The Ron Pauliacs revenge

July 11, 2007

   Boy, I’ll never point out another chink in the armor of the American messiah again.  Was I ever laid waste.  They smote me from the left, and then they smited me from the left, and then I was even smitten by…wait.  thats a different post.  The Pauliacs reared there verbose heads at my challenge to explain the NAFTA Superhighway flip flop.  They were in full glory as the pointed out the following

 “he voted against his earmarks in the final bill”

“doesn’t I-69 already exist in Texas”

ouch.  Those hurt.  Bad.  Most of them failed to get past the first link because it was probably obvious that their fair haired boy had done an oopsie on this one.

    It’s ok though.  With the exception of a rare minority, they can’t accept that he can be wrong too.  They didn’t want to accept that he voted public funds to subsidize offshore oil exploration.  They didn’t want to accept that he votes both ways on abortion.  They didn’t want to accept that he tries to subsidize the shrimp industry, and that he uses earmarks to purchase votes.  They’d rather say something incredibly bright like “so does the other guy.”

Can we say NAFTA flip flop to gain support from rich Texans boys and girls?

   Let’s go with I’m right, you all are wrong on this one.


Ron Paul and the NAFTA Super Highway (with corrected links)

July 11, 2007

I apologize for the links.  They’ve been fixed

  As many of you know, I’m neither for nor against any political candidate at this point.  That being said I have shown more interest in Ron Paul than in many of the other candidates.  The reason for this is I believe Ron Paul is more dangerous.

   One of his bloggers the other day (name withheld) challenged me to come up with something they haven’t already figured out how to spin.  So here you go.  Explain this for me.

On October 30, 2006 He said this: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm

what this article does not say is the NAFTA superhighway IS I-69. 

On march 12, 2007, Ron Paul made a request for funds.  It was for I-69, and was categorized as funding for roads. see this link.  (page 20)

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf 

Now, if he was against it in october, why is he trying to appropriate funds for it in march?  Don’t say “well he voted against it in the final bill.”  Just tell me why he tried to appropriate funds for the NAFTA superhighway.

  There you go ron paul bloggers.  Handle that… BTW, I am really curious about this, so if any of you have information let me know.  The NAFTA superhighway will go through my town, and I don’t like it.  China is funding deep water ports in mexico, which will make them the big winner in the whole deal.

thanks mike for bringing this to my attention