Posted on 08/26/2007 6:30:16 AM PDT by SJackson
Well, it was predictable. The talking points used by supporters of Ron Paul (i.e. Paulbots, Paulites, etc.) have now changed.
You can always tell when the marching orders are given to a group by the sudden shift in the common language they use to refer to a certain situation. It’s like when Rush Limbaugh compiles montages of several media types from different organizations all using the exact same (and often obscure) term or description for an event. You know there was a memo sent out somewhere.
Well the same thing has happened among members of the Paul Collective.
Prior to Mr. Paul’s propensity for unconstitutional spending becoming widely known, the talking points were that Mr. Paul was the only “true Constitutionalist” running for President and that anyone who supported the Constitution had to support Mr. Paul based on that. Now that his status as a “true” believer in the Constitution has been utterly shattered, the new line in almost every email sent to me by a rabid, foaming at the mouth Paulbot is that Mr. Paul is still the man because he is the “most” Constitutional of all the candidates.
For the Paulbots, trying to defend his use of the Constitution as toilet paper simply has not flown as well as they would have liked. So now they are now trying to convince conservatives and libertarians that the liberaltarian ways of Ron Paul are still best because they are “more” Constitutional than other candidates. Call me skeptical of that.
I don’t see how anyone can say that Mr. Paul is “more” Constitutional than other candidates when he has violated the Constitution the same as others have. Sure he might have done it for different pet programs that spend federal money on shrimp and trolleys rather than Social Security and Medicare, but it is still a violation of Constitution. This defense is like saying that a man who robs a 7-11 for $50 and gives it to his mother to pay for her hospital bills is less guilty of theft than a man who holds up the bank, takes $1,000,000 and flees to the Bahamas.
A duck is a duck no matter how it quacks. And I reiterate that no true libertarian would defend Ron Paul’s actions and those that are simply are showing their own fatal flaws and blind loyalty. However to the credit of some within the Ron Paul camp they are admitting that this is a problem their candidate will need to overcome and correct.
Saying that Paul is “more” Constitutional than other candidates however puts me in mind of the old George Carlin bit about preheating the oven:
“[P]re this, pre that….. place the turkey in a preheated oven…. it’s ridiculous… there are only two states an oven can possibly exist in, heated or unheated…. preheated is a meaningless ****ing term!”
Maybe Ron Paul is a “pre-Constitutionalist”? Does he exist in a state of believing in the Constitution while not believing in it just like the “preheated” oven exists in a mysterious state between being heated and unheated?
Much like the oven, there are only two states in which you can exist with regards to the Constitution; for it or against it. There is no “mostly”. Yes, you can certainly disagree with parts of it, but you still have to abide by it. It’s the law of the land so deal with it.
On a side note, this is about the time in my articles when the Paulbots are rushing to their keyboards to pound out inane emails full of slurs like “neo-con” and “fascist” simply because this is too much truth for them to handle. So for all you members of the Paul Collective that haven’t done so yet, get to typing!
Of course I predicted they would stand by him and defend his indefensible acts in my article The Constitution For Dummies (i.e. Ron Paul Supporters) even though he was not what he or they claimed he was. See, it doesn’t matter … Ron Paul is “the one”. He could go on live television and shoot a cute little puppy in the head and the Paulbots would still worship at his feet.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again. I like Ron Paul on a lot of issues. However that does not mean I think he is the most qualified candidate to be Commander in Chief of our military and Chief Executive of the United States. I don’t think he is strong enough on taking the fight to any enemy that threatens America and I’ve known about his unconstitutional funding requests for some time as well as his dubious (at best) libertarianism which has more asterisks than Barry Bond’s home run record.
If you want to spend money on studying shrimp then use the amendment process to make such idiotic spending constitutional. Otherwise you are just a hack like any other politician would be who espoused certain beliefs while acting contradictory to them.
Paul supporters like to claim that his requests for spending for a variety of illegitimate reasons were ok, and I am not saying that every single request he made does not or could not pass Constitutional muster. Although most, if not all, are of dubious merit at best I am afraid.
But there is a true libertarian solution Ron Paul could have embraced and hopefully will consider next time he ponders violating the Constitution. That is, if he is serious about being a true Constitutionalist. See, I’m also about ideas and solutions, not just complaining which is something Paulbots have also accused me of in order to remove the spotlight from their candidate.
Instead of taking taxpayer dollars and redistributing them to others in the form of unconstitutional spending, what Ron Paul should have done was use an actual power granted to Congress in the Constitution to “serve his constituents” which is a typical canard Paulbots use to defend his actions. That power? The power of taxation of course.
Congress is unquestionably granted this power. It takes no reading between the lines or mental gymnastics to discover.
So, since Congress has the power to levy taxes and set the rates of such taxes here is what Ron Paul should have done.
First he should have compiled a list of every earmark and the amount of each earmark requested by each of the members of Congress for pet projects in their districts. Then he should have divided each by the number of constituents each member of Congress serves to find out who was getting the most dollars per person. Then he should have taken the maximum amount per person and multiplied it by the number of constituents in his district.
He then should have appended language to the yearly budget requesting this amount of money be set aside in the form of a tax rebate for members of Texas’s 14th congressional district and to be refunded to those who paid income taxes based on how much they paid. In other words, someone that paid $500 in federal income tax would obviously receive less of a rebate than someone that paid $15,000. To do otherwise would of course violate libertarian principles against wealth redistribution.
After all, if the members of Joe Blow’s district are entitled to a certain number of tax dollars per person, then so should Mr. Paul’s. His office would then issue a check to every resident of the district that qualified, by paying taxes, for this rebate of monies he prevented the federal government from spending on unconstitutional programs and which was over collected. And it does not have to just be limited to income taxes either. He could refund the money to anyone that paid any sort of federal tax such as federal gas taxes, etc. although income taxes would certainly be the easiest to go back and verify and track year to year.
Now, of course no one would be able to get back more money than they paid to the federal government. That would amount to some sort of Welfare program which also be very un-libertarian and we just cannot have that either. So we would have to cap the refund at the maximum dollars in taxes paid by each constituent.
But then again, this solution would actually be constitutional and amount to actually serving one’s constituents by upholding the Constitution, returning over collected tax dollars back to them and not lining the pockets of local governments and private industry. And it would be truly libertarian.
What do you say Ron Paul? How about all you Paulbots? Want to be true libertarians in the future?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I will freely admit that I did a bad, bad thing last week. Well, it wasn’t a really “bad” thing unless you were one of those that fell for it I guess. What did I do that was so bad? I set up the Paulbots. Yes, evil rotten me, I know.
When I wrote “Earmarking Our Way to Oblivion” I purposefully left out any mention of Ron Paul even though I knew he was just as dirty as all the rest. See, Mr. Paul’s own earmark fetish was certainly no real secret to anyone paying attention and with enough desire to dig a little. But the Paulbots were quick to comment about how because of the corruption that earmarks bring and how that they many times violate the Constitutional powers of Congress that this is exactly the reason why we needed Ron Paul.
Not a day goes by that supporters of Ron Paul aren’t out in droves proclaiming any conservative that does not support their candidate is an evil neo-con, trumpeting how Mr. Paul is a true “constitutionalist” and is the only man qualified to be President. Well, I guess we now see how accurate their description of their own golden boy really is considering news that has really taken off in the last couple days about his own requests for earmarks.
It is no secret to those of us that are out there everyday taking fire from the Paulbots that when Ron Paul commands them to jump they not only ask how high, but also at what angle, what flavor of Kool Aid Mr. Paul would desire they bring him after they land, how many ice cubes he would like in said drink, what color he would like his house painted, how many gallons of gas he needs them to put in his car, what time he would like his wakeup call for the following morning, how he desires his eggs cooked and whether or not he wants them to polish his fine silver clockwise or counterclockwise. The answer to that last one is that Ron Paul demands they first polish it six times clockwise followed by a single counterclockwise finishing polish. Their loyalty to the illusion of their candidate as a savior of us all and as someone that actually holds the Constitution dear is admirable if not highly misguided and naive.
Now the Wall Street Journal and other sources have what Paulbots are robotically and predictably calling a “hit pieces” on their candidate. Of course I still question whether or not Ron Paul really can be considered a “candidate” when he barely cracks one percent in the polls. But that is another topic for another day. Anyway these “hit pieces” detail how Mr. Paul, supposedly a libertarian, has requested millions of taxpayer dollars for roles not delegated to the federal government by we the people. Hardly a “libertarian” stance. Hardly “hit pieces”. Simply the truth.
Oh … well … uh … Ron Paul 2008! He’s still the man! Right Paulbots?
Last week the Paulbots were flooding me with comments about how we needed Ron Paul and about how I was right about the earmark problem. But this week I have particularly loved the responses by these same hacks to these new revelations and that have again flooded into my mailbox on cue since I blogged about Paul’s own earmarks on Tuesday. They say things like, “Well the money was going to be spent anyway!” and, “It’s ok because he is just serving his constituents like he is supposed to,” or boldly proclaim, “there is nothing unconstitutional about Paul’s earmarks!” or my personal favorite, “Well, yeah he requested the earmarks but he voted against them!”
That last one makes me chuckle. It’s a pathetic having your cake and eating it too argument that no true libertarian would embrace. Anyone with half a brain sees through this tactic as nothing but style over substance worthy of the staunchest liberals. Mr. Paul certainly understands that in the current corrupt Washington culture his earmark requests would pass even as he votes against them. He knows all he has to do is attach them to the spending bill in order to reap the benefits. A true libertarian would not even request them in the first place.
But rather than calling for his impeachment for violating the constitution, something I have done time and again for all politicians, regardless of party, that violate the Constitution, the Paulbots rush out to defend the man they have deemed as “the one.” Truth be damned! He really is a TRUE libertarian! Full ludicrous speed ahead!
It doesn’t matter that they were out there in mass decrying earmarks just a week before. It doesn’t matter that the Constitution is clear in Article I, Section 8 when it limits the powers of Congress to tax and spend on a concise list of things defined as the “general Welfare.” It doesn’t mater if Ron Paul has requested federal money to deal with issues found nowhere in these federal powers from funding for shrimp to building hospitals to maintaining trolleys. None of that matters because … well … Ron Paul is da man! Praise the Savior of our Republic! Hallelujah! And how dare I and others take his name in vain!
Blind loyalty is never attractive. And it is often deadly.
The Constitution is simple. It allows for laws and spending on the only a short list of topics which are clearly stated and any libertarian worth their salt knows of James Madison’s discussion of this in Federalist 41. The list that is there is the list. That’s it Mr. Paul. That’s it Paulbots. Nothing about shrimp. Nothing about trolleys. Nothing about most of what Paul’s earmarks are spending money on. No amount of whining about Ron Paul getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar will change the facts. No amount of hurling slurs like “neo-con” or “fascist” or “globalist” at those that exposed Mr. Paul will make a difference in the truth. Such tactics don’t work for liberals and they will not work for you.
I’m sorry I entrapped you last week. But it is something you are going to learn from as you progress on in life. Principles are only principles if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is and always watch your own glass house before you cast the first stone.
It’s so simple even a Paulbot can understand it. And I call on Ron Paul to be a true libertarian and draw up articles of impeachment against himself, convince his fellow Congressmen to approve the action and finally vote in favor of the action when the time comes to pay the piper.
But he won’t. He won’t because the fact is there are few true libertarians out here in the real world. We are a lonely bunch for sure. Even though lots of people envision themselves as such, when push comes to show they are at best nothing more than a bastard cousin; the liberaltarian. And that is why we are in trouble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
James Madison once remarked, “with respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” In writing that letter to James Robertson, he reiterated the sentiments he shared with the nation in Federalist 41 where he denounced objections by the anti-Federalists to the term “general Welfare” being included in the Constitution because of it’s presumption of an unlimited and open ended scope as without “color”.
The fear of federally elected politicians being able to curry favor with their constituents by bringing home the bacon in the sense of tax dollars was why under the Constitution our government was given only limited powers to tax and spend. The founders knew that what have become known as “earmarks” would not serve this nation well and would corrupt the intent of limited government.
Why did Madison and the vast majority of Federalists say that the “general Welfare” clause was limited to the set conditions that followed? So that leaders of our government couldn’t buy votes!
Over the years since however we have basically amended the Constitution through court orders and legislation (neither of which are means by which such action can be achieved mind you) to say to heck with all that nonsense! And we see where it is now getting us. “General Welfare” has come to mean anything and everything some politico in Washington can dream up.
What do we have today? We have Republican Congressmen from Alaska like Senator Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young that are kings of pork barrel spending and who year after year take money home to their state for pet projects such as the affectionately called “bridge to nowhere” among many, many others.
We have people like Rep. Sam Farr, Democrat, CA who pushed for $25 million to benefit spinach growers to be added to an “emergency” supplemental spending bill. Must be some spinach “emergency” we are not aware of!
Then there is House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, Democrat, Minnesota who continues to send taxpayer dollars each year to mega-farms and giving 50% of the money for unconstitutional subsidies to just 4% of America’s farmers.
Perhaps we should ask Republican Senator John Thune of South Dakota under what authority of Article I, Section 8 he sought fit to secure over two million dollars in federal loans for the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern Railroad because they weren’t making enough money on their own to pay for improvements and expansions?
Oh, but let’s not forget Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who, if the truth be known, has more than his share of buildings in the state of West Virginia named after him because of all the money he has brought back to help build them. Not to mention that he has secured money for such unconstitutional projects like the “the Wood Education and Resource Center”. $2.7 million of our tax dollars went to that to teach you and I about wood.
Thank God for government! I do not know how I would have learned anything about wood without this great organization! Honestly, the average American probably knows more about wood than anyone at that ridiculous place though. And those that have taken this money are no doubt busy studying the contents of Mr. Byrd’s head apparently; a perfect specimen of wood.
And while we’re in West Virginia, let’s not forget about Byrd’s partner in crime, Representative Allan Mollohan, who funneled $250 million dollars to non-profits which he himself set up. Conflict of interest?
Or what about John Murtha? Ah yes, good old John … the man has more money going to his district, which includes Johnstown, PA for “defense” projects that it is amazing there aren’t aircraft carriers sitting in Laurel Ridge State Park!
And all the while, the people who these Congressmen represent as well as those of countless others with their hands in the proverbial “cookie jar” cheer. “What great things they are doing for our region!” they cry as they fawn over the money. And they empower our elected officials to continue to push for these monies year after year. And year after year we spend more and more on these earmarks at huge cost to the tax payers.
But that’s ok right? Because the evil “rich” pay those taxes. And we know they are not paying their “fair share” right? And then we wonder why we are paying so much more for the goods and services we buy as these costs are passed on to us.
Meanwhile? These politicians are laughing all the way to the bank. Because they know you will keep voting for them as long as they bring home the pork and train you to salivate on cue. Yes, they’ve got us right where they want us.
“I’ve never seen any posts or threads of Paul supporters accusing other FReepers of this. If there are, please provide the links. The only posts I’ve seen are those who refute the lie that “Giuliani is the only one who can beat Clinton.”” EEE.
I’ve seen several posts claiming that Ron Paul is the only one who can beat Hillary. I’m sure you’ve seen them too. The claim goes like this, only a anti-war candidate can win and Ron is the only antiwar republican. Therefore, he is the only ‘repubican’ who can beat Hillary.
Tooo funny, I think the comedy channel is now hiring, maybe you can get Jon Stewart a cup of coffee, you have a real skill here....
So why the constant nitpicking of Paul? -- Do you really believe he is some sort of boogyman?
I'm not nitpicking him.
Get real. You've been posting hissy fit articles like this one for quite some time.
I think the article made a relevant point. His supporters make all sorts of nonsensical claims on FR, from Ron as the heir to Ronald Reagan's foreign policy to the unconstitutionality of the income and social security taxes.
Big deal. Every candidate ever known has had a contingent of "nonsensical supporters".
Are you suggesting that shouldn't be addressed on long threads, allowing those unfamiliar with him to accept those positions?
No, I'm suggesting that you've gone off the deep end in suggesting that Paul's platform is what? -- Un american?; - unconstitutional?
“The article doesn’t mention how many of Ron Paul’s earmarks ever get funded. That’s because they don’t get funded.”
Absolutely totally irrelevent to the theme of the article which is if Ron Paul truly believed in and was a ‘staunch defender’ of the Constitution he wouldn’t propose them in the first place.
But, even if what you say is true that none of those earmarks were funded, then those that deleted these earmarks are better ‘staunch defenders of the Constitution’ than is Ron Paul.
I think the thing to keep in mind about folks who are on a Jihad Against Ron Paul is that while they are more then willing to attack Dr. Paul, they never bother to extend their logic to their own candidates.
To hug the truly pitiful libertarian practice of “peeing contest to see who is the most ideologically pure candidate” is to miss the fact that the issues Ron Paul talks about are actually “Conservative Republican” issues, from abortion to taxes to the 2nd amendment, Ron Paul has consistently supported a Constitutional Orginalist view of the Role of Government in America.
Only die ahrd libertarians and ron paul bashers can actually say “See, he isn’t perfect, he wanted 237,000 for the shrimp industry, and because he cheated on us, well...I’ll just go vote for Fred”
If we use the same yardstick to measure a Fred Thompson candidacy that is being used to measure a Ron Paul candidacy, the comparison isn’t even close, Thompson looks like a socialist in comparison to Paul, but that never breaks the stride of the Jihady’s attack on Paul.
There is a brightside however, they are bemusing in their jivvy toves....
While it's easy to agree with that statement, it's all about interpretation isn't it? That's the reason for abortion on demand, gun laws and a host of welfare programs. Liberals finding new meaning every day in the constitution as a "living document".
Wrong he is the gops rosie. Has he apologized for blaming the USA for 9-11 yet?
I'm not aware that the "Jewish Lobby" you refer to is responsible for our continued massive ground presence in Germany. Please feel free to let me know if I haven't gotten the word.
Ten years after the Berlin Wall came down we still had something like 75,000 ground troops there in addition to their dependents, the schools needed for their children, the medical and dental facilities, the cost of shipping household goods, etc. That's a pretty sizable force to maintain without any mission. The Defense Department could use the funds we spend to maintain our ground forces in Europe if we brought them home - the sooner the better - to defend the US by upgrading US facilities and equipment.
I suspect most of us who knew the War in Iraq was a counterproductive fool's errand from the start recognized that it was only a question of time before our involvement in the region would prompt one of the region's many warring factions to see us as opposing them and extend their war to the US.
My understanding of "truthers" is that they believe that 9/11 was undertaken by the US government - an idea I find ridiculous.
As long as you've asked about Jewish conspiracies could you tell me how I should answer those who ask about the Bergen Record's reporting on the Israelis who were seen cheering and recording the attacks on the WTCs from a rooftop in Jersey City? I'll admit that one stumps me.
Your posts are systematic in their use of innuendo and third-party misquotes which you can then attribute as truth. You rely upon the laziness of FReepers to believe your little lies so you can spread your FUD.
Who do you want to see as president? (Reps and Dems)
Rudy Giuliani 2% (38)
Fred Thompson 1% (18)
Mitt Romney 3% (68)
John McCain 0% (7)
Newt Gingrich 0% (10)
Mike Huckabee 1% (30)
Ron Paul 52% (1152)
Tom Tancredo 0% (3)
Sam Brownback 0% (3)
Duncan Hunter 0% (4)
Barack Obama 9% (203)
John Edwards 2% (40)
Hillary Clinton 4% (90)
Bill Richardson 1% (18)
Dennis Kucinich 20% (448)
Joe Biden 1% (15)
Mike Gravel 1% (17)
Chris Dodd 0% (5)
Al Gore 2% (40)
Are you saying that misguided interventionism won’t anger people in the countries involved?
Are you furthe suggesting that even doing the right things for the right reasons still won’t cause anger and backlash?
If you step between your next door neighbor and his wife as he beats her, do you think that he is going to thank you or will he look for ways to retaliate?
Actions have consequences. Even good actions can bring negative consequences.
So anyone that uses such statements could most likely be anti-semitic? That's rich. Unless you accept the role of empire, you hate people. To think that has always been the standard, well except for Democrats who used to always start the wars....What does that say about Junior who called for a 'more humble foreign policy' in his 2000 campaign? That would have been 'centered on America's interests'.
I guess then that you agree with the ‘truthers’ and Ron Paul that we were attacked because of our troops overseas?
So you discount the concept that every reaction has an equal and opposite reaction. Damn Iraqis. They should be thankful we're using our bombs on them...thankful!?!? They should be grateful.
When the police action in Iraq is over and Iraq evolves into a theocracy (if it doesn't fall apart altogether), will your excuse then be that if we stayed just a 'little longer' everything would have been okay as well?
In effect all we're doing is trying to keep together a nation that has only been in existence for 80+ years. And a nation that was created by outside forces. Keep it up. It will work this time...really it will....
bttt
Notice how SJackson posts a false and misleading result from an obscure website. Although providing a link to the real online poll page, SJackson relies on the laziness of FReepers to fall for her little trick.
SJackson,
Post #39Since we're discussing moonbat candidates, that makes sense. After all, like Paul, Dennis is winning the moonbat vote.
Dennis Kucinich Beating Ron Paul in Online Poll
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=21531&ret=Default.aspx
Washington D.C. 8/25/2007 9:59 AM GMT (FINDITT) USAElectionPolls.com is currently holding an online straw poll on the front page of its website. The questions is worded "Who do you want to see as president? (Reps and Dems)".
Dennis Kucinich is leading the Democrats by a 3:1 margin over Barack Obama.
Ron Paul has a commanding 5:1 lead over Mitt Romney.
If it was a head to head bout, Dennis Kucinich would be beating Internet Phenom Ron Paul.
I thought it was worth pointing out how SJackson and the other Paul-haters routinely use misleading quotes from obscure websites to trash Ron Paul. It shows how desperate and dishonest they really are. Well, if the malicious keyword spamming they engage in isn't enough to tip readers off to begin with.
Who do you want to see as president? (Reps and Dems)
Rudy Giuliani 2% (38)
Fred Thompson 1% (18)
Mitt Romney 3% (68)
John McCain 0% (7)
Newt Gingrich 0% (10)
Mike Huckabee 1% (30)
Ron Paul 52% (1152)
Tom Tancredo 0% (3)
Sam Brownback 0% (3)
Duncan Hunter 0% (4)
Barack Obama 9% (203)
John Edwards 2% (40)
Hillary Clinton 4% (90)
Bill Richardson 1% (18)
Dennis Kucinich 20% (448)
Joe Biden 1% (15)
Mike Gravel 1% (17)
Chris Dodd 0% (5)
Al Gore 2% (40)
I noticed that is this morning's disgusting and repeated ad nauseum tactic to try to shut down any conversation in the Paul threads.
LOL! Boy you're really scraping the bottom of the dumpster there aren't you General Stonewall.
"You would see a cooling of the federal war on drugs [under Paul]," Benton says. "But Ron believes in the rule of law, and I don't think this guy should look to Ron for him getting off scot-free."
So...where in this statement that Paul supports complete legalization of drugs or would give dealers amnesty? Paul would likely end the paramilitary, no-knock raids on law-abiding citizens perpetrated by the DEA and out of control local cops and let states handle drug policy.
Oh good Lord. I have not even read the thread and I am laughing...
I've read the NRO column by Todd Seavey that makes a good case for Paul. Can he beat Hillary? It's possible, considering that he'll get the Christian vote, the libertarian vote, and all the swing and independent vote, in addition to traditional liberals.
The claim goes like this, only a anti-war candidate can win and Ron is the only antiwar republican. Therefore, he is the only ‘repubican’ who can beat Hillary.
I've always made the claim that whoever is the GOP nominee is going to need to reach out to Paul and his supporters. Paul's supporters are not going to hold their noses for the GOP nominee if the establishment and candidates keep trashing Paul.
BTW - you can lose your tagline now. The earmark claim is bunk.
They're in rare form today, aren't they? ;-)
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.