Hear ye, hear ye. Every conservative who supports Ron Paul, enter, stand and be recognized.
WHAT????????
Your average Paultard probably applauds what Assange is doing.
To be fair (and you all know I am no Ron Paul fan) he didn’t vote for the tax hike per say. Pelosi’s spin on her little tax cut extention is voting against her way is a tax hike.
You can replace that with his voting against condemning North Korea’s attack on SK.
There are a lot of Ron Paul supporters in the Tea Party movement.
I think he has the potential to split the Tea Party vote in the GOP primaries.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll607.xml
Hear ye, hear ye. Every conservative who supports Ron Paul, enter, stand and be recognized.
This is horse$#!+. Paul voted for censure of Rangel. He voted for extending the middle class tax cuts. And he said that we can’t prosecute Assange for treason because he’s Australian.
Man!
Any one read what his rationale for the tax hike vote was?
I never saw it.
Perhaps this blurb is totally untrue.
What a douche. Here’s hoping Rand fell faaaaaaar from the tree.
RP isn’t a libertarian, he’s a contrarian. If this gets him yet another shot on the Alex Jones show, he’ll be happy.
Maybe that’s why Libtard and Libertarian sound somewhat alike. There may well be reasons consistent in Ron Paul’s mind that justify each of those votes. At the same time, there’s more to the world than conforming with Ron Paul’s world view. Unfortunately, libtards tend to pass laws to make you conform while poor old Ron just tilts at the windmills.
What I think this is about is a campaign to keep Paul from a chairmanship where he can question the Federal Reserve. Paul should be in the chairmanship and he is the guy to ask the questions. He’s a political maverick and he’s the guy to do it. They don’t want that apparently.
Daniel Foster—not giving context, being deliberately misleading. Making a mental note to not trust him in the future.
That must have been Paul's evil twin.
I don't know why the title doesn't read Dies Mirabilis. If the noun is going to be in the accusative case, the adjective has to agree with it--so diem mirabilem--but I don't see any reason for the accusative case here instead of the nominative case.
so what’s new????
Old Deck Hand, you are most disingenuous and naive if you don’t think its better to vote for keeping some taxes instead of keeping none.
If you want to argue that Paul voted for a TAX INCREASE because this bill only kept tax cuts for the middle class,
then are you willing to argue with a straight face that the Republicans who voted AGAINST this bill don’t really favor the TAX CUTS for the Middle Class?
From the American Spectator (hardly Paul fans):
“But if you also favor retaining the tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers, are you supporting tax hikes if you vote first for the stand-alone middle-class tax cut bill? Especially when the Democratic majority leader publicly admits the partial tax cut has no chance of becoming law and all three Republicans voted for the original full tax cuts and say they favor their retention? Paul in particular has defended the tax cuts for the wealthy for some time:
I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes - rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a wealthy business owner to save millions in capital gains, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us infinitely more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury. The single mother desperately needs those extra dollars, and that’s why we should reduce or eliminate her payroll taxes. As for the wealthy business owner and whether he “needs” the extra dollars, I’ll simply relate the old adage of the man who said “I’ve never had my paycheck signed by a poor man.”
The most problematic provision of the bill Paul and company voted for is Section 102, which explicitly excludes “high income individuals” from the tax cuts and defines who doesn’t qualify. Left alone, that would be a tax increase on those individuals come January. But the legislation also explicitly continues the tax cuts for everyone else. Could you argue with a straight face that the Republicans who voted against this bill don’t really favor the tax cuts for the middle class?
Also, Ryan Ellis of the anti-tax increase Americans for Tax Reform comments below:
“In our opinion, Cong. Paul did not vote for a tax hike. The bill Congress voted on yesterday is a tax cut relative to 2011 law, which assumes everyone’s taxes go up. By preventing some people’s taxes from going up, this would score out as a tax cut.”
Actually, this is wrong. Peter King (NY) and Don Young (AK) were the only two Republicans to vote against censure once it came up for a vote. Paul, however, did support before the censure vote reducing the penalty from censure to reprimand.