• Posts: 4,369

Re: Lies and Truth

I'm not that familiar with his record. As I said, I'm not a huge fan. But my point that he's better than most Republicans seems uncontested.

"seems to me if Dr. Paul the antipork hero would cut out his own pork and still bitch about all the other's pork and vote against it, the other lousy big spender bastards would pass a smaller budget cause it didn't have his pork in it"

It would barely be smaller and hurt his district disproportionately. His constituents don't deserve to get less back than others after the government robs them--Especially when they're the responsible minority voting for someone far better than average.

You're pretending that his votes don't matter, and that hurting his constituents to make a point would matter more. I find this reasoning bizarre.

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

  • Posts: 14,366
  • Tag points: 68

Re: Lies and Truth

if you think the pork is actually helpful and depriving citizens of it is really harmful, you're arguing Paul is wrong.

if you're arguing that voting against something that you hope passes so your people get goodies, is seriously better than voting for somethign you hope passes so your people get goodies, you are confused.

The core joke of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that of course no civilization would develop personal computers with instant remote database recovery, and then waste this technology to find good drinks.
Steve Jobs has ruined this joke.

0 Dislike 0 Post Points

28 Reply by V. Kemp (edited by V.Kemp 11-Apr-2012 03:23:06)

  • Posts: 4,369

Re: Lies and Truth

"if you think the pork is actually helpful and depriving citizens of it is really harmful, you're arguing Paul is wrong."

They're being forced to pay for the pork either way. Supposedly he votes against those bills--something desirable which more lawmakers should do. But to deprive his constituents of federal funds, whereas they pay into them and nobody else in the country is deprived of them, is to do harm to them. I'm not debating that he'd make a better case and have a stronger position if he refused any part in the pork, but it sounds as if you think he's worse than most republocrats when the main difference is he votes and argues against the pork. Even if you think he should hurt his constituents to make a point and he's a hypocrite for not doing so, he's still voting against the pork and republocrats are still passing it.

"if you're arguing that voting against something that you hope passes so your people get goodies, is seriously better than voting for somethign you hope passes so your people get goodies, you are confused."

Voting against pork is better than voting for pork. Period.

You don't have any basis to claim that he "hopes" they pass. He votes and speaks out against them. It sounds like you're jealous that this libertarian-esque guy is more fiscally responsible than the vast majority of other Republicans. tongue

[I wish I could obey forum rules]

0 Dislike 0 Post Points