100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Grow Up, Ron Paul | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Sun 01/15/12 07:07 PM
|
|
I just don't see what having or not having a central bank has to do with "freedom." And returning to the gold standard? Come on, not gonna happen. No way that is fluid enough for the electronic age. Someone did complain about the IRS, and usually those people don't believe in paying taxes. If that's not what it's about, then what is it? Te central banks are a privately owned cartel printing the money of nations without regulation or audit. The paper they print is backed by nothing but ink, yet whatever they print is "loaned" to the nation AT INTEREST to the tax payers of that nation. The IRS was created as their muscle to assure they got their payments....the IRS is the loan sharks for the central banks, and NOT part of the gov't! http://educate-yourself.org/cn/fedreservebankexplained19dec05.shtml Well, the way I read it, part of the purpose of the Federal Reserve Act is specifically to regulate banking. And don't be silly, paper money is backed by the credit-worthiness of the United States. The IRS was created to collect taxes. That is different from regulating fiscal policy. Taxes are where governments get the means to function at all. To say the IRS isn't part of the government is just silly. This stuff has been in effect for a century, so I keep wondering when people are going to get over it. Some day you will discover that all the taxes collected by the IRS, only goes to pay the interest on the money our government borrows from the FED...NOTHING ELSE!....not roads, education, SS, welfare.... IT IS ALL INTEREST PAYMENTS ON WHAT OUR GOV'T BORROWS...PERIOD! Look it up! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the list of references and the disclaimer at that link.
First off, the disclaimer states that all information is merely opinion, not fact. Secondly, the source references are all biased. They all revolve around around either conspiracy theory or the movement to repeal the FED. Once again, all the material can be traced back to the same source. When I see this pattern over and over, it suggests circular reasoning on the part of those presenting the information. And if all taxes collected only went toward paying the interest on our debt, we would have hit the debt ceiling years ago. After all, that's $2.5 trillion to $3.5 trillion per year of the federal operating budget which would have to be borrowed every year because you claim no tax revenue is applied toward it. Given that we had a $5 trillion debt in the '90s, this means the government would have only been able to operate for 3 or 4 years before reaching the debt ceiling. Well, the government has been operating under deficit spending for the last 10 years. Therefore, it is obvious that your claim concerning tax revenue and debt interest is completely false because it is a mathematical impossibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heavenlyboy34... I am getting very tired of you telling me what I have and have not read. How do you know what I've read? Were you there looking over my shoulder? Tracking all the sites my browser has visited? I already know Paul supports States' Rights. However, States' Rights are, IMO, an outdated ideal because of how rapidly this nation has grown over the past 150 years. The population of this country is much more mobile than it was in the 19th century. This mobility requires that the federal government be able to maintain certain nationwide standards just for the various States to co-exist peaceably. And I have told you before: I OWN a copy of The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and The Articles of Confederation. Get off my back. I disagree with you. Deal with it. Owning these documents is not the same as understanding them. The primary point of my post was to point out that you misrepresented RP's position. If you want to get into relevance of Constitutionalism, it doesn't matter how much things seem to have changed. As one who's read the Federalist Papers, you should know that the States can deal with modernity as they wish, within the bounds of the Constitution. This is why states have legislatures. You should also know that the Constitution is not a "living document", subject to the arbitrary whims of mere mortals who happen to wear government costumes. As one who's acquainted with the Federalist papers, you should also know that States' rights are not and cannot be made obsolete. This is key to Federalism and Constitutionalism. Without States' Rights, there is little more left than a fascist leviathan State. You're free to disagree with me. But I will call you out when you are wrong. Deal with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the list of references and the disclaimer at that link. First off, the disclaimer states that all information is merely opinion, not fact. Secondly, the source references are all biased. They all revolve around around either conspiracy theory or the movement to repeal the FED. Once again, all the material can be traced back to the same source. When I see this pattern over and over, it suggests circular reasoning on the part of those presenting the information. And if all taxes collected only went toward paying the interest on our debt, we would have hit the debt ceiling years ago. After all, that's $2.5 trillion to $3.5 trillion per year of the federal operating budget which would have to be borrowed every year because you claim no tax revenue is applied toward it. Given that we had a $5 trillion debt in the '90s, this means the government would have only been able to operate for 3 or 4 years before reaching the debt ceiling. Well, the government has been operating under deficit spending for the last 10 years. Therefore, it is obvious that your claim concerning tax revenue and debt interest is completely false because it is a mathematical impossibility. Going by the figures alone, it is a mathematical impossibility. However, thanks to the "magic" of Fractional Reserve Banking and Dollar hegemony (the dollar is the primary reserve currency in the world and has been for a century), the regime can get away with it. Rothbard explains this in detail in the classic "The Mystery Of Banking". Free to download in pdf form here: http://mises.org/books/mysteryofbanking.pdf The beauty of this book is that it not only deals with the technical aspects, it also deals with history. Another useful book on this subject is "What Has Government Done To Our Money?"-available free for pdf download here: http://mises.org/money.asp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As, by this definition, the founding fathers were apparently equivilent to 6 year old mentalities, they seem to have written a document referred to as "the greatest piece of law and literature ever written", and having lasted and been accepted, and respected as sound principle for 200 years....... Freedom has a price! To think that any gov't can write a law, create an environment that fits all, or works for everyone, is ludacrous. When the gov't gains control of any institution, it is doomed to failure. The trouble is, it is the people who are the test subjects, not the institutions who manage them! I at 60 am proud to say "growing up" did not remove my desire to be free, to make my own choices! My rebel nature is what incites my desire to seek a truth, to fight for that liberty and oppose any injustice against it. I would rather live on my feet than die on my belly! You wont be free when the rich and powerfull have no checks or balances you will be a serf. The country has changed greatly since the days of the founding fathers a man cannot simply get on a horse ride west and stake a claim for farmland and sustain himself and a family. We live in a society like it or not and a future with unregulated capitalism will be bleak for the 99%. I do not like the world I envision under libertarianism. Ron Paul will never be elected I hate to burt your bubble but if you take away the fantasy that he will take down the fed and declaw the police state what do you have left? He wont be able to do either by the way. The rich and powerfull will be free to posion your wells with fracking exploit your children and turn the starveing masses into serfs. They will be free to add cheap harmfull addatives to the allready tainted food supply etc etc etc. You wont stand a chance against unregulated big business. Holy crap, you and I do agree on something! Ron Paul will NEVER get elected........... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this is just getting boring . . . . In a true discussion, each side listens to the other with civility. When that doesn't happen, I just lose interest. Maybe it's my lack of testosterone. I don't enjoy argument for argument's sake. I like to see progress toward a common understanding.
So, count me out of this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the list of references and the disclaimer at that link. First off, the disclaimer states that all information is merely opinion, not fact. Secondly, the source references are all biased. They all revolve around around either conspiracy theory or the movement to repeal the FED. Once again, all the material can be traced back to the same source. When I see this pattern over and over, it suggests circular reasoning on the part of those presenting the information. And if all taxes collected only went toward paying the interest on our debt, we would have hit the debt ceiling years ago. After all, that's $2.5 trillion to $3.5 trillion per year of the federal operating budget which would have to be borrowed every year because you claim no tax revenue is applied toward it. Given that we had a $5 trillion debt in the '90s, this means the government would have only been able to operate for 3 or 4 years before reaching the debt ceiling. Well, the government has been operating under deficit spending for the last 10 years. Therefore, it is obvious that your claim concerning tax revenue and debt interest is completely false because it is a mathematical impossibility. I stand corrected, I was 1/2 right, and 1/2 wrong 
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244324/interest-national-debt-may-consume-half-your-income-taxes-2020-brian-riedl Interest on the National Debt May Consume Half Your Income Taxes by 2020 By Brian Riedl August 20, 2010 10:48 A.M. Comments 0 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) updated its ten-year budget baseline yesterday. Ignore the $6.2 trillion deficit headline — it’s based on assumptions that Congress forces the CBO to use to mask the true size of future deficits. The true baseline deficit — based on a continuation of current spending and tax policies — comes to $13 trillion over the next decade. Some details: ● Even as war spending phases out and the economy recovers, the projected budget deficit never drops below $1 trillion, and reaches nearly $2 trillion by 2020. ● The national debt held by the public is set to surpass 100 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2020. ● By 2020, half of all income tax revenues will go toward paying interest on a $23 trillion national debt. ● Federal spending per household, which has risen from $25,000 to nearly $30,000 over the past three years, would top $38,000 by 2020. The national debt per household, which was $52,000 before the recession, would approach $150,000 by 2020 (all adjusted for inflation). ● Even if all tax cuts are extended, revenues will still surpass the 18.0 percent of GDP historical average by 2020. The reason the deficit will surge 6 percent of GDP above its average is because spending will surge to 6 percent of GDP above its average. These trends are totally unsustainable — especially as President Obama and Congress dig the hole deeper. White House economists are surely aware that such large deficits cannot happen. And given the president’s refusal to significantly rein in spending, all that may leave is a 20 percent value-added tax (VAT) to finance all this spending. Over the next few years, the question will be whether we finally fix runaway spending, or go down the European VAT route. The status quo is not an option. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the list of references and the disclaimer at that link. First off, the disclaimer states that all information is merely opinion, not fact. Secondly, the source references are all biased. They all revolve around around either conspiracy theory or the movement to repeal the FED. Once again, all the material can be traced back to the same source. When I see this pattern over and over, it suggests circular reasoning on the part of those presenting the information. And if all taxes collected only went toward paying the interest on our debt, we would have hit the debt ceiling years ago. After all, that's $2.5 trillion to $3.5 trillion per year of the federal operating budget which would have to be borrowed every year because you claim no tax revenue is applied toward it. Given that we had a $5 trillion debt in the '90s, this means the government would have only been able to operate for 3 or 4 years before reaching the debt ceiling. Well, the government has been operating under deficit spending for the last 10 years. Therefore, it is obvious that your claim concerning tax revenue and debt interest is completely false because it is a mathematical impossibility. I stand corrected, I was 1/2 right, and 1/2 wrong
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244324/interest-national-debt-may-consume-half-your-income-taxes-2020-brian-riedl Interest on the National Debt May Consume Half Your Income Taxes by 2020 By Brian Riedl August 20, 2010 10:48 A.M. Comments 0 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) updated its ten-year budget baseline yesterday. Ignore the $6.2 trillion deficit headline — it’s based on assumptions that Congress forces the CBO to use to mask the true size of future deficits. The true baseline deficit — based on a continuation of current spending and tax policies — comes to $13 trillion over the next decade. Some details: ● Even as war spending phases out and the economy recovers, the projected budget deficit never drops below $1 trillion, and reaches nearly $2 trillion by 2020. ● The national debt held by the public is set to surpass 100 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2020. ● By 2020, half of all income tax revenues will go toward paying interest on a $23 trillion national debt. ● Federal spending per household, which has risen from $25,000 to nearly $30,000 over the past three years, would top $38,000 by 2020. The national debt per household, which was $52,000 before the recession, would approach $150,000 by 2020 (all adjusted for inflation). ● Even if all tax cuts are extended, revenues will still surpass the 18.0 percent of GDP historical average by 2020. The reason the deficit will surge 6 percent of GDP above its average is because spending will surge to 6 percent of GDP above its average. These trends are totally unsustainable — especially as President Obama and Congress dig the hole deeper. White House economists are surely aware that such large deficits cannot happen. And given the president’s refusal to significantly rein in spending, all that may leave is a 20 percent value-added tax (VAT) to finance all this spending. Over the next few years, the question will be whether we finally fix runaway spending, or go down the European VAT route. The status quo is not an option. Even I thought the claim that the taxes only went to fed interest, had to be a preposterous statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I read the list of references and the disclaimer at that link. First off, the disclaimer states that all information is merely opinion, not fact. Secondly, the source references are all biased. They all revolve around around either conspiracy theory or the movement to repeal the FED. Once again, all the material can be traced back to the same source. When I see this pattern over and over, it suggests circular reasoning on the part of those presenting the information. And if all taxes collected only went toward paying the interest on our debt, we would have hit the debt ceiling years ago. After all, that's $2.5 trillion to $3.5 trillion per year of the federal operating budget which would have to be borrowed every year because you claim no tax revenue is applied toward it. Given that we had a $5 trillion debt in the '90s, this means the government would have only been able to operate for 3 or 4 years before reaching the debt ceiling. Well, the government has been operating under deficit spending for the last 10 years. Therefore, it is obvious that your claim concerning tax revenue and debt interest is completely false because it is a mathematical impossibility. I stand corrected, I was 1/2 right, and 1/2 wrong
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/244324/interest-national-debt-may-consume-half-your-income-taxes-2020-brian-riedl Interest on the National Debt May Consume Half Your Income Taxes by 2020 By Brian Riedl August 20, 2010 10:48 A.M. Comments 0 The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) updated its ten-year budget baseline yesterday. Ignore the $6.2 trillion deficit headline — it’s based on assumptions that Congress forces the CBO to use to mask the true size of future deficits. The true baseline deficit — based on a continuation of current spending and tax policies — comes to $13 trillion over the next decade. Some details: ● Even as war spending phases out and the economy recovers, the projected budget deficit never drops below $1 trillion, and reaches nearly $2 trillion by 2020. ● The national debt held by the public is set to surpass 100 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 2020. ● By 2020, half of all income tax revenues will go toward paying interest on a $23 trillion national debt. ● Federal spending per household, which has risen from $25,000 to nearly $30,000 over the past three years, would top $38,000 by 2020. The national debt per household, which was $52,000 before the recession, would approach $150,000 by 2020 (all adjusted for inflation). ● Even if all tax cuts are extended, revenues will still surpass the 18.0 percent of GDP historical average by 2020. The reason the deficit will surge 6 percent of GDP above its average is because spending will surge to 6 percent of GDP above its average. These trends are totally unsustainable — especially as President Obama and Congress dig the hole deeper. White House economists are surely aware that such large deficits cannot happen. And given the president’s refusal to significantly rein in spending, all that may leave is a 20 percent value-added tax (VAT) to finance all this spending. Over the next few years, the question will be whether we finally fix runaway spending, or go down the European VAT route. The status quo is not an option. Nothing is going to fix this until we stop running a huge trade deficit. And that isn't happening when you have an economy based on the service industry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-fights-washington-spending-flies-first-class-082921941.html
Paul fights Washington spending, flies first class Congressional members don't have to pay the government rate for travel, but most do, including many like Paul and Bachmann who advocate cuts in federal spending. "You could almost always beat the government rate," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, a federal budget watchdog group. "They need to be walking the walk, and one of the ways they can do that is to be fiscally responsible for how they spend their member office money." Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, didn't respond to a written request to explain how Paul's use of more expensive airfare, which allows him to fly first class, corresponds with his commitment to cut federal spending. Instead, he sent a statement that started, "No one is more committed to cutting spending than Dr. Paul." But Paul's congressional travel conflicts with claims in campaign appearances that he's the most frugal and serious deficit hawk in the race. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this is just getting boring . . . . In a true discussion, each side listens to the other with civility. When that doesn't happen, I just lose interest. Maybe it's my lack of testosterone. I don't enjoy argument for argument's sake. I like to see progress toward a common understanding. So, count me out of this. Paultards don't believe in civility, they apply their militant talking points and talking over people and flooding the internet and anyone who disagrees with them is insulted, called names, harassed and in some cases even stalked. It's honestly cult like behavior. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this is just getting boring . . . . In a true discussion, each side listens to the other with civility. When that doesn't happen, I just lose interest. Maybe it's my lack of testosterone. I don't enjoy argument for argument's sake. I like to see progress toward a common understanding. So, count me out of this. Paultards don't believe in civility, they apply their militant talking points and talking over people and flooding the internet and anyone who disagrees with them is insulted, called names, harassed and in some cases even stalked. It's honestly cult like behavior. That's funny  sounds familiar and more like someone else on here flooding the site with hate about Paul.....and hate speech about many things.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-fights-washington-spending-flies-first-class-082921941.html Paul fights Washington spending, flies first class Congressional members don't have to pay the government rate for travel, but most do, including many like Paul and Bachmann who advocate cuts in federal spending. "You could almost always beat the government rate," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, a federal budget watchdog group. "They need to be walking the walk, and one of the ways they can do that is to be fiscally responsible for how they spend their member office money." Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, didn't respond to a written request to explain how Paul's use of more expensive airfare, which allows him to fly first class, corresponds with his commitment to cut federal spending. Instead, he sent a statement that started, "No one is more committed to cutting spending than Dr. Paul." But Paul's congressional travel conflicts with claims in campaign appearances that he's the most frugal and serious deficit hawk in the race. But when it comes to his congressional travel, Paul has opted not to search for cheaper airfares that could mean returning more of his office account to the treasury, which uses any money returned by House or Senate members to help reduce the federal deficit. Paul paid $51,972 for his government-rate flights between Washington and Houston between May 2009 and March 2011, or more than twice the $24,351 average airfare on Continental for travel between Washington and Houston. The average airfare figure represents the price for all tickets purchased for Continental flights between Washington and Houston, including economy and first-class travel, according to the Transportation Department's Domestic Airline Fares Consumer Report, which collects airfare information for the nation's busiest travel routes. Paul's staff regularly booked him in first class on flights when tickets were purchased, according to expense records. His office paid between $1,217 and $1,311 for each round-trip flight, compared to the average airfare for that trip ranging from $528 to $760, according to the airline fares consumer report. http://news.yahoo.com/paul-fights-washington-spending-flies-first-class-082921941.html I loved that part of the article. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this is just getting boring . . . . In a true discussion, each side listens to the other with civility. When that doesn't happen, I just lose interest. Maybe it's my lack of testosterone. I don't enjoy argument for argument's sake. I like to see progress toward a common understanding. So, count me out of this. Paultards don't believe in civility, they apply their militant talking points and talking over people and flooding the internet and anyone who disagrees with them is insulted, called names, harassed and in some cases even stalked. It's honestly cult like behavior. That's funny sounds familiar and more like someone else on here flooding the site with hate about Paul.....and hate speech about many things.....
Oh I get it, when I post ACCURATE articles about Paul it is considered hate speech?  Thanks for proving my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Mon 01/16/12 02:48 PM
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-fights-washington-spending-flies-first-class-082921941.html Paul fights Washington spending, flies first class Congressional members don't have to pay the government rate for travel, but most do, including many like Paul and Bachmann who advocate cuts in federal spending. "You could almost always beat the government rate," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, a federal budget watchdog group. "They need to be walking the walk, and one of the ways they can do that is to be fiscally responsible for how they spend their member office money." Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, didn't respond to a written request to explain how Paul's use of more expensive airfare, which allows him to fly first class, corresponds with his commitment to cut federal spending. Instead, he sent a statement that started, "No one is more committed to cutting spending than Dr. Paul." But Paul's congressional travel conflicts with claims in campaign appearances that he's the most frugal and serious deficit hawk in the race. But when it comes to his congressional travel, Paul has opted not to search for cheaper airfares that could mean returning more of his office account to the treasury, which uses any money returned by House or Senate members to help reduce the federal deficit. Paul paid $51,972 for his government-rate flights between Washington and Houston between May 2009 and March 2011, or more than twice the $24,351 average airfare on Continental for travel between Washington and Houston. The average airfare figure represents the price for all tickets purchased for Continental flights between Washington and Houston, including economy and first-class travel, according to the Transportation Department's Domestic Airline Fares Consumer Report, which collects airfare information for the nation's busiest travel routes. Paul's staff regularly booked him in first class on flights when tickets were purchased, according to expense records. His office paid between $1,217 and $1,311 for each round-trip flight, compared to the average airfare for that trip ranging from $528 to $760, according to the airline fares consumer report. http://news.yahoo.com/paul-fights-washington-spending-flies-first-class-082921941.html I loved that part of the article. This "hit piece" has been torn apart already
The man DOES NOT take the lucretive vacation junkets other congressme/women do! He returns the majority of his yearly congressional budget BACK to the treasury which NONE others do! He does NOT subscribe to the congressional pension plan OR the health care plan! He also regularly pilots his own plane AT HIS OWN EXPENSE! You think a congressman should travel coach?!
You think it's news he "spends a little extra" (as ALL congressmen/women making these flights do) to guarantee timely travel?!
They tore the hack journalist up online over this article!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Mon 01/16/12 02:51 PM
|
|
Actually, this is just getting boring . . . . In a true discussion, each side listens to the other with civility. When that doesn't happen, I just lose interest. Maybe it's my lack of testosterone. I don't enjoy argument for argument's sake. I like to see progress toward a common understanding. So, count me out of this. Paultards don't believe in civility, they apply their militant talking points and talking over people and flooding the internet and anyone who disagrees with them is insulted, called names, harassed and in some cases even stalked. It's honestly cult like behavior. That's funny sounds familiar and more like someone else on here flooding the site with hate about Paul.....and hate speech about many things.....
Oh I get it, when I post ACCURATE articles about Paul it is considered hate speech? Thanks for proving my point.
If you call unfair and biased Faux Noise "accurate articles" we don't have to challenge it
And Flooding threads is something you do VERY well, better than most. We don't have to bring attention to our candidate, you do it for us by posting the Faux Noise articles that everyone knows is NOT news, and usually doesn't contain much truth either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-fights-washington-spending-flies-first-class-082921941.html Paul fights Washington spending, flies first class Congressional members don't have to pay the government rate for travel, but most do, including many like Paul and Bachmann who advocate cuts in federal spending. "You could almost always beat the government rate," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, a federal budget watchdog group. "They need to be walking the walk, and one of the ways they can do that is to be fiscally responsible for how they spend their member office money." Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, didn't respond to a written request to explain how Paul's use of more expensive airfare, which allows him to fly first class, corresponds with his commitment to cut federal spending. Instead, he sent a statement that started, "No one is more committed to cutting spending than Dr. Paul." But Paul's congressional travel conflicts with claims in campaign appearances that he's the most frugal and serious deficit hawk in the race. But when it comes to his congressional travel, Paul has opted not to search for cheaper airfares that could mean returning more of his office account to the treasury, which uses any money returned by House or Senate members to help reduce the federal deficit. Paul paid $51,972 for his government-rate flights between Washington and Houston between May 2009 and March 2011, or more than twice the $24,351 average airfare on Continental for travel between Washington and Houston. The average airfare figure represents the price for all tickets purchased for Continental flights between Washington and Houston, including economy and first-class travel, according to the Transportation Department's Domestic Airline Fares Consumer Report, which collects airfare information for the nation's busiest travel routes. Paul's staff regularly booked him in first class on flights when tickets were purchased, according to expense records. His office paid between $1,217 and $1,311 for each round-trip flight, compared to the average airfare for that trip ranging from $528 to $760, according to the airline fares consumer report. http://news.yahoo.com/paul-fights-washington-spending-flies-first-class-082921941.html I loved that part of the article. This "hit piece" has been torn apart already
The man DOES NOT take the lucretive vacation junkets other congressme/women do! He returns the majority of his yearly congressional budget BACK to the treasury which NONE others do! He does NOT subscribe to the congressional pension plan OR the health care plan! He also regularly pilots his own plane AT HIS OWN EXPENSE! You think a congressman should travel coach?!
You think it's news he "spends a little extra" (as ALL congressmen/women making these flights do) to guarantee timely travel?!
They tore the hack journalist up online over this article!
Yes I do think they should travel coach. If a Supreme Court Justice or Governor can travel coach so can a Congressman. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this is just getting boring . . . . In a true discussion, each side listens to the other with civility. When that doesn't happen, I just lose interest. Maybe it's my lack of testosterone. I don't enjoy argument for argument's sake. I like to see progress toward a common understanding. So, count me out of this. Paultards don't believe in civility, they apply their militant talking points and talking over people and flooding the internet and anyone who disagrees with them is insulted, called names, harassed and in some cases even stalked. It's honestly cult like behavior. That's funny sounds familiar and more like someone else on here flooding the site with hate about Paul.....and hate speech about many things.....
Oh I get it, when I post ACCURATE articles about Paul it is considered hate speech? Thanks for proving my point.
If you call unfair and biased Faux Noise "accurate articles" we don't have to challenge it
And Flooding threads is something you do VERY well, better than most. We don't have to bring attention to our candidate, you do it for us by posting the Faux Noise articles that everyone knows is NOT news, and usually doesn't contain much truth either. I only post a FEW threads to counter the 10+ threads a day the same couple users flood the forums with about their "Messiah" (I believe that's what cults call their leaders nowdays). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this is just getting boring . . . . In a true discussion, each side listens to the other with civility. When that doesn't happen, I just lose interest. Maybe it's my lack of testosterone. I don't enjoy argument for argument's sake. I like to see progress toward a common understanding. So, count me out of this. Paultards don't believe in civility, they apply their militant talking points and talking over people and flooding the internet and anyone who disagrees with them is insulted, called names, harassed and in some cases even stalked. It's honestly cult like behavior. That's funny sounds familiar and more like someone else on here flooding the site with hate about Paul.....and hate speech about many things.....
Oh I get it, when I post ACCURATE articles about Paul it is considered hate speech? Thanks for proving my point.
I was mainly talking about laughing about people dying, getting beat up, etc. People dying in war that kind of thing......but no I am not a cult type person...I just see no other viable candidate willing to do so much to free America |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, this is just getting boring . . . . In a true discussion, each side listens to the other with civility. When that doesn't happen, I just lose interest. Maybe it's my lack of testosterone. I don't enjoy argument for argument's sake. I like to see progress toward a common understanding. So, count me out of this. Paultards don't believe in civility, they apply their militant talking points and talking over people and flooding the internet and anyone who disagrees with them is insulted, called names, harassed and in some cases even stalked. It's honestly cult like behavior. That's funny sounds familiar and more like someone else on here flooding the site with hate about Paul.....and hate speech about many things.....
Oh I get it, when I post ACCURATE articles about Paul it is considered hate speech? Thanks for proving my point.
If you call unfair and biased Faux Noise "accurate articles" we don't have to challenge it
And Flooding threads is something you do VERY well, better than most. We don't have to bring attention to our candidate, you do it for us by posting the Faux Noise articles that everyone knows is NOT news, and usually doesn't contain much truth either. I only post a FEW threads to counter the 10+ threads a day the same couple users flood the forums with about their "Messiah" (I believe that's what cults call their leaders nowdays). So, if 4 or 5 people, post 1 or 2 threads each, about a candidate who is running for POTUS it's flooding a thread, but if 1 guy posts 10 or 12 "anti threads" to combat them it's not?
You should run for congress!
|
|
|
|
|
