CNN Arizona debate thread

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is it your contention that his constituents have less right to their own money because their Rep has principles?

The point is Paul gets the pork also.

What makes that a BAD thing?

The fact that they (as in all of them) blow our money on pet projects thinking they know how to better spend our money.

Earmarks need to be banned. If something is worthy of investment it should be voted on independently. Otherwise return the money to its rightful owners.

Paul is playing both sides of the issue.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The point is Paul gets the pork also.

What makes that a BAD thing?

The fact that they (as in all of them) blow our money on pet projects thinking they know how to better spend our money.

Earmarks need to be banned. If something is worthy of investment it should be voted on independently. Otherwise return the money to its rightful owners.

Paul is playing both sides of the issue.

It is the system in place, and Dr. Paul has a responsibility to his constituents to operate within that system. I don't see any of this faux outrage directed at any OTHER members of Congress. Why is that?

 

[Full-Auto]

What makes that a BAD thing?

The fact that they (as in all of them) blow our money on pet projects thinking they know how to better spend our money.

Earmarks need to be banned. If something is worthy of investment it should be voted on independently. Otherwise return the money to its rightful owners.

Paul is playing both sides of the issue.

It is the system in place, and Dr. Paul has a responsibility to his constituents to operate within that system. I don't see any of this faux outrage directed at any OTHER members of Congress. Why is that?

"PORK IS THE REASON CONGRESS EXISTS" Democrat Norm Dicks.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You're entitled to your opinion, right, wrong or indifferent. Congress approval at 9%, though. Good target for rocks, IMHO.

9 percent approval and your guy is right in the middle of it.


He's part of the problem and has been since 1996. Well actuually before that in 1979 when he first served as Rep.


So he's throwing rocks at himself which further proves he's an idiot.

Once again that's your opinion. His constituents seem to think he's doing a good job in representing them, therefore they keep re-electing them.

Your logic escapes me, though. If Congress overall approval rating is 9%, and a member of Congress spends his entire career going AGAINST the status quo, how does that member deserve the slings and arrows lofted towards Congress in general?

In short, he doesn't.

His constituents are idiots too as well as his supporters.

They re-elected him because no one has really ever challenged him for one and two, the few good ideas he spoke of in the past were good ones and they seemed to out-weigh the bad ones. But the fact is, he has never been presidential material and he never will be. You may as well come to grips with that fact.

Trust me, I know this because he represents my district.

You're right that Paul does go against the status quo, meaning he doesn't always side with his party, he oft times sides with the Democrats.

 

[Peach]

What makes that a BAD thing?

The fact that they (as in all of them) blow our money on pet projects thinking they know how to better spend our money.

Earmarks need to be banned. If something is worthy of investment it should be voted on independently. Otherwise return the money to its rightful owners.

Paul is playing both sides of the issue.

It is the system in place, and Dr. Paul has a responsibility to his constituents to operate within that system. I don't see any of this faux outrage directed at any OTHER members of Congress. Why is that?

Nor do I GP, but Paul runs against earmarks. I realize he is between a rock and a hard place.

 

[GuyPinestra]

9 percent approval and your guy is right in the middle of it.


He's part of the problem and has been since 1996. Well actuually before that in 1979 when he first served as Rep.


So he's throwing rocks at himself which further proves he's an idiot.

Once again that's your opinion. His constituents seem to think he's doing a good job in representing them, therefore they keep re-electing them.

Your logic escapes me, though. If Congress overall approval rating is 9%, and a member of Congress spends his entire career going AGAINST the status quo, how does that member deserve the slings and arrows lofted towards Congress in general?

In short, he doesn't.

His constituents are idiots too as well as his supporters.

They re-elected him because no one has really ever challenged him for one and two, the few good ideas he spoke of in the past were good ones and they seemed to out-weigh the bad ones. But the fact is, he has never been presidential material and he never will be. You may as well come to grips with that fact.

Trust me, I know this because he represents my district.

You're right that Paul does go against the status quo, meaning he doesn't always side with his party, he oft times sides with the Democrats.

In other words, anyone who disagrees with YOU is an idiot. Got it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Once again that's your opinion. His constituents seem to think he's doing a good job in representing them, therefore they keep re-electing them.

Your logic escapes me, though. If Congress overall approval rating is 9%, and a member of Congress spends his entire career going AGAINST the status quo, how does that member deserve the slings and arrows lofted towards Congress in general?

In short, he doesn't.

His constituents are idiots too as well as his supporters.

They re-elected him because no one has really ever challenged him for one and two, the few good ideas he spoke of in the past were good ones and they seemed to out-weigh the bad ones. But the fact is, he has never been presidential material and he never will be. You may as well come to grips with that fact.

Trust me, I know this because he represents my district.

You're right that Paul does go against the status quo, meaning he doesn't always side with his party, he oft times sides with the Democrats.

In other words, anyone who disagrees with YOU is an idiot. Got it.

No, just those that support Ron Paul.

 

[GuyPinestra]

His constituents are idiots too as well as his supporters.

They re-elected him because no one has really ever challenged him for one and two, the few good ideas he spoke of in the past were good ones and they seemed to out-weigh the bad ones. But the fact is, he has never been presidential material and he never will be. You may as well come to grips with that fact.

Trust me, I know this because he represents my district.

You're right that Paul does go against the status quo, meaning he doesn't always side with his party, he oft times sides with the Democrats.

In other words, anyone who disagrees with YOU is an idiot. Got it.

No, just those that support Ron Paul.

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Loinestar is probably more familiar with the pros and cons of Ron Paul than the rest of us who know him only via the debates and otherwise via edited short TV clips, sound bites, media perception (that will frequently be flawed), propaganda hype promoted by his supporters, and his voting record.

But I will have to say, immodestly perhaps, that I can generally trust my perceptions re a person's character if I have some time to observe them, and my perception re Ron Paul is that he is the real deal. Of all the candidates, he may be the most honest and the least likely to spin a position. He described himself last night as 'consistent' and I would agree with that. One thing I really appreciate about him is that he is the least likely to intentionally and dishonestly attack his opponents. I really get perterbed with Romney and Santorum who are doing mostly that these days. The only thing that makes that just barely forgivable is the concept that it is necessary in the political arena these days.

Again, purely because of his foreign policy naivete, Paul is last on my list of GOP candidates, both those still in the running, and those who have suspended their campaigns. Nevertheless, should he be the GOP nominee, I will vote for him (or any one of the other hopefuls) in a heartbeat, and without reservation, over Barack Obama. He would in no way do the damage to the country in going on four years that has been done by the current occupant in the White House.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I think Newt did best last night. Santorum seemed kind of "bratty" at times.
"Oh you balanced a budget, that's your jo. Big deal!"
Well yes Ricky, it actually IS a big Fcuking deal.
Mitt did well but he was owned on the fact that he has done so much flip-flopping.
I always love listening to Ron Paul. I won't vote for him but he IS a breath of freash air.

 

[Liability]

Q: Are you going to answer the question?

Romney: You get to ask the questions you want, I get to give the answers I want.

An emerging GOP theme (and, imho, a valid one) is taking on the press/media itself. The bias the media exhibits is all too clear. Make their bias an issue. I think we're starting to see it.

Good. It's healthy.

People do not trust politicians. But the American people do not trust the media, either. For good reason.

"emerging GOP theme"? Are you old enough to remember VP Agnew and his attacks on the press?

That was a long time ago.

And VP Agnew wasn't exactly deft in his ability to address the partisan leftist bias of the liberal media.

Since then, though, the candidates themselves ALMOST always give the press a free pass.

That is coming to an end.

 

[Liability]

Ron Paul is an idiot.

He threw rocks at congress. HE'S PART OF CONGRESS!

Yeah, he's that "part of Congress" they nicknamed Dr. No. Whenever the vote is 434-1, you can find him bucking the system. He's been doing it for years, and it's a damned shame nobody else has listened to him up to this point.

Yeah..he "bucks" the system alright. As in larding bills with pork and then not voting for them.

He knows they will pass..and he still gets to look clean.

It is a duplicitous smarmy little fraudulent petty trick. And yes. It is what he does.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Yeah, he's that "part of Congress" they nicknamed Dr. No. Whenever the vote is 434-1, you can find him bucking the system. He's been doing it for years, and it's a damned shame nobody else has listened to him up to this point.

Yeah..he "bucks" the system alright. As in larding bills with pork and then not voting for them.

He knows they will pass..and he still gets to look clean.

It is a duplicitous smarmy little fraudulent petty trick. And yes. It is what he does.

Quick, somebody call a WAAAAAHmbulance!!

 

[Liability]

Yeah..he "bucks" the system alright. As in larding bills with pork and then not voting for them.

He knows they will pass..and he still gets to look clean.

It is a duplicitous smarmy little fraudulent petty trick. And yes. It is what he does.

Quick, somebody call a WAAAAAHmbulance!!

No need. You're already there for RuPaul to tell him how great he is despite what a phony he has been.

Because, let's get real: Your dedication to principles is smaller than even RuPaul's.