Yes, where are the Ron paul legions?

It does smack of either:

1) My constituents are too stupid to understand this and I get away with it.

or

2) Im basically like all the rest of the bloodsuckers in DC, I just vote no more.

WHich of these two guys do you want him to be?

Or are we going to blame this on the MSM AGAIN?

[edit on 12/24/07 by FredT]

He is a senator, not a president. Just because he believes the government should work differently, doesn't mean he can't represent his district to the best of his ability.

What a brilliant way to uphold your principles, AND get things you need for your constituents!! I think I'll vote for him. LOL

He never voted yes for an earmark.
His constituents pay taxes.
He knows it's going to pass anyway.
Some money comes back to his district.

The point is that The Federal government should not control so much of the local economy, by taking money from it, in the form of income taxes.

He votes against the whole idea that a local economy has to beg to get their money back..It should have never left in the first place.
It's a vote against THAT process.

Water projects, hospitals, a cancer center..
HOW DARE HE!!!







[edit on 24-12-2007 by spacedoubt]

If he wants to do his job, he has to work within this pre-established (and VERY SICK) system.

Where the States send huge amounts of money to the Federal Government.
Then beg congress to send some of it back. This is costly and stupid.

He found a way to "hold his nose" and make it work, without sacrificing his principles.


This just isn't an issue.
Got anything juicy?

www.ronpaul2008.com

From where I stand it looks like that Ron Paul supporters are being taken for a ride. Aside from the hypercritical nature of Ron spending US federal tax dollars he is playing clever politics . By voting against the spending he requests he creates a voting record that looks like he supports his stances.

Really Ron looks like just another run of the mill politician .

Originally posted by captainplanet
He is a senator, not a president.

Last time I looked he was a representative

Originally posted by spacedoubt
What a brilliant way to uphold your principles, AND get things you need for your constituents!! I think I'll vote for him. LOL

How is he upholding his principals. Looks to me like he is getting in his earmarks and does not have to even vote for them Letting others do his dirtywork for him

He never voted yes for an earmark.
His constituents pay taxes.
He knows it's going to pass anyway.
Some money comes back to his district.

I actually have no problem with him putting in earmarks they all do it. The president need a line item veto to cull this crap. However, the fact that he puts them in then votes "no" for it, thus preserving his public image and lets the other reps do his dirty work for him.

Water projects, hospitals, a cancer center..
HOW DARE HE!!!

I have narry a care as to what the projects in question were nor are the relevant to the discussion at hand. The poject no doubt were all noble and improved the community he represents.

However, the pattern here is one of decit. Im going to put these in, vote "no" knowing they will pass by default. It seems that style has trumped substance






[edit on 24-12-2007 by spacedoubt]

It is very hard to uphold your political ideals when working in politics where they don’t exist. He is practical. He doesn’t like taxes, but they exist. He thinks people should keep their money and disperse it in a competitive market. What can you do to work towards that end in our current system? Propose earmarks to get people’s money back into the things they want, while still upholding the philosophy that they should not be necessary.

Then he can't say that he is 100% for the value when he is actively disregarding it for the sake of practicality. That's the essential difference here. He's doing something that he knows in his gut is wrong because it serves him politically? When Clinton, Bush, and all the others do that, what do you call it? Because they're all doing the same thing: claiming to be pure when we all know they're full of it.

[edit on 12/27/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by Togetic
Then he can't say that he is 100% for the value when he is actively disregarding it for the sake of practicality. That's the essential difference here. He's doing something that he knows in his gut is wrong because it serves him politically? When Clinton, Bush, and all the others do that, what do you call it? Because they're all doing the same thing: claiming to be pure when we all know they're full of it.

I agree, if Ron is allowed to do that, paulies should allow the other politicians to do the same thing.

But it doesn't really matter, the republicans don't support him, and Ron doesn't want to go independent, hence he's going nowhere.

Originally posted by Togetic
Then he can't say that he is 100% for the value when he is actively disregarding it for the sake of practicality. That's the essential difference here. He's doing something that he knows in his gut is wrong because it serves him politically?

[edit on 12/27/2007 by Togetic]

So what you are saying is that he's a hypocrite because he won't screw his constituents to prove he's right?

The premise of this thread is that RP is a hypocrite because he says "Quit wasting money, but as long as you are going to waste it anyway, we might as well put it to some good use."

" For his home state,..., Paul has sought money for water projects, a nursing program, to expand a hospital cancer center and to promote Texas shrimp. "

Wow. That's a lot of terrible spending. water, cancer, nursing, shrimping (for his district that means jobs). Yep. He's a terrible person.

So, you think that since he's not 100% behind spend spend spend that he shouldn't attemp to take care of his constituents? He should just let the federal government keep taking from his districts federal taxes and never attempt to get anything back? That is ludicrous.

It's awful easy to paint a picture in black and white when you want to point out somebody elses flaws, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything.

RP opposes the constant spending that congress is addicted to because it is selling us down the river. That doesn't mean he has to deny his own district a return on their tax dollars to somehow prove his integrity to you.

I personally think that he has the responsibility to vote for projects in his state, just so they get a piece of the pie everyone else is. He doesn't believe in them, I see, but at least if his constituents are paying into the system, they ought to get something out of it, and he does represent their interests after all.

That's how I see it, at least.