ladyliberal
Progressive Princess
- Aug 5, 2011
- 1,253
- 291
- 48
Romney calls for not favoring one type of energy over another through specific government policies. Then he calls for opening up oil and natural gas.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ron paul is full of it!
He puts earmarks in bills he KNOWS will pass without his vote and then votes no.
He tries to have it both ways.
You're an idiot... Pay attention.
You think that guy is an idiot? No way!
Romney calls for not favoring one type of energy over another through specific government policies. Then he calls for opening up oil and natural gas.
You're an idiot... Pay attention.
You think that guy is an idiot? No way!
Riiiiiiiight, you are not helping your case by pretending you don't understand me.
How the hell else is he supposed to get the money expropriated from his taxpayers back to his taxpayers?If by nailing you mean admitting that he taking them while voting against them, yes, yes he did.
Exactly!
Ron Paul tries to have it both ways.
AND RON PAUL WOULD NOT SIGN THE NO EARMARK PLEDGE. And guess who wanted millions in earmarks, recently? Ron Paul!
C'mon....Tell us.
He's a fascist, dammit.....He hates the oligarchy right up until the point that it agrees with him, then everything is just jake.Invoking American exceptionalism to justify gutting the courts! Newt showin' his neo-con colors. Heil newt!!
He's a historian, dammit!
Gingrich claimed that Jefferson abolished 18 of 35 judges (judgeships, presumably) and that no one in power criticized him. If both those things are true it is the most surprising thing I've heard this year.
Things like fuel taxes to pay for roads and bridges are what they are...Those are taxes you really can't get rid of as they pay for legitimate functions of lawful gubmint.How the hell else is he supposed to get the money expropriated from his taxpayers back to his taxpayers?Exactly!
Ron Paul tries to have it both ways.
AND RON PAUL WOULD NOT SIGN THE NO EARMARK PLEDGE. And guess who wanted millions in earmarks, recently? Ron Paul!
C'mon....Tell us.
BY FIGHTING TO CUT TAXES!
NOT by earmarks that come back for sweetheart deals and bridges to nowhere (yes I know that was in Alaska)
The only way Ron Paul can do that is with earmarks???????
Don't hand me that! I LIVE in the state that has every building you can see (downtown) named after some politician who's good at earmarks.
It DOESN'T help the state's economy. If it did Obama's stimulus would have worked.
SO DON'T HAND ME THIS CRAP. DON'T GIVE ME THIS DOUBLE TALK.
If one government fund is bad for the economy (stimulus) then another one is TOO (earmarks) IT'S STILL SPENDING THAT SINKING THIS COUNTRY UNDER DEBT!
It's Grade A homogonized bullshit, that Ron Paul is doing that for ANY OTHER REASON THAN the reason any other politician does it: VOTES!
If Ron Paul believes what he believes HE WOULD WALK THE WALK not just talk the talk.
He doesn't and he never has.
The courts are not the final arbiter of law. Wow.... these nutjobs are going off the rails.
And Ron Paul is radical???
The courts are not the final arbiter of law. Wow.... these nutjobs are going off the rails.
And Ron Paul is radical???
Ron Paul IS the nutjob.
Yes, yet it is...You look it up, numbnutz.Yes, he said that and he's correct...The marriage of big gubmint and big bidness -which is what F&F is- is the definition of fascism, nitwit.
Nope, sorry. That's not the definition of fascism. Look it up some time.