Don't Let The Door Hit You In The Ass On The Way Out, Ron

[Tiberius]

I wouldn't call it pandering when it's been their intention all along. I can't think of an instance where Ron Paul has said he'll vote one way and then votes another, or says he supports something and then votes against it to appease his party.

[TaraJo]

He is not a racist. I thought we'd cleared up this issue before.

No, but he has the same problem most Republicans have: they aren't directly racist, but they sure don't seem to have a problem with racists following them. In the case of Ron Paul, the fact that he believes the civil rights bill of 1964 gives them a solid reason to support him.

[Anomalocaris]

Yeah, he smeared himself from head to foot with excrement in a clean way, and without pandering to the excrement, of course. He is never, well, hardly ever, know to not stink after he farts. This consistency is clearly to be valued above the fact that he failed to not be offensive.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm glad to see him go precisely -because- he's consistent. A consistent shill, that is. There's some narrative floating around that he isn't a wholly owned double-speaking subsidiary of so and so like any other politician...but lets look at just a small sample of his voting record....

He apparently thinks that we should develop energy independence, good for him. He also, apparently, thinks that big oil subsidies are not ok. However......

Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. (Apr 2011)
Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008)
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)

Wedged between all of these votes is an inexplicable one....

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Sometime between January and June of 07 (when he made the comment about oil subsidies) he appears to have decided that big oil subsidies aren't okay after all...no worries..people can change their minds. His comments against oil subsidies conveniently appeared at the GOP debate at St. Anselm in 07. When he's angling for fucking office he tells us he doesn't like subsidizing big oil...but back in Washington casting his vote he's all about it. Hey Ron, hows about Big Oil finding oil on it's own goddamned dime eh?

........we'll continue...looking into the past.

Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)

To me, his voting record seems to indicate a person very much in the pocket of oil. Consistently so, you might say.

Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
This rating was given in 06....and despite his comment in 2012 about developing energy independence I don't see anything in his voting record in the 6 year interim that would alter that rating.

Now, if you'd like the full quotes and their sources, the arguments for and against each of these bills what I think you'll find is an even more descriptive and inescapable pile of political doublespeak. What irritates me about Ron Paul is not Ron Paul, but the folks who are incapable of sifting through his voting record and recognizing that he does not live up to his hype. He -does- vote the party line, consistently, he offers token resistance to dead-in-the-water issues (though he also sets himself up to benefit from those positions he opposes..check his record on voting no to government spending, including his own proposals....knowing full goddamned well that his no vote means jack shit- and his requests are going to get greenlighted. Brilliant political dance right there.)

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm

---

The constitution that a shitbag like Paul is talking about was written in 1789.

All the changes since then are outside of his world view.


By the way, that was the headline of the story. I've heard all I ever care to from Paul...and his fucking stupid-ass son.

Don't even get me started on that son a bitch. Ever since I signed a damned petition here in Kentucky my email has been getting spammed with pro-life bullshit from his office. His record is even more dismal than his fathers (impressive..because it's not nearly as long...). The apple didn't fall far from the tree, and in one generation it appears to have gained significantly higher levels of genetically driven ideological purity......
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Rand_Paul.htm

[Something completely different]

hitler said his generals failed him

You seem to have nazi turets

[Darth]

Criminalise OPEC? huh? Good luck with that one.

So this oil exploration and subsidy bill... jan 2007...
http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/ron_paul.htm (your link), click on the full quotes section, leads to this:

Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.

Creating Long-term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act
Title I: Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act--denying a deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil, natural gas, or their related primary products.
Title II: Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act--to incorporate specified price thresholds for royalties on oil & gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
Title III: Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve--makes the Reserve available to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels.

...

Reference: Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation(CLEAN); Bill HR 6 ("First 100 hours") ; vote number 2007-040 on Jan 18, 2007

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm

Now, was it a vote on just the title I, or do all those 3 come as a package?
Im under the impression it's all 3 as a package, so it's the removal of a tax deduction for domestic oil (and whatever title II does, charging oil companies more for their mining leases in the gulf of mexico (why not elsewhere?)?), but the creation of a subsidies for other energy? But what are the sizes and what forms of energy? Ethanol? Also, congressional research reports on wikileaks seem to think that the bill (at least the later senate amendment) would allow for some of that money to go right back to oil companies... (I looked up Strategic Energy Efficiency And Renewables Reserve, was one of the first links to pop up). The initial bill http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr...0hr6ih.pdf seems to say that only the funds raised by titles I & II can be used for title III.

I'd be interested in seeing exactly who the title III recipients were going to be... it doesn't seem to say...

It seems to me that saying "Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies" is disingenuous, "voted no on a piece of legislation with no net change in subsidies**+ (an increase in charges that are then used to fund subsidies, which would make it a net increase in subsidies*), and then making the recipients of the funds raised a bunch of yet to be decideds (but trust us)" might be a better way of putting it **. Seems suss to me.

*I'm still not entirely sure about title II, rest seems clear(ish), this point depends on what title II is.

**let's not get into tax break = subsidy, it doesn't, but that's not the point of the argument, even when calling the tax break a subsidy, which this bill eliminates, the result still seems to be either a no change or an increase in subsidies.

Rest of them don't look unlibertarian (which is why I harped on about this one, which did appear unlibertarian as first reported) =) (A libertarian case can be made for a revenue neutral carbon tax, but that's not what was on offer was it)

[Tiberius]

Way to miss the big picture Rhythm. Ron Paul is a man of principles; he is in favour of energy independence, but by allowing the free market to do it, rather than forcing companies or "incentivising" them to focus on alternative energy sources. He's anti corporate welfare...of course he's going to vote against things that give tax credits.

[festive1]

Way to miss the big picture Rhythm. Ron Paul is a man of principles; he is in favour of energy independence, but by allowing the free market to do it, rather than forcing companies or "incentivising" them to focus on alternative energy sources. He's anti corporate welfare...of course he's going to vote against things that give tax credits.

But how do we get clean energy without incentives? We won't make the energy companies become public (government run), maybe we shouldn't... But how to get the big energy companies to become cleaner? I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but pragmatically speaking how do we get from where we are now to green energy?

[Something completely different]

But how do we get clean energy without incentives? We won't make the energy companies become public (government run), maybe we shouldn't... But how to get the big energy companies to become cleaner? I'm not in favor of corporate welfare either, but pragmatically speaking how do we get from where we are now to green energy?

Subsidations? Could work? Did work in the US where 97% of subsidized greenenergy companies flurished and are now independant participants of the market.

[festive1]

Subsidations? Could work? Did work in the US where 97% of subsidized greenenergy companies flurished and are now independant participants of the market.

Aren't subsidies just another way of saying "incentives?" Damn corporations are what really runs America.