Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by 356, Dec 18, 2007.
I'd never vote for a 6'4" drag queen.
Ron Paul FTW
I'm watching him on CNN right now. I'm really digging this guy.
Not sure about his politics but I loved it when he wore those dresses and did that song Supermodel.
You Better Work, Bitch !
you are dumber than i thought you were.
Coming from you, I take that as a compliment.
I got my shirt and signs... he rules.. Ron paul is the MAN
He's a Libertarian, with all their quirks and oddities. It's good to see an arm of the Republican party not totally obsessed with implementing a theocratic dictatorship making a come-back.
But as someone who believes that our government can effect positive changes in people's lives and that unregulated capitalism is unfeasible and inhumane, there is little in the Libertarian dogma that I find especially compelling.
If you are a patriot, and care about our democracy, then the only logical choice is to vote for Dr. Paul. Libertarians believe first and foremost in one's civil liberties. You know, those first 10 amendments to the Constitution? The things that separate us from Europe and the rest of the World?
Since when did civil liberties and caring about the constitution become "quirky" and "odd"?
It also bugs me that some people poo-poo the ACLU so much. I mean, this is an organization whose sole purpose is to defend your's and my rights and liberties. How can any of that be wrong?
If this Country always kow towed to the majority opinion all the time, women wouldn't be allowed to vote and we'd still have segregation.
Some of the most rewarding paths in life are the most difficult to travel. We're learning it with the continued fight for equality for LGBTs, for busting through so-called glass ceilings and where women are making almost as much (and more) than men in many industries.
All you have to do is to google the man. The MSM, and especially Fox & CNN, don't want to see him nor Kucinich be taken seriously, yet of all the candidates running, those are the only two that take this Country seriously in return.
Now, a Paul/Kucinich ticket would be a wet dream (and I can dream, can't I?)
How about the abolition of the FDA? You don't find that somewhat odd, just a tad quirky?
Here's a link to some more Libertarian policies.
And he's squishy on Gay Rights. Remember...he's a Republican.
More Ron Paul on Wiki.
And yet here's how the ACLU rates the candidates who are also members of the House and Senate: (source: American Civil Liberties Union:)
Certainly, Paul stands out in comparison to his Republican colleagues, but if you believe "first and foremost" in civil liberties and democracy, you can do a lot better than Ron Paul.
Incidentally, here are their voting records over the three most recent Congresses. Ties are listed alphabetically.
110th Congress (2007-)
109th Congress (2005-2007)
108th Congress (2003-2005)
(Obama was not elected until the 109th Congress)
But they can dance so well? Who cares about issues when they can come out looking so stylish!
Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Edwards
Voted for the PATRIOT Act, TWICE
Voted FOR the Iraq War
Clinton more for civil liberties than Paul? Bullshit.
These percentages are meaningless, for all of the candidates, as the sample size is statistically insignificant. The ACLU selected six bills and scored each based on whether they voted in accordance with the ACLU's philosophy. Dr. Paul's 67% score is actually a two-of-three, as he was only on record for three of the six votes chosen by the ACLU.
Where are these data coming from, and what is meant by "voting record?" Without any source or comparative basis, I can only assume it means to indicate the percentage of votes each candidate participated in. The problem is that the numbers don't align with reality: Dr. Paul is on record for 73% (844/1154) of votes in the current Congress, 93% (1129/1213) in the 109th, and 90% (1092/1221) in the 108th.
Re-read the source; Paul's lifetime score of 61% is based on his voting record over his entire Congressional career (at least 10 years back; I don't know if his previous, nonconsecutive tenure in Congress was included).
The six votes you cite as "statistically meaningless" are from the current term only, which isn't over yet.
Ron Paul doesn't accept that Evolution is a fact. He actually said he didn't 'Buy it', and as I read on a blog:
Quote taken from:
THE ATHEIST JEW: Man Is Evolving Faster Than Ever, But Ron Paul Doesn't Buy It
"All I can say is that you cannot give the power of Veto to someone who doesn't believe in evolution in 2007 and beyond. I don't care how much they say it isn't an election issue. If a President is that ignorant of the actual past, he can't be trusted to take America into the future."
YouTube - 2007.11.01 Ron Paul Spartanburg GOP Executive Meeting Part 5
Skip forward to around the 2:45 mark.
To what source are you referring? You never cited nor provided one, hence my remarks earlier. Also, you never previously posted any "lifetime" record of 61% (and you didn't source the one you just did post)...you put up various percentages for the current Congress and the previous two, which weren't in line with the reality of their voting records for those periods.
Irrelevant. Cherry picking six votes out of 1200 typically seen in a Congressional session doesn't provide enough data to form the basis for meaningful conclusions of any kind. That's not a shot at you, Heath. I'm just illustrating that the ACLU's published stats aren't the end-all be-all with regard to candidates' "concern" for civil liberties.