Quantcast The Daily Campus
College Media Network

The Daily Campus

Paul Right To Vote Against Rosa Parks Medal

Abstract:
When Congress voted to give Rosa Parks the Congressional Gold Medal, there was only one voice of dissent. Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has voted against giving the Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks, Mother Theresa and the Pope. Many people, given only this snippet of information have concluded that Congressman Paul is a bigot, a racist and just plain intolerant....

  • Displaying 1 - 43 of 43

Derek Johnson

posted 12/03/07 @ 8:55 AM EST

Excellent article. Ron Paul is not only the most principled man in Washington, he is one of the most principled men in the World.
Post a reply to this comment

Richard wicks

posted 12/03/07 @ 11:51 AM EST

Originally posted by

Derek Johnson

 Excellent article. Ron Paul is not only the most principled man in Washington, he is one of the most principled men in the World.


BWAHAHAHAHA!

I'm laughing because - it's probably true!
Post a reply to this comment

David McLeod

posted 12/03/07 @ 9:09 AM EST

Thanks for posting this article, very well written. Ron Paul also said that Rosa Parks was one of his person heros in an interview, can't remember which but it's on youtube.
Post a reply to this comment

Joshua Robinson

posted 12/03/07 @ 9:26 AM EST

Are you serious? We spend upwards of a billion dollars a day on an unjust war and you are gripping about $30,000!!! $30,000!!!! Incredible. And I bet you think Ron Paul has not pork? The guy vote for $129,000 to be appropriated for the "perfect Christmas tree project."
Post a reply to this comment

madmambodog

posted 12/03/07 @ 11:06 AM EST

Originally posted by

Joshua Robinson

 Are you serious? We spend upwards of a billion dollars a day on an unjust war and you are gripping about $30,000!!! $30,000!!!! Incredible. And I bet you think Ron Paul has not pork? The guy vote for $129,000 to be appropriated for the "perfect Christmas tree project."


Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who voted against the Iraq war, and the only one who would end it. And you're griping about $129,000?!? After 10 terms, he probably figured he ought to get his district something. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is better than any other candidate. While his recent pork votes are troubling (all in 2007), the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size. No one else is willing to do that. And, if he were president, he could change the pork game that he avoided for so many years. That's why I'm supporting him.
Post a reply to this comment

Ben Rutger

posted 12/03/07 @ 11:25 AM EST

Originally posted by

Joshua Robinson

 Are you serious? We spend upwards of a billion dollars a day on an unjust war and you are gripping about $30,000!!! $30,000!!!! Incredible. And I bet you think Ron Paul has not pork? The guy vote for $129,000 to be appropriated for the "perfect Christmas tree project."


Yes, $30,000. At least Ron Paul has the integrity to earmark anything he gives back to his district. You can't bring down Ron Paul with pork when he's the only fiscally responsible person in Congress and has opposed the military-industrial complex 1-trillion-dollar pork project in Iraq from the beginning.
Post a reply to this comment

hd

posted 12/03/07 @ 4:42 PM EST

Originally posted by

Joshua Robinson

 Are you serious? We spend upwards of a billion dollars a day on an unjust war and you are gripping about $30,000!!! $30,000!!!! Incredible. And I bet you think Ron Paul has not pork? The guy vote for $129,000 to be appropriated for the "perfect Christmas tree project."


He explained his reason for doing this. He doesn't think earmarks should be used but he still has to represent his constituency so he puts in as many earmarks as possible to give back as much as his constituents tax dollars as possible then votes against the spending bill.

Here's some words about it straight from ron...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY
Post a reply to this comment

plubius

posted 12/04/07 @ 10:13 AM EST

he wanted to give it to her but pay for it out of his own pocket and the dali laama one is supreme irony
Originally posted by

Joshua Robinson

 Are you serious? We spend upwards of a billion dollars a day on an unjust war and you are gripping about $30,000!!! $30,000!!!! Incredible. And I bet you think Ron Paul has not pork? The guy vote for $129,000 to be appropriated for the "perfect Christmas tree project."
Post a reply to this comment

Diana

posted 12/03/07 @ 9:31 AM EST

How can anyone not like this man?
Post a reply to this comment

Brian

posted 12/03/07 @ 9:33 AM EST

Ron Paul explained his position on Rosa Park and the medal here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so
Post a reply to this comment

David Harres

posted 12/03/07 @ 9:35 AM EST

It is good to see an article like this; showing how much of a "taxpayer's best friend" he is. 100 dollars is a penny to many congressmen, so what is wrong with asking for 100 dollars to donate to some great men and women? Ron Paul truly understands the rights of the government with taxpayer's money.
Post a reply to this comment

john

posted 12/03/07 @ 9:36 AM EST

Dr. Ron Paul was also one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in 1976. So when it was brought up to award Ronald Reagan the Congressional Gold Medal ($30,000 tax payer money) for his many years of service. You would think Dr. Ron Paul would vote "Yes" to his good friend, but he voted "No". Instead Paul proposed that each member of Congress to pay $100 out of his or her own pocket to cover the cost but the bill pass.

Ron Paul would deny his good friend your tax dollars but put up his own money to honor President Ronald Reagan.
Post a reply to this comment

Larry Cohen

posted 12/03/07 @ 9:52 AM EST

Originally posted by

john

 Dr. Ron Paul was also one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in 1976. So when it was brought up to award Ronald Reagan the Congressional Gold Medal ($30,000 tax payer money) for his many years of service. You would think Dr. Ron Paul would vote "Yes" to his good friend, but he voted "No". Instead Paul proposed that each member of Congress to pay $100 out of his or her own pocket to cover the cost but the bill pass.

Ron Paul would deny his good friend your tax dollars but put up his own money to honor President Ronald Reagan.


For all of you to laud this man because merely because he wants to save tax dollars is absurd. Should we be wasteful? No, but to deny a medal to a deserving recipient due to it's cost is Scrooge like. He's the guy who would vote against balloons at the office party to save a few dollars.
Post a reply to this comment

Lennon Zamora

posted 12/03/07 @ 12:53 PM EST

Originally posted by

john

 Dr. Ron Paul was also one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in 1976. So when it was brought up to award Ronald Reagan the Congressional Gold Medal ($30,000 tax payer money) for his many years of service. You would think Dr. Ron Paul would vote "Yes" to his good friend, but he voted "No". Instead Paul proposed that each member of Congress to pay $100 out of his or her own pocket to cover the cost but the bill pass.

Ron Paul would deny his good friend your tax dollars but put up his own money to honor President Ronald Reagan.


Good god man, are you BLIND??? Did you read the whole article or even the entire comment you quoted??? Pay attention now, I'll write big and simple so you'll see it this time:

HE OFFERED UP $100 OF HIS OWN MONEY TO PAY FOR THE MEDALS AND SUGGESTED EVERY OTHER CONGRESSMEN DO THE SAME.

How is that scrooge? Flippin' unbelievable.
Post a reply to this comment

Larry Cohen

posted 12/03/07 @ 9:55 AM EST

For you to laud this guy is ludicrous. He's not heroic. He's scrooge. Should we waste tax dollars? No. But to deny the medals due to their cost is absurd. He's the guy who would vote against balloons at the office party.
Post a reply to this comment

Amy

posted 12/03/07 @ 10:35 AM EST

Originally posted by

Larry Cohen

 For you to laud this guy is ludicrous. He's not heroic. He's scrooge. Should we waste tax dollars? No. But to deny the medals due to their cost is absurd. He's the guy who would vote against balloons at the office party.


Don't you understand principle? You are slamming him for following his principles with actions that are not popular by saying he wouldn't approve of balloons at an office party?

I understand your point, it does seem superficially absurd, but if you look a little deeper, you'll see that this means that we can trust him not to turn into a neocon or being a spineless liberal who does things for popular support. He wouldn't spend our money on anything to do with corporate swayings, to line a friend's pocket or to push his own agenda.

Think about it.
Post a reply to this comment

Eric N.

posted 12/03/07 @ 1:34 PM EST

Originally posted by

Larry Cohen

 For you to laud this guy is ludicrous. He's not heroic. He's scrooge. Should we waste tax dollars? No. But to deny the medals due to their cost is absurd. He's the guy who would vote against balloons at the office party.


Your Sir, are an ass. The government has no right to waste one dime of my money. If you're feeling philanthropic with your income why not give some to the global fund?

Four medals = $120,000 - how many starving children could we feed with that? How many TB vaccinations?

Do you turn off lights in your house when no one is in the room? If you don't your not very eco-friendly, if you do then you should understand and respect Ron Paul's priciples.

The man is founding father material, you're nuts if you don't vote for him.
Post a reply to this comment

Alexia

posted 12/03/07 @ 2:55 PM EST

Originally posted by

Larry Cohen

 Should we waste tax dollars? No. But to deny the medals due to their cost is absurd.


To deny the medals because of their cost is the only *legitimate* reason to deny them to people like Rosa Parks. Ron Paul gets it - I do not want my money to be spent by majority rule.
Post a reply to this comment

jay

posted 12/03/07 @ 3:11 PM EST

Originally posted by

Larry Cohen

 For you to laud this guy is ludicrous. He's not heroic. He's scrooge. Should we waste tax dollars? No. But to deny the medals due to their cost is absurd. He's the guy who would vote against balloons at the office party.


That's the whole point my friend. It's not their money to give away or award to anyone, no matter how wonderful they are. The money was stolen from taxpayers by force in the first place. Who gets the spoils of that theft--no matter how small--should be a HUGE issue with all taxpayers. I personally would prefer to keep my portion of the money they take from me so I can help put my children through school.
Post a reply to this comment

Traci

posted 12/03/07 @ 3:54 PM EST

I am sure he would of taken 100 dollars of your money if you freely gave it and put it in the pot for medals, dont be a dunce....you have free speech to make stupid comments like the one you made because of the constitution...vote for a man who puts that first. Opions dont matter, they are second to the constitutional mandate, and are never even considered when the powers that be spend our money.
Originally posted by

Larry Cohen

 For you to laud this guy is ludicrous. He's not heroic. He's scrooge. Should we waste tax dollars? No. But to deny the medals due to their cost is absurd. He's the guy who would vote against balloons at the office party.
Post a reply to this comment

JT

posted 12/04/07 @ 2:48 AM EST

Originally posted by

Larry Cohen

 For you to laud this guy is ludicrous. He's not heroic. He's scrooge. Should we waste tax dollars? No. But to deny the medals due to their cost is absurd. He's the guy who would vote against balloons at the office party.


It's called not spending other peoples money without need. You're against that? You must be a very young guy!
Post a reply to this comment

William Smith

posted 12/03/07 @ 10:16 AM EST

To Larry Cohen:

I have no desire for the government to make decisions about who gets frivolous medals with often a political motive behind it. These medals ARE solid gold. 30 thousand dollars worth of tax payer money to a single person is absurd. Paul OFFERED to contribute to pay for her medal!! Paul also would support balloons at the office party - the funds come from the company, which would be a private endeavor and the owners can decide what the rules are for the company and how it's money is spent.

People like you seem to think that the government as the right to do anything and control us. The federal government has no right to frivolously spend taxpayer money. The medal may be a small thing - but the pork keeps adding up.

And the war is of course WAY WORSE - and why Paul is very anti-war.
Post a reply to this comment

Timur Rozenfeld

posted 12/03/07 @ 10:37 AM EST

That's exactly who we want: a Scrooge with OUR money. It would be one thing if he just picked up that one issue and didn't want to spend for medals, but he is consistent and doesn't want to waste the people's money. We are 9 trillion dollars in debt. I think we desperately need a scrooge.
Post a reply to this comment

William

posted 12/03/07 @ 10:39 AM EST

Excellent article.
Not only did you totally get the point, you convey the message with expertise, so that everyone else gets the point too.
Post a reply to this comment

Robert Moore

posted 12/03/07 @ 10:44 AM EST

I'm a Ron Paul supporter. Early on in the campaign I was searching around for resources that might be able to help and that led me to the political cartoonists. I contacted them and asked if they knew of someone that might be sympathetic to the cause. I was reminded that many cartoonists have a sour taste in their mouths regarding Dr Paul because he did not vote to award Charles Shultze (Peanuts creator) the Congressional Gold Medal. I don't know if Dr Paul offered up $100 of his own money to pay for a Schultze medal or not but this goes to show you that he sticks to his principles even if it means that some crazed cartoonist may take it out on him this political season.
Post a reply to this comment

Jayson Levine

posted 12/03/07 @ 11:19 AM EST

Ron Paul is an anti-Semite. He is the only candidate who does not support Israel. He does like the war. He wants to stop financial help to all countries including Israel!!
Post a reply to this comment

Kevin

posted 12/03/07 @ 11:43 AM EST

Originally posted by

Jayson Levine

 Ron Paul is an anti-Semite. He is the only candidate who does not support Israel. He does like the war. He wants to stop financial help to all countries including Israel!!


It's about time American taxpayers STOP paying for Isreals military.
We don't pay for Africas military...does that make us Anti-African?
There are plenty of Jews who support Ron Paul. It's about time Isreal had the freedom to maintain their own sovergnty. If you want to support Isreals military then go move to Isreal. America can't even afford to pay for our own Military at the moment. Besides...Isreal has more then 200 Nukes. I think they can take care of themselves.
Post a reply to this comment

Laura

posted 12/03/07 @ 4:15 PM EST

Are you with the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce? Maybe many Americans are tired of our foreign policy towards Israel and anytime any American starts to rethink our foreign policy towards Israel..it is easier to you or anyone else to yell "Anti-semite". The discussion should be forced upon the American people and our politicians.
An open discussion about our foreign policy towards Israel isn't anti-semitic...it is the AMERICAN thing to do.
Originally posted by

Jayson Levine

 Ron Paul is an anti-Semite. He is the only candidate who does not support Israel. He does like the war. He wants to stop financial help to all countries including Israel!!
Post a reply to this comment

Tannim

posted 12/03/07 @ 4:27 PM EST

Originally posted by

Jayson Levine

 Ron Paul is an anti-Semite. He is the only candidate who does not support Israel. He does like the war. He wants to stop financial help to all countries including Israel!!


How in the world does ending ALL foreign aid to ALL nations, no matter what race, creed, color, or ethnicity, make Dr. Paul out to be anti-Semitic? I think you mistake economic policy for social policy, and that is a tragic fallacy that is completely illogical and invalid. I suggest you go to the Ron Paul Library and actually read what he has written on the subject.
Post a reply to this comment

JT

posted 12/04/07 @ 2:58 AM EST

Originally posted by

Jayson Levine

 Ron Paul is an anti-Semite. He is the only candidate who does not support Israel. He does like the war. He wants to stop financial help to all countries including Israel!!



What can I say? "Weakness begets weakness"........ do you understand?
Post a reply to this comment

Kevin

posted 12/03/07 @ 11:37 AM EST

Cheers! Finally someone giving the real story of why Ron Paul voted against these medals. As for "scrooge"? HE WANTED TO PAY FOR IT IN PART WITH HIS OWN MONEY. The Congress voted against PITCHING IN THEIR OWN MONEY to instead use OUR money. Ron Paul is the turning point of our Country. We would be soo lucky to have this man as our President.
Post a reply to this comment

mketcher

posted 12/03/07 @ 11:40 AM EST

Tired of the same old song-and-dance from your president? Here's a music video clip from the feature-length anti-war satire, "Song of the Dead," with the surprise Ron Paul message at the end.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw
Post a reply to this comment

mketcher

posted 12/03/07 @ 11:46 AM EST

Forgot to put in the music video link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw
Post a reply to this comment

deanne

posted 12/03/07 @ 11:53 AM EST

thanks for a great, accurate article.

to the disenters: think 30,000 dollars is no big deal?
people who are losing their homes, struggling to send their kids to college, unable to afford healthcare, or buying their clothes at Value World might feel otherwise. shows us just how uncaring Congress really is.
Post a reply to this comment

Tannim

posted 12/03/07 @ 4:23 PM EST

Originally posted by

deanne

 thanks for a great, accurate article.

to the disenters: think 30,000 dollars is no big deal?
people who are losing their homes, struggling to send their kids to college, unable to afford healthcare, or buying their clothes at Value World might feel otherwise. shows us just how uncaring Congress really is.


Agreed. $30K would pay off most of my FRN debt and make my economic life much more bearable, whose woes were brought on by the neocons spiking oil prices and beyond that cost-of-living prices. How many other people could use that kind of cash to save them from bankruptcy or foreclosure, all thanks to the neocons?
Post a reply to this comment

Nathan

posted 12/03/07 @ 12:28 PM EST

The point is not that $30,000 is a lot of money. The point is that **even when it's only $30,000** Ron Paul will not sway from his convictions. If only I had half the strength and courage to stand by my convictions as much as Ron Paul. God love Ron Paul!
Post a reply to this comment

New England Conservative

posted 12/03/07 @ 12:36 PM EST

Thanks again Daily Campus! This is the 2nd piece I've seen you publish about Dr. Paul and both have been fair. That's not a small accomplishment given the near total media smear effort against the good doctor. As for the medals, they're metaphors, which Dr. Paul has offerred to pay his share out of his pockets for these distinguished persons. Yet none of the other rich Congressmen are so motivated. I guess they're so used to spending our money, they know no other way.

If only Ron Paul were our next president, then hope would indeed be rekindled in this once great nation. Thanks again Daily Campus!
Post a reply to this comment

Bob C

posted 12/03/07 @ 12:56 PM EST

Rosa Parks is an American hero, but that's beside the point. Why not give medals to all the soldiers who are dying "bringing Democracy" uh I mean destroying WMD's in Iraq, um, I mean implementing a regime change, well okay
"shooting Tarrists" over there..none of that war is paid for yet what's another 20 or 30 million for medals huh? Maybe we could even give GW a big bunch of medals to wear when he's playing dress up soldier and giving speeches on flight decks...wouldn'tthat be cool???

To those who complain that it's "only $30,000" here's a solution...
Start an independent collection and raise the money yourself, be the first to kick in $50. The point being there are any number of "special interests" that we all could come up with that make perfect sense to us, maybe not to anyone else though. The problem isn't "only $30,000" it's the multitutde of special interests some of which are less than $30,000 and some much more that prolifierate and add up to a huge deficit and irresponsible spending.

Don't you find it ironic that NOBODY from Congress took Ron Paul up on the suggestion? Davey Crockett did a similar thing years ago and the same result was Congress wouldn't spend their personal money, but they're happy to spend
ours. Those who think this kind of spending is okay "because everybody does it" are short sighted and fail to see the inevitable result. Total fiscal chaos...and it's supposed to be "our" money. Why are most spending bills proposed in the first place...is it to help us or to appear to be helping us so "they" can get re-elected?
Look around, why are millionaires getting "farm subsidies", why do we have
a growing deficit? Rosa Parks is a true American hero, she deserves recognition
so take the bull by the horns and start a donation fund for her.
In the meantime I'll vote for scrooge, in case you hadn't noticed this country is deep in debt, a tight wad example wouldn't hurt us at all.
I for one want the smallest government possible anything else guarantees loss of liberty, higher taxes and corruption and a continuance of our overseas empire.
Post a reply to this comment

Mike

posted 12/03/07 @ 1:42 PM EST

He did not deny the medals. He suggested the medals be paid for by the members of congress. (BTW he offered up his hundred and had no other takers)

He wanted to give the medals...he just didn't want the tax payers to pay for it.

Exactly the kind of guy we need in the white house.
Post a reply to this comment

Rich

posted 12/03/07 @ 3:15 PM EST

Makes me proud to be American again.
Post a reply to this comment

Tom

posted 12/04/07 @ 1:21 AM EST

Here's a short video where Ron Paul eloquently talks about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so
Post a reply to this comment

Jason

posted 12/06/07 @ 12:25 AM EST

What a fantastic article. I've been devouring the Ron Paul coverage for weeks, and I've never come across this set of stories. Thank you again for a rational and enjoyable read.
Post a reply to this comment

Ron Lawl

posted 1/29/08 @ 10:28 AM EST

You're all idiots and sadly misinformed. Did any of you actually bother to read the bill in question, or did you just take Ron Paul's word for it? The medal wasn't paid for by tax dollars, it was paid for via the sale of replicas by the US Mint Fund. IT'S IN THE BILL. The US Mint is a self-funded agency that makes over 1 billion in revenue per year, and actually turns over a surplus. In other words, the Rosa Parks medal would have meant a net gain, not a net loss.

Ron Paul might have promised to chip in for the medal, and he was given the option to, by purchasing a replica. But did he? There's no report that he ever did.
Post a reply to this comment
  • Displaying 1 - 43 of 43

Post Your Comment

  • NOTE: Email address will not be published

Type your comment below (html not allowed)

  I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Advertisement

Advertisements

Poll

Do you feel safe on campus?
Submit Vote

View Results

Advertisement