Ron Paul One Of The Most Corrupt Members Of Congress, Report Finds

reply to post by Annee


Too bad. They should be state rights. Get over it.

The whole premise of your argument is pretty terrible. Guess what? It's 2012, the only people that give a crap about gay rights is the media trying to break the country into more fragments. Abortion? It will never become illegal throughout the country. (Meaning no one cares if you are gay and no one cares if you have an abortion - if you dont live in the south, that is)

Christ, at this point people just stick their fingers in their ears and vote for who the tv has brainwashed them to believe is the real choice.

My favorite answer from you is Obama is "methodical" and that is why you like him. Like you have any vague idea how he think or operates. For all you know Hillary or some other goon makes all the decisions. Get real.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Ron Paul however is saying take government out of it which would allow all to be married by whatever church will marry them and that IS EXACTLY WHAT GAY PEOPLE WANT.

That is such BS. Doubt you'd find many gays who agree with you.

Personal Rights should be Federal not state. They should be Equal Federally - - - not decided by personal opinion per state.

Everyone in this country should have the same exact Equal Rights of Marriage - abortion - health care - birth control - - etc. That can only be under Federal rule.

As I stated - - there should definitely be some things that only states can determine. Personal Equal Rights is not one of them.

Hello...

I think Annee is confusing tolerance with compassion, maybe?

1. Separation of Church and State is NOT in the Constitution. It was a term used by Jefferson in a letter to some dude, I can't remember his name... And in the letter, Jefferson was using that term to strengthen the first amendments point... FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR THE INDIVIDUAL regardless if its 300+ million. I don't remember there being a population cap in the constitution.. I am sure the constitution is scalable.

2. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalists, simple...

3. The only recognition straight married couples have from the Fed is if they can file their fed taxes jointly as a married couple. Ron Paul says that Fed Tax is unconstitutional as of 1913.. It is, check it out for yourself. That's what he's fighting for... I don't care if my wife and I can check a box, the box shouldn't be there in the first place, nor the piece of paper called the 1040EZ for that matter..

4. I am willing to go all in as to say RP supporters are against Federal Social programs, plant parent hood and the like.. He is not against what they do and the services they provide, he is only saying, it should not be a Fed social program.. Use my tax dollars to build better roads, stronger-smarter military and so forth... Nowhere does it state that the Federal Government should pay plant parent hood and the like social programs...

RP being a Christian is not the reason why he thinks the Government shouldn't pay for abortions, it's because the Fed government shouldn't care what you want to do with your baby (now the village folk will, and that is not fed government level, that is your local town, city--state). RP is for individual rights and what you do with your body is your choice, man or woman, now is it because your healthy lazy ass can't afford an abortion, then that is your individual freedom of choices putting you in that position... Now for rape victims, the woman under Ron Paul still has every right to do what she feels she needs to do. Why? Because RP believes, abortion is not a Federal Issue... It's the victim and the help of her family and village folk to assist...

My intent isn't to sound cold, and I will say it again, don't confuse tolerance with compassion.. RP was a Dr and he delivered babies (reminder, he is a Christian too), and the fact that he is willing to say, if you want an abortion is YOUR choice (imagine how that kills him inside), now to me that in itself shows his strong belief in individual rights....

Your complaint is, who is going to pay for this... That's what I gather...

Originally posted by syrinx2112

Hello...

Confusing tolerance with compassion, maybe?

1. Separation of Church and State is NOT in the Constitution. It was a term used by Jefferson in a letter to some dude, I can't remember his name... And in the letter, Jefferson was using that term to strengthen the first amendments point...

I've been debating the Separation of Church and State for about 20 years. I am fully aware of how it came about.

Legal precedents has been set in court cases won.

2. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalists, simple...

So he says. Any document 225 years old - - needs updating to apply to changes in the modern world of today.

3. The only recognition straight married couples have from the Fed is if they can file their fed taxes jointly as a married couple.

The following is a short, illustrative list of some of the more than 1,000 benefits and responsibilities that married couples enjoy automatically, yet are denied to same-sex couples that cannot wed.

Automatic inheritance, even without a will
Responsibility for each partners debt
Ability to put partner and partner's children on medical or life insurance
Hospital visitation rights
Ability to make partner a U.S. citizen and prevent deportation
Right to take leave to care for a sick partner
Ability to make medical decisions in an emergency
Privilege from testifying against partner in court
Ability to file joint tax returns and use tax benefits for married couples
Exemption from gift and estate transfer taxes
Right to joint parenting, adoption, foster care, and visitation of children
Right to recognition in all states
Right to file wrongful death claims for a partner's death
Right to a divorce, court division of property, and visitation of children in times of breakup

www.eqil.org...

4. I am willing to go all in as to say RP supporters are against Federal Social programs, plant parent hood and the like.. He is not against what they do and the services they provide, he is only saying, it should not be a Fed social program..

Planned parenthood should not only be Federal - - it should be Global.

RP being a Christian is not the reason why he thinks the Government shouldn't pay for abortions, it's because the Fed government shouldn't care what you want to do with your baby.

Yeah - - go right ahead and believe Ron Paul is not personally against abortion. If it was a state issue he would vote against it.

Abortion rights should be the same for every woman in the country. It should not be a state issue.

I DO NOT support Ron Paul.

As previously stated. I remember before the Federal Rights Acts - - such as Fair Housing. I know what it was like. And I DO NOT support it. Not even a little bit.

reply to post by Annee


Actually his beliefs are rooted in the fundamental belief in the Constitution.


Oh, or is that document too "1700's" for you?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by syrinx2112

Hello...

Confusing tolerance with compassion, maybe?

1. Separation of Church and State is NOT in the Constitution. It was a term used by Jefferson in a letter to some dude, I can't remember his name... And in the letter, Jefferson was using that term to strengthen the first amendments point...

I've been debating the Separation of Church and State for about 20 years. I am fully aware of how it came about.

Legal precedents has been set in court cases won.

2. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalists, simple...

So he says. Any document 225 years old - - needs updating to apply to changes in the modern world of today.

3. The only recognition straight married couples have from the Fed is if they can file their fed taxes jointly as a married couple.

The following is a short, illustrative list of some of the more than 1,000 benefits and responsibilities that married couples enjoy automatically, yet are denied to same-sex couples that cannot wed.

Automatic inheritance, even without a will
Responsibility for each partners debt
Ability to put partner and partner's children on medical or life insurance
Hospital visitation rights
Ability to make partner a U.S. citizen and prevent deportation
Right to take leave to care for a sick partner
Ability to make medical decisions in an emergency
Privilege from testifying against partner in court
Ability to file joint tax returns and use tax benefits for married couples
Exemption from gift and estate transfer taxes
Right to joint parenting, adoption, foster care, and visitation of children
Right to recognition in all states
Right to file wrongful death claims for a partner's death
Right to a divorce, court division of property, and visitation of children in times of breakup

www.eqil.org...

4. I am willing to go all in as to say RP supporters are against Federal Social programs, plant parent hood and the like.. He is not against what they do and the services they provide, he is only saying, it should not be a Fed social program..

Planned parenthood should not only be Federal - - it should be Global.

RP being a Christian is not the reason why he thinks the Government shouldn't pay for abortions, it's because the Fed government shouldn't care what you want to do with your baby.

Yeah - - go right ahead and believe Ron Paul is not personally against abortion. If it was a state issue he would vote against it.

Abortion rights should be the same for every woman in the country. It should not be a state issue.

I DO NOT support Ron Paul.

As previously stated. I remember before the Federal Rights Acts - - such as Fair Housing. I know what it was like. And I DO NOT support it. Not even a little bit.


If you are going to say words like "I am sure", which is all conjecture, then I will too...

"I am sure" RP will want to throw your list of fed governenance rights out... He will throw those out. You can keep them.. I am sure most RP supporters will agree...

The Will and and all that jazz, it is up to me to make sure I protect and do what I have to do individually and for my family.. All up to me... Still not getting your point...

I will try again my friend... Dr Ron Paul delivered baby's... and he is a Christian too... YES I am sure personally he is against abortion... And YET he is saying, It is your choice if you want an abortion... Your abortion point and RP is moot.. It really is...

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by syrinx2112

Hello...

Confusing tolerance with compassion, maybe?

1. Separation of Church and State is NOT in the Constitution. It was a term used by Jefferson in a letter to some dude, I can't remember his name... And in the letter, Jefferson was using that term to strengthen the first amendments point...

I've been debating the Separation of Church and State for about 20 years. I am fully aware of how it came about.

Legal precedents has been set in court cases won.

2. Ron Paul is a Constitutionalists, simple...

So he says. Any document 225 years old - - needs updating to apply to changes in the modern world of today.

3. The only recognition straight married couples have from the Fed is if they can file their fed taxes jointly as a married couple.

The following is a short, illustrative list of some of the more than 1,000 benefits and responsibilities that married couples enjoy automatically, yet are denied to same-sex couples that cannot wed.

Automatic inheritance, even without a will
Responsibility for each partners debt
Ability to put partner and partner's children on medical or life insurance
Hospital visitation rights
Ability to make partner a U.S. citizen and prevent deportation
Right to take leave to care for a sick partner
Ability to make medical decisions in an emergency
Privilege from testifying against partner in court
Ability to file joint tax returns and use tax benefits for married couples
Exemption from gift and estate transfer taxes
Right to joint parenting, adoption, foster care, and visitation of children
Right to recognition in all states
Right to file wrongful death claims for a partner's death
Right to a divorce, court division of property, and visitation of children in times of breakup

www.eqil.org...

4. I am willing to go all in as to say RP supporters are against Federal Social programs, plant parent hood and the like.. He is not against what they do and the services they provide, he is only saying, it should not be a Fed social program..

Planned parenthood should not only be Federal - - it should be Global.

RP being a Christian is not the reason why he thinks the Government shouldn't pay for abortions, it's because the Fed government shouldn't care what you want to do with your baby.

Yeah - - go right ahead and believe Ron Paul is not personally against abortion. If it was a state issue he would vote against it.

Abortion rights should be the same for every woman in the country. It should not be a state issue.

I DO NOT support Ron Paul.

As previously stated. I remember before the Federal Rights Acts - - such as Fair Housing. I know what it was like. And I DO NOT support it. Not even a little bit.

edit on 17-9-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

Annee, I am curious what you mean by this:
"As previously stated. I remember before the Federal Rights Acts - - such as Fair Housing. I know what it was like. And I DO NOT support it. Not even a little bit."

What did you experience regarding Fair Housing Act? Only curious that's all... And please note, I do respect your words, I really do...

More news at 11...

Ron Paul reported by Fox News to be most corrupt politician because he doesn't take bribes the way that Congressmen are supposed to....

And in a new follow up piece: Up is Down, Black is White, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength...

Big brother Loves You!

Originally posted by syrinx2112

Annee, I am curious what you mean by this:

"As previously stated. I remember before the Federal Rights Acts - - such as Fair Housing. I know what it was like. And I DO NOT support it. Not even a little bit."

What did you experience regarding Fair Housing Act? Only curious that's all... And please note, I do respect your words, I really do...

The Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968. I graduated high school in 1964 (just for a reference date).

I witnessed division because people could create their own little communities and bar anyone who was not desirable. This may sound good in theory - - but I found it to be destructive to society.

I witnessed "white strongholds" against blacks/Hispanics/Asians moving into their neighborhoods. I witnessed terrorist type activity against any realtor who crossed the line.

I witnessed a Jewish family trying to buy a home in my Christian neighborhood and heard the gossip about how they were prevented from buying there.

This is on a very small scale - - - compared to how things could become if every state was like its own independent country. I experienced it on a small scale and I am 100% against it.

Important Equal Rights of People - - - such as marriage - abortion - birth control - - - - need to be the same for the entire country - - which means Federal.

The bible belt does not need to gain more religious strength through politics. What it really needs is a stronger Federal infusion of Separation of Church and State.

Do you know why states have marriage rights? For one reason only - - discrimination. They were given rights to exclude anyone who was undesirable to their community. This is archaic and needs to be changed.

There is good reasons for states to have specific rights. Rights that affect their geographic/economic and even ethnic population. Example: Louisiana and Arizona - - - have different needs.

Originally posted by Annee

The Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968.

I witnessed division because people could create their own little communities...

This is on a very small scale - - - compared to how things could become if every state was like its own independent country. I experienced it on a small scale and I am 100% against it.

Important Equal Rights of People - - - such as marriage - abortion - birth control - - - - need to be the same for the entire country - - which means Federal.

Do you know why states have marriage rights? For one reason only - - discrimination.

Wow, the evil Ron Paul. People must be eternally thankful his brand of community destruction was halted early on. America must remain homogenous at all costs. Individuality must not be tolerated unless we are all in it together. American must be equal and without deviation.

Cooler heads can now prevail. More kool-aid, please.

reply to post by Erongaricuaro


Should I pull up all your threads in support of Ron Paul. To show who is really drinking the Kool-Aid?

Show me who else besides me has posted the position I support.

OMG - - - could it be that I - - am of independent thought?

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by Erongaricuaro

 

Should I pull up all your threads in support of Ron Paul. To show who is really drinking the Kool-Aid?

Show me who else besides me has posted the position I support.

OMG - - - could it be that I - - am of independent thought?

Certainly, you must be the ONLY anti-Paul out there. Everyone else is total praise. I admit, your reasons are original, independent, whatever - Paul's political ideas tainted by his religious fundamentalism. Funny.

BTW, I characterized myself as the kool-aid drinker in that post. I am rather far from an authoritarian federalist. I tend to favor states rights on most issues and a less homogenous society. It bothers me in the least if birds of a feather wish to flock together.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Certainly, you must be the ONLY anti-Paul out there.

Where exactly did I say I was the ONLY anti-Paul out there?

That is not what I said.

Wow..... you've got to be joking, right?

The article mentions one thing, and one thing ONLY - double billing.

Furthermore, they don't even say for SURE he did it. They say "POSSIBLE double billing"

And this makes him corrupt? LOL!

I absolutely love all the Paul haters here on ATS. They bring up stupid stuff like this. All of the crap that pretty much all other politicians have done, and Paul "POSSIBLY" double bills some travel expenses and that makes him the most corrupt person in Congress?

What a complete joke, OP. The article and the poster.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Dance4Life

 

You are probably correct there. However, as he (in terms of power) isn't really going anywhere, why bother to smear him? Seems a waste of effort when a smear campaign should be targeting Romney (from the Democrat POV).

So basically we are now left with it is either still true (demonstrating corruption, albeit on a very small scale) or it is one of the most pointless smear campaigns in history. And if it is a smear campaign, very public apologies and a banning from political involvement should be the result.

You're acting as if the two parties are real and have differing opinions. Trust me, neither party has any interest in a grass roots movement that involves taking back the government, on this issue and almost every other significant issue the Republicans and democrats have the exact same interests.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Yea right. Whatever you say buddy.

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by MajorKarma

Originally posted by thepresident
The Ron Paul Excuse Club is even more awesome than the
Attack Obama Club

edit on 15-9-2012 by thepresident because: (no reason given)

G Edward Griffin is talking about you and your Obama:

That's not a good example for either 'Camp' IMO. I note how the monopolists are glossed over as a fancy word, either that, or that section is not shown?? I don't think RP would use that particular segment as a vote catcher anyway. I had already guessed that the last third would bring into play the issue of (1) colour, (2) their minor place in society, (he actually says black people) with presumably an unknown potential, (implied). Something to be very afraid of, (implied) blah blah. He still talks about 'corporations'...sorry, fecking great monopolies today, as if they were just a bunch of friends got together to make toy train sets and perambulators. I mean, does anybody really believe that stuff while watching, and chomping on their burger with artificial cheese included.

Your response comes as no surprise to me. Your willful ignorance, shallow arrogance and snide attitude is shared by many, many I consider dregs but because of what you are, you will not be difficult to control and overcome; "Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms".

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by HunkaHunka
Well there ya have it... The bastion of ethics that everyone thought Paul was, has now been formally questioned with evidence supporting the fact that he is NOT what he makes himself out to be.

All the while he's saying "AUDIT THE FED!" He's also saying "... so you don't audit me instead!"

Ron Paul is a southern bible belt Baptist - - who is against individual rights.

He is no different then the REP extreme Right. Except how he packages his political beliefs.

People need to look closer. He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Ron Paul on gay marriage and abortion: Yup, definitely sounds like somebody against individual rights.

I think in this free society it [the issues] becomes totally irrelevant, I think the state, national-everybody, should just be out of it and if somebody wants to call themselves married, fine. Nobody has the right to impose their values on somebody else, that would be the solution.

Abortion is tougher on how to handle it, I think the federal government should be out of it, I think its atrocious, the fact that the federal government will transfer the funds from people who are strongly right-to-life to people who want to get abortions. I personally find abortions very offensive because I was responsible for protecting the unborn and if I didn't do the right thing, and and unborn child was injured, I could be sued and I think rightfully so.

I follow what my understanding is of the Constitution and it does allow the states to deal with difficult problems, matter of fact, it allows the states to deal with all of the problems if you look at it. These powers aren't given to the congress. I see abortion as a violent act, all other violence is handled by the states, murdered, burglary, violence, thats a state issue.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Annee

 

Annee.. Ron Paul is the only candidate that supports individual rights.

And individual rights in a population of 312+ million people means what?

Sorry - but state rights for anything beyond differing geological and economical needs - - belongs back in the 1700s (estimate) when it was implemented.

If you want marriage equality and an end to attacks on women's freedom to choose you would be supporting Ron Paul. Time to do real research and not listen to other people.

Are you out of your mind? Ron Paul is a fundamental southern Baptist who voted against everything that had to do with women's rights.

Oh! That's right - - us women can just pick and choose the states that do support women's rights. What a joke!

I know how things were before the Fair Housing Act - Civil Rights Act - Disability Act. I witnessed how people formed their little "same thought" communities and excluded any undesirable. No thanks!

I don't listen to people. That's why my viewpoint is independent and I'm not following the Ron Paul "rose colored glasses" crowd.

edit on 16-9-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

You do realize Ron Paul didn't vote down those pieces of legislation because he hates women..right? I'm hoping that you aren't going to claim that because he specifically mentions he is protecting private property, per the Constitution.

Please tell me, In Ron Paul's thousands of public speeches and events, and the millions of people that have heard him or personally met him, have you or anybody else heard him say anything about how women are not equal to men? Why are you turning this into a gender debate when there is nothing to debate about? If Ron Paul hates women, why did he endorse Cynthia McKinney for congress? Why did he fight to get Sherry Peel Jackson out of jail?

You keep talking about "ME ME ME" but isn't that what you're doing? Accusing Ron Paul of being something that he is not, some sort of women hating Christian fundamentalist to suit your idea that you are the victim and that Ron Paul (and maybe even every other Christian Republican) is out to get ya.

Nobody here said women don't have rights, especially not Ron Paul so quit it with the "ME ME ME" stuff.

Aside from all of the savvy ATS debunkers that have responded in this thread, the OP's claims and article has been debunked, I suggest MODS move this to the HOAX bin.

This is a MUST READ, the author of this debunking was very thorough and traced the sources back to one man. She dissected everything right here:

optimiskeptic.com...

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Aside from all of the savvy ATS debunkers that have responded in this thread, the OP's claims and article has been debunked, I suggest MODS move this to the HOAX bin.

This is a MUST READ, the author of this debunking was very thorough and traced the sources back to one man. She dissected everything right here:

optimiskeptic.com...

I can agree with that, and with all that I have read, what a C.R.E.W. to be calling anyone else corrupt. I presume that this all goes down as some kind of rhetoric in Washington, whereas here that would be slanderous, although you still need to pay a lawyer to prove the case. There is, or rather 'was' much worse things going on in government here until a couple of years ago in regard to MP's expenses, this is a witty look at was going on...at our expense, and just the tip of the iceberg,

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Yeah, I call a hoax ultimately, although perhaps not from the OP.