MSNBC takes shot at Ron Paul "supporters"

Ron Paul has repeatedly given his ideas and sponsored legislation. If people like you want to support the policies of the Decider and Commander Guy, and complain that someone else has no leadership when he is clearly showing you the way out, you are to blame, not Ron Paul.

 

Why are you missing the point, Briant? Are you trying to? Or just refusing to accept reality?

Many other congressman put forth legistlation and ideas that get put into law. Some repeal laws, reduce taxes. Others raise taxes and make new laws. They get support for their ideas (it's called leadership) and move them into action.

Any dufus can warm a seat there and have an idea. But if you want to move up from the house to the president; you gotta show some nuts. Stand on principle, get people to agree with you and move it towards a vote and get the people behind it and get it signed. What has Paul done? Kept his seat warm, sitting there. Awesome leadership.

And your defense of this is pathetic. You were doing much better when you defended his truthiness.

 

lorien i would say that you have owned Briant

 

You are as dishonest as GTech. Of course the corrupt poltitians in DC will not let go of their own ill-gotten power.

 

What do these have to do with witting and passing legislation?

 

By being conniving and disingenuous? The unwillingness to think and change things what they want so they can make everyone else their serfs.

 

You aren't bright are you?

Giuliani was a mayor. So you look at the results of him being there. those are the results. Agree or disagree with what Giuiliani did and his record. He has something you can look at and say "this is what he accomplished"

Paul is a congressman. So you have to look at the legistlation he offers and the results he gets from that. Ron Paul has the history of being a benchwarmer in the congress. Doing nothing. just using everyone else's oxygen.

I guess asking questions that Briant can't answer is conniving and disingenuous. You'd think that if you -really- supported Paul, you'd have a more spirited defense of his candidacy. I could do better at supporting Paul, if I wanted to. Your support is shallow, and primarily based in truthiness.

 

I was just going off the fact that you made the claim:

GIULIANI: MISLEADING ON GOVERNMENT SPENDING

RHETORIC: Reduce Spending. Giuliani recently told a crowd in West Des Moines, Iowa, ''We need to reduce spending.'' He said, "That's how you make government more effective, that's how you make government more efficient.'' [Associated Press, 4/17/07]

REALITY: Spending Went Up 30%: In New York City, spending went up 30% under Giuliani as mayor, or by $9.5 billion. Even stopping the tally before costs related to 9/11 finds a 28% increase, or $8.9 billion more in annual spending then before he took office. [NYC Independent Budget Office Revenue and Expenditure Summary]

REALITY: Against Line Item Veto: "Giuliani also successfully sued to challenge the constitutionality of the line-item veto that would have given President Clinton the power to eliminate wasteful spending." [Associated Press, 4/17/07]

GIULIANI: MISLEADING ON GOVERNMENT SIZE, WORKFORCE

RHETORIC: Cut Size of Government: Giuliani claims that "As President, he would.trim the government workforce. He says that "I reduced the size of government in New York." [New York Daily News, 4/11/07; "Hannity And Colmes," Fox News Channel, 2/5/07]

REALITY: Government Spending, Payroll Grew: The Associated Press noted that the city's Independent Budget Office data shows more employees when Giuliani left. Additionally, total spending on personnel by the city increased 35.6%, by $5.6 billion from the year before Giuliani took office through the end of fiscal year 2001, his last full year in office. Even his website claim that "He cut the size of city-funded government bureaucracy by nearly 20% - excluding the number of cops on the street and teachers in the classroom" is greatly exaggerated. Official figures show that the bureaucracy aside from teachers and cops went down only 12%. [Associated Press, 4/17/07; NYC Independent Budget Office Agency Expenditures, Full Time Positions; accessed 4/23/07]

GIULIANI: MISLEADING ON TAXES

RHETORIC: Cut Taxes: Giuliani brags that "New York City taxpayers saved more than $9 billion in taxes" under his leadership. [accessed 4/23/07]

REALITY: Tax Revenue Soared: City records show that fees and fines increased, and overall tax revenues increased by $3.5 billion, or 19%, between the last budget of Giuliani's predecessor and his own last budget. Income taxes alone went up by 40% ($1.45 billion), while property tax revenues went up 12.7%. The tax burden for New York City residents remained at the top of the list in the nation under Giuliani. ($988 million). And "in the case of one of the biggest tax cuts during his tenure, the elimination of the commuter tax, Mr. Giuliani actually opposed the tax cut so vigorously that he brought a lawsuit jointly with the city's Democratic City Council speaker in an effort to get a court to order state lawmakers to keep the tax in place." [Associated Press, 4/17/07; NYC Independent Budget Office Tax Revenues; New York Times, 2/24/00; New York Sun, 3/29/07]

GIULIANI: MISLEADING ON THE SURPLUS

RHETORIC: Increasing The Surplus: Giuliani claims that he "turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus" [accessed, 4/23/07]

Contradicting Experts And Himself, Giuliani Now Claims He Left The City A Surplus. Giuliani claims that he "turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus." But as he left office at the end of 2001, the New York Times wrote that Giuliani, "estimated the 2003 fiscal year budget gap at $2.9 billion." Other city and state analyses showed figures as high as $4 billion in shortfalls. The Citizens Budget Commission graded his last budget (fiscal year 2002) with a "D" for "budgeting responsibly," writing that "the City has done a poor job of addressing its long term structural fiscal imbalance, resulting in large gaps between planned spending and expected revenues in future years." [http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php?section=2, accessed, 4/23/07; New York Times, 1/4/02; "City Budget Report Card: Fiscal Year 2002," Citizens Budget Commission, http://www.cbcny.org/cbc_report_card.pdf]

This is the sort of man that you say shows leadership skills?

 

Sorry, but you don't get to frame the debate. I'm not your clerk either. What Ron Paul believes is all over the place. What he has tried to do is also readily available. You blame Ron Paul for the state of the congress and the lack of concern for the constitution shown by the vast majority of congressmen. I blame their enablers--like you.

And you, like GTech, repeat this lie as you have no substance.

 

You are being dishonest with your attack. You are making a claim that Paul is doing nothing but keeping a seat warm while ignore the fact that he has never sold out once to his core beliefs. You push a yellow bellied political stance to push legislation that sells out to lobbyists as what makes a great leader. How about you look at what Paul has done and show us how you disagree with his principles.

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis/106/cospon.htm

Organized by Legislative Initiative:
Privacy Package
HR220, Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act
HR516, Know Your Customer Sunset Act
HR517, FinCEN Public Accountability Act
HR518, Bank Secrecy Sunset Act
HR2337, Privacy Protection Act
HR4085, Census Privacy Act
HJRes 55, Mailbox Privacy Protection Act
Consumer Protection Package
HR1077, Consumer Health Free Speech Act
HR1078, Television Consumer Freedom Act
Education Package
HR935, Family Education Freedom Act
HR936, Education Improvement Tax Cut Act
HR937, Teacher Tax Cut Act
HR1706, Prohibiting federal teacher tests.
HR3692, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income amounts received on the sale of animals which are raised and sold as part of an educational program.
Public Safety Promotion Package
HR3124, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit for police officers and professional firefighters, and to exclude from income certain benefits received by public safety volunteers.
HR3128, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a nonrefundable tax credit for law enforcement officers who purchase armor vests, and for other purposes.
H.Con.Res.231, Expressing the sense of the Congress that the Panama Canal and the Panama Canal Zone should be considered to be the sovereign territory of the United States.
H.J.Res.81, Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging...
H.J.Res.90, Privileged resolution to withdraw the United States from the World Trade Organization.
H.J.Res.104, To disapprove a rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to proposed revisions to the national pollutant discharge elimination system program and Federal antidegradation policy and proposed revisions to the water quality planning and management regulations concerning total maximum daily load.
HR219, Social Security Preservation Act
HR407, Second Amendment Restoration Act
HR571, Human Cloning Prevention Act
HR647, Relating to the Kosovo situation
HR736, Davis-Bacon Repeal Act
HR1146, American Sovereignty Restoration Act
HR1147, To sunset the Bretton Woods Agreements Act
HR1148, To repeal the Federal Reserve Act
HR1179, Second Amendment Protection Act
HR1181, A bill to lift the trade embargo on Cuba
HR1613, To restore to the original owners certain lands that the Federal Government took for military purposes in 1940.
HR1789, Market Process Restoration Act
HR1812, Selective Service Standby Act of 1999
HR2026, Voter Freedom Act of 1999

HR2027, Open Debate Act of 1999

HR2655, Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 1999
HR2674, A bill providing for conveyance of the Palmetto Bend project to the State of Texas
HR3399, To prohibit the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System from including any information storage capability on the currency of the United States or imposing any fee or penalty on any person for the holding by such person of currency of the United States, including Federal reserve notes, for any period of time.
HR3400, To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases.
HR3636, To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the purchase of prescription drugs by individuals who have attained retirement age, and to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the importation of prescription drugs and the sale of such drugs through Internet sites.
HR3691, To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear partial-birth abortion-related cases.
HR3769, To prohibit the destruction during fiscal year 2001 of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States.
HR4084, Church Protection Act.
HR4265, Cancer and Terminal Illness Patient Health Care Act of 2000.
HR4799, Family Health Tax Cut Act
HR4855, Cost of Government Awareness Act
HR5078, First Amendment Restoration Act
HR5220, Essential Rural Hospital Preservation Act of 2000

 

You can't prove that & it's just you opinion based on your way of thinking which is "the worlds out to get me & corrupt everything" the fact remains exactly as Lorien stated.

 

I posted articles indicating their corruption. They go back and forth between lobbying and making laws. Then there is the illegal stuff.

 

Am I? Where did I suggest Paul go crawling to a lobbyist. I'm making the point that if he is a leader, he could get others to agree with him on an issue; get the people to agree with him and push something through. As I said, he's done none of thise, he is simply warming his seat. I keep making this point, but everyone is ignoring it. I wonder why

And I keep asking for significant legistlation. Not "statements reaffirming the rights" or a "suggestion to repeal" - those are mumbo jumbo. Here is his record. Link happily provided by Briant the other day While the "Cost of Government Awareness Act" is rather impressive and I'm sure is earth shattering; it's not leadership.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311

As I said. Leadership!

Your claim that he isn't "violating his principles" isn't even accurate. RP co=sponsored this bill:

http://www.house.gov/paul/legis/106/hr1706.htm

By co-sponsoring his bill, RP is tacitly in approval of goverment funded education. Any -good- libertarian would be against that. Wouldn't they?

Do you need more examples of RP going against his "hardened principles" ?

I'll leave you with a thought. Ron Paul is the congressman from the Texas 14th district:



Which lines the gulf of mexico; where the oil drilling is. Don't you think that this means his pockets are lined by BIG OIL (oooo..scary BIG OIL) and that's why he doesn't want involvement outside this country. Just a thought

Do we really need another congressman in the pocket of big oil? Look, his votes even suggest the same thing. Shocking!

Just another big oil lap dog; that's Ron Paul!

 

So these are just garbage proposals?

If the rest of the congress doesn't want change that is their fault and the fault of those who put them in place.

As for his "oil" votes, all of them make perfect sense in the context of his being a libertarian. As for the government funded education, Bush seems to want control of education nation wide. Paul opposes this. The fact that the federal government funds education is besides the point. If the federal government gets the idea that just because they fund something it doesn't mean they can control it, they may not bother at all.

 

Ya'll seem to think that Paul doesn't sponsor legistlation because it betrays his principles. but he'll co-sponsor a bill that betrays his principles? Interesting.

Just admit that the only thing you like about Paul is trutherism. Your defense of anything else is weak and frankly too easy to counter. It's boring.

That's what they all say, as they happily take lobbyist money. They always have an excuse. Congratulations on being able to find his excuse for him

The bill is actually about educational standards. If the federal government is going to fund it; don't you think Paul would want (at least) testing to make sure the teachers are competent? I mean, he wants government to be responsible with taxpayer money, doesn't he?

Once again. Let me repeat what I keep saying. Significant legistlation sponsored; that got past committee, put to a vote and put to law. Is it really that difficult for you? Geesh. Anyone can put forth a bill that says "oompa loompas are now the national symbol" but its meaningless if no one signs on and it doesn't come to a vote.

So, what you are saying here is that Ron Paul is the oompa loompa candidate of big oil. Sweet!

Got more for me?

 

I have answered everything in your post multiple times and you know that. Now you are just wasting my time, likely by design, because you and your friends cannot debate the issues at hand.

 

If I were you I would be the last person to accuse someone of having a weak defense. In this thread you compared Ron Paul's views on foreign policy to an abused wife that's battered by a man, and when I called you on it you scurried away and refused to apologize or stand up for what you said.

For someone that likes to keep putting down a candidate for having the courage to stand behind their platforms and to put down other DP members by calling them "conniving and disingenuous", you, Lorien, seem to have no problem displaying an incredible lack of empathy towards people that have suffered physical violence, comparing them to candidates who you don't like. And then you run away and hide when you're called on it.

I just wanted to remind everyone about what you said.

 

I did defend that. You must not be reading very well. The analogy is very apt, too. If you failed to make a counterpoint that interested me; that is reall your problem; not mine.

If you wish to rehash this, I have no problem with that, at all.

RP thinks we should give OBL say over where our bases are; if he thinks OBL's explanation that us being in SA is a justifiable reason for his attack.

Do you think OBL should have say over where our bases are on the planet? Or should the countries who house those bases have say? If it's the latter, RP's argument holds no merit. If it's the former; then abused wife syndrome is the perfect name for his beliefs.

Care to continue?

 

No you didn't. The evidence is there in the thread for everyone to see.

No, what your problem is comparing apples to oranges, or in this case, Ron Paul's foreign affairs policy to someone that is beaten. Do you also like to compare losing at a video game to being raped?

Show me a link to that statement first before I'll debate it.

Of course I don't think Osama should have a say where our bases go but I also think that comparing a man's position on foreign affairs to a woman that gets beaten twisted and mental, yet here you are actually defending said comparison.

You typed those words and no one else. Just YOU.

Even if I disagree with someone's political viewpoint or their endorsement of a particular candidate I would never, ever compare an act of domestic violence to that. The fact that you did, and you continue to support that decision, tells me that you aren't interested in convincing me; all you want to do is attach a mental picture of an atrocious act to the mental picture of Ron Paul. That is sick.

It really sounds like you have no idea, no idea at all, what you are doing. You are bringing a nuclear bomb to swordfight. Go educate yourself about what an abused wife really is, go look at some pictures
and then think long and hard if you want to keep using that analogy to describe a politician that you don't like. It's making your entire arguement significantly weaker because it means that there is nothing you won't say to try and persuade our minds to your side of the arguement.

You may think that I'm making a big deal about nothing but it's not nothing. An abused woman may stay with her partner for a lot of reasons including the safety of her children or herself and you think it's the same as something Ron Paul said? Seriously??

 

A lot of battered women do blame themselves for abuse, Ron Paul did the same thing