Ron Paul's voting record

[Avorysuds]

ron paul... mr. 'i never met an earmark i didn't like'.

Difference is Paul didn't vote for them... Unlike Obama who says he will not support something then expands it, like the wars, deficits, the patriot act, homeland security the Bush era tax cuts and so on... Jill, you're an idiot, but you knew that =D

 

[dblack]

That's why he had my support luddly. Thanks for the update.

 

[dblack]

"Every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." - Frédéric Bastiat

You may substitute the term "socialist" with "statist," if you'd like.

Exactly. It's a bullshit response, but it's all they've got.

 

[Mad Scientist]

ron paul... mr. 'i never met an earmark i didn't like'.

When asked why he voted for earmarks Ron Paul usually replies (and I paraphrase here):
"Washington has already taken our money in taxes, and sometimes the only way to get it back is to vote for earmarks for your district".

Washington steals.
Ron Paul voted it back.

 

[dblack]

ron paul... mr. 'i never met an earmark i didn't like'.

When asked why he voted for earmarks Ron Paul usually replies (and I paraphrase here):
"Washington has already taken our money in taxes, and sometimes the only way to get it back is to vote for earmarks for your district".

Washington steals.
Ron Paul voted it back.

FWIW, he never voted for a bill with earmarks in it because he is opposed to the practice. He participated in the earmarking process regardless - speaking up for his district's "cut" of the federal pie - to protect the interests of his constituents in case the bill passed. But he voted against every such bill.

That seems to me to be the only sensible solution for reps opposed to earmarking. To simply opt out of the process would be screwing the people they represent for no good reason.

 

[Paulie]

If you notice, it's not a partisan record. It's a record consistent with constitutionality, and at the very least, consistent with not wasting congress's time and taxpayer dollars on meaningless feel good pieces of legislation that really only have one purpose...buying votes.

And then there's the obvious issue of other items crammed into those bills.

 

[Paulie]

ron paul... mr. 'i never met an earmark i didn't like'.

When asked why he voted for earmarks Ron Paul usually replies (and I paraphrase here):
"Washington has already taken our money in taxes, and sometimes the only way to get it back is to vote for earmarks for your district".

Washington steals.
Ron Paul voted it back.

FWIW, he never voted for a bill with earmarks in it because he is opposed to the practice. He participated in the earmarking process regardless - speaking up for his district's "cut" of the federal pie - to protect the interests of his constituents in case the bill passed. But he voted against every such bill.

That seems to me to be the only sensible solution for reps opposed to earmarking. To simply opt out of the process would be screwing the people they represent for no good reason.

I can understand why people would expect him to refrain from earmarks...I can see why they would think it's hypocritical of him.

But those people don't possess the ability to think critically, so I give them a pass.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Obama kills innocent children and men and women constantly with drone strikes and you nerds wanna come here and act high and mighty because Ron Paul refused to expand government. The fuck is wrong with you people?

 

[Michelle420]

He is retired so I suppose his record is just history.

 

[whitehall]

Oddball, of course you would say lead in kid's toys is okay.

You were raised on the stuff.

Maybe there was more to the law than three or four words? Maybe the freaking law established yet another federal bureaucracy. Maybe it was so poorly written that it didn't make sense, something like the 3000 page health care monstrosity democrats voted for but never read.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was a reactionary and naïve voting record, predicated on ignorance of the law and responsible pubic policy.