Comments on: Ron Paul Pays $25,000 to South Carolina Republican Party to be Listed in Presidential Primary http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/ Mon, 22 Mar 2010 10:12:51 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Brandon Danaher http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/comment-page-1/#comment-203578 Brandon Danaher Fri, 11 Jan 2008 05:01:03 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/#comment-203578 You have to realize that Ron Paul always votes with the Constitution, which is the values our country was founded on. Realize that even if an issue is morally right, which would be an opinion because everyone holds different values, if its not constitutional, it's an automatic no from "Dr. No". Sent from my iPhone You have to realize that Ron Paul always votes with the Constitution, which is the values our country was founded on. Realize that even if an issue is morally right, which would be an opinion because everyone holds different values, if its not constitutional, it’s an automatic no from “Dr. No”.
Sent from my iPhone

]]> By: Dennis Johnson http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/comment-page-1/#comment-60803 Dennis Johnson Thu, 10 May 2007 22:59:42 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/#comment-60803 While Dr. Ron Paul's voting record SEEMS to contradict his positions, you MUST look further. RP will not vote FOR any law that is contrary to the Constitution. If a proposed law is outside of the powers granted government, he is guaranteed to vote "no." RP is totally consistant with his voting record and I am so proud of him! While Dr. Ron Paul’s voting record SEEMS to contradict his positions, you MUST look further. RP will not vote FOR any law that is contrary to the Constitution. If a proposed law is outside of the powers granted government, he is guaranteed to vote “no.” RP is totally consistant with his voting record and I am so proud of him!

]]> By: Allan http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/comment-page-1/#comment-60766 Allan Thu, 10 May 2007 18:40:32 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/#comment-60766 This one is under the general topic of Civil Rights at http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005) Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004) Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004) Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003) Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002) Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998) I think the facts of his votes speak for themselves. This guy is all over the place, even voting contrary votes on the same subject. For example, though his supporters like to tout his vote against a Constitutional amendment to bar gays and lesbians nationwide from being issued a marriage license, he has no problem barring gay people from adopting! With that vote in his record alone, he's toast with the gay community, a fact which won't bother most of his supporters anyway. Any Democrat who would switch to the foul nest of the Republican Party in 1998 just because he knew which way the wind would be blowing for a long time to come, is simply looking to be branded an opportunistic hypocrite. His voting record bears out that characterization, IMO. This one is under the general topic of Civil Rights at http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

I think the facts of his votes speak for themselves. This guy is all over the place, even voting contrary votes on the same subject.

For example, though his supporters like to tout his vote against a Constitutional amendment to bar gays and lesbians nationwide from being issued a marriage license, he has no problem barring gay people from adopting!

With that vote in his record alone, he’s toast with the gay community, a fact which won’t bother most of his supporters anyway.

Any Democrat who would switch to the foul nest of the Republican Party in 1998 just because he knew which way the wind would be blowing for a long time to come, is simply looking to be branded an opportunistic hypocrite.

His voting record bears out that characterization, IMO.

]]> By: Allan http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/comment-page-1/#comment-60765 Allan Thu, 10 May 2007 18:24:22 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/#comment-60765 http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

]]> By: Allan http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/comment-page-1/#comment-60764 Allan Thu, 10 May 2007 18:21:42 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/#comment-60764 The facts about Ron Paul's "conservative libertarian" (at best) voting record tell me that I couldn't vote for this man even if he supported "gay rights." I hope to return here with his actual voting / position statements about that subject next. Though a few on this list reflect it, he's far from a true federal hands off libertarian regarding the majority of the following important (to me) issues: Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005) Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004) Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003) Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003) Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003) Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002) Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001) Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001) NO federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000) Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000) Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999) The facts about Ron Paul’s “conservative libertarian” (at best) voting record tell me that I couldn’t vote for this man even if he supported “gay rights.” I hope to return here with his actual voting / position statements about that subject next. Though a few on this list reflect it, he’s far from a true federal hands off libertarian regarding the majority of the following important (to me) issues:

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

NO federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

]]> By: DONT TREAD ON ME http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/comment-page-1/#comment-60019 DONT TREAD ON ME Sun, 06 May 2007 03:32:09 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/#comment-60019 Go Ron Go! RON PAUL for President of The United States of America! GO RON GO! Go Ron Go!

RON PAUL for President of The United States of America!

GO RON GO!

]]> By: Phillip Rhodes http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/comment-page-1/#comment-59818 Phillip Rhodes Fri, 04 May 2007 19:09:13 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/#comment-59818 I'm pretty sure Ron Paul is not "anti-gay", at least not in any sense that he would encourage the government to discriminate against homosexuality. What he is, is a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. He simply does not believe the Federal government has any business meddling in the business of marriage, and he's 100% correct in that. If someone had a chance to ask him, I'd be willing to bet that he'd say that no government at any level *truly* has any business regulating marriage... but in the context of his position in the House, that bill was completely consistent with his consistently libertarian views. I’m pretty sure Ron Paul is not “anti-gay”, at least not in any sense that he would encourage the government to discriminate against homosexuality. What he is, is a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. He simply does not believe the Federal government has any business meddling in the business of marriage, and he’s 100% correct in that.

If someone had a chance to ask him, I’d be willing to bet that he’d say that no government at any level *truly* has any business regulating marriage… but in the context of his position in the House, that bill was completely consistent with his consistently libertarian views.

]]> By: Jimster http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/comment-page-1/#comment-59766 Jimster Fri, 04 May 2007 13:20:19 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/#comment-59766 Regulation of religion? It looked more to me like the bill was de-regulating religion, by putting marriage out of the grasp of the gov't. Paul thinks marriage is a state issue at best, he probably thinks it shouldn't be a gov't issue at all, which is my stance. If you take away the gov't connection, suddenly gay marriage isn't an issue either, its not legal or illegal. Marriage should be a covenant between two people and their church (you can substitute another social institution there if you wish) not between two people and their gov't. Regulation of religion? It looked more to me like the bill was de-regulating religion, by putting marriage out of the grasp of the gov’t. Paul thinks marriage is a state issue at best, he probably thinks it shouldn’t be a gov’t issue at all, which is my stance. If you take away the gov’t connection, suddenly gay marriage isn’t an issue either, its not legal or illegal. Marriage should be a covenant between two people and their church (you can substitute another social institution there if you wish) not between two people and their gov’t.

]]> By: Mikester http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/comment-page-1/#comment-59636 Mikester Thu, 03 May 2007 20:08:46 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/#comment-59636 And tell me, oh wise one, by "protecting marriage" what is Ron Paul advocating? Regulation of religion. Doh! And tell me, oh wise one, by “protecting marriage” what is Ron Paul advocating? Regulation of religion.

Doh!

]]> By: Timm Knibbs http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/comment-page-1/#comment-59634 Timm Knibbs Thu, 03 May 2007 19:51:50 +0000 http://www.ballot-access.org/2007/05/01/ron-paul-pays-25000-to-south-carolina-republican-party-to-be-listed-in-presidential-primary/#comment-59634 Marriage is a religious institution that is were it came from. Therefore any government regulation of it is the government interfering with religion. Marriage is a religious institution that is were it came from. Therefore any government regulation of it is the government interfering with religion.

]]>