tea party loyalists you have been duped.

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

if any of you had read the wsj article, the full huffington article and the comments at the bottom (as well as had a little info on how the process of "federal pork" giving works) you'd understand a bit better what paul is actually saying.

at the committee level, which is what he says he'll fight for, is tons of projects that are budgeted from the federal government every year, placed on committees which then are designed to provide funding to states for certain projects/business within their domain.

this is, of course, very different from last minute pork projects thrown into bills with the intent to get politicians to sign on to them in secret, at the dead of night like paul mentions that he is against. just look to the health care bill for examples of that.

of course, understanding more of what rand paul says and how the process works doesn't allow for an intelligent discussion on the topic. it just makes good mud slinging and incorrect statements. entertainment value, sure.

but it's all bullshit - like the op.

i welcome any counterarguments to what i've just said. i doubt i'll get any accurate ones. but here's hoping.

the whole tea party rant is supposed to be about cutting spending and balancing the budget. all earmarks combined are estimated to be about 18 billion dollars a year. not even a drop in the bucket.
here we have the poster child for the tea party within one week of being elected backing off on his pledge to balance the budget and promising that he will make sure his state gets all available government spending.
if every senator makes the same promise where will the trillions of spending cuts needed to balance the budget come from?

 

[Range Rover]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:



That "witch" that said she could go on Hannity any time will soon realize that free publicity from fox news and cash from outside groups will cease for people like her.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/fox-news-on-christine-odo_n_778829.html


Fox News On Christine O'Donnell: 'No Plans To Hire Her'

Shortly after Republican Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell lost her race for the Senate from Delaware, media-watchers began speculating that she might follow Sarah Palin's path and become a Fox News contributor.

"O'Donnell would be latest case that a losing candidate can have more media juice (Palin 2.0). Could be smart for Fox to sign her," New York Magazine's Gabriel Sherman tweeted.

"Fox will TOTALLY sign her - if they haven't already," Mediaite's Rachel Sklar chimed in.

But Fox News says it isn't happening.

The network told Mediaite it has "no plans to hire her."

O'Donnell made Fox News her national media home during her campaign (as much as she did national media), following the advice of Palin, who advised her to "speak through Fox News." O'Donnell also reportedly boasted to Republicans that she had "Sean Hannity in [her] back pocket."

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Gabfly1:

Since you seem to be supporting Rand Paul in this thread, let's explore some of your other views about the man. How do you feel about his being a self-certified opthalmologist? How did you regard his proclamation that going after BP because of the oil spill was "un-American?" How do you regard his belief that business owners should be allowed to refuse service to customers solely on the basis of race ("even though he may not personally agree")? And, of course, there's the old standby:

i am not supporting rand paul in this thread. i am supporting TRUTH in this thread. if you wish to post things about someone, make sure they are accurate. that's all.

i don't know enough about paul to comment on your other questions. i just did my research when i saw the OP. if you wish to openly debate him, do it without the mal-intent you seem to be showing here, because i'm not going to get into a pissy match with you. pick a subject, and lets talk about it.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

i am not supporting rand paul in this thread. i am supporting TRUTH in this thread. if you wish to post things about someone, make sure they are accurate. that's all.

i don't know enough about paul to comment on your other questions. i just did my research when i saw the OP. if you wish to openly debate him, do it without the mal-intent you seem to be showing here, because i'm not going to get into a pissy match with you. pick a subject, and lets talk about it.

Sorry, I thought your post was an implicit defense of the man and what he stood for. Since your apparent object was to clarify, effectively in his defense, I wanted to also address the other matters that have already come to light some time ago and are a secret to no one. The items I noted in my post are indeed true. That's why I wanted your view along with any clarity or context you may wish to add. I don't think you should interpret mere statements of fact as a personal affront.

 

[IShopAtPublix]

Quote from Range Rover:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/04/fox-news-on-christine-odo_n_778829.html


Fox News On Christine O'Donnell: 'No Plans To Hire Her'

Shortly after Republican Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell lost her race for the Senate from Delaware, media-watchers began speculating that she might follow Sarah Palin's path and become a Fox News contributor.

"O'Donnell would be latest case that a losing candidate can have more media juice (Palin 2.0). Could be smart for Fox to sign her," New York Magazine's Gabriel Sherman tweeted.

"Fox will TOTALLY sign her - if they haven't already," Mediaite's Rachel Sklar chimed in.

But Fox News says it isn't happening.

The network told Mediaite it has "no plans to hire her."

O'Donnell made Fox News her national media home during her campaign (as much as she did national media), following the advice of Palin, who advised her to "speak through Fox News." O'Donnell also reportedly boasted to Republicans that she had "Sean Hannity in [her] back pocket."

Thanks for posting that. Notice how GOP is full steam ahead with planning to dump its token minority party leader Steele and Bush reared his ugly head with the first public interview sinc e presidency immediately after the elections.

I think a lot of people underestimate the level of organization that GOP has. It took them just 2 years to completely wipe the political consequences of the most destructive presidency in this country's history. Just 2 years.

 

[phenomena]

Yes!! The big republican boogey man is coming for you!!!

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Thanks for posting that. Notice how GOP is full steam ahead with planning to dump its token minority party leader Steele and Bush reared his ugly head with the first public interview sinc e presidency immediately after the elections.

I think a lot of people underestimate the level of organization that GOP has. It took them just 2 years to completely wipe the political consequences of the most destructive presidency in this country's history. Just 2 years.

 

[Range Rover]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:

Thanks for posting that. Notice how GOP is full steam ahead with planning to dump its token minority party leader Steele and Bush reared his ugly head with the first public interview sinc e presidency immediately after the elections.

I think a lot of people underestimate the level of organization that GOP has. It took them just 2 years to completely wipe the political consequences of the most destructive presidency in this country's history. Just 2 years.

+1

 

[phenomena]

Yeah, but Obama is on track to be just as destructive or more. Both in terms of loss of life in wars, and the budget...

Quote from IShopAtPublix:


I think a lot of people underestimate the level of organization that GOP has. It took them just 2 years to completely wipe the political consequences of the most destructive presidency in this country's history. Just 2 years.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Gabfly1:

Since you seem to be supporting Rand Paul in this thread, let's explore some of your other views about the man. How do you feel about his being a self-certified opthalmologist? How did you regard his proclamation that going after BP because of the oil spill was "un-American?" How do you regard his belief that business owners should be allowed to refuse service to customers solely on the basis of race ("even though he may not personally agree")? And, of course, there's the old standby:

1. if he truly said he was a certified opthalmologist, and he is not a certified opthalmologist (with the AMA) then that is a lie. he should be called out on it.

2. can you post the original BP comment where it was first uttered (article or video) so i can view in context? otherwise i cannot form a valid opinion.

3. business owners have the right to refuse any and all customers for whatever reason at all, unless they are funded by the government (state, federal or local). a business is a private enterprise, and government has no more right telling a person how to run their business than they do how to live in their home.

4. as for rallying against government healthcare, yet still accepting medicaid or medicare - people tried to use a similar argument on joe miller. my answer is this in comparison: i may take unemployment if i am let go from my job, because i pay into the taxes to get it. but that doesn't mean i have to agree with all aspects of the program, or how the program is run. for example, i do not believe anyone should get 99 weeks of unemployment.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from IShopAtPublix:


I think a lot of people underestimate the level of organization that GOP has. It took them just 2 years to completely wipe the political consequences of the most destructive presidency in this country's history. Just 2 years.

bush was the most destructive president in this country's history? really? or are you saying in your PERSONAL history? because i think you really need to learn a bit more about the country's history before you start throwing around a serious allegation like that.