I just realized I have a good litmus test for if a poster is worth my time...

Anyone can rage against their own party

For christs sake, Sarah Palin constantly rails against the GOP, does that make her a level-headed moderate?
 
He doesn't 'pick winners.' He puts forward every request brought to him by his district.

You ignored my previous post so here it is for you again:

Cutting earmarks doesn't cut spending.


Adding earmarks doesn't add spending.


Paul's principled stance is that a.) Congress should appropriate funRAB and b.) Congress should cut spending.

Earmarks don't violate either stance.

You're stretching here.

You would have a point if Paul spoke out against earmarks last month, I supported his opposition, and then this month, he is for earmarks, and I supported him. But none of this has happened.

Again, you are being dogmatically stupid on this topic, just to try to 'win' an argument over libertarian principles. But you haven't. You've lost.
 
I see you're not going to get it sans this explained in a pop-up book.

Please provide an example of unregulated insurance sold in the US.
 
The way I understand Ron Pauls position on earmarks is how people who have paid into social security all their lives may oppose the idea of it and would like it abolished but if they all ready paid for the benefits they should receive them.

So the state of Texas and his district pay federal taxes and if he sticks to his guns and doesn't collect any of the money back , then he essentially is robbing the people who he represents of their federal tax money.

I don't have a solid opinion on it because you are correct it does seem somewhat hypocritical , but on the other side he is stuck in a delima which I explained above. He is " compromising " and trying to stick to his guns by voting no on the bill but if it passes his district doesn't get boned.


That's how I see it anyway...
 
Yeah, that is more or less correct, as I see it. The only issue I'd take with your post (or his "compromise" or whatever) is he not only puts in enough earmarks to get his district's fair share of federal money, IIRC (From the 2008 election so it is a bit hazy) he had more earmarks than any other congressman.

So, you know, he is playing the game and playing it pretty damn well. So I can't really fault him for that. But it kind of negates the "well, I'm just trying to get my fair share" argument and moves it more into a "I'm gonna get mine" argument.

That all said, I don't understand how he could position himself to get that many earmarks into bills. I mean, it isn't like anyone is going to let him put in an earmark with the hopes that he'll then vote for the bill. I mean, everyone knows he is going to vote "no" regardless, so if I was a congressman* I'd just say "fuck him" and deny the earmarks.

*Blah blah, I know a single congressman can't block specific earmarks, but you get the gist of what I'm saying.

**Bonus points for anyone who points out that I am wrong about him having the most earmarks tied to his name. I'm fairly certain I am right about that but then again it has been a while since I've looked at it so...
 
Hey genius, maybe you'll notice that Emfuser added in his made-up rules like at least a day after the debate began.


Posted the first argument: 04-22-2009, 06:05 PM
Jas0n's third post: 04-23-2009, 08:30 AM
Emfuser's rules edit: 04-23-2009 at 01:03 PM.





In any case, it was acknowledged that the rules I was being held to did not match the ones I agree to.
 
I agree on both points. I edited out some of the comprise jargon but you got me before my ninja edit. Also I did see the reports naming him the top earmark congressman .
 
Participants had to give productive responses within 72 hours of their opponent's most recent productive response. The idea of qualifying it with "productive" is to prevent some useless banter for the purpose of filibustering, and the purpose of limiting it to 72 hours was to prevent the thing from being dragged on indefinitely, e.g., one of them says, "Oh, I'm working on a response," and then decides to take a week, or two, or three.


It was hardly "slipped in." Emfuser mentions it twice in the first post. And Jas0n draws attention to it in his first or second post in the thread. It's not unreasonable to assume that Karen read these posts.


Karen is just mad. Very mad.
 
Back
Top