[sickoflibs]

RE :” He also says he is against earmarks, but he sticks as many as he can in every bill he can. ”

That one is easy.

He votes against the earmark bills, but if they still pass into law in spite of his vote against them, his taxpayers get stuck paying for them. That is what the earmarks are for.

Claiming he should go back to his voters and say :”I made sure you got nothing except the bill for the other states earmarks” is just a silly got-ya setup similar to :”If you were consistent with my version of your position you would not be in congress”. That is a standard Chris Matthews setup. If Paul voted for the earmark bills, then he shouldnt say he opposes them.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

‘Claiming he should go back to his voters and say :”I made sure you got nothing except the bill for the other states earmarks” is just a silly got-ya setup similar to :”If you were consistent with my version of your position you would not be in congress”’

That is what John Boehner, among others, has done for years. Too bad that Ron Paul is not as strong a supporter of reducing government spending as Rep. Boehner.

[John D]

So what are you saying? Are you saying he is just dishonest, or are you saying he is against only earmarks that do not benefit his district?