Rand Paul: I was against earmarks before I was for them....

[taichiliberal]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2955597-post23.html

Nothing was "debunked"....it was just Paul trying to weasel out of the FACT that he's NOW advocating being "open" to earmarks......remember, earmarks ARE in the STATES best interest. The chronology of the statements are his undoing.

You can wiggle, you can dance, but Rand Paul's BS will still stain your pants.

So claiming on national television and releasing a press statement that he will not take part in the earmarking process is him now being "open" to earmarks? Which, by the way, he never actually said.

What is this "actually" BS you keep shoveling? And what is it about the phrase "flip-flop" don't you understand. This thread has the quotes....deal with it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nothing was "debunked"....it was just Paul trying to weasel out of the FACT that he's NOW advocating being "open" to earmarks......remember, earmarks ARE in the STATES best interest. The chronology of the statements are his undoing.

You can wiggle, you can dance, but Rand Paul's BS will still stain your pants.

So claiming on national television and releasing a press statement that he will not take part in the earmarking process is him now being "open" to earmarks? Which, by the way, he never actually said.

What is this "actually" BS you keep shoveling? And what is it about the phrase "flip-flop" don't you understand. This thread has the quotes....deal with it.

This "actually BS" that I keep "shoveling" is the fact that Rand never said that his position on earmarks had changed. He then came out and explicitly stated that he still did not support earmarks after his words were twisted by those who don't like him, such as yourself. Yes, this thread does have the quotes, and you're ignoring them.

 

[taichiliberal]

So claiming on national television and releasing a press statement that he will not take part in the earmarking process is him now being "open" to earmarks? Which, by the way, he never actually said.

What is this "actually" BS you keep shoveling? And what is it about the phrase "flip-flop" don't you understand. This thread has the quotes....deal with it.

This "actually BS" that I keep "shoveling" is the fact that Rand never said that his position on earmarks had changed. He then came out and explicitly stated that he still did not support earmarks after his words were twisted by those who don't like him, such as yourself. Yes, this thread does have the quotes, and you're ignoring them.

Ahhh, there is chronology....What Paul initially stated and was quoted, and the attempt to make a flip-flop look like a "clarification".

Yeah, that BS is being shoveled by McConnel as well. Only a complete neocon parrot would buy into it....but the rest of the country isn't. Ahhh, the GOP dithering among itself:

Earmark Reform: Stunt or Bipartisan Kumbaya?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What is this "actually" BS you keep shoveling? And what is it about the phrase "flip-flop" don't you understand. This thread has the quotes....deal with it.

This "actually BS" that I keep "shoveling" is the fact that Rand never said that his position on earmarks had changed. He then came out and explicitly stated that he still did not support earmarks after his words were twisted by those who don't like him, such as yourself. Yes, this thread does have the quotes, and you're ignoring them.

Ahhh, there is chronology....What Paul initially stated and was quoted, and the attempt to make a flip-flop look like a "clarification".

Yeah, that BS is being shoveled by McConnel as well. Only a complete neocon parrot would buy into it....but the rest of the country isn't. Ahhh, the GOP dithering among itself:

Earmark Reform: Stunt or Bipartisan Kumbaya?

Except it's obvious McConnell is simply going along to get along, whereas Rand's story never changed as has already been proven. That you simply can't accept that fact because of your partisan worldview doesn't make me a neocon by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Synthaholic]

Isn't it interesting that every time some high profile Republican emerges teh Left is ready with stories, real or imagined, about some hypocrisy or misdeed. That was true about Scott Brown. It was true about Bobby Jindal. It's true about Rand Paul. It's true about Sarah Palin. It's true about all of them.

Is Obama an American?

Is Piyush Jindal? I have yet to see his birth certificate. What is he hiding?

When do we get to see Palin's high school diploma? How about Trig's birth certificate?

 

[Synthaholic]

After he was elected Paul was asked by Cristiane Amanpour whether he would stand by his pledge to not pass earmarks. Paul stated plainly, "No -- no more earkmarks." When pressed further as to whether he would seek earmarks for his own state Paul stated, "No. No."

The next day Paul was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal (who has also experienced a rift with Sarah Palin recently). In his interview Paul seemed to change his tune on earmarks. Paul stated that he could see himself actually "advocating for Kentucky's interest" through the budget committee as long as it was done out in the open. The phrase "advocating for my state's interest" is the most common defense of every politician when they try to pass earmarks. When Paul was asked by The Wall Street Journal reporter (concerning the subject of earmarks) whether he would describe himself as a "crazy libertarian" Paul responded by saying "Not that crazy."

Rand Paul was against earmarks, then he was for them, and now he is against them - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

Rand Paul is AGAINST stuffing earmarks into the final stages of appropriation bills--in the Federal Government's policy of bribery and extortion--aka to buy ones vote. He wants earmarks to be voted on by their own merits--and he's not against earmarks in general.

But nice try LIB.

Show us a link where he articulates it as you are claiming. I haven't seen it. He's a flip-flopper.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Rand Paul was against earmarks, then he was for them, and now he is against them - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

Rand Paul is AGAINST stuffing earmarks into the final stages of appropriation bills--in the Federal Government's policy of bribery and extortion--aka to buy ones vote. He wants earmarks to be voted on by their own merits--and he's not against earmarks in general.

But nice try LIB.

Show us a link where he articulates it as you are claiming. I haven't seen it. He's a flip-flopper.

I don't know exactly where the poster you quoted got his information, but I've already shown that his position is consistent with the one he had in the campaign. No flip-flop.

 

[Synthaholic]

Rand Paul is a fraud.

I liked also that he essentially said he was going to vote against raising the debt ceiling because he knew it was going to pass anyway.

"Conservative values", indeed!

And don't forget: he couldn't pass muster with the American Board of Ophthalmology, so he started his own - the National Board of Ophthalmology - which is not recognized by the State Of Kentucky. He then certified himself. Not only that, he will not disclose the certification criteria.

Yes, NYcarbinier - Rand Paul is a fraud.

 

[Synthaholic]

Isn't just amazing how the oathers/teabaggers/birthers/neocons/libertarians will bend over backwards and shove their own heads up their butts before acknowledging a painfully obvious flip-flop by one of their newly elected darlings?

Isn't it just amazing how some people will simply ignore the fact that the alleged flip-flop was debunked?

 

[Synthaholic]

A man who hasn't even been sworn in yet is being viciously attacked by the Left Wing loons? Gee go figure? Par for the course for these loons i guess. At least wait till he's actually sworn in as a Senator before attacking him for things he hasn't done. lol! We'll see how he votes once he becomes a Senator. Attacking him for his votes is certainly valid. Till then,these attacks are just stupid & petty.

Care for a tissue?

 

[Synthaholic]

Rand Paul has never cast a single vote in Congress. Once he does,it will be absolutely fair to attack him. The guy hasn't even been sworn in yet for God's sake. The Left loons are just stuck in Smear-Mode. He won and they lost. They just can't seem to get over that i guess. Pretty sad & pathetic in my opinion. I'll wait and see on Rand Paul. You should too.

I cannot WAIT for Alec Baldwin to run for Congress!!!

 

[Synthaholic]

In the space of about 30 posts, we get this:

Some are just being petty. The man hasn't even been sworn in yet. They're ripping the guy for things they think he's going to do in the future and that just seems pretty shallow & petty. Wait till he's in there and actually votes on Earmark Legislation before attacking him on it. Think about it.

Plus this:

The man hasn't even cast a single vote in Congress yet and you guys are already attacking him? Man,that just seems very shallow & petty. You guys viciously smeared the guy but he still won. Now it just looks you guys haven't gotten over that fact. You're stuck in Smear-Mode for sure. The Election is over. The man won. It's time for you guys to get over it. At least wait till he casts a vote before smearing him some more. Just a suggestion anyway. SHEESH!

Plus this:

A man who hasn't even been sworn in yet is being viciously attacked by the Left Wing loons? Gee go figure? Par for the course for these loons i guess. At least wait till he's actually sworn in as a Senator before attacking him for things he hasn't done. lol! We'll see how he votes once he becomes a Senator. Attacking him for his votes is certainly valid. Till then,these attacks are just stupid & petty.

Plus this:

Rand Paul has never cast a single vote in Congress. Once he does,it will be absolutely fair to attack him. The guy hasn't even been sworn in yet for God's sake. The Left loons are just stuck in Smear-Mode. He won and they lost. They just can't seem to get over that i guess. Pretty sad & pathetic in my opinion. I'll wait and see on Rand Paul. You should too.

Plus this:

Why not just wait till he's actually sworn in and casts some votes before viciously smearing the guy? It just looks like the Left loons are attacking just to attack. They're attacking the guy for things he hasn't even done yet. It also looks like they're just a bunch of bitter sore losers. He won and they lost and they just can't get over it. All that money the Democrats spent smearing the guy and he still won. Yea that's gotta hurt i guess. We'll see how Rand Paul votes after he's sworn in as Senator. Viciously attacking the guy before that just seems very dishonorable.

Equals this:


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo7OKwi9Cx8[/ame]

 

[taichiliberal]

Rand Paul is a fraud.

I liked also that he essentially said he was going to vote against raising the debt ceiling because he knew it was going to pass anyway.

"Conservative values", indeed!

And don't forget: he couldn't pass muster with the American Board of Ophthalmology, so he started his own - the National Board of Ophthalmology - which is not recognized by the State Of Kentucky. He then certified himself. Not only that, he will not disclose the certification criteria.

Yes, NYcarbinier - Rand Paul is a fraud.

Holy Crap! That is scary as all hell!

 

[taichiliberal]

This "actually BS" that I keep "shoveling" is the fact that Rand never said that his position on earmarks had changed. He then came out and explicitly stated that he still did not support earmarks after his words were twisted by those who don't like him, such as yourself. Yes, this thread does have the quotes, and you're ignoring them.

Ahhh, there is chronology....What Paul initially stated and was quoted, and the attempt to make a flip-flop look like a "clarification".

Yeah, that BS is being shoveled by McConnel as well. Only a complete neocon parrot would buy into it....but the rest of the country isn't. Ahhh, the GOP dithering among itself:

Earmark Reform: Stunt or Bipartisan Kumbaya?

Except it's obvious McConnell is simply going along to get along, whereas Rand's story never changed as has already been proven. That you simply can't accept that fact because of your partisan worldview doesn't make me a neocon by any stretch of the imagination.

Wow....so when the GOP House leader gets nailed in a flip-flop, you try to soft soap it by saying "go along to get along". And when Rand Paul gets nailed with quotes in his own words in a flip-flop, you ignore that and tout Paul's BS "clarification"...which is a joke in and of itself. Bottom line: you're just an insipidly stubborn neocon parrot squawking the teabagger/neocon party line. Well, you can keep doing so until doomsday.....but the chronology of the posts and accurate news reporting/quotes will always be your undoing. Carry on.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ahhh, there is chronology....What Paul initially stated and was quoted, and the attempt to make a flip-flop look like a "clarification".

Yeah, that BS is being shoveled by McConnel as well. Only a complete neocon parrot would buy into it....but the rest of the country isn't. Ahhh, the GOP dithering among itself:

Earmark Reform: Stunt or Bipartisan Kumbaya?

Except it's obvious McConnell is simply going along to get along, whereas Rand's story never changed as has already been proven. That you simply can't accept that fact because of your partisan worldview doesn't make me a neocon by any stretch of the imagination.

Wow....so when the GOP House leader gets nailed in a flip-flop, you try to soft soap it by saying "go along to get along". And when Rand Paul gets nailed with quotes in his own words in a flip-flop, you ignore that and tout Paul's BS "clarification"...which is a joke in and of itself. Bottom line: you're just an insipidly stubborn neocon parrot squawking the teabagger/neocon party line. Well, you can keep doing so until doomsday.....but the chronology of the posts and accurate news reporting/quotes will always be your undoing. Carry on.

Soft soap it? I agreed with you about McConnell bud. Your problem is that you're seeing anything Republican as being bad, but things are never quite so simple as that. You want to see a flip-flop where there wasn't one, and ignore his actual words for words that you and people like you put into his mouth.

 

[taichiliberal]

Except it's obvious McConnell is simply going along to get along, whereas Rand's story never changed as has already been proven. That you simply can't accept that fact because of your partisan worldview doesn't make me a neocon by any stretch of the imagination.

Wow....so when the GOP House leader gets nailed in a flip-flop, you try to soft soap it by saying "go along to get along". And when Rand Paul gets nailed with quotes in his own words in a flip-flop, you ignore that and tout Paul's BS "clarification"...which is a joke in and of itself. Bottom line: you're just an insipidly stubborn neocon parrot squawking the teabagger/neocon party line. Well, you can keep doing so until doomsday.....but the chronology of the posts and accurate news reporting/quotes will always be your undoing. Carry on.

Soft soap it? I agreed with you about McConnell bud. Your problem is that you're seeing anything Republican as being bad, but things are never quite so simple as that. You want to see a flip-flop where there wasn't one, and ignore his actual words for words that you and people like you put into his mouth.

Sorry "bud", but what McConnell did was a complete about face on YEARS of a particular political principal....NOT a compromise or acquiesce!

As for Rand Paul, your insipidly stubborn denial of reality is irrelevent.

No "bud", I don't have it in for the GOP to the point where I have to fabricate negative press....they are doing one hell of a job screwing up all by themselves. Deal with it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Wow....so when the GOP House leader gets nailed in a flip-flop, you try to soft soap it by saying "go along to get along". And when Rand Paul gets nailed with quotes in his own words in a flip-flop, you ignore that and tout Paul's BS "clarification"...which is a joke in and of itself. Bottom line: you're just an insipidly stubborn neocon parrot squawking the teabagger/neocon party line. Well, you can keep doing so until doomsday.....but the chronology of the posts and accurate news reporting/quotes will always be your undoing. Carry on.

Soft soap it? I agreed with you about McConnell bud. Your problem is that you're seeing anything Republican as being bad, but things are never quite so simple as that. You want to see a flip-flop where there wasn't one, and ignore his actual words for words that you and people like you put into his mouth.

Sorry "bud", but what McConnell did was a complete about face on YEARS of a particular political principal....NOT a compromise or acquiesce!

As for Rand Paul, your insipidly stubborn denial of reality is irrelevent.

No "bud", I don't have it in for the GOP to the point where I have to fabricate negative press....they are doing one hell of a job screwing up all by themselves. Deal with it.

No kidding. That's what I've been saying as well. I was agreeing with you on that, but keep arguing the point if you want.

I'm afraid you're the one denying reality in regards to the alleged flip-flop. As for what the GOP does to themselves, I'm not concerned. I'm not a Republican so insulting them doesn't hurt my feelings.

 

[Synthaholic]

Rand Paul is a fraud.

I liked also that he essentially said he was going to vote against raising the debt ceiling because he knew it was going to pass anyway.

"Conservative values", indeed!

And don't forget: he couldn't pass muster with the American Board of Ophthalmology, so he started his own - the National Board of Ophthalmology - which is not recognized by the State Of Kentucky. He then certified himself. Not only that, he will not disclose the certification criteria.

Yes, NYcarbinier - Rand Paul is a fraud.

Holy Crap! That is scary as all hell!

And now you'll have to wait 6 years to get an eye appointment with him!

 

[taichiliberal]

Soft soap it? I agreed with you about McConnell bud. Your problem is that you're seeing anything Republican as being bad, but things are never quite so simple as that. You want to see a flip-flop where there wasn't one, and ignore his actual words for words that you and people like you put into his mouth.

Sorry "bud", but what McConnell did was a complete about face on YEARS of a particular political principal....NOT a compromise or acquiesce!

As for Rand Paul, your insipidly stubborn denial of reality is irrelevent.

No "bud", I don't have it in for the GOP to the point where I have to fabricate negative press....they are doing one hell of a job screwing up all by themselves. Deal with it.

No kidding. That's what I've been saying as well. I was agreeing with you on that, but keep arguing the point if you want.

I'm afraid you're the one denying reality in regards to the alleged flip-flop. As for what the GOP does to themselves, I'm not concerned. I'm not a Republican so insulting them doesn't hurt my feelings.

And yet you keep trying to assert that there was no flip-flop by Rand Paul.....why? Surely you're not going to play the neocon "exact word game"? That's when one of their icons gets caught foot-in-mouth via audio/video/print quote and the icon and his sycophants claim "well, if he didn't use these particular words, then you can't "interpret" what he said in a negative way".

Like the old saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. If the discussion is about earmarks, and a person who previously claims being dead set against them in no uncertain terms suddenly starts talking about "being open" to things in his states interest (i.e., earmarks), then only someone totally unfamiliar with colloquial American English would miss the conclusion of such a statement.

Okay, since you are saying we're on the same page, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the footnotes.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Sorry "bud", but what McConnell did was a complete about face on YEARS of a particular political principal....NOT a compromise or acquiesce!

As for Rand Paul, your insipidly stubborn denial of reality is irrelevent.

No "bud", I don't have it in for the GOP to the point where I have to fabricate negative press....they are doing one hell of a job screwing up all by themselves. Deal with it.

No kidding. That's what I've been saying as well. I was agreeing with you on that, but keep arguing the point if you want.

I'm afraid you're the one denying reality in regards to the alleged flip-flop. As for what the GOP does to themselves, I'm not concerned. I'm not a Republican so insulting them doesn't hurt my feelings.

And yet you keep trying to assert that there was no flip-flop by Rand Paul.....why? Surely you're not going to play the neocon "exact word game"? That's when one of their icons gets caught foot-in-mouth via audio/video/print quote and the icon and his sycophants claim "well, if he didn't use these particular words, then you can't "interpret" what he said in a negative way".

Like the old saying goes, there's more than one way to skin a cat. If the discussion is about earmarks, and a person who previously claims being dead set against them in no uncertain terms suddenly starts talking about "being open" to things in his states interest (i.e., earmarks), then only someone totally unfamiliar with colloquial American English would miss the conclusion of such a statement.

Okay, since you are saying we're on the same page, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about the footnotes.

We're only on the same page on Mitch McConnell, but I'm not going to sit here and go over the same nonsense about Rand repeatedly.