Having his cake and eating it to!!

tbubster · Jan 12, 2012

So we hear about how the media ignors Ron Paul.He slams the media for not giving him the press coverage he says he should get.Yet for the second time in less then a month Paul walks out on a interview.When he Cut a campigan stop short after the press converged on it latter in an interview he was asked about cutting it short.His answer was to blame the press and walked off.Carefull what yuou ask for Mr Paul you just might get it.In a way As long as you keep the media at bay and walk out on interviews when you dont like what is being asked it does work for his whole the media gives me no respect thing.

Is this how Paul the man many claim is the only one that can lead this country back to greatness is going to act if he were elected president?????

Ron Paul continues assault on the media | The Cutline - Yahoo! News

RLENT · Jan 12, 2012

Bubbie,

I had no idea that you were such a fan of the reportage from the Communist News Network and presstitutes like Dana Bash ....

Journalistic organizations that assign (so-called) "reporters" which are obviously extremely biased about matters they cover have very little real credibility ...

Dana Bash is worried .... very worried

I wonder if Dr. Paul's stance on Israel has anything to do Ms. Bash's apparent bias towards him ?

Turtle · Jan 12, 2012

I had no idea Bubbles was so afraid of Ron Paul.

cableguymn · Jan 12, 2012

tbubster said:
So we hear about how the media ignors Ron Paul.He slams the media for not giving him the press coverage he says he should get.Yet for the second time in less then a month Paul walks out on a interview.When he Cut a campigan stop short after the press converged on it latter in an interview he was asked about cutting it short.His answer was to blame the press and walked off.Carefull what yuou ask for Mr Paul you just might get it.In a way As long as you keep the media at bay and walk out on interviews when you dont like what is being asked it does work for his whole the media gives me no respect thing.

Is this how Paul the man many claim is the only one that can lead this country back to greatness is going to act if he were elected president?????

Ron Paul continues assault on the media | The Cutline - Yahoo! News

This is the same Paul that stuffs pork in a bill then votes against it knowing it'll pass. Then claims credit for the pork he brought home.

RLENT · Jan 12, 2012

IOW, he represents his constituents interests by ensuring that some of the tax dollars they send to the Leviathan in DC are returned back to them.

Got it.

greg334 · Jan 12, 2012

I wish my representatives would represent me but alas they are worried about taxi cab rates in dc and the french need to ensure what champaign is and is not

cableguymn · Jan 12, 2012

RLENT said:
IOW, he represents his constituents interests by ensuring that some of the tax dollars they send to the Leviathan in DC are returned back to them.

Got it.

Uhh huh.. Sssooooo.. Dr Paul. who has been in congress 20 years, only got 1 bill passed brings home the pork just like the rest of them.

Ok.

So whats the difference?

Calling it the leviathan indicates to me you might just listen to Mike Church. I do to when I am up that early in the am

Turtle · Jan 13, 2012

The difference is a lot of people don't understand earmarks, what they are and how they work. Those who call them "pork" understand them the least. The see the list of the top earmarkers, as if that's supposed to be a bad list or something. They don't understand how Congress allocates money, and once it's allocated it will be spent, no ifs, ands or buts. They also don't understand, apparently, exactly where the money comes from that Congress allocates (it comes from taxpayers). Again, once allocated, that money will be spent. It's not like if it isn't earmarked then it won't be spent. It will. And it's up to each Congressional Representative to bring as much of that tax payer money back home to their district as possible. That's their job. What isn't brought back home will be brought back home to some other district by some other Representative. That's their job, too.

tbubster · Jan 13, 2012

Turtle said:
The difference is a lot of people don't understand earmarks, what they are and how they work. Those who call them "pork" understand them the least. The see the list of the top earmarkers, as if that's supposed to be a bad list or something. They don't understand how Congress allocates money, and once it's allocated it will be spent, no ifs, ands or buts. They also don't understand, apparently, exactly where the money comes from that Congress allocates (it comes from taxpayers). Again, once allocated, that money will be spent. It's not like if it isn't earmarked then it won't be spent. It will. And it's up to each Congressional Representative to bring as much of that tax payer money back home to their district as possible. That's their job. What isn't brought back home will be brought back home to some other district by some other Representative. That's their job, too.

If this truly is the right way to spend tax payers dollars then why does he vote no on every one of them????????????????See Turtle its not that we dont understand them its the fact that he himselfs finds something wrong with them as he will prodly tell you and me he has never voted for an earmark.Thats the problem some of us have with it.He says they are the way for government to spend the money yet brags about not ever voting for one.

davekc · Jan 13, 2012

I would probably say the same thing. Ron Paul a week or so ago was blasting Santorum over earmarks and he does the very same thing. Just typical Washington, but I do understand the need to bring back as much of the taxpayers money to their district. Many throw in a dollar but only receive .75 cents back. With the current system, can't blame either for pursuing what they can get.

Turtle · Jan 13, 2012

He votes no on the spending bills, not the earmarks. If there was a way other than earmarks to bring money back to his district, he'd do it, but there's not. It's earmarks or nothing. The fact that you are so closely equating earmarks and spending bills is the clearest indication that you don't understand either one. The spending bill and the earmark are two distinctly different things.

Paul votes no on the spending bills, because he things the money either shouldn't be spent at all, or because the spending bill isn't a wise use of the money.

He adds earmarks to bills because that's the mechanism for bringing money back to the Districts.

Two different issues.

People say we need to eliminate earmarks from all bills spending. And that's great. But now you have to come up with a different mechanism for bringing money back to the 435 Congressional Districts. How do you propose to do that?

davekc · Jan 13, 2012

Turtle said:
People say we need to eliminate earmarks from all bills spending. And that's great. But now you have to come up with a different mechanism for bringing money back to the 435 Congressional Districts. How do you propose to do that?

Totally agree.
There in lies the problem. Unless something is changed, you have to have the earmarks.
But the two are mixed together primarily for political scoring and talking points.

witness23 · Jan 13, 2012

How's that Republican moratorium on earmarks going anyway?

greg334 · Jan 13, 2012

cableguymn said:
Uhh huh.. Sssooooo.. Dr Paul. who has been in congress 20 years, only got 1 bill passed brings home the pork just like the rest of them.

...

So whats the difference?

I think when you live in his district, you can complain about his voting record but until then I think it really doesn't matter much.

RLENT · Jan 13, 2012

cableguymn said:
Calling it the leviathan indicates to me you might just listen to Mike Church. I do to when I am up that early in the am

I don't have satellite radio, and don't really listen to much talk radio ... however Mike Church, as one of the ones who appear to be relatively sane, is one that I will listen to on occasion if I happen to run across him while channel surfing

.... I guess he's on early in the morning ?

cableguymn · Jan 13, 2012

RLENT said:
I don't have satellite radio, and don't really listen to much talk radio ... however Mike Church, as one of the ones who appear to be relatively sane, is one that I will listen to on occasion if I happen to run across him while channel surfing .... I guess he's on early in the morning ?

5am. I think they replay on weekends

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

RLENT · Jan 13, 2012

cableguymn said:
5am. I think they replay on weekends

While it's not rare for me to be up at that hour, I'm usually about to hit the rack

Hafta see if he has podcasts available.

layoutshooter · Jan 13, 2012

"People say we need to eliminate earmarks from all bills spending. And that's great. But now you have to come up with a different mechanism for bringing money back to the 435 Congressional Districts. How do you propose to do that?"

Eliminate all spending that is NOT mandated in the Constitution and return control of the money to the States. Eliminate the IRS and the income tax. Collect all taxes as the state and local level. Each state would pay an equal share to the Feds to run the mandated programs out of state funds.

RLENT · Jan 13, 2012

Sing it brother !

layoutshooter · Jan 13, 2012

Too bad, at least to my limited knowledge, that there is not one single candidate putting this forth. All, at least that I know of, just want to change (or at least pretend too) change the tax system of the Federal government, not eliminate it.