Laughing my ass off !
And please feel free to flame on!
Printable View
Laughing my ass off !
And please feel free to flame on!
Not even worth it. Don't click the link.
One has to be really desperate to spend all that time making such a weak argument. lmao
LMAO! would you like to puts any facts into that smear. Congress approves spending but taxpayers don't have to pay for it? Just who will dickhead?
I guess we must be getting to the competition. Stick around grund. Better you here then out working for your candidate. LMFAO!!!
wow.....is all that stuff true? Especially the stuff about the medal for Rosa Parks! I can't believe he wouldn't have voted for the medal....I guess I have some thinking to do.
peace out
Romney flippers, McCains warmongers, Clintons inner circle, Huck's Bee's....
I pick Paultard! I would wear a button that said that, just to start conversation.
Kiddin' right?Quote:
Originally Posted by ruzz
Given your low post count, you may be a troll. But I'll answer anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruzz
Ron Paul doesn't like spending tax payer money on anything that isn't critical to running the federal government. Once you start down that path, it's really difficult to stop as every politician can find an innumerable amount ways to justify spending. All one has to do is look at the rampant pork in every budget and you can see this fact. In one absurd example, a congressman even used 9/11 to justify a piece of pork for peanut farmers in his state "to protect America".
In the case of Rosa Parks, Ron Paul was not against giving her recognition (in fact, he admired her for here non-violent protest which is something he advocates). What he was against was the rather large sum of tax payer's dollars that would be needed to pay for the medal. Instead, he suggested that the members of congress, as representatives of the people, pool their own funds together to pay for the medal. Out of all the members of congress, he alone was willing to put up HIS OWN MONEY to pay for this. The rest of congress wanted to spend tax payer's dollars.
If you truly believe it is the federal governments job to spend you're money the way THEY see fit, then perhaps you do not understand what Ron Paul is all about. It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and it holds true. Federal funds should be limited to what the federal government needs to spend in order to complete its job. Opening the door to other spending, ven if your intentions are good and genuine, inevitably will lead to disaster (as we are seeing now).
~X~
Nice post..well said. RP slapped $100 on the table and asked congress members to match it for that medal. No one did. I guess they were really willing to spend OUR money for it tho..lol
Errr...you do know he volunteered $100 of his own money to pay for this and challenged his colleagues to do the same?Quote:
Originally Posted by ruzz
None of them agreed, they just wanted to spend taxpayer money to do it.
Sniff, sniff.....could that be.....?
Thanks ~X~ ! Could not have been explained better!
Well...if that isn't just PROOF that the man is a racist, then I do not know what is....Quote:
Originally Posted by SL89
wonder who this guy is voting for? All I know is that it is someone committed to ruining our sovereignty, taking away our land, our money and our freedoms, and killing our children in foreign lands..
The link is so lacking of basic intelligence. HAHQuote:
Originally Posted by Grundloven
Theyre explanation for Ron Paul being nuts is that there is NO inflation going on.
They dont even understand how the federal reserve system works.
Look my friend you can laugh all you want as our man trudges on in his campaign in the face of adversity but know one thing. The Ron Paul people are the best educated people on the issues. Period.
He didn't vote for the medal because he didn't want the taxpayers to pay $30,000+ for it. That is not a function of the Federal government.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruzz
He did vote for a building in Detroit to be named after her, because that DID NOT COST THE TAXPAYERS ANYTHING.
If you care to read RP's opinion of Rosa Parks, look in the Congressional Record (it is online).
Ron Paul tried to get congress to launch a moneybomb for Rosa Parks, but they would rather steal our money to do it
The irony is those things are absolute nitpicking over a 20 year history of votes and views. It shows that the only way to attack RP is to twist around random ancient tidbits. Meanwhile, the other Republican candidates can't account for what they stood for 2 years ago. :yawn:
???You agreed with the same post that I did. Sorry I don't get it. Why smash me Cricket?
The guy who is writing this blog is what I call a PAULTARD.
Someone who has the disease of not being able to stop attacking Ron Paul with weak accusations.
A medal for Rosa is NOT the purview of the Congress.
It has nothing to do with racism, but you KNOW Paultards like that one will try to make it into an issue.
There is very little upon which you can attack Ron Paul.
His recent entry, guess he lurks here:
"Sunday, June 29, 2008
In surprising news, Paultards can't read
Someone pointed me to an old post from the Ron Paul Forums mocking our previous FAQ on the Rosa Parks medal. The funny thing is how the first poster writes "check this! Stupidity, really to the bone," only to have everyone regurgitate the very same talking points that have been refuted in the FAQ, without ever actually acknowledge the fact that it was addressed in the FAQ. You know, "It was tax payer funded," "Ron Paul pitched in his own money," yadda yadda yadda.
If you're going to mock an article, then it might help to actually read said article before you fall back on your standard talking points. Especially if the entire point of said article is to refute the talking points in questions. Unfortunately, Paultards aren't capable of doing that. Not only do they refuse to accept contradictory viewpoints, which is normal, they instead have to live in an imaginary world where they pretend that contradictory viewpoints don't exist. That theirs is the only viewpoint on Earth, and the only reason why everyone else hasn't adopted it is because they haven't "woken up" yet.
That's one of the reasons why I wrote the Rosa Parks FAQ in the first place. When you bring up an argument to the Paultards on why Ron Paul is a moron, they will twist and turn in an attempt to avoid all rational discussion on facts, evidence, and theory. The fact that they're willing to launch discussion threads about the FAQ while refusing to actually discuss the content of the FAQ hints at their own vulnerability. The don't want to acknowledge the content, because they know that they're weak on that issue. And their weakness on that issue can be exploited.
Posted by Ron Lawl at 5:46 PM "
Notice he never refutes the points that were made in this thread about why RP voted NO. Besides, who cares about people like this screaming for our attention now. Your day has come and gone "Ron Lawl". Keep trolling for the blog hits that have now dried up. You're way too transparent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danke
He just says were dumb and uneducated on the subject when a few of us pointed out to hi what Ron Paul really did. Oh yeah, and this Ron Lawl guys says there is no inlfation? Lmfao, get the fuck out of here.
I hate to tell this PAULTARD that writes this sad blog, but no one cares what Ron did or did not do with the Rosa Parks medal. NO ONE! He voted no which was his right no matter the reason. WE know the reason was because this is not how you are supposed to spend taxpayer money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danke
It's a non-issue AFAIC.
This guy's fundamental premise is incorrect. The fact is this: THE MEDAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Just because some have been given out in this country's history doesn't mean it's right.
We could apply this logic to many things Ron Paul is against today. Jefferson's westward expansion was perhaps the most fraudulent and interventionist use of the federal government's power at the time. But does that mean that our current imperialist expansion and interventionist war doctrines are right too? Of course not. Just because FDR snatched the writ of Habeus Corpus from under the feet of helpless and innocent Japanese during WWII, does that mean Guantanamo Bay is right? The answer should be obvious.
This guy has to stop wasting his time, because Ron Paul's movement is one made up of people who are educated, well-read, and intelligent. This loser is not.
Treasury Department, which takes in profit and is in the black. If you'd read the whole thing you would have learned this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ATS
the louisiana purchase and jay treaty were fraudulent and interventionist? how so?!Quote:
We could apply this logic to many things Ron Paul is against today. Jefferson's westward expansion was perhaps the most fraudulent and interventionist use of the federal government's power at the time. But does that mean that our current imperialist expansion and interventionist war doctrines are right too? Of course not. Just because FDR snatched the writ of Habeus Corpus from under the feet of helpless and innocent Japanese during WWII, does that mean Guantanamo Bay is right? The answer should be obvious.
and presumably the point isn't that everything in US history is inherently good, but that the founding fathers understood and followed the constitution well enough seeing as it's the expression of their ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by risiusj
Agreed. I hope that we're not missing the fact (I doubt that anyone is) that this article was written to get traffic from Ron Paul supporters to the website. I seriously doubt that anyone else would bother to read it.
echo chambers itt
I can't stand people who write stupid shit but act like they have a Masters in English.
"Read said article so that I may verify said article." What the fuck is he trying to insinuate.
Just because we promote peace, prosperity, and trustworthiness in Congress doesn't mean we can't read or understand you, you dumb ass. We are people with common sense. We advocate personal freedom, and that makes us a retard why?
Oh maybe it's because I had a singular pronoun that conflicted with a plural noun in that last sentence huh, (us a retard)? Yeah, that qualifies me as a lesser human being.