Question for Paul supporters

[TakeAStepBack]

That's not the point dumbass

Actually, yes, yes it is.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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 News’s 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 you’re missing the point,” he told Cavuto, "I’ve never voted for an earmark, I’ve 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 Paul’s 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.

I'm not fooled by anyone, I just know how the system works. All that money was going to be spent whether Ron Paul earmarked it or not.

Ron Paul is playing you for a fool.

More Ron Paul hypocrisy.

After Hurricane Katrina, Paul opposed government assistance for victims, telling The Post: “Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?” He even even wrote in a 2005 column that “In several disasters that have befallen my Gulf Coast district, my constituents have told me many times that they prefer to rebuild and recover without the help of federal agencies like FEMA, which so often impose their own bureaucratic solutions on the owners of private property.”

Yet in fiscal year 2010 Paul requested tens of millions of dollars in earmarks to assist with hurricane recovery for his district. His requests included: $51.5 million for “Reconstruction of Bluewater Highway Hurricane Evacuation Route Between Brazoria and Galveston Counties in Texas”; $8 million for “replacing recreational fishing piers damaged during hurricanes”; $20 million to fund a rural hospital in Chambers County, Texas (arguing that “Chambers has been adversely impacted by hurricanes Rita and Ike and by the displacement of individuals by Hurricane Katrina”); and $1 million for Trinity Episcopal School “to assist with recovery in Hurricane stricken Galveston, Texas.”

Which raises a question for Rep. Paul: Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people of his congressional district?

Lots of conservatives play this game on Capitol Hill, stuffing bills with earmarks and then voting “no” to make their spending records seem pure. But Ron Paul claims to be different. He has portrayed himself as the most anti-Washington candidate in the GOP presidential race — and perhaps he is. But for a self-professed Washington outsider, he sure seems to have mastered the inside Washington game pretty well.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

That's not the point dumbass

Actually, yes, yes it is.

No it isn't.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

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.

Lol, god you're such a poor sport. Whenever you lose a debate you instantly resort to the middle school name-calling.

We Paul supporters know what he's doing, i don't see any on this thread who don't. He's making the most out of a terrible situation.

Here's a crazy theory, why don't you hold your beloved neocons who vote in favor of spending increases responsible? Why attack the one guy who NEVER votes in favor of spending increases?

Oh i know why, cuz you're a big gov't liberal.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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 News’s 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 you’re missing the point,” he told Cavuto, "I’ve never voted for an earmark, I’ve 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 Paul’s 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.

I'm not fooled by anyone, I just know how the system works. All that money was going to be spent whether Ron Paul earmarked it or not.

Ron Paul is playing you for a fool.

More Ron Paul hypocrisy.

After Hurricane Katrina, Paul opposed government assistance for victims, telling The Post: “Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?” He even even wrote in a 2005 column that “In several disasters that have befallen my Gulf Coast district, my constituents have told me many times that they prefer to rebuild and recover without the help of federal agencies like FEMA, which so often impose their own bureaucratic solutions on the owners of private property.”

Yet in fiscal year 2010 Paul requested tens of millions of dollars in earmarks to assist with hurricane recovery for his district. His requests included: $51.5 million for “Reconstruction of Bluewater Highway Hurricane Evacuation Route Between Brazoria and Galveston Counties in Texas”; $8 million for “replacing recreational fishing piers damaged during hurricanes”; $20 million to fund a rural hospital in Chambers County, Texas (arguing that “Chambers has been adversely impacted by hurricanes Rita and Ike and by the displacement of individuals by Hurricane Katrina”); and $1 million for Trinity Episcopal School “to assist with recovery in Hurricane stricken Galveston, Texas.”

Which raises a question for Rep. Paul: Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people of his congressional district?

Lots of conservatives play this game on Capitol Hill, stuffing bills with earmarks and then voting “no” to make their spending records seem pure. But Ron Paul claims to be different. He has portrayed himself as the most anti-Washington candidate in the GOP presidential race — and perhaps he is. But for a self-professed Washington outsider, he sure seems to have mastered the inside Washington game pretty well.

Well I'm not going to continually repeat myself.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I know you are but what am I?

Seriously, you're not going to sway a Paul supporter with this stuff. We all know about it already. You gonna dig up the incendiary comments in the news letters next?

 

[GuyPinestra]

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 News’s 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 you’re missing the point,” he told Cavuto, "I’ve never voted for an earmark, I’ve 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 Paul’s 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.

I'm not fooled by anyone, I just know how the system works. All that money was going to be spent whether Ron Paul earmarked it or not.

Ron Paul is playing you for a fool.

More Ron Paul hypocrisy.

After Hurricane Katrina, Paul opposed government assistance for victims, telling The Post: “Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?” He even even wrote in a 2005 column that “In several disasters that have befallen my Gulf Coast district, my constituents have told me many times that they prefer to rebuild and recover without the help of federal agencies like FEMA, which so often impose their own bureaucratic solutions on the owners of private property.”

Yet in fiscal year 2010 Paul requested tens of millions of dollars in earmarks to assist with hurricane recovery for his district. His requests included: $51.5 million for “Reconstruction of Bluewater Highway Hurricane Evacuation Route Between Brazoria and Galveston Counties in Texas”; $8 million for “replacing recreational fishing piers damaged during hurricanes”; $20 million to fund a rural hospital in Chambers County, Texas (arguing that “Chambers has been adversely impacted by hurricanes Rita and Ike and by the displacement of individuals by Hurricane Katrina”); and $1 million for Trinity Episcopal School “to assist with recovery in Hurricane stricken Galveston, Texas.”

Which raises a question for Rep. Paul: Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people of his congressional district?

Lots of conservatives play this game on Capitol Hill, stuffing bills with earmarks and then voting “no” to make their spending records seem pure. But Ron Paul claims to be different. He has portrayed himself as the most anti-Washington candidate in the GOP presidential race — and perhaps he is. But for a self-professed Washington outsider, he sure seems to have mastered the inside Washington game pretty well.

Seems pretty smart to me, he got the money they needed and didn't have to deal with FEMA. I KNEW I liked this guy...

 

[Avorysuds]

I I love it, all of a sudden people cling to 1 or 2 things Paul MIGHT have done "wrong" (when he didn't) and use that as to why he is "bad." Ye these very same people support candidates that have huge records, lists of horrid policy that they spend entire debates running from.

Even if Paul did 1 or 2 things bad that's light-years better than the other people on stage with him, why am I not allowed to support that?

I nor anyone I know has ever said Paul is perfect, there are many issues with Paul... He could be 35, good looking, a great speaker but we get what is offered to us. Sorry if Paul is not 100% perfect but when I look at who you guys support I doubt for a moment that you care at all about someone record.

Seriously, just look at Newt’s record… Just look at it, it fucking blinds you with hypocrisy... Yet you dumb fucks want THAT to go against Obama because you want to see him debate him... Yeah, I can see that debate going really good when Republicans make up a whole 35% of the audience...

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Next, we'll hear how he's a kook and completely insane kook. His supporters are rabid animals, etc..etc..etc...

It's the same as it ever was. The only difference as of late, is that he his in this for the long haul and the GOP supporters are starting to realize that being such assholes to Paul and his supporters was a mistake. They need his support base to even BEGIN to defeat Obama. Nothing hurts more than shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Crackerjack]

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?

Nope. I don't really care who gets appointed to go to funerals the president doesn't want to attend.

In any event, doing such a thing would simply be a crass political move to buy off Ron Paul voters. Unfortunately for them, my vote is not for sale. If there's not a Paul at the top of the ticket, it does not deserve my vote.

As to the argument that the Republican nominee would be the lesser evil, and one should vote for him in order to oust Obama -- I don't vote against people. Finding a warm body and telling me to vote for him because he's not as bad as the incumbent does not work for me. Either find someone with a proven record of reducing government or don't waste my time, as I'm not interested in which of them believes in a slightly less tyrannical degree of nanny statism or a slightly smaller growth of an already bloated government.

If there's not a Paul at the top of the ticket I frankly couldn't care less who wins in November, because it's going to be the same shit either way, and I'm going to get stuck holding the bill.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I I love it, all of a sudden people cling to 1 or 2 things Paul MIGHT have done "wrong" (when he didn't) and use that as to why he is "bad." Ye these very same people support candidates that have huge records, lists of horrid policy that they spend entire debates running from.

Even if Paul did 1 or 2 things bad that's light-years better than the other people on stage with him, why am I not allowed to support that?

I nor anyone I know has ever said Paul is perfect, there are many issues with Paul... He could be 35, good looking, a great speaker but we get what is offered to us. Sorry if Paul is not 100% perfect but when I look at who you guys support I doubt for a moment that you care at all about someone record.

Seriously, just look at Newt’s record… Just look at it, it fucking blinds you with hypocrisy... Yet you dumb fucks want THAT to go against Obama because you want to see him debate him... Yeah, I can see that debate going really good when Republicans make up a whole 35% of the audience...

I'd love to hear a republican tell me why paul's earmarks are scarier than Romney's RomneyCare, or Newt's endorsement of single payer healthcare or him standing side by side with Pelosi endorsing raping the american ppl of their money to flush down the green energy toilet, or Santorum's record of ONLY voting in favor of spending increases and never one decrease.

Will they ever make such a comparison? No, because their masters don't want them to.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Next, we'll hear how he's a kook and completely insane kook. His supporters are rabid animals, etc..etc..etc...

It's the same as it ever was. The only difference as of late, is that he his in this for the long haul and the GOP supporters are starting to realize that being such assholes to Paul and his supporters was a mistake. They need his support base to even BEGIN to defeat Obama. Nothing hurts more than shooting yourself in the foot.

This is true. NONE of the other candidates can win without Paul's 20+%. (I actually think it's a higher percentage, but we've got the GOP elites counting, or miscounting, the votes.) I'm praying for a brokered convention in June which would allow the delegates to vote their preference on the 2nd round. If that happens I believe Ron Paul will get the nomination, and will pull enough Independents and disaffected Dems to actually win in November.

If the GOP wants the White House this year they better start paying attention, because Paul supporters have been working the 'delegate strategy' for the last 4 years.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

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.

Lol, god you're such a poor sport. Whenever you lose a debate you instantly resort to the middle school name-calling.

We Paul supporters know what he's doing, i don't see any on this thread who don't. He's making the most out of a terrible situation.

Here's a crazy theory, why don't you hold your beloved neocons who vote in favor of spending increases responsible? Why attack the one guy who NEVER votes in favor of spending increases?

Oh i know why, cuz you're a big gov't liberal.

Flattery will get you nowhere.


Ron Paul is a hypocrite and if you have no problem with that then so be it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm not fooled by anyone, I just know how the system works. All that money was going to be spent whether Ron Paul earmarked it or not.

Ron Paul is playing you for a fool.

More Ron Paul hypocrisy.

After Hurricane Katrina, Paul opposed government assistance for victims, telling The Post: “Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?” He even even wrote in a 2005 column that “In several disasters that have befallen my Gulf Coast district, my constituents have told me many times that they prefer to rebuild and recover without the help of federal agencies like FEMA, which so often impose their own bureaucratic solutions on the owners of private property.”

Yet in fiscal year 2010 Paul requested tens of millions of dollars in earmarks to assist with hurricane recovery for his district. His requests included: $51.5 million for “Reconstruction of Bluewater Highway Hurricane Evacuation Route Between Brazoria and Galveston Counties in Texas”; $8 million for “replacing recreational fishing piers damaged during hurricanes”; $20 million to fund a rural hospital in Chambers County, Texas (arguing that “Chambers has been adversely impacted by hurricanes Rita and Ike and by the displacement of individuals by Hurricane Katrina”); and $1 million for Trinity Episcopal School “to assist with recovery in Hurricane stricken Galveston, Texas.”

Which raises a question for Rep. Paul: Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people of his congressional district?

Lots of conservatives play this game on Capitol Hill, stuffing bills with earmarks and then voting “no” to make their spending records seem pure. But Ron Paul claims to be different. He has portrayed himself as the most anti-Washington candidate in the GOP presidential race — and perhaps he is. But for a self-professed Washington outsider, he sure seems to have mastered the inside Washington game pretty well.

Well I'm not going to continually repeat myself.

Great defense of Ron Paul's hypocrisy.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Lol, god you're such a poor sport. Whenever you lose a debate you instantly resort to the middle school name-calling.

We Paul supporters know what he's doing, i don't see any on this thread who don't. He's making the most out of a terrible situation.

Here's a crazy theory, why don't you hold your beloved neocons who vote in favor of spending increases responsible? Why attack the one guy who NEVER votes in favor of spending increases?

Oh i know why, cuz you're a big gov't liberal.

Flattery will get you nowhere.


Ron Paul is a hypocrite and if you have no problem with that then so be it.

Really, he is not and you any ability to prove he is. What Paul does is follow the laws we have but he talks about how damaging the laws we have are, and he is right.

The real issue is you're a typical Paul hater, you see Paul follow the law as bad because Paul himself said the system is bad yet you hold no other person on the stage with him accountable despite their record being 100x worse.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm not fooled by anyone, I just know how the system works. All that money was going to be spent whether Ron Paul earmarked it or not.

Ron Paul is playing you for a fool.

More Ron Paul hypocrisy.

After Hurricane Katrina, Paul opposed government assistance for victims, telling The Post: “Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?” He even even wrote in a 2005 column that “In several disasters that have befallen my Gulf Coast district, my constituents have told me many times that they prefer to rebuild and recover without the help of federal agencies like FEMA, which so often impose their own bureaucratic solutions on the owners of private property.”

Yet in fiscal year 2010 Paul requested tens of millions of dollars in earmarks to assist with hurricane recovery for his district. His requests included: $51.5 million for “Reconstruction of Bluewater Highway Hurricane Evacuation Route Between Brazoria and Galveston Counties in Texas”; $8 million for “replacing recreational fishing piers damaged during hurricanes”; $20 million to fund a rural hospital in Chambers County, Texas (arguing that “Chambers has been adversely impacted by hurricanes Rita and Ike and by the displacement of individuals by Hurricane Katrina”); and $1 million for Trinity Episcopal School “to assist with recovery in Hurricane stricken Galveston, Texas.”

Which raises a question for Rep. Paul: Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people of his congressional district?

Lots of conservatives play this game on Capitol Hill, stuffing bills with earmarks and then voting “no” to make their spending records seem pure. But Ron Paul claims to be different. He has portrayed himself as the most anti-Washington candidate in the GOP presidential race — and perhaps he is. But for a self-professed Washington outsider, he sure seems to have mastered the inside Washington game pretty well.

Seems pretty smart to me, he got the money they needed and didn't have to deal with FEMA. I KNEW I liked this guy...

You like hypocrites and charlatans. Who knew?

 

[GuyPinestra]

You call it hypocrisy, we call it playing the game within the rules, just like the 'delegate strategy' that will win in a brokered convention. You don't like it, don't vote for the man. Pretty simple, no?

 

[Foxfyre]

Waxing philosophical and more than a little speculative here, what makes you guys think Ron Paul would be any more influential in reforming Congress than Rand Paul? Whether he is President or Vice President? So far as I know, he has authored little or no legislation that went anywhere though he has been consistently libertarian in the many, many bills he has co-sponsored with others. He seems to be respected well enough by his peers as a grandfatherly somewhat eccentric old guy, but I see little or no evidence that much of anybody in Washington takes him all that seriously.

So how much clout do you think he would have? How assertive would he be?

Gingrich, Romney and Santorum have proven track records in being able to achieve consensus and steer things more or less the way they want them to go. Does Paul have that particular ability?

I would be the first to agree that the GOP has become steadily more progressive as we moved into the late 20th and 21st century and are guilty of the same 'sins' as the Democrats. But the GOP at least has shown more fiscal restraint than have the Democrats, and have not demonstrated as nearly as strong Marxist/Socialist tendencies as has a President Obama. I think President Obama has no appreciation for unalienable rights or self governance of any kind. I believe most Republicans still do whether or not they fully understand how to protect those. At least the GOP would slow the steady course we are on into socialism and worse and perhaps give groups like the Tea Partiers more time to educate and re-teach the basic principles of American exceptionalism to the American people.

I hope all of you will rethink how you will vote in this fall's election.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You're not winning any points here "lonestar". No one "likes" the hypocracy (even if it really isn't, you're just trying to throw the ball from half-court for the swish) and none of the other candidates have a leg to stand on when it comes to REAL hypocracy.

 

[Dr.Drock]

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.

Lol, god you're such a poor sport. Whenever you lose a debate you instantly resort to the middle school name-calling.

We Paul supporters know what he's doing, i don't see any on this thread who don't. He's making the most out of a terrible situation.

Here's a crazy theory, why don't you hold your beloved neocons who vote in favor of spending increases responsible? Why attack the one guy who NEVER votes in favor of spending increases?

Oh i know why, cuz you're a big gov't liberal.

Flattery will get you nowhere.


Ron Paul is a hypocrite and if you have no problem with that then so be it.

There's one man who votes against increased spending bills by reps and dems, i support that one man and that one man alone.

How about you, do you support politicians who vote for bills that increase spending?