Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


U.N. Population Growth Data Is Bad News for Climate




A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
A/V Booth

Ron Paul Calls CNN Out for Being ‘Biased’ in Debate

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Nov 29, 2007
Ron Paul on CNN
youtube.com

Boy, was CNN ever psyched about a Ron Paul interview they had on their site—a major traffic driver for CNN.com!—the day of the CNN/YouTube Republican debate, CNN’s John Roberts tells Paul in this clip from the channel’s post-debate coverage Wednesday.  Paul, seemingly nonplused, points out that he was summarily and unfairly ignored until close to the end and gets in a few digs at his fellow candidates.

Watch the clip:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Roki, March 24, 2008 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Very intresting!Malware and Spyware become a big problem for a lot of people. Malware remover is effecient way to get rid of all spyware and adware!!
http://malware-remover.com/
Malware Remover

Report this

By dystopian, December 10, 2007 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment

My fellow democrats: I have never voted repbublican in my life but hopefully will be able to vote for the repub. Ron Paul in 08.  The issues for me are as follows:

1)banking system/dollar devaluation/dollar as world reseve currency timebomb
2)preemptive war/entagling alliances
3)civil liberties/posse commitatus/habeas corpus/patriot act. 

Read on these issues and you will see why Ron Paul is our only hope.

As a physician, I personally don’t think it is murder to abort at 2 wks conception or to use a birth control pill which inhibits the fertilized zygote from implanting in the uterine wall.  But - I do think its murder to abort a healthy 8 month old baby.  How anyone could back partial birth abortion is beyond me.  It is ALWAYS possible to take the baby via cesarean section if the mother’s life is in danger.  Why not deliver the 8 month old first and then kill it - what’s the difference?  But you would be opposed to that method I assume.  Think about it.
The abortion issue is not as simple as either side would like it to be.

Report this

By jblackwell, December 8, 2007 at 4:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well it would seem Cyrena that you could also obscure your right to “abort” a five-year old toddler with your right to privacy as well, but we all know that to be absurd.  The issue isn’t whether someone wants to take away women’s rights just because they’re women ( as the left might spin it ), but whether or not this thing you want to do is killing a human being.  So there is the disagreement.  Should women be allowed to terminate their unborn child for economic or social expediency?  Should I be allowed to terminate my toddler because he is also a nuisance?  You see this is a complex issue that circles around to intangibles and beliefs about when life begins and whether its in the interest of society to protect that life.  All Ron Paul is doing is taking a higher road and saying that while personally he feels abortion to be wrong, the right to decide what is what belongs to the people, and it is beyond the scope of the federal government to pass a law that imposes some bought and paid for result in Washington on all the people.  So I’m not sure what your problem is.  If you wanted an abortion, I’m sure plenty of states would allow it.  I’ll point out that the religious right is equally unhappy with Ron’s position because conversely they’d prefer a universal BAN on abortion.  RP is offering everyone choice.  This is what it means to be free and Democratic - local governance is better than a tyranny of the majority.  Let California do what California wants and let Arkansas decide whats in its own best interest.  People can always vote with their feet.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 5, 2007 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment

#118060 by cyrena

You come across as a good person whose opinion I have grown to respect and certainly you owed me no explanation, thank you.

Whomever you support for President is your own business and if you have any insight to any of the other candidates, please share.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 5, 2007 at 4:02 pm Link to this comment

“It is HIGHLY unlikely that we’ll encounter each other at any voting booths. That too, is more of the sort of combative rhetoric that is so distasteful. I notice it’s been repeated verbatim, by another one of your group.”

“Combative rhetoric”  ???? 

Puhleeeease. How about a non-combative, common figure of speech that says ‘I respect your right to your opinion and your right to vote as you should respect mine’  Isn’t that a more rational interpretation instead of a defensive, emotional one?

I think so. 

The End

Report this

By cyrena, December 5, 2007 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment

#118055 by Nomascerdo

•  Cyrena - For your information regarding California abortion law and Roe V Wade.  California considered abortion rights protected under the California State Constitution in 1969… BEFORE Roe v Wade. Interesting no?


Nonmascerdo,
I could say thanks for the information, but as usual, you miss the point in the larger context of the law; in this case, on the issue of abortion and the legalities or illegalities involved in the discussion as it pertains to the agenda of Ron Paul. I was alive and of age in 1969, and living in California. and regardless of what may or may not have been ‘on the books’ or interpreted as such, abortion rights were NOT universally protected across the State of California. If that were the case, there wouldn’t have been so many woman seeking the desperate measures of ‘back street’ or underground sort of procedures.

Roe v Wade was decided based on the rights to privacy, which would by logic, include ALL women, across ALL states, which is why Roe v Wade was so encompassing and instrumental in deciding the issue once and for all, and universally. There should never be a law that requires a woman to travel from her own home to another location, in order to exercise that right.

Consequently, that is the danger in overturning any previous precedent, which has already begun to occur in other states, as a result of ideological thinking that originates from people who are unable to separate their personal ideologies from the laws that should apply equally, across the board. So, we see a reversion already, just in the past few years, in certain states that are gradually reducing these rights as Roe did in fact guarantee. Alabama, Oklahoma, and Mississippi come to mind, but they are not the only ones. Texas is also experiencing it’s own troubles in this same vein, with various medical professionals who have refused to abide by their professional oaths to provide care, (including a refusal to dispense birth control) based on their own personal ideologies. In many of these cases, they ALSO fail to provide an alternative source (a different practitioner or a different pharmacist, etc) when they refuse themselves, on personal ‘faith based’ ideologies. Surely you can see where this would be problematic.

Or, maybe not.

Report this

By cyrena, December 5, 2007 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

#118124 by BadMan

•  Cyrena, are you childishly finished trying to get the last word it? Your comments have become redundant and repetitive. You don’t like Ron Paul and you have malice and contempt for anyone exercising their freedom of speech by endorsing him publicly on this forum. It is almost sad really. Please stop. You have made your opinion obvious and so have others. Leave it at that.


BadMan,

I think you put the wrong name in this comment, since it is not I who have become repetitive, redundant, or childish in having the ‘last word’. I definitely see that to have become the case, (specifically on THIS thread) and indeed, it has greatly diminished the quality of the comments/discussion. You’ve simply misdirected the accusations.

So, I won’t stop making comments on this website, (as you’ve instructed me to do) because that’s what it’s for. I also cannot stop you or anyone else from making them, nor would I ask. I would only ask the same from you. Simply stop addressing me personally. It is perfectly OK to IGNORE me. If you, (or anyone) chooses to keep addressing me personally, than I WILL respond. That’s pretty standard for these forums.

Actually, I plan to post more, if only to respond to some legitimate inquires that have been directed to me, personally, from posters that I know to be people of reason, even if we don’t agree. An example was my response to PatrickHenry, since we’ve been exchanging comments and indulging in mutual discourse on this site, over an extended period of time.

When a person (any person) chooses their discourse ONLY from a defensive perspective, (such as in ‘having the last word’ which is a very ‘revealing suggestion by the way) with no real intent to convey any meaningful information, it shows only their superficiality/lack of depth, and a clearly emotional and ideological stance. While ideology is always an integral part of any political discussion, it lacks any constructive input when it is ALL based on that, and no fact. If one can ONLY respond in a defensive manner, (to each and every issue) without any real substance to the issues, then it tends to become as meaningless and trivial as one would expect.

I have not shown ‘malice and contempt’ for the supporters of Ron Paul. Nor have I been interested in silencing them, or disrespecting anyone’s ‘freedom of speech’. I CAN however, look back over this thread, and find that very same practice, time and time again, by the group of ‘others’ of you, who happen to indulge in what I call a ‘group think’, based on emotional ideology and partisan rhetoric, rather than solid facts/reason. My other point has been in pointing out what I see as very clear (and dangerous) discrepancies in the rhetoric of Ron Paul, and what he has actually said –on the record- over his 20 plus years of political life. I also note (because it too is ‘revealing’) that my own comments in respect to the candidacy of Ron Paul are in the same vein as many others on this thread, and are no more or less inflammatory, unless you have troubles with facts and truth, which sometimes are not ‘pretty’ or complimentary in nature. Curiously though, the attacks and invectives, (such as yours above) are always directed to ME, rather than anyone else. That has become as obvious to me, as it has to the others who have posted here over an extended period of time.

So, think on that. Meantime, I’ll keep writing, just as I have been long before you showed up, and hopefully long after you’re gone.

It is HIGHLY unlikely that we’ll encounter each other at any voting booths. That too, is more of the sort of combative rhetoric that is so distasteful. I notice it’s been repeated verbatim, by another one of your group.

Report this

By BadMan, December 5, 2007 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

Cyrena, are you childishly finished trying to get the last word it? Your comments have become redundant and repetitive. You don’t like Ron Paul and you have malice and contempt for anyone exercising their freedom of speech by endorsing him publicly on this forum. It is almost sad really.

Please stop. You have made your opinion obvious and so have others. Leave it at that.

See you at the voting booth and may the best candidate win.

Report this

By cyrena, December 4, 2007 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment

•  #117497 by PatrickHenry
#117478 by cyrena
Cyrena, I’ve rarely seen you resort to name calling. Calling others Paulie groupies isn’t exactly respectful of others opinions.  You a Bama groupie?

PatrickHenry,
You’re right of course, because name calling isn’t my thing. Seriously, it isn’t. On the other hand, I’m not sure what/how else I might refer to them. (It’s obviously troubled a number of posters/supporters of Ron Paul on this thread). If I call them a cult, that would seem uncomplimentary as well. So, I’ll try to think of something more politically correct. (Or just ‘supporters’ would be acceptable enough I suppose). I should probably add that I’m NOT a ‘Bama groupie’ if only because I’m just not a groupie of any sort. Meantime, I haven’t even decided yet, who I will ‘support’ for the presidential race, but only that it can’t possibly be any republican currently in the race.

I admittedly find Ron Paul more offensive than all of them, (all bad, so it’s hard to decide the least among evils in that particular category). Still, I find him the most offensive because of the very reasons that you stated yourself, for why you believed that a democratic congress could keep him in line. I no longer have that confidence, though I admit that when this same horror was on the horizon during the run-up to, and then the appointment of Dick Bush to the office, I did hold out some hope that the Congress (and carefully selected advisors) could prevent them from doing the destruction that we’ve all witnessed. As we all see, my hope/confidence was misplaced. As a long term resident of Texas, (at least at that time) I was fully aware of the damage that Dick Bush could do. For the same reasons, I am equally aware that Ron Paul is not what he presents himself to be. However, in attempting to explain that, I’ve just been accused of ‘smearing’ him, or name calling. So, I’ll avoid those explanations, even though this does give me a terrible sense of déjà vu.

Meantime, my ‘groupie’ term (however it may have been interpreted) is a result, (in part) of the comments that I’ve seen posted here, but the kicker I for me, was a recent invasion of my own community by these ‘supporters’. They entered our community and campus, much like thieves in the night, and basically defiled/defaced it. Some would say that they ‘trashed’ it.

Our campus/community is an open one, and while I can say that our collective ideology doesn’t support that of the Ron Paul ideology, these supporters would certainly not have been ‘run off’ or treated with any hostility, had they appeared like any other group. (in broad daylight)

But, they didn’t. Rather, they apparently came on campus during the nighttime hours between say midnight and 5 or 6 am, and proceeded to plaster large portions of the campus with pieces of plain white paper on which a variety of ‘slogans’ had been written. (Ron Paul for Freedom) is an example, but there were several. These (literally hundreds of them) were then ‘affixed’ to nearly every surface imaginable, with…duck tape.

Now, I’m not a neatnik, or OCD on anything. Besides, it’s a college campus. We have LOTS of things posted, but there are generally accepted and approved LOCATIONS for these things. And, I AM very proud of our community and our campus, so I felt like we had been invaded. Later in the day, the ‘caravan’ of them spread out through the community; cars loaded down with the typical stuff that you might find in the old tent revival events, loudspeakers blaring, nearly running bikers off the roads.

The students themselves quickly formed groups on their own to clean up most of the mess. There are still pieces of the sticky/silvery now dirty tape here and there, but over time, that will disappear as well. Still, I hope you can understand why it felt like such a disrespectful assault, and thereby led to my portrayal of them as ‘groupies’.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 4, 2007 at 11:03 pm Link to this comment

I am going to take BadMan’s observation to heart and basically stop investing so much time into this.

Cyrena - For your information regarding California abortion law and Roe V Wade.  California considered abortion rights protected under the California State Constitution in 1969… BEFORE Roe v Wade. Interesting no?

Outraged - The debate about affirmative action and forced integration etc is beyond the scope of this forum.  I do think it is interesting but I don’t have the time to dedicate to meaningfully discuss it with you.  That said, as all of this relates to Ron Paul, honestly those two issues aren’t very high on my list of priorities which is not to say that they aren’t important but they are a lower priority for me for a few reasons.  First, my top priority is our economic system which is literally teetering on a cliff.  As a student of economics and someone that has been studying Austrian economics for the past three years I am in the school of thought that we absolutely MUST change course significantly or all of this talk about everything else will hardly matter.  If you aren’t familiar with Austrian economic theory, particularly as it relates to monetary inflation I recommend looking into it.  A good understanding of this could literally save you from serious financial distress as we head deeper into the current maelstrom.  I will also put forth, lest you think I am just a greedy capitalist that only cares about money, I FIRMLY believe that Austrian economics and their theory on monetary inflation describes quite accurately what has befallen the poor and middle class in this country.  The inflation tax is silent, insidious, and hurts the poor and middle class the most.  If you have ever wondered why the American family has transformed from one bread winner to two bread winners holding down three and a half jobs between them you will find some interesting insights in this concept.  Ron Paul being the only person in the race with a clue and that being the threat that is literally here today (versus all of the other hypothetical threats that may or may not come to pass) he will get my vote, my support, and my advocacy until those efforts bear fruit no longer.

Good luck and see you at the voting booth!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 4, 2007 at 5:47 pm Link to this comment

RE: #117882 by Frostedflakes on 12/04

Great point Frostedflakes, except where I live I don’t see an “unprecedented growth of women in leadership positions in the workforce”.  More often than not, they seem to be first line supervisors.

A study of the income gap between women and men in the workplace showed a larger income disparity between female and male executives, than male and female “blue collar” workers.  So women are FINALLY getting there to a degree, however compensation isn’t comparable.  This study also pointed out that these woman were usually more educated and experienced than their male counterparts.  I believe the study was done about a year ago.

I absolutely endorse affirmative action regarding women.  While taking a night course we toured several local sizeable corporations but NONE had a woman CEO or any women on their board.  So of course I just had to ask “where the women were”?  My guesstimate of the female composition of the workforce at these corps….approx 90%-95%.  Hmmmm…...

Report this

By K. A. Maynard, December 4, 2007 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Yikes…I’ve been reading this discussion and I will say this..Idiocracy.

Paulies this and He’s a Radical that. You who have made these and other asinine comments are obviously lost in the proverbial kool-aid bowl. Yes Dr.Paul doesn’t fit into a nice and neat category, yes he has ideas that not everyone agrees on…but name one candidate or one President who everyone could absolutely agree with.

Radical? What’s so radical about wanting to adhere and govern by the Constitution- and no he doesn’t want to take us back 100 years. What’s wrong with getting our nose out of other countries’ affairs and back into our own? Radical is wanting to attack preemptively and aggressively waging undeclared wars. Radical is wanting to take the Constitution and replace it with a Patriot Act. You would probably consider our Founding Fathers as Radicals. No, Dr. Paul is our messenger of a Revolt against the Establishment and against Big Business, Big Pharma, the Lobbyist, the War Machine and most of all an Uncontrolled Big Government. This is a Revoltuion of ideas and principles which have been around for quite some time and it’s only Radical to those to who it threatens.


As far as Roe v Wade goes, I always hear: ” I don’t want the government in my bedroom! ” Yet when an Administration wants to get rid of Roe v Wade, they are the 1st to run to the Federal government. This is what happens when you let a central government run every aspect of life. It should go to the States, but the State’s should only have the right to determine whether they want to allow or not allow, with no threat of legal actions should a woman decide to go to Sate which allows it. Or even better let the doctor’s decide whether they feel they can preform one or not, if they don’t feel comfortable they can and should recommend a doctor who will.

I can go on and on about all the needless Depts. and The Fed and the U.N. for that matter, but I’ll say this much. We have let D.C. get too big and it is time to take it back to it’s bare minimum in both size and power. WE are to be the power holders, not those in D.C. If Ron Paul wants to give us back that power, If he wants to get the Government off our backs…then I see him as the ONLY logical choice. As much as Dennis is good, he still thinks Government is the answer. So label and condemn all you want, because if anyone but Dr. Paul is in office…I shudder to think what else we as Americans will lose.

Report this

By Frostedflakes, December 4, 2007 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

Why is it that when affirmative action is spoken of it is always about race. Affirmative action is also about gender equity. The biggest benefactors of affirmative action are women. Period. Particularly, caucasion women. Just take a look around you. Since affirmative action laws were enacted look at the unprecedented growth of women in leadership positions in the workforce. Don’t you remember the cries of the “glass ceilings” preceding affirmative action. The use of color when speaking about affirmative action is nothing more than racial scapegoating.

Report this

By BadMan, December 4, 2007 at 6:50 am Link to this comment

I hope you guys understand how silly it is to write mini novels on truthdig. Most of the time, they don’t get read. You aren’t proving a point, since it usually gets lost in the muck.

With that said. I simply asked for someone to give me a viable alternative. Kucinish is great, but he has about the same chance as a snowflake would have in hell.

Who else??? Another corporate lackey or Israeli lobby obeying candidate??

Please. other than attacking Ron Paul. Give me an alternative. Every candidate out there has enough reasons for me NOT to vote for them. I could post endlessly and supply substantiating links. But what will that prove?? Only my personal disdain for them.

ALL the candidates give me thousands of reasons for me NOT to vote for them. Only two have given any reasons to vote for them, and out of those two, only ONE has a chance of winning.

I have always voted my conscience, and look at the country now. Maybe, in my opinion, Ron Paul has given me a good excuse to vote with my head.

Regards

Report this

By greatheart, December 4, 2007 at 5:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Outraged said:
I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.”
Link: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=916

That’s scary…......

I guess this is scary too…

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Report this

By cyrena, December 4, 2007 at 3:48 am Link to this comment

#117848 by Outraged

Bad as it is, I’m gonna repost the “PROOF” here…in snatches.

#117852 by breezytrees
•  All he did was exclaim that we live in a time where it is dangerous to proclaim your own personal religious beliefs. He is stating that in our current political and social situation, those with religious beliefs are often discriminated against.

BT actually said this. People are being discriminated against because of their religious beliefs. She’s got a point. The evangelicals would as soon slit your throat as look at you, if they can’t convert you. Ask anybody who’s undergone their torment in the military lately. Oh yeah, one might be ‘discriminated’ against – but only if they AREN’T a bible tootin’ hallelujah Christian.
•  He’s a religious man yet he does not force his religious beliefs on others. (OMG- actually said this too!) He is adamantly and religiously pro-life, yet like noma stated….voted against a constitutional ban on abortion, and voted against a constitutional amendment making abortion legal.
Ah…right. That’s why he’s decided to tinker with a law that was decided over 30 years ago. How did he vote against a constitutional amendment making abortion legal? When did anyone come up with something like that? For the last 30 years, it HAS been legal!!! What the hell does this mean? Nevermind…it’s just more “proof”. (of schizophrenia)
•  Every single one of our presidents has been a practicing Christian… Ron Paul is no different from any of them in this respect. All of them have believed that “Jesus Christ is [their] personal Savior” and that “freedoms come not from man, but from God.”
OK Outraged, this last is the only part you (or anyone else) needed to hear. Yes, they are SCARY!!! Especially this last part…Ron and his Paulies say that they’re all about FREEDOM. But, how can that be, when they are only men, and these can only come from God?

I’m convinced. They’re all crazier than shit. (which is what makes them equally scary) And, George W. Bush is a ‘practicing Christian’? Right. All those dead soldiers, and those millions of dead Iraqis, and all of those homeless people right here at home, with no food or health care. That is SOOOO Christian.

So Outraged, that’s why we’ve been wasting good intelligence on raving lunatics. That means I’ll have to catch up with you on another thread. They finally got me. I’m sure I can’t take anymore. I concede.  I might even have to have a drink.

Report this

By breezytrees, December 4, 2007 at 3:21 am Link to this comment

I stand corrected =p.

In our constitution our president can only be impeached for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. I guess in our system, Cheney deserves a trial just like every other president/vp impeached.

Everyone would be happy with no income taxes. Oil companies are in Texas because there is a lot of drilling Texas. Texas has oil. It is one of its abundant natural resources.

The dems should want to impeach him. Impeaching cheney only makes the bush administration look worse. Bringing impeachment to the table, then having it fail only makes the bush administration look better… at least better than having him impeached….

Report this

By cyrena, December 4, 2007 at 3:08 am Link to this comment

#117840 by breezytrees

•  Then of course there are the people in between, and this I assume is the majority of our country. These individuals believe that somewhere along the 9 months of pregnancy, an unborn fetus becomes a living breathing thinking human with rights. These individuals cannot exactly say “when” a fetus becomes a thinking human, they have to guess because it is physically impossible to judge, even scientifically. When does this happen? 1st trimester? 2nd trimester? Each fetus will also mature faster or slower than others based on the genetic makeup of the mother and father. One fetus may become self aware 8 weeks in, another 12. All of these reasons make it VERY hard to create a morale law, let alone a law at all.
Science cannot possibly answer the question of when it becomes morally safe to have an abortion. This issue of abortion simply becomes an issue of opinion and this opinion varies greatly among our general populous.
Breezytrees,

You’ve picked the wrong person to have this discussion with. And it would be the same with any other mother who has miscarried, or been delivered of a still born child. So, don’t even TRY to make this argument to the 10,000 plus women who have premature babies born at 4, 5 or 6 months who are still far too underdeveloped to live outside of their mothers’ womb. The argument is nonsensical, and if a child cannot live outside of its mother’s womb at ANY point, it is not a life of its own.

I have had one miscarriage in the 1st trimester, and I buried a child born in the last trimester, but still not developed enough to live outside of my womb. In the second case, it was a result of inadequate prenatal care and sloppy attention by the physicians in TEXAS. (Ron’s Paul’s state)

So, this is quite frankly, BULLSHIT. That’s all I can tell you. There is NO prenatal care provided for women in certain areas of the country, and no concern about whether or not they have abortions or still births. So, I’m not buying any of this argument. There is no reason in the world why I should believe that the person living across the country, one of 300, MILLION people, who doesn’t know me, (or you) and never will, should give a damn about whether or not I have an abortion, especially if they don’t even want me to have the necessary pre-natal care required for a successful pregnancy. And, if it means them parting with a dime of their own monies to provide that, they won’t. Period. If everybody that was so allegedly “pro-life’ actually got as active about making sure that medical care was provided to each and every human being in the country, as they do about maintaining pregnancies from day one, we’d all be a lot better off. As we know, they don’t. And, the right to basic medical care IS an inalienable right.

And, if the Ron Pauls of the world don’t care about the inalienable rights of the ALREADY LIVING, why the hell should I believe that they really do care about the rights of ALL of the unborn? They don’t. You’ll have to trust me on that one. It’s a very fascist mentality, and it’s obviously deceit. Hitler felt the same way about abortion, even though the world would have been far better off if his mother had had one.

As for Ron Paul allegedly hating the repugs, please don’t tell me that either. He’s been one for over 20 years, and could have switched up at any time. He could have run as an independent. Rather, he votes with these same conservative repugs on nearly every single issue.

I’m from California. It is my home. I was born raised and educated here. I leaned what hell was like during the 17 years that I lived in Texas. There’s little else you can tell me about the Ron Pauls of the world.

The only reason I still have a spiritual side is that somehow, someway, I was able to escape that hell, and make my way back home.

Report this

By breezytrees, December 4, 2007 at 3:03 am Link to this comment

Best and brightest have a chance to succeed? Your wrong if affirmative action plays a role. Like I said, Affirmative action takes into account race, in addition to best and brightest. Even though someone may not be the best and brightest, they may still get the job because of the color of their racial background, leaving the actual “best and brighest” person in the dark

Report this

By breezytrees, December 4, 2007 at 2:54 am Link to this comment

How is that scary? All he did was exclaim that we live in a time where it is dangerous to proclaim your own personal religious beliefs. He is stating that in our current political and social situation, those with religious beliefs are often discriminated against.

He’s a religious man yet he does not force his religious beliefs on others.

He is adamantly and religiously pro-life, yet like noma stated he voted against making it criminal to cross state lines for abortion, against making it criminal to help transport minors for an abortion, voted against a constitutional ban on abortion, and voted against a constitutional amendment making abortion legal.

He does this because he knows the limitations of the powers the constitution gives the federal government.

Every single one of our presidents has been a practicing Christian… Ron Paul is no different from any of them in this respect. All of them have believed that “Jesus Christ is [their] personal Savior” and that “freedoms come not from man, but from God.”

Report this

By cyrena, December 4, 2007 at 2:29 am Link to this comment

#117846 by breezytrees

Breezytrees, someone else posted this same thing. Problem is, Dennis Kucinich is not IN the Senate, and neither is Paul. The resolution was presented to the HOUSE. So, I’m not sure where you get the senate thing, aside from the fact that there was back and forth discussion on whether or not to send it to the Senate JUDICIARY committee, and THAT is who eventually has to hear it anyway. So, whomever you got this info from, is off base.

So, while I know that this may be confusing to many, (parliamentary procedure generally is) you’ve got it wrong. There was nothing wrong with the procedure as it was presented by Kucinich. Just like there was nothing wrong with the procedure that Cynthia Mckinney prepared over a year ago. Same articles of impeachment text, (though hers was directed at george) but nobody wanted to deal with it then either.

In the end though, I will say that based on a video that I just watched, the democrats themselves helped crash this effort. At least if what I understood was correct. Nancy Pelosi has been like a death threat to any serious progress in the house, and seems to wield some power over many of the others in the party, that I’ve yet to understand.

I hate accepting the fact, but by now it IS a fact, that for Pelosi, it’s definitely about real politic. She’s far more interested in gaining even more time, to make the repugs and this administration look even worse, by letting it all drag out. This impeachment could have gone forward ages ago. Or, at least once the dems gained semi control over the Congress. (and I say semi, because there balance is extremely close, and there are too many dems in the House who always support the repugs, and in the Senate, a 60 vote minimum is required for anything, and the split there is nearly 50/50) So, the Dems never get the 60 votes that they need to pass anything in the Senate. And, THAT’S even when some of them are screwing up…like Feinstein and Schumer on the Mukasey confirmation.

So, I admit that the dems aren’t helping the cause much, even though there would be a close call anyway. And, on the impeachment thing, it seems to come down to Pelosi.

Unfortunately, my opinion on RP still stands. I see him as a very loose and dangerous cannon, who is not representing the interests of the country, or the common good. But, I’ve also accepted the fact that most people don’t get that, if only because of a yet undeveloped knowledge about what’s the real interests are.

Seriously, I mean no harm in saying this, and it is only my experience living in the area, (Texas) and knowing the partisan politics that go on there. Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He’s a separatist, devoted to privatizing everything there is to privatize. It’s not enough that the major BIG OIL industry just happens to be located in one of the only 3 states that do not collect a State income tax. That means limited to NO services for the non-land owing or non-gentried masses. Now, if Ron Paul could figure out a way where they don’t have to pay federal income tax either, he’d be a happy man, and so would all of those corporations that make their home there, for that very reason.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 4, 2007 at 2:17 am Link to this comment

Re: #117840 by breezytrees on 12/03

“ANY system that puts unqualified people in qualified positions does not work.”

Breezytrees:
It isn’t logical to equate entering college with “unqualified people”.  Technically we could say everyone ENTERING college to be “unqualified”.

The points you speak of I’m assuming would be SAT scores (correct me if I’m wrong).  The purpose of “spotting” points, so to speak, is an opportunity cost of leveling the playing field.  They will still have to PASS THE REQUIRED COURSES to attain their qualifications!

This goes back to the issue of why abolishing the Dept. of Edu. is a bad idea. Since this agency also helps to level the playing field and also gives our ACTUAL “best and brightest” a chance to succeed.  Unlike our current “Commander in Grief”.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 4, 2007 at 1:53 am Link to this comment

As I was checking into the Ron Paul library, I came across this article.  I found it terribly disconcerting.  It is indicative of the neocon/bush propaganda machine and ALL TO FAMILIAR. 

Ron Paul:  “We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for our values and our traditions lest they be washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. As you likely know, I am running for President of the United States, and I am asking for your support.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.”

Link: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=916

That’s scary…......

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 4, 2007 at 1:46 am Link to this comment

Re: #117821 by cyrena on 12/03

“Now, we’re talking about what is in fact CONTITUTIONAL here. OK? Roe v. Wade has already been codified into law. So, we are talking about OVERTURNING a constitutional issue. How is that in keeping with the Constitution? I’m confused at the obvious contradiction here.”

cyrena:

I agree.  Paul insists upon moving backward in some misguided attempt to move forward.  Times change and issues become more clear, it’s beyond me how going backward will clear things up. On this issue Paul claims to “know” that life begins at conception, when scientifically we KNOW that’s not true.  It is a religious conviction and not a factual one.

Ron Paul: “In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.”
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=842

**Paul claims: “present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.” It also doesn’t make sense that he insists upon introducing legislation regarding the matter at the FEDERAL LEVEL but then in turn argues federal laws enacted IN FAVOR OF abortion to be unconstitutiional.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/thomas

What is this “evidence” of “significant likelihood” and what is he calling “life”?!

I found this with a google search:
“If A has the potential to become B, it follows that A is not B. Likewise, a potential person is not an actual person. The reason why a zygote at conception is a potential rather than an actual person is because it has none of the organs, limbs or other traits recognized of a person. It is simply a genetic blueprint, and aborting it is not the same as killing an actual person.”

Argument
“One of the most common pro-life claims is that “life begins at conception.” Beyond the obvious controversy of this statement, there is actually a second and more subtle error here. And that is that human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. (Half of these chromosomes go unused in the case of sperm and eggs, but all 46 are there nonetheless.) The correct question is not “When does human life begin?” but “When does personhood begin?”

Pro-life advocates claim that personhood begins when the sperm and egg join to form a zygote. The zygote is genetically unique and complete and will be the grandparent of every other cell this person will ever have. The fact that the zygote is the first entity to have all 46 chromosomes of a future person seems—at first—to be good evidence of personhood. But consider the counter-examples.

There are many entities which are genetically complete, which contain all 46 human chromosomes, which we nonetheless do not recognize as persons: ancient fossils, blood samples, hair cuttings, fingernail clippings, even skin cultures grown in burn centers. This is proof that genetic completeness, in and of itself, does not constitute personhood.”

The entire article: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

Report this

By breezytrees, December 4, 2007 at 1:39 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

You have much passion, but you need to check you facts first!

1. You stated that RP voted against the Cheney impeachment because he hides his true motives and secretly likes Cheney/Bush combo.

You can’t be further from the truth! RP voted against it because the senate does not have the constitutional authority to do so! RP would love to impeach bush/cheney, however the house of representatives needs to bring impeachment to the table, THEN the senate can vote on it. It’s the way our system works! Certain politicians are trying to abuse the system by voting to impeach Cheney through the senate alone.

I ask you cyrena as you have asked me “Why won’t [we] stand up for the Constitution?” Standing up for the constitution means that we cannot impeach through illegal means, we must do it right and legally so (and i hope we do)!

Article Two, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments.”

2. Ron Paul is not supported by big businesses and the rich. Fox News hates him. CNN hates him. Ron Paul is laughed at by big businesses. The majority of Ron Paul supporters are everyday citizens… with his average donation being around 40 dollars. Likewise, the average donation for Obama is over 5 times that much at over 240 dollars.
18,000 people donated more than $2000 to Obama while only 700 people donated that same amount to Paul. The rich definitely favor Obama over Paul, by those numbers.
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do

Your right cyrena, when we first attacked iraq, I was for it, now i’m pissed off I was lied too and brainwashed into believing the shit I believed. And in 2003, 70% of the country agreed with me!

RP hates the repugs. He’s only running republican because he can’t win as a libertarian. Don’t confuse Ron Paul with other republicans.

Here. When you get a chance watch the PBS ALL AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL FORUM DEBATE hosted by Tavis Smiley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6O0AlS4Nm8
It has some of Ron Paul’s best material. The debate hosted by Fox News was a Joke, likewise the one hosted by CNN.

And Cyrena, you can name any great leader and you’re guaranteed to find some questionable followers. There are questionable/immoral people in this world, and they can support some moral people but only to serve their own immoral reasons.

Report this

By cyrena, December 4, 2007 at 12:29 am Link to this comment

•  #117795 by Outraged
It is also disconcerting to find Ron Paul on the homepage of the John Birch Society.  Just scroll down.

http://www.jbs.org/

....they do show tendancies.  You’ll need to scroll down to the heading “Conservative” there you’ll find he voted, according to The John Birch Society, 95-100% in support of their issues.

#117799 by Nomascerdo on 12/03 at 5:20 pm
Outraged,
•  I can’t speak for the JBS because I am not associated with them, nor know much about them.  I have never met a member e.g. 
•  So far everything is about being a Constitutionalist, and interestingly quite a LOT about the negative impact of the Patriot Act and amendments that have passed to WEAKEN it.

OK all,
I’ve not put together a whole list of the ‘clues’ that have finally confirmed for me, how/why the paulie’s are such zealots in their support. Maybe later, I’ll have time. But, the bottom line is….THEY DON’T HAVE A CLUE!!

That’s what it boils down to, but when I’ve tried to point this out in the past, I’ve simply been demonized and attacked, and criticized for bringing out my alleged big guns of intelligence.

When I pointed out that Ron Paul was a racist, based on multiple past comments, Nonmascerdo decided that I was just making him ‘guilty by association’. (or maybe he/or she doesn’t really care about that) When I pointed out that he is NOT a Constitutionalist, (the desire to overturn Roe v Wade was only one example) that too became an issue for attack.
So, this is final proof that they don’t know what a Constitutionalist actually is, and nonmascerdo, even after admitting to living in California, claims to know nothing about the John Birch Society. (seems unconcerned that Ron Paul is on their homepage).

The complaints that seem to have generated the zealotry of the paulies are things like The Patriot Act. (I’ve been enraged about the Patriot Act since day one WHO brought it to us folks?). They also have finally gotten around to complaining about the endless war. (nevermind that there were tons of us out there protesting it before it even happened)

They say YES!(after 7 years) we want our country back. (never a single acknowledge about how they lost it to begin with). They say: no more ‘regulation’. Well, we haven’t HAD any regulation on the corporate thieves that have robbed us blind, that’s how they’ve been able to do it! And they’ve let RePUGS DESTROY the Constitution!

Aren’t these the same folks that have demonized Cindy Sheehan for speaking out years ago? Yep, I think so.

And YES! They’re ANGRY and SICK of it they say. (the rest of us have been pulling out our hair for over 7 years now) And so, let’s have YET ANOTHER conservative religious zealot from the reddest state of Texas…and the BIG OIL DISTRICT at that. (Ron Pauls 14th district is adjacent Tom Delay’s old district, and their ideologies are overwhelmingly similar). And, I admit that I’ve never been able to figure out how Jesus freaks can be racists, but I’ve spent enough years in the Bible belt to know that they are.

So, without further ado, I have to write them all off as a worthless cause. If by some horrible fate (a déjà vu of the Dick-Bush run-up in 2000, when everyone was equally fooled) Ron Paul should actually make the cut, then I’ll go into panic mode again. But, for now, there’s just no time to educate those who choose to remain ignorant.

OH, for those who are not familiar with the John Birchers, they are simply the rich cousins to the KKK, and have generally maintained a lower profile. (no sheets with the big hats). Just as dangerous I might add, and mostly concentrated in the traditional red/conservative areas of California, though I suppose they are in other states as well. I suspect they’re even more dangerous than the KKK’ers, because they manage to hide themselves more easily, and they have lots of money. They’ve been around for decades, and privatization/racism is at the very top of their agenda.

Report this

By breezytrees, December 4, 2007 at 12:22 am Link to this comment

Cyrena: What you say makes sense. I am pro-choice. Why are pro-life individuals forcing their beliefs onto me?? My abortion does not affect them at all. It only affects me.

Alas, it is not that simple. Pro-life individuals believe that my abortion not only affects me, it also affects my unborn child, who has the same inalienable rights that I have.

Now, a pro-choice individual simply disagrees with this. They believe that my child has no rights until it leaves my womb.

Then of course there are the people in between, and this I assume is the majority of our country. These individuals believe that somewhere along the 9 months of pregnancy, an unborn fetus becomes a living breathing thinking human with rights. These individuals cannot exactly say “when” a fetus becomes a thinking human, they have to guess because it is physically impossible to judge, even scientifically. When does this happen? 1st trimester? 2nd trimester? Each fetus will also mature faster or slower than others based on the genetic makeup of the mother and father. One fetus may become self aware 8 weeks in, another 12. All of these reasons make it VERY hard to create a morale law, let alone a law at all.

Science cannot possibly answer the question of when it becomes morally safe to have an abortion. This issue of abortion simply becomes an issue of opinion and this opinion varies greatly among our general populous.

Case in point: California is very very much pro choice, Utah is very very much Pro Life—yet our country is neither pro life nor pro choice.

Since there can be vast differences between the opinions and viewpoints of peoples that live in various states, why not have different laws reflecting those differing opinions? Why not have abortion be legal in california and illegal in utah? Does this not make sense?

States reflect the views of their citizens MUCH more than the federal government reflects the views of its citizens. Letting our federal government decide on such a divided issue clumps the differing views of our many peoples into one, alienating most everyone.


******************


Outraged: How is affirmative action not racism?

University of Michigan uses a 150 point grading system to judge qualified applicants. They automatically subtract or add 20 points to certain individuals if they belong to a certain racial backgrounds. How is this not racial discrimination?

Affirmative Action does not work because it adds another variable to an equation where the only variable should be merit. Any system that rewards anything but merit is an impedance on the system. Nepotism or any form of it is a terrific example. George Bush got into yale not because of his merit, but because of his father and grand father went there. George Bush’s acceptance into yale essentially put an unqualified man on the right path towards presidency.

ANY system that puts unqualified people in qualified positions does not work.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 10:37 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,

I will get back to you tomorrow.

Cyrena,

I am going to ignore you until you stop the personal attacks.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2007 at 9:59 pm Link to this comment

Re: #117808 by breezytrees on 12/03

The original bill, before the amendment was put forth was called the “Community Solutions Act aka HR 7”.  Paul voted “NO” on this legislation, but the measure was passed in the house anyway.

The gist of the bill: “Vote to pass a bill that would allow religious organizations who provide social services to apply for and receive federal funding, and provides $13.3 billion in tax breaks for charitable giving over a ten year period”


An amendment to the newly passed House bill ( the Community Solutions Act ) was introduced to ensure accountablity and non-discrimination, since the enities were receiving “federal dollars”.  Something Ron Paul claims to endorse.

The bill itself had already passed but when it came to accountability verbage (the amendment) in regards to their use of federal grants and subsidies Paul voted “NO”.

Why would Paul vote NO.  He claims to endorse accountability and fairness when using tax payer dollars.  It becomes even more questionable considering the fact that, originally it was legislation which he apparently didn’t agree with.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2007 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

Re: #117809 by Nomascerdo on 12/03

I didn’t mean to imply that Paul was a KKK member however one doesn’t need to belong to the KKK to be racist.  Brown v. Edu. was a step in the right direction whereas it concerns ALL Americans.  It is also better for the country if ALL it’s citizens are well educated.

Your comment:
“In the speech he repeatedly states his abhorrence for forced segregation. That said, he does raise questions regarding the efficacy of forced integration and also brings to light some of its unintended, negative consequences.”

**Who was forced integration directed toward if not for the racist and biased?  Who says it doesn’t work…?  Negative consequences for whom…?  Paul uses the ol’ “see it just doesn’t work” philosophy but excludes where it has worked.  There is a huge underlying racist problem in America, to that I can agree.  I’ve experienced it all my life and everywhere I go.  Why don’t so many with diverse ethnicities feel “comfortable” in white neighborhoods?  I can attest to the fact that it’s not their imagination.

The problem is not that affirmative action doesn’t work, the problem is that it is not enforced.  While this is indicative of our current justice system in general, it still doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work.  In order to know that we would have to have meaningful enforcement and also protections for the victims.

Also, you say that he repeatedly states his abhorrence for forced segregation, however that simply doesn’t undo his statements which “back it up”.  I can honestly say I would not accept money from a white supremacy group KNOWINGLY, yet Paul does.  This would be like trying to convince the cops that you had nothing to do with a robbery, yet you have some of the loot.

Report this

By cyrena, December 3, 2007 at 8:52 pm Link to this comment

#117809 by Nomascerdo

•  It is no secret that Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe V Wade and return the issue to the state’s.  While I am pro-choice I do recognize that A LOT of people in this country aren’t and the only way to provide government for everyone that reflects the diverse set of values in this nation is to send it back to the states.  I live in California and am quite certain that abortion will always be legal here.

I’m very curious about this response that you have here, as far as your recognition of the fact that A LOT of people in this country are NOT pro-choice. In the case of abortion, does it stand to reason, that for THOSE MANY PEOPLE who are NOT pro-choice, and who do NOT approve of abortion under any circumstances, that THEY would chose NOT to have them?

For me, this seems so very, very obvious, and particularly because of the fact that Roe v. Wade WAS decided on the fundamental issue of privacy. So, I’m going to try to reword it, just in case I don’t make sense. If one is against abortion, then they would choose NOT to have an abortion. If one becomes pregnant, (for whatever reason, and under whatever circumstances) and chooses not to continue that pregnancy, should there be a law that prevents them from seeking an abortion, in ANY state?

Now, I ask this from the standpoint of a Ron Paul, who seems to believe that nothing should be regulated, on behalf of the common good, and on behalf of individual privacies. So, does this not seem like the total OPPOSITE of that?

Now, we’re talking about what is in fact CONTITUTIONAL here. OK? Roe v. Wade has already been codified into law. So, we are talking about OVERTURNING a constitutional issue. How is that in keeping with the Constitution? I’m confused at the obvious contradiction here.

Can you help me understand this, in light of recognizing the great ‘diversity’ among the population, how do we reconcile that an individual may now be charged with murder, (if rp overturns this constitutional issue) for obtaining an abortion, based on their OWN ‘diversity”. How do we justify sending someone out of the state, or out of the country, in order to have access to a safe medical procedure, when chances are, if they had access to proper medical advice or care to begin with, they wouldn’t be pregnant if they didn’t choose to be.

On a different note, I’m just now realizing that some of these posters don’t live in Texas, and probably never HAVE lived in Texas, and so they consequently don’t ‘get’ what the Ron Paul ‘ideology’ is –in action-. So, I’ll clue you in later on, just in case any of you want to know that how it ‘sounds’ isn’t how it works out in real life.

And, it’s really scary to think that anybody would say ‘never’ about anything. Such as, abortion will ‘never’ be illegal in California. You don’t know that.  It was ILLEGAL before Roe v. Wade, which is why so many desperate women wound up in back street locations with unsafe procedures that could cost them their lives.

We ‘never’ thought spying would be acceptable either. (since it’s against the law) We never thought that something as basic as habeas corpus would simply be taken away by an insane president. (I mean, that’s been a basic right since the Magna Carta). We never thought that a Congress would allow for the violation of the laws of war. But, all of this has happened. So, anybody that has lived though the past 7 years, should know that there is no such thing as ‘never’. This is very scary thinking. Scarier that you vote.

Report this

By breezytrees, December 3, 2007 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment

I probably should have clicked once more to read the bill’s contents…

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 7:13 pm Link to this comment

Breezy:

Here is the description of that bill which appears to desire to put the issue back to the states and remove federal court jurisdiction, federal funding, etc.  Declaration (2) is the key point on that:

“Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .
Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. “

It is no secret that Ron Paul wants to overturn Roe V Wade and return the issue to the state’s.  While I am pro-choice I do recognize that A LOT of people in this country aren’t and the only way to provide government for everyone that reflects the diverse set of values in this nation is to send it back to the states.  I live in California and am quite certain that abortion will always be legal here. 

I will also highlight that Ron Paul voted against making it criminal to cross state lines for abortion, against making it criminal to help transport minors for an abortion, voted against a constitutional ban on abortion, and voted against a constitutional amendment making abortion legal. 

Outraged:

I hear your point and I don’t know the answer. That said, from what I understand about how Ron Paul votes, he will vote against any legislation that is not within the purview of the Constitution… Even if legislation passed that he voted against, I suspect he would vote against all amendments that expanded the reach of that legislation vs reducing it. 

It is difficult to tell though from what is available.  I think that his record, by and large, is consistent enough over his 10 terms, his writings, speeches, and votes are the same, and his principles clear enough that I can ignore isolated votes on amendments of bills that he opposed and feel very comfortable that he isn’t trying to pull a fast one, or is a ‘snake in the grass’ or a Klan member hiding his true identity.  I just don’t buy any of that whatsoever.  I have read his books, many of his speeches, met him in person, etc.

By the way, I watched the speech linked to the JBS site in it’s entirety and the message in 2004 is the same as it is today.  Defense of the Constitution, protection of our nations sovereignty, non-interventionism, freedom for all citizens, limited govt, advice of the founders.  Actually a great speech! NOTHING sinister.

I made a tinyURL of the link on google video:

http://tinyurl.com/2epvxm

Report this

By breezytrees, December 3, 2007 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

outraged: Could you reword the following?:

“Doesn’t it stand to reason that if the original bill passed (the Community Solutions Act, even though he had voted NO ) that Paul would now be voting on a measure which had already passed and that the amendment (which would obviously be an addition to the original) he should have endorsed considering where he claims he stands.”

I do not understand.

Report this

By breezytrees, December 3, 2007 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

The only piece of dirt I have ever uncovered on Ron Paul is thus: Ron Paul (I think) has recently sponsored a bill to define life as beginning at conception, obviously giving a fetus rights, obviously turning abortion into murder.

RP claims to make abortion a state matter, but this is a federal bill. If this bill passes (and it won’t obviously) abortion will be a federal offense.

Yup, just checked. It’s bill HR 1094.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1094

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2007 at 6:23 pm Link to this comment

Re: #117794 by Nomascerdo on 12/03 at 5:02 pm
(78 comments total)

Outraged to be clear:

Ron Paul voted NO on HR 7 which was the “Community Solutions Act”

Nomascerdo:
Doesn’t it stand to reason that if the original bill passed (the Community Solutions Act, even though he had voted NO ) that Paul would now be voting on a measure which had already passed and that the amendment (which would obviously be an addition to the original) he should have endorsed considering where he claims he stands.

Paul’s quote: “if a person or group is going to voluntarily take the taxpayers’ money, then the recipient - whether a candidate running for president or a clinic handing out condoms - is going to have to be accountable and play by the rules the taxpayers set and deserve.”

From Vote Smart:
“:Official Title of Legislation:

H.AMDT.200 to HR 7: Amendment to the Community Solutions Act of 2001.

Project Vote Smart’s Synopsis:

Vote to pass a substitute amendment that would regulate the hiring practices of any social service provider that receives federal funds.”

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3027&can_id=296

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,

I can’t speak for the JBS because I am not associated with them, nor know much about them.  I have never met a member e.g. 

That said, I am listening to the speech that he gave their which is on their website.

So far everything is about being a Constitutionalist, and interestingly quite a LOT about the negative impact of the Patriot Act and amendments that have passed to WEAKEN it.

If I come across anything different I will let you know… it’s a long speech tho so might not be able to listen to all of it today.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2007 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

It is also disconcerting to find Ron Paul on the homepage of the John Birch Society.  Just scroll down.

http://www.jbs.org/

Of course (not that these stats are “all inclusive”) they do show tendancies.  You’ll need to scroll down to the heading “Conservative” there you’ll find he voted, according to The John Birch Society, 95-100% in support of their issues.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=296

The John Birch society has some rather strange bedfellows and support a radical libertarian agenda.  From what I could gather using several sites they are radically anti-communist and were against the civil rights movement.  Which, if accurate, would explain Paul’s objection to Brown v. Board of Education.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

Outraged to be clear:

Ron Paul voted NO on HR 7 which was the “Community Solutions Act” which is as described:

Title: To provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government program delivery to individuals and families in need, and to enhance the ability of low-income Americans to gain financial security by building assets.

He also voted NO on the amendment to HR 7 that you cited.  As I stated, it does not surprise me that he would vote NO on an amendment to a bill that he voted NO against unless that bill significantly altered the original bill’s meaning.  The amendment you cited apparently did not do so for him.

Regarding the Patriot Act.

Ron Paul voted NO on the original bill but then voted YES on the amendment that you cited, HR 2862.

That amendment, HR 2862, stopped the government from being able to look at library and bookstore purchase records.  Ron Paul was one of only 38 Republicans to vote YES on HR 2862.

That amendment WEAKENED the Patiot Act, which he has consistently voted against so his voting record is consistent here.

Just to be 100% clear.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

Outraged:

He isn’t disagreeing with BvsBoE. This is very clear in his statement. The fact that this isn’t a referendum on BvsBoE but one on a cncrnt res. to celebrate the anniv. of the decision is an important distinction as well.

In the speech he repeatedly states his abhorrence for forced segregation. That said, he does raise questions regarding the efficacy of forced integration and also brings to light some of its unintended, negative consequences. 

My interpretation is that he supports the decision of BvsBoE but thinks that unintended consequences have had the opposite effect desired. He supports his claim with evidence in the speech.

This is the same argument that many people put forth regarding programs like affirmative action.  The argument states that by attempting to compensate for past government failures (institutionalized discrimination) with new programs that offer special rights or privilege to one group over another (also institutionalized discrimination), the issues of racial animosity are perpetuated, not solved. People who are innocent of discrimination are punished for the sins of those who came before them.  Along the same lines, people who may not have been institutionally discriminated against, benefit from special treatment. This foments distrust and animosity and has the unintended consequence of persons associating isolated incidents that occur in their own lives with negative feelings towards entire groups of people based on superficial characteristics.  Whenever an individual feels that another group is being favored, it is impossible for that indiv. not to feel injustice.  Feelings of injustice breed hatred.

So while Ron Paul does seem to put this argument outlined forth, he does so in the context of recognizing the major contributions that BvsBoE had on our society while condemning forced segregation at the same time.

Like all of his positions, this is a nuanced position and it comes from a philosophical viewpoint. Namely, that our rights do not come from government! They are ‘natural rights’ and all humans share them equally and are endowed with them by our creator. 

Remember that the government was the problem here to begin with. Government laws and policies took natural rights away from large segments of the population (minorities, women, etc) and offered special rights or privileges to other segments (whites, males). 

Ron Paul’s position is that government never has the right to do this because these rights are not the governments to give in the first place! The proper role of government in a free and open society is to protect the natural rights of all citizens, not to confer them on the citizenry or to give special privileges to one group over another. That our government has rarely (actually never) performed properly in this role is certainly despicable but that does not mean that we shouldn’t aim to move it towards its proper role in this regard. 

Ron Paul uses votes like this and writes explanations for his votes to make a point regarding the role of government in our lives. This seems obvious to some but impossible to recognize for others. 

Once a person decides that another is a racist it is difficult to change that person’s mind. Racism is such a vicious accusation because it is perhaps the most ignorant and inhumane belief a person can hold. 

That said, if I thought Ron Paul was a racist I would NEVER support him. I would deliberately oppose him. I cannot speak for the sins and misguided feelings of individuals that I do not know who might also support Ron Paul for reasons that I do not understand. I try my very best to avoid ascribing individual characteristics to large groups of people I do not, nor cannot ever know unless that group collectively states a commonly held belief or mission.

I firmly believe in the natural rights of all humans and support Ron Paul’s position that it is the role of government to PROTECT these rights, not confer them.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 3, 2007 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment

#117591 by Nomascerdo

Thank you for posting the 11/6/2007 speech, it was so compelling it brought tears to my eyes.

Many people can’t figure out that Ron Paul, in following the Constitution, is returning federal power back to the states over a wide range of issues which we as Americans can decide our fate at a more local level, remember all politics are local.

It’s time America gets to grip to how much money we actually owe others and live witin our means.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2007 at 4:47 pm Link to this comment

Re:#117762 by Nomascerdo on 12/03 at 2:37 pm
(76 comments total)

He voted NO on the Community Solutions Act aka HR 7

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_ id=V3027

I will also point out to avoid any further confusion, this vote occurred in July of 2001.

** You are correct, that was not purposeful.  But I won’t deny my dislike of Ron Paul. That was why I was going to debate the point.  Of course, when I checked (sorry) I inadvertantly transposed the links.  I stand corrected.  My bad.

Even though this happened in 2001 it is apparent others were seeing the danger, loss of liberty and the needless spying on citizens.  How do you settle that apparent inconsistency.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2007 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

Re: #117765 by Nomascerdo on 12/03

Here’s the intro to that speech Nomascerdo.  What could Paul find so objectionable?


“EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT ALL AMERICANS OBSERVE THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION WITH A COMMITMENT TO CONTINUING AND BUILDING ON THE LEGACY OF BROWN—(House of Representatives - May 13, 2004)

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H. Con. Res. 414, the resolution commending the anniversary of the decision in Brown v. Board of Education and related cases. While I certainly agree with the expression of abhorrence at the very idea of forced segregation I cannot, without reservation, simply support the content in the resolution.”

**Also something must not have copied over for you correctly, here’s the exact link.  So everyone CAN read it for themselves.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=110720&keyword;=&phrase;=&contain;=

It seems a bit disingenous to disagree with Brown v Board of Education and claim to have trouble with the wording.

BTW Nomascerdo, accussing me of smearing Paul IS throwing insults.  Stick to the issue.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 3:53 pm Link to this comment

Outraged wrote:

When addressing the House on Brown v Board of Education 50th anniversary, Paul makes this assertion:

“Mr. Speaker, in short forced integration and enforced equality are inimical to liberty; while they may be less abhorrent than forced segregation they are nonetheless as likely to lead to resentment and are demonstrably as unworkable and hence ineffective.” - Ron Paul

**So it appears that Paul thinks equality is hostile to liberty.  Who’s liberty are we talking about, rich white men?  What’s more…who was it that was being “forced” and why did equality have to be “enforced”?  Sounds like some people don’t want to have to play fair. Hmmm…integration and equality are INIMICAL to liberty….?!

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=1107 20&keyword;=&phrase;=&contain;=

Ron Paul is a snake in the grass.  It’s surprising so much hot air fits in such a small stature. “

Anyone that read the ENTIRE speech and doesn’t just cherrypick the second to last paragraph can understand what Ron Paul is saying.  I urge all to follow the link Outraged provided and do just that.

I will also paste in the FINAL paragraph that Outraged (for some strange reason wink decided not to include:

“While I completely celebrate the end of forced segregation that Brown helped to bring about, I cannot unreservedly support this resolution as currently worded.” - Ron Paul

Does this all look like attempts to smear Ron Paul to anyone else?

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

He voted NO on the Community Solutions Act aka HR 7

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3027

I will also point out to avoid any further confusion, this vote occurred in July of 2001.

Outraged wrote:

**No, according to my info, as I’ve stated he voted NO. Why…when it MATTERED…did Ron Paul NOT reinstate our liberties?  The amendment was specifically meant TO WEAKEN the all encompassing Patriot Act while restoring our rights.**

So that whole claim of yours is, in fact, inaccurate.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

Outraged, you do have it mixed up…

You have your links backwards…

the one you included is for the HR 7 vote.

Here is the proper vote record:

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3543

Patriot Act Amendment - Library Records

TX   14   Representative
Ronald E. ‘Ron’ Paul   Republican   Y

Go see for yourself.

By the way, I doubt the Washington Post would intentionally alter the Congressional voting record.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2007 at 3:26 pm Link to this comment

RE: #117744 by Nomascerdo on 12/03

“Regarding HR 7 which you cite how Ron Paul voted against an Amendment in your prior post… Ron Paul voted against the original bill in it’s entirety.”

**Yes…that was the Patriot Act.  However, when the scuttlebutt is “this is how everyone’s voting”  it’s a political move to go the other way because agree or not you know it’ll be passed anyway.

“The Patriot Act example is an instance where he voted NO against the original bill but then voted YES for the amendment you cited because it weakened the original bill… “

**No, according to my info, as I’ve stated he voted NO. Why…when it MATTERED…did Ron Paul NOT reinstate our liberties?  The amendment was specifically meant TO WEAKEN the all encompassing Patriot Act while restoring our rights.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2007 at 3:13 pm Link to this comment

Re:#117740 by Nomascerdo on 12/03 at 1:20 pm

No, I do not “have that wrong” from the Vote Smart site concerning HR 2862.

BTW Nomascerdo, from the VOTE SMART link I supplied you can just click on “How members voted” or you can go directly there with this link.  I’m not sure why The Washington Post is in conflict with Vote Smart but I could hazard a guess.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=V3027

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment

Regarding HR 7 which you cite how Ron Paul voted against an Amendment in your prior post… Ron Paul voted against the original bill in it’s entirety.

H.R.7
Title: To provide incentives for charitable contributions by individuals and businesses, to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of government program delivery to individuals and families in need, and to enhance the ability of low-income Americans to gain financial security by building assets.

I can’t tell you why he specifically voted against HR 7 (it is very long and complex) but in response to your point, I don’t know why you would think he would, after voting NO on the original bill, then vote YES on an Amendment to it unless he felt it drastically changed the bill enough to alter his opposition to it?

The Patriot Act example is an instance where he voted NO against the original bill but then voted YES for the amendment you cited because it weakened the original bill…

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 2:20 pm Link to this comment

Actually, I take that back. VoteSmart correctly says that Ron Paul voted YES for this legislation against the majority of Republicans, with the majority of Dems, and FOR the privacy of citizens.

So that one you have wrong…

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

Outraged:

According to what I found regarding HR 2862, Ron Paul voted YES along with only 38 other Republicans.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/1/votes/258/

I am trying to confirm this on the official http://www.house.gov website but there is a discrepancy between what votesmart says and the database that the washingtonpost draws upon. 

I will say that it would be HIGHLY unusual for Ron Paul to have voted against this amendment.

Report this

By Greatheart, December 3, 2007 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

cyrena:“This is proof (to me at least) that all of you people (the Paulies) are just as partisan as the repugs that have been “in power” for the past 12 plus years. You refer to ‘my people’ because that is YOUR mentality. Mine is NOT a partisan mentality, nor is the Constitution, and “my people’ are the American people. ALL of them.”

The your people I am referring to are whatever people you like, whatever ideas you like. I can see from what you have said that you don’t like Bush, Great I don’t like Bush and what he stands for.

Don’t take the “your people” as something personal. It is just a figure of speech.

If we allow people to change the contract when ever it suits them EVEN IF IT IS A GOOD THING we are saying that the contract is no longer binding.  So if something is changed that you (and maybe even I and almost everyone else) think should be changed but not done in the proper way we have set up a problem that someone in the future like Bush can take advantage of.

You may not like Ron Paul, fine, I really don’t know the guy.  I like what he stands for very much.

I am asking you an honest question once again.

You said “However, this is not the ONLY thing that Ron Paul is saying, and his voting record, as well as his comments, speeches, and minimal writings, indicate that HE HIMSELF, is not interested in abiding by the Constitution.”

If you have any proof of that would you please let me know?

I am not looking to fight with you. I have heard about Ron Paul and I like what I hear.  If that makes me one of “the Paulies”  than I guess that is what I am. 

If you can show me where he is lying I would be in your debt. From what I can see he is an honest guy and he lives what he speaks.

I really don’t think that it is fair of you or anybody else to call people names because they are doing the very thing that we should be doing as citizens of this country. And that is to try to see past the lies and look for the best person to vote for in this of any other election. But this is still a free country so I will fight for your right to call me anything you want.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2007 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul does not “practice what he preaches”.  He says:

“if a person or group is going to voluntarily take the taxpayers’ money, then the recipient - whether a candidate running for president or a clinic handing out condoms - is going to have to be accountable and play by the rules the taxpayers set and deserve.”

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=11

**Yet, Ron Paul voted AGAINST legislation which would do exactly that,  Amendment to the Community Solutions Act of 2001.

“- Forbids religious organizations that receive federal charitable choice program funding from employment discrimination based on religion.

- Prohibits staging of religious instruction or activities at the same time and place as government funded programs”

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3027&can_id=296
************

**He also voted against a bill which would have STOPPED the searching of ordinary citizens library records…etc. HR 2862

“Vote to adopt an amendment that would disallow the renewal of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, thus eliminating the ability of federal officials to search library and bookstore records.”

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3543&can_id=296

Yet again, here’s what Ron Paul SPEWS:

“The administration assures us that domestic surveillance is done to protect us.  But the crucial point is this:  Government assurances are not good enough in a free society.  The overwhelming burden must always be placed on government to justify any new encroachment on our liberty.  Now that the emotions of September 11th have cooled, the American people are less willing to blindly accept terrorism as an excuse for expanding federal surveillance powers.  Conservatives who support the Bush administration should remember that powers we give government today will not go away when future administrations take office.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=441

He voted AGAINST legislation to prohibit exactly THAT which he CLAIMS he abhors in 2005!
*************

When addressing the House on Brown v Board of Education 50th anniversary, Paul makes this assertion:

“Mr. Speaker, in short forced integration and enforced equality are inimical to liberty; while they may be less abhorrent than forced segregation they are nonetheless as likely to lead to resentment and are demonstrably as unworkable and hence ineffective.”

**So it appears that Paul thinks equality is hostile to liberty.  Who’s liberty are we talking about, rich white men?  What’s more…who was it that was being “forced” and why did equality have to be “enforced”?  Sounds like some people don’t want to have to play fair. Hmmm…integration and equality are INIMICAL to liberty….?!

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?sc_id=110720&keyword;=&phrase;=&contain;=

Ron Paul is a snake in the grass.  It’s surprising so much hot air fits in such a small stature.

Report this

By BlueEagle, December 3, 2007 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

cyrena - It’s clear you will never vote for Ron Paul, but please do not use GOP/MSM talking points to further your agenda. You know better than that.

Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He is a noninterventionist.

Noninterventionism is not isolationism.  Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations.  It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 11:53 am Link to this comment

Where is Roe v Wade in the Constitution?

Report this

By cyrena, December 3, 2007 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

#117659 by Greatheart

•  Of course if you believe the Federal Government should have unlimited power than you would not like that idea.

No Greatheart,

I don’t believe that the Federal Government should have unlimited power. Never said that at all.

•  Also the problem with the Constitution being a “LIVING DOCUMENT\” is you may like that when your people are in power (Clinton?) but you have to live with that “LIVING DOCUMENT\” when your people are not in power.
This is proof (to me at least) that all of you people (the Paulies) are just as partisan as the repugs that have been “in power” for the past 12 plus years. You refer to ‘my people’ because that is YOUR mentality. Mine is NOT a partisan mentality, nor is the Constitution, and “my people’ are the American people. ALL of them.

Neither do I have a problem LIVING with a LIVING Constitution, and I don’t much care about the Federal Reserve either, since it is not my focus at the moment. If Ron Paul thinks he can fix the Federal Reserve, I guess he should have at it. I don’t think he needs to be president, (and do untold damage) in order to introduce a change to that system, if he has one. I don’t know what he plans to replace that with, since there is NO MONEY, and I don’t believe he can steal enough gold or silver from the American soil to pay back China, or any of the other nations to which we are in debt. But, whatever you think he can do to fix that, then whatever.

There is a major problem with the fact that Ron Paul would like to dicker with the Constitution in Roe v. Wade. There is a major problem in his failure to recognize that portion of the Constitution, (the Establishment Clause) that provides for the separation of Church and State.

There is also the issue of this very same LIVING CONSTITUTION that we’re talking about, that you have already so neatly explained. If it takes a long time to pass amendments, and to sign on to treaties/conferences/contracts/etc, how Constitutional is it to UNDO them, or to renege at some point in time, further down the road?

The overall tone of the Constitution is to provide for the COMMON good, NOT the good of the ones with the biggest guns, or the most money. Privatization is the worst thing that has happened to our country in the past Century or more, and Ron Paul will have us so further privatized as to no longer have a union.

His is also an isolationist position. An isolationist mentality may have been acceptable 200 years ago, while the nation was still in its making. It no longer is. And, that’s where he can and would do the MOST damage.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

Outraged:

I would be more than happy to debate the issues only. I am more interested in comparing the candidates to each other than I am in throwing barbs.  The conversation with Cyrena devolved and I apologize to all (Cyrena included) for my contribution to that. 

I don’t tolerate stereotyping and attributing ideas and characterizations to entire groups of unrelated people.  That is intolerable and unrealistic and intellectually on par with racism and sexism.  It is unjustifiable.

Let’s stick to the facts on record and our personal opinions about those facts.  Sounds good to me.

Report this

By Greatheart, December 3, 2007 at 8:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

cyrena said#117585
However, this is not the ONLY thing that Ron Paul is saying, and his voting record, as well as his comments, speeches, and minimal writings, indicate that HE HIMSELF, is not interested in abiding by the Constitution.”

(“minimal writings”  that’s a cute one.)

Unless you are talking about the Constitution being a “LIVING DOCUMENT” which means it saids anything the people in power want it to say. Would you please list examples of Ron Paul not being not interested in abiding by the Constitution?

Also the problem with the Constitution being a “LIVING DOCUMENT”  is you may like that when your people are in power (Clinton?) but you have to live with that “LIVING DOCUMENT” when your people are not in power.

Another comment from you:

The ‘actual words’ of the constitution is what Paolo and the others of you would like to focus on, so…you all want to take us back to 1787. Or, so it would seem. This reminds me of the cartoon posted in the office of one of my favorite professors, (a constitutional law scholar). It is saying (of Justice Scalia) that he LOVES the Constitution, IT’S JUST THE AMENDMENTS THAT HE DOESN’T LIKE!!! Well, listen up folks, the Amendments are part of the Constitution, and we cannot GO BACK to 1787. Most of us don’t want to.

Where did that come from?
I nor most people that like what Ron Paul stands for wants to go back to 1787. The amendments are a part of the constitution. That is what makes it great.  With the ability to add amendments we can adjust the constitution as needed. It would be much harder to get things done that way of course. Much harder than   the way things are done now.  That is for sure!  But think about it.  The patriot act was passed almost over night while people were still dealing with 9/11. A constitution amendment takes time.  People have time to hear all sides of the issue before something like that could be imposed on them. Do you honestly think the Federal Reserve would exist today if it had to be approved by an amendment? Of course if you believe the Federal Government should have unlimited power than you would not like that idea. 
   
So once again I ask you to stop the name calling and the silly associations (Scalia) :  Would you please list examples of Ron Paul not being not interested in abiding by the Constitution?
Thank You

Report this

By Marta, December 3, 2007 at 5:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

DON’T FORGET TO RATE IT ON YOUTUBE

Report this

By breezytrees, December 3, 2007 at 5:00 am Link to this comment

Cyrena: Ron Paul has failed to support impeachment because doing so through the senate is ILLEGAL. The senate does not have the power to impeach. Just like the president does not have the power to “drop nukes on iran,” as you said.

Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments.”

The average donation for Ron Paul in Q3 was $40. The average donation for Obama in Q1, since you mentioned him, is $247. Sources: http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/28/nearly_250000_open_wallets_for.php
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/03/394012.aspx

Now I know those are different quarters so this data is almost useless, but that should give you an idea. Can someone find the average donation for Ron Paul in quarter 1? or likewise, the average donation for Obama in quarter 3?

Ron Paul is also the first AND only candidate in history to provide real time data on his donation influx to the public, not just to the FEC. This allows the public to actually SEE who supports him. http://paulcash.slact.net/

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 3, 2007 at 1:24 am Link to this comment

Re: #117633 by Nomascerdo on 12/02

Would you care to take up your argument with me, instead of ATTACKING Cyrena in a personal way?  I will tell you though, I will only argue the issue and personal assaults are not fair game.

I will absolutely KEEP to the ISSUE, but am not interested in personal attacks.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 3, 2007 at 12:48 am Link to this comment

While my opinion of what you write is obvious to any observer there is a major difference between what I write and what you write Cyrena.

While I criticize you as an individual, you attack entire groups of people continuously. Sadly, you go after people you don’t know, can never know, and will never know.  You make wide reaching generalizations, partake in vicious stereotyping, and resort to childish name calling.  Your vitriol is relentless.  This is why I criticize your posts and by extension you…  Well, I also criticize the overt smears you hurl at Ron Paul every chance you get which are based, by your own admission, on a very superficial understanding of his philosophy, and guilt by association (not to mention distortions and falsehoods but you don’t admit to those). You openly admit that you ignore what he says, and you don’t read what he has written.  You don’t care to hear what he has to say, as you have outright, repeatedly stated.

You actually said in a recent post that he hasn’t written that much! Credibility is not in your corner when you admit ignorance but then spew venom.  Show me another candidate that has a website organized by supporters that has over 900 articles and speeches on nearly every major legislative topic. 

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org  FYI

Just to illustrate you write:
“Umhum… Honest and moral? Ok, so…that’s why he has received (for decades) and continues to receive strong political support and financial backing from the white supremacist organizations within our midst, and that’s why he’s collected most of his campaign funds from Big (private) BUSINESS? Right? Because he’s so ‘moral’ and honest? How does his distain and contempt for the environment and human rights fit into his moral integrity?”

Literally nothing in that entire paragraph isn’t without distortion, complete fabrication, hyperbole, and rhetoric.  I think the only partially accurate part is that some of his supporters are not the kind of folks the majority of Americans think are particularly enlightened, or important these days, myself included.

The part about his donations is just quite plainly wholly inaccurate and anyone that goes to http://www.fec.gov can verify that you don’t know what you are talking about.  The reality is the opposite is true.  Big business does not love Ron Paul.  Small individual donors however do.  Big business loves Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Romney, Edwards, etc etc.  He also most certainly does not have disdain for the environment he simply has a different approach to solving the problems we face and there are plenty of people that care about the environment that agree with his approach.

Finally anyone who has met him, read him, or followed him knows that he is one of the leading advocates and defenders of the Natural Rights of all humans, most definitely not an evil person, and is honest and moral.  You cannot claim any of the above and therefore your opinion is uninformed and marginal.

Report this

By BlueEagle, December 3, 2007 at 12:32 am Link to this comment

The number one issue in this election is the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul advocates abolishing the Federal Reserve Banking System and is the only politician that speaks truth to power. Remember, he who controls the money makes the rules, and the Fed controls the money.

It’s a complicated issue, but I have confidence in anyone reading this that they will do their research. Google “Fiat Empire” and start there.

There is no doubt in my mind that after you research the origins of the Fed that you will vote for Ron Paul.

Report this

By Fidei Defensor, December 3, 2007 at 12:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#117621 by cyrena

“... and that’s why he’s collected most of his campaign funds from Big (private) BUSINESS? Right?”

Your post is so bad it’s not even wrong.  No need to correct most of your flagrancies, since others already have done a fine enough job, but I would like to point out your flaw regarding Dr. Paul’s campaign contributions.  Nearly 100% of his contributions are from individuals and not private business.  Please see: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008

Report this

By BlueEagle, December 3, 2007 at 12:14 am Link to this comment

The number one issue in this election is the Federal Reserve. Ron Paul advocates abolishing the Federal Reserve Banking System and is the only politician that speaks truth to power. Remember, he who controls the money makes the rules, and the Fed controls the money.

It’s a complicated issue, but I have confidence in anyone reading this that they will do their research. Google “Fiat Empire” and start there.

Report this

By cyrena, December 2, 2007 at 11:09 pm Link to this comment

#117613 by breezytrees

•  Cyrena, many actions by the federal government over the past 150 years were done in complete ignorance of the constitution. Ron Paul and the rest of us are sick of it.

Here again, your paulie cult is not the only one aware of these things, nor are the rest of us ignorant to them. We are ALL pretty sick of it!! And, as far as the past 8 years are concerned, I don’t believe for a moment, that most of these actions were taken in COMPLETE IGNORANCE of the Constitution, but rather in complete and utter distain for the Constitution and the rule of law.

Now, I don’t much care about your excuses for why Ron Paul has failed to support impeachment. I already mentioned that, and that’s clearly not his only crime, or his own utter contempt for the rule of law, or the devious ways in which he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and consistently contradicts his words and actions.

So, since you’ve got time, check out his voting record on some of the other atrocities against the constitution that have taken place over the past 8 years. You can go back further if you like, efer, but start with these. 

Military Commissions Act of 2006
Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

Also check out how he feels about the spying, and the decision to let the telecommunications companies off the hook for breaking the laws. I don’t know what his ‘votes’ were on these things, or even if he added anything to the discussion. So you’ll be able to ‘educate’ me on this. Just don’t pretend to assume that the tin foil hat paulies are the only ones aware of the disaster that has been this administration, and specfically the repuglican party for whom ronnie continues to stand proudly behind, at least in terms of his overall voting record, up to and including this very minute.

•  Ron Paul’s actions on this matter only show how honest and moral he truly is.

Umhum… Honest and moral? Ok, so…that’s why he has received (for decades) and continues to receive strong political support and financial backing from the white supremacist organizations within our midst, and that’s why he’s collected most of his campaign funds from Big (private) BUSINESS? Right? Because he’s so ‘moral’ and honest? How does his distain and contempt for the environment and human rights fit into his moral integrity?

Work on that. 

#117612 by Nomascerdo

•  most people with a brain that isn’t completely awash with collectivism, fear, anger, and disdain for its fellow citizens

•  For a person that condescendingly claims the high ground of strict adherence and respect for protocols, procedures, and the rule of law you sure seem to enthusiastically (zealously perhaps?) ignore them when it is convenient for YOUR politics.

Nonwhatever,
You’re off the grid here. Get a grip. This is simply a discussion. Cut the theatrics, the drama, and all the rest of this bullshit in the form of personal attacks and accusations. Otherwise, you’re wasting ALL of your time and energy, because intelligent observers can and do pick this up; comprehend that you’re an emotional mess, and therefore will ignore anything you say.

I have noted these responses, (to your theatrics and rhetoric) from NUMEROUS posters on this site, that haven’t been nearly as politically correct or ‘diplomatic’ as I have, in responding to you. So, TAKE THE HINTS. Check with Pfizer, maybe they have something that will help you out. You sound like you’re in the 3rd grade and keep missing your naps.

Report this

By pat fullerton, December 2, 2007 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

WOW!!!!!

Report this

By breezytrees, December 2, 2007 at 9:41 pm Link to this comment

***
#117585 by cyrena on 12/02 at 5:42 pm: Other major blindness of the Paulies: The Constitution does not allow the president to nuke Iran. The Constitution, does NOT allow the Federal Government to do most of the things that it has done under the Dick Bush executive power trip, and the overwhelmingly Repuglican Congress of the past 12 or so years. Nearly ALL of the actions by this government over the past 7 years, are NOT allowed by the Constitution. We know that.
***

Cyrena, many actions by the federal government over the past 150 years were done in complete ignorance of the constitution. Ron Paul and the rest of us are sick of it. The blindness you speak of simply does not exist. We paulies are VERY much aware the illegal Dick/Bush executive power trip. We HATE this new surge in executive power. This is exactly why we want someone like paul in office. However, we are also staunch believers/followers in the constitution and our system of government. Events such as impeachment are supposed to be passed through the house of representatives first before heading on to the senate, as Ron Paul has explained. Ron Paul’s actions on this matter only show how honest and moral he truly is. Even though what he wants (and what he knows is best) is easily within his reach, he will not do it because he would have to break the rules of the constitution to do it.

Article Two, Section 4 of the United States Constitution: “The President, Vice President, and all other civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The House of Representatives has the sole power of impeaching, while the United States Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments. The removal of impeached officials is automatic upon conviction in the Senate.”

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 2, 2007 at 9:25 pm Link to this comment

I think the way that most people with a brain that isn’t completely awash with collectivism, fear, anger, and disdain for its fellow citizens would look at his vote and statement regarding his vote for precisely what it is:

He voted FOR following the very well established protocols that every other official has been afforded in the same situation, both Republican and Democrat.

For a person that condescendingly claims the high ground of strict adherence and respect for protocols, procedures, and the rule of law you sure seem to enthusiastically (zealously perhaps?) ignore them when it is convenient for YOUR politics.

Report this

By cyrena, December 2, 2007 at 9:00 pm Link to this comment

#117591 by Nomascerdo

No reason for me to ‘guess’ on this one nomascerdo, and you’re a tad bit late to the draw here, since this same stuff from ron paul has already been posted, and on this same web site.

Here’s what it amounts to. RP voted to table the motion to impeach dick cheney, and used the standard deceit of political maneuvering/rhetoric to do it. This is the status quo for ron paul and most repugs.

And, at the end of the deceitful rhetoric, here’s what this says…ron paul voted AGAINST the motion to bring impeachment proceedings against dick cheney.

You can read this BS 100 times, and you still can’t change what it says, nor the voting action that accompanies the rhetoric. This was his vote. He voted against it. Nothing else matters.

Report this

By James Babb, December 2, 2007 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

cyrena,

“Barack Obama knows what the Constitution says, and what it means. He’s an attorney, and has been a professor of law. Ron Paul is physician, (obstetrics/gynecology) who clearly advocates the ignoring of the Constitution, (Roe v Wade) in his rabid anti-abortion stance, where he would choose to speak for all US women, regardless of what is contained in the constitution.”

The Supreme Court does not have the power to create legislation of amend the Constitution, so I’m not sure how you put those things together. After you do your homework, you will see that Dr. Paul’s constitutional stance on abortion is to allow the states to determine the appropriate laws. He sponsored a bill to remove the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. Even if you disagree with his position, you can hardly call this “rabid.”

Report this

By James Babb, December 2, 2007 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

cyrena,

“Here is another example of how people have gone so far off the real issue, because they have a lack of understanding of what the Constitution involves, AS A LIVING DOCUMENT…”

There is no such thing a “Living Document.” Would you sign a “living” contract? The document ratified by the states was written in very plain language. The amendment process clearly allows for needed changes.  A modest amount of research will reveal that Dr. Paul’s has always obeyed his oath to defend the entire constitution, including the bill of rights and the other amendments

Report this

By James Babb, December 2, 2007 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

cyrena,

“However, this is not the ONLY thing that Ron Paul is saying, and his voting record, as well as his comments, speeches, and minimal writings, indicate that HE HIMSELF, is not interested in abiding by the Constitution.”

Minimal writings? Please let me refer you to 435 articles and speeches BY Ron Paul: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

I think these will clear up a lot of your confusion. I challenge you to show a better documented candidate for any office.

Report this

By blackice, December 2, 2007 at 7:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul doesn’t fit the Republican profile or any major party for that fact. However, if the party does listen to the public, Ron Paul might have a chance, but that’s not likely to happen, even though I support Ron Paul. It’s reality.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 2, 2007 at 7:22 pm Link to this comment

Let’s listen to what Ron Paul actually stated about impeachment proceedings instead of Cyrena’s guess as to what he said…

Statement Regarding Impeachment of Vice President Cheney

Ron Paul Speech to Congress

November 6, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio’s desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance. During my entire time in Congress, I have been outspoken in my opposition to war with Iraq and Iran. I have warned my colleagues and the administration against marching toward war in numerous speeches over the years, and I have voted against every appropriation to continue the war on Iraq.

I have always been strongly in favor of vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch, and I have lamented our abrogation of these Constitutional obligations in recent times. I do believe, however, that this legislation should proceed through the House of Representatives following regular order, which would require investigation and hearings in the House Judiciary Committee before the resolution proceeds to the floor for a vote. This time-tested manner of moving impeachment legislation may slow the process, but in the long run it preserves liberty by ensuring that the House thoroughly deliberates on such weighty matters. In past impeachments of high officials, including those of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the legislation had always gone through the proper committee with full investigation and accompanying committee report.

I noted with some dismay that many of my colleagues who have long supported the war changed their vote to oppose tabling the motion for purely political reasons. That move was a disrespectful to the Constitutional function of this body and I could not support such actions with my vote.

I was pleased that the House did vote in favor of sending this legislation to the Judiciary Committee, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.

Report this

By Jesus, December 2, 2007 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I personally don’t believe Jesus endorses Ron.  http://godtub.com

Report this

By cyrena, December 2, 2007 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

#117513Greatheart

•  I find it amazing that people are saying that Ron Paul has crazy ideas.  He is only saying the Federal Government has to abide by the constitution.

GreatH, herein lies the problem, and it’s a major one. I don’t/won’t believe that the average citizen, who has even a clue to what is contained in the Constitution and how it is designed, has any problem with the Federal Government abiding by the Constitution. We do NOT, (at least I do not) believe it to be ‘just a piece of paper’.

However, this is not the ONLY thing that Ron Paul is saying, and his voting record, as well as his comments, speeches, and minimal writings, indicate that HE HIMSELF, is not interested in abiding by the Constitution.

We can see from all of the comments posted by other Paulies, that they don’t understand the workings of the constitution, because they are myopically focused on the few very broad themes that MOST people, (including liberals) WOULD in fact agree on. For instance:

MOST of us want our military OUT of Iraq, and out of the rest of the world that we have occupied for so long. We have no right to be in those places. I don’t believe you’ll find any argument from the average American on that subject. However, that is not ALL that Ron Paul is ‘promising/threatening’.

Here is another example of how people have gone so far off the real issue, because they have a lack of understanding of what the Constitution involves, AS A LIVING DOCUMENT…

•  #117563 by Paolo
I have to echo Greatheart in being amazed how others call Ron Paul “crazy” or a “buffoon” for taking stands like standing by the actual words of the Constitution, and refraining from nuking countries that pose no threat to us (Iran).

The ‘actual words’ of the constitution is what Paolo and the others of you would like to focus on, so…you all want to take us back to 1787. Or, so it would seem. This reminds me of the cartoon posted in the office of one of my favorite professors, (a constitutional law scholar). It is saying (of Justice Scalia) that he LOVES the Constitution, IT’S JUST THE AMENDMENTS THAT HE DOESN’T LIKE!!! Well, listen up folks, the Amendments are part of the Constitution, and we cannot GO BACK to 1787. Most of us don’t want to.

Other major blindness of the Paulies: The Constitution does not allow the president to nuke Iran. The Constitution, does NOT allow the Federal Government to do most of the things that it has done under the Dick Bush executive power trip, and the overwhelmingly Repuglican Congress of the past 12 or so years. Nearly ALL of the actions by this government over the past 7 years, are NOT allowed by the Constitution. We know that.

It is also a lie to claim that each and every single candidate other than Kucinich or Paul, is calling for the nuking of Iran. Stop lying.

Barack Obama knows what the Constitution says, and what it means. He’s an attorney, and has been a professor of law. Ron Paul is physician, (obstetrics/gynecology) who clearly advocates the ignoring of the Constitution, (Roe v Wade) in his rabid anti-abortion stance, where he would choose to speak for all US women, regardless of what is contained in the constitution.

The Constitution provides very clear language/instruction for impeachment. Dennis Kucinich has FINALLY brought that action to the floor, (after being consistently shot down by an overwhelming number of repugs) and guess what? RON PAUL voted to table it. IE, Ron Paul doesn’t want this impeachment any more than any of the repugs do.
Why is that? Why won’t he stand up for the Constitution? Why is he unwilling to remove the very same evildoers that have been burning our constitution for the past 7 years?

Why does he believe that the ecosystem is a ‘conspiracy’, if not because he’s another crazy radical whacko bent on dismantling the system instead of working within the rule of law to repair it?

Ron Paul is as much of a nutcase as George Bush. And, just as deceitful in his rhetoric.

Report this

By RMSS, December 2, 2007 at 4:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Do not buy ANYTHING that is advertised on the treasonous CNN. SHOP INDIE TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY.

WE LOVE YOU DR. PAUL!!!!

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, December 2, 2007 at 4:03 pm Link to this comment

I have to echo Greatheart in being amazed how others call Ron Paul “crazy” or a “buffoon” for taking stands like standing by the actual words of the Constitution, and refraining from nuking countries that pose no threat to us (Iran).

Amazingly, few people call the “Mainstream” candidates “crazy” or characterize them as “buffoons” when they DO call for nuking Iran and clearly have no idea what the Constitution actually says!

Ron Paul is, intellectually, so far ahead of all other candidates—Democrat or Republican—that people automatically consider him “crazy” or “buffoonish.”

Gandhi quote of the day:

“First, they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then, you win.”

Wouldn’t it be grand if Ron Paul actually won?

Report this

By Bob, December 2, 2007 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For those that are talking about Net Neutrality, be sure to tack ‘regulation’ at the end of it.  There is a massive difference between the philosophy of net neutrality, and regulation enacted to, on the surface anyway, ‘enforce’ it.

Report this

By Doug, December 2, 2007 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

BOYCOTT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA and their advertisers. Give the power back to the people!

Report this

By ElkoJohn, December 2, 2007 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul & Dennis Kucinich speak truth about their ideas, philosophy and positions on the issues. I like Ron Paul’s Foreign Policies & DK’s Domestic Policies. I don’t want to dismantle the gov. just yet (aka RP), but should our corrupt gov. continue being run by the big-money oligarchy & their neo-cons, then all defenders of the Constitution must unite to dismantle the Feds, then big-money doesn’t have an empire to control.

Report this

By James Babb, December 2, 2007 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Boycott CNN advertisers. It’s the only thing they understand.

Report this

By David Stanley, December 2, 2007 at 11:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is only natural for those that work in the educational system to feel threatened by Dr Paul’s anecdote for what ails us
the fact of the matter is that they are down right afraid of him
Afraid enough to vote for the other wackos like Guliani the cross dressing candidate in drag who wants to start an arms race with Russia and China and borrow the money to do it
or even a democrat who other than Kucinich are all slush funded bimbos who want to bamboozle America into the poor house I can tell you there will be slim pickens when Bush is done
alot of Woman are   bent on voting for a woman Hilary who can’t manage her husband let alone America
the way I see it this race is between kucinich and Paul
who should team up and flush the rest down the sewers where they belong

On the other hand America isn’t fit to have founding father material lead them into the 21st century
they don’t merit this good a leadership
simply put America will be conned again by e machines and in the end corrupt judges will award the election to hillary and obama they will endeavor to rape America untill Americans go mad
those that still back Bush you know the people that don’t know when they are getting rear ended and bend down for another dose will cheer for the Jewliani and bozo Mccain to win and start ww3 or another arms race while the people in America get poorer and the middle class slips into third world status

Report this

By Greatheart, December 2, 2007 at 10:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I find it amazing that people are saying that Ron Paul has crazy ideas.  He is only saying the Federal Government has to abide by the constitution.  If the people want the Federal Government to do things that by law it should not be involved in then pass an amendment. Why is that position the crazy position? Otherwise why do we have a constitution at all.  Why not let Bush or Clinton be President for life?  If we allow this to go on when will it end? If the people won’t pass an amendment to the constitution for whatever they may want then so be it. If the people want national education pass an amendment. If the people want to allow the president to start a war without going to congress pass an amendment ...and so on. Why are we so willing to throw away everything that was fought for to start this great country?  If a Hitler were to come to power who and what would stop him from doing whatever he wanted if we think the constitution is just a piece of paper?

Report this

By Johnny, December 2, 2007 at 8:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

WOW. I thought this article was about the bias interaction of CNN..well, were they biased or not?....no matter how much you try to twist the facts the overall answer is a resounding YES…If a candidate that has that much support in this country is getting so little air time…something is wrong…be it democrat or republican…so the big question is WHY?...Just because so many are unhappy about his stance on issues, does this mean he should be marginalized…Well, of course not…any thinking person can understand the term of “Free Democracy”...Is it free when we have the media giving favorable attention to candidates that obviously flip flop on every issue but none to a man who has ALWAYS voted very conservatively…You may like Dr. Paul, you may not…but please a little respect to those who deserve it…and Dr. Paul deserves it!!!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 2, 2007 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

#117478 by cyrena

Cyrena, I’ve rarely seen you resort to name calling. Calling others Paulie groupies isn’t exactly respectful of others opinions.  You a Bama groupie? 

Ron Paul best represents my beliefs’ as the republican candidate.  Now I’m ready to hear from the best contender of the democratic party, let the debates begin. 

Dr. Paul does have issues that I do not agree with, however, I believe a democratic congress can take care of any extreme changes he would be making.  His most important offering as president would be to dismantle, clean up and remove U.S. bases worldwide,  many will be superfund sites.  He will also be able to mend relations as he is a much more humble person than Bush. 

I doubt he would be in office more than 1 term, this is why a Paul/Kucinich ticket would be in the national interest.

BTW, no incumbents.  I will vote out Steny Hoyer first chance.  Time to get rid of the house and senate lifers who continue to appease Israel.

Report this

By arden, December 2, 2007 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

cyrena writes: “The Federal Government does NOT ‘design’ curriculum.”  “the Department of Education, has . . . provided a soundly based curriculum for the things that our citizens need to know”


The Ministry of Education doesn’t design curriculum, but it provides what “citizens need”? 

The Dumbing Down of America didn’t begin with this administration and it is designed.


cyrena writes: “[Ron Paul] IS!!! [wacky, odd]”

Individual Liberty, personal responsibility, opposition to war and torture seem like wacky concepts to many products of government schools.

Report this

By cyrena, December 2, 2007 at 4:37 am Link to this comment

I’m noticing in all of the Paulies here, that the arguments are only valid in respect to the destruction that has occurred in the past decade, to the scope of our republic. For instance.

•  The best answer is to get the Federal government out of designing curriculum.

The Federal Government does NOT ‘design’ curriculum. Incredibly stupid programs like the “No Child Left Behind” have clearly been unsuccessful and damaging, but that isn’t what we’ve always been about, nor has the Dept of Education operated in this manner, prior to the destruction of Dick Bush and the neocons.

Rather, the Federal Government, via the Department of Education, has (before the destruction team) provided a soundly based curriculum for the things that our citizens need to know, in order to CONTRIBUTE to the well being of the entire nation. Besides that, they’ve provided for lower interest educational loans, so that people can afford to provide an education for their family members, in this increasingly privatized structure.

•  Let me ask progressives, what if evangelicals get control of our educational system in Washington and force your children to learn things you object to?  Then ask the conservatives, what if progressives gain control of education and force your children to learn things you object to?  Either situation is objectionable in my opinion.

See what I mean? This is more BS. How much can an evangelical or a progressive mess up a non-ideological curriculum in science and/or technology? Do evangelicals come up with a different result when adding 2+2 than progressives do? Does the law of gravity change, dependant upon who’s running the Department of Education? How about other physics and mathematical concepts? Give me a flippin’ break!! Do you want the kid in the grocery store to know how to make change or not?

And who is FORCING anybody to learn anything anyway, besides the evangelicals, who want to ignore science, and teach creationism in public schools, instead of in Sunday school? We could solve that minor problem by just returning to the separation of Church and State, and recognizing the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Learn creationism at Sunday school, and real science at public school. We’ll ALL pay for the public schools.

•  Forcing values on people is not a business our government should be in be it by the Dept of Education or by the barrel of a gun overseas.

Like I said, this was never the mission of the Dept of Education. (to force values on anybody) We just like to teach folks the things like reading, writing, arithmetic, and those are pretty standard ‘values’. And before The Coup, and the Neoconned/Evangelical takeover, this was pretty much what we did. (at least in progressive States). Now I realize that one can attend 12 years of public education in a school in Texas, and not learn anything more than 12 years of Texas history. But hey…we’ve leaned not to count on them for any major contributions to the overall intellectual capacity of our populace.

•  It disturbs me that art programs, music programs, and even physical education programs are being cut in order to spend more time teaching kids, not how to think critically, but to memorize information for standardized federal testing tied to federal funding.

I’m with you on this one Nonmascaro, though I’m not real sure how the art/music/phys ed teaches anyone any CRITICAL THINKING.  Still I do think these are important for well rounded citizens. But, here again, your hyperbole is a result of historical amnesia, because there was a perfectly good system in place, long before the thugs in DC decided to create these programs for standardized testing. No doubt, they do not accomplish the critical thinking either. Still, we don’t need to recreate the wheel.

•  Like so many other issues, home schooling is brought up with the objective of making Ron Paul sound wacky or odd.

Well, he IS!!!

Report this

By cuda, December 2, 2007 at 3:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrina what you are saying is if you are the type of conservative that we use to have in the republican party and not the kind we have today (neo-con) you are not a true conservative but a radical.This make no sense.Its like saying if you are a old style Christian you are a satanist today by todays christian standards.
I don’t have a problem with the Radical thing since to be a true patriotic American seems to be a Radical idea lately.

Ron Paul the only choice for a free sovereign America.

Report this

By cyrena, December 2, 2007 at 3:34 am Link to this comment

#117296 by BadMan

•  If you vote democrat or republican, what is systematically, intrinsically wrong with this country will continue

BadMan, for the sake of argument, can I just refresh my understanding here. Is Ron Paul NOT running on the REPUBLICAN TICKET? I mean, looking at this statement, you’re telling us all that Ron Paul is an ALTERNATIVE to a democrat or republican candidate. Did he change parties since yesterday, and I’m just not aware of it?

#117308 by thomas billis
•  I can only say if you claim to be a conservative and you are not supporting Ron Paul you are a conservative in name only.

Thomas Billis,

I would have to quibble with you on this, though I admit that it may only be academic. Still, I feel like I have to keep repeating this, if only because the propaganda from Ron Paul (and the Paulie Groupies that spread it) has everybody confused, because we’re using standard and established terms like conservative/liberal, and democrat/republican. Now, I am NOT a ‘conservative’ in the old meaning of the word. I would be considered more liberal, but generally close to the center of things. Still, I KNOW what the traditional conservative/republican has generally stood for in the political history of this nation. And, Ron Paul is NOT a conservative in the old meaning that most of us have understood.

No, Ron Paul is a RADICAL. He does not fit in any ‘true’ conservative ideology, because conservatives (at least until the past decade or so) have not been REACTIONARY. That is what Ron Paul is. So, he is a RADICAL. That’s why the above comment from BadMan is so confusing. He’s basically admitting that Ron Paul is neither Democrat or Republican, (though he’s clearly leaned toward the radical side of the republican’s brand of conservatism) because he is the opposite of progressive. The total opposite. Ron Paul would like to take us back at least 100 years, if not more.

So, the old understandings that we have of conservative and liberal don’t apply. Radical is what Ron Paul is. Period.

BadMad, you asked for alternatives. There are only a few. Dennis Kucinich is an alternative. (and not a radical reactionary). Barack Obama is an alternative. (though admittedly he is a progressive…about moving us forward, and maybe, if it’s not too late, halting this rapid decline). Mike Gravel is also an alternative.

There is NO person currently running on the Republican ticket, that can help save this nation. It’s really that simple.

Meantime, I’m still curious as to what Ron Paul is calling himself these days, if not a republican, since you’re apparently pushing real hard for him, and telling the rest of us that he is an alternative to republican or democrat.

So, if he’s not a radical reactionary, what is he?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 2, 2007 at 1:17 am Link to this comment

Re: #117299 by BadMan on 12/01
  #117296 by BadMan on 12/01

Let me refer you to my orginal post. I noticed you were either unable to… or didn’t… refute any of it,  you talk smack.  PROVE your rhetoric.

Original post: #117182 by Outraged on 11/30

An added note from the “Save the Internet site:

“What’s at stake if we lose Net Neutrality?

The consequences of a world without Net Neutrality would be devastating. Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives.

On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control — deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There’s no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu.”

The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression.

The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us.”

http://savetheinternet.com/=faq

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 1, 2007 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment

Frank I hear your point and I’m certainly not arguing that education isn’t critical, as you say it is, although I do think it is a bit of a stretch to tie it directly to national security and thus the responsibility of the federal government. That is just my opinion but I hear where you are coming from. 

I guess I would rather look at the job the Dept of Ed has done in the past and judge it on it’s merits and then speculate what the NCLB mandate is likely to achieve.  Our performance globally speaking has not been impressive and as I am sure you are aware we continue to slip in things like math and science.  That is just the record of the Dept. of Ed and it is difficult to look at it as a success.  The latest attempts to halt the slide and improve the system, I suspect, will have about as much success as the programs have had in the past… Very little.  In fact, I think that the mandates of the current program will make things worse.  Kids who are no longer exercising (phys ed is often cut) in order to memorize for standardized testing are not going to contribute to our national security.  They will instead be very expensive patients in our socialized healthcare system as the pharmaceutical industry charges the government the maximum for the latest diabetes treatment, an anti-depressant due to the nationwide mandatory mental health screening that has diagnosed the kid with mild depression plus ritalin for the ADHD which I am sure isn’t being helped by no longer having a physical education class.  Drugged up veals do not provide for the national defense!

My hyperbole aside I don’t think the above scenario is going to be that far from reality if we continue down this path.  Furthermore, the whole idea of centralized control gives us no room for error.  What if we figure out 10 years from now that the Dept of Ed mandates made things worse and not better?  Then we have to make another ‘all-in’ bet on another program.  Meanwhile, we have the perfect system of 50 incubators to try and help us find the best way to educate.  In the information age, best practices should be easy to discuss and share without centralized control.  Transparency and openness and state standards are literally all we need.  Leave the educating to the educators, not the bureaucrats in DC.

Regarding Net Neutrality, this is another case where on the surface it seems that Ron Paul is anti something we all hold near and dear, the internet.  He voted against net neutrality because he doesn’t want to regulate or tax the internet AT ALL.  He considers it to be pandora’s box, once you begin, the regulations are never self-limiting and they ultimately end up favoring groups or corporations over another.  Just look at the history of telecom regulations which demonstrate how powerful lobbies can win government enforced monopolies.  History of regulation in this country is the proof in the pudding.  So I agree with his position that even though Net Neutrality is well intentioned, it will ultimately do harm.

Report this

By bryanD, December 1, 2007 at 10:09 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mudwollow said: “How can anyone ignore this wonderful news coming out of Iraq?”

As political markers and domestic elections draw near, the administration and the troops have adopted parallel casualty conservation methods, each to their own purpose.

For the troops, with elections and possible policy change (and home) ahead, there is being adopted a thing called “search and avoid” (google).

Happily Bush is more than happy to abide this as it keeps the casualty rate (and his Iraq policy in a better light). The perception game.

It was done in Vietnam too, when the charade of “victory” became evident.

Report this

By thomas billis, December 1, 2007 at 5:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul’s biggest plus is that he is always standing on a stage with morons and he has a brain so he really stands out.As commenters have noted before me Ron Paul’s stance on whole host of issues would make it impossible for a liberal to support Ron Paul.I can only say if you claim to be a conservative and you are not supporting Ron Paul you are a conservative in name only.

Report this

By BadMan, December 1, 2007 at 5:00 am Link to this comment

Last thing. You have stated all the things you think Ron Paul is for and against. Now tell me what the other candidates are for or against ?? Chances are your answers will be vague are best. They don’t stand for anything, they aren’t for or against anything. They are only for whatever will give them votes. And once in office, they will do what every their biggest corporate donors want. Nuff said.. End of story.

Report this

By BadMan, December 1, 2007 at 4:52 am Link to this comment

LOL, The same old crap. Not one person compared him to something better, so if it’s NOT Ron Paul, then who is it ???

I know, lets talk smack about everyone and not vote for anyone, sounds smart to anyone here ???

Can someone who isn’t s democrat or republican shill ( i.e, posting a prepared spreadsheet about ron paul, including links , lol, give me a break )

So who’s the alternative ?? Let’s hear it.

*crickets*

Ok, so on a serious note. Randy, I think Kucinich is great. I voted for him in the past. I am not an ass kissing democrat or war mongering republican. So I am unbiased towards all candidates.

I think Kucinich and Paul are the best chances the USA has to actually be a normal country. I have said it before and I will say it again, Ron Paul is honest, it comes out in everything he says, he isn’t merely talking about Iraq, he is talking about US imperialism, wasteful spending, investing in infrastructure, and if the republicans AND the democrats are so afraid of him that they have to continuously try to smear the man while offering NO alternative, I am all ears.

If you vote democrat or republican, what is systematically, intrinsically wrong with this country will continue. Our foreign policy will continue to be ( in part ) controlled by the Israeli lobby, we could very well invade Iran. Our civil liberties will continue to be eroded, we will continue to torture people. The list is too long.

I prefer to vote for someone who can change the now and try to reason and negociate about the future, than vote for someone who will continue to destroy our now while we are stuck hoping they dont mess up our future. Pretty simple logic, and no prepared links smearing hilary, Barak, Rudy, Mike, et al.

As I said, I voted for Kucinich in the past, but the dems AND republicans have marginalized him to the point where he cannot win. How can he win when neither party supports him ??? He also has very little money. Ron Paul ACTUALLY has a chance of winning.

So please save all the smear tactics, and if you can’t give an alternative, all you are is being negative and malicious.


FOR ME, RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT. IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE. AND HE IS THE PERSON WHO CAN DO IT. Kucinish is great, but his chances are too slim. Another horrible president could very easily DETROY the country, and when we are in WWIII, we can discuss net neutrality.

LOL, oh man

Report this

By Frank, November 30, 2007 at 8:47 pm Link to this comment

If Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality, that is one more mark against him in my book. I don’t think I need to explain the importance of that to most who frequents this site.

Nomascerdo, I personally view the quality of public education to be a matter of US national security, particularly with respect to math, science and technology education.  Protecting national security interests is most definitely the business of the federal government.  Federal education standards need to be stricter, broader, and more smartly enforced unless we want the US to be left behind economically, militarily, technologically. The future of US sovereignty itself is heavily dependent on maintaining national strength in all these areas. We should not abandon federal education standards because of the failures of the current ‘No Child Left Behind’ act.  The general concept is sound and critically important, but the current implementation is flawed and the current standards are neither strong enough nor broad enough. We must work to improve both teacher qualifications and student achievement in the academic areas that are critical to preserving America’s technological and economic strength. If we do not, we will completely screwed as a nation in the long run.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, November 30, 2007 at 6:59 pm Link to this comment

Many on this post have said they oppose Ron Paul because he’s against their particular federal agency: EPA, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, etc.

The federal government, Ron Paul points out correctly, is not empowered by the Constitution to do anything in these areas. The federal government, according to Constitution, is limited in scope to those few and narrowly defined areas enumerated mostly in Article 1, Section 8. Any federal actions beyond the scope of these specifically enumerated powers is unconstitutional.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 30, 2007 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

I don’t understand how people are connecting public education with Ron Paul??  The Federal government has little to do with providing public education in this country.  Counties, cities, and towns provide public education in their communities which are by and large funded by property taxes in those communities. 

Claiming that since Ron Paul opposes the Dept of Education and therefore is against public education is a false argument.  Ron Paul opposes the Dept of Ed because it mandates curriculum and, by many accounts, a ridiculous testing regime on what should be independent communities on how they educate their children.  People need to understand the immense amount of power that centralized educational policy tied to federal funding wields over how and what our children learn.  History only tells the side of the story as told by the victorious.  Let me ask progressives, what if evangelicals get control of our educational system in Washington and force your children to learn things you object to?  Then ask the conservatives, what if progressives gain control of education and force your children to learn things you object to?  Either situation is objectionable in my opinion. 

The best answer is to get the Federal government out of designing curriculum.  That must be left up to communities with shared values who are paying for the education of their children to begin with.  Forcing values on people is not a business our government should be in be it by the Dept of Education or by the barrel of a gun overseas.  That is authoritarian and ignores the immensely diverse value systems that we have in this country and elsewhere.

It disturbs me that art programs, music programs, and even physical education programs are being cut in order to spend more time teaching kids, not how to think critically, but to memorize information for standardized federal testing tied to federal funding.

Ron Paul’s defense of home schooling simply suggests that he thinks parents should benefit from tax breaks if they commit to and invest in educating their children from home.  There is nothing fundamentally wrong with this principle particularly if a parent thinks that the public education available is inadequate or harmful.  The reality that a minute amount of parents would feel capable of doing so makes this even less of an issue in real terms.  Like so many other issues, home schooling is brought up with the objective of making Ron Paul sound wacky or odd.  That is a disservice to us all.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.