All of Ron Paul's Comments to HFSC/Bernanke 2/25/2009

Discussion in 'Politics' started by JamieinNH, Feb 26, 2009.

  1. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    2/25/2009 All of Ron Paul's comments today at the House Financial Services Committee. In his opening remarks to Bernanke, Ron Paul defends capitalism and warns against international fiat monetary schemes, which will exacerbate our economic woes. Then he Schools Bernanke... Yet again!

    YouTube Link

    I wish this man were in charge!!
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    778
    So do I......................
     
  3. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    . . . . . and I. I voted for him in the Republican primary.
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    The GOP had a chance to nominate him but only about 5% of GOP voters supported him when the primaries were competitive. I guess 95% of conservatives don't agree with him.
     
  5. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will agree that the GOP did their best to outst him. That doesn't change the simple fact that he would have made a great president and would have helped us out of this mess we're in.
     
  6. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    He's still the only politician I have ever financially supported.
     
  7. dragonfly

    dragonfly
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,594
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ron Paul's policies would have destroyed the U.S. Maybe 75 or 100 years ago this would have been the best way to go, but now it is too late to adopt his policies.
     
  8. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0

    No, I disagree.. It's never too late to start doing the right thing. That is what Ron Paul stands for and his record speaks clearly.

    I know people don't like him and his ideas because hey, we're human and we get used to things as they are and we don't ever want to look to clean house and start over, but sometimes it just needs to be done.

    It is my firm opinion that Dr Paul could have done better than anyone we have out in office for the last 20 years.
     
  9. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think he was being ousted from the GOP. I think Ron Paul hurt Ron Paul. His verbal gaffes, his nod to increased domestic spending, his poor pro life record, and his record on earmarks invalidated a lot of his rhetoric. His interviews on CNBC have been very good. But his interviews on "Real Time with Bill Maher" have been pathetic panderings.

    That said, he probably has a more firm grasp of economic policy than anyone since the Reagan years.

    The Obama machine would've destroyed Paul. The GOP wanted a winner, and they thought McCain would be him. That's why McCain won. No more, no less of a reason.
     
  10. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Poor pro-life record ?

    No, the media and the GOP conspired to make Dr. Paul the fringe candidate. He was more pro-life than any of them, and more anti-war than any democrat.

    I don't know how you could read his writings on the subject of abortion and come away with your statement.

    And McCain a winner ? Hardly. He'd be bringing us down the same road the bamster is.
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,278
    Likes Received:
    778
    How do you get he has a poor pro-life record?
     
  12. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are we talking about the real Ron Paul or the Ron Paul that the GOP and media would like you to see?

    Which is exactly what we need now. Someone that understands economic policy....

    That might have been true, but I don't think the "Obama machine" did it to McCain. I think the GOP did it to themselves. They kept bringing up every petty thing about Obama and didn't focus on the issues that mattered. They lost many news cycles with the petty stuff.

    Say thing is it will happen again if we don't stop with the petty such with Obama and nail him for the bigger issues.

    Ron Paul is and was my man! I hope we can get him to run again.
     
  13. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    His voting record is abysmal and has been displayed. He has had pro-life voting years of 50-60 and 70%. I had these bookmarked at votesmart.org, but I lost the links after a recent virus. Do a search there. Talk is cheap - votes arent.
     
  14. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. Unfortunately, the GOP didn't think so and nominated him.
    The real one. I poured over every interview I could find, hoping against hope I could support him. The more he talked, the more psuedo-con I became convinced he was.
    Yes, along with more than that.
    McCain did it to McCain, and the GOP did too. I dont think they got lost in petty stuff. I think they got lost trying to attack the Obama-worship. The GOP forgot how to win elections. They also forgot how to put forth a principled platform. It's mystifying how Obama didn't win by 15 points. Utterly amazing. What's even moreso is that McCain led and / or was within the margin of error for so long.
     
  15. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Here's his voting record on "abortion" issues. These are the ones that determine the percentages you are talking about.

    He voted no on the last two because they shouldn't be dealt with at a federal level. The "crime to harm a fetus" had exemptions for abortion doctors and mothers aborting their children.

    Not sure of his NO vote on this last one. There must of been something hidden in the bill. In his defense, he introduced the "Human Cloning Prevention Act of 2001".

    The two NO votes in here are the same as above.

    The guy is very pro-life. He introduced the "Sanctity of Life Act of 2007" :

     
    #15 matt wade, Feb 26, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 26, 2009
  16. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Agreed...McCain lost because the GOP played the same game Kerry did in 2004. Kerry didn't inspire people, the only thing the Dems ran him on was "he's not Bush". That didn't work! The GOP tried the "he's not Obama" and it didn't work. McCain didn't inspire anyone. The GOp needs someone that can stand on their own and not be "not the other guy".


    I'm with you on Ron Paul. If he actually received backing from the GOP he could have shut down Obama.
     
  17. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,240
    Likes Received:
    2
    Thanx for that info, Matt. :thumbs:
     
  18. JamieinNH

    JamieinNH
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes Received:
    0
    More food for thought:

    From wikipedia (take it for what it's worth since it's from wikipedia)

    Pro-life legislation

    Paul calls himself "strongly pro-life"[172] and "an unshakable foe of abortion."[173] He believes regulation of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level."[174][175][176] He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction, in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
    Paul refers to his background as an obstetrician as being influential on his view, recalling inadvertently witnessing a late-term abortion performed by one of his instructors during his residency, “It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”[177] During a May 15, 2007, appearance on the Fox News talk show Hannity and Colmes, Paul argued that his pro-life position was consistent with his libertarian values, asking, "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which he believes to be alive, human, and possessing legal rights.[178]
    Paul has said that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion, stating that "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."[179]
    Paul introduced The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[180] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[129] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[181]
    In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure." He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.[182] He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”[183]




    Also, from On The Issues:


    Click here for 25 full quotes on Abortion OR background on Abortion.
    • Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
    • Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
    • Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)
    • Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008)
    • Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
    • Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
    • Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
    • Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
    • Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
    • No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
    • Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
    • Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
    • Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
    • Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
    • Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
    • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
    • Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
    • Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
    • Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
    • Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
    • Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
    • Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
    • No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
    • Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
    • Rated 56% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)

    I think the reason a lot of people see Ron Paul as having a mixed record on abortion is because sometimes he has voted against a bill because of something else IN the bill. From what I read about him, he would rather vote against a bill if part of it isn't right.

    It's an all or nothing type attitude with him and I like that about him. I would rather know the bill he is voting for is a good bill vs "the best we could do" bill...
     
  19. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Selective data, to be sure. If I get a chance, I'll post the full record. His pro-life record was one of the worst among GOPers in Congress. Then he decides to run for POTUS and gets it turned around, and did introduce the amendment in 2007.

    For now, check the fuller record at http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296
    http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296
    For instance, in '05, Paul voted the NARAL position 75% while voting the NRLC position 56%.
    Take this for what it's worth. We've bandied this about before at LENGTH, for many, many pages and I have no time or desire to do it again. I may repost some of that if I can find it (it was when Ken was a Paul guy).

    Again, to all the Kool-aiders: I like Ron Paul. I do. If he were more consistently pro-life (and on other issues as well) he would've been my guy in the election last year. But I had to go third party to find one.
     
  20. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
    Posting these percentages without the reasons behind them is meaningless. Please provide specifics that show he is not as pro-life as some of us think.
     

Share This Page

Loading...