Grundloven
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 18
check this! Stupidity, really to the bone
- Thread starter Grundloven
- Start date
CaliforniaAndre
Member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 102
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.
I pick Paultard! I would wear a button that said that, just to start conversation.
Grundloven
Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2008
- Messages
- 18
Kiddin' right?
Given your low post count, you may be a troll. But I'll answer anyway.
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~
WilliamC
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2007
- Messages
- 6,682
Errr...you do know he volunteered $100 of his own money to pay for this and challenged his colleagues to do the same?
None of them agreed, they just wanted to spend taxpayer money to do it.
Sniff, sniff.....could that be.....?
Well...if that isn't just PROOF that the man is a racist, then I do not know what is....
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..
C
Chester Copperpot
Guest
The link is so lacking of basic intelligence. HAH
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.
Crowish
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2008
- Messages
- 370
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.
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).
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:
NH4RonPaul
Member
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2007
- Messages
- 609
Rosa Parks
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.
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.
Danke
Top Rated Influencer
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 44,263
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 "
"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 "
Similar threads
