Rand Paul-Typical lying, two-faced Rightie

Rana said:
I don't think Nigel wears a donkey's ass for head gear. I don't even think he is a Democrat, but I could be wrong, again!

Nigel, I think you are swell!
Click to expand...

Not that it really matters but he has stated he is a proud Democrat.
 
PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget.
Click to expand...

I'm good with that, so long as it is open and negotiated up front and within the context of a balanced budget.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, let's take it out of fantasy land and say it isn't in the context of a balanced budget.
Click to expand...
Right, because preconditions in his remarks must be assumed to be non-existent so we can talk about "hypocrisy"...

:rolleyes:

As I said, I'm good with that kind of "hypocrisy", so long as those conditions he put on it are met.
 
Damocles said:
Right, because preconditions in his remarks must be assumed to be non-existent so we can talk about "hypocrisy"...

:rolleyes:

As I said, I'm good with that kind of "hypocrisy", so long as those conditions he put on it are met.
Click to expand...

My question wasn't about Rand Paul or his hypocrisy, I was just looking for your opinion on the matter.
 
NigelTufnel said:
My question wasn't about Rand Paul or his hypocrisy, I was just looking for your opinion on the matter.
Click to expand...
Ah, I took it within the context of the thread which seems to be about "admitting" the "hypocrisy"...

As I said, I'm good with what he stated. I don't have any objection to a Senator openly arguing for something in budget meetings that are transparent.
 
Good Luck said:
EXACTLY!!! Congress not only sets the money, but they set HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT!!! Whether it be through formula (devised and defined within the legislation) and putting a federal agency in charge, or specifying projects directly, congress still determines how, where, and for what the money is spent!!

But, to advance the debate, let's go ahead and use the seemingly overwhelming (currently) popular definition of earmarks.

What HAS Paul said?


So, exactly what has Paul said that indicates he is talking about working for earmarks, and NOT working with the committees to adjust the statutory allocations in favor of Kentucky's needs? Care to show us the exact verbiage where Paul says "I am going to pursue earmarks I feel are good for Kentucky?"

So far, all I see is Paul saying he is against earmarks (a stance which I disagree with when it comes to an absolute ban, for reasons demonstrated in previous posts) and ALSO stating he will work within the system to Kentucky's benefit (ie: DOING HIS JOB!!) in a manner that stays within his balanced budget goals.

So, show me his words that indicate otherwise. Where are they? Where is the lie?
Click to expand...

paging nigel....
 
Onceler said:
LMAO

GL is still wrong, but it's funny how you try to hide behind smarter posters when you're in over your head....
Click to expand...
Wrong on what? That a spending bill defines how much money is spent, where, and for what purpose whether the method is through defining statutory allocations, or by directly assigning it to specified projects? Is that wher I am wrong?

Or is it that Paul never said he was going to pursue earmarks for his state?

Point out the error.
 
Onceler said:
LMAO

GL is still wrong, but it's funny how you try to hide behind smarter posters when you're in over your head....
Click to expand...

:confused:

hmmm....you won't debate GL's post, i want nigel to address the post....and i'm the one hiding?

man up and address the post onceler.....i fail to see how i'm hiding by bringing the post attention to nigel....you, however, with this ad hom and failure to address GL's post (other than its "wrong") actually makes you the hidey behind stuffs guy.....

sucks to be you buddy :(
 
Good Luck said:
Wrong on what? That a spending bill defines how much money is spent, where, and for what purpose whether the method is through defining statutory allocations, or by directly assigning it to specified projects? Is that wher I am wrong?

Or is it that Paul never said he was going to pursue earmarks for his state?

Point out the error.
Click to expand...

LMAO.....

come on onceler....debate instead of throwing your usual ad homs around
 
Damocles said:
Ah, I took it within the context of the thread which seems to be about "admitting" the "hypocrisy"...

As I said, I'm good with what he stated. I don't have any objection to a Senator openly arguing for something in budget meetings that are transparent.
Click to expand...
Transparent, a nice word!
 
Yurt said:
still running away from good luck's post...

yawn
Click to expand...


No. It's just that we have a disagreement as to Rand Paul's meaning that isn't going to be resolved by me posting yet another response. I've made my position clear, so has he.

To appease you, I will provide the full context of what Paul said on This Week:

AMANPOUR: And what about earmarks? Would you say no to earmarks?

PAUL: No -- no more earmarks.

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget. Here's what happens. You go to the Transportation Committee and they say, "What do you want?" But it should be, "How much do we have?" No one asks, "How much do we have?" So we just spend it. And then, at the end of the day, if we don't have it, we either print it or borrow it. Those are bad things. There is no restraint, but that's why you need rules. In Kentucky, we have a balanced budget amendment. We have to balance our budget. So they have to be better legislators.
Click to expand...

It seems quite clear to me that he isn't talking about hardmarks for Kentucky as GL is suggesting, but going to committee chairs in the committee process and asking for funding for "things that are good for Kentucky." That's called earmarking and it is 100% contradictory to a no earmark pledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top