chewbacca
01-09-2008, 01:47 AM
I see a bit of hypocricy in Ron Paul refusing the matching funds. Let me explain why he should, and why he has already used similar justification in the past.
When he was asked about earmarks on Tim Russert he replied that he was simply representing his constituents. The money would be spent either way and he felt that the tax payers in his district deserved some of their money back. He still vehemently disagreed with the practice of earmarking.
Now all im saying is this. Even if Ron Paul hates the system. Even if it stands against his principles just as earmarks did. GET US OUR TAX DOLLARS. We are your constituents. By not getting our peice of the pie the money is essentially guarenteed to be wasted by big governement. We are talking miniscule amounts compared to the hundreds of millions of earmarks Russert was referring to. Why the absolutist stand now? That twenty million could put you and the message of liberty over the top.
If you can justify a 500$ donation from a "white supremesist" by saying that returning it would only further his beleifs then WHY NOT take the matching funds from TAX PAYERS and STOP the big goverment beliefs in washington from destroying our liberties.
Maybe Im wrong.. but can someone explain to me how one of these two instances are justifiable but getting 20 million of tax dollars back to promote liberty isnt?
When he was asked about earmarks on Tim Russert he replied that he was simply representing his constituents. The money would be spent either way and he felt that the tax payers in his district deserved some of their money back. He still vehemently disagreed with the practice of earmarking.
Now all im saying is this. Even if Ron Paul hates the system. Even if it stands against his principles just as earmarks did. GET US OUR TAX DOLLARS. We are your constituents. By not getting our peice of the pie the money is essentially guarenteed to be wasted by big governement. We are talking miniscule amounts compared to the hundreds of millions of earmarks Russert was referring to. Why the absolutist stand now? That twenty million could put you and the message of liberty over the top.
If you can justify a 500$ donation from a "white supremesist" by saying that returning it would only further his beleifs then WHY NOT take the matching funds from TAX PAYERS and STOP the big goverment beliefs in washington from destroying our liberties.
Maybe Im wrong.. but can someone explain to me how one of these two instances are justifiable but getting 20 million of tax dollars back to promote liberty isnt?