I’ve taken Samm Simpson off the progressive blogroll and I couldn’t possibly support her in her run for Congress at this point. Why? This post:
The last time I felt like this was in 1960. I was seven years old waiting for the candidate names John Fitzgerald Kennedy to drive through Davenport, Iowa for a campaign stop.
Dr. Paul is a prophet for a needy nation, mired in greed, debt and destruction from the globalists, the CFR and the criminal cabal running the Executive Branch and an impotent Democratic Congress. I’m thriled to support Dr. Paul and will do all I can in Florida to help him win the primary. We can stop Guiliani cold, right here. Let’s take back our country: Ron Paul for President.
…
This is a man who tells the truth. Yes, I’m a Democrat and I’m supporting Ron Paul. This means I change my registration to an Republican by December 31 so I can vote in the Republican Primary on January 29th. I hope you will join me.
This is a time in our nation’s history to focus only on the big pictures: national soverignty, a return to the rule of law, our liberties, ending the Iraqi occupation and the Constitution of the United States.
Join the Ron Paul Revolution, and let’s take back the country.
This post is wrong in so many ways. From comparing Ron Paul to JFK to saying Paul tells the truth to suggesting that Paul’s extreme viewpoints have any connection to the Constitution. Add to that, Simpson is changing her registration? There is nothing progressive about anything in this post and nothing progressive about Ron Paul. Paul doesn’t want to take the country back, he wants to take it back to the 1850s.
It is progressive to oppose the war. It is progressive to support civil liberties and oppose things like the FISA bill and the PATRIOT Act. It is progressive to oppose corporate takeover of our government and our lives. But these things alone don’t make one progressive, particularly if you oppose these things for all the wrong reasons, like Paul does, then these things are most definitely not progressive. To quote phenry at Daily Kos (linked in several places below): “‘But he’s against the war!’ Yes, he is. So is Pat Buchanan. So is David Duke.” Clearly, Paul is a lot closer to Buchanan and Duke than to JFK.
You can still find Samm in the wiki and in the archives and I wish her well on a personal level, but she is no longer on the blogroll and I can’t support her run for Congress in any way.
More on Paul follows below…
Ron Paul is wrong on the issues:
Abortion: Ron Paul’s “libertarianism” famously does not extend to the right of a woman to control her body. In February he introduced H.R. 1094, “[t]o provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” He voted against overriding Bush’s veto of the stem cell bill.
The Environment: Ron Paul may be a Republican, but he’s certainly not a Republican for Environmental Protection. That fine organization gave Paul a shameful 17 percent rating on its most recent Congressional Scorecard (warning: PDF). He doesn’t fare much better in the eyes of the American Wilderness Coalition or the League of Conservation Voters. Paul’s abysmal record on the environment is driven in large measure by his love of sweet, sweet oil: in the 109th Congress alone, he voted to voted allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Par for the course for a man who called the Kyoto accords “bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy” and “anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism.”
Immigration: Paul marches in lock-step with the xenophobic right wing on immigration, calling last month’s compromise immigration bill “a compromise of our laws, a compromise of our sovereignty, and a compromise of the Second Amendment.” Yet even the hardcore nativists in the immigration debate have been hesitant to support repealing birthright citizenship as enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, as Paul has done. His proposed Constitutional amendment, introduced as H. J. Res 46 on April 28, 2005, reads: “Any person born after the date of the ratification of this article to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States.” Only four other Representatives, all Republicans, were willing to cosponsor this proposed amendment.
Civil Rights: Paul doesn’t much care for ensuring your right to vote. Like when he voted with just 32 other members of Congress against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Or when he voted for the bogus “Federal Election Integrity Act” voter suppression bill.
But at least Ron Paul knows who’s responsible for racism in America: you are. “By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality,” he writes, “the advocates of so-called ‘diversity’ actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.” So now you know. (Apparently, saying that “[i]f you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be” is not racist, as long as it’s said with a proper appreciation for free-market economics.)
Gay Rights: Paul’s rigid, uncompromising libertarianism leads him to take a number of positions that liberals find objectionable or even reprehensible but which should not in themselves be taken as ipso facto evidence of bigotry. His reflexive opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, is consistent with libertarian positions on federalism and the right of the individual to be free from government “coercion,” even if that means limiting the ability of minorities to seek employment and housing free from discrimination.
Still, libertarian orthodoxy can’t fully explain Paul’s hostility to gay rights, and indeed to gay people in general. The Libertarian Party, which nominated Paul as its presidential candidate in 1988, has strongly opposed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act from the beginning; Paul supports it. While he opposed the “Federal Marriage Amendment” that would have outlawed gay marriage everywhere, he actually cosponsored the odious “Marriage Protection Act,” which would nonsensically bar federal courts from considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a federal law. “The definition of marriage–a union between a man and a woman–can be found in any dictionary,” he writes condescendingly. Despite Paul’s disingenuous claims that he is a “strict constitutionalist,” most legal scholars agree that the so-called Marriage Protection Act would be unconstitutional.
You also will not find Paul listed among the 124 co-sponsors of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007, which would repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring gays and lesbians from serving in the military. Maybe he’s worried that they’ll take their “gay agenda” to far-flung corners of the world. He also doesn’t want gay people adopting children while they’re not serving in the military, either.
On a personal level, we have this 1993 quote wherein Paul equates homosexuality with “sexual deviance.” And let’s not forget his wink-wink characterization of Hillary Clinton as “a far leftist with very close female friends”.
Church-State Separation: From keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to co-sponsoring the school prayer amendment to keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, this “strict constitutionalist” isn’t a big fan of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. “Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths,” he writes. “…The collectivist left” –that’s you!– “is threatened by strong religious institutions, because it wants an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society…. So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box.”
And just in case the dirty liberals in the federal court system might take it into their heads to enforce the Establishment Clause, Mr. Strict Constitutionalist introduced a bill to bar the federal courts from hearing any such cases. No wonder James Dobson’s Family Research Council gave Paul a 75 percent rating on their 2005 scorecard.
International Relations: Like crackpot paleoconservatives everywhere, Paul wants us out of the United Nations, which is just a bunch of un-American non-Americans out to destroy America. Darfur is also filled with non-Americans, so you certainly won’t find Ron Paul lifting a finger to stop the genocide, or even acknowledge that genocide is taking place. I guess that’s why he’s one of only four members of Congress to receive an “F” rating on Darfur from the Genocide Intervention Network.
Peace and Military Issues: With all the hooting and hollering about Paul’s opposition to the Iraq war, it sure seems like he should have been able to get better than 58 percent from PeacePAC, doesn’t it? Even Joe Lieberman managed to get 63 percent. (Still, it beats the 45 percent Paul got from them in the previous Congress.) He did a little better from Peace Action, managing 67 percent–easily the top score for a Republican, but a below-average score for Democrats. (Still, it beats the 40 percent he got from them in 2004.)
And while Paul may oppose the Iraq war, he doesn’t seem to have much use for the men and women who have to fight it. Paul received an “F” rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It’s not easy to get an F from the IAVA; Paul shares this distinction with only six other members of the House.
Taxes: Do we even need to go into this one? If you audaciously believe that we need a progressive system of taxation in this country, here’s what Ron Paul thinks of you:
“[W]e have exactly the kind of steeply progressive tax system championed by Karl Marx. One might expect the left to be happy with such an arrangement. At its core, however, the collectivist left in this country simply doesn’t believe in tax cuts. Deep down, they believe all wealth belongs to the state, which should redistribute it via tax and welfare policies to achieve some mythical ’social justice.’… The class war tactic highlights what the left does best: divide Americans into groups. Collectivists see all issues of wealth and taxation as a zero-sum game played between competing groups. If one group gets a tax break, other groups must be rallied against it- even if such a cut would ultimately benefit them…. Upward mobility is possible only in a free-market capitalist system, whereas collectivism dooms the poor to remain exactly where they are.”
“Collectivist politicians forget that the American dream of becoming wealthy is alive and well. They seek to encourage resentment of the wealthy, when in truth most Americans admire successful people. They forget that upward mobility, the chance to start from humble beginnings and achieve wealth and position, is virtually impossible in high-tax socialist societies. Most of all, however, the pro-tax politicians forget that your money belongs to you. As a society, we should not forget their dishonesty when we go to the polls.”
Screw this; this diary’s way too long already. Worker rights: Voted to defund OSHA’s ergonomics rules. Voted against increasing mine safety standards. Hates unions. Campaign finance reform: Opposes. Social Security and Medicare: Repeats the Republicans’ lies about the programs’ solvency. Consumer protection: Voted for the bankruptcy bill. Voted to make it harder to file class-action lawsuits. Universal health care: don’t make me laugh. Privatizing everything: the Internets are not large enough to hold all the citations.
More:
“He asked if there was an international conspiracy to overthrow our government. The answer is yes…” — Ron Paul, August 30, 2003
“Paul has never found a problem for which gold was not the solution. A longtime proponent of returning the US to the gold standard, Paul’s writings on gold—and there are a lot of them—are liberally sprinkled with references to the Federal Reserve, Bretton Woods, and the rest of the usual gang of tropes; they imbue the shiny, somewhat arbitrarily chosen metal with almost supernatural powers to save us from the impending doom that is always just around the corner but, somehow, never quite arrives.”
“For Paul, no rumor about the Clintons was too outrageous to pass on. In the March 15, 1994 issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, Paul addressed the death of Vince Foster, whose 1993 suicide was twisted by the far-right enemies of democracy into a series of increasingly outlandish conspiracy theories alleging that Foster was actually murdered and that Clinton ordered it.”
More from his official website (I’m not linking to it):
“The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.”
“In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.”
“I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.”
“A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities. The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism. Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations. It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us. Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence – not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.”
“I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states.”
“The federal government does not own our children. Yet we act as if it does by letting it decide when, how, and what our children will learn.”
“The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.”
“The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted. Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration….By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again.”
“We must also address the desire of younger workers to save and invest on their own. We should cut payroll taxes and give workers the opportunity to seek better returns in the private market. Excessive government spending has created the insolvency crisis in Social Security. We must significantly reduce spending so that our nation can keep its promise to our seniors.”
“I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it: H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills. H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations. H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks. H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely. In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons†ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it. I also recently opposed H.R. 2640, which would allow government-appointed psychiatrists to ban U.S. veterans experiencing even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome from ever owning a gun.”
“No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.”
“End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.”
“The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.”
“NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system.”
“Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us.”
“We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.”
“A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy.”
“I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.”
“Returning control of education to parents is the centerpiece of my education agenda. As President I will advance tax credits through the Family Education Freedom Act, which reduces taxes to make it easier for parents to home school by allowing them to devote more of their own funds to their children’s education.”
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.
Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition.
Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record.
Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record.
Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration.
Rated 89% by NTU, indicating a “Taxpayer’s Friend” on tax votes.
Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record.
Rated 47% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a mixed record on union issues.
Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.
Rated 46% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record.
Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues.
Rated 67% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues.
Rated 60% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation.
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education.
Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record.
Ron Paul is a racist…
His own words, from the Ron Paul Political Report:
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. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth.
Under the headline of “Terrorist Update,” for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
… [I]n the same 1992 edition … [Paul wrote], “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”
“What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?” he wrote.
Like, for example, secessionists, who gathered at a conference in April of 1995 to hear Paul speak about the “once and future Republic of Texas.” Or the beady-eyed listeners of The Political Cesspool. It’s the unofficial radio program of the Council of Conservative Citizens–you know, the repainted White Citizens Council that got Trent Lott into a bit of trouble a few years ago. (Tune in tonight for their special program on “the disastrous Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education decision, one which ushered in an era of radical leftist ideology upon the American citizenry.”) Paul has been a guest on the program; you’ll find him listed under P, right above Prussian Blue, the white supremacist teenage singing duo.
Or the crazy-as-fuck John Birch Society, to which Paul is more than happy to grant the occasional interview and even speak at their dinners (the podcast, I am sorry to report, no longer seems to be available). In fact, Paul is the only member of Congress to receive a perfect 100 from the John Birch Society in its most recent member ratings.
Like many members of Congress, the prolific Paul posts his speeches, columns, and statements on his House Web site. He allows anyone to republish and distribute them, and many do. For example, our old friends the Council of Conservative Citizens occasionally publish Paul in its newsletter, the Citizens Informer (warning: PDF). And then there’s David Duke, who can’t get enough of Ron Paul; you can find his columns on davidduke.com here and here and here and here and here. If you’re more of a dead-tree fan, you can find Paul’s thoughts on foreign policy reprinted in the January 2007 issue of the National Times, a white supremacist newspaper that apparently gets distributed through the time-honored neo-Nazi method of throwing the thing onto unsuspecting people’s porches in the middle of the night and scurrying away.
Thanks! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve run into self pro-claimed liberals and progressives online who are seriously considering voting for Ron Paul. He doesn’t share our core values.
Ron Paul is not perfect. Who is really? Well at least anyone mortal. He is and has been incredibly honest. This has meant that he has said things that most candidates dont. The racism issues for the most part were in a small newsletters that were sent out like 20 years ago. I think Ron Paul has seen the errors in his ways. He may have never thought that he would want the trust of the whole nation, but just a section of Texas. I think you can see how this might happen. Supposedly it was written by a staffer but either way I can see that happening.
And as for his voting record I really dont care if he votes against various things. He is a strict constitutionalist. Therefore if he thinks it is unconstitutional for a bill to be considered he must vote no for it with his record. He is called Dr. No because he votes no so much. Who cares? The Congress is a joke and needs to be streamlined and stop trying to amass power from the states.
As I said Ron Paul is not perfect, he admits this too. But I cant wait to continue reading your blog to hear which candidate is perfect. Hopefully they will fix some of the most important issues you talk about. O wait they are ALL pro war and anti government reform.
And to be honest I see a lot of similarities between JFK and RP on some issues like intervention, war, federal reserve reform, controlling the military establishment. Not all, but some.
>Ron Paul is not perfect. Who is really? Well at least anyone mortal.
But this is a false argument. No one said Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but this other person is. What I said was Ron Paul’s agenda would be worse than Bush’s for the future of America.
>He is and has been incredibly honest.
He lied about the Ron Paul Report.
>The racism issues for the most part were in a small newsletters that were sent out like 20 years ago.
Racism is racism no matter how many people read it or how long ago it was. I wouldn’t vote for Robert Byrd because he was in the KKK. I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul because he was (and probably is) a racist.
>I think Ron Paul has seen the errors in his ways.
But no evidence supports this conclusion. He has never rejected those earlier words or apologized for them. He tried to explain them away as “based in statistics,” something that is not only dishonest, it’s an incredibly bad use of statistics. As someone trained in statistics, only a racist could look at those numbers and come to those conclusions.
>He may have never thought that he would want the trust of the whole nation, but just a section of Texas. I think you can see how this might happen.
No, racism is racism and it doesn’t matter why you are racist, you’re still wrong and immoral to be so. I can’t possibly see how this might happen. Racism is wrong and it is never excusable.
>Supposedly it was written by a staffer but either way I can see that happening.
That was his first story. He never identified said mystery person and never denied upon further questioning having written the words himself, which match up with his writings elsewhere in style and tone. Beyond that, even if someone else wrote the words, they appeared in a publication with his name on it, that is an explicit endorsement of the words.
>And as for his voting record I really dont care if he votes against various things.
That’s where we differ. That’s exactly what I care about.
>He is a strict constitutionalist.
Of some constitution he made up. His interpretations of the Constitution go against all legitimate constitutional law and analysis. I know, my day job involves studying the Constitutuion.
>Therefore if he thinks it is unconstitutional for a bill to be considered he must vote no for it with his record.
Technically, it doesn’t mean that at all, since constitutional interpretation belongs to the judicial branch. If a proposed law would help his constituents and the country, his duty is to vote for it and let the courts figure out if it is constitutional or not.
>He is called Dr. No because he votes no so much.
Voting no, in and of itself, has no positive or negative connotation. Voting yes on a bad bill is bad, voting no on a good bill is bad.
>The Congress is a joke and needs to be streamlined and stop trying to amass power from the states.
Couldn’t disagree more. The states should have no power over national policy. The Constitution gives them almost no power over national policy. People like Paul try to superimpose the Articles of Confederation on the Constitution, but it isn’t valid. The primary purpose of the Constitutuion, which was written by the Federalists (get the root word of the name), was to move power from the state level to the federal level.
>But I cant wait to continue reading your blog to hear which candidate is perfect.
No candidate is perfect, nor can they be. But almost all of them are better than Paul. This blog isn’t about that, though, so don’t look for it here. Check it out at my national blog from time to time, http://quinnell.us. This blog is about state and local politics.
>Hopefully they will fix some of the most important issues you talk about. O wait they are ALL pro war and anti government reform.
First off, these aren’t the most important issues to me and I almost never talk about them. Second, none of the Democrats is pro-war. Third, none of the Democrats is anti-government reform. Just because they don’t agree with your version of government reform doesn’t make them opposed to other reforms.
>And to be honest I see a lot of similarities between JFK and RP on some issues like intervention, war, federal reserve reform, controlling the military establishment. Not all, but some.
Nonsense.
Wow,after reading everything you posted I’m starting to agree with Ron Paul…. I don’t agree with his abortion views but he is an OBGYN so I respect them, and he doesn’t want to ban it, just leave it to the states.
If “progressive” means promoting communism and hating on the only candidate who is at least telling the truth, maybe I am not one… I want the war OVER. I want my rights,including habeous corpus, back. I want a candidate who speaks the truth.
Since Kucinich is doing so poorly and he wants to take away guns I might just register Republican and vote for Ron Paul…. I havent heard somebody talk about fixing the Federal Reserve robbery since JFK. This is very encouraging to see how popular he is =) although I hope he isnt the republicans trump card because they know everybody is mad about the war…..
Shame on you progressive coalition…. You make me ashamed to call myself a progressive.
I have spoken with Ms. Simpson personally and she is exactly the type of person we need in Congress. I don’t agree with Ron Paul on a lot of stuff but at least he is telling the truth and isn’t working for corporate special interests like the Council on Foreign Relations’ Hillary Obama Edwards Guiliani Romney McCain and co.
Plus, congress wouldnt let Ron Paul do most of what he wants,so it would be an excellent dialogue and it would probably end the war and restore our rights….. I thought that’s what progressives were about… that’s what I’m about at least.
And seriously, being progressive doesn’t mean you have to be a collectivist.
If progressives won’t support Ms. Simpson in her honorable and noble efforts, I don’t think I can be associated with you folks any more.
And about the Department of Education…. I’m not sure I want the @$$ holes that lied our country into war educating my children….. I think it’s a good idea to have it at the State level. WHy are you opposed to this Mr. Kenneth, and who is paying you too promote this non-sense? You are the most un-progressive blogger I have seen on this site.
>Wow,after reading everything you posted I’m starting to agree with Ron Paul….
Then I have to question your sanity. And wonder if you are a racist.
>I don’t agree with his abortion views but he is an OBGYN so I respect them, and he doesn’t want to ban it, just leave it to the states.
So that individual states can ban it. Bill Frist was an MD and attempted to diagnose Terry Schiavo via video. A degree in medicine means nothing to a blind ideologue, such as Frist or Paul.
>If “progressive†means promoting communism and hating on the only candidate who is at least telling the truth, maybe I am not one…
Based on your comments, you clearly aren’t a progressive. There is absolutely nothing in progressivism that relates to communism. If you think so, then you have no idea what any of these words means. I don’t hate Paul, I think he’s a racist idiot. He isn’t even remotely telling the truth, certainly not about race issues and certainly not about the reality of how markets and government work in the real world.
>I want the war OVER. I want my rights,including habeous corpus, back.
I do to, but there are many other issues that are nearly as important, equally as important or more important. Opposing racism, for instance, is way more important than what happens in Iraq.
>I want a candidate who speaks the truth.
Then you don’t understand what it is candidates do.
>I havent heard somebody talk about fixing the Federal Reserve robbery since JFK.
That’s because most people are sane.
>This is very encouraging to see how popular he is
But he isn’t actually that popular. He not only has no chance of winning the Republican nomination, he has no chance of finishing in the top three unless everybody else drops out of the race.
>Shame on you progressive coalition…. You make me ashamed to call myself a progressive.
If you support Ron Paul, then you shouldn’t call yourself progressive, because he is very, very far away from progressive.
>I have spoken with Ms. Simpson personally and she is exactly the type of person we need in Congress.
Not if she is willing to switch her party to vote for Ron Paul, she isn’t.
>I don’t agree with Ron Paul on a lot of stuff but at least he is telling the truth and isn’t working for corporate special interests like the Council on Foreign Relations’ Hillary Obama Edwards Guiliani Romney McCain and co.
No matter how many times people repeat it, Paul is not telling the truth. He lies repeatedly on race issues and on how the market actually works. He also lies about the effects and the success rate of government programs, among many other things.
>Plus, congress wouldnt let Ron Paul do most of what he wants,so it would be an excellent dialogue and it would probably end the war and restore our rights…..
No, it would be a pointless and somewhat insane dialogue. And the war will end and our rights will be restored by voting for any of the Democrats. What’s more, the hundreds of other issues that are important will be much better off under any of the Democrats than under Paul.
>I thought that’s what progressives were about… that’s what I’m about at least.
Those are two of the issues that progressives are about. There are many, many others. Like supporting education, supporting a woman’s right to choose and opposing racism, things Paul doesn’t do.
>And seriously, being progressive doesn’t mean you have to be a collectivist.
This is nothing but Libertarian BS. The whole collectivist thing Paul talks about is complete and utter nonsense and has no connection to anything in reality.
>If progressives won’t support Ms. Simpson in her honorable and noble efforts, I don’t think I can be associated with you folks any more.
Based on your repetition of Ron Paul’s talking points, almost verbatim, you never were.
>And about the Department of Education…. I’m not sure I want the @$$ holes that lied our country into war educating my children…..
Curriculum isn’t decided at the federal level, so the war people have nothing to do with that.
>I think it’s a good idea to have it at the State level. WHy are you opposed to this
I’m opposed to the idea of states’ rights because it has been one of the strongest tools for oppression and the denial of human rights in American history.
>who is paying you too promote this non-sense?
Only idiots say things like this.
>You are the most un-progressive blogger I have seen on this site.
This is nothing but a meaningless statement coming from someone I have no respect for. In that case, I take it as a compliment that you insult me.
Priceless statement by Stoller:
Some comments about my comments….
Me >Ron Paul is not perfect. Who is really? Well at least anyone mortal.
You: But this is a false argument. No one said Ron Paul isn’t perfect, but this other person is. What I said was Ron Paul’s agenda would be worse than Bush’s for the future of America.
I am not sure you can say Ron Paul’s non intervention, protect American interests first, anti war, and smaller executive branch power can be worse for America and the world. How many have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? 600,000? This is getting close to Holocaust and Khmer Rouge type numbers. This is what we did with our troops, our money and our politicians. We will have to find a way to atone for this. I really don’t know how we can.
Me: He is and has been incredibly honest.
He lied about the Ron Paul Report.
I am not sure what this is. I googled and didn’t find it. Is this that newsletter to supporters?
Me: >The racism issues for the most part were in a small newsletters that were sent out like 20 years ago.
You: Racism is racism no matter how many people read it or how long ago it was. I wouldn’t vote for Robert Byrd because he was in the KKK. I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul because he was (and probably is) a racist.
That is true. Racism is racism. But there are definitely degrees of racism and non racism. It is difficult to have the type of life where you have never had any racist, sexist, or religiously discriminatory thoughts ever run through your head, or out your mouth. Maybe Gandhi was like that, maybe Mother Theresa, but we are farther down the scale somewhere. I think most people have some misconceptions, hangups, and even racist thoughts and actions from time to time. If these newsletters were written for him or by him and he approved them that is definitely a not an all-loving moment. But to compare some letters written after some crime issues, mailed to maybe 100 people who he knows exactly who he understands how they will take it, to being a member and even a leader of the KKK is a strange leap. I think those letters happened after the Rodney King riots. It was definitely reactionary to say anything. Not a shining moment to be sure, but not enough for me to write him off completely.
Me: He may have never thought that he would want the trust of the whole nation, but just a section of Texas. I think you can see how this might happen.
You: No, racism is racism and it doesn’t matter why you are racist, you’re still wrong and immoral to be so. I can’t possibly see how this might happen. Racism is wrong and it is never excusable.
Ok so it is never excusable? Never? Such a strong word – Never. What if you are a victim of a crime that seemed to be racially motivated. Would it be a career ending situation if you described your assailants with a racial phrase to your friends or the police? I can see someone doing that would not normally use a racist remark to do so. So there should be some understanding of the circumstance and I don’t think we are getting it in this matter. I don’t expect Ron Paul to explain it completely right now. Maybe if he gets the nomination and has to in the Primaries. I would like to hear it myself but am not going to say he should withdraw from public life because he has these comments in his history. He is probably quite embarrassed by his actions.
Me: >And as for his voting record I really don’t care if he votes against various things.
You: That’s where we differ. That’s exactly what I care about.
Well how many laws are brought before Congress that are just plain stupid? A bridge to nowhere or feel good legislation…. I cant even begin to imagine the cost of bringing 500 odd people to one central city, housing them, feeding them, having staffers do office work and researching and keeping track of bills. Thats not even to discuss the costs of trying to enact some of the bills. Then when all this is done they are voting for $20 million dollars bridges to an island with 45 inhabitants in Alaska that is added on to a bill as Pork Spending. Or one bill that Ron Paul voted “nay†on was the Sept 14th, 2001 bill recognizing Ramadan and Islam as a major religion. Do we need a bill to recognize Islam as a major religion? If people are that uninformed does the Congress think they read the bills that are passed and change their lives from it? Congress needs less power, less bills, and less pork and maybe a little ego check.
Me: >Therefore if he thinks it is unconstitutional for a bill to be considered he must vote no for it with his record.
You: Technically, it doesn’t mean that at all, since constitutional interpretation belongs to the judicial branch. If a proposed law would help his constituents and the country, his duty is to vote for it and let the courts figure out if it is constitutional or not.
To be honest that might be true. It sounds like you know much more than me about the constitution and the political process than me. But to think that someone will vote for everything that is good for their constituents and let the courts figure it out is how we run deficits decade after decade. I really don’t think some of these bills are so difficult to understand if it is constitutional or not. If Congress was paying more attention maybe bills like the Patriot Act would not make it to law. It seems to be and has been proven by some courts to be unconstitutional but after 4 years it is still there in all its habeas corpus denying beauty. It does not seem like we can trust the Supreme Court with their current members to enforce the Constitution on these types of issues.
Me: >The Congress is a joke and needs to be streamlined and stop trying to amass power from the states.
You: Couldn’t disagree more. The states should have no power over national policy. The Constitution gives them almost no power over national policy. People like Paul try to superimpose the Articles of Confederation on the Constitution, but it isn’t valid. The primary purpose of the Constitution, which was written by the Federalists (get the root word of the name), was to move power from the state level to the federal level.
It really depends on your definition of national policy. What is national policy? Is it defense, yes definitely most would say. Is it Foreign Diplomacy, Absolutely, it is scary to imagine most governors acting on their own with a Foreign Country. But what about education, law enforcement, welfare, courts, and other civic responsibilities? It becomes less clear what should be a national policy and what should be a state or local policy. It sounds like Ron Paul and I think less power should be at the federal level and more at the local level.
Of course the Federalists wanted to move power from the states to the central government but they were trying to create a country that could act, trade and survive as one. I don’t even want to imagine what the added powers given to the central government now are for. Many states are telling the national government that they do not want help in certain instances and cant enforce the rules of the Patriot Act, the terror alert system, and the national ID Card system.
Me: >But I cant wait to continue reading your blog to hear which candidate is perfect.
You: No candidate is perfect, nor can they be. But almost all of them are better than Paul. This blog isn’t about that, though, so don’t look for it here. Check it out at my national blog from time to time, http://quinnell.us. This blog is about state and local politics.
All are better than Paul? Please tell me how. Well if you like several of them you probably like most of them. They are about the same and as not being pro war most are except for Kucinch. And I will talk about war later so back to the topic. So this blog is not about national politics but you felt the need to make an Anti Ron Paul post? And ostracize someone who supports him? He is in the national election not a Florida election.
Me: >Hopefully they will fix some of the most important issues you talk about. O wait they are ALL pro war and anti government reform.
You: First off, these aren’t the most important issues to me and I almost never talk about them. Second, none of the Democrats is pro-war. Third, none of the Democrats is anti-government reform. Just because they don’t agree with your version of government reform doesn’t make them opposed to other reforms.
Ok. You’re right these are really my most important points. I couldn’t catch a general theme from the legislation votes from Paul you don’t like. Above I said Kucinch is not prowar but most of the other Dem candidates really will not take a stand which is the old ignore-and-distract tactic.
Hillary voted for the Patriot Act.
She did not renounce the move to war.
Both Hillary and Obama will not commit to removing troops by 2013. They say it depends on “conditionsâ€. So basically there is no difference between them and Bush on removing troops from an illegal occupation. Great a ten year illegal occupation of a country. Another highpoint for America.
Hillary will not take a nuclear first strike off the table with Iran. WTF? Is this America? We threaten to nuke people first for little or no reason. They are not doing anything and not invading their neighbors. Very Bush like…
Obama said he might invade Pakistan if they do not provide Osama Bin Laden. Umm thats our ally….. Is he crazy or just not up on foreign policy. Both are possible, a few years ago he was a state legislator, not exactly the place to learn how to run the most powerful country in the world.
Obama who is on the committee considering HR 1955 that becomes S.1959 “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act†says that he will probably support it. And then if it passes someone will come arrest me for this and other comments.
Me: >And to be honest I see a lot of similarities between JFK and RP on some issues like intervention, war, federal reserve reform, controlling the military establishment. Not all, but some.
You: Nonsense.
I love a one word answer. It’s clear, it’s succinct but I don’t think it is correct.
It seems that Kennedy wanted more control back to the Treasury instead of the Fed Reserve:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=59049&st=&st1=
Ron Paul when talking to Ben Bernanke stated that the American people are being robbed and blamed the Federal Reserve. The dollar is down 10% to most currencies. It is down 7% to the Chinese yuan which is somewhat fixed to the dollar. And Bernanke doesn’t seem to have a problem with it.
Intervention War and the military industrialists are often intertwined.
Kennedy was not enthused with being involved in Vietnam and there was a 1,000 US troop reduction in October 1963. This later was changed after his death and after the 1964 election the war started to really escalate.
http://www.history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm
Ron Paul states that we should not have binding ties with any nation. Wars with no one except if ordered by Congress and trade with all countries. How many of our current problems would be avoided with these policies?
>I am not sure you can say Ron Paul’s non intervention, protect American interests first, anti war, and smaller executive branch power can be worse for America and the world.
Because this is only part of his agenda. Most of this sounds good. Almost everything else he says is batshit crazy.
>How many have died in Iraq and Afghanistan? 600,000? This is getting close to Holocaust and Khmer Rouge type numbers.
Khmer Rouge maybe, not even remotely Holocaust like.
>This is what we did with our troops, our money and our politicians. We will have to find a way to atone for this. I really don’t know how we can.
We didn’t do this. Bush voters did. People around the world are smart enough to know the difference. We can atone for it by putting a Democrat in the White House.
>”He lied about the Ron Paul Report.” I am not sure what this is. I googled and didn’t find it. Is this that newsletter to supporters?
It was a newsletter he sent to supporters back in the day. It was racist and loaded with far-right conspiracy theories. Most of it has been scrubbed from the web because Paul knows that if people read it, no one except people who are literally crazy would vote for him.
>That is true. Racism is racism. But there are definitely degrees of racism and non racism.
And all of them are wrong.
>It is difficult to have the type of life where you have never had any racist, sexist, or religiously discriminatory thoughts ever run through your head, or out your mouth.
Actually, it isn’t difficult at all. None of the Democratic candidates has said anything I’d put into any of these categories (except possibly Joe Biden, but to a much lesser extent). And it isn’t like Paul said minorly racist things, he said KKK-level things. This is why the KKK has endorsed him. Besides, thoughts aren’t an issue. It’s how you react to those thoughts — how you act, what you say and the like. Normal people fight those thoughts. Paul wrote those racist thoughts down and mailed them out to all his supporters. That’s incredibly wrong.
>If these newsletters were written for him or by him and he approved them that is definitely a not an all-loving moment.
More than that, they are moments of racist hate.
>But to compare some letters written after some crime issues, mailed to maybe 100 people who he knows exactly who he understands how they will take it, to being a member and even a leader of the KKK is a strange leap.
No, the content of those letters is exactly the same type of thing that KKK members write and say. And I didn’t say he was like a leader in the KKK, I said he was an unrepentant racist. That’s verifiably true. That’s a much bigger issue than what someone thinks about the war.
>I think those letters happened after the Rodney King riots. It was definitely reactionary to say anything. Not a shining moment to be sure, but not enough for me to write him off completely.
It should be, because they are horrible racist and evil things to say. If you can’t write off someone who would say those things, then I have to assume you are racist as well.
>Ok so it is never excusable? Never? Such a strong word – Never.
Yes, it is a strong word. And yes I meant it. It is never acceptable to be racist. Ever. No exceptions for any reason. Ever.
>What if you are a victim of a crime that seemed to be racially motivated.
Then you use the same brain you had before and wouldn’t become more like the people who victimized you. You would realize that while the people who racially attacked you (or whatever) were the exception and they were racists and you wouldn’t become a racist in response to that.
>Would it be a career ending situation if you described your assailants with a racial phrase to your friends or the police?
Yes.
>I can see someone doing that would not normally use a racist remark to do so.
And they would be 100% wrong to do so.
>So there should be some understanding of the circumstance and I don’t think we are getting it in this matter.
No there shouldn’t. Racism is never understandable.
>I would like to hear it myself but am not going to say he should withdraw from public life because he has these comments in his history.
I am. Just like I would say that Byrd, a Democrat, should not be in public life because he was a member of the KKK. If a black person commits a felony, they are removed from public life forever. If a white person advocates racism, that, to me, is worse than most felonies (that don’t involve violence).
>He is probably quite embarrassed by his actions.
And yet has not said so, so it’s very wrong to assume that he has.
>Well how many laws are brought before Congress that are just plain stupid?
Who cares. It only matters if they pass.
>A bridge to nowhere or feel good legislation….
Sure and I opposed the bridge to nowhere, a Republican proposal.
>Or one bill that Ron Paul voted “nay†on was the Sept 14th, 2001 bill recognizing Ramadan and Islam as a major religion. Do we need a bill to recognize Islam as a major religion?
Sure, we actually do. When anti-Islamic violence is on the rise and public officials (again, Republicans) are claiming all kinds of crazy things about Muslims, it’s important to clarify these are the official beliefs/policies of the U.S. government. This isn’t just “feel-good” legislation, this is public relations towards not only allies and enemies in other countries, but also to the millions of Islamic citizens who feel personally attacked by members of Congress.
>If people are that uninformed does the Congress think they read the bills that are passed and change their lives from it?
Yes, one of the things that Congress is supposed to do is educate the public. Education is a good thing.
>Congress needs less power, less bills, and less pork and maybe a little ego check.
Congress has little to no power now, they need more to balance out the president, not less. The idea that fewer bills is somehow inherently better than more bills is totally nonsensical. Content is what matters, not quantity. Less pork is a good idea, but pork is actually a relatively small portion of the budget, so it isn’t a major issue.
>But to think that someone will vote for everything that is good for their constituents and let the courts figure it out is how we run deficits decade after decade.
Actually, it isn’t. The Republican theory of tax cuts combined with spending increases (mostly on defense) explains almost all of the national debt and all of the current deficit. It’s a direct outgrowth of the policies of Reagan, Bush, and Bush, who account for almost all of the national debt and, again 100% of the current deficit, which didn’t exist when Bush came to office. FDR managed to win WWII and end the great depression and when his last term was over, we were out of debt.
>If Congress was paying more attention maybe bills like the Patriot Act would not make it to law.
Not quite the case. The bill was presented at the last minute by Republicans who rushed the vote through. It wasn’t simply a matter of not paying attention, it was a matter of the Republicans gaming the system so that nobody had time to read it.
>It seems to be and has been proven by some courts to be unconstitutional but after 4 years it is still there in all its habeas corpus denying beauty.
Not quite. Some parts of it were ruled unconstitutional, the rest hasn’t gone before the courts yet. It is a bill that is “severable,” meaning that if one part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest stays in effect. Each part has to be challenged individually.
>It does not seem like we can trust the Supreme Court with their current members to enforce the Constitution on these types of issues.
That I agree with.
>It really depends on your definition of national policy. What is national policy? Is it defense, yes definitely most would say. Is it Foreign Diplomacy, Absolutely, it is scary to imagine most governors acting on their own with a Foreign Country. But what about education, law enforcement, welfare, courts, and other civic responsibilities? It becomes less clear what should be a national policy and what should be a state or local policy.
It’s actually not unclear. All of these things are laid out in the Constitution.
>It sounds like Ron Paul and I think less power should be at the federal level and more at the local level.
No power is at the local level. Local governments can do nothing that states don’t allow them to. All power is either at the national level or the state level.
>All are better than Paul? Please tell me how.
Read the original post. I’ll start with the racism thing. The only other candidate who has expressed any open racism is Tancredo. Then there’s the whole thing about eliminating almost every program in the government, which Paul has explicitly said he favors. To me, it’s insane to call for the end of the Department of Education. I could go on, but I already posted much of the stuff I think is crazy above and almost none of the other candidates agree with Paul on these things.
>Well if you like several of them you probably like most of them.
“Like” isn’t an appropriate word when dealing with politicians. I could care less if I like them or not. It’s about voting for the person who would do the best job and preventing the person who would do the worse job from getting into office. Paul would almost undoubtedly do the worst job, with only Tancredo even being close.
>They are about the same and as not being pro war most are except for Kucinch.
This is complete nonsense. Almost none of the Democrats are pro-war. Of the Dems the longest period of time that any has suggested they’d take to end the war would be a year and a half. That’s not pro-war.
>So this blog is not about national politics but you felt the need to make an Anti Ron Paul post? And ostracize someone who supports him?
Did you even read the post? It was about someone who was running for office in Florida and their judgment in switching parties to vote for Paul. In order to show that her judgment was wrong, I had to show how crazy Paul is.
>I couldn’t catch a general theme from the legislation votes from Paul you don’t like.
The general theme is that Paul is wrong on almost every issue except for the few that relate to the war and habeus corpus and things like that.
>Above I said Kucinch is not prowar but most of the other Dem candidates really will not take a stand which is the old ignore-and-distract tactic.
But they have taken a stand. I’ve seen them all do it in person.
>Hillary voted for the Patriot Act.
And? Singling out one vote, particularly one passed so close to 9/11. At the time, it was dangerous to vote against the bill and most Democrats weren’t given time to examine it. So their choice at the time was vote for it and fix it later or vote against it and be painted as weak on national security in the wake of 9/11. I disagree with her vote, but I understand it.
>She did not renounce the move to war.
Then, she has now.
>Both Hillary and Obama will not commit to removing troops by 2013.
But both have said they will begin withdrawing troops within the first year they are in office.
>They say it depends on “conditionsâ€.
Which is how the real world works. If, for instance, we start pulling out our troops and insurgents attempt to commit genocide that wipes out all of the Kurds, we would have to stop that. It’s unlikely, but only an idiot makes 100% guarantees in politics. Those guarantees come back to haunt you later.
>So basically there is no difference between them and Bush on removing troops from an illegal occupation.
There is no logic to this conclusion whatsoever. Bush = invaded a country illegally while lying about it and willing to stay there indefinitely no matter what. Hillary and Obama = didn’t invade a country illegally (Obama always opposed it, Hillary voted for a legal authorization that Bush violated), didn’t lie about it and willing to start removing troops immediately upon coming to office. Those are not only not basically the same, they aren’t even similar.
>Hillary will not take a nuclear first strike off the table with Iran.
And? Hillary also didn’t say “I’m going to nuke Iran.” During a campaign, you avoid saying things that will play into your opponents hands. If she appears to be weak on national security, that plays into Republican hands. If she appears to be strong on it, even if part of that includes bluffing, then she doesn’t play into Republican hands.
>We threaten to nuke people first for little or no reason.
But she didn’t threaten to nuke them. She said that she wasn’t taking it off the table. What if we got credible evidence that Iran had acquired a nuke and planned to use it on Israel? If she then used it in that incredibly unlikely scenario, she is accurately called a liar by pretty much everyone. She didn’t say anything more than it is an option. She didn’t say she had any intention of using that option. If Bush didn’t use nukes on anyone, there’s no way Hillary is going to.
>They are not doing anything and not invading their neighbors.
While they aren’t invading anyone, to say they are doing nothing is incorrect. The evidence is clear that they are violating international law, which is why the U.N. and pretty much everyone else is condemning them. They aren’t calling for war — and neither is Hillary — but they Iran isn’t simply some innocent little country sitting there doing nothing.
>Obama said he might invade Pakistan if they do not provide Osama Bin Laden.
Sure, in the very unlikely event that they are harboring Bin Laden. You jump to conclusions that are not warranted by any evidence.
>Umm thats our ally…..
But if they violate the terms of that alliance, that alliance becomes null and void. Prior to the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, we were allies with the Taliban. Their support for al-Qaeda changed that. Heck, if Canada bombed us tomorrow, the alliance would be over. You seem to want candidates to talk in absolutes in politics, where few, if any, absolutes exist.
>Obama who is on the committee considering HR 1955 that becomes S.1959 “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act†says that he will probably support it. And then if it passes someone will come arrest me for this and other comments.
Complete tin-foil hat conspiracy nonsense. You can’t expect to have rational conversations with people when you make claims like this.
>It seems that Kennedy wanted more control back to the Treasury instead of the Fed Reserve:
They also both had hair. Does that make them similar? Obviously not, finding random obscure things to compare them on, while ignoring everything else, is ludicrous.
>Ron Paul when talking to Ben Bernanke stated that the American people are being robbed and blamed the Federal Reserve.
Which is a bit crazy.
>The dollar is down 10% to most currencies. It is down 7% to the Chinese yuan which is somewhat fixed to the dollar.
Which is because of Republican economic policies.
>And Bernanke doesn’t seem to have a problem with it.
Because he works for the people who created the situation.
>Ron Paul states that we should not have binding ties with any nation.
Which is just plane insane. The real world requires that countries work together.
>Wars with no one except if ordered by Congress and trade with all countries.
Already the case.
>How many of our current problems would be avoided with these policies?
With Paul in office, I’m guessing few, if any.
I will try to be more brief this time. We must be annoying people.
You say other parts of his agenda is “batshit crazyâ€. I have seen this in another post of yours too. Please tell me which policies and why? I know the DOE elimination you do not agree on. We were talking about this on Ronpaulforums the other day. The DOE is what like 4,000 employees? I personally can’t remember ever seeing any effect of from them. I think the states and School Districts can do a better job. I would prefer to see maybe 4,000 new teachers or better programs.
I did not say any form of racism is good. It is bad, I think most people will at a later date feel bad for what they have done and said. But most people are also at some time prejudiced in some ways.
As for racism, I alluded in my first post that Ron Paul is very outspoken. If he said those racist things he must have been upset and he does come from a different generation than we probably do. Have you never heard an older member of your family say something prejudicial? It’s embarrassing but I don’t hate them for it. I try to understand them and teach them understanding.
That other person Byrd was a leader in the KKK. And no I did not know that, I had to look it up before you go espousing that I am a racist again.
A career ending thing is to say a racist thing ever? So I guess Jesse Jackson, John Edwards and many other people need to go live in a cave somewhere? John Edwards recently stated that basically pretty soon all African Americans will be locked up in prison or dead. This is racist. He is basically doing the same thing as Ron Paul supposedly did in a much different context and I hope in a different age. He might have been joking I have not seen the clip, but it is not funny.
Racism can be a crime sometimes especially when combined with a violent act it can become a “hate crimeâ€. But I really don’t think it is worse than a felony. Felonies are serious, prison inducing, career limiting, family destroying events. Saying something can have that same magnitude? I think words are a just that, words, a temporary display of an idea.
I really don’t think the founding fathers wanted 500 people meeting and making feel good legislation. And again the people that did those post 9/11 hate crimes I did investigate. They were uneducated, narrow minded, reactionary fools. They don’t care what Congress does and I would bet money they could not name their representatives. What Congress thinks they are doing and what they are actually accomplishing are two different things. Again they need an ego check and to get out of their ivory towers.
I agree that Republicans that are supposed to be for smaller government have somehow spent us into oblivion. Bush Jr. has just basically doubled the national debt in 6 years. I wouldn’t think that is possible. But I add that the Democrats have had two years to change this and haven’t. I actually don’t like either party and feel betrayed. Many other people do too. I think you will see how many tomorrow and in the next few months. I agree defense spending is totally out of control. When the Soviet Union collapsed I actually felt the USA would change significantly and money would go to social improvements, it hasn’t.
That is a weak excuse that they could not read the Patriot Act it so they had to vote on it. I would not vote for anyone that did and I hope others do the same. Would you buy a car or house without reading the paperwork? Or at least skimming it? And just a few days ago the Representatives allowed a quick vote on the Next Terrorism bill. No one can even ask for a standard vote? They are all corrupt, threatened, or weak.
When I said local level I mean wherever it is closest to those affected. States would for taxation reasons have to control some issues or at least disburse money. But some things like education should be done mostly by the school districts with some state oversight IMO. If people want to improve education they can become a teacher or go to their School District meetings.
The statements by the front runner Democrat candidates does not seem to me to be a complete disdain for war. I think that is what it will take at this time. There are huge expensive complexes and bases being built in Iraq. The pressure to stay there will be enormous for the new president. If they are not committed I really don’t see it happening. Remember we were sold this war as a cakewalk and a 6 month thing. We are still there 4 years later and building 50 year bases. If someone is now saying a year and a half it really means at least 3 or 4 years. Basically it will be a distraction attempt to get everyone to go back to Brittney and American Idol.
Yes I singled out Hillarys one vote on the Patriot Act. You singled out a bunch of votes on RP. If I had time maybe I could research that for Hillary. I don’t. I think the Patriot Act and the War involvement is a defining moment and has let us seen a lot of Congress’s weaknesses and values.
Withdrawing troops does not mean leaving. There is a huge difference and a slow withdrawal will only prolong our waste and Iraq’s suffering. Britain stopped patrolling one city which I cant remember the name. Basra? Attacks are down 90%. Our troops are drawing fire and getting us and civilians killed. As for being the same as Bush I do not believe that they will remove quickly. I think it will be a new face on the old war game.
I know it is unconstitutional and against international law to threaten to attack another country in any way. I think their wink-wink off the table is a threat. If someone with 30,000 nukes said they might do it I would feel threatened. This is not how we help our image or build lasting natural relationships in that area.
It is childish and not in line with how every other country in the world operates, including those with power like Russia and China. Obama is saber rattling and Clinton would not denounce it. Obama goes further to state “When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won,” He is basically the same ideas with maybe a change of venue. How many troops and trillions should we waste in Pakistan? And yes maybe our alliance may become void if they are harboring “terrorists†but this is not an excuse to attack. In fact it is against international law. Libya harbored, trained, and funded terrorists for years and yet we did not feel the need to attack them constantly. I guess there is not enough oil in North Africa.
I was joking about the Homegrown Terrorist Act and getting arrested. But why is the language and the affected parties on these bills so vague? Why not a normal vote but a rushed vote? Are they trying to avoid Ron Paul and others coming back to DC to vote on this for symbolic reasons, as the vote was overwhelming for it?
Why is the dollar going down crazy? There are some people who are not affected but I am not one of them. I try to limit my exposure but to be honest if lots of people do what I do it will destroy the dollar when the excess dollars come home to the USA.
If someone went in your home or bank account and took 10% of your wealth you would be upset. This is happening en masse. Right now try moving to another country and transferring your money, as soon as you do you will have realized this theft. The dollar is down to every currency practically except a few odd currencies. If you were Chinese and saved a larger percentage of your income than any other countries people why would you invest in a shrinking currency who’s chair does not care that it is devaluing and is using it to push American “weak†exports? Personally I would invest in the Euro or something else if I was an overseas investor. The Euro monetary committee actually cares about the value of their currency.
We have had fairly binding agreements with several countries that have hurt us and continue to hurt us. Working together is fine, but binding contracts are conflict creating and polarizing.
I don’t believe we have declared war since WWII. I could be wrong. I am sure you will tell me if I am wrong. When Congress authorizes force I hope and am recently wrong that this means a limited conflict not 4 year wars that are going to drag on longer than WWI and probably WWII. The power to use force I feel needs to come back to the Congress in a more controlled fashion and they need to have the leadership to give constraints and time limits to the executive branch.
Oops – sorry I wrote a novel again. I really did not mean to. Have a nice day and look for the donations on the 16th. If nothing else it will give you something else to write about.
>You say other parts of his agenda is “batshit crazyâ€.
Like I said, reread the post. Almost everything between “Ron Paul is wrong on the issues” and the end of the post is crazy. If you want to know why about specific policies, ask and I’ll explain, there’s no need to explain all of them at this point.
>I know the DOE elimination you do not agree on. We were talking about this on Ronpaulforums the other day. The DOE is what like 4,000 employees? I personally can’t remember ever seeing any effect of from them. I think the states and School Districts can do a better job. I would prefer to see maybe 4,000 new teachers or better programs.
So you have no idea what they do, haven’t looked into it and want to get rid of it? That’s not a valid approach or a valid opinion.
>But most people are also at some time prejudiced in some ways.
Which excuses nothing.
>As for racism, I alluded in my first post that Ron Paul is very outspoken. If he said those racist things he must have been upset and he does come from a different generation than we probably do.
All of this is completely irrelevant. Racism is racism and there is no excusable reason to engage in it.
>Have you never heard an older member of your family say something prejudicial? It’s embarrassing but I don’t hate them for it. I try to understand them and teach them understanding.
I don’t hate them for it either, but I would never vote for them for public office, much less president.
>That other person Byrd was a leader in the KKK. And no I did not know that, I had to look it up before you go espousing that I am a racist again.
My comment about you had nothing to do with Byrd, it had to do with Paul. If you are willing to vote for someone who has not only said the things that Paul has said, but has refused to apologize for them or retract them and, instead, lied about them, then I have to ask whether or not you are a racist.
>A career ending thing is to say a racist thing ever? So I guess Jesse Jackson,
Jackson has certainly said things that were anti-Semitic. I’m not aware of any racist quotes. Either way, I’ve never voted for him and never would.
>John Edwards and many other people need to go live in a cave somewhere? John Edwards recently stated that basically pretty soon all African Americans will be locked up in prison or dead. This is racist.
This would be racist, but I guarantee that he did not say this.
>Racism can be a crime sometimes especially when combined with a violent act it can become a “hate crimeâ€. But I really don’t think it is worse than a felony. Felonies are serious, prison inducing, career limiting, family destroying events. Saying something can have that same magnitude? I think words are a just that, words, a temporary display of an idea.
Not all felonies fit your description, they vary greatly and some of them cause no direct harm to anyone. They also vary significantly from state to state. Things like drug possession, even in relatively small quantities can be a felony. Not only is there no harm caused by this on a personal level, there’s certainly no bigger societal problem created by personal use on a small level. On the other hand, racism, even legal racism can cause a significant societal problem and lead to things like prejudice, segregation, violence, riots, etc. And when a significant public official says things like this, in makes the problem much worse as many more people are willing to feel encouraged or have their hatred reinforced by such words.
>I really don’t think the founding fathers wanted 500 people meeting and making feel good legislation.
And what’s your evidence for that belief? I suggest you check out the legislative record of the first few Congresses. I’ll wager you won’t think this anymore. Where do you think modern Congresses got the idea?
>And again the people that did those post 9/11 hate crimes I did investigate. They were uneducated, narrow minded, reactionary fools. They don’t care what Congress does and I would bet money they could not name their representatives. What Congress thinks they are doing and what they are actually accomplishing are two different things.
But this is something you are guessing.
>Again they need an ego check and to get out of their ivory towers.
Do you even know how members get elected? They spend more time doing “casework,” or personal favors for constituents, than anything else. During the campaign, the walk door to door on a daily basis and talk directly to constituents. That’s not ivory tower.
>Bush Jr. has just basically doubled the national debt in 6 years. I wouldn’t think that is possible. But I add that the Democrats have had two years to change this and haven’t.
No they haven’t. In the Senate, the Republicans have a filibuster-proof minority, meaning that the Democrats have to get 60 votes to pass anything the Republicans oppose. Then, the president has the ability to veto anything they pass, requiring 67 votes for an override (in addition to a 2/3rds majority in the House as well). The Democrats haven’t stopped this because they don’t have the power to stop it. They have 49 votes. The Democrats have actually been so active in trying to change things, that the number of filibusters this year was a record. The number of vetoes this year was also a record. The lack of progress is 100% at the feet of the Republicans.
>I actually don’t like either party and feel betrayed. Many other people do too.
If you feel betrayed by the Democrats, then you don’t understand how our federal government works.
>I think you will see how many tomorrow and in the next few months.
We’ve already seen that people feel betrayed by the Republicans. The 2006 elections showed that. The 2008 elections will, without any doubt, lead to an increase in the number of Democrats in Congress. If a Democratic president is also elected, you’ll see significant changes.
>That is a weak excuse that they could not read the Patriot Act it so they had to vote on it. I would not vote for anyone that did and I hope others do the same.
Then you don’t understand the realities of how our political system works. When the president is at 90% approval rating and an even higher percentage of the people want a quick response to 9/11 and the Republicans twist the rules by introducing the bill in too short a time to read it, you have to respond and you have to do so in a way that reflects the will of your constituents. The public overwhelmingly wanted the Patriot Act at the time. Members who didn’t pay attention to that took their jobs in their hands. If you are a member of Congress because you want to make the world a better place, you realize you can’t do that if you get voted out of office, so you choose your battles wisely.
>Would you buy a car or house without reading the paperwork? Or at least skimming it?
Most people do.
>They are all corrupt, threatened, or weak.
This kind of broad generalization is nonsense. Many of them voted against both of these bills. Others voted for it because that’s what their constituents wanted. Others voted for it because they thought it was the right thing to do. Some of them voted for it because they are corrupt, threatened or weak. But just because someone disagrees with your personal take on a law (or mine) doesn’t mean they are corrupt, threatened or weak. There are always other possibilities.
>When I said local level I mean wherever it is closest to those affected. States would for taxation reasons have to control some issues or at least disburse money. But some things like education should be done mostly by the school districts with some state oversight IMO.
But this isn’t currently the way our system works. Local governments have no power other than what the state gives them. I think they should have some leeway within certain guidelines, but they shouldn’t be independent. I think the same thing for the states.
>If people want to improve education they can become a teacher or go to their School District meetings.
Or they can vote for or against the politicians who make the policies. Not everyone has the time or the know-how to do what you suggest.
>The statements by the front runner Democrat candidates does not seem to me to be a complete disdain for war. I think that is what it will take at this time.
No, it’ll just take Democrats.
>There are huge expensive complexes and bases being built in Iraq. The pressure to stay there will be enormous for the new president.
And they’ll have both the power and the will to avoid that pressure. The pressure of the voters is quite powerful as well.
>If they are not committed I really don’t see it happening.
That’s cynicism and pessimism, it isn’t an accurate evaluation of the evidence.
>Remember we were sold this war as a cakewalk and a 6 month thing. We are still there 4 years later and building 50 year bases.
We were told that by right-wing Republicans. Not by Democrats.
>If someone is now saying a year and a half it really means at least 3 or 4 years. Basically it will be a distraction attempt to get everyone to go back to Brittney and American Idol.
This would make since if it were said by the same people. In this case, it’s begin said by other people. What you are actually saying here is that since one group of people lied about the war, that means a group of people on the opposite side who said the first group are liars is also going to lie. That makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.
>Yes I singled out Hillarys one vote on the Patriot Act. You singled out a bunch of votes on RP.
Do you not see the difference here? “One vote” vs. “a bunch of votes.” That’s the whole point. One vote means nothing. Even a small handful of votes means nothing. A bunch of votes is evidence of a pattern and establishes what someone will do in the future. A single vote doesn’t do that. I actually cited 66 paragraphs of Ron Paul’s record, most of those lines representative of many votes. There are some issues he’s right on. Most he’s not even close. 66 paragraphs representing hundreds upon hundreds of actual votes is convincing evidence. One or two votes is not.
>I think the Patriot Act and the War involvement is a defining moment and has let us seen a lot of Congress’s weaknesses and values.
And yet, you ignore a large part of what Hillary actually says on the issue. You pick out two votes from 5-6 years ago and ignore everything else. That’s not valid reasoning.
>Withdrawing troops does not mean leaving.
Yes it does. That’s how you start leaving. Notice I didn’t say a drawdown, I said withdrawing.
>There is a huge difference and a slow withdrawal will only prolong our waste and Iraq’s suffering.
That’s your opinion. It isn’t mine. It isn’t the opinion of any of the generals or commanders on the ground in Iraq.
>Britain stopped patrolling one city which I cant remember the name. Basra? Attacks are down 90%.
Basra isn’t representative of other areas in the country.
>As for being the same as Bush I do not believe that they will remove quickly. I think it will be a new face on the old war game.
So you are calling them all liars with no evidence to support the claim?
>I know it is unconstitutional and against international law to threaten to attack another country in any way.
Actually, no it isn’t. It’s unconstitutional and illegal under international law to attack a country without provocation, but threats aren’t illegal.
>This is not how we help our image or build lasting natural relationships in that area.
No, you do that by talking to them. Not by refusing to talk to them at all, as Bush does. Not by withdrawing within America’s borders and ignoring the rest of the world, as Paul would have us do.
>It is childish and not in line with how every other country in the world operates, including those with power like Russia and China.
Are you serious? Ask the people in Chechnya. Ask the people in Taiwan and Tibet. This isn’t even remotely true.
>Obama is saber rattling and Clinton would not denounce it.
I’ve seen no evidence of this. Not all statements from all people mean the same thing. The world is much more complex than that. They all repeatedly talk about how different they are from Bush and co. and yet you, without any evidence, think that means that when they say something it means the same thing as our current dishonest president. You also take things in isolation and not as part of the bigger whole.
>Obama goes further to state “When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won,â€
He’s referring to the war on terror, not an attack on a particular country.
>He is basically the same ideas with maybe a change of venue.
Not even remotely the same. When someone refers to the war on drugs or the war on homelessness, does that necessarily mean the use of weapons? Of course not. Neither does the war on terror. Such a war can and should be fought using diplomacy and law enforcement and that’s what Obama — and the other Dems — have proposed.
>How many troops and trillions should we waste in Pakistan?
At this point, none. Which is what Obama has committed to using.
>And yes maybe our alliance may become void if they are harboring “terrorists†but this is not an excuse to attack.
If those terrorists have attacked us and they received support from the Pakistani government, then yes it is.
>In fact it is against international law. Libya harbored, trained, and funded terrorists for years and yet we did not feel the need to attack them constantly. I guess there is not enough oil in North Africa.
No, this isn’t against international law. In fact, it’s not only legal, it’s very legal. See Afghanistan. Almost every country and international agency supported our invasion of Afghanistan. Also, the Libya example is a terrible one, because we did attack them in 1986.
>But why is the language and the affected parties on these bills so vague?
That’s how laws get passed. Very specific bills never pass. Vague bills pass. This is not just true of these kinds of bills, it is true of all kinds of bills. The U.S. Constitution may actually be the vaguest legislation ever passed.
>Why not a normal vote but a rushed vote?
What’s the evidence that this vote was anything other than normal?
>Are they trying to avoid Ron Paul and others coming back to DC to vote on this for symbolic reasons, as the vote was overwhelming for it?
Take of the tin foil hat.
>Why is the dollar going down crazy? There are some people who are not affected but I am not one of them. I try to limit my exposure but to be honest if lots of people do what I do it will destroy the dollar when the excess dollars come home to the USA.
I didn’t say the dollar going down was crazy. Obviously it’s going down. What I said was saying that the Fed is robbing us is crazy.
>If someone went in your home or bank account and took 10% of your wealth you would be upset.
Right, and since the Republicans did this, that’s one of the many reasons I’m voting for Democrats. This isn’t quite what has happened anyway. There is no theif here. What there is is a group of people who don’t understand economics running the economy. It’s more like Enron that theft.
>This is happening en masse. Right now try moving to another country and transferring your money, as soon as you do you will have realized this theft.
“En masse” is an exaggeration, since very few people are moving to other countries.
>We have had fairly binding agreements with several countries that have hurt us and continue to hurt us. Working together is fine, but binding contracts are conflict creating and polarizing.
There are a few things that fit this description, but most of our agreements don’t even remotely do this. Just as an economy can’t work without binding contracts, international relations can’t work without binding treaties.
>I don’t believe we have declared war since WWII. I could be wrong. I am sure you will tell me if I am wrong.
Yes, you are definitely wrong. Both Iraq wars and the invasion of Afghanistan were all formally approved by Congress in a constitutional manner.
>When Congress authorizes force I hope and am recently wrong that this means a limited conflict not 4 year wars that are going to drag on longer than WWI and probably WWII.
Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution or the law that puts time limits on a war. It would be dangerous to do that, anyway. What if we had a legitimate war and it took longer than the limitation?
>The power to use force I feel needs to come back to the Congress in a more controlled fashion and they need to have the leadership to give constraints and time limits to the executive branch.
They do have all of this. The Republican party, which controlled Congress at the time, simply capitulated to what Bush wanted. Once that happened, the Democratic Congress had no ability to reverse that. This isn’t a change, this is the way it has always been.
I again reread your post for the third time and really do not see with my perception, and some interpretation with what is not explained or presented, why I should see him as “batshit crazyâ€. That is not to say that you don’t, it is just that we have different political views and values. I do think that you know much more than me about the political system. But your views on Ron Paul are jaded quite a bit by being immersed in the values of that system. You think that is bad to have groups that are considered somehow worthy to give you a bad score and vice-versa. I do not consider an “A†rating from a hemp group to mean anything except they know he won’t pester them about using a mild narcotic and may even revoke silly laws and stop pursuing a mindless “War on Drugsâ€. And good groups give him bad ratings all the time. Why? I am not sure. Maybe they are in step with some political group or candidate. US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have donated more to his campaign than any other Republican candidate. Go on Youtube and look for videos from troops about him. So I think that generalizing that the military is against him because one of thousands of groups, PACs and lobbyists supporting troops does not seem to ring true. Showing a list of good groups that don’t give him high marks and then a few that most people would not support, that do support him looks like a TV-news sound bite to me. Ron Paul has a much different record than most politicians, He receives NO corporate contributions usually because he does not ask for them and does not give favors. If you asked the Fortune 500 companies, most would probably say they don’t support him. This does not mean by itself that he is bad. In fact I would argue just the opposite. Those activist groups have loyalties, beliefs, and histories that are difficult to understand easily without being a member of those groups.
Again it is clear that racism is a polarizing and blinding topic to you. I liked Ron Paul’s record and message for the future. I saw that he was and is getting unfair treatment in the press and wanted to help him. Then I learned of the possible racist statements. This does not mean in anyway that I like that part of his past. In fact their was a big chance that I would quit supporting him if I saw serious policy issues or thought there was a chance for him to repeat these embarrassments or to evoke governmental action to support such thoughts. I have seen other Ron Paul supporters consider the same and research the same articles. In the future there maybe some record of the “Ron Paul Report†that causes me to back another candidate. Your argument is like saying “Well you support a candidate who embezzled funds, so I must ask you are you an embezzler?â€
John Edwards clip on African Americans will all soon be locked up or dead:
http://think.mtv.com/044FDFFFF0098989A001700989F55/
I see your point on how racism by anyone especially an elected official can escalate it and emblazon others to do the same. This is a serious issue. I have not voted for the Primaries or the main election obviously. I might find some past action or position of his forcing me to no longer support him but have not yet.
Your comments in several places are very belittling. Yes I know that we attacked Libya, how members of Congress are elected, and I have read your post several times. Reading and understanding your post does not somehow make me agree with you. Some if it actually makes me like him more. Some of it I would be interested in knowing the circumstance or his defense on his position but is not damning. He is a ten term Congressman and a controversial one at that. Legislation often has odd circumstances or is opposed to some other belief or bill. This would take serious research, and comments from Ron Paul to fully understand all of these.
As for the “Homegrown Terrorism†bill. While trying to find a source you would like I found this interesting article showing that a thinktank the Rand Corporation wrote it: http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/20/homegrown_terrorism_prevention_act_raises_fears
It appears the bill was supported by a Democrat and there was a “suspension of regular order†reserved usually for non controversial bills. I don’t think this bill is non-controversial. The Patriot Act bills have been controversial for years. And this suspension of regular rules requires then a 2/3 majority to pass. Obviously the democrats could have stopped it by voting with numbers. But the vote was 400 – 6. Ron Paul complained when he returned: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr120507h.htm
I called them corrupt, threatened or weak because I see a pattern of not protecting their constituents, avoiding war, and preserving privacy. In the first Patriot Act they could have prevented from getting 3/5s and from going to the Senate and didn’t. Several people including one republican voted against it. But most Democrats and almost all Republicans voted for it later admitting they did not read it. In 2005 the Patriot act was extended and now the Homegrown Terrorism gets a fast vote and 98% vote for it. People don’t think they are the subject of such bills but who knows when your beliefs get in the way of the establishment at a “flash mob†or anti-WTO rally and instead of getting a disturbing the peace fine you are branded a homegrown terrorist with all the lack of civil liberties that will ensue.
My beliefs on the war and their timetables show lots of cynicism and a lack of distinct difference between the two groups, that is true. But they both vote for Authorization of force to attack, vote for Patriot Act bills, and then almost all vote for the “Homegrown Terrorosm†bill. In debates they continue to show the possibility of a nuclear first strike. This would seem mad 20 years ago, I do not know why it isn’t now. I see Hillary being groomed for the Whitehouse by the media including Fox News. They should hate her from their past blind following and encouragement of Bush Policies. I know you are going to say this is “tin foil hat†but why is Robert Murdoch doing this? Do you not get the slightest bit worried about handing the Whitehouse back and forth between two families for basically 32 years if you consider Bush Sr. a major factor in the Reagan years which I do. I really think it is good for the country and for citizen’s frame of mind to get a fresh start.
Well there are generals that do not support the war although they are not “on the groundâ€. I find that part (on the ground) very difficult to expect for a military leader, but here is a nice article: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/23/4048/
I am definitely not supporting Bush’s foreign policy if you can even call it that. He actually never traveled outside of the US before becoming president – hehe. Paul does not seem to be an isolationist. By stopping wars, overseas bases, and prison camps we will be making an effort to try to get back to where we were and hopefully better. We have been destabilizing and destroying countries for 150 years, if someone can ensure the world this has stopped that would be great for the world I believe.
Yes China and Russia have done atrocities in territories they consider theirs. Taiwan is basically Chinese but refuses to go back and the President of Taiwan is enjoying this. I was talking about in the Eurasian region. Since Afghanistan, Russia has not invaded outside of its territory or occupied other countries with bases. Why can’t we at least pretend we are more just than them?
Yes Obama was talking about a terror war without actually defining an enemy or a country. Does this not concern you? And he did say that he would invade Pakistan if they did not cooperate. Is this a scare tactic, or a misplaced foreign policy? And there has still not been a court case proving Bin Laden did anything so why chase him all over the world killing hundreds of thousands? If there is proof start proceedings for a court case in Hague or the UN, cognizant of the fact that at the WTC 3,000 good people died but this does not give us the right to kill 3 or 3,000 of another country we feel is responsible without a court trial.
The dollar devaluation is like theft. They are incompetent and overly proud of economic controls but they know what is happening and are encouraging it. The M3 number showing cash in the market is not being reported anymore but is being inferred by outside people and seems to be increasing when really they should be pulling in money supply because of diminished demand and use for dollars.
http://www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.html
Bernanke is doing this to encourage USA exports and tourism but this is a dangerous game if others decide to stop playing.
Iraq and Afghanistan are authorized use of force, not “Congress Declared Warsâ€. And I looked it up and WWII was the last declared war.
And I have enjoyed this debate.
>I again reread your post for the third time and really do not see with my perception, and some interpretation with what is not explained or presented, why I should see him as “batshit crazyâ€.
Like I said, if you want to know about specifics, then ask about specifics, I’m not going to go through and explain every paragraph.
>But your views on Ron Paul are jaded quite a bit by being immersed in the values of that system.
I’m not quite sure what you mean here, but it doesn’t fit with anything I’m aware of.
>You think that is bad to have groups that are considered somehow worthy to give you a bad score and vice-versa.
I don’t “think” it is bad, it is bad. If a group is bad and they endorse someone, then that is a bad thing. If a group is good and they endorse someone, that is a good thing. That’s the point of the grades.
>I do not consider an “A†rating from a hemp group to mean anything except they know he won’t pester them about using a mild narcotic and may even revoke silly laws and stop pursuing a mindless “War on Drugsâ€.
No, it means his voting record on issue the group finds important is in line with what the group wants. Like I said, I don’t disagree with everything Paul says. On this one, I would likely get an A from the hemp group, too.
>And good groups give him bad ratings all the time. Why? I am not sure. Maybe they are in step with some political group or candidate.
This is a terrible interpretation and a lack of basic knowledge about how these groups work. Again, you are making conclusions about something you don’t understand. A grade from one of these groups is based upon how the person voted on issue the group finds important. If the group favors the legalization of marijuana and they give someone a 100%, that means the person voted 100% of the time the way the group would’ve voted if it had a vote.
>US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have donated more to his campaign than any other Republican candidate.
But the other Republicans are all really wrong on these issues, so this isn’t at all surprising.
>So I think that generalizing that the military is against him because one of thousands of groups, PACs and lobbyists supporting troops does not seem to ring true.
I’m not sure what you are responding to here. I read back over the comments and didn’t see anything that I said suggeting the military is against him. Maybe I missed it.
>Showing a list of good groups that don’t give him high marks and then a few that most people would not support, that do support him looks like a TV-news sound bite to me.
No, I included every group I could find. It’s not a soundbite, it’s a wide-ranging evaluation of his voting record.
>Ron Paul has a much different record than most politicians, He receives NO corporate contributions usually because he does not ask for them and does not give favors. If you asked the Fortune 500 companies, most would probably say they don’t support him. This does not mean by itself that he is bad.
But it doesn’t mean that he is good, either. One reason those companies don’t give him money is because he doesn’t ask for it. Another would be that many of them probably disagree with him politically. My guess is that he wouldn’t get much if he asked for it, making the whole point moot.
>Those activist groups have loyalties, beliefs, and histories that are difficult to understand easily without being a member of those groups.
They aren’t difficult at all. They all have mission statements that make it pretty clear what they believe and why. The pro-hemp group doesn’t support the legalization of hemp because of some loyalty to a politician or history, it’s because they think hemp should be legal.
>Again it is clear that racism is a polarizing and blinding topic to you.
It should be polarizing everyone. Not opposing racism means supporting it. It isn’t blinding at all. I’m not opposed to Paul just because of his racism, although that would be enough. I oppose him because he’s not even remotely progressive on 90% of issues and that, to me, is terrible. When you say that racism is “blinding” me, you are saying that it isn’t a valid or important issue. I don’t see how one could make such comments without being racist.
>I saw that he was and is getting unfair treatment in the press and wanted to help him.
If anything, the press has been overly beneficial to him. They’ve given him a pass on his crazier issue stances and they’ve allowed him to be talked about as if he were a legitimate presidential contender, rather than the crazy outsider he is.
>Then I learned of the possible racist statements.
Nothing “possible” about it. They are racist. 100% racist without any possibility of any other interpretation.
>In fact their was a big chance that I would quit supporting him if I saw serious policy issues or thought there was a chance for him to repeat these embarrassments or to evoke governmental action to support such thoughts.
The fact that he won’t renounce those earlier statements or even disagree with them is clear evidence that he could repeat them.
>Your argument is like saying “Well you support a candidate who embezzled funds, so I must ask you are you an embezzler?â€
No, this is terrible logic. Embezzlement is something that, in addition to intent, requires ability and opportunity. A poor, stupid unemployed person may want to be an embezzler, but will never be one no matter how hard he tries because he doesn’t have opportunity or ability. Racism, on the other hand, only requires intent. Someone who supports a racist is, by definition, a racist.
>John Edwards clip on African Americans will all soon be locked up or dead:
Sometimes I wonder about your critical thinking skills. You have to look at context and have to understand the concept of rhetoric. In this comment he’s talking about inner-city black males, not about all African-Americans. He’s also explaining what the logical extension of the current policies are. He’s not saying he thinks all black people will be dead or in jail. It’s clear you misunderstood what he was saying, but maybe you should look for other interpretations of someone’s comments than just your own. We all make mistakes. If Edwards had actually said what you thought he did, there would’ve been a huge outcry from the black community. There was none. Why not? Maybe because black people understood what he actually said. Now, I know how you like conspiracies, so before you go and suggest that black people are all conspiring to help Edwards become president, keep in mind that black people (like many other groups), would put a rich, white, male close to the bottom of their list of preferred candidates. If they were going to conspire to get somebody elected, they’d probably start with Obama. Then maybe Hillary. Or Richardson. Or Kucinich. Edwards isn’t going to win the majority of the black vote, but it isn’t because he’s racist, it’s because there is a black man, a woman, and a hispanic in the race and the research is quite clear that all people prefer to vote for people that are like themselves first and people from groups that are treated similarly in society after that.
>Your comments in several places are very belittling. Yes I know that we attacked Libya, how members of Congress are elected, and I have read your post several times. Reading and understanding your post does not somehow make me agree with you.
It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. It has to do with you asking questions that have already been answered or stating things that go in direct opposition to facts (like the Libya thing).
>Some if it actually makes me like him more.
That doesn’t affect me at all. I know that I’m not going to convince you not to vote for Ron Paul. Anyone who would ever support Paul has such a different way of thinking about the world that we barely talk the same language. If you want to throw your vote away on some right-wing Libertarian candidate who can’t possibly win, that not only doesn’t hurt me, it helps my side.
>As for the “Homegrown Terrorism†bill.
The opposition to this bill seems a bit too conspiracy theory to me. I read the article you linked to and I don’t find anything in it very compelling. It seems like people are taking things that are part of the normal way of doing business in Washington (and always have been) and exaggerating the possibilities. This kind of talk reminds me of the crazy talk people engage in when talking about executive orders.
>It appears the bill was supported by a Democrat and there was a “suspension of regular order†reserved usually for non controversial bills. I don’t think this bill is non-controversial. The Patriot Act bills have been controversial for years. And this suspension of regular rules requires then a 2/3 majority to pass. Obviously the democrats could have stopped it by voting with numbers. But the vote was 400 – 6.
The word controversial here doesn’t mean what you think it does. When you talk about a bill in Congress being “non-controversial” that has nothing to do with public opinion. It has to do with how likely the bill is to pass. If the vote on a bill is close to 50-50, then it is controversial. If it is 400-6, it’s non-controversial.
>Ron Paul complained when he returned: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr120507h.htm
Irrelevant. If he were there, the vote would’ve been 400-7. Still non-controversial.
>I called them corrupt, threatened or weak because I see a pattern of not protecting their constituents, avoiding war, and preserving privacy.
But this pattern isn’t there by any legitimate standard of evidence. You’re picking out a couple of votes here and there and exaggerating that not only to a broader pattern, but you’re sweeping up people that voted the way you want and including them with the people that voted against what you want. And if a members constituents want them to vote for certain things, then that member is serving their constituents, whether you agree with them or not.
>In the first Patriot Act they could have prevented from getting 3/5s and from going to the Senate and didn’t.
But their constituents didn’t want them to do this. They did what the voters in their districts wanted them to do. How is that corrupt or weak?
>But most Democrats and almost all Republicans voted for it later admitting they did not read it.
But you suggest this is because of some kind of corruption or weakness, when, in reality, it was the direct result of strong public opinion and a dishonest procedural move on the part of Republicans.
>People don’t think they are the subject of such bills but who knows when your beliefs get in the way of the establishment at a “flash mob†or anti-WTO rally and instead of getting a disturbing the peace fine you are branded a homegrown terrorist with all the lack of civil liberties that will ensue.
Again, this strikes me as tin foil hat territory. If Bush didn’t do anything like this, what in the world would make you think the more progressive candidates would?
>But they both vote for Authorization of force to attack,
Most Democrats voted against it. Many others have said their initial vote was wrong. Republicans haven’t done either of these things.
>vote for Patriot Act bills,
For different reasons. Many Democrats also voted against the Patriot Act and many others pushed for changes to it to make it more constitutionally valid. It’s almost as if you take a majority vote and translate it into a unanimous vote, which isn’t what happened, of course.
>and then almost all vote for the “Homegrown Terrorosm†bill.
Which you haven’t shown is even remotely dangerous.
>In debates they continue to show the possibility of a nuclear first strike.
Sure, a one in a billion possibility. Doesn’t bother me.
>I see Hillary being groomed for the Whitehouse by the media including Fox News.
I see Fox using ridiculous personal attacks against Hillary, such as ridiculing her laugh.
>I know you are going to say this is “tin foil hat†but why is Robert Murdoch doing this?
I don’t see any evidence he is.
>Do you not get the slightest bit worried about handing the Whitehouse back and forth between two families for basically 32 years if you consider Bush Sr. a major factor in the Reagan years which I do.
Not particularly. You get worried about abstract things. I get worried about real-world things.
>I really think it is good for the country and for citizen’s frame of mind to get a fresh start.
You’re right, that’s why I’m not voting for Hillary. But as long as the next president is a Democrat, it doesn’t matter to me which one of them it is. Paul isn’t a fresh start. He wants to return us to a period further in the past than the other Republicans.
>Paul does not seem to be an isolationist.
Not wanting to have any binding international agreements is isolationist.
>We have been destabilizing and destroying countries for 150 years, if someone can ensure the world this has stopped that would be great for the world I believe.
I agree. A vote for Paul doesn’t get us there. A vote for the Democrats doesn’t either. But it gets us closer than any other vote.
>Yes China and Russia have done atrocities in territories they consider theirs.
But that doesn’t it make it any better or any different that someone in Moscow thinks Chechnya is Russian territory. Ask someone in Chechnya. While I agree the U.S. does some bad things and has some problems, putting us on par with countries like this isn’t accurate.
>Taiwan is basically Chinese but refuses to go back and the President of Taiwan is enjoying this.
That’s not my understanding of the issue. Taiwan is the government of China from before the Communist takeover. Suggesting that they belong to Communist China doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t buy the “enjoyment” comment, either.
>Since Afghanistan, Russia has not invaded outside of its territory or occupied other countries with bases.
No, they’ve just killed their own citizens. That’s much better, right?
>Why can’t we at least pretend we are more just than them?
America is. The Bush administration isn’t.
>Yes Obama was talking about a terror war without actually defining an enemy or a country. Does this not concern you?
No. Specifics scare me. When Bush said “I’m going to invade Iraq,” that worried me. When Obama talks in general terms, that doesn’t worry me. Obama is not like Bush. At all.
>And he did say that he would invade Pakistan if they did not cooperate. Is this a scare tactic, or a misplaced foreign policy?
Scare tactic.
>And there has still not been a court case proving Bin Laden did anything so why chase him all over the world killing hundreds of thousands?
There doesn’t have to be. When was the court case proving Hitler did anything?
>If there is proof start proceedings for a court case in Hague or the UN, cognizant of the fact that at the WTC 3,000 good people died but this does not give us the right to kill 3 or 3,000 of another country we feel is responsible without a court trial.
We don’t have the right to kill people because of this at all, but we did have the right to go into Afghanistan and go after terrorists and their enablers.
>The dollar devaluation is like theft. They are incompetent and overly proud of economic controls but they know what is happening and are encouraging it. The M3 number showing cash in the market is not being reported anymore but is being inferred by outside people and seems to be increasing when really they should be pulling in money supply because of diminished demand and use for dollars.
I don’t disagree with you on most of this, although the “theft” word doesn’t apply here and I doubt even the Bush administration is actively trying to lower the value of the dollar. They are actively pursuing policies that cause that to happen, but I don’t think it is for the purpose of devaluing the dollar.
>Iraq and Afghanistan are authorized use of force, not “Congress Declared Warsâ€. And I looked it up and WWII was the last declared war.
See, it’s statements like this that make me question what you say from time to time. The Constitution doesn’t say that Congress has to officially say the words “I declare war!” for it to be a declared war. All that has to happen is Congress has to vote to approve the use of force and that makes it a declared war. As I said, both Iraq wars and the Afghanistan war all fit the constitutional definition of a declared war.
Dear Kenneth,
I have zero respect for you and this hit piece you wrote on Ron Paul, who is without doubt the most authetintically progressive candidate in the 2008 election. Only 1% of what you wrote bears resemblance to the truth. What is the truth? All of the Democratic candidates (except Kucinich and Gravel) and all of the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) are globalists, elitists who don’t represent the American people, but who represent foreign interests, corporate interests, CFR, AIPAC, and all the lobbies that are ruining this country. Probably you’re part of this corrupt system as well. WHAT’S MOST INEXCUSABLE ABOUT YOUR PETTY MEANDERINGS IS YOUR CENSORSHIP OF SAMM SIMPSON. You’ve removed her from your little blog, attacked her, and given her no chance to respond. It’s disgraceful behavior on your part in a forum that’s supposed to promote free exchange and discussion of “progressive” ideas. You join the famous ranks of past progressives such as Mussolini and Stalin.
Based on what you wrote here, I’m glad I don’t have your respect, since I’m not interested in respect from people so disconnected from reality.
>Ron Paul, who is without doubt the most authetintically progressive candidate in the 2008 election.
You clearly don’t know what the word “progressive” means. Destroying government is the opposite of progressive. Paul openly admits to wanting to eliminate most of the government.
>Only 1% of what you wrote bears resemblance to the truth.
This shows your problems with reality. The majority of the information I included was quoted from Paul’s web site. Are you saying that Paul’s own words don’t resemble the truth? I’d say that’s true, since I think Paul is crazy on the issues, but when it comes to characterizing his positions, quotes are the best way of doing that.
>All of the Democratic candidates (except Kucinich and Gravel) and all of the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) are globalists, elitists who don’t represent the American people, but who represent foreign interests, corporate interests, CFR, AIPAC, and all the lobbies that are ruining this country.
Take off the tin foil hat.
>Probably you’re part of this corrupt system as well.
No, I just understand the concepts of evidence, logic and reality.
>WHAT’S MOST INEXCUSABLE ABOUT YOUR PETTY MEANDERINGS IS YOUR CENSORSHIP OF SAMM SIMPSON.
If they are petty, why are you responding to them? In reality, what is petty is typing in all caps, that’s petty. The claims about censorship are also petty. This post was cross-posted to my personal web site. That means it exists in two places. Samm commented at the other site: http://quinnell.us/index.php/all/2007/12/01/disappointed#c143650 For some reason, she didn’t realize that she posted there and not here. Her claims of censorship are ludicrous, since her comment is there and I also linked to her response on this blog.
>You’ve removed her from your little blog, attacked her, and given her no chance to respond.
All of these things are untrue. If you actually read the post, she was simply removed from the “progressive” blogroll, since supporting Paul is the opposite of progressive. She is still on the list of candidate blogs.
>It’s disgraceful behavior on your part in a forum that’s supposed to promote free exchange and discussion of “progressive†ideas.
This isn’t a forum. It isn’t supposed to promote free exchange and discussion. Those things are fine, but it isn’t why the site exists. It is supposed to promote progressive ideas, which is why the Simpson decision is a problem, since Paul is about as unprogressive as one could possibly be.
>You join the famous ranks of past progressives such as Mussolini and Stalin.
Claims like this almost always point to some kind of disconnect from reality on the part of the person making them. Obviously, neither of these people is progressive and nothing here has any connection or similarity to anything either of them did. To think otherwise is to be disconnected from basic reality.
First off before I go into my response I think you should consider updating your Wordpress version to 2.31. It is much better and fixes some problems. You will also need to update your theme to the new K2 at http://getk2.com/download/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Also you should consider standardizing this blog at the sspb directory into the other one and not have duplicates. It makes it hard for people to respond, makes people potentially post twice, and damages your search engine value as the two sites have largely the same content and this is known as “duplicate contentâ€
>>>>>>>>>
My response usually after me: and you: for clarity:
You: I don’t “think†it is bad, it is bad. If a group is bad and they endorse someone, then that is a bad thing. If a group is good and they endorse someone, that is a good thing. That’s the point of the grades.
Its interesting that you think that anything you think means it “isâ€. If you wrote something in a book or article and I cited it I would say that Quinnell “thinksâ€,â€believes†or better “arguesâ€. I really cant understand why you comment on the semantics I say when I am taking the moderate approach, and that really does not add anything to the discussion. And I still believe that grades are not some universal goodness to pick up and to shun good grades from bad groups. This is not school where you are supposed to get a good grade in every class. Is a politician supposed to denounce every group they do not support publicly or with policy? That is impossible time wise and is divisive.
Me: And good groups give him bad ratings all the time. Why? I am not sure. Maybe they are in step with some political group or candidate.
You: This is a terrible interpretation and a lack of basic knowledge about how these groups work. Again, you are making conclusions about something you don’t understand. A grade from one of these groups is based upon how the person voted on issue the group finds important. If the group favors the legalization of marijuana and they give someone a 100%, that means the person voted 100% of the time the way the group would’ve voted if it had a vote.
Yes but as in this case, that does not mean Ron Paul supports marijuana it just means he does not support legislation that weakens their beliefs, there is a difference. A person for a smaller government and fewer federal laws will pick up strange endorsements. This does not surprise or bother me.
Me: US Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have donated more to his campaign than any other Republican candidate.
You: But the other Republicans are all really wrong on these issues, so this isn’t at all surprising.
I think it is surprising considering he was in the military put as a surgeon, it seems less heroic than a pilot and a POW such as McCain. Paul also beats all the Democrats except Obama.
Me: So I think that generalizing that the military is against him because one of thousands of groups, PACs and lobbyists supporting troops does not seem to ring true.
You: I’m not sure what you are responding to here. I read back over the comments and didn’t see anything that I said suggeting the military is against him. Maybe I missed it.
One of the groups you mentioned was a Iraq and Afghanistan Vet support group. I thought you were trying to make a mass generalization about vets.
Me: Ron Paul has a much different record than most politicians, He receives NO corporate contributions usually because he does not ask for them and does not give favors. If you asked the Fortune 500 companies, most would probably say they don’t support him. This does not mean by itself that he is bad.
You: But it doesn’t mean that he is good, either. One reason those companies don’t give him money is because he doesn’t ask for it. Another would be that many of them probably disagree with him politically. My guess is that he wouldn’t get much if he asked for it, making the whole point moot.
Possibly moot, but that is also because he does not vote for bills with earmarks that support his district. Investigating Paul is not like everyone else. You have to think a bit different. He also does not take matching funds in campaigns because he does not believe in it. Corporations know giving to him wont sway legislation so they don’t do it. But of course they wont go on record saying that.
Me: Those activist groups have loyalties, beliefs, and histories that are difficult to understand easily without being a member of those groups.
You: They aren’t difficult at all. They all have mission statements that make it pretty clear what they believe and why. The pro-hemp group doesn’t support the legalization of hemp because of some loyalty to a politician or history, it’s because they think hemp should be legal.
I was really thinking more of the negative grades for him. I looked at a few of those groups and their support for candidates was not findable by searching. They must be in a unsearchable directory to allow members only to look at them. If these groups have given money, talked to, and supported candidates they will not easily support another candidate opposing “their†guy in an election year.
Me: Again it is clear that racism is a polarizing and blinding topic to you.
You: It should be polarizing everyone. Not opposing racism means supporting it. It isn’t blinding at all. I’m not opposed to Paul just because of his racism, although that would be enough. I oppose him because he’s not even remotely progressive on 90% of issues and that, to me, is terrible. When you say that racism is “blinding†me, you are saying that it isn’t a valid or important issue. I don’t see how one could make such comments without being racist.
It seems that you believe that someone who has had any mention of racism associated with him becomes instantly “unelectable†and all their supporters racists even if the allegations have been talked about before, disproved, and whatever happened occurred 20 years ago. And no when I say blinding it is like this one topic comes up and you take any statements or presented materials as fact, and refuse to look at any positions the person has, especially when they are not in your party. No I am not saying racism is a not valid issue. If you want to tear up the Ron Paul camp, show real proof or current statements and leave the comments open. Most people looking to play the race card have been turning off comments or clearing comments. Ron Paul has a varied support base including some of the groups that you mention as Ron Paul being so racist against. Are these people sadists? Have they not heard the comments? Of course they have heard them, they investigate, and find no real basis for it, and move on to what they and their families will support.
Me: I saw that he was and is getting unfair treatment in the press and wanted to help him.
You: If anything, the press has been overly beneficial to him. They’ve given him a pass on his crazier issue stances and they’ve allowed him to be talked about as if he were a legitimate presidential contender, rather than the crazy outsider he is.
I dont think so at all. Just this last week in the NYT blog site that are stating that Ron Paul is a neo nazi, hangs out with neo nazis, and takes money from Stormfront the hate group. After a small amount of fact checking people discover that the restaurant where these meetings supposedly happened say that Paul never went to the meetings. He denies ever knowingly meeting with the person and did not receiev any money from stormfront. This is just a classic smear campaign by one of the largest newspaper in the US. Http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/the-ron-paul-vid-lash/ If they will do this in a campaign what else do you think they will do? The other racist things were brought up by Newt Gingrinch when he was campaigning against Ron Paul as he hates Paul.
I have seen biased polls, polls with Ron Paul not mentioned but everyone else mentioned, and have heard the audio of phone polling asking Which Republican they support. In that audio Ron Paul was not mentioned and if you try to pick Ron Paul as “other†they don’t record it and say that you will be removed from future polls. Just look at the money raised and the numbers on meetup or some other site that counts real interaction and compare to the poll numbers. It is possible that Ron Paul supporters are so disenfranchised that they did not vote last time as a Republican but the numbers seem odd, but they keep running them without changing the polling methods. RealClear Politics Data on fox and others.
Giuliani 21.2%
Huckabee 18.6%
Romney 15.2%
McCain 14.8%
Thompson 11.8%
Paul 4.0%
Now the number of people on meetup
Giuliani 25
Huckabee 6,630
Romney 40
McCain 93
Thompson 156
Paul 85,315
Ron Paul has over 12 times the number of meetup members and whose supporters have contributed approximately 4 times more than Huckabee but for some reason there recently has been more stories about Huckabee and he is now polling at more than 4 times better than Ron Paul.. It just seems a bit odd to me. Giuliani has almost no support outside NY, and in NY the firefighters and police are saying they are not supporting him. But he is leading the polls? I think we will see a much different result than what the polls are saying and the MSM will scramble to say why.
Me: Then I learned of the possible racist statements.
You: Nothing “possible†about it. They are racist. 100% racist without any possibility of any other interpretation.
You are misreading my statement. I said they are possible because of the time since the comments, the understanding why no one is probably going to come forward saying that they are their ideas and not Pauls’s and that this has been discussed before. I know it is not best to cite wikipedia but in this case it has the best citations including the New York Times magazine stating that the writing style did not match the 40 or 50 years of Ron Paul’s writings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaign_controversy To me the writings do seem like a flawed use of statistics and don’t really seem to say anything that should support racist thoughts in rational people, and if anything extrapolate to a negative conclusion and point to a failed social system or police profiling. Doctors are by profession, investigative, intelligent and skeptical. I cant imagine a doctor writing that and supporting its publication. But if you want comment back using Dr. Mengele as a straw man go right ahead.
Me: In fact their was a big chance that I would quit supporting him if I saw serious policy issues or thought there was a chance for him to repeat these
embarrassments or to evoke governmental action to support such thoughts.
You: The fact that he won’t renounce those earlier statements or even disagree with them is clear evidence that he could repeat them.
He has – see above Wikipedia comment. He fired the person immediately after publication, and later took “moral responsibilityâ€. It would have been nice if he commented in the RPR immediately, but there is no proof he did. Maybe he wanted the whole thing behind him and the person who was the writer. I am not sure.
Me: Your argument is like saying “Well you support a candidate who embezzled funds, so I must ask you are you an embezzler?â€
You: No, this is terrible logic. Embezzlement is something that, in addition to intent, requires ability and opportunity. A poor, stupid unemployed person may want to be an embezzler, but will never be one no matter how hard he tries because he doesn’t have opportunity or ability. Racism, on the other hand, only requires intent. Someone who supports a racist is, by definition, a racist.
Wow – for someone that professes to be so progressive you sure are quick to denounce others ideas. Ok -how bout this. Change the metaphor to theft in general instead of embezzling. I was trying to make it more politically oriented…. Anyone can steal something if they are not bedridden. They can walk into a store, grab something and run out, even if homeless. If I buy a DVD of “Beetlejuice†or “Edward Scissorhands†does that mean I support Wynona Ryders crime spree for shoplifting? Does this make me more likely to shoplift? Did I shoplift the DVD for some weird ironic twist? I will never tell!
Me: John Edwards clip on African Americans will all soon be locked up or dead:
You: Sometimes I wonder about your critical thinking skills. You have to look at context and have to understand the concept of rhetoric. In this comment he’s talking about inner-city black males, not about all African-Americans. He’s also explaining what the logical extension of the current policies are. He’s not saying he thinks all black people will be dead or in jail. It’s clear you misunderstood what he was saying, but maybe you should look for other interpretations of someone’s comments than just your own. We all make mistakes. If Edwards had actually said what you thought he did, there would’ve been a huge outcry from the black community. There was none. Why not? Maybe because black people understood what he actually said. Now, I know how you like conspiracies, so before you go and suggest that black people are all conspiring to help Edwards become president, keep in mind that black people (like many other groups), would put a rich, white, male close to the bottom of their list of preferred candidates. If they were going to conspire to get somebody elected, they’d probably start with Obama. Then maybe Hillary. Or Richardson. Or Kucinich. Edwards isn’t going to win the majority of the black vote, but it isn’t because he’s racist, it’s because there is a black man, a woman, and a hispanic in the race and the research is quite clear that all people prefer to vote for people that are like themselves first and people from groups that are treated similarly in society after that.
I should have said “John Edwards clip says inner city African American males will all soon be locked up or dead†That would be a fair assessment of what he said I think. So I missed a few words. Inner city and males. Most people live in cities so I think it is fair to say that he was implying most African American males. And not only did he state this but he also assumed the word “inner city†meant black and that the violence was somehow more likely to be caused by men. That may be true but it is not obvious and it is the type of generalization the news media loves to use themselves and was in that Ron Paul Report whoever wrote it. He also went right into crack versus powder cocaine assuming that blacks are more likely to be selling or using crack cocaine. Is this true? I have no idea myself. Odd. If a Republican did that I think there would have been a lot of commentary. And if you noticed he actually did not state any solutions just that he could talk about the topic for a few minutes with some borderline racist statements.
Me: Your comments in several places are very belittling. Yes I know that we attacked Libya, how members of Congress are elected, and I have read your post several times. Reading and understanding your post does not somehow make me agree with you.
You: It has nothing to do with agreeing with me. It has to do with you asking questions that have already been answered or stating things that go in direct opposition to facts (like the Libya thing).
I said “constantly attacking†Libya. We attacked once, left and the leadership went back to normal. We seemed not to bothered that they were harboring terrorists.
Me: As for the “Homegrown Terrorism†bill.
You: The opposition to this bill seems a bit too conspiracy theory to me. I read the article you linked to and I don’t find anything in it very compelling. It seems like people are taking things that are part of the normal way of doing business in Washington (and always have been) and exaggerating the possibilities. This kind of talk reminds me of the crazy talk people engage in when talking about executive orders.
It may seem conspiracy theory to you but that does not mean this bill is a good idea. The term conspiracy has been carefully constructed in the publics perception to mean some fringe idea that crazy people care about. It has become a whole area that conveniently allows the average person to not listen to strangely, new ideas of freedom or personal responsibility, or to question authority. I think you should always question authority especially if they are now calling Americans terrorists for supporting the Constitution, legally passed laws like gun rights, or writing something that might oppose the government might be considered a imprisonable offense. It used to be called free speech. This is a law against the beliefs of the founding fathers and seems something more likely to be seen in China of 15 years ago. Remember when you correctly talked about China and their dissidents? The new dissidents might be Americans who oppose the opinions of the government of that time. I see no reason for it myself. I have never seen a terrorist, never seen an act of a terrorist in my community and am not exactly sure what these laws are supposed to accomplish.
Me: It appears the bill was supported by a Democrat and there was a “suspension of regular order†reserved usually for non controversial bills. I don’t think this bill is non-controversial. The Patriot Act bills have been controversial for years. And this suspension of regular rules requires then a 2/3 majority to pass. Obviously the democrats could have stopped it by voting with numbers. But the vote was 400 – 6.
You: The word controversial here doesn’t mean what you think it does. When you talk about a bill in Congress being “non-controversial†that has nothing to do with public opinion. It has to do with how likely the bill is to pass. If the vote on a bill is close to 50-50, then it is controversial. If it is 400-6, it’s non-controversial.
I understand that aspect of it. It sailed through even past almost all the Democrats that will protect me from the bad Republicans. There is a Democratic majority in the House… There is one in the Senate as well. But I expect it to sail through there as well. Obviously personal privacy is not that important to them and they have no problem voting so similar to Republicans on this issue. I am not sure why they will vote differently on the war(s) when those are being so tightly woven. But again I ask why not a “standard†vote to encourage a normal consideration. This is one of the most important issues this year I think, they cant follow procedure?
Me:Ron Paul complained when he returned: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2007/cr120507h.htm
You: Irrelevant. If he were there, the vote would’ve been 400-7. Still non-controversial.
Yes I can count, but I was wondering if they were trying to avoid giving him a soundbite or forcing more discussion about this legislation. Or a comparison between him and other politicians.
Me: I called them corrupt, threatened or weak because I see a pattern of not protecting their constituents, avoiding war, and preserving privacy.
You: But this pattern isn’t there by any legitimate standard of evidence. You’re picking out a couple of votes here and there and exaggerating that not only to a broader pattern, but you’re sweeping up people that voted the way you want and including them with the people that voted against what you want. And if a members constituents want them to vote for certain things, then that member is serving their constituents, whether you agree with them or not.
Either party can almost always get a bill stopped if they want to. The unofficial two party system works that way. Democrats can do that now easily in the House and Senate. They choose not to and vote very similar to Republicans on these issues.
Me: In the first Patriot Act they could have prevented from getting 3/5s and from going to the Senate and didn’t.
You: But their constituents didn’t want them to do this. They did what the voters in their districts wanted them to do. How is that corrupt or weak?
Like I said before most people don’t follow bills in Congress, know what is happening in DC, or actually read potential or real legislation. I don’t recall talking to anyone who said they wanted the Patriot Act. Did you? Do you feel safer with it now? They are corrupt and weak for people elect them to do due diligence, to act as a check and balance, and to actually read legislation. They didn’t and don’t do those things.
Me: People don’t think they are the subject of such bills but who knows when your beliefs get in the way of the establishment at a “flash mob†or anti-WTO rally and instead of getting a disturbing the peace fine you are branded a homegrown terrorist with all the lack of civil liberties that will ensue.
You: Again, this strikes me as tin foil hat territory. If Bush didn’t do anything like this, what in the world would make you think the more progressive candidates would?
Your still assuming that a more progressive will win. Democrats have a record of screwing up sure things and have not enjoyed majorities very much in the last 30 years. And if you investigate there are growing problems with people being arrested for protesting, taking pictures in a public place and being hassled for being a dissenting opinion. This would not be tolerated in ancient Greece. Why do we tolerate it here? And anything you lose will be in steps. Nazi Germany started slowly, I think it is our right and responsibility to fight anything we don’t like at anytime. Not just if it is infringing on or imprisoning us right now.
Me: But they both vote for Authorization of force to attack,
You: Most Democrats voted against it. Many others have said their initial vote was wrong. Republicans haven’t done either of these things.
I thought only 50 reps opposed it and about 150 were for it. I could be wrong.
Me: vote for Patriot Act bills,
You: For different reasons. Many Democrats also voted against the Patriot Act and many others pushed for changes to it to make it more constitutionally valid. It’s almost as if you take a majority vote and translate it into a unanimous vote, which isn’t what happened, of course.
Majority votes don’t happen by accident especially now. Few (around 50 each time) voted against it or the wars.
Me: and then almost all vote for the “Homegrown Terrorosm†bill.
You: Which you haven’t shown is even remotely dangerous.
History will do that, not me. If you want to get scared a bit reread “1984†and look at the similarities. A great book even if you are not a conspiracy nut like me. And I could easily turn this around and say “Why do I need this?â€
Me: In debates they continue to show the possibility of a nuclear first strike.
You: Sure, a one in a billion possibility. Doesn’t bother me.
Is this your number or theirs? Plus even mentioning it unbelievable. The Japanese still harbor resentment 60 years after we attacked them with small nukes, how long would that part of the world harbor resentment for even mentioning it, let alone doing it. Its unamerican and unchristian which all of the candidates pretend to be in some fashion.
You: Not wanting to have any binding international agreements is isolationist.
He says “binding ties†and no I don’t think it is isolationist.
Me: We have been destabilizing and destroying countries for 150 years, if someone can ensure the world this has stopped that would be great for the world I believe.
You: I agree. A vote for Paul doesn’t get us there. A vote for the Democrats doesn’t either. But it gets us closer than any other vote.
While we talk about nuking countries or invading allies? While we say 2013 for leaving or talk about attacking other countries in the region?
Me: Yes Obama was talking about a terror war without actually defining an enemy or a country. Does this not concern you?
Yes: No. Specifics scare me. When Bush said “I’m going to invade Iraq,†that worried me. When Obama talks in general terms, that doesn’t worry me. Obama is not like Bush. At all.
I never voted for or supported Bush not sure why you keep bringing him up. Politicians talk in generalities to test ideas. If there is not a huge backlash it gets fleshed out. Remember Bush was saying first “evildoersâ€, then axis of evil, then Afghanistan, then Iraq. Steps….
Me: And he did say that he would invade Pakistan if they did not cooperate. Is this a scare tactic, or a misplaced foreign policy?
You: Scare tactic.
Its strange and foolhardy to try to scare most people.
Me: And there has still not been a court case proving Bin Laden did anything so why chase him all over the world killing hundreds of thousands?
You: There doesn’t have to be. When was the court case proving Hitler did anything?
Well he attacked several sovereign countries often brutally. Some were our allies and were about to lose. Most Americans knew nothing about the concentration camps until after the war.
Me: If there is proof start proceedings for a court case in Hague or the UN, cognizant of the fact that at the WTC 3,000 good people died but this does not give us the right to kill 3 or 3,000 of another country we feel is responsible without a court trial.
You: We don’t have the right to kill people because of this at all, but we did have the right to go into Afghanistan and go after terrorists and their enablers.
If you send in troops they will draw fire and fire back often at people defending there land and family. It is absurd to not think so. How discriminatory do you think a cruise missile is? Do you think this is like knocking on a door and looking for Bin Laden?
Me: The dollar devaluation is like theft. They are incompetent and overly proud of economic controls but they know what is happening and are encouraging it. The M3 number showing cash in the market is not being reported anymore but is being inferred by outside people and seems to be increasing when really they should be pulling in money supply because of diminished demand and use for dollars.
You: I don’t disagree with you on most of this, although the “theft†word doesn’t apply here and I doubt even the Bush administration is actively trying to lower the value of the dollar. They are actively pursuing policies that cause that to happen, but I don’t think it is for the purpose of devaluing the dollar.
If you think monetary policy happens by accident you are mistaken. If you think the M3 increases while lending policies get more strict you are mistaken. There is a serious push to devalue the dollar. Most banks are not selling loans to other banks now. Lending is tight for personal and business loans but somehow these numbers keep rising and Bernanke denounces it. Just because Bush doesn’t understand economics means his handlers or the Fed don’t understand economics. But myself and Ron Paul think most economists are heavy handed and dangerously control markets too much often through invisible inflation.
Me: Iraq and Afghanistan are authorized use of force, not “Congress Declared Warsâ€. And I looked it up and WWII was the last declared war.
You: See, it’s statements like this that make me question what you say from time to time. The Constitution doesn’t say that Congress has to officially say the words “I declare war!†for it to be a declared war. All that has to happen is Congress has to vote to approve the use of force and that makes it a declared war. As I said, both Iraq wars and the Afghanistan war all fit the constitutional definition of a declared war.
Those are facts. I don’t see why you can question me from time to time like I am a misguided school child. These “conflicts†have been going on for years. Where do you think there should be a divide from a conflict and a declared war? Is it a number of years? Americans dead? The other side dead? Money spent? We are killing people and I am having to encourage a liberal to stop supporting it. Odd.
Thanks for your suggestions on the website. We have a tech person and I’ll trust his judgment on the site.
>Also you should consider standardizing this blog at the sspb directory into the other one and not have duplicates. It makes it hard for people to respond, makes people potentially post twice, and damages your search engine value as the two sites have largely the same content and this is known as “duplicate content.â€
No, they are two separate sites and I cross-post some articles. Cross-posting is common on the web.
>Its interesting that you think that anything you think means it “isâ€.
That’s not quite accurate. What’s happening is that I’ve examined evidence and logic on any statement I make (or respond to) and that leads me to a conclusion. Then I actually stick with that conclusion until I see evidence that proves that conclusion wrong. Your word isn’t evidence.
>And I still believe that grades are not some universal goodness to pick up and to shun good grades from bad groups.
I didn’t say it was universal. But it is pretty easy logic to follow. If you like a group and agree with them, you should get a good grade from them. If not, one of you is lying.
>Is a politician supposed to denounce every group they do not support publicly or with policy? That is impossible time wise and is divisive.
It’s also a straw man argument. What does denouncing the group have to do with anything? If someone gets a bad grade from a good group, that means they have bad policy preferences in the area that group deals with.
>Yes but as in this case, that does not mean Ron Paul supports marijuana it just means he does not support legislation that weakens their beliefs, there is a difference.
Not really. If you support laws they agree with that means they give you a good grade and vice versa. It doesn’t mean that they agree with your motivations behind your policy choices.
>A person for a smaller government and fewer federal laws will pick up strange endorsements. This does not surprise or bother me.
Again, you somehow missed the point here. I didn’t say all of the grades were negative things. I’m in favor of marijuana legalization, so this one would be a good sign for Paul.
>I think it is surprising considering he was in the military put as a surgeon, it seems less heroic than a pilot and a POW such as McCain. Paul also beats all the Democrats except Obama.
That seems to assume that military voters vote based simply on who is most “heroic,” which is not true. Also, more Republicans go into the military, so Paul should beat most of the Democrats since he is also a Republican. Republicans tend to vote Republican, Democrats tend to vote Democratic.
>One of the groups you mentioned was a Iraq and Afghanistan Vet support group. I thought you were trying to make a mass generalization about vets.
Terrible logic on your part. You frequently jump to conclusions that have nothing to do with anything. The Iraq and Afghanistan veterans group doesn’t like his votes on military issues. That’s what that says.
>Possibly moot, but that is also because he does not vote for bills with earmarks that support his district. Investigating Paul is not like everyone else. You have to think a bit different. He also does not take matching funds in campaigns because he does not believe in it. Corporations know giving to him wont sway legislation so they don’t do it. But of course they wont go on record saying that.
No, I don’t have to think differently about anyone. Logic, evidence and facts (which lead to thinking) are standard. You don’t change the rules to favor someone or disfavor someone, they stay standard.
>I was really thinking more of the negative grades for him. I looked at a few of those groups and their support for candidates was not findable by searching. They must be in a unsearchable directory to allow members only to look at them.
Some of them are online, most of them are published in paper format. I’m sure you could get a copy by contacting the organization. If they were only available to members, then I wouldn’t have the numbers and couldn’t have posted them.
>If these groups have given money, talked to, and supported candidates they will not easily support another candidate opposing “their†guy in an election year.
This isn’t the way it works. Interest groups are all about policy. If “their guy” opposes their policies, then he isn’t their guy any more.
>It seems that you believe that someone who has had any mention of racism associated with him becomes instantly “unelectable†and all their supporters racists even if the allegations have been talked about before, disproved, and whatever happened occurred 20 years ago.
Yes. Racism is racism and a racist is a racist. If you change and aren’t racist anymore, that may be better than being racist, but the fact that one was racist in the first place shows that their judgment can’t be trusted when it comes to public policy.
>And no when I say blinding it is like this one topic comes up and you take any statements or presented materials as fact, and refuse to look at any positions the person has, especially when they are not in your party.
Yes, I took it as a fact that, regardless of who wrote them, Paul allowed these racist comments to be published under his byline in his newsletter that he published. I took that as a fact because that’s what happened.
>If you want to tear up the Ron Paul camp, show real proof or current statements and leave the comments open.
Racism doesn’t have to be current to be wrong. Someone running for president would obviously stop saying racist things publicly, so this means nothing. Comments are always open here.
>Most people looking to play the race card have been turning off comments or clearing comments.
I’m not playing the race card. I’m playing the racism card, since, you know, Paul’s name is on racist comments.
>Ron Paul has a varied support base including some of the groups that you mention as Ron Paul being so racist against.
I’ll wager not even 1% of the black community will vote for him, if that.
>Have they not heard the comments? Of course they have heard them, they investigate, and find no real basis for it, and move on to what they and their families will support.
You assume too much of the average voter. The average voter doesn’t do any of this, particularly in primaries a year before the election. And if they found no real basis for it, then we should see a whole bunch of black people voting for Paul. I guarantee we won’t.
>You: If anything, the press has been overly beneficial to him. They’ve given him a pass on his crazier issue stances and they’ve allowed him to be talked about as if he were a legitimate presidential contender, rather than the crazy outsider he is. “I dont think so at all.”
Then you really aren’t paying attention. Paul is a fringe candidate who has 0% chance of winning the nomination, much less ever becoming president. But the media has treated him as a legitimate candidate who is some kind of “new” candidate who is a free thinker. They’ve presented him as nearly perfect and ignored almost all of his crazier positions. That’s positive coverage.
>Just this last week in the NYT blog site that are stating that Ron Paul is a neo nazi, hangs out with neo nazis, and takes money from Stormfront the hate group. After a small amount of fact checking people discover that the restaurant where these meetings supposedly happened say that Paul never went to the meetings.
A blog at the NYT is not the press. Even if it were considered to be the legitimate press, one example of a negative article doesn’t mean any kind of bias. Only an overal pattern would mean that. The blogger didn’t say these things about Paul, they said Bill White, a neo-nazi, said these things. He did say them. Reporting them is what the press is supposed to do. If a neo-nazi says that a presidential candidate is one of them, that’s news. It’s a violation of basic journalistic principles not to report it. Now they should’ve included both sides of the story, which they didn’t. But they admitted to that mistake and printed a retraction. And Paul did take money from Stormfront. The organization itself — like any such group, good or bad — can’t directly donate money to a candidate. Individual members do that. And Paul did take money from the leader of the group (something I posted on earlier this week). When the press says such-and-such took money from Corporation A, for example, they don’t mean it literally, since that isn’t leagl, they mean they took money from leaders of the group.
>I have seen biased polls, polls with Ron Paul not mentioned but everyone else mentioned
This doesn’t make a poll biased. To not include a candidate who can’t win is standard procedure in polling. Why? Because the person can’t win and it skews the results. I’ll bet those same polls didn’t include Alan Keyes. Nor should they.
>Just look at the money raised and the numbers on meetup or some other site that counts real interaction and compare to the poll numbers.
Because such things are not representative of votes. In 2004, Howard Dean dominated money raised in the early months and dominated meetup. He lost horribly. So will Paul.
>Ron Paul has over 12 times the number of meetup members and whose supporters have contributed approximately 4 times more than Huckabee but for some reason there recently has been more stories about Huckabee and he is now polling at more than 4 times better than Ron Paul.. It just seems a bit odd to me.
If this is odd to you, then you have no understanding of public opinion polling. For a poll to be valid, it has to be a representative and random sample. By definition, those online things you are talking about aren’t representative or random, so they aren’t indicative of anything else. They don’t translate as polls.
>Giuliani has almost no support outside NY, and in NY the firefighters and police are saying they are not supporting him. But he is leading the polls?
This isn’t even close to true. Giuliani has been known as “America’s Mayor” since 9/11 and he had support everywhere until the sex scandal hit.
>I think we will see a much different result than what the polls are saying and the MSM will scramble to say why.
You will see a difference from earlier polls, but you won’t see much difference from the current polls. There won’t be any scramble. Paul will probably do okay in Iowa because of the structure of the caucus, but he won’t win and it’ll be all downhill from there.
>”Then I learned of the possible racist statements.” You are misreading my statement.
I’m not misreading it, you’re misstating it. The placement of the word “possible” here means that the statements may or may not be racist. If you meant something else, then you should’ve wrote something else.
>I said they are possible because of the time since the comments, the understanding why no one is probably going to come forward saying that they are their ideas and not Pauls’s and that this has been discussed before.
None of this explanation means anything. The newsletter was called the Ron Paul Report and his name was on the article. That means he’s responsible for it 100%. It doesn’t matter if someone else wrote them.
>To me the writings do seem like a flawed use of statistics and don’t really seem to say anything that should support racist thoughts in rational people, and if anything extrapolate to a negative conclusion and point to a failed social system or police profiling.
No, they are racist and not actually based on anything other than the author’s racism.
>Doctors are by profession, investigative, intelligent and skeptical.
And yet I don’t see much of this applying to Paul.
>I cant imagine a doctor writing that and supporting its publication.
But he did. His name is on it. End of story.
>”You: The fact that he won’t renounce those earlier statements or even disagree with them is clear evidence that he could repeat them.” He has – see above Wikipedia comment.
No, he didn’t. Taking “moral responsibility” for them is not the same as denouncing them. From what I’ve read, he’s never said that he didn’t agree with the comments. He gave a typical political answer that didn’t actually answer anything.
>Wow – for someone that professes to be so progressive you sure are quick to denounce others ideas.
No, I didn’t denounce your idea, I denounced your faulty argument. Besides, where in the definition of “progressive” does it say “acceptance of any ideas, even if they are wrong” is required. Trust me, that isn’t part of the definition of progressive. Besides, you act like you are presenting something new to me that I’ve never heard before, like we are starting here from zero without any history. That’s not the case.
>If I buy a DVD of “Beetlejuice†or “Edward Scissorhands†does that mean I support Wynona Ryders crime spree for shoplifting?
No. Ryder didn’t make either of those movies. Beyond that, calling it a “crime spree” is a bit of an exaggeration. Finally, these movies aren’t political statements that endorse a point of view consistent with Ryder’s crime.
>I should have said “John Edwards clip says inner city African American males will all soon be locked up or dead†That would be a fair assessment of what he said I think.
No, that wouldn’t be a fair assessment at all. What he said was that if we continue extreme right-wing policies, like those of the Bush administration, this will be the case. The comment had little to do with the quality of black males, it had to do with the lack of quality of Republican policies.
>Most people live in cities so I think it is fair to say that he was implying most African American males.
There you go leaving out words again. “Cities” and “inner cities” are NOT the same thing. Most people do NOT live in inner cities. Most African Americans do not live in inner cities. Again, if the comment communicated what you think it does, why haven’t any black people complained about it?
>And not only did he state this but he also assumed the word “inner city†meant black and that the violence was somehow more likely to be caused by men. That may be true but it is not obvious
Yes, these things are obvious. They have been proven over and over and over and over again and reported in the news over and over and over and over again. The majority of inner city residents in most cities are black. This is a significant historical trend. After World War II, when money became widely available in the white community, white people fled inner cities for suburbs (which were new), leaving behind minorities, most of which in most of the country were black. This is called “white flight.” Look it up. And I’m baffled that you wouldn’t know that the overwhelming majority of violence is perpetrated by men. That’s one of the more basic facts related to crime that we know of.
>and it is the type of generalization the news media loves to use themselves and was in that Ron Paul Report whoever wrote it.
The big difference here is that the generalizations that Edwards used (and the media uses) are true and have been verified many, many times. The generalizations Paul used are false and have been disproved many, many times. Not all generalizations are created equal.
>He also went right into crack versus powder cocaine assuming that blacks are more likely to be selling or using crack cocaine.
Again, not an assumption. It’s an easy to verify fact.
>Is this true? I have no idea myself.
Look it up. Again this is fairly common knowledge. It should be easy since this has been in the news a lot in the last month because the sentencing rules Edwards was referring to were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
>If a Republican did that I think there would have been a lot of commentary.
No there wouldn’t have been. Nobody talked about this because you’d have to be biased against Edwards (or Democrats) to think there is anything wrong in this clip.
>And if you noticed he actually did not state any solutions just that he could talk about the topic for a few minutes with some borderline racist statements.
Sure, I noticed that in the edited clip of a town hall meeting he didn’t specifically mention how he would solve the problem. I also notice that nobody ever gets into serious policy details in town hall meetings. And I noticed that there was nothing remotely racist about what Edwards said.
>I said “constantly attacking†Libya. We attacked once, left and the leadership went back to normal. We seemed not to bothered that they were harboring terrorists.
Well, we never constantly attack everyone. I was giving you a pass on the goofy wording, but I guess I shouldn’t have. I’ve also noticed that Libya’s policies changed drastically after that attack. As far as I can tell, they aren’t on the state sponsors of terror list anymore.
>It may seem conspiracy theory to you but that does not mean this bill is a good idea.
It also doesn’t mean it is a bad idea.
>The term conspiracy has been carefully constructed in the publics perception to mean some fringe idea that crazy people care about. It has become a whole area that conveniently allows the average person to not listen to strangely, new ideas of freedom or personal responsibility, or to question authority.
No, it allows the average person not to listen to claims that have nothing to do with reality, that fly in the face of all available evidence and, in most cases, are just plain crazy. Are you seriously suggesting that claiming the Homegrown Terrorism bill is a threat to personal responsibility? That strikes me as just plain crazy.
>I think you should always question authority
Yes, you should always question authority. But questioning authority doesn’t mean that you always come to the conclusion that authority is wrong and is out to get us. That’s tin foil hat territory. A legitimate questioning of authority would believe one to see that authority is sometimes used right and sometimes used wrong and the only way to know the difference is to look at things on a case-by-case basis.
>especially if they are now calling Americans terrorists for supporting the Constitution, legally passed laws like gun rights, or writing something that might oppose the government might be considered a imprisonable offense.
But “they,” whoever “they” is, isn’t doing this. I’ve heard of not one instance of any of these things, much less the wide-ranging swath of such activity that would warrant your claims.
>This is a law against the beliefs of the founding fathers and seems something more likely to be seen in China of 15 years ago.
That’s great hyperbole, but you have no evidence to back anything in this sentence up. You made it up.
>Remember when you correctly talked about China and their dissidents? The new dissidents might be Americans who oppose the opinions of the government of that time.
This is nonsense and totally unsupported by reality.
>I see no reason for it myself.
And since you know everything, that settles it, right?
>I have never seen a terrorist, never seen an act of a terrorist in my community and am not exactly sure what these laws are supposed to accomplish.
Ever heard of Timothy McVeigh?
>It sailed through even past almost all the Democrats that will protect me from the bad Republicans.
But you seem to think that if someone doesn’t agree with your strange view of reality that they must somehow be corrupt or weak. In reality, they could just disagree with you because they looked at the same evidence you did and came to a different conclusion.
>There is one in the Senate as well.
No there isn’t. There are 49 Democrats in the Senate. Nobody has a majority in the Senate (49 Dems, 49 Republicans, 1 socialist, 1 independent).
>Obviously personal privacy is not that important to them and they have no problem voting so similar to Republicans on this issue.
This isn’t obvious at all. You’ve shown me no evidence that this bill would invade anyone’s personal privacy. Except someone connected to terrorism in some way or another.
>I am not sure why they will vote differently on the war(s) when those are being so tightly woven.
National security and war against Iraq or Iran are only tightly woven together in the minds of Bush followers. To everyone else, they are separate issues.
>But again I ask why not a “standard†vote to encourage a normal consideration. This is one of the most important issues this year I think, they cant follow procedure?
This was a standard vote as allowed for by the proceduers. Again, when a bill is noncontroversial (meaning the vote isn’t close), they frequently do it this way.
>Yes I can count, but I was wondering if they were trying to avoid giving him a soundbite or forcing more discussion about this legislation. Or a comparison between him and other politicians.
No, because all of these things can still be done. In fact, more people would pay attention to Paul on this issue when he was campaigning for president than speaking on the floor of the House. Your implication that Democrats and Republicans all somehow conspired to keep Ron Paul down is ridiculous.
>Either party can almost always get a bill stopped if they want to.
Not true. The majority party can always get a bill stopped. The minority party can’t always do so.
>Democrats can do that now easily in the House and Senate.
Because they are in the majority.
>They choose not to and vote very similar to Republicans on these issues.
What issues? You put together so many things here, most of which took place when Democrats were in the minority, that this doesn’t even make any sense.
>Like I said before most people don’t follow bills in Congress, know what is happening in DC, or actually read potential or real legislation. I don’t recall talking to anyone who said they wanted the Patriot Act.
You’re right as far as legislation goes, but that doesn’t mean they don’t favor policies anyway. It was clear that the public wanted more things passed after 9/11 to prevent terrorist attacks. They didn’t know the specifics of the Patriot Act, but they favored it anyway. And, again, since you don’t know everybody, it doesn’t matter whether you specifically talked to anyone who favored it or not. It’s a nonsensical argument. I actually did talk to people that supported it. That doesn’t mean anything either. The big picture is what mattered. Polls at the time showed support for the policy.
>Do you feel safer with it now?
No. I opposed it and still oppose it. That doesn’t mean most Americans did.
>They are corrupt and weak for people elect them to do due diligence, to act as a check and balance, and to actually read legislation. They didn’t and don’t do those things.
I’ll wager that almost nobody thought of any of these things when they voted for anybody. I’m sure if you asked people if they support their representatives doing these things, they’ll agree, but they don’t vote for or against people on such abstract qualities. In 2002, they voted for people they thought would protect them from terrorists and almost every incumbent won, sending the clear signal that the people approved of the Patriot Act. To claim someone is corrupt, you have to actually show corruption. This would involve some kind of direct financial remuneration in exchange for a favorable vote. I’ll wager you have no such evidence. And you claim that they were weak for not doing what the people elected them to do, when it was clear this was what the people wanted them to do and the people re-elected them for doing it.
>Your still assuming that a more progressive will win.
Yes, because all the evidence show that to be the case.
>Democrats have a record of screwing up sure things and have not enjoyed majorities very much in the last 30 years.
Don’t make up numbers. The Democrats had majorities in both Houses up until 1994 and have had it in the Senate several times since then and both houses since last year. 30 years ago would be 1977, giving Democrats control of one or both Houses for 21 of the last 30 years.
>And if you investigate there are growing problems with people being arrested for protesting, taking pictures in a public place and being hassled for being a dissenting opinion.
There are some incidents, not sure that you could accurately say it’s a “growing problem.” And you seem to place blame for this on some amorphous “government.” The government didn’t do this. The Bush administration did.
>This would not be tolerated in ancient Greece.
I’m sure they wouldn’t tolerate arresting people for taking pictures in ancient Greece. I’ll give you that one.
>And anything you lose will be in steps. Nazi Germany started slowly,
This is the slippery slope fallacy. Yes, Nazi Germany started slowly, but everything else that started slowly never got as far as Nazi Germany. So you suggest we should go with the 1 in infinity chance — Nazi Germany — (or two in infinity if you add in the Soviet Union) over the rest of infinity. Nonsense.
>I think it is our right and responsibility to fight anything we don’t like at anytime. Not just if it is infringing on or imprisoning us right now.
“Anything we don’t like” isn’t a valid standard. I don’t like Pat Boone, but it isn’t my right or my responsibility to fight him. And I am fighting against the things that are wrong. Voting for Ron Paul wouldn’t help that fight at all.
>”You: Most Democrats voted against it. Many others have said their initial vote was wrong. Republicans haven’t done either of these things.” I thought only 50 reps opposed it and about 150 were for it. I could be wrong.
Democratic votes for the Iraq war were 126-81 against in the House and 29-21 in favor in the Senate. That means the Democrats in Congress voted 147-110 against it. “Most” might’ve been a little strong, but the majority of Democrats in Congress in 2003 opposed the war.
>”It’s almost as if you take a majority vote and translate it into a unanimous vote, which isn’t what happened, of course.” Majority votes don’t happen by accident especially now. Few (around 50 each time) voted against it or the wars.
So? You still can’t accurately say “the Democrats” voted for the war in Iraq, when the majority voted against it.
>”Me: and then almost all vote for the “Homegrown Terrorosm†bill.” “You: Which you haven’t shown is even remotely dangerous.” History will do that, not me. If you want to get scared a bit reread “1984†and look at the similarities. A great book even if you are not a conspiracy nut like me. And I could easily turn this around and say “Why do I need this?â€
I’ve read the book multiple times and taught it to college level students. I see very little in it that is relevant to modern America. There are some things to do with the use of language that the Bush administration has a strong affinity for, but that’s it. Nothng we are doing now could ever lead to anything even remotely like “1984.” Such a thing is not even remotely possible.
“Me: In debates they continue to show the possibility of a nuclear first strike.” “You: Sure, a one in a billion possibility. Doesn’t bother me.” Is this your number or theirs? Plus even mentioning it unbelievable.
Doesn’t matter, it isn’t going to actually happen. Presidents have long said that they would use nukes as a last resort, it isn’t anything new.
>how long would that part of the world harbor resentment for even mentioning it, let alone doing it. Its unamerican and unchristian which all of the candidates pretend to be in some fashion.
One, we aren’t going to do it, so that point is moot. Two, that part of the world already harbors a permanent resentment towards us, this statement has no affect on that. If by “un-American” and “un-Christian” you mean “things that Americans and Christians say quite frequently,” then I agree with you. Such things are wrong, but Americans and Christians say them all the time.
“You: Not wanting to have any binding international agreements is isolationist.” He says “binding ties†and no I don’t think it is isolationist.
Then you don’t understand the word. If you have binding ties and you move towards non-binding ties that, by definition, is more isolationist.
>While we talk about nuking countries or invading allies? While we say 2013 for leaving or talk about attacking other countries in the region?
Again, nobody is literally talking about nuking anybody and they are only talking about invading countries who break those alliances. Nobody said they would wait until after 2013 to leave Iraq and nobody is literally saying we are going to attack other countries in the region. You are overstating all of these things to serve your own ends.
>I never voted for or supported Bush not sure why you keep bringing him up.
Your vote is irrelevant, I’m referring to your comments. You claim that Bush and the Democrats aren’t different, I’m pointing out how they are different.
>Politicians talk in generalities to test ideas.
Do you really think this is the only reason that politicians talk in generalities? If so, then, again, you don’t understand how the real world works.
>Remember Bush was saying first “evildoersâ€, then axis of evil, then Afghanistan, then Iraq. Steps….
And, once again, Bush and the Democrats have little or nothing in common.
“Me: And he did say that he would invade Pakistan if they did not cooperate. Is this a scare tactic, or a misplaced foreign policy?” “You: Scare tactic.” Its strange and foolhardy to try to scare most people.
It isn’t designed to scare most people, it’s designed to scare a small group of people at the highest levels of government in Pakistan.
“Me: And there has still not been a court case proving Bin Laden did anything so why chase him all over the world killing hundreds of thousands?” “You: There doesn’t have to be. When was the court case proving Hitler did anything?” Well he attacked several sovereign countries often brutally.
Right and Osama attacked us brutally.
>If you send in troops they will draw fire and fire back often at people defending there land and family. It is absurd to not think so.
No one said otherwise. Straw man.
>If you think monetary policy happens by accident you are mistaken. If you think the M3 increases while lending policies get more strict you are mistaken.
Didn’t say I thought any of these things. Straw man.
>There is a serious push to devalue the dollar.
Where’s the evidence?
>Just because Bush doesn’t understand economics means his handlers or the Fed don’t understand economics.
Based on what his handlers knew about war and about dealing with natural disasters such as Katrina, it seems kind of silly to think that Bush managed to get it right in this one area.
>But myself and Ron Paul think most economists are heavy handed and dangerously control markets too much often through invisible inflation.
And neither of you have any evidence to back that up. FDR’s policies and Clinton’s policies prove that Keynsian policies work. Hoover’s policies, Reagan’s policies and Bush’s policies prove that “invisible hand” economics don’t work.
>”Me: Iraq and Afghanistan are authorized use of force, not “Congress Declared Warsâ€. And I looked it up and WWII was the last declared war.” “You: See, it’s statements like this that make me question what you say from time to time. The Constitution doesn’t say that Congress has to officially say the words “I declare war!†for it to be a declared war.” Those are facts. I don’t see why you can question me from time to time like I am a misguided school child. These “conflicts†have been going on for years. Where do you think there should be a divide from a conflict and a declared war? Is it a number of years? Americans dead? The other side dead? Money spent?
I question you like this because you make statements like this. It is not a fact that Congress has to say “I declare war” in order for something to be a declared war under the constitutional definition. How do I know that? Because I’ve read the Constitution. And I teach the Constitution at the college level. I’ve read more research on the Constitution that you’ve probably read on the government as a whole. It’s nonsensical to say that something is only a “conflict” if a certain word wasn’t used. There’s no validity to that statement and it reflects a schoolchild’s understanding of the law. The divide between a conflict and a declared war is very clear. If Congress votes to approve the use of force, it is a declared war. If not, it is a conflict.
>We are killing people and I am having to encourage a liberal to stop supporting it. Odd.
This kind of statement also make me treat you like a child. I’ve never supported the war and I don’t now. And nothing I’ve said here even remotely implies otherwise. Your ridiculous conclusion that supporting anyone other than Paul is supporting the war defies all logic, including basic schoolchild logic. Supporting Paul does nothing to end the war. He can’t possibly win. Ever. A vote for Paul is a wasted vote. The only way to end the war is to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it might be. That or find a way to get 67 anti-war votes in the Senate. Since that isn’t possible, the only way to end the war is to elect a Democrat to the White House. Period.
Here’s a bone I thought I’d throw to you progressives; Ron Paul wants to abolish the federal reserve. Do you know why?
I suppose progressives aren’t too bright when it comes to economics (but then, neither are the other candidates) so I’ll give you the gist of it: it makes the rich richer, and the poor poorer.
Ultimately, that’s all it does.
I wonder why the democrats haven’t addressed this issue.
I’m tired of having this same nonsensical conversation. Back it up with evidence or be ignored.