Ron Paul's record in congress -

This is for the DUers that think they want to vote for him rather than some Democrats.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

You may read yourself and decide whether he is better than Hillary Clinton or not. (Disclaimer: I am NOT a supporter of Hillary and would definitively prefer that she is NOT the nominee. If Kucinich was the nominee, I would be very happy).

Now, if you still think he is somebody you can vote for, I hope you lose, because this country would be no better than with Bush, only different.

Everyone should read the article.

Here's a little info I've put together on Paul's positions:

Ron Paul voted for:
1)Putting Attorney General Gonzales in charge of domestic electronic spying.

2)Eliminating the Estate Tax, a tax that applies to the 0.27% wealthiest of U.S. citizens.

3)Making Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent.

4)Banning gay adoptions in D.C.

5)Eliminating affirmative action in college admissions.

6)The bankruptcy bill pushed by the credit card companies.

7)Drilling in ANWR.

He voted against:
1)Raising the minimum wage to a level comparable to that of the 1980s.

2)Statehood for D.C. whose residents have no voting representation in Congress.

3)Allowing stockholders to approve executive pay.

4)Strengthening the Social Security lockbox.

5)Restricting employer influence in union organizing.

6)OSHA's ergonomics rules, which protect workers against things like carpal tunnel syndrome.

7)Requiring lobbyists to disclose bundled donations.

8)Banning soft money political contributions.

9)Raising CAFE standards.


Paul was given a 37% rating by The League of Conservation Voters, compare that to Dennis Kucinich who received 100%.

Here's a couple different links for anyone who wants to check up on Ron Paul's stands/votes on a wide array of issues:

1: http://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

2: http://www.progressivepatriots.com/house/PaulTX14....

You've found a great resource exposing the nutbag.

I still hope he runs as a third party candidate. :evilgrin:

don't want to be bothered with pesky facts, much like Bush's supporters. I don't think he stands a chance to actually be elected as president, but it's troubling that he ever got elected to congress in the first place. The anti-choice people are so focused on that single issue that they don't notice anything else, like the things he's doing against working people & labor unions.... much like most republicans though. How ANY working person can vote republican baffles me. They are so easily fooled.

Yes, they are like a flock being led to slaughter. aaarrgghh...

Holy shit, I thought this was going to be another ridiculous pro-Paul thread.

easy pickings.

And I can't believe how many simpletons are drawn to him over one issue.

I am loving his candidacy. It's good to have his voice in the Republican debates to make things interesting and competitive for them. While our Dem candidates are obviously way better than any of theirs, their race is more competitive and that's a good thing.

And feel free to show me a Republican presidential candidate who is running on a pro-choice platform. (Rudy and Mitt are flip-flopping like fish out of water so it's difficult to know where they stand)

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

repugnant hypocrit who hates women. How he can justify his concept of 'freedom' and 'compulsory freedom' is beyond me.