Rand Paul-Typical lying, two-faced Rightie

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...

Paul's showing his political naiveté here, but give him time. He's new at this.
 
christiefan915 said:
Paul's showing his political naiveté here, but give him time. He's new at this.
Click to expand...

He came out later this week with a statement clarifying his remarks & any confusion, and reiterating his stance against earmarks.

I believe in cutting wherever they can, but so far, the TEA folks and others on the right have talked almost strictly about symbolic expenditures that really won't make a dent.
 
Onceler said:
He came out later this week with a statement clarifying his remarks & any confusion, and reiterating his stance against earmarks.

I believe in cutting wherever they can, but so far, the TEA folks and others on the right have talked almost strictly about symbolic expenditures that really won't make a dent.
Click to expand...


Do you have a link to his statement?

And here is a transcript from the WSJ interview that started this whole thing. Again, it seems clear that Rand Paul is not opposed to all earmarks. I don't see any other reasonable interpretation:

Question: What if someone comes to you and says here's an earmark, mind turning a blind eye to this?

Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn't do it. I tell people and told people throughout the primaries as well as the general election that I will advocate for Kentucky's interests. There are money that will be spent in Kentucky. But I will advocate in the committee process. And I think that's the way it should be done. Roads, highways, bridges, things that we need as far as infrastructure, let's go through the committee process, find out, when was this bridge last repaired? How much of a problem is it? Are there fatalities on this road that's not wide enough? Let's use objective evidence to figure out, you know, where the money should be spent. But not put it on in the dead of night, have some clerk in your office stick it on because you're powerful and you stick it on, and you attach your name to it.

Q: So if Roy Blunt calls you up, tells you, 'hey, I want to get this bridge built in southern Missouri'?

Mr. Paul: I think we can do it if I'm on the transportation committee, we discuss it and we find out his bridge is more important than the bridge in Louisville, or more important than the bridge in northern Kentucky. I think that's the way legislating should occur. You work it out, you find out, and then you should say how much money do you have? Right now we just write a blank check and we just say, well, what do you want. I mean, nobody has any concept, they have no restraint. What you need is in the committee process to know that we have X billions in our budget this year, because that's all the money we have. Instead they just say, 'What do you want to spend?' It's all about what do you want instead of what do you have.
Click to expand...
 
NigelTufnel said:
Do you have a link to his statement?

And here is a transcript from the WSJ interview that started this whole thing. Again, it seems clear that Rand Paul is not opposed to all earmarks. I don't see any other reasonable interpretation:
Click to expand...

I'll see if I can find it.

His initial post-election comments were classic political double-speak, at best. There is no other way to spin them, and it seems that even he realized that....
 
NigelTufnel said:
That's called earmarking and it is 100% contradictory to a no earmark pledge.
Click to expand...

no.....let's say for example that a congressman wants something for his district....he submits a bill and the body votes on that bill and passes it......would you consider that an earmark?.....
 
NigelTufnel said:
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:



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.
Click to expand...

i already provided that....and apparently you think everything is earmarking...and that when he said no earmarks that meant he would not bring any money to kentucky....

good lord nigel, that is dishonest and stupid
 
Yurt said:
i already provided that....and apparently you think everything is earmarking...and that when he said no earmarks that meant he would not bring any money to kentucky....

good lord nigel, that is dishonest and stupid
Click to expand...


Like I said before, you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with you.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Like I said before, you don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with you.
Click to expand...

lmao...what a great refutation, i'm so like totally like convinced...

tff how you claim paul was saying he would bring no money at all to his state, its so dishonest, but kind of cute because its so typical of your partisan rhetoric
 
Yurt said:
lmao...what a great refutation, i'm so like totally like convinced...

tff how you claim paul was saying he would bring no money at all to his state, its so dishonest, but kind of cute because its so typical of your partisan rhetoric
Click to expand...


He's talking about bringing money to his state through earmarks. He just isn't using the magic word "earmark." If the This Week interview didn't make that clear, the WSJ interview ought to put it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

You can buy his bullshit if you want to, but don't expect everyone else to do so as well.
 
NigelTufnel said:
He's talking about bringing money to his state through earmarks. He just isn't using the magic word "earmark." If the This Week interview didn't make that clear, the WSJ interview ought to put it beyond any shadow of a doubt.

You can buy his bullshit if you want to, but don't expect everyone else to do so as well.
Click to expand...

seriously nigel...stop pandering this nonsense...you really think we are dumb enough to believe when he said no earmarks he meant no money at all for his state...you're being plain stupid

he talked all along about the waste and how he would bring money to his state in an open process, not the normal earmark behind close doors if you will...process

you're just stuck on stupid...i have no idea why either, its patently obvious that your claim that he meant no money is perposterous...its beneath even you to peddle this nonsense
 
Yurt said:
seriously nigel...stop pandering this nonsense...you really think we are dumb enough to believe when he said no earmarks he meant no money at all for his state...you're being plain stupid

he talked all along about the waste and how he would bring money to his state in an open process, not the normal earmark behind close doors if you will...process

you're just stuck on stupid...i have no idea why either, its patently obvious that your claim that he meant no money is perposterous...its beneath even you to peddle this nonsense
Click to expand...


Um, I never claimed he either said or meant no money for his state. You think he meant one thing, I think it's clear he meant another. Let's just agree to disagree on it without the bullshit name-calling.


And go fuck yourself.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Um, I never claimed he either said or meant no money for his state. You think he meant one thing, I think it's clear he meant another. Let's just agree to disagree on it without the bullshit name-calling.


And go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

no you dishonest hack...you flat out said that the money he will advocate for are all earmarks...that all the money he will bring to the state are all earmarks....thus...in order for you cock eyed view to be correct, rand paul must have meant he would bring no money to his state

you're just being stupid on this one, seroiusly, step back and think about what you're claiming
 
Onceler said:
Is Yurt still apologizing for this guy?

Yikes....
Click to expand...

apologizign? for what? he has done nothing that needs apologizing, you as usual have to come running in with some dumbass hack comment

next we'll hear how i always defend every republican...oh wait, despite youi getting called to the floor on that lie you still maintain its true...
 
NigelTufnel said:
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:



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.
Click to expand...
That is how you hear it because that is what you WANT to hear from it.

The point is, OF COURSE Paul is going to be asking for things that are good for Kentucky. THAT IS HIS JOB!!! But he SAYS "I'm going to ask for things that are good for Kentucky." and you HEAR "I'm going to put in earmarks for Kentucky." Too bad you donkey ears are lying to you. Because you put in the full context and he CLEARLY states he intends on using a different process. Or did the whole "We ask 'what do you want' when we should be asking 'What can we spend?'" go right by you?

Bottom line is you hear lies because your political masters have told you that is what you should only hear from Republicans. Luckily, Paul is talking to people with active brains, instead of donkey shit in their heads.
 
Good Luck said:
That is how you hear it because that is what you WANT to hear from it.

The point is, OF COURSE Paul is going to be asking for things that are good for Kentucky. THAT IS HIS JOB!!! But he SAYS "I'm going to ask for things that are good for Kentucky." and you HEAR "I'm going to put in earmarks for Kentucky." Too bad you donkey ears are lying to you. Because you put in the full context and he CLEARLY states he intends on using a different process. Or did the whole "We ask 'what do you want' when we should be asking 'What can we spend?'" go right by you?

Bottom line is you hear lies because your political masters have told you that is what you should only hear from Republicans. Luckily, Paul is talking to people with active brains, instead of donkey shit in their heads.
Click to expand...

you're such an apologist, knee jerk defender of all things republican

/dunceler off
 
Question: What if someone comes to you and says here's an earmark, mind turning a blind eye to this?

Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn't do it. I tell people and told people throughout the primaries as well as the general election that I will advocate for Kentucky's interests. There are money that will be spent in Kentucky. But I will advocate in the committee process. And I think that's the way it should be done. Roads, highways, bridges, things that we need as far as infrastructure, let's go through the committee process, find out, when was this bridge last repaired? How much of a problem is it? Are there fatalities on this road that's not wide enough? Let's use objective evidence to figure out, you know, where the money should be spent. But not put it on in the dead of night, have some clerk in your office stick it on because you're powerful and you stick it on, and you attach your name to it.

Q: So if Roy Blunt calls you up, tells you, 'hey, I want to get this bridge built in southern Missouri'?

Mr. Paul: I think we can do it if I'm on the transportation committee, we discuss it and we find out his bridge is more important than the bridge in Louisville, or more important than the bridge in northern Kentucky. I think that's the way legislating should occur. You work it out, you find out, and then you should say how much money do you have? Right now we just write a blank check and we just say, well, what do you want. I mean, nobody has any concept, they have no restraint. What you need is in the committee process to know that we have X billions in our budget this year, because that's all the money we have. Instead they just say, 'What do you want to spend?' It's all about what do you want instead of what do you have.
Click to expand...


His responses to these questions show he's all about earmarks so long as he thinks they are important. In this and his comments on This Week he sure as shit did not commit to a moratorium or ban on earmarks as he did in his campaign. It would have been really fucking easy for him to reaffirm his commitment to an earmark ban but he didn't do that.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Um, I never claimed he either said or meant no money for his state. You think he meant one thing, I think it's clear he meant another.
Click to expand...
So, how is Paul SUPPOSED to tell his constituents he still intends on getting money for Kentucky without using earmarks? Does he have to define it for you like a backward 2nd grader? "No, Nigel, I will not use earmarks when I ask for money for needed Kentucky projects."

He said he is against earmarks. He also said he still intends to ask for things that are good for Kentucky. You maintain that means he intends to use earmarks. Why is that? Are use of earmarks the ONLY way money could be allocated to Kentucky? Seems to me you argued - effectively - that there are earmarks and there are statutory allotments. So why do you insist Paul meant earmarks? Are not statutory allotments not the primary means of the committee process Paul refers to, with earmarks being inserted later? That is certainly the way you defined it to me.

Bottom line: do you actually have a reason for interpreting Paul's statement "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" to automatically mean earmarks, or is it BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT IT TO MEAN.
 
NigelTufnel said:
His responses to these questions show he's all about earmarks so long as he thinks they are important. In this and his comments on This Week he sure as shit did not commit to a moratorium or ban on earmarks as he did in his campaign. It would have been really fucking easy for him to reaffirm his commitment to an earmark ban but he didn't do that.
Click to expand...

what a liar...i posted more than once the interview he did the day after the wsj interview where he reaffirmed his stance on earmarks....it was a resounding no

seriously, what the fuck is your problem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top