Re: POLITICS ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR

[Guest guest]

> >

> >

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

>

>

I do, Gene, and it's weak as water.

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>>

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

>>> >>

>>> >>

>> >

>> > I do, Gene, and it's weak as water.

>> >

Ok, you¹ve convinced me.

[Guest guest]

Gene, exactly what *was* your point? Tell us. Please. We're waiting

with baited breath.

[Guest guest]

" bated " , not " baited "

[Guest guest]

> 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.

>> >

[Guest guest]

Eat some meat...

**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes

(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

[Guest guest]

>

> > It¹s really getting bad, if you refer to yourself in the plural.

> >

> >

> >> >

So essentially, there's no point to hear.

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>>> >>

>>>> >>> 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.

[Guest guest]

-

> 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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

> 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.

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> > 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.

[Guest guest]

> 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.

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> 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.

>

>> 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.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > 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.

>> >

>> >

>