i think the pdf is being accessed by too many people, I got it other day but can't now. Its amazing, just a paragraph requesting earmarks for x, on congressman's letterhead......pretty easy to suck off the federal tit
it seems as if Paul votes against budgets that have his pork in them, best of both worlds. This way he keeps his talking points and gets to eat pork at same time since he knows the bills will pass. "do as I say, not as I do", similar to the liberal political M.O.
Upon further review, and a PDF that actually opened for once, the earmarks are indeed his... HOWEVER... he also voted against every single one of them when it came budget approval time. So while he may be guilty of being a **** tease with his constituents .... he's not guilty of pork spending.
its a pathetic excuse for an excuse though, Paul knows the budgets are going to pass and the votes needed are there so he votes against them to keep his political talking points in line, and get the pork at the same time. Best of both worlds, his supporters who believe his talking points remain happy, his constituents and $ backers get pork in their districts. Far from principled, 'fiscal hawk'........hypocrite
its just like Ralph Nader who publicly targets Microsoft while holding stock in Netscape or whichever company it was that was benefiting from it and not disclosing, all the while clueless green party supporters never know the truth. The Kennedy's do this, most of the targets on oil companies are done by people with lots of stock in oil and benefit from halting new drilling, effecting supply/demand.......Michael Moore is probably the biggest hypocrite in this regard being a holder of Haliburton stock, healthcare stocks to name a couple..
logically, if he truly believed everything he says he wouldn't be putting pork in the Federal Budget, he wouldn't put any then vote No on the budget. Its just like the bs/lying about Iran, 9/11, etc.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2007 08:30 PM by GGniner.)
GGniner Wrote:its a pathetic excuse for an excuse though, Paul knows the budgets are going to pass and the votes needed are there so he votes against them to keep his political talking points in line, and get the pork at the same time. Best of both worlds, his supporters who believe his talking points remain happy, his constituents and $ backers get pork in their districts. Far from principled, 'fiscal hawk'........hypocrite
I would still be terribly interested to see how his career fiscal record stacks up against other people in Congress. I would not be stunned if it were -- at worst -- in the bottom 5% for pork spending.
Quote:"Under the United States Constitution, there are only three federal crimes: piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. All other criminal matters are left to the individual states. Any federal legislation dealing with criminal matters not related to these three issues usurps state authority over criminal law and takes a step toward turning the states into mere administrative units of the federal government."
this guy is a lot like some bible fundamentalist.........someone should highlight Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, history of the laws the Founding Fathers passed with their congress, a book on common sense and a dictionary with the definition of the word "intent" highlighted, and send to "Dr. Paul"...
/straight talk
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2007 12:28 AM by GGniner.)
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
How does his words contradict Article I, section 8? I'll also post the tenth Amendment (Its good to read from time to time):
Quote:The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2007 12:39 AM by JxGx78.)
this guy is a lot like some bible fundamentalist.........someone should highlight Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, history of the laws the Founding Fathers passed with their congress, a book on common sense and a dictionary with the definition of the word "intent" highlighted, and send to "Dr. Paul"...
/straight talk
[/quote]
After re-reading that article in the constitution I was re-assurred that Mr. Paul was correct in his comments. You seem to be posting references that need to be read through, and inferring very stongly, they reveal something a certain position. When read, the referencs actually reveal some quite different.
you have to look at the way the founders conceived the constitution when framing it, their true Intent........Paul says the only Federal crimes can be piracy, treason and counterfeiting, with all other criminal matters left to the states. Just look at the Federal laws passed by the First, Second, Third, etc. Congress's..... which made a host of things Federal crimes outside what Paul list; things like the Judiciary Act setting up the District courts, interfering with Federal officer, illegal to take up arms against Govt. which is punishable by death., and these Congress's included many founders who wrote the Constitution and the laws were signed by George Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Monroe, etc.
this is a key part:
Quote:To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
known as the 'necessary and proper' clause....one of the parts open to interpretation.
its not wise to treat each little word in the constitution as literal and holy words as Ron Paul does.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2007 06:40 PM by GGniner.)
The problem with that point of view is the Constitution is a living document and the law. In Federalist Paper #45 Madison claimed the "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." It is the complete opposite today. Unlike the Bible the Constitution can be changed through an Amendment process. This should be the mechanism used to expanded the powers of the federal government, not making the Constitution a hollow document be reading into it.
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2007 08:28 PM by JxGx78.)
JxGx78 Wrote:The problem with that point of view is the Constitution is a living document and the law. In Federalist Paper #45 Madison claimed the "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." It is the complete opposite today. Unlike the Bible the Constitution can be changed through an Amendment process. This should be the mechanism used to expanded the powers of the federal government, not making the Constitution a hollow document be reading into it.
thats true, the Federal govt. is definitely bigger than it was meant to be. the outcome of Civil War paved the way for it. The point is Paul has a simpleton view of it, ignoring the founders actual intent for his very extreme reading. A simple look at the laws the Founders passed in the first several congress' display that fact. Obviously the world was a very different place back then, and luckily they made the Constitution vague on war stuff(likely knowing this), "Provide for the common defense" and all the Article II stuff.
with the Bible, many interpret the bible in very different ways. the liberal theology looks at it almost exclusively as 'metaphors', ignore most of it and try to bend it to be at one with the modern world. More conservative/constructionist views of it are that the Bible is Infallible and the inherent word of God, but the importance is knowing the difference between the passages that are literal and the one's that are clearly metaphors, etc, and placed in Context. With true, hardcore Fundamentalist, they take every single word literally without taking anything into context....much like the Ron Paul types with their 'holy words'. So he sees ONLY 3 federal crimes, something the Founders themselves did not even see.
the guy is not electable for multiple reason's, as third party he could get hillary elected though and be another perot. There are multiple things that make him probably the most unelectable candidate in the race, outside Gravel. one example is how the Dems scare the elderly by telling them Repubs. want to take away their SS, Medicare, etc., with Paul it will make driving that point home all the easier. and Old People vote.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2007 09:20 AM by GGniner.)
Congress votes to Cut the Federal Budget by $40 Billion dollars:
Feb 1, 2006: Bill: H RES 653
this was last year, the bill passed 216 to 214. All 216 votes were Republicans.
Why surely Ron Paul, 'fiscal hawk', would vote Yes as well given the opportunity to cut the budget and all that pork by $50 Billion dollars, better than nothing afterall.
216 - Republicans vote Yes, cut spending
214 - (200 Democrats, 13 - 'Republicans'/RINO's and 1 - Indpendent) vote not to decrease Federal Budget.
GGniner Wrote:Congress votes to Cut the Federal Budget by $40 Billion dollars:
Feb 1, 2006: Bill: H RES 653
this was last year, the bill passed 216 to 214. All 216 votes were Republicans.
Why surely Ron Paul, 'fiscal hawk', would vote Yes as well given the opportunity to cut the budget and all that pork by $50 Billion dollars, better than nothing afterall.
216 - Republicans vote Yes, cut spending
214 - (200 Democrats, 13 - 'Republicans'/RINO's and 1 - Indpendent) vote not to decrease Federal Budget.
Is this the best you can come up with? Ron has stated more times than one can shake a stick at that you can't cut ANYTHING until you change your philosophy about what government ought to do for you. Keeping government services as-is and radically cutting budgets does nothing but further bankrupt our nation. Budgets cuts should come -- absolutely -- but NOT until we cut government services. We're hurting enough and plummeting into debt fast enough without morons adding another 50 billion to the problem. kthnxbye.
First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
- Ghandi
It seems Ron Paul has moved into Stage 3.
He even mentioned this at his rally in Iowa -- held NEXT DOOR to the forum for 6 other GOP candidates. This forum was held by the Iowa Chrisitan Alliance and Iowans for Tax Relief. They excluded and Paul and could not explain why they did. So Paul's rally next door had DOUBLE the attendance of the forum with 6 other candidates! Anyway ... a clip of Paul talking about Ghandi's four steps.... pardons to the asshat with the camera having crappy audio position / equipment.
and Ghandi is exactly the type of fool he is, Gandi would not fight Nazi's and said his people should become nazi's instead of fight them. Oh the irony and modern day parrallels.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2007 08:52 PM by GGniner.)
GGniner Wrote:and Ghandi is exactly the type of fool he is, Gandi would not fight Nazi's and said his people should become nazi's instead of fight them. Oh the irony and modern day parrallels.
GGniner Wrote:bottom line, Ron Paul loves pork and votes against budget cuts as seen above.
Heaven FORBID somebody vote with a brain. I wonder how many CEOs stick around cutting budgets to nothing and expecting the same result.... What you assert could not be further from the truth.
GGniner Wrote:he deserves more scrutiny for this, because of his baloney talking points on the matter his Randian followers eat up.
Everything you have brought up has been smacked down. Worst still -- anything you DO bring up ... everybody else in the field is 10 times worse!
GGniner Wrote:world events each day showcase just how big a dim bulb the guy is. "Iran is no threat"
Do we really have to go here again? Let's try again:
- No air force
- No real navy
- Israel will handle them first
You apparently live in a world of entirely black and white. There's a helluva lot more gray out there you're choosing to ignore.
GGniner Wrote:and Ghandi is exactly the type of fool he is, Gandi would not fight Nazi's and said his people should become nazi's instead of fight them. Oh the irony and modern day parrallels.
You pick and choose like a pro. Every revolution has followed those four steps. So the best you can do to shoot that down is to point to something TOTALLY UNRELATED that Ghandi was wrong about. And he was wrong about a number of things, and certainly was ... shall we say ... crude socially.
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:- No air force
- No real navy
- Israel will handle them first
this is why Ron Paul and you are such a joke, I've already proven to you they do have an Air Force, a large one and you simply refuse to beleive FACTS. Ostriches
then the small fact of fighting via proxy, ie terrorist groups they gave birth too!!!![/quote]
and maybe you missed it but they are supporting and funding the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, sending troops into Iraq to fight in addition to what they did to the British with their Navy a few months back.
this is Pauls budget philosophy, money for the following:
Quote: * antibiotic testing of seafood in his hometown.
* “personalized medicine in asthma” for the “disadvantaged” of his hometown.
* shore protection measures for his home county.
* cancer center expansion at his county hospital.
* a Cedar bayou created in his home county.
* the “operation” of a dozen other bayous, swamps, lakes, creeks and waterways in his constituency.
* converting a clipper ship to a classroom for his hometown university.
* building new jetties on his local river.
* a shipping channel between his hometown and Corpus Christi Texas.
* “transportation enhancements” for a local theater.
* buying new buses (local and “regional”) for his hometown.
* a replacement rail bridge in his hometown.
* new trolleys in his hometown.
* funding a scholarship in the name of a tax-exempt religious entity.
* “vanadium safety readiness” training for a private research facility in his hometown.
* distance education courses offered through his local university.
* research into shrimp fishing in his hometown.
* marketing of “Wild American Shrimp”
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2007 09:09 PM by GGniner.)
