Thread assistance ... blue team go!

[castor]

Anyone with some RP knowledge wanna defend him in this thread? Im too tired to look up the info to politely explain why he is wrong about civil rights. All his other points are just gross misunderstanding of Ron Paul.

http://www.prounreal.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=72922




Ron Paul is just following the predictable footsteps of Nader and Perot... if you're a republican, voting for RP is essentially giving your vote to the democrats, although i can relate to a lot of frustration with the GOP.... we've been in desperate need for reform long before Bush... such as removal of church, support for pro-choice and stem cell research.

Just to make sure you truly know who you're cheering for, you shouldn't listen to what a politician says, but watch what his actions are:

Abortion:
- Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
- No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
- Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

He’s still against stem cell research:
- Embryonic stem cell programs not constitutionally authorized. (May 2007)
- Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
- Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

He’s anti-civil rights:
- Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
- Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)


*cheers* to drinking the Digg kool-aid and reading headlines...

[Ron Paul Fan]

I believe he's against using federal government funds for stem cell research. No suprise there. He didn't vote to ban gay adoptions. He voted to not fund gay adoptions. Big difference there as Paul votes against funding for a lot of things not authorized by the Constitution. I really wish they would change that on that issues site because every liberal brings that up. Not sure on the rating by the ACLU. They may take his pro life votes into account? The Democrats running for President who have been or are currently in Congress are worse on civil liberties as they all either voted for the initial Patriot Act and/or voted to renew the Patriot Act. On abortion, Ron Paul is pro life. That's his position and he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave it up to the states.

[castor]

Yeah I know all the other stuff but I wasn't sure where the ban on gay adoption thing came from.

[Jobarra]

Ask him to post all the Bill numbers and dates if he is so knowledgeable. I've seen people in threads elsewhere use this same list. I think some of the bills they were related to actually showed him voting yes to a procedural motion RIGHT BEFORE the vote on the bill itself where he voted no. Just went to govtrack.us and can't find any bills about gay or homosexual for the year 1999 except for a bill about 3 hostages in Columbia where one of the last names is 'Gay'.

All of Dr. Paul's votes in 1999 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?year=1999&person=400311)

ALOT of these votes are votes of procedures. Stuff like voting to stop discussing a bill, etc. Whenever anyone quotes any vote, always ask them for the bill number and the date. Bill numbers get reused apparently, but not in the same year.

Okay, a little bit more digging, and I'm guessing THIS (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h106-2587) is the bill he's talking about. It has a clause about adoptions and any couple who is not legally married. Man, after reading through these bills, I'm surprised Dr. Paul can keep any type of voting record straight. These things are nauseating to read. If this is the bill, he voted NO to it.

Whew, okay, more digging. I'm guessing THIS (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=106&amdt=h356) is what he is talking about. If I'm reading this correctly, it's the second amendment(H Admt. 356) to H.R. 2587 [106th]: District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 2000.

The summary of the amendment is stated as:
An amendment no. 2 printed in H.Rept. 106-263 to prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

So he voted Aye for this amendment but NO for the bill. He didn't vote FOR Banning gay adoptions. He voted FOR prohibiting funding for someone not related by blood or marriage. So it's a cutesy little twist of the law. They're saying that it's his fault that gays cannot be married in their state, but they're attributing that to a vote for banning gay adoption. Balderdash. I wouldn't be surprised if he just voted on this amendment because it prohibited funding in an area the Federal Government is not supposed to be funding. If you want to squelch it though, he voted NO for the bill including this amendment. The sad thing is someone went to alot of trouble to come up with this twist of law to sling mud.

Sorry, but it's kind of late here. I cannot go tracking down every other bill he lists. Maybe post the bill numbers and dates when/if he actually responds?

Doh, and while I'm editting this over and over, Ron Paul Fan finds it :D

Oh, and totally agree with Ron Paul Fan. Just because it's not funded doesn't mean it's banned. That's not a twist at all. That's a flat out LIE.

[Ron Paul Fan]

H.AMDT.356 to HR 2587: An amendment to prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage.

Of course Paul is going to vote yes to not fund this! He's Dr. No! It probably doesn't even matter that they're adoptions for gay people. He just doesn't think the federal government should fund it. Just because you don't fund it doesn't mean it can't exist! This is what we need to get through to people about smaller government!

[Jobarra]

I couldn't take it. I had to register and post. That poster was being way too smug and throwing around the "you should research your candidate" speech.

I've seen this listing on other internet forums. Anyone else? Wonder if there is already a thread debunking all the votes.

[Shink]

What's so stupid about posts like those is that it takes into account SOLELY the end result (and sensationalizes among alarmists on an issue), and considers NOTHING about WHAT IS IN THE BILL. How many times have you heard of ridiculous spending being tacked on to a bill that's sure to pass? Shitloads.

[iella]

Re: stem cells - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/science_vindicates_bushs_theol.html

Aside from the fact that Dr. Paul doesn't think Congress should be funding this research, there has never been a reason to demand that embryos be destroyed, regardless of your attitude toward when life begins. That's the beauty of science - there are always new (and often better) ways to do things. Scientists love a challenge. :)