Originally posted by CRZThis reply indicates to me that you are letting other people do your research for you. That's not only lazy, but it's dangerous.
Oh give me a break. That's the same type of trolling answer that you used to give me hell for. You can do better.
And the so-called "NAFTA Superhighway" is the Interstate 69 extension. It's when Paul starts talking about the "North American Union" and signing over control of our nation to Canada and Mexico that proves the guy doesn't get it.
And let's also not forget the hypocrisy of the millions upon millions in earmarks for his Congressional district HE introduces. Sure, he uses the "I don't vote for them" excuse, but that fact of the matter is that the millions wouldn't be spent if HE did not introduce said earmarks.
Truly, all you need to know about Paul was show during the debate last night where he once again railed about "occupying foreign countries" as the reason 9/11 happened. Not withstanding the fact that radical Islam has been terrorizing the west for decades and that the "occupation" in Saudi Arabia was Prince Sultan Air Base, which of course was created when the US was INVITED by Saudi Arabia to station planes there after Iraq invaded one sovereign country and threatened to invade another. So we go to help DEFEND a country and Paul calls that occupation. What it proves to me is that Paul can't cut it on the issues of foreign policy and military policy in this day in age and, frankly, he would be dangerous as the President as a result.
Originally posted by CRZThis reply indicates to me that you are letting other people do your research for you. That's not only lazy, but it's dangerous.
Oh give me a break. That's the same type of trolling answer that you used to give me hell for. You can do better.
You accusing me of trolling takes things to a level of irony I rarely experience. Let's go back and reread your earlier responses in this thread:
1. "We'll riot."
2. (parroting of anti-Paul talking points)
And the so-called "NAFTA Superhighway" is the Interstate 69 extension.
I'm talking about the I-35 one, but who's counting.
It's when Paul starts talking about the "North American Union" and signing over control of our nation to Canada and Mexico that proves the guy doesn't get it.
Do you support the USA giving up their sovereignty to a supergovernmental organisation? It's always better to question these things BEFORE they happen. (I'm not saying they're gonna happen - in fact, I'm pretty sure they won't - but I'd hate for complacency to result in a day coming where we wake up and find out it's too late!)
And let's also not forget the hypocrisy of the millions upon millions in earmarks for his Congressional district HE introduces. Sure, he uses the "I don't vote for them" excuse, but that fact of the matter is that the millions wouldn't be spent if HE did not introduce said earmarks.
I have no problem with Paul doing what he can to return unfairly paid taxes to the taxpayers of his district. Instead of focusing on the money Congress is spending, it might be better to take a step back and focus on how that money came to be available for the Congress to spend.
Truly, all you need to know about Paul was show during the debate last night where he once again railed about "occupying foreign countries" as the reason 9/11 happened.
I missed the debate, so I can't comment on your characterization of Paul's ideas. And it's probably better than I don't, anyway.
Originally posted by CRZI'm talking about the I-35 one, but who's counting.
Uh...what? Are you talking about the North American SuperCorridor Coalition? The Trans-Texas Corridor? All of these roads are expansions of the existing Interstate Highway grid? Why is that a bad thing? How is that diminishing our sovereignty?
Originally posted by CRZDo you support the USA giving up their sovereignty to a supergovernmental organisation? It's always better to question these things BEFORE they happen. (I'm not saying they're gonna happen - in fact, I'm pretty sure they won't - but I'd hate for complacency to result in a day coming where we wake up and find out it's too late!)
No, but the problem is that the only elected official talking about this nonsense is Ron Paul. Nobody in elected office is talking about such a cockamamie idea, so I'm not sure why Ron Paul is talking about it.
Originally posted by CRZI have no problem with Paul doing what he can to return unfairly paid taxes to the taxpayers of his district. Instead of focusing on the money Congress is spending, it might be better to take a step back and focus on how that money came to be available for the Congress to spend.
So....if somebody mugs an old man, it's OK the mugger to spend the $10 on a pack of smokes to give the guy he mugged so he can return the money he unfairly too from the guy he mugged? Your argument on this escapes all logic. Is is bad that so much money was collected? Yes. Does it make it right to spend the money in the manner he is proposing? Absolutely not. It means that he is part of the problem, not part of the solution; he makes McCain look good on the earmark issue, and I am no McCain fan.
Does Paul has serious ideas? Yes. But this cult of genuflection being built around him is very disturbing....
Paul defended his earmarks pretty well on Meet the Press. It was a very informative interview, and Russert hit him with a lot of questions and quotes from the past.
I'll have to dig around for a transcript of the show here in a bit.
I saw it when it happened and was not particularly impressed with the answer then, and I'm still not impressed now.
If there is any good to Paul's campaign, is the fact that he has a primary challenger back in TX-14 that's he got to deal with now, too. He probably won't win, but at least somebody is trying to keep him honest.
Originally posted by Guru ZimPaul defended his earmarks pretty well on Meet the Press.
I don't know, I found his logic behind the earmarks almost as tortured as his logic about term limits. Even though he votes against the final bill, he actively puts earmarks in the bills (he spends the money too, but I don't see that as the real issue). To me, the vote against the bill is grandstanding, especially since most of those bills are slam dunks by the time the floor vote is taken. I mean, at the beginning of the process, he was at the trough loading up for his constituents. The subsequent nay vote is irrelevant.
I'll bite on the NAFTA Superhighway--how would this compromise U.S. sovereignty? I see (and agree with) eminent domain issues associated with the proposal, but that's a completely separate issue.
From an economic perspective, his proposal to eliminate the Federal Reserve and adopt a bimetallic standard is the most troubling.
I think there is room for a limited government candidate. In fact, even considering what I've written above, I may still vote for Paul in the primary.
"Teach children that they have great potential because they are human." -Warrior
OH NO! They're peaceably assembling and expressing their opinion of FOX News' exclusion of Paul from their "debate!" Wait.....I don't see anything wrong with that. In fact, this kinda rules. Got anything else? How about Pope Ron Paul the first (RonPaulI.com)?
Hillary resorting to almost crying today. Um, Hillary, they don't really give sympathy votes for President of the United States. I'm thinking she's just about done.
Hillary resorting to almost crying today. Um, Hillary, they don't really give sympathy votes for President of the United States. I'm thinking she's just about done.
I couldn't disagree more. I think this makes her more human. And it creates the perception (or reinforces the reality, your mileage may vary) that her platform is based on conviction and not ambition. And, that she has deeply held beliefs about what she feels is best for the country. It struck me as genuine.
Hillary resorting to almost crying today. Um, Hillary, they don't really give sympathy votes for President of the United States. I'm thinking she's just about done.
I couldn't disagree more. I think this makes her more human. And it creates the perception (or reinforces the reality, your mileage may vary) that her platform is based on conviction and not ambition. And, that she has deeply held beliefs about what she feels is best for the country. It struck me as genuine.
Eh, yeah it looked so fake to me I laughed.
Plus you have to factor in those that believe it's genuine but take the stance that it shows weakness. Not a trait a lot would want in their President.
No I think it's a safe bet the only people that think more of her from this were already going to vote for her. This did not help her cause in any way.
This likely does not impact any people directly. That is of course unless you've read the Canadian Press at all during the Mulroney era and after. Click Here (cnews.canoe.ca) for the Canadian Press obit.
#
#
