Bunning retires: Rand Paul is in the race!

imported post

This video doesn't address RKBA, but Dr. Rand Paul of Bowling Green, like his father, is a SERIOUS adherent to the U.S. Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbeEuGvU8ZE

I don't live in Kentucky, but I already donated $50 at http://www.randpaul2010.com/

imported post

We all need to get behind Rand Paul.

The other RINO/Neocon candidates can go take a hike. I heard Rand on a local radio show in Lexington, and, like his father, he shredded the current debate on health care apart, exposing the real problems, and real solutions for it.

We shall see if the Neocons work their tyranny to exclude yet another candidate with real solutions to problems, but won't necessarily work to preserve their own power.

Rand will be a powerful force in Congress!

imported post

Just like his father, eh?

So, he'll stand on the side of the people, against big government, against wasteful spending, and all of that, right?

Now, his father added 9.2 million dollars, I think it was, of pork to Obama's much wanted Stimulus package (it may have been the next huge spending deal Obama signed). Then ol' Ron 'stand by the Constitution' Paul votes against it, claiming to be against big spending, even though his pork earmarks are included?

If Rand is anything like his father, he's as two faced, back stabbing as the rest of the majority of 'em in Washington, DC

imported post

catass wrote:

Just like his father, eh?

So, he'll stand on the side of the people, against big government, against wasteful spending, and all of that, right?

Now, his father added 9.2 million dollars, I think it was, of pork to Obama's much wanted Stimulus package (it may have been the next huge spending deal Obama signed). Then ol' Ron 'stand by the Constitution' Paul votes against it, claiming to be against big spending, even though his pork earmarks are included?

If Rand is anything like his father, he's as two faced, back stabbing as the rest of the majority of 'em in Washington, DC

Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about it!!:lol:

imported post

catass: When Ron Paul encounters these ridiculous spending bills in congress, he can do one of four things:

1)Add pork that would benefit his constituents and vote for the spending bill.

2)Don't add pork that would benefit his constituents and vote for the spending bill.

3)Don't add pork that would benefit his constituents and don't vote for the spending bill.

4)Add pork that would benefit his constituents and don't vote for the spending bill.

Option 1 would absolutely make him a hypocrite. As he's considered "Dr. No" in the House, he consistently votes "no" on spending bills.

Option 2 is a ridiculous option.

Option 3 sounds like a decent choice, but you have to realize that he has been elected to represent his constituents. He pays taxes as well as they do and they need to see some sort of benefit of paying into a system.

Option 4 is what Ron Paul does. He and arguably most of his constituency are very opposed to government waste and massive spending in general. This is why Ron Paul continually votes "no" on these pork bills. Superficially, it seems contradictory to add to a spending bill and vote against it, but it really makes sense, and this is what I would want from my own congressman if he would ever wise up.

Ron Paul is a sound conservative who, I believe, is one of the few true conservatives left in Congress.

imported post

catass wrote:

Just like his father, eh?

So, he'll stand on the side of the people, against big government, against wasteful spending, and all of that, right?

Now, his father added 9.2 million dollars, I think it was, of pork to Obama's much wanted Stimulus package (it may have been the next huge spending deal Obama signed). Then ol' Ron 'stand by the Constitution' Paul votes against it, claiming to be against big spending, even though his pork earmarks are included?

If Rand is anything like his father, he's as two faced, back stabbing as the rest of the majority of 'em in Washington, DC

Click to expand...

Please cite references to what you speak of. All sarcasm aside, if Dr. No is adding pork to spending bills, he deserves to be held to the standard he has set.

To my knowledge, Ron Paul does not deserve the criticism you speak of, nor is he two faced and back stabbing.

imported post

Here is a link to Paul's voting record on spending, you can see for yourself why they call him Dr. No:
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=10&go.x=9&go.y=14

As you can see, Dr. Paul is strongly philosophically opposed to government spending.

Imagine baking a couple cookies and putting them in a cookie jar only to have it completely raided. Dr. Paul is philosophically opposed to "raiding" the budget, but he knows it will be raided and if he doesn't do anything, he won't get his constituency's contribution.

By adding to a spending bill, he ensures that hid constituency won't be robbed. By voting against a spending bill, he does the only thing he can do to prevent it from happening.

Ron Paul was one of two congressmen that voted against the Patriot Act (the only Republican).

My question is, if Ron Paul isn't conservative, then who is?

imported post

langzaiguy wrote:

Here is a link to Paul's voting record on spending, you can see for yourself why they call him Dr. No:
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296&type=category&category=10&go.x=9&go.y=14

As you can see, Dr. Paul is strongly philosophically opposed to government spending.

Imagine baking a couple cookies and putting them in a cookie jar only to have it completely raided. Dr. Paul is philosophically opposed to "raiding" the budget, but he knows it will be raided and if he doesn't do anything, he won't get his constituency's contribution.

By adding to a spending bill, he ensures that hid constituency won't be robbed. By voting against a spending bill, he does the only thing he can do to prevent it from happening.

Ron Paul was one of two congressmen that voted against the Patriot Act (the only Republican).

My question is, if Ron Paul isn't conservative, then who is?

Click to expand...

A+

"Indicate which principles you support concerning gun issues."

http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=296#826

imported post

Here is a good video of Ron Paul explaining earmarks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5Yk1imBk

Basically, Congress is going to pass X number of dollars. If the spending bill passes (which Ron Paul consistently votes down), then the money will be spent. Adding earmarks doesn't add more money, it just redirects money.

imported post

mellio wrote:

catass wrote:

Just like his father, eh?

So, he'll stand on the side of the people, against big government, against wasteful spending, and all of that, right?

Now, his father added 9.2 million dollars, I think it was, of pork to Obama's much wanted Stimulus package (it may have been the next huge spending deal Obama signed). Then ol' Ron 'stand by the Constitution' Paul votes against it, claiming to be against big spending, even though his pork earmarks are included?

If Rand is anything like his father, he's as two faced, back stabbing as the rest of the majority of 'em in Washington, DC

Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us how you really feel about it!!:lol:

Click to expand...

I would, but I don't want to be banned

imported post

langzaiguy wrote:

catass: When Ron Paul encounters these ridiculous spending bills in congress, he can do one of four things:

1)Add pork that would benefit his constituents and vote for the spending bill.

2)Don't add pork that would benefit his constituents and vote for the spending bill.

3)Don't add pork that would benefit his constituents and don't vote for the spending bill.

4)Add pork that would benefit his constituents and don't vote for the spending bill.

Option 1 would absolutely make him a hypocrite. As he's considered "Dr. No" in the House, he consistently votes "no" on spending bills.

Option 2 is a ridiculous option.

Option 3 sounds like a decent choice, but you have to realize that he has been elected to represent his constituents. He pays taxes as well as they do and they need to see some sort of benefit of paying into a system.

Option 4 is what Ron Paul does. He and arguably most of his constituency are very opposed to government waste and massive spending in general. This is why Ron Paul continually votes "no" on these pork bills. Superficially, it seems contradictory to add to a spending bill and vote against it, but it really makes sense, and this is what I would want from my own congressman if he would ever wise up.

Ron Paul is a sound conservative who, I believe, is one of the few true conservatives left in Congress.

Click to expand...

Option 4 isn't hypocritical? To be against spending but adding spending?

WOAI-TVupdated 5:18 a.m. CT, Mon., March. 2, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican congressmen derided the massive $410 billion spending bill approved by the House of Representatives last week, but some like Houston-area Congressman Ron Paul contributed to its size. Paul, of Lake Jackson, managed to insert 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million into the bill, leading the Houston delegation, according to an analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally-mandated projects in the bill by the Houston Chronicle. The so-call "omnibus" bill passed the House on a 245-178 vote, with only 16 Republicans in support. It was chock-full of congressmen's pet projects for their districts. Second to Paul in the Houston delegation was Republican Congressman John Culberson, who tallied $63.6 million in earmarks. Democrats were not far behind, with Congressman Al Green and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee adding $50.1 million and $37.6 million respectively. Messages left today by The Associated Press at the offices of Paul, Green and Jackson Lee seeking comment were not immediately returned. Only one Houston-area congressman - Republican Michael McCaul, of Austin - was earmark-free in the House bill. Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Click to expand...

imported post

@catass: Did you watch the video of Ron Paul explaining his stance in his own words? Like I said, it's not hypocritical because he is not voting in support of spending bills. He's doing whatever he can to stop it. When you earmark something, you redirect funds that are already going to be spent. If I'm putting money into a system, and if the money was going to be raided by congressmen, I would want my own Congressmen to redirect the money I've contributed back to my district.

In a perfect world, spending bills would not pass. The very least we can do is redirect our own money right back to us.

imported post

Ron Paul cannot add one single dime to the budget. He doesn't sit on the budget committee.

Like every other Representative, he submits his requests to the committee. They either add the earmarks, or don't.

imported post

Ron Paul:

The system is crooked. Ron Paul could stand on principle and have the federal government steal from his constituents and not recover any of their money, and he'd quickly be voted out of office, and some tax-and-spend congresscritter would replace him. Would that be good?

In mathematics and engineering, when the analysis is complicated, it often helps to evaluate boundary conditions. What if all of congress voted the way Ron Paul votes on spending issues? They'd all add their earmarks, they'd all vote against the bill, Congress would spend no money and would soon be forced to stop taxing people because they had done the one thing the federal government doesn't do under either party... cut spending.

Langziaguy did a great job of demonstrating the four options and their consequences. As weird as voting against your own earmarks appears, it is not only not hypocritical, it's the most principled position possible in this corrupt system.



Rand Paul:

Rand isn't his father, but he's very close. I've been very active in the effort to get Rand elected. Why? He's light years better than the other candidates. He's the only choice on the second amendment issue, but he's much better than the others on every issue, and not just gun rights.

I urge you guys to go to RandPaul2010.com and read about Rand. He's not just another politician. Not even close! If you want a good senator, you MUST:

1) Register Republican by December 31st 2009.

2) Vote for Rand in the May 18th primary.

If you don't do those two things, the two parties will pick their guys and come November 2nd 2010, you'll be facing yet another choice between the lesser of two evils and wondering why we can't have good candidates who represent us.

We need to get involved much earlier. We can't let the parties pick their party people in the primary to represent them instead of us.

There's a big online Rand Paul money bomb on August 20th. Read all about it at RunRandRun.com.

imported post

Though I find myself more aligned with the Constitution Party, I registered Republican in order to support Rand!

imported post

Rand will be getting somesupport from outside Kentucky too. But only you boys can vote.

imported post

It's August 20th, which is Ron Paul's birthday, and the date selected for the Rand Paul money bomb!

http://www.randpaul2010.com

Please give what you can. I did!

imported post

I just donated today. I also donated to Bob Mcdonnell In the Va. governor race.

imported post

Mainstream coverage from WHAS, Channel 11.

WARNING: turn down your audio before watching this video. They've apparently never heard of "clipping", and all their knobs read "11".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVDG8cM-zu0

imported post

The August 20 Money Bomb for Rand Paul raised (unofficially) $433,509.

It wasn't the million bucks that we hoped for, but it's an amazing total for a first-time candidate in a 24 hour period.