Brian Miller wrote:
BM) Sorry, Brian, no getting around the fact that Ron Paul voted for
continued government spending on education. The "whys" don't matter -- he
did it. (BM
When? On what bill? What are you talking about? Did you not even read
what you quoted me saying? "That was a vote against a bill that extended
Title V abstinence education funding for another two years".
BM) at the GOP "values voter" debate, he committed himself to pursuing
increased government funding of abstinence education in the future. The
public record doesn't lie. (BM
But you apparently do. I already demonstrated that the AP story you quoted
wasn't technically accurate. Again, the question asked was: "In the
interest of fairness and effectiveness, will you bring abstinence education
funding onto equal ground with contraceptive- based education?" A "yes" can
mean either increase abstinence education funding, or decrease
contraceptive-based education funding. Paul would surely reduce both kinds
two zero, and there are absolutely no facts in evidence here that Paul has
ever favored or voted for either kind of education funding. Either present
some, or admit you were wrong to uncritically parrot the AP story.
BM) His proponents have been willing to engage in tortured rhetoric to
"explain" his pork-barrel allocations ("oh, but he's against that and voted
against a bill he knew would pass after putting the pork in there"), (BM
The infamous Houston Chronicle article on Paul earmarks says Paul submitted
"requests" totaling $400M, but doesn't say any were approved. A large
majority of the Paul requests documented by the Chronicle were for
interstate highways and federal waterways, and thus within the bounds of
federal constitutional responsibility. The article noted that Paul usually
votes against appropriations even when they contain spending requests that
he forwarded from constituents, and quoted a prospective beneficiary
complaining that the requests are fruitless. The fact remains that if every
Congressmen followed Paul's practice, there would be zero pork.
BM) his anti-gay posturing ("oh he believes in 'states rights'") (BM
You obviously didn't listen to the 20 minutes' of Paul excerpts from the
values voter debate. I defy you to quote the worst instance of "anti-gay
posturing" by Paul in that debate. Go ahead. Make my day.
P.S. In watching the NH debate recently, I notice that Ron Paul (who fancies
himself Giuliani's tutor regarding 9/11) got his facts wrong when he claimed
that the FBI had warned of Arabs training to fly jetliners but not
interested in learning to land. This alleged lack of interest in landing on
the part of Moussaoui has been known to be an urban legend for over five
years. Slate documented it as such in May 2002:
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066080 . CNN confirmed as recently as 2006:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/03/moussaoui.school/index.html?section=cnn_to
pstories. As the Joint Intelligence Committee explained in Dec 2002:
JIC) It was also considered odd that Moussaoui simply wanted to learn the
most challenging elements of flying, taking off and landing a 747, which he
referred to as an "ego boosting thing." (JIC
Ron Paul the 9/11 teacher could use a refresher course.
