Ronald Reagan would have died in office.

Breitbart News: 404 - Not found

 

“$500 million for weather forecasting and to help create an ocean zoning plan–the later one of Obama’s pet projects. Also included are $10 million for FBI salaries $2 billion for road construction across the country, as well as funding for the Head Start program, roof repairs at the Smithsonian, and $150 million for fisheries across the country.”

I don't know what to think about presidential terms. I think Washington was right to set the precedent of 8 years.

Again, majority of the GOP voted for that bill.That isn't taking your party to task. Rand did not vote for it, correct. Why? Because Congress disgustingly used the bill as a way to load it with pork. wasteful spending. Rand Paul:"$700,000 is going to continue that performance art festival in New York and I think it’s inexcusable to throw that type of stuff into disaster relief."

 

This is the type of stuff congress needs to stop. So yes, when someone tries to stop a tradition in spending done by congress, it may be called extreme.

 

 

I suppose if Rand Paul winds up ever being President, I'll survive it. But I will NEVER cast a vote for him. NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!

Forgot about Bill. Yeah, he'd be tough to beat.

Breitbart News: 404 - Not found

“$500 million for weather forecasting and to help create an ocean zoning plan–the later one of Obama’s pet projects. Also included are $10 million for FBI salaries $2 billion for road construction across the country, as well as funding for the Head Start program, roof repairs at the Smithsonian, and $150 million for fisheries across the country.”

 

I could do withouth the weather forescasting thing. But I don't know what is objectionable about any of the rest.

I suppose if Rand Paul winds up ever being President, I'll survive it. But I will NEVER cast a vote for him. NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!

 

You just have a lot of inconsistencies when deciding who to vote for. I don't get the hate for Rand. Most of the time, when I talk to people about him, they don't know enough about him.

 

Chris Christie was a tea party favorite and they tried to push and push......and push him to run, but he wouldn't budge....literally.

I could do withouth the weather forescasting thing. But I don't know what is objectionable about any of the rest.

 

.......because its emergency funding. It should only be used for that purpose.

 

How disgusting for legislators to hurry and put money they want for their district in a bill because they know it will pass.

Pretty much all of the social issues, and some of the enviornmental and foreign policy. Wanting to end social security, get rid of EPA, Ed, etc. The platform as a whole is too "harsh". it takes too much away, and doesn't account for the realities of a lot of Americans.

 

Again, in another post you said someone who wanted to get rid of those programs was a moderate and could appeal to independents.....now its too harsh?

 

Ron Paul had, if not more moderate views, a way of presenting his views far more moderately, which is why I feel Independents may have been drawn to him

 

You are really confusing me, RM

Again, in another post you said someone who wanted to get rid of those programs was a moderate and could appeal to independents.....now its too harsh?

 

 

 

You are really confusing me, RM

 

 

You misread my sentence. He had a way of presenting his views more moderately.

You misread my sentence. He had a way of presenting his views more moderately.

 

You were implicit on at least opening the possibility of voting for Ron Paul and you insinuated Rand was more extreme.

 

You were implicit on at least opening the possibility of voting for Ron Paul and you insinuated Rand was more extreme.

 

You mean explicit? Because that's not what I said.

 

Stated another way: Ron Paul's views may not be more moderate than Rand Paul's, but he presented them in way that didn't alienate all moderates.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

You mean explicit? Because that's not what I said.

 

Stated another way: Ron Paul's views may not be more moderate than Rand Paul's, but he presented them in way that didn't alienate all moderates.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

 

No, I mean implicit. You implied it -- you didn't express it.

 

And I guess you didn't listen to him. One of the reasons people love him so much is because he never sugar coated his views. He was blunt. He never presented anything in a moderate fashion and would explicitly tell how he was the most conservative member on the stage.

 

No, I mean implicit. You implied it -- you didn't express it.

 

And I guess you didn't listen to him. One of the reasons people love him so much is because he never sugar coated his views. He was blunt. He never presented anything in a moderate fashion and would explicitly tell how he was the most conservative member on the stage.

 

He is not as abrasive as Rand.

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Forum Runner

What I'm getting at is Ron Paul's foreign policy attracted moderates. I don't see why Rand's wouldn't.