Guest guest Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 > > > > > > Not stupid at all. You just don¹t understand the point. > > I do, Gene, and it's weak as water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Not stupid at all. You just don¹t understand the point. >>> >> >>> >> >> > >> > I do, Gene, and it's weak as water. >> > Ok, you¹ve convinced me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 Gene, exactly what *was* your point? Tell us. Please. We're waiting with baited breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 " bated " , not " baited " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2007 Report Share Posted December 24, 2007 > It¹s really getting bad, if you refer to yourself in the plural. > > >> > >> > Gene, exactly what *was* your point? Tell us. Please. We're waiting >> > with baited breath. >> > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 Eat some meat... **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 > > > It¹s really getting bad, if you refer to yourself in the plural. > > > > > >> > So essentially, there's no point to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 >> > >> > >>> >> >>>> >>> It¹s really getting bad, if you refer to yourself in the plural. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> > >> > So essentially, there's no point to hear. >> > >> > > You said that you understood the point, and now you demand to know what it is? It is both stupid AND you don¹t understand it? Generally, when someone is simply acting out of hostility (in other words will attack or ridicule regardless of what is said) I see no reason to play into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 - > You know how stupid that sounded, I'm sure. Your argument is > currently seeking a leg to stand o Sorry, but characterizing anyone's post as " stupid " is against list rules. I understand that politics is by nature a heated (and heating!) subject, but everyone should remember to maintain a certain minimum of courtesy. Sincerely, Idol List Owner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 What the heck? I criticize veganism and get moderated? that's hilarious. Gene, you won. Are you happy? You're now a champion of veganism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 Gene- > So, let me get this straight – you would actually consider the diet > of a > candidate as relevant when voting for/against him/her? Inasmuch as the availability of nutritious food -- and agricultural, nutritional and medical principals in general -- are extremely important, I don't see why examining a candidate's attitudes towards them and making inferences based on his or her diet are unreasonable at all. Furthermore, veganism is in large part a political movement; I've met precious few vegans who aren't convinced that veganism is best for the planet and that everyone should be vegan. A president with such views would be disastrous in many ways, which is why I can't support Kucinich despite liking his positions on a number of other issues. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 Gene- > 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 isn’t as good for you - but they believe it is. That they > have > not seriously considered some of the arguments and literature that > we have > doesn’t mean that they are fearful, just incorrect. What really distinguishes between shallow and deep reasoning, though? Isn't the simplistic assumption that veganism is best for the environment and best for one's health shallow, inasmuch as it can't be based on any deep consideration of the facts? Don't take that as a criticism of vegans' intelligence or motivations, though, because it's hard work digging up all the genuinely relevant and accurate information on the subject and picking one's way through the morass of misinformation constantly deluging everyone, and there are simply far too many important and complicated issues in the world for any one person to reason deeply on more than a few of them. My grandfather was one of the smartest people I've ever met, but despite his extremely formidable intelligence, he believed in the so-called commonsensical idea that eating fat makes you fat and that eating meat was a bad idea all around -- and his abysmal diet dramatically altered his personality for the worse and ultimately contributed mightily to his death. > In any case, if you would vote FOR a candidate based simply on that > candidate’s views on raw milk, you fit into the Ron for candidate > profile... In any social ecology, it seems to me it's not merely inevitable but actually desirable that different people have different top priorities. If everyone shared the same single or limited top priorities, most problems, including many important ones, would go unaddressed. Of course, the unfortunate side effect of this ecological phenomenon is that many people have wasteful and even truly deranged top priorities, but there's no easy way around that problem. Also, while Ron 's politics may be execrable in a number of ways, the fact is he stands virtually no chance of winning the nomination*, so the real question is what effect he's having on the debate -- and considered in that light, I think his candidacy is on balance a significantly positive phenomenon. He's pushing issues of civil liberties into the pubic sphere that not even Democrats like are raising, whether because they don't care or because they fear (probably correctly) that raising them at all at this point in the process would be the best and fastest way to torpedo their candidacies. I don't think, though, that Ron is meaningfully expanding the normal constituency for essentially abolishing the federal government or doing any of the other far-right wingnut things he'd like to do if elected president; he's just giving voice to a large contingent of the anti-war movement. - *An awful lot of Republicans are dead-set against voting for Ron , but given the weak field he's facing, I guess it's not truly, completely, 150% impossible for him to win the nomination. Romney's a Mormon and his tendency to lie like a rug seems to be catching up to him. Giuliani's fundamentally corrupt and self-destructive nature at last seems to be demolishing his candidacy now that the taxpayer- funded-adultery scandal has broken. Huckabee's a fundie and an ignoramus and has some serious death row pardon scandals waiting in the wings, so while I'm sure the W-is-god segment of the population will stick with him no matter what, I have a hard time imagining him winning the nomination, though I admit there's a chance this could be wishful thinking on my part. And McCain seems to have worn out his welcome by willfully destroying his image as the maverick truthteller, and on top of that he's resolutely pro-war. That said, in the absence of other, better candidates, he could win by default... as, I suppose, could Huckabee. But neither, I think, would pose much of a threat in the general election, except possibly in a McCain-Clinton matchup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 Chris- > 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. I think it's safe to assume in the absence of contrary evidence that when a candidate is resolutely against government regulation of any kind, he's going to be against labeling laws. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 > Gene- > >> So, let me get this straight – you would actually consider the diet >> of a >> candidate as relevant when voting for/against him/her? > > Inasmuch as the availability of nutritious food -- and agricultural, > nutritional and medical principals in general -- are extremely > important, I don't see why examining a candidate's attitudes towards > them and making inferences based on his or her diet are unreasonable > at all. Nor do I. But we must differentiate between someone's personal habits and their attitudes towards the freedom of others to pursue different paths for themselves. The fact that Dennis Kucinich may be a vegan says nothing about his views on your right to pursue your own diet. What policies has the candidate actually pursued? What policies is he proposing? These are relevant. The fact that I follow an NN diet doesn't mean that I think that others should be coerced to do so, and neither does his diet imply that he believes others should be coerced to do so. > Furthermore, veganism is in large part a political movement; > I've met precious few vegans who aren't convinced that veganism is > best for the planet and that everyone should be vegan. So, is Dennis Kucinich going to ban meat eating? Has he ever pursued any legislation that you know of that would suggest that? If not, wouldn't it be logical that he might be in favor of sustainable farming and humane treatment of animals. I see nothing but prejudice on your part here, and again, I'd say - no, it isn't valid. If a candidates views and history were attractive to me I'd vote for him, despite, say, his being a Christian - even though Christianity tends to be employed as a political movement these days. > A president > with such views would be disastrous in many ways, which is why I can't > support Kucinich despite liking his positions on a number of other > issues. > So, you simply can't support Kucinich because he is a vegan, without ANY supporting evidence that his views on nutrition related legislation are better or worse than the next guy? He does support the right to raw milk, btw. > - > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 >> > >> > >> > What the heck? I criticize veganism and get moderated? that's >> > hilarious. Gene, you won. Are you happy? You're now a champion of >> > veganism. >> > This is absolutely without foundation, and you know so. A ³champion of veganism²? That¹s pretty hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 > Gene- > >> 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 isn’t as good for you - but they believe it is. That they >> have >> not seriously considered some of the arguments and literature that >> we have >> doesn’t mean that they are fearful, just incorrect. > > What really distinguishes between shallow and deep reasoning, though? > Isn't the simplistic assumption that veganism is best for the > environment and best for one's health shallow, inasmuch as it can't be > based on any deep consideration of the facts? I actually wasn't referring to that per se. I think that the avoidance of animal products can and is often based on the notion that we, as beings who can make ethical decisions, can choose not to kill animals for food. This isn't by any means meant to be a debate on the subject, but I DO respect those who have become vegetarians, or strong vegetarians based on this line of reasoning. Of course, like any other position, OURS included, many adherents take it for shallow reasons. The fact that it might be correct, or incorrect, on some or all levels, says nothing about whether the reasoning is deep or shallow, sound or not. As for what distinguishes deep from shallow reasoning? Are we really going there? > > Don't take that as a criticism of vegans' intelligence or motivations, > though, because it's hard work digging up all the genuinely relevant > and accurate information on the subject and picking one's way through > the morass of misinformation constantly deluging everyone, and there > are simply far too many important and complicated issues in the world > for any one person to reason deeply on more than a few of them. My > grandfather was one of the smartest people I've ever met, but despite > his extremely formidable intelligence, he believed in the so-called > commonsensical idea that eating fat makes you fat and that eating meat > was a bad idea all around -- and his abysmal diet dramatically altered > his personality for the worse and ultimately contributed mightily to > his death. > >> In any case, if you would vote FOR a candidate based simply on that >> candidate’s views on raw milk, you fit into the Ron for candidate >> profile... > > In any social ecology, it seems to me it's not merely inevitable but > actually desirable that different people have different top > priorities. If everyone shared the same single or limited top > priorities, most problems, including many important ones, would go > unaddressed. Of course, the unfortunate side effect of this > ecological phenomenon is that many people have wasteful and even truly > deranged top priorities, but there's no easy way around that problem. > > Also, while Ron 's politics may be execrable in a number of ways, > the fact is he stands virtually no chance of winning the nomination*, > so the real question is what effect he's having on the debate -- and > considered in that light, I think his candidacy is on balance a > significantly positive phenomenon. He's pushing issues of civil > liberties into the pubic sphere that not even Democrats like > are raising, whether because they don't care or because they > fear (probably correctly) that raising them at all at this point in > the process would be the best and fastest way to torpedo their > candidacies. I don't think, though, that Ron is meaningfully > expanding the normal constituency for essentially abolishing the > federal government or doing any of the other far-right wingnut things > he'd like to do if elected president; he's just giving voice to a > large contingent of the anti-war movement. I would never suggest that Ron 's presence in the race has NO positive effect. Most extremist candidates have some positive effect if they are getting press coverage, to the extent that certain ideas get coverage in the media, when generally they would not. That does not mean that he isn't essentially an extremist right wing candidate, who is being supported by lots of people because of his positions on 1 or 2 issues, without any insight really as to where he stands on other issues, and what would actually happen if he got elected. Have you read any of the gibberish posted in the Mercola forums? > > - > > *An awful lot of Republicans are dead-set against voting for Ron , > but given the weak field he's facing, I guess it's not truly, > completely, 150% impossible for him to win the nomination. Romney's a > Mormon and his tendency to lie like a rug seems to be catching up to > him. Giuliani's fundamentally corrupt and self-destructive nature at > last seems to be demolishing his candidacy now that the taxpayer- > funded-adultery scandal has broken. Huckabee's a fundie and an > ignoramus and has some serious death row pardon scandals waiting in > the wings, so while I'm sure the W-is-god segment of the population > will stick with him no matter what, I have a hard time imagining him > winning the nomination, though I admit there's a chance this could be > wishful thinking on my part. And McCain seems to have worn out his > welcome by willfully destroying his image as the maverick truthteller, > and on top of that he's resolutely pro-war. That said, in the absence > of other, better candidates, he could win by default... as, I suppose, > could Huckabee. But neither, I think, would pose much of a threat in > the general election, except possibly in a McCain-Clinton matchup. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 On 12/25/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > I think it's safe to assume in the absence of contrary evidence that > when a candidate is resolutely against government regulation of any > kind, he's going to be against labeling laws. He isn't against government regulation of any kind; he's against unconstitutional government regulation. I'm not familar with the mandatory labeling regulations so it may well be somewhere at the bottom of his hitlist of unconconstitutional bureacracy, but no one has yet made any argument (as minimal as the requirements would be) analyzing this point. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 On Dec 22, 2007 7:37 PM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote: > > ³Congressman and presidential hopeful Ron has always opposed the Iraq > > war, and that's really, really great. I'm happy for him. This is no small thing. Tens of thousands of innocent people, both the troops who should have not been there and Iraqi citizens who were there, are dead. Forever gone from this planet by a human action that did not have to occur. Many more are maimed. I am amazed at people who get all bent out of whack over natural disasters, even to the point of wondering about the justice of God, who hardly blink at this kind of human action, unless it is perpetrated by the **other** political party. Iraq, a country that did not in any way pose a credible threat to American interests has been occupied and decimated. And now the saber rattling is being unleashed on Iran. If we keep this up one day we may not have a domestic policy to worry about, being busy defending ourselves from continuing terrorist attacks, which of course has led to something beyond the welfare/warfare state that we get with the Democrats and the Republicans respectively, that is the surveillance/security state - i.e. a softcore corporatist/fascist police state - which is, IMO, the greatest threat to us all at the moment. I mean give me a break - the suspending of habeus corpus and real privacy, torture of " prisoners, " the asinine all encompassing liberty depriving drug war, and a police state/legal system that is out of control - what else has to happen before folks realize their own private agendas won't mean much in a world gone crazy. In other words, police state domestic policy is being fueled by nation building foreign policy. That connection most of all needs to be broken, and there isn't one candidate, save Ron , who is openly and unashamedly talking about breaking it or even particularly opposed to any of the specific issues mentioned above except maybe Kucinich (and after his performance in 2004 within his own party regarding the war I'm not so sure). Ron is _in principle_ opposed to **any** war that is not defensive in nature. He is also adamantly opposed to the surveillance/security state. This is not some johnny come lately stick my finger in the air lets see which way the wind is blowing position he has taken, but rather reflective of his entire career long voting record. There is no other politician in Congress that even comes close. All the rest are political opportunists who only seem to oppose war when it is the other party supporting it. And unfortunately in the case of the Iraq war even that wasn't true - the hawks filled both sides of the aisles. Further, there is no right-wing Christian conservative that even comes close despite the author's attempts to lump him in that category. And there apparently are smart people who disagree with Ron on a number of issues who are not willing to sacrifice the lives of human beings and their own domestic freedom in a security state in order to advance their particular political agenda. Unfortunately the author is not one of those folks. For the rationale of people who disagree with Ron on significant issues yet have publically stated why they are voting for him see below: An Open Letter To Democrats http://www.lewrockwell.com/nicholas/nicholas43.html A Open Letter to Pagans: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/quick1.html An Open Letter to the Antiwar Left - excerpt below http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/volatile1.html " You may not like the gift wrapping but the contents are what you wrote on your wish list: End the War, Bring the Troops Home Now, No War For Oil, or for Israel, Do Not Attack Iran, Restore The Constitution and The Rule of Law, No to The Patriot, Homeland Security, Military Commissions Acts and No to The Homegrown Terrorism Act, No To Torture, Rendition and Illegal Military Prisons and there's even some extras that most of us wouldn't mind seeing like putting an end to the Illegal Federal Reserve and doing away with the illegal personal income tax on wages. " That all of these goodies happen to be the essence of Congressman Ron 's, Republican Presidential candidate from Texas, campaign platform is surely a shock to any leftist's/progressive's system. " " Perhaps the wrapping paper isn't right, perhaps there are some extra things in the box that don't fit your political criteria but hey, it's the thought that counts, isn't it? " " We have so much in common but many on the left ridicule Ron and his supporters. They are so stuck in their positions, they do not see the monumental things we have in common. " An Open letter to Republicans http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/ter-grigoryan1.html An Open Letter to Principled Anarchists http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory153.html > The right wing > > ideologue actually gets the war, the CIA's practice of so-called > extraordinary > > rendition and Guantanamo right but the balance of what he gets wrong is > > glaring and is almost as frightening as the amount of friends and > colleagues I > > respect that have signed on as Ron supporters. People seem to like > that > > he appears to be an unusual Republican candidate, People seem to like that he is for freedom, which is unusual for any candidate, not just Republicans. But it is not freedom in the abstract that he supports. That would mean nothing since every candidate would say they support freedom. It is like saying one is for fairness, love, and justice. Well everyone would say that, it is not until those terms are defined that we know what we are really dealing with. They also seem to understand, something which appears to escape the author's notice, that being for genuine freedom at the federal level means they have a better shot at getting their particular ideological agenda in place, be it abortion rights, socialized health care, gov't sanctioned gay marriages, etc. at the **local** levels. And these folks, from what I have read, are not at all unaware that Ron disagrees with them on these issues. But since the good doctor is not interested in forcing people by **gov't edict** to behave the way he thinks they ought to (as good a definition of political freedom as any I can think of), they rightfully recognize the opportunity his candidacy present, as do many overseas observers. > but right below the > surface > > of the libertarian mask that wears is an ultra nationalist, I wonder how the author is defining ultra-nationalist? She is probably confusing non-intervention with isolation. > gun > loving > > Christian conservative that opposes affirmative action, a woman's right to > > choose and same-sex marriage. The author is being redundant. Libertarians are at odds over a few issues like minarchy versus anarchy, immigration, abortion, and even whether someone who calls himself a libertarian should run for and seek the raw political power of the office of POTUS, but being a libertarian means he doesn't believe the roll of the federal gov't is to abridge the right to carry arms, to mandate how business ought to go about hiring people, nor determine pro-life or pro-death policies for women, nor have the gov't sanction who should or should not marry. As a whole libertarians show far more consistency on the issues than either political party. So his personal beliefs on these issues are bounded by his overriding political philosophy, to live and let live, even if he disagrees on how one chooses to live. Besides, in the case of quotas and preferences, i.e. affirmative action, i.e gov't meddling in the right to free association and private property rights, has been irrefutably demonstrated to be a complete disaster, no matter where in the world it has been implemented: The Grand Fraud: Affirmative Action for Blacks http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2637 Affirmative Action Around The World http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/releases/2826321.html Gay marriage activists who really want to secure freedom regarding marriage would be better served advocating the removal of gov't from the issue of marriage by privatizing it: http://tinyurl.com/3y2kw3 " I've talked to many conservatives who are completely against state-sanctioned gay marriages, but who agree that ideally the government should get out of the matter entirely. I've talked to many liberals who are completely for state-sanctioned gay marriages, but who also agree with the libertarian approach as the best. In a free society, all these people would have little to fear from each other. They could consider themselves married or consider others not married, and not worry what other people thought. " And as Dr. demonstrated on The View: http://tinyurl.com/yprugz , most pro abortion women are not radically so, and he thinks the issue should be left to the states. > AndŠ oh yeah: he hates immigrants.² etc I wonder how? Is removing the incentives for easy immigration for some a form of hate? Many libertarians, even those who are pro open borders (which Dr. was when he ran in 1988), have acknowledged that the existence of the current welfare state makes their position problematic. -- " The state is the most destructive institution human beings have ever devised – a fire that, at best, can be controlled for only a short time before it o'er leaps its improvised confinements and spreads its flames far and wide. " Higgs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 On Dec 22, 2007 8:09 PM, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > 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. > > - Exactly what is illusory about Ron ? Is this some self-imposed condition people put upon themselves? Every time I see him in the media they certainly don't create any " illusions " about him. Ron on Meet The Press -- " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " Max Planck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 On Dec 23, 2007 8:37 AM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote: > > The only candidate whose positions that I think are halfway decent is > Dennis > > Kucinich, but he has no chance at all. So what will you do if there is a /Kucinich ticket? Surely you are aware there is a lot of buzz about that going around. > > The lesser of the evils is , but given his working class, > > anti-corporate slant, he isn¹t getting much press coverage. Interesting. , a multi-millionaire litigation lawyer who is somehow for the working class. What about Dr. , who delivered over 4000 babies, many of them for free, and who very much opposes the corporatist state (including that nasty behemoth known as agri-biz)? Does that make him for the working class and anti-corporation? -- " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " Max Planck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 On Dec 23, 2007 11:27 AM, 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. Eat like we do? Probably not. That may or may not be from a lack of economic resources. Economically speaking, yes they would be better off. Although as individual groups black people, women, and gays are not economically in bad shape. " Poor people " and immigrants will depend on who you are looking at and how you are defining poverty. > > The fact that some federal government agencies are corrupt, doesn¹t mean > that > > society would be better off if the whole system were dismantled. As far as I know, Dr. is not an anarchist. He is a constitutionalist, and the debate is whether constitutionalism is better than your " progressivism. " > The fact > that > > some affirmative action programs have been misapplied doesn¹t mean that > the > > society would have been better off without them. Are you actually defending preferences and quotas? > 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. And it just as easy to imagine some would be a whole lot better. The difference would be that there would be competition - i.e. anarchy - among the states (just as there currently is among the nations), and if someone didn't like what was happening in California, they could vote with their feet and move to Oregon or New Jersey or whathaveyou. Not to mention it strikes me as blatantly obvious that instituting change at the local or state level would be much more doable than attempting to institute change at the national level. > > 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. Well I think you know that is not much interested in censoring anything, so I don't see the point of referencing Mercola. What would be interesting to me is to see a point by point interaction from you and with the comments makes below, since you are both anti-Ron . > >> > 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 > >> > -- " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " Max Planck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 On Dec 23, 2007 11:58 AM, 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. I'm curious Gene, why do you think these kind of issues can only be handled by the federal gov't or even gov't at all? He certainly in the past has supported the abolishing of the FDA and the FTC. Whether he would do so now I do not know. Even if that is still his position, I doubt it would be high on his agenda. -- " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " Max Planck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 On Dec 24, 2007 8:14 PM, michael grogan <tropical@...> wrote: > Gene, exactly what *was* your point? Tell us. Please. We're waiting > with baited breath. Bruce, is that you? -- " A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. " Max Planck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 > On Dec 22, 2007 7:37 PM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote: > >>> ³Congressman and presidential hopeful Ron has always opposed the Iraq >>> war, and that's really, really great. I'm happy for him. > > This is no small thing. Tens of thousands of innocent people, both the > troops who should have not been there and Iraqi citizens who were > there, are dead. Forever gone from this planet by a human action that > did not have to occur. Many more are maimed. I am amazed at people who > get all bent out of whack over natural disasters, even to the point of > wondering about the justice of God, who hardly blink at this kind of > human action, unless it is perpetrated by the **other** political > party. Actually, the most scientifically conducted death counts now place the total at over a million. The most oft quoted figures come from Iraq Body Count, which uses media reports. The others, whose names I forget use what I understand is taken to be a more accurate count, by surveying the number of deaths in a sample group, compared to what would be expected otherwise. Yes - you're right. This is no small issue, and I don't mean to minimize it. > > Iraq, a country that did not in any way pose a credible threat to > American interests has been occupied and decimated. And now the saber > rattling is being unleashed on Iran. If we keep this up one day we may > not have a domestic policy to worry about, being busy defending > ourselves from continuing terrorist attacks, which of course has led > to something beyond the welfare/warfare state that we get with the > Democrats and the Republicans respectively, that is the > surveillance/security state - i.e. a softcore corporatist/fascist > police state - which is, IMO, the greatest threat to us all at the > moment. > > I mean give me a break - the suspending of habeus corpus and real > privacy, torture of " prisoners, " the asinine all encompassing liberty > depriving drug war, and a police state/legal system that is out of > control - what else has to happen before folks realize their own > private agendas won't mean much in a world gone crazy. In other words, > police state domestic policy is being fueled by nation building > foreign policy. That connection most of all needs to be broken, and > there isn't one candidate, save Ron , who is openly and > unashamedly talking about breaking it or even particularly opposed to > any of the specific issues mentioned above except maybe Kucinich (and > after his performance in 2004 within his own party regarding the war > I'm not so sure). Please - what are you referring to as regards Kucinich? As far as I know he is pretty 'pure' on the subject. The problem with Ron is that his notion of freedom isn't nuanced to protect people from the rampant freedoms of others - the powerful and corporations, he is against a woman's right to have an abortion (well, he would allows states to choose - yippee!), against most of the protections that we still have. > > Ron is _in principle_ opposed to **any** war that is not > defensive in nature. He is also adamantly opposed to the > surveillance/security state. This is not some johnny come lately stick > my finger in the air lets see which way the wind is blowing position > he has taken, but rather reflective of his entire career long voting > record. There is no other politician in Congress that even comes > close. All the rest are political opportunists who only seem to oppose > war when it is the other party supporting it. And unfortunately in the > case of the Iraq war even that wasn't true - the hawks filled both > sides of the aisles. Yes - that's true, and pathetic. However, Kucinich isn't one, and he is a much better candidate than Ron , whom I wouldn't vote for in a million years. I find it incredibly scary that people like this man. Incredibly scary. > > Further, there is no right-wing Christian conservative that even comes > close despite the author's attempts to lump him in that category. And > there apparently are smart people who disagree with Ron on a > number of issues who are not willing to sacrifice the lives of human > beings and their own domestic freedom in a security state in order to > advance their particular political agenda. Unfortunately the author is > not one of those folks. Excuse me? People who see Ron for what he is are simply advancing their " particular political agenda " ? How does that differentiate them from others who support him exactly? I don’t personally know any well informed politically progressive person who even considers Ron , nor have I read anything remotely well reasoned (expect perhaps with very different presuppositions about the way society should work) that supports him. That doesn't mean that his stance on the war isn't good - but unfortunately, I won't support him because I don't believe in dismantling all forms of federal protection for poor people and others, and don't believe that because that some of these programs are ineptly run, or corrupt is a reason to just do away with them. Ron has no chance of winning. Neither does Kucinich. One can choose in the regular election whether to vote against the horror of the current Republican right, or vote for a lesser evil....I despise Clinton and Obama, slightly less so . But given what has happened the last 8 years, I'll probably hold my nose and the rest of my orifices and vote democrat. > > For the rationale of people who disagree with Ron on significant > issues yet have publically stated why they are voting for him see > below: > > An Open Letter To Democrats > http://www.lewrockwell.com/nicholas/nicholas43.html > > A Open Letter to Pagans: > http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/quick1.html > > An Open Letter to the Antiwar Left - excerpt below > http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/volatile1.html > > " You may not like the gift wrapping but the contents are what you > wrote on your wish list: End the War, Bring the Troops Home Now, No > War For Oil, or for Israel, Do Not Attack Iran, Restore The > Constitution and The Rule of Law, No to The Patriot, Homeland > Security, Military Commissions Acts and No to The Homegrown Terrorism > Act, No To Torture, Rendition and Illegal Military Prisons and there's > even some extras that most of us wouldn't mind seeing like putting an > end to the Illegal Federal Reserve and doing away with the illegal > personal income tax on wages. > > " That all of these goodies happen to be the essence of Congressman Ron > 's, Republican Presidential candidate from Texas, campaign > platform is surely a shock to any leftist's/progressive's system. " > > " Perhaps the wrapping paper isn't right, perhaps there are some extra > things in the box that don't fit your political criteria but hey, it's > the thought that counts, isn't it? " > > " We have so much in common but many on the left ridicule Ron and > his supporters. They are so stuck in their positions, they do not see > the monumental things we have in common. " > > > > An Open letter to Republicans > http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/ter-grigoryan1.html > > An Open Letter to Principled Anarchists > http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory153.html > >> The right wing >>> ideologue actually gets the war, the CIA's practice of so-called >> extraordinary >>> rendition and Guantanamo right – but the balance of what he gets wrong is >>> glaring and is almost as frightening as the amount of friends and >> colleagues I >>> respect that have signed on as Ron supporters. People seem to like >> that >>> he appears to be an unusual Republican candidate, > > People seem to like that he is for freedom, which is unusual for any > candidate, not just Republicans. But it is not freedom in the abstract > that he supports. That would mean nothing since every candidate would > say they support freedom. It is like saying one is for fairness, love, > and justice. Well everyone would say that, it is not until those terms > are defined that we know what we are really dealing with. > > They also seem to understand, something which appears to escape the > author's notice, that being for genuine freedom at the federal level > means they have a better shot at getting their particular ideological > agenda in place, be it abortion rights, socialized health care, gov't > sanctioned gay marriages, etc. at the **local** levels. And these > folks, from what I have read, are not at all unaware that Ron > disagrees with them on these issues. But since the good doctor is not > interested in forcing people by **gov't edict** to behave the way he > thinks they ought to (as good a definition of political freedom as any > I can think of), they rightfully recognize the opportunity his > candidacy present, as do many overseas observers. > >> but right below the >> surface >>> of the libertarian mask that wears is an ultra nationalist, > > I wonder how the author is defining ultra-nationalist? She is probably > confusing non-intervention with isolation. > >> gun >> loving >>> Christian conservative that opposes affirmative action, a woman's right to >>> choose and same-sex marriage. > > The author is being redundant. Libertarians are at odds over a few > issues like minarchy versus anarchy, immigration, abortion, and even > whether someone who calls himself a libertarian should run for and > seek the raw political power of the office of POTUS, but being a > libertarian means he doesn't believe the roll of the federal gov't is > to abridge the right to carry arms, to mandate how business ought to > go about hiring people, nor determine pro-life or pro-death policies > for women, nor have the gov't sanction who should or should not marry. > As a whole libertarians show far more consistency on the issues than > either political party. So his personal beliefs on these issues are > bounded by his overriding political philosophy, to live and let live, > even if he disagrees on how one chooses to live. > > Besides, in the case of quotas and preferences, i.e. affirmative > action, i.e gov't meddling in the right to free association and > private property rights, has been irrefutably demonstrated to be a > complete disaster, no matter where in the world it has been > implemented: > > The Grand Fraud: Affirmative Action for Blacks > http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2637 > > Affirmative Action Around The World > http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/releases/2826321.html > > Gay marriage activists who really want to secure freedom regarding > marriage would be better served advocating the removal of gov't from > the issue of marriage by privatizing it: > > http://tinyurl.com/3y2kw3 > > " I've talked to many conservatives who are completely against > state-sanctioned gay marriages, but who agree that ideally the > government should get out of the matter entirely. I've talked to many > liberals who are completely for state-sanctioned gay marriages, but > who also agree with the libertarian approach as the best. In a free > society, all these people would have little to fear from each other. > They could consider themselves married or consider others not married, > and not worry what other people thought. " > > And as Dr. demonstrated on The View: http://tinyurl.com/yprugz , > most pro abortion women are not radically so, and he thinks the issue > should be left to the states. > >> AndŠoh yeah: he hates immigrants.² etc > > I wonder how? Is removing the incentives for easy immigration for some > a form of hate? Many libertarians, even those who are pro open borders > (which Dr. was when he ran in 1988), have acknowledged that the > existence of the current welfare state makes their position > problematic. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2007 Report Share Posted December 25, 2007 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Dec 23, 2007 8:37 AM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@... >> > <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote: >> > >>>> >>> The only candidate whose positions that I think are halfway decent is >>> >> Dennis >>>> >>> Kucinich, but he has no chance at all. >> > >> > So what will you do if there is a /Kucinich ticket? Surely you are >> > aware there is a lot of buzz about that going around. > > Buzz? And how will this ticket come to be usually there isn¹t a Œticket¹ > until a nomination is won, and neither will win. Given their diametrically > opposed outlooks I really don¹t think that this would happen. Ask me when you > have more than Œbuzz¹. >> > >>>> >>> The lesser of the evils is , but given his working class, >>>> >>> anti-corporate slant, he isn¹t getting much press coverage. >> > >> > Interesting. , a multi-millionaire litigation lawyer who >> > is somehow for the working class. > > I don¹t much like . You did note that I mentioned him as an evil, > did you not? I don¹t view it as impossible that he¹d be for the working class, > but at least he¹s broaching the subject, while the other candidates are not. > It¹s the message, not the ultimate sincerity of the candidate, I think, that¹s > generating the lack of media coverage. > >> >What about Dr. , who delivered >> > over 4000 babies, many of them for free, > > Yowza Why I bet he¹s delivered more babies than any leader of a major > country ever has. He¹s my guy! > >> > and who very much opposes the >> > corporatist state (including that nasty behemoth known as agri-biz)? >> > Does that make him for the working class and anti-corporation? > > Unfortunately, if he is against federal protections preventing the abuses of > corporations, yes. >> > >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.