Tell me what he is supposed to do regarding "damage control."
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Romney is a Flat out Liar, a Fake, and a liberal.
- Thread starter Havensdad
- Start date
Propose bills to change the system.
Influence others to vote against bills that spend money on things not authorized in the Constitution.
Instead he has a "if you can't beat them, join them" attitude.
How is he different that any other politician?
:thumbs: Yep.
If he really believed it, he could have "earmarked" funds for spending outside his district. He's just buying votes like every other big spending earmarker. 6th biggest in Texas and one of the biggest earmark spenders in the country.
Ron Paul is a Hypocrite
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR27GmkKfXU
Ron Paul is dangerous to national security. As an isolationist, He will cut the military to the bone. They can't help themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDkMCXPBxro&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR27GmkKfXU
Ron Paul is dangerous to national security. As an isolationist, He will cut the military to the bone. They can't help themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDkMCXPBxro&feature=related
Thats idiotic. He is the REPRESENTATIVE of his district. To not return his own districts tax money to them, but instead pass it on to the district of a Representative who voted FOR the money, would not only be completely stupid, it would reward bad behavior!
Again, this thread is about Romney. You have your own thread for discussing Paul.
You are a liar. Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. He has also publicly stated that his plan would have a net increase of military.
Your position is absolutely contrary to common sense. "If we save trillions of dollars in overseas wars, we won't have money for military spending. We HAVE to keep spending trillions of dollars on undeclared wars!"
Your and the establishments position makes us ALL endangered.
Isn't it true he wants no part of NATO, UN, ICC, and WTO? Isn't that a trait of isolationists?
He does this constantly. Unfortunately he is not able to convince his colleagues, who are bought off by corporate lobbyists.
Paul is constantly imploring his fellow representatives to stop the madness. You can see dozens of his speeches on Youtube, if you would care to.
Unfortunately, when someone is receiving millions from, for example, a Pharmaceutical lobbyist, it makes it very hard to convince that person to vote against the power of the FDA, whose boards are ran by Pharmaceutical lobbyists.
No, he has a "well, if your going to spend it, I'm not letting you take MY districts money!" attitude. He has an obligation, as the representative of his district to defend the as best as possible.
Because he is not completely sold out to corporate lobbyists? He has the best interests of the people in mind? He doesn't use his position to line his pocket, and increase his own political clout? Just pick one.
Again, this thread is about that two bit, lying, establishment robot Mit Romney. There are dozens of threads about Paul. Take it to one of those, please.
He does not want to engage in any military alliance. However he does want to have trade agreements and diplomatic friendships with other countries.
And historically, most conservatives have wanted no part of the UN, or other bodies to which we cede sovereignty...that does not make them isolationist.
So let me see if I got this right...the most powerful nation in the world wants to be "friends" with other nations if it benefits them, but doesn't want to use it's vast military in protecting and helping them? So instead of isolationism (what it truly is) we water down the name and call it "non interventionism" as if it makes the truth behind the matter somehow more acceptable.
No thanks.
So Ron Paul believes that all spending should be earmarked but it would be idiotic for him to earmark funds for any district other than his own?
Then he doesn't really care about the country just his own district.
If he cared about the country then he would want funds to be used for constitutional purposes where ever they are needed to fullfill the mandates of the Constitution.
Havensdad, you are going further and further into Ron-Paul-Fantasy-Land with every post.
Thanks, Pamela. The thing I want more than anything is to be able to lay my head on my pillow at night and not "what-if" myself to death over my vote and to lay my head on my pillow at night and sleep in peace. I also want to please God with my vote.
I won't lose any sleep over my vote.
But I will lose sleep over a lot of other's votes.
But I will lose sleep over a lot of other's votes.
"Isolationism" is not trading with other countries (like Cuba).
"Non-interventionism" means we do not go around bullying the world, simply because we are more powerful; i.e....
USA: "NO, YOU CANNOT VIOLATE OUR BORDER! I DON'T CARE WHO IS HIDING HERE!"
USA:"WE WILL VIOLATE YOUR BORDER ANY TIME WE WISH, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE POWER TO DO SO."
Sorry, but that should be repugnant to any thinking Christian. The idea that we can treat other countries different than we expect to be treated, simply because we have the power, is despicable.
That would be dumb. He cannot earmark the entire bill. Given that quandry, he must look out for his constituents. He is THEIR representative.
Horrible reasoning. Paul only has a small percentage of the total power of the House. He can only earmark a small percentage (approximately equal to the size of his district). His obligation, is that if he cannot influence or stop the entire bill, to at least direct the small portion he is able to take charge of.
And he does. But, again, he only gets to earmark a very small percentage of the funds. He is the Representative of HIS district. That is how the system works.
There is no "fantasy land." You are trying to invent hypocrisy where there is none. Paul is the representative of his district. He is not in charge of the entirety of Congress.
Is that the Havensdadipedia definition, because every time I hear it described and defined its in regards to avoiding all foreign alliances and military conflicts except those defending our border. Thank God that the nations which helped us break free from Britain didn't employ such isolationism (what it truly is). Your flavor is just more self serving, and as you say, any believer should find repugnant and be opposed to.
Last edited by a moderator:
i·so·la·tion·ism
the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
non·in·ter·ven·tion
1. abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions.
2. failure or refusal to intervene.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse
the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
non·in·ter·ven·tion
1. abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations or in those of its own political subdivisions.
2. failure or refusal to intervene.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse
You should just say you disagree with his non-interventionist policy, say that we SHOULD bee the world's police, instead of calling his policy something that it is not.