Question for non-RP supporters [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Question for non-RP supporters


beforeobamabans
03-23-2012, 18:05
How do you like yet ANOTHER half-ass candidate shoved down your throat by the GOP Establishment? :faint:

JBnTX
03-23-2012, 18:14
How do you like yet ANOTHER half-ass candidate shoved down your throat by the GOP Establishment? :faint:


Who are you referring to?

The only candidate anyone is trying to "shove" down my throat is Ron Paul.

You may not approve of the other candidates, but remember this about Ron Paul and his strict constitutionalist agenda:

"Ron Paul has no chance of winning the nomination... and his libertarianism is pure hocus-pocus science fiction, evidenced by the fact that it's never been successfully implemented. Ever.

But Ron Paul's supporters don't know it. Or, at least, none of them can describe a single instance in history when such a system has prospered without serious consequences and horrendous side-effects."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-fantastical-crackpot-_b_1200608.html


..

Ruble Noon
03-23-2012, 18:17
and his libertarianism is pure hocus-pocus science fiction, evidenced by the fact that it's never been successfully implemented. Ever. But Ron Paul's supporters don't know it. Or, at least, none of them can describe a single instance in history when such a system has prospered without serious consequences and horrendous side-effects."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-fantastical-crackpot-_b_1200608.html

I guess Huffpo has never heard of America. :dunno:

RCP
03-23-2012, 19:31
none of them can describe a single instance in history when such a system has prospered without serious consequences and horrendous side-effects.

Gee, were prospering to the tune of what 14.7 trillion dollars in debt? I guess y'all have it all figured out though huh?

syntaxerrorsix
03-23-2012, 19:45
Really JB?


Huffington Post?


Really?

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPJS4OtvYqV-f1-6TMSfS60sB07QJMs6z2SsRZ03xaTmOkhq_Apw


Just put it on.

CAcop
03-23-2012, 21:47
If by "establishment" you mean your neighbors voting for somebody other than your favorite I guess you could say they were shoving down your throat.

Majority rules and it suck when you are in the minority.

engineer151515
03-23-2012, 21:55
If by "establishment" you mean your neighbors voting for somebody other than your favorite I guess you could say they were shoving down your throat.

Majority rules and it suck when you are in the minority.

Another home run by CAcop.



Truth is, I have a fundamental problem with any candidate that thinks any scenario where the government (state or federal) can force an individual into a commercial contract as a condition of citizenship even remotely pass Constitutional muster.

But, I also believe 5 Trillion more dollars of national debt will break us and the current administration must be voted out as a matter of our national credit/currency survival. Most of us have not experienced a currency collapse but learning from the people that have, it is hard times on steroids.

Jeff S.
03-23-2012, 22:27
Majority rules and it suck when you are in the minority.




Another home run by CAcop.



But, I also believe 5 Trillion more dollars of national debt will break us and the current administration must be voted out as a matter of our national credit/currency survival. Most of us have not experienced a currency collapse but learning from the people that have, it is hard times on steroids.



Another homerun? Really?

If our national debt is a symptom, then the false-premise of majority rules is the disease. We are not a Constitutional democracy, and, thus, by becoming a democracy we have abridged any and every Constitutional standard. The majority brought us Obama, brought us to bankruptcy, and will bring us to moral distruction (if we aren't already there). The majority of individuals in this country, regardless of whether they think of themselves as liberal or conservative, believe that they know best how to spend wealth earned by others, and attempt to do so through the coercive arm of the government. In whatever context you may fashion, a majority of Americas is merely a conglomerate of individuals wishing to control every aspect of each other's lives through legislative means.

Whomever is the next President (including RP) will have no ability to veer this country from starvation if we as a society continue to call thievery welfare. Alas, the likely candidates are not departures from our culture's moral depravity, but are creatures, each and every one of them, of it.

Syclone538
03-23-2012, 23:52
Um, yeah, these U.S. from 1776 until 1913...

chickenwing
03-24-2012, 00:00
Another homerun? Really?

If our national debt is a symptom, then the false-premise of majority rules is the disease. We are not a Constitutional democracy, and, thus, by becoming a democracy we have abridged any and every Constitutional standard. The majority brought us Obama, brought us to bankruptcy, and will bring us to moral distruction (if we aren't already there). The majority of individuals in this country, regardless of whether they think of themselves as liberal or conservative, believe that they know best how to spend wealth earned by others, and attempt to do so through the coercive arm of the government. In whatever context you may fashion, a majority of Americas is merely a conglomerate of individuals wishing to control every aspect of each other's lives through legislative means.

Whomever is the next President (including RP) will have no ability to veer this country from starvation if we as a society continue to call thievery welfare. Alas, the likely candidates are not departures from our culture's moral depravity, but are creatures, each and every one of them, of it.

This is a home run. Well said.

Stubudd
03-24-2012, 06:46
But Ron Paul's supporters don't know it. Or, at least, none of them can describe a single instance in history when such a system has prospered without serious consequences and horrendous side-effects."[/B]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-fantastical-crackpot-_b_1200608.html


..

:rofl:

that's the stupidest quote i've read in weeks, i almost believe the author must be trolling Rp supporters for comments. that or they're just an idiot

at least you've found your true home- you'll love the stuff they publish there, they love wasting money on welfare and big government too, so there'll be plenty of ron paul trolling. Home at last JB.

fortyofforty
03-24-2012, 06:51
That's fine, Paulistas. Go ahead and pout. If your guy can't even get the Republican nomination, has never held a statewide office, and has never held an executive position or run anything but a small medical office, how can you believe he'd win the presidency?

If you believe it's Ronnie Earmarks or otherwise you'll support Obama, you'll guarantee that the next Supreme Court justice Obama nominates in the next four years will give the 5-4 majority to the Natsos as we get another Kagan or Sotomayor (not a Scalia or Roberts). You will lose your Constitutional rights, whether you like it or not.

Fed Five Oh
03-24-2012, 06:58
Republican primary is still going. People are voting for whom they want. How is someone getting shoved down their throat again?

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 07:01
Another homerun? Really?

If our national debt is a symptom, then the false-premise of majority rules is the disease. We are not a Constitutional democracy, and, thus, by becoming a democracy we have abridged any and every Constitutional standard. The majority brought us Obama, brought us to bankruptcy, and will bring us to moral distruction (if we aren't already there). The majority of individuals in this country, regardless of whether they think of themselves as liberal or conservative, believe that they know best how to spend wealth earned by others, and attempt to do so through the coercive arm of the government. In whatever context you may fashion, a majority of Americas is merely a conglomerate of individuals wishing to control every aspect of each other's lives through legislative means.

Whomever is the next President (including RP) will have no ability to veer this country from starvation if we as a society continue to call thievery welfare. Alas, the likely candidates are not departures from our culture's moral depravity, but are creatures, each and every one of them, of it.

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

Excellent post BTW.

syntaxerrorsix
03-24-2012, 07:14
That's fine, Paulistas. Go ahead and pout. If your guy can't even get the Republican nomination, has never held a statewide office, and has never held an executive position or run anything but a small medical office, how can you believe he'd win the presidency?

If you believe it's Ronnie Earmarks or otherwise you'll support Obama, you'll guarantee that the next Supreme Court justice Obama nominates in the next four years will give the 5-4 majority to the Natsos as we get another Kagan or Sotomayor (not a Scalia or Roberts). You will lose your Constitutional rights, whether you like it or not.

I'm not pouting. I'm earnestly watching the downfall of the two party political system and the USC. This was the best and brightest they had to offer?

If the voters and the Republican party wanted a win and a conservative they would have supported RP and denounced the media's censoring. They don't so they didn't. The message was loud and clear.

The GOP sealed their own fate.

fortyofforty
03-24-2012, 07:25
I'm not pouting. I'm earnestly watching the downfall of the two party political system and the USC. This was the best and brightest they had to offer?

If the voters and the Republican party wanted a win and a conservative they would have supported RP and denounced the media's censoring. They don't so they didn't. The message was loud and clear.

The GOP sealed their own fate.

Sounds like pouting to me. :dunno: Just because a hypocritical blowhard like Paul, who (as was said of Newt) enriched himself using the system, can't win the nomination, it doesn't mean the nation is lost. I mean, if the dispute between Jefferson and Adams didn't tear the country apart, perhaps there is hope. :whistling:

syntaxerrorsix
03-24-2012, 07:43
Sounds like pouting to me. :dunno: Just because a hypocritical blowhard like Paul, who (as was said of Newt) enriched himself using the system, can't win the nomination, ion is lost. I mean, if the dispute between Jefferson and Adams it doesn't mean the nat didn't tear the country apart, perhaps there is hope. :whistling:

The values and tenants of what used to be the GOP and conservatism in general has gone by the wayside.


Call RP anything you like, his track record speaks of adherence to the USC and conservatives values. Much more so than any other candidate offered. That's not hyperbole, there is every indication that he was shunned by the Republican party because of his values and voting record.

Stubudd
03-24-2012, 07:51
The values and tenants of what used to be the GOP and conservatism in general has gone by the wayside.


Call RP anything you like, his track record speaks of adherence to the USC and conservatives values. Much more so than any other candidate offered. That's not hyperbole, there is every indication that he was shunned by the Republican party because of his values and voting record.

Just the facts

The Machinist
03-24-2012, 08:31
Just the facts
Is that all you got? :whistling:

JBnTX
03-24-2012, 08:32
:rofl:

that's the stupidest quote i've read in weeks...

If it's so stupid, then maybe you wouldn't mind providing an answer?

Tell us when Ron Paul's so called libertarianism has been successfully tried in this country,
without any bad side effects?

If libertarianism is sooooo wonderful and the answer to all our problems,
then why hasn't it ever been implemented on a national scale?

After all libertarianism has been around since 1971.
Why hasn't it caught on?

syntaxerrorsix
03-24-2012, 08:38
If it's so stupid, then maybe you wouldn't mind providing an answer?

Tell us when Ron Paul's so called libertarianism has been successfully tried in this country,
without any bad side effects?

If libertarianism is sooooo wonderful and the answer to all our problems,
then why hasn't it ever been implemented on a national scale?

After all libertarianism has been around since 1971.
Why hasn't it caught on?


Because maintaining freedom and liberty is hard work and there are a lot more lazy people than strong principled people.

People have discovered the fact that they can vote for wealth redistribution and they love the **** out of it.

No going back.

Ruble Noon
03-24-2012, 08:44
If it's so stupid, then maybe you wouldn't mind providing an answer?

Tell us when Ron Paul's so called libertarianism has been successfully tried in this country,
without any bad side effects?

If libertarianism is sooooo wonderful and the answer to all our problems,
then why hasn't it ever been implemented on a national scale?

After all libertarianism has been around since 1971.
Why hasn't it caught on?

JB, libertarian thinking has been around for quite a bit longer than you think. You should ask yourself when modern day conservatism became vogue.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 09:08
If it's so stupid, then maybe you wouldn't mind providing an answer?

Tell us when Ron Paul's so called libertarianism has been successfully tried in this country,
without any bad side effects?

If libertarianism is sooooo wonderful and the answer to all our problems,
then why hasn't it ever been implemented on a national scale?

After all libertarianism has been around since 1971.
Why hasn't it caught on?

1971? Try 1776!

You can't really be this dense in real life. You haven't responded to the traumatic brain injury question. Lead poisoning as a child perhaps?

The principles of government that Ron Paul advocates are virtually identical to the principles that Thomas Jefferson advocated for. They are the principles that this country was founded upon.

I have no doubt that were Jefferson running for POTUS today you would be ridiculing and slandering him.

Sendarr
03-24-2012, 09:23
1971? Try 1776!

You can't really be this dense in real life. You haven't responded to the traumatic brain injury question. Lead poisoning as a child perhaps?

The principles of government that Ron Paul advocates are virtually identical to the principles that Thomas Jefferson advocated for. They are the principles that this country was founded upon.

I have no doubt that were Jefferson running for POTUS today you would be ridiculing and slandering him.

This.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

engineer151515
03-24-2012, 09:23
Repeal the 17th Amendment!

Excellent post BTW.

I have no problem with repealing the 17th Amendment (and we have agreed on this before).

But, excellent post? Really? It is so full of Star Chamber conspiracy theory that serves better as an example to why the RP supporters don't gain traction.

OUR real problem . . . my good friend and GT colleague, is that the "vast majority" of Americans don't really care about politics and are not engaged in the long well being of this country. Our percentage voting turnout is indisputable evidence of this.


America gets exactly the government she deserves. And if the majority of those who do vote are going to collectively protect their .govt checks (in whatever form that takes), then an economic collapse is perhaps the only reset button that will change the dynamics.

Sendarr
03-24-2012, 09:24
Really JB?


Huffington Post?


Really?

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPJS4OtvYqV-f1-6TMSfS60sB07QJMs6z2SsRZ03xaTmOkhq_Apw


Just put it on.

Thanks, I literally lol'ed

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Sam Spade
03-24-2012, 09:33
The two-party system isn't going anywhere. One of the parties may go the way of the Whigs, but the system is structured to support two parties, not one, or three. Five is right out. ;)

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 09:36
I have no problem with repealing the 17th Amendment (and we have agreed on this before).

But, excellent post? Really? It is so full of Star Chamber conspiracy theory that serves better as an example to why the RP supporters don't gain traction.



Eng - I went back and read his post again. I honestly don't see any of the star chamber conspiracy theory type stuff you're suggesting. :dunno:I think his post is right on. People deciding how to spend other people's money is one of the root problems.

OUR real problem . . . my good friend and GT colleague, is that the "vast majority" of Americans don't really care about politics and are not engaged in the long well being of this country. Our percentage voting turnout is indisputable evidence of this.





I think it has always been this way....even at the time of the Revolutionary War it was a minority that was engaged. I'm good with low turnout...makes a wise, informed vote like mine count more. There are people I meet every day who I hope don't vote.

America gets exactly the government she deserves. And if the majority of those who do vote are going to collectively protect their .govt checks (in whatever form that takes), then an economic collapse is perhaps the only reset button that will change the dynamics.

In an ideal, Constitutional world, I agree. Unfortunately the system has been so intentionally corrupted that we no longer have a government that adheres to the COTUS and represents the will of The People within its confines. One need look no further than the passage of Obamacare to witness.

I have no representation. None.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 09:37
The two-party system isn't going anywhere. One of the parties may go the way of the Whigs, but the system is structured to support two parties, not one, or three. Five is right out. ;)

Engineer - If Sam is correct, here is further evidence.

engineer151515
03-24-2012, 10:22
......People deciding how to spend other people's money is one of the root problems.

Isn't that the very definition of a Representative Republic?


I think it has always been this way....even at the time of the Revolutionary War it was a minority that was engaged. I'm good with low turnout...makes a wise, informed vote like mine count more. There are people I meet every day who I hope don't vote.



I couldn't help but chuckle. . . and agree.
The Democrats have gotten good at busing in tons of people who otherwise would not have voted. Not to mention all the damn dead Democrat voters that never fall off the voting roles. Talk about zombies . . .




In an ideal, Constitutional world, I agree. Unfortunately the system has been so intentionally corrupted that we no longer have a government that adheres to the COTUS and represents the will of The People within its confines. One need look no further than the passage of Obamacare to witness.




I must agree here too. The government is not adhering to the limitations of the COTUS and Congress has become a wimpy lapdog of the Executive Branch, surrendering everything from developing a budget, to foregoing the power to declare war, to conceding Presidential appointments without confirmation.

The Supreme Court is not much better. Some of their recent rulings on property owners might have been inconceivable in Thomas Jefferson's day.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 10:36
Isn't that the very definition of a Representative Republic?



Sure. But the federal government now acts so far outside of its constitutional authority that its a free for all. IMO, we're much closer to a direct democracy than the founders intended.

Ruble Noon
03-24-2012, 10:53
Isn't that the very definition of a Representative Republic?





The problem is our government isn't representative of the people.

57% of the people want obamacare repealed.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/09/28/rasmussen-majority-want-obamacare-repealed-political-class-doesnt/

Stubudd
03-24-2012, 10:57
If it's so stupid, then maybe you wouldn't mind providing an answer?

Tell us when Ron Paul's so called libertarianism has been successfully tried in this country,
without any bad side effects?

If libertarianism is sooooo wonderful and the answer to all our problems,
then why hasn't it ever been implemented on a national scale?

After all libertarianism has been around since 1971.
Why hasn't it caught on?

1971? Try 1776!

You can't really be this dense in real life. You haven't responded to the traumatic brain injury question. Lead poisoning as a child perhaps?

The principles of government that Ron Paul advocates are virtually identical to the principles that Thomas Jefferson advocated for. They are the principles that this country was founded upon.

I have no doubt that were Jefferson running for POTUS today you would be ridiculing and slandering him.

here you go JB. They were only the principles the country was founded on, you know, the way things were supposed to be, the way they were when this country grew from a few colonies to the greatest country in the history of civilization in less than 200 years. That's all. They're not implemented now because various progressive factions have completely subverted and taken over the federal government, and mutated it into an impossibly huge monstrosity, and too many people have either stood by and let it happen or actively encouraged it. You're a supporter of the people that did this, and will continue to do it until this country is positively unrecognizable. Thanks a lot and congratulations on your majority, nice herd you got there, you guys are doing great. A liberal from massachussets is the "conservative" nominee, that's how far gone we are. Winning. Nice job.

engineer151515
03-24-2012, 10:58
Sure. But the federal government now acts so far outside of its constitutional authority that its a free for all. IMO, we're much closer to a direct democracy than the founders intended.

I think that is well said.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 11:22
I think that is well said.

We may mince words and split hairs but we seldom disagree. That is a testament to both of our intellects if I might say so.

:supergrin:

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 11:25
here you go JB. They were only the principles the country was founded on, you know, the way things were supposed to be, the way they were when this country grew from a few colonies to the greatest country in the history of civilization in less than 200 years. That's all. They're not implemented now because various progressive factions have completely subverted and taken over the federal government, and mutated it into an impossibly huge monstrosity, and too many people have either stood by and let it happen or actively encouraged it. You're a supporter of the people that did this, and will continue to do it until this country is positively unrecognizable. Thanks a lot and congratulations on your majority, nice herd you got there, you guys are doing great. A liberal from massachussets is the "conservative" nominee, that's how far gone we are. Winning. Nice job.

I took my kids to see the Lion King play last week. In the play, when the King is killed his evil brother takes over and forms an alliance with the hyienas who proceed to overhunt the plain, resulting in starvation and a desolate landscape.

JBnTX and his people are in process of doing the same.

RCP
03-24-2012, 11:58
here you go JB. They were only the principles the country was founded on, you know, the way things were supposed to be, the way they were when this country grew from a few colonies to the greatest country in the history of civilization in less than 200 years. That's all. They're not implemented now because various progressive factions have completely subverted and taken over the federal government, and mutated it into an impossibly huge monstrosity, and too many people have either stood by and let it happen or actively encouraged it. You're a supporter of the people that did this, and will continue to do it until this country is positively unrecognizable. Thanks a lot and congratulations on your majority, nice herd you got there, you guys are doing great. A liberal from massachussets is the "conservative" nominee, that's how far gone we are. Winning. Nice job.

Now this is a home run. Well done sir.:wavey:

JBnTX
03-24-2012, 12:21
So the answer is never?

A libertarian government has never existed is this country, but
our government was originally designed that way?

The reason we don't have a perfect libertarian government today is because of dense people like me, even though I'm only 59 years od?

In the history of this country, Ron Paul's policies have never been put to the test?

Am I correct in interpreting your answers?

RC-RAMIE
03-24-2012, 12:53
here you go JB. They were only the principles the country was founded on, you know, the way things were supposed to be, the way they were when this country grew from a few colonies to the greatest country in the history of civilization in less than 200 years. That's all. They're not implemented now because various progressive factions have completely subverted and taken over the federal government, and mutated it into an impossibly huge monstrosity, and too many people have either stood by and let it happen or actively encouraged it. You're a supporter of the people that did this, and will continue to do it until this country is positively unrecognizable. Thanks a lot and congratulations on your majority, nice herd you got there, you guys are doing great. A liberal from massachussets is the "conservative" nominee, that's how far gone we are. Winning. Nice job.

He must have you on the ignore list or something.


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

Javelin
03-24-2012, 12:56
I don't care what label or what you want to call it. I'm just sick of being sold out by these elected officials.











Sent from my Fisher-Price phone
http://www.subaruforester.org/vbulletin/customavatars/avatar2503_1.gif

JBnTX
03-24-2012, 13:05
He must have you on the ignore list or something.


I don't have an ignore list, never had one and never will.
I want to hear all opinions, even if they're wrong.

But if I did have one, there would only be one name on it and he knows who he is.

RC-RAMIE
03-24-2012, 13:34
So the answer is never?

A libertarian government has never existed is this country, but
our government was originally designed that way?

The reason we don't have a perfect libertarian government today is because of dense people like me, even though I'm only 59 years od?

In the history of this country, Ron Paul's policies have never been put to the test?

Am I correct in interpreting your answers?

If you could see his post why did you ask these questions they were clearly answered in his post and even said here you go JB in the first sentence.


"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it is realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. - Ron Paul

fortyofforty
03-24-2012, 13:42
Call RP anything you like, his track record speaks of adherence to the USC and conservatives values. Much more so than any other candidate offered. That's not hyperbole, there is every indication that he was shunned by the Republican party because of his values and voting record.

Track record of unConstitutional earmark spending, for example? Is that what you mean by adherence to the United States Constitution? :rofl: That's inexcusable hypocrisy of the highest form, coming from a sanctimonious blowhard like Ronnie Earmarks. He might talk a good game, but actions speak louder than words, in my opinion.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 14:11
I don't have an ignore list, never had one and never will.
I want to hear all opinions, even if they're wrong.

But if I did have one, there would only be one name on it and he knows who he is.

Actually, you said a while back that you added me to your ignore list.:rofl:

I just give you a hard time because I want you to get your head out of your butt.

I've asked several times if you're mentally disabled because if you are, I'll leave you alone when you post irrational Progressive nonsense.

syntaxerrorsix
03-24-2012, 14:12
Track record of unConstitutional earmark spending, for example? Is that what you mean by adherence to the United States Constitution? :rofl: That's inexcusable hypocrisy of the highest form, coming from a sanctimonious blowhard like Ronnie Earmarks. He might talk a good game, but actions speak louder than words, in my opinion.

Clearly you don't understand how appropriations work.

If he does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere for other projects.

He's voting inline with the constituents that put him in office in order to recoup tax dollars. Eliminating earmarks would just give more power to the executive branch.

Congress is required to pass legislation in regards to appropriations of tax dollars from the U.S. Treasury.

If that's the best argument you've got just say so.

certifiedfunds
03-24-2012, 14:13
So the answer is never?

A libertarian government has never existed is this country, but
our government was originally designed that way?

The reason we don't have a perfect libertarian government today is because of dense people like me, even though I'm only 59 years od?

In the history of this country, Ron Paul's policies have never been put to the test?

Am I correct in interpreting your answers?

Every one of these questions has been answered.

You're 59 years old? You gotta be kidding me! How do you get that old and still be this confused?

fortyofforty
03-24-2012, 16:19
Clearly you don't understand how appropriations work.

Clearly you think you know how appropriations work, but you don't.

If he does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere for other projects.

Nope. Not true. There is no requirement that money must be spent. Unobligated money stays with the treasury and reduces the deficit.

He's voting inline with the constituents that put him in office in order to recoup tax dollars. Eliminating earmarks would just give more power to the executive branch.

Earmarks bypass the normal, Constitutional process for spending funds. I know that Paul argues that earmarks are even better than the traditional, Constitutional appropriations process, but that is self-serving nonsense that allows him to direct money back to his district for unConstitutional pork-barrel projects.

Congress is required to pass legislation in regards to appropriations of tax dollars from the U.S. Treasury.

Yes, in accord with the Constitution of the United States. What article and clause of the Constitution covers spending for shrimp marketing? The role of the Congress is not to direct federal tax dollars back to each Congressman's and Senator's district and state, is it? By your logic (and Ron Paul's, too), it is. So, by this logic, Harry Reid can argue that spending for a Cowboy Poetry Museum is merely returning federal tax money to his state and is Constitutional. I heard a preacher on television the other evening argue that federal spending amounting to tens of millions of dollars on projects of questionable value in his inner-city area are perfectly justified because, as he said, "We pay taxes, too, you know." Sound familiar?

If that's the best argument you've got just say so.

Once again, a Paulista apologist gives it his best shot, only to fall short. You cannot seriously defend Ronnie Earmarks's unConstitutional earmark projects without selling out the very Constitution you'd claim to support and defend. Epic fail. :rofl:

syntaxerrorsix
03-24-2012, 16:31
Clearly you think you know how appropriations work, but you don't.



Nope. Not true. There is no requirement that money must be spent. Unobligated money stays with the treasury and reduces the deficit.

MRA funds are placed in a shared fund for two years before being transferred to the treasury, if they ever make it.



Earmarks bypass the normal, Constitutional process for spending funds. I know that Paul argues that earmarks are even better than the traditional, Constitutional appropriations process, but that is self-serving nonsense that allows him to direct money back to his district for unConstitutional pork-barrel projects.

They are better. They actually provide transparency to the process.



Yes, in accord with the Constitution of the United States. What article and clause of the Constitution covers spending for shrimp marketing? The role of the Congress is not to direct federal tax dollars back to each Congressman's and Senator's district and state, is it? By your logic (and Ron Paul's, too), it is. So, by this logic, Harry Reid can argue that spending for a Cowboy Poetry Museum is merely returning federal tax money to his state and is Constitutional. I heard a preacher on television the other evening argue that federal spending amounting to tens of millions of dollars on projects of questionable value in his inner-city area are perfectly justified because, as he said, "We pay taxes, too, you know." Sound familiar?

Given that the money is going to be spent regardless of the Congress's decision the best thing for the state representative to do is get as much back from the fed as possible.

Is this really your entire argument against RP? Just the fact that it can be applied to all the candidates makes it an amusing focal point.

Is there anything else you don't like? Is that really it?





Once again, a Paulista apologist gives it his best shot, only to fall short. You cannot seriously defend Ronnie Earmarks's unConstitutional earmark projects without selling out the very Constitution you'd claim to support and defend. Epic fail. :rofl:

No better than liberals with their playground tactics and name calling.

fortyofforty
03-24-2012, 18:20
MRA funds are placed in a shared fund for two years before being transferred to the treasury, if they ever make it.

Not with Congressmen like Ron Paul spending the funds on un
Constitutional pork projects. Unobligated funds do not have to be spent. There is no requirement that they be spent, and there is at least a chance that they are not spent, as opposed to earmarks that are always spent.

They are better. They actually provide transparency to the process.

Earmarks are often added after bills are voted on, with limited or no transparency. In fact, Ron Paul was one of a few Republicans who voted along with Democrats against earmark transparency.

Given that the money is going to be spent regardless of the Congress's decision the best thing for the state representative to do is get as much back from the fed as possible.

Again, no requirement that the money be spent. Unobligated funds do not have to be spent. Back to the treasury they go, whether you apologists want to admit it or not.

Is this really your entire argument against RP? Just that it can be applied to all the candidates makes it an amusing focal point.

How much federal earmark money was spent by Romney, for example?

Is there anything else you don't like? Is that really it?

Nice dodge of my question, so I will ask it again:

Name the article and clause of the United States Constitution under which Ron Paul asks for federal tax dollars to be spent for shrimp marketing. For someone who claims to be a strict constructionist, he sure plays fast and loose with the Constitution when it suits his reelection plans. His hypocrisy bothers me. If he just admitted that he is a career politician and does things that he cannot defend I would have more respect for him and his seemingly mindless backers.

No better than liberals with their playground tactics and name calling.

Do I really need to list the names Mitt Romney has been called by Paulista Kool Aid drinkers? If the shoe fits Ronnie Earmarks (and he really has made earmarks a focal point of his personal legislative process), he should wear it.

syntaxerrorsix
03-24-2012, 18:44
Not with Congressmen like Ron Paul spending the funds on un
Constitutional pork projects. Unobligated funds do not have to be spent. There is no requirement that they be spent, and there is at least a chance that they are not spent, as opposed to earmarks that are always spent.



Earmarks are often added after bills are voted on, with limited or no transparency. In fact, Ron Paul was one of a few Republicans who voted along with Democrats against earmark transparency.



Again, no requirement that the money be spent. Unobligated funds do not have to be spent. Back to the treasury they go, whether you apologists want to admit it or not.



How much federal earmark money was spent by Romney, for example?



Nice dodge of my question, so I will ask it again:

Name the article and clause of the United States Constitution under which Ron Paul asks for federal tax dollars to be spent for shrimp marketing. For someone who claims to be a strict constructionist, he sure plays fast and loose with the Constitution when it suits his reelection plans. His hypocrisy bothers me. If he just admitted that he is a career politician and does things that he cannot defend I would have more respect for him and his seemingly mindless backers.



Do I really need to list the names Mitt Romney has been called by Paulista Kool Aid drinkers? If the shoe fits Ronnie Earmarks (and he really has made earmarks a focal point of his personal legislative process), he should wear it.

I never claimed there was an obligation to spend the money, I merely pointed out that it doesn't directly go to the fed to pay off the debt.

It's apparent you think there's a better candidate. Not that there's any indication that Mitt is superior in any conservative minded way.

Is there a reason why you can't debate this topic without ending every post with an insult?

fortyofforty
03-24-2012, 19:41
I never claimed there was an obligation to spend the money, I merely pointed out that it doesn't directly go to the fed to pay off the debt.

Sure, but it has been claimed here on GT by Paulistas that every cent of the federal budget and more is spent, every year, and so earmarks do not increase federal spending at all. I pointed out that earmarks are generally spent to the penny, but federal agencies are not required to spend their entire budgets. Indeed, many do not. Money not obligated is returned to the treasury and, by definition, reduces the deficit. Paulistas claim otherwise, simply to defend the indefensible actions of Ron Paul.

It's apparent you think there's a better candidate. Not that there's any indication that Mitt is superior in any conservative minded way.

I am not sure there is a better candidate, but I am pretty sure there will be another candidate. I will not support Barack Obama or no other Republican unless my one specific candidate earns the nomination, like many Paulistas have stated.

Is there a reason why you can't debate this topic without ending every post with an insult?

If calling Ron Paul "Ronnie Earmarks" is an insult, I fail to see it. Can you explain why referring to someone as Ronnie Earmarks when he has claimed that earmarks are not only as good as but actually better than the normal legislative process is an insult? Earmarks are slipped into bills, often after all the debate is ended, often without attribution, and sometimes after the bills have already been voted on. To pretend otherwise, in order to defend your candidate whose claim to fame is that he is the sole, true defender of the Constitution still running for President is ludicrous.

And, since you dodged again:

Name the article and clause of the United States Constitution under which Ron Paul asks for federal tax dollars to be spent for shrimp marketing.

wjv
03-24-2012, 21:35
How do you like yet ANOTHER half-ass candidate shoved down your throat by the GOP Establishment?

Translation: I'm so smart and all of you are so stupid. . . .

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 04:53
Sure, but it has been claimed here on GT by Paulistas that every cent of the federal budget and more is spent, every year, and so earmarks do not increase federal spending at all. I pointed out that earmarks are generally spent to the penny, but federal agencies are not required to spend their entire budgets. Indeed, many do not. Money not obligated is returned to the treasury and, by definition, reduces the deficit. Paulistas claim otherwise, simply to defend the indefensible actions of Ron Paul.



This part still isn't true no matter how many times you say it. As I said earlier it goes into a shared fund for two years, anything left from that fund may go to pay off the debt. Several districts turn money back in when the vote for spending isn't supported. Just like RP's.



I am not sure there is a better candidate, but I am pretty sure there will be another candidate. I will not support Barack Obama or no other Republican unless my one specific candidate earns the nomination, like many Paulistas have stated.

Funny, it sure seemed to me like you were backing a liberal from Ma. I have avoided bashing the other candidates for their ever present political follies. Mostly because the defects are relatively glaring.


If calling Ron Paul "Ronnie Earmarks" is an insult, I fail to see it. Can you explain why referring to someone as Ronnie Earmarks when he has claimed that earmarks are not only as good as but actually better than the normal legislative process is an insult? Earmarks are slipped into bills, often after all the debate is ended, often without attribution, and sometimes after the bills have already been voted on. To pretend otherwise, in order to defend your candidate whose claim to fame is that he is the sole, true defender of the Constitution still running for President is ludicrous.

Compared to the other candidates Paul has no equal when it comes to adherence to the USC. You've been stuck on the tiniest facet of appropriations to make your case and in my opinion if that's the worst you've got on him I'll take it. It is all you have right?



Name the article and clause of the United States Constitution under which Ron Paul asks for federal tax dollars to be spent for shrimp marketing.

Being deliberately obtuse to how appropriations work is not my idea of a gotcha a statement. I'll let you have it. The fact that it's all you've got against him makes me smile :supergrin:

Have a great Sunday :wavey:

certifiedfunds
03-25-2012, 06:36
The bottom line is that Paul is the most/only conservative in the race.

It is fascinating to watch the "conservatives" here tear him to shreds.

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 06:45
The bottom line is that Paul is the most/only conservative in the race.

It is fascinating to watch the "conservatives" here tear him to shreds.

I'm just amazed at the argument presented. Earmark spending is the worst thing he can be accused of?

There's got to be something more. He probably doesn't wash his hands after taking a leak or something.. got to be something.

Fed Five Oh
03-25-2012, 06:51
I'm just amazed at the argument presented. Earmark spending is the worst thing he can be accused of?

There's got to be something more. He probably doesn't wash his hands after taking a leak or something.. got to be something.

Of course there is something more. He is a lunatic that 90% of the people do not want to turn the responsibility for the safety and securtity of this country over to. His foreign policy will get this country hurt and most people are aware of this. Free bananas.

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 06:55
Of course there is something more. He is a lunatic that 90% of the people do not want to turn the responsibility for the safety and securtity of this country over to. His foreign policy will get this country hurt and most people are aware of this. Free bananas.

Ah lunatic that was it.

Crazy ass conservatives doing conservative things. What would folks think.

fortyofforty
03-25-2012, 07:40
This part still isn't true no matter how many times you say it. As I said earlier it goes into a shared fund for two years, anything left from that fund may go to pay off the debt. Several districts turn money back in when the vote for spending isn't supported. Just like RP's.

Pretending that all money that is budgeted is automatically spent to the penny, as Paulistas do, does not make it true. Money that is not obligated goes back to the treasury and reduces the debt. Money that is earmarked is spent. All of it. Despite your shaky defense of earmarks, any fair person with even a modicum of understanding of budgets knows that earmarks are not somehow better for the deficit.

You act as if the budget is a balloon, and squeezing here or there does not change the overall volume contained therein. That is a lie. The budget does not automatically all get spent (except for earmarks). There is a complex bidding process for federal spending projects, and waste, fraud, and abuse are investigated (again, except for earmarks). Repeatedly writing untruths does not make them more true.

Funny, it sure seemed to me like you were backing a liberal from Ma. I have avoided bashing the other candidates for their ever present political follies. Mostly because the defects are relatively glaring.

Funny, it seemed to me that I haven't backed any Republican candidate. If you, personally, have refrained from bashing the other Republican candidates, you are in a small minority among Paulistas.

Compared to the other candidates Paul has no equal when it comes to adherence to the USC. You've been stuck on the tiniest facet of appropriations to make your case and in my opinion if that's the worst you've got on him I'll take it. It is all you have right?

I am not crazy about Paul's foreign policy ideas, either, but that's a discussion for another time. I am certainly not in love with him, like some here on GT seem to be.

Being deliberately obtuse to how appropriations work is not my idea of a gotcha a statement. I'll let you have it. The fact that it's all you've got against him makes me smile :supergrin:

Have a great Sunday :wavey:

Wow. :shocked: UnConstitutional spending requests is "all" I've got against Ronnie Earmarks. I take the Constitution seriously, unlike Ronnie Earmarks and his Paulista acolytes, who believe the Constitution can be bent or shaped or molded to suit their interests.

I don't know if you are truly ignorant about the earmark process, or if you have limited your research to Ron Paul's website and statements concerning earmarks. If you are curious, you can certainly find out more about how earmarks work (here's a hint: all is not as Ron Paul claims).

If Ronnie Earmarks did not make such a big deal about strictly adhering to the Constitution, it would not be such a big deal to me. If Paul is going to put himself out there as the only true, strict constructionist in the race, I am going to call him on his glaring hypocrisy.

Yes, violating the Constitution is "all" I've got against Ronnie Earmarks. :rofl:

You Paulistas are almost unbelievable. Very cultish in your devotion, I'd say. Good for you. No harm has ever come from that type of slavish devotion to one man. Enjoy your weekend. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 08:08
Pretending that all money that is budgeted is automatically spent to the penny, as Paulistas do, does not make it true. Money that is not obligated goes back to the treasury and reduces the debt. Money that is earmarked is spent. All of it. Despite your shaky defense of earmarks, any fair person with even a modicum of understanding of budgets knows that earmarks are not somehow better for the deficit.

You act as if the budget is a balloon, and squeezing here or there does not change the overall volume contained therein. That is a lie. The budget does not automatically all get spent (except for earmarks). There is a complex bidding process for federal spending projects, and waste, fraud, and abuse are investigated (again, except for earmarks). Repeatedly writing untruths does not make them more true.



Who has said that? All I have said was that the money not spent does not go directly back to the fed to pay off the deficit as you claim.

It isn't true and I've pointed out what actually happens twice now yet you crow on about it.



Funny, it seemed to me that I haven't backed any Republican candidate. If you, personally, have refrained from bashing the other Republican candidates, you are in a small minority among Paulistas.



I am not crazy about Paul's foreign policy ideas, either, but that's a discussion for another time. I am certainly not in love with him, like some here on GT seem to be.



Wow. :shocked: UnConstitutional spending requests is "all" I've got against Ronnie Earmarks. I take the Constitution seriously, unlike Ronnie Earmarks and his Paulista acolytes, who believe the Constitution can be bent or shaped or molded to suit their interests.

I don't know if you are truly ignorant about the earmark process, or if you have limited your research to Ron Paul's website and statements concerning earmarks. If you are curious, you can certainly find out more about how earmarks work (here's a hint: all is not as Ron Paul claims).

If Ronnie Earmarks did not make such a big deal about strictly adhering to the Constitution, it would not be such a big deal to me. If Paul is going to put himself out there as the only true, strict constructionist in the race, I am going to call him on his glaring hypocrisy.

Yes, violating the Constitution is "all" I've got against Ronnie Earmarks. :rofl:

You Paulistas are almost unbelievable. Very cultish in your devotion, I'd say. Good for you. No harm has ever come from that type of slavish devotion to one man. Enjoy your weekend. :wavey:

Please, save your shock and awe. There isn't a single candidate (or likely politician) out there that we will not be able to find fault with. All I've done is point out that RP is the candidate with the BEST track record of adherence to the USC.

fortyofforty
03-25-2012, 08:57
Who has said that? All I have said was that the money not spent does not go directly back to the fed to pay off the deficit as you claim.

It isn't true and I've pointed out what actually happens twice now yet you crow on about it.

Is that the best you've got, that it takes a little while for the unobligated money to reduce the deficit? Spare me your little games. Bottom line, whether you like it or not, is that earmarks can and do often increase the deficit. Mental gymnastics that people need to do to defend Ronnie Earmarks unConstitutional spending requests don't impress me. I can read and I can think, independent of Ron Paul's website that seems written for those who cannot process information effectively.

Please, save your shock and awe. There isn't a single candidate (or likely politician) out there that we will not be able to find fault with. All I've done is point out that RP is the candidate with the BEST track record of adherence to the USC.

Well, given the cult of personality, I suppose it's a victory when a Paulista has to admit, however reluctantly, that he cannot defend Ron Paul's unConstitutional earmark spending requests. It won't work to convince those with closed minds who are neck-deep in the Kool Aid, but it might help those on the fence and who hear Ron Paul's grandiose claims of strictly defending and adhering to the Constitution. Good luck to you. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 09:19
Is that the best you've got, that it takes a little while for the unobligated money to reduce the deficit? Spare me your little games. Bottom line, whether you like it or not, is that earmarks can and do often increase the deficit. Mental gymnastics that people need to do to defend Ronnie Earmarks unConstitutional spending requests don't impress me. I can read and I can think, independent of Ron Paul's website that seems written for those who cannot process information effectively.

Don't take my word for it Boehner explained it and a few people aren't real happy about it but it appears to be quite true despite what you feel.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/01/unspent-tax-dollars-earmarked-for-congressional-offices-go-into-black-hole-video/

Of course you keep turning this into a strawman as opposed to what I'm actually try to tell you. Talk about little games, I'm pretty sure you are trying to corner the market.




Well, given the cult of personality, I suppose it's a victory when a Paulista has to admit, however reluctantly, that he cannot defend Ron Paul's unConstitutional earmark spending requests. It won't work to convince those with closed minds who are neck-deep in the Kool Aid, but it might help those on the fence and who hear Ron Paul's grandiose claims of strictly defending and adhering to the Constitution. Good luck to you. :wavey:

Before you run a long with your short lived 'victory' why don't you let us know who has a better track record in regards to constitutional adherence?

A simple name will suffice. I tire of the paragraph long diatribes.

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 09:28
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/01/unspent-tax-dollars-earmarked-for-congressional-offices-go-into-black-hole-video/



My congressman is in that video.

fortyofforty
03-25-2012, 09:32
Don't take my word for it Boehner explained it and a few people aren't real happy about it but it appears to be quite true despite what you feel.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/01/unspent-tax-dollars-earmarked-for-congressional-offices-go-into-black-hole-video/

Of course you keep turning this into a strawman as opposed to what I'm actually try to tell you. Talk about little games, I'm pretty sure you are trying to corner the market.

Your ignorance is golden. Keep pretending that earmarks don't increase the deficit so you can keep pretending that Ron Paul's hundreds of millions of dollars in earmark requests are benign in terms of the federal deficit. Whatever you want to pretend, the facts say the opposite. Your idiotic claims that I don't understand how the appropriations process works when I am simply stating that earmarks allow extraConstitutional spending are as tiresome as they are wrong. Unobligated funds can and should be applied to deficit reduction, not spent on shrimp marketing or park benches.

Before you run a long with your short lived 'victory' why don't you let us know who has a better track record in regards to constitutional adherence?

A simple name will suffice. I tire of the paragraph long diatribes.

Sorry for making you actually read and think. I know Ron Paul supporters are more used to mindlessly repeating mantras.

Give me one name of someone who claims as loudly and as proudly to support a strict adherence to the Constitution, and who hypocritically does the opposite while in office. Just one name will suffice.

Sorry to burst your Messiah bubble. I know the truth hurts, and you can't defend shrimp marketing or cowboy poetry museums or park benches in accord with the Constitution. So, go ahead and support your guy. Nobody will change your mind. Vote for whomever you want. That's your right. If your guy earns enough votes to win, he'll be president. So far, Ronnie Earmarks's track record of respecting the Constitution leaves much to be desired.

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 09:36
You didn't read the link or watch the video did you.

Couldn't come up with a single name either.

Ok. You're right, have a great day :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 09:38
https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfbWj11O2DUOE31wcLWMbpaG4qUU841-6BydthAXv18CuI7lql8A

certifiedfunds
03-25-2012, 09:54
You didn't read the link or watch the video did you.

Couldn't come up with a single name either.

Ok. You're right, have a great day :wavey:

You need to understand that liberty scares most conservatives. They need the same control that Progressives do, just in different areas and for somewhat different reasons.

Vic777
03-25-2012, 11:08
How do you like yet ANOTHER half-ass candidate shoved down your throat by the GOP Establishment? :faint:You get the Government you deserve. You can't Blame Obama for running, it's a free country. You could run if you wanted to make the effort. We can only pick from amongst those who run. Romney might well be the best from that group. America has changed, the schools don't produce a product with any marketable skills. These "Social Workers", and useless Government employees still have to eat. The "Producers" must feed the rest of Society which doesn't produce. We push kids through school and Harvard to keep them off the streets. We must then support them in Bogus Government jobs and the entertainment "Industry". Maybe it will be a brokered convention and someone with balls like Sarah Palin will step up to the plate.

fortyofforty
03-25-2012, 13:26
You need to understand that liberty scares most conservatives. They need the same control that Progressives do, just in different areas and for somewhat different reasons.

You need to understand that HYPOCRISY scares the crap out of me. When a Congressman argues that his job is to make sure federal tax money gets spent in his district, no matter the Constitutional justification, simply because his constituents paid taxes, then any spending for any reason is acceptable. That is not my understanding of the Constitution. No one—not one time—has pointed to the Article, Section or Clause of the Constitution that Paul used to justify spending federal tax money on shrimp marketing. Why not? Because you can’t. Spin it. Twist it. Debate it. Lie about it. Say whatever you want. Such spending is not Constitutionally justifiable, and Ron Paul is the one who put it in the budget. It’s really as simple as that, and you Paulistas know it.

Someone like Paul, based on what he says, should be embarrassed by his use of earmarks. Instead he embraces them and doubles down, arguing that they are preferable to traditional budgeting and spending mechanisms. I am not a blind follower of any candidate like many Paulistas and Obamatons, and would argue that anyone who is needs to step back and reevaluate their guy with a more critical eye. I expected it from the Natsos. I was surprised to find it in the Republican party.

If any of you is really interested in reading more about earmarks, here's a good link (http://www.wlf.org/upload/2-08-08Olsson.pdf).

G19G20
03-25-2012, 14:24
If by "establishment" you mean your neighbors voting for somebody other than your favorite I guess you could say they were shoving down your throat.

Majority rules and it suck when you are in the minority.

Does that also apply to the conventions when the real voters (delegates) are elected? It's cool, just as long as you don't complain when you're in the minority at the conventions and Paul delegates are the majority.

Sam Spade
03-25-2012, 15:22
It's cool, just as long as you don't complain when you're in the minority at the conventions and Paul delegates are the majority.
Short of fraud--a very unlibertarian act--how do you imagine that will happen?

Paul has, what, 50 pledged delegates?

So how does this break out? Mitt's going to release his delegates to vote Paul? The RNC is going to broker things and decide Ron is their best hope? Dick Cheney's heart transplant came from Murray Rothbard?

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 16:51
Short of fraud--a very unlibertarian act--how do you imagine that will happen?

Paul has, what, 50 pledged delegates?

So how does this break out? Mitt's going to release his delegates to vote Paul? The RNC is going to broker things and decide Ron is their best hope? Dick Cheney's heart transplant came from Murray Rothbard?

Okay, I had to laugh at that.