Ron Paul, Libertarianism and the U.N.

[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/i...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.





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/article...ul_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]

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!!

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

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:

I love these photos too:

[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]

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/20...nts=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/

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/January91.pdf
https://www.tnr.com/downloads/October1990.pdf
https://www.tnr.com/downloads/June1990.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/showt...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/article...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




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_...cist.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.




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

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]

[B]

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:

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.

[d-cat]

NOTICE: 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.

Not sure why post 193 was moved here as it is about all the candidates and relates to a post on that thread, but it does apply here as well.

[OrchardDweller]

Watch this video and become smarter than most members of Congress

https://video.google.com/videoplay?d...69311366680572

[theindependenteye]

>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.<


As would slavery, if I remember correctly. Wonder if any venture capitalists want to finance my new Africa/California vacation package?

The Supreme Court has been interpreting the Constitution for over two hundred years, and in fact the tradition of their interpreting it — established by Marbury vs. Madison, I believe — may be a questionable arrogation of power. But it spoke to a need: how do we interpret this document? We're a nation of 300 million; we're utterly different economically, dominated by multinational corporations; we're trans-continental; we're in a different world; and we have very large bombs. The Founding Fathers were bright guys and superb writers, but they weren't God. Even God's best-known novel is subject to quite a number of interpretations, and those who try to take it "literally" find themselves in a swamp.

I'm no fan of the Federal Government or of countless Supreme Court decisions, but my point is that these have all been responses to specific circumstances from specific, fallible individuals. "Going back to the Constitution" isn't an unbiased zero-sum game; it's a choice to interpret the Constitution in the most extremely restrictive way and thereby create a vacuum of power that the corporations will happily fill. I agree that the Constitution shouldn't stretch easily, but if it didn't stretch at all, if there were no elasticity, it would have snapped by about 1810.

I grant that positive things would flow from denuding the Constitution, assuming I lived in the right state. I could smoke marijuana. I could lynch blacks. I could pay workers $3 an hour and let them get sucked into the machinery. I could sell diseased meat. I could smoke marijuana. I could abolish public schools and go for a "market solution." I could restrict real estate to the right kind of people. I could make children pray to the Lord Jesus Christ. I could bribe a Governor rather than pay the price of a Senator. And I could smoke marijuana.

Anyway, I'm off to vote for a corrupt & power-mad psychotic, otherwise known as a Presidential candidate. Thanks for the debate. It's been fun.

Cheers—
Conrad

[Valley Oak]

Orchy, you are tragically naive. No thanks for the video, again.

I think there are video support groups around to get people off of the nasty addiction of watching and believing propaganda videos. They use the ten step method. The first question is: "Are you hooked on watching and distributing Ron Paul videos through the internet?"

Edward

Watch this video and become smarter than most members of Congress

https://video.google.com/videoplay?d...69311366680572

[OrchardDweller]

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck (CNN) 4-1-08. Talks about the current economic situation and the Federal Reserve:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuTcRg_AKA8

[Valley Oak]

Josepha, this is simply more diatribe that misinforms and misleads people.

Edward

Ron Paul on Glenn Beck (CNN) 4-1-08. Talks about the current economic situation and the Federal Reserve:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kuTcRg_AKA8

[handy]

Josepha, this is simply more diatribe that misinforms and misleads people.

Edward

I'm sure(not really) you're correct; but I think he is less misleading and less misinformed than anyone else running. His diatribe makes more sense (sounds more honest) than their diatribe.

It will be interesting (probably effin' hilarious!) to watch the circular firing squad of McCain/Clinton/Obama play out over the next few months. As they mangle their credibility even further, Dr. Paul is going to start looking pretty good. We've still got many months; give it a few...

[Valley Oak]

You've expressed an opinion, not a fact, even if you feel strongly that it is the truth. I have an opinion too, as do millions of other Americans and most don't agree with you or Ron Paul.

I am very confident, along with millions of other U.S. citizens, that either Obama or Clinton are infinitely better qualified than Ron Paul ever could be for the White House.

Dr. Paul is not going to start looking pretty good between now and this November or even years from now if either Obama or Clinton win. Paul might look like he would have been a better alternative if McCain wins, however. But that's just my opinion.

There's an old saying that goes: "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink."

Edward

I'm sure(not really) you're correct; but I think he is less misleading and less misinformed than anyone else running. His diatribe makes more sense (sounds more honest) than their diatribe.

It will be interesting (probably effin' hilarious!) to watch the circular firing squad of McCain/Clinton/Obama play out over the next few months. As they mangle their credibility even further, Dr. Paul is going to start looking pretty good. We've still got many months; give it a few...

[handy]

You've expressed an opinion, not a fact, even if you feel strongly that it is the truth. I have an opinion too, as do millions of other Americans and most don't agree with you or Ron Paul.

Yup. I stated an opinion. Never called it a fact. Your point?
Yes, you do have an opinion, too. Whoopee twang... Millions of other Americans voted for Bush, too.



[QUOTE=Valley Oak;53946]Dr. Paul is not going to start looking pretty good between now and this November or even years from now if either Obama or Clinton win. Paul might look like he would have been a better alternative if McCain wins, however. But that's just my opinion.QUOTE]

You really think there's a dime's worth of difference between McCain/Clinton/Obama, huh? Do you work in government? You sure do seem hostile to anyone who suggests we should have less of it...

There's an old saying that goes: "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink."
Edward

True, dat! Try to keep that in mind.

[Lenny]

Josepha, this is simply more diatribe that misinforms and misleads people.Edward

Well, he DID allude to the fact that Congress screws up stuff mostly and we do need to change that body of scalawags. Is that the diatribe? As most of what I heard had a STRONG air of truthiness. We are a discontented lot, and it takes a TON of money to run for office, and we DO need a new voice. And the Fed Reserve Bank is bringing us down...things like that rang true to my ears.