Question

[CurtisLow]

I need to find out who on these forums is well versed in Ron Paul's voting record and can explain why he voted the way he did on issues.

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

I need back up on another forum.

[CurtisLow]

1puff says, Other than the MMJ here are some other facts about Ron Paul. Ron definitely has some good points, however.

Science \ Medicine needs funding and historically the Fed Gov has provided lots of funds for sci\med research. Keep the morality police out of this. Ron Paul seems to be in line with the Religious Right....

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
My wife and I went to the IVF clinic and she had 2 embryos implanted back in her. We have 5 embryos left that are now frozen. They are my embryos, why can I not donate them for medical advancement. Instead they sit in a cryo freezer.
Allows federal funding for research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo, provided such embryos:

1. have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics;
2. were created for the purposes of fertility treatment;
3. were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would otherwise be discarded; and
4. were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Since 2 years ago, the last Stem Cell bill, public support has surged for stem cells. Research is proceeding unfettered and, in some cases, without ethical standards in other countries. And even when these countries have ethical standards, our failures are allowing them to gain the scientific edge over the US. Some suggest that it is Congress' role to tell researchers what kinds of cells to use.
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 3 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-020 on Jan 11, 2007

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Ron Paul, Why are you stunting medical advancement. China or Korea will figure this out before us because of the Religious Right and morality police.
To provide for human embryonic stem cell research. A YES vote would:

* Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics
* Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded
* Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.

Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 810 ; vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Lets be light on violent offenders... People beating up prego moms , eh, not THAT big a deal....> DUH,,, WTF????
Vote to pass a bill that would make it a criminal offense to harm or kill a fetus during the commission of a violent crime. The measure would set criminal penalties, the same as those that would apply if harm or death happened to the pregnant woman, for those who harm a fetus. It is not required that the individual have prior knowledge of the pregnancy or intent to harm the fetus. This bill prohibits the death penalty from being imposed for such an offense. The bill states that its provisions should not be interpreted to apply a woman's actions with respect to her pregnancy.
Reference: Unborn Victims of Violence Act; Bill HR 1997 ; vote number 2004-31 on Feb 26, 2004

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Again with the morality police, I thought the founders wanted freedom
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Vote to pass a bill banning a medical procedure, which is commonly known as "partial-birth" abortion. The procedure would be allowed only in cases in which a women's life is in danger, not for cases where a women's health is in danger. Those who performed this procedure, would face fines and up to two years in prison, the women to whom this procedure is performed on are not held criminally liable.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Santorum, R-PA; Bill S.3 ; vote number 2003-530 on Oct 2, 2003


Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
Eye for an eye, Should we not execute people like this http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=local&id=3490446 , of course we should. icon_smile_hiding He wont be smiling once he is in the chair. What do we do with all the violent murders and rapists, just let them rot in prision? Thats an awful waste of tax $.
He opposes the death penalty and abortion, and is strongly opposed to a military draft. He has voted against amending the U.S. Constitution to ban same-sex marriage and also against an amendment to prohibit flag-burning.
Source: SourceWatch.org Jan 22, 2007


Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
I'm no supporter of nuclear waste, but this sounds like Ron Paul is voting against basic Freedom of Speech
An amendment to prohibit funding the "Yucca Mountain Youth Zone" website. Voting YES indicates opposition to using Yucca Mountain as the national nuclear waste repository. The amendment's sponsor says:

* I would like to introduce the American people to the newest member of the Bush administration's energy policy team. His name is Yucca Mountain Johnny. He is the star of the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain Youth Zone Web site devoted to brainwashing school children into believing that burying the Nation's nuclear garbage 90 miles from Los Vegas is safe. The Web site features games and activities to make high level nuclear waste fun. High level nuclear waste is not fun. It is dangerous, and the Department of Energy should not be using taxpayer money for a propaganda tool.
* I would probably not be as upset with Joe Camel, excuse me, Yucca Mountain Johnny, if there was a more balanced approach on this Web site. It doesn't talk about the potential of accidents or being an inviting target for
Reference: Energy and water development appropriations bill; Bill HR 5427 Amendment 919 ; vote number 2006-200 on May 24, 2006

Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Ron does not feel the need to help missing kids or he does not support stronger punishment for child sex offenders?
Vote to adopt the conference report on the bill that would assign a national coordinator for AMBER alerts. AMBER alerts is an alert system for missing children, make available additional protections for children and set stricter punishments for sex offenders. Two-time child sex offenders would be subjected to mandatory life sentence. The measure would make it a crime to pander visual illustrations of children as child pornography. It would increase maximum sentences for a number of specified crimes against children. It would also make it a crime to take a trip to foreign countries and engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. It also would enlarge law enforcement's wiretap and electronic surveillance abilities in investigations of child pornography.
Reference: Child Abduction Prevention Act; Bill S 151 ; vote number 2003-127 on Apr 10, 2003

Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
If I wanted a minister I would go to church.
Paul scores 76% by the Christian Coalition on family issues

The Christian Coalition was founded in 1989 by Dr. Pat Robertson to give Christians a voice in government. We represent millions of people of faith and enable them to have a strong, unified voice in the conversation we call democracy.

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Typically, I hate lobbyist. As an individual the only person lobbying for me , is me. I do not have thousands of dollars to contribute therefore politicians do not listen to me. If I was to form a Lobby Organization and contribute a few thousand you can bet the politicians would pay more attention to my letters.
Amends the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 to require a registered lobbyist who bundles contributions totaling over $5,000 to one covered recipient in one quarter to:

1. file a quarterly report with Congress; and
2. notify the recipient.

"Covered recipient" includes federal candidates, political party committees, or leadership PACs [but not regular PACs].

Proponents support voting YES because:

This measure will more effectively regulate, but does not ban, the practice of registered lobbyists bundling together large numbers of campaign contributions. This is a practice that has already taken root in Presidential campaigns. "Bundling" contributions which the lobbyist physically receives and forwards to the candidate, or which are credited to the lobbyist through a specific tracking system put in place by the candidate. This bill requires quarterly reporting on bundled contributions.

We ultimately need to move to assist the public financing of campaigns, as soon
Reference: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act; Bill H R 2316 ; vote number 2007-423 on May 24, 2007

Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Its about the middle class Ron...
Increase the federal minimum wage to:

1. $5.85 an hour, beginning on the 60th day after enactment;
2. $6.55 an hour, beginning 12 months after that 60th day; and
3. $7.25 an hour, beginning 24 months after that 60th day.

Proponents support voting YES because:

We have waited for over 10 years to have a clean vote on the minimum wage for the poorest workers in this country Low-wage workers had their wages frozen in time, from 10 years ago, but when they go to the supermarket, the food prices are higher; when they put gasoline in the car, the gasoline prices are higher; when they pay the utility bills, the utility bills are higher; when their kids get sick, the medical bills are higher. All of those things are higher. They are living in 2007, but in their wages they are living in 1997.

Reference: Fair Minimum Wage Act; Bill HR 2 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-018 on Jan 10, 2007

Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
Ron , its about the PEOPLE, not Big Business, dont forget who is making those contributions, lobbyists and corporations , not you and I.
To enable employees to form & join labor organizations, and to provide for mandatory injunctions for unfair labor practices during organizing efforts. Requires investigation that an employer:

1. discharged or discriminated against an employee to discourage membership in a labor organization;
2. threatened to discharge employees in the exercise of guaranteed collective bargaining rights; and
3. adds to remedies for such violations: back pay plus liquidated damages; and additional civil penalties.

Proponents support voting YES because:

The principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to organize for better working conditions & fair wages. There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not. These employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics that amount to harassment, if not outright firing. In fact, one in five people who try to organize
Reference: The Employee Free Choice Act; Bill H R 800 ; vote number 2007-118 on Mar 1, 2007



Plus he is a Republican, unless you want more SCOTUS judges restricting your freedom , and your children's freedom you should really think hard about voting for a Rep in 2008. SCOTUS has been all for larger Gov and for Big Business over the past several years. More Rep's will tip that scale even further.

1puff


http://phillynorml.org/forum/index.php?topic=34.0

[Corydoras]

Ron's Amber Alert vote was specifically because of the Rave Act.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/antirave/

I would think that would be of particular interest to voters on a NORML site.

[Bradley in DC]

Part of the problem is that you're dealing with uninformed idiots, it seems.

Start with Article I Sec. 8 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section8) of the US Constitution, you know, that document Congressmen take an oath to uphold.

All studies show that TOTAL research funding in an area FALLS when the federal government gets into the act. Historical revisionism at it's best...

Paul would put no limits on where you could donate embryos--only on taking our tax money to pay you for it.

Voted no on making it a FEDERAL crime to injure a fetus (not on par with treason, piracy on the high seas and counterfeiting)--or does the author think all injured fetuses are crossing state lines in the process?

Dr. Paul, as an Ob/Gyn, who has delivered over 4,000 babies, maybe, just maybe, knows what he's doing here.

Death penalty--yes, opposes AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. Raping over state lines really isn't crowding that many prisons, is it?

[Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)] My guess, without looking it up, is that it would have been, legislatively, a "spending limitation" amendment, and he supports all of those on principle.

Amber alert: see Art. I, Sec. 8 above.

Lobbyist disclosure, not a federal issue.

Minimum wage, not a federal issue.

Um, Members of the US House of Representatives have no vote on confirmation for Supreme Court justices at all, only Senators.

[specsaregood]

.
Minimum wage, not a federal issue.


Not to mention that many economists have stated that the minimum wage increases unemployment. Or to paraphrase what I heard walter williams say on the radio a few months ago: "If you can raise people out of poverty just by raising the minimum wage, then why not just raise it to $50 an hour and nobody will be poor." Yes, not exact but it was the gist of a good point.