Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Paul's flights fly in face of cut-spending theme

Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:27 AM EST
politics, travel, us, ron-paul, paul
Brett J. Blackledge, Associated Press

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, campaigns in Myrtle Beach, S.C., Sunday, Jan. 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Advertise | AdChoices

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been spending large amounts on airfare as a congressman, flying first class on dozens of taxpayer-funded flights to his home state. The practice conflicts with the image that Paul portrays as the only presidential candidate serious about cutting federal spending.

Paul flew first class on at least 31 round-trip flights and 12 one-way flights since May 2009 when he was traveling between Washington and his district in Texas, according to a review by The Associated Press of his congressional office expenses. Four other round-trip tickets and two other one-way tickets purchased during the period were eligible for upgrades to first-class after they were bought, but those upgrades would not be documented in the expense records.

Paul, whose distrust of big government is the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, trusts the more expensive government rate for Continental Airlines when buying his tickets. Paul chose not to buy the cheaper economy tickets at a fraction of the price because they aren't refundable or as flexible for scheduling, his congressional staff said.

"We always get him full refundable tickets since the congressional schedule sometimes changes quickly," said Jeff Deist, Paul's chief of staff. Paul might have to pay out of his own pocket for canceled flights in some cases if he didn't buy refundable tickets, Deist said.

But records show that most of the flights for Paul were purchased well in advance and few schedule changes were necessary. Nearly two-thirds of the 49 tickets were purchased at least two weeks in advance, and 42 percent were bought at least three weeks in advance, the AP's review found.

Paul charged taxpayers nearly $52,000 on the more expensive tickets, or $27,621 more than the average Continental airfare for the flights between Washington and Houston, according to the AP's review of his congressional expenses and average airfares compiled by the Department of Transportation.

The more expensive tickets have other benefits as well, including allowing Paul to upgrade to first class when his staff reserves a flight because his frequent government travel gives him membership in an elite class of Continental customers who earn travel perks. Upgrades to first-class with cheaper fares are possible, at times limited to available seats days before the flight. But those upgrades are not guaranteed and some require ticket changes at the airport, according to the airline's frequent flyer rules.

The AP reviewed congressional travel before the Iowa caucuses for the two members of Congress running at the time — Paul and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota. Bachmann later ended her presidential campaign.

House records show Bachmann, like most other congressional members, also paid the more expensive government rate for airfare. But her staff would not provide access to more detailed expense records that show when and what type of tickets were purchased.

Paul's congressional staff provided access to all expense records requested.

Congressional members don't have to pay the government rate for travel, but most do, including many like Paul and Bachmann who advocate cuts in federal spending.

"You could almost always beat the government rate," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based Taxpayers for Common Sense, a federal budget watchdog group. "They need to be walking the walk, and one of the ways they can do that is to be fiscally responsible for how they spend their member office money."

Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign manager, didn't respond to a written request to explain how Paul's use of more expensive airfare, which allows him to fly first class, corresponds with his commitment to cut federal spending. Instead, he sent a statement that started, "No one is more committed to cutting spending than Dr. Paul."

But Paul's congressional travel conflicts with claims in campaign appearances that he's the most frugal and serious deficit hawk in the race.

"The talk you hear in Washington is pure talk, because there is nobody suggesting, the other candidates are not talking about real cuts," Paul said in a speech to supporters last week after his second-place finish in New Hampshire.

He has proposed cutting $1 trillion from the federal budget during his first year as president, and has confronted other candidates in public forums as "big government conservatives."

"You're a big spender, that's all there is to it," Paul told former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania during a GOP debate in New Hampshire.

Paul boasts on his website about declining other congressional perks, such as a pension and all-expense-paid travel "junkets" that other lawmakers take. And he says he regularly returns money from his congressional account to the treasury.

But when it comes to his congressional travel, Paul has opted not to search for cheaper airfares that could mean returning more of his office account to the treasury, which uses any money returned by House or Senate members to help reduce the federal deficit.

Paul paid $51,972 for his government-rate flights between Washington and Houston between May 2009 and March 2011, or more than twice the $24,351 average airfare on Continental for travel between Washington and Houston. The average airfare figure represents the price for all tickets purchased for Continental flights between Washington and Houston, including economy and first-class travel, according to the Transportation Department's Domestic Airline Fares Consumer Report, which collects airfare information for the nation's busiest travel routes.

Paul's staff regularly booked him in first class on flights when tickets were purchased, according to expense records. His office paid between $1,217 and $1,311 for each round-trip flight, compared to the average airfare for that trip ranging from $528 to $760, according to the airline fares consumer report.

The period reviewed by the AP was the most recent period for which complete congressional expense records were available.

© 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Brett J. Blackledge's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: Washington DC
  • Public Discussion (43)
digcreation

Paul regularly returns his excess budget to the treasury. I wonder how many other representatives have left over money to return?

  • 8 votes
Reply#1 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:05 AM EST
Nick46

flying first class on dozens of taxpayer-funded flights to his home state.

The government does not pay for first class. They pay for the equivalent of coach class. He probably get's free upgrades anyway.

  • 1 vote
#1.1 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:53 AM EST
Citizen Kane-473667

The more expensive tickets have other benefits as well, including allowing Paul to upgrade to first class when his staff reserves a flight because his frequent government travel gives him membership in an elite class of Continental customers who earn travel perks.

For those who don't know how Frequent Flier programs work, when you fly this much, your upgrades are free when the seats are available; which when you book two to three weeks in advance, are nearly always.

Paul's staff regularly booked him in first class on flights when tickets were purchased, according to expense records.

The upgrades come when you make the reservation automatically which means if you book business class travel and you are eligible for an upgrade, you get it to first class and that is what your ticket will say even though you got it cheaper than a regular first-class ticket would cost.

Now do we really want to go there? From WSJ in 2009:

The spending on overseas travel is up almost tenfold since 1995, and has nearly tripled since 2001, according to the Journal analysis of 60,000 travel records. Hundreds of lawmakers traveled overseas in 2008 at a cost of about $13 million. That's a 50% jump since Democrats took control of Congress two years ago.

Supposedly the rules say they must fly coach, so if he flew first-class it is because of upgrades, not the actual ticket class purchased:

Such trips were supposed to be waning after then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent a memo to all congressional offices last year demanding that lawmakers cool their jets, literally. The revised rules, which called for lawmakers to fly coach unless the trip was more than 14 hours, were “part of our continuing effort to ensure transparency and accountability in congressional management,” Pelosi said at the time. The California Democrat herself had come under intense scrutiny for using military jets to get back to her district.

The grasping at straws is getting really, really ridiculous. Has AP been bought by Newsweek or something?

  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 5:52 PM EST
Reply
Marshall James

another MSM smear tactic. So he is supposed to take the bus over the last two years?? The average of two flights a month doesnt seem to be too much to me.

what exactly are they complaining about here?

  • 7 votes
Reply#2 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:21 AM EST
echo82

reality is not a "smear tactic".... too bad when people know the truth that someone is really a hypocrite

  • 3 votes
#2.1 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:07 AM EST
RatPoison

Is it really not a smear tactic echo?

Let's look for points of comparison...

Did the AP compare the overall cost and number of flights by Paul to other Senators?, no.

Did the AP compare the means and methods by which Paul flies to other Senators?, no. ... But they did mention "congressional members"... and stated that "most" fly the same way Paul does.

... So basically Paul isn't doing anything surprisingly different in his flying arrangements. He's not saving us a buck and he isn't spending more than his cohorts in Congress... or so we're left to assume since the AP didn't bother providing information.

Let's look at some other details from the article.

One... Paul and his staff willingly provided the information the AP sought upon request. Amazingly transparent.

Two... The article's point is that Paul claims to be more fiscal yet is trying to use this one point... to demonstrate he is not. With a shoddy form of comparison that infers he isn't spending more than fellow members of Congress we are left in neutral ground. But wait!... what's this... From the article:

Paul boasts on his website about declining other congressional perks, such as a pension and all-expense-paid travel "junkets" that other lawmakers take. And he says he regularly returns money from his congressional account to the treasury.

Oh my... but of course... the AP gives this mention and then falls flat in giving us something to compare it to. Are we left to simply conclude that other congressional members don't do what Paul claims to be doing there... I guess so since apparently catching Paul in a "lie" isn't something the AP has done.

...

It's a marvelous attempt to try to create a higher standard to subject someone to without giving them the opportunity to know the rules of this new game. Ask Paul to save us money on his air travel and lets see if he comes through? After all... isn't that what we want... representatives and people who understand you can't spend more than you make?

But anyway... the article is shoddy and falls utterly flat in demonstrating first that Paul is not fiscal... and second disrupts its own argument by pointing out and not refuting Paul's claim of giving back money and not taking pension... etc etc. It's a glorified smear piece.

  • 2 votes
#2.2 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:46 PM EST
echo82

Is everything that conservatives have to face about their actions a "smear tactic"? No. Paul is in the race and faces scrutiny just like everyone else. He's a big boy and throws around alot of criticism of others actions. I don't care that much so have a great day. We have more importamt issues to deal with like the fact that the GOP is likely to nominate Willard (corporations are people too my friend) Romney.

  • 1 vote
#2.3 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:21 PM EST
RatPoison

So basically... you've nothing to refute the incomplete reporting and the fact that this article fails to demonstrate that Paul is not more frugal than his peers despite its claim?... gotcha. So then ... if the article asserts that Paul is not as fiscal as he claims... yet fails to prove the claim and do so quite plainly... then isn't it a smear? Oh well... maybe you don't like the word smear... so how about inaccurate, incompetent, misleading, etc, tactics?

  • 2 votes
#2.4 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 3:56 PM EST
Ron in CT

How about, RP claims to be the most fiscally conservative person in congress, so, him spending the same as everyone else really makes that a lie doesn't it? If you claim to be exceptional, then at least be different, if everyone is the same then you can't be exceptional.

  • 1 vote
#2.5 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:24 PM EST
RatPoison

Ah, but he's not spending the same thing as everybody in Congress Ron... or at least that's one of the things they've potentially demonstrated in this article.

The article has already pointed out that Paul gives back money from his allotted share/budget back to the treasury, as well as not using or taking various benefits given to him for his position.

In other words, this article is hoping to topple a house of cards on one particular point (a myopic tunnel visioned, small picture attempt), and one that it actually fails to make and develop its argument as it gives nothing of substance for comparison not only in how much he spends versus others on flights... but also in the number of flights taken ... which is very very important to their claim.

What would you say Ron... if you found out that the AP left out (or didn't investigate) that Paul flies less than the majority of other Senators? Now... I don't have any information behind this point, but as we can all clearly see... neither does the AP and its reporter. In other words, here's one of the big giant holes in their article that is so big that anybody not simply accepting their conclusions unquestioned could avoid falling in.

What do you think Ron?... a bad piece of reporting?... or simply an attempt to make a claim that they simply can't substantiate? a smear piece?

And still... on top of all this... how come we can't applaud Paul and his staff for their transparency. They certainly didn't have to provide the information the AP requested for this article... but they did. I find that amazingly different compared to the rest of the politicians we've employed of late.

  • 2 votes
#2.6 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:40 PM EST
Reply
Repoman-1208817

Why bother with this story? Paul is not a serious contender for the Presidency and there is no way he is beaten in his district. What a waste of time.

    Reply#3 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:19 AM EST
    Timba65

    This is not enough for me to disqualify Paul as a serious candidate. Then again it doesn't have to be as Paul has said enough to disqualify himself as far as I am concerned. In my mind, taking this country back to the 1800's is not what is best for America.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#4 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:36 AM EST
    VetteLover

    Of course the liberals will try to make a story over this. There was nothing said while Pelosi was ordering herself 757's to fly around on and all the booze and food service she had back and forth. I imagine Paul has enough points built up for 1st class anyway.

    How about all the limo's Obama and the 111th congress ordered for themselves??

    • 3 votes
    Reply#5 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:03 AM EST
    TheyreAllCrooks

    Hey now..."The Beast" is one mean ride!

    • 1 vote
    #5.1 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:07 AM EST
    Ron in CT

    As usual, the rethuglican cry is, "but he/she did it too", the difference is the "he/she" is not running around the country telling everyone that "he/she" is the most fiscally conservative person in congress. While the money spent is of little consequence in the big picture, the hypocrisy of Paul's statements vs his actions is a big deal, one that his followers will never admit or accept, no matter how much fact or evidence is brought forward. As to whether it will hurt is candidacy, he is a phony candidate anyway, with no chance of winning in the general and little chance of being the GOP nominee. His sole purpose in this election, just like the last, is to put is BS out to the shallow minded. At this he is very adept, as a congressman, not so much as he has been ineffectual the entire time he has been living off the government tit.

    • 1 vote
    #5.2 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:17 PM EST
    Reply
    mitch j

    Paul is ridiculous. all he talks about is state and individual rights. he thinks things not in the Constitution should not be! he goes on and on all the time about that stupid old document. so crazy.

    • 3 votes
    Reply#6 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 10:45 AM EST
    Citizen Kane-473667

    I know, that is just so crazy! /s

    • 1 vote
    #6.1 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:00 PM EST
    agagnu

    And, I don't think he can explain the Constitution in detail. he talks about liberty as though people were all isolated on a desert island. LIBERTY IN LAW is not in his vocabulary.

    • 1 vote
    #6.2 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:12 PM EST
    Reply
    Phil-540207

    Only one candidate for President will cut back on military spending - Ron Paul. The real joke is Obama has won the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize while continuing or starting wars in Iraq, Afghanstan, Libya, undeclared in Pakistan, undeclared in Yemen, undeclared in Africa, ...and has now decided to save Australia from the Chinese. He was popular as a anti-war candidate and got elected for it to some extent.

    Take a look at the National Debt clock with the defense part and then tell me how Ron Paul is not a viable option. Fox News and the Democratic channels are scared stiff that if he is elected the wars would actually be stopped. This is the only thing a President can do by himself. The smears have been present since day one, ..the press will do anything to inhibit Ron Paul's run. They jump form the top to the bottom and skip over Paul at nymber 2.

    • 1 vote
    #7 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:17 PM EST
    Ron in CT

    Ron Paul's stance on the Military is not what makes him an unelectable candidate, it is his overall stance on issues, his bug nut crazy conspiracy theories, his disdain for the middle class, his disdain for civil rights and his outright hatred of anything even looks like a social safety net. Those are the things that will keep ole crazy eyes from getting to the White House. And rightly so, in all his years living on the government tit, he has never been able to get one item of meaningful legislation passed, not one. All he ever does is stand on the stump and espouse harmful and unproven rhetoric about abstract liberty, not even knowing what it is.

      #7.1 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:04 AM EST
      Citizen Kane-473667

      his bug nut crazy conspiracy theories,

      And what would those be exactly?

      Please be so kind as to throw in some quotes we can sink our teeth into.

      • 1 vote
      #7.2 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 2:01 PM EST
      Phil-540207

      Ron C - you are spouting off a common argument that doesn't make any sense. For example, you wrote his military position is satisfactory, yet every other politican in the race has a completely opposite stance. Romney stated at the military academia he would expand on Obama's military efforts, Santorium flatly stated he would bomb Iran, Gingrich is gung-ho on war, but G. did not serve and Obama will lead us to war with Iran or even larger. As President Ron Paul can not implement a law, it must pass the House and Senate, so your fears about minor points of view are completely misplaced. Ron Paul is a doctor who delivered babies for many years (not only a politican), something that the most competent people are likely to do. All the other details are minor and are used to inhibit his campaign. For example, he can not bring back the Gold standard. With the Gold standard you can not do the financial wall street/bank fraud we will pay for the next 30 years. Water under the bridge, doesn't matter now, ...he is not a racist, ...believes in much less federal government,...all minor points that will never become law in his potential presidency. If you seriously studied his minor positions, you would change you mind probably anyway,..but again the minor points are minor.

      • 1 vote
      #7.3 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 4:45 PM EST
      Ron in CT

      Same ole drivel, different day, and not even accurate. I do not think that Paul's stance on the military is right, only more in line with the country as a whole than the other candidates. Most Americans are far less hawkish than any of the other clowns getting out of the car. As to Obama being hawkish, he is, not as hard core as Perry or Newt, much more measured and pragmatic, but I still think he was wrong to double down on Afghanistan. His approach to Libya was much more in line with his true feelings, but in Afghanistan he was already too deeply invested by the previous administration to just pull back, or so the common wisdom goes.

      As to your assertion that he is benign and can't make anyone do what he wants, you are right. Along with his inability to sway public opinion or present a cogent argument for his beliefs would make him as ineffectual as a President as he is as a Congressman. To your assertion that he is not racist, that may be, no one can look into a man's soul, however he does advocate for racist policy. His own statements show that he has no respect for the civil rights legislation that is the law of the land and if given a chance would repeal it, again, not very Presidential. As to less government, he is not for less government, he is for minimalist government. They are not the same. His vision of Government is that it should only be there to enforce contract law and protect the boarders. Screw the old, the disadvantaged and women. His Utopian dream consists of leaving those groups to fend for themselves, along with anyone that does not own a business or property.

      You can wrap a dog turd in a pretty package with a beautiful bow and douse it in perfume, but in the end, it is still a turd. Ron Paul wraps his warped sense of limited freedom in a pretty package, less war, legalized drugs etc. but in the end, it is all just hiding the turd that is his social and fiscal idea of modern day robber barons. For the narrow minded and short sighted, it all looks good until you open the package and stare at the turd you have just purchased.

      • 1 vote
      #7.4 - Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:20 PM EST
      Citizen Kane-473667

      Are you going to answer my question or continue your own version of the duck, dodge, and deny tactics made so famous by the Bush/Obama Administrations...

      • 2 votes
      #7.5 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:48 AM EST
      Ron in CT

      I'm sorry, I didn't see an actual question in your missquotes and rants. All I got is that if I closed my eyes and pretended it didn't matter, that all of Paul's lunacy would melt away and I would fall at his feet. Sorry, not going to happen. If you are a one issue voter, that is your shortcoming, I however, while agreeing with a couple of RP's rants, cannot overlook the whole person and his lack of credibility and therefore could never cast a vote in favor of him for anything, be that Mayor of Dogpatch or Sanitation supervisor.

        #7.6 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:02 AM EST
        Citizen Kane-473667

        Another dodge to a plainly asked question. In other words, ya got nothin'. Why am I not surprised? Oh yeah, because I see you around all the time and know exactly what I can expect from you: Opinion based on soundbites without any facts to back them up!

        Thanks for not letting me down!

        • 2 votes
        #7.7 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:39 PM EST
        Ron in CT

        Sorry, I did go back to your previous posts, so lets start, he has espoused the truther myth, that is until he was asked point blank about it, then he slid away from his previous comments on the subject. However as evidenced by his own words in the attached video he claims that he did not believe the White House's explanation for 9/11 and would welcome an investigation. This was as recently as 2007;

        http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/20/yes-virginia-ron-paul-is-a-911-truther-and-a-coddler-of-racists/

        Then we have:

        Paul knows where his bread is buttered. He regularly appears on the radio program of Alex Jones, a vocal 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theorist based in his home state of Texas. On Jones's show earlier this month, Paul alleged that the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on United States soil was a “propaganda stunt” perpetrated by the Obama administration.

        On to other "theories" like anchor babies, vaccination as bad medicine, his defense of David Koresh and a conspiracy to bring down Eliot Spitzer. Those are just the ones that are only mildly nuts, he gets heavy into crazy with "theories" like; his 2003 rant about a conspiracy to conduct a covert war on Christmas, or his belief that FDR new about Pearl Harbour weeks before, or that we had no business saving getting involved in WWII just to save Jews. Or his 1998 speach in which he predicted that the UN would soon become a world dictator and control the US, or my favorite,

        "[Is there] an international conspiracy to overthrow our government?" Paul said in 2003, repeating the question of an audience member at his Austin speech. "The answer is 'Yes'. I think there are 25,000 individuals that have used offices of powers, and they are in our Universities and they are in our Congresses, and they believe in One World Government. And if you believe in One World Government, then you are talking about undermining National Sovereignty and you are talking about setting up something that you could well call a dictatorship - and those plans are there!"

        So yes Virginia, Ron Paul is a nut case, conspiracy theorist with no business talking to the easily manipulated, such as yourself.

          #7.8 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:08 PM EST
          Citizen Kane-473667

          he did not believe the White House's explanation for 9/11 and would welcome an investigation.

          Do you really think we know EVERYTHING about 9/11? Seriously. World renown architects, university professors, government officials, pilots, and engineers agree that the official story is bogus. Not just a handful, but literally over a thousand of these professionals don't believe it so Yes, I think he is right to question the official version of the events leading up to, during, and after. Not so crazy after all when you consider those who make their living knowing the ins and outs of the building, planes, and designs also question the veracity of what has been said.

          Now throw some more links concerning:

          anchor babies,

          An obvious problem so once again not "nuts".

          vaccination as bad medicine,

          Yes he has spoken out against forced vacinations:

          "A responsible parent is going to say, 'Yeah, I want my child to have that,' [but] when the government makes a mistake, they make it for everybody. You know, that's what worries me. They don't always come up with the perfect answer sometimes... and people have had some very, very serious reactions from these immunizations."

          I wonder why? From the CDC:

          Any vaccine can cause side effects. For the most part these are minor (for example, a sore arm or low-grade fever) and go away within a few days. Listed below are vaccines licensed in the United States and side effects that have been associated with each of them.

          Emphasis is their own--not mine.

          his defense of David Koresh

          Again; seriously? Waco continues to be a black eye upon the FBI and you want to defend THAT? Stockpiling weapons was the grounds for the assault remember? Turned out they had an average of 2 weapons per person, and the average in Texas is 3.5 weapons per person. WOW! Some stockpiling.

          and a conspiracy to bring down Eliot Spitzer.

          Conspiracy my ass. He stated:

          "But the real reason for all this surveillance is to build the power of the state. It arises from a virulent dislike of free people running their own lives and spending their own money. Statists always demand control of the people and their money.

          "Recently we've been told that this increase in the already intolerable invasion of our privacy was justified because the purpose was to apprehend terrorists. We were told that the massive amounts of information being collected on Americans would only be used to root out terrorists. But as we can see today, this monitoring of private activities can also be used for political reasons. We should always be concerned when the government accumulates information on innocent citizens.

          That's right, he was talking about the friggin Patriot Act reaching beyond what it was supposed to do and being used to sink a Political career. Was he wrong? Is that NOT what happened? Nope not nuts!

          his 2003 rant about a conspiracy to conduct a covert war on Christmas,

          I have to admit, he is wrong here. There is nothing covert about it. Christmas was a religious holiday that has been usurped into a reason for big sales and people freezing their nuts off in line. Organized conspiracy? Doubtful. But a conspiracy nonetheless:

          a secret plan or agreement between two or more people to commit an illegal or subversive act

          Would you deny that WalMart has no intention of returning Christmas to its origins as a Holy Holiday but plans to subvert the origins of celebrating the birth of Christ to reap profit from it instead? So I guess he isn't that nuts after all on that one either.

          or his belief that FDR new about Pearl Harbour weeks before,

          You mean to say Winston Churchill lied?

          that we had no business saving getting involved in WWII just to save Jews.

          That stems from his belief in non-intervention in foreign countries affairs which I also happen to agree with. We AREN"T the World Cops we try to be. Why should our young men and women be sent to die over a turf battle between foreign powers? We didn't enter WWII for Humanitarian reasons, we did it to protect our financial investments in foreign market import and export. In other words, just like with all of our Wars, we did it for MONEY!

          and those plans are there!"

          Are you denying there are people with goals of world domination both in politics and business? The move towards just that is already under way and just as we started out as a disjointed Union of Independent States held together by a loose Confederation and have now become a Nation of weak States subserviant to a powerful central government, so too will this happen to the world if it isn't stopped. Neither the Left or the Right deny that this is coming, they only differ on WHO and WHY. Once again--not "nuts" at all...

          So yes Virginia, Ron Paul is a nut case, conspiracy theorist with no business talking to the easily manipulated, such as yourself.

          Is that the best you can come up with? No wonder you don't do anything but spout soundbites....

          • 3 votes
          #7.9 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:28 PM EST
          Ron in CT

          I must admit, I read very little of your last post, as it was so predictable I could have written it myself. You asked for examples, these are all documented, nut job theories that Paul espouses. If you believe them, you are not more rational or sane than he is.

            #7.10 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:33 AM EST
            RatPoison

            If you didn't read it... then how do you know it is predictable? If you didn't read it... then do know that his list is a list of counterpoints and additional pieces of information, including context, to the list of things you're hanging your hat on.

            So either... you're clinging to talking points and soundbites as claimed, you are not passionate or informed about the list you created (lacking counterpoints), or perhaps you were just trolling and never had the intention of defending your stance.

            • 1 vote
            #7.11 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:42 AM EST
            Ron in CT

            No matter what context you take it in, anchor babies are not a catastrophic issue, likewise, the UN is not taking over the world, the US did not enter WWII to "save the Jew", and in his own words, he believed that Eliot Spitzer was the victim of a conspiracy to have him removed from office. Now just to be clear, was is not Spitzer that bedded the prostitute, whom I am sure was planted by the evil left wing to sully the name of such as righteous man. Give me a break, you can't the that thick.

              #7.12 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:51 AM EST
              RatPoison

              I reference you back to comment #7.9. Repeating yourself does not equate to a challenge or counterpoint to the information provided there. I recommend challenging the information or context.

              ... Give me a break, you can't be that bad at debating.

              • 1 vote
              #7.13 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:01 AM EST
              Ron in CT

              One person stating fact and another saying "no it isn't" is not debate. When someone, in this case Ron Paul, says something on camera or in a taped interview, and it is played or read in it's entirety, what is to challenge? I know it is a trait of the current crop of Republican contenders to stand up and tell the faithful to just ignore anything they have said in the past that will contradict what they are saying now, but I am not that stupid, are you? When Newt gets up in front of the camera and makes a statement and then just a week later gets in front of another camera and says "what I said before was not true" or not what I meant, only the brain dead can buy that kind of BS. Same goes for RP, in his own words, not too long ago, he has put forth these asinine theories, if you choose to not take them at face value, that is your prerogative, however, we all don't have to play stupid as well. Again, there is no debate there, only fact, take it or leave it. If you choose to believe otherwise, there is nothing anyone can do to save your credibility.

                #7.14 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 1:10 PM EST
                RatPoison

                Too funny...

                It's called taking something out of context Ron, and it is done famously by people on the Vine, people in the news industry, people period all the time. That is why thorough investigation gets back to or as close to the source of the investigated material as possible.

                Your refusal to address the "theories" you list within their proper context is precisely what comment #7.9 demonstrates. Most of the explanations, and sourcing given in that comment are not challenges to the quotes or information you've provided but are instead expansions and additional pieces of information that you have left off, either by choice or by not knowing.

                It's like this well known youtube video of Paul when he was still a practicing doctor being asked about a newsletter. He talks about the work being his, etc etc... And what have some people done with this footage?, they've tried to assert that he is admitting to authoring the "racist" newsletters we've seen seeded and talked about on the Vine for the past six months. The reality is that the interview is about an economic article he wrote.

                So... again, I point you back up to comment #7.9 which gives additional information and more importantly context and reasoning to some of the theories you are trying to label as crazy with incomplete takes/snippets/talking points/etc.

                But I suppose it's reasonable to conclude you could not have figured any of that out since you've already admitted to not reading the comment... ... Yet, you are still here debating a topic that you are intentionally refusing to counter the counterpoints of, very strange. Anyway, it's time to step up and respond to it or to move along.

                • 1 vote
                #7.15 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:04 PM EST
                Ron in CT

                Claiming it is out of context only works when the entire encounter is not either recorded or written, sorry, that dog don't hunt. When you see an interview in it's entirety and read the transcript from an entire interview, it is not out of context. But just keep telling yourself that it is so you can continue to believe in the tooth fairy.

                  #7.16 - Fri Jan 20, 2012 4:04 PM EST
                  Citizen Kane-473667

                  In other words Ron, all ya got is nothin' to back your claims that it is crazy talk. You see in order for it to be "nuts" you have to provide evidence to the contrary; which you have yet to do. As usual, you are the King of Soundbite Debate.

                  When you have something of substance, come on back and try again. Meanwhile, you can just chalk this one up as a loss...another one.

                  • 2 votes
                  #7.17 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:19 PM EST
                  Ron in CT

                  In other words, it's all available on the web, no matter what I say or post or even prove that he said something, you are not going to stop denying that he said it. So, why don't you just look it up yourself, you can't miss it. Your continual denial and rhetoric is just simply too boring, predictable and mundane to keep going back and forth.

                    #7.18 - Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:49 PM EST
                    Citizen Kane-473667

                    Loss!

                    • 1 vote
                    #7.19 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 1:36 AM EST
                    Ron in CT

                    Yes, Loss of your credibility. Nothing more, nothing less.

                      #7.20 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 10:48 AM EST
                      Citizen Kane-473667

                      Yes, Loss of your credibility. Nothing more, nothing less.

                      Hardly. I would say it was yours for failing to refute his stances and your failure to prove him/me wrong--but in order for that to be true you would have needed credibility in the first place; which repeating soundbites does not generate...

                      • 1 vote
                      #7.21 - Sun Jan 22, 2012 7:19 PM EST
                      RatPoison

                      That dog doesn't hunt?... because you say so?...

                      Ron... let's be honest here. When you look at the content of the posts between you and Kane... there is something blatantly obvious. You provide events... and snippets of quotations or summations. Kane provided additional information beyond your quotations and summations that you left out.

                      Claiming context is not a whimsicle dreamt up fantasy... it is quite simply a matter of fact. Well... except you claim that it's not, yet do nothing to discredit the information Kane has put forth or provided an explanation as to why this additional information (that you left out) is to be ignored for the conclusions you want us to acccept.

                      This is absolutely a matter of context as it has been for the past year with nearly every issue and statement people have twisted against Paul.

                      So... you claim that dog doesn't hunt... and that the "whole interview" demonstrates how right you are... this being despite that you did not provide the whole interview... yet ironically you have Kane providing more information on these events/interviews and usurping your stance. Boy, this just gets so so confusing. Basically Ron... if you think the whole interview proves your point... then put it up there... highlight the relevant parts and explain it to us. Sitting back on your hands and shaking your head "no" just isn't going to cut it nor act as a challenge or counter to Kane's comment. Let's get it out there and the discussion rolling Ron... time to put up... or...

                      • 2 votes
                      #7.22 - Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:10 AM EST
                      Reply
                      agagnu

                      Such expenses for the constituents should be paid for by the constituents of that state and NOT from the Federal funds, one is state related the other is supported by 50 united states which is precisely what he wants to break up. Like father like son, a racist aqua Buddha.

                      • 1 vote
                      Reply#8 - Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:06 PM EST
                      Phil-540207

                      My thoughts are the racist may have been revealed --- Ron.

                        Reply#9 - Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:07 PM EST
                        Leave a Comment:
                        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                        Newsvine Privacy Statement
                        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                        FUN STUFF:
                        • Leaderboard |
                        • E-Mail Alerts |
                        • Top of the Vine |
                        • Newsvine Live |
                        • Newsvine Archives |
                        • The Greenhouse |
                        COMPANY STUFF:
                        • Code of Honor |
                        • Company Info |
                        • Contact Us |
                        • Jobs |
                        • User Agreement |
                        • Privacy Policy |
                        • About our ads
                        LEGAL STUFF:
                        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com