|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil?
#7709847 - 12/03/07 07:53 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Totally hypothetical situation:
If/When Ron Paul doesn't get the republican nod and he runs as a Libertarian or other third party (which I doubt he would do), would he be a democrat spoiler, a republican spoiler, or would he draw votes away from both parties equally?
Both coservative AND liberal media seems to be shutting him out as much as they can. Republicans for obvious reasons... democrats, I think because they WANT him to lose the nomination because he poses too much of a threat to democrats if it's just him and Hillary/Obama.
Lets try to stay on topic if we can, also.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: BrAiN]
#7709858 - 12/03/07 08:02 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I say democratic, just based on my small sphere of people I talk with.
They are generally against the iraq war, drug prohibition (for the most part, some are equivocators) , governent regulation, et cet.
These ALL vote republican for these reasons- which is probably why the democrats don't do jack shit. Their supporters in certain circles will never vote for different party, so the dem's no they don't have to pander to their interests.
So yeah, I know many people who essentially believe in the ron paul platform but inexplicably vote democratic for some reason
|
SlashOZ
:D



Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: BrAiN]
#7709892 - 12/03/07 08:20 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i think a lot of people i know would be more willing to look at ron paul than the other side of the isle. meaning that the hardcore republicans i know might vote for ron paul rather than a democrate any day, same goes with dems. honestly though most of the people i know like ron paul and what he stands far as soon as they actually read what he is all about.
-------------------- "Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose "Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS "When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi "Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson. "Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger


Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: BrAiN]
#7709989 - 12/03/07 09:06 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Ron Paul is a way bigger threat to hilary than the repubs. Hilary has already been chosen. Ron Paul would upset that balance. I've said it b4 and I'll say it again; there is not one candidate that could stand up to Ron Paul in a 1 on 1 debate/election. Corruption cannot stand up to the light of truth, and Dr. Paul isn't afraid to speak the truth.
-------------------- "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
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: RosettaStoned]
#7710024 - 12/03/07 09:29 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Hillary Clinton couldn't stand up to Ron Paul. Ron Paul's statements reflect his record, her's do not. Half of America will never vote for Hillary Clinton no matter what, and the rest of them do question her calculated nature. Who knows what the hell she would actually do. 
Here's what she'll actually do. Taxes will go up to 60%, and she'll lead a Democratic majority into Congress too. She'll turn this country into a Welfare state and spend, spend, spend, spend your money. She'll open her legs to globalist interests, that want to suck this country of all of its wealth and power. Americans will become more dependent upon the state for their livelihood as the economy collapses, and we will suck on her teat. Total control.
--------------------
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
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: fireworks_god]
#7710029 - 12/03/07 09:31 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said: Here's what she'll actually do. Taxes will go up to 60%, and she'll lead a Democratic majority into Congress too. She'll turn this country into a Welfare state and spend, spend, spend, spend your money. She'll open her legs to globalist interests, that want to suck this country of all of its wealth and power. Americans will become more dependent upon the state for their livelihood as the economy collapses, and we will suck on her teat. Total control. 
And then Americans will get sick of it, and public opinion will once again turn towards the Republicans, and it will be business as usual.
--------------------
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: Silversoul]
#7710044 - 12/03/07 09:37 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Didn't I say *LETS KEEP THIS ON TOPIC* please instead of a debate over how much Hillary sucks?
We all know Hillary is a cunt.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: Silversoul]
#7710074 - 12/03/07 09:46 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said: And then Americans will get sick of it, and public opinion will once again turn towards the Republicans, and it will be business as usual.
Ha, if only that were true.
The damage of those policies isn't something that just ebbs and flows.
What happens is irreversible. Every action has consequences, and a shift in that direction at this time for this country would be catastrophic. This is the crucial moment in which we can either decide to return our troops from overseas, to limit the federal government and put the wealth of this country back into the hands of those who generate it, to bring value back into our currency and eliminate our debt, to restore freedom and peace to our country, or we can just continue to plow headfirst into attempts to grasp for a power of empire that cannot be grasped and just collapse.
This is the deciding moment, really. Maybe this time human beings have become aware enough to be capable of transcending these rises and falls so that we may truly evolve. I hope so.
--------------------
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
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?



Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: BrAiN]
#7710083 - 12/03/07 09:51 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I know a couple republican friends and a couple democratic friends that support him.
it could go either way.
he's stated he's not running as a third candidate without the nod, unfortunately.
-------------------- All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: afoaf]
#7710098 - 12/03/07 09:56 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
It's too bad too.
He's what.. 73 now? in four years people might think he's too old and looney to run again
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: BrAiN]
#7710112 - 12/03/07 09:59 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said: It's too bad too.
No it isn't, he's going to win the Republican nomination.
--------------------
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
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: fireworks_god]
#7710221 - 12/03/07 10:37 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Want to make a bet? Winer gets to chose 1 avatar that the loser has to use for a whole month?
It's a win win situation for me, either way If Ron Paul is the nominee, I have a giant penis as my avatar or whatever for a month but who cares? paul is the nominee.. If he isn't.. it sucks.. but at least I can humiliate you for a month
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: BrAiN]
#7710417 - 12/03/07 11:36 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I never wager the avatar, no matter what. 
Besides, you wouldn't donate or vote for him in order to win the bet, and I don't want to do that to Ron Paul.
--------------------
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
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: fireworks_god]
#7710442 - 12/03/07 11:44 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I wouldn't donate either way.. I'm broke as shit.
If I did have a little extra cash I'd give 20 bucks. And you think the downfall fo Ron Paul's campaign would rely on my not giving him 20 bucks? HAH!
Sounds like you're not so sure about your candidate's chances now 
BKAWK BKAWK!
ChiiIiIIIcken!
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: BrAiN]
#7710454 - 12/03/07 11:46 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm not absolutely certain, as nothing is certain.
--------------------
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
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: fireworks_god]
#7710498 - 12/03/07 11:54 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Ok... avatar for one day
|
zappaisgod
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: BrAiN]
#7711818 - 12/03/07 04:51 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Well, I see you turkeys managed to keep this on topic quite nicely. I think an independent Ron Paul run will be quite harmful for the Dems. Look at his champs here. They hate Republicans and would normally hold their noses and vote for whatever Democrat came out. Now they have this delicious maverick that they think can make a difference. Go for it.
Paul does what he says, huh? He's as guilty of piling on the pork as anybody else.
--------------------
|
SlashOZ
:D



Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7711836 - 12/03/07 04:55 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
zappa find a link to anything showing ron paul's vote for pork that he put into a bill.
-------------------- "Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose "Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS "When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi "Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson. "Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)
|
zappaisgod
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: SlashOZ]
#7711856 - 12/03/07 04:57 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php
"Ron Paul's record contains some very laudable components," said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. "On taxes, regulation, and political speech, his record is superb. His spending record is impressive, though Paul has recently embraced pork-barrel projects in direct contradiction to his vociferous opposition to unconstitutional appropriations by the federal government."
This is from people who like him.
--------------------
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7711859 - 12/03/07 04:58 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
He didnt even vote for a resolution to give Rosa Parks a ridiculous medal with the taxpayers money, thats a pretty unfound statement.
Quote:
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul ranked first among more than 500 Senators and Representatives in voting to lower federal taxes and spending last year! The National Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan citizens organization, recently released its annual rating of fiscal policy votes for the year 2000. Congressman Paul was #1, voting consistently to reduce taxes, spending, debt, and regulation.
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr042401.htm
|
zappaisgod
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: The_Red_Crayon]
#7711881 - 12/03/07 05:02 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Do you know what "pork" is? "Pork" is what you put into bills to send money for bullshit projects in your own district. Paul does it. A lot of his anti-spending votes are symbolic, i.e. of zero consequence, because the result is clear. He plays the retard in the corner fingering his navel because nobody gives a fuck, he is inconsequential.
--------------------
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7711908 - 12/03/07 05:07 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Even if he did appropriate sums of money for pork projects would he be any different from the other candidates running? How is this relevant?
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7711973 - 12/03/07 05:20 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Well, I see you turkeys managed to keep this on topic quite nicely. I think an independent Ron Paul run will be quite harmful for the Dems. Look at his champs here. They hate Republicans and would normally hold their noses and vote for whatever Democrat came out. Now they have this delicious maverick that they think can make a difference. Go for it.
Paul does what he says, huh? He's as guilty of piling on the pork as anybody else.
He does earmark pork for his constituents. When it comes to a vote, he votes NO on it. His constituents keep re-electing him anyway.
BTW, I would equally hold my nose registering with the democrat party. I use to vote Green, remember?
Paul's break down of supporters runs about
20% Republican 20% Democrats 30% 3 parties and Independents 20% New voters registering with a party for the first time.
Hard to say who he would spoil it for becoming elected President as an Independent.
By next summer, I think a lot of democratic voters are going to wake up to the reality that the Dem front runners have no serious intentions of getting us out of Iraq. They will also have more time to get a load of their not so free free health care plans. By next summer, I think more conservatives are going to get tired of the wars, more dead, injured, deserting and suicidal soldiers, the lies and the out of control spending on nation building.
I'd say he will steal equally from both as he took the win as an independent "hypothetically speaking of course.
Paul's supporters will be there for their states primaries and day by day, we are taking over local GOPs and getting our delegates signed up, stocked up and ready to roll for the national convention, where the Republican Party nominee will be decided.
My husband is at a REC meeting as we speak. He and I are also now looking into becoming delegates.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7712118 - 12/03/07 05:51 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Do you know what "pork" is? "Pork" is what you put into bills to send money for bullshit projects in your own district. Paul does it. A lot of his anti-spending votes are symbolic, i.e. of zero consequence, because the result is clear. He plays the retard in the corner fingering his navel because nobody gives a fuck, he is inconsequential.
Eh well we can't all be perfect
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: BrAiN]
#7712246 - 12/03/07 06:14 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
BrAiN said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Do you know what "pork" is? "Pork" is what you put into bills to send money for bullshit projects in your own district. Paul does it. A lot of his anti-spending votes are symbolic, i.e. of zero consequence, because the result is clear. He plays the retard in the corner fingering his navel because nobody gives a fuck, he is inconsequential.
Eh well we can't all be perfect
Apparently, Zappa would prefer that Paul voted yes, to spend the money on the earmark for the bullshit project? 
Will you please start making some sense on this one Zappa. Do you want Paul voting yes to spend money on Bullshit or no?
It's his job as a congressmen to earmark for his constituents. If congress and the Senate think the earmarks are worthy, they will pass. That is how it works.
Paul votes not to spend the money on pork every time. His constituents in his district keep electing him.
They like it that RP has the balls to send the message to Washington for them, "QUIT spending our hard earned tax dollars on BULLSHIT that only a few benefit from!!!"
That is unlike those in Congress who accept lobby money for earmarking, then voting yes to spend on BS, so that only a few benefit from our taxes while others get screwed out of them.
Paul sees it all as, theft through taxing and government subsidation of the private sector, which interferes with free market competition and he is against that!
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger


Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7712267 - 12/03/07 06:18 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Oh no! Now that you brought this to my attention I see how evil Ron Paul really is. Thank you oh great zappa for showing me the light. 
Do you honestly think people fall for your crap? The only thing inconsequential about Ron Paul is the pathetic attempts used to discredit him by paid shrills like you.
-------------------- "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
|
zappaisgod
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: RosettaStoned]
#7712280 - 12/03/07 06:22 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
"Paid shrill?"
Paul is a phony. He votes no on the same bills he lards with pork.
--------------------
|
SlashOZ
:D



Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7712363 - 12/03/07 06:43 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i read that article and it seems to me that ron paul is more honest than mitt "the flip flop" romney, rudy "i just got another divorce" guliani, hillary "lets start a dynasty" clinton, and Barrack "i contain no substantive platform" obama. ron paul is easily a spoiler for any of the above in an election.
-------------------- "Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose "Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS "When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi "Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson. "Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7712365 - 12/03/07 06:43 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: "Paid shrill?"
Paul is a phony. He votes no on the same bills he lards with pork.
How many times do you have to reminded that earmarking is his job as a Congressional District Representative. He gets paid by the state to do that for his district constituents, that ask for the ear marks.
Calling him a phony for earmarking pork, which he openly has no intentions of helping the spending to get passed through, is like calling a buss driver a phony for driving their route even though they have no intention of driving recklessly and don't do it either.
Your accusations on this one are making zero sense Zappa. They are made of straw, lack of further research on how he voted on the bills, filled with cheap shot sound bites you picked up from old bloggers trying to attack him whom only gave half of the story banking no one would look into the voting record of his earmarks further.
It's all been debunked, like every other lame half assed attempt to attack Paul. His record of honoring his oath to serve his constituents under Constitutional law is impeccable and so is his 72 year of life. He walks his talk and it's impossible to find dirt on him.
Beleive me, I looked long and hard before I could stomache registering with the Republican party, which I only did a few weeks ago.
The best anyone can do is simply disagree with him on his positions, which is the same as disagreeing with parts of the U.S. Constitution.
Anyone who takes an oath to honor and protect the Consitution, and works against it is a traitor to this country.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: SlashOZ]
#7712713 - 12/03/07 08:17 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SlashOZ said: i read that article and it seems to me that ron paul is more honest than mitt "the flip flop" romney, rudy "i just got another divorce" guliani, hillary "lets start a dynasty" clinton, and Barrack "i contain no substantive platform" obama. ron paul is easily a spoiler for any of the above in an election.
Well, im gonna have to agree on this point of view.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: zappaisgod]
#7713897 - 12/04/07 02:46 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
That is pretty much the most impressive resume for any Congressmen in the past twenty-thirty years, as far as I know.
I know that he has expressed feeling sympathy for his constituents, and a small occasion of voting on delivering some of their hard-earned money back to them in one year doesn't seem to out of order.
Clearly, your statement that he is as guilty of piling on the pork as anyone else is ridiculuous. Also, I don't necessarily think that people here hate Republicans, but rather that they hate neoconservatives. Ron Paul is a great representative of what it at one time meant to be a Republican, which is why so many people here resonate with him. Of course, yes, I'd say he'll take more away from the other Republican candidates if he were to run for president as an Independent.
--------------------
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
|
RosettaStoned
Stranger


Registered: 05/29/06
Posts: 540
Loc: North America
Last seen: 15 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
Your accusations on this one are making zero sense Zappa
Welcome to zappaworld, almost nothing he says ever makes sense unless you view it in the light of a paid neo-con forum troll.
I often think about ignoring him so I can spare my eyes the bullshit but I do find it entertaining from time to time coming here and getting a good laugh. Phred is at least more professional about his agenda.
-------------------- "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
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: RosettaStoned]
#7715093 - 12/04/07 12:05 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
RosettaStoned said:
Quote:
Your accusations on this one are making zero sense Zappa
Welcome to zappaworld, almost nothing he says ever makes sense unless you view it in the light of a paid neo-con forum troll.
I often think about ignoring him so I can spare my eyes the bullshit but I do find it entertaining from time to time coming here and getting a good laugh. Phred is at least more professional about his agenda.
Why don't ya'll take your collaberations and musings to private message or off-topic discussion? 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.
If you just want to listen to your own echo, go somewhere else.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: johnm214]
#7715432 - 12/04/07 01:27 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
John,
Rosetta has spent his/her fair share of time being a minority voice here. During that time, he/she got ganged up on as well.
This forum cycles enough around diverse topics that everyone finds themselves in and out of majority and minority points of view.
Zappa needs to be called on his confusing stance here.
First he warns us that Paul will blow our money on Pork like all the rest.
Then, when confronted with the facts of the earmarks and how he votes no on the spending, Zappa says he is as useful as a guy in the corner playing with his belly button.
Which is it that he wants to see?
Ron Paul has had the nick name of Dr. No in D.C. because they pretty much count on him to vote No to spending bills.
All the while, Zappa's candidate the Ghoul, went as far as to the supreme court, to have line item vetos deemed unconstitutional, just so his FAT ASS PORK spending for NYC could get pushed through.
Where is the Ghoul giving a rats ass about what is unconstituional when it comes to the Patriot Act or gun regulation, to name a few unconstitutional bills he supports?
Zappa deserves to be in the hot seat for attempting to accuse Paul aka Dr. No on the hill, of being a big pork spender.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
Edited by gettinjiggywithit (12/04/07 01:30 PM)
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs




Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: BrAiN]
#7716037 - 12/04/07 03:35 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Anyways, back to the original topic. While he would obviously take some from the Republicans, I think that he would take more from the Dems voters who vote more for anti-establishment figures.
This is the only way Paul is going to have any effect on the election, though, since there's no way he's winning the Rep. nomination. Paul backers have been thoroughly impressive with their efforts, but I don't think it's gonna get it done.
|
zappaisgod
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: Redstorm]
#7717007 - 12/04/07 07:22 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Don't worry about me, john, I can handle these fools just fine. Paul is a phony. He loads on the pork and then votes no on bills he know will pass anyway. He knows the bills are going to pass, so he piles on the pork and then tries to wave the porkbuster flag. Some people are just fucking stupid if they buy into this jackass's ego campaign. Wankers all. And by wankers I mean people who touch themselves in ways that would only be acceptable in private but who nonetheless think it's appropriate when some lunatic candidate strikes their perverse and out of touch fancy.
Like I said john, don't worry 'bout zappa', there's lots more reality where that came from. Plenty enough for these Paulnuts.
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



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]
#7718045 - 12/04/07 11:54 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said: That is pretty much the most impressive resume for any Congressmen in the past twenty-thirty years, as far as I know.
I know that he has expressed feeling sympathy for his constituents, and a small occasion of voting on delivering some of their hard-earned money back to them in one year doesn't seem to out of order.
Clearly, your statement that he is as guilty of piling on the pork as anyone else is ridiculuous.
--------------------
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
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: fireworks_god]
#7719243 - 12/05/07 11:18 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
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.
Who are the real phonies in Congress?
Further, the GOP is putting all sorts of pressure on Paul to commit to supporting the Republican nominee if it is not him. They keep asking the same of all the others. The others say they will support whoever the Republican nominee is.
Paul says, not unless they align their foreign and domestic spending policies with those that are traditionally Republican.
He has to stay true to himself and what he gets behind. A phony/fraud would support something they do not agree with.
Ron Paul is the genuine article through and through. What you see and hear from him, is what you get. He's not a sell out.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



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: Redstorm]
#7719359 - 12/05/07 11:53 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said: Anyways, back to the original topic. While he would obviously take some from the Republicans, I think that he would take more from the Dems voters who vote more for anti-establishment figures.
This is the only way Paul is going to have any effect on the election, though, since there's no way he's winning the Rep. nomination. Paul backers have been thoroughly impressive with their efforts, but I don't think it's gonna get it done.
110% agreed on all counts.
-------------------- 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
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: hypothetical: who would ron paul spoil? [Re: Redstorm]
#7719469 - 12/05/07 12:21 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said: This is the only way Paul is going to have any effect on the election, though, since there's no way he's winning the Rep. nomination. Paul backers have been thoroughly impressive with their efforts, but I don't think it's gonna get it done.
Two weeks ago, no one would have said that Huckabee would be leading the national polls. The only two candidates of the Republicans that are on an upward trend are Huckabee and Ron Paul.
I don't think Huckabee's lead is sustainable. His rise, however, will only allow for Ron Paul to rise as well. For one thing, Huckabee's mouth has been stealing lines from Ron Paul, which doesn't make what he is saying sound so fringe. Giuliani and Mitt Romney have only been holding those high percentages for two reasons - name recognition, and money, respectively.
Now, you have Huckabee leading the polls, and on what? It isn't name recognition, and it certainly isn't money.
Now, Ron Paul is raising more money than any other GOP candidate now, and he spends his money much more effectively. His valuable money is pouring into the first-state primaries, and so is his grass-roots support. He's getting his delegates in place. December is going to launch Ron Paul to the next level of his campaign. He's going to the top-tier, all the signs are there.
--------------------
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
|
Madtowntripper
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers



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...
-------------------- 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
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



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.
--------------------
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
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
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
--------------------
|
The_Red_Crayon
Exposer of Truth


Registered: 08/13/03
Posts: 13,673
Loc: Smokey Mtns. TN
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.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


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.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
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
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
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.
--------------------
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


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.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
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.
--------------------
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


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.
|
BrAiN
Art Fag

Registered: 03/01/01
Posts: 6,875
Loc: Chocolate City
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
|
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!!!"
|
RosettaStoned
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
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin



Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
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.
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
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
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



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


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.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Great post.
--------------------
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
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



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) |
|
|
--------------------
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
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
|
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
--------------------
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


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?
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.
|
|