I wish I had the time and motivation to go through each and every one of these factoids, but I will settle on this one in particular. I found it rather hard to believe that Dr. Paul would oppose such a thing and there surely must be some legitimate reason for him to do so. Turns out this is referencing House Amendment 356 to HR bill 2587. The amendment was to "prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1999-346)

This is not an opposition to civil liberties, but rather a demonstration of his consistent principles as a fiscal conservative. You will find many examples of this in Paul's voting record. He simply opposes government funding for most things. ontheissues.org obviously needs to get its poorly cited and unrepresentative facts straight.

Presumably, if a bill is introduced to “prohibit funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage”, then the government already provides funding of some sort for “the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are related by blood or marriage”?

If that’s the case, then does he oppose such existing funding? And if so, why hasn’t he sponsored legislation against it?

Hmm... I don't think my enthusiasm is irrational as Paul has a voting record that shows hes a man of principal, a champion of the constitution and liberty witch is what made america great in the first place..

I am also willing to change my mind on the issue but so far haven't been convinced to do so.

As far as the subject goes it still looks like people are interested in the discussion so it persists.


I'm sure it seems like I fell in the Ron Paul kool aid vat as pointed out by another member but to me this all makes perfect sense and I've thought a lot about it.

There is just a difference here between how I see the world and how some other members see the world witch is fine by me as I wouldn't want to be anyone else

You seem to like RP almost as much as I like GVG.

Motion to approve.

GVG for President! It's a movement now.

I like you too Ray, I just think you are being a bit of a propagandist. This was going in in the last election as well, BOTH for Ron Paul and for Obama. I like reading the positives and negatives on ANYONE I am considering casting a vote for or encouraging other to do so. Obama had some negatives, but all things considered he was the lesser of all evils. He has done some good things in office and has been prohibited from doing a lot of other good things. He has also made many mistakes and done many wrong things while in office. Unless someone better comes along I think I'll vote Obama again.

My suggestion to you and others considering a vote or a vote of confidence and support for Ron Paul is to look seriously at his or other candidates negative side as much or more than their positive side. Obama was considered a Saint and Prophet by many people who could not also see his negative aspects. No one is perfect. Look closely at the negatives and consider if they are acceptable or not.

Here is an interesting list I saw recently of reasons why NOT to vote for Ron Paul. Not my writing, but interesting info and perspective.

Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. See bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. See Bills: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” See Bills: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720

Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes. He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. See bill: H.R.05484

Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please see bills: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936

A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that did not happen he has fought to at least have the US withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.” Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see bills: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154

Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to G.L.B.T. citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955. A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals! His “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 that advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations.

Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion. He stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.”

Though he talks a good talk at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative, bigoted views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.

a champion of the constitution and liberty witch is what made america great in the first place..^^
I wonder if the Indigeneous Peoples would agree with this?

Here is my official visual representation of this thread, to commemorate it's 300th post.

LOL

does anyone know the current nexus record for longest thread? its how long till the election? i think this sucker will break em all.

That depends, has any legislation been written against it? He would probably co-sponsor or at least vote to remove that funding. He is generally across the board NO for federal spending. I doubt he would actively legislate against it simply because he opposes so many institutions that he would never make any progress before his death.

Either way, to say he wants to ban gay adoption is still very inaccurate and serves to misinform the public.

Wouldn't Keynes say this is a BAD idea in the current economic climate? This doesn't seem the time to abolish the Federal Reserve, dismantel the DOE, etc. What are we aiming for? 30+% unemployment with private-only schools? Is this the "Revolution" the Congressman from Texas proposes?

THANK YOU!

I noticed people went oddly silent when I pointed this out earlier

RayofLight,
What do you think of Gibran2's list of Paul's voting record. I actually agree with some of what Ron Paul says but then I look at how he votes and it seems looney. If you cherry pick, any political philosophy can look good. I resonate with much of the Libertarian view but taken to extreme, it doesn't provide a solid base for a society to sit on top. Everyone is on their own and isn't how mankind has existed since we evolved. It doesn't represent the way humans choose to live.

So, what about Gibran2's voting stats? Principled or not, is that how you would vote on those issues?

Last I checked, gibran wasn't running for president, so it's kind of a moot point.


Otoh...GVG 4 PREZ!

Why does he want to close the fed? How would that benefit anybody?

fed reserve gives too much power to a centralized banking system and large businesses; it also funds these ridiculous wars. In the US, large businesses have too much power, as do banks.
I don't know about you, but I certainly want it abolished. It does nothing to really benefit
the working class.

JFK also wanted to abolish the federal reserve.

I think you're a bit too optimistic about american economical and political power.
The elite only THINKS it's serving it's own interests, but being in the centre of all power has clearly clouded their judgements.
The american political elite, both on republican and democratic side, thinks the national debth is not something to worry about. The consensus is that american debths are a way to controll china and other foreign powers (as long as we owe them money, they won't harm us). Many american diplomats are quite open about this being their philosophy.

The american debth is in percentage of it's GDP, roughly the same as that of most south-european nations....you know, those country's anglochauvinists have named PIGS country's. (portugal, ireland, greece and spain).
The eurozone as a whole has less debths than america.

Downgrading america's AAA status was more than justified. The financial markets no longer believe american leaders are both willing and able (a crucial combination, i would say) to take responsibility when it comes to the debth issue. For instance, you can not get out of debth's by simply cutting federal spending. There will have to be some money coming in as well. 'Printing' more money is not gonna fool the financial markets.
The american government has only one way left of getting it done...it's called taxation.

The financial guys know that that's not gonna happen because it's election time soon, AND they are the ones who've lobbied for tax reductions themselves.
Why else would a guy like warren buffet call publicly for higher taxes while he never paid a dime to mr taxman himself?
They're confused. The buffets of this world know they're bringing america to bancrupcy, but they've benefitted too much from all the fiscal loopholes to be able to quit using them. If not, mr buffet would have called for fixing the loopholes first, instead of just raising taxes. You can raise taxes all you want, but if you leave open those loopholes it's not gonna make any difference.

America is heading for a next recession. Nothing in this world is gonna stop that. And when the next recession hit's, perspective on america's debth's and ability to grow itself out of them, will change.

There was plenty of money in argentina and brazil as well, when those countries went bancrupt. The only difference is that america is a bit too big for the IMF to bail out with loans, and that americans will not accept it if the IMF takes over...meaning that an american bancrupcy will have unprecedented effects.