Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   

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.

I know you don't like Ron Paul's failure being exposed, which is why you attempted to derail the thread and try to claim "victory" multiple times in the thread.


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.




posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I never quoted the Oath of Office, if I was going to do that, I'd pull up an actual quote.

You know....for quoting.

Do you disagree that it is part of the job of a congressman to serve and protect his constituents?


Then again, I really don't trust your judgement considering your advocation for disregard of the actual constitution and oath of office itself. Since, you know, passing bills by volume is more important than the substance itself.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   
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.

The serve their constituents...they don't "protect" them.

My representative isn't my bodyguard or mommy...I don't need them to "protect" me. The "serve" me only in the sense that if I don't agree with the job they are doing I won't vote for them at re-election time.

You seem to have romanticized the job of a congressman.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:42 AM
link   

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.


So why did you go on a rant about FACTS AND OPINIONS throughout this thread?

Is it not merely your own opinion that he is a failure as a congressman? When the opposing views have shown that he cannot be a failure if he is actually doing his job, not being in the pockets of special interests and staying true to the Constitution and Oath of Office?

I know you hate me for pulling out the ol' Constitution and Double O that you seem to conveniently forget (stop forgetting, silly) but it is what the job of a congressman whether you like it or not.

THAT IS A FACT.

Your OPINION of his performance IS NOT.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

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.


It's odd that you see verifiable facts as being a "troll post".

If you are worked up about what you see in this topic...it is because you probably had no idea how unsuccessful Ron Paul has been as a congressman.

A leader gets people to follow him by demonstrating his ideas are good and make logical sense...Ron Paul has failed to do that in his 14 years in office. This is what this thread is showing...if people are worked up about that...it's because the truth hurts and they don't like it.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:47 AM
link   

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.






Whooooaaaaaaa hold your horses! RED ALERT! RED ALERT!

If we're going only by what the official oath of office is, how can Ron Paul be a failure? Where does it say in the Oath of Office that a congressman needs to a sh***load of bills to be considered successful? Where does it say in the oath of office that you need to be a proven leader on capitol hill to be a successful congressman?


You're digging your own hole here, I'm just throwing dirt on you as you go.






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



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


The facts speak for themselves.

Introduced 464 bills...got one insignificant bill passed.

You can call that a successful career all you want...I don't.

You have failed to show how he has been a success...other than saying that his failure to pass his bills is a proof of his success.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


I never said it was part of his oath to pass bills...I think your own mind is spinning because you are trying so hard to paint this in some sort of positive light, that you are mixing up your words for mine. You tried to define their oath and equate that to their success or failure...not me.

Facts are facts.

464 bills introduced...1 bill passed.

That's it...period.
edit on 27-12-2011 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Since, you know, passing bills by volume is more important than the substance itself.


Substance of what?

The only Bill he got passed was for a parcel of land, so that is the only substance there is for the totallity of his career as a Congressman.

He represents the worst kind of career politician at the national level, a do nothing seat warmer to send pork back home to get reelected to do more seat warming and continue to fish for more pork to send back home to perptuate the career. He even went so far as to brag about never seeking committee chairs, well we can see why because that would require him to work.

He probably views the Presidency as the ultimate loafers dream job, he wouldn't have to do anything and could blame it all on Congressional gridlock. All of his campaign promises would be just like all of them failed Bills he halfheartedly proposed and never worked to get through as a Congressman.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:58 AM
link   
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?


I already know how you'll answer that one.




posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   

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?


Define "bad bills"...you act as if there is a universal agreed upon definition on what makes a bill "bad".

Attempting to do ANYTHING 464 times and only being successful once is failing. There is no career where that type of performance would be acceptable.

And you keep claiming that Ron Paul has changed the national political dialogue.
In what way??? For as much as you want it to be true...Ending the Fed is not the biggest issue for this election.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 



If you don't know how Ron Paul has changed the national political dialogue, you're just straight up refusing to look at reality.

Not even the MSM can deny how much Ron Paul has done to change the political climate in this country.



I get why you made this thread though, I really get it. No harm done, you just do what you have to bash Ron Paul because he is threatening the GOP as an official TOP TIER CANDIDATE and scaring the poopies out of Obama. Why else would you go from bashing Ron Paul straw poll victories to full fledged threads?

As he does better and better, I expect more threads from you. I won't be surprised but, again, like this thread, you won't be convincing people otherwise. The message is too strong for you to try to contain.


But I will tell you this, Obama's going to have a tough time answering directly to Ron Paul in the debates on NDAA.


goodnight everybody.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I believe this makes me want him even more.


I know his politics are good, and that congress is bad. Therefore, logic dictates that this post of yours ought to be true.


It simply reinforces his outsider status.

Congress is the plague. And if you're that unliked by them, you must be good.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 


He represents the "don't go with the pack". That is the best type of congress person. The person immune to the party whip. The person unable to go with the pack.

It makes him the outside he claims to be.

And if we simply look at the last session: Pizza is a vegetable for example, then hell. This makes him the only sane person in a mad house.
edit on 27-12-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
20
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join