Rand Paul-Typical lying, two-faced Rightie

[zappasguitar]

Boy, you really have to cherrypick where to bold to make that a "contradiction." In both, I said it was "dishonest at best." Some people definitely call that a lie.

What desperation. I honestly feel a little bad for you; I can't imagine feeling so beholden to a political party that I'd go to the mat like this for a single legislator....

Sad.

He's not doing it because he cares about Rand Paul or his politics.

He's doing this because the depth of his hatred for you and I runs that deep.

He has proven himself many times, of being incapable of accepting when he is wrong, if it involves admitting I was right.

 

[Bonestorm]

and once again, the day after the wsj interview his exact words:

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":
AMANPOUR: 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.

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.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

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.

wrong

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

He's not doing it because he cares about Rand Paul or his politics.

He's doing this because the depth of his hatred for you and I runs that deep.

He has proven himself many times, of being incapable of accepting when he is wrong, if it involves admitting I was right.

not at all, you're the one constantly spewing hate filled rants

i merely asked a question and you have yet to back it up...when you tried earlier (and now you act like yoiu never tried) you against used specific language - wasteful earmarks - and nothing he has said contradicts that despite your claim otherwise...

you were all smug when you pull up your link and you even emphasized the words with large font....unfortunately for you, they were the same words as the op and you had quite the embarrassing moment and ever since you haven't once come back on topic instead pursuing an ad hom rant attack

 

[Onceler]

so you lied when you said it was more accurate to call it a flip flop....LOL

its either a flip flop or it isn't.....you said it was, your opinion after that has no bearing on YOU calling it a flip flop and YOU later whining when i said it was flip flop

more intellectual dishonesty or possibly neurotic insanity from onceler

It's amazing to watch you do these kinds of backflips for your desperate attempts to save face.

In case ya didn't notice (and you didn't bold that part, so who knows?), I did say that it was "dishonest at best" when calling it a flip flop.

What does that say to you?

Keep the blinders on. It's madcap hilarity to watch you twist & turn & distract as much as possible to try to protect one newly elected Republican legislator.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

It's amazing to watch you do these kinds of backflips for your desperate attempts to save face.

In case ya didn't notice (and you didn't bold that part, so who knows?), I did say that it was "dishonest at best" when calling it a flip flop.

What does that say to you?

Keep the blinders on. It's madcap hilarity to watch you twist & turn & distract as much as possible to try to protect one newly elected Republican legislator.

here come the onceler lies...you never said it was dishonest at best when calling it a flip flop....that is outright lie

I suppose it's more accurate to call it a flip-flop,

you clearly and unequivocally state it is more accurate to call it a flip flop...you then offered your opinion on the flip flop, but you never said it was dishonest to call it a flip flop

seriously, why do you do this when your words are there in plain view?

 

[Bonestorm]

wrong

Care to elaborate? Maybe it would helpful if you could start with what you think earmarks are and how you think legislators request them.

 

[Good Luck]

Well, reading all the direct quotes from Paul, it would seem clear to anyone with an actual BRAIN that Paul is using the term "earmarks" interchangeably with pork barrel and/or wasteful spending. It's ALL earmarked. ANY spending bill states within who gets how much and for what purposes. That is earmarking and it is the way things are done.

Now if the MSM had not started using the term "earmarks" as a generic for all wasteful spending, thus distorting the actual meaning of the word, and if people actually bothered to educate themselves how the government actually works, there would be no problem discerning what Paul means.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Well, reading all the direct quotes from Paul, it would seem clear to anyone with an actual BRAIN that Paul is using the term "earmarks" interchangeably with pork barrel and/or wasteful spending. It's ALL earmarked. ANY spending bill states within who gets how much and for what purposes. That is earmarking and it is the way things are done.

Now if the MSM had not started using the term "earmarks" as a generic for all wasteful spending, thus distorting the actual meaning of the word, and if people actually bothered to educate themselves how the government actually works, there would be no problem discerning what Paul means.

exactly...i'm trying to get nigel to this point....because rand paul says he wants any funding to be open and transparent....the main issue against earmarks is the non transparency and no real clue how or where the money is spent....rand paul has continually said that is what he is against

 

[Onceler]

you clearly and unequivocally state it is more accurate to call it a flip flop...you then offered your opinion on the flip flop, but you never said it was dishonest to call it a flip flop

LOL

And it all depends what the meaning of "is" is.

I wish you could hear yourself. The desperation is palpable. Funny, but palpable.

And it's not distracting anyone; Paul was dishonest, and a flip-flopper, and SOME might say a "liar" - again, whatever you're comfortable calling someone who is "dishonest."

And we're on 4 pages now w/ you doing whatever you can to distract from his dishonesty and cover for him, simply because he has an 'R' next to his name.

Hack, thy name is Yurtsie.

 

[Onceler]

Well, reading all the direct quotes from Paul, it would seem clear to anyone with an actual BRAIN that Paul is using the term "earmarks" interchangeably with pork barrel and/or wasteful spending. It's ALL earmarked. ANY spending bill states within who gets how much and for what purposes. That is earmarking and it is the way things are done.

Now if the MSM had not started using the term "earmarks" as a generic for all wasteful spending, thus distorting the actual meaning of the word, and if people actually bothered to educate themselves how the government actually works, there would be no problem discerning what Paul means.

Good to see you showing your true colors, as well, btw...

 

[Bonestorm]

Well, reading all the direct quotes from Paul, it would seem clear to anyone with an actual BRAIN that Paul is using the term "earmarks" interchangeably with pork barrel and/or wasteful spending. It's ALL earmarked. ANY spending bill states within who gets how much and for what purposes. That is earmarking and it is the way things are done.

Now if the MSM had not started using the term "earmarks" as a generic for all wasteful spending, thus distorting the actual meaning of the word, and if people actually bothered to educate themselves how the government actually works, there would be no problem discerning what Paul means.

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.

 

[Onceler]

Good Luck - perhaps you'd care to educate everyone on what DeMint's proposal, which Paul said he supported 100%, entailed?

 

[Good Luck]

Good to see you showing your true colors, as well, btw...

The only "true colors" being shown in this thread are donkey shit brown.

IF what I say is biased and inaccurate, tell us, what IS the term for when a spending bill states who gets what, and how much and for what purposes? Do you know? (hint: earmarking)

The only way to be against ALL earmarks is to be against ALL spending. Do you REALLY think that is what Paul meant - that he would oppose any and all federal spending? IF so, you are so pathetically ignorant as to be devoid of any cognizant thought. If not, then you must be deliberately misreading what Paul has said for some stupid assed "gotcha" points.

Which is it?

 

[Onceler]

The only "true colors" being shown in this thread are donkey shit brown.

IF what I say is biased and inaccurate, tell us, what IS the term for when a spending bill states who gets what, and how much and for what purposes? Do you know? (hint: earmarking)

The only way to be against ALL earmarks is to be against ALL spending. Do you REALLY think that is what Paul meant - that he would oppose any and all federal spending? IF so, you are so pathetically ignorant as to be devoid of any cognizant thought. If not, then you must be deliberately misreading what Paul has said for some stupid assed "gotcha" points.

Which is it?

You're full of it. The only issue I have with Zappa's post is that he singles out "rightie," because Paul's statements on this matter are the same typical political double-speak & BS that we've seen since the inception of politics, from most politicians if not all. And you know it. And you know that if a Democrat had pulled out the same tired old BS doublespeak, you'd be calling anyone who tried to cover for it an "idiot" and a "moron" and trumpeting your incredible objectivity.

It's one legislator. What is he to you, anyway? This is typical politico BS...I"m against earmarks, except of course for my consituents!

 

[Good Luck]

Good Luck - perhaps you'd care to educate everyone on what DeMint's proposal, which Paul said he supported 100%, entailed?

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:

House Republicans Thursday vowed to stop the practice of inserting earmarks in legislation for one year. Earmarks are provisions inserted into spending bills that direct that funds be spent on a particular project, usually within the earmarking lawmaker's district.

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.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You're full of it. The only issue I have with Zappa's post is that he singles out "rightie," because Paul's statements on this matter are the same typical political double-speak & BS that we've seen since the inception of politics, from most politicians if not all. And you know it. And you know that if a Democrat had pulled out the same tired old BS doublespeak, you'd be calling anyone who tried to cover for it an "idiot" and a "moron" and trumpeting your incredible objectivity.

It's one legislator. What is he to you, anyway? This is typical politico BS...I"m against earmarks, except of course for my consituents!

its pretty clear you and nigel don't know what you're talking about....everyone else though is:

This section is paraphrased from the Sunlight Foundation article on earmarks.[9]

An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system. [10]


[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight_Foundation"]Sunlight Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:SunlightFoundationLogo_500wide.gif" class="image"><img alt="SunlightFoundationLogo 500wide.gif" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f5/SunlightFoundationLogo_500wide.gif/220px-SunlightFoundationLogo_500wide.gif"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/f/f5/SunlightFoundationLogo_500wide.gif/220px-SunlightFoundationLogo_500wide.gif[/ame]

there is no doubt when analyzing all his comments on earmarks....he is talking about the above....

what is truly comical about your whiny claims that i and others are "defending" this one guy because he has an R.....you are such a hack you don't see how much you are attacking the guy because he has an R....if this was a dem you likely have zero posts in this thread or at most, one post....but since it is an R....attack, attack.....kill, kill

 

[Good Luck]

It's one legislator. What is he to you, anyway? This is typical politico BS...I"m against earmarks, except of course for my consituents!

And what is he to you? A "gotcha!" opportunity against Yurt, as far as I can see. That's all.

And that is NOT quite what Paul said, is it? (unless you insist on using both (current) meanings of the word "earmark" to grab your little "gotcha" bullshit.)

If Kentucky needs a half dozen bridges rebuilt because they are falling apart, would Paul be wrong to earmark part of a highway spending bill to fix those bridges? No, he would not. Part of his job as a senator is to represent the needs of his state in such circumstances, is it not?

Would he be wrong to insert an earmark for a few million to build an unneeded bridge, or any other make-work project just to get the jobs numbers up? Yes, he would. It's that simple. Too bad your (supposedly) non-existent blinders won't let you see that.

 

[Onceler]

its pretty clear you and nigel don't know what you're talking about....everyone else though is:

This section is paraphrased from the Sunlight Foundation article on earmarks.[9]

An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system. [10]


Sunlight Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

there is no doubt when analyzing all his comments on earmarks....he is talking about the above....

what is truly comical about your whiny claims that i and others are "defending" this one guy because he has an R.....you are such a hack you don't see how much you are attacking the guy because he has an R....if this was a dem you likely have zero posts in this thread or at most, one post....but since it is an R....attack, attack.....kill, kill

This would have been a one-off response thread for me if Paul's defenders hadn't come riding in to defend what is clearly very blatant political doublespeak.

Just like your previous thread on Obama doctoring the oil reports; I said it was bogus. If tons of lefties had come on defending him, I would have kept going on that one, too. But they didn't.....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

This would have been a one-off response thread for me if Paul's defenders hadn't come riding in to defend what is clearly very blatant political doublespeak.

Just like your previous thread on Obama doctoring the oil reports; I said it was bogus. If tons of lefties had come on defending him, I would have kept going on that one, too. But they didn't.....

not true and your track record speaks clearly of that, you never, that i have seen, take your lefties to task, never....

and what say you to the actual discussion, or have you given up and now want to talk about you