Richard Viguerie: Ron Paul 'Shocking and Disappointing;'

The same as January when I first heard about the earmarks....it was shocking to hear something like that from a man that I believed so much....but I managed to get over it...took me a few days to jump back on the RP bandwagon

I guess the same will happen with this warmonger endorsement.

I can get over the earmarks, but endorsing a warmonger? Nope, I can't get over that if he did indeed do that. I don't worship Ron Paul, I just like his message.
 
You know something else... Ron Paul was Texas District 14 Rep long before any of us gave a shit. We don't know why he endorsed Young except maybe he needed him. You all get your panties bunched by the dumbest shit... you're like media kittens. I think it's your fad to be into Ron Paul and feel it more than get it. I think you're more than likely going back to the democrat party by 2012 cause you'll find so much little shit to bitch about. That's how people become democrats... constant complaining about little things, and asking for Obama's to fix it all.

So, hurling insults at people is the right way to handle them asking questions about what Ron Paul is earmarking money for?

I have no problem with him earmarking money, but I posted certain things that he requested money for, like security cameras, and money for Washington, D.C. schools. And I wanted to know why he asked for those things.

Instead, I get:

  • You all get your panties bunched by the dumbest shit...
  • you're like media kittens.
  • you'll find so much little shit to bitch about.

Maybe if you answered questions instead of cursing, insulting, and acting like a jerk...
 
So, hurling insults at people is the right way to handle them asking questions about what Ron Paul is earmarking money for?

I have no problem with him earmarking money, but I posted certain things that he requested money for, like security cameras, and money for Washington, D.C. schools. And I wanted to know why he asked for those things.

The simple answer is that he earmarked these things because that is what his constitutes asked him to earmark. He has a certain amount of money to spend and by God, if his constitutes want him to spend it, he shall. This does not mean that he comes up with these proposals on a whim, however. He's not sitting at his desk and suddenly go, "Hey, maybe I should earmark money for a new Starbucks coffee shop. I think it should go across the street from the one that's already in the area." That doesn't happen, as far as I know. It would be wrong if it did. The congressman shouldn't dictate what will be earmarked, he must chose from what he is asked for. That can mean that sometimes silly seeming things will be picked in order to make up the full amount he is allowed to earmark. There is a set amount he as allowed to spend. Use it or lose it.

The more complex answer is we don't really know why, exactly. Does it matter? Suppose you listen to the reasons and are not satisfied? Are you saying that if you were in his place you would have better judgement? That only the earmarks you think worthy, are fit to be added? Why is your judgement so much better then the person that requests/doles out earmarks for the things that you just listed?

Once you accept the principal that it's okay to have earmarks (as in voting for them, as opposed to simply honoring the requests of your constitutes in an effort to allow your distict to reclaim some of the money that was stolen by the federal goverment), then you get into the argument of what are the "right" things to earmark. There is no real way for all reasonable people to agree on everything when it comes to that. Things you think are a waste of taxpayer money would be passionately defended by another. The only solution is to end the entire system.

My advice it to not sweat the small stuff. It doesn't matter what the earmarks are (unless there is some kind of personal benifit the congressman would be getting from it), the important thing is to have your congressman defend the principal of avoiding earmarks. Which Ron Paul does.
 
Yeah, earmarking in the grander scheme of things is a minor issue, pork really account for a minut fraction and is an issue to distract from things truly eating up he budget such as a medicaide/social security and other welfare state programs.

Pork spending isn't reduced or increased by earmarking, so not wriing earmarks doesn't do a damn thing. Ron paul has introduced legislation in the pass to remove the earmarking system altogether.

As long as the system is in place, it doesn't mean much not earmark, it's a vanity issue.
 
Is it possible to earmark $26 million to go toward the interest on the debt?

The simple answer is that he earmarked these things because that is what his constitutes asked him to earmark.

His constituents are in Texas.
 
I have no problem with him earmarking money, but I posted certain things that he requested money for, like security cameras, and money for Washington, D.C. schools. And I wanted to know why he asked for those things.

Probably, the best thing for you to do to get the answer is to go straight to Dr. Paul's Congressional office. I have called them on several occasions when I wanted to clear up something like this.
 
You know something else... Ron Paul was Texas District 14 Rep long before any of us gave a shit.

:rolleyes:

We don't know why he endorsed Young except maybe he needed him. You all get your panties bunched by the dumbest shit... you're like media kittens. I think it's your fad to be into Ron Paul and feel it more than get it.

you're such a f*n idiot.

I think you're more than likely going back to the democrat party by 2012 cause you'll find so much little shit to bitch about.

the "democrat" party?

get lost son.... ride your rocket outta town or w/ever.
 
It was fun, and harmless to Ron Paul, and there are a lot of people here who take life entirely too seriously.

Life, liberty and the Constitution which protects both are not serious subjects to you?

And if it was harmless to Ron Paul, what possible motivation could there have been for it?

You're no lover of liberty. You're the problem, not a solution. Troll away, friend. Just don't get your panties in a know when you get pwned.
 
Life, liberty and the Constitution which protects both are not serious subjects to you?

And if it was harmless to Ron Paul, what possible motivation could there have been for it?
You're cracking me up, man, and yes you're one of the ones that takes life too seriously.

You're no lover of liberty. You're the problem, not a solution. Troll away, friend. Just don't get your panties in a know when you get pwned.
I've supported Ron Paul's campaigns financially since 1998, I don't need any rubber stamp from acptulsa.

But for like the zillionth time let's discuss the topic and not some thread from months ago.
 
Ron Paul has left me confused on another issue. I can not figure out why he did not address the petitions served on him and all the other congressmen/women and senators for redress of grievences by We The People Foundation. Ron Paul publically said it is their constitutional right to do so back in 2001. I keep hoping we will get an answer from him when he talks at the Rally.

As far as earmarks, he explained about them on the Jay Leno show. It is money already appropriated for different programs, and if he did not request money for his own constituents he would not be doing the job he was elected to do.

FROM FOX NEWS:

Pet Projects

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."

The Wild American Shrimp Marketing is located in 8 different states and is receiving funds from federal grants and grants from other sources also. They are also implementing an assessment fee from the producers to pay (.05 per pound ?) to help subsidize themselves.
I have to wonder how many jobs this industry provides.

Pepperpete, Ron Paul isn't authorized to speak for Congress or the Federal government, that's unconstitutional. He forwarded it to where the whole of the house would hear it.
 
I can get over the earmarks, but endorsing a warmonger? Nope, I can't get over that if he did indeed do that. I don't worship Ron Paul, I just like his message.

He has a diplomatic stance on Iran which is an immediate issue.
 
Look! Over there!!

:rolleyes:
I've been supporting Ron Paul since 1998 and immediately registered on these forums when I discovered they existed, the same month the domain was registered. I'm not worried even a little bit about some Johnny-come-lately who started supporting Ron Paul in January.
 
Last edited:
I've been supporting Ron Paul since 1998 and immediately registered on these forums when I discovered they existed. I'm not worried even a little bit about some Johnny-come-lately who started supporting Ron Paul in January.

Kylejack, do you have a link, or the name, of the shrimp company that you said either got, or at least asked for, $10 million as a result of Ron Paul's earmark? I found some stuff that was earmarked for marketing and research, but all the articles said was "shrimp industry."
 
Kylejack, do you have a link, or the name, of the shrimp company that you said either got, or at least asked for, $10 million as a result of Ron Paul's earmark? I found some stuff that was earmarked for marketing and research, but all the articles said was "shrimp industry."
Would take some time...I'll do a little googling
 
It's ironic to catch shit from you all because I insist on confirming RP's principles. I'm a critical person not a koolaid drinker and I think the good doctor would respect that.

He (Young) has a diplomatic stance on Iran which is an immediate issue.

Young on Iran:

The Iranian regime’s record on human rights, its links to terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and its well-documented attitude towards Israel are outrageous. I am continuing to urge Congress to make strong gestures to the Iranian regime regarding its treatment of its citizens.



I have serious concerns about the nature of Iran’s nuclear activities, and share international concern that the aims of the Iranian nuclear program are not exclusively peaceful. I will continue to support the international community’s efforts to resolve the issue through diplomacy. It is important to place the maximum pressure on Iran to return to meaningful negotiations about its nuclear ambitions and to fully meet the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). I welcome the June 2006 initiative put forward by Germany and the five permanent members of the Security Council, which offers Iran a wide-ranging basis for negotiations and a positive future relationship, in return for the suspension of its nuclear enrichment program and a return to meaningful negotiations.



Furthermore, I will support measures against Iran if it fails to comply with the Security Council. These should include banning all international nuclear co-operations with Iran, halting the sale of dual-use nuclear technology and military technology to it, and prohibiting new international investment in oil and gas projects in the country. The United States remains at the forefront of efforts to generate and maintain consensus over Iran. We hope that the united front that the permanent members of the Security Council have shown will be maintained now that we are approaching a critical juncture in our dealings with Iran.

Not too libertarian.

I've read a few posts saying that RP didn't actually endorse Young. I hope that's true. Just don't criticize people who take reports like this seriously until they're disproved.
 
It's ironic to catch shit from you all because I insist on confirming RP's principles. I'm a critical person not a koolaid drinker and I think the good doctor would respect that.

Not too libertarian.

I've read a few posts saying that RP didn't actually endorse Young. I hope that's true. Just don't criticize people who take reports like this seriously until they're disproved.

Former Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has endorsed Don Young in his bid to win an 18th term in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Paul, the 72-year-old congressman from Texas whose maverick presidential bid drew wide support in Alaska, sent out a letter to his supporters here urging them to vote for Young.

“Don and I have served together in Congress for many years, and I consider him a friend,” Paul wrote in the letter. “Don has been an outspoken voice against environmental extremists over the years and has strongly opposed the types of federal regulatory overreach advocated in the name of environmentalism.”

Paul and Young are a bit of an odd couple. Paul is a fiscal conservative; Young believes in earmarking federal dollars for Alaska wherever possible. Paul opposes the Iraq war; Young supports it.

But Michael Anderson, Young’s campaign spokesman, said Alaska’s predominantly libertarian perspective is what the two men have in common.

“He’s got some odd bedfellows, if you will,” Anderson said. “But that’s who Young is, and how he’s able to get things done when he’s in the minority.”

In his letter, Paul said he was supporting Young, in part, for his backing of the Liberty Amendment, which would bar the federal government from operating any business-type activities and abolish the federal income tax.

“Few members of Congress have shown the insight to understand the importance of this sweeping legislation to restrain the federal government, and even fewer have shown the courage to co-sponsor this bill,” Paul said. “Don is one of those.”

Anderson said the endorsement undercuts claims by the anti-earmark group Club for Growth and Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, who’s running against Young in Tuesday’s GOP primary, that Young is not conservative enough.

“The message here is the wide range of appeal Young has with Alaskans across the board,” Anderson said. “It also sets the truth about where Young stands on taxes. We wouldn’t have received the endorsement unless Young shared Paul’s position on restructuring the federal tax system.”

Paul came in third back in February in the state Republican Party’s presidential nominee preference poll, behind Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee.

He beat John McCain, now the last Republican standing in the presidential race.

Paul suspended his presidential campaign in June, but has not endorsed McCain. Paul, who raised $35 million this past year for his presidential attempt, also ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988.

A spokeswoman for Paul’s congressional office did not return a call for comment in time for this story.
http://newsminer.com/news/2008/aug/20/ron-paul-endorses-don-young-parnell-offers-anwr-la/

Looks to me like he sent out an endorsement letter, perhaps just to supporters living in Alaska.
 
I've been supporting Ron Paul since 1998 and immediately registered on these forums when I discovered they existed, the same month the domain was registered. I'm not worried even a little bit about some Johnny-come-lately who started supporting Ron Paul in January.

You expect me to take your word for it, but you don't believe I voted for him in 1988 because I didn't hear about this forum until after Christmas? Your logical fallacies are as numerous as they are patently goofy.

P.S. Actions still speak louder than words, troll.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top