Ron Paul the Liberal?

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

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

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

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

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

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

Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent.

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
why Mr Paul, should we just let them go?

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
not really looking to tough on crime are you Mr Paul?

Rated 11% by the NCJA, indicating a "soft-on-crime" stance. (Dec 2005)

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)

Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
is it party time on capital hill mr paul?

voted to Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)

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

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)

Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)

Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Mr Paul I thought you said you wanted to trade with neighbors?

Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)

Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
wait a sec, I thought you were all about "talk and trade"

Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)

Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)

Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)

Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005) I guess it is McDonald's fault huh?

Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)

Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999

Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)

Rated 67% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)

don't side step

he's weak on the war on terror

weak on crime

and weak on abortion, even thought he says he belives life begins at conception

those are liberal traits

but as I know you don't research anything, as you have proven over and over, and just copy paste badly written garbage ion the internet, I don't expect anything more from you.

Weak on Terror

Weak on Crime

Weak on Drugs

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

I'm not simply saying it

Rated 11% by the NCJA, indicating a "soft-on-crime" stance. (Dec 2005)

the experts are, and it happens to be true

I know the truth of it hurts your push for Paul, but reality has always been the natural predator of Libertarians

"You have zero grasp of the Constitution, and the role it plays, or the role and authority it gives the government."

Oops. I should've known you're an expert.:frown:

92... we get it Ron Paul is god, and infallible, When he makes a good statement, its Pauls Will, when he Casts a ***ED UP vote towards , Military, drugs, and crime, its Paul works in mysterious ways.

Ron Paul is as relevant as Mike Gravel (Democrats Version of Ron Paul, still running, but the country has shown it DOES NOT CARE

Election Center 2008: Candidates - Election & Politics News from CNN.com

Quick 92... point out how this was taken out of context and Only YOU and Ron Paul understand why the vote was PERFECT and infallible

Ron Paul On Iraq
Voted against use of military force in Iraq. Supports withdrawing troops from Iraq, but opposed war spending bill which included a plan to withdraw most U.S. troops by March 2008.




Wants the troops out NOW... But refuses to pay for them to come home??? Hmmm

I suppose This All or Nothing COMMUNIST trait is why he is the CLEAR choice for president (amongst Ron Paul Sheep)

Ron Paul On Iraq
Voted against use of military force in Iraq. Supports withdrawing troops from Iraq, but opposed war spending bill which included a plan to withdraw most U.S. troops by March 2008.

This, more then anything else, clearly illustrates that Ron Paul is not a leader, rather just the cynical son of the Republican party.

He wants them home but doesn't want to actually have to pay for it, that is exactly what I mean when I talk about the politics of American Convenience.

Before the U.S. House of Representatives on July 12, 2007

I rise in opposition to HR 2956 which, while a well-intended attempt to reduce our nation’s seemingly unlimited military commitment in Iraq, is in so many respects deeply flawed.

I have been one of the strongest opponents of military action against Iraq. I voted against the initial authorization in 2002 and I have voted against every supplemental appropriations bill to fund the war. I even voted against the initial “Iraq regime change” legislation back in 1998. I believe our troops should be brought back to the United States without delay. Unfortunately, one of the reasons I oppose this legislation is that it masquerades as a troop withdrawal measure but in reality may well end up increasing US commitments in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the debate we should have had four years ago, before Congress voted to abrogate its Constitutional obligation to declare war and transfer that authority to the president. Some in this body were rather glib in declaring the constitution antiquated while voting to cede the ability to initiate hostilities to the President. Now we see the result of ignoring the Constitution, and we are bringing even more mayhem to the process with this legislation.

To those who believe this act would some how end the war, I simply point to the title for Section 3 of the bill, which states, “REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ AND TRANSITION TO A LIMITED PRESENCE OF THE ARMED FORCES IN IRAQ.” However the number of troops are limited, this legislation nevertheless will permit an ongoing American military presence in Iraq with our soldiers continuing to be engaged in hostilities.

I also wish to draw attention to Section 4(b)(1), which mandates the President to submit a “Strategy for Iraq” by the beginning of next year. This “strategy” is to include:

“A discussion of United States national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests as the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to section 3 of this Act.”

In other words, far from extricating ourselves from the debacle in Iraq, this bill would set in motion a policy that could lead to a wider regional commitment, both financially and militarily. Such a policy would be disastrous for both our overextended national security forces and beleaguered taxpayers. This could, in fact, amount to an authorization for a region-wide “surge.”

Congress’ job is to change the policy on Iraq, not to tell the military leaders how many troops they should have. I have attempted to do this with HR 2605, a bill to sunset after a six month period the authorization for military activity in Iraq. During this period a new plan for Iraq could be discussed and agreed. Plan first, authorization next, execution afterward. That is what we should be doing in Iraq.

In summary, Mr. Speaker, this legislation brings us no closer to ending the war in Iraq. It brings us no closer to bringing our troops home. It says nothing about withdrawal, only about redeployment. It says nothing about reducing US presence in the Middle East, and may actually lead to an expanded US presence in the region. We have no guarantee the new strategy demanded by this legislation would not actually expand our military activities to Iran and Syria and beyond. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and put forth an effective strategy to end the war in Iraq and to bring our troops home.