HRC

[Julio3000]

LOL... you made the point about him not being constitutional... do you have any proof of that?

You're being obtuse here - which is rare for you.

Deciding how approved money is spent is constitutional duty of the congress. It's a way to keep separation from the executive branch to avoid giving the president a blank check.

Ron Paul is against the SPENDING so votes against the bills. But if a bill for $100 billion is up, he thinks every single penny in it should be earmarked by congress to a specific project -- rather than giving the president a blank check. In addition, since his constituents are forced to pay their share of taxes, he feels that IF the bills will pass OVER his vote against the bills, his constituents should get their share.

Lastly... I laugh that this is an "issue" that you now have "gored the ox of RP"... earmark spending makes up something like 1% of federal spending... divide that by 335 districts and see how much federal spending Ron Paul is responsible for...

I'll do the math for you... 0%... because he votes against the spending.

Dude, I understand how earmarks work.

I asked you about the general welfare clause earlier. Did you just miss that part? Look at Ron Paul's specific earmark requests in the context of the general welfare clause, which for the last 80 years or so has been functioning under a very narrow interpretation of how federal dollars are allowed to be spent. Do you think they pass HIS OWN constitutional test in that regard?

Also, you seem to misunderstand what appropriations are all about. Congress exercises its power of the purse by approving (or not) any funds drawn from the Treasury. There is no constitutional mandate that congress decide how, specifically, to spend it. In fact, there are distinct limits on the specificity of the uses of funds that are appropriated. Can you show me where it says otherwise?

 

[sturg33]

Dude, I understand how earmarks work.

I asked you about the general welfare clause earlier. Did you just miss that part? Look at Ron Paul's specific earmark requests in the context of the general welfare clause, which for the last 80 years or so has been functioning under a very narrow interpretation of how federal dollars are allowed to be spent. Do you think they pass HIS OWN constitutional test in that regard?

Also, you seem to misunderstand what appropriations are all about. Congress exercises its power of the purse by approving (or not) any funds drawn from the Treasury. There is no constitutional mandate that congress decide how, specifically, to spend it. In fact, there are distinct limits on the specificity of the uses of funds that are appropriated. Can you show me where it says otherwise?

You'll have to show me specific earmark requests he's made that you have a problem with. I'm not bothering to go look for it because he voted against the spending... and that's good enough for me.

You can screech away all day about him being hypocritical... But he truly believes the congress should designate the spending.. him earmarking for his district does NOT increase spending. He votes against the spending... like the majority of reps should do.

I haven't agreed with everything Ron Paul has done. He certainly mismanaged his campaign with very seemingly obvious nepotism that I was not happy about. But I don't have an issue with him earmarking spending. If you do - that is fine. But I'm certain that you understand your nitpicking at the smallest level of importance here to try to play "gotcha" on Ron Paul. Like I said, if it truly disturbs you... then good for you. And I hope your convictions yield similar litany tests to your future voting behavior

 

[50PoundHead]

I agree with you there, but then technocrats actually form a pretty non-trivial component of Clinton's base ...

And that is the problem. The technocratic "science of government" approach has largely come from the left side of the spectrum. That worked for progressives during the New Deal and ensuring equitable delivery of services in a nation that had really refused to address societal changes that began in the Gilded Age that had caused problems that needed to be faced. That generally held until the "era of limited resources" was launched in some people's minds. Since then, technocracy has been about setting very narrow priorities instead of truly tackling issues. I'm not a fan of big government, but I am a fan of effective government and the narrowing of the scope of so many programs has made technocracy a conservative tool.

 

[57Brave]

No doubt, consumers could use the help managing their student loan debt. Student loan delinquencies have been growing. More than a third of borrowers have been late on a payment at least once in the past year, and a quarter of them, more than once, according to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Investor Education Foundation's 2015 Financial Capability in the United States report. (See chart below for more details on demographic breakdown.)

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/car...a-pizza/ar-BBukGyS?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

 

[sturg33]

 

[Julio3000]

So I guess we should tune out when Rand Paul talks about meritocracy,right?

 

[sturg33]

So I guess we should tune out when Rand Paul talks about meritocracy,right?

The funny thing is... the person who posted this meme also said:

Your only retaliation is pointing out how the others are just as bad, and that is EXACTLY my point. But you continue to love and support them (where as I DON'T!!!)

 

[Julio3000]

The funny thing is... the person who posted this meme also said:

Your only retaliation is pointing out how the others are just as bad, and that is EXACTLY my point. But you continue to love and support them (where as I DON'T!!!)

I'll be glad to tip my cap to you (or the OP) for that when I see memes criticizing scions of wealth for promoting bootstrapping and meritocracy.

 

[jpx7]

So I guess we should tune out when Rand Paul talks about meritocracy,right?

Yes, we should.

 

[Krgrecw]

It's now 4:30 pm and Hillary has yet to release a statement about horrific shootings in Louisana this morning. Leadership material right there

 

[sturg33]

It's now 4:30 pm and Hillary has yet to release a statement about horrific shootings in Louisana this morning. Leadership material right there

This is some dumb ass nitpicking.

No reaction is almost always better than Donald's reactions.

 

[Krgrecw]

This is some dumb ass nitpicking.

No reaction is almost always better than Donald's reactions.

Nah. Everyone else (Obama, trump) have released statements.

A simple two line at statement asking for Prayers isn't a lot to ask for. You do have to admit that.

 

[sturg33]

Nah. Everyone else (Obsma, trump) have released statements.

A simple two line at statement asking for Prayers isn't a lot to ask for. You do have to admit that.

It's not a lot to ask for but it's also not something to make someone unqualified.

There is plenty to hate on HRC (plenty)... saying stuff like this makes you sound like 57

 

[Runnin]

It's now 4:30 pm and Hillary has yet to release a statement about horrific shootings in Louisana this morning. Leadership material right there

It's not her place to do that. If she jumped on it she would be accused of trying to profit from tragedy. Until she's president or from Louisiana she should let others take the lead.

 

[cajunrevenge]

I am so tired of hearing the same bull**** after every shooting. Violence has to stop. Got it. We need to come together. Ok. Our prayers are with the victims. Whatever. Is there anyone who really cares what her opinion about this is? Your not going to hear it. Your going to get the same speech they all give in this situation. Thats not critisizing her, thats what everyone outside of maybe Ron Paul would do.

 

[57Brave]

Julia Ioffe ‏@juliaioffe 12h12 hours ago

The crowd chants "Lock her up!" and Christie says, "I'm getting there."

Since when do Americans advocate jailing political opponents?

.....

This is dedicated to everyone here that has advocated without proof HRC (or, fill in the blank ...) the criminal
This is why many of you despite protestation are to blame for the rise of Donald Trump

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-purge-exclusive-idUSKCN10003A

 

[sturg33]

Julia Ioffe ‏@juliaioffe 12h12 hours ago

The crowd chants "Lock her up!" and Christie says, "I'm getting there."

Since when do Americans advocate jailing political opponents?

.....

This is dedicated to everyone here that has advocated without proof HRC (or, fill in the blank ...) the criminal
This is why many of you despite protestation are to blame for the rise of Donald Trump

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-purge-exclusive-idUSKCN10003A

Weren't you on another thread saying Nixon should have been jailed?

Haven't you bitched about Christie's bridge scandal over and over?

Your hypocrisy is astounding

 

[57Brave]

Weren't you on another thread saying Nixon should have been jailed?

Haven't you bitched about Christie's bridge scandal over and over?

Your hypocrisy is astounding

Christie was never legally implicated so, his punishment for the bridge scandal was being publicly humiliated being Trumps Go=Boy
Nixon was pardoned by his 2nd VP. Still sketchy whether that was a condition for his appointment
HRC has been cleared by all investigations

Hypocrisy ?

 

[sturg33]

sigh

The FBI director explicitly said she broke the law.

But she is HRC - an elitist, wealthy, establishment corrupt politician, so no punishment rendered.

It's like saying OJ was a great dude because he was acquitted

 

[57Brave]

To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information. The F.B.I. found neither, and as a result, he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
NY Times July 5

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224

No charges were brought against HRC over the 25 year witch hunt
OJ was acquitted by a jury of his peers as specified

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

.........................