the least bit impartial you could list some of the bills for people to decide on.

Really what we are looking at here are pieces of legislation put forth that Outkast has kept us in the dark on and tried to lead people to lazy to research for themselves into believing they were poor pieces. In reality many of them are very very big successes that were thwarted by a failure of congress.

It doesn't necessarily make Ron Paul a failure, but could very well be a failure by congress. This makes the thread highly biased as may or may not have been intentional (i suspect it was intentional). So Outkast you are one of the many fools leading the more foolish if you have come to your conclusions about Ron Paul in a similar manner as you are hoping to mislead people reading your thread (i hope it is a case of ignorance rather than you intentionally misleading because if that is the case you can still learn something). This is how pure ignorance spreads.

reply to post by The Sword


What he posted means nothing. It could simply be a lack of success in congress representing the will of the people.

If this thread wasn't totally biased he would present some of the legislation and their goals (rather than half ass a thread) and let people decide if they were actually failures. Just because they didn't pass does not mean they weren't great pieces of legislature. Don't be so easily mislead.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

I am with him in making those state matters so the blind people that vote based on those issues (their religious stance or liberal beliefs) won't be voting a crappy president in due to them.

Civil rights are a federal issue buddy. Or do you not want the constitution to apply to all states?

Really what we are looking at here are pieces of legislation put forth that Outkast has kept us in the dark on and tried to lead people to lazy to research for themselves into believing they were poor pieces.

OMG dude, you make a thread detailing all the legislation that he has failed to pass. This thread is about his failure, not the content of obscure failed legislation.

It doesn't necessarily make Ron Paul a failure, but could very well be a failure by congress.

Oh I get it now. Kinda like how its the failure of my co-workers if I NEVER get any of my work done.

This is recurring trend. "Its everyone elses fault, but Pauls"

If this thread wasn't totally biased

Fair enough, next time i see you in a thread about pro-Ron Paul I expect you to un-bais it up as well. You know, tell them about his incompetence instead of just worshipping him.

My thoughts being that if we had a truly veritable and sufficiently-documented electoral process ... there'd be no need for an 'electoral college'. (?)

In all honesty and actuality ... ALL that does is to allow for an even mOar and further 'bought out', 'lobbied for' and compartmentalized determination by the same folks who call the shots on a day to day basis. (?)

Would you rather have a pure, plain and simple popular vote amidst and amongst the people?

OR that of a convoluted mish mash of the same, which is ultimately determined by 'elected' officials who may or may not Vote according to their constituent's already Cast and oft predominant desires.

???

Me?
Our electoral process is a sham .. deigned to individual improprieties, character flaws, likes and dislikes ... what have you.

No better Nor less 'manageable' than an online poll.

A waste of time, if you truly think your 'vote' actually 'counts'.

Yeah. It really has become that pathetic and outright obvious, in my opinion.

'I cast my vote' .. equaling near one and the same as Null/Void

but .. carry on, as you will ...

reply to post by eleven44

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.)

Sorry, I don't base my opinions or decide what is right or wrong based on the amount of stars comments get on ATS.

If that is how you decide what is right and wrong, you may want to re-evaluate that system.

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

Nope, not angry at all. I found some information that I thought people probably hadn't seen (which judging by the comments in these threads, most people didnt), and I presented it to the members of ATS.

if anyone is angry about this thread...believe me...it is not me.

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?)

I will stand by the facts.

The facts are there for you too...you are free to decide what to do with them...ignore them, spin them, or accept them...the choice is yours.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Like I said before (maybe in another thread).

There is only ONE reason you would want to take current federal law and hand it over to the states. The ONLY reason you would do this is if you are against the current federal law.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But apparently Ron Paul thinks it's broke...he knows he can't "fix" it at the federal level...so the best alternative is to get it moved to the states and at least some states will change the current federal law.

So if Ron Paul is trying to move some issues to the state..that is just his way of getting federal law changed...at least in some states.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

This whole thread is bogus to begin with. Stating that Ron Paul has failed in congress is born of complete ignorance on Outkasts part. The implication is that his bills must be poor to not have support that is not true at all. Outkast if you are going to pull this and want to be considered the least bit impartial you could list some of the bills for people to decide on.

I provided links that list out every one of his bills. I'm not going to clutter up a thread with the text of every bill he ever wrote.

To me, the content doesn't matter at all. The numbers speak for themselves. He tried to do something 464 times and failed 463 times. I don't care if they were crappy bills or the best bills in the world...he FAILED to show leadership and get his peers to support him.

You can try to use this "His failure shows that congress is wrong and thus he is successful" argument...but I really don't think anyone believes that...not even you.

If Ron Paul had such great ideas and was such a great leader...he would of been able to garner support and get at least a few of his bills passed in 14 years. Let that sink in...FOURTEEN YEARS....1 bill passed out of 464. No matter how you look at those numbers, it only says one thing...he sucks at leadership.

Really what we are looking at here are pieces of legislation put forth that Outkast has kept us in the dark on and tried to lead people to lazy to research for themselves into believing they were poor pieces.

I'm not keeping anyone in the dark...everyone has the ability to follow the links and read the bills. If I wanted to keep people in the dark...I wouldn't of provided a link for each session of congress that has a list of all the bills Ron Paul sponsored.

What more do you want??? I can't list every single bill he sponsored in the OP...that is a ridiculous request. All the links are there...all the information is in the links...I can only do so much and then it is up to you to do the rest.

In reality many of them are very very big successes that were thwarted by a failure of congress

They can't be a very big "successess" if they weren't passed.

YOU may think they were a good idea...Ron Paul probably thought they were a good idea...but obviously they weren't good enough to get passed. People vote for representatives that represent their own views and opinions...if people have voted for people that agree with Ron Paul...then that means most people don't agree with Ron Paul's ideas.

This is how a Republic works.

This makes the thread highly biased as may or may not have been intentional (i suspect it was intentional).

The thread shows cold hard facts.

Ron Paul sponsored 464 bills in 14 years...he only got one very insignificant bill passed.

It's not biased at all...it doesn't show Ron Paul in a good light...but that is his own fault. It makes Ron Paul look bad because IT IS BAD.

So Outkast you are one of the many fools leading the more foolish if you have come to your conclusions about Ron Paul in a similar manner as you are hoping to mislead people reading your thread (i hope it is a case of ignorance rather than you intentionally misleading because if that is the case you can still learn something). This is how pure ignorance spreads.

Choosing to deny and ignore facts is ignorance.

Presenting FACTS that are 100% true and backed up with sources is not ignorance.


I'm sorry Ron Paul isn't a good leaders, I'm sorry he has a very poor record. But don't get mad at me about it...get mad at Ron Paul for not being able to do his job.

Ron Paul is fighting the good fight.

It is expected for him to have THAT MUCH resistance from the CORPORATOCRACY status quo!

It is also expected for BUSH and OBAMA to not have resistance from the status quo because both of them are pretty much mouth pieces for CORPORATOCRACY (banksters, 1%ers, corporate elite etc.)


Someone who a lot of people go out of their way to try and ridicule and demean while having the kind of honest reputation that Ron Paul has must be doing something right.

I voted for Obama. What a mistake that was. I like some of the things he was able to pass and hate most of the things he was able to pass. I was fooled into thinking he would be different than Bush. He isn't. I have realized they are both mouth pieces. Two sides of the same coin.


Ron Paul represents something really different.


If I am fooled again... so be it it. But i do it with good conscience going in.


Good luck on trying to persuade people away from Ron Paul. But Im not buying it. Its a failed argument from the get go because Ron Paul is against the CORPORATOCRACY.

If you can provide a valid argument on why Ron Paul is part of the CORPORATOCRACY and not for the people than I will listen but this crap about the bills he did or didnt pass insinuating that Ron isnt a good leader is BUNK.

Of course someone like Ron would have that much resistance its to be expected. Happy motoring

reply to post by The Sword


have any of you people ever heard VETO or executive order?
the office of prez . HOLDS huge powers
true congress brings bills to the floor and gets thing moving . but hey, guess what ?

WE CAN VOTE those WHORES OUT TOO !

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


It may not make much sense at first but both men have/had rabid supporters that flood websites with their support. These supporters attack anyone who attacks their man (because they've got their back!). These supporters also trash/demean anyone who doesn't support their man.

I know it sounds far-fetched but think about it.

reply to post by krossfyter

Good luck on trying to persuade people away from Ron Paul. But Im not buying it. Its a failed argument from the get go because Ron Paul is against the CORPORATOCRACY.

If that is true...explain to me why he wants to remove most if not all regulations from Corporations and eliminate the taxes they pay???

What better support for Corporations is there??? He wants to give them everything they lobby for...they just don't have to lobby him to do it...he WANTS to do it.


Please explain to me how you justify his positions on regulations and removing/lowering taxes from Corporations???

Originally posted by WilliamWallace
reply to post by The Sword

 

have any of you people ever heard VETO or executive order?
the office of prez . HOLDS huge powers
true congress brings bills to the floor and gets thing moving . but hey, guess what ?

WE CAN VOTE those WHORES OUT TOO !

Ron Paul has repeatedly talked against executive orders and how they are abused.

Are you suggesting he be a hypocrit and do the exact thing he is supposedly against???


And you are aware that Congress can override a veto...right??? You want Congress to work together...put Paul in office and have him veto all the bills they pass...it will be a threat to their power and they will band together to override vetos.