Re: POLITICS ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR

[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.

? Well, obviously some poor people are very well off depending on how you

define poverty.

Yeah - I think that there should be federal protections for poor people, and

other protections for those who are discriminated against. If you really

think that women, blacks, and gays, are NOT discriminated against, well

perhaps you're part of the problem.

>

>>> The fact that some federal government agencies are corrupt, doesn©öt 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. "

I believe that the original constitution had something in it about returning

slaves who had escaped. I also believe that the constitution should be a

living document....I'm always puzzled by people who are strict

constitutionalists. Scalia is one such, and he's a fascist pig.

>

>> The fact

>> that

>>> some affirmative action programs have been misapplied doesn©öt mean that

>> the

>>> society would have been better off without them.

>

> Are you actually defending preferences and quotas?

In some cases - damn right. Of course, you load the language in ways that

are implicitly dishonest. These are loaded words now, but when used in such

a manner they ignore that if the playing field isn't level, you have to try

to tilt it somehow. The preference is already there, and the quotas were

there - it required federal action to turn them around. Your language is the

language of the racist.

>

>> The fact that the federal

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

>>> other than corporations and the rich, doesn©öt mean that individual states

>>> would be any better ¡© in fact, I©öd 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.

LOL. Right. And if some homeless person didn't like how he was being treated

in Iowa, why he could just take off for New Jersey. And, of course, if there

were a mass influx of people, the states would probably institute their own

anti 'immigration' policies, which they'd be free to do, right?

Your position is heartless and cold, like the views of other libertarians

I've encountered. Why if people just don't like it here on earth, they can

move to Venus. What's stopping them?

>

> 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.

Well, in some cases, I'd guess yes, and in some, no...I don't see how that

negates any of the previous.

>

>>> to some degree I©öm glad that this list hasn©öt 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 ¨«Ron will save us. He©ös

>> for

>>> FREEDOM©ö, and Mercola©ös 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.

I mentioned it in the context of the brain dead support that I see for Ron

, including someone who has been favorably mentioned in a nutritional

context on this list.

>

> 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 .

Huh?

>

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

>>>>> hand down the best candidate.

>>>>>

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

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

>>>>>

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

>>>>>

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

>>>>> to wipe out pasture-based farming.

>>>>>

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

>>>>> movement more harm than good.

>>>>>

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

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

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

>>>>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>>>

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

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

>>>>> corporate entanglements and big money.

>>>>>

>>>>> Chris

>>>>>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > On Dec 23, 2007 11:58 AM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

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

>> >

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

>>> instance,

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

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

to

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

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

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

>> >

>> > 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?

>

> Well, gee ­ who is going to handle them? The corporations are going to police

> themselves? And I¹d imagine that while individual states might have more

> progressive policies than the federal government, I¹d also imagine that they

> might have less resources to combat giant corporations.

>

>> >

>> > 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.

>> >

>

> I do understand that he is against the voting rights act.

>

>> >

>

[Guest guest]

> >> > 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?

> >

> > Well, gee ­ who is going to handle them? The corporations are

going to police

> > themselves? And I¹d imagine that while individual states might

have more

> > progressive policies than the federal government, I¹d also imagine

that they

> > might have less resources to combat giant corporations.

Been following this thread. Do you really believe that the gov't is

policing corporations? It's the corporations that run the gov't.

Belinda

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>>>>>> >>>>> 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?

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> Well, gee ­ who is going to handle them? The corporations are

>> > going to police

>>>> >>> themselves? And I¹d imagine that while individual states might

>> > have more

>>>> >>> progressive policies than the federal government, I¹d also imagine

>> > that they

>>>> >>> might have less resources to combat giant corporations.

>> >

>> > Been following this thread. Do you really believe that the gov't is

>> > policing corporations? It's the corporations that run the gov't.

>> >

>> > Belinda

It¹s not apparent to me that you¹ve actually read what I wrote. I think

that I address this, and I really don¹t feel like addressing it again,

thanks.

[Guest guest]

On 12/25/07, <slethnobotanist@...> wrote:

> 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?

When I caught part of the Ron segment on Meet the Press, he said

we were moving toward soft fascism, which he said was essentially

corporatism, with big government being in bed with big business and

corporations controlling everything through the military-industrial

and medical-industrial complexes. That sounds anti-corporatist to me.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 12/25/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> I believe that the original constitution had something in it about returning

> slaves who had escaped. I also believe that the constitution should be a

> living document....I'm always puzzled by people who are strict

> constitutionalists. Scalia is one such, and he's a fascist pig.

The constitution is designed to be a living document, which is why it

has a process for ammendment. Ron supports ammending the

constitution through the proper means rather than disregarding it.

> LOL. Right. And if some homeless person didn't like how he was being treated

> in Iowa, why he could just take off for New Jersey. And, of course, if there

> were a mass influx of people, the states would probably institute their own

> anti 'immigration' policies, which they'd be free to do, right?

Excuse my ignorance on the issue, but are most protections and aid

programs for homeless people provided by the federal government? I

was under the impression that they are mostly run and funded locally.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > On 12/25/07, <slethnobotanist@...

>> > <mailto:slethnobotanist%40gmail.com> > wrote:

>> >

>>> >> 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?

>> >

>> > When I caught part of the Ron segment on Meet the Press, he said

>> > we were moving toward soft fascism, which he said was essentially

>> > corporatism, with big government being in bed with big business and

>> > corporations controlling everything through the military-industrial

>> > and medical-industrial complexes. That sounds anti-corporatist to me.

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

Isn¹t he pretty much in favor of letting the market control everything, even

health care...I¹m having trouble seeing how in reality, he¹s an

anti-corporation candidate.

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > On 12/25/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

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

>> >

>>> >> I believe that the original constitution had something in it about

>>> returning

>>> >> slaves who had escaped. I also believe that the constitution should be a

>>> >> living document....I'm always puzzled by people who are strict

>>> >> constitutionalists. Scalia is one such, and he's a fascist pig.

>> >

>> > The constitution is designed to be a living document, which is why it

>> > has a process for ammendment. Ron supports ammending the

>> > constitution through the proper means rather than disregarding it.

>

> oh yeah ­ he¹s in favor of an amendment allowing school prayer....

>

> But if then it is a living document, and you¹re in favor of amending it when

> the rights of people are at stake, then the real issue isn¹t whether something

> is strictly consitutional or not ­ it¹s whether it¹s the right thing to do or

> not. I¹m not impressed by his constitutionalist stance.

>> >

>>> >> LOL. Right. And if some homeless person didn't like how he was being

>>> treated

>>> >> in Iowa, why he could just take off for New Jersey. And, of course, if

>>> there

>>> >> were a mass influx of people, the states would probably institute their

>>> own

>>> >> anti 'immigration' policies, which they'd be free to do, right?

>> >

>> > Excuse my ignorance on the issue, but are most protections and aid

>> > programs for homeless people provided by the federal government? I

>> > was under the impression that they are mostly run and funded locally.

I didn¹t mean to imply that the federal government was providing universal

health care, or protections for homeless people, etc....I did mean to imply

that they should. I¹m don¹t think that any states provide universal health

care - yet that in itself isn¹t an argument for or against this only being

treated on a state level.

[Guest guest]

On 12/25/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> Isn¹t he pretty much in favor of letting the market control everything, even

> health care...I¹m having trouble seeing how in reality, he¹s an

> anti-corporation candidate.

I didn't say he was anti-corporation, I said he was anti-corporatist.

========

http://www.answers.com/corporatism & r=67

Corporatism

The central core of corporatism is the notion of a system of interest

intermediation linking producer interests and the state, in which

explicitly recognized interest organizations are incorporated into the

policy-making process, both in terms of the negotiation of policy and

of securing compliance from their members with the agreed policy.

========

I would think a free market health care system would involve much less

corporatism than the system we currently have.

That said, Ron is campaigning on his willingness to uphold his

oath of office to uphold the constitution. There is no constitutional

role for the president to determine state health care systems. A

presidency would oppose a national health care system unless the

constitution were appropriately ammended to authorize it, but would

not oppose a state instituting its own universal health care system,

for example.

We came close to instituting one in MA a few years ago but it failed a

referendum. Now we have a law requiring every citizen to purchase

their own health insurance or face financial penalties.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

> 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.

Gene, my sentiments exactly!

Except I'd never be able to say it as well as you do

[Guest guest]

On 12/25/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > But if then it is a living document, and you¹re in favor of amending it

> when

> > the rights of people are at stake, then the real issue isn¹t whether

> something

> > is strictly consitutional or not ­ it¹s whether it¹s the right thing to do

> or

> > not. I¹m not impressed by his constitutionalist stance.

Sure, if you don't believe in the rule of law. But the rule of law

protects us from violations of the constitution that we oppose as well

as the ones we support. Obviously many people think that, in the

current situation, it is the " right thing to do " for the government to

disregard any civil liberties and spy on its citizens and have secret

military trials of suspected terrorists and so on.

> >>> >> LOL. Right. And if some homeless person didn't like how he was being

> >>> treated

> >>> >> in Iowa, why he could just take off for New Jersey. And, of course,

> if

> >>> there

> >>> >> were a mass influx of people, the states would probably institute

> their

> >>> own

> >>> >> anti 'immigration' policies, which they'd be free to do, right?

> >> > Excuse my ignorance on the issue, but are most protections and aid

> >> > programs for homeless people provided by the federal government? I

> >> > was under the impression that they are mostly run and funded locally.

> I didn¹t mean to imply that the federal government was providing universal

> health care, or protections for homeless people, etc....I did mean to imply

> that they should. I¹m don¹t think that any states provide universal health

> care - yet that in itself isn¹t an argument for or against this only being

> treated on a state level.

This seems like a meaningful concern only insofar as the alternative

to were a candidate who would accomplish these things, without

gross violations in worse areas. So, if there were a genuine anti-war

candidate who was going to accomplish a national health care and

homeless aid system I could see your point in opposing , though it

would seem to me that, in the event it came to a choice between

and a pro-war candidate who did not favor a national health care

system but neverthless had no intention of devolving any federal

issues to the state leve, that it would not be such a " disaster " for

to win.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

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

>>> >> 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.

>> >

>> > Gene, my sentiments exactly!

>> >

>> > Except I'd never be able to say it as well as you do

>> >

>> >

>> >

Well, I usually gauge how well I¹ve said something here by whether I¹ve been

banned from the list, or at least threatened with moderation. Apparently

I¹ve failed thus far in this thread. There¹s always hope when is

participating though.

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > On 12/25/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

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

>> >

>>>> >>> But if then it is a living document, and you¹re in favor of amending it

>>> >> when

>>>> >>> the rights of people are at stake, then the real issue isn¹t whether

>>> >> something

>>>> >>> is strictly consitutional or not ­ it¹s whether it¹s the right thing to

do

>>> >> or

>>>> >>> not. I¹m not impressed by his constitutionalist stance.

>> >

>> > Sure, if you don't believe in the rule of law.

>

> That¹s a cliché, like being for freedom, or democracy...one can establish a

> rule of law that is quite unjust ­ slavery, nazi germany, one can go on and

> on. While this isn¹t a religious argument per se, one does have to be able to

> appeal to a higher standard, unless one believes that only THIS rule of law,

> here and now, is the one worth upholding so ferociously.

>

>> >But the rule of law

>> > protects us from violations of the constitution that we oppose as well

>> > as the ones we support. Obviously many people think that, in the

>> > current situation, it is the " right thing to do " for the government to

>> > disregard any civil liberties and spy on its citizens and have secret

>> > military trials of suspected terrorists and so on.

>

> right ­ but I don¹t oppose this BECAUSE it may be unconstitutional, nor do I

> oppose the Iraq Œwar¹ because it is unconstitutional. Part of my opposition

> would be that it¹s against international law, to the extent that Bush et all

> should be hung as war criminals (I¹d especially enjoy watching Condi Rice

> begging for her life, but that¹s just a juvenile fantasy). But what it comes

> down to some basic precepts of what it is right to do and what it is wrong to

> do, and lying, and mass murder, whether constitutional or not, is wrong.

>> >

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> LOL. Right. And if some homeless person didn't like how he was

being

>>>>>> >>>>> treated

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> in Iowa, why he could just take off for New Jersey. And, of

course,

>>> >> if

>>>>>> >>>>> there

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> were a mass influx of people, the states would probably

>>>>>>>> institute

>>> >> their

>>>>>> >>>>> own

>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> anti 'immigration' policies, which they'd be free to do, right?

>> >

>>>>>> >>>>> Excuse my ignorance on the issue, but are most protections and aid

>>>>>> >>>>> programs for homeless people provided by the federal government? I

>>>>>> >>>>> was under the impression that they are mostly run and funded

>>>>>> locally.

>> >

>>> >> I didn¹t mean to imply that the federal government was providing

>>> universal

>>> >> health care, or protections for homeless people, etc....I did mean to

>>> imply

>>> >> that they should. I¹m don¹t think that any states provide universal

>>> health

>>> >> care - yet that in itself isn¹t an argument for or against this only

>>> being

>>> >> treated on a state level.

>> >

>> > This seems like a meaningful concern only insofar as the alternative

>> > to were a candidate who would accomplish these things, without

>> > gross violations in worse areas.

>

> I disagree. If I believe that instead of working at the federal level to

> enhance government protection of people, totally dismantling all programs that

> had any pretense of doing so would lead to worse horrors than we have now, it

> is a meaningful concern.

>

>> > So, if there were a genuine anti-war

>> > candidate who was going to accomplish a national health care and

>> > homeless aid system I could see your point in opposing ,

>

> Well, I think that Kucinich is pretty close to that. Oh yeah, I forgot ­ he¹s

> short.

>

>> >though it

>> > would seem to me that, in the event it came to a choice between

>> > and a pro-war candidate who did not favor a national health care

>> > system but neverthless had no intention of devolving any federal

>> > issues to the state leve, that it would not be such a " disaster " for

>> > to win.

>

> Well, true ­ there¹s always a chance that Clinton will bomb Iran,

> leading to World War III, and we¹re all out of here. But unfortunately, if it

> were Ron against her, it would truly be a lesser of 2 tremendous evils.

> I¹d probably sit that one out. A sad thing, that I¹d have to restrain from

> voting from an anti-war candidate.

[Guest guest]

" slethnobotanist@... wrote:

>He certainly in the past has supported the abolishing of the FDA and

>the FTC.

So doesn't Bush support abolishing the FDA. Tell me who then is going to be

responsible when a pharmaceutical that tested so in trials bleeds someone

internally to death or causes them to take their own life? The Congressional

fund for those oops, like now? Who is responsible then for any unethical,

undisclosed, possibly fraudulent corporate practices and what consumer rights

haven't been legislated away to corporate interest? More lawyers like

or more insurance? My car insurance presently is being sued by State

Attorney General for overcharging. Ask anyone in New Orleans if they were paid

for the insurance coverage they bought on the spot or it was twisted to a non

covered incident. Rather than personal liability insurance an insurance against

humans that put themself in a position to play god, fail miserably and hurt the

many would be my kind of insurance.

Wanita

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Be a better friend, newshound, and

know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

[Guest guest]

Abolishing the FDA would only leave a vacuum for the likes of WHO to swoop

down. Then again, isn't that part of the Bush plan, to turn us over to

WHO/CODEX/CAFTA. The FDA issues appear to be a distraction, imo, to keep

our eyes off the real issues.........

Sharon

On Dec 26, 2007 9:10 AM, Wanita <wanitawa@...> wrote:

> " slethnobotanist@... <slethnobotanist%40gmail.com> wrote:

> >He certainly in the past has supported the abolishing of the FDA and

> >the FTC.

>

> So doesn't Bush support abolishing the FDA. Tell me who then is going to

> be responsible when a pharmaceutical that tested so in trials bleeds someone

> internally to death or causes them to take their own life? The Congressional

> fund for those oops, like now? Who is responsible then for any unethical,

> undisclosed, possibly fraudulent corporate practices and what consumer

> rights haven't been legislated away to corporate interest? More lawyers like

> or more insurance? My car insurance presently is being sued by

> State Attorney General for overcharging. Ask anyone in New Orleans if they

> were paid for the insurance coverage they bought on the spot or it was

> twisted to a non covered incident. Rather than personal liability insurance

> an insurance against humans that put themself in a position to play god,

> fail miserably and hurt the many would be my kind of insurance.

>

> Wanita

>

> __________________________________________________________

> Be a better friend, newshound, and

> know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

> http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

>

>

[Guest guest]

-

> 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.

It's not so much that Ron is creating an illusion as that many

people are ignoring the full truth about him. You share, as I

understand matters, many of his far-right attitudes, though my point

here is not to get into a debate about your politics. Most people,

however, don't, but even though the bulk of his positions would

horrify many of his supporters if they became aware of them, they're

so excited by his anti-war anti-big-brother positions (which, after

all, get the overwhelming majority of his press coverage) that they

don't notice or pay attention to the rest.

-

[Guest guest]

-

> 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 .

I'll get there, but I also want to be clear that while I'd be

resolutely opposed to Ron in the general election if he were

running, I do think his candidacy has a number of positive effects

that may, on balance, make it a good thing.

-

[Guest guest]

Belinda-

> Been following this thread. Do you really believe that the gov't is

> policing corporations? It's the corporations that run the gov't.

To a degree, yes, but that degree has increased dramatically of late,

and even now it's far from absolute.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> The constitution is designed to be a living document, which is why it

> has a process for ammendment. Ron supports ammending the

> constitution through the proper means rather than disregarding it.

Probably, but it's also instructive to examine Ron 's record and

observe where he's attempted to amend the constitution and where he's

instead attempted to amend the law and actual practice.

For example, one of his root beliefs (expressed on Meet the Press, in

fact) is that the president should not have the power to enter the

country into war, and that instead going to war should require an act

of Congress. Yes, this is declared in the constitution, but if he

believed that the president SHOULD be able to declare war (as

presidents effectively have of late) then he'd be pushing for a

constitutional amendment rather than opposing the practice on principle.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> A

> presidency would oppose a national health care system unless the

> constitution were appropriately ammended to authorize it, but would

> not oppose a state instituting its own universal health care system,

> for example.

This makes it sound like Ron doesn't really care about what's in

the constitution per se, just about upholding whatever happens to be

in there, but of course that's not accurate.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> Well, I usually gauge how well I’ve said something here by whether

> I’ve been

> banned from the list, or at least threatened with moderation.

> Apparently

> I’ve failed thus far in this thread. There’s always hope when is

> participating though.

Gimme a break. List members are only moderated or threatened with

moderation for engaging in ad hominem rhetoric.

-

[Guest guest]

jfchrist , if you couldn't tell that this was poking fun at myself, I'm not

sure what to do.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Gene-

>

> > Well, I usually gauge how well I’ve said something here by whether

> > I’ve been

> > banned from the list, or at least threatened with moderation.

> > Apparently

> > I’ve failed thus far in this thread. There’s always hope when is

> > participating though.

>

> Gimme a break. List members are only moderated or threatened with

> moderation for engaging in ad hominem rhetoric.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> He isn't against government regulation of any kind; he's against

> unconstitutional government regulation.

IMO this perception (or construction) basically misses the point. The

constitution is not value-neutral. Laws and regulations are not value-

neutral. I'm quite sure that Ron doesn't oppose measures he

believes are unconstitutional merely because they're unconstitutional,

but because he believes they SHOULD be unconstitutional. If he

believed in the need for an environmental protection agency, for

example, but also believed that the EPA is unconstitutional, he'd

advocate an amendment constitutionalizing it.

> 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.

Even if it's on the bottom of his hit list rather than the top, it's

still something he's almost certainly opposed to rather than in favor

of.

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> jfchrist , if you couldn't tell that this was poking fun at

> myself, I'm not sure what to do.

My apologies. I've had a cruddy week, and I guess I'm kind of humor-

impaired at the moment.

-

[Guest guest]

No problem

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: Idol <Idol@...>

> Gene-

>

> > jfchrist , if you couldn't tell that this was poking fun at

> > myself, I'm not sure what to do.

>

> My apologies. I've had a cruddy week, and I guess I'm kind of humor-

> impaired at the moment.

>

> -