Was Ron Paul Cheated?

page: 2
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


No, there is basic legislation that keeps the government running on a day to day basis. I'm not speaking about stuff like the NDAA.

Certain agencies need funds to operate and are vital to keeping our country up and running. Paul would not even do this basic work because it violates his principles in some way or has something minor attached to it that he doesn't like.

That is what I mean by bad legislation. Basically he would refuse to sign these things and Congress would just sit there and wait for things to get bad enough until people demanded something be done.

I'm sorry you missed this rather obvious point.


This is your major voting block people, take a good look and thank them for all the good things they've helped accomplish by electing the people who push "bad legislation" because it has to be done? Well it's a good thing right? isn't it rather obvious?


Hmmm you guys are missing the point about bad legislation. It refers to passing things like basic budgets even if the funds are not accounted for or come from programs they shouldn't. Without doing so would cause even worse devastation in the country.

Weird that I have to explain this to so many people.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Here is an example.

Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert Bill because he believed it was not the Federal Governments responsibility to do so.

It did not matter that States were not doing this themselves, the only thing that mattered was Pauls principles.

That one bill has been responsible for saving the lives of over 500 innocent children who otherwise would have been dead.

Paul was willing to sacrifice the lives of these children in order to stand on a principle that at best falls into a grey area. Now do you think he would have an issue letting unemployment skyrocket or the economy collapse in order to stand for another of his principles?


This is the thing though, everyone has principles, to say that he would not be willing to compromise ever I think does the man a great disservice. As great a disservice as politicians that are willing to compromise on everything which is what we currently are dealing with. They as such are vulnerable to being controlled and manipulated and isn't this what we are currently seeing?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Here is an example.

Ron Paul voted against the Amber Alert Bill because he believed it was not the Federal Governments responsibility to do so.

It did not matter that States were not doing this themselves, the only thing that mattered was Pauls principles.

That one bill has been responsible for saving the lives of over 500 innocent children who otherwise would have been dead.

Paul was willing to sacrifice the lives of these children in order to stand on a principle that at best falls into a grey area. Now do you think he would have an issue letting unemployment skyrocket or the economy collapse in order to stand for another of his principles?


This is the thing though, everyone has principles, to say that he would not be willing to compromise ever I think does the man a great disservice. As great a disservice as politicians that are willing to compromise on everything which is what we currently are dealing with. They as such are vulnerable to being controlled and manipulated and isn't this what we are currently seeing?


I am simply looking at Paul's 30 year history in Congress and not seeing him compromise ever really. Why you assume he will change if hes President is rather baffling.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Hopechest...

I can understand what you are trying to say...gridlock doesn't get anything accomplished. Gridlock is only part of the problem. Sometimes good legislation gets shot down because some crook (pick your party) attaches an amendment to a relatively good bill...like the spending attachments to the Superstorm Sandy aid bill...It was held up and stalled for good reasons...why did someone think it was ok to attach all that pork to that bill? Because they thought they could get it ushered through and laugh all the way to the bank with their criminal friends and cronies.

Someone needs to look at things and say "No...we are not going to do that"...Ron paul was not simply a "No" man. He would have looked at things like this logically and said yes or no based on their merit, not just flat "no".

He also respects the fact that our Republic was set up to give the individual states authority over the day to day affairs that happen within their borders. The Fed has no right to dictate expense to any state...they do it, but that is not how our founding fathers intended...they did not want a centralized Gov, they wanted a federation, a collection of states capable of handling the needs of their own citizens...that is not where we are headed...



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


No, there is basic legislation that keeps the government running on a day to day basis. I'm not speaking about stuff like the NDAA.

Certain agencies need funds to operate and are vital to keeping our country up and running. Paul would not even do this basic work because it violates his principles in some way or has something minor attached to it that he doesn't like.

That is what I mean by bad legislation. Basically he would refuse to sign these things and Congress would just sit there and wait for things to get bad enough until people demanded something be done.

I'm sorry you missed this rather obvious point.


This is your major voting block people, take a good look and thank them for all the good things they've helped accomplish by electing the people who push "bad legislation" because it has to be done? Well it's a good thing right? isn't it rather obvious?


Hmmm you guys are missing the point about bad legislation. It refers to passing things like basic budgets even if the funds are not accounted for or come from programs they shouldn't. Without doing so would cause even worse devastation in the country.

Weird that I have to explain this to so many people.


Well it seems to me we have been 5 years without a budget, so Obama is a better choice than Paul how?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


The country needs legislation passed even if it's bad? OMG You are so out of touch with reality, no further words are needed.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


No, there is basic legislation that keeps the government running on a day to day basis. I'm not speaking about stuff like the NDAA.

Certain agencies need funds to operate and are vital to keeping our country up and running. Paul would not even do this basic work because it violates his principles in some way or has something minor attached to it that he doesn't like.

That is what I mean by bad legislation. Basically he would refuse to sign these things and Congress would just sit there and wait for things to get bad enough until people demanded something be done.

I'm sorry you missed this rather obvious point.


This is your major voting block people, take a good look and thank them for all the good things they've helped accomplish by electing the people who push "bad legislation" because it has to be done? Well it's a good thing right? isn't it rather obvious?


Hmmm you guys are missing the point about bad legislation. It refers to passing things like basic budgets even if the funds are not accounted for or come from programs they shouldn't. Without doing so would cause even worse devastation in the country.

Weird that I have to explain this to so many people.


Well it seems to me we have been 5 years without a budget, so Obama is a better choice than Paul how?


I never implied he was better, in many ways he is worse. However, there is not 100% gridlock in Washington, basic things like keeping the government running, still get passed albeit with a lot of bickering but the country does still function.

I do not see this happening with a Paul presidency because he refuses to compromise on any issue. This means federal employees don't get paid so quit working, our military funding stops, our overseas operations come to a halt, basically the country shuts down.

Now if Paul does compromise than he is just like any other politician and loses that which makes him unique.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by Hopechest
 


The country needs legislation passed even if it's bad? OMG You are so out of touch with reality, no further words are needed.


Well i'm not explaining it a fourth time so read through the thread if you want a more detailed explanation.

Obviously you didn't get the point of that statement.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


No, there is basic legislation that keeps the government running on a day to day basis. I'm not speaking about stuff like the NDAA.

Certain agencies need funds to operate and are vital to keeping our country up and running. Paul would not even do this basic work because it violates his principles in some way or has something minor attached to it that he doesn't like.

That is what I mean by bad legislation. Basically he would refuse to sign these things and Congress would just sit there and wait for things to get bad enough until people demanded something be done.

I'm sorry you missed this rather obvious point.


This is your major voting block people, take a good look and thank them for all the good things they've helped accomplish by electing the people who push "bad legislation" because it has to be done? Well it's a good thing right? isn't it rather obvious?


Hmmm you guys are missing the point about bad legislation. It refers to passing things like basic budgets even if the funds are not accounted for or come from programs they shouldn't. Without doing so would cause even worse devastation in the country.

Weird that I have to explain this to so many people.


Well it seems to me we have been 5 years without a budget, so Obama is a better choice than Paul how?


I never implied he was better, in many ways he is worse. However, there is not 100% gridlock in Washington, basic things like keeping the government running, still get passed albeit with a lot of bickering but the country does still function.

I do not see this happening with a Paul presidency because he refuses to compromise on any issue. This means federal employees don't get paid so quit working, our military funding stops, our overseas operations come to a halt, basically the country shuts down.

Now if Paul does compromise than he is just like any other politician and loses that which makes him unique.


Wow so Paul would cut Federal funding to employees that don't do their job? Cut military spending? and stop wars overseas??? Wow that does sound very detrimental!



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:11 PM
link   


I never implied he was better, in many ways he is worse. However, there is not 100% gridlock in Washington, basic things like keeping the government running, still get passed albeit with a lot of bickering but the country does still function.

I do not see this happening with a Paul presidency because he refuses to compromise on any issue. This means federal employees don't get paid so quit working, our military funding stops, our overseas operations come to a halt, basically the country shuts down.

Now if Paul does compromise than he is just like any other politician and loses that which makes him unique.


I think less than 100% gridlock in the wrong direction is worse than a full stop. Maybe, just maybe he would have forced congress to be a bit more less compliant to people that want to take a big s**t on our country?

It's possible it would have had the opposite effect and forced them to actually work as a team instead of 2 opposing teams. The simple fact of the matter is we will never know because they never saw fit to even give the system a chance of working as it was intended to work.

edit on 19-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: spelling



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Your assumption is invalid. Why? Because I read the entire thread. In your context, it is justified to pass bad legislation to keep the government running? Well, weren't you a sucker for the fiscal cliff.

You know little of politics. So keep posting, and I'll keep laughing.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 


Well when Congress presents him with the tally on federal spending for the year Paul will look at it and more than likely find things in there that he doesn't agree with. When that happens he will either veto it or simply not sign it until Congress removes or changes what he doesn't like.

Congress of course will balk at this and refuse to cave in to Paul. You will then have a deadlock with neither side budging.

This will result in no funds for the federal government to disperse which will make all the above happen. If you disagree with that then explain how you seeing it play out.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Your assumption is invalid. Why? Because I read the entire thread. In your context, it is justified to pass bad legislation to keep the government running? Well, weren't you a sucker for the fiscal cliff.

You know little of politics. So keep posting, and I'll keep laughing.


So I'm assuming you would let the economy collapse completely rather than pass a bad bill to keep it running?

I guess we will need those BOB's after anarchy hits the streets.

Good Call!



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77


I never implied he was better, in many ways he is worse. However, there is not 100% gridlock in Washington, basic things like keeping the government running, still get passed albeit with a lot of bickering but the country does still function.

I do not see this happening with a Paul presidency because he refuses to compromise on any issue. This means federal employees don't get paid so quit working, our military funding stops, our overseas operations come to a halt, basically the country shuts down.

Now if Paul does compromise than he is just like any other politician and loses that which makes him unique.


I think less than 100% gridlock in the wrong direction is worse than a full stop. Maybe, just maybe he would have forced congress to be a bit more less compliant to people that want to take a big s**t on our country?

It's possible it would have had the opposite effect and forced them to actually work as a team instead of 2 opposing teams. The simple fact of the matter is we will never know because they never saw fit to even give the system a chance of working as it was intended to work.

edit on 19-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: spelling


I respectfully disagree. What would happen in my opinion is that Congress would simply refuse to capitulate to Paul and constantly speak out negatively about him and simply wait till his term was up rather than agree to the things he wants.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 





It refers to passing things like basic budgets even if the funds are not accounted for or come from programs they shouldn't. Without doing so would cause even worse devastation in the country.


Some of the things you say sound eerily like something Nancy Pelosi would say.

Nancy? Is that you?

We have to pass the bill to see what's in the bill?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by Jeremiah65
 


No, there is basic legislation that keeps the government running on a day to day basis. I'm not speaking about stuff like the NDAA.

Certain agencies need funds to operate and are vital to keeping our country up and running. Paul would not even do this basic work because it violates his principles in some way or has something minor attached to it that he doesn't like.

That is what I mean by bad legislation. Basically he would refuse to sign these things and Congress would just sit there and wait for things to get bad enough until people demanded something be done.

I'm sorry you missed this rather obvious point.


This is your major voting block people, take a good look and thank them for all the good things they've helped accomplish by electing the people who push "bad legislation" because it has to be done? Well it's a good thing right? isn't it rather obvious?


Hmmm you guys are missing the point about bad legislation. It refers to passing things like basic budgets even if the funds are not accounted for or come from programs they shouldn't. Without doing so would cause even worse devastation in the country.

Weird that I have to explain this to so many people.


Well it seems to me we have been 5 years without a budget, so Obama is a better choice than Paul how?


Love it. Facts are facts. Results are results.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by Darkphoenix77


I never implied he was better, in many ways he is worse. However, there is not 100% gridlock in Washington, basic things like keeping the government running, still get passed albeit with a lot of bickering but the country does still function.

I do not see this happening with a Paul presidency because he refuses to compromise on any issue. This means federal employees don't get paid so quit working, our military funding stops, our overseas operations come to a halt, basically the country shuts down.

Now if Paul does compromise than he is just like any other politician and loses that which makes him unique.


I think less than 100% gridlock in the wrong direction is worse than a full stop. Maybe, just maybe he would have forced congress to be a bit more less compliant to people that want to take a big s**t on our country?

It's possible it would have had the opposite effect and forced them to actually work as a team instead of 2 opposing teams. The simple fact of the matter is we will never know because they never saw fit to even give the system a chance of working as it was intended to work.

edit on 19-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: spelling


I respectfully disagree. What would happen in my opinion is that Congress would simply refuse to capitulate to Paul and constantly speak out negatively about him and simply wait till his term was up rather than agree to the things he wants.


We'll never know, they superceded and circumvented our election process and started us on a path of destroying democracy instead now didn't they? What our country really needs is a whole lot more people like Ron Paul in my humble opinion.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by jheated5
 


Well when Congress presents him with the tally on federal spending for the year Paul will look at it and more than likely find things in there that he doesn't agree with. When that happens he will either veto it or simply not sign it until Congress removes or changes what he doesn't like.

Congress of course will balk at this and refuse to cave in to Paul. You will then have a deadlock with neither side budging.

This will result in no funds for the federal government to disperse which will make all the above happen. If you disagree with that then explain how you seeing it play out.


Perhaps this is the reason that the "Line Item veto" should be looked at once again.

The Superstorm Sandy aid package originally hit the floor at around 50 billion dollars...only 18 billion of that was going to direct aid and assistance to the effects of the storm...32+ billion was pure pork. The people in Washington that were elected and were actually doing their jobs said "Hey...wait a minute"...and stalled the passing of the bill. The Liberals and Progressives got all in an uproar over the delays...but rather than being angry at the people who stopped this madness, they should be mad at the crooks who tried to slip that pork in.

Another problem I see is this...the amounts of dollars we legislate to spend has become meaningless to the average Americans...millions, billions, trillions...they hear the numbers so much they mean nothing. They have been numbed to stop thinking about it...billions and trillions...of OUR money...I think I would like it to be spent responsibly...thank you very much.

Consider this...32+ billion in the Sandy relief bill was pork...32 billion...let that sink in for a minute...that is a LOT of money...More than most people can comprehend...If i had just 1% of that...you would never see or hear from me again...
edit on 2/19/2013 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Neither side would let the economy collapse. Don't believe the myth

Yes, you are correct that Ron Paul would have difficulties getting his agenda through Congress and the Senate. Who doesn't? He would not resort to executive orders as our current POTUS is doing. Why? Because they are unconstitutional.

I hear similar logic with my friends with children. They are willing to do anything that infringes upon people's rights, so that their children are okay. Does that metaphorically sound like your bad law argument? When their children grow up, they will point out to their parents that they didn't stand up for what they truly needed - their rights!
edit on 19-2-2013 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Neither side would let the economy collapse. Don't believe the myth

Yes, you are correct that Ron Paul would have difficulties getting his agenda through Congress and the Senate. Who doesn't? He would not resort to executive orders as our current POTUS is doing. Why? Because they are unconstitutional.

I hear similar logic with my friends with children. They are willing to do anything that infringes upon people's rights, so that there children are okay. Does that metaphorically sound like your bad law argument? When their children grow up, they will point out to their parents that they didn't stand up for what they truly needed - their rights!


I am with you, I think when push came to shove that the congress knowing his past stands on things he strongly believes in would be more apt to work with him rather than see the country allow itself to be flushed down the tubes.

Edit: I do understand your fear hope, and am going to go back and star some of your posts. People should be willing to listen to one another, and respect an opinion even if not in agreement with it. I understand your hesitation because of his 30 year record, but the other side of the coin is this, it is alot easier to be unyielding as a congressman than it is as a president and that is something I do believe that Ron Paul knows deep down inside.
edit on 19-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
46
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join