Comments on: What The Buck? Ron Paul Explains To Preserve Liberty, We Must Understand Monetary Policy In New Video Post

By: belikebunce

belikebunce — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:24:08 +0000

What is so hard to understand? ALL TAX PAYER $$$$ APPROPRIATED BY THE HOUSE SHOULD BE EARMARKED! Government Accountability. Making certain the funds are spent according to the will of the House. Preventing the Administration from allocating the appropriated funds as they see fit instead of the House.

It is a pretty simple concept.

By: Russ from Winterset

Russ from Winterset — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:12:49 +0000

Here’s a thought: If you’re going to vote against a bill and call it an unconstitutional waste of taxpayers money, maybe you shouldn’t include your own $100 million “wish list” in the bill for your home district.

Or does money brought into your district when you don’t vote for the bill yourself suddenly become “constitutionally approved uses”?

If the earmarks are OK, then just vote for the damn bill and don’t participate in this whole damn kabuki theatre bit. I swear to God, arguing with Paultards is sort of like trying to teach my dog about quantum mechanics.

By: belikebunce

belikebunce — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:22:46 +0000

Again… ONLY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROPRIATE TAX DOLLARS.
Application: All expenditures approved by the House of Representatives should be Earmarked to guarantee that they are spent as delegated by the House, and so that Gov’t is held accountable for their spending.

By: Russ from Winterset

Russ from Winterset — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:44:03 +0000

It’s not just the earmarks. It’s the hypocracy. He inserts earmarks into the budget for “constitutionally provided” spending like subsidies for shrimp fishermen in his district, then goes out and rails against “unconstitutional spending”. If Ron Paul were a Christian leader, he’d be Ted Haggard. If you’re going to vote against a bill because it spends too much money on items that the government has no place spending money doing, then maybe you shouldn’t lard the bill (which is going to pass anyway) up with tons of pork for your own district? He’s trying to have it both ways, and that really pisses me off. If you’re going to stand there and let your rabid supporters call you “the only true patriot left in government”, then you should at least TRY to earn that label.

And saying that all of someone’s points “have been debunked” doesn’t make it so. The ICA? No, I got my info from reading the source material when the story came out, thank you very much. And I’ve seen the truthers at his rallies firsthand. These people are either bottom feeding pieces of human debris or deluded sheep, and Ron Paul is diminished by his association with them either way.

By: LoboSolo

LoboSolo — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:51:20 +0000

@Russ
do you think earmarks are a bad thing ? i guess you would rather have the president pick where to spend the money ? earmarks are a good thing as they force the money to be spent in an appropriate manner. if someone makes stupid earmarks, then they should vote the bill down.

calling Dr Paul a racists is a bit of stretch, i assume you’re not very well read on the subject of what happened and just got a few talking points from the ICA , however all of your points are invalid and have all been debunked. i can understand your fear though.

“But hey, drink the Kool Aid if you feel the need. Just don’t pour an extra glass for me.”

yeah, we can tell that you’ve already had too much. Paul supporters drink Tea anyway.

By: Russ from Winterset

Russ from Winterset — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 08:03:24 +0000

Well, sure. If you only look at his voting record, you’ll see that he’s “consistently opposed unconstitutional spending”. What you’re not getting is that Ron Paul routinely inserts earmarks in the bill knowing that it will pass, then votes against it to preserve his so-called “constitutionalist” credibility. It’s a dog & pony show.

And as far as the Stormfront contributions go, I prefer my “superheros” to get indignant when racist a-holes hand them a check and try to get chummy. The racial slurs & inflammitory rhetoric came from Ron Paul’s own newsletter. When your name is on the top of the publication, its your damn fault when racist filth gets included in it, no matter who wrote it. Plus, Ron Paul is an isolationist crank who is WAY too comfortable around 9/11 “truthers”, who are some of the most pathetic morons out there. Either he agrees with them, which makes him an idiot….or he’s cynically exploiting them for support,which makes him a Machiavellian a-hole. Either way, he’s not my cup of tea.

But hey, drink the Kool Aid if you feel the need. Just don’t pour an extra glass for me.

By: belikebunce

belikebunce — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:35:46 +0000

Additionally, is there any reason Dr. Paul shouldn’t cash a legitimate campaign contribution check? The $$ legitimately belonged to the people that gave it, (ie it wasn’t embezzled) and it was given freely, with no strings attached for the purpose of advancing Dr. Paul not Stormfront.

Finally, if Dr. Paul has issued statements containing ” racial slurs and other inflamitory rhetoric”, I for one would like to see it. In Context.

By: belikebunce

belikebunce — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:28:35 +0000

Russ,

Dr. Paul champions the principles of the Constitution.
Principle # 1. Only the House of Representatives has the authority to appropriate tax dollars.
Application: All expenditures approved by the House of Representatives should be Earmarked to guarantee that they are spent as delegated by the House, and so that Gov’t is held accountable for their spending.
Principle #2. The House of Representatives can only spend tax dollars for the accomplishment of the enumerated powers\responsibilities of Congress.
Application: All appropriations bills Dr. Paul has ever voted on spend tax dollars for things outside the enumerated powers of Congress, hence, Dr. Paul has never voted to appropriate a single dollar of tax payer $$.

Get your facts straight!

By: Russ from Winterset

Russ from Winterset — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 19:18:56 +0000

American Superhero? What?

A guy who yearly requests hundreds of millions of dollars worth of earmarks for his home district, while simultaneously beating the drum about “unconstitutional federal spending”? A guy who cashes contribution checks from Stormfront white-supremacists? A guy whose very own newsletter contained racial slurs and other inflamitory rhetoric?

Sorry, but I’ll stick to more traditional superheros, thank you very much.