Ron Paul FACTS, that can be verified!

[Osborn F Enready]

Ron Paul has been attracting a lot of attention lately, so much so that pro-establishment fans have been launching disinformation campaigns trying to disinform people about his actual actions, history and voting record.

I would like to show an example of this, in hopes that people will understand the real issues of this upcoming election regarding Ron Paul.

These websites, are hoax websites, and all of the "facts" are smears, lies or poor humor aimed at Ron Paul and his supporters, as well as an insult to most peoples intelligence:
Ron Paul Facts -- The Beginning
Ron Paul Facts
tds: Fun Ron Paul Facts

(there are more of them, surely)


Here, are some ACTUAL RON PAUL FACTS, that can be verified, vetted and validated by the Congressional Record, and other official sites that track government policy makers and spoken records in official formats.

RON PAUL FACTS: ON THE ISSUES

-Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
-Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
-Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
-Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
-Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
-Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
-Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
-Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
-Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
-War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)
-Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
-Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
-Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)
-Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
-Bush mistake: ran on humble foreign policy; now runs empire. (Jun 2007)
-Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
-Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)
-Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
-Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
-Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
-Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007)
-Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
-Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
-Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
-Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000)
-Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
-Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996)
-Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000)
-DHS is unmanageable bureaucracy--eliminate it. (May 2007)
-Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)
-Be cautious about warrantless searches & habeas corpus. (May 2007)
-Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007)
-Immediately work to phase out the IRS. (May 2007)
-Get rid of the inflation tax with sound money. (May 2007)
-Source: On the Issues

Quotes by Ron Paul:

"I oppose CAFTA (Central America Free Trade Agreement) for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional."

"The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade."

"The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty."

"This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution."

"… It is absurd to believe that CAFTA and other trade agreements do not diminish American sovereignty."

"When we grant quasi-governmental international bodies the power to make decisions about American trade rules, we lose sovereignty plain and simple. I can assure you firsthand that Congress has changed American tax laws for the sole reason that the World Trade Organization decided our rules unfairly impacted the European Union…" - CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism."

"First President Bush said the New World Order was in tune-- and that's what they were working for. The U.N. is part of that government. They're working very significantly right now for a North American Union. That's why there's a lot of people in Washington right now who don't care too much about our borders. They have a philosophic belief that national sovereignty is not important. It is also the reason I've made the strong suggestion that the U.S. need not be in the U.N. for national security." - 2007 Campaign Stop in Texas

"The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence."

"Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy… Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of
the special interests and their own appetite for big government." - Abolish the Federal Reserve




I hope this helps to counter the "false facts" being circulated by certain posters on this forum, as well as others.

[Technosoul]

I checked out the first link you provided. It was clearly poltical humor and no one would see it as an actual "fact page". The joke about his gym was really funny. It reminded me of some of the old humor that Ben Franklin used to publish. Political humor and the idea that Americans can laugh at our self has always been (without getting into trouble by the establishment) one of our "images" that we take some pride in being able to do as an example of free speech. You should not compare that first link with serious critics of Ron Paul.

Everyone in politics is subjected to poltical humor.

Hillary Clinton Pictures - Hillary Clinton Cartoons - Funny Hillary Photos

Should I object because people make fun of Hillary with some jokes? Should I claim that it is a conspriacy to missinform people about the real facts about her?

No... it is just part of what America is all about.

[Technosoul]

Lets take your facts one by one.

1. voted no on making the patriot act permanent.

Here are some questions about that topic. I ask them on behalf of other readers who still might be on the fense concerning Ron Paul, not for my self per-see. So that the whole picture is visable for everyone.

Did he vote yes for the Patriot Act and no to making it permanate? Or no on both counts?

2. Who would determine when that temporary enactment is over so that we can discontinue the Patriot Act? Will it remian in effect as long as terrorism remains a threat and will that problem ever go away in our life time? (part speculation).

Or do they have a actural future date when the Act will be discontinued?

Please answer based on your personal knowledge and in your own words rather then just offering up research links. (you can add links also but spell it out also for readers who might be too lazy to weed through some complexities of the Patriot Act bill).

Thanks in advance for qualifed answers.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: Did he vote yes for the Patriot Act and no to making it permanate? Or no on both counts?

This information is available Techno, and you have access to the internet and search engines just as I do. Each individual has a different set of questions, values, intrests and ideology, so to argue every issue from every stance is pointless, when it is simple to simply provide links so people can access the information and make up their own mind.

Here are a few sites to help people access that information, as well as the rest of the voting information on Paul. (People can do the same for ANY canidate running for President in 2008)

Ron Paul | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com
Ron Paul on the Issues
Project Vote Smart - Representative Paul - Voting Record
Ron Paul: Campaign Finance/Money - Contributions - Congressman 2006


Funding and support comparison:
2008 Presidential Election

Clinton:
2008 Presidential Election: Hillary Clinton Campaign Money

Obama:
2008 Presidential Election: Barack Obama Campaign Money

Paul:
2008 Presidential Election: Ron Paul Campaign Money


I trust people to analyze facts and arrive at their own value-set oriented conclusions, unique to them.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready This information is available Techno, and you have access to the internet and search engines just as I do. Each individual has a different set of questions, values, intrests and ideology, so to argue every issue from every stance is pointless, when it is simple to simply provide links so people can access the information and make up their own mind. Here are a few sites to help people access that information, as well as the rest of the voting information on Paul. (People can do the same for ANY canidate running for President in 2008) How come my repley has a lightbulb and a yellow ! symbol next too it? I cannot find what those symbols mean... (am I in trouble or something?) Ron Paul | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com Ron Paul on the Issues Project Vote Smart - Representative Paul - Voting Record Ron Paul: Campaign Finance/Money - Contributions - Congressman 2006 Funding and support comparison: 2008 Presidential Election Clinton: 2008 Presidential Election: Hillary Clinton Campaign Money Obama: 2008 Presidential Election: Barack Obama Campaign Money Paul: 2008 Presidential Election: Ron Paul Campaign Money I trust people to analyze facts and arrive at their own value-set oriented conclusions, unique to them.

In other words your O.P. was a waste of time because everyone should have done thier own research without you. Why did you go to a lot of trouble to to make a list of how he voted if you believe people should do their own private research without your aid? And then refuse to talk about any of the data you provided?

Perhaps you are saying that debating is not a good idea because the so called facts are not debatable. Perhaps you should work to ban debate forums because they are the enemy of, or because they hamper, the fact finding processes you advocate?

[Clarence]

he voted no both times. sheesh.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Clarence he voted no both times. sheesh.

Right. Now about the 2nd question?

That is he voted no for the patirot act and yes to making it temporary. (least people get confused). And of course, would like to get rid of it altogether.

[Clarence]

which one dude. you numbered the first but not second.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I hope this helps to counter the "false facts" being circulated by certain posters on this forum, as well as others.

I have no idea what you're debating here. Why not extract the relevant evidence from this mish-mash of information and post replies to the "certain posters" on the relevant threads?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Clarence which one dude. you numbered the first but not second.

Thanks... I amemded my post so that it now shows a #2 before the 2nd question.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: The Decider I have no idea what you're debating here. Why not extract the relevant evidence from this mish-mash of information and post replies to the "certain posters" on the relevant threads?

Yeah... what false information did those other posters make?

[Technosoul]

And so now I will debate the fact that Ron Paul voted No for the creation of the Partriot Act.

I would not vote for it without Hillary Clinton's recomendations being concidered and employed.

as so noted in Link.

Hillary Clinton on Civil Rights

[Clarence]

#2 what does it have to do with someone who voted against it?

Please answer based on your personal knowledge and in your own words rather then just offering up research links.

that's a new request for a debate forum. I'm sorry man. I can't debate with you like this.

When I first started looking into Mr.Paul, I sat here and tried for weeks to find what I was missing about Ron Paul before actually forming a meaningful plan to support him. During that time I've accounted for people like you. I can agree to disagree because I can't pound my head off a wall just for you. If you happen to bring up a valid question I'll adress it in hopes that you'll come around and see the opportunity to actually vote for the change you supposedly desire. gday

edit: another thing. If Os and Milt don't actually vote for Ron Paul in 2008, I'll be equally frustrated

[Technosoul]

[quote=Clarence;430548]#2 what does it have to do with someone who voted against it?



that's a new request for a debate forum. I'm sorry man. I can't debate with you like this.

When I first started looking into Mr.Paul, I sat here and tried for weeks to find what I was missing about Ron Paul before actually forming a meaningful plan to support him. During that time I've accounted for people like you. I can agree to disagree because I can't pound my head off a wall just for you. If you happen to bring up a valid question I'll adress it in hopes that you'll come around and see the opportunity to actually vote for the change you supposedly desire. gday (quote).

******************************************************************************
My point is that he voted no to allowing our government to use modern technology to track down terrorists that might be here in our country and yet voted yes to allowing that survelence to continue as long as terrorists still exsist as a threat. If the bill did not set a time limit as to when the patroit act would be shut down it could remain in effect for ever and ever, as long as terrorists are a potential threat. If a date was set to end it then fine.. I support this vote on that one topic. If no date was set then his vote is not constant. Why vote to allow something to continue, even for a shorter time, if you appose it all together. He should have reframed with a No Vote. This is like voting no on the Iraq war and then voting yes to continue it for a short time - as a short time needs funding.
How can voting to allow it to continue for "even a short time" be consitutional if the whole idea was unconsitutional in the first place.

I think he (perhaps accidently) made a contradictionary goof.

[Jubloz]

I didn't realize that he's pro-gun. That's a big turnoff for me. :(

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Jubloz I didn't realize that he's pro-gun. That's a big turnoff for me. :(

He is pro the right to bear any kind of weapon you want.
He is for the freedom to use any kind of drug you want to get high on.
He voted no for most bills that would protect endangered animals, wildlife areas, national parks, and so forth.
He wrote bills to allow oil companies the right to polute as they please.
He looks at global warming as not being an important topic.

He wants to get rid a bunch of federal departments and funded programs and dump that expense upon the state governments or private charity.

To ban all our activies in the U.N. and the IRS.

[thx1138]

Quote by: Technosoul To ban all our activies in the U.N. and the IRS.

For these reasons alone he should win.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: thx1138 For these reasons alone he should win.

People voted for Bush because he said 'no new taxes'. Ron Pual is saying no more income taxes at all. What a great promise. Sort of like telling your girlfriend you will give her the moon for her love in return.

Does a President have that authority? If he has to get that idea through Congress and the Senate he will have a hard time trying to keep his word.

Not to mention when the banks take the idea to the Supreme Court.

[Osborn F Enready]

Technosoul said: He is pro the right to bear any kind of weapon you want.

Educate yourself moron.... he has never supported individuals owning nuclear arms.

I called you a moron, clearly a personal insult, because you are OPENLY lying, creating lies, and being a general putz!

I think I may have just lost all respect for you. Please report me.

Techno said: He is for the freedom to use any kind of drug you want to get high on.

He supports individual rights and individual responsibility, and to no suprise, SO DOES THE CONSTITUTION. Prohibition of drugs is AS if not MORE unconstitutional than prohibiting alchohol.

Once again, spinning YOUR views on Rons policy, not Rons actual policy. Get your facts straight, if that is possible.

Technosoul said: He voted no for most bills that would protect endangered animals, wildlife areas, national parks, and so forth.

Why is that Techno? Do you even have a CLUE?!? Perhaps you could explain to me where the Constitution allows the Federal Government to do the actions you wish done?

Technosoul said: He wrote bills to allow oil companies the right to polute as they please.

And it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the local areas where these companies reside, to petition and DEMAND that those corporations, businesses or companies live up to the publics expectations if they want to keep their corporate charter, or PERMISSION of incorporation.

Defend your side of the argument.

Techno said: He looks at global warming as not being an important topic.

Its not an important topic if you don't have a country to stand in, or people to address, due to gross fiscal mismanagement, bankrupting the American people, and betraying the public trust to the point of fostering revolt.

Ron wants to address what is addressable FIRST, and then worry about issues like "global warming".

Techno said: He wants to get rid a bunch of federal departments and funded programs and dump that expense upon the state governments or private charity.

That is because the expense of charity and social welfare IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of CHARITY ORGANIZATIONS, not government.

Open your eyes....

Techno said: To ban all our activies in the U.N. and the IRS.

Amen brother.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Educate yourself moron.... he has never supported individuals owning nuclear arms. I called you a moron, clearly a personal insult, because you are OPENLY lying, creating lies, and being a general putz! I think I may have just lost all respect for you. Please report me. He supports individual rights and individual responsibility, and to no suprise, SO DOES THE CONSTITUTION. Prohibition of drugs is AS if not MORE unconstitutional than prohibiting alchohol. Once again, spinning YOUR views on Rons policy, not Rons actual policy. Get your facts straight, if that is possible. Why is that Techno? Do you even have a CLUE?!? Perhaps you could explain to me where the Constitution allows the Federal Government to do the actions you wish done? And it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the local areas where these companies reside, to petition and DEMAND that those corporations, businesses or companies live up to the publics expectations if they want to keep their corporate charter, or PERMISSION of incorporation. Defend your side of the argument. Its not an important topic if you don't have a country to stand in, or people to address, due to gross fiscal mismanagement, bankrupting the American people, and betraying the public trust to the point of fostering revolt. Ron wants to address what is addressable FIRST, and then worry about issues like "global warming". That is because the expense of charity and social welfare IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of CHARITY ORGANIZATIONS, not government. Open your eyes.... Amen brother.

I saw that interview when they gave him that Moore question about nuclear weapons. He started laughing and then dissmissed it as not a serious question. Everyone knows that such a weapon would be very expensive, even Saddam could not buy one. And it is not a handy the kind of thing to use for your personal protecton as not much would be left of your house if you used it on someone breaking in your back door. Do not be silly... we all know he is talking about any kind of weapon that people currently wish to market to the average gun buyer who might shop at Sears ( if they still sold them ). In the philosophy some interpret from the Consitution we must be able to defend our self from an army supported by our government if the Feds went wacco. To do that you would need weapons equal to what our mitlitary can employ on us if so commanded - right? It seems Ron Paul would be for that. But no one would take serious that revolutionists would want a nuclear civil war.

I did not say that drugs were good or bad, I simply said he would allow such activity to remian legal if a state vote said "okay to getting high".
If someone is seriously an anti-drug person the Ron Paul might not be his best choice, that is all to that.

About Natonal Parks and the environment. Did you EVER concider that the Consitution does not contain words about every single problem that might confront people as a nation, or state? It is not an "answer all document". If the Consitution said nothing about a topic then we must use our own noodle inside out heads to deal with the new problems that become self-evident as the country grows and progresses. Do you think the Constitution was writen to replace the human brain? Well, think again if you still have one.

Why would they have something in the Consitution about National Parks? Why would York Town need a park if within a 10 mins you could just walk right out of town into a vast wilderness. Be rereasonable.

Polution is no longer just a local problem to be delt with on a local bases, it has become an international problem of much larger proportion and concern. He might be knowledgable about American history but he seems to ignore science books.

You are right, he wants to avoid dealing with the important threat of global warming. I can accept no excuse for that kind of behavior from a President.

Right - if people want a Federal government that sets an example of not wanting to be responisble then Ron Paul is their guy. He will set a good example of irresponsibilty for one and all.

This spin is not to muddy the waters, this spin gives us a clearer look at his politics.