Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
OfflineMadtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers
 User Gallery


Registered: 03/06/03
Posts: 21,287
Loc: The Ocean of Notions
Last seen: 5 months, 23 days
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7719505 - 12/05/07 12:30 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Even you have to admit that is nothing but your opinion.

I know you post in Religion and Philosophy, or whatever they call it nowadays, but I dont believe that anyone can tell the future.

Did *YOU* predict two weeks ago that Huckabee would be leading the polls?  Because I must have missed that.

But yet you can confidently predict the outcome of the nomination process...

:crazy:


--------------------
After one comes, through contact with it's administrators, no longer to cherish greatly the law as a remedy in abuses, then the bottle becomes a sovereign means of direct action.  If you cannot throw it at least you can always drink out of it.  - Ernest Hemingway

If it is life that you feel you are missing I can tell you where to find it.  In the law courts, in business, in government.  There is nothing occurring in the streets. Nothing but a dumbshow composed of the helpless and the impotent.    -Cormac MacCarthy

He who learns must suffer. And even in our sleep pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God.  - Aeschylus


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #7719554 - 12/05/07 12:41 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

I've already admitted in such threads that it is simply my perspective on the matter... the only question is what a perspective takes into account. I like to challenge how the race is looked at, because, too often, I see people seeing what they pick up on what is broadcast in the MSM (plenty more information on him in the MSM when you look for it, of course), and not looking at every gauge from which we can build an understanding of what is happening. I certainly don't know everything, nor do I invest too much into observing what is going on, but I have looked into enough to know that the most basic view of what is happening with Ron Paul cuts his chances far too short.

I haven't made any predictions as far as Huckabee leaping ahead in such a manner, but I, likewise, haven't made any predictions about Ron Paul leaping anywhere either. I had noted, that long ago, that he was building support in Iowa, and that he seemed capable of taking it further, although I think Iowa won't carry him far if he does win it.

If anything, his leap is a demonstration that the majority are very speculative, and aren't attached to any of these candidates. They are quick to leap to support whoever seems strongest. Watch what happens when they finally realize that Ron Paul is their best candidate to lead them into the White House. :wink:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #7719927 - 12/05/07 02:35 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

gettinjiggywithit writes:

Quote:

Zappa has it all wrong.

Paul has no control over others in congress passing pork bills he votes no on. These people get paid money by the pork lobbyists to vote yes and they take the money and they vote yes. They don't give a damn if its a good bill or not.

Paul doesn't take lobby money and he doesn't vote for any bill he thinks is unconstitutional. Lobbyists don't even bother going to his office.




Zappa is not wrong, but has instead nailed the point with admirable concision.

If a congressman/woman adds pork to a bill that he/she knows has strong enough support to pass even without his/her own vote, it doesn't matter whether he/she adds it at the urging of lobbyists or at the urging of a citizen's group or at the urging of a single constituent or even at no one's urging at all -- just his/her own feeling that it's a good idea. Pork is pork, and to add it to a bill you KNOW has no danger of losing even if you vote against it is a cynical political ploy.

Now, you can of course argue that in order to get re-elected by his/her current constituents, each and every congressman/woman has no choice but to toss them pork. But that doesn't invalidate Zappa's point. If a congressman really opposed pork, he/she wouldn't add it to any bill in the first place. This ruse of adding it to the bill, then voting against the bill is just a lame attempt at trying to have it both ways, and it's transparently hypocritical.

By the way, don't take this as criticism of Ron Paul. I wrote the above not to show that Paul is as hypocritical as any of the rest when it comes to pork, but to show that Zappa does not in fact "ha(ve) it all wrong".



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineThe_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth
Male User Gallery

Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN Flag
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: Phred]
    #7720045 - 12/05/07 03:05 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

He's correct but its still irrelevant considering that every presidential candidate has each authorized their own packages of pork, In my humble opinion i find Ron Paul to be the lesser of evils. He more then likely still wont make the primaries but regardless he's drummed up quite a bit of grassroots support.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: Phred]
    #7720152 - 12/05/07 03:30 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

I disagree.

Earmarking money for your district is a congressmens job, to pass on requests from his/her district.



Ron Paul honors the process of it being his job to pass on the request for pork from his district. That is a part of his job.

He also honors his oath to serve the Constitution and votes no if he thinks the bill is for unconstitutional spending.

They are two separate job descriptions he has.

It doesn't matter if he knows they will pass.

He doesn't want to be the one spending tax payer money on pork when this nation is high in debt and going bankrupt.

He would then surely look like a hypocrite if he voted yes to spending money on pork. You would have something on him there if he voted yes to them all.

He is staying true to his principles and words on the financial mess this country is in when he votes no to spending.

He wishes the rest of Congress would follow suit, and quit spending money on pork, and instead, pay off the national debt first.

See him however you want too. I see this the same as someone saying, " It is my job as a taxi driver to take my passengers where they want to go. If they bribe me to break the law and speed to get there, I will say NO."


You both will have to do a better job of convincing me that a man who has been bitching for 20 years about government spending, and getting the national debt paid off, is a hypocrite for voting no to pork bills, even if they are his own that he is obligated to earmark for his constituents.

Like I said, if he voted yes to them all, then you would surely have him on hypocrisy charges, against his complaints of government overspending tax money they don't have, when they are so in debt they have to borrow more from the Chinese, raise taxes and or just print more of it up, which causes a devaluing dollar and inflation.

Ron Paul wants that madness to stop.

He does as a District Congressmen, have to pass on requests for earmarks though. And he does that. So what?


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #7720784 - 12/05/07 05:34 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Earmarking money for your district is a congressmens job, to pass on requests from his/her district.




Incorrect. So hugely incorrect there are no words for it -- we'll have to invent an entirely new term to encompass the vastness of its incorrectness.

A congressman's job is to write the laws of the land and to periodically review and alter if necessary the existing laws of the land. If there is no need for new laws, he has nothing to do.

Now, it is true that congressmen (and unfortunately, an increasingly larger percentage of American citizens) since the New Deal have managed to convince themselves that a congressman's job also includes plundering the federal treasury to ensure their own re-election through the bribing of the electorate with goodies. But this is now and always has been a mistaken impression.

The fact that some of Ron Paul's constituents may honestly desire federal funds to build a museum to Conway Twitty in their district does not mean it is Paul's job to get those funds. It most emphatically is not his job, and Paul, better than almost all other Congresscritters, knows it is not his job. Yet he does it anyway.

That's fine -- I'm not blaming him for doing what every other Congresscritter does. We can moan all day about the flaws in the democratic electoral process which make it almost impossible to get re-elected without stealing from Peter to bribe Paul. But I must point out -- as Zap already has -- that Paul's pretense at righteousness is transparently bogus. Zappa's analysis was bang on. The fact that Paul chooses not to entertain lobbyists but instead citizen groups or old friends or whatever, is a trivial distinction. The bottom line is not his methodology for choosing pork, it's that he chooses pork.

Again, don't look at this so much as a criticism of Paul, but as a validation of Zap's analysis. Zap was 100% correct.




Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: Phred]
    #7720828 - 12/05/07 05:41 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Earmarking money for your district is a congressmens job, to pass on requests from his/her district.




Incorrect. So hugely incorrect there are no words for it -- we'll have to invent an entirely new term to encompass the vastness of its incorrectness.






Perhaps we can call it jiggy-thinking. Like tub-thumping only shakier.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: Phred]
    #7720985 - 12/05/07 06:06 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

To validate zaps comment about Paul being a phony/hypocrite, I fail to see where he is saying one thing and doing another.

I know it's not a congressmens job to get Federally funding for their districts pet projects. So does Paul. That is why he votes NO.

And you are right for all who don't really understand how this works. Somewhere along the line Congress decided it was their job to plunder the U.S. Treasury for their districts. It's wrong, yet it has become the status quo of politics in Congress.

Paul's position on it is, if Federal money is going to be allocated for congressional districts, weather he agrees with it or not, and he doesn;t agree with it, he decided that he might as well create earmarks so his district has a fair shot at some of it, if it will be spent somewhere anyway.

Thats as far as he will take it. When it comes to approving such an expense, he votes no on the principle that he doesn't agree with this practice at all.

Perhaps I should have said, it's a common practice of District reps, instead.

Hearing Paul speak on this mess, and his explanation for why he earmarks just to give his district a chance at some of the money, they contribute to in income taxes, that will be spent anyway, makes it easy for me to understand. All things considered on his views, and that the money will go elsewhere and be spent, weather he earmarks it or not, it's understandable to me.

If someone wants to call him a phony, I think they are in the wrong for that because if Paul had his say, the whole practice of earmarking federal funds for districts wouldn't even be in place because.............

da da da...Paul wants to get rid of the Federal Income tax all together. he says it is unconstitutional to charge people a federal income tax.

If it were up to him, there would be no federal funds for districts to pull from. they would be pulling from state funds that come from out of state taxes.

And it's because I understand where he is at with this, the idea of calling him a phony hypocrite for earmarking pork, that he won't vote to spend money on, is an ignorant, out of the ball park comment.

Thats looking at the big picture.

if I narrowed my view to the tiny one Zappa is looking through, like taking something out of context to get it to say something else, I can see where Zappa sees it.

None the less, that is like taking the words "I like cake" out of a full sentence someone said and then running around telling everyone, that person likes cake.

What they said in full was

"I like cake as much as I like getting burned with a cattle prod."

When you look at the big picture of how all of this stared, Zappa said that " Paul will spend money on Pork like all the others "

We called Bullshit! He votes No to the spending and wants those funds put back into the pockets of every American that pays a Federal income tax.

If the least he can do in this corrupt ass system of ours, is ear mark some of it to go back to his district, which is only fair if it's going to be spent with or without his approval, that's fine with me.

I don't fault him for that at all.

Zappa being the fiscal conservative he says he is, I am surprised he can't find it in himself to praise Paul for his integrity in this area, even though they disagree on issue like the abortion and the war.

Paul is a fiscal conservatives wet dream.


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #7721110 - 12/05/07 06:24 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

He has no integrity. He is a phony. If he had any integrity he wouldn't load on any pork. He pulls this shit all the time. While the adults are voting on bills he makes meaningless grandstanding plays that have zero effect. In all his time in Congress has he actually done anything? Anything at all? Other than load the pork for his district, that is.

Nevermind, I'll answer for you. NO, not a single fucking thing. Zip zero nada nil nicht.

Quote:

Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 346 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 341 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers).



http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311

His latest effort? This:

Quote:

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that tips shall not be subject to income or employment taxes.




A lot of you are way too easily enamored of cartoon characters. Do you know how many of the policies he espouses would actually become law if he was President? The same as when he was a Congressman. None. And for good reason, too.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: zappaisgod]
    #7721339 - 12/05/07 07:05 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Ron Paul left his more profitable practice as an OBGYN and got into legislation because he became deeply concerned with the economy, size of government, and the spending. He wants it all reduced. reducing it, means reducing what government does for it. knowing this, it is silly to expect him to be doing anything much, other then trying to get people to stop all of the excess bullshit.

You are right, his goal isn't to do anything more that regulates and controls our lives. He fights for less government regulation and control over our lives and money. He clearly states that he wants to become President for what he doesn't want to do, not for what he does want to do. He doesn't want to control our lives. He wants to return our power and money back over to us and the states. Like he says, no one knows better how to run your own life and spend your own money then you do. ( God I love him for that respect of us alone.)

What has been popular as of late, is BIG spending by each party. Pauls unpopular on the hill with those who like to spend spend spend our money at the whim of where the lobbyists take them.

It's not Paul's fault that not enough members of Congress and the Senate, want a return to small constitutional government, low taxes, less spending. It's not his fault that he is surrounded by a bunch of sell outs on the Hill.

Nice to know that we have had some one in there all of this time, trying to impart some sanity into an administration that has gone ape shit mad with out of control spending of our tax dollars, so much so estimates put our real debt at about 10 trillion dollars, some of it borrowed from China. Lets not forget the recent passing of a vote to increase the credit limit for borrowing, and the tens of billions of newly printed money to bail out the banks who put unsuspecting families out into the streets.

In my eyes, he is the only voice of reason in a room gone mad.

Here are some very recent words on Paul about earmarks to get a "feel" for him there.

Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One

by Ron Paul


Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred-billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.

So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.

So we need to focus on the longer-term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBrAiN
Art Fag
 User Gallery
Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #7721802 - 12/05/07 08:37 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

man i started this topic a while back and actually stopped paying attention days ago after getting bored to tears ;P

I think I can sum the entire thread up in a few lines

"NU UH!"
"UH HUH!"
"NUH UH!!!!"
"UH HUUUH!!!"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRosettaStoned
Stranger


Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: johnm214]
    #7721992 - 12/05/07 09:22 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

If this forum didn't have people like zappa w/ contrary viewpoints, i.e. if it just had you two, I wouldn't even be here, and probably neither would others.





People like zappa and phred are not just contrary, they are dominating. One of them will come to every thread in here to fill it with neo-con propaganda and if you disagree with them you will be belittled and insulted. If you call that a contrary viewpoint...Honestly the political forum would likely have alot more regulars without them. Believe it or not you can actually discuss political topics without bullying the other person. Hence I always come back and call them out from time to time when I get bored.

As for Dr. Paul's earmarks, it's just plain ridiculous to accuse him of voting no just for show. Did he vote no on the patriot act just for show? What about the iraq war? That explanation doesn't add up. He votes no on principle or his voting record would show otherwise and so would his bank account. Where are his visits from the lobby industry? Zappa is doing nothing more than grasping at straws trying to attack Ron Paul any way he can.

No matter how much they claim Dr. Paul can't win they are very worried, just watch the attacks roll in.


--------------------
"Government big enough to provide you with all you need is also big enough to take everything you have." ~ Thomas Jefferson

"Without stupid, faggy potheads we wouldn't have wars." - Zappa


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleShroomismM
Space Travellin
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension Flag
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: RosettaStoned]
    #7722428 - 12/05/07 11:11 PM (16 years, 1 month ago)

People get very heated over politics. That's how wars start. Politics and Greed. They both gotta go IMO.

I like all the slander in this thread. It's funny to watch. And classic.

Ron Paul is this, Ron Paul is that. Shut up. Ron Paul is a fucking saint compared to every single one of those slimy greaseballs.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #7723313 - 12/06/07 07:02 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

gettinjiggywithit writes:

Quote:

To validate zaps comment about Paul being a phony/hypocrite, I fail to see where he is saying one thing and doing another.




How can you fail to see? He rails against pork, yet inserts pork into bills. If that isn't a textbook case of hypocrisy, what is?

Quote:

I know it's not a congressmens job to get Federally funding for their districts pet projects. So does Paul. That is why he votes NO.




Yet his district still ends up with federal funding for various pet projects. Gee.... how did that happen?

It happened because Paul inserted pork into a bill that he knew would pass regardless of his "no" vote. He didn't have to insert that pork. He could have stuck to his principle that pork is bad by not introducing any of it into that bill in the first place. If Paul hadn't gone to the trouble of inserting that pork, the federal government would have spent less money -- Paul's purported goal. And Paul knows that.

Here's a couple of questions for you. I don't ask them facetiously, but because I haven't scrutinized Paul's voting record in relation to his pork insertions.

-- Does Paul only insert his pork into bills on which he votes "no"?

-- How many of his pork-laden bills on which he voted "no" were close calls when the votes were tallied?

Quote:

Paul's position on it is, if Federal money is going to be allocated for congressional districts, weather he agrees with it or not, and he doesn;t agree with it, he decided that he might as well create earmarks so his district has a fair shot at some of it, if it will be spent somewhere anyway.

Thats as far as he will take it. When it comes to approving such an expense, he votes no on the principle that he doesn't agree with this practice at all.




I'm sorry, but I think you are so enamored of Paul that you aren't seeing this objectively. Can you not see how ludicrous this whole charade is? It isn't fooling anyone. Here's how Paul might explain it if injected with truth serum --

"I tell the public I object to pork. But I can't get re-elected on just the votes of those constituents of mine who also object to pork. I need the "gimme, gimme" votes too. So I make sure (by inserting the pork they crave into bills that are a lock to pass no matter how I myself vote) the "gimme, gimme" voters get their pork and just hope and pray they're too stupid to notice that I voted against my own pork. At the same time I point out to the pork-haters that I voted against Bills such and such and so and so because they contained pork, and just hope and pray they are too stupid to notice it was my pork I voted against. So by pulling the wool over the eyes of enough people in both groups I can get re-elected."

I repeat -- I don't necessarily blame Paul for this cynical method of having it both ways. But I do blame him for bragging about his "superior" ethical stance on pork. These machinations are as morally shady as anything else most other congresscritters do to bring home the bacon, and more dishonest than many: if a congressman declares forthrightly that if elected he'll squeeze the feds for every possible dime he can wring out of them, then proceeds to stuff every bill he can to bursting with pork, that congressman is at least being way more honest with the public than someone who uses Paul's method.

Now, if Paul really had the courage of his convictions, he'd have been telling his constituents all along something like,

"Don't vote for me if you want me to extort handouts from the feds, because I won't do it. I intend to represent this district the way the founding fathers intended. I'll devise and revise and review and vote on matters of law, but I will never insert a clause into any bill which requires the government to seize money from the rest of your fellow Americans to spend on y'all. You have my promise on that. Likewise, I will vote against any bill which contains such earmarks for any other district. You have my promise on that, too.

Now, if you can't bring yourself to vote for me under those circumstances, then I guess I'll have to do without your vote. But I'm confident there are more than enough of you out there who are just as disgusted with this freeloading mentality as I am to return me to the House of Representatives yet again. Thank you."

It's one thing to talk the talk. It's another thing to walk the walk.

Again, I'm not saying Paul should necessarily make a speech like that, I'm just pointing out that to attempt to portray his weaselly maneuvering on pork as a morally superior stance is transparently ridiculous and makes him look just like any other dishonest politician squirming when he gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

If you still can't grasp what Zap and I are getting at here, well... I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can't lay it out any more clearly than I have already and there's no point repeating myself on it. Time to get back to the actual topic of the thread -- if Ron Paul were to run as an independent, would he suck more votes from the Dem candidate or the Repub?



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: Phred]
    #7723400 - 12/06/07 07:38 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Great post. :thumbup:

When I have more time, I'll dig for some more specific information about the matter...


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: Phred]
    #7723662 - 12/06/07 09:19 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Phred,

There is a compromise taking place, of course. It's a reasonable one to me.

Paul currently can't change the fact that money is budgeted by the Feds for earmarking and that Congress will spend it all on pork. That said, he feels he owes it to his district to earmark some for them as it's only fair "under the current system as it is", because their Federal income taxes paid into the fund as well.

He would prefer to change that system which he believes is wrong though, by getting rid of it all together, and that's why he votes no, to make a stand on where he really sits with it.

Yes, he makes a compromise and under the current circumstances of not being able to fully get what he wants, I think it is reasonable in light of his consideration for his constituents.

I do not believe that there is any il intent to deceive people by how he is handling this as he has been upfront and honest about it why he earmarks under the current system ( his constituents do contribute through Federal income taxes to the fund, and if it is going to spent, they might as well get some of their money back, and yet why he votes No, because he is ultimately against the who system of Federal income taxing, and earmarking for lobby money.

To someone who doesn't fully understand Paul's political philosophy, it certainly would look suspicious of someone trying to wear two hats.

To me, I see a man being reasonable and as fair to himself and others as he can be, in light of something he isn't happy about.

If this is the best spin Zappa can put on him, to create dirt with which not to vote for Paul, I find that laughable.

And yes, I am deeply enamored with any politician that refuses to accept lobby bribes.

If Paul accepted lobby bribes to at least create those earmarks, then Zappa may have some dirt. Paul makes zero off of doing that, where as other congressmen are lining their pockets pretty deep with this whole sham of plundering by Congress and the Feds.

I think Zappa is a lousy spin Doctor and should keep he day job.


Back to the topic,

As I said before, from polls taken at Ron Paul forums, Paul seems to be evenly taking from both the Dems and Republicans right now.

At one of the Ron Paul sites, a gal was delivering some marketing material to a clients office where her daughter was waiting at the front desk. The clients daughter turned out to be a Campaign Manager of Hillary's on her way to an event in Iowa. They got to talking, and when she mentioned she was voting for Paul, the daughter said, " He is the one Hillary is most concerned about having to run up against.

She gave reason for where Hillary said she could discredit the other Republicans on the war, and their records, be they flip floppers, or not walking their talk with their records, like Fred with gun rights. She said Hillary said Paul has been more solid against the war, and has a record that backs his talk, and he'll be the most difficult for her to discredit.~ end of their dialogue

Paul will easily be able to grab those against the war away from Hillary if it came down to the two of them in a debate. The Republicans need to wake up to this if they want to win.


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #7723737 - 12/06/07 09:47 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Great post. :thumbup:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinefireworks_godS
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Male


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: fireworks_god]
    #7723739 - 12/06/07 09:48 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

:hehehe:


--------------------
:redpanda:
If I should die this very moment
I wouldn't fear
For I've never known completeness
Like being here
Wrapped in the warmth of you
Loving every breath of you

:heartpump: :bunnyhug: :yinyang:

:yinyang: :levitate: :earth: :levitate: :yinyang:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: gettinjiggywithit]
    #7723755 - 12/06/07 09:53 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

jiggy writes:

Quote:

Paul currently can't change the fact that money is budgeted by the Feds for earmarking and that Congress will spend it all on pork.




Good grief! Do you not have ANY idea of how the federal government budgeting process works? The Feds do not "budget" money for earmarking. Where on earth did you get that idea?

Quote:

He would prefer to change that system which he believes is wrong though, by getting rid of it all together, and that's why he votes no, to make a stand on where he really sits with it.




All Zap and I point out is that his voting "no" is not "making a stand" at all, it's transparently cynical ploy to have his cake and eat it to. If he wants to let people know where he really "sits with it", there's a lot less dishonest ways of doing so -- like not introducing pork in the first place.

Quote:

I do not believe that there is any ill intent to deceive people by how he is handling this as he has been upfront and honest about it why he earmarks under the current system ( his constituents do contribute through Federal income taxes to the fund, and if it is going to spent, they might as well get some of their money back, and yet why he votes No, because he is ultimately against the who system of Federal income taxing, and earmarking for lobby money.




LOL! This is just one of the many reasons so many people treat Ron Paul like the crazy uncle who stuffs jello down his pants whenever he's let out in public -- because he honestly seems to believe (or honestly seems to think voters are dumb enough to buy -- I'm unsure which) this convoluted Kabuki dance of inserting pork and then voting against it is rational behavior useful in defending some kind of moral stance.

The bottom line is that he makes sure his pork-lovers get their pork; all the while wailing about how evil pork is. If that ain't hypocrisy, nothing is.

Quote:

To someone who doesn't fully understand Paul's political philosophy, it certainly would look suspicious of someone trying to wear two hats.




There's no philosophy there to understand. A purported "philosophy" which contradicts itself is not a philosophy, but an anti-philosophy.

Quote:

To me, I see a man being reasonable and as fair to himself and others as he can be, in light of something he isn't happy about.




And Zap and I recognize a cycnical con man claiming one thing and doing the opposite -- at least on this particular issue. If he really opposed pork -- I mean REALLY opposed it, not just claim to oppose it -- he wouldn't introduce earmarks at all and would take his chances that this would piss off his constituents to the point where he'd not be re-elected. Instead he rationalizes that he can accomplish enough other good things by being the representative for his district (such as?) that in the balance the good he does will outweigh the evil done by his doling out of pork. So why doesn't he just say that? Why this ludicrous farce of inserting pork and then casting a vote he KNOWS from the beginning won't stop the pork from being doled out? It's either nuts or it's dishonest. There is no third option.

Quote:

And yes, I am deeply enamored with any politician that refuses to accept lobby bribes.




Oh, please. What's the damned difference if Bugscuffle Bottoms gets their Tammy Wynette Museum paid for with federal funds because they persuaded Jimmy Bob Gorton of Gorton's Chev - Olds in Wyatt's Junction to bend Paul's ear about it or had the chairwoman of the Bugscuffle Bottoms PTA write him a letter? In either case federal funds are used to build the museum.

Quote:

If Paul accepted lobby bribes to at least create those earmarks, then Zappa may have some dirt. Paul makes zero off of doing that...




Except assuring his re-election. I wouldn't mind getting paid a congressman's salary. It's a lot more than I make in a year. Some people's bribery threshold is lower than others.

Quote:

They got to talking, and when she mentioned she was voting for Paul, the daughter said, " He is the one Hillary is most concerned about having to run up against.




Yeah. Like staffers for Hillary are famous for their honesty. *rolls eyes*




Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblegettinjiggywithit
jiggy
Female User Gallery

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: Phred]
    #7723902 - 12/06/07 11:03 AM (16 years, 1 month ago)

Quote:

Phred said:

Good grief! Do you not have ANY idea of how the federal government budgeting process works? The Feds do not "budget" money for earmarking. Where on earth did you get that idea?




:lol: Phred, the word budget is just used to describe money made available to be spent IN general in the House and Senate. I know the requests get tucked into bills for other things. How nit picky about semantics are we going to get here. I'm trying to keep it simple for anyone following this discussion.

Getting into specific details in this post about how earmarking pork in appropriation bills works, is irrelevant to the charge of Paul being a phony. You're side stepping with this one and I'm not going to take the bait for it.

For those of you new to debate tactics, side stepping is a means, to discredit a person on a side topic, in an attempt to make it look like the person has been discredited on the original argument.

The argument is, is a Paul a phony for earmarking money for his constituents, even if he votes no on the bills, to look "good" and keep his constituents happy at the same time.

The argument is not one of how bills get passed with pork in them. It's irrelevant to understand how federal funds are broken down and spent. That's another topic if you care to start one on it Phred. I didn't care to get into it and still don't because it's not revelant to the charge, nor does it discredit Paul's reasoning for believing it's only fair in this slimy system to earmark for his constituents so they can get a fair shot at getting some of their own money back, from out of the disgusting feeding frenzy in the house and Senate.

If anyone is interested in the process and practice, you can learn more from here. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks

The rest is just repetitive arm wrestling arguments and my addressing it would lead to my repeating myself. 

I can easily say that yes, Paul is  compromising himself on this one. I understand why and it doesn't bother me. That's the best you're going to get out of me on it.

I don't have a problem with it, I've known about it, and it doesn't change my support for Paul in the slightest. It doesn't even register on my personal alert radar.


--------------------
Ahuwale ka nane huna.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Estulin: Elitists Consider Assassinating Ron Paul
( 1 2 all )
Visionary Tools 3,123 24 12/15/07 07:20 PM
by zorbman
* The Ron Paul BLIMP!
( 1 2 all )
bugabuga420 2,755 35 12/14/07 09:38 AM
by gettinjiggywithit
* Libertarian: Ron Paul
( 1 2 all )
Bridgeburner 3,899 32 11/29/07 12:37 AM
by pooppoop
* Washington Times on Ron Paul Supporters
( 1 2 all )
gettinjiggywithit 3,496 24 11/24/07 09:29 AM
by fireworks_god
* Good Article that sums up Ron Paul vintage_gonzo 1,614 11 08/08/07 06:36 PM
by kotik
* The Ron Paul Saga-The Best is Yet to Come
( 1 2 all )
discombobulate 3,377 23 08/14/07 10:29 PM
by ArcofaJourney
* Ron Paul Presidential candidate for 08, **INFO**
( 1 2 all )
ElectricJW 4,309 35 07/17/07 02:47 PM
by zappaisgod
* Hey Ron Paul supporters. . .
( 1 2 all )
implicitli 3,228 27 01/07/08 06:10 PM
by EntheogenicPeace

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,486 topic views. 0 members, 0 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.031 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.