|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks
#7794800 - 12/24/07 05:55 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Well, this was discussed here recently, and Ron Paul, of course, clearly explained why it is not a compromising act. First, I'd like to provide an analysis of Ron Paul's spot on Meet The Press, by Lew Rockwell, who explained the matter even better.
Quote:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/017971.html
This was an historic day. One man stood against a powerful TV newsman, his show and all its researchers, and triumphed. Watch it and here’s the transcript.
Tim Russert is known as an hard questioner, by establishment standards, but even when he is actually being tough—as with Rudy Giuliani—the guest gets some softballs, and plenty of time to answer the hardballs.
Ron Paul got no softballs, and little time, as Russert asked him question after question after questions, fed to him by his staff, with only a few moments for Ron. Yet he swatted the arrows away.
Originally, Russert had announced that Ron would be on for an hour. Then just before airtime, he said 16 minutes. Yet Ron was on for more than twice that, with no commercial breaks. Obviously the director knew hot television when he saw it. He also knew that this show marked a ratings-high for Meet the Press, at least in the Russert era.
There were many highlights. Here are a few: Russert’s pretend-incredulity at Ron’s opposition to empire. The US has been occupying Korea since Ron was in high school. But what about a North Korean invasion of South Korea? As Ron pointed out, the US has prevented a rapprochement between the two Koreas since, like all empires, it divides to rule.
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power; Israel is a rich country with hundreds of thermonuclear weapons and long-distance bombers and missiles. And yes, Ron wants to cut off all foreign aid to Israel, and the Arabs and everyone else—none of it is constitutional--and allow Israel and other countries to run their own affairs. Russert then denied that some elements of the Israeli government want the US to bomb Iran but Ron is right, of course.
Russert tried to accuse Ron of being a big spender(!) over the earmark question. But this is like accusing him of the same crime for getting a poor constituent food stamps. He does not vote for food stamps, but he is a representative.
Earmarks do not increase public-works spending, which he votes against. But they do allocate it—away from the executive dictatorship, and to the legislature, which is constitutional. More here.
I also liked Russert’s claim that Ron’s hope to amend the constitution to eliminate the abuse of birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. Amending the constitution, Ron explained, is constitutional!
Russert was astonished that Ron, like Barry Goldwater, opposes the 1964 civil rights act. It's a federal power grab that has nothing to do with equal rights, but is an attack on private property rights that had led to a day when the feds can tell a restaurant owner whether a man can smoke a cigar there or not.
And what about Lincoln and his war? It wasn’t necessary to kill 650,000 people to free the slaves, said Ron. We could have done it peacefully, like other countries, and kept the original republic of the founders, rather than replacing it with a centralized leviathan. Imagine Lincoln as a campaign issue?
Then there was Ron’s calm explanation of the US move towards fascism. Really, has there been as eloquent and courageous libertarian public figure in American or any other country's history? I don’t believe so.
Russert avoided the Fed and the dollar and the economic crisis, as well as Iraq--subjects the elites don't Ron raising. Still, Russert was not as vicious—despite all the misquotes and distortions and ancient non-history—and here’s why. It turns out his son, like the children of many of the elite, and far more of the middle and working classes—is a Ron Paul Revolutionary. Tim, you'd better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone.
The show was the best interview of Ron Paul I've ever seen, and it is likely his most prominent, focused spot in the mainstream media yet. I'd like to share them with everyone here, Merry Christmas!
--------------------
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
|
herfenara
cross dressinghobo junkie


Registered: 03/28/07
Posts: 122
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7794842 - 12/24/07 06:58 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
|
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]
#7794870 - 12/24/07 07:39 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Lew Rockwell claims:
Quote:
But this is like accusing him of the same crime for getting a poor constituent food stamps. He does not vote for food stamps, but he is a representative.
Oh please, Lew. Do you think your readers are idiots? The analogy is not even close. Food stamps are an ongoing entitlement program set up decades ago, and open to anyone who meets the qualifications. The only thing Ronnie could do to "help" one of his constituents receive them is to fill in the application forms on his behalf. To put it another way, that constituent is going to get food stamps with or without Ron Paul.
Not so with earmarks. That new farm implements museum in Bugscuffle Bottoms is a direct result of Ron Paul siphoning federal taxpayer money to Bugscuffle Bottoms. If not for Ron Paul, that museum would not have been built, and the money would not have been spent.
Quote:
Earmarks do not increase public-works spending, which he votes against. But they do allocate it—away from the executive dictatorship, and to the legislature, which is constitutional.
This is just straight up bullshit. Of course earmarks increase spending. Rockwell has lost his mind here. It's not a question of "re-allocating" anything from one place in the budget to another, it's a case of reducing the total amount of the budget.
I used to enjoy reading the occasional Lew Rockwell piece. But in the last ten years or so he's become increasingly stupid. It's a shame.
Phred
--------------------
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7794883 - 12/24/07 07:54 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
|
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: Luddite]
#7795074 - 12/24/07 09:40 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Here's some more information on earmarks. I'd cite the source but it was just some dude posting at RonPaulforums.com, but I can link if anyone really wants it.
Quote:
Before earmarks are ever added, the bill has already passed the committee in Congress. Therefore, the money will be spent regardless. Earmarks are simply a way for a congressman to direct money already approved for spending to a specific project in their district. In Ron Paul's case, he submits virtually all of them providing they come from a community group or local industry group or local government entity who want to make sure that some money is allocated for a particular project.
If the money is not earmarked in committee, it all passes to the relevant agency under the control of the executive branch who then decides to spend it however they like, without any consideration for the priorities of the local communities.
Earmarking does not change the levels of money being spent. A bill with no earmarks costs the US taxpayer the exact same amount as a bill with 10,000 earmarks.
The Founders who wrote the Constitution used earmarks. The habit was far less corrupt then, mostly involving exactly how much to spend on the construction of bridges and roads that linked the early states on vital trade goods routes.
If the president does not want to spend money on something that the Congress wants to spend money on, then even if the Congress has passed such a provision in their omnibus bill, the president can direct the relevant agency to do something else with the money. They can pass a provision, say to improve paving on a road in Yellowstone National Forest, have it pass unanimously in committee and unanimously in the House and in the Senate and in the conference committee and the president and the Dept of Transportation could still ignore it and just allocate that year's DepTrans budget however they want. That is why we have to allow the custom of earmarks. So that Congress and especially the House's exclusive power of the purse remains with the people, not with the executive branch.
--------------------
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
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7795120 - 12/24/07 09:55 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The "some dude posting at RonPaulforums.com" is full of shit.
His claim is that (for example) if Congress determines the next six months of Pentagon operations will require $50 billion, and approve that $50 billion in committee, then the feeding frenzy in Congress begins and an additional $8 billion in pork is tacked on, that somehow the Pentagon will now only spend $42 billion, the pork consumes another $8 billion, and a total of $50 billion is spent. This of course is not what happens. The Pentagon spends their $50 billion (at least), the porkers spend their $8 billion (at least), and another eight billion (at least) is added to the federal deficit for the year.
Quote:
If the president does not want to spend money on something that the Congress wants to spend money on, then even if the Congress has passed such a provision in their omnibus bill, the president can direct the relevant agency to do something else with the money.
This is the one thing this fool gets correct. The president can -- by means of executive orders -- quash any (or all) pork projects. Bush has said in no uncertain terms that he intends to do this with the latest pork laden omnibus bill. Hopefully he will deliver on that promise.
Phred
--------------------
|
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]
#7795367 - 12/24/07 11:51 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm sure you and Lew were both quite impressed. I found it weaselly and hypocritical. And this is just stupid:
Quote:
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power;
The man is a fucking moron.
--------------------
|
OneMoreRobot3021



Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 61,024
Loc: the sky
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7795376 - 12/24/07 11:55 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
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? Anyway, I was less than impressed. And I woke up early on 5 hrs of sleep for that shit, too.
-------------------- Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake. -Erik Davis
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7796004 - 12/24/07 03:48 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I'm sure you and Lew were both quite impressed. I found it weaselly and hypocritical. And this is just stupid:
Quote:
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power;
The man is a fucking moron.
Iran doesn't have an airforce capable of causing much damage the Israelis and I doubt they are going to march across Iraq and Syria to invade Israel.
C'mon, nobody is worried about Iran invading Israel. That is ridiculous.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
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? Anyway, I was less than impressed. And I woke up early on 5 hrs of sleep for that shit, too.
my thoughts exactly. He said it, but should have said it in more plain terms, that "I'm opposed to the funding of these projects, but I will ensure my district recieves as much as I can should the project be approved"
I don't see this as hypocritical to his mantra if he votes against the bill.
|
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: johnm214]
#7796151 - 12/24/07 04:40 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
He said it, but should have said it in more plain terms, that "I'm opposed to the funding of these projects, but I will ensure my district recieves as much as I can should the project be approved"
Do you not understand that "the project" under discussion is a project that Ron Paul inserted into the bill?
How hard is it to comprehend that if it weren't for Ron Paul, "the project" could never be approved, because it would never have appeared in the bill in the first place?
Quote:
I don't see this as hypocritical to his mantra if he votes against the bill.
It is the height of hypocrisy. He tries to play the helpless pawn, powerless to stop these projects from being approved -- "Well, folks, I did all I could. I voted against the bill that contained those darned projects, but the bill was passed anyway" -- when of course he could easily have prevented the projects from being approved by not inserting them into the bill in the first place! It's not Nancy Pelosi who's inserting pork projects that benefit Ron Paul's district, after all, it's Ron Paul.
No matter how you try to spin this crap, it is unspinnable. The simple fact is that the only way that money gets taken out of your pocket and your neighbor's pocket and spent on Ed and Lurlene Bickle in Ron Paul's district is because Ron Paul made the effort to ensure it would be. To pretend otherwise is not just dishonest, it is glaringly stupid. And if there's one thing that pisses people off, it's being treated as if they're stupid. I have no doubt one reason for Paul's lack of traction is that the average voter recognizes this sham for what it is, and feels offended that Paul seems to think the voters are too dumb to figure it out.
Phred
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Phred]
#7796247 - 12/24/07 05:25 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Why do people find it so difficult to separate a persons moral values from the responsibilities of the office one holds? He did his job for those that voted for him and maintained his ideology as best he could. When he had to compromise between the two, he compromised for those who voted for him rather than for his own personal beliefs. Where is the problem?
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I'm sure you and Lew were both quite impressed. I found it weaselly and hypocritical. And this is just stupid:
Quote:
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power;
The man is a fucking moron.
Iran doesn't have an airforce capable of causing much damage the Israelis and I doubt they are going to march across Iraq and Syria to invade Israel.
C'mon, nobody is worried about Iran invading Israel. That is ridiculous.
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.
--------------------
|
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: Seuss]
#7796293 - 12/24/07 05:50 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
He didn't compromise. He whored out every principle he espouses for votes.
--------------------
|
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]
#7796345 - 12/24/07 06:21 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I'm sure you and Lew were both quite impressed. I found it weaselly and hypocritical. And this is just stupid:
Quote:
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power;
The man is a fucking moron.
Iran doesn't have an airforce capable of causing much damage the Israelis and I doubt they are going to march across Iraq and Syria to invade Israel.
C'mon, nobody is worried about Iran invading Israel. That is ridiculous.
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.
Regardless of how apparent it is that Paul is able to get under your skin, the fear-mongering regarding Iran is on the same level of insanity as that espoused by our dear Anna.
|
Purple Mushroom
The Purpled One



Registered: 12/13/07
Posts: 32
Loc: PA
Last seen: 16 years, 25 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7796357 - 12/24/07 06:26 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: blah blah blah i love ron paul and support his principles, vote for ron paul!.
Huh?
-------------------- “All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him” ~ buddah
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7796359 - 12/24/07 06:27 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I'm sure you and Lew were both quite impressed. I found it weaselly and hypocritical. And this is just stupid:
Quote:
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power;
The man is a fucking moron.
Iran doesn't have an airforce capable of causing much damage the Israelis and I doubt they are going to march across Iraq and Syria to invade Israel.
C'mon, nobody is worried about Iran invading Israel. That is ridiculous.
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.
Well I certainly agree with that.
|
SlashOZ
:D



Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
|
|
i like ron pauls answer when questioned about earmarks. its a fair response and he is still lightyears ahead of any of the dems. not to mention no war = less gov't spending. if he is tough on the borders and terrorism on the homefront we might end up saving our civil liberties, national reputation, tax money, and future.
-------------------- "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)
|
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: Seuss]
#7797553 - 12/25/07 06:59 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Seuss writes:
Quote:
Why do people find it so difficult to separate a persons moral values from the responsibilities of the office one holds? He did his job for those that voted for him and maintained his ideology as best he could. When he had to compromise between the two, he compromised for those who voted for him rather than for his own personal beliefs. Where is the problem?
The problem is Paul and his supporters holding up this transparently obvious Kabuki dance as some sort of superior moral stance compared to every other congressman who inserts earmarks. It is not just hypocritical, it is stupidly hypocritical, because it isn't fooling anyone other than hardcore Ronulans.
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."
then this wouldn't be an issue. Seriously -- if he were to answer something like that whenever someone tries to question him about his earmarks, no one would be making any fuss about it. I certainly wouldn't.
But by going through this absurd charade of adding pork to bills (just like every other congress critter) and then voting against the bill with the pork -- all the while knowing that the bill has enough votes to pass even with his no vote -- then pointing at his "no" vote as some kind of principled stance, is just plain sleazy. It is the farthest thing from principled -- it is a shabby con game, and an incredibly transparent and clumsy one at that: one which insults the intelligence of voters.
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]
#7797589 - 12/25/07 07:50 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1757.cfm Eliminating earmarks would not reduce FY 2008 grant spending, but it would ensure that grants are distributed by merit rather than politics and would stifle the enormous appetite for federal largesse. Worthy projects should have no trouble securing funding based on merit; only the unworthy projects would lose funding.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmarking In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress has, within the powers granted under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the ability to direct the appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This includes the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.
Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of Congress having to identify themselves or the project.
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. If Congressmen do not earmark this money, then the respective federal agencies spend it regardless.
Now, Ron Paul stands for not taking the money from the people in the first place, which is why he votes agansit the bill. However, he feels sympathy for his constitutents, who have the federal government taking their money, so, unable to prevent it from happening, he at least tries to get it back if the rest of Congress does decide to vote the bill through. He's stated as much before this matter was ever raised on Meet The Press, so it isn't as though it is something he has been hiding.
His tax credit analogy seems pretty apt. Another analogy is, say you're with some dudes and you vote on whether or not you're going to order a pizza. Even if you vote agansit it, if everyone else votes to order the pizza, they'll be taking your money to spend on the pizza... so you might as well eat your slice when it shows up and not starve.
--------------------
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
|
|
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)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
I disagree. And most of the people held hostage at our embassy in Iran for over a year were what I consider "ordinary people". Just going about their jobs. And ANY lunatic with a nuke is a threat.
--------------------
|
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]
#7801613 - 12/26/07 06:13 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
You're forgetting the part where Iran doesn't have a nuke.
|
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]
#7801631 - 12/26/07 06:19 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
And our number one job is to see it stays that way. For t3h liddle chilluns.
--------------------
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7801640 - 12/26/07 06:25 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 06:36 PM)
|
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]
#7803020 - 12/27/07 06:24 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: And our number one job is to see it stays that way. For t3h liddle chilluns.
No it isn't. It isn't the responsibility of the United States of America, and it is not the right of the United States of America. This cannot be refuted, not that you would try anyways. 
If there was a threat, the international community would come together in order to address it. The United States of America cannot take it upon itself to interfere in these nations in such a manner, even as we have made a habit of doing so, due to the harmful, counter-productive ideaology that you flaunt.
--------------------
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 (12/27/07 06:25 AM)
|
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]
#7804276 - 12/27/07 02:26 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
fireworks_god said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: And our number one job is to see it stays that way. For t3h liddle chilluns.
No it isn't. It isn't the responsibility of the United States of America, and it is not the right of the United States of America. This cannot be refuted, not that you would try anyways. 
Responsibilities and rights are irrelevant. Nations do not have rights nor do they owe any other particular nation protection absent specific treaties (contracts). The only question of relevance is "Is it in our interest?" With all other factors weighed in, which includes a calculation on international support and international opprobrium. It is quite clearly in our interests NOT to have a nuke powered Iran. They are fucking batshit crazy and hate us.Quote:
If there was a threat, the international community would come together in order to address it.
Well, when they do come together you and your ilk say they are coerced by the uber mighty US. Puppets, as it were. And should we give a fuck what our enemies and competitors say? We know our friends by their shared interests. Sarkozy is an interesting new player. Then again so is Brown and the new Aussie, whatever his name is. Putting aside all of that, the international community, whatever that is, will never come together. Don't forget, damn near half the nations were on the Axis side. Just win, baby.Quote:
The United States of America cannot take it upon itself to interfere in these nations in such a manner, even as we have made a habit of doing so, due to the harmful, counter-productive ideaology that you flaunt.
Yes it can, and we must continue to work for our interests. And as far as the counterproductive nature of the ideology I flaunt, you are a fool. Because of my "ideology" hundreds of millions of people are freed from communist slavery, tens of millions of Iraqis and Afghanis no longer have to deal with government oppression, Taiwan remains free. There are more, but those are the big ones. And it has been in our interests to make it so.
--------------------
|
andrewss
precariously aggrandized


Registered: 08/17/07
Posts: 8,725
Loc: ohio
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7804386 - 12/27/07 03:09 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Does israel even need the US/UN? If anything we would hold them back, I am fairly confident that Israel would freakin OWN up on Iran... Israel already has a good number of nukes, not to mention an elite military and a population that is ready and willing to defend her. I think history has shown Israel is pretty good at self defense, I agree with RP somewhat, that they would embarrass Iran. And Iran has to know that.
I dunno, just seems like Israel could do well, as long as US/UN doesnt cut off supply in any way or whatever.
Would Iran have any capability to strike the mainland USA though? Wouldnt a missile be shot down by the time it hit America? Arent we more worried about middle east stability? (oil)
-------------------- Jesus loves you.
|
OneMoreRobot3021



Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 61,024
Loc: the sky
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7804390 - 12/27/07 03:10 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Ending a post with that "sorry" smiley is really, really annoying.
-------------------- Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake. -Erik Davis
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7805104 - 12/27/07 07:04 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 06:37 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:
Because of my "ideology" hundreds of millions of people are freed from communist slavery...
This is delusional self-righteousness. It implies that hundreds of millions haven't lived & suffered under brutal & repressive U.S.-backed regimes & paramilitary organizations; not to mentioned tens of millions murdered & killed both by direct U.S. government actions & those of its puppets around the world.
It implies nothing of the kind. Somehow the notion that the US is responsible for all of the acts of every nation they give some form of support to strikes me as funny. Because it sure isn't serious.Quote:
The second reason it is delusional is because it omits an inconvenient truth about someone like Stalin that flag-waving Americans must lie about in order to believe their supposed moral superiority. The condition of the majority in the Soviet Union improved greatly under Stalin; industrialization & modernization greatly improved healthcare & overall standard of living, life expectancies shot up at phenomenal levels, housing & infrastructure improved greatly, Russia went from an impoverished, backwards nation to a world superpower at a rate faster than perhaps any other empire in history. The (majority) of the Russian people benefited more from 30 years of Stalin's rule than in 300 years of the Romanov dynasty.
Yep, the trains ran on time. The people benefited not one iota from the Soviet military prowess. In fact, their lack of military prowess brought down the whole communist regime.Quote:
Yes, many millions were murdered & killed, & tens of millions more were oppressed & exploited as a result of Soviet government policy. Do the positives justify the negatives? That's an interesting ethical question for Americans to answer honestly. Can you think of another nation that become a world superpower based of the murder & killings of tens of millions, & the oppression & exploitation of countless tens of millions more around the world? Or are you too self-righteous to admit what any objective observer can easily see?
China? Great Britain? France? Spain? Japan? The Netherlands? Italy? Rome? Greece? Germany? Persia? Bullshitistan? Nope, none of them are quite the same. A government is best judged by how it treats its own citizens. That is, after all, its entire raison d'etre
--------------------
|
EntheogenicPeace
Scholar



Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 3,926
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7807239 - 12/28/07 11:59 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
---
Edited by EntheogenicPeace (02/12/21 06:38 PM)
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
|
Quote:
OneLessForeskin said: He came across as somewhat weaselly and, I don't know - unprofessional?
Hmmm, seems to happen to the guy when he's questioned by anyone not wearing a Ron Paul pin.
Russert's been so aggressive lately it almost hurts to watch. Butchering Hillary. 45 minutes on Giuliani's personal life, 45 minutes on Mormonism with Romney, and now a wildly condescending interview with Ron Paul. He was real sweet to Obama, but, ya know, how could he not be?
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
SlashOZ
:D



Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Gijith]
#7809230 - 12/28/07 11:43 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
they aren't seeking nukes though Zappa. the thing is Iran is too afraid to go after these weapons while we have control of the two surrounding regions. not to mention a very strong Israel in close proximity. it would be a true 'suicide' maneuver by Iran to use a nuclear weapon, probably to even test one. the end goal of our negotiations with Iran should to make them happy as long as they do everything we want. the current method is to just sanction the heck out of them on the military side. that is agreeable but we need to stop holding the possibility of a mushroom cloud over Tehran. that is just taking it way to far. the whole point is to proliferate.
-------------------- "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)
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
OneLessForeskin said: Ending a post with that "sorry" smiley is really, really annoying.
Allowing oneself to be personally irritated by a pretty trivial thing that one was indirectly exposed to and feeling it necessary to pronounce one's resultant, self-inflicted internal state as though it were relevant or note-worthy seems rather pointless. I'd suggest getting over yourself.
--------------------
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: Gijith]
#7810047 - 12/29/07 09:22 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Gijith said: Russert's been so aggressive lately it almost hurts to watch. Butchering Hillary. 45 minutes on Giuliani's personal life, 45 minutes on Mormonism with Romney, and now a wildly condescending interview with Ron Paul. He was real sweet to Obama, but, ya know, how could he not be?
Russert loves the black cock.
Looking forward to Huckabee being on tomorrow! Russert has enough material to work with to run an eight-hour inquisition if he could. Hopefully special interests don't compromise Russert, leading to him keeping Huckabee off the hook.... I hope he grills him for dinner.
"You vote for me, you live. If you don't vote for me, well, then you die". - Huckabee He forgot to mention that, if you vote for him, he'll tax you to the point that you wish you were dead.
--------------------
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]
#7810255 - 12/29/07 11:16 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Responsibilities and rights are irrelevant.
No they aren't. When one country assumes for itself a right, sovereignty, it will face negative consequences for not respecting the same right of other nations. This works on the level of nations, just as well as it does for individuals. Disregard it, but the fact remains. I am not responsible for the personal choices that someone in Idaho makes, and I do not have the right to impose my will upon them to make them a certain way in regards to my interests, unless they are imposing upon my rights.
Quote:
Nations do not have rights nor do they owe any other particular nation protection absent specific treaties (contracts).
How can a government that has no sovereignity or rights enter into a treaty?
Quote:
The only question of relevance is "Is it in our interest?" With all other factors weighed in, which includes a calculation on international support and international opprobrium. It is quite clearly in our interests NOT to have a nuke powered Iran. They are fucking batshit crazy and hate us.
Great question. Is it in our interest? If it were truly in our interest to go to war with Iran, then, no doubt, the American people would embolden Congress to declare war. Of course, your claim that nations and individuals do not have sovereignty means that the Constitution doesn't need to be respected as the framework of the American government, eh?
Is it in our interest for Iran to have nuclear power? Perhaps not, but what really should be questioned is if it is in our interest to address these concerns by going to war and interfering in Iran's internal affairs. We cannot afford it. We are not capable of it. We shouldn't do it anyways, as there are far more effective ways to ensure that our national security is well.
Respecting Iran's right to have nuclear technology might be a good first step - saying "We realize that you are the government of your people, and we respect that, just as we are the government of the American people. We realize that you should have nuclear technology, just as we have nuclear technology. Let's find ways to work together so that we can benefit each other.".
Wait, that's nonsense, isn't it? Maybe when you're thinking through fifty years of America regarding other nations as obstacles to our "interests" that we can manpiulate to our will. No wonder the Middle East is so anti-American.
Quote:
Well, when they do come together you and your ilk say they are coerced by the uber mighty US.
Source? I don't recall saying that...
Quote:
Puppets, as it were.
So the international support for America's pursuit of those responsible for 9/11 was American coersion and the work of American puppets?
Quote:
And should we give a fuck what our enemies and competitors say? We know our friends by their shared interests.
So, America can't share interests with Iran? The concept of competitors exists... why? If you haven't noticed, the world is becoming more and more interconnected, and this idea is increasingly gathering dust, despite the efforts of the United States thusfar. Symbiotic relationships will be more prolific.
Quote:
Putting aside all of that, the international community, whatever that is, will never come together. Don't forget, damn near half the nations were on the Axis side. Just win, baby.
The international community comes together where it counts. This planet is much different than it was in the time of World War II.
Quote:
Yes it can, and we must continue to work for our interests.
Exactly. It is in our interest to stop playing empire as we have. You don't see this because you are too invested in this viewpoint.
Quote:
And as far as the counterproductive nature of the ideology I flaunt, you are a fool. Because of my "ideology" hundreds of millions of people are freed from communist slavery
So, hundreds of millions are free from communist slavery, because of the amazing defeat of the Soviets by the United States, or because their economic policies were unsustainable and they eventually fell apart?
Hhhm.... perhaps the United States should have been paying closer attention, since we're facing a very similar problem today.
Quote:
, tens of millions of Iraqis and Afghanis no longer have to deal with government oppression,
Tell that to the poppy farmers in Afghanistan. Its far too early for you to declare victory in a place like Iraq.
Quote:
Taiwan remains free.
Taiwan remains irrelevant. China could have it if it wanted it. If your only true success is protecting one island for a few years before the international community recognized the People's Republic of China, I wouldn't consider that much, especially considering the grave danger America is in today. Maybe China will barricade Hawaii from the United States and protect its right to secede from the United States of America. I'm sure you won't have a problem with that.
Go ahead, continue to throw rocks at the nests of hornets. I'm sure its in your interest, but don't go around saying it is in our interest. The American people will decide that for themselves.
--------------------
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
|
DeepDish
Stranger
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 86
Last seen: 14 years, 10 months
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Phred]
#7810622 - 12/29/07 01:56 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Isn't Ron Paul just acting in a similar manner to Ragnar Danneskjold? If taxes are truly viewed as stolen money, then it is clear that government has no RIGHT to the loot they have stolen. It then follows that there is no contradiction between inserting provisions in a spending bill that will return some of the stolen loot to the people it was taken from and voting against the bill. The earmarks act as a safeguard against the unjust taxation of his constituents. You cannot act as though voting IN FAVOR of a bill that supports thievery is moral in any way. Personally I think Ron Paul is a bit old to run around as a pirate robbing the government and returning the money to his constituents, but in principle the two methods are very similar.
|
Coaster
Baʿal



Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: DeepDish]
#7810655 - 12/29/07 02:12 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
ron paul is like peter pan
--------------------
|
Coaster
Baʿal



Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 3 months
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: DeepDish]
#7810659 - 12/29/07 02:12 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
ron paul is like robin hood
--------------------
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Coaster]
#7810681 - 12/29/07 02:27 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Coaster said: ron paul is like robin hood
I'm pretty sure he's against stealing from the rich and giving to the poor.
--------------------
|
|