View Full Version : WOW! seen this?
30 cal slut
03-27-09, 13:03
pretty fiery stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
:eek:
fruitjacket
03-27-09, 13:30
Yes, it's already been posted here (yesterday I believe).
Either that clip or the same clip under a different upload on YouTube had a comment I found interesting, though I will make the assumption it is (mostly) correct.
the commenter called Ron Paul a hypocrite as after calling us all cowards when it comes to the stimulus and other stupid bills, RP nevertheless had about $79M in earmarks added for his own district.
"Do as I say, not as I do"
RP is no panacea
fruitjacket
03-27-09, 14:30
Either that clip or the same clip under a different upload on YouTube had a comment I found interesting, though I will make the assumption it is (mostly) correct.
the commenter called Ron Paul a hypocrite as after calling us all cowards when it comes to the stimulus and other stupid bills, RP nevertheless had about $79M in earmarks added for his own district.
"Do as I say, not as I do"
RP is no panacea
Do you know what earmarks are? They are taxes appropriated for a certain region and politicians can request that they are to be given to a certain entity, etc.
All he's doing is asking for the taxpayers money back.
Do you know what earmarks are? They are taxes appropriated for a certain region and politicians can request that they are to be given to a certain entity, etc.
All he's doing is asking for the taxpayers money back.
WRONG. They are not taxpayer money coming back. They are special interest federal spending that RP is advocating. Earmarks are bribes to politicians to get them to support someone elses pet projects or legislation. Earmarks are wrong. Taxes pay for only a (small) portion of federal spending.
And the money is not going back to the taxpayers. Taxpayers are not seeing a refund back at all. It is SPENDING going to a specific project in someone's (home) district to benefit someone or some group or company specifically.
Without the earmark, we would have a lower deficit or less taxes to collect.
After railing on the stimulus bill RP makes it worse with his earmark requests. That is hypocrisy.
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; So help me God.
fruitjacket
03-27-09, 19:07
WRONG. They are not taxpayer money coming back. They are special interest federal spending that RP is advocating. Earmarks are bribes to politicians to get them to support someone elses pet projects or legislation. Earmarks are wrong. Taxes pay for only a (small) portion of federal spending.
And the money is not going back to the taxpayers. Taxpayers are not seeing a refund back at all. It is SPENDING going to a specific project in someone's (home) district to benefit someone or some group or company specifically.
Without the earmark, we would have a lower deficit or less taxes to collect.
After railing on the stimulus bill RP makes it worse with his earmark requests. That is hypocrisy.
I don't wish to get into an argument...but I will make this point.
How does the government get its funding? Taxes.
So it is tax money coming back, but I agree that's not the point of the discussion.
I'm with you on Earmarks, BTW..but in the grand scheme of things, Ron Paul is the most honest politician there is. Period. His record proves it.
To pick one point out and say he's bad is freakin pathetic. Look at the company he's in. He's Jesus H Christ compared to everybody else in Politics on the national scene. You don't like pork spending..I don't either. But aside from that, the man keeps your and my best interests at heart for the last 30 years.
30 cal slut
03-29-09, 09:06
read something in the news that the poster of that video was granted an audience by his majesty, BHO to discuss the content.
wondering if the WH is looking at the hits the vid is getting (going viral indeed) or plans to try to intimidate jerry doyle into yanking it or toning it down.
Business_Casual
03-29-09, 09:10
read something in the news that the poster of that video was granted an audience by his majesty, BHO to discuss the content.
He's just trying to co-opt the guy. And if he can't co-opt him, by the time he has been vetted to meet BHO, the attack machine will have plenty of angles to go after him a la Joe the Plumber.
M_P
losbronces
03-29-09, 13:10
I don't wish to get into an argument...but I will make this point.
How does the government get its funding? Taxes.
So it is tax money coming back, but I agree that's not the point of the discussion.
I have to disagree with this comment (i.e., taxes are the only method of government funding). The government is currently funding through borrowing (which theorectically will be repaid through additional tax revenue, but perhaps not) and by simply creating more money supply. This is costing those of us with savings a substantial amount of money. Savings accounts currently pay no interest because the banks can get money at zero interest from the government. Also, in the current environment, inflation will help fund the government. This happens as the government will be able to pay the actual debts they have contracted (remember not of the additional money supply has come through borrowing) with inflated currency.
As for earmarks, most are geared toward special interest groups that have helped to fund the member of congress who is promoting them. This type of spending can be a direct payback to the special interest groups that are making the contributions. Groups who make large contributions generally expect some type of return on their investments.
M4tographer
03-29-09, 16:19
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; So help me God.
That sounds REALLY familiar...I just can't place it.
;)
WRONG. They are not taxpayer money coming back. They are special interest federal spending that RP is advocating. Earmarks are bribes to politicians to get them to support someone elses pet projects or legislation. Earmarks are wrong. Taxes pay for only a (small) portion of federal spending.
And the money is not going back to the taxpayers. Taxpayers are not seeing a refund back at all. It is SPENDING going to a specific project in someone's (home) district to benefit someone or some group or company specifically.
Without the earmark, we would have a lower deficit or less taxes to collect.
After railing on the stimulus bill RP makes it worse with his earmark requests. That is hypocrisy.
No, railing about the AIG bonus guarantees - which the administration knew was in there, because they asked for Dodd to put them in, in the first place to prevent the remaining people at AIG from simply walking (it is now obvious to them in hindsight, they should have just walked) - and then using that outrage to ram through new laws giving the government new and extremely extensive powers over business... THAT is hyprocrisy.
Taking more of our our tax dollars to fund bullshit programs and handouts isn't hypocrisy. It's exactly what they promised to do, and exactly what a decent fraction of Obama voters expected him to do.
The wealthier/celebrity/"moderate" obama voters are all trying to figure out what the **** is going on right now, and I have two words for them:
Income redistribution.
They can take those words and repeat them to themselves to keep warm while they huddle in their tent cities, wondering what the hell happened to their jobs, savings, and retirement accounts. They voted for him, now they get to deal with the consequences.
I don't wish to get into an argument...but I will make this point.
How does the government get its funding? Taxes.
So it is tax money coming back, but I agree that's not the point of the discussion.
I'm with you on Earmarks, BTW..but in the grand scheme of things, Ron Paul is the most honest politician there is. Period. His record proves it.
To pick one point out and say he's bad is freakin pathetic. Look at the company he's in. He's Jesus H Christ compared to everybody else in Politics on the national scene. You don't like pork spending..I don't either. But aside from that, the man keeps your and my best interests at heart for the last 30 years.
Agreed. Calling Ron Paul a hypocrit can be put to rest by looking through his history. He says what he means, and means what he says. I would need some pretty hard evidence to begin to believe he is anything less than one of the only non corrupt politicians we have.
pretty fiery stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpEyA
:eek:
BO liked it so much he invited him to the White House to discuss it...................
Or maybe to silence him!:rolleyes:
I have already posted most (not all, some new) of this on the other thread about this very video. But since some missed it and I think that it is still valid I will post it again.
So few understand the electoral college even among conservatives. I might be willing to have a revision of the college but not an abolition. If that were to happen the only states that would be cared about or campaigned in would be California, Texas, Florida, and New York. The rest would be totally ignored and run over. Canada is a great example of this.
Term limits are another big thing that I keep hearing about. Personally I think that they are a total waste of time and energy. There are many states that have term limits and they have just as many issues as they did before the limits. The problem is that if you have an electorate that is willing to elect someone like Kennedy, or the wicked witch of the west Pelosi, they will be willing to vote in another ****tard liberal. Then if you somehow do manage to get someone who is worth their salt then you are limited on being able to keep them around, therefore limiting your options and possibly eliminating the best candidate.
We need to eliminate the 17th amendment. It is what allows the Senators to be voted in to office by the general uninformed want some of what you have worked for, even though they haven't earned it, public. Originally the house was to represent the people, hence Representatives, which is also why the representatives have smaller districts than the senators, so that the PEOPLE could reach and better interact with those who represent them.The Senate was to represent the state and do its business, and in theory if the state and the people are well represented then the federal gov will not be able to get too powerful. But many of the senators that were appointed were seen as party hacks that were getting rewarded. Probably, but what has really changed, lord knows that there are no party hacks in the Senate now:rolleyes:. At least if we abolish the 17th amendment there might some chance that the Senators will get called on the carpet for the crap that they pull. The Senate was to do the States business, currently they do their own because they know that it will be difficult for them to get voted out.
I did have another issue with the video, in the beginning he keeps referring to us as a democracy. When will people get that WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY, nor do we want to be. We are a Republic
He speaks of a second revolution. Right now if revolution were to occur, we would have a revolution more akin to the French revolution and not an American one. All most people have is hate and anger and while most here might have it properly directed most just hate the rich. If you don't believe me, think about the fact that the CHILDREN of the AIG executives were getting death threats. They dont really have any good ideas, just hate ,and desire for what others have. Look at the French revolution, it was the mainly the lower class some middle that just got angry and sick of taking it. It resulted in LOTS of bloodshed and in the end those who had been in power before, came back to power(with a few exceptions).But if you look at the American revolution it was mainly the upper and middle class that carried it out with a set purpose other than anger and revenge. Just something to think about
that was good stuff right there! i couldn't agree more!
Truth? We don't need no stinkin' truth!:rolleyes:
I think the country's on the brink of something big about to happen.
Dr. Quickdraw Mcgraw
04-01-09, 21:17
So few understand the electoral college even among conservatives. I might be willing to have a revision of the college but not an abolition. If that were to happen the only states that would be cared about or campaigned in would be California, Texas, Florida, and New York. The rest would be totally ignored and run over. Canada is a great example of this.
Thank you, we just had a bill in our state house (Iowa) to change it so that all of our electorates would go to the winner of the national popular vote... The number of people around here (Iowa not m4) that just don't get that that would be, in essence, just handing our votes to the "big" states is mind boggling.
Thank you, we just had a bill in our state house (Iowa) to change it so that all of our electorates would go to the winner of the national popular vote...
That is very sad. When people don't understand the reasons behind the set up of our government it sure makes it easy to convince them to jump right off the cliff. You did not say, did the bill pass?
Dr. Quickdraw Mcgraw
04-04-09, 23:37
That is very sad. When people don't understand the reasons behind the set up of our government it sure makes it easy to convince them to jump right off the cliff. You did not say, did the bill pass?
No, it did not. I wrote my local state senator and congressman (congresswoman??). The senator did not respond and made no effort to block it, but the congresswoman sent a very nice reply and went out to her way to get support to block the bill. Right now it is "dead".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.