Replies

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001) ....(mixed feelings at this point)

-Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)......(agree, with exceptions)

-War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000).....(agree especially about confiscations)

-Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001).....(I think that would be fine)

-Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003).....(so?)

-Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)....(I think it should be reviewed every 5 years maybe)

-Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004).....(some think it should be up to states...not me though however Congress hasn't busted a grape on this so he's hardly an outlier)

-Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)......(I don't think we need this specific amendment really)

-Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)......(depends on the charge....Federal sentencing guidlines are draconian)

-Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)....(here I would disagree)

-Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003).....(I bet he thinks this is not proper use of fed tax revenue per the Constitution literally...I would vote to ignore the Constituion on that)

-Voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.....( I wholeheartedly agree with him there, but btw....Paul did not serve in 1964)...a small oversight)

-Voted against the 2002 congressional endorsement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act ......( i agree with his vote)

Sorry, I should have said he was and is against the Civil Rights act of 1964. And it appears you are too.

Ron Paul wants to more than legalize medical dope. He wants to get rid of all federal laws against drugs.
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Drugs.htm

IMHO, that is where his support comes from.

I am starting to think that most "conservatives" simply want A) sweetheart FedGuv bucks for their projects, and B) an activist court system that tosses a scrap to them on moral issues now and then. I like what RP has to say about having a truly limited FedGov and a truly conservative view of the Constitution.

I will tune into the next debate and see if the others go after him to try to nip him in the bud. If so, then he is onto something. If will be fun watching the big dogs go after a little 3% nobody with a resonant message.