Fox news on the attack again
- Thread starter rg123
- Start date
JPFromTally
Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 779
Rupert has it in for Paul. I loved the Simpsons movie but I felt dirty for having helped enrich his dark empire. If you look closely at the sky you can see the final pieces of the Death Star being built.
UtahApocalypse
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 6,991
did they not like the cookies?
RevolutionSD
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,863
I don't get it. Is that $400M earmark for shrimp fishing true or not??
BLS
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 2,753
Yes, but my understanding is if he were to get that money, he would vote it down anyway.
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
Yes, but what is with the person who responded from the campaign? The response is lame. Why didn't they say he sends his constituent requests on to the Appropriations cmte., because he believes it is his job as their representative in Congress. But, if and when the Appropriations cmte. submits the legislation, HE VOTES AGAINST IT, as he does all appropriations, with the exception of Veterans Benefits.
conner_condor
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,040
Just because he request something for someone else does not mean he is going to vote for it. He can request what ever he wants for others doesn't mean he supports it. Just because truthers likes him and he talks to them doesn't make him one. Fox spin as usual. People don't understand this though.
Cindy
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2007
- Messages
- 1,568
What does what Paul earmarks for his Texas district, have to do with students in california being mean to soldiers and Sean Penn going to Venesuala, upsetting liberals?
That story is scattered confused mess. I walked away from it thinking about Bubba Gump shrimp, california prissy kids, and surfer dude Spicolli listening to Chavez going "rightious".
It's all a flat snooze of a story.........
That story is scattered confused mess. I walked away from it thinking about Bubba Gump shrimp, california prissy kids, and surfer dude Spicolli listening to Chavez going "rightious".
It's all a flat snooze of a story.........
There is a rebuttel over at the http://www.dailypaul.com/node/1135
You know, if this were a cnn report on the rudy mcrompson and earmarks, they'd be in full force justifying it somehow.
I've noticed, in the earmark requests that I've seen, how little effort is put into persuasion:
I'm requesting [blahblahblah] for [blah]
The end.
It's clear to me that the requests were submitted out of a sense of duty to his constituents and not much more, else they'd have at least had some persuasive language in there.
We've all seen Ron's writings. He's pretty darn persuasive when he chooses to be.
If he's voting against the eventual legislation, then I don't see the problem. Do any of the articles that mention the earmarks follow through with the results and his vote?
I've noticed, in the earmark requests that I've seen, how little effort is put into persuasion:
I'm requesting [blahblahblah] for [blah]
The end.
It's clear to me that the requests were submitted out of a sense of duty to his constituents and not much more, else they'd have at least had some persuasive language in there.
We've all seen Ron's writings. He's pretty darn persuasive when he chooses to be.
If he's voting against the eventual legislation, then I don't see the problem. Do any of the articles that mention the earmarks follow through with the results and his vote?
Paul-O-Holic
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2007
- Messages
- 14
This is good news. If the statist at Fox and at the Wall Street Journal are going after Ron Paul for a pork request, even though he voted against the bill, then they obviously are starting to see him as a threat. Perhaps he should do another education session, just like he did with Rudy.
I'm going to email the following article written by Ron Paul to Brit Hume:
Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
June 18, 2007
Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United
Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.
I'm going to email the following article written by Ron Paul to Brit Hume:
Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One
June 18, 2007
Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessary save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United
Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.
This is what Ron has to say about earmarks, I posted this before but I really think it needs to be spread around. I bolded the important part.
Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One
by Ron Paul
Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred-billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
So we need to focus on the longer-term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html
Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One
by Ron Paul
Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.
Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.
The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred-billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.
So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.
So we need to focus on the longer-term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul392.html
IM Glad I watched it on the internet for free BWA HA HA HA!!
LibertyEagle
Paleoconservative
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 52,730
George Will wrote an article about Paul, some months ago. Even though Will doesn't appear to acknowledge the Constitution as the law of the land, he accurately describes Paul's principled history in voting against pork. Here is an excerpt:
Rep. Ron Paul says he can find in the Constitution's enumeration of the federal powers—Article I, Section 8—no reference to rice.
"Feb. 26, 2007 issue - Some rice farmers from Congressman Ron Paul's district were in his office the other day, asking for this and that from the federal government. The affable Republican from south Texas listened nicely, then forwarded their requests to the appropriate House committee. It may or may not satisfy their requests in some bill dispensing largesse to agricultural interests. Then Paul will vote against the bill.
He believes, with more stubbornness than evidence, that the federal government is a government of strictly enumerated powers, and nowhere in the Constitution's enumeration (Article I, Section 8) can he find any reference to rice. So there. "Farm organizations fight me tooth and nail," he says, "but the farmers are with me." Of course they can afford to indulge their congressman's philosophical eccentricity because lots of other House members represent rice farmers, so rice gets its share of gravy. Still, Paul is a likable eccentric, partly because he likes his constituents while disliking what he considers their incontinent appetite for government. Why, "If you ignore what they say about rice, they are nice people." He would help them by ending the trade embargo with Cuba, to which they used to sell a lot of rice."
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17200494/site/newsweek/
Rep. Ron Paul says he can find in the Constitution's enumeration of the federal powers—Article I, Section 8—no reference to rice.
"Feb. 26, 2007 issue - Some rice farmers from Congressman Ron Paul's district were in his office the other day, asking for this and that from the federal government. The affable Republican from south Texas listened nicely, then forwarded their requests to the appropriate House committee. It may or may not satisfy their requests in some bill dispensing largesse to agricultural interests. Then Paul will vote against the bill.
He believes, with more stubbornness than evidence, that the federal government is a government of strictly enumerated powers, and nowhere in the Constitution's enumeration (Article I, Section 8) can he find any reference to rice. So there. "Farm organizations fight me tooth and nail," he says, "but the farmers are with me." Of course they can afford to indulge their congressman's philosophical eccentricity because lots of other House members represent rice farmers, so rice gets its share of gravy. Still, Paul is a likable eccentric, partly because he likes his constituents while disliking what he considers their incontinent appetite for government. Why, "If you ignore what they say about rice, they are nice people." He would help them by ending the trade embargo with Cuba, to which they used to sell a lot of rice."
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17200494/site/newsweek/
Last edited:
angelatc
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2007
- Messages
- 50,703
It's very probable they sent a bigger response than that, but Fox opted only to include those insignificant sentences.
Nathan Hale
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,155
This is an important point. The Paul position is that he will place earmarks if his constituents request them, but, when it comes time to vote, he will vote against them. It's important that whenever this issue comes up online or in other media that we make this point contesting it.
Dustancostine
Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Messages
- 2,735
Explanation on RP and Earmarks
We need to combat this in comments when people attack RP over earmarks. All you have to do is to educate them like this:
This is where the story is from:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html
This is the explanation in the article:
Ok lets learn to read critically:
Line 1
Even if Paul would have not requested earmarks the money would have been spent anyways. The money for earmarks is money that has already been decided to be spent in the first place.
Line 2
Even if earmarks were reduced, that does not mean that the same money will not be spent on those same projects. Just the process of deciding how the money will be spent is different. Instead of congress deciding, bureaucracy would decide.
Line 3
People who are for earmark reform are not for less spending, but less congressional control over spending. They want the bureaucracies to decide how the money is divided up, because its easier to buy these people off.
Conclusion:
Ron Paul is not only taking the ethical position by making sure money that his district sent to Washington is being brought back, but also the Constitutional position. The Constitution states that congress shall hold the purse strings and earmarks are Congress's way of specifically appropriating funds. Ron Paul is against the money being spent in the first place, but feels that its Congress's job to make sure the money is spent wisely if it is already to be spent because the bureaucracies will not.
Here is an example:
Say $100 million is going to be appropriated to the department of Agriculture. RP doesn't feel that it is Constitutional so he votes against it. It passes anyways because the other Congressmen want to spend. Now RP has a decision to make, either have Congress earmark the funds to they are spent specifically or hand over the $100 with no direction and let the Dept of Ag. spend as they please. We can clearly see what happens when these Departments get to spend as they please, it is a disaster so RP choose to earmark the funds.
Here are two analogies:
Analogy #1
Ron Paul is against the US going to war unconstitutionally. So RP puts a bill before Congress to Declare War (Specifically stating how the war should be fought) instead of giving the President a general authorization of force. The Declaration of War is the same as Earmarking Funds, it specifically outlines what congress is authorizing.
Analogy #2
A boy ask his father for some money to go to the mall. The father has two choices:
(a) give the kid a $20 and tell the kid to spend it as he pleases, or (b) give the kid a $20 and tell him to spend $5 on food and $15 on a shirt. The second example is the father earmarking the funds. We can all imagine what the kid will spend the money on if the father doesn't "earmark" his funds.
Hope this Helps.
Dustan
We need to combat this in comments when people attack RP over earmarks. All you have to do is to educate them like this:
This is where the story is from:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html
This is the explanation in the article:
Ok lets learn to read critically:
Line 1
Even if Paul would have not requested earmarks the money would have been spent anyways. The money for earmarks is money that has already been decided to be spent in the first place.
Line 2
Even if earmarks were reduced, that does not mean that the same money will not be spent on those same projects. Just the process of deciding how the money will be spent is different. Instead of congress deciding, bureaucracy would decide.
Line 3
People who are for earmark reform are not for less spending, but less congressional control over spending. They want the bureaucracies to decide how the money is divided up, because its easier to buy these people off.
Conclusion:
Ron Paul is not only taking the ethical position by making sure money that his district sent to Washington is being brought back, but also the Constitutional position. The Constitution states that congress shall hold the purse strings and earmarks are Congress's way of specifically appropriating funds. Ron Paul is against the money being spent in the first place, but feels that its Congress's job to make sure the money is spent wisely if it is already to be spent because the bureaucracies will not.
Here is an example:
Say $100 million is going to be appropriated to the department of Agriculture. RP doesn't feel that it is Constitutional so he votes against it. It passes anyways because the other Congressmen want to spend. Now RP has a decision to make, either have Congress earmark the funds to they are spent specifically or hand over the $100 with no direction and let the Dept of Ag. spend as they please. We can clearly see what happens when these Departments get to spend as they please, it is a disaster so RP choose to earmark the funds.
Here are two analogies:
Analogy #1
Ron Paul is against the US going to war unconstitutionally. So RP puts a bill before Congress to Declare War (Specifically stating how the war should be fought) instead of giving the President a general authorization of force. The Declaration of War is the same as Earmarking Funds, it specifically outlines what congress is authorizing.
Analogy #2
A boy ask his father for some money to go to the mall. The father has two choices:
(a) give the kid a $20 and tell the kid to spend it as he pleases, or (b) give the kid a $20 and tell him to spend $5 on food and $15 on a shirt. The second example is the father earmarking the funds. We can all imagine what the kid will spend the money on if the father doesn't "earmark" his funds.
Hope this Helps.
Dustan
Similar threads
