RP Spammers Unite to Win North Carolina County Strawpoll

[Adam Weinberg]

A small victory for Ron Paul here in North Carolina came this evening when activists (including me) "spammed" the Gaston County GOP Executive Committee meeting, which held a Presidential preference strawpoll.

I am happy to report to you that voting for Ron Paul in any capacity feels pretty damn good. Especially since Ron Paul won with over 30% of the vote from the gathering of 41 activists, county party executives and local elected officials.

Coming in a close second was Fred Thompson. Newt Gingrich was included on the ballot, though he is not currently running. "Top Tier" candidates McCain, Giuliani and Romney lagged near the latter half or bottom of the pack.

I don't remember at the moment the exact totals, but as soon as I find them I'll include them. The party promised to issue a press release related to the event and the results.

http://www.gastongop.org/Default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

This is their website, which will hopefully post this information soon.

Prior to the vote, the audience heard from North Carolina Gubernatorial candidate Bill Graham, who really looks like a Republican version of John Edwards!

Afterward, I talked with some of the losing candidates' supporters and got them up to speed on Ron Paul's candidacy, and really made some headway in building bridges with traditional GOP voters...which is too important to neglect!

Afterward, memembers of our Triad Area meetup group stopped at Waffle House on the way home in Salisbury, NC and basically used the restaurant as campaign headquarters for an hour...talking about Ron Paul with every single customer. Very positive responses all-around.

It was a good night here for Ron Paul activism in general.

[Beefy]

A small victory for Ron Paul here in North Carolina came this evening when activists (including me) "spammed" the Gaston County GOP Executive Committee meeting, which held a Presidential preference strawpoll.

I am happy to report to you that voting for Ron Paul in any capacity feels pretty damn good. Especially since Ron Paul won with over 30% of the vote from the gathering of 41 activists, county party executives and local elected officials.

Coming in a close second was Fred Thompson. Newt Gingrich was included on the ballot, though he is not currently running. "Top Tier" candidates McCain, Giuliani and Romney lagged near the latter half or bottom of the pack.

I don't remember at the moment the exact totals, but as soon as I find them I'll include them. The party promised to issue a press release related to the event and the results.

http://www.gastongop.org/Default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

This is their website, which will hopefully post this information soon.

Prior to the vote, the audience heard from North Carolina Gubernatorial candidate Bill Graham, who really looks like a Republican version of John Edwards!

Afterward, I talked with some of the losing candidates' supporters and got them up to speed on Ron Paul's candidacy, and really made some headway in building bridges with traditional GOP voters...which is too important to neglect!

Afterward, memembers of our Triad Area meetup group stopped at Waffle House on the way home in Salisbury, NC and basically used the restaurant as campaign headquarters for an hour...talking about Ron Paul with every single customer. Very positive responses all-around.

It was a good night here for Ron Paul activism in general.

Good deal Adam. Every little bit helps I guess. I just wish these straw polls were actual indicators of which way the wind was blowing. The Iowa straw poll costs $35 per vote, thus rendering it completely meaningless, except for the fact that Romney can claim some sort of victory.

How does the Winston/Salem deal work?

[Panda Hugger]

This is JPP.com.

RP spamming jokes lose their magical power here, AW.

[Adam Weinberg]

RP spamming jokes work on the whole web because there's no shortage of people who say this movement is made up of fake internet robots.

Just go to your local Meetup and you'll find that out.

If you don't have a local Meetup...start one.

[Beefy]

You know Adam, we could really use your smarts around here more often.

That being said, I'm not a robot, and I'd give my vote to Paul, given the chance.

[Adam Weinberg]

The Strawpoll wasn't in Winston-Salem, it was in Gastonia, which is a small city West of Charlotte very close to the border with South Carolina.

This poll was very informal, and obviously, very small. But it was still a useful exercise for activism.

[uscitizen]

Oh well every state needs one town where all the Ron Paul supporters for that state gather.

[Cypress]

RP spamming jokes work on the whole web because there's no shortage of people who say this movement is made up of fake internet robots.

Just go to your local Meetup and you'll find that out. snip



Ditto. Just make sure you don't make the mistake I did. Make sure to go the the right meetup.com meeting.

Make sure you go to the Ron Paul meetup. NOT the Ru Paul meetup.

You know - the famous transvestite Ru Paul?

I was very uncomfortable in my flannel shirt and blue jeans, at that meetup of cross dressing Ru Paul fans.

[Cancel7]

Ditto. Just make sure you don't make the mistake I did. Make sure to go the the right meetup.com meeting.

Make sure you go to the Ron Paul meetup. NOT the Ru Paul meetup.

You know - the famous transvestite Ru Paul?

I was very uncomfortable in my flannel shirt and blue jeans, at that meetup of cross dressing Ru Paul fans.

Cypress, you geek, this sounds like something Ornot would say. lol

[blackascoal]

Here comes the cold water ...

This is meaningless and changes nothing.

Always good to see and hear politically active people getting involved .. but with regards to Ron Paul .. he's a delusional pipedream and the one guy who is more dangerously insane and less of a human than George Bush.

No matter how fervently Paul supporters believe him to be the messiah, America is NEVER going to adapt his policies nor elect anyone as president who has the associations that he has.

Nor will America EVER adapt libertarian myopic-no-applicable-real-world beliefs.

I applaud the political spirit but I detest the candidate.

[Cancel7]

Here comes the cold water ...

This is meaningless and changes nothing.

Always good to see and hear politically active people getting involved .. but with regards to Ron Paul .. he's a delusional pipedream and the one guy who is more dangerously insane and less of a human than George Bush.

No matter how fervently Paul supporters believe him to be the messiah, America is NEVER going to adapt his policies nor elect anyone as president who has the associations that he has.

Nor will America EVER adapt libertarian myopic-no-applicable-real-world beliefs.

I applaud the political spirit but I detest the candidate.

QFT

Hear, hear!

[Damocles]

QFT

Hear, hear!
BAC, you need to get your own radio show, you already have ditto-heads.

[Cancel7]

BAC, you need to get your own radio show, you already have ditto-heads.

Jealous?

[Damocles]

Jealous?
What? I think he should have more exposure and it makes me jealous?

[Cancel7]

What? I think he should have more exposure and it makes me jealous?

"ditto head" is a snarky expression, which, you used directed at me, and I think it's because you're jealous that you don't have any of your own dittoheads, unless you count BB when he was trying to get into your pants.

[Damocles]

"ditto head" is a snarky expression, which, you used directed at me, and I think it's because you're jealous that you don't have any of your own dittoheads, unless you count BB when he was trying to get into your pants.
LOL. Right. "ditto-head" is not snarky when used in a certain group who self-describe themselves that way. I was making a little joke based on two posts of "ditto" and "QFT" and suggesting that he get his own radio show.

You just want to pick a fight, you like the make-up sessions....

:D

[Adam Weinberg]

The detest you have for this candidate has been proven to be based on false information distributed by his Neo-Conservative opponents.

But that's okay. We're not really in need of your support anyway.

[Cancel7]

LOL. Right. "ditto-head" is not snarky when used in a certain group who self-describe themselves that way. I was making a little joke based on two posts of "ditto" and "QFT" and suggesting that he get his own radio show.

You just want to pick a fight, you like the make-up sessions....

:D

LOL.

;)

[Damocles]

The detest you have for this candidate has been proven to be based on false information distributed by his Neo-Conservative opponents.

But that's okay. We're not really in need of your support anyway.
QFT. (Yup, Adam should have his own too.)

It doesn't matter, BAC is very socialistic in many of his opinions and will continue to reserve a special hatred of libertarians as a whole.

[Adam Weinberg]

The fact is, Damo, if anybody thinks Ron Paul would not be as qualified as President than George W. Bush, then I'm GLAD that person is afraid of what he might do as President.

[Damocles]

The fact is, Damo, if anybody thinks Ron Paul would not be as qualified as President than George W. Bush, then I'm GLAD that person is afraid of what he might do as President.
I had a whole group of R's in a county that supported Bush all the way all nodding on the fact that we should never enter war undeclared. It was an amazing sight.

[blackascoal]

The detest you have for this candidate has been proven to be based on false information distributed by his Neo-Conservative opponents.

But that's okay. We're not really in need of your support anyway.

Paul supporters aren't too keen on reality, but no neoconservative forced Paul to PARTICIPATE with some of the most vile hate groups on the planet ,, try denying that.

And in fact, you're in need of a lot of support .. spam only takes you so far.

Your candidate is going backwards in some polls and is stuck between 0-2% in all scientific polls .. try denying that.

Oh hell yes, you're in need of a lot of support.

That Ron Paul "Revolution" amounts to nothing more than spam and is less than a whimper of a revolution. If he's blowing up on the internet as Paul supporters claim .. where is the money? ... 2.3 million is peanuts, pocket change in a presidential election. Some candidates running for mayor collect more money than that and almost every candidate running for the Senate does. Where is the money?

Howard Dean collected millions from the internet and Obama has collected even more millions than Dean from the internet. Why isn't your "horde" of Paul supporters sending a lot more money? Could it be that they simple aren't there?

Real candidates have thousands of people show up to hear them speak at campaign stops .. sometimes it's tens of thousands. Paul gets a few hundred and if 600 show up Ronbots are rushing to the internet to declare glorious victory.

His racist background, delusional politics, and vapid legislative record have caught up to him and he's already reached his peak of support. People like myself who are actively working against Paul are winning this battle. All we need do is present the facts and evidence and others will make up their own minds.

Low to non-existent poll numbers, measly fundraising, relatively small crowds.

Those are the realities. Perhaps you can claim this is all false as well and hope it goes away .. but just like his racist background .. it won't.

[blackascoal]

QFT. (Yup, Adam should have his own too.)

It doesn't matter, BAC is very socialistic in many of his opinions and will continue to reserve a special hatred of libertarians as a whole.

Well said.

[Cypress]

I had a whole group of R's in a county that supported Bush all the way all nodding on the fact that we should never enter war undeclared. It was an amazing sight.

Maybe republicans can only admit their war was a mistake, in the privacy of a room with other republicans. :cof1:

I've virtually never seen on message boards, republicans who supported the war in the beginning admit they made a mistake. There are maybe one or two posters I'll give credit for admitting it. But, by and large I keep hearing excuses for why the war was "inevitiable" or justified anway. Even knowing what we know now.

[Adam Weinberg]

Yeah, it just involves talking common sense with people. Most people are not Sean Hannity nutbags who want to steamroll over you and call you unpatriotic.

You just have to figure what's on thier minds. A lady came to me with a Ron Paul flyer and said she didn't understand why he would be against the Patriot Act since it "prevents terrorism". And I told her, frankly, that putting our rights at risk doesn't make us safer.

And she knew the Patriot Act was a mess for regular people, she worked at a bank and had to deal with the real life hassles that come along.

So you would think this would be a hard sell on the surface, but in fact, if you really talk to people about what's at the heart of the issue (not wanting to get blown up!) you can explain in Republican-friendly terms why something like the Patriot Act just don't work.

The Patriot Act IS big government. It's passing a law the congress didn't even read and fully consider and expecting it to be effective. We wouldn't want that if it was related to taxes or spending. It's more bureaucracy to prevent a simple problem about private security and streamlined intelligence.

And I know this won't work with many liberals, but this will definitely work with committed conservatives...if we only had a government that respected private property and our right to keep and bear arms, then we would not have had a government that six months before 9/11 told our airline pilots they could not be armed.

A little bit of the Constitution could have changed our history for the better. So, it's important to let people know that 9/11 didn't change the important things in America forever, and that America can get back to its traditions of liberty and the Constitution and be more free and secure.

[Adam Weinberg]

"Real candidates have thousands of people show up to hear them speak at campaign stops .."

So does Ron Paul. 1100 people showed up in Greenville, SC. 2000 people showed up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Well over 1000 people showed up and voted in Ames, Iowa.

It's inaccurate to say most candidates have larger audiences. When Ron Paul held his own rally in Iowa after being excluded from a debate, his crowd of 1000 overpowered the other candidates' debate of only 600 audience members.

Frankly, in primary states some candidates will do stump speeches with as little as thirty people, so, that's not exactly true that the other candidates are often drawing more.



"His racist background..." (not true)

"delusional politics..." (doesn't matter what you say on this)

"and vapid legislative record...." (considered by most--even detractors--to be the most principled and pro-Constitution in America)

"have caught up to him and he's already reached his peak of support..." (no, his base of support is growing, and will continue to grow as other conservative GOP candidates drop out).

"People like myself who are actively working against Paul..." (and seemingly working for President Bush who you claim to like better)

"Are winning this battle." (Oh really?)

All we need do is present the facts and evidence and others will make up their own minds." (Well, so far you've only presented non-facts and made up stuff, in the interim, the man has been touring the country with actual facts and solutions to serious problems and has been winning support that way.)

..............

If Ron Paul had the background that you said he did, I would not support him. Fortunately, I know you're desperate to oppose his economic views--seemingly have no strong opinions about the war or you'd at least give credit where credit is due--and thereby want to slander his social views with inaccurate information.

You've already lost in the realm of public opinion and the media. Nobody is saving your magic nuggets of wisdom for a rainy day when they need it, the information you peddle is DISCREDITED.

Myself, a Jew who is no stranger to what bigotry looks like, and my associates in the grassroots effort, from all backgrounds and ethnicities, believe in the optimistic message of the Constitution much more than the dismissive, unhopeful attitude you have repeatedly shown.

[Cancel7]

Myself, a Jew who is no stranger to what bigotry looks like, and my associates in the grassroots effort, from all backgrounds and ethnicities, believe in the optimistic message of the Constitution much more than the dismissive, unhopeful attitude you have repeatedly shown.

I"ve read bac's posts and links about Paul. I think that if it had involved Jewish people, you'd be less quick to dismiss.

And I don't think that just because you're Jewish, your stamp of "Candidate Not Racist" holds any particularly special water.

[Adam Weinberg]

That's your opinion. You happen to be wrong because I'm sensitive to those issues and it is central to my political views.

Last night a small portion of my meetup group piled in a mini-van and went down to the Strawpoll. We had two black folks, a Jew and two good old boys cruising down the interstate together.

And that's what the Constitution does to bring people together. We're not interested in the stuff you pulled up from Eric Dondero. It's not true.

[Panda Hugger]

BAC, you need to get your own radio show, you already have ditto-heads.

OMGZ!

This is the worst thing I've ever heard Damo call anyone! Head for the hills!

[Panda Hugger]

The fact is, Damo, if anybody thinks Ron Paul would not be as qualified as President than George W. Bush, then I'm GLAD that person is afraid of what he might do as President.

I wouldn't let the big bad wolf get to you like that, Whineberg.

[Cancel7]

That's your opinion. You happen to be wrong because I'm sensitive to those issues and it is central to my political views.

Last night a small portion of my meetup group piled in a mini-van and went down to the Strawpoll. We had two black folks, a Jew and two good old boys cruising down the interstate together.

And that's what the Constitution does to bring people together. We're not interested in the stuff you pulled up from Eric Dondero. It's not true.

Yeah? What I read looked true.

[Adam Weinberg]

Also it should be noted that some people HAVE been trying to accuse Ron Paul of being Anti-Jewish/Anti-Israel because of his foreign policy views and some of the people who endorse his views.

Most racist movements in the United States sort of have an approach that includes all of the various minority groups, including Jews, and I've always been aware of that.

And yet Ron Paul was one of the few members of Congress to support Israel's right to defend itself against the Iraqi nuclear program in the 80s.

[doniston]

[QUOTE=Darla;109173][I]Myself, a Jew who is no stranger to what bigotry looks like, and my associates in the grassroots effort,
QUOTE] HA HA HA, Darla. now I know what got you so miffed at me. this is the first I knew that you were a Jew, and I recall taking up the banner of being Anti-Israel. Now it all makes sense. but I am not anti-jew, only anti (I guess you cold say Zionist) Israel government.

[Adam Weinberg]

Yeah? What I read looked true.

Well, fortunately, it wasn't. And I think your political disposition too heavily sways you to make that assumption.

[Cancel7]

Well, fortunately, it wasn't. And I think your political disposition too heavily sways you to make that assumption.

LOL

But not yours.

[uscitizen]

OMGZ!

This is the worst thing I've ever heard Damo call anyone! Head for the hills!
Dano, Brovo and such are on today, so he has to put on a republican front. Can't be caught hobnobbing with moderates or liberals!

[Adam Weinberg]

No, it doesn't.

Because I relied on facts about these events and legitimate news sources like the New York Times have discredited those claims.

Also, being that I follow Ron Paul very closely I understand all the nuances of his candidacy and realize that bigotry of any kind is not part of it.

[Cancel7]

No, it doesn't.

Because I relied on facts about these events and legitimate news sources like the New York Times have discredited those claims.

Also, being that I follow Ron Paul very closely I understand all the nuances of his candidacy and realize that bigotry of any kind is not part of it.

Hooray for me, I'm the only person in the world who relies on facts, and whose ideology doesn't color my feelings about a candidate.

Too bad everyone isn't like me. Who's better than me?

[Panda Hugger]

If Ron Paul had the background that you said he did, I would not support him. Fortunately, I know you're desperate to oppose his economic views--seemingly have no strong opinions about the war or you'd at least give credit where credit is due--and thereby want to slander his social views with inaccurate information.

Oh, he does oppose the war, even more strongly than I do. He kind of glossed over that, and I believe made some argument that it didn't matter because Ron Paul had supported the Afghan war.

[Cancel7]

Oh, he does oppose the war, even more strongly than I do. He kind of glossed over that, and I believe made some argument that it didn't matter because Ron Paul had supported the Afghan war.

Maybe he just figured, BFD? Putin opposed the war too.

And?

[Cancel7]

Dano, Brovo and such are on today, so he has to put on a republican front. Can't be caught hobnobbing with moderates or liberals!

LOL

You think Damo is going to insult me everytime those goons are around, to score points with them? I am not going to be his doormat forever you know!

[Damocles]

LOL

You think Damo is going to insult me everytime those goons are around, to score points with them? I am not going to be his doormat forever you know!
Insult? I wasn't trying to insult anybody. Geez. People around here are too sensitive.

[Adam Weinberg]

Maybe he just figured, BFD? Putin opposed the war too.

And?


It matters because a Presidential election is about the leadership we want for our country.

I don't want a President who pays lipservice to correcting our foreign policy. The fact is that plenty of Democrats have a history of confrontation and interventions that they could prove just as undependable with this kind of power in ending the war in Iraq and preventing a new war with Iran.

It is a big fucking deal the difference Ron Paul would make in our affairs abroad compared to President Bush, whom BAC seemed to think is superior in some way.

[Cancel7]

Insult? I wasn't trying to insult anybody. Geez. People around here are too sensitive.

I'm only kidding Princess.

[Damocles]

I'm only kidding Princess.
Oooooh... I get a demoted?!

[Cancel7]

It matters because a Presidential election is about the leadership we want for our country.

I don't want a President who pays lipservice to correcting our foreign policy. The fact is that plenty of Democrats have a history of confrontation and interventions that they could prove just as undependable with this kind of power in ending the war in Iraq and preventing a new war with Iran.

It is a big fucking deal the difference Ron Paul would make in our affairs abroad compared to President Bush, whom BAC seemed to think is superior in some way.

It is a big fucking deal the difference any non-neocon would make in our affairs abroad.

[Adam Weinberg]

It is a big fucking deal the difference any non-neocon would make in our affairs abroad.

Not really. Of the Democrats, only Bill Richardson has committed to not leaving any residual forces, and even some forces would be swapped around in the region.

You can feel better by electing a Democrat, but if you're not going to change the indefinite occupation of Iraq and our fourteen permanent bases--if you're not going to move our Navy away from the coastline of Iran and prevent another Gulf of Tonkin incident--you are not making a difference...you are putting a different face in front of the same bad foreign policy.

[Panda Hugger]

Maybe he just figured, BFD? Putin opposed the war too.

And?

Why are you being so defensive?

[Cancel7]

Not really. Of the Democrats, only Bill Richardson has committed to not leaving any residual forces, and even some forces would be swapped around in the region.

You can feel better by electing a Democrat, but if you're not going to change the indefinite occupation of Iraq and our fourteen permanent bases--if you're not going to move our Navy away from the coastline of Iran and prevent another Gulf of Tonkin incident--you are not making a difference...you are putting a different face in front of the same bad foreign policy.

I think a dem is going to move our navy away from Iran.

I feel the same way about a candidate claiming "I'll remove every last soldier on my first day" as I do about Kucinich claiming on his first day he will cancel NAFTA.

Sounds good, can't be done. There are such things as repercussions in this world, and the 80% of Americans who cheered on the neocons as they invaded Iraq can start tasting some.

And as a liberal, not electing a radical libertarian isn't a matter of me "feeling good' adam, (and I find you as condescending as ever). My ideology is mine, like yours is yours. I find yours to be just as morally inferior as you believe mine to be.

But I fight for mine too. And not just in the voting booth.

[Cancel7]

Why are you being so defensive?

When did you stop beating your wife?

[Cypress]

Not really. Of the Democrats, only Bill Richardson has committed to not leaving any residual forces, and even some forces would be swapped around in the region.

You can feel better by electing a Democrat, but if you're not going to change the indefinite occupation of Iraq and our fourteen permanent bases--if you're not going to move our Navy away from the coastline of Iran and prevent another Gulf of Tonkin incident--you are not making a difference...you are putting a different face in front of the same bad foreign policy.

I don't think so. Ron Paul and Bill Richardson are politicians. Politicians who may say certain things to stake out a political advantage. But, when it comes to governance, they "suddenly" become more pragmatic. We will probably have some residual forces in Iraq for years to come. The entire US Government's beauracracy - from the Pentagon, to Congress, to the State Department - are probably resistant to completely pulling every american out of iraq. Ron Paul - or any president - is just one man. They generally can't take unilateral action, like a dictator, against the entire beauracratic establishment.

Politicians rely on expedience. Paul has shown himself to be prone to expedience, like every other politician. He switched to the republican party just to win an election. That's demonstrative of classic political expendience, pragmatism, and parlor games.

[Cancel7]

Oooooh... I get a demoted?!

I asked you to keep the "Oh Damo, you're the King" comments between us!

[Panda Hugger]

When did you stop beating your wife?

Why do you eat babies?

[Cancel7]

Why do you eat babies?

So, you get the picture then?

[Damocles]

I asked you to keep the "Oh Damo, you're the King" comments between us!
LOL.

[Damocles]

Why do you eat babies?
Because they taste good?

[Panda Hugger]

I don't think so. Ron Paul and Bill Richardson are politicians. Politicians who may say certain things to stake out a political advantage. But, when it comes to governance, they "suddenly" become more pragmatic. We will probably have some residual forces in Iraq for years to come. The entire US Government's beauracracy - from the Pentagon, to Congress, to the State Department - are probably resistant to completely pulling every american out of iraq. Ron Paul - or any president - is just one man. They generally can't take unilateral action, like a dictator, against the entire beauracratic establishment.

Politicians rely on expedience. Paul has shown himself to be prone to expedience, like every other politician. He switched to the republican party just to win an election. That's demonstrative of classic political expendience, pragmatism, and parlor games.

When did Paul "swithch to" the Republican party? He ran for president as a libertarian - sure. But he's pretty much always ran on the Republican line.

Parties don't represent ideologies anyway. There's no reason anyone should have any loyalty to any party.

[Panda Hugger]

Because they taste good?

Dahmer said human tastes "a bit like beef".

[blackascoal]

BAC, you need to get your own radio show, you already have ditto-heads.

The difference, my brother, is that I'm every bit as much of a fan, believer, and supporter of what they say as you think they are of mine. I even like some of the things you say.

But there are some of us who not only share a political perspective, we also share a spirituality. In fact, if you don't have spirituality, then you couldn't possibly share our political perspective. That's why we seem strange to strict capitalists.

We not only share political perspectives, and spirituality, but intellect is required to join this cluib.

I like to call us "people with brains."

Do you know where the country is today? ... The same place people with brains were 7 years ago. It took the American people 7 years to catch up.

Bush .. we told you he was an idiot 7 years ago
War on Iraq .. we told you it was based on lies and it would end in failure 5 years ago.
Saddam and WMD .. anyone who fell for that is stupid.
Saddam and 9/11 .. Stupid

I could go on .. but you get the point .. we're smart people .. it's a collective. :)

[Cancel7]

The difference, my brother, is that I'm every bit as much of a fan, believer, and supporter of what they say as you think they are of mine. I even like some of the things you say.

But there are some of us who not only share a political perspective, we also share a spirituality. In fact, if you don't have spirituality, then you couldn't possibly share our political perspective. That's why we seem strange to strict capitalists.

We not only share political perspectives, and spirituality, but intellect is required to join this cluib.

I like to call us "people with brains."

Do you know where the country is today? ... The same place people with brains were 7 years ago. It took the American people 7 years to catch up.

Bush .. we told you he was an idiot 7 years ago
War on Iraq .. we told you it was based on lies and it would end in failure 5 years ago.
Saddam and WMD .. anyone who fell for that is stupid.
Saddam and 9/11 .. Stupid

I could go on .. but you get the point .. we're smart people .. it's a collective. :)

And is it my imagination...or is there something very sexy about us as well?

[Damocles]

The difference, my brother, is that I'm every bit as much of a fan, believer, and supporter of what they say as you think they are of mine. I even like some of the things you say.

But there are some of us who not only share a political perspective, we also share a spirituality. In fact, if you don't have spirituality, then you couldn't possibly share our political perspective. That's why we seem strange to strict capitalists.

We not only share political perspectives, and spirituality, but intellect is required to join this cluib.

I like to call us "people with brains."

Do you know where the country is today? ... The same place people with brains were 7 years ago. It took the American people 7 years to catch up.

Bush .. we told you he was an idiot 7 years ago
War on Iraq .. we told you it was based on lies and it would end in failure 5 years ago.
Saddam and WMD .. anyone who fell for that is stupid.
Saddam and 9/11 .. Stupid

I could go on .. but you get the point .. we're smart people .. it's a collective. :)
You took it too seriously too. Wow. It's been one of those days.

Since you don't know me I'll give you some perspective. I was against the war in Iraq and believe that if we followed the constitution and worked for declaration that the Senate never would have voted for that one. I am against fighting "wars" on splinter groups because it gives them too much power in the minds of Americans and believe that responding this way it gives them a validity they never would have among the people with which they live.

But heck, whatever floats your boat, you can assume all sorts of stuff about me, it doesn't mean you are correct in your assumptions. It just means that you don't even wish to agree with people who are in agreement with you if they belong to a different "ideology".

Anyway, your "collective" still argues that they shouldn't have done it for "this or that reason", for me, the reason has always been the same, we should actually use the protections written into that wonderful document that created this nation.

[Panda Hugger]

I have no spiritualtiy or religion.


Emotional rubbish.

[Adam Weinberg]

I think a dem is going to move our navy away from Iran.

I hope you're right. I don't expect Clinton to do that, especially based on her foreign policy history.


I feel the same way about a candidate claiming "I'll remove every last soldier on my first day" as I do about Kucinich claiming on his first day he will cancel NAFTA.

Well, fortunately, Ron Paul and for that matter Kucinich haven't said (I was going to post a correction that I forgot to mention him) they'd get us out in a day. But they have said they would get us out. Which when you really get down to it, only Richardson has said as well.


There are such things as repercussions in this world, and the 80% of Americans who cheered on the neocons as they invaded Iraq can start tasting some.

The repurcussions are because we went, not because we leave.


And as a liberal, not electing a radical libertarian isn't a matter of me "feeling good' adam, (and I find you as condescending as ever).

I didn't mean it as condescension, and I don't ever expect you to vote or support Ron Paul. I do expect the truth to be known on this issue and as it relates to his candidacy. I was placing Ron Paul in front of the alternative, which is the George W. Bush foreign and domestic policy (which BAC thinks is better) or a half-assed Democratic response (which you are free to think is better if you're willing to take the chance).


My ideology is mine, like yours is yours. I find yours to be just as morally inferior as you believe mine to be.

I don't have an ideology. I have an idea about where the truth lies in this election about what needs to change, and it's with the most forthright, straight-talking candidate in the race...Ron Paul.

[Cypress]

When did Paul "swithch to" the Republican party? He ran for president as a libertarian - sure. But he's pretty much always ran on the Republican line.

Parties don't represent ideologies anyway. There's no reason anyone should have any loyalty to any party.


He's always been a republican? Shoot, there goes what respect I did have for him. I've driven people crazy for suggesting the LP is just an offshoot or proxy for the GOP. I wonder if you'll get attacked?

yeah, I went to Paul's website. Outside of a pretty good sense of what america's foreign policy should be, its devoid of any substantive content.

Unless you consider lowering taxes, no healthcare policy to speak of, letting americans pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and being obsessed with property rights to be important and correct issues in america today.

Oh, and he's also pro-life, aka anti-Roe v Wade. Which bugs the crap out of me.

[Cypress]

And is it my imagination...or is there something very sexy about us as well?


Do you even need to ask?? Or, was this rhetorical in nature?

the answer is Yes!

[Panda Hugger]

He's always been a republican? Shoot, there goes what respect I did have for him. I've driven people crazy for suggesting the LP is just an offshoot or proxy for the GOP. I wonder if you'll get attacked?

OOOHhh! I knew you were just waiting to say it, right after I posted that.

But you were right. He does have basically no loyalty to the Republican party. Or any other party. Don't see how it's a negative.


yeah, I went to Paul's website. Outside of a pretty good sense of what america's foreign policy should be, its devoid of any substantive content.

Unless you consider lowering taxes, no healthcare policy to speak of, letting americans pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and being obsessed wit property rights to be important and correct issues in america today.

Oh, and he's also pro-life, aka anti-Roe v Wade. Which bugs the crap out of me.

MhHmmmm...

[Cancel7]

I hope you're right. I don't expect Clinton to do that, especially based on her foreign policy history.



Well, fortunately, Ron Paul and for that matter Kucinich haven't said (I was going to post a correction that I forgot to mention him) they'd get us out in a day. But they have said they would get us out. Which when you really get down to it, only Richardson has said as well.



The repurcussions are because we went, not because we leave.



I didn't mean it as condescension, and I don't ever expect you to vote or support Ron Paul. I do expect the truth to be known on this issue and as it relates to his candidacy. I was placing Ron Paul in front of the alternative, which is the George W. Bush foreign and domestic policy (which BAC thinks is better) or a half-assed Democratic response (which you are free to think is better if you're willing to take the chance).



I don't have an ideology. I have an idea about where the truth lies in this election about what needs to change, and it's with the most forthright, straight-talking candidate in the race...Ron Paul.

Alright.

[Panda Hugger]

Alright.

Cool.

[Cancel7]

Cool.

I don't agree with him Water, I am agreeing to disagree that's all. Just to be clear. :)

[Cancel7]

Do you even need to ask?? Or, was this rhetorical in nature?

the answer is Yes!

It was pretty much rhetorical.

[doniston]

OOOHhh! I knew you were just waiting to say it, right after I posted that.

But you were right. He does have basically no loyalty to the Republican party. Or any other party. Don't see how it's a negative.



MhHmmmm... I have yet to see anything remarkable about Ron Paul, he seems to be a misplaced farmhand to me.

[Adam Weinberg]

Why don't you go YouTube him?

[Panda Hugger]

I don't agree with him Water, I am agreeing to disagree that's all. Just to be clear. :)

alright

[blackascoal]

I'm going to enjoy this.


"Real candidates have thousands of people show up to hear them speak at campaign stops .."

So does Ron Paul. 1100 people showed up in Greenville, SC. 2000 people showed up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Well over 1000 people showed up and voted in Ames, Iowa.

It's inaccurate to say most candidates have larger audiences. When Ron Paul held his own rally in Iowa after being excluded from a debate, his crowd of 1000 overpowered the other candidates' debate of only 600 audience members.

Frankly, in primary states some candidates will do stump speeches with as little as thirty people, so, that's not exactly true that the other candidates are often drawing more.

Obama draws 10,000 to California rally
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-03-18-obama-rally_N.htm

I could go on with other candidates if you like.


"His racist background..." (not true)

You might want to shut your eyes real tight here in hopes that it will just go away.

Neo-Confederate movement
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919191637/http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/Essay1.htm

Please name the neo-con that forced your candidate to attend a gathering of racists who are supportive of violence against gays and Lesbians, are openly racist and openly advocate a division of the United States of America .. just like Paul. "Why do we need the federal government? There's no Cold War and no Communist threat. Many other nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces. The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time. Why not think about getting rid of the federal government, returning to the system of our Founders, and breaking up the United States into smaller government units?"

Break America up into nation-states????

Do a bit of research on the Political Cesspool where Paul has been a guest many times. It's the radio program for the White Citizens Council ... you'll find him listed under P, right above Prussian Blue, the white supremacist teenage singing duo.
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php

Did Eric Dondero force your candidate to be a frequent guest on a white nationalist radio show? .. Or maybe that wasn't actually Ron Paul appearing. Perhaps it was an "aide", a "ghostwriter". a ghost.

The ONLY congressperson to get a 100% rating from John Birch Society.
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004474M

Go check out his connections to these people ....

Stormfront White Nationalist Community - Is Ron Paul the One
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-one-388512.html

Lake Jackson News: Clear Media Conspiracy Against Ron Paul
http://lakejacksonnews.blogspot.com/2007/05/clear-media-conspiracy-against-ron-paul.html

Heritage Front
http://www.heritagefront.com/updates/lobbyhf.html#9

Vanguard News Network, Larry Pratt, Chris Somcox, Council on Conservative Citizens, David Duke, and many others.

You'll notice that I didn't get into the newsletter evidence because you'll just deny it .. even though I have proof .. but let's see how easy you slide away from his participation with hate groups.


"delusional politics..." (doesn't matter what you say on this)

Good move on your part because your logic would be destroyed. They are myopic dreams with no applicable real world application. Don't think so .. try it.


"and vapid legislative record...." (considered by most--even detractors--to be the most principled and pro-Constitution in America)

That just means that you listen to jingles but don't know much about substance. I bet I know his legislative record better than you do. He's the most ineffectual Member of Congress. With all his years in Congress, doesn't chair a Commission, Committee, or Sub-Committee. .. Do you know anything about Congress .. I do. Do you know about HR 1146 .. I do.


"have caught up to him and he's already reached his peak of support..." (no, his base of support is growing, and will continue to grow as other conservative GOP candidates drop out).

Prove that. I don't mean in MySpace hits. I'm talking about real serious politics. He's going backwards is some scirntific polls. Don't believe that? .. He is down from his all-time record high of .. 3% .. back down to 2% or 0% in ALL the polls .. REAL polls.

Where's the money?


"People like myself who are actively working against Paul..." (and seemingly working for President Bush who you claim to like better)

I'm a liberal. I'm one of those people who told you Bush was an idiot before the rest of America figured it out. And because someone might say Hitler seemed better than Satan .. doesn't mean they like Hitler.

I used the Bush analogy as comparison to the scum of the bottom .. and said Paul would be worse than that. Doesn't mean I like scum.


"Are winning this battle." (Oh really?)

Really. Sorry, it's that reality thing that keeps getting in your way.


All we need do is present the facts and evidence and others will make up their own minds." (Well, so far you've only presented non-facts and made up stuff, in the interim, the man has been touring the country with actual facts and solutions to serious problems and has been winning support that way.)

I respect your right to have an opinion.


If Ron Paul had the background that you said he did, I would not support him.

With all due respect, I don't believe that. I would think more of Paul supporters if they just came out and said they don't give a damn about Paul's racist beliefs. Just say you aren't black or hispanic so why should you care?

I doubt if you'll do anything with that information than what you have ben doing .. simply reject it.


Fortunately, I know you're desperate to oppose his economic views--seemingly have no strong opinions about the war or you'd at least give credit where credit is due--and thereby want to slander his social views with inaccurate information.

You've already lost in the realm of public opinion and the media. Nobody is saving your magic nuggets of wisdom for a rainy day when they need it, the information you peddle is DISCREDITED.

Myself, a Jew who is no stranger to what bigotry looks like, and my associates in the grassroots effort, from all backgrounds and ethnicities, believe in the optimistic message of the Constitution much more than the dismissive, unhopeful attitude you have repeatedly shown.

Keep the day job. Psychology is not your bag.

I oppose his economic views because they've been historically proven to be an absolute failure. The lassiez-fare system that "free marketism" is based on has itself never been fully realized, not even in France where it was born, and attempts at it have failed .. thus today EVERY industrialized nation opperates on a mixed economy. Lassiez-fare thinking and the hording of gold, another stupid Paul idea, led to the Great Depression.

I am an antiwar liberal who has been against this mnidless war before it even started .. AND .. has been part of the media, political, and grassroots movement against it .. sometimes, an intergral part.

About those "magic nuggets" .. wrong again. Don't know how, do ya'.

Please, save the speech about bigotry.

And save that bullshit about "optimistic message of the Constitution." I don't look for solutions to today's society 200 years in the past to a document that was written by and for white men only. The Constitution was great beginnings but if you know anything about it's history then you'd know that even Jefferson didn't want to ratify it unless it was modified or including what became the Bill of Rights. I believe in a living Constitution that adapts to modern society.

Feel free to challange any of this or debate about his politics, economic perspective, or racist history .. or not.

[Cancel7]

I would say "Hear, hear" but Damo would be all over me again.

Great post BAC, and I did already go to your links on the racism, and I do not see how anyone can say that it's made up. That's just denial. You don't want to believe something, so you don't believe it.

[blackascoal]

You took it too seriously too. Wow. It's been one of those days.

Since you don't know me I'll give you some perspective. I was against the war in Iraq and believe that if we followed the constitution and worked for declaration that the Senate never would have voted for that one. I am against fighting "wars" on splinter groups because it gives them too much power in the minds of Americans and believe that responding this way it gives them a validity they never would have among the people with which they live.

But heck, whatever floats your boat, you can assume all sorts of stuff about me, it doesn't mean you are correct in your assumptions. It just means that you don't even wish to agree with people who are in agreement with you if they belong to a different "ideology".

Anyway, your "collective" still argues that they shouldn't have done it for "this or that reason", for me, the reason has always been the same, we should actually use the protections written into that wonderful document that created this nation.

NAw, you took that too seriously and absolutely NONE of that was directed to you or your perspective personally.

I was having fun.

Of course that reliance solely on "that wonderful document", needs some work. :)

[blackascoal]

I have no spiritualtiy or religion.


Emotional rubbish.

Religion and spirituality are not the same thing.

[blackascoal]

And is it my imagination...or is there something very sexy about us as well?

I thought it best not to flaunt.

[blackascoal]

I would say "Hear, hear" but Damo would be all over me again.

Great post BAC, and I did already go to your links on the racism, and I do not see how anyone can say that it's made up. That's just denial. You don't want to believe something, so you don't believe it.


Don't worry about Damo, he's just jealous. :cool:

I'm waiting for Mr. Weinberg to explain how anyone running for president can have this in his background and expect to actually BE the president.

I'm waiting for him to tell me this has been DISPROVED

[Cancel7]

Don't worry about Damo, he's just jealous. :cool:

I'm waiting for Mr. Weinberg to explain how anyone running for president can have this in his background and expect to actually BE the president.

I'm waiting for him to tell me this has been DISPROVED

I think that there is such a dearth of leadership in this country, and has been for long enough, that many of us are feeling the all too human need for some kind of hero. And that leads us to sometimes glorify a person, to the point that, we block out any negative info, insisting that it "can't be true". I think that it would be very difficult for me to look at information that showed Gore for instance, to be a racist. But I would hope that I could look at it, and face it just the same.

About Damo...oh, I so know it! ;)

[Adam Weinberg]

"Break America up into nation-states????"

Please cite the source of this quote so we can see the full context of the statement.


Do a bit of research on the Political Cesspool where Paul has been a guest many times. It's the radio program for the White Citizens Council ... you'll find him listed under P, right above Prussian Blue, the white supremacist teenage singing duo.

http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php

Did Eric Dondero force your candidate to be a frequent guest on a white nationalist radio show? .. Or maybe that wasn't actually Ron Paul appearing. Perhaps it was an "aide", a "ghostwriter". a ghost.

The ONLY congressperson to get a 100% rating from John Birch Society.
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004474M

It's not surprising since Ron Paul's main campaign issue is the Constitution and regardless of their other views and discrepancies, the Constitution is their mainstay as well.

I am aware of the activities of the White Nationalist Movement--as I have told you before, Jews are not excluded from their bigoted aims and I would not support Ron Paul if I felt he advocated their views.

And there are Ron Paul supporters in their ranks. I am also aware that there are 9/11 conspiracy theorists who support Ron Paul. The fact is that Ron Paul, and all political candidates, will attract a lot of support from many kinds of people...some of whom do not have good values as far as the traditions of a constitutional liberal democracy is concerned.

But as Ron Paul said the other night on Fox News, to support the candidate or allow him a forum does not mean that HE endorses their views. It means that they endorse HIS views. Whether they see his views favorable for them or not is irrelevant to whether I believe they would be favorable according to my values.

There are many views of other parties and candidates that are favorable to unsavory types of people and organizations. It is simply not as easily indicted as this example you provide here.

Frankly, I don't care what mostly powerless White Nationalist groups think about who ought to be President. I am much more concerned about the interest groups that have a serious capacity to endanger our rights.

There are racist, bigoted, socially ignorant people who still have sense enough to know that rampant corporate welfare and warfare are not good for America and our way of life.



I used the Bush analogy as comparison to the scum of the bottom .. and said Paul would be worse than that.


Let me just put it out there for you...If you think Bush is better than Ron Paul...a close friend and political ally to Dennis Kucinich...you're not a liberal.



I respect your right to have an opinion.

No, you don't. Otherwise you would use persuasion for what you thought was important rather than distraction to try to keep the Ron Paul candidacy in the background despite the important distinctions he is making in the Republican Primary...distinctions that could protect YOUR RIGHTS.

I also do not support HR 1146, but I understand and appreciate the spirit and the philosophical consistency behind Ron Paul's support of it. And I even agree with some of his arguments for why he does not prefer our involvement in the UN and NATO and consider them legitimate concerns.

I can disagree with someone and still understand their reasoning. I disagree with Charlie Rangel on his bill to institute the draft, but I understand that he introduced it for specific reasons that many would consider noble.




With all due respect, I don't believe that. I would think more of Paul supporters if they just came out and said they don't give a damn about Paul's racist beliefs. Just say you aren't black or hispanic so why should you care?

Well, what would the black and hispanic Ron Paul supporters say? Are they race traitors for appreciating the message in a way you can't? Frankly, many of my views are derived from the troubles I feel are inequitably forced on minority groups by our government, so I'm naturally offended by this notion. The smallest minority is the individual.


even Jefferson didn't want to ratify it unless it was modified or including what became the Bill of Rights.

That's right. Because the Constitution without a Bill of Rights was a formula for unlimited amounts of government power. Things like the Patriot Act could be passed and the government could be fully nationalized and unitary, which was entirely in contradiction to the revolution. The revolution would about home rule much more than it was about taxes.

The colonists would gladly pay more taxes to their States than to England as long as they were represented by their State. They certainly weren't going to let the central government retain a Constitution that let them do whatever they wanted and ruin Federalism, despite the efforts of some.

Most people will tell you that the only failing of the Bill of Rights was that it didn't go far enough in PROTECTING rights, not only because it included slavery, but it limited important protections for the emancipated as well.

There were a plethora of issues that the founders were unable to come to consensus on to say "Congress shall make no law..." including medical freedom, privacy and we tangle with that today.

So, what's your beef? Do you want a strong Bill of Rights that is respected or do you not wish to recognize it because it doesn't meet your immediate vision for what government ought to make society do? What sacrifices will you be making to our liberties in ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?


I believe in a living Constitution that adapts to modern society.

And I believe in a modern society that respects its Constitution and has enough sense of justice to amend the Constitution when they want to change the contract between the government and the people.

[Adam Weinberg]

And that leads us to sometimes glorify a person, to the point that, we block out any negative info, insisting that it "can't be true". I think that it would be very difficult for me to look at information that showed Gore for instance, to be a racist. But I would hope that I could look at it, and face it just the same.

I'm glad you understand the underpinnings of the Ron Paul phenomenon. As they indicated in the New York Times article (which also discredited the newsletter story), his candidacy points to a great desire on the part of many Americans to make significant change.

But I am not unaware that there are negative drawbacks to Ron Paul. He is not my ideal candidate and in fact if I had my way there is a great deal of things I would have him do differently.

He is simply in my opinion the best messenger for the times.

[Cancel7]

But as Ron Paul said the other night on Fox News, to support the candidate or allow him a forum does not mean that HE endorses their views. It means that they endorse HIS views. Whether they see his views favorable for them or not is irrelevant to whether I believe they would be favorable according to my values.

You know, I see that as such a cop-out, that all it does is confirm to me that the guy is a racist.

I do not believe that anyone who was not a racist, and who felt strongly about the matter, would speak in that forum. I would not, and I won't vote for anyone who would, and to tell you the truth Adam, I wouldn't want to even have dinner with anyone who would.

It's your right to airbrush it, but that cannot be airbrushed in my book.

[Adam Weinberg]

Look at the Stormfront web postings as to whether Ron Paul's the one(which, by the way, I visit this site on occasion to see what the enemy is up to, and you'll see why in this response):

"Anything less than ALL is NOTHING. If anythings priority is not 100% the survival of the White Race, than it is a problem and not a solution.

Ron Paul's priority is not 100% the survival of the white race, so he is an enemy and a burden just as much as any jew.

Brandon"

Just because they're able to take his views on immigration and national sovereignty and convert them to their worldview does not make him one of them.

And it's intellectual sloth to say otherwise.

[Cancel7]

Look at the Stormfront web postings as to whether Ron Paul's the one(which, by the way, I visit this site on occasion to see what the enemy is up to, and you'll see why in this response):

"Anything less than ALL is NOTHING. If anythings priority is not 100% the survival of the White Race, than it is a problem and not a solution.

Ron Paul's priority is not 100% the survival of the white race, so he is an enemy and a burden just as much as any jew.

Brandon"

Just because they're able to take his views on immigration and national sovereignty and convert them to their worldview does not make him one of them.

And it's intellectual sloth to say otherwise.

Listen, he uses these forums to speak, and appears on these radio shows, and uses the exuse that it "doesn't mean he agrees with them" and i am telling you, I would not be caught dead having dinner with someone who appeared in those forums, no less vote for them for President. To me, that is a racist. And that's not going to change Adam.

[DigitalDave]

Do you have any idea what he said at those forums Darla?

[Adam Weinberg]

Ron Paul also went on Alex Jones' radio show. Alex Jones is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Ron Paul is not. Should he not give him his perspective?

These guys are not much worse than Michael Savage (who admittedly is pretty bad) and you don't have to agree with Michael Savage to go on his show and talk about what you think.

The media-oriented nature of these sources magnifies this as well. You could just as easily have conversations with White Nationalists at a meeting of the Democratic or Republican Party (or even the Libertarian Party as I've found) and the only way you could tell is if you had a transcript of a conversation that indicted you as supporting their views.

I'd like a recording or writing that proves, without a doubt, not vicariously or by policy similarities, that Ron Paul IS himself a man with bigoted, racist views who intends on acting on them in office.

Find it for me and I'll give up the campaign.

But don't try to ignore the campaign he's really running and tell me that has any resemblance to what you're illustrating here.

[Damocles]

NAw, you took that too seriously and absolutely NONE of that was directed to you or your perspective personally.

I was having fun.

Of course that reliance solely on "that wonderful document", needs some work. :)
There's this neat thing called an Amendment. If it needs work, even that was provided for.

[Damocles]

I would say "Hear, hear" but Damo would be all over me again.

Great post BAC, and I did already go to your links on the racism, and I do not see how anyone can say that it's made up. That's just denial. You don't want to believe something, so you don't believe it.
LOL. No, just more evidence that BAC has his ditto-heads.

[Cancel7]

Do you have any idea what he said at those forums Darla?

He probably didn't say "I hate blacks" and so I guess I can relax, because unless he's on tape making that statement, then of course, he's not a racist and all other evidence is just people trying to make him look bad.

And George Bush didn't lie about Iraq, he was "mistaken" because we don't have a tape of Bush and Cheney sniggering in the oval office "Let's tell em he's got wmd's and there will be a mushroom cloud, boy they'll for that those idiots, LMAO".

But then, I never bought that either.

[Cancel7]

Ron Paul also went on Alex Jones' radio show. Alex Jones is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Ron Paul is not. Should he not give him his perspective?

These guys are not much worse than Michael Savage (who admittedly is pretty bad) and you don't have to agree with Michael Savage to go on his show and talk about what you think.

The media-oriented nature of these sources magnifies this as well. You could just as easily have conversations with White Nationalists at a meeting of the Democratic or Republican Party (or even the Libertarian Party as I've found) and the only way you could tell is if you had a transcript of a conversation that indicted you as supporting their views.

I'd like a recording or writing that proves, without a doubt, not vicariously or by policy similarities, that Ron Paul IS himself a man with bigoted, racist views who intends on acting on them in office.

Find it for me and I'll give up the campaign.

But don't try to ignore the campaign he's really running and tell me that has any resemblance to what you're illustrating here.


Exactly. And we'll impeach bush when we find that tape of him laughing over how stupid Americans are for believing his wmd story, and stating he doesn't give a rat's ass how many lives his Iraqcapade costs, it's all oil and daddy.

I said, I know that mindset. Never shared it. There's somethign called sense. Good sense tells you no one is ever going to get caught dead stating those things on tape.

Look at the evidence and come to your own conclusion. I've come to mine.

[DigitalDave]

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racists . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” - Ron Paul

[Cypress]

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racists . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” - Ron Paul

Translation: Even though we know prejudice and bigotry are problems in america, that directly and adversly impact people's live, I'm not going to be proactive in enforcing or stengthening discrmination enforcement and civil rights laws. I'm going to hope that, one day (maybe decades or 100s of years from now) we'll all be colorblind.


That's the way I read it. Its not good enough. You can't say racism is ugly, and that its a problem. And then present some pie in the sky idea ("One day, it will go away) as a realistic solution or mitigation.

[Adam Weinberg]

He probably didn't say "I hate blacks" and so I guess I can relax, because unless he's on tape making that statement, then of course, he's not a racist and all other evidence is just people trying to make him look bad.

I think you're exaggerating my point. Ron Paul's policies are not in any way bigoted policies. The fact that they are attractive to certain unpleasant groups is because they have a similar political disposition about roles of government, not because they agree fundmentally. It would be as much of a stretch as comparing liberals to Communism.

He has no known history of making racist, bigoted, sexist or anti-Jewish statements or actions in his personal life or for political office. He has written many books and speaks extensively in the Congress. He has an active Congressional constituent service program and has a weekly address which is accessible by telephone in which he outlines issues important to him. Has served with members of Congress for now ten terms from a variety of backgrounds.

I know you don't like some of the choices of places he's called in for radio interviews--frankly, I would rather he had never done some of them--but we know what he said in those appearances and they were not racist statements.

So if the man was really a racist, and these documents were totally legitimate, would the whole media establishment have been "fooled" so easily?

Why would the issue not die?

[Damocles]

Translation: Even though we know prejudice and bigotry are problems in america, that directly and adversly impact people's live, I'm not going to be proactive in enforcing or stengthening discrmination enforcement and civil rights laws. I'm going to hope that, one day (maybe decades or 100s of years from now) we'll all be colorblind.


That's the way I read it. Its not good enough. You can't say racism is ugly, and that its a problem. And then present some pie in the sky idea ("One day, it will go away) as a realistic solution or mitigation.
Better translation...

I have a dream that one day we can judge people for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, and our nation by the amount of personal liberty all have, rather than the amount of aid we give. With full understanding that the measure of compassion is not the amount we give away, but the fewer that are in need.

[Cancel7]

I think you're exaggerating my point. Ron Paul's policies are not in any way bigoted policies. The fact that they are attractive to certain unpleasant groups is because they have a similar political disposition about roles of government, not because they agree fundmentally. It would be as much of a stretch as comparing liberals to Communism.

He has no known history of making racist, bigoted, sexist or anti-Jewish statements or actions in his personal life or for political office. He has written many books and speaks extensively in the Congress. He has an active Congressional constituent service program and has a weekly address which is accessible by telephone in which he outlines issues important to him. Has served with members of Congress for now ten terms from a variety of backgrounds.

I know you don't like some of the choices of places he's called in for radio interviews--frankly, I would rather he had never done some of them--but we know what he said in those appearances and they were not racist statements.

So if the man was really a racist, and these documents were totally legitimate, would the whole media establishment have been "fooled" so easily?

Why would the issue not die?

I hope you are not tryign to use the media not covering this much, as a reason to believe it's not true.

George W bush did go awol, and did not fulfill his commitments in the National Guard. What did you see the media do about that in the 00 campaign? There were no wmds, and there was plenty of evidence for that, what did you see the media do about it? I could go on forever, but I couldn't possibly ever use what the media is interested in, or chooses to write about as a basis for how much truth there is in anything.

And I read bac's previous postings on the newsletter, and found them compelling, on top of all of this.

[Cancel7]

Translation: Even though we know prejudice and bigotry are problems in america, that directly and adversly impact people's live, I'm not going to be proactive in enforcing or stengthening discrmination enforcement and civil rights laws. I'm going to hope that, one day (maybe decades or 100s of years from now) we'll all be colorblind.


That's the way I read it. Its not good enough. You can't say racism is ugly, and that its a problem. And then present some pie in the sky idea ("One day, it will go away) as a realistic solution or mitigation.

Let me blame racism on liberals, and exploit it on top of feeling it.

[Adam Weinberg]

And I read bac's previous postings on the newsletter, and found them compelling, on top of all of this.

Well, you're more than welcome to find them compelling, but legitimate media sources have confirmed that they are not Ron Paul's words and they are untrue accounts of his views.

...I'm just trying to understand here, why would you ignore the insurmountable evidence provided from his campaign that Ron Paul is egalitarian and not bigoted and jump on a few scraps that have no legitimacy like the newsletter story?

Would people like Dennis Kucinich associate with Ron Paul if he was a racist? Wouldn't they know about that kind of stuff for certain being that they are much closer to him than we are?

Why would somebody like Ron Paul say in New Hampshire that Dennis Kucinich (the guy for reparations) would make a great Democratic Nominee if racism was part of his worldview?

I think there's too much evidence of Ron Paul's decency to cast him in with other bigoted movements.

[Cypress]

Better translation...

I have a dream that one day we can judge people for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, and our nation by the amount of personal liberty all have, rather than the amount of aid we give. With full understanding that the measure of compassion is not the amount we give away, but the fewer that are in need.

Nice words. But dreaming has to be followed up with action. If your quoting MLK, he understood this. MLK and others fought for civil rights laws, which the libertarian crowd fought against.

[Cypress]

Let me blame racism on liberals, and exploit it on top of feeling it.

Oh God. Did Paul really blame liberals for racism?

What a putz.

[Damocles]

Nice words. But dreaming has to be followed up with action. If your quoting MLK, he understood this. MLK and others fought for civil rights laws, which the libertarian crowd fought against.
The first step is to remove inherent racism in the system, rather than perpetuate a continued form of racism, there are ways we can get the aid to those who need it without basing it on pigmentation.

It appears he is following what he preaches with action. That the goal is the same while the path be different, means nothing to you. Instead of attempting understanding you seek to twist the words to appear as gross as possible as he speaks of a direction which can, in the end, help to end racism. All because you want only your view to be perpetuated as the solution.

[Damocles]

Oh God. Did Paul really blame liberals for racism?

What a putz.
Where? She used your "translation" to get that POV.

[Adam Weinberg]

Oh God. Did Paul really blame liberals for racism?

What a putz.


I really take offense to this process of asking a question and then coming to such a dismissive answer before even investigating the content of the question.

I think that's at the heart of this issue.

[DigitalDave]

Let me blame racism on liberals, and exploit it on top of feeling it.

No, he is saying in order to eliminate racism, we need to recognize that the antidote is individualism, not collectivism. So are you saying that liberals preach collectivism, and we should group everyone under specific categories by the color of their skin?

[Cypress]

The first step is to remove inherent racism in the system, rather than perpetuate a continued form of racism, there are ways we can get the aid to those who need it without basing it on pigmentation.

It appears he is following what he preaches with action. That the goal is the same while the path be different, means nothing to you. Instead of understanding you seek to twist the words to appear as gross as possible as he speaks of a direction which can, in the end, help to end racism.


Its a cop out. Its not intended to really address the problem we have to day. Its really intended as a defense of "limited government" libertarianism. They don't want government getting involved in civil rights. So, they're coping out by proclaming that we all just need to stop being prejudiced.

That doesn't work. At least not for the foreseeable future. People can and will have the rights denied in this country, because of gender or skin pigment, regardless of whether people like Ron Paul are proclaiming that we should just all get along.

I mean, I guess we could stand on the street corner and preach that humans shouldn't commit criminal acts. But, that doesn't address or actually solve the problem of crime.

[Damocles]

Its a cop out. Its not intended to really address the problem we have to day. Its really intended as a defense of "limited government" libertarianism. They don't want government getting involved in civil rights. So, they're coping out by proclaming that we all just need to stop being prejudiced.

That doesn't work. At least not for the foreseeable future. People can and will have the rights denied in this country, because of gender or skin pigment, regardless of whether people like Ron Paul are proclaiming that we should just all get along.

I mean, I guess we could stand on the street corner and preach that humans shouldn't commit criminal acts. But, that doesn't address or actually solve the problem of crime.
It isn't all just "get along", the proposed changes would be to the system, not to remove it. He proposes programs that would work on impoverished rather than pigmentation. The idea being that as long as we continue to focus on pigmentation as a separating factor, even in government, we perpetuate the problem even in an attempt to solve it. He proposes making it a state responsibility, that we can consider... well, libertarian.

As I said, your statements make it clear you seek no understanding, only to attempt to dismiss it without allowing understanding.

Your mind was decided long ago and then closed on this subject so that no other solution can even be considered.

[Adam Weinberg]

People can and will have the rights denied in this country, because of gender or skin pigment, regardless of whether people like Ron Paul are proclaiming that we should just all get along.

I mean, I guess we could stand on the street corner and preach that humans shouldn't commit criminal acts. But, that doesn't address or actually solve the problem of crime.

I agree with you, but that does not make Ron Paul a racist.

[Panda Hugger]

Religion and spirituality are not the same thing.

Didn't say they were, just that they're both rubbish.

[Panda Hugger]

Well, I'm just wondering, did you write the book of love? And do you have faith in God above?

[Cancel7]

No, he is saying in order to eliminate racism, we need to recognize that the antidote is individualism, not collectivism. So are you saying that liberals preach collectivism, and we should group everyone under specific categories by the color of their skin?

No, I am saying that that is exactly how radical righties and radical libertarians view liberalism.

[Panda Hugger]

Its a cop out. Its not intended to really address the problem we have to day. Its really intended as a defense of "limited government" libertarianism. They don't want government getting involved in civil rights. So, they're coping out by proclaming that we all just need to stop being prejudiced.

That doesn't work. At least not for the foreseeable future. People can and will have the rights denied in this country, because of gender or skin pigment, regardless of whether people like Ron Paul are proclaiming that we should just all get along.

I mean, I guess we could stand on the street corner and preach that humans shouldn't commit criminal acts. But, that doesn't address or actually solve the problem of crime.

And what do you propose?

What magical government solution will make the meanies go away?

[Cancel7]

The first step is to remove inherent racism in the system, rather than perpetuate a continued form of racism, there are ways we can get the aid to those who need it without basing it on pigmentation.

It appears he is following what he preaches with action. That the goal is the same while the path be different, means nothing to you. Instead of attempting understanding you seek to twist the words to appear as gross as possible as he speaks of a direction which can, in the end, help to end racism. All because you want only your view to be perpetuated as the solution.

So I may assume he advocats class based AA, rather than race based AA?

[Cancel7]

Well, you're more than welcome to find them compelling, but legitimate media sources have confirmed that they are not Ron Paul's words and they are untrue accounts of his views.

...I'm just trying to understand here, why would you ignore the insurmountable evidence provided from his campaign that Ron Paul is egalitarian and not bigoted and jump on a few scraps that have no legitimacy like the newsletter story?

Would people like Dennis Kucinich associate with Ron Paul if he was a racist? Wouldn't they know about that kind of stuff for certain being that they are much closer to him than we are?

Why would somebody like Ron Paul say in New Hampshire that Dennis Kucinich (the guy for reparations) would make a great Democratic Nominee if racism was part of his worldview?

I think there's too much evidence of Ron Paul's decency to cast him in with other bigoted movements.

What "insurmountable evidence"? The fact that he excuses his appearances on and in bigoted forums as "it doesn't mean I agree with them about everything"?

You are making up phrases to describe evidence, that I have in no way agreed to.

[Adam Weinberg]

To be honest, I haven't heard Ron Paul say anything about Affirmative Action during the course of this campaign.

Kinda makes me think he figures Iraq, protecting our civil liberties and the Constitution are more important issues to be solving right now.

[Cypress]

And what do you propose?

What magical government solution will make the meanies go away?


Shhh. The adults are talking now.

[Cancel7]

To be honest, I haven't heard Ron Paul say anything about Affirmative Action during the course of this campaign.

Kinda makes me think he figures Iraq, protecting our civil liberties and the Constitution are more important issues to be solving right now.

He proposes programs that would work on impoverished rather than pigmentation. The idea being that as long as we continue to focus on pigmentation as a separating factor, even in government, we perpetuate the problem even in an attempt to solve it.

So then this statement made my Damo is inoperative, and he proposes shit?

[Panda Hugger]

Shhh. The adults are talking now.

OK?

[Cypress]

I agree with you, but that does not make Ron Paul a racist.

I can't say. I haven't read the stuff BAC posted.

I think I can say, IMO, that Ron Paul is part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Being a slave to "limited government" ideology, limits one's ability to either proactively, or adequatly enforce and/or strenghthen civil rights laws.

Its the civil rights equivalent of the "Let the free markets decide" ideology of the libertarians when it comes to economics.

[Panda Hugger]

You know why I hate these Ron Paul threads?

Because it all boils down to a bunch of people screaming at each other:

Pro-Pauler:

"Oh yeah?! Well he (BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH)"

Anti-Pauler:

"What?! Well (something else, usually completely or only partially relevant)"

Pro-Pauler:

"HUGH?! HOW (State the other is a racist or somethign)"

Anti-Pauler:

"WHATH?!?!?!"




It gets rather tiring.

[Adam Weinberg]

What "insurmountable evidence"? The fact that he excuses his appearances on and in bigoted forums as "it doesn't mean I agree with them about everything"?

You are making up phrases to describe evidence, that I have in no way agreed to.


There you go again. No, it would be that he doesn't have to agree with them at all to appear on their program.

As Ron Paul said the other day--most of the major networks cheerled the War in Iraq. Does that mean he shouldn't go on television to speak out against the war?

Alan Colmes has racists and conspiracy nuts on his talk show, and he's a Democrat. He also had Ron Paul on his talk show. He also does a television show with Sean Hannity, who doesn't share his views.

Do people really need to agree with each other to appear in various media outlets? You make it seem as if he agrees with any of their bigoted views at all when that's simply not the case.

YouTube Ron Paul for cryin' out loud. The man you're describing is not the man people all over the country are coming to respect for his honesty and integrity.

[DigitalDave]

No, I am saying that that is exactly how radical righties and radical libertarians view liberalism.

That's not how I view liberalism. Though I do disagree with some of the policies, and all policies that group people by race, liberals don't hold a monopoly on those type of things.

[Panda Hugger]

I can't say. I haven't read the stuff BAC posted.

I think I can say, IMO, that Ron Paul is part of the problem, and not part of the solution.

Being a slave to "limited government" ideology, limits one's ability to either proactively, or adequatly enforce and/or strenghthen civil rights laws.

Its the civil rights equivalent of the "Let the free markets decide" ideology of the libertarians when it comes to economics.

Cypress, have you ever had an original thought?

In your life?

[Cypress]

It isn't all just "get along", the proposed changes would be to the system, not to remove it. He proposes programs that would work on impoverished rather than pigmentation. The idea being that as long as we continue to focus on pigmentation as a separating factor, even in government, we perpetuate the problem even in an attempt to solve it. He proposes making it a state responsibility, that we can consider... well, libertarian.

As I said, your statements make it clear you seek no understanding, only to attempt to dismiss it without allowing understanding.

Your mind was decided long ago and then closed on this subject so that no other solution can even be considered.


Human beings are tribal by nature, Damo. It's been that way for tens of thousands of years.

Your never going to have a society free of bias and prejudice, when it comes to differences in gender, skin color, religion, etc.

That's why we have laws. Proclaiming that we can solve this by simply changing what's in our hearts, is a cop out. I actually think its worse than that. I think its a trojan horse, intended to get us back the the "limited goverment" philosphy we had on the eve of the stock market crash in 1929.

[Panda Hugger]

Human beings are tribal by nature, Damo. It's been that way for tens of thousands of years.

Your never going to have a society free of bias and prejudice, when it comes to differences in gender, skin color, religion, etc.

That's why we have laws. Proclaiming that we can solve this by simply changing what's in our hearts, is a cop out. I actually think its worse than that. I think its a trojan horse, intended to get us back the the "limited goverment" philosphy we had on the eve of the stock market crash in 1929.

I stopped reading after the first 3 words. I could predict the rest of your post by that time.

[Adam Weinberg]

He proposes programs that would work on impoverished rather than pigmentation. The idea being that as long as we continue to focus on pigmentation as a separating factor, even in government, we perpetuate the problem even in an attempt to solve it.

So then this statement made my Damo is inoperative, and he proposes shit?

No, I just said I haven't heard him say anything on the trail. It's not exactly a popular issue in Republican primaries.

Though I have heard him promote ending our current foreign policy as a way to finance needed infrastructure and social programs here at home.

[Panda Hugger]

No, I just said I haven't heard him say anything on the trail. It's not exactly a popular issue in Republican primaries.

Though I have heard him promote ending our current foreign policy as a way to finance needed infrastructure and social programs here at home.

WHAT?!

[Damocles]

He proposes programs that would work on impoverished rather than pigmentation. The idea being that as long as we continue to focus on pigmentation as a separating factor, even in government, we perpetuate the problem even in an attempt to solve it.

So then this statement made my Damo is inoperative, and he proposes shit?
Yes, sorry about that I was mixing him with another candidate in a different area. He actually proposes no changes, either for or against affirmative action.

[Cancel7]

Yes, sorry about that I was mixing him with another candidate in a different area. He actually proposes no changes, either for or against affirmative action.

Aww, it's ok Damo. It always takes the wind out of my sails when you admit a mistake.

[Panda Hugger]

Aww, it's ok Damo. It always takes the wind out of my sails when you admit a mistake.

I had no idea you owned a sailboat.

Are you a pirate?

[Damocles]

Human beings are tribal by nature, Damo. It's been that way for tens of thousands of years.

Your never going to have a society free of bias and prejudice, when it comes to differences in gender, skin color, religion, etc.

That's why we have laws. Proclaiming that we can solve this by simply changing what's in our hearts, is a cop out. I actually think its worse than that. I think its a trojan horse, intended to get us back the the "limited goverment" philosphy we had on the eve of the stock market crash in 1929.
I believe that this is unnecessarily defeatist and that we can have it if we work smartly writing laws that will make much the same effect without the focus on pigmentation. I think that saying, "We are all cavemen at heart and we will never progress past that." is baseless considering the great strides we have made.

In short I believe that Doctor King's, and apparantly Ron Paul's, dream can become reality.

[Damocles]

I had no idea you owned a sailboat.

Are you a pirate?
This actually made me LOL. People are staring.

[Cancel7]

There you go again. No, it would be that he doesn't have to agree with them at all to appear on their program.

As Ron Paul said the other day--most of the major networks cheerled the War in Iraq. Does that mean he shouldn't go on television to speak out against the war?

Alan Colmes has racists and conspiracy nuts on his talk show, and he's a Democrat. He also had Ron Paul on his talk show. He also does a television show with Sean Hannity, who doesn't share his views.

Do people really need to agree with each other to appear in various media outlets? You make it seem as if he agrees with any of their bigoted views at all when that's simply not the case.

YouTube Ron Paul for cryin' out loud. The man you're describing is not the man people all over the country are coming to respect for his honesty and integrity.

I know people who were very impressed with him, I mean pumped, after the first R debate when he stood up to that goon Rudy about the war. These are real liberals, but you know, though they tend to be smarter, not all of us are mental whips like you see on here with the liberals.

So anyway, they had no idea what a libertarian even was, in several cases.

There's no point in me youtubing him Adam, we both know I'm not voting for him even if it ends up he prays to a picture of Malcolm X every night. I do find racism to be even more disgusting than libertarian economics (though not by much), and don't think it should be glossed over, is all.

[Cancel7]

I had no idea you owned a sailboat.

Are you a pirate?

Yes, I am. Why, weren't you aware that women could be pirates?

[Panda Hugger]

There you go again

Ah, a Reagan quote.

[Cypress]

I believe that this is unnecessarily defeatist and that we can have it if we work smartly writing laws that will make much the same effect without the focus on pigmentation. I think that saying, "We are all cavemen at heart and we will never progress past that." is baseless considering the great strides we have made.


if we work smartly writing laws that will make much the same effect without the focus on pigmentation

I really don't know what this means, substantively. I have no idea how you right a civil rights law, without taking into account race, gender, creed, etc.

I don't see anything on Ron Pauls website that would pertain to this.

I think its a waste of time to come up with a whole new batch of laws that are "smartly written" in your terminology. It just sounds like more tinkering, when we already know what the problem is.

Does Ron Paul support our federal civil rights laws, or not? Second, will he be an aggressive and forceful advocate in enforcing them? That's all I need to know.

[Panda Hugger]

Yes, I am. Why, weren't you aware that women could be pirates?

Well, there was this one women, who pretended to be a man. She was found out on the boast (which was, completely full of men). Became impregnated within the space of a few days after that...

[Damocles]

if we work smartly writing laws that will make much the same effect without the focus on pigmentation

I really don't know what this means, substantively. I have no idea how you right a civil rights law, without taking into account race, gender, creed, etc.

I don't see anything on Ron Pauls website that would pertain to this.

I think its a waste of time to come up with a whole new batch of laws that are "smartly written" in your terminology. It just sounds like more tinkering, when we already know what the problem is.

Does Ron Paul support our federal civil rights laws, or not? Second, will he be an aggressive and forceful advocate in enforcing them? That's all I need to know.
Ron Paul has no stance either for or against them. Must I repeat that? We have progressed past Ron Paul, you made a positive assertion that we will always be inherently racist. I think you are projecting, because I certainly do not believe this.

I then made a differing assertion, and proposed a change to the law so that it wasn't inherently racist.

If you must pretend that we were only talking about R. Paul then your assertions that we will always be racist have no place in this thread.

[Cypress]

Ron Paul has no stance either for or against them. Must I repeat that? We have progressed past Ron Paul, you made a positive assertion that we will always be inherently racist. I think you are projecting, because I certainly do not believe this.

I then made a differing assertion, and proposed a change to the law so that it wasn't inherently racist.

I didn't read every post.

If he has no stance on civil rights, then he's part of the problem, IMO.

There will be racism in this country through the rest of your live, your kids lives, and their grandkids lives. Can it be mitigated and minimized? Yes. Can you eliminate it entirely anywhere in the foreseeable future? Of course not.

[Damocles]

I didn't read every post.

If he has no stance on civil rights, then he's part of the problem, IMO.

There will be racism in this country through the rest of your live, your kids lives, and their grandkids lives. Can it be mitigated and minimized? Yes. Can you eliminate it entirely anywhere in the foreseeable future? Of course not.
Please, first he is all racist, that was shown to be false. Then he proposed taking away civil rights laws, that too was shown to be false. He was "translated" by you and I in differing viewpoints on the same statement. I proposed changes, you present only the same, then say he is part of the problem for not proposing changes?

You are all over the place desperate to dismiss without attempting to understand.

[DigitalDave]

I think its a waste of time to come up with a whole new batch of laws that are "smartly written" in your terminology. It just sounds like more tinkering, when we already know what the problem is.


What exactly is the problem then cypress?

[Damocles]

People who dismiss, as a matter of course, all things that come from another, even in agreement, because that other is part of a different group never challenge themselves with new ideas.

[Adam Weinberg]

Ah, a Reagan quote.


Yes. Intentional.

[Damocles]

What exactly is the problem then cypress?
Well, see? The problem is racism, so we must make laws that separate us into "races" and pretend that it fixes the problem, that there will suddenly magically end a focus on race because we focused on race by legislating. Do you see how circular this is?

No, instead of moving past it ever, we must make smaller and smaller groups of race that we can focus on to fix racism. Never listening to any other idea that might take us out of this circular loop, dismissing them as "racist" without allowing others to listen. Gather in groups and shout them down before another might be infected with an idea that isn't this one.

[Cypress]

:rolleyes:
Please, first he is all racist, that was shown to be false. Then he proposed taking away civil rights laws, that too was shown to be false. He was "translated" by you and I in differing viewpoints on the same statement. I proposed changes, you present only the same, then say he is part of the problem for not proposing changes?

You are all over the place desperate to dismiss without attempting to understand.


I never said Ron Paul was racist, himself.

Do a search on this thread, come back empty handed, and admit you were wrong :rolleyes:


I believe I've been entirely consistent: Ron Paul (and most libertarians I've ever known) are hostile to Federal Civil rights laws. Remember? Its a State Issue. How often have we heard that?

As such, I don't think he's part of the solution of addressing the problem of racism in this country, in any effective way.

As for your solutions? I'm sorry, I just haven't read every single post. I'm more intereested in what Ron Pauls positions are. I thought we were talking about him

[Damocles]

:rolleyes:


I never said Ron Paul was racist, himself.

Do a search on this thread, come back empty handed, and admit you were wrong :rolleyes:


I believe I've been entirely consistent: Ron Paul (and most libertarians I've ever known) are hostile to Federal Civil rights laws. Remember? Its a State Issue. How often have we heard that?

As such, I don't think he's part of the solution of addressing the problem of racism in this country, in any effective way.

As for your solutions? I'm sorry, I just haven't read every single post. I'm more intereested in what Ron Pauls positions are. I thought we were talking about him
Except when you go off the subject and make positive assertions about all humanity dismissing any chance we will ever have of becoming colorblind, right?

Then when I answer it accordingly, without mention of R. Paul as it wasn't mentioned in the post to begin with, you pretend that I must only speak on that subject. You, yourself, progressed the conversation and refuse to continue it.

[Cypress]

Except when you go off the subject and make positive assertions about all humanity dismissing any chance we will ever have of becoming colorblind, right?

As you well know, that's directly related to Ron Paul's apparent insistence that we just have to change our hearts. That attitude alone not going to cut it now, ten years from now, or 20 years from now.

If you just want to admit that Ron Paul has little to no interest in enforcing federal civil right laws, that's fine. That he thinks we don't need those laws, we just need to change our hearts. Cool. Just tell me.


BTW: did you find that quote of me calling ron paul a racist yet?

[Damocles]

As you well know, that's directly related to Ron Paul's apparent insistence that we just have to change our hearts. That attitude alone not going to cut it now, ten years from now, or 20 years from now.

If you just want to admit that Ron Paul has little to no interest in enforcing federal civil right laws, that's fine. That he thinks we don't need those laws, we just need to change our hearts. Cool. Just tell me.


BTW: did you find that quote of me calling ron paul a racist yet?
I was speaking of the subject and the pattern of the thread. That you jumped in the middle of the pattern of the thread doesn't change what I see happening one iota.

R. Paul has made no assertion that he would not enforce those laws, you make only assumptions. He certainly has made no assertion he would repeal them, so you have only assumption rather than undesrtanding to base your accusation. As I said, understanding means little when dismissing can be done before understanding is even considered.

[Cypress]

I was speaking of the subject and the pattern of the thread. That you jumped in the middle of the pattern of the thread doesn't change what I see happening one iota.

R. Paul has made no assertion that he would not enforce those laws, you make only assumptions. He certainly has made no assertion he would repeal them, so you have only assumption rather than undesrtanding to base your accusation. As I said, understanding means little when dismissing can be done before understanding is even considered.


Okay, so at best he's undeclared on whether he is a forceful advocate for enforcing civil rights.

Damo, do I have to log on under a different screen name, and pretend I'm a foxy liberal chick so you feel you can admit you made a mistake? I don't believe there's anywhere in this thread I suggested that ron paul himself was a racist.


:pke:

[Adam Weinberg]

Okay, so at best he's undeclared on whether he is a forceful advocate for enforcing civil rights.
:pke:


That's kind of an unfair statement since he's the most forceful advocate for civil liberties in the entire Presidential field Republican or Democratic.

[Cypress]

That's kind of an unfair statement since he's the most forceful advocate for civil liberties in the entire Presidential field Republican or Democratic.


Okay, I guess I should have just saved time and googled Paul's view and record on civil rights myself, since no one on the thread could give me straight answers. It took me like 5 seconds on google.

On stuff like Patriot Act and flag burning, Paul is good. Like I knew he was.

We were discussing civil rights as it pertains to discrimination and minorities though. His record is not that great. He appears to be against affirmative action, he does not support gays serving openly in the military, and he voted to ban gay adoption in the District of Colombia

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

[AssHatZombie]

Here comes the cold water ...

This is meaningless and changes nothing.

Always good to see and hear politically active people getting involved .. but with regards to Ron Paul .. he's a delusional pipedream and the one guy who is more dangerously insane and less of a human than George Bush.

No matter how fervently Paul supporters believe him to be the messiah, America is NEVER going to adapt his policies nor elect anyone as president who has the associations that he has.

Nor will America EVER adapt libertarian myopic-no-applicable-real-world beliefs.

I applaud the political spirit but I detest the candidate.


That's right, you want a globalist, but with a D in front this time.

[Cancel7]

Okay, I guess I should have just saved time and googled Paul's view and record on civil rights myself, since no one on the thread could give me straight answers. It took me like 5 seconds on google.

On stuff like Patriot Act and flag burning, Paul is good. Like I knew he was.

We were discussing civil rights as it pertains to discrimination and minorities though. His record is not that great. He appears to be against affirmative action, he does not support gays serving openly in the military, and he voted to ban gay adoption in the District of Colombia

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

I see. And he's anti-choice.

So this guy doesn't even have the social issues going for him like most libertarians do.

Yeah, trashcan.

[Cypress]

I see. And he's anti-choice.

So this guy doesn't even have the social issues going for him like most libertarians do.

Yeah, trashcan.


Indeed.

And in spite of the manufactured howls of outrage about how incoherent my posts were, it was really quite this simple:

Ron Paul either doesn't believe in some of these civil rights laws pertaining to women, minorities, and gays (he votes against them)....

...Or, he just thinks we should all change what's in our hearts, and that will magically solve the problem.

No it won't. Not for the foreseeable future. That's why we have these laws, and why we enforce them.

[Beefy]

From your site Cypress:

* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Lets take these one by one, and look at the spin machine.


* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)

They're not.

* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)

Voted no on FEDERAL FUNDING of such research, with him I agree. This is pretty clear 10th Amendment shit.

* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Another Federal funding issue.

* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Again, is this the job of the Federal Government?

* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

I figured you would have liked that one. I disagree with him on this.

* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

I disagree with him on this as well, as this should be a state's rights issue.

* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

I thought you might like this one as well. I don't, but I thought you might.

* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

This sounds very nebulous. Is this the litmus test on whether or not he's for funding? It sounds suspect. You're a good investigator, why not find out before making a call on it?

* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

What part of the Constitution mandates that the Federal Government, and not States and communities generate this kind of funding. Please research and get back to me.

* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

This is a repeat, again nebulous. I don't like it, but I thought you might.


* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Oh the horror.

Seriously, what do you have against this guy so much that it dries you to a bunch of bullshit?

[Beefy]

* Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)

I disagree.

* Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

I agree.

* Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)

I agree.

* Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

I agree.

* Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

Nebulous, what does this mean? Protecting the Pledge?

* Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

He's right again.

* Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Why does he have the same responsibility of the DC city council? This one smells funny.


* Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

This is obviously correct, or is it only correct if the preference goes to minorities?

* Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

The ACLU is not anything by which I guage my vote.

[Cypress]

From your site Cypress:

Seriously, what do you have against this guy so much that it dries you to a bunch of bullshit?



Jesus Beefy, there were other people on this thread way harsher on Ron Paul than I was - but you made a bee-line straight for me? I'm flattered! :clink:


I don't like his domestic policies. With a few exceptions, they're pretty much your garden-variety ultra conservative republican policies.

[Beefy]

Good God Cypress, read the site you posted. Are you that afraid of a rational Republican? The guy is on your side more often than not. What's your beef with him, specifically?

[Beefy]

From your site Cypress:

Seriously, what do you have against this guy so much that it dries you to a bunch of bullshit?



Jesus Beefy, there were other people on this thread way harsher on Ron Paul than I was - but you made a bee-line straight for me? I'm flattered! :clink:


I don't like his domestic policies. With a few exceptions, they're pretty much your garden-variety ultra conservative republican policies.

Are you kidding me? Not even close, not even. Seriously. I just came in late on the thread, and saw your knee-jerk anti-republican shit, and it i pretty obvious that yo didn't even read the site you posted. Read it. Or s this like Russo's movie, where you don't need to because you already know? :rolleyes:

We're still friends though. :clink:

[Cypress]

Good God Cypress, read the site you posted. Are you that afraid of a rational Republican? The guy is on your side more often than not. What's your beef with him, specifically?


He's anti-choice, he votes often (not always) against gay rights, he's anti-affirmative action, he thinks the federal governments job is defense and protection of property and not much else.

The list goes on, but that's a start.

edit: voted against stem cell funding. etc

[Beefy]

He's anti-choice, he votes often (not always) against gay rights, he's anti-affirmative action, he thinks the federal governments job is defense and protection of property and not much else.

The list goes on, but that's a start.

edit: voted against stem cell funding. etc

Not according to your site. And being anti-affirmative action means what? Racist? BS. I'm anti Affirmative Action BECAUSE it is INHERENTLY racist. Not because I am a racist. Any system that relies on your skin color to advance you is racist, and its totally dishonest to spin it otherwise.

[Cypress]

He's anti-choice, he votes often (not always) against gay rights, he's anti-affirmative action, he thinks the federal governments job is defense and protection of property and not much else.

The list goes on, but that's a start.

edit: voted against stem cell funding. etc

You said: "not according to my site".

Which of the above did I get wrong? Sorry, if I missed something

[Cypress]

Not according to your site. And being anti-affirmative action means what? Racist? BS. I'm anti Affirmative Action BECAUSE it is INHERENTLY racist. Not because I am a racist. Any system that relies on your skin color to advance you is racist, and its totally dishonest to spin it otherwise.


BTW beefy, if you'll read through the thread, you'll notice I'm not the one who called ron paul racist. You'll have to take that up with other posters.

I said he has no policies to address discrimination and bias in this country.

[Beefy]

A garden variety neocon? Do neocons vote against the Federal amendment to ban gay marriage? Do neocons speak our against the Iraq war? Do neocons vote against the patriot act? Do neocons claim the war on drugs is an abuse of power? Do neocons want to legalize medical marijuana? Do neocons oppose the death penalty? Do neocons vote no on making flag burning illegal? Do neocons vote against CAFTA?

This is just a handful of shit. He may be more conservative that you, but that surely doesn't make him some "garden variety" neocon. That's flat dishonest. Are you really that afraid that a Republican might be right on some issues? Well, if so, let me reassure you, no Republican in any clothing is winning the Whitehouse in '08, so you can relax your smear campaign. You have nothing to worry about.

[Cypress]

LOL

Beefy don't be inventing words I didn't say, and putting them in my mouth.

I didn't say he was a NeoCon. I said that, outside of a few issues, he was an ultra conservative. We can debate what constitutes a "handful". I've always given him credit on oppossing Bush's extra-constitutional power grabs. And for taking some cool positions of amending the constitution with silly crap like flag burning.

But, he certainly is ultra conservative with respect to the role of federal government in our nation. He wants it to provide national defense, and to protect gun rights, property rights, and so forth. I think if we made him dictator, he would most certainly eliminate all function pertaining to social services, education, science, and such.

As for me "smearing" Ron Paul - I think you will find if you go through this thread, that of the people on the left, I was pretty much the most deliberative and least inflammatory towards ron paul. But, I know you like to pick me out of a crowd to hassle.

Its cool. :clink:

[Beefy]

LOL

Beefy don't be inventing words I didn't say, and putting them in my mouth.

I didn't say he was a NeoCon. I said that, outside of a few issues, he was an ultra conservative. We can debate what constitutes a "handful". I've always given him credit on oppossing Bush's extra-constitutional power grabs. And for taking some cool positions of amending the constitution with silly crap like flag burning.

But, he certainly is ultra conservative with respect to the role of federal government in our nation. He wants it to provide national defense, and to protect gun rights, property rights, and so forth. I think if we made him dictator, he would most certainly eliminate all function pertaining to social services, education, science, and such.

As for me "smearing" Ron Paul - I think you will find if you go through this thread, that of the people on the left, I was pretty much the most deliberative and least inflammatory towards ron paul. But, I know you like to pick me out of a crowd to hassle.

Its cool. :clink:

I'm not hassling you, I only picked you out because I know you well and I respect your opinion, as well as the fact that I came into this thread really late. I don't have the wherewithall to go through 650 million posts, so I singled out yours. Crucify me.

If you are a constitutionalist, and you respect the document, who, in your opinion, is holding it to higher esteem? It seems to me that most candidates view the document as an obstruction, an impediment or a pest.

You may not like the way the thing works, but don't be surprised when candidates run on the sanctity of it.

[Panda Hugger]

* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)

They're not.

Err...

They're not?

The constitution says that the congress may use funds to promote scienes, and that it may use them to promote the "general welfare".

Are you saying that all research funding is unconstitutional?

Listen, NO STATE in America can fund research all by it's lonesome on competitive levels to the EU and other multi-trillion dollar economies. If you don't believe that funding research is constitutional, then prove it, and let's just count the seconds until we've ammended the constitution to make it so.

[Adam Weinberg]

Err...
The constitution says that the congress may use funds to promote scienes, and that it may use them to promote the "general welfare".

Weeeell, it says that Congress may promote science by passing laws offering intellectual property protections. Article One, Section 8, Clause 8.


Are you saying that all research funding is unconstitutional?

Probably depends what it's for. If the research could be legitimized by a proper appropriation according to the Constitution, then maybe not.


Listen, NO STATE in America can fund research all by it's lonesome on competitive levels to the EU and other multi-trillion dollar economies.

But California is doing it, and can do so in coordination with the private sector if it desires, which is what Ron Paul would prefer.

[Damocles]

Okay, so at best he's undeclared on whether he is a forceful advocate for enforcing civil rights.

Damo, do I have to log on under a different screen name, and pretend I'm a foxy liberal chick so you feel you can admit you made a mistake? I don't believe there's anywhere in this thread I suggested that ron paul himself was a racist.


:pke:

And I said.... I was speaking to the thread itself at the same time as answering your post. The whole of everything I have to say isn't always about you. I know it is a hard hit to the ego, but there really are other members in this thread and it did start exactly as I said, you jumped on the train and now it has progressed to here where you propose exactly what he proposes, which is no change at all and you state that he is terrible for it.

Anyway, it is the conversation that I was speaking of, you know, the one you admit to not reading and therefore really have no idea what you are talking about. Or are you really going to try and say that the conversation didn't start there?

So, yes. I'll say that you personally didn't say he was a racist, but that was not the whole of the meaning of my post and you either know it or are the biggest ego attached to the smallest brain in the thread (I don't think you are... But if you insist that is what I meant then you really are).

You jumped on that train that started at that station, and rode it until it derailed, advancing the conversation from a point where you hadn't even read the previous to understand at what point it started, to the point where we are now.

Although I could "translate" for you the same way you did R. Paul (you know all that deliberation that must have gone into that) and say that you stated that all humans are racist and always will be in your post all about how tribal we are and therefore we never will get past that whole pigmentation thing, then advance that as stating that not only R. Paul is, but every single person on the board, let alone all that have been born are, but I won't be that disingenuous.

In this thread you are being deliberately ignorant of what he has to say or do in an attempt to dismiss all conversation based on assumption. It is weak.

[Panda Hugger]

Who really actually cares if the research is being done by states or federal?

Honestly, get a life.

Federal can do it a hell of a lot better than states.

[Damocles]

Why do people insist on stating "General Welfare" and ignoring the fricking amendment that limits it? Amendment 10, read it Watermark, note that it was an Amendment and therefore takes precedence over the preceding. The limits that are on the Federal Government also limit the General Welfare clause. It is not unlimited, unless it has something to do with Interstate Commerce the Feds shouldn't be mucking about in it, even indirectly.

[Panda Hugger]

Why do people insist on stating "General Welfare" and ignoring the fricking amendment that limits it? Amendment 10, read it Watermark, note that it was an Amendment and therefore takes precedence over the preceding. The limits that are on the Federal Government also limit the General Welfare clause. It is not unlimited, unless it has something to do with Interstate Commerce the Feds shouldn't be mucking about in it, even indirectly.


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


"General welfare" is a power given by the constitution to the federal government. Don't see the conflict.

[Panda Hugger]

I mean, what are we talking about here?

1 million dollars in research for stem cell research in Vermont?

Who cares? The federal government can ACTUALLY fund research.

[Damocles]

No, General Welfare is not a power, it is a restriction, that becomes even further restricted by the 10th.

[Damocles]

Section 8 of the Constitution gives the Congress power to levy taxes "for the General Welfare" is a limitation not a power granted.

1. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises

(first it gives the power then proceeds to limit the power to specific things),

2. to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Later amendment 10 was passed so that they wouldn't go even further past the intended limitations.

[Damocles]

They are also limited by 10 to the specific powers mentioned for the Federal government...

Support of science is limited specifically.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Note they did it again...

1. The power is given: To promote the progress of science and useful arts

2. Then the limitations are explained: by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

[Panda Hugger]

Section 8 of the Constitution gives the Congress power to levy taxes "for the General Welfare" is a limitation not a power granted.

1. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises

(first it gives the power then proceeds to limit the power to specific things),

2. to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Later amendment 10 was passed so that they wouldn't go even further past the intended limitations.

It says that it has the power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

[Panda Hugger]

The tenth ammendment, basically, does nothing.

[AssHatZombie]

Well, fortunately, it wasn't. And I think your political disposition too heavily sways you to make that assumption.

Basically darla chooses whom to support based on who argues with people on her shit list.

It's all mindless factionalism, with no coherence.

[AssHatZombie]

They are also limited by 10 to the specific powers mentioned for the Federal government...

Support of science is limited specifically.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Note they did it again...

1. The power is given: To promote the progress of science and useful arts

2. Then the limitations are explained: by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Are you expecting wm to combine TWO sentences? That may be a bit advanced for a newly born bushbot like him.

[Cypress]

The general welfare clause is a stand-alone clause. There's nothing that indicates it is subservient to the clauses that follow it. This is a constitutionally settled matter. Everyone from Jefferson to Lincoln spent federal revenue on things that did not conform to the clauses that follow the tax and spend clause.



The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[Cancel7]

I'm not hassling you, I only picked you out because I know you well and I respect your opinion, as well as the fact that I came into this thread really late. I don't have the wherewithall to go through 650 million posts, so I singled out yours. Crucify me.

If you are a constitutionalist, and you respect the document, who, in your opinion, is holding it to higher esteem? It seems to me that most candidates view the document as an obstruction, an impediment or a pest.

You may not like the way the thing works, but don't be surprised when candidates run on the sanctity of it.

It's not a sanctified document, nor did the Founders ever believe that it was.

Ron Paul is an extreme righty in my opinion, and I question his libertarian label in several instances. Not that I would vote for a libertarian anyway.

And yes, I believe he is likely a racist, though not because of AA.

[Cancel7]

Basically darla chooses whom to support based on who argues with people on her shit list.

It's all mindless factionalism, with no coherence.

Why don't you go back to dreaming about all of the butt-f**king that is going on, even right now, as we speak, because you definitely have no idea of why I support anything, dummy.

[AssHatZombie]

It's not a sanctified document, nor did the Founders ever believe that it was.

Ron Paul is an extreme righty in my opinion, and I question his libertarian label in several instances. Not that I would vote for a libertarian anyway.

And yes, I believe he is likely a racist, though not because of AA.

the people who most clearly and obviously advocate favoritism based on race are people like you, darla. Look in the mirror and get grip.

[Cancel7]

the people who most clearly and obviously advocate favoritism based on race are people like you, darla. Look in the mirror and get grip.

You are not changing this thread into one of your three obsessions, rant on, I won't engage.

[evince]

How do you people sugest gettihng the job done then?

I will give you AA if you are willing to do what it takes to fix the problem....are you ready?

[AssHatZombie]

You are not changing this thread into one of your three obsessions, rant on, I won't engage.

Yes, your hypocrisy is always just out of bounds, isn't it? Curious.

[Cypress]

Why do people insist on stating "General Welfare" and ignoring the fricking amendment that limits it? Amendment 10, read it Watermark, note that it was an Amendment and therefore takes precedence over the preceding. The limits that are on the Federal Government also limit the General Welfare clause. It is not unlimited, unless it has something to do with Interstate Commerce the Feds shouldn't be mucking about in it, even indirectly.

The you, and presumably Ron Paul, should be advocating the elimination of the USEPA, the Center for Disease Control, the National Weather Service, the National Hurricane Service, the National Institute of Health, and all of our world class national science labs, like Livermore and Sandia. etc.

Do you advocate abolishing them?

[blackascoal]

Please cite the source of this quote so we can see the full context of the statement.

"Why do we need the federal government? There's no Cold War and no Communist threat. Many other nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces. The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time. Why not think about getting rid of the federal government, returning to the system of our Founders, and breaking up the United States into smaller government units?"

What other "context" is needed?


It's not surprising since Ron Paul's main campaign issue is the Constitution and regardless of their other views and discrepancies, the Constitution is their mainstay as well.

I am aware of the activities of the White Nationalist Movement--as I have told you before, Jews are not excluded from their bigoted aims and I would not support Ron Paul if I felt he advocated their views.

If you believe that there is nothing wrong with a candidate who is running for POTUS to participate and associate in events with vile hate groups and people because he agrees with some things they advocate, then that belief belongs to you, but I'm quite sure it is not a belief shared by most Americans, most certainly not by me. Nor is a sign of intelligence by any candidate that would do so. Paul shares a lot more beliefs with these people than just the Constitution.

Taken into context, his participation with these groups, his outrageously racist newsletters (plural), and his voting record of being against civil rights in every form .. stop pretending that it is outrageous for anyone to question his position on race or believe that he lied when he denied HIS words in the newsletters which he previously STOOD BY and CLAIMED THE WORDS WERE HIS, in fact, so did his SPOKESMAN who claimed ignorantly claimed the comments were similar to those of Jesse Jackson.

He stood by HIS words ... "This is not the first time Paul has veered into potentially insensitive territory. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Under a section headlined "Terrorist Update," the following sentence ran, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

These quotations became an issue during Paul's 1996 campaign for Congress. During the campaign, he declined to distance himself from the statements. But in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, he said he had never written or approved those words for his own newsletter. He said he failed to disavow the words during the campaign on the advice of his political advisors. "They just weren't my words," he tells me. "They got in because I wasn't always there. I didn't have total control. And I would be on vacations and things got in there that shouldn't have been."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/index1.html

He declined to distance himself from some of the worst shit I have ever read .. but FIVE YEARS LATER in the midst of a campaign he says they weren't his words .. he was on vacation .. and you believe that bullshit.

He claimed that they were his "tongue in-cheek academic writings ... "Because of the incredibly politically incorrect content, Morris asked Paul to release all past copies of the Ron Paul Survival Report to the media, going back to the newsletter's origin in 1986. Paul promised to do so, but never did. Individual copies, however, can be requested from his surfside home, at 409/233-5854. As to why he wouldn't release his entire body of work to the media, Paul says voters may not understand his "tongue-in-cheek, academic" writings.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html

An example of his tongue in-cheek academic writings ...
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793

Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104, Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.


Let me just put it out there for you...If you think Bush is better than Ron Paul...a close friend and political ally to Dennis Kucinich...you're not a liberal.

Let me put it to you, you wouldn't know a liberal if one bit you in the ass. You support Paul who believes the individual is the most important than the well-being of America. You support a man who wants to eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security which means you not only don't give a damn about minorities, you also don't give a damn about the elderly. Should the elderly just pull themselves up by their bootstraps or depend on "charity?"

The point about Bush that you disingenuously keep "missing" is that even that asshole doesn't advocate getting rid of all hard fought for safety nets in America. Paul makes Bush look like Humanitarian of the Century.


No, you don't. Otherwise you would use persuasion for what you thought was important rather than distraction to try to keep the Ron Paul candidacy in the background despite the important distinctions he is making in the Republican Primary...distinctions that could protect YOUR RIGHTS.

I doubt if you've been as involved in politics as much as I have. Doubt it real seriously. I've worked for the US Congress, written legislation, organized groups on issues, appeared in several documentaries as an expert witness, and my work against paperless electronic voting led that effort in Georgia .. this among other grassroots and political work in communications, organizing, and research that I've done most of my adult life. You are in no position to lecture me about doing what is politically important.

Ron Paul is not protecting my rights nor is he standing up for them. What makes you believe that you can discern who I believe is a better candidate than I can for myself. From whence does such power eminate? What is it about you that makes you believe you have such wisdom and power?

In case you missed it I'm black. Your candidate is against the Civil Rights Act and thought it didn't work. The Civil Rights Act is one of the most important, bi-partisan, and successful pieces of legislation in American history. It ended Jim Crow laws almost overnight. It was never intended to end all problems of race, but it set this nation on a different course that is evident today.

His is the ONLY person in Congress who stood against the resolution honoring the CRA .. which passed 414-1. He is also the ONLY person in congress to stand against the resolution honoring Rosa Parks .. which passed 424-1.

Don't tell me about who protects my rights.


I also do not support HR 1146, but I understand and appreciate the spirit and the philosophical consistency behind Ron Paul's support of it. And I even agree with some of his arguments for why he does not prefer our involvement in the UN and NATO and consider them legitimate concerns.

The point about HR 1146 is that Paul introduces it, and re-introduces it, and re-introduces it in every session of congress he's been in .. and it goes nowhere. It never gets to debate or committee. In fact, it never gets out of introduction. It is indicative of his legislative record where he has gotten little of his own legislation passed. He does not understand nor appreciate coalition building.

He relishes his moniker of Dr. No more than he relishes actually getting things done.


Well, what would the black and hispanic Ron Paul supporters say? Are they race traitors for appreciating the message in a way you can't? Frankly, many of my views are derived from the troubles I feel are inequitably forced on minority groups by our government, so I'm naturally offended by this notion. The smallest minority is the individual.

Black and hispanic Paul supporters are either one of two things .. ignorant of the facts, or just plain stupid. Because Powell, Gonzalez, and Rice were part of the Bush Administration does not indicate that it would be an intelligent thing for blacks and hispanics to do.

Last month, on a black talk radio show in Atlanta, I debated 2 people from the Paul campaign in Georgia. One of them happened to be black. By the time the debate was over the call-in audience was tearing his ass to shreds .. at least what ass was left from my ripping into him. The host of the show had to ask the audience to give him a break because he had been beaten down speechless. He was ignorant of Paul's background and associations. A hispanic caller said he was trying to stop payment on a check he's sent to Paul and said he felt stupid for ever doing so.

Ignorant or stupid.


So, what's your beef? Do you want a strong Bill of Rights that is respected or do you not wish to recognize it because it doesn't meet your immediate vision for what government ought to make society do? What sacrifices will you be making to our liberties in ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

My "beef" is that the solution to modern problems are not found 200 years in the past. I believe in a living Constitution that adapts to the issues faced in an entirely different world than when the Constitution was written. Simply because something is not "constitutional" doesn't mean that it isn't good for America. There are NO, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA sacrifices required to make law and policy for a modern society that does not ask the Constitution if it's alright to do so. Privacy, marriage, civil rights, and social safety nets are just a few issues facing modern society that are not in the Constitution.

Strick adherence to the Constitution is like strict adherence to the bible. Only a fool would attempt it. I'm not 3/5ths of a man and you can't rape a woman simply because she doesn't scream out in the city.


And I believe in a modern society that respects its Constitution and has enough sense of justice to amend the Constitution when they want to change the contract between the government and the people.

Who said anything about not respecting the Constitution? You can respect it and respect the environment and context in which it was written, and understand that it serves as a guideline for the American model but it is not the only authority in a democratic society.

[Cypress]

. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Under a section headlined "Terrorist Update," the following sentence ran, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."


Is this statement really from Ron Paul???

If true, its outrageous.

[blackascoal]

Indeed.

And in spite of the manufactured howls of outrage about how incoherent my posts were, it was really quite this simple:

Ron Paul either doesn't believe in some of these civil rights laws pertaining to women, minorities, and gays (he votes against them)....

...Or, he just thinks we should all change what's in our hearts, and that will magically solve the problem.

No it won't. Not for the foreseeable future. That's why we have these laws, and why we enforce them.

Well said.

[AssHatZombie]

How do you people sugest gettihng the job done then?

I will give you AA if you are willing to do what it takes to fix the problem....are you ready?

What is "getting the job done"? Is your goal achievement of a racial mix at all companies that is proportional to the racial mix of the society as a whole?

[blackascoal]

I was speaking of the subject and the pattern of the thread. That you jumped in the middle of the pattern of the thread doesn't change what I see happening one iota.

R. Paul has made no assertion that he would not enforce those laws, you make only assumptions. He certainly has made no assertion he would repeal them, so you have only assumption rather than undesrtanding to base your accusation. As I said, understanding means little when dismissing can be done before understanding is even considered.

Perhaps you should slow down on admonishing others about not knowing the facts. Paul has consistently voted to repeal every civil rights law he comes across, including ones to benefit minorities in institutions of higher learning.

[evince]

Thanks for the information Coal.

Not that I would have ever voted for Paul but I was treating him as if he was at least honest about what he believes ....I now know better!

[evince]

What is "getting the job done"? Is your goal achievement of a racial mix at all companies that is proportional to the racial mix of the society as a whole?

Nope its giving the services to Poor people in this country to push them out of poverty.

You see the things that happen in the balck comminuty which you use to feed your perception about them derives from poverty and not anything inherent in people of any color.

[Cancel7]

"My "beef" is that the solution to modern problems are not found 200 years in the past. I believe in a living Constitution that adapts to the issues faced in an entirely different world than when the Constitution was written. Simply because something is not "constitutional" doesn't mean that it isn't good for America. There are NO, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA sacrifices required to make law and policy for a modern society that does not ask the Constitution if it's alright to do so. Privacy, marriage, civil rights, and social safety nets are just a few issues facing modern society that are not in the Constitution.

Strick adherence to the Constitution is like strict adherence to the bible. Only a fool would attempt it. I'm not 3/5ths of a man and you can't rape a woman simply because she doesn't scream out in the city."

I agree 100% and tried to explain this earlier to Beefy, but you said it so much better.

[blackascoal]

. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Under a section headlined "Terrorist Update," the following sentence ran, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."


Is this statement really from Ron Paul???

If true, its outrageous.

On the LA Riots from HIS newsletter linked above ..

Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to
pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.

The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot
loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the
welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to
terrorism. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin.

Several days after the violence ended, we learned that there would
have been blacks on the King jury--if the NAACP hadn't engaged in jury
tampering by telling potential black jurors that it was their racial duty
to convict the cops. .. BULLSHIT NEVER HAPPENED

Keep in mind that Paul STOOD BY THESE COMMENTS and did not deny them until FIVE YEARS LATER. How could any sane person of conscience not rush immediately to distance themselves from such vile statements?

We are "barbarians and terrorists" .. terrorists who can be identified by the color of our skin.

Was Tim McVeigh a terrorist who could be identified by the color of his skin?

Was the Klan barbarians and terrorists who could be identified by the color of their skin?

Ron Paul has repeatedly denounced the NAACP for their "interference" .. SHOW ME ONE STATEMENT WHERE HE DENOUNCES THE HATE GROUPS HE PARTICIPATES WITH. SHOW ME ONE STATEMENT WHERE HE DENOUNCES THE KLAN AND WHITE NATIONALIST GROUPS.

[uscitizen]

You are not changing this thread into one of your three obsessions, rant on, I won't engage.

AHZ holds the only ignore position in my account.
He is priviledged.

[Cancel7]

. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Under a section headlined "Terrorist Update," the following sentence ran, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."


Is this statement really from Ron Paul???

If true, its outrageous.

This is part of what I was telling you about? It was in his newsletter, but later, someone else wrote it, he didn't authorize it, he wasn't there, blah blah blah. Part of what doesn't past the smell test about him.

[blackascoal]

The you, and presumably Ron Paul, should be advocating the elimination of the USEPA, the Center for Disease Control, the National Weather Service, the National Hurricane Service, the National Institute of Health, and all of our world class national science labs, like Livermore and Sandia. etc.

Do you advocate abolishing them?

Paul does, along with FEMA, the USDA and many other vital functions of a government trying to protect its citizens.

[Cancel7]

On the LA Riots from HIS newsletter linked above ..

Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to
pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.

The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot
loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the
welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to
terrorism. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin.

Several days after the violence ended, we learned that there would
have been blacks on the King jury--if the NAACP hadn't engaged in jury
tampering by telling potential black jurors that it was their racial duty
to convict the cops. .. BULLSHIT NEVER HAPPENED

Keep in mind that Paul STOOD BY THESE COMMENTS and did not deny them until FIVE YEARS LATER. How could any sane person of conscience not rush immediately to distance themselves from such vile statements?

We are "barbarians and terrorists" .. terrorists who can be identified by the color of our skin.

Was Tim McVeigh a terrorist who could be identified by the color of his skin?

Was the Klan barbarians and terrorists who could be identified by the color of their skin?

Ron Paul has repeatedly denounced the NAACP for their "interference" .. SHOW ME ONE STATEMENT WHERE HE DENOUNCES THE HATE GROUPS HE PARTICIPATES WITH. SHOW ME ONE STATEMENT WHERE HE DENOUNCES THE KLAN AND WHITE NATIONALIST GROUPS.


No, he is a racist, and these are vile thoughts, and you have opened some eyes here, though nothing will ever open all eyes.

[blackascoal]

No, he is a racist, and these are vile thoughts, and you have opened some eyes here, though nothing will ever open all eyes.

I have no illusion about opening everyone's eyes. It is people of conscience who should be made aware of what this man is, who he associates with, and what he represents. Once informed, people of conscience will make up their own minds.

Ron Paul is a snake oil salesman, nothing more.

[Cancel7]

"These quotations became an issue during Paul's 1996 campaign for Congress. During the campaign, he declined to distance himself from the statements. But in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, he said he had never written or approved those words for his own newsletter. He said he failed to disavow the words during the campaign on the advice of his political advisors. "They just weren't my words," he tells me. "They got in because I wasn't always there. I didn't have total control. And I would be on vacations and things got in there that shouldn't have been."

I am reading the whole Salon interview, and I think this paragraph bears repeating, especially the part I have bolded.

He didn't disavow these disgusting, scummy, racist things said in his own newsletter (and by the way, those things are never going to be in the Darla newsletter, whether I am "on vacation" or not, so stick that BS excuse guys ok?) because his political advisers told him not to?

So, his political advisors felt that not disavowing these lowlife, racist pig comments would play better in Tex-ass, and obviously they were correct, and Mr. Integrity himself, Ron Paul went along to get along, huh?

Yeah.

[blackascoal]

Faced with this "right in your face undeniable truth", I can't help but notice Paul supporters disappearance from the conversation.

[Damocles]

It says that it has the power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States.
However, it is a limitation not a power. You are being obtuse here. Then it is later further limited by Amendment 10.

[Damocles]

Perhaps you should slow down on admonishing others about not knowing the facts. Paul has consistently voted to repeal every civil rights law he comes across, including ones to benefit minorities in institutions of higher learning.
Perhaps you should, as he advocates handling it at a state level rather than federal. It is simplistic to fail to understand purposefully and present this as the whole.

As I said before that is particularly "libertarian" and is one of the places he and I disagree, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want any at all, he just wants a different level of government to handle it.

[Damocles]

Faced with this "right in your face undeniable truth", I can't help but notice Paul supporters disappearance from the conversation.
It might be that we don't live our life on the site and just weren't here. But heck, you can pretend that temporary absense is whatever you want to pretend it is. Claiming victory after 10 minutes of "silence" on a messageboard... Sheesh.

[Damocles]

. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Under a section headlined "Terrorist Update," the following sentence ran, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."


Is this statement really from Ron Paul???

If true, its outrageous.
The report of this has been discredited. Ask Adam, he's the one with the evidence on that one.

[Cancel7]

Perhaps you should, as he advocates handling it at a state level rather than federal. It is simplistic to fail to understand purposefully and present this as the whole.

As I said before that is particularly "libertarian" and is one of the places he and I disagree, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want any at all, he just wants a different level of government to handle it.

Since federal civil rights legislation came into being in the first place because of what states were doing to miniorities, this too, does not pass the smell test. Oh there is always an excuse. I was on vacation, I didn't know that guy was going to put that in MY newsletter. I wasn't paying attention. I didn't disavow it because I was advised not to, not because I didn't want to disavow it. I'm all for protecting the rights of minorities, sadly, due to my integrity regarding the sacred CONSTITUTION (everyone genuflect please), I must vote against all federal civil rights laws.

Give me a break ok! Please, this is getting to be ridiculous.

[Cancel7]

The report of this has been discredited. Ask Adam, he's the one with the evidence on that one.

Funny that Paul did not mention that while he was trying to excuse it in the very recent Salon interview.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

[Damocles]

The you, and presumably Ron Paul, should be advocating the elimination of the USEPA, the Center for Disease Control, the National Weather Service, the National Hurricane Service, the National Institute of Health, and all of our world class national science labs, like Livermore and Sandia. etc.

Do you advocate abolishing them?
Would the National Weather be an Interstate Commerce issue? As well as FEMA? Hmmm... Methinks you exaggerate because it makes you feel smart, but in reality it gives the impression that you are being disingenuous purposefully.

Anyway, Interstate Commerce is one of the powers granted the Feds under the constitution, many things that you mention fall under that. But heck, you can pretend that they only fall under "General Welfare", and if it were so, then Amendments to the constitution would be necessary. Thankfully it isn't so, and pretending this isn't working here.

[Damocles]

Funny that Paul did not mention that while he was trying to excuse it in the very recent Salon interview.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
Funny how he did explain that they weren't his, that they got in there without his approval. But heck, see no evil, hear no evil, pretend he is evil.

[Cancel7]

Funny how he did explain that they weren't his, that they got in there without his approval. But heck, see no evil, hear no evil, pretend he is evil.

Ohh, that BS story is the "proof" that it's been debunked? LMAO.

Please. And then he went on to explain why he didn't speak up and mention that he was on vacation and didn't "approve" those comments, when he was running for Congress in 96. The reason? His advisors told him not to distance himself from those racist comments.

Stop ok, this is just embarrassing now.

[Damocles]

Ohh, that BS story is the "proof" that it's been debunked? LMAO.

Please. And then he went on to explain why he didn't speak up and mention that he was on vacation and didn't "approve" those comments, when he was running for Congress in 96. The reason? His advisors told him not to distance himself from those racist comments.

Stop ok, this is just embarrassing now.
No, Adam has other proof. I'll wait for his return. I understand that sometimes people aren't on and do not claim "victory" when they aren't.

[Cancel7]

No, Adam has other proof. I'll wait for his return. I understand that sometimes people aren't on and do not claim "victory" when they aren't.

He should mail it to Ron Paul, because you can tell in this recent Salon interview, Paul could really use it.

[Cypress]

This is part of what I was telling you about? It was in his newsletter, but later, someone else wrote it, he didn't authorize it, he wasn't there, blah blah blah. Part of what doesn't past the smell test about him.


It sounds bad. I don't recall ever reading this before. Wow. Not cool.

[Cancel7]

It sounds bad. I don't recall ever reading this before. Wow. Not cool.

I read it only last month, I think it was, when bac first posted about it.

[Damocles]

I read it only last month, I think it was, when bac first posted about it.
Me too. To be honest it worried me. And still does, however I trust Adam to back up what he said earlier. That and how difficult it was to find that particular information from any source other than an editorial. It wasn't even archived in the newspaper that it was credited to.

[Cypress]

Paul does, along with FEMA, the USDA and many other vital functions of a government trying to protect its citizens.


Yeah. Its Bullshit.

This is why an ultra orthodox libertiarian or ultra conservative can never be trusted to run the federal government. If they really believe in the limited enumerated powers (their intrepretation), there are only two choices:

1) They can advocate abolishing the National Park Service, Center for Disease Control, National Hurrican Center, etc.

2) Or they can lie, and say they support keeping those agencies.


Even if they choose the second option, they can't trusted. No one who is philosophically opposed to a Federal National Hurricane Center, can be trusted to run it, or be committed to it.

[blackascoal]

Funny how he did explain that they weren't his, that they got in there without his approval. But heck, see no evil, hear no evil, pretend he is evil.

Why did he take 5 years to disavow this madness?

Why did he claim the words were his?

Why did he call the comments his "tongue in-cheek academic writings"?

Why did hie spokesman say "the comments were similar to Jesse Jackson's" .. which only a complete fool would believe?

[Damocles]

Yeah. Its Bullshit.

This is why an ultra orthodox libertiarian or ultra conservative can never be trusted to run the federal government. If they really believe in the limited enumerated powers (their intrepretation), there are only two choices:

1) They can advocate abolishing the National Park Service, Center for Disease Control, National Hurrican Center, etc.

2) Or they can lie, and say they support keeping those agencies.


Even if they choose the second option, they can't trusted. No one who is philosophically opposed to a Federal National Hurricane Center, can be trusted to run it, or be committed to it.
Anybody who is opposed to it ignores the Interstate Commerce implications.

It isn't like this guy is going to get elected as President people. I stated long ago people take way too much energy to discredit an extreme longshot, even taking writing from blogs and editorials that aren't even archived on the newspaper's site itself as evidence of something heinous. I believe that those newsletters went out, I don't necessarily believe that they were the sentiments of the man in question. I get his current newsletters and there is nothing in them that gives any indication that this is in his heart.

[evince]

Damn the R field has nothing but assholes in it.

[Cancel7]

Why did he take 5 years to disavow this madness?

Why did he claim the words were his?

Why did he call the comments his "tongue in-cheek academic writings"?

Why did hie spokesman say "the comments were similar to Jesse Jackson's" .. which only a complete fool would believe?

Another question...why didn't he fire the people who were responsible for the writings in his newsletter? Somebody signed off on that content, whoever he put in charge of editorial decisions, because he says "it wasn't me".

If that happened to me, you'd know I didn't know about it, because there would be a trail of bodies, when I found about it, that you could point to and say "see?"

I would fire everyone involved, and possibly sue the person who put that slander in a newsletter with MY name on it, if it was possible to do so. But either way, you'd find a trail, trust me.

[Cypress]

Would the National Weather be an Interstate Commerce issue? As well as FEMA? Hmmm... Methinks you exaggerate because it makes you feel smart, but in reality it gives the impression that you are being disingenuous purposefully.

Anyway, Interstate Commerce is one of the powers granted the Feds under the constitution, many things that you mention fall under that. But heck, you can pretend that they only fall under "General Welfare", and if it were so, then Amendments to the constitution would be necessary. Thankfully it isn't so, and pretending this isn't working here.


Would the National Weather be an Interstate Commerce issue?

LOL

Please, this is about as broad and dare I say,, liberal interpretation of the commerce clause as you could imagine. Why not leave climatological data up to the States? lol

What about the National Park Service, USEPA, US Geological Survey, Center for Disease Control, Sandia and Livermore National Labs?

If the constitution is limited to the libertarian view of enumerated powers, you should advocate eliminating these federal functions.

[Damocles]

Why did he take 5 years to disavow this madness?

Why did he claim the words were his?

Why did he call the comments his "tongue in-cheek academic writings"?

Why did hie spokesman say "the comments were similar to Jesse Jackson's" .. which only a complete fool would believe?
I think he took bad advice and is embarrassed about it. I know I would be.

[Damocles]

Would the National Weather be an Interstate Commerce issue?

LOL

Please, this is about as broad and dare I say,, liberal interpretation of the commerce clause as you could imagine. Why not leave climatological data up to the States? lol

What about the National Park Service, USEPA, US Geological Survey, Center for Disease Control, Sandia and Livermore National Labs?

If the constitution is limited to the libertarian view of enumerated powers, you should advocate eliminating these federal functions.
Because the states would be unable to see into the next one and thus accurately predict the weather, well as accurately as possible.

And Interstate Commerce is one of the enumerated powers. I don't advocate going beyond what is actually there. Much like a national Aircraft Control. It would be nearly impossible to ignore the Interstate Commerce issue in that one. As well as noting the weather would effect such Interstate Commerce as Airlines as well as the Trucking industry...

My guess is you assume that all libertarians agree on everything perfectly and thus can dismiss any comment by a libertarian without actually reading it.

[blackascoal]

Yeah. Its Bullshit.

This is why an ultra orthodox libertiarian or ultra conservative can never be trusted to run the federal government. If they really believe in the limited enumerated powers (their intrepretation), there are only two choices:

1) They can advocate abolishing the National Park Service, Center for Disease Control, National Hurrican Center, etc.

2) Or they can lie, and say they support keeping those agencies.


Even if they choose the second option, they can't trusted. No one who is philosophically opposed to a Federal National Hurricane Center, can be trusted to run it, or be committed to it.

With all the anger and horror about the disaster of Katrina, he would leave that horror and lives that hang precariously in the balance to "charity" and eliminate FEMA. After taking credit for disaster relief legislation, that he voted AGAINST .. here is what he had to say ..

[b]"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"

Robbed???

This man has no sense socio-ethical responsibility for his fellow citizens. He thinks it's robbery for Americans to have a sense of duty and responsibilty to help in times of disaster.

[Cypress]

Anybody who is opposed to it ignores the Interstate Commerce implications.

It isn't like this guy is going to get elected as President people. I stated long ago people take way too much energy to discredit an extreme longshot, even taking writing from blogs and editorials that aren't even archived on the newspaper's site itself as evidence of something heinous. I believe that those newsletters went out, I don't necessarily believe that they were the sentiments of the man in question. I get his current newsletters and there is nothing in them that gives any indication that this is in his heart.


Damo, if you're going to justify all the federal functions I outlined, by using the commerce clause, you are truly being creative and LIBERAL in interpreting the commerce clause. CDC, National Park Service, Sandia Lab, and USGS are interstate commerce issues? LOL When did you become an extreme liberal, using broad and almost comical interpretation of the commerce clause?

Frankly, it doesn't matter on a functional level. If you want to keep all the federal functions the liberals have wisely implemented at the federa level, by citing the commerce clause, rather than the tax and spend clause, I'm cool with that.

Because, liberals win either way :clink:

[Damocles]

Damo, if you're going to justify all the federal functions I outlined, by using the commerce clause, you are truly being creative and LIBERAL in interpreting the commerce clause. CDC, National Park Service, Sandia Lab, and USGS are interstate commerce issues? LOL When did you become an extreme liberal, using broad and almost comical interpretation of the commerce clause?

Frankly, it doesn't matter on a functional level. If you want to keep all the federal functions the liberals have wisely implemented at the federa level, by citing the commerce clause, rather than the tax and spend clause, I'm cool with that.

Because, liberals win either way :clink:
No. I explained, but as I said you don't listen. You assume my opinion without regard to what I actually state.

It would be very difficult to not note the Interstate Commerce issues I outlined above.

[evince]

This is why Libertarians will never get any traction.

Young bright white males always seem to toy with its ideas in their youth and then grow up, old libertarians like Paul are just crazy bigots I guess.

[Damocles]

With all the anger and horror about the disaster of Katrina, he would leave that horror and lives that hang precariously in the balance to "charity" and eliminate FEMA. After taking credit for disaster relief legislation, that he voted AGAINST .. here is what he had to say ..

[b]"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"

Robbed???

This man has no sense socio-ethical responsibility for his fellow citizens. He thinks it's robbery for Americans to have a sense of duty and responsibilty to help in times of disaster.
There is some point to this though. Do they take no responsibility for choosing to live in the path of Hurricanes in a city with much of it below sea level?

[DigitalDave]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?pagewanted=4&ei=5070&en=fe4aa26b26120ce5&ex=1187323200


The question is whether the old ideologies being resurrected are neglected wisdom or discredited nonsense. In the 1996 general election, Paul’s Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and stated that “by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.” Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul’s newsletter as a laudably “racialist” publication.

Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.

What is interesting is Paul’s idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is “of no importance.” Paul never deals in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians do. In his office one afternoon in June, I asked about his connections to the John Birch Society. “Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!” he said in mock horror. “Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with. Because they’re real strict constitutionalists, they don’t like the war, they’re hard-money people. . . . ”

[Cypress]

Because the states would be unable to see into the next one and thus accurately predict the weather, well as accurately as possible.

And Interstate Commerce is one of the enumerated powers. I don't advocate going beyond what is actually there. Much like a national Aircraft Control. It would be nearly impossible to ignore the Interstate Commerce issue in that one. As well as noting the weather would effect such Interstate Commerce as Airlines as well as the Trucking industry...

My guess is you assume that all libertarians agree on everything perfectly and thus can dismiss any comment by a libertarian without actually reading it.


They problem is Damo, you libertarians confuse me.

On the one hand, you all claim with great certainly, that Section 8 of the Constitution limits federal function to about ten or twelve very specific functions. And that states should handle everything else. If your interpretation of the Constitution is correct, I read Section 8 and don't see ANY way to squeeze a Center for Disease Control, or one of our world class national science labs (e.g. Livermore) into Section 8.

But then, ten mintues later I'm being told that libertarians will support these federal functions anyway.


You guys have to pick one.

I'm not comfortable putting someone into a position of governance, who is philosophically oppossed to the feds doing anything beyond national defense, property rights, and patent enforcment (i.e., the so called enumerated powers)

[Cancel7]

Dave, that NY Times piece does not tell me anything I did not know, and is proof of nothing other than what I already believe, which is, this "explanation" years later, does not pass the smell test.

I think that Desh is correct when she says that a lot of bright white men flirt with being a libertarian when they are very young, but then wake up. Believe it or not? That was once Ornot, long ago. So that's cool.

But this stuff, come on, just stop. I truly feel as you are insulting my intelligence by even asking me to believe this stuff.

[Damocles]

They problem is Damo, you libertarians confuse me.

On the one hand, you all claim with great certainly, that Section 8 of the Constitution limits federal function to about ten or twelve very specific functions. And that states should handle everything else. If your interpretation of the Constitution is correct, I read Section 8 and don't see ANY way to squeeze a Center for Disease Control, or one of our world class national science labs (e.g. Livermore) into Section 8.

But then, ten mintues later I'm being told that libertarians will support these federal functions anyway.


You guys have to pick one.

I'm not comfortable putting someone into a position of governance, who is philosophically oppossed to the feds doing anything beyond national defense, property rights, and patent enforcment (i.e., the so called enumerated powers)
There are many who would ignore the clear Interstate Commerce implications in a CDC, but I would not be one of them. But then I have always "leaned" libertarian, I have always been clear where I was politically with you, but you can pretend that several years of past threads and conversations don't exist because I am "libertarian" and therefore "easily dismissed" in your mind as believing "this" or "that".

Instead of wondering whey more libertarians don't take the whole document.

I would limit these agencies to Interstate commerce issues, as I said in another recent thread. I would not assume authority over every piece of medicine because there are Interstate Commerce issues. And I would pay attention to the limitations as well as the powers.

[blackascoal]

Another question...why didn't he fire the people who were responsible for the writings in his newsletter? Somebody signed off on that content, whoever he put in charge of editorial decisions, because he says "it wasn't me".

If that happened to me, you'd know I didn't know about it, because there would be a trail of bodies, when I found about it, that you could point to and say "see?"

I would fire everyone involved, and possibly sue the person who put that slander in a newsletter with MY name on it, if it was possible to do so. But either way, you'd find a trail, trust me.

I wrote an article on Ron Paul that details everything I've stated here. Then I sent it to Ron Paul and defied him to charge me with slander.

Libertarians read my article and started to deludge me with hate mail .. until I did exactly what I've done here .. then they went away. I defied every single one of them to have Ron Paul accuse me of slander. My article wasn't the first to detail this truth but NOBODY has been charged with slander because their information still exists.

To ANY Paul supporter here .. CALL RON PAUL AND TELL HIM TO CHARGE ME WITH SLANDER .. I DEFY HIM TO DO SO.

The man is running for POTUS and if this wasn't true, would he not accuse me and others who know with slander?

Let me also state that I'm a writer, among other things, and I know how to research. I've spoken to two people from the Houston area NAACP, who were mentioned in some of the evidence, I've spoken to Eric Dondero who was Paul's Campaign Manager and Executive Aide, I've spoken to Chris Peden who is running against Paul in the upcoming election in CD14, and I've spoken to reporters from Texas Monthly and the Houston Chronicle.

The evidence is solid, documented, and undeniably true.

SHOW ME ONE STATEMENT OF HIS .. JUST ONE .. WHERE HE DENOUNCES THE HATE GROUPS AND PEOPLE HE'S PARTICIPATES WITH.

[DigitalDave]

Dave, that NY Times piece does not tell me anything I did not know, and is proof of nothing other than what I already believe, which is, this "explanation" years later, does not pass the smell test.

I think that Desh is correct when she says that a lot of bright white men flirt with being a libertarian when they are very young, but then wake up. Believe it or not? That was once Ornot, long ago. So that's cool.

But this stuff, come on, just stop. I truly feel as you are insulting my intelligence by even asking me to believe this stuff.

I'm posting the NY Times article because they give another piece of evidence that the words were not his own. A NY Times journalist explained that the writing style was not similar to Ron Paul's.

[Damocles]

I wrote an article on Ron Paul that details everything I've stated here. Then I sent it to Ron Paul and defied him to charge me with slander.

Libertarians read my article and started to deludge me with hate mail .. until I did exactly what I've done here .. then they went away. I defied every single one of them to have Ron Paul accuse me of slander. My article wasn't the first to detail this truth but NOBODY has been charged with slander because their information still exists.

To ANY Paul supporter here .. CALL RON PAUL AND TELL HIM TO CHARGE ME WITH SLANDER .. I DEFY HIM TO DO SO.

The man is running for POTUS and if this wasn't true, would he not accuse me and others who know with slander?

Let me also state that I'm a writer, among other things, and I know how to research. I've spoken to two people from the Houston area NAACP, who were mentioned in some of the evidence, I've spoken to Eric Dondero who was Paul's Campaign Manager and Executive Aide, I've spoken to Chris Peden who is running against Paul in the upcoming election in CD14, and I've spoken to reporters from Texas Monthly and the Houston Chronicle.

The evidence is solid, documented, and undeniably true.

SHOW ME ONE STATEMENT OF HIS .. JUST ONE .. WHERE HE DENOUNCES THE HATE GROUPS AND PEOPLE HE'S PARTICIPATES WITH.
Political slander is specifically exempted from those laws. This makes it so they can make up crap on those ads and still get away with it. So I would not expect R. Paul to be able to "charge" you with slander. That being said, he often does not distance himself as the NYT article states.

[Cypress]

There are many who would ignore the clear Interstate Commerce implications in a CDC, but I would not be one of them. But then I have always "leaned" libertarian, I have always been clear where I was politically with you, but you can pretend that several years of past threads and conversations don't exist because I am "libertarian" and therefore "easily dismissed" in your mind as believing "this" or "that".

Instead of wondering whey more libertarians don't take the whole document.

I would limit these agencies to Interstate commerce issues, as I said in another recent thread. I would not assume authority over every piece of medicine because there are Interstate Commerce issues. And I would pay attention to the limitations as well as the powers.


C'mon Damo: Trying to squeeze the CDC, Livermore Science Lab, or the National Park Service, into the interstate commerce clause is just a way for you to appear ideologically consistent with your assertion about the limits on federal functions, vis a vis the "enumerated powers".

CDC is a public health function. Livermore is a science function. As is USGS.

[Battleborne]

"ditto head" is a snarky expression, which, you used directed at me, and I think it's because you're jealous that you don't have any of your own dittoheads, unless you count BB when he was trying to get into your pants.


I think this comment applies to you darla...damo is straight as well as I...this works better for y'all code pinkies!:rolleyes:

[DigitalDave]

I'm guessing Ron doesn't distance himself because he doesn't want to draw more attention to it. He knows you can't explain things away. Darla is showing that to be true. Ron gave an explanation for those writings, and she thinks they are far-fetched. I don't blame her, but I know in politics, there is a lot of dirty shit that goes on, and it's best just not to draw attention to someone who is slinging the shit, and just ignore them.

[Damocles]

C'mon Damo: Trying to squeeze the CDC, Livermore Science Lab, or the National Park Service, into the interstate commerce clause is just a way for you to appear ideologically consistent with your assertion about the limits on federal functions, vis a vis the "enumerated powers".

CDC is a public health function. Livermore is a science function. As is USGS.
Do you actually READ any of my posts? Seriously, I already explained how CDC easily fits into Interstate commerce, why don't you go back so I don't have to make another post you won't read?

As for the National Parks, not Interstate Commerce, states should handle that. Except where they cross state lines.... Hmmm....

The Livermore Science Lab is what started my "Why don't they read Section 8 that specifies how the Federal Government can support science?"

So there you are right.

[blackascoal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?pagewanted=4&ei=5070&en=fe4aa26b26120ce5&ex=1187323200

Paul is the ONLY person in Congress to get a 100% rating from the John Birch Society .. which means that he agrees with them on a lot more than their narrow view of the Constitution.
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004474M

From the article you posted ...

But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not.

So what his his denial "quite believable" .. particularly when he stated "voters would not understand my tongue-in-cheek academic writings?"

[Damocles]

I'm guessing Ron doesn't distance himself because he doesn't want to draw more attention to it. He knows you can't explain things away. Darla is showing that to be true. Ron gave an explanation for those writings, and she thinks they are far-fetched. I don't blame her, but I know in politics, there is a lot of dirty shit that goes on, and it's best just not to draw attention to someone who is slinging the shit, and just ignore them.
My guess is that is exactly the advice he got from his Political Advisors.

[blackascoal]

Political slander is specifically exempted from those laws. This makes it so they can make up crap on those ads and still get away with it. So I would not expect R. Paul to be able to "charge" you with slander. That being said, he often does not distance himself as the NYT article states.

It is absolutely mindless to believe that he would not distance himself from the comments if they were not his immediately.

HE DID SO 5 YEARS LATER.

So the non-argument that "he doesn't distance himself" is a foolish argument because when the heat was on, that is exactly what he weakly tried to do.

[Cancel7]

I'm posting the NY Times article because they give another piece of evidence that the words were not his own. A NY Times journalist explained that the writing style was not similar to Ron Paul's.

Dave, I'm a writer, writing styles mean nothing to me, they can be changed easily by someone with even the smallest talent. Also, I trust my own ear when trying to tell the difference between two writers, if that difference exists, and very few other people. They are easily fooled. I know when I cannot tell, and am up against someone with some talent. Most are too arrogant to conclude that.

What a reporter for the NY Times, whose own political affiliation I have no idea of btw (and ny times reporters have them, and if you think they are always liberal, I have a few I'd like to introduce you to), thinks of a "writing style" just has no meaning, especially compared to the common sense questions I have asked.

Why was no one fired? Why was nothing done? Why did it take him all of those years to disavow the comments, and "I was advised" not to is not an answer. Nobody could advise me not to scream that those comments weren't mine, but then, as I have stated, there would be bodies for me to point at, to prove it.

[Damocles]

It is absolutely mindless to believe that he would not distance himself from the comments if they were not his immediately.

HE DID SO 5 YEARS LATER.

So the non-argument that "he doesn't distance himself" is a foolish argument because when the heat was on, that is exactly what he weakly tried to do.
I was talking about the John Birch Society thing, he explains that they agree on a lot constitutionally. A more narrow interpretation of the constitution.

He doesn't distance himself very often from such.

[blackascoal]

I'm guessing Ron doesn't distance himself because he doesn't want to draw more attention to it. He knows you can't explain things away. Darla is showing that to be true. Ron gave an explanation for those writings, and she thinks they are far-fetched. I don't blame her, but I know in politics, there is a lot of dirty shit that goes on, and it's best just not to draw attention to someone who is slinging the shit, and just ignore them.

That's bullshit Dave and I believe that you are smart enough to know that.

Why then try to distance himself 5 years later .. in the midst of a campaign?

Why is he fighting what republicans are saying about him now if his manner is simply to lay down and take it?

[Cancel7]

My guess is that is exactly the advice he got from his Political Advisors.

In a conservative district in Texas, he was advised not to disavow his racist remarks, already being called attention to by his running mate, because he didn't want to call attention to them?

Stop, ok, just stop guys.

I didn't fall off the turnip truck two days ago, and I don't know who here you think did.

[Cypress]

Do you actually READ any of my posts? Seriously, I already explained how CDC easily fits into Interstate commerce, why don't you go back so I don't have to make another post you won't read?

As for the National Parks, not Interstate Commerce, states should handle that. Except where they cross state lines.... Hmmm....

The Livermore Science Lab is what started my "Why don't they read Section 8 that specifies how the Federal Government can support science?"

So there you are right.


Why don't they read Section 8 that specifies how the Federal Government can support science?"

No, a conservative reading of the constitution does not show that the Feds can fund Science labs.

They have only the power to protect intellectual property and enforce scientific patents

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

I think you're agreeing with me, on this.


I appreciate that you state you would eliminate the Federal National Park Service.

Federal park lands, are owned by all the citizens of the United States. Not by citizens of an individual state. Americans from sea to shining sea, bought, paid for, and maintained Rocky Mountain National Park. It doesnt' just belong to the citizens of Colorado.

[blackascoal]

I was talking about the John Birch Society thing, he explains that they agree on a lot constitutionally. A more narrow interpretation of the constitution.

He doesn't distance himself very often from such.

Black people are barbarians and terrorists that can be identified by the color of their skin .. why didn't he distance himself from that when it appeared in a newsletter .. one of many .. with his name on it?

It's ridiculous to suggest he'd let that go if he didn't believe it.