Game, set and match. Not that Paul-bots will concede, they'll still fight for whatever pipe dreams they could make out of the 3% Republican support they were getting already.
BTW, I don't believe, for one minute, that this news will make Paul will drop out of the race. The guy has made a ton of cash, over $18 million in the 4th quarter of 2007 alone. I bet the back-and-side dealing "consultant contracts" will make him and his cronies rich.
It's a suckers game and Paulbots are the marks.
Yeah, but Paul said he's not a racist! Evidence be damned!
And Nixon wasn't a crook!
And Clinton didn't have sex with that woman!
I've been reading Rockwell's site on and off for some years.
He's going to be getting a pissed-off letter from me.
I read Rockwell's site at first during his early Anti-Gulf War phase. But he got pruned out as a crank as time went by. Like all the Libertarians.
Checking out his site today, I see it's had a massive make-over. Not nearly so trashy-looking as it was in the past.
Like the other people who are running for President are any better? You act like there are better people to vote for. Give me a break.
Let me also say that most of the people writing about Ron Paul and his movement are spitting hate and racist remarks at those in the Revolution.
That, makes you racist, oh, I know you won't admit it, but think about it. You are putting us all into one group and naming it according to that one group.
Another point, they clamied MLK Jr. was a racist and more.
I don't know how I feel about Ron Paul yet, but I am looking into everything with an open mind.
Hello again my friends. The swiftboat veterans for falsification!
LastChance: There are several Libertarian Party candidates who share Ron Paul's anti-war and small government views, minus the racism and paranoia. Personally I'm leaning towards Christine Smith.
The typical response to a comment like this is, "Bah, he/she has no chance of getting elected!" To which I reply, "And Ron Paul did?"
>>That, makes you racist
"You're the real racist for pointing out the continued existence of race issues". The standard libertarian racist apology.
"spitting hate and racist remarks at those in the Revolution."
Give me a break. You can't name even one thing the Revolution did on their own that even comes close to the work they did with Prince!
wow, associate libritarian views with neo-nazi views.
way to go.
belief in freedom is racist!
Ron Paul libertarians don't believe in freedom. They believe in increased state power. Sorry Rob321.
"Like the other people who are running for President are any better? You act like there are better people to vote for. "
Ron Paul is the only candidate with an extensive, well-documented history of supporting and catering to the white nationalist movement. This alone makes the other candidates quite a bit better than Ron Paul.
"belief in freedom is racist!"
He didn't say belief in freedom was racist. He said Ron Paul was a racist. Then he backed it up with extensive evidence.
Paul's not the only far-right Bircherite to get mass press. So did Tim Lahaye of the Left Behind series. It's unfortunate that these types are even taken seriously.
Like the other people who are running for President are any better? You act like there are better people to vote for. Give me a break.
Pretty much everyone, actually. Well, except for (maybe) Guilianni and Huckabee. Guliani is showing signs of serious instability as his canidacy is unraveling and Huckabee is a Theocrat just waiting to happen.
Let me also say that most of the people writing about Ron Paul and his movement are spitting hate and racist remarks at those in the Revolution.
Revolution? What revolution? Oh yeah, THAT revolution, the one the racists want. Reminds me of my uncle and his crank pattering about "The Hippie Revolution" (not having enough minorities to hate where he lived). Used to tell me to cut my hair, would hate to accidentally shoot me when the Hippie Revolution came.
Funny, but 40-years later I'm still wondering when that Hippie Revolution is coming. Maybe it's schedule after the Hispanic Revolution or the Black Revolution the racists used to spout on about in the 1980s.
That, makes you racist, oh, I know you won't admit it, but think about it. You are putting us all into one group and naming it according to that one group.
No. We're calling Paul a racist based on what he's actually said, done and/or endorsed under his name. We also point out that many racists, from many different racist organizations, love Ron Paul and recognize him as a fellow traveller due to, once again, Ron Paul's stated beliefs and actions.
We do not assert that all Ron Paul followers are racist. Many are just deluded to, or ignorant of, Ron Paul's views. When they find out, they frequently, but not always, drop him like a hot rock.
Another point, they clamied MLK Jr. was a racist and more.
Huh? Who are "they?" And WTF are you babbling on about?
I don't know how I feel about Ron Paul yet, but I am looking into everything with an open mind.
LastChance | 01.16.08 - 12:17 pm | #
Right.. The "I'm defending him but I'm really just an objective outsider trying to correct all you guys." I see this with evolution and global warming denialists all the time. Faux independence while hammering at any criticism of the position/person taken.
wow, associate libritarian views with neo-nazi views.
way to go.
Libertarianism is an economic philosophy that, like many, does have some impact on a societal basis. It, however, is not being associated with fascism.
That some fascists like and support Ron Paul, because of his extensive bigoted views and contacts with racists whom they see as fellow travellers in meeting SOME OF THIER POLITICAL GOALS, doesn't extend to the RED HERRING assertion you make that somehow Libertarianism is being associated with Fascism. It's not. So shut up and stop pretending that it is. We're not so dumb to fall for such an obvious and childish ploy.
belief in freedom is racist!
Rob231 | 01.16.08 - 12:41 pm | #
Once again, a childish red herring. Nobody says that believing in freedom is racist. In fact, I think many of us would say that freedom means racism, no matter how odious, cannot be stomped out by fiat and we have to tolerate your odious existence, even if we think you are, as a group of people, putrid sacks of crap.
Remember, for many of us, freedom comes with limits on how WE MAY ACT TO OTHERS because we MUST RESPECT THEIR FREEDOM. Even if it's their freedom to be putrid assholes.
"Well, except for (maybe) Guilianni and Huckabee."
I gotta say...neither Rudy! nor the Huckster are even half as scary as Ron Paul. Neither is calling for the restructuring of 95% of the federal government, neither has a history of authentic white nationalism, and both would very probably moderate their platform once they locked in the GOP and hit the general election.
Rudy and Huck say crazy things because they want to win votes.
Ron Paul says crazy things because he's actually crazy.
All things being equal, I'll take "patronizing, manipulative but not-crazy" over "crazy" most of the time.
"You're the real racist for pointing out the continued existence of race issues". The standard libertarian racist apology.
Indeed, Ron Paul himself has used this argument:
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.
No way Ron Paul is racist! In addition to saying he's not, he also delivered two billion black babies. Or so the Paulians claim.
Let's give scrutiny to Ron Paul and ignore the problems with the other candidates??? Even if Ron Paul were a racist, which I don't believe he is, his proposals and policies go against these ideas. Now Hillary, Barack and Edwards believe in legalized theft and are willing to enforce it. Is that better? McCain, Thompson, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee believe its ok killing innocent civilians as part of the war on terror. They also believe its ok to have our soldiers die in Iraq where we have no business being. These are real problems.
We can throw the baby out with the bath water and say Ron Paul is unacceptable and that's fine. Just don't tell me the other candidates are any better. In fact they are far worse. Let's give them the same kind of scrutiny RonPaulHaterBots are giving to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is still the best choice of both parties.
Smear tactics FTW, right guys?
Let's give them the same kind of scrutiny RonPaulHaterBots are giving to Ron Paul.
They're getting it. From the mainstream media, no less. The MSM mostly ignores Paul because he's a boutique candidate who only gets single digits, so it's up to the blogs.
Anyone who refers to taxation as "legalized theft" has clearly already drunk enough Kool-Aid that it's pointless to even attempt reason.
Let's give scrutiny to Ron Paul and ignore the problems with the other candidates???
I know! Let's scrutinize the other candidates and ignore the problems with Saint Ron!
Chug, chug, this Kool-Aid sure is yummy!
Smear tactics FTW, right guys?
Ignoring the Klanner in the living room FTW!
Rudy and Huck say crazy things because they want to win votes.
oh, I don't believe that for a second. Those two are nightmares.
This is such bullshit....
It's Obama and Hillary that are the racists.
No one cares anymore..It's had NO effect whatsoever on his candidacy.
We are just working harder.
David Neiwart is a racist. I have things on tape that he said that will prove it.
Last chance
"Like the other people who are running for President are any better?"
Priorities, my lad...To white guilt regressives , everyone is better. Then again they overlook racism's fellow traveler/ promoter Martin Luther King. His refusal to criticise Israel and Zionism, indeed his friendship with Jewish racists of this ilk (a collaboration rightly condemned by black nationalists of the era) are of little moment to Neiwertites.
No one cares anymore..It's had NO effect whatsoever on his candidacy.
He needed an actual candidacy to begin with.
Ron Psul is not a racist. Please stop lying to your fellow Americans, and stop smearing a man who had stood up for America and it's founding principles more than you ever will. This blog entry reeks of partisan hackery, ignorance, and race-baiting and it hurts America. Watch this and learn -- http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/24...tin-luther-
king
>>It's Obama and Hillary that are the racists.
The world weeps for the plight of white Christian males everywhere.
>>No one cares anymore..It's had NO effect whatsoever on his candidacy.
That might be because it's hard to conceive how his numbers could be any lower than they already are...
I am curious. John McCain works with his Democrat buddies to pass lots of new laws limiting our freedoms...and you are wasting space condemning Lew Rockwell because he said typical Republican thing about the race war of the 1980s and early 90s back when it was happening?
I remember all Republicans were talking the way the newsletters did back when Bush Senior was President. The race war ended in the 1990s and now things are cool between the races...so you don't need to waste people's time with a witch hunt of who said what back then.
Intellectuals don't take "politically correct past" into much account when judging someone.
This talk about RP actually belonging to WN groups is unsubstantiated.
Let me test the credibility of the people who are condemning Ron Paul here. First about me, I am a pro-war Republican male who realizes that Ron Paul is correct about our civil liberties being taken away at home by a culture that not only fears that terrorists will nuke a city but that sex offenders will rape our wives and daugters. So where do any Republicans here stand on the following issues:
1) What do you think of radical feminism? What is your knowledge of the men's rights movement, if any? Can you even criticize feminist organizations...or do you prefer to call them women's rights organizations?
2) Giuliani wants to make it illegal for Americans to have sex with prostitutes in other COUNTRIES. Do you agree with the principle that Americans fall under US jurisdiction when traveling overseas? You can be a vegetarian and still want to defend your right to eat meat. It is fascism to respond to this by saying "I would never use a prostitute so who cares".
3) Bush signed the IMBRA law that forces American men to be background checked before being allowed to say hello to foreign women online. The law falsely calls international dating sites "marriage brokers" even when they openly state that they are really just dating sites. The law goes on to say that American men who want to get married to foreign women are more likely to want to beat their wives up. Feminist claptrap signed and sealed by Bush, McCain & company.
Finally, anyone who thinks the Republicans will get elected for President or for Senate, without working with the RP revolution's 6-10% is nuts.
So please drop the disrespect for others and engage in a real conversation about the 2008 elections.
Finally, anyone who thinks the Republicans will get elected for President or for Senate, without working with the RP revolution's 6-10% is nuts.
Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan are having a gut laugh at your naivete.
"Let's give them the same kind of scrutiny RonPaulHaterBots are giving to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is still the best choice of both parties."
--Timur Rozenfeld
You may be new to this blog, so you may not know that the general focus of it is on right-wing extremism and domestic terrorism within the United States. While most of the other candidates certainly suck and have big problems, Ron Paul sets off all the alarms of people who monitor the far-right in this country. That and he has a vocal and somewhat significant following nationwide at this time.
If you are looking for thorough criticism of all the candidates, this is not the place. That is not the purpose of this blog. It is to discuss domestic extremism--and Ron Paul falls right into that discussion. That is why he is covered so extensively here.
>>The race war ended in the 1990s and now things are cool between the races..
The laughs just never stop.
That's a new one, most Republicans claim it ended in the 60s.
>>What is your knowledge of the men's rights movement, if any?
Why am I not surprised that Ron Paul's constituency is not only composed of White Supremacists, but misogynists as well?
It is to discuss domestic extremism--and Ron Paul falls right into that discussion.
As does Ken Hoop 
"It is to discuss domestic extremism--and Ron Paul falls right into that discussion."
It fails abysmally, as any oppressed Palestinian, state terrorized Iraqi and threatened Iranian will tell you.
(This was complete comment.)
"It's had NO effect whatsoever on his candidacy."
You mean he's still losing?
"We're working harder"
Awesome! Keep dividing up the Right and splintering the Republican Party. You have my gratitude.
Remember: Ron Paul isn't a racist. He just hates Jews, Mexicans and black people.
I am still looking into this, but Randy Gray appears to be a volunteer in one county, just one of what appears to be several dozen counties in Michigan. How how earth would anyone be expected to know the guy is involved in Racist groups? (I am taking your word, here) The point is, yeah OK, he got his picture taken with the man. Does that mean anything?
You got to be careful with this brush you are painting with. You are making some very broad strokes.
Bolo though can perhaps direct me to his
efforts to redirect Neiwert to the domestic extremism of the ruling elite which has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for Israel and oiligarchy?
wow, you people really REALLY need to grow up and see if you can get some learnin
SlurmPwnzYou | 01.16.08 - 2:47 pm
Wanna ask the Iraqi/ Arab/ Iranian street who is scarier, between Paul, Giuliani and Huckabee?
White guilt regressive hypochondriac.
SlurmJunkie | 01.16.08 - 1:31 pm
Presumably.
NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was
a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.
"Wanna ask the Iraqi/ Arab/ Iranian street who is scarier, between Paul, Giuliani and Huckabee?"
Right. White supremacists who hate blacks, Jews and Hispanics all of a sudden are really concerned for the well-being of Arabs and Persians.
I've seen glasses of water that were more opaque.
I was going to continue on calling Ron Paul on his obvious far right ties with white supremacists, but someone from the NAACP said he's not a racist and everyone knows only the NAACP knows who's racist and who isn't...
I would trust a leader in the NAACP that has known Paul for 20 years, than those that have an interest in selling racist scare tactics to make money.
Yay, another Paul thread. Where'd I put my popcorn...
Linder:
"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.
Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.
Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King, as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.
"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him,"
said Linder.
what you fail to note is that perhaps he is liked for other reasons
Hey Memosphere, are you aware that blacks aren't the only race? The white supremacists who worship Ron Paul consider Jews a race as well.
http://zionistsforronpaul.blogspot.com/
Oh my here we go. Coordinated troll attack. Ron Paul is NOT a racist. You disinformation artists will just repeat the lie over and over and over again, but that does not make it true, as we find out later on; kind of like "Saddam has nasty WMD's".
All regular Americans reading this: The establishment will come after Ron Paul's campaign with everything they've got, just like Pat Buchanen predicted, and now we get to see it unfold. It's funny how the MSM will go the most extreme lengths to make sure they never even show Ron Paul's name when reporting on election and poll results, but when the attack comes, it's everywhere. You guys are just the start of it. So well timed. What a strange coincidence!!
Ron Paul vs. Flat Earthers (Again)
--------------------------------------------------
------
"Once the superficial layers of ad hominem and guilt-by-association have been melted, all becomes clear: Ron Paul and his supporters are being fraudulently smeared simply because their constitutional message of liberty, prosperity, and peace are impossible to defeat."
Jewish Community Leader,Michael Moshe Starkman, Runs for Congress as "Ron Paul Republican"
I guess all these people that support Paul are racists too.
Not ALL of them.
Isn't Kurchich a gay pedophile?
http://txfx.net/2008/01/08/james...-gay-pedophile/
Funny thing about the internet. It's not illegal to lie to the public. Good thing the intelligent out there don't bother reading "blogs". We read the news. And the polls are tipping toward Paul. WOOt!
Ron Paul is responsible for bringing 1000s of new lives into the world, including blacks and Hispanics, often for free. Bush and his death obsessed family are responsible for taking 1000s of lives, doesn't that just say it all? When I look into Bush's eyes I see coldness and an emptiness, when I look into Paul's eyes I see honesty and compassion and kindness.
Paul is running against Bush?
I find it ironic that people who sell racism are attacking Paul, while the NAACP is defending him.
Funny thing about the internet. It's not illegal to lie to the public.
Damn that Kirchick, lying to the public by publishing scanned copies of Ron Paul's own newsletters!
I find it ironic that people who sell racism are attacking Paul, while the NAACP is defending him.
The NAACP? Really? I thought it was just that one guy.
A little behind the times?
I guess the "Rusty" is accurate.
I"m a Ron Paul supporter. So by your definition I must be a racist, an antisemite, a homophobe and a birchite.
You're a Ron Paul smear merchant shill. Which warmonger do you support? How do you want the United States to be driven bankrupt? Careful, don't tell me who you are for, because your criticism will ring hollow if you do.
SlurmPwnzYou | 01.16.08 - 3:05 pm
Bob d, when a white guilt regressive mentions hate it's like when Cotton Mather mentioned sex.When Neiwert has a -slight- hate tremor , a half dozen Palestinians and a dozen Iraqis utter blood curdling screams.
Ron "accidentally" took 6k from Tom DeLay's ARMPAC and voted for him as majority leader. Ron "accidentally" let racist newsletters out for decades under his name. Ron "accidentally" didn't return the 500 from Don Black of stormfront. Ron "accidentally" released the racist immigration ad in Iowa and NH. Ron "accidentally" voted against impeaching Cheney. Some revolution you got there
It's an imperfect world, jr. Kucinich threw support to Obama who voted to finance war.
Posted on that?
Obama’s top adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski. Brzezinski gave an interview to the French press a number of years ago where he boasted about the fact that it was he who created the whole Afghan jihadi movement, the movement that produced Osama bin Laden.
I love Ron Paul posts. They're so entertaining.
Dear Ron Paul supporters: please, by all means, continue your hard work on behalf of Dr. Paul. With any luck Dr. Paul will come in second in a few of the southern primaries. My fondest hope is a six-way tie for the Republican nomination, and a brokered convention, and possibly a third party candidacy for Dr. Paul or Tom Tancredo. With any luck, the Republican party will suffer its greatest loss at the polls since 1856, and cease to be a fucntioning party altogether. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
Paul/Buchanan '08!
The problem boils down to this: Most Libertarians are conservatives who want to smoke pot or liberals who want to hate brown folk. I have never met any other type.
Personally, I trust the individual leaders of the fifty states more than a single tyrant in the white house and I am pro choice.
Suppose the federal government wanted to do something stupid like ban gay marriage? Then whose authority would you prefer, the individual states or the federal government?
Bigotry in big government is more dangerous that bigotry in small government. Vote for candidates that want to protect and uphold the constitution, which protects individual rights, and racism in government will be much less dangerous.
Clinton Adviser:
Richard Holbrooke, in the Carter administration he was the one who oversaw the shipment of weapons to the Indonesian military as they were invading—illegally invading East Timor and killing a third of the population there, and he was the one who kept the UN Security Council from enforcing its resolution against that invasion.
So, although Edwards talks about going after lobbyists, many of the military lobbyists are working on the Edwards foreign policy team, because the names that—the Edwards names that are out there mainly come from the Army and the Air Force and the Navy Material Command. Those are the portions of the Pentagon that do the Defense contracts, that do the deals with the big companies like Raytheon and Boeing, etc. One of those listed on the Edwards team is the lobbyist for the big military contractor EADS.
Re: Jack Sanderson and his extreme level of upset over prosecution of sex offenders, the threat that he might not be able to talk intimately with foreign women online, and the idea that men might be held accountable for illegal acts (e.g. sexually abusing children) abroad....
Dude, methinks thou dost protest just way, way, wayyyy too much. You've obviously spent a lot of time thinking about this stuff, and are quite angry about it. Unfortunately, you're not going to find much sympathy for your (ahem) unusual interests here. Move along, please. I'm sure Chris Hansen is out there somewhere, waiting for your call.
Travis, black America was left for a century to the tender mercies of the leaders of the fifty states. Ask any one of them to tell you how well that strategy shielded them from bigotry and racism. It took "a single tyrant in the White House" and a few hundred more in Congress to step in and clip the wings off Jim Crow.
And Dave: Any chance we'll be seeing an apology from Glenn Greenwald any time soon?
I'm getting weary of the anti-Paul hirelings trying to find ways to insult him and his supporters. "Racist" -- hey, even the Clintons have been charged with that one, "sexist" -- Obama, and as for "anti-Semite" - well, everyone who isn't Jewish and even some of them (Norman Finkelstein) have been called that. Isn't this "hate talk"? Perhaps time for someone who is called a "racist" by a "progressive liberal" to bring legal suit of libel against those making the charge. Any Ron Paul lawyers out there?
The problem boils down to this:
mikeirwin | 01.16.08 - 4:06 pm | #
All of the candidates, except Paul, are going to continue the murderous foreign policies.
Basic intelligence test for Paultards:
January 3: 10%
January 8: 8%
January 15: 6%
Continue the sequence.
lol, do you actually believe this crap? Seriously, you are calling people who stand up for individual rights instead of group rights racist? Whats next, you gonna roll out Rudy's line of Freedom = Authority?
1) What do you think of radical feminism? What is your knowledge of the men's rights movement, if any? Can you even criticize feminist organizations...or do you prefer to call them women's rights organizations?
2) Giuliani wants to make it illegal for Americans to have sex with prostitutes in other COUNTRIES. Do you agree with the principle that Americans fall under US jurisdiction when traveling overseas? You can be a vegetarian and still want to defend your right to eat meat. It is fascism to respond to this by saying "I would never use a prostitute so who cares".
3) Bush signed the IMBRA law that forces American men to be background checked before being allowed to say hello to foreign women online. The law falsely calls international dating sites "marriage brokers" even when they openly state that they are really just dating sites. The law goes on to say that American men who want to get married to foreign women are more likely to want to beat their wives up. Feminist claptrap signed and sealed by Bush, McCain & company.
Jack Sanderson, I'm positively shocked that you can't get laid within the whole of the contiguous 48 states. Shurely not!?!?
[Re: Jack Sanderson and his extreme level of upset over prosecution of sex offenders, the threat that he might not be able to talk intimately with foreign women online, and the idea that men might be held accountable for illegal acts (e.g. sexually abusing children) abroad....]
Hitler came to power by twisting things around, putting words in the mouths of their opponents and then saying his opponents needed to be stopped "to protect women and children". He said this in Mein Kampf.
1) You are saying that Julie Annie is correct to say that the US has jurisdication over Americans in other countries? This is not about pedophiles, it is about a whole raft of laws.
Yes or No? You can leave the exception of pedophiles which is not what we are talking about here. There are a whole bunch of 911-related laws that now govern Americans overseas (that nobody obeys because they are unconstitutional and Bush is a fool).
2) Are you saying that visiting an adult prostitute is a sex offense? That is a new one. Even in Nevada or where the US has no jurisdiction?
3) You are OK with a US federal law that nobody obeys that dares to say men have to be background checked in order to say HELLO (much less talk intimately) with foreign woman online? The law applies to American women who want to say hello to French or Italian men as well (the American woman has to be background checked but not the foreign man).
There shouldn't have been any argument over what I said. These are rhetorical questions in a society that supposedly honors free speech, the right to assemble and the concept of innocence until proven guilty.
This is the type of thing, among tons of other bizarre new laws, that will boost libertarianism into something that destroys the Republican Party or transforms it.
Sadly, Ron Paul has not yet started to debate any specific law and I agree that his immigration TV ad was counterproductive. So is talk of a highway being built (I would not mind a superhighway).
Unfortunately the Republicans will lose the 2008 elections because there is no way the 4 factions will come together this year.
The 4 factions are:
1) Evangelicals: Would agree with Mrs. Robinson that any resistance to intrusive laws on Americans traveling overseas, must mean that the American is up to no good, rather than simply asserting that natural law and the US Constitution prevents the Bush Administration from messing with adults in other countries saying hello or doing whatever.
2) War Hawks: They are not just pro-war because I am OK with the Iraq War. The War Hawks are those who are stupid enough to think the battle against "Islamofascists" needs to be priority number 1 and it needs to be fought forever.
3) Neocons: Similar to the war hawks except these people know their priority is manipulating the war hawks and the evangelicals so they forget what being conservative ever was.
4) Libertarians: Like Reagan and Goldwater, these people are the only ones responsible enough to control the RNC and Republican Party apparatus and the Presidency.
The latter know the neocons to be the most formidable enemy because the evangelicals and war hawks are simply clueless.
You are OK with a US federal law that nobody obeys that dares to say men have to be background checked in order to say HELLO (much less talk intimately) with foreign woman online? The law applies to American women who want to say hello to French or Italian men as well (the American woman has to be background checked but not the foreign man).
I have to admit, now I'm curious to find out what's coming up on your background checks that getting you kicked out by marriage brokers...
[Jack Sanderson, I'm positively shocked that you can't get laid within the whole of the contiguous 48 states. Shurely not!?!?]
Is that wild assumption your answer to 3 important questions about the right to assemble, the right to free speech and a priori innocence?
Assuming you recognize the fact that money is a factor in dating success in many US cities, men who have the money to travel are precisely the ones who attract great looking American women when those men are living in the United States.
Then again, there are a few million Americans who live in Europe and Asia. I live ín Europe. None of us are subject to the new American banking laws...but Bush thinks we are because he signed an unconstitutional law saying that he has jurisdiction over us.
You know, the use of the "can't you get a date in the US" excuse to argue in favor of blocking US men from even speaking with the competition, is one of the best reasons why federal funding needs to be removed from so many so-called women's rights institutions in the Washington DC area.
The Constitution never said that Congress has the power to fund such things.
Clealry Paul is not the ideal candidate to end the "War on Drugs", restore the constitution, and withdraw our troops from all 148 countries in which they are currently stationed, including Iraq.
Fortunately, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, Clinton and Obama all stand ready to assume leadership PLUS do all of the above!
Remember Waco, Guantanamo, etc, ad nauseum? No? Me neither.
NONE of those supposed outrages are HALF as important as ghostwritten newsletters from almost 15 years ago. Rhetoric trumps actual events every time!
[I have to admit, now I'm curious to find out what's coming up on your background checks that getting you kicked out by marriage brokers...]
There is no such thing as a marriage broker. Read www.online-dating-rights.com. I personally have nothing bad to found in a background check, but it is the principle of the matter plus the fact that it completely stops communication with adult foreigners who do not use the Internet like Americans do if at all.
It doesn't make them backward or naive and in need of protection that they do not use the Internet to socialize. The Internet is only where they ask others to contact them by other means.
We are not talking here about prostitution, but about normal dating sites like Match.com. However, Craigs List actually does have foreign prostitutes who advertise with their phone numbers and home addresses and IMBRA does not affect them because Craigs List's main business is not international socializing.
It is important also, to mention the principle that a vegetarian should want to defend to the death his right to eat meat.
Being ticked off by a bunch of laws does not mean that a person is affected.
The questions remain unanswered in favor of ad hominem attacks.
the use of the "can't you get a date in the US" excuse to argue in favor of blocking US men from even speaking with the competition, is one of the best reasons why federal funding needs to be removed from so many so-called women's rights institutions in the Washington DC area.
I'd save this material for the third date, though. It's more closing-type material than what you'd break out on the first date. Also, try not to mention the competition - you look insecure.
Start slow... try out some simple lines slamming the radical feminists. Anything employing the term "Feminazis" is always a good icebreaker. "I can't understand what these feminzais are up to half the time" is a good example. Reagan is always a good conversation starter - a few thousand words on your devotion to Reagan is always apposite. Try to lay off the Goldwater material - you don't want to look too old.
Of course, as always, the BEST conversation starter in any dating situation is always the Good Doctor himself, Ron Paul. There's nothing that makes a woman come alive like thoughts of a gynecologist.
You'll get there yet, Jack!
Gustav,
You might try answering the questions. You don't seem to have a clue about life for Americans in foreign countries and have a seeming redneck view that the only real women are American women so why would any man ever leave.
Further, manginas are the ones who really don't do very well dating in the US. A mangina is someone who might have a knee-jerk support for a law like IMBRA and he is say 40 years old and married to an overweight woman his own age who tells him to love "feminism"...and he really, really hates guys his age who are in shape, have money and date the 25 year olds at home and overseas who themselves condem "radical feminists" on their own.
It isn't hard in the US to find great women, using the twenty-somethings, who cannot stand feminists and who, by the way, are the ones voting for Obama and not Clinton.
Those who would feel shear hatred toward a man living his life and traveling to London and Paris regularly...are like those in 1930s Germany who tore down the best and brightest of German society in order to build themselves up and replace them.
The Paulians are getting increasingly weird...
So Saint Ron took money from the Hammer and supported his bid for House Majority Leader? Wow, I was wondering what Paul would do once his 'campaign' goes bottom up. I wonder just how many heads will burst when we see Saint Ron endorsing Romney or McCain.
The Paulians are getting increasingly weird...
See dzd's comment above. The sane ones are bailing and leaving behind the reality challenged.
By men "speaking with the competition", I meant the competition of the dried up old Senators like Clinton and Cantwell who write this kind of law and then tell their idiot compatriots like McCain in the Senate that they will vote for Alito or the Iraq War funding, if these compatriots betray their constituents and let these "social issue" laws pass.
You are aware, Rusty, that the filibuster on Alito was stopped by Maria Cantwell after she made a deal where IMBRA would pass in exchange.
You can look this up. As a liberal, conservative or neocon, it should not warm your heart that deals are being made in the Senate where everyone's interests are eventually harmed.
Liberals did not benefit from this deal that got Alito on the bench. I might expect that Alito himself will be one to overturn this law and that would mean Cantwell's deal was all in vain.
There is nothing weird, Rusty, about fighting for one's civil rights that one had all one's life and then was told supposedly no longer existed.
Bush's banking law that required Americans to report overseas accounts was what you can call "weird".
fighting for one's civil rights that one had all one's life and then was told supposedly no longer existed
I'm predicting that the next great Civil Rights Movement in America will be the one defending the Civil Right To Travel To Bangkok To Watch A Sixteen-Year Old Abused Child Shoot Ping-Pong Balls Out Of Her Hoo-Ha For Ten Dollars A Show.
Jack, it will no doubt shock you that I never even heard of this terrible, terrible IMBRA until today. I'm very sorry that those bastards in Congress have made it a little more difficult to traffic in foreign women and bring them here and beat them. Honestly, what were they thinking?
Damn feminazis.
To Moses:
I was a Ron Paul supporter, I did not want to believe it, but I am looking into it. If I really want to do the right thing, then I need to look into it. If he is not a racist, it should be easy to find the truth. The one thing I will not do is believe what a boy from Yale who has been sponsered by a Foundation that deals in chemicals and munitions (which, btw would benifit from keeping the war going) tell me what to think. Guilt by association right???
I have been looking into the racist newsletters, on my own. I have an open mind. You should NEVER take one persons opinion over anothers. Espically when you don't personally know them. One thing that bothers me is the timing of the newsletters. They both came out on Primaries. If the media has known about this then why did they hold the information for so long? Why didn't they do it back before the first money bomb? Or when he first declared he was running?
What is the motive here? It wasn't for our benefit. Why haven't they produced video clips of Ron Paul saying these things?
I do know one thing, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I grew up in Mississippi, one of the most racist places there is in America. I do know a little something about people who are racist. I can tell you that people who really are, say against black people, who would NEVER allow money to be raised on MLK Day. They never change their strips so to speak. If they talk that way, they always do. Atleast, that is what I have seen in that state. Racism takes the most powerful emotion known to man. It not easy to control or cover up in speech or actions.
I know now, that people are saying, oh he didn't really write them, but the fact that he allowed it to happen is far worse anyway. We all knew that he claimed that to begin with, so why weren't we saying that from the very start?
I don't know what I will find, but I do know that to be openminded is to be the opposite of a racist, and to be openminded is to look into both sides.
We would so easily fire someone just because another person said that they had stolen from our company, we would look into it and follow all the options before we made a decision. If we didn't, it would be like letting someone else run our company. Are we so determined to be closed minded that we are willing to chance making a big mistake?
I just believe that this is to important to dismiss no matter what said you are on.
But that is what others depend on us to do. Stay divided, that is.
Okay, I am ready for all the reasons everything I just said was wrong. Give it to me.
on my last quote said = side
sorry
"We read the news. And the polls are tipping toward Paul. WOOt!"
I don't know what news the Ronroids are reading, but Paul is clearly tanking. He has *2* out of 99 delegates awarded so far, and is losing ground in each successive primary--10% in IA, 8% in NH, 6% in MI, and polling at a whopping 3% in SC, and a dismal 5% in both NV and FL (likely to drop if his numbers in SC don't improve).
Given that he's such a joke of a candidate, I'm not sure I'm going to waste any more typing on him. It'll still be a pleasure to watch the Ronroids splutter and fume here, though.
And re: money, Paul's raised a total of $8 million so far--good for a Libertarian but it puts him in a distant 5th place behind the somnambulist Fred Thompson--who's managed to raise $12 million just by showing up and looking old.
Either way it's a campaign slowly imploding. Which I suppose is better than the free-falling campaign of Mr. 9/11, but that's not exactly setting the bar high.
Dammit, those were Q3 2007 numbers. FEC Q4 numbers aren't out yet.
Maybe people don't believe in the polls, they have been proven to be wrong. He his vote % has been higher than all the polls by like 4% so far. I think he is doing well for being an underdog. He has beaten 2 "top tier" Candidates 3 times now. But then, you have to remember who is telling us who the "top tier" are.
If he isn't worth talking aobut Cerebus then why do you bother?
Heh. Let's not watch all the Paulbot's play twister with fury and insane rationales. That means lots of sore necks in the AM.
Of course the rest of the 'Pubs are fascists and the Democratic Party is just a khaki-clad faction of the enemy allied to big business interests.
Wake up people Paul is worthless, The Repubs are vulgar and the Dems are validating the whole show.
How much more evidence do you need?
Maybe people don't believe in the polls, they have been proven to be wrong.
Do they believe in the vote results?
Huckabee, McCain, Clinton, and Romney are just as racist as Paul is. They just speak in code, while pushing their common white supremacist agenda.
It's good to expose overt racism, but there needs to be more analysis of covert racism, which is quite common and socially acceptable in much of our society.
Leave the country for a week or so and a whole new crop of Rondanistas seem to have appeared, to bolster the ranks of the usual suspects. Rusty nailed it when he opined on the downward spiral of their increasing wierdness.
On the other hand, I would like to see Ron's position paper on "manginas". Since Jack seems to be unencumbered with femine company, he probably has enough time on his hands (amongst other things) to elaborate on how RP will restore manly men to their rightful position.
Ooookay. In IA, Paul polled 7% and got 10%. In NH, Paul polled 7% and got 8%. In MI, Paul polled 8% and got 6%.
So far the "higher than all the polls by like 4% so far" claim isn't looking ... well, *factual* ... is it?
On the plus side, the polls *were* all wrong. Not sure that counts in the Ron Paul "win" column, though.
Recall that in SC he's polling 3%. +4% would put him at 7%, still a good bit below his IA high-water mark.
As far as beating Mr. 9/11 and Fred "Zzzz" Thompson, I wouldn't crow too loudly. Both of these campaigns are imploding from self-inflicted wounds. It's not so much that Paul beat them as they lost to Paul.
"If he isn't worth talking aobut [sic] Cerebus then why do you bother?"
Well, I suppose it's the same impulse that leads children to kick over anthills. The resulting fruitless fury of the ants is fascinating to observe.
Ok, I understand. If you want to discuss domestic extremism, then my comments about the other candidates still stand. We have candidates who believe it is their job to manage our lives, whether it is from the economic or social angles and that makes them examples of domestic extremism which are far worse than Ron Paul's so called extremism. So unless this is site is dedicated solely to attacking Ron Paul, the other candidates have far more dirt to uncover than he does.
If Ron Paul demonstrates domestic extremism it is for extreme liberty. Even if you don't agree with every interpretation he has with the Constitution, he tries to stick to it. The other candidates consider it to be a worthless piece of paper. Who is being extreme here?
By the way, those commenters who call people Paulbots and Paultards etc. are showing that ad hominen attacks seem to be the spirit of Paul Haters and that their responses are emotional, not rational. If they want to discuss different points of view, that is fine, but calling people names usually shows that they have a lot of anger and possibly hatred, so it is hypocritical for these people to talk about Ron Paul's extremism and racism, when their premise is that anyone who says anything good about Ron Paul should be villified and automatically is wrong just because they support Ron Paul, without even listening to their arguments. This is another brand of collectivist thinking similar to the thinking that leads to racism.
I just LOVE it when a man complains that he can't get a date in the entire lower 48! Just makes me want to give him a call and offer hot phone s*x.
(snark off)
Clue, man - no one likes a whiner.
Are you talking to me?
"Even if you don't agree with every interpretation he has with the Constitution, he tries to stick to it."
... as he sees it. And therein lies the problem--I don't accept his axioms about the law; therefore I reject his conclusions.
For instance, I don't believe "original intent" is a valid legal concept. American law has its basis in English Common Law, and the core principal of Common Law is that interpretation of both Law and precedent is mutable because societies change over time. What may be acceptable today may be the iconic expression of tyranny tomorrow, and if the interpretation of the Law cannot accommodate this, then the Law is useless. Therefore all Libertarian arguments founded on the idea of preserving "original intent" are, simply speaking, invalid.
So when you say something like:
"Even if you don't agree with every interpretation he has with the Constitution, he tries to stick to it. The other candidates consider it to be a worthless piece of paper. Who is being extreme here?"
The answer is: You are and he is. You regard Law as an immutable object; engraved on stone tablets and handed down from on High accompanied by choirs of Seraphim singing hosannahs. I don't. Your view is that Man serves the Law. I believe that it is better when Law serves Man. My view is more typical of sophisticated civilizations; yours is a rigidity that is characteristic of extremism.
The authors of our Constitution had no special magic, nor were they particularly smarter than we. In fact, in many ways, we are smarter than they and we are each certainly better informed about the world and its history than any of them could ever have hoped to be, if only because of the technology we have at our fingertips. This particular form of ancestor worship serves only to provide easy answers to complex modern questions of Law, and the system that arises from this concept is thus revealed as nothing more than dogma. It is not, in any way, the philosophy it presents itself as--it is the negation of thought, the replacement of thought with rote answers devised by long dead and buried men.
The real problem is that you're very likely to be unable to truly see and understand things from this angle. I can see things from yours, but I reject your way--not because I don't understand it, but because I understand it quite well. I see the flaws in your view of the world, and also see that my own angle--while still imperfect--is a marked improvement.
Yes, I've had this argument before, and I'll probably have it again, with the same outcome.
And as for the name-calling--well, I'm human, and I sometimes give in to my frustrations with people doing and saying the same stupid things over and over again. Sue me.
"Given that he's such a joke of a candidate, I'm not sure I'm going to waste any more typing on him."
Cerebus
-----------------------------
Finally! There is a God...
By the way, isn't the Constitution supposed to be amended if outdated or flawed? After all, if those who wrote it were not as smart as us, why do we even use the Constitution? Shouldn't we just throw it out with the paper trash (and recycle it, of course)? Enlighten me.
Timur, if the description fits....
And if it does, that makes two of you here -- and you're confirming stuff that Dave and I have long suspected about the secret life of wingnuts.
Where is the analysis of the racist tone of the Clinton campaign? They dig up ancient articles, but draw a blind eye to the Democrats. The dissection of this strategy is even on PBS.
MARK SHIELDS: I had six senior Democrats this week, unaligned in this campaign, independently volunteer to me that they thought it was part of the campaign strategy of the Clinton campaign to get this in to make it a black-white race going into February 5th, that in several...
Dr. Rhymes @ BlackAgendaReport
"Hillary's allusion to Dr. King's ability to inspire as compared to LBJ's ability to make the Civil Rights Act a reality smacks of racism at its most pernicious level. The old Blacks "sho can talk" but are short on ability stereotype is very evident in this analogy. "
Funny thing is Clinton & Obama came together by both blaming overzealous staff.
Sound Familiar?
.
The Paulians are getting increasingly weird...
Rusty Shackleford | 01.16.08 - 6:11 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Truer words were never spoken . . . man, this batch makes the last batch of Paulbots seem rational.
What never fails to make me laugh is that they come here and start accusing Orcinus regulars of being Romney, 9ui11iani, or Huckabee supporters, and assuming we like Bush and the PATRIOT Act. The whole crew gets an F on the reading comprehension segment of their tests.
As I said, I am happy to be enlightened on Paul's secret yearnings and on those of some of his supporters. Most of the "Paultards", however, are fans because of his policy positions, which stand in rather stark contrast to the mainstream candidates on both sides.
The fact remains that the single best way to improve race relations and to improve inner city economies would be to end the very destructive "war on drugs", and the single best way to improve our foreign policy stance and to stop alot of corruption is to move to a non-interventionist foreign policy stance and to drastically scale down our foreign military presence. Paul might be a bigot, but his stances on these points are right and are exactly what we need.
With any luck, the Republican party will suffer its greatest loss at the polls since 1856, and cease to be a fucntioning party altogether. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
Well said, and all the more reason to support Ron Paul.
However, what we ARE rather sure of ending up with is either Hillary or Barack, coupled with Dem control of the Congress - viz., bigger and BETTER federal policies and continued large military/defense pork, and even more dissatisfaction in the hinterlands.
We need a deeper discussion of precisely what problems we should be trying to address through government, and at what level. Maybe our conservative Supreme Court will decide to push us in the right direction by finally finding that various federal laws are not supported by the limited grant of power in the Commerce Clause.
Dave, thanks for linking to the "revealing" reportage from Julian Sanchez and David Weigel of Reason. Did you miss their conclsion?
But perhaps the best refutation of the old approach is not the absence of race-baiting rhetoric from its progenitors, but the success of the 2008 Ron Paul phenomenon. The man who was once the Great Paleolibertarian Hope has built a broad base of enthusiastic supporters without resorting to venomous rhetoric or coded racism. He has stuck stubbornly to the issues of sound money, "humble foreign policy," and shrinking the state. He wraps up his speeches with a three-part paean to individualism: "I don't want to run your life," "I don't want to run the economy," and "I don't want to run the world." He talks about the disproportionate effect of the drug war on African-Americans, and appeared at a September 2007 Republican debate on black issues that was boycotted by the then-frontrunners. All this and more have brought him $30 million-plus from more than 100,000 donors; thousands of campaign volunteers; and the largest rallies he's ever spoken to, including a crowd of almost 5,000 in Philadelphia.
Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.
"He has successfully sold himself to many people -- including many thoughtful, smart people who believe in his decency -- as a libertarian"
In America, "libertarian" has (unfortunately) been appropriated by the extreme free market right. It is better called "propertarian" as it is, fundamentally, interested in property NOT liberty. They have no problems with property owners restricting freedom for their employees and tenants.
Once this is understood, the strange notions and alliances of this section of the right becomes more understandable. Like, for example, von Mises' praise for fascism in the 1920s.
The genuine libertarian tradition is represented in America by the likes of Noam Chomsky, Emma Goldman, Alexander Berkman and Murray Bookchin. It recognises that liberty is more than changing masters.
[Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.]
Oh yes, this writer "has committed his life" to libertarianism. Reality check: He collects a paycheck provided by an unknown donor.
This nonsense fits a pattern used widely by the National Socialists in the early 1930s: that of slandering an idea by association with other politically incorrect notions. Nobody really believes that Lew Rockwell is racist and Ron Paul's call to release non-violent drug offenders is actually something racists would resist.
The idea that the Reason and Cato editors are motivated by "a desire to keep their reputation pure" is accepted by nobody...it is very well known that some of them just hold particular agendas above the general cause of libertarianism (gay rights, abortion rights, whatever). There was a great article yesterday somewhere about the "Beltway Libertarians" who had cushy lives and were married to Democrats and Republicans and didn't want to see Washington DC go into an economic tailspin, which is what the rest of the libertarians in the country would like to see.
In this case of the pre-Nevada Caucus smear of Lew Rockwell, the motive for writing these remarks is quite suspect as many believe the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine are NOT motivated by any desire to "keep their religious movement pure and unsullied". Nobody sees these institutions as wanting to compete with Ron Paul to finally grab political power for libertarians. Rather, many wonder why the leaders of these institutions really do NOT want to see Americans informed about libertarianism when their organizations are, ostensibly, set up to do just that.
I assume that Cato and Reason are now funded by those who do NOT want to see change in Washington.
This smear cycle, deliberately timed to stop Ron Paul before the Nevada Caucus, will result possibly in the end of Cato and Reason as players, not the destruction of the Ron Paul campaign.
Most Republicans in the 80s had harsh words to say about a race war in urban areas that seemed (whether the perception was correct or not) to be fueled by liberal entitlement programs and theories that resulted in a collectivist attitude by some urban minorities along the lines of us vs them. Since the OJ Simpson trial, which was the high-water mark of race tensions, things in the US got a lot better. If someone here wants to see the race card used in the 2008 election cycle, that is sad and pathetic.
Anyway, this tendency to refute someone's message by associating it with seedier messages was typical of Germany in the early 1930s.
It fits the mentality of some in the conversation above, who refused to discuss Giuliani and Bush's love for extra-jurisdictional federal laws by saying that anyone who complained "couldn't get a date in the US" or wanted to molest kids in Bangkok. Even my discussion of extra-jurisdictional banking laws was ignored in favor of that kind of ad hominem attack. The IMBRA dating law was deliberately confused with the Protect Act (against pedophiles)...a favorite tactic of the NS in Germany who said "if you don't like the new law that says Jews have to wear stars, then you are in favor of Jewish perverts raping children".
The ad hominem attacks on Ron Paul hide the true reasons why others are afraid of him. At least Wendy McElroe is honest when she says she doesn't like Ron Paul because of his view on abortion. Others need to be honest about their pet agendas (there is nothing wrong with having a pet agenda if one is honest about it). I would like to see the Reason editors, especially, get more honest and tell the growing libertarian community what THEIR plans are for taking over the Republican Party vetting process for new Congressional candidates.
Cato and Reason have had their chance to promote libertarianism (which is widely believed to be something that could dominate the electoral landscape if a major media outlet tried to spread it) and many believe these institutions should have already taken over one of the two US political parties by now...or at least they should have taken over the Heritage Foundation and other "right wing think tanks".
But the word, in the wake of this cynical and childish attempt to smear Ron Paul with old news, is that Cato and Reason are now going to be weighed in the balance of THEIR achievements, and found wanting.
Is it just me, or does it seem that David and many of the libloggers are actually taking their marching orders from some segment of the establishment.
I mean, here they are, dutifully regurgitating the "reporting" of that fine bastion of "journalism" known as The New Republic, screeching about how this awkward, gangly man from Texas, who doesn't happen to be the best public speaker in the world, is the second coming of Hitler, Mao and Genghis Khan all rolled into one.
How ironic, that not one word has been written by any of these guardians of morality and righteousness on the candidate who is ideologically the most fascist of them all -- the one who is actually running on a platform of "police state at home, endless war abroad."
I speak, of course, of the annointed one of the neocons, Hizoner Mayor Benito Giuliani... who also "just happens" to be the favored candidate of one James Kirchick.
How rich that The New Republic is now hurling accusations of "racism" and "bigotry" against Ron Paul (and prior to Paul, pointing the same finger at Wesley Clark and Jimmy Carter).
This is the magazine that devoted an entire issue to the "scientific" racist findings of neo-eugenicist "Bell Curve" author Charles Murray.
This is the magazine whose Editor-in-Chief, writes one column and blog post after another attacking Arabs and Muslims as being inherently violence prone, barbarous, preternaturally evil subhuman creatures who breed entirely too much...
And yet David and his readers find no fault in this, only in those whom Marty Peretz sets his dogs loose on.
"For instance, I don't believe "original intent" is a valid legal concept. American law has its basis in English Common Law, and the core principal of Common Law is that interpretation of both Law and precedent is mutable because societies change over time. What may be acceptable today may be the iconic expression of tyranny tomorrow, and if the interpretation of the Law cannot accommodate this, then the Law is useless. Therefore all Libertarian arguments founded on the idea of preserving "original intent" are, simply speaking, invalid."
There is a difference between English common law and the Constitution. The Constitution was a written document based on certain principles which made it unique from English common law. One of the principles was that if the Constitution was to be changed it would be through amendments. The English didn't even have a Constitutution, so this comparison doesn't fly.
"The answer is: You are and he is. You regard Law as an immutable object; engraved on stone tablets and handed down from on High accompanied by choirs of Seraphim singing hosannahs. I don't. Your view is that Man serves the Law. I believe that it is better when Law serves Man. My view is more typical of sophisticated civilizations; yours is a rigidity that is characteristic of extremism."
I agree that the Law serves man. I never says Man serves the Law. However, when the law has no meaning or can be shaped into any meaning by whomever interprets it, it has no meaning. If your view is that sophisticated civilizations reject the concept of objective law and that extremists believe in objective law, I am proud to be an extremist.
"The authors of our Constitution had no special magic, nor were they particularly smarter than we. In fact, in many ways, we are smarter than they and we are each certainly better informed about the world and its history than any of them could ever have hoped to be, if only because of the technology we have at our fingertips. This particular form of ancestor worship serves only to provide easy answers to complex modern questions of Law, and the system that arises from this concept is thus revealed as nothing more than dogma. It is not, in any way, the philosophy it presents itself as--it is the negation of thought, the replacement of thought with rote answers devised by long dead and buried men.
The real problem is that you're very likely to be unable to truly see and understand things from this angle. I can see things from yours, but I reject your way--not because I don't understand it, but because I understand it quite well. I see the flaws in your view of the world, and also see that my own angle--while still imperfect--is a marked improvement."
Actually, I think they were very bright. There has been some progress and some regress since then, but it doesn't change the fact that the Constitution is the law of the land and when you reject a written law, you have the law of Bush or whoever is in power right now. They can make the law mean whatever they want making it meaningless.
"And as for the name-calling--well, I'm human, and I sometimes give in to my frustrations with people doing and saying the same stupid things over and over again. Sue me."
Well, I see people saying the same stupid things over and over again without an ounce of understandng and I don't call them names. I am just as human as you, but somehow I manage to be civil.
"Given that he's such a joke of a candidate, I'm not sure I'm going to waste any more typing on him."
Cerebus
-----------------------------
Finally! There is a God..."
This is how I feel about the other candidates, so I generally don't say anything about them.
Mrs. Robinson,
You have just proven my point. You are saying nothing of substance and have resorted to calling me names like a child having a tantrum.
As for whining, why would you say I was doing that? I was describing my position? So the implication is that if someone has a different point of view, they are whining?
Rusty,
Great comment. Again someone saying nothing of substance.
The name Paulbots comes from the fact that the majority of Ron Paul supporters online don't pass a simple Turing Test. I could code a spambot that keys unto any blog with the words 'Ron Paul' and 'racism', spew the same stuff that's been spewed through, what, a dozen threads on this very blog already, and the intelligence level of the debate would be the same as that evidenced here by Ron Paul supporters.
The name Paultards though I don't like, one because I don't like calling the mentally disadvantaged retards, second because it's highly insulting to retards to compare them to Ron Paul supporters...
Blackbloc, how do you feel about the fact that the name Paulbots comes from the fact that the majority of Ron Paul supporters online don't pass a simple Turing Test?
[Rusty,
Great comment. Again someone saying nothing of substance.
Timur Rozenfeld ]
Expand on that comment please Timur. You support Ron Paul but fnd it insignificant that he votes consistently against Internet regulation?
Timur and Jack,
We've substantively demolished the policies of Ron Paul on this blog several times. It gets tiresome refuting the same pinheaded Paulian arguments over and over.
But somehow it never gets tiresome to fuck with cultists.
Rusty,
Have you checked out Jack's homepage? I will give Paul credit for bringing out the nutters, though, as this has been an entertaining parade of loons proclaiming him to be the risen Messiah. This has schadenfreude written all over it, come November.
Gregory,
I gave him a pity hit. As for the schadenfreude, I think it'll be ready long before November. You reckon Mr. Paul will throw his support to McCain or Romney?
Rusty,
Or Bloomberg?
Hee hee! I love how you guys use pictures of fat, red-faced, vein-popping racists in your blog. They put such a nice "face" on the whole movement.
Some of you seem to have no respect for the rights of foreign women to decide their own level of security. You feel that the NOW in Washington DC can claim representation for all women. Smart little manginas. Too bad that, regardless of Ron Paul's chances, a conservative Supreme Court will probably take away federal funding for a lot of these unconstitutional "shelters" that are clearly a states rights matter.
IMBRA had a restraining order on for a long while and another will be slapped on it soon.
By pushing too many weird laws, these groups are pushing their luck on continued funding...albeit everyone knows that funding also comes from creating "problems" and offering "solutions".
If you want to see how foreign women feel about being told how they are allowed to meet American men, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x...h?v=xE6dfxZ-
5eQ
And here they respond to the outrageous insult to them that implies that the American men they would date are the kind that American women would not date:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i...h?
v=ihW4P8Bcrxc
http://www.ifeminists.net/introd.../2006/
0111.html
Nobody has ever won an online debate about IMBRA and all you do when you smartmouth me is give me the opportunity to let independent readers know about this outrageous abuse of power.
Liberals should question why George Bush is so palsy with the women who want this.
Liberals are not normally known for wanting, for instance, MySpace to have required background checks.
Liberals normally talk about civil rights and recently went to bat to allow actual jailhouse convicts the right to use Myspace anonymously (I haven't backed the idea that jailbirds can roam the net while in jail).
Liberals also support pornography which is a separate issue.
Liberal males who dislike porn may as well vote for Huckabee for President.
Of course, because of the kind of Republican that believes in Internet regulation and societal regulation, I will probably also have Schadenfreude if I see a bad Republican nominee lose badly to Obama in November as well...while 5 Republican mangina senators lose reelection bids.
Sometimes one has to tear down in order to rebuild properly.
I meant to ask the 'blog this earlier. Mr. Paul didn't do particularly well in Michigan. A friend I know, who is from MI, was a bit surprised about that because he thought that rural Michigan, with its militia groups, ultra-conservative state-local-federal-government haters, splinter group church/cults, white separatists, and other assorted crazies would turn out in droves for their candidate, Mr. Paul.
At the end of the day, this wasn't really the case was it? Paul got 6% or thereabouts. That is quite a few votes in a large state like MI but a rather small percentage of the total cast. My friend thought Paul would poll at about 10-12% at least.
My thought was that the violent right split their votes between Paul and two or more candidates (they all pretty much offer what RP is offering, they just don't say it so loud). But in your informed opinions, which candidate, if any, scooped up some of the Paul votes?
That is brilliant method of propandizing, but it is wasted on a low traffic blog. Try over at DailyKos. The brilliant method: making your question dependent on everyone accepting the premise.
There is no violent right support for Ron Paul. The violent right, if it existed apart from the Neocons and Nascar Dads who love watching Cops, would not be happy about RP wanting to let drug dealers out of jail.
Actually, the answer to your question is that Obama takes votes away from Ron Pail and, in Michigan, it was Mr. Undecided who represented Obama because Obama was not on the ballot.
In Michigan, RP got 54,000 votes mainly from young people 18-40 years old with some college education and no real love for religion.
Ron Paul lost with uneducated Christians but still got a lot of educated Christians.
He would have done better if the old folks stayed home who only listen to the MSM. But these non-Internet readers came out in droves for the Ken Doll who gave them false promises.
Meanwhile the Democrats voted for Mr. Uncommitted in large numbers but HRC barely beat that character.
I am hoping Obama wins vs HRC.
And that is another irony: a Ron Paul supporter who has Obama as his second choice on a blog where some childish people assume that RP supporters are racist.
"Manginas"?
I do appreciate how the Paulians are above name-calling.
Daniel, the violent right will split its vote between McCain, Giuliani and Hillary.
Most of the far-right (vicarious) violence junkies who pollute the radio airwaves with their filth support one of these candidates for president.
Phil Hendrie, Rusty Humphries, Jim Bohannon, etc. etc.
There are some exceptions, such as Glenn Beck, who is apparently casting his lot with fellow Mormonofascist Romney.
Rusty,
Mangina is a term that I never thought would enter the discussion abou Paul, which entered the realm of the absurd some time ago.
I feel your pain, the pain of all the
excitable white guilt regressives who just can't prod Paulbots to understand what he is really all about an renounce him.
Christ, it's like pleading with Billy Kristol to admit
publicly if a hundred gentile soldiers -black or white-die to serve the racial supremacism of dual loyalists, it's worth the sacrifice.
Stand firm Paul loyalists!
Hey Jack,
Maybe you can find a "date" for Ken, as long as they are not brown, black or Jewish.
Any Jew who marries a West Bank Palestinian is deported to the West Bank, Greggie. But of course you can direct me to your cyberspace chiding Jewish racism as oppressing a million people in camps currently? If not, fuck off.
Right. White supremacists who hate blacks, Jews and Hispanics all of a sudden are really concerned for the well-being of Arabs and Persians.
SlurmPwnzYou | 01.16.08 - 3:05 pm
Maybe you should contact the Syrian government and the Iranian government
and tell them, in condescending white racist terms-they have no business working on mutual political concerns with David Duke.
Ken,
Your Kleagle fed you some lame talking points today. Like you really give a rat's ass about all those brown Palestinians.
I feel your pain, the pain of all the
excitable white guilt regressives who just can't prod Paulbots to understand what he is really all about an renounce him.
Ken, I think they don't renounce him because they understand what he's really all about.
Some of you seem to have no respect for the rights of foreign women to decide their own level of security.
So let me get this straight. You can't cruise for foreign chicks online because the US Government won't let you?
You know dude, you gave it all away in your first post when you mentioned the men's rights movement. Get help. Seriously.
Let's see now, in my prior posts I linked to various articles, essays and blogposts which:
--Went to some length to explain what kind of "news" magazine The New Republic is, and what agenda they harbor.
--Linked to an article by James Kirchik wherein he endorses Giuliani for president.
--Pointed out that The New Republic has levelled similar charges recently against Wesley Clark and Jimmy Carter... among others.
--Pointed that, more so than any other "journal of opinion", The New Republic gave a great deal of space to neo-eugenicist/AEI fellow Charles Murray's "Bell Curve" theory.
--Documented numerous incidents wherein Editor-in-Chief Marty Peretz attacked Muslims and Arabs in the most vile, disgusting & unabashed manner possible.
Not a word in response, nor any attempt at refutation. Just lots of snickering about "Paulbots".
Oh, well.
>>Obama takes votes away from Ron Pail
During the primaries? Gee, this little foreigner doesn't know that much about American politics, but I thought that only other Republicans could steal votes from Ron Paul as long as these are just the party primaries...
Dariush, how do you feel about just lots of snickering about "Paulbots"?
Personally I'm leaning towards Christine Smith.
Is she hot? If she is I might throw my vote away on her in hopes she will bed me.
Then again, being a Libertarian, that means she worships guns and private property rights to the exclusion of all else (environment, biodiversity be damned).
Oh, I have a nice assault rifle but I don't worship it and I don't want to have sex with it. So I can't be a Libertarian.
stood up for America and it's founding principles
Heh. Riiiiight.
Where does this come from:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."
Or:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Hmmm. Anyone? That's riiiiight! It comes from the Constitution! Sorry but an Amendment to the Constitution IS PART OF the Constitution by definition. Thus, taxation CANNOT be "legalized theft" since theft is illegal and nothing in the Constitution is illegal by definition.
The taxation elements of the Constitution do not spell out a limit on the extent of taxation either. In effect, if Congress wants to, it can tax you at 100% and it would be legal and Constitutional. It would be crazy and would get every person that voted for it thrown out and the law would be wiped from the books in short order but it would be LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL.
Ron Paul cannot claim that the income tax is illegal or unconstitutional. It clearly is not. Get over it.
I now step down from my Constitution Soap Box.
Dariush, the Kirchick TNR article was accompanied by scans of Ron Paul's actual newsletters.
Rusty Shackleford | 01.17.08 - 11:23 am
we can always hope.
I don't know how I feel about Ron Paul yet, but I am looking into everything with an open mind.
LastChance
You bet it is, Mr. Chance. Wide open, like a seive.
Gregory | 01.17.08 - 11:20 am
Guess how many Iraqis and Palestinians were killed, maimed, herded, dispossessed and
threatened in the time it took you to grunt that.
So please drop the disrespect for others and engage in a real conversation about the 2008 elections.
Jack Sanderson
Gee, Jack, speaking of real things, how on earth did I miss that "race war"? Lived in or near major cities my whole life. Was it a "cold" race war? Oh BTW who won?|
You got to be careful with this brush you are painting with. You are making some very broad strokes.
Stevo
Stevo, you need to read the post, not just look at the painting.
Your artistic criticism of Dave's technique not withstanding.
You might try answering the questions. You don't seem to have a clue about life for Americans in foreign countries and have a seeming redneck view that the only real women are American women so why would any man ever leave.
Jack Sanderson.
Jack, if you have even the slightest religious bent, get the to a monastery pronto, amigo. You can get a good start on the celibacy you seem determined to impose on yourself. That way you can get credit for it, instead of jeers.
Sometimes one has to tear down in order to rebuild properly.
Jack Sanderson
Jack, don't change a thing. I love you just the way you are.
And that is another irony: a Ron Paul supporter who has Obama as his second choice on a blog where some childish people assume that RP supporters are racist.
Jack Sanderson
Jack, you still haven't told us about that "race war". Did I miss it becazuse I am a racist, or a liberal?
http://counterpunch.org/
roberts0...ts01172008.html
Roberts great again and Groggy should get over the Mufti/Nordic tradition of amity.
should get over the Mufti/Nordic tradition of amity.
Ken Hoop
You don't see that as their only defense against the Zionists. Ken?
It's Mrs. Chance btw!
See, you can't even say something that isn't about Paul without someone saying something negitive. I've been reading these posts and I must say that the paulbashers just repeat themselves. The first time they sounded original, now they sound like robots.
These people are in other places right now bashing the supporters of the other Candidates.
Oh and this crap about the news letter is bs! Why don't you do a little research on Kirchick??? Probably because you don't really care what he wrote or why.
I did today and realize that he doesn't give a crap about informing the public. It was a carefully planned attack to be used on the days involving vote days. We will see if he does the same on Saturday. He couldn't be that stupid right? Has anybody ever wondered WHY this stuff was pulled when it was. They knew about them all along. They don't give a crap about you. It's all a game and they are loving it.
Do you know who gave him money for school? Do you know what kind of articles he wrote for that school?
You may also want to look into a guy named Dondero. He spoke up when the alligations came out before and said that he was no such racist.
Since 9-11 he has hated Paul. Now he is running for his seat in TX, and blogging everywhere they will let him (which some places won't) about these news letters. I don't remember if it was the day after Dr. Paul said that he was against the war in Iraq on the debate, or if he announced the day the newsletter story came out. That doesn't really matter. He knew Pauls position on going into Iraq from the get go.
Now, when you look up Dondero keep in mind that he worked on those newsletters and I believe helped to edit them. Now I will say that he has another last name, plus various others he has used. So you may find several AKA's.
Look it you, use your own ability to think and reason.
Then look at the good people who are standing up for Dr. Paul who have known him for years who say he isn't a racist.
Oh, I forgot, there is far more wisdom to listen to a boy you don't even know and a guy who has several last names, that is running against him. They are far more truthful and accurate.
Go Crazy!!!
Oh, on one other note, I noticed you only post to the easy stuff.
1)Look it you, use your own ability to think and reason.
2)Then look at the good people who are standing up for Dr. Paul who have known him for years who say he isn't a racist.
Last Chance
Gee Ms. Chance, you don't see those two consecutive sentences as diametrically opposed?
No, you probably don't.
But don't worry, I'll be sure to use my own mind and listen to the "good people"!
Mooser, I just love making you type.........sorry I didn't read over what I wrote.
See, I told you they don't care who or what they are bashing.
NOW READ THIS!
(copy & paste)
http://www.opednews.com/
articles...ans_set_to_.htm
Mooser,
"Stevo, you need to read the post, not just look at the painting.
Your artistic criticism of Dave's technique not withstanding.
Oh, I read it. So Gray got his photo taken with Dr. Paul. That automatically makes Dr. Paul a memebr of the clan?
Get real.
If you really are interested http://www.opednews.com/
articles...is_not_a_bi.htm
Gregory | 01.17.08 - 11:20 am
Guess how many Iraqis and Palestinians were killed, maimed, herded, dispossessed and
threatened in the time it took you to grunt that.
Ken Hoop | 01.17.08 - 1:42 pm |
My guess would be about 10-20, given the statistical norm. That aside, I am not going in be given a lecture on the horrors of the Iraq war from a racist little git like yourself. If you actually believe what you post then it is a testament to self delusion, given your animosity towards non-whites everywhere but Iraq and Palestine.
I will say that the quality of this post is the best one you've done today. I assume that you found someone in your trailerpark who made it into high school help you with its construction. With that, I will sign off with the usual, FOAD.
Hey Ms. Chance, you know Kirchick posted actual scans of Ron Paul's newsletters, right?
I thought James Woodruff, the famous liberal journalist who uncovered Watergate, wrote a famous book around 1972 called "Race War in America." In addition, Malcolm X himself referred to a race war in America and had a famous song about it.
So sue me for referring to what Malcolm X and the most famous journalist of the 70s were discussing.
Historians note a period of racial unrest between the 60s and the 90s in urban areas. I can see from a search of Google that apparently it is politically incorrect to call that period of unrest a "race war". But for those who lived in Manhattan in the 70s and 80s, there were lots of muggings, there were crack killings and there were actual lines that people were unofficially not allowed to cross. I do remember even then, however, that I had liberal friends who chose to pretend that this was not the case, even when I dared them to cross 96th at 1st Avenue and they refused to do so.
That defined the quintessential white liberal in the 1980s: Bring them to 96th and 1st and ask them to walk north and watch them refuse but not be able to admit why they were refusing.
This situation all changed very quickly in the 90s. By 1997, I felt free to walk around Harlem anytime of the day or night.
A good book to read on why the Crack Epidemic ended, would be "Freakonomics". It is a very famous book and the author is a young and well respected liberal professor at the U of Chicago.
[So let me get this straight. You can't cruise for foreign chicks online because the US Government won't let you?]
Precisely. For now, it only involves "dating sites that focus on specifically introducing Americans with foreigners". This makes it possible for Craigs List and Match.com and Adultfriendfinder and Sexsearch.com to operate as usual.
The sites affected are usually the honest ones with sincere people that don't have options to click on that say "for casual sex". Some of them call themselves marriage agencies, which allowed the proponents of the law to dishonestly name all such dating sites as "marriage brokers".
This means that people who might just want to meet for coffee in Paris are officially meeting via a "marriage broker". This is bizarre.
Keep in mind that few dating sites are actually OBEYING this bizarre law. If you google IMBRA, you will also want to find the articles that explain how the worst part of the law is not the US government mandated background checks themselves, but the logistical problems resulting from the demand that foreigners sign in writing that it is OK for communication to begin after reading them.
Women without Internet will never get to read a background check...and thus the US government effectively blocks all contact with such women (and men - there are dating sites for American women to meet foreign men).
In other countries, women (and men) do not always use anonymous webmail driven sites like Match.com in order to meet men. American women keep coming back to see who left them a webmail on a dating site because they have been taught by paranoics that this is "safe" (Match.com members do not pay fees if they do not initiate contact with others, but just sit passively waiting for someone to contac them). In other countries, a woman might tell someone to put her profile online with a postal address or cell phone number (cell phone SIM cards cost $5 in most countries).
This, of course, is the right of the foreign woman to advertise her existence and contact info. IMBRA takes away this right and forces her to behave in a prescribed manner pre-approved by certain women's organizations in the United States (outside their jurisdiction).
This is why the above links show two foreign women going into shock when they hear that this law exists.
Remember the principle "I may be a vegetarian but I will defend to the death my right to eat meat". So it is irrelevant to assume that anyone complaining about the law actually uses online dating sites.
This is important to think about because many of the people who are upset about this law are already married or have girlfriends, like I do, but are shocked that forces we thought had no power were strong enough to get such a bizarre law passed (via trickery - No politician remembers voting for it because it was buried behind VAWA).
The most famous outcry came from the well-respected individualist feminist named Wendy McElroe, who also happens to be one of the libertarians who is attacking Ron Paul for other reasons (on the abortion issue).
In this article, she defended most of the law but not the idea that federally mandated background checks were needed or lawful before two people could actually say hello:
http://www.ifeminists.net/introd.../2006/
0111.html
A big library of court documents can be found at:
www.online-dating-rights.com
There is a huge section of the law that deals with the federal government background checking the American (man or woman) before a fiance visa could be granted to a foreigner for entry to the US. Many do not mind this interference at all, as long as it is not used to harrass people via long delays. Even this part of the law proves, however, that the DHS is not about terrorism and Homeland Security, it is about gender politics. Either way, this part of the law would more likely be upheld in court because the Congress is given Constitutional power over immigration matters.
What the Congress does NOT have Constitutional power over is the act of two people meeting each other.
The Attorney General will try to say that the Commerce Clause can regulate interstate commerce (even when a website is hosted in another country and two people are both located outside the United States). They will say that they have the right to regulate the American citizen no matter where he or she is in the world.
They will say that the foreign women have no rights in a US courtoom and they will tell the judge to not allow foreign women to be plaintiffs against the law in a federal court in the US.
No intelligent judge will accept that. However, a Bush appointee did deny a restraining order saying "there is no liberty interest in an American contacting a foreigner".
Doesn't it scare anyone that Bush is so entwined in this? Fox News had Bill Oreilly and Tony Snow did an attack on all men who would leave the country and say hello to a woman who is not an American.
You can force bars to check IDs at the door (only if alcohol is being sold), but you cannot make a law that says that, once a man or woman has entered a bar, he or she has to produce his ID and background check before he is allowed to talk with anyone else on the premises.
Read the law and argue with the experts at the above Online Dating Rights site if you do not believe that communications are often blocked, not just interfered with and through no fault of the American with a perfectly clean background.
I can produce a lot of scholarly research on this, including law reviews if you wish.
The upcoming challenge against IMBRA will not just be to overturn the law, however. It will punish those who got it passed by going after the legality of their funding.
There are other similar laws that hurt divorced men that will be seriously challenged this year as well.
Politically, because of all these nonsense laws, about 5 Republican senators are going to be kicked out of office in November because they have been passing too many laws like this. Liberals should be happy that you ARE most likely going to get a 60% Senate and the White House.
Ron Paul supporters often have different reasons to support the candidate, but they often have to do with his having voted NO on something really invasive and unfair, like the above.
Ron Paul did have the support of 2 Democrats when he voted No on this (he voted no on VAWA which is much bigger than this and which will also be challenged for good reasons).
The civil war in the Republican Party is really good news for the Democrats.
I basically just gave you one example of why about 5-10% of Republicans (the ones voting for Ron Paul) are going to make sure that the likes of someone like John McCain never sees the White House.
Ken, I think they don't renounce him because they understand what he's really all about.
When is Greenwald going to denounce Paul, I wonder?
stopfightingeachother,
That was a hilarious link, but I couldn't get beyond the first page - the idea of a newsletter editor who's SO LIBERTARIAN that he won't, uh, edit the authors in HIS OWN NEWSLETTER because that would interfere with their freedom of speech. I though you guys were all like private property 'n shit - it's his dime, so the newsletter has his views, y'know?
Is this Racist:?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X...h?
v=XDHbHcOV1N4
I've been reading Rockwell's site on and off for some years.
He's going to be getting a pissed-off letter from me.
prunes
Why?
Wait a sec, aren't you the dumbass from here who did a drive-by troll at me over at Greenwald's blog the other day.
Pissed off letter to Lew Rockwell? Who's the clueless one now? Idjit!
When is Greenwald going to denounce Paul, I wonder?
First he has to endorses him. Contrary to your ridiculous blog posts, he never has done that. He merely stated that his foreign policy views deserve more attention.
Is this Racist:?
Memosphere
Just google Gandhi and racism. Hillary is a Saint compared to Gandhi. She doesn't sleep naked with young girls to practice brahmacharya, either, but people on the right from Ken Hoop and Ron Paul (Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist, George Orwell) to Karl Rove would like you to think she does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra...ki/
Brahmacharya
http://www.trinicenter.com/World...ews/
ghandi4.htm
Nevermind, prunes, it was that noob mooser. Just the same, why you would be reading antiwar or lew crockwell for any other reason than to keep an eye on American fascism is beyond me.
Rusty....you missed my point completely.
Scans, yea, he's got scans of documents that people in his district didn't believe 20 years ago. Hmmm, wonder why we are so quick to.
Oh, yeah, they personally know the man. He's been delivering their babies and living among them.
Anyway, my whole point was to look into him and where his funding comes from, then look into the guy who may have tipped him off. But see, you always over look anything of real substance.
Time some San Francisco Chronicle or Bay Guardian reporter asks Lew Rockwell and Cindy Sheehan to confirm the rumor they are lovers.
Ms. Chance: so "shoot the messenger" is the last straw at which you Paulians are now grabbing? That's sad.
Hey Rusty,
When the messenger in question is a big fan of Rudy G, and writes for that bastion of anti-racist and anti-fascist activism known as The New Republic, then yes, "shooting the messenger" is perfectly acceptable.
Hey, you can shoot everybody at TNR for all I care. Doesn't make those inconvenient Ron Paul Newsletters disappear.
"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist, George Orwell"
Oh, brother. (eyeroll) Another Hitchbot.
Hitchens acolyte: "why you would be reading antiwar or lew crockwell for any other reason than to keep an eye on American fascism is beyond me"
Where to go to actually keep an eye on American fascism:
The Little Guys: Little Green Footballs, Pajamas Media, FreeRepublic.com, Gates of Vienna, JihadWatch, WorldNutDaily, The Jawa Report, Frontpagemag.com, New York Post, New York Sun, National Review, Weekly Standard, Human Events.
The Big Boys/String Pullers: AEI, Brookings, CFR, JINSA, Heritage, Wall Street Journal, Commentary, Fox, CNN, Manhattan Institute, Hudson Institute.
If this guy actually believes in the principles he claims, why is he still a member of the Republican Party?
Dariush
First of all, I'm no pacifist. That doesn't mean I'm pro-war. But if it's time to rock and roll, I'm not marching around with some damn sign saying "give peace a chance". If I want to read that stuff, I'll get it from here:
http://www.wsws.org/
There is no difference between you, Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell, Dennis Raimondo, LGF and Jonah Goldberg or the rest of them. Just a quibble about foreign policy. An internecine struggle for power and a "good cop/bad cop" show for the unsophistcated and naive left and progressives who don't know any better. The right is dying. Wake up and die right. But you know this, unless you are one of the naive leftiists who got taken in by that bullshit. I've seen it all before. I didn't buy it during Vietnam GWI or GWII. Fuck the right, prowar and antiwar. I piss on you from a great height. I'm not anti-military and I'm not an isolationist.
Mooser | Homepage | 01.17.08 - 2:34 pm
I don't see LWM as having any defenses against the Zionists and it's probably good if he doesn't care.
Greg-egregious-ory
Gregory | 01.17.08 - 4:15 pm
"That aside, I am not going in be given a lecture...
you need at least a junior high grad to check for
construction errors, canaillle boy.
wait...you're an ebonics fan? you got me!
Ken,
If you can ever scrape together bus fare to get out of your south Kentucky shithole, then you can come visit and give me a grammar lesson in person.
Wow when Al Sharpton ran for president no one attacked him for being in the racist Naacp or his black panthers conections.This is total double standered and I hate Ron Paul but for this I'm voteing for him.I am a proud white man and love my race now that i'll be voteing for paul dose that mean i'm a racist.See this double standered crap is annoying if someone is proud to be white and soupport a politician that means their a racist.If I was to say i'm proud to be white am glad my kids are white and say I support Paul i'm a racist.But if a black man was to say i'm proud to be black and glad my kids are black and I support Al Sharpton for president then I would not be racist.Its the same thing with Obama alot of blacks voteing for him saying their proud to be black so they will vote for Obama int called racist.So why is it that a white man with pride is called racist for supporting a politician.
Liberal males who dislike porn may as well vote for Huckabee for President.
Jack Sanderson
Now, there's a guy who knows what really matters in this big, complicated world of ours. But I can't resist the tsunami of your logic!
Mr. Huckabee, here I come!
Okay, LWM, You've gone too far! Way too far!
I am not, nor have I ever been, a "noob"! Perhaps nudnik was the mot juste you were looking for
I would not go so far as to claim I am always a "boon", but a "noob"? Nope!
And honestly, you don't think you might benefit from pre-viewing your comments and making sure they don't, or even better, can't, be read as saying just about the opposite of what you want to say? Took me many months of reading your comments before I was able to decipher the general drift of your views, I think. Now that I have, of course, I admire your facility with the facts, and your generally humanist and liberal viewpoint, with a dose of snark for good measure, all of which I find admirable.
Joey---
1) The term "white pride" was originally coined and is almost exclusively used by neo-Nazis and white supremacists. It's perfectly reasonable that people assume you are a racist if you are talking about it. Blame the white supremacist organizations for that one.
2) The NAACP isn't a racist organization.
3) It's not really a double-standard so much as a trade-off. Black people get to talk about pride in their race and advancement of their ethnicity. You and I get all the political, legal and economic power.
Personally I think we got the better half of the deal.
I am a proud white man and love my race
"proud white man" Check!
"love my race" Check!
Yup, you're no racist. BTW, are you really "white" 100 per-cent white?
Listen my pal Joey, I really doubt you are any whiter than me. Can you prove you are white?
You seem just a little to smart to be white, pal.
Let's see some proof!
I think Joey is some sort of mixed race melange trying to claim he's white.
Joey, would you let a guy date your daughter if he couldn't prove he was 100% white? I have always found that someone who makes a big deal of being "white" has a little ebony among the ivory, nudge, nudge, wink, wink!
Joey, when you are ready to offer proof there's no anthracite in your alabaster, we can talk. Until then, go back to Africa, you faker!
Mooser:
Your blog shows that you are, in fact, aware of that the phrase "if you haven't done anything wrong, why worry about this new law" is wrong:
http://moosehall.blogspot.com/20...-
wrongpart.html
Therefore, there wasn't any reason to be hostile that someone pointed out another Bush Administration law that demands background checks on Americans before being allowed to communicate with foreigners on internationally oriented social interaction websites.
If you are going to stick up for the "rights" of middle eastern males not to be searched at airports, then you would be expected to stick up for the rights of white upper-middle-class businessmen not to be background checked because they are going to fly to Paris to meet a hot French chick.
IMBRA is designed to protect women from future domestic violence by informing them of the backgrounds of Americans before they meet online. Anyone who can accept that logic will also accept the idea that any middle eastern man can be fully background checked and interfered with, long before he ever goes near an airport, because he might go to an airport and blow up a plane in the future.
And these laws are all coming from the same presidential administration, so no liberal male needs to get his shorts in a twist because I mentioned that the NOW also wanted such a law.
On pornography, your blog actually (correctly) makes fun of a stupid Christian Science Monitor article that implies that viewing porn can "ruin a Christian's life":
http://moosehall.blogspot.com/
20...confession.html
Here you determined that you are a NORMAL liberal male who doesn't think like the Christian Science journalist. I didn't see you remark self-righteously that the porn business "ruins the lives of the women actresses".
So you are normal. Yet Ron Paul was one of a very few members of Congress who voted No to COPA. Clinton and Obama voted yes
Why would a liberal accept COPA? Credit cards to view what you call "nekkid pictures" online?
One more reason to vote Ron Paul.
Big issue or not, it is a heck of a lot more relevant than the bogus notion that Ron Paul might be a racist.
On that racism issue, there are great new articles coming out today on why the CATO Institute and Reason Magazine plotted that phony attack on Ron Paul at midnight before the NH Primary.
Probably by the end of 2009, most good blogs will switch from primarily text commenting to also including daily or weekly Skype-style comment sessions.
The technology is almost there.
When it happens, the era of the drive-by smartmouth will be over. In verbal communication:
1) people are expected to answer each other's questions 2) admit whether they know the issue well enough to comment about it and 3) explain where they're coming from when they criticize or feign intellectual superiority.
"One more reason to vote Ron Paul."
He is running in the Republican Party primaries. I take it this means he intends to abide by the results when (not if) he loses.
So I don't see where there's going to be an *opportunity* to vote for him, even if a person was inclined to do so.
In the general. The 3rd party run is going to happen unless Paul can work out the kind of deal that Howard Dean got where he became the chairman of the DNC I believe.
As long as Ron Paul or a like-minded person can vet the new candidates for Congress in 2010 and 2012, I'd be OK with that.
What has to be eliminated from the Republican Party leadership is most of the Evangelicals who would want to regulate other's personal lives (whether that is gay sex or heterosexual dating websites) as well as the Neocons who are often nothing more than pro-war Democrats (big government conservatives).
The Neocons will not give up power easily, which is where the Diebold memory cards come into the equation.
An interesting question would be: do liberals secretly welcome the continued existance of Neocons in the Republican Party because they so gladly trade votes for war from Hillary in return for votes for liberal social programs?
If that were the case, then no wonder there is so much animosity toward Ron Paul coming from the left as well as the right.
"In verbal communication:
1) people are expected to answer each other's questions 2) admit whether they know the issue well enough to comment about it and 3) explain where they're coming from when they criticize or feign intellectual superiority."
This is a bit OT, but I think that you're off here. None of the 3 things you mentioned are at all off-limits in verbal conversation. And verbal opens up a whole new universe of online douchebaggery. Text boards really are a much better way to intelligently discuss issues, from what I've seen.
In the general. The 3rd party run is going to happen unless Paul can work out the kind of deal that Howard Dean got where he became the chairman of the DNC I believe.
Howard Dean was popular. Ron Paul isn't.
Agreed, this is OT, but people can say to each other in 10 minutes verbally what takes 5 days on text blogs. A big problem is that the people are not even online at the same time. In my experience, the smarter people just avoid long comment section "conversations" and flame wars.
You, Chris, could easily be reading this 3 days from now.
1) I've never been in a verbal conversation where someone was able to deliberately avoid answering a question put to him or her. In text communication. this happens all the time where people will ignore questions put to them and just make childish remarks like "The Paulbots are weird today" that would never fly in a verbal conversation and definitely never fly in a physical face to face discussion.
2) In verbal conversation, rapid fire give and take will determine in seconds rather than days whether the other person knows anything about the subject matter being discussed.
3) In verbal conversation, sarcasm and feigned intellectual superiority can occur, but must be backed up instantly because the other person will call you on it.
Text commenting is great, however, for linking to articles and info sources.
I only come back to this blog because I get email notices. I couldn't go back to the vast majority of blogs where I left a comment on one issue or another, just to engage in any responses.
It was "the Paulians are getting increasingly weird..."
At least get it right, Jack.
Ron Paul loses a ton of support because of his extreme anti-war stance.
He would be extremely popular with the Republican base otherwise.
Ron Paul loses a ton of support because of his extreme anti-war stance.
He would be extremely popular with the Republican base otherwise.
Yep. Which is why it's so annoying that y'all hector progressives for not supporting him.
"The 3rd party run is going to happen unless Paul can work out the kind of deal that Howard Dean got where he became the chairman of the DNC I believe."
That's never going to happen. Republicans hate his guts. So he's going to have to go 3rd party.
"What has to be eliminated from the Republican Party leadership is most of the Evangelicals who would want to regulate other's personal lives"
That's also, obviously, not going to happen. Lot more evangelicals than extreme libertarians.
"the Neocons who are often nothing more than pro-war Democrats (big government conservatives)."
While the term is loosely used, the neocons proper (NoPod and IKristol variant) are definitely against "big government" and "liberal social programs."
Let's see some proof!
Mooser | Homepage | 01.18.08 - 5:32 pm | #
Everyone is black; ultimately we all came out of Africa, from Adam & Eve. (At least Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam.) Maybe the "white" gene came from inter-species breeding with neanderthals.
"Yep. Which is why it's so annoying that y'all hector progressives for not supporting him."
I can think of one very good reason to support him: to further the crack-up and marginalization of the right.
There's no danger of him ever winning anything, but he does contribute mightily to the view that the right is made up of a bunch of kooks.
I think ending the drug war and peaceful coexistence in the world is progressive.
"I think ending the drug war and peaceful coexistence in the world is progressive."
The benefits you get from ending the drug war is much more than offset by the destruction of all government social programs, abolishing the IRS and the income tax, ending minimum wage, and the dismantling of public education.
And the US pulling out of the UN isn't going to lead to "peaceful coexistence with the world." You think things are bad now?
The democrats have the advisers in place to continue the gamesmanship. Clinton weakened habeas corpus for Bush to abuse.
The government takes half of our money for what? They cannot even repair the gulf to pre-Katrina levels. 1/3 of all high school students now drop out. We are $9+T in debt, and spent $60+T supposedly for SS. California cannot push forward on energy policy without suing the feds. The Federal Reserve prints money for the banks without any oversight.
It is too big and unresponsive to respond to the changing situation. The more in debt the govt collects, the more corporatism and policy dictated by dictators, or at least kings. We are following the path outlined in Bin Laden's speeches.
The programs would not be destroyed, but undergo some much needed pruning. (Democrats will control congress.)
The UN resolutions back the warmongers, else we veto them. We no longer talk to people because we have the excuse of the UN. Our policy entrenches fundamentalism of the middle east, destabilizing countries. We topple democracies and install dictators.
You think things are bad now?
I don't see LWM as having any defenses against the Zionists and it's probably good if he doesn't care.
Ken Hoop
Why should I need a defense against them, Ken? I don't occupy their homeland. I occupy someone else's homeland, and so do you. As soon as I can figure out a way to get the Zionists and native Americans to wipe you and your ilk out, I'll bottle it and sell it.
"The government takes half of our money for what?"
It's not even close to half. And admittedly we could use some more funding for our social programs to shore up the well-being of our most vulnerable members. We also need to tax our top income-earners and corporations a little more.
"They cannot even repair the gulf to pre-Katrina levels."
Conservative and libertarian free-marketers fumbled the ball there, I agree.
"1/3 of all high school students now drop out."
Probably not quite that high. And even then, you are saying that millions of people are getting to go to high school! Under RP's ideal system very few would get to go to school at all. Look at any country without public education, compare it to the ones that have it. Notice the difference?
"We are $9+T in debt"
Mostly racked up when fiscal conservatives and free market privatizer outsourcing libertarians were controlling the entire government, cutting taxes and giving corporate handouts every chance they got.
"California cannot push forward on energy policy without suing the feds."
You're right...the whole country should listen more to California (one of the most liberal and prosperous states in the Union)
"The Federal Reserve prints money for the banks without any oversight."
100x times better than relying on a gold standard, if that's what you're going for.
"The more in debt the govt collects, the more corporatism and policy dictated by dictators, or at least kings."
Libertarianism seeks to put those corporations in charge of everything, never charge them a cent in taxes, let policy be dictated by property owners, and screw anyone who isn't born rich. Conservative economic thinking is a huge chunk of the problems you are talking about, not the solution.
"The programs would not be destroyed, but undergo some much needed pruning."
(Democrats will control congress.)
The last 4 presidents were all fairly committed program-pruners. A lot of the problems those programs have in the first place stem from this over-pruning. Again, conservativism caused these problems in the first place. More conservativism isn't going to fix it.
"The UN resolutions back the warmongers, else we veto them."
If we'd listened to the UN we wouldn't be in Iraq right now, Palestinians would be in a much better situation, they're pretty anti-Iran war, etc etc.
" We no longer talk to people because we have the excuse of the UN."
This administration is more aggressively anti-UN than any other in the history of the US. Once again, conservative thinking is a lot of the cause of the problems in the first place. More conservativism won't fix it.
"Our policy entrenches fundamentalism of the middle east, destabilizing countries."
The UN isn't a big fan of our policies in the Middle East.
"We topple democracies and install dictators."
We were doing that before the UN. Only more overtly and violently. And mostly the UN was opposed to those acts.
Pretty much every one of your points falls directly in line with the neo-conservative strategy: work to weaken and de-fund institutions to the point where they don't work as well. Then point to the failings as justification for even more de-funding and weakening.
You can't point to the failings of the free market, libertarianism, and conservativism and then ask me to embrace even more of the same as some kind of answer to those things.
Yeah, lets support more spending more corruption and more centralization. It worked very well for the soviets.
The democrats will just continue the republocrats policies. They are all bought and paid for.
Do some research, you dispute the facts without reference.
Dropout rates are increasing even though NEA spending was doubled during the Bush years.
The reconstruction effort is federal, so no the libertarians did not fail. When it was not under FEMA to manage, the local governments rebuilt Galveston after the worst hurricane on record.
No wonder you hold the positions you do.
"Yeah, lets support more spending more corruption and more centralization. It worked very well for the soviets."
I am not a communist for the same reason I am not a libertarian. Both are static, axiomatic, unadaptive, and disastrous whenever they have been implemented in the real world. Liberalism OTOH has a great track record, its biggest downfall is its own success (enabling a lot of people to get prosperous, thus leading to the popular embrace of conservative ideas).
"The democrats will just continue the republocrats policies. They are all bought and paid for."
Then the democrats need to be more liberal, and less like the libertarians (who worship corporations, privatization, tax cuts, and want government to be something exclusively bought/paid for).
"Do some research, you dispute the facts without reference."
There wasn't a single reference in anything you said either. I'm not complaining, it's cool.
But when you guys figure out your position on the UN, lemme know.
http://www.democracynow.org/
2008...ocity_linked_us
No the Democrats won't change, the policies are bipartisan for the MIC.
The dropout rates are probably higher than 1/3 based on manipulation of the data.
http://www.schoollibraryjournal..../
CA6439502.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7050902411.html
Galveston
http://www.1900storm.com/rebuilding/
index.lasso)
"The reconstruction effort is federal, so no the libertarians did not fail."
You might want to look a little closer at how FEMA handled that effort. Bunch of free-market private contractor profit-motive mumbo-jumbo. Same thing the libertarians want to give us, only not quite so much.
"When it was not under FEMA to manage, the local governments rebuilt Galveston after the worst hurricane on record."
Well-run government accomplishing anything is completely antithetical to libertarian dogma.
And when FEMA was run by deWitt it was kicking ass.
"No wonder you hold the positions you do."
Experience in the real world?
The WaPo link you put up says nationally it's 70%.
Which makes it less than 1/3.
And that's within 4 years, so I suspect GEDs aren't being counted.
And the people most likely to fail to graduate are largely the exact same people who you conservatives have been steadily cutting social funds to.
And that's still a whole, whole lot better than what we'd have with no public education at all.
And people like me wouldn't have gotten to go to school at all if it weren't for public education.
Exactly, Mumbo Jumbo. Favoritism. No-bid contracts.
That is not free market. If the feds had no power, then they could not give the money to their friends to do nothing. (Just like Iraq)
If you understand anything about history, you would know that power corrupts. And a bigger and more concentrated Fed leads to bigger and more concentrated corruption.
And if you bother to read the links, it is vastly under-reported.
Lemme make sure I understand your reasoning correctly:
Only 70% of students nationwide are graduating from high school.
Therefore we should get rid of public schools.
WTF?
Do me three favors:
1) Show me one of these wonderful countries where they don't have any public education.
2) Can you get the Republican candidates to put "abolish public schooling" front and center in their platform?
Favor #3 was supposed to be
"Make some friends who didn't get to go to school at all until they were, say, 13 years old (I know several of this sort). Ask them how they felt the first time they got to go to a public school."
The answer for all of my friends is something along the lines of "It was the best thing that ever happened to me."
The more money we push into the system, the worse it does.
Sounds like a winning proposition to me.
I would actually just like to see vouchers, so that parents could decide not to send their kids to a failing school. But you lefties are too scared to let parents decide what is best for their own children.
The point is evolution, competition, drives progress.
US has 99% literacy rate, rated 21st in the world.
All the countries ahead of us have universal public education.
All the countries anywhere near us have universal public education.
You can compare literacy rates in countries during the decade prior to their adoption of public education to the decade afterwards if you want. It's pretty striking.
On this subject, libertarians really don't have a single empirical leg to stand on.
BTW, paul is also not for ending public education.
He is a moderate.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm
Yah, Yah,
we are the bestest ever in the history of the world....yadayada
We are declining worldwide in education, healthcare, ...
Ron Paul changed his position on this issue, since the libertarian position was clearly and completely wrong.
when?
"We are declining worldwide in education, healthcare, ..."
1) Compared to any country that doesn't have it, we're kicking their ass.
2) Any country post public education compared to pre-public education is kicking its own ass.
3) The country has moved consistently rightward on economic issues for 3 decades. Then you observe that we're slipping behind. Mostly behind countries that are to the left of us economically. What do you think the problem might be?
The merger of business with government.
1/3 dropout rate is clearly and completely the right way.
when?
"The merger of business with government."
This is one of the primary goals of libertarianism! Moving government functions over to businesses!
You are an idiot to even say that.
"You are an idiot to even say that."
I accept your admission of defeat graciously! Thank you and good night.
Dude,
You seriously need to look up your facts. You spout "libertarian" principles without even understanding what you are talking about.
To Spell it out for you,
Merger does not mean the same thing as moving.
Get a dictionary.
Memo--
The articles you linked all say that the districts bringing down the national average are also the poorest districts in the country.
Paul's platform calls for local-only funding of education.
Explain how either this or vouchers (for people who already can't afford private school anyway) will magically increase graduation rates?
If you are an honest person with even an ounce of common sense, you have to admit that it can't possibly help. most likely will make the problem worse.
"The point is evolution, competition, drives progress."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4...nist-
moron.html
"Merger does not mean the same thing as moving."
In this context they actually mean pretty much the same thing: enriching corporations and putting them in charge of the country.
http://sethf.com/essays/major/li...r/
libstupid.php
If you are an honest person with even an ounce of common sense, you would understand that individual freedom to choose how a child grows up is the right of the parents. Does the state have an answer for each and every family? Are all families identical? Is it not possible that parents may know better than corrupt government officials?
Dealing with the government is like selecting digits on the phone to an automated machine. You are categorized based on their models and criteria, not reality.
The point is evolution, competition, drives progress.
Absolutely NOT!
It does not mean the same thing. You guys seem to have no understanding of anything but central control of every aspect of your life.
The difference between the two is that in one a gun is put to your head if you don't obey.
Sweden is ranked with the highest literacy rate.
http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries...tries/
best.html
In Sweden, the conservative government that held office in 1991-1994 introduced a voucher system at primary and secondary school level, enabling free choice among public and independent schools (friskolor) in the community. The system gained such immediate popularity that the succeeding Social Democratic government found it impossible to revert the reform although they have always held strongly negative views on "private" schools. The only major change the new Social Democratic government were able to institute after 1994 was to prohibit extra fees beyond the value of the voucher - this measure was claimed to counteract social segregation in the private schools. Overall, public support has remained strong - segregation has not increased, and various educational models have been able to establish themselves on a broader basis (most notably, the independent Montessori schools have also influenced the educational model of the public schools).
In 2006, 7% of Swedish primary school students and 13% of secondary school students attended private schools.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Edu...ucation_voucher
"The articles you linked all say that the districts bringing down the national average are also the poorest districts in the country."
Nearly one third of all public high school students—and nearly one half of all African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans—fail to graduate from public high school with their class
http://www.silentepidemic.org/ep...demic/
index.htm
LWM,
WSWS is a great site. You, however, are a friggin' moron.
Lemme guess, you've got a "Let's Roll!" bumpersticker on your car, right?
"But if it's time to rock and roll, I'm not marching around with some damn sign saying "give peace a chance"."
No, that's right. When "it's time to rock and roll"... pardon me a moment... bwahahahahahaha... (wiping away tears)... where was I? Oh, yes, when "it's time to rock and roll" you don't give a darn for no limp-wristed defeatist pacifists, no siree bob.
You just wallow in vicarious bloodlust, self-pity and willful ignorance like the rest of the peckerwoods.
Man, it'll be sweet when you guys are the minority.
Surveys of voucher programs in the US have shown no real improvement from embracing it. In many instances the schools are actually sub-standard compared to their public equivalent. It's preliminary, but it looks like a good number of them seem to be creationist schools.
Voucher proponents have worked hard in Congress to avoid legislative accountability for those programs. Not surprising.
If you are one of the low-income families who's in danger of not have their kid graduate, you can't afford a decent private school's tuition to begin with. You almost certainly weren't paying as much in taxes as the
tuition cost or voucher.
Sweden was already a leader in education when they adopted the voucher program. And it hasn't made any noticeable improvements in that country.
Finally, Sweden is a libertarian's worst nightmare. You don't get to selectively invoke their few practices that happen to conveniently fit into your extremist ideology, and then ignore that the bulk of their system actually works the opposite. They are case example of a well-run, prosperous, social government.
Using the same source as you, it looks like the US has either similar or higher rate of private school attendance to Sweden:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Uni...tates#Education
I don't care about political ideologies as much as I care about responsibility and efficiency. If their system works better, by all means adopt it. But then again, it may only work best in one state.
If you will notice the quote, the schools did respond by diversifying. And why is it so popular? And is Sweden too good for you, or not good enough? Do you want what is best for the United States or your own politics?
The world has gone crazy, or maybe it's just Memosphere.
I realize that cherry picking is the sport of choice for Paulistas but the Sweden example is just too rich. You cannot hold up the example of school vouchers without placing it in the context of a larger social structure, a social structure which would be anathema to Paul and his concept of gubbmint.
Don't get me wrong, I think Sweden is a wonderful place and would be happy if the US could emulate them in many areas. You would, however, have to introduce the forbidden "T" & "S" word into the political discussion, taxes and socialism.
A libertarian holding up Sweden as a positive example.
Game, set, and match.
I am an independent, not a libertarian. I think we have gone too statist and business has been tied too closely to the government, by both DEMOCRATS and REPUBLICANS, from the Bush/Clinton Dynasty. Statism and unnecessary centralization breeds corruption, inefficiency. Progress and Diversity is held back when there is only one solution pushed on everyone. I would love to look more like Europe. And BTW, there is a strong streak of liberty in the Netherlands, they were the incubator for the US.
If you cannot see solutions outside your own party, then you are extremist.
Game, Set, Match, Grand Slam!!
Only libertarians use the word "statist" non-ironically.
And only morons limit their vocabulary.
"Statism and unnecessary centralization" Memosphere | 01.19.08 - 5:45 pm |
"Independent"? Of logic, maybe.
If it quacks like a libertarian, then it is a libertarian.
And you are a Republocrat, and here's your foreign policy:
http://
www.informationclearingho...article6010.htm
You are one confused Rondroid, Memo.
Looks like all that time, energy, and money have bought the libertarians a whopping 4% last night.
The public school system in the US performs a lot better than that.
According to libertarian logic, they should cut off their support for him, since he's not producing results.
Correction, I said "time, energy and money" up above.
I should have said "time, energy, money, and spam"
You are one confused Rondroid, Memo.
Gregory | 01.20.08 - 8:08 am | #
I know it is a bit too complicated to get your head around, but try to understand that European countries are roughly the same size and population of US states. The EU is not yet centralized to the point we are and they still have unique national identities. I doubt they would be unified if the EU wasted as much money as we do, and killed as many innocent civilians.
BTW, I am an independent. You point to anomalies in my references from the "libertarian" camp, and then in defiance of logic place me there.
You are a beautiful and unique snowflake, Mem.
You too, Rusty.
Saying "I am an independent, not a libertarian" is like saying "I am not female, I am a mammal."
"Independent" refers to a group affiliation.
The label "libertarian" refers to political belief.
Your political beliefs, at least as you have expressed them here, are standard libertarianism. Any objective, unbiased individual observing these proceedings would correctly identify you as a "libertarian."
REVOLution gets 3.7% in S.C.
I know it is a bit too complicated to get your head around, but try to understand that European countries are roughly the same size and population of US states.
Memosphere | 01.20.08 - 2:37 pm |
I would be happy to compare passport stamps with you, Memo, assuming that you actually have a passport. The difference between us is that I don't have to go to Wikipedia to get my information about Europe.
Sure,
Greece, Italy, Germany, Hungary, France, Netherlands.
Well traveled and still a rondroid. Amazing.
But since you can manage to travel outside the US, then you might want to actually visit Sweden rather than read about it. It would cure your libertarian tendencies.
I don't know what is the ideal balance of the individual vs. the collective. But I do see a general correlation of waste with size. From what I understand of history is that Empires that expand their influence further and faster, tend to fail faster. (Our military spending is significantly more than the rest of the world combined.)
The more hands that touch the money, the more is cut from the actual spent on useful work. Diversity is also lost by having one set of rules for all states. If our system is going to learn to adapt, it needs diversity and negative feedback for stupidity. But what happens when the business is "too big to fail"? We reward them with a bailout. Chrysler , S&L, sub-prime,.....
And a similar problems manifest when we cheat, like using threats to enforce petrodollars, manipulation of economic indicators, manipulation of markets, etc.
you guys are amazing,what world do youlive in?
are you guys on the payroll of the new world order or are you just ignorant? Ron Paul was the only person who stands for freedom for all,what dont you understand? do you love big brother in your life ,do you like paying takes,do you like the federal reserve? You are living in denial,Barack hussein obama will continue on the same path =world govt..enjoy your fema camps and your forced vaccanations..
"To Spell it out for you,
Merger does not mean the same thing as moving.
Get a dictionary."
LOL
What a tool. Not you, the other guy.
I love Americans. Your government really has turned you into some of the stupidest laziest rich as fuck people on earth.
It's a shame your all holy and sacred Dollar Standard isn't looking so hot anymore. Looks like the Spending Spree is over folks! If only we had listened to that nutjob Ron Paul, what with everything he's ever been preaching about economics and the dangers of crony corporate capitalism having come true.
On that note, those corporate elitists seem to really love Obama after all those gracious millions they donated! I guess JP Morgan, Citigroup, Merryl Lynch, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley are all about getting taxed and giving back to the working man! Who owns this guy, really?
Commenting by HaloScan
