Rand Paul-Typical lying, two-faced Rightie

NigelTufnel said:
Blaming Rand Paul talking out of both sides of his mouth regarding earmarks on the evil MSM is horseshit. At best, Paul is saying that he is against wasteful earmarks but that the earmarks that he will request for Kentucky aren't wasteful.
Click to expand...
And isn't that the problem and why do they have to lie during the election about what they really plan to do? To get Tea Time money, though, you have to use their blanket phrases!
 
Good Luck said:
I think they are all focused on wasteful spending. I think democrats who made "earmark pledges" - and they are out there - were talking about the same thing - wasteful or pork spending.

From an article about DeMint's proposal:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000294-503544.html

(But then, See-BS has always had trouble with their terminology when it suits them.)

The thing is, ALL spending bills provide for those specific details. Who gets what and how much and for what purposes is included in any spending bill you care to bring up and read. And those details are hammered out and negotiated by the committees that handle the bill, as well as floor discussions once the bill is out of committee.

As such, the only valid conclusion is they are talking about a specific type of "bridge-to-nowhere" or "Let's study flow rates of ketchup" earmarks which would fall under the heading of wasteful or pork barrel spending, and not about ALL earmarks (in its original meaning), since that would negate all spending.
Click to expand...



But you're just plain wrong. Earmarks generally refers to language directing appropriations for a particular purpose that is not part of the official statutory language but is instead included as part of the committee report on a particular bill and the provides for funding outside of the normal statutory manner.

So, for example, the highway bill may authorize a certain amount of appropriations in the statutory language but be silent as to specifically how that money is to be spent. Under those circumstances the federal agency authorized to spend the money, say the Department of Transportation, gets to decide how the money is spent, usually directed to states based on generic formulas.

Earmarks allow members of Congress to direct the DOT to spend the money on a particular project instead of allowing the DOT to decide how the money should be spent and leaving it up to the formulas. This is done by including in the committee report an earmark on certain of the funds directing that they be spent on a particular project. Some of it is wasteful (i.e. Bridges to Nowhere) and some of it is for what local lawmakers deem important projects for their communities.

Being opposed to earmarks means you are opposed to all of it. And, if you don't believe me, here is how Jim DeMint defines the term "earmark" in the very moratorium that Rand Paul once claimed to support:

the term ``earmark'' means a provision or report language included primarily at the request of a Senator or Member of the House of Representatives providing, authorizing, or recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a specific State, locality or Congressional district, other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process
Click to expand...

It includes all earmarks, not only those that Jim DeMint believes are wasteful and it doesn't except those that Rand Paul thinks are important for Kentucky. It includes all of them. And it includes all of them because every member of Congress thinks his or her earmarks are damned important while it all the other people that are proposing wasteful things and you cannot get rid of the waste unless you get rid of all of them.

In summation, Rand Paul, Good Luck and Yurt are all full of shit.
 
Onceler said:
For God's sake....seriously?

He supported DeMint's plan 100%; it's there in black & white.

Are you on the GOP payroll or something? Call hypocrisy when you see it. Why do you care about a single Congressman so much that you feel you have to defend this to the teeth?
Click to expand...

of course he supports DeMint's plan....DeMint's plan is to block earmarks......Paul is on record as opposing earmarks.....so.....what....the.....fuck.....is....the.....contradiction?
 
NigelTufnel said:
Rand Paul is full of shit. He says no to earmarks and then says in the next breath that he will ask for earmarks. "Arguing in the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky" is asking for earmarks.
Click to expand...

are you kidding me?.....that is the comment you people have been claiming is a flip flop.......you people are idiots.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I can't believe a ZapAss thread fail went six pages before we realized it.....
Click to expand...

IT'S ALWAYS A SHOW WITH ZAP!


images
 
NigelTufnel said:
But you're just plain wrong. Earmarks generally refers to language directing appropriations for a particular purpose that is not part of the official statutory language but is instead included as part of the committee report on a particular bill and the provides for funding outside of the normal statutory manner.

So, for example, the highway bill may authorize a certain amount of appropriations in the statutory language but be silent as to specifically how that money is to be spent. Under those circumstances the federal agency authorized to spend the money, say the Department of Transportation, gets to decide how the money is spent, usually directed to states based on generic formulas.

Earmarks allow members of Congress to direct the DOT to spend the money on a particular project instead of allowing the DOT to decide how the money should be spent and leaving it up to the formulas. This is done by including in the committee report an earmark on certain of the funds directing that they be spent on a particular project. Some of it is wasteful (i.e. Bridges to Nowhere) and some of it is for what local lawmakers deem important projects for their communities.

Being opposed to earmarks means you are opposed to all of it. And, if you don't believe me, here is how Jim DeMint defines the term "earmark" in the very moratorium that Rand Paul once claimed to support:



It includes all earmarks, not only those that Jim DeMint believes are wasteful and it doesn't except those that Rand Paul thinks are important for Kentucky. It includes all of them. And it includes all of them because every member of Congress thinks his or her earmarks are damned important while it all the other people that are proposing wasteful things and you cannot get rid of the waste unless you get rid of all of them.

In summation, Rand Paul, Good Luck and Yurt are all full of shit.
Click to expand...

nigel.....did you actually write this post? let's see what the last sentence of your quote says:

other than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process
Click to expand...

i'll will give you one more chance nigel....
 
Yurt said:
nigel.....did you actually write this post? let's see what the last sentence of your quote says:



i'll will give you one more chance nigel....
Click to expand...


You have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously. You think you do, but you haven't the foggiest idea. At least GL has some semblance of a clue. You're just blissfully ignorant.
 
NigelTufnel said:
You have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously. You think you do, but you haven't the foggiest idea. At least GL has some semblance of a clue. You're just blissfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

didn't expect an honest debate from you....

much easier to give up and ad hom about my position
 
I find it fascinating as to how the neocon parrots/birthers/oathers/teabaggers/Libertarians and general Obama-haters will diagram every word that comes out of the President's mouth and analyze it for real world application, yet they go deaf and dumb when one of their newly elected stars flip-flops.
 
NigelTufnel said:
But you're just plain wrong. Earmarks generally refers to language directing appropriations for a particular purpose that is not part of the official statutory language but is instead included as part of the committee report on a particular bill and the provides for funding outside of the normal statutory manner.

So, for example, the highway bill may authorize a certain amount of appropriations in the statutory language but be silent as to specifically how that money is to be spent. Under those circumstances the federal agency authorized to spend the money, say the Department of Transportation, gets to decide how the money is spent, usually directed to states based on generic formulas.

Earmarks allow members of Congress to direct the DOT to spend the money on a particular project instead of allowing the DOT to decide how the money should be spent and leaving it up to the formulas. This is done by including in the committee report an earmark on certain of the funds directing that they be spent on a particular project. Some of it is wasteful (i.e. Bridges to Nowhere) and some of it is for what local lawmakers deem important projects for their communities.

Being opposed to earmarks means you are opposed to all of it. And, if you don't believe me, here is how Jim DeMint defines the term "earmark" in the very moratorium that Rand Paul once claimed to support:



It includes all earmarks, not only those that Jim DeMint believes are wasteful and it doesn't except those that Rand Paul thinks are important for Kentucky. It includes all of them. And it includes all of them because every member of Congress thinks his or her earmarks are damned important while it all the other people that are proposing wasteful things and you cannot get rid of the waste unless you get rid of all of them.

In summation, Rand Paul, Good Luck and Yurt are all full of shit.
Click to expand...
LOL I ate a damned good meal - so yea I am full of shit right now.

Better than wearing a donkey's ass for headgear.

I really like these ones:
"Under those circumstances the federal agency authorized to spend the money ... gets to decide how the money is spent, usually directed to states based on generic formulas."
Yea, generic formulas work great. So great that back in the mid 70s Missoula Montana got the same sized U.S. Postal Service hub facility as did South Chicago. Why? Because if they'd tried to differentiate, they run the risk of the smaller facility being placed in Chicago instead of Missoula. (Yes, that was actually their official explanation!)

Tell me, if you were a senator, and you knew your state had a number of highway bridges in desperate need of repair or replacement, would you leave it up to DOT "generic formulas" to get the job done, or would you do what you could to make sure those bridges were on the list of funded projects?

"you cannot get rid of the waste unless you get rid of all of them."
Get rid of ALL spending and that way you get rid of wasteful spending. Good idea! Then we can cut taxes to zero and be done with it.
 
Taichiliberal said:
I find it fascinating as to how the neocon parrots/birthers/oathers/teabaggers/Libertarians and general Obama-haters will diagram every word that comes out of the President's mouth and analyze it for real world application, yet they go deaf and dumb when one of their newly elected stars flip-flops.
Click to expand...

Bolded party does not engage in said activity.
 
Good Luck said:
LOL I ate a damned good meal - so yea I am full of shit right now.

Better than wearing a donkey's ass for headgear.

I really like these ones:
"Under those circumstances the federal agency authorized to spend the money ... gets to decide how the money is spent, usually directed to states based on generic formulas."
Yea, generic formulas work great. So great that back in the mid 70s Missoula Montana got the same sized U.S. Postal Service hub facility as did South Chicago. Why? Because if they'd tried to differentiate, they run the risk of the smaller facility being placed in Chicago instead of Missoula. (Yes, that was actually their official explanation!)
Click to expand...

This isn't the 1970s. These days the formulas (which, by the way, are statutory creations of Congress and can be devised however Congress wishes) are typically population contingent so that the dumbass results you are complaining about can be, and are, avoided.

Also, look at Jim DeMint's definition of earmark. It includes spending that is not awarded "through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or competitive award process."

Good Luck said:
Tell me, if you were a senator, and you knew your state had a number of highway bridges in desperate need of repair or replacement, would you leave it up to DOT "generic formulas" to get the job done, or would you do what you could to make sure those bridges were on the list of funded projects?
Click to expand...

Look, I don't have a problem with earmarks. If I were a Senator I would work my ass off to get earmarks for my state. Your argument isn't with me. It's with the dumbasses that are opposed to earmarks and those like Rand Paul that want to pretend they are opposed to earmarks.

Good Luck said:
"you cannot get rid of the waste unless you get rid of all of them."
Get rid of ALL spending and that way you get rid of wasteful spending. Good idea! Then we can cut taxes to zero and be done with it.
Click to expand...

You're just being an ass now. You cannot get rid of wasteful earmarks without getting rid of all earmarks.
 
Taichiliberal said:
I find it fascinating as to how the neocon parrots/birthers/oathers/teabaggers/Libertarians and general Obama-haters will diagram every word that comes out of the President's mouth and analyze it for real world application, yet they go deaf and dumb when one of their newly elected stars flip-flops.
Click to expand...

give me evidence of a flip and I will look at it.....
 
Onceler said:
Oh, I have no doubt that you will LOOK at it. It's the "acknowledging" part that seems to be a challenge for you.

You're just keep asking, obtusely, "where is the flip?"
Click to expand...

and despite my repeatedly asking, you keep failing to show one......wouldn't it be easier to win the debate by actually doing so instead of continually pretending you had?.......so far everyone keeps posting his statements that he is against earmarks....no one has yet produced something saying he isn't.......
 
Good Luck said:
LOL I ate a damned good meal - so yea I am full of shit right now.

Better than wearing a donkey's ass for headgear.

I really like these ones:
"Under those circumstances the federal agency authorized to spend the money ... gets to decide how the money is spent, usually directed to states based on generic formulas."
Yea, generic formulas work great. So great that back in the mid 70s Missoula Montana got the same sized U.S. Postal Service hub facility as did South Chicago. Why? Because if they'd tried to differentiate, they run the risk of the smaller facility being placed in Chicago instead of Missoula. (Yes, that was actually their official explanation!)

Tell me, if you were a senator, and you knew your state had a number of highway bridges in desperate need of repair or replacement, would you leave it up to DOT "generic formulas" to get the job done, or would you do what you could to make sure those bridges were on the list of funded projects?

"you cannot get rid of the waste unless you get rid of all of them."
Get rid of ALL spending and that way you get rid of wasteful spending. Good idea! Then we can cut taxes to zero and be done with it.
Click to expand...
I don't think Nigel wears a donkey's ass for head gear. I don't even think he is a Democrat, but I could be wrong, again!

Nigel, I think you are swell!
 
NigelTufnel said:
These days the formulas (which, by the way, are statutory creations of Congress and can be devised however Congress wishes)
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!!! Congress not only sets the money, but they set HOW THE MONEY IS SPENT!!! Whether it be through formula (devised and defined within the legislation) and putting a federal agency in charge, or specifying projects directly, congress still determines how, where, and for what the money is spent!!

But, to advance the debate, let's go ahead and use the seemingly overwhelming (currently) popular definition of earmarks.

What HAS Paul said?
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.
Click to expand...

So, exactly what has Paul said that indicates he is talking about working for earmarks, and NOT working with the committees to adjust the statutory allocations in favor of Kentucky's needs? Care to show us the exact verbiage where Paul says "I am going to pursue earmarks I feel are good for Kentucky?"

So far, all I see is Paul saying he is against earmarks (a stance which I disagree with when it comes to an absolute ban, for reasons demonstrated in previous posts) and ALSO stating he will work within the system to Kentucky's benefit (ie: DOING HIS JOB!!) in a manner that stays within his balanced budget goals.

So, show me his words that indicate otherwise. Where are they? Where is the lie?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top