Register to reply

Ron Paul

by falc39
Tags: paul
Share this thread:
Evo
#55
Dec20-07, 09:50 AM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,472
Ron Paul on environment and climate change.

Still, his (Ron Paul's) libertarian presidency would, among other things, allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, boost the use of coal, and embrace nuclear power. Moreover, it wouldn't do diddly about global warming, because, Paul reasons, "we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather."

I called Paul up on the campaign trail in Iowa to get the skinny on how the environment figures into his small-government agenda.

What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?
On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn't be directing research and development, because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol, and it turns out that it's not economically feasible. So my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.

On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property—water, air, or land. It is very strict.

But there are realms of the environment that, by definition, can't be owned, right? How would you divide the sky or the sea into private parcels?

The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don't have a right to pollute my air—that can be properly defined by property rights. Water: If you're on a river you certainly can define it, if you're on a lake you certainly can define it. Even oceans can be defined by international agreements. You can be very strict with it. If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems.

Can you elaborate on when government intervention is and isn't appropriate?Certainly. Anytime there's injury to another person, another person's land, or another person's environment, there's [legal] recourse with the government.

What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?
You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government in to review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.

Would you dissolve the EPA?
It's not high on my agenda. I'm trying to stop the war and bring back a sound economy and solve the financial crises and balance the budget.

Is it appropriate for the government to regulate toxic or dangerous materials, like lead in children's toys?
If a toy company is doing something dangerous, they're liable and they should be held responsible. The government should hold them responsible, but not be the inspector. The government can't inspect every single toy that comes into the country.

So you see it as the legal system that brings about environmental protection?Right. Some of this stuff can be handled locally with a government. I was raised in the city of Pittsburgh. It was the filthiest city in the country, because it was a steel town. You couldn't even see the sun on a sunny day. Then it was cleaned up—not by the EPA; by local authorities that said you don't have a right to pollute—and it's a beautiful city. You don't need this huge bureaucracy that's remote from the problem. Pittsburgh dealt with it in a local fashion, and it worked out quite well.

What if you're part of a community that's getting dumped on, but you don't have the time or the money to sue the offending polluter?
Imagine that everyone living in one suburb, rather than using regular trash service, was taking their household trash to the next town over and simply tossing it in the yards of those living in the nearby town. Is there any question that legal mechanisms are in place to remedy this action? In principle, your concerns are no different, except that for a good number of years legislatures and courts have failed to enforce the property rights of those being dumped on with respect to certain forms of pollution. This form of government failure has persisted since the Industrial Revolution, when, in the name of so-called progress, certain forms of pollution were legally tolerated or ignored to benefit some popular regional employer or politically popular entity.

When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are—a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another—concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so. Against a backdrop of property rights actually enforced, contingency and class-action cases are additional legal mechanisms that resolve this concern.

You mentioned that you don't support subsidies for the development of energy technologies. If all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what do you think would happen to alternative-energy industries like solar, wind, and ethanol?
Whoever can offer the best product at the best price, that's what people will use. They just have to do this without damaging the environment.

If we're running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive half as much—something would happen immediately. Somebody would come up with alternative fuels rather quickly. Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create biodiesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It's the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.

But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?
Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of "market" that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.

What's your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that's human-caused?
I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather.

To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there's a fear that we're going to have this global warming and that we're going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that's extreme. I don't buy into that. Yet I think it's a worthy discussion.

So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?
No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus—those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.

What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it.

And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion.

You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?
It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law-enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things-I don't think that would work.

continued...


http://outside.away.com/outside/cult...interview.html
Astronuc
#56
Dec20-07, 10:43 AM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,827
I like the outside.away
Ivan Seeking
#57
Jan4-08, 11:54 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/profile.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ [select Dec 23rd in the right column]
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Frankly, I think the guy is about 95% dead-on. If the Republicans want to recapture the now disenfranchised former Reagan supporters like me, then they had better listen to Ron Paul. He is a true conservative because he actually defends the Constitution; which is the ultimate measure of conservatism. What we have seen in Washington for the last 8 years+ has nothing to do with Conservatism. From my point of view it gets closer to fascism - exactly as Paul describes in his interview with Moyer.

If Ron Paul could actually win, I might even support him now; esp if Obama is not the dem candidate. One nice thing about being an Independent in Oregon is that I can vote in either primary. So I'm thinking that I may actually vote for Paul in the primary. What I like about him first and foremost is that he is a defender of liberty; which I see as the ultimate measure of patriotism.
Moridin
#58
Jan5-08, 12:44 AM
P: 858
Ron Paul is a creationist, denies evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y
Ivan Seeking
#59
Jan5-08, 01:03 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Quote Quote by Moridin View Post
Ron Paul is a creationist, denies evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y

Being that he is a libertarian, that doesn't have any bearing on his role as President. That's where the liberty bit comes in. If you have the Constitution in force, then you don't have to be afraid of religion in the US.

Now if he were to support teaching creationism in science classes, that would be a different matter.
ShawnD
#60
Jan5-08, 03:46 AM
Sci Advisor
ShawnD's Avatar
P: 987
Quote Quote by Ivan Seeking View Post
If Ron Paul could actually win, I might even support him now; esp if Obama is not the dem candidate. One nice thing about being an Independent in Oregon is that I can vote in either primary. So I'm thinking that I may actually vote for Paul in the primary. What I like about him first and foremost is that he is a defender of liberty; which I see as the ultimate measure of patriotism.
Can you vote for Paul as a republican and Obama as a democrat, or are you forced to choose just one party in the primary?
turbo
#61
Jan5-08, 04:11 AM
PF Gold
turbo's Avatar
P: 7,363
Quote Quote by ShawnD View Post
Can you vote for Paul as a republican and Obama as a democrat, or are you forced to choose just one party in the primary?
In my state, you can change party affiliation on the day of the primary and use your vote to support a candidate or suppress a candidate. You cannot head to the primaries and vote in both parties' elections.
Ivan Seeking
#62
Jan5-08, 12:38 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Quote Quote by ShawnD View Post
Can you vote for Paul as a republican and Obama as a democrat, or are you forced to choose just one party in the primary?
We can vote in either primary, but not both.
DrClapeyron
#63
Jan5-08, 12:51 PM
P: 128
Ron Paul is 72 years of age, has no serious chance of winning the primaries and just banked $19 million in 4 months. Recently he has built a nice stash for his retirement, this guy is quite a sly crook.
Ivan Seeking
#64
Jan5-08, 01:19 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Ivan Seeking's Avatar
P: 12,497
Quote Quote by DrClapeyron View Post
Ron Paul is 72 years of age, has no serious chance of winning the primaries and just banked $19 million in 4 months. Recently he has built a nice stash for his retirement, this guy is quite a sly crook.
Oh please, that is ludicrous. He had no way to know what a ground swell his candidacy would bring. If he could plan this, then he would have been rich long ago as a political advisor.
DrClapeyron
#65
Jan5-08, 06:10 PM
P: 128
Political advisor to whom, the unaware? I am certain the guys out there with the tin foil hats are applauding his run for presidency, but how can anyone 50+ years of age be taking this man seriously? His appeal is the 14-25 college know it all hippy demographic.
falc39
#66
Jan5-08, 07:38 PM
P: 14
wow, is anyone watching the abc debate? Ron is completely owning everyone.
Evo
#67
Jan5-08, 07:42 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,472
According to whom? I don't see it.
falc39
#68
Jan5-08, 07:44 PM
P: 14
he started off bad but he ended very strong. dont you notice other candidates trying to steal his platform?
Evo
#69
Jan5-08, 07:55 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,472
He's a nut.

Here is his voting record.

Ron Paul voted NOT to amend the Missing Children's Assistance Act to authorize appropriations
Passed Passed, 408-3,

12/5/07 Vote 1132: H R 2517 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1132/>: Protecting Our Children Comes First Act No

12/5/07 Vote 1131: H R 3791 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1131/>: Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act No

11/15/07 Vote 1109: H RES 825 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1109/>: Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3915, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act No

11/6/07 Vote 1040: H R 1495 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1040/>: Water Resources Development Act No

This was to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

10/2/07 Vote 929: H CON RES 203 </congress/110/house/1/votes/929/>: Condemning the Persecution of Labor Rights Advocates in Iran No

He voted NO to the following:

H. CON. RES. 203
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 3, 2007
Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Condemning the persecution of labor rights advocates in Iran.
Whereas Iran is a member of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and is legally bound to respect ILO core principles, including freedom of association;
Whereas Iran, in violation of ILO principles, refuses to recognize independent labor unions;
Whereas, on April 9, 2007, Iranian agents arrested and imprisoned Mahmoud Salehi, founder of the Saghez
Bakery Workers Association, a labor union that is independent and therefore not recognized under Iranian law;
Whereas Salehi's life is in grave danger as he sits in the Sanandaj prisons without access to kidney dialysis treatment;
Whereas, on July 10, 2007, plainclothes Iranian agents severely beat and arrested Mansour Osanloo, president of the Syndicate of Bus Drivers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, another labor union that is independent and therefore not recognized under Iranian law;
Whereas this arrest was the third time in less than two years that Syndicate president Osanloo has been arrested by Iranian agents;
Whereas Osanloo now sits in Iran's notorious Evin prison with a chronic heart condition and a serious eye condition that requires immediate surgery;
Whereas Osanloo has no access to medical or legal assistance and no contact with his family; and
Whereas, on August 9, 2007, the International Transport Workers' Federation, together with the International Trade Union Confederation, staged an international `day of action' to free Osanloo and Salehi: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns the Iranian regime for the arrest and imprisonment of Iranian union leaders Mahmoud Salehi and Mansour Osanloo and demands their immediate release;
(2) expresses its solidarity with the workers of Iran and stands with them, and with all Iranians, in their efforts to bring political freedom and individual liberty to Iran; and
(3) calls on the Iranian regime to respect the right of Iranian workers to form independent associations and unions, as required by its membership in the ILO.
Passed the House of Representatives October 2, 2007.

He voted NO.

9/4/07 Vote 849: H R 2669 </congress/110/house/1/votes/849/>: College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 No

7/31/07 Vote 764: H R 180 </congress/110/house/1/votes/764/>: Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act No

5/24/07 Vote 423: H R 2316 </congress/110/house/1/votes/423/>: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 No

To provide more rigorous requirements with respect to disclosure and enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations
Passed, 396-22,
5/23/07 Vote 404: H R 1252 </congress/110/house/1/votes/404/>: Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act No
To protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels
5/22/07 Vote 398: H R 2264 </congress/110/house/1/votes/398/>: No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act “Nopec” No
To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.

He voted NO.

5/9/07 Vote 312: H RES 383 </congress/110/house/1/votes/312/>: Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1873, to Reauthorize the Programs and Activities of the Small Business Administration Relating to Procurement No

4/25/07 Vote 261: H R 493 </congress/110/house/1/votes/261/>: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act No

To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.
3/26/07 Vote 188: H R 137 </congress/110/house/1/votes/188/>: Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act No

3/21/07 Vote 178: H R 740 </congress/110/house/1/votes/178/>: Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement (Phone) Act of 2007 No

Result: Passed, 413-1

Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007'
/13/07 Vote 141: H RES 222 </congress/110/house/1/votes/141/>: Expressing Support for the Good Friday Agreement As a Blueprint for a Lasting Peace in Northern Ireland No
Result: Passed, 419-1

Expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the Good Friday Agreement, signed on April 10, 1998, as a blueprint for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland (He's voted against restoring peace in Ireland on several occasions)

3/13/07 Vote 139: H RES 64 </congress/110/house/1/votes/139/>: The Government of Bangladesh Should Immediately Drop All Pending Charges Against Bangladeshi Journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury Result: Passed, 409-1 (he tends to vote against human rights)
1/10/07 Vote 17: H R 2 </congress/110/house/1/votes/17/>: Fair Minimum Wage Act No

9/26/06 Vote 480: H R 2679 </congress/109/house/2/votes/480/>: Public Expression of Religion Act Yes

9/25/06 Vote 472: H R 5062 </congress/109/house/2/votes/472/>: New Hampshire Wilderness Act No

9/20/06 Vote 460: H RES 976 </congress/109/house/2/votes/460/>: Condemning Human Rights Abuses by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Expressing Solidarity With the Iranian People No

9/19/06 Vote 453: H CON RES 415 </congress/109/house/2/votes/453/>: Condemning the Repression of the Iranian Baha’I Community and Calling for the Emancipation of Iranian Baha’is No

9/14/06 Vote 446: H R 6061 </congress/109/house/2/votes/446/>: Secure Fence Act of 2006 Yes

9/7/06 Vote 433: H R 503 </congress/109/house/2/votes/433/>: Horse Protection Act No
7/19/06 Vote 388: H R 810 </congress/109/house/2/votes/388/>: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act No
falc39
#70
Jan5-08, 08:14 PM
P: 14
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
He's a nut.

Here is his voting record.

Ron Paul voted NOT to amend the Missing Children's Assistance Act to authorize appropriations
Passed Passed, 408-3,

12/5/07 Vote 1132: H R 2517 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1132/>: Protecting Our Children Comes First Act No

12/5/07 Vote 1131: H R 3791 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1131/>: Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act No

11/15/07 Vote 1109: H RES 825 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1109/>: Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3915, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act No

11/6/07 Vote 1040: H R 1495 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1040/>: Water Resources Development Act No

This was to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

10/2/07 Vote 929: H CON RES 203 </congress/110/house/1/votes/929/>: Condemning the Persecution of Labor Rights Advocates in Iran No

He voted NO to the following:

H. CON. RES. 203
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 3, 2007
Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Condemning the persecution of labor rights advocates in Iran.
Whereas Iran is a member of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and is legally bound to respect ILO core principles, including freedom of association;
Whereas Iran, in violation of ILO principles, refuses to recognize independent labor unions;
Whereas, on April 9, 2007, Iranian agents arrested and imprisoned Mahmoud Salehi, founder of the Saghez
Bakery Workers Association, a labor union that is independent and therefore not recognized under Iranian law;
Whereas Salehi's life is in grave danger as he sits in the Sanandaj prisons without access to kidney dialysis treatment;
Whereas, on July 10, 2007, plainclothes Iranian agents severely beat and arrested Mansour Osanloo, president of the Syndicate of Bus Drivers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, another labor union that is independent and therefore not recognized under Iranian law;
Whereas this arrest was the third time in less than two years that Syndicate president Osanloo has been arrested by Iranian agents;
Whereas Osanloo now sits in Iran's notorious Evin prison with a chronic heart condition and a serious eye condition that requires immediate surgery;
Whereas Osanloo has no access to medical or legal assistance and no contact with his family; and
Whereas, on August 9, 2007, the International Transport Workers' Federation, together with the International Trade Union Confederation, staged an international `day of action' to free Osanloo and Salehi: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns the Iranian regime for the arrest and imprisonment of Iranian union leaders Mahmoud Salehi and Mansour Osanloo and demands their immediate release;
(2) expresses its solidarity with the workers of Iran and stands with them, and with all Iranians, in their efforts to bring political freedom and individual liberty to Iran; and
(3) calls on the Iranian regime to respect the right of Iranian workers to form independent associations and unions, as required by its membership in the ILO.
Passed the House of Representatives October 2, 2007.

He voted NO.

9/4/07 Vote 849: H R 2669 </congress/110/house/1/votes/849/>: College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 No

7/31/07 Vote 764: H R 180 </congress/110/house/1/votes/764/>: Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act No

5/24/07 Vote 423: H R 2316 </congress/110/house/1/votes/423/>: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 No

To provide more rigorous requirements with respect to disclosure and enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations
Passed, 396-22,
5/23/07 Vote 404: H R 1252 </congress/110/house/1/votes/404/>: Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act No
To protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels
5/22/07 Vote 398: H R 2264 </congress/110/house/1/votes/398/>: No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act “Nopec” No
To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.

He voted NO.

5/9/07 Vote 312: H RES 383 </congress/110/house/1/votes/312/>: Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1873, to Reauthorize the Programs and Activities of the Small Business Administration Relating to Procurement No

4/25/07 Vote 261: H R 493 </congress/110/house/1/votes/261/>: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act No

To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.
3/26/07 Vote 188: H R 137 </congress/110/house/1/votes/188/>: Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act No

3/21/07 Vote 178: H R 740 </congress/110/house/1/votes/178/>: Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement (Phone) Act of 2007 No

Result: Passed, 413-1

Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007'
/13/07 Vote 141: H RES 222 </congress/110/house/1/votes/141/>: Expressing Support for the Good Friday Agreement As a Blueprint for a Lasting Peace in Northern Ireland No
Result: Passed, 419-1

Expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the Good Friday Agreement, signed on April 10, 1998, as a blueprint for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland (He's voted against restoring peace in Ireland on several occasions)

3/13/07 Vote 139: H RES 64 </congress/110/house/1/votes/139/>: The Government of Bangladesh Should Immediately Drop All Pending Charges Against Bangladeshi Journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury Result: Passed, 409-1 (he tends to vote against human rights)
1/10/07 Vote 17: H R 2 </congress/110/house/1/votes/17/>: Fair Minimum Wage Act No

9/26/06 Vote 480: H R 2679 </congress/109/house/2/votes/480/>: Public Expression of Religion Act Yes

9/25/06 Vote 472: H R 5062 </congress/109/house/2/votes/472/>: New Hampshire Wilderness Act No

9/20/06 Vote 460: H RES 976 </congress/109/house/2/votes/460/>: Condemning Human Rights Abuses by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Expressing Solidarity With the Iranian People No

9/19/06 Vote 453: H CON RES 415 </congress/109/house/2/votes/453/>: Condemning the Repression of the Iranian Baha’I Community and Calling for the Emancipation of Iranian Baha’is No

9/14/06 Vote 446: H R 6061 </congress/109/house/2/votes/446/>: Secure Fence Act of 2006 Yes

9/7/06 Vote 433: H R 503 </congress/109/house/2/votes/433/>: Horse Protection Act No
7/19/06 Vote 388: H R 810 </congress/109/house/2/votes/388/>: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act No
Chances are you probably haven't heard his explanations for voting like this.

Name any mainstream candidate and I will dig up things that they did that are like 20 times worse than what people try to slander dr ron paul with. This includes major corruption, flip-flopping (lying), ethics, etc. (hillary is probably the worst)

On another note, has anyone read his book?
I just got it in a shipment! :)

oh yea, and btw... constantly stating in every other post "He's a nut!" nutjob, kook, etc just makes you look immature.
Evo
#71
Jan5-08, 08:24 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 26,472
His voting record speaks for itself. He's a sandwich short of a picnic.

Just google "Ron Paul Insane" or Ron Paul Nut", you'll get a good feel for what he is.
Mk
#72
Jan5-08, 08:34 PM
P: 2,056
Quote Quote by Evo View Post
12/5/07 Vote 1132: H R 2517 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1132/>: Protecting Our Children Comes First Act No

12/5/07 Vote 1131: H R 3791 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1131/>: Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act No

11/15/07 Vote 1109: H RES 825 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1109/>: Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3915, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act No
...
...
...
...
Whenever Congress is in session, our freedoms are not safe.

The logic in the argument "Ron Paul voted NO on Securing Adolescents From Exploitation Online." Why do you think that the Act was titled that? Would somebody want to be held accountable for wanting adolescents to be available for exploitation? That act had many implications. Ron Paul does not want to protect our children. Ron Paul does not want to protect them from predators and exploitation. Ron Paul is a man who says that we should have less laws and smaller government. The majority of laws and acts passed should not be laws that protect people from their own stupidity.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
The Missing Six Minutes with Ron Paul Current Events 5
Object Hovering In St. Paul Sky General Discussion 18
Paul Hamm General Discussion 3
The Taz-Cut Con - Paul Krugman Current Events 1
Dr paul marmet General Physics 1