Oops. I missed the one with the toilet.

WombatControl: He's been an elected official for 20 years, but as nuts as he is, you can't say he's not consistent. His voting record speaks for itself.

It certainly does.

"I've never voted for an earmark in my life."
-- Remark by Paul on NBC's "Meet the Press," Dec. 23, 2007

Ron Paul Earmarks, FY 2010 (new window)

Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 15 earmarks totalling $17,113,000 in fiscal year 2010 ranking 242nd out of 435 representatives.

Galveston-Houston Commuter Rail, TX $2,000,000

Clear Creek, TX Energy and Water $1,211,000

Bay Area Houston Space Alliance Technology Outreach Program (SATOP) $1,000,000

League City Park and Ride Facilities $750,000

The City of Baytown for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements $500,000

Galveston transit vehicle replacement $500,000

Flyover Connecting Highway 146 and Spur 330 $400,000

Brazosport College, Lake Jackson, TX for curriculum development $380,000

Port of Galveston Solar Energy Project $250,000

Houston-Galveston Navigation Channels $242,000

Wharton County Jr. College, Wharton, TX for curriculum development to train students for work in the nuclear power industry $220,000

Brazosport College, Galveston, TX for purchase of equipment to be used in the petrochemical and nuclear technician training programs $200,000

Emergency Operations Center, Brazoria County Emergency Management $100,000

Even if he did vote against every earmark that he sponsored, he still put them out there so they could be approved.

I'd love to hear his supporters explain "Well, he didn't vote for them! It's not his fault if Congress voted to fund the projects that he sponsored and attached to the bill."

Deftoons: Ah, The Jungle....the liberal's version of Atlas Shrugged.

This is just about the stupidest comparison I've seen on Fark in weeks, perhaps months.

The Jungle, while fictional, contained accurate descriptions of the meat packing industry at the time: "After reading The Jungle, President Roosevelt invited Sinclair to the White House to discuss it. The president then appointed a special commission to investigate Chicago's slaughterhouses. The special commission issued its report in May 1906. The report confirmed almost all the horrors that Sinclair had written about."

Atlas Shrugs, on the other hand, is just the delusional, overly repetitive ramblings of terrible writer

Mrtraveler01: rufus-t-firefly: WombatControl: Plus, Ron Paul does not strike me as the sort to take orders from anyone, no less the "GOP establishment."

He's the sort who has a sign on his desk reading "DON'T STEAL - The Government Hates Competition," but has been a part of the government for more than two decades in total.

You know - an outsider.

And he's more than happy to take federal money for different pet projects in his district too. At least McCain was true to his word with that.

The guy is a phony.

Hell, he sponsored the earmarks - the funding wouldn't have gotten there if he hadn't asked for it. I'm sure he then voted against the bills so he could continue to dupe the gullible.

rufus-t-firefly: Even if he did vote against every earmark that he sponsored, he still put them out there so they could be approved.

I'd love to hear his supporters explain "Well, he didn't vote for them! It's not his fault if Congress voted to fund the projects that he sponsored and attached to the bill."

You know Ron Paul's "audit the Fed" bill that passed? Yeah, he didn't vote for that either.

Yet for some reason, Paultards want to give him credit for his legislation he didn't vote for, but not on his earmarks he didn't vote for.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Ned Stark: I like how RON PAUL is the racist when every single other candidate is in favor of the drug war and a forigen policy that involves bombing the shiat out of swarthy places

I seriously doubt RON PAUL's objection to the drug war and foreign policy have anything to do with race. He endorsed obviously racist newsletters, and it's best that you simply deal with that. Your guy's a racist.

1) so what? I'd rather have someone who doesn't drop bombs because they don't care than someone who sends the humanitarian cruise missiles sailing off towards water treatment plants because they care so much.

2) the assertion wasn't that he wasn't a racist, it was that it was amusing that he gets spun as THE racist on a field full of people who's policies are objectively more racist.

3) while he's certainly interesting, he isn't 'my guy'

Ned Stark: 2) the assertion wasn't that he wasn't a racist, it was that it was amusing that he gets spun as THE racist on a field full of people who's policies are objectively more racist.

Because he's the only one stupid enough to have the courage of his racist convictions. Even Rick "Blah People" Santorum, who talked about Obama, the government nig, wasn't stupid enough to publish a paranoid, racist, conspiracy laden newsletter for years, or to oppose MLK B-day as a holiday, or tell the whole world that he would be OK with businesses putting up signs that say "Whites Only"

LordJiro: And the other candidates aren't in favor of the drug war and our foreign policy BECAUSE they hurt people of other races. They support them because of money and control.

There are very few laws out there that can't be applied in such a way to allow cops to be racist. For instance, are cops allowed to pull people over for minor violations? Take a wild guess on who they're more likely to target. The drug war isn't racist because it's against drugs, the drug war is racist because racist cops more likely to ignore white offenders or let white offenders off with a warning.

Ron Paul's solution for the drug war is to trust all enforcement to local police. You know how the cops in Florida have a history of being completely apathetic when black people get shot or killed, to the point where they didn't even bother checking up on the identity of a 15 unarmed black kid who had been shot to death, despite having access to his cell phone? Meanwhile, most Paul supporters insist that Trayvon Martin had it coming. Peter Schiff is perpetuating false stories that Trayvon was ghetto with gold teeth and therefore deserved to get shot (The one time I have ever seen Peter Schiff complain about people owning gold). In other words, the drug war would be just as racist under Ron Paul as it is under any other President. And Paultards are okay with that, because they don't see how racist cops are a problem.

Meanwhile, they oppose laws like the civil rights act and the voting rights act. You know, laws specifically designed to punish racism, both from businesses and from the government itself (Voting rights act tries to prevent racist voting laws.).

Recap: Ron Paul doesn't solve for racism, doesn't oppose actual racism, and actively opposes laws designed to prevent actual racism. Also, he wrote a bunch of racist newsletters.

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Deftoons: Ah, The Jungle....the liberal's version of Atlas Shrugged.

This is just about the stupidest comparison I've seen on Fark in weeks, perhaps months.

The Jungle, while fictional, contained accurate descriptions of the meat packing industry at the time: "After reading The Jungle, President Roosevelt invited Sinclair to the White House to discuss it. The president then appointed a special commission to investigate Chicago's slaughterhouses. The special commission issued its report in May 1906. The report confirmed almost all the horrors that Sinclair had written about."

Atlas Shrugs, on the other hand, is just the delusional, overly repetitive ramblings of terrible writer

Actually, that's not correct. "The Jungle" was a novel - Upton Sinclair made up a story based on allegations he had heard, but never witnessed. And yes, President Roosevelt did investigate, but the investigators had absolutely no experience in the industry, and their report was extremely shoddy -- Roosevelt himself only used them as a political tool to get his Meat Inspection Act passed. (The report was authored by two Washington bureaucrats, Neill and Reynolds.)

And that Act was a sop to the Chicago meat packers, not a punishment. They used it to freeze out smaller players on the government's dime, which is why the Chicago meat packing industry supported it so strongly. In fact, meat was regularly inspected on both the state and federal level well prior to 1906.

So yes, The Jungle and Atlas Shruggled have a lot in common. Both were works of fiction. Both were written by ideologues trying to popularize their views. Both were "inspired" in part by actual events. The only difference between the two is that The Jungle touched off a hysteria that the other did not.

This article gives a good background on The Jungle and the Meat Inspection Act.

schrodinger: rufus-t-firefly: Even if he did vote against every earmark that he sponsored, he still put them out there so they could be approved.

I'd love to hear his supporters explain "Well, he didn't vote for them! It's not his fault if Congress voted to fund the projects that he sponsored and attached to the bill."

You know Ron Paul's "audit the Fed" bill that passed? Yeah, he didn't vote for that either.

Yet for some reason, Paultards want to give him credit for his legislation he didn't vote for, but not on his earmarks he didn't vote for.

"Hey, I didn't kill anyone. I paid someone else to kill a guy."

TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

Paul fans, this is for your own good. Please don't be angry, but you need this.

SHUT THE fark UP. You are all completely disconnected with reality and your enthusiasm for your candidate is to your own detriment.

Let's play a game. Let's suppose Ron Paul is elected. Not made the nominee, but honest to goodness elected. Defeats Obama, the whole bit.

What then?

Do you think that 430+ members of the House and 100 senators are going to do one single goddamn crazy thing he says?

havocmike: Paul fans, this is for your own good. Please don't be angry, but you need this.

SHUT THE fark UP. You are all completely disconnected with reality and your enthusiasm for your candidate is to your own detriment.

Let's play a game. Let's suppose Ron Paul is elected. Not made the nominee, but honest to goodness elected. Defeats Obama, the whole bit.

What then?

Do you think that 430+ members of the House and 100 senators are going to do one single goddamn crazy thing he says?

He can't suggest legislation - the Constitution doesn't mention anything about Executives suggesting bills. He'd just sit there for four years. He'd refuse to appoint a cabinet, since that's not in the Constitution...

sprawl15: Rapmaster2000: Yeah, because Newt and Ron still have a chance. All they need is for Mitt to drop out. I can't believe the MSM mainstream media is making it look like Mitt will win.

I'm hoping for an coup. With executions and all.

The Paulistinians would probably cut their heads off, or stab them to death. With bayonets, or swords. Large swords. And probably do it after dark, because that's more dramatic. They could call their power play the Evening of the Large Swords.


/does this count as a Godwin?

schrodinger: You know Ron Paul's "audit the Fed" bill that passed? Yeah, he didn't vote for that either.

When you write a bill and get tons of sponsors and then all of a sudden the bill is watered down to ineffectiveness, then yeah, you usually vote against the new bill.

rufus-t-firefly: He'd refuse to appoint a cabinet, since that's not in the Constitution...

Yes it is.

patrick767: Deftoons
Ah, The Jungle....the liberal's version of Atlas Shrugged. No thanks to both books, I'll stick to, you know, actual history.

Really? A book that exposed the horrors of what was actually happening in the Chicago meat packing industry is just like Atlas Shrugged? You realize that the living, working, and sanitary conditions there were confirmed by other sources, right? It was an incredibly important book as it led to the government imposing much needed regulations on the meat industry. Sadly it did little to nothing for the working conditions of the laborers, which were what Sinclair really wanted to highlight.

Teddy Roosevelt thought Sinclair was a liar and sent two trusted men to investigate. Despite their president's bias against Sinclair, the men ended up appalled by the health conditions they found and supporting many of Sinclair's claims.

Equivocating such an important book with Ayn Rand's poorly written, selfishness glorifying trash tells me that you're too ignorant to thoughtfully discuss the topic.

No, no, you missed his whole point -- now he gets to feel superior to both sides.

Lando Lincoln: Well...I really don't recall a candidate having such lackluster support before. But maybe my memory is fuzzy. And don't say that Kerry was the same. Kerry had a good deal of people excited about him. Romney...no.


Maybe your being deceived?



The news black out has left his supporters with spreading word of mouth (Internet) where he will be next. Several places in California couple of weeks ago. Several in Texas last week. Next rally is Tuesday or Wednesday I think.

StokeyBob: Lando Lincoln: Well...I really don't recall a candidate having such lackluster support before. But maybe my memory is fuzzy. And don't say that Kerry was the same. Kerry had a good deal of people excited about him. Romney...no.


Maybe your being deceived?

[photos.imageevent.com image 477x640]

The news black out has left his supporters with spreading word of mouth (Internet) where he will be next. Several places in California couple of weeks ago. Several in Texas last week. Next rally is Tuesday or Wednesday I think.

Wow, look at that enthusiasm! Especially the guy sitting on the curb. He's fired up for the RON PAUL REVOLUTION!

jigger: schrodinger: You know Ron Paul's "audit the Fed" bill that passed? Yeah, he didn't vote for that either.

When you write a bill and get tons of sponsors and then all of a sudden the bill is watered down to ineffectiveness, then yeah, you usually vote against the new bill.

And what about adding pork into a bill then voting against it anyway, all while decrying government pork?

Face it. Ron Paul, even among politicians, is a con artist. He's milking you suckers

P.T. Barnum would be proud.

Slesfo: Here are the problems with Ron Paul:

Drug policy. He doesn't grasp that drugs are one of the leading corrosive factors in our society.

National security 1. He doesn't get that we are hated by the world for our superiority, and that we need the government to be large enough, in just this area, to be safe.

National security 2. He doesn't think it is important to support our important allies like Israel from dangerous, psychotic threats in the Arab world like Iran. He doesn't realize that we need to maintain our image of strength, or they will attack us and our allies for our weakness.

(in short, his foreign policies are shiat)

Fiscal policies. He wants to get rid of industry subsidies which have helped maintain our ecomomy for decades.

He is weak on the war on terrorism, and drugs, and he isn't strong enough against Big Labor.

Jeepers, now I really, really want to vote for Ron Paul. Are you a member of his paid staff?

jigger: rufus-t-firefly: He'd refuse to appoint a cabinet, since that's not in the Constitution...

Yes it is.

Well it's not mentioned anywhere in the 10th amendment, which by Ron Paul standards means it doesn't count.

LordJiro: And what about adding pork into a bill then voting against it anyway, all while decrying government pork?

Face it. Ron Paul, even among politicians, is a con artist. He's milking you suckers

P.T. Barnum would be proud.

People are forced to pay the IRS. They'll fark you up good if you don't pay. Why not at least get some of that money back at the very least in the form of some local spending?

jigger: People are forced to pay the IRS. They'll fark you up good if you don't pay. Why not at least get some of that money back at the very least in the form of some local spending?

Government is currently in the red, which means they are already giving more out than they take in.

schrodinger: Government is currently in the red, which means they are already giving more out than they take in.

And that has to do with what I said...how?

jigger: schrodinger: Government is currently in the red, which means they are already giving more out than they take in.

And that has to do with what I said...how?

You're complaining that Ron Paul is simply trying to get his money back. That's not the case. Government is already spending more than it takes in, and Ron Paul is asking for an additional handout.

schrodinger: You're complaining that Ron Paul is simply trying to get his money back. That's not the case. Government is already spending more than it takes in, and Ron Paul is asking for an additional handout.

He's not trying to get HIS money back. It's his constituents' money.

I'm curious on what the Ron Paul movement has actually done to further any of their causes, aside from giving Ron Paul money and telling people to vote for him.

Ron Paul is running an interesting scam here, where he makes it so that people associate financial donations with fighting for liberty.

Mrtraveler01: That's fine. Just don't complain that the government has no right to do those kind of projects when you do take the money...or else you'd be hypocritical like Ron Paul.

Ron Paul votes against the projects and against the taking of the money.

jigger: schrodinger: You're complaining that Ron Paul is simply trying to get his money back. That's not the case. Government is already spending more than it takes in, and Ron Paul is asking for an additional handout.

He's not trying to get HIS money back. It's his constituents' money.

He's still causing more money to be overdrawn from a government already in the red. He's spending his constituent's grandkid's money.

For someone decrying the Fed, he sure does use the fruits of the "machinations" quite a bit.

rufus-t-firefly: He can't suggest legislation - the Constitution doesn't mention anything about Executives suggesting bills. He'd just sit there for four years. He'd refuse to appoint a cabinet, since that's not in the Constitution...

US Constitution Article II, Section 3

[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

/years of SCOTUS rulings have made me expect a higher standard regarding Constitutional humor.
//Cabinet appointments are in section 2 if you look.

jigger: Mrtraveler01: That's fine. Just don't complain that the government has no right to do those kind of projects when you do take the money...or else you'd be hypocritical like Ron Paul.

Ron Paul votes against the projects and against the taking of the money.

A more principled stance is not even asking for the pork AND voting against the bill, and you know it.

So funny reading the derp from both DNC Liberals and GOP Liberals whenever Ron Paul is mentioned

The nomination is not won by how many people vote for you...or how much the Liberal Media likes you....it is based on how many delegates won. If Ron Paul gets enough delegates to keep Romney from the magical 1144 delegate number...the convention is brokered. Its Paul's only chance to win

Most of the popular votes in states have nothing to do with the distribution of delegates.

Of course, the DNC-GOP Derp lacks the requisite three-digit IQ intelligence to understand this

meat0918: He's still causing more money to be overdrawn from a government already in the red. He's spending his constituent's grandkid's money.

For someone decrying the Fed, he sure does use the fruits of the "machinations" quite a bit.


No he's not. He votes against the spending.

Earmarks aren't additional spending. Don't you know how these things work?

meat0918: A more principled stance is not even asking for the pork AND voting against the bill, and you know it.

No it's not.

You expect him to make his constituents take it fully up the ass? How is that more principled?

jigger: meat0918: A more principled stance is not even asking for the pork AND voting against the bill, and you know it.

No it's not.

You expect him to make his constituents take it fully up the ass? How is that more principled?

I expect everyone to stop demanding more from their government than they are willing to pay for.

If that means "taking it up fully up the ass", well then America, lube up, because the bill is coming due.

imontheinternet: In their/my defense, the source from which you first learn about fractional reserve banking and how money works tends to engender lots of trust from that revelation alone. IMO, the same thing led to the outbreak of Zeitgeist zombies not long ago.

Can someone explain to me why everyone keeps bringing up fractional reserve banking, like it is some dirty trick?

Mrtraveler01: meat0918: jigger: Mrtraveler01: That's fine. Just don't complain that the government has no right to do those kind of projects when you do take the money...or else you'd be hypocritical like Ron Paul.

Ron Paul votes against the projects and against the taking of the money.

A more principled stance is not even asking for the pork AND voting against the bill, and you know it.

I'm sure he has some lame excuse for that...

It's not fair to expect RON PAUL to be accountable for his actions according to his supporters. See Newsletter, Ron Paul.

Mrtraveler01: jigger: meat0918: A more principled stance is not even asking for the pork AND voting against the bill, and you know it.

No it's not.

You expect him to make his constituents take it fully up the ass? How is that more principled?

So when he rejects FEMA relief funding to places hit by natural disasters, because he feels the government shouldn't be spending money on that...that's ok.

But when he accepts government pork for his district...that's ok too?


Rational. Self. Interest.