Reason magazine is a worthless piece of trash.
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Reason magazine is a worthless piece of trash.
Rubio & Cotton: "We are real conservatives, we want to increase defense spending by hundreds of billions of Dollars."
Paul: "Being real conservatives you will also be wanting to make sure it's paid for and doesn't add to the deficit too, right? ... Oh..."
For Liberty!
Tactics and results bro. Tactics and results.Originally Posted by anaconda
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Someone tried to bust the spending cap to make it Christmas for the Pentagon, and Rand said, 'If you're going to make it Christmas for the Pentagon over my no vote, can we at least not bust the spending cap in the process? Here, you can give them even more money if you shut down these two entire useless bureaus and a couple of specific programs Republicans hate.' And the RINOs said, duh, maybe not...
That's not a flip-flop. It's ostensibly telling the world, 'I'm not like my father. I'll compromise, if there's a sound, principled reason for me to do it.' It's really telling the world, 'These RINOs are deliberately trying to drown the nation in its own debt. They aren't conservative and don't want to be.'
And yet many still miss the point. Remember when Rand first got elected and he proposed the end of all foreign aid? No one supported him, so he said, "fine, how about we cut foreign aid to countries that burn our flags," and they still didn't support him. It was symbolic. Now he'll be able to use this in 2016 to expose the hypocrisy. This is the same thing. Are people really so narrow-minded that they can't think logically and see the big picture?
Very much so. Especially when they're being paid to be.
I feel like Rand could kill puppies with his bare hands and if it helped get him political capital some people would find a way to justify it.
Last edited by brandon; 03-27-2015 at 08:03 AM.
I'm in favor of puppy-ocide. Especially if they're cute.
And I feel like you are just being ridiculous.
Did Rand troll Cruz and Rubio by getting them on the record that they supported increased defect spending?
or did Cruz and Rubio troll rand by getting him on the record saying that he supported more war?
If you wanted some sort of Ideological purity, you'll get none of that from me.
What was voted on had absolutely nothing to do with "more war."
Rand can now say that he is more serious then Rubio and Cruz about containing spending.
Cruz and Rubio can not say that they are less "pro-war" than anyone else.
"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Pharma-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
Proponent of real science.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.
Or a third possibility is that you are trolling RPF by being ridiculous. More defense spending doesn't mean more war cos when the time comes for war, money is appropriated for it. There are totally 2 different accounts for war and defense.
A lot of my support or lack of support for this will depend on how he handles this in the debates. If he uses this tactic to spread truth I will support him. But if he just uses this to say "look at me I like war spending" then he will have lost my vote.
Welcome to the forum.
Your sentiment is sensible and I'm sure is held by most here.
I'm really looking forward to the debates!
My educated guess is that in the debates Rand will talk just that way you advocate, as a way to spread truth; and beyond that he will draw a clear distinction between spending for the morally legitimate and constitutional purposes of preparedness and self-defense on the one hand, and offensive and or pre-emptive warmaking on the other. I think Rand will be on very solid ground in a way that the majority of Americans think.
Brawndo's got what plants crave. Its got electrolytes.
H. L. Mencken said it best:
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
Me included. As usual, he made a brilliant move.
But the fact is that Mr. Paul said that spending cuts must come across the board. He said that Republicans needed to give up some spending on military and that Democrats needed to give up some spending on entitlements. This is a gigantic flip flop.
And if you do not know what exactly Rand wants in cuts after being here since 2007, then I don't know what to tell you.
Rand Paul for Peace
This is more of a tactical move on Rand's part to get the upper fiscal hand in republican eyes. He's bending over backwards to be reasonable knowing that the war pumper's desires for only spending more and not cutting anything is the main faulty logic in their bunch and shows republicans that there's nothing different between their guys and democrats: nothing ever gets cut significantly to matter. Being an obscure, iconoclastic no vote w/o pragmatically flanking his opposition isn't moving the ball forward in the broader republican base.
I am assuming Rand wants to cut what he says he wants to cut. And this has changed ever so dramatically since January 2011. What is your understanding of what "exactly Rand wants in cuts?"
I simply pointed out a flagrant flip flop, which, by its definition, creates uncertainty about one's policy positions and credibility. This is completely unrelated to the fact that I made some posts in 2007.
I hope Rand wins but it's getting to the point where I don't know when to take his words seriously. When Rand speaks, does he expect people to believe him? Or, only under certain conditions? I feel like a politician should clarify their policy positions so that a voter can decide whether they want to vote for him or her. The Rand Paul of 2011 said we needed to make cuts to the military budget. Now he wants to increase it. So now I don't where he stands on this important issue. And I am left to wonder which other policy positions may also become subject to reversals? It's also an issue of credibility.
Last edited by anaconda; 03-29-2015 at 10:57 PM.
I assume the opposite. The neocons who aren't buying it are absolutely right - Rand is lying. He doesn't really want to increase the military appropriation but he is saying it because it is a political tactic. I understand if some are not comfortable with this, but that is what is happening.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
NO IT IS NOT. Many years ago the State of Texas recognized Albert Desalvo for his unique contributions toward population control.
The bill was passed to make a point that people were not reading the bills. Not to actually recognize and praise the Boston strangler for his murders.
If you are to stupid to see that Rand was making a point, then I don't know what to tell you.
Slutter McGee
No, it isn't. Rand wouldn't have voted for this budget even if this amendment made it in, and he wasn't flip-flopping on his call for a balanced approach to spending cuts. He proposed it to get his opponents on record. "They claim to be pro-defense and fiscal conservatives, but when given a chance to increase defense spending without increasing the deficit, they refused to do so," Rand can now claim.
In 2002, Ron Paul made a motion to declare war on Iraq. He didn't want a war with Iraq, and he wasn't flip-flopping on his opposition to the war. He proposed it to get his opponents on record. "They claim a war with Iraq is necessary to protect this nation, but when given a chance to go on record and declare such a war, they refused to do so," Ron could thereafter claim.
Do you understand the strategy now?
“Do you not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?” - Oxenstiern
Violence will not save us. Let us love one another, for love is from God.
I fully understand the "point" Rand was trying to make. But it came at the expense of reversing an important policy position.
I understand the point but what I worry about is the way this has been portrayed by the MSM. This coupled with his talk to the Christian leaders has been used to paint Rand as a "flip flopper." A lot of headlines read, "Rand Paul Reverses Course on Defense Budget" or something to that effect.
“When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, I will rout you out!”
― Andrew Jackson
Speaking of stupid, the correct wording is "too stupid." Not "to stupid."
If you want to play grammar nazi, then fine. You seem more than capable of understanding my actual meaning. Try using those same intuitive skills when it comes the subject of interpreting why Rand proposed this amendment.
Slutter McGee
It didn't reverse anything. It made a point. The Paul camp has explained that point. Just like that Texas Bill didn't reverse the legislator's position that murder is wrong.
Slutter McGee
This is Cruz's explanation for why he voted against Rand's amendment.
http://nhjournal.com/ted-cruz-wont-throw-rocks/
Cruz said Paul’s amendment was “attempting to balance both of those interests and I think it was a good faith attempt. I ended up not supporting that amendment because I had concerns that it would potentially decrease our military support for the nation of Israel and it also had the potential to undermine scientific research and programs at NASA.
First I'm stupid but now I'm more than capable. That's a flip flop I can appreciate!
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us