[Kakarott]

Ron Paul supporters, I have a question for you. Actually three.

I was doing a little reading on your favourite Presidential candidate earlier. I wanted to see what his stance on capital punishment was; as I expected, it was a flip-flop.
While that's an interesting issue to discuss, I'll bring it up after, because the main issue I wanted to address was something else. I know I've brought up his stance on abortion a lot, but it is one area where I think that he demonstrates his true colours; the crack in his otherwise impressive armour of "good deeds".

So as I said, I have three questions for you all, and if you could answer them with either a yes or a no, it would be appreciated.

1) Ron Paul is quoted as saying that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution"; is this a fair statement?

2) Ron Paul is also quoted as saying, "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." He went on to cite the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution as the grounds for this. He was quoted as saying that the 9th and 10th amendments "do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion." Is this also a fair statement?

3) In 2000 and 2003, Ron Paul voted in favour of the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000" and the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003", respectively. Is this a fair statement?

I've saved you guys some trouble, and did the homework for you.

Regarding question 1:
http://www.ronpaul20...ho-is-ron-paul/ expressly states:

Quote

He is known among both his colleagues in Congress and his constituents for his consistent voting record in the House of Representatives: Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

Regarding question 2:
On January 30, 2006, Ron Paul released the following statement entitled, "Federalizing Social Policy". I've included several sources of this, to ensure accuracy and legitimacy.
http://www.covenantn...npaul060201.htm
http://www.lewrockwe...ul/paul301.html
http://www.thepoliti...Views/Abortion/
http://paul.house.go...=1158&Itemid=69 (This is the official United States House of Representatives website, by the way!)

Regarding question 3:
http://clerk.house.g...000/roll104.xml -- As you can see, Ron Paul's name is under the "Aye" section, indicating on official record that he voted in favour of the PBABA of 2000.
http://clerk.house.g...003/roll530.xml -- And again in 2003.


When asked about his support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Acts, Ron Paul is quoted as saying he did it to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade."
(You can independently verify this yourselves if you like, it's true; Google that phrase.)

I did a search of the US Constitution for the part which says it's not voting against the Constitution if you are just doing it to offset a Supreme Court decision. Predictably, this part never showed up.

I know I said I had three questions for you, but like Ron Paul, I only stick to my words until I decide it's inconvenient. So I have a fourth.

4) Knowing these things, and knowing that Ron Paul's entire campaign is based upon his "honesty" and "integrity" and "strict constitutionalism", how can you reconcile your support for a candidate whose alleged core values are demonstrably false, and who will disregard the things that he is supposed to stand for when they become inconvenient?

Ron Paul is NOT the honest, forthcoming and 'constitutionally sound' candidate that his campaign team would have you believe. Instead, he is a practiced liar, who changes his tune whenever the winds of political favour blow a different direction. He is a hypocrite, who routinely dismisses current and proposed legislation for being unconstitutional, but then votes for unconstitutional propositions, if it suits him. Need more proof? Remember what I said about the death penalty?

On August 25th, 2007, Ron Paul went on the record, saying, "As far as the state goes, yes capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime."
http://archive.theam...ndex.php?id=898 (You'll have to listen to the interview. I don't know at what timeframe he says it.)

His close friend and former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell writes in 2010, however:
"Ron Paul is the most consistent advocate of life in American politics. So, naturally, the DC pro-life (unless its Muslim) groups--joined as they are at the hip to the Republican party--oppose him. After all, Ron Paul is not only anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, he is anti-capital punishment and anti-war. That is, he represents a consistent pro-life ethic."

While that's not QUITE straight from the horse's mouth, he has had well over a year to object to that statement.

This isn't the only example of Ron Paul flip-flopping on issues though.

On June 5th, 2007, during the Republican Presidential Debate for the 2008 election, the question of support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came up.
Ron Paul went on the record in support of DADT, saying, "I think the current policy is a decent policy. " ( http://transcripts.c...6/05/se.01.html )
However, on May 27th, 2010, Ron Paul voted in favour of HR 5136, and again in finally repealing the act. ( http://clerk.house.g...010/roll317.xml and http://clerk.house.g...010/roll638.xml respectively.)

You can see where I'm going here. This is what I've been saying all along; that Ron Paul is as full of nurrz as any other politician. His honesty is just as questionable, his voting record does NOT reflect strict constitutionality, and his flip-flopping on issues is well-documented.

Is he the best Republican candidate? I don't know. Is he some kind of political messiah, as some of you seem to be implying? Absolutely not.
He's just a regular politician, that does all the things other politicians do; lie, cheat, and steal - and find fancy ways of telling you why it was okay that he did it.
If you look at him from that perspective, he doesn't stand out as a better candidate than Romney or anyone else.

Ron Paul is NOT the change he promises.

This post has been edited by Kakarott: 22 February 2012 - 10:04 AM

[Mayz]

Before I read. Watch.

This post has been edited by Mayz: 22 February 2012 - 10:01 AM

[Kakarott]

Why should I believe the poster that appears at the beginning of the video, when I just demonstrated that Ron Paul is a practiced liar?

[Dart]

Kakarott, on 22 February 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Why should I believe the poster that appears at the beginning of the video, when I just demonstrated that Ron Paul is a practiced liar?

Don't mistake me when I say this - I'm not a Ron Paul supporter - but, are you implying there is such thing as an honest politician?

You could a make a similar thread for Obama, Romney, or hell, anyone who has ever run for president. They've all had inconsistencies (lies, if you wish) with their stances on major issues. I'm not sure why you think Ron Paul is special in that regard and therefore deserves his own thread, but that's up to you.

Edit: Typo

This post has been edited by Dart: 22 February 2012 - 10:31 AM

[Mayz]

Kakarott, on 22 February 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Ron Paul supporters, I have a question for you. Actually three.

I was doing a little reading on your favourite Presidential candidate earlier. I wanted to see what his stance on capital punishment was; as I expected, it was a flip-flop.
While that's an interesting issue to discuss, I'll bring it up after, because the main issue I wanted to address was something else. I know I've brought up his stance on abortion a lot, but it is one area where I think that he demonstrates his true colours; the crack in his otherwise impressive armour of "good deeds".

So as I said, I have three questions for you all, and if you could answer them with either a yes or a no, it would be appreciated.

1) Ron Paul is quoted as saying that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution"; is this a fair statement?

Yes, because the constitution is designed to protect the people. It created checks and balances to protect the people.

Quote

2) Ron Paul is also quoted as saying, "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue." He went on to cite the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution as the grounds for this. He was quoted as saying that the 9th and 10th amendments "do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion." Is this also a fair statement?

Yes. The issue of privacy when it came to unlawful search and seizures and such are mentioned in the other amendments. So they played it off as being one of the non enumerated rights mentioned in the ambiguous 9th Amendment. As an OBGYN, he knows when it is necessary. He highly advocates the morning after pill, and doesn't feel that Doctors like him should be obligated to compromise their personal morals and have to give abortions. There are plenty of non Christian OBGYNs they can see.

Quote

3) In 2000 and 2003, Ron Paul voted in favour of the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2000" and the "Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003", respectively. Is this a fair statement?

Again... He is an OBGYN. He knows the development of the baby and how it effects the mother better than anyone.

Quote

I've saved you guys some trouble, and did the homework for you.

Regarding question 1:
http://www.ronpaul20...ho-is-ron-paul/ expressly states:


Regarding question 2:
On January 30, 2006, Ron Paul released the following statement entitled, "Federalizing Social Policy". I've included several sources of this, to ensure accuracy and legitimacy.
http://www.covenantn...npaul060201.htm
http://www.lewrockwe...ul/paul301.html
http://www.thepoliti...Views/Abortion/
http://paul.house.go...=1158&Itemid=69 (This is the official United States House of Representatives website, by the way!)

Regarding question 3:
http://clerk.house.g...000/roll104.xml -- As you can see, Ron Paul's name is under the "Aye" section, indicating on official record that he voted in favour of the PBABA of 2000.
http://clerk.house.g...003/roll530.xml -- And again in 2003.


When asked about his support of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Acts, Ron Paul is quoted as saying he did it to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade."
(You can independently verify this yourselves if you like, it's true; Google that phrase.)

I did a search of the US Constitution for the part which says it's not voting against the Constitution if you are just doing it to offset a Supreme Court decision. Predictably, this part never showed up.

I know I said I had three questions for you, but like Ron Paul, I only stick to my words until I decide it's inconvenient. So I have a fourth.

4) Knowing these things, and knowing that Ron Paul's entire campaign is based upon his "honesty" and "integrity" and "strict constitutionalism", how can you reconcile your support for a candidate whose alleged core values are demonstrably false, and who will disregard the things that he is supposed to stand for when they become inconvenient?

Ron Paul is NOT the honest, forthcoming and 'constitutionally sound' candidate that his campaign team would have you believe. Instead, he is a practiced liar, who changes his tune whenever the winds of political favour blow a different direction. He is a hypocrite, who routinely dismisses current and proposed legislation for being unconstitutional, but then votes for unconstitutional propositions, if it suits him. Need more proof? Remember what I said about the death penalty?

On August 25th, 2007, Ron Paul went on the record, saying, "As far as the state goes, yes capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime."
http://archive.theam...ndex.php?id=898 (You'll have to listen to the interview. I don't know at what timeframe he says it.)

His close friend and former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell writes in 2010, however:
"Ron Paul is the most consistent advocate of life in American politics. So, naturally, the DC pro-life (unless its Muslim) groups--joined as they are at the hip to the Republican party--oppose him. After all, Ron Paul is not only anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, he is anti-capital punishment and anti-war. That is, he represents a consistent pro-life ethic."

While that's not QUITE straight from the horse's mouth, he has had well over a year to object to that statement.

This isn't the only example of Ron Paul flip-flopping on issues though.

On June 5th, 2007, during the Republican Presidential Debate for the 2008 election, the question of support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" came up.
Ron Paul went on the record in support of DADT, saying, "I think the current policy is a decent policy. " ( http://transcripts.c...6/05/se.01.html )
However, on May 27th, 2010, Ron Paul voted in favour of HR 5136, and again in finally repealing the act. ( http://clerk.house.g...010/roll317.xml and http://clerk.house.g...010/roll638.xml respectively.)

You can see where I'm going here. This is what I've been saying all along; that Ron Paul is as full of nurrz as any other politician. His honesty is just as questionable, his voting record does NOT reflect strict constitutionality, and his flip-flopping on issues is well-documented.

Is he the best Republican candidate? I don't know. Is he some kind of political messiah, as some of you seem to be implying? Absolutely not.
He's just a regular politician, that does all the things other politicians do; lie, cheat, and steal - and find fancy ways of telling you why it was okay that he did it.
If you look at him from that perspective, he doesn't stand out as a better candidate than Romney or anyone else.

Ron Paul is NOT the change he promises.

and yeah, we addressed most of this in MSN.

Just to clarify. Ron Paul doesn't believe that Abortion should be a Federal Regulation, but that it should be for the states to decide under the 10th amendment. If it wasn't for the 9th amendments ambiguity and majority of the bill of rights addressing privacy, the "right to a woman's privacy of a womb" would not have been a constitutional decision by the Supreme court. Because it is forced constitutional Ron Paul has to vote to stop Partial Birth Abortion. He banned it. I would have been more upset at Ron Paul if he enabled the murder of babies that are 15-26 weeks developed in the womb. Because it is forced to be congressional, he is forced to vote. He believes that these babies that have developed brains and can feel pain deserve the same congressional rights as a born human being.

For the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy. I love the title. In theory, NO ONE SHOULD BE GOSSIPING. Kakarott explain about the problems with the policy. I am sure that Ron Paul had to read it again too. There are times where change is a blessing. Where someone actually changes to the factual truths presented. With understanding of this policy, I would adopt a better policy to.

This post has been edited by Mayz: 22 February 2012 - 10:32 PM

[Kakarott]

Dart, on 22 February 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

Don't mistake me when I say this - I'm not a Ron Paul supporter - but, are you implying there is such thing as an honest politician?

You could a make a similar thread for Obama, Romney, or hell, anyone who has ever run for president. They've all had inconsistencies (lies, if you wish) with their stances on major issues. I'm not sure why you think Ron Paul is special in that regard and therefore deserves his own thread, but that's up to you.

Edit: Typo

You're absolutely right, there is no such thing as an honest politician. That has been my point from the start.
Ron Paul is a politician, and is dishonest - he's just like the rest.

The issue though, is that his campaign pushes this idea that he isn't. That he's somehow removed from that; that he's different. That he'll be "the good one".
He has a lot of blind followers, and my goal is to open eyes to this.

You already understand the message I'm trying to get across. :)

[Dart]

Kakarott, on 22 February 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

You're absolutely right, there is no such thing as an honest politician. That has been my point from the start.
Ron Paul is a politician, and is dishonest - he's just like the rest.

The issue though, is that his campaign pushes this idea that he isn't. That he's somehow removed from that; that he's different. That he'll be "the good one".
He has a lot of blind followers, and my goal is to open eyes to this.

You already understand the message I'm trying to get across. :)

Hah, yeah. If people don't know this by now, they don't pay very close attention to politics.

I'm not necessarily saying that there aren't any politicians worth voting for, I just think that people need to understand that there is no such thing as a perfect politician. If anyone tries to paint the picture that who their voting for is some flawless God-send, then they aren't analyzing and investigating their candidate very thoroughly.

This post has been edited by Dart: 22 February 2012 - 03:38 PM

[Drood]

lets use a baseball glove analogy here just because. for a very long time now these batters (the people) have been putting on the same batting gloves which vary in color (politicians and the platform they run on, but end up continuing the same things as the previous incumbents). Now there is the opportunity to switch batting gloves to a different brand ( a politician that wants to take america is a different direction). The glove will still allow you to swing that bat, and even hit that home run (the american dream) but you guys are so used to your nike gloves, your scared as hell and aghast at mizuno's glove that might grip better, and give you better control. (the peoples power).

you can take a second look at this and say, hell why not? we are already in nurrz deep creek. how could 4 years of something different be so MUCH worse then what we are already in, which is living hell. There are definate things you can count on from a Ron Paul president. You wont see a war during his term(s), unless declared by congress, and you wont see the drug raids, and inflation rising and continuing. Since I was born the problems in congress have been kicked down the road, every 6 months to a year they kick that problem and more of them further down the road. Now when your 30-40-50-60 do you HOPE to hear the same problems being talked about only to KNOW they will do the same thing they did when you were 20, which was never solve the problem to begin with? I would prefer to NOT live in a country that did that. Its belittling to me. I feel i know better than to do something like that, but yet have to live with it everyday.

that was my first analogy attempt with politics. i liked it.

[(._.)]

Meh. You prop up a false argument.

No one's made him out to be an infallible messiah, but in terms of being consistent, not taking lobbyist money, and voting with conscience, he's squeaky clean compared to the rest of the filth on Capital Hill. He's also the only one who's not a Keynesian and Interventionalist - which is a huge difference from the current Democratic and Republican front runners.

For your partial birth abortion argument, he's against abortions. He never hid that. He'd rather it be handled at the State level; however, Roe v Wade pretty much enforces in across ALL states.

So, Paul can't over turn Roe V Wade, but he can limit the damage it does in terms of cruel acts, which partial birth abortion most definitely can be considered as such. Your argument is moot, and we could continue this for pages, but, I'm not seeing the hypocrisy here.

I'll just post from the horse's own mouth.

Quote

The Partial Birth Abortion Ban

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul in the US House of Representatives, June 4, 2003

Mr. Speaker, like many Americans, I am greatly concerned about abortion. Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure. It is a gruesome, uncivilized solution to a social problem.

Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are indeed on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.

The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction. Something that Congress can do is remove the issue from the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, so that states can deal with the problems surrounding abortion, thus helping to reverse some of the impact of Roe v. Wade.

Unfortunately, H.R. 760 takes a different approach, one that is not only constitutionally flawed, but flawed in principle, as well. Though I will vote to ban the horrible partial-birth abortion procedure, I fear that the language used in this bill does not further the pro-life cause, but rather cements fallacious principles into both our culture and legal system.

For example, 14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade, which is the belief that we as human beings can determine which members of the human family are “expendable,” and which are not.

Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce. The abuse of both the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause is precisely the reason our federal government no longer conforms to constitutional dictates but, instead, balloons out of control in its growth and scope. H.R. 760 inadvertently justifies federal government intervention into every medical procedure through the gross distortion of the interstate commerce clause.

H.R. 760 also depends heavily upon a “distinction” made by the Court in both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which establishes that a child within the womb is not protected under law, but one outside of the womb is. By depending upon this illogical “distinction,” I fear that H.R. 760, as I stated before, ingrains the principles of Roe v. Wade into our justice system, rather than refutes them as it should.

Despite its severe flaws, this bill nonetheless has the possibility of saving innocent human life, and I will vote in favor of it. I fear, though, that when the pro-life community uses the arguments of the opposing side to advance its agenda, it does more harm than good.

All in all, he's still the only one who will fight much of the pork that Congress continues to pass.

This post has been edited by (._.): 22 February 2012 - 06:24 PM

[(._.)]

And of course, Paul's uncanny ability to call out where the country's heading:



He's usually ignored. He's usually right.

This post has been edited by (._.): 22 February 2012 - 06:38 PM

[Kakarott]

The hypocrisy is that he dismisses actions that he doesn't like as unconstitutional - which is fine; if he can back that up, that's good. However, when he does things that are unconstitutional, he gets a free pass? "Oh well, so does everyone else!" That's lazy apologism. Why aren't his calls put under the same scrutiny as others'?

You're conveniently ignoring the main issue: he's caught in a straight up lie. He doesn't vote in favour of constitutionality, like he claims - he votes how he wants, and then tries to find a way to either a) make it seem like it was some constitutionally-mandated decision, or b) make people forget about what he did. Barring that, he tries to justify it somehow. I'll note that he doesn't listen to others' justifications, he just stamps 'unconstitutional' and dismisses. A real "do as I say, not as I do" kind of fellow.

And your only argument in his favour is that you think he's got an "uncanny ability to call out where the country is going"? Did it ever occur to you that he might have something to DO with it?
Remember, everything about an election campaign is scripted. EVERYTHING. When he nurrzs in the morning, it's because it's what his campaign manager tells him to do. All of this stuff is part of an election campaign. And it's so distressing to me to see so many allegedly intelligent individuals buying this nurrz hook, line and sinker.

I kind of wish he WOULD win the election, just so I could say, "well, I told you so." But that's a pretty heavy price to pay just to gloat.
Ron Paul is a snake. A really poisonous snake. He's got this charming manner - this polite, gentle, southern doctor; he looks like someone's grandfather. Looks trustworthy!

But that's just a clever and carefully-crafted image that is no more real than Pamela Anderson's tits.

[Papaya]

Kakarott, on 23 February 2012 - 05:36 AM, said:

You're absolutely right, there is no such thing as an honest politician. That has been my point from the start.
Ron Paul is a politician, and is dishonest - he's just like the rest.

The issue though, is that his campaign pushes this idea that he isn't. That he's somehow removed from that; that he's different. That he'll be "the good one".
He has a lot of blind followers, and my goal is to open eyes to this.

You already understand the message I'm trying to get across. :)

Sounds a lot like the campaign run in 2007 for Kevin Rudd, who turned out to be a disaster of a PM. Their platforms aren't remotely similar, of course, but I think people should always be wary when a politician is presented in this way.

[(._.)]

You don't even know what you're arguing against Kakarott. You're trying to attack the guy from a position of ignorance. Not sure where your trying to take this, because your original post didn't even back up your claim of hypocrisy. Your making references to the Constitution you're not even backing up either.

You make vague references to Paul's scripting, but its an old script if you want to even call it that. They guys been been slamming the US interventionalism for years now. 30 years+.

You're grasping. If you disagree with him, just disagree with him. You're attack on his supposed hypocrisy is a false argument.

I know you support Interventionalism, so you can go from there. You r attack on his character is just a false argument. You don't even know what your talking about.

[Kakarott]

You know, you can sit there and say I don't know what I'm talking about all you like - but without citing any sort of example, just saying so, doesn't make it true.

Ron Paul is running as the "honest, reliable and consistent" candidate. He is none of the above. If I was running for President, and my platform was that I supported women's rights; and then I went home and beat the nurrz out of my wife, that would be pretty telling of my true character. This is the EXACT SAME THING. Ron Paul's election platform is bogus.

As for my claims to the constitution; they're HIS claims. Supported by direct quotes and audio recording. What more do you want? Do you want me to get him to come on here and say it too? And if I did, since you seem to dismiss direct evidence anyway, would it be enough?

Do you have a problem with me asking your candidate to show a little accountability for his words and actions? Do you not demand that kind of accountability from someone you support to run your country? And if not, why should you have a right to decide who gets to?

I was expecting something a little better than this from you, ktd; your post is just a roundabout way of saying, 'No U!'
Do you have anything that directly refutes what I've demonstrated, or are you just going to keep saying, "no, that's not true" without any sort of evidence to back it up?

I've provided evidence for everything I've said. From Ron Paul's website, to the voting record as kept by the House of Representatives. My proof is solid, my reasoning follows sound logic, and you have nothing to say to it, so instead you just call me "ignorant" and claim that I don't know what I'm talking about. The truth is, I have demonstrated that I know more about this sort of thing than you do.

This "you don't know what you're talking about" nonsense, however, is the same kind of nurrz that I used to pull. Instead of directly answering and addressing a point, I'd just insult someone, or make some sort of sarcastic remark that doesn't address ANY issue, and then declare victory.
Do you think it's somehow valid now, because you're the one doing it? Do you think it's any less of a worthless thing to do?

Shame on you. You're smarter than that.

This post has been edited by Kakarott: 23 February 2012 - 04:06 AM

[Mayz]

Given that the Supreme court decided that Abortions were a part of the Federal mandate, would you want him to have not voted at all, and the society to be able to have Late term abortions (after 3 months of development)?

When does the fetus gain constitutional rights?

I see nothing inconsistent with that. Sure he wants to restore it, but he should let things run a muck while waiting for the opportunity to restore it?


You want some real legit bad things that Ron Paul did?

His supporters wrote racist documents and he allowed his name put on there. It was at a time in which there was a lot of racism, and yes it was done for profit. He needed to make money to get himself out of debt because of a campaign. He suffered for it to. He lost the congressional term. He was certainly regretful of his actions, and he never really even demonstrated a racist character. People thought those letters to be out of character.

His other thing is that he has had a total of $8,000 of money given to him for flights in 2000 and 2004. Other than that, he returns a portion of his congressional income. So it sound to me like he returned it, and realized he needed it for the flight due to some random unexpected change in his planned budget.


Who would you vote for then?

The progressive who wants to colonize the moon with your tax dollars?

The guy who puts dogs in crates on the top of the car to drive to vacation spots? The poor have safety nets, they are fine down there.

Or, Frothy Santorum, the extreme social conservative.

Lastly, Obama, the guy that took away your right to trial in the Bill of Rights by signing the newest NDAA. This in short allows military to detain you indefinitely WITHOUT due process if they suspect you of terrorism. The one he threatened to veto, but the he got smacked down by commander in chief Obama and signed it into law.

OR do you not vote and risk being governed by your inferiors?

This post has been edited by Mayz: 23 February 2012 - 08:16 AM

[Papaya]

Mayz, on 24 February 2012 - 01:33 AM, said:

Given that the Supreme court decided that Abortions were a part of the Federal mandate, would you want him to have not voted at all, and the society to be able to have Late term abortions (after 3 months of development)?

When does the fetus gain constitutional rights?

I see nothing inconsistent with that. Sure he wants to restore it, but he should let things run a muck while waiting for the opportunity to restore it?

His supporters wrote racist documents and he allowed his name put on there. It was at a time in which there was a lot of racism, and yes it was done for profit. He needed to make money to get himself out of debt because of a campaign. He suffered for it to. He lost the congressional term. He was certainly regretful of his actions, and he never really even demonstrated a racist character. People thought those letters to be out of character.

A point that's been excessively parroted back to me is that Paul "doesn't believe that the federal government should have the power/authority to legislate on abortion". If he truly believed that, then the most consistent vote, as abhorrent as late-term abortions may be, would be to not vote in favour of the legislation to prohibit them - simply because then at the very least the federal government is not intervening through legislation. It seems to me that Paul and some of his supporters aren't against the federal government/Supreme Court dictating on abortion, they're just against legislation in favour of abortion and dress it up in too-clever-by-half justifications of constitutionality.

Secondly, thank you for yet another own goal! As if we needed any further proof that not only is morality in no way related to the practice of religion; but that religion is a cesspit in which morality goes to die. I can't think of any sensible person I know who would attempt to justify profiteering from torrid racism. There have been better men throughout history who would have refused to allow their names to be put to such muck, as well as those more destitute who would not, if given the chance, sink to such levels of transparent depravity. This is ruthless, callous ambition at its ugliest.

[Ishikawa]

I read a lot of the so-called racist remarks from the newsletter, and I didn't really find them to be racist. Much ado about nothing, truly.

[(._.)]

Kaka, your slant is that the guy shouldn't do anything when overreaching legislation has already been passed, because it makes him a hypocrite, when it doesn't. All he can do is act accordingly to counter what they pass.

Roe V Wade thrust the abortion issue into the Federal level. Until it is repealed, the Federal government is already IN abortion. Banning partial birth abortion at least does some damage control. I agree with him that abortion should be dealt with at the state and local level, as are murder, theft, etc. But if the courts or congress continue to pass idiotic laws, then you need to work within the system to limit the damage of them.

You're attacking him on a false argument that even his own political enemies would use against him, because they're false arguments. I've heard similar false arguments from people who attack his actions to return as much tax money as possible to his constituents. He consistently votes against new spending initiatives, while trying to get back as much money as he can to his district when congress does pass pork. Again, people would attack that as hypocrisy, I see it as damage control.

[Papaya]

(._.), on 24 February 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

Roe V Wade thrust the abortion issue into the Federal level. Until it is repealed, the Federal government is already IN abortion. Banning partial birth abortion at least does some damage control. I agree with him that abortion should be dealt with at the state and local level, as are murder, theft, etc. But if the courts or congress continue to pass idiotic laws, then you need to work within the system to limit the damage of them.

It's still an inconsistency of rhetoric and actions. Regardless of his personal beliefs that abortion is wrong, Paul's political stance on abortion is that federal bodies should not be legislating on abortion, full stop. It doesn't matter why he votes inconsistently, what matters is that he does. If he was truly committed to removing the federal government and Supreme Court from abortion legislation, he wouldn't have voted to add more federal abortion legislation, regardless of the nature of it.

I don't disagree with how he voted. I think that late-term abortions should be prohibited. What bothers me is that, taking him at his word, he disagrees with how he voted.

[Mayz]

Parane rather that Americans kill little baby boy or girl babies that react to light.




It is immoral to enable a crime by doing nothing about it.



I'm also trying to figure out where Parane hasn't done something immoral, racist, or judgmental...

It's one incident from like 30 years ago. That's not even .05 % of his record.

I would say Dr. Paul is about 99.5% perfect (well what I consider perfect, 100% would be like Jesus without godly power). For all the things I found. And I have done an extensive amount of research.

This post has been edited by Mayz: 23 February 2012 - 07:03 PM

[Mayz]

I was a little upset when Ron Paul went negative to Santorum, but it is true, Santorum is a social conservative and not a fiscal conservative.


http://money.cnn.com...icits/index.htm

Quote

Rick Santorum's planDebt over next decade: Adds $4.5 trillion, increasing debt to GDP to 104%.Costliest proposal: Reduce and reform individual income taxes, at a cost of $3.6 trillion.Biggest cost saver: Transform various social programs into block grants to states and capping their growth, saving $950 billion.Interest costs on the debt: Raises it by $640 billion.

When confronted during Arizona debate, Ron Paul handled it like a boss.

This post has been edited by Mayz: 23 February 2012 - 07:37 PM

[Kakarott]

(._.), on 23 February 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

Kaka, your slant is that the guy shouldn't do anything when overreaching legislation has already been passed, because it makes him a hypocrite, when it doesn't. All he can do is act accordingly to counter what they pass.

Roe V Wade thrust the abortion issue into the Federal level. Until it is repealed, the Federal government is already IN abortion. Banning partial birth abortion at least does some damage control. I agree with him that abortion should be dealt with at the state and local level, as are murder, theft, etc. But if the courts or congress continue to pass idiotic laws, then you need to work within the system to limit the damage of them.

You're attacking him on a false argument that even his own political enemies would use against him, because they're false arguments. I've heard similar false arguments from people who attack his actions to return as much tax money as possible to his constituents. He consistently votes against new spending initiatives, while trying to get back as much money as he can to his district when congress does pass pork. Again, people would attack that as hypocrisy, I see it as damage control.

Thanks for your reply.

I still think you're missing the bigger picture here, and I think Parane identified it rather succinctly.
It doesn't matter WHY he goes against his own word - his own 'code'. It matters that he does. Why does it matter? Because that's why he's saying I should trust him.
It's the foundation for his platform, and it's undermined by the fact that he only actually follows it when it is convenient.

The thought behind this is, if he is willing to violate his code - willing to violate the constitution - when it suits him (or when it's about something that makes him uncomfortable, or has strong feelings about), then how can we trust that he won't do this when it comes to something else?

While I'm not suggesting that another politician wouldn't do the exact same, my point is that he's not unique. He's nothing special. He just has a good publicist.
Willfully disregarding issues like this is dangerous. It parallels blind religious faith, and there is nothing more dangerous in my books.

I am not saying he doesn't have a few good ideas. I'm saying, voting for him is no guarantee that these ideas will be carried out. My proof for this is the original post, because it demonstrates that he can, and does, lie through his teeth.

[Mayz]

The big picture is they should let babies who are developed into the second trimester be killed? Ones that have chances of surviving the abortion.

It's one thing to support first trimester abortions. It's an other to support second trimester abortions (Which is what your links show him voting yea for the ban of). They had 3 whole months to decide what they wanted to do with the baby. They skipped the birth control which helps with their acne and period. They skipped the morning after pill. They skipped the chance to abort the baby after it's heart started beating. Partial Birth Abortions are not procedural. This isn't the same of as sticking a sharp vacuum like needle into the womb and killing a "parasite" that is forming in the womb off the mother (Mom doesn't have privacy of her womb anymore, everyone else can see that she is pregnant).

You shouldn't have unprotected sex if you are not prepared to have a baby. Protect yourself by using condoms and birth control. You really shouldn't have sex without both partners willing to raise a kid in the case of it happening. That's why you should wait to marriage even though not every married couple is not prepared to have kids... that's responsibility.

This post has been edited by Mayz: 24 February 2012 - 07:15 AM

[Kakarott]

It doesn't matter what my own - or his own - personal feelings are on the issue. It's that if you're going to say one thing, and then do the exact opposite, you've demonstrated that you aren't reliable.

What if he voted in favour of a same-sex marriage ban, even though it's not constitutionally permitted? What if he voted in favour of slavery, even though it's not constitutionally permitted?
I know I'm going a little off the deep end with that second one, but the point I'm trying to make is that personal feelings aside, he made a commitment to vote only on what was constitutionally allowed, and this is not one of those things.

He can't have it both ways. Either he is an inconsistent voter, who votes on what he feels is right, or he always votes in favour of the constitution, regardless of personal feelings.

One of those things is his campaign platform. (The one he DOESN'T do.)

[Mayz]

Kakarott, on 24 February 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

It doesn't matter what my own - or his own - personal feelings are on the issue. It's that if you're going to say one thing, and then do the exact opposite, you've demonstrated that you aren't reliable.

What if he voted in favour of a same-sex marriage ban, even though it's not constitutionally permitted? What if he voted in favour of slavery, even though it's not constitutionally permitted?
I know I'm going a little off the deep end with that second one, but the point I'm trying to make is that personal feelings aside, he made a commitment to vote only on what was constitutionally allowed, and this is not one of those things.

He can't have it both ways. Either he is an inconsistent voter, who votes on what he feels is right, or he always votes in favour of the constitution, regardless of personal feelings.

One of those things is his campaign platform. (The one he DOESN'T do.)

What if proven constitutional through interpretation of clauses such as "general welfare" and the 9th Amendment that says, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

Why would he vote in favor of slavery? That would be in direct violation, while the others can be interpreted to be in there.

Like when does constitutional rights begin? Is it when your heart starts beating? Or is it when you take your first breath?

For the general welfare of the country we have to make certain consistencies across the states.

To supply for our taxes, Article 8, Section 1, Clause 1 says we are to be taxed for General Welfare and National Defense, but that it must be uniform.

Law is all about interpretation. Ron Paul does have a tough battle ahead of him to get rid of our Income Tax. But then, what do we consider income, and what do we consider a gift?

This post has been edited by Mayz: 24 February 2012 - 08:38 PM

[Papaya]

Mayz, on 24 February 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

Parane rather that Americans kill little baby boy or girl babies that react to light.




It is immoral to enable a crime by doing nothing about it.



I'm also trying to figure out where Parane hasn't done something immoral, racist, or judgmental...

It's one incident from like 30 years ago. That's not even .05 % of his record.

I would say Dr. Paul is about 99.5% perfect (well what I consider perfect, 100% would be like Jesus without godly power). For all the things I found. And I have done an extensive amount of research.

All personal slights aside (how very Christian of you, by the way), I agree that it is immoral to "enable a crime by doing nothing about it". That is completely beside the point. Dr. Paul can be moral, or he can be consistent to his claims of voting according to his belief that the federal government should have no control over abortion. I'd prefer that he be inconsistent, late-term abortions are unethical, in my opinion. I just won't be told that he is consistent despite this glaring discrepancy. If you as a civilian murder somebody you know is going to commit mass-murder, simply by virtue of protecting the lives of many others, you are not absolved of the crime of murder. To suggest otherwise is to advocate for the subjective application of law and order.

[Papaya]

Mayz, on 25 February 2012 - 02:37 PM, said:

Like when does constitutional rights begin? Is it when your heart starts beating? Or is it when you take your first breath?

When you are recognised as a citizen, which occurs at the registration of your birth.

[Mayz]

Papaya, on 24 February 2012 - 09:44 PM, said:

When you are recognised as a citizen, which occurs at the registration of your birth.

So in all that time, you have no rights. So the whole nine months someone should be able to kill you and there is no crime against your right to live.

[Mayz]

Papaya, on 24 February 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

All personal slights aside (how very Christian of you, by the way), I agree that it is immoral to "enable a crime by doing nothing about it". That is completely beside the point. Dr. Paul can be moral, or he can be consistent to his claims of voting according to his belief that the federal government should have no control over abortion. I'd prefer that he be inconsistent, late-term abortions are unethical, in my opinion. I just won't be told that he is consistent despite this glaring discrepancy. If you as a civilian murder somebody you know is going to commit mass-murder, simply by virtue of protecting the lives of many others, you are not absolved of the crime of murder. To suggest otherwise is to advocate for the subjective application of law and order.

We are never 100% a self proclaimed label. When someone is more than 80+ % something, I can't help but agree.

Really though, which one is morally worse? Having to compromise on a principle to not enable a crime, or not compromising a principle and enabling the crime. Boy do I love ethical dilemmas.

This post has been edited by Mayz: 24 February 2012 - 10:57 PM

[Mayz]