POLL BOMBSHELL: Ron Paul Is Close To A Win In Iowa

[dross]

Quite the opposite IMO.

I take your point, but it actually makes mine.

 

[ATM]

I take your point, but it actually makes mine.

Which points to a very sad state of human reckoning.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Right now Ron Paul needs to convince the Republican Party to embrace traditional conservative principles. Is that so far-fetched? From where I'm sitting, Ron Paul has everything that a good conservative would want. Never voted for a tax hike. Never voted for gun control. Never supported the U.N. Never supported bailouts. Never supported crony-capitalism. Never supported to raise his own pay. Never voted for foreign aid. Never votes against the free market. Never votes for a bill that he thinks is unconstitutional.

Yep, Republicans can decide if any of that stuff matters... Or, they can support socialist-lite neoconservatism, in the same vein as such loser-publicans as Bob Dole or John McCain. The fate of the country lies in their hands.

No, Rob Paul needs to convince conservatives that he embraces traditional conservative principles. He is long on what he doesn't do, yet short on what he does.

Okay, I think I have a picture of what the issue is after reading about this. I don't think Paul is being a hypocrite in his actions - it appears he's making sure his district gets money in spending bills that will pass regardless of his vote against, but he's voting against the bill in it's entirety. I get this, so far.

I think the dishonest part is that he's trumpeting that he's never voted for an earmark - which makes a good soundbite but doesn't tell the story. He's actually FOR earmarks, but against the spending bills themselves. Being against earmarks plays well.

He's being a typical politician, which of course he's supposedly NOT.

Exactly.

Source? Has that ever happened or is this just a hypothetical bash session?

So when you trash every other candidate with your typical truth twisting you are educating, but when someone points out a hypocracy in Paul they are engaged in a "hypothetical bash session"? Pot, meet kettle.

 

[rambone]

So when you trash every other candidate with your typical truth twisting you are educating, but when someone points out a hypocracy in Paul they are engaged in a "hypothetical bash session"? Pot, meet kettle.

No source. I thought so.

 

[steveh_131]

I think the dishonest part is that he's trumpeting that he's never voted for an earmark - which makes a good soundbite but doesn't tell the story. He's actually FOR earmarks, but against the spending bills themselves. Being against earmarks plays well.

He's being a typical politician, which of course he's supposedly NOT.

I don't think this is dishonest.

Let's look at an analogy.

Let's say that someone was taking a percentage of my income away from me by force. They leave me two options. I can either let them spend it at their discretion, or I can decide who I want it to be given to.

If my money is going to be taken away, I'd rather have a say in who it goes to. I'd rather it goes to a soup kitchen, and that is what I'd choose.

This does not mean that I am an advocate of taking people's money by force and giving it to soup kitchens. I'd rather my money wasn't taken away at all. Am I dishonest if I say that I am FOR soup kitchens but AGAINST taking people's money by force? I don't think it's dishonest at all.

 

[Zoub]

Ron Paul will not run as a VP. He has made that clear.

To me, me what he has made very clear is the simple fact his definition of "not" and "never" are not on par with mine. His own words from his own mouth in his own interview with Tim Russert are enough to prove that fact for me.

So, when he says he will never run as VP, I would not make bank on that one. His semantics game is very real back home. He consistently gets real money for his constituents and then he gets their real vote. I am good with that, all politics are local.

Acting like he is the Jesus Christ of consistent voting Congressmen makes Jim Caviezel look like God to me.

 

[grube555]

If the "TRUE AMERICANS" get out and vote....Ron Paul will be president!

 

[jsgolfman]

Which points to a very sad state of human reconing.

http://www.humanspeakers.com/o/othprod.htm:whistle:

 

[ATM]

HUMAN Speakers: What we do for other speakers

The silent k was also invisible.





Shh... I don't think anybody else noticed.

...and I fixed your link.

 

[dross]

I don't think this is dishonest.

Let's look at an analogy.

Let's say that someone was taking a percentage of my income away from me by force. They leave me two options. I can either let them spend it at their discretion, or I can decide who I want it to be given to.

If my money is going to be taken away, I'd rather have a say in who it goes to. I'd rather it goes to a soup kitchen, and that is what I'd choose.

This does not mean that I am an advocate of taking people's money by force and giving it to soup kitchens. I'd rather my money wasn't taken away at all. Am I dishonest if I say that I am FOR soup kitchens but AGAINST taking people's money by force? I don't think it's dishonest at all.

No, that's not dishonest. What's dishonest is saying, "I never voted to spend a dime on soup kitchens," when you're actually for soup kitchens and what you actually were voting against was taking money by force.

 

[jsgolfman]

The silent k was also invisible.





Shh... I don't think anybody else noticed.

...and I fixed your link.

lol, be vewy quiet...

 

[steveh_131]

No, that's not dishonest. What's dishonest is saying, "I never voted to spend a dime on soup kitchens," when you're actually for soup kitchens and what you actually were voting against was taking money by force.

I think when he says that he has never voted for earmarks, it's the equivalent of saying that he is against taking the money by force, not that he's against the things he chooses to spend it on (instead of tossing it down the toilet)

I doubt we'll agree on this any time soon, but I find it perfectly acceptable and honest when you consider the alternative that he has.

 

[24Carat]

If the "TRUE AMERICANS" get out and vote....Ron Paul will be president!

I have honestly never seen such a condescending full of crap statement on this site before this holier than thou tripe!

 

[rambone]

I have honestly never seen such a condescending full of crap statement on this site before this holier than thou tripe!

I have had way more condescending things said to me.

 

[ATM]

If the "TRUE AMERICANS" get out and vote....Ron Paul will be president!

I have honestly never seen such a condescending full of crap statement on this site before this holier than thou tripe!

Yeah, it's not like "TRUE VENEZUELANS" can get out and vote for Ron Paul.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Did you read the article? Looks like an endorsement to me.

You posted no link and only posted the detractions of other candidates which were actually not detractions but opinions. Sell Romney instead of slaming the others. Tell me exactly how I will have more freedom with a Romney presidency instead of Paul.

 

[KG1]

Des Moines Register endorses Romney.

Des Moines Register backs Mitt Romney for GOP nomination

You posted no link and only posted the detractions of other candidates which were actually not detractions but opinions. Sell Romney instead of slaming the others. Tell me exactly how I will have more freedom with a Romney presidency instead of Paul.

I believe if you look at the post again that I did indeed post a link to the article that I pulled the quote from. I'm really not looking to get into an argument over all this.

 

[24Carat]

I have had way more condescending things said to me.

And you know what RB? I find that indefensible behavior also. The broad brush stroke crap like this is a direct indication of an extremely small mind.

 

[dross]

I think when he says that he has never voted for earmarks, it's the equivalent of saying that he is against taking the money by force, not that he's against the things he chooses to spend it on (instead of tossing it down the toilet)

I doubt we'll agree on this any time soon, but I find it perfectly acceptable and honest when you consider the alternative that he has.

You're quibbling. He's for earmarks, and I generally agree with his reasoning. He's saying that Congress should designate what's spent rather than giving so much discretion to the executive branch. (Though I would argue that Congress isn't capable of designating every dime - that wouldn't be efficient and Congress doesn't have the expertise.)

He also has put earmarks in for his district, knowing the spending bill would pass regardless. I also have no problem with this, and defended it in this very thread.

The honest way to say it, though, is "Yes, I'm for earmarks, earmarks are the best way to appropriate money. I've never voted for an earmark, however, because I always vote against spending bills for other reasons."

Knowing that earmark has a negative connotation, then arguing that he's never voted for an earmark, is, as the phrase goes, too clever by half.

Perhaps dishonest is too strong, certainly misleading, and unattractively clever.

Like the the politician's play of finding out there's enough votes, then voting against a bill because his party doesn't need the vote and it'll hurt him in his district. The politician gets to claim he voted against a bill, even though he'd have voted for it if his vote was needed to pass, and taken the bullet.

Again, I'm not throwing Paul under the bus for being misleading, but it is a typical politician's move.

 

[Bond 281]

You're quibbling. He's for earmarks, and I generally agree with his reasoning. He's saying that Congress should designate what's spent rather than giving so much discretion to the executive branch. (Though I would argue that Congress isn't capable of designating every dime - that wouldn't be efficient and Congress doesn't have the expertise.)

He also has put earmarks in for his district, knowing the spending bill would pass regardless. I also have no problem with this, and defended it in this very thread.

The honest way to say it, though, is "Yes, I'm for earmarks, earmarks are the best way to appropriate money. I've never voted for an earmark, however, because I always vote against spending bills for other reasons."

Knowing that earmark has a negative connotation, then arguing that he's never voted for an earmark, is, as the phrase goes, too clever by half.

Perhaps dishonest is too strong, certainly misleading, and unattractively clever.

Like the the politician's play of finding out there's enough votes, then voting against a bill because his party doesn't need the vote and it'll hurt him in his district. The politician gets to claim he voted against a bill, even though he'd have voted for it if his vote was needed to pass, and taken the bullet.

Again, I'm not throwing Paul under the bus for being misleading, but it is a typical politician's move.

You're right. However, what I've seen from some people (I think you were one of them, but not sure) is that they complain that Paul isn't politically savvy enough or whatever to enact change/etc. Or that the problem with Paul and libertarians is that they don't play the political game to get support. Seems to me that this shows that Paul is aware of the political game, and when he doesn't play it it's a stand for principal, not that he's ignorant or incapable of doing so when he can without sacrificing his values. If anything, his ability to spin something that he's consistent about in a positive way is boon to his overall electability and qualification for political office.

I'm sure you can agree at least that there is no hypocrisy in what he did, and that his ability to frame it in a positive way is a good political move.