Rand Paul-Typical lying, two-faced Rightie
- Thread starter zappasguitar
- Start date
yeah....he never reaffirmed his commitment against earmarks....
Uh, yeah. You keep clipping that quote.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Uh, yeah. You keep clipping that quote.
?
ok....and you obviously keep pretending he never reaffirmed, despite the fact he did so just this week....you're weird on this one nigel...not sure why, surely there are better partisan hack battles for you to fight than this one
Yeah, it's like I reaffirmed that I ain't drinking no more. Absolutely not drinking whatsoever anymore. It's just that I'll enjoy a fine glass of single malt scotch or seven every now and again. And yeah, I quit smoking too. Absolutely none smoking going on. It's just that I enjoy a nice Macanudo every now and again. You see I cut out the Budweisers and Marlboros, just the good stuff now. The good stuff don't count. Am I right?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Really? Because so far I haven't read any official Libertarian condemnation of Rand Paul's BS. If you have, then please post it.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Read the damned thread, because he's been quoted in his own words....that's what the discussion here is about. If you don't comprehend what the flip-flop is by now, then I can't help you. If you're in stubborn denial of it, then there's no point in further discussion.
Translation: "I can't think of any other way to defend Paul's saying he is against earmarks, except in Kentucky." I really love Republicans.
Good Luck
New member
Translation:
"I am still going to claim a 'gotcha' because I am a worse mindless hack that I am accusing Yurt to be."
Again, show us why the phrase "work within the committee process" can only mean inserting earmarks after statutory allocations are settled.
Because earmarks are decided within the committee process?
Here's a hint, GL: "mindless hacks" do the defending, for the most part. Like when a politician engages in classic politician double-speak, as Paul did hear, and which even Fox News commented on, and which so many people criticized that Paul had to come out later in the week to "clarify" his remarks, and which is clearly Paul saying he wanted to have his cake & eat it, too regarding earmarks.
Watching you & Yurt trip over yourselves to defend it has been a pretty hilarious exercise. With Yurt, it's expected, but with your long history on the board of calling people "idiots" and "morons" for mindlessly defending this kind of BS from politicians, it's particularly egregious, because I think we all know that if this guy had a "D" next to his name and not an "R," at best, you would have kept away from this thread (and you may have even started one to lambaste him at worst....)
Good Luck
New member
The problem is, statutory allocations are ALSO handled in committee. Do you deny this? Or are you just ignoring it? Face it: you cannot admit to that basic fact, because it would undermine your little "gotcha" scheme. (and the real pathetic thing is, your gotcha scheme isn;t even aimed at Paul - it's aimed at Yurt. You can't face the idea that Yurt's defense of Paul might actually be factual.)
But the reality is you cannot make back up the claim that the only possible meaning to his words refers to earmarks. You cling to your unsupportable claim because you are a mindless drone who can only think what they are told to think by their favorite media. It's dipshits like you (and there are a whole lot of you) that twist words to mean what you want them to mean.
Now IF Paul ends up usiong earmarks to gain those things he thinks Kentucky needs THEN he will, indeed, be a liar. Until then, the words he used have other possible meanings, and as such, while he bears watching (as does any politician who makes broad promises) he cannot be called a liar yet. (except by mindless drone hacks like yourself, Nigel, Zappa, etc.)
Like I said - it's classic political double-speak. Why did he bring it up in the context of earmarks?
Even Fox called him on it. It's embarassing that you, Yurt & a few others are the ones clinging to the idea that he somehow wasn't contradicting himself.
Again, if this was a "D," you wouldn't be posting here, except to call people idiots & morons & mindless for defending it....
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
its comical how nigel and onceler have clung to this theory that rand paul meant zero dolloars for his home state...yeah...in order to believe nigel and onceler one has to believe that rand paul meant he would support a ban on all monies for his state for one year....
i know, its hacktactular, then again....its also the fearsome duo onceler and nigel
i know, its hacktactular, then again....its also the fearsome duo onceler and nigel
its comical how nigel and onceler have clung to this theory that rand paul meant zero dolloars for his home state...yeah...in order to believe nigel and onceler one has to believe that rand paul meant he would support a ban on all monies for his state for one year....
i know, its hacktactular, then again....its also the fearsome duo onceler and nigel
Still at it, huh? In order to believe what I am saying you just have to believe that Rand Paul said he would support an earmark ban but now sees earmarks as negotiable and that he will fight for Kentucky to get some earmark scratch.
The thing is I don't care about Rand Paul one way or another and I like earmarks. I just don't understand why people to whom earmarks are a big fucking deal don't give a shit when Rand Paul does some artful dancing and pretend that he didn't say what he said. It's weird.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
see ^ in order to for your supposition to be correct, it means that paul ran on a campaign that said:
i will not seek any money for kentucky
Good Luck
New member
Whatever. You would try to make Paul into a liar if he said the sky was up.
The FACT is he never said he would use earmarks. The FACT is he said he is against them and has said so all along. The fact is he also stated he will DO HIS JOB of representing the needs of his state in matters of federal spending. And the additional fact is that Paul's central focus was on the idea that he intends to try to make budget a central part of the process. There is only two ways to assume his statements are self-contradictory. One is to assume that earmarks are the only possible method of allocating spending in Kentucky, which is basically what occurred in the media, leading Paul to clarify. In the end, though, that assumption has been shown to be false. It cannot be helped that you are so intent on your "gotcha" that you cannot even admit to a basic fact in the legislative process.
The other way to conclude Pauls statements are contradictory is to lie about it, and claim that is the only possible meaning of Pauls words is the use of earmarks anyway, despite the facts that adjusting statutory allocations is as much a part of the committee process as adding earmarks (if not more considering the many earmarks are added after committee, while little additional statutory adjustment is done afterward). You are quite clearly taking the latter method, making you not only a lying hack, but a hypocrite as well.
The FACT is he never said he would use earmarks. The FACT is he said he is against them and has said so all along. The fact is he also stated he will DO HIS JOB of representing the needs of his state in matters of federal spending. And the additional fact is that Paul's central focus was on the idea that he intends to try to make budget a central part of the process. There is only two ways to assume his statements are self-contradictory. One is to assume that earmarks are the only possible method of allocating spending in Kentucky, which is basically what occurred in the media, leading Paul to clarify. In the end, though, that assumption has been shown to be false. It cannot be helped that you are so intent on your "gotcha" that you cannot even admit to a basic fact in the legislative process.
The other way to conclude Pauls statements are contradictory is to lie about it, and claim that is the only possible meaning of Pauls words is the use of earmarks anyway, despite the facts that adjusting statutory allocations is as much a part of the committee process as adding earmarks (if not more considering the many earmarks are added after committee, while little additional statutory adjustment is done afterward). You are quite clearly taking the latter method, making you not only a lying hack, but a hypocrite as well.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
obviously, the only one proven to be a liar on this thread was Nigel.....
I didn't see it, but I am not a conservative and you need those special glasses to see that kind of stuff!
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I'm sorry I over looked you..... obviously, the only ones proven to be liars on this thread were Nigel and Rana.....