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

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



His ideas do not align with the majority of the American people...that is why his ideas don't get passed...not because every other congressmen is corrupt.

Since when do the people decide which bills get passed? Wait until after the election before claiming he doesn't represent the majority.


People elected congressmen who represent their views and ideas...those congressmen do not work with Ron Paul at all to help get any of his ideas passed.

It's simple logic...it's really not that hard to figure out.

Have you forgotten all the Obama supporters who are suffering voter's regret? Congressmen lie. Take off the rose-tainted shades.




posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
ahhh, the ridiculous notion that passing bills = successful congressman.

Never mind the Constitution, never mind the oath of office, never mind serving and protecting the people.

No, we expect them to pass bills no matter what is written, no matter how unconstitutional. Because THAT makes a successful congressman. THATS the reason why politicians want to leave office with a LEGACY.



Outkast, I can see your high priority for the lack of substance now. No wonder you support Obama........


And your definition would be what exactly???

I guess a successful congressmen is someone who gets nothing done, gets no significant bills passed (laws enacted), someone who doesn't and can't stop anything on their own, and somone who fills bills with pork for their own little pet projects.

In any other career...that is a failure...accomplish nothing...and shift a little money for your own purposes. You can act like he has been successful...but it is a lie.


But please...list his successes...because apparently you believe he is very very successful. So let's hear what he has done in congress that has been a success and what difference has it made to the country???

Oh, and this time try to keep the personal ad hom attacks out of it...address the topic...not me...it just shows that you are struggling to come up with a valid argument.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by krossfyter
 


Thanks, but it was a K.O. before this thread was even started.

Outkast's reasoning to make this thread was not heartfelt so it translated very transparently into his content.

And that is why his argument is so easily torn apart. I actually think Outkast believes congressmen should be principled as well as abiding by their oath of office but his allegiance to Obama is too strong, he cannot admit Ron Paul was and is a good congressman.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



The SCOTUS is a bunch of misfit, incompetent jerk-offs as far as I'm concerned.


And yet the Constitution, the document you are all about supporting, grants them the authority to have say over what is and what isn't "Constitutional".

So do you follow the Constitution or not? Do you only follow it when it supports your own personal opinion???


Feel free to stand by the Supreme Court until the end though.


I will...because I actually do follow the Constitution...and not just when it agrees with me.

Ron Paul is not the SCOTUS....YOU are not the SCOTUS...I don't care how much you think you know about the Constitution and what you think is right or wrong....the Constitution does not grant you or Ron Paul the authority to make those decisions.

Do you understand how much of a contradiction you are???



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 



And that is why his argument is so easily torn apart.


The only argument I have is simply presenting facts.

The fact is that Ron Paul hasn't made any significant difference to the country in 14 years as a congressman.

But he did filter a bunch of money to his own district...I guess that means success to you...filling bills with pork.


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Your bias is absolutely sickening and yet at the same time it is comical. I could not help but notice that you did not bother to list ANY of these bills that Ron Paul introduced. Why is that?

I think I now why. By showing exactly what the bills are would actually not highlight the lac of success Ron Paul has had. In all actuality it highlights the failures of Congress and PROVES that Ron Paul has attempted countless times to do what is in the best interest of the people.

So let us be fair... what are these bills that Ron Paul has failed to get past Congress?

H.Con.Res. 211: Opposing increased Federal income taxes on variable annuities and other variable contracts.
(oh no! He opposed and presented a bill that would not increase the federal income tax. What is he thinking?)

H.J.Res. 116: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens.
(Oh that bastard!)

H.J.Res. 129: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to protect the rights of crime victims.
(Yes, crime victims have no rights! He must be insane!)

H.R. 4551: To amend section 16 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 to prohibit occupancy in public housing by, and rental assistance under section 8 of such Act for, any person convicted of manufacturing or producing methamphetamine on the premises.

(That bastard does not want to give Federal Assistance to people who manufacture meth? I have no idea what he is thinking other than maybe if your manufacurting meth, your probably selling it, and if your selling meth maybe you should be able to cover your own rent?)

I could go on and on and on. Maybe you should try reading your own "evidence".
edit on 27-12-2011 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




And yet the Constitution, the document you are all about supporting, grants them the authority to have say over what is and what isn't "Constitutional".

So do you follow the Constitution or not? Do you only follow it when it supports your own personal opinion???
I try my best to follow the Constitution. They don't. If they actually did their jobs and operated correctly, by challenging OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional legislation, that would be a different story.


I will...because I actually do follow the Constitution...and not just when it agrees with me.
Good! (Don't you support Mr. Obamacare/Patriot Act renewal?)


Ron Paul is not the SCOTUS....YOU are not the SCOTUS...I don't care how much you think you know about the Constitution and what you think is right or wrong....the Constitution does not grant you or Ron Paul the authority to make those decisions.
OK, so when the government unreasonably searches American citizens without a warrant or probable cause, that doesn't violate the 4th Amendment, because the Supreme Court hasn't said it does? I don't need 9 people to tell me that! I'm not the Supreme Court, but I'm an American citizen who can read and understand things!
edit on 27-12-2011 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


It doesn't matter what he introduces if he doesn't have the leadership skills to get people to support his ideas.

His poor record in Congress shows his complete lack of leadership skills and being able to convince people that his ideas are a good thing. You can't say he isn't trying to get bills passed...he has introduced enough of them...so what is the reason if not lack of leadership skills that they aren't getting passed?

Poor leadership isn't really a quality one looks for in a potential President.


If you think Ron Paul has good leadership skills...please prove it...show me anywhere he has led and been successful.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Sure, I gave you a great example on the last page but you got angry at me for derailing your thread but since you want it now...I guess....

As a representative of the people and a vower on the oath of office to protect the Constitution, how is Ron Paul NOT successful? oh yea, because he didn't pass a lot of bills....


Uncovered 16 TRILLION in SECRET BAILOUTS to foreign central banks as a direct result of his Audit the Federal Reserve bill. I don't see why anybody but the bankers would hate this one

Voted no on US Patriot Act of 2001 - Constitution?

Voted no on TARP in 2008 - taxing the people?

RE-elected to 12 terms - he must be doing something right.

Do I really have to keep going on his constitutional voting record?


He's changed the national dialogue of politics and extreme topics that were only meant for the fringe are now open for discussion on dinner tables across the country. If you don't consider that successful....well....thats why you're voting for Obama.


Oh darn, I mentioned Obama...my ad hominem attack is going to cost me the credibility of this entire post.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Wars end. Prohibition ends. Largest prison population in the world ends. Borders are secured. Obama care ends. NDAA ends. Patriot act ends. Budget is cut by 1 trillion the first year.

Doesnt fix everything, but sure as hell puts us back on the right path. Guess who Im voting for?



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



I try my best to follow the Constitution. They don't. If they actually did their jobs and operated correctly, by challenging OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional legislation, that would be a different story.


Again...you don't have any authority to claim that "they don't" follow the Constitution.

This is your personal opinion...there are many others out there that disagree with your personal opinion. This is why we have the SCOTUS....and we all agree (by following the Constitution) to abide by their decision...no matter if it coincides with our personal opinion or not.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



So Pork is ok when Ron Paul does it...but not when anyone else does???

Why are you against pork? Because the MSM told you to be?

Hell if you are against pork, you are obviously against EVERYTHING the government does since pork is :

Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples.

The government is all about using money from EVERYONE to fund PARTICULAR AREAS (like the military, health care, medicare, medicaid, social security, foreign aid, etc).

The whole government budget is pork. And since Paul wants to slash the budget by at least 1 trillion in the first year, he's against pork, is he not?
edit on 27-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I do have that authority, because they have not challenged unconstitutional legislation.

The Patriot Act, TSA, and NDAA are unconstitutional. They haven't challenged it. They are incompetent. There is no debate here, those things are simply unconstitutional, and IDGTS if they say so or not.
edit on 27-12-2011 by TupacShakur because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by MrWendal
 


If you think Ron Paul has good leadership skills...please prove it...show me anywhere he has led and been successful.



How about a national revolution numbering in the millions? that IS why its called the Ron Paul Revolution...right?

How about 12 victories in congressional campaigns?

K.O. !!!


lol I like this ko thing, thanks krossfyter.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by TupacShakur
 



I try my best to follow the Constitution. They don't. If they actually did their jobs and operated correctly, by challenging OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional legislation, that would be a different story.


Again...you don't have any authority to claim that "they don't" follow the Constitution.

This is your personal opinion...there are many others out there that disagree with your personal opinion. This is why we have the SCOTUS....and we all agree (by following the Constitution) to abide by their decision...no matter if it coincides with our personal opinion or not.


Patriot act passed. It spies on Americans. NDAA passed it. It lets the Government lock up Americans without trial. Endless spending and war that cripple our country, ignoring obvious sexual assault and loss of freedom through the TSA, forcing people to purchase a product through Obama care, etc. etc. etc. passes on a daily basis.

Voting for the above is not only unconstitutional but borderline treason. That is not based on an opinion but the very document that protect our rights to have an opinion.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




This is your personal opinion...there are many others out there that disagree with your personal opinion. This is why we have the SCOTUS....and we all agree (by following the Constitution) to abide by their decision...no matter if it coincides with our personal opinion or not.

BS. When they said african american were slaves, people should have just licked the boots of the supreme court? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

SCOTUS can rule that everyone with blond hair can kill anyone they want, and you will agree with it because it's the almighty SCOTUS?

You must be kidding. Whatever the hell they say, if it restricts god-given rights, then it's unconstitutional, period.
edit on 27-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


didn't' you hear? he's the trillion dollar pork master!



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 



Voted no on US Patriot Act of 2001 - Constitution?

Voted no on TARP in 2008 - taxing the people?

RE-elected to 12 terms - he must be doing something right.

Do I really have to keep going on his constitutional voting record?


Yes you do have to keep going, because with your defintion of "success" sounds a lot like Michelle Bachman's definition of "success". Remember, she "fought" against "obamacare"...and against the stimulus...and against the debt ceiling....but she FAILED to stop any of those.

Just like Ron Paul...he has FAILED to do anything. He can vote "no" all he wants...but unless he has the leadership skills to convince others that his way of thinking is valid and that they should vote no as well...then he has FAILED.

This has got to be the most ridiculous argument I have heard yet...Ron Paul is successful because he has failed to stop things he is against.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 


Nope, sorry, you can't have an opinion. If the Supreme Court doesn't tell you that something is unconstitutional, it's not unconstitutional. The logic of an Obama supporter is ROCK SOLID.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 



Wars end. Prohibition ends. Largest prison population in the world ends. Borders are secured. Obama care ends. NDAA ends. Patriot act ends. Budget is cut by 1 trillion the first year.


And he is going to do all this outside of congress???

He can't repeal bills on his own...and he can't pass budgets on his own.

I don't think you fully understand the powers the President has.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join