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

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

This my friends is why this person does not get it at all.

Hey, Obama is going to ask for another 1+ trillion increase in the debt ceiling. I am sure S&P is going to love that one, can we say another downgrade in the credit rating. So go ahead and keep on borrowing, keep on with the right left paradigm while people like Ron Paul think outside of the norm.....eventually your ability to borrow will be gone and where you will be.

You do know that one of S&P's big reason to downgrade our credit was due to people like Ron Paul refusing to raise the debt limit...right???

It was because there was the threat that the debt ceiling wouldn't be raised and we may default on some payments that caused the downgrade...not the fact that we did end up raising it and continued to make our payments.

But I guess you understand it better than I do...apparently our credit rating would of been fine if we didn't raise the debt limit and defaulted on our payments

Partly, but the Washington Post said this:

It said the bipartisan agreement reached this week to find at least $2.1 trillion in budget savings “fell short” of what was necessary to tame the nation’s debt over time and predicted that leaders would not be likely to achieve more savings in the future.

The debt ceiling was a result of the inability of the stooges in Congress to find savings in the budget (you know the one that hasn't been passed in over 1000 days).

And Ron Paul had the immediate answer of freezing spending at 2010 levels (crazy, right?) which would immediately realize a one trillion dollar savings.

reply to post by budcin

Originally posted by budcin
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

If you understood civil liberties, you would see he hates abortion. But he has said he has no right to dictate to anyone what to do to with there bodies, hmmm sounds to me like he wouldn't try to overturn anything, he would let us choose what we want to do no matter what anyone including himself thinks about it

This is from his Campaign Website:

And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

As I thought, his supporters don't even know his positions...

Now... Do you have a source that confirms "he has said he has no right to dictate to anyone what to do to with there bodies"?

Your arguments just don't make any sense.

Actually, they do. And if you knew his positions on the actual issues instead of seeing him as some kind of savior, yours might make sense, too.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

How many jobs has the government created? Millions.

Or do Police, Fire fighters, Health Department, Social workers, engineers, Teachers and Soldiers not count?

WHat is this 'smaller government' argument everyone keeps making?

This is a democracy, or is at least supposed to be.

Smaller Government just concentrates power into the hands of a very few.

What we need is a huge Government, one which every single citizen is a part of.

The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf.

Governments do not create real employment. Where does the government get its funds, the taxpayer - from you and me. They are taking my money to give to someone else, I have little or no input as to where those funds are used. Private industry creates real jobs - not this government/corpopration co-op we have today.

and where did I suggest that we get rid of all government employees?

Originally posted by budcin
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

If you understood civil liberties, you would see he hates abortion. But he has said he has no right to dictate to anyone what to do to with there bodies, hmmm sounds to me like he wouldn't try to overturn anything, he would let us choose what we want to do no matter what anyone including himself thinks about it. That should bother pro lifers more than pro choice-rs

Actually, since I just spent an hour looking at the list that the OP provided, I see he introduced and supported the "life begins at conception" bill multiple times:

H.R. 2533: Sanctity of Life Act of 2009
HR 1096 Sanctity of Life bill
H.R. 776: Sanctity of Life Act of 2005
H.R. 2597: Sanctity of Life Act of 2007
H.R. 1094: Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (yes, twice in the same year)

Each of these bills also contains sections denying women the right to birth control pills (because some cause the fertile egg to not become implanted). Apparently he believes we should keep having babies until we have our tubes tied or men get on track with the "wear a condom or get the snip" concept.

His "government stays out of people's lives" statement isn't in alignment with his multiple earlier bills that were designed to NOT allow the Feds to hear abortion related cases: www.govtrack.us...

So... every state can define "abortion limits" as they like as long as anyone who causes a fertile embryo to NOT result in a pregnancy can be prosecuted.

(yes, that's what the bills say. This is why I'm not voting for him (that, and he's against environmental policies.))

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Totally lost my vote here! H.R. 1099: Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act of 2011 -- To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. (I went to family planning clinics for my birth control pills when we were young and poor. Now this physician doesn't want poor women to have FREE birth control pills?)

If case you don't know, Ron Paul is not an advocate of these measures being handled by the federal government. Where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government is to control the population?

This is, and should be a State matter.

Indellkoffer he is for state rights. from what i gather so far from studying this is there will be a state where your belief system is respected and there will be another state where another belief system is respected.

under an obama or romney or newt presidency its one size fits all which doesnt work.

reply to post by MidnightTide


So Public school Teachers and Soldiers are not 'real jobs?'

Making government smaller leads inevitably to less people being represented. And to the concentration of political power.

Two tenets that, apparently, Ron Paul and his supporters are all for.

I fail to see the logic in your argument.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Totally lost my vote here! H.R. 1099: Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act of 2011 -- To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. (I went to family planning clinics for my birth control pills when we were young and poor. Now this physician doesn't want poor women to have FREE birth control pills?)

If case you don't know, Ron Paul is not an advocate of these measures being handled by the federal government. Where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government is to control the population?

This is, and should be a State matter.

(sigh) Been there. Done that.

What you're talking about is inequality in health care based on state standards. Yes, I remember the days when women couldn't get birth control pills in one area and had to drive a long way to get them from another area (or go to California, if you could afford it.)

If states have no standards of health care (I've lived through this) you have a lot of abuses in the system. And it's not "the goverment" controlling the poopulation -- it's women like me deciding "even if I'm poor, I don't want 10 kids -- I only want 2! And I want them 4 years apart!"

Nations with this kind of health care access for women have smaller populations, fewer poor people, and better economic opportunities for everyone. Nations which ban birth control typically have high populations, lots of poor, and (quite often) deaths of female children.

But... we both have the right to vote for things. I'm voting against him based in part on his policies. It's okay if you vote for him.

However, I lived through times when that WAS the standard and it was not pretty if you (like so many Americans today) were not in the middle class or upper class.

reply to post by seachange

Originally posted by seachange
De-regulation of banks? Not going to happen under Paul.

During the past few presidential elections, I have been carefully watching what the candidates promise to do and what actually gets done and what I have learned is, you never know what they will get done and what will 'never happen' until the end of their term. All we can do is educate ourselves and HOPE they pass the items that are important to us.

In my search to decide whether or not to support Ron Paul, I have come across many items that I fully agree with him on, but the ones I disagree with are FAR too dangerous (IMO) to take a chance with. And I think if Paul got his way with some of his economic ideas, it would turn the US economy on its head and we'd all be shaking our heads, wondering why we elected this radical guy!

Originally posted by krossfyter
Indellkoffer he is for state rights. from what i gather so far from studying this is there will be a state where your belief system is respected and there will be another state where another belief system is respected.

under an obama or romney or newt presidency its one size fits all which doesnt work.

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

Yes. I know.

I grew up during the 1940's and 1950's when states didn't have consistent standards.

...when a Black boy could be lynched (legally) in one state for talking to a White girl (I remember that one) but it would have been "okay" in another state. I remember a lot of us women going to Mexico and California and Canada for birth control pills (and abortions) because no state close to us allowed pills or abortions.

I remember when it was okay to be Pagan in California ... and it was okay to beat up Pagans (or gays) in Alabama.

You'll forgive me, I hope, but having lived through those times, I prefer a uniform standard of justice and a uniform standard of medical care. I wish I could take you back in a time machine and show you some of the realities of being poor and Not White during that time (I'm White, but some of my students weren't. Teachers like to help kids in trouble... and believe me, as a teacher you quickly see when the system isn't working for good and deserving kids simply because they were born the wrong race or picked a religion the state didn't support.)

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

So Public school Teachers and Soldiers are not 'real jobs?'

Making government smaller leads inevitably to less people being represented. And to the concentration of political power.

Two tenets that, apparently, Ron Paul and his supporters are all for.

I fail to see the logic in your argument.

Again, where did I suggest that I fire all teachers, soldiers, police officers...etc?

Where are the people being represented? Last time I looked, the people didn't want the bailouts - happened anyway. Your reasoning would give government complete and total control.

Your just trying to twist my words and failing at said attempt.

reply to post by Indellkoffer


Good for you for looking into his positions! I wish his supporters would do the same. That's what I've been doing. Several weeks ago, I was nearly convinced that I wanted to vote for him, but the more I found out, the more I didn't like. So, I have decided not to vote for him...

If he was for equality and freedom for ALL people, including women and gay people, then it would be across the board, with the government NOT interfering in women's reproductive rights and marriage issues.

I read in your other post about Paul's position on birth control pills for poor women... So, a woman gets pregnant because she can't afford birth control and then she can't get an abortion because the government won't let her. So, another poor baby is born to starve and struggle on the streets of Anytown, USA...

This is NOT what we need...

and who has said Ron Paul has the solutions to everything?

We get all these Ron Paul threads, pro and con - where are the threads about the other candidates?

Originally posted by krossfyter
Indellkoffer he is for state rights. from what i gather so far from studying this is there will be a state where your belief system is respected and there will be another state where another belief system is respected.

under an obama or romney or newt presidency its one size fits all which doesnt work.

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

There is no "one size fits all" religion here. We have freedom of religion. FEDERALLY GUARANTEED. First Amendment!

WTF? That sounds like a nightmare! By the way, we can all live together in this great country and respect other people's right to their beliefs! It does work. Religion by state! Bah! That's insane!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by krossfyter
Indellkoffer he is for state rights. from what i gather so far from studying this is there will be a state where your belief system is respected and there will be another state where another belief system is respected.

under an obama or romney or newt presidency its one size fits all which doesnt work.

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

There is no "one size fits all" religion here. We have freedom of religion. FEDERALLY GUARANTEED. First Amendment!

WTF? That sounds like a nightmare! By the way, we can all live together in this great country and respect other people's right to their beliefs! It does work. Religion by state! Bah! That's insane!

When did it work? People just don't work that way, history has proved this time and time again.

I am all for freedom of religion, worship whoever you want to as long as you don't impose your beliefs on me. Government should have no involvement in religion and vise versa.

reply to post by MidnightTide


Your premise is that smaller government will cure our ills.

Government builds roads, pays soldiers, teachers.

Shrinking government equals not doing these things.

Am I missing something?

Originally posted by MidnightTide
When did it work?

It works now. We have freedom of religion. People need to get out of others' lives and not worry about someone's religion. It's no one's business.

Government should have no involvement in religion and vise versa.

TOTALLY agree! Including state government. The federal protection of religious freedom is necessary! (and I'm an atheist) And turning it over to the states would be a failure to enforce the Constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, for ALL people!

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


You author a thread on the premise that Ron Paul has shown poor leadership skills, because his peers disagree with him. By your logic, I suppose Gregor Mendal, Ignaz Semmelweis, George Zweig, Albert Einstein, & Ludwig Boltzmann all failures because they were considered to be crazy scientists in their time.

Your logic on the SCOTUS is troubling to me. You state, that if the SCOTUS does not deem something unconstitutional, than it is not. While I agree the official record states it is not unconstitutional, it does not mean it is not in-fact, unconstitutional. For instance, if the 4th amendment limits the powers of government's right to spy into the lives of it's citizens, then anything that grants the power to do so should be deemed unconstitutional. It isnt the constitutions fault that the Supreme Court Judges are either insouciant, or worse corrupt to see that the patriot act is in direct conflict with the 4th amendment; and that the NDAA 2012, section 1032 is in direct violation of the 5th amendment. Remember that we are in a country in which the government and its politicians are bought out to the highest bidder (by means of undisclosed lobbying and campaign contributions; because for some reason we think corporations are people too), which is also a supreme court ruling by the way.

As far as the wars that are going on...I am currently more concerned about domestic issues and economic policy than I am with foreign policy. I wouldn't vote for someone soley on ending a war...I don't base my vote on one single issue.

I suppose your not aware that the current economic problems are not greatly influenced by our gun-slinging foreign policy?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


How ridiculous. The reason we support Ron Paul is because he is the only one trying to do anything for the people. If his bills were being passed left and right we would have a lot more hope.

It's supposed to be a negative thing that the congress that is screwing us over has screwed us and RP over even more by not passing bills beneficial to the people? If anything it makes what we are up against more easily recognizable. You had to know this wasn't a legit argument. You are smarter than that.

Chiming in to say I love this thread, and it shows a lot about what is wrong with America (reading the OPs reasoning and pretty much just foolish antics to try and defame maybe THE last man in America that we the people can count on to do the right thing)

For the first time I actually saw Ron's picture with other candidates on the news. It's only taken what? Oh, all of US to challenge the system. Give anyone enough attention and support, and the corporate whore media will eventually have to address it (even if they only want to talk about 22 year old letters)

Ron has my vote, especially after reading this thread. Thank you OP. You shed more light on what I was only a little aware of. I don't care if anything gets past, as long as it's for the people, and constitutional. The things that have been past in the last 20 years we should all be ashamed of.

Great job ATS'ers! Looks like Ron is gonna take this one hands down, (if they count the people's vote that is) or if he doesn't end up dead. He is challenging the rich and elite (Federal Reserve) so this one is going to remain very interesting all the way through. If he does die, prepare yourself for a real revolution.