Paying Some Attention To Ron Paul

[dblack]

He's been a Republican for a gazillion years. There's a reason for that.

They will eat him up and spit him out unless he wins the primaries. Then he will be their savior.

There is no honesty in politics, sadly.

As much as I'd love to see that, they will never - ever - let it happen. Ron Paul wants to undo essentially everything that they, and their co-conspirators on the 'other side of the aisle' have built up for themselves. Democracy is a nice talking point, but there's no way the Republicrats will give up power voluntarily.

 

[Ravi]

IMO, if he were really true to his ideals, he would have switched to and stayed belonging to the Libertarian Party, not the Republican Party.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

IMO, if he were really true to his ideals, he would have switched to and stayed belonging to the Libertarian Party, not the Republican Party.

How so? The Republican Party says it wants to limit the government. So does Ron Paul.

 

[dblack]

IMO, if he were really true to his ideals, he would have switched to and stayed belonging to the Libertarian Party, not the Republican Party.

The Libertarians are shut out of the process (as are all third parties in the US). The only way to have any influence on the process is through one of the established parties. I've doubted Ron Paul's decision to run as a Republican in the past, but I can't deny it's given his ideas more exposure than they would have received if he'd run on the Libertarian ticket.

I'd rather see Ron Paul run as Libertarian myself, but he'll need a critical mass of popular support to make that effort wothwhile. It's my hope that he'll hang with the Republican charade to a peak - essentially around the time the Republicans begin to really unload on him - and then make a break for the Libertarians. He still won't win, but he might give the Libertarian Party enough momentum to make a meaningful challenge to the barriers that the Democrats and Republicans used to keep third parties off the radar.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

For those interested.

Defense of Paul, Smackdown of Spectator | Tom Woods

 

[Avorysuds]

Ron Paul extends his fight against the Fed to the international monied interests, which narrows down to the Rothschild’s and has a strong redolence of anti Semitism. Ron Paul is a major voice in the blame America crowd, and that extends to our relationship to Israel; in his and his followers minds Israel is the problem. The same people who follow Paul, believe the twin towers were brought down by our own government. Ron Paul's movement is a revolutionary movement; his followers are, if they are dedicated, “true believers” in the fanatical sense. They are mostly an irreligious crowd, who create their own religion in the form of possessing inside knowledge; “the truth” about a complex world.

They despise the Fed, but have no clue how it could be replaced or by what. They believe the congress should do the fed's work including monetary policy; that congress which can't control spending, should manage Fiscal policy, AND Monetary policy, as if that would not be a disaster. To them it is a crime that the Fed is a privately owned “corporation” and that some of those owners are Europeans. As if the banking system hasn’t always been global, but of course global implies interests from all over the world.

These followers of Ron Paul are mostly in their 40's, are atheists or agnostics, and are trying to fill their empty, irreligious lives with the new religion, politics. Ron Paul is their "wise man - high priest" and Alex Jones is their media master. To Jones, and therefore to his audience, there is no conspiracy theory that does not have substance, and he is an ardent supporter of Ron Paul. The name of Alex Jones media company is "Prison Planet," and that is exactly what they think of America. Only they have the inside information to save America from a government capable of any and all crimes, including concentration camps

LOL!

I'm 30, don't believe the twin towers was an inside job, don't listen to Jones and could prolly run backwards on 1 lag then you could full sprint forward.

Tell me more about me plz...

Funny story is RP pulls the most out of the "youth vote" for Republicans...

 

[Full-Auto]

I'm good with Paul right up until he starts talking about legalizing ALL DRUGS. That alone makes me think the man must be insane.

Pot, yes. ALL DRUGS, no freegin' way.

Paul would never get the chance to enact anything like that. The worst, is it goes to debate.

 

[Ravi]

IMO, if he were really true to his ideals, he would have switched to and stayed belonging to the Libertarian Party, not the Republican Party.

The Libertarians are shut out of the process (as are all third parties in the US). The only way to have any influence on the process is through one of the established parties. I've doubted Ron Paul's decision to run as a Republican in the past, but I can't deny it's given his ideas more exposure than they would have received if he'd run on the Libertarian ticket.

I'd rather see Ron Paul run as Libertarian myself, but he'll need a critical mass of popular support to make that effort wothwhile. It's my hope that he'll hang with the Republican charade to a peak - essentially around the time the Republicans begin to really unload on him - and then make a break for the Libertarians. He still won't win, but he might give the Libertarian Party enough momentum to make a meaningful challenge to the barriers that the Democrats and Republicans used to keep third parties off the radar.

He would easily have been reelected in his current seat if he had changed to Libertarian. By staying a Republican, while being a Libertarian, he makes Libertarians look like a fringe group that are nothing without Republicans.

 

[Dot Com]

That was a scathing article from a publication that I've read since high school. I consider myself pretty right wing, and can not believe the American Spectator is labeling me a neo-liberal.

"The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present."

I have a crazy idea. Maybe we embrace it. Maybe it's time we take back the word liberal so that it actually means again what the word, not what the ideology is today, actually means. Liberal comes from liberty.....freedom. Liberal has been made such a dirty word disdained by the right and rarely truly owned by the left. But it's not a dirty word. Literally it means freedom

No, I'm not willing to secede to argument and let them dictate the definition of conservative. I am a conservative and Congressman Ron Paul's voting record defines him better than some hit piece in a publication that I once respected could ever do.

The charge of racism, which this charge of anti-Semitism undeniably is, has been level at modern conservatism at every turn. Now the American Spectator is leveling this same hypocritical charge on Ron Paul based almost exclusively on the actions of past politicians that Lord desperately tries to stick to Paul.

In fact, not one charge was substantiated with Paul's on words or voting record. Instead, Lord uses the words of Paul's associates.

Here is Paul's voting record, which spans three decades and screams conservative. (Project Vote Smart - Representative Ronald E. 'Ron' Paul - Voting Record)

He's an old school/pre-pork conservative. Thats frowned upon by the powers that be in Washington. They want an expansionist offense...errr...defense department w/ all the accompanying spending for votes. Washington used to be against foreign entanglements until they saw that there was a lot of money in it due to lobbyists and bankers. All that adds up to a recipe for disaster.

 

[cutter]

He's been a Republican for a gazillion years. There's a reason for that.

They will eat him up and spit him out unless he wins the primaries. Then he will be their savior.

There is no honesty in politics, sadly.

As much as I'd love to see that, they will never - ever - let it happen. Ron Paul wants to undo essentially everything that they, and their co-conspirators on the 'other side of the aisle' have built up for themselves. Democracy is a nice talking point, but there's no way the Republicrats will give up power voluntarily.

Paul must be doing well enough that TPTB are getting scared. I just saw a episode of O'Reilly Factor where they bad mouthed Paul really bad, the worst Paul talk I've seen on Fox. Someone is getting scared. Keep it up RON.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have a crazy idea. Maybe we embrace it. Maybe it's time we take back the word liberal so that it actually means again what the word, not what the ideology is today, actually means. Liberal comes from liberty.....freedom. Liberal has been made such a dirty word disdained by the right and rarely truly owned by the left. But it's not a dirty word. Literally it means freedom

No, I'm not willing to secede to argument and let them dictate the definition of conservative. I am a conservative and Congressman Ron Paul's voting record defines him better than some hit piece in a publication that I once respected could ever do.

The charge of racism, which this charge of anti-Semitism undeniably is, has been level at modern conservatism at every turn. Now the American Spectator is leveling this same hypocritical charge on Ron Paul based almost exclusively on the actions of past politicians that Lord desperately tries to stick to Paul.

In fact, not one charge was substantiated with Paul's on words or voting record. Instead, Lord uses the words of Paul's associates.

Here is Paul's voting record, which spans three decades and screams conservative. (Project Vote Smart - Representative Ronald E. 'Ron' Paul - Voting Record)

He's an old school/pre-pork conservative. Thats frowned upon by the powers that be in Washington. They want an expansionist offense...errr...defense department w/ all the accompanying spending for votes. Washington used to be against foreign entanglements until they saw that there was a lot of money in it due to lobbyists and bankers. All that adds up to a recipe for disaster.

He's an old school/pre-pork conservative. Thats frowned upon by the powers that be in Washington. They want an expansionist offense...errr...defense department w/ all the accompanying spending for votes. Washington used to be against foreign entanglements until they saw that there was a lot of money in it due to lobbyists and bankers. All that adds up to a recipe for disaster.

Amen to that.

That is the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about.

Hmmm, Eisenhower was a Repub.

 

[GHook93]

I have a crazy idea. Maybe we embrace it. Maybe it's time we take back the word liberal so that it actually means again what the word, not what the ideology is today, actually means. Liberal comes from liberty.....freedom. Liberal has been made such a dirty word disdained by the right and rarely truly owned by the left. But it's not a dirty word. Literally it means freedom

No, I'm not willing to secede to argument and let them dictate the definition of conservative. I am a conservative and Congressman Ron Paul's voting record defines him better than some hit piece in a publication that I once respected could ever do.

The charge of racism, which this charge of anti-Semitism undeniably is, has been level at modern conservatism at every turn. Now the American Spectator is leveling this same hypocritical charge on Ron Paul based almost exclusively on the actions of past politicians that Lord desperately tries to stick to Paul.

In fact, not one charge was substantiated with Paul's on words or voting record. Instead, Lord uses the words of Paul's associates.

Here is Paul's voting record, which spans three decades and screams conservative. (Project Vote Smart - Representative Ronald E. 'Ron' Paul - Voting Record)

He's an old school/pre-pork conservative. Thats frowned upon by the powers that be in Washington. .

Prepork conservative! It amazes me how uneducated you are. Back in 2008 I posted a thread On Paul's pork records. He approved more pork than any of this GOP opponents and even a few Democratic opponents in Congress!

With all of Paul's ranting and raving on no spending anywhere, approving $1 of pork makes him a hypocrite and he approved a hell of a lot more than $1!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1804450-post1.html
Who is the fattest Pig- Meaning Biggest Wasteful Pork Barrel Spender?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Disclaimer: I created this thread back in April of 2008 on another board, so some could be outdated***

http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/S...pdf?docID=3024

Senate:
(1) Thad Cochran - Fake Republican out of MS - #1 - $846 million
(13) Clinton - Why am I not surprise she is so high - $296.2 million (This is obviously before she became secretary of State)
(20)Harry Reid- Preach how wasteful the war is, but you waste $259.3 million yourself
(21) Dick Durbin - Please Sauerberg beat this guy (sorry to say Steve lost), he is bleeding IL dry - $256.3 million
(33) Ted Kennedy - One of the worst Americans alive (but now he is dead)- $192.1 million
(34) Lieberman - Yep he is still a Democrat -$149.4 million
(38) Kerry - $138.8 million
(60) Obama - I was actually pleasantly surprised how low he was. However, I am skeptical that it is so low because he hasn't been in office long and his campaigning has interfered with his senate job. - $97.4 million (obviously when he was a senator)

Bottom of the List with a bi $0 - that is not spending a cent for all of you slow people!
McCain and Feingold!
Now that is true fiscal conservatism!

The House
http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/H...pdf?docID=3022
in the Millions
(1) Wicker - $176.3
(3) Murtha - $159.1
(7) Biden - $139.9 (for his little shitty state)
(19) Pelosi - $91.2
(23) Hobson - $88

Ron Paul - $22.7 million- middle of the list not sure the number- I was very surprised. You would figure this guy would practice what he preach and spend nothing (like McCain did), but I guess he is just a politician. There were 276 representative that spent less, including 10 that spent $0

Here is a list of '08 presidential candidate that spent less than Ron Paul and the number of space they beat him by:
Tancredo - $17.6 - 52 lower
Duncan - $15.9 - 75 lower
Kucinich - $8.1 - 182 lower
Graves - $6.7 - 196 lower

Shocking Ron Paul!

 

[Dot Com]

Ron Paul is a bit of a nut, and I doubt he has a chance of winning the nomination.

Regardless, American Spectator is the go to page for rightwingloons. Kind of like NewsMax.

Repubs eating their own.

Very amusing.

Ron Paul is not, and never has been 'one of their own'. They despise him and only placate his views to keep the Tea Party people on the line. If he ever gets close to winning the nomination they will unload on him as bad, if not worse than the supposed 'opposition' party. The fact of the matter is, the establishment powers of the Republicans and the Democrats have more in common with each other than they do with Ron Paul and if necessary will join forces to fight him. That's essentially already going on in the media.

He's been a Republican for a gazillion years. There's a reason for that.

They will eat him up and spit him out unless he wins the primaries. Then he will be their savior.

There is no honesty in politics, sadly.

He's been a Republican for a gazillion years. There's a reason for that.

They will eat him up and spit him out unless he wins the primaries. Then he will be their savior.

There is no honesty in politics, sadly.

As much as I'd love to see that, they will never - ever - let it happen. Ron Paul wants to undo essentially everything that they, and their co-conspirators on the 'other side of the aisle' have built up for themselves. Democracy is a nice talking point, but there's no way the Republicrats will give up power voluntarily.

IMO, if he were really true to his ideals, he would have switched to and stayed belonging to the Libertarian Party, not the Republican Party.

The Libertarians are shut out of the process (as are all third parties in the US). The only way to have any influence on the process is through one of the established parties. I've doubted Ron Paul's decision to run as a Republican in the past, but I can't deny it's given his ideas more exposure than they would have received if he'd run on the Libertarian ticket.

I'd rather see Ron Paul run as Libertarian myself, but he'll need a critical mass of popular support to make that effort wothwhile. It's my hope that he'll hang with the Republican charade to a peak - essentially around the time the Republicans begin to really unload on him - and then make a break for the Libertarians. He still won't win, but he might give the Libertarian Party enough momentum to make a meaningful challenge to the barriers that the Democrats and Republicans used to keep third parties off the radar.

Agreed. If people want a forum they have to go under the umbrella of one of the entrenced parties. That's why people, for example, have used the Greens to get their voice heard when they don't comport 100% w/ that group's platform.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No, I'm not willing to secede to argument and let them dictate the definition of conservative. I am a conservative and Congressman Ron Paul's voting record defines him better than some hit piece in a publication that I once respected could ever do.

The charge of racism, which this charge of anti-Semitism undeniably is, has been level at modern conservatism at every turn. Now the American Spectator is leveling this same hypocritical charge on Ron Paul based almost exclusively on the actions of past politicians that Lord desperately tries to stick to Paul.

In fact, not one charge was substantiated with Paul's on words or voting record. Instead, Lord uses the words of Paul's associates.

Here is Paul's voting record, which spans three decades and screams conservative. (Project Vote Smart - Representative Ronald E. 'Ron' Paul - Voting Record)

He's an old school/pre-pork conservative. Thats frowned upon by the powers that be in Washington. .

Prepork conservative! It amazes me how uneducated you are. Back in 2008 I posted a thread On Paul's pork records. He approved more pork than any of this GOP opponents and even a few Democratic opponents in Congress!

With all of Paul's ranting and raving on no spending anywhere, approving $1 of pork makes him a hypocrite and he approved a hell of a lot more than $1!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1804450-post1.html
Who is the fattest Pig- Meaning Biggest Wasteful Pork Barrel Spender?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Disclaimer: I created this thread back in April of 2008 on another board, so some could be outdated***

http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/S...pdf?docID=3024

Senate:
(1) Thad Cochran - Fake Republican out of MS - #1 - $846 million
(13) Clinton - Why am I not surprise she is so high - $296.2 million (This is obviously before she became secretary of State)
(20)Harry Reid- Preach how wasteful the war is, but you waste $259.3 million yourself
(21) Dick Durbin - Please Sauerberg beat this guy (sorry to say Steve lost), he is bleeding IL dry - $256.3 million
(33) Ted Kennedy - One of the worst Americans alive (but now he is dead)- $192.1 million
(34) Lieberman - Yep he is still a Democrat -$149.4 million
(38) Kerry - $138.8 million
(60) Obama - I was actually pleasantly surprised how low he was. However, I am skeptical that it is so low because he hasn't been in office long and his campaigning has interfered with his senate job. - $97.4 million (obviously when he was a senator)

Bottom of the List with a bi $0 - that is not spending a cent for all of you slow people!
McCain and Feingold!
Now that is true fiscal conservatism!

The House
http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/H...pdf?docID=3022
in the Millions
(1) Wicker - $176.3
(3) Murtha - $159.1
(7) Biden - $139.9 (for his little shitty state)
(19) Pelosi - $91.2
(23) Hobson - $88

Ron Paul - $22.7 million- middle of the list not sure the number- I was very surprised. You would figure this guy would practice what he preach and spend nothing (like McCain did), but I guess he is just a politician. There were 276 representative that spent less, including 10 that spent $0

Here is a list of '08 presidential candidate that spent less than Ron Paul and the number of space they beat him by:
Tancredo - $17.6 - 52 lower
Duncan - $15.9 - 75 lower
Kucinich - $8.1 - 182 lower
Graves - $6.7 - 196 lower

Shocking Ron Paul!

We're sorry - the page or function you tried to access could not be found on our web site. We would appreciate it if you could take a moment to email us at [email protected], including details of how you arrived at this page, so that we can correct the problem.

Thank you for your help,

Citizens Against Government Waste

Your links are all broken.

 

[GHook93]

He's an old school/pre-pork conservative. Thats frowned upon by the powers that be in Washington. .

Prepork conservative! It amazes me how uneducated you are. Back in 2008 I posted a thread On Paul's pork records. He approved more pork than any of this GOP opponents and even a few Democratic opponents in Congress!

With all of Paul's ranting and raving on no spending anywhere, approving $1 of pork makes him a hypocrite and he approved a hell of a lot more than $1!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1804450-post1.html
Who is the fattest Pig- Meaning Biggest Wasteful Pork Barrel Spender?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Disclaimer: I created this thread back in April of 2008 on another board, so some could be outdated***

http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/S...pdf?docID=3024

Senate:
(1) Thad Cochran - Fake Republican out of MS - #1 - $846 million
(13) Clinton - Why am I not surprise she is so high - $296.2 million (This is obviously before she became secretary of State)
(20)Harry Reid- Preach how wasteful the war is, but you waste $259.3 million yourself
(21) Dick Durbin - Please Sauerberg beat this guy (sorry to say Steve lost), he is bleeding IL dry - $256.3 million
(33) Ted Kennedy - One of the worst Americans alive (but now he is dead)- $192.1 million
(34) Lieberman - Yep he is still a Democrat -$149.4 million
(38) Kerry - $138.8 million
(60) Obama - I was actually pleasantly surprised how low he was. However, I am skeptical that it is so low because he hasn't been in office long and his campaigning has interfered with his senate job. - $97.4 million (obviously when he was a senator)

Bottom of the List with a bi $0 - that is not spending a cent for all of you slow people!
McCain and Feingold!
Now that is true fiscal conservatism!

The House
http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/H...pdf?docID=3022
in the Millions
(1) Wicker - $176.3
(3) Murtha - $159.1
(7) Biden - $139.9 (for his little shitty state)
(19) Pelosi - $91.2
(23) Hobson - $88

Ron Paul - $22.7 million- middle of the list not sure the number- I was very surprised. You would figure this guy would practice what he preach and spend nothing (like McCain did), but I guess he is just a politician. There were 276 representative that spent less, including 10 that spent $0

Here is a list of '08 presidential candidate that spent less than Ron Paul and the number of space they beat him by:
Tancredo - $17.6 - 52 lower
Duncan - $15.9 - 75 lower
Kucinich - $8.1 - 182 lower
Graves - $6.7 - 196 lower

Shocking Ron Paul!

We're sorry - the page or function you tried to access could not be found on our web site. We would appreciate it if you could take a moment to email us at [email protected], including details of how you arrived at this page, so that we can correct the problem.

Thank you for your help,

Citizens Against Government Waste

Your links are all broken.

It's from 3 1/2 years ago! They don't keep up links forever! The information is correct. Do your research and you will be Hypocrite Paul is a porker!

 

[kwc57]

Show of Paulists hands! How many bothered to read the article? What 'facts' are wrong?

I'll be honest and admit I managed to wade thru about half the article. His evidence is overwhelming if you accept his defintion of what is conservative and what isn't. I don't.

Even then his "evidence" is all guilt by association nonsense.

I meant to put the word evidence in quotation marks.

 

[clevergirl]

I'm glad to see a conservative publication providing some coverage on what purports to be mainstream conservative/libertarian. It's not.

The American Spectator : Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

Ron Paul and the Neoliberal Reeducation Campaign

By Jeffrey Lord on 8.23.11 @ 6:09AM
To bring about radical and permanent change in any society, our primary focus must be on the conversion of minds through education.
-- Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul



Sigh.



Somebody needs to say this.



Does Ron Paul have a lot of interesting ideas he puts forward as a presidential candidate?

Yes. From his honestly libertarian views (he was the 1988 Libertarian presidential nominee, so he's been at this a long time) to his willingness to challenge the status quo on economics (questioning the role of everything from sugar subsidies to the Federal Reserve) to his emphasis on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, Congressman Paul has been fearless in sticking with his principles. And in bringing new ideas -- or old ideas -- to an American electorate that has been staggered by the far-left reality that is the Obama Administration.



But as complaints surface in the wake of his strong showing in the Iowa Straw Poll, complaints from Paul supporters and candidate Paul himself that he is not receiving the attention that is his due -- someone should say the Congressman and his supporters are correct. There should be -- must be -- more attention paid to the Paul campaign.



Why?



Because the Paul campaign is not just a campaign for president. This is a campaign -- a serious campaign -- to re-educate the American people to an alternate universe of reality. A campaign that goes far beyond whatever will happen at the polls in 2012.



And sorry to say, this re-education campaign does not present a pretty picture of itself.

Looming over the interesting and appealing ideas of the Paul campaign is a veritable political tornado of allegations involving anti-Semitism, racism, pacifism, far left-wingism and, at the edges, a tiny flicker of intimidation.



So let's spill it all out on the table and take a look...

That's the intro, takes up about 3/4 of the first page. The article is 6 pages long. Enjoy.

Excellent article Annie! I broke a Cardinal Rule I have about politics and FB- I posted a link to the article

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

IMO, if he were really true to his ideals, he would have switched to and stayed belonging to the Libertarian Party, not the Republican Party.

The Libertarians are shut out of the process (as are all third parties in the US). The only way to have any influence on the process is through one of the established parties. I've doubted Ron Paul's decision to run as a Republican in the past, but I can't deny it's given his ideas more exposure than they would have received if he'd run on the Libertarian ticket.

I'd rather see Ron Paul run as Libertarian myself, but he'll need a critical mass of popular support to make that effort wothwhile. It's my hope that he'll hang with the Republican charade to a peak - essentially around the time the Republicans begin to really unload on him - and then make a break for the Libertarians. He still won't win, but he might give the Libertarian Party enough momentum to make a meaningful challenge to the barriers that the Democrats and Republicans used to keep third parties off the radar.

He would easily have been reelected in his current seat if he had changed to Libertarian. By staying a Republican, while being a Libertarian, he makes Libertarians look like a fringe group that are nothing without Republicans.

Pure speculation on your part. Maybe he would, but maybe he wouldn't. Some people absolutely will not vote third party no matter who the candidate is.

 

[cutter]

No, I'm not willing to secede to argument and let them dictate the definition of conservative. I am a conservative and Congressman Ron Paul's voting record defines him better than some hit piece in a publication that I once respected could ever do.

The charge of racism, which this charge of anti-Semitism undeniably is, has been level at modern conservatism at every turn. Now the American Spectator is leveling this same hypocritical charge on Ron Paul based almost exclusively on the actions of past politicians that Lord desperately tries to stick to Paul.

In fact, not one charge was substantiated with Paul's on words or voting record. Instead, Lord uses the words of Paul's associates.

Here is Paul's voting record, which spans three decades and screams conservative. (Project Vote Smart - Representative Ronald E. 'Ron' Paul - Voting Record)

He's an old school/pre-pork conservative. Thats frowned upon by the powers that be in Washington. .

Prepork conservative! It amazes me how uneducated you are. Back in 2008 I posted a thread On Paul's pork records. He approved more pork than any of this GOP opponents and even a few Democratic opponents in Congress!

With all of Paul's ranting and raving on no spending anywhere, approving $1 of pork makes him a hypocrite and he approved a hell of a lot more than $1!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1804450-post1.html
Who is the fattest Pig- Meaning Biggest Wasteful Pork Barrel Spender?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Disclaimer: I created this thread back in April of 2008 on another board, so some could be outdated***

http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/S...pdf?docID=3024

Senate:
(1) Thad Cochran - Fake Republican out of MS - #1 - $846 million
(13) Clinton - Why am I not surprise she is so high - $296.2 million (This is obviously before she became secretary of State)
(20)Harry Reid- Preach how wasteful the war is, but you waste $259.3 million yourself
(21) Dick Durbin - Please Sauerberg beat this guy (sorry to say Steve lost), he is bleeding IL dry - $256.3 million
(33) Ted Kennedy - One of the worst Americans alive (but now he is dead)- $192.1 million
(34) Lieberman - Yep he is still a Democrat -$149.4 million
(38) Kerry - $138.8 million
(60) Obama - I was actually pleasantly surprised how low he was. However, I am skeptical that it is so low because he hasn't been in office long and his campaigning has interfered with his senate job. - $97.4 million (obviously when he was a senator)

Bottom of the List with a bi $0 - that is not spending a cent for all of you slow people!
McCain and Feingold!
Now that is true fiscal conservatism!

The House
http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/H...pdf?docID=3022
in the Millions
(1) Wicker - $176.3
(3) Murtha - $159.1
(7) Biden - $139.9 (for his little shitty state)
(19) Pelosi - $91.2
(23) Hobson - $88

Ron Paul - $22.7 million- middle of the list not sure the number- I was very surprised. You would figure this guy would practice what he preach and spend nothing (like McCain did), but I guess he is just a politician. There were 276 representative that spent less, including 10 that spent $0

Here is a list of '08 presidential candidate that spent less than Ron Paul and the number of space they beat him by:
Tancredo - $17.6 - 52 lower
Duncan - $15.9 - 75 lower
Kucinich - $8.1 - 182 lower
Graves - $6.7 - 196 lower

Shocking Ron Paul!

I don't know why everyone is concerned about "pork". All it is is entitlements that guarantee part of the federal budget is spent in your district. If your congress critter uses it to fund wasteful projects that's one thing and you should vote him out of office. It's the job of congressmen to see that part of the budget is spent in his district and Paul does this, Can you say his entitlements are wasteful or beneficial to his district? Probably not you probably don't know, but it's just a talking point to most people that complain about "PORK"

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He's an old school/pre-pork conservative. Thats frowned upon by the powers that be in Washington. .

Prepork conservative! It amazes me how uneducated you are. Back in 2008 I posted a thread On Paul's pork records. He approved more pork than any of this GOP opponents and even a few Democratic opponents in Congress!

With all of Paul's ranting and raving on no spending anywhere, approving $1 of pork makes him a hypocrite and he approved a hell of a lot more than $1!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1804450-post1.html
Who is the fattest Pig- Meaning Biggest Wasteful Pork Barrel Spender?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***Disclaimer: I created this thread back in April of 2008 on another board, so some could be outdated***

http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/S...pdf?docID=3024

Senate:
(1) Thad Cochran - Fake Republican out of MS - #1 - $846 million
(13) Clinton - Why am I not surprise she is so high - $296.2 million (This is obviously before she became secretary of State)
(20)Harry Reid- Preach how wasteful the war is, but you waste $259.3 million yourself
(21) Dick Durbin - Please Sauerberg beat this guy (sorry to say Steve lost), he is bleeding IL dry - $256.3 million
(33) Ted Kennedy - One of the worst Americans alive (but now he is dead)- $192.1 million
(34) Lieberman - Yep he is still a Democrat -$149.4 million
(38) Kerry - $138.8 million
(60) Obama - I was actually pleasantly surprised how low he was. However, I am skeptical that it is so low because he hasn't been in office long and his campaigning has interfered with his senate job. - $97.4 million (obviously when he was a senator)

Bottom of the List with a bi $0 - that is not spending a cent for all of you slow people!
McCain and Feingold!
Now that is true fiscal conservatism!

The House
http://www.cagw.org/site/DocServer/H...pdf?docID=3022
in the Millions
(1) Wicker - $176.3
(3) Murtha - $159.1
(7) Biden - $139.9 (for his little shitty state)
(19) Pelosi - $91.2
(23) Hobson - $88

Ron Paul - $22.7 million- middle of the list not sure the number- I was very surprised. You would figure this guy would practice what he preach and spend nothing (like McCain did), but I guess he is just a politician. There were 276 representative that spent less, including 10 that spent $0

Here is a list of '08 presidential candidate that spent less than Ron Paul and the number of space they beat him by:
Tancredo - $17.6 - 52 lower
Duncan - $15.9 - 75 lower
Kucinich - $8.1 - 182 lower
Graves - $6.7 - 196 lower

Shocking Ron Paul!

I don't know why everyone is concerned about "pork". All it is is entitlements that guarantee part of the federal budget is spent in your district. If your congress critter uses it to fund wasteful projects that's one thing and you should vote him out of office. It's the job of congressmen to see that part of the budget is spent in his district and Paul does this, Can you say his entitlements are wasteful or beneficial to his district? Probably not you probably don't know, but it's just a talking point to most people that complain about "PORK"

What GHook fails to mention is that Ron Paul votes against all appropriations bills on principle, including those with pork for his own district.