When RON PAUL is president you'll all be sorry you made fun of him.

He'll make me the Secretary of Labor for my unflagging support.

eddyatwork: When RON PAUL is president you'll all be sorry you made fun of him.

He'll make me the Secretary of Labor for my unflagging support.

FTFM

How much is that in silver dimes?

cannibalparrot: How much is that in silver dimes?

Not sure. You have to convert the dollars to bank script and THEN silver dimes, unless you want to barter for chickens.

GAT_00: Is this before or after he touts the giant amounts of pork he's funneled to his district by railing against earmarks and attaching them to everything that moves so he can vote against them?

He didn't rally against earmarks, he actually supports them because with earmarks Congress has control over where the money is going; if they aren't earmarked the money is left for the President to decide on the budget. Paul thinks that whatever money is taken away from the President to control is a good thing.

I don't agree with Paul on that one but I respect his viewpoint.

With that being said, I am glad to see Paul actually *using* his campaign donations for actual campaigning, unlike last time. The more sway he takes away from Romney, Cain and Perry, the better.

Deftoons: He didn't rally against earmarks, he actually supports them

Then why not vote yes and stand by his beliefs?

MR. RUSSERT: When I looked at your record, you talked about big government and how opposed you are to it, but you seem to have a different attitude about your own congressional district. For example, "Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted. `Is bailing out people" that choose--"that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?' he asks." And you said no. And yet, this: "Paul's current district, which includes Galveston and reaches into" the "Brazoria County, draws a substantial amount of federal flood insurance payments." For your own congressional district. This is the Houston Chronicle: "Representative Ron Paul has long crusaded against a big central government. But he also" "represented a congressional district that's consistently among the top in Texas in its reliance on dollars from Washington. In the first nine months of the federal government's" fiscal "2006 fiscal year," "it received more than $4 billion." And they report, The Wall Street Journal, 65 earmark-targeted projects, $400 million that you have put into congressional bills for your district, which leads us to the Congressional Quarterly. "The Earmark Dossier of `Dr. No.' There isn't much that" Ron--Dr. "Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do. Apparently, though, earmarks" for his district "are OK. Paul is the sponsor of no fewer than 10 earmarks in the water resources bill," all benefiting his district. The Gulf Intercoastal Waterway: $32 million. The sunken ship you want to be moved from Freeport Harbor. The Bayou Navigation Channel. They talk about $8 million for shrimp fishermen.
Advertise | AdChoices

REP. PAUL: You, you know...

MR. RUSSERT: Why, why would you load up...

REP. PAUL: You got it completely wrong. I've never voted for an earmark in my life.

Also...

MR. RUSSERT: But if you believe in the philosophy of term limits, why wouldn't you voluntarily...

REP. PAUL: Well, it's, it's one of those, it's one of those things that's not on--I mean, you don't see that out I'm campaigning on that. I mean, I don't think it's--I don't think it's the solution. Philosophy is the solution. What the role of government ought to be, so if you have a turnover and the same people come in and they believe in big government, nothing good is going to come of it.

When Ron Paul was campaigning on term limits, it was only for the sake of getting rid of the people he disagreed with. Otherwise, he doesn't support them. So you see, he's not a hypocrite.

Ron Paul is a nut and anyone who supports him is an idiot.

schrodinger: Deftoons: He didn't rally against earmarks, he actually supports them

Then why not vote yes and stand by his beliefs?

Because ultimately he doesn't want to see the money spent by taxpayers, so what he's doing is finding the next best thing to keep that money being in control of one person - the President - (earmarks at least need approval through committee). As I said, I don't agree with his approach, but I at least see where he's coming from and understand it.

Term limits? Nice non-sequitur there, TrollDinger. Your Anti-Ron-Paul Fark PR Machine is a slow, repetitious wheel that needs waxing with real-life socializing.

Deftoons: Because ultimately he doesn't want to see the money spent by taxpayers

REP. PAUL: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back.

According to Ron Paul, he's simply making sure that the tax payers get their money back (which isn't even true, because we're operating under a deficit, so they're getting back more than they actually paid for.

If Ron Paul honestly believes that, then why not vote on his own earmarks?

Term limits? Nice non-sequitur there, TrollDinger.

I cited it because it came next in the same interview. I'm sorry you find Ron Paul's own words so indefensible.

Yes, because what America needs right now is a neo-confederate isolationist with Christian fundamentalist leanings.

Idiots.

subtard tries too hard

schrodinger: According to Ron Paul, he's simply making sure that the tax payers get their money back (which isn't even true, because we're operating under a deficit, so they're getting back more than they actually paid for.

Ahem.

Watch the whole speech he gives on the Congressional floor per my video link, in full please. Again, I don't necessarily agree with him here, but despite me disagreeing with him I can't demonize him on it because he at least has some ethos behind it.

Earmarks count for a very small percentage of the budget in full. Not even a couple percent.

schrodinger: If Ron Paul honestly believes that, then why not vote on his own earmarks?

He would rather not have it spent at all, but his rhetoric regarding earmarks is, to him, a way of saving face. If he can't stop it from being spent, he can at least take some money away from the White House's authority on it.

schrodinger: II cited it because it came next in the same interview.

Yeah, that's why you had to continue on commenting about it after your quote. I'm sure that was all just an afterthought. Amusing attempt at backpedaling there.

REP. PAUL: You got it completely wrong. I've never voted for an earmark in my life.

Please answer that. If Ron Paul is in favor of earmarks, if he thinks we need more earmarks, then why does he try to take credit for not voting for them?

He would rather not have it spent at all

Except you he just said in the video that voting against earmarks doesn't save any money.

Deftoons: Term limits? Nice non-sequitur there, TrollDinger. Your Anti-Ron-Paul Fark PR Machine is a slow, repetitious wheel that needs waxing with real-life socializing.

Allow me to try:

Ron Paul is unelectable (and no sane person would elect him) due to the following three reasons.

1) Dishonesty, as documented in this thread.
2) Gold standard. ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
3) "We the people act". Enjoy the constitution becoming meaningless.

Either one of these alone are bad, but all three put together? No thanks. I'd rather elect Bush to a third term.

Deftoons: Yeah, that's why you had to continue on commenting about it after your quote. I'm sure that was all just an afterthought. Amusing attempt at backpedaling there.

I'm point to general examples of Ron Paul being two-faced.

Here's another: "He has never voted to raise taxes. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget."

I'm sorry, but that's incredibly dishonest. You can't say that you're against balanced budgets just because you refuse to send a check to your creditors. By refusing to send in a check, you're actually making things worse.

TsukasaK: 1) Dishonesty, as documented in this thread.
2) Gold standard. ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
3) "We the people act". Enjoy the constitution becoming meaningless.

Ron Paul's entire proposal is a two line bill that renders all money in the US to be legally null and void, instantly. It's funny how Paultards whine about conspiracy theories regarding slow predictable inflation that people can predict and adjust for, but have no problem with a proposal that would cause money to lose 100% of its value without warning. You wouldn't even be able to change your money to something else, because no one would accept it.

He submitted this to congress 3 times in 8 years. The last time he submitted it, the only thing he added was a bit about removing the capital gains tax on gold coins. Keep in mind that selling coin is different from selling bullion. Bullion is based on the weight of the gold itself, where as coin prices are determined by the the collector.

Ron Paul ran a coin shop for 12 years.

Hmm....

TsukasaK: Allow me to try:

Ron Paul is unelectable (and no sane person would elect him) due to the following three reasons.

1) Dishonesty, as documented in this thread.

Which was plainly debunked, that you completely ignored. Once again. see the linked video I posted. His words, his speech on the congressional floor.

schrodinger: I2) Gold standard. ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

I guess it's a good thing, then, that he's advocating competing currencies and not the actual gold standard of old. If you know what competing currencies are (assuming you did some research on the topic), you know that's not the gold standard of old. Ron thinks that with competing currencies people will eventually use gold as the most used system of exchange, but ultimately he wants a choice in currency, instead of something fiat.

Again: Do your research.

TsukasaK: "We the people act". Enjoy the constitution becoming meaningless.

Respecting the Tenth Amendment is the opposite of the Constitution being meaningless. It means respecting the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. In his speech on that act, he says: "Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws."

That can apply to all sorts of issues - marijuana legalization. The Patriot Act. Even things the Republican Congress passing laws for coercive policies forcing people INTO a religion on the government's dime (not just forcing religious people out of their beliefs, as Ron Paul originally fears). Liberals like to think the We the People act is regressive, but they so quickly forget how regressive federal laws have been on state and local authorities.

Unless you think Congress and the White House should have power over everything we do, from our personal property to the most minute/mundane moments in our lives.

schrodinger: Please answer that. If Ron Paul is in favor of earmarks, if he thinks we need more earmarks, then why does he try to take credit for not voting for them?

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines RON PAUL To Believe.

Deftoons: I guess it's a good thing, then, that he's advocating competing currencies and not the actual gold standard of old. If you know what competing currencies are (assuming you did some research on the topic), you know that's not the gold standard of old. Ron thinks that with competing currencies people will eventually use gold as the most used system of exchange, but ultimately he wants a choice in currency, instead of something fiat.

Then there already ARE competing currencies. Nobody is forcing you to use the US Dollar ya know. Why, you could buy gold!

The fact that the rest of the country doesn't want to deal with assessing the quality of your gold or the value of your gold coins is your problem, not theirs. You are more than welcome to immediately convert all of your cash to gold when your paycheck hits in order to prevent yourself from shiatting your pants over a fiat currency. There is no defense of his stance on our monetary system. None whatsoever.

As for the we the people bullshiat, nothing respects the constitution more than taking a big shiat on checks and balances, right? Of course, in this day and age I find the concept that we should try to stick as perfectly close to the original constitution to be as silly as calling for a return to the articles of confederation. The founding fathers themselves didn't think the constitution would last without changes or a rewrite, and I highly doubt they'd have a problem with various state powers being ceded to a federal government given the technology we have today. To say nothing of the low-hanging fruit like how they allowed slavery and women couldn't vote. They were great men in their time, but they weren't gods, and they couldn't have foreseen everything this country would face over hundreds of years.

Just take the 2nd amendment. Even if you interpret that to mean individuals keeping guns for funsies and not militias having an armory, do you think they meant for us all to have a 50 cal? It doesn't say small arms, so it must mean ALL arms right? 50 cals, fully automatic shotguns, rocket launchers, they should all be legal. When personal tanks are criminalized, only criminals will have their own personal tank.

If you mind the hyperbole, just remember you said this
Deftoons: Unless you think Congress and the White House should have power over everything we do, from our personal property to the most minute/mundane moments in our lives

And thats just the kind of nonsense RP would spout while telling me about how the FDA or EPA is interfering with our personal property rights and freedoms by ordering that coal company not to dump its waste in the river upstream from my house. And of course, if its dumping upriver in another state, I'm probably shiat out of luck if that state made it legal for them to do so.

Ron Paul believes in the invisible hand, he was gynecologist. He said something else about the other candidates being pussies but I can't quite finger it...

cannibalparrot: How much is that in silver dimes?

"A whole shiatload"

Deftoons: Which was plainly debunked, that you completely ignored. Once again. see the linked video I posted. His words, his speech on the congressional floor.

Ron Paul loves earmarks in Congress and says that voting against them doesn't save money, and then he tells the regular people that he's never voted for an earmark because he wants to save money. Hmmm...

I guess it's a good thing, then, that he's advocating competing currencies and not the actual gold standard of old. If you know what competing currencies are (assuming you did some research on the topic), you know that's not the gold standard of old.

Ron Paul wants to make it so that gold is the only valid form of legal tender, but somehow that's not the same thing as a gold standard.

It's amazing how often Paultards repeat this lie without thinking it through.

It's like saying, "I'm not saying that this club should be whites only, I'm just saying that only white people should be allowed inside. But if black people want to start there own competing club, that's fine."

What does "competing currency" even mean? Oh, basically it means that people can still barter with things that aren't recognized as legal tender. How is that any different from what we have right now? For instance, if the grocery store is willing to accept Kool-Aid points as payment, is there any law preventing me from paying in Kool-Aid points? Nope. Ron Paul's proposal doesn't introduce competing currencies, because we already have that. The only thing Ron Paul's proposal does is force us to use gold for legal tender.

Please explain to us how forcing people to use gold if they want legal tender is any different from a gold standard?

Ron thinks that with competing currencies people will eventually use gold as the most used system of exchange, but ultimately he wants a choice in currency, instead of something fiat.

I want to order a pizza, and I have $10,000 in my bank account. However, Ron Paul's proposal repealed all the legal tender laws rendered all my money to be legally worthless in an instant. The pizza place no longer has any reason to accept my cash.

Question: How exactly did Ron Paul increase my choices in currency? What choices do I now have that I didn't have before? Because it looks like the only thing Ron Paul did was made it so I can't even order a pizza.

Respecting the Tenth Amendment is the opposite of the Constitution being meaningless.

The tenth amendment doesn't override the first. In fact, the tenth amendment specifically has no jurisdiction over anything that has already been mentioned elsewhere in the constitution.

Smackledorfer: And thats just the kind of nonsense RP would spout while telling me about how the FDA or EPA is interfering with our personal property rights and freedoms by ordering that coal company not to dump its waste in the river upstream from my house. And of course, if its dumping upriver in another state, I'm probably shiat out of luck if that state made it legal for them to do so.

According to Son Paul, the Federal Government shouldn't be allowed to make a law against people blinding airplane pilots with lasers, because airplanes flying from state to state somehow don't quality as interstate commerce.

Smackledorfer: The fact that the rest of the country doesn't want to deal with assessing the quality of your gold or the value of your gold coins is your problem, not theirs. You are more than welcome to immediately convert all of your cash to gold when your paycheck hits in order to prevent yourself from shiatting your pants over a fiat currency. There is no defense of his stance on our monetary system. None whatsoever.

Paultards are angry that their bosses have the power to pay them in normal money and not gold, because normal money is legal tender and therefore binding.

They imagine that if legal tender laws didn't exist, they could simply demand to be paid in gold, and their bosses would oblige. And not company scrip, which was the far more likely outcome when the gold standard was still in play. "But no job would pay me in scrip!" they insist, "Because I would refuse to the job!" Completely ignoring the fact that we have 9% unemployment, and if you won't take the job, the boss will have no trouble finding someone who will.

What if you have leverage, and your company can't function without you? Well, if that were the case, you could demand to be paid in gold right now. After all, if Steve Jobs could be paid with a company jet, then other employees can be paid in gold.

Here's another option: Accept cash, and then use that cash to buy gold.

Why does Ron Paul continually ask his supporters for money that he says is "counterfeit?"

Small boost to the economy?

TheMadChaosopher:

Never go full retard.

ZeroCorpse: Yes, because what America needs right now is a neo-confederate isolationist with Christian fundamentalist leanings.

Idiots.

Before calling somebody a idiot, learn what the word neo-confederate means. Ron Paul was born and raised in Pennsylvania...

EWreckedSean: Before calling somebody a idiot, learn what the word neo-confederate means.

ITT: EWreckedSean doesn't know what capital letters mean.

schrodinger: REP. PAUL: You got it completely wrong. I've never voted for an earmark in my life.

Please answer that. If Ron Paul is in favor of earmarks, if he thinks we need more earmarks, then why does he try to take credit for not voting for them?

He would rather not have it spent at all

Except you he just said in the video that voting against earmarks doesn't save any money.

Where's your cat?

You know, for a man who claims that dollars are completely worthless, he sure does ask for a lot of them.

I'm beginning to think that our country now has an election-based economy.

Smackledorfer: Nobody is forcing you to use the US Dollar ya know.

You have to accept them according to legal tender laws.

Deftoons: Which was plainly debunked, that you completely ignored. Once again. see the linked video I posted. His words, his speech on the congressional floor.

Just watched it, fair enough.

Deftoons: I guess it's a good thing, then, that he's advocating competing currencies and not the actual gold standard of old. If you know what competing currencies are (assuming you did some research on the topic), you know that's not the gold standard of old. Ron thinks that with competing currencies people will eventually use gold as the most used system of exchange, but ultimately he wants a choice in currency, instead of something fiat.

RP should be able to articulate why his system should replace that which already exists. Keep in mind, any change to the US economic system will have global impact. He has not done that yet, beyond some not-expanded-on references to inflation.

Deftoons: Respecting the Tenth Amendment is the opposite of the Constitution being meaningless. It means respecting the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. In his speech on that act, he says: "Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws."

When it comes to cases on abortion, same-sex unions, sexual practices, and establishment of religion, unless such a case were a challenge to the Constitutionality of federal law. Makes federal court decisions on those subjects nonbinding as precedent in state courts, and forbids federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments., the federal government can run roughshod over local tinpot dictatorships who want to disregard the constitution all the wish, IMNSHO.

His reasons for the bill are irrelevant - the effects matter. This bill would allow individual states to completely ignore the constitution. No bueno.

cbackous: 3. rocket launchers and tanks are not "arms" in the meaning of the word

What?

jigger: You have to accept them according to legal tender laws.

That's not what that law means. An offer to sell something at a given price is not a "debt" - if you want to open a store that only accepts payment in shrubberies, you can.

cbackous: Smackledorfer: Just take the 2nd amendment. Even if you interpret that to mean individuals keeping guns for funsies and not militias having an armory, do you think they meant for us all to have a 50 cal? It doesn't say small arms, so it must mean ALL arms right? 50 cals, fully automatic shotguns, rocket launchers, they should all be legal. When personal tanks are criminalized, only criminals will have their own personal tank.

1. you clearly dont understand the 2nd amendment
2. The supreme court has already said it's an individual right
3. rocket launchers and tanks are not "arms" in the meaning of the word

1/2. What I understand of the second amendment is that it means what the courts have upheld it to mean. Which was my entire point regarding the "we the people act" and the concept that legislature could ignore the court.

3. Well, according to you, sure. But when the so-called strict constitutionalists out there blabbing about states rights and god's know what else start running their mouth they redefine everything and anything and twist words to mean whatever they want it to mean, which is exactly why we let the supreme court decide these things. I've never seen a strict definition of arms that defines it to be rifles, pistols, and revolvers, all non-automatic. But thats where we are at right now. I just checked a couple different dictionaries, one even included ICBMs.

*I* would argue that the founding fathers didn't foresee the sheer destructive power of today's weapons and wouldn't want the nutty gold-bug neighbor with a bunker to have these toys, but then again, *I* am not the one arguing in favor scrapping a hundred years of this country's evolution and pretending to be a libertarian just to give states an overbearing power over people's lives.

EWreckedSean: schrodinger: REP. PAUL: You got it completely wrong. I've never voted for an earmark in my life.

Please answer that. If Ron Paul is in favor of earmarks, if he thinks we need more earmarks, then why does he try to take credit for not voting for them?

He would rather not have it spent at all

Except you he just said in the video that voting against earmarks doesn't save any money.

Where's your cat?

Where's your explanation of personal responsibility, or do you concede that hypotheticals (and the real example I gave) are too complex for you to comprehend? Abstract thought, how does it work?

In the mind of Ron Paul, voting against an unbalanced budget is more important than voting for earmarks which allocate spending more in line with the desire of his constituents. It's the same vote so it is impossible to separate the two actions.

cbackous: Smackledorfer: *I* would argue that the founding fathers didn't foresee the sheer destructive power of today's weapons and wouldn't want the nutty gold-bug neighbor with a bunker to have these toys, but then again, *I* am not the one arguing in favor scrapping a hundred years of this country's evolution and pretending to be a libertarian just to give states an overbearing power over people's lives.

Ahh, I see what you were getting at then, my bad.

Its all good.

jigger: Smackledorfer: Nobody is forcing you to use the US Dollar ya know.

You have to accept them according to legal tender laws.

You're free to accept whatever currency the buyer and seller agree to. If the buyer wants to pay you in bus tokens and you're willing to accept, then that's okay.

What's the point of repealing legal tender laws, other than to coerce the buyer to pay with a currency that he doesn't want to pay you with? Because that form of coercion will decrease my choices, rather than increasing them.

Again, let's say I'm a customer. Before, I could pay in any currency that the seller agrees to, especially legal tender. Ron Paul's proposal is to revoke the legal status of legal tender, making it literally worthless. How did Ron Paul increase my choices as a consumer? Because it looks like all he did was take my main choice away from me.

Larofeticus: In the mind of Ron Paul, voting against an unbalanced budget is more important than voting for earmarks which allocate spending more in line with the desire of his constituents. It's the same vote so it is impossible to separate the two actions.

"I never voted for an earmark, because I want to save money. Earmarks are great, and voting against them doesn't save money!"

Eat cake. Have too.

Also, if Ron Paul is against unbalanced budgets, then why vote for tax cuts when we're already in the red? And don't give me that BS about how Ron Paul wants to pressure Congress to cut spending. It's like watching a college student refuse to pay his credit card bill when he's already in the red and his bill keeps increasing, and then he insists that he's being fiscally responsible because he didn't ask the company to raise his credit limit.

Ron Paul supporter / Actual political knowledge = Guy who just watched the entire first season of Star Trek on DVD / Ability to build actual spaceship in backyard.

Paid for in gold, no doubt.