Is Ron Paul a hypocrite

No. Nor would you expect a TRUE small government guy, who thinks we are doing too much already, to have a bunch of co-sponsored bills, OR to receive a bunch of support from his colleagues who are getting paid off by lobbyists.

I don't want more bills. Why would I want MORE freedoms taken away, MORE regulations, etc.? I want someone to "put the brake on" our annual budget. Someone who will veto, EVERY SINGLE TIME, any bill that has abortion funding it...not compromise and give in, like the rest continually do. I want someone who EVERY TIME, will veto unconstitutional bills.

That, in fact, is the ideal president. The most powerful tool that a President has, is not some kind of dictatorial power, where he can tell congress how to manage things, but to be a CHECK against stupid, unconstitutional, big government spending.

And that, my friend, is exactly what "Dr. No," is known for.

 

But you don't understand that these things were ALREADY being spent in these areas. These earmarks were part of a larger, nation wide bill that ALREADY included that dollar amount. He did not add money to the bill; he just designated how his districts portion would be spent, rather than allowing Obama to do it for him.

 

Has Mr. Paul introduced any bills in Congress to overturn spending bills, eliminate government agencies, or otherwise shrink the size of government?

 

And he designated that those amounts be spent on items not authorized by the Constitution.

Hence the hypocrite label.

He could have just as easily earmarked the money for constitutional purposes.

 

Yes, how about his masterpiece, the "We The People" act?

 

There are limits on earmarks. You can't put earmarks for development of a sound currency, in a bill for Urban redevelopment.

 

Enjoy your Ron Paul Kool-Aid. :laugh:

 

He's Definitely Not a Hypocrite...

...just too old to do the job. The Dem's claimed, and accused McCain of being tooooo old just 4 years earlier, and Paul is one year older (and five years older now) than John was four years ago!

So if the Dem's believed McCain was getting too old to do the job, why is Paul not considered too old? Could this be selective politics??? :laugh:

 

The basic arguement being made in defense of Ron Paul's earmarks for Federal spending on things not included in the Constitution is...

They all do it ???? :laugh: :laugh:

 

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h539/show

As I understand it, We the People Act would prohibit federal courts, including the Supreme Court from ruling on:

1. any state law regarding establishment or regulation of a religion

2. any state law regarding the right to privacy esp. when concerning sexual practices, orientation or reproduction

3. any state law regarding the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation.

So what you call a masterpiece I see as unnecessary legislation. As to point #1, the U.S. Constitution 1st Amendment trumps any state action.

As to point #2 and #3 this is already covered by the 10th amendment.

Also, it seems that #2 and #3 would allow states to pass their own laws regarding abortion and gay marriage. This could lead to a situation where gay couples are married in Massachusetts but not legally married if they moved to Texas. Isn't this the exact situation we now have? So why do we need this law?

Abortions could be legal in New York but not in South Carolina. Enacting We the People would be a defacto overturning of Roe v. Wade. I doubt that it would be enacted. In fact, the bill was introduced on Jan 13, 2009 and is dead on arrival in the House Judiciary committee.

I asked:

I don't see how We the People does this. It attempts to negate one branch of government's authority over another branch.

I did find this:

Ronald Paul has sponsored 421 bills since Jan 7, 1997 of which 418 haven't made it out of committee and 1 were successfully enacted.

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

So I would say that his legislative record is dismal, to put a postive spin on it.

 

So you are FINE, with the Supreme Court and other activist federal courts saying that we can't pray in school, can't teach the Bible in school, etc.? Do you NOT think that the Federal courts have run amok with the so-called "Separation of Church and State"?

Sorry, but I am NOT fine with this. So in my mind, a bill that effectively overturns these rulings and sends jurisdiction back to the localities, is WONDERFUL. We have laws on the books already, here in Texas, that would instantly allow us to begin teaching alternatives to evolution, etc., in schools.

But the 10th amendment is ignored. And so the activist Federal Courts keep finding "homosexual rights" in the constitution...

Because sooner or later a Federal court is going to force Texas to recognize those marriages, or force us here in Texas to allow it.

What do you mean, it would not "be enacted"? We down here in Texas have an abortion "trigger" law, which is just waiting for the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. 39 other states have them as well. The We the People act would reduce abortions by the millions..

Actually, it utilizes one of the checks and balances that was put into the Constitution, to address activist judges. Yes, this would shrink government, as it would, for example, shut down hundreds of abortion providers and remove Federal funding for these...

Actually, it is exactly what you would expect from someone that is staunchly opposed to more government. Why is Dr. Paul to be punished, because other members of Congress are so sold-out to the Big government spending, that they refuse to make the necessary cuts?

 

Actually, yes I am fine with public schools not being able to teach the Bible or having prayer IN CLASSROOM TIME. If students want to pray on their own, read their Bible on their own, or have a Bible club not in classroom time, I'm all for it. Do you really want a secular university trained teacher to teach the Bible? Also, I don't want the public schools teaching Islam, Buddhism, Wicca, or any other religion, as would be inevitable if it were judged to be legal to do so.

Yes, I do.

The solution is to elect conservative judges to county and regional posts and to elect conservative governors and presidents that would appoint conservative judges. It's the only way. There is precedent established that ignores the 10th amendment. We need conservative judges in place THEN pass laws that would overturn these sorts of things. Passing laws now would simply be stricken down by liberal judges.

Hence the need for conservative district judges to not allow that to happen.

The We the People bill has been dead since the day it was introduced in Congress. It's not going to get passed.

None of his bills are even being considered for enactment. They are DOA as soon as they are introduced. It would appear that he is incapable of working with others to get a consensus and get a bill passed. That is a deficiency of leadership. Sorry, but that's his record.

 

No, its not a deficiency in leadership. It is a deficiency in ethics in the rest of Congress!

I think Paul's enormous movement clearly demonstrates that he has leadership capabilities. Paul has the most organized campaign, bar none.

Again, his record is that he stands alone against Big Government spending, while the others take lobbyist money and kickbacks, and continue to spend.

 

No, what needs to happen is to stop going into debt to a group of private international bankers.

Besides being unconstututional it's downright evil. It's a system of debt designed to keep us in debt and increasing that debt until the group of private bankers control everything.

Which is why you should vote for Ron Paul. He's the only candidate that isn't under the control of the private banking cartel. Unless you like being in perpetual debt. In that case vote for anyone else but Ron Paul.