Interesting Ron Paul Factoid

[xnavy]

I love how Pat continues to dance around the question at hand. Why is Ron Paul providing earmarks and pork spending when he wants to reduce the size of government.

The answer is very obvious of course. The reason Ron Paul wants to reduce the size of government is so he can increase his EARMARKS and PORK BARREL SPENDING, lol.

 

[Pat H]

The reason Ron Paul wants to reduce the size of government is so he can increase his EARMARKS and PORK BARREL SPENDING, lol.

Eh, how's that again?

 

[xnavy]

It's really simple. Ron Paul does away with the ATF, FBI, FDA, IRS, and God knows what else which reduces the size of government. He then takes the money he saved and is able to increase spending on EARMARKS and PORK BARREL Spending.

 

[Fremmer]

The amendment authorizes the Government to raise revenue, not to distribute it to a private, non-government entity like a wild shrimp corporation . Therefore, Ron Paul's pork is unconstitutional.

 

[nate45]

Therefore, Ron Paul's pork is unconstitutional.

I agree with you it is, and now that I've admitted that can you name one senator or congressional represenative that does not take "pork" back to his or her district.

The fact remains that RP has the best voting record on spending of any member of congress.

If there was a vote tomorrow to eliminate earmarks RP would vote for it.

I believe, in fact I know that Social Security is unconstitutional, but nevertheless if it is still avaliable when I retire I would be a fool not to take it.

Ron Paul believes that the vast majority of congressional spending is unconstitutional and he consistently votes against it, but as long as the present process is in place why would he not try to secure funds for his district.

Another fact that remains is that all the jibes on this thread and the intent of the OP for that matter are a feeble and in my opinion disingenuous attempt to diminish and discredit Dr. Paul.

None of the detracters of Dr. Paul on this thread or anywhere are able to name a single congressman that has a better voting record on spending and staying true to the original intent of the constitution than he does.

 

[Fremmer]

Ron Paul believes that the vast majority of congressional spending is unconstitutional and he consistently votes against it, but as long as the present process is in place why would he not try to secure funds for his district.

Yeah, everything is unconstitutional until Paul decides to that he wants his share of pork. If pork is unconstitutional, and Paul really believed in the constitution, then Ron Paul wouldn't violate the constitution by grabbing his share of pork.

In other words, Ron Paul talks the constitutional talk, but he doesn't walk the constitutional walk.

 

[GoSlash27]

wow... another lame attack.
Sorta reminds me of the earlier attempts such as "if he's for term limits, why has he stayed in all these years?" or " if he claims to be a libertarian, why's he running on the Republican ticket?"

If you can show me how your favorite candidate has worked harder than he has to reverse big government, then by all means let's hear it. Otherwise your attacks on behalf of your big government candidate ring hollow.

But hey, thanks for showing an interest. Always nice to hear how worried you are.

 

[buckster]

R/p vs shrimp

You know, the with Katrina and high gas prices, the shrimping industry took some hard hits lately. They probably need the help. I went into a major seafood restaurant last weekend and only one item on the menu was wild. Everything else was farm raised, so I ate rockfish. Ron does have the best voting record on spending, he didn't vote for a trillion dollar war that was not necessary. Doing away with the ABC agencies would help save money. Wasn't their intelligence flawed about the mid east? Ron has put some good bills out lately.

 

[buzz_knox]

Ron Paul believes that the vast majority of congressional spending is unconstitutional and he consistently votes against it, but as long as the present process is in place why would he not try to secure funds for his district.

So he'll do unconstitutional things when it's to his advantage?

When he voted against the bill providing protection from frivilous lawsuits for firearms manufacturer, the argument was that such protection was unconstitutional (which is false since Congress has the authority to restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts). So, he is in favor of unconstitutional acts when it serves his interests, and against (falsely claimed) unconstitutional acts when it doesn't serve his interests.

Thanks, nate45. You've confirmed my suspicions about Ron Paul. He's a politician that has found his niche and is riding it for all its worth: pork and rhetoric.

 

[Fremmer]

I'm not trying to attack RP. But we keep hearing from RP supporters about how RP will "support the constitution", and that if something is not explicitly stated in the constitution, then it is unconstitutional, and RP never does/supports anything unconstitutional. And all of the other candidates for President (especially the other Republican candidates) are evil, unconstititonal politicians who consistently violate the constitution. This thread has demonstrated that such assertions are inaccurate. RP likes his pork, he is willing to subsidize private corporations, and he is willing to spend taxpayer money on his pet pork projects. Just like all of the other Republican and Democrats in congress. RP takes his pork opportunities despite the fact that there is no explicit authorization in the constitution which would allow RP to do this.

As far as I'm concerned, RP can have as much pork as he can get, just like all of the other Democrats and Republicans in congress. And RP will be judged -- along with all of the other pork-laden politicians in congress -- by the voters in his district concerning his beloved pork when re-election time comes. Judgment cometh, and right soon.

But lets not pretend that RP is an anti-pork, anti-governement spending, anti-corporate, pure constitutionalist.

 

[buzz_knox]

But lets not pretend that RP is an anti-pork, anti-governement spending, anti-corporate, pure constitutionalist.

Those days may be ending. In this thread alone, we've seen a shift from that attitude to "hey, everybody does it and he's not as bad as the rest."

 

[Pat H]

So he'll do unconstitutional things when it's to his advantage?

When he voted against the bill providing protection from frivilous lawsuits for firearms manufacturer, the argument was that such protection was unconstitutional (which is false since Congress has the authority to restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts). So, he is in favor of unconstitutional acts when it serves his interests, and against (falsely claimed) unconstitutional acts when it doesn't serve his interests.

Thanks, nate45. You've confirmed my suspicions about Ron Paul. He's a politician that has found his niche and is riding it for all its worth: pork and rhetoric.

Clearly this isn't true based on Congressman Paul's voting record.

It's interesting, and educational, to see scurrilous attacks this early in the campaign. It's a glimpse of how much the "status quo" folks hate Ron Paul.

They hate his philosophy.

They hate his demand for lawful government.

They hate his demand honesty in government.

 

[buzz_knox]

Clearly this isn't true based on Congressman Paul's voting record.

It's interesting, and educational, to see scurrilous attacks this early in the campaign. It's a glimpse of how much the "status quo" folks hate Ron Paul.

How is it a scurrilous attack? It is based on the direct evidence of his voting record.

Does Ron Paul advocate and support legislation (including the earmarks for shrimp and the education bills he has proposed) whose legal basis is derived from a strict interpretation of the Commerce Clause?

They hate his philosophy.

They hate his demand for lawful government.

They hate his demand honesty in government.

The rhetoric surrounding him is beginning to sound almost messianic. That's interesting and educational as well, since the rhetoric doesn't match the legislative record offered to support said rhetoric.

By the way, discounting those of us asking questions as being pro "status quo" does nothing to answer the legitimate questions being raised. After all, if we did nothing but quote the Ron Paul supporters in this debate, the answer would be what nate45 put forward: he's a politician who plays political games just like everyone else does, and until the system gets changed, he'll keep doing so.

 

[Pat H]

I can see you're having trouble separating that which is required of a Congressman, and that which is not. I can petition, that is request, that he put my special interest before the commitee that is deciding on a funding bill, he has virtually no choice but to do so. You can argue all you want to the contrary, but the simple fact is that Congressmen don't have 100% choice in what they do. Also, my Congressman is my representative to every government agency by law. If I'm having difficulty with a non-responsive agency, my Congressman must, again by law, find out what the problem is. If you've got federally funded highways within your district, or need a new federal highway (see post roads in the Constitution), then requesting those funds isn't unConstitutional.

I see that there are those with their collective knickers in a knot over the Shrimp industry. That's a federally regulated industry, and since that's the case, they're limited by the federal government extensively. In exchange for that, and the fees and taxes they pay on their catch, they ask for and receive federal funding to enhance their regulated business. Really, I shouldn't have to lead you folks by the hand through this, aren't we all adults here?

Those are Constitutional requirements, and no, they're not in the Commerce Clause. The House of Representatives sets the rules under which all Congressmen must function. When you're elected you must live with those, or attempt to convince the others to vote to change the rules.

Now, do a little research and find out for yourself.

 

[buzz_knox]

You can petition, but your representative does not have to present said petition to anyone else. He weighs it against the other petitions he receives and his own determination of what is required, and acts accordingly. That may include sending a polite "I'm not going to do as you ask" letter. That's allowed under the Constitution, and is an inherent part of the representative gov't we have.

That's a federally regulated industry, and since that's the case, they're limited by the federal government extensively. In exchange for that, and the fees and taxes they pay on their catch, they ask for and receive federal funding to enhance their regulated business.

Is firearms manufacture not an industry extensively regulated by the federal gov't? Are we to assume that not a single one of his constituents (let alone manufacturers) asked him to vote in favor of firearms manufacturers' protection (which is Constitutional)?

Now, do a little research and find out for yourself.

I did. That's why I've become less enamored with the rhetoric surrounding Ron Paul as time's gone on.

By the way, can anyone explain why Ron Paul voted in 2004 to curb frivilous lawsuits against businesses and doctors, but voted against such a bill in 2006 when it came to firearms manufacturers?

 

[Thumper]

Messianic...Buzz, thanks. That word captures the flavor perfectly.

It's interesting that some have a predilection for this kind of thing.

I've voted, and even campaigned, in every election I've been eligible, but I've never felt this kind of worship for a candidate.

I can't quantify this at all, of course, but I'd be willing to bet that a sizeable portion of Dr. Paul's most fervid supporters are former Howard Dean accolytes.

 

[buzz_knox]

I've voted, and even campaigned, in every election I've been eligible, but I've never felt this kind of worship for a candidate.

I have.

Clinton in '98 ("he didn't have sex with that woman and if he did. So what? For what he's done for women, every woman owes him a hummer." Paraphrased from a statement by the then president of NOW)

Kerry in '04 ("he voted to ban guns but he's really one of us, and he's better and smarter than Bush, even if his grades were worse than Bush's." Paraphrased statement made by Kerry supporters on every gun board, including this one)

Gore in '06 ("only he can save the environment, so he deserves to use 11 megawatts for his mansion and fly around in his personal jet." Paraphrased statement made on this very board by Gore supporters).

 

[Pat H]

Let's focus, shall we. The conclusion, as far as I'm concerned, is that Congressman Paul acted to represent his constituents and nothing else. Anyone wishing to inject another FACT in support of the opposite conclusion, please post it.

Character assassination of those supporting Ron Paul is NOT evidence in support of the initial post in this thread.

 

[nate45]

The OP said it all

Factoid

NOUN: 1. A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition.

Not one Ron Paul critic on this thread can name a single congress person with a better voting record on spending than RP.

All they know how to do is attack.

They never list any positive points about their canidate.

Whomever that may be since they never say.

 

[Justme]

Thomas Jefferson believed that the lousiana purchase was unconstitutional, and he helped write it. None the less he was at least pragmatic enough to realise that sometimes reality is more important than theory.