Richard Viguerie: Ron Paul 'Shocking and Disappointing;'

[Rhys]

Finally Richard Viguerie shows his true intentions.



Richard Viguerie: Ron Paul Endorsement of Don Young 'Shocking and Disappointing;' Texas Congressman 'Put Pork Ahead of Principle'

Last update: 6:54 p.m. EDT Aug. 25, 2008
MANASSAS, Va., Aug 25, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- By endorsing Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) for reelection over his principled conservative challenger, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has put "pork ahead of principle," Richard A. Viguerie said.
Viguerie, Chairman of ConservativeHQ.com, said the endorsement is "completely inconsistent with everything Congressman Paul has said that he stands for. But, unfortunately, it is consistent with his record of pork-barrel spending for the folks back home in his district."
Viguerie noted that, according to a recent article in the Houston Chronicle, Paul "is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 -- neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function."
(A list of Congressman Paul's earmark requests for Fiscal 2009 has been posted at http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/04/ron_pauls_earmarks_for_fy2009.html .)
Young is extremely influential on congressional pork. He is the 7th most senior member of the House and the 3rd most senior Republican, and chaired the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee from 2001 until the Democratic takeover in 2007. He is currently the top Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee.
Paul is supporting Young against Sean Parnell, whom Viguerie called "a principled conservative reformer who will fight the 'culture of corruption' in Washington."
In contrast, "Young represents the system of earmarking and pork-barrel spending that works hand-in-glove with Big Government against the interests of the people of Alaska and the entire nation."
Young, who is under federal investigation for illegal gratuities and unreported gifts, is "a world-class porker, infamous for his Bridge to Nowhere and hundreds of millions in other earmarks," Viguerie said.
"I have been a strong supporter of Ron Paul for many years, including naming him one of the nation's up-and-coming leaders in a Conservative Digest magazine article I published almost 25 years ago," Viguerie said. "His overall record on other issues far outweighed his atrocious use of earmarks for his own district.
"However, his endorsement of Don Young is something no conservative or libertarian can excuse. I'm sure I join many fans of Ron Paul who are shocked and disappointed by this decision."
NOTE TO EDITORS: Richard A. Viguerie pioneered political direct mail and has been called "one of the creators of the modern conservative movement" (The Nation magazine) and one of the "conservatives of the century" (The Washington Times). His latest book is Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big-Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books), which, Jerome Corsi wrote in WorldNetDaily, is "destined to become a classic of conservative thinking" and "may be the most important conservative book written in the last quarter century."
SOURCE ConservativeHQ.com

http://www.ConservativeHQ.com



I'll remind everyone that "pork" and earmarks are MUCH better than letting the president spend all the money. Congress is in charge of the purse strings, and RP always said "if we're going to take the tax money, we'll try our best to get it back". Also he says that earmarks are not bad.

[Sandra]

Finally Richard Viguerie shows his true intentions.



I'll remind everyone that "pork" and earmarks are MUCH better than letting the president spend all the money. Congress is in charge of the purse strings, and RP always said "if we're going to take the tax money, we'll try our best to get it back". Also he says that earmarks are not bad.

Viguerie is a king among neo-cons. He will say ANYTHING to get them elected. I think he only approached the Paul campaign to wreck it.

It is his job to his constituents to sign them up if a vote for it is successful even though he votes against it. Viguerie leaves off this little morsel.

[LibertyEagle]

It is his job to his constituents to sign them up if a vote for it is successful even though he votes against it. Viguerie leaves off this little morsel.

Huh?

[Sandra]

Huh?

Congressmen have to list earmarks for money that's slated to come back to the state through federal legislation, although RP votes against the money coming back. He's probably the only one voting "no", so the earmrks are approved.

[kylejack]

Viguerie is a king among neo-cons. He will say ANYTHING to get them elected.
He wrote an anti-Bush book, so how do you figure?

[kylejack]

People make up the stupidest shit in this forum to support Ron Paul's poor stance on earmarks.

[brandon]

People make up the stupidest shit in this forum to support Ron Paul's poor stance on earmarks.

agreed.

And I'm no fan of Viguerie, but he is right about this.

Why did Paul endorse this neocon?

[Sandra]

He wrote an anti-Bush book, so how do you figure?


What neo-con today isn't? They want to stay employed so they distance themselves with a book. Lets see, how many in his administration has written a tell all book....

[Sandra]

agreed.

And I'm no fan of Viguerie, but he is right about this.

Why did Paul endorse this neocon?

All congressmen MUST submit these earmarks fron constituents. It's not up to them to change the law. But they CAN vote against the earmarks. I don't see why you don't understand the procedure.

[Zolah]

People make up the stupidest shit in this forum to support Ron Paul's poor stance on earmarks.

His stance is a correct stance, doesn't take much to figure that out.

[brandon]

All congressmen MUST submit these earmarks fron constituents. It's not up to them to change the law. But they CAN vote against the earmarks. I don't see why you don't understand the procedure.

How are they required to submit earmarks? Can you show me the law?

[kylejack]

All congressmen MUST submit these earmarks fron constituents. It's not up to them to change the law.
You are either lying or mistaken.

McCain, Flake, and Coburn do not submit earmark requests from their constituents.

[Sandra]

I believe you can eliminate earmarks at state level. Check your state's law.

[kylejack]

I believe you can eliminate earmarks at state level. Check your state's law.
Check your facts, Congressmen are not required to submit earmark requests.

[Sandra]

You are either lying or mistaken.

McCain, Flake, and Coburn do not submit earmark requests from their constituents.

YES MCCAIN DID!!!!!! We see which side has you now. BUSTED!!!!


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark/

Dude! just google every now and then.

[qh4dotcom]

Just the fact that Young voted for and supports the Iraq war should have been enough reason for RP to not endorse him.

RP is still my hero and I am not changing my plans to have a great time in Minneapolis but this is shocking

[gls]

Paul addressed the earmark issue on Meet the Press. The money is already in the pipeline and would be spent regardless; he is just trying to get some of it back to the people it was originally stolen from.

[paulaholic]

Richard is right. Endorsing Young, who represents the epitome of corruption, was a truly shocking and disappointing move. Earmarks aside, the fact that he is an Iraq War supporter and is under federal investigation renders this move extremely suspect. It almost makes me think he is losing it.

[kylejack]

YES MCCAIN DID!!!!!! We see which side has you now. BUSTED!!!!


http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark/
Fine with me, I always knew he was a liar, but anyway, you're still objectively wrong about Congress members being legally required to submit earmark requests from their constituents. They have the power to say no.

[surf]

i agree. Ron shouldn't endorse any proponent of warfare and empire unless the opponent is worse.... actually, he shouldn't endorse a warhawk.

is there anything good about Young?

[Sandra]

There was talk of Young changing his stance on the war. Is it true?

[kylejack]

Paul addressed the earmark issue on Meet the Press. The money is already in the pipeline and would be spent regardless; he is just trying to get some of it back to the people it was originally stolen from.
Handouts to shrimp companies is wrong, and the Congress should not be spending money on that.

[qh4dotcom]

Paul addressed the earmark issue on Meet the Press. The money is already in the pipeline and would be spent regardless; he is just trying to get some of it back to the people it was originally stolen from.

RP has a valid argument there, however as far as I know he has never explained where he gets the amounts he asks for...For example when the Wild American Shrimp Marketing got $10+ million in earmarks thanks to RP...did they pay tax bills totaling $10+ million? Looks to me like they made a profit

And it's not fair that most folks in his district don't get their money back and a few privileged ones do...especially if those who do make a profit....so what RP is doing is a transfer of wealth from the people in his district who don't get their money back to those who do.

I think anyone will find it hard to disagree with me

[Sandra]

This is a blog, not an article. Viguerie wrote this and it was copied off his site. Read the comments at the bottom! They explain EVERYTHING!



http://conservativehq.com/blog_post/show/42

[gls]

Handouts to shrimp companies is wrong, and the Congress should not be spending money on that.

If Congress didn't spend that money, it would go to the Executive Branch to be spent. The money is already in the pipeline and would be spent regardless of where it goes. Ron Paul is simply giving some of it back to the community it was taken from as opposed to a bloated government bureaucracy in DC.

If Ron Paul ignored his constituents earmark requests he would not be in Congress. A district will not elect a representative who refuses to fight for the money it sends to Washington. The system is broken but that’s not Paul’s fault.

[kylejack]

If Congress didn't spend that money, it would go to the Executive Branch to be spent. The money is already in the pipeline and would be spent regardless of where it goes. Ron Paul is simply giving some of it back to the community it was taken from as opposed to a bloated government bureaucracy in DC.
I'm perfectly aware of what Ron Paul's stance on it is, and I carried water for him on other forums, but I'll be damned if on Ron Paul Forums someone pisses on my head and tells me its raining. Congress doing earmarks is good when it is used for authorized functions, like setting up a post office. It is bad when it is used for corporate subsidies like the shrimp thing.

[gls]

RP has a valid argument there, however as far as I know he has never explained where he gets the amounts he asks for...For example when the Wild American Shrimp Marketing got $10+ million in earmarks thanks to RP...did they pay tax bills totaling $10+ million? Looks to me like they made a profit

And it's not fair that most folks in his district don't get their money back and a few privileged ones do...especially if those who do make a profit....so what RP is doing is a transfer of wealth from the people is his district who don't get their money back to those who do.

I think anyone will find it hard to disagree with me

Yes, but at least some of the stolen money is going to some of the people in the district, as opposed to none of it going to none of the people in the district (which I guess is the "principled" stand). The system is broken but the only choice is to work within it.

[gls]

I'm perfectly aware of what Ron Paul's stance on it is, and I carried water for him on other forums, but I'll be damned if on Ron Paul Forums someone pisses on my head and tells me its raining. Congress doing earmarks is good when it is used for authorized functions, like setting up a post office. It is bad when it is used for corporate subsidies like the shrimp thing.

Okay, so you'd rather that money go to DHS or some other government bureaucracy as opposed to back to the people and communities where it originated? Those are the two options.

[kylejack]

Yes, but at least some of the stolen money is going to some of the people in the district, as opposed to none of it going to none of the people in the district (which I guess is the "principled" stand). The system is broken but the only choice is to work within it.
Returning my tax dollars as a subsidy to a shrimp company is not good in any sense. The shrimp company did not pay 10 million in tax so they have no business getting back a ten million dollar subsidy at my expense.

[kylejack]

Okay, so you'd rather that money go to DHS or some other government bureaucracy rather than back to the people and communities where it originated? Those are the two options.
I oppose shrimp company welfare.

[tpreitzel]

Once again, let's beat around the bush. ;) The basic problem is government stealing the wealth of the people regardless of any other factors. Personally, I'd earmark as much money or more than Ron Paul does for my constituents. Sure, disparity will arise with any redistribution of wealth so let's stop the government from stealing it in the first place. Maybe, we should demand the federal government subsist off revenue from tariffs. Again, the government continues stealing and their theft is the source of the problem. The next problem lies in the fact that government's theft of the people's wealth WILL be redistributed REGARDLESS of Ron's actions which is regrettable, but a fact of life with Congress today. If I were a Congressman, I'd likely copy Ron's actions on earmarks to the letter.

[kylejack]

Once again, let's beat around the bush. ;) The basic problem is government stealing the wealth of the people regardless of any other factors. Personally, I'd earmark as much money or more than Ron Paul does for my constituents. Sure, disparity will arise with any redistribution of wealth so let's stop the government from stealing it in the first place. Maybe, we should demand the federal government subsist off revenue from tariffs. Again, the government continues stealing and their theft is the source of the problem. The next problem lies in the fact that government's theft of the people's wealth WILL be redistributed REGARDLESS of Ron's actions which is regrettable, but a fact of life with Congress today. If I were a Congressman, I'd likely copy Ron's actions on earmarks to the letter.
Why would you submit an earmark request for a company that exceeds that company's previous paid taxes?

[Sandra]

Why would you submit an earmark request for a company that exceeds that company's previous paid taxes?


Link? Source?

[kylejack]

Link? Source?
Nah, you're cut off until you provide a link or source that proves Congressmen are legally required to submit earmark requests.

[gls]

I oppose shrimp company welfare.

Great. You didn't really address the issue though. The money either goes back to the community it comes from or it goes into the sinkhole that is a DC bureaucracy. Personally I'd much rather see the money returned to the private sector than to an inefficient and probably counterproductive government program.

[kylejack]

Great. You didn't really address the issue though. The money either goes back to the community it comes from or it goes into the sinkhole that is a DC bureaucracy. Personally I'd much rather see the money returned to the private sector than to an inefficient and probably counterproductive government program.
Well hey, I can't help if you have dumb opinions and support wealth redistribution from taxpayers to private corporations. So carry on, I guess.

[gls]

Well hey, I can't help if you have dumb opinions and support wealth redistribution from taxpayers to private corporations.

Who do you think "taxpayers" are? I can guarantee you it's not the government bureaucracies you apparently think this money should go to. I know you're a little slow, but as I've pointed out THIS MONEY IS ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE AND WILL BE SPENT REGARDLESS. That's just the way the system works, but it's obvious that reality isn't your thing.

[tpreitzel]

Why would you submit an earmark request for a company that exceeds that company's previous paid taxes?

"Previous paid taxes" ... for one year or the many years that the government has been stealing the company's money and WILL continue stealing the company's money? ;)

Once again, let's beat around the bush. The problem is the government's THEFT of the company's money in the first place.

[kylejack]

Who do you think "taxpayers" are? I can guarantee you it's not the government bureaucracies you apparently think this money should go to. I know you're a little slow, but as I've pointed out THIS MONEY IS ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE AND WILL BE SPENT REGARDLESS. That's just the way the system works, but it's obvious that reality isn't your thing.
Did you support the Bridge to Nowhere, because hey it was just getting the money back to the local people in Alaska.

[gls]

Did you support the Bridge to Nowhere, because hey it was just getting the money back to the local people in Alaska.

Better that than going towards supporting an un-constitutional federal program or bureaucracy that infringes upon our liberty and undermines our Republic form of government.

Weren't you a troll from the somethingawful forums? I took a long time off from RPF but I seem to remember something about that from a while ago. Anyone remember what I'm talking about?

edit: Here is Kylejack trolling RPF along with his "goon" buddies.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2767121&pagenumber=3

[qh4dotcom]

"Previous paid taxes" ... for one year or the many years that the government has been stealing the company's money and WILL continue stealing the company's money? ;)

Once again, let's beat around the bush. The problem is the government's THEFT of the company's money in the first place.

You don't know how many years the company has been in existence...you don't even know if they will skip town right after they receive the 10 million and retire in a tax haven country like Panama.

and 10 million is a huge amount of money...much, much more than most people will earn in their lifetime.

[Rhys]

People make up the stupidest shit in this forum to support Ron Paul's poor stance on earmarks.

just because you're mom made up a stupid shit doesn't mean we do.

[kylejack]

Better that than going towards supporting an un-constitutional federal program or bureaucracy that infringes upon our liberty and undermines our Republic form of government.
The earmark was cancelled in Congress and the spending power was returned to bureaucrats. In this case, the power of the purse was given to governor Sarah Palin, who spent the money on roads they actually needed and cancelled the bridge to nowhere.

So yeah, bureaucrats can spend better than Congress, esp. when they're not spending it on pointless bridges and shrimp welfare.

[gls]

The earmark was cancelled in Congress and the spending power was returned to bureaucrats. In this case, the power of the purse was given to governor Sarah Palin, who spent the money on roads they actually needed and cancelled the bridge to nowhere.

So yeah, bureaucrats can spend better than Congress, esp. when they're not spending it on pointless bridges and shrimp welfare.

That money was only returned to Alaska after a deal was brokered by Stevens. Otherwise it would have gone to the federal government.

I noticed you didn't address my point that you are a troll from the somethingawful forums who was caught red handed.

[Sandra]

A run through of kylejack's past posts show he is consistantly anti-Paul.

[kylejack]

I've been registered on these forums and supporting Ron Paul for longer than any of you. I've donated plenty of money and spent plenty of time on street corners, I don't really give a damn what anyone here thinks of me.

[qh4dotcom]

A run through of kylejack's past posts show he is consistantly anti-Paul.

Did you look at all 7,000+ of kylejack's past posts? He would have been banned from the forum if most of his posts were anti-Paul.

[acptulsa]

People make up the stupidest shit in this forum to support Ron Paul's poor stance on earmarks.

Well, let's see. He votes against the pork, but before voting against the pork he makes sure that if there is pork his constituents share in it. As opposed to all the other members of the House, who put their pork in and then vote for it.

So, obviously kylejack thinks he should not only try to stop the theft, but should make sure he and his are the first to be stolen from and the last to get what is rightfully theirs back. Poor stance, indeed. Thanks for your input, kylejack... :rolleyes:

[gls]

I've been registered on these forums and supporting Ron Paul for longer than any of you. I've donated plenty of money and spent plenty of time on street corners, I don't really give a damn what anyone here thinks of me.

Well none of that can be verified. What can be verified is you trolling RPF on somethingawful here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2767121&userid=93311

[Sandra]

Did you look at all 7,000+ of kylejack's past posts? He would have been banned from the forum if most of his posts were anti-Paul.


You're kidding right? How long was Ghemminger here?

[acptulsa]

I've been registered on these forums and supporting Ron Paul for longer than any of you. I've donated plenty of money and spent plenty of time on street corners, I don't really give a damn what anyone here thinks of me.

Obviously:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1241451#post1241451

[kylejack]

Well none of that can be verified. What can be verified is you trolling RPF on somethingawful here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2767121&userid=93311
Of course it can be verified, ask the owner of the forums about the time he and I and others held signs up over the bridge on 59.

Sure, I have fun sometimes, just like yongrel trolling Hot Topics.

[acptulsa]

Of course it can be verified, ask the owner of the forums about the time he and I and others held signs up over the bridge on 59.

Sure, I have fun sometimes, just like yongrel trolling Hot Topics.

Well, so you think double agency is fun. Charming.

[Sandra]

OOPS. KyleJack really screwed up this time. :rolleyes:

[gls]

Of course it can be verified, ask the owner of the forums about the time he and I and others held signs up over the bridge on 59.

Sure, I have fun sometimes, just like yongrel trolling Hot Topics.

OK, so you admit you are a troll. That means no one should take you seriously. You are just trying to get a reaction so you can go and laugh about it with bunch of neckbearded losers/Obama supporters over at the something awful forums.

Well, time to put you on ignore.

[kylejack]

OK, so you admit you are a troll. That means no one should take you seriously. You are just trying to get a reaction so you can go and laugh about it with bunch of neckbearded losers/Obama supporters over at the something awful forums.

Well, time to put you on ignore.
Just because I was trolling one time doesn't make me a troll for life. Like I said, I've put in plenty of hours for Ron Paul.

[acptulsa]

Just because I was trolling one time doesn't make me a troll for life. Like I said, I've put in plenty of hours for Ron Paul.

And have you now trolled enough to undo whatever good you may have done in the past, or do you still have a ways to go?

A double agent must be careful, that way. You don't want to report back to the soulless with a positive record.

[kylejack]

And have you now trolled enough to undo whatever good you may have done in the past
Hahahaha, yes, I derailed the movement by posting a thread with a video, oh woe is me, my hundreds are meaningless, my volunteerism wiped out.

[acptulsa]

Hahahaha, yes, I derailed the movement by posting a thread with a video, oh woe is me, my hundreds are meaningless, my volunteerism wiped out.

Your sarcasm is meaningless and your reputation, such as it was, is wiped out. Troll on, soulless one. Have fun.

After all, you aren't nearly as persuasive a troll as you seem to think you are.

[Sandra]

Report, this is going way too far.

[revolutionman]

who the hell cares about earmarks??

You gonna pop a pimple, or are you gonna treat the acne???

Here we find ourselves again being suckered into treating the symptoms while the illness remains rampant.

Earmarks are one of the few avenues in which our federal tax dollars at least have a chance of benefiting the tax payers. Otherwise the Federal Gov will just spend the money killing brown people in the desert or perhaps bailing out big businesses

[kylejack]

Report, this is going way too far.
You reported me? Nice. You've been asked four times to substantiate your claim that Congress members are legally required to submit earmark requests (despite the fact that at least two don't) and you have not responded, nor have you backed down from the claim, yet I'm at fault because of some months-old thread.

I was member #234 here, by the way.

[kylejack]

who the hell cares about earmarks??

You gonna pop a pimple, or are you gonna treat the acne???

Here we find ourselves again being suckered into treating the symptoms while the illness remains rampant.

Earmarks are one of the few avenues in which our federal tax dollars at least have a chance of benefiting the tax payers. Otherwise the Federal Gov will just spend the money killing brown people in the desert or perhaps bailing out big businesses
If it was actually given to citizens that would be one thing, but its being used to bail out big businesses.

[acptulsa]

You reported me? Nice. You've been asked four times to substantiate your claim that Congress members are legally required to submit earmark requests (despite the fact that at least two don't) and you have not responded, nor have you backed down from the claim, yet I'm at fault because of some months-old thread.

The best defense may be a good offense, but this is a piss poor offensive thrust right here.


I was member #234 here, by the way.

You have a lower number than me, so you must be a better supporter than me? Who did you vote for in 1988? Care to guess who I voted for for president in 1988? Yet another massive fail. You'll have to do better than this.

Pity the impotent troll.

[kylejack]

You have a lower number than me, so you must be a better supporter than me? Who did you vote for in 1988? Care to guess who I voted for for president in 1988? Yet another massive fail. You'll have to do better than this.

Pity the impotent troll.
Please note, I was not addressing you, I was addressing the person I quoted. I am always addressing the person I quoted, the person who reported my posts in this thread for some kind of violation, apparently.

[acptulsa]

Please note, I was not addressing you, I was addressing the person I quoted. I am always addressing the person I quoted, the person who reported my posts in this thread for some kind of violation, apparently.

And I am addressing you. How is inserting earmarks in a pork bill for the benefit of his consitituents and then voting against that bill supporting pork? He's not real unless he's screwing his constituents? Why haven't you answered this question? If Sandra is a troll because she won't respond to your question, then how are you righteous and holy for ducking mine?

[qh4dotcom]

kylejack:

All humans make mistakes, RP is no exception...however here the folks like to act like he's perfect...they're not open minded enough to recognize when he has made a mistake.

You can never win arguments against closed-minded people....it's useless....but good luck anyway.

[acptulsa]

kylejack:

All humans make mistakes, RP is no exception...however here the folks like to act like he's perfect...they're not open minded enough to recognize when he has made a mistake.

You can never win arguments against closed-minded people....it's useless....but good luck anyway.

I'm lost. How is inserting earmarks for the benefit of your constituents prior to voting against pork a mistake? His constituents were just as robbed to make that pork as anyone else's constituents.

Standing on principle to the point that you're starving is one thing. Standing on principle to the point that others starve is something else. He stood on principle, he just took care of Plan B first. What is the problem again?

[kylejack]

kylejack:

All humans make mistakes, RP is no exception...however here the folks like to act like he's perfect...they're not open minded enough to recognize when he has made a mistake.

You can never win arguments against closed-minded people....it's useless....but good luck anyway.
Some have just drank the kool aid and can't see the forest for the trees. Hopefully Ron Paul will eventually come around to Coburn's thinking on this and just not submit them.

[acptulsa]

Some have just drank the kool aid and can't see the forest for the trees. Hopefully Ron Paul will eventually come around to Coburn's thinking on this and just not submit them.

Undoubtedly he will once he, like Coburn, is no longer worried about keeping his seat.

[qh4dotcom]

I'm lost. How is inserting earmarks for the benefit of your constituents prior to voting against pork a mistake? His constituents were just as robbed to make that pork as anyone else's constituents.

Standing on principle to the point that you're starving is one thing. Standing on principle to the point that others starve is something else. He stood on principle, he just took care of Plan B first. What is the problem again?

Just the fact that Young voted for and currently supports the Iraq war should have been enough reason for RP to not endorse him....I don't think you can argue this wasn't a mistake.

Regarding the earmarks, I said RP has a valid argument about returning tax money stolen from his constituents back to them, however as far as I know he has never explained where he gets the amounts he asks for...For example when the Wild American Shrimp Marketing got $10+ million in earmarks thanks to RP...did they pay tax bills totaling $10+ million? Looks to me like they made a handsome profit

And it's not fair that most folks in his district don't get their money back and a few privileged ones do...especially if those who do make a profit....so what RP is doing is a transfer of wealth from the people in his district who don't get their money back to those who do.

[Rhys]

He's taking dead government money and bringing back to live in the private sector... the dead money is producing production which produces wealth. I'm sure you'd rather it go to actual welfare which just produces consumption? Honestly, I think this is an example of his genius, not at all a mistake... unfortunately this is over the heads of a few.

and I don't think a few privileged people benefit from the theater opening or the parks.... he spreads money everywhere.

[acptulsa]

Just the fact that Young voted for and currently supports the Iraq war should have been enough reason for RP to not endorse him....I don't think you can justify this mistake.

That wasn't the subject at hand. From what I know of him, I wouldn't have endorsed him. And despite the troll's insistence that we all drink Kool Aid, I haven't seen a kind word about that on the forum yet.


Regarding the earmarks, I said RP has a valid argument about returning tax money stolen from his constituents back to them, however as far as I know he has never explained where he gets the amounts he asks for...For example when the Wild American Shrimp Marketing got $10+ million in earmarks thanks to RP...did they pay tax bills totaling $10+ million? Looks to me like they made a profit

Don't know enough about the specifics to comment.


And it's not fair that most folks in his district don't get their money back and a few privileged ones do...especially if those who do make a profit....so what RP is doing is a transfer of wealth from the people in his district who don't get their money back to those who do.

Hard to get a refund for individuals unless you're Dubya and the whole country gets bribed at once. That said, unless the shrimp company in question is multi-state or multinational, I bet the people of District 14 benefitted. In fact, I bet they seldom benefitted more from a bill that their own congressman voted against.

[amy31416]

Kylejack, while you are a raving unforgivable troll, you made a few good points about how earmarks suck. I think it's relatively obvious that RP was pushing for a mode of governing that would make that practice completely obsolete.

This thread though, http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2767121&pagenumber=3, proves that you're a douche bag of the lowest sort.

[DeadtoSin]

Kylejack, while you are a raving unforgivable troll, you made a few good points about how earmarks suck. I think it's relatively obvious that RP was pushing for a mode of governing that would make that practice completely obsolete.

This thread though, http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2767121&pagenumber=3, proves that you're a douche bag of the lowest sort.

Amy, you go to Something Awful? I do at least..

[kylejack]

Kylejack, while you are a raving unforgivable troll, you made a few good points about how earmarks suck. I think it's relatively obvious that RP was pushing for a mode of governing that would make that practice completely obsolete.
Of course I love Ron Paul, and I think he's a huge net positive on almost all topics, I just personally feel that he is very wrong on the earmark issue. Or possibly he's doing it because he feels he has to in order to get elected.


This thread though, http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2767121&pagenumber=3, proves that you're a douche bag of the lowest sort.
I'm not sweating it.

[acptulsa]

Of course I love Ron Paul, and I think he's a huge net positive on almost all topics, I just personally feel that he is very wrong on the earmark issue. Or possibly he's doing it because he feels he has to in order to get elected.

Yeah, we can tell. :rolleyes: Don't you just love how actions speak louder than words?

[DeadtoSin]

I'm not sweating it.

Why are you talking? Everyone knows you are a troll. Just leave.

[brandon]

This thread though, http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2767121&pagenumber=3, proves that you're a douche bag of the lowest sort.

wow, wtf?

kylejack has 7000 posts and he is just trolling? Get a life man....

[DeadtoSin]

wow, wtf?

kylejack has 7000 posts and he is just trolling? Get a life man....

I'm not saying he is trolling in every topic, but in this topic I get that distinct impression.

[amy31416]

Amy, you go to Something Awful? I do at least..

Not too often, but this was a special occasion.

[LibertyEagle]

Of course I love Ron Paul, and I think he's a huge net positive on almost all topics, I just personally feel that he is very wrong on the earmark issue. Or possibly he's doing it because he feels he has to in order to get elected.


I'm not sweating it.

You should be. :mad:

[angelatc]

Finally Richard Viguerie shows his true intentions.



I'll remind everyone that "pork" and earmarks are MUCH better than letting the president spend all the money. Congress is in charge of the purse strings, and RP always said "if we're going to take the tax money, we'll try our best to get it back". Also he says that earmarks are not bad.

I'm not happy with Young either, but it's over the bill they altered before sending it to be signed. I agree with Viguerie on it - it's disappointing.

[amy31416]

Of course I love Ron Paul, and I think he's a huge net positive on almost all topics, I just personally feel that he is very wrong on the earmark issue. Or possibly he's doing it because he feels he has to in order to get elected.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Let's not forget that RP works for the people in his district (most politicians do forget that) and while I can't stand earmarks myself, I can see why he'd want to get as much money back for them as possible. And it certainly won't be distributed as equitably as it would if people could just keep the money they earn.



I'm not sweating it.

Why would you? We're a bunch of jokes to you.


Cellophane S posted:

kylejack how does it feel to be a double agent

I tried to think of an answer to this, but all that came to mind was 'amazing, amazing'.


I backpedal in an attempt to keep it going.
kylejack posted:

Okay, confession. I didn't make the video. I only looked at it very briefly and didn't notice the bad parts before posting it, but I've always liked the song. Sorry, guys.

Anyway, let's dig it so that we can vote it down and keep it from spreading.

In addition, you posted the quotes of disbelief from other members here as fodder for mockery. You're a lowlife. A Wonkette wannabe.

[angelatc]

Returning my tax dollars as a subsidy to a shrimp company is not good in any sense. The shrimp company did not pay 10 million in tax so they have no business getting back a ten million dollar subsidy at my expense.

Was it a shrimp company, or the shrimp industry? I don't like it either way, but there's a difference in my mind.

[kylejack]

You should be. :mad:
Why should I be sweating something that was done months ago and which I already received moderator warnings for? Why should it derail a thread about earmarks? I shouldn't and it shouldn't.

[kylejack]

Was it a shrimp company, or the shrimp industry? I don't like it either way, but there's a difference in my mind.
A specific company received $10 million.

[kylejack]

I'm not saying he is trolling in every topic, but in this topic I get that distinct impression.
I've argued against the earmark position many many times here, for more than a year.

[amy31416]

Why should I be sweating something that was done months ago and which I already received moderator warnings for? Why should it derail a thread about earmarks? I shouldn't and it shouldn't.

So you're saying that while you were trolling and mocking us back then, that you've had a revelation and you're reformed and now you looooooove Ron Paul? :D

That's rich.

[mrkurtz]

You should be. :mad:

Defending Kylejack here... we should just accept the fact that people don't necessarily agree with RP's views 100%. Personally, I had a VERY difficult time navigating through the whole topic of the newsletters; and it wasn't just me. At a rally, I had a single mother next to me who kept her hands in her pocket when RP talked about abortion. And the earmarks thing, folks associate them with wasteful spending. While it's not fully logical to dock RP for them, it's completely understandable if the negative connotations about them affect his support.

And relax with the SomethingAwful thing; those forums have brilliant iconoclastic creativity and a slight libertarian slant. Be thankful that RP was popular enough to be a relevant topic worthy of their acceptance.

[DeadtoSin]

I don't think anyone was bashing Something Awful. I go there and to another board similar to that and I enjoy it a lot.

[gls]

And relax with the SomethingAwful thing; those forums have brilliant iconoclastic creativity and a slight libertarian slant. Be thankful that RP was popular enough to be a relevant topic worthy of their acceptance.

LOL...those forums are run by a bunch of cat ladies and repressed nerds and haven't been funny since 2001. If by "slight libertarian slant" you mean they ban anyone who doesn't support Obama 100%, then you're right. Just the other day I saw someone get banned for posting a poll that showed McCain and Obama tied.

[kylejack]

Personally, I had a VERY difficult time navigating through the whole topic of the newsletters
That one was a nightmare on Something Awful, let me tell you. I also had a hard time with it.

[kylejack]

LOL...those forums are run by a bunch of cat ladies and repressed nerds and haven't been funny since 2001. If by "slight libertarian slant" you mean they ban anyone who doesn't support Obama 100%, then you're right. Just the other day I saw someone get banned for posting a poll that showed McCain and Obama tied.
What day, what thread.

[angelatc]

A specific company received $10 million.

When was this, and specifically who got the money? All I can find is that there were earmarks of $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million for research into shrimp fishing.

Heh. Alaska does the same thing. They spend a bundle of federal money working their salmon industry.

[DeadtoSin]

LOL...those forums are run by a bunch of cat ladies and repressed nerds and haven't been funny since 2001. If by "slight libertarian slant" you mean they ban anyone who doesn't support Obama 100%, then you're right. Just the other day I saw someone get banned for posting a poll that showed McCain and Obama tied.

They didn't ban you for posting a poll. They probably banned you for having a no-content post or sassing a moderator. I know a lot of McCain supporters on there, and some Bob Barr supporters. Lets see you Something Awful name that was banned. I'd be interested in knowing why you were banned.

[gls]

They didn't ban you for posting a poll. They probably banned you for having a no-content post or sassing a moderator. I know a lot of McCain supporters on there, and some Bob Barr supporters. Lets see you Something Awful name that was banned. I'd be interested in knowing why you were banned.

Not me but here is someone put on probation for nothing more than posting a graph.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2939729&pagenumber=15&perpage=40#post348249780

[DeadtoSin]

He didn't just post a graph. He edited out something in the message and got suspended for trolling because someone quoted him to make sure the mod saw what he actually posted. He posted the graph and then, "
Just adding a little reality to your hope circle-jerk. "



So I think that qualifies for a 2 day suspension or whatever he got. He knows the rules there, he went into a Grassroots topic about Obama and trolled. You also just can't post a graph there. If you make a post on Something Awful it has to have SOME kind of input. If they allowed no-content posts on a board with 117,000 registered users with nearly 9,000 logged on right now then it would just be a big spam board.

I know this is off topic, we can get back on topic now. Sorry.

[kylejack]

Not me but here is someone put on probation for nothing more than posting a graph.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2939729&pagenumber=15&perpage=40#post348249780
SA has good moderation and doesn't allow low-content posts like that. Furthermore, Dr. Typicalhate is one of the worst posters on the forums by far.

[aspiringconstitutionalist]

LOL...those forums are run by a bunch of cat ladies and repressed nerds and haven't been funny since 2001. If by "slight libertarian slant" you mean they ban anyone who doesn't support Obama 100%, then you're right. Just the other day I saw someone get banned for posting a poll that showed McCain and Obama tied.

I've seen people banned on SA for any and every reason under the sun. A friend of mine got banned once for mentioning that she had had a couple drinks earlier that night because of the "Don't Post While Drunk" rule. She wasn't anywhere near drunk, and her post was substantive, coherent, interesting, and grammatically correct. Go figure.

I got temporarily banned from SA once for posting a "lolcat"-ized picture of Rudy Giuliani in a thread, the reason being that it was a lame picture.

[kylejack]

I've seen people banned on SA for any and every reason under the sun. A friend of mine got banned once for mentioning that she had had a couple drinks earlier that night because of the "Don't Post While Drunk" rule. She wasn't anywhere near drunk, and her post was substantive, coherent, interesting, and grammatically correct. Go figure.

I got temporarily banned from SA once for posting a "lolcat"-ized picture of Rudy Giuliani in a thread, the reason being that it was a lame picture.
What can I say, read the rules. They're very clear about no drunk-posting so her post must have been ambiguous about how tipsy she was. With regard to lolcats, that's an internet fad thing which SA is very hostile to. Specifically, the rules say:

Do not use any catchphrases, memes, internet slang, or any other crap that makes you look like a 12-year old.

The rules are followed fairly rigidly, and in fact have actually relaxed somewhat since the introduction of probation as opposed to a ban, but the result is pretty great. The forums have an extremely high signal to noise ratio and you don't have to go through page after page of people posting lolcats, no offense.

[tpreitzel]

You don't know how many years the company has been in existence...you don't even know if they will skip town right after they receive the 10 million and retire in a tax haven country like Panama.

and 10 million is a huge amount of money...much, much more than most people will earn in their lifetime.

Oh please! Just like Enron, I suppose. ;) Personally, it'd be quite easy for a sitting Congressman to determine a company's integrity in his locale based on their history. Furthermore, it's not nearly as easy for a company to just "skip town" as you imply due to legal ramifications which WILL eventually bite those "skipping town" in the arse. Maybe, you can think of a few reasons yourself? Furthermore, even IF the laws were changed the next year that eliminated the IRS, and I had gained a company (even IF it "skipped town" later) in my district an earmark for YEARS in advance, the company would still likely NOT break even over the course of its life. For once, it'd be nice for a company or constituents to get FIRST use of confiscated, depreciated dollars instead of the government. Once again, you're beating around the bush, because you seemingly want to point the finger at Ron Paul instead of the government's theft of the people's wealth. Personally, I'd earmark the living life out of federal dollars for my constituents IF I knew that those confiscated dollars would be returned to another representative's constituents, and I'd earmark sufficient funds for YEARS in advance so I'd only have to do so every X amount of years for any particular constituent. In the interim, I'd earmark for other entities (corporate and private) in my district in the SAME manner, i.e. YEARS in advance, so the people in my district got FIRST use of depreciated dollars instead of even further devalued dollars later if at all.

[phree]

Why do you all keep droning on and on and on about earmarks? Isn't there a thread specifically about that you can piss around in?

I for one am very disappointed about this endorsement and would like someone to explain to me why RP feels Young is a good statesman and represents the principles we've all rallied around.

Rationalizing about earmarks is only a ploy to avoid the real issue. So what the fuck is so good about Young?!

[Sandra]

Why do you all keep droning on and on and on about earmarks? Isn't there a thread specifically about that you can piss around in?

I for one am very disappointed about this endorsement and would like someone to explain to me why RP feels Young is a good statesman and represents the principles we've all rallied around.

Rationalizing about earmarks is only a ploy to avoid the real issue. So what the fuck is so good about Young?!


http://donyoung.house.gov/Issues.aspx

Ask him yourself.You should also note that he is pro diplomacy on Iran.

[Malakai]

These guys all know that accusing congressman of trying to KEEP MONEY BEING TAKEN FROM THE CITIZENS OF THEIR DISTRICT (ie earmarks) is a complete bullshit. This is propoganda folks, the best kind too because if you are not extremely educated on the subject it's easy as heck to believe.

They want that money going to the wars (the defense industry) or the drug companies or to the welfare state, not legitimate projects on a local level that benefit the local citizens.

Local/state government =/ Federal govt; the constitution is there to definite the responsibilities of the federal gov not every level or local

[Sandra]

i believe what hurt the worst with Alaska were Ted Stevens earmarks, of course he profitted personally from them. He raked in some dough.

[phree]

Fuck earmarks, Don Young is a turd.

[amy31416]

So, Kylejack, what was the point of mocking us if you're so smitten with Ron Paul? You've never answered that.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2767121&pagenumber=3

Did you just need a little extra attention that day? Were you on drugs? Or are you a troll?

[kylejack]

The entire Congressional delegation from Alaska is one investigation away from a prosecution, and Stevens is already being prosecuted. Young is terrible.

[kylejack]

So, Kylejack, what was the point of mocking us if you're so smitten with Ron Paul? You've never answered that.

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2767121&pagenumber=3

Did you just need a little extra attention that day? Were you on drugs? Or are you a troll?
It was fun, and harmless to Ron Paul, and there are a lot of people here who take life entirely too seriously.

[amy31416]

It was fun, and harmless to Ron Paul, and there are a lot of people here who take life entirely too seriously.

Wow. That sounds remarkably like bullshit!

[kylejack]

Wow. That sounds remarkably like bullshit!
Like I said, I don't really care what you think, Amy, we've had our run-ins in the past. I expect you to be hostile because of our history, and I expect you to keep bringing up shit from 4 months ago or whatever. It doesn't bother me, and I understand what's driving you. No sweat.

Kinda sucks for all the people reading the threads you'll continue to ruin and derail, though, but hey, that's on you.

[amy31416]

Like I said, I don't really care what you think, Amy, we've had our run-ins in the past. I expect you to be hostile because of our history, and I expect you to keep bringing up shit from 4 months ago or whatever. It doesn't bother me, and I understand what's driving you. No sweat.

Kinda sucks for all the people reading the threads you'll continue to ruin and derail, though, but hey, that's on you.

Nice dodge. What motivated you to do it if you really aren't a troll?

Keep in mind, that I do actually agree with you for the most part on earmarks, I just can't stomach backstabbers like yourself.

[Knightskye]

Thread title is misleading. He called the endorsement "shocking and disappointing," not Ron Paul himself.

I'm alright with Ron Paul earmarking things, but why is he earmarking so much for FEMA!?


• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood

That's $71.5 million to FEMA, which Ron Paul wants to get rid of.

And why did he earmark money to install security cameras near apartment buildings?


• $25,000 to install security cameras at Fox Run Apartments in Victoria

Abolish the Department of Education?

• $26 million for Washington, D.C. "Reading is Fundamental" program

The heck? :mad:

[kylejack]

Nice dodge. What motivated you to do it if you really aren't a troll?

Keep in mind, that I do actually agree with you for the most part on earmarks, I just can't stomach backstabbers like yourself.
Amy, this thread is about Don Young, not some months old thread! Perhaps start a new thread if you would like to discuss that so we don't take this one further off-topic!

[Knightskye]

I'll remind everyone that "pork" and earmarks are MUCH better than letting the president spend all the money.

Rhys, I don't think you got the point of what Viguerie was saying. Ron Paul could've endorsed a conservative candidate, and instead endorsed someone who is under federal corruption charges and infamous for his pork-barrel spending.

[phree]

Thread title is misleading. He called the endorsement "shocking and disappointing," not Ron Paul himself.

I'm alright with Ron Paul earmarking things, but why is he earmarking so much for FEMA!?



That's $71.5 million to FEMA, which Ron Paul wants to get rid of.

And why did he earmark money to install security cameras near apartment buildings?



Abolish the Department of Education?


The heck? :mad:

Well? Anyone?

[amy31416]

Amy, this thread is about Don Young, not some months old thread! Perhaps start a new thread if you would like to discuss that so we don't take this one further off-topic!

Perhaps you just say why ya did whatcha did? Then it goes to rest.

[Sandra]

• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood

Because Friendwood floods! And the canals stay clogged. I wish he were our congressman in Louisiana! The water comes up here if we get 2 inches! But this city won't do a thing.

[UtahApocalypse]

Ok.... did he actually VOTE for it though?

[Sandra]

Ok.... did he actually VOTE for it though?


He said he doesn't vote for it.

[RSLudlum]

The money in bills is already slated to be spent, earmarks are after the fact, they just determine where some of the money is going to go...Until the income tax is totally done away with, it's still redistribution of wealth but I'd rather have my rep. submit an earmark to bring the money back to my state where it was originally taken from, as long as the earmarks don't exceed the amount taken in taxes from that district for that year.....I'm not personally getting all my money back but at least it's closer to home. :(

[phree]

The money in bills is already slated to be spent, earmarks are after the fact, they just determine where some of the money is going to go...Until the income tax is totally done away with, it's still redistribution of wealth but I'd rather have my rep. submit an earmark to bring the money back to my state where it was originally taken from, as long as the earmarks don't exceed the amount taken in taxes from that district for that year.....I'm not personally getting all my money back but at least it's closer to home. :(

Hell dood, do you really think we needed to hear that speech again? We get it. This thread isn't a debate about earmarks so let it go.

The question at hand is why did RP endorse an asshole.

[Rhys]

Rhys, I don't think you got the point of what Viguerie was saying. Ron Paul could've endorsed a conservative candidate, and instead endorsed someone who is under federal corruption charges and infamous for his pork-barrel spending.

what I know is Ron Paul knows Young personally and I'll go with that. If Ron Paul lets me down this will be the first time. Also, we don't know that Young did anything wrong. The federal government can investigate my ass... all the crimes in government and they chose this and now? I'm always suspicious of investigations just before elections. Also, maybe the other guy is a slacker or a johny come lately or maybe Young made a deal with Ron Paul to help with the Fed... who knows.

And I really don't think RP is getting money for FEMA but instead for FEMA to do things he wants done.

[Rhys]

Hell dood, do you really think we needed to hear that speech again? We get it. This thread isn't a debate about earmarks so let it go.

The question at hand is why did RP endorse an asshole.

also... Ron Paul endorsing an asshole isn't as bad as those of you who are assholes.

[Knightskye]

What about the security cameras?

And the education money - FOR WASHINGTON, D.C. (which isn't in Texas, mind you)?


also... Ron Paul endorsing an asshole isn't as bad as those of you who are assholes.
"I award you no points..." etc, etc.

[RSLudlum]

Hell dood, do you really think we needed to hear that speech again? We get it. This thread isn't a debate about earmarks so let it go.

The question at hand is why did RP endorse an asshole.


sooooooorrrrryyyyyyy, i didn't read the entire 13pages of posts here. I was just stating my perspective on the OP article...that is what the forum is for isn't it? Sorry if my view is held by others here that have already stated such...

as far as the "question at hand", obviously RP doesn't think he's as much as an asshole as you do. That's why RP endorsed him and not you. ;)

[Rhys]

What about the security cameras?

And the education money - FOR WASHINGTON, D.C. (which isn't in Texas, mind you)?


"I award you no points..." etc, etc.

easy actually. Congress is in charge of DC's school system because they're not in a state and they're not a city. Also, maybe the appartment complex needed security cameras. That would benefit all the residents of the area if, for say, crime was reduced because of it. I don't think it was government monitored cameras like in england.

[qh4dotcom]

Okay gang...let's change the subject now...let's talk about Iraq war instead of earmarks...Don Young voted for and supports the Iraq war...isn't that fact more than enough reason for RP to not endorse Don Young?

Anybody here think that it wasn't a mistake for RP to endorse a war mongerer?

[RSLudlum]

Okay gang...let's change the subject now...let's talk about Iraq war instead of earmarks...Don Young voted for and supports the Iraq war...isn't that fact more than enough reason for RP to not endorse Don Young?

Anybody here think that it wasn't a mistake for RP to endorse a war mongerer?


no arguement here,,,, Can it be true that RP was neo-conned???? :(

[constituent]

What about the security cameras?

And the education money - FOR WASHINGTON, D.C. (which isn't in Texas, mind you)?


"I award you no points..." etc, etc.

i'm not living there atm, but coming from victoria i can 1) assure you that fox run apartments need some sort of security, but that 2) that it bugs the shit out of me to think the fed. gov't would have a hand in providing it/administering it, w/ever.

my hometown is a genuine one stoplight, they've even got a camera there.

also, i have to say that i agree w/ kylejack (though we've often been adversarial w/ one another) on the shrimping industry thing... the copano causeway too as rockport (really all of aransas county) has been completely overrun in my lifetime. i'd prefer the advancing hordes not be aided in furthering their destruction at my expense.

...anyway

[Knightskye]

easy actually. Congress is in charge of DC's school system because they're not in a state and they're not a city.

If they're not a city, why do they have a mayor (a mayor who doesn't appreciate the 2nd Amendment)? Ron Paul doesn't want the federal government controlling D.C.'s school system. During a speech he made, I'm not sure where, he said they've had control of education there for 50 years, and it's gone downhill.


Also, maybe the appartment complex needed security cameras. That would benefit all the residents of the area if, for say, crime was reduced because of it. I don't think it was government monitored cameras like in england.

The landlord can take care of his tenants' security. He shouldn't need the legislative help of the one guy against a police state.

[constituent]

Okay gang...let's change the subject now...let's talk about Iraq war instead of earmarks...Don Young voted for and supports the Iraq war...isn't that fact more than enough reason for RP to not endorse Don Young?

i think so, but whatcha gonna do? he and i disagree on this issue.

is it worth jumpin' up and down about?

not really.

[pepperpete1]

Ron Paul has left me confused on another issue. I can not figure out why he did not address the petitions served on him and all the other congressmen/women and senators for redress of grievences by We The People Foundation. Ron Paul publically said it is their constitutional right to do so back in 2001. I keep hoping we will get an answer from him when he talks at the Rally.

As far as earmarks, he explained about them on the Jay Leno show. It is money already appropriated for different programs, and if he did not request money for his own constituents he would not be doing the job he was elected to do.

FROM FOX NEWS:

Pet Projects

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."

The Wild American Shrimp Marketing is located in 8 different states and is receiving funds from federal grants and grants from other sources also. They are also implementing an assessment fee from the producers to pay (.05 per pound ?) to help subsidize themselves.
I have to wonder how many jobs this industry provides.

[Rhys]

You're right. I'm voting for Obama.

[Rhys]

You know something else... Ron Paul was Texas District 14 Rep long before any of us gave a shit. We don't know why he endorsed Young except maybe he needed him. You all get your panties bunched by the dumbest shit... you're like media kittens. I think it's your fad to be into Ron Paul and feel it more than get it. I think you're more than likely going back to the democrat party by 2012 cause you'll find so much little shit to bitch about. That's how people become democrats... constant complaining about little things, and asking for Obama's to fix it all.

[klamath]

WoW! let's all bash him. God I am glad RP never won as it would have been hell with supporters like this. Since he is not perfect and wouldn't have been able to snap his fingers on jan 20 2009 and turn the country into a libertarian paradise you people would have turned on him like savage dogs.

[acroso]

So I guess Paul never even endorsed him. heh

[tomaO2]

The funny thing about all this fighting about earmarks is that everyone agrees that earmarks shouldn't exist. Thererfore, we support Ron Paul in voting against it.

He is the ONLY congressman that does so. Sometimes that is glossed over but it is the most important point.

However (if you want to ignore that), we also know that if the congressman don't create earmarks then the money will go to another branch of goverment. That means that quite aside from the argument of whether or not a congressman is required legally to spend earmarks, the federal goverment is legally required to set aside a certain amount of money to fund them. It's basically a use it or lose it clause and if it's not used, then the districts will have no control over getting back any of the money of what they put in. So, all things considered, it is better that districts get them, rather then to not get them.

We also know that the total of earmarks is less then the total of taxes that everyone pays in the district. It is impossible for a rebate check to for every single taxpayer that would refund the every single cent of money they paid. It probably would not even be practical to do the sort of rebate congress passed earlier this summer.

Therefore, the people that benifit will get a disproportionate benifit from what they pay because only a limited number will get anything. We agree this is unfair but still better then not having any of the districts needs taken care of. We also know that even though only certain groups are getting the money, the benifits will still trickle down to others in the area. Most times.

In conclusion, it's still better for there to be earmarks. Rather then none at all, as long as the money will be spent anyway.

The problem seems to be that some people believe their moral judgement to be superior then those of the people who are requesting/doling out earmarks. To say that this, that and the other thing are okay while anything that is a business (even though businesses pay taxes too) is not, is very arrogent. In fact, the idea that certain people posess some sort of superior judgement above the rest if us, is exactly why having goverments tax us excessively is so evil.

"I think that every single man woman and child should have health care," for instance. "I think there should be a fat tax so people stay thin," is another. The goverment needs to stop taxing us altogether (outside of core, constitutional services) and stop providing us with so many of their bribes, which is one of the main planks of our movement. Once you start spending outside of our constitutional boundries, then there will always be endless argument as to what is appropriate to use that spending for, as we can see here. It's a senseless sideshow.

So we look and decide, even though we know nothing about the individual curcumstances of the earmark. Even if we did understand we would still argue. One can say a post office is okay, on the other hand a shrimp company is not. Who are we to decide that a goverment controlled monopoly is a better recipiant then a competitive business? If anything, I trust the goverment less then a buisness. However, I certainly would not make such a moral judgement. I'm not even going to complain about the bridge to nowhere (unless there was some form of corruption that led to it, I really don't know how it happened).

Fact is, a congressman's constitutes make requests. A congressman should do his best to honor those requests for as whatever time earmarks are still around. That's his job, to help his constitutes. He's not looking how to help the country as a whole as the president might. He's just making sure his district is represented.

So, as long as there is no chicanery involved by either party. Trying to judge those decisions is usually just a losing game. There is no reason to not think that Ron Paul is doing anything but trying to help his district as much as he can.

It's easy to criticize and most men do. No one can look at these numbers at a glance and claim they have a full story. The important thing is the earmarks are voted against. All the rest is noise.

On topic, looks like Ron Paul didn't support the man so all this wailing can now stop. Yay.

[qh4dotcom]

i think so, but whatcha gonna do? he and i disagree on this issue.

is it worth jumpin' up and down about?

not really.

The same as January when I first heard about the earmarks....it was shocking to hear something like that from a man that I believed so much....but I managed to get over it...took me a few days to jump back on the RP bandwagon

I guess the same will happen with this warmonger endorsement.

[Trigonx]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=152040



Why do people continue to read and then believe what Richard Viguerie says about anything concerning Ron Paul.

[RickyJ]

The same as January when I first heard about the earmarks....it was shocking to hear something like that from a man that I believed so much....but I managed to get over it...took me a few days to jump back on the RP bandwagon

I guess the same will happen with this warmonger endorsement.

I can get over the earmarks, but endorsing a warmonger? Nope, I can't get over that if he did indeed do that. I don't worship Ron Paul, I just like his message.

[Knightskye]

You know something else... Ron Paul was Texas District 14 Rep long before any of us gave a shit. We don't know why he endorsed Young except maybe he needed him. You all get your panties bunched by the dumbest shit... you're like media kittens. I think it's your fad to be into Ron Paul and feel it more than get it. I think you're more than likely going back to the democrat party by 2012 cause you'll find so much little shit to bitch about. That's how people become democrats... constant complaining about little things, and asking for Obama's to fix it all.

So, hurling insults at people is the right way to handle them asking questions about what Ron Paul is earmarking money for?

I have no problem with him earmarking money, but I posted certain things that he requested money for, like security cameras, and money for Washington, D.C. schools. And I wanted to know why he asked for those things.

Instead, I get:


You all get your panties bunched by the dumbest shit...
you're like media kittens.
you'll find so much little shit to bitch about.

Maybe if you answered questions instead of cursing, insulting, and acting like a jerk...

[tomaO2]

So, hurling insults at people is the right way to handle them asking questions about what Ron Paul is earmarking money for?

I have no problem with him earmarking money, but I posted certain things that he requested money for, like security cameras, and money for Washington, D.C. schools. And I wanted to know why he asked for those things.



The simple answer is that he earmarked these things because that is what his constitutes asked him to earmark. He has a certain amount of money to spend and by God, if his constitutes want him to spend it, he shall. This does not mean that he comes up with these proposals on a whim, however. He's not sitting at his desk and suddenly go, "Hey, maybe I should earmark money for a new Starbucks coffee shop. I think it should go across the street from the one that's already in the area." That doesn't happen, as far as I know. It would be wrong if it did. The congressman shouldn't dictate what will be earmarked, he must chose from what he is asked for. That can mean that sometimes silly seeming things will be picked in order to make up the full amount he is allowed to earmark. There is a set amount he as allowed to spend. Use it or lose it.

The more complex answer is we don't really know why, exactly. Does it matter? Suppose you listen to the reasons and are not satisfied? Are you saying that if you were in his place you would have better judgement? That only the earmarks you think worthy, are fit to be added? Why is your judgement so much better then the person that requests/doles out earmarks for the things that you just listed?

Once you accept the principal that it's okay to have earmarks (as in voting for them, as opposed to simply honoring the requests of your constitutes in an effort to allow your distict to reclaim some of the money that was stolen by the federal goverment), then you get into the argument of what are the "right" things to earmark. There is no real way for all reasonable people to agree on everything when it comes to that. Things you think are a waste of taxpayer money would be passionately defended by another. The only solution is to end the entire system.

My advice it to not sweat the small stuff. It doesn't matter what the earmarks are (unless there is some kind of personal benifit the congressman would be getting from it), the important thing is to have your congressman defend the principal of avoiding earmarks. Which Ron Paul does.

[AlexMerced]

Yeah, earmarking in the grander scheme of things is a minor issue, pork really account for a minut fraction and is an issue to distract from things truly eating up he budget such as a medicaide/social security and other welfare state programs.

Pork spending isn't reduced or increased by earmarking, so not wriing earmarks doesn't do a damn thing. Ron paul has introduced legislation in the pass to remove the earmarking system altogether.

As long as the system is in place, it doesn't mean much not earmark, it's a vanity issue.

[Knightskye]

Is it possible to earmark $26 million to go toward the interest on the debt?


The simple answer is that he earmarked these things because that is what his constitutes asked him to earmark.

His constituents are in Texas.

[LibertyEagle]

I have no problem with him earmarking money, but I posted certain things that he requested money for, like security cameras, and money for Washington, D.C. schools. And I wanted to know why he asked for those things.


Probably, the best thing for you to do to get the answer is to go straight to Dr. Paul's Congressional office. I have called them on several occasions when I wanted to clear up something like this.

[constituent]

You know something else... Ron Paul was Texas District 14 Rep long before any of us gave a shit.

:rolleyes:


We don't know why he endorsed Young except maybe he needed him. You all get your panties bunched by the dumbest shit... you're like media kittens. I think it's your fad to be into Ron Paul and feel it more than get it.

you're such a f*n idiot.


I think you're more than likely going back to the democrat party by 2012 cause you'll find so much little shit to bitch about.

the "democrat" party?

get lost son.... ride your rocket outta town or w/ever.

[acptulsa]

It was fun, and harmless to Ron Paul, and there are a lot of people here who take life entirely too seriously.

Life, liberty and the Constitution which protects both are not serious subjects to you?

And if it was harmless to Ron Paul, what possible motivation could there have been for it?

You're no lover of liberty. You're the problem, not a solution. Troll away, friend. Just don't get your panties in a know when you get pwned.

[kylejack]

Life, liberty and the Constitution which protects both are not serious subjects to you?

And if it was harmless to Ron Paul, what possible motivation could there have been for it?
You're cracking me up, man, and yes you're one of the ones that takes life too seriously.


You're no lover of liberty. You're the problem, not a solution. Troll away, friend. Just don't get your panties in a know when you get pwned.
I've supported Ron Paul's campaigns financially since 1998, I don't need any rubber stamp from acptulsa.

But for like the zillionth time let's discuss the topic and not some thread from months ago.

[Sandra]

Ron Paul has left me confused on another issue. I can not figure out why he did not address the petitions served on him and all the other congressmen/women and senators for redress of grievences by We The People Foundation. Ron Paul publically said it is their constitutional right to do so back in 2001. I keep hoping we will get an answer from him when he talks at the Rally.

As far as earmarks, he explained about them on the Jay Leno show. It is money already appropriated for different programs, and if he did not request money for his own constituents he would not be doing the job he was elected to do.

FROM FOX NEWS:

Pet Projects

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."

The Wild American Shrimp Marketing is located in 8 different states and is receiving funds from federal grants and grants from other sources also. They are also implementing an assessment fee from the producers to pay (.05 per pound ?) to help subsidize themselves.
I have to wonder how many jobs this industry provides.

Pepperpete, Ron Paul isn't authorized to speak for Congress or the Federal government, that's unconstitutional. He forwarded it to where the whole of the house would hear it.

[Sandra]

I can get over the earmarks, but endorsing a warmonger? Nope, I can't get over that if he did indeed do that. I don't worship Ron Paul, I just like his message.

He has a diplomatic stance on Iran which is an immediate issue.

[acptulsa]

But for like the zillionth time let's discuss the topic and not some thread from months ago.

Look! Over there!!

:rolleyes:

[kylejack]

Look! Over there!!

:rolleyes:
I've been supporting Ron Paul since 1998 and immediately registered on these forums when I discovered they existed, the same month the domain was registered. I'm not worried even a little bit about some Johnny-come-lately who started supporting Ron Paul in January.

[angelatc]

And the education money - FOR WASHINGTON, D.C. (which isn't in Texas, mind you)?


Congress is the government of D.C.

[angelatc]

I've been supporting Ron Paul since 1998 and immediately registered on these forums when I discovered they existed. I'm not worried even a little bit about some Johnny-come-lately who started supporting Ron Paul in January.

Kylejack, do you have a link, or the name, of the shrimp company that you said either got, or at least asked for, $10 million as a result of Ron Paul's earmark? I found some stuff that was earmarked for marketing and research, but all the articles said was "shrimp industry."

[kylejack]

Kylejack, do you have a link, or the name, of the shrimp company that you said either got, or at least asked for, $10 million as a result of Ron Paul's earmark? I found some stuff that was earmarked for marketing and research, but all the articles said was "shrimp industry."
Would take some time...I'll do a little googling

[phree]

It's ironic to catch shit from you all because I insist on confirming RP's principles. I'm a critical person not a koolaid drinker and I think the good doctor would respect that.


He (Young) has a diplomatic stance on Iran which is an immediate issue.



Young on Iran:

The Iranian regime’s record on human rights, its links to terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and its well-documented attitude towards Israel are outrageous. I am continuing to urge Congress to make strong gestures to the Iranian regime regarding its treatment of its citizens.



I have serious concerns about the nature of Iran’s nuclear activities, and share international concern that the aims of the Iranian nuclear program are not exclusively peaceful. I will continue to support the international community’s efforts to resolve the issue through diplomacy. It is important to place the maximum pressure on Iran to return to meaningful negotiations about its nuclear ambitions and to fully meet the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I welcome the June 2006 initiative put forward by Germany and the five permanent members of the Security Council, which offers Iran a wide-ranging basis for negotiations and a positive future relationship, in return for the suspension of its nuclear enrichment program and a return to meaningful negotiations.



Furthermore, I will support measures against Iran if it fails to comply with the Security Council. These should include banning all international nuclear co-operations with Iran, halting the sale of dual-use nuclear technology and military technology to it, and prohibiting new international investment in oil and gas projects in the country. The United States remains at the forefront of efforts to generate and maintain consensus over Iran. We hope that the united front that the permanent members of the Security Council have shown will be maintained now that we are approaching a critical juncture in our dealings with Iran.


Not too libertarian.

I've read a few posts saying that RP didn't actually endorse Young. I hope that's true. Just don't criticize people who take reports like this seriously until they're disproved.

[kylejack]

It's ironic to catch shit from you all because I insist on confirming RP's principles. I'm a critical person not a koolaid drinker and I think the good doctor would respect that.

Not too libertarian.

I've read a few posts saying that RP didn't actually endorse Young. I hope that's true. Just don't criticize people who take reports like this seriously until they're disproved.


Former Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has endorsed Don Young in his bid to win an 18th term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Paul, the 72-year-old congressman from Texas whose maverick presidential bid drew wide support in Alaska, sent out a letter to his supporters here urging them to vote for Young.

“Don and I have served together in Congress for many years, and I consider him a friend,” Paul wrote in the letter. “Don has been an outspoken voice against environmental extremists over the years and has strongly opposed the types of federal regulatory overreach advocated in the name of environmentalism.”

Paul and Young are a bit of an odd couple. Paul is a fiscal conservative; Young believes in earmarking federal dollars for Alaska wherever possible. Paul opposes the Iraq war; Young supports it.

But Michael Anderson, Young’s campaign spokesman, said Alaska’s predominantly libertarian perspective is what the two men have in common.

“He’s got some odd bedfellows, if you will,” Anderson said. “But that’s who Young is, and how he’s able to get things done when he’s in the minority.”

In his letter, Paul said he was supporting Young, in part, for his backing of the Liberty Amendment, which would bar the federal government from operating any business-type activities and abolish the federal income tax.

“Few members of Congress have shown the insight to understand the importance of this sweeping legislation to restrain the federal government, and even fewer have shown the courage to co-sponsor this bill,” Paul said. “Don is one of those.”

Anderson said the endorsement undercuts claims by the anti-earmark group Club for Growth and Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who’s running against Young in Tuesday’s GOP primary, that Young is not conservative enough.

“The message here is the wide range of appeal Young has with Alaskans across the board,” Anderson said. “It also sets the truth about where Young stands on taxes. We wouldn’t have received the endorsement unless Young shared Paul’s position on restructuring the federal tax system.”

Paul came in third back in February in the state Republican Party’s presidential nominee preference poll, behind Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

He beat John McCain, now the last Republican standing in the presidential race.

Paul suspended his presidential campaign in June, but has not endorsed McCain. Paul, who raised $35 million this past year for his presidential attempt, also ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988.

A spokeswoman for Paul’s congressional office did not return a call for comment in time for this story.
http://newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/20/ron-paul-endorses-don-young-parnell-offers-anwr-la/

Looks to me like he sent out an endorsement letter, perhaps just to supporters living in Alaska.

[acptulsa]

I've been supporting Ron Paul since 1998 and immediately registered on these forums when I discovered they existed, the same month the domain was registered. I'm not worried even a little bit about some Johnny-come-lately who started supporting Ron Paul in January.

You expect me to take your word for it, but you don't believe I voted for him in 1988 because I didn't hear about this forum until after Christmas? Your logical fallacies are as numerous as they are patently goofy.

P.S. Actions still speak louder than words, troll.

[phree]

You expect me to take your word for it, but you don't believe I voted for him in 1988 because I didn't hear about this forum until after Christmas? Your logical fallacies are as numerous as they are patently goofy.

P.S. Actions still speak louder than words, troll.

You obviously care more about feeding a troll (if he is one), than addressing an important issue. Post on forums much?

[acptulsa]

You obviously care more about feeding a troll (if he is one), than addressing an important issue. Post on forums much?

I have weighed in on both the endorsement question and the earmark question. Read through threads much before you start barking?

[kylejack]

You expect me to take your word for it, but you don't believe I voted for him in 1988 because I didn't hear about this forum until after Christmas? Your logical fallacies are as numerous as they are patently goofy.

P.S. Actions still speak louder than words, troll.
FYI: I still don't care and would like to discuss the topic of this thread.

[phree]

I have weighed in on both the endorsement question and the earmark question. Read through threads much before you start barking?

There is nothing inappropriate about criticizing someone for keeping a thread off-topic. So fuck off.

[acptulsa]

There is nothing inappropriate about criticizing someone for keeping a thread off-topic. So fuck off.

:D

Nah, too easy. I just can't do it.

[Sandra]

There is nothing inappropriate about criticizing someone for keeping a thread off-topic. So fuck off.


And you posted here because.............

[kylejack]

let it go

[acptulsa]

let it go

Ja vohl, mein herr!

[Sandra]

let it go


Man! and he printed it in BOLD! We better back off and give him the last word! :eek:

[Rhys]

So, hurling insults at people is the right way to handle them asking questions about what Ron Paul is earmarking money for?

I have no problem with him earmarking money, but I posted certain things that he requested money for, like security cameras, and money for Washington, D.C. schools. And I wanted to know why he asked for those things.

Instead, I get:



Maybe if you answered questions instead of cursing, insulting, and acting like a jerk...

everything I said is truth, not an insult. I answered you, you just dismissed it off hand without knowing what you're talking about. That's why I have low opinions of so many who post here.... high strung dip shits.

[SnappleLlama]

*grabs popcorn much too late*

So THIS is what happens when I leave for a few weeks, eh? ;)

[phree]

And you posted here because.............

I posted here because I want to understand the subject of this thread. In case you've had even more koolaid than usual the subject is Ron Paul endorsing Don Young. My posts have been on topic.

From the day I discovered RP I've been committed to voting for whoever he endorsed. I don't live in Alaska, but how he uses the power of his endorsement is extremely important to me. If you can't deduce that from my posts you either aren't trying or you don't have good comprehension. The fact that you pointed to Young's position on Iran as a rationalization for the endorsement makes me think it's the latter.

[qh4dotcom]

Okay gang....many of you defending the earmarks probably haven't seen the earmark requests themselves with RP's signature....here you go

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

[kylejack]

Ron Paul also submitted an earmark request for a portion of the Trans-Texas Corridor.

[acptulsa]

Okay gang....many of you defending the earmarks probably haven't seen the earmark request themselves with RP's signature....here you go

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

You want to change my mind show me where Ron Paul voted for this stuff.

[Sandra]

Right now, Congress is focusing on a strike on Iran. Young seems to be one of the few that backs diplomacy. Anybody backing diplomacy gets my backing too. We can sort out the other stuff once we get more noninterventionalists in. Young may have at one time backed the was in Iraq but it's evident he thinks differently on Iran now.

[phree]

Right now, Congress is focusing on a strike on Iran. Young seems to be one of the few that backs diplomacy. Anybody backing diplomacy gets my backing too. We can sort out the other stuff once we get more noninterventionalists in. Young may have at one time backed the was in Iraq but it's evident he thinks differently on Iran now.

Sandra, really....



Young on Iran:

The Iranian regime’s record on human rights, its links to terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and its well-documented attitude towards Israel are outrageous. I am continuing to urge Congress to make strong gestures to the Iranian regime regarding its treatment of its citizens.



I have serious concerns about the nature of Iran’s nuclear activities, and share international concern that the aims of the Iranian nuclear program are not exclusively peaceful. I will continue to support the international community’s efforts to resolve the issue through diplomacy. It is important to place the maximum pressure on Iran to return to meaningful negotiations about its nuclear ambitions and to fully meet the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I welcome the June 2006 initiative put forward by Germany and the five permanent members of the Security Council, which offers Iran a wide-ranging basis for negotiations and a positive future relationship, in return for the suspension of its nuclear enrichment program and a return to meaningful negotiations.



Furthermore, I will support measures against Iran if it fails to comply with the Security Council. These should include banning all international nuclear co-operations with Iran, halting the sale of dual-use nuclear technology and military technology to it, and prohibiting new international investment in oil and gas projects in the country. The United States remains at the forefront of efforts to generate and maintain consensus over Iran. We hope that the united front that the permanent members of the Security Council have shown will be maintained now that we are approaching a critical juncture in our dealings with Iran.

[Sandra]

Ron Paul also submitted an earmark request for a portion of the Trans-Texas Corridor.


Give us a source or shut up! You have made so many claims and when asked for a source, you change the subject. You are proving yourself a troll.

[kylejack]

Give us a source or shut up! You have made so many claims and when asked for a source, you change the subject. You are proving yourself a troll.
I told you, you're cut off until you provide a source for your claim that Congress members are required by law to submit earmark requests (hint: they're not).

[Kludge]

I told you, you're cut off until you provide a source for your claim that Congress members are required by law to submit earmark requests (hint: they're not).

You're obviously a DHS psy-ops troll sent to convince us Ron Paul isn't the Messiah and that rainbows in the water supply is OK.

Personally, I hope you get banned.

[Sandra]

Young on Iran:

The Iranian regime’s record on human rights, its links to terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and its well-documented attitude towards Israel are outrageous. I am continuing to urge Congress to make strong gestures to the Iranian regime regarding its treatment of its citizens.



I have serious concerns about the nature of Iran’s nuclear activities, and share international concern that the aims of the Iranian nuclear program are not exclusively peaceful. I will continue to support the international community’s efforts to resolve the issue through diplomacy. It is important to place the maximum pressure on Iran to return to meaningful negotiations about its nuclear ambitions and to fully meet the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I welcome the June 2006 initiative put forward by Germany and the five permanent members of the Security Council, which offers Iran a wide-ranging basis for negotiations and a positive future relationship, in return for the suspension of its nuclear enrichment program and a return to meaningful negotiations.



Furthermore, I will support measures against Iran if it fails to comply with the Security Council. These should include banning all international nuclear co-operations with Iran, halting the sale of dual-use nuclear technology and military technology to it, and prohibiting new international investment in oil and gas projects in the country. The United States remains at the forefront of efforts to generate and maintain consensus over Iran. We hope that the united front that the permanent members of the Security Council have shown will be maintained now that we are approaching a critical juncture in our dealings with Iran.

You failed to counter.

[kylejack]

Okay gang....many of you defending the earmarks probably haven't seen the earmark requests themselves with RP's signature....here you go

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf
The TTC earmark request is page 20 of this PDF.

[kylejack]

you're obviously a dhs psy-ops troll sent to convince us ron paul isn't the messiah and that rainbows in the water supply is ok.

lmao

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well..."earmarks" I consider to be a false flag. The politicans blame the earmarks for crazy spending rather than the TRUTH. I don't consider earmarks the culpret. After all, it's the taxpayers money and why not get them some of that back? The real culpret is the nutty printing of money by the Fed. Ron Paul votes no to maintain his voting record...because although I"m sure he doesn't agree with all the taxation..why not get some of his voters money back? Tones

[Sandra]

I told you, you're cut off until you provide a source for your claim that Congress members are required by law to submit earmark requests (hint: they're not).

You made the claim, buddy. Your ball.

[angelatc]

Would take some time...I'll do a little googling

Well apparently my Google skills aren't up to snuff. No surprise there, but I'd appreciate it if you can help.

[phree]

Give us a source or shut up! You have made so many claims and when asked for a source, you change the subject. You are proving yourself a troll.

And you're a Koolaid junkie that promotes the idea that Young is right on foreign policy.

[klamath]

Ron Paul also submitted an earmark request for a portion of the Trans-Texas Corridor.

I had some respect for you but it seems you are posting a lot of half truths and refuse to post credible sources when asked.
Where is the smoking gun that shows RP specifically earmarked 10 million for 1 company?
Where is the smoking gun that shows RP earmarked money to the trans Texas corridor and not funds to improve some section of a freeway that might become part of the corridor?

[acptulsa]

So, Dr. Paul inserts earmarks in spending bills before he votes against them. Furthermore, he seems to be willing to endorse candidates who appear to be moving the right direction in their thinking, as opposed to not endorsing any incumbents at all. Therefore, he's not perfect. Ergo, we should all give up on getting honest people into office and stay home and shut up.

I'm actually rather proud we've reduced the trolls to this. They seem to be fighting the "cult of personality". I really don't know why they think Dr. Paul is charismatic enough to be the center of a "cult of personality", but it is funny to watch them attempt to dismantle this phantom "cult".

[kylejack]

You made the claim, buddy. Your ball.
Well those of us who have been discussing this since May of last year are well aware of it, sorry if you're new to the discussion, but anyway I cited above.

[kylejack]

I had some respect for you but it seems you are posting a lot of half truths and refuse to post credible sources when asked.
Where is the smoking gun that shows RP specifically earmarked 10 million for 1 company?
Where is the smoking gun that shows RP earmarked money to the trans Texas corridor and not funds to improve some section of a freeway that might become part of the corridor?
I said a portion.

[acptulsa]

Well those of us who have been discussing this since May of last year are well aware of it, sorry if you're new to the discussion, but anyway I cited above.

That's right, folks, he has seniority. His arguments have no basis and he admitted he's been trolling, but he's been trolling a long time and has seniority. So show respect!!

[phree]

So, Dr. Paul inserts earmarks in spending bills before he votes against them. Furthermore, he seems to be willing to endorse candidates who appear to be moving the right direction in their thinking, as opposed to not endorsing any incumbents at all. Therefore, he's not perfect. Ergo, we should all give up on getting honest people into office and stay home and shut up.

I'm actually rather proud we've reduced the trolls to this. They seem to be fighting the "cult of personality". I really don't know why they think Dr. Paul is charismatic enough to be the center of a "cult of personality", but it is funny to watch them attempt to dismantle this phantom "cult".

Bullshit. It would be better to stick to principles than endorse a typical politician like Young. Questioning RP's decisions does not make me a troll, it makes me a critical and objective thinker. Actually your behavior is more trollish.

[Conza88]

People make up the stupidest shit in this forum to support Ron Paul's poor stance on earmarks.


http://ponkkis.kapsi.fi/gtfo.png

[acptulsa]

Bullshit. It would be better to stick to principles than endorse a typical politician like Young. Questioning RP's decisions does not make me a troll, it makes me a critical and objective thinker.

I expressed my dissatisfaction with this endorsement earlier in the thread. I believe you're just arguing my point that this is no "cult of personality" that surrounds Dr. Paul.


Actually your behavior is more trollish.

Don't see it, myself. But, hey, whatever suits you.

[klamath]

Returning my tax dollars as a subsidy to a shrimp company is not good in any sense. The shrimp company did not pay 10 million in tax so they have no business getting back a ten million dollar subsidy at my expense.

I don't see "a portion" in this statement.

I give RP a low D on earmarks and not a F because he votes against the whole spending bill.

However since we are judging people on their mistakes I have to give you a solid F on what you did trolling on this and the other forum in Feb.

Don't ever run for office.

[kylejack]

I just noticed something, on page 44 of the PDF posted earlier, the earmark request is addressed to Murtha and....Don Young. So Young is the one approving some of these requests, I guess depending on the committee they come through.

[Sandra]

The TTC earmark request is page 20 of this PDF.

Liar! That is a request for existing I-69 improvements, NOT the TTC. SHOW us where he asked for funds for the TTC!

[phree]

You failed to counter.


Are you really that naive?

Here's Young's position again:



Young on Iran:

The Iranian regime’s record on human rights, its links to terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and its well-documented attitude towards Israel are outrageous. I am continuing to urge Congress to make strong gestures to the Iranian regime regarding its treatment of its citizens.



I have serious concerns about the nature of Iran’s nuclear activities, and share international concern that the aims of the Iranian nuclear program are not exclusively peaceful. I will continue to support the international community’s efforts to resolve the issue through diplomacy. It is important to place the maximum pressure on Iran to return to meaningful negotiations about its nuclear ambitions and to fully meet the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I welcome the June 2006 initiative put forward by Germany and the five permanent members of the Security Council, which offers Iran a wide-ranging basis for negotiations and a positive future relationship, in return for the suspension of its nuclear enrichment program and a return to meaningful negotiations.



Furthermore, I will support measures against Iran if it fails to comply with the Security Council. These should include banning all international nuclear co-operations with Iran, halting the sale of dual-use nuclear technology and military technology to it, and prohibiting new international investment in oil and gas projects in the country. The United States remains at the forefront of efforts to generate and maintain consensus over Iran. We hope that the united front that the permanent members of the Security Council have shown will be maintained now that we are approaching a critical juncture in our dealings with Iran.


And now the important parts only, this is where you see what actions a politician will really take:


I am continuing to urge Congress to make strong gestures to the Iranian regime regarding its treatment of its citizens.

This is against everything RP says about foreign relations.

Even worse:


I will support measures against Iran if it fails to comply with the Security Council. These should include banning all international nuclear co-operations with Iran, halting the sale of dual-use nuclear technology and military technology to it, and prohibiting new international investment in oil and gas projects in the country.

Do you even know what interventionism is? Do you know what sanctions are and RP's usual position on them?

Previously you highlighted the middle paragraph of Young's Iran statement which shows that you're easily confused by political rhetoric.

[acptulsa]

So Young is the one approving some of these requests...

Did you have a point?

[Conza88]

http://msp228.photobucket.com/albums/ee274/caballistic/Your_Gay.jpg

[Rhys]

Hey troll:


In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress is required, by the limits specified under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, to pass legislation directing all appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This provides Congress with the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.

[kylejack]

Liar! That is a request for existing I-69 improvements, NOT the TTC. SHOW us where he asked for funds for the TTC!
I-69 is the proposed TTC.

[kylejack]

Hey troll:
If you're saying that means that legislators are required to submit all earmark requests backing up Sandra's false point, you are wrong. If it were illegal Coburn would be prosecuted.

[Rhys]

If you're saying that means that legislators are required to submit all earmark requests backing up Sandra's false point, you are wrong. If it were illegal Coburn would be prosecuted.

And what makes me wrong troll? Back your trolling up.

[Kludge]

And what makes me wrong troll? Back your trolling up.

What you appeared to defend:

All congressmen MUST submit these earmarks fron constituents.

Kylejack hasn't been proven wrong yet...

[kylejack]

And what makes me wrong troll? Back your trolling up.
First I need to know what point you're making.

[Rhys]

What you appeared to defend:


Kylejack hasn't been proven wrong yet...

come on troll... very weak... that's your problem? cause sandra said 'must'?

[acptulsa]

I-69 is the proposed TTC.

Therefore, every onramp proposed for I-69 is a boon to the TTC project. I see.

[kylejack]

come on troll... very weak... that's your problem? cause sandra said 'must'?
Like I said, maybe you're right I just need to know what point you're making or defending.

[Rhys]

I'm making the point that Congress has the duty, obligation and constitutional authority to appropriate funds, and doing so is not a fault of Ron Paul... instead, it's a strength. He's taking money from bloated bureaucracies, and investing it in growth in his community. All things considered, I like his option as a working solution to the more serious problem which he attacks and has made a career out of fighting. I'll also remind you, he's so important to us because of the good fight that he's fought alone for years. All of a sudden, Mr. Expert Troll thinks he's bad for something he did which he SHOULD have done and has the legislative authority to do. What's more, if more congressman would vote against the bloated budgets WITH Ron Paul, we wouldn't be bitching about earmarks... well, you would cause you're a troll.

[CapitalistRadical]

Basically, Ron needs to maintain his seat, which gives him airtime on CNN and a bully pulpit. It would be a shame to lose him, and I'm willing to allow some pork spending to prevent his defeat.

[kylejack]

I'm making the point that Congress has the duty, obligation and constitutional authority to appropriate funds, and doing so is not a fault of Ron Paul... instead, it's a strength. He's taking money from bloated bureaucracies, and investing it in growth in his community. All things considered, I like his option as a working solution to the more serious problem which he attacks and has made a career out of fighting. I'll also remind you, he's so important to us because of the good fight that he's fought alone for years. All of a sudden, Mr. Expert Troll thinks he's bad for something he did which he SHOULD have done and has the legislative authority to do. What's more, if more congressman would vote against the bloated budgets WITH Ron Paul, we wouldn't be bitching about earmarks... well, you would cause you're a troll.
Of course he's important to us, and he's the best member of Congress by miles.

Doesn't change the fact that I have an honest disagreement with him on earmarks and wish he would take the Coburn approach.

[Rhys]

Of course he's important to us, and he's the best member of Congress by miles.

Doesn't change the fact that I have an honest disagreement with him on earmarks and wish he would take the Coburn approach.

out of all the things you could disagree with him on, at least this one is modestly benign.

[kylejack]

Well of course I was upset by the newsletters as well.

[Rhys]

Well of course I was upset by the newsletters as well.

lol I don't bite at trolls often. You aint getting me again. :D

[Sandra]

Well of course I was upset by the newsletters as well.

You're NOT taking us there. Buh bye.

[phree]

come on troll... very weak... that's your problem? cause sandra said 'must'?

Yeah, how could using the word "must" influence the meaning of the statement?

[amy31416]

Amy, this thread is about Don Young, not some months old thread! Perhaps start a new thread if you would like to discuss that so we don't take this one further off-topic!

You've been yapping on about earmarks far more than me. I think I've made my stance pretty clear on it.

As far as Don Young goes--definitely a mistake to endorse him. Just another bit of evidence that I'm right to not trust his endorsements, he's made several mistakes in that arena.

Now where's that dude who said we all blindly follow Ron Paul (Vaio)? Maybe it's another account of kylejack's.

[aravoth]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/threadfailure.gif

[acptulsa]

Well of course I was upset by the newsletters as well.

Upset that they couldn't forensically tie them to Ron Paul's own pen?

[kylejack]

Upset that they couldn't forensically tie them to Ron Paul's own pen?
I think it showed poor oversight, but its water under the bridge.

[aravoth]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/mk_davis_pgf-1.gif

[kylejack]

Aravoth, that gif is freaking me out.

[phree]

You're NOT taking us there. Buh bye.

I hope you're not leaving before explaining how Young's position on Iran is anything at all like RP proposes. I'm curious about the parts where he says it's our duty to control what the Iranian government does and how we need to sanction them if they don't follow our dictates.

Edit: I see no reason to believe Young wouldn't vote for war against Iran just as he did with Iraq.

[SnappleLlama]

When it's a troll-on-troll fight, the...erm...trolls win?

[LibertyEagle]

I-69 is the proposed TTC.

Actually, there is more than one. I-35 is the primary one.

Personally, I'd much rather the government fund improvements to our own aging roads, than to sell them to foreign companies, as is being done elsewhere all over Texas. But, that's just me. ;)

[aravoth]

When it's a troll-on-troll fight, the...erm...trolls win?

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/yessir-1.gif

[amy31416]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/yessir-1.gif

HAHAHAHA! Perfect.

[SnappleLlama]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/yessir-1.gif

dagnabbit! I carn't see anything through my work's firewall!!

*pounds tiny fists against cubicle walls*

[LibertyEagle]

I hope you're not leaving before explaining how Young's position on Iran is anything at all like RP proposes. I'm curious about the parts where he says it's our duty to control what the Iranian government does and how we need to sanction them if they don't follow our dictates.

Edit: I see no reason to believe Young wouldn't vote for war against Iran just as he did with Iraq.

Phree, Ron Paul is one of a kind. We will be looking far and wide to find someone as pure on principle as he is. So, if he's going to endorse ANYONE, there are going to be some aspects that we don't agree with. Clearly, if Ron Paul endorsed Young, he thought the good things outweighed the bad and he thought him a better candidate than the other guy. For all we know, he only endorsed him because the race looked like it was close and he thought just maybe this might pitch it towards Young.

If you or anyone else is SO concerned about this endorsement, why don't you pick up the phone, right now, and call his Congressional office AND ASK THEM. Complaining about it here is not going to get your answer for you.

[phree]

When it's a troll-on-troll fight, the...erm...trolls win?


Way too many good questions are going unanswered for you to dismiss this thread so easily.

Failure to study these issues is tantamount to cowardice.

[acptulsa]

Way too many good questions are going unanswered for you to dismiss this thread so easily.

Failure to study these issues is paramount to cowardice.

Tantamount to cowardice, I assume you meant. Why? Do we really have a good reason to fear Dr. Paul's softspoken recommendations?

P.S. Snapple, it's a clip from, if I remember right, Full Metal Jacket where the drill instructor is teaching a recruit to scream.

P.P.S. Never mind, phree, you answered it. I really don't think anyone can successfully hang this "cult of personality" mumbo jumbo on us in the shadow of swooning Obamamaniacs...

[SnappleLlama]

Way too many good questions are going unanswered for you to dismiss this thread so easily.

Failure to study these issues is paramount to cowardice.

It's easy to dismiss this thread when all I see is a bunch of people calling each other trolls. Seriously...it's over 20 pages long, now, and it's just a bunch of fluff. Congratulations, everyone. You've just created your own internet congressional bill! :D

[LibertyEagle]

Way too many good questions are going unanswered for you to dismiss this thread so easily.

Failure to study these issues is paramount to cowardice.

Just pick up the phone, phree. Geez.

[phree]

Phree, Ron Paul is one of a kind. We will be looking far and wide to find someone as pure on principle as he is. So, if he's going to endorse ANYONE, there are going to be some aspects that we don't agree with. Clearly, if Ron Paul endorsed Young, he thought the good things outweighed the bad and he thought him a better candidate than the other guy. For all we know, he only endorsed him because the race looked like it was close and he thought just maybe this might pitch it towards Young.

If you or anyone else is SO concerned about this endorsement, why don't you pick up the phone, right now, and call his Congressional office AND ASK THEM. Complaining about it here is not going to get your answer for you.

I will find out the answer myself, but what concerns me most at the moment is the way some members are willing to ignore evidence because they don't want to believe something that might be negative about Dr. Paul. Supporters like that give us all a bad name.

[phree]

Do we really have a good reason to fear Dr. Paul's softspoken recommendations?



Softspoken recommendations? That's Koolaid talking.

[acptulsa]

Softspoken recommendations? That's Koolaid talking.

Oh? So he's requiring Alaskans to vote for Young at the point of a gun and I'm just turning a blind eye to it?

A caustic enough argument, but hardly a cogent one...

[LibertyEagle]

I will find out the answer myself, but what concerns me most at the moment is the way some members are willing to ignore evidence because they don't want to believe something that might be negative about Dr. Paul. Supporters like that give us all a bad name.

I agree that it's worth finding out. I mean, no one is perfect. Not even Ron Paul. But, I also find it curious that some people are also jumping to the conclusion that Ron Paul must be evil, or he wouldn't have done this. Everyone has to find out for themselves, but for me, I know whenever I've had one of these dilemmas and called his office and spoken to an aide, that what Ron did always made sense to me.

So go through whatever it is that you feel you need to do. But, I'm suggesting to you that you're flying blind until you talk to his office and get more information.

[aravoth]

Way too many good questions are going unanswered for you to dismiss this thread so easily.

Failure to study these issues is tantamount to cowardice.

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/Redranger.gif

[acptulsa]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/Redranger.gif

Translation for Snapple: Power Ranger goofiness.

[phree]

I agree that it's worth finding out. I mean, no one is perfect. Not even Ron Paul. But, I also find it curious that some people are also jumping to the conclusion that Ron Paul must be evil, or he wouldn't have done this. Everyone has to find out for themselves, but for me, I know whenever I've had one of these dilemmas and called his office and spoken to an aide, that what Ron did always made sense to me.

So go through whatever it is that you feel you need to do. But, I'm suggesting to you that you're flying blind until you talk to his office and get more information.

So you don't feel any curiosity about this? You could have called his office yourself in the same amount of time it took you to suggest I do it.

[Rhys]

I just called the congress office's chief off staff. He's gonna call back with an answer. I'll tell you all what he says on why... why... why. Honestly, I don't know either but I trust Dr. Paul with my life and my families future.

[acptulsa]

So you don't feel any curiosity about this? You could have called his office yourself in the same amount of time it took you to suggest I do it.

Do you? You actually seem more interested in our reactions than in the issue itself.

[tomaO2]

His constituents are in Texas.

Right, so I would tend to believe that you are mistaken when you make a claim that he is earmarking his money for Washinton DC. One of the posters has kindly given a link to all his recent earmark requests and they are all for his district. http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/all...tx.14.paul.pdf

Every one of them has the location of Gavelsteen or Texas in it. None have a different state. Why are you so eager to believe that Ron Paul is funding other areas? What makes you think he CAN fund other areas? Nothing I have read on the subject has stated that you can set aside earmarks for something completely outside of your district. Where did you hear it?

He gets requests for funding from his constituents and tries to honor their request while still voting against the bill. That's how this works. Even if the funding DID go to Washington DC, it would, almost certainly, still help his district in some odd way. Considering the paragon of integrity Ron Paul is, you owe him the benifit of the doubt. Stop attacking with information that is little more then hearsay.

You wanted a reasonable answer to your posts, I have given you one. Now, are you going to reasonably take into consideration what I have said or will you mindlessly attack again because deep in your heart you really don't think Ron Paul is as great a congressman as he seems to be?

[LibertyEagle]

So you don't feel any curiosity about this? You could have called his office yourself in the same amount of time it took you to suggest I do it.

Because I have done it enough, that I am choosing to trust him on this. It's you that are upset over it; not me. So, you need to call yourself and get your questions answered to your own satisfaction. You don't need a go-between.

Ron has the most approachable congressional office of any that I have ever called. He's not even my Congressman, but I have called his office through the years to get an answer to a question that my own congressman would not answer. They were always approachable, professional and thorough.

[phree]

Do you? You actually seem more interested in our reactions than in the issue itself.

I already plainly stated that I'm very concerned about your reactions or lack thereof. It's head in the sand behavior like yours that gives us a bad name.

I called RP's office and was put into voicemail. I'll let you all know what I find out.

It's sad that you all trivialize my commitment to RP. Until I heard about this endorsement I was confident about voting for RP's endorsements. Now I'm not. I'm sure this isn't effecting only me, and if it represents a greater loss of support for RP I would think you would be more concerned instead of posting troll crap like aravoth.

[Sandra]

Is there any way to see it kylejack and phree are the same person? I believe phree just confused replies directed to kylejack.

[acptulsa]

It's sad that you all trivialize my commitment to RP. Until I heard about this endorsement I was confident about voting for RP's endorsements. Now I'm not. I'm sure this isn't effecting only me, and if it represents a greater loss of support for RP I would think you would be more concerned instead of posting troll crap like aravoth.

It really hadn't occured to me that there were people supporting Ron Paul that arent' capable of researching candidates themselves. Didn't know that was really likely. I do know the only Congressional incumbant who is as good as he is he himself.

[BarryDonegan]

Don Young voted against the reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

there is a distinct possibility that ron paul is using soft endorsements to keep the numbers of congressmen fighting against the patriot act solid.

we don't know all the specifics of that district. this is not a third party claim of wrongdoing, this is a lesser known political candidate trying to get some hype for a political career.

if you have a question about ron paul's choice for a soft endorsement of a colleague, ask him sometime.