It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
its not the content, its the motive.
what was that about being illogical and fanatical?
Do you disagree that it is part of the job of a congressman to serve and protect his constituents?
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
its not the content, its the motive.
what was that about being illogical and fanatical?
The motive is to provide some FACTS about Ron Paul and his legislative history. (Facts have been sorely missed on ATS about Ron Paul)
You see this as a negative and an attack because you know how poorly these FACTS reflect on Ron Paul.
He is a failure as a congressmen...there is no other way to slice it.
Keep trying...it doesn't change the facts...they aren't going anywhere and no matter how hard you try, you can't change them.
Originally posted by Echo007
You didn't even bother to look at his "questionable past", you believe anything MSM tells you to. This topic is nothing but a troll post trying to get others worked up.
You want people to vote for someone who is willing to work with anyone to pass as many bills they can and don't care what's in them long as they pass stuff. We already have too many people like that in DC, its one of the main reason this country is in such bad shape.
That kind of person isn't a leader hes a follower, doesn't like to make waves to stand for what he believes in.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by eLPresidente
Do you disagree that it is part of the job of a congressman to serve and protect his constituents?
I disagree that it is part of their oath, which you kept claiming it was.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Since, you know, passing bills by volume is more important than the substance itself.
Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
Who constitutes that passing bad bills = successful? In what congressional strategists' book does it say that?
What do you prefer? A congressman that can lead congress pass volumes of bills that they're all paid to do anyways? Or a congressman that positively alters the national political dialogue?