Couple of opposition points...

[nullvalu]

Trying to combat a couple points of opposition from someone, but not sure how to respond on a couple of them..

he claims paul..

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

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

-Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)

-Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

 

[bc2208]

1 - He is against gay adoption/not sure if he did vote
2,3 - He's probably against any regulation of campaign financing just as he is against controlled markets, he also knows you can't buy support like ours
4- not sure

keep in mind that a lot of these bills, such as the "protect america act," have titles and summaries that sound like they should be sure bets to pass, but include text that could oppose paul's position, ie net neutrality.

 

[Dustancostine]

He probably voted against Gay adoption because it is not a federal issue. But a local issue.

--Dustan

 

[nullvalu]

He probably voted against Gay adoption because it is not a federal issue. But a local issue.

--Dustan

this claims he voted Yes to banning gay adoptions..

 

[bc2208]

No, he is personally against gay adoption and gay marraige. He probably opposes federal regulation either way and definitely opposes an amendment.

If you friend claims these things, ask him for the text of the legislation so you can see what exactly the vote was for, not just a pithy title.

 

[CodeMonkey]

One of the powers enumerated for Congress is to be the local legislative body for Washington, D.C. So they do have the Constitutional authority to do things like banning gay adoption in D.C., and Dr. Paul may very well have voted for that.

 

[0zzy]

One of the powers enumerated for Congress is to be the local legislative body for Washington, D.C. So they do have the Constitutional authority to do things like banning gay marriage in D.C., and Dr. Paul may very well have voted for that.

He views it as an economic issue, which is sorta a whole different way of looking at it rofl. He doesn't want to expand the welfare state (by granting more people benefits for marriage).

 

[bc2208]

He doesn't want to expand the welfare state (by granting more people benefits for marriage).

I'm not sure thats correct. In that case you would be sacrificing freedom for fiscal responsibility. More likely he is morally opposed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[klamath]

I can't answer all of them but I believe as a Christian he would be against it. Washington DC is governed by Congress. If the bill was a federal ban on all gay adoptions across the country I am sure he would have voted against as a states issue.
As bc2208 pointed out all these campaign finance laws is government trying to limit our freedom of speech. We are as individuals fired up to support Ron Paul and want to raise money to get his name recognition up and inform people but our abilities to do that are hampered buy limits and regulation. This is regulating our free speech. It is a common myth that the man with the most money wins. A candidate with no name recognition needs money to get his name and ideas out there but once he has done that huge amounts of money is not going to have as big an impact.
On the last one I would have to see the bill. If he can quote the bill where it can be read that would be a help.

 

[bc2208]

It is a common myth that the man with the most money wins. QUOTE]

Draw a parallel with baseball, above a certain point (about 98 wins), the marginal cost per win is not justified by the increased revenue from playoff appearances.

 

[0zzy]

I'm not sure thats correct. In that case you would be sacrificing freedom for fiscal responsibility. More likely he is morally opposed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

He answered that in a interview. Not sure where the interview is though.

 

[jpa]

campaign finance restriction is a restrictment of personal freedom. Where does the federal government get its power to restrict who I give my money to? Transparency on who is financing public office is a good thing (protect the citizen's privacy, not public office secrecy)

Gay mariage is a local issue, and Dr. Paul voted against it in his locality (DC).

Not sure on the intel one, but foreign intel gathering is constitutional, so I am pretty sure Dr. Paul believeed that bill had zero chance of domestic intel when voting on it.

 

[Swmorgan77]

Trying to combat a couple points of opposition from someone, but not sure how to respond on a couple of them..

he claims paul..

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

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

-Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)

-Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

It seems to me like voting No on campaign finance would be a badge of honor at this point... conservatives were upset with Bush for signing it, they expected a veto.

I guess coming from a left-wing perspective, just explain that the answer to corrupt campaigns is LESS government control, not more. Explain that real candidates with popular support are MUCH more hampered by campaign finance laws than the "big boys" with corporate sponsors up the wazoo.

 

[angelatc]

He probably voted against Gay adoption because it is not a federal issue. But a local issue.

--Dustan

The vote was to ban gay adoption in DC. Congress is sort of a local government for DC.

 

[Swmorgan77]

Yeah exactly Congress sets the local policies for D.C.

I personally don't have a problem with that vote, and I don't think a lot of Republicans will, but I can see from a liberal or pure libertarian standpoint how that could bother someone.

 

[dmitchell]

Paul did not vote to ban gay adoption. He voted for an amendment to a DC appropriations bill to "prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." Hardly a ban on gay adoption.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Paul did not vote to ban gay adoption. He voted for an amendment to a DC appropriations bill to "prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." Hardly a ban on gay adoption.

Thanks for that info. Makes me feel better.

 

[Slugg]

Trying to combat a couple points of opposition from someone, but not sure how to respond on a couple of them..

he claims paul..

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

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

-Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)

-Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

To be honest, there is no way of knowing why he voted the way he did. It's like "NAFTA", he voted against it (for good reason) but as a result; he has been marked by some as "Anti-Free Trade"....so, I say you would have to read those bills and try to figure out why he voted the way he did....there was probably something in there that wasn't kosher.

 

[foofighter20x]

Trying to combat a couple points of opposition from someone, but not sure how to respond on a couple of them..

he claims paul..

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

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

-Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)

-Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

1) Congress has exclusive and full legislative power over DC. See Article I, Section 8, clause 17.

2) Free speech. And you really ought to be free to do whatever you want with your money.

3) See number 2.

4) Dunno 'bout this one... Did that give a bill number or name the Act?

 

[nullvalu]

4) Dunno 'bout this one... Did that give a bill number or name the Act?

Still waiting on one.. He says he was wrong and thinks the year this happened was 2007, not 2006.. lol