|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
OneLessForeskin said: As a Ron Paul fan I actually came away from the Meet the Press appearance quite disappointed. He came across as somewhat weaselly and, I don't know - unprofessional?
Maybe you should watch the Meet The Press appearances of Giuliani, Romney, and Hillary Clinton for a real frame of reference.
He conveyed his ideas quite effectively in a very prominent media spot. Russert asks tough questions, but it doesn't mean that what he is proposing through his questions is the accurate stance on the issue, and it doesn't mean that Ron Paul is being a weasel by proposing a different view on the matter.
On what matter do you think he was he being weaselly?
Quote:
Anyway, I was less than impressed. And I woke up early on 5 hrs of sleep for that shit, too.
Why would you do that, when it would obviously be all over Youtube, available to be viewed at your convience?
--------------------
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: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7797600 - 12/25/07 07:59 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: A glib, disingenuous answer, essentially that of a particularly snotty sophomore, to a serious issue indicates either a desire to avoid the question or an utterly moronic view of international politics. I think the latter. Regardless, it was a stupid snotty answer. He is a douche.
A serious issue? Iran invading or striking Israel?
Maybe Iran should invade Mars, maybe then they might actually pose a threat to you.
--------------------
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
Edited by fireworks_god (12/25/07 08:05 AM)
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7797624 - 12/25/07 08:29 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
fireworks_god writes:
Quote:
All the information I am finding thusfar is stating that earmarking does not increase spending, that the money is already established for spending by the federal government.
You are misinterpreting what you are reading. The bit from the Heritage Foundation is correct, of course, but only for fiscal 2008, and only because the omnibus bill has already passed, laden with pork. In other words, it is too late to reduce FY 2008 grant spending. It is not too late to reduce FY2009 grant spending.
The wikipedia article is also correct, as far as it goes. But your interpretation of it isn't accurate. The point is, if Congress allocates 100 billion to a federal agency (let's say the US Armed Forces), the agency is going to spend that money on what the agency's directors deem necessary, not on what individual congressmen see fit, and certainly not on (for example) an advertising program promoting Texas shrimp or a Country and Western museum. If left to itself, the Pentagon would have spent the 100 billion (and probably a bit more) on military stuff. When the pork gets added on, the Pentagon is STILL going to spend its 100 billion -- let's face it, we're talking about a Defense Appropriations Bill after all, and the porkers spend their 20 billion or whatever, because let's face it -- their projects and the dollar amounts attached to them are specifically mentioned, so no one can deny them the money. But that leaves the Pentagon with just 80 billion to do what it needs 100 billion for. But the Pentagon can't just shut down for the last two and a half months of the year when the money runs out. Instead, a suplementary funding bill gets pushed through to make up the shortfall. And the porkers lard that up with pork as well!
So yeah, pork DOES increase the size of the Federal Budget, duh! It cannot be otherwise.
Quote:
If Congressmen do not earmark this money, then the respective federal agencies spend it regardless.
Believe it or not, this is not always the case. But it is almost always the case -- it is newsworthy when a department finishes the year with any substantial budget reserve. They don't have to spend it all, though.
Quote:
Now, Ron Paul stands for not taking the money from the people in the first place, which is why he votes agansit the bill.
If he really stood against it, he wouldn't insert his earmarks. Simple as that.
Quote:
However, he feels sympathy for his constitutents, who have the federal government taking their money, so, unable to prevent it from happening...
He may be unable to prevent ALL of it from happening, but he can certainly prevent some of it from happening -- the projects he inserts himself.
Quote:
... he at least tries to get it back if the rest of Congress does decide to vote the bill through.
Any other congressman could give exactly the same rationalization. Don't you think they and their constituents are in exactly the same boat as Ron Paul and his constituents? All of them are playing the same game -- "My constituents are getting their pockets picked to fund a roller derby rink in Illinois, so I might as well pick your constituents' pockets to fund my tractor pull competition in Texas." They all play the same game -- all of them. Ron Paul included. What makes Paul look like such a weasel is he tries to pretend he isn't playing the same game.
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I am not criticizing Paul for gaming the system, I'm criticizing him for pretending he isn't. It's his whole childish "holier than thou" stance on pork that is so maddening. He is no holier on this issue than any other congress critter. As a matter of fact, he's less holy, because they at least are up front about it and he just repeats this whole "But I voted AGAINST my own pork" charade.
Phred
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Phred]
#7797628 - 12/25/07 08:32 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
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
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7797662 - 12/25/07 08:48 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: A glib, disingenuous answer, essentially that of a particularly snotty sophomore, to a serious issue indicates either a desire to avoid the question or an utterly moronic view of international politics. I think the latter. Regardless, it was a stupid snotty answer. He is a douche.
A serious issue? Iran invading or striking Israel?
Maybe Iran should invade Mars, maybe then they might actually pose a threat to you.
I take them at their word, which has been rather dedicated to the eradication of Israel. I am also aware that they have missiles that can reach Israel and a secret nuclear weapons program that may or may not have ended in 2003. They also have a fairly well developed military, 2 armies, 2 air forces and a navy. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html They also have some proxy puppets well established and armed on the Israeli border. For Paul to be dismissive of this question is weaselly at best.
Further, I'll be the one who decides what I deem to be a threat. Most adults are genuinely concerned about the threat of Iran. Children trying to excuse the stupidity of their favorite new Rebel Leader do not impress me.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Phred]
#7797708 - 12/25/07 09:02 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
If Paul were upfront about it, and just admit that he fears he can't get re-elected on the strength of his positions alone -- that he also needs the votes of those cynical enough to vote only for those who can deliver pork -- it would be a different story. If he were to just tell his consituents something like,
"Pork is bad. I oppose it. But here's my dilemma, folks: if I don't give y'all some pork, I won't be re-elected. And if I'm not re-elected, I am in no position to do the good things I do in Congress. And the many good things I do in Congress outweigh the effects of the only bad thing I do in Congress, which is to toss some pork your way."
Which is a nice hypothetical stance he could take if he could point to any actual good that he has done during his 10+ years in Congress. He hasn't done anything at all.
Quote:
Statistics: Ronald Paul has sponsored 350 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 345 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311
Except insert hometown pork in bills that he knows will win and then votes against. That pork really is the only "good" that he can point to for his constituents. Otherwise, he has been a great giant zero.
And not all pork spending is in the form of earmarks. There is quite a lot of pork contained within the legislation itself as well. That MUST be allocated and spent.
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs




Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7798661 - 12/25/07 03:25 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: A glib, disingenuous answer, essentially that of a particularly snotty sophomore, to a serious issue indicates either a desire to avoid the question or an utterly moronic view of international politics. I think the latter. Regardless, it was a stupid snotty answer. He is a douche.
A serious issue? Iran invading or striking Israel?
Maybe Iran should invade Mars, maybe then they might actually pose a threat to you.
I take them at their word, which has been rather dedicated to the eradication of Israel. I am also aware that they have missiles that can reach Israel and a secret nuclear weapons program that may or may not have ended in 2003. They also have a fairly well developed military, 2 armies, 2 air forces and a navy. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html They also have some proxy puppets well established and armed on the Israeli border. For Paul to be dismissive of this question is weaselly at best.
Further, I'll be the one who decides what I deem to be a threat. Most adults are genuinely concerned about the threat of Iran. Children trying to excuse the stupidity of their favorite new Rebel Leader do not impress me.
Oh yes? Is this based on your day-to-day conversations or something substantive?
Also, the US has a nuclear arsenal, the largest military, and by far the most belligerent foreign policy in the world today.
Would other countries be justified in attacking us because they feel we are a threat?
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Redstorm]
#7798838 - 12/25/07 04:44 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 06:33 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Redstorm]
#7798894 - 12/25/07 05:24 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Redstorm said:
Also, the US ......... by far the most belligerent foreign policy in the world today.
Bullshit.Quote:
Would other countries be justified in attacking us because they feel we are a threat?
What is this justification nonsense?
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs




Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7799279 - 12/25/07 08:33 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Saying so doesn't make it so. I'm sure you know that by now.
Anyways, you left out the best part of my quote. I'd love to see all your survey data showing that a majority of adults view Iran as a threat.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Redstorm]
#7799294 - 12/25/07 08:40 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Depends on what you define as an adult. Oblivious, irresponsible and ill-informed retards do not qualify.
--------------------
|
SlashOZ
:D



Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7799473 - 12/25/07 09:56 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
iran is as threatening as NK was and we all now how proactive we were in solving that matter and keeping NK from developing nuclear weapons. shit iran would never use them offensively. the only worry would be the nuclear material being sold to terrorists. the threat is non unique but it does increase the over all amount of weapons grade uranium or w/e they use. military action would completely destabalize the region even though we already have semi control of the two boardering nations. if the intellegence is correct about them scrapping their program in 2003 then we need not worry about a military option. economic sanctions on certain products is smart but otherwise live and let live ffs.
-------------------- "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)
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7799493 - 12/25/07 10:05 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 06:34 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: SlashOZ]
#7800994 - 12/26/07 02:00 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SlashOZ said: iran is as threatening as NK was and we all now how proactive we were in solving that matter and keeping NK from developing nuclear weapons.
Yeah, we all know the Clinton/Albright cabal totally shit that bed by NOT being proactive.Quote:
shit iran would never use them offensively.
I envy you your crystal ball. And your faith. I don't buy it but I appreciate the innocence.Quote:
the only worry would be the nuclear material being sold to terrorists.
That is a problem, no?Quote:
the threat is non unique but it does increase the over all amount of weapons grade uranium or w/e they use. military action would completely destabalize the region even though we already have semi control of the two boardering nations. if the intellegence is correct about them scrapping their program in 2003 then we need not worry about a military option. economic sanctions on certain products is smart but otherwise live and let live ffs.
Live and let live is a fine doctrine. It does, however, take two.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:
Oblivious, irresponsible and ill-informed retards do not qualify.
So George W. Bush supporters don't qualify? If that's the case, then it's definitely a minority of the U.S. population that views the Iranian government as a threat to their personal safety.
More goal post moving from the master psychokinesthetist. But yeah, living within spitting distance of one of their main targets does make me a little bit more nervous than say someone in Kansas. The actual threat to them is a little bit more abstract.Quote:
Unless you don't believe wanting cannabis criminalized, & possession or cultivation punishable by jail, makes one 'ill-informed'.
Wow, now there was a masterful non sequitur. Pull yourself away from the bong long enough to realize that there are a lot more important things to just about everybody on the planet other than the right to use their personally favored intoxicant.
--------------------
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7801425 - 12/26/07 04:47 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 06:35 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
EntheogenicPeace said:
Quote:
Wow, now there was a masterful non sequitur. Pull yourself away from the bong long enough to realize that there are a lot more important things to just about everybody on the planet other than the right to use their personally favored intoxicant.
I don't really believe that there are more important things in the world than personal freedom (so long as it doesn't interfere with another's right to pursue their freedom or unnecessarily harm the environment). So, no, it's not simply about me wanting to smoke cannabis & take psychedelics. Although I would never engage in homosexuality with another man, I unwaveringly support the right of another man to do so (so long as the person(s) he does it with is consenting). Surely, you must agree that there is much overlap in the % of people in the U.S. (or anywhere for that matter) who want non-violent "drug" users thrown in jail, & those who support "Sodomy" laws. Do we even have sodomy laws any more? I'm saying that those who would wish to use the state (or any kind of force) to deprive another individual of their right to either use whatever substances they wish without physically harming others, or their right to engage in consensual sexual activity of any kind, fit two of the three categories (oblivious & ill-informed) you listed for people whose opinions are irrelevant to truth on this issue (or probably any issue).
Not necessarily and not all issues are the same. For instance, you are utterly ignorant of international politics but seem to have a reasonable expertise regarding intoxicants. I would respect an opinion from you regarding various mind altering substances, especially those with which I am unfamiliar. Assessing relative threat levels of various international actors have been shown to be beyond you. NTTAWWT. But everybody has their strengths and weaknesses. As Harry Callahan says, "A man's got to know his limitations."
--------------------
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7801509 - 12/26/07 05:21 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 06:35 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
Your people? What does that have to do with my people?
--------------------
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7801526 - 12/26/07 05:27 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 06:36 PM)
|
|