Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 24, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


The Importance of Being Exceptional






Truthdig Bazaar
Fidel Castro Reader

Fidel Castro Reader

by Fidel Castro (Author), David Deutschmann (Editor)
$13.57

more items

 
A/V Booth

Ron Paul Doesn’t Accept Evolution

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

Posted on Dec 22, 2007
ron paul

The one and only anti-war Republican presidential candidate didn’t raise his hand when asked who doesn’t believe in evolution, but it turns out he may have wanted to. In this clip, Paul responds to a question about the incident by saying that it was an “inappropriate question,” but that “I think it’s a theory—theory of evolution—and I don’t accept it.”

Paul hasn’t been hiding his religious convictions. He wrote back in 2003 that the “secular Left” has been waging a war on religion and Christmas and that “[t]he notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.”

And in case you think Truthdig has nothing nice to say about Ron Paul, read our own voice from the “secular Left,” Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer—who believes in the separation of church and state, it’s true—cheering for the libertarian from Texas.

Hat tip for the clip and the war-on-religion article goes to The Largest Minority.

Watch it:

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 mjl1621, March 31, 2010 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

Actually the word education doesn’t even appear in the constitution, so the federal government really doesn’t have any constitutional authority to step in and say that you have to teach evolution.  The founders realized that as a country we weren’t always agree on everything, so that’s why we have the tenth amendment.  The federal government having the authority to influence the curriculum in the class room is dangerous because it allows bureaucrats to have central control over the information that is presented to children, and diminishes competition in education; which is key in a rational free thinking society.  We should be taught to think and question, not to be programed.  The point is not whether you believe in evolution, but do you believe in freedom?  Because with freedom, you should be able to win through rational argument if you’re position is correct.

Report this

By Sheldon Heimlich, February 4, 2008 at 12:16 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Excuse me, but if you read the Constitution, you’ll find something called the “Establishment Clause.”  It’s ABSOLUTELY the business of government to step in and say something about the teaching of Evolution in our schools.  The reason is that the only significant force working against the teaching of Darwinian Theory are the Fundamentalist Christians.  And when THEY have a say in how Science is taught in public schools, it’s the RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY of the Federal Government to stop them.

Case closed.

Report this

By cindy, January 29, 2008 at 8:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

All
I can says it must be one to feel that way.
Ron Paul Library will teach people like you who is what. RP is all about this is a revolution will not die, your thoughts WILL

The President need to keep focus on the US. Ron Paul message lets get back to the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. No brainer, do not let issues stand in the way.

Report this

By cindy, January 29, 2008 at 8:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I do agree we are not looking for a scientist or a preacher The President need to keep focus on the US. Ron Paul message lets get back to the Constitution and our Founding Fathers. No brainer, do not let issues stand in the way.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, January 3, 2008 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, January 3, 2008 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

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!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, January 2, 2008 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment

“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?

Report this

By Nomascerdo, January 2, 2008 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

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.).

Report this

By Nomascerdo, January 2, 2008 at 11:53 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, January 2, 2008 at 5:55 am Link to this comment

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

Report this

By amos hart, January 2, 2008 at 12:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Poor Chris Harris, born 300 years too late. What a force he would have been against those nasty Puritans. Now there’s a bunch of Dominionists if ever there was one. Why they even punished folks for not attending church services, not to mention trying to establish a theocracy. They were down right un-American and deserved to vanish into history. But clearly they were a real threat to the future republic. If the Dominionists of today are a threat, those Puritans were a mega-threat, like in megatons. It is a puzzlement how the republic survived without the likes of Harris to sound the alarm. Thank God we have him with us today to warn us about Huckabee. The only good Puritan is a dead Puritan.

Report this

By Frank Cajon, January 1, 2008 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Robert's avatar

By Robert, January 1, 2008 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this

By cyrena, January 1, 2008 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, January 1, 2008 at 7:33 pm Link to this comment

It was addressed to Tom?

By Tom, December 31 at 3:16 pm

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

Report this

By cyrena, January 1, 2008 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

Patrick Henry,

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

Report this

By Nomascerdo, January 1, 2008 at 4:17 pm Link to this comment

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=-6772058898203776825&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle&total=121&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

Report this

By Nomascerdo, January 1, 2008 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment

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/2007/07/defense-of-ron-pauls-voting-record-in.html

Report this

By Nomascerdo, January 1, 2008 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, January 1, 2008 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, January 1, 2008 at 3:44 am Link to this comment

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/0,8599,1699147,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

Report this

By Joe ---correction, December 31, 2007 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I mistakenly thought the above post by Outraged was authored by Cyrena. Since my first reply was directed to Cyrena, I’ll make a few quick observations to the actual poster, Outraged.

Outraged,  I’ve asked you a few times previously who your candidate for President is. No reply. I had thought you were going to be willing to engage Paul supporters in fact-based discussion but you appear to be reverting to shouting anything that pops into your head.

WHO is your candidate?

Report this

By Joe, December 31, 2007 at 11:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow, Cyrena. So here’s how you summarize Congressman Paul’s plan for economic renewal:

“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.”

Do you really believe that if Hillary is elected, the rich will not flee the city?

I love ya, angel, but you are leaving academic rigor buried in the closet under all the wrongs of the world. I wish things could be fair and good. This time around, though, we might have to settle for clarity of purpose.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 31, 2007 at 10:03 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 31, 2007 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment

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

Lay off the micrograms.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 31, 2007 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this

By Mom of Lefty, December 31, 2007 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

PatrickHenry,  Normally I do not follow my son’s internet activities, having given up that practice when he was twelve, due to the graphic nature of the websites at which he was spending all of his nighttime hours. I think buff men who love snakes was the worst one. Oh my. But I do want to apologize to the members of your political forum. Forgive my son, he is just like his no-good father, a toothy shoe-licker with a penchant for barefoot young boys. If you want, I’ll give you our address so you can come to the house with your friends and suffocate both of them.

If you knew these two, none of you would believe in evolution.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 31, 2007 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 31, 2007 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

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?

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 31, 2007 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 31, 2007 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment

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!”

Report this

By Tom, December 31, 2007 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Patrick Henry is a liar and an idiot.  I have known Jay Weidner for 20 years and he has never said that he lived with an alchemist.  Patrick Henry is a rotten researcher and I ask him for a reference to this bunch of lies.  I would bet that he is a cult member of the cassiopaeans who are ruled by one Ark Jadczyk, a former member of DARPA, the lovely people who gave us depleted uranium and other items.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 31, 2007 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 31, 2007 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

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

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 31, 2007 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

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?

Report this

By Jim Mamer, December 30, 2007 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Robert Scheer is obviously right in pointing out that it is disgraceful that Ron Paul, an occasionally libertarian, but always religious Republican, has to remind the occasionally (somewhat) anti-war, and always religious, leading Democratic candidates of the opportunities lost by waging an aggressive and imperial war of choice in Iraq. But, the fact that Ron Paul is undoubtedly right about the stupidity of wasting lives and money on this war does not make him acceptable as a candidate for president. If nothing else, the fact Dr. Paul can actually declare that evolution is a theory and “I don’t accept it” suggests that he is also a nut.

Report this

By Joe, December 30, 2007 at 2:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena, from your Dec30 post, “..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. “

Tenth Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

This Amendment to the Constitution is key to the entire enterprise. Power allowed the States is general and all-encompassing. Power allowed the Federal gov in DC is strictly limited to what is enumerated in this document, the Constitution.

All of these powers, of course, are intended to be adjusted and reigned-in by citizens of the States via their State republican governments and emerging law. The role of the Federal Congress is different than that of the many State congresses but, hard as it is for you to swallow, State governments are tasked to retain primacy.

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 30, 2007 at 12:33 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 30, 2007 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

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?

Report this

By cyrena, December 30, 2007 at 2:24 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, December 30, 2007 at 1:41 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 29, 2007 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Jim C, December 29, 2007 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By velma kelly, December 29, 2007 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul is as irrelevant as Dennis Kucinich. It makes no difference what he is or is not opposed to. As to the matter of evolution, Fred Thompson’s refusal to play raise-your-hand is the best response. The issue is a bit too nuanced for the yea-na mode of inquiry. And the one who posed the question is truly clueless. I expect many ardent evolutionists would be non-plussed if asked to respond with a show of hands to said question. It’s like asking “Do you believe in war?” Well, yes and no. Next question.

Report this

By Joe, December 29, 2007 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Outraged say:
“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.”

I get myself in trouble again. My “Outraged went native with..” was nothing mean or racist or of any consequence. I’m not like that. I was thinking of my cousin Ben who worked in Saudi and that region for a decade as an engineer. When he got back, I didn’t recognize him, so deeply had he been steeped in the culture. The culture I feel you are trapped in is that of the normal voter activist, seeking to tip the balance in favor of her causes. Normally, this is great. Now it is not. Give me a candidate I can vote for, anyone, who will slam the brakes on spending, warmongering and that wagon receding in the distance..the one loaded with evidence that we once possessed and defended our civil rights. If you don’t like Paul, okay, just give me someone who will get these things done fast.

Report this

By LeightonW, December 29, 2007 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Something has either always existed, or something came from nothing. Think about that, and see if you can come up with any other possible origin of the universe. We are all living in a miracle.

I don’t expect anyone to be an expert on everything. Ron Paul probably doesn’t think that debating the origins of the universe should be high on his priority list, and I tend to agree with him. Being a creationist is his personal right, and most importantly, he defends your right to disagree with him. I am more interested in how he interprets evidence regarding presidental issues such as foreign policy (military, treaties, and trade), judicial and other official appointments, budget choices, and limits on executive power.

I am a fan of Al Gore as well, so you can imagine that I am concerned about Ron Paul’s views on the environment and global warming. If you want to attack him on ignoring scientific evidence on an issue that really matters, maybe you should start there.

Report this

By Ga, December 29, 2007 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

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!

Report this

By Ga, December 29, 2007 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Jimmy Case (Justins Brother), December 29, 2007 at 5:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why does this discussion need to go any farther than Dr. Paul’s response as to why he didn’t raise his hand?

“Because I thought this an inappropriate question to ask at a political debate”...or something close to that.

Who can argue with that? That was HIS answer.

Everything else came after his ANSWER, and is only his opinion, as he quite clearly stated.

And I damn well bet, that given the benefit of retrospect, Abe Lincoln would have probably tried a couple of more ideas before pushing the war button too.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 29, 2007 at 1:27 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Joe, December 29, 2007 at 12:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ref post by cyrena, December 28 at 11:36 am

Cyrena, Your posts to PatrickHenry are off the mark. I agree with him on almost everything in this thread but both of us are regular voters with opinions, I believe, not operatives attempting to sell Ron Paul. Posts supporting Dr. Paul’s policy positions, the overall content of supportive posts, have been fairly specific with both policy and historical perspective. 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. Most of us are well-read and recognize inaccurate statements at a glance. Somehow the race issue got into this and, it turns out, you have some color to your complexion. That is a very lovely thing to me, in any case. One of my few crossings w/Rep.Paul has to do with immigration. My take is that our nation will not conduct itself responsibly internationally unless one of two things comes to pass.: a President with respect for the poor and the wisdom of non-intervention takes office or the racial balance in the country changes drastically. My white race has blown it at every turn. Know, though, that all of our issue-resolving power will evaporate if something is not done quickly at the polls to stop the degradation of our free expression. The only qualities which matter in this election are honesty and a devotion to both civil-liberties and non-interference. I’d like to know who you feel can fill that bill besides Paul. (Most of us Paul types admire Gravel and Kucinich tremendously. My thought on the Dems is that only John Edwards can pull off a win and also demonstrate sufficient honesty).

Report this

By Jonas South, December 28, 2007 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If you examine Ron Paul’s voting record, you might notice that he would allow taking minors cross state lines for abortion, yet is against late term abortion. Therein, I think, hangs a tale.

The issue this honest man raises, and the one I support, is privacy or personal freedom. If the pregnant woman wishes to do this or that with her body, none of us should have a say in it. Yet, Paul draws the line when this free choice results in unnecessary harm to another sentient being. In Carl Sagan’s view, far better than heart beat or spontaneous breathing, etc., active EEG is one criterion we can all accept as defining ‘alive’, since we already accept the absence of it as defining death. Sagan and Paul agree on this point, because they are both referring to a third trimester, or ‘late term’ phenomenon. We can do no better than to consider their view.

You raise an cogent point as to the active EEG of a condemned cow or goat. I love animals, raise many types for my own needs, and treat them well, yet I slaughter and eat some of them. I am reminded by Dr. Weston A Price (http://www.westonaprice.org) that humans evolved for millions of years eating meat, and only started eating grain in the past ten thousand years or so. In short, our metabolism is hard-coded for animal fats (Non synthetic vitamins A and D, to name just a few life sustaining nutrients, are provided only in animal fats.)

My rule is that animals we eat should have a good life, die quickly and painlessly (as in the movie Cold Mountain) and out of necessity.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 28, 2007 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By elmer, December 28, 2007 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul is not “damaged goods”. There is nothing in his position on various issues that is “damaged”. He supports the Constitution and the idea that the federal government should have only the power specifically mentioned in that document. He also supports sound fiscal policies and non intervention in other nations’ affairs. I suppose that when both Iraq and Afghanistan collapse in chaos and we ahve to leave, the banks (Citgroup, BoA, UBS, Merryl Lynch, etc) announce they are insolvent and everything collapses under the 1 trillion or so debt created by the subprime mess, then all the rest of the candidates will have to admit they have no platform left and that they are clueless how to solve anything.

Report this

By cyrena, December 28, 2007 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment

#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.

Report this

By Todd, December 28, 2007 at 11:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I believe Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only honest candidates running for president.  Neither of them has a huge ego, and they both say and do what they believe is the best for this country.

The difference is that Dennis Kucinich supports almost all social rights while he protects no economic rights whatsoever.  The danger with this is that when we give up our economic rights, even if its intended to help people, we’ll eventually lose our power to vote with our dollars.  A few hundred or thousand government officials, no matter how well intentioned, cannot decide as effectively as hundreds of millions of individuals using their own gray matter to protect their own economic security in their own unique situations.

Plus, what happens when the politicians who take over on the next shift are right wing wackos?  They will just use that power and money for their own purposes.

That’s why I support Ron Paul.  He is more balanced in that he protects almost every economic right and most social freedoms as well.  That leaves the people in charge.  Some are afraid about his personal position on abortion, but he cannot, as president, overturn Roe v. Wade.  It’s not a real issue in this election.

The real issues are getting out of Iraq, Germany, Japan, Korea, and everywhere else we have bases; protecting our Constitution and Bill of Rights; protecting our money, power, and privacy from our own government; and shrinking our federal government so that local state governments can take over and start *competing* to serve us.  Let the best states with the best political ideologies duke it out!

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 28, 2007 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Todd, December 28, 2007 at 11:21 am Link to this comment
(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, and he has every right to be, especially as an OB-GYN.

He just doesn’t believe the federal government should have the power to rule on it.  He believes it should be a state issue.  That way most of the blue states will allow it, and most of the red states won’t.  People then, can vote with their feet, they can live in a state that supports their own values, and compete to protect our rights.

It is the government’s primary responsibility to protect our rights, and some people believe the unborn have a right to life, while others believe (like I do) that a mother’s right to preserve her own body comes first.  But it would be wrong to force my beliefs on others.  The ideas should be allowed to compete.

Report this

By cyrena, December 28, 2007 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

#122756 by Nomascerdo
•  Cyrena - Do you realize that your entire perception of the world is based on the assumption that there is a white, nationalist, fascist conspiracy in this country that wants to get rid of black people and all other minorities?  Maybe perhaps more specifically black women?  Now let me ask you if this paranoid delusion, and it is most certainly a paranoid delusion, is in any way related to the fact that you yourself are a black woman? 
I am literally having a conversation with paranoid delusional village people! 
Nomascerdo,
Your questions don’t deserve any answers, primarily because it would be lost on you, and I don’t generally like wasting my time. But, you’ve just gone too far over the line for me to ignore.

Now, I’ve warned you countless times about your obsession with pretending to be a dr. phil. But, you just stay at it, probably because you can’t help yourself. The classic irony about people who are afflicted as you are, is that they ‘diagnose’ other people with what are actually THEIR afflictions. In short, mentally ill people don’t KNOW their mentally ill. They also mimic others, and are unable to make contextual connections.

But, I’m going to answer your questions, even though you’ll not be able to wrap your own feeble mind around most of the elements.

First, in respect to the purpose and intent of THIS PARTICULAR DISCOURSE, on THIS thread, the answer to your very distorted and inappropriate question about ME -PERSONALLY, is… NO!

No, my being a black female has zip to do with my assessment of Ron Paul’s hidden agenda. Now part of the reason is because this blog/conversation isn’t ABOUT me, just like it isn’t about YOU! That’s why this blog isn’t set up for people like you, who like to practice armchair psychology. The other reason is that I am an academic, and so I am TRAINED to see the world through the eyes of others, and to connect the appropriate dots. Additionally, my 35 plus years in public service, HANDS ON, MIND ON experience, is what provides my additional credentials to speak on these observations.

That is the only ‘personal’ information –about ME- that would have any bearing whatsoever, on anything that I would post, ON THIS PARTICUALR thread, and that’s the case with most of these threads. My career experience and my academic qualifications are important only in providing a modicum of legitimacy to whatever I write here. That’s it. Another piece of personal information that would be relevant is that I LIVED and worked in the same political environment that RP is trying to force on the rest of the country, for 17 years.

Now in THAT case, my own personal experience –as a woman of color, might bear some relevance. But overall, it’s secondary to what I’ve posted here, because the observations that I’ve made, could be reached by any other person studying the political climate there. An historian and/or legal scholar or sociologist of ANY gender or color could provide the information far more concisely.

Oddly, it seems to be only you and Douglas Chalmers who seem so obsessed with the fact that I’m black and female. Why do YOU care? If you saw me on the street, YOU wouldn’t even KNOW that I was black.  You might guess that I wasn’t ‘pure white’ - the vision for America that RP has, but you wouldn’t know what to ‘call’ or otherwise label me, because most white people don’t. What little ‘color’ I have, comes from the Indian side of my genetic lineage. The African American side is so diluted by now, that half of us ‘look’ WHITE anyway. (Yeah I know, a curse from god, or just another ‘conspiracy’ -rape of black women by white men- dating back a few hundred years.)

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 28, 2007 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

PaulMagill - I took that test… My candidates in order are Paul, Gravel, Kucinich, Richardson.  My bottom candidates are Giuliani, Huckabee, Hunter, and Romney.  Clinton and Obama are both in the negative range as well.

Report this

By cyrena, December 28, 2007 at 11:16 am Link to this comment

Part 2 reply 122756

That said, the majority of my own posts to this site, are not generally directed to any specific individual. The point is to SHARE INFORMATION and view points with the entire forum. Obviously there are times any one will question specific individuals on various things that they’ve posted. Like, what’s your source, or why do you think that, or whatever. That’s how intelligent people communicate in logic based arguments or reasoned discourse.

PERSONAL information becomes appropriate ONLY for the purposes of giving legitimacy to what we are saying. So, if you claim to be a weight loss guru that can provide 101 tips to weight loss, and then casually mention that you’re 5’3’ and weigh 474lbs, I’m not likely to take your advice.  The other point is that it needs to have SOME relevancy to the issue being discussed.

Is it relevant that RP (as a presidential candidate) has delivered over 4000 babies, apparently in-between Congressional sessions? NO!

Do you think it’s ‘relevant’ that the state of Texas collects data on birth certificates by specifically determining whether or not the newborn is HISPANIC? No, you wouldn’t. But, intelligent folks would connect the dots. Why do they ONLY request this data relative to HISPANIC? Are there any other states you know of, that request this info on BC’s?

Even a US passport doesn’t require that information. Why TX on the BC’s? Maybe because its history is one of a racist/separatist ideology? Like RP? No ‘perception’ on my part moron, just the facts of history, and the fact that RP is very wedded to it.

So the only reason I ever bothered to engage in any dialogue with you at all, was simply to counter some of the most ridiculous parts of your posts, because of what might very legitimately, (at least in this case) be a form of paranoia. BECAUSE..I made nearly ALL of the same observations and warnings about Dick Bush in the lead up to that disaster, but I didn’t trying forcing any ‘warnings’ on anybody that was stuck on stupid. 7 years later, here we are.

One would think that –ALONE- would be reason enough to avoid any repug from TX, like the plague they are. But, we still have morons like you walking around. So yeah, I’m overly sensitive to the dangers of a misinformed populace, who might be easily swayed by morons like you. Remember, they said GW was a guy you could have a beer with, and I have a stupid cousin who even said he was ‘sincere’. And, nobody paid ANY attention to the real poison that is Dick Cheney.

So indeed, I do have a sense of horrible déjà vu with the likes of RP, when I listen to people like you. As Logican has mentioned, even RP’s OWN rhetoric speaks to what he is about, far more than YOU do.

That was the only reason I ever bothered commenting on anything you had to say, even though I initially ignored your stuff, because I figured out you were a nut case after the first couple of posts. Still, I didn’t want to ignore any potential damage you could cause to those who might be new to the real history.

I’m far less concerned about that now, as I see that his ‘supporters’ (especially ones like you) do a far better job of pointing out his inadequacies and bizarre ideology than I ever could. And, the majority of the posters on this site are smart people, so they can figure it out as well. They can also determine that you’re a raving lunatic.

So, whatever damage you don’t do to your OWN credibility, the other posters can certainly handle. I’m relatively content to just keep watching all of you paulie groupies all self-destruct.


Oh, on this comment from you:

•  I am literally having a conversation with paranoid delusional village people!

I think you’re looking in the mirror, (and talking to yourself) or maybe you’re looking outside your tent flap, at one of the RP vaudeville parades. Are you in Barstow or Bakersfield?

Report this

By Todd, December 28, 2007 at 11:13 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul is correct that scientific theory is just theory.

I’m both agnostic and have a science degree.  The fundamental basis of science is that it cannot rule on truth.  The idea of a “scientific fact” or “scientific proof” has been corrupted by advertisers and politicians.

Science is based only on empirical evidence and reason.  “Truth” is the domain of religion, based entirely on belief, and oddly the domain name of this site about politics!

Isn’t it more responsible as a citizen to use empirical evidence to decide what to do, and believe nothing?  The danger is that, if you believe something is “true” per se, you will not be so open to change when a better idea comes along.

If you do believe in some arbitrary nonsense like creationism, at least don’t rule by it.  That’s Ron Paul’s position, and the position of any reasonable scientific responsible citizen.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 28, 2007 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

Elmer - Well said!

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 28, 2007 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

Sorry about the error on the post below. It’s supposed to read “Out of 25 issues I agreed with Kucinich on 21…”

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 28, 2007 at 10:57 am Link to this comment

Here is an interesting test to see which candidates views match your own. It really puts ones choice in perspective. Out of 25 issues I agreed with Kucinich, and with Paul only four, yet Paul fared better than all the other Republican canditates. Give it a try. I think you might find it revealing & enlightening:

http://www.dehp.net/candidate/

Report this

By Elmer, December 28, 2007 at 10:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The next president will have to make some very serious decisions regarding our military actions in the world, the implosion of the economy, our reckless debt, etc, and where the nation is going. Whether one believes or not in evolution does not change the fact that we are all here and we’ll have to deal with the legacy of the current administration in the coming months.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 28, 2007 at 10:05 am Link to this comment

DuckPhup - the other thing that is important to be aware of as it relates to Ron Paul’s economics is he consistently speaks about how government economic statistics are false!  How many presidential candidates have you ever heard say that the massaged and manipulated “statistics” that the BLS pumps out are total BS?  What other presidential candidate is telling the truth that price inflation is running near or above double digits versus the CPI numbers that tell us there is virtually no inflation and it is running around 2%.

You want to know why the working class is getting killed in this country?  It is because the Fed is devaluing the money at alarming rates.  Private organizations that still try to measure money supply growth (because the Fed stopped publishing the data) say that M3 is growing this year around 17% as they try to keep the over leveraged credit system going.  Offsetting that inflation (money supply growth) is the labor arbitrage and chinese Yuan peg to the dollar (keeping it artificially weak relative to the dollar although that is breaking down now) which has allowed us to import the bulk of what we consume in this country (besides raw materials, oil, food, etc) from Asia.

The reality is, prices arent going up. The purchasing power of the dollar is going DOWN.  Meanwhile, wages arent growing nearly at the rate of real inflation (devaluation).  If you dont have disposable or investable capital or income, there is NO WAY you can keep up.  You are literally getting paid less every year even if you are getting paid “more”.

It is different for those with capital to invest. They can at least try to match the devaluation and if they are clever they can beat it.  Folks that understand this dynamic have been buying gold since 2001 and have protected their purchasing power. In 2001 it took something like 300 dollars to buy and ounce of gold. Today you need almost 850 dollars to buy the same ounce.  That is scary.

By the way. Krugman sees NO CONSEQUENCE of just printing money and devaluing the money supply. Now is that because he is a multi-millionaire with tenure and a fat pension so he doesn’t realize what is happening out there?  I would say it is that and his prayer at the Church of Keynesianism which is the ultimate ELITE economic theory re: scam.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 28, 2007 at 9:56 am Link to this comment

For those who missed it.

NYT Retracts Paul -
White Supremacy Link Story
The New York Times
12-27-7

A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a “white nationalist” Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul. The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly “with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others” at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 28, 2007 at 9:18 am Link to this comment

DuckPhup - I still think you are making a massive leap from watching this one EDITED video (which makes him sound far more definitive than he actually is) and then ignoring a medical degree from Duke to conclude Ron Paul doesn’t understand what scientific theory is. 

Also, I was addressing Lefty who said, “Since when is medicine science?” so apologies if that wasn’t clear.  Then Lefty immediately called me a DUMBASS or something like that which I found amusing, all things considered.

Since there is no way for any of us to know what % of religious people would consider themselves spiritual, nor how to measure ‘spirituality’ I guess that point is moot.

What I will say, however, regarding Austrian economics versus the Keynesianism that Krugman tries to indoctrinate everyone into believing from his NYT editorial position is that Austrian economics calls central economic planning and forecasting for exactly what it is. Crap!  Any theory that attempts to conclusively model and predict human behavior is ridiculous. 

One thing you will hear Ron Paul say time and again, and I respect him immensely for it is, “I don’t want to run your life. I don’t want to run the world. I don’t want to run the economy. I don’t know how!”

When he says “I don’t know how” he is saying that NOBODY knows how and it is the very people who claim they know how that we should be afraid of because over history it is these “do-gooders” that have caused more pain, misery, and death. 

All we can do is create a framework that protects the liberty and free association of all humans (our NATURAL RIGHTS) to pursue the life that they want.

Using government force to solve problems or legislate morality etc etc has proven itself to be ineffective and untenable.  I point to the bankruptcy status of our country as all the evidence we need.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 28, 2007 at 8:09 am Link to this comment

re: #122693 by cyrena

Thanks for the response, I’ve been down with the flu the past couple days. 

While you fail to mention who you believe would the best republican candidate, I’ve noticed you have an obvious anti-RP fanaticism surrounding your posts.  I prefer RP over the other republican candidates as they are war mongers and only updated models of Bush.  I prefer Dennis Kucinich and as a second choice Edwards, however they don’t show me much momentum in their campaigns.  You have stated that you would prefer Obama or Kucinich, what about on the Republican side?

While you claim that RP is racist I fail to see any evidence of this besides a few maligned supporters sending in contibutions. I do notice in your posts here and elsewhere that you tout being a black woman and frequently bring up percieved racism of others albeit incorrectly.  You have also falsely accuse me of being a racist simply because I support RP for the republican candidacy, don’t believe in race specific organizations and that I believe in a broad curtailment of welfare programs across the board beginning with corporations, non profits, churches, etc.  I guess you think social program curtailment = bad for minorities = racist.  Most welfare and SSDI payments match entry level jobs in most cases and who wants to work when the government cheese is tax free. 

I agree with you that this nation has been hijacked, however it roots go back to the post WWII era.  The coup against JFK and Vietnam war ramped it up.  The state of the nation today with corporate censorship of the media has reached critical mass where the common man knows he is not hearing or reading the whole objective truth by the free press.  Many people live on a budget and its difficult to hear in the news how much we and our children owe the banks and that an increasing amount of our tax dollars are being wasted by out of control government spending. This is the reason RP is popular and it has nothing to do with coded messages.

I wake up and go to work, take my children to school, I want my trash picked up or a trash facility provided so I can recycle.  I want my roads paved and police and EMS availible. All of these things occur on a state level, yet I do not know why the federal government takes a lions share of my paycheck to send to Iraq, meddle in others affairs around the world and further act against my wishes.  If I refuse to pay them they will take my house and my livelihood.

Theres no question that the Democrats will sweep congress this election cycle, It would be an advantage to us all not to have another rubber stamp express in the white house.  We need someone to get us out of Iraq now, end the rhetoric with Iran and to dismantle the 700 bases worldwide of the empire we have created over the past 100 years. This alone will be a monumental undertaking. While many are concerned about Ron Pauls social plans they need not worry with a democratic congress in place.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 28, 2007 at 6:52 am Link to this comment

Paul,

You are right on with the economics, calling it a science is like calling religion a science. Always had trouble with both anyway.

Report this

By DuckPhup, December 28, 2007 at 5:09 am Link to this comment

Re: #122756 by Nomascerdo on 12/27 at 7:56 am

Nomascerdo: “Duckphup & Lefty - I’m sorry but the FACTS, which I am allegedly out of touch with, regarding Ron Paul and his understanding of the sciences just are what they are.”

OK… so… facts are facts (if I am interpreting that gibberish correctly)... and the fact is that Ron Paul does not understand what a scientific theory is. That really does not set him apart from the rest of the field… I haven’t really seen anything to indicate that any of the other candidates understand what a scientific theory is, either.

Nomascerdo: “If you are unwilling to accept a medical degree from one of the most respected universities in this country than you literally cannot be helped.”

Of course I accept the credibility of Duke University. But in another post, you said that “A medical degree from Duke is what it is and requires what it requires, namely, a serious and well applied aptitude in the sciences.” Well… that just ain’t necessarily so, it seems. After all, the guy managed to acquire such a degree WITHOUT having an understanding of what a scientific theory is.

People who DO NOT have such an education and DO NOT understand what a scientific theory is are merely ignorant. Somebody who can manage get a medical degree from Duke University and STILL not understand what a scientific theory is… and DENIES the validity of the Theory of Evolution (in a discipline which depends heavily on the Theory of Evolution) ... TRANSCENDS mere ‘ignorance’, and encroaches into the realm of WILLFUL ignorance, dangerously deluded and droolingly stupid… perhaps even more-so than our current president…

“The president of the United States has claimed, on more than one occasion, to be in dialogue with God. If he said that he was talking to God through his hairdryer, this would precipitate a national emergency. I fail to see how the addition of a hairdryer makes the claim more ridiculous or offensive.” ~ Sam Harris, ‘Letter to a Christian Nation’

“Furthermore, to assert that modern medicine isn’t science does not lend you credibility.”

I did not assert that… and just because someone decides to ‘pile on’ to some of my remarks does not grant you leave to associate their comments with me, or to attribute them to me.

Anyway… somebody who does not understand what a scientific theory is has no business being the president of the USA… PARTICULARLY someone with an (alleged) scientific education.

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 28, 2007 at 2:36 am Link to this comment

Joe, you said it all with this statement, “...economic planners have had, at best, random results.”

Having had several businesses & corporations, then working for a billion dollar a year corporation, before returning to graduate from what Business Week claimed one of the 30 top business schools in the WORLD, I can easily state that economic theory dosen’t match the reality of real world situations.

The only people who have less credibility are weathermen, who (with a straight face) can state something like, “Well, there’s a 50% chance of rain tomorrow.”

Well, duh, is that like saying, “It’s going to RAIN, or maybe NOT”? The sad part is they get PAID to feed us this ambiguity, and so do economists.

The really sad part is that a lot of REAL lives are affected by this weathereman/economist BS.

Bush claims the economy is doing great, based primarily on the stock market rises. Of course this is only for big corporations & those who make their income not from actually working for it, but from investment & speculation income.

The other side of the coin is the people who work for wages, and produce more than just ‘paper work’. You know, the guys who build & repair America’s infrastructure. They are doing worse & worse & worse in this glorious Bush economy.

The only economist I have a bit of confidence in is Paul Krugman, but even he is suspect for two reasons: 1) He writes for the NY Times, and 2) He is an economics professor.

Frankly, I would rather see an intelligent, informed, hard working, plumber/carpenter/bricklayer/longshoreman/factory worker/nurse/cab driver/or whatever as president, than the current crappy, disconected from the reality of mainstream America, ‘elites’, we now have running…Ron Paul included. I trust some of them on a few of ‘their’ key issues, but none of them on the majority of issues vital to ‘ALL’ Americans.

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 28, 2007 at 1:43 am Link to this comment

It kinda boils down to this:

Religion is for people afraid of going to hell.

Spirituality is for those who have been there and don’t want to go back.

What about those of us who believe hell is an invention of the unscrupulous to terrorize & manipulate the ignorant?

Never bought the fear or fiction, never will!

Report this

By Joe, December 28, 2007 at 1:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Outraged went native with:
“They reject even the scientific method that mainstream economists use”

Outraged,  please give me a few examples of projects or policies promoted by economists using the scientific method. As far as I know, economic models put into practice by bigtime economic planners have had, at best, random results. This is one crucial aspect to Ron Paul’s position on strength through simplicity and competence. Paul assaults the experts on economics (and the politicians who enable them) for covering debt by printing new money based on nothing of value; our previous gold-standard having been pulled out from under us by these practitioners of the “scientific-method.”  I swear to God, if you don’t stop typing stuff that doesn’t make sense, I’m coming over there with a fine bottle of Merlot.

Report this

By ted tyson, December 28, 2007 at 12:48 am Link to this comment

paul says in the clip he doesn’t accept evolution, then goes on to clarify that he just doesn’t think it or any other theory is the absolute truth.  as usual, he is measured and wise, thoughtful.  as usual, his detractors misunderstand his views.  they’re not used to someone who thinks for himself.

Report this

By WPutney, December 27, 2007 at 11:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

BruSays says:
“So, do not compare someone’s position on evolution with someone’s position on creationism. One is based on exhaustive study, re-study, observations, tests, re-tests, controlled experiments, re-experimentation and remains open to revision or rejection.”

BruSays,  The worst offenders in these debates I’ve encountered over the years are scientists frozen in current dogma. The example I’ll use is the moronic notion of the Big-Bang (type) cosmology. One support being offered for this notion is the CMB cosmic uWave background radiation. This CMB is a local/regional phenomenon, in my view. There is nothing to prove otherwise. This Big-Bang hyperbolic splooge has been pushed as fact in US schools for decades despite other, more likely, models of genesis. One such model was elaborated by Eric Lerner maybe 15 years ago with his book, “The Big Bang Never Happened.” Images from the Hubbell Telescope in the 1990’s showed a deep universe filled with strange and oddly distorted galactic forms. Probably thousands of generations of stars have come and gone to account for the accretion and destruction of observable galaxies and other clusters of visible materials. Yet “science” maintains all this immensity of building and tearing of galaxies is, in total, only three to four times the age of our little rock, earth. Since planets are born and die by the billions every day, this makes no sense. I’ve been trying to establish this simple contradiction for twenty years but the usual scientist response is, in effect, “don’t worry, we know what’s true and what isn’t.”

magnetic field- yes, science can observe it but the scientists don’t know what it is.

electricity- science can observe it but the scientists don’t know what it is.

gravity- scientists observe its effects and describe it, per Albert E., but they have no clue what it is, or how it is transmitted. Calling gravity a “curvature in space-time” is fine…so is my girlfriend Lola.

The controlled-experiments and retest of theory you admire are, in large part, illusory. Science has shielded itself from outside criticism in the same way religions and political collectives have.

What it comes down to, BruSays, is that we are barely out of the trees and here we are making proclamations about the creation of the universe.
Fact is, what little we know is open to question and in 500 years will likely be the subject of some fun editorials.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 27, 2007 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment

Nomascerdo

You claim: “Get away from the punditry and think for yourself. You will find it is far less confusing to form and hold your own opinions because at least you will know why they have changed vs. depending on the pre-formed opinions of others which you have no clue what is behind them.”

Yet if I took YOUR OPINION exclusively (which is what I believe you want) would I not be doing exactly that.  Nomascerdo, maybe it isn’t me who should be taking your good advice.

Report this

By BruSays, December 27, 2007 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

Nomascerdo, Religion (please note the capital “R”) and spirituality are NOT related, despite your personal belief to the contrary. 

My brief analogy equating the Inquisition with Religion and spirituality with Mother Teresa is valid. In fact, I spoke with her just now and she confirmed that Religion, as practiced by today’s institutionalized, heavily financed, politically-connected RRRReligions, is far removed from “spirituality.” Your understanding is flat, frankly.

What’s more, a lecture on spirituality is not pertinent here. And although I largely agree with your take on extremism on both sides, I absolutely reject your statement that the “vast majority of those who are involved with organized religion have a strong sense of spirituality.” Please - most haven’t got a clue. Prayer recitals, communion and regular church-going do not a spiritualist make. Mother Teresa told me that, too.

Your final paragraph is more to the point. I, like you, apply tests to the candidates. You apply your tests, I’ll apply mine. My candidate is Dennis Kucinich; Ron Paul is yours. So be it. But let’s not be naive. Neither will be elected because our system is constructed to award “connected lobbyists and corporate power players” (your words). Anyone who doesn’t play that game has no chance…though it all does make for interesting blogging.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 27, 2007 at 7:59 pm Link to this comment

Outraged - By the way, to answer your question as to how I found the author it was ridiculously simple.  I clicked on the ‘return to overview’ button to get back to the root directory. Why don’t you actually READ the source material of something instead of looking for pre-packaged critiques of it to form your opinion? Your methodology allows other people to make up your mind for you.  Why would you want to do that?  You are obviously intellectually curious as evidenced by your desire to participate in these forums. Why not get some SOURCE information instead of opinion.  Get away from the punditry and think for yourself. You will find it is far less confusing to form and hold your own opinions because at least you will know why they have changed vs. depending on the pre-formed opinions of others which you have no clue what is behind them.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 27, 2007 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

For those who might enjoy a more comedic version of the Austrian School of Economics, there was this:

http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=110&month=3&title=Scrooge+Defended&id=3

It was billed this way: “An Austrian Economics perspective on Dickens, so Panglossian and full of stacked assumptions that it is howlingly funny.”

A great link for the poop on the Austrian School of Economics.

Link: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/austrian.html

They bill themselves this way:
“Austrian Economics is a fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds. However, it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics, and has many commonsense problems.”


Enjoy….....

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 27, 2007 at 7:47 pm Link to this comment

Outraged - Hahaaaaa, Literally the ONLY thing you could have done worse than using a pizzeria manager to refute Austrian economics is to quote Paul Krugman!  Krugman is practically a card-carrying communist, most certainly a hypocrite, and literally a cheerleader for the tyranny of the elites over the common American.  What is sickening about Krugman is that he appeals to the fear and sensibilities of the common people while he sits in his ivy league office literally earning millions.  The sad part is, you don’t even know who Krugman is!  He came up in your google search on “critics of Austrian economics”.

Stop it now.  Why don’t you actually READ some opposing points of view and then decide for yourself.  You are embarrassing yourself by doing this ‘argument by Google’ process.  Actually take the time to educate yourself on how the world works, the prevailing theories that have given us the systems we have, and the different points of view that question them. You might actually learn something!  You would certainly be more interesting to converse with here on Tdig.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 27, 2007 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment

BruSays - I personally think there is a very close relationship between spirituality and religion and I think Mother Teresa would agree completely. 

Your attempt to equate the contrast between the Inquisition and Mother Teresa to the contrast between religion and spirituality falls flat frankly.

What you are really pointing out are the extremes of religion.  Mother Teresa is the ultimate human embodiment of religious charity while the Inquisition is one (of many) examples of religious extremism.  There is much to be critical in organized religion but I feel like the tendency of most people is to ignore all of the very positive things that organized religion provides.

Spirituality can exist outside of organized religion but the vast majority of those who are involved with organized religion have a strong sense of spirituality.  I would personally say that while I don’t participate in organized religion any longer, I consider myself to be spiritual.

So while you are more than justified to be weary regarding who becomes President and apply your own ‘religious test’, I am coming from a similar place and for me, Ron Paul has passed my test.  I base that on reading his book, listening to his speeches, and following his career since 1974. I am not making snap judgments on EDITED videos that TruthDig puts up here with a headline that is intended to divide people into either being rational or a ‘nutjob’. Huckabee or Romney legitimately scare me when it comes to this ‘test’.  Paul does not. Further, on the Democratic side, I am far more concerned that while Hillary or Obama or whomever may not pray daily, or have ‘conversations with God’, or accept the theory of evolution fully and completely, they most certainly listen to their connected lobbyists and corporate power players who advocate perpetual war and the continuation of the path of socialism ALL at the expense of regular Americans.  Paul does not.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 27, 2007 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

Nomascerdo,
Actually, I didn’t find the author listed, where did you get his name let alone his RESUME.  Apparently, Wikipedia thought it valid.  However, he is not alone.  If you need more let me know.

http://www.slate.com/id/9593

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 27, 2007 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

Outraged - good thing you found such a reputable source of OPINION to dispute the validity of Austrian economics.

Here is the resume of the author of the crap that you copied and pasted:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Resume.htm

PROFESSIONAL OBJECTIVE:

    To work in an intellectual environment for a bipartisan or progressive liberal organization dealing with political or economic issues.

EDUCATION:

    Bachelor of Arts, Russian Studies (forthcoming in 1997; need only take my GRE to complete degree)
    University of California - Santa Cruz

    Communications Traffic Analysis and Reporting (1983)
    Goodfellow Air Force Base, TX

    Defense Language Institute, Russian language (1983)
    Presidio of Monterey, CA

    High School Degree (1979)
    Fletcher Academy, Fletcher, NC

PROFESSIONAL PROFILE:

  * Very broadly educated in most fields relating to political science. Areas of study include economics, sociology, religion, evolution, game theory, chaos theory, meritocracy theory, environmentalism, women’s studies, American and European history, crime, media studies, race, nature vs. nurture and welfare issues.

  * Especially strong in analysis and reporting. Specialize in scientific, technical and academic reporting to lay audiences.

  * Well-rounded background includes equally extensive academic and real-world experience.

  * Strong managerial and microeconomic skills.

  * Computer skills include Windows, Word for Windows, and general Internet usage.

EXPERIENCE:

    1-96 to present
    Votelink, Boulder, CO
    Political journalist
    Conducted bipartisan research, analysis and reporting on political issues for online polling organization.
    Supervisor: Vince Winkel

    10-90 to 12-91
    City Express Delivery, Greenville, SC
    Business Start-Up Consultant
    Increased profits by 400 percent in one year for courier company.
    Supervisor: Scott Esh

    9-89 to 4-90
    La Bahia, Merrill College, UCSC, Santa Cruz, CA
    General Manager
    Managed all restaurant operations including staff of 20 personnel.
    Owner: Ziesel Saunders

    12-86 to 9-89
    The Pizza Company, Santa Cruz, CA
    Assistant Manager
    Supervised operations including staff of 8 personnel.
    Supervisor: Larry Chew

    2-82 to 5-86
    United States Army, Berlin
    Russian communications analyst
    Analyzed top secret Russian communications and reported to NATO.

PERSONAL INFORMATION:

  * President, Santa Cruz Chess Club (1992-1995)

  * Champion, Spartanburg Chess Club (1991)

  * Children’s chess tutor: Branciforte Junior High and Aptos Children’s Library.

  * Other hobbies: writing, music, movies, political activism, reading, traveling.

REFERENCES:

    Available upon request.

Outraged - TO BE CLEAR I’m not saying that this isn’t an intelligent person, nor is he a bad person, and I have no intention of disparaging him in any way. It is unfortunate that you even brought this innocent person into your world of ignorance… But to cite him as an Authority on economics is hardly convincing considering that he has been working on his GRE for 10 yeas in order to attain his bachelors degree in RUSSIAN STUDIES from UC Santa Cruz.

Meanwhile, your ‘fella’ is critical of Friedrich Hayek who won the Nobel Prize in economics and Ludwig Von Mises who was a professor at NYU for a couple of decades.  Furthermore, their economic concepts stand on the shoulders of de Toqueville, John Locke, Karl Popper, and Lord Acton to name a few.

Your “critic” worked at a pizzeria.

Now I haven’t read everything he has written but what I skimmed seemed interesting… It’s just unfortunate that you couldn’t find a more authoritative source to refute the theory.  Now I am outraged, Outraged.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, December 27, 2007 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

Interesting facts regarding the Austrian School of Economics.

“Myth: The Austrian School of Economics is “apart and above” mainstream economics.

Fact: The Austrian School is a classic example of crank science.

Summary
The Austrian School of Economics is a tiny group of libertarians at war with mainstream economics. They reject even the scientific method that mainstream economists use, preferring to use instead a pre-scientific approach that shuns real-world data and is based purely on logical assumptions. But this is the very method that thousands of religions use when they argue their opposing beliefs, and the fact that the world has thousands of religions proves the fallibility of this approach. Academia has generally ignored the Austrian School, and the only reason it continues to exist is because it is financed by wealthy business donors on the far right. The movement does not exist on its own scholarly merits.”

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm

“Today the Austrian tradition is kept alive by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a think tank financed entirely by wealthy business donors. It is part of a broader phenomenon, the explosion of far-right think tanks in the last 20 years, funded by such conservative and libertarian donors as the Bradley, Coors and Koch family foundations. These foundations have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into the creation of an “alternate academia” of right-wing think tanks, after the failure of mainstream academia to support right-wing dogma.”

“The Austrian School is not a monolithic ideology. One of their top professors, Peter Boettke, writes: “…It must be admitted that Austrian economics is plagued with many thorny issues of an epistemological, theoretical, empirical, and political nature. Disagreement within the ranks of Austrian economists still persists over [many] issues…” (7) Perhaps the largest split is between the “narrow church” of Mises and the “broad church” of Hayek. The Miseans do not consider Hayek a “true” Austrian, and even refer to him privately as a “social democrat,” because he did not subscribe to all the tenets of hard-core Austrianism.”

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausintro.htm

A closely related Austrian philosophy is methodological individualism. This means that all economic phenomena can be traced back to, and explained by, the actions of individuals. Even when individuals act on behalf of a group, or as part of a group, they are acting as individuals. Thus, “group behavior” is a false concept. As political scientist Jon Elster argues: “A family may, after some discussion, decide on a way of spending its income, but the decision is not based on ‘its’ goals and ‘its’ beliefs, since there are no such things.” (1) Even if the final budget is a compromise that does not correspond to the wish of any single family member, then members have nonetheless agreed to the compromise, since compromising is somehow more rewarding than not compromising.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmi.htm

Have you ever heard such convoluted logic.  I love the analogy using the family.  How whacked is that?

Report this

By BruSays, December 27, 2007 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

Nomascerdo - I am not ignoring the role of Religion (please don’t lump it with spirituality - they’re quite different) in the human experience. One could argue that score (Inquisition vs. Mother Theresa) for volumes. But that discussion is not applicable here. 

You indicate that a man’s belief in creationism over evolution as an example of “simply how many people express their spirituality.” That does not satisfy me, nor should it our electorate.

As a voter I would love to say that I don’t care what a candidate’s fundamental beliefs are. But not today. After 7 years under a devout Christian President who has told the press that God talks to him most every day, that God guides and directs his actions as President, you can BET I want to know more about our candidates’ beliefs. 

As to anyone else’s beliefs - yes - I agree we’re all free to think as we wish and I agree that the state should not dictate those beliefs. But not those whom we elect to high office because we have just learned how their beliefs can directly and indirectly injure and kill. 

I am free to discuss, challenge and refute others beliefs on the Occupation of Iraq, border control or breast feeding in public. Likewise, I am free to discuss, challenge and refute someone’s religious beliefs - particulary where I feel those beliefs may damage our nation’s welfare.

Actually, your closing reaffirms my position…“The point is, in a free and open society, everyone is free to choose wherever on the spectrum they decide makes the most sense for the life they want to live as long as they don’t force, coerce, or harm another individual in doing so.”

I choose to select someone who does not dismiss evolution.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 27, 2007 at 3:24 pm Link to this comment

Brusays - you are ignoring the role of religion and spirituality in the human experience. You may not agree with it, per se, but billions of people do.  Furthermore, reason and religion are not mutually exclusive nor should the state have any role in determining what beliefs can or cannot be expressed or established.  Religion is simply how many people express their spirituality.  It is how they find or express meaning in their lives. For others, religion and even spirituality has little or no role in their lives.  That said, it is not an all or nothing proposition for most people.  The all or nothing attitude is only found at the extremes. Religious fanatics who want to eradicate the non-believers are just the opposite extreme of those who are extreme rationalists and leave no room for spirituality in their lives and want to wipe out all religion.  The point is, in a free and open society, everyone is free to choose wherever on the spectrum they decide makes the most sense for the life they want to live as long as they don’t force, coerce, or harm another individual in doing so.

Report this

By BruSays, December 27, 2007 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment

Nomascerdo’s summation of RP’s evolution vs. creationism position is:

“...since there is no PROOF either way, and only evidence, he simply states he chooses to accept the creationism version.” 

What crap.

When will you get it? As has been explained in this blog time and time again, “proof” is not the issue. Scientists don’t “prove” the existence of gravity, they don’t “prove” Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, they don’t even “prove” that the earth revolves around the sun.

Scientists provide theories that, given their current knowledge, best explain our world. When newly-discovered data or better testing methods arrive, they re-apply this knowledge to the theories and either refine or reject the theory.

Example:
Pick up an 8th Grade Earth Science textbook of 1920. There’s no mention of Plate Tectonics. We had only vague explanations of how continents form and move, vague ideas on what causes earthquakes and volcanoes. Turn to the 1960 textbook and the Theory of Plate Tectonics appears - alongside several other possible explanations. Open up a 2007 textbook and the Theory of Plate Tectonics (note - it’s still a theory) is the only explanation offered to describe the formation and change of our continents. In the last several decades, as geological data continued to arrive, it was this theory that provided the best ‘model’ for explaining the formation of continents. Other theories were rejected. As new data arrives, this theory continues to stand the test and re-test and unless - or until - a better explanation comes along, the Theory of Plate Tectonics will remain as the best explanation of the volatility of our continents.

(Note, there’s no “proof.” There never can be absolute proof as none of us were around millions of years ago to witness these events. But we can observe our current world, sample soils and rock formed millions of years ago, track earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and come up with evidence that best supports our theories.) 

The EXACT SAME explanation provides us the Theory of Evolution. As an explanation of the origin of the species, over the past 150 years it has stood the tests and re-tests of time. As new data continues to arrive, this particular theory has been supported over and over again. It continues to provide the best explanation to the diversity of life and its continued evolution.

Now show me when and where the explanations cited in the Bible (creation of the world, creation of Adam and of Eve, position of the earth relative to the other planets, miracles performed, virgin births, etc.) have been placed under similar scrutiny. You can’t because they haven’t.

So, do not compare someone’s position on evolution with someone’s position on creationism. One is based on exhaustive study, re-study, observations, tests, re-tests, controlled experiments, re-experimentation and remains open to revision or rejection.

The other is not.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 27, 2007 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment

GW=MC,

I think what Ron Paul says in that response, if you watch the FULL version of it, not the EDITED version that Truthdig posted jives well with what you are saying.  Listen to the entire response and make up your own mind but my impression is that since there is no PROOF either way, and only evidence he simply states he chooses to accept the creationism version.  Spiritual or religious people tend to do this in the face of things that cannot be fully explained.

Watch the whole unedited response he gave: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5z1FLVBkc4

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, December 27, 2007 at 10:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The irony in the Creation argument is that if a Creator exists, her genius lies in natural selection. As for the ‘08 vote, it boils down to whose vision of America one wants: BushCo’s New World Order, The Constitution’s… a point in the spectrum between.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 27, 2007 at 9:18 am Link to this comment

PaulMagillSmith wrote: “Personally, I believe it is immoral, and even the height of irresponsibility, to bring a child into this world without the means to properly provide for their comfort & needs, and not to the exclusion or increased suffering of existing childern that are not being adequately cared for.

Look at the state of the world today. We have several things on the immediate horizon that could eliminate ALL of us. Included are runaway climate change, radiation poisoning through the usage of nuclear weapons & especially depleted uranium, a permanent state of war over dwindling natural resources, manmade or natural virulent plague, so why should we add insult to injury through overpopulation?

Like it or not birth control, through the last resort of abortion, is a measure people must accept if the already living are to have a good quality life on this planet.”

1st paragraph - So basically Paul you are arguing that only rich people should have children?  Guess what, the world doesn’t work like that. PS - THAT is a fascist concept.

2nd paragraph - You list many of the challenges that humans face and then you add the gem, “so why should we add insult to injury through overpopulation?”  Are you serious?  Maybe you and your family should help “the cause” and end your lives early? How does that sound? 

3rd paragraph - Since I agree with birth control, with the caveat that I think that the abortion of a viable child is murder (unless the mother’s life is at risk) I don’t have as much issue with this paragraph until the last sentence and then my stomach turns yet again.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, December 27, 2007 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

Duckphup & Lefty - I’m sorry but the FACTS, which I am allegedly out of touch with, regarding Ron Paul and his understanding of the sciences just are what they are. If you are unwilling to accept a medical degree from one of the most respected universities in this country than you literally cannot be helped.  Furthermore, to assert that modern medicine isn’t science does not lend you credibility. Do you go to the local witchdoctor or shaman when you get sick? 

Cyrena - Do you realize that your entire perception of the world is based on the assumption that there is a white, nationalist, fascist conspiracy in this country that wants to get rid of black people and all other minorities?  Maybe perhaps more specifically black women?  Now let me ask you if this paranoid delusion, and it is most certainly a paranoid delusion, is in any way related to the fact that you yourself are a black woman? 

I am literally having a conversation with paranoid delusional village people!  Good times.

Report this

By DuckPhup, December 27, 2007 at 4:18 am Link to this comment

Re: #122653 by Nomascerdo on 12/26 at 6:12 pm

“DuckPhup - thanks for the information but, if it were possible, I would bet you money that Ron Paul would crush every other candidate running, Democrat and Republican, on a test of scientific knowledge and application, Al Gore (the pretend scientist) included.”

== Hmmm… then how come he does not know what a scientific ‘theory’ is? ==

“A medical degree from Duke is what it is and requires what it requires, namely, a serious and well applied aptitude in the sciences.”

== I think that he would be well within his rights to demand that Duke refund his money. ==

“Religious beliefs can be held separately from scientific evidence.  F Scott Fitzgerald said quite brilliantly, “The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function’.”

== Actually, I think that Fitzgerald was confused… and you, too. The ‘ability’ to hold two conflicting ideas as ‘true’ at the same time, without experiencing ‘cognitive dissonance’ is not a sign of intelligence… it is evidence of either mental defect or brainwashing… the latter case being best exemplified by christian religious beliefs, and best described by Orwell… ‘doublethink’. The ‘functioning’ part is a dubious distinction. ==

Report this

By odlid, December 27, 2007 at 1:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#122707 by PaulMagillSmith on 12/27 at 12:44 am posted:
“Do something mommy, she’s picking on me.”


PaulMagillSmith, who is your candidate for President?

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 27, 2007 at 1:44 am Link to this comment

Great post(s), cyrena, and kind of takes the starch out of the whiner to CD, “Do something mommy, she’s picking on me”.


Regarding those posts concerning an attempt to define fascism here’s your link (and many more links included for evidence, proof, and/or verification):

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Report this

By odlid, December 27, 2007 at 1:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#122698 by Lefty on 12/26 at 11:57 pm   PhD’d:
“When the hell did medicine become science?  DUMBASS!”

Lefty, who is your candidate for President?

Report this

By PaulMagillSmith, December 27, 2007 at 1:21 am Link to this comment

RE: #122615 by Jonas South on 12/26 at 12:58 pm

Jonas, you make a very important point here and one which I also mentioned earlier on this thread
, but it raises important questions as well. Part of the problem I see is that on the abortion issue there is a lack of physiological scientific knowledge, and numerous people approach the issue through historical (what they have been told) or emotional (feelings) standpoints rather than logic.

It makes perfect sense to me that if a person is proclaimed dead upon the cessation of brain activity, then they should not be proclaimed alive in the absense of it during gestation.

I think the heartbeat is the point of confusion, since people seem to equate a heartbeat with life. It should be pointed out the even very lower life forms have a pulse to enable circulation, but this ‘reflex’ is no indication these are sentient beings. Cows, pigs, fish, birds, lizards, frogs, etc., also have heartbeats, but just like the fetus, before it develops brainwaves in the 22nd week of pregnancy, they will never be people either.

On the issue of morality, is it any more immoral to destroy a fetus (before the 22nd week) with no brain activity, than it is to kill a living being with a heartbeat AND brain functions such as a cow for your dinner, or a sick pet you wish to put out of misery?

Personally, I believe it is immoral, and even the height of irresponsibility, to bring a child into this world without the means to properly provide for their comfort & needs, and not to the exclusion or increased suffering of existing childern that are not being adequately cared for.

Look at the state of the world today. We have several things on the immediate horizon that could eliminate ALL of us. Included are runaway climate change, radiation poisoning through the usage of nuclear weapons & especially depleted uranium, a permanent state of war over dwindling natural resources, manmade or natural virulent plague, so why should we add insult to injury through overpopulation?

Like it or not birth control, through the last resort of abortion, is a measure people must accept if the already living are to have a good quality life on this planet.

The facts are the facts, just like the fact 50 people will not fit inside a VW.

Although I am in complete agreement with Dr. Paul on some issues (getting rid of the CIA & non-Federal Reserve) I just don’t think we should trust him with the keys to the Whitehouse because of others.

Report this

By Joe, December 27, 2007 at 12:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#122681 by Outraged on 12/26 at 8:35 pm

Outraged,
Thanks for your issue-oriented post re: fascism. I’ll offer my two cents here, my preferred analyst being Brzezinski. There are no quotes, though, just my interp.

Your thoughts on the matter, which emphasize Left-Right politics, aren’t really legit since there are dozens of political systems in the world which have 180-opposed definitions to such labels.

I think of fascism in terms of a syndrome, a collection of qualifiers for the people and policies which form a fascist state. The State, usually with a dictator at the helm, attempts to recruit mass numbers to enforce its formal doctrine or ideology. There is usually collaboration committed by leaders of industry and other institutions permeating society. Enforcement against resistance is carried out by elements of the police-state, frequently individuals who had been honest officers of police or military. State control of media is key, the preferred method being voluntary collaboration but, when needed, compulsion or replacement. Ideology is key to the enterprise, meaning the Saddam regime, for example, does not qualify as fascist. Success in the endeavor will permit expansion to surrounding regions. My opinion is that the driving force, the dictator, usually oversteps his bounds, with ambition or excitement overcoming common sense. In the case of Hitler, he failed to heed his military leadership re: timing, strategy, local-scale tactics and limitations demanded by common-sense.

Report this

By cyrena, December 27, 2007 at 12:08 am Link to this comment

Part 1 of 4 reply to#122563 by PatrickHenry

•  Cyrena, over the past months I have noticed your posts have become more insulting and negative. Can’t others express their views without you resorting to name calling and mockery. 
Stick to the facts.

PH, you keep mimicking me these days, and repeating observations that have been noted about well… YOU. However…

They ARE the FACTS and that’s what the problem is. If it’s negative, than it’s because people like nomacerdo, (and you) have circulated lies/misconceptions, and mine is a continued effort to stay on the side of truth. The FACTS.
There’s a huge difference, I will admit, between YOUR fanatical obsession for RP, which I’ll address shortly, and that of nomascerdo, who is in fact among the truly ignorant. (I’m not suggesting that you are equally ignorant at ALL levels, and again…I’ll explain the difference, though you’re not likely to appreciate those ‘facts’ either).

In the case of nomacerdo, we’re hearing from a blind faith groupie, dealing in hero worship of the ideological type. These people see only what they want to see, and interpret as such, and put all of the BS out there – to counteract the truth. When they are confronted with FACTS, they explain them away very blithely, with more bullshit. When that doesn’t work, and they are called out again and again, then they resort to whining that they’re being picked on. (or their heroes are being exposed for what they are).

This is what happens when I (not to mention countless other posters) come up with the FACTS, over and over again, and you or she, (noma – since I personally believe nomacerdo is a female, though that’s just an intuitive observation on my part) do your best to lie out or around those facts with insignificant issues, or just plain DISINFORMATION. But what is most important here, is that all of it results from a defensive REACTION to the FACTS, because they are the truth that you would so much prefer to have remain covered up. You say this is negativity, because it’s helpful for you to use these ideological games with words, but the fact of the matter is that it’s a dishonest way around –the facts-.

It has been the –way of the world- for at least the past 7 years, and in political discourse, (which has infected every other level of discourse) to change and/or obfuscate the real issues, or the historical interpretations of basic logic. Consequently, no politician in this day and age is going to come out and admit, in plain and simple language, what their hidden agendas are. From long before the 2000 Coup, the Cabal had their hidden agenda, which has become far less hidden since they’ve put it in motion. But the point is that there are still those who don’t get that it has been a hidden agenda. They don’t get that the Unitary Executive plan was determined long ago, at least as far back to the Nixon Admin, when the SAME players were in the mix. IE Richard B. Cheney. Most of you (paulie groupies) fail to ‘get this’. Instead, you are focused on your own dwindling resources and the privileged power that you assumed you had, as a result of your monetary worth. Ergo, you’ve lost your own ‘worth’, (because your own ‘personal’ worth can only be measured in terms of your material acquisitions, and the socio-political ‘power’ that it brings you – even in your OWN estimation of YOURSELF!) Still, NONE of you are going to ADMIT that, even to yourselves. You aren’t going to ADMIT that you’re a racist, because nobody would do that in today’s society. But, after enough exchanged dialog, it becomes clearly obvious.
Meantime, there is no ‘difference’ in that respect, with Ron Paul. His agenda is hidden enough, (from people like you, and to a much greater degree, people like nomacerdo) because he plays to the prejudices in a way that allows you to feel ‘patriotic’ in your self-absorbed concern about ‘you and yours’. And you are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the future repercussions in the big picture.

TBC

Report this

Page 1 of 4 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »

 
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.