Ron Paul or certified RINOs, whom would you prefer? (vanity)

Ron Paul is such a kook on things foreign policy and finding the "truth" about 9-11 that there really isn't any reason to take him particularly seriously on anything.

No.

We should all take him very seriously on economics. He's the best-informed Congressman and the only informed candidate. I would like very much to see him as Sec'y. of the Treasury or Fed Chairman. That, to paraphrase Steve Martin, is his special purpose.

Since anyone will be called a RINO if they don’t agree with someone’s opinion 100%, i say any Repub/conserv but Paul. (And i say this as a Texan who met Paul 20 years ago and who used to listen to Mike Church until his man crush on Paul turned me off his devotees.)

Well, when was the last President who cut the mustard, in your opinion? The country, and you, have survived a whole batch that weren’t exactly hall of famers.

Looney Tune Paul, the only candidate who wants to sink billions into our border defense is worse for national security?

Hah! You Anti-Paul nuts are delusional.

Certified Rino or certified crazy. What a country!

Rick Santorum endorses Mitt Romney and calls him a conservative (audio)
Rick Santorum supports taxpayer funds for alternative energy
Rick Santorum voted for community development block grants

Santorum voted for Amtrak pork.
Santorum supported RINO Arlen Specter over Pat Toomey.
Santorum voted for ethanol subsidies.

Sarah Palin.

Right, like it or not you really can’t govern from the 3% edge.

If the candidates are:

Perry
Romney
Palin
Bachmann
Cain
West
McCain
Pawlenty
Huckabee
Johnson
(the Law and Order fella)
Ron Paul

...sorry...I’ll vote for Ron Paul

If the candidates are:

Tom Tancredo
Tom McClintock
(The B-1 and border fence fella from San Diego...)
Ron Paul

I’d vote for Tom McClintock in a flash and hope for the others as VP or cabinet members...

=8-)

All of the above and more. The more stupid/crazy the politicos, the better for the future. At the same time, starve the beast. After a few crazies, we’ll get better leadership into every level of business, government and academia. Have fun. Enjoy the slide.

Ron Paul is a phony who talks nutty “Consersaliberatarian,” but look at the research done by others into his liberal voting record:

“The thing about being a career politician is that you have the voting record of a career politician. And what you find may surprise you more than the fact that a man who believes in term limits refuses to step down. So I will go over some of these votes of Ron Paul and to do so I will break them up into categories. The first is abortion.

Abortion

It may surprise many of you that this is one of my topics because Ron Paul is against abortion, but you will shortly see why I picked it.

Ron Paul voted NO twice, once in 1999 (HR 1218) and then again in 2005 (HR 748) to make transporting a minor across state lines in order to get an abortion a federal crime. Here were the provisions for the 2005 vote:

Allowing for exemptions to the law if the life of the minor is in danger or if a court in the minor’s home state waive the parental notification required by that state
Allocating fines and/or up to one year imprisonment of those convicted of transporting a minor over state lines to have an abortion
Penalizing doctors who knowingly perform an abortion procedure without obtaining reasonable proof that the notification provisions of the minor’s home state have been satisfied
Requiring abortion providers in states that do not have parental consent laws and who would be performing the procedure on a minor that resides in another state, to give at least a 24 hour notice to the parent or legal guardian
Specifying that neither the minor nor her guardians may be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this act
In 2003 Ron Paul voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction and medical research including the importing of cloned embryos or products made from them. (HR 534)

In 2004 Ron Paul voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (HR 1997)

Most of his other votes and positions on this topic fall in line with conservatives, but the ones above do not.

Same Sex Marriage / Civil Rights

Again Ron Paul proclaims to be a Christian so I have to assume that he is against same sex marriage, but he does not vote this way.

Ron Paul voted NO on Constitutional Amendments banning same-sex marriage twice. In 2004 he voted against HJ RES 106, which “Declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon any union other than that of a man and a woman.” In 2006 he once again voted NO on HJ RES 88 which stated the exact same.

On the abortion votes you can make the argument that he was just voting for state rights, but here you see his real intentions (Amendments cannot be unconstitutional). This is where he parts from me and the founding fathers. The founding fathers believed that the Christian faith should be an integral part of our government and our lives. By this vote Ron Paul shows that he does not. This is one of the main differences between conservatives and libertarians. Ron Paul said the following in 2007, “If you believe in liberty, you are a libertarian. The best libertarians we’ve ever had in this country were our founding fathers.” Boy did he get that wrong…at least on some the votes I am pointing out. It also explains why he and his followers believe that anyone who is not a libertarian is (and I quote) “an enemy of liberty”

Along these lines of civil rights, Ron Paul voted NO in 2003 on a Constitutional Amendment that would prohibit the desecration of the American Flag (HJ RES 4). I did not know that making the burning of the American flag illegal was somehow infringing upon someone’s liberties. Aside from not being able to send a particular mass email with a poem, I do not see the downside here.

I would also like to bring up a piece of legislation that Ron Paul did not get an opportunity to vote on, but certainly commented on. This may open some people’s eyes. Ron Paul said he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here was his comment. “If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–it has nothing to do with race relations. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.” Interesting.

Crime

First I will say that Ron Paul is against the death penalty. That is something I am sure many people have different opinions on. Personally I do not have a problem with the death penalty, but that is not my main issue with Mr. Paul. There have not been many votes on these types of thing lately (at least that I saw), but here are a few historical ones.

In 1998, Ron Paul voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests (HR 4550)

In 1999, Ron Paul voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime (HR 1501) This included “funding for development, implementation, and administration of graduated sanctions for juvenile offenders, funds for building, expanding, or renovating juvenile corrections facilities, hiring juvenile judges, probation officers, and additional prosecutors for juvenile cases.” The Heritage Foundation has some good research on this area and gives compelling reasons why those who commit adult crimes should get adult time. You should check it out.

In 2000, Ron Paul voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (HR 4690). This legislation would reduce the funding for violent offender imprisonment and give the money to Boys and Girls clubs and drug courts.

And then there is his position on legalizing marijuana and the drug war. This topic probably needs its own post. Let’s just say that the drug-ees of the nation absolutely love this guy. He pushes mis-information on the dangers of marijuana and its effect on society. He also tries to portray that the drug war makes the drug problem worse, which is only true if you selectively choose your facts as many liberals are famous for doing. We have tried to legalize drugs in this country before and anyone who tries to tell you that it worked is not telling you the truth. Since I am mostly covering his voting record I will leave it at that. For now anyways.

Here is one that I thought I should fit in somewhere. In 2003 Ron Paul voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. Not sure what the issue was here.

Gun Control

Once again Ron Paul is pro Second Amendment, but a couple of votes struck me as odd.

On two occasions Ron Paul voted NO on protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits for product misuse. (That means someone shoots somebody and then the victim sues the gun manufacturer because obviously it is their fault) In 2003 (HR 1036) and in 2005 (S 397). It seems interesting especially considering in 2004 he voted YES to restrict frivolous lawsuits (HR 4571).

Campaign Financing

I do not really care if someone wants to give their life savings to a politician, but I would like to know where the politician gets his money from. I think it shows a lot about the candidate so that is why Ron Paul’s vote of NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations bothers me (HR 2316). This vote is especially interesting considering in 2000 Ron Paul adopted the following statement from the Republican Liberty Caucus, “There should be full and timely public disclosure of all the sources and amounts of all campaign contributions upon their receipt.”

National Defense

I have gone into some detail about how Ron Paul is wrong on the Iraq War so I will just go over a few votes to illustrate how wrong he really is. I will take these in chronological order.

First, Ron Paul voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & the valiant service of US troops in 2004. This was really just a political statement. The Resolution made the following points

affirms that the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq; (anyone who has any knowledge of Saddam and his regime understands this fact)
commends the Iraqi people for their courage in the face of unspeakable oppression and brutality inflicted on them by Saddam Hussein’s regime;
commends the Iraqi people on the adoption of Iraq’s interim constitution; and
commends the members of the U.S. Armed Forces and Coalition forces for liberating Iraq and expresses its gratitude for their valiant service.
In 2006, Ron Paul voted NO on declaring Iraq part of the War on Terror without establishing an exit date. First, this shows his denial that terrorist organizations were operating and still are operating in Iraq despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I mentioned some of this evidence in my recent discussion on his foreign policy. Denial is a dangerous thing. Second, in a war, you cannot give an exit date that is not based upon conditions on the ground. This is a very basic military concept that Ron Paul as well as many liberals do not understand. It is dangerous to our mission and emboldens the enemy. Consider how hard you would run if you knew you only had to make it another 200 meters versus not knowing how many more miles you have to go. Make sense now?

In 2007, Ron Paul voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days with a completion date of 180 days. First, I would like to point out the dangers of leaving Iraq during this timeframe. This was the time that we were having a hard time in Iraq and was also about the time that Bush (on General Petraeus’ advice) was advocating the troop surge that ended up having tremendous success. Think back on how disastrous Ron Paul’s decision would have been for US and world security if we had left Iraq during their most dire hour. When their security forces could not have held off the extreme elements in Iraq at the time. Ron Paul’s judgment in this case was just as bad as Obama’s rhetoric on the subject.

My second point is just one of ignorance. Maybe our commanders could come up with a re-deployment plan in 90 days but to think it is logistically plausible to re-deploy our troops within 180 days is borderline insane. To give you a perspective…it took us 3 or 4 months to relocate a battalion plus to another location inside Iraq. (4+ battalions in BDE, 4 BDEs in a division…etc). Making political statements with a vote such as this just shows this ignorance and it is also very dangerous. It is reminiscent of other statements by Ron Paul. One such example is a statement by Mr. Paul in 2007 that said we need to stop policing the streets and allow the Iraqis to take over. Well, I was training Iraqi security forces to do this starting back in 2004 so I am either a genius or somebody told me to do it (meaning Ron Paul does not know what he is talking about). Well, I will give you a hint…I am no genius. I will add that we can not just let them take over. These forces have to be prepared.

The last vote I will cover is Ron Paul’s vote of YES on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq in 2008. First, Bush and his administration were very careful about their statements on affiliations between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Second, evidence supports these claims even if they were made as well as Iraq’s support of numerous other terrorist organizations. Denying this fact does not make it any less true. Third, information from intelligence agencies all over the world agreed with the threat that existed. Decisions were made based upon this intelligence, they were not lies. And lastly, this evidence was not something that was cooked up by “Neocons to start a war” as Ron Paul would say. The issue of Iraq has existed and been discussed for over 2 decades so the only reasonable explanation for such a vote would be if you believed in some type of 2 decade long conspiracy. So does Ron Paul really believe that or did he just make another dangerous politically motivated vote. I will let you decide on that one.

There are many other votes I could cover, but haven’t. Like Ron Paul’s vote to keep Pelosi as Speaker of the House or Ron Paul’s vote to not remove Rep Chalie Rangel from his leadership position (ethics violations and all).”

I’ve got some Ron Paul / Ross Perot campaign signs if you want them.

Ron Paul is a kook who doesn't care if Iran has nukes.

But that doesn't mean we have to accept a RINO.

>> Why are we so obsessed about Israel ...

Obsession: The morbid persistence of an idea in the mind, against one's will.

Our support for Israel is not an obsession, but instead a matter of friendship and solidarity regardless of the domestic idiots you referenced.

The other question is why Israel is so important that my savings should be used for them.

Well, I think we see what your agenda is here. Btw, how much of your "savings" went to Israel... got a dollar amount???

I would like very much to see him as Sec'y. of the Treasury or Fed Chairman

You can't have as part of your base the Alex Jones truther crowd and ever be appointed to anything serious. Paul claims the reason he is not searching for the "truth" of 9-11 is because he's too busy with other stuff, but he does not in any way dismiss or refute the crazy 9-11 tin foil hat truther nuts. By doing this, he's basically disqualified himself from being appointed to any serious position no matter how much some people may think he may be qualified.

You are missing the point. This thread is not about Ron Paul but about others who do worse things and seem to get away with it.

If Ron Paul were the candidate, Obama is the next president

What difference would it make? There is very little difference between the two. They both blame America for every problem in the world. They both think we need no military, as long as we bow down to and appease our enemies enough. They are both pro-gay and want legalized drugs. Where is there a difference, other than cut and run is better at acquiring earmarks, but there is nobody than him at that.

It will be Mitt..Perry or Palin....forget the rest...

Ron Paul can’t win, so that makes a choice easier.