Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
Taken from a finance board on Yahoo:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of C


In short he's EXACTLY what the Republican party should be about. For me it's like Yin and the Yang. You need both sides to balance. A night and a day. Corporations have so infused themselves in today's election process that your vote is diluted to special interests. This is the kind of voice that should be radiated instead of muted.

Machiavelli Wrote:Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:
Taken from a finance board on Yahoo:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of C


In short he's EXACTLY what the Republican party should be about. For me it's like Yin and the Yang. You need both sides to balance. A night and a day. Corporations have so infused themselves in today's election process that your vote is diluted to special interests. This is the kind of voice that should be radiated instead of muted.

OH NO...Ron Paul is a total lunatic!!!....RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!!!!

My family was one of Ron Paul's first supporters when he ran against the ultra-liberal McGovernista Bob Gammage (a/k/a 'Bob Garbage') in 1976 for the Texas 22nd Congressional District.

Bob Garbage BARELY beat Ron Paul on 1976 and only then because of voter fraud in South East Harris County precincts.

Garbage's "margin of victory" was less than 400 votes-in a heavy turnout 1976 Presidential Election.

Oh you should of seen the Texas Democratic Convention iin 1976.. you had 'Bob Garbage' and his enabler, socialist DNC member Billie Carr, and the "leftist wanna be".. the future "Killer Bee" Gene Jones.
all 3 staged a political "blood purge" aganst any and all Conservative Democrats becaise of the support they were giving Reagan in the 1976 Republican Primary.

Those three went out of their way to screw over Conservative Democrats and Republican in every way they could.

Ron Paul beat the incumbent Democrat "Bob Garbage" in 1978. and that was his first full term in Congress...

Serious question... I really want to know...

Do the racist claims hold any water? By that, I'm more interested in his voting record than in whether or not someone in his campaign did something, or some off color email. Don't get me wrong, it's not that things like that don't matter, but let's be honest... every person I know, including people of all races and colors have made insensitive and hurtful comments at some point, in some situation. If there is evidence that his legislative record is tainted by such things, then that is an issue... If he was simply "crass" at some point, then I think that is something else. There are plenty of politicians who are clearly racist by their voting record, yet they've avoided the pratfalls of getting caught saying the wrong thing.

How do you interpret his record?

Hambone10 Wrote:Serious question... I really want to know...

Do the racist claims hold any water? By that, I'm more interested in his voting record than in whether or not someone in his campaign did something, or some off color email. Don't get me wrong, it's not that things like that don't matter, but let's be honest... every person I know, including people of all races and colors have made insensitive and hurtful comments at some point, in some situation. If there is evidence that his legislative record is tainted by such things, then that is an issue... If he was simply "crass" at some point, then I think that is something else. There are plenty of politicians who are clearly racist by their voting record, yet they've avoided the pratfalls of getting caught saying the wrong thing.

How do you interpret his record?

Well, he's still against the Civil Rights Act and justifies on "states rights" grounds, at best he's politically tone deaf and 'principled' which I think you can make a strong case for being disconnected from reality. The best evidence of being 'racist' or 'anti-semitic' is his rhetoric and votes related to Israel and the fact he allies with Dennis Kucinich on Foreign Policy. This is the biggest reason why Neo-Nazi's like him, voting record wise. They've known about his newsletters for years.

And its not just Racist and homophobe stuff, it was some of the best X-Files type Conspiratorial stuff you'll ever read. Turns out back in 1996 he admitted to writing the newsletters, when the newletters that called Israel the "most evil lobby of the bad sort" and some other racist to border line Un-PC remarks came out. They also uncovered the Finiancial records and Tax returns from them, Paul paid himself, his WIFE and his Daughter out of the profits from those newsletters, which he's now trying to claim no knowledge of the contents. If he wasn't a Chomsky loving far-left fruitcake on the war and history, the media would've tore him to shreds by now.

Paul just hired a new Foreign Policy advisor
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/02/01/who-...-ron-paul/

"Israel is engaged in a brutal occupation that is clearly visible on satellite television nightly. Its repression of the Palestinians is enabled by the United States." --Phillip Geraldi, Ron Paul foreign Policy advisor

GGniner Wrote:Paul just hired a new Foreign Policy advisor
http://lonestartimes.com/2008/02/01/who-...-ron-paul/

"Israel is engaged in a brutal occupation that is clearly visible on satellite television nightly. Its repression of the Palestinians is enabled by the United States." --Phillip Geraldi, Ron Paul foreign Policy advisor

Geraldi??? OMG

This guy is ex-CIA Counter Intelligence. He is (or was until recently) a big John Birch Society Member. Really big into the "Globalist Conspiracy"--New World Order type stuff.

In 2005 he published in a magazine the "Secret War Plans" that Dick Cheney supposedly ordered to be drawn up that called nuclear strikes on Iran in the event of a large scale terrorist attack inside the US. He really has it in for Cheney, Scooter Libby, Wolfowitz.


He is a real He should be on Art Bell's radio show...

Hambone10 Wrote:Serious question... I really want to know...

Do the racist claims hold any water? By that, I'm more interested in his voting record than in whether or not someone in his campaign did something, or some off color email. Don't get me wrong, it's not that things like that don't matter, but let's be honest... every person I know, including people of all races and colors have made insensitive and hurtful comments at some point, in some situation. If there is evidence that his legislative record is tainted by such things, then that is an issue... If he was simply "crass" at some point, then I think that is something else. There are plenty of politicians who are clearly racist by their voting record, yet they've avoided the pratfalls of getting caught saying the wrong thing.

How do you interpret his record?

He was far too lax in editing things that went out under his name when he was between Congressional sessions. If you go to one of his rallies, you will note it has the largest # of minorities in it among any GOP rally. His ending of the drug war is directly beneficial to blacks. They commit less than 20% of inner city drug crime, yet end up being over 2/3 of those jailed for drug crime. Discrimination much?

Well, I guess I'm just going to have to look deeper. No offense intended to either his supporters or detractors... but I'm really only interested in the things he says and does that are on my priority list. There is no "perfect" candidate.

In SOME ways, I agree that states rights trump the Civil Rights Act, but mostly because I doubt that any state with a significant history of discrimination would be able to pass substantially different legislation than they already are. The Supreme Court still exists.

As for the newsletter, he takes/uses less from federal coffers than his peers, and "sells" a subscription newsletter to make up for it?? I don't really have a problem with that. Putting his kids on the payroll?? That's what every CPA tells you to do. They may not have done anything to earn it, but it was apparently a private company, not public money... so really, it was his money, not mine, unless I voluntarily paid for it, no??

Look, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. I don't know enough about him to say. Ross Perot sounded great until he nominated someone for VP that my father knew well 20 years earlier... and thought he was senile then... Poor judgement... NOT a policy question. If the guy is brilliant despite things like that, make him an advisor... pick someone the country and the world can respect.

and yes, GTS.... SOME answers SOUND unpopular (as an example, voting AGAINST universal healthcare or the civil rights act or the war on drugs)... but that doesn't mean that they may not be the right thing to do.

Politicans (the bad kind) name their bills with the clear intent of being able to ask detractors... are you SURE you want to be on record as having voted AGAINST __________??? SOmetimes the answer SHOULD be YES... and I'd love for someone who has Ron Paul's "talking points" to exist without excess baggage.

Hambone10 Wrote:As for the newsletter, he takes/uses less from federal coffers than his peers, and "sells" a subscription newsletter to make up for it?? I don't really have a problem with that. Putting his kids on the payroll?? That's what every CPA tells you to do. They may not have done anything to earn it, but it was apparently a private company, not public money... so really, it was his money, not mine, unless I voluntarily paid for it, no??

point I was making with that, is he's claiming now that he had zero knowledge of the contents of the "Ron Paul Political Report" and Solicitation letters, etc. that went out over a 17 year period, and he was in 'error' for not watching closely enough over his employees and what they were putting out in his name. First, for me if you beleive that then I have some Ocean front property in Idaho for you.

the Thing is, these newsletters paid out to him, his Wife Carol and his Daughter from the profits. This if the media or down the road its pursued, brings them into the discussion. Did they not know the crackpot things they were profiting from either? If they didn't know either, then why are they own the payroll? obviously for tax evasion reasons. Which all of this makes the plausible deniability excuse he's been given fall flat on its face. Plus alot of them are wrote in the first person with details about his life and back in 1996 he admitted to writing them.

a mainstream candidate with that alone on his record, would be ate alive in the press and court of public opinion over it.

I don't disagree GG9... it's why I asked. He's at least SUPPOSED to know, which shows a lack of attention to detail at the very least... and the first time something questionable comes out, he should have reacted. I have no idea if he did... It seems he didn't.... which is ALSO bad...

but getting back to my question...

Is this reflected in his legislative record? In the specific vote where he voted against the CRA, did he voice the states rights argument at the time, or is he trying to clean up history? Did he offer an alternative that was also supportive of equal protection?? Are there other similarly problematic votes?? Did he raise the same question in votes that WEREN'T racially divisive (in other words, do you believe him). If he's crass, or racially insensitive in his commentary... but he shows an understanding of the LEGISLATIVE barriers to equality, you have to take the good with the bad. I'd rather have a guy who can't keep from putting his foot in his mouth, but knows how to solve problems, than someone who always says the right thing, but can't accomplish anything other than collecting my taxes, spending my money and getting re-elected.

I'm not asking you personally to answer... You probably aren't significantly ANTI him, though you may not be FOR him.

Hambone10 Wrote:I don't disagree GG9... it's why I asked. He's at least SUPPOSED to know, which shows a lack of attention to detail at the very least... and the first time something questionable comes out, he should have reacted. I have no idea if he did... It seems he didn't.... which is ALSO bad...

but getting back to my question...

Is this reflected in his legislative record? In the specific vote where he voted against the CRA, did he voice the states rights argument at the time, or is he trying to clean up history? Did he offer an alternative that was also supportive of equal protection?? Are there other similarly problematic votes?? Did he raise the same question in votes that WEREN'T racially divisive (in other words, do you believe him). If he's crass, or racially insensitive in his commentary... but he shows an understanding of the LEGISLATIVE barriers to equality, you have to take the good with the bad. I'd rather have a guy who can't keep from putting his foot in his mouth, but knows how to solve problems, than someone who always says the right thing, but can't accomplish anything other than collecting my taxes, spending my money and getting re-elected.

I'm not asking you personally to answer... You probably aren't significantly ANTI him, though you may not be FOR him.

Don't kid yourself. He's hardcore anti-Paul.

Paul's legislative record speaks for itself. Google. There are several websites out there that show not only his votes and his reasons ... but even YouTubes of him speaking on the House floor in years past that sound like a modern day prophet given recent events.

Hambone10 Wrote:Is this reflected in his legislative record?

the vote I mentioned, had to do with the Israel/Hezzbollah war last year. HR 921, which was basically a show of Moral Support for the democratic nation of Israel and condemnation for the terrorist group Hezzbollah. It passed overwhelmingly, Paul was the only Rep. to vote against it and along with Dennis Kucinich who he compares himself to on Foreign Policy. He gave this speech on the house floor about it, saying this which is amazing in and of itself:

Quote:It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. --Ron Paul

and it does take sides, that of a Democratic Govt. that respects the rights of its people against a Terrorist outfit that sends in suicide bombers and wishes for the destruction of Israel/Jews as well as us.

Crap like that is why the White Supremacist like Paul and Kucinich, along with the Newsletters and going out to fringe fruitcake outfits like Alex Jones and others to talk to them and cater for their support.

Another vote was he voted against MLK day I beleive, which in the newsletter he went on to call him a gay pedophile and that it should be "blame whitey" day instead. alot of them are just Politically incorrect stuff that Libs would consider racist,. Its not just racial stuff, its also the Conspiratorial stuff he plays up in them, which is a big part of his campaign. Whether its the North American Union or the talking about the CFR, "trilateral commission" and other John Birch soceity stuff.

GGniner Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:Is this reflected in his legislative record?

the vote I mentioned, had to do with the Israel/Hezzbollah war last year. HR 921, which was basically a show of Moral Support for the democratic nation of Israel and condemnation for the terrorist group Hezzbollah. It passed overwhelmingly, Paul was the only Rep. to vote against it and along with Dennis Kucinich who he compares himself to on Foreign Policy. He gave this speech on the house floor about it, saying this which is amazing in and of itself:

Quote:It is very clear, reading this resolution objectively, that all the terrorists are on one side and all the victims and the innocents are on the other side. --Ron Paul

and it does take sides, that of a Democratic Govt. that respects the rights of its people against a Terrorist outfit that sends in suicide bombers and wishes for the destruction of Israel/Jews as well as us.

Crap like that is why the White Supremacist like Paul and Kucinich, along with the Newsletters and going out to fringe fruitcake outfits like Alex Jones and others to talk to them and cater for their support.

Another vote was he voted against MLK day I beleive, which in the newsletter he went on to call him a gay pedophile and that it should be "blame whitey" day instead. alot of them are just Politically incorrect stuff that Libs would consider racist,. Its not just racial stuff, its also the Conspiratorial stuff he plays up in them, which is a big part of his campaign. Whether its the North American Union or the talking about the CFR, "trilateral commission" and other John Birch soceity stuff.

I was waiting for your "Ron Paul is involved in a massive global conspiracy with socialists, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, and all terrorists of the world" insanity ... I just wasn't sure how long it'd take to appear.