Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the “one exception to the Gang of 535” on Capitol Hill.

Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 17 grandchildren.

While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul’s limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president.

During that time, Congressman Paul served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice.

Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.

Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers’ ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another colleague observed, “There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few.”



Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.


I would say thats a tad bit more.

They need to get rid of welfare so those greasy island roaches stop coming over here

That is hands down the dumbest thing I have ever seen on a message board.... in my entire life:2 cents:

The only sense I can make from your posts are that you are on welfare and are fighting to keep your money train running.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/s...3970818&page=1

Watch the videos..

Although they do kind of highlight one of Ron Pauls weak spots in my mind... in that he seems to get flustered easily and isnt always all that articulate

Why do people post in threads they haven't bothered to read?

in that video alone this man wants to get rid of the department of education

Department of energy, Agriculture, Commerce

WHAT A FUCKIN WHACK JOB !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

to protect liberty and property though he is realistic he can't get rid of everything but he can make sure its properly funded by ending foreign excursions and to put in place transition programs

one thing he can do right away as commander in chief is bring troops home and another is to tell the DOJ to stop enforcing drug laws and tell them to leaves states like CA who legalize medical marijuana alone

oh great. looks like google indexed a gfy ron paul thread and now it's dragging a bunch of fucking morons onto this site.

p.s. you have a sig, and what's worse is that you attempt to convince people that you have money in your lame sig.

So tell me in your own words, what these departments do, what they provide, and why no other alternative could possibly do a better job?

PS. Reagan actually advocated and ran on a platform of eliminations the dept of education.

wow thanks for posting the links to those videos... I am more then convinced this guy is fuckin crazy LMAO LMAO

says some of the dumbest shit ever spoken in the english

privatizing is not the solution. period.

Remember the scene from Independence Day when all of the whack jobs are up on top of the building in LA....celebrating and welcoming the Aliens. And all of the sudden a huge fucking beam shoots down and right before it hits you see this "Oh Shit...." type of reaction and this stunned look on their faces like "what the fuck were we thinking"....?

That's Ron Paul supporters 3 months into his Presidential tenure.

He talks about privatizing everything as if American citizens can be trusted to self regulate and govern themselves

Basically he wants to outsource the government to corporations, without federal regulation and management provided by each of those departments we would essentially be on the same level as sub Sahara Africa


This ass says... " if Canada invades montana, than maybe... but not definite.. than the fed could get involved"

so he wants to break the US apart lol

If states want their own government provided education and dept of education, they should be free to pursue it. It shouldn't be a federal dept.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh can I ask you a question?

why would i try to convince people on GFY that i make alot of money. i am just proving a point that most with a sig on this board are SURFERS. I dont need to explain my income to you or anyone esle. I have two other gfy users with actual sigs: 1 to my proggie and the other to my free site hub. I have used neither usernames in over two years which I created both in 03. I have this sig I have now because unlike you I have found that there is VERY LITTLE benefit to spam my proggie here when most members now adays are SURFERS like yourself.

The dumb ass just said

and I quote

"prostitution is due to the mistakes we made in the drug war" -- Ron Paul

somebody get this guy a clue

just because I refuse to acknowledge your point does not mean I can't read. Did you think the reasons people in poor countries have kids differ then why they have them in the US. Families in poor countries with no retirement systems rely on a child to take care of them when older. As the mortality rates are also low they hope to have alot of kids so one may make it. You might know this if you went to school or had actually graduated from the one your probably in.

I was poor I grew up poor and i fought tooth and nail to go to school get educated and make a life for myself. This is america it can be done if your not a lazy piece of shit. I have no sympathy for anyone who says its too hard, cause it is hard and if you cant do it then you should not feed off others who do. You and pussyserver are prime cadidates of why we should thin the heard.

This whole notion that the federal government must provide something or it must be privatized is a false dichotomy.

There are state governments, there are city governments.

you just spent 1 paragraph convincing me that you are somebody. Again proving to me that you are in fact...a nobody.

if you run a search and find my name promoting any SEO services I will sign off GFY forever frrom my one and only username.

i figured you would edit what you said. figuring you pulled it out of your ass. 90% of my SEO posts on GFY tell the SEO optimizers how lame they are. Do a search.

Why is it so dumb? It's a fact that women on welfare have more kids.

"Mothers on AFDC had an average of 2.6 children each; non-AFDC mothers averaged 2.1."

http://www.census.gov/population/soc...fs/sb2-95.html

You're awfully quick to think you have this great answer... thin the herd and get rid of everyone who doesn't immediately agree and adhere to what I think.

My point is that it isn't as simple and easy as you want to make it out to be. There are PLENTY of innocent people out there who are not able to help themselves... small children, elderly, disabled, etc. You're saying these people should be put down like dogs because they can't get a job and take care of themselves. How can you defend that thought process?

Look, I grew up so poor we didn't have electricity to heat us or food to feed us or shoes to wear on our feet a lot of the time. You're not the only one who managed to get out and get educated and do something with their lives. (Your account here was created one month before mine was, btw).

In my extremely long response to this thread, I said I do not promote providing social services to those that are simply too lazy to do something with their lives. But the fact remains that there are innocent victims that do not deserve to be thrown in a trash heap simply because they cannot achieve as much as the rest of us LUCKY and HEALTHY citizens.

Of course he's upset. Blacks love welfare.

"About 1 in 4 Black mothers of childbearing ages (1.5 million) were AFDC recipients, higher than the 7 percent of corresponding White mothers (2.1 million)."

http://www.census.gov/population/soc...fs/sb2-95.html

Unfortunately that has more to do with black men and how they are raised...let's not pin the blame on the mothers. It's a vicious cycle that's tough to break. And it goes alot deeper then that.....funding in schools in urban areas, job availability etc.

but I'm not going to get into that with you though....I think I remember going about 4-5 pages with you awhile back :1orglaugh

The reasons for any disparity are not limited to the fact that the welfare system exists. There are numerous socioeconomic reasons that contribute to the average birth rate of poverty stricken mothers. It's not like the welfare system makes anyone middle class, puts them up in a nice place, puts hearty food in the belly of their children. These people can barely afford to wake up and turn on the lights everyday. I don't understand why more attention isn't paid to address the issues of poverty at their ROOTS. Why won't we make the investment now to see the savings to the welfare budget in the future?

oh yes I loves me some welfare I just got a check for 2000 foodstamps today and I got foodstamps falling out the fridge

LMAO

You are the dumbest, simplest idiot on GFY... and that is a well known fact.. carry on

He said the drug war ends up causing more prostitution... and he is probably right. He didn't say the war on drugs causes all prostitution. If you cant make the connection between our drug policy inflating the cost of drug prices and prostitution I dont know what to tell you..

I don't think that denial, blame and dependence is the way that cycle will be broken.

You're a punk bitch that isn't man enough to keep his word.

Okies... if you say so

I normally stay away from trolling threads so I am not sure why I am so involved with this but so it is. Let me first untwist my words that you did such a good job of knotting up.

1. I never said to put anyone down like a dog. There is a huge diffrence between natrual selection and letting nature run its corse then killing people. Im tlaking darwin here not hitler.

ie. The original question was not about old people or kids it was some woman who had no job and spit out kids. Simle answer give the kids to a family that cant have any leave the mother in the cold and eventually she will work or starve problem solved.


2. Old people, children, and disabled people deserve some level of help. Especially veterans who fought to keep us safe. I am not supporting Ron Paul here.

I simply believe most people can climb out if they are motivated but the current system leaves no reason to be motivated as though it may suck to be on social assistance you can survive. Some even like it. I knew many people that used and abused the system and had no problem living like shit. I feel if they were forced to choose between starve or work they would work but to choose between mcdonalds and govt cheese they took the cheese.

As for luck that is BS. I was taught while training to be a stock broker that luck is when preperation meets opportunity. I worked 12 hours a day 5 days a week for 200 a week to get a chance to be a broker. I have no pity for people who wont flip burgers to feed a family. Face it natural selection has been upset and the human race is weaker cause of it.

In your original replies, you made no mention of what happens to the 5 children of the woman you would have thrown out on the streets, which is where my concerns lie. As they do with the elderly and disabled. You have now addressed that and, as it turns out, I agree. HOWEVER, I still place much concern on the life of the mother and what can be done to help her out of her situation... which requires understanding how she got there. This is something I feel our system sadly does not support.

I guess I feel passionately about this issue because of how I grew up and what I saw all around me. Absolutely there are people that thrive in that poverty and chaos. But also there are wonderful people that are desperate to get out and sometimes just can't find the path amidst the trash. I feel lucky to be where I am, even though I know I worked extremely hard to find my own way. There are too many people that I left behind that are just as worthy of having what I do.

The powers explicitly defined in the constitution.

Welfare and public assistance is a state issue... If a state chooses to offer it.

It is a not a role for the federal government. It should always be handled on the local/state level.

never said i was stupid. :winkwink:

a bit of a tangent here, but there is a missing piece of this puzzle...while popping out babies you can't afford to feed is obviously wrong and a drain on society, so is spreading your sperm around to every available vagina around.

I don't pretend to be an economic expert and I certainly have no grand plan to rid the nation of welfare abusers, but it seems like perhaps the beginning should involve a better way of holding two people accountable for each child instead of only one, leaving the taxpayers to pick up the slack.

That is absolutely part of the bigger problem and something that desperately needs attention!

debating an age old question that no one will ever agree on.... How do you help those in need without rewarding those who keep putting themselves in that position.

how about this?... if you are a habitual fuckup and mother of 5 always on public assistance, you lose your kids. lets start by making sure there are no incentives to end up in that place to begin with.



AND PLEASE NikKay!!

stop talking about "disadvantaged" or "lucky" or "fortuneate"

its exactly that perspective that does more harm than good. its that perspective that others exploit.

its funny how some guy from vietnam who grew up sleeping in dirt and eating grass and rice can make his way to a new country, build a new life, start a business, bring his family to that country etc... yet some jackass in Brooklyn has all these excuses in the world about how tough life is, how it isn't fair etc.

its not fair that people who do work hard have to pick up the slack for people who don't. its not fair that people who do wake up every day with the singular goal of improving their lives have to pay for those what wake up everyday looking for their next hand out. its not fair that someone who can't afford 1 child... can have 3 or 4 or 6 at the expense of everyone else.

when a town gets hit by a hurricane, its a tragedy and people need help. when some ghetto whore has 7 kids, all by different fathers, then first and foremost, she should lose her kids and she most certainly shouldn't be rewarded for it.

lets not forget that kids are also being punished by being born to a semi-psychotic and selfish whore who has no capicity whatsoever to adequately parent her kids, be a positive role model and teach them anything about life and success.

fathers aren't held accountable for child support?

their wages aren't garnished?

they don't get thrown in jail for not paying child support?

really?

what country do you live in?

I'm not talking about the ones who pay up ( or are made to pay up. ) I'm talking about those who don't.

I have an issue with the fact that because someone decides to not to use judgement or birth control that because of "the children" I am somehow obligated to make sure they are fed clothed etc etc. Where is the encouragement to be responsible if people know they'll get another check coming?


If this woman can't afford to take care of her 5 kids perhaps they need to be put up for adoption. Most likely they'd end up being better off. Staying with mom all they'll learn is how to fuck up and depend on the government for another handout.

Well of course especially since both people involved no matter how poor can get free birth control from the local heath department. However at least in my state women who are on government assistance and have their 2nd baby can get their tubes tied at no cost. I'd rather pay for that than another 2,3 4 kids by her. No such offer is available to men. I'd rather subsidize some guys vasectomy than his 10 kids.

All we have to do is TAKE THE KIDS away and force the bitch to get her tubes tied and have her permanently banned from ANY government services other than job placement. If we're going to be paying for the kids in like foster homes at least give them a shot at being adopted by some people who CAN take care of them. Also to help adoption of these kids put a ban on foreign baby adoption and simply take care of OURSELVES first. Once we run out of babies THEN allow african and chinese babies to be brought in.

As opposed to GW Bush?

You're assuming these women know who the fathers actually are. If the father doesn't work then sure he gets thrown in jail but it's still MY dime paying for his kids and now I'm paying for his incarceration too on top of it. That really doesn't help anything.

I agree with you there but even if they opened a free vasectomy to everyone who wanted one starting tomorrow, how many do you think would go for it? Sadly, I bet very, very few.

Giving her a check is not going to help her. Her problem is that she fucks without protection knowing she's too poor to take care of any babies she makes. She a fucking whore PERIOD. And she's reatrded. Who keeps making babies they can't afford? Can she not say no to sex if she's against birth control?

You're probably right but for everyone who does it saves us money.
Every vasectomy would save $100 for every $1 it cost.

You guys all assume that foster care is a for-profit industry or something! Arrrr? Is everyone here saving up to buy a foster home, so they can get that new benz? heh