Reply from a Friend

[purepaloma]

After talking with a friend, he emailed me back this:

--------------------

I'm going through the votes the candidates have put in Congress already. I'll admit I stopped looking at him as a viable candidate as soon as I looked at his voting record. I can't get these votes off my mind and get behind someone who votes this way... Christian or not.

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Iraq war is illegal; undeclared wars never end & we lose. (Aug 2007)
We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007)

[MicroBalrog]

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)


Please advise me why you see this as a nonconservative thing to do.

[nayjevin]

you could explain how those are all the proper constitutional votes, but this person is so far gone they need full re-education camp

federal government does not do a good job of solving problems. we need it smaller and out of our business, period, end of story. ron paul's the only one who can accomplish that.

it's hard to convince people who think the federal gov't is a good thing and does a good job at stuff.

you could also point out the HORRIBLE inconsistincies in the voting records of ALL other candidates.

this person could not possibly have this opinion if he/she had researched ALL of their voting records. every candidate is unacceptable to almost everyone (except RP) -- if they only knew their voting record.

[Man from La Mancha]

Tell him just watch the may debate video and others, also tell him that Paul only votes for bill's that are constitutional http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Hfa7vT02lA&mode=related&search=

.

[belian78]

After talking with a friend, he emailed me back this:

--------------------

I'm going through the votes the candidates have put in Congress already. I'll admit I stopped looking at him as a viable candidate as soon as I looked at his voting record. I can't get these votes off my mind and get behind someone who votes this way... Christian or not.

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Iraq war is illegal; undeclared wars never end & we lose. (Aug 2007)
We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007)

1. Kidnapping is already illegal. Essentially that's what you would have to do to bring someone over state lines to get an abortion if they truly didnt want to have one. and also, how plausible of a scenario is it to be able to kidnap someone, drive them to an abortion clinic in another state, and make them have one? are they gonna stand in the OR with a gun to their heads? This is nothing but wasteful feel-good legislation.

2. Isnt this ideoligy (sp?) contradictory from why someone would be mad at the first point? really, they point out not voting yes on a feel-good anti abortion bill, but then get mad when he gets a "pro-life" rating too?

3. Separation of Church and State. A church can scream all day that a "marriage" is only between a man and a woman. the federal government has no place making that distinction.

4. Really? they're gonna make a decision on POTUS on this? But you can always say that he'd never take away a state's right to have the death penalty no matter how he felt personally about it.

5. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he does think it's ok to have each individual state's national guard defending the borders right? just not our army.

6. I wholeheartedly agree here. it's an invasion of privacy. if someone screws up on the job, and hurts themselves or others, sure drug test them if you want. but not right off the bat and randomly.

7. To be more correct on this, he voted no on the "riders" attached to this bill. That, and states already had the ability to communicate with each other for this type of situation, so it's just more money out of our pockets for something the states could already handle.

8. That's the truth, if they dont like it, it doesnt make it any less true.

9. Read #8.

Hope that helps. if they are going off of this list, they are probably using it as a crutch and will never support Dr Paul. But if you really want to discuss it with them, this might help.

[max]

ask your friend if he's happy with a NINE trillion dollar national debt?

ask if he'll be happy when we are all bankrupted by hyperfaltion?

[ThePieSwindler]

Uh is this person a liberal or conservative. Those votes show "positions" on both sides, though they are really just constitutional positions and not based on partisan beliefs. Is he a pro-choice warmonger or something? At least thats more consistent than pro-life warmonger,i guess....

[nexalacer]

This should be a slam dunk. Not only would most of his reasonings be on Lew Rockwell's site (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html), but they are easily explained if you understand Dr. Paul's limited, Constitutional government stance:


Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
If he believes abortion is up to the states, then restricting interstate transport would be Federal intervention, which he does not want.


Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Well, he votes against everything, for or against, pertaining to abortion in the house because he believes the Federal Government should have nothing to do with a violent-crime issue... something the Constitution leaves to the states.


Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
I think he said he supports this idea, but doesn't support an amendment because it's too divisive an issue. Plus, he's very much for individual freedoms and supporting this would be against the individual freedoms of two gay people wanting to consensually join in a contract of marriage. Also, I remember him saying all mutually agreed to contracts should be legal.


Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
He's a firm believer that the government does not have the right to kill its citizens. As a Christian, he's against killing in general. Even in regards to defense, he's about getting in, winning a war as quickly as possible, and getting out. Not dragging out needless death.


Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
He wants it guarded, just not by the military, as the Constitution demands.


Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
What the hell does this have to do with being a Christian? He's against the government infringing on individual rights.


Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Small government, less spending, let states handle this. Again, something the Constitution does not give the Congress the authority to do.


Iraq war is illegal; undeclared wars never end & we lose. (Aug 2007)
It is illegal because its not declared. Also, teach your friend about the Christian Just War idea.


We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007)
Uh, sounds like your friend is a war-monger, not a Christian, but we ARE more threatened. Al-Qaeda did not have a presence in Iraq before we invaded. They are generally loathed by the Iraqi people, yet are gaining ground because they are another group fighting against our invading army. Most Iraqis want us out and they will do anything, including siding with Al-Qaeda, whom they hate, in order to get us out.

Did he miss the whole exchange with Rudy in June? If so, I'd let him know about that. Search Rudy Ron Paul Debate at youtube.com. I'm sure lots will come up.

[Hurricane Bruiser]

I know the border legislation had a bunch of garbage in it dealing with federal enforcement and prosecution of the drug war which there is no authority for.

[Elwar]

Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)


God bless the man for not voting for the Rave Party law which was snuck into the Amber Alert law.

What's the Rave Party law? Just some little piece of legislation to break up rave parties?

No! This law says that if anyone is caught on your property, whether you know about it or not, whether you take measures to prevent it or not, your property can be confiscated just as if it was you yourself busted for drug possession.

So, some kid goes out behind your shed in middle of the night, he pulls out a joint and starts smoking. Cop sees him, busts him...say good-bye to your house.

Thanks Amber Alert law.

[Shink]

One thing so important to consider with these votes is not only the end result, but WHAT WAS THE WORDING OF THE BILL? Congress always adds in bullshit, bureaucracy and unconstitutional provisions to their bills. Therefore, it is very easy to cry about Ron's vote for this or that, but if you don't cough up the evidence that there was NOT something unconstitutional about a vote of his, there is no reason to sound the alarm.

[Elwar]

He voted against the PATRIOT ACT for gods sake!

How unpatriotic could that be!?!?! Just look at the name of the act!

[purepaloma]

Thanks for the response - I'll combine and put together something.

He's a nice guy, and a traditional voter on the Right. I think he represents MANY in the Republican party. He said he pulled up some website to look at different voting records ----- but apparently did not dig into them.

I'm afraid that others like this are seeing surface punch lines from these websites and making decisions immediately.

Hopefully he'll be open to look into the issues beyond a 1 sentence title.