Ron Paul: Obama's 'goal' is economic collapse

The left's goal is to end capitalism, and install a socialist republic. You can only accomplish this by economic collapse. Saul Alinsky taught this to Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html

You can read the goals & methods of achieving them at this site....very well researched and referenced.....

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2314

 

>Ron Paul's view is the earmarks are the only way for the tax payers to get the money back that was taken unconstitutionally.

Using that logic the direct approach would be for the tax payers to lie on their tax return to keep the money from being taken in the first place?

 

The topic at hand is Ron Paul and earmarks. You did not understand why he would be against them and then start bills for getting them. I explained that his line of reasoning is that it is the only way to get the funds back to the folks at home that should never have been taken. I did not insert any personal opinion. Now you cannot response intelligently so you resort to posts like this. I made an attempt to simply respond to the post you made and you turned it into a personal attack and a false accusation.

 

You excel at making up the most ridiculous statements and reading them into simple observations. Amazing!
All from a simple, yet true, observation:

"I suspect that 'legitimate spending' is in the eye of the recipient."
​

 

Ron Paul is the #2 guy named "Ron" in the youtube.com search.

Ron White is #1.

 

Now, what is your feeling as to a person who campaigns against something and then is for it?

So, if he is getting funds for back home, how is this cutting down on government spending that he so loudly campaigned about?

Are you for or against earmarks? All earmarks?

 

Dr. Paul describes Obama's tactics as "fascism".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TS7Jf6XBjQ

Note he doesn't completely blame him for the problem.

 

Show me how that is constitutional. Also show me how earmarks are constitutional? Are you for them or against them?

 

In case you missed it.

 

There is a difference between the bill with funding for the troops and earmarks. Did you realize there is a difference?

 

My feeling is of no concern to you however what is clear is my original post you used for a personal attack was on topic therefore your accusation is false.

 

There were earmarks in the funding bill, weren't there ? Do you realize how inconsistent you are ?

 

But they were not part of the original bill. They were added by individuals later. I believe this should not be allowed.

Are you for limiting spending or not? As long as earmarks are allowed there is no real control of spending.

 

Sigh.....

Lookit, you accused the Republicans who voted against the funding bill, of not supporting the troops, even though you know the reason they voted against it was due to the earmarks (and it was also pointed out that 32 democrats voted against it as well, but you've yet to call them anything, but that's another thread). Earmarks, you now say, shouldn't be allowed into a bill. I don't get it. You berate Dr. Paul's earmarks, yet let the dems slide on theirs.

 

Quite off topic. The OP and discussion is on Ron Paul talking about cutting spending and then adding more earmarks than anyone else. If you want to talk about the Dems and earmarks, start a new thread.

 

:laugh:

Nope. I feel absolutely free to point out your inconsistencies & biases on ANY thread. :thumbs:

Have a blessed day.

 

You are the one who is inconsistent in that you are mixing subjects in a vain attempt to defend the undefendable. In essence you are saying that it is right to fight earmarks in one bill and not right to fight them in another bill. Which is it? Try to stay on topic.

You've got it Poncho. Defend an idea on one hand and defend it on the other. What they are saying is "What is good for the goose is not good for the gander."

 

Nope. You are the one saying that. You slam Dr. Paul's earmarks, yet turn a blind eye to the dems. I am not trying to defend anyone, here. Point out where I have. Point out where I have said ANY earmarks are OK. I have not said anything for or against earmarks, from any side. Show me where I have. You cannot.

As usual, you have lost the argument, so you try to change it.

 

By defending Ron Paul you are approving his earmarks.

By the way, I guess you really have not read my posts. I have said, at least twice that I believe all earmarks should be illegal.

The topic of this thread is the hypocracy of Ron Paul campaigining against earmarks, but being the biggest earmarker this year.