Reply With Quotemy fans are legionOriginally Posted by Onceler
Ah, yes, the special helmet!And this:
An Egyptian writer, Ptah Hotep, put patriarchal beliefs as clearly as
anyone in the early civilizations: "If you are a man of note, found for
yourself a household, and love your wife at home, as it beseems. Fill her
belly, clothe her back. . . . But hold her back from getting the mastery.
Remember that her eye is her stormwind, and her vulva and mouth are her
strength."
my fans are legion
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_congressIn his weekly radio and online address Saturday, Obama said that with the economy still struggling to recover from the recession, the U.S. cannot afford unnecessary spending on so-called earmarks, items lawmakers slip into spending bills without a full examination or debate.
odd...not one person has provided proof that rand paul has lied regarding his stance on earmarks....
Question: What if someone comes to you and says here's an earmark, mind turning a blind eye to this?
Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn't do it. I tell people and told people throughout the primaries as well as the general election that I will advocate for Kentucky's interests. There are money that will be spent in Kentucky. But I will advocate in the committee process. And I think that's the way it should be done. Roads, highways, bridges, things that we need as far as infrastructure, let's go through the committee process, find out, when was this bridge last repaired? How much of a problem is it? Are there fatalities on this road that's not wide enough? Let's use objective evidence to figure out, you know, where the money should be spent. But not put it on in the dead of night, have some clerk in your office stick it on because you're powerful and you stick it on, and you attach your name to it.
Q: So if Roy Blunt calls you up, tells you, 'hey, I want to get this bridge built in southern Missouri'?
Mr. Paul: I think we can do it if I'm on the transportation committee, we discuss it and we find out his bridge is more important than the bridge in Louisville, or more important than the bridge in northern Kentucky. I think that's the way legislating should occur. You work it out, you find out, and then you should say how much money do you have? Right now we just write a blank check and we just say, well, what do you want. I mean, nobody has any concept, they have no restraint. What you need is in the committee process to know that we have X billions in our budget this year, because that's all the money we have. Instead they just say, 'What do you want to spend?' It's all about what do you want instead of what do you have.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ditorialPage_h
looks very clear that he is supportive of the committee process....not earmarks
now we have the full text...i wonder if the liberals in this thread will apologize
"i wonder if the liberals in this thread will apologize "
I'm so sorry that you're a koolaid-guzzling Republican party hack. That must be tough.
wow...even with the full text of the interview you're still clinging to your dishonesty
You realize that's not the interview dozens of news outlets were talking about with regard to his pledge on earmarks, right?
yes it is and in fact it is the interview from the OP...what interview are you talking about...
good lord, you're whacked out tonight...from the link:
In my Weekend Interview with Rand Paul last Saturday, the new Senator-elect from Kentucky appeared to soften his fervent opposition during the campaign to earmarks and pork-barrel spending. I reported the shift, while noting his continued distaste for earmarks as a symbol of runaway spending and his eagerness to change the way such spending gets appropriated.
His comments have since attracted attention and criticism, and his aides now say that I misunderstood his comments. I stand by the story as written, but in the interest of full disclosure we are posting the full transcript of the relevant section of the interview below. Readers can draw their own conclusions.
The one with Amanpour, where he muddied the waters even further & blatantly wanted things both ways.
Poor Yurtsie! You aren't even sure what's being discussed anymore - the only thing you seem to be aware of is how vitally important it is to defend & cover for a Republican....
The only thing worse it being a three time loser with a hairy mole!
An Egyptian writer, Ptah Hotep, put patriarchal beliefs as clearly as
anyone in the early civilizations: "If you are a man of note, found for
yourself a household, and love your wife at home, as it beseems. Fill her
belly, clothe her back. . . . But hold her back from getting the mastery.
Remember that her eye is her stormwind, and her vulva and mouth are her
strength."
wow...you really shouldn't call anyone a koolaid drinking hack
they are both being discussed, there is nothing in this thread that says the OP article is no longer being discussed and only the amanpour interview is being discussed....and its not just me who sees this, it was the guy who did the interview with paul, hence why he sent out the full transcripts because people were still talking about his interview
and its laughable that you say his interview with amanpour muddied waters...let's see:
On ABC's This Week, host Christiane Amanpour pushed Paul on the ways he'd cut spending. When she asked about earmarks, Paul declared "no more earmarks":
yep...that really muddies the water...saying no repeatedly to earmarks but yes to the committe process which are not earmarksAMANPOUR: And what about earmarks? Would you say no to earmarks?
PAUL: No -- no more earmarks.
AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?
PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget.
lmao, your inability to ever admit you're wrong is turning out real bad for you, you have not constantly lie just to defend your position
yes....the one they've been talking about was imaginary.......
ROFLMAO
Yeah - again, the only people who thought it muddied the waters were me, the Denver Post, the NY Post, the LA Times, the Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, et al.
I'm such a hack...
you're really losing it...you have nothing of substance to support your wild view so you resort to an argumentum ad populum....its funny, you always accuse me of following the party line, not thinking for myself, yet you resort to consensus to prove your point
weak, really weak and i doubt all those news outlets reported it like that, rather, it was OPINION pieces...when i google it it heavily comes out from left wing sources, so i doubt the validity of yoru claim....
but do keep relying on logical fallacies to support your dishonest claim
Posting Rules
Bookmarks