Ron Paul, Libertarianism and the U.N.

[Zeno Swijtink]

You can google the quote and choose whatever source you find reliable. Or maybe you won't find any reliable. That's ok, it's not so important because there are tons of other info available on the subject. If you like Wikipedia, give "Operation Mockingbird" a search.

But Google is a multibillion-dollar company often plugged on the Bits (https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/) blog in the NYTimes, which, as you claim, is owned by, among others, The Carlyle Group.

In fact, Google is a big investor in the Carlyle Group, and at the same time it is deeply invested in the ISP used by Ron Paul's official website. That's why Paul is opposed to net neutrality my uncle Benny has told me (which I don't understand since Google is all in favor of net neutrality, so in fact I _do_ understand this, on a higher plane of logic as it were).

But my uncle Benny owns stock in a Dutch/Bahrein company that constructs prefab mosques in the Sudan and he drives a Hummer from General Motors, the world's largest auto company who must be in bed with the WTO. So why trust him?

I'm really confused. I am afraid.

PS If you want to check up some of these facts I can recommend a small mom-and-pop search engine https://www.hophophop.com which uses some new proprietary algorithm. I am so happy to have left the EU and live in this US of A where such small businesses still have a chance, protected by our splendid Constitution, itself the product of a group of lower middle class citizens who knew how to write well. But don't do this sipping a latte at Starbucks. You are in on the Secret of their Wi-fi I take it?

[d-cat]

Zeno,

I'm not sure on where you are taking this conversation. If you don't believe the CIA would be involved in media and that it is a "conspiracy theory", it's ok with me.

But back to the subject of Ron Paul and deregulation, this interview with him should cover any questions you may have about his views on this and related issues such as Codex.

Ron Paul Interview with Producer Kevin P. Miller (1 of 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko3-sbUQPTU

Ron Paul Interview with Producer Kevin P. Miller (2 of 2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7SGU0b0xjs

Any other questions, it would be better to refer to Ron Paul's writings/interviews, as mentioned before with the links. Good luck.


But Google is a multibillion-dollar company often plugged on the Bits (https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/) blog in the NYTimes, which, as you claim, is owned by, among others, The Carlyle Group. ...

[Sonomamark]

I just have to ask: have you actually read the US Constitution? If so, by what elaborate means do you conclude that the Constitution "mandates no federal regulation of the market?"

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
The Constitution explicitly reserves exclusively to the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is a clear statement that 1) the Founding Fathers supported regulation of commerce and 2) they wanted the federal government to do it.

There you have it: the Libertarian Party's economic agenda is contrary to the wishes of the Founding Fathers. Q.E.D.



SM


Ron Paul is against federal regulation of the market, as the US Constitution mandates.

[Zeno Swijtink]

But Google is a multibillion-dollar company often plugged on the Bits (https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/) blog in the NYTimes, which, as you claim, is owned by, among others, The Carlyle Group.

In fact, Google is a big investor in the Carlyle Group, and at the same time it is deeply invested in the ISP used by Ron Paul's official website. That's why Paul is opposed to net neutrality my uncle Benny has told me (which I don't understand since Google is all in favor of net neutrality, so in fact I _do_ understand this, on a higher plane of logic as it were).

But my uncle Benny owns stock in a Dutch/Bahrein company that constructs prefab mosques in the Sudan and he drives a Hummer from General Motors, the world's largest auto company who must be in bed with the WTO. So why trust him?

I'm really confused. I am afraid.

PS If you want to check up some of these facts I can recommend a small mom-and-pop search engine https://www.hophophop.com which uses some new proprietary algorithm. I am so happy to have left the EU and live in this US of A where such small businesses still have a chance, protected by our splendid Constitution, itself the product of a group of lower middle class citizens who knew how to write well. But don't do this sipping a latte at Starbucks. You are in on the Secret of their Wi-fi I take it?

December 11, 2007

Ask.com Puts a Bet on Privacy
By MIGUEL HELFT
OAKLAND, Calif., Dec. 10 — Will privacy sell?

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/technology/11ask.html

Ask.com is betting it will. The fourth-largest search engine company will begin a service today called AskEraser, which allows users to make their searches more private.

Ask.com and other major search engines like Google, Yahoo and Microsoft typically keep track of search terms typed by users and link them to a computer’s Internet address, and sometimes to the user. However, when AskEraser is turned on, Ask.com discards all that information, the company said.

Ask, a unit of IAC/InterActiveCorp based in Oakland, hopes that the privacy protection will differentiate it from more prominent search engines like Google. The service will be conspicuously displayed on Ask.com’s main search page, as well as on the pages of the company’s specialized services for finding videos, images, news and blogs. Unlike typical online privacy controls that can be difficult for average users to find or modify, people will be able to turn AskEraser on or off with a single click.

“It works like a light switch,” said Doug Leeds, senior vice president for product management at Ask.com. Mr. Leeds said the service would be a selling point with consumers who were particularly alert about protecting their privacy.

“I think that it is a step forward,” said Ari Schwartz, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, about AskEraser. “It is the first time that a large company is giving individuals choices that are so transparent.”

But underscoring how difficult it is to completely erase one’s digital footprints, the information typed by users of AskEraser into Ask.com will not disappear completely. Ask.com relies on Google to deliver many of the ads that appear next to its search results. Under an agreement between the two companies, Ask.com will continue to pass query information on to Google. Mr. Leeds acknowledged that AskEraser cannot promise complete anonymity, but said it would greatly increase privacy protections for users who want them, as Google is contractually constrained in what it can do with that information. A Google spokesman said the company uses the information to place relevant ads and to fight certain online scams.

Some privacy experts doubt that concerns about privacy are significant enough to turn a feature like AskEraser into a major selling point for Ask.com. The search engine accounted for 4.7 percent of all searches conducted in the United States in October, according to comScore, which ranks Internet traffic. By comparison, Google accounted for 58.5 percent, Yahoo for 22.9 percent and Microsoft for 9.7 percent.

“My gut tells me that basically it is not going to be a competitive advantage,” said Larry Ponemon, chairman and founder of the Ponemon Institute, an independent research company “I think people will look at it and see it as a cool thing, and they may use it. But I don’t think it will be a market differentiator.”

Mr. Ponemon said many surveys showed that while about three in four Americans said they were concerned about privacy, their concern was not sufficient to make them change their behavior toward sharing personal information. About 8 percent of Americans were concerned enough about privacy to routinely take steps to protect it, the surveys showed.

“Privacy only becomes important to the average consumer when something blows up,” Mr. Ponemon said.

Of course, something has already blown up. Last year, AOL released the queries conducted by more than 650,000 Americans over three months to foster academic research. While the queries where associated only with a number, rather than a computer’s address, reporters for The New York Times and others were quickly able to identify some of the people who had done the queries. The queries released by AOL included searches for deeply private things like “depression and medical leave” and “fear that spouse contemplating cheating.”

The incident heightened concerns about the risks posed by the systematic collection of growing amounts of data about people’s online activities. In response, search companies have sought to reassure consumers that they are serious about privacy.

While companies say they need to keep records of search strings to improve the quality of search results and fight online scams, they have put limits on the time they retain user data.

Google and Microsoft make search logs largely anonymous or discard them after 18 months. Yahoo does the same after 13 months.

In recent months, privacy has emerged as an increasingly important issue affecting major Internet companies. Several consumer advocacy groups, legislators and competitors, for instance, have expressed concerns about the privacy implications of the proposed $3.1 billion merger between Google and the ad serving company DoubleClick, which is being reviewed by regulators in the United States and Europe.

Last month, the Federal Trade Commission held a forum to discuss concerns over online ads that appear based on a user’s Web visits. And just last week, the popular social networking site Facebook suffered an embarrassing setback when it was forced to rein in an advertising plan that would have informed users of their friends’ buying activities on the Web. After more than 50,000 of its members objected, the company apologized and said it would allow users to turn off the feature.

In some cases, companies have argued that they are required to keep records of search queries for some time to comply with laws in various countries.

“Those arguments are seriously undermined when their competitors erase data immediately,” said Chris Hoofnagle, a senior lawyer at the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley.

Mr. Hoofnagle and other privacy advocates said they hoped AskEraser would pressure Google and others to offer a similar feature. A Google spokesman said the company takes privacy seriously but is not currently developing a service to immediately discard search queries.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

[OrchardDweller]

I just have to ask: have you actually read the US Constitution? If so, by what elaborate means do you conclude that the Constitution "mandates no federal regulation of the market?"

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3: The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
The Constitution explicitly reserves exclusively to the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, which is a clear statement that 1) the Founding Fathers supported regulation of commerce and 2) they wanted the federal government to do it.

There you have it: the Libertarian Party's economic agenda is contrary to the wishes of the Founding Fathers. Q.E.D.



SM

Actually, there is debate among scholars about what the founding fathers actually meant by commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
The founders' understanding of the word "commerce" is a subject of disagreement among scholars today. Some scholars argue that although commerce means economic activity today, it had non-economic meanings in late eighteenth century English. For example, in 18th century writing one finds expressions such as "the free and easy commerce of social life" and "our Lord's commerce with his disciples".[1] These scholars interpret interstate commerce to mean "substantial interstate human relations" and find this consistent with the meaning of commerce at the time of the writing of the Constitution.[1][2] Other scholars, such as Robert H. Bork and Daniel E. Troy, argue that prior to 1887, the Commerce Clause was rarely invoked by Congress and therefore a broad interpretation of the word "commerce" was clearly never intended by the Founders. In support of this claim, Bork and Troy point to scholarship that show that: the word "commerce", as used in the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, can be substituted with either "trade" or "exchange" interchangeably while preserving the meaning of the statements; contemporaneous dictionaries, such as the 1773 Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, defined "commerce" as the "exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick"; Madison wrote a letter in 1828 which stated that the "Constitution vests in Congress expressly...'the power to regulate trade.'" [3]
It is noted that the former view of the definitions of "commerce" given above has led to laws (such as the New Deal) which have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and thereafter removed due to their unauthorized expansion of federal power.

[Sonomamark]

There is only debate among FRINGE scholars like Robert Bork on this question. Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, the vast body of American jurisprudence has spoken, and it says that the words mean federal regulation of the marketplace. The federal government has this power, via the most reasonable interpretations of the words in question, and that is never going to change. So I don't know what your point is in bringing this up--this wild opinion by a handful of hard-right legal writers has zero traction in the real world.

Guess who makes such interpretations of the Constitution? The Supreme Court, which has already done so. You'll probably say there is debate about Marbury v. Madison, too, but you know what? The only entity which could rule that the Supreme Court does not have the right to interpret the Constitution would be ...the Supreme Court. I wouldn't hold my breath.

And who would you give that interpretive power to instead? The Executive Branch? Maybe not, since you don't seem to like fascism.

That leaves Congress. So in essence, you would be asking a body of elected officials--the kinds of people who seek power--to declare that they don't have any over a huge area of their jurisdiction.

Do you see where I'm going here? This isn't a thought problem: politics is about this world, muddy as it is, right here. I suppose it may be great fun to play Imaginary America with screeds about how it's "supposed to be" from fringe websites and conspiracy theorists, but none of that has the tiniest bit of relevance to the reality of the nation's politics and future.


SM




Actually, there is debate among scholars about what the founding fathers actually meant by commerce.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Actually, there is debate among scholars about what the founding fathers actually meant by commerce.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
The founders' understanding of the word "commerce" is a subject of disagreement among scholars today. Some scholars argue that although commerce means economic activity today, it had non-economic meanings in late eighteenth century English. For example, in 18th century writing one finds expressions such as "the free and easy commerce of social life" and "our Lord's commerce with his disciples".[1] These scholars interpret interstate commerce to mean "substantial interstate human relations" and find this consistent with the meaning of commerce at the time of the writing of the Constitution.[1][2] Other scholars, such as Robert H. Bork and Daniel E. Troy, argue that prior to 1887, the Commerce Clause was rarely invoked by Congress and therefore a broad interpretation of the word "commerce" was clearly never intended by the Founders. In support of this claim, Bork and Troy point to scholarship that show that: the word "commerce", as used in the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, can be substituted with either "trade" or "exchange" interchangeably while preserving the meaning of the statements; contemporaneous dictionaries, such as the 1773 Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, defined "commerce" as the "exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick"; Madison wrote a letter in 1828 which stated that the "Constitution vests in Congress expressly...'the power to regulate trade.'" [3]
It is noted that the former view of the definitions of "commerce" given above has led to laws (such as the New Deal) which have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and thereafter removed due to their unauthorized expansion of federal power.

This all very interesting but quite irrelevant: both these interpretations of "commerce" agree that commerce includes trade, so both interpretations agree that the federal government has the task to regulate trade, which is what the conversation is about right now, "Whether the Constitution mandate federal regulation of the market?" You said no.

What Bork and Troy are saying is that commerce should not be interpreted broader. So the Commerce clause cannot be interpreted according to these scholars as a ground for broader powers of the federal government. Maybe the No Child Left Behind law is unconstitutional according to Bork and Troy, or Federal regulation of abortion. Paul may not agree with Bork and Troy here ...

[OrchardDweller]

This all very interesting but quite irrelevant: both these interpretations of "commerce" agree that commerce includes trade, so both interpretations agree that the federal government has the task to regulate trade

No. You might want to read it again.



The founders' understanding of the word "commerce" is a subject of disagreement among scholars today. Some scholars argue that although commerce means economic activity today, it had non-economic meanings in late eighteenth century English. For example, in 18th century writing one finds expressions such as "the free and easy commerce of social life" and "our Lord's commerce with his disciples".[1] These scholars interpret interstate commerce to mean "substantial interstate human relations" and find this consistent with the meaning of commerce at the time of the writing of the Constitution.[1][2] Other scholars, such as Robert H. Bork and Daniel E. Troy, argue that prior to 1887, the Commerce Clause was rarely invoked by Congress and therefore a broad interpretation of the word "commerce" was clearly never intended by the Founders. In support of this claim, Bork and Troy point to scholarship that show that: the word "commerce", as used in the Constitutional Convention and the Federalist Papers, can be substituted with either "trade" or "exchange" interchangeably while preserving the meaning of the statements; contemporaneous dictionaries, such as the 1773 Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, defined "commerce" as the "exchange of one thing for another; interchange of any thing; trade; traffick"; Madison wrote a letter in 1828 which stated that the "Constitution vests in Congress expressly...'the power to regulate trade.'" [3]
It is noted that the former view of the definitions of "commerce" given above has led to laws (such as the New Deal) which have been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and thereafter removed due to their unauthorized expansion of federal power.

[Zeno Swijtink]

No. You might want to read it again.

I did, and I read the references on Wikipedia:

I think I got this right. I followed up by reading the footnotes in the Wikipedia article about the Bork's opponent Akhil Amar, the Yale law professor, the "Liberal Originalist," who argues that the original meaning of commerce is broader than just an economic meaning, but that it includes the trade meaning.

Bork and Troy want to restrict it to just a trade meaning. See their https://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm

So both support the reading that the commerce clause instructs the Federal Government to regulate trade.

[OrchardDweller]

I did, and I read the references on Wikipedia:

I think I got this right. I followed up by reading the footnotes in the Wikipedia article about the Bork's opponent Akhil Amar, the Yale law professor, the "Liberal Originalist," who argues that the original meaning of commerce is broader than just an economic meaning, but that it includes the trade meaning.

Bork and Troy want to restrict it to just a trade meaning. See their https://www.constitution.org/lrev/bork-troy.htm

So both support the reading that the commerce clause instructs the Federal Government to regulate trade.

Zeno,

You are presenting your argument as if Bork and Akhir Amal are the only two sides of the discussion. The paragraph I posted says that "Some scholars argue that although commerce means economic activity today, it had non-economic meanings in late eighteenth century English". My original argument was that there is debate about the meaning of the word commerce among scholars and I believe this is correct. It was not about the positions of just Bork vs. Amal.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Zeno,

You are presenting your argument as if Bork and Akhir Amal are the only two sides of the discussion. The paragraph I posted says that "Some scholars argue that although commerce means economic activity today, it had non-economic meanings in late eighteenth century English". My original argument was that there is debate about the meaning of the word commerce among scholars and I believe this is correct. It was not about the positions of just Bork vs. Amal.

They are the only two sides of the discussion in the reference you gave. There is no scholar I know of who argues that "commerce" in the Constitution does not cover trade. There is no scholar who argues that commerce did not have an economic meaning in late eighteenth century English.

The discussion is whether it had also other meanings in the Constitution. That's what Bork denies. That's why he argues that the Commerce clause cannot be used to have the federal government regulate non-trade issues.

[d-cat]

I do know Dr. Paul is very knowledgeable about the Constitution and have heard him refer to (at least some) market regulations as unconstitutional. But personally I'm no expert and can't explain it or cite anything off-hand in the constitution regarding this. So I think my original statement of "Ron Paul is against federal regulation of the market, as the US Constitution mandates" would be better just left as "Ron Paul is against federal regulation of the market." I know there are debates about the wording like 'regulate' and whether regulating trade and regulating a market are the same thing, but it's not a subject of great interest to me nor one that I'm truly knowledgeable enough about to comment on. Better just left said that Ron Paul wants the federal government out of the market. And go to www.ronpaullibrary.org for any additional info.

Yes, I have read the Constitution. I think the forefathers were incredible people. I've also seen this interesting lecture on the Constitution, by 2004 Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik. Recommended for all Americans, be ye from the left or from the right - and especially for anyone who thinks that the USA is supposed to be a democracy!

https://www.archive.org/details/Michael_Badnarik

[d-cat]

There is only debate among FRINGE scholars...

Lotta great ideas came from the fringe. Columbus and Copernicus had fringe views. Bet I could guess which side of the fence some of the people on this forum would have been on, as they scorned and dragged Copernicus to prison for his fringe belief that the sun didn't revolve around the earth. I hope I would have been wise enough to be among the few who gave his contrarian view a listen.

[OrchardDweller]

I do know Dr. Paul is very knowledgeable about the Constitution and have heard him refer to (at least some) market regulations as unconstitutional.

True. Here's a recent example:

Ron Paul - Introducing Legislation Allowing Interstate Shipment of Unpasteurized Milk

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the transportation and sale in interstate commerce of unpasteurized milk and milk products, as long as the milk both originates from and is shipped to States that allow the sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell unpasteurized milk and milk products, and people who wish to consume unpasteurized milk and milk products.

My office has heard from numerous people who would like to purchase unpasteurized milk. Many of these people have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the Federal Government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the State and local level.

I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting consumers' rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring my legislation to allow the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products.

https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=973

[d-cat]

OrchardDweller,

There was recently a thread about this subject on the forum here. You might wanna see if this info has already been posted there - it might be good news to some. Thanks for the example - it's also another example of a regulation hurting the little guy.



True. Here's a recent example:

Ron Paul - Introducing Legislation Allowing Interstate Shipment of Unpasteurized Milk

Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the transportation and sale in interstate commerce of unpasteurized milk and milk products, as long as the milk both originates from and is shipped to States that allow the sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell unpasteurized milk and milk products, and people who wish to consume unpasteurized milk and milk products.

My office has heard from numerous people who would like to purchase unpasteurized milk. Many of these people have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the Federal Government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the State and local level.

I urge my colleagues to join me in promoting consumers' rights, the original intent of the Constitution, and federalism by cosponsoring my legislation to allow the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products.

https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=973

[OrchardDweller]

If anyone is interested, this Friday the Ron Paul Blimp will make its maiden voyage! Grassroots Ron Paul supporters came up with the idea at https://www.ronpaulforums.com/index.php? and financed it.

The plan is to have it fly over the Boston Harbor on Sunday December 16 for the Tea Party, which is expected to be the biggest one day fundraiser ever https://www.teaparty07.com/ After that we hope to have it fly at least up till the New Hampshire primaries on January 8 (it will actually fly over NH that day).

This is just one of the many things that Ron Paul supporters are doing to bypass corporate media to get the word out about Ron Paul and his message of Peace, Freedom and Prosperity.


https://www.ronpaulblimp.com/images/bostonAir2.jpg

[Willie Lumplump]

our splendid Constitution, itself the product of a group of lower middle class citizens who knew how to write well.
I suppose that you could point to Thomas Paine as an example of the lower middle-class, but for the most part the Constitution was written by members of the propertied class.

[Willie Lumplump]

My office has heard from numerous people who would like to purchase unpasteurized milk. Many of these people have done their own research and come to the conclusion that unpasteurized milk is healthier than pasteurized milk. These Americans have the right to consume these products without having the Federal Government second-guess their judgment about what products best promote health. If there are legitimate concerns about the safety of unpasteurized milk, those concerns should be addressed at the State and local level.
If Ron Paul and his fellow consumers of unpasturized milk want to indulge their taste in a cave away from the rest of us, I don't mind. But they don't have a right to expose the rest of us to communicable diseases such as tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, scarlet fever, and typhoid. And citizens of, say, California, don't have the right to encourage diseases that can spread to Nevada. (Pathogens are notoriously indifferent to political borders.)

[Zeno Swijtink]

If Ron Paul and his fellow consumers of unpasturized milk want to indulge their taste in a cave away from the rest of us, I don't mind. But they don't have a right to expose the rest of us to communicable diseases such as tuberculosis, diphtheria, polio, scarlet fever, and typhoid. And citizens of, say, California, don't have the right to encourage diseases that can spread to Nevada. (Pathogens are notoriously indifferent to political borders.)

Right on Willie! Campylobacter jejuni, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella, and Yersinia enterocolitica are detected in raw milk. If we cannot even keep our spinach safe for public consumption, how can Paul consider a system of interstate raw milk transportation responsible from a public health perspective!

Paul seems to be stuck in some 19th century fantasy of frontier living. The world has become too complex for this and we need to face our problem right on and together, discussing the best available information we have.

Many references of this thru https://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&q=unpasteurized+milk&spell=1

Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 252 No. 15, October 19, 1984

Unpasteurized milk. The hazards of a health fetish
M. E. Potter, A. F. Kaufmann, P. A. Blake and R. A. Feldman

Abstract: Meaningful differences in nutritional value between pasteurized and unpasteurized milk have not been demonstrated, and other purported benefits of raw milk consumption have not been substantiated. Conversely, the role of unpasteurized dairy products in the transmission of infectious diseases has been established repeatedly. To effectively counsel patients attracted by the health claims made for raw milk, practicing physicians must understand both the rationale used by proponents of raw milk and the magnitude of the risk involved in drinking raw milk.

[Sonomamark]

Yum! Non sequitur with a straw man chaser!

You've avoided my point, which is that these idle musings do not and will not have any real-world implementation, now or in the future. The nature of our political system as it has evolved ensures this. Whatever your opinion is, or Ron Paul's opinion, or Robert Bork's opinion, the federal government of the United States will always have the power to regulate markets, and it will continue to do so.

You've tried hard to change the subject, but no dice. The Wikipedia quotes, conjectures, accusations, surmises, links to websites and ideological expositions you make here don't amount to anything but talk. You're promoting a doomed candidate with a nonstarter political philosophy, and grasping at straws to show that there might, somehow, be a way for these to be viable. You have not in any manner succeeded.

I'm done with this thread--it's gotten recursive and silly.



SM


Lotta great ideas came from the fringe. Columbus and Copernicus had fringe views. Bet I could guess which side of the fence some of the people on this forum would have been on, as they scorned and dragged Copernicus to prison for his fringe belief that the sun didn't revolve around the earth. I hope I would have been wise enough to be among the few who gave his contrarian view a listen.

[purplepig]

Yum! Non sequitur with a straw man chaser!

You've avoided my point, which is that these idle musings do not and will not have any real-world implementation, now or in the future. The nature of our political system as it has evolved ensures this. Whatever your opinion is, or Ron Paul's opinion, or Robert Bork's opinion, the federal government of the United States will always have the power to regulate markets, and it will continue to do so.

You've tried hard to change the subject, but no dice. The Wikipedia quotes, conjectures, accusations, surmises, links to websites and ideological expositions you make here don't amount to anything but talk. You're promoting a doomed candidate with a nonstarter political philosophy, and grasping at straws to show that there might, somehow, be a way for these to be viable. You have not in any manner succeeded.

I'm done with this thread--it's gotten recursive and silly.



SM
Goodbye Sonomamark - I will not miss you.

[d-cat]

Yum! Non sequitur with a straw man chaser!

You've avoided my point,

Mark, I posted a few posts back on it. Not sure if there is more to add to the subject. Maybe that The Commerce Clause isn't the only test a regulation has to pass. I think Ron Paul goes after regulations for different reasons. But as I said, I'm no expert on the subject. I do know that Ron Paul is an expert on The Constitution and the economy.


which is that these idle musings do not and will not have any real-world implementation, now or in the future. The nature of our political system as it has evolved ensures this. Whatever your opinion is, or Ron Paul's opinion, or Robert Bork's opinion, the federal government of the United States will always have the power to regulate markets, and it will continue to do so.

well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion too


You've tried hard to change the subject, but no dice. The Wikipedia quotes, conjectures, accusations, surmises, links to websites and ideological expositions you make here don't amount to anything but talk.

I think you maybe have me mixed up with somebody else.


You're promoting a doomed candidate with a nonstarter political philosophy, and grasping at straws to show that there might, somehow, be a way for these to be viable. You have not in any manner succeeded.

I'm done with this thread--it's gotten recursive and silly.

SM

ok, see ya then Mark - if you're reading this :Biggrin:

[Barry]

You're promoting a doomed candidate with a nonstarter political philosophy, and grasping at straws to show that there might, somehow, be a way for these to be viable.
I've only been lightly scanning this thread. Just because RP doesn't have a shot at being elected, it doesn't mean that he won't have an impact. I think his candidacy has gone a long way in bringing libertarianism towards the main stream. The jury is out, in my opinion, if that is a good thing or not.

It might be easier see from the other side. Let's say Dennis Kucinich should get 30% of the vote in the Democratic primaries. That would be huge! It may not have a big immediate effect, but I have no doubt it would contribute to the greening of the democrats.

Just my :2cents:. I'm going to return to scan mode...

[OrchardDweller]

Sunday is the big day!

This December 16th, on the anniversary of The Boston Tea Party that started the American Revolution, masses of people will be donating to restore our liberty and save our country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8

It actually starts Saturday at 9pm Pacific Time on the west coast,and will continue all through Sunday. This is a one hundred percent grass roots concept and endeavor, but you can watch the donations flow in to record breaking amounts live at www.ronpaul2008.com It's expected to top the 4.3 million taken in on November 5th!

[OrchardDweller]

The donating has begun! In the first 50 minutes or so Ron Paul has taken in around $340,000. Almost $7,000 per minute. Not bad.

This is about what donations were at midnight Eastern Time, at the start of the Tea Party:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v367/twogunkitten/decem16.jpg

www.ronpaul2008.com

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul breaks $12 million mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvTaJxXsc5s

[OrchardDweller]

Here are some early pictures of the Teaparty '07

COLUMBUS, OH
https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2383/2116698544_46e4738a57.jpg?v=0

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
https://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3637/ronpaulrally015vs9.jpg

https://img235.imageshack.us/img235/2950/ronpaulrally063of1.jpg

AUSTIN
https://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sctm/v170/53/93/695297216/n695297216_512212_1420.jpg


And here are even some pictures from Strasbourg, France!
https://i11.tinypic.com/6k0a1s4.jpg

https://i7.tinypic.com/6olgx8m.jpg

[d-cat]

thanks for the pics! videos of yesterday's rallies are trickling in as well...


Ron Paul Tea Party - Santa Monica Pier
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNP1-bokv2g


Austin Tea Party / Ron Paul rally 12-16-2007
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvGS12EoZUE

[Zeno Swijtink]

Andrew Sullivan Endorses Ron Paul

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

[handy]

https://ronpaul.meetup.com/568/photos/

I was pleasantly surprised at how many people honked as they passed.
When we were on both sides of Embarcadero, there were some periods of continuous cacophony.

Dr. Paul has the cure for Apathy.

"Somethin's happenin' here..."

[d-cat]

Thanks for posting the pics handy! Looks great! And glad to hear the traffic response was good!

A friend reported seeing 6 Ron Paul signs in Cotati/Rohnert Park yesterday. Woohoo - the R[ƎVO˩]UTION is spreading!



https://ronpaul.meetup.com/568/photos/

I was pleasantly surprised at how many people honked as they passed.
When we were on both sides of Embarcadero, there were some periods of continuous cacophony.

Dr. Paul has the cure for Apathy.

"Somethin's happenin' here..."

[d-cat]

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

:):

[Zeno Swijtink]

Here are some early pictures of the Teaparty '07

COLUMBUS, OH
https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2383/2116698544_46e4738a57.jpg?v=0




As an observer of the UN to make these fair and true elections I protest against being dumped!! This compromises the 2008 Presidential Elections.

[d-cat]

excellent speech covering many issues

VIDEO: Ron Paul Speech and Q&A 12-19-07
Politics-n-Eggs Breakfast, New Hampshire

Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwck2nAtlHQ

Part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqiJ8ttBuCA

Part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIbmXfteACw

Part 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqnU5J0rVRk

Part 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Qn5XGr7RYc

Part 6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYMMBsBtYLo


or this link will play all the parts continuously:

https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=2C178BDF9D38B4A3
(click 'play all videos' on the right)

[d-cat]

Ron Paul on Meet The Press 12-23-07

Part 1 of 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saDw03JXigA

Part 2 of 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgTqSu-ZVFM

Part 3 of 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4

Part 4 of 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCSY438wpCk

[OrchardDweller]

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

:):

I think that's a very nice holiday message. Happy holidays everyone! Wishing you love, peace and prosperity.


https://www.richandwendy.com/ronpaul/blimp14.jpg

[Sonomamark]

Just found this. Anyone even considering supporting Ron Paul should go here (https://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/15/124912/740) after reading this appalling excerpt from a 3,700-word racist screed by Ron Paul, from his "Political Report" in 1992:

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.


Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.


If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

[Lenny]

Just found this. Anyone even considering supporting Ron Paul should go here (https://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/15/124912/740) after reading this appalling excerpt from a 3,700-word racist screed by Ron Paul, from his "Political Report" in 1992:

The quote has a ring of "truthiness" about it, no? We all here in Wacco-ville support each other with our views where there are no Black folks, but when Ron Paul says MOST AMERICANS FEEL, he ain't lying. Most of the racists I run into live around here with me, and I ain't all that white, but can "pass". So don't call HIM a racist until you check your own heart and fears. Oh, and walk a mile in your shoes in an inner city ghetto or barrio for the first 25 years, then tell me something new. :hiphat:

[OrchardDweller]

Just found this. Anyone even considering supporting Ron Paul should go here (https://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/15/124912/740) after reading this appalling excerpt from a 3,700-word racist screed by Ron Paul, from his "Political Report" in 1992:

Ron Paul's rising popularity is a threat to the establishment. First they tried to ignore him and ban him from the debates. Then they tried making him out to be a racist. They also tried to connect him to the 911 truth movement (as if that's bad). When none of that worked, they then tried to attack his supporters, labeling them as kooks or terrorists. They continue to call Ron Paul "a longshot", despite his enormous support. Now they're going back to trying to label him as a racist once again. This time they are trying to insinuate that his belief that the civil war didn't have to be fought is racist, despite Dr. Paul explaining that other countries like England abolished slavery without a war by simply buying up the slaves and freeing them. Again, Ron Paul is a huge threat to the establishment with his anti-war and anti-corporate welfare views, and they are using their media to try to smear him.

The "racist remarks" article you link to here is back from May and never had quite the effect that Paul's opponents had hoped. It turned out that the remarks were written by a former aide who was then fired. And that was the end of the story.

I've really looked into Ron Paul and know he is not a racist. It's best just to look into the man and judge for yourself whether he is a racist or not. For a start, here is Dr. Paul at the PBS debate where he spoke a bit about race-related issues.

Ron Paul: 9-27-07 PBS Debate
part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLbPfci26wc
part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRN_EvCS1kM


To see an example of a corporate media attempt to smear Ron Paul, have a look at this (rather entertaining) video:

A Fox, a Wolf, and a Whole Lot of Bull
part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY-KlYg9UME
part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ht1bo5UhOs

[OrchardDweller]

Just found this. Anyone even considering supporting Ron Paul should go here (https://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/15/124912/740) after reading this appalling excerpt from a 3,700-word racist screed by Ron Paul, from his "Political Report" in 1992:

Oh, by the way, the Daily Kos article you link to is from May. Here is a more recent article from them:

I Endorse Ron Paul & Why Progressives Should Support Him
https://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/24/11250/453/61/426080

.

[Sonomamark]

Lenny, you completely miss the point. The point is whether you want a President that believes this stuff, who lumps all people of a particular color range into a category of "inferior and/or threatening" people.

Much as Paul's enthusiasts are now doing a dance to try to hide his history, this is a real quote, from a real publication, that Ron Paul signed off on. Trying to distract from the issue by pointing fingers at "the media" or by (irrelevantly) showing that some other person on a blog with hundreds of thousands of participants has supported Paul is just false discourse. The bottom line is this: this man has a long and well-established written record of racist statements. He's supported by white supremacist organizations--and, in fact, has refused to return campaign contributions from their leaders.

I don't want that kind of person as President, and I don't have much respect for someone who does.


SM


The quote has a ring of "truthiness" about it, no? We all here in Wacco-ville support each other with our views where there are no Black folks, but when Ron Paul says MOST AMERICANS FEEL, he ain't lying. Most of the racists I run into live around here with me, and I ain't all that white, but can "pass". So don't call HIM a racist until you check your own heart and fears. Oh, and walk a mile in your shoes in an inner city ghetto or barrio for the first 25 years, then tell me something new. :hiphat:

[theindependenteye]

> The "racist remarks" article you link to here is back from May and never had quite the effect that Paul's opponents had hoped. It turned out that the remarks were written by a former aide who was then fired. And that was the end of the story.
>I've really looked into Ron Paul and know he is not a racist.

So i take it that this was indeed a quote from a report under the name of Ron Paul? And that an aide actually wrote his words for him, and this was published without Paul having read what'd been said? And that the aide was then fired, even though he was actually expressing, as another post noted, what "MOST AMERICANS FEEL"?

The argument about whether or not someone is "a racist" seems to be as off-the-wall as opinions on whether a black candidate is "black enough" or whether a specific gay person was 'born that way." Like most people, I carry a fairly substantial baggage of generalizations & half-truths & prejudgments about others as part of my cultural heritage, and offhand I don't know of any culture that doesn't instill that solipsistic armoring in its citizenry. And the victim subcultures are no less free from this proclivity.

So for me, it's racist *actions* that are subject to judgment. What comes out of my mouth? (Words are indeed actions.) How do I treat other people? What policies do I vote for, and whom do those policies impact? And when it comes to public figures, how are they using that stuff to manipulate voters? You don't have to *be* racist to do a really good job of practicing it. You don't have to hate somebody to step on his face. In one of our plays, a judge tells the defendant, "I don't look at the color of your skin, I look at your suit and tie."

As for Ron Paul, I don't really care about the racist issue. But if he was responsible for the pathetic shit that was quoted -- supposedly just saying "what people think" without contradicting it -- it doesn't reflect well on him. And if he wasn't responsible for it, how did it go out under his banner? As President would he fire the aide who, without his knowing it, bombed Iran? Sounds all too familiar.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

[OrchardDweller]

Here is some info on the $500 donation that Ron Paul received this quarter (out of over $18 million) from the one donor (out of 128,000) who fronts a racist group:

(article) Paul to keep donation from white supremacist
https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/

(video) Ron Paul addresses $500 donation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT8vODRKCRQ


Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. - Ron Paul

.

[OrchardDweller]

Don Black, the racist in question who donated $500 to Ron Paul doesn't himself think Ron Paul is a racist.

Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing America's borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. "We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice."

https://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071220/ron_paul_white_supremacist.html?.v=1


These people don't think Ron Paul is racist either:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ji_Ft23BDw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyBjBudbOVs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJ9ZITd2rs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soKkoPpvi7o

[Paradox]

Much as Paul's enthusiasts are now doing a dance to try to hide his history, this is a real quote, from a real publication, that Ron Paul signed off on.

Sonomamark,

Ron Paul is not a racist. As a matter of fact Walter Williams (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams) is someone he has publicly stated would be a key person in his administration. He is black. If you are interested in who else he would appoint go: here (https://www.nolanchart.com/article421.html)


Also, why would a racist honor Muhammad Ali?

link (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070117-38&person=400311#sMonofilemx003Ammx002Fmmx002Fmmx002Fmhomemx002Fmgovtrackmx002Fmdatamx002Fmusmx002Fm110mx002Fmcrmx002Fmh20070117-38.xmlElementm12m0m0m)

Rep. (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311)Ronald Paul [R-TX] (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311):
https://www.govtrack.us/data/photos/400311-50px.jpeg



Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 58 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-58). I saw Muhammad Ali as a man of great courage, and I admired him for this, not because of the courage that it took to get in a ring and fight men bigger than he, but because of his stance in 1967.In 1967, he was 25 years old. He was the heavyweight champion of the world, and for religious beliefs, he practiced what Martin Luther King made popular, civil disobedience, because he disagreed with the war. I thought his comments were rather astute at the time and were not complex, but he merely said, I have no quarrel with the Viet-Cong. He said the Viet-Cong never called him a name, and because of his religious convictions, he said he did not want to serve in the military. He stood firm, a man of principle, and I really admired this as a quality.
He is known, of course, for his athletic skills and his humanitarian concerns, and these are rightly mentioned in a resolution like this. But I do want to emphasize this because, to me, it was so important and had such impact, in reality, what Muhammad Ali did eventually led to getting rid of the draft, and yet we as a people and we as a Congress still do not have the conviction that Muhammad Ali had, because we still have the selective service; we say, let us not draft now, but when the conditions are right, we will bring back the draft and bring back those same problems that we had in the 1960s.
I see what Muhammad Ali did as being very great. He deserves this recognition, but we should also praise him for being a man of principle and willing to give up his title for 3 years at the age of 25 at the prime of his career. How many of us give up something to stand on principle? He was a man of principle. He believed it and he stood firm, so even those who may disagree with his position may say at least he stood up for what he believed in. He suffered the consequences and fortunately was eventually vindicated.And for people actually interested in who Ron Paul is, please read his prophetic Anti-War essay from 2002 titled: A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity and Liberty (https://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul44.html)

If you cannot find a common ground with Ron Paul, chances are you are extremist.

~Paradox

[OrchardDweller]

Here is another feeble attempt to smear Dr. Ron Paul. This time about his view that the Civil War needn't have been fought to end slavery. It is sad to see "journalists" resort to snickering, ridiculing and even name calling when confronted by the truth.

Ron Paul on Morning Joe 12-27-07
https://rawstory.com/rawreplay/?p=356

.

[OrchardDweller]

Hey Independenteye, I thought I'd 'juicy up' this thread for you a bit. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeALvdXALaM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIC81MJfWXQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTGXpX-_GtA

[Zeno Swijtink]

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. - Ron Paul



I haven't read anything else by Ron Paul on racism and have to restrict myself to this one quote.

At first this seems to be the right position to take: To relate to anyone as s/he is, rather than seeing her/him as a member of a group, seems to respond to the person her/himself, really look her/him in the eyes and relate only in a direct, personal way.

And possibly, if everyone believed this, and acted accordingly, this would be the right thing.

But this is not what many people have been doing, or still do. People are favored, or discriminated against and marginalized , because of the groups they are perceived to be a part of.

One cannot be blind to this, and in particular public policy cannot be blind to this.

Does the quote means that Ron Paul is blind to this? In the sense that his favored public policy would not recognize at all the historical damage that racism has created and would not wish to reverse or correct these wrongs?

In particular, does he agree with Clarence Thomas in rejection affirmative action as a form of "racism?"

[OrchardDweller]

I haven't read anything else by Ron Paul on racism and have to restrict myself to this one quote.

At first this seems to be the right position to take: To relate to anyone as s/he is, rather than seeing her/him as a member of a group, seems to respond to the person her/himself, really look her/him in the eyes and relate only in a direct, personal way.

And possibly, if everyone believed this, and acted accordingly, this would be the right thing.

But this is not what many people have been doing, or still do. People are favored, or discriminated against and marginalized , because of the groups they are perceived to be a part of.

One cannot be blind to this, and in particular public policy cannot be blind to this.

Does the quote means that Ron Paul is blind to this? In the sense that his favored public policy would not recognize at all the historical damage that racism has created and would not wish to reverse or correct these wrongs?

In particular, does he agree with Clarence Thomas in rejection affirmative action as a form of "racism?"

Here's some links to help you understand Ron Paul's views on racism.

Ron Paul's website
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

Ron Paul: 9-27-07 PBS Debate
part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLbPfci26wc
part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRN_EvCS1kM

Ron Paul library
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/search/search.php?q=racism

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul on Wars, Draft and Economy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fd67Dysipo

This is Ron Paul giving an excellent speech about the war, the draft and the economy to Students for Iowa on December 27th. Aired on CNN Ballot Bowl 1-1-07.

[Zeno Swijtink]

Here's some links to help you understand Ron Paul's views on racism.

Ron Paul's website (...)[/url]

Do you agree with him? What's your opinion?

[Valley Oak]

Orchard Dweller:

What are Ron Paul's positions on:


Gay marriage.
Homosexuality.
Gay rights.
Gay or Lesbian couples adopting a child.
Thank you sincerely,

Edward



Ron Paul on Wars, Draft and Economy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fd67Dysipo

This is Ron Paul giving an excellent speech about the war, the draft and the economy to Students for Iowa on December 27th. Aired on CNN Ballot Bowl 1-1-07.

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul on Jay Leno 01/07/08

part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-fwEAf6M1U&e

part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLOGak7mYxE&e

[Valley Oak]

Orchard Dweller, please answer the question: What is Ron Paul's position on gay rights???

I'm sorry to say that I watched those two videos you posted but there was nothing there concerning gay issues.

Edward



Ron Paul on Jay Leno 01/07/08

part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-fwEAf6M1U&e

part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLOGak7mYxE&e

[OrchardDweller]

Orchard Dweller, please answer the question: What is Ron Paul's position on gay rights???

I'm sorry to say that I watched those two videos you posted but there was nothing there concerning gay issues.

Edward

The subject has already been covered on this thread, and this link was posted earlier for his views on collectivism in general:
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/
Also, this link has been posted numerous times: https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
You can go there to find out about Ron Paul's views on issues.

There. Now you don't have to sit around and wait for me anymore to give you information on Ron Paul.

[Sonomamark]

The definitive documentation on Ron Paul's racism and homophobia:

https://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Turns out that the person doing the most smearing of Ron Paul is... Ron Paul.


SM

[purplepig]

The definitive documentation on Ron Paul's racism and homophobia:

https://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Turns out that the person doing the most smearing of Ron Paul is... Ron Paul.


SM
Dear Sonomamark,
If a story about what Ron Paul may have said and may or may not have been aware of is all you can come up with, you must be really frustrated.

[purplepig]

[quote=purplepig;46836]Dear Sonomamark,
If a story about what Ron Paul may have said and may or may not have been aware of is all you can come up with, you must be really frustrated.quote]

[OrchardDweller]

The definitive documentation on Ron Paul's racism and homophobia:

https://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Turns out that the person doing the most smearing of Ron Paul is... Ron Paul.


SM

You actually believe this story Mark??? Even the "intellectually challenged" anti-Ron Paul people on another forum recognized this as a weak smear piece. Didn't you find it odd that the writer didn't scan the newsletters which he claims he found and post them all over the internet?

Here is a TV interview with the writer Jamie Kirchick (who released the story on the day of the NH Primaries btw):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnkYpviuX8M

When questioned whether he has actually ever heard Dr. Paul make any racist comments, Kirchick replies, "No. But, he DID attend a conference on secession in 1995." Well, here's an article by an attendee to that conference which Kirchick claims was attended by "the neo-confederate community" (?) to whom Dr. Paul speaks to "in code" (!):

https://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018418.html

A book was published as a result of this conference, which was sponsored by The Mises Institute, and was held after the collapse of the Soviet Union following 11 secessions within the USSR. Here is a link to that book at the Mises Institute website. Doesn't seem racist to me. Maybe it's in code.

https://www.mises.org/store/Product1.aspx?Product_Id=88

Have you ever heard of the term "useful idiot"? It's a term used by the elite to describe members of the public who naively help spread their propaganda. Are you a "useful idiot" Mark?

[Valley Oak]

Orchard Dweller and Purple Pig:

Ron Paul is homophobic (that also means he's obviously against gay rights). He thinks that gays and lesbians are perverts who will burn in christian hell forever (this means R.P. is a religious, bigoted asshole).

Ron Paul is AGAINST ABORTION. In Paul's own words: "Abortion is killing." What else do you want? (Unless, of course, you yourself are against abortion) Maybe that's what's going on here. You are not courageous, honest, and open enough to state the fact that you and most (if not all) Ron Paul supporters are against abortion?

So anyone who is against Ron Paul is, as you say, "intellectually challenged?" Two can play at that silly game. I can say that anyone who supports Ron Paul is intellectually challenged. As a matter of fact, that is probably pretty accurate.

Edward



You actually believe this story Mark??? Even the "intellectually challenged" anti-Ron Paul people on another forum recognized this as a weak smear piece. Didn't you find it odd that the writer didn't scan the newsletters which he claims he found and post them all over the internet?

Here is a TV interview with the writer Jamie Kirchick (who released the story on the day of the NH Primaries btw):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnkYpviuX8M

When questioned whether he has actually ever heard Dr. Paul make any racist comments, Kirchick replies, "No. But, he DID attend a conference on secession in 1995." Well, here's an article by an attendee to that conference which Kirchick claims was attended by "the neo-confederate community" (?) to whom Dr. Paul speaks to "in code" (!):

https://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018418.html

A book was published as a result of this conference, which was sponsored by The Mises Institute, and was held after the collapse of the Soviet Union following 11 secessions within the USSR. Here is a link to that book at the Mises Institute website. Doesn't seem racist to me. Maybe it's in code.

https://www.mises.org/store/Product1.aspx?Product_Id=88

Have you ever heard of the term "useful idiot"? It's a term used by the elite to describe members of the public who naively help spread their propaganda. Are you a "useful idiot" Mark?

[sharingwisdom]

It's interesting to read the commentaries and opinions from New Republic website. I particularly enjoyed the below. sw

Well, as a black American, I admit that I found this a little bit disturbing at first. However, the timing of this piece is highly suspect. And given the recent exclusion of Ron Paul (the GOP candidate with the most fund-raising totals from the Fox debate, for which no legitimate reason was provided) it has become pretty blatantly obvious to me that Ron Paul is absolutely terrifying the people who control this country, and the Establishment.

I also have to consider the source and examine the motives of the New Republic journalist. This gives me pause for concern: https://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html ------- I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response: Hi Berin, Thanks for writing; and I'm glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I'll try and make the [DC Log Cabin Republicans] party tonight, though [LCR President] Patrick Sammon isn't particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking LCR for not endorsing Giuliani, whom Kirchick calls "the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history"] https://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp Anyways, I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I'd have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.] Best, Jamie -------

Hmmm. It's pretty obvious from this that the journalist (Kirchik) is a Rudy supporter, or at least admires Rudy. He himself admits that he doesn't think Ron Paul is a homophobe, so why did he go through with this article? He says himself that he simply loves to get people riled up by hurling barbs at their favorite political candidate, so why should I take this person seriously. I don't like it when the media tries to use race as a wedge against people who want to radically change the status quo.

I'm 26 years old, but from what I've read in my studies, this is very similar to what the media did to Barry Goldwater (saying he was a racist), when in reality Barry Goldwater was a member of the NAACP. I see this happening again, and I don't like it. It makes me wonder if the media's accusations of a person's alleged racism increase in proportion to their opposition to the Federal Reserve. Makes you wonder.

Also, I have a hard time believing that Ron Paul is racist when he has stated publicly that he would consider Walter Williams as his running mate: https://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/05/do_tell_ron_paul_on_babies_pro.html "Sleuth: If you were to defy the polls and the odds and win the nomination, who would be your running mate? Paul: Well, I don't know, but if I won, you know, I'd want a recount. You know, lets be certain about what's going on here. But a running mate. Somebody like Walter Williams. Walter Williams is a very good economist. John Stossel, John Stossel would be good."

Walter Williams is a well-known black American economist. I have to wonder: how many other GOP candidates have mentioned a black American as a possible VP pick? My guess is none of them. The media is in a tough spot here. Because FOX was so blatant about it, a lot of people are aware that the media has an obvious agenda to keep Ron Paul's message out of the debates and off the air. People are not stupid and can see this. This story has been literally been around for months before this, so the fact that TNR's article happens to coincide with the NH primary is further proof that Ron Paul has someone scrambling. Something stinks here, and I'm not buying it.




The definitive documentation on Ron Paul's racism and homophobia:

https://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Turns out that the person doing the most smearing of Ron Paul is... Ron Paul.


SM

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul Is A RACIST??

https://img.youtube.com/vi/4ItmcIxe5Fs/default.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ItmcIxe5Fs


Recent Update:

Pt. 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3z8nVaMkuw

Pt. 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTU4IKqMZdg

Pt. 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvA8lLZCX4A

[MsTerry]

Ron Paul also didn't receive money from his survivalist-friends?
AKA KKK????


Ron Paul Is A RACIST??

https://img.youtube.com/vi/4ItmcIxe5Fs/default.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ItmcIxe5Fs


Recent Update:

Pt. 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3z8nVaMkuw

Pt. 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTU4IKqMZdg

Pt. 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvA8lLZCX4A

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul also didn't receive money from his survivalist-friends?
AKA KKK????

Are you talking about the one donation he received from someone connected to Stormfront, a racist website? If so, this was already discussed in these posts:


Here is some info on the $500 donation that Ron Paul received this quarter (out of over $18 million) from the one donor (out of 128,000) who fronts a racist group:

(article) Paul to keep donation from white supremacist
https://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/

(video) Ron Paul addresses $500 donation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CT8vODRKCRQ


Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. - Ron Paul


and



Don Black, the racist in question who donated $500 to Ron Paul doesn't himself think Ron Paul is a racist.

Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing America's borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. "We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice."

https://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071220/ron_paul_white_supremacist.html?.v=1


These people don't think Ron Paul is racist either:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ji_Ft23BDw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyBjBudbOVs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJ9ZITd2rs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soKkoPpvi7o

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul Responds to racism allegations on CNN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u39z38xjraw

.

[OrchardDweller]

After being excluded from the last debate, and surviving yet another attempt to smear him, Ron Paul returned to win in the Fox SC debate last night, despite the attempts to trip him.

Fox News SC Republican debate 01-10-08 (Ron Paul responses)

Question 1 "Economy" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piUEmriwY3Q

Question 2 "911 Truthers and Conservatism" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10wwz3vlGf4

Question 3 "Iranian speed boats" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKvCfZWHaNw

Question 4 "Israel" (including attack/rebuttal) -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI3rNc_Faz0

Question 5 "Electability" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mffpkCH-PJw

Question 6 "Immigration" -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJU5S2rJGtM

[OrchardDweller]

Dennis Kucinich chooses Ron Paul as running mate!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

[OrchardDweller]

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm


https://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/pic1.jpg

Above is Dr. Paul during his career as a physician/obgyn.
Dr. Paul would not accept medicaid/medicare and instead helped poor and needy patients at a reduced rate or free of charge.

[OrchardDweller]

Saving the American Health Care System

Introduction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-gSLt_qKBo

part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=287IQ_7Qj_0

part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4woPtYzDEG8

part 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoazzRDALYw

part 4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSBWVDukUuw



Notice: The powers that be are making it difficult to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. If you are a Democrat or Independent, you will have to register Republican in order to vote for Ron Paul in the California primary (you can switch back right after you vote). The deadline to do this is Tuesday January 22.

Info here:
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/states/
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm

[OrchardDweller]

Notice: The powers that be are making it difficult to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. If you are a Democrat or Independent, you will have to register Republican in order to vote for Ron Paul in the California primary (you can switch back right after you vote). The deadline to do this is Tuesday January 22.

Info here:
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/states/
https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm

I don't recommend registering to vote online. After you fill in your data, the registrar's office will mail you a hard copy for your signature which must be mailed back. This could result in a missed deadline!

Instead, go to your nearest post office and complete a readily available Voter Registration Form and mail it right there - postage paid. That alone is a 41 cent savings!

To double-check that you are registered Republican, call your local registrar's office. See the list on Ron Paul's website of their numbers:
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/states/california/county-election-officials/

[Valley Oak]

The U.N, although imperfect, is a truly great and noble institution that promotes peace and prosperity around the world. It is elements like Ron Paul, the Bush dynasty and other reactionaries and conservatives that continue to handicap its ability to further its mission.

Edward



I don't recommend registering to vote online. After you fill in your data, the registrar's office will mail you a hard copy for your signature which must be mailed back. This could result in a missed deadline!

Instead, go to your nearest post office and complete a readily available Voter Registration Form and mail it right there - postage paid. That alone is a 41 cent savings!

To double-check that you are registered Republican, call your local registrar's office. See the list on Ron Paul's website of their numbers:
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/states/california/county-election-officials/

[purplepig]

The U.N, although imperfect, is a truly great and noble institution that promotes peace and prosperity around the world. It is elements like Ron Paul, the Bush dynasty and other reactionaries and conservatives that continue to handicap its ability to further its mission.

Edward
Edward,
You might find that taking a closer look at the actions of the united nations from sources you are more likely to trust would be helpful. Unless you also find PBS offensive, go to PBS.ORG and watch 'The triumph of evil'.

[Valley Oak]

Dear Pig,

I am well informed enough to assert what I'm saying. Perhaps you need to reexamine a little further your own attitudes towards the U.N.

Like it or not, the U.N. is necessary, not just because it's a very good thing to have around, even though it is indeed far from perfect, like American society certainly is. I might understand your negative opinion of the U.N. if you delineated more clearly what you have to say instead of taking the "Ron Paul" approach and simply posting URL's and videos. And also if you talked more concretely about what you would like to see changed in the U.N. or if you would like to replace it with something else or simply eliminate it altogether without another thought. Can you do this, please?

Please have some guts and express your own opinions. I'm not going to waste my time going to see your 'references' every single time. I've already made that mistake too often and know better than to waste my time listening to some dubious source regurgitate propaganda. When I post links and references in my messages to this board, I do so ONLY to support what I'm saying. Simply posting a URL is a chicken shit way of communicating. It's really not even a forum or a debate. It's like saying, 'I won't debate you because you disagree with me so I'm simply going to do a very lame and lazy thing by letting an online video of very questionable origins do the talking for me because I don't know very well how to speak for myself." Very pathetic.

Thank you,

Edward



Edward,
You might find that taking a closer look at the actions of the united nations from sources you are more likely to trust would be helpful. Unless you also find PBS offensive, go to PBS.ORG and watch 'The triumph of evil'.

[OrchardDweller]

Smear Campaign

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jZTd9j6_yg

.

[purplepig]

Dear Pig,

I am well informed enough to assert what I'm saying. Perhaps you need to reexamine a little further your own attitudes towards the U.N.

Like it or not, the U.N. is necessary, not just because it's a very good thing to have around, even though it is indeed far from perfect, like American society certainly is. I might understand your negative opinion of the U.N. if you delineated more clearly what you have to say instead of taking the "Ron Paul" approach and simply posting URL's and videos. And also if you talked more concretely about what you would like to see changed in the U.N. or if you would like to replace it with something else or simply eliminate it altogether without another thought. Can you do this, please?

Please have some guts and express your own opinions. I'm not going to waste my time going to see your 'references' every single time. I've already made that mistake too often and know better than to waste my time listening to some dubious source regurgitate propaganda. When I post links and references in my messages to this board, I do so ONLY to support what I'm saying. Simply posting a URL is a chicken shit way of communicating. It's really not even a forum or a debate. It's like saying, 'I won't debate you because you disagree with me so I'm simply going to do a very lame and lazy thing by letting an online video of very questionable origins do the talking for me because I don't know very well how to speak for myself." Very pathetic.

Thank you,

Edward


Hello Edward,
My reference to PBS and "The triumph of evil"was made only to make the following point, as that documentary had nothing to do with the United Nations. The point here is that you would assume that it did, thus labeling PBS as "some dubious source regurgitate propaganda" and "an online video of very questionable origins" PBS and KQED have a reasonably good reputation as I recall. This is the same manner in which you attack Ron Paul. It is very easy to attack blindly. Your government is good at it. As I see it, we all tend to operate on assumptions of what another’s position is and respond quickly without consideration of content. Perspective has an ability to become a narrowing influence, eliminating reason, annihilating all facts in it’s path and further grounding one in his or her own established beliefs. This is how wars start. Belief, I believe, is the enemy of an open mind. I can say this because I am diverse, I celebrate hypocrisy. This, of course, is only my opinion as is almost everything else I have to say. Had you actually gone to and watched "Triumph of evil" you would get a taste of what we are going to get when Hillary becomes the next genocidal maniac in power. She will be focusing a little closer to home.

As far as the UN is concerned, the actions or inactions of the United Nations as a force for good can only be deliberated to an intelligible conclusion if each party in the debate is willing to understand the reasoning behind the others perspective. In my case, my impression of the UN is heavily influenced by my overall outlook of the context in which they participate. The UN is merely part of the whole and I see the whole as very sick. My opinion again, of course.

In any event, thank you for taking the time to articulate your desire for more depth of opinion on the UN but I hope to instead articulate the opinion that my opinion about the UN is of little consequence to me or you in light of a bigger opinion I will now discuss. I will wish for and welcome being made wrong in this opinion, for in that moment I will, being of open mind, correct myself and immediately become right again. I, unfortunately will also in that moment become wrong in someone else’s eyes. On and on goes the world of opinions. Before I go further, let me say that I have no problem with your attacking me personally, if you wish to, simply because I don’t really give a damn what you think. Please don’t take my opinions as a reflection of what any other participant in this discussion stands for. They care.

Early on I indicated that I believed any effort to restore America was fruitless and received a reply which made me think again. What changed my position was the patience of those whom you verbally assault. Their ability to stay focused and on purpose without taking offense has impressed me as nothing has in a long time. I may be wrong, but I feel a genuine concern for our future here, that I truly appreciate. It has caused me to look deeper and see that I am not alone in my concerns, although possibly alone in the depth of my revulsion with America apathy, which I believe has already caused this toilet to flush. Regardless, I will participate in Americas last gasp.

Let’s instead now discuss that which is not opinion. War.

On the chart of causation for ills in the world [we will just have to imagine such a chart], I would say war factors in as the biggest offender. It was one of my jobs in the military to take care of GI’s returning from Vietnam. Of course those returning from Laos and Cambodia went elsewhere for debriefing as those were illegal wars. The stories were always the same. The psychological damage was always the same, played out in different ways. War is an inhuman thing to do to a human being. I would hope that we can agree that it is not an opinion that war kills a lot of innocent people, maims and mutilates even more and destroys much that is sacred to those who have opinions. War fuels greed, hatred, poverty, suffering, anxiety, stress, desperation, misery, despair and our favorite expression..homelessness. War is hell with all the physical and psychological torment and anguish described in the bible. We all know war is big business. The current war is unnecessary yet generating billions in profits. Ron Paul is against this war as should be any sane person. If this war is allowed to escalate, as these things sometimes do, our opinions about the UN will be of little consequence in stopping it.

To me what’s happening today in the realm of the politics of war should be enough to make any one sick. It just doesn’t seem to. Instead we embrace, rationalize or tolerate it as if it doesn’t really matter. It does matter. We bicker about side issues. Issues created and planted for distraction to polarize the nation. It has worked. Did you notice that we went from should we torture to how should we torture, overnight? Do you not see this as strange? It is very easy for the unthinkable to happen in one moment and be accepted as normal the next. Could it get any more outrageous than using mercenaries, white phosphorous and depleted uranium on civilians in Iraq? It can. Do you know where this kind of thing ends up if not stopped now? How on earth anybody could see any viable candidate other than Ron Paul in this campaign is truly amazing to me.

This country will get the government it deserves. One without respect for human life. Your next. Is there another candidate who has the guts to stand against the direction we are headed? Does yours? Do you even care? You really don’t need to be so upset with Ron Paul or his supporters. War will win. Greed and apathy will win. You will win. Americans will continue to feed at the trough of ignorance with arrogance, indifference and self-righteousness while accepting being dumbed down to a subservient drool, with gratitude. They will need not take any responsibility. Instead they will slurp and wallow to their hearts content while pointing the finger at those who might be thinking outside the trough. If one must stand for something in this sewer, I prefer freedom. I will vote for Ron Paul.

[Valley Oak]

That was awesome! Thanks. I just love it when people really say what's on their minds. That's the best way to get a message across. Anything else is pussyfooting around without anyone learning something new.

I don't agree with everything you said but I have to think before I respond to your excellent piece.

Edward



Hello Edward,
My reference to PBS and "The triumph of evil"was made only to make the following point, as that documentary had nothing to do with the United Nations. The point here is that ...

[Sonomamark]

Actually, purplepig, no, I'm not "really frustrated", because Ron Paul as a topic is about as important as what brand of dishwashing detergent I choose to buy. The man is a footnote. But I think it's important for people to be aware of the company he keeps. If you're a libertarian, well, I understand why you support him. I think you're a delusional idiot, but it makes sense that you would support Ron Paul, who is...well, a libertarian delusional idiot.

But progressives supporting Ron Paul? That's like Jews for Hitler. Makes no sense at all. And people should know it.


SM


Dear Sonomamark,
If a story about what Ron Paul may have said and may or may not have been aware of is all you can come up with, you must be really frustrated.

[purplepig]

Actually, purplepig, no, I'm not "really frustrated", because Ron Paul as a topic is about as important as what brand of dishwashing detergent I choose to buy. The man is a footnote. But I think it's important for people to be aware of the company he keeps. If you're a libertarian, well, I understand why you support him. I think you're a delusional idiot, but it makes sense that you would support Ron Paul, who is...well, a libertarian delusional idiot.

But progressives supporting Ron Paul? That's like Jews for Hitler. Makes no sense at all. And people should know it.


SM
As dishwashing liquid, the difference between Ron Paul and the other candidates is, he would really clean the dishes. The others would just promise to. Do you really spend this much time deliberating which kind of dishwashing liquid to use? I’m sorry.
A footnote. Yes, I agree. That’s all the constitution has become.
The company he keeps? The last time I checked, the rest of the candidates were still embracing the last 40 year status quo policy of reaching down children’s throats, grabbing the base of their spine, pulling them inside out, dipping them in napalm and having them as snacks while chanting "God wants blood not vegetables"
Libertarian? I avoid politics like an open sewer on a warm day. I am just temporarily stopping at this particular circus act to have a look at a guy I heard would actually, if given a chance, do the dishes. Because this tent reeks. I think he would have done them. Too bad he won’t get a chance.
Delusional idiot? We are all delusional idiots.
Progressive? The hair stands up on my neck when I hear that word. The Nazi’s were progressives. When you vote for any one but Ron Paul you are as a Jew voting for Nazis. The metaphor could not be more perfect.
The people should know it? People have searched for and found open fields in which to stand in red coats to shoot at one another in the name of progress. Now progress has brought us to the near unanimous signing of a bill which all but declares that logic is an act of terrorism. We’re really making progress. Your candidate applauds. Not mine. I’m actually glad that one of your vampires will be getting in because there are far too many Lemmings around here anyway.

[OrchardDweller]

https://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/paulheart_dees.jpg


Ron Paul: A New Hope (video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

A reminder that Tuesday, Jan 22 is the deadline to register to vote for Ron Paul in the Feb 5 California Primary. Rules had been changed recently requiring voters to be registered as a Republican in order to vote for Dr. Paul (you can switch back after voting). No Democrats, Independents or Decline To State will be allowed to vote for him. You can get the registration form at your local post office.

You can help keep Dr. Paul's message of Peace, Prosperity and Liberty alive by donating to the campaign. Many supporters will be donating today in memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at www.ronpaul2008.com

To have real change, we must act now.


https://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/girl%20at%20Arlington%20cemetary.jpg

https://www.estherwoodmanor.com/images/i_am_iraq.jpg

[Sonomamark]

Snipping the blather, but THIS ignorant and ugly little meme, surely parroted from neocon Jonah Goldberg's recent round of book tour interviews for his irrational screed "Liberal Fascism"...


Progressive? The hair stands up on my neck when I hear that word. The Nazi’s were progressives. When you vote for any one but Ron Paul you are as a Jew voting for Nazis.

...has to be answered.

The Nazis were not progressives. The Nazis were corporatist, ultra-nationalist reactionaries. They were driven by the interests of the investor class of Germany, as exemplified by Krupp, Seimans, etc. They were the absolute opposite of progressivism. Progressives support diversity, individual civil liberty, protection of the common good and minority right, and the application of appropriate balance to individual rights versus societal good, such as, for example, preventing the guy who lives upstream from you from pouring mercury-laden mine tailings into your water supply.

Ron Paul is a lot closer to the Nazis than to progressives. When he suggests the suspension of all regulation of the marketplace, he talks about this as "free enterprise" and implies that it sets everyone free to make their way in a meritocratic fair fight. But he--like the Republicans-- conveniently doesn't mention that those who already have huge stores of money and power hoarded will be set free to trample and enslave those who do not. Libertarian economic policy is "fair" in the same way it would be "fair" to put me and Mike Tyson in a boxing ring together. We're both allowed to do the same things, but guess who gets done-to, and who does the doing?

[Dynamique]

On January 16th the Daily Show did an interview with this Goldberg dorkwad on his "Liberal Fascism" book. As you might expect, Jon Stewart did a great job of popping his balloon.

Enjoy it for yourself on the "A Daily Show" site at:
https://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=147884&title=jonah-goldberg

Goldberg also appeared on the Thom Hartmann show last week. Hartmann did a reasonably good job of skewering him, but Thom tends to talk-over and rant a bit too much these days. Really all one has to do is wind them up and let them go. One caller after the interview said that basically what Goldberg is doing is using the "pot calling the kettle black" routine to defuse/confuse the word "fascism" and create a smokescreen for the real fascists... namely the neocons who have taken over the Republican party.

With respect to Ron Paul, he actually makes a lot of sense and is speaking the truth on a lot of subjects. However, he is a social darwinist and Libertarian (i.e., anarchist-light); why anybody who identifies as a "progressive" would support him is a mystery. Maybe it has something to do with the extremely fluid definition of the term "progressive."


Snipping the blather, but THIS ignorant and ugly little meme, surely parroted from neocon Jonah Goldberg's recent round of book tour interviews for his irrational screed "Liberal Fascism"...

[purplepig]

Snipping the blather, but THIS ignorant and ugly little meme, surely parroted from neocon Jonah Goldberg's recent round of book tour interviews for his irrational screed "Liberal Fascism"...



...has to be answered.

The Nazis were not progressives. The Nazis were corporatist, ultra-nationalist reactionaries. They were driven by the interests of the investor class of Germany, as exemplified by Krupp, Seimans, etc. They were the absolute opposite of progressivism. Progressives support diversity, individual civil liberty, protection of the common good and minority right, and the application of appropriate balance to individual rights versus societal good, such as, for example, preventing the guy who lives upstream from you from pouring mercury-laden mine tailings into your water supply.

Ron Paul is a lot closer to the Nazis than to progressives. When he suggests the suspension of all regulation of the marketplace, he talks about this as "free enterprise" and implies that it sets everyone free to make their way in a meritocratic fair fight. But he--like the Republicans-- conveniently doesn't mention that those who already have huge stores of money and power hoarded will be set free to trample and enslave those who do not. Libertarian economic policy is "fair" in the same way it would be "fair" to put me and Mike Tyson in a boxing ring together. We're both allowed to do the same things, but guess who gets done-to, and who does the doing?


Sorry, but my comment about Nazi’s being progressives comes from having spent over a year in Germany studying the subject 33 years ago. My goal then was to ascertaining how such a thing as Hitler could have happened. I got my answer from the people who voted for him. I am quite satisfied with the conclusions I reached then, as I am now watching the same scenario play out on our own soil. I am sick of trying to point out the obvious. When a people come to have no regard for the lives of others there is little one can do. They're lost. Like Madeleine Albright said to Diane Sawyer when asked if sanctions on Iraq were worth the loss of ½ million children’s lives..."absolutely" Let’s see.. If I remember correctly, the Clinton administration was a progressive one. No? You and I are different people. I have never understood your sort and never will.

You talk as if Nazis ’s just rolled into town lecturing about the advantages of corporate investment. How do think it all starts? They always look progressive at first. "National unity was our first demand. Piece by piece and move by move this was realized." It took Hitler more than 5 years to become Time magazine’s"Man of the year " How lucky for leaders that men do not think"
Always you have people on the side lines jabbering about one issue after another while occasionally moving slightly to step out of the blood. Or turning up the fan if the smell of burning human flesh begins to overwhelm the wonderful scent of your fresh apple pie.. When I think about it, I have absolutely no sympathy for you. You must not have a worthwhile thought in your head if you can’t see what’s happening to this country. This is so serious that when you bring up regulation as an issue of perceived equivalent consequence to what I’m talking about it makes my blood boil. But then again you don’t know what I’m talking about do you? That’s your right, enjoy it while it lasts.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

The Nazis were corporatist, ultra-nationalist reactionaries. They were driven by the interests of the investor class of Germany, as exemplified by Krupp, Seimans, etc.

This really takes me back to the seventies. I haven't heard this dreary, one-dimensional Marxist take on Nazism since then.

[Frederick M. Dolan]

Snipping the blather, but THIS ignorant and ugly little meme, surely parroted from neocon Jonah Goldberg's recent round of book tour interviews for his irrational screed "Liberal Fascism"...



...has to be answered.

The Nazis were not progressives. The Nazis were corporatist, ultra-nationalist reactionaries. They were driven by the interests of the investor class of Germany, as exemplified by Krupp, Seimans, etc. They were the absolute opposite of progressivism. Progressives support diversity, individual civil liberty, protection of the common good and minority right, and the application of appropriate balance to individual rights versus societal good, such as, for example, preventing the guy who lives upstream from you from pouring mercury-laden mine tailings into your water supply.

Ron Paul is a lot closer to the Nazis than to progressives. When he suggests the suspension of all regulation of the marketplace, he talks about this as "free enterprise" and implies that it sets everyone free to make their way in a meritocratic fair fight. But he--like the Republicans-- conveniently doesn't mention that those who already have huge stores of money and power hoarded will be set free to trample and enslave those who do not. Libertarian economic policy is "fair" in the same way it would be "fair" to put me and Mike Tyson in a boxing ring together. We're both allowed to do the same things, but guess who gets done-to, and who does the doing?

Not to put words in his mouth, but I believe that what animates purplepig is what Shklar called "the liberalism of fear," namely the fear of any sort of collectivist impulse that might lead to tyranny or domination of the individual. At the level of abstraction at which he's formulating it, the position certainly has merit. Of course, the vast majority of those who advocate "progressive" causes assume that their proposals for change must respect individual rights, the idea of equality, and other liberal values. At this level of abstraction, it's hard to see that progressives and fearful liberals would have anything to dispute -- in principle, that is. A dispute would come, for example, at the point of a (disputed) judgment as to whether a real live proposal for progressive change did indeed respect, or undermine, liberal values.

[OrchardDweller]

The stock market and the dollar are about to collapse. While the government and the mainstream media have been telling you that everything is ok, Ron Paul has been telling you the truth.

If a candidate is promising you free socialized health care, they are not taking the state of our finances into consideration, or they are lying to you. If you believe in the 'war on terror' and wish for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Iran) to continue, realize that it can only be done with a drastic cut to your standard of living.


https://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/usa-dees.jpg


US Stock Markets Decline : THE DOLLAR HOLOCAUST
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xb0jJYYXjpQ



.

[OrchardDweller]

RON PAUL AT THE MSNBC FLORIDA DEBATE 01-24-08 FULL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYaBt5vhjX0

Despite having won second place in the last two primaries (Nevada and Louisiana), Ron Paul was again marginalized in last night's debate, receiving far less time than the other candidates.

Romney: 21 minutes, 11 seconds (12 answers and asked 1 question)
McCain: 16 minutes even (12 answers and asked 1 question)
Giuliani: 13 minutes and 50 seconds (10 answers and asked 1 question)
Huckabee: 12 minutes and 11 seconds (8 answers and asked 1 question)
Paul: 6 minutes and 31 seconds (5 answers and asked 1 question)

Ron Paul Shunned In Blatantly Unfair MSNBC Debate
https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/012508_paul_shunned.htm

Also remember that he was BANNED from a Fox debate following his record breaking one day 6+ million haul, while McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee were going broke. That's what happens when an anti-war candidate keeps speaking the truth. Most people know the truth when they hear it. So all they have to do is keep the people from hearing it.

[OrchardDweller]

https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c262/kotin205/PH2008012101811.jpg


Just couldn't resist posting this one :):

[Dynamique]

It looks like he's about to take a big bite out of this kid. Tender toddler -- yum!!


https://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c262/kotin205/PH2008012101811.jpg


Just couldn't resist posting this one :):

[OrchardDweller]

It looks like he's about to take a big bite out of this kid. Tender toddler -- yum!!

Doesn't look like that to me. It looks like the baby is kissing him. Which is what was actually taking place, according to the mother of the baby:


Originally Posted by perrin_for_paul here (https://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=38574&page=17)


I know some of you have heard me brag about this like ten times, but I can't resist!

That's my daughter! Picture was taken Saturday night after the SC Primary.

Here are some snapshots from that night of Maggie trying to attack Ron Paul with baby kisses:

https://perrinhall.com/brandon/to_copy/images/maggie_attacks_03.jpg

https://perrinhall.com/brandon/to_copy/images/maggie_attacks_04.jpg



I love these photos too:

https://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/WindowsLiveWriter/RonPaulBuzz_11C28/RP%20in%20wash%20times%5B2%5D.jpg

https://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd85/Sylvania11/1206082326_8abf24c9c8.jpg

[OrchardDweller]

Here's a new grassroots Ron Paul video that's pretty good. Enjoy!

Ron Paul: One Chance
https://youtube.com/watch?v=bcrQIhDjlnY

[d-cat]

Hillary, Huckabee, Obama, and Dr. Paul confirmed for CROSS-PARTY debate TODAY 3 PM.

Myspace / MTV "Closing Arguments" Debate - Saturday 2/2/08 @ 3PM PST
https://www.myspace.com/election2008

The event will air on MTV (as well as MTV2 and MTV Tr3s, with highlights on mtvU), stream online at ChooseOrLose.com and MySpace.com, stream on mobile devices via MTV Mobile, broadcast live on XM Satellite Radio, MTV and AP radio, and be distributed live and on-demand through the Associated Press Online Video Network, which has more than 1,800 media sites, including nearly 600 media outlets in Super Tuesday states.

------

Here are Ron Paul's replies from the 1/30/08 CNN debate (where he got 1/3 the time that McCain and Rmoney got!):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx9-_5JILtU

[d-cat]

Amazing! Ron Paul got equal time! Here are links to videos of the Ron Paul segment from the show posted above:

part 1 "The Republican Party Deserves To Be Punished"
https://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?vid=207161

part 2 'Closing Arguments: A Presidential Super Dialogue'
https://www.mtv.com/overdrive/?id=1580846&vid=207162


--------------------------

NOTICE:
The following posts 193-198 were moved by the moderator from another thread about the candidates in general. So the info on these posts may be repeating what was already here or may seem out of place.

[d-cat]

https://www.mtv.com/content/thinkmtv/chooseorlose/images/super_281x211v2.jpg

Poll results for MTV/MySpace "Super Dialogue"/"Closing Arguments" (not sure of official name) debate as posted above

Ron Paul - 55%
Barack Obama - 28%
Hillary Clinton - 9%
Mike Huckabee - 9%
(updated)

Click here to see the event if you missed it:
https://www.mtv.com/thinkmtv/chooseorlose/index.jhtml

[mahakali overdrive]

That mtv poll was flawed. If you click refresh on your browser, you can keep voting over and over again.

That allows propaganda to seep in rather easily.

I found this and thought it was frankly disturbing?

From Indybay.org (https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/05/18470186.php?show_comments=1#18472210), from a guy who wrote an article on Ron Paul...

"Since I wrote this article, new information has surfaced regarding Ron Paul’s pro-fascist agenda.

That information is discussed in the following January 7, 2008 MSNBC interview conducted by Tucker Carlson with the New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick. In it he gives an inside look into his controversial piece on presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, due to hit newsstands on Friday.

https://antironpaul.com/ (https://antironpaul.com/)

The following are newly released copies of Ron Paul’s extreme right newsletter to which Jamie Kirchick refers:

https://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf (https://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf)
https://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf (https://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf)
https://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf (https://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf)
https://www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf (https://www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.pdf)
https://www.tnr.com/downloads/August1990.pdf (https://www.tnr.com/downloads/August1990.pdf) "

It talks about very racist statements made over 20 years by Mr. Paul? I'm not interested at all in being controversial, but I find the statements to be really strange. Does anyone have any insight into this?

I don't like hearing African-Americans referred to as "animals" and find that very freaky...

I do know all the social activists whom I work with refuse to deal with the Ron Paul folks and I've maintained a neutral stance, but they are often ushered out of meetings in highly anarcho spaces, an impressive feat as they are tolerant places. I've asked why and heard whispers of fascism and bigotry, but never really looked into this.

Can someone who is pro Ron Paul explain how Mr. Paul explains this, other than that it was a "mistake" as the video basically says. A 20 year mistake is just horrible judgement.

Also, is the allegation that he received a contribution from the KKK, as well as speaking at a a neo-confederacy rally true or not?

I know rumors abound, but that is just something I would not only not want to support, but I'd actually not want to support people I knew who shared his political views.

They scare me. My grandmother nearly died in Daschau. Her mother did die there. The number one issue to me in the world, as a Hindu, is tolerance. Of all people, regardless of their choices. I have friends who support Ron Paul, and I would be pressed to give up my tolerance of them in favor of my standing be pure Ahimsa (non-violence of thought or action). That's big, because as my guru said, "never kick anyone out of your heart." But neo-fascists don't sit well there.

I truly hope I'm not being inflammatory: I want to know the truth.

Satya. Tempered by Ahimsa.

[d-cat]

The Ron Paul racist rumour has been covered on the Ron Paul thread on this forum both times that it has come up during this campaign in attempts to smear him. You might have a look at the info there because judging from your earlier post, you seem to be against the spreading of false information. Here is the link:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=27181&page=4

Here is a must-see interview with the person, Jamie Kirchick, who recently broke this story (on the day of the NH Primary):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKQ14BHdiTU

The newsletters (which were not written by Paul and were published while he was not in office but during the time he was practicing medicine and lecturing) have also come up numerous times over the decades during Dr. Paul's Congressional campaigns. Ron Paul explained that he did not write them (see Dr. Paul's actual writing style at www.ronpaullibrary.org), he took responsibility for them as they were published under his name, and the voters continued to elected him for 10 terms of Congress. Here is Dr. Paul's explanation in a CNN interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u39z38xjraw

So you either believe Dr. Paul or you don't.

This person believes him:

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
https://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm


And these people believe him:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyBjBudbOVs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJ9ZITd2rs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soKkoPpvi7o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arNBnAFqNLI


https://img.youtube.com/vi/4ItmcIxe5Fs/default.jpg

Pt. 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3z8nVaMkuw
Pt. 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTU4IKqMZdg
Pt. 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvA8lLZCX4A


Listen to this man when he says that blacks can take care of themselves regarding racism:
RON PAUL: Why Blacks & People Of Color Should Vote For Him
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ItmcIxe5Fs


Ron Paul did receive one donation out of 128,000 individual donations for that quarter from a man connected to a racist organization. This man, Don Black, said that he does not believe Ron Paul is a racist, but supports him for his stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing America's borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Ron Paul did not return the donation for the reason that it would probably be used for something racist, and said that by not returning it, the money could instead be used for the cause of liberty.
https://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071220/ron_paul_white_supremacist.html?.v=1

Ron Paul has many, many black supporters, including ones who are responsible for putting Ron Paul billboards up around the country (https://www.ronpaulbillboards.com/) and putting planes up in the air pulling Ron Paul banners.

Ron Paul is an MD and worked in a poor area of Houston, providing care at a discount or for free to those with financial difficulties.

https://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/pic1.jpg


Here are Ron Paul's own words on racism:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. - Ron Paul

Ron Paul addresses racism in this PBS debate:
part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLbPfci26wc
part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRN_EvCS1kM

For more info on his views on racism, go here
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

[d-cat]

Obama started his career as a Civil Rights and Constitution Attorney :idea:


well, Obama can't feign ignorance then when he voted against the Constitution (which he swore to uphold) by voting for the reauthorization of The Patriot Act.

[Valley Oak]

At least Obama is not an anti-abortionist fascist pig like Ron Paul is.

Edward



well, Obama can't feign ignorance then when he voted against the Constitution (which he swore to uphold) by voting for the reauthorization of The Patriot Act.

[d-cat]

At least Obama is not an anti-abortionist fascist pig like Ron Paul is.

Edward

Ron Paul believes the abortion issue should be brought back to the state and local level. As an OB/GYN of 30 years who has delivered over 4,000 babies, his expert view is that it is the killing of a life. However, he puts his personal view aside in order to abide by the Constitution.

The unborn currently has legal rights. If one injures an unborn, they can be prosecuted. The unborn also has legal rights in regard to inheritance.

Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

Ron Paul - View on Abortion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXw4lNysT-U

It should be noted that on the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling (which allows late term and partial birth abortions), Norma McCorvey (a.k.a. "Jane Roe,") has given Ron Paul her official endorsement.

[d-cat]

Just had to comment here.

There has never been so much as a hearing to determine who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The "9/11 cOmission" started with a verdict and then made a lot of statements assuming it was true.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't know who was responsible. Perhaps Osama is still on the CIA payroll and claimed responsibility because that's what he was paid to do.

-Jeff

Exactly! One thing for sure, Iraq and the Iraqi people had nothing to do with it. Ron Paul wants a new investigation, which is another reason I'm voting for him. He spoke yesterday about the lies and distortions that took us to war:

[B]Ron Paul KCPQ Fox Seattle Interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr3S9J46SBQ

Braggi - I'm very happy to know that there is someone here who is informed on the subject.

[d-cat]

>My reason for supporting (Ron Paul) is that the government has become too large and cumbersome for ordinary voters to really change it. A Ron Paul Presidency would give us a new start.

This chronic mantra of "reduce the size of government" appeals to a broad cross-section of the populace, but for very different reasons. Paul seems to be of the camp that suggests that Federal programs are de facto suspect: self-defeating, corrupt, wasteful, and prone to being coopted. We'd do much better if Sebastopol could have its own FDA, its own Social Security administration, and its own little Green-Party version of the Marine Corps & Air Force.

But in practice, what does "smaller government" actually mean? Get rid of Social Security and just encourage people to be more self-reliant? Get rid of food, safety, civil rights, labor & environmental regulations and go back to the halcyon days of the 1920's? Reduce subsidies to Exxon while simultaneously eliminating all restraints on Exxon?

Reagan was against big government and presided over a vast expanse of federal budget, while gutting any program his particular constituency didn't like. What would Paul do with FCC appointments? Appoint commissioners who did away with all regulations that inhibit monopoly? Bush has already done that to numerous agencies simply by reducing their capacity to function for the intended purpose.

I still don't get it.

Cheers—
Conrad

Hi Indy Eye

I believe Ron Paul's goal is to bring the Federal govt back to the size and scope as authorized by The Constitution, with more power going back to the state and local level. What that would mean for us depends on what we would want and what we would vote for, I suppose. I imagine medical marijuana would be legal again as how we voted for that was overridden by the Federal Government.