Re: POLITICS ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR

[Guest guest]

--- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=14282 & sectionID=72

So, who do you like for president Gene?

Just curious

[Guest guest]

Jeez, much as I agree that " Ron " as perceived by many people is

an illusion, and much as it would be a disaster for Ron to win

the presidency, that article doesn't do the cause of finding and

supporting a good candidate -- or the cause of reality, for that

matter -- any good at all.

-

> --- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> >http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=14282 & sectionID=72

>

> So, who do you like for president Gene?

>

> Just curious

>

>

[Guest guest]

> The inspiration for the question being?

>

>

>> >

>> > --- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>>> >> http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=14282 & sectionID=72

>>> >>

>>>

<http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=14282 & amp;sectionID=72>

>> >

>> > So, who do you like for president Gene?

>> >

>> > Just curious

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

> Well, I suppose that would be a good point if that were the intent of the

> article, which it obviously wasn¹t.

>

> What in the world you mean by Œfinding and supporting¹ Œthe cause of reality¹

> means nothing to me.

>

> Lots of people are supporting Ron based on 1 or 2 issues, and based on

> the fact that he is ³for freedom², or something meaningless like that. This

> article does a fairly good job of explaining what he¹s actually about, and

> makes no pretense at doing anything else.

>

>

>> >

>> > Jeez, much as I agree that " Ron " as perceived by many people is

>> > an illusion, and much as it would be a disaster for Ron to win

>> > the presidency, that article doesn't do the cause of finding and

>> > supporting a good candidate -- or the cause of reality, for that

>> > matter -- any good at all.

>> >

>> > -

>> >

>>> >> --- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>>>> >>> http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=14282 & sectionID=72

>>>> >>>

>>>>

<http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=14282 & amp;sectionID=72

>>>>> >>> >

>>> >>

>>> >> So, who do you like for president Gene?

>>> >>

>>> >> Just curious

>>> >>

>>> >>

>> >

[Guest guest]

I just read the article and when I tried to go back to it I get an

error message, so wonder what's going on?

Server Error

The server encountered an internal error and was unable to complete

your request.

Could not connect to JRun Server.

On Dec 22, 2007, at 11:41 PM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe wrote:

>> Well, I suppose that would be a good point if that were the intent of

>> the

>> article, which it obviously wasn’t.

>>

>> What in the world you mean by ‘finding and supporting’ ‘the cause of

>> reality’

>> means nothing to me.

>>

>> Lots of people are supporting Ron based on 1 or 2 issues, and

>> based on

>> the fact that he is “for freedom”, or something meaningless like

>> that. This

>> article does a fairly good job of explaining what he’s actually

>> about, and

>> makes no pretense at doing anything else.

>>

>>

>>>>

>>>> Jeez, much as I agree that " Ron " as perceived by many people is

>>>> an illusion, and much as it would be a disaster for Ron to win

>>>> the presidency, that article doesn't do the cause of finding and

>>>> supporting a good candidate -- or the cause of reality, for that

>>>> matter -- any good at all.

>>>>

>>>> -

>>>>

>>>>>> --- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>>>>>>>> http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?

>>>>>>>> itemID=14282 & sectionID=72

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>

> <http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=14282 & amp;

> sectionID=72

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> So, who do you like for president Gene?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Just curious

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > So, who do you like for president Gene?

>

--- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> The inspiration for the question being?

Curiosity. And I'm undecided.

And I'm always interested to hear what you have to say.

It might broaden my horizons, as your article link did.

I also realize that the ideal president

may not be the one most likely to be elected

I fully expect that when we finally vote,

it will come down to choosing the lesser of evils.

[Guest guest]

> The only candidate whose positions that I think are halfway decent is Dennis

> Kucinich, but he has no chance at all.

>

> The lesser of the evils is , but given his working class,

> anti-corporate slant, he isn¹t getting much press coverage.

>

>> >

>>>> >>> So, who do you like for president Gene?

>>> >>

>> > --- Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>>> >> The inspiration for the question being?

>> >

>> > Curiosity. And I'm undecided.

>> >

>> > And I'm always interested to hear what you have to say.

>> > It might broaden my horizons, as your article link did.

>> >

>> > I also realize that the ideal president

>> > may not be the one most likely to be elected

>> >

>> > I fully expect that when we finally vote,

>> > it will come down to choosing the lesser of evils.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

[Guest guest]

>

> > The only candidate whose positions that I think are halfway decent

is Dennis

> > Kucinich, but he has no chance at all.

> >

> > The lesser of the evils is , but given his working class,

> > anti-corporate slant, he isn¹t getting much press coverage.

> >

I am from North Carolina, and I am not unusally impressed with

. Kucinich does have some good ideas, but he's a vegan, and

that's dietarily dumb.

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>>> >>

>>>> >>> The only candidate whose positions that I think are halfway decent

>> > is Dennis

>>>> >>> Kucinich, but he has no chance at all.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> The lesser of the evils is , but given his working class,

>>>> >>> anti-corporate slant, he isn¹t getting much press coverage.

>>>> >>>

>> >

>> > I am from North Carolina, and I am not unusally impressed with

>> > . Kucinich does have some good ideas, but he's a vegan, and

>> > that's dietarily dumb.

>> >

>> >

So, let me get this straight ­ you would actually consider the diet of a

candidate as relevant when voting for/against him/her?

[Guest guest]

>

> So, let me get this straight ­ you would actually consider the diet of a

> candidate as relevant when voting for/against him/her?

>

>

Oh good Lord, Gene, is any discussion between you and me going to

really be productive and/or useful?

I'd actually have to look at Kucinich's thoughts on raw milk before I

could make a decision between him and Ron . I can't make an

assumption based on the current things I know. I highly doubt

Kucinich has anything LIKE the right viewpoint on the subject. Vegans

are excessively emotional people, usually. They're usually acting out

of fear, when it comes to food. That does not bode well for their

policies toward food, but hey, maybe I'm wrong. I've never bothered

to ask.

[Guest guest]

From the standpoint of WAPish dietary principles, Ron seems to be

hand down the best candidate.

Ron favors raw milk and has introduced legislation to overturn

the Reagan/FDA ban on interstate sales of raw milk.

Ron is aware of WAPF and has attended WAPF functions.

Ron is the leading opponent of NAIS, which potentially threatens

to wipe out pasture-based farming.

Ron is for cutting down the power of the FDA, which does our

movement more harm than good.

He isn't for privatizing education, like that article erroneously

stated. He is opposed to federal involvement in education, but all of

his kids went to public school and public higher education.

I like Kucinich on a few issues, but I couldn't get a straight answer

from his campaign about his position on NAIS, and he wants the federal

government to do more to stop mad cow disease, which means he's

probably a supporter. He's vegan, and since he's an advocate of big

government that absolutely DOES matter, because it means he'll have

little sympathy for our way of eating when big government programs

would interfere with it. As a perfect example, he wants to ban all

dietary supplements containing nervous tissue, which throws out any

glandulars such as Dr. Ron's and a number of other such supplements.

I'd like to see an explanation of exactly what type of " disaster "

would ensue with a presidence. Among the immediate and pressing

issues on the political scene, it seems to me there are: the Iraq war,

potential military action in Iran and elsewhere, global warming,

genetic engineering, serious corruption and incursions of civil rights

and degeneration of democracy relating to the war on terror, and so

on. Ron is either on the right side of most of these issues, or

no one is. E.g. global warming and genetic engineering -- these are

potential disasters but there isn't any candidate who would seriously

fix them (at least not a frontrunner, maybe Kucinich).

As much as an anti-capitalist might hate his economics, if he becomes

a frontrunner in the next month or so he'll be the only one free of

corporate entanglements and big money.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> So, let me get this straight ­ you would actually consider the diet of

a

> candidate as relevant when voting for/against him/her?

I would, for a vegan. Because every vegan I know has a political agenda

to turn the world that way.

Connie

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>> >>

>>> >> So, let me get this straight ­ you would actually consider the diet of a

>>> >> candidate as relevant when voting for/against him/her?

>>> >>

>>> >>

>> >

>> > Oh good Lord, Gene, is any discussion between you and me going to

>> > really be productive and/or useful?

>> >

>> > I'd actually have to look at Kucinich's thoughts on raw milk before I

>> > could make a decision between him and Ron . I can't make an

>> > assumption based on the current things I know. I highly doubt

>> > Kucinich has anything LIKE the right viewpoint on the subject. Vegans

>> > are excessively emotional people, usually. They're usually acting out

>> > of fear, when it comes to food. That does not bode well for their

>> > policies toward food, but hey, maybe I'm wrong. I've never bothered

>> > to ask.

>> >

³Oh good Lord² , is this really a 1 issue race? It is my

understanding, btw, that Kucinich is on the right side on the raw milk

debate.

Your assumptions about vegans sound pretty asinine. People make their food

choices based on lots of reasons ­ probably the number one reason is that

they believe the diet to be healthier. If that is emblematic of ³fear² then

I guess that most people who eat as we do are doing it for similar reasons.

Some vegans eat that way for ethical reasons. Personally, I do not find that

reasoning shallow at all...it runs into the roadblock of course that the

diet just isn¹t as good for you - but they believe it is. That they have

not seriously considered some of the arguments and literature that we have

doesn¹t mean that they are fearful, just incorrect.

In any case, if you would vote FOR a candidate based simply on that

candidate¹s views on raw milk, you fit into the Ron for candidate

profile...

[Guest guest]

> Unbelievable..

>

> So, how the candidate eats is more important than his/her views on foreign

> policy, domestic policy, etc?

>> >

>> >

>>> >> So, let me get this straight ­ you would actually consider the diet of

>> > a

>>> >> candidate as relevant when voting for/against him/her?

>> >

>> > I would, for a vegan. Because every vegan I know has a political agenda

>> > to turn the world that way.

>> >

>> > Connie

>> >

[Guest guest]

> Of course, you believe that ending all federal involvement with the civil

> rights of gays/blacks/poor people/immigrants/women ­ everyone ­ will somehow

> magically work to create a magical land where everyone can afford to eat like

> we do.

>

> The fact that some federal government agencies are corrupt, doesn¹t mean that

> society would be better off if the whole system were dismantled. The fact that

> some affirmative action programs have been misapplied doesn¹t mean that the

> society would have been better off without them. The fact that the federal

> government is not very good ( especially now) at protecting the rights of

> other than corporations and the rich, doesn¹t mean that individual states

> would be any better ­ in fact, I¹d imagine that some would become a whole lot

> worse.

>

> to some degree I¹m glad that this list hasn¹t degenerated into the Ron

> simplicity that, for instance, the Mercola site has. I find it pretty ironic

> given all of the morons who post there about ŒRon will save us. He¹s for

> FREEDOM¹, and Mercola¹s brain dead diatribes on the subject, they very

> actively censor anti Ron posts. VERY actively.

>

>

>> > From the standpoint of WAPish dietary principles, Ron seems to be

>> > hand down the best candidate.

>> >

>> > Ron favors raw milk and has introduced legislation to overturn

>> > the Reagan/FDA ban on interstate sales of raw milk.

>> >

>> > Ron is aware of WAPF and has attended WAPF functions.

>> >

>> > Ron is the leading opponent of NAIS, which potentially threatens

>> > to wipe out pasture-based farming.

>> >

>> > Ron is for cutting down the power of the FDA, which does our

>> > movement more harm than good.

>> >

>> > He isn't for privatizing education, like that article erroneously

>> > stated. He is opposed to federal involvement in education, but all of

>> > his kids went to public school and public higher education.

>> >

>> > I like Kucinich on a few issues, but I couldn't get a straight answer

>> > from his campaign about his position on NAIS, and he wants the federal

>> > government to do more to stop mad cow disease, which means he's

>> > probably a supporter. He's vegan, and since he's an advocate of big

>> > government that absolutely DOES matter, because it means he'll have

>> > little sympathy for our way of eating when big government programs

>> > would interfere with it. As a perfect example, he wants to ban all

>> > dietary supplements containing nervous tissue, which throws out any

>> > glandulars such as Dr. Ron's and a number of other such supplements.

>> >

>> > I'd like to see an explanation of exactly what type of " disaster "

>> > would ensue with a presidence. Among the immediate and pressing

>> > issues on the political scene, it seems to me there are: the Iraq war,

>> > potential military action in Iran and elsewhere, global warming,

>> > genetic engineering, serious corruption and incursions of civil rights

>> > and degeneration of democracy relating to the war on terror, and so

>> > on. Ron is either on the right side of most of these issues, or

>> > no one is. E.g. global warming and genetic engineering -- these are

>> > potential disasters but there isn't any candidate who would seriously

>> > fix them (at least not a frontrunner, maybe Kucinich).

>> >

>> > As much as an anti-capitalist might hate his economics, if he becomes

>> > a frontrunner in the next month or so he'll be the only one free of

>> > corporate entanglements and big money.

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

[Guest guest]

> > Unbelievable..

> >

> > So, how the candidate eats is more important than his/her views

on foreign

> > policy, domestic policy, etc?

Oh, you said " would you consider " before. Views on diet more

important than foreign or domestic policy?

Well, I would watch for a vegan's foreign and domestic policy to be

in line with their dietary one.

I'm reminded of the Asian phrase, " rice bowl issues, " for political

issues that are important because it threatens livelihood or life.

What makes politics so wild for me to watch is that people aren't

even always fighting over the same rice bowl. Bush might be fighting

to keep the flow of money to the super rich... vegans fighting to

make sure they can get their food... Big Food Pharm fighting for the

status quo.

Connie

[Guest guest]

On 12/23/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Of course, you believe that ending all federal involvement with the civil

> > rights of gays/blacks/poor people/immigrants/women ­ everyone ­ will

> somehow

> > magically work to create a magical land where everyone can afford to eat

> like

> > we do.

I think Ron 's stance on the Federal Reserve would be economically

beneficial to lower class people. But, I wasn't saying that he would

increase the number of people who could afford good food. He would,

however, oppose the government programs that threaten to wipe out good

food entirely, like NAIS.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > On 12/23/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

>> > <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote:

>>>> >>> Of course, you believe that ending all federal involvement with the

>>>> civil

>>>> >>> rights of gays/blacks/poor people/immigrants/women ­ everyone ­ will

>>> >> somehow

>>>> >>> magically work to create a magical land where everyone can afford to

eat

>>> >> like

>>>> >>> we do.

>> >

>> > I think Ron 's stance on the Federal Reserve would be economically

>> > beneficial to lower class people. But, I wasn't saying that he would

>> > increase the number of people who could afford good food. He would,

>> > however, oppose the government programs that threaten to wipe out good

>> > food entirely, like NAIS.

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

I never said that Ron wouldn¹t oppose these government programs (or

implied it).

However, he would also oppose, I take it, any federal mandates for instance,

that corporations provide complete information in labeling, the way that

products are advertised, etc, etc ­ making it easier for people like you to

get your raw milk, but making it easier for Mcs to dupe less

knowledgeable people into eating their poison, or cigarette companies to

convince people that smoking Camels will bring them closer to nature.

[Guest guest]

On 12/23/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> However, he would also oppose, I take it, any federal mandates for instance,

> that corporations provide complete information in labeling, the way that

> products are advertised, etc, etc ­ making it easier for people like you to

> get your raw milk, but making it easier for Mcs to dupe less

> knowledgeable people into eating their poison, or cigarette companies to

> convince people that smoking Camels will bring them closer to nature.

Personally I'd support any mandotory labeling of ingredients and also

mandatory labeling of GE foods. I'm not sure what Ron 's stance

is on this -- do you have any reference? I think your representation

of his position is plausible but I haven't seen him address this issue

one way or another.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > On 12/23/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

>> > <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote:

>> >

>>> >> However, he would also oppose, I take it, any federal mandates for

>>> instance,

>>> >> that corporations provide complete information in labeling, the way that

>>> >> products are advertised, etc, etc ­ making it easier for people like you

to

>>> >> get your raw milk, but making it easier for Mcs to dupe less

>>> >> knowledgeable people into eating their poison, or cigarette companies to

>>> >> convince people that smoking Camels will bring them closer to nature.

>> >

>> > Personally I'd support any mandotory labeling of ingredients and also

>> > mandatory labeling of GE foods. I'm not sure what Ron 's stance

>> > is on this -- do you have any reference? I think your representation

>> > of his position is plausible but I haven't seen him address this issue

>> > one way or another.

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

No ­ but it seems to follow...I¹d be surprised if otherwise.

[Guest guest]

not to worry, the establishment has everything weill under control.

Big Brother,

[Guest guest]

--- In , " cbrown2008 " <cbrown2008@...>

wrote:

>

> > So, let me get this straight ­ you would actually consider the

diet of

> a

> > candidate as relevant when voting for/against him/her?

>

> I would, for a vegan. Because every vegan I know has a political agenda

> to turn the world that way.

>

> Connie

>

I'm probably just being a pot calling a kettle black, but, for what

it's worth, I totally agree with Connie.

The problem being, if someone who eats like me became president,

everybody would end up with better health, all other things being

equal. The reverse is true with vegans, again, all other things being

equal. Does that not make sense? Mmm. Yes it do. LOL

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>> >>

>>>> >>> So, let me get this straight ­ you would actually consider the

>> > diet of

>>> >> a

>>>> >>> candidate as relevant when voting for/against him/her?

>>> >>

>>> >> I would, for a vegan. Because every vegan I know has a political agenda

>>> >> to turn the world that way.

>>> >>

>>> >> Connie

>>> >>

>> >

>> > I'm probably just being a pot calling a kettle black, but, for what

>> > it's worth, I totally agree with Connie.

>> >

>> > The problem being, if someone who eats like me became president,

>> > everybody would end up with better health, all other things being

>> > equal. The reverse is true with vegans, again, all other things being

>> > equal. Does that not make sense? Mmm. Yes it do. LOL

>

> All things are never equal...and if they were, then it wouldn¹t really matter.

> If all the candidates were equal, then who could care less who you choose? But

> all things aren¹t equal, so that¹s not what we¹re talking about.

>

> So, no ­ it doesn¹t make sense.

>> >

[Guest guest]

> >

> > All things are never equal...and if they were, then it wouldn¹t

really matter.

> > If all the candidates were equal, then who could care less who you

choose? But

> > all things aren¹t equal, so that¹s not what we¹re talking about.

> >

> > So, no ­ it doesn¹t make sense.

> >> >

You know how stupid that sounded, I'm sure. Your argument is

currently seeking a leg to stand on.

[Guest guest]

>

>> >

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> All things are never equal...and if they were, then it wouldn¹t

>> > really matter.

>>>> >>> If all the candidates were equal, then who could care less who you

>> > choose? But

>>>> >>> all things aren¹t equal, so that¹s not what we¹re talking about.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> So, no ­ it doesn¹t make sense.

>>>>>> >>>>>

>> >

>> > You know how stupid that sounded, I'm sure. Your argument is

>> > currently seeking a leg to stand on.

>

>

> Not stupid at all. You just don¹t understand the point.