Posted on 12/17/2011 3:40:33 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
If you're "brave and principled" on never voting for an appropriation bill, but also shelter yourself from any political consequence of this stance by making sure your constituents get all the sweet, sweet Federal Gold their hearts desire, are you really brave or principled?
Ron Paul's never really passed any legislation, and hardly ever joins any. For all the claims about him being a fighter and a champion, he never seems to advance the ball.
But he does have a rich legislative history, of federal taxpayer-gifted goodies for his voters.
No legislation, no actual furtherance of conservative positions, but lots and lots of sweet sweet pork for the boys in Galveston and Corpus Christi.
(Excerpt) Read more at ace.mu.nu ...
You miss the point. If the money is already being spent, as their represtative he is doing what he can to give tax money back to his district. He may not agree with the total bill and vote against it. But I see nl problem requesting funds for his district if the money was already being spent
You might be able to excuse the behavior with that reasoning, but only if the district got back as much or less than it sent in. Did it?
And even if the district got back the same or less, by the time the chunk of change for the bureaucrats is taken out, the district’s taxpayers are still getting hosed. I say let them keep more their own darn money so they can pay for their own darn pork.
If all the reps did what RP is doing - voting againt it but earmarking part of it for his district if it does pass - wouldn’t the deficit be a lot less than it is?
I heard Paul on Leno last night. It’s time for Mr. Paul to go independent. He has one faint idea that fits into the Republican party that has to do with fiscal issues. Other than that, he is a complete lib. Get lost Paul. I thought I had a problem with Romney and Gingrich till I heard this loon.
If everyone did what Ron Paul is doing then you would have no congress.
What appropriations did he vote against that would result in the dissolution of Congress?
Since the money is getting spent then his district is spending more. The money spent, PLUS the pork.
We are talking about “what if everyone did what Ron Paul does”.
"We" aren't, you are. There's only two of us in this converstaion, and you're the only one selectively editing comments and then taking what's left out of context.
Read your own post #5.
You read your own, and admit to what you left out.
What did I leave out?
You can't really be to dumb not to know, and nobody else here is too dumb not to see it.
When liberals do it, we call it "Borking".
Just answer me?
What did I leave out?
You answer the question I asked first - as it was asked.
Read my answer post 7.
(Are you on drugs right now?)
I'll post it again. Maybe it'll grow on you.
If all the reps did what RP is doing - voting againt it but earmarking part of it for his district if it does pass - wouldn’t the deficit be a lot less than it is?
You don’t have to get hysterical about it.
I answered: If everyone did what Ron Paul is doing then you would have no congress.
How do you get the effect would be reducing the deficit, when the result of not passing any budget means the federal government would shut down including congress.
The deficit would still be there. The congress won’t be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.