Vote For Ron Paul If U Want Real Changes! (house of representatives, interstate, September 11)

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Glitch

You are mistaken. Ron Paul votes to send the military to war and then refuses to fund them. In essence, he is doing everything he can to get as many US troops killed as possible. THAT makes him anti-military.

My understanding is that Ron Paul voted against American involvement in Iraq. When did Ron Paul vote to send the military to war?

The fact that Ron Paul wants to undo every current agreement with foreign nations makes him an isolationist.

Ron Paul claims to be for "free trade" and yet votes against every free trade agreement introduced to the House. THAT makes him a hypocrite.

You blatantly do not understand his position. Calling him "isolationist" is comical, because he is strongly against tarriffs. He is against free trade agreements signed by the president, not against free trade in general.

"We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so." - Ron Paul, June 2005

The fact that Ron Paul believes that decimating the military and severing ties with all foreign nations is somehow "better" for the US makes him dangerously delusional.

It is hard to take your posts seriously, because you keep misrepresenting the candidate's position. Where does RP advocate "severing ties with all foreign nations"? That is absurd and misleading.

[TnHilltopper]

Originally Posted by Glitch

It is a convenient excuse to claim that every free trade agreement ever introduced to the House for the last three decades has been somehow "unfair", but that is not reality. It is merely an attempt to excuse Ron Paul's blatant hypocrisy and isolationism.

The please, again, show where he voted against EVERY free trade agreement, otherwise you are trolling.

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by Glitch

You are mistaken. Ron Paul votes to send the military to war and then refuses to fund them. In essence, he is doing everything he can to get as many US troops killed as possible. THAT makes him anti-military.

There you go again with your nonsense. I guess he's defending the second ammendment so he can shoot the troops when they get home. Your logic is that of a Sean Hannity clone.

The fact that Ron Paul wants to undo every current agreement with foreign nations makes him an isolationist.

Incorrect. But nice try. America has become more isolated under Bush that we have been since before WW2. Building empires doesn't make one popular. As soon as the power starts fading, the empire is brought down.

Ron Paul claims to be for "free trade" and yet votes against every free trade agreement introduced to the House. THAT makes him a hypocrite.

Maybe so if you look at bill titles and the first paragraph. RP, however, takes the time to read the entire thing and often his votes of no are due to specific objections to small parts of a bill. Nice try though.

The fact that Ron Paul believes that decimating the military and severing ties with all foreign nations is somehow "better" for the US makes him dangerously delusional.

The only thing that has decimated our military lately has been George Bush and he envisions taking it even further by going to war with Iran. If by decimating you are referring to bringing them home where they aren't being attacked and bombed, then yes, you are correct. Severing ties with all nations? Thats one of the funniest ones I've heard in a couple of days. If by ties you mean bombing campaigns and nation building, then yes, you are correct.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by anonymous

My understanding is that Ron Paul voted against American involvement in Iraq. When did Ron Paul vote to send the military to war?

Ron Paul voted for the War Against Terrorism (Public Law 107-40) then promptly voting against funding the military.

Originally Posted by anonymous

You blatantly do not understand his position. Calling him "isolationist" is comical, because he is strongly against tarriffs. He is against free trade agreements signed by the president, not against free trade in general.

Unlike the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters, I have actually read up on Ron Paul's voting record. So I understand his position quite well. He says one thing and then votes another. When he votes against every free trade agreement ever introduced it is reasonable to conclude that Ron Paul is against free trade despite his hypocritical rhetoric to the contrary.

Originally Posted by anonymous

"We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so." - Ron Paul, June 2005

Another fine example of how Ron Paul is truly delusional and dangerous for the nation. If there is no agreement between governments, then there is no trade, much less free trade.

Originally Posted by anonymous

It is hard to take your posts seriously, because you keep misrepresenting the candidate's position. Where does RP advocate "severing ties with all foreign nations"? That is absurd and misleading.

I have accurately reflected Ron Paul's voting record. The fact that his voting record completely contradicts his rhetoric only emphasizes his hypocrisy.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

The please, again, show where he voted against EVERY free trade agreement, otherwise you are trolling.

I suggest that you need to read up on Ron Paul's voting record at either the Library of Congress or Project Vote Smart.

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Ron Paul voted for the War Against Terrorism (Public Law 107-40) then promptly voting against funding the military.

Ron Paul voted for 107-40 because he mistakenly believed that Bush was going to use it specifically for those directly responsible for 9/11. He stopped supporting it when he realized Bush was hijacking the mission to begin a nation building campaign. Lets just stop to reflect for a moment about Bush's statements:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

That was the rhetoric that he used to get America all stirred up to support anything he decided to do in the middle east. Later, when he was reminded of Bin Laden, the check his mouth wrote was proven by his a$$ to have no funds available:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Unlike the vast majority of Ron Paul supporters, I have actually read up on Ron Paul's voting record. So I understand his position quite well. He says one thing and then votes another. When he votes against every free trade agreement ever introduced it is reasonable to conclude that Ron Paul is against free trade despite his hypocritical rhetoric to the contrary.

Maybe you underestimate his supporters. As for voting against free trade agreements, that is absolutely correct. The Constitution gives Congress the power to govern international trade. Giving this authority away by treaty is essentially the same as agreeing to a UN resolution defining free speech. When Congress votes for agreements like Nafta and Cafta, they give up power to international bodies.

So like his stance or not, its hardly accurate to call his votes hypocritical.

Another fine example of how Ron Paul is truly delusional and dangerous for the nation. If there is no agreement between governments, then there is no trade, much less free trade.

While agreements must be made, we do not have to submit to the will of the UN and the World bank as Nafta requires for any disputes. Sure that point is debatable, but your statement is void of the big picture. If you can show me where RP said we shouldn't make any agreements with other nations, I'd like to see it.

I have accurately reflected Ron Paul's voting record. The fact that his voting record completely contradicts his rhetoric only emphasizes his hypocrisy.

Lol, see above.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

Ron Paul voted for 107-40 because he mistakenly believed that Bush was going to use it specifically for those directly responsible for 9/11. He stopped supporting it when he realized Bush was hijacking the mission to begin a nation building campaign. Lets just stop to reflect for a moment about Bush's statements:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

That was the rhetoric that he used to get America all stirred up to support anything he decided to do in the middle east. Later, when he was reminded of Bin Laden, the check his mouth wrote was proven by his a$$ to have no funds available:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

So Ron Paul listens to the rhetoric of other politicians to make up his mind, rather than read the actual legislation? Had he read the bill, which I'm certain he did despite your claims, he would've understood that it was more than just getting the culprits behind the 09/11/2001 attack, but also to ensure that no such attack could ever take place again. Ron Paul essentially voted to give Bush a blank check with regard to using mkilitary force to stop future terrorist attacks, be they from nations, organizations, or individuals. Then he voted against funding the military in order for them to accomplish that objective. If one votes for war, then votes against funding the military, that puts them in the anti-military category plain and simple.

Originally Posted by tnbound2day

Maybe you underestimate his supporters. As for voting against free trade agreements, that is absolutely correct. The Constitution gives Congress the power to govern international trade. Giving this authority away by treaty is essentially the same as agreeing to a UN resolution defining free speech. When Congress votes for agreements like Nafta and Cafta, they give up power to international bodies.

So like his stance or not, its hardly accurate to call his votes hypocritical.

While agreements must be made, we do not have to submit to the will of the UN and the World bank as Nafta requires for any disputes. Sure that point is debatable, but your statement is void of the big picture. If you can show me where RP said we shouldn't make any agreements with other nations, I'd like to see it.

Who said anything about treaties? I referred specifically to free trade agreements. If it were treaties I was talking about Ron Paul wouldn't have a voice at all since only the Senate gives their "Advice and Consent" on treaties, not members of the House.

I could not care less what ANY politician says about anything, either way. Since I automatically expect them to lie, regardless of the issue, I only take into consideration their voting record because that is something that they can not escape. Ron Paul's voting record clearly demonstrates his unwillingness to make any agreement with any nation. That puts him squarely in the isolationist category.

[anonymous]

Originally Posted by Glitch

I suggest that you need to read up on Ron Paul's voting record at either the Library of Congress or Project Vote Smart.

Taking your advice, I found:

-In 1999, he voted against Steel tarriffs
-In 2000, he voted to remove an embargo on Cuban imports
-In 2000, he voted to remove an embargo on travel to Cuba

Then I'm looking at the bills that he voted down - you know, the ones with "FREE TRADE" in the title - and each one of them has a list of strings attached for certain industries, products, countries, etc., which is not "Free trade" at all.

[TXboomerang]

Originally Posted by Glitch

So Ron Paul listens to the rhetoric of other politicians to make up his mind, rather than read the actual legislation? Had he read the bill, which I'm certain he did despite your claims, he would've understood that it was more than just getting the culprits behind the 09/11/2001 attack, but also to ensure that no such attack could ever take place again. Ron Paul essentially voted to give Bush a blank check with regard to using mkilitary force to stop future terrorist attacks, be they from nations, organizations, or individuals. Then he voted against funding the military in order for them to accomplish that objective. If one votes for war, then votes against funding the military, that puts them in the anti-military category plain and simple.

Wrong again. The resolution was specifically refering to those responsible for 9/11 and nothing more.

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

If this resolution was a blank check as you claim, then no vote was necessary for our invasion of Iraq. But alas, it wasn't a blank check and we went through months and months of rhetoric to get a resolution passed that would give Bush authority to go after those that had questionable or no ties to 9/11 because 107-40 had not given him that authority in his quest to invade Iraq.

Who said anything about treaties? I referred specifically to free trade agreements. If it were treaties I was talking about Ron Paul wouldn't have a voice at all since only the Senate gives their "Advice and Consent" on treaties, not members of the House.

Excuse my grammar, Nafta and Cafta are called treaties from time to time. So whether they are titled as treaties or not, by dictionary terms trade agreements are considered treaties.
So, drop the word treaty and we are still talking about free trade agreements which he voted against like: CAFTA, US-Australia Free Trade Agreement 2004, US-Singapore free trade agreement 2003, free trade agreement with Chile. What did those "agreements" have in common? They were regulated through an international body that gives power to the WTO over our own government. Where did Dr. No give a "yes" vote?
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO.

Wow, how terribly hypocritical.

I could not care less what ANY politician says about anything, either way. Since I automatically expect them to lie, regardless of the issue, I only take into consideration their voting record because that is something that they can not escape. Ron Paul's voting record clearly demonstrates his unwillingness to make any agreement with any nation. That puts him squarely in the isolationist category.

RP is not into giving up sovereignty to international governments and votes accordingly. Agreements do not have to require us to give up our national sovereignty.

You are free to think as you please and vote as you please. Your reasoning and logic here though look very close to trolling as they are laden with inaccuracy.

[DanielRead]

I believe somebody is getting schooled by the Ronpaulians