Wild Shrimp! (Ron Paul's take of Wild Thing)

[Squidpup]

“Wild shrimp I think I love ya”

[1rudeboy]

Help me out here. Because the government over-regulates the domestic shrimping industry, it must financially support it? What was that Reagan quote, again?

[SJackson]

The poor turtles.

the federal government has imposed costly regulations on this industry dealing with usage of items such as by catch reduction devices and turtle excluder devices (TEDS)!!!!!

Wonder if Ron knows that after he eliminates income social security taxes there won't be money for his earmarks, or much of anything else.

[1rudeboy]

Here it is:

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

[KevinDavis]

You got that right. I don’t recall about Shrimp being in the Constitution..

[showme_the_Glory]

What about the hugh manatees?

[subterfuge]

the United States taxpayer is providing a total subsidy of $16,500,000,000 to the home countries of the leading foreign competitors of American shrimpers!

Yep. No one seems to wonder why places like Red Lobster are constantly running shrimp specials. THe stuff is dirt cheap because of the south american imports!

[Allegra]

EXCELLENT lyrics!

[mnehring]

Same question, who else is even TALKING about reducing Federal spending

Thank you, we actually agree about something.. Paul talks about being a strict constitutionalist..

[ejonesie22]

To rave reviews by raving lunatics...

[KevinDavis]

I don’t recall shrimp funding being in the Constitution...

[Vaquero]

[Wyoming Cowboy]

Sorry, I fail to see the humor. A bit sad that you should embarrass yourself so for no apparent reason.

As member JTN wrote on another thread pertaining to the subject (which I hope he/she wouldn't mind me quoting here),

When a constituent requests that Paul request an earmark, as a constituent service he always passes that request on to the appropriations committee. The committee decides whether or not to include that earmark in a bill. If that bill makes it out of committee, then the House votes on it. And Ron Paul votes no.

Now sing that one about Old McDonald too, wontcha please?

[mnehring]

..and Fred Phelps thinks that protesting solder's funerals is 'Biblical'... a lot of people talk about being X... that doesn't mean they are X.

[mnehring]

Actually, that explanation is funnier than dirtboy’s parody...

You know, if Paul is elected, he will need a cabinet position to explain what he ‘really means’ when he says or does something.. you should apply..

[KevinDavis]

That is true.. If truly was a Libertarian, he would not be handing out Shrimp subsidies..

[mnehring]

It’s so laughable to see the ‘machine’ at work in an attempt to discredit or destroy Dr. Paul, while virtually ignoring Guliani’s and Romney’s records altogether.

Actually, you miss the point entirely.. it isn't condemning Paul simply because he has some pork out there.. it is his speaking on one side of his mouth how bad on pork is, on another side of his mouth telling his constituents he will submit their pork requests, and another side of his mouth voting against a bill he told a constituent he would support.. on top of that.. all of Paul's followers make him out to be some second coming of Hamilton.. when in reality, Paul is just another politician like Guilani, Romney, or Hagel. He is just a little more verbose.

[1035rep]

Situational ethics. It all depends on what the meaning of the word “pork” is.

[dirtboy]

Sorry, I fail to see the humor.

I've noticed that Paulites don't have much of a sense of humor.