Posted on 09/26/2009 2:18:01 PM PDT by GoldStandard
If you think speeches attacking the U.S. Federal Reserve couldn't excite a Friday night crowd on a college campus, think again.
About 2,000 people -- students and older adults who were in the majority -- filled Northrop Auditorium at the University of Minnesota to cheer libertarian Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, as he joined Rep. Michele Bachmann to preach the gospel of a less powerful federal government.
Before Bachmann, R-Minn., introduced Paul, she hailed legislation of his that would require a detailed audit of the Fed. The crowd jumped to its feet and roared approval.
When she described the Fed's actions helping the banking industry as "shrouded in secrecy," one man jumped up and yelled, "Ponzi scheme!"
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
“What earmark has Paul voted for again?”
Ron Paul’s Earmarks
WSJ
8/6/07
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118636043871288806.html
Texas Congressman Ron Paul — libertarian gadfly and current Republican Presidential hopeful — has made a name for himself as a critic of overspending. But it seems even he can’t resist the political allure of earmarks.
After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.
When we called Mr. Paul’s office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: “Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked,” the spokesman said. “What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it’s not by accident.”
(Snip)
________________________________________
Ron Paul defends earmarks, says anti-pork McCain is just grandstanding
LA Times Blog
3/11/09
Ron Paul the Texas congressman who is the darling of the Libertarian Right, has more earmarks in the pork-laden $410-billion spending bill than any other Republican.
That’s not according to the MSM, or the liberal blogosphere. That’s what Fox News is reporting.
In an interview Tuesday night with Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, Paul not only defended his own earmarks, he argued that every penny in the federal budget should be earmarked, to improve transparency.
Paul, a fiscal watchdog who said he voted against the bill because he believes federal spending is out of control, acknowledged that $73 million in the bill passed by his colleagues “might be” going to his district on Texas’ Gulf Coast for things like the intra-coastal waterway, the Texas City channel and Wallisville Lake. But he was fine with that, noting that he always votes for tax credits, not matter how “silly,” to return money to the constituents who sent their tax dollars to Washington.
The principle of the earmark is our responsibility. We’re supposed to — it’s like a — a tax credit. And I vote for all tax credits, no matter how silly they might seem. If I can give you any of you of your money back, I vote for it. So, if I can give my district any money back, I encourage that. But, because the budget is out of control, I haven’t voted for an appropriation in years — if ever. ...
(Snip)
And your response has exactly what relevance to the discussion I was having with the Comedian?
I find it interesting that your immediate reaction to my position was to smear the US. Is this the default position for the Paulites these days? No wonder you guys get along so well with the Code Pinkers and the other Leftist flakes.
You keep ignoring the FACTS since January that show (no troop cuts in Iraq, more troops in Afghanistan, increases in the overall military budget) that you have far more in common with Obama on foreign policy than Paul does. Just pitiful.
Don’t worry, Captain Kirk. I’m sure that Obama will do the cowardly thing and “cut and run” in Afghanistan as soon as it’s politically expedient. After that, you and the rest of the Pauli Girls can post your “oohs” and “ahs” over how Ronstitutional our President is.
Did he cast a vote in favor of Afghanistan and is now backing up? Yes.
Did he not label terrorist attacks as a "Backlash?" Yes
Hate to tell you, but declaring it a "backlash" is pointing fingers and assiginng blame, not to individuals, but to America as awhole.
Splitting hairs is so Ron Paulian. When he says "we," how is that only selected people within governments he disagrees with or selected policies?
Why does he and his devotees have to follow up with "what he really meant?" He said what he said and then must back up and explain it?
"Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." (GOP Debate, May 15, 2007)
What's ridiculous on this claim is that for how long have we been told there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda? No coordination between bin Laden and Saddam? Saddam was secular and not religious, yet bin Laden will attack us because we fought his enemy?
How does he explain Jihadist attacks against those who oppose our foriegn policy for so long and did not support us?
Grand Mosque Seizure, November 20, 1979: 200 Islamic terrorists seized the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, taking hundreds of pilgrims hostage. Saudi and French security forces retook the shrine after an intense battle in which some 250 people were killed and 600 wounded.
Soviet Diplomats Kidnapped, Sept. 30, 1985: In Beirut, Lebanon, Sunni terrorists kidnapped four Soviet diplomats. One was killed, and three were later released.
Air France Hijacking, Dec. 24, 1994: Members of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) seized an Air France flight. The four terrorists were killed during the rescue effort.
Egyptian Embassy Attack, November 19, 1995: A suicide bomber drove a vehicle into the Egyptian Embassy compound in Islamabad, Pakistan, killing at least 16 and injuring 60 persons. Three militant Islamic groups claimed responsibility.
Bombing of Archbishop of Oran, Aug. 1, 1996: A bomb exploded at the home of the French archbishop of Oran, killing him and his chauffeur. The attack occurred after the archbishop's meeting with the French foreign minister. The Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) is suspected.
Tourist Killings in Egypt, November 17, 1997: Al-Gama'at al-Islamiyya (IG) gunmen shot and killed 58 tourists and four Egyptians and wounded 26 others at the Hatshepsut Temple in the Valley of the Kings near Luxor. Thirty-four Swiss, eight Japanese, five Germans, four Britons, one French, one Colombian, a dual Bulgarian/British citizen, and four unidentified persons were among the dead. Twelve Swiss, two Japanese, two Germans, one French, and nine Egyptians were among the wounded.
Airliner Hijacking in Istanbul, March 15, 2001: Three Chechens hijacked a Russian airliner during a flight from Istanbul to Moscow and forced it to fly to Medina, Saudi Arabia. The plane carried 162 passengers and a crew of 12. After a 22-hour siege during which more than 40 passengers were released, Saudi security forces stormed the plane, killing a hijacker, a passenger, and a flight attendant.
Parade Bombing in Russia, May 9, 2002: A remotely-controlled bomb exploded near a May Day parade in Kaspiisk, Dagestan, killing 42 persons and wounding 150. Fourteen of the dead and 50 of the wounded were soldiers. Islamists linked to al-Qaida were suspected.
Truck Bombing in Chechnya, May 12, 2003: A truck bomb explosion demolished a government compound in Znamenskoye, Chechnya, killing 54 persons. Russian authorities blamed followers of a Saudi-born Islamist named Abu Walid. President Vladimir Putin said that he suspected that there was an al-Qaida connection.
Explain how those were "because we are over there."
Explain how those are because of our foreign policy.
Did you forget about that little thing called the Geneva Conventions that we are signatories to and the anti-war crowd keeps throwing about?
Mercenaries are against the Geneva Conventions in war.
Doesn’t Paul support the Geneva Conventions?
For such a constitutionalist, he even misses that the Letters of Marque and Reprisal written into the constitution were not for the president to issue, but for congress.
And again, there is that little matter of those danged Geneva Conventions.
As I posted in #83. The federal government is part of America. Its one in the same. Its powers are enumerated in the Constitution, clearly stating that the federal government, through the powers of the Congress and the leadesrhip of the President as CIC, is responsible for protecting America and its people. 911 was an act of war. Bush asked the Congress to give him the authority to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. The Congress said, go for it!
Paul has said: "They attacked us for being over there". A straight forward statement that sums up nicely Paul's overall foreign policy agenda and one that is consistent with a typical anti-war pacifist. No wonder Paul sees himself siding with the pacifism of Gandhi and MLKing Jr.
Ron Paul didn't support the Patriot Act or FISA. Paul doesn't believe the US should be involved in Iraq or Afghanistan and that we should pull our troops out of Germany, Japan and everywhere else around the world.
Back on Dec 23, 2007, Paul was on Meet the Press and he was asked about the 572K troops we have stationed around the world. "And you’d bring them all home?"
Paul answered: "As quickly as possible. They will not serve our interests to be overseas. They get us into trouble. And we can defend this country without troops in Germany & troops in Japan. How do they help our national defense? Doesn’t make any sense to me. Troops in Korea since I’ve been in high school! It doesn’t make any sense.
Ron Paul wants America to close our doors and become isolationists again, as we were between WWI and WWII. As if the Islamic world will just leave the USA alone.
That is both a naive and dangerous position Paul takes. Thank God Paul's position in elective office will never rise above the level of Congressman in the House of Representatives.
You have no idea what I advocate.
Say what you want today, Paul ran on the same anti-war platform Obama did of immediate withdrawal.
Obama, last I heard, is dragging his feet on sending more Troops to Afghanistan.
Abandoning Afghanistan like was done for Viet Nam at this time will most likely result in the fall of Afghanistan, with the fall of Pakistan very likely shortly after, which would result in terrorists having access to Pakistans nuclear weapons.
That’s what you and Paul advocate!
Btw, make that post #94, not #83. Sorry.
Since he took office, Obama has ALREADY sent in more troops to Afghanistan(more even than Bush and McCain recommended). Now, he is thinking of sending even more into that hell-hole. I note that you ran away from addressing the other facts I provided about Obama: he has increased active duty forces, increased the Pentagon budget, kept the SAME number of troops in Iraq. Again, you and Obama agree more than disagree. Why don’t stand up and be honest and admit this and/or try to refute some of these facts? I provided EVIDENCE to back up my points. Can’t you?
It appears these hacks also supported the foreign policy of the LBJ, Carter, and Clinton adminstrations as well. Because if they didn’t then it would be blaming America first.
He inserts the earmarks, but then votes against them. Which is rank hypocrisy, because he knows they will still pass. And Paultards taking such as principled behavior makes them hypocrites as well.
http://libertymaven.com/2009/03/10/ron-paul-defends-earmarks-on-cavuto/4710/
Ron Paul appeared on FOX Today with Neil Cavuto where the Cavuto raked Paul over the coals due to him putting in millions of dollars worth of earmarks in the budget bill. Of course, Paul does so because he feels obligated to represent his constituents wishes and the money has already been collected. It does not increase the budget. In the end, the bottom line is that Ron Paul votes against the bill because he feels it is not the proper role for the Federal government.
These are all interesting arguments, but there are still many Paul supporters who do not agree with this practice. Some think his explanation for putting in the earmarks is fine. Those people are angry with Cavuto for subjecting Paul to this scrutiny. All I see is Cavuto doing his job and not playing favorites (he’s been very favorable toward Paul in the past).
I must admit that Paul’s position on earmarks is something I can’t quite get behind. I accept his reasoning and the fact that he votes against them, but it is hard for me to accept that he requests them in the first place, while claiming he is for limited government and following the Constitution.
There are few areas where I disagree with Dr. Paul. This is one of them
That’s a pretty good summary and I totally agree. I can’t understand his reasoning behind it either.
Were you born a moron, or did you practice hard for it?
Did not Paul vote for Afghanistan too, sending Troops in?
Did he not waffle and later say he only voted to “get bin Laden?”
Explain how “getting bin Laden” will stop terror.
Parsing words, splitting hairs, getting in people’s faces andworst of all, beliving your own lies and you wonder why Paul never got double digit polling in honest polls, not the stacked online ones?
The most ridiculous part about you Paulistinians is that you ignore where we say we agree with Paul on fiscal ideas and instead, you all play Cindy Sheehan in attacking those of us who see the fallacy of Paul’s foreign policy canards.
And you think bullying online will build support?
The only worse than beating a dead horse is placing bets on one.
Ignoring links and documented quotes supplied by several here, claiming none were produced is so liberal.
Why don’t you join up with Code Pink, you have much more in common with them.
. You're a pretty emotional guy aren't you? Was your face red and were you pounding your fist when you wrote this?
LOL, my face isn’t and wasn’t the least bit red, but it sure sounds as if yours is.
That’s what I laugh at with you Paulistinians, besides your strict wishy washiness of following behind Ron Paul, your emotional projection onto others.
That and thinking your word alone is EVIDENCE!
But, you keep betting on that dead horse.
Go back and read my comment again.
I specifically "smeared" the U.S. eugenics movement...started by the predecessors of today's "progressives." Do you want to defend the actions of "progressives" (leftists), even though they may have been U.S. citizens and U.S. elected officials?
I prefer to discuss actual quotes rather than bandy about wild interpretations.
He blames America for the 911 attacks, not the terrorists.
Then produce a statement from him that directly blames the American electorate for the September 11 terrorist attacks.
The federal government is part of America. Its one in the same.
I agree with the first statement, but I thoroughly disagree with the second statement.
There is a lot more to the United States, as a nation, a society, a culture, and a people, than just the Federal government.
Its powers are enumerated in the Constitution, clearly stating that the federal government, through the powers of the Congress and the leadesrhip of the President as CIC, is responsible for protecting America and its people.
A job that so far, the Federal government has failed to do.
911 was an act of war.
By whom? Al Qaeda? Afghanistan? "The [entire] Islamic world," as you insinuate below ("as if the Islamic world will just leave the USA alone")?
Why don't you identify the foreign states that have directly committed acts of war against the United States, rather than attacking criminal groups (e.g., al Qaeda) or entire cultures (e.g., the Islamic world)?
After all, the U.S. government can only directly make war against foreign governments. Anything less is a criminal investigation, subject to the laws of involved states, with the U.S. government's jurisdiction ending at U.S. borders.
Ron Paul didn't support the Patriot Act or FISA.
Do you trust the Federal government, especially since its tendency is to ask for more power when it fails?
Paul doesn't believe the US should be involved in Iraq or Afghanistan and that we should pull our troops out of Germany, Japan and everywhere else around the world.
Why should the Federal government permanently station standing armies around the world?
Why should the Federal government borrow and print money to pay for the defense of foreign states and foreign nationals?
Ron Paul wants America to close our doors and become isolationists again
Isolationists also advocate protectionist measures, something which Ron Paul clearly does not advocate.
As if the Islamic world will just leave the USA alone.
I already addressed this in an earlier snippet.
Still hasn’t voted for any.
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.