Nice Fasces! I have no idea what you're talking about but it's probably right :P

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
- Frederic Bastiat, "Economic Sophisms"

@ TC

There's plenty of hypocrisy on both sides. Hypocrisy is more or less inevitable in today's political world. Unless you're Ron Paul.

Yes, the Ron Paul who attacks special interests yet courts their money.

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_rcvd/C00305342

there is your straight shooting Ron Paul

I don't understand that argument SC. Hitler used democracy to destroy democracy - why can't Paul use a flawed system to put himself in position to remove/mitigate the flawed system?

Sorry for the immediate Godwin, but I feel it's actually JUSTIFIED in this case.

Say instead that I'm a basketball star who complains loudly and often that the current foul shooting is a flawed system because it drags out the game. Will your argument then be that I should deliberately MISS every foul shot because I disagree with it in principle? Does that mean I should refuse the points because I should stand by my convictions and take the loss? Will you call me a hypocrite if I don't?

Of course not! I'm going to participate and nail those free throws to the best of my ability under the current system, screwy though it is, while at the same time fighting to change it.

Excellent, so then no politician is a hypocrite because they are all just using the flawed system of Washington to fix whatever they feel is broken in the system of Washington. Glad that is settled

I'm confused, Santa. Are you saying that PACs are bad, and shouldn't be donating money to candidates whose positions they support? That politics should be only for those wealthy enough to fund their own campaigns and celebrities who can mobilize contributions from individual donors on a massive scale?

If I have some money to play with and I want cannabis legalized, am I supposed to meticulously research the 1000+ congressional candidates every election cycle to find those who agree with me, instead of give my money to the Marijuana Policy Project and let them do the work of finding out who is worth supporting? How would I share my findings with other people who agree with me on the issue, so they can contribute their money to the right candidates as well?

As for the Ron Paul angle in particular - did you notice how small a lot of these contributions are, and how this relatively short list is spread over 15 years? Obama and Romney probably generate a list of PAC contributions this long in one fundraising dinner. Dr. Paul jokes that lobbyists don't even bother knocking on his door; the shortness of this list backs that up. So do the types of donors - these are almost entirely groups that would support Ron Paul because of the positions he supports, not groups that would bother trying to buy a congressman with a reputation of integrity with $500. I really doubt Dr. Paul's position on gun ownership changed in 1999 because Gun Owners of America gave his re-election campaign $516 in that year.

Like all Ron Paul smears to date, if this is the best they can come up with I will remain a very happy Ron Paul supporter.

"Say instead that I'm a basketball star who complains loudly and often that the current foul shooting is a flawed system because it drags out the game. Will your argument then be that I should deliberately MISS every foul shot because I disagree with it in principle? Does that mean I should refuse the points because I should stand by my convictions and take the loss? Will you call me a hypocrite if I don't?"

No but when you bitch all day long about your opponents making those baskets and then you step up and hit them as well, what do we call that?

I'm saying the guy talks the talk and doesn't walk the walk. Glad you support Dr. Paul, I bet you would support him even though he put his name on racist literature...

damn my snide comment messed up, lets try that again

Glad you support Dr. Paul. I bet you would support him even if he put his name on racist literature.

And for the record, no one cares that you support an irrelevant political figure.

".....they are all just using the flawed system of Washington to fix whatever they feel is broken in the system of Washington."

Well, yeah. That's kinda what government does, man. Haven't you been paying attention for the last few thousand years?

"No but when you bitch all day long about your opponents making those baskets and then you step up and hit them as well, what do we call that?"

So your claim is that Ron Paul tries to earn "good boy" points by complaining about the candidates that receive the money, rather than complaining about the system that allows them to receive it? If so, then you have a valid point, SC. I haven't seen this, but then I haven't looked. Can you show me / tell me where he has done this? I'm not doubting you, I just find believing easier when I see with my own two eyes.

"Well, yeah. That's kinda what government does, man. Haven't you been paying attention for the last few thousand years?"

I believe my point is Paul is just another politician, I know its what the politicians in washington do, and Paul does it as well, as he tries to talk like hes above it all.

"If so, then you have a valid point, SC. I haven't seen this, but then I haven't looked. Can you show me / tell me where he has done this? I'm not doubting you, I just find believing easier when I see with my own two eyes."

Sure, look 4 posts above your own and read what Tolstoy says when he quotes is kindergarten crush... I mean candidate for President

I don't really see anything there that supports your claim, SC. "Paul jokes that lobbyists don't come to his door," seems about as close as you get, and that isn't too close.

To win the point, I think you need to show that both Ron Paul gets something and that he is attacking his rivals for receiving the same thing. And him just stating that the others receive more does not, I think, qualify as "attacking" in this situation.


BTW that asshole Hannity does the same thing when he talks about "limousine liberals," and how they are hypocritical for wanting to raise taxes on the wealthy. Not saying that's what YOU'RE trying to do, this is an aside :P

I brought up Ron Paul as a joke. Hypocrite or not, he's the cleanest candidate left in the GOP race.

"Hypocrite or not, he's the cleanest candidate left in the GOP race."

That's a very low bar. Richard Nixon would be cleaner than these candidates.

"Are you saying that PACs are bad, and shouldn't be donating money to candidates whose positions they support?"

The libertarian fantasy that billionaires controlling elections through Superpacs would be a fantastic display of 'free speech' has turned out great, hasn't it?

"why can't Paul use a flawed system to put himself in position to remove/mitigate the flawed system?"

This is exactly the kind of pragmatism that Paul, Mr. "Consistent", supposedly rails against.

@tolstoy, yes I do not agree with super PACs. In the republican presidential primary over 25% of the money raised has come from 5 donors. And PACs do not donate to the campaign, they are "completely independent".

@Nike, Santa's list was one of donations from PACs directly to Ron Paul's congressional re-election campaign. I haven't been following all the recent exciting changes in campaign finance all that closely, but I believe PACs can and do still raise money and dole it out to candidates in small amounts, limited by law. My understanding (I could well be wrong - feel free to correct me, anyone) is that Citizens United took the cuffs off of PACs to do their own campaigning independently of candidates.

"Independently" with the same staff.

Stole the words right out of my mouth.

So much for the lie that libertarians stick up for the 'little guy'.

superpacs don't give any money to campaigns, what are you talking about. they are independent. they make their own ads, the campaigns have no control over them. although in practice some candidates have some hints they can give to the superpacs as to what they want them to do with the money.

@ Putin33

Nice to see you again.

You and I both know that corruption and hypocrisy exists in every large government, regardless of the form of said government. So just drop it right now.

Good to see you Gunfighter. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around, agreed. The liberal-statists on this board live in blissful ignorance of that fact and I'm just shattering that willful ignorance.

I meant that there is plenty of hypocrisy on both sides. For example, Rick Santorum preaches the wonders of small government, but turns around and suggests that the government should decide who can do what to who in a private bedroom.

On the other side, liberals claim that they are protecting the rights of women and minorities, yet pass gun legislation that threatens one of our most important rights.

The point is that politicians on both sides have been and always will be hypocritical, corrupt, or a combination of the two.

Because women & minorities are killed more often by guns than white males who live in yahooville.

"The point is that politicians on both sides have been and always will be hypocritical, corrupt, or a combination of the two."

Obama's is the cleanest government we've had in decades, perhaps ever. When your pal Bush was in power, there was a corruption scandal every week. When the Republicans ran the entire government, not a day it seemed went by without another GOP Congressman being run out of office for historic corruption. Do any of you remember 2005-2006? The most corrupt two years of government I think we've ever had.

@ Putin33

"Obama's is the cleanest government we've had in decades, perhaps ever."

What a load of shit. Solyndra? The GM and Chrysler bailouts? His hands are pretty dirty too, Putin.

2005-2006 was not the two most corrupt years in US History. I think we can all agree that the Grant and Harding administrations were the worst in terms of corruption.