Close
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21
    Possesses Antidote for "Cool" Gman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puyallup, WA
    Posts
    17,848

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pickenup View Post
    Yup, who would want some nutcase, that actually believes we still have a viable constitution, and has the voting record to prove it...
    Ron Paul has been admittedly gaming the system to have that voting record. He has added about $400MM in earmarks for his constituents. He does this knowing that the legislation will pass. When it comes time to vote, he votes against it, it passes anyway, his constituents get their money, and he gets to claim that he didn't vote for it.

    http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10...economic_i.php

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/page/3/

    MR. RUSSERT: When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district. For example, "Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted. `Is bailing out people" that choose--"that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?' he asks." And you said no. And yet, this: "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." For your own congressional district. This is the Houston Chronicle: "Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But he also" "represented a congressional district that's consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's" fiscal "2006 fiscal year," "it received more than $4 billion." And they report, The Wall Street Journal, 65 earmark-targeted projects, $400 million that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly. "The Earmark Dossier of `Dr. No.' There isn't much that" Ron--Dr. "Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks" for his district "are OK. Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill," all benefiting his district. The Gulf Intercoastal Waterway: $32 million. The sunken ship you want to be moved from Freeport Harbor. The Bayou Navigation Channel. They talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen.
    REP. PAUL: You, you know...
    MR. RUSSERT: Why, why would you load up...
    REP. PAUL: You got it completely wrong. I've never voted for an earmark in my life.

    MR. RUSSERT: No, but you put them in the bill.
    REP. PAUL: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back. But it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave the money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?
    MR. RUSSERT: Well, that's like, that's like saying you voted for it before you voted against it.
    REP. PAUL: Nah! Come on, Tim. That has nothing to do with that.
    MR. RUSSERT: If, if, if you put it in the bill and get the headlight back home...
    REP. PAUL: No, I, I make the request. They're not in the bills.
    MR. RUSSERT: ...and then you, then you know it's going to pass Congress and so you, you don't refuse the money.
    REP. PAUL: Well, no, of course not. It's like taking a tax credit. If you have a tax credit, I'm against the taxes but I take all my tax credits. I want to get...
    MR. RUSSERT: But if you were true...
    REP. PAUL: ...the money back for the people.
    MR. RUSSERT: If you were true to your philosophy, you would say no pork spending in my district.
    REP. PAUL: No, no, that's not it. They steal our money, that's like saying that people shouldn't take Social Security money.
    MR. RUSSERT: For...
    REP. PAUL: I don't advocate that.
    MR. RUSSERT: All right, let me ask you this...
    REP. PAUL: I'm trying to save the system, make the system work.
    MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you this...
    REP. PAUL: But no, I think you have it all mixed up. Now, you're confused.
    MR. RUSSERT: All right. It's all facts.
    REP. PAUL: You're confused.
    MR. RUSSERT: This is The Wall Street Journal. You load up the bills with special projects...
    REP. PAUL: I--no, no, no. No, you don't.
    MR. RUSSERT: You do. You do. You deny that you have, you have...
    REP. PAUL: How many of them ever got passed? But the whole point is, we have a right and an...
    MR. RUSSERT: They pass. You vote against them, but you take the money.
    REP. PAUL: You don't quite understand.
    MR. RUSSERT: OK.
    REP. PAUL: They take our money from us, and the Congress has the authority to appropriate, not the executive branch. And I'm saying that I represent my people. They have a request, it's like taking a tax credit, and I put it in--the whole process is corrupt so that I vote against everything.
    MR. RUSSERT: All right, let me ask you this. But if...
    REP. PAUL: I vote against it, so I don't endorse the system.
    MR. RUSSERT: But when it passes overwhelmingly, you take the money back home.
    REP. PAUL: I don't take it. That's the system.
    MR. RUSSERT: The system.
    REP. PAUL: I'm trying to change that system. To turn it around and say I'm supporting this system, I find it...
    MR. RUSSERT: Well. Well...
    REP. PAUL: ...rather ironic and entertaining.
    MR. RUSSERT: Well, when you stop taking earmarks or putting earmarks in the, in the spending bills, then I think you'll be consistent.
    Ron Paul often votes with the Dems to kill issues that are incrementally heading in the right direction. Can you understand how Republicans might have a problem with that?

    Dr. Paul certainly didn't look good in the debate tonight.
    Liberals never met a slippery slope they didn't grease.
    -Me

    I wish technology solved people issues. It seems to just reveal them.
    -Also Me


  2. #22
    Delphi
    Guest

    Default

    Vote for hillary or osama... I mean obama...

    That'll change things real quick

  3. #23
    Possesses Antidote for "Cool" Gman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Puyallup, WA
    Posts
    17,848

    Default

    Yeah, change them for the worse. Who knows how much damage they'll do or how long it will take to undo it...if it's even possible.
    Liberals never met a slippery slope they didn't grease.
    -Me

    I wish technology solved people issues. It seems to just reveal them.
    -Also Me


  4. #24
    -Wolverine-
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by foxtrot View Post
    Example: If a candidate is a staunch constituionalist, but hes an islamic nut and wants to test nukes in urban areas in the name of science, does that make him a wise choice?

    If a candidate is a woman, do you vote for that candidate because she is a woman?

    Whoopty doo, hes a constitutionalist. Its a package deal. I'm not impressed with the package *at all*
    The first contradicts itself. Constitutionalists thinking favors limited government, and the protection of the peoples rights (protection from force and fraud, nothing more nothing less). Testing nuclear weapons in urban areas, for any reason, violates these rights. Therefore someone who believes such a thing is beneficial is not a constitutionalist.

    The latter has little to do with anything. You vote for a woman because she is a woman, ok...... the gender of the candidate has nothing to do with their beliefs.

    Voting for someone because they are a Constitutionalist, is voting like for that person's libertarian beliefs on the way government should be run. Voting for a Constitutionalists because someone is a Constitutionalists is the same as voting for someone who is pro-gun because they are pro-gun.
    Same logic, the first is simply more consistent.

  5. #25
    -Wolverine-
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Delphi View Post
    Vote for hillary or osama... I mean obama...

    That'll change things real quick
    Hitlery.


  6. #26
    Machine Gunner Wallary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Arvada , Colorado
    Posts
    1,213
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
    Ronald Reagan

  7. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -Wolverine- View Post
    Compelling, yes. Atleast on that one issue.

    I'm still going to vote for Ron Paul though..... I have to now. I put the "Gun Owners 4 Paul" bumper sticker on today.
    He is more in line with my Libertarian views than any of the other GOP candidates.
    Where'd you get the sticker?

  8. #28
    -Wolverine-
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Asha'man View Post
    Where'd you get the sticker?
    I think it was the group Gun Owners for Paul, they called and i said I was supporting him. I can check the address on the sticker tomorrow.

  9. #29
    Delphi
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gman View Post
    Yeah, change them for the worse. Who knows how much damage they'll do or how long it will take to undo it...if it's even possible.
    I think that it may change things quickly in the wrong direction, but I dont think it would last too long. Those types of changes just wouldnt be tolerated

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •