• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

House Says Paul Again Set to Return Thousands to Treasury

HH, you're on 'de facto ignore'. Arguing with someone so partisan in his/her beliefs is senseless as you are incapable of seeing the log in your own eye.
 
HereticHulk said:
I don't see "not a hypocrite" in any of his platform. FAIL!
Click to expand...

omg, it amazes me that you can figure out how to eat and breathe. Did the word "basically" miss you? This is like Hillary calling Obama for flip flopping on things he said when he was 5. It was a generalization, yes, I know that exact word isn't in there. That would be obvious to someone with a 3rd grade reading level.

So how is he a hypocrite? Exactly.
Click to expand...

I explained that already, but I'm not suprised when delusional nits act like delusional nits.
 
HereticHulk said:
And the WSJ gets it wrong.
Source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/482/earmark-victory-may-be-a-hollow-one/
Click to expand...

How did the WSJ get it wrong? I'd like to know more on Paul's defense, more specifically proof that funding for earmarks is pre-allocated in the budget. The picture he paints is that there are [x] number of dollars for earmarks in the budget, congressmen vie for them and it's his responsibility to bring home a piece of the action. That's not at all how it works. I understand that regardless of how much is spent on earmarks and how the funding for them is allocated, realistically Paul has to request some for his district. What you're not understanding is Paul's methodology that allows him to receive his earmarks while still keeping his holy anti-waste voting record intact. Simply put, a hypocritical method of polishing rhetoric.

On top of that Paul has been against efforts to mandate transparency in the earmark process because he believes doing so only solidifies the practice and gives an illusion of reducing incredible waste such as Ted Stevens' infamous bridge to nowhere. So, on one hand he says the practice cannot be stopped unless we make him President while on the other he says reasonable and expedient efforts to make the public aware of what's going on is futile, even negative. A regular hero I'd say.
 
ZenFountain said:
How did the WSJ get it wrong? I'd like to know more on Paul's defense, more specifically proof that funding for earmarks is pre-allocated in the budget. The picture he paints is that there are [x] number of dollars for earmarks in the budget, congressmen vie for them and it's his responsibility to bring home a piece of the action. That's not at all how it works. I understand that regardless of how much is spent on earmarks and how the funding for them is allocated, realistically Paul has to request some for his district. What you're not understanding is Paul's methodology that allows him to receive his earmarks while still keeping his holy anti-waste voting record intact. Simply put, a hypocritical method of polishing rhetoric.

On top of that Paul has been against efforts to mandate transparency in the earmark process because he believes doing so only solidifies the practice and gives an illusion of reducing incredible waste such as Ted Stevens' infamous bridge to nowhere. So, on one hand he says the practice cannot be stopped unless we make him President while on the other he says reasonable and expedient efforts to make the public aware of what's going on is futile, even negative. A regular hero I'd say.
Click to expand...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=NzgwNzI2Y2RiMmYyYzZkMzRhMDFkZGE5NDI5MGU5Nzg=

Once again he is not hypocritical. This is a catch 22 situation in a flawed system. What other course action would there be?

Do you have any sources for your assertions in your second paragraph?
 
Last edited:
HereticHulk said:
Check post #38

Still waiting for a valid account of hypocrisy attributed to RP that is not based on a flawed system of earmarks.
Click to expand...

I was responding to post #38, that quesiton was not answered in that post. You simply stated that he was obligated to do one and not the other. You didn't explain why. Jesus flying carpender christ.
 
HereticHulk said:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=NzgwNzI2Y2RiMmYyYzZkMzRhMDFkZGE5NDI5MGU5Nzg=

Once again he is not hypocritical. This is a catch 22 situation in a flawed system. What other course action would there be?

Do you have any sources for your assertions in your second paragraph?
Click to expand...

Any other course of action, pretty well....? Like, put in earmarks, but also vote for them, or don't put in earmarks and don't vote for them. The alternative is what is known as "being an insane lying douchebag"
 
HereticHulk said:
Once again he is not hypocritical. This is a catch 22 situation in a flawed system. What other course action would there be?
Click to expand...

I conceded that earmarks were a catch-22 for Paul, but let's not go too far with that argument. Most congressmen do request earmarks, and rightfully so since it's their constituent's tax dollars, but not all do. My representative, Lee Terry did not request any earmarks for fiscal year 2008. Regardless I was being critical of Paul's intentional practice of putting his earmarks in safe bills that he can vote against so when he gives speeches at the Taft Club, Mises Institute, Liberty League, etc. he can half-truthfully say that he's never voted for waste. The key is the rhetoric of voting record which means quite a bit on the stump when you're addressing people who don't know the full picture. It's a case of having your cake and eating it too, his district eats the cake while he keeps his voting record.

Do you have any sources for your assertions in your second paragraph?
Click to expand...

Why, I most certainly do! You posted the sources rebutting me in post #38. Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One was written by Paul in light of the victory Republican lawmakers supposedly had in forcing Democrats make good on their promise to give greater transparency to the earmark process, which in of itself is a topic. Paul's letter warns that greater transparency may actually be an enabler of complicity with earmark waste. However, I mistaken about him being outright against it as I just looked up how he voted on it so I apologize for that.
 
HereticHulk said:
And the WSJ gets it wrong.
Source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/482/earmark-victory-may-be-a-hollow-one/



Paul may be personally against earmarks, but as a congressman (elected by the people of a district) he is obligated to listen to and serve the needs and wants of the people in his district.

If his people want the earmarks, he will have to put them in. That doesn't mean he has to vote for them - and he doesn't.

If the earmarks are passed and his district gets what they want, he has little choice but to deliver the money to those earmarked causes. He may not like it, but that's his job.

I see nothing hypocritical about this. How many of us have to do things that our job requires that we don't like to do or even agree with personally?

He is not creating new programs and new spending. He is asking that the taxpayer's money be put towards taxpayers in his district. He doesn't benefit.

The system is flawed. How is RP dishonest?
Click to expand...


You seriously don't understand how earmarking your own bill, and then voting against it is dishonest?
 
HereticHulk said:
Check post #38

Still waiting for a valid account of hypocrisy attributed to RP that is not based on a flawed system of earmarks.
Click to expand...

Great Flying Spaghetti Monster,you really do not get the idea that somebody who screams about how bad and corrupt a system is but takes advantage of it is a hypocrite.
I take back what I said about Heretic Hulk being as dumb as the Jolly Green One himself. He is considerably dumber.
I wonder if his worship for Ron Paul would be lessened if he knew that Paul,for all his looniness,rejecte the 9/11 Conspriacy theories in which HH so passionatley beleives.
 
CaptainManacles said:
Any other course of action, pretty well....? Like, put in earmarks, but also vote for them, or don't put in earmarks and don't vote for them. The alternative is what is known as "being an insane lying douchebag"
Click to expand...

So a man of principle (obeying the Constitution) is a douchebag in your world? So be it!
 
ZenFountain said:
I conceded that earmarks were a catch-22 for Paul, but let's not go too far with that argument. Most congressmen do request earmarks, and rightfully so since it's their constituent's tax dollars, but not all do. My representative, Lee Terry did not request any earmarks for fiscal year 2008. Regardless I was being critical of Paul's intentional practice of putting his earmarks in safe bills that he can vote against so when he gives speeches at the Taft Club, Mises Institute, Liberty League, etc. he can half-truthfully say that he's never voted for waste. The key is the rhetoric of voting record which means quite a bit on the stump when you're addressing people who don't know the full picture. It's a case of having your cake and eating it too, his district eats the cake while he keeps his voting record.



Why, I most certainly do! You posted the sources rebutting me in post #38. Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One was written by Paul in light of the victory Republican lawmakers supposedly had in forcing Democrats make good on their promise to give greater transparency to the earmark process, which in of itself is a topic. Paul's letter warns that greater transparency may actually be an enabler of complicity with earmark waste. However, I mistaken about him being outright against it as I just looked up how he voted on it so I apologize for that.
Click to expand...

Right. and if he didn't earmark the $$$ already allocated to be spent, it would not go to his district. He votes against because the bill may go against his principles. The money is going to be spent or wasted either way. His vote is meaningless and he knows it. His vote is based on principle. No hypocrisy, no insanity, its a principle based gesture. Which is a lot more then I can say for any other of the a$$ hats (bar Kucinich) that are running thus far.
 
Last edited:
One would think the Gamma Rays would be wearing off,and Heretic Hulk would become a normal human again instead of the loon he now is....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom