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

Originally posted by iamconcerned
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

So basically, according to the OP, if only Ron Paul sucked up to AIPAC like the 98% of congress who votes against him, and passed some nice bills about Israel's right to bomb Iran, then everyone would think so much more highly of him. Great idea.

No...not at all.

It only demonstrates taht he does not have the leadership skills to push his ideas through congress.

Ron Paul supporters think he has great ideas...believe it or not...a lot of people don't think his ideas are great. His legislative record is evidence that a lot of people, even his peers and members of his own party, do not agree with him on his ideas.

And it isn't just by a little...463 bills failed to get passed by Ron Paul. These are just facts...they can't be denied...they speak for themselves.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with you and so does Ron Paul that we do not have the right to make choices for other people.

Actually Ron Paul only believes that the fedral government doesn't have the right to make choices for you...he is all about the State government making choices for you.

It's his sneaky way to get his agenda pushed...he knows he has no chance of getting what he believes in passed at the federal level (as evident in the OP and his dismal legislative record)...but he does know that there are some states out there that would pass things he agrees with.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


" he is all about the State government making choices for you. "
You mean like what the constitution intended? No way.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I agree with you and so does Ron Paul that we do not have the right to make choices for other people.

Actually Ron Paul only believes that the fedral government doesn't have the right to make choices for you...he is all about the State government making choices for you.

It's his sneaky way to get his agenda pushed...he knows he has no chance of getting what he believes in passed at the federal level (as evident in the OP and his dismal legislative record)...but he does know that there are some states out there that would pass things he agrees with.

Sneaky way? How about following the Constitution!! He's not saying that the States follow HIS agenda. He has no agenda other than getting the federal government to live within its means and obey what our document says!

Tell me why the tenth amendment was created!

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

This is just your opinion. I believe it is a perfectly reasonable and sound explanation. If Congress INSISTS on spending this money, then individual representatives have the right to point the money where they believe it should go.

Yes, it is my opinion...congratulations on seeing the difference. Now...if you only admit that yours is also opinion.

My opinion is that he isn't a superhero...he isn't a savior that so many Ron Paul supporters claim he is. He is a politician...and he does things to get re-elected and tries to doublespeak to try to say he is doing the right thing. Voting against spending...saying that this spending is wrong...and then making sure you get as big of a chunk of that money as you can...that to me is dishonest.

I'd have more respect for him if he voted for the spending and put in the earmarks...but to be contradictory like that is just a demonstration that he is all talk and no different than others.

Admission of opinion was contained in the first sentence: "I believe."

I have at no point claimed my opinion was fact, when there has been no fact to back it up. I admit freely that most of what I say is my own opinion, formed and expressed by me and me alone.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Here is the one that will tip the scales.

Ron Paul claims to be in love with the Constitution and would not do anything against it.

Well, down the toilet with that one too.

Here is a Bill he made that would Strip power from the Supreme Court. We all know this is impossible, the Supreme Court overlooks the lawmakers and can revue any Law passed in the land to revue its Constitutionallity.

Well not if Ron Paul had his way....

Bill Summary & Status
96th Congress (1979 - 1980)
H.R.7955
CRS Summary

Denies jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States to review any State statute or regulation which relates to abortion. Extends such denial of jurisdiction to Federal district courts.

Source Library of Congress

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

Perfectly constitutional.
Please tell me how this is not.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Planet teleX
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

His ideas do not align with the majority of the American people...that is why his ideas don't get passed...not because every other congressmen is corrupt.

Since when do the people decide which bills get passed? Wait until after the election before claiming he doesn't represent the majority.

People elected congressmen who represent their views and ideas...those congressmen do not work with Ron Paul at all to help get any of his ideas passed.

It's simple logic...it's really not that hard to figure out.

I don't usually comment on these political threads..just read them, but I just can't stay away from this one.

I actually thought that perhaps you were an intelligent person with a reasonable view (albiet a bit backwards), when I started reading this thread. This statement right here, however, exposes your double-talk and absolute political ignorance (or is it intentional??)

Here you have a Congressman that you have already started out by saying has been in office for FOURTEEN years. Repeatedly elected and as we all now know (much to your dismay) is VERY popular with us common folk. Obviously, those electing him to office agree with his positions and view and how he has consistantly voted. Just becuase the other corrupt nut jobs in office don't stick to what they promised the people who put them there when it comes time to actually vote or do something that counts, does NOT mean that Dr. Paul is a failure. It means he is one of the VERY rare politicians who votes the way he says he will when lobbying to the general public.

I am so SICK of hearing promises from these greasy liars in office, Obama being at the top of that list. You know what's sad? We have come to EXPECT it. I don't think that anyone is surprised that Obama flat out lied to us, and continues to. After all, that is the political/American way, right? THAT is what you are supporting with your above, ridiculous statement.

I just hope and pray that enough people will not be fooled by the kind of double-talk that you are presenting here. At least here on ATS there are enough people with sense to put you in your place and expose your ideals for what they are.

reply to post by Freenrgy2

This comes from his position that the federal government has no place in this. The federal government should have no authority in assigning or transporting students. This should be a STATE matter.

Doesn't matter if he thinks it's a state right or not...it's his sneaky way to get segregation back into schools.

He knows he can't come right out and say that he wants schools segregated...but he can say he wants it removed from the federal government.

WHY would you want it removed from the federal government if you didn't want some states out there to actually do it???

There is no reason to remove it from the federal government if you in fact think it is wrong to segregate schools...the system in place is working. But if you DO want to see schools segregated...then you would push to get it in control of the states where you KNOW some states would allow it.

Don't try to spin it...this and other positions of his have racial undertones...and with his sketchy past with racism and white supremecy...it isn't hard to connect the dots.

Originally posted by iamconcerned
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

I'd love to bring up the fact that Obama never had any important bills passed in his brief tenure, but of course, that's off topic, the topic is only 'Ron Paul is Lame', not 'Ron Paul isn't that lame when compared to other people'. My apologies for trying to broaden the conversation.

Go make a thread...I would love to prove you wrong in your own thread.

But for now...please stay on topic.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Here is the one that will tip the scales.

Ron Paul claims to be in love with the Constitution and would not do anything against it.

Well, down the toilet with that one too.

Here is a Bill he made that would Strip power from the Supreme Court. We all know this is impossible, the Supreme Court overlooks the lawmakers and can revue any Law passed in the land to revue its Constitutionallity.

Well not if Ron Paul had his way....

Bill Summary & Status
96th Congress (1979 - 1980)
H.R.7955
CRS Summary

Denies jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States to review any State statute or regulation which relates to abortion. Extends such denial of jurisdiction to Federal district courts.

Source Library of Congress

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

Perfectly constitutional.
Please tell me how this is not.

It attempts to remove a Constitutional Power from one of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court.
This is the smoking gun that even proves he is a liar when it comes to defending the Constitution.
The only way to change the powers the Supreme Court has is through a Constitutional Amendment.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


To answer your question,

I don't want a member of the good old boys club, I want a true maverick, that's Ron Paul.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Freenrgy2

Doesn't matter if he thinks it's a state right or not...it's his sneaky way to get segregation back into schools.

You're just so very, very wrong.

He knows he can't come right out and say that he wants schools segregated...but he can say he wants it removed from the federal government.

Because this simply isn't true. Your perception of reality does not make it fact.

WHY would you want it removed from the federal government if you didn't want some states out there to actually do it???

Prove to me that he wants ANY state to do this.

There is no reason to remove it from the federal government if you in fact think it is wrong to segregate schools...the system in place is working. But if you DO want to see schools segregated...then you would push to get it in control of the states where you KNOW some states would allow it.

Don't try to spin it...this and other positions of his have racial undertones...and with his sketchy past with racism and white supremecy...it isn't hard to connect the dots.

That is YOUR opinion and nothing you have stated in ANY of your hate threads has proved to be true. You're like that person who feels that if they scream the loudest and longest, then people will listen to you. Instead, you're just a bunch of noise and are going to drive everyone away.

Your view of humanity through the lenses of racism has distorted your vision my friend. Good luck with whichever candidate you support.

reply to post by TinkerHaus

Anyone delivering a message is subject to character analysis. If your preacher is telling you not to gamble, but has a gambling habit, how good is the advice?

Kind of like how Ron Paul says he is against government spending...but makes sure he gets as much of it as he can???

Yeah...you kind of walked into that one.

The topic was not only about Ron Paul's record in Congress, but you asked our opinions about the matter and challenged our support. You asked us to quantify why Ron Paul would be a good president if he can't even pass more than one piece of sponsored legislation

If you can quote where I mentioned Obama in the OP...then please do and feel free to discuss it. The fact that you can't just talk about Ron Paul's legislative history and failures just shows me that you can't defend it and you WANT to make this thread into something else. If you want to make a thread about Obama...please do so.

There has already been a warning to stay on topic...maybe you should follow the that advice.

reply to post by blangger

So lack of receiving sponsorship from big pharmaceutical, or oil means no success? I guess you are calling the voter of Texas idiots for re-electing him over and over?
They must have like him because he his NOT a sellout and sticks to his guns but I don't know he must have done something right!

No, if I was in his district I would probably vote for him as a Representative because he does a hell of a job filtering federal tax dollars into his district.

I would still call him a hypocrit for saying one thing and doing another...but I would appreciate all the money he is bringing into the community.

This whole thread simply amazes me to the lengths on which some will go to discredit a Candidate that they, for whatever reason, choose to disagree with. The OP chooses to attack the outcome of a bill (that he can not prove has or has not actually passed if the bills was incorporated with another bill) but the OP does not attack the content of the bills. So I ask everyone these very simple pointed questions....

Considering Congress has an approval rating of 11% and as of July 2011 almost HALF of all Americans believe Congress is corrupt, would the content of a Bill that does not pass be important to look at as a factor?

If so many believe Congress is corrupt would you expect a Bill that works in favor of the people to be passed or would you expect a corrupt Congress to take the bill, give it consideration, and then kill it in Committee behind closed doors where no one can see what happened?

For me these questions are central in deciding if the OP's claims that these bills are a reflection of leadership and effectiveness, and if anyone answered "Yes" to the questions I raised, I would argue that it shows Ron Paul is a true leader.

So let us talk about the concepts of Leadership. Who or what is a Leader? Well a "Leader" is defined as

lead·er/ˈlēdər/ Noun:
1. The person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.
2. A person followed by others.

No one can deny that Ron Paul has a following. Some even choose to define it as a "cult following". So if these claims that people like the OP choose to make hold water, by definition does that not make Ron Paul a "Leader"?

So let us assume (wrongly) that Ron Paul is not a leader. How would we then describe him? Considering so many Americans believe Congress is corrupt, and considering that Congress as a whole has an 11% approval rating I think many of us would agree that our current "Leaders" are leading us off the edge of a cliff.

Let us imagine very literally that you have a group of people standing at the edge of a cliff saying, "come this way. Keep walking. Everything is ok" and people are following them and walking right off the edge, is this group a group of true leaders? Or is the true leader the lone man standing at the back of the pack saying, "No! Dont walk that way. Your gonna walk off the edge cliff! Come this way instead"? In such a scenario who is the real leader? And if the people following choose to NOT listen and they walk off the edge of cliff, is that a reflection of a lack of leadership in the lone man at the back warning you not to walk off the edge?

Originally posted by TinfoilTP

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Here is the one that will tip the scales.

Ron Paul claims to be in love with the Constitution and would not do anything against it.

Well, down the toilet with that one too.

Here is a Bill he made that would Strip power from the Supreme Court. We all know this is impossible, the Supreme Court overlooks the lawmakers and can revue any Law passed in the land to revue its Constitutionallity.

Well not if Ron Paul had his way....

Bill Summary & Status
96th Congress (1979 - 1980)
H.R.7955
CRS Summary

Denies jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States to review any State statute or regulation which relates to abortion. Extends such denial of jurisdiction to Federal district courts.

Source Library of Congress

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

Perfectly constitutional.
Please tell me how this is not.

It attempts to remove a Constitutional Power from one of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court.
This is the smoking gun that even proves he is a liar when it comes to defending the Constitution.
The only way to change the powers the Supreme Court has is through a Constitutional Amendment.

If abortion was not a federal law and reserved at the State level, then the Supreme Court would never hear it.

Nothing removed from the Supreme Court which is in place to rule on federal constitutional matters.

I know this will get removed....but heck, in the face of idiocy? I have to call them out.
Can we please have an MSM forum? You know, a place to put threads like this.
Then, everyone would be forewarned.

It's all going good
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

Gandi

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Man, you are ballsy. You start a thread against the whole website and you are still winning. Bravo.

In other news, the topic is a goldmine of info i did not know about RP. Sounds like he isn't very good at his job.

Before I was like "meh" in regards to Paul. But now I am certain he is completely incompetent and I will recommend to others that he not be voted for.

I suppose none of this mattered anyway since he had zero chance of being elected.