Ron Paul's Last hurrah

[The Rabbi]

I see. So failure to flow with the status quo is unqualified?

But let's look at some of this legislation, shall we?

Kosovo, 1999–2000: Prohibits the Department of Defense from using troops in Kosovo unless specifically authorized by law.

Do you agree, or disagree? Why?

American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2009. H.R. 1146, 2009-02-24, originally H.R. 1146, 1997-03-20. Ends U.S. participation and membership in the United Nations and its activities.
World Trade Organization, 1999-2000: Withdraws U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization.

Get us out of the UN and out of the WTO - agree of disagree? Why?

Terror Immigration Elimination Act of 2007. H.R. 3217, 2007-07-27, originally H.R. 488, 2003-01-29. Limits the issuance of student and diversity immigrant visas in relation to Saudi Arabia, countries that support terrorism, and countries not cooperating fully with United States antiterrorism efforts.

Birthright citizenship: H.J.Res. 46, 2007-06-13, originally H.J.Res. 46, 2005-04-28. Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States. Clarifies the Fourteenth Amendment in accord with Paul's opposition to birthright citizenship.

Trans-Texas Corridor: H.R. 5191, 2008-01-29. To prohibit the use of Federal funds to carry out the highway project known as the "Trans-Texas Corridor".

Damn, how could any non-democrat oppose these?



A hell of a lot. Too bad there weren't a few more congress critters with principle. Seriously - he had the guts to propose an end to Anchor Babies, one of the predominant problems of our time.



I'm tired of these left leaning fools like Bush, who move us to socialism, just a little bit slower than Obama. Time for a conservative who supports the constitution.



Utter nonsense - you sound just like the dims. All sound and fury, no substance.

You've made my case. A whole list of bills and NOT ONE OF THEM passed. What good is that? That is right wing feel good legislation. Right wing feel good legislation is no more valuable than left wing feel good legislation. Ron Paul is just Carolyn McCarthy turned sideways. No one would vote for McCarthy for president or consider her remotely qualified. Why should Paul be?

Didn't even at least try to say why you do or don't agree with the legislation Paul introduced?


Why are you so against putting ANY responsibility on your party and the politicians in it for not supporting this legislation Paul introduces?


What's more important, Paul's ability as a salesman or your party's ability to read a bill and support it on their own based on their principles?

It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree. It has to do with how effective a legislator he is. He can be 100% for exactly the same things I am(he isnt) but if he can't advocate to make those reality then he isn't any better than my barber, who thinks like me.

The president is the leader of the country, as well as his party. He is elected to help put in laws and policies that he ran on. I look at not just what he is in favor of, but also how likely will he be able to get those enacted. Paul fails dismally on the latter, with zero record of actualy legislative achievment.

 

[dblack]

It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree. It has to do with how effective a legislator he is. He can be 100% for exactly the same things I am(he isnt) but if he can't advocate to make those reality then he isn't any better than my barber, who thinks like me.

The president is the leader of the country, as well as his party. He is elected to help put in laws and policies that he ran on. I look at not just what he is in favor of, but also how likely will he be able to get those enacted. Paul fails dismally on the latter, with zero record of actualy legislative achievment.

As I said, I think this is a valid concern. But from our point of view it's a different calculus. If you're opposed to 90% of what government does, electing someone who will simply say "no" is dramatic progress.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You've made my case. A whole list of bills and NOT ONE OF THEM passed. What good is that? That is right wing feel good legislation. Right wing feel good legislation is no more valuable than left wing feel good legislation. Ron Paul is just Carolyn McCarthy turned sideways. No one would vote for McCarthy for president or consider her remotely qualified. Why should Paul be?

Didn't even at least try to say why you do or don't agree with the legislation Paul introduced?


Why are you so against putting ANY responsibility on your party and the politicians in it for not supporting this legislation Paul introduces?


What's more important, Paul's ability as a salesman or your party's ability to read a bill and support it on their own based on their principles?

It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree. It has to do with how effective a legislator he is. He can be 100% for exactly the same things I am(he isnt) but if he can't advocate to make those reality then he isn't any better than my barber, who thinks like me.

The president is the leader of the country, as well as his party. He is elected to help put in laws and policies that he ran on. I look at not just what he is in favor of, but also how likely will he be able to get those enacted. Paul fails dismally on the latter, with zero record of actualy legislative achievment.

It does have to do with you agree with his legislation or not.

If you agree with it, and you agree with cutting spending and scaling back gov't that's included in said legislation, and there's a group of politicians who don't agree with those things, you shouldn't vote for them, correct?

 

[The Rabbi]

Didn't even at least try to say why you do or don't agree with the legislation Paul introduced?


Why are you so against putting ANY responsibility on your party and the politicians in it for not supporting this legislation Paul introduces?


What's more important, Paul's ability as a salesman or your party's ability to read a bill and support it on their own based on their principles?

It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree. It has to do with how effective a legislator he is. He can be 100% for exactly the same things I am(he isnt) but if he can't advocate to make those reality then he isn't any better than my barber, who thinks like me.

The president is the leader of the country, as well as his party. He is elected to help put in laws and policies that he ran on. I look at not just what he is in favor of, but also how likely will he be able to get those enacted. Paul fails dismally on the latter, with zero record of actualy legislative achievment.

It does have to do with you agree with his legislation or not.

If you agree with it, and you agree with cutting spending and scaling back gov't that's included in said legislation, and there's a group of politicians who don't agree with those things, you shouldn't vote for them, correct?

If that were the only consideration, yes.
But I'll take someone with whom I agree 60% of the time and who is 90% effective vs someone I agree with 100% of the time and is zero effective. Someone like that is just talking out of his ass. Which is all Paul seems capable of.

 

[dblack]

Case in point (copied from another msg board):

Ron Paul has absolutely NO RECORD to run on. He's been in congress for over 20+ years--and not one piece of legislation has come from his desk.--LOL

So R.P. has never raised the debt, engaged in corruption, screwed the taxpayers, or permitted crony capitalism? Quite an impressive record. I'd vote for someone like that.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Case in point (copied from another msg board):

Ron Paul has absolutely NO RECORD to run on. He's been in congress for over 20+ years--and not one piece of legislation has come from his desk.--LOL

So R.P. has never raised the debt, engaged in corruption, screwed the taxpayers, or permitted crony capitalism? Quite an impressive record. I'd vote for someone like that.

Exactly, IF it were true (which it isn't) that he's done nothing while inf office I'd still vote for that 100 out of 100 times over someone who's worked to continue gov't expansion and increase spending.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I think a lot of people would like to see the office of the President go back to it's historical constitutional role, reversing the trend towards the concentration of power in the executive branch.

 

[The Rabbi]

Case in point (copied from another msg board):

Ron Paul has absolutely NO RECORD to run on. He's been in congress for over 20+ years--and not one piece of legislation has come from his desk.--LOL

So R.P. has never raised the debt, engaged in corruption, screwed the taxpayers, or permitted crony capitalism? Quite an impressive record. I'd vote for someone like that.

If I want someone who does nothing I'll vote for Ronald Reagan. At least he has some kind of record of achievement. Which is more than I can say for Paul.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think a lot of people would like to see the office of the President go back to it's historical constitutional role, reversing the trend towards the concentration of power in the executive branch.

Yeah. Ask Thomas Jefferson.

 

[Contumacious]

No sir.

Either you blindly and fanatically support the zionists or you are an anti-semite .

.

Everything is DA JOOOOZZZZ to you.

.

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't

.

 

[WatertheTree]

I think a lot of people would like to see the office of the President go back to it's historical constitutional role, reversing the trend towards the concentration of power in the executive branch.

Congress needs to return to the constitution aswell. They do not get anything done because they hold to much power. They argue and bicker about way to many irrelevant unconstitutional things instead of being concerned with what they should be.

Its time to empower the states. Its time to return the power to the people. Its time to make the rent seeking corporate shitbags go through 50 times the amount of work to control this nation.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't

.

Are you a twoofer? Did Bush and the Rothschilds plant explosives?

 

[The Rabbi]

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't

.

Are you a twoofer? Did Bush and the Rothschilds plant explosives?

It was a Zionist plot. That's why no Israelis were killed. Shhh. Don't tell anyone.

 

[truthsaga]

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't

.

Are you a twoofer? Did Bush and the Rothschilds plant explosives?

Ron Paul is not a twoofer. He has said that he does not believe that the government would attack itself, but he did say that politicians take advantages of crises to pursue their legislative goals.

Everyone is talking about Ron Paul getting nothing done, but he has stood against every assault on The Constitution and Personal Liberty. So, you are saying we should write him off because he is the sole voice that stands with the people. It shows more about who he is as a leader by him being the sole vote against legislation that violates the constitution compared to him trying rally bought and paid for politicians.

I am beginning to see the truth here. If those of you are sooo upset with Obama and are actively pursuing to put in virtually the white clones of him known as Gingrich or Romney, what is the reason? Why not support Obama?

If the country has moved radically in the wrong direction, why settle for moderates who support many of those policies? I believe many of you are patriots, but are blinded to the media bias of a true candidate of the people. I just hope you wake up in time.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ron Paul is not a twoofer. He has said that he does not believe that the government would attack itself, but he did say that politicians take advantages of crises to pursue their legislative goals.

I know. I basically agree with Paul.

For some reason, he tends to attract fringe elements, though.

Everyone is talking about Ron Paul getting nothing done, but he has stood against every assault on The Constitution and Personal Liberty. So, you are saying we should write him off because he is the sole voice that stands with the people. It shows more about who he is as a leader by him being the sole vote against legislation that violates the constitution compared to him trying rally bought and paid for politicians.

I agree.

I am beginning to see the truth here. If those of you are sooo upset with Obama and are actively pursuing to put in virtually the white clones of him known as Gingrich or Romney, what is the reason? Why not support Obama?

If the country has moved radically in the wrong direction, why settle for moderates who support many of those policies? I believe many of you are patriots, but are blinded to the media bias of a true candidate of the people. I just hope you wake up in time.

Last Republican I voted for for president was Ronald Reagan. No one the GOP is floating now earns my vote.

 

[Contumacious]

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't

.

Are you a twoofer? Did Bush and the Rothschilds plant explosives?

Are you mentally retarded?

Or do you need to see the video with Hebrew subtitles?!?!?!?

.

 

[The Rabbi]

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't

.

Are you a twoofer? Did Bush and the Rothschilds plant explosives?

Are you mentally retarded?

Or do you need to see the video with Hebrew subtitles?!?!?!?

.

If he were mentally retarded he would understand you completely.

 

[truthsaga]

Ron Paul is not a twoofer. He has said that he does not believe that the government would attack itself, but he did say that politicians take advantages of crises to pursue their legislative goals.

I know. I basically agree with Paul.

For some reason, he tends to attract fringe elements, though.

Everyone is talking about Ron Paul getting nothing done, but he has stood against every assault on The Constitution and Personal Liberty. So, you are saying we should write him off because he is the sole voice that stands with the people. It shows more about who he is as a leader by him being the sole vote against legislation that violates the constitution compared to him trying rally bought and paid for politicians.

I agree.

I am beginning to see the truth here. If those of you are sooo upset with Obama and are actively pursuing to put in virtually the white clones of him known as Gingrich or Romney, what is the reason? Why not support Obama?

If the country has moved radically in the wrong direction, why settle for moderates who support many of those policies? I believe many of you are patriots, but are blinded to the media bias of a true candidate of the people. I just hope you wake up in time.

Last Republican I voted for for president was Ronald Reagan. No one the GOP is floating now earns my vote.

Intellectual Conversation is great!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Are you mentally retarded?

No, I'm not a Twoofer.

Or do you need to see the video with Hebrew subtitles?!?!?!?

.

I speak English and some German.

Do you speak Arabic?

 

[pegwinn]

It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree. It has to do with how effective a legislator he is. He can be 100% for exactly the same things I am(he isnt) but if he can't advocate to make those reality then he isn't any better than my barber, who thinks like me.

The president is the leader of the country, as well as his party. He is elected to help put in laws and policies that he ran on. I look at not just what he is in favor of, but also how likely will he be able to get those enacted. Paul fails dismally on the latter, with zero record of actualy legislative achievment.

As I said, I think this is a valid concern. But from our point of view it's a different calculus. If you're opposed to 90% of what government does, electing someone who will simply say "no" is dramatic progress.

I don't worry about "what he accomplished" because it is obvious that he is a lone voice. The problem is that being the lone voice means that idiots and pundits will marginalize him as they suck up to the establishment pols.

Didn't even at least try to say why you do or don't agree with the legislation Paul introduced?


Why are you so against putting ANY responsibility on your party and the politicians in it for not supporting this legislation Paul introduces?


What's more important, Paul's ability as a salesman or your party's ability to read a bill and support it on their own based on their principles?

It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree. It has to do with how effective a legislator he is. He can be 100% for exactly the same things I am(he isnt) but if he can't advocate to make those reality then he isn't any better than my barber, who thinks like me.

The president is the leader of the country, as well as his party. He is elected to help put in laws and policies that he ran on. I look at not just what he is in favor of, but also how likely will he be able to get those enacted. Paul fails dismally on the latter, with zero record of actualy legislative achievment.

It does have to do with you agree with his legislation or not.

If you agree with it, and you agree with cutting spending and scaling back gov't that's included in said legislation, and there's a group of politicians who don't agree with those things, you shouldn't vote for them, correct?

Most people who advocate cutting back or cutting out waste are all for it until it hits their district. For someone who's allegedly done nothing, his district seems to vote against their own self interest by consistently reelecting him.

Much as I disagree with the whole OWS thing, at least some of them are doing something. Slacktivists like to talk big, but when it comes time to put action to the words at the polls, they fold.