here is one not about the letters he talks about earmarks however its the last question more his answer to that question. Just to funny. To me it shows he says he stands for one thing yet really is no different then the rest.
Term limits..
Yes, it is quite funny - people, who likely have no experience with, or real knowledge of, of the science and art of Public Relations, trying to do PR activities. It's sorta like watching a bull in a China shop ... or an auto-mechanic attempt to do brain surgery.
Based on my past observations of such, the usual result for those attempting such is shooting themselves in foot - because such things typically backfire. But believing that they themselves actually "
know what they are doing" (or even worse: they believe that there isn't
anything to know), they usually aren't amenable to the suggestion that they just simply stop pulling the trigger.
Often, during this sort of rather desperate endeavor, they will become highly emotional (which isn't necessarily a good thing) .... and continue on, not understanding that
every action that they undertake is looked on as
an opportunity, by those whom they are engaging.
Now, to the subject at hand - it is rather interesting how the video was cut off the before Dr. Paul's gave his full answer, is it not ?
I wonder
why that was ?
Of course, anyone who actually attempting to be really
honest and straight, wouldn't really do something like that would they ?
Now, someone who was
trying to be dishonest just might (
of course, so would someone who just didn't know any better and was simply trying to push a partisan agenda without any regard to the truth)
The easiest way to deal with this type of thing is just to post the
entire interview (
with no loaded, biased "editorial" comments on the front end) and let people actually
just decide for themselves:
Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 part 1 of 4
Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 part 2 of 4
Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 part 3 of 4
Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07 part 4 of 4
His
entire answer, in
context, is given in the second video above
Interesting how Dr. Paul's position on term limits takes on an
entirely whole new light when
the whole truth is provided in an
unbiased manner allowing folks
to judge for themselves.
The interesting thing that I find here in relation to all this "earmark" tempest in a teapot, is that we have people in this thread that self-identify as "conservatives" (
so-called, anyways) .... who claim that they support "small government" condemn a Congressman, who holding a principled philosophical position (
which one may or may not agree with), doesn't allow unallocated funds to go to the Executive Branch to be spent as they please - but instead ensures that the money the Federal Government has taken from those citizens is returned back his into district.
Apparently, the "conservative" position is that unallocated monies should just go to the Executive bureaucracy (
thereby making Congress less accountable) - to be spent however unaccountable bureaucrats see fit - rather than to making the person in government, who is closest to them, take responsibility and be accountable for exactly how the monies they sent to Washington are spent.
Additionally, it seems that these "conservatives" would prefer
not to hold Leviathan in check, ensuring that Leviathan is made to return the monies it has taken, so that they can be spent locally.
Hmmm .... some very interesting "conservative" ideas indeed ....
Could it that there is confusion on the part of some as to what conservatism (
and maybe honest politics as well) actually is ?
Could it be that some have been mislead by those on the electronic lobotomy box, and others elsewhere, as to what conservatism really, is and is not ....
and have instead adopted a false ideology that isn't really "conservatism" at all ?
Food for thought ....
By the way, there is some rather instructive (and perhaps prescient) comments at about 4 minutes into the last video.
