Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Did Ron Paul vote AGAINST reducing the size of government????

  1. #1

    Did Ron Paul vote AGAINST reducing the size of government????

    I'm in a heated debate with someone I am trying to convert. Here's what he wrote to me this morning:

    "As for ronpaul, I have done the research on him, and he has repeatedly allowed his ideology to sabotage his own ideals.
    He's always been a fan of reducing the size of government, yet voted WITH the dumbascraps AGAINST a bill which would have reduced some departments - because he didn't feel it cut their size ENOUGH! In essence, rather than make some small progress, his vote allowed the government to grow even MORE....that bill failed by ONE VOTE...HIS!
    I've also heard ronpaul's own words during the debates.
    He advocates an Isolationist policy that would have our troops back here in the States rather than over where the enemy is...sure sounds nice, but it verifiably WILL NOT WORK....remember Pearl Harbor? 9/11?
    I don't want to fight the terrorists on Main Street, USA when I can be hunting them where THEY live. Wars are won by taking the initiative and going on the offense, not cowering in defense and hoping the bear eats the other campers first and saves us for last....
    If we had followed ronpaul's interpretation of the Constitution over the past 100 years, the Allies would have LOST WW2, Japan would currently be dominating Pacific Asia and China, Germany and Italy would have taken over Europe (and most of the Middle East!), and America would NOT be a "Superpower".
    As for us "policing the world", if not us, WHO?
    Trust me, SOMEONE would be...that is the nature of humans...thus, if we'd stayed out of WW2, WE would currently be being "policed" by the Imperialist Japan and Nazi Germany.
    I'm damned GLAD we threw away the suicidally naive concept of Isolationism - which kept us out of WW2 long enough for Hitler and Tojo to kill 100's of thousands of Asians and Europeans in the late 1930's while we foolishly believed we were "safe". That same kind of mind-set allowed over 3000 Americans to be murdered on 9/11.
    MILLIONS of people are alive - and FREE - because we got RID of the "ostrich ideal"....both in the 1940's, and today.

    How many will be enslaved/killed in the future if we take it up again?

    ronpaul's cockeyed ideals bear one very real similarity to those of communism - not that he's a leftist or a socialist, but in that there is one very significant common factor: his ideals and those of communism BOTH "look good on paper" (true communism is really a pretty good idea), however, NEITHER of those ideologies take into account human nature, thus BOTH are forever doomed to self-destructive impracticality.
    Neither will ever work in the real world, and both will cost people their lives."

    I can easily rebuke everything here except the vote against reducing the size of government.

    Can anyone help me out here? I can't find anything on it. Is my friend full of $#@!?

    Is there a website that compares each candidate's voting record?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Your friend is full of $#@!.

    The only bill he could possibly mean would be a gun bill that had nothing to do with the size of government per se. It would have changed the waiting period from 3 days to 1 day. A 1 day waiting period is still unConstitutional, so Paul didn't vote for it.

  4. #3
    lots of appeals to emotion in that one.... very few, actually no citations.

    not only is your friend a propagandized dope, if that was his manner of discourse,
    he is clearly a jerk....

    and what is his/her solution? to vote for someone else, to not vote?


    this line was my favorite:

    "If we had followed ronpaul's interpretation of the Constitution over the past 100 years, the Allies would have LOST WW2"

    is he/she voting for McCrackCocaine or what?
    Dude, I'm rich! Check out this tin can! Uber wealth, ftw!

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    ...remember Pearl Harbor? 9/11?
    I don't want to fight the terrorists on Main Street, USA when I can be hunting them where THEY live. Wars are won by taking the initiative and going on the offense, not cowering in defense and hoping the bear eats the other campers first and saves us for last....
    this is the definition of "sheep". so sad to read. I think you are dealing with a lost cause here.

  6. #5
    pearle harboor huh?? we knew about the attack weeks before it happened....pearle harbor was the gov sacraficing lives in order to expand the military so that we could have a reason to nuke japan.....we instigated that one but the gov wanted to wait till we were attacked so that we looked like the victims.....kinda reminds me of 911......and yes im a 911 truther!!!
    In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.-- Thomas Jefferson

  7. #6
    He just sounds like another sheep lining up for slaughter. God have mercy on his soul.......


    .
    "The phrase honest politician is an oxymoron. Yet in the sense that [Ron] Paul has never, ever voted against his stated principle, the phrase describes him."
    - Texas Monthly Magazine -

    ___

    Is This America? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VRd3YzOXpI

    I'm a Precinct Leader, are You!?

  8. #7
    Your friend sounds like a real life troll. does he live under a bridge?

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by crusader View Post
    Your friend sounds like a real life troll. does he live under a bridge?
    ROFLMAO!!!!!


    .
    "The phrase honest politician is an oxymoron. Yet in the sense that [Ron] Paul has never, ever voted against his stated principle, the phrase describes him."
    - Texas Monthly Magazine -

    ___

    Is This America? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VRd3YzOXpI

    I'm a Precinct Leader, are You!?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Anyone who writes, "True communism is actually a really good idea," has no idea what they're talking about.

    I hear that all the time, "Well, it's one of the those things that's great on paper, but somehow just doesn't work in real life." People say it all the time. It wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't so breathtaking in its stupidity.

    If something doesn't work "in real life," that means it's a failure in theory. If you had blueprints for what seemed like a wonderful new engine, but upon building the thing perfectly to plan, you found out that it didn't work, this means that the plan is flawed. Period.
    What's so utterly bizarre is that socialist policies continue to be enacted across the world, always ending in failure, some more horrifying than others. It's track record is one of complete and total failure. China is now succeeding because it is moving away from communism. Go figure!

    Communism does not work because it's a provably immoral failure in theory, so why the surprise that it fails in practice?

    If your friend is turned off by Ron Paul's firm stances on these issues, then what can you do? If you've tried your best to show him the way and he refuses, there's not a whole lot you can do. Something about "leading a horse to water..." comes to mind.
    What Ron Paul advocates is something that has a proven track record of success: free market capitalism, liberty, individualism.

  12. #10
    Ask him to cite the bill and the vote. Research exactly why Ron Paul voted against it. I bet it was unconstitutional for whatever reason, and had nothing to do with contracting government power, if said bill even exists.

    As for his other bull$#@!...

    Your friend doesn't understand the motivation for terrorist aggression against the United States, he doesn't understand the economic hardships we incur by funding the "Team America: World Police" program, he doesn't understand a god damn THING about World War 2 or Constitutional authority... his history is downright ludicrous.

    Ask your idiot friend to defend this statement he made: If we had followed ronpaul's interpretation of the Constitution over the past 100 years, the Allies would have LOST WW2, Japan would currently be dominating Pacific Asia and China, Germany and Italy would have taken over Europe (and most of the Middle East!), and America would NOT be a "Superpower".


    WW2 was a constitutionally declared war that we engaged in only when we were forced to because we were attacked. Lookee how we beat them Nazi's and Japs, interpreting the Constitution the way Ron Paul does! The argument is rather silly. The American people didn't want to get involved in that war if we could avoid it, and we should never be a country that *starts* wars. Remind your friend that Hitler was the one who started the wars. If congress wanted to rush to the defense of England and France in the 30's, they could have, but war should always be declared in retaliation and, at the very least, in accordance with the Constitution.

    The framers of the Constitution knew full well that the executive branch would be the branch of the government most prone to wanting wars, so they specifically denied the executive branch the power to declare war.

  13. #11
    Ask him what the Treaty of Versailles had to do with WW2

    That treaty caused the rise of Nazi Germany.

    That treaty made Germany have to pay reparations for WW1 which cost the country as a whole a heck of alot which didn't hurt the people in power it hurt the poor and middle class which then caused the rise of Hitler and he became popular because he said he would burn that treaty. This is very similar to the sanctions and embargos we put on countries currently


    That treaty was an INTERVENTIONIST POLICY which came out of WW1


    Our policy is "IF you don't do what we want we will get all of the other countries to stop trading with you", which in turn hurts the poor and middle class Especially in middle eastern countries where crop growing is not a big source of food

    Embargos and Sanctions are acts of war.


    Ask him if it is ok to go out and kill people in the United States because you think they might want to hurt you first. Thats basically his policy Kill before being Killed. Have him read the 911 comission report about where the terrorists came from and then ask him why we just gave that country $20 Billion in weapons when we are supposedly allies with Israel. And then ask him how much sense does that make.

  14. #12
    I come across this kind of thinking on a regular basis, don't you all? I can answer to everything but the vote issue. Does anyone have any information on that?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    I come across this kind of thinking on a regular basis, don't you all? I can answer to everything but the vote issue. Does anyone have any information on that?
    Your friend should provide that information on the mystery vote.

    Someone who did all the research on RP and listened to RP would know that RP is not isolationist.

    http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

  16. #14
    Tell him that spreading ideology by the barrel of a gun is actually a communist idea. Point out the history of Neo-conservativism and that its roots come from leftist ideology.

    We were right to stay out of WWII until we were attacked or declared war against. Point out that WWI would have ended sooner if we would have stayed out of it so it is not always wise to jump into wars without a clear objective.

    Ask him to give one example how our intervention with force in an undeclared war actually worked to spread freedom.

    Point out how China is more capitalistic and freedom minded now that the British relinquished Hong Kong to them. Why...because freedom is popular and it spreads by emulation rather than force.

    Your friend is simple minded and one dimensional.

  17. #15
    You're friend is what's wrong with America.
    "Countries are benefited when they changed these [national sovereignty] policies, and evidence suggests that North Americans are ready for a new relationship that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete."

    CFR task force co-chairman Robert Pastor

  18. #16
    Yes, I know. But I have converted harder cases than him. And I think it is up to us to do what we can to help people see reality. So, instead of engaging in a hostile, condescending argument with him, I will continue to email him with facts.

    Some people cannot deal with the cognitive dissonance that occurs when someone successfully challanges their belief system. But I have found, that no matter what, intelligent, respectful discourse, at the very least, plants seeds that can be watered with each and every correspondence, and/or dialogue. People are much more receptive to new ways of thinking when the messenger does not come off as a know-it-all or a threat.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    "As for ronpaul, I have done the research on him, and he has repeatedly allowed his ideology to sabotage his own ideals.
    He's always been a fan of reducing the size of government, yet voted WITH the dumbascraps AGAINST a bill which would have reduced some departments - because he didn't feel it cut their size ENOUGH! In essence, rather than make some small progress, his vote allowed the government to grow even MORE....that bill failed by ONE VOTE...HIS!
    It is very hard to defend against attacks that make claims without backing them up. I could argue Abraham Lincoln was bad because he killed babies. Without any more details you can't prove he didn't. Ask your friend who did this research for more information and then we can do the research to find out what happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    I've also heard ronpaul's own words during the debates.
    He advocates an Isolationist policy that would have our troops back here in the States rather than over where the enemy is...sure sounds nice, but it verifiably WILL NOT WORK....remember Pearl Harbor? 9/11?
    I don't want to fight the terrorists on Main Street, USA when I can be hunting them where THEY live. Wars are won by taking the initiative and going on the offense, not cowering in defense and hoping the bear eats the other campers first and saves us for last....
    Ron Paul has constantly said that he is NOT an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. There is a huge difference, and it must be undertsood.

    For the most part you are not going to convince your friend of anything by giving raw facts. You must lead them to the correct conclusions through questions and then when they discover the truth allow them to claim credit for their discovery rather than providing any "I told you so" like responses.

    The questions here are not light. It can be approached from many angles. Who are our enemies? Why are they our enemies? How can we stop them? Can terrorists be stopped through an army? Does our involvement upset others in a way that could cause more terrorism than we are eliminating?

    Another way to look at it is from the role of government. What is the purpose of government? What rights do the people have? What rights does the government have? Does the government own the citizens? (Is the government there for the people or the people for the government?) Can the government force the citizens to go to war? Even if that war is not related to national security?

    This will touch deep into ideals and being well versed in political theories can help. I think the most important point here is to understand that our founding father put together a government with a strict constitution. The constitution was meant to limit the powers of government. The founders knew that bad people would end up in power and they knew that people would try to abuse the system and give more rights and powers to themselves. That's why the constitutioin is there.

    To take it further the ideals of individualistic political views (such as most forms of libertarianism and anarchism) must be understood in comparison to the collectivist views presented by most of the governments of the world. The individualist ideals stress that the individual is the most important thing in the system. The collectivist views have the group or collective as being the most important, and so in the collectivist view it is alright to sacrifice the rights of the individual or to force people to do things if it is believed to aid the collective. This all falls apart because people in power generally don't know what is best for the people. These topics really can get quite in depth and it would be nice if people would put them to thorough debate on the forums here so that we can all become more familiar and dynamic at debating them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    If we had followed ronpaul's interpretation of the Constitution over the past 100 years, the Allies would have LOST WW2, Japan would currently be dominating Pacific Asia and China, Germany and Italy would have taken over Europe (and most of the Middle East!), and America would NOT be a "Superpower".
    That is all speculation. History is written by the winners and we have placed ourselves in the spotlight as the hero of many recent wars. Let us not forget the great atrocities we have committed and allowed to go on. We played a role in so many things, even many of those wars. I'm not much of a history buff, and I'm sure many other people can better answer this question. The answer though will continue into the next question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    As for us "policing the world", if not us, WHO?
    Why us? This goes back to the earlier question where we have to understand the role of government. Does our government have a right to risk our lives in foreign conflicts that do not involve us? The consequences of answering yes to that question are enormous and terrifying. Do we really trust our "leaders" that much? As for who will do the policing, conflicts are always going to happen. I do not believe in forced coalitions of countries but I do like the idea of formal discussions between countries occuring where they can discuss what is best to do. The problem here is that there will be opposite sides in every situation and each side will have interests. Possibily if there is enough agreement or something horrible going on countries can try to provide relief. Hopefully, without troops, though sometimes that may become necessary. Instead, we can try to help out those who are being greatly disadvantaged, perhaps offering them an out from their problems even with set up "camps" for them to live in on our shores while they await approval to immigrate into a country (perhaps even our own.) But can we end their internal conflicts?

    In Iraq now if we leave and allow the civil war to continue the current government may fall. Is that a bad thing? What right do we have to be involved in their politics. If we have an uprising in this country can China comes in to help quiet it down is that acceptable? How would we feel about that?

    Your friend needs to learn the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. They have to realize Japan wasn't overly imperialistic in a directly threatening way and that we put very heavy sanctions against them before they attacked us. (Doesn't Paul keep saying sanctions are an act of war?) In some ways after blocking their oil we gave them little choice but to react. Your friend's view of history may be a bit lopsided in favor of the standard American education's view of world history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    ronpaul's cockeyed ideals bear one very real similarity to those of communism - not that he's a leftist or a socialist, but in that there is one very significant common factor: his ideals and those of communism BOTH "look good on paper" (true communism is really a pretty good idea), however, NEITHER of those ideologies take into account human nature, thus BOTH are forever doomed to self-destructive impracticality.
    Neither will ever work in the real world, and both will cost people their lives."
    This is the funny one. The similarities to communism are much more prevalent in the ideals of the democratic and republican parties than they are in the libertarian ideals of Ron Paul. Look up collectivism and individualism on wikipedia and then see which one is more like communism.

    As for human nature, that is why we have the consitution. The type of people that seek power are not always or even often the types of people we want to have power. That is why the government was created the way it was and why we must return to it if we are going to remain a strong, prosperous, and free country in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    Can anyone help me out here? I can't find anything on it. Is my friend full of $#@!?
    Your friend is not full of $#@!. Your friend is correct. Everyone listening? Your friend is correct. And you are correct too. There is no contradiction. We all just look at the world a little differently and we can all learn from each other. If you choose to look at the world as though there are terrorists everywhere plotting their next attack on us then Mccain will seem like a good choice. And there are terrorists plotting the next attack. It's true! But if you look at it differently and wonder about the motivations of the terrorists things will seem different.

    Don't forget that Ron Paul is all for keeping a strong national defense.

    I think the answers lie in individualism. Legislation can never protect people. Armies can't stop terrorists any more than they can stop drugs. (Perhaps individual terrorists, like individiual dealers, but movements will just keep growing and spreading as long as there are people that share the views of the terrorists.) Individuals have to take responsibility and can not live in fear. It doesn't matter how much money we throw at the war on drugs/terrorism/etc. Money will not win the battle. We need to reevaluate our basic ideals. Individuals must take responsibility for themselves, for their safety, and for their health.

    I hope some of that proves useful.
    Last edited by thx1149; 02-06-2008 at 10:57 AM.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by hawks4ronpaul View Post

    Love your web site!! Nice job!! Will pass it around for sure!

    I'm on the executive council for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. in CA. I am also a leader in the Border Patrol Auxilary: http://hspig.org/bpaux/component/opt...page/Itemid,1/
    Over 40 organizations who support secured borders have endorsed Ron Paul: http://patriotsforronpaul.com/

    A LOT of our membership, and the membership of similar organizations, is made up of former and retired military. They will LOVE your website!

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Deborah K View Post
    ronpaul's cockeyed ideals bear one very real similarity to those of communism - not that he's a leftist or a socialist, but in that there is one very significant common factor: his ideals and those of communism BOTH "look good on paper" (true communism is really a pretty good idea), however, NEITHER of those ideologies take into account human nature, thus BOTH are forever doomed to self-destructive impracticality.
    Neither will ever work in the real world, and both will cost people their lives."
    Communism takes away individual motivation. That is why you must let the free market rule. Individuals will be forced to work for gain, and the economy can only grow. Take the incentive to be prosperous away, and you are left with an economy that takes a nose dive. Fiat currency helps to compound this also.

  23. #20
    Even the Truthers can make fun of your friend's fallacious arguments.
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshLowry View Post
    Yongrel can post whatever he wants as long as it isn't porn.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew76 View Post
    Anyone who writes, "True communism is actually a really good idea," has no idea what they're talking about.

    I hear that all the time, "Well, it's one of the those things that's great on paper, but somehow just doesn't work in real life." People say it all the time. It wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't so breathtaking in its stupidity.

    If something doesn't work "in real life," that means it's a failure in theory. If you had blueprints for what seemed like a wonderful new engine, but upon building the thing perfectly to plan, you found out that it didn't work, this means that the plan is flawed. Period.
    So the idea that we turn America around and restore our rights is a bad idea if we cant actually accomplish it?

    Id say its a pretty good idea regardless of what happens



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-24-2011, 08:53 PM
  2. Diversity and the Size of Government
    By stu2002 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-07-2010, 05:51 AM
  3. Reducing the size of government; how to go about it?
    By LookingForward in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-26-2010, 02:40 PM
  4. If Ron Paul won, who would reduce the size of government?
    By Met Income in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-02-2009, 09:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •