Ron Paul apperance on Meet the Press and my partial analysis

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by hsmith

While I don't agree with pork at all, would it be better if he got none of the money taken from the district and got it returned in some manner?

If you accept this idea then you really can't criticize any politician for pork spending. Because essentially that is everyones defense, "that's just how it works".

He doesn't get a pass on it by voting no on bills he knows are going to pass anyways.

[JaJae]

I have to agree with Shaft here. Just because some may feel his motives are slightly more altruistic than other politicians doesn't mean he isn't doing the same thing as them. It definitely goes against the principles I thought he stood for.

[Ardentfrost]

Other politicians use pork as a way to buy votes... his vote wasn't bought. He even voted NO on the bill despite putting shit in it.

I don't agree with his putting shit in it, I hate all forms of pork. However this isn't a deal breaker for me (it would have been if he had voted 'yes' on the bill... unless MAYBE if it happened a long time ago or if he has some REALLY good excuse for it which I can't imagine). I still think he would remain principled as president, and if elected and I'm proven wrong, I'll be on here bitching about him just like everyone else.

No matter how you look at it, he's still leagues better than any other candidate.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Other politicians use pork as a way to buy votes... his vote wasn't bought. He even voted NO on the bill despite putting shit in it.

I don't agree with his putting shit in it, I hate all forms of pork. However this isn't a deal breaker for me (it would have been if he had voted 'yes' on the bill... unless MAYBE if it happened a long time ago or if he has some REALLY good excuse for it which I can't imagine). I still think he would remain principled as president, and if elected and I'm proven wrong, I'll be on here bitching about him just like everyone else.

No matter how you look at it, he's still leagues better than any other candidate.

If he hadn't proposed all those spending projects that he got passed do you think his district would have continued to keep voting him into office? If not, how is it not buying votes? He's going against his principles to keep the support of his constituents.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Other politicians use pork as a way to buy votes... his vote wasn't bought. He even voted NO on the bill despite putting shit in it.

I don't agree with his putting shit in it, I hate all forms of pork. However this isn't a deal breaker for me (it would have been if he had voted 'yes' on the bill... unless MAYBE if it happened a long time ago or if he has some REALLY good excuse for it which I can't imagine). I still think he would remain principled as president, and if elected and I'm proven wrong, I'll be on here bitching about him just like everyone else.

No matter how you look at it, he's still leagues better than any other candidate.

When 400+ members tell you they are 100% certain to vote for a bill, you know it's going to pass, a little "no" protest vote means nothing

if he was REALLY fighting all of this, he certainly wouldn't be throwing in billions of dollars of pork he knew 100% would be passed

I don't see how one pandering politician is "leagues better" than any other pandering politician

[Ardentfrost]

Billions? lol, ok

And to Jajae, yes. Though that's not what I meant by buying votes... in Congress pork gets added to bills so that the people who want that pork will vote for a bill they are ambivalent about (or a subject they care more about the pork than the focus of the bill). THAT is corrupt as shit. Will a few million dollars to shrimp research or whatever get him more votes in his district? MAYBE a few shrimp researcher votes, but he gets voted in again and again because his district knows his principles and they agree with them.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

If you accept this idea then you really can't criticize any politician for pork spending. Because essentially that is everyones defense, "that's just how it works".

He doesn't get a pass on it by voting no on bills he knows are going to pass anyways.

I DON'T SUPPORT HIM ON THIS!

[Thorgrim]

Paul voted to keep include $231,000 for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association's Urban Center;

$129,000 for the "perfect Christmas tree project;"

$300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry Craft Technician Training Project in California;

$150,000 for the South Carolina Aquarium;

$500,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in California.

This year, Ron Paul requested more than sixty earmarks "worth tens of millions of dollars for causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local trolley, and helping his state's shrimp industry."

The Club For Growth - http://www.clubforgrowth.org

quite extensive, corruption usually gets really complicated, doesn't it?

I love the "this year" alone part...add it all together from how many years in Congress? Wow...

[hsmith]

This completely invalidates his stance on doing away with the internal revenue service

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by hsmith

This completely invalidates his stance on doing away with the internal revenue service

Huckabee wants to get rid of the IRS, I imagine you support him as well? They all pander in their own little way, what does it matter

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Huckabee wants to get rid of the IRS, I imagine you support him as well? They all pander in their own little way, what does it matter

yeah, Huckabee and Paul are in the same ball park

Christ, you find one thing about Paul and expect people to run away from him

[hsmith]

I think this was the only decent question Russert asked.

I don't think Paul answered it correctly or fully.

[hsmith]

I wish Paul would further explain his base closing plans.

So if we close all the bases worldwide, would we reduce our military forces? We are spending billions maintaining bases worldwide, but won't we have those same costs at home?

We would still have these massive forces, so what would we do? Many of our bases exist for training purposes - so how would we keep our forces ready in that manner.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by hsmith

I wish Paul would further explain his base closing plans.

So if we close all the bases worldwide, would we reduce our military forces? We are spending billions maintaining bases worldwide, but won't we have those same costs at home?

We would still have these massive forces, so what would we do? Many of our bases exist for training purposes - so how would we keep our forces ready in that manner.

Surely he wouldn't close down all the bases in the US. That wouldn't make sense imo, since we DO need a well trained military just in case.

[hsmith]

no I am referring to the abroad troops

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Interesting that he finds that as justification. IF he's president, will he not be representing a larger group of people asking for their money back? Are his actions in TX not representative of how he'll run a country? Isn't that why we look at a candidate's history as a politician?

It's money that's already being taxed. Already taken. They won't just give it back in the form of a check to those who paid in. This was the only way to try to get the money back for HIS taxpaying constituents. Sounds good to me.

As president? It's a whole different game.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by hsmith

I wish Paul would further explain his base closing plans.

So if we close all the bases worldwide, would we reduce our military forces? We are spending billions maintaining bases worldwide, but won't we have those same costs at home?

We would still have these massive forces, so what would we do? Many of our bases exist for training purposes - so how would we keep our forces ready in that manner.

He would probably hire / appoint people to make those decisions, rather than trying to make them for himself with his limited knowledge.

That would be the correct decision in my book. Trying to draw up detailed plans for everything he'd like to do... you can't possibly remember it all for when you're being interviewed.

[Thorgrim]

Again, he's not getting it back to the tax payers...it's going to a select group of "shrimp researchers" and other corrupt people so he can buy votes

a real "return" would be to go something EVERYONE in the district benefitted from...DIRECTLY...a lower deficit...possibly a program for his district that would get money back in EVERYONE'S hands

but no, he voted not only for money for his district, but for other districts as well, see club for growth's website

he just buys and panders...nothing special about him...Ron Paul...John Murtha...same people although I believe Murtha is more socially conservative

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by hsmith

I wish Paul would further explain his base closing plans.

So if we close all the bases worldwide, would we reduce our military forces? We are spending billions maintaining bases worldwide, but won't we have those same costs at home?

We would still have these massive forces, so what would we do? Many of our bases exist for training purposes - so how would we keep our forces ready in that manner.

he needs to further explain all his plans, right now one of his major parts of his platform is "Taxes on Tips"

I think he is not explaining himself because he will be less appealing when his does to many Americans. For instance, if he announced the end of Pell Grants most of his student/internet base would disappear. But that is the type of budget he is talking about.

[RMNIXON]

I did not see Ron Paul's remarks about Pakistan featured today?