All earmarks bother me, but I think you have the process backwards. Apparently, he voted against the approbriations (sp?) and loss. Once the money was approved (would be spent regardless) he applied for the earmarks.

sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Which went to nurses, shrimp factories, and other assorted “unconstitutional” groups. If the money was going to be spent regardless at least he could spend it on things that are consistant with his political thought.

Absolutely 100% f**kin’ wrong. You’re joking though because you were already drunk when you wrote this. Right?

Andy in Agoura Hills on October 29, 2007 at 7:50 PM

Wrong,
But I’m feeling pretty good now and the beer / whiskey haze has let me see the light. Amen Brother

You are no different than the “you are against reparations…you must be a bigot” crowd!

Hours ago I asked that you send me a link to the article in which Paul said those bigoted words. Instead you sent me to the (wrong) website. I figured out where I was supposed to go, but instead of giving me the actual article you left me hanging.
So I went through numerous articles, BTW I would say you owe me some brain cells, but apparently you are running low, and I found nothing anti-Semitic. I found many articles saying that the US should not be giving foreign aid to the Middle East, but not once did I see the quotes that you attributed to him.

Furthermore, is it your opinion that my labor should go to Israel (and Egypt and Palestine)? This point that Paul makes (as does Benjamin Netanyahu) I agree with whole heartedly, that the federal government should not be giving U.S. tax dollars to foreign governments for their defense.

Call me what you will, but I will call you a phony American

Not at all. Politicians should deal with the real World. But no time should ever be wasted on “non binding resolutions” or “sense of the house” votes. And if a politician believes the UN has no authority to do anything, then the vote should always be “Nay”

If you truly wish that the US was out of the UN and someone asked you a question that started with “Do you think the UN should…?” Unless the question ended with “dissolve” you would have to say “No”

I’m rambling now, so I am going to go drink.

sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Absolutely 100% f**kin’ wrong. You’re joking though because you were already drunk when you wrote this. Right?

If you truly wish that the US was out of the UN and someone asked you a question that started with “Do you think the UN should…?” Unless the question ended with “dissolve” you would have to say “No”

Uhm, no. It would totally depend on the question. If the question was, “Do you think the UN should support Israel against Iranian threats to wipe it off the map”? My answer certainly would not be “No”. If my primary concern was with the existence of the U.N., my answer would be “I don’t think the U.N. should exists, but as long as we are faced with the reality that it does, I would much prefer the U.N. to support Israel against Iran than vice versa”.

If he were truly trying to vote his conscience, it would have not have been a “no” vote, it would have been no vote at all.

As jp points out:

Voting NO, gives just as much credence to the existence of the United Nations as Voting YES.

if you believe the USA should not be in the UN, would you vote “Yes” on any house reolution that calls on the UN to do anything?

the spin that his above votes are about the UN and not Israel are just that, spin.

if he disagrees with the UN, why even vote in this. Voting NO, gives just as much credence to the existence of the United Nations as Voting YES.

if it were, ‘principled’ votes, as Paulbots always spin this stuff, he would’ve not voted at all. Instead he took time to vote.

So you would prefer our politicians to deal with things the way they “wish” they were instead of the way they “really” are? Isn’t living in a fantasy world just a bit of an indication that someone may have “issues”?

Not at all. Politicians should deal with the real World. But no time should ever be wasted on “non binding resolutions” or “sense of the house” votes. And if a politician believes the UN has no authority to do anything, then the vote should always be “Nay”

If you truly wish that the US was out of the UN and someone asked you a question that started with “Do you think the UN should…?” Unless the question ended with “dissolve” you would have to say “No”

I’m rambling now, so I am going to go drink.

He has appeared several times on Alex Jones radio show – something that no serious candidate for president should do.

Why? Here’s a blurb from Jones’ latest film, Endgame:

Estulin explains that the Bilderberg Group control the world by means of a process called systemic methodology, where they carve up the globe into numerous different pieces and then place their designated frontmen in charge of the major institutions that govern each part of the world.

By this method, Bilderberg were able to merge the nations of Europe into the EU under the guise of trade deals, and the same process is now unfolding with Canada, the U.S. and Mexico being conglomerated to form the North American Union – but not without committed resistance on behalf of the American people.

That resistance is being countered by the beefing of a brutal police state nationwide and the increasing use of U.S. troops in domestic law enforcement. Endgame exposes how the elite are trying to overcome opposition to their agenda by instituting the framework of martial law with executive orders that are designed to combat “domestic insurrection,” as President George Bush officially announces a fiat dictatorship.

Quote from American Thinker

if you believe the USA should not be in the UN, would you vote “Yes” on any house reolution that calls on the UN to do anything?

So you would prefer our politicians to deal with things the way they “wish” they were instead of the way they “really” are? Isn’t living in a fantasy world just a bit of an indication that someone may have “issues”?

P.S. I wish the U.S. whould exit the U.N. and promptly escort it right out of our country, but then again, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

jp on October 29, 2007 at 4:59 PM

This stuff sounds so much like what happened in other times in our history. If Ron Paul really is not anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist, if he really isn’t a believer of the junk Alex Jones sells, he needs to strongly speak out against it.

Why doesn’t he?

http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/09/ron-paul-campaign-officials-deny.html

Campaign Manager Elam suggested to me that since I was half-Jewish I ought to go to Lefty’s press conference to disrupt the event. We had gotten word that Morris was going to hold a press conference in Victoria, with documents proving that Ron Paul had close ties to Radical Right-wing Anti-Semitic and other racist groups. One of our campaign team members, even suggested that I wear a Jewish yalmaca (like a beanie cap), and loudly challenge Morris in the middle of his speech.

I did. All by myself I went to the event wearing my Jewish yalmaca, and other Jewish adornment. Half-way through the press conference, when Morris started to wave papers proving Paul’s ties to Anti-Semitic groups, I loudly interrupted that “I was Jewish, and was a top Campaign Staffer for Ron Paul,” and continued that Ron Paul would not have hired me if he hated Jews

sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 4:35 PM

thats not why he’s anti-semitic.

see his views on AIPAC and Isralie lobby, in context of his above votes. the fact he gives Alex Jones the time of day should be enough.

bnelson just a quick question; if you believe the USA should not be in the UN, would you vote “Yes” on any house reolution that calls on the UN to do anything?

sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 4:30 PM

Sure, because I live in the real world.

bnelson44 on October 29, 2007 at 3:33 PM

bnelson just a quick question; if you believe the USA should not be in the UN, would you vote “Yes” on any house reolution that calls on the UN to do anything?

“Woot!”

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php#more

I know that I’m sounding like a broken record here, but are you talking about this: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm

NO, with the NAU he is using it as part of his platform as if its fact. Its on record in many places.

also, he beleives in the AIPAC and CFR conspiracies about our Foreign Policy and Isreal…and is on record saying the ‘Israeli Lobby is the worst lobby’ in washington ‘of the bad sort’.

Fed Reserve conspiracies are rooted in anti-semitism.

I’m not sure which version of the “Bush family are Drug Dealers with the CIA” he beleives in, but he has stated it as fact publicly. one wild version I heard, was that when George W. was “AWOL”, he was really flying drugs in and out of the country, and its ‘documented’.

Accusing W. of a “Gulf of Tonkin” and trying to “impose Martial Law” through devious means are wild conspiracy theories, providing no proof.

Conspiricacy beleifs are part of his package, always has been.
jp on October 29, 2007 at 3:17 PM

I know that I’m sounding like a broken record here, but are you talking about this: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm
Because I could go either way with a trilateral agreement between the countries in North America. That said, what is conspiratorial about that?
Ron Paul supporters will take anything they hold dear and claim that Ron Paul agrees with them. Ron Paul detractors, it is becoming apparent, seem to believe the same.

Final Vote: 411 YEAS, 2 NAYS, 11 “PRESENT,” 8 NV.

Who are those two “nays?” Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

H RES 548
BILL TITLE: Expressing the ongoing concern of the House of Representatives for Lebanon’s democratic institutions and unwavering support for the administration of justice upon those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures opposing Syrian control of Lebanon.

Final Vote: 415 YEAS, 2 NAYS, 15 NV.

Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

H RES 557
BILL TITLE: Strongly condemning the United Nations Human Rights Council for ignoring severe human rights abuses in various countries, while choosing to unfairly target Israel by including it as the only country permanently placed on the Council’s agenda

Final Vote: 416 YEAS, 2 NAYS, 14 NV.

Who are those two “nays?” Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

http://bamapachyderm.com/archives/2007/10/29/why-jew-haters-love-ron-paul/

that the Bush family and the CIA are huge Drug Dealers

Since GWB signed that prescription drug bill, I know my parents are getting much better (and more) drugs.

Conspiricacy beleifs are part of his package, always has been.

Saying that George W. Bush is “determined to impose martial law” and that he would contrive some devious plot to do it is a wild conspiracy, defaming of the office of POTUS and CinC. And that alone makes the guy unfit for command.