Posted on 08/29/2007 4:59:22 AM PDT by PlainOleAmerican
Not strong on life
Anyone who believes Paul is pro-abortion should have their accounts yanked. The man sponsored the sanctity of life act in 2005, for crying out loud. He voted against these two pro-life bills on federalism grounds.
Not strong on traditional Marriage
States are already banning gay marriages. Federalism guys! Paul has been married for over 50 years to the same woman, BTW.
Not strong on crime and punishment: Opposes the death penalty.
Death penalty is a state issue, not a federal one.
Not strong on fighting the drug problem: Legalize industrial hemp.
Good, hemp and marijuana should be legalized. But I guess the author supports the current police state and no-knock raids on civilians.
Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror
School prayer should be voluntary and it's already allowed anyway.
Not strong on Second Amendment Rights
ARE YOU F KIDDING ME, SERIOUSLY PAUL BASHERS, IF YOU BELIEVE THIS YOU ARE FRICKING NUTS!
Not strong in the war on terror:
Beefed-up borders and interior enforcement means the terrorists will never come here and attack us again. Let 'em kill each other in the Middle East.
You guys have totally lost it.
Can't even get that right. Are you sure you're not Sam Goody? Or maybe you meant METooGoody?
Clara, the author twisted some of Paul's votes from ontheissues.com to suit his own agenda. When they were doing it to Fred, you and I were howling in outrage.
Paul is not pro-life? Paul is not pro-2nd Amendment? Clara, really. C'mon now. This isn't a Barf Alert. It's a Colonoscopy Alert.
I wish the Paulbots would spend the time they are wasting going after the Dems.
Dude, these aren't FACTS. These are misrepresentations of votes mixed in with innuendo with a dash of good old-fashioned BS.
I can't believe FReepers, who are legendary for sniffing out BS articles and posting the facts, have completely ran with this trash.
Eating our own? No, we’d actually like to have some capable and savvy people joining our battle to fight the left instead of fighting a battle they know they will not win with a marginal candidate. We could use their help, not to support Bush, but to perhaps stop Hillary.
The Paul supportes are like the Kucinich supporters on the other side. At some point, you have to realize that your time should be used productively in the battle with those who would destroy America.
There are other issues besides the WOT that Paul wins hands down
Can’t link to Thomas searches, provide the Thomas link for those who don’t know it, and the bill number. I’m told they last for 20 minutes in theory, but I don’t think they work as links at all.
Paul is just a con man. A demagogue who pushes the emotional hot buttons of the fringes.
Bill number AND Congressional session, or year.
Sure he does pal. You're just pissed because he has more grassroots support than all of the other candidates. Military folks are coming out supporting Paul. Folks are sick and tired of us meddling and nation-building in the Middle East, fighting half-assed wars, letting the MSM/Dims trash our troops while an incoherent Bush administration refuses to stand up to them. Fight a real WOT or don't fight one, despite the cocoon that exists on FReeperland otherwise.
There are no other issues if we don’t win the War on Terror. We will have no Constitution to defend. I want a commander in chief on whom I can depend without equivocation. I want one who stands up for America, lets our allies know we will never waiver, tells our soldiers they will always have his support, and shows our enemies that we will pursue them relentlessly and without apology. I am afraid that is not Ron Paul.
Why?
I think it's fair to say Iraq is the most important issue this cycle, in most peoples top 2 or 3 which is what votes are cast on.
Why would they go after Dems.
Knowing your posting history I presume you didn't mean going after Dems for votes, that's being done.
A Ron Paul coloring book would be a stitch, but probably not a best seller.
They are a disappointment, aren't they.
Publicly attacking the Dems, particularly Hillary, and doing work to undermine them. That would be a better use of their talent and energy.
Have any of the Paulites addressed this or are they just ignoring it like they do all the other unpleasent realities about Paul?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html
Ron Paul’s $400 Million Earmarks
You would rather the bureaucracy decided where our money is spent, right Johnnie?
Earmarks, as distasteful as they may be when it's pork that's being dispensed to a Congressman's chums, are at least (now) a matter of public record. Congressional Record, as well as the votes in committee, are available for all to see.
Ron Paul is the only member of Congress who consistently votes "NO" on bills which conflict with limits set by the United States Consitution as to the federal governement's powers and responsibilities. While other Republicans like to call themselves fiscal conservatives as they continue to vote increased funding for pet projects such as Alaska's notorious "bridge to nowhere," Rep. Paul has demonstrated a tenacious adherence to the Constitution he swore an oath to uphold and defend.
Eliminate a few federal departments and reduce the federal budget by, say, 70 percent, and earmarks take on a new insignificance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.