Paulettes who respond to this thread: I’m anxious to hear your rebuttal of this piece. Calling names, frothing at the mouth, etc,. isn’t rebuttal. I’m anxious to hear your facts. [I don’t think you can effectively rebut, but try.]
Oh they will.... try that is.
Nothing hurts like the facts when they don’t support your agenda driven rhetoric.
well, I think this author has taken an overly simplistic view to Ron Paul’s voting record. There was another thread where someone pointed to an ‘on the issues’ site or somethingrather which made similar claims.
Paul votes against nearly all pieces of legislation because he believes most of what congress does in unconstitutional. So, when bills are bundled together and amendments attached, he votes against the whole thing and then he is claimed as being against a part of what he was voting against, even though he might have voted for it if it had been on his own. Additionally, some of these votes may have been due to his strong belief in states rights. Others, the author of this piece is correctly stating he voted against an individual piece of legislation, but I think he is correct in doing so, votes against the failed War On Drugs for instance, defense of marriage, some aspects of foreign policy.
So, in conclusion I think this piece distorts on some facts, wildly speculates on others (the DNC is pulling for Paul as a 3rd party?!), contains many errors of ommission (only candidate to favor abolishing the IRS, pulling out of the UN, abolishing half the Fed gov), and has some truth to it here and there. :)
For a better sum up of Paul’s postions and legislative record see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
I suppose you don't see he the beam in your own eye . . .
He's not going to win, right? Fred is going to win, right?