Thread: What are the facts on Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by specsaregood

Originally Posted by UB

I read the list of RP votes. I would have voted no on most of them also. You should remember, we are not an anti-immigration group. We are an anti-illegal immigration group. Additionally, RP is a state's rights advocate and a constitutionalist, many of the issues in the list where instances where the federal government was over-reaching into the rights of states and citizens. We need more like him.

UB

This occurred to me today:
The media and it seems everybody (even his supporters) have tried to get the man to commit to running 3rd party if he does not get the GOP nomination. Why? Because they want him gone.

My understanding is that you can run for President and Congress in Texas at the same time under the LBJ rule as long as you are running for both in the same party. If I am correct about this, then if he went 3rd party or Independent he would not be able to run for his congressional seat and THAT WOULD BE BAD! Because I don't want him completely out of government. We need him up there.

With that said, I'll vote for him and support him no matter what he chooses.

Therfore he should run as an Independent for both as a candidate for the President and Congressman!

I think Johnathons list on voting is kind of "deceptive" because it does not cover the "whole story".... it is "spin".

Most of these bills are "bundled" and have nasty things attached to them that are 100% unconstitutional and he won't vote for it then.

For example he voted to not reduce something in regards to the U.N., well he doesn't think we should be in the U.N. at all so he won't vote for ANY funding!!! In fact he submits a bill to withdraw us from the communist group altogether.

I don't know all the details on every example cited but I would imagine most of the NO votes are based on some part of the bill being unconstitutional (not an expressed power of the federal gov. under article 1 section eight .

But the conventional wisdom is that a politician should be willing and able to set aside his own conscience and convictions to do what is expedient. That's why so many people don't like Ron Paul, they can't even fathom what it would be like to stand upon a moral principle in the face of 434 to 1 odds.

Thanks for the Pon Paul link PinestrawGuys, I went to the site and was pleased to see all of the updates.

I cannot help but to admire Paul and all of his supporters. Truely revolutionary.

I wonder how Jefferson, or Madison, Washington, or Adams would fair in this political climate and with the media. I know that they would fight onward, but cannot help if just for a fleeting second they would not think about getting on a boat and heading back to England?

Lynne, Thanks for the post.

Originally Posted by roundabout

Thanks for the Pon Paul link PinestrawGuys, I went to the site and was pleased to see all of the updates.

I cannot help but to admire Paul and all of his supporters. Truely revolutionary.

I wonder how Jefferson, or Madison, Washington, or Adams would fair in this political climate and with the media. I know that they would fight onward, but cannot help if just for a fleeting second they would not think about getting on a boat and heading back to England?

I'm sure they would be labelled as fringe kooks just as Dr. Paul has been. It seems a shame to me that our Founding documents and adherence to them has suddenly become 'fringe kookiness'.

What was it that Orwell said??? "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

That whole laundry list you posted is a load of BS. It's just cherry-picking certain votes without any explanation. If you look into each vote, you will find that Paul votes based strictly on the Constitution.

For example, your laundry list of supposed "unconservative" votes includes: "Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1."

That's because Paul is against ANY FEDERAL LAW imposing waiting periods. Such laws are totally unconstitutional! He would not have voted for the 3-day ban in the first place. Paul makes votes like this because the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to impose ANY waiting period for gun ownership.

Every single one of those so-called anti-conservative votes is conservative, if you actually look into it. I could go down your whole list and blow every single point you made out of the water.

Your whole list is nothing but cut-and-paste cherry picking randomly off the internet, and frankly, I find it dishonest. Did you research any of these votes before trying to smear Paul here?

PinestrawGuys,

Having been a member of the "conservitive movement" for close to 30 yrs, it is hard to stomach such a "movement" is akin to a "lion with no teeth."

I like more and more of what I am seeing of Paul. It is taking some time to remove all of the debris that has been stacked in front of Paul. Am I cautionary? You bet! I've been duped too many time by my own party.

Go Ron Paul!

"I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces from within." General Douglas MacArthur

Originally Posted by Enchilada_Non_Grada

That whole laundry list you posted is a load of BS. It's just cherry-picking certain votes without any explanation. If you look into each vote, you will find that Paul votes based strictly on the Constitution.

For example, your laundry list of supposed "unconservative" votes includes: "Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1."

That's because Paul is against ANY FEDERAL LAW imposing waiting periods. Such laws are totally unconstitutional! He would not have voted for the 3-day ban in the first place. Paul makes votes like this because the federal government has no authority under the Constitution to impose ANY waiting period for gun ownership.

Every single one of those so-called anti-conservative votes is conservative, if you actually look into it. I could go down your whole list and blow every single point you made out of the water.

Your whole list is nothing but cut-and-paste cherry picking randomly off the internet, and frankly, I find it dishonest. Did you research any of these votes before trying to smear Paul here?

"ANY FEDERAL LAW imposing waiting periods. Such laws are totally unconstitutional"
Where in the Constitution?

:P Very nice civil discussion going on here.

Dixie