Part 2 of 4 to Patrick Hen 122563

Noma of course, hasn’t a clue. Yours is at least slightly more informed, even though there is the inherent callous disregard for anything that doesn’t enhance your personal (and selfish) goals. Because we KNOW that you are as much a separatist as Ron Paul. That IS negative, and there’s no way around that, the same way that Ron Paul is a racist, and there’s no way around that. Again, his record speaks for itself.

Those are the FACTS.  If you or anyone else chooses to cherry pick the rhetoric to suit your own ends, it doesn’t change that it is negative, and by and large, it destroys the ‘whole’. What you haven’t figured out, is that in destroying the whole, you destroy yourself as well, because you are part of it. So in that respect at least, you too are ignorant. But, that isn’t an insult; it’s a ‘fact’.
The superficial appeal of RP lies in his promise to stop the war, and eliminate income taxes, and for his supporters (like you) it has little or nothing to do with the fact that these wars of aggression are immoral, illegal, and cause more destruction of humanity than someone like you could ever perceive, because you don’t care to. You’ve said as much yourself. You couldn’t care less if countless lives are wiped out or left in permanent ruins, as long as they aren’t YOURS or ‘your own’ and not using ‘your’ money. So, the appeal for you is the promise to stop the hemorrhage of the money that goes into these efforts. That’s a reasonable appeal. If we can stop the war, than we can stop the feeding of the military industrial complex, (and those who benefit the most from it).

But, we know that isn’t really the ONLY thing that RP wants to do, nor is it the only thing that YOU want to have happen. In reality (and in fact) RP can’t shut down the military industrial complex, nor does he advocate that. (he just wants to redistribute it) In reality, he wants to undo what was accomplished by the civil war, which was to SAVE the UNION, (and another poster deserves the credit for bringing this FACT to the surface after noma made another one of her foolish claims about it being a ‘federal interference’.)

We know that the reality is that you don’t want ANY of ‘your’ funds supporting anything that doesn’t DIRECTLY benefit YOU, and that includes any PUBLIC (and therefore SHARED) resources. Neither does he. It amounts to a totally privatized and separatist society, where the state or district that one lives in, has everything to do with that individuals’ ultimate socio-economic survival. Not only do people like you not want to share the public resources that are already there, but you also want to prevent anyone other than your ‘chosen’ group from ever having the opportunity to access them, even by means of their own labor. So, you quibble about things that don’t amount to any real $$; (tax breaks for small organizations), while failing to realize that it isn’t that chump change that has reduced your own wealth. Those are only diversions for small minded people like you, to prevent you from recognizing who it is that is REALLY ripping you off. (and besides, you can’t get to the ‘real’ culprits.)

TBC

Part 3 of 4 to PH 122563

So you think that RP will save you on all of that, because his rhetoric speaks in code, to make that claim. But, what he really proposes is a separatist society, and one that is racially derived. Even the abortion/contraception issue is code for the same. Even I didn’t actually make the ultimate connection myself, until very recently. For years I have been continually amazed at the focus on abortion and contraception as political issues. It made absolutely NO SENSE to me, that anyone in our society, should CARE whether or not a stranger that they don’t know, and aren’t likely to ever know, chooses to practices contraception, or has an abortion. It became even MORE nonsensical to me, when these SAME people, who were so rabidly opposed to it, were the ones who were even MORE opposed to any public assistance for the welfare of these human beings, once they actually BECAME human beings. (and no, life does NOT begin at conception, it begins at birth, unless it is a still birth).

Now of course I had already acknowledged the underlying (and yet unspoken) assumption in this incongruity. In short, the care and concern for the ‘unborn’ and even the ‘yet to be conceived’ was limited to the dominant culture, (WHITE, if you don’t get that) because the issue of providing social services is only reviled in the sense that it is ‘presumed’ by this same dominant culture, that the primary recipients are people of color. (another misinterpretation NOT supported by the facts).
And then, it hit me in sort of a double whammy, in a conversation at a family holiday gathering, -talking politics- and in respect to the RP gang. It was verified (in my mind) when Logican posted on this very thread, that RP is opposed to contraception because he calls it ‘population control’ and he is OPPOSED to ‘population control’. (this is just from RP’s own words). Now of course, anyone thinking in terms of ‘we the people’ or humanity at large, existing in a SHARED space, would most obviously be IN FAVOR of population control, by nature of the very FACT, that we are running out of resources!!
Anyway, my brother-in-law made this point, and while he is an extremely intelligent physician, (gastroenterologist/diagnostician) he’s not nearly as ‘vocal’ in his sharing of the ‘connection of the dots’ as I am. However, he explained that as a POLITICAL issue, the dominant culture is OVERWHELMINGLY preoccupied with birth rates, because they are in fact – DOWN. In other words, (actually, MY words this time – since my BIL is more diplomatic) they have the SAME overwhelming fear that they’ve had for centuries, (since the days of the original colonies) that they will lose their majority (racial) status, and all of the power and control that goes with it. This is why –YOU- mimicked ME, in my own suggestion that there are more of US, than there are of THEM) Needless to say, I was speaking of ‘we the people’ as the general populace, that includes ALL of us, in relation to the members of Congress and the Executive Branch, and even the Courts. YOU of course, were speaking from the political position of the majority of whites, who have always maintained their individual and collective superiority, based on exactly that. (Being Anglo and Christian)

It is this very same ‘fear’ that guided the majority of our politics, (and indeed, even parts of the Constitution) from the very beginning. As the very first ‘colony’ to be established, the population of Virginia had at one time, a racial ratio of something like 4/1.

TBC

Part 4 of 4 to PH 122563

As long as that slave population could be controlled by force, and bondage, then it wasn’t a concern. But oh yes, it did eventually become such a concern, when the minority made the common sense rationalization that at some point, this much larger portion of the black slave population just might REBEL. It’s a fear that has remained to this day, even though no one will address it openly. So, Ron Paul addresses it in code, and many of his supporters understand it perfectly, as I’m sure YOU do.

I don’t believe that nomascerdo does. I think these points are missing for her, as they are for so many of the others. Instead, it’s just a groupie blind faith thing, and since she can never counter an argument with FACTS, she distorts it all by evasion and obfuscation, which ultimately leads to confusion for anyone else, who for whatever the reasons, (usually a lack of historical knowledge and/or context) have failed to read the ‘code’ in which Ron Paul speaks. It is the code of a secret society that is really no different than that of the other ‘elitist’ secret societies that you claim to distain. (probably because you’re not ‘in’ them) Still, the foundation of the ideology is comprised of the same elements.

So, there you have it – the facts. These are supported by the associations that Ron Paul has made, and retains. The John Birch Society, as well as his connections to other white supremacist organizations that he may not choose to advertise, but most certainly has not denied. And, it is from them, where the support comes. And, if you want to claim that it’s the “Internet” it’s only because of the anonymous nature by which these funds/support can be accumulated in a so far unregulated environment. (RP would change that of course, once it’s been used to his own ends.) It’s the same as any other ‘secret society’ including some of what you very cynically refer to as charity organizations. Again, it is more of the same obfuscation and changing of the language that we’ve had these past many years. They are only ‘charity’ organizations in that they are Anglo-Chistian PAC’s, and just call themselves something else.

As an aside I DON’T think the ‘elitists’ would have ‘trouble’ with an RP presidency either. That would appear to be yet another ‘uninformed’ or otherwise naïve presumption on your part, to which you alluded in another post regarding the neoconners desire to keep RP on the fringes, because he would supposedly disturb their elite positions and status.
WRONG! RP has no desire to do that, as evidenced by his parliamentary blockage of the resolution presented by Kucinich, to impeach the chief neoconner of the batch – Dick Cheney.

In reality, RP has no genuine desire or intent to upset the “elitist’ status quo, and his plan for maintaining it is only different in tactical measures. Where the hard core neoconners like Dick Cheney have simply TAKEN OVER all three branches of Government, (by stacking the courts, and the Congress, and treating itself the Exec branch as the King of it all) RP would simply ELIMINATE/nullify the Courts and the Congress, by effectively dissolving their original intent (as determined by the Constitution) to place the appropriate checks and balances on each other.

That plan would be perfectly acceptable to the hard core neoconners, because he will ONLY dissolve those remaining elements of the system that can’t be as easily controlled, or haven’t yet been confiscated in totality; ie, the Courts and the Congress. At some point in time, the current members of each CAN and WILL in fact, be replaced. And that’s a wild card. It’s a wild card because Cheney and the gang will have to move on, and can no longer guarantee with hands on manipulation, that those branches will continue to operate their business. So, if all else fails, breaking it down entirely, would be the ultimate solution. RP’s plan would do that, allowing them to redistribute the spoils among themselves.

1 of 2

You forgot about this one:

#122368 by Nomascerdo on 12/25 at 12:23 am

Link included.

Regarding fascism… I love that you cited Wikipedia which demonstrates the wide swath of interpretations and history of how fascism has been defined. My point is, I don’t think anybody really knows what the word means when they throw it around. 

From that same Wiki… ” George Orwell wrote in 1944:

  ...the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else… almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.[23]”

Using Orwell’s simplification of the word to mean ‘bully’ I would say that I am most certainly NOT a fascist by that definition, nor the one you cite. In fact, I could easily argue and cite posts that suggest that you and your cronies are Orwellian fascists (although hardly effective ones).  The proof is in the pudding.

Now all that said, I would be surprised to find any parts of fascism that I agree with or would promote. However, with so many things proscribed to fascism, by your own cited source, it is possible SOMETHING in there fits, but nothing I am aware of nor have the time to really research conclusively. 

cont…

2 of 2

... Anyhow, I subscribe to what is called ‘classic liberalism’ which is what many people consider to be the foundation of libertarianism and was brought back to life in the 20th century by Hayek, Mises, and Rothbard.  If you know ANYTHING about that philosophy it has zip to do with fascism.  Compare its core tenets to Mussolini’s definition of fascism:

Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity…. The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value…. Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number…. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State.[11]

Here is Wiki on Classical Liberalism (although again, I am more in the Hayek, Mises, Rothbard school vs. Smith and Paine per se):  Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism[2], or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint…

You should also be aware, which you don’t seem to be that Ron Paul’s intellectual heroes are Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, and Bastiat.  Also clearly not a fascist.

I think that what is most troubling about the US today is how powerful special interests are what control the government.  Ironically while you sit there and accuse me of being a fascist and think that the government will save you from what you fear, I contend that you are promoting the very system you think you stand in opposition to by expecting a larger government to solve the problem.

Considering that Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who has uttered the word ‘fascism’ during this campaign in the context of a WARNING to this country for what is to come if we don’t change our ways. He did so quoting Sinclair Lewis when some tool on Fox asked him about Huckabee’s ‘floating cross’ Christmas advertisement (...“when fascism comes to this country it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross”...) 

So considering that RP is the only one actually calling out our current government system for what it is, namely, a tool of the corporatists and special interests, I feel that my support for him is far more relevant and impactful in protecting this country from fascism than your wishful thinking that somehow decent people are going to come out of the woodwork and fix our government and alter its course.

Who do you support for President by the way?

Nomascerdo,
This post was the first time you brought up Walter Williams.  As you can see, THERE WAS NO LINK.
#122415 by Nomascerdo on 12/25

Then when disputing what I had said about him in a previous post you posted a comment and again provided NO LINK.  #122658 by Nomascerdo on 12/26

I would say this would be agreeable to me as a definition of fascism.  Again from Wikipedia:

“A political spectrum is a way of comparing or visualizing different political positions. It does this by placing them upon one or more geometric axes. The traditional (and most widely used) political spectrum consists of a single axis going from “left” to “right”.

The majority view among both scholars and the general population is that fascism is part of the far right. Fascists themselves sometimes claimed to be right-wing (but not far right), and other times claimed to be a “third force” that was outside the traditional political spectrum altogether (see International Third Position). They never identified themselves as left-wing, and usually reserved the term “leftism” for their enemies.

In The Doctrine of Fascism, an essay signed by Benito Mussolini which was meant to convey the basic principles of Italian Fascism, it is stated:

“ Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the “right”, a Fascist century.[3] ”

After World War II, the only relevant self-proclaimed fascist party in Italy, the Italian Social Movement, called itself “National Right”.

However, many scholars of fascism, including Griffin, Eatwell, Laqueuer, and Weber, are reluctant to call fascism simply a right-wing ideology. Yet in their lengthy discussions they observe that generally fascism and neo-fascism ally themselves with right-wing or conservative forces on the basis of racial nationalism, hatred of the political left, or simple expediency. The early fascism of the 1900’s was however not concerned with race but the pride of Italy and expansion into forgein territories.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_and_ideology

Outraged - why don’t we start with you conclusively defining fascism for all of us.

Also, why don’t I just post all of Walter Williams bio according to Wiki here to save folks the trouble.  Remember that I was the one that brought him up and provided the original link so I am clearly not trying to hide anything about him.  In fact, I would argue that his belief system, in general, is less fascist than yours is.  But by all means, please provide us with a definition of fascism.

Walter E Williams: (from Wiki)
Walter E. Williams (born 1936 in Philadelphia) is an American economist and college professor. He is also a syndicated columnist and author known for his libertarian and sometimes conservative views. He is an occasional guest host of Rush Limbaugh’s radio program and Lawrence Kudlow’s Kudlow & Company TV program.

He received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1972. Since being a graduate student at UCLA, he has been a friend of economist, historian and columnist Thomas Sowell. Correspondence between Sowell and Williams appears in the 2007 by “A Man of Letters” by Sowell. Williams has been a Professor of Economics at George Mason University since 1980, and chairman of that University’s Economic’s department from 1995 to 2001.

He has previously been on the faculty of Los Angeles City College, California State University - Los Angeles, Temple University, and Grove City College.

Williams is a champion of black education, frequently indicting the educational systems of inner city schools for perpetuating, in his words, a fraud against African-American students and families by lowered standards. He is also a critic of the minimum wage and affirmative action, believing that both practices are detrimental to blacks. Williams especially emphasizes his belief that racism and the legacy of slavery in the United States are overemphasized as problems faced by the black community and do not adequately explain the situation blacks face today.

Like most conservatives and libertarians, he criticizes gun control as endangering the innocent and failing to reduce crime.

Williams praises capitalism (of a laissez-faire variety) as being the most moral and most productive system man has ever devised. “Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.”[1]

He has gone on record as advocating the Free State Project in at least two columns and once on television. The Williams endorsement correlated with the largest single membership jump in the first 5000 phase of the project, a jump even higher than the results of the project being Slashdotted. He also believes in the right of U.S. states to secede from the union as several states attempted to do during the Civil War.[2] Williams has supported or been sympathetic toward various secessionist ideas in his writings.[3]

Williams has written hundreds of articles and his syndicated column is published weekly in approximately 140 newspapers across the United States, as well as on several web sites.[4]

Conservative comic strip Mallard Fillmore has launched a campaign to draft Williams for the Republican nomination in the 2008 United States presidential election.[5] Williams has stated that he is inundated with emails, but won’t run, although he won’t completely rule out the possibility. Instead, he endorsed Republican candidate Ron Paul.[6] Paul himself has suggested “[s]omebody like Walter Williams” as a running mate.[7]

RE: #122658 by Nomascerdo on 12/26

Nomacerdo,
I see you prefer the Walter E. Williams “lite” version.  For anyone who is actually interested in the ACTUAL Walter E. Williams please take the time to read the entire article Nomascerdo linked to, since that is EXACTLY where I looked to find the information about Walter E. Williams.  The things Nomascerdo calls “smear, bullshit, guilt by association, and political ugliness.”  Be sure to check out the reference links at the bottom of the page.

For future reference Nomascerdo, it is not smear nor political “ugliness” to tell the truth.  Smear and political ugliness is a tactic used when things are said WHICH ARE NOT TRUE.

Well I just noticed you didn’t link to the article…hmm….why not Nomascerdo…why not..??  Here’s the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

BTW Nomascerdo, you haven’t answered my question, are you a fascist?

And here is the New York Times retracting a story they wrote with unverified, FALSE CLAIMS, regarding Ron Paul being associated with, knowing, having dinner, receiving official donations from white supremacists and a known CON-MAN, felon, documented liar Bill White.

http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/

Garbage in, garbage out.

Losers

John Lennox, professor of mathematics at Oxford and author of GOD’S UNDERTAKER, leans towards a belief in intelligent design and questions some of Dawkins’
contentions on the probability of all the necessary constituents of life coming together by accident at just the right infinitesimal moment in time.  Some of the people who post here would have us believe that Dawkins has the final word on God and that only stupid people believe in a creator.  This is far from the truth.

Glenn Greenwald’s argument on Ron Paul’s candidacy referred to by that blogger Karin Friedemann is very interesting.  I’m not sure what Karin was talking about regarding Marriage, Dowry, and Maintenance but I am unfamiliar with her.  To be clear, those were not Glenn’s words.

The most interesting point about Glenn’s take, and he by no means supports Ron Paul as a whole, is what a shame it is that the progressives don’t have a candidate that is addressing the issues that most Ron Paul supporters consider to be the most crucial (including myself) but what is worse is that they spend SO MUCH MORE ENERGY trying to tear down Ron Paul vs trying to compel their candidates to discuss the critical issues.  He nailed it about priorities.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/22/klein/index.html

PatrickHenry -  Have you read Andrew Sullivan’s endorsement of Ron Paul?  He reminds me a lot of Glenn Greenwald.  Another real (and rare) journalist that actually uses verified facts to come to his conclusions versus the smear, bullshit, guilt by association, and political ugliness. 

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/12/ron-paul-for-th.html

Here is bit more detail than ‘right wing jounalist’ provided by some other poster regarding Walter E Williams.  For those of you not paying attention Walter Williams is the ONLY person who Ron Paul has even mentioned as a potential running mate.  Walter Williams has also endorsed Ron Paul for President:

(From Wikipedia)

“He received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1972. Since being a graduate student at UCLA, he has been a friend of economist, historian and columnist Thomas Sowell. Correspondence between Sowell and Williams appears in the 2007 by “A Man of Letters” by Sowell. Williams has been a Professor of Economics at George Mason University since 1980, and chairman of that University’s Economic’s department from 1995 to 2001.

He has previously been on the faculty of Los Angeles City College, California State University - Los Angeles, Temple University, and Grove City College.

Williams is a champion of black education, frequently indicting the educational systems of inner city schools for perpetuating, in his words, a fraud against African-American students and families by lowered standards. He is also a critic of the minimum wage and affirmative action, believing that both practices are detrimental to blacks. Williams especially emphasizes his belief that racism and the legacy of slavery in the United States are overemphasized as problems faced by the black community and do not adequately explain the situation blacks face today.”

Yeeup. Sounds just like another one of Ron Paul’s scary, fascist, white power, we want an All-White America, Klan member friend.  HUH!?!?!?!?

Very relevant to this thread.

By Karin Friedemann
KarinFriedemann.blogspot.com
12-27-7

Glenn Greenwald went on for paragraph after paragraph in Salon Magazine going on and on about why he still deserves to live even though he’s considering voting for a pro-life Republican, namely Dr. Ron Paul, for president.
 
It is stunning to me how many people would rather have an abortion than have world peace. It seems pretty selfish to me. But I guess that’s what having an abortion is all about. Men who don’t want to take responsibility for their offspring. It has absolutely nothing to do with women’s rights if you ask me, and I have always been female. It has to do with the assumption that women must earn a living or else they are a drain on society.
 
Glenn Greenwald wrote:
 
“There’s no question that abortion—whatever one’s views on it are—is a vital, even central issue of individual rights… But abortion isn’t the only important issue… of Paul’s candidacy.”
 
There are actually a lot of questions about what are the most vital issues concerning the individual rights of women, and how abortion fits into that picture. If you ask me, abortion is a distraction from the three fundamental rights of sexually active women.
 
Marriage - the promise of a man to provide for his offspring and fulfill the needs of his woman.
 
Dowry - a gift given from the man to the woman to legitimize his interest in her.
 
Maintenance - all expenses paid (food, clothing, shelter, medical care) for life.
 
In the ideal world, every woman should and would demand this from any man seeking to enjoy her. Abortion “on demand and without apology” destroys this ancient security net for women.
 
“If people who support a candidate with the wrong position on abortion (or gay rights) can be accused of being indifferent to the rights of women or gay people, then—by the same exact “reasoning”—those who end up supporting candidates who affirm America’s right to act as an imperial power or who want to continue many of Bush’s executive power abuses [as Hillary Clinton certainly does and as even Barack Obama and (to a lesser extent) John Edwards do] should be accused of being indifferent to constitutional liberties, the rule of law, and the lives of millions of innocent Muslims,” continues Greenwald.
 
I do not presume to know what the “right” position is on abortion. Neither does Ron Paul. He doesn’t let his personal feelings get in the way of the Constitution. He says leave it up to the state. There is no way New York Jews are ever going to criminalize abortion. So it’s a non-issue.

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.

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

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.”

Why did TRUTHdig decide to EDIT the video of Ron Paul they cited in this story?  They cut out a section of his answer in the MIDDLE of his response.  Why did they do this?

Here is the ENTIRE answer for anyone who wants to hear what he really said, in its entirety, and not what “truth"dig wants you to hear and not hear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5z1FLVBkc4

Truthdig?

re: #122286 by Nomascerdo on 12/24 at 1:44 pm - “Logician - your entire rant, as it relates to Ron Paul, has no supporting evidence.”

A person who does not even know what a scientific ‘theory’ is can not possibly be qualified to hold the highest executive office in the land…. therefore, Ron Paul is not qualified. Nor is anybody else that is presently running, that I can think of.

Evolution is not a matter of ‘belief’. I keep reading that here… that, and “... evolution is just a theory… not a fact.” That, as it turns out, is true… although the word ‘just’ is inappropriate, and misleading… and it indicates that people like Ron Paul… intellectual inheritors of that ancient Greek sage, Moronicus… just don’t understand what a scientific theory is; they seem to think that a theory is just an ‘idea’. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Science does not ‘prove’ things. ‘Proof’ is for logicians, mathematicians, coin collectors and distillers of alcoholic beverages. Proof in science is applicable only in the ‘negative’ sense… i.e., hypotheses and theories must be ‘falsifiable’. When scientists do experiments (to validate ‘predicted’ results), they are NOT trying to ‘prove’ they are RIGHT… they are trying to FIND OUT if they’re WRONG. NOT being wrong simply builds confidence that one is on the right track… it ‘proves’ nothing.

In science, ‘theories’ occupy a higher level of importance than mere ‘facts’... theories EXPLAIN facts. The Theory of Evolution provides an explanatory framework for the OBSERVED FACT that the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (i.e., the GENE POOL) changes over time (evolves). The theory identifies two (2) mechanisms which account for such changes:

** Genetic drift… statistical variations in allele frequency within a local population, over time.

** Natural selection… the non-random replication of randomly varying replicators.

There are a few important things to know about biological ‘evolution’...

* DNA does NOT evolve… it experiences mutations (random).

* Organisms DO NOT evolve. Organisms are essentially the ‘proxies’ for altered DNA, playing out the ‘game’ of survival/procreation in ‘meat space’. DNA whose proxy organisms manage to procreate get to move on to the next round… kind of like Jeopardy. This is where ‘natural selection’ plays out… ANYTHING that increases the STATISTICAL PROBABILITY that an organism will survive long enough to procreate… and that is ALL that it means.

* It is the genetic makeup of POPULATIONS of organisms (the ‘gene pool’) that ‘evolves’ (changes, over time)... NOT organisms (creatures).

NONE of what I have just written is questioned by credible, competent scientists.

The foolish cartoon-version of evolution that christian/creationist puppet-masters describe to their flocks is pretty much one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard…. lies such as “Evolutionists claim that an ape gave birth to the first human.”

If Ron Paul doesn’t know that, then he’s not fit to be president.

When are the moderators of Truthdig going to step in and address the extraordinarily combative, hateful, and ignorant rantings of some the posters here?  They certainly don’t add to the discussion nor do they bring anyone closer to ‘the truth’.

On another note, Jonas South, that definition of when life begins and ends, according to Carl Sagan, makes a TON of sense to me.  Thank you for sharing that!

This is a Test.
Select the answer that BEST matches your view:

1. Do your religious beliefs (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.) closely match those of your parents?
a. Yes, my religious beliefs closely match those of my parents
b. No, I’ve changed religions
c. No, I don’t ‘believe’ in any of the above    

2. In high school you were taught how to apply the ‘scientific method’ to prove/disprove our observations of the world around you. Do you apply those or similar tests to your religious beliefs?
a. Yes, of course
b. No, because religious beliefs don’t apply to the scientific method
c. What ‘tests’?

3. Do you support the theory of Evolution?
a. Yes
b. No
c. Yes and No

4. Do you support a candidate who believes in the literal word of the Bible?
a. Yes
b. No
c. It doesn’t matter what they believe as long as they don’t let it interfere in their policy decisions.

Answers:

1. C (score 25 points)
If you answered A or B, score 0 points. If you chose A, your beliefs are not, in fact, yours; they’re your parents’. Think about it - the ONLY real reason you believe as you do is because this is what you grew up to believe. If you chose “B” you’re still wrong. How could you possibly leave a religion that states unequivocally (as all monotheistic religions do) that IT is the true word of God?

2. A (score 25 points)
If you answered B or C, score 0 points. If you chose B, then you’d still support 17th century Christian beliefs that the sun revolves around the earth or that the plague was brought on by Satan. If you chose C, go back to school.

3. A (score 25 points).
If you answered B or C, score yourself 0 points. If you dismiss evolution because it’s just ‘theory,’ then you must dismiss gravity, germ contagion, black holes and planets outside our solar system – all of which also exist only through ‘theoretical’ knowledge. As any scientist will confirm, all scientific knowledge is theoretical and subject to test, retest, acceptance and rejection. As mentioned elsewhere in this blog, the overwhelming evidence supports – and increasingly continues to build on – Darwin’s original theory, just as we continue to support and build on Einstein’s theory of relativity. 

4. B
If you answered A or C, score 0. A candidate who believes the earth is the center of the universe (a universe created in 6 days), who believes woman was created from Adam’s rib, who believes that Jesus is the one and only son of God, who believes that sex outside of marriage demands death by stoning, and that anyone who believes otherwise on ANY of these tenets will eternally burn in hell is unfit to represent anyone in a democracy. What’s more, any candidate who claims to be “Christian” yet promises his or her actions won’t affect policy decisions cannot - by Christianity’s own definition, be a true Christian. They’ll burn in eternal hell with the rest of us!

If you scored 100, you’re using your brain; if you scored 0, you’re not.

Science is disgustingly arrogent and religion is even more so. History continually proves both to be ridiculously wrong time and time again.

No one knows for sure and the ones who are most sure are the ones usually most wrong.

So let it go and get on with evolving the self.

re:  #122544 by cyrena

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.

Ron Paul looks a lot better to me after seeing this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1656880303867390173

#122400 by Nomascerdo

•  It has been my experience that when someone claims that they are more intelligent and insults another the reverse is often the case.  Let’s take you for example.  How many times have you insulted my intelligence now?  I lost count.
Nomascerdo
This was too good to let pass. You STILL don’t get it, do you MORON? YOU ARE STUPID!! THAT is why you’ve lost count of all the times that EVERYONE has insulted your intelligence. Besides, it’s not an ‘insult’, it’s a statement of fact. You are MINUS any intelligence. That’s all anybody is saying.

You read other blogs, and see that OTHER intelligent people are also listing FACTS, and you call it smear and propaganda, because…YOU’RE STUPID, and so you either don’t know the facts, or you don’t WANT to know them.

So then you whine that people are insulting your intelligence, (which you don’t have). So, you should just not SHOW your ignorance and stupidity, and stay off of blogs. (especially if the FACTS upset you).

•  I am pro-choice, personally, but I am against the abortion of viable babies as long as the mother’s life or health is not at risk or the circumstance was rape.

Here’s your hypocrisy again. It’s NOT YOUR BUSINESS to be against anything or anyone you don’t know anything about!! Your OPINION about anybody else’s abortion, (and they don’t have to tell YOUR ASS what the ‘circumstances’ are, because the issue is PRIVACY) is not part of the deal, and neither is Ron Paul’s.
I should also add that the ONLY reason that this is a political issue AT ALL, is as it concerns the dominant white culture, who has this overwhelming fear of their dwindling population numbers. Otherwise, RP wouldn’t care, and neither would you!!

It’s pretty amazing that anyone as obviously ignorant as you are, would actually tell somebody else, (ANYBODY else) that he/she was lacking a fundamental understanding in how the constitution is designed. Now THAT is what we call ignorant arrogance, similar to your response to those who question your intelligence, COUNTLESS times.

•  The last time a state invaded another state was the Civil war and even that was more a result of the federal government than the individual states themselves.

I can’t believe you actually wrote this. I mean, even after reading all of your incredibly stupid shit up to now, I can believe you actually have no clue to why the civil war was fought.

Yes, Logican is right. Your parents MUST be related. Are you and your mother sisters as well.

Seems to me like you promised to go to Austria and count money. Please do that. You’ll like it there.

PH
•  In a sense it is the worst possible nightmare for the elites.

This is what so clearly shows your own ignorance and myopia. If you had more than a tunnel vision, and maybe more than 1 generation in this country, you’d know that the ELITES will do as they will, and as they always HAVE. It’s not the ‘elites’ that are concerned about this goof ball. It’s the people who don’t want to be re-enlaved by his racist visions of a totally white society.

You’re a joke if you think it’s the ‘elites’ that are worried about him. They would squash him like any other bug.

And, for the record noma, I said ‘allegedly’ a physician because I was being facetious, and you’re too stupid to know it. I KNOW he has a piece of paper from Duke. He’s also been a politician for over 20 years. Tell me when he’s had the time to practice real medicine? Sorry to tell you this, but delivering babies doesn’t take the smartest medical mind. It just doesn’t. And yes, cab drivers have been known to do it.

Still, tell me again why it matters for a president to be an obgyn. Gonna deliver babies in the WH?

Please, just go back to studying the Austrian money.

RE: #122504 by Brad on 12/25

Thank you Karl Rove….well of course I mean Brad.  Excuse me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you busy with family and friends on this MOST SACRED of holidays.

But on this point, I wholeheartedly agree: “Do not be so mentally minuscule as to be caught up in arguments about detritus.”

Let’s let Chrismyth be factually celebrated as to its pagan origins and its original intent since so many things in this world are so often misconstrued.

Cyrena,
Really I love ya, we be good.  But Cyrena let them speak, REALLY CYRENA here is where they need to speak the loudest….BTW, have a good Chrismyth, I am.  Hang tough.

The issue of suffering in what is termed ‘partial birth’ aborted fetuses is a strawman argument. The central nervous system doesn’t develop until around 22 weeks (mid third trimester), and without it there is no way for the fetus to feel pain.

The statement that life begins at conception is BS also. Aren’t sperm & the egg already alive. This makes no sense. If a couple are having sex and the man pulls out early to prevent his mate becoming pregnant, them ejaculates on the sheets instead, is he guilty of murder?

In an overpopulated, AIDS infected world, and one in which abstinance only programs have proven themselves wasted money in a failed effort, ALL birth control measures must be on the table, and this includes abortion. Period

#122267 by dwhite

•  Ron Paul never wrote or said this. One of his staffers wrote it, is the story, and Dr. Paul denies having ever said such. Don’t believe everything you read on the internet, without researching both sides.
Dwhite,

You’re VERY naïve if you think that this was a ‘one time’ comment by Ron Paul, making his very prejudice against people of color OH SO VERY OBVIOUS, for the entire time that he’s been in politics. And, Ron Paul DID say this. So, it doesn’t really matter WHO wrote it, if HE said it.

And, let me repeat, this has been his mentality the whole time. So, wise up. The guy is a fascist AND a racist, (they frequently accompany each other) and that’s just the way it is.

Check out the home page of the John Birch Society, (KNOWN for it’s very racist ideology), and you’ll find RP on the cover.

Please stop trying to cover up for him in his ‘new persona’ by denying that he is who he is. That would be a racist, and a misogynist, just for starters. He’s also stupid. What’s so wrong with having somebody smart as a President, instead of a moron, and a racist one at that? Haven’t you had enough of that?

#122362 by Outraged

•  fattdaddy,
I find your comment somewhat at odds with itself, can you elaborate as to why or how you came to this conclusion?
Outraged,

Now why did you have to go and do that? These people don’t need any ENCOURANGEMENT!

It’s the same old stuff with these people over and over again. They blame EVERYTHING on the lack of ‘prayer in schools”. Because, they’re stupid.

It never ceases to annoy me when people need to reference the Bible to claim to know the difference between right and wrong, which is exactly what makes organized religion so dangerous. (or, that’s ONE of the reasons).

Yes, fatddaddy, it IS important for children to learn the difference between right and wrong, and one needn’t get that information from the bible. Moreover, that’s something that kids should start learning from day one, NOT waiting until they get to school.

Additionally, one can be as ethical/moral as the planets are certain, and not ever have even HEARD of the Bible. Matter of fact, the chances are far greater that a person will be far more ethical/moral if they STAY AWAY from that stuff, especially the Old Testament filled with fire and brimstone. It’s enough to scare the living bejesus out of a kid, before the real Jesus even shows up in the New Testament.

You wanna know about the Bible, do it on your own time. Religion is NOT the same as ethics, or knowing the difference between right and wrong. And, you’re not ‘religious’ your a fanatic zealot.

#122475 by Ga

Bravo Ga. Thanks!!

This is what has been my entire point, (not to mention a few others). Still, this is what it boils down to, with most of the dimwits…

•  You Paul supporters say one thing, all the while Ron Paul himself says something different!
Exactly. It’s like some sort of hero worship. They make up whatever THEY want to think he’s about, even when he says and writes HIMSELF, what he’s about. Been doing it for a long time too. They don’t bother to check any of that out though.

He’s a repug, and they’re all embarrassed about the repugs that they’ve allowed to take our country away. So, since they can ONLY see, smell, hear, think, REPUBLICAN, then he’s their ‘savior’.

It’s really only about that, and nothing much more. The abortion thing isn’t even a concern for them, unless it’s ‘their own’ that are having abortions. Has nothing to do with real Christianity. Matter of fact, they aren’t even REAL Christians, if one is really talking about the teachings of Christ, as they as reiterated in the New Testament. So, it’s just more ideology for their newly chosen hero, who has promised to deliver the separatist world that they planned from the beginning.

#122471 by Logician

Logican, I love it!!

It’s all true what you say, oh yes it is. This really IS the way they planned it from day one. It was to be an ALL WHITE country. I just took a really excellent course on Law and Race. Some of that history was new to me, and I’ve been studying it for a while. Amazingly (at least to me, though it made sense after I thought about it), when Texas was admitted to the Union, it was admitted as a SLAVE STATE. (not surprising, for many reasons). When California was admitted shortly after, it was admitted (supposedly as a ‘concession’ or balance-off), as a NON-slave state.

BUT, not for the reasons that the ordinary person might think…(that they just didn’t think slavery was morally acceptable.) NOPE, it was because…they wanted it to be an ALL WHITE state!! (slaves would put blacks in their midst) Now of course we realize after reading ALL the facts surrounding ALL of the history/formation of this country, that it was ALWAYS INTENDED to be that way, from the beginning days.

Ron Paul is right there with that, as was his mentor, Hitler. It’s pretty much the very same way today, (at least on a de facto basis) in his TX district. The one he’s represented for 20 years. That’s the way they want it. RP promises to return them to that.

Way to go Logicion, and Outraged now where talking keep up the good work.  If we have to save this country by our self so be it.  You can always tell any one who thinks your a nut for discussing politics that it’s all right YOU will save there country for them….

MannyP:

“The deriders of Paul on this site are for the right to have unprotected sex with people that you don’t want to have children with and then have the baby partially delivered and deliberately killed. Furthermore, they frame the debate as being only a woman’s choice or about their body and exclude as beyond the pale the view of billions of people on Earth that life begins at conception and has rights of its own. No wonder there is so much rancor.”

This rankles, precisely because it is the likes of you—the Religious Right—who sow the seeds for these discussions, and upon the first time you get caught at a lie, a mistake, an error, or a lapse of understanding, you fire back with “you are immoral” and bring up gross and explicit inuendo.

Are all your minds full of images of unprotected sex and aborted fetuses?

You are full of such phrases as “partial birth,” “activist judges,” etc., while not even understanding their roots, where they came from. They are propaganda, created to fill you with fear and misinformation—they obviously work.

The debate is and has been about—in this thread—Ron Paul and his views.

Paul’s is a typical “Religious Right” stance. “Your” side as much as “ours” brought up abortion.

You say those against Paul are “for the right to have unprotected sex with people that you don’t want to have children with and then have the baby partially delivered and deliberately killed.” Which is sheer nonsense.

Let us look closer.

So, you are, then, “for the banning of unprotected sex?” But you are actually not, for you would, as Paul says, prevent “federal funds to be used for so-called ‘population control.’”

And you want to ban sex “with people that you don’t want to have children with”? Which is a “family value” right? But so few of you really adhere to this. All you christians who are not actively trying to have a child right now, are not having sex, right? *yawn*

Your crap about the “and partially delivered…” is just a disgusting corruption of what actually happens, and accounts for 0.17% of all abortions since 2000. And one has to look at all the reasons of why such an abortion happens.

Noone here or of the Liberal Left advocate such a “right” as you describe—you are blatantly corrupting the issue.

The “rights” being advocated are a right to an abortion, yes, but also a right to contraceptives, a right to have comprehensive sex education, as well as a women’s right to choose to have safe, medical procedures and a woman’s right to privacy.

These are the issues that you are corrupting.

RE: #122465 by Taxman on 12/25

It is wonderful to hear that your dog doesn’t have any sexual hang-ups about his own body, he must have a great disposition.

Taxman, if your disposition was more like your dogs you wouldn’t have to “watch your dog” while fantasizing about online commenters.

If there is a candidate in the Republican party who is as inspirational as Ron Paul, name them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZArWe8o_hI

Meanwhile contend with your own Republican candidate and state why they are should win the Republican nomination.

What happened to the convention of posting a comment and then letting other people post their views? 

This way a discussion develops among people who have a number of views of what they’ve read. 

I think it’s more interesting this way—to hear what a number of people think about what they’ve read—than to read successive posts by one person.

But…I guess when it comes to posting on Truthdig, it’s best explained as “survival of the fittest.”

The problem of micro- versus macro-evolution.

We can all agree that changes in species take place over time. Slight changes in species can be explained by selection and adaptation to environment. Examples of this micro-evolutionary change are all around us: the predominance of dark-skinned humans in hotter, brighter parts of the globe; the gradual changes from Eohippus to the modern horse; the development of obviously-related but different species within the cat family.

Micro-evolution, explained by selection of favorable characteristics in adaptation to a certain environment, makes sense.

The problem comes with the concept of Macro-evolution; that is, changes that are so profound that any intermediary development between point A and point B cannot be a survivable being. For example, turtles are the only vertebrates in which the scapula (shoulder blade) is located inside the rib cage, presumably to make room for the shell on the outside of the rib cage. What would be the evolutionary form of a creature in between the turtle’s ancestor, and the turtle? A non-shelled creature with a shoulder blade uselessly located inside the rib cage?

Or consider how whales are said to have evolved from land-walking creatures who “returned to the sea.” The long leg and heavy foot structure of a large land mammal is said to have changed, over millenia, into a short limb with a large flippers. What would the intermediary species look like? And would it not be doomed to be an evolutionary flop? Would a creature, in other words, with medium-length legs and partially-webbed hands be biologically viable?

I introduce these problems, not to support the idea of “Creationism,” but simply to point out that there is much we still have to learn about regarding changing forms of species. People who say, “God did it,” aren’t really adding anything to the discussion. But those who stubbornly stick with the “gradual change over time” idea are also being dogmatic.

“This is a rebellion based on the facts.”

Bwahahahah!

Must be something in the water they give out at Ron Paul gatherings.

I can understand why religious folk say their ‘anti-science’ rhetoric, but I just can’t understand Paul supporters who do not bring up religion all the time.

I have shown how Ron Paul’s own statements have refuted Nomascerdo’s “feelings” about what Paul represents regarding abortion.

And the videos referenced here shows us Ron Paul’s own words on how ignorant he is about science and history.

Your “belief in” Ron Paul, no matter how strong, has not made these problems, these differences, with your “facts” about him, and his “facts” as documented in his writings and his words, go away.

You Paul supporters say one thing, all the while Ron Paul himself says something different!

And just like most “christians,” neither you nor he are qualified to argue about science and history—you are not.

Christians hate evolution simply because they have been told to hate it; they do not understand it, they just know that they have been told that it goes against the literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis.

Christians, those who post in blogs like these, do not understand it because they have not studied it. Have you read Darwin’s “The Origin of Species?” Do you think the others have?

But one also needs to understand that Darwin did not exist in a vacuum. Many other people, for a long time, have all contributed to the understanding of evolution and natural selection.

But you christians don’t read about science, do you? You don’t read about history, do you? You have the Bible, your church leaders, and that’s it, right?

The lot of you are very uneducated. Yet you have the arrogance to think that you are. You convince no one.

MannyP says:

“Survival of the fittest is a tautology. Who survive? The fittest. Who are the fittest? The ones that survive. This is meaningless.”

Any one who has looking into evolution should know that the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ does not define evolution, nor was said by Darwin.

I dare you, all of you, to read this, at least:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Specifically the section, Is “survival of the fittest” a tautology?

MannyP thinks it’s all “meaningless,” because—correct me if I am wrong—he simply does not believe in evolution. His stupid statement is meaningless precisely because it is a stupid statement not based on any facts whatsoever, not produced by someone with any understanding of basic scientific principles let alone evolution itself.

But that’s all you people can do, isn’t it? You can repeat almost incomprehensible statements to support a pre-conceived notion, which, by your own addmission, you simply believe as a matter of faith and about which you require ZERO proof.

Apprently, Paul supporters have this “pre-formed belief” and will not listen to reason, IGNORING all facts to the contrary when those facts threaten their belief.

I finally understand. The deriders of Paul on this site are for the right to have unprotected sex with people that you don’t want to have children with and then have the baby partially delivered and deliberately killed. Furthermore, they frame the debate as being only a woman’s choice or about their body and exclude as beyond the pale the view of billions of people on Earth that life begins at conception and has rights of its own. No wonder there is so much rancor.
Let me ask you:
If it is legitimate for the Supreme Court to rule that abortion may be had on demand in the first trimester, what would prevent a different Court from proscribing abortion in all situations? There is certainly no legal authority for either position.

If the Court can rule that the government has a compelling interest in affirmative action cases which overrides the 14th Amendment, what prevents a Court from mandating that each school have school prayer because the state has a compelling interest which overrides the 1rst Amendment? Not that I think that there is a valid legal argument for the complete separation of church and state.

As for the poor that many of you whine about. How is anyone entitled to my labor? I have been a dishwasher, a waiter, a soldier, a student (while being a security guard and later a butcher), a salesperson, a loan officer and now a manager. I earned everything I have an no one has a claim on me but through my consent.

Government is best that governs least.

RE#122459,122461 by Ga, 122462 by Outraged, 122463 by troublesum:

Good Job one and all!  I knew if y’all stuck at it, you’d figure it out.  Paul is indeed a fascist, a religion-using, woman-hating little Hitler of the first order.  He, like his mentor, speaks to the common man, the down trodden man, the little man so tired of ‘big bidness’, Jews, ‘uppity wimmen with loose morals’and ‘big guvmint’, and HE has the answer!  And just like his mentor, Hitler, it sounds too good to be true because it is.

It is all lies, filthy, human-hating megalomaniacal lies, the grandiose ideas of a little man educated beyond his ability to understand the limits of his very ambitious mind. Like the little corporal, he has visions, visions of a homeland brought back to its ‘traditional values’.  Traditional values like slavery, no votes for women, blacks, no one but white land owners because he KNOWS only THEY know what is truly right for this ‘GOD BLESSED’ country.

And yes, I hope you have also realized that Nomascerdo is a campaign troll who slid out from under EVERY question like the slime-covered little ass sucker all dictators have.  He has done his loathsome task proud and will of course deny EVERY quote squarely placing Paul to the right of GWB. He will state all he wants is debate, but he will never honestly answer anyone.  He will quote out of context, he will just LIE.  He has studied Goebbels, Rove, and the like, he knows if he keeps pouring the filth out of his mouth, enough idiots will eventually believe and that will be enough. He will also deny his sycophantic service in the name of his vile and pernicious master and claim he is just a ‘common man’ ‘afraid for the future’ of ‘his country.’

Paul is but the first pale copy of Hitler.  More and more are coming as this country gets ever more dumbed down into accepting such pitiably stupid blathering that cannot even be accepted as rhetoric.  “I’m pro-life!” TO HELL with the women!  They have no RIGHT to their ovaries!  They belong to GOD!”  “Oh, ahem, I mean, it’s all about state rights, yeah, yeah that’s it, state rights”  And the idiots raised on TV will repeat like the zombies they are: “State rights, state rights!  No more big guvmint!”

Didn’t have to scratch very far to get the veneer of respectability off his vile hide.  But others will learn from this disgusting atavism.  They will learn and will grow ever more cunning.  Bin Laden and his flea-bitten fellow camel humpers will not bring this country down.  Its own citizens will hand it to slime more sly than Paul.  And when war ravages this globe, no one will win, not even you, Nomascerdo.

Keep it up, true citizens of America.  Only by continually bringing out the truth behind the lies of this little Hilter will he be defeated.  Konrad Heiden taught us that well.

Oh goody. Let’s discuss the Civil War! But first, let’s hear one take on Ron Paul’s (shameful) take on it:

There are so many things wrong with this line of argument that I don’t even know where to start. Oh wait, yes I do. Let’s begin with: Lincoln didn’t go to war to “get rid of the original intent of the republic.” You have to know even less about history than Tim Russert — I wouldn’t have thought it possible — to say such a ridiculous thing. Or you have to be a bit too willing, eager even, to marry libertarian political ideology with neo-Confederate historical revisionism. Just to be clear: Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union. That’s it. End of story. Full stop.

Also: Lincoln didn’t start the Civil War. To clarify his position throughout the 1860 campaign and well into 1861, long after he was elected president without his name having appeared on a single Southern ballot, Lincoln said that slavery shoudn’t be allowed to expand into the West — a position that was part of the Republican Party (Paul’s party) platform.

http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2007/12/23/ron-paul-very-gradual-emancipationist/

I am so disillusioned—how can so many Americans, especially those at the footstep of power, be so ignorant?

We are so in trouble if Ron Paul—or any other Republican—becomes President.

The Paulettes who are posting here should take the time to learn some history.  The Civil war was faught in part to establish limits on “states rights.”  “Letting the folks in each state decide”
on constitutional issues was determined to be unconstitutional.  If the “folks” in a particular
state happen to be white supremists, according to Paul’s viewpoint they ought to be free to exclude non-whites from all the rights and privleges of citizenship in that state.  This would lead inevitably to another civil war.

RE: #122415 by Nomascerdo on 12/25

Another aspect of Walter Williams:
“Williams praises capitalism (of a laissez-faire variety) as being the most moral and most productive system man has ever devised. “Capitalism is relatively new in human history. Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow man. Capitalism made it possible to become wealthy by serving your fellow man.”[1]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

Nomascerdo,
Do you really think the “advice” of a right wing journalist is valid?  Was this supposed to move me?  Aside from Henry Ford, Hitler and Bush, who also have Williams’ beliefs, subjective REALITY tells us something very different.

Another quote from Williams, which really show where his mentality is:
” Henry Ford benefitted immensely from mass producing automobiles but the benefit for the common man, from being able to buy a car, dwarfs anything Ford received. “

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/97/cap-comm.htm

Sleazy…seriously sleazy.  Sounds to me like a lying capitalist, fascist, mean-spirited, creep, like I said of the Ford and Bush family variety.  Both of whom made money off the deaths of millions and supported the Nazi’s rise to power financially and then later made money because of it EVEN WHILE AMERICANS WERE DYING FIGHTING IN EUROPE.  Are you fascist, Nomascerdo?  It is evident that you support people and movements so closely related to fascism.

#122397 by Nomascerdo

I tracked down your “cut and paste.”

http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm

If you start checking their soources you will find them wanting. For example, for this:

# Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)

They quote him thus:

“The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it.”

But guess what! It is OUT OF CONTEXT! It was the answer to this debate question:

Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?

A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that should be up to the president to decide.

This is all very insane. Paul is a Religious Right Pro-Lifer Republican through and through. All you who think that he is not should walk away in shame and stop posting here.

I came back to post this link about Ron Paul on why the American Civil War Was Unnecessary, and there is an interesting discussion of it there, and see still people fail to actually QUOTE Ron Paul.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/ron_paul_american_civil_war_was_unnecessary.php

#122397 by Nomascerdo

Post a link to your sources. Paul’s own website does not support your facts.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

“I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception.”

“I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade…”

“Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.”

Off to Christmas feast!  Have fun

Laughoutloud - This was the first thing I found on Google regarding the heartbeat question but here is one example of a grad student that says we don’t know how or why the cells that ultimately form the heart start to “beat” at 22 days into gestation.

The link is here:  http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1999-09/937254975.An.r.html

Here is the text of her post and I think it demonstrates that while science explains a lot, human knowledge is minute compared to the total “knowledge” in the universe.

“During embryonic development, the heart is one of the few organs that must function almost as soon as it is formed. Indeed, the fact that the heart is one of the earliest organs to develop speaks to its importance.

The human heart begins to beat and pump blood through the embryo around day 22 of gestation. The electric stimulus that triggers the muscular portion of the heart, known as the myocardium, to contract is myogenic. This means that the contractions arise spontaneously within the myocardium itself, and propagate from cell to cell. Input from the central nervous system can modify the heart rate (the frequency of heart beats), but it does not initiate beats.

The ability of cardiac myocytes (the cells that comprise the myocardium) to beat is an intrinsic property of these cells. In fact, myocytes removed from the early heart and grown in culture will beat sporadically, and if they become connected to each other, will then begin to beat rhythmically, in unison. As a functional organ, the heart begins to beat very early, even before it has assumed its final form. Interestingly, the heart begins to beat even before structures such as valves and septa (singular: septum; the muscular walls that divide the chambers) have formed! The initial contractions are peristaltic—that is, they proceed in a wave-like fashion along the length of the heart. Later, once the heart has matured and the conduction system has developed, the contractions proceed in an orderly, timed sequence through the different chambers.

Because beating is an intrinsic property of the cardiac myocytes, exactly what causes the heart to begin contracting is essentially a cell biological question. Unfortunately, there is not yet a definite answer to this question. We are beginning to understand how cardiac myocytes are specified very early in development, long before the heart has even formed. And we are learning more about their differentiation—that is, how these cells, which initially are not any different from cells that will give rise to the stomach or to muscles in the arm, develop the characteristics that allow them to contribute to the beating heart. From research in these areas, it is clear that certain things are required in order for the heart to beat. For instance, cardiac myocytes must have contractile proteins, such as actin and myosin, that are properly assembled into a scaffold (known as a sarcom ere) that allows contraction to take place. In addition, these cells must have specialized structures called gap junctions, which allow them to communicate so they can beat together in a synchronized fashion. Thus, while it is clear that certain elements must be in place for the heart to beat, it is not yet clear what stimuli are responsible for initiating contraction.

I hope this information is useful! Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. I have listed below a couple review articles that discuss some aspects of early heart development. They are relatively detailed, but unfortunately, do not discuss much about the heartbeat per se. There is very little, if any, available literature which specifically addresses the onset of cardiac contractility.”

I am guessing High School biology doesn’t have the answer either.

Outraged - a more relevant question to ask PatrickHenry is if he voluntarily gives money to any charities because that is what he was asking people to do… VOLUNTARILY give their money to Ron Paul’s campaign.

Comparing taxation to voluntary giving is false is it not? One if voluntary. One is compulsory.  One is accountable. One is not.  One actually helps people. One is usually wasted.

“There are people in need of help. Charity is one of the nobler human motivations. The act of reaching into one’s own pockets to help a fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pocket is despicable and worthy of condemnation.” - Walter Williams

RE: #122395 by PatrickHenry on 12/25

It is hilariously peculiar that you would post a comment by JAY WEIDNER as evidence of ANYTHING.  The man is a snake oil salesman.  He claims he studied all his life with an alchemist but apparently didn’t BELIEVE it until 1998-1999.  I ask you what’s wrong with this picture, since any toddler with a rudimentary knowledge of logic on Sesame Street could decipher this goon’s intent. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IV5e44iaCU

Your quote: “Give your money to Ron Paul. Write to Tim Russert and tell him what you think. Thank the universe every day for the Internet and do everything you can to make sure that the monkeys in Congress don’t let anything happen to it.

But most importantly join the Ron Paul revolution.”

**GIVE YOUR MONEY TO RON PAUL…!!???  Really PatrickHenry that was just to blantant.  It seems odd that you feel that people should “give their money” but those elderly, disabled and hospitalized or sickly individuals ought to just get off the welfare rolls!  No “free” money for them.  If you can’t make it in this world then starve but GIVE YOUR MONEY TO RON PAUL.  Wow, you really need to “rethink” your position, or at least first THINK before you take such outlandish positions.

Logician - FYI I have nothing to do with the Ron Paul campaign officially.  I am a supporter by my own free and voluntary association and I happen to feel compelled to correct all of the ridiculous smears and misunderstandings and accusations heaped upon what I consider to be an incredibly decent, moral, brave, intelligent, and unique American patriot.  I just read a string of comments on DailyKos under an article where one of the writers actually endorsed Ron Paul and the amount of misinformation, lies, and smears is just insane. THe worst part is the same folks smearing him and propagating lies based on lies are the first ones to pat themselves on the back about how intelligent they themselves are!  It has been my experience that when someone claims that they are more intelligent and insults another the reverse is often the case.  Let’s take you for example.  How many times have you insulted my intelligence now?  I lost count. Meanwhile, you can’t even remember the thoughts that you have written down and you lack a fundamental understanding of our system of government.  The folks on DailyKos are making the GRAVE mistake of listening to the well documented INSANE hate monger, liar and con man, Bill White, just because he is saying something they think they want to agree with.  It really is a sad thing to see so many people who claim to be so intelligent being duped by a proven con man with documented violent, anti-social tendencies.  And Ron Paul supporters are crazy?

Thanks PatrickHenry. I appreciate that!

Logician - You have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding how our Constitutional Republic works.  So while on the one hand you criticize Ron Paul for saying that Texas has the right to have a state law regarding sexual conduct I don’t hear you criticizing him when he says that Vermont, or Mass, or California or wherever have the right to have state laws that allow for gay marriage.  He defends both.  His point is that the folks in each state should decide.  His view is the same for drugs, abortion, and literally every other issue that is NOT outlined as the purview of the Federal governemnt which is MOST issues.  The Federal government gets involved when state laws contradict or subvert Constitutional law.  The abortion issue is clearly his most controversial viewpoint but you are making an ENORMOUS and false leap to equate Ron Paul with the violent, extremist Pro-Lifers.  You should be aware that he voted AGAINST a Constitutional Amendment to Ban abortion. He voted AGAINST a Constitutional Amendment to Ban gay marriage.  I am pro-choice, personally, but I am against the abortion of viable babies as long as the mother’s life or health is not at risk or the circumstance was rape.  Ron Paul also supports abortion in those circumstances and has a voting record to prove it.  From the website “on the issues”

# Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
# Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
# Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
# Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
# Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
# No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
# Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
# Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
# Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
# Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
# Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
# Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
# Voted YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
# Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
# Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
# Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
# No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

He has also said repeatedly that while he would personally like to see abortions ended, the country just quite simply “isn’t there yet”.  Will our country ever be there?  I doubt it.

Logician wrote: “Paul trumpets so loudly that the federal government has no right to legislate sexual conduct.  If you say he doesn’t, you. are. lying.  Now, just what the hell logic is he using that states if the FEDERAL government has no right to tell consenting adult what they will do in the privacy of THEIR OWN BEDROOMS, the STATE governments should?”

Just for your information the logic he is using is called our Constitution.  This is a Constititional REPUBLIC. What about that do you not understand?  Each state has its own Constitution.  Our system is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. How is this not sinking in?

Ron Paul Revolution - The
Rebellion Of The Intelligent
By Jay Weidner
12-24-7

Between Huckabee’s “Paul is dead” quote and Tim Russert’s admonition to Ron Paul on Meet The Press to “Stay safe on the campaign trail” it is time to say that there can be no doubt about it: These are threats. The establishment is delivering a big time message to Ron Paul.
 
They know what is really going on. They know the real poll numbers.
 
Ron Paul is doing very well and they are very worried.
 
The reason that the Ron Paul revolution is so worrying to the members of the Establishment is because this revolution is the most disturbing in history.
 
What I mean is that this revolution is the most disturbing to them.
 
The Ron Paul Revolution is the first web based revolt. This is the first truly post-modern political movement.
 
Pundits declare that Ron Paul is the Internet’s choice for the Presidency. But when I drive to the store, in my very liberal town, I don’t see any yard signs for Rudy, Hillary or anyone but Ron Paul and he has five signs.  If this is an Internet revolution ii is now threatening to break through to the larger outside world.
 
The meaning behind being the Internet’s choice is what is interesting here. Like it or not, in my own decidedly unscientific polling of people, I have decided that those people who get most of their information about current events from the internet are better informed. I have also discovered that those people who get most of their information from TV or the newspapers are the most ill informed.
 
So if Ron Paul is the Internet’s choice, and the people who get their information from the internet are better informed, than that can only mean that Ron Paul is the choice of the best informed of Americans.
 
And this is what is rubbing Paul the wrong way with those in charge.
 
This is not a revolution like anything that has occurred in the past. This rebellion, best personified by Ron Paul, is a knowledge-based revolution.
 
This is a rebellion based on the facts.
 
In a sense it is the worst possible nightmare for the elites.
 
This is a rebellion by the most intelligent of the population.
 
And they will out-think everyone else.
 
This is a rebellion of the intelligent against the plans of those who are also intelligent.
 
But unfortunately for them we have the numbers. There are more of us than them. And we are also putting up our own money for this rebellion.
 
Because the elites know all of this they are stymied. They don’t want to resort to violence, yet, but they are resorting to threats. They are trying to unnerve Ron Paul. But history is on our side and we have a candidate who is smart, like us.
 
Give your money to Ron Paul. Write to Tim Russert and tell him what you think. Thank the universe every day for the Internet and do everything you can to make sure that the monkeys in Congress don’t let anything happen to it.
 
But most importantly join the Ron Paul revolution.

Very good posts Nomascerdo, it is harder to argue for someone than against them, especially when those others haven’t declared by whom they would prefer to be led.

There are certain segments of society which will be proactively lobbying against Ron Paul; those who have become dependant on the social services he will cut, those whose benefit from military spending and especially banking cartels that lend money they do not have.

RE#122368 by Nomascerdo on 12/25 at 12:23 am:

Ah, I get it now.  You really are a campaign troll.  You have to be. No person whose parents aren’t related can be so fanatically supportive of a man who so clearly hates women.

Read very slowly: ANY man, ANYWHERE, at ANY time, who states HE has the right to determine that ALL life begins at conception and therefore NO WOMAN has ANY right to her OWN BODY is a misogynist.  For any reasonable person this should not only be a red flag, it should be raising klaxons of alarm. 

And STOP telling me what you think he thinks!  He has STATED life begins at conception and he wants to stop abortion rights.  You cannot argue with that.  Any man who denies a woman the ownership of her OWN body HATES women.  Don’t give me that crap he loves life.  He HATES women.  To simper and smirk it’s all about how he loves life is just a smokescreen.  Have you not EVER read a newspaper, book, seen the court testimonies of how hatefull these ‘pro-lifers’ are?  Where have you been living?  Or are you truly stupid enough to think it’s really about “life”?

He is also homophobic.  He openly defends states the right to LEGISLATE sexual conduct: “...the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.”  Just how stupid can a man be?  And how stupid you are for swallowing his hatred as he masks it behind the canard of “states rights.”  What bullshit!

Think for just a minute.  Paul trumpets so loudly that the federal government has no right to legislate sexual conduct.  If you say he doesn’t, you. are. lying.  Now, just what the hell logic is he using that states if the FEDERAL government has no right to tell consenting adult what they will do in the privacy of THEIR OWN BEDROOMS, the STATE governments should?  Is he, and you, stupid enough to believe that states should have the right to tell ANYONE what they can do in their OWN bedrooms? 

It’s a smokescreen for homophobia.  Only a complete moron would assume that state governments would let people alone in the privacy of THEIR OWN HOMES.  Have you not studied ANYTHING besides the manual on how to troll for your savior?  Have you not read the histories of individual states and how invasive, hatefull and just plain crazy some state governments are?  That is WHY the feds had to get involved IN THE FIRST PLACE!  Because states like Texas feel they can tell CONSENTING adults what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. 

Ah, but you’ll have an answer.  You’ll tell me what he thinks, and it will be in direct opposition to what he has clearly said.  The man is for tradition, I will grant you that.  The tradition of several hundred years ago, when men were men and women, poor people and people of color knew their place: in subjugation to the superior white male.  By defending him and his hateful policies, you reveal yourself to be as disgusting as he is.

Logician - I think your linkage of misogyny with a pro-life view is a bit misguided particularly when it is applied to Ron Paul. I can only assume that is what/why you are doing here.

The evidence suggests otherwise. He is, after all, an obstetrician / gynecologist, has been married to the same woman for 50+ years, has five kids, three of which are also medical doctors (his daughter Joy is also an OB/GYN), they have 17 grandchildren and I think even a great grandchild.

If he was such a horrible misogynist as you claim why would he become an OB/GYN?  He hates women so much that he just had to deal with them and their most intimate problems day in and day out?  Huh?

Further, how would he have stayed married for so long?  Why would his daughter follow his footsteps and become an OB/GYN as well? Doesn’t add up.

Then for everyone who likes to call Ron Paul a racist. Are you not aware that the ONE person he has even mentioned as a potential running mate is a black economics professor, Walter E. Williams?  Learn more about W. Wiliams:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams
and some W. Williams quotes:
http://www.quotationcollection.com/author/Walter_E._Williams/quotes

Or for those who like to call Ron Paul an anti-semite because he wants to stop giving foreign aid to Israel.  Don’t you realize that he wants to stop giving foreign aid to their arab neighbors as well who receive 3x as much direct military aid as Israel? He wants to stop giving foreign aid to EVERY country, in fact. And do you realize that his personal hero and intellectual touchstone is Ludwig Von Mises who was a Jew born in Hungary and is the modern “father” of the Austrian School of economics?  He has a picture of Von Mises hung on the wall in his office.  I assure you it isn’t so he can throw darts at it or curse it.

Or for those who think Ron Paul hates the poor do you not realize that he is the ONLY candidate in modern history that is even discussing how our monetary policy of inflation (currency devaluation) is what is DESTROYING the lower and middle class in this country?  Do you realize that it was Nixon shutting the gold window and making our monetary system 100% fiat in the early 1970’s that made Ron Paul run for Congress in 1974 because he knew the danger of it and what it would do to our economy, our national debt, and our middle class? 

Guess what. He was right. You are wrong. Deal with it.

RE#122357 by Nomascerdo on 12/24 at 10:50 pm:

Was referring to my comment directly to you, rather than to Ga.  However, as I peruse this site I would agree the fanaticism is more mere stupidity than religious stupidity. I stand corrected.

As for my use of caps, I have a cheap computer and can’t use italics.  I am so disgusted by stupidity, something growing everyday in this pathetic country, and everyday some yahoo says a few things some dorks want to hear and here comes salvation. It’s difficult to express my disgust with this crap without the caps.  Paul is not the answer to anything, let alone the problems of this government.

You want the solution?  Look in the freaking mirror.  Stop supporting woman-hating isolationists and campaign for a man of reason, not some peckerhead who denies the primacy of evidence, no matter where the hell he went to school.

Outraged - Another reason why I prefer money at the local level versus the federal level is our federal government has a nasty habit of getting involved in very costly, unnecessary, and immensely deadly wars. The last time a state invaded another state was the Civil war and even that was more a result of the federal government than the individual states themselves. 

Logician?  Anything else to add or has your credibility been damaged beyond repair even in your own eyes?

Outraged wrote: “You said many things which I can agree with IN PRINCIPLE, however the reality of it is quite different.  Having the money at the state or community level doesn’t ENSURE its dispersion will be FAIR or even more well thought out.  It only ensures that, what I like to call “the wannabee little crooks” will have more access to it.  America is a big country, with that in mind, do you not think that dispensing funds locally will create isolationist states and community “group think” or worse yet enhance LOCAL corporate interests.”

You are absolutely correct that having more money at state and local influence will not ensure fair and even distribution.  However, I contend that goal would literally be A) impossible to do in a highly complex system and B) would most certainly be subjective would it not?  What is “fair” to me may not be “fair” to you. Impossible to measure. Regarding corruption, again you are absolutely correct. Corruption will ALWAYS be an issue especially when it is possible to get money for “nothing” as is always the case when it comes to the government dole aka “Other People’s Money”. To be clear, I am talking about how connected local players will win contracts they may not deserve, cronyism etc etc.  Is that worse or better than the federal theft?  Personally I would argue the local brand is the lesser of two evils and at least that money is going to be spent somewhere where many of the folks who earned it will benefit from it.  Locally, waste and corruption should be easier to identify simply because it is closer. It is tangible.  Can anyone reasonable identify waste in the Federal government? Impossible.  In addition, even the corrupt city politician can only be corrupt to a certain point before people smell a rat. What I mean is, he/she must actually do SOMETHING tangibly beneficial to the local voters.  The same is NOT true for the folks in DC who give multi hundred billion no-bid contracts to crony multi-national corporatists. 

Regarding your last concern I’m not sure I get it. I think that ‘group think’ is the domain of big bureaucracies and central planning.  I feel that the more localized people are and the more community based they are the less likely grand scale group think is likely to occur.  As far as different communities and regions, or whatever having different values and beliefs I have absolutely no problem with that as long as one doesn’t infringe upon another.  In fact, I think that is the answer to our peaceful co-existence and the only way that everyone can truly pursue the happiness Americans as outlined in our founding documents.  I read an Irish saying today in a great essay that simply states “if you don’t like me than leave me alone.”  Makes good sense to me.

Nomascerdo:
There was some type of error in my first post.  As I attempting to “preview” it “submitted” before I had finished.  Anyway, I reposted and it worked. Sorry if that may have appeared strange.

RE: #122348 by Nomascerdo on 12/24

You said many things which I can agree with IN PRINCIPLE, however the reality of it is quite different.  Having the money at the state or community level doesn’t ENSURE its dispersion will be FAIR or even more well thought out.  It only ensures that, what I like to call “the wannabee little crooks” will have more access to it.  America is a big country, with that in mind, do you not think that dispensing funds locally will create isolationist states and community “group think” or worse yet enhance LOCAL corporate interests.

As for Clinton and the other top-tier democrat candidates as regards Universal Healthcare, I agree.  There is, however, another option and that is single-payer healthcare.  This option directly opts out ALL insurance companies, and commands a much greater degree of bargaining power which would thereby lower health care costs.

Much of the federal money for social programs, and if I remember correctly this would include housing programs which are given to states and/or communities are in the form of block grants.  The communities sadly, have tried to squeeze out those needing assistance by requiring them to “jump through hoops” to qualify.  This then allows them to redirect the funds.  In my community they did not use these extra funds to help anyone but already well-funded corporate and already rich local businessmen and women.  So this philosophy of local control doesn’t hold water in the real world.  My premise for federal control is one of actual outcome.  Food stamps is a great example.  The federal funds are regulated and issued using a wide basis of inquiry into ACTUAL needs and costs.  Communities are NOT able to “dip into the pot” so to speak therefore the outcome has been that more people will get help with food as opposed to housing.

As far as is the case with lobbyists and corporations getting control of monies at the federal level, I wholeheartedly agree.  My premise is that we have MORE power at the federal level to reverse this without it becoming partisan or corporate than we do locally.  Most people who depend on a corporation wage for their livelihood are LESS likely to take them on at the local level and are MORE likely to take them on at a federal level where the conglomeration of interests is more anonymous and not directed specifically at their direct employer.

“#122329 by Logician on 12/24 at 8:09 pm
(101 comments total)

Don’t bother, Ga.

As you said before, the support for this wacko is not reason-based, but religious fanaticism.”

Care to comment Logician?

RE: #122348 by Nomascerdo on 12/24

You said many things which I can agree with IN PRINCIPLE, however the reality of it is quite different.  Having the money at the state or community level doesn’t ENSURE its dispersion will be FAIR or even more well thought out.  It only ensures that, what I like to call “the wannabee little crooks” will have more access to it.  America is a big country, with that in mind, do you not think that dispensing funds locally will create isolationist states and community “group think” or worse yet enhance LOCAL corporate interests.

As for Clinton and the other top-tier democrat candidates as regards Universal Healthcare, I agree.  There is, however, another option and that is single-payer healthcare.  This option directly opts out ALL insurance companies, and commands a much greater degree of bargaining power which would thereby lower health care costs.

Much of the federal money for social programs, and if I remember correctly this would include housing programs which are given to states and/or communities are in the form of block grants.  Sadly, many communities have squeezed out those nee

RE# 122348 by Nomascerdo on 12/24 at 10:02 pm:

Damn, dude, can’t you READ?! Absolutely NOWHERE in post #122347 did I state RELIGIOUS fanaticism.  NOWHERE! Were you homeschooled?  Have someone READ the post to you, then.  RELIGIOUS fanatacism is NOT MENTIONED.  Get it?

Yes, dude, you ARE fanatical.  You see what you are TOLD to see and NOTHING else.  You just proved it with your COMPLETE LIE about what I wrote. Yes, LIE.

You absoltuely PROVE my point!  It’s so sad the irony is completely LOST on you!

The evidence that our current system is NOT working is literally mind numbing.  Here are some highlights: $9T in debt. $55T in unfunded obligations (medicare, social security). Crumbling infrastructure. Broken armed services.  Perpetual war. Destroyed middle class. Education globally ranked well below our peers.  Most expensive healthcare in the world.  Largest prison population in the history of mankind.  Negative household savings rate.  Housing market crashing.  Dollar purchasing power plunging. Financial system in crisis. Civil liberties under attack… the list goes on and on

You ask, “what is the power that keeps us living and breathing?  where does that power come from?  what keeps our heart beating?  a chemical reaction?” Wow, are you being serioius?

Certainly I’m being serious. Answer the question.

Logician - If you honestly think that the support for Ron Paul is based on religious fanaticism you are confused.  Mike Huckabee’s support is based on religious fanaticism (and Chuck Norris apparently). Arguably some of Mitt Romney’s support is based on religious fanaticism.  Ron Paul’s is just very simply, not.  That said, I will agree that some of Ron Paul’s supporters are “fanatical” about him but I think anyone that has observed the Ron Paul “Revolution” with a clear and objective mind (I know it’s a struggle for you despite your little name) will recognize that there is absolutely ZERO religiosity or religious fanaticism contributing to its fervor.  It is all about following the Constitution, protecting individual liberty, shrinking the Federal leviathan, changing our aggressive foreign policy, stopping our inflationary monetary policy, and saving this country from financial collapse.  The only are where religion is even evident is in the protecting individual liberty part as outlined in the 1st Amendment.  That is it. If you continue to think otherwise then you truly are helplessly confused. 

Outraged - Since you admitted that the majority of local services are paid for by local and state taxes we have found common ground.  While it is very clear that Federal funds supplement in all of the instances you cited (and more) the argument is that if we all paid less in Federal taxes, then we would be capable of paying more in local and state taxes, and we wouldn’t be at the mercy of who is the best lobbyist in DC to get our money back.  Federal tax dollars BY AND LARGE benefit the major corporations with lobby influence. Not you. Not me. As Tyler pointed out, this truly is the ‘elite’ vs ‘everyone else’ situation.  The only way to cut out the elites is to stop sending them our money! Very simple concept.  Why wouldn’t you want your money to be re-invested in your community, city, county, state etc.  That is how it should work. This IS a Republic after all!  Why should you pay taxes to pay for something in another state? Why should you not have a voice (aka a referendum) on where your tax dollars are spent? You should! The further your money is away from you, the less control you have.  The crooks in Washington know this which is why they want to get more and more of your money in DC so they can give it to their influential friends.  If you don’t recognize that Federal Universal Healthcare is that and ONLY that you are naive. Follow the money.  Go to the FEC website and see who have been the biggest donors to the campaigns of those proposing Universal Healthcare plans. It’s the pharma and health insurance companies. Duh!  Just like Hillary gets by FAR the most money from all of the big defense contractors and arms manufacturers.  But you still think that this is about Democrats vs Republicans…

Now guess whose financial support comes from regular Americans (not lobbyists, fat cats and PAC’s) and the MOST men and women in the active and retired military… You know, the ones that have actually seen our foreign policy in action, on the ground..
That is what the Ron Paul candidacy stands for but I don’t blame you for being a skeptic. It is hard to believe there is actually someone who gives two shits about what this country’s government is supposed to be all about (and what it isn’t) as outlined in the Constitution.  Maybe the truth about this country is too scary for you to accept?  Either way, what will be will be. Act accordingly.

Have you noticed something here, Ga?

There are a LOT of posters here are only too eager to tell us how they FEEL about Paul and what they THINK he will do.  And they will snarl and snark whenever anyone else says maybe their FEELINGS don’t mean shit.

However, whenever you quote REAL, EXISTING documents like the Constitution, etc., and quote Paul VERBATIM when he reveals his hideously backwards dementia, this blog goes deafeningly silent.

This is the true indicator of their fanaticism.  Reasoned approaches to government entail DEBATE using EVIDENCE.  Fanaticism simply states beliefs and NO debate is EVER allowed.

When you quote Paul’s nasty little misogynist views, they have no reply.  They cannot deny what he said.  But they sure do LOVE to tell us how they FEEL about Paul, eh?

Well, in this dumbed down society, I guess that’s the best we can expect.  Maybe Paul will prescribe some happy pills for them and make it all better.  At least in the incredibly small confines of their limited minds.

Re: #122338 by dwhite on 12/24

Is that the best you could do to refute my position?  With this in mind I will try to keep it basic for you.

I don’t get it if you’re against it.

Ah, you do realize what kind of a site TRUTHDIG is, right?

Why do you think TRUTHDIG published “Ron Paul Doesn’t Accept Evolution?”

Ron Paul is a repressive, regressive, narrow-minded, anti-liberty, arrogant, “will get us into trouble” Republican who is being “outed” as such here on TRUTHDIG.

Or are you trying to be funny?

I am not laughing.

#122340

And you have a problem with this? What you quoted, I’m like yeah hell yeah. I don’t get it if you’re against it.

DW

#122336

I agree with everything you said. You seem to be for freedom.

While Ron Paul has some progressive ideas, like for health care, the environment and tax reform, here are some of his regressive ideas.

Anti-Choice for women:

“The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty.”

“In 40 years of medical practice, [never] did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.”

“I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception.”

“... would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.”

He calls contraceptives “population control,” which he is against.

He is an isolationist:

“... organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation.”

He is a spreader of fear and misinformation:

“NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union.” (This is just NOT TRUE.)

He is millitantly anti-immigrant:

“Physically secure our borders and coastlines. No amnesty. End birthright citizenship.”

He wants to eliminate public education:

“I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states.”

“... allow parents a tax credit of up to $5,000 (adjustable after 2007 for inflation) per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school. This includes private, parochial, religious, and home schools.”

Please people. Discuss his REAL policies, not what you “feel” about the guy!

#122331

You’ve got to be kidding me? Ok I know a joke when I see one…hahahahaha@ I had a good laugh.

If there is no God then all things are permissible.

Let us just do some thought experiments, okay?

First, assume no religious texts of any kind, but there is a God. There is a God but we know not any “edicts” from this God.

In this case, what is or is not permissible will be determined how? Remember, no cheating—no religious texts! What is or is not permissible is what we come up with, by trial and error, for creating and living in a society in which suffering is low, and prosperity is high, for the most people.

Think about how this would be achieved. Sometimes, some people would try to “be boss” and push other people around, invade, pillage, rape, that sort of thing.

And then those explioted may rise up and rebel, or a really nice King comes to power and writes some laws, say. And that works for awhile. But some revolt, others break away form other kingdoms, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Imagine this happening over thousands of years. Some years are of terrible wars and famine, others are peaceful and prosperous.

Don’t you think, that eventually, with the advent of the written word, of history, and technology, or rememberance of things past, and of hope for future generations, that more and more people would tend to agree that to secure peace and prosperity for oneself, ones famility and one’s future generations the a more just set of laws could be enacted to achieve this?

Ever hear of these:

Magna Carta
Declaration of Indendence
Constitution of the United States

And then, I have to point out, that although the religious say “God” is where our morals come from, they really mean “The Bible”—and that is really the case we should still be eating very restricted types of food, never shave, be stoning people to death who have sex except to procreate, etc. etc.

Check this out: Under Biblical literalism we can only have sex to procreate, so guys, sex only a few times a years for about tens years after you have married!

Do all you “God fearing” “good Christians” adhere this?

Well, many of your ancestors did! Guess why some religions allow for multiple wives? Guess why they had dozens and dozens of children? Guess what drives men to say that women should always be barefoot and in the kitchen and pregnant?

Wake up. We got this country’s basic set of laws from MEN.

Yeah sure, the Declaration of Independence starts off mentioning Nature’s God, and that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

BUT READ THIS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:

“that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

(Emphasis mine, of course.)

This really is a compelling text, is it not? So, I ask you, What does God have to do with it?

Now go back to school, will you!??!?!

“All of these have been misused to push a religion of non-secular humanism that has no foundation in anything but a liberal’s belief in forcing people to be “nice” (as they define it) to each other.”

Manny:

There is NO SUCH THING AS NON SECULAR HUMANISM.  Is this something you “created”?  I will address your comments as if you were speaking of secular humanism, which by the way is NOT a liberal ideology nor is it a religion.

Where and when has secular humanism been PUSHED.  I think Manny you are confusing one issue with another.  FACTS, are a basic tenet of secular humanism however it is not a religious ideology nor is it dogma.  Correct me if I’m wrong…..but Manny, what you don’t like about secular humanism appears to be the way it gets in the way of your specific ideology. 

Wikipedia states: “Christian fundamentalist opponents of humanism typically use the term secular humanism pejoratively to mean atheism or secularism or to lump together all non-theistic varieties of humanism. Humanists object to such usage, finding it misleading or overly broad.”  The entire article’s link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

any cantidate who doesn’t ‘accept’ the theory of evolution is obviously trying win some votes from the less-learned bible-thumpers on the far right.

Not necessarily. Perhaps he stands up for your right to believe in evolution , but he himself believes in a higher power. Some how the universe had to be created, none of you atheists can explain that.  When it gets down to it and I ask you what started it all, you all blow a fuse, or go off on a tangent.

I’m not saying evolution is not real, and neither is Ron Paul, you’re right, he’s smart enough to know the difference. But let me ask you, what is the power that keeps us living and breathing? Where does that power come from? What keeps your heart beating? A chemical reaction? Then why can’t you live forever?

No, there is more to this than meets the eye. It’s not as simple as ‘there is no God’. There may not be a ‘God’ as in the bible, but there is something we humans cannot grasp. Evolution doesn’t explain everything. Most especially how life began to begin with.

There is much we do not know about the universe. We can sit around and pretend we know that there is no “God”, no power superior to us, no creation. But do we REALLY know that?  If that is so, what is the purpose of living? If there’s nothing, then I have no desire to live or reproduce.

I’m more of an agnostic than an atheist. You can’t prove to me there is no God, and I can’t prove to you there isn’t. You may laugh and have funny times at people who believe in God. What if there is some supreme being or entity or whatever that created all of this? What if you’re wrong?

What harm would it do in believing in such a being? You might say there is no evidence of such a being, and that would be true, so to believe would be the epitome of stupidity. But the universe came into being somehow.  What’s wrong with people believing in a deity as long as they don’t force it upon others?

We’ve gotten off track. We were talking about Ron Paul. I would LOVE to have him as president, because of just what you say. He would not govern from a religious view, but from a Constitution view.

Those of you who are against Ron Paul are flatly uneducated period.

This is my last message on this board. Ya’ll have a ball. and we’ll see who wins for freedom.

paul knows that the the theory of evolution is quite more than ‘accettable’.  please, a man of his background and knowledge knows better.

Re: dwhite on 12/24

“I think everyone should be free to believe what they want to believe, or not believe, as long as it is not harming others, or trying to force one’s beliefs on others.

I guess that is the crux of it, dwhite.  I find it without merit to say that Paul will not force his beliefs on others since he already endorses issues which are SPECIFICALLY religious ideologies.  He doesn’t endorse freedom from religion as well as religious freedoms.  He endorses his brand of religion and that would make him a dangerous president.

BTW dwhite, yes, I do understand the way taxes work.  You and so many who support Paul think in fantastical terms concerning taxes and liberty.  Yet, even in this I question whether you see this liberty as broadly painted.  In other words, INCLUDING EVERYONE.  While I can’t speak for each of you since I don’t know you personally, I can see Paul’s interpretation of this “liberty”.  In that context Paul by comment and association has projected a “liberty” for white, male, able-bodied folk. No women, no ethic people, no elderly, no disabled and certainly no other religions are included in Paul’s “liberty”.

Don’t bother, Ga.

As you said before, the support for this wacko is not reason-based, but religious fanaticism.

You can quote the REAL, EXISTING Constitution to them and they will look at you with the clear, simple eyes of the converted and reply what they have been to to reply.  If Paul says up is down, then, contrary to REALITY, contrary to THEIR OWN SENSES, up is down.  That is merely the nature of the neurotic.  They believe what their prophet tells them, not what they actually see.

This is why Paul uses them.  It’s just so easy.  But just like hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, Paul better pay attention to how he uses neurotics. because when they do EVENTUALLY catch on that they have been used, they get REALLY pissed.

And if the past is any indication, a bunch of pissed off neurotic is not a safe thing for this or any country.

RE: #122290 by Nomascerdo on 12/24

“I failed to mention State, municipal, and county taxes which the Federal government has zero influence over and most certainly are not going away (and actually provide for the VAST MAJORITY of the services that most Americans associate with government and taxes in their daily lives including education, police/fire protection, local social services, state universities, etc etc) Worry not, you will be taxed!”

This is inaccurate. Federal funds (from taxes) do fund and are allocated to school districts, police, fire, social programs and the like.  I know that state funds provide a majority of the funds for certain things however even they are supplemented by federal funding.  To name a few, heating assistance and food stamps are made up entirely of federal funds which the states and then communities allocate.  This is also true of school lunch programs, as well as reading programs, the building of new schools are many times subsidized by SIZABLE federal grants.  The Pell Grants (college educational grants) are funded by federal funds.  So to say that communities fund all these things is incorrect.

Other posters here and Paul as well as GW and the like claim that charity organizations will take care of those in need.  My challenge to anyone who truly believes this is to move to an area in which you are not familiar and know no one.  Work only part-time or not at all because we are going to assume that you are either elderly or disabled and unable to fend for yourself in this regard.  Live for one year off of “the “charity” of charities”.  If someone after that can still endorse the stance that charities will help the less fortunate THEN I’d be willing to lend more credence to their argument.

It seems ONLY those who COMPLETELY ABLE to fend for themselves are the most likely to argue against social programs.  This leaves a huge margin of Americans for whatever reason (and there are many) who would be out in the street without food, shelter or the medicine they need.  Currently the most blatant example of this are our disabled veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, some living in their cars.  This is deplorable considering we are one of if not THE richest country in the WORLD.

While I would agree (and believe I would have a a lot of company) is that our tax system is unfair and corrupt.  The funds ARE THERE to reasonably take care of everyone should they need it.  Currently, they are NOT being allocated as they should be, in fact filthy corps and religious organizations have their hands on many of the social programs and are trying to get more.  THIS is the problem and not the programs themselves.  We have crooked business interests in charge along with inept religious partisans all trying to get their “piece of the pie”.  Both of whom care NOT ONE WHIT about people.  Their concern is the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR.

To MannyP who said: “it says that CONGRESS shall not ESTABLISH a national religion.”

To Paolo who said “the First Amendment states that CONGRESS shall make no law establishing a religion…”:

It actually says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If you—or anyone—is going to argue over an Amendment, please read it first.

Or is the Constitution just “too complex” for us to understand?

Wow! So many people who know Ron Paul so intimately! I mean, some hear really know what is going on in Ron Paul’s mind!

“Paul wants this…” “Paul wants that…” “I KNOW Ron Paul!”

Sheesh! Just what is it about this guy that ispires such fanaticism? And it is fanaticism.

How about actually quoting Ron Paul to support your claims? Or does Ron Paul speak telepathically or something?

RON PAUL RISING

This video is for the people who say Ron Paul doesn’t stand a chance in the upcoming primaries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRTDynbHVYQ

One More:
“appalling lack of knowledge about the constitution he claims he wants to follow.”

I have never heard such idiotic drivel in my life. Is this what this country’s come to? The one and only man who has never voted for an unconstitutional bill in his life is accused of not knowing the Constitution?

I suppose some socialist like Hillary or Romney would be better. Wow! what a brainwashed society…it’s even worse than I imagined. Fortunately, you are rapidly becoming the minority. We want our country back, we want our freedom back. Our property is OUR property, not the governments. It’s going to come to a head sooner or later, sooner it seems.

Ron Paul may not win the presidency. Then again he could, you never know how many disenfranchised people who have never voted are out there.  I seriously doubt they would count the votes right though if that happened. But that’s neither here nor there. It doesn’t really matter, he has done his duty, and inspired a groundswell of people learning about their RIGHTS, and damned pissed off about the status quo.

You can bet these people will not stop learning about their rights, and you can bet they will convince other people who know something’s not right, but don’t have the facts to understand what is wrong.

I DO NOT want the government taking care of me in any form or fashion. My house is paid for, my car is paid for, and I don’t owe no body nothing. So screw them, and the taxes they rode in on. Not to mention the interest rates they rode in on.

RE#122291 by cyrena on 12/24 at 2:10 pm:

So, how do you REALLY feel about Paul?

Backing up your statements with facts?  How dare you!  This is about FAITH, damnit!  Ya gotta have faith!  So far, that’s ALL anyone has for Paul, because the only thing HE can demonstrate is an appalling lack of knowledge about the constitution he claims he wants to follow.

But, we have FAITH that he’ll suddenly pull his head out of his ass and ‘do the right thing’ like George did.  Oh, wait….

STFU.  I love it!  If only he would!

Now WHAT did I tell you, Nomascerdo?  Ah, I love to watch the dummies get their empty heads bounced around.  Almost but not quite makes up for having to hear their stupid shit every day.

Nomascerdo:

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours as well! I hope lots of folks are going to be surprised come voting day. At any rate, the spark has been ignited, whether or not it will start a fire remains to be seen.

I’m outta here…

Dwhite - Thanks but no thanks HAHA. I have wasted far too long in the past trying to have a rational conversation with Cyrena et al.  I am going to vote for Ron Paul and she is going to vote for someone else (I don’t think she has ‘decided’ yet which is a convenient position to take because it isn’t a position at all.)

It is just that simple.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!