Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Being a supporter of free trade, that's exactly what I would expect.
If Ron Paul supports free trade, then why did he vote against the US-Caribbean Trade Partnership Act in 1997? Why did he vote against the Africa Free Trade bill in 2000? Why did he vote against the Trade Act of 2002? Why did he vote against the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement in 2006? These are not the acts of someone who claims to support free trade. These are the acts of an isolationist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
The whole issue with Iran is suspicious given that we've gotten aggressive once Iran stated that they no longer wish to deal with OPEC in US currency, rather in Euros. It's also convenient that we're looking for another war right before elections when the Republicans gain support for wars.
Why do we need to sacrifice more American lives in Iran, and only further create hostility in the region? If we're concerned about nuclear weapons, why on earth do we continue to supply Israel? Why do we not care about North Korea? Who died and made us dictator of the world to say that no one else is allowed to have nuclear weapons anyway?
The US has been "hostile" with the Iranian leadership since November 1979. For 28 years Iran has been, and continues to be, the biggest sponsor of international terrorism on the planet. When Ron Paul voted for the "War Against Terrorism" he was voting to wage war against ANY nation that sponsors international terrorism, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria if need be. It has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and everything to do with government sponsored terrorism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
This is a huge reason that he has garnered much support. He's a proponent of smaller federal government. Much of these bills are funneling money into unconstitutional programs.
The Defense Department Budget, US Postal Service Budget, Foreign Operations Budget, Treasury Department Budget, Interior Department Budget, DC's Budget and numerous others are not unconstitutional. In fact, they are specifically delegated powers by the US Constitution under Article I, Section 8. Ron Paul doesn't appear to care whether these powers are constitutional or not, he simply votes against every budget for the last decade with only a handful of exceptions.
If this gains Ron Paul popularity, then it is only among those who have never read the US Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
There's nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government the authority to make laws concerning energy. If Alaska wishes to open up oil and natural gas fields, great... if California doesn't, great! Ron Paul doesn't feel that the federal government should be in the business of owning assets, so I would suspect he would sell ANWR.
Actually, there is. See Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
ANWR is federal territory, not part of the State of Alaska, and therefore under the authority of Congress to determine "all needful Rules and Regulations." Of the 344 million acres that constitutes "Alaska" on the map, 80 million acres belong to the Native Alaskans under the Alaska Land Act of 1972, 120 million acres were given to the State of Alaska, and 144 million acres remains under federal control, which also includes the National Petroleum Reserve. Only Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate those federal lands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
Citation please. He has voted for a moratorium on internet taxes as well as cosponsored a permanent ban. From the House website:
"Congressman Paul, in addition to supporting the extension of the moratorium, has also cosponsored legislation that would make the ban on internet taxation permanent, as a mandate of the commerce clause which calls for Congress to regulate interstate commerce so that states do not impose duties on each other."
Ron Paul voted AGAINST the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2000 (HR 2709), which extended the ban on Internet access taxes until October 21, 2006. Despite Ron Paul's vote against this act, it passed the House 352 to 75 (see Roll Call Vote #159). Never believe what politicians say, even on their web site, only believe what they actually do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
Votes against the military? He feels that we have overreached our bounds and are building an empire. There's no need for us to be in South Korea, Germany, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere outside of our territories.
However, after we were attacked, he authorized force in retalliation against al Qaeda. This was not a carte blanche to continue nation building in Afghanistan, nor was it justifiable to enter the war in Iraq.
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
It makes no mention of al Qaeda, or any specific nation, which is indeed "carte blanche" to use "all necessary and appropriate force." Ron Paul votes for the war, then votes against funding the military in order to accomplish the task they have been given.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
Not a surprise... the bill, H. AMDT.423 to HR 2684, didn't fund NASA, it shifted funds already allocated to NASA. How is it inconsistent to recover funds directed at an international effort to be funneled into a national program? It's one step closer to the goal...
It is inconsistent when Ron Paul votes to shift funds from an international effort to an agency that he consistently votes against funding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
Voting against REQUIRING States to share drivers license data... Yes, that's actually what I would expect. The federal government has no authorization to make such demands of the States.
Actually, they do. See Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Driver's licenses are a "public act", and Congress has the delegated constitutional authority to ensure that the information is shared with every state in the Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
Exactly, because the bill in favor of continuing the deployment also withheld funding unless the President certified that the EU and NATO members were sharing the burden before 4/1/01.
It is still inconsistent to vote against involvement, then vote for continuing involvement, regardless of the circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
No surprise here again. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"... He'll support an amendment to the Constitution which would grant the States the right to decide if the 10 Commandments are displayed, but he's not going to go around the Constitution.
If that were the case, then why did Ron Paul vote for the Pledge of Allegiance Protection Bill in 2004, and again for the Pledge Protection Act of 2006? They were merely statute law, not a constitutional amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
Have to conclude that he's anti-military? Is that why he has the largest support of military personnel? He's not anti-military, he's anti offense and a supporter of defense.
One can not vote to send US troops to war and then vote against funding those troops without being considered "anti-military" which is precisely what Ron Paul has done repeatedly. Not to mention voting against Defense Department Budgets for the last 10 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by twojciac
And isolationist? I don't see how free trade and diplomacy is being an isolationist. I guess most other nations that aren't trying to build an empire are isolationists in your book.
See my response above to your first statement. Ron Paul can not claim to be in support of free trade while voting against every free trade agreement for the last decade.
You are mistaken, H.J. Res. 64 (Public Law 107-40) states:
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
It makes no mention of al Qaeda, or any specific nation, which is indeed "carte blanche" to use "all necessary and appropriate force." Ron Paul votes for the war, then votes against funding the military in order to accomplish the task they have been given.
Someone please explain to me then why Saudi Arabia has yet to be "liberated".
The other people in this thread don't seem to base opinion on issues, rather on appearances. How foolish imho.
Actually I do base my evaluation of Ron Paul on issues; as my post states, I do agree with him on some things. But I don't agree with him on enough issues to make me consider voting for him rather than any of the other Rep or Dem candidates.
I'm an Independent and so cannot vote in the primaries; I will be "stuck with" choosing between whatever two candidates end up in the final race. However, IF I were a registered Republican and could vote in the primaries, I still would not vote for Ron Paul --- not because of his appearance or voice or speaking style or that he's considered to have no chance to win, but because there are two other Rep candidates who come closer to my views on more issues than he does. If Ron Paul's views approached my own opinions more than any other candidate, I would vote for him even if he looked like the Purple People Eater and shrieked like a banshee.
I do think, however, that his personal communication style is a factor that can't be completely ignored in today's media-based age. Of course it shouldn't be a determining factor, and I don't think that for any intelligent person it is. Or at least I hope not. But to say it should be completely discounted as if it doesn't exist, isn't realistic IMHO.
Another thread in this forum deals with whether religion is going to be a factor. I've gotten into somewhat of a heated discussed there because although I don't think it SHOULD be a relevant factor in someone's voting decision, and hope that someday perceptions will evolve to where it WON'T be a factor .... I recognize that it IS a factor for many voters, whether I think it's warranted or logical or not.
In response to the original poster, of course there are people who dislike Ron Paul. Heck, the universe is such a mysterious place that you can even find people who support the current President after his being the greatest calamity in American history.
The bulk of the American people would not be satisfied with universal health care, 0 illegal immigration, 0 taxes, 100% employment, 0 terrorism, and a 12 week vacation schedule at work. So the chances of finding a perfect Presidential candidate are slim to none.
I rarely single out postings, but that was a great series of postings, Glitch. Even for those who may disagree with your stance, that was a well thought out series of responses.
Though I don't dislike Paul I would never vote for him. I have a different view of the world than the Paul supporters, much more in favor of international involvement and I am a big fan of the Federal Reserve.
Am I the only one who does not like Ron Paul? Everywhere I go, particularly around my college campus, I'm bombarded with people telling me to join the Ron Paul Revolution and I don't think I can walk ten feet without seeing his face plastered to a tree or lamp post. Then I come onto this site, and it's just the same... everyone seems to have this Ron Paul love affair. I'm really beginning to think I'm crazy for not liking him...
I don't dislike the man but I'd never vote for him.
Multiquote is taking too long, so here goes, sorry if it's jumbled.
Free Trade: Trade acts are not free trade, they're trade agreements. Here's Ron Paul's statement on CAFTA which provides insight into why he's opposed to these agreements. They're wolves in sheep's clothing.
"I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution."
Iran: The US and Iran have had bad relations, but why is that? Could it have anything to do the CIA's installation of the Shah of Iran in 1953? How would we have felt if the KGB overthrew our government and the USSR started building bases in Canada and Mexico? Lord knows we're still pissed about Cuba.
Budget: I never said all of the departments were unconstitutional, many of them are. Even if they are constitutional, that's not a reason alone to fund the department. Take the USPS for instance... there's no reason why it can't be privatized. It's already happening in Japan.
The DoD is the largest leech on funds right now. Why would Ron Paul want to funnel more money into nation building when he clearly opposes our actions?
Constitutionality isn't the only test, it's one of the many tests applied before voting.
ANWR: Maybe you didn't read my response... I fully understand that ANWR is a federal land and it's 100% within the realm of the federal government to dictate what happens on that land. However, Ron Paul feels that the federal government should not own most assets and they should be sold.
Personally I disagree with Ron's view on federal assets such as land and our wireless spectrum. But his voting record makes sense given perspective. Doesn't mean I agree with this aspect.
Internet Taxation: I'm not sure why he voted against this bill and for the recent extention. His voting record on taxes provides ample justification to argue that this anomoly isn't something that I'm going to get worried about.
Real ID: I disagree with your interpretation of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. This clause authorizes congress to prescribe the mode of authentication, but does not give congress the authorization to mandate the records that are collected.
Pledge of Allegiance: Seeing how Ron Paul supports State's rights, I don't see how this is surprising or inconsistent. I agree with the Supreme Court that the 1st and 14th Amendments prohibit both the Federal and State governments from writing laws on religion, but is the word God or phrase "under God" a basis of religion if people are not forced to say it? Strict adherence to my religion prohibits me from making pledges of any kind, and this is respected as I am not mandated to make this pledge.
In all you can look at Ron Paul's votes outside of the context and paint him in many ways. To gain a true understanding of his voting record, read his statements on many of these issues. It's not black and white.
If Ron Paul supports free trade, then why did he vote against the US-Caribbean Trade Partnership Act in 1997? Why did he vote against the Africa Free Trade bill in 2000? Why did he vote against the Trade Act of 2002? Why did he vote against the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement in 2006? These are not the acts of someone who claims to support free trade. These are the acts of an isolationist.
The US has been "hostile" with the Iranian leadership since November 1979. For 28 years Iran has been, and continues to be, the biggest sponsor of international terrorism on the planet. When Ron Paul voted for the "War Against Terrorism" he was voting to wage war against ANY nation that sponsors international terrorism, including Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria if need be. It has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear weapons, and everything to do with government sponsored terrorism.
The Defense Department Budget, US Postal Service Budget, Foreign Operations Budget, Treasury Department Budget, Interior Department Budget, DC's Budget and numerous others are not unconstitutional. In fact, they are specifically delegated powers by the US Constitution under Article I, Section 8. Ron Paul doesn't appear to care whether these powers are constitutional or not, he simply votes against every budget for the last decade with only a handful of exceptions.
If this gains Ron Paul popularity, then it is only among those who have never read the US Constitution.
Actually, there is. See Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution:
"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."
ANWR is federal territory, not part of the State of Alaska, and therefore under the authority of Congress to determine "all needful Rules and Regulations." Of the 344 million acres that constitutes "Alaska" on the map, 80 million acres belong to the Native Alaskans under the Alaska Land Act of 1972, 120 million acres were given to the State of Alaska, and 144 million acres remains under federal control, which also includes the National Petroleum Reserve. Only Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate those federal lands.
Ron Paul voted AGAINST the Internet Nondiscrimination Act of 2000 (HR 2709), which extended the ban on Internet access taxes until October 21, 2006. Despite Ron Paul's vote against this act, it passed the House 352 to 75 (see Roll Call Vote #159). Never believe what politicians say, even on their web site, only believe what they actually do.
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
It makes no mention of al Qaeda, or any specific nation, which is indeed "carte blanche" to use "all necessary and appropriate force." Ron Paul votes for the war, then votes against funding the military in order to accomplish the task they have been given.
It is inconsistent when Ron Paul votes to shift funds from an international effort to an agency that he consistently votes against funding.
Actually, they do. See Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
Driver's licenses are a "public act", and Congress has the delegated constitutional authority to ensure that the information is shared with every state in the Union.
It is still inconsistent to vote against involvement, then vote for continuing involvement, regardless of the circumstances.
If that were the case, then why did Ron Paul vote for the Pledge of Allegiance Protection Bill in 2004, and again for the Pledge Protection Act of 2006? They were merely statute law, not a constitutional amendment.
One can not vote to send US troops to war and then vote against funding those troops without being considered "anti-military" which is precisely what Ron Paul has done repeatedly. Not to mention voting against Defense Department Budgets for the last 10 years.
See my response above to your first statement. Ron Paul can not claim to be in support of free trade while voting against every free trade agreement for the last decade.
Last edited by KantLockeMeIn; 10-29-2007 at 12:14 PM..
Ron Paul would be a refreshing change to the current political landscape. He is unlike the modern day Republicans ... and considering where he stands on most issues, he's truly a Libertarian who is more in line with the traditional Barry Goldwater philosophy on government.
I disagree with Ron Paul on two key issues: the death penalty and abortion. I believe capital punishment is necessary for the most heinous crimes. Although I'm not really in favor of the act of abortion, I strongly believe that it should be kept legal ... and the choice (right or wrong) should be left up to the individual.
Right now I'm undecided about who I'll vote for. I don't care for any of the Dems who are running, and I'm not crazy about many Republicans. If it came down to someone like Ron Paul or Rudy Giuliani winning the Republican primary, I'd vote for either one of them in an instant!
Based upon his voting record I have to conclude that Ron Paul is anti-military. Which I find very odd considering that he served in the military from 1963 through 1968. I also consider him to be an isolationist based on his voting record, except when it comes to energy dependence.
I find myself opposed to most of the issues Ron Paul supports, and I support many of the issues Ron Paul opposes. For that reason I dislike Ron Paul and could never vote for him.
I was actually going to discuss reasons not to like Ron Paul, but then I stumbled upon this distortive fake Republican propaganda (you now the Rudy/W/Mitt/Neo-con/religious right wing kind).
Billions of dollars have been stolen from American tax payers in the name of "defense"
It is the most naive citizens indeed who believe in this childish, irresponsible blank check to profiteers... as well as the incompetent foreign policies of the current administration.
I recommend opening up a history book to learn what the GOP is. Drop the last 30+ years of pseudo Republicansim and you'll get there.
Also, drilling domestically is not = to energy independence.
For that, you'll have to divorce the Saudi's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
