The Honorable Dr. Ron Paul is known among his supporters as a strict constitutionalist. He reportedly carries a pocket edition of the Constitution around with him. He’s railed against rampant and wasteful government spending, particularly at the federal level:
But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.
That’s good, right? He’s a fiscal conservative. Not so fast. According to the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), it turns out that Dr. Paul may not be practicing what he preaches:
Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.
The Wall Street Journal reports Paul’s office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.
Well, he must have a good explanation for this. Here’s what his spokesman had to say:
Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked,” the spokesman said. “What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it’s not by accident.
Wow! That’s spin right out of Senator Robert “Barbaric!” Byrd’s play book, and reminiscent of Tom Delay’s “no more fat left to trim” comment a couple of years ago.
Here’s a pdf containing all of Dr. Paul’s earmark requests.
125 Responses to “Looking for Shrimp in the Constitution”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:03 am
No surprise. He’s a politician. End of story.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Ron Paul’s reasoning, which took me a while to figure out, is this: the money claimed by earmarks WILL be spent; it’s not a question of how much earmarking there will be, but who will get it. The only way to kill the earmarks is to kill the entire bill, which Ron Paul consistently votes to do, year after year. Since he cannot win the overall budget battle, he does his best to ensure that a fair share of the earmarked money at least returns to the taxpayers he represents, and not exclusively to someone else’s constituents. Once in a while his earmarks stick and his constituents get a bit of the federal loot returned to them in public projects (not as good as tax refunds, but better than nothing).
Yeah, it’s too clever by half (he gets it both ways–he votes against all spending, but still manages to bring home some bacon), but it is consistent with his philosophy.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:49 am
Read this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=10937&highlight=earmark#9
Basically:
The government is going to spend this money one way or another. By NOT earmarking the funds, you just give the bureaucracy $XX million dollars and say “have at it”.
By earmarking it, you put where the money should be, back to the people, rather than trusting the bureaucracy.
However, when the earmarks go on for voting, he VOTES AGAINST HIS OWN EARMARKS.
So, please, do your research. The old media is known for telling half truths.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:01 am
How many shrimp farmers are in Ron’s district?
Product, not height.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:42 am
“Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending”
Pure lies.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:56 am
I have more than ample reason to not like Ron Paul, but what was said in #2 and #3 makes sense. Someone is going to get the money, so it might as well be his constituents, right? If it gains him votes in the process then so be it. On this at least Ron Paul is choosing the pragmatic route. He still doesn’t have a hope in Hades at becoming POTUS, but he stays electable with the folks at home. The cult of personality lives on.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:06 am
A principle is a principle is a principle. If you’re going tattle to Mom when you and the rest of your siblings get into the cookie jar don’t try and tell her the only reason you did is because they were going to eat them all anyway.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Oh I agree that it’s wrong. Especially so coming from a supposedly “principled” guy like him. Sadly, right and wrong aren’t concepts that enjoy much of an audience with politicians, even the ones who blather on about what strict constitutionalists they are.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:18 am
I tend to agree with Hamous. Either he is against earmarks, or he is for them. You don’t offer a Police Officer a bribe, just because everyone else is doing it. And let’s face it, ear-marks are bribes from politicians to receive support, both financially, and at the voting booth.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:36 am
” the ear mark is going to get spent anyway” Why? stop the spending…. stop the pork….. This is a childish excuse. These guys need to get the message……. cut spending, lower taxes or you are gone, GONE. Ron Paul is admitting he cannot control earmarks…….. so he would just bring the boys home? How is it these running for office say they can control things, but our pocketbooks are free to be emptied?
August 7th, 2007 at 7:39 am
It’s the Mongo defense: Ron Paul just pawn in game of life.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Anyway, like I was sayin’, shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey’s uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There’s pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that’s about it.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:10 am
Can some of the Paul Acolytes show me where the money is going to get spent anyway? I’m not sure I buy that concept.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Ron Paul supporters seem to think that the Congress sits down and says “gee, let’s spend $12 trillion. Now, where can we put it?”
It doesn’t work that way. So for Paul to use the excuse that “it will get spent anyway” is nimwitted. And carrying around a copy of the Constitution doesn’t make you a Constitutionalist. Paul also like to throw that around. But believe me, he is no Scalia.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:54 am
#12 when you grow them on a farm how deep do you plant them in the dirt?
And you can wrap them in bacon, piggyshrimp.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Scenario:
$100,000,000. falls out of an unmarked car in the street in front of your house and speeds off. This $ had been collected door to door from you and your community during a time when all of your families are in desperate need. Your neighbors run to the street and scramble for the $$, stuffing their pockets full while you sit on your porch watching because WHY? It is wrong?
Get real….
August 7th, 2007 at 8:59 am
#14 - That’s my perception too but I’m willing to listen to #2 or #3 explain how that works. Is there a special lockbox set aside just for pork that must all be spent each fiscal year?
August 7th, 2007 at 9:03 am
#16 - that scenario is not remotely comparable to earmarks/pork spending. For a guy who supposedly stands on principle as much as Ron Paul, the fact that he still tries to “bring home the bacon” is just an example of how the system corrupts, and why I still think we need the line-item veto.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:06 am
# 12 Faster
I like to eats em raw when they’s antenneas are still wiggling…
August 7th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Elizabeth, if you are standing on the front porch preaching about how you shouldn’t keep that money, that you should give it to the police so it can go back to where it is supposed to be, then yeah, you should stand on your porch and not touch it. I expect my coworkers/family/friends to adhere to the values they preach, why shouldn’t I do the same for my politicians?
August 7th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Guns don’t kill people. Ron Paul kills people.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Ron Paul allows to live.
Ron Paul does not sleep. He waits.
The chief export of Ron Paul is Pain.
Ron Paul’s tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:21 am
The Paul and Congressional colleagues’ argument for taking earmarks because the $ will be spent anyway is playing both ends against the middle. Eventually the middle figures it out. Let us hope “eventually” cometh soon.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:26 am
#12 Faster:
Anyone for Pappa’s seafood or Landry’s for lunch?
#18 jimb: Agree. If it’s deleted, they can’t spend it. But many will still try to find a way to spend it for something else. It’s what they do best..SPEND OUR MONEY.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:36 am
malcolm
Vernon’s Kuntry Katfish on Conroe!
http://www.b4-u-eat.com/houston/restaurants/reviews/rsv2770.asp
August 7th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Why waste bandwidth on these losers - tell us more about the real prospects which will assist in clearing the fog and further informed decision making by the voter.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Ron Paul’s frown brings rain. Therefore, we must keep RP happy.
Ron Paul’s brain waves are capable of cooking food for a radius of 10 feet.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Ron Paul knows what Willis was talking about!
August 7th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Bubba Paul is my best good friend.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:52 am
#24 faster: Never tried it but surely will. I’m up that way a couple of times a month. Thanks!
August 7th, 2007 at 9:53 am
He’s not stupid; he’s possessed by a retarded ghost.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:55 am
Is that Ron’s momma Mrs. Paul who sells the frozen fish in the supermarket?
August 7th, 2007 at 10:02 am
Ron has to be very smart, his momma figured out a way to get fish to stay on a stick. She sells lots of them fish sticks.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:20 am
This is the best that y’all can do? Dr. Paul has explained this in the past. You look it.
I do not like it but I do not hold Dr. Paul to be the sinless saviour. Dr. Ron is still the best one to begin a real change into fiscal responisbility.
In his own words:
www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061807.htm
My experience with Captain’s Quarters is that they are not inclined to like Dr. Paul.
www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010430.php
www.sunlightfoundation.com/earmarksFAQ
www.porkbusters.org/2007/07/spirit_of_1776.php
www.spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pviE8jORCkXRSyyLov2R5Ew
August 7th, 2007 at 10:29 am
From your Captain’s Quarters link:
That’s what I’m saying.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:44 am
If I carry a cookbook in my pocket, does that make me a chef?
August 7th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Would The Honorable Dr Ron Paul qualify as a Potentate? I think Overlord has a better ring to it though.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:47 am
35
“If I carry a cookbook in my pocket, does that make me a chef?”
I thought you were just happy to see us…
http://wav.unclebubby.com/wav/SOUNDFX/rimshot.wav
August 7th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Even though Ron Paul is a allegedly a cannibal. He doesn’t eat clowns because they “taste funny”.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Ron Paul is a kook.
The republicans are liberals/socialists wearing conservative costumes.
Democrats are naked socialist/communist.
I’ll take Ron Paul!
August 7th, 2007 at 10:53 am
#34 I posted the link because the site cannot be classigied as Paulbot-ian and the discussion was good.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:04 am
36.
Not a Potentate. Maybe a potato.
37. Thank you.
40.
Yes, and The Hon. Dr. Ron Paul has won every debate. Hands down. No questions asked. Because he is a Consitutionalist. How do I know? Because he carries it around and tells everybody about it.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Yo Rick
Too bad Bush doesnt even know what the Constitution is nor does he care what it says. In fact neither does any of the “top tier” candidates on either side of the isle.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:14 am
How does ole Ronnie view the internet and freedom as a whole?
“I believe strongly that the internet should not be regulated by the federal government and believes even more strongly that people should be free to engage in the activities they wish, as long as they are willing to take responsibility for their actions.”
August 7th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Gotta save those Wild American Shrimp, though.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Save the Wild American Shrimp:
http://www.planetdan.net/pics/misc/midgetwrestlers.jpg
August 7th, 2007 at 11:38 am
#41 Nothing like an intelligent discussions.
#43 The question I sent to be asked in the last debate was: When was the last time you read the Constitution and which books have you read in the last 6 months. I did not see the debate but I doubt the question was used.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Jaime, I am more interested in the results that a politician in office has achieved than what books he/she has read in the last 6 months. How often do you have to re-read the constitution to be a good candidate? Your question for the debate has very little to do with government or politics, it would be like asking them what they ate for dinner last night.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Ron Paul and intelligent discussion would be an oxymoron, like…… JUMBO SHRIMP?
August 7th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Jaime, I’ve asked an intelligent question several times and have yet to hear a good answer from the Ron Paul supporters. “If I don’t spend it, somebody else will” is not a good answer.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
42. You haven’t seen me defending GW Bush for many moons, so I don’t get your point.
46. Ron Paul is a kook and a political freakshow. I save the “intelligent” conversation for those who reside on planet Earth.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
#50 -
Doesn’t matter. You’re against Ron Paul therefore you must be for George Bush. You probably mow the heads off kittens too.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Sigh!
#47 Results? You mean, being successful of adding more Federal laws and intrusions by the government into our lives?
August 7th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
51. Hamous
Thanks for clearing that up. Now I understand.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
If it walks like a duck, quacks, well, you know the rest. Paul’s claims of being a strict constitutionalist are nothing more than a smoke screen. Is there any politician out there anywhere, that can be trusted to be honest? I’ll give Dan a pass, but surely there have to be others.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Jaime, can you point to a single legislative bill that Ron Paul led the charge to successfully derail? I never hear any mention of the work he has done in Congress, except when he is trying to defend himself as a “Constitutionalist.” He comes off to the public as being lots of talk and no action. The President has to be a leader, someone who can galvanize the troops around a message. So far Ron Paul has shown he can get the conservative version of the Kos Kids to rally to him, but not much else.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
mmmmmm…well worth the drive!
August 7th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
55
“point to a single legislative bill that Ron Paul led the charge to successfully derail”
It doesn’t matter, he has a copy of the Conroe phone book in his briefcase.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
55.
A local politician once told me that Republicans in Congress view Ron Paul as the Dems view Sheila Jackson Lee.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
If elected will Ron Paul legalize smoking grass?
That would increase shrimp sales.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
59. AZ
Brilliant. Now THAT’s a platform that could get him over the 2% hump. Except his new followers would likely forget where the polling place is.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
No wonder the GOP is in such disarray. You are measuring “success” by what the politicians saddle us with.
I guess there are more people willing to horse trade their votes than I thought. No wonder the Federal government continues to grow. It is the sine qua non of “success.”
August 7th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Enumerate Paul’s successes, please.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
#59, no problem if there is food at the polling places they will find their way.
Lots of White Castle hamburgers will draw them.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Jaime - a few months ago we had a discussion about Paul’s pro-life voting record, which is mixed. You explained that he voted nay on many bills restricting abortion because it is not a federal issue. I accepted that as a legitimate position, assuming you don’t think the constitution protects unborn humans. Its a position I disagree with but I understand his reasoning. So how can you defend his requests for earmarks? It just makes no sense.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
63. AZ
White Castle. Mmmmmmm. Ron Paul is sounding better and better. More onions, please.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
That they do not add any additional costs is a valid defense.
I do not like it because it is difficult to discern how much, or if at all, he is banking on the Bill passing despite his voting against it.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
#62 Everytime that he votes against adding unconstitutional laws/expenditures is a success to me.
What do you call success? The horse trading, I’ll vote for your whatever if you vote for my whatever?
August 7th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
#66 We’ll just disagree, then, since I don’t buy that it doesn’t add any additional cost. Its still the “everyone else is doing it” defense. It’s money that doesn’t need to be spent. They make the rules. They can apply the money to the deficit. They could give it back to the states. They could give it back to the taxpayers.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I call success a reduction in federal government spending. Requesting earmarks does not do that.
August 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
And if your understanding of earmarks is wrong?
August 7th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
“You are measuring “success” by what the politicians saddle us with.”
Ummmm, yeah…
August 7th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
http://earmarks.omb.gov/earmarks_definition.html
OMB defines earmarks as funds provided by the Congress for projects or programs where the congressional direction (in bill or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds allocation process.
Earmarks vs. Unrequested Funding. At the broadest level, unrequested funding is any additional funding provided by the Congress — in either bill or report language — for activities/projects/programs not requested by the Administration. Earmarks are a subset of unrequested funding. The distinction between earmarks and unrequested funding is programmatic control or lack thereof of in the allocation process.
Earmarks and Programmatic “Control.” If the congressional direction accompanying a project/program/funding in an appropriations bill or report or other communication purports to affect the ability of the Administration to control critical aspects of the awards process for the project/program/funding, this IS an earmark. Note: The definition of “control critical aspects” includes specification of the location or recipient or otherwise circumventing the merit-based or competitive allocation process and may be program specific. However, if the Congress adds funding and the Administration retains control over the awards process for the project/program/funding, it is NOT an earmark; it is unrequested funding.
Earmarks Include:
A. Add-ons. If the Administration asks for $100 million for formula grants, for example, and Congress provides $110 million and places restrictions (such as site-specific locations) on the additional $10 million, the additional $10 million is counted as an earmark.
B. Carve-outs. If the Administration asks for $100 million and Congress provides $100 million but places restrictions on some portion of the funding, the restricted portion is counted as an earmark.
C. Funding provisions that do not name a recipient, but are so specific that only one recipient can qualify for funding.
OMB has used this definition to gather data on earmarks internally. This definition is similar to the definition that the Congress recently developed for disclosing earmarks in spending legislation (H. Res. 6 and the Senate-passed version of S. 1).
August 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Jaime, I don’t care what the rules are. I understand that current rules allocate a certain amount of dollars for pork. If the rules are bad they need to be changed. Accepting pork because “well, them’s the rules” is not an effective strategy for decreasing federal spending.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
#71 Let them all, then, fail.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
#72 Bu..Bu..Bu.. Jaime - that’s not black and white - Eskimo Pie - clear and concise! It either IS or it ISN’T! There’s no room for a grey area. Grey areas make people NERVOUS and want to shoot things! Get with the program!
/sarc off
August 7th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
#16 no Liz, if that happens you run into the street screaming stop stop you are stealing this money. It’s not yours, it goes to those for whom we collected. Shame on you, give it back. Don’t just sit back and watch it be stolen. Scream at em. Run at him…. make em feel like thieves.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
IF Paul were serious about cutting spending, he would run on no earmarks, And divulge all the earmarks everyone else grabs. Isn’t Murtha number 1? Truth in politics…. honor among thieves.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
And while I am on this subject, why do we allow Ron Paul to call himself a Republican?
August 7th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
RickG posts Gore = 31 comments
bigjolly posts Romney = 6 comments
RickG posts Obama/Hillary = 14 comments
Owen posts Huckabee = 39 comments
and
Hamous posts Ron Paul = 78 comments
Amazing, just amazing…
August 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
#75 - Wrong. It’s not consistent with his self-imposed persona as the Strict Constitutionalist On High, something he and his supporters parade in front of the rest of us peons that just don’t understand. Dance around the issue all you want but nowhere in the constitution does allow for funding (at the federal level) things like research on wild American shrimp or demolishing a vacant movie theater. Its a case of the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul’s chickens coming home to roost.
This is how I described the Ron Paul phenomenon earlier today - Paul supporters speak of him in hushed and reverent tones like infatuated 1960’s girl groupies did with Davy Jones, “Ooooh! He’s soooo dreamy!”
August 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
As far as I am aware Dr. Paul makes his requests through letter. They are available.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
#79 texpat - its all Ron Paul. The contributors have a secret pact. Each of us only gets to do a Paul post once a week because of the life it sucks out of the rest of the posts. Another example of the Paul phenomenon.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Constitution In Your Pocket
The only other member of Congress I know of who brags about carrying a copy of the Constitution in their pocket is Robert Byrd. I believe no further comment is needed.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
#81 - Jaime, I linked to them at the bottom of the post. All 65 of them for FY2008.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
“speak of him in hushed and reverent tones”
Like he’s one of the Nazgul?
http://sdh.gmxhome.de/nazgul.jpg
August 7th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
#84 Doh!
August 7th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
83. LOL
Challenge by duhmoose:
Challenge by Hamous:
I have seen no one meet either of these challenges. Could it be that he hasn’t done anything worthwhile in Congress?
Voting “no” a bunch of times is not my measure of success.
When is the last time you heard this on the evening news: “The landmark legislation was sponsored by Congressman Ron Paul”?
August 7th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I would accept his overturning of bad legislation as a success too.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Don’t know nuffin ’bout Ron Paul and don’t want to know since I don’t give a hoot about him. But I DO know human nature. Is his holier than thou persona stepping on a few toes? (And this little piggie went “WEE WEE WEE - all the way home…”)
August 7th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
#89 - No, but he sure is dreamy!
August 7th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
#35. In the famous words of Quanell Tenth - “A cat can have kittens in the oven but dat(that) don’t make ‘em(them) biscuits!”.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
The real issue is that there is NO other elected official in this country that has written as much as Dr. Paul has about as many real life effecting issues as Dr. Paul has. He has a twenty plus year track record on banking issues, international affairs, taxation, monetary policy,govt spending, this man has his history to back him up… instead you neo-cons have only 2 paragraphs from your congressmans quartly newsletter when they blow smoke in your face …..the real problem is that the neo-cons change their shorts as often as Dr. Paul has changed his position over the last twenty years
and that helps to explain why the current republician party stinks so much….
August 7th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
#92 - All that and four bucks will get you a large Starbucks coffee. He hasn’t accomplished anything!
August 7th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
92.
See post 87. Take up the challenge. Surely you can tell us about the Honorable Ron Paul’s many legislative accomplishments.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
when Dr. Paul was reelected in 94 he was alone in his belief system that this govt does not EVER listen to the people anymore….now there is a Caucus of over 40 congressmen that believe the same way ….
change comes slow when 90+ percent of the congress has gotten themselves in to comprimising situations and have held over them if they do not do as they are told ….
August 7th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I wonder why the honest and Honorable Dr. Ron Paul’s Presidential website “Issues” section not mention he opposes the death penalty.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
I’d rather have a congressman with a constitution in his pocket than be a neo-con with a pocket dictator
wake up and realize…you are being led down a path of destruction….read patriot act one and two… see who they could label a “terrorist” ANY ONE WHO COMMITS A VIOLATION OF ANY LAW >>>LOCAL STATE OR FEDERAL is subject to being called a terrorist…..go to white house dot gov read the PDDs
and the excutive orders that have been written
and tell me that all is well and good in the republic……
I am always concerned that al-CIA-da may come and get me …with plastic box cutters…..google tom osman…..take the red pill…
August 7th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
#90 Ron Paul is dreamy?! In who’s world? Are we talking about the same man? He looks like the old geezer that married Anna Nichole Smith!
August 7th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
roadkillbr549
When you chew on your hat, does it make your teeth all “shocky?”
http://www.moviesoundscentral.com/sounds/lord_of_the_rings/shapefortune.wav
August 7th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
LOL! Tom Osman. The cat’s outta the bag now. Nothing here to see.
August 7th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
your God of all things political Ronald Reagan had most of the same belief system as Dr. paul..Dr. Paul did not leave the reservation… The reservation went and got drunk on Neo-Con liquor and is now sleeping it off on Neo-Con gift blankets full of small pox, anthrax, and hoof and mouth disease….
August 7th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Where’s Rastus? We need a good spaghetti bowlful of conspiracy story here.
But seriously hwyman, don’t hide behind code words. Step out of the shadows!
August 7th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Ron Paul is as dreamy as Ross Perot……. is that a good enough example? I agree Elizabeth!
August 7th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Yeah but y’all aren’t Ron Paul groupies.
August 7th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Ron Paul groupies?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmbiji_uP6c
August 7th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
101.
That’s like saying the Titanic had most of the same safety features as the QE II.
The Honorable Dr. Ron Paul’s distinctiveness lies in his wackiness. And there, he has it all over Ronald Reagan.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I missed the whole Ron Paul groupie thing… Haven’t even caught wind of it yet and I try to stay informed. Why would he have groupies? I thought all Republican groupies were drooling over the fantasy of Fred Thompson - the reincarnate Ronald Reagan.
And why hasn’t anyone mentioned that his wife looks like she’s 12 years old? That image of a First Jail Bait is not what I want in my Whitehouse.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
107.
She looks like she’s 12 years old? What part of her?
August 7th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
OOOOO I see a nasty RPAcolyte. He must be one of them Holy Crusader type.
Paul and Reagan may well have shared the same ideals, there is just one minor difference that you neglect. Reagan stood on principle.
Oh wait there is a second difference
Ron Paul is a whackjob.
Started out as a libertarian, got elected as a Republican (read RINO) and now he is some Constitution guru. And when I listen to him he sounds like the looney left. Look at his record he is a gelded hypocrite.
Interesting thing about politicians and leaders of a cult, they have many faces.
August 7th, 2007 at 7:56 pm
#107 Liz / Mrs. Thompson
This woman looks twelve years old ?
http://entimg.msn.com/i/wi/04/02/22/52345/2275635.jpg
August 7th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
And I don’t think Jeri Thompson is some trophy wife either, having served in the past as spokesman for the Republican National Committee:
“The upheavals have highlighted the key role of Mr Thompson’s second wife, a lawyer and Republican political operative widely believed to have encouraged him to enter the fray. As her husband’s de facto campaign manager, Mrs Thompson has the greatest hands-on role of any spouse in the presidential campaign, even though she has so far steered well clear of the political hustings.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/29/wuspols129.xml
August 7th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
#111 The trophy wife thing is just a hit piece by the MSM to kill Thompson……. The dems would like to pick Hilarys adversary.
August 7th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
110
hommina…. hommina…. hommina
http://members.aol.com/Liz6099/EEB.WAV
August 7th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
O.K., to be honest, I didn’t read 1/2 these post, but here’s the jiggy on this one for me. AHEM…
Wild salty home-grown Gulf Shrimp, have a better flavor than those sewage-recalled fresh water, farm raised Asian shrimp. I don’t give a rat’s behind if Asian farm raised shrimp are cheaper. Most restaurants serve them, and I can tell the difference. They don’t taste good. Dunno if it’s the fresh water or sewage that makes it taste like crap.
Our gulf shrimpers get up WAY before the crack of dawn to find shrimp, in order to put food on their families tables. I’ve even managed to talk one of the shrimpers outa their lunch. I offered to pay for that lovely redfish, but he couldn’t sell it to me, because he didn’t have a license to sell it. Hey, he still had a speckeled trout left!
Our shrimp have been over shrimped. We need to replenish them just like we do redfish, and other fish from the TPWD, and other organizations. What our license fee’s go to pay for.
Personally, I HATE earmarks. Our shrimp are being depleted. Surely we can find money somewhere to help our shrimpers. C’mon, we live on the GULF coast. Shrimp is FOOD. Not a bridge to nowhere. They just cutoff housing for Katrina refugees, didn’t they? Refugees like shrimp too.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
111
Heh, heh. Squawk, texpat said “hands-on” about Jeri.
August 7th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
/Strike that one for consideration for the coveted LST Moderator job.
RickG
WE ARE GOING TO GET OUR HANDS ON JERI!!
Dibs on shotgun.
August 7th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
#116: PFFFFT! Just please don’t holler, Jeee-riii, Jeeee-riii, Jeeee-riii, unless I have some fried fresh gulf shrimp. O.K.?
Nytol. I’m gonna be dreaming about
That ain’t about it for recipes! mmmmmm, shrimp….
August 7th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Man, they didn’t make twelve year olds like that when I was twelve! Ok, someone was asking the other day if you could be reincarnated what would you want to come back as. I want to be a 12 year old Hamous living next door to Jeri Thompson. She could be my best good friend.
August 7th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Oh, how desparate can you people get? LOL
The Federal Governemnt will spend a certain amount of money on public projects. Ron Paul consistantly votes NO against the spending, but when the neo cons go ahead and pass it anyway he does the right thing by his constituents and brings the money back home! Jeez…with all the skeletons in Rudy’s closet and Romney’s flip flopping THIS is all you’ve got? Gimme a break! Sheer utter desperation.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:54 am
I voted for earmarks before I voted against them.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:57 am
And you whack jobs will believe anything the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul tells you. You have your marching orders, now go forth and spread the message.
L. Ron HubbardRon Paul is our savior! Give ME a break.August 8th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Back on the saddle.
#121 No one can accuse me of thinking that Dr. Paul is the/a saviour. I have been reading and listening to Dr. Paul for a number of years, though, and I do remember history.
The statement below, by Former POTUS Ronald Raegan (the former Democrat), is what is defined by todaqy’s terms paleo-conservatism and minarchism.
Now, where do you find the legitimate functions of the Federal govervment? I know, I know. It is in that silly, boring, thingy that some people like to carry in their pockets that some actually do try to follow.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29318.html
If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:05 am
119.
Uh, sure. We are utterly desperate to stop this Paul for President train from breezing to the nomination.
At 2%, I don’t think there’s much to worry about.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:06 am
122. Jaime
I don’t know the point in quoting Ronald Reagan. Anyone who suggests that Paul is similar to Reagan is ignorant of the fact or dishonest.
Because he holds some of the conservative views as Reagan (so do hundreds of others in Congress), does not cast him in the same mold. Reagan was not a nut. Paul is.
August 8th, 2007 at 11:30 am
For the record, I’ve conversed with Jaime enough to know he doesn’t fall into the savior-worshiping of the many other RP acolytes.