Tea Party Favorite Rand Paul flips on Earmarks before he is even sworn in !

Reply to post by haterproof

There are at least two posts on the first page explaining his and his father's position on this.

"RP Groupies" are not responding anymore because an answer has already been given, yet you all who think TPM = GOP are ignoring the truth, and going on and on in you delusional rants.




Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by hawkiye
The stupidity in this thread is monumental.

Well your post certainly has lowered the IQ of this thread.

The Paul's do not approve of the system but it is the system in place so they get as much money back for thier states as they can as long as that is the system. it is really that simple those making a big deal out of it are either too mentally challenged to understand this or trolls.

The very idea that you began your sentence with "the Paul's" inferring that they had the same position on earmarks during the election shows you are really not qualified to be calling anyone stupid or mentally challenged.

Rand Paul repeatedly distinguished himself from his father in his position on earmarks during the campaign.

That is the exact nature of his "Flip" to adopting his fathers position once elected.

I am not overly concerned with the legitimacy of Earmarks in my OP as I am with a TP candidate immediately abandoning one of the centerpieces of his campaign, a position that garnered him TP support, once he is elected.

Originally posted by haterproof

Originally posted by hawkiye

The Paul's do not approve of the system but it is the system in place so they get as much money back for thier states as they can as long as that is the system.

Playing the system is indeed a sound argument for politicians and prostitutes alike.

So they should let the money stolen from thier states go to the Administration instead of getting back the stolen funds for thier state? I always get a kick out of the illogic and pathetic attempts of the mentally challenged to support thier emotional irrationality.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by hawkiye
The stupidity in this thread is monumental.

Well your post certainly has lowered the IQ of this thread.

The Paul's do not approve of the system but it is the system in place so they get as much money back for thier states as they can as long as that is the system. it is really that simple those making a big deal out of it are either too mentally challenged to understand this or trolls.

The very idea that you began your sentence with "the Paul's" inferring that they had the same position on earmarks during the election shows you are really not qualified to be calling anyone stupid or mentally challenged.

Rand Paul repeatedly distinguished himself from his father in his position on earmarks during the campaign.

That is the exact nature of his "Flip" to adopting his fathers position once elected.

I am not overly concerned with the legitimacy of Earmarks in my OP as I am with a TP candidate immediately abandoning one of the centerpieces of his campaign, a position that garnered him TP support, once he is elected.

edit on 9-11-2010 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

You have clearly shown your mental challenges. Since Ron Paul does not approve of the ear marks system this is a fact and I just explained why he uses it and why Ran Paul will too. Ron Paul has repeatedly called for an end to the system. www.ronpaul.com... The fact that you and so many other cannot understand this only illustrates what is wrong with this country.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by haterproof

Originally posted by hawkiye

The Paul's do not approve of the system but it is the system in place so they get as much money back for thier states as they can as long as that is the system.

Playing the system is indeed a sound argument for politicians and prostitutes alike.

So they should let the money stolen from thier states go to the Administration instead of getting back the stolen funds for thier state? I always get a kick out of the illogic and pathetic attempts of the mentally challenged to support thier emotional irrationality.

Speaking of emotional irrationality...Whether earmarks are good or not is not the OP...

The fact that Rand Paul campaigned on banning earmarks, going as far as saying he would never ask for them...even for his own state...signed a pledge saying he would never ask for earmarks..all for TP support and then after he is elected, even before he is signed into office sits down with a WSJ reporter and says he will ask for Earmarks for KY...all of that is lost on you as you try to derail the thread and make this a thread about wether earmarks are good...desperatly still trying to defend a liar and hypocrit.

Emotional irrationality?...uh huh.

I think we can all agree with the fact that Rand Paul did an about face on the issue of earmarks.

We all seem to have different opinions of what we should do about it. I think we should just tie the hands of congress, others think we should play the system while the gettin' is good. Some of us are trying to have this discussion and all that it entails on a civil level. Those of you who are busy sniping at each other are not doing the rest of us a favor.

reply to post by maybereal11


Maybe you could post some proof he campaigned on "banning" earmarks?

Originally posted by hawkiye
You have clearly shown your mental challenges. Since Ron Paul does not approve of the ear marks system this is a fact and I just explained why he uses it and why Ran Paul will too. Ron Paul has repeatedly called for an end to the system. www.ronpaul.com... The fact that you and so many other cannot understand this only illustrates what is wrong with this country.

SInce you seem to want to insult folks rather than think...I will keep it simple for you

Pre-election

Ron Paul...Against earmarks, but will use them while they are part of the system.

Rand Paul...Against earmarks and will never ask for them even for my home state of KY.
Rand signed a pledge promising just that. He stated that in interviews.

* After he was elected Rand flipped to his father's position.

During the election his rhetoric of never using earmarks...his pledge that he signed..all of it helped him earn TP credibility.

He no longer needs those votes....Flip...Flop....Flip...Flop

I have a hard time thinking that you don't understand...but who knows.

reply to post by maybereal11

Rand Paul...Against earmarks and will never ask for them even for my home state of KY. Rand signed a pledge promising just that. He stated that in interviews.

Please post proof of Rand Paul saying what you claim and a copy of the pledge.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by maybereal11

 

Maybe you could post some proof he campaigned on "banning" earmarks?

The thread is only 3 pages long.

I littered the first 2 pages with quotes and links.

Either hit the back button or select "view posts in thread" in the tab to the left....or google on your own.

No Offense...but it's a little dumb to pounce into a 3 page thread "heavy" when you haven't read the first 2 pages.

reply to post by maybereal11


I read the whole thread from the beginning and your posts and responded in the beginning also, I saw nothing that supports your claim so either post it or put a sock in it

His website says he will ban wasteful earmark spending this is consistent with his Fathers stance neither have ever said they would ban earmark spending all together but that the earmark system needs to be reformed.

reply to post by hawkiye


So you didn't see this link? With these quotes?

The Hill

“Anybody out there who is requesting earmarks … is going to be hung around their neck come the November elections and primaries because people know about it, they are going to talk about it, it is going to affect how people vote. It’s one of the fundamental things people are looking at when they are looking at reform — they are looking at people running for Congress who know that their job is not simply to bring home the bacon,” Meckler said.

“Rand Paul appreciates Republican Sen. Jim DeMint [S.C.] introducing … a one-year ban on earmark spending and a balanced-budget amendment.


Rand strongly supports both initiatives and has made them centerpieces of his campaign for limited government, including his signing of the Citizens Against Government Waste ‘No pork pledge.’ ”

Originally posted by hawkiye/i]
Originally posted by Maybereal11

Rand Paul...Against earmarks and will never ask for them even for my home state of KY. Rand signed a pledge promising just that. He stated that in interviews.

Please post proof of Rand Paul saying what you claim and a copy of the pledge

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by maybereal11

I read the whole thread from the beginning and your posts and responded in the beginning also, I saw nothing that supports your claim so either post it or put a sock in it

Uhh. Okay…both of these are from the 2 pages preceding this one.

The pledge he signed..link on post
post by maybereal11

ABC Interview where he says he won’t ask for earmarks for KY….link on post
post by maybereal11

OR this from the first page, from his own website?

It clearly says "BAN."

The title is "Earmark ban coming?"

Earmark ban coming?
Published on 10 March 2010 by David Adams in General News
0 Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign. He has supported Sen. Jim DeMint’s vocal support for an earmark ban and he supports news that House Democrats are even coming around on the idea of a partial ban.

ATTENTION!!!!!

Further personal attack, barbs, name-calling and off-topic banter will be warned and/or removed.

Courtesy Is Mandatory

Ad Hominem Attacks And You

One Line and Short Posts

Please Stay on Topic

That stinks that Rand flip flopped like that.

When you're advocating smaller government and eliminating wasteful spending, if anything, you have to stand by your principles. That is, afterall, why you were elected.

reply to post by xEphon


I think it's kind of a double edged sword. While your constituency expects you to bring home the bacon, as it were, politically you're expected to be held to your word of no frivolous spending.

How do you reconcile the two and still get something done without hurting yourself politically? In this case, it is damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The whole system needs to be reformed.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by mishigas

 

I don't have to.

I can show you Rand Paul, a TPM-backed candidate that flip-flopped on earmarks.

I'm sure his supporters are upset. Oh wait a minute. YEAH RIGHT!

It's bad enough that Kentucky is out there spending my tax dollars and now they elect a buffoon like Rand Paul?

I'm sure that Rand can deliver his constituents $4000 toilet seats.

edit on 9-11-2010 by The Sword because: (no reason given)

Let me give you a better analogy:

MegaMotors Corp designed and built a new car. It got fantastic gas mileage, was high quality, and reliable. And it was inexpensive.

The only flaw in the auto was the dashboard clock used in this new car - it was made by a third party mfr, ChintzyCo. It lasted about 3 months before wearing out.

Now, does MegaCorp deserve to be labeled a poor manufacturer of automobiles because of the dashboard clock?:shk:

Wrong sorry. He was misquoted.

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...