Ron Paul Honored as "Taxpayers' Friend" for Tenth Consecutive Year

US House of Representatives -- Texas 14th District ^ | February 21, 2002 | US House Press Releases

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Paul Honored as "Taxpayers' Friend" for Tenth Consecutive Year

www.house.gov/paul/
February 21, 2007

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul has been recognized as a top advocate for taxpayers in the U.S. Congress for the tenth year in a row, earning the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union’s annual award as a "Taxpayers’ Friend" for 2005. Only 30 of 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives earned similar honors last year.

The annual NTU rating is based on critical congressional votes relating to federal tax, spending, and regulatory issues. Paul consistently ranks at or near the top of NTU’s scorecard in terms of his pro-taxpayer votes.

Overall, however, Congress is slipping when it comes to serving the least-represented special interest of all—American taxpayers.

"If every member of Congress voted like Representative Paul, Americans could enjoy much lower taxes and less waste in government," stated NTU President John Berthoud. "Overburdened taxpayers in Texas and across the nation owe Mr. Paul a debt of gratitude for his hard work on their behalf."

"While many Members of Congress talk about reducing the size of government, Representative Paul backed up those words with votes. This award proves that he is a consistent and effective ally in our battle to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington."

[DreamsofPolycarp]

You might want to try and using other phrasing.

Just wanted you to feel at home. Liberal scum and all that.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Very Christian of you.

Save it for someone who is impressed with your ability to string all six of those neurons together when you post. Have you tried the immigration threads?

[jrooney]

I have no love for liberals, but I also know what is acceptable and what is not. Posts like that is not going to help Ron politically and will follow you around here like a popcorn trail.

[jrooney]

I was mocking him and you because you two are pathetic to act like Christians but spew slang like that to describe a homosexual, which such behavor I do not endorse. Did you two get kicked out of the church of the freak that goes around protesting at military funerals?

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Did you two get kicked out of the church of the freak that goes around protesting at military funerals?

I dunno about him. It was waving those snakes at the episcopalian rector that got me.

[George W. Bush]

Anyone that sides with Pelosi against sending additional forces to assist our soldiers when they are fighting terrorists, is not worthy to visit the oval office, not to mention occupy there.

Ron Paul doesn't see any merit in supporting our current band of Muslim terrorists (Maliki government) over any others in Iraq. Most of the senior GOP foreign policy experts seem to share that opinion but are more discreet. However, it is a congressman's job to vote these things. As a side note, I personally think Ron Paul should have simply made a speech and then voted 'present'. But he has his own judgment and conscience on these matters and I don't judge him harshly. He is at least consistent in this. He voted to support the invasion of Afghanistan and he voted against the invasion of Iraq. To date, our prospects with the Karzai government is far better than with the Maliki government so Ron Paul shows pretty good judgment.

[jrooney]

Ron Paul shows poor judgment when it come to Iraq. I hope he runs for president, so when he is hammered in the primaries and does not even come close to winning, those that support him will see how little influence he has with most republicans. Most republicans support the mission in Iraq and believe it was right to remove Saddam, therefore those that do not, such as Paul and yourself are in the minority of republicans.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

Most republicans support the mission in Iraq and believe it was right to remove Saddam, therefore those that do not, such as Paul and yourself are in the minority of republicans.

Good men differ on these things. Calling them cowards and traitors for differing is the mark of an imbecile.

Cordially

DOP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I don't expect you to understand that our legislators are not elected to waste time at taxpayer's expense.

Obviously, you're incapable of understanding that if they're not passing spending bills, that's NOT "taxpayer's expense". It's LESS expense than if they were passing spending bills. However, you seem unable to comprehend that.

I don't expect you to articulate a coherent defense of Ron Paul's vote to support the liberal surrender monkeys who disgrace our troops, undermine our President and embolden our enemies.

I didn't expect you to have ANY excuse for your unforgivable advocacy for giving Military and Financial support to a Government which is knowingly and willfully harboring Anti-American Terrorists.

Of course, you have no excuse for your position, because your position is unconscionable.

Why do you advocate putting our Troops in harm's way to protect a Government which knowingly and willfully harbors self-confessed and convicted Terrorists, Drumbo? How can you possibly do such a thing?

Libertarians do not become Reagan Republicans by voting with liberal democrats.

Ron Paul, unlike every other Republican in the Race, has been a Reagan Republican since 1976. You know who said so?
Ronald Reagan.

In 2008, I'm voting for the REAGAN REPUBLICAN. I'm voting for former Vietnam Combat Flight Surgeon, and Leader of Ronald Reagan's Electoral Delegation from Texas: In 2008, I'm Voting for RON PAUL!

[TheKidster]

Unfortunately my opinion of what is happening in Iraq moves closer to what you are relating here day by day, minus the neo-con bashing/conspiracy stuff.
And I hate it!
I'm fighting to keep the scales over my eyes but reality is steadily seeping in.
Philosophically I don't want to be the world's police force but the situations we have created make it pretty much a necessity.

[cva66snipe]

Ron Paul is a cut and run coward. He turned his back on the troops.

Wrong! The man called for a Declaration of War. Who else in the GOP did that? The Lamestream GOP and the DEMs are the COWARDS for not giving our troops 100% full support they deserve and they still won't. Support means more than cheering them on. What about more active duty troops and equipment? Where are they?

The congress can vote on whether monkeys fly or not but they have yet to vote to give our troops more needed help beyond token feel good measures to ease their conscience. Where has Bush been on this as well? Telling Rummy to make stupid you don't go to war with what you wish you had... for several years when they still done NOTHING for the troops but make token trips to Iraq and pat themselves on the back for it!!!! IOW Photo OPPs DEMs and GOP alike.

Please do not tell me congress has declared war as they did not. That resolution was as useless and Unconstitutional as the Gulf of Tokin Resolution pushed by LBJ. It was resolutions of enforcing UN policy spewage. Learn something GOP stop being the other stupid party. Learn from past mistakes and don't repeat them.

Two Republicans the two most conservative congressmen in DC Ron Paul and Jimmy Duncan voted against that initial and the recent resolution. The GOP needs a good trip to the woodshed to be reminded what conservative principle are and using troops for nation building is not one of them. Nation building is not the job of a member of the United States Armed Forces. I know the DEMs are too stupid as a party to understand that but the GOP knows better or said it did in 2000 isn't that rght GW Bush?. Bush did exactly what he accused Clinton/Gore of doing.

If you think the voters in their districts are going to vote these two out Wrong again as their districts are a traditional conservative.

Both Paul and Duncan have been re-elected to office since the initial Resolution for authorization of force. Duncans district has an Air National Guard Base, Several Army NG units who have deployed and returned, and Army, Navy, and Marine, reserve centers. He looks out after his men as he was also Army National Guard for 18 years. I'll take him over my Bush Rubber Stamp Congressman Wamp anyday. I won't leadership that actually thinks for thamself and has the courage to stand up and say what needs saying even if I do not agree 100%.

[jrooney]

I could care less what he called for. I care what he voted for. What is more important what you say or what you do? What you do of course, but you like to gloss over that. Would it be more important for Paul to call for tax cuts or vote for tax cuts? I am sure you think vote. The same is applied to Iraq.When the new General in charge of the Iraq plan Petraeus, called for the additional surge for the plan he designed to give reinforcements to our American soldiers there to we could finish the job and bring the troops home with a victory, he voted NO. He did not vote present, he voted NO. He is a cut and run coward. I will do everything I can to defeat him if he runs for the presidency.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

When the new General in charge of the Iraq plan Petraeus, called for the additional surge for the plan he designed to give reinforcements to our American soldiers there to we could finish the job and bring the troops home with a victory, he voted NO. He did not vote present, he voted NO. He is a cut and run coward.

Do you believe it constitutes a "victory" to leave in Power a Government of Iraq which harbors self-confessed, and even Convicted, Anti-American Terrorists in their Ruling Coalition? How is that a "victory"?

Saddam Hussein is dead. Iraq has suffered a very meaningful object lesson in what can happen if the US gets pissed off. What more does it accomplish now to firm up the power base of the Terrorists in SCIRI and Al Dawa?

In the fight between the Sunni Terrorist Insurgents of Iraq and the Shi'ite Terrorist Government of Iraq, I'm rooting for them BOTH to lose. And the USA will lose a lot less Troops and save hundreds of billions of dollars by watching them kill eachother from the sidelines.

[cva66snipe]

I could care less what he called for.

That is obvious. It's all about a dangerous party loyality to Bush right or wrong isn't it? He DARED say no to a Bush. OH My GOODNESS I feel faint!

Let me set you straight on something here and now. Going to war is the most serious and somber act our government can do. It very well deserves more than some Donkey lawyers in congress writing enforcing U.N. mandates type Congressional Resolutions and sending our troops to enforce such. That was not Constitutional they did not have thet power. The congress and troops take an oath to our nationa nd our Constituion not the U.N.

OUR TROOP DESERVED NO LESS THAN A FORMAL DECLARATION OR WAR BINDING CONGRESS AND POTUS TO IT'S RESOUTION AND COMMITS THEM TO SEE IT TO THE FINISH.

[jrooney]

Saddam would still be in power and not dead if Ron Paul had his way to murder and rape the innocent.

You keep spamming your own thread with the same recycled post. Are you going to notify the mods you are spamming and not following forum rules? (Since you like to post spamming and forum rules)

[jrooney]

Saddam would still be in power and not dead to murder and rape the innocent, if Ron Paul had his way.

You keep spamming your own thread with the same recycled post. Are you going to notify the mods you are spamming and not following forum rules? (Since you like to post spamming and forum rules)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

OUR TROOP DESERVED NO LESS THAN A FORMAL DECLARATION OR WAR BINDING CONGRESS AND POTUS TO IT'S RESOUTION AND COMMITS THEM TO SEE IT TO THE FINISH.

What is more, as I mentioned in #26, if Congress had determined that the situation in Iraq genuinely merited a Constitutional Declaration of War, a formal Declaration of War would also have entitled our kidnapped troops to formal Prisoner of War status.

As a result of Congress' abdication of its responsibility to Constitutionally Declare War in Iraq, our Troops who are kidnapped by the Enemy there are denied "Prisoner of War" status.

Sadly, another member of the American Military is now ambiguously classified as "Missing-Captured" when his true status is Prisoner of War. Why is the United States Government so unwilling to refer to these servicemen as Prisoner of War? From our observation, the answer is simple. The ambiguous designation "Missing-Captured" allows a public with a notoriously short attention span to forget that these men were taken alive and held by the enemy. The "Missing-Captured" designation is a question mark in the minds of a generally unaware public. There is no question mark attached to the designation Prisoner of War. It is a clear description of status.... Unfortunately, the United States Government has never had any difficulty leaving any man behind. The elimination of the POW designation makes it that much easier. The perception foisted on an unsuspecting public that there are no POWs in Iraq is simply wrong. -- POW/MIA InterNetwork, January 27, 2007 (http://www.aiipowmia.com/inter27/in270107bitsnaf.html)

Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican Candidate standing up for our missing Prisoners of War!
"Ron Paul is one of only two co-sponsors of H. Res. 123, for the establishment of a Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs to 'conduct a full investigation of all unresolved matters relating to any United States personnel unaccounted for from the Vietnam era, the Korean conflict, World War II, Cold War Missions, or Gulf War, including MIA's and POW's.' (POW-MIA InterNetwork)"

Bring 'em home alive, Ron! POW*MIA -- You Are Not Forgotten

[jrooney]

That is where people like you get it wrong. He said no to Petraeus, the general that wanted the extra troops to assist our soldiers there. He said our troops do not need the reinforcements to win. I can't wait for the next vote to cut off funding for the war, Ron Paul will be right there to support it and eternally seal his defeat of ever seeking higher office.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

If you just keep parroting "cut and run coward! cut and run coward!", then I will continue pointing out just how EVIL is the Government of Iraq which Ron Paul proposes Cutting Off.

As long as you're a one-note-pony, I'll keep thrashing you with the same horsewhip.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

That is where people like you get it wrong. He said no to Petraeus, the general that wanted the extra troops to assist our soldiers there. He said our troops do not need the reinforcements to win.

Answer my Question:

Do you believe it constitutes a "victory" to leave in Power a Government of Iraq which harbors self-confessed, and even Convicted, Anti-American Terrorists in their Ruling Coalition? How is that a "victory"?

Yes, or No?