|
The Congressional Record of Ron Paul (Or, Why He Is Batshit Crazy) (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Krypton |
| RON PAUL 4 PLUR!! |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lesbianosaur
For earmarks before he was against them:
This whole thing is pretty hilarious. He hates earmarks, but has proposed several in the last month. But don't worry, he'll vote against them on the floor. :rolleyes: |
OK, here's what he's saying; if he doesn't try to put earmarks in for his own constituents then their tax money will be lost to other people in other areas. He doesn't like the system, but he knows that if he doesn't do this he's basically screwing his district out of their federal tax dollars. He unfortunately knows that these bills will pass, so really the only option he has is to add the earmarks and vote against the bill because he is morally opposed to the system in which earmarks are needed in the first place. It actually makes sense to me. He feels what is going on is wrong, but at the same time he knows that if he doesn't do the same crap that all the other politicians are doing he's hurting his voters. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
OK, here's what he's saying; if he doesn't try to put earmarks in for his own constituents then their tax money will be lost to other people in other areas. He doesn't like the system, but he knows that if he doesn't do this he's basically screwing his district out of their federal tax dollars. He unfortunately knows that these bills will pass, so really the only option he has is to add the earmarks and vote against the bill because he is morally opposed to the system in which earmarks are needed in the first place. It actually makes sense to me. He feels what is going on is wrong, but at the same time he knows that if he doesn't do the same crap that all the other politicians are doing he's hurting his voters. |
 |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
I think what he's really saying here is "earmarks are evil, but standing up for my principles isn't going to get me re-elected, so here are some earmarks that I proposed for you, now vote for me."
Same difference as any other politician in my opinion, but Paul plays the "holier than thou" card anyway.
But you can continue to bow down and exalt him if you'd like. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
OK, here's what he's saying; if he doesn't try to put earmarks in for his own constituents then their tax money will be lost to other people in other areas. He doesn't like the system, but he knows that if he doesn't do this he's basically screwing his district out of their federal tax dollars. He unfortunately knows that these bills will pass, so really the only option he has is to add the earmarks and vote against the bill because he is morally opposed to the system in which earmarks are needed in the first place. It actually makes sense to me. He feels what is going on is wrong, but at the same time he knows that if he doesn't do the same crap that all the other politicians are doing he's hurting his voters. |
why doesn't he look, fight and co-opt for alternative funding in his own state's economy? he's Republican. it's not like he's got to fight against a near 2/3 Democrat majority like in California, it's Texas ffs. we're looking at a $10 billion budget surplus this year ffs!
why does he belly up to the Federal trough at the drop of a fiscal hat?
regardless of any of that, isn't it fundamentally counter-intuitive to the practices he not only preaches but is revolving an entire Presidential campaign on? |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
why doesn't he look, fight and co-opt for alternative funding in his own state's economy? he's Republican. it's not like he's got to fight against a near 2/3 Democrat majority like in California, it's Texas ffs. we're looking at a $10 billion budget surplus this year ffs!
why does he belly up to the Federal trough at the drop of a fiscal hat?
regardless of any of that, isn't it fundamentally counter-intuitive to the practices he not only preaches but is revolving an entire Presidential campaign on? |
Texas has no state income tax, so all income tax in the state (from 10% to 35%) is going to the federal government. As much as I might be opposed to the way things work in Congress, I'd be pissed as hell if the person I voted for did nothing to try and make some of those tax dollars come back to the area where they came from.
Again, you can be morally opposed to something, yet realize that you're cutting off your nose to spite your face by completely abandoning how things are done "in the real world." A single congressman can do relatively little to fix how the entire legislative branch does business, a president would probably have a much easier time at it.
I might not like all the paperwork and bureaucracy that goes into something such as tax returns. However, I can't just say "screw it, I'm not going to do it like this anymore" and do it the way I see fit. I can be as vocal as I want, but I still realize how things work and how I have to do them. If I became the head of the IRS then I could make those changes and I could also show that I've been a vehement opponent of the way things have been although I've subjected myself to the letter of the law because I wasn't in a position to change them. Ron Paul can be an avid, vocal opponent of earmarking yet realize that in his current position he does not stand much of a chance to drastically alter the status quo and that in the end he is simply hurting his constituents by not using this method to return some of their tax dollars to them. As president, he may have a better chance of changing how things are run.
To me the "logic" is this...
I don't like "X," but I'm not in a position to change it and if I don't go along with "X" I'm not only hurting myself, but others as well. I will therefore go along with "X" and express my disproval of it while doing everything in my power to put myself into a position to make sure "X" is changed. |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
I don't like "X," but I'm not in a position to change it and if I don't go along with "X" I'm not only hurting myself, but others as well. I will therefore go along with "X" and express my disproval of it while doing everything in my power to put myself into a position to make sure "X" is changed. |
So are you saying the principles he got elected for having are only skin deep? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Texas has no state income tax, so all income tax in the state (from 10% to 35%) is going to the federal government. As much as I might be opposed to the way things work in Congress, I'd be pissed as hell if the person I voted for did nothing to try and make some of those tax dollars come back to the area where they came from.
Again, you can be morally opposed to something, yet realize that you're cutting off your nose to spite your face by completely abandoning how things are done "in the real world." A single congressman can do relatively little to fix how the entire legislative branch does business, a president would probably have a much easier time at it.
I might not like all the paperwork and bureaucracy that goes into something such as tax returns. However, I can't just say "screw it, I'm not going to do it like this anymore" and do it the way I see fit. I can be as vocal as I want, but I still realize how things work and how I have to do them. If I became the head of the IRS then I could make those changes and I could also show that I've been a vehement opponent of the way things have been although I've subjected myself to the letter of the law because I wasn't in a position to change them. Ron Paul can be an avid, vocal opponent of earmarking yet realize that in his current position he does not stand much of a chance to drastically alter the status quo and that in the end he is simply hurting his constituents by not using this method to return some of their tax dollars to them. As president, he may have a better chance of changing how things are run.
To me the "logic" is this...
I don't like "X," but I'm not in a position to change it and if I don't go along with "X" I'm not only hurting myself, but others as well. I will therefore go along with "X" and express my disproval of it while doing everything in my power to put myself into a position to make sure "X" is changed. |
and i agree with everything you said (though i do believe a substantial amount of Federal income tax comes back to us in the form of umpteen million agriculture, education, and various social subsidies) but with as much money that is in his state right now the idea of him earmarking anything while upholding the virtues Federalism, original intent and smallest government possible it seems weird to me.
i'm not completely against the idea of earmarking. of course i'm against plain gratuitous exploitation of it and all the hiding behind it. it needs transparency if it's going to continue.
i don't really know the actual amount he was requesting. i'm assuming it couldn't have been that much comparatively.
EDIT> aftr some Googling i've found out not only does Ron Paul love earmarks, he really looovvvveessss earmarks.
scratch what i saisd about "couldn't have been that much comparatively". he has disclosed his request for $400 million in earmarks this year alone. >pdf LINK< additionaly, his district has seen a total of $31 BILLION in earmarks since 2000.
combine that with his straight-up hypocritical voting record it's amazing.
the more i look into this guy...it ain't pretty.
he's a career legislator...a committee man. zero executive, senior administrative experience.
nope. he can stay that way. he's not getting near the Whitehouse.
anybody, right or left, with half a brain should look the other way from this guy. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Oh dear. Umm, Ron?:
| quote: | Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/peopl...992/gannon.0793
http://groups.google.com/group/soc....8668bd3662b0fa5 |
That was from Ron in 1992. It was posted from talk.politics.misc newsgroup by Dan Gannon, a white supremacist and Holocaust denier who used to receive Ron Paul's "Political Report". And if you think that's atypical or a lie, then sadly you'll need to read the Houston Chronicle's take from Paul's newsletter during his 1996 Congressional run:
| quote: | Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.
Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."
... [I]n the same 1992 edition ... [Paul wrote], "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.
http://www.chron.com/content/chroni...05/23/paul.html |
I'm sorry, Paul supporters, but you can't justify this racist no matter how hard you try. You can tell us all about his strict Constructionism and libertarian philosophy to live long day, but you cannot erase these clearly racist comments. It would be one thing if he said this decades ago and has recanted since, but he's done nothing of the sort, has he? |
|
|
| Lesbianosaur |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
and i agree with everything you said (though i do believe a substantial amount of Federal income tax comes back to us in the form of umpteen million agriculture, education, and various social subsidies) but with as much money that is in his state right now the idea of him earmarking anything while upholding the virtues Federalism, original intent and smallest government possible it seems weird to me.
i'm not completely against the idea of earmarking. of course i'm against plain gratuitous exploitation of it and all the hiding behind it. it needs transparency if it's going to continue.
i don't really know the actual amount he was requesting. i'm assuming it couldn't have been that much comparatively.
EDIT> aftr some Googling i've found out not only does Ron Paul love earmarks, he really looovvvveessss earmarks.
scratch what i saisd about "couldn't have been that much comparatively". he has disclosed his request for $400 million in earmarks this year alone. >pdf LINK< additionaly, his district has seen a total of $31 BILLION in earmarks since 2000.
combine that with his straight-up hypocritical voting record it's amazing.
the more i look into this guy...it ain't pretty.
he's a career legislator...a committee man. zero executive, senior administrative experience.
nope. he can stay that way. he's not getting near the Whitehouse.
anybody, right or left, with half a brain should look the other way from this guy. |
This may mark the first time that I've agreed with every word of one of your posts. Spot on. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
EDIT> aftr some Googling i've found out not only does Ron Paul love earmarks, he really looovvvveessss earmarks.
scratch what i saisd about "couldn't have been that much comparatively". he has disclosed his request for $400 million in earmarks this year alone. >pdf LINK< additionaly, his district has seen a total of $31 BILLION in earmarks since 2000.
combine that with his straight-up hypocritical voting record it's amazing.
the more i look into this guy...it ain't pretty.
he's a career legislator...a committee man. zero executive, senior administrative experience.
nope. he can stay that way. he's not getting near the Whitehouse.
anybody, right or left, with half a brain should look the other way from this guy. |
Yeah. In fact that's what he was quizzed on by Tim Russert on 'Meet The Press' - this issue of him using earmarks, government subsidies, etc.
His reply was something to the effect of, "If you can't change the system, at least you can take advantage of it." |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
I dont see much racism in that post Opus...read his quotes again.. :)
Despite writing these directly after the LA Riots/looting when racial tensions were very high, Paul doesn't state any direct negative opinion on blacks in the articles..
| quote: | Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
|
| quote: |
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action....
|
I'd like to see those polls...but if they are accurate, and only 5% of blacks support those things, I'd have to say RP is correct on this.
| quote: | | Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal. |
He is obviously mocking the justice system here...not making a statement that 95% of blacks are criminals. In Washington DC the V-A-S-T majority of inmates are blacks, and 80-90% of them are incarcerated for drug-related offenses. Paul thinks the current criminal justice system is a joke, and that we should END the drug war and release ALL non-violent offenders from jail (*most of whom are BLACK!*) Racist??
| quote: | | We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers. |
This is a politically incorrect statement, but is it factual? You can argue that the police and justice system are biased against blacks and poor people, causing them to be incarcerated at higher rates than whites...but that is another debate entirely. The statistics of those convicted are all we have to go on. And the stats say that blacks are jailed in far higher percentages than whites. They also show that blacks drop out of high school in FAR greater numbers, and the the national illegitimacy rate for black children hovers around 50%, compared to 15% for whites. Does stating uncomfortable facts like these make you a RACIST?
| quote: | Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.
|
+++1
| quote: | | for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." |
I admit this sounds bad, and I would like to see what context it was in...but even if this an isolated statement, all he said was "Black people run fast".. I hate to make light of the issue...but come on Opus, don't you watch the Olympics?..lol Us white boys don't stand a chance against the Kenyans. Saying that black people can run fast is hardly a denigrating statement against the race..
| quote: | Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."
Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote. |
I don't quite understand the racism here...Is he pointing out the media double standard in covering "complex embezzling" while avoiding reporting on more common crimes committed by blacks? I don't get it.:conf: |
|
|
|
|
