Ron Paul Is NOT A Conservative [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul Is NOT A Conservative


Pages : [1] 2

JBnTX
03-25-2012, 10:16
Take 18 short minutes of your life and learn the truth about Ron Paul and his presidential campaign.

Ron Paul is NOT a conservative, in fact Ron Paul and his followers hate conservatives and conservatism.

The sooner he drops out of the race, the better for America.

http://www.therightscoop.com/jeffrey-lord-on-mark-levin-show-ron-paul-is-a-neo-liberal-not-a-conservative/




Here is the article by Jeffery Lord that's referenced in the video.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-neoliberal-re/

The Machinist
03-25-2012, 10:25
You're a fraud, JB, and by now, everyone else knows it. You're a simple sheep looking for an authoritarian of the right stripe to hitch your wagon to. You wouldn't know conservatism if it kicked you in the head.

JBnTX
03-25-2012, 10:29
You're a fraud, JB, and by now, everyone else knows it. You're a simple sheep looking for an authoritarian of the right stripe to hitch your wagon to. You wouldn't know conservatism if it kicked you in the head.


I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm mentioned in either that video or that article.

Please confine your comments to the content of the video and the article.

That video contains very important information about Ron Paul and his followers,
that every voter should be aware of.

..

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 10:44
I've read Levin's book and I've read RP's books.

Levin's opinion is noted. RP's voting record doesn't agree with the assessment.

Levin is 100% neo-con. It's not surprising he doesn't align with true conservative or classical liberals.

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 10:51
I've also read Gutzman book, they misrepresented it as well.

I'm still listening though I'm sure it will get better.

The Machinist
03-25-2012, 10:52
I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm mentioned in either that video or that article.

Please confine your comments to the content of the video and the article.

That video contains very important information about Ron Paul and his followers,
that every voter should be aware of.

..
Please. The article initially hints that opposition to America's involvement in WW1 was a bad thing, while completely ignoring that we helped set the stage for WW2, which was the most grotesque waste of human life in all of history.

Then he spends two pages bemoaning anti-Jewish blah, blah, blah. The author is no more in touch with reality than you, JB.

JBnTX
03-25-2012, 10:56
Levin is 100% neo-con...

Did you listen to the video?

It infers that Ron Paul's followers use the term "neo-con" as a codeword for Jew,
and that there's a little anti-semitism in Ron Paul's campaign.

Levin is Jewish, you know.

Judging by your remark that video is dead on correct about Ron Paul and his followers.

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 10:58
I watched your video and read your link and disagree.

Here's one that directly refutes Levin and Lord.



Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman Destory Neocon Mark Levin - Full Version - YouTube

JBnTX
03-25-2012, 10:58
Please. The article initially hints that opposition to America's involvement in WW1 was a bad thing, while completely ignoring that we helped set the stage for WW2, which was the most grotesque waste of human life in all of history.

Are you blaming the United States for WWII?

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 11:00
Did you listen to the video?

It infers that Ron Paul's followers use the term "neo-con" as a codeword for Jew,
and that there's a little anti-semitism in Ron Paul's campaign.

Levin is Jewish, you know.

Judging by your remark that video is dead on correct about Ron Paul and his followers.

Yes I did. You've got a lot of catching up to do.

LOL really? Please quote my anti-semetic sentiment.

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 11:03
If your definition of conservatism is growing the government by leaps and bounds, bankrupting the U.S. with reckless spending, shredding the constitution and the rights of Americans then, you are right, Paul is not a conservative.

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 11:03
Is this like the Republican version of pulling the race card to win an argument?

This is rich.

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 11:07
It infers that Ron Paul's followers use the term "neo-con" as a codeword for Jew,
and that there's a little anti-semitism in Ron Paul's campaign.



Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism) which combines features of traditional conservatism with political individualism and a qualified endorsement of free markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-0) Neoconservatism (or new conservatives) is rooted in a group of former liberals, who in the late 1960s, began to oppose many of the policies and principles associated with President Lyndon Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Johnson)'s Great Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Society) programs.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism#cite_note-1) The term "neoconservative" was initially used in the 1930s to describe American liberals who criticized other liberals who followed a path closer to Soviet communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

JBnTX
03-25-2012, 11:16
If your definition of conservatism is growing the government by leaps and bounds, bankrupting the U.S. with reckless spending, shredding the constitution and the rights of Americans then, you are right, Paul is not a conservative.

The video says you'd say that.:rofl:

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 11:21
The video says you'd say that.:rofl:

Because it is the truth.

JB, I once had a mule that as long as it wore its blinders you could hitch it up to the sulky and go for a drive with no problems. If you tried to hitch it up to the same sulky without the blinders it would go berserk. You remind me of that mule.

syntaxerrorsix
03-25-2012, 11:22
The video says you'd say that.:rofl:

You're really a piece of work. Very sad.




















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

The Machinist
03-25-2012, 11:29
Are you blaming the United States for WWII?
I blame the bastards in the federal government for playing a huge role in shaping the events that directly led to WW2. Had the US stayed out of European affairs, England, France, and Germany would have likely ended the war in peace talks. Instead, mental midgets like Woodrow Wilson were allowed to punish Germany, and utterly destroy it, leading to the rise of Adolf Hitler. You know the rest.

Stubudd
03-25-2012, 11:48
Cool, several pages of vague and random ron paul hates jews intimations without any specific reference to paul himself- check out what this other guy said one time in this blog post. Ben stein once blurted out "anti-semitic" on a TV show, check out the video here, lol. Nevermind discussing ron paul's actual positions, lets write 5 pages about what people other than ron paul said about people other than ron paul. This must have been written for the deep thinkers out there- nevermind all that complicated stuff like who is actually conservative on spending money- i want to know who hates who and who loves who, like a 3rd grader.

:rofl:

pathetic

Stubudd
03-25-2012, 11:50
Did you listen to the video?

It infers that Ron Paul's followers use the term "neo-con" as a codeword for Jew,
and that there's a little anti-semitism in Ron Paul's campaign.

Levin is Jewish, you know.

Judging by your remark that video is dead on correct about Ron Paul and his followers.

code word for jew

:rofl:

pathetic JB, a new low

doubling down on stupid, refuse to learn a thing about anything that matters

no wonder the GoP can get away with nominating liberals, look at these people

maxsnafu
03-25-2012, 12:19
Is this like the Republican version of pulling the race card to win an argument?



Of course it is. Republican do it as often as Democrats. It's a way of shutting off debates they don't wish to have while asserting their moral superiority.

Javelin
03-25-2012, 12:26
JBnTX you really have a problem with Ron Paul it seems.

If 'conservative' means the current slew of rotten Republicans that are squatting in Congress & Senate then I would have to agree with you. Ron Paul is not one of them.

:wavey:



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

JBnTX
03-25-2012, 12:27
code word for jew

:rofl:

pathetic JB, a new low

doubling down on stupid, refuse to learn a thing about anything that matters

no wonder the GoP can get away with nominating liberals, look at these people

The video says that, not me.
I was just relaying what the video says.

Don't get the two mixed up.

JBnTX
03-25-2012, 12:41
JBnTX you really have a problem with Ron Paul it seems...


Yes I do have a problem with Ron Paul.

He's not a conservative or a republican, and should not be allowed to participate in the republican primaries.

Ron Paul and his followers consistently attack and demean republican voters and their candidates, all the while Ron Paul leeches off the republican party for publicity.

They bash people over the head with the constitution and predict nothing but doom and gloom for this country.

They insist that ONLY Ron Paul can save this country and anyone who doesn't agree with
them is an idiot.

Ron Paul and his policies have been soundly rejected by the American people and it's time for him to take his neo-liberalism and go home.

My biggest fear is that Ron Paul will run as a third party candidate after he has already been rejected by the American voters in the republican primaries.

This will then dilute the republican vote and ensure Barack Obama wins the election.

Many Ron Paul supporters right here on this forum have expressed the opinion that four more years of Obama is better than a republican president. Many of Ron Paul supporters have even pledged to vote for Obama.

How conservative can they be with an opinion like that?

The truth is that Ron Paul and his supporters hate conservatism and the republican party,
and are doing everything they can to destroy it.

Even if it means re-electing Barack Obama,
which is the absolute worst thing that could happen to this country.

..

Glock30Eric
03-25-2012, 12:42
JBnTX you really have a problem with Ron Paul it seems.

If 'conservative' means the current slew of rotten Republicans that are squatting in Congress & Senate then I would have to agree with you. Ron Paul is not one of them.

:wavey:



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

Your signature have made me laugh at every time when I read your signature. So funny!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

G-19
03-25-2012, 13:03
Good video, JB. I couldn't agree more, to bad that some people can't see the logic. On the plus, we can rest knowing RP is irrelevant.

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 13:14
Yes I do have a problem with Ron Paul.

He's not a conservative or a republican, and should not be allowed to participate in the republican primaries.

Ron Paul and his followers consistently attack and demean republican voters and their candidates, all the while Ron Paul leeches off the republican party for publicity.

They bash people over the head with the constitution and predict nothing but doom and gloom for this country.

They insist that ONLY Ron Paul can save this country and anyone who doesn't agree with
them is an idiot.

Ron Paul and his policies have been soundly rejected by the American people and it's time for him to take his neo-liberalism and go home.

My biggest fear is that Ron Paul will run as a third party candidate after he has already been rejected by the American voters in the republican primaries.

This will then dilute the republican vote and ensure Barack Obama wins the election.

Many Ron Paul supporters right here on this forum have expressed the opinion that four more years of Obama is better than a republican president. Many of Ron Paul supporters have even pledged to vote for Obama.

How conservative can they be with an opinion like that?

The truth is that Ron Paul and his supporters hate conservatism and the republican party,
and are doing everything they can to destroy it.

Even if it means re-electing Barack Obama,
which is the absolute worst thing that could happen to this country.

..

Keep those blinders firmly in place JB.

G-19
03-25-2012, 13:16
My biggest fear is that Ron Paul will run as a third party candidate after he has already been rejected by the American voters in the republican primaries.

This will then dilute the republican vote and ensure Barack Obama wins the election.

Many Ron Paul supporters right here on this forum have expressed the opinion that four more years of Obama is better than a republican president. Many of Ron Paul supporters have even pledged to vote for Obama.



..

JB, that has been his plan all along. He is a shill for Obama.

Google "Ron Paul and George Soros", some pretty fishy connections there.

Blast
03-25-2012, 13:39
I blame the bastards in the federal government for playing a huge role in shaping the events that directly led to WW2. Had the US stayed out of European affairs, England, France, and Germany would have likely ended the war in peace talks. Instead, mental midgets like Woodrow Wilson were allowed to punish Germany, and utterly destroy it, leading to the rise of Adolf Hitler. You know the rest.
That is most asenine.:upeyes:
The US had a small role in WW1 and the aftermath.
The US did not manipulate European affairs. France and Britain shaped Europe between the wars.

You probably think we should have stayed out WW2, despite being attacked by Japan. But of course most Ronulans think we also set the stage for the Pacific war and allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked.
If America did not enter WW2 when we did, The world would either be Nazi or communist.

It appears "mental midgetry" is prevalent in the Ron Paul camp.

fortyofforty
03-25-2012, 13:52
Well, at least the Paulistas didn't resort to personal attacks. Oh, wait. Never mind. :rofl: Don't confuse Paulistas with facts or opinions contrary to their religion. They don't like to be challenged any more than Ronnie Earmarks likes to follow the Constitution.

The Machinist
03-25-2012, 13:56
You probably think we should have stayed out WW2, despite being attacked by Japan.
You should probably stop trying to think. You're not very good at it. Romney appreciates your vote.

Rumbler_G20
03-25-2012, 14:05
There are many shades of "liberal". Sometimes they can be a little hard to spot quickly.

But they all share one similar trait that really makes them stand out once they start "talking".

They truly believe that everyone is even more stupid than they are. EVERYONE.

JB, you are officially outed. No point in trying to stay in the closet any longer.:wavey:


Take 18 short minutes of your life and learn the truth about Ron Paul and his presidential campaign.

Ron Paul is NOT a conservative, in fact Ron Paul and his followers hate conservatives and conservatism.

The sooner he drops out of the race, the better for America.

http://www.therightscoop.com/jeffrey-lord-on-mark-levin-show-ron-paul-is-a-neo-liberal-not-a-conservative/




Here is the article by Jeffery Lord that's referenced in the video.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/ron-paul-and-the-neoliberal-re/

JBnTX
03-25-2012, 15:22
Good video, JB. I couldn't agree more, to bad that some people can't see the logic. On the plus, we can rest knowing RP is irrelevant.


Thank you for reminding me that Ron Paul is irrelevant.

I can now cease my efforts to expose him for what he is.

His libertarian BS has been rejected by the American people who
know a bad deal when they see it.

Adios and good riddance to Ron Paul.:rofl:

chickenwing
03-25-2012, 15:29
I watched your video and read your link and disagree.

Here's one that directly refutes Levin and Lord.



Tom Woods and Kevin Gutzman Destory Neocon Mark Levin - Full Version - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sg98iknJno)

Thanks for posting.

American Spectator Dead Wrong on Ron Paul - YouTube

The Machinist
03-25-2012, 16:24
His libertarian BS has been rejected by the American people who know a bad deal when they see it.
LOL! You can't be for real. So the American people think voting for the architect of Obamacare is a good deal? The American people think assault weapon bans, open borders, and more debt is a good deal?

RCP
03-25-2012, 17:18
If he's so "irrelevant" why do you worry so much about him and his supporters? Is it because you know without our support your liberal Republican candidates stand no chance? If there are so few of us and so many of you then it shouldn't matter who we vote for or more importantly who we don't vote for. The truth is you know RP and his supporters are needed to triumph over Obama and it just kills you that we won't buy into the idiocy the GOP is selling as you now and always have. It's ok though because with the candidates the 2 parties keep giving us it will only be a matter of time before the US has no other choice than to adopt the policies RP has been trying to implement. It's too bad we can't do so before were ruined rather than wait til after. Hold on to your pink helmet Amigo, your gonna need it.

G-19
03-25-2012, 18:06
If he's so "irrelevant" why do you worry so much about him and his supporters?

It is not worry, it is just so much fun coming here and messing with their heads. They can't not face the truth that RP has no chance of being elected.

He was never intended to be elected. Like I said he is nothing more than a shill for the Obama team to divide the GOP votes. Even his own followers have made the comment they will vote for Obama before any of the other candidates. Just look into some of his connections to George Soros, then you might see the big picture. He was paid to divide the GOP. He has played the greed card to the point that his followers actually think he will reduce their taxes. They seem to overlook his earmarks in the bills he has voted for. They say it is ok for him, because others do it. If he really believed the drivel he spouts and was a man of his word then he would take a stand against the earmarks. Instead he is just another politician only looking out for his own interests. His only concern is saying or doing what it takes to keep his cushy job. He downgraded public employees and has his followers thinking they are evil. If I am not mistaken, RP has been a public employee for years. Even his son is a public employee.

The Machinist
03-25-2012, 18:11
Romney is going to give you the same thing as Obama, so quit complaining. Either way, you'll get the leviathan authoritarian government you want. No American will be immune from their prying eyes and probing fingers - just like you desire.

Glock30Eric
03-25-2012, 18:30
It is not worry, it is just so much fun coming here and messing with their heads. They can't not face the truth that RP has no chance of being elected.

He was never intended to be elected. Like I said he is nothing more than a shill for the Obama team to divide the GOP votes. Even his own followers have made the comment they will vote for Obama before any of the other candidates. Just look into some of his connections to George Soros, then you might see the big picture. He was paid to divide the GOP. He has played the greed card to the point that his followers actually think he will reduce their taxes. They seem to overlook his earmarks in the bills he has voted for. They say it is ok for him, because others do it. If he really believed the drivel he spouts and was a man of his word then he would take a stand against the earmarks. Instead he is just another politician only looking out for his own interests. His only concern is saying or doing what it takes to keep his cushy job. He downgraded public employees and has his followers thinking they are evil. If I am not mistaken, RP has been a public employee for years. Even his son is a public employee.

I thought you want to quit discussing on GTPI. What happened?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

G-19
03-25-2012, 18:30
Interesting tidbit.

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_neede d_them/

So much for John Galt.

G-19
03-25-2012, 18:31
I thought you want to quit discussing on GTPI. What happened?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

To much fun. Just won't call people names anymore.

RCP
03-25-2012, 18:33
You haven't "messed with my head", I'm well aware that RP will not be elected POTUS. I just refuse to continue giving my vote to the status quo who continue to destroy this country and for some reason that really messes with your head as well as the heads of other so called "conservatives". If it didn't y'all wouldn't care who RP supporters vote for. So don't worry about it, maybe y'all can win without us, then again maybe you can't. I do have hope that his son will one day run and hopefully give us a candidate we can all get behind. Until then the GOP does not have my support and they won't until they give us an actual conservative, limited government candidate. I will not reward them with my support when they give us the liberal big gov candidates they have presented us and luckily I know of many other people who won't either. Have a nice day!:wavey:

G-19
03-25-2012, 18:36
You haven't "messed with my head", I'm well aware that RP will not be elected POTUS. I just refuse to continue giving my vote to the status quo who continue to destroy this country and for some reason that really messes with your head as well as the heads of other so called "conservatives". If it didn't y'all wouldn't care who RP supporters vote for. So don't worry about it, maybe y'all can win without us, then again maybe you can't. I do have hope that his son will one day run and hopefully give us a candidate we can all get behind. Until then the GOP does not have my support and they won't until they give us an actual conservative, limited government candidate. I will not reward them with my support when they give us the liberal big gov candidates they have presented us and luckily I know of many other people who won't either. Have a nice day!:wavey:

:wavey:

The Soros/Obama plan in action.

JK-linux
03-25-2012, 18:48
I find it interesting that:

Libertarian or Independent leanings anger Republicans as much as Democrat leanings.
Libertarian or Independent leanings anger Democrats as much as Republican leanings.

It seems that the (D) and (R) really dislike any bit of it in their diet. A third party with feet, any third party, screws up everything both parties have work so hard for - a divided nation. The Libertarians have a hard on for strangling big government, which really rocks the boat.

RCP
03-25-2012, 18:53
:wavey:

The Soros/Obama plan in action.

If you say so. If the GOP had any brains they would be able to combat it by giving us an actual conservative candidate vs Mitt Romney. Guess they're part of the Obama/Soros plan too.

G-19
03-25-2012, 18:57
It seems even RP collected SS.

http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/ayn-rand-paul-ryan-social-security-recipients-against-social-security/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/21/1028664/-Paul-Ryan-calls-Pell-Grants-unsustainable-and-tells-students-to-work-three-jobs-to-pay-for-college

Ron Paul has been on the governmet dole since 1976, and will recieve free medical and retirement for life paid by your taxes: (I guess it is ok for him)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

I guess he is a follower of Ayn Rand, social security and government paychecks are bad, for everybody but them.

RCP
03-25-2012, 19:04
Wow, earth shattering! I just can't believe it! Next you'll tell me he was the grandfather of Obama care, banned assault weapons, and flip flopped on abortion issues!

JK-linux
03-25-2012, 19:09
It seems even RP collected SS.

http://phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/ayn-rand-paul-ryan-social-security-recipients-against-social-security/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/21/1028664/-Paul-Ryan-calls-Pell-Grants-unsustainable-and-tells-students-to-work-three-jobs-to-pay-for-college

Many conservatives collect from the Social Security fund they were forced to contribute to under threat of violence and financial ruin. I wonder if Ron and Nancy did? I'm against social security, but I plan to take mine if it's still around since it was taken from me without a viable choice for refusal. Someone can participate in and yet still be against something that isn't optional.

G-19
03-25-2012, 19:17
Many conservatives collect from the Social Security fund they were forced to contribute to under threat of violence and financial ruin. I wonder if Ron and Nancy did? I'm against social security, but I plan to take mine if it's still around since it was taken from me without a viable choice for refusal. Someone can participate in and yet still be against something that isn't optional.

Kind of hypocritical. Why not stand your ground? Lead by example, oh wait, you are just like Ayn and Ron.

JK-linux
03-25-2012, 19:27
Kind of hypocritical. Why not stand your ground? Lead by example, oh wait, you are just like Ayn and Ron.

I am standing my ground by insisting on eventually collecting as much of the money that was taken from me as I can. Abolish the whole system, or allow me to opt out without sanction and never pay a dime in again. I'll take a lump sum tax-free (already collected) check for what I paid in and you don't even need to pay me interest or adjust for inflation. Win-win for everyone. Since you Republicans are soon to be in control via the conservative powerhouse that is Romney, how about making that happen? I'll tip my hat to you and gladly call you the better man if you can swing it. Until then, I'll plan to collect on what was taken from me to buy votes for your candidates' reelection.

G-19
03-25-2012, 19:40
I am standing my ground by insisting on eventually collecting as much of the money that was taken from me as I can. Abolish the whole system, or allow me to opt out without sanction and never pay a dime in again. I'll take a lump sum tax-free (already collected) check for what I paid in and you don't even need to pay me interest or adjust for inflation. Win-win for everyone. Since you Republicans are soon to be in control via the conservative powerhouse that is Romney, how about making that happen? I'll tip my hat to you and gladly call you the better man if you can swing it. Until then, I'll plan to collect on what was taken from me to buy votes for your candidates' reelection.

So you want to steal money from others (our childeren) to get your money back? Wait till Ceritfier funds sees this.:whistling:

RRrider
03-25-2012, 19:42
So what is a "real conservative"? Someone who wants a limited government, but also wants the government in women's wombs, and legislating morality?

So a real conservative is a hypocrite....

Fiscally I am conservative, but socially, it's not 1920...

Jerry
03-25-2012, 19:43
They bash people over the head with the constitution and predict nothing but doom and gloom for this country.

:rofl: Damn "them" for actually wanting the gummyment to adhere to the constitution. Damn them all! :rofl:

G-19
03-25-2012, 19:54
So what is a "real conservative"? Someone who wants a limited government, but also wants the government in women's wombs, and legislating morality?

So a real conservative is a hypocrite....

Fiscally I am conservative, but socially, it's not 1920...

RRrider,
Funny how things work. Socially I am consevative, but fiscally, it is not pre-1827 America (First labor movement) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union

It is all about perspective.

fortyofforty
03-25-2012, 19:56
So you want to steal money from others to get your money back? Wait till Certified Funds see this.:whistling:

Well, perhaps he could hire someone to get his money back for him. Like, say, a Congressman, who could slip earmarks into bills to "return" money to his constituents, even without Constitutional justification. After all, they paid federal taxes so they deserve to have "their money" returned to them, right? Perhaps a poetry museum could be built in every district. :whistling:

We are one vote away from losing our rights. Arguing that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is to argue that there is no difference between Sotomayor and Kagan, and Scalia and Roberts. Anyone who can't see it deserves the Supreme Court they get in the next four years. Unfortunately, you'll drag the rest of the country down with you. Enjoy Justice Schumer, Justice Clinton, Justice Pelosi, Justice Reid, Justice Emanuel, or Justice Feinstein. :cool:

juggy4711
03-25-2012, 20:04
Ron Paul isn't perfect, no one is, but I have yet to encounter someone in person or in online discussion that I did not suspect would lose out in some way if Paul's ideas actually went into effect.

Just think how many folk's lively hoods are dependent on the Federal government spending money it took from the rest of us at gun point.

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 20:05
It is not worry, it is just so much fun coming here and messing with their heads. They can't not face the truth that RP has no chance of being elected.

He was never intended to be elected. Like I said he is nothing more than a shill for the Obama team to divide the GOP votes.

Wow, it's like a conspiracy or something. I guess Newt and Santorum must be in on it also?

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 20:09
Well, perhaps he could hire someone to get his money back for him. Like, say, a Congressman, who could slip earmarks into bills to "return" money to his constituents, even without Constitutional justification. After all, they paid federal taxes so they deserve to have "their money" returned to them, right? Perhaps a poetry museum could be built in every district. :whistling:

We are one vote away from losing our rights. Arguing that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is to argue that there is no difference between Sotomayor and Kagan, and Scalia and Roberts. Anyone who can't see it deserves the Supreme Court they get in the next four years. Unfortunately, you'll drag the rest of the country down with you. Enjoy Justice Schumer, Justice Clinton, Justice Pelosi, Justice Reid, Justice Emanuel, or Justice Feinstein. :cool:

Vote tally on detaining Americans

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/s218

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

G-19
03-25-2012, 20:10
Well, perhaps he could hire someone to get his money back for him. Like, say, a Congressman, who could slip earmarks into bills to "return" money to his constituents, even without Constitutional justification. After all, they paid federal taxes so they deserve to have "their money" returned to them, right? Perhaps a poetry museum could be built in every district. :whistling:

We are one vote away from losing our rights. Arguing that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is to argue that there is no difference between Sotomayor and Kagan, and Scalia and Roberts. Anyone who can't see it deserves the Supreme Court they get in the next four years. Unfortunately, you'll drag the rest of the country down with you. Enjoy Justice Schumer, Justice Clinton, Justice Pelosi, Justice Reid, Justice Emanuel, or Justice Feinstein. :cool:

I hear Ron Paul likes earmarks, why don't you call him. Maybe he can work that out for you.

G-19
03-25-2012, 20:12
Vote tally on detaining Americans

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/s218

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

Looks like the Republicans are more in favor than the Dems. Heck, Ron Paul did not even care enough to vote, even though he is paid to do a job.

Here is Paul's voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/

He has a lot of "Did not vote". Why didn't he vote? I guess he did not feel like doing his job quite often, or was he just avoiding politically damaging issues? If he is so against spending, why did he not vote? Most of his "Did not Votes" were spending issues, I guess he really is not that dedicated to the cause.

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 20:16
Looks like the Republicans are more in favor than the Dems. Heck Ron Paul did not even care enough to vote.

Hmm, I guess he must have been out campaigning for president perhaps?

Gunhaver
03-25-2012, 20:18
The thing that made me a Ron Paul supporter is the complete inanity of every argument made against him. Kind of the same reason I'm an atheist. These guys come out all ballsy like they have the dirt on him and they never do. Ever.

Keep trying. I'm aware that Paul doesn't have much of a shot. Maybe it'll take 4 more years of Obama or 4 years of Santorum for people to take libertarians seriously.

certifiedfunds
03-25-2012, 20:26
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

Looks like the Republicans are more in favor than the Dems. Heck, Ron Paul did not even care enough to vote, even though he is paid to do a job.

Here is Paul's voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/

He has a lot of "Did not vote". Why didn't he vote? I guess he did not feel like doing his job quite often, or was he just avoiding politically damaging issues? If he is so against spending, why did he not vote? Most of his "Did not Votes" were spending issues, I guess he really is not that dedicated to the cause.

Scroll down a little further than 2012 and mid 2011 when he was campaigning. :upeyes:

G-19
03-25-2012, 20:26
Hmm, I guess he must have been out campaigning for president perhaps?

He has been out campaining his whole career?:rofl:

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 20:29
He has a lot of "Did not vote". Why didn't he vote? I guess he did not feel like doing his job quite often, or was he just avoiding politically damaging issues? If he is so against spending, why did he not vote? Most of his "Did not Votes" were spending issues, I guess he really is not that dedicated to the cause.

Your guy just voted present on everything.

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 20:30
Scroll down a little further than 2012 and mid 2011 when he was campaigning. :upeyes:

Shhhh! He thinks he's onto something. :rofl:

G-19
03-25-2012, 20:31
Scroll down a little further than 2012 and mid 2011 when he was campaigning. :upeyes:

1997 to 2010 over 60 "Did not vote". :whistling:

Most of them being spending bills. I thought he hated spending, I guess not enough to do the job he was paid for.:tongueout:

certifiedfunds
03-25-2012, 20:40
RRrider,
Funny how things work. Socially I am consevative, but fiscally, it is not pre-1827 America (First labor movement) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union

It is all about perspective.

How does that work exactly? Social Conservative?

When the Constitution is followed, there is no room for the federal government in "things social".

So what exactly is a "social conservative"?

G-19
03-25-2012, 20:43
How does that work exactly? Social Conservative?

When the Constitution is followed, there is no room for the federal government in "things social".

So what exactly is a "social conservative"?

Well, to spell it out for you. I am against abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc.

certifiedfunds
03-25-2012, 20:43
1997 to 2010 over 60 "Did not vote". :whistling:

Most of them being spending bills. I thought he hated spending, I guess not enough to do the job he was paid for.:tongueout:

Really? 60 over 13 years? That's a little less than 5 per year.

Very impressive. :upeyes:

And yet you tell me his constituents voted him back in, what? 6 times?

certifiedfunds
03-25-2012, 20:48
Well, to spell it out for you. I am against abortion, gun control, gay marriage, etc.

Ahhh. So a "conservative" wants to extend federal authority into marriage?

That's a "conservative" position?

Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution? I thought conservatives supported the Constitution?

You and Paul agree on abortion. And the second amendment.

I didn't realize the 2nd amendment was a social issue.

Ruble Noon
03-25-2012, 21:00
Ahhh. So a "conservative" wants to extend federal authority into marriage?

That's a "conservative" position?

Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution? I thought conservatives supported the Constitution?

You and Paul agree on abortion. And the second amendment.

I didn't realize the 2nd amendment was a social issue.


I guess it depends on what one is doing with their guns. :dunno:

mingaa
03-25-2012, 21:07
And neither is Rupaul - neither of whom will be elected!

certifiedfunds
03-25-2012, 21:31
JB, I once had a mule that as long as it wore its blinders you could hitch it up to the sulky and go for a drive with no problems. If you tried to hitch it up to the same sulky without the blinders it would go berserk. You remind me of that mule.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

RRrider
03-25-2012, 21:41
Ahhh. So a "conservative" wants to extend federal authority into marriage?

That's a "conservative" position?

Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution? I thought conservatives supported the Constitution?

You and Paul agree on abortion. And the second amendment.

I didn't realize the 2nd amendment was a social issue.

BaZinga

JBnTX
03-26-2012, 00:33
When the Constitution is followed, there is no room for the federal government in "things social"...


Here's to your constitution.

27 amendments.
Is it perfect now, or does it need some more amendments?

Javelin
03-26-2012, 00:43
These pissing matches are always just that.

Bottom line is if you don't like someone, don't vote for them. Just understand why you are voting for the person you in fact are voting for.

:wavey:

BlackDobe
03-26-2012, 00:46
LOL! You can't be for real. So the American people think voting for the architect of Obamacare is a good deal? The American people think assault weapon bans, open borders, and more debt is a good deal?


RP has been clear on the fact that he is for open borders.


From my iPhone

chickenwing
03-26-2012, 01:10
Here's to your constitution.

27 amendments.
Is it perfect now, or does it need some more amendments?

Ron Paul, Strict Constitutionalist - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXzUg_uGgn4)

Great job getting this thread locked with your DS post of a video filled with fallacies, forget the language.

Yeah, you're right, Ron Paul and his supporters want a return to slavery.



Wow :upeyes: Your are real confused when it comes to politics and philosophy.

chickenwing
03-26-2012, 01:17
RP has been clear on the fact that he is for open borders.


From my iPhone

Sure, after you end the welfare state. You know, just like America before big-government redistribution schemes and policies.

He is not a large "L" libertarian regarding that issue, and understands the root problem, which isn't playing whack-a-mole with the symptoms of said problems.

certifiedfunds
03-26-2012, 04:53
Here's to your constitution.

27 amendments.
Is it perfect now, or does it need some more amendments?



4 words. Only 4 words but they say so much about you.

"Your" constitution? "Your"? Really JB? After all you've said here, After all the Progressive crap that has come out of your mouth, both sides of it....after your endless Ron Paul trolling..... I think these 4 words illustrate more about your true political beliefs than anything I could say or anything you've said before.

You truly are an enemy of the Constitution, domestic. You hold it in such contempt. As anti-American as Bill Ayers.

It would be more disturbing if you weren't such an obvious mental midget.

The Machinist
03-26-2012, 05:28
RP has been clear on the fact that he is for open borders.


From my iPhone
Ron Paul on immigration (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/)

Ron Paul is the only one running who wants to secure the border, unlike Romney, who wants illegal immigrants to keep pouring across.

Glock30Eric
03-26-2012, 05:45
4 words. Only 4 words but they say so much about you.

"Your" constitution? "Your"? Really JB? After all you've said here, After all the Progressive crap that has come out of your mouth, both sides of it....after your endless Ron Paul trolling..... I think these 4 words illustrate more about your true political beliefs than anything I could say or anything you've said before.

You truly are an enemy of the Constitution, domestic. You hold it in such contempt. As anti-American as Bill Ayers.

It would be more disturbing if you weren't such an obvious mental midget.

Cent,

What you just said, I told him him in the past and it doesn't bothers him at all. It is very sad. His thoughts reflects most of the liberal Americans.

Do you see my avatar? That is the reason I have it on my avatar.

certifiedfunds
03-26-2012, 06:05
Cent,

What you just said, I told him him in the past and it doesn't bothers him at all. It is very sad. His thoughts reflects most of the liberal Americans.

Do you see my avatar? That is the reason I have it on my avatar.

Agreed. The United States is under attack by people like JBnTX.

syntaxerrorsix
03-26-2012, 09:08
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPJS4OtvYqV-f1-6TMSfS60sB07QJMs6z2SsRZ03xaTmOkhq_Apw

BlackDobe
03-26-2012, 15:17
Ron Paul on immigration (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/immigration/)

Ron Paul is the only one running who wants to secure the border, unlike Romney, who wants illegal immigrants to keep pouring across.

Funny you mention Romney who is the only one RP doesn't attack.

RP is opposed to having any border fences or walls. He's afraid that US citizens will find it difficult to illegally enter Mexico.

This to me is what makes him a nut job.

From my iPhone

syntaxerrorsix
03-26-2012, 15:55
Funny you mention Romney who is the only one RP doesn't attack.

RP is opposed to having any border fences or walls. He's afraid that US citizens will find it difficult to illegally enter Mexico.

This to me is what makes him a nut job.

From my iPhone


That's what it is. Amazing you saw through all the subterfuge.


This is exactly why the right to vote should become a privilege like a drivers license. There should be a test to determine whether or not you have any mechanical and cognitive skills.

GAFinch
03-27-2012, 06:39
Ahhh. So a "conservative" wants to extend federal authority into marriage?

That's a "conservative" position?

Where is marriage mentioned in the Constitution? I thought conservatives supported the Constitution?

You and Paul agree on abortion. And the second amendment.

I didn't realize the 2nd amendment was a social issue.

Privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution either. It was invented by very liberal SCOTUS judges in the 60's and 70's.

While the Founding Fathers didn't want a state religion, most of them viewed religion, morals, and virtue as essential to a successful society. Libertarians and liberals are united in their efforts to rewrite history and institute a secular state "religion" to the exclusion of traditional religions.

Being a cheap liberal is not the same as being a conservative.

certifiedfunds
03-27-2012, 06:52
Privacy isn't mentioned in the Constitution either. It was invented by very liberal SCOTUS judges in the 60's and 70's.

While the Founding Fathers didn't want a state religion, most of them viewed religion, morals, and virtue as essential to a successful society. Libertarians and liberals are united in their efforts to rewrite history and institute a secular state "religion" to the exclusion of traditional religions.

Being a cheap liberal is not the same as being a conservative.

I didn't mention privacy but since you did, Amendment IV. Regarding gay marriage being a federal issue, Amendments IX and X.

Most conservatives these days are little more than cheap liberals as our pink helmeted Texan friend above shows.

ChuteTheMall
03-27-2012, 06:55
:popcorn: + :tinfoil: =












http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1006/54235829104080349641103.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/54235829104080349641103.jpg/)







:tongueout:





Posted from a tinfoil helmet bought with Ron Paul Liberty dollars

Blast
03-27-2012, 13:46
It's hard to determine who's more rabid, the Ronulans in PI or the atheists in RI.:dunno:

:rofl:

Gunhaver
03-27-2012, 14:03
It's hard to determine who's more rabid, the Ronulans in PI or the atheists in RI.:dunno:

:rofl:

I resemble both of those remarks. :wavey:

This statement is so telling it made me smile. :supergrin:

Blast
03-27-2012, 14:54
I resemble both of those remarks. :wavey:

This statement is so telling it made me smile. :supergrin:
Yes indeed, it is telling... :wavey:

the obvious. :supergrin:

JBnTX
03-27-2012, 16:19
It's hard to determine who's more rabid, the Ronulans in PI or the atheists in RI.:dunno:

:rofl:


Yea, but it's sooooo fun to jerk their chains and shake their trees.

:rofl:

Ruble Noon
03-27-2012, 16:24
Yea, but it's sooooo fun to jerk their chains and shake their trees.

:rofl:

Then why do you complain when the leaves from the trees you are shaking land on you?

certifiedfunds
03-27-2012, 16:25
Then why do you complain when the leaves from the trees you are shaking land on you?

That's just what liberal Progressives DO.

JBnTX
03-27-2012, 16:27
Then why do you complain when the leaves from the trees you are shaking land on you?

All part of the program.

Ruble Noon
03-27-2012, 16:36
All part of the program.

Is that a 12 step program?

certifiedfunds
03-27-2012, 17:28
Yea, but it's sooooo fun to jerk their chains and shake their trees.

:rofl:

Still waiting to hear about "our" Constitution JB.

Probably the most revealing post you've ever made here.

Why do you hate America JB? Right here you've clearly revealed youre an enemy of the Constitution.

Who's Constitution is it again JB?

Blast
03-27-2012, 17:32
http://www.capturingvision.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Ronulan-Ale-Sticker-4.1-306x191.jpg

Drink up.http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink22.gif

JBnTX
03-27-2012, 17:43
Still waiting to hear about "our" Constitution JB.

Probably the most revealing post you've ever made here.

Why do you hate America JB? Right here you've clearly revealed youre an enemy of the Constitution.

Who's Constitution is it again JB?


Discrediting me isn't going to raise Ron Paul's poll numbers.

:rofl:

Gunhaver
03-27-2012, 18:26
Discrediting me isn't going to raise Ron Paul's poll numbers.

:rofl:

But it does discredit you, which shows your lack of ability to take part in an intellectually honest debate without looking either biased or uninformed.

The ability (and willingness) to hold beliefs that are consistent with one another and to recognize an opposing view to be a more logical conclusion than your own view are some of the highest forms of intelligence. People that think like that are more focused on becoming right than with being right.

certifiedfunds
03-27-2012, 18:51
Discrediting me isn't going to raise Ron Paul's poll numbers.

:rofl:

They're your words JB.

Why are you afraid to own up to them or any of the liberal Progressive positions you take.

Running only makes you look foolish.

fortyofforty
03-27-2012, 19:25
The ability (and willingness) to hold beliefs that are consistent with one another and to recognize an opposing view to be a more logical conclusion than your own view are some of the highest forms of intelligence. People that think like that are more focused on becoming right than with being right.

This, in a nutshell, encapsulates my objection to Ron Paul’s earmarks and the mental gymnastics his supporters must perform to justify and excuse them. Thank you for laying it out, however unintentionally you may have done so. :wavey:

JBnTX
03-27-2012, 20:10
They're your words JB.

Why are you afraid to own up to them or any of the liberal Progressive positions you take.

Running only makes you look foolish.

I don't have to apologize for or repeat my beliefs about the constitution.
I view the constitution differently than you do, that's all.

There are two major interpretations of the constitution.
You believe one and I the other.

Which of us is right or wrong has been hotly debated for 200 years.

The conflict is definitely not going to be solved by either of us on this forum.
So why don't we just agree to disagree?

:wavey:

certifiedfunds
03-27-2012, 20:14
I don't have to apologize for or repeat my beliefs about the constitution.
I view the constitution differently than you do, that's all.

There are two major interpretations of the constitution.
You believe one and I the other.

Which of us is right or wrong has been hotly debated for 200 years.

The conflict is definitely not going to be solved by either of us on this forum.
So why don't we just agree to disagree?

:wavey:

There are 2?

What are they?

Which one do Conservatives subscribe to?



You denigrate the Constitution and refer to it as "ours" as in "not yours". You're clearly anti-American. So I'm asking, why do you hate America?

Gunhaver
03-27-2012, 20:18
This, in a nutshell, encapsulates my objection to Ron Paul’s earmarks and the mental gymnastics his supporters must perform to justify and excuse them. Thank you for laying it out, however unintentionally you may have done so. :wavey:

I was speaking more of the RP supporters than RP himself. Have you ever been presented with a perfect candidate that you could agree 100% with? I've never met a regular person like that.

The political debate process is about why your guy is better than the other guy. When you dig up a minor flaw on the other guy while ignoring huge faults with your guy, don't be surprised when someone calls you out on it and expect to have a difficult time arguing them down. If you had to ferret out a minor flaw to make a case in the first place, you can bet on having that pointed out to you by people who are paying attention.

BTW it seems to me that Paul is more about putting money back in the hands of the people that he represents than he is about handing it over to the employers of lobbyists and sticking it into his own pockets. Is this a practice you find distasteful in a politician?

Ron Paul on Earmarks - YouTube

certifiedfunds
03-27-2012, 20:20
I was speaking more of the RP supporters than RP himself. Have you ever been presented with a perfect candidate that you could agree 100% with? I've never met a regular person like that.

The political debate process is about why your guy is better than the other guy. When you dig up a minor flaw on the other guy while ignoring huge faults with your guy, don't be surprised when someone calls you out on it and expect to have a difficult time arguing them down. If you had to ferret out a minor flaw to make a case in the first place, you can bet on having that pointed out to you by people who are paying attention.

BTW it seems to me that Paul is more about putting money back in the hands of the people that he represents than he is about handing it over to the employers of lobbyists and sticking it into his own pockets. Is this a practice you find distasteful in a politician?

Ron Paul on Earmarks - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY)

Liberty. Its the liberty they find distasteful.

fortyofforty
03-27-2012, 20:24
I was speaking more of the RP supporters than RP himself. Have you ever been presented with a perfect candidate that you could agree 100% with? I've never met a regular person like that.

Nope, and expect I never will. What bothers me is when Paulistas hold him up as some superhero, instead of a poltician who is slightly better than other politicians.

The political debate process is about why your guy i[s better than the other guy. When you dig up a minor flaw on the other guy while ignoring huge faults with your guy, don't be surprised when someone calls you out on it and expect to have a difficult time arguing them down. If you had to ferret out a minor flaw to make a case in the first place, you can bet on having that pointed out to you by people who are paying attention.

I don't consider ignoring the Constitution a "minor flaw" but I suppose you do.

BTW it seems to me that Paul is more about putting money back in the hands of the people that he represents than he is about handing it over to the employers of lobbyists and sticking it into his own pockets. Is this a practice you find distasteful in a politician?

Yes, when the spending does not comport with the Constitution. The Constitution is fairly specific in terms of how Congress may spend our tax money. Shrimp marketing, to use just one small example, is not permissible in my reading of the Constitution. Is it in yours? If so, is there any spending that is impermissible?

certifiedfunds
03-27-2012, 20:34
i don't consider ignoring the constitution a "minor flaw" but i suppose you do.





jb???

Gunhaver
03-27-2012, 20:36
Nope, and expect I never will. What bothers me is when Paulistas hold him up as some superhero, instead of a poltician who is slightly better than other politicians.

If you think he is even slightly better than other politicians then why not support him? When slightly better than Paul comes along then shift your support to that person.


I don't consider ignoring the Constitution a "minor flaw" but I suppose you do.

Which candidate ignores the constitution less than Paul?

Yes, when the spending does not comport with the Constitution. The Constitution is fairly specific in terms of how Congress may spend our tax money. Shrimp marketing, to use just one small example, is not permissible in my reading of the Constitution. Is it in yours? If so, is there any spending that is impermissible?

Again, which candidate is doing a better job of bringing the rampant departure from the constitution to attention?

fortyofforty
03-27-2012, 20:54
jb???

Machinist? :rofl:

fortyofforty
03-27-2012, 21:01
Again, which candidate is doing a better job of bringing the rampant departure from the constitution to attention?

That's fine. Hypocrisy doesn't bother you. That's fine. Hypocrisy doesn't give you pause as to what he'd actually do once in office. That's great. Don't watch what his does, just close your eyes and listen to his lofty words. Whatever. Vote for whomever you like. :wavey: Ronnie Earmarks is your Messiah. I understand that, and I understand that attacking anything about him is like attacking your religion, leading to the predictable Paulista jihad. Whatever. :dunno:

RCP
03-27-2012, 21:15
That's fine. Hypocrisy doesn't bother you. That's fine. Hypocrisy doesn't give you pause as to what he'd actually do once in office. That's great. Don't watch what his does, just close your eyes and listen to his lofty words. Whatever. Vote for whomever you like. :wavey: Ronnie Earmarks is your Messiah. I understand that, and I understand that attacking anything about him is like attacking your religion, leading to the predictable Paulista jihad. Whatever. :dunno:

I have to ask. If something that minor in comparison to the other candidates is viewed as hypocrisy who in the hell are you left to vote for? I can't think of any candidate in the field who doesn't have blatant huge examples of hypocrisy! If this belief of yours is the measure by which you are going to choose who to vote for I'm afraid your plain SOL.

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 04:46
Discrediting me isn't going to raise Ron Paul's poll numbers.

:rofl:

You discredit yourself.

I'm sure Texas is real proud to count you in it's numbers.

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 04:47
This, in a nutshell, encapsulates my objection to Ron Paul’s earmarks and the mental gymnastics his supporters must perform to justify and excuse them. Thank you for laying it out, however unintentionally you may have done so. :wavey:

The epitome of a one trick pony.

certifiedfunds
03-28-2012, 04:55
You discredit yourself.

I'm sure Texas is real proud to count you in it's numbers.

I'm sure Mass would welcome him as a long lost brother.

If JBnTX would quit trying to pass himself off as a conservative I'd leave him alone. Instead he puts on the sheeps clothing and proceeds to spout off leftist propaganda non-stop.

I'm still convinced there's a traumatic brain injury or progressive brain disease involved because I think he honestly believes he's some sort of conservative.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 04:55
I have to ask. If something that minor in comparison to the other candidates is viewed as hypocrisy who in the hell are you left to vote for? I can't think of any candidate in the field who doesn't have blatant huge examples of hypocrisy! If this belief of yours is the measure by which you are going to choose who to vote for I'm afraid your plain SOL.

Ron Paul presents himself as the only true conservative, a strict constructionist, and a strong adherent to the Constitution. It is, in fact, his claim to fame. So, if I see hypocrisy in the very issue Paul chooses as his signature issue, I will point it out. You can choose to ignore whatever issue doesn't fit your image of the Messiah. That's your right in our free society. Have a great day. :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 04:58
Ron Paul presents himself as the only true conservative, a strict constructionist, and a strong adherent to the Constitution. It is, in fact, his claim to fame. So, if I see hypocrisy in the very issue Paul chooses as his signature issue, I will point it out. You can choose to ignore whatever issue doesn't fit your image of the Messiah. That's your right in our free society. Have a great day. :wavey:

We know we know.

You don't have a better choice but you choose to hitch yourself to a group fighting against the single best candidate currently available.

We know we know.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 04:59
The epitome of a one trick pony.

Still insulting other posters, I see. The epitome of an enabler. "The Constitution, when it's convenient." Great slogan for the Paul campaign. Keep the blinders on. Keep drinking the Kool Aid. :wavey:

certifiedfunds
03-28-2012, 05:01
Still insulting other posters, I see. The epitome of an enabler. "The Constitution, when it's convenient." Great slogan for the Paul campaign. Keep the blinders on. Keep drinking the Kool Aid. :wavey:

Well, it looks like a non-issue anyway. You folks are going to get what you want -- earmarks AND a Progressive agenda.

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 05:01
Still insulting other posters, I see. The epitome of an enabler. "The Constitution, when it's convenient." Great slogan for the Paul campaign. Keep the blinders on. Keep drinking the Kool Aid. :wavey:

Who's better again? Which candidate?

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 05:02
Well, it looks like a non-issue anyway. You folks are going to get what you want -- earmarks AND a Progressive agenda.

Sad. Can't see the forest for the trees.

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 05:04
I'd wait for a clever reply, but I've gotta hit the road. Millions of welfare recipients are counting on me.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 05:06
Well, it looks like a non-issue anyway. You folks are going to get what you want -- earmarks AND a Progressive agenda.

Actually, almost all Republicans have stopped using earmarks, if I am not mistaken. I suppose Paulistas will get what they want: a more rapid decline into economic oblivion under Odumbo's second term. At least Ron Paul will increase his personal wealth when it happens.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 05:08
The Constitution, when it's convenient. That's it in a nutshell. Like it or not, that's Ron Paul's approach to the Constitution. Suck it up, Paulistas! :rofl: How's that?

Ruble Noon
03-28-2012, 05:11
Actually, almost all Republicans have stopped using earmarks, if I am not mistaken. I suppose Paulistas will get what they want: a more rapid decline into economic oblivion under Odumbo's second term. At least Ron Paul will increase his personal wealth when it happens.

http://endingspending.com/fixing-the-budget/earmarks/map-2011/

certifiedfunds
03-28-2012, 05:12
Actually, almost all Republicans have stopped using earmarks, if I am not mistaken. I suppose Paulistas will get what they want: a more rapid decline into economic oblivion under Odumbo's second term. At least Ron Paul will increase his personal wealth when it happens.

:rofl:If you folks win, your Republican candidate will pull the nose up about 1 degree but you will slam into the same mountainside.

Remember - your Republicans could have blocked Sotomayor AND the debt ceiling increases and chose not to.

Your republicans gave us Medicare D, the Patriot Act, TSA, No child left behind, the ban on incandescent light bulbs..........

Ruble Noon
03-28-2012, 05:22
:rofl:If you folks win, your Republican candidate will pull the nose up about 1 degree but you will slam into the same mountainside.

Remember - your Republicans could have blocked Sotomayor AND the debt ceiling increases and chose not to.

Your republicans gave us Medicare D, the Patriot Act, TSA, No child left behind, the ban on incandescent light bulbs..........

The republicans are going to save our country.
Check it out.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1411300

certifiedfunds
03-28-2012, 05:41
The republicans are going to save our country.
Check it out.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1411300


:rofl:
And Ryan's budget is a political chess piece and considered radical. Hell, he won't even get unanimous Republican support.

RC-RAMIE
03-28-2012, 08:19
http://endingspending.com/fixing-the-budget/earmarks/map-2011/

All that Earmarking RP does and he only got TX to #40 on the list.

ChuteTheMall
03-28-2012, 08:37
At least the Ronulans have given up on pretending to be Republicans;
they know they have absolutely no chance of ever nominating Ron Paul, and even the dhimmist of them must admit that Ron Paul is a Republican In Name Only.

Conservatives won't support Obama, but scorned Ronulans will.

Gundude
03-28-2012, 09:23
At least the Ronulans have given up on pretending to be Republicans;
they know they have absolutely no chance of ever nominating Ron Paul, and even the dhimmist of them must admit that Ron Paul is a Republican In Name Only.

Conservatives won't support Obama, but scorned Ronulans will.Not surprising, considering Obama is more libertarian than any of the "conservative" candidates.

If you know you're gonna end up with a big-government president either way, you might as well have one who stays out of your bedroom, your marriage, and your womb.

Name one thing the "conservative" candidate will keep his hands off that Obama won't. And considering who the front-runner is, don't say my guns or my healthcare, because that'd just be silly.

RC-RAMIE
03-28-2012, 09:26
At least the Ronulans have given up on pretending to be Republicans;
they know they have absolutely no chance of ever nominating Ron Paul, and even the dhimmist of them must admit that Ron Paul is a Republican In Name Only.

Conservatives won't support Obama, but scorned Ronulans will.

Who do you think you are to decide who is Republican how many times have you held any public office as a Republican.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 09:53
All that Earmarking RP does and he only got TX to #40 on the list.

One unConstitutional earmark request is enough to brand such a deep-thinking Constitutional scholar as Ron Paul a hypocrite. He's got far more than one. Want to reread your Constitution? See shrimp marketing mentioned anywhere? I can't seem to find it in my copy, but maybe Ron Paul has a newer version on his website. :rofl:

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 09:55
Not surprising, considering Obama is more libertarian than any of the "conservative" candidates.

If you know you're gonna end up with a big-government president either way, you might as well have one who stays out of your bedroom, your marriage, and your womb.

Name one thing the "conservative" candidate will keep his hands off that Obama won't. And considering who the front-runner is, don't say my guns or my healthcare, because that'd just be silly.

And there you have it. We can have Alito and Roberts, or Sotomayor and Kagan. With the Paulistas on GT, there is no difference. End of story. Go ahead. Get the knife. Cut off that nose. :rofl: Teach that face a lesson!

John Rambo
03-28-2012, 09:59
And there you have it. We can have Alito and Roberts, or Sotomayor and Kagan. With the Paulistas on GT, there is no difference. End of story. Go ahead. Get the knife. Cut off that nose. :rofl: Teach that face a lesson!

Its not cutting your nose off to spite your face if its the better choice. Obama has proven to stay out of our lives more than the two Republican frontrunners pledge that they will. They're actually campaigning on an authoritarian platform. I don't know how that even works, except to say that some people are such partisan hacks, they'd vote for their party no matter how bad the candidate.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 10:00
:rofl:If you folks win, your Republican candidate will pull the nose up about 1 degree but you will slam into the same mountainside.

Remember - your Republicans could have blocked Sotomayor AND the debt ceiling increases and chose not to.

Your republicans gave us Medicare D, the Patriot Act, TSA, No child left behind, the ban on incandescent light bulbs..........

Your Republicans can't even get elected to statewide office. Your Republicans are so incompetent they can't win enough delegates during a primary, and can't even convince enough people their ideas are the best for the country to make it close. Your Republicans can't even get a majority in Congress. How's this little game of you and yours going?

And, if you remember, there was some Constitutional debate as to whether or not a Senator should block a court nominee who is, by all accounts, qualified to serve although that nominee might not share the political or social views of certain Senators. Elections do have consequences, especially presidential elections. Is Ron Paul in the Senate, filibustering Supreme Court nominees? Nope. He's hiding in his little Texas district, shoveling pork money back to his voters.

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 10:21
Your Republicans can't even get elected to statewide office. Your Republicans are so incompetent they can't win enough delegates during a primary, and can't even convince enough people their ideas are the best for the country to make it close. Your Repbulicans can't even get a majority in Congress. How's this little game of you and yours going?

And, if you remember, there was some Constitutional debate as to whether or not a Senator should block a court nominee who is, by all accounts, qualified to serve although that nominee might not share the political or social views of certain Senators. Elections do have consequences, especially presidential elections. Is Ron Paul in the Senate, filibustering Supreme Court nominees? Nope. He's hiding in his little Texas district, shoveling pork money back to his voters.

Who in your opinion is the better candidate.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 11:08
Its not cutting your nose off to spite your face if its the better choice. Obama has proven to stay out of our lives more than the two Republican frontrunners pledge that they will. They're actually campaigning on an authoritarian platform. I don't know how that even works, except to say that some people are such partisan hacks, they'd vote for their party no matter how bad the candidate.

Really? I know a certain President who'd like to send the BATFE into your bedroom and grab the firearms out of your nightstand drawer. I know a certain President who wants the government to decide what type of car you can drive, what type of healthcare treatments you can receive, what type of radio and television programs you can listen to or watch, what temperature at which you must keep your thermostat set, and whether or not you can build a home on land that it unilaterally decides is wetland. There's your great libertarian Odumbo. :rofl:

So, keep supporting Odumbo while pretending he's a libertarian. If you think Odumbo is closer to Ron Paul in his views, you are so misguided as to be beyond help. You and the other Natsos can pretend you are voting for Odumbo to save the country. Epic fail. :wavey:

RCP
03-28-2012, 11:10
He will support Mitt Romney when he gets the nomination where there won't be any hypocrisy in his campaign against Obamacare.

John Rambo
03-28-2012, 11:15
Really? I know a certain President who'd like to send the BATFE into your bedroom and grab the firearms out of your nightstand drawer.
Obama has no passed one single Anti-2A law since he has been president. However he has passed one or two pro-2A laws. Want to compare and contrast with your boy and his AWB?


I know a certain President who wants the government to decide what type of car you can drive,
CAFE regulations have been doing that since before Obama was even in politics. Do you even know what CAFE standards are?


what type of healthcare treatments you can receive,


Cite, please. I've never heard this said, and I'm pretty sure you haven't, either. You're just making wild accusations, and will probably throw out that stupid healthcare bill that was struck down before it ever made it to Obama's desk.


what type of radio and television programs you can listen to or watch,
FCC has been doing that since before Obama was in politics, among other mechanisms.


what temperature at which you must keep your thermostat set,
Cite, please.


and whether or not you can build a home on land that it unilaterally decides is wetland.


Zoning and land use laws predate Obama's birthdate. You've gone beyond reaching here. You're just flailing.


There's your great libertarian Odumbo. :rofl:


Namecalling. The mark of any credible stance.


So, keep supporting Odumbo while pretending he's a libertarian. If you think Odumbo is closer to Ron Paul in his views, you are so misguided as to be beyond help. You and the other Natsos can pretend you are voting for Odumbo to save the country. Epic fail. :wavey:

Epic fail. More evidence of a strong case.

Gundude
03-28-2012, 11:32
There's your great libertarian Odumbo. :rofl:Obama's no libertarian. He's just more libertarian than the Republicans who have a shot at the nomination.

That says far more about those Republicans than it does about Obama.

The problem Republicans are going to have this election cycle, with their "lesser of two evils" mantra, is that a lot of people are going to realize Obama is the lesser of the evils. Unintended consequence, for sure, but that's what happens when you tolerate increasingly awful candidates representing you.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 12:17
Obama has no passed one single Anti-2A law since he has been president. However he has passed one or two pro-2A laws. Want to compare and contrast with your boy and his AWB?

Who's my "boy", genius?


CAFE regulations have been doing that since before Obama was even in politics. Do you even know what CAFE standards are?

Yes I do. Do you even know that they keep getting increased, and Odumbo is proud to have done so?

Cite, please. I've never heard this said, and I'm pretty sure you haven't, either. You're just making wild accusations, and will probably throw out that stupid healthcare bill that was struck down before it ever made it to Obama's desk.

Have you even heard of Obamacare? Do you know what a "single payer system" is? Do you know that Odumbo supports a transition to a single payer system, by his own admission?

FCC has been doing that since before Obama was in politics, among other mechanisms.

And do you know that is Odumbo's party, the Democrats, that are again trying to pass the "fairness doctrine"? Do you even know what that is?

Cite, please.

Do some basic research before posting. Here's a hint. Try "smart grid" for a start. How about this:

Much in the way that a “smart” phone these days means a phone with a computer in it, smart grid means “computerizing” the electric utility grid. It includes adding two-way digital communication technology to devices associated with the grid. Each device on the network can be given sensors to gather data (power meters, voltage sensors, fault detectors, etc.), plus two-way digital communication between the device in the field and the utility’s network operations center. A key feature of the smart grid is automation technology that lets the utility adjust and control each individual device or millions of devices from a central location..

Know where that's from, genius? Try Energy.gov (http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid). You want the utility department, under government direction, "adjust[ing] and control[ing]" millions of thermostats, don't you? How's that? Good enough for you?

Zoning and land use laws predate Obama's birthdate. You've gone beyond reaching here. You're just flailing.

Your lack of knowledge of basic news stories should embarrass you. I'm sure it doesn't, though. Try searching for the EPA's new actions. Here's more for you:

In recent years, the EPA has increasingly sought to block land from being used by claiming that vast tracts of seemingly dry land are actually “wetlands.”

Try reading this (http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/justices-allow-challenge-to-epa-land-use-bans-but-property-rights-still-at-risk) for starters.

Go ahead and pretend to support smaller government and the Constitution while voting for a president who respects neither concept. Good for you. Your parents and teachers must be proud. :wavey:

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 12:18
Who in your opinion is the better candidate.

Obama. :rofl:

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 12:20
He will support Mitt Romney when he gets the nomination where there won't be any hypocrisy in his campaign against Obamacare.

Like you will work to get Odumbo reelected, and allow our rights to be taken away by the Supreme Court. Thanks for that! :wavey:

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 12:21
Obama. :rofl:


Figures.

RCP
03-28-2012, 12:51
Like you will work to get Odumbo reelected, and allow our rights to be taken away by the Supreme Court. Thanks for that! :wavey:

Yes the liberal progressive RINOs will save us:upeyes:

John Rambo
03-28-2012, 13:04
Who's my "boy", genius?


I wonder.



Yes I do. Do you even know that they keep getting increased, and Odumbo is proud to have done so?


They've kept getting increased since they were made. Do you recall what happened to cars in the late 70s/early 80s as a result of them? You're blaming him for the same thing thats happened on every other president's watch, too. Does not compute.


Have you even heard of Obamacare? Do you know what a "single payer system" is? Do you know that Odumbo supports a transition to a single payer system, by his own admission?


Nothing in Obamacare as far as I've seen gives them the power to control what treatments you do or don't get. So I'm not sure what you're talking about here - put down the tinfoil.



And do you know that is Odumbo's party, the Democrats, that are again trying to pass the "fairness doctrine"? Do you even know what that is?


The Fairness Doctrine was instituted BY THE FCC in 1949, eliminated in 87, and the wording that authorized it was removed in 2011, under Obama's watch. Next time, do some research before spouting off CRAP.



Do some basic research before posting. Here's a hint. Try "smart grid" for a start. How about this:



Know where that's from, genius? Try Energy.gov (http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid). You want the utility department, under government direction, "adjust[ing] and control[ing]" millions of thermostats, don't you? How's that? Good enough for you?


I understand smart grids, more than likely, a lot better than you do. The government can't adjust or control your thermostat, nor can your electric provider. They never will be able to, unless you buy a thermostat which has that feature. Electric companies already offer those programs to help you save on your electric bill, IF YOU WANT THEM. The Smart Grid has to do with power balancing to reduce blackouts and optimize power distribution. Chicken little, go home.


Your lack of knowledge of basic news stories should embarrass you. I'm sure it doesn't, though. Try searching for the EPA's new actions. Here's more for you:



Try reading this (http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/justices-allow-challenge-to-epa-land-use-bans-but-property-rights-still-at-risk) for starters.


MY lack of knowledge? Pal, half your post was untrue bullcrap. And you want to talk about MY lack of knowledge? Go sit in the corner.


Go ahead and pretend to support smaller government and the Constitution while voting for a president who respects neither concept. Good for you. Your parents and teachers must be proud. :wavey:

Go ahead and vote for RINOS who are even worse than Obama, then preach to me about smaller government. I don't think anybody is proud, but you keep on keepin' on. Blind ignorance can be a powerful tool for other people to utilize in you.

The Machinist
03-28-2012, 13:15
Like you will work to get Odumbo reelected, and allow our rights to be taken away by the Supreme Court. Thanks for that! :wavey:
Don't worry. Republicans will block any liberal appointments. Oh wait. No they won't, but you'll vote for them anyway, because they have you by the balls.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 13:29
I wonder.




They've kept getting increased since they were made. Do you recall what happened to cars in the late 70s/early 80s as a result of them? You're blaming him for the same thing thats happened on every other president's watch, too. Does not compute.



Nothing in Obamacare as far as I've seen gives them the power to control what treatments you do or don't get. So I'm not sure what you're talking about here - put down the tinfoil.




The Fairness Doctrine was instituted BY THE FCC in 1949, eliminated in 87, and the wording that authorized it was removed in 2011, under Obama's watch. Next time, do some research before spouting off CRAP.




I understand smart grids, more than likely, a lot better than you do. The government can't adjust or control your thermostat, nor can your electric provider. They never will be able to, unless you buy a thermostat which has that feature. Electric companies already offer those programs to help you save on your electric bill, IF YOU WANT THEM. The Smart Grid has to do with power balancing to reduce blackouts and optimize power distribution. Chicken little, go home.



MY lack of knowledge? Pal, half your post was untrue bullcrap. And you want to talk about MY lack of knowledge? Go sit in the corner.



Go ahead and vote for RINOS who are even worse than Obama, then preach to me about smaller government. I don't think anybody is proud, but you keep on keepin' on. Blind ignorance can be a powerful tool for other people to utilize in you.

First of all, I am not nor would I ever be your "pal". You probably have very few friends, so I understand your desire to call me your pal, but drop it.

Second, go ahead and pretend that Alito and Roberts, appointed by Bush, are the same as or worse than Sotomayor and Kagan in terms of preserving our rights. If you really think so, your political views are so misguided as to be ludicrous.

Third, a single payer healthcare system means that the government will decide whether you get a pain pill or an operation, based on calculations of cost and benefit (to society, perhaps). What do you think such healthcare decisions will be based on, when Odumbo's single payer system is implemented per his wishes?

Fourth, a smart grid system will, with a stroke of the pen, be implemented as all new thermostats are mandated to be smart grid compliant, per EPA or DOE regulations. How hard do you think that would be to do?

Fifth, in 2011, under a Republican controlled House of Representatives, funding was removed. Republican controlled. Was it removed in 1949, when your beloved Democrats were in charge? Nope. How about in the decades that followed? Nope. Not until Republicans were in charge, certainly under Odumbo's watch.

Go back into your basement do more research. And keep on supporting a Natso like Odumbo. Pretend he's benign. Pretend that Auntie Sonia and Auntie Elena are watching out for your best interests. Let me know how that works out for you, genius.

Paulistas, is this the kind of ally you have on your side? :dunno: Is this the prototypical Ron Paul supporter? I am afraid so. That's why his approach has no hope. Too many of his erstwhile supporters are so far gone they are the laughingstock of politics. They supposedly support Ron Paul first, and Odumbo second, as if they'd actually vote for Paul over Odumbo if given the choice.

John Rambo
03-28-2012, 13:34
First of all, I am not nor would I ever be your "pal". You probably have very few friends, so I understand your desire to call me your pal, but drop it.

The other names I have for you would get me banned, so I'll stick with PAL, okay, pal?


Second, go ahead and pretend that Alito and Roberts, appointed by Bush, are the same as or worse than Sotomayor and Kagan in terms of preserving our rights. If you really think so, your political views are so misguided as to be ludicrous.


what the hell does that have to do with anything we're talking about thus far? FOCUS.


Third, a single payer healthcare system means that the government will decide whether you get a pain pill or an operation, based on calculations of cost and benefit (to society, perhaps). What do you think such healthcare decisions will be based on, when Odumbo's single payer system is implemented per his wishes?


Unsupported conjecture.


Fourth, a smart grid system will, with a stroke of the pen, be implemented as all new thermostats are mandated to be smart grid compliant, per EPA or DOE regulations. How hard do you think that would be to do?


More unsupported conjecture.


Fifth, in 2011, under a Republican controlled House of Representatives, funding was removed. Republican controlled. Was it removed in 1949, when your beloved Democrats were in charge? Nope. How about in the decades that followed? Nope. Not until Republicans were in charge, certainly under Odumbo's watch.


So now when good things happen its the congress, but when bad things happen its the president? You're pathetic.

Here, learn yourself something. This is a FOX NEWS link that says the changed were mandated by THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/22/fcc-to-drop-fairness-doctrine/

Do yourself a favor and quit while you're behind. This is getting sad, its like clubbing a baby seal.


Go back into your basement do more research. And keep on supporting a Natso like Odumbo. Pretend he's benign. Pretend that Auntie Sonia and Auntie Elena are watching out for your best interests. Let me know how that works out for you, genius.


Since you have yet to make a single valid point but have been proven wrong multiple times in this discussion, I think you should take a look in the mirror, pal.


Paulistas, is this the kind of ally you have on your side? :dunno: Is this the prototypical Ron Paul supporter? I am afraid so. That's why his approach has no hope. Too many of his erstwhile supporters are so far gone they are the laughingstock of politics. They supposedly support Ron Paul first, and Odumbo second, as if they'd actually vote for Paul over Odumbo if given the choice.

Straw man AND Ad Hominem all in one? Impressive. I bet you were the star of your highschool debate team.

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 13:41
First of all, I am not nor would I ever be your "pal". You probably have very few friends, so I understand your desire to call me your pal, but drop it.




This coming from a child throwing an internet tantrum.

Avoidance, aggression, inability to stay on topic or answer questions presented to them. Yeah I'd bet you're just loaded down with friends.

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 13:42
Straw man AND Ad Hominem all in one? Impressive. I bet you were the star of your highschool debate team.

Oh this one is certainly strong in the strawman department,

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 14:41
The other names I have for you would get me banned, so I'll stick with PAL, okay, pal?



what the hell does that have to do with anything we're talking about thus far? FOCUS.



Unsupported conjecture.



More unsupported conjecture.



So now when good things happen its the congress, but when bad things happen its the president? You're pathetic.

Here, learn yourself something. This is a FOX NEWS link that says the changed were mandated by THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/22/fcc-to-drop-fairness-doctrine/

Do yourself a favor and quit while you're behind. This is getting sad, its like clubbing a baby seal.



Since you have yet to make a single valid point but have been proven wrong multiple times in this discussion, I think you should take a look in the mirror, pal.



Straw man AND Ad Hominem all in one? Impressive. I bet you were the star of your highschool debate team.

Wow, you're so impressive. I'll bet all your buddies think you're so kewl.

Proven wrong multiple times? Where? Cite please. You can't justify your wrong positions, and respond by lashing out. Close your eyes and swing your fists. It's really all you have left.

If your political choice proceeds as follows:

1. Ron Paul

2. Barack Obama

3. Everyone else

you are really too dimwitted to discuss anything with. My hat is off to you for surviving so long given your obvious intellectual shortcomings.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 14:43
This coming from a child throwing an internet tantrum.

Avoidance, aggression, inability to stay on topic or answer questions presented to them. Yeah I'd bet you're just loaded down with friends.

You want to jump back in, error? How about getting back to finding me the Article, Section or Clause of the United States Constitution that allows Ron Paul to spend tax money on shrimp marketing. Oh, wait. You can't. That's right. All you have left is your little pink helmet. You guys are too much! :rofl: Like swatting flies with a mallet. :yawn:

John Rambo
03-28-2012, 14:52
Wow, you're so impressive. I'll bet all your buddies think you're so kewl.


So now I have lots of buddies? which is it?


Proven wrong multiple times? Where? Cite please.

Seriously? Heck, I just proved you wrong once in the post you quoted to make this post! When you attempted to attribute the Fairness Doctrine repeal to the Republican Congress when Obama's admin was the reason.

Prior to that, I proved you wrong about your thermostat nonsense, which you backpeddled on and went to, "But they'll MAKE you buy a compliant one!"

Right before that in the same post, I proved your tinfoil crap about "they pick what healthcare treatments you recieve" to be incorrect, to which you had to fall back on an even more tinfoil excuse for your stance.

Not to mention the other things which I shattered so badly in your original post (the one you made at 11:08) like your concept of Obama somehow having to do with zoning laws and not building on wetlands.

Next time, before you try the 'cite' trick with me, realize that I will cite, and then you'll look like an even bigger buffoon.

C'mon, don't waste my time. Man up and admit you're wrong.

You can't justify your wrong positions, and respond by lashing out. Close your eyes and swing your fists. It's really all you have left.

I've justified each and every position I've made. I did it again when you asked me to cite in this post. I've linked articles in for proof. You have done nothing but sling mud. You're a worthless debate opponent. You have contributed nothing to this thread but conjecture, ad hominem and strawman attacks, and blind accusations.


If your political choice proceeds as follows:

1. Ron Paul

2. Barack Obama

3. Everyone else

you are really too dimwitted to discuss anything with. My hat is off to you for surviving so long given your obvious intellectual shortcomings.

Not much of an admission that you were wrong. Try again.

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 14:53
You want to jump back in, error? How about getting back to finding me the Article, Section or Clause of the United States Constitution that allows Ron Paul to spend tax money on shrimp marketing. Oh, wait. You can't. That's right. All you have left is your little pink helmet. You guys are too much! :rofl: Like swatting flies with a mallet. :yawn:

Sort of like how you can't come up with a candidate that is better qualified?

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 14:55
It's ok we'll wait for your answer.

Or were you planning on not voting?

I'd hide behind sarcasm and childlike wonder of how things really work too. No point in endorsing the person publicly because you know how bad you'll end up looking once folks start pointing out your candidate's flaws.

So which is it?

John Rambo
03-28-2012, 15:00
You want to jump back in, error? How about getting back to finding me the Article, Section or Clause of the United States Constitution that allows Ron Paul to spend tax money on shrimp marketing. Oh, wait. You can't. That's right. All you have left is your little pink helmet. You guys are too much! :rofl: Like swatting flies with a mallet. :yawn:

That would be the 10th Amendment

All powers not delegated to the Federal Government are delegated to the states. Constitutionally speaking, the states can do anythign they want so long as it is not in violation of the constitution and its amendments.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 15:15
So now I have lots of buddies? which is it?



Seriously? Heck, I just proved you wrong once in the post you quoted to make this post! When you attempted to attribute the Fairness Doctrine repeal to the Republican Congress when Obama's admin was the reason.

Prior to that, I proved you wrong about your thermostat nonsense, which you backpeddled on and went to, "But they'll MAKE you buy a compliant one!"

Right before that in the same post, I proved your tinfoil crap about "they pick what healthcare treatments you recieve" to be incorrect, to which you had to fall back on an even more tinfoil excuse for your stance.

Not to mention the other things which I shattered so badly in your original post (the one you made at 11:08) like your concept of Obama somehow having to do with zoning laws and not building on wetlands.

Next time, before you try the 'cite' trick with me, realize that I will cite, and then you'll look like an even bigger buffoon.

C'mon, don't waste my time. Man up and admit you're wrong.



I've justified each and every position I've made. I did it again when you asked me to cite in this post. I've linked articles in for proof. You have done nothing but sling mud. You're a worthless debate opponent. You have contributed nothing to this thread but conjecture, ad hominem and strawman attacks, and blind accusations.



Not much of an admission that you were wrong. Try again.

Dude, you're so ignorant it's not even worth my time. You are wrong, time and time again, but are not man enough to admit it. The funniest thing is that you are so convinced you're right, which makes it even better.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 15:20
That would be the 10th Amendment

All powers not delegated to the Federal Government are delegated to the states. Constitutionally speaking, the states can do anythign they want so long as it is not in violation of the constitution and its amendments.

What? Is Ron Paul a state representative now? Really? You think Ron Paul is allowed somehow by our Constitution to spend federal tax money on shrimp marketing in his district? Ignorance. Pure ignorance. Laughable. Thanks for the laugh this evening. :rofl: Thanks, Rambo. Your command of the facts is so impressive.

By the way, what you really provided is a justification for Mitt Romney to be allowed to develop a system of universal healthcare for Massachusetts, but you're too ignorant to even realize what you did. :rofl:

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 17:03
So now I have lots of buddies? which is it?

When, liar, did I write that you have "lots" of buddies or "lots" of friends? Show me the quote. Shouldn't be too hard for a super genius like you. What did I actually write? Care to post what I actually wrote so everyone can see your level of dishonesty? :popcorn:

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 17:14
When, liar, did I write that you have "lots" of buddies or "lots" of friends? Show me the quote. Shouldn't be too hard for a super genius like you. What did I actually write? Care to post what I actually wrote so everyone can see your level of dishonesty? :popcorn:


No one here is impressed with your antics.

Why don't you tell us who you think is the right candidate?

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 17:48
No one here is impressed with your antics.

Why don't you tell us who you think is the right candidate?

Grow up. Still waiting on the whole Constitution thing, dude. :popcorn:

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 18:04
Grow up. Still waiting on the whole Constitution thing, dude. :popcorn:

Grow up? Do you hear yourself?

You just like running your mouth.

You have nothing. It's quite clear whoever you support could be torn apart with your own argument so I want engage you anymore. You have nothing to offer to the discussion save for playground infighting.

Ruble Noon
03-28-2012, 18:07
Obama has no passed one single Anti-2A law since he has been president. However he has passed one or two pro-2A laws. Want to compare and contrast with your boy and his AWB?[QUOTE]

http://nation.foxnews.com/guns/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-gun-control-under-radar





[QUOTE]Cite, please. I've never heard this said, and I'm pretty sure you haven't, either. You're just making wild accusations, and will probably throw out that stupid healthcare bill that was struck down before it ever made it to Obama's desk.
EXPLOSIVE- THE COMPLETE LIVES SYSTEM by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel - YouTube

http://www.therightscoop.com/shock-brain-surgeon-confirms-obamacare-rations-care-has-death-panels/



FCC has been doing that since before Obama was in politics, among other mechanisms.


Cite, please.The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/The%20FCC%27s%20Threat%20to%20Internet%20Freedom)

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 18:41
Grow up? Do you hear yourself?

You just like running your mouth.

You have nothing. It's quite clear whoever you support could be torn apart with your own argument so I want engage you anymore. You have nothing to offer to the discussion save for playground infighting.

Would you please just be man enough to admit, once and for all, that Ron Paul has used earmarks to ask for unConstitutional spending? Just once. It might just make you feel better, to finally admit the truth for a change.

In order to support Ron Paul, some Paulistas need to believe (or pretend they believe) that Odumbo is preferable to any other Republican candidate. That gives them political cover to vote for a Natso and still feel superior.

Whap! Flies, meet mallet. :rofl:

The Machinist
03-28-2012, 18:41
No one here is impressed with your antics.

Why don't you tell us who you think is the right candidate?
He's in the tank for Romney, but doesn't have the sack to admit it.

RC-RAMIE
03-28-2012, 18:43
Would you please just be man enough to admit, once and for all, that Ron Paul has used earmarks to ask for unConstitutional spending? Just once. It might just make you feel better, to finally admit the truth for a change.

In order to support Ron Paul, some Paulistas need to believe (or pretend they believe) that Odumbo is preferable to any other Republican candidate. That gives them political cover to vote for a Natso and still feel superior.

Whap! Flies, meet mallet. :rofl:

It is the way the current system works.


"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

syntaxerrorsix
03-28-2012, 18:49
He's in the tank for Romney, but doesn't have the sack to admit it.


I'm pretty sure he's just a ****** bag but a Romney vote from him would most certainly invalidate any **** talking he's been involved with to date.

The Machinist
03-28-2012, 18:55
I'm pretty sure he's just a ****** bag but a Romney vote from him would most certainly invalidate any **** talking he's been involved with to date.
You're completely right, which is why he'll always shy away from the question.

fortyofforty
03-28-2012, 19:02
He's in the tank for Romney, but doesn't have the sack to admit it.

Taking a break from bashing Muslims? Welcome back. :wavey:

G-19
03-28-2012, 20:56
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

Yep, Paul is still irrelevant.

http://img.tapatalk.com/621cef18-d404-7839.jpg
http://img.tapatalk.com/621cef18-d4ec-a4f7.jpg

ChuteTheMall
03-28-2012, 21:27
"Why do you hate the Constitution?" rallying cry of the loons.


This thread demonstrates why Ronulans are not to be taken seriously. Their misbehavior all over the Internet absolutely GUARANTEES that actual voters will eagerly vote against Ron Paul. They "can't get no respect," as R.D. would say.

Therefore, it's toon time again!:tongueout:


http://i42.tinypic.com/15d30wo.jpg

:tinfoil:

JBnTX
03-28-2012, 22:00
"Why do you hate the Constitution?" rallying cry of the loons.




They use the constitution, conservatism and liberty as weapons.

If you don't agree with them and Ron Paul then you must hate
the constitution and liberty.

And you most certainly cannot be a conservative if your beliefs differ from theirs in any way.

I think Ron Paul's supporters have chased away more voters than Ron Paul himself.

juggy4711
03-28-2012, 23:35
This thread is proof positive of Franklin's address to the constitutional convention. Eventually we are going to be f'ed; it will be our own damn fault and nothing will stop it from happening. Might as well argue over who you want to bend you over an R or a D. Like it actually matters.

Those that find Paul's positions to be so offensive want big government in some form or fashion and/or stand to lose something if his ideas were policy, end of story.

That said RP is not going to win the Presidency, even if he did it would not matter. That to me is the saddest part of it all. Collectively we want what is happening, deserve no better, and will all suffer for it.

At this point, best case scenario, even an R nominating a justice to the SCotUS is merely a stop gap measure. If history has shown us anything, it is that no matter what party is in charge the federal government will get bigger, become more powerful and leave us all with less freedom.

R or D; are we more or less free than we were 20 years ago...30, 40, 50....100? Truth is we are screwed no matter what because we are human, we don't learn and are doomed to repeat.

Einsteinian insanity, but we put up with it because one side or the other thinks they can win while actually we all lose.

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 00:06
They use the constitution, conservatism and liberty as weapons.



:rofl:You're completely clueless about all 3.

Tell us how you don't support the Bill of Rights again JB!

John Rambo
03-29-2012, 06:44
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

Yep, Paul is still irrelevant.


http://img.tapatalk.com/621cef18-d4ec-a4f7.jpg

Not that it matters, but this picture is Photoshopped. Poorly. There was a staffer at the desk who was edited out. Just found it amusing.

Goaltender66
03-29-2012, 06:48
Not that it matters, but this picture is Photoshopped. Poorly. There was a staffer at the desk who was edited out. Just found it amusing.

Interesting. Do you have a copy of or a link to the original?

John Rambo
03-29-2012, 06:51
http://nation.foxnews.com/guns/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-gun-control-under-radar


If there is one thing I've learned, its that what politicians say is about as meaningful as what I say to a girl out at a bar I'm trying to pick up.

Instead, lets focus on what hes DONE. What has he done?




EXPLOSIVE- THE COMPLETE LIVES SYSTEM by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6IHbdQl42U)

http://www.therightscoop.com/shock-brain-surgeon-confirms-obamacare-rations-care-has-death-panels/


Need speakers, don't have 'em where I'm working today. But I'll watch both clips. The second one doesn't seem to have much credibility unless the doc is telling me where in Obamacare to look for this provision. Let me remind you that there was an alternative healthcare bill which included all of these crazy stipulations which never came close to being passed. People often mix the two up for some reason. But the first one has Obama himself talking, so I'll be sure to watch that and comment later tonight.


The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/The%20FCC%27s%20Threat%20to%20Internet%20Freedom)

Gives a 404 error.

John Rambo
03-29-2012, 07:08
Interesting. Do you have a copy of or a link to the original?

I just looked for a bit and didn't find it anywhere. I saw it on a news report of the election immediately after the primaries. I'll keep looking, but unless I find it I suppose take it for what its worth. I clearly remember one staffer at that desk, and theres clear indications of a photoshop on the front of the desk.

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 07:17
I just looked for a bit and didn't find it anywhere. I saw it on a news report of the election immediately after the primaries. I'll keep looking, but unless I find it I suppose take it for what its worth. I clearly remember one staffer at that desk, and theres clear indications of a photoshop on the front of the desk.

Besides that it appears he's simply sitting for an interview. Isn't that a mic boom behind him?

JBnTX
03-29-2012, 07:34
:rofl:You're completely clueless about all 3.

Tell us how you don't support the Bill of Rights again JB!


I do support the Bill of Rights and I've never said I didn't.

One reason I think the constitution should be updated is to clarify and solidify the Bill of Rights and take away any misunderstanding some people have as to their meaning.

We could finally put to rest the confusion about the 2nd amendment and what a "militia" means.

And of course this update would be in the best interests of the people and NOT the federal government.

JBnTX
03-29-2012, 07:45
Those that find Paul's positions to be so offensive want big government in some form or fashion and/or stand to lose something if his ideas were policy, end of story.




NO!

That statement is absolutely positively NOT true!

That's a myth created by Ron Paul supporters and used to demean and attack those that disagree with them.

We do NOT want a bigger more powerful government despite what the Ron Paul sychophants might tell you.

Myself, I simply realize that in today's world, which is greatly different than back in 1787,
the government has certain responsibilities that are not mentioned in the constitution.

Also, I realize that some of Ron Paul's ideas and policies would be a disaster for this country, especially his drug and foreign policies.

My opposition of Ron Paul has nothing to do with wanting a bigger government.

syntaxerrorsix
03-29-2012, 08:57
NO!

That statement is absolutely positively NOT true!

That's a myth created by Ron Paul supporters and used to demean and attack those that disagree with them.

We do NOT want a bigger more powerful government despite what the Ron Paul sychophants might tell you.
Then why do you promote candidates that will increase the size of government?


Myself, I simply realize that in today's world, which is greatly different than back in 1787,
the government has certain responsibilities that are not mentioned in the constitution.

Most progressives would agree. Conservatives on the other hand tend to conserve the USC as written and understand that the federal government's role is limited for a reason.


Also, I realize that some of Ron Paul's ideas and policies would be a disaster for this country, especially his drug and foreign policies.

My opposition of Ron Paul has nothing to do with wanting a bigger government.

It may not but that's what's going to happen.

Gundude
03-29-2012, 10:55
R or D; are we more or less free than we were 20 years ago...30, 40, 50....100?
That depends a lot on the color of your skin, the equipment between your legs, and the extent to which your work or activity is deemed offensive to sensitive conservative minds.

Blast
03-29-2012, 11:41
I do support the Bill of Rights and I've never said I didn't.

One reason I think the constitution should be updated is to clarify and solidify the Bill of Rights and take away any misunderstanding some people have as to their meaning.

We could finally put to rest the confusion about the 2nd amendment and what a "militia" means.

And of course this update would be in the best interests of the people and NOT the federal government.
:agree:
The sad thing is the left is using the COTUS to ruin this country. Traditional American values are being trashed, Political correctness is running amuck, America's children are being indoctrinated to the socialist liberal agenda in our schools, the list goes on. The COTUS needs revision to save it.
The Ronulans appear to be blind to the freedoms we are losing by way of the left's utilization of the COTUS.

Do Ron Paul supporters want the 17th Amendment repealed?
So you would rather government legislators elect senators than the people?
:upeyes:



We the People
of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Speaks of the people, not legislators. The 17th Amendment was drafted to reflect the intent of the COTUS.

Goaltender66
03-29-2012, 12:14
Do Ron Paul supporters want the 17th Amendment repealed?
So you would rather government legislators elect senators than the people?
:upeyes:


(snip)

Speaks of the people, not legislators. The 17th Amendment was drafted to reflect the intent of the COTUS.

I don't think you have to be a Ron Paul supporter to criticize the 17A.

The 17A was ratified as a part of a populist wave that was rearing its ugly head in the early 20th century. There was widespread belief that machine politics, corruption, and so forth merited a change in the way Senators were elected. The outcome, alas, became a SuperHouse that is even more populist and less deliberative than what it replaced...that is, unless you think failing to act on a budget for 1000 days is a good thing.

Where I think you lose the road is the statement that the 17A somehow restored original intent. I think the Framers were pretty smart guys, and if they had meant to dictate how states should choose their Senators they would have. Indeed, they were pretty specific in Article I that the state legislatures should dictate the method in which Senators were elected. If anything, the 17th defied original intent by dictating something that a particular state legislature may not have wanted to do.

lancesorbenson
03-29-2012, 12:30
Speaks of the people, not legislators. The 17th Amendment was drafted to reflect the intent of the COTUS.

I can't help but think you're either a troll or mentally challenged. You cite the Preamble as evidence that the 17th Amendment restores original intent. The Preamble was written by the framers, who then went on to spell out how Senators were to be elected by state legislatures in Article 1 Section 3. The original intent is spelled out in black and white. They were not confused. You obviously are.

RC-RAMIE
03-29-2012, 13:08
:agree:
The sad thing is the left is using the COTUS to ruin this country. The COTUS needs revision to save it.


How is the left using the COTUS and what revision do you think it needs?

John Rambo
03-29-2012, 14:05
Interesting. Do you have a copy of or a link to the original?

Wouldn't you know it, I found the original, posted right here in Glocktalk from a thread right around 2/2/12! And it turns out that looks like the photoshop. Man, thats funny.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/user_photos/1175929/sad_ron_and_keanu_width_640x.jpg

G-19
03-29-2012, 14:26
Wouldn't you know it, I found the original, posted right here in Glocktalk from a thread right around 2/2/12! And it turns out that looks like the photoshop. Man, thats funny.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/user_photos/1175929/sad_ron_and_keanu_width_640x.jpg

So they had to photoshop in a supporter. Haha.

syntaxerrorsix
03-29-2012, 14:29
So they had to photoshop in a supporter. Haha.

Way to pay attention.

John Rambo
03-29-2012, 14:38
So they had to photoshop in a supporter. Haha.

It gets even funnier when you realize just who that 'supporter' is.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W_MAhu2n9QI/TooGAyh-BMI/AAAAAAAAACE/ZAEH-_TVW7U/s1600/neo_matrix.jpg

Goaltender66
03-29-2012, 14:39
Wouldn't you know it, I found the original, posted right here in Glocktalk from a thread right around 2/2/12! And it turns out that looks like the photoshop. Man, thats funny.

http://assets0.ordienetworks.com/images/user_photos/1175929/sad_ron_and_keanu_width_640x.jpg

Poor Keanu. That sandwich doesn't seem to be getting any better for him.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

lancesorbenson
03-29-2012, 14:51
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb/files/MSURally4kPeople2_500x281_.jpg

G-19
03-29-2012, 14:51
Way to pay attention.

Sorry, I guess I don't sit around watching TV all day.

G-19
03-29-2012, 14:54
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/9b8827e2d9e8f8bf88bfe6fcb/files/MSURally4kPeople2_500x281_.jpg

Must be his family he paid to help him with the election.

syntaxerrorsix
03-29-2012, 14:59
Sorry, I guess I don't sit around watching TV all day.

How exactly would that help?

G-19
03-29-2012, 15:05
How exactly would that help?

Just saying I don't sit around watching so much TV that I would immediately recognize the actor they photo shopped into the picture.

G-19
03-29-2012, 15:07
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates

Nope, Paul is not doing any better today.

syntaxerrorsix
03-29-2012, 15:12
Just saying I don't sit around watching so much TV that I would immediately recognize the actor they photo shopped into the picture.

Ah, understood. I was speaking more along the lines of keeping up with the thread as you were the one that posted the first version of the photo. Doesn't matter anyways I suppose.

ChuteTheMall
03-29-2012, 18:25
http://i44.tinypic.com/b5f728.png

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 19:39
The Ronulans appear to be blind to the freedoms we are losing by way of the left's utilization of the COTUS.



I can't believe someone actually typed out something so absurdly ironic.

Do Ron Paul supporters want the 17th Amendment repealed?
So you would rather government legislators elect senators than the people?
:upeyes:


Most definitely. The founders instilled several anti-democratic safeguards for they knew that the rights of the minority could easily be trampled by the majority if democracy was left unchecked. Removing the Senate from the direct influence of the populace was not only one of those but it ensured that the states would have the representation in Washington that they intended. Repealing the 17th Amendment is perhaps the most effective means of restoring our republic and solving many if not most of the problems that plague the U.S. In fact, we wouldn't even have Obamacare were it not for the 17th Amendment.

Speaks of the people, not legislators. The 17th Amendment was drafted to reflect the intent of the COTUS.

One of the more asinine statements ever read on GT.

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 19:41
NO!

That statement is absolutely positively NOT true!

That's a myth created by Ron Paul supporters and used to demean and attack those that disagree with them.

We do NOT want a bigger more powerful government despite what the Ron Paul sychophants might tell you.

Myself, I simply realize that in today's world, which is greatly different than back in 1787,
the government has certain responsibilities that are not mentioned in the constitution.

Also, I realize that some of Ron Paul's ideas and policies would be a disaster for this country, especially his drug and foreign policies.

My opposition of Ron Paul has nothing to do with wanting a bigger government.


I'd really love to hear about your mental disabiity. I understand, of course, if you don't want to discuss it openly.

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 19:46
I do support the Bill of Rights and I've never said I didn't.



No you don't. You've said here in very clear terms on numerous occasions that you don't support the 9th and 10th Amendments. If you haven't noticed, that right there is 20% of the BOR.

One reason I think the constitution should be updated is to clarify and solidify the Bill of Rights and take away any misunderstanding some people have as to their meaning.

We could finally put to rest the confusion about the 2nd amendment and what a "militia" means.



There is no confusion about the 2nd Amendment. Any and all materials needed to understand its meaning are documented in the words of the founders.

Furthermore, you support unconstitutional government in absence of Constitutional amendment. You advocate for it on almost every thread on the topic. So why do you give a rats ass about updating it?

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 19:48
I don't think you have to be a Ron Paul supporter to criticize the 17A.

The 17A was ratified as a part of a populist wave that was rearing its ugly head in the early 20th century. There was widespread belief that machine politics, corruption, and so forth merited a change in the way Senators were elected. The outcome, alas, became a SuperHouse that is even more populist and less deliberative than what it replaced...that is, unless you think failing to act on a budget for 1000 days is a good thing.

Where I think you lose the road is the statement that the 17A somehow restored original intent. I think the Framers were pretty smart guys, and if they had meant to dictate how states should choose their Senators they would have. Indeed, they were pretty specific in Article I that the state legislatures should dictate the method in which Senators were elected. If anything, the 17th defied original intent by dictating something that a particular state legislature may not have wanted to do.

Excellent post. However forgive me but I think it was a bit more sinister than that.

fortyofforty
03-29-2012, 19:48
I love reading Paulistas continually defending a strict interpretation of the Constitution and severely limited Congressional powers. :rofl: You probably don't even see the irony.

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 19:50
I love reading Paulistas continually defending a strict interpretation of the Constitution and severely limited Congressional powers. :rofl: You probably don't even see the irony.

I think its funny that considering the issues at hand, you continue to get your panties in a wad over earmarks all while you support candidates that will do nothing to shrink the size of government and ridicule the one candidate who would.

Stubudd
03-29-2012, 19:51
\

Do Ron Paul supporters want the 17th Amendment repealed?
So you would rather government legislators elect senators than the people?
:upeyes:
\

Judge Bybee has argued that the Amendment has led to the gradual "slide into ignominy" of state legislatures, with the lack of a state-based check on Congress allowing the Federal government to supersede states.[2] This was partially fueled by the senators themselves; he writes in the Northwestern University Law Review:
Politics, like nature, abhorred a vacuum, so senators felt the pressure to do something, namely enact laws. Once senators were no longer accountable to and constrained by state legislatures, the maximizing function for senators was unrestrained; senators almost always found in their own interest to procure federal legislation, even to the detriment of state control of traditional state functions.[21]

Rossum, concurring, gives the New Deal legislation as an early example of the expansion of federal regulation.[40] Ure agrees, saying that not only are senators now free to ignore the needs of their state, "they have incentive to use their advice-and-consent powers to install Supreme Court justices who are inclined to increase federal power at the expense of state sovereignty."[41] Donald J. Kochan, for an article in the Albany Law Review, analyzed the effect of the Seventeenth Amendment on Supreme Court decisions over the constitutionality of state legislation. He found a "statistically significant difference" in the number of cases holding state legislation unconstitutional before and after the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, with the number of holdings of unconstitutionality increasing sixfold.[42]

As well as a decline in the influence of the states, Ure also argues that the Seventeenth Amendment led to the rise of special interest groups to fill the void; with state legislators replaced as the Senate's electorate by citizens, who were individually less able to monitor the actions of their senators, the senate became more susceptible to pressure from interest groups, who in turn were more influential due to the centralization of power in the Federal government; an interest group no longer needed to lobby many state legislatures, and could instead focus their efforts on the Federal government.[43] Zywicki agrees with this, but attributes the rise in the strength of interest groups partially to the development of the US economy. The 20th century shifted economic growth to an interstate level, and with the rise of the financial power of a national rather than state-based market, the gains available to those who could tap into the market through the political process increased.[44]


The Tea Party movement has been at the forefront of the campaign to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment entirely, arguing that it would protect states' rights and reduce the power of the Federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

1913. That was a tough year.

fortyofforty
03-29-2012, 19:56
I think its funny that considering the issues at hand, you continue to get your panties in a wad over earmarks all while you support candidates that will do nothing to shrink the size of government and ridicule the one candidate who would.

I think it's funny that, in order to support Ron Paul, you have to minimize the importance of Paul's repeated unConstitutional spending requests that contradict everything Paul supposedly stands for. Now that's funny. I prefer to watch what he does, not just what he says, but this isn't my first political rodeo.

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 19:57
Imagine for a moment a country in which the 16th and 17th Amendments were repealed.

If Congress voted to increase taxes on the states, which would in turn have to increase taxes on their people......and the state legislators who actually live among the people had to explain to their constituents why this tax increase was taking place, how restrained do you think Congress would be?

juggy4711
03-29-2012, 20:51
NO!

That statement is absolutely positively NOT true!

That's a myth created by Ron Paul supporters and used to demean and attack those that disagree with them.

We do NOT want a bigger more powerful government despite what the Ron Paul sychophants might tell you.

Myself, I simply realize that in today's world, which is greatly different than back in 1787,
the government has certain responsibilities that are not mentioned in the constitution.

Also, I realize that some of Ron Paul's ideas and policies would be a disaster for this country, especially his drug and foreign policies.

My opposition of Ron Paul has nothing to do with wanting a bigger government.

I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but this post proves your are too stupid to know what the hell your talking about. You contradict yourself and do not even realize it.

I think it's funny that, in order to support Ron Paul, you have to minimize the importance of Paul's repeated unConstitutional spending requests that contradict everything Paul supposedly stands for. Now that's funny. I prefer to watch what he does, not just what he says, but this isn't my first political rodeo.

Perhaps I am also stupid but could you explain to me the unconstitutionality of ear mark spending?

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 20:55
I think it's funny that, in order to support Ron Paul, you have to minimize the importance of Paul's repeated unConstitutional spending requests that contradict everything Paul supposedly stands for. Now that's funny. I prefer to watch what he does, not just what he says, but this isn't my first political rodeo.

Relish your righteousness as your chosen presidential candidate signs bill after bill increasing the debt ceiling.

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 20:57
I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt but this post proves your are too stupid to know what the hell your talking about. You contradict yourself and do not even realize it.


That's uncalled for. I'm pretty sure he suffers from a traumatic head injury or some sort of mental defect. Possibly even childhood lead poisoning.

JBnTX
03-29-2012, 21:15
The Ron Paul sycophants are really dishing out the insults tonight.

Calling me stupid and saying I have a brain disability, all because I disagree with them politically. :rofl:

The American people's rejection of Ron Paul has hit them pretty hard? How many times does this make that Ron Paul's presidential campaign has gone down in flames?

Ron Paul is bad for America, and the American people are smart enough to know it!

..

Blast
03-29-2012, 21:25
I can't believe someone actually typed out something so absurdly ironic.



Most definitely. The founders instilled several anti-democratic safeguards for they knew that the rights of the minority could easily be trampled by the majority if democracy was left unchecked. Removing the Senate from the direct influence of the populace was not only one of those but it ensured that the states would have the representation in Washington that they intended. Repealing the 17th Amendment is perhaps the most effective means of restoring our republic and solving many if not most of the problems that plague the U.S. In fact, we wouldn't even have Obamacare were it not for the 17th Amendment.



One of the more asinine statements ever read on GT.
The above is asinine.
None are so blind as those who will not see.:shakehead:
Or maybe too stupid to see.

Oh yeah, let the politicians appoint politicians to office. The Ronulans say less .gov but want .gov to be in charge of who gets into office. Duhhhhhhhhhh:pjmn:
See my sigline.:rofl:

lancesorbenson
03-29-2012, 21:26
The Ron Paul sycophants are really dishing out the insults tonight.

Calling me stupid and saying I have a brain disability, all because I disagree with them politically. :rofl:

The American people's rejection of Ron Paul has hit them pretty hard? How many times does this make that Ron Paul's presidential campaign has gone down in flames?

Ron Paul is bad for America, and the American people are smart enough to know it!

Too bad his sycophantic followers are not that smart.

Appeals to the intelligence of the American people seem pretty absurd considering the current occupant of the White House. The unfailing wisdom of my countrymen is bringing about a battle between Romney and Barry this fall. Your logic is breathtaking.

lancesorbenson
03-29-2012, 21:28
The above is asinine.
None are so blind as those who will not see.:shakehead:
Or maybe too stupid to see.

Oh yeah, let the politicians appoint politicians to office. The Ronulans say less .gov but want .gov to be in charge of who gets into office. Duhhhhhhhhhh:pjmn:
See my sigline.:rofl:

So you're sticking with your idiotic argument. Got it.

JBnTX
03-29-2012, 21:37
... Your logic is breathtaking.

Thank you, I think so too!:rofl:

Blast
03-29-2012, 21:44
So you're sticking with your idiotic argument. Got it.
Idiocy must come natural to Ronulans. Got it.:rofl:

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyn94eflr61r6tga8o1_500.png

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwzptfNL2k1r7nwzho1_500.png

Ron Paul is a senile old fool with one foot in the grave. He will never be president. Get used to it.

Blast
03-29-2012, 21:49
http://iamfoss.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/RonPaul.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-aKIAwzlIv2k/TyHZqCAxR9I/AAAAAAAAAz8/bPRy0TEDw9I/s1600/Burn.png

JBnTX
03-29-2012, 21:59
Blast,

You're cracking me up!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 22:13
The above is asinine.
None are so blind as those who will not see.:shakehead:
Or maybe too stupid to see.

Oh yeah, let the politicians appoint politicians to office. The Ronulans say less .gov but want .gov to be in charge of who gets into office. Duhhhhhhhhhh:pjmn:
See my sigline.:rofl:

You are illustrating your profound ignorance on the issue. You really should read a bit before commenting.

You believe that the founders failed to write the Constitution to reflect their own true intent requiring an amendment more than 100 years later to fix it? Moron much?

Hey genius -- how do Supreme Court justices get their seats on the bench?

Moreover, why bother creating another chamber that has a term that is 3x as long as the first chamber and have the same mechanism of selection but be empowered very differently. If you can explain this one I will be very impressed. Please include supporting documentation.

lancesorbenson
03-29-2012, 22:14
Blast, you can post all the hilarious pictures you want, it doesn't change the fact that you made a completely idiotic argument, seemingly without a trace of irony. Your understanding of the Constitution is obviously nothing of the kind. You said the founding fathers didn't understand what they wrote--even though it was all there in black and white, clear as crystal.

http://i.qkme.me/3of88t.jpg

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 22:15
The Ron Paul sycophants are really dishing out the insults tonight.

Calling me stupid and saying I have a brain disability, all because I disagree with them politically. :rofl:

The American people's rejection of Ron Paul has hit them pretty hard? How many times does this make that Ron Paul's presidential campaign has gone down in flames?

Ron Paul is bad for America, and the American people are smart enough to know it!

..

Its the only explanation I can come up with. You can't seem to compose a single post without contradicting yourself and remaining blissfully ignorant of it at the same time.

JBnTX
03-29-2012, 22:21
... You can't seem to compose a single post without contradicting yourself and remaining blissfully ignorant of it at the same time.


Well, that sounds like the best of both worlds.:rofl:

certifiedfunds
03-29-2012, 22:28
Well, that sounds like the best of both worlds.:rofl:

JB - there are people on GT with whom liberty minded individuals can disagree yet enjoy intelligent dialogue and debate because those people can compose coherent arguments.

You aren't one of those.

I think people here, myself included, would go ahead and leave you to your discombobulation if you wouldn't try to describe yourself as conservative and/or repeatedly contradict yourself within the same post.

It leaves one to wonder whether you are truly bright and engaging in some false flag operation or if you are truly mentally defective. I've read enough of your posts to believe that is isn't the former.

As I became convinced that there is a mental defect involved I inquired. If you had acknowledged it I would have refrained from commenting on your disjointed ramblings out of pity or respect for your disability. Since you haven't acknowledged it I can only assume that if IQ were farenheit you could freeze water.

JBnTX
03-29-2012, 22:40
JB - there are people on GT with whom liberty minded individuals can disagree yet enjoy intelligent dialogue and debate because those people can compose coherent arguments.

You aren't one of those.

I think people here, myself included, would go ahead and leave you to your discombobulation if you wouldn't try to describe yourself as conservative and/or repeatedly contradict yourself within the same post.

It leaves one to wonder whether you are truly bright and engaging in some false flag operation or if you are truly mentally defective. I've read enough of your posts to believe that is isn't the former.

As I became convinced that there is a mental defect involved I inquired. If you had acknowledged it I would have refrained from commenting on your disjointed ramblings out of pity or respect for your disability. Since you haven't acknowledged it I can only assume that if IQ were farenheit you could freeze water.

Thank You! All that for free.

What the hell am I paying my shrink 200 bucks an hour for?

:therapy:

syntaxerrorsix
03-30-2012, 04:52
---- Since you haven't acknowledged it I can only assume that if IQ were farenheit you could freeze water.

:rofl:

John Rambo
03-30-2012, 06:42
Thank You! All that for free.

What the hell am I paying my shrink 200 bucks an hour for?

:therapy:

Dunno, but you need a better shrink - its not helping.

fortyofforty
03-30-2012, 08:14
Perhaps I am also stupid but could you explain to me the unconstitutionality of ear mark spending?

There are two issues. The first is the Constitutionality of earmark requests as a spending mechanism. This article (http://www.wlf.org/upload/2-08-08Olsson.pdf) explains it pretty well, if you care to educate yourself. Here's an excerpt:

Thus an earmark (or a “congressionally directed expenditure”) is an expenditure made primarily at the request of a single member of Congress directed to a specific contract or grant which is authorized by neither statute nor formula nor implemented by competitive bidding. Earmarks represent extra-statutory funding, which is effectuated through the patronage and largess of individual members of Congress. The authorization of these earmarks is outside the matrix of national priorities which Congress has otherwise established by statute and formula. In dispensing his or her earmarks, each member of Congress becomes a charitable benefactor for specific projects or persons, which typically reciprocate by providing support for the member’s political incumbency by organizing either voting support or campaign contributions. Because earmarks serve the political interests of individual members of Congress, they are unlikely to be abandoned by act of Congress.

The second issue, related to the first and proven by Ron Paul's own earmark requests, is the fact that Paul's earmarks are spent on projects that fall outside the bounds--well-described by Paulistas in this very thread--of Constitutionally-allowed Congressional spending. Congress is allowed to spend federal tax money for a few specified purposes, and cowboy poetry museums are not one of them (to use an example of an earmark not connect to Ron Paul, if you can't emotionally divorce yourself from the candidate's own earmarks). That is why, when asked, Paulistas cannot point to the specific provisions in the Constitution that allow for Ron Paul's earmark spending projects (such as shrimp marketing or park improvements); they don't exist.

So, earmarks might themselves be an unConstitutional spending mechanism (see article cited above) and they certainly are often used to fund unConstitutional projects using federal money (including those requested by Ron Paul). If Ron Paul were running as just another Congressman, merely a product of the corrupt system, and not as a strict-constructionist, I would have no problem with his position because at least it would be logically consistent.

RC-RAMIE
03-30-2012, 08:27
1.Does Ron Paul represent his people in his district?

2. Does those people have a right to request from their government some of the tax money taken from them?

3. Do you think the government right to their money is priority over their right to their money.

4. Does RP vote yes or no on the spending?

5. If all congress earmarked all spending wouldn't we have a better idea who was spending what on what?

5. How does congress currently work is their another way besides the earmark?

certifiedfunds
03-30-2012, 08:31
There are two issues. The first is the Constitutionality of earmark requests as a spending mechanism. This article (http://www.wlf.org/upload/2-08-08Olsson.pdf) explains it pretty well, if you care to educate yourself. Here's an excerpt:



The second issue, related to the first and proven by Ron Paul's own earmark requests, is the fact that Paul's earmarks are spent on projects that fall outside the bounds--well-described by Paulistas in this very thread--of Constitutionally-allowed Congressional spending. Congress is allowed to spend federal tax money for a few specified purposes, and cowboy poetry museums are not one of them (to use an example of an earmark not connect to Ron Paul, if you can't emotionally divorce yourself from the candidate's own earmarks). That is why, when asked, Paulistas cannot point to the specific provisions in the Constitution that allow for Ron Paul's earmark spending projects (such as shrimp marketing or park improvements); they don't exist.

So, earmarks might themselves be an unConstitutional spending mechanism (see article cited above) and they certainly are often used to fund unConstitutional projects using federal money (including those requested by Ron Paul). If Ron Paul were running as just another Congressman, merely a product of the corrupt system, and not as a strict-constructionist, I would have no problem with his position because at least it would be logically consistent.

That article contains an awful lot of editorializing to be considered a proof source. Even the excerpt you quoted contains editorializing.

One thing it mentions is the lack of a public bid process in earmark spending. Quick question for you: Do you believe a public bid process should be required for government spending?

fortyofforty
03-30-2012, 08:55
1.Does Ron Paul represent his people in his district?

Yes, he sure does.

2. Does those people have a right to request from their government some of the tax money taken from them?

Yes, those people have a right to request from their government some of the tax money taken from them. But the government does not have the right to honor their requests. If they did, every Congressman representing every district could request earmark spending for any project, and justify it because they are getting money back. And, Congressmen representing poor districts could request even more spending because, after all, their constituents are so poor they can't even afford to pay federal income taxes, so of course they need more money spent in their district. Where does it end, if you choose to ignore the Constitution?

3. Do you think the government right to their money is priority over their right to their money.

I think the Constitution is pretty clear on federal spending.

4. Does RP vote yes or no on the spending?

If I put my child on the school bus every morning, but tell the bus driver not to go to the school, and every day my child gets taken to the school, should I pretend to be surprised? Ron Paul knows full well that the bills are going to be passed, so he reaches in and grabs a handful of money for his voters.

5. If all congress earmarked all spending wouldn't we have a better idea who was spending what on what?

Nope, that's one of Paul's lies. Many earmarks are slipped in in conference committees, many are not even voted on as they are added after the vote is taken, and many are not even attributed to one specific requestor. In fact, Ron Paul was one of the Congressmen who voted against earmark transparency (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/h119).

5. How does congress currently work is their another way besides the earmark?

If you are seriously asking this question, you need to do some basic research on the functioning of government, federal budgeting, and spending. You have really swilled hard from the Paulista pitcher of Kool Aid.

That article contains an awful lot of editorializing to be considered a proof source. Even the excerpt you quoted contains editorializing.

One thing it mentions is the lack of a public bid process in earmark spending. Quick question for you: Do you believe a public bid process should be required for government spending?

A public bid process has the chance to reduce federal spending as it requires companies to bid on projects and requires government agencies to award the contract to the lowest bidder, barring exceptional circumstances. I see nothing wrong with that, do you?

You are free to believe or disbelieve any sources you want to justify spending federal money on shrimp marketing and cowboy poetry museums. A Constitutional scholar has given his opinion. You are free to write your own opinion and have it published.

If you don't like that article because it contradicts Ron Paul's ideas, go back to James Madison (http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm) if you like. Madison wrote:

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

Quick question for you: how do you think the "Father of the Constitution" would feel about shrimp marketing and cowboy poetry museums?

certifiedfunds
03-30-2012, 09:31
A public bid process has the chance to reduce federal spending as it requires companies to bid on projects and requires government agencies to award the contract to the lowest bidder, barring exceptional circumstances. I see nothing wrong with that, do you?



Well, shouldn't we apply the same standards here? Where does a public bid process appear in the Constitution? If it doesn't appear, how should it work? Isn't this an extra-constitutional method of appropriations?

You are free to believe or disbelieve any sources you want to justify spending federal money on shrimp marketing and cowboy poetry museums. A Constitutional scholar has given his opinion. You are free to write your own opinion and have it published.

If you don't like that article because it contradicts Ron Paul's ideas, go back to James Madison (http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm) if you like. Madison wrote:



Quick question for you: how do you think the "Father of the Constitution" would feel about shrimp marketing and cowboy poetry museums?

Oh, I think he would find it all abhorrent.

More abhorrent I believe he would find that sucking 20% of GDP out of the "many states" completely unacceptable.

So, you're trying to apply these principles within the confines of a completely and utterly corrupt system that Madison would never have willingly tolerated or participated in. It doesn't work.

The federal system is so corrupt that states cannot afford to provide for their own needs because the fed not only sucks the wealth out but imposes unfunded mandates (stealth tax) upon them. In this sense it is a survival mechanism for legislators to utilize the earmarking process to return some tax dollars back to their district from whence they were confiscated in the first place.

I'm sure if you were to ask Dr. Paul if he would favor blowing up the current federal tax system and leaving more of his constituents money in their communities IN EXCHANGE FOR the earmarking process.

fortyofforty
03-30-2012, 10:52
Well, shouldn't we apply the same standards here? Where does a public bid process appear in the Constitution? If it doesn't appear, how should it work? Isn't this an extra-constitutional method of appropriations?

The executive branch tasked with spending money, and they use a bidding process to reduce costs. Are you against reducing costs or do you want to see your government spend every penny and then some via earmarks? Ludicrous argument.

Oh, I think he would find it all abhorrent.

More abhorrent I believe he would find that sucking 20% of GDP out of the "many states" completely unacceptable.

OK, so then what do you do? Keep on keeping on, using earmarks to slip in spending on crazy and unConstitutional projects that Congressmen don't have the guts to stand up and defend on the floor of the House or Senate?

So, you're trying to apply these principles within the confines of a completely and utterly corrupt system that Madison would never have willingly tolerated or participated in. It doesn't work.

OK, then Ron Paul isn't trying to restore a more traditional role of the federal government in the country. I must have been mistaken as to his public pronouncements.

The federal system is so corrupt that states cannot afford to provide for their own needs because the fed not only sucks the wealth out but imposes unfunded mandates (stealth tax) upon them. In this sense it is a survival mechanism for legislators to utilize the earmarking process to return some tax dollars back to their district from whence they were confiscated in the first place.

The "survival mechanism" is only to ensure they get reelected, by shoveling money to their supporters and voters. I suppose in your mind that desire trumps the Constitution.

I'm sure if you were to ask Dr. Paul if he would favor blowing up the current federal tax system and leaving more of his constituents money in their communities IN EXCHANGE FOR the earmarking process.

Maybe, although he has publicly stated he prefers earmarks to the traditional budgeting method used for two-hundred years. He might, though, SAY he's in favor of it, but his actions belie his true beliefs.

RCP
03-30-2012, 10:55
Well you've changed my mind I'll have to vote for Mitt Romney as he's obviously far less of a hypocrite, far more honest, and will adhere to the Constitution far better than Ron Paul would. I'll gladly take the guy who legislated big government healthcare into existence within his State and signed a permanent assault weapons ban with a smile on his face over the guy who made sure to get some money back from the federal government for his constituents. I can't believe it took me this long to see the folly of my thinking!:upeyes:

fortyofforty
03-30-2012, 10:58
Well you've changed my mind I'll have to vote for Mitt Romney as he's obviously far less of a hypocrite, far more honest, and will adhere to the Constitution far better than Ron Paul would. I'll gladly take the guy who legislated big government healthcare into existence within his State and signed a permanent assault weapons ban with a smile on his face over the guy who made sure to get some money back from the federal government for his constituents. I can't believe it took me this long to see the folly of my thinking!:upeyes:

I wouldn't tell you to vote for anyone. All I'd tell you is to think twice before you idolize ANY politician. Experience will teach you that they'll all break your heart. Dig just a little and the hypocrisy is revealed, even with Ron Paul.

RC-RAMIE
03-30-2012, 11:25
I wouldn't tell you to vote for anyone. All I'd tell you is to think twice before you idolize ANY politician. Experience will teach you that they'll all break your heart. Dig just a little and the hypocrisy is revealed, even with Ron Paul.

How is picking the best option out a group Idolizing?

We explained RP views on earmarks, and im sure every RP supporter here has explained how he or she feels about the earmarks. We understand you don't agree we accept that now can you post about something else?

fortyofforty
03-30-2012, 11:40
How is picking the best option out a group Idolizing?

We explained RP views on earmarks, and im sure every RP supporter here has explained how he or she feels about the earmarks. We understand you don't agree we accept that now can you post about something else?

Ron Paul's foreign policy has been discussed on other threads. Try a search. Feel free to start another thread if you feel the need. If you've had enough, I trust no one is forcing you to read this particular thread, either.

If you are objective, at least here on GT, no other Republican candidate has been afforded "idol" status like Ron Paul. His supporters do not grudgingly offer their support. His supporters do not say he's merely slightly better than the other candidates. His supporters do not say he's just a typical politician and they agree with some of his positions and disagree with others. His supporters defend Paul with a fervor normally seen only displayed by naïve youth lacking real world political experience.

I don’t know if you were around on GT in 2008, but Obama was similarly idolized by many of his supporters, and they were exposed for what they were: mind-numbed, robotic Obamaniacs who could not bear to see any less-than-perfect image of their Messiah. I had hoped that no Republican candidate would similarly be idolized, as Republicans are generally more cerebral than emotional, but Paul nearly gets the same treatment.

certifiedfunds
03-30-2012, 11:57
The executive branch tasked with spending money, and they use a bidding process to reduce costs. Are you against reducing costs or do you want to see your government spend every penny and then some via earmarks? Ludicrous argument.


Just so we're clear:

You oppose earmarks because you say they're an unconstitutional method of spending.

You support a bid process in spending money, though it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

About right?

fortyofforty
03-30-2012, 12:11
Just so we're clear:

You oppose earmarks because you say they're an unconstitutional method of spending.

You support a bid process in spending money, though it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

About right?

Not quite. I actually don't know whether earmarks are themselves unConstitutional. I can see both sides, and present the opposing viewpoint here since Paulistas apparently hear only Paul's view.

I am really opposed to earmarks funding unConstitutional spending (such as shrimp marketing and cowboy poetry museums). There is a difference.

Do you think there is any Congressional-directed spending that can be unConstitutional?

certifiedfunds
03-30-2012, 12:33
Not quite. I actually don't know whether earmarks are themselves unConstitutional. I can see both sides, and present the opposing viewpoint here since Paulistas apparently hear only Paul's view.

I am really opposed to earmarks funding unConstitutional spending (such as shrimp marketing and cowboy poetry museums). There is a difference.



Wow. Ok. I was misunderstanding your comments thus far then because I thought you'd said repeatedly that earmarks were uncon. What I hear you saying here is that the earmarking process may not be but what the money is spent on may be. Correct?

Do you think there is any Congressional-directed spending that can be unConstitutional?

Oh yes. The vast majority of it is. Essentially (but not technically) any spending that is outside of the enumerated powers is uncon. I think Ron Paul would probably agree if you had this conversation with him.

However, as previously mentioned, the system is now so corrupt with the volume of wealth being sucked out of the states that there needs to be a mechanism for bringing a portion of those dollars back AND giving the local people a voice in the process.

Stop sucking the money out AND end the earmarks. I think paul would agree.

certifiedfunds
03-30-2012, 12:36
Not quite. I actually don't know whether earmarks are themselves unConstitutional. I can see both sides, and present the opposing viewpoint here since Paulistas apparently hear only Paul's view.

I am really opposed to earmarks funding unConstitutional spending (such as shrimp marketing and cowboy poetry museums). There is a difference.

Do you think there is any Congressional-directed spending that can be unConstitutional?

Even still, focusing on this petty stuff isn't the answer. It matters, yes. It just isn't significant in the scope of the problem.

Medicare, Medicaid, SS and DOD are the problems. Of the candidates in the race, which one would you see as giving us the best chance to address these problems? (bearing in mind that Rick Perry and Romney fell over one another to argue over who loved SS more and Santorum has voted to raise the debt ceiling a few times)

fortyofforty
03-30-2012, 12:40
Wow. Ok. I was misunderstanding your comments thus far then because I thought you'd said repeatedly that earmarks were uncon. What I hear you saying here is that the earmarking process may not be but what the money is spent on may be. Correct?

Yes, that's about right. If Paul's earmarks were going to projects that provided for the common defense, for example, the Constitution provides specifically for Congressional spending thereon.

Oh yes. The vast majority of it is. Essentially (but not technically) any spending that is outside of the enumerated powers is uncon. I think Ron Paul would probably agree if you had this conversation with him.

True, I suspect he would. But, that said, he asks for spending on projects that I don't think are justified Constitutionally, and then says he's just getting money back to his constituents, which is, in my opinion, the wrong way to view federal spending.

However, as previously mentioned, the system is now so corrupt with the volume of wealth being sucked out of the states that there needs to be a mechanism for bringing a portion of those dollars back AND giving the local people a voice in the process.

Stop sucking the money out AND end the earmarks. I think paul would agree.

Yes, we can agree on that. :wavey: If the federal government took less, people would not feel the "right" to get "their money" back on projects of questionable common value because the amount would be inconsequential.

See, and people thought these discussions didn't have any value.

Gary W Trott
03-30-2012, 12:44
This is Ron Paul's opinion on the subject of earmarks. It comes from his book Liberty Defined:

But Congress does nothing to reclaim it's authority and the responsibility given it under the Constitution. A large group of conservatives make the earmark controversy the litmus test for conservative credentials and astoundingly demand that Congress deliver to the executive branch the power to earmark all spending. This only enhances presidential power. Voting against an earmark doesn't save a dime - it only allows the executive branch to decide how the money will be spent, which is a clear responsibility of the Congress under the Constitution.
Ron Paul in Liberty Defined, page 116 (Executive Power) (http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Defined-Essential-Issues-Freedom/dp/1455501441/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333131896&sr=1-1#reader_1455501441)

It makes pretty good sense that since Congress controls the purse strings that Congress should decide where the funds will be spent. I'd questioned his use of earmarks before but this convinced me that he is correct on the subject.

So far as government spending goes he goes on to say this:

The solution to the budgetary crisis is to simply get enough people in Congress to refuse to fund all unconstitutional spending by following the directions of Article I, Section 8.

fortyofforty
03-30-2012, 12:47
Medicare, Medicaid, SS and DOD are the problems. Of the candidates in the race, which one would you see as giving us the best chance to address these problems? (bearing in mind that Rick Perry and Romney fell over one another to argue over who loved SS more and Santorum has voted to raise the debt ceiling a few times)

Given his track record of failing to get other Congressmen to support his ideas, and his failing to win statewide office, and his failing to convince enough voters to nominate him for the Presidency, I don't know whether Paul would be able to convince enough people to ram through radical change in any of those programs. We might get completely stonewalled by that approach.

Another strategy--admittedly one that requires patience--is to push through incremental change, slowly trying to convince people of the correctness of that approach. It might be too late, but a Paul approach might lead to no change at all. The key is changing public attitudes and public perceptions about the role of the federal government. Until we stop seeing "SAVE US" signs held by helpless people standing on rooftops in New Orleans due to flooding, America will not accept any change in the entitlement system.

fortyofforty
03-30-2012, 12:51
This is Ron Paul's opinion on the subject of earmarks. It comes from his book Liberty Defined:



It makes pretty good sense that since Congress controls the purse strings that Congress should decide where the funds will be spent. I'd questioned his use of earmarks before but this convinced me that he is correct on the subject.

So far as government spending goes he goes on to say this:

Except that it is untrue. Some earmarks do not come out of money already allocated to specific agencies. Some of them are added to the budget on top of all the other spending.

And, earmarks are spent to the penny without competitve bidding or oversight to prevent waste, fraud and abuse, while money allocated to agencies is often left unallocated. That money can be applied to reducing the deficit.

Gary W Trott
03-30-2012, 13:07
Except that it is untrue. Some earmarks do not come out of money already allocated to specific agencies. Some of them are added to the budget on top of all the other spending.
Can you provide us with some examples of these earmarks that are added on on top of the total budget allocations?

And, earmarks are spent to the penny without competitve bidding or oversight to prevent waste, fraud and abuse, while money allocated to agencies is often left unallocated. That money can be applied to reducing the deficit.
I don't think we can say that earmarked funds aren't spent using competitive bidding and oversight. Any funds given to public or quasi-public bodies would probably already have those safeguards in place. Most private organizations have rules regarding purchasing and oversight also as well.

As for the earmarks being spent in their entirety that would be because they are allocated for specific projects and the recipients are required to spend it on those projects. The federal agencies are under no legal obligation to spend the entire amount budgeted to them each year. I have my doubts that much of their allocations go unspent but I could be wrong.