Ron Paul

“Ha ha ha”

“XLOXL!”

“Mutt, Mohammed was a homosexual drunk Pedophile...so what? (LOL)”

“XLOLX!”

“those crazy muslims... ANYONE who could possibly be DUMB ENOUGH to believe some invisible man in the sky wants them to behave and pray in very specific regimented ways because they BOUGHT INTO some RIDICULOUS ARAB'S story about actually SPEAKING TO GOD deserves to be mocked openly...

oh...

wait...

that's just about all religions. but those silly muslims...

(
L
O
L
)”

“I still think it's okay to talk chit about that other Fake Religion. Gimmee some that old time...”

“http://caivn.org/article/2010/03/01/congressman-ron-paul-returns-whopping-100000-his-office-budget-us-treasury


fiscal responsibility”

“Mad props to Ron. While it's inconceivable anyone could find fault with him for doing this I'm tilt or one of the others will be along try and bash him.”

“Did I really just say "mad props"? Wow, what a loser. LOL!”

“The funny thing is Ron Paul was pretty much in agreement with everything they had said during the Bush years, but don't forget ... he's got that (R) beside his name, so .... you know what that means ... he must be wrong.

So, did anybody read Revolution: A Manifesto yet?

Too many Ron Paul naysayers haven't.”

“Neither he or rand will mention the libertarian Party, because of the social libertarian views that are the mainstay of that party, because it won't get them X-tian right votes. Sellouts.”

“except that you made that up”

“Listen to their interviews, they avoid the subject like poison.”

“they focus on issues”

“except that you made that up

Sale makes up his own fvcking language.”

“
I met him on a Monday and my heart did stall
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron
Somebody told me that his name was Paul
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron

Yeah, my heart stall stall
Yeah, his name was Paul
And when he walked me home
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron

I know what he was thinking when he caught my eye
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron
He looked so quiet but, my oh my
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron

Yeah, he caught my eye
Yeah, but my oh my
And when he walked me home
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron

He picked me at seven and he looked so fine
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron
Someday soon I'm gonna make him mine
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron

Yeah, he looked so fine
Yeah I'll make him mine
And when he walked me home
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron

Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron
Da do Ron Ron Ron, da do Ron Ron



(not Spector/not Grennwich/not Barry)

”

“HPD, I didn't read anything by the Branch Davidians but I knew they were nutso just by their behavior.”

“Those librarians really know how to party.”

“fiscal responsibility

That is cool, but that money stays in the treasury regardless of whether Ron makes a big show of "returning" it.

What about all those Ron Paul earmarks for what I would have to call non-constitutionally mandated spending on pork for Texas? Hundreds of millions > $100K.
last edited: 3/04/10 6:15:57 AM”

“But regardless, Ron *may* be good on some issues, but the fact that he is batsh*t insane on foreign policy issues completely nullifies any of his positives.”

“Didn't Ron bring those up in the house and then vote NO on them?

Mutt, that happy medium thing comes up in Foreign Policy a lot, but the 24-7 news thinks it's happy media time instead. Some where in time there has to be a time when enough is enough, but Military Contractors don't own one of those.”

“Didn't Ron bring those up in the house and then vote NO on them?

Sure, but all the while knowing full well that they would pass. Plus, it's still spending on non-constitutionally mandated stuff.”

““But regardless, Ron *may* be good on some issues, but the fact that he is batsh*t insane on foreign policy issues completely nullifies any of his positives.”



Again I ask you, have you read Revolution: A Manifest ??


If not, I doubt seriously you understand why he says what he says. If you haven't read it, I don't value your opinion of him.”

“So the earmarks for home-state pork don't bother you. Good to know you're okay with hypocrisy.”

“be specific”

“I've already stated my position on Paul's earmarks btw”

“Show me a single vote where Paul voted for pork.

I'll wait right here.”

“Show me a single vote where Paul voted for pork.

And that right there is the scam, and you brought it to light like a good little Ronulan.

The scam goes like this: first, he requests the earmarks. Second, he votes "no", knowing full well that they will be passed. Third, he tells everyone how he's so fiscally conservative because he voted no.

And the funny thing is, the pork he requests isn't even for constitutionally mandated stuff like the Navy. Mr. 100% constitution is a fraud.”

“bs - His job is to submit for earmarks. That's what Senators do!”

“so your theory is that even though in his xareer he's ALWAYS voted in a fiscally responsible way, and he's NEVER deveated from the Constitution, and he ALWAYS devotes his congressional time to trying to disuade other congressman from voting otherwise, and he does EVERYTHING he's supposed to do as per the constitution, that it's a sham and he's doing it because he doesn't believe any of it?

I have a friend who worked DIRECTLY for him for 10 years and she said he's 100% consistent ...

your theory is he's making it up?”

“That's what Senators do!

Exactly. That's the hypocrisy. "I'm a 100% constitutional fiscally conservative founding father type who votes no on wasteful spending. But not before I play the same game as every other senator and request spending not mandated by the constitution to buy votes in my home state."”

“it's not a game ... it's the congressmans' job. (I don't know why I said Senator)

It's his job to ask for things for his state, but he doesn't have to vote for them if he doesn't think they are correctly paid for. It's not his job as an individual to pay for them, he has to work with the other congressman.

There is no hypocrisy in what he does. He does what he is elected to do. You can QUESTION is motivations all you want, but my experience and the experience of people I know that know him personally says that his motivation is not what YOU say it is.

You don't seem to know much about him, and again, obviously haven't even read his book.”

“but my experience and the experience of people I know that know him personally

Well I certainly won't let the facts get in the way of that highly believable testimony! LMAO!”

“To be honest I would have preferred him be a Senator over Kay Bailefty Hutchinson.”

“Mutt, you've offered NOTHING to contradict the first hand accounts of people I trust other than ... a hunch you have?


LMAO!”

“Nothing other than the fact that it is public record that RP has asked the taxpayers to spend money on PORK projects for his home state that are NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Yeah, he voted "no" to scam the kind of people like you who are enamored with a cult of personality (not at all unlike those enthralled with Obama), and I can understand you in particular falling for that because you are a religionist and are inclined to that kind of non-rational thinking as evidenced by you citing anonymous persons of authority. But the fact remains that he's like every other politician, save for a scam aimed at college freshmen, stoners, and other unrealistic dreamers who will look past his actual record to vainly believe in his promise of a libertarian-esque utopia. Meanwhile he's done NOTHING to slow the growth of government.”

“He's voted properly 100% of the time.

What congressman would you put in his place?”

“He's voted properly 100% of the time.

I disagree. He voted against military spending that would have improved housing and health care for service members, just as one example. If you want to focus on cutting waste in the military, great. HOWEVER, housing and hospitals are NOT the biggest sources of waste by a long shot. Voting against it simply shows that he has an irrational hatred of the military, no doubt born of his loony vision of how global geopolitics works.

What congressman would you put in his place?

Good point! I'm not arguing that. I'm not arguing that earmarks are necessarily a bad thing, or that bringing taxpayer's money back home is wrong. The point is, and it is very simple and very clear to all non-rubes, is that his rhetoric does not match his actions. He's a hypocrite, and he runs a scam. Period.”

“I disagree. He voted against military spending that would have improved housing and health care for service members, just as one example. If you want to focus on cutting waste in the military, great. HOWEVER, housing and hospitals are NOT the biggest sources of waste by a long shot. Voting against it simply shows that he has an irrational hatred of the military, no doubt born of his loony vision of how global geopolitics works.

So he had a personal line-item veto to use?

Good point! I'm not arguing that. I'm not arguing that earmarks are necessarily a bad thing, or that bringing taxpayer's money back home is wrong.

But if you care about this country, the one person, (I think by your own admission here if I'm reading you right) that is doing the MOST to fix this country properly, you are railing against.

The point is, and it is very simple and very clear to all non-rubes, is that his rhetoric does not match his actions. He's a hypocrite, and he runs a scam. Period.

What in God's name are you talking about? His ACTIONS matches his RHETORIC PERFECTLY. That's one thing that is so attractive about his as a congressman. Do you even listen to him.

Listen, Mutt. It's blazingly obvious you have not read his book because you don't seem to know anything about where he is coming from. You keep questioning his motivations, but you don't know his motivations. Soundbites from his MSNBC interviews where they question him not on HISTORY OF his reasoning, but his actions, is not sufficient to "get" Ron Paul. Trust me on this. I was in the same boat as you until I read his book. Don't be such a chicken#&%!$ and read his book.”

“Why do you think I would want to read his propaganda? It's like saying "hey maaaan, you don't know where OBL is coming from until you read his manifesto, maaan".

I've shown EXACTLY how his actions do not match his rhetoric based on objective evidence. Only rubes refuse to see it.”

“I've shown EXACTLY how his actions do not match his rhetoric based on objective evidence.

I missed that. Show me again.”

“And the earmark crap doesn't cut it. You made the ridiculous assumption that he did that only because he knew OTHER congressmen would vote for stuff. That's absurd, and far from objective.”

“That's absurd

That's risible. All you're saying is "nuh uh" because you don't have a leg to stand on. Anyone with access to Google can look up his spending and see for themselves.

Just one example of his spending that is of course mandated by the constitution: $1.748 million for University of Houston-Victoria for DNA testing and genetic diagnostic lab”

“Anyway, I'm done here. All you have is "read his book" and "nuh uh". The evidence is put out for anyone to look at; I've done my part to debunk the scam.”

“Anyone with access to Google can look up his spending and see for themselves.

I have personally looked at EVERY bill he's voted on. Have you? Obviously not, or you wouldn't be saying this.”

“You are "googling" his spending but not reading the context of the votes.”

“And I didn't say "nuh huh" to an objective statement. I made it to an assumption. So my "nuh huh" is no less credible than your baseless assumption.”

“The US Military has knocked down one too many doors in colonized terrortories all over this world. The war on 'Corporatist Crime' will soon replace that of 'Terror' and will expose the Madoff Nature of the 'Sport Stadium Names' many of you worship(same as your other worship) of false success.”