Truth-Bringer

I think you need to read them again.

driller80545

When people choose to hide their heads in the sand, they are certainly easy to manipulate.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

There is indication that the extensive debate harmed the bill, as after the extensive debate continued a motion was made to table further debate on the issue. This is the same thing as filibustering.

The bill was not supported by 2/3rds majority, so I don't see how that's relevant. The bill had majority support and endless debate obstructed the bill from getting an up or down vote. If you want to look at the historical record, you can look that up and show your findings.

I don't think so. Paul is as cynical a politician as any. He inserts pork barrel projects into bills and then votes against them. He doesn't stand for anything except for Ron Paul's best interests, not the Constitution.

That vote does not prove that much. It's merely a collective vote of praise on MLK. It doesn't actually have anything more than a symbolic effect. It's not the vote that created the MLK holiday. I won't say once and for all that Rno Paul is not a racist, but I won't say that he is one either.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

No, I will not be wrong. You lied. You said that the blog owner was a liberal in order to discredit the facts on his site. He's a conservative/libertarian, as you later admitted.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Well, I could try again with my tin foil hat on, but then that would make me a Ron Paul conspiracy loon.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Truth-Bringer

The bill ultimately passed. It didn't stop the bill. You can't truly say that a bill that ultimately passes is "harmed."

At first glance it looked to me like it was 2/3rds of the voting majority, anyway, let's just say large majority. Show me where delay tactics in the House have ever stopped a bill supported by a large majority.

The debate wasn't endless. It ended, and the bill passed. The desire to turn this into an issue by those in your earlier source seems to be that they just want to brand several people as racists. I think it's clear in the earlier interview I posted that Ron Paul is not a racist and anyone trying to label him as such has another underlying motive.

No, he doesn't support "pork barrel projects" - he simply allows the earmarked funds to go to his district. He doesn't write any of those bills. Paul has stated that many of his constituents call him, asking for the money. He has explained his actions: The money will be stolen via taxation from his constituents and other Americans against his wishes. It will be allocated by Congress, so he allows his district to receive funds just as the other districts receive funds. But he tells his constituents that he will vote against the final bill, based on the Constitution and his pledge to vote against any unbalanced budget.

Oh really? His own interests? Funny how he's the only Congressman who has turned down what would be potentially millions of dollars by refusing to participate in the lucrative Congressional pension plan:

Paul refuses to participate in "immoral" pension system

Says fewer perks for congress will limit terms of politicians, save taxpayers money

WASHINGTON, DC - US Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) today reaffirmed his opposition to what he calls the "immoral" congressional pension system by refusing to participate in it. While serving in Congress from 1976 to 1984, Paul chose not to participate in the system, despite a taxpayer-funded pay-out which is more lucrative than any private system. He said high-dollar perks like the pension are areas that could be safely cut immediately, without hurting a single American taxpayer.

"The situation is even worse today than it was before," Paul said. "When I served in the late '70s and early '80s, the congressman had to actually write a letter to enter the program, I simply chose not to sign-up. Today, however, everyone is automatically placed in the system and house members are required to write a letter requesting that they not be included in the program."

After five years of service, a Member of Congress becomes vested in the system, with pay-off beginning at age 62, or pay-off begins at any age after 25 years of service. The five years can be either all in Congress, or added with other federal service, such as time in the military. If someone had 26 years of service, and depending on which of two systems they were under, a Member of Congress leaving office in 1994 could expect a yearly pension of between $52,800 and $86,000.

"This is one reason why so many politicians stay in Washington so long: they get a better retirement plan from the government than they could ever get from an honest job back home. We need to cut perks like this pension system completely; it is immoral that someone spend so much time in Congress that they even should think about getting retirement benefits. And then to expect those benefits to be paid by taxpayers at rates no citizen can ever hope to actually earn is even more unreasonable," said Paul. "There is a lot of talk about term limits, which I completely support, but if we are to seriously reform Congress, and return it to being a 'citizen-legislature,' then we must address these issues. Even the most strict term limits package currently being bandied about restricts members to six years in office, which of course vests them in the retirement system."

The Sufside, Texas, physician said that during a time when Congress is discussing ways to balance the budget and cut taxes, "a good place to start is right here on Capitol Hill, where we can help the taxpayers by not enriching ourselves at their expense."

"Members of Congress are elected by the people to handle the affairs of this nation in a responsible, efficient manner, not to enrich themselves for a lifetime," he said. "To participate in a pension plan at taxpayers expense would for me be hypocritical and immoral. I hope everyone in the 105th Congress will do as I have done: reject the pension and prepare for retirement without burdening the taxpayers for decades to come. To do any less is to perpetuate what is at it's most basic level an arrogant insult to the people we were elected to represent."

Funny that he's also the only Congressman to vote against every single Congressional pay raise:

Paul votes against congressional pay raise

Says it is immoral for Congress to hike own pay with taxes so high

WASHINGTON, DC - Following through with his perfect record of having never voted for a congressional pay raise, US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on Thursday once again voted against an increase in the salary of Members of Congress.

"I have never and will never vote to increase Congress' pay; it's shameful that Congress seems to think that they should be raising their own pay at the same time the American people see their taxes increasing, federal spending going up, and the national debt getting larger," said Rep. Paul. "Many Members of Congress say they spend so much time in D.C. that they need more money. I say that not only does Congress not need a pay raise, we need to return to the Constitution, limit what the federal government has its fingers in, cut the time Congress spends in session, and cut the pay congressmen receive."

It is sad, said Paul, that at the same time Congress is attempting to increase its own pay, it has been examining ways to reduce the benefits paid to veterans and senior citizens.

Not only has Rep. Paul refused to ever vote for a congressional pay raise, but he is also one of the few representatives to turn down the lucrative pension Congress gives itself.

"Between the ability to increase pay at their whim and the juicy pension package they give themselves, it is no wonder so few Members of Congress ever leave their office and return to the private sector," said Rep. Paul. "How many Americans can, without thought, grant themselves a pay raise? How many Americans can take part in a pension which pays out the huge sums the congressional pension does? None, because Congress can simply increase taxes to pay the bill. Even the wealthiest of business owners have to answer to the bottom-line profitability of their company; Congress has no such accountability."

True, but if one is a racist and one hates MLK, why would you vote in support of the man? Especially when you've already taken heat for being the only Congressman to vote against the medal for Rosa Parks?

The difference with this bill is that THERE APPEARS TO BE NO COST TO THE TAXPAYER (and that's Paul's first consideration when he votes). Which is not the case with the Rosa Parks medal or the original MLK holiday bill.

Well I guess that's an improvement...

Truth-Bringer

No, I did not lie. I only read the one blog post. I assumed someone who was attacking multiple Republicans for their stance on race must be a liberal. I assumed "Republican ranting" meant that he was ranting against Republicans. I made a mistake by not reading more into the site, but as I've said, my time on these forums is limited. I don't have time to check everything through as thoroughly as I'd like.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

The top of his blog clearly indicated that he is a libertarian, and thus more partial to Ron Paul then opposed to him. You ignored that and actually interpreted his comments about being a libertarian to mean that he would be biased AGAINST the 1988 Libertarian candidate: Ron Paul. You lied when you said that the site was biased against Ron Paul.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Your comment here is disingenuous. I am using your phrase there, "harmed" which you were using to mean whether it helped or hindered the bill's passage. You have now changed the definition of your own word to mean permanently affect the content of the bill in later versions. This is not how you originally used your own term, so you have dishonestly changed the meaning of your word in the middle of the debate in order to make this comment.

Show that to yourself. It's lazy and obnoxious to ask others to do your homework for you.

Another lie. The bill was tabled and never seen again by that Congress, as I had already shown you. Different MLK holiday bills were repeatedly presented to the Congress until one was passed through the Congress until 4 years after the one we were talking about in 1979.

Ron Paul is a total liar. He says he loves small government and he's against federal spending, but he loads bills with pork barrel projects and then votes against them, pretending he's opposed to pork barrel federal projects.

From the Growth Club, a pro-free market organization:

The Club For Growth - http://www.clubforgrowth.org


Sure, I'll buy that Ron Paul voted against some federal expenses, however he's clearly a typical politician when it comes to actually implementing his beliefs, as demonstrated by his seeking federal funding for projects in his district:

New Pig Book says Hillary Clinton's tops in pork spending, Barack Obama's 2nd, but John McCain had none! : Top of the Ticket : Los Angeles Times
Ron Paul could finally vote for the MLK holiday (after opposing it) for the same reason that he could put in pork barrel projects despite saying that he is for limited government: political pragmatism. Even Reagan and the Republican congress relented to the immense political pressure that the Democrats were bringing to bear on them with their persistent drive for an MLK holiday. From the perspective of a racist politician, racism is good when you could get away with it and not so good when you cannot get away with it. The Democrats were going to extract blood from the Republicans if they had shot it down again in 1983. 1983 was the same year as a massive march on Washington to celebrate King and it would have made Republicans look more racist if they had denied the holiday.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

No, your criticism of Ron Paul detractors fails given that it was Ron Paul's fault for allowing his newsletter to be filled with racist comments for several years. It's lunacy to blame other people because Ron Paul lent his name and newsletter to racists for many years.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.