Thank you to Nomascerdo for publishing the full Ron Paul explanation. I was going to do it myself, but Nomascerdo beat me to it.

Paul’s response boils down to: I don’t think it’s the government’s business taking a stand on scientific issues. I think evolution makes for an interesting discussion, but it’s not an area the government needs to get involved with.

That’s it, folks.

Personally, even though I have no formal religious beliefs, I have problems with evolution as it is commonly understood. Clearly, species change form over time, but the classic, school-book explanation of chance mutation leading to wholesale change in physical form is highly dubious, on several grounds.

First, any chance, random mutation has the tendency of being bred out of existence, by the fact that this single mutation has to stand up to the collective force of the entire gene-pool. Second, any profound mutations are much more likely to be harmful than beneficial. Third, interim forms in cases of profound change would tend to have NEGATIVE survival value (for example, the half-way limb form between a lumbering, hippo-like creature—Uintatherium—and modern whales with fins, would be doomed to failure).

This is just the start of the list. Does this mean I accept “Creationism” or “Intelligent Design?” Absolutely not—but I do think there are scientific issues with evolution that we don’t have satisfactory answers to, at this point in time. In that sense, you could say that I, too, “don’t accept the theory of evolution.” This hardly makes me a wild-eyed religious fanatic, however.

Getting back to Ron Paul—his answer is exactly correct. Politicians have no business issuing edicts on scientific matters. Actually, most politicians are so scientifically ignorant that a discussion of evolution among them would probably be highly entertaining.

Here is the full transcript of Congressman Paul’s remarks, the deleted sections in the edited video posted here by Truthdig, courtesy of The Largest Minority, are shown in [brackets].

  “Well, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter, and I think it’s a theory, a theory of evolution, and I don’t accept it, you know, as a theory, but I think [ it probably doesn’t bother me.  It’s not the most important issue for me to make the difference in my life to understand the exact origin.  I think ] the creator that I know created us, everyone of us, and created the universe, and the precise time and manner, I just don’t think we’re at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side.  [So I just don’t . . . if that were the only issue, quite frankly, I would think it’s an interesting discussion, I think it’s a theological discussion, and I think it’s fine, and we can have our . . . if that were the issue of the day, I wouldn’t be running for public office.”]

Transcript courtesy of Joe Schembrie…  Read Joe’s VERY interesting article on this issue here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/schembrie4.html

Looks like we have to do some ‘digging beneath the headlines’ ourselves here at Truthdig!

“This time around, though, we might have to settle for clarity of purpose.” 

**And what might that be….?

BTW Joe, are you the same unregistered lewd commenter from the other thread?

Worth a read:

http://www.counterpunch.org/taylor01022008.html

Jeff Taylor is a political scientist. His book Where Did the Party Go?: William Jennings Bryan, Hubert Humphrey, and the Jeffersonian Legacy was published last year by University of Missouri Press. He contributed a chapter to the book A Dime’s Worth of Difference (Cockburn and St. Clair, eds.).

If you listen to his whole, UNEDITED response, he doesn’t sound like Huckabee:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y

The video posted above by Truthdig cuts out the middle of his reply and lops off the end.

Dirty rotten SOBs..

There you have it. Jonathan Taylor’s company, which he founded, was taken over by Elron Electronic Industries, the Israeli defense high tech company:

In its early days, Elron focused on defense, particularly electronics and avionics, as well as the emerging medical and technology sectors. In 1966, Elron founded Elbit, which combined the expertise of the Ministry of Defense-Research Institute in special computer design with Elron’s experience in electronic product design, manufacture and management.

Source: http://www.elron.net/default.asp?Pa...

And focused on electronics and AVIONICS…

Robert…just got the very latest from Ray Griffin…

Debunking the 9/11 Debunkers…

It’s all there. I’ll let you know when I’m done.

Thanks for this piece. I wonder if anybody cares that the IDF is counting our Iowa votes?

I wonder if anybody cares that Osama bin Laden is dead? Confirmed by Benazir Bhutto before she was killed herself. On video, with David Frost.

http://www.downingstreet.org

Not going to pretend to be an expert on Paul, but this flub, though clearly taken out of context, gives one pause. In the rabid fervor to find a candidate that might generate a grass-roots antiwar GOP option, we should pay attention to such lapses. Paul in my opinion errs by both dismissing evolution as a theory and equating belief in it as disbelief in his ‘God’. Evolution and the process of natural selection have been scientifically demonstrated, but do not in my view exclude an originator. In fact, the discovery of the complexity of DNA and the recency of its existence on this planet after its’ cooling from a mass of liquid magma beg for an origin that may involve arrival by comet, meteor, or other ‘extraordinary’ means. Paul should forget the GOP churchgoers he is beholden to and admit that the evidence that current life evolved from earlier forms and that this isn’t inconsistent with belief in some sort of ‘God’ that may just be the spark that set evolution in motion. Instead, he sounds like Mike Huckabee.

Israeli defense firm that tallies the Iowa caucus

Posted January 1st, 2008 by Give Me Freedom

“ELRON - VOXEO: The Israeli Defense Firm That Tallies the Iowa Caucus

Date: Monday, 31 December 2007, 8:10 a.m.

ELRON ELECTRONICS:
The Israeli Defense Company
That Tallies the Iowa Caucus

By Christopher Bollyn

The Iowa caucus is only a few days away and the nation’s attention will be directed to the results, which signify the beginning of the U.S. presidential race. But does anyone watch who tallies the results of the Iowa caucus?

The Iowa caucus results were tallied in 2004 by a company that is headed by a man whose company was bought by Elron Electronics, the Israeli defense firm. I suspect that it will be the same this year. Don’t expect to see any grassroots political activists doing the tally in Iowa. The Israeli defense establishment takes care of that part of the American “democratic” election process.

VOXEO

In the summer of 2004, I first learned that a foreign and out-of-state company using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology tallied the Iowa caucus results.

The system used to tally the 2004 Iowa caucus results was provided by a company called Voxeo, which was apparently based in Orlando, Florida. (Yellow flag goes up in the mind of those familiar with Orlando and electronic vote fraud history. See Bollyn article on Wang below.)

The calls from the nearly 2,000 caucus centers in Iowa went to a Voxeo call center in Atlanta, Georgia.

On January 31, 2005, I wrote to Michelle Bauer, Iowa’s Secretary of State with some questions about the use of Voxeo, a foreign company located in Florida, to tally the results of the Iowa caucus:

Subject: How was the Iowa Caucus Tallied?

Dear Sirs,

When I visited the headquarters of the Democratic Party in Des Moines last summer, I learned that the tally of the Iowa caucus had been “out-sourced” to a company in Atlanta, Georgia.

What this means is that the tallying of the Iowa caucus results was done over the telephone, using the touch-tone buttons, to enter the results from each caucus location.

I am interested in how this was done, and why. Why did the Democratic Party allow the crucial tally of the caucus results to be done by a company in Atlanta? Don’t they trust their own math skills?

Can any of you provide any information about this matter?

Kind regards,

Christopher Bollyn

A person named Mike Milligan wrote back on behalf of Secretary of State Bauer:

Mike Milligan wrote:”

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/19098

Reply Joe, 123287
•  Your claim that Ron Paul insists on “.. transfer of all political power to the states,” is not only inaccurate, it is preposterous. Paul never suggested this. He does insist that the Fed limit itself to those powers we, through our Constitution, are allowing it to exercise.

Joe, your 10th amendment argument is lame. I won’t bother to argue it.

HOWEVER, you’re right on this. I have never personally read or heard Ron Paul say that he wanted to transfer ALL political power to the states. So on that, I will stand corrected.
However, it is my own understanding of the Constitution, (and please correct me if you have another interpretation) that there are in fact 3 branches of government dictated by that document, for the purposes of maintaining a system or checks and balances on each other. (seems like a pretty clever system to me). Now, if we have a group or an individual in ONE branch, who is attempting to bypass one or more of the other branches, do you have a problem with that? Do you see that as a breakdown in the basic structure of the Constitution? To be more specific, do you believe that we should eliminate the Supreme Court, and leave all matters of decisions on US Constitutional Law, in the hands of the individual state Supreme Courts.

For the purposes of this conversation, do you believe that it is acceptable (on the part of Ron Paul) to introduce or call for legislation that would remove the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority on things such as prayer in schools? In other words, should THAT, (like abortion and contraception) be decided on a state by state basis? How about access to public education? Should that too be determined on a state-by-state basis?

And, if that’s OK, should we just eventually move EVERYTHING over to the individual State Courts? (that part is so far hypothetical – the issues on abortion/separation of Church and State/education are NOT hypothetical, since he’s already DONE that - or at least attempted to).

So, can you think of anything at all, that should be left in the hands of a FEDERAL authority when it comes to determining the Constitutionality of anything at all?

Again, I’m referring to the United States Constitution, and NOT the Constitution of California, or the Constitution of Texas, or Florida, or Rhode Island. I’m talking about the US Constitution. Let me know on that.

It was addressed to Tom?

By Tom, December 31 at 3:16 pm

I haven’t a clue to what he was on about.

Patrick Henry,

WHO has you confused? I can’t figure out what this is a response to. What’s a DARPA bomber?

If you saw that movie you owe it to yourself (and the rest of us) to watch this one too.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6772058898 203776825&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle&total= 121&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&pli ndex=1

I wouldn’t say that an essay on About.com represents “serious concerns” about Ron Paul but hey, we all have our opinions.

Here is a website that tell another side of the story:

http://thereconstitutionrevolution.blogspot.com/200 7/07/defense-of-ron-pauls-voting-record-in.html

I mean read this line from the article and think about what it means and think about the fact that this is what Time chose to publish:

“When told about the dispute, a top strategist for a rival GOP campaign said of the scruffy Paul forces: “They probably bathe in there.”

A) When “TOLD” about the dispute - so now this is at least a second hand, but most likely a fourth or fifth hand account of this “dispute”.

B) They asked a ‘top strategist for a RIVAL GOP campaign’ - Nice unbiased source Time.  What do we think this person would say?  “Paul supporters are nice and clean shaven. If I wasn’t working for Mitt Romney I would go bowling with them on Friday nights.”

C) “...said of the SCRUFFY Paul FORCES” Ahh just more of the same.

Anyone that read this magazine and actually lets it influence the way that they think and look at the world, besides recognizing it for the packaged agenda that it is should step away from the voting booth.

Ahh yes, Time magazine who for Person of the Year has had such wonderful human beings such as Hitler, Stalin (twice), and this year chose Vladimir Putin.

This article is a joke and the hypocrisy is insane. Hasn’t the “establishment” said the same petty and highly subjective things about ALL protest groups over history (anti-war, civil rights, etc)?

The transparent attempt is to make folks who agree with his positions second guess because they don’t want to be “associated” with “those types of people”.  It is a tactic cleverly employed by the media to keep those too lazy or unable to find out for themselves (most of us) from taking the next step.  It is a fear tactic, without a doubt.

Ask yourself why doesn’t Time supply some photographs of these ‘dirty Ron Paul’ supporters (who are all volunteers and probably have nothing to do with the official campaign).  If there are so many of them and they are so repugnant it should be easy to document them no?

All of the pictures I have seen of Paul supporters online show regular looking folks to me, of all colors, shapes and sizes, styles of dress, etc.

This from Time Mag. Had to leave out a few passages to stay within the 4000 word limit. The link is included though.

Sponsored by the Religious Pages section.

•  The corner of Sixth and Locust is probably the tensest spot in downtown Des Moines. And the frostiness has little to do with the subfreezing Midwestern winter and everything to do with presidential politics. For housed alongside each other on the bottom floor of a 73-year-old office building at 405 Sixth Avenue-and sharing the bathrooms in the basement— are the Iowa headquarters of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Both Republican candidates — one the most socially conservative in the race; the other, a Libertarian — moved in around the same time last summer.

“…I could sense the different metabolisms of the two operations. The Huckabee headquarters,.. is populated mostly by polite young women with southern accents who rushed to greet me at the door and addressed me as “ma’am.” The Paul office is an edgier place, an all-male operation by appearances, and much bigger. Indeed, thanks to the millions that have poured in over the internet, it has expanded to quadruple its original size, practically swallowing Huckabee’s headquarters —“We’ve got them surrounded,” says Paul’s Iowa communications director, John Zambenini.

The two insurgent operations generally try to have as little to do with each other as possible. Paul’s people go in and out on Sixth; Huckabee’s, on Locust. “I don’t think we’ve exchanged many words at all,” says Huckabee’s Iowa campaign manager Eric Woolson. You might have thought the holidays would have brought some occasion for communal cheer, or at least an exchange of cookies. “You’re looking for the Silent Night 1914 story, with the Germans and the British playing soccer?” Zambenini told me when I suggested as much. “Nope.”

That much was clear on New Year’s Eve. After Huckabee was forced to abruptly end his press conference at which he announced that he would not air a negative ad attacking Mitt Romney but showed it to the assembled media, he left the room in the Des Moines Marriott to do a drop-by visit of his campaign headquarters across the street. He was met there by a gaggle of Paul supporters and peace protesters who surrounded the office and heckled the candidate for his support for the war in Iraq. MSNBC reported that three were arrested.

It hasn’t helped matters that earlier this month the Paul campaign paid for two former Republican legislators from Huckabee’s home state of Arkansas to come to Iowa and give radio interviews attacking his record on such issues as taxes and immigration…
Then again, there are times when they can’t help but run into each other. Just about everyone from both offices eats lunch at Coney Island, a second-floor diner known for its pork loin. And there’s the men’s room, of course. A Paul volunteer recently ran into Huckabee himself there, and found him to be cordial. But there is some quiet grumbling from Huckabee’s team about Paul’s people using up all the paper towels. When told about the dispute, a top strategist for a rival GOP campaign said of the scruffy Paul forces: “They probably bathe in there.”

And there was one other violation of the generally accepted protocol of peaceful if uneasy coexistence — possibly as a consequence of the recent influx of 266 student volunteers for Paul from 39 states, in what the campaign calls “Ron Paul’s Christmas Vacation.” As can happen with students on break, they sometimes go overboard in their exuberance. One of them came into the Huckabee offices the other day and started haranguing a worker there about Huckabee’s support for a national sales tax. He was asked to leave.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,16 99147,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

There are serious concerns regarding Ron Paul, an article at “atheism.about.com” brings many of them to light.  To accuse someone who doesn’t endorse RP’s extremist philosophies as a zealot is indeed comical.  An excerpt:

Paul’s words: “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few.”

Article:  “It should be noted right at the beginning that Ron Paul consistently decries “secularism” and “secularists,” though he more often uses the label “secular Left.” This, perhaps more than many of his arguments, makes it clear where stands: squarely and unambiguously against a secular government, secular laws, and a secular America. This helps put him in the same camp as the extremist Christian Right.

The second thing to note is that there isn’t a single word in the above that’s true. Ron Paul is employing a falsehood which has been very popular with theocrats of the Christian Right who seek to deceive voters about what secularism is and what the separation of church & state is all about. Ron Paul has either been duped by those deceivers, or he knows better yet is actively participating in the deception.”

The article in its entirety:  http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or -libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism. htm

**Also the laisse-faire capitalism endorsed by RP does have its victims.  Since all of us are too young to remember the realities of the HEIGHT of laisse-faire capitalism, the best place to find it would be in words from the past.  From “The Autobiography of Mother Jones”:

“In 1867, a fever epidemic swept Memphis. Its victims were mainly among the poor and the workers. The rich and the well-to-do fled the city. Schools and churches were closed. People were not permitted to enter the house of a yellow fever victim without permits. The poor could not afford nurses. Across the street from me, ten persons lay dead from the plague. The dead surrounded us. They were buried at night quickly and without ceremony. All about my house I could hear weeping and the cries of delirium. One by one, my four little children sickened and died. I washed their little bodies and got them ready for burial. My husband caught the fever and died. I sat alone through nights of grief. No one came to me. No one could. Other homes were as stricken as was mine. All day long, all night long, I heard the grating of the wheels of the death cart.”

http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/RonMBaseman/mojones1.htm

Great read.

You obviously have me confused with some other cassiopaean loving DARPA bomber.

Lay off the micrograms.

Jefferson is also a first name so Thomas Jefferson is another example. I am sure there are more…

I know a couple of people with the first name Reagan, I also know a couple of people with the first name Carter.  I also know someone with Kerry as his first name.

So Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter both fit that criteria and John Kerry would have too had he become Prez.

I still don’t understand why Truthdig has an EDITED video of this response…

They cut out part of his answer right in the middle and then they lop off the ending! The edit does change the context and nuance of his answer.

The UNEDITED video is here and is worth watching:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=42n42J-gB_Y

Why the manipulation TruthDig?

Great post Joe. You have laid bare yet another example of the clueless delusions promulgated here by the anti-Ron Paul zealots. Thank you.

Everyone should listen to Lefty.  Definitely a voice of reason and knowledge, for example:

#122698 by Lefty on 12/26 at 11:57 pm:

“When the hell did medicine become science? DUMBASS!”

Yes I noticed the ad for Muslim couples, safe and secure, photo gallery, chat and send messages. My stereotype of the Muslim religion must be wrong, guess they usually are.  First of all, I thought Muslim women were not supposed to talk to unmarried men or is it married men, because they can get stoned.

Now the photo Gallery must be interesting, pictures of guys and women in bee keeper suits.

Safe and secure, much safer than sitting in a car.

Now I am like Chompers, talking to myself.

Lefty Thank you for your ringing endorsement.  It is important for others to know your articulate position on such important matters.

When was the last time we had a president with two first names?

Anyone notice the advertising on TD?  I thought it was strange when they had an ad for the female impersonator, but now they have an add to find out when you are going to die.  The ads do not bother me, I just find them amusing.  Since I do not watch the Telie because you are forced to watch the ads, at least here we can ignore them for now.  Wait for the popup’s.

Lefty, I take it you do not like Ron Paul?

Support the fact, you have been will continue to always be lied to, by the self righteous in Washington.

Actually by her own posts regarding 9/11, Cyrena ascribes to several of the same theories surrounding that unfortunate event that Alex Jones states on his website.  I know I do.

As in the case with all present day quasi-journalism one must read the articles as if there is a larger motive behind their publication. 

It is always easier to attempt to discredit or smear someone or something by speculative comment than support someone or something by evidence of their merits.

Who or What do you support?

Joe, I don’t believe my posts to PH to be at all off the mark, based on prior discussions, to which you have not been privy.

I will however, acknowledge this as a correct interpretation from you:

•  I think that PH, like me, is desperate to find a way to keep our freedoms intact and our nat’l finances from spiraling downward any further. You are misunderstanding both the motives of Dr. Paul and the seriousness of his supporters.

Based on prior discussions, I do believe this to be the case. I believe that, like myself, Patrick Henry does have a legitimate and major concern for our loss of freedoms, and the downward spiral of our economic security. Would you not agree that is a concern to any person of reason and logic? Seriously?

So, we have no quarrel there. None at all. The issues are real. No one is denying that. Those are the things that we can all see as the RESULT of the horrors perpetrated by the goons who have hijacked our country.

The rest, all of the other stuff, the abortion issue, the immigration issue, the reconstruction of the national mode of governance, is where so much of it breaks down. Because, in my opinion, (and we should remember that these are opinions, and to be backed up with facts when called upon) the very ideas that ron paul puts forth, -the transfer of all political power to the states- is the ANTITHESIS of what is represented in by the Constitution. So, we run into a major conceptual problem, when supporters of RP’s ideology, want to refer to his as a Constitutionalist ideology.
In other words, it’s not his, your, or my concerns about freedoms and the economy that we are at a difference on, but rather his approach to how to fix that.

I personally, do not believe that abandoning the Constitution is the way to do that, at least in terms of rectifying the freedoms and civil liberties thing. All that need be done on THAT front, is to reverse the damage that the Thugs have done, via that very same document. Ron Paul doesn’t NEED to jack with the Constitution on abortion. Let it be. He doesn’t need to jack with a whole bunch of the stuff that these people go on and on about. If we mean what we say about ‘freedom’ and civil liberties, than we mean what we say. If the Constitution says keep the Church and State separate, then we need to keep the Church and the State separate. THAT assures personal freedoms and civil liberties.

The question of the economy is of course as equally crucial as the freedom and liberty thing. It’s part of the same. One cannot have freedom and liberty if one has no viable means of providing or obtaining the resources required. And so, we need equal access to those means, education, food, shelter, medical science, MONEY, on, and on. These are all connected issues.

Patrick Henry has a legitimate concern about our huge national debt. So do I. How does he intend to address that? Are the IRS and the national treasury implicated there? OF COURSE!! Is the IRS a problem? OF COURSE! Does Ron Paul going on and on about it help with the DEBT that we have now? NO! Is China gonna just gonna wipe the slate clean, and say, “Ah, that’s OK you guys, we know you’re having some hard times now, don’t worry. You can just pay us back whenever you get back on your feet?”  Or, “once you get that new president, you can start minting gold, and we’ll take that instead”. PLEASE!!

As for your supporters being ‘well read’, I’m sure that some of you are. (you and PH included). That ALONE however, doesn’t bake the cake. Sometimes, it can even make things worse. And as an academic, I say that with pain, but it’s a necessary acknowledgment. I must also add that some of (really MANY of) these supporters are totally psychotic. It’s that simple. But, you can probably recognize them when they insert themselves.

Meantime, I’ll address the question you brought up with other candidates shortly.

Jim C,

Yep, I’ve seen the same stuff you’re talking about, and even received something on this North American whatever thing, from a former colleague. She said she got it from her brother, who she claims is a ‘federal policeman”. (he wasn’t when I knew him, and she didn’t identify which ‘branch’, but my guess would be the TSA - like a ‘used to be’ airport screener, now designated as TSA). It’s all insane.

So yep, I believe you, which is why I’m legitimately paranoid. When insanity starts to spread this extensively, it’s enough to scare the shit out of any reasoned person.

Ga - you have to make sure that when you highlight what Ron Paul said you don’t take it out of the context right in front of your face!

The meaning of:
“The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.”

Is VERY different from:
“The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion.”

The reason?  This part of the sentence, “..done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.” Must not be ignored!  It should also be in context of how he has voted regarding amending the constitution to ban abortion federally.  HE VOTED AGAINST IT!

So re-read this part of the statement, “State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it.”  Don’t choose to ignore this!

His point is that the issue should be decided by the states, not by the courts.  Further, if we aren’t going to let the States decide, then he is saying that we should take the approach required by the Constitution and amend it to ban abortion.

This whole statement, and I DISAGREE WITH HIS POSITION, allows me to agree with his approach to this issue because all he is advocating is following the Constitution and leaving the issue to the states or going through the arduous process of Constitutional amendment.

By the way, I wish I was paid by the Paul campaign but the reverse is true. I am giving them money. As much as I can afford in fact. Not to mention the large time investment I have made to try and clarify his positions to folks because admittedly they sound shocking when you first hear them.  Having been familiar with him and reading his writing for three years now I feel almost obligated to do so because I respect him so much.

Cyrena , I know several Paul supporters , they are neither well read nor have the ability to recognize inaccurate statements . I have found however that the common thread is Alex Jones ( I’m sure you know Paul announced his candidacy on Jones program ) . One friend at work insisted on having me watch several videos he put out , they were shall we say , less than convincing . He also showed me how if you fold a twenty dollar bill correctly it shows the twin towers and some other stuff . This is all part of a world wide conspiracy you know . I’m sure you’ve heard of the highway thats being built to link Mexico , the US and Canada to make us one world wide government . Our new curency is going to be something called the amero and the world is controlled by the buildenburgers . Sound screwy ? If you think so you might want to look a bit closer at Paul with that critical thinking you spoke of . Paul believes this nonsense , if you don’t believe me just check out Newsweek from several weeks ago , its all there . Or just start googling , its not hard to find . Well read critical thinkers , hardly , more like lemmings.

Todd, (Unregistered commenter):

“Someone commented that Ron Paul believes he has the right to decide a woman can’t have an abortion, but that’s not his position.  He’s personally against abortion…

He just doesn’t believe the federal government should have the power to rule on it.”

Ah, yes and no. Or, make that, yes, but…

This is from a Ron Paul speech:

Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it.  The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403b.htm

Note the key phrases: “to overturn Roe v. Wade,” “done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion,” “alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion.”

He also says this:

Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr060403.htm

Ron Paul has many libertarian, constitutionalist stances that sound really, really good! And he was right about the Iraq war and knew of the Bush lies about it back in 2003; and he has some really good foreign policy ideas.

But, whatever your personal views of abortion are… the fact remains that many Ron Paul supporters MISREPRESENT HIS VIEWS—as Todd and others here have shown.

This must be because they only listen to his or his supporters sound-bites and do not really investigate, or they are (paid perhaps?) TROLLS deliberately spreading misinformation.

He is a Ronald Reagan, “Government is the problem” kind of guy—and you just may like that! But many of his views are regressive, not progressive. Again, you may like that! But stop mis-representing him!

My uncle was a life time member of JBS (he’s now dead or I would say “is a member”).

The society most empatically does not have members who are not your typical white male of the religious right.

Joe,
Actually, if you check, those were not my words.  I was quoting the article on the website.  If you follow the link you will find this is true.  As for going native that is just ridiculous.

re: #122995 by cyrena

Thanks for your attempt at advice but I’m not buying what your selling when you imply Ron Paul as being “damaged goods.” 

Upon further review of the JBS, I fail to find any proof of what you claim as to their being a white supremacist organization, in fact their preamble would indicate otherwise.

“We come from all walks of life. We’re Independents, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarian, Constitution Party, etc. White & blue collar, all ethnicities, colors and religions. We believe in the Golden Rule. We, like the Founding Fathers, accept the basic traditional moral laws or precepts, as the foundation upon which our republic was built. We strive to be better educators on Constitutional principles”

http://www.jbs.org/node/5

Hardly the KKK.

Although, I don’t ascribe to JBS, by going through 40 or so google references clearly shows me that no mention is made to any racial content or claims, even though your comments indicate otherwise.  Your continual accusations of Ron Paul of being racist demand proof since he is a presidential contender and since you have failed to provide any here.

I think the fellow posters here at truthdig are alot smarter than you would make them out to be and vote for the candidate over the party especially when so much is at stake in our nations future.

#122956 by PatrickHenry

Yep, I missed it PH. So, now that you’ve plugged THAT hole, (and that must have taken some serious work to get this ‘retraction’) you’ve only got a few billion more to go. Like, you might need a really gigantic eraser to ‘retract’ his long time association with the John Birch Society, and various other white supremacist organizations, not to mention that 20 year Congressional voting record, with all of the attempts to get around or otherwise undermine the federal courts. Still, you get an “A” for effort.

HOWEVER…you’re gonna wear yourself out like this. It’s like trying to plug a leaky dike, or the levees in New Orleans. So, I’m gonna give you some advice. No malice intent here, and no mockery, or any of that. This is just straight up non-ideological strategic advice. Ya gotta think like a lawyer, or Karl Rove, or any other political strategist in the cynical game that US politics is, (or even the broken legal system as it is practiced in most courtrooms these days). So, put the ideology and all of the emotion aside for a moment, and think from a ‘realist’ strategic position.

You’re trying to sell a product. Ron Paul. And, the truth of the matter is that you’re trying to sell damaged goods. But, before you go into trying to rehabilitate him for the customer, (or an already seated jury), you should first target an audience that doesn’t necessarily require that, because you waste too much energy that way, and this is only the preliminary stuff.

For instance, you spend time on a political blog where the majority of the people already KNOW that he’s damaged goods. You’re also targeting an audience that is at LEAST 50% democrat, so they aren’t gonna vote for a repug ANYWAY, no matter what you dress him up in, because they have other options, even if they don’t get their 1st choice.

So, the people to target would be staunch repugs, who don’t know that RP is damaged goods. That would be those folks who might otherwise vote for any of the others in the repug race. Folks on the edge. Maybe the Huckabee or Romney peeps. Or, even the McCains. (because that’s where the moderates are likely to be, along with all of the others that are still fooled by the terrorism thing).

And, don’t worry about cleaning up his image, at least for now. Many of these folks don’t CARE about that, and by bringing this to everyone’s attention, you make it obvious to those who MIGHT. YOUR most successful audience doesn’t read the NYT anyway and so posting retractions doesn’t do anything more than possibly bring as much attention to the people who DO read it, who possibly didn’t KNOW that he was a racist. In other words, it’s like trying to fix a mistake, and messing it up even more. Like trying to wipe a spot off of a garment, and making it 5 times bigger and more noticeable. Do you see what I mean?

So, don’t spend your energy trying to explain away all of the stuff that’s wrong with him, to those who aren’t likely to be fooled anyway. Instead, go to some of these conservative red-neck sites, and tell them how wonderful he is, and how he’s gonna take away all of their worries, by giving them back all of their tax dollars. DON’T let on that he will effectively wipe out social security, because you know how that went over when GW tried to do it. Even repug conservatives can figure that out. Besides, the dumb ones aren’t going to make the connection between no income taxes, and no social security, (at least not until it’s too late), and you smarter ones have already done the ‘privatized’ thing that GW was trying to push with the SS, so you’ll be ‘protected’. Those poor suckers who’ve been paying into it for years will just be SOL, and we know YOU don’t care about them.

Now, when you’ve done that, and you get him further along, (god forbid) THEN you can worry about cleaning up his image, and trying to blot out all of that history.

Cyrena I pointed it out because you pointed it out and have stated in the past that you think Ron Paul is out to take rights away from minorities and in particular he is going to go after minority women.  That was not on this thread but on another where you were going nuts trying to divine some hidden agenda in Ron Paul and his followers from unconnected elements and events.  Case in point, the example you just cited of Texas collecting ethnic information for Hispanics.  I have no clue why that is done and you have no clue why it is done, nor do you know where else it is done.  Instead you are projecting your personal disgust for Texas, based on your own personal experience of Texas, onto Ron Paul and his entire support base.  Have you ever read Nassim Taleb’s books, Fooled by Randomness and or The Black Swan?  Taleb speaks of the following which from my viewpoint of the wacky shit you write applies to you:

First is what he calls the Platonic fallacy, and argues that it leads to three distortions:

  1. Narrative fallacy: creating a story post-hoc so that an event will seem to have a cause.
  2. Ludic fallacy: believing that the structured randomness found in games resembles the unstructured randomness found in life. Taleb faults random walk models and other inspirations of modern probability theory for this inadequacy.
  3. Statistical regress fallacy: believing that the probability of future events is predictable by examining occurrences of past events.

Taleb also believes that people are subject to the ‘triplet of opacity’, through which history is distilled even as current events are incomprehensible. The triplet of opacity consists of

  1. an illusion of understanding of current events
  2. a retrospective distortion of historical events
  3. an overvalue of facts, combined with an overvalue of the intellectual elite

If you are honest with yourself you might find that much of this applies.

By the way, I am from mixed race heritage which includes Italian, Lithuanian, Sephardic Jewish, Jamaican, English, and Irish.  This is the first time I have mentioned it because I consider it to be completely irrelevant when it comes to the exchange of ideas.  You on the other hand have mentioned your ethnicity numerous times.  You have also trumpeted your ‘qualifications’ as an academic, a commercial pilot, and a BMW owner.

You claim that I am doing armchair psychology and maybe I am but the fact that your views on everything are so influenced by your own personal perception of the world, which YOU have illustrated for us here, how can I not help it!?  All I am doing is pointing out your bias.