Reply With Quote
As I was saying in another thread, Tea Party Candidate <> Republican Candidate.
There is a difference.
Boner and McConnell just choked on their MIC sponsored souffles.....
RawstoryGovernment spending is sure to be one of the biggest targets now that Republicans have won back the House, but there have been few details on exactly what programs will see their budgets slashed.
Senator-elect Rand Paul (R-KY) probably surprised some Republicans Sunday when he said he would be willing to cut military spending.
"Yes, yes," Paul responded when asked if he would vote for defense cuts. In doing so, he highlighted the libertarian streak among some of the candidates propelled to office by the tea party movement. Like his father, Ron Paul, Rand Paul is considered to be at the libertarian end of the GOP's political spectrum, and libertarians have long been calling for a scaling back of US military ambitions.
In that respect, the new Congress could see some infighting among traditional Republican war-hawks and those seeking to do battle with the deficit.
Hope Paul isn't going anywhere on any small planes soon...
As I was saying in another thread, Tea Party Candidate <> Republican Candidate.
There is a difference.
Net result, no cuts in military spending.
Unless the tea nonparty candidates vote with Democrats.
Which they probably won't.
Therefore Tea = Republican.
I think the Paul's themselves are the exceptions. Quit giving credit to people just because they have a (T) at the end of their name. O'Donnell, Angle, and Miller would have voted in line with the rest of the GOP because they don't bite the hands that feed.
Or maybe...you think the majority of "Tea Party Candidates" get their money/exposure from word of mouth and grassroots rallies?
nothing's going to change, Paul is just blowin smoke up tea bagger's asses. The MIC will buy him off like a $10 .
I guarantee that tea baggers don't want ANY MIC cuts that would fall in their districts.
The Paul Political Dynasty cannot be bought.
Paul Political Dynasty
has not passed, written?, any legislation that moves the country towards their fringe ideals. They won't, they can't, not enough votes, not enough seniority.
Revealed: Rand Paul reverses on core campaign pledge before even taking office
In an interview published over the weekend with the Wall Street Journal, Paul signaled a major backtrack on a core campaign promise: cutting federal earmarks. The promise is a hallmark of Republican candidates of all stripes, who advocate that a smaller government is in the national interest and that money doled out for special progress is tantamount to backroom dealing.
===
As I've been saying all along, the ignorant, simplistic, bubba tea baggers were suckered into voting VRWC-financed candidates into office.
Boehner and McConnell started pussing out on Earmarks the day after the elections.
they all do.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...626268782.html
The only thing that surprised me is how quickly he became just another GOP member.
I had so much hope for Rand being the Ron Paul 2.0, but I guess the book isn't written yet until we see what actions take place either way.
First, the mainstream media is biased against Rand. So you have to be cautious when stories come out trying to undermine his cred.
2nd, I think he still has the fed at the top of his list. Stay tuned, rather than write him off immediately after the election because of some bull by a MSM journalist.
And Boutons, you talk a big game, but what a huge irony that the one candidate that might bring actual change you have him written off as unable to secure enough votes. If you cant support third parties when you and I both know the two parties are " ed and un able," you are nothing more than a ing windbag buddy.
It was an interview. If Paul didn't say those things, he should be suing right now.
Heroes let you down.2nd, I think he still has the fed at the top of his list. Stay tuned, rather than write him off immediately after the election because of some bull by a MSM journalist.
How deliciously vague of you. Is that really all you can come up with when someone legitimately criticizes a politician you support?
I think Chump's estimation is dead-on, personally. Rand Paul's quickly established himself as "Just-another-GOPer."
I think you'd know a bit about being a windbag. Between Boutons, Homeland Security, and you, this board has plenty of hot, useless air (or keystrokes).And Boutons, you talk a big game, but what a huge irony that the one candidate that might bring actual change you have him written off as unable to secure enough votes. If you cant support third parties when you and I both know the two parties are " ed and un able," you are nothing more than a ing windbag buddy.
That's too bad. I thought he'd bring the machine down with the blood of The Ron running through his veins.
Supporting a US 3rd party is like supporting virginity for Hollywood starlet wannabes.
Ron Paul ain't done in his career, and his spawn Ayn Paul ain't gonna do , either.
Ummm, what?.Ron Paul ain't done in his career, and his spawn Ayn Paul ain't gonna do , either
What have you done for your country today boutons?
Ron Paul does not take any earmark money. The money is earmarked to the public as allocated by law. Ron Paul is paid a salary according to law for his work. He is not paid with earmark money.
Damn, you're stupid.
If Rand Paul goes back to what his Dad thinks and away from the Neocons trying to hijack him....the country will be better for it.
Both Pauls are irrelevant. They aren't enough votes to pass legislation, and what major legislation had Ron Paul written or influenced?
How many time has Ron Paul voted with Repugs vs with Dems?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
