A friend of mine who is famous on the Internet, er, Chris Pirillo, just asked me to support Ron Paul. He’s not the only one. I’ve been hearing a lot of hype about Ron Paul. So, I went to Ron Paul’s Web site and looked at his issues stances to see if I could get why Ron is getting so much hype from some bloggers and see if Ron is really someone who deserves my support (so far I’ve been a bit partial to John Edwards cause I’ve heard him speak several times and think he’s the best of the field so far — at Microsoft I met Hillary Clinton too and she’s really smart too).
I don’t get Ron Paul’s hype. His issues page is devoid of substance on issues that really effect most of us. He focuses on the divisive issues of immigration and abortion (great “wedge” issues) but doesn’t say a single word about the issues that are already driving the presidential campaign: our war strategy, our energy/global warming strategy, our health care strategy, etc. Not a single word is on his issues page about those issues.
He has Pirillo all excited because he comes out tough on fiscal policy. The problem is this policy will NEVER get enacted due to political realities in this country. I remember back when I was a conservative Christian that I bought into this kind of belief system (lots of people believe that you should run a more libertarian-focused fiscal policy and Ron Paul lays that out very well). It’s a nice theory, but getting it enacted is really tough (impossible) and right now our country is in a total fiscal mess because of the war spending that we’ve done (which makes cutting back spending even more impossible than usual). Reduce taxes in the next eight years? If you believe that’s possible you’re smoking some good dope — yet politicans like Ron Paul will tell you that’s what we should do because they know at least 5% of us will bite on that (and usually more, I saw Ronald Reagan use that to great effect). That’d be like Maryam telling me “hey, we should reduce the amount of money we send in for our mortgage every month.” Not gonna happen but we keep believing that’s possible in politics over, and over, and over. And we get idiots as leaders as a result.
Let’s compare Ron Paul to Hillary Clinton’s page (she’s largely seen as the front runner on the Democratic side). Her issues page is more detailed and speaks directly to our #1 issue: ending the war. Ron Paul doesn’t say anything about what he’d specifically do if he were President on this issue on his page (he might have said something somewhere else, but I’m looking at his issues page, which is where he SHOULD say what he’s going to do as President). Yet he talks about abortion which really doesn’t affect most of us the way this damn war does or the way that our energy policy does (I’ve never had an abortion, but my gas prices keep going up).
Barack Obama takes that issue on head on too as does John Edwards. In fact, all three Democratic candidates are doing a MUCH better job on their Web sites and on social media sites than Ron Paul is.
So why, again, is Ron Paul getting support from bloggers? I don’t get it. This guy doesn’t even deserve to be hyped up if he isn’t going to take a stance on the tough issues of the day. Immigration and abortion and fiscal conservatism are NOT the big issues facing us.
What about his stance on Global Warming? He doesn’t have a single word about it on his issue page. What about rebuilding Louisiana? Not a single word. Fixing the health care system? Not a single word. I believe all three of the Democratic candidates believe we’ll need to nationalize health care. That’ll cost money. Yet Ron Paul wants to pull more money out of government and “give back to the people.” I’ve heard this line before. It doesn’t work.
But, then, this is the world that brought us Paris Hilton and George Bush, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised when bloggers hype up someone who isn’t willing to talk about the REAL issues of the day.
Count me out.
Scobleizer 
The Ron Paul group is super popular on my social networking site that I run off the cable modem in our office, namely SiteSpaces.net. The reason I will NEVER feature Ron Paul’s group no matter how much people like it, is because aside from disliking GW Bush which is pretty much accepted along 95% of the world’s population including republicans, you should not take political sides as a neutral website or blog. Unless you have a political website or blog, which you don’t. Ron Paul group will never be featured on the home page. It’s just another reason for people to not visit the website or blog.
LikeLike
The Ron Paul group is super popular on my social networking site that I run off the cable modem in our office, namely SiteSpaces.net. The reason I will NEVER feature Ron Paul’s group no matter how much people like it, is because aside from disliking GW Bush which is pretty much accepted along 95% of the world’s population including republicans, you should not take political sides as a neutral website or blog. Unless you have a political website or blog, which you don’t. Ron Paul group will never be featured on the home page. It’s just another reason for people to not visit the website or blog.
LikeLike
Chris: yup, I agree. And I’m probably pissing off half of my audience with this post. (Actually probably more, because a good percentage of you don’t live in the USA).
That’s OK. If we aren’t willing to talk about these issues we won’t get better leadership.
I’m tired of crappy leadership.
I want someone smart who is going to solve the tough issues.
So, I’m wanting to know what politician is going to:
1. Get us out of this damn war so that we will stop spending our economy into a hole (Chris Pirillo should travel to Europe — then he’d see just how weak the dollar has gotten).
2. Make significant steps to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That means making our auto industry build smaller cars (and penalizing consumers for buying big ones).
3. Make significant steps to reduce global warming causes. That means stopping building new coal plans and investing in cleaner energy. I believe that means nuclear, but we need to be investing in ANYTHING but more coal and oil burning plans.
4. Fix our health care system. Our health care system is a total mess. Needs to be nationalized. Or some other way of controlling cost growth needs to be implemented.
5. Our infrastructure needs rebuilding, especially in the South which is still devastated by Katrina. Our National Guard is very weak cause we’ve moved a ton of equipment and troops to Iraq. If there’s a few more disasters at home we’re going to see severe suffering at home.
6. We need to watch our telecom industry and make sure they don’t get out of control. Network Neutrality is a big piece of this. There’s a whole raft of issues that are going to really need to be looked at by those of us in the tech industry. If we ignore these issues we’ll get things like much higher fees on music which just got upheld.
7. We need rational changes to domestic partner rights. I know this issue pisses off a lot of people, but it’s time to get some equality here.
8. We need rational changes to immigration policies. Did anyone miss that Microsoft is opening an office in Vancouver just to deal with our stupid immigration policies? Heck, we couldn’t hire Stanford’s #1 student because of our immigration policy. What did she do? She moved to England and is going to work for Google there. That’s really stupid. Let’s not let in the world’s best and brightest anymore. Heck, and let’s not let in the people who’ll do the real hard work we don’t want to do, too (I watch the Mexicans work in the fields — I sure don’t want to do that kind of work, do you?)
9. We need dramatic educational system reform here. China is kicking out much better prepared kids for the new world than we are. My son is 13 and I see how much the schools absolutely suck. Mostly cause we don’t want to pay teachers a real wage and we don’t want to hold them accountable for the results of their work the way most of us are held accountable.
Ron Paul doesn’t talk about any of these issues. Instead he blabbers on about constitutional issues and “return taxes to the voters” schemes that sound like tired old Ronald Reagan stump speeches to me.
Sigh.
LikeLike
Chris: yup, I agree. And I’m probably pissing off half of my audience with this post. (Actually probably more, because a good percentage of you don’t live in the USA).
That’s OK. If we aren’t willing to talk about these issues we won’t get better leadership.
I’m tired of crappy leadership.
I want someone smart who is going to solve the tough issues.
So, I’m wanting to know what politician is going to:
1. Get us out of this damn war so that we will stop spending our economy into a hole (Chris Pirillo should travel to Europe — then he’d see just how weak the dollar has gotten).
2. Make significant steps to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That means making our auto industry build smaller cars (and penalizing consumers for buying big ones).
3. Make significant steps to reduce global warming causes. That means stopping building new coal plans and investing in cleaner energy. I believe that means nuclear, but we need to be investing in ANYTHING but more coal and oil burning plans.
4. Fix our health care system. Our health care system is a total mess. Needs to be nationalized. Or some other way of controlling cost growth needs to be implemented.
5. Our infrastructure needs rebuilding, especially in the South which is still devastated by Katrina. Our National Guard is very weak cause we’ve moved a ton of equipment and troops to Iraq. If there’s a few more disasters at home we’re going to see severe suffering at home.
6. We need to watch our telecom industry and make sure they don’t get out of control. Network Neutrality is a big piece of this. There’s a whole raft of issues that are going to really need to be looked at by those of us in the tech industry. If we ignore these issues we’ll get things like much higher fees on music which just got upheld.
7. We need rational changes to domestic partner rights. I know this issue pisses off a lot of people, but it’s time to get some equality here.
8. We need rational changes to immigration policies. Did anyone miss that Microsoft is opening an office in Vancouver just to deal with our stupid immigration policies? Heck, we couldn’t hire Stanford’s #1 student because of our immigration policy. What did she do? She moved to England and is going to work for Google there. That’s really stupid. Let’s not let in the world’s best and brightest anymore. Heck, and let’s not let in the people who’ll do the real hard work we don’t want to do, too (I watch the Mexicans work in the fields — I sure don’t want to do that kind of work, do you?)
9. We need dramatic educational system reform here. China is kicking out much better prepared kids for the new world than we are. My son is 13 and I see how much the schools absolutely suck. Mostly cause we don’t want to pay teachers a real wage and we don’t want to hold them accountable for the results of their work the way most of us are held accountable.
Ron Paul doesn’t talk about any of these issues. Instead he blabbers on about constitutional issues and “return taxes to the voters” schemes that sound like tired old Ronald Reagan stump speeches to me.
Sigh.
LikeLike
I think part of it is this “Libertarian” mystique he has going on around him. People here libertarian, and especially fiscally, get all excited… They end up treating him like the type of candiate he isn’t – which is to say, a legitimate one. Libtertarianism in a developed country is a joke. It could be allowed on the social level, but not the fiscal – we, unfortunately, need government to do certain things and pretending like it’ll get done some other way is a joke. It’s the exact same thing as communism – it looks great on paper, as long as you don’t let that pesky reality/human nature thing get involved.
But, I know quite a few people who just get weak in the knees about this guy. Smart, educated people. Absolutely astounds me. Admitedly, none of the candiates do much for me (though, I tend to like Edwards a lot – he just doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of steam.) But Paul’s an idealogue, and honestly – after Bush, you’d think we’d be done with idealogues for a while.
LikeLike
I think part of it is this “Libertarian” mystique he has going on around him. People here libertarian, and especially fiscally, get all excited… They end up treating him like the type of candiate he isn’t – which is to say, a legitimate one. Libtertarianism in a developed country is a joke. It could be allowed on the social level, but not the fiscal – we, unfortunately, need government to do certain things and pretending like it’ll get done some other way is a joke. It’s the exact same thing as communism – it looks great on paper, as long as you don’t let that pesky reality/human nature thing get involved.
But, I know quite a few people who just get weak in the knees about this guy. Smart, educated people. Absolutely astounds me. Admitedly, none of the candiates do much for me (though, I tend to like Edwards a lot – he just doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of steam.) But Paul’s an idealogue, and honestly – after Bush, you’d think we’d be done with idealogues for a while.
LikeLike
For a comprehensive look at his positions, check out http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/ that includes speeches that he’s delivered in the House. The one thing Paul oould do as President that he couldn’t do in the house is 1. Veto unconstitutional bills.
LikeLike
For a comprehensive look at his positions, check out http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/ that includes speeches that he’s delivered in the House. The one thing Paul oould do as President that he couldn’t do in the house is 1. Veto unconstitutional bills.
LikeLike
Robert, Glad you brought this up. It’s been puzzling me, too. Pirillo seems to have latched on to the Ron Paul “abolish the Fed” tirade as the supreme issue of our time. Compared to your rational and pragmatic listing of real issues that have palpable and traceable impact on our safety, health, economy, and well-being, the Paul campaign is a combination of ideology, wege issues and mumbo jumbo about unprovable, unpassable abstractions. Ron Paul is running a reality distortion engine that might rival Steve Jobs… Except that Jobs actually ships.
LikeLike
Robert, Glad you brought this up. It’s been puzzling me, too. Pirillo seems to have latched on to the Ron Paul “abolish the Fed” tirade as the supreme issue of our time. Compared to your rational and pragmatic listing of real issues that have palpable and traceable impact on our safety, health, economy, and well-being, the Paul campaign is a combination of ideology, wege issues and mumbo jumbo about unprovable, unpassable abstractions. Ron Paul is running a reality distortion engine that might rival Steve Jobs… Except that Jobs actually ships.
LikeLike
None of those democrats will end WAR. They may “redeploy” the troops from Iraq to … Iran? … but they will not end War anymore than they ever did. That’s a fact. Ron Paul is, therefore, the only credible choice on the most critical issue of our time. Congress is spineless and refuses to do it – in my mind, grounds for hanging the lot of them, the traitors – and thus it’s up to the executive. That’s where Ron Paul comes in.
And have you heard any of the gibberish that comes out of the democratic camp? Socialized health care, more spending all over the place, increasing taxes on the rich to pay for it … you know, the rich can afford to LEAVE this country and go somewhere where the taxes are cheaper, like Germany/France/the Scandinavian countries.
So I ask, how will they pay for this stuff? I will tell you how: they’ll print money. That’s called inflation. The Fed will lie about it, call it “tame” so long as we exclude fuel and food (and probably, I’d imagine, water sooner or later), and we’ll just keep puttering along. But a collapse will happen, because it always does. And when our banking system collapses, it’s going to be a giant immigration problem for CANADA, you just wait. Maybe Mexico, too, if by that time they have their act together a little more.
You say “Ron Paul doesn’t talk about any of these issues” and I just have to laugh, because he’s the only one out there who actually talks, and I mean not just giving some vapid rhetoric that means nothing, about ALL of those issues. ALL OF THEM. Every single one.
I hope you will do some further investigation. There are two parties in this country, the War Party and the Peace Party. Please be sure about which one you are supporting with your choice of candidate. I submit to you that there is, in fact, a right and wrong (morally speaking) answer to that question. Choose wisely.
LikeLike
None of those democrats will end WAR. They may “redeploy” the troops from Iraq to … Iran? … but they will not end War anymore than they ever did. That’s a fact. Ron Paul is, therefore, the only credible choice on the most critical issue of our time. Congress is spineless and refuses to do it – in my mind, grounds for hanging the lot of them, the traitors – and thus it’s up to the executive. That’s where Ron Paul comes in.
And have you heard any of the gibberish that comes out of the democratic camp? Socialized health care, more spending all over the place, increasing taxes on the rich to pay for it … you know, the rich can afford to LEAVE this country and go somewhere where the taxes are cheaper, like Germany/France/the Scandinavian countries.
So I ask, how will they pay for this stuff? I will tell you how: they’ll print money. That’s called inflation. The Fed will lie about it, call it “tame” so long as we exclude fuel and food (and probably, I’d imagine, water sooner or later), and we’ll just keep puttering along. But a collapse will happen, because it always does. And when our banking system collapses, it’s going to be a giant immigration problem for CANADA, you just wait. Maybe Mexico, too, if by that time they have their act together a little more.
You say “Ron Paul doesn’t talk about any of these issues” and I just have to laugh, because he’s the only one out there who actually talks, and I mean not just giving some vapid rhetoric that means nothing, about ALL of those issues. ALL OF THEM. Every single one.
I hope you will do some further investigation. There are two parties in this country, the War Party and the Peace Party. Please be sure about which one you are supporting with your choice of candidate. I submit to you that there is, in fact, a right and wrong (morally speaking) answer to that question. Choose wisely.
LikeLike
“Not a single word is on his issues page about those issues.”
I must apologize for Ron Paul’s website. I know his stance on the issues you said his web page fails to mention. At first I was shocked at your statement and was so enraged by what I thought was your bias sophomoric slash at Paul I was tempted to write a “grow up” response. Instead I counted to ten and when to his home page and guess what? Damn, he states his views as if you already have an idea what “his” are.
For those who haven’t seem him on Youtube and such, I can see how his home page can be somewhat lacking. I would suggest to you to keep watching the man. He has stated his opinion on the war on national tv and many other places. He’s an medical doctor and certainly has a stance on health care.
Good luck,
Allan
LikeLike
“Not a single word is on his issues page about those issues.”
I must apologize for Ron Paul’s website. I know his stance on the issues you said his web page fails to mention. At first I was shocked at your statement and was so enraged by what I thought was your bias sophomoric slash at Paul I was tempted to write a “grow up” response. Instead I counted to ten and when to his home page and guess what? Damn, he states his views as if you already have an idea what “his” are.
For those who haven’t seem him on Youtube and such, I can see how his home page can be somewhat lacking. I would suggest to you to keep watching the man. He has stated his opinion on the war on national tv and many other places. He’s an medical doctor and certainly has a stance on health care.
Good luck,
Allan
LikeLike
It is ok not to like Ron Paul, but don’t pretend to have looked into the issues in a thoughtful, considered, way, and just not ‘get it’.
If you went to the issues page and found it lacking, I suggest you review a few YouTube videos, and, in particular, the video of yesterday’s Google Q+A where all of the issues you raise were addressed in detail.
LikeLike
It is ok not to like Ron Paul, but don’t pretend to have looked into the issues in a thoughtful, considered, way, and just not ‘get it’.
If you went to the issues page and found it lacking, I suggest you review a few YouTube videos, and, in particular, the video of yesterday’s Google Q+A where all of the issues you raise were addressed in detail.
LikeLike
let me nudge you in the right direction about where he stands:
If you still feel the same way after reviewing these, you have earned my respect.
LikeLike
“1. Get us out of this damn war so that we will stop spending our economy into a hole (Chris Pirillo should travel to Europe — then he’d see just how weak the dollar has gotten).”
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=1&from=USD&to=CAD&submit=Convert
Our money here in Canada is slated to be worth more than American money in the next few months.
You can blame some of that on Bush and the softwood lumber issue that has plagued us for years.
And blame outsourcing to China and India as well as trade inbalances too.
“8. We need rational changes to immigration policies. Did anyone miss that Microsoft is opening an office in Vancouver just to deal with our stupid immigration policies? Heck, we couldn’t hire Stanford’s #1 student because of our immigration policy. What did she do? She moved to England and is going to work for Google there. That’s really stupid.”
That’s bologna. Microsoft has offices in the UK as well. Come to grips with the fact that she didn’t want to work for Microsoft. Microsoft and Google have offices all over the world where they can hire people locally.
The reason people use our company is because they can’t afford the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to set up shop locally in 40 different countries worldwide. That is not the case with Microsoft or Google.
I feel Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have done a terrible disservice to America by setting up major outsourcing operations overseas in order to cut benefits and costs. They got their opportunity from MITS in New Mexico. They got their DOS IBM contract in the US, and then they sold out their own country just because every other major tech firm did it.
As for changes to immigration, how about this change:
Instead of spending millions outsourcing to 3rd world nations, pour the money into the educational system in the US and Canada to insure that some day in the near future Indians aren’t all in management while AMERICANS are flipping cheeseburgers for them.
I think Ballmer and Gates forgot where they came from.
“9. We need dramatic educational system reform here.”
How about the Gates foundation NOT donating Microsoft software as full cost tax deductions to schools and rather donate money or equipment based on need.
What if Microsoft put aside their tax write offs and donated Linux machines to school or money for Apple Macs?
Or money for non-IT related stuff that will never benefit Microsoft in the future.
The problem with privatized donations is that private industry donates with an ulterior motive and it ends up hurting as much as it helps.
Those kids in Russia that now HAVE to use Linux because of the new govt policy there will end up being much smarter than their American counterparts that got donations from the Gates foundation for computers at their schools.
Stop treating everything like a business deal and we won’t need to outsource overseas anymore.
LikeLike
let me nudge you in the right direction about where he stands:
If you still feel the same way after reviewing these, you have earned my respect.
LikeLike
“1. Get us out of this damn war so that we will stop spending our economy into a hole (Chris Pirillo should travel to Europe — then he’d see just how weak the dollar has gotten).”
http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?amt=1&from=USD&to=CAD&submit=Convert
Our money here in Canada is slated to be worth more than American money in the next few months.
You can blame some of that on Bush and the softwood lumber issue that has plagued us for years.
And blame outsourcing to China and India as well as trade inbalances too.
“8. We need rational changes to immigration policies. Did anyone miss that Microsoft is opening an office in Vancouver just to deal with our stupid immigration policies? Heck, we couldn’t hire Stanford’s #1 student because of our immigration policy. What did she do? She moved to England and is going to work for Google there. That’s really stupid.”
That’s bologna. Microsoft has offices in the UK as well. Come to grips with the fact that she didn’t want to work for Microsoft. Microsoft and Google have offices all over the world where they can hire people locally.
The reason people use our company is because they can’t afford the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to set up shop locally in 40 different countries worldwide. That is not the case with Microsoft or Google.
I feel Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer have done a terrible disservice to America by setting up major outsourcing operations overseas in order to cut benefits and costs. They got their opportunity from MITS in New Mexico. They got their DOS IBM contract in the US, and then they sold out their own country just because every other major tech firm did it.
As for changes to immigration, how about this change:
Instead of spending millions outsourcing to 3rd world nations, pour the money into the educational system in the US and Canada to insure that some day in the near future Indians aren’t all in management while AMERICANS are flipping cheeseburgers for them.
I think Ballmer and Gates forgot where they came from.
“9. We need dramatic educational system reform here.”
How about the Gates foundation NOT donating Microsoft software as full cost tax deductions to schools and rather donate money or equipment based on need.
What if Microsoft put aside their tax write offs and donated Linux machines to school or money for Apple Macs?
Or money for non-IT related stuff that will never benefit Microsoft in the future.
The problem with privatized donations is that private industry donates with an ulterior motive and it ends up hurting as much as it helps.
Those kids in Russia that now HAVE to use Linux because of the new govt policy there will end up being much smarter than their American counterparts that got donations from the Gates foundation for computers at their schools.
Stop treating everything like a business deal and we won’t need to outsource overseas anymore.
LikeLike
The one issue mentioned here that is most in need of attention is education. It is obvious that most people are woefully ignorant of economics; otherwise, most of the above ideas would not have been suggested. Socialism is NOT the answer. You are right about Ron Paul. Regardless of how great some people think his ideas are, they would not be enacted in the current political climate. I keep trying to point that out to his many supporters on Digg.
For a good introduction to economics see “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell.
LikeLike
The one issue mentioned here that is most in need of attention is education. It is obvious that most people are woefully ignorant of economics; otherwise, most of the above ideas would not have been suggested. Socialism is NOT the answer. You are right about Ron Paul. Regardless of how great some people think his ideas are, they would not be enacted in the current political climate. I keep trying to point that out to his many supporters on Digg.
For a good introduction to economics see “Basic Economics” by Thomas Sowell.
LikeLike
Robert, so now you’re a Buddhist Liberal?? JUST KIDDING!
I think you’re right. And another point after you have traveled in Europe (as have I) is that the dollar is being artificially held stronger than it should, which means it should be truly killer in Europe.
Chris, there are two minds out there about politics and blogs. If you are an A-lister, you’re probably right. You could blog, but it needs to be a separate blog. But if you’re not an A-lister, say Rand Simberg of http://www.transterrestrial.com/, that’s probably a different thing. I read Rand for his space insight, but boy do I have to suffer through his political stuff. And he’s OK with mixing the two. And yes, I’ve thought about transferring him from my Space folder to my Politics folder in Bloglines many a time.
And then there’s me at the end of tail. I rant about whatever, the cats, the car, the computer, and the idiots that I see out there. I wanted to be a tech blog, but I seem to be coming across more as a political blog. Shrug.
I know that the Fed has been out of control since the inflation driven 70’s, when it was obvious to my teenaged mind that the high rates back then were inflationary in themselves. But that’s not an issue I’m paying any attention to myself. The war, the budget and health care are my big buttons right now. And I’ve only been blogging about the war, so you figure it out.
LikeLike
Robert, so now you’re a Buddhist Liberal?? JUST KIDDING!
I think you’re right. And another point after you have traveled in Europe (as have I) is that the dollar is being artificially held stronger than it should, which means it should be truly killer in Europe.
Chris, there are two minds out there about politics and blogs. If you are an A-lister, you’re probably right. You could blog, but it needs to be a separate blog. But if you’re not an A-lister, say Rand Simberg of http://www.transterrestrial.com/, that’s probably a different thing. I read Rand for his space insight, but boy do I have to suffer through his political stuff. And he’s OK with mixing the two. And yes, I’ve thought about transferring him from my Space folder to my Politics folder in Bloglines many a time.
And then there’s me at the end of tail. I rant about whatever, the cats, the car, the computer, and the idiots that I see out there. I wanted to be a tech blog, but I seem to be coming across more as a political blog. Shrug.
I know that the Fed has been out of control since the inflation driven 70’s, when it was obvious to my teenaged mind that the high rates back then were inflationary in themselves. But that’s not an issue I’m paying any attention to myself. The war, the budget and health care are my big buttons right now. And I’ve only been blogging about the war, so you figure it out.
LikeLike
You cannot possibly find another candidate who is more forthright in explaining his position on the issues than Ron Paul. And what kind of logic is it to say, “Well, he may have good ideas, but they won’t be enacted, so I won’t vote for him.” Is it better to support a candidate with bad ideas that have a good chance of being enacted?
Do a little more research on Ron and you will find the answers to your questions.
LikeLike
You cannot possibly find another candidate who is more forthright in explaining his position on the issues than Ron Paul. And what kind of logic is it to say, “Well, he may have good ideas, but they won’t be enacted, so I won’t vote for him.” Is it better to support a candidate with bad ideas that have a good chance of being enacted?
Do a little more research on Ron and you will find the answers to your questions.
LikeLike
Ok, I’ll bite. Ron Paul’s position on healthcare, as he has repeatedly stated, is that it is none of the federal government’s business. I could wander off into the theory behind capitalistic healthcare, but I doubt it’d get a good reception here. Suffice to say that plastic surgery, not covered by insurance, gets cheaper while those things under our rediculously over-regulated system get more expensive.
And, that theme continues. Education? Not a Federal issue. War on drugs? Ditto. Welfare? Double ditto. The list goes on.
As for the war in Iraq, both Clinton and Edwards voted for it while Paul voted against it. He has always maintained it is an illegal war and the troops should come home as soon as possible. Oh, and he also believes we need to quit meddling everywhere. If you believe Clinton isn’t going to start a fracas with some poor third world nation at some point, you’re naive.
Now, eliminate every department not found in the constitution, eliminated all forward deployed us bases. and phase out entitlements, and the federal budget fits in 700 billion or so, meaning, with a slight increase in excise, you can eliminate the income tax altogether.
LikeLike
Ok, I’ll bite. Ron Paul’s position on healthcare, as he has repeatedly stated, is that it is none of the federal government’s business. I could wander off into the theory behind capitalistic healthcare, but I doubt it’d get a good reception here. Suffice to say that plastic surgery, not covered by insurance, gets cheaper while those things under our rediculously over-regulated system get more expensive.
And, that theme continues. Education? Not a Federal issue. War on drugs? Ditto. Welfare? Double ditto. The list goes on.
As for the war in Iraq, both Clinton and Edwards voted for it while Paul voted against it. He has always maintained it is an illegal war and the troops should come home as soon as possible. Oh, and he also believes we need to quit meddling everywhere. If you believe Clinton isn’t going to start a fracas with some poor third world nation at some point, you’re naive.
Now, eliminate every department not found in the constitution, eliminated all forward deployed us bases. and phase out entitlements, and the federal budget fits in 700 billion or so, meaning, with a slight increase in excise, you can eliminate the income tax altogether.
LikeLike
Robert, what should concern you most is that Ron Paul is a racist. He is an unreconstructed Southerner who wants to repeal all civil rights laws and return to the good ole days of Jim Crow and, blacks, browns and women knowing their places. According to Paul, civil rights laws caused problems instead of making American society more equitable.
His behavior is no secret to those of us who have been interested in the far Right for years, a bit more than former Virginia senator George Allen’s was. We became aware of Paul as a leader of the John Birch Society. However, some so-called liberals and progressives have indeed embraced him. When Paul’s blatantly misanthropic beliefs are brought up, his most ardent ‘Left’ supporters are dismissive as if having a racist in the White House wouldn’t matter as long as he supported some pet issue of theirs and opposed the war in Iraq.
You really need to read Paul’s own words for yourself.
He most recently declared the public accommodations act of 1964, which made racial discrimination in most public places illegal and affirmed the right of non-white Americans to vote, unconstitutional in this statement to Congress:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.ht...
Some years ago, Paul flew into a frenzy during the Los Angelos riots, leaving no doubt about his virulent hatred of African-Americans in an article he wrote in his newsletter:
groups.google.com/group/soc.culture…
Paul’s source for his statistics (which are false, of course) is Jared Taylor, a leading white supremacist who runs the American Renaissance website. They are acquaintances, perhaps friends. Other racist organizations, including the Council of Conservative Citizens, Ku Klux Klan chapters and Sons of Confederate Veterans support Paul. He is a favorite at the Stormfront neo-Nazi site.
http://spaceramblings.blogsome.com/2007/06/01/ron-pauls-racist-supporters/
Paul is also anti-Semitic, anti-gay and opposed to most immigration, unless the immigrants are from Western European countries. He, is, unfortunately, what most Americans of his background were. . .in 1950.
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/views/0024-views.html
Your observation that Paul’s public answers to questions consists of banalities is accurate. But, considering what he really believes, it behooves him to hide the truth.
Robert, I would love to add more links, but have an erratic Wi-Fi signal. So, I am going to ask that you take a couple hours and do your own Internet research on Ron Paul and social justice issues. Informing the tech community about the REAL Ron Paul could be the most important blogging you do this year.
LikeLike
Robert, what should concern you most is that Ron Paul is a racist. He is an unreconstructed Southerner who wants to repeal all civil rights laws and return to the good ole days of Jim Crow and, blacks, browns and women knowing their places. According to Paul, civil rights laws caused problems instead of making American society more equitable.
His behavior is no secret to those of us who have been interested in the far Right for years, a bit more than former Virginia senator George Allen’s was. We became aware of Paul as a leader of the John Birch Society. However, some so-called liberals and progressives have indeed embraced him. When Paul’s blatantly misanthropic beliefs are brought up, his most ardent ‘Left’ supporters are dismissive as if having a racist in the White House wouldn’t matter as long as he supported some pet issue of theirs and opposed the war in Iraq.
You really need to read Paul’s own words for yourself.
He most recently declared the public accommodations act of 1964, which made racial discrimination in most public places illegal and affirmed the right of non-white Americans to vote, unconstitutional in this statement to Congress:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.ht...
Some years ago, Paul flew into a frenzy during the Los Angelos riots, leaving no doubt about his virulent hatred of African-Americans in an article he wrote in his newsletter:
groups.google.com/group/soc.culture…
Paul’s source for his statistics (which are false, of course) is Jared Taylor, a leading white supremacist who runs the American Renaissance website. They are acquaintances, perhaps friends. Other racist organizations, including the Council of Conservative Citizens, Ku Klux Klan chapters and Sons of Confederate Veterans support Paul. He is a favorite at the Stormfront neo-Nazi site.
http://spaceramblings.blogsome.com/2007/06/01/ron-pauls-racist-supporters/
Paul is also anti-Semitic, anti-gay and opposed to most immigration, unless the immigrants are from Western European countries. He, is, unfortunately, what most Americans of his background were. . .in 1950.
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/views/0024-views.html
Your observation that Paul’s public answers to questions consists of banalities is accurate. But, considering what he really believes, it behooves him to hide the truth.
Robert, I would love to add more links, but have an erratic Wi-Fi signal. So, I am going to ask that you take a couple hours and do your own Internet research on Ron Paul and social justice issues. Informing the tech community about the REAL Ron Paul could be the most important blogging you do this year.
LikeLike
Fixed link:
http://tinyurl.com/28549w
This is the most telling of Ron Paul’s remarks.
LikeLike
Fixed link:
http://tinyurl.com/28549w
This is the most telling of Ron Paul’s remarks.
LikeLike
All Ron Paul has is some tech-savvy supporters who know how to spam online polls. He has not, and will not crack 1% in any offline poll or any primary. His foreign policy stands and unwillingness to denounce 9/11 conspiracy theorists and North American Union conspiracy theorists out of hand makes him untenable to the party whose nomination he’s seeking. His domestic policy makes him untenable to Democrats. And the vast majority of ‘libertarian moderates’ aren’t really principled libertarians; they have issues where they don’t want the government involved, and issues where they do, and if those don’t line up perfectly with the GOP or the Democrats, they still end up pretty strongly identified with one party or another, so he’s not going to get support there. And he doesn’t have the kind of engaging personality to attract people purely on that basis.
LikeLike
All Ron Paul has is some tech-savvy supporters who know how to spam online polls. He has not, and will not crack 1% in any offline poll or any primary. His foreign policy stands and unwillingness to denounce 9/11 conspiracy theorists and North American Union conspiracy theorists out of hand makes him untenable to the party whose nomination he’s seeking. His domestic policy makes him untenable to Democrats. And the vast majority of ‘libertarian moderates’ aren’t really principled libertarians; they have issues where they don’t want the government involved, and issues where they do, and if those don’t line up perfectly with the GOP or the Democrats, they still end up pretty strongly identified with one party or another, so he’s not going to get support there. And he doesn’t have the kind of engaging personality to attract people purely on that basis.
LikeLike
You must be blind. Ron Paul’s whole controversy is that he IS the only R anti-war candidate!
Did you not see the debates? My God how uninformed can a blogger be?
LikeLike
You must be blind. Ron Paul’s whole controversy is that he IS the only R anti-war candidate!
Did you not see the debates? My God how uninformed can a blogger be?
LikeLike
Ron Paul is the best! 🙂
LikeLike
Ron Paul is the best! 🙂
LikeLike
Here are my thoughts on this:
http://www.miraesoft.com/karel/2007/07/14/ron-paul-the-usas-only-hope/
LikeLike
Here are my thoughts on this:
http://www.miraesoft.com/karel/2007/07/14/ron-paul-the-usas-only-hope/
LikeLike
I agree with you Karel and I’ll add this, (not the most popular Ron Paul youtube vids, but I like this series as in my opinion it shows Mr Paul to be total opposite to a Kook, Fringe, racist, anti-semitic etc etc etc.)
LikeLike
I agree with you Karel and I’ll add this, (not the most popular Ron Paul youtube vids, but I like this series as in my opinion it shows Mr Paul to be total opposite to a Kook, Fringe, racist, anti-semitic etc etc etc.)
LikeLike
Robert, I found this post more interesting than the iPhone slide that you had gotten yourself into. As someone from England, it is interesting to see a snapshot of peoples thoughts on politics and what is happening in their country, without going down the normal well tread focused channels that the media spoon feed us.
LikeLike
Robert, I found this post more interesting than the iPhone slide that you had gotten yourself into. As someone from England, it is interesting to see a snapshot of peoples thoughts on politics and what is happening in their country, without going down the normal well tread focused channels that the media spoon feed us.
LikeLike
….and here is part 2.
LikeLike
….and here is part 2.
LikeLike
Seems we have more of a dynasty form of govt. than democracy. We had the Kennedys, the Bushs, and now the Clintons. Of course G.W. totally hosed the Bush dynasty and his poor brother Jeb probably cries himself to sleep every night knowing it’s the end.
God I hate politics/politicians. All we get are politicians, we need some statesmen for a change.
LikeLike
Seems we have more of a dynasty form of govt. than democracy. We had the Kennedys, the Bushs, and now the Clintons. Of course G.W. totally hosed the Bush dynasty and his poor brother Jeb probably cries himself to sleep every night knowing it’s the end.
God I hate politics/politicians. All we get are politicians, we need some statesmen for a change.
LikeLike
Uh-oh. Once the Paul-Bots get word of this you’re probably going to be inundated. Just warning you…
LikeLike
Uh-oh. Once the Paul-Bots get word of this you’re probably going to be inundated. Just warning you…
LikeLike
Ron Paul is not a racist and pretending that there are any issues more important than the individual’s right to be free of morons with lists of issues for him to pay for is failing to get the point. Liberty is the first and last issue. If you can’t get it done voluntarily, it shouldn’t be done.
LikeLike
Ron Paul is not a racist and pretending that there are any issues more important than the individual’s right to be free of morons with lists of issues for him to pay for is failing to get the point. Liberty is the first and last issue. If you can’t get it done voluntarily, it shouldn’t be done.
LikeLike
Edwards is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is a private thinktank started by John Rockefeller, an extremely powerful global elitist. These people are for One World Government, the North American Union (which will merge Canada, Mexico and the USA into one territory under a new constitution), the Amero currency, the destruction of the middle class, world depopulation, and the list goes on and on and on.
Thanks for reading.
LikeLike
Edwards is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which is a private thinktank started by John Rockefeller, an extremely powerful global elitist. These people are for One World Government, the North American Union (which will merge Canada, Mexico and the USA into one territory under a new constitution), the Amero currency, the destruction of the middle class, world depopulation, and the list goes on and on and on.
Thanks for reading.
LikeLike
Hey, if you don’t like his “page,” maybe you’ll like his “library.”
Dr. Paul is not reticent on any of the issues. Methinks you just need to try a little harder.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
LikeLike
Hey, if you don’t like his “page,” maybe you’ll like his “library.”
Dr. Paul is not reticent on any of the issues. Methinks you just need to try a little harder.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
LikeLike
Count me in as one of the people who do not understand why otherwise sensible folks think Ron Paul is the second coming. Just because someone is anti-war and anti-drug laws does not make his a good candidate.
The left-leaning poliblog Orcinus has a couple of good articles debunking Ron Paul’s street cred:
here
and here
LikeLike
Count me in as one of the people who do not understand why otherwise sensible folks think Ron Paul is the second coming. Just because someone is anti-war and anti-drug laws does not make his a good candidate.
The left-leaning poliblog Orcinus has a couple of good articles debunking Ron Paul’s street cred:
here
and here
LikeLike
Ron Paul is against Jim Crow laws.
What are the key issues? War(s), constitutional crisis, global worker competition, and the potential economic crash. Paul addresses those.
LikeLike
Ron Paul is against Jim Crow laws.
What are the key issues? War(s), constitutional crisis, global worker competition, and the potential economic crash. Paul addresses those.
LikeLike
Pirillo has bought into some really fringe ideas lately. He has been linking to a lot of conspiracy video’s about the money supply and bankers, et al. He has been on a UFO tear as well. Seems he is mining the murky depths of the internet to find this stuff..not sure if he is link baiting or really believes this drivel. His readers deserve better. Nice job calling bullshit on the Ron Paul hype…I’d love to elect Santa Clause myself but something tells me it ain’t gonna happen.
LikeLike
Pirillo has bought into some really fringe ideas lately. He has been linking to a lot of conspiracy video’s about the money supply and bankers, et al. He has been on a UFO tear as well. Seems he is mining the murky depths of the internet to find this stuff..not sure if he is link baiting or really believes this drivel. His readers deserve better. Nice job calling bullshit on the Ron Paul hype…I’d love to elect Santa Clause myself but something tells me it ain’t gonna happen.
LikeLike
Most of us who are Ron Paul supporters ended up becoming a supporter as result of his videos on YouTube and from various television, radio, and in-person speaking engagements. These videos address most of the concerns that you have about the candidate.
You are, however, very right in that Ron Paul’s web site is devoid of real coverage on the issues. But do decide for or against a candidate based solely on a single web site seems disingenuous to me.
LikeLike
Most of us who are Ron Paul supporters ended up becoming a supporter as result of his videos on YouTube and from various television, radio, and in-person speaking engagements. These videos address most of the concerns that you have about the candidate.
You are, however, very right in that Ron Paul’s web site is devoid of real coverage on the issues. But do decide for or against a candidate based solely on a single web site seems disingenuous to me.
LikeLike
Ron Paul on Iraq. He’s got a position. Just not on his campaign site.
Mysterious. Ron Paul has, probably, the most extreme anti-war stance of anyone serving in Congress. (See this recent speech.) He voted against authorizing the war, against every supplemental appropriations bill. He wants to end the war. And he wants a complete withdrawal from the region. And yet his campaign site is silent about this. To me that’s a yellow flag. It’s a thing that makes you go “hmm.” His long record is one of appeal to a fringe of radical isolationists. But he’s keeping that just a little bit out of sight (and off of site) for his new found web friends. He’s not ducking it or flip-flopping. He’s being consistent. But it’s odd that, having a radical position on the dominant issue of our time (the Iraq war), he is focusing on the evil Fed. Maybe a Paulist can explain that to us.
LikeLike
Ron Paul on Iraq. He’s got a position. Just not on his campaign site.
Mysterious. Ron Paul has, probably, the most extreme anti-war stance of anyone serving in Congress. (See this recent speech.) He voted against authorizing the war, against every supplemental appropriations bill. He wants to end the war. And he wants a complete withdrawal from the region. And yet his campaign site is silent about this. To me that’s a yellow flag. It’s a thing that makes you go “hmm.” His long record is one of appeal to a fringe of radical isolationists. But he’s keeping that just a little bit out of sight (and off of site) for his new found web friends. He’s not ducking it or flip-flopping. He’s being consistent. But it’s odd that, having a radical position on the dominant issue of our time (the Iraq war), he is focusing on the evil Fed. Maybe a Paulist can explain that to us.
LikeLike
So what you’re saying Soble is, support should be based on their websites? WTF is that?
If that’s the case my support would have to go to Shaun Inman….
LikeLike
So what you’re saying Soble is, support should be based on their websites? WTF is that?
If that’s the case my support would have to go to Shaun Inman….
LikeLike
Chris #10: I was talking about PodTech there losing an employee to Google, not Microsoft.
To everyone else: the more videos I watch of this guy, the more I understand why the media is ignoring him. But if he floats your boat, go for it. As I told Chris he’s making the process more interesting to watch, even if he won’t have a real impact in the end.
LikeLike
Chris #10: I was talking about PodTech there losing an employee to Google, not Microsoft.
To everyone else: the more videos I watch of this guy, the more I understand why the media is ignoring him. But if he floats your boat, go for it. As I told Chris he’s making the process more interesting to watch, even if he won’t have a real impact in the end.
LikeLike
To everyone who is mad at me for not doing more homework. Keep in mind most people won’t do research. I did a Google search, found the dude’s Web site, and looked at his issues page.
If he can’t even build a decent Web site that links to ALL of his issues, why should we expect he’ll do a good job of running the country?
LikeLike
To everyone who is mad at me for not doing more homework. Keep in mind most people won’t do research. I did a Google search, found the dude’s Web site, and looked at his issues page.
If he can’t even build a decent Web site that links to ALL of his issues, why should we expect he’ll do a good job of running the country?
LikeLike
Hey Robert, you seem to be very passionate about all this, you should add the U.S. Politics application on Facebook to share who you support etc… seems pretty neat:
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2359935501&b
LikeLike
Hey Robert, you seem to be very passionate about all this, you should add the U.S. Politics application on Facebook to share who you support etc… seems pretty neat:
http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=2359935501&b
LikeLike
“It’s a nice theory, but getting it enacted is really tough”
So you agree with Ron Paul but think it’s too “tough”. I will never understand people that want their government to do everything for them and your comments in post #2 really explain that stance. In almost every case you stated how the government needs to do this or that and control something.
Your under the delusion that more government action in our systems is going to help the system when the reason the system is screwed up in the first place is because the government got involved. The purpose of our government as our founders saw it was to protect our civil liberties, not dictate them.
Just look at your paycheck and see how much comes out for taxes and now imagine that there was no income tax at all in the early 1900’s. After the Federal Reserve Act the government had to tax the people to pay for all the bonds from the Federal Reserve – a private bank. Every time another dollar is printed it decreases the value of our money through inflation. This is called the inflation tax and it mostly affects the poor because they have less money which is decreasing in value. Eventually America will be turned into a socialist/communist country where government runs everything and the sad thing is that many people think that would be fine because they don’t see the danger.
LikeLike
“It’s a nice theory, but getting it enacted is really tough”
So you agree with Ron Paul but think it’s too “tough”. I will never understand people that want their government to do everything for them and your comments in post #2 really explain that stance. In almost every case you stated how the government needs to do this or that and control something.
Your under the delusion that more government action in our systems is going to help the system when the reason the system is screwed up in the first place is because the government got involved. The purpose of our government as our founders saw it was to protect our civil liberties, not dictate them.
Just look at your paycheck and see how much comes out for taxes and now imagine that there was no income tax at all in the early 1900’s. After the Federal Reserve Act the government had to tax the people to pay for all the bonds from the Federal Reserve – a private bank. Every time another dollar is printed it decreases the value of our money through inflation. This is called the inflation tax and it mostly affects the poor because they have less money which is decreasing in value. Eventually America will be turned into a socialist/communist country where government runs everything and the sad thing is that many people think that would be fine because they don’t see the danger.
LikeLike
@2 It’s no surprise you fall into the same category as every other liberal that thinks the Federal govt should be your Mommy.
1 “Get us out of this damn war so that we will stop spending our economy”
You want out of the war for purely economic reasons? Brilliant! Look, everyone, on both sides of the aisle, would love nothing more than to end this thing. It seems every Dem’s plan is simply to “bring the troops home” without any rational, well thought out plan about HOW to go about that that ensures what we leave behind is stable and ensuring they’ve considered all the potential consequences”
@2 “Make significant steps to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That means making our auto industry build smaller cars (and penalizing consumers for buying big ones).”
That’s great 70’s thinking there. Thank you, Jimmy Carter, for chiming in. Show me where, in the Constituion, the Fed Govt has the authority to dictate to private business what they should do. Now, I no liberals like to ignore the Constitution, but it is relevant when talking about what “the govt should do”. I’m all for reducing dependence on foreign oil. Are you for more domestic exploration?
@3 “Global warming, bla bla bla”
Again, not the responsibility of the Fed Govt. Moreover, it’s yet to be definitively proven this is a problem. Science by consensus is not science. So, don’t give me the “everyone agrees” proof.
@4 “Fix our health care system. Our health care system is a total mess. Needs to be nationalized. Or some other way of controlling cost growth needs to be implemented.”
Show me where this is the responsibility of the Fed Govt. Like PJ O’Rourke said: If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when it’s free” Also, please provide ANY documented incident when ANYONE is this country was denied critical healthcare. (anecdotal evidence will not be accepted). You do not have a RIGHT to health care. So, why do you think I should be using MY MONEY to pay for YOUR health care?
@5 “Our infrastructure needs rebuilding, especially in the South which is still devastated by Katrina. Our National Guard is very weak cause we’ve moved a ton of equipment and troops to Iraq. If there’s a few more disasters at home we’re going to see severe suffering at home.”
What infrastucture? What does the National Guard have to do with building infrastucture? You seem to be raising two separate issues here. Also, you’ve described a state issue. Take it up with the Governor. You do understand that we are a nation made up of States, right?
@6 When did we have a nationalized, Govt controlled telecom system? I must have missed when that bill was passed. Not a fan of the free market, huh?
@7 Show me where in the Constitution that this is the responsibility of the fed govt. There is equality on this issue. Anyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. No one is ever denied that. There is no federal marriage law, so good luck with that. This, again, is a State issue. Take it up with Arnie.
@8 Well if Stanford’s #1 student wanted to come to work at PodTech, I have to wonder about the quality of student they are turning out. We have an immigration policy. It’s just not being enforced. Let’s try enforcing the laws we currently have first. The problem is not immigration policy change. The problem is people are here illegally and we are too afraid to do what we need to do to address it. Giving them amnesty is not the answer.
9. “education reform..bla bla bla”. Again, show me in the Constitution where this is the responsibility of the Fed Govt. You’ve again raised a State issue that you need to take up with Arnie.
LikeLike
@2 It’s no surprise you fall into the same category as every other liberal that thinks the Federal govt should be your Mommy.
1 “Get us out of this damn war so that we will stop spending our economy”
You want out of the war for purely economic reasons? Brilliant! Look, everyone, on both sides of the aisle, would love nothing more than to end this thing. It seems every Dem’s plan is simply to “bring the troops home” without any rational, well thought out plan about HOW to go about that that ensures what we leave behind is stable and ensuring they’ve considered all the potential consequences”
@2 “Make significant steps to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That means making our auto industry build smaller cars (and penalizing consumers for buying big ones).”
That’s great 70’s thinking there. Thank you, Jimmy Carter, for chiming in. Show me where, in the Constituion, the Fed Govt has the authority to dictate to private business what they should do. Now, I no liberals like to ignore the Constitution, but it is relevant when talking about what “the govt should do”. I’m all for reducing dependence on foreign oil. Are you for more domestic exploration?
@3 “Global warming, bla bla bla”
Again, not the responsibility of the Fed Govt. Moreover, it’s yet to be definitively proven this is a problem. Science by consensus is not science. So, don’t give me the “everyone agrees” proof.
@4 “Fix our health care system. Our health care system is a total mess. Needs to be nationalized. Or some other way of controlling cost growth needs to be implemented.”
Show me where this is the responsibility of the Fed Govt. Like PJ O’Rourke said: If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when it’s free” Also, please provide ANY documented incident when ANYONE is this country was denied critical healthcare. (anecdotal evidence will not be accepted). You do not have a RIGHT to health care. So, why do you think I should be using MY MONEY to pay for YOUR health care?
@5 “Our infrastructure needs rebuilding, especially in the South which is still devastated by Katrina. Our National Guard is very weak cause we’ve moved a ton of equipment and troops to Iraq. If there’s a few more disasters at home we’re going to see severe suffering at home.”
What infrastucture? What does the National Guard have to do with building infrastucture? You seem to be raising two separate issues here. Also, you’ve described a state issue. Take it up with the Governor. You do understand that we are a nation made up of States, right?
@6 When did we have a nationalized, Govt controlled telecom system? I must have missed when that bill was passed. Not a fan of the free market, huh?
@7 Show me where in the Constitution that this is the responsibility of the fed govt. There is equality on this issue. Anyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. No one is ever denied that. There is no federal marriage law, so good luck with that. This, again, is a State issue. Take it up with Arnie.
@8 Well if Stanford’s #1 student wanted to come to work at PodTech, I have to wonder about the quality of student they are turning out. We have an immigration policy. It’s just not being enforced. Let’s try enforcing the laws we currently have first. The problem is not immigration policy change. The problem is people are here illegally and we are too afraid to do what we need to do to address it. Giving them amnesty is not the answer.
9. “education reform..bla bla bla”. Again, show me in the Constitution where this is the responsibility of the Fed Govt. You’ve again raised a State issue that you need to take up with Arnie.
LikeLike
Cade: we don’t live in an 1900 world. Back then hardly anyone went to college. There were very few roads. Our government hadn’t yet helped build the Internet. Very few people had telephones. And on and on.
I don’t want to live in the way the world was 100 years ago. I want to live in today and go forward.
One thing you don’t get about politics is that it REQUIRES compromise. That’s why our founding fathers setup an adversarial system of checks and balances. To make sure that no one idiot would totally be able to mess things up. That system works pretty well.
This guy will never get anything done because most other people in the world simply don’t agree with him. Me included.
LikeLike
Cade: we don’t live in an 1900 world. Back then hardly anyone went to college. There were very few roads. Our government hadn’t yet helped build the Internet. Very few people had telephones. And on and on.
I don’t want to live in the way the world was 100 years ago. I want to live in today and go forward.
One thing you don’t get about politics is that it REQUIRES compromise. That’s why our founding fathers setup an adversarial system of checks and balances. To make sure that no one idiot would totally be able to mess things up. That system works pretty well.
This guy will never get anything done because most other people in the world simply don’t agree with him. Me included.
LikeLike
@28 “These people are for One World Government, the North American Union (which will merge Canada, Mexico and the USA into one territory under a new constitution”
Ah, so THAT’s what he’s talking about when he says there are “two Americas”?
LikeLike
@28 “These people are for One World Government, the North American Union (which will merge Canada, Mexico and the USA into one territory under a new constitution”
Ah, so THAT’s what he’s talking about when he says there are “two Americas”?
LikeLike
I thought it was a joke.
amm
LikeLike
I thought it was a joke.
amm
LikeLike
@41 1900’s WTF? It the free market that solved those issues, not the Fed Govt. Yes, the founding fathers set up checks and balances, but the overarching theme of the Constitution was LIMITED GOVERNMENT. You’ve HAVE read the Constitution, have you not? If so then this should sound familiar to you:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So, as your assignment, show me where the Constitution has granted the Fed Govt the authority to do the things you say “our govt” should be doing. I’ll give you a hint: it’s NOT “promote the general welfare”. Read Federalist Paper #45 as a background.
LikeLike
@41 1900’s WTF? It the free market that solved those issues, not the Fed Govt. Yes, the founding fathers set up checks and balances, but the overarching theme of the Constitution was LIMITED GOVERNMENT. You’ve HAVE read the Constitution, have you not? If so then this should sound familiar to you:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
So, as your assignment, show me where the Constitution has granted the Fed Govt the authority to do the things you say “our govt” should be doing. I’ll give you a hint: it’s NOT “promote the general welfare”. Read Federalist Paper #45 as a background.
LikeLike
“I shouldn’t be surprised when bloggers hype up someone who isn’t willing to talk about the REAL issues of the day.”
It’s also interesting that you should say this, since Ron Paul is the only candidate that I have seen who will take questions directly from the audience without a moderator to censor them. Have the other candidates done this?
LikeLike
“I shouldn’t be surprised when bloggers hype up someone who isn’t willing to talk about the REAL issues of the day.”
It’s also interesting that you should say this, since Ron Paul is the only candidate that I have seen who will take questions directly from the audience without a moderator to censor them. Have the other candidates done this?
LikeLike
“His issues page is devoid of substance on issues that really effect most of us. He focuses on the divisive issues of immigration and abortion (great “wedge” issues) but doesn’t say a single word about the issues that are already driving the presidential campaign: our war strategy, our energy/global warming strategy, our health care strategy, etc. Not a single word is on his issues page about those issues.”
Excuse me?
The top three issues on his issues page are Debt and Taxes, American Independence and War and Foreign Policy.
It would appear as if you are being dishonest or didn’t really read the page.
LikeLike
Titus: yes. John Edwards did over and over and over. I even have video of him doing it with groups of other bloggers.
LikeLike
“His issues page is devoid of substance on issues that really effect most of us. He focuses on the divisive issues of immigration and abortion (great “wedge” issues) but doesn’t say a single word about the issues that are already driving the presidential campaign: our war strategy, our energy/global warming strategy, our health care strategy, etc. Not a single word is on his issues page about those issues.”
Excuse me?
The top three issues on his issues page are Debt and Taxes, American Independence and War and Foreign Policy.
It would appear as if you are being dishonest or didn’t really read the page.
LikeLike
Titus: yes. John Edwards did over and over and over. I even have video of him doing it with groups of other bloggers.
LikeLike
And I saw Hilary Clinton do it at Microsoft too. My friends say Obama loves doing this as well.
Anyone who works in politics today must be able to take questions and answer them off the cuff.
LikeLike
And I saw Hilary Clinton do it at Microsoft too. My friends say Obama loves doing this as well.
Anyone who works in politics today must be able to take questions and answer them off the cuff.
LikeLike
“And yet his campaign site is silent about this. To me that’s a yellow flag.”
This is absolutely false. This is c/p directly from his campaign site linked above:
“The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.”
LikeLike
“And yet his campaign site is silent about this. To me that’s a yellow flag.”
This is absolutely false. This is c/p directly from his campaign site linked above:
“The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.”
LikeLike
Rick (#46): now go back and read that page again. Does he explain how he’s going to get us out of the war? No. Does he detail what he thinks will happen when he does that? No. Does he explain how his plan is different than anyone else’s plan? No. In fact there’s not a single word on his Web page about his plan for getting us out of the war, just a bunch of hooey about how we were wrong to get into it in the first place. Congratulations, there’s lots of us who’ve figured THAT out. Now, how about some specifics on the issues? On his campaign Web site?
LikeLike
Rick (#46): now go back and read that page again. Does he explain how he’s going to get us out of the war? No. Does he detail what he thinks will happen when he does that? No. Does he explain how his plan is different than anyone else’s plan? No. In fact there’s not a single word on his Web page about his plan for getting us out of the war, just a bunch of hooey about how we were wrong to get into it in the first place. Congratulations, there’s lots of us who’ve figured THAT out. Now, how about some specifics on the issues? On his campaign Web site?
LikeLike
“Rick (#46): now go back and read that page again. Does he explain how he’s going to get us out of the war? No. Does he detail what he thinks will happen when he does that?”
Do John Edwards or Hillary Clinton even say they would get us out of the war? No. They do not. And they both voted *for* the war.
Only Ron Paul voted against the war. You misrepresented Ron Paul’s issues page. Furthermore, the RP site directs you to several videos which will provide more detail. Things he’s said in front of a national audience several times at the GOP debates.
He would bring the troops home immediately and as President and CIC, he would have that power.
Your aversion to RP is irrational. Paul has a 20 year record in Congress from which he’s never wavered. There are over 700 speeches at the Ron Paul library which would give you all of the detail you could desire. And as has been pointed out, your claims that RP’s issues page doesn’t cover the issues is simply not true. It may not go into as much detail as you’d like, but there are other resources and they are linked directly from his campaign site.
LikeLike
“Rick (#46): now go back and read that page again. Does he explain how he’s going to get us out of the war? No. Does he detail what he thinks will happen when he does that?”
Do John Edwards or Hillary Clinton even say they would get us out of the war? No. They do not. And they both voted *for* the war.
Only Ron Paul voted against the war. You misrepresented Ron Paul’s issues page. Furthermore, the RP site directs you to several videos which will provide more detail. Things he’s said in front of a national audience several times at the GOP debates.
He would bring the troops home immediately and as President and CIC, he would have that power.
Your aversion to RP is irrational. Paul has a 20 year record in Congress from which he’s never wavered. There are over 700 speeches at the Ron Paul library which would give you all of the detail you could desire. And as has been pointed out, your claims that RP’s issues page doesn’t cover the issues is simply not true. It may not go into as much detail as you’d like, but there are other resources and they are linked directly from his campaign site.
LikeLike
Yes, John Edwards explains in detail how he’d get us out. He told me that personally and his issues page has a LOT more detail than Ron Paul’s does.
LikeLike
Yes, John Edwards explains in detail how he’d get us out. He told me that personally and his issues page has a LOT more detail than Ron Paul’s does.
LikeLike
Rick has a good point. Ron Paul voted against the war from the beginning. If Congress wanted to go to war, he urged them to do it constitutionally through a formal Declaration of War, which didn’t happen. It’s rather convenient to say that Hillary and Edwards will get us out of the war when they are the ones, in part, that put us there in the first place.
With that said, I think that it’s important to not only look at what these candidates say they will do in the future, but also carefully examine what they have actually accomplished and done in the past. And whether you agree with Ron Paul’s position or not, one thing you can say with certainty is that he is the candidate with the most consistent, unwavering positions on all issues.
LikeLike
Rick has a good point. Ron Paul voted against the war from the beginning. If Congress wanted to go to war, he urged them to do it constitutionally through a formal Declaration of War, which didn’t happen. It’s rather convenient to say that Hillary and Edwards will get us out of the war when they are the ones, in part, that put us there in the first place.
With that said, I think that it’s important to not only look at what these candidates say they will do in the future, but also carefully examine what they have actually accomplished and done in the past. And whether you agree with Ron Paul’s position or not, one thing you can say with certainty is that he is the candidate with the most consistent, unwavering positions on all issues.
LikeLike
I agree with you Robert. I don’t get the hype about Ron Paul. Every time I try to read up on him or watch video clips of him, nothing makes me jump out and say ‘That’s it! I will vote for him!’
LikeLike
I agree with you Robert. I don’t get the hype about Ron Paul. Every time I try to read up on him or watch video clips of him, nothing makes me jump out and say ‘That’s it! I will vote for him!’
LikeLike
“Yes, John Edwards explains in detail how he’d get us out.”
Edwards voted to send the troops there. Ron Paul didn’t. Hillary voted to send the troops. Hillary and Obama would not bring the troops home.
Edwards says we should end the war but at the same time says: “he president has vetoed funding for the troops, and he’s the only one responsible for blocking the resources they need.”
This is one of the most dishonest tactics I’ve seen. That’s from his web site.
So is this:
“Edwards supports the immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq and the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within about a year. We must also lead on the great challenges like ending the genocide in Darfur and the conflict in Uganda and fighting global poverty and diseases like AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.
”
So, as you can see, John Edwards has no problem sending our troops around the world. He just opposes Iraq for political reasons rather than over principle. Edwards is for continuing the empire and foreign meddling. A totally hypocritical stance.
LikeLike
“Yes, John Edwards explains in detail how he’d get us out.”
Edwards voted to send the troops there. Ron Paul didn’t. Hillary voted to send the troops. Hillary and Obama would not bring the troops home.
Edwards says we should end the war but at the same time says: “he president has vetoed funding for the troops, and he’s the only one responsible for blocking the resources they need.”
This is one of the most dishonest tactics I’ve seen. That’s from his web site.
So is this:
“Edwards supports the immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq and the complete withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq within about a year. We must also lead on the great challenges like ending the genocide in Darfur and the conflict in Uganda and fighting global poverty and diseases like AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis.
”
So, as you can see, John Edwards has no problem sending our troops around the world. He just opposes Iraq for political reasons rather than over principle. Edwards is for continuing the empire and foreign meddling. A totally hypocritical stance.
LikeLike
Whenever someone uses the word Libertarian, I feel really funny. Some Libertarians may not agree to what I am saying. But most of their fiscal policies are based on the assumption of free mind, which is not a scientific concept (the concept of free mind is no different from the concept of god). Even their claims that individual can make a rational decisions on their own has been debunked by neuroscience. Clearly, Libertarian ideas are junk. They are just holding on to two papers by two scientists (one tries to model free mind with quantum mechanics and other talks about the chance to stop any action few microseconds before motor action takes place. People who know science understand that you don’t need a quantum model to model the libertarian concept of free mind and the other result becomes redundant when neuroscience established that deformity in frontal lobe makes the person incapable of rational decisions. Also, none of the experiments so far has established anything even closer to what Libertarians are claiming). Under such a scenario, the fiscal ideas of Libertarians will not take us anywhere. Market forces might help level the economic inequality (even this can be disputed looking at today’s scenario where there is a vast difference between rich and poor) but market forces alone will never fix the social inequalities. You need a strong govt. intervention along with market forces to fix the social inequality. If Libertarian fiscal policies were in place, Google would have never made Microsoft run for every penny. I don’t like Ron Paul because I am pretty convinced that Libertarian approach is not a sensible approach. Ron Paul may be a good man but his policies will never fix the problems facing the society and the Libertarian belief system is no different from a religious belief system (relying on supernatural stuff like free mind and god). I also don’t agree with the arguments of certain libertarians who say that they don’t subscribe to free mind idea. If you go and check out their philosophy, it can be reduced to the necessity of free mind at some point or another. So Robet, I commend you for taking an approach that is much more sensible than the RP approach.
LikeLike
Whenever someone uses the word Libertarian, I feel really funny. Some Libertarians may not agree to what I am saying. But most of their fiscal policies are based on the assumption of free mind, which is not a scientific concept (the concept of free mind is no different from the concept of god). Even their claims that individual can make a rational decisions on their own has been debunked by neuroscience. Clearly, Libertarian ideas are junk. They are just holding on to two papers by two scientists (one tries to model free mind with quantum mechanics and other talks about the chance to stop any action few microseconds before motor action takes place. People who know science understand that you don’t need a quantum model to model the libertarian concept of free mind and the other result becomes redundant when neuroscience established that deformity in frontal lobe makes the person incapable of rational decisions. Also, none of the experiments so far has established anything even closer to what Libertarians are claiming). Under such a scenario, the fiscal ideas of Libertarians will not take us anywhere. Market forces might help level the economic inequality (even this can be disputed looking at today’s scenario where there is a vast difference between rich and poor) but market forces alone will never fix the social inequalities. You need a strong govt. intervention along with market forces to fix the social inequality. If Libertarian fiscal policies were in place, Google would have never made Microsoft run for every penny. I don’t like Ron Paul because I am pretty convinced that Libertarian approach is not a sensible approach. Ron Paul may be a good man but his policies will never fix the problems facing the society and the Libertarian belief system is no different from a religious belief system (relying on supernatural stuff like free mind and god). I also don’t agree with the arguments of certain libertarians who say that they don’t subscribe to free mind idea. If you go and check out their philosophy, it can be reduced to the necessity of free mind at some point or another. So Robet, I commend you for taking an approach that is much more sensible than the RP approach.
LikeLike
I also want to add that Libertarian concepts are very good if the playing field is level throughout the world. This is an ideal case scenario which will never happen. As long as inequality is present in one form or another, Libertarian concepts will only help people who are socially advantaged. As you said, it is a good idea but it is impossible to implement in the current day scenario.
LikeLike
I also want to add that Libertarian concepts are very good if the playing field is level throughout the world. This is an ideal case scenario which will never happen. As long as inequality is present in one form or another, Libertarian concepts will only help people who are socially advantaged. As you said, it is a good idea but it is impossible to implement in the current day scenario.
LikeLike
Robert, if you want to see a candidate that has done an excellent job spreading his name and his views over the internet you should check out Mitt Romney (http://www.mittromney.com). In my view, he has used the internet masterfully. You may not agree with him on the issues, but you have to admire what he’s accomplished.
LikeLike
Robert, if you want to see a candidate that has done an excellent job spreading his name and his views over the internet you should check out Mitt Romney (http://www.mittromney.com). In my view, he has used the internet masterfully. You may not agree with him on the issues, but you have to admire what he’s accomplished.
LikeLike
Do you seriously expect a Libertarian to answer these questions? No way. If you just take a look at Libertarians, you will see most of them are people who are in a better place economically and socially. Their idea is to consolidate their social and economic positions rather than bringing social equality in the society. Under such a scenario, I would be surprised if Ron Paul answers these questions directly. If he has to give a sensible answer to these questions, he has to go against his idea of tax reduction. He will never answer these questions.
LikeLike
Do you seriously expect a Libertarian to answer these questions? No way. If you just take a look at Libertarians, you will see most of them are people who are in a better place economically and socially. Their idea is to consolidate their social and economic positions rather than bringing social equality in the society. Under such a scenario, I would be surprised if Ron Paul answers these questions directly. If he has to give a sensible answer to these questions, he has to go against his idea of tax reduction. He will never answer these questions.
LikeLike
There is a very simple reason why he doesn’t highlight issues like global warming, health care, or energy independence prominently on his website.
Republican primary voters don’t vote on those issues.
LikeLike
There is a very simple reason why he doesn’t highlight issues like global warming, health care, or energy independence prominently on his website.
Republican primary voters don’t vote on those issues.
LikeLike
And you want Edwards? What has he ever led? He approaches the public arena as an open checkbook to fund his lifestyle.
As for looking for the federal government to address educational issues, refer to the US Constitution. Education is not held to be a federal responsibility, therefore, it passes to the state. Read San Antonio v. Rodriguez where the Court held that education is not a fundamental right. Squandering billions on a federal DOE is just one of the things a leader should put an end to.
LikeLike
And you want Edwards? What has he ever led? He approaches the public arena as an open checkbook to fund his lifestyle.
As for looking for the federal government to address educational issues, refer to the US Constitution. Education is not held to be a federal responsibility, therefore, it passes to the state. Read San Antonio v. Rodriguez where the Court held that education is not a fundamental right. Squandering billions on a federal DOE is just one of the things a leader should put an end to.
LikeLike
If you really want to know what Ron Paul thinks about anything, go read anything he has written in the past 20 years. He has not wavered once, and history has proven him to be correct time and time again.
But you are right if you are contending that he does not support any type of big government programs.
He believes those things should be left up to the individual states.
He also believes in the rights of individuals, not collectivism.
100+ years of taxing the rich has done nothing except make the rich richer. Watch “fiat empire” and “The Money Masters” if you want an education in monetary systems.
LikeLike
If you really want to know what Ron Paul thinks about anything, go read anything he has written in the past 20 years. He has not wavered once, and history has proven him to be correct time and time again.
But you are right if you are contending that he does not support any type of big government programs.
He believes those things should be left up to the individual states.
He also believes in the rights of individuals, not collectivism.
100+ years of taxing the rich has done nothing except make the rich richer. Watch “fiat empire” and “The Money Masters” if you want an education in monetary systems.
LikeLike
First time commenter here, but long time reader. This is the first time I felt the urge to.
Ron Paul is being ‘hyped’ because he speaks bluntly, speaks what he truly believes. Bloggers like that, simple.
Now, you are judging the hype when you actually live of it. For example: the other day you wrote about ‘new framework django’ which has been used and widely praised for over 2 years in the public eye, in sites that get more press than pownce, zoomr and others.
You jumped to Twitter when there was all the hype, when the site was up in over 6 months – didn’t you see the benefit back then?!!?
Now is facebook? When it has been open since last year?!!?
Come on, you only jump after the hype, people respect those that see far ahead and detect future trends.
Ron Paul isn’t hype.. it’s just bloggers like honest people, and from that batch of candidates you can tell those that before they speak, they think first about group polls and what is the answer that will get them more votes. Ron Paul just tells what he truly believes and how things are. Next time there is a debate, watch it.
LikeLike
First time commenter here, but long time reader. This is the first time I felt the urge to.
Ron Paul is being ‘hyped’ because he speaks bluntly, speaks what he truly believes. Bloggers like that, simple.
Now, you are judging the hype when you actually live of it. For example: the other day you wrote about ‘new framework django’ which has been used and widely praised for over 2 years in the public eye, in sites that get more press than pownce, zoomr and others.
You jumped to Twitter when there was all the hype, when the site was up in over 6 months – didn’t you see the benefit back then?!!?
Now is facebook? When it has been open since last year?!!?
Come on, you only jump after the hype, people respect those that see far ahead and detect future trends.
Ron Paul isn’t hype.. it’s just bloggers like honest people, and from that batch of candidates you can tell those that before they speak, they think first about group polls and what is the answer that will get them more votes. Ron Paul just tells what he truly believes and how things are. Next time there is a debate, watch it.
LikeLike
Ron Paul’s stances aren’t mere “soundbites.” I worry more about people who would base a vote based on 2 sentence solutions from any candidates self-promotion site.
But here, let me help you out:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/
Also, at the Google appearance he made, Paul stated he would reverse “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It all goes with this “rights of the individual” theme he has going.
LikeLike
Ron Paul’s stances aren’t mere “soundbites.” I worry more about people who would base a vote based on 2 sentence solutions from any candidates self-promotion site.
But here, let me help you out:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/
Also, at the Google appearance he made, Paul stated he would reverse “don’t ask, don’t tell.” It all goes with this “rights of the individual” theme he has going.
LikeLike
Paul discusses the issues more in-depth and at greater length than any other candidate I’ve ever seen or heard of. He has over 900 speeches and articles available online doing just that. His website doesn’t touch on issues liberals care about because he is trying to win the GOP primary, not the Democrat one.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
He’s the only candidate who wants to challenge the corporatism that is at the heart of our health care costs, and the foreign policy that is at the heart of the Iraq war and the attacks of 9/11.
He hasn’t said much about global warming other than he’d like to remove the restrictions on building new nuke plants, and he’d like to stop trying to subsidize foreign oil with our foreign policy. But on every other issue you speak about I believe he has more printed material available than any other candidate in the history of American elections.
LikeLike
Paul discusses the issues more in-depth and at greater length than any other candidate I’ve ever seen or heard of. He has over 900 speeches and articles available online doing just that. His website doesn’t touch on issues liberals care about because he is trying to win the GOP primary, not the Democrat one.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
He’s the only candidate who wants to challenge the corporatism that is at the heart of our health care costs, and the foreign policy that is at the heart of the Iraq war and the attacks of 9/11.
He hasn’t said much about global warming other than he’d like to remove the restrictions on building new nuke plants, and he’d like to stop trying to subsidize foreign oil with our foreign policy. But on every other issue you speak about I believe he has more printed material available than any other candidate in the history of American elections.
LikeLike
Wow! When I read this I thought Scoble would get pilloried by the rampant Libertarianism that dominates Silicon Valley and the Internet technorati. Color me surprised at the thoughtful discussion–on both sides here.
Are we finally growing up?
LikeLike
Wow! When I read this I thought Scoble would get pilloried by the rampant Libertarianism that dominates Silicon Valley and the Internet technorati. Color me surprised at the thoughtful discussion–on both sides here.
Are we finally growing up?
LikeLike
Krish,
Libertarian principles are not based on any requirement of a free mind in the strict sense of the word. Libertarians believe people should be free to act out their own desires as long as those actions do not harm others, but this does not necessarily mean their minds are free or robotic, or whatever. Libertarianism truly doesn’t care how their minds work.
Nor are they based on any assumption that all individual decisions are rational.
For a good understanding of the axioms SOME libertarians base their beliefs on, I’d suggest studying the Austrian (a priori) approach to economics.
Most libertarians base their beliefs on strong economic principles. Socialism, as an effective economic system, is simply intellectually and empirically dead. Politicians may not catch on for a while yet, but capitalism has won, and the old (yes, I say old, because socialism is a far older idea than freedom) ideas of socialism are no longer really accepted as viable by economists. Even Joseph E. Stiglitz’s work, which allows some government interference (and I think is based on some untrue presuppositions, but thats another story), still advocates limited government.
I would also disagree with you that most libertarians are wealthy. Many may be, because wealthier people tend to be more educated, and much of the work in economics supports libertarianism, but I believe many more are simply poorer people who want a job. Government regulations prop up monopolies, minimum wage creates unemployment, and trade sanctions reduce the size of the marketplace. Government interference is almost always bad for business, and therefore bad for the guy who just wants to work for a living.
And of course, poorer people tend to feel taxes rather harshly. Yes, they pay less than the rich, but where do those taxes actually go? Do you think the lower and middle class actually receive government benefits in proportion to the federal taxes they pay? Even something as simple as education costs the taxpayer twice as much per student as private schooling.
LikeLike
Krish,
Libertarian principles are not based on any requirement of a free mind in the strict sense of the word. Libertarians believe people should be free to act out their own desires as long as those actions do not harm others, but this does not necessarily mean their minds are free or robotic, or whatever. Libertarianism truly doesn’t care how their minds work.
Nor are they based on any assumption that all individual decisions are rational.
For a good understanding of the axioms SOME libertarians base their beliefs on, I’d suggest studying the Austrian (a priori) approach to economics.
Most libertarians base their beliefs on strong economic principles. Socialism, as an effective economic system, is simply intellectually and empirically dead. Politicians may not catch on for a while yet, but capitalism has won, and the old (yes, I say old, because socialism is a far older idea than freedom) ideas of socialism are no longer really accepted as viable by economists. Even Joseph E. Stiglitz’s work, which allows some government interference (and I think is based on some untrue presuppositions, but thats another story), still advocates limited government.
I would also disagree with you that most libertarians are wealthy. Many may be, because wealthier people tend to be more educated, and much of the work in economics supports libertarianism, but I believe many more are simply poorer people who want a job. Government regulations prop up monopolies, minimum wage creates unemployment, and trade sanctions reduce the size of the marketplace. Government interference is almost always bad for business, and therefore bad for the guy who just wants to work for a living.
And of course, poorer people tend to feel taxes rather harshly. Yes, they pay less than the rich, but where do those taxes actually go? Do you think the lower and middle class actually receive government benefits in proportion to the federal taxes they pay? Even something as simple as education costs the taxpayer twice as much per student as private schooling.
LikeLike
Nice post, Robert. To really simplify what I think is going on…Ron Paul is benefiting from the same anti-Bush reaction and hype that fed John McCain’s Straight Talk Express four years ago. Paul has stood on stage with candidates who are afraid to differ with the sitting President from their own party on most major issues, especially the wars. (I think we have a few going.) Paul doesn’t seem to have that fear which is understandable since his nomination and/or election as President are not gaining any traction in the real world. It’s just fun, not a real possibility at this point.
I, like many, believe the next President will come from the other major political party, the Democratic party. So there is a very important job of picking that nominee before the American people who choose to participate in the process. The blogosphere can be a very important communication tool for making that selection process more informed and less based on hype. You are showing good leadership in that regard. Thank you.
LikeLike
Nice post, Robert. To really simplify what I think is going on…Ron Paul is benefiting from the same anti-Bush reaction and hype that fed John McCain’s Straight Talk Express four years ago. Paul has stood on stage with candidates who are afraid to differ with the sitting President from their own party on most major issues, especially the wars. (I think we have a few going.) Paul doesn’t seem to have that fear which is understandable since his nomination and/or election as President are not gaining any traction in the real world. It’s just fun, not a real possibility at this point.
I, like many, believe the next President will come from the other major political party, the Democratic party. So there is a very important job of picking that nominee before the American people who choose to participate in the process. The blogosphere can be a very important communication tool for making that selection process more informed and less based on hype. You are showing good leadership in that regard. Thank you.
LikeLike
Two comments:
1. You don’t speak with everyone in regards to the fact that “everyone wants us out of the war…” I want the troops to come home when the job is done, nothing else.
2. LazyZ I agree with the comments and statements that you have made here.
LikeLike
Two comments:
1. You don’t speak with everyone in regards to the fact that “everyone wants us out of the war…” I want the troops to come home when the job is done, nothing else.
2. LazyZ I agree with the comments and statements that you have made here.
LikeLike
>Rick Fisk: see this is what I don’t get about some of you. You want a guy who never compromises, or never listens to other people and tries to find a middle ground. That kind of person would make a horrible politician and would never get anything done.
As for Edwards he admitted that his support of the war was a mistake in hindsight. But you had to go back and remember “the evidence” that Bush presented everyone with.
Truth is the American people mostly supported the war too. So I’m not surprised that our politicans supported the war, especially given the evidence that was being presented to them.
LikeLike
>Rick Fisk: see this is what I don’t get about some of you. You want a guy who never compromises, or never listens to other people and tries to find a middle ground. That kind of person would make a horrible politician and would never get anything done.
As for Edwards he admitted that his support of the war was a mistake in hindsight. But you had to go back and remember “the evidence” that Bush presented everyone with.
Truth is the American people mostly supported the war too. So I’m not surprised that our politicans supported the war, especially given the evidence that was being presented to them.
LikeLike
Jonathan: and when will that job be done? How can you define that? Heck, we can’t even stop violence in our own cities, much less over in Iraq. I guess more of our kids have to die and more of our economy has to be uprooted to pay for all this. Sigh.
LikeLike
Jonathan: and when will that job be done? How can you define that? Heck, we can’t even stop violence in our own cities, much less over in Iraq. I guess more of our kids have to die and more of our economy has to be uprooted to pay for all this. Sigh.
LikeLike
Ron Paul lost me the first time one of his operatives spammed my political blog with nothing more than spew. My opinion hasn’t changed. If he’s getting blog buzz, it’s likely because everything is delivered with that sort of breathless hyperbole that often accompanies reports about Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan rather than anything of substance.
You’re right on the money about the economic realities of his proposals, too.
But more than that, to me there is very little in the way of substance underneath the hysteria. I really hope this country learns from the last 8 years and takes the time to actually consider the issues and realistic possibilities for change.
LikeLike
Ron Paul lost me the first time one of his operatives spammed my political blog with nothing more than spew. My opinion hasn’t changed. If he’s getting blog buzz, it’s likely because everything is delivered with that sort of breathless hyperbole that often accompanies reports about Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan rather than anything of substance.
You’re right on the money about the economic realities of his proposals, too.
But more than that, to me there is very little in the way of substance underneath the hysteria. I really hope this country learns from the last 8 years and takes the time to actually consider the issues and realistic possibilities for change.
LikeLike
>And you want Edwards? What has he ever led? He approaches the public arena as an open checkbook to fund his lifestyle.
Huh? Edwards has enough money to go and live comfortably without working ever again. I see him doing things to try to improve the world. He also was a successful lawyer and businessperson (whether or not you agree with how he made his money you must admit he was successful at it).
But I’m not enthralled with Edwards either. It’s why I keep looking at the whole field to see if anyone better is out there. So far I haven’t seen anyone and Ron Paul certainly is not it.
LikeLike
>And you want Edwards? What has he ever led? He approaches the public arena as an open checkbook to fund his lifestyle.
Huh? Edwards has enough money to go and live comfortably without working ever again. I see him doing things to try to improve the world. He also was a successful lawyer and businessperson (whether or not you agree with how he made his money you must admit he was successful at it).
But I’m not enthralled with Edwards either. It’s why I keep looking at the whole field to see if anyone better is out there. So far I haven’t seen anyone and Ron Paul certainly is not it.
LikeLike
“see this is what I don’t get about some of you. You want a guy who never compromises, or never listens to other people and tries to find a middle ground.”
What middle ground is there when we are talking about the constitution? The constitution isn’t just a “good idea” it is the law our politicians swear to uphold.
You can’t defend Edwards’ stand because it is hypocritical so you resort to saying that Paul is not a reasonable man.
People like Bush and Edwards are the ones who aren’t reasonable. Their “good ideas” are responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians and thousands of our soldiers.
Edwards has no excuse. No matter what Bush said, Iraq posed no direct threat to the US. Ron Paul stood in the well of the house and urged Congress not to approve the war. He defied political expediency and voted against it because it was the right thing to do. It was the constitutional thing to do.
He can be trusted to vote the way he speaks. Edwards and Hillary can only be trusted to check the current political wind and vote whichever way they think will help their incumbency.
The “unreasonable” people in government are those who spit on the constitution and use fear to justify the taking of our rights. Edwards and Hillary voted for the Patriot act. Both times. If you honestly think that you can trust any politician who voted for that abomination, then more power to you.
LikeLike
“see this is what I don’t get about some of you. You want a guy who never compromises, or never listens to other people and tries to find a middle ground.”
What middle ground is there when we are talking about the constitution? The constitution isn’t just a “good idea” it is the law our politicians swear to uphold.
You can’t defend Edwards’ stand because it is hypocritical so you resort to saying that Paul is not a reasonable man.
People like Bush and Edwards are the ones who aren’t reasonable. Their “good ideas” are responsible for hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians and thousands of our soldiers.
Edwards has no excuse. No matter what Bush said, Iraq posed no direct threat to the US. Ron Paul stood in the well of the house and urged Congress not to approve the war. He defied political expediency and voted against it because it was the right thing to do. It was the constitutional thing to do.
He can be trusted to vote the way he speaks. Edwards and Hillary can only be trusted to check the current political wind and vote whichever way they think will help their incumbency.
The “unreasonable” people in government are those who spit on the constitution and use fear to justify the taking of our rights. Edwards and Hillary voted for the Patriot act. Both times. If you honestly think that you can trust any politician who voted for that abomination, then more power to you.
LikeLike
“Wow! When I read this I thought Scoble would get pilloried by the rampant Libertarianism that dominates Silicon Valley and the Internet technorati. Color me surprised at the thoughtful discussion–on both sides here.” Comment by terry chay — July 14, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
To be clear….this is the effect Mr Ron Paul is having on the political areana.
Real discussion on the issues that matter.
Even if you do not agree with all his positions, this has to be a positive.
As for the original BLOG, that is your opinion, I beg to differ and will say that Doctor Ron Paul is the one for me.
I am not swayed by a candidates web site, more by what they have said and demonstrated over the years.
He has revived my interest in politics, and I now know I am not alone!
LikeLike
“Wow! When I read this I thought Scoble would get pilloried by the rampant Libertarianism that dominates Silicon Valley and the Internet technorati. Color me surprised at the thoughtful discussion–on both sides here.” Comment by terry chay — July 14, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
To be clear….this is the effect Mr Ron Paul is having on the political areana.
Real discussion on the issues that matter.
Even if you do not agree with all his positions, this has to be a positive.
As for the original BLOG, that is your opinion, I beg to differ and will say that Doctor Ron Paul is the one for me.
I am not swayed by a candidates web site, more by what they have said and demonstrated over the years.
He has revived my interest in politics, and I now know I am not alone!
LikeLike
“Ron Paul lost me the first time one of his operatives spammed my political blog with nothing more than spew.”
Karoli,
I think that what you’re seeing here is simply a bunch of genuine and passionate supporters of Ron Paul. After all, if you’re against the war and fiscally conservative, you only have one Republican candidate to choose from.
Furthermore, if Scoble likes Hillary, and I don’t like Scoble, should I automatically dislike Hillary? A political candidate has no real control over who supports him. If you don’t like his positions, then that’s fine. I can respect that. But don’t judge him based on the comments of a few random individuals who aren’t under his control.
The only person who you should be judging is Ron Paul himself. Either you believe in his message, or you don’t. And I believe in it.
LikeLike
“Ron Paul lost me the first time one of his operatives spammed my political blog with nothing more than spew.”
Karoli,
I think that what you’re seeing here is simply a bunch of genuine and passionate supporters of Ron Paul. After all, if you’re against the war and fiscally conservative, you only have one Republican candidate to choose from.
Furthermore, if Scoble likes Hillary, and I don’t like Scoble, should I automatically dislike Hillary? A political candidate has no real control over who supports him. If you don’t like his positions, then that’s fine. I can respect that. But don’t judge him based on the comments of a few random individuals who aren’t under his control.
The only person who you should be judging is Ron Paul himself. Either you believe in his message, or you don’t. And I believe in it.
LikeLike
“One thing you don’t get about politics is that it REQUIRES compromise. That’s why our founding fathers setup an adversarial system of checks and balances. To make sure that no one idiot would totally be able to mess things up. That system works pretty well. …”
Comment by Robert Scoble — July 14, 2007 @ 9:59 am
Scoble, I think the thing that has people excited about Paul is that he gives a voice to those who believe in personal liberty AND personal responsibility. The role of big government is such an assumption now that we we try to give nuance to political conversations by highlighting the scope where government intervention is more tolerable to us (Social liberal, Fiscal conservative, etc.) Those of us who feel that government intervention should be minimal in every facet of life don’t have a voice in the either the Democratic or Republican parties. We have two parties that sacrifice liberties on some level, and the only distinguishing factor is which ones they sacrificed. Where is the check against those who want big government? We’re not compromising between big government and little, we’re compromising on what sort of big government we’ll have. Paul is trying to alter the discourse about the inherent assumption of big government. Even though I don’t think a 100% Libertarian world is achievable or even ideal, I think Libertarian influence into our political discourse is to everyone’s benefit.
LikeLike
“One thing you don’t get about politics is that it REQUIRES compromise. That’s why our founding fathers setup an adversarial system of checks and balances. To make sure that no one idiot would totally be able to mess things up. That system works pretty well. …”
Comment by Robert Scoble — July 14, 2007 @ 9:59 am
Scoble, I think the thing that has people excited about Paul is that he gives a voice to those who believe in personal liberty AND personal responsibility. The role of big government is such an assumption now that we we try to give nuance to political conversations by highlighting the scope where government intervention is more tolerable to us (Social liberal, Fiscal conservative, etc.) Those of us who feel that government intervention should be minimal in every facet of life don’t have a voice in the either the Democratic or Republican parties. We have two parties that sacrifice liberties on some level, and the only distinguishing factor is which ones they sacrificed. Where is the check against those who want big government? We’re not compromising between big government and little, we’re compromising on what sort of big government we’ll have. Paul is trying to alter the discourse about the inherent assumption of big government. Even though I don’t think a 100% Libertarian world is achievable or even ideal, I think Libertarian influence into our political discourse is to everyone’s benefit.
LikeLike
@Scoble, there is no need to explain how to end the war on terror, or any war for that matter. It’s up to congress to defund it, period.
Just curious, what made you move away from your “conservative Christian” beliefs?
@LazY, you’re right on. Most people in our generation have no clue what powers the constitution provides to the federal government, they’re few and clearly enumerated. They need to read The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. It’s sad when I listen to people I admire be so clueless about their government.
LikeLike
@Scoble, there is no need to explain how to end the war on terror, or any war for that matter. It’s up to congress to defund it, period.
Just curious, what made you move away from your “conservative Christian” beliefs?
@LazY, you’re right on. Most people in our generation have no clue what powers the constitution provides to the federal government, they’re few and clearly enumerated. They need to read The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. It’s sad when I listen to people I admire be so clueless about their government.
LikeLike
Spend a few more seconds reading his website, and it’ll be clear that Ron Paul is totally against the war, and would bring the troops home immediately. He has said as much in three debates, numerous interviews, and dozens of speeches in Congress, all indexed on his Congressional website.
Unlike Hillary, Ron Paul didn’t vote for the war. Unlike Hillary, Ron Paul has never voted one dime to be spent on it. Unlike Hillary, Ron Paul hasn’t had to change his position on the war, or claim that he was misled by false intelligence, because he was smart enough to see through it the first time.
LikeLike
Spend a few more seconds reading his website, and it’ll be clear that Ron Paul is totally against the war, and would bring the troops home immediately. He has said as much in three debates, numerous interviews, and dozens of speeches in Congress, all indexed on his Congressional website.
Unlike Hillary, Ron Paul didn’t vote for the war. Unlike Hillary, Ron Paul has never voted one dime to be spent on it. Unlike Hillary, Ron Paul hasn’t had to change his position on the war, or claim that he was misled by false intelligence, because he was smart enough to see through it the first time.
LikeLike
@G,
I didn’t mean to say that Libertarians base their entire philosophy on the concept of free mind. I have argued that most of their ideas can be reduced to the necessity of a free mind or the necessity of the individuals to make a rational and well informed decisions. Then I argued that the idea of a free mind or the idea that individuals make rational and well informed decisions are not scientifically true. I hope I have made it clear this time.
As far as I am concerned, when a certain philosophy has a “junked basis”, I wouldn’t take it seriously for governing our society. Anyhow, my apologies to others for taking the discussion offtrack.
LikeLike
@G,
I didn’t mean to say that Libertarians base their entire philosophy on the concept of free mind. I have argued that most of their ideas can be reduced to the necessity of a free mind or the necessity of the individuals to make a rational and well informed decisions. Then I argued that the idea of a free mind or the idea that individuals make rational and well informed decisions are not scientifically true. I hope I have made it clear this time.
As far as I am concerned, when a certain philosophy has a “junked basis”, I wouldn’t take it seriously for governing our society. Anyhow, my apologies to others for taking the discussion offtrack.
LikeLike
I’ll include my email reply here. I think it states my opinion on this clearly enough. Keep in mind I’ve not attended every Gnomedex. But I have been there since 3.0. My comment below about the conversation is what I feel Gnomedex is about. However I’m not so sure that means we need to be heading down the political road. What makes Gnomedex is when you have the movers and shakers of this industry stating there opinion and maybe even debating the audience and their colleagues. What really used to make Gnomedex is when the little people could afford it and they had a chance to rub elbows with these same people. Those days are long gone.
I’d have to say it was worthwhile to give it a spin last year. But making it a habit would not set a good precedent. I’m with Kip Kniskern on this one. I’m still not happy that I didn’t get to see Marc Andreessen and Blake Ross get into a conversation last year. That to me would have been something interesting to see. If only to see if the two would have had like viewpoints.
LikeLike
I’ll include my email reply here. I think it states my opinion on this clearly enough. Keep in mind I’ve not attended every Gnomedex. But I have been there since 3.0. My comment below about the conversation is what I feel Gnomedex is about. However I’m not so sure that means we need to be heading down the political road. What makes Gnomedex is when you have the movers and shakers of this industry stating there opinion and maybe even debating the audience and their colleagues. What really used to make Gnomedex is when the little people could afford it and they had a chance to rub elbows with these same people. Those days are long gone.
I’d have to say it was worthwhile to give it a spin last year. But making it a habit would not set a good precedent. I’m with Kip Kniskern on this one. I’m still not happy that I didn’t get to see Marc Andreessen and Blake Ross get into a conversation last year. That to me would have been something interesting to see. If only to see if the two would have had like viewpoints.
LikeLike
As soon as I saw the headline I knew what Scoble was going to say. It’s all so predictable now. Maybe I’ll resubscribe to your feed after 2008, but I’m tired of this stuff from you and we are only in 2007. And by the way, I won’t be voting for Ron. How come everybody who has any type of forum to speak to people about music, games, movies, tech or whatever thinks we want to know about their politics? Guess what Robert, most of us don’t want to hear this crap from you. Every time you write about this stuff, you come off as bitter and caustic. I usually like reading your stuff and then I stumble upon this and it totally brings me down.
LikeLike
As soon as I saw the headline I knew what Scoble was going to say. It’s all so predictable now. Maybe I’ll resubscribe to your feed after 2008, but I’m tired of this stuff from you and we are only in 2007. And by the way, I won’t be voting for Ron. How come everybody who has any type of forum to speak to people about music, games, movies, tech or whatever thinks we want to know about their politics? Guess what Robert, most of us don’t want to hear this crap from you. Every time you write about this stuff, you come off as bitter and caustic. I usually like reading your stuff and then I stumble upon this and it totally brings me down.
LikeLike
Anyone who has truly been in touch with the world knew Ron Paul’s positions YEARS before he announced his run for the Presidency. We don’t need a website to tell us where he stands on the issues, we knew years ago.
Where have you been hiding all this time? Why is it that you did not know who Ron Paul was or what his positions on issues where. What rock were you hiding under?
The fact is that Ron Paul has been widely known for a long time. Just take a look at his Congressional campaign funding. Although he represents a district in Texas, most of his funding comes from individuals who live outside Texas. Why? Because we know him and we support his positions. We have been urging him to run for many years. Now that he has FINALLY consented to run, we are pulling out all the stops to get him elected.
Ron Paul is THE ONLY candidate who has consistently voted against the was since BEFORE it started.
Ron Paul is THE ONLY candidate who will work for the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act. In fact, he’s the only candidate with the intelligence to understand why it is important to get rid of the Fed.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who understands that we can get rid of the income tax and replace it with NOTHING! He is the only one who understands that the income tax only takes in 1/3 of Federal revenue and that cutting spending by 1/3 is EASY. (Just cut everything back to where it was before GWB took office.)
It is really telling that you had to LOOK UP Ron Paul. Intelligent people already KNEW.
LikeLike
Anyone who has truly been in touch with the world knew Ron Paul’s positions YEARS before he announced his run for the Presidency. We don’t need a website to tell us where he stands on the issues, we knew years ago.
Where have you been hiding all this time? Why is it that you did not know who Ron Paul was or what his positions on issues where. What rock were you hiding under?
The fact is that Ron Paul has been widely known for a long time. Just take a look at his Congressional campaign funding. Although he represents a district in Texas, most of his funding comes from individuals who live outside Texas. Why? Because we know him and we support his positions. We have been urging him to run for many years. Now that he has FINALLY consented to run, we are pulling out all the stops to get him elected.
Ron Paul is THE ONLY candidate who has consistently voted against the was since BEFORE it started.
Ron Paul is THE ONLY candidate who will work for the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act. In fact, he’s the only candidate with the intelligence to understand why it is important to get rid of the Fed.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who understands that we can get rid of the income tax and replace it with NOTHING! He is the only one who understands that the income tax only takes in 1/3 of Federal revenue and that cutting spending by 1/3 is EASY. (Just cut everything back to where it was before GWB took office.)
It is really telling that you had to LOOK UP Ron Paul. Intelligent people already KNEW.
LikeLike
Michael: it’s nice to live in a fantasy world, isn’t it? Since everyone knows who Ron Paul is, and what he stands for, why isn’t he way out in front in the polls? I knew a little bit about Ron Paul, but I wanted to make sure I really understood his stands on things so I went to an authoritative source: his own Web site. If he can’t even build a great Web site for his campaign that goes into detail on his stands on the issues why should he be trusted to run the USA?
ericdrum: if you know what I was going to write and you knew you would be disappointed in it, why did you read past the headline?
LikeLike
Michael: it’s nice to live in a fantasy world, isn’t it? Since everyone knows who Ron Paul is, and what he stands for, why isn’t he way out in front in the polls? I knew a little bit about Ron Paul, but I wanted to make sure I really understood his stands on things so I went to an authoritative source: his own Web site. If he can’t even build a great Web site for his campaign that goes into detail on his stands on the issues why should he be trusted to run the USA?
ericdrum: if you know what I was going to write and you knew you would be disappointed in it, why did you read past the headline?
LikeLike
The YouTube Interview: Ron Paul
“Watch Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul answer YOUR questions submitted via YouTube.
Paul talks about individual liberties, plays a game of ‘small government, short answers’, and talks about the impact of the Internet on his campaign.”
LikeLike
The YouTube Interview: Ron Paul
“Watch Texas Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul answer YOUR questions submitted via YouTube.
Paul talks about individual liberties, plays a game of ‘small government, short answers’, and talks about the impact of the Internet on his campaign.”
LikeLike
Why should Ron Paul dignify the myth of global warming with a position?
And if national health care is your idea of a worthy government goal, the choice is clear: Hillary Clinton is far and away the most awesome statist on the palette.
Ron Paul is for grown-ups competent to take care of themselves and who long for a government limited to undertaking the basics of national defense, sovereign integrity, and protection of liberty, and leaving the general welfare and the administration of justice to state and local governments.
It’s amazing how fast people grow up when hand feeding is cut off.
LikeLike
Why should Ron Paul dignify the myth of global warming with a position?
And if national health care is your idea of a worthy government goal, the choice is clear: Hillary Clinton is far and away the most awesome statist on the palette.
Ron Paul is for grown-ups competent to take care of themselves and who long for a government limited to undertaking the basics of national defense, sovereign integrity, and protection of liberty, and leaving the general welfare and the administration of justice to state and local governments.
It’s amazing how fast people grow up when hand feeding is cut off.
LikeLike
Ron Paul believes that the individuals can work it out without government interference.
The others believe in the implementation of THEIR OWN plan to affect masses of individuals.
Are we in America? People are yelling “Socialized medicine?” Man, what the hell? People should be yelling “Put a stop to Corporatism!”, but only Ron Paul will speak to that issue.
LikeLike
Ron Paul believes that the individuals can work it out without government interference.
The others believe in the implementation of THEIR OWN plan to affect masses of individuals.
Are we in America? People are yelling “Socialized medicine?” Man, what the hell? People should be yelling “Put a stop to Corporatism!”, but only Ron Paul will speak to that issue.
LikeLike
Wow! The Ron Paul zealots have indeed descended on this blog. You are in for something that will make the Nokia boys look like amateurs.
Robert, it is important that you not be fooled by the sheer number of comments you get supporting Ron Paul. His supporters have been banned from some sites because of voting numerous times in polls and making numerous comment posts under different screen names. They seek to create an illusion that Paul has more than the miniscule amount of support he does.
His supporters, many of them bigots themselves, others merely ignorant, seldom mention the main purpose the Tenth Amendment has been used for in the 20th century — to oppose equal rights for people of color and women by claiming that the states should decide what rights their populations have. Since Paul is a segregationist it is no surprise that he is fond of the Tenth Amendment.
I again encourage you to read the links in comments 15 and 16. However, I will post the most succinct of the material. It is Paul’s most recent speech to Congress declaring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional.
“The Trouble With Forced Integration
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res.
676.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Anyone who believes to a return to racial segregation and refusing non-whites the vote would be in the best interest of the United States should be reviled, not revered.
LikeLike
Wow! The Ron Paul zealots have indeed descended on this blog. You are in for something that will make the Nokia boys look like amateurs.
Robert, it is important that you not be fooled by the sheer number of comments you get supporting Ron Paul. His supporters have been banned from some sites because of voting numerous times in polls and making numerous comment posts under different screen names. They seek to create an illusion that Paul has more than the miniscule amount of support he does.
His supporters, many of them bigots themselves, others merely ignorant, seldom mention the main purpose the Tenth Amendment has been used for in the 20th century — to oppose equal rights for people of color and women by claiming that the states should decide what rights their populations have. Since Paul is a segregationist it is no surprise that he is fond of the Tenth Amendment.
I again encourage you to read the links in comments 15 and 16. However, I will post the most succinct of the material. It is Paul’s most recent speech to Congress declaring the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional.
“The Trouble With Forced Integration
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res.
676.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Anyone who believes to a return to racial segregation and refusing non-whites the vote would be in the best interest of the United States should be reviled, not revered.
LikeLike
“Anyone who believes to a return to racial segregation and refusing non-whites the vote would be in the best interest of the United States should be reviled, not revered.”
I agree, however, you’ve been demagoguing for several posts. Ron Paul’s position on the issue is pretty clear and he’s right. The racial segregation that occurred in the south and was supposed to be “solved” by federal fiat was a direct result of the Union’s post-civil-war aggression and meddling.
And so is forced integration. You and others who believe that the government should force people to associate with one another argue that your solution makes people free.
It is as absurd as Bush’s claim that dropping bombs on another country can make that country free. It is tautological. Pointing a gun at somebody and telling him “Be free or else!” is an absurd solution to a problem that never existed.
LikeLike
“Anyone who believes to a return to racial segregation and refusing non-whites the vote would be in the best interest of the United States should be reviled, not revered.”
I agree, however, you’ve been demagoguing for several posts. Ron Paul’s position on the issue is pretty clear and he’s right. The racial segregation that occurred in the south and was supposed to be “solved” by federal fiat was a direct result of the Union’s post-civil-war aggression and meddling.
And so is forced integration. You and others who believe that the government should force people to associate with one another argue that your solution makes people free.
It is as absurd as Bush’s claim that dropping bombs on another country can make that country free. It is tautological. Pointing a gun at somebody and telling him “Be free or else!” is an absurd solution to a problem that never existed.
LikeLike
“I knew a little bit about Ron Paul, but I wanted to make sure I really understood his stands on things so I went to an authoritative source: his own Web site.”
And have never acknowledged that you misrepresented what was there in spite of the fact that anyone can click on it and see that you are wrong.
As has been pointed out to you, it is a fair representation but not exhaustive. This is the internet. It’s a pretty neat thing the internet. You don’t actually have to re-publish the exhaustive works of a given person. You can link to other sources. What a concept!
LikeLike
“I knew a little bit about Ron Paul, but I wanted to make sure I really understood his stands on things so I went to an authoritative source: his own Web site.”
And have never acknowledged that you misrepresented what was there in spite of the fact that anyone can click on it and see that you are wrong.
As has been pointed out to you, it is a fair representation but not exhaustive. This is the internet. It’s a pretty neat thing the internet. You don’t actually have to re-publish the exhaustive works of a given person. You can link to other sources. What a concept!
LikeLike
#85 Dimitar, that’s an excellent video.
LikeLike
#85 Dimitar, that’s an excellent video.
LikeLike
Google “most honest politician.”
LikeLike
Google “most honest politician.”
LikeLike
The Ron Paul hype is a bit of an illusion. His draw of the popular vote would only be around 1% of the vote would an election be held today. The popularity among those online who would like to see there to be a ground swell are among some well-meaning citizens who happen to like Ron…They are apparently internet savy. BUT, an overall picture of the the political landscape would reveal a much bleaker picture for a Paul candidacy for president. Not a reflection on the man himself…Just a reflection of the political realities. Still all in all…it makes for great political theatre.
LikeLike
The Ron Paul hype is a bit of an illusion. His draw of the popular vote would only be around 1% of the vote would an election be held today. The popularity among those online who would like to see there to be a ground swell are among some well-meaning citizens who happen to like Ron…They are apparently internet savy. BUT, an overall picture of the the political landscape would reveal a much bleaker picture for a Paul candidacy for president. Not a reflection on the man himself…Just a reflection of the political realities. Still all in all…it makes for great political theatre.
LikeLike
Ron Paul at Google
http://www.justin.tv/ronpaul/7733
[via http://www.dailypaul.com/node/709%5D
LikeLike
Ron Paul at Google
http://www.justin.tv/ronpaul/7733
[via http://www.dailypaul.com/node/709%5D
LikeLike
I think you’re either fibbing about looking at Dr. Paul’s page, or you’re illiterate.
He clearly puts forward his views on Iraq and foreign policy in general on his site.
Rebuilding New Orleans? That’s hardly a presidential position. How far from the constitution have we wandered that people think that rebuilding a city that was effected by a hurricane is even remotely related to the president?
LikeLike
I think you’re either fibbing about looking at Dr. Paul’s page, or you’re illiterate.
He clearly puts forward his views on Iraq and foreign policy in general on his site.
Rebuilding New Orleans? That’s hardly a presidential position. How far from the constitution have we wandered that people think that rebuilding a city that was effected by a hurricane is even remotely related to the president?
LikeLike
As I said before, Ron Paul has been involved in neo-Confederate circles for decades, so it is not surprising that neo-Confederates such as Rick Fisk support him. Fisk said:
“The racial segregation that occurred in the south and was supposed to be “solved” by federal fiat was a direct result of the Union’s post-civil-war aggression and meddling.”
He means Reconstruction, the initial effort to integrate the freedmen into society by protecting their right to vote, buy and sell property and be educated. The claim that not slavery, but Reconstruction, should be regretted is a major component of the neo-Confederate perspective.
Paul and other racist pols have switched from using the phrase ‘states’ rights’ to defend segregationist views to using the word ‘liberty.’ Suffice it to say that if a person’s liberty requires depriving other people of fundamental rights he is misusing the word.
LikeLike
As I said before, Ron Paul has been involved in neo-Confederate circles for decades, so it is not surprising that neo-Confederates such as Rick Fisk support him. Fisk said:
“The racial segregation that occurred in the south and was supposed to be “solved” by federal fiat was a direct result of the Union’s post-civil-war aggression and meddling.”
He means Reconstruction, the initial effort to integrate the freedmen into society by protecting their right to vote, buy and sell property and be educated. The claim that not slavery, but Reconstruction, should be regretted is a major component of the neo-Confederate perspective.
Paul and other racist pols have switched from using the phrase ‘states’ rights’ to defend segregationist views to using the word ‘liberty.’ Suffice it to say that if a person’s liberty requires depriving other people of fundamental rights he is misusing the word.
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
The ultimate conbsequence of democracy as is it now seems is that parties (poles) move closer and closer together to get the greatest coverage of people’s agenda (like a venn diagram), the priority then become power rather than winning the argument of radically different ideologies, they then indulge the last iota of citizens who can fit into their tent.
The “Homosexual Rights” agenda and The “Anti-Abortionist” are actually on the same plain of groups, without reference to pragmatism or actual moral direction by the political class, to be brought into their camp with the only consideration largely being which will bring me more votes versus what group will cost votes of other groups.
There are obviously some anomolies, e.g. child-molestation obsessives without respect of civil rights for all, “the War on Terror”, or the zionist lobby -I would hazzard a guess that most americans don’t instinctively care about such an issue, let alone the details, but would a single candidate say anything less the zealots and sumner redstone, et al put their resources to use.
As long as we, the citizens of the democratic world, plead ignorance and lack absolute personal responsibility, and discharge our powers to whoever will indulge us rather than thinking of action and consequence, our own responsibilities and willingness to be told “no, yes you may have to lose out for the greater national good” then it is only our own states that will suffer -while the china’s, india’s and russia’s of the world excel forward and our leaders are matched by whether or not we’d like to hang out with them at a local bar!
Also, can anyone please explain this relatively non-sensical bit:
2. Make significant steps to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That means making our auto industry build smaller cars (and penalizing consumers for buying big ones).
Why is it most americans are so simple-minded that they can’t simply say “reduce our dependence on oil”, it always has to be “foreign oil” -this is a reflection of how politics, education, basic human traits and discourse have become corrupted, let alone innate xenophobia indulged by political leaders and the short-sighted self-interest of business. it also amazes me that the American auto-industry somehow thinks it has a loyalty to the u.s/world oil industry.
How many americans still don’t know that canada is the number 1 source of imported fuel!
The europeans, let alone most of the rest of the world, don’t depend on a fear of foreigners supplying oil -oil is oil to nearly everyone else; and maybe because of that, again they haven’t been indulged to believe they have a god-given right to ever cheaper and profligate use of a finate resource without consideration; most of the world already have smaller cars and a consideration for efficiency, and no where else do the car companies try or get heard to prevent technical progress; infact, often such technical advances and availability come from car manufacturers themselves. It is a different mindset -one less selfish.
And in-case people still don’t know, America has only 4% of the planets population, yet consumes 20% + of it’s resources and waste.
Essentially, stop being selfish on almost every level, or reap what you sow.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
History and Humility
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
The ultimate conbsequence of democracy as is it now seems is that parties (poles) move closer and closer together to get the greatest coverage of people’s agenda (like a venn diagram), the priority then become power rather than winning the argument of radically different ideologies, they then indulge the last iota of citizens who can fit into their tent.
The “Homosexual Rights” agenda and The “Anti-Abortionist” are actually on the same plain of groups, without reference to pragmatism or actual moral direction by the political class, to be brought into their camp with the only consideration largely being which will bring me more votes versus what group will cost votes of other groups.
There are obviously some anomolies, e.g. child-molestation obsessives without respect of civil rights for all, “the War on Terror”, or the zionist lobby -I would hazzard a guess that most americans don’t instinctively care about such an issue, let alone the details, but would a single candidate say anything less the zealots and sumner redstone, et al put their resources to use.
As long as we, the citizens of the democratic world, plead ignorance and lack absolute personal responsibility, and discharge our powers to whoever will indulge us rather than thinking of action and consequence, our own responsibilities and willingness to be told “no, yes you may have to lose out for the greater national good” then it is only our own states that will suffer -while the china’s, india’s and russia’s of the world excel forward and our leaders are matched by whether or not we’d like to hang out with them at a local bar!
Also, can anyone please explain this relatively non-sensical bit:
2. Make significant steps to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That means making our auto industry build smaller cars (and penalizing consumers for buying big ones).
Why is it most americans are so simple-minded that they can’t simply say “reduce our dependence on oil”, it always has to be “foreign oil” -this is a reflection of how politics, education, basic human traits and discourse have become corrupted, let alone innate xenophobia indulged by political leaders and the short-sighted self-interest of business. it also amazes me that the American auto-industry somehow thinks it has a loyalty to the u.s/world oil industry.
How many americans still don’t know that canada is the number 1 source of imported fuel!
The europeans, let alone most of the rest of the world, don’t depend on a fear of foreigners supplying oil -oil is oil to nearly everyone else; and maybe because of that, again they haven’t been indulged to believe they have a god-given right to ever cheaper and profligate use of a finate resource without consideration; most of the world already have smaller cars and a consideration for efficiency, and no where else do the car companies try or get heard to prevent technical progress; infact, often such technical advances and availability come from car manufacturers themselves. It is a different mindset -one less selfish.
And in-case people still don’t know, America has only 4% of the planets population, yet consumes 20% + of it’s resources and waste.
Essentially, stop being selfish on almost every level, or reap what you sow.
Thanks.
Kind regards,
History and Humility
LikeLike
Ron Paul is a hard right Libertarian who wants to toss 20 million people out of the country yet expects that to have no financial or economic repercussion. Smash the immigrants but do nothing about the people who employ them, that’s his stand. Go look at his website if you don’t believe me..
He says nothing about getting out of Iraq. Nothing.
He is foaming at the mouth opposed to abortion.
Oh yeah, he hates taxes. That’s the one thing that truly infuriates libertarians. They are tortured by the thought that someone, somewhere is deriving benefit from their tax dollars.
He’s just more of the same “greed is good” extreme right Ayn Rand philosophy that got us into Iraq in the first place.
Stand your ground, Scoble.
LikeLike
Ron Paul is a hard right Libertarian who wants to toss 20 million people out of the country yet expects that to have no financial or economic repercussion. Smash the immigrants but do nothing about the people who employ them, that’s his stand. Go look at his website if you don’t believe me..
He says nothing about getting out of Iraq. Nothing.
He is foaming at the mouth opposed to abortion.
Oh yeah, he hates taxes. That’s the one thing that truly infuriates libertarians. They are tortured by the thought that someone, somewhere is deriving benefit from their tax dollars.
He’s just more of the same “greed is good” extreme right Ayn Rand philosophy that got us into Iraq in the first place.
Stand your ground, Scoble.
LikeLike
I’ve recently taken time to read a book authored by Mr. Paul titled “A Foreign Policy of Freedom”, available in paperback for around $20 usd plus shipping/handling (the foreword is floating around the web for free also).
I suggest to all of you, rather than getting into a huff and regurgitating whatever you’ve been reading in the political section of your RSS aggregator, to read, and understand his ideas. They’re not necessarily new, and most authentic people, i.e. people who identify as ‘democrat’ or ‘republican’ yet do not participate in blind partisanship, should be able to understand them and see his methodology. Even if you don’t necessarily agree with them it’s always refreshing to see other political viewpoints, because without them the varying political medias would have nothing to blame problems on and/or witch hunt, eh? 😉
I’m not stupid though, as it’s increasingly apparent he might not have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the GOP’s nomination, and that increases the feeling of the current state of political affairs being depressing as hell. If anything demonstrates what most people are feeling right now, it’s the fact people are hyped about the ‘authentic’ political spirit that Ron Paul may turn out the represent. They want change, Rob, an authentic candidate that really may stand for freedom, rather than another nut job and his corrupt administration who will demonstratively leave his own party divided.
Ron Paul does stand for new energy, but I’m sure if you have some spare time and hop on YouTube you can find all of your answers in the many interviews and commentaries from Ron Paul.
LikeLike
I’ve recently taken time to read a book authored by Mr. Paul titled “A Foreign Policy of Freedom”, available in paperback for around $20 usd plus shipping/handling (the foreword is floating around the web for free also).
I suggest to all of you, rather than getting into a huff and regurgitating whatever you’ve been reading in the political section of your RSS aggregator, to read, and understand his ideas. They’re not necessarily new, and most authentic people, i.e. people who identify as ‘democrat’ or ‘republican’ yet do not participate in blind partisanship, should be able to understand them and see his methodology. Even if you don’t necessarily agree with them it’s always refreshing to see other political viewpoints, because without them the varying political medias would have nothing to blame problems on and/or witch hunt, eh? 😉
I’m not stupid though, as it’s increasingly apparent he might not have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the GOP’s nomination, and that increases the feeling of the current state of political affairs being depressing as hell. If anything demonstrates what most people are feeling right now, it’s the fact people are hyped about the ‘authentic’ political spirit that Ron Paul may turn out the represent. They want change, Rob, an authentic candidate that really may stand for freedom, rather than another nut job and his corrupt administration who will demonstratively leave his own party divided.
Ron Paul does stand for new energy, but I’m sure if you have some spare time and hop on YouTube you can find all of your answers in the many interviews and commentaries from Ron Paul.
LikeLike
Wow, I thought I had just made a bitchy post on a completely unrelated topic. You make me feel so much better about my restraint.
LikeLike
Wow, I thought I had just made a bitchy post on a completely unrelated topic. You make me feel so much better about my restraint.
LikeLike
I think we should get out of Maryland. They have the highest murder rate in the country. Five times what it is here in Oregon.
You’re wrong about healthcare, Robert. Nationalizing it would be horrible. That’s what Canada has and Heaven help you if you get really sick. They don’t have the money to put into expensive treatments like chemotherapy and radiation. They just let you die. Yes, we need reform but NOT nationalization.
I agree with you about civil unions for gay couples.
And I very much agree with you about out disgraceful educational system. But that’s not a money problem, it’s primarily a Teachers Union problem and the shame of that falls squarely on the Democrats.
Why aren’t the media holding Hillary Clinton accountable regarding hedge funds? People are getting insanely rich and hardly paying any taxes on it. Hmmm, could it be that Clinton doesn’t want to change the hedge fund laws because their lobby is her biggest contributor?
As for Edwards, I have no respect for him at all. He’s a total phoney. Two Americas? Ask the regular folks around his 28,000 square foot mansion how he treats them. Yet, he had the gall to say: “I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually.” Wow, is that a redwood trunk in your eye, Johnny?
LikeLike
I think we should get out of Maryland. They have the highest murder rate in the country. Five times what it is here in Oregon.
You’re wrong about healthcare, Robert. Nationalizing it would be horrible. That’s what Canada has and Heaven help you if you get really sick. They don’t have the money to put into expensive treatments like chemotherapy and radiation. They just let you die. Yes, we need reform but NOT nationalization.
I agree with you about civil unions for gay couples.
And I very much agree with you about out disgraceful educational system. But that’s not a money problem, it’s primarily a Teachers Union problem and the shame of that falls squarely on the Democrats.
Why aren’t the media holding Hillary Clinton accountable regarding hedge funds? People are getting insanely rich and hardly paying any taxes on it. Hmmm, could it be that Clinton doesn’t want to change the hedge fund laws because their lobby is her biggest contributor?
As for Edwards, I have no respect for him at all. He’s a total phoney. Two Americas? Ask the regular folks around his 28,000 square foot mansion how he treats them. Yet, he had the gall to say: “I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually.” Wow, is that a redwood trunk in your eye, Johnny?
LikeLike
Good news! Ron Paul is still getting less than ONE PERCENT support for his presidential campaign in the Gallup Poll. Even other fringe candidates are doing much better:
“The current numbers for the rest of the Republicans included in the survey: Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, 6%; former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, 2%; Rep. Duncan Hunter, 2%; Rep. Tom Tancredo, 2%; Sen. Sam Brownback, 1%; Sen. Chuck Hagel, 1%; former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, 1%. Neither former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore nor Rep. Ron Paul registered any support.”
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-poll.html
What the Internet Ron Paul onslaught proves is that a very few people can create an illusion if they put a lot of time and effort into doing so.
LikeLike
Good news! Ron Paul is still getting less than ONE PERCENT support for his presidential campaign in the Gallup Poll. Even other fringe candidates are doing much better:
“The current numbers for the rest of the Republicans included in the survey: Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, 6%; former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, 2%; Rep. Duncan Hunter, 2%; Rep. Tom Tancredo, 2%; Sen. Sam Brownback, 1%; Sen. Chuck Hagel, 1%; former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson, 1%. Neither former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore nor Rep. Ron Paul registered any support.”
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/07/usatgallup-poll.html
What the Internet Ron Paul onslaught proves is that a very few people can create an illusion if they put a lot of time and effort into doing so.
LikeLike
@51 “He would bring the troops home immediately and as President and CIC, he would have that power.”
Was Mr. Paul not around in 1975? Cambodia or Khmer Rouge ring any bells with him?
To summarily say “bring the troops home” is a great sound bite. However,no candidate seems to have thought this out beyond the nice sounding “I’ll bring the troops home”. To think that something similar would not happen in the region that happened when we turned tail in Vietnam is naive at best. If we think the death toll is high now,just wait to see what it will be when we withdraw. Sorry, I don’t want a CiC that is willing to confirm the impressions the Jihadist have that given enough resistance and bloodshed, Americans will retreat. It’s amazing the terrorists understand our history better than we apparently do.
LikeLike
@51 “He would bring the troops home immediately and as President and CIC, he would have that power.”
Was Mr. Paul not around in 1975? Cambodia or Khmer Rouge ring any bells with him?
To summarily say “bring the troops home” is a great sound bite. However,no candidate seems to have thought this out beyond the nice sounding “I’ll bring the troops home”. To think that something similar would not happen in the region that happened when we turned tail in Vietnam is naive at best. If we think the death toll is high now,just wait to see what it will be when we withdraw. Sorry, I don’t want a CiC that is willing to confirm the impressions the Jihadist have that given enough resistance and bloodshed, Americans will retreat. It’s amazing the terrorists understand our history better than we apparently do.
LikeLike
@98. “I agree with you about civil unions for gay couples.”
Again, NOT the U.S Federal Govt’s issue to solve. This is a States issue. Take it up with your governor. Just because Canada and other countries might have national laws regarding marriage and civil unions doesn’t mean the U.S. should. That’s not to say I’m opposed to gay marriage. I’m neutral on it. My opposition is suggesting the Fed Govt get involved.
“Why aren’t the media holding Hillary Clinton accountable regarding hedge funds? People are getting insanely rich and hardly paying any taxes on it. Hmmm, could it be that Clinton doesn’t want to change the hedge fund laws because their lobby is her biggest contributor?”
You say that as if it were a bad thing. Hey! I admire anyone that figures out how to get rich and not pay taxes. You sound like this is something people should be ashamed of. Now, if she willing to apply the same strategy to managing the Federal Budget,(more money with less taxes) she just might get my vote!
“Yet, he had the gall to say: “I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually.”
Anyone know what percentage of Edwards’ income he donates to charity? Last figures I saw was 8.6% OVER THE LAST DECADE. By contrast, that evil Dick Cheney donated 78% of his 2005 taxable income to charity. God, those Republicans are heartless!
LikeLike
@98. “I agree with you about civil unions for gay couples.”
Again, NOT the U.S Federal Govt’s issue to solve. This is a States issue. Take it up with your governor. Just because Canada and other countries might have national laws regarding marriage and civil unions doesn’t mean the U.S. should. That’s not to say I’m opposed to gay marriage. I’m neutral on it. My opposition is suggesting the Fed Govt get involved.
“Why aren’t the media holding Hillary Clinton accountable regarding hedge funds? People are getting insanely rich and hardly paying any taxes on it. Hmmm, could it be that Clinton doesn’t want to change the hedge fund laws because their lobby is her biggest contributor?”
You say that as if it were a bad thing. Hey! I admire anyone that figures out how to get rich and not pay taxes. You sound like this is something people should be ashamed of. Now, if she willing to apply the same strategy to managing the Federal Budget,(more money with less taxes) she just might get my vote!
“Yet, he had the gall to say: “I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually.”
Anyone know what percentage of Edwards’ income he donates to charity? Last figures I saw was 8.6% OVER THE LAST DECADE. By contrast, that evil Dick Cheney donated 78% of his 2005 taxable income to charity. God, those Republicans are heartless!
LikeLike
@71 “Heck, we can’t even stop violence in our own cities, much less over in Iraq.”
Huh? Two completely different issues. But good job dodging the question. Not sure about the Bay Area, but last I checked, my city didn’t have the Military patrolling the streets. But, you do hit on one of the problems in Iraq. We are asking our military to be policemen; something are not trained to do.
LikeLike
@71 “Heck, we can’t even stop violence in our own cities, much less over in Iraq.”
Huh? Two completely different issues. But good job dodging the question. Not sure about the Bay Area, but last I checked, my city didn’t have the Military patrolling the streets. But, you do hit on one of the problems in Iraq. We are asking our military to be policemen; something are not trained to do.
LikeLike
“Oh yeah, he hates taxes. That’s the one thing that truly infuriates libertarians. They are tortured by the thought that someone, somewhere is deriving benefit from their tax dollars.”
After all, it’s easy to be generous with other people’s money.
LikeLike
“Oh yeah, he hates taxes. That’s the one thing that truly infuriates libertarians. They are tortured by the thought that someone, somewhere is deriving benefit from their tax dollars.”
After all, it’s easy to be generous with other people’s money.
LikeLike
@96 “Oh yeah, he hates taxes. That’s the one thing that truly infuriates libertarians. They are tortured by the thought that someone, somewhere is deriving benefit from their tax dollars.”
I’ll give you the same homework assignment I gave Scoble. Show me where in the Constitution the Fed Govt has the power to collect taxes for charity programs. Start with Article 1 Section 8. And when you run across the phrase “provide for…. (the) general welfare”, read Federalist Paper #45 for an explanation of that clause. In point of fact, the “general welfare” statement server merely as an introduction to the specific enumerated powers in Section 8. And as Amendment X says, anything not defined in the constitution is left for the States to decide. So, you want a welfare program? Have your state pay for it. You want “free healthcare”? Have your state come up with the program. In short, explain where Congress has the power to take MY MONEY and give it to someone else.
And liberals are tortured by the thought of abiding by the Constitution.
LikeLike
@96 “Oh yeah, he hates taxes. That’s the one thing that truly infuriates libertarians. They are tortured by the thought that someone, somewhere is deriving benefit from their tax dollars.”
I’ll give you the same homework assignment I gave Scoble. Show me where in the Constitution the Fed Govt has the power to collect taxes for charity programs. Start with Article 1 Section 8. And when you run across the phrase “provide for…. (the) general welfare”, read Federalist Paper #45 for an explanation of that clause. In point of fact, the “general welfare” statement server merely as an introduction to the specific enumerated powers in Section 8. And as Amendment X says, anything not defined in the constitution is left for the States to decide. So, you want a welfare program? Have your state pay for it. You want “free healthcare”? Have your state come up with the program. In short, explain where Congress has the power to take MY MONEY and give it to someone else.
And liberals are tortured by the thought of abiding by the Constitution.
LikeLike
@100 Then let the Israelis fight these wars in Iraq and Iran. The Zionist lobby is keen on starting these conflicts, let their children die in them. We –The USA– can go our own way under a Paul administration. As the founders said: avoid entangling alliances.
LikeLike
@100 Then let the Israelis fight these wars in Iraq and Iran. The Zionist lobby is keen on starting these conflicts, let their children die in them. We –The USA– can go our own way under a Paul administration. As the founders said: avoid entangling alliances.
LikeLike
#96 – you’re joking right? He is one of 3 (Kucinich and Gravel being the other2) candidates who has repeatedly said that our troops should come home immediately.( He won’t turn around and march them right into Darfur, though.)
Hillary envisions having troops there for 10 years. Obama wants 100,000 troops.
Our obligations are to protect our soldiers, and our borders! Bring tham all home.
LikeLike
#96 – you’re joking right? He is one of 3 (Kucinich and Gravel being the other2) candidates who has repeatedly said that our troops should come home immediately.( He won’t turn around and march them right into Darfur, though.)
Hillary envisions having troops there for 10 years. Obama wants 100,000 troops.
Our obligations are to protect our soldiers, and our borders! Bring tham all home.
LikeLike
podesta,
im not a ron paul supporter, but im not a libertarian, and his views are entirely libertarian and nothing else. if you can’t understand how someone could oppose desegregation efforts without being a racist, then thats really your problem in understanding libertarianism. ron paul may be naive about the reality of things, but i think so is libertarianism in general. but its exactly the ideology of believing everything is ‘coded’ racism that ron paul speaks out about in that link you gave. the belief things can be sorted out privately is a eurocentric view, thus harmful towards blacks, so thus racist, etc., etc. you aren’t going to be able to spam links to ron paul quotes and convince people he’s a racist, so quit trying.
LikeLike
podesta,
im not a ron paul supporter, but im not a libertarian, and his views are entirely libertarian and nothing else. if you can’t understand how someone could oppose desegregation efforts without being a racist, then thats really your problem in understanding libertarianism. ron paul may be naive about the reality of things, but i think so is libertarianism in general. but its exactly the ideology of believing everything is ‘coded’ racism that ron paul speaks out about in that link you gave. the belief things can be sorted out privately is a eurocentric view, thus harmful towards blacks, so thus racist, etc., etc. you aren’t going to be able to spam links to ron paul quotes and convince people he’s a racist, so quit trying.
LikeLike
podesta,
i read that link a little more carefully and yes its really angry and target blacks. im not even sure if ron paul wrote it. still i think there are things that are not untrue there even if expressed in a vile way. there is a type of radical politics, which isnt specifically black but a lot of political leaders believe in , that suggests just what i suggested, that govt has to socially engineer society-which ron paul specifically rejects.
i would imagine its very possible that there are strange bedfellows in fringe politics, because different disenfranchized groups agree on some things. but libertarianism is libertarianism, and racism is racism.
LikeLike
podesta,
i read that link a little more carefully and yes its really angry and target blacks. im not even sure if ron paul wrote it. still i think there are things that are not untrue there even if expressed in a vile way. there is a type of radical politics, which isnt specifically black but a lot of political leaders believe in , that suggests just what i suggested, that govt has to socially engineer society-which ron paul specifically rejects.
i would imagine its very possible that there are strange bedfellows in fringe politics, because different disenfranchized groups agree on some things. but libertarianism is libertarianism, and racism is racism.
LikeLike
@70 “As for Edwards he admitted that his support of the war was a mistake in hindsight. But you had to go back and remember “the evidence” that Bush presented everyone with.”
That’s because it’s politically beneficial for him to be saying that. Yet, he didn’t sound dubious back then. It’s amazing how Bush can be both an idiot and so intelligent as to fool a bunch of people supposedly smarter than he is. How does that work? And are you suggesting that the UK, Russia, Germany, and the UN were also in on the ruse.
Let’s go to the videotape:
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2007/?p=837
LikeLike
@70 “As for Edwards he admitted that his support of the war was a mistake in hindsight. But you had to go back and remember “the evidence” that Bush presented everyone with.”
That’s because it’s politically beneficial for him to be saying that. Yet, he didn’t sound dubious back then. It’s amazing how Bush can be both an idiot and so intelligent as to fool a bunch of people supposedly smarter than he is. How does that work? And are you suggesting that the UK, Russia, Germany, and the UN were also in on the ruse.
Let’s go to the videotape:
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2007/?p=837
LikeLike
“He means Reconstruction, the initial effort to integrate the freedmen into society by protecting their right to vote, buy and sell property and be educated.”
You think that passing off a smear is supposed to convince people? You don’t even know me and call me a “neo-Confederate” whatever that is. Where’s your evidence for that smear?
You are seriously ignorant of actual events that took place during “Reconstruction” apparently.
The North did nothing but sow seeds of discontent and impose their will. Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Southerner, started a rail road company and hired blacks as his engineers and architects, not merely as laborers, something the Union “reconstructionists” and carpet baggers wouldn’t do.
The North, in their attempt to re-write history tried to ruin his reputation for this as most in power were racists – Lincoln was one of the worst racists but this fact is blithely ignored by revisionists. It is claimed that Forrest started the KKK – an unfounded allegation directed at him because not only did he thoroughly embarrass the Union army during the war, he embraced integration after the war. This even though he was a former slave trader.
He created a scandal so great – at a luncheon he actually kissed the black woman presenting him with flowers – that the article of that event still survives. So did his remarks which fortunately put the lie to people who continue to smear him and have an irrational hatred for everything southern.
At any rate Podesta, your tactics here are pretty despicable. I didn’t make this conversation personal, you did.
LikeLike
“He means Reconstruction, the initial effort to integrate the freedmen into society by protecting their right to vote, buy and sell property and be educated.”
You think that passing off a smear is supposed to convince people? You don’t even know me and call me a “neo-Confederate” whatever that is. Where’s your evidence for that smear?
You are seriously ignorant of actual events that took place during “Reconstruction” apparently.
The North did nothing but sow seeds of discontent and impose their will. Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Southerner, started a rail road company and hired blacks as his engineers and architects, not merely as laborers, something the Union “reconstructionists” and carpet baggers wouldn’t do.
The North, in their attempt to re-write history tried to ruin his reputation for this as most in power were racists – Lincoln was one of the worst racists but this fact is blithely ignored by revisionists. It is claimed that Forrest started the KKK – an unfounded allegation directed at him because not only did he thoroughly embarrass the Union army during the war, he embraced integration after the war. This even though he was a former slave trader.
He created a scandal so great – at a luncheon he actually kissed the black woman presenting him with flowers – that the article of that event still survives. So did his remarks which fortunately put the lie to people who continue to smear him and have an irrational hatred for everything southern.
At any rate Podesta, your tactics here are pretty despicable. I didn’t make this conversation personal, you did.
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
I think if you dig a little deeper into Ron Paul’s philosophy, you’ll like it. That’s based on my reading of your own philosophy as demonstrated by your various political postings over the years.
Here’s the YouTube video from his recent presentation at Google:
Cheers,
Graham
LikeLike
Hi Robert,
I think if you dig a little deeper into Ron Paul’s philosophy, you’ll like it. That’s based on my reading of your own philosophy as demonstrated by your various political postings over the years.
Here’s the YouTube video from his recent presentation at Google:
Cheers,
Graham
LikeLike
“Ron Paul is a hard right Libertarian who wants to toss 20 million people out of the country yet expects that to have no financial or economic repercussion.”
You’re not telling the truth. Show us where he said he wants to deport 20 million people and I’ll apologize for calling you a liar.
LikeLike
>Just curious, what made you move away from your “conservative Christian” beliefs?
I saw a brain surgery and saw that our “souls” were really tightly coupled into the hardware of our brains. It changed my entire world-view.
That and just getting out and seeing more of the world and meeting a lot more people I realized that most of what I was being taught by people I looked up to was pretty misguided stuff. Once I lost faith in what I was being taught cause I could see it was wrong, that caused me to change all sorts of things about my belief system.
LikeLike
>Just curious, what made you move away from your “conservative Christian” beliefs?
I saw a brain surgery and saw that our “souls” were really tightly coupled into the hardware of our brains. It changed my entire world-view.
That and just getting out and seeing more of the world and meeting a lot more people I realized that most of what I was being taught by people I looked up to was pretty misguided stuff. Once I lost faith in what I was being taught cause I could see it was wrong, that caused me to change all sorts of things about my belief system.
LikeLike
“Ron Paul is a hard right Libertarian who wants to toss 20 million people out of the country yet expects that to have no financial or economic repercussion.”
You’re not telling the truth. Show us where he said he wants to deport 20 million people and I’ll apologize for calling you a liar.
LikeLike
He’s getting blog hype because America is curious to hear what the mainstream media ignores except for it’s own callous and devious purposes. Simple answer. Curiosity.
Once you travel far enough down the alternative political philosophy rabbit hole you will have a chance to see what you really believe in. Happy travels.
Shameless Plug: http://jeremiasx.wordpress.com
LikeLike
He’s getting blog hype because America is curious to hear what the mainstream media ignores except for it’s own callous and devious purposes. Simple answer. Curiosity.
Once you travel far enough down the alternative political philosophy rabbit hole you will have a chance to see what you really believe in. Happy travels.
Shameless Plug: http://jeremiasx.wordpress.com
LikeLike
“Once I lost faith in what I was being taught cause I could see it was wrong, that caused me to change all sorts of things about my belief system.”
Such as “thou shalt not bear false witness” for instance?
LikeLike
“Once I lost faith in what I was being taught cause I could see it was wrong, that caused me to change all sorts of things about my belief system.”
Such as “thou shalt not bear false witness” for instance?
LikeLike
Graham, I watched the entire Google video. A lot of what he says is definitely attractive. I can see why he has people like Chris Pirillo excited.
But that said if you showed me this video 20 years ago I would be totally over the top excited. But, the video just convinced me that he is unelectable for a whole raft of reasons.
Heck, the fact that the Google Executive who interviewed him, Elliot Schrage, sounds a lot more rational and a lot more like someone who I’d rather have over for a dinner conversation tells me a lot about how bad Ron would be in his communication and rallying role. He doesn’t come off as empathetic toward people and, even, in this interview, admits such. Told Elliot he was surprised at the amount of support he was getting and hinted that he knew he didn’t have a shot at being nominated.
I’d rather support someone who has a shot. I understand why other people might want to support a disruptive candidate but I’ve done that in the past and learned it didn’t get me anywhere (and, in some cases, actually hurt the causes I cared about).
Good luck with this guy. He’s an interesting person, for sure, but I just told Chris Pirillo I’d bet him $100 that he gets nowhere near the White House. His 1% polling numbers are a pretty clear indication of that.
LikeLike
Graham, I watched the entire Google video. A lot of what he says is definitely attractive. I can see why he has people like Chris Pirillo excited.
But that said if you showed me this video 20 years ago I would be totally over the top excited. But, the video just convinced me that he is unelectable for a whole raft of reasons.
Heck, the fact that the Google Executive who interviewed him, Elliot Schrage, sounds a lot more rational and a lot more like someone who I’d rather have over for a dinner conversation tells me a lot about how bad Ron would be in his communication and rallying role. He doesn’t come off as empathetic toward people and, even, in this interview, admits such. Told Elliot he was surprised at the amount of support he was getting and hinted that he knew he didn’t have a shot at being nominated.
I’d rather support someone who has a shot. I understand why other people might want to support a disruptive candidate but I’ve done that in the past and learned it didn’t get me anywhere (and, in some cases, actually hurt the causes I cared about).
Good luck with this guy. He’s an interesting person, for sure, but I just told Chris Pirillo I’d bet him $100 that he gets nowhere near the White House. His 1% polling numbers are a pretty clear indication of that.
LikeLike
>Such as “thou shalt not bear false witness” for instance?
Huh?
I’m not that smart, so you’ll have to be a little clearer in your points.
Or are you trying to get personal with me the same way you just told Podesta off for?
LikeLike
>Such as “thou shalt not bear false witness” for instance?
Huh?
I’m not that smart, so you’ll have to be a little clearer in your points.
Or are you trying to get personal with me the same way you just told Podesta off for?
LikeLike
(I watch the Mexicans work in the fields — I sure don’t want to do that kind of work, do you?)
Something tells me you’d be singing a different tune if these workers were being exploited as A-list bloggers and driving down the wages of naked conversationalists.
LikeLike
Politics and Tech, two things Scoble should stay away from. Or rather, blogging and talking.
LikeLike
(I watch the Mexicans work in the fields — I sure don’t want to do that kind of work, do you?)
Something tells me you’d be singing a different tune if these workers were being exploited as A-list bloggers and driving down the wages of naked conversationalists.
LikeLike
Politics and Tech, two things Scoble should stay away from. Or rather, blogging and talking.
LikeLike
Rodgers: heheh! You have less of a chance of keeping me quiet than of getting Ron Paul into the White House.
viniere77: I’m blogging at 12:38 a.m. on a Saturday. Hey, you are all exploiting me! 😉
LikeLike
Graham,
If you honestly want to help the Ron Paul campaign, then please join me in urging Robert to throw all his support behind Obama, Giuliani, or any of the other business-as-usual candidates.
LikeLike
Rodgers: heheh! You have less of a chance of keeping me quiet than of getting Ron Paul into the White House.
viniere77: I’m blogging at 12:38 a.m. on a Saturday. Hey, you are all exploiting me! 😉
LikeLike
Graham,
If you honestly want to help the Ron Paul campaign, then please join me in urging Robert to throw all his support behind Obama, Giuliani, or any of the other business-as-usual candidates.
LikeLike
Some Guy: if you think that what I do (either way) will have any impact on the outcome of this election then I got a nice red bridge for you to buy in San Francisco.
LikeLike
Some Guy: if you think that what I do (either way) will have any impact on the outcome of this election then I got a nice red bridge for you to buy in San Francisco.
LikeLike
Redfish, since you agree with Ron Paul that, among other things, 95 percent of black men are criminals as he wrote in his newsletter, you have problems with both recognizing nonsense when you see it and morality.
Rick Fish, anyone who actually knows American history knows Nathan Bedford Forrest:
•Became wealthy as a slave trader;
•Massacred hundreds of black Union soldiers who had surrendered at Fort Pillow, and
•Founded the Klu Klu Klan during Reconstruction. (The organization lynched about 5000 Americans between 1870 and the 1950.)
This information is all confirmed by the historical record. Neo-Confederates like yourself reject the historical record because it does not support your position that the antebellum South was an ideal society ruined by loss of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Since you have personally expressed these views there is nothing wrong with others responding to you personally.
I did find your remarks about Forrest once kissing a black woman in public amusing. Considering that more an 80 percent of African-Americans have white ancestry, white Southern men did a lot more than kiss black women. However, that does not mean that the majority of them were not racists. It just means they were hypocrites.
LikeLike
Redfish, since you agree with Ron Paul that, among other things, 95 percent of black men are criminals as he wrote in his newsletter, you have problems with both recognizing nonsense when you see it and morality.
Rick Fish, anyone who actually knows American history knows Nathan Bedford Forrest:
•Became wealthy as a slave trader;
•Massacred hundreds of black Union soldiers who had surrendered at Fort Pillow, and
•Founded the Klu Klu Klan during Reconstruction. (The organization lynched about 5000 Americans between 1870 and the 1950.)
This information is all confirmed by the historical record. Neo-Confederates like yourself reject the historical record because it does not support your position that the antebellum South was an ideal society ruined by loss of the Civil War and Reconstruction. Since you have personally expressed these views there is nothing wrong with others responding to you personally.
I did find your remarks about Forrest once kissing a black woman in public amusing. Considering that more an 80 percent of African-Americans have white ancestry, white Southern men did a lot more than kiss black women. However, that does not mean that the majority of them were not racists. It just means they were hypocrites.
LikeLike
I’ve never really understood the Ron Paul hype either. Among the issues that you already listed he also voted against net neutrality, raising the minimum wage, etc. saying that the free market will sort it out. We’ve already seen that that won’t happen, and it’s pretty naive to still be thinking that it will.
I’ve heard a lot of people say that they support him because he is a man of principle. Sorry, but if they are principle’s that are outdated and don’t make much sense, there’s no use honoring him for them.
I’ve personally taken a liking to Edwards, Obama, and Richardson in this campaign. All three really make a lot of sense.
LikeLike
I’ve never really understood the Ron Paul hype either. Among the issues that you already listed he also voted against net neutrality, raising the minimum wage, etc. saying that the free market will sort it out. We’ve already seen that that won’t happen, and it’s pretty naive to still be thinking that it will.
I’ve heard a lot of people say that they support him because he is a man of principle. Sorry, but if they are principle’s that are outdated and don’t make much sense, there’s no use honoring him for them.
I’ve personally taken a liking to Edwards, Obama, and Richardson in this campaign. All three really make a lot of sense.
LikeLike
Robert, ever considered of going into politics?
You have a good agenda at @2. You care. You already have a massive audience and a group of followers. You have the necessary media skills. You know how to provoke conversation…
Scoble for President in 2012 campaign starts now! 😉
(Just invite me to the White House, thanks.)
LikeLike
Robert, ever considered of going into politics?
You have a good agenda at @2. You care. You already have a massive audience and a group of followers. You have the necessary media skills. You know how to provoke conversation…
Scoble for President in 2012 campaign starts now! 😉
(Just invite me to the White House, thanks.)
LikeLike
Tomi: I would be horrible at politics. I hate committees and I am not especially good at compromise, both are attributes one needs to be a good politician.
I have a great life, I go around and talk with smart people every day. Why would I want to mess that up?
LikeLike
Tomi: I would be horrible at politics. I hate committees and I am not especially good at compromise, both are attributes one needs to be a good politician.
I have a great life, I go around and talk with smart people every day. Why would I want to mess that up?
LikeLike
Yep, I understand. It takes a different type and personality to bear the tedious work of a politician.
LikeLike
Yep, I understand. It takes a different type and personality to bear the tedious work of a politician.
LikeLike
“I saw a brain surgery and saw that our “souls” were really tightly coupled into the hardware of our brains. It changed my entire world-view.”
??? What???
You can be conservative and a Christian and not be what most people think of when they hear “conservative Christian.”
There was one Christian Church for over 1600 years. Then Protestantism came and created over 30,000 different denominations. That many Christians teach wrong things doesn’t mean Christ Himself deserves to be thrown out with the bath water.
LikeLike
“I saw a brain surgery and saw that our “souls” were really tightly coupled into the hardware of our brains. It changed my entire world-view.”
??? What???
You can be conservative and a Christian and not be what most people think of when they hear “conservative Christian.”
There was one Christian Church for over 1600 years. Then Protestantism came and created over 30,000 different denominations. That many Christians teach wrong things doesn’t mean Christ Himself deserves to be thrown out with the bath water.
LikeLike
Re Christ: Check this http://www.miraesoft.com/karel/2007/07/01/the-end-of-religion/
LikeLike
Re Christ: Check this http://www.miraesoft.com/karel/2007/07/01/the-end-of-religion/
LikeLike
Scoble:
“I’d rather support someone who has a shot. I understand why other people might want to support a disruptive candidate but I’ve done that in the past and learned it didn’t get me anywhere (and, in some cases, actually hurt the causes I cared about).”
Is that how you decide? Support someone who has a shot? What about doing the right thing? What about supporting someone you think wants to do the right stuff? Shouldn’t your decision be based more on that?
And yet you wonder why the US is in such a mess today.
LikeLike
Scoble:
“I’d rather support someone who has a shot. I understand why other people might want to support a disruptive candidate but I’ve done that in the past and learned it didn’t get me anywhere (and, in some cases, actually hurt the causes I cared about).”
Is that how you decide? Support someone who has a shot? What about doing the right thing? What about supporting someone you think wants to do the right stuff? Shouldn’t your decision be based more on that?
And yet you wonder why the US is in such a mess today.
LikeLike
I think most people who have been part of this debate have already made their minds up about Mr Ron Paul.
I am for him, I like his message.
For those who are undecided, don’t listen to my views or Scoble’s or whoever…..
….listen to the man himself.
If you can find this Blog then you can find all the information you need about Mr Paul and his positions, but I do suggest you listen directly to the man instead of baseing your opinion on a Blog or News article that might be biased for or against in some way, (intended or unintended).
You tube is a good start and here is a very recent interview at the Google campus where he answers an array of questions.
LikeLike
I think most people who have been part of this debate have already made their minds up about Mr Ron Paul.
I am for him, I like his message.
For those who are undecided, don’t listen to my views or Scoble’s or whoever…..
….listen to the man himself.
If you can find this Blog then you can find all the information you need about Mr Paul and his positions, but I do suggest you listen directly to the man instead of baseing your opinion on a Blog or News article that might be biased for or against in some way, (intended or unintended).
You tube is a good start and here is a very recent interview at the Google campus where he answers an array of questions.
LikeLike
@120 “I’d rather support someone who has a shot.”
So, dropping your support for Edwards, huh?
LikeLike
@120 “I’d rather support someone who has a shot.”
So, dropping your support for Edwards, huh?
LikeLike
I thought he * Ron Paul * was just some phantom blog spirit that went around giving readership and link love to bloggers… and then found out he is in politics… sorry… I am NOT into politics.
Robert, I really liked this article … usually I run when I see political posts, but I read through to the end of yours and would like to tell you it made me see something things differently. I will go and do some additional reading on the topic of Ron Paul, and the other ‘front runners’ but as it stands right now, I just wish I could have Al Gore and that aint going to happen any time soon is it?
🙂
LikeLike
I thought he * Ron Paul * was just some phantom blog spirit that went around giving readership and link love to bloggers… and then found out he is in politics… sorry… I am NOT into politics.
Robert, I really liked this article … usually I run when I see political posts, but I read through to the end of yours and would like to tell you it made me see something things differently. I will go and do some additional reading on the topic of Ron Paul, and the other ‘front runners’ but as it stands right now, I just wish I could have Al Gore and that aint going to happen any time soon is it?
🙂
LikeLike
“I think most people who have been part of this debate have already made their minds up about Mr Ron Paul.”
What’s great about this upcoming election is that we indeed don’t have to listen to the opinions and rants of random bloggers like myself. Ron Paul’s words are plainly available on the Internet, and they can be heard by anyone, in its original context, without political bias and media spin, for individuals to decide for themselves. Americans may have a short memory, but the Internet does not.
LikeLike
“I think most people who have been part of this debate have already made their minds up about Mr Ron Paul.”
What’s great about this upcoming election is that we indeed don’t have to listen to the opinions and rants of random bloggers like myself. Ron Paul’s words are plainly available on the Internet, and they can be heard by anyone, in its original context, without political bias and media spin, for individuals to decide for themselves. Americans may have a short memory, but the Internet does not.
LikeLike
Titus: excellent point. It gets to the heart of what’s changed in the past decade. Now we have access to TONS of speeches and other information about candidates so we can make a smarter choice and not one controlled by a few minutes appearance on CNN or Fox News.
LikeLike
Titus: excellent point. It gets to the heart of what’s changed in the past decade. Now we have access to TONS of speeches and other information about candidates so we can make a smarter choice and not one controlled by a few minutes appearance on CNN or Fox News.
LikeLike
kystorms: nah, I doubt you’ll see Al Gore back in this. Thanks for making me laugh.
LayZ: let’s just put it I’m a lot more realistic about Edwards’ chances lately. It’s looking more and more like Hillary with a question of how real is Barack?
LikeLike
kystorms: nah, I doubt you’ll see Al Gore back in this. Thanks for making me laugh.
LayZ: let’s just put it I’m a lot more realistic about Edwards’ chances lately. It’s looking more and more like Hillary with a question of how real is Barack?
LikeLike
Mr. Scoble – While I enjoy your erudite coverage of tech news and related issues, I’m afraid that even your intelligent gaze must now be counted among the millions of duped, media-brainwashed Americans. Like too many others, you bought into the Dem-GOP/Blue-Red illusion machine, running this extremely messed up country. As a patriotic American, that not only embarrasses me, it angers me. While buying into the political illusions, the NWO powers behind the real agendas use their “Divide to Conquer” / ”(Their) Order Out of (Their Created) Chaos” playbook to the hilt. You dilly-dally around the issues that THEY provide, under the misconception that these ”issues” are important. They are not. Ron Paul, however, IS not under such illusions, which is precisely why he looks odd to all brainwashed Americans. The illusion is complete when even those with a single purpose, one agenda, divide themselves up into warring factions, so as to ensure success – no matter who the victor… WAKE UP! American sovereignty and survival is in great danger. Read the Patriot Acts I & II, the new Executive Presidential Orders (already in effect), then check what the U.S. Constitution says about such treasonous acts. Look up/Google: NAU (North American Union), NASCO, AMERO, FEMA executive orders, FEMA camps, false flag terrorism, (purposeful) Immigration reform confusion, and NWO. Don’t take my word for it, look it all up yourself. But know this; only a true enemy of the United States of America would vote to purposefully dismantle the dollar, our borders, our laws, and our great Constitution… With so many people buying into the REAL hype, ignoring the warning calls of patriots like Ron Paul, all I can say is; America has millions of enemies, right here at home.
LikeLike
Mr. Scoble – While I enjoy your erudite coverage of tech news and related issues, I’m afraid that even your intelligent gaze must now be counted among the millions of duped, media-brainwashed Americans. Like too many others, you bought into the Dem-GOP/Blue-Red illusion machine, running this extremely messed up country. As a patriotic American, that not only embarrasses me, it angers me. While buying into the political illusions, the NWO powers behind the real agendas use their “Divide to Conquer” / ”(Their) Order Out of (Their Created) Chaos” playbook to the hilt. You dilly-dally around the issues that THEY provide, under the misconception that these ”issues” are important. They are not. Ron Paul, however, IS not under such illusions, which is precisely why he looks odd to all brainwashed Americans. The illusion is complete when even those with a single purpose, one agenda, divide themselves up into warring factions, so as to ensure success – no matter who the victor… WAKE UP! American sovereignty and survival is in great danger. Read the Patriot Acts I & II, the new Executive Presidential Orders (already in effect), then check what the U.S. Constitution says about such treasonous acts. Look up/Google: NAU (North American Union), NASCO, AMERO, FEMA executive orders, FEMA camps, false flag terrorism, (purposeful) Immigration reform confusion, and NWO. Don’t take my word for it, look it all up yourself. But know this; only a true enemy of the United States of America would vote to purposefully dismantle the dollar, our borders, our laws, and our great Constitution… With so many people buying into the REAL hype, ignoring the warning calls of patriots like Ron Paul, all I can say is; America has millions of enemies, right here at home.
LikeLike
Great article, but I felt compelled to write a longer response: http://blogs.webconnectconsulting.com/nukeblogs/ombblog.php?itemid=74
LikeLike
Great article, but I felt compelled to write a longer response: http://blogs.webconnectconsulting.com/nukeblogs/ombblog.php?itemid=74
LikeLike
70% of Americans want us out of Iraq.
Ron Paul is the only republican candidate against the war in Iraq.
Over the next six months Ron Paul will gain name recognition and republicans will learn about who Ron Paul is and most will support him.
Ron Paul only needs 30% of republicans sick of the war and abuse of powers to win the republican nomination.
Once Ron Paul wins the nomination he will be the only anti-war candidate. Thus Ron Paul will win.
LikeLike
70% of Americans want us out of Iraq.
Ron Paul is the only republican candidate against the war in Iraq.
Over the next six months Ron Paul will gain name recognition and republicans will learn about who Ron Paul is and most will support him.
Ron Paul only needs 30% of republicans sick of the war and abuse of powers to win the republican nomination.
Once Ron Paul wins the nomination he will be the only anti-war candidate. Thus Ron Paul will win.
LikeLike
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as president who were doing about the same in the ‘Scientific Polls’ at this stage in their elections. Ron Paul has tremendous momentum and his support is growing exponentially. The other candidates are stagnant. Only Ron Paul’s support is growing and will continue to grow.
LikeLike
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton as president who were doing about the same in the ‘Scientific Polls’ at this stage in their elections. Ron Paul has tremendous momentum and his support is growing exponentially. The other candidates are stagnant. Only Ron Paul’s support is growing and will continue to grow.
LikeLike
Short answer, Robert: because he’s not a freedom-eroding bullshit-peddling Socialist tool.
Longer answer:
Once again, the “real issues of the day” are whatever issues you’re hearing about in your little Socialist bubble. Global Warming (caused by humans) is a nascent scientific theory. Political ramifications are premature. Rebuilding Louisiana is a local issue. A Socialist Health Care system is an idea that only works if you’re willing to treat free people like prisoners or conscripted soldiers. The free market is good enough for the iPhone but your health — a much more important issue — should be decided by bureaucrats? Great. Invasive surgery, managed by the people who brought you Iraq, the IRS and “Duck and Cover.”
Ron Paul gets traction on blogs because blogs lean libertarian, as a group. They’re concerned primary with freedom. They believe in the free market, that humans naturally act in their own self-interest without the need for micromanagement. They look at the government as our founding fathers did: with distrust and reluctant tolerance. They think science and reason should triumph over emotions and fear-mongering. So yeah, Ron Paul excites people who value freedom, because he doesn’t buy the lie that you have to sell your soul to Collectivism in order to govern and because he understands the primacy of freedom.
LikeLike
Short answer, Robert: because he’s not a freedom-eroding bullshit-peddling Socialist tool.
Longer answer:
Once again, the “real issues of the day” are whatever issues you’re hearing about in your little Socialist bubble. Global Warming (caused by humans) is a nascent scientific theory. Political ramifications are premature. Rebuilding Louisiana is a local issue. A Socialist Health Care system is an idea that only works if you’re willing to treat free people like prisoners or conscripted soldiers. The free market is good enough for the iPhone but your health — a much more important issue — should be decided by bureaucrats? Great. Invasive surgery, managed by the people who brought you Iraq, the IRS and “Duck and Cover.”
Ron Paul gets traction on blogs because blogs lean libertarian, as a group. They’re concerned primary with freedom. They believe in the free market, that humans naturally act in their own self-interest without the need for micromanagement. They look at the government as our founding fathers did: with distrust and reluctant tolerance. They think science and reason should triumph over emotions and fear-mongering. So yeah, Ron Paul excites people who value freedom, because he doesn’t buy the lie that you have to sell your soul to Collectivism in order to govern and because he understands the primacy of freedom.
LikeLike
Ron Paul is polling at ~1% in scientific polls for the same reason all the other “second-tier” candidates are polling at ~1%. The vast majority of Americans aren’t yet engaged in the 2008 Presidential race, which means the only candidates they know about are the few in each party that the MSM promotes on a daily basis.
Ron Paul’s second quarter fundraising, straw poll 1st & 2nd place finishes, online poll victories, Meetup numbers, You Tube subscribers, etc. show that he has a growing grassroots support base that are willing to work and donate to get him elected.
His supporters will register Republican, talk to their friends & family, and vote in caucuses and primaries. I don’t know if he will win the Republican nomination, but he’s going to do a lot better than the pundits think.
LikeLike
Ron Paul is polling at ~1% in scientific polls for the same reason all the other “second-tier” candidates are polling at ~1%. The vast majority of Americans aren’t yet engaged in the 2008 Presidential race, which means the only candidates they know about are the few in each party that the MSM promotes on a daily basis.
Ron Paul’s second quarter fundraising, straw poll 1st & 2nd place finishes, online poll victories, Meetup numbers, You Tube subscribers, etc. show that he has a growing grassroots support base that are willing to work and donate to get him elected.
His supporters will register Republican, talk to their friends & family, and vote in caucuses and primaries. I don’t know if he will win the Republican nomination, but he’s going to do a lot better than the pundits think.
LikeLike
I just looked at his site. Mr. Paul certainly is closer to what *real* Americans (that is, Americans who live outside Silicon Valley and a few other out-of-the-ordinary places) want than either Clinton or Edwards. I probably would never have paid any attention but for you. (I’m still neutral, since it is far too early to be considering 2008 electoral politics.)
The issues on that page are the issues that Americans are concerned about. The others you list seem to be talking to one another instead of talking to real people.
However, I think you are going to do more to drum up support for Ron Paul than his supporters could.
LikeLike
I just looked at his site. Mr. Paul certainly is closer to what *real* Americans (that is, Americans who live outside Silicon Valley and a few other out-of-the-ordinary places) want than either Clinton or Edwards. I probably would never have paid any attention but for you. (I’m still neutral, since it is far too early to be considering 2008 electoral politics.)
The issues on that page are the issues that Americans are concerned about. The others you list seem to be talking to one another instead of talking to real people.
However, I think you are going to do more to drum up support for Ron Paul than his supporters could.
LikeLike
kystorms, Ron Paul IS largely a blogosphere phantom, as you thought. Don’t confuse the zealotry of his supporters with numbers. About the only constituency he is the leading candidate of is the white nationalist crowd. That’s because of his decades long involvement with groups such as the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens:
http://tinyurl.com/2z97pt
LikeLike
kystorms, Ron Paul IS largely a blogosphere phantom, as you thought. Don’t confuse the zealotry of his supporters with numbers. About the only constituency he is the leading candidate of is the white nationalist crowd. That’s because of his decades long involvement with groups such as the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens:
http://tinyurl.com/2z97pt
LikeLike
From CF @142–“Like too many others, you bought into the Dem-GOP/Blue-Red illusion machine, running this extremely messed up country. As a patriotic American, that not only embarrasses me, it angers me. While buying into the political illusions, the NWO powers behind the real agendas use their “Divide to Conquer” / ”(Their) Order Out of (Their Created) Chaos” playbook to the hilt.”
To CF and all the other Ron Paul supporters:
If the Democrats/Republicans are so bad and Ron Paul is so much better, why is he running as a REPUBLICAN rather than an INDEPENDENT?
LikeLike
From CF @142–“Like too many others, you bought into the Dem-GOP/Blue-Red illusion machine, running this extremely messed up country. As a patriotic American, that not only embarrasses me, it angers me. While buying into the political illusions, the NWO powers behind the real agendas use their “Divide to Conquer” / ”(Their) Order Out of (Their Created) Chaos” playbook to the hilt.”
To CF and all the other Ron Paul supporters:
If the Democrats/Republicans are so bad and Ron Paul is so much better, why is he running as a REPUBLICAN rather than an INDEPENDENT?
LikeLike
From CF @142–“Like too many others, you bought into the Dem-GOP/Blue-Red illusion machine, running this extremely messed up country. As a patriotic American, that not only embarrasses me, it angers me. While buying into the political illusions, the NWO powers behind the real agendas use their “Divide to Conquer” / ”(Their) Order Out of (Their Created) Chaos” playbook to the hilt.”
To CF and all the other Ron Paul supporters:
If the Democrats/Republicans are so bad and Ron Paul is so much better, why is he running as a REPUBLICAN rather than an INDEPENDENT?
LikeLike
@140 “It’s looking more and more like Hillary with a question of how real is Barack?”
Sadly,I think you are right. Billary will do what it takes to get the nomination, and I mean that both literally and figuratively. B. Hussein Obama is not ready. The guy is a junior Senator with NO experience and a horrible voting record. He shows his foreign policy ignorance every time he opens his mouth. However, I think neither are qualifed. Afterall, didn’t Kerry set the standard for running for President? I thought every candidate now had to have “served in Vietnam”
LikeLike
@140 “It’s looking more and more like Hillary with a question of how real is Barack?”
Sadly,I think you are right. Billary will do what it takes to get the nomination, and I mean that both literally and figuratively. B. Hussein Obama is not ready. The guy is a junior Senator with NO experience and a horrible voting record. He shows his foreign policy ignorance every time he opens his mouth. However, I think neither are qualifed. Afterall, didn’t Kerry set the standard for running for President? I thought every candidate now had to have “served in Vietnam”
LikeLike
@140 “It’s looking more and more like Hillary with a question of how real is Barack?”
Sadly,I think you are right. Billary will do what it takes to get the nomination, and I mean that both literally and figuratively. B. Hussein Obama is not ready. The guy is a junior Senator with NO experience and a horrible voting record. He shows his foreign policy ignorance every time he opens his mouth. However, I think neither are qualifed. Afterall, didn’t Kerry set the standard for running for President? I thought every candidate now had to have “served in Vietnam”
LikeLike
@144 “70% of Americans want us out of Iraq.”
Do you REALLY want a CiC managing a war based on public opinion? If that was the case we would have never gone to Europe in WWII. Seriously, think about it.
LikeLike
@144 “70% of Americans want us out of Iraq.”
Do you REALLY want a CiC managing a war based on public opinion? If that was the case we would have never gone to Europe in WWII. Seriously, think about it.
LikeLike
@144 “70% of Americans want us out of Iraq.”
Do you REALLY want a CiC managing a war based on public opinion? If that was the case we would have never gone to Europe in WWII. Seriously, think about it.
LikeLike
@ Tom, comment 151:
“If the Democrats/Republicans are so bad and Ron Paul is so much better, why is he running as a REPUBLICAN rather than an INDEPENDENT?”
Ron Paul answered this for us on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (6/4/2007):
I’ll try to transcribe what he said here below for those you don’t want to watch the whole video:
“You don’t get in debates. We are overseas spreading the message of Democracy, but here if you are in a third-party you have a tough time, you can’t get on ballots, you spend all your time getting on ballots, you have to be a Ross Perot … The two parties are very much in control of the system and they exclude individuals who aren’t in that mold.”
LikeLike
@ Tom, comment 151:
“If the Democrats/Republicans are so bad and Ron Paul is so much better, why is he running as a REPUBLICAN rather than an INDEPENDENT?”
Ron Paul answered this for us on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (6/4/2007):
I’ll try to transcribe what he said here below for those you don’t want to watch the whole video:
“You don’t get in debates. We are overseas spreading the message of Democracy, but here if you are in a third-party you have a tough time, you can’t get on ballots, you spend all your time getting on ballots, you have to be a Ross Perot … The two parties are very much in control of the system and they exclude individuals who aren’t in that mold.”
LikeLike
@ Tom, comment 151:
“If the Democrats/Republicans are so bad and Ron Paul is so much better, why is he running as a REPUBLICAN rather than an INDEPENDENT?”
Ron Paul answered this for us on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (6/4/2007):
I’ll try to transcribe what he said here below for those you don’t want to watch the whole video:
“You don’t get in debates. We are overseas spreading the message of Democracy, but here if you are in a third-party you have a tough time, you can’t get on ballots, you spend all your time getting on ballots, you have to be a Ross Perot … The two parties are very much in control of the system and they exclude individuals who aren’t in that mold.”
LikeLike
@ Podesta, 150:
“About the only constituency he is the leading candidate of is the white nationalist crowd. ”
I’m Indian by the way, but thanks for trying.
LikeLike
@ Podesta, 150:
“About the only constituency he is the leading candidate of is the white nationalist crowd. ”
I’m Indian by the way, but thanks for trying.
LikeLike
@ Podesta, 150:
“About the only constituency he is the leading candidate of is the white nationalist crowd. ”
I’m Indian by the way, but thanks for trying.
LikeLike
@151 “If the Democrats/Republicans are so bad and Ron Paul is so much better, why is he running as a REPUBLICAN rather than an INDEPENDENT?”
Is that a rhetorical question, or do you really not know the answer? Hint: how much money does a presidential candidate get from the “independent party” vs what that candidate would ger from Reps or the Dems?
LikeLike
@151 “If the Democrats/Republicans are so bad and Ron Paul is so much better, why is he running as a REPUBLICAN rather than an INDEPENDENT?”
Is that a rhetorical question, or do you really not know the answer? Hint: how much money does a presidential candidate get from the “independent party” vs what that candidate would ger from Reps or the Dems?
LikeLike
@151 “If the Democrats/Republicans are so bad and Ron Paul is so much better, why is he running as a REPUBLICAN rather than an INDEPENDENT?”
Is that a rhetorical question, or do you really not know the answer? Hint: how much money does a presidential candidate get from the “independent party” vs what that candidate would ger from Reps or the Dems?
LikeLike
@148. If there was a “blogosphere” in 1975 this same exact conversation would have been had about Jimmy Carter. he was nowhere at that point, too.
LikeLike
@148. If there was a “blogosphere” in 1975 this same exact conversation would have been had about Jimmy Carter. he was nowhere at that point, too.
LikeLike
@148. If there was a “blogosphere” in 1975 this same exact conversation would have been had about Jimmy Carter. he was nowhere at that point, too.
LikeLike
For the past few years everybody was saying Hillary would have the nomination sewn up with no problem at all because the Clintons hold the purse strings. But her passive coronation has proven to be unattainable. Why? Because the Internet means that more power has shifted to the people, away from the powers that be. Candidates don’t need tv commercials and thereby tons of money to be talked about. And a lot more individuals are giving money, making the traditional fat cats less influential.
Why does it have to be ANY of these crappy candidates? And I mean crappy on both sides. I don’t like any of them.
If not in 2008, then by 2012, the power of the Internet will create REAL choice, and we won’t have to pick from a few people that “the establishment” decides.
I’d like to see that happen in 2008. We should pick out somebody who would make a great president, and if he or she doesn’t want to the president, so much the better. Beware the people who want the power.
The blogosphere could bring a 3rd party candidate to power — hell we could BE the 3rd party — if we could just find a suitable person to back.
LikeLike
For the past few years everybody was saying Hillary would have the nomination sewn up with no problem at all because the Clintons hold the purse strings. But her passive coronation has proven to be unattainable. Why? Because the Internet means that more power has shifted to the people, away from the powers that be. Candidates don’t need tv commercials and thereby tons of money to be talked about. And a lot more individuals are giving money, making the traditional fat cats less influential.
Why does it have to be ANY of these crappy candidates? And I mean crappy on both sides. I don’t like any of them.
If not in 2008, then by 2012, the power of the Internet will create REAL choice, and we won’t have to pick from a few people that “the establishment” decides.
I’d like to see that happen in 2008. We should pick out somebody who would make a great president, and if he or she doesn’t want to the president, so much the better. Beware the people who want the power.
The blogosphere could bring a 3rd party candidate to power — hell we could BE the 3rd party — if we could just find a suitable person to back.
LikeLike
For the past few years everybody was saying Hillary would have the nomination sewn up with no problem at all because the Clintons hold the purse strings. But her passive coronation has proven to be unattainable. Why? Because the Internet means that more power has shifted to the people, away from the powers that be. Candidates don’t need tv commercials and thereby tons of money to be talked about. And a lot more individuals are giving money, making the traditional fat cats less influential.
Why does it have to be ANY of these crappy candidates? And I mean crappy on both sides. I don’t like any of them.
If not in 2008, then by 2012, the power of the Internet will create REAL choice, and we won’t have to pick from a few people that “the establishment” decides.
I’d like to see that happen in 2008. We should pick out somebody who would make a great president, and if he or she doesn’t want to the president, so much the better. Beware the people who want the power.
The blogosphere could bring a 3rd party candidate to power — hell we could BE the 3rd party — if we could just find a suitable person to back.
LikeLike
Robert, I know that your beliefs are sincerely held, but first you give a laundry list of Democratic Party talking points, and then you say that you won’t vote for a Republican candidate.
Is this supposed to be a surprise?
LikeLike
Robert, I know that your beliefs are sincerely held, but first you give a laundry list of Democratic Party talking points, and then you say that you won’t vote for a Republican candidate.
Is this supposed to be a surprise?
LikeLike
Robert, I know that your beliefs are sincerely held, but first you give a laundry list of Democratic Party talking points, and then you say that you won’t vote for a Republican candidate.
Is this supposed to be a surprise?
LikeLike
Wow! Robert!
In case you hadn’t heard, there are 3 things about which you should never speak when in polite company: Politics, religion, and…I can’t remember the 3rd, but it may have had something to do with bees 😦
Heard any good rumors about what Microsoft is going to do to Netscape the Wii?
Cheers,
Byron
LikeLike
Wow! Robert!
In case you hadn’t heard, there are 3 things about which you should never speak when in polite company: Politics, religion, and…I can’t remember the 3rd, but it may have had something to do with bees 😦
Heard any good rumors about what Microsoft is going to do to Netscape the Wii?
Cheers,
Byron
LikeLike
Wow! Robert!
In case you hadn’t heard, there are 3 things about which you should never speak when in polite company: Politics, religion, and…I can’t remember the 3rd, but it may have had something to do with bees 😦
Heard any good rumors about what Microsoft is going to do to Netscape the Wii?
Cheers,
Byron
LikeLike
@158 “Candidates don’t need tv commercials and thereby tons of money to be talked about. And a lot more individuals are giving money, making the traditional fat cats less influential.”
The question is, do the people that hang out in the “blogosphere” vote in large blocs? You have to look at who actually goes to the polls on election day. Without TV commercials and getting covered by the MSM, you aren’t going to reach the majority of VOTERS.
LikeLike
@158 “Candidates don’t need tv commercials and thereby tons of money to be talked about. And a lot more individuals are giving money, making the traditional fat cats less influential.”
The question is, do the people that hang out in the “blogosphere” vote in large blocs? You have to look at who actually goes to the polls on election day. Without TV commercials and getting covered by the MSM, you aren’t going to reach the majority of VOTERS.
LikeLike
@158 “Candidates don’t need tv commercials and thereby tons of money to be talked about. And a lot more individuals are giving money, making the traditional fat cats less influential.”
The question is, do the people that hang out in the “blogosphere” vote in large blocs? You have to look at who actually goes to the polls on election day. Without TV commercials and getting covered by the MSM, you aren’t going to reach the majority of VOTERS.
LikeLike
Just because people haven’t voted in the past doesn’t mean they won’t vote now. All they need is encouragement and something to vote FOR rather than somebody to vote against, which has been the norm the last several times out.
If Hillary gets the nomination it’s done. I guarantee that there will be a lot more people voting against her than voting for her. The Republican side will be out in record numbers to make sure she doesn’t get elected. And that’s not because she’s a woman, but because she’s the woman she is.
I mostly vote Republican, but none in this crowd excite me. I’ll definitely vote against Hillary though.
BTW, all you anti-war people better realize that if Hillary gets elected there will almost certainly be a reinstatement of the draft. My son recently got out of the Marines. If she is Commander in Chief, the all volunteer service will cut and run, mark my words.
LikeLike
Just because people haven’t voted in the past doesn’t mean they won’t vote now. All they need is encouragement and something to vote FOR rather than somebody to vote against, which has been the norm the last several times out.
If Hillary gets the nomination it’s done. I guarantee that there will be a lot more people voting against her than voting for her. The Republican side will be out in record numbers to make sure she doesn’t get elected. And that’s not because she’s a woman, but because she’s the woman she is.
I mostly vote Republican, but none in this crowd excite me. I’ll definitely vote against Hillary though.
BTW, all you anti-war people better realize that if Hillary gets elected there will almost certainly be a reinstatement of the draft. My son recently got out of the Marines. If she is Commander in Chief, the all volunteer service will cut and run, mark my words.
LikeLike
Titus Barak, it is amusing to see that you are so pleased to be an Indian supporter of a racist candidate. But, then, I recall former Virginia senator George Allen trotting out his Indian sycophant to say there was no problem after the macaca incident. Are you enjoying attending Ron Paul meetings and rallies with neo-Nazis who would not hesitate to bash your head in given an opportunity?
LikeLike
Titus Barak, it is amusing to see that you are so pleased to be an Indian supporter of a racist candidate. But, then, I recall former Virginia senator George Allen trotting out his Indian sycophant to say there was no problem after the macaca incident. Are you enjoying attending Ron Paul meetings and rallies with neo-Nazis who would not hesitate to bash your head in given an opportunity?
LikeLike
Titus Barak, it is amusing to see that you are so pleased to be an Indian supporter of a racist candidate. But, then, I recall former Virginia senator George Allen trotting out his Indian sycophant to say there was no problem after the macaca incident. Are you enjoying attending Ron Paul meetings and rallies with neo-Nazis who would not hesitate to bash your head in given an opportunity?
LikeLike
@160 “Just because people haven’t voted in the past doesn’t mean they won’t vote now. All they need is encouragement and something to vote FOR rather than somebody to vote against, which has been the norm the last several times out.”
It’s been more than the last several times out. Voter turnout has hovered around 50% since 1972. The last time there was 60% turn out was ’68. Hell, even the Reagan years had only 53 and 50% respectively. That ever popular Clinton in ’96 only mustered a 49% turnout. And you’d think in 2004 there would have been “something to vote for” given the hatred of Bush. Alas, only 56% of the country felt it important enough to vote. So, given the trends over the last almost 40 years, I doubt “the internet” is going to have that huge of an impact.
LikeLike
@160 “Just because people haven’t voted in the past doesn’t mean they won’t vote now. All they need is encouragement and something to vote FOR rather than somebody to vote against, which has been the norm the last several times out.”
It’s been more than the last several times out. Voter turnout has hovered around 50% since 1972. The last time there was 60% turn out was ’68. Hell, even the Reagan years had only 53 and 50% respectively. That ever popular Clinton in ’96 only mustered a 49% turnout. And you’d think in 2004 there would have been “something to vote for” given the hatred of Bush. Alas, only 56% of the country felt it important enough to vote. So, given the trends over the last almost 40 years, I doubt “the internet” is going to have that huge of an impact.
LikeLike
You’re right, LayZ, it’s probably not going to have a huge impact. But my point is that it has the potential to. It’s social media that has created that potential, because it can added peer support and peer pressure to the process of voting.
But again, there must to be someone to be excited about and that just isn’t the case now.
LikeLike
You’re right, LayZ, it’s probably not going to have a huge impact. But my point is that it has the potential to. It’s social media that has created that potential, because it can added peer support and peer pressure to the process of voting.
But again, there must to be someone to be excited about and that just isn’t the case now.
LikeLike
@ Podesta, 164.
Can’t say I’ve ever had a problem.
LikeLike
@ Podesta, 164.
Can’t say I’ve ever had a problem.
LikeLike
@ Podesta, 164.
Can’t say I’ve ever had a problem.
LikeLike
Robert,
Thank you for this blog post. I’ve been feeling discouraged and somewhat mystified why some bloggers have latched on to Ron Paul when all three front-running Democratic candidates and Dennis Kucinich have presented credible, point-by-point strategies on the key issues of our time. I could not vote for a candidate whose main focus is on fiscal policies, to the exclusion of other issues that will, in the long run, turn out to be much more vital to our entire survival (such as global warming, healthcare and education), equal justice for all (such as women’s right to choose and Gay rights), the issues that really mean much more to the thriving of our country in the future, as well as the present. I feel confident the business community will continue to take care of financial priorities, and all of the Democratic candidates want to see the business community continue to thrive—but a short-sighted focus only on fiscal conerns is what got us the Bush-Cheney disaster in the first place. Let’s learn from that awful lesson, please! Mr. Paul simply does not represent equality and justice for all citizens (including women and Gay people), so for that reason alone, I could not vote for him. The rights of all of our fellow citizens is more important—and should always be—than what on the surface may sound like a viable fiscal stance, but in reality isn’t, if you really take a hard look at it.
~Cathryn Hrudicka/Creative Sage(tm)
LikeLike
Robert,
Thank you for this blog post. I’ve been feeling discouraged and somewhat mystified why some bloggers have latched on to Ron Paul when all three front-running Democratic candidates and Dennis Kucinich have presented credible, point-by-point strategies on the key issues of our time. I could not vote for a candidate whose main focus is on fiscal policies, to the exclusion of other issues that will, in the long run, turn out to be much more vital to our entire survival (such as global warming, healthcare and education), equal justice for all (such as women’s right to choose and Gay rights), the issues that really mean much more to the thriving of our country in the future, as well as the present. I feel confident the business community will continue to take care of financial priorities, and all of the Democratic candidates want to see the business community continue to thrive—but a short-sighted focus only on fiscal conerns is what got us the Bush-Cheney disaster in the first place. Let’s learn from that awful lesson, please! Mr. Paul simply does not represent equality and justice for all citizens (including women and Gay people), so for that reason alone, I could not vote for him. The rights of all of our fellow citizens is more important—and should always be—than what on the surface may sound like a viable fiscal stance, but in reality isn’t, if you really take a hard look at it.
~Cathryn Hrudicka/Creative Sage(tm)
LikeLike
Robert,
Thank you for this blog post. I’ve been feeling discouraged and somewhat mystified why some bloggers have latched on to Ron Paul when all three front-running Democratic candidates and Dennis Kucinich have presented credible, point-by-point strategies on the key issues of our time. I could not vote for a candidate whose main focus is on fiscal policies, to the exclusion of other issues that will, in the long run, turn out to be much more vital to our entire survival (such as global warming, healthcare and education), equal justice for all (such as women’s right to choose and Gay rights), the issues that really mean much more to the thriving of our country in the future, as well as the present. I feel confident the business community will continue to take care of financial priorities, and all of the Democratic candidates want to see the business community continue to thrive—but a short-sighted focus only on fiscal conerns is what got us the Bush-Cheney disaster in the first place. Let’s learn from that awful lesson, please! Mr. Paul simply does not represent equality and justice for all citizens (including women and Gay people), so for that reason alone, I could not vote for him. The rights of all of our fellow citizens is more important—and should always be—than what on the surface may sound like a viable fiscal stance, but in reality isn’t, if you really take a hard look at it.
~Cathryn Hrudicka/Creative Sage(tm)
LikeLike
@166 “You’re right, LayZ, it’s probably not going to have a huge impact. But my point is that it has the potential to.”
They said the same thing in 1960 about television after the Kennedy/Nixon debates. While there was an uptick in ’64, it then regressed to the low 50’s. So, if TV, which is much more accessible and much more passive, couldn’t to it, what makes us think the internet can?
LikeLike
@166 “You’re right, LayZ, it’s probably not going to have a huge impact. But my point is that it has the potential to.”
They said the same thing in 1960 about television after the Kennedy/Nixon debates. While there was an uptick in ’64, it then regressed to the low 50’s. So, if TV, which is much more accessible and much more passive, couldn’t to it, what makes us think the internet can?
LikeLike
@166 “You’re right, LayZ, it’s probably not going to have a huge impact. But my point is that it has the potential to.”
They said the same thing in 1960 about television after the Kennedy/Nixon debates. While there was an uptick in ’64, it then regressed to the low 50’s. So, if TV, which is much more accessible and much more passive, couldn’t to it, what makes us think the internet can?
LikeLike
@168 “in the long run, turn out to be much more vital to our entire survival (such as global warming, healthcare and education), equal justice for all (such as women’s right to choose and Gay rights), the issues that really mean much more to the thriving of our country in the future, as well as the present.”
Why is this so hard to understand? NONE if the above is the responsibility of The President to solve.
(and, by the way, women do have a right to choose. Unless I missed something, Roe v Wade as not been overturned. And Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals do regarding marriage. They,too, can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. The fact that they don’t want to doesn’t mean they don’t have the same rights. The marriage laws say nothing about love or sexual preferences)
LikeLike
@168 “in the long run, turn out to be much more vital to our entire survival (such as global warming, healthcare and education), equal justice for all (such as women’s right to choose and Gay rights), the issues that really mean much more to the thriving of our country in the future, as well as the present.”
Why is this so hard to understand? NONE if the above is the responsibility of The President to solve.
(and, by the way, women do have a right to choose. Unless I missed something, Roe v Wade as not been overturned. And Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals do regarding marriage. They,too, can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. The fact that they don’t want to doesn’t mean they don’t have the same rights. The marriage laws say nothing about love or sexual preferences)
LikeLike
@168 “in the long run, turn out to be much more vital to our entire survival (such as global warming, healthcare and education), equal justice for all (such as women’s right to choose and Gay rights), the issues that really mean much more to the thriving of our country in the future, as well as the present.”
Why is this so hard to understand? NONE if the above is the responsibility of The President to solve.
(and, by the way, women do have a right to choose. Unless I missed something, Roe v Wade as not been overturned. And Gays have the same rights as heterosexuals do regarding marriage. They,too, can marry anyone of the opposite sex they want. The fact that they don’t want to doesn’t mean they don’t have the same rights. The marriage laws say nothing about love or sexual preferences)
LikeLike
I’m a Paul supporter, and I was amazed at how many democrats and liberals are climbing on board. The comments I hear the most are that the Democratic party has been hijacked by socialists, they actually think of themselves as more “traditional liberals” (no idea what that means, I just hear it) and that the Democrats are not committed to stopping the war.
Personally, if the Dems ran a Kucinich or a Gravel, I’d certainly vote for them before I voted for a neocon. As it stands now, I’m voting for Ron Paul even if it is a write in vote.
Both parties are corrupted beyond belief.
LikeLike
I’m a Paul supporter, and I was amazed at how many democrats and liberals are climbing on board. The comments I hear the most are that the Democratic party has been hijacked by socialists, they actually think of themselves as more “traditional liberals” (no idea what that means, I just hear it) and that the Democrats are not committed to stopping the war.
Personally, if the Dems ran a Kucinich or a Gravel, I’d certainly vote for them before I voted for a neocon. As it stands now, I’m voting for Ron Paul even if it is a write in vote.
Both parties are corrupted beyond belief.
LikeLike
I’m a Paul supporter, and I was amazed at how many democrats and liberals are climbing on board. The comments I hear the most are that the Democratic party has been hijacked by socialists, they actually think of themselves as more “traditional liberals” (no idea what that means, I just hear it) and that the Democrats are not committed to stopping the war.
Personally, if the Dems ran a Kucinich or a Gravel, I’d certainly vote for them before I voted for a neocon. As it stands now, I’m voting for Ron Paul even if it is a write in vote.
Both parties are corrupted beyond belief.
LikeLike
Ron Paul’s getting hype because he’s the only “Republican” against Mr. Bush’s War. (I put “Republican” in quotes because Paul’s really a Libertarian; Libertarian’s foreign policy is to stay out of foreign entanglements; basically be isolationist except for trade).
I’m against the war too. But his positions on other issues are whacky. Stuff like privatizing our National Parks by auctioning them off to the highest bidder (including lumber companies like Weyerhauser that would love to clear-cut the parks). And unwilling to enforce civil rights, saying that the market can handle such trivialities.
LikeLike
Ron Paul’s getting hype because he’s the only “Republican” against Mr. Bush’s War. (I put “Republican” in quotes because Paul’s really a Libertarian; Libertarian’s foreign policy is to stay out of foreign entanglements; basically be isolationist except for trade).
I’m against the war too. But his positions on other issues are whacky. Stuff like privatizing our National Parks by auctioning them off to the highest bidder (including lumber companies like Weyerhauser that would love to clear-cut the parks). And unwilling to enforce civil rights, saying that the market can handle such trivialities.
LikeLike
Apart from any support of candidates, I am dismayed by the thought of anyone taking a USAToday/Gallup, etc, opinion poll with a grain of salt.
First, the polls are based on polling of 200-400 people with a margin of error +- 5%. In addition to this massive statistical swing, you need to look at how polls are conducted.
For example, in order to answer a question regarding a Republican candidate, you must first pass the registered republican questions, then the “Are you planning on voting in the primaries” question. Don’t answer correctly on those, and you don’t pass on to the following rounds where the final #s come from.
How many of us trust Neilsen ratings, and so on. Sadly, as flawed as Neilsen ratings are, statistically, the premise is the same and Neilsen at least captures a larger sample size for extrapolation.
To use any showing in an opinion poll as a true measure of support is flawed, at best. This also presumes a false notion: that most Americans know anything about their congressmen, senators, or other political figures.
It should stand to reason that Paul, Kucinich, Biden, Gravel, etc, receive the same name recognition as other members of congress (Clinton, Edwards, Obama, McCain) or candidates based solely on the fact they serve in congress. Unfortunately, they don’t receive any name recognition because Americans are inherently fixated on regurgitation of that which is delivered via television.
Seriously, though: USAToday opinion polls? Who actually reads USA Today? I cringe when I’m travelling and it’s the paper that’s slid under my door.
LikeLike
Apart from any support of candidates, I am dismayed by the thought of anyone taking a USAToday/Gallup, etc, opinion poll with a grain of salt.
First, the polls are based on polling of 200-400 people with a margin of error +- 5%. In addition to this massive statistical swing, you need to look at how polls are conducted.
For example, in order to answer a question regarding a Republican candidate, you must first pass the registered republican questions, then the “Are you planning on voting in the primaries” question. Don’t answer correctly on those, and you don’t pass on to the following rounds where the final #s come from.
How many of us trust Neilsen ratings, and so on. Sadly, as flawed as Neilsen ratings are, statistically, the premise is the same and Neilsen at least captures a larger sample size for extrapolation.
To use any showing in an opinion poll as a true measure of support is flawed, at best. This also presumes a false notion: that most Americans know anything about their congressmen, senators, or other political figures.
It should stand to reason that Paul, Kucinich, Biden, Gravel, etc, receive the same name recognition as other members of congress (Clinton, Edwards, Obama, McCain) or candidates based solely on the fact they serve in congress. Unfortunately, they don’t receive any name recognition because Americans are inherently fixated on regurgitation of that which is delivered via television.
Seriously, though: USAToday opinion polls? Who actually reads USA Today? I cringe when I’m travelling and it’s the paper that’s slid under my door.
LikeLike
Apart from any support of candidates, I am dismayed by the thought of anyone taking a USAToday/Gallup, etc, opinion poll with a grain of salt.
First, the polls are based on polling of 200-400 people with a margin of error +- 5%. In addition to this massive statistical swing, you need to look at how polls are conducted.
For example, in order to answer a question regarding a Republican candidate, you must first pass the registered republican questions, then the “Are you planning on voting in the primaries” question. Don’t answer correctly on those, and you don’t pass on to the following rounds where the final #s come from.
How many of us trust Neilsen ratings, and so on. Sadly, as flawed as Neilsen ratings are, statistically, the premise is the same and Neilsen at least captures a larger sample size for extrapolation.
To use any showing in an opinion poll as a true measure of support is flawed, at best. This also presumes a false notion: that most Americans know anything about their congressmen, senators, or other political figures.
It should stand to reason that Paul, Kucinich, Biden, Gravel, etc, receive the same name recognition as other members of congress (Clinton, Edwards, Obama, McCain) or candidates based solely on the fact they serve in congress. Unfortunately, they don’t receive any name recognition because Americans are inherently fixated on regurgitation of that which is delivered via television.
Seriously, though: USAToday opinion polls? Who actually reads USA Today? I cringe when I’m travelling and it’s the paper that’s slid under my door.
LikeLike
I’ve never posted here, but I must say that the Podesta fellow is just
about one of the most dishonest folks I’ve ever read in his postings
concerning Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a CONSTITUTIONALIST! He has libertarian tendencies
and he DOES NOT HAVE RACIST TENDENCIES. Small L and big L
libertarians want open borders, Ron Paul does not. Most libertarians
are pro-choice, Ron Paul is pro-life. Most libertarians want there to
be zero taxes, as collecting taxes is implicitly an act of aggression to
them. Ron Paul believes that the 1/3 of total US federal government
revenue generated by the personal income tax should be done away
with, and that with fees, tariffs and taxes on corporations, our government
can survive and fund itself as it did through its first 130 years of existence.
You can tell when a candidate is starting to break through because
the snipers come out to try to spoil the success. As Mahatma Gandhi said –
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Ron Paul is somewhere between stage 2 and stage 3 now.
LikeLike
I’ve never posted here, but I must say that the Podesta fellow is just
about one of the most dishonest folks I’ve ever read in his postings
concerning Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a CONSTITUTIONALIST! He has libertarian tendencies
and he DOES NOT HAVE RACIST TENDENCIES. Small L and big L
libertarians want open borders, Ron Paul does not. Most libertarians
are pro-choice, Ron Paul is pro-life. Most libertarians want there to
be zero taxes, as collecting taxes is implicitly an act of aggression to
them. Ron Paul believes that the 1/3 of total US federal government
revenue generated by the personal income tax should be done away
with, and that with fees, tariffs and taxes on corporations, our government
can survive and fund itself as it did through its first 130 years of existence.
You can tell when a candidate is starting to break through because
the snipers come out to try to spoil the success. As Mahatma Gandhi said –
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Ron Paul is somewhere between stage 2 and stage 3 now.
LikeLike
I’ve never posted here, but I must say that the Podesta fellow is just
about one of the most dishonest folks I’ve ever read in his postings
concerning Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is a CONSTITUTIONALIST! He has libertarian tendencies
and he DOES NOT HAVE RACIST TENDENCIES. Small L and big L
libertarians want open borders, Ron Paul does not. Most libertarians
are pro-choice, Ron Paul is pro-life. Most libertarians want there to
be zero taxes, as collecting taxes is implicitly an act of aggression to
them. Ron Paul believes that the 1/3 of total US federal government
revenue generated by the personal income tax should be done away
with, and that with fees, tariffs and taxes on corporations, our government
can survive and fund itself as it did through its first 130 years of existence.
You can tell when a candidate is starting to break through because
the snipers come out to try to spoil the success. As Mahatma Gandhi said –
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Ron Paul is somewhere between stage 2 and stage 3 now.
LikeLike
I’m almost as embarrassed for Cory as I am Titus Barak. Scientifically conducted polls are exactly what we need. Their predictive value is so high that they usually predict the outcome of political races even before the West Coast votes. Margin of error is mainly a function of variables such as the tendency of minority groups to be underrepresented in polling. Increasing the size of the population polled reduces margin of error, but usually not enough to make it financially feasible to do so. So, a larger sample would might give Ron Paul an .010 percent increase, which doesn’t matter.
Don Wills, someone who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act is indeed a racist. Dressing up the reality of what that means as ‘state’s rights, ‘constitutionalism,’ or the most comical, ‘liberty,’ does not alter the reality that Ron Paul wants to return the country to a time when racial segregation was legal and state legislatures could deprive some demographic groups of the right to vote. There is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires any such thing. Another suggestion of Paul’s — treating black children as adults for purposes of criminal prosecution when they turn 13 — is not only inhumane, but violates the Fourteenth Amendment
It is strange to see someone reference Ron Paul and Mahatma Gandhi in the same sentence. Gandhi was fighting for recognition of civil rights. Paul wants to repeal recognition of civil rights. Those are opposing goals.
Obviously, the interest created on the Internet by Paul zealots is a largely self-contained phenomenon. If he had more than an iota of real world support it would be reflected in the polls.
I am curious to see how this plays out. The most offensive racist statements from Paul made it on to the Internet accidentally. One of the many Ku Klux Klan leaders who supports Paul and gets his political newsletter posted it to a news group. However, Paul’s newsletter has been around for years, albeit shrouded in secrecy. I think the contents of other issues will eventually be leaked. When that happens, he will be joining George Allen, Bob Barr, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, etc., in the racist pol hall of shame.
LikeLike
I’m almost as embarrassed for Cory as I am Titus Barak. Scientifically conducted polls are exactly what we need. Their predictive value is so high that they usually predict the outcome of political races even before the West Coast votes. Margin of error is mainly a function of variables such as the tendency of minority groups to be underrepresented in polling. Increasing the size of the population polled reduces margin of error, but usually not enough to make it financially feasible to do so. So, a larger sample would might give Ron Paul an .010 percent increase, which doesn’t matter.
Don Wills, someone who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act is indeed a racist. Dressing up the reality of what that means as ‘state’s rights, ‘constitutionalism,’ or the most comical, ‘liberty,’ does not alter the reality that Ron Paul wants to return the country to a time when racial segregation was legal and state legislatures could deprive some demographic groups of the right to vote. There is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires any such thing. Another suggestion of Paul’s — treating black children as adults for purposes of criminal prosecution when they turn 13 — is not only inhumane, but violates the Fourteenth Amendment
It is strange to see someone reference Ron Paul and Mahatma Gandhi in the same sentence. Gandhi was fighting for recognition of civil rights. Paul wants to repeal recognition of civil rights. Those are opposing goals.
Obviously, the interest created on the Internet by Paul zealots is a largely self-contained phenomenon. If he had more than an iota of real world support it would be reflected in the polls.
I am curious to see how this plays out. The most offensive racist statements from Paul made it on to the Internet accidentally. One of the many Ku Klux Klan leaders who supports Paul and gets his political newsletter posted it to a news group. However, Paul’s newsletter has been around for years, albeit shrouded in secrecy. I think the contents of other issues will eventually be leaked. When that happens, he will be joining George Allen, Bob Barr, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, etc., in the racist pol hall of shame.
LikeLike
I’m almost as embarrassed for Cory as I am Titus Barak. Scientifically conducted polls are exactly what we need. Their predictive value is so high that they usually predict the outcome of political races even before the West Coast votes. Margin of error is mainly a function of variables such as the tendency of minority groups to be underrepresented in polling. Increasing the size of the population polled reduces margin of error, but usually not enough to make it financially feasible to do so. So, a larger sample would might give Ron Paul an .010 percent increase, which doesn’t matter.
Don Wills, someone who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act is indeed a racist. Dressing up the reality of what that means as ‘state’s rights, ‘constitutionalism,’ or the most comical, ‘liberty,’ does not alter the reality that Ron Paul wants to return the country to a time when racial segregation was legal and state legislatures could deprive some demographic groups of the right to vote. There is absolutely nothing in the U.S. Constitution that requires any such thing. Another suggestion of Paul’s — treating black children as adults for purposes of criminal prosecution when they turn 13 — is not only inhumane, but violates the Fourteenth Amendment
It is strange to see someone reference Ron Paul and Mahatma Gandhi in the same sentence. Gandhi was fighting for recognition of civil rights. Paul wants to repeal recognition of civil rights. Those are opposing goals.
Obviously, the interest created on the Internet by Paul zealots is a largely self-contained phenomenon. If he had more than an iota of real world support it would be reflected in the polls.
I am curious to see how this plays out. The most offensive racist statements from Paul made it on to the Internet accidentally. One of the many Ku Klux Klan leaders who supports Paul and gets his political newsletter posted it to a news group. However, Paul’s newsletter has been around for years, albeit shrouded in secrecy. I think the contents of other issues will eventually be leaked. When that happens, he will be joining George Allen, Bob Barr, Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, etc., in the racist pol hall of shame.
LikeLike
Its is intelectually irresponsible to call Paul a racist. That newsletter has been discredited as written by a ghost writer. It can be explained away because no where else in any of pauls 700 speeches to congress does he use even the same language. Its not him. Fringe groups may like his message because it is universal. He gets support from EVERYWHERE, even the guys youd rather not invite to the party. Thats the thing about a freedom message.
LikeLike
Its is intelectually irresponsible to call Paul a racist. That newsletter has been discredited as written by a ghost writer. It can be explained away because no where else in any of pauls 700 speeches to congress does he use even the same language. Its not him. Fringe groups may like his message because it is universal. He gets support from EVERYWHERE, even the guys youd rather not invite to the party. Thats the thing about a freedom message.
LikeLike
Its is intelectually irresponsible to call Paul a racist. That newsletter has been discredited as written by a ghost writer. It can be explained away because no where else in any of pauls 700 speeches to congress does he use even the same language. Its not him. Fringe groups may like his message because it is universal. He gets support from EVERYWHERE, even the guys youd rather not invite to the party. Thats the thing about a freedom message.
LikeLike
To Podesta:
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” –Ron Paul
Disagree with his thoughts on racisim for being naive, too optimistically dependent on the potential of human beings to look beyond racial differences, etc… but don’t call him a racist for thinking that we have the potential to look beyond superficial differences to respect each other as individuals.
If he’s racist and means to appeal to other racists, why on earth would he float the name of Walter E. Williams as a possible running mate?
LikeLike
To Podesta:
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” –Ron Paul
Disagree with his thoughts on racisim for being naive, too optimistically dependent on the potential of human beings to look beyond racial differences, etc… but don’t call him a racist for thinking that we have the potential to look beyond superficial differences to respect each other as individuals.
If he’s racist and means to appeal to other racists, why on earth would he float the name of Walter E. Williams as a possible running mate?
LikeLike
To Podesta:
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” –Ron Paul
Disagree with his thoughts on racisim for being naive, too optimistically dependent on the potential of human beings to look beyond racial differences, etc… but don’t call him a racist for thinking that we have the potential to look beyond superficial differences to respect each other as individuals.
If he’s racist and means to appeal to other racists, why on earth would he float the name of Walter E. Williams as a possible running mate?
LikeLike
@175 Ah, don’t we all love revisionist history…
“someone who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act is indeed a racist”
Then what do we call a party that didn’t want to vote for it in the first place? In fact there were 21 NO votes… from Democrats! If is wasn’t for the Rep’s that Act would not have been passed.
“Ron Paul wants to return the country to a time when racial segregation was legal and state legislatures could deprive some demographic groups of the right to vote.”
You mean like the Democrats did before the Civil War?
I notice history books don’t make much mention of John C. Calhoun, who basically made the Democrats the party of slavery before and during the Civil War.
And after the civil war is was Democrats that were behind the forming of the Ku Klux Klan because of their opposition to Reconstruction.
Jim Crow laws? Adopted by Democrats in the South.
This just in! Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixie-Crat when he ran his segragationist campaign.
LikeLike
@175 Ah, don’t we all love revisionist history…
“someone who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act is indeed a racist”
Then what do we call a party that didn’t want to vote for it in the first place? In fact there were 21 NO votes… from Democrats! If is wasn’t for the Rep’s that Act would not have been passed.
“Ron Paul wants to return the country to a time when racial segregation was legal and state legislatures could deprive some demographic groups of the right to vote.”
You mean like the Democrats did before the Civil War?
I notice history books don’t make much mention of John C. Calhoun, who basically made the Democrats the party of slavery before and during the Civil War.
And after the civil war is was Democrats that were behind the forming of the Ku Klux Klan because of their opposition to Reconstruction.
Jim Crow laws? Adopted by Democrats in the South.
This just in! Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixie-Crat when he ran his segragationist campaign.
LikeLike
@175 Ah, don’t we all love revisionist history…
“someone who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act is indeed a racist”
Then what do we call a party that didn’t want to vote for it in the first place? In fact there were 21 NO votes… from Democrats! If is wasn’t for the Rep’s that Act would not have been passed.
“Ron Paul wants to return the country to a time when racial segregation was legal and state legislatures could deprive some demographic groups of the right to vote.”
You mean like the Democrats did before the Civil War?
I notice history books don’t make much mention of John C. Calhoun, who basically made the Democrats the party of slavery before and during the Civil War.
And after the civil war is was Democrats that were behind the forming of the Ku Klux Klan because of their opposition to Reconstruction.
Jim Crow laws? Adopted by Democrats in the South.
This just in! Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixie-Crat when he ran his segragationist campaign.
LikeLike
Just a small point of clarification: Ron Paul has about as much to do with Ayn Rand as does Hillary Clinton. And the “greed is good” quote is from a movie, not from anything Rand said or wrote. Finally, she’s rolling in her grave at being called “extreme right,” and she would never have supported the war in Iraq. Just like she didn’t support the war in Vietnam, and for many of the same reasons.
LikeLike
Just a small point of clarification: Ron Paul has about as much to do with Ayn Rand as does Hillary Clinton. And the “greed is good” quote is from a movie, not from anything Rand said or wrote. Finally, she’s rolling in her grave at being called “extreme right,” and she would never have supported the war in Iraq. Just like she didn’t support the war in Vietnam, and for many of the same reasons.
LikeLike
Just a small point of clarification: Ron Paul has about as much to do with Ayn Rand as does Hillary Clinton. And the “greed is good” quote is from a movie, not from anything Rand said or wrote. Finally, she’s rolling in her grave at being called “extreme right,” and she would never have supported the war in Iraq. Just like she didn’t support the war in Vietnam, and for many of the same reasons.
LikeLike
@153 LayZ WWII was a legal war Declared by Congress. The war in Iraq is an illegal war entered into for false reasons against a country that was not a threat. But it sure was fun. Dick Cheney has managed to take about 1 trillion of our tax dollars and hand off the money to his corporate sponsors including the Military Industrial Complex, Oil companies (who just recently divided up the regions), Halliburton, etc.
In WWII we were fighting the fascists. In Iraq we ARE the fascists.
LikeLike
@153 LayZ WWII was a legal war Declared by Congress. The war in Iraq is an illegal war entered into for false reasons against a country that was not a threat. But it sure was fun. Dick Cheney has managed to take about 1 trillion of our tax dollars and hand off the money to his corporate sponsors including the Military Industrial Complex, Oil companies (who just recently divided up the regions), Halliburton, etc.
In WWII we were fighting the fascists. In Iraq we ARE the fascists.
LikeLike
@153 LayZ WWII was a legal war Declared by Congress. The war in Iraq is an illegal war entered into for false reasons against a country that was not a threat. But it sure was fun. Dick Cheney has managed to take about 1 trillion of our tax dollars and hand off the money to his corporate sponsors including the Military Industrial Complex, Oil companies (who just recently divided up the regions), Halliburton, etc.
In WWII we were fighting the fascists. In Iraq we ARE the fascists.
LikeLike
I created an RSS feed that is generated from his writings on his House of Reps website. He publishes a weekly article there. You should subscribe for a bit and read what he has to say and see what you think about it. Like he says, Freedom is a Powerful Message:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/UnofficialRonPaulRssFeed
LikeLike
I created an RSS feed that is generated from his writings on his House of Reps website. He publishes a weekly article there. You should subscribe for a bit and read what he has to say and see what you think about it. Like he says, Freedom is a Powerful Message:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/UnofficialRonPaulRssFeed
LikeLike
Sounds like you are one of these:
http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/where-rudy-mcromneys-money-goes/
LikeLike
Sounds like you are one of these:
http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/where-rudy-mcromneys-money-goes/
LikeLike
Sounds like you are one of these:
http://disinter.wordpress.com/2007/07/17/where-rudy-mcromneys-money-goes/
LikeLike
Sorry for the delay in responding to people who last addressed me. I’ve been having kernel panic problem on my MacBook Pro. Lost the excellent responses I had written Tuesday. Anyway:
*Eric Kuhlman, the material you cited is an excerpt from the full speech Ron Paul gave opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made it legal for non-whites to use public accommodations and guaranteed their right to vote. Babbling about collectivism this or states’ rights that is subterfuge. If Paul had his way the protections that prevent segregation and protect universal suffrage would end. That is what matters.
•LazY, you must have slept through history classes. If not you would know that the major parties changed agendas on civil rights after Reconstruction. The Republican Party was the party of emancipation. But, after the South stymied Reconstruction, neither party protected the rights of the freedmen. More than 5,000 people, overwhelmingly African-American, were lynched in the South and Midwest from the end of Reconstruction into the 1960s. As the Democrats became more sensitive to the damage segregation and lynching were doing to the country in the 1950s, the Southern Democrats — Dixiecrats — began to leave the Party for the GOP. That trend escalated among white Southerners, both electorate and pols, as civil rights laws began to be actually enforced in the 1960s and 1970s. The Republicans courted them by opposing integration, often called the Southern Strategy. It was successful in moving Southern states into the Republican column in national elections, i.e., the Solid South. That is happening to an extent with governors. So, to summarize, the same Southern politicians you are deriding as Democrats became leaders in the modern Republican Party. The responsibility for regressive behavior on civil rights issues in contemporary America is correctly credited to the GOP. The Democrats are far from perfect in this regard, but they can’t hold a flaming torch to the Republicans.
•As for social media and Ron Paul, this saga casts the blogosphere in a bad light. Because it is dominated by Right Wingers, who are usually quite shallow, Paul has not gotten the critical examination he should. When the truth about Paul and his skeletons emerges, I think it will be because of investigative reporting by real journalists. We will see.
LikeLike
Sorry for the delay in responding to people who last addressed me. I’ve been having kernel panic problem on my MacBook Pro. Lost the excellent responses I had written Tuesday. Anyway:
*Eric Kuhlman, the material you cited is an excerpt from the full speech Ron Paul gave opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made it legal for non-whites to use public accommodations and guaranteed their right to vote. Babbling about collectivism this or states’ rights that is subterfuge. If Paul had his way the protections that prevent segregation and protect universal suffrage would end. That is what matters.
•LazY, you must have slept through history classes. If not you would know that the major parties changed agendas on civil rights after Reconstruction. The Republican Party was the party of emancipation. But, after the South stymied Reconstruction, neither party protected the rights of the freedmen. More than 5,000 people, overwhelmingly African-American, were lynched in the South and Midwest from the end of Reconstruction into the 1960s. As the Democrats became more sensitive to the damage segregation and lynching were doing to the country in the 1950s, the Southern Democrats — Dixiecrats — began to leave the Party for the GOP. That trend escalated among white Southerners, both electorate and pols, as civil rights laws began to be actually enforced in the 1960s and 1970s. The Republicans courted them by opposing integration, often called the Southern Strategy. It was successful in moving Southern states into the Republican column in national elections, i.e., the Solid South. That is happening to an extent with governors. So, to summarize, the same Southern politicians you are deriding as Democrats became leaders in the modern Republican Party. The responsibility for regressive behavior on civil rights issues in contemporary America is correctly credited to the GOP. The Democrats are far from perfect in this regard, but they can’t hold a flaming torch to the Republicans.
•As for social media and Ron Paul, this saga casts the blogosphere in a bad light. Because it is dominated by Right Wingers, who are usually quite shallow, Paul has not gotten the critical examination he should. When the truth about Paul and his skeletons emerges, I think it will be because of investigative reporting by real journalists. We will see.
LikeLike
Sorry for the delay in responding to people who last addressed me. I’ve been having kernel panic problem on my MacBook Pro. Lost the excellent responses I had written Tuesday. Anyway:
*Eric Kuhlman, the material you cited is an excerpt from the full speech Ron Paul gave opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made it legal for non-whites to use public accommodations and guaranteed their right to vote. Babbling about collectivism this or states’ rights that is subterfuge. If Paul had his way the protections that prevent segregation and protect universal suffrage would end. That is what matters.
•LazY, you must have slept through history classes. If not you would know that the major parties changed agendas on civil rights after Reconstruction. The Republican Party was the party of emancipation. But, after the South stymied Reconstruction, neither party protected the rights of the freedmen. More than 5,000 people, overwhelmingly African-American, were lynched in the South and Midwest from the end of Reconstruction into the 1960s. As the Democrats became more sensitive to the damage segregation and lynching were doing to the country in the 1950s, the Southern Democrats — Dixiecrats — began to leave the Party for the GOP. That trend escalated among white Southerners, both electorate and pols, as civil rights laws began to be actually enforced in the 1960s and 1970s. The Republicans courted them by opposing integration, often called the Southern Strategy. It was successful in moving Southern states into the Republican column in national elections, i.e., the Solid South. That is happening to an extent with governors. So, to summarize, the same Southern politicians you are deriding as Democrats became leaders in the modern Republican Party. The responsibility for regressive behavior on civil rights issues in contemporary America is correctly credited to the GOP. The Democrats are far from perfect in this regard, but they can’t hold a flaming torch to the Republicans.
•As for social media and Ron Paul, this saga casts the blogosphere in a bad light. Because it is dominated by Right Wingers, who are usually quite shallow, Paul has not gotten the critical examination he should. When the truth about Paul and his skeletons emerges, I think it will be because of investigative reporting by real journalists. We will see.
LikeLike
If Ron Paul’s real agenda is racism and states’ rights is just a smokescreen, why does he oppose the imperial war in Iraq and the suspension of constitutional liberties at home?
LikeLike
If Ron Paul’s real agenda is racism and states’ rights is just a smokescreen, why does he oppose the imperial war in Iraq and the suspension of constitutional liberties at home?
LikeLike
If Ron Paul’s real agenda is racism and states’ rights is just a smokescreen, why does he oppose the imperial war in Iraq and the suspension of constitutional liberties at home?
LikeLike
Podesta,
I don’t think you understand Dr.Paul. My challenge to you is for you to stop generalizing about an issue that you really need to read up on.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has the best intentions. However when you read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution you will see that the Civil Rights act was really unnecessary because all segregation is illegal under the Constitution. We just needed to enforce the law. But Johnson thought it would be better to make the Civil Rights Act an executive order. It’s exactly like immigration is today. We have laws on the books that provide guidance as to what the government is obligated to do. But they don’t enforce the law.
Please consider your argument from Constitutional(lawful) perspective. And you will see that you are mistaken.
Dr. Paul spoke against because it did not pass the four-way test to all legislation:
1. Is it constitutional and a proper function of the Federal government?
2. Is it morally correct?
3. Is it something that we really need?
4. Is it something that we can afford?
In order to be viable and legal. Legislation must meet all four criteria.
LikeLike
Podesta,
I don’t think you understand Dr.Paul. My challenge to you is for you to stop generalizing about an issue that you really need to read up on.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has the best intentions. However when you read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution you will see that the Civil Rights act was really unnecessary because all segregation is illegal under the Constitution. We just needed to enforce the law. But Johnson thought it would be better to make the Civil Rights Act an executive order. It’s exactly like immigration is today. We have laws on the books that provide guidance as to what the government is obligated to do. But they don’t enforce the law.
Please consider your argument from Constitutional(lawful) perspective. And you will see that you are mistaken.
Dr. Paul spoke against because it did not pass the four-way test to all legislation:
1. Is it constitutional and a proper function of the Federal government?
2. Is it morally correct?
3. Is it something that we really need?
4. Is it something that we can afford?
In order to be viable and legal. Legislation must meet all four criteria.
LikeLike
Podesta,
I don’t think you understand Dr.Paul. My challenge to you is for you to stop generalizing about an issue that you really need to read up on.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has the best intentions. However when you read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution you will see that the Civil Rights act was really unnecessary because all segregation is illegal under the Constitution. We just needed to enforce the law. But Johnson thought it would be better to make the Civil Rights Act an executive order. It’s exactly like immigration is today. We have laws on the books that provide guidance as to what the government is obligated to do. But they don’t enforce the law.
Please consider your argument from Constitutional(lawful) perspective. And you will see that you are mistaken.
Dr. Paul spoke against because it did not pass the four-way test to all legislation:
1. Is it constitutional and a proper function of the Federal government?
2. Is it morally correct?
3. Is it something that we really need?
4. Is it something that we can afford?
In order to be viable and legal. Legislation must meet all four criteria.
LikeLike
Why does everyone think we need gov’t control in our Economy? I believe a major reason for unethical business practices stems from the Federal Gov’t and the money that can be made with contracts etc. Not to mention that if the Commercial enterprizes actually saw that citizens were taking charge of ethics violations then they would be rethinking their position. this is the information age, and self responsibility is easier than ever before, why are you all so scared? This is obviously a left leaning blog site though, especially where you state that Ron Paul doesn’t value equality. guess what? if we all have the same set of rights, there is no difference b/t us. if your race/group/etc. is being attacked what do you do? we can protect ourselves. unlike what the blacks were able to do during the CRM in the south b/c police were the ones who were doing the violence, hows that for Gov’t help to enforce our liberties? thats what happens Gov’t gets big, it’s gonna play to the majority which is what our country is NOT about. i swear you liberals think that more Gov and laws increases our freedoms, you’re way off the mark
LikeLike
Why does everyone think we need gov’t control in our Economy? I believe a major reason for unethical business practices stems from the Federal Gov’t and the money that can be made with contracts etc. Not to mention that if the Commercial enterprizes actually saw that citizens were taking charge of ethics violations then they would be rethinking their position. this is the information age, and self responsibility is easier than ever before, why are you all so scared? This is obviously a left leaning blog site though, especially where you state that Ron Paul doesn’t value equality. guess what? if we all have the same set of rights, there is no difference b/t us. if your race/group/etc. is being attacked what do you do? we can protect ourselves. unlike what the blacks were able to do during the CRM in the south b/c police were the ones who were doing the violence, hows that for Gov’t help to enforce our liberties? thats what happens Gov’t gets big, it’s gonna play to the majority which is what our country is NOT about. i swear you liberals think that more Gov and laws increases our freedoms, you’re way off the mark
LikeLike
Why does everyone think we need gov’t control in our Economy? I believe a major reason for unethical business practices stems from the Federal Gov’t and the money that can be made with contracts etc. Not to mention that if the Commercial enterprizes actually saw that citizens were taking charge of ethics violations then they would be rethinking their position. this is the information age, and self responsibility is easier than ever before, why are you all so scared? This is obviously a left leaning blog site though, especially where you state that Ron Paul doesn’t value equality. guess what? if we all have the same set of rights, there is no difference b/t us. if your race/group/etc. is being attacked what do you do? we can protect ourselves. unlike what the blacks were able to do during the CRM in the south b/c police were the ones who were doing the violence, hows that for Gov’t help to enforce our liberties? thats what happens Gov’t gets big, it’s gonna play to the majority which is what our country is NOT about. i swear you liberals think that more Gov and laws increases our freedoms, you’re way off the mark
LikeLike
Podesta you don’t know the man you’re trying to smear so just give up on your welfare state, just like Hercules said read some material that is objective, and not the MSM type of objective, Find it yourself objective
LikeLike
Podesta you don’t know the man you’re trying to smear so just give up on your welfare state, just like Hercules said read some material that is objective, and not the MSM type of objective, Find it yourself objective
LikeLike
Podesta you don’t know the man you’re trying to smear so just give up on your welfare state, just like Hercules said read some material that is objective, and not the MSM type of objective, Find it yourself objective
LikeLike
Oh and to the Blogger of this article, I know you didn’t just say that we the tax payers are responsible for fixing New Orleans! Are you crazy? those people should have private insurance to cover those damages. I don’t want to sound like a cold jerk, but please people use your brain. The Insurance companies should have never insured that area, if they did it’s their fault, or unless it’s some Gov’t regulation. Not to mention the people who willingly live there, It’s on the coast and it’s BELOW SEA LEVEL. How much more info do you need to make the right decision? If you really love it and still wanna live there then fine, but i’m not paying for your house to be reconstructed for the 3rd time.
LikeLike
Oh and to the Blogger of this article, I know you didn’t just say that we the tax payers are responsible for fixing New Orleans! Are you crazy? those people should have private insurance to cover those damages. I don’t want to sound like a cold jerk, but please people use your brain. The Insurance companies should have never insured that area, if they did it’s their fault, or unless it’s some Gov’t regulation. Not to mention the people who willingly live there, It’s on the coast and it’s BELOW SEA LEVEL. How much more info do you need to make the right decision? If you really love it and still wanna live there then fine, but i’m not paying for your house to be reconstructed for the 3rd time.
LikeLike
alright, here’s a point i want to make that isn’t partisan, biased, whatever. you all know i’m a big Ron Paul supporter i’m sure, But please whoever you vote for in the Primaries make sure it’s someone NOT backed by Special Interest groups these groups just screw over the American public at their benefit, thanks
LikeLike
alright, here’s a point i want to make that isn’t partisan, biased, whatever. you all know i’m a big Ron Paul supporter i’m sure, But please whoever you vote for in the Primaries make sure it’s someone NOT backed by Special Interest groups these groups just screw over the American public at their benefit, thanks
LikeLike
All I have to say is this.
Go to these two websites, they lay it all out in his own words.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/
He can explain it far better over the last 10 years than I can. Principled leadership. Thats what people want, and that is what they would get with Ron as President. He has proven it in the last 30 years because he has never changed his position and always voted with the constitution… Every single time.
LikeLike
All I have to say is this.
Go to these two websites, they lay it all out in his own words.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/
He can explain it far better over the last 10 years than I can. Principled leadership. Thats what people want, and that is what they would get with Ron as President. He has proven it in the last 30 years because he has never changed his position and always voted with the constitution… Every single time.
LikeLike
All I have to say is this.
Go to these two websites, they lay it all out in his own words.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/
He can explain it far better over the last 10 years than I can. Principled leadership. Thats what people want, and that is what they would get with Ron as President. He has proven it in the last 30 years because he has never changed his position and always voted with the constitution… Every single time.
LikeLike
@185 Thanks for making my point and agreeing that the Democrats have a MUCH LONGER history of racism than any other party.
LikeLike
@185 Thanks for making my point and agreeing that the Democrats have a MUCH LONGER history of racism than any other party.
LikeLike
@191 “But please whoever you vote for in the Primaries make sure it’s someone NOT backed by Special Interest groups these groups just screw over the American public at their benefit, thanks”
That will be pretty much impossible…
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00005906&cycle=2006
LikeLike
@191 “But please whoever you vote for in the Primaries make sure it’s someone NOT backed by Special Interest groups these groups just screw over the American public at their benefit, thanks”
That will be pretty much impossible…
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/sector.asp?CID=N00005906&cycle=2006
LikeLike
first, read the constitution and the law by bastiat. then watch all the ron paul videos on his site. you have been brainwashed.
LikeLike
first, read the constitution and the law by bastiat. then watch all the ron paul videos on his site. you have been brainwashed.
LikeLike
I think it would behoove you to take another look at the Ron Paul site http://www.ronpaul2008.com. Your comments are so far out of date and off the mark that it makes you look more than a little uniformed.
LikeLike
I think it would behoove you to take another look at the Ron Paul site http://www.ronpaul2008.com. Your comments are so far out of date and off the mark that it makes you look more than a little uniformed.
LikeLike
“Our health care system is a total mess. Needs to be nationalized. ”
Sucker.
Our health care system is already a creature of government regulation on behalf of the insurance companies. All that the proposals that the democrats are floating will do is make it mandatory to participate.
You want to know what a government health care system would be like in this country, then take a look at a veterans’ hospital or the DMV.
LikeLike
“Our health care system is a total mess. Needs to be nationalized. ”
Sucker.
Our health care system is already a creature of government regulation on behalf of the insurance companies. All that the proposals that the democrats are floating will do is make it mandatory to participate.
You want to know what a government health care system would be like in this country, then take a look at a veterans’ hospital or the DMV.
LikeLike