No one's said it yet, so I will........ Ron Paul! [Archive]

karo.ambrose

10-04-2007, 09:50 AM

He's still not my kind of guy. Anti-abortion, anti-regulation, anti-tax on the wealthy. Nope.

Pity that his only one high scoring point is the Iraq War.

Ron Paul is against abortion in principle, but he doesn't believe it's the federal governments right to interfere one way or the other. He wants to relenquish power back to the states.

From his website:
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

And I think "anti-tax on the wealthy" is a bit misleading. He's anti-tax. He believes (but don't quote me, since I can't say everything verbatim) that the more taxes government accrues, the more power the government has to dictate our lives. And as the saying goes: "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

As for the anti-regulation thing, that really isn't my area of expertise. Maybe someone else could help me out on that one.

blacbird

10-04-2007, 10:20 AM

Another thing, I'm willing to put money that he WILL win the republican nomination. Seriously.

Please don't. I don't want you to be hurt.

caw

InfinityGoddess

10-04-2007, 10:32 AM

Ron Paul is against abortion in principle, but he doesn't believe it's the federal governments right to interfere one way or the other. He wants to relenquish power back to the states.

From his website:
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

Sorry, but that doesn't make it any better. I believe in the rights of all women to obtain an abortion if they want it at any time, regardless of where they live. No state or federal interference with that right, whatsoever. I like Roe the way it is, and I want the national Freedom of Choice Act to be passed. I know for a fact that there are states with "trigger laws" that will come into effect should Roe be overturned, either by the current SCOTUS, or proposals like Paul's. It's inhumane and cruel to force women to go underground for abortions. Absolutely not.

And I think "anti-tax on the wealthy" is a bit misleading. He's anti-tax. He believes (but don't quote me, since I can't say everything verbatim) that the more taxes government accrues, the more power the government has to dictate our lives. And as the saying goes: "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Actually, the Cato Institute would disagree with him on that. We need taxes to run a government. Unfortunately.

As for the anti-regulation thing, that really isn't my area of expertise. Maybe someone else could help me out on that one.

Anti-regulation means pro-let-corporations-do-whatever-the-hell-they-want-with-impunity. I prefer the robber barons to be restrained, thank you.

Joe270

10-04-2007, 10:46 AM

robber barons

There you go with that 1920's speech. Strange. Name a living robber baron for me, please.

Bartholomew

10-04-2007, 11:06 AM

There you go with that 1920's speech. Strange. Name a living robber baron for me, please.

Bill Gates. Rupert Murdoch.

Bartholomew

10-04-2007, 11:10 AM

Ron Paul has a huge internet following. But this is impossible to quantify. How many of them will actually go vote? What states are they in? What counties?

I suspect he's more of a hopeful for the election AFTER this one than for this election.

Still, I like (a good portion of) his politics.

Joe270

10-04-2007, 11:19 AM

Bill Gates. Rupert Murdoch.

Just because they are successful does not make them robber barons, Bart.

Here's a definition:
http://www.answers.com/topic/robber-baron

You'll note even the definition dates the term.

Bartholomew

10-04-2007, 11:38 AM

Just because they are successful does not make them robber barons, Bart.

Here's a definition:
http://www.answers.com/topic/robber-baron

You'll note even the definition dates the term.

questionable stock-market operations and exploitation of labor.

You're right. They both fit the definition.

But let's just say I agree with you completely. I'd really hate to see this thread turn into a long argument about whether or not the term "robber-baron" is appropriate.

Anyway, I suspect the term was used here to be more poetic than literate. God forbid that happen here of all places.

Opty

10-04-2007, 11:53 AM

Actually, neither one of them fit the definition at all.

But, it's cute that you're clinging so tightly to your misunderstanding of the term.

Joe270

10-04-2007, 12:31 PM

You callin' me cute? Them's fightin' words, by dang.

Bartholomew

10-04-2007, 12:49 PM

Actually, neither one of them fit the definition at all.

But, it's cute that you're clinging so tightly to your misunderstanding of the term.

Connotation is everything. Everyone seems to understand what "Robber Baron" meant in the sentence. Therefore, I will assume that you'd rather pick at minutiae and engage in childish taunting than have any sort of conversation.

Joe270

10-04-2007, 12:54 PM

Bart, I get where you're coming from, but don't think the poster we've skewered gets what you do.

Opty

10-04-2007, 01:06 PM

Connotation is everything. Everyone seems to understand what "Robber Baron" meant in the sentence. Therefore, I will assume that you'd rather pick at minutiae and engage in childish taunting than have any sort of conversation.

You, of all people, are accusing someone else of being childish?

http://www.condar.com/graphics/kettleblacksilver.jpg

Andrew

10-04-2007, 01:21 PM

Wouldn't a bit of libertarianism be a breath of fresh air for this country? Ah but to dream of the fine escape!

Bartholomew

10-04-2007, 01:24 PM

Bart, I get where you're coming from, but don't think the poster we've skewered gets what you do.

She disagrees with you. She used the term Robber-Baron in a sense that is pretty much 100% understandable. She used it to color a certain group of people in a fashion that she wants to portray them. Were it me, I'd debate her on some point other than her word choice.

Joe270

10-04-2007, 01:28 PM

Go for it, Bart. I've tried. Many others. Now it's your turn. Keep some aspirin handy.

SC Harrison

10-04-2007, 04:58 PM

He should run as a third-party candidate. :)

RumpleTumbler

10-04-2007, 05:02 PM

Another thing, I'm willing to put money that he WILL win the republican nomination.

Name the amount and I'm in.

AndiB

10-04-2007, 05:43 PM

First of all Ron Paul isn't opposed to tax in general. He's opposed to personal income taxes. BTW there is no legal basis for having them in this country it is one of those things that is enforced by the might of the law rather than the rule of the law.

Goddess what kind of incentive do we as a nation offer people to succeed when we levy higher taxes on those that do than any other group? In fact, the poor earn more from earned income tax credits than they actually pay for taxes so they certainly aren't contributing to the money that is used to assist the government. The wealthy can actually afford tax attorneys that save them millions in taxes each year which once again leaves the middle class bearing the brunt of the tax burden (personal income tax) for the nation.

Ron Paul did say that while he would prefer to abolish taxes all together he would support the fair tax, which is based on spending rather than income and the poor are extended a credit each month to help 'level' the spending pool.

Personally, I am opposed to the government regulating anything to do with our bodies. That includes government sponsored health care as much as government sponsored or banned abortion. I don't think the government should have the right to that kind of information or oversight when it comes to our bodies and Ron Paul is trying to make it a state issue rather than a federal government issue. Many issues that the federal government claims authority over should be within the pervue of states rights according to the way our government was established. He seeks to return to that and this is something that I find incredible and inspiring in a politician.

Whether you like him or not he is the only candidate I've seen that is a strict constitutionalist even though all of them aspire to take an office that is supposed to defend and uphold the constitution. I would much rather have someone in that office that believes in the document than one who merely pays lip service.

karo.ambrose

10-04-2007, 06:08 PM

RumpleTumbler, I PM'ed you.

Yea, George W. once called the constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper": http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

So much for the sanctity of the main document that entitles rights to the people of this nation. We desperately need to return to the constitution because are freedoms as outlined by our founding fathers are disappearing, slowly but surely and Ron Paul is the only one with the voting record that proves he's serious about restoring the constitution. No more warrantless eavesdropping, no more torture prisons, no more undeclared wars, no more illegal income taxes.

You know, Ron Paul may be out of the mainstream, but look where the main stream is today. I'm sorry but if the debate ends up being how much of a police state is okay (ahem, Rudy) or how much welfare we should be handing out (Hill-dawg!), I think I will sit this election out.

billythrilly7th

10-04-2007, 06:11 PM

Name the amount and I'm in.

Me too.

Ron Paul.:ROFL:

How about a million gazillion dollars? Just to make it interesting.

karo.ambrose

10-04-2007, 06:15 PM

I suspect he's more of a hopeful for the election AFTER this one than for this election.

Yea, but he's 73-years-old. That would make him 78 in 2012, a pretty ripe number for a presidential candidate. Not to say it couldn't happen, but that would make him the oldest president-elect ever.

Hmmm.... I just wikipedia'ed it and discovered Ronald Reagen was the oldest president ever elected in... at 69. So Ron Paul would be the oldest president even in this election cycle by a good 4 years.

I'd love to make more bets, but I guess I have some of that starving artist thing to worry about too. So one's good for me :)

William Haskins

10-04-2007, 06:16 PM

RumpleTumbler, I PM'ed you.

Yea, George W. once called the constitution "just a goddamned piece of paper": http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

capitolhillblue is a notoriously unreliable source and is scorned by most on both ends of the political spectrum. there's never been any independent confirmation that bush said such a thing, and list of doug thompson's debunked claims is pretty extensive.

RumpleTumbler

10-04-2007, 06:22 PM

Me too.

Ron Paul.:ROFL:

How about a million gazillion dollars? Just to make it interesting.

The early bird gets the worm. :D

karo.ambrose

10-04-2007, 06:24 PM

capitolhillblue is a notoriously unreliable source and is scorned by most on both ends of the political spectrum. there's never been any independent confirmation that bush said such a thing, and list of doug thompson's debunked claims is pretty extensive.

Regardless if he did say that or not, his actions are proof enough that he does believe the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, whether he wants to admit it or not.

billythrilly7th

10-04-2007, 06:36 PM

Okay Karo...i'll bet you something you can afford.

500 Rep points.

If Ron Paul does not get the nom, you give me 500 rep points.

If he does, I give you 500.

In the comment section you say "You're always right, Billy. Ron Paul? What in god's name was I thinking."

If you win, I'll say "God help us. I can't believe my nominee is Ron Paul. I'm going to go find a very tall building."

Deal?

William Haskins

10-04-2007, 06:37 PM

Regardless if he did say that or not, his actions are proof enough that he does believe the constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper, whether he wants to admit it or not.

oh, well if one's personal opinion of him justifies putting any words in his mouth one wishes, that's a different story. by all means, proceed.

"dead muslim babies taste like chicken." - george w. bush

karo.ambrose

10-04-2007, 06:45 PM

Billy, I'm all for legitimate bets, but that justs sounds immature and condescending.

William, my bad. I didn't know the credibility of the resource I got the quote from. But regardless, that is how GW treats the constitution... actually that's how pretty much the entire political process has been treating it lately.

SC Harrison

10-04-2007, 06:49 PM

Ron Paul did say that while he would prefer to abolish taxes all together he would support the fair tax, which is based on spending rather than income and the poor are extended a credit each month to help 'level' the spending pool.

The Fair Tax is a bad idea for a few reasons, but I'll give you just one for now: the retail market is the main driver behind the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs from the U.S. to cheaper labor pools. You slap an extra 10% - 15% (or more) on top of the price of retail goods, you might as well just go around locking doors of U.S. factories. Why? Because the only way people will be able to avoid taxes is by buying extremely cheap goods, or used goods, both of which are anathema to U.S. manufacturing.

A Presidential hopeful that isn't aware of this has no business even running.

William Haskins

10-04-2007, 06:50 PM

William, my bad. I didn't know the credibility of the resource I got the quote from.

no problem. i'm always willing to cut a fellow austinite some slack.

RLB

10-04-2007, 07:00 PM

The Fair Tax is a bad idea for a few reasons, but I'll give you just one for now: the retail market is the main driver behind the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs from the U.S. to cheaper labor pools. You slap an extra 10% - 15% (or more) on top of the price of retail goods, you might as well just go around locking doors of U.S. factories. Why? Because the only way people will be able to avoid taxes is by buying extremely cheap goods, or used goods, both of which are anathema to U.S. manufacturing.

A Presidential hopeful that isn't aware of this has no business even running.

It's been a couple of years since I read the fair tax book, but fair tax advocates are arguing against federal taxes on corporations too. Therefore, all the embedded taxes companies pass on to us in the price of goods would theoretically go away. So it'd hopefully be a wash, and the price of goods wouldn't change all that much. And the average American would have thirty extra percent of his income in his pocket. Anyway, I've meant to read more about it, because it does sound intriguing.

We'd finally get to tax drug lords though. Bonus.

billythrilly7th

10-04-2007, 07:28 PM

Billy, I'm all for legitimate bets, but that justs sounds immature and condescending.

A. That's what I do. Duh.
B. You said you weren't accepting any more legitamate bets. Way to not back up your stupid statement that Ron Paul was going to win the Republican nomination. Please join us here in the real world at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bartholomew

10-04-2007, 07:50 PM

Yea, but he's 73-years-old. That would make him 78 in 2012

OUCH.

InfinityGoddess

10-04-2007, 08:22 PM

Personally, I am opposed to the government regulating anything to do with our bodies. That includes government sponsored health care as much as government sponsored or banned abortion. I don't think the government should have the right to that kind of information or oversight when it comes to our bodies and Ron Paul is trying to make it a state issue rather than a federal government issue. Many issues that the federal government claims authority over should be within the pervue of states rights according to the way our government was established. He seeks to return to that and this is something that I find incredible and inspiring in a politician.

You do realize that if we had left a lot of things "up to the states", we'd still have segregation in certain parts of the country (and other Jim Crow nonsense), and women dying in back alley abortions, yes? If it weren't for Brown vs. The Board of Education, the Civil Rights Acts, Griswold vs. Connecticut, and Roe vs. Wade, we'd be an even lesser free country than we are now.

Plus, the "states rights" issue seems to only apply to denying or giving rights to certain groups of people. They only stop being "states rights" if you dare to *gasp* regulate corporations. So no consistency there.

William Haskins

10-04-2007, 08:30 PM

InfinityGoddess

10-04-2007, 08:35 PM

what, then, is your opinion of john edwards' (who you've strongly defended lately) stance on civil unions and gay marriage, which he believes should be left up to individual states?

I never said he was perfect. If there's someone better who can actually challenge him on that, then I'd go for that person (and no Kucinich doesn't count). I only said that he was the most populist economically out of the top tier, if not socially. I think that there are more urgent issues to deal with.

William Haskins

10-04-2007, 08:43 PM

InfinityGoddess

10-04-2007, 08:48 PM

so your condemnation of politicians who abdicate decision making or advocacy on a federal level is on a sliding scale, from horrible to no big deal, depending on the politician and, presumably, party.

got it.

No. You didn't get it.

I don't think that the issue of gay marriage is nearly as important as labor issues, certain women's issues, and other things that need more immediate attention. Maybe it's because either I'm not dating at the moment or it's because I'm not that interested in marriage anyways. Some people in the gay community think it's OMG MUST SOLVE RIGHT NOW, but I'm not quite ready to make that leap yet.

Besides, people are starting to realize that a platform of bigotry isn't American. That's always a good sign.

Jean Marie

10-04-2007, 08:56 PM

joetrain

10-04-2007, 09:42 PM

You do realize that if we had left a lot of things "up to the states", we'd still have segregation in certain parts of the country (and other Jim Crow nonsense), and women dying in back alley abortions, yes? If it weren't for Brown vs. The Board of Education, the Civil Rights Acts, Griswold vs. Connecticut, and Roe vs. Wade, we'd be an even lesser free country than we are now.

in america, the shift of powers between federal and local levels has been in flux since the constitution was penned, the only general trend being toward greater size in each level. this flux has, in many ways served us well. many of the nationalizing policies of FDR led to industrial and social regulation that benefited the people and economy, but he also increased the power of each state to participate in independent social programs so that, when nixon arrived, the feds could trust states with increasing grant allocations that (supposedly) represented a shift of power from the national to the local level. this process of flux works well as a natural balance in the American federal system. i think it's dangerous to say that either state-centered or nation-cenetered views are always correct.

now, considering the leaps in the size and potency of the federal government during the past couple of decades, it could easily be said that the fed govt would benefit from being checked by a state-centered president such as ... ron paul! especially considering that his more extreme policies would stand little chance in a contemporary congress.

InfinityGoddess

10-04-2007, 09:45 PM

Actually, it's not the issue of gay marriage that's important, IG, it's more the issue of health insurance for both partners, etc. So, it's quite crucial to the platform of the next president, whomever that may be.

It's more about equal rights, across the board.

I'm aware of that, but at the same time if the Democratic candidates are already handling the healthcare issue with their plans (which are really pretty much the same with a "hybrid" plan of both private and public sector stuff within the top three), that issue is pretty moot. I do believe that gays should be treated as equals to straights (naturally), but I also believe in a more practical approach and priorities. Take care of economics, healthcare and the Iraq Occupation and the issues therein first. Then deal with other issues. Or if they feel they can do it all in one fell swoop, then go for it.

SC Harrison

10-04-2007, 10:19 PM

It's been a couple of years since I read the fair tax book, but fair tax advocates are arguing against federal taxes on corporations too. Therefore, all the embedded taxes companies pass on to us in the price of goods would theoretically go away. So it'd hopefully be a wash, and the price of goods wouldn't change all that much. And the average American would have thirty extra percent of his income in his pocket. Anyway, I've meant to read more about it, because it does sound intriguing.

We'd finally get to tax drug lords though. Bonus.

Even if prices did even out (which I have serious doubts about), only collecting revenues from retail purchases would cause even worse fiscal behavior than we see now. Pissing away surpluses from fat times, borrowing from (?) to cover skinny times, and people would still be prone to spend that extra cash on non-taxable stuff.

karo.ambrose

10-05-2007, 08:59 AM

A. That's what I do. Duh.
B. You said you weren't accepting any more legitamate bets. Way to not back up your stupid statement that Ron Paul was going to win the Republican nomination. Please join us here in the real world at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't see what's so stupid about my statement. Check out Ron Paul's numbers from the straw polls across the country:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

I for one believe that straw polls are better indicators of the health of a campaign than phone polls because it shows he has real ability to get his supporters out and voting.

You can try and believe Ron Paul is a kook and/or a joke all you want, but his message is growing, doubling each quarter in fact. I didn't accept your bet because it was just an attempt to demean Ron Paul and my support of him, so I won't play that game.

blacbird

10-05-2007, 11:03 AM

karo.ambrose

10-05-2007, 08:26 PM

Your idealism is admirable, Karo, and there are things to admire about Ron Paul. If he can succeed in affecting the dialog of the accelerating Presidential campaign, it will be a good thing. But in terms of the reality of the day, there are really no more than a half-dozen viable Next Presidents, and Ron Paul isn't close to being one of them.

caw

Lets look at college football for a second (I could've really picked any sport actually). The pundits and newscasters can make all the predictions about a team's offense or defense, injuries, compare stats, home-field advantage until the cows come home. But no one can predict what happens once the game starts. The underdog can and does win. Look at last week. Auburn beats #4 Florida, Kansas State beats #7 Texas (:cry:), Colorado beats #3 Oklahoma (:snoopy:), and Southern Florida beats #5 West Virginia. Four of the top ten teams were defeated in ONE WEEK. And we can't forget that amazingly awesome upset of Appalachian State beating Michigan during week 1(:roll:).

Ron Paul is an underdog, but to say he isn't a viable Next-President or he doesn't stand a chance is like an announcer saying that Michigan was going to tear Appalachian State a new one. There's a lot of brazen comments going around that Ron Paul has zero chance before the first primary vote has been cast but like in football, no one knows whats going to happen until the game starts. Upsets are a regular part of sports... they happen all the time.

Think Jimmy Carter for a second. From what I understand, he was polling at 2% before the primaries too and he won the democratic nomination and went on to become the next prez. Upsets are a regular part of politics too.

Basically, Ron Paul is Appalachian State. And he's going to tear the wolverines a new one.

Bartholomew

10-05-2007, 08:35 PM

Basically, Ron Paul is Appalachian State. And he's going to tear the wolverines a new one.

I wish I could share that optimism.

Jacob

10-09-2007, 09:38 AM

I really like Ron Paul! His ideas are balanced ,he is very intelligent and he seems to be sincere(even for a politician).
Sadly, I dont think he has much of a shot at becoming President but he def has my vote
..and it may turn out like Gandhi said " First they ignore you,then they laugh at you,then they fight you ,then you win". You never know, I guess.

.

RumpleTumbler

10-09-2007, 03:13 PM

I was searching for something to watch last night during dinner and stopped on Glenn Beck. I've never watched him before for more than 30 seconds or so and didn't know his name until last night. However he said something that may change that. I could become at least a sporadic viewer. For he said..........

Ron Paul is the mayor of crazytown. :roll: He then played videos to back up that claim.

I'm easily amused.

Anyway...I didn't know Ron Paul was going to "abolish the FBI" so I learned something as well.

Good luck with that, Ron.

SC Harrison

10-09-2007, 08:23 PM

I could become at least a sporadic viewer.

Ron Paul may very well be the Mayor of Crazytown, but Glenn Beck is definitely the Dean of Hyperbole University.

Let a bird crap on his windshield and you get a spitting, red-faced rant about how f**ked up the Audubon Society is and how people keeping their bird feeders constantly full of seed has ruined the work ethic of the young avian population.

RumpleTumbler

10-09-2007, 08:26 PM

Ron Paul may very well be the Mayor of Crazytown, but Glenn Beck is definitely the Dean of Hyperbole University.

It would be strictly for entertainment value.

karo.ambrose

10-10-2007, 05:44 AM

One thing that's really frustrating is when people like John Gibson of Fox News say stuff like this on October 5: ALL Ron Paul supporters believe 9/11 is a cover up and Ron Paul should just admit that he agrees with them. First of all, the fact that John Gibson can say this blatant lie and go around masquerading it as professional newscasting is despicable. Second of all, Ron Paul has NEVER said he thought 9/11 was an inside job. In fact, he has gone on the record numerous times stating that 9/11 is the result of blowback: bad US foreign policy in the middle east resulted in angry men who wanted revenge. And lastly, not all RP supporters believe 9/11 was an inside job. And I know this for a fact because I support RP and I don't believe that the US had anything to do with 9/11. This is just another way that the MSM is dismissing Ron Paul as nothing more than the "mayor of crazytown."

BTW, if you want to see the John Gibson video, it's on www.foxnews.com (http://www.foxnews.com) ... scroll down and click on John Gibson's pic... the video is titled "this week's winners and losers"

InfinityGoddess

10-10-2007, 05:51 AM

First of all, the fact that John Gibson can say this blatant lie and go around masquerading it as professional newscasting is despicable.

That kind of reporting was what got him fired from MSNBC and hired by Fixed News. Gibson wouldn't know "professional newscasting" if it smacked him in the face.

blacbird

10-10-2007, 06:45 AM

Gibson has made Olbermann's Worst list more than once, and he's earned the honor. But his hair and teeth look good on TV.

caw

plnelson

10-10-2007, 10:37 PM

i don't think a candidate as aggressive on overturning roe vs wade, abolishing social security, welfare and public education stands a chance.

it's fun to watch him run, but he's nowhere near enough in the mainstream to mount an effective campaign.

The basic problem with libertarianism is simple:

Most modern democratic industrial societies, including the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, and western Europe are based on similar principles - privately-owned businesses, a strong central state with regulatory authority, and a system of taxes to pay for various government services that people generally want such as a pension system, various health schemes, public and product safety, and other functions. The details vary but that's the basic model.

This system basically works, even though it has various flaws and problems of which we are all aware.

Along comes the LP with a radical alternative. The problem is that their alternative has never been shown to actually work in any modern industrial democracy, or even a large province or city of one. (I think there's a tiny libertarian town in AZ) So at this point it's pure speculation.

Comparing an existing industrial democracy to a libertopia is like comparing an actual automobile to a magic carpet. Sure, the car makes noise and pollution and it needs maintenance, but basically it gets you where you want to go. The magic carpet is quiet and comfortable and swift and clean, but there's just one problem: no one has produced a working prototype. Yet Ron Paul is, in effect, proposing to replace the interstate highway system with a magic-carpet flyway.

If the LP were serious, and not just doing a political stunt they would take every penny of their resources and get themselves elected in a small industrial state, like Rhode Island, or some country like Norway or New Zealand, just to prove that it works.

Bird of Prey

12-14-2007, 03:05 AM

You know, I've been seeing Ron Paul signs and bumper stickers all over the place.

I'm really surprised.

RumpleTumbler

12-14-2007, 03:48 AM

I eagerly await my $50. :)

WarrenP

12-14-2007, 04:03 AM

The basic problem with libertarianism is simple:

Most modern democratic industrial societies, including the US, Canada, Japan, Australia, and western Europe are ....

If the LP were serious, and not just doing a political stunt they would take every penny of their resources and get themselves elected in a small industrial state, like Rhode Island, or some country like Norway or New Zealand, just to prove that it works.

Good post, and this is why when folks ask me what I politically, I say a libertarian with conservative ideology, and even now and then agreement with the democrats. I wish the Libertarian party was more serious, but they have way to many 'out-there' platform ideas for me to ever be a card-carrying member. Too bad, ten years ago I had some hope for them.

Bird of Prey

12-14-2007, 04:13 AM

Good post, and this is why when folks ask me what I politically, I say a libertarian with conservative ideology, and even now and then agreement with the democrats. I wish the Libertarian party was more serious, but they have way to many 'out-there' platform ideas for me to ever be a card-carrying member. Too bad, ten years ago I had some hope for them.

May I remind you that Paul is not running as a Libertarian. And I have yet to see any amount of bumper stickers or lawn signs of any other candidate equaling what I've seen with the name Ron Paul.

Heh, he's the only nonwarmongering Republican candidate, with the exception - maybe - of Richardson. Giuliani has a foot in and a foot out.

Paul has ethics and the Constitution in mind. Maybe that's what people are looking for.

Monkey

12-14-2007, 04:23 AM

Goddess what kind of incentive do we as a nation offer people to succeed when we levy higher taxes on those that do than any other group?

I have heard this line of reasoning before, and I have to address it.

My husband is a teacher and I write. At our income level, we do indeed recieve money at tax time.

Someone (several someones, actually) in our immediate family is a multi-millionaire. Believe me, they get hit pretty hard by taxes. Thousands of dollars in property taxes alone.

So why, then, would they even want to be wealthy? What incentive do they have?

Come on, do I really have to answer that? Is it that hard to understand?

They own multiple houses on multiple properties that are nicer than the one house my family and I rent. They will never, ever have to worry about paying rent or buying food or paying their electric bill. I could go on for days. The gap between rich and poor is so large that the difference in taxes owed doesn't begin to touch it.
#
Taxes do some very necessary things. They do some crappy things, too, but the way to deal with that isn't to scrap the whole system.
#
I don't think that Ron Paul has a chance, and I'll lose no sleep over it.

karo.ambrose

12-14-2007, 05:06 AM

Ron Paul's going to drop a lot of jaws on December 16th. It's going to be the bomb.

blacbird

12-14-2007, 06:15 AM

Heh, he's the only nonwarmongering Republican candidate, with the exception - maybe - of Richardson.

Richardson is a Democrat.

caw

whistlelock

12-14-2007, 08:05 AM

blacbird

12-14-2007, 08:15 AM

Personally I can't get behind Ron Paul at all. I don't like any of his ideas or policy concepts. He wants a 19th century government in a 21st century world. he's the antithesis in what I want out of my government.

In addition to being a looney.

Exact analysis. I've had this argument with my 19-year-old son, a politically astute college student and a debater, who is good with on-his-feet discussion, and is otherwise pretty liberal politically (he thinks George W. Bush is stupider and a bigger national disaster than even I do). It really turns out that Ron Paul has turned the crank of younger people very much the way Howard Dean did in the early phase of the 2004 campaign. By being "different". Through using "different" means of connecting with the public about his politics. There's a large chunk of Marshall McLuhan's great truth involved: the medium is the message.

He still has the chance of getting the Repub nomination that a squid has of climbing Mt. Everest.

caw

Bird of Prey

12-14-2007, 03:03 PM

Richardson is a Democrat.

caw

Sorry!! Not Richardson!! Tancredo. I was really tired. I got the New Mexico, Colorado thing confused. It's all such a big blur to me now.

Edit: Or maybe it was losing the brakes on Wolf Creek Pass. . . .

SC Harrison

12-14-2007, 06:15 PM

I eagerly await my $50. :)

Will Ron Paul Liberty Dollars be sufficient?

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h34/scharrison/ronpauldollar.jpg

On a scale of one to hilarious, this rates about 8.7. :)

Bartholomew

12-14-2007, 06:36 PM

Nah. Last election set a trend. Whoever puts out the biggest bribe to the folk with control over the electronic voting machines wins the election.

Ron Paul may have the smallest campaign fund, but if he crosses the right palms with silver...

Bird of Prey

12-14-2007, 07:00 PM

SC Harrison

12-14-2007, 07:04 PM

Whoever puts out the biggest bribe to the folk with control over the electronic voting machines wins the election.

Unfortunately, that bribe was already paid many years ago:

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/03/03_200.html

It's an interesting and worrysome tale, but these guys:

The firm, which is privately held, began as a company called Data Mark, which was founded in the early 1980s by Bob and Todd Urosevich.

are the ones that really grabbed my attention.

My state (NC) just recently chose ES&S as the only "qualified" supplier of e-voting machines (even though they're being sued in other states), so I did a little Googling to see what would pan out. These two brothers have now "split" apart, one working for Diebold and the other ES&S, companies supposedly in fierce competition with each other. Right.

karo.ambrose

12-15-2007, 04:57 AM

It's official. Ron Paul now has his very own blimp (http://www.flickr.com/photos/21836324@N02/tags/blimp/).

Yet he still gets no coverage on nytimes.com, foxnews.com, or cnn.com for this amazing feat. Honestly, if Obama's supporters or Hill-dawg's supporters or Giuliani's supporters raised money on their own terms for a freaking blimp, it would be front page news--at least in the politics section. But when Ron Paul does it... oh, his supporters are just whack jobs, 9-11 truthers and other people on the fringe. He's not worthy of any exposure.

He's the only candidate that has visible signs of support. I live in Austin and I see tons of RP bumper stickers and lawn signs, and I've seen about 2 Obama stickers, 1 Clinton sticker, and 1 Romney sticker. I've yet to see any visible support for any of the other candidates. Plus, Ron Paul supporters are putting their money where their mouths are: he's raising gobs of money from private donors and has raised more money than any other candidate from the MILITARY. He's going to more than likely blow all the other repub candidates out of the water with fundraising for the 4th quarter.

ANY other candidate who raises the MOST money in a quarter would most certainly be considered a top-tier candidate. But all I hear when it comes to Ron Paul is "He doesn't stand a chance" over and over again.

Anyhoo... Ron Paul 2008!!!

Edit: I take back what I said about nytimes.com. They have a piece in their caucus blog (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/14/the-blimp-is-up/)... with some very positiver responses from readers.

Bartholomew

12-15-2007, 10:43 AM

I thought you supported Ron Paul. Do you still?

He'd make an awesome president. I think he's exactly the sort of thing we need.

Unfortunately, unless all these internet folk get out there and actually vote, he's doesn't have a hope in heck.

Bartholomew

12-15-2007, 10:44 AM

It's official. Ron Paul now has his very own blimp (http://www.flickr.com/photos/21836324@N02/tags/blimp/).

Good to know my $35 went to good use. :)

Bird of Prey

12-15-2007, 04:07 PM

He'd make an awesome president. I think he's exactly the sort of thing we need.

Unfortunately, unless all these internet folk get out there and actually vote, he's doesn't have a hope in heck.

I think he's a good choice, too. He appears to be a principled man, and he's not a warmonger. Two good reasons right there.

SC Harrison

12-15-2007, 06:30 PM

I think he's a good choice, too. He appears to be a principled man, and he's not a warmonger. Two good reasons right there.

Let me give you a couple of good reasons why those who consider themselves liberal should not be supporting Ron Paul: he is a staunch anti-abortion proponent and he wants to seriously roll back (or do away with entirely) entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc.

In his own words:

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.

The answer to these critical financial realities is simple, but not easy: We must rethink the very role of government in our society. Anything less, any tinkering or “reform,” won’t cut it. A good start would be for Congress to repeal the Medicare prescription drug bill.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Stem%20Cells

clintl

12-15-2007, 08:03 PM

I

ANY other candidate who raises the MOST money in a quarter would most certainly be considered a top-tier candidate. But all I hear when it comes to Ron Paul is "He doesn't stand a chance" over and over again.

That's because he has not been able to leverage his fundraising prowess into competitive poll numbers, unlike Howard Dean was able to do using a similar strategy in 2004. He's running no better than fifth in any of the first three caucus/primary states, and he's in double digits in only one of them. And he's quickly running out of time to improve his poll numbers.

blacbird

12-16-2007, 01:33 AM

That's because he has not been able to leverage his fundraising prowess into competitive poll numbers, unlike Howard Dean was able to do using a similar strategy in 2004. He's running no better than fifth in any of the first three caucus/primary states, and he's in double digits in only one of them. And he's quickly running out of time to improve his poll numbers.

Dammit, Clint, with all this reality-based reasoning, you're spoiling such a fun piece of speculative fiction here.

caw

clintl

12-16-2007, 02:54 AM

A Ron Paul surge would be a fun thing, I think. A Ron Paul presidency - not so much. My own feeling is that the end result of a libertarian government would be a new feudalism.

Bird of Prey

12-16-2007, 08:53 PM

Let me give you a couple of good reasons why those who consider themselves liberal should not be supporting Ron Paul: he is a staunch anti-abortion proponent and he wants to seriously roll back (or do away with entirely) entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc.

In his own words:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Stem%20Cells

SC, I think I'm O.K. with all of that, and I'll tell you why.

Even though he's anti-abortion, he wants to kick it and pretty much everything back to the states and let it be legislated there. All right. Let the states decide. I think it's possible that states would do a better job of health care vs. the federally funded Medicare, and I think it gives people in this country an option of how they want to live. It would radically change the country; if you were a liberal, you'd want to live in certain states versus a conservative. I think Paul is a purist, and as odd as it may seem, I think sometimes purity works; here it means a strict adherence to the principle of freedom from federal control.

All that said, I can't say that I'd vote for him. I like the fact that he's principled, but like most, I fear we've gone too far down the path of constitutional compromise to return to its long abandoned origin.

InfinityGoddess

12-16-2007, 09:04 PM

Even though he's anti-abortion, he wants to kick it and pretty much everything back to the states and let it be legislated there. All right. Let the states decide. I think it's possible that states would do a better job of health care vs. the federally funded Medicare, and I think it gives people in this country an option of how they want to live. It would radically change the country; if you were a liberal, you'd want to live in certain states versus a conservative. I think Paul is a purist, and as odd as it may seem, I think sometimes purity works; here it means a strict adherence to the principle of freedom from federal control.

See, I have a problem with "kicking it back to the states", especially when it comes to civil rights issues such as abortion (and especially abortion because women have DIED from back alleys before Roe vs. Wade). So in that instance, I disagree with that kind of purism that Paul represents.

Bird of Prey

12-16-2007, 09:20 PM

See, I have a problem with "kicking it back to the states", especially when it comes to civil rights issues such as abortion (and especially abortion because women have DIED from back alleys before Roe vs. Wade). So in that instance, I disagree with that kind of purism that Paul represents.

I think it would work, actually. But it would make for actual geographic divisions in the country as opposed to mere party lines. The question to my mind is whether or not that sets us toward more freedom or civil war.
My guess is that we would develop into something similar to the EU, which is not all that bad.

And ultimately, people would gravitate toward areas that reflect their philosophy. I think abortion would be legal in some states, not in others. But I'm all right with that, because if for example, women don't want the right to choose or it's not a priority, they don't have to have it.

Jean Marie

12-16-2007, 09:33 PM

Bird of Prey

12-16-2007, 10:25 PM

Having abortion legal in some states, and not in others, would be horrible. You'd have women traveling from their home state to others. Consider the expense of that. How unfair is that.

Consider the effect on the elderly if the Medicare Prescription Drug program were taken from them.

No way would I ever vote for an individual who wishes to legislate control over women's bodies. Not after that legislation has been so fervently fought for over the years to protect, on a federal level.

The elderly need their protection, as well. As do the disabled of this country. I'd not like to see them tossed out onto the street.

Women not wanting to live in an anti-abortion state don't have to. And if there's a dearth of women in anti-abortion states, my guess is, abortion would become legal.

And what makes you think states won't take care of their elderly?

But heh, it's all hypothetical, JM. It's not going to happen. As I said, we're too entrenched in a huge federal bureaucracy to dig our way out of it now.

Jean Marie

12-16-2007, 11:41 PM

Because, Bird, some states cannot be depended on to do the right thing. Not saying the Federal government can, either.

I agree the fat needs trimming, but it can't come from these 2 places. Some programs/laws shouldn't be left up to state levels.

Example: CT now has a state senator who refuses to give up his senate seat. He's just been elected Mayor of one of the largest cities in the state, Bridgeport, too. He feels if he does, he won't have as much power/say in the state legislature for the city he's now Mayor of. Right, but he's not as effective a Mayor for the city, either. And while he's doing one job, he may miss an important point of the other, such as what we're talking about. It could very well happen, especially if a major event occurs in the city which calls for his immediate attention, causing him to miss a crucial vote in the senate.

ETA: Governor Rell is pushing to have him, Senator Finch, to vacate his Senate seat. She feels, even though what he's doing is perfectly legal, which shocked the hell out of me, that he isn't capable of doing both jobs equally well. That no one is.

blacbird

12-17-2007, 01:04 AM

And what makes you think states won't take care of their elderly?

How many of them do now? And how many states aren't currently running big budget deficits?

caw

InfinityGoddess

12-17-2007, 01:07 AM

And ultimately, people would gravitate toward areas that reflect their philosophy. I think abortion would be legal in some states, not in others. But I'm all right with that, because if for example, women don't want the right to choose or it's not a priority, they don't have to have it.

Except that we're talking about people's lives here. Women who can afford it can easily go to another state that permits abortion, but the poor woman who can't afford the travel? She's as good as either dead or stuck with a child that she doesn't want. How cruel is that to a child to be born to a mother that doesn't want you?

Just...no. There are already human rights crisis in places like El Salvador and Nicaragua where they've completely banned abortion in all cases and women are dying because of it. Do we really want that in the United States? I sure don't. And there are states working on "trigger laws" that would come into effect the moment Roe is overturned. I'll be damned if that happens.

Bird of Prey

12-17-2007, 01:24 AM

Except that we're talking about people's lives here. Women who can afford it can easily go to another state that permits abortion, but the poor woman who can't afford the travel? She's as good as either dead or stuck with a child that she doesn't want. How cruel is that to a child to be born to a mother that doesn't want you?

Just...no. There are already human rights crisis in places like El Salvador and Nicaragua where they've completely banned abortion in all cases and women are dying because of it. Do we really want that in the United States? I sure don't. And there are states working on "trigger laws" that would come into effect the moment Roe is overturned. I'll be damned if that happens.

Whoa. I'm not arguing against pro-choice; I'm absolutely pro-choice. But what I'm saying is that the country is already polarized. The conservatives and liberals are already engaged in a civil "separatist" movement. I think returning to the states' their right to govern independently - as Paul is suggesting - could actually work.

You're assuming that a woman living in say, a hypothetically ultra-right state wants an abortion. Well, it's majority rules I suppose, and yes, a woman that wanted an abortion in that state might have to travel, but that's assuming that a woman living in that locale would want an abortion. She may not, as she's likely pro-life, was raised that way, etc.

To a degree, we're already moving toward people with certain beliefs residing in certain areas, reflecting certain demographics. Right? But as I said, it's just hypothetical. We can't give up big government, despite the fact that it's quite a departure - imo - from the Constitution's intent.

Bird of Prey

12-17-2007, 01:28 AM

How many of them do now? And how many states aren't currently running big budget deficits?

caw

It's a circular argument. I mean, why should they take care of the elderly if the Feds do it now?

And what's the difference between the states running big budget deficits and the Fed running a big budget deficit? At this point, it's clear to me that the government-za don't have the slightest concern about debt. What's a few more billion either way?

InfinityGoddess

12-17-2007, 01:31 AM

You're assuming that a woman living in say, a hypothetically ultra-right state wants an abortion. Well, it's majority rules I suppose, and yes, a woman that wanted an abortion in that state might have to travel, but that's assuming that a woman living in that locale would want an abortion. She may not, as she's likely pro-life, was raised that way, etc.

You'd be surprised about the stories I hear about anti-abortion women who actually go into the very clinics they condemn whether it's for themselves or their daughters to get an abortion. Trust me, they'll miss legal abortion as much as the rest of us.

Bird of Prey

12-17-2007, 01:34 AM

You'd be surprised about the stories I hear about anti-abortion women who actually go into the very clinics they condemn whether it's for themselves or their daughters to get an abortion. Trust me, they'll miss legal abortion as much as the rest of us.

Well, to be honest, IG, I'm sick of fighting with them, so I'm perfectly happy to give them a state - or states - all their own.

InfinityGoddess

12-17-2007, 01:37 AM

Well, to be honest, IG, I'm sick of fighting with them, so I'm perfectly happy to give them a state all their own.

Well, I'm not sick of fighting. I don't believe in anyone's rights being compromised for the sake of a few loons. Not even the hypocritical "The only moral Abortion is My Abortion" crowd.

Bird of Prey

12-17-2007, 01:52 AM

Not even the hypocritical "The only moral Abortion is My Abortion" crowd.

Huh? Who's that?

SC Harrison

12-17-2007, 03:07 AM

Let the states decide.

Some things are too important, Bird. Were it not for Federal government intervention, you would (probably) not be able to vote right now. You'd also be lucky to get a job and, if you did, your pay would be far less than your male coworkers. The Civil Rights movement would have bypassed several Southern states, leaving millions virtually non-citizens.

As far as abortion is concerned? The next time you see one of those red/blue maps, think about all those women in the red states.

blacbird

12-17-2007, 03:11 AM

And what's the difference between the states running big budget deficits and the Fed running a big budget deficit?

Actually, many (possibly most) states are constitutionally mandated to balance their budgets. So when they get into a deficit situation, they either must raise revenue or cut expenses. The state of Michigan just went through this in a crisis mode a few weeks ago, as a case in point. So I was misleading when I said "running big deficits"; I should have said "facing big deficits".

The feds, on the other hand, can run up deficits whenever they want, simply by postponing the funding into some indefinite future. That's how we're paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No state can reasonably operate in that manner.

caw

Bird of Prey

12-17-2007, 03:21 AM

Some things are too important, Bird. Were it not for Federal government intervention, you would (probably) not be able to vote right now. You'd also be lucky to get a job and, if you did, your pay would be far less than your male coworkers. The Civil Rights movement would have bypassed several Southern states, leaving millions virtually non-citizens.

As far as abortion is concerned? The next time you see one of those red/blue maps, think about all those women in the red states.

As I said, SC, it's hypothetical. Nevertheless, I do see large geographic areas having a decided demographic. Oddly, I think regional character is becoming more pronounced.

Regarding women/abortion, I'm glad it's federal, but frankly, it strikes me as rather precarious. As as long as there's a faction of women that fight against their right of pro-choice, its future is unclear. Women are still not treated as equals in often profound ways but sadly, do also work against themselves.

Bird of Prey

12-17-2007, 03:23 AM

Actually, many (possibly most) states are constitutionally mandated to balance their budgets. So when they get into a deficit situation, they either must raise revenue or cut expenses. The state of Michigan just went through this in a crisis mode a few weeks ago, as a case in point. So I was misleading when I said "running big deficits"; I should have said "facing big deficits".

The feds, on the other hand, can run up deficits whenever they want, simply by postponing the funding into some indefinite future. That's how we're paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. No state can reasonably operate in that manner.

caw

Well, bbird, another reason for more state control imho if indeed most states are forced to operate within the parameters of a balanced budget.

blacbird

12-17-2007, 03:34 AM

Well, bbird, another reason for more state control imho if indeed most states are forced to operate within the parameters of a balanced budget.

So we get back to the question of how the states will support their elderly. For starters, much of states' budgets consist of costs mandated by the feds (No Child Left Behind being but one example). Do you seriously think state legislatures will consider cutting, say, road building and maintenance in order to fund new programs to support the elderly? Hell, the ones that run my state will support commercial promotion of hunting and fishing long before they'll do that.

caw

Bird of Prey

12-17-2007, 03:46 AM

So we get back to the question of how the states will support their elderly. For starters, much of states' budgets consist of costs mandated by the feds (No Child Left Behind being but one example). Do you seriously think state legislatures will consider cutting, say, road building and maintenance in order to fund new programs to support the elderly? Hell, the ones that run my state will support commercial promotion of hunting and fishing long before they'll do that.

caw

Well, I'm sure the states - if in control - will be glad to be relieved of No Child Left Behind to fund their own educational programs, which in some cases could be infinitely better.

My belief really is that the more programs are "hands on" the more scrutiny they receive, so it stands to reason that states will be more obliging to the will of the people because the state government is more available to the voice of the average citizen.

That said, local politics can be brutal and laced with all kinds of dirty deeds, but then it's comparable on the federal level, probably worse. So I see merit in returning the government to the people. And if the Alaskan people suddenly have to choose between the welfare of their children, i.e. education and health care versus hunting promotion, my guess is the latter will not be a priority.

InfinityGoddess

12-17-2007, 05:07 AM

Huh? Who's that?

The women who get abortions despite their anti-abortion views.

karo.ambrose

12-17-2007, 09:46 AM

Unfortunately, unless all these internet folk get out there and actually vote, he's doesn't have a hope in heck.

Now don't be down, Bartholomew. Ron Paul just raised 6 million bucks (http://ronpaulgraphs.com) in one day, breaking Kerry's old record of 5.7 mil when he won the dem nomination in 2004. Dr. Paul has had over 200,000 individual donors to his campain this quarter alone. Over 20,000 new donors joined the Paul campaign just this Sunday. Maybe it's just my "speculative" opinion, but if someone's shelling out cash for a campaign, I'd say there's a pretty damn good chance you'd see them casting votes at the primaries as well. And no candidate out there has as many individual donors as my man Ron Paul.

In regards to this whole abortion talk, I personally ain't touching that topic with a 10-foot poll, so I'll leave it to Dr. Ron Paul, a gynecologist who has delivered 5,000 babies. Here he is talking about it on The View (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QPysYWw34T8) (and no, I am not a regular watcher of The View).

InfinityGoddess

12-17-2007, 09:58 AM

In regards to this whole abortion talk, I personally ain't touching that topic with a 10-foot poll, so I'll leave it to Dr. Ron Paul, a gynecologist who has delivered 5,000 babies. Here he is talking about it on The View (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QPysYWw34T8) (and no, I am not a regular watcher of The View).

Yeeeeeah. I think Dr. Paul needs to read the Constitution a little harder.

Dakota Waters

12-17-2007, 01:34 PM

Yeah Ron Paul!

Sorry, it's kind of my duty as a college kid. ::rolls eyes::

Bartholomew

12-17-2007, 01:45 PM

Now don't be down, Bartholomew. Ron Paul just raised 6 million bucks (http://ronpaulgraphs.com) in one day, breaking Kerry's old record of 5.7 mil when he won the dem nomination in 2004. Dr. Paul has had over 200,000 individual donors to his campain this quarter alone. Over 20,000 new donors joined the Paul campaign just this Sunday. Maybe it's just my "speculative" opinion, but if someone's shelling out cash for a campaign, I'd say there's a pretty damn good chance you'd see them casting votes at the primaries as well. And no candidate out there has as many individual donors as my man Ron Paul.

In regards to this whole abortion talk, I personally ain't touching that topic with a 10-foot poll, so I'll leave it to Dr. Ron Paul, a gynecologist who has delivered 5,000 babies. Here he is talking about it on The View (http://youtube.com/watch?v=QPysYWw34T8) (and no, I am not a regular watcher of The View).

Ron Paul might get some more media attention if he joined the whole fiasco centered around Jack Thompson and the Video Gaming industry. Idiotic as it may sound, I think he could engender good feelings with a crowd that already loves him. I'm pretty sure Hillary took advantage of the buzz; it may be a little late for it to sweep through the national media, but I know darn well he'd be in every gaming-news website in existence, and probably the likes of PC Gamer and EGM--not publications to scoff at.

#

I disagree with Dr. Paul's stance on Abortion, but I utterly respect it. He seems to understand that it is not his position to define my beliefs, and that makes me like him as a candidate all the more.

Bartholomew

12-17-2007, 01:53 PM

Jeez, the more I listen to him, the more I hope he gets elected.

SC Harrison

12-17-2007, 06:57 PM

I disagree with Dr. Paul's stance on Abortion, but I utterly respect it. He seems to understand that it is not his position to define my beliefs, and that makes me like him as a candidate all the more.

Here's (one of) my problems with his stance on abortion, which pretty much negates the importance of him delivering thousands of babies—he's authored legislation defining that "life begins at conception". That's a moral stance as opposed to a scientific one, so his being a doctor is no longer pertinent.

As Blacky said earlier in the thread, Paul doesn't just want to "let the states decide", he wants abortion outlawed across the board. If he can get the "life at conception" thing signed into law, states who don't outlaw abortion will be in violation of Federal statute, and patients and their doctors could be brought into Federal court for doing something their state says is okay.

InfinityGoddess

12-17-2007, 08:59 PM

If he can get the "life at conception" thing signed into law, states who don't outlaw abortion will be in violation of Federal statute, and patients and their doctors could be brought into Federal court for doing something their state says is okay.

Actually, they'd go after just the doctors for performing abortions, not the women so much. Because we're so easily coerced into killing our fetuses, dontcha know.

Seriously, every time you ask someone who's anti-abortion how you should punish women who seek abortions, they fumble.

Bird of Prey

12-17-2007, 09:01 PM

Here's (one of) my problems with his stance on abortion, which pretty much negates the importance of him delivering thousands of babies—he's authored legislation defining that "life begins at conception". That's a moral stance as opposed to a scientific one, so his being a doctor is no longer pertinent.

As Blacky said earlier in the thread, Paul doesn't just want to "let the states decide", he wants abortion outlawed across the board. If he can get the "life at conception" thing signed into law, states who don't outlaw abortion will be in violation of Federal statute, and patients and their doctors could be brought into Federal court for doing something their state says is okay.

The other Republicans haven't been trying to do that?

Bartholomew

12-17-2007, 09:28 PM

The other Republicans haven't been trying to do that?

Shhh.

SC Harrison

12-17-2007, 10:14 PM

The other Republicans haven't been trying to do that?

That's not my point. If conservatives want to choose Ron Paul as their candidate, they would actually be moving back towards their "traditional" values of small government and personal responsibility.

My problem is the way many liberals have focused exclusively on Ron Paul's anti-war stance as proof that he represents their beliefs, and they're ignoring some glaring conflicts they should have with his other policies.

Bird of Prey

12-18-2007, 12:06 AM

That's not my point. If conservatives want to choose Ron Paul as their candidate, they would actually be moving back towards their "traditional" values of small government and personal responsibility.

My problem is the way many liberals have focused exclusively on Ron Paul's anti-war stance as proof that he represents their beliefs, and they're ignoring some glaring conflicts they should have with his other policies.

You're right, SC. He is not a good pick for a liberal, but he is the best Republican out there in terms of a true conservative values and frankly, just plain values.

His abortion stand may be dangerous, but even if elected, I doubt he would get anywhere with it.

TheGaffer

12-19-2007, 07:02 AM

This groundswell for Ron Paul has resulted in him getting about 3% of the polling right now.

His only chance is if the other 5 candidates implode.

Interestingly enough, most of them seem hell-bent on doing just that (although with Fred Thompson one would have to have had a high point to jump from, and leading by 2 percentage points in a hypothetical poll in just South Carolina doesn't really count).

blacbird

12-19-2007, 07:26 AM

Another way of looking at this, methinks: If Giuliani were truly a compelling candidate for Republicans, he'd have buried every one of these limited-appeal pretenders by now. That he hasn't says more about him than it does about them.

caw

karo.ambrose

12-19-2007, 08:22 AM

In regards to polling:

1) Ron Paul is polling at 5% (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html) nationwide as of December 17th.

2) He is polling at 7% in New Hampshire, 5.8% in Iowa, 4.5% in Michigan, and one poll in South Carolina had him at 11%.

3) He is gaining ground in the polling, albeit modest gains.

Despite these small improvements in his numbers, Ron Paul has stated the irrelevancy of modern polling, especially when it comes to his campaign since they only poll landline phones and they only poll people who registered republican in 2004 for Bush. A lot of people are coming into the fray who weren't bushies: independents, democrats, and conservative republicans disenfranchised by Bush's reckless spending. I, for example, was a registered democrat in 2004, plus I don't have a landline, so my opinion would never be included in these polls. They're only polling a very select group and Ron Paul's appeal is stretching across the political spectrum. It's a very unique situation that's going to surprise a ton of people come primary season. I'd bet money on it--oh wait, I already did:)

Blacbird, are you referring to Ron Paul when you say "limited appeal" candidate? If so, I would respectfully disagree. He's just the opposite. His message of limited government and personal freedom is appealing to hoards of people. How else could he raise so much cash on a completely grassroots level? It's not slowing down, its growing exponetially. First quarter: $640,000, second quarter: $2,400,000, third quarter: $5,000,000 and so far this quarter $18,300,000 with 2 weeks left to go.

blacbird

12-19-2007, 08:34 AM

Karo,

I'm well aware of your infatuation with Ron Paul, and I respect it. My 19-year-old son shares it. I even respect certain aspects of his personal qualities and candidacy, and I'm happy he's out there raising the issues he is.

That said, as some others have noted here, aside from his opposition to the war (which derives from a streak of isolationism not unique to him among Republicans; Pat Buchanan is right there with him), there's not much about Paul's box of beliefs and positions which Democrats can get behind. And they have plenty of candidates from their own party who suffice on the war issue.

My comments are based simply on straightforward analysis of the situation, as clearly as I can discern it. I can't see Ron Paul even coming close to winning a primary or caucus in any state.

I even wish he could. He'd be far preferable to Giuliani or Romney or Huckabee in my pantheon of Republican candidates. But aside from multiple coincident plane crashes killing off the top four Republican candidates, I just don't see a way.

caw

karo.ambrose

12-19-2007, 08:38 AM

Then I guess we'll just have to let the voters decide.

Edit: Ron Paul had a really good interview with Glenn Beck today. He actually let Ron state his positions without getting yelled at every 3 seconds like in the O'Reilly interview. If anyone cares to watch it, its right here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8417135044213597647&q=glenn+beck+ron+paul&total=257&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8). BTW... it's 41 minutes... of pure liberty-loving fun.

There's one part where Glenn Beck basically says he wants to make out with Ron Paul. It's pretty awkward.

InfinityGoddess

12-19-2007, 03:38 PM

There's one part where Glenn Beck basically says he wants to make out with Ron Paul. It's pretty awkward.

Um...ew. Really...ew. >.<

It certainly would explain something about Beck, if that is true...

karo.ambrose

12-19-2007, 07:52 PM

Yeah, go 19 minutes and 55 seconds into the video.

MattW

12-19-2007, 08:22 PM

Saw Ron Paul banners on overpasses on my way to work yesterday.

Bravo

12-20-2007, 07:31 AM

just wondering:

would paul hurt dems or republicans if he ran as an independent?

i'm pretty sure he's going to go that route, so what do you think?

it's a tough call.

blacbird

12-20-2007, 07:36 AM

just wondering:

would paul hurt dems or republicans if he ran as an independent?

i'm pretty sure he's going to go that route, so what do you think?

it's a tough call.

I don't think he'd hurt much of anybody. I suspect he might attract people so disgusted with both major candidates that they wouldn't vote for either of them. But not many, in any case. I can't imagine many real Democrats voting for him, for reasons I've expressed before in this thread.

But I disagree with you on the issue of his running as an independent. Very much doubt he'll do that.

caw

billythrilly7th

12-20-2007, 07:40 AM

Ron Paul will have no impact on anything.

He's lucky he even has a thread.

Bravo

12-20-2007, 07:41 AM

But I disagree with you on the issue of his running as an independent. Very much doubt he'll do that.

caw

why not?

he's not a very loyal republican. it's obvious from the way he talks that he could care less about them.

and personally, i think if he went 3rd party, id vote for him over obama or clinton.

unless it was a really close race & the repubs had a chance of winning.

then ill suck it up and vote for the dems.

i dont agree w everything the guy says, but i really want a viable third party in this country, and paul could pave the way for that.

Bravo

12-20-2007, 07:43 AM

he's not a very loyal republican. it's obvious from the way he talks that he could care less about them.
.

plus, he's got a massive influx of money and a huge amount of crazed fans.

there will be a lot of pressure for him to stay on.

he actually has absolutely nothing to lose.

billythrilly7th

12-20-2007, 07:45 AM

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1898496&postcount=125

Bravo

12-20-2007, 07:46 AM

why do you hate doctors, billy?

blacbird

12-20-2007, 07:47 AM

why not?

Practicality, mainly. I read Ron Paul as a man genuinely trying to make points, to have an effect on the dialogue of the Republican race. He's been clever and effective enough at non-standard fund-raising to do some of that, and that's a good thing, IMO. Considering the obsessive secrecy of the current Presidential administration, anybody willing to promote open dialogue is a good guy on my radar, even if I disagree with his stance on many issues (which I do).

But at the moment, I don't see Paul going in that direction. I think it's more likely he'll go back to running for his Congressional seat, having made a name for himself.

caw

'ric

12-20-2007, 10:54 PM

Another thing, I'm willing to put money that he WILL win the republican nomination. Seriously. The pro-war republicans are divided amongst over a handful of candidates and there is only one anti-war republican, so he's got that whole crowd to himself. Plus he's drawing in a huge influx of independents and democrats (I was a democrat before I heard of Ron Paul). His numbers suggest that he's at 3-4%, but the straw polls show that he has very passionate followers who will vote for him in droves. He's been winning or placing in the top 3 all across the country. I also believe that the official polling numbers are skewed because they reflect landline phone numbers only. An uncounted number of Paul supporters (me included) use a cell phone only, so I would never be a part of these polling reports.

Sadly for me I don't see the Republicans nominating Doc Paul. The party's born-again cretin and neo-fascist wings will squeeze him out (where's Ev Dirkson now that we need him?). When the Republicans nominate one of those other clowns I will be obliged to hold my nose and vote yellow-dog Democrat. I am not a happy man.

Btw, fyi, I am a libertarian (lower-case L since I do not join parties). Philosophically, I am a pragmatic anarchist.

'ric

William Haskins

12-20-2007, 10:57 PM

Another thing, I'm willing to put money that he WILL win the republican nomination. Seriously.

i'll take that action and give you 5 to 1 odds...

email me if you're interested. i'll put up a grand.

Bird of Prey

12-21-2007, 12:25 AM

i'll take that action and give you 5 to 1 odds...

email me if you're interested. i'll put up a grand.

And what odds are you giving that Giuliani won't get the Republican nomination?

as I've been saying all along. . . .

Bartholomew

12-21-2007, 12:47 AM

Ron Paul will have no impact on anything.

Neither will you.

Bravo

12-21-2007, 01:43 AM

:rolleyes:

okay then....

Bird of Prey

12-21-2007, 03:43 AM

Ron Paul =
Ross Perot

William Haskins

12-21-2007, 04:00 AM

And what odds are you giving that Giuliani won't get the Republican nomination?

as I've been saying all along. . . .

i stand by the odds that i publicly stated 45 days ago (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1788972&postcount=28), with the caveat that i've upgraded mccain's chances due to some faltering on rudy's part and huckabee's crazy factor oozing a bit.

Bird of Prey

12-21-2007, 04:04 AM

i stand by the odds that i publicly stated 45 days ago (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1788972&postcount=28), with the caveat that i've upgraded mccain's chances due to some faltering on rudy's part and huckabee's crazy factor oozing a bit.

Wow.

I don't know what makes you so confident. The religious right I've heard detests him: Giuliani, that is.

William Haskins

12-21-2007, 04:08 AM

Wow.

I don't know what makes you so confident.

30 years of being a political junkie.

Bird of Prey

12-21-2007, 04:14 AM

30 years of being a political junkie.

An astute one at that, but this may the race where all bets are off. I see Ron Paul signs and bumper stickers all over the place. That tells me that there really is a new kid in town, and he's going to have a significant effect on the voting.

If Giuliani loses the primary, he's the guy that might go independent. He's pretty scrappy.

William Haskins

12-21-2007, 04:16 AM

all bets are never off.

davids

12-21-2007, 04:21 AM

Ron cannot possibly win because his ears are far too big and he seems to be completely honest. Says what he means probably and not what we wanna here-could be wrong-wish I was not but the rest without doubt are all folks who are just full of lying and care only for their own power and good and not that of the Republic which is supposed to be us. Well it does seem as BOP said that a lot of people are listening and well-why the hell not-or then again maybe a vote for Joe Biden who at least seems to have a clue-and he is slick and terrible well groomified!

Bird of Prey

12-21-2007, 04:22 AM

all bets are never off.

I see. Well in that case, I'll check on the odds you're giving in another few weeks.

William Haskins

12-21-2007, 04:34 AM

my offer regarding paul winning the republican nomination is a standing one. believe me.

TheGaffer

12-21-2007, 07:19 PM

Guiliani go independent? Bullshit. If he loses the primary, he's done.

Bartholomew

12-21-2007, 07:29 PM

Guiliani go independent? Bullshit. If he loses the primary, he's done.

Thank god.

blacbird

12-21-2007, 09:44 PM

Ron Paul =
Ross Perot

With fewer votes. And, quick, pundits, the first person to tell me how many electoral votes Ross Perot won in 2000 wins my eternal admiration!

caw

karo.ambrose

12-23-2007, 04:23 AM

Just drove from Texas to Ohio and saw 2 RP billboards, a Ron Paul van on the side of the road, and 12 RP bumper stickers (yea, I counted... but 4 were on the back of a jeep wrangler). I saw 1 Giulini bumper sticker and nothing from no other candidate.

If I weren't a supporter of Ron Paul or didn't know who he was, I'd be stunned by seeing so much visible support. But since I am, it all just makes me extremely happy.

Bird of Prey

12-23-2007, 04:26 AM

With fewer votes. And, quick, pundits, the first person to tell me how many electoral votes Ross Perot won in 2000 wins my eternal admiration!

caw

I looked it up and no answer so just say it. How many??

William Haskins

12-23-2007, 04:32 AM

perot ran in 92 and 96...

so it was zero in 2000.

it was also zero in 92 and 96, however, which is the real lesson here.

Bird of Prey

12-23-2007, 04:38 AM

perot ran in 92 and 96...

Yeah, but that doesn't mean anything. Some crazy in the e. could have cast his vote Perot's way, regardless.

William Haskins

12-23-2007, 04:53 AM

nope. didn't happen.

Bird of Prey

12-23-2007, 05:50 AM

nope. didn't happen.

Fine. I'm so tired of taking you guys on faith. I figured if Bbird asked the question, it was an honest question, not some trick-ass test designed to trap somebody on wondering. I know Perot didn't run. He long abandoned the Reform Party, or whatever the hell it was called. Still, I thought maybe there was something I didn't know about.

Whatever. Go elf yourselves. All of ya.

William Haskins

12-23-2007, 05:55 AM

what the fuck are you talking about?

Bird of Prey

12-23-2007, 06:01 AM

what the fuck are you talking about?

Why would somebody ask such a stupid question unless there was something to glean from it??

Every idiot knows Perot didn't run in 2000, so I had to speculate - because I trusted Bbird that there was something to learn here - that there was some interesting aside to the political events of 2000. Instead, it's just some stupid, "gotcha" test, which doesn't test anybody's knowledge, just their curiosity and their - frankly - faith that somebody would want to impart something of interest instead of making a fool out of somebody else. All right? Understand?

William Haskins

12-23-2007, 06:07 AM

yeah, i get that. i think he was being facetious, but you're more than welcome to apply a more sinister motive to it.

i guess what i'm wondering is how we get from that to:

Fine. I'm so tired of taking you guys on faith.

Whatever. Go elf yourselves. All of ya.

i didn't do anything but answer the question.

Bravo

12-23-2007, 06:16 AM

merry christmas everyone!

William Haskins

12-23-2007, 06:19 AM

merry christmas, qaz. i hope you and yours have a wonderful holiday.

Bravo

12-23-2007, 06:20 AM

thank you.

backatcha.

:)

blacbird

12-23-2007, 09:19 AM

Just for clarity, people, the argument about Perot running in 2000 was utterly useless, whatever was said. Was a simple erroneous mistaken incorrectitudinous error on my part. Nothing more sinister or ulterior than an absent-minded typo. It's the Christmas season, and I've been working 12 hour days, on my feet all day, in my wife's retail toy store. 12 hours of screeching toddlers will cause a lapse like that once in a while.

cawwwwwww!

Bird of Prey

12-23-2007, 04:12 PM

TheGaffer

12-23-2007, 06:58 PM

Seeing as Santa only lives 5 doors down from bbird up there, he's the one in the best position to know who has been naughty or nice.

William Haskins

12-23-2007, 10:20 PM

Oh. Well sorry, Bbird!! My silliness. I hope you have a wonderful Christmas, as I'm sure it's well-deserved!!

pfft.

Bird of Prey

12-23-2007, 11:18 PM

pfft.

You too.

That is, have a wonderful Christmas.

William Haskins

12-23-2007, 11:36 PM

i think it's a little late for sane and good wishes.

Bird of Prey

12-23-2007, 11:43 PM

i think it's a little late for sane and good wishes.

Ah. That really is you in your avatar.

blacbird

12-24-2007, 08:46 AM

Seeing as Santa only lives 5 doors down from bbird up there, he's the one in the best position to know who has been naughty or nice.

At this point, they've all been naughty.

For info, we sell one home-manufactured product in our store: lumps of coal, tied up in little bags with a ribbon and a label, for stocking stuffers. I collect the coal during the summer in local areas where it occurs naturally. We keep a small basket of these trinkets on the check-out counter. Everybody seems amused by them, and last year we sold about 100.

caw

TheGaffer

12-25-2007, 10:00 PM

err...

Paul repeated his claim that Abraham Lincoln should not have started the Civil War to get rid of slavery. "Six-hundred-thousand Americans died in the senseless Civil War," he said. "No, he should not have gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original tenet of the Republic," he told NBC's Tim Russert.

"Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world," Paul continued, responding to the question if America would still have slavery had there not been the Civil War. "The way I'm proposing that it should have been done is do it like the British Empire did -- you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans?... I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/23/532376.aspx

Now, I realize full well that there are a number of pointy-headed intellectual arguments suggesting that the Civil War should have not been fought, or something to that effect.

But to argue that case vociferously doesn't help your cause in 2007. It just doesn't. Add in to this his statement about being from "the Republican Party that wanted to abolish the Department of Education," and he risks revealing, well, too much of himself other than his opposition to the war. For as much as americans say they want a limited government, they certainly don't mind big government programs.

SC Harrison

12-26-2007, 02:07 AM

Now, I realize full well that there are a number of pointy-headed intellectual arguments suggesting that the Civil War should have not been fought, or something to that effect.

As painful as it was, the Civil War solidified the Union. Which is really what pisses off Libertarians the most, not the loss of life and property.

Frankly, even if slavery and preservation of the Union are discounted as reasons for the North to go to war, there's always plagiarism:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/csapro.htm

ARTICLE I.
Section I. All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in this Congress now assembled until otherwise ordained.

*snip*

ARTICLE V.
I. The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds, may, at any time, alter or amend this Constitution.

They're definitely not identical, and there's some extra stuff in this one about the proper procedures for the buying and subsequent chasing down of slaves, but you know. Damn. It's like Howell Cobb had his bookish nephew Harold scatter the sentences around and add a few things so he could claim, "Look what we wrote!"

Bird of Prey

12-26-2007, 05:52 AM

err...

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/23/532376.aspx

Now, I realize full well that there are a number of pointy-headed intellectual arguments suggesting that the Civil War should have not been fought, or something to that effect.

But to argue that case vociferously doesn't help your cause in 2007. It just doesn't. Add in to this his statement about being from "the Republican Party that wanted to abolish the Department of Education," and he risks revealing, well, too much of himself other than his opposition to the war. For as much as americans say they want a limited government, they certainly don't mind big government programs.

I don't think he's arguing any case vociferously. It's a natural question demanding an explanation which was delivered honestly by a man that defends states' rights and the literal interpretation of the Constitution.

Joe270

12-26-2007, 11:09 AM

As painful as it was, the Civil War solidified the Union. Which is really what pisses off Libertarians the most, not the loss of life and property.

Frankly, even if slavery and preservation of the Union are discounted as reasons for the North to go to war, there's always plagiarism:

Granted. Correct.

But the civil war was fought over factors of production, not slavery. Slavery was only a 'moral high ground'. The northern states dominated the southern states until the late 1970's in production and earnings.

Pure economics which lasted over a hundred years. The slaves were pawns. If they weren't, then the "I Have A Dream" speach would have never been made.

TheGaffer

12-27-2007, 05:55 AM

I don't think he's arguing any case vociferously. It's a natural question demanding an explanation which was delivered honestly by a man that defends states' rights and the literal interpretation of the Constitution.

He's not? He said it was "senseless." That's not vociferous?

blacbird

12-27-2007, 07:49 AM

Ron Paul may be beginning to find, like Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani before him, that the more exposure he gets, the less mileage he gets out of his persona, and the more warts that show up in his ideas.There's not much new about him, other than the fact that he's playing in a field of Republicans who don't share some of his views. He's pretty much a garden-variety conservative libertarian, near as I can tell, and those guys have been around for decades. He gets credit for being more articulate and personable and polite than most of them.

caw

Bird of Prey

12-27-2007, 04:53 PM

He's not? He said it was "senseless." That's not vociferous?

No. It's not a totally inane premise.

karo.ambrose

12-27-2007, 06:20 PM

Now, I realize full well that there are a number of pointy-headed intellectual arguments suggesting that the Civil War should have not been fought, or something to that effect.

But to argue that case vociferously doesn't help your cause in 2007. It just doesn't. Add in to this his statement about being from "the Republican Party that wanted to abolish the Department of Education," and he risks revealing, well, too much of himself other than his opposition to the war. For as much as americans say they want a limited government, they certainly don't mind big government programs.

I really doubt Ron Paul is or has ever been concerned about his image or what people think about what he says. He just says it like he sees it and doesn't worry about clever sound bytes. I don't see how revealing too much is a bad thing, I consider it very noble. What candidate out there is as transparent with what he wants or what his aspirations are than him? We know what we're getting with Ron Paul. The other candidates... not so much.

I found a really excellent article (http://www.antiwar.com/paul/index.php?articleid=9672) written by Ron Paul regarding war. I remember someone saying on this thread how they thought his foreign policy would be disastrous, but after reading this article, it really makes me realize that our current foreign policy of fighting undeclared wars IS disastrous.

I really think we're looking at a modern day Gandhi or MLK Jr. here.

Vote Paul/Gandhi 2008! :)

blacbird

12-28-2007, 12:03 AM

Just to inject a small dose of reality into this thread:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html

caw

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 12:05 AM

I really think we're looking at a modern day Gandhi or MLK Jr. here.

i think we've hit the low-water mark in the RP discussion.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/85617/090

Bartholomew

12-28-2007, 12:23 AM

i think we've hit the low-water mark in the RP discussion.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/85617/090

That is very surprising, given things I've heard the man say.

The DailyKOS is an openly partisan blog.

It seems to be Ron Paul's word against the blog's, particularly since a lot of the blog's sources are things I can't double check myself.

If what it is saying is true, I need to seriously figure out another candidate to throw my vote at.

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 12:42 AM

you don't have to convince me about the agenda of the dailykos, sir.

but the fact remains that these blog entries are based on quotes from paul's own newsletters.

here's some more for you:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.html

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 12:55 AM

That is very surprising, given things I've heard the man say.

The DailyKOS is an openly partisan blog.

It seems to be Ron Paul's word against the blog's, particularly since a lot of the blog's sources are things I can't double check myself.

If what it is saying is true, I need to seriously figure out another candidate to throw my vote at.
Smear campaign backfires: Recent Attempts to Defame Ron Paul Prove He’s Got Powerbrokers Nervous

By Pat Shannan, American Free Press

(American Frees Press) - For several months you have watched the unfolding of “The Treatment” by the news media in its attempt to make Congressman Ron Paul go away. He continues to frustrate their efforts.

The first stage of “The Treatment” is to just simply ignore any substantial candidate who is not “anointed” by the powers behind the scenes. Anyone who ever ran for political office wearing any label other than “Republican” or “Democrat” has experienced stage one, and few ever got beyond it. (A visitor from Mars can see in one day that the anointed Republican is Rudy Giuliani and the anointed Democrat is Hillary Clinton.)

Hard as the talking heads of the propaganda machine tried, they just couldn’t ignore Dr. Paul for long without continuing to make themselves look foolish. First of all, even though he attempted a shot at the presidency as the Libertarian Party’s candidate two decades ago, he has been a 10-term Republican congressman who won the early TV debates this year with simple logic, pointing out that government must obey the law, too, and the highest law of the land is the Constitution that nearly every politician not only ignores today but has never read in the first place.

So when this bona fide candidate was cleverly excluded from the Iowa debates, he showed up anyway, rented the room next door and put on a campaign rally that drew twice as many as the paltry 500 attending in the debate hall.

Therefore, a higher level of “The Treatment” was necessitated around mid-2007, and this second stage in discrediting a candidate was displayed: that of poking fun in an attempt to make the candidate look foolish by quoting out of context or putting whole new pieces of deceptive text in his mouth that he never said in the first place.

However, when behavior sinks to a level that might provoke lesser men into swinging a punch or at least yelling a retaliatory, mindless rebuttal, Dr. Paul does not weaken. When the CNN interviewer told him that many people considered him “flaky,” Ron just used her own words to draw some examples of the “flaky” manner in which those in charge today are handling things in Washington.

On Face the Nation in early November, CBS host Bob Schieffer said, ”You are anti-war, anti-abortion, anti-drug administration, anti-Medicare, anti-income tax, anti- U.N., anti-Federal Reserve and World Bank. What else do you think government should do besides deliver the mail? . . . ”

Composed and alert under fire, Paul calmly replied that in order to be “anti” anything, you have to be “pro” something else, and pointed out, “I am pro-peace, prolife, pro-liberty, pro-hard money, and pro-states rights.”

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=4472

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 01:03 AM

oh man, this is funny.

thanks for the laugh on such a somber day.

Bartholomew

12-28-2007, 01:45 AM

Are there, perhaps, any articles about this with just a smidgen of perspective? Or am I just going to have to find these journals of Paul's myself?

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 02:03 AM

listen, bart. ever since you put the ron paul sig line in, i've discreetly tried to nudge you into knowing everything you can about the man so that you give him your endorsement with full knowledge of what you're endorsing.

it's all out there. go digging, young man. learn about the man.

and remember, while it's often valid and useful to track down quotes in context, sometimes statements actually mean the sum total of the words with which they're constructed.

incidentally, you have no reason to feel bad about getting excited about him. when you're an older man, you will read back about this election. you'll read about how it was the first time in half a century that an incumbent or a sitting vice-president wasn't running. how it was the most wide open race in three or four generations.

and you'll read about a strange phenomenon of a grass-roots libertarian who, despite a platform of questionable and downright impractical positions on a number of issues, parlayed a routine fringe candidacy into a (minor) juggernaut, attracting greens and skinheads, left-wingers and right-wingers, young and old... who never really bothered to read the menu. they simply knew what they didn't want.

blacbird

12-28-2007, 02:33 AM

Composed and alert under fire, Paul calmly replied that in order to be “anti” anything, you have to be “pro” something else, and pointed out, “I am pro-peace, prolife, pro-liberty, pro-hard money, and pro-states rights.”

All of which are airy catch-phrases, akin to "pro-mother". The devil is in the details. How does Ron Paul intend to translate these fuzzy positions into specific policies? I especially like "pro-liberty". Who among the dozen-plus declared Presidential candidates isn't "pro-liberty"?

caw

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 03:16 AM

All of which are airy catch-phrases, akin to "pro-mother". The devil is in the details. How does Ron Paul intend to translate these fuzzy positions into specific policies? I especially like "pro-liberty". Who among the dozen-plus declared Presidential candidates isn't "pro-liberty"?

caw

Heh. None of them.

You know why I like Paul? He actually stands for something. He really does stand for the Constitution. He's about the country, not a party. I don't agree with his stand on abortion, but he's about states rights.

Everybody who criticizes him - across the board - thinks that the country can muddle through borrowing a little corruption here, a little socialism there, a little cronyism along the way, a big deficit along with big favors and wars without declarations. They suck up to foreign countries and let Americans pay. Americans don't even get health care. These muddle-through politicians are killing the country. And the conservatives that actually think that business as usual will save the day, say it because they're getting richer and think they'll be exempt when the shit hits the fan. But they won't. Paul is consistent, and a consistent, honest philosophy is what we need even if it's radically different. . .especially if it's radically different.

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 03:31 AM

karo.ambrose

12-28-2007, 03:42 AM

Unfortunately, those words were in his newsletters, but the one thing I can't stress enough is they weren't HIS words. The style and voice doesn't match his at all. FMN (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41721) has a rebuttal to these racist claims.

I believe you should only judge a man on what he says, not what people who support him are saying. And what he has personally said on the topic of racism is very inspiring.

I'm sure he will be asked questions regarding these newsletters soon enough and he can put the whole situation in context. Because for Ron Paul to be a racist sounds like the most absurd thing ever.

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 03:42 AM

BoP,

so if you had the ultimate power to choose ron paul for president and he would on, day one, revoke the patriot act and withdraw all troops from iraq and ban all abortion and mandate the teaching of creationism in all public schools, would you elect him?

It's moot, William. He wouldn't because he couldn't.

He can't ban abortion. He has a position on it, that's all; assuming he's elected president and not king.

He's not an idiot, William. He's a man that would steer power back to the states. Yes, he would withdraw troops from Iraq, no doubt, gradually. And I know he wouldn't mandate creationism being taught in public schools but would encourage states to decide their own curriculum. Wtf is wrong with that?

Texas has the death penalty. New Jersey doesn't.

I'm not so sure, William, that as US citizen becomes more polarized, that prioritizing states' rights isn't the solution.

Edit: GWB is against abortion, too. But somehow he can justify killing eighteen year olds in undeclared wars. See what I mean?

karo.ambrose

12-28-2007, 03:46 AM

“The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”

-Ron Paul

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 04:06 AM

It's moot, William. He wouldn't because he couldn't.

of course it's fucking moot. it's a hypothetical.

so, using your logic, so long as a candidate matched your philosophy on 9 out of 10 issues, it would be okay if the 10th issue was his desire to see slavery restored.

because, of course, he could no more do so than paul could ban abortion.

blacbird

12-28-2007, 04:08 AM

I don't agree with his stand on abortion, but he's about states rights.

So were George Wallace, Orville Faubus and Ross Barnett, back in the early 1960s. That was their chief mantra in opposition to Federal Civil Rights legislation.

caw

blacbird

12-28-2007, 04:09 AM

I don't agree with his stand on abortion, but he's about states rights.

So were George Wallace, Orville Faubus, Ross Barnett and Strom Thurmond, back in the early 1960s. That was their chief mantra in opposition to Federal Civil Rights legislation.

caw

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 04:09 AM

you can say that again.

davids

12-28-2007, 04:12 AM

It's moot, William. He wouldn't because he couldn't.

He can't ban abortion. He has a position on it, that's all; assuming he's elected president and not king.

He's not an idiot, William. He's a man that would steer power back to the states. Yes, he would withdraw troops from Iraq, no doubt, gradually. And I know he wouldn't mandate creationism being taught in public schools but would encourage states to decide their own curriculum. Wtf is wrong with that?

Texas has the death penalty. New Jersey doesn't.

I'm not so sure, William, that as US citizen becomes more polarized, that prioritizing states' rights isn't the solution.

Edit: GWB is against abortion, too. But somehow he can justify killing eighteen year olds in undeclared wars. See what I mean?

YUP! OH SORRY I WAS NOT ASKED BUT I DOES NEFARIOUSTHELESS!!!!

davids

12-28-2007, 04:17 AM

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 04:19 AM

Look, like it or not, it's a different time.

I don't think the anti-abortion movement is anything more than rhetoric. Why? Because very few are prepared to string up their wives, lovers and daughters in 2008 and beyond. It's a moral feel good if I'm opposed issue, but that's all it is. And Ron Paul? He'll have no more traction than anybody else. You know why? Because even pro-lifers are ambivalent.

And as far as your example, William: it's absurd. If Ron Paul was pro-slavery, it would be a deal killer. But we're in 2008, O.K? We've left Virgil Cain and the Danville Train a long time ago. Don't let Robbie Robertson and what's left of The Band fool ya.

blacbird

12-28-2007, 04:25 AM

you can say that again.

Dang. Musta sliced through a time warp.

caw

SC Harrison

12-28-2007, 04:36 AM

in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality.

I mentioned this earlier in this thread—if it weren't for Federal intervention in the form(s) of the Civil Rights Act and other statutory requirements, we wouldn't have anything close to the "free society" we have now. At least for a whole lot of Americans, anyway.

By the way—among other laws, Ron Paul would love to get rid of the Civil Rights Act...

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 04:37 AM

I mentioned this earlier in this thread—if it weren't for Federal intervention in the form(s) of the Civil Rights Act and other statutory requirements, we wouldn't have anything close to the "free society" we have now. At least for a whole lot of Americans, anyway.

By the way—among other laws, Ron Paul would love to get rid of the Civil Rights Act...

Oh stop that. Stop it or show me where he has ever said that.

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 04:53 AM

he's never said that he would "love to get rid of it", but he has said it's unconstitutional and that it did not improve race relations or enhance liberty.

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 05:01 AM

he's never said that he would "love to get rid of it", but he has said it's unconstitutional and that it did not improve race relations or enhance liberty.

Was it Constitutional? Probably not.

Did it improve race relations? You tell me.

Enhance liberty? Of course it didn't. . . .

But it's all esoteric discussion because he's an intellectual. Why won't you take it in that vein instead of trying to make him look like something he isn't?

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 05:04 AM

Why won't you take it in that vein instead of trying to make him look like something he isn't?

what about my statement indicates to you that i'm not taking it in that vein. all i did was clarify steve's statement.

ETA: it was not esoteric discussion, by the way. it was delivered on the house floor as a broadside against a house resolution to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the civil rights act.

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 05:12 AM

what about my statement indicates to you that i'm not taking it in that vein. all i did was clarify steve's statement.

stop being so fucking shrill about anything that rattles your logic.

I'm not shrill at all. I'm explaining that the man is trying to apply an honest view and an honest application to the Constitution. You were/are implying that he was wrong with regard to race relations and liberty. . . .

Your statement: he's never said that he would "love to get rid of it", but he has said it's unconstitutional and that it did not improve race relations or enhance liberty.

And yet, you would forgive Jefferson all. I mean, here's your twenty-first century hero, William, and you're as disparaging as you can be. Paul is for freedom, states' rights. FREEDOM. No Patriot Act, no Big Brother. . . .

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 05:19 AM

And yet, you would forgive Jefferson all. I mean, here's your twenty-first century hero, William, and you're as disparaging as you can be. Paul is for freedom, states' rights. FREEDOM. No Patriot Act, no Big Brother. . . .

i resent your statement that i'm being as "disparaging as i can be".... we both know i can be far more disparaging. i've actually gone fairly easy on paul because i support, in principal, the idea that popular support for third-parties can break the back of the two-party system.

i just don't see him as the hero you do. i like many of his positions, but i abhor others.

like i said, history will wax nostalgic on the paul phenomenon, but it won't be because he was the best man for the job, only that he represented (and, uncommonly, did so to people on both ends of the political spectrum) a massive sense of dissatisfaction with the political status quo.

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 05:28 AM

i resent your statement that i'm being as "disparaging as i can be".... we both know i can be far more disparaging. i've actually gone fairly easy on paul because i support, in principal, the idea that popular support for third-parties can break the back of the two-party system.

i just don't see him as the hero you do. i like many of his positions, but i abhor others.

like i said, history will wax nostalgic on the paul phenomenon, but it won't be because he was the best man for the job, only that he represented (and, uncommonly, did so to people on both ends of the political spectrum) a massive sense of dissatisfaction with the political status quo.

I don't see him as a hero. I don't see anybody as such. But I do see him as a man with a practical application and a hand on the pulse of what we were meant to be: free.

And of course, I'd vote near anybody to introduce a tri-party system and/or more.

SC Harrison

12-28-2007, 07:32 AM

Oh stop that. Stop it or show me where he has ever said that.

Maybe the fact that he was the only Congressman to vote "no" on hr 676 led me to believe that? Or maybe it was these words of his:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

You'll note the part I bolded. Now, if you want me to dedicate an entire thread to just how fucked-up segregation was, I can do it. But I'm thinking you already know and are just as glad as I am that it was outlawed by the Federal government.

Of course, you can make this observation:

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

like Ron did (in front of the entire fucking country), inferring that these great strides were actually hindered by whites and blacks going to school together, eating in the same restaurants, drinking from the same water fountains, etc. I'm sure they would have gotten along just fine being "separate but equal". Gimme a break.

This is the phenomena of Ron Paul. Having to fight these battles all over again, as if the history books have been wiped clean.

Bartholomew

12-28-2007, 09:38 AM

I like some of what he stands for, and dislike some of what he stands for.

Like Haskins said, he rings a lot of bells with me because he is __not__ so many things that I abhor in modern politicians. He strikes true where he talks about the constitution and smaller government.

But then his stance on abortion, his stance RE the UN, and several other things make me cringe.

The bottom line though, is that at the end of the day, when all of the politicos are done talking, he's the one I understand. He's not faking an accent. He's not stumbling over his words, changing his story, and I have a clear cut image of exactly what he believes.

I look back on all the things that made me put a "Vote Ron Paul" line in my signature a few months back, and Haskins is right. I like this guy because he avoids a great many traits that are on the list of things I'm sick to death of.

ALL POLITICIANS NEED TO BE LIKE THIS MAN.

Not because of what he stands for. I don't think Pure Free Market is a good system--checks and balances are good things. Socialist-style health care, despite being an economic sink-hole, is a good thing.

But because he is eloquent, intelligent, and he's genuinely interested in the well fare (no pun intended) of the United states.

I don't like some of what he wants--but I know exactly what his vision is. Why can't Clinton or Obama be so clear? Why can't the other Republicans?

Why is it so hard to stand before the flashing lights and cameras and be clear and honest? When did the game become more important than the country?

###

I'm really torn about the whole Racism thing, though. If my opinion is teetering now, that would be more than enough to push him out of my favor. The thing is, I have no idea who to believe. He says he didn't write it, some other people say he must have. He makes a (somewhat) clear speech about racism that seems contrary to what I'd expect from the mouth of a racist--though he seems camera-ready and intelligent enough to keep any belligerent opinions he may harbor against blacks to himself.

Right now, though, I believe that Ron Paul does not hold (strong) racist beliefs. I went back and gave a very careful look at his interaction with Whoopee Goldberg. It didn't strike me that he was treating her any different than anyone else in the room.

But then, he is very camera-ready.

Sigh.

##

Sometimes I wonder if politics are worth this much of a headache. If there is any. confusion. at. all. about the voting machines this year, I will personally carry a torch and pitchfork to the white house. I do not give myself this sort of migraine so that some jackass can tamper with votes.

...and that's how you can tell it's late folks. I'm ranting.

G'night.

blacbird

12-28-2007, 10:32 AM

Was it Constitutional? Probably not.

Constitutionality is determined by the Supreme Court. As far as I know, they have always held it to be constitutional. Ergo, it's constitutional.

Did it improve race relations? You tell me.

Yes. It did. And the myriad associated civil rights efforts, both legislative and nonlegislative, did too. You must not have been around before 1964.

Enhance liberty? Of course it didn't. . .

Clearly you're not an African-American, either. I'm sorry the civil rights movement of the 1960s has so deeply impinged on your personal liberty.

caw

Bartholomew

12-28-2007, 03:57 PM

Constitutionality is determined by the Supreme Court. As far as I know, they have always held it to be constitutional. Ergo, it's constitutional.

Yes. It did. And the myriad associated civil rights efforts, both legislative and nonlegislative, did too. You must not have been around before 1964.

Clearly you're not an African-American, either. I'm sorry the civil rights movement of the 1960s has so deeply impinged on your personal liberty.

caw

At the risk of straying off topic, might I venture to say that Bird probably intended to say that there was a better way to go about "enhancing liberty," rather than to say that the civil rights movement was completely counterproductive?

SC Harrison

12-28-2007, 04:27 PM

I'm really torn about the whole Racism thing, though.

He may not actually be a racist, in the classical sense (hater), but his opinion that the Civil Rights Act was unnecessary indicates (to me) that he was at best unaware of the shameful treatment black people endured in this country (and down his street), and at worst uncaring.

If he was 30-something or hailed from one of the few Northern areas that weren't segregated, I could accept that he hadn't been exposed to it and I might understand the lack of knowledge (although I would wonder about his education), but he wasn't. It was all around him.

Frankly, this kind of disconnect with reality bothers me as much as some of his platform stances, because it reveals some gaps in either judgment or knowledge. We've had quite enough of that, thank you very much.

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 04:46 PM

Maybe the fact that he was the only Congressman to vote "no" on hr 676 led me to believe that? Or maybe it was these words of his:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html

You'll note the part I bolded. Now, if you want me to dedicate an entire thread to just how fucked-up segregation was, I can do it. But I'm thinking you already know and are just as glad as I am that it was outlawed by the Federal government.

Of course, you can make this observation:

like Ron did (in front of the entire fucking country), inferring that these great strides were actually hindered by whites and blacks going to school together, eating in the same restaurants, drinking from the same water fountains, etc. I'm sure they would have gotten along just fine being "separate but equal". Gimme a break.

This is the phenomena of Ron Paul. Having to fight these battles all over again, as if the history books have been wiped clean.

Thanks SC, But the history books won't be wiped clean, and that's the point, though I'm glad you shared all this with me.

Ron Paul is a man that stands firmly for freedom, meaning states' rights and an extreme curb on federal power. That's his appeal. He has stuck like glue to that position. There's nothing wrong with it.

And let me remind you that it's easy to single people out of his generation and attack them on racism. In fact it's like falling off a log, because so many were. That doesn't mean that they haven't learned and evolved over the years. You want me to run through every sexist remark ever made by a politician up until now? Of course not, because sexism is still as acceptable as apple pie. But in fifteen years from now, we'll look back on some of the comments made even here and shudder. But again, people evolve. They learn. They change.

Ron Paul's stand on civil rights was tied in no small way to ever increasing federal power. It's all history now.

I'm something of a purist, SC. He appeals to me intellectually, so I don't like to see him discounted. I think we can learn a lot from Ron Paul and the movement to support him.

SC Harrison

12-28-2007, 06:58 PM

Ron Paul is a man that stands firmly for freedom, meaning states' rights and an extreme curb on federal power.

That's one of those ideals that looks good on paper, but starts to come apart when you look at specifics. Like most people, I want states to be allowed room to grow on their own without (constantly) fighting for Federal dollars or tripping over reams of Federal regulations and statutes.

But I also know (from doing buttloads of research) that historically, states have often failed to take the proper steps to protect the rights of certain segments of their population, choosing to leave that responsibility up to municipal bodies, who often decide to do nothing or even make things worse.

Federal power is something that bears watching, but to claim that it is an "enemy of freedom" is pure nonsense. Even claiming there's a close balance between freedoms gained and freedoms lost through Federal intervention is a huge stretch, but it is a better explanation of the actual effects.

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 07:46 PM

That's one of those ideals that looks good on paper, but starts to come apart when you look at specifics. Like most people, I want states to be allowed room to grow on their own without (constantly) fighting for Federal dollars or tripping over reams of Federal regulations and statutes.

But I also know (from doing buttloads of research) that historically, states have often failed to take the proper steps to protect the rights of certain segments of their population, choosing to leave that responsibility up to municipal bodies, who often decide to do nothing or even make things worse.

Federal power is something that bears watching, but to claim that it is an "enemy of freedom" is pure nonsense. Even claiming there's a close balance between freedoms gained and freedoms lost through Federal intervention is a huge stretch, but it is a better explanation of the actual effects.

SC, federal power has long exceeded "watching." I think it's almost funny to hear you say that.

Look, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think that we as a country are embarking on new territory, and launching into a time that cannot be easily be equated to times past, meaning there may not be national experiences on which we can wisely base our decisions. We are quickly becoming Orwellian.

I will probably vote for Clinton because I think that there's no turning back the tide, and I'd rather see the population at large taken care of than experience Metropolis - the Neocon dream - toward which we are moving.

SC Harrison

12-28-2007, 08:36 PM

SC, federal power has long exceeded "watching." I think it's almost funny to hear you say that.

Don't get me wrong—I am very unhappy with some recent legislation such as the Patriot Act, the Military Powers Act, etc., and Congress needs to take some corrective action soon (which they don't seem to want to do).

But we're not just talking about these mistakes, are we? We're talking about a wide range of Federal laws and programs, that were established in a Constitutional manner by consensus opinion, the removal of which would have a radical, negative effect on the lives of millions of Americans. I have yet to see any argument by Paul or his supporters that even comes close to showing how this attitude will improve the life of the average American, much less the masses of the poor and downtrodden.

Bartholomew

12-28-2007, 10:33 PM

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 11:27 PM

Don't get me wrong—I am very unhappy with some recent legislation such as the Patriot Act, the Military Powers Act, etc., and Congress needs to take some corrective action soon (which they don't seem to want to do).

But we're not just talking about these mistakes, are we? We're talking about a wide range of Federal laws and programs, that were established in a Constitutional manner by consensus opinion, the removal of which would have a radical, negative effect on the lives of millions of Americans. I have yet to see any argument by Paul or his supporters that even comes close to showing how this attitude will improve the life of the average American, much less the masses of the poor and downtrodden.

The programs you are worried about can't be removed by Ron Paul alone thus most will stay intact. What will be removed is the threat of freedom's extinction, and I think that trumps all.

The Democrats at their core are driven by socialism; the Republicans deep down are driven by a kind of fascism, but both ultimately translate to tiered power and elitism. The larger the federal government becomes, the more elitism takes hold because the average citizen is rarely heard nor responded to adequately. Now, if you make government more accessible, the better the odds are that the average person is heard. As soon as the average person is heard, the average person is far more liable to become involved in the direction of his/her goverment. A state government is accessible. Anywhere in the country, Joe or Jill Average can make it to their state capitol in day and if need be, make themselves annoyingly conspicuous until he/she has a say. Geography is often destiny, SC.

Now, let me assure you, most federal politicians really don't want the average citizen's involvement. The average citizen is a nuisance. The Senate and the House gleefully vote themselves pay increases without a care in the world about how Mr. and Mrs Average are faring, and would just as soon go to their lobbyist's galas without so much as an e-mail from their pain-in-the-ass constituents.

Strong state government and local government are our last bastion in preserving our individual freedom, and the uniting force in the country should be technology aka the computer, not federal mandates slowly choking off an individual's gumption via suffocating mandates, spying, harrassing and extinguishing the mere idea of equality via federal elitism. And elitism has become blatantly inherent in the two party system, and that system desperately seeks a bigger and more indifferent government, so that what were supposed to be representatives can operate with maximum protection and minimum interaction with the underlings that elected them.

Ron Paul is bucking them all, and he is an astonishing breath of fresh air, regardless of his moral opinions. He could lead us away from all I have outlined because he has demonstrated the spine to do it. For that, he has my encouragement. If he's got a prayer, he's got my vote.

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 11:30 PM

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 11:35 PM

the very things you claim make him benign to those who are concerned about his extremist positions are the very things that would make him ineffectual in the areas you consider to be his strengths.

he would enter office as a lame duck.

He would enter office with a clear American mandate. Those around him would be forced to listen. I also don't think he's a stupid man. His priority would be shrinking government and maximizing liberty. He would never achieve in full, but he would take us a long way from where we are headed.

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 11:40 PM

davids

12-28-2007, 11:47 PM

He would enter office with a clear American mandate. Those around him would be forced to listen. I also don't think he's a stupid man. His priority would be shrinking government and maximizing liberty. He would never achieve in full, but he would take us a long way from where we are headed.

WELL KIDDO I SHOULD THINK A BIT OF THE OLD FRESH STUFF MIGHT DO THE COUNTRY SOME GOOD INDEED-IT SURE DOES STINK WHEN A POLITICO AND HIS THROBBING LUST FOR HIMSELF STANDS DOWNWIND-NOW TO HILLARY-I COULD NEVER VOTE FOR HER BECAUSE I AM A SEXIST PIG AND TOTALLY PUSSY WHIPPED-HEY THAT IS A CARUMBOWLAGGE OF TWO DISSTINKY TWATS-SORRY FOR SLIPPING IN TO THE SERIOUSOSITY:Hug2:-NO NOT SLINK-SLIP-SLIPPING CAN BE SO MUCH FUN! :Hug2:THAT'S FER BOP-SORRY ABOUT THE HILLARY THING JUST COULD NOT HEP MESELF!!!

SC Harrison

12-28-2007, 11:57 PM

Would he realistically be able to do away with all of the federal programs he wants to kill?

All of them? No, of course not. And any Constitution amending (even removing amendments) would still have to pass 2/3 muster from both houses. But just the fact that he would like to do some of these things reflects the direction his administration would travel, and the thought processes behind a Veto (or not).

What I'm seeing from many of his thoughtful supporters (like the people here), is that they assume that he'll accomplish the things they like, but won't be able to accomplish the things they don't like. That's not as crazy as blind support, but it's still kind of crazy, you know?

His contempt for many of his colleagues as well as SCOTUS also leads me to believe that he would be (another) Unitary Executive, which leaves a whole hell of a lot of us without much of a say in our government. Now, that is pure conjecture on my part, but it makes sense to me. And it also doesn't say much about the resoration of freedoms, either.

William Haskins

12-28-2007, 11:58 PM

What I'm seeing from many of his thoughtful supporters (like the people here), is that they assume that he'll accomplish the things they like, but won't be able to accomplish the things they don't like. That's not as crazy as blind support, but it's still kind of crazy, you know?

precisely.

Bird of Prey

12-28-2007, 11:59 PM

without any party loyalists in the legislature, he would take us exactly as far as congress consented to go.

and, as you pointed out upthread, congress doesn't give two fucks about a "people's mandate".

the third party solution doesn't exist in the executive branch.

I think you discount how powerful a message it would send if a man like Paul got elected. It would force Congress/Senate members to rethink how independent of the country's philosophy they would like to appear, and what agenda they should pursue if they want to continue holding an office.

Just his election alone would be an enormous statement, almost a bloodless coup in favor of average working Americans who prefer supporting each other to the elite.

William Haskins

12-29-2007, 12:08 AM

to use your phrase: it's moot. ron paul will never be president of the US.

i'm simply saying that, instead of fantasizing that a fringe candidate will win the white house and create some mass awakening among lawmakers entrenched in business as usual, it would be far better to get out and work your ass off for independent candidates at the legislative level.

only they can fracture the oligarchy.

davids

12-29-2007, 12:09 AM

I think you discount how powerful a message it would send if a man like Paul got elected. It would force Congress/Senate members to rethink how independent of the country's philosophy they would like to appear, and what agenda they should pursue if they want to continue holding an office.

Just his election alone would be an enormous statement, almost a bloodless coup in favor of average working Americans who prefer supporting each other to the elite.

BEFORE THE UDDERS JUMP IN-AND THINK OF HOW PISSED OFF THEY WOULD BE AND FULL OF CRAP WHICH THEY ARE. OOHHH THE FEAR-THE OUTRAGE-THE WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON-YES IT WOULD BE FASCINATIN TO BE SURE TO WATCH THE POLITICOS OF PURPLE THROBBING SELF LOVE SHIT IN THEIR DIAPERS!!!!

William Haskins

12-29-2007, 12:11 AM

lordy.

yeah, and just imagine if he could shoot rays from his eyes.

Bird of Prey

12-29-2007, 12:13 AM

All of them? No, of course not. And any Constitution amending (even removing amendments) would still have to pass 2/3 muster from both houses. But just the fact that he would like to do some of these things reflects the direction his administration would travel, and the thought processes behind a Veto (or not).

What I'm seeing from many of his thoughtful supporters (like the people here), is that they assume that he'll accomplish the things they like, but won't be able to accomplish the things they don't like. That's not as crazy as blind support, but it's still kind of crazy, you know?

His contempt for many of his colleagues as well as SCOTUS also leads me to believe that he would be (another) Unitary Executive, which leaves a whole hell of a lot of us without much of a say in our government. Now, that is pure conjecture on my part, but it makes sense to me. And it also doesn't say much about the resoration of freedoms, either.

For me, SC, it's more a question of what he would attempt to do. I think he's being smeared as some kind of zealot, when in fact, I think he's just a guy who's learned something over the years but maintains a devotion to smaller government. I think he's way too bright to rush into office thinking he'll reduce it to bare bones, but he will operate in the country's best interest which means reestablishing the role of the federal government as a support to the states, reducing its current parasitic and dominant role.

davids

12-29-2007, 12:14 AM

lordy.

yeah, and just imagine if he could shoot rays from his eyes.

WHAT YOU MEAN HE CAN'T-SHIT AND DAMNATION AND TO HELL WITH THE MAN-NO RAYS NO VOTES!

Bartholomew

12-29-2007, 12:52 AM

lordy.

yeah, and just imagine if he could shoot rays from his eyes.

Beverage warnings, please.

You owe me a new keyboard.

blacbird

12-29-2007, 02:22 AM

What will be removed is the threat of freedom's extinction,

Did you have a recent bad accident traversing the Forest of Hyperbole, Bird?

caw

Bird of Prey

12-29-2007, 02:50 AM

Did you have a recent bad accident traversing the Forest of Hyperbole, Bird?

caw

I'd worry about yourself. bbird. I hate to see you all tangled up with that racist straw man you tried to toss at me earlier.

blacbird

12-29-2007, 02:53 AM

I'd worry about yourself. bbird. I hate to see you all tangled up with that racist straw man you tried to toss at me earlier.

What racist straw man? If you are referring to my criticism of your blind faith in "states' rights", I made that point not to accuse Ron Paul of racism, only to illustrate the inherent flaw in such simplistic thinking. I'll let Ron Paul's own statements regarding the matter stand (or fall) on their own merits.

caw

Bird of Prey

12-29-2007, 03:13 AM

What racist straw man? If you are referring to my criticism of your blind faith in "states' rights", I made that point not to accuse Ron Paul of racism, only to illustrate the inherent flaw in such simplistic thinking. I'll let Ron Paul's own statements regarding the matter stand (or fall) on their own merits.

caw

Clearly you're not an African-American, either. I'm sorry the civil rights movement of the 1960s has so deeply impinged on your personal liberty. Your quote.

Legislation did not enhance liberty overall. Ron Paul was right. It gave the federal government jurisdiction over business and social behavior which he has maintained is not the duty of the federal goverment and opened doors to all kinds of restrictive legislation. Now without legislation, would racism be rampant today? I don't know. But it is possible that the Civil Rights movement would have had the same effect without legislation because we as a nation had come of age and the majority began to see racism as abhorrent. Social pressure alone may have diminished it. But by most accounts, racism is still very much alive and well, which is what I meant when I questioned whether or not it improved race relations and the legislation really did the job it was intended to do. It's been a long enough time to weigh in.

davids

12-29-2007, 03:24 AM

RAZORCISM IS WRONG JUST "EVIL," IT MESSED UP A GOOD 65 DODGE HEMI I HAD! RACISM IS AS RAMPANT AS IT EVER WAS AND EVER WILL BE IT IS JUST OH SO PEACEFUL TILL THAT DAMNED-----INSERT UGLY WORD OF CHOICE-CUTS ME OFF OR WANTS A MARRY MY DAMNED HORNTOADY OF A DAUGHTER!

WHAT IMPROVES THE WHOLE SHITTIN CABBOODLEY IS BLINDNESS PLAIN AND SIMPLE-BUT THEN AGAIN THERE ARE THOSE DAMNED STUBBORN SOCIOLOGIC ACCENTS-HMMMM-NOPE NO MATTER WHAT, HATRED ABOUNDS IN THE HEARTS OF I GOT MINE YOU GET YOURS AND IF YOU ARE ON FIRE I AINT GONNA PISS ON YA-OOPS SOMEONE IS LISTENING SOMEONED IS NOTICING-BROTHAHS AND SISTAHS I LOVES Y'ALL!!!! ALL SOUTHERNERS ARE RAMPANTICAL RAZORCISTS AND ALL NORTHERNERS ARE LIVING IN THE LIGHT OF FREEDOM AND LOVE! CAN ANYBODY SEE THE RAYS IN ME EYE BALL THINGYS YET?

Bird of Prey

12-29-2007, 03:28 AM

davids

12-29-2007, 03:37 AM

Lol!! Wow, Dave, I don't see any rays but those eyeballs of yours sure look bloodshot. Could be the razorcism but it's more likely the fourth or maybe fifth martini. Lawdy!! Where's Marje?

MIXIN' A BROADS WOIK IS NEVAH DONE IT SEEMS-SONG CUMMIING ON I FEEL IT CUMMING-HERE IT IS---I JUST WANNA SAY I LOVE YA-NOTHING MUCH ELSE TO SAY-THE RAYS IN ME EYE BALLS SEE ONLY YOU AND YOU ARE THE BREATHE OF MY HEARTSTRINGS-SHAKEN OF COURSE NOT MIXED!!!! YOU HAVIN AT LEAST A BIT OF FUN HERE AMONG THE MOLTO NOIOSOS? SHIT THAT LAST WORD IN EYETALIAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN A BUGGER TO SPELL-LEMME SEE-UM-HAST DU SPASS MITUNTER DIE LANGWEILIGEN? HIC!!! YOU KNOWIPATE ME SO WELL DARLIN'!!!!

THE OLD TRAWLER IS READY-BAR STOCKED-NAVIGATION PROGRAMED-I BE WAITIN AND A SIPPIN-LOVE DAVE:Hug2:

blacbird

12-29-2007, 03:39 AM

Clearly you're not an African-American, either. I'm sorry the civil rights movement of the 1960s has so deeply impinged on your personal liberty. Your quote.

Legislation did not enhance liberty overall. Ron Paul was right. It gave the federal government jurisdiction over business and social behavior which he has maintained is not the duty of the federal goverment and opened doors to all kinds of restrictive legislation. Now without legislation, would racism be rampant today? I don't know. But it is possible that the Civil Rights movement would have had the same effect without legislation because we as a nation had come of age and the majority began to see racism as abhorrent. Social pressure alone may have diminished it. But by most accounts, racism is still very much alive and well, which is what I meant when I questioned whether or not it improved race relations and the legislation really did the job it was intended to do. It's been a long enough time to weigh in.

Racism obviously continues to exist. But tools to fight it exist now that didn't exist before the 1960s, and it pains me to think you don't see that. Item (one of many I could cite): The cities of Atlanta, New Orleans, Houston, and numerous smaller ones in the South have had black mayors, councilpeople, and other leaders. You contend that the Voting Rights act didn't aid that process?

Obviously we're going to disagree here. I'm just a trifle dismayed at how naïve you come across with this argument. Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Viola Liuzzo and many others died for those legislative rights and protections you so blissfully dismiss as either useless, or worse, counterproductive.

I reiterate: Obviously you weren't around when all this was going down. Sad, that.

caw

Bird of Prey

12-29-2007, 04:01 AM

Racism obviously continues to exist. But tools to fight it exist now that didn't exist before the 1960s, and it pains me to think you don't see that. Item (one of many I could cite): The cities of Atlanta, New Orleans, Houston, and numerous smaller ones in the South have had black mayors, councilpeople, and other leaders. You contend that the Voting Rights act didn't aid that process?

Obviously we're going to disagree here. I'm just a trifle dismayed at how naïve you come across with this argument. Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Viola Liuzzo and many others died for those legislative rights and protections you so blissfully dismiss as either useless, or worse, counterproductive.

I reiterate: Obviously you weren't around when all this was going down. Sad, that.

caw

And obviously, what I'm arguing is hypothetical, taking what I think is Paul's positon. I think he is right intellectually, but whether or not the Civil Rights legislation was imperative can always be questioned. It's moot, as it's part of the fabric of our country, and I'm glad it is. I don't blissfully dismiss anything, and I very much resent that accusation.

I would appreciate it, bbird, if you would read my posts objectively instead looking for a racist or a message you can deliberately misconstrue to bolster your position.

Bird of Prey

12-29-2007, 04:05 AM

MIXIN' A BROADS WOIK IS NEVAH DONE IT SEEMS-SONG CUMMIING ON I FEEL IT CUMMING-HERE IT IS---I JUST WANNA SAY I LOVE YA-NOTHING MUCH ELSE TO SAY-THE RAYS IN ME EYE BALLS SEE ONLY YOU AND YOU ARE THE BREATHE OF MY HEARTSTRINGS-SHAKEN OF COURSE NOT MIXED!!!! YOU HAVIN AT LEAST A BIT OF FUN HERE AMONG THE MOLTO NOIOSOS? SHIT THAT LAST WORD IN EYETALIAN HAS ALWAYS BEEN A BUGGER TO SPELL-LEMME SEE-UM-HAST DU SPASS MITUNTER DIE LANGWEILIGEN? HIC!!! YOU KNOWIPATE ME SO WELL DARLIN'!!!!

THE OLD TRAWLER IS READY-BAR STOCKED-NAVIGATION PROGRAMED-I BE WAITIN AND A SIPPIN-LOVE DAVE:Hug2:

I think Marje might throw me overboard.

What the hell. I can swim. Where we headed, Captain?

Bravo

01-07-2008, 08:03 AM

Comrades:

I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn't see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul's extensive involvement in white nationalism.

Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.

For his spokesman to call white racialism a "small ideology" and claim white activists are "wasting their money" trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.

I don't know that it is necessarily good for Paul to "expose" this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous -- and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.

Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-pauls-friends-in-black-and-white.html

Bartholomew

01-07-2008, 11:07 AM

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/12/ron-pauls-friends-in-black-and-white.html

Ironic that the National Socialists now use "Comrade" as a greeting.

From the AP-- (http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articles.aspx?afid=1&aid=22331091%20) -- Emphasis mine:

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist [...] Don Black[.]

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.

[snip]

Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
"We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice," Black said Wednesday.

"We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state," Black told The Palm Beach Post earlier.

You can find loony toons that support every candidate. Why should that reflect badly on the candidate?

blacbird

01-07-2008, 11:12 AM

It shouldn't, frankly. But isn't it fun that this white supremacist nutcake is named "Black"?

caw

Bartholomew

01-07-2008, 12:15 PM

It shouldn't, frankly. But isn't it fun that this white supremacist nutcake is named "Black"?

caw

Amusing, yes.

I ended up finding some White Supremacist forums through the link Bravo posted. Their viewpoint is... disturbing. I want to pose them a question, but I don't want to have my name on their forum, and I don't think I could deal with them sanely.

I'm proud of my heritage--I embrace it. The first people in my family to be in the Americas were mercenaries fighting for the British that stayed behind. My ancestors through my father fought in Europe in WWI, and then in Japan in WWII. My ancestors on my mother's side are connected to Swiss royalty.

Everyone has a heritage. Some people embrace it, some do not.

Why is it that some people have to associate pride in their heritage with a hatred of outside peoples? Why can't someone be proud of being white without hating blacks? Why can’t someone be proud of being white without hating jews? It's demented. It's a very frustrating thing to not be able to identify pride with your race because of racists. Don't they see that their hatred kills their cause? Don't they see that, by spouting off hatred, they make it harder for white people everywhere? I have to spend so much time performing this linguistic dance in order not to offend people-- I can't use the phrase "White Pride," because some hate mongering bigot corrupted it. So blacks can use "Black Pride" and gays can use "Gay Pride"--and I know by default that they probably don't hate white people or straight people. But if I say "White Pride," the chances are that I'm a filthy bigot.

I can’t be white. It is utterly impossible. I can be a writer, I can be a student, I can be any number of things, but I can never be white.
A black man can be a black student. A latino can be a latino student. I’m just a student. I’ll never be a white student, because if I identify myself that way, I must be a bigot. There can be a channel for black people and there can be black interest movies. There can never be a white channel. There can never be white interests. A latino can be proud of his heritage and march for it on the streets, and people will admire him. But because of white supremacy, I can’t even have the thought of pride.

It's bullshit, and I know exactly who to blame. The white supremacist, in any form.

I hate you. I've never hated anyone with such a passion as I hate you. You--you white supremacists--you have stolen precious things from me. You've corrupted a holy symbol. You've changed it into a filthy scrawl, and I cannot reclaim it—I’ve tried! As if this weren’t bad enough, you've shit on white people everywhere. Should I be so daring as to say "I am white and proud," I must qualify that statement by saying "I don't hate black people," or, "I'm not a skinhead."

I don't think white people are better, or smarter, or faster than anyone else. I don't think we're entitled to special treatment. I don't think it's better to be white than to be black, nor do I think any such other demented drivel.

There. I qualified it. Now I can say, without any misunderstanding, that I am proud of being white. I don’t have to weasel around the words. But make no mistake--my white is not the color of skin. It can’t be.

I hate you, supremacists. You're white, and that is the color of a maggot. You're white, and that is the color of bleached, dead bones in a desert. You're white, and you have not a single thing with which to take pride. Your white is marred and stained. Had I the power, I would strip the word from you. It used to be a good word, a good thing. “That’s white of you” used to be a phrase for “That was nice of you.” You're making it into a word just as dirty as the foulness that drips from your mouths. Congratulations.

Fools are proud of their skin. It is the deeper stuff with which we must take pride. Blacks are not proud of their skin tone—they’re proud of their fathers and forefathers. They’re proud of deep, long roots.

That, too, is my pride. I am proud of my father and mother. I am proud of my lineage before them. Take the word, skinheads. Take the symbol, too--and rot with it. I have something better.

And Ron Paul – if you really have some connection to this dung, which has stolen so much from the world—and from white people collaterally – be ashamed. Be deeply ashamed.