PDA

View Full Version : Electronicmaji & Kade...




Conza88
07-21-2008, 01:27 AM
I got sent this in a PM on youtube, in response to my Video comparing RP & Obama..


"non-partisan voting record" video

...was just ambiguous phrases that had little to do with actual voting records and even less to do with differentiating the two candidates'...to those who actually know what their voting records are. The truth is Ron Paul is business as usual in Washington. He voted NO on incentives for businesses using renewable energy. NO on reforming the U.N.. NO on restructuring trade relations with China. NO on free trade with several other countries. NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure. NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps. NO on U.S. farm assistance. NO on strengthening Soc. Sec. lockbox. NO on equality for religious tax breaks. NO on increase in minimum wage. NO on campaign soft money reform.

Ron Paul? My answer is NO. When people talk about "empty rhetoric" and then say Ron Paul is some kind of political saviour...I can't help but laugh. He's spent years pandering to his Texas big money corporate constituencies and the proof is in the record, all you have to do is look at it.

Unfortunately, most in this country vote with their "gut", but that's not enough for me, I need facts as well. I'll be voting for Barack Obama in November.

Thank you.

I was wondering what you guys think.. You agree right? :D

I intend to pore wrath on this guy when I can be bothered... Anyone want to help out? lol... :D

malkusm
07-21-2008, 06:07 AM
He voted NO on incentives for businesses using renewable energy.

Subsidies are a blatant transfer of taxpayer money (theft) from me to a special interest. Instead of subsidizing renewable energy, why don't we STOP subsidizing fossil fuels (through lobbying)?


NO on reforming the U.N.

Considering he doesn't want us to be in the U.N. to begin with.....


NO on restructuring trade relations with China.

I don't know much about this, but if I had to guess, he probably voted no because it was not a free trade agreement (i.e. the bill likely would have put tariffs on products coming from China). America can't tax its competitors and expect to remain competitive - it has to continue to produce quality products. Nothing else will do the trick.


NO on free trade with several other countries.

Again, what is "free trade"? If you're talking about organizations like NAFTA, which is supposedly a "free trade" agreement, then of course not! It violates our national sovereignty and is NOT mutually beneficial, which is the only reason two parties would enter into an agreement to begin with (unless there are political strings attached).


NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure.

Lobbyist disclosure? As in, forcing lobbyists to register and record all their transactions? Lobbyists have rights too, and as long as people have money, they will try to turn it into power. We need to change the mindset that politicians will always take the money instead of doing their job.


NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps.

Again, since he doesn't think wiretapping or FISA are constitutional....yeah, this would be a step in the right direction, but the Constitution is pretty black and white. This would be another in a long list of precedents where "a little evil is ok" and 10 years from now they would take that inch and turn it into a mile.


NO on U.S. farm assistance.

See point one: subsidies are theft...


NO on strengthening Soc. Sec. lockbox.

A lot of good the lockbox has done already, eh? I wouldn't expect someone to strengthen a system that he thinks we should be able to opt-out of, and wants to phase out over time.


NO on equality for religious tax breaks.

Religious tax breaks? What about the people who are not religious? You're arguing for "equality," but only for religious people...nice.


NO on increase in minimum wage.

The minimum wage is a price floor and a perversion of the free market system, but that's for another time. The problem is not that wages don't increase, it's that inflation increases faster than wages ever could. Until you solve THAT problem, good luck having people satisfied with their minimum wage jobs.


NO on campaign soft money reform.

We shouldn't regulate campaign funding, it's nobody's business, especially not the government. But since the government now subsidizes political campaigns at taxpayer expense....I guess I'm expecting too much.

acptulsa
07-21-2008, 06:14 AM
These things constitute business as usual? I thought business as usual consisted of making our rights disappear and getting their fingers into whatever they can...