7,790 responses to “Ron Paul’s Farewell Address to Congress”

  1. jackmode61

    No, it isn’t. A hypocrite would claim they want less spending, then vote in favour of bills that increase spending…which Ron Paul rarely does. Just because he wants less spending, doesn’t mean he loses the right to decide how the money will be spent if the bill he voted ‘nay’ to passes anyway.

    »crosslinked«

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. du mai

    Then don’t make the claim you want less spending if you want to stuff those bills with your own spending plans.

    That is the definition of a hypocrite.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. jackmode61

    Why not?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. H37official

    This is the most important video on youtube.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. du mai

    Then Ron Paul shouldn’t stuff those bills (WashingtonPost) with his own spending plans.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. jackmode61

    Ron Paul didn’t write the Act.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. du mai

    Then that is simple, don’t write the Act.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. jackmode61

    I am generalizing here, but this is what typically would happen. Congress raises an Act to vote on. Ron Paul generally votes Nay. The Act passes because the majority of the Congress has voted in its favour. Ron Paul would then earmark funds in the Act. I am not trying to say he is perfect, but he does have the most consistent voting record in Congress, and was hands down the most fiscally conservative member in Congress.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. jackmode61

    I am not even sure if you can do that, I believe the funds need to be spent in the manner that the Act specifies.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. du mai

    Hm…

    So if the earmarks would be spent anyway, why not spend it on paying off the debt?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. du mai

    Hm…

    So if the earmarks would be spent anyway, why not spend it on paying off the debt?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. jackmode61

    I think we agree, it’s just a misunderstanding of what earmarking is. Say the government allocates $1B dollars for a bank bailout, earmarking would be the practise of choosing how this money is spent. If Ron Paul doesn’t earmark, the $1B is spent regardless (but not necessarily on the projects Ron Paul would have chosen). The proper thing to do would have been to vote Nay to the Act in the first place.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. du mai

    Exactly, so why have earmarks in the first place?

    Earmarks come from taxpayers, as do all government money.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. jackmode61

    Why allocate the funds in the first place?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. du mai

    You do realize you don’t have to spend those funds on earmarks.

    For example, those “earmarks” could be “allocated” to pay off the debt.

    Thought about that?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. argimenes

    Ron Paul is far greater than the over-hyped and under-skilled Picasso ever was.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. jackmode61

    You do realize that earmarking is simply allocating funds that are already spent.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. du mai

    The Act provides $1.6 billion toward investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against women, imposes automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allows civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted. The Act also establishes the Office on Violence Against Women within the Department of Justice. Its coverage extends to male victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. du mai

    IS that why Ron Paul accepted $577 million in earmarks in just one year?

    Rather than using the earmarks to pay down the debt…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. du mai

    IS that why Ron Paul accepted $577 million in earmarks in just one year?

    Rather than using the earmarks to pay down the debt…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. jackmode61

    Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012. Ron Paul believes in individual rights, therefore because a women is a individual person, she is already protected against violence. What is the purpose of this Act, to further protect women? Why not have a Violence Against Babies Reauthorization Act? A Violence Against Native American Reauthorization Act? They are already protected as individuals.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. jackmode61

    Spending Reduction Act still allowed for the gov’t to increase spending each year, but reduced the rate at which the spending increased. The name is very deceiving. Ron Paul proposed reducing the amount spent by $1 Trillion dollars.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. George X

    How about spreading the massage.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. steez153

    dont blame others, blame yourselves.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. spazitude80

    I want to go to Texas and shake this mans hand and his son

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. blablananan

    Wow, this guy could’ve changed the world, good job guys.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Matt Beeman

    We will look back in 20 years and realize this man was the best congressman we ever had. His policies are what we need

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. du mai

    The thing with Ron Paul is that he states that he has NEVER voted to increase spending. This contradicts with his decision to vote NAY to REDUCE spending, implying that he would INCREASE spending.

    CISPA takes away many Internet freedom by making government bigger. Ron Paul not voting to kill the bill implies that he has no intention of protecting Internet freedom. This contradicts with his belief the government should be smaller.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. du mai

    The thing with Ron Paul is that he states that he has NEVER voted to increase spending. This contradicts with his decision to vote NAY to REDUCE spending, implying that he would INCREASE spending.

    CISPA takes away many Internet freedom by making government bigger. Ron Paul not voting to kill the bill implies that he has no intention of protecting Internet freedom. This contradicts with his belief the government should be smaller.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. Madferitleeds

    I’m English so I’m not familiar with particular U.S bills but I’m sure there’s a reason he voted against the Spending Reduction Act other than he doesn’t actually want state spending to decrease.

    As for the other bills (other than CIPSA, which i’m surprised at), I have no idea what exactly these bills entail so I couldn’t comment.

    Ron Paul, for me, seemed like one of the only straight talking U.S politicians and one of the only serious Republican candidates that could be seen as a Libertarian

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. du mai

    SURE, Ron Paul asked for over $1billion for his district for “trash cans…decorative street lights…shrimp fishing research” -Associated Press

    Ron Paul also voted NAY :
    1. Spending Reduction Act of 2012 (Thought he was for less spending)
    2. Pathway to Job Creation through a Simpler, Fairer Tax Code Act of 2012 (Thought he wanted a simpler tax code)
    3. Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012 (Wait what?? He voted NAY on THAT???)

    Oh, and also, Ron Paul did not vote on CISPA LOL!!!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Madferitleeds

    explain what is hypocritical about him

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. Justin Fowler

    Ron Paul starts sounding like an anarcho-capitalist right about 24:45 – heh.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. dolphanatic23

    Too many people expect Ron Paul to be a perfect man or a perfect politician. He is not that at all. But his ideology is stimulating. And this ideology is much older than Ron Paul and modern Libertarianism.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. q0w1e2r3t4y5

    Thank you for your job.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply