Interesting Ron Paul Factoid

[Fremmer]

So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions.

It would seem to me that a good place for RP to begin his effort to reduce the federal budget would be to forgo earmarks. Which are unconstitutional anyway, right? I didn't know that one of the fed gov's constitutional functions is to gift taxpayer money to a shrimp corporation.

It's not a matter of scandel. It's a matter of RP saying one thing while doing the opposite thing.

 

[STAGE 2]

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

Does anyone else think that these two things are incompatable? How does one complain about spending and complain that the government has grown too large and then vote for something that the federal government was never intended to do, i.e. shrimp fishing.

 

[Fremmer]

That's what I tried to say in my last post, Stage, although your post stated this more clearly.

 

[STAGE 2]

He does not encourage people not to pay taxes and you can't show me one qoute where he does.

Sure he did. In an interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News, June 26, 2007, in speaking of income tax resistance, Paul said that he "supports the right of those who engage in non-violent resistance when they feel a law is unjust". If thats not saying "I support people when they don't pay taxes" then I dont know what is.

He did not vote to subsidize shrimp, the pool of budget money was already in place he simply secured funds for his district.

So because everybody's doing it that makes it OK. Why didn't he just vote against the bill on the principle that the federal government has no business spending money on this... ya know like he's been saying all along.

Which is simply doing his job as congressional rep. and apparently in your mind somehow invalidates his whole ideology.

Yeah it pretty much does. Paul is a one issue guy. Hes a constitutionalist. He's small government. When you go on tirade after tirade about how you're the only guy who will shrink government and then vote to allocate 400 million for things not enmuerated in the constitution It makes me wonder.

If they had a vote in congress to eliminate earmarks RP would vote for it.

So what. Paul had a chance to put his mouth where the money was and vote down the bill on principle. He didn't. You justification is, "well its already there so I might as well stick my hand in the pot to". That doesn't fly with me. Everybody's doing it is a piss poor reason for anything, much less for a "principled" man.

Just face it Stage2 whats really at issue here is that you are in favor of BIG Government and centralized state control.

Ah yes. Because I question Ron Paul I'm a red diaper doper baby communist who wants nothing more than to see a cradle to the grave government where spending is out of control and personal freedoms are dead.

I congratulate you once again. You continually prove my point, and you do more to undermine Ron Paul's campaign in a single post than I could in an entire thread.

 

[nate45]

Does anyone else think that these two things are incompatable? How does one complain about spending and complain that the government has grown too large and then vote for something that the federal government was never intended to do, i.e. shrimp fishing.

Do you ever read the other posts?

Or do you just overlook the parts that don't fit your inane argument?

I'm afraid if we were discussing this in person I would probably have to tell you to do what Cheney told Leahy to do.

Or if it was the 19th century I would most likely want 10 paces out in the street.

 

[STAGE 2]

I'm afraid if we were discussing this in person I would probably have to tell you to do what Cheney told Leahy to do.

Or if it was the 19th century I would most likely want 10 paces out in the street.

Ladies and gentlement I rest my case.

Antipitas, as the starter of this thread, I'd ask you not to close this down over these comments because as juvenile as they are because I think its relevant for people to know just who is driving the Ron Paul movement.

 

[444marlin]

STAGE 2, he does vote against the bills. His argument is that since the federal government has already appropriated the money from his district, if the bill passes he has to make sure his constituents get their share back. This is logical, he protests the excessive spending by voting against the bills and if more congressmen did that it would end.

 

[Pat H]

I think its relevant for people to know just who is driving the Ron Paul movement.

He's not driving the Ron Paul movement, if there is such a thing.

Ron Paul is a presidential candidate, has a staff, and Dr. Paul is directing his campaign with his staff. I dare say it's unreasonable to imply anything about Dr. Paul as a result of the behavior of one potential voter for him, any more than it's reasonable to imply anything about this forum from the contents your post.

 

[STAGE 2]

STAGE 2, he does vote against the bills. His argument is that since the federal government has already appropriated the money from his district, if the bill passes he has to make sure his constituents get their share back. This is logical, he protests the excessive spending by voting against the bills and if more congressmen did that it would end.

You miss the point entirely. Whether or not Paul voted against the bill is irrelevant. The fact that he is requesting federal money for for something like shrimp fishing runs completely contrary to what he says he believes in.

If the government shouldn't spend money on things ouside of its constitutional scope then Paul shouldn't request funding for this even if he votes against it.

Again this mentality of "oh well I tried, so now I can stick my hand in the pot" doesn't fly. A truly principled man wouldn't allocate any of the money because 1) earmarks are nowhere in the constitution and by Pauls standards shouldn't be used 2) the federal government has no business spending money for shrimp research, and god knows what else with the other 390 million.

The proper thing for Paul to have done is to vote against the bill and then washe his hands of the whole thing. To put it another way, what Paul did is (assuming he voted against the bill) is like trying to get the local crack dealer out of your neighborhood. You try to get him to leave, but once your unsuccessful, you agree to let him sell in front of your house for a cut.

Either its right or its wrong. If in fact Paul voted against the bill I'd say thats an even bigger cut to his integrity than if he had voted for it since he's taking funds that he himself said the government has no right to spend.

 

[STAGE 2]

He's not driving the Ron Paul movement, if there is such a thing.

Ron Paul is a presidential candidate, has a staff, and Dr. Paul is directing his campaign with his staff. I dare say it's unreasonable to imply anything about Dr. Paul as a result of the behavior of one potential voter for him, any more than it's reasonable to imply anything about this forum from the contents your post.

Sure he is. Since this whole presidential thing started, all sorts of guys have been popping up here in this forum racking up hundreds of posts all about Paul, the illuminati (whatever the hell that is) and bashing all the other candidates as communists.

Seeing you've been a member here for all of 21 days and have an overwhelming majority of posts in this forum I'd be inclined to lump you in that category as well.

The point is that theres something telling about the type of people candidates attract. So far, with very limited exceptions, most of the people on the Ron Paul bandwagon are such that even if I liked him, I'd be wary to vote for him as I wouldn't want to be in the same company.

 

[Thunderhawk88]

I'm afraid if we were discussing this in person I would probably have to tell you to do what Cheney told Leahy to do.

Or if it was the 19th century I would most likely want 10 paces out in the street.

That just fits so well into how I see RP's followers!

 

[Michigander]

100 representatives have stated specifically that they will not reveal the earmarks they have requested. 300 others have "no comment."

At least Ron Paul is open about it.

 

[Pat H]

That just fits so well into how I see RP's followers!

I see one of your problems.

Ron Paul doesn't have "followers", he has supporters and advocates; most whom were involved in freedom politics long before Ron Paul declared his intention to run for president.

 

[Thumper]

Ron Paul doesn't have "followers", he has supporters and advocates; most whom were involved in freedom politics long before Ron Paul declared his intention to run for president.

Which time?

 

[STAGE 2]

Ron Paul doesn't have "followers", he has supporters and advocates; most whom were involved in freedom politics long before Ron Paul declared his intention to run for president.

So does freedom politics involve earmarks?

 

[Pat H]

So does freedom politics involve earmarks?

Asked and answered.

NEXT!

 

[Thumper]

I think the earmarks thing has been discussed to death. I really don't even have a problem with that.

My only problems with Ron Paul are that his solutions appeal primarily to the politically naive and that his running (post primary) could easily put Hillary in the White House (and give her the keys to the Patriot Act for awhile).

 

[STAGE 2]

Asked and answered.

NEXT!

Baloney. Mr. Paul take a fervent stance that mandates if it isn't in the constitution, then its not constitutional. As such, he should take no part in earmarking funds.

I've heard no answer that addresses this fundamental contradiction.

 

[Pat H]

I think the earmarks thing has been discussed to death. I really don't even have a problem with that.

Indeed!

My only problems with Ron Paul is that his solutions appeal primarily to the politically naive

You simply have no idea what level of political expertise and savvy is represented by Ron Paul supports. Personally, I've worked in campaigns and been involved politically for over 25 years, and that's with the two largest parties. My intimate knowledge of those parties is but one of the reasons I'm supporting Congressman Paul.

and that his running (post primary) could easily put Hillary in the White House (and give her the keys to the Patriot Act for awhile).

If Hillary Clinton is elected to the White House it will be because the Republicans nominated another lame candidate in the vein of Bush I or Dole. Every Republican candidate in the running today is similar and has the same chance that Bush I and Dole had; which is to say none at all, except Ron Paul If Paul faces Clinton II, he'll mop the floor with her.

None of the rest of the Republican field is capable of that.

 

[STAGE 2]

except Ron Paul If Paul faces Clinton II, he'll mop the floor with her.

If this is true then why did Paul come in dead last in the latest straw poll, and is running either dead last, or statistically insignificant in any of the reputable scientific polls.

If the man can't even win a significant portion of his own party then how is he going to beat a democrat who has he entire party unified behind her.

All of this pomp and circumstance doesn't change the core nature of an election, namely that its a numbers game.