Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
Hmmmm... The name of the source is the Republican Ranting blog. Where the author states: "A blog that I post on whenever I see something that makes me want to go off on a Republican rant." It's clearly biased and clearly liberal, but that doesn't mean he's automatically wrong. I'll have to do a little more research on this.
No, you've lied again. The blog owner is a Republican as evidenced by his banner that indicates that he is a Republican with libertarian leanings:
A blog that I post on whenever I see something that makes me want to go off on a Republican (Libertarian every once in a while) rant.
We can also see evidence of his Republican loyalty in several of his posts:
Now it turns out there is indeed a little more to it. We have to go back to Paul's primary principle in all his votes:
"Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.”
I believe this was why he opposed the first vote (if that source was accurate, which I still haven't been able to confirm). But he changed his mind for the second vote:
If you look at the sidebar of your source, it says:
Martin Luther King’s holiday moved to Monday: 1979 HR 5461 v. 624
This source (after viewed in light of this source from the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs) indicates that Ron Paul voted for an AMENDMENT to the MLK Holiday, which is not the same as the up or down vote for the bill that preceded the amendments portions. Actually, it is alleged by my source at the Wilson School, that the amendments to the bill are what allowed the bill to be removed from having a simple majority vote on the bill. After there was several debates on amendments:
Quote:
With that, the bill’s manager, Congressman Garcia, moved that the Committee of the Whole rise (without completing action), meaning further consideration of the bill would be suspended, at least temporarily. The House adopted the motion, 231 to 164. It would be in the discretion of the leadership and bill’s manager to determine whether to bring it back and complete action at later date. Rep. Cardiss Collins (D-Ill.), head of the CBC, said “racism had a part to do” with the House’s refusal to honor King with a full federal holiday, according to one report. The report went on to note that, “She also faulted President Carter, who had said he supports the bill, for failing to round up votes on the measure.”14
The bill was not heard from in the House again during that Congress. Nor did the Senate attempt to bring up the Bayh bill which had been reported from the Judiciary Committee.
So actually, proposing amendments to the bill (which Ron Paul did) was a very good way to effectively filibuster or scuttle the bill in the House of Representatives. The way to prove that Ron Paul voted for the bill is to actually get proof that he voted yes on the vote on the passage of the bill (which I believe is numbered H.R. 5461) and not that he voted for an amendment to the bill (which he may or may not have voted against).
__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.
No, I haven't lied again. You are once again trying to mischaracterize my statements. I haven't lied - but I was wrong about the source. Without reading anything other than one article, I assumed that since he was attacking Ron Paul and other Republicans on the issue that he was a liberal. After reading some of the other entries, he does look to be a Republican - although probably a collectivist statist on many levels, which may explain part of his dislike towards Ron Paul.
indicates that Ron Paul voted for an AMENDMENT to the MLK Holiday, which is not the same as the up or down vote for the bill that preceded the amendments portions.
No, it's not, but there's no indication Paul's vote was for a negative purpose.
Quote:
Actually, it is alleged by my source at the Wilson School, that the amendments to the bill are what allowed the bill to be removed from having a simple majority vote on the bill.
Alleged...but such a tactic doesn't work in the House. Everyone knows the real filibuster power is held by the Senate. The majority rules in the House, and they can always get what they want.
Quote:
So actually, proposing amendments to the bill (which Ron Paul did) was a very good way to effectively filibuster or scuttle the bill in the House of Representatives.
As I said, no, it wasn't. The House doesn't work like the Senate. The minority can delay things, but it can never stop them. Paul would be quite aware of this. He isn't known for engaging in pointless delay tactics.
Quote:
The way to prove that Ron Paul voted for the bill is to actually get proof that he voted yes on the vote on the passage of the bill (which I believe is numbered H.R. 5461)
Still looking for that one. Anyway, one issue though is, as with Rosa Parks, if he voted against it, WHY did he do so? And that's the main question. He made his case quite clear with the Rosa Parks medal bill - and it wasn't due to race because he voted against Reagan's bill and Mother Teresa's bill as well. When he voted against the initial holiday bill, if he claimed he did so due to Constitutional reasons, you would need to prove he broke that pattern and voted in favor of another holiday to prove that wasn't the real underlying reason.
Here's a clip from CNN where Ron Paul publicly declares once again that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are his heroes:
No, I haven't lied again. You are once again trying to mischaracterize my statements. I haven't lied - but I was wrong about the source. Without reading anything other than one article, I assumed that since he was attacking Ron Paul and other Republicans on the issue that he was a liberal. After reading some of the other entries, he does look to be a Republican - although probably a collectivist statist on many levels, which may explain part of his dislike towards Ron Paul.
OK, so you admit that you are wrong, I will maintain that you are wrong because you lied.
__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.
No, it's not, but there's no indication Paul's vote was for a negative purpose.
Yes it is, there's no indication Paul's vote was intended or had the effect of a positive purpose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
Alleged...but such a tactic doesn't work in the House. Everyone knows the real filibuster power is held by the Senate. The majority rules in the House, and they can always get what they want.
Where is your proof for saying that protracted debate does not filibuster proposals in the House?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
As I said, no, it wasn't. The House doesn't work like the Senate. The minority can delay things, but it can never stop them. Paul would be quite aware of this. He isn't known for engaging in pointless delay tactics.
Yes, and the MLK holiday was delayed for a long time, so that would seem to reinforce what I'm saying. What is your proof for saying that Paul is not known for "engaging in pointless delay tactics?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
Still looking for that one. Anyway, one issue though is, as with Rosa Parks, if he voted against it, WHY did he do so? And that's the main question. He made his case quite clear with the Rosa Parks medal bill - and it wasn't due to race because he voted against Reagan's bill and Mother Teresa's bill as well. When he voted against the initial holiday bill, if he claimed he did so due to Constitutional reasons, you would need to prove he broke that pattern and voted in favor of another holiday to prove that wasn't the real underlying reason.
Here's a clip from CNN where Ron Paul publicly declares once again that Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are his heroes:
The point is that you have not shown any evidence that Paul actually voted FOR the MLK holiday, only evidence that he voted for changing the date of any proposed MLK holiday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer
Alright, that was fairly persuasive. I'd be inclined to give Paul a pass on his racist newsletter.
__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.
Again, Lou Dobbs isn't the only person speaking about this.
Look first at the website of Arizona State University: Home | NACTS
Then look at the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: 2006 Report to Leaders
Here is an interview with a senior vice-president of a prestigious international investment firm regarding the new common currency for America, Canada, and mexico.
From there, look at a study that was done by a task force from the Council on Foreign Relations:
I want to point out that just for the sake of fairly reading the nonsense conspiracy theories that you post, and your laughable support for them, I have actually read the first 3 links and most of the 4th one, and I watched your video. There is no mention of a North American Union in any of these sources. There are no proposals made by any credible people or public officials for any path to a North American Union in any of these links or video. The NAU is the Paulist attempt to simultaneously make their candidate relevant (which failed AGAIN) and to draw on the consistent Paulist trend of advocating that all conspiracy theories (Illuminati, Skull and Bones, the creation of a US dictatorship, etc) are true. Typical Ron Paul paranoia and demagoguery.
Thus far, I conclude that the only point of you posting all these links was to waste my time and energy on a fishing expedition into yet another stupid conspiracy theory of yours.
__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.
Here is a report done by a mexican official regarding the integration. It is lengthy but worth reading, especially starting at "The fly in the ointment' segment". Apparently not all Mexicans are gung -ho about this-
IRC Americas Program | Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA:
Given the extreme sloppiness (and what I would argue as the fundamental dishonesty in which you've posted these articles) I will no longer read them. What you may do is to post excerpts of your sources, if you wish to have them read. Otherwise, you are just throwing out masses of verbiage (which generally does not support your claims) in the disingenuous show and pretense that they do support what you say.
WEB
__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.
Yes it is, there's no indication Paul's vote was intended or had the effect of a positive purpose.
There is no indication that it harmed the bill. The bill passed. There is no conclusive point on this issue. One cannot prove either way if it was positive or negative. There is only speculation.
Quote:
Where is your proof for saying that protracted debate does not filibuster proposals in the House?
Show me where protracted debate has ever stopped any legislation in the House that a 2/3rds majority supported.
Quote:
Yes, and the MLK holiday was delayed for a long time, so that would seem to reinforce what I'm saying. What is your proof for saying that Paul is not known for "engaging in pointless delay tactics?"
He never has to my knowledge. He has a "no nonsense" style. If he's against something, he just votes against it. Delay strategies aren't his style, because he knows they're futile in the House. And those strategies are often laid out by the leadership, who Ron Paul disagrees with far more than he agrees with. They rarely ever bother to seek his vote for anything, because they know he is going to follow his core principle - stand for the Constitution.
Quote:
The point is that you have not shown any evidence that Paul actually voted FOR the MLK holiday, only evidence that he voted for changing the date of any proposed MLK holiday.
Ok, I still can't find a final vote on that bill because it only goes back to the early 90's, but this should settle the issue. There is a later vote to encourage the observance of the MLK holiday:
This resolution has been passed in the House, which is the end of the legislative process for simple resolutions. The resolution now takes effect. [Last Updated: May 3, 2008]
Now how did Ron Paul vote on this? More than any other Congressman he has been willing to be the sole dissenting vote on issues he feels strongly about. Did he vote "no" here? No, he voted "yes":
Last Action:
Jan 16, 2007: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 418 - 0 (Roll no. 24).
Quote:
Alright, that was fairly persuasive. I'd be inclined to give Paul a pass on his racist newsletter.
Then I guess that point is settled.
Last edited by Truth-Bringer; 05-04-2008 at 02:34 PM.
Linear Mode
