Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 148 of 148

Thread: Rand Paul - Defense Spending Bill

  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by whoisjohngalt View Post
    He voted against Rubio's. No one is talking about how this gave him cover to vote no on the Rubio amendment which actually might have passed and increased the military spending.
    This is good.
    Knowledge is Liberty!




  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #122

    For comparison, vote totals on Rubio's S. Amdt. 423

    For comparison, here's the vote on Rubio's S.Amdt.423 (which failed).
    3/26/15

  4. #123
    Mike Lee, Ernst, and other conservatives (real or fake) voted no on Rubio's plan. I am actually in shock that Cruz voted for this horrible spending increase. I am not a cruz fan, but I was genuinely surprised that he would go on record for this. This has to be used in debates. Having Cruz on record for this would have to resonate with those who are concerned about the debt that are taking a look at him. Cruz was the only one on the stage that could try to take the anti-debt stance with Paul and he lost that. Does anyone have an idea of why he wouldn't have voted yes for Paul's plan too due to it being the same with other cuts included? This is crazy that Paul got Cruz to reveal himself this early and so soon after he announced.

  5. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by fr33 View Post
    I don't think Freud theorized this but I have a theory that some people subconsciously wish so badly Ron were their father...
    my theory is that peace is paramount and prosperity follows. hence the responses of those of us that are so disappointed that Rand will play these games or take these positions that tend to run contrary (or at least not in a straight line) to peace.
    Seattle Sounders 2016 MLS Cup Champions 2019 MLS Cup Champions 2022 CONCACAF Champions League - and the [un]official football club of RPF

    just a libertarian - no caucus

  6. #125
    Quote Originally Posted by fr33 View Post
    I cannot understand how people here defended Ron's pork barrel spending, AUMF, DOMA, etc but are so outraged and offended by what Rand is doing. He knew his amendment would not pass. Anybody with a brain knew it would not pass. Just look at the vote. He made other Republicans admit that they are deficit spenders no matter what.

    I don't think Freud theorized this but I have a theory that some people subconsciously wish so badly Ron were their father that they seek every chance to find a fault with Rand. Ever since Rand started his 2010 campaign people have been holding him to a higher standard than his father. They don't even care about voting records. They care more about showing how liberty they are through talk rather than results.
    I don't give Ron a pass for his errors, and instead of using them as an excuse for Rand to take greater liberties with... well, liberty, Ron's errors should be learned from and eliminated. Not expanded upon and used for an excuse for every deviance from the liberty position.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism

  7. #126
    What major spending did Ron sign off on?

  8. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by sylcfh View Post
    What major spending did Ron sign off on?
    Well, he loaded must pass bills up with pork for his district. He was one of the worst (if not the worst) abusers when he was Congress.

    It isn't that Ron Paul was a bad person. He was a POLITICIAN. And that isn't the only issue where he was a politician. I'm not gong to continue bashing Ron Paul. I'm pointing out how illogical it is for so many people to criticize Rand Paul for this kind of minor stuff (which I consider a positive) and at the same time accept Ron Paul's explanation for a tangible, major abuse of principle that actually impacted the budget.

  9. #128
    Earmarks didn't impact the budget. It's just directing spending that was already appropriated and would otherwise be directed by the executive.

    Pretty stunning that you're repeating such an obvious lie and smear about Congressman Paul after all these years. This is generally a forum for Ron Paul supporters, not Ron Paul smearers.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #129
    Ron was trying to reappropriate spending back to the district that he was voted in to represent. Since he believed he was responsible to reparate them for taxes the federal government took from them. That's sound reasoning.

  12. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by RonPaulGeorge&Ringo View Post
    Earmarks didn't impact the budget. It's just directing spending that was already appropriated and would otherwise be directed by the executive.

    Pretty stunning that you're repeating such an obvious lie and smear about Congressman Paul after all these years. This is generally a forum for Ron Paul supporters, not Ron Paul smearers.
    You couldn't have demonstrated my point more pithily. And yes, I am very well aware of his argument.

  13. #131


    I know he is just trying to get elected and all...but sorry, Rand. You're hitting new lows. Shifting power and money from one element of government to another with no overall net change is just reshuffling the deck. Taking from domestic programs and giving to military programs is George Bush level Neocon shenanigans. If this is all we can expect from a Rand presidency then I see no point.

  14. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Murray N Rothbard View Post


    I know he is just trying to get elected and all...but sorry, Rand. You're hitting new lows. Shifting power and money from one element of government to another with no overall net change is just reshuffling the deck. Taking from domestic programs and giving to military programs is George Bush level Neocon shenanigans. If this is all we can expect from a Rand presidency then I see no point.
    Did you even read this thread?

  15. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I am very well aware
    If you are aware of the truth, why do you lie?

  16. #134
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    I don't give Ron a pass for his errors, and instead of using them as an excuse for Rand to take greater liberties with... well, liberty, Ron's errors should be learned from and eliminated. Not expanded upon and used for an excuse for every deviance from the liberty position.
    If you don't think that things like this ARE due to learning from what they did to marginalize his dad, then you aren't paying attention.

    It's sad how those who have a confirmation bias against Rand will just create their own narrative and play gotcha, and flat out ignore what his campaign aid said, that this is to show republicans that if they want increases, they have to pay for them, exposing those who think its okay to just keep borrowing. You have to start somewhere to create a paradigm shift and expose the big government republicans.

    He told you this, yet some of you are worse than the media about creating false narratives about this brilliant move to expose their hypocrisy. If you think that makes you a friend of liberty to just knee jerk and make false assumptions about those friendly to us, it doesnt.
    I'd rather be a free man in my grave, than be living as a puppet or a slave - Peter Tosh

    The kids they dance and shake their bones,
    While the politicians are throwing stones,
    And it's all too clear we're on our own,
    Singing ashes, ashes, all fall down...

  17. #135
    Ron calculated what his district lost in taxes to the federal government and sought to recoup the money.

    He already went over this in 2008.

  18. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrinch View Post
    If you don't think that things like this ARE due to learning from what they did to marginalize his dad, then you aren't paying attention.

    It's sad how those who have a confirmation bias against Rand will just create their own narrative and play gotcha, and flat out ignore what his campaign aid said, that this is to show republicans that if they want increases, they have to pay for them, exposing those who think its okay to just keep borrowing. You have to start somewhere to create a paradigm shift and expose the big government republicans.

    He told you this, yet some of you are worse than the media about creating false narratives about this brilliant move to expose their hypocrisy. If you think that makes you a friend of liberty to just knee jerk and make false assumptions about those friendly to us, it doesnt.
    This^

    RPF lately seems like it has a major problem. There are those who will accept nothing less than pure libertarianism, and those who seek to divide at any possible opportunity.

    The last 30% of us who support Rand Paul and see his brilliance and understand the strategy he has adopted to reach the nations highest office, are left spending all our time defending him from the first 2 groups. RPF will never get anything accomplished until this problem is eliminated.

    I'm not talking about those who want to have a legitimate debate, but there are people who are not here to debate, they are here to divide. As election season heats up, unless RPF wants to be a laughingstock irrelevant home of trolls and internet puritans, it will be necessary to weed out those who do not support the mission of getting Rand Paul elected.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    This^

    RPF lately seems like it has a major problem. There are those who will accept nothing less than pure libertarianism, and those who seek to divide at any possible opportunity.

    The last 30% of us who support Rand Paul and see his brilliance and understand the strategy he has adopted to reach the nations highest office, are left spending all our time defending him from the first 2 groups. RPF will never get anything accomplished until this problem is eliminated.

    I'm not talking about those who want to have a legitimate debate, but there are people who are not here to debate, they are here to divide. As election season heats up, unless RPF wants to be a laughingstock irrelevant home of trolls and internet puritans, it will be necessary to weed out those who do not support the mission of getting Rand Paul elected.
    If you and other defenders are left using up all your energy defending against the first two groups, then maybe the strategy pursued by Rand Paul isn't as brilliant as you say it is?

  21. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by amartin315 View Post
    If you and other defenders are left using up all your energy defending against the first two groups, then maybe the strategy pursued by Rand Paul isn't as brilliant as you say it is?
    Last edited by asurfaholic; 03-30-2015 at 11:11 AM.

  22. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by amartin315 View Post
    If you and other defenders are left using up all your energy defending against the first two groups, then maybe the strategy pursued by Rand Paul isn't as brilliant as you say it is?
    Name me the strategy ever employed against an entrenched evil anywhere in the world in any century since recorded history began that was easy and went as smoothly as silk.

    Seems to me entrenched evils use any evil, dishonest method they can dream up at every opportunity. Maybe I missed one...
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  23. #140
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Name me the strategy ever employed against an entrenched evil anywhere in the world in any century since recorded history began that was easy and went as smoothly as silk.

    Seems to me entrenched evils use any evil, dishonest method they can dream up at every opportunity. Maybe I missed one...
    I just think if Ron were still young and he was going about this term for his 3rd run at the nomination in a row, he'd be doing quite well with the old strategy of mass quantities of truth and honesty. That's the strategy Rand could have adopted. I think it would have worked this time.

  24. #141
    Quote Originally Posted by amartin315 View Post
    I just think if Ron were still young and he was going about this term for his 3rd run at the nomination in a row, he'd be doing quite well with the old strategy of mass quantities of truth and honesty. That's the strategy Rand could have adopted. I think it would have worked this time.
    I've never seen any sign of honesty catching on with the American electorate. And I've been watching wishfully for a very long time. All I ever see are proofs that this here was a very wise man:

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    'Shrewdness in public life all over the world is always honored, while honesty in public men is generally attributed to dumbness and is seldom rewarded.'--Will Rogers
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

  25. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by amartin315 View Post
    I just think if Ron were still young and he was going about this term for his 3rd run at the nomination in a row, he'd be doing quite well with the old strategy of mass quantities of truth and honesty. That's the strategy Rand could have adopted. I think it would have worked this time.
    What is Rand being dishonest about?

  26. #143
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    What is Rand being dishonest about?

    I never said he was being dishonest. I said his strategy wasn't to use "mass quantities of truth and honesty"

  27. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by amartin315 View Post
    I never said he was being dishonest. I said his strategy wasn't to use "mass quantities of truth and honesty"
    Quit being a freaking nut. The implication of what you are saying is that there is an absence of truth and honesty in his campaign. Which means you feel he is being dishonest. I'd like to know what you think he's being dishonest about.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by asurfaholic View Post
    Quit being a freaking nut. The implication of what you are saying is that there is an absence of truth and honesty in his campaign. Which means you feel he is being dishonest. I'd like to know what you think he's being dishonest about.
    He's not being dishonest. He's just not telling the whole story, and he's not saying it loud and proud and often enough in some areas.

  30. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by kbs021 View Post
    Mike Lee, Ernst, and other conservatives (real or fake) voted no on Rubio's plan. I am actually in shock that Cruz voted for this horrible spending increase. I am not a cruz fan, but I was genuinely surprised that he would go on record for this. This has to be used in debates. Having Cruz on record for this would have to resonate with those who are concerned about the debt that are taking a look at him. Cruz was the only one on the stage that could try to take the anti-debt stance with Paul and he lost that. Does anyone have an idea of why he wouldn't have voted yes for Paul's plan too due to it being the same with other cuts included? This is crazy that Paul got Cruz to reveal himself this early and so soon after he announced.
    Cruz will use the angle of "trying to keep America safe" and the clueless primary voters will eat it up.

  31. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by surf View Post
    my theory is that peace is paramount and prosperity follows. hence the responses of those of us that are so disappointed that Rand will play these games or take these positions that tend to run contrary (or at least not in a straight line) to peace.
    Did you support Ron Paul? If so, then.... AUMF. What say you?

  32. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    I don't give Ron a pass for his errors, and instead of using them as an excuse for Rand to take greater liberties with... well, liberty, Ron's errors should be learned from and eliminated. Not expanded upon and used for an excuse for every deviance from the liberty position.
    That sounds like you are wanting to Rand to get 4% of the republican primary vote rather than Ron's 10%. I mean, if that's what you want, fine. I'm just pointing out what's what here. There are plenty of "paulbots" here that aren't even thinking it through as well as you are. They didn't think it through when Ron was running. They just went on auto-defend for Ron on these things but will throw his son under the bus every chance they get.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345


Similar Threads

  1. Was Rand Paul's defense spending bill a good play?
    By Saint Vitus in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 12-03-2016, 04:58 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-06-2013, 02:56 PM
  3. Replies: 85
    Last Post: 10-13-2012, 02:14 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-26-2011, 06:17 PM
  5. Time to protest the defense spending bill.
    By Pepsi in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-18-2009, 08:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •