Ron Paul says we're on our way to Fascism

[Evanescence]

On Meet the Press today...

I liked what he had to say.....

He spoke about us losing our Liberties, big business and big Govt and The Fed Res.

Too bad he wasn't on for the full hour....

[Backpacker777]

Watch: America: Freedom to Fascism online for free.


America: Freedom to Facism (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=America%3A++Freedom+to+ Fascism&total=630&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

[clemsontigers23]

Ron Paul, who is supposedly anti-government spending, is also asking for more money for his home state from the government. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

[mat1583]

Ron Paul, who is supposedly anti-government spending, is also asking for more money for his home state from the government. Kind of hypocritical, don't you think?

Actually, no. He is representing a constituency, and part of that constituency is simply asking for their money back. He adds the earmarks in because he is asked to do so by the people he represents. In fact, he has never voted for a bill with the earmarks. Although most of them past, he has voted against them.

He talks about it in this interview from Meet the Press, starting at 5:40:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgTqSu-ZVFM&feature=related

The idea is that instead of leaving the money in the executive branch for their use, he's getting the money back for his district. It makes a lot of sense. If they're going to give your district money, why would any reasonable person refuse it? He wouldn't be a congressman for as long as he has been if he didn't represent his people.

-washboard

[Pouye]

Actually, no. He is representing a constituency, and part of that constituency is simply asking for their money back. He adds the earmarks in because he is asked to do so by the people he represents. In fact, he has never voted for a bill with the earmarks. Although most of them past, he has voted against them.

He talks about it in this interview from Meet the Press, starting at 5:40:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgTqSu-ZVFM&feature=related

The idea is that instead of leaving the money in the executive branch for their use, he's getting the money back for his district. It makes a lot of sense. If they're going to give your district money, why would any reasonable person refuse it? He wouldn't be a congressman for as long as he has been if he didn't represent his people.

-washboard

I agree, even though I'm not sold yet on any candidate. If government money is going to be used, it is best used closest to the situation. The more money that actually makes it to local-level government (all the way down to the townships) the better. The worst-case scenario is when money is allocated and spent "at the top" for people "at the bottom". The more power and control is relinquished at the top and delegated to those closer to the situation the better -- generally both accountability and productivity gets better, too.

Rock

[Jason]

Rock, do you get to vote long-distance?