Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You know, when you try to argue that you are the only one using your brain, people don't tend to care what you think, even if you are accurate.
I have seen little evidence that Ron Paul is the one person who is going to make the change. He's just another politician who has people conveniently ignoring his big government record.
The point in my comment is generalized adn sweeping deliberately. Because the wrong issues are the big-to-do of the day and even my friends and family are more concerned about abortion talks and other non federal gubmint issues. Who looks good, etc...It's not a jab at anyone in particular. But I must say, it looks dire in that regard.
Big government record? Doctor "no". You're going to bring up earmarks now, aren't you. Playing the game by the rules set in front of you while screaming about how it needs to change is a bit different than being a big govt. advocate. We have no other options that are viable. We have Paul. That's it.
Playing a game and making yourself a hypocrite.
You knew exactly what I was going to bring up. You just dont have the integrity to admit he's wrong for doing so.
The point in my comment is generalized adn sweeping deliberately. Because the wrong issues are the big-to-do of the day and even my friends and family are more concerned about abortion talks and other non federal gubmint issues. Who looks good, etc...It's not a jab at anyone in particular. But I must say, it looks dire in that regard.
Big government record? Doctor "no". You're going to bring up earmarks now, aren't you. Playing the game by the rules set in front of you while screaming about how it needs to change is a bit different than being a big govt. advocate. We have no other options that are viable. We have Paul. That's it.
Playing a game and making yourself a hypocrite.
You knew exactly what I was going to bring up. You just dont have the integrity to admit he's wrong for doing so.
Yes, I knew. Because it is all you have to go on on a "big government record" and kevin did a fine job pointing out why he does it. It doesn't make him a hypocrit. It makes him doing the work his constits. put him there to do. Look out for their interests and get their money back to them if possible.
I'm sorry, but Ron Paul's "big government record?"
He's obtained more earmarks for his district then just about every other person in Congress. Something you guys continually ignore because it's inconvenient for you.
If you believe in small government you don't add pork to bills. And you certainly don't add it to bills you know will pass so you can vote against them to mask your actions and decieve people.
I'd much prefer someone who is honest about his votes than someone trying to decieve people with them.
Of course we know that the money would be spent regardless of whether Ron Paul secures those earmarks or not, so I have no problem with him doing so. How is he dishonest about his votes? He explains his position every time this is brought up. He opposes the government spending money on these projects so he votes against them, but he knows that if he doesn't earmark the money for his district it's going to get spent somewhere else. So why should his district not get any return on the taxes they pay?
If Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich wins the nomination and chooses Rand Paul as their VP choice. Would you support the nominee despite it not being Ron Paul?
No. The Only way the GOP can gain my vote is if they hold the line on spending.
I have a better chance at being hit by lighting in an underground cave.
I respect you standing up for what you principally believe in, but you know Obama is going to spend ten time more....so why not vote for the lesser of the two evils?
He's obtained more earmarks for his district then just about every other person in Congress. Something you guys continually ignore because it's inconvenient for you.
If you believe in small government you don't add pork to bills. And you certainly don't add it to bills you know will pass so you can vote against them to mask your actions and decieve people.
I'd much prefer someone who is honest about his votes than someone trying to decieve people with them.
Of course we know that the money would be spent regardless of whether Ron Paul secures those earmarks or not, so I have no problem with him doing so. How is he dishonest about his votes? He explains his position every time this is brought up. He opposes the government spending money on these projects so he votes against them, but he knows that if he doesn't earmark the money for his district it's going to get spent somewhere else. So why should his district not get any return on the taxes they pay?
What Ron Paul has done is place an earmark in a bill he knows will pass, then he votes against the bill so he can say he voted against the bill. But in all honesty he knew going in the bill would pass regardless of his vote. Why else would he install an earmark then vote against his own damn earmark?
Sometimes common sense is in order.
He's obtained more earmarks for his district then just about every other person in Congress. Something you guys continually ignore because it's inconvenient for you.
If you believe in small government you don't add pork to bills. And you certainly don't add it to bills you know will pass so you can vote against them to mask your actions and decieve people.
I'd much prefer someone who is honest about his votes than someone trying to decieve people with them.
Of course we know that the money would be spent regardless of whether Ron Paul secures those earmarks or not, so I have no problem with him doing so. How is he dishonest about his votes? He explains his position every time this is brought up. He opposes the government spending money on these projects so he votes against them, but he knows that if he doesn't earmark the money for his district it's going to get spent somewhere else. So why should his district not get any return on the taxes they pay?
What Ron Paul has done is place an earmark in a bill he knows will pass, then he votes against the bill so he can say he voted against the bill. But in all honesty he knew going in the bill would pass regardless of his vote. Why else would he install an earmark then vote against his own damn earmark?
Sometimes common sense is in order.
Yeah he did. And then 9/11 happened. People who cricitize Bush on that tend to conveniently leave that out.
The Republic isn't going to be saved by one person.
Yes, of course. Iraq had so much to do with the Saudi hijackers that flew planes into the towers on 9/11.
You're right. the republic isn't going to be saved by one person. But one person in a position to change the national tone and talk and get people using their brain again could. Best shot we have at it....
You know, when you try to argue that you are the only one using your brain, people don't tend to care what you think, even if you are accurate.
I have seen little evidence that Ron Paul is the one person who is going to make the change. He's just another politician who has people conveniently ignoring his big government record.
He's obtained more earmarks for his district then just about every other person in Congress. Something you guys continually ignore because it's inconvenient for you.
If you believe in small government you don't add pork to bills. And you certainly don't add it to bills you know will pass so you can vote against them to mask your actions and decieve people.
I'd much prefer someone who is honest about his votes than someone trying to decieve people with them.
Of course we know that the money would be spent regardless of whether Ron Paul secures those earmarks or not, so I have no problem with him doing so. How is he dishonest about his votes? He explains his position every time this is brought up. He opposes the government spending money on these projects so he votes against them, but he knows that if he doesn't earmark the money for his district it's going to get spent somewhere else. So why should his district not get any return on the taxes they pay?
What Ron Paul has done is place an earmark in a bill he knows will pass, then he votes against the bill so he can say he voted against the bill. But in all honesty he knew going in the bill would pass regardless of his vote. Why else would he install an earmark then vote against his own damn earmark?
Sometimes common sense is in order.
Yes, of course. Iraq had so much to do with the Saudi hijackers that flew planes into the towers on 9/11.
You're right. the republic isn't going to be saved by one person. But one person in a position to change the national tone and talk and get people using their brain again could. Best shot we have at it....
You know, when you try to argue that you are the only one using your brain, people don't tend to care what you think, even if you are accurate.
I have seen little evidence that Ron Paul is the one person who is going to make the change. He's just another politician who has people conveniently ignoring his big government record.
I promised myself I was going to be civil on these boards and bite my tongue rather than be verbally abusive, but this kind of statement has me BLEEDING. What in the name of all that is Holy are you talking about?
Then there is this. I've had to endure years of ridicule, slander, name calling, marginalization and down right vehement disrespect because I support the cause for liberty and the constitution by backing RP.The GOP has gone too far out of its way to piss off Paul and his supporters.
No. What is Rand going to do as VP? Nothing. It's not about the cult of personality, as some people try to assert, but about getting our ideas put into effect. Rand as VP is not going to influence Mitt Romney to do anything substantial about the Federal Reserve, he's not going to get Mitt to change our foreign policy, and he's not going to get Mitt to cut any real spending. There'd be no point. I also think it would be bad for Rand because it would then tie Rand to Mitt's policies.
Are you saying you would vote for President Obama instead?
That is an honest question. I am not a Paul supporter nor do I intend on voting for either of the major parties again this year. I just don't see any reason to support either party any more.
Immie
No, I have no intention of voting for Obama over any of the Republicans. I see them as being the same and I can't support any of them. I suspect that Gary Johnson is a lock for the Libertarian Party nomination, but I won't vote for him either. I'll have to see who the Constitution Party candidate is before I make any final decision, but it may turn out that I have nobody to vote for for President.
Are you saying you would vote for President Obama instead?
That is an honest question. I am not a Paul supporter nor do I intend on voting for either of the major parties again this year. I just don't see any reason to support either party any more.
Immie
No, I have no intention of voting for Obama over any of the Republicans. I see them as being the same and I can't support any of them. I suspect that Gary Johnson is a lock for the Libertarian Party nomination, but I won't vote for him either. I'll have to see who the Constitution Party candidate is before I make any final decision, but it may turn out that I have nobody to vote for for President.
Kevin, just curious why would you not vote for Gary Johnson? I was excited when he came on the scene because he carried much the same message of Paul, but with more youth and less "crazy uncle". After Paul's previous run, the party and media couldn't ignore him again like they had. Instead, they gave Johnson the "Paul treatment" this go round.
Playing a game and making yourself a hypocrite.
You knew exactly what I was going to bring up. You just dont have the integrity to admit he's wrong for doing so.
Of course we know that the money would be spent regardless of whether Ron Paul secures those earmarks or not, so I have no problem with him doing so. How is he dishonest about his votes? He explains his position every time this is brought up. He opposes the government spending money on these projects so he votes against them, but he knows that if he doesn't earmark the money for his district it's going to get spent somewhere else. So why should his district not get any return on the taxes they pay?
What Ron Paul has done is place an earmark in a bill he knows will pass, then he votes against the bill so he can say he voted against the bill. But in all honesty he knew going in the bill would pass regardless of his vote. Why else would he install an earmark then vote against his own damn earmark?
Sometimes common sense is in order.
And who disputes that this is what happens? The important point is that the money is going to be spent regardless so why shouldn't he do this? And how is it being a hypocrite or a liar when he tells you this is what he's doing?
Then there is this. I've had to endure years of ridicule, slander, name calling, marginalization and down right vehement disrespect because I support the cause for liberty and the constitution by backing RP.The GOP has gone too far out of its way to piss off Paul and his supporters.
Now, now that the GOP field is seeing that his support base is actually going to sway this election, they want to tone down the nasty talk about us and try and play nice to win support back. Not happening from this guy. The GOP, after Paul, can go F*** themselves. Sorry.
What Ron Paul has done is place an earmark in a bill he knows will pass, then he votes against the bill so he can say he voted against the bill. But in all honesty he knew going in the bill would pass regardless of his vote. Why else would he install an earmark then vote against his own damn earmark?
Sometimes common sense is in order.
And who disputes that this is what happens? The important point is that the money is going to be spent regardless so why shouldn't he do this? And how is it being a hypocrite or a liar when he tells you this is what he's doing?
He's got you fooled.
Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members. These earmark requests include:
$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
$2.5 million from taxpayers for "new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting."
$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an "Economically Disadvantaged" area.
$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a "Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center."
$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to "encourage parents to read aloud to their children."
$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
$4 million from federal taxpayers for the "Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative."
$11 million from federal taxpayers for a "Community-Based Job Training Program."
$2 million from federal taxpayers for a "Clean Energy" pilot project.
$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
$1.2 million for a "Low-income working families Day Care Program"
$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.
All of the above earmarks can be found on Paul's own congressional website. While Paul does not digitize the requests prior to FY 2011, they're still available as PDFs. Paul typically will make the earmark request, but then votes against or abstains from voting on final passage, so he can maintain his claim to have "never voted for an earmark", even the earmark requests he himself made. He defends the practice here.
Ron Paul, big-government libertarian
The Texas Republican defends his record, telling Fox Newss Neil Cavuto in a 2009 interview that earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. And besides, he explained, he votes no on all his own earmarks anyway. I think youre missing the point, he told Cavuto, "Ive never voted for an earmark, Ive never voted for an appropriations bill.
But that is exactly the point. His strategy is to stuff legislation with earmarks that benefit his constituents and thus his reelection, and then vote against the overall bill knowing full well it will pass over his objections so he can claim to have opposed all the spending in the first place.
Consider Pauls record. The libertarian Reason magazine points out that in 2009 Paul voted against a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that passed over his objections. But the magazine notes (quoting the Houston Chronicle) that Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million, which led the Houston congressional delegation, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally mandated projects inserted into the bill.
Thus Paul got to have it both ways: He could claim to have voted against a $410 billion taxpayer boondoggle, while simultaneously vacuuming up tens of millions in taxpayer dollars for his congressional district.
Of course we know that the money would be spent regardless of whether Ron Paul secures those earmarks or not, so I have no problem with him doing so. How is he dishonest about his votes? He explains his position every time this is brought up. He opposes the government spending money on these projects so he votes against them, but he knows that if he doesn't earmark the money for his district it's going to get spent somewhere else. So why should his district not get any return on the taxes they pay?
What Ron Paul has done is place an earmark in a bill he knows will pass, then he votes against the bill so he can say he voted against the bill. But in all honesty he knew going in the bill would pass regardless of his vote. Why else would he install an earmark then vote against his own damn earmark?
Sometimes common sense is in order.
You're right, common sense is in order.
If a judge told you that you had to rack up $100,000 in debt even if you didn't want to, wouldn't you want it spent on things that benefit you?
So overall the debt sucks, but you're making the worst of a terrible situation that reps and dems forced on you.
What Ron Paul has done is place an earmark in a bill he knows will pass, then he votes against the bill so he can say he voted against the bill. But in all honesty he knew going in the bill would pass regardless of his vote. Why else would he install an earmark then vote against his own damn earmark?
Sometimes common sense is in order.
And who disputes that this is what happens? The important point is that the money is going to be spent regardless so why shouldn't he do this? And how is it being a hypocrite or a liar when he tells you this is what he's doing?
He's got you fooled.
Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members. These earmark requests include:
$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
$2.5 million from taxpayers for "new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting."
$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an "Economically Disadvantaged" area.
$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a "Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center."
$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to "encourage parents to read aloud to their children."
$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
$4 million from federal taxpayers for the "Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative."
$11 million from federal taxpayers for a "Community-Based Job Training Program."
$2 million from federal taxpayers for a "Clean Energy" pilot project.
$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
$1.2 million for a "Low-income working families Day Care Program"
$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility.
All of the above earmarks can be found on Paul's own congressional website. While Paul does not digitize the requests prior to FY 2011, they're still available as PDFs. Paul typically will make the earmark request, but then votes against or abstains from voting on final passage, so he can maintain his claim to have "never voted for an earmark", even the earmark requests he himself made. He defends the practice here.
Ron Paul, big-government libertarian
The Texas Republican defends his record, telling Fox Newss Neil Cavuto in a 2009 interview that earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. And besides, he explained, he votes no on all his own earmarks anyway. I think youre missing the point, he told Cavuto, "Ive never voted for an earmark, Ive never voted for an appropriations bill.
But that is exactly the point. His strategy is to stuff legislation with earmarks that benefit his constituents and thus his reelection, and then vote against the overall bill knowing full well it will pass over his objections so he can claim to have opposed all the spending in the first place.
Consider Pauls record. The libertarian Reason magazine points out that in 2009 Paul voted against a $410 billion omnibus spending bill that passed over his objections. But the magazine notes (quoting the Houston Chronicle) that Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million, which led the Houston congressional delegation, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally mandated projects inserted into the bill.
Thus Paul got to have it both ways: He could claim to have voted against a $410 billion taxpayer boondoggle, while simultaneously vacuuming up tens of millions in taxpayer dollars for his congressional district.
That's not the point dumbass.
Paul request earmarks on bills he knows will pass without his input, then votes against them so he can say "I have never voted for an earmark".
But if Ron Paul supporters have no problem being decieved, then so be it.
