Ron Paul Thread

[rlg94086]

The congressman is not the conduit of funds. Most bills have their own methods for dispersing funds via grants. For example, when the federal government wants to establish a debate base for child identification to fight child abduction and slavery, then it will fund local collection facilities for data. The congressman has nothing to do with this. If the FEMA needs to increase infrastructure and equipment, it is local entities that will requisition the items to use, maintain, but make available to FEMA as they need it. Again, the congressman is not a conduit, and wins nothing.

"The way it works in Paul’s office is that local groups and officials from his district make pitches to him for federal funding. The congressman passes along those recommendations to the Appropriations Committee as earmark requests. Paul said he tries to treat everyone equally and rejects few requests. He said it would be unfair ‘for me to close the door and say this is a bunch of junk.’’’

That would be a conduit…

 

[bbarrick8383]

Peter Pettigrew, I mean Henry Waxman says the Fed lost over 363 tons of American cash in Iraq war zone on pallets…

Bernanke calls it a bizarre allegation:

youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=WQf4u10qsxg

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

OK, I hope y’all don’t mind someone coming in with a question:

In office, President Paul would undoubtedly run into a lot of opposition on his policy proposals. What sorts of compromises can you see President Paul making in order to move the status quo closer to his ideals?

In other words, when does Dr. No become Dr. “OK, Good Enough”?

 

[bbarrick8383]

OK, I hope y’all don’t mind someone coming in with a question:

In office, President Paul would undoubtedly run into a lot of opposition on his policy proposals. What sorts of compromises can you see President Paul making in order to move the status quo closer to his ideals?

In other words, when does Dr. No become Dr. “OK, Good Enough”?

Never

That’s what got us into this mess.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Never

That’s what got us into this mess.

Let me explain: according to the Constitution, there are certain procedures that must be followed for a law to be enacted. If President Paul just ignores the laws currently on the books, bypassing Congressional consent in the formation of the law, he’s in clear violation of the Constitution. If he operates by executive orders and signing statements, well, isn’t that *another *part of what got us into this mess?

It seems to me that some compromise will be necessary if Ron Paul plans to be President and not an unconstitutional dictator. If he can’t serve as President, he shouldn’t be President. That’s what electability means.

 

[Sonic]

I have a question about the Poll on this topic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=6780

As of now, it says 72 people have voted in this Poll, but the total votes add up to 88.

Going down the list: 6+4+8+6+6+2+21+35 = 88

Where did the extra votes come from?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I have a question about the Poll on this topic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=6780

As of now, it says 72 people have voted in this Poll, but the total votes add up to 88.

Where did the extra votes come from?

Multiple choice poll. The same person can identify as a member of more than one category. For example, if I were a small farmer and an isolationist, I would vote twice on the poll and therefore show up in two categories, but I’m still just one voter.

 

[Sonic]

Multiple choice poll. The same person can identify as a member of more than one category. For example, if I were a small farmer and an isolationist, I would vote twice on the poll and therefore show up in two categories, but I’m still just one voter.

Thanks! I didn’t realize.

Edit:

That means at most 16 people voted in more than one category. So, there’s no real way of telling exactly how many Ron Paul supporters there are in this poll, but you can tell how many people don’t support him. I understand what I’m looking at better now.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Paul educating Bernanke on the economy.

youtube.com/watch?v=x9jPeTNMXZE&feature=fvwrel

When Bernanke could not answer the very simple question “Is gold money?” That is all I needed to know about Bernanke.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

OK, I hope y’all don’t mind someone coming in with a question:

In office, President Paul would undoubtedly run into a lot of opposition on his policy proposals. What sorts of compromises can you see President Paul making in order to move the status quo closer to his ideals?

In other words, when does Dr. No become Dr. “OK, Good Enough”?

Look at Grover Cleveland.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Let me explain: according to the Constitution, there are certain procedures that must be followed for a law to be enacted. If President Paul just ignores the laws currently on the books, bypassing Congressional consent in the formation of the law, he’s in clear violation of the Constitution. If he operates by executive orders and signing statements, well, isn’t that *another *part of what got us into this mess?

He has said that he’s not going to use executive orders.

It seems to me that some compromise will be necessary if Ron Paul plans to be President and not an unconstitutional dictator. If he can’t serve as President, he shouldn’t be President. That’s what electability means.

He’s going to actually use the power of the veto, the same power which Bush and Obama seem to have completely forgotten about.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Let me explain: according to the Constitution, there are certain procedures that must be followed for a law to be enacted. If President Paul just ignores the laws currently on the books, bypassing Congressional consent in the formation of the law, he’s in clear violation of the Constitution. If he operates by executive orders and signing statements, well, isn’t that *another *part of what got us into this mess?

It seems to me that some compromise will be necessary if Ron Paul plans to be President and not an unconstitutional dictator. If he can’t serve as President, he shouldn’t be President. That’s what electability means.

I know the procedures.

I know Dr. Paul.

If they want to pass big government legislation they are going to have to override the veto. If they want to pass unconstitutional legislation, they are going to have to override their veto. He will work with them, but he’s not going to go against his principles and compromise unless it’s constitutional, and if anyone there knows the constitution, it’s Dr. Paul.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Ron Paul reacts to “Compassion” ad:

youtube.com/user/TheRevolutionPAC?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=pyv&ad=8219313610&kw=is%20ron%20paul%20a%20bigot#p/a/u/1/Z4bEvqMXmM8

“Compassion” ad has almost half a million views on youtube:

youtube.com/user/TheRevolutionPAC?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=pyv&ad=8219313610&kw=is%20ron%20paul%20a%20bigot#p/a/u/0/8Rv0Z5SNrF4

 

[bbarrick8383]

The best parts after the fake Mitt.

youtube.com/watch?v=6Hvuru-Slls&feature=related

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I have a question about the Poll on this topic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=6780

As of now, it says 72 people have voted in this Poll, but the total votes add up to 88.

Going down the list: 6+4+8+6+6+2+21+35 = 88

Where did the extra votes come from?

Some people voted in Illinois, New York and Florida.

-]sort of/-] just like in real life.]

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Peter Pettigrew, I mean Henry Waxman says the Fed lost over 363 tons of American cash in Iraq war zone on pallets…

Bernanke calls it a bizarre allegation:

youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=WQf4u10qsxg

Is there a video of Henry Waxman defending mortgage loans by Fannie or Freddie to people who have lied about their financials and who are unable to make the payments?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I know the procedures.

I know Dr. Paul.

If they want to pass big government legislation they are going to have to override the veto. If they want to pass unconstitutional legislation, they are going to have to override their veto. He will work with them, but he’s not going to go against his principles and compromise unless it’s constitutional, and if anyone there knows the constitution, it’s Dr. Paul.

If it’s passed over his veto, would he enforce it- as would be his job as President- or would he ignore it as unconstitutional?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Can’t say I disagree with Venona or the fact of Communist infiltration. Whittaker Chambers made these claims long ago in* Witness*. Although men like Chambers were demonized and marginalized at the time, I think Venona ultimately vindicated their claims. But I’m not sure how you think this relates to the current discussion.

Several ways.

One is that there were sworn enemies of the United States working within the U.S. government to undermine U.S. government policy.

Two: there was an effort, called " venona " to figure out the names of those enemy agents.

And three: there was a monumental coverup to protect those enemy agents and their identities. And the perpetrators of the coverup are still active in Washington. And when Bill Clinton terminated the venona project, he gave away the fact that he was one of the coverup agents. The people working on venona were getting too close and were unearthing too many names of the enemy agents.

Do the reading.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

If it’s passed over his veto, would he enforce it- as would be his job as President- or would he ignore it as unconstitutional?

There are probably a few options at that point such as taking it up with the Supreme Court or supporting legislation to repeal it. It’s hard to say.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

There are probably a few options at that point such as taking it up with the Supreme Court or supporting legislation to repeal it. It’s hard to say.

Repeal legislation that was passed over a veto?

This IS the electability question. If you want people to consider Paul electable, they have to be able to picture how a Paul administration would operate.