Quote:
Originally Posted by Democrat
You also failed to mention my absolute FAVORITE part of the interview when Russert nailed him to the wall on his earmarks.
Here is a guy who rails against earmarks and yet has submitted over $400 MILLION in earmarks over the last decade for his district.
What a joke this guy is! He claims to "vote" against them all the while knowing they will pass and that if he doesn't play the game then his district will vote him out. Seems he is far more concerned with staying in Congress than following his conscience.
Just wondering - would you really vote for a guy who says he is against something that he actually actively participates in? If so, why?
|
ROTFL. You people really need to work on your critical thinking skills.
First of all, Tim Russert is a collectivist statist, so it's no wonder he doesn't like Paul's ideas. The interview was nothing more than a hit piece, but Paul held his own.
In the incident you're referring to, Russert tried to claim that Paul's introduction of spending bills at the request of his constituents, while voting against those same bills on the floor, equated to a contradiction. Paul refuted him by correctly noting that the money was going to be taken by force regardless, and that he had no control over the process as a whole. Since the money was going to be stolen regardless, Paul's constituents had as much right to it as any other citizens who had taxes stolen from them. There is no contradiction there.
I loved seeing Russert's ignorance on display with gems like "If we didn't have the Civil War there would still be slavery in 2007." ROTFLMAO. These buffoons really crack me up. Paul countered brilliantly stating that we could have done what every other country in the world did and end slavery without a war killing over 600,000 people. He specifically mentioned the British example in which the British government simply purchased all the slaves and then freed them. That shut Russert's ignorant trap on that subject for the rest of the interview.