You're right. I made the same mistake that everyone else but you made. I missed that line
My bad, but your dishonesty in claiming that my mistake was dishonest is obvious
I didn't mean to call you dishonest but just to point out a mistake you've made. I made two posts about it previously but was totally ignored. The only way to get attention was to join the conversation. Sorry about that.
Also a representative of Paul wrote this during the story.
Rachel Mills, a spokeswoman for Paul, says he considers it a responsibility to return tax dollars to his district where they were earned. “Congressman Paul votes against all appropriations bills but when appropriations are passed, it is the job of Congress and not the administration to decide how appropriated funds are to be spent,” Mills said. “Fiscal conservatives should applaud the return of tax dollars to the American people. Would conservatives rather have those dollars remain in Washington, to be doled out to projects favored by the administration instead?”
Peggy Venable, director of fiscal watchdog Americans For Prosperity in Austin, says she doesn’t understand the thinking of the Tea Party and other conservatives who believe stimulus money should be shunned. “If I were talking to Tea Party members I’d tell them, ‘You are paying for this and you can’t opt out of paying for it,’” Venable said.
“Once the stimulus passed, voters were equally burdened with the cost of paying for it,” she said. “It makes good sense, even if you didn’t vote for it to roll up your sleeves and go to work making sure those dollars are spent wisely and where they ought to be spent. I have to respectfully disagree with the Tea Party on this one.”
I guess it's how you view it. This to me seems like a grey area.
The bottom line is this....if foxnews believed Paul could win, he would be on foxnews nonstop...Foxnews has ordained Perry as their choice because they believe he can win....
Fox news doesn't want Paul to win because they think his idea on foreign policy is nuts. Fox News's method is "Bad guys will come get us unless we get them first". Fox News Analyst and media personalities all share the same idea (To be fair, Fox Business seems balance) and every other republican candidate except for Ron Paul shares this ideology. They call him a isolationist and insist on having to go to war with Iran.
To put it simply, the problem with that idea is that it completely ignore the ramifications and blowback effects of our foreign policy. Also who determines the bad guys? Do we just past judgement while ignoring our wrong doings as well? Is that justice or fair?
Then we have Iran who we don't even know have a nuclear weapon. Yet we don't rule out a pre-emptitive nuclear strike on a nation who hasn't gone to war with another country in over 100 years. And even if they did try a nuke, there whole country will be blown to kingdom-come.
I'm 100% sure if a Republican candidate other then Ron Paul wins that will have another Iraq with Iran on our hands prominently after the elections. The road from legitimate suspicion to rampant paranoia is very much shorter than we think.
Last thing about Fox News... can they stop taking down polls that he wins in? They go out of there way to remove there own polls and ignore it if Ron Paul is winning. That or they report the poll but leave Ron Paul out. Don't they report and we decide? Why are they deciding for us?
That is right on the mark perry and very true...in Ron Pauls case its the honest politician with some insane ridiculous ideas...like legalizing heroin and cocaine..just for starters...so when you say hes honest and he is...you need to say hes also nuts
He wants to legalize them on the federal level and let the states decided whether to legalize it or not. Same deal like with gay marriage and marijuana. Obviously no state will ever legalize c & h but would leave it up to the people. It's in essence promoting personal liberty that government shouldn't control people personal habits nor should they.
It's also a step in the right direction in defeating our failed war on drugs. The drug cartels profit greatly from it being ban and we have over 3 million people in jail for non violent use of drugs like marijuana, heroin, etc.. These people should not be treated as hardcore criminals but as a psychical/mental health issue. The government doesn't ban alcohol or cigarette which are both as deadly and addictive so why pick and choose? (hint: $$) In contrast, we have our U.S Marines guarding opium poppy fields in Afghanistan
.
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged. Government shouldn't take away our liberties in exchange for security. There are other logical ways of handing it then starting wars and banning.
