HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Oh, Jesus Christ that’s hilarious. ZEB, you’re like a 5-year-old: no one owes you ANY explanation; you won’t understand it, just shut up and do what you’re told. It’s for your own good.
I can’t believe you just asked for evidence from someone else. Wow, that’s seriously the funniest thing I’ve read in ages.
HAHAHA!!
Sorry, not done laughing yet.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Nice double talk from Paul.
He earmarks money for unconstitutional spending and then tries to bullshit about it.
Phony. [/quote]
So, the system being as it is, what would you suggest he should do?
[/quote]
Not use earmarks for unconstitutional spending.[/quote]
Well that would mean no earmarks at all.
Which would be fine with him, but as long as there are earmarks he makes sure his disctrict gets their cut.
Where is the problem?
[/quote]
His hypocrisy.
Earmark something within the constitution.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Nice double talk from Paul.
He earmarks money for unconstitutional spending and then tries to bullshit about it.
Phony. [/quote]
So, the system being as it is, what would you suggest he should do?
[/quote]
Not use earmarks for unconstitutional spending.[/quote]
Well that would mean no earmarks at all.
Which would be fine with him, but as long as there are earmarks he makes sure his disctrict gets their cut.
Where is the problem?
[/quote]
His hypocrisy.
Earmark something within the constitution.[/quote]
And where in the constitution does it say that the federal budget can be used to pay for local expenses?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Nice double talk from Paul.
He earmarks money for unconstitutional spending and then tries to bullshit about it.
Phony. [/quote]
So, the system being as it is, what would you suggest he should do?
[/quote]
Not use earmarks for unconstitutional spending.[/quote]
Well that would mean no earmarks at all.
Which would be fine with him, but as long as there are earmarks he makes sure his disctrict gets their cut.
Where is the problem?
[/quote]
His hypocrisy.
Earmark something within the constitution.[/quote]
And where in the constitution does it say that the federal budget can be used to pay for local expenses?
[/quote]
Exactly my point. He knowingly misspends money and his only defense is that others are doing it and he wants to get his share.
Big Banana are you a Saffa? A chance to use a rugby analogy then!
Remember a year or so ago when the laws were interpreted in favor of the defending team and it made all the teams stop playing a more running game and just kick it down the park? Everyone admitted they hated playing that way and lobbied to have it changed (which it thankfully has now), but had to play that way in order to win ball games. The teams that did not play that way sadly got beaten more often than not.
Simply put you have to play the game the way it is laid out, but you don’t have to like it or advocate for it to stay that way. I think this is a similar situation.
Big Banana are you a Saffa? A chance to use a rugby analogy then!
Remember a year or so ago when the laws were interpreted in favor of the defending team and it made all the teams stop playing a more running game and just kick it down the park? Everyone admitted they hated playing that way and lobbied to have it changed (which it thankfully has now), but had to play that way in order to win ball games. The teams that did not play that way sadly got beaten more often than not.
Simply put you have to play the game the way it is laid out, but you don’t have to like it or advocate for it to stay that way. I think this is a similar situation.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Exactly my point. He knowingly misspends money and his only defense is that others are doing it and he wants to get his share.[/quote]
Your point doesn’t even make sense. HE DOES NOT SPEND IT. It is “earmarked” to be sent back to his constituents in his district. It is essentially a tax refund; he is against the system of taxing in the first place which is why he VOTES AGAINST THE SPENDING and earmarks it back to his district. Do you get it?
I hate to do this, but I agree: there is no hypocrisy in what Paul is doing. I’ve called Paul a lot of things, but he’s not a hypocrite.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Exactly my point. He knowingly misspends money and his only defense is that others are doing it and he wants to get his share.[/quote]
Your point doesn’t even make sense. HE DOES NOT SPEND IT. It is “earmarked” to be sent back to his constituents in his district. It is essentially a tax refund; he is against the system of taxing in the first place which is why he VOTES AGAINST THE SPENDING and earmarks it back to his district. Do you get it?[/quote]
It amazes me how so many people fail to understand the point you made LIFTICVSMAXIMVS.
Banana-do you not take advantage of tax deductions? When the time comes, will you not draw social security, if it still exists? If you answer yes then you are a self proclaimed “hypocrite”. If you answer no then you need to have your head examined. RP votes for smaller govt with less power every chance he gets which is exactly what this country needs and how govt was set up by the founding fathers. He is the most fiscally conservative elected official nation wide…EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED!!!
Who on here said he “lines his pockets with campaign contributions”?
He has pocketed just over $2 million since 1989. Not exactly what I would call lining his pockets. If you want to be critical of that amount, look at it as a business. Do you spend all of your capital or leave some in reserves for future endeavors? What successful business operates with $0 capital? other than those subsidized by govt.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Nice double talk from Paul.
He earmarks money for unconstitutional spending and then tries to bullshit about it.
Phony. [/quote]
So, the system being as it is, what would you suggest he should do?
[/quote]
Not use earmarks for unconstitutional spending.[/quote]
Well that would mean no earmarks at all.
Which would be fine with him, but as long as there are earmarks he makes sure his disctrict gets their cut.
Where is the problem?
[/quote]
His hypocrisy.
Earmark something within the constitution.[/quote]
And where in the constitution does it say that the federal budget can be used to pay for local expenses?
[/quote]
Exactly my point. He knowingly misspends money and his only defense is that others are doing it and he wants to get his share.[/quote]
That is just not what he does.
He votes against it.
So there are only two options:
Either the bill does not pass, then noone gets any money, which is what he votes for.
Or, in case that does not happen and the bill passes, his district gets its cut.
I can say with absolute confidence that Paul’s chances in 2012 are double what they were in 2008.
oh, I see what you did there.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I can say with absolute confidence that Paul’s chances in 2012 are double what they were in 2008.[/quote]
So you’re saying he has a chance…?
No, he believed Paul’s chances in 2008 == 0
2 x 0 == 0
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, he believed Paul’s chances in 2008 == 0
2 x 0 == 0[/quote]
I know, my joke (albeit a bad one) was not understood.
Post Fail on my part.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
I know, my joke (albeit a bad one) was not understood.
Post Fail on my part.[/quote]
I understood and I liked it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
I know, my joke (albeit a bad one) was not understood.
Post Fail on my part.[/quote]
I understood and I liked it.
[/quote]
Right on!
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Big Banana are you a Saffa? A chance to use a rugby analogy then!
Remember a year or so ago when the laws were interpreted in favor of the defending team and it made all the teams stop playing a more running game and just kick it down the park? Everyone admitted they hated playing that way and lobbied to have it changed (which it thankfully has now), but had to play that way in order to win ball games. The teams that did not play that way sadly got beaten more often than not.
Simply put you have to play the game the way it is laid out, but you don’t have to like it or advocate for it to stay that way. I think this is a similar situation.[/quote]
I am American but I know what you are referring to.
I don’t think it is the same situation.
I had lunch with a former congressional staffer a few days ago and brought up this topic, he laughed at Paul’s claims. If Paul wanted to decrease the budget and eliminate the earmarks to his district it would happen.
Paul, and other congressmen, like to twist the truth (no surprise) and pretend that earmarks are not added into the budget. They are. Of course congressmen don’t write the budget, they rely on staffers and lobbyists.
So basically Paul and other congressmen are lying.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Exactly my point. He knowingly misspends money and his only defense is that others are doing it and he wants to get his share.[/quote]
Your point doesn’t even make sense. HE DOES NOT SPEND IT. It is “earmarked” to be sent back to his constituents in his district. It is essentially a tax refund; he is against the system of taxing in the first place which is why he VOTES AGAINST THE SPENDING and earmarks it back to his district. Do you get it?[/quote]
It is not a tax refund. It would be fine if it was. It is money spent to enrich some in his district.
I get it. You don’t.