Re: POLITICS ZMAG: RON PAUL IS NOT YOUR SAVIOR

[Guest guest]

Chris-

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

> hand down the best candidate.

This may well be true, but as important as they are, are WAPish

dietary principles really the most important set of criteria in

choosing a presidential candidate?

> Ron favors raw milk and has introduced legislation to overturn

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

Terrific; I wish him luck with this in the House.

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

Does this mean he supports the foundation, or just that he knows it

exists?

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

> to wipe out pasture-based farming.

Excellent.

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

> movement more harm than good.

This is more of a mixed bag. Eliminating the FDA rather than

reforming it would merely remove any remaining semblance of restraint

on pharmaceutical companies, which have demonstrated time and time

again that they're not in the least bit interested in keeping lethal

drugs off the market.

> 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.

Well, this is pretty much exactly why you won't find me supporting

Kucinich, aside from the fact that he has even less of a chance than

Ron . (Much less of a chance, in fact. Though it's very

unlikely, I don't think it's impossible that Ron will win the

Republican nomination, whereas pigs will teleport before Kucinich gets

the Democratic nomination.)

> 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.

In no particular order, the most pressing issues facing us are global

warming, peak oil, military adventurism (in which I include both Iraq

and any possible involvement in Iran), nutrition and agriculture (in

which I include GMO foods), the destruction of our democracy (in which

I include the abrogation of our civil rights as well as torture and

the growth of the security state), and corporatism in the recent sense

of the word, though I'm sure I'm forgetting some major ones.

On global warming, and Obama (and who knows, maybe even that

miserable excuse of a candidate, Hillary Clinton) would be better than

Ron , because Ron would do absolutely nothing.

On peak oil, same thing.

On military adventurism, I grant that he'd most likely be the best

candidate, but I also doubt that and Obama would seek to

extend Iraq indefinitely and would seek to do anything about Iran.

Hillary... who knows.

On nutrition and agriculture, I think Ron would be a profoundly

mixed bag. On one hand, he'd seek to do away with a lot of

undesirable regulations which make it difficult or impossible to

procure raw milk and other such foods, and he'd put an end to NAIS.

On the other, he'd also do nothing to restrain the spread of GMOs and

pollution, and he'd do nothing to attempt to improve our soil. I

guess no current major candidates would do much about the soil, but at

least we could hope for some regulation of GMOs and pollution from at

least some of the Democratic candidates.

On the destruction of or democracy, again I think Ron would be a

mixed bag, though probably a profound net positive. He'd do away with

the increase in presidential powers and many of the other current

abuses of the system, but he'd also eliminate any meaningful restraint

on corporate power. That said, no candidate is uniformly good in this

domain.

And on corporatism, he'd merely replace corporate intervention in

government with direct corporate control of the people, so I don't

regard him as a positive candidate in this area. Anyone remember

company towns?

-

[Guest guest]

Wanita that makes it sound as if the FDA can be trusted now. I don't

think it can be.

As to how then can consumers be protected: I wish we could find non-

government collectives to protect ourselves. The small farmer organic

movement is one example. The farmers say they are organic, and we

support them by buying at the market.

As to insurance ripoffs: that's why I also want none of that. I do have

hazard insurance on my house.

Connie

> 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?

[Guest guest]

Chris-

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

> > would ensue with a presidence.

Sorry, I forgot an entire section of my answer. Several more reasons

follow.

Like most Republicans, he's resolutely anti-choice, and has sought to

reduce the availability of family planning and abortions to families,

couples and women.

He'd like to reduce the separation of church and state, perhaps

dramatically.

He'd seek to end all federal protections against discrimination. (And

in the department of priorities, I think it's very interesting that of

all the libertarian initiatives he could have taken over the course of

his political career, this is one he's returned to time and time

again. Coupled with the racist views promulgated in his newsletter

and other slips and gaffes, I think it's pretty clear that he's a

bigot.)

For all his supposed libertarianism, he's twice proposed

constitutional amendments banning the destruction of the flag. Is

this by itself the most important issue out there? No, but I think it

provides an important window onto his real underlying attitudes and

beliefs, which may not be nearly as libertarian as many people

assume. In fact, though I don't know what methodology they used, one

group assessed Ron as being slightly authoritarian rather than

libertarian at all. <http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008>

He wants to eliminate OSHA.

He wants to get rid of labor unions.

He wants to get rid of the minimum wage, which is kind of ironic in

light of his opposition to illegal immigration.

He supports kickbacks.

He's opposed to eliminating the electoral college. (Not that it's

very likely anyone else will do anything about this, but he's actually

taken positive steps to support it.)

For all his supposed anti-corporatism, he wants to do away with anti-

trust laws, meaning he's only opposed to corporate power inasmuch as

it involves the federal government.

He wants to weaken or eliminate all federal environmental protections.

He wants to maintain our full nuclear arsenal rather than dismantling

any ICBMs.

He wants to do away with the IRS entirely and eliminate the income

tax, moving to a severely regressive consumption-based tax system.

He wants to return to the gold standard.

And the list could go on at some length, but surely this (coupled with

my previous post) is enough to explain my reasons for opposing Ron

. Most of the items in this list, BTW, are based on actual bills

he's proposed, not on any kind of inference or arguable interpretation

of things he's said.

-

[Guest guest]

Connie-

> Wanita that makes it sound as if the FDA can be trusted now. I don't

> think it can be.

Of course it can't, but it's quite revealing that the FDA used to be

much more trustworthy... until its funding switched over, by and

large, to " user fees " paid by the very pharmaceutical companies it's

supposed to be regulating.

-

[Guest guest]

--- Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Well, this is pretty much exactly why you won't find me supporting

> Kucinich, aside from the fact that he has even less of a chance than

> Ron . (Much less of a chance, in fact. Though it's very

> unlikely, I don't think it's impossible that Ron will win the

> Republican nomination, whereas pigs will teleport before Kucinich

> gets the Democratic nomination.)

, I'm glad to see your sense of humor returning

> On global warming, and Obama (and who knows, maybe even that

> miserable excuse of a candidate, Hillary Clinton) would be better than

> Ron , because Ron would do absolutely nothing.

On global warming, I'm not sure there's anything anyone can do, since

water vapor is by far the most dominant greenhouse gas, not CO2. The

human contribution to greenhouse gases may be as little as 0.3%,

hardly a big impact.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[Guest guest]

Who would you suggest to make sure that there is

labeling on our food? Are you going to have the

time/power to do it? Libertarians are well known for

not wanting any governmental regulation. As bad as

the FDA has become since Reagan was elected (one of

his missions was to undo most of the good work Nader

had done with protecting the public safety, all in the

name of not having " big government " ) I would still

prefer to have some body regulating what can and can't

be done rather than having complete chaos where

companies can produce whatever they want with no

regard to public safety.

le

> 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.

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

le, seeing what has become of the FDA, how would you set up an

oversight body in a way that could remain incorruptible? The FDA was

started way back as a good guy in response to abuses from the early

industrial food producers like meat packers and then finally has gone

bad.

My best idea, ridiculous and naive, would be for consumer power and a

free internet press.

That's the only way I found out about the FDA doing these:

- allowing GMO, not requiring labels

- allowing viruses to be sprayed, not requiring labels

- allowing almonds to be pasteurized, not requiring labels

- allowing neurotoxins under " natural and artificial flavors "

- allowing irradiation, not requiring labels

- forcing organic dairy producers whose labels say " no rBGH " to

say, " studies have not shown rBGH to be harmful "

I thought it would be fun to have an Internet simple list of all the

things that can be done to food without requiring notice to the

consumer.

Contrast that with buying unlabeled farm products direct from farmers

you know. Which group would you trust.

Connie

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> > 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.

I've read your post three times in a row and I'm still not sure what

you are trying to say.

Ron believes a) that the constitution should be upheld and

that the constitutional practice of Congress declaring war is good and

c) that war should be a last resort, and, ethically, be justified

under Augustinian just war principles.

Thus, he a) consistently agitates for the upholding of this part of

the constitution in practice, has introduced legislation to repeal

the War Powers Resolution, which he considers unconstitutional and c)

opposes some wars on principle.

For example, with the Iraq War, he introduced a resolution for

Congress to declare war on Iraq, and stated that he wouldn't vote for

it because he was opposed to the war on principle, but that if

Congress supported it, it should follow the constitutional process.

Fellow Republicans scoffed at the idea of Congress declaring war and

said the very concept was anachronistic.

I don't understand how this refutes or modifies what I stated

originally, that he believes the document should be a living document

and be ammended as appropriate. Obviously he isn't going to support

every ammendment, and certainly the ones he considers bad ammendments

he would oppose. Is that the point you are making? If so, why are

you using the war example? Do you actually think this is a bad

position, to limit the executive's power to wage war without the

consent of Congress? The less war, the better, as far as I am

concerned.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 12/26/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > 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.

Well, right -- I think would oppose an ammendment for national

health care system and veto a bill for it if the ammendment passed

allowing one, though not if it passed demanding one.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 12/26/07, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> > 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 agree, and I think he for the most part thinks the role of the

Federal government is best kept to what it was initially

constitutionally authorized to play. But there is some place for

regulation of certain things within the original and current

constitution, and I haven't seen him agitate for an ammendment to

change *that,* so I don't think he is against regulation per se.

Chris

[Guest guest]

,

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

> > hand down the best candidate.

> This may well be true, but as important as they are, are WAPish

> dietary principles really the most important set of criteria in

> choosing a presidential candidate?

I brought them up because they are the most relevant to this list.

They aren't necessarily all the most important, but I think NAIS ranks

among the most important.

In my view, the most immediate threats that could reach disastrous

portions we face are 1) potential of World War III; 2) possible

long-term debacle of military involvment with Iran or prolonging of

the currently well-developed disaster in Iraq; 3) NAIS and the

potential wiping out of pasture famring altogether; 4) the potential

for a human version of NAIS; 5) GMO pollution and more complete

domination of the world food market and 6) global warming.

Five and six I don't seen Ron helping out with and I see Kucinich

possible helping out with. All the other candidates are neutral. If

Gore were running, I'd trust him to accomplish something significant

with 6.

Ron is by FAR the best candidate on the first four likely and

potential disasters. Kucinich might perhaps rival him on the first

two but might actually hasten the third disaster.

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

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

> Terrific; I wish him luck with this in the House.

My guess is he won't have much luck in the House, but as President

he'd have direct power over executive orders and the FDA, wouldn't he?

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

> Does this mean he supports the foundation, or just that he knows it

> exists?

I think he went to the raw cheese taste and he is the only one I know

of to introduce pro-raw milk legislation in Congress in recent times,

so I think the fact that he knows the Foundation exists and supports

it on a very critical issue would seem to indicate that, while I have

no idea if he is a member, he would at least turn an ear to concerns

of the Foundation.

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

> > movement more harm than good.

> This is more of a mixed bag. Eliminating the FDA rather than

> reforming it would merely remove any remaining semblance of restraint

> on pharmaceutical companies, which have demonstrated time and time

> again that they're not in the least bit interested in keeping lethal

> drugs off the market.

I didn't say anything about eliminating the FDA -- I said restricting

its power. I'm not aware of restrictions he's tried to place on the

FDA's ability to stop unsafe medicines from reacing the market, but he

has introduced legislation to stop the FDA from censoring information

from dietary supplements.

==============

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul288.html

Because of the FDA's censorship of truthful health claims, millions of

Americans may suffer with diseases and other health care problems they

may have avoided by using dietary supplements. For example, the FDA

prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of

neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age

take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA

action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neural

tube defects!

The FDA also continues to prohibit consumers from learning about the

scientific evidence that glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are

effective in the treatment of osteoarthritis; that omega-3 fatty acids

may reduce the risk of sudden death heart attack; and that calcium may

reduce the risk of bone fractures.

==============

I'm sure Dr. supports eliminating the FDA eventually, but this

does not mean that he would willy nilly get rid of the FDA in one fell

swoop, or that he would immediately oppose the FDA from doing

something that was clearly necessary without first establshing some

alternative means of solving the problem.

He has repeatedly expressed the need to make sensible transitions.

And he has been a vigorous proponent of preventing Congress from using

social security funds for purposes other than SS. He could say that

since he opposes SS on principle, the hell with social security. But

he doesn't do that, because though he wants to move towards phasing

out the system, he also wants to insure that everyone who has paid

into the system is protected, because he is aware that simply

eliminating social security without establishing a more libertarian

alternative to take its place would be a disaster.

> Well, this is pretty much exactly why you won't find me supporting

> Kucinich, aside from the fact that he has even less of a chance than

> Ron . (Much less of a chance, in fact. Though it's very

> unlikely, I don't think it's impossible that Ron will win the

> Republican nomination, whereas pigs will teleport before Kucinich gets

> the Democratic nomination.)

I agree with your assessment.

But then who to support? In a time when the government is advocating

microchipping all farm animals in the country and tracking them by

sattelite, the Pentagon is saying that a national database of every

purchase made is essential to the war on terror, implantable

microchips are being tested in humans, and private companies are

inventing implantable GPS devices, it strikes me as a complete threat

of disaster to support anyone who supports anything like a national ID

card, which I believe Clinton has been supporting for some time, if I

am not mistaken.

None of the frontrunning Democrats are genuine anti-war candidates,

Clinton strikes me as relatively hawkish, and of course most of the

Republicans are potential disasters on the war issue. So I think that

supporting most candidates who AREN'T Ron is where the primary

threat of disaster lies.

> In no particular order, the most pressing issues facing us are global

> warming, peak oil, military adventurism (in which I include both Iraq

> and any possible involvement in Iran), nutrition and agriculture (in

> which I include GMO foods), the destruction of our democracy (in which

> I include the abrogation of our civil rights as well as torture and

> the growth of the security state), and corporatism in the recent sense

> of the word, though I'm sure I'm forgetting some major ones.

> On global warming, and Obama (and who knows, maybe even that

> miserable excuse of a candidate, Hillary Clinton) would be better than

> Ron , because Ron would do absolutely nothing.

> On peak oil, same thing.

I don't think this analysis is quite fair in its methodology. You

assume that next-to-nothing is substantially better than nothing, when

global warming and peak oil are both issues that are pretty much, if

the theories are correct, disasters without drastic action.

We can't just measure what he'd do about each issue and sum them up.

We have to weigh what he would do against what other candidates would

do, and against how meaningful that is in the context of what needs to

be done.

Also, I'm sure you'd agree that government restrictions on carbon

emissions or oil use are not the *only* thing that needs to/could be

done on these issues. Although I'd have to think/talk/hash it out

more thorougly, I suspect that a number of 's policies would

indirectly benefit these issues to some degree by divorcing specific

corporate interests from government support, supporting economic

development, etc. Certainly the government in many cases makes this

worse by supporting specific coroporate interests and assisting them

in their domination, and taking that away would go a long way towards

indirectly mitigating some of the problems corporations create.

> On military adventurism, I grant that he'd most likely be the best

> candidate, but I also doubt that and Obama would seek to

> extend Iraq indefinitely and would seek to do anything about Iran.

> Hillary... who knows.

I suspect they're both better than Clinton and the Republicans, but I

don't think either of them carry the credibility that Ron carries

as an anti-war candidate, whatsoever. I also think that Bill Clinton

was somewhat militarily adventuristic in a time of peace, and he was

accused of being weak with the military before going into office, so I

have no particular reason to think that and Obama seeming to

lack any hawkishness would be any guarantee of major resolution of

this issue.

> On nutrition and agriculture, I think Ron would be a profoundly

> mixed bag. On one hand, he'd seek to do away with a lot of

> undesirable regulations which make it difficult or impossible to

> procure raw milk and other such foods, and he'd put an end to NAIS.

> On the other, he'd also do nothing to restrain the spread of GMOs and

> pollution, and he'd do nothing to attempt to improve our soil. I

> guess no current major candidates would do much about the soil, but at

> least we could hope for some regulation of GMOs and pollution from at

> least some of the Democratic candidates.

So you say, but he's repeatedly critcized the government for its

inability to protect us from GMOs and pollution, so I'm not entirely

convinced that he'd do nothing. Also, many libertarians oppose

patenting and certain aspects of corporate chartering and personhood

-- have you investigated what his stance is on these things and how

they might affect these issues? I personally have not, but it doesn't

seem you are taking them into account.

Finally, what on earth do any of the candidates aside from Kucinich

have to say about GMOs? The things that *no one* will help can't

count against Ron when it comes down to choosing one or another

of them to be president.

> On the destruction of or democracy, again I think Ron would be a

> mixed bag, though probably a profound net positive. He'd do away with

> the increase in presidential powers and many of the other current

> abuses of the system, but he'd also eliminate any meaningful restraint

> on corporate power. That said, no candidate is uniformly good in this

> domain.

Well, I think that is a very limited analysis. Is it not a meaningful

restraint to eliminate corporate influence on government? To sever

ties between big business and big government? It seems to me this is

at least half of what is needed to restrain corporate power, if not

more. Moreover, what is his position on corporate personhood as

defined in the courts, and what is his potential to influence this?

Have you considered these?

And besides that, if he is potentially the only hope to allow the

pasture-feed and raw milk movements to persist, and continually stands

up for the alternative health industry against government persecution,

is not allowing the continued growth of a major alternative

institutional framework that rivals the coroprate instutitional

frmaework one of our key arsenals against corporate power?

> And on corporatism, he'd merely replace corporate intervention in

> government with direct corporate control of the people, so I don't

> regard him as a positive candidate in this area. Anyone remember

> company towns?

Yes, but which federal restrictions on the formation of comapany towns

do you expect Ron to elminate as president?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

I agree that Ron would oppose some of the unconstitutional

nonsense that has been supported in the name of separation of church

and state, although I don't see where he'd have much of an effect in

this area as president. Do you have any speciic examples of how, as

president, he would affect this issue?

Although Ron is against abortion, his NARAL ratings are mixed.

The latest one he got was 65%.

Here is NARAL's list for each year since 2001:

=======

http://www.naral.org/elections/statements/paul.html

2006: 65 percent

2005: 75 percent

2004: 65 percent

2003: 0 percent

2002: 20 percent

2001: 35 percent

========

> He'd seek to end all federal protections against discrimination. (And

> in the department of priorities, I think it's very interesting that of

> all the libertarian initiatives he could have taken over the course of

> his political career, this is one he's returned to time and time

> again. Coupled with the racist views promulgated in his newsletter

> and other slips and gaffes, I think it's pretty clear that he's a

> bigot.)

Could you quote any of these?

> For all his supposed libertarianism, he's twice proposed

> constitutional amendments banning the destruction of the flag.

Ron opposed the ammendment banning flag-burning:

========

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html

As for my viewpoint, I see the amendment as very unnecessary and very dangerous.

========

Glenn Greenwald wrote in Salon that, though he doesn't wish to

advocate Ron , some of what is floating around about his

flag-burning position (i.e. apparently whatever you've been reading)

are " outright distortions and smears. "

============

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html

Unlike Hillary Clinton -- the Democratic Party front-runner who,

" along with Sen. , a Utah Republican, introduced a bill

that would make flag burning illegal " -- Ron was and is

vehemently against any and all laws to criminalize flag burning,

including the constitutional amendment he introduced. He introduced

that amendment solely to make a point -- one he makes frequently --

that the legislation being offered to criminalize flag burning was

plainly unconstitutional, and that the only legitimate way to ban flag

burning was to amend the First Amendment.

Indeed, he only introduced those flag-burning amendments in order to

dare his colleagues who wanted to pass a law banning flag burning to

do it that way -- i.e., the constitutional way. . . .

Rep. did exactly the same thing with the invasion of Iraq, which

he opposed. He argued (accurately) that the only constitutional method

for Congress to authorize the President to invade another country was

to declare war on that country. The Constitution does not allow the

Congress to " authorize " military force without a war declaration. Rep.

thus introduced a Declaration of War in the House on the ground

that such a Declaration was constitutionally required to invade Iraq

-- and he then proceeded to vote against the AUMF (because, unlike

Hillary Clinton, he actually opposed the invasion). Thus, saying that

wants to outlaw flag burning (as Neiwert's post does) -- or that

he supported the war in Iraq -- is just false.

=========

> He wants to eliminate OSHA.

And do you expect that Ron would make this a priority, and do you

think he would do it without any concern to the safety of workers?

> He wants to get rid of labor unions.

Really. Can you cite anything in support of this?

> He wants to get rid of the minimum wage, which is kind of ironic in

> light of his opposition to illegal immigration.

Why?

> He supports kickbacks.

Can you cite anything in support of this?

> He's opposed to eliminating the electoral college. (Not that it's

> very likely anyone else will do anything about this, but he's actually

> taken positive steps to support it.)

So?

> For all his supposed anti-corporatism, he wants to do away with anti-

> trust laws, meaning he's only opposed to corporate power inasmuch as

> it involves the federal government.

From what I've studied in my history classes, anti-trust laws were

mostly used for breaking labor unions initially, which you just

claimed he wanted to eliminate.

Besides which, anti-trust laws are examples of corporatism when they

are used against corporations, and eliminating them is an

anti-corporatis position. They are invoked by some corporations to do

away with the " unfair competition " of others, to benefit certain

corporations at the expense of others.

[snip]

> He wants to do away with the IRS entirely and eliminate the income

> tax, moving to a severely regressive consumption-based tax system.

I would support this too. I think the tax code is an insane waste of

resources. Any tax code should be very, very simple, and it is quite

ridiculous that there is an entire industry devoted to helping people

figure out how much money to pay to the government -- it is economic

resources being extracted and thrown away.

> He wants to return to the gold standard.

This would certainly benefit everyone...

> And the list could go on at some length, but surely this (coupled with

> my previous post) is enough to explain my reasons for opposing Ron

> . Most of the items in this list, BTW, are based on actual bills

> he's proposed, not on any kind of inference or arguable interpretation

> of things he's said.

None of these things seem to rank as highly important issues of the

type of immediacy mentioned in your first post.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Dec 25, 2007 4:17 PM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > 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.

I might be a little harsh on Kucinich here, but he did support Kerry

for President. couldn't see his way to vote for Bush after

observing what became of his 2000 campaign promise of a " humble

foreign policy. "

> 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,

I don't know what you mean by " the powerful " but under a

administration corporations as we have come to know them would cease

to exist, because their political influence, which is where they draw

a good chunk of their power, would be dramatically reduced.

> he is against a woman's right to

> have an abortion

His political position is that this is not a concern of the Feds. The

only way you would have to worry about Ron 's personal position on

abortion is if he became a representative in your state.

> (well, he would allows states to choose - yippee!),

Yes, as they did before Roe v Wade.

> against

> most of the protections that we still have.

What protections would **you** lose Gene if Ron became President?

> > 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.

Sounds like you might have to vote with your feet :-)

> > 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?

What they see is that by having a President who devolves many if not

most issues to the state, they can work in an environment where they

have a far greater chance of implementing their particular agenda.

Have you ever worked in electoral politics? Even in the good old boy

state I grew up in (land) it was much easier to effect change at

the state level than to try to do it at a national level. The only way

that could conceivably change is if we amended the constitution to

once again allow for the election of senators by state legislators.

The likelihood of that is about the same as Kucinich winning the

democratic nomination.

> 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.

With the exception of one, none of the links I posted were written by

libertarians.

> 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,

One federal protection you mentioned has proven **factually** to be a

**disaster** for the poor: affirmative action.

The Grand Fraud: Affirmative Action for Blacks

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2637

excerpt:

When any policy can only be defended by lies and duplicity, there is

something fundamentally wrong with that policy. Virtually every

argument in favor of affirmative action is demonstrably false. It is

the grand fraud of our time.

The need for " role models " of the same race or sex is a key dogma

behind affirmative action in hiring black or female professors. But a

recent study titled " Increasing Faculty Diversity " found " no empirical

evidence to support the belief that same-sex, same-ethnicity role

models are any more effective than white male role models. "

The related notion that a certain " critical mass " of black students is

needed on a given campus, in order that these students can feel

comfortable enough to do their best, has become dogma without a speck

of evidence being offered or asked for. Such evidence as there is

points in the opposite direction.

Without affirmative action, its advocates claim, few black students

would be able to get into college. In reality, there are today more

black students in the University of California system and in the

University of Texas system than there were before these systems ended

affirmative action.

These black students are simply distributed differently within both

systems -- no longer being mismatched with institutions whose

standards they don't meet. They now have a better chance of

graduating.

What of the idea that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of

poverty and is needed to continue that rise? A far higher proportion

of blacks in poverty rose out of poverty in the 20 years between 1940

and 1960 -- that is, before any major federal civil rights legislation

-- than in the more than 40 years since then. This trend continued in

the 1960s, at a slower pace. The decade of the 1970s -- the first

affirmative action decade -- saw virtually no change in the poverty

rate among blacks.

In other words, most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty but

liberal politicians and black " leaders " have claimed credit. One side

effect is that many whites wonder why blacks cannot lift themselves

out of poverty like other groups, when that is in fact what most

blacks have done.

Affirmative action is great for black millionaires but it has done

little or nothing for most people in the ghetto. Most minority

business owners who get preferences in government contracts have net

worths of more than one million dollars.

One of the big barriers to any rational discussion of affirmative

action is that many of those who are for or against it are for or

against the theory or the rationales behind group preferences and

quotas. As for facts, the defenders simply lie.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

>

>

>> > He'd seek to end all federal protections against discrimination. (And

>> > in the department of priorities, I think it's very interesting that of

>> > all the libertarian initiatives he could have taken over the course of

>> > his political career, this is one he's returned to time and time

>> > again. Coupled with the racist views promulgated in his newsletter

>> > and other slips and gaffes, I think it's pretty clear that he's a

>> > bigot.)

>

> asked--------Could you quote any of these?

>

Easy to find this stuff with a google search. This one is typical:

" Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have

sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual

liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action, " wrote.

continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered " as decent

people. " Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of

Columbia are arrested, wrote:

" Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal

justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black

males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal, " said.

also wrote that although " we are constantly told that it is evil to be

afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders,

rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their

numbers. "

....

also asserted that " complex embezzling " is conducted exclusively by

non-blacks.

" What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it

refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing

so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100

percent white and Asian? " he wrote.

[Guest guest]

--- Idol wrote:

> > Well, this is pretty much exactly why you won't find me supporting

> > Kucinich, aside from the fact that he has even less of a chance

> > than Ron . (Much less of a chance, in fact. Though it's very

> > unlikely, I don't think it's impossible that Ron will win the

> > Republican nomination, whereas pigs will teleport before Kucinich

> > gets the Democratic nomination.)

>

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> I agree with your assessment.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ron ends up running as an independent,

since he doesn't appear likely to get the Republican nomination, short

of a miraculous finish.

That would throw an interesting twist into the final vote and might

even force the other candidates to modify their stances a bit.

[Guest guest]

On Ron ¹s views about blacks: some juicy stuff here:

http://www.bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=8A24F55A36B8A200C8E0A92

AD87ADDFB?diaryId=2595

[Guest guest]

On Dec 25, 2007 4:22 PM, 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.

> >

> > 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.

Actually it appears to be Kucinich who floated the idea:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/11/the-buzz-about.html

" I'm thinking about Ron " as a running mate, Kucinich told a crowd

of about 70 supporters at a house party here, one of numerous stops

throughout New Hampshire over the Thanksgiving weekend. A

Kucinich- administration could bring people together " to balance

the energies in this country, " Kucinich said.

The camp's response is interesting:

Dr. and Rep. Kucinich are friends and there is a lot of mutual

respect, " communications director Benton said in an e-mail

when asked whether a running-mate spot on the Kucinich ticket would be

attractive to . " They have worked, and will continue to work,

together on the ending the war and protecting civil liberties.

" However, Ron wants to substantially cut the size and scope of the

federal government. There are too many differences on issues such as

taxes and spending to think a joint ticket would be possible. "

I like the idea from a constitutional standpoint. Let the

vice-president be a member of the other party, waiting in the wings

should the president make a misstep or deserved to be impeached (or

get assassinated as in the case of Lincoln whose vice -president was a

Democrat). The Founding Fathers had a rather weak office in mind

originally and having the vice president a member of the other party

would help dissuade any pretentions to imperial power. Unfortunately

all that went out the door with Lincoln

If the current vice-president was a Democrat, Bush would probably be

gone. Heck, had the vice-president under Clinton been a Republican, he

probably would have been removed from office.

> > 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!

Ummm....it isn't to hard to imagine that a Doctor who gave away

medical services to those who could not otherwise afford them, would

be considered someone who is " for the working class. "

> >> > 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.

Politics is all about money and influence at the federal level, and

without the federal trough to feed it (and influence), the impact of

corporations would be dramatically reduced.

--

" The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the

end, make his way regardless of race. "

- Booker T. Washington (1856–1915)

[Guest guest]

> On Dec 25, 2007 4:17 PM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

>

>>> 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.

>

> I might be a little harsh on Kucinich here, but he did support Kerry

> for President. couldn't see his way to vote for Bush after

> observing what became of his 2000 campaign promise of a " humble

> foreign policy. "

Oh, come on - that's silly. People way to the left of Kucinich 'supported'

Kerry as the lesser of two evils - I mean - even I voted for Kerry. That

really has to be taken in context. I despise Kerry.

And we're really not talking party here - if you're comparing Ron and

Kucinich, to say that didn't support Bush is really irrelevant -

Kucinich didn't support him either.

>

>> 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,

>

> I don't know what you mean by " the powerful " but under a

> administration corporations as we have come to know them would cease

> to exist, because their political influence, which is where they draw

> a good chunk of their power, would be dramatically reduced.

So, then the giant corporations that exist now would just simply fall apart?

Sorry, but I just don't see that happening. What would prevent their

influence on the state level? Isn't there a labor movement history, where

people have fought for their rights against big business and corporations?

Let's bring back the 60 hour work week, and miserable conditions...

>

>> he is against a woman's right to

>> have an abortion

>

> His political position is that this is not a concern of the Feds. The

> only way you would have to worry about Ron 's personal position on

> abortion is if he became a representative in your state.

So, it's not more likely that abortion would be made illegal in individual

states then? I find it also curious that people would not vote for Dennis

Kucinich because he's a vegan, but don't think it matters that Ron is

vehemently pro life.

I simply don't believe that the man will not use every means necessary to

ensure that abortion is made more difficult.

" First, the Freedom of Conscience Act of 2003 prohibits any federal official

from expending any federal funds for any population control or population

planning program or any family planning activity. It is immoral to force the

American taxpayers to subsidize programs and practices they find morally

abhorrent.

Second, I rise to introduce the Partial-birth Abortion Funding Ban Act of

2003. This bill prohibits federal officials from paying any federal funds to

any individual or entity that performs partial-birth abortions. The taxpayer

must not be forced to fund this barbaric procedure.

Finally, my Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 provides that

the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear

abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in

Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution. The district courts of the United

States, as well as the United States Court of Federal Claims, should not

have the authority to hear these types of cases.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my colleagues will join me in support of

these three bills. By following the Constitution and using the power granted

to the Congress by this document, we can restore freedom of conscience and

the sanctity of human life. "

Ron

Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?

A: As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I

can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the

unborn, no matter what I do, so there's a legal life there. The unborn has

inheritance rights, and if there's an injury or a killing, there is a legal

entity. There is no doubt about it.

Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction

I'm surprised that I don't have more co-sponsors for my Sanctity of Life

Act. It removes the jurisdiction from the federal courts & allows the states

to pass protection to the unborn. Instead of waiting years for a

Constitutional Amendment, this would happen immediately, by majority vote in

the Congress and a president's signature. It's a much easier way to

accomplish this, by following what our Constitution directs us. Instead of

new laws, let's just use what we have & pass this type of legislation.

>

No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion

Q: The Mexico City Policy states that as a condition for a foreign

organization to receive federal funds, they will neither " perform nor

actively promote abortion. " Would you work to apply this Mexico City policy

to organizations within the US?

HUCKABEE: Are we being asked to apply a Mexican law to the US?

Q: It's the principle of not giving our tax dollars to organizations within

our country that actively promote or provide abortions. It's an American

law.

BROWNBACK: This is Reagan' policy that we wouldn't use federal funds

to support organizations that promote abortions overseas.

HUNTER: It's actually a UN policy.

KEYES: Actually, it was a policy of the Mexico City Population Conference. I

was the deputy chairman. I actually negotiated the language into the final

resolution at that conference.

Q: I want to know, will you defund Planned Parenthood?

* HUCKABEE: Yes.

* TANCREDO: Yes.

* COX: Yes.

* BROWNBACK: Yes.

* PAUL: Yes.

* HUNTER: Yes.

* KEYES: Yes.

And on and on and on...

>> (well, he would allows states to choose - yippee!),

>

> Yes, as they did before Roe v Wade.

Your point? Slavery was constitutional at one point, and legal also...

>

>> against

>> most of the protections that we still have.

>

> What protections would **you** lose Gene if Ron became President?

Huh? We're talking about me?

>

>>> 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.

>

> Sounds like you might have to vote with your feet :-)

I'm coming too close to gratuitous personal insults here, so I'll stop. I

just can't see how any decent person could consider this man after the

slightest bit of research, and arguing with someone like this will surely

accomplish nothing.

>

>>> 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?

>

> What they see is that by having a President who devolves many if not

> most issues to the state, they can work in an environment where they

> have a far greater chance of implementing their particular agenda.

> Have you ever worked in electoral politics? Even in the good old boy

> state I grew up in (land) it was much easier to effect change at

> the state level than to try to do it at a national level. The only way

> that could conceivably change is if we amended the constitution to

> once again allow for the election of senators by state legislators.

> The likelihood of that is about the same as Kucinich winning the

> democratic nomination.

>

>

>> 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.

>

> With the exception of one, none of the links I posted were written by

> libertarians.

>

>> 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,

>

> One federal protection you mentioned has proven **factually** to be a

> **disaster** for the poor: affirmative action.

>

> The Grand Fraud: Affirmative Action for Blacks

> http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2637

>

> excerpt:

>

> When any policy can only be defended by lies and duplicity, there is

> something fundamentally wrong with that policy. Virtually every

> argument in favor of affirmative action is demonstrably false. It is

> the grand fraud of our time.

>

> The need for " role models " of the same race or sex is a key dogma

> behind affirmative action in hiring black or female professors. But a

> recent study titled " Increasing Faculty Diversity " found " no empirical

> evidence to support the belief that same-sex, same-ethnicity role

> models are any more effective than white male role models. "

>

> The related notion that a certain " critical mass " of black students is

> needed on a given campus, in order that these students can feel

> comfortable enough to do their best, has become dogma without a speck

> of evidence being offered or asked for. Such evidence as there is

> points in the opposite direction.

>

> Without affirmative action, its advocates claim, few black students

> would be able to get into college. In reality, there are today more

> black students in the University of California system and in the

> University of Texas system than there were before these systems ended

> affirmative action.

>

> These black students are simply distributed differently within both

> systems -- no longer being mismatched with institutions whose

> standards they don't meet. They now have a better chance of

> graduating.

>

> What of the idea that affirmative action has helped blacks rise out of

> poverty and is needed to continue that rise? A far higher proportion

> of blacks in poverty rose out of poverty in the 20 years between 1940

> and 1960 -- that is, before any major federal civil rights legislation

> -- than in the more than 40 years since then. This trend continued in

> the 1960s, at a slower pace. The decade of the 1970s -- the first

> affirmative action decade -- saw virtually no change in the poverty

> rate among blacks.

>

> In other words, most blacks lifted themselves out of poverty but

> liberal politicians and black " leaders " have claimed credit. One side

> effect is that many whites wonder why blacks cannot lift themselves

> out of poverty like other groups, when that is in fact what most

> blacks have done.

>

> Affirmative action is great for black millionaires but it has done

> little or nothing for most people in the ghetto. Most minority

> business owners who get preferences in government contracts have net

> worths of more than one million dollars.

>

> One of the big barriers to any rational discussion of affirmative

> action is that many of those who are for or against it are for or

> against the theory or the rationales behind group preferences and

> quotas. As for facts, the defenders simply lie.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 12/26/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> Easy to find this stuff with a google search. This one is typical:

Here's a link discussing some of these (very old) quotes:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:LA_SOfsTq-sJ:dsadevil.blogspot.com/2007/05/\

rep-paul-on-race.html+Opinion+polls+consistently+show+that+only+about+5+percent+\

of+blacks+have & hl=en & ct=clnk & cd=3 & gl=us & ie=UTF-8

Not sure what to make it as to whether he is personally a bigot, but I

don't think so.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 12/26/07, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> I wouldn't be surprised if Ron ends up running as an independent,

Unlikely, since he has repeatedly stated he has no intention of doing

that whatsoever.

> since he doesn't appear likely to get the Republican nomination, short

> of a miraculous finish.

Finish? How about a beginning? There hasn't even been one primary vote yet.

Ron is a frontrunner as concerns fundraising, and his fundraising

base is much broader than the other candiadtes, having an average

donation around $100 rather than several thousands of dollars.

The polls are likely underestimating his support because they are

polls of likely Republican primary voters, which exclude independents,

Democrats reregistering as Republicans to vote for him, young people

who haven't voted in a presidential election yet, dissatisifed

Republicans who didn't consider it worth voting in the last primary,

etc.

His polling has tripled in the last month or so, from 2% up to 6%.

He's getting far more media attention the last few weeks because of

his record-setting fundraising.

Is he likely to get the nomination? Not terribly likely. But does he

have a chance? Absolutely. You can't predict a need for a miraculous

finish when the race hasn't started yet.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > On 12/26/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

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

>> >

>>> >> Easy to find this stuff with a google search. This one is typical:

>> >

>> > Here's a link discussing some of these (very old) quotes:

>> >

>> >

>>

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:LA_SOfsTq-sJ:dsadevil.blogspot.com/2007/0

>> >

>>

5/rep-paul-on-race.html+Opinion+polls+consistently+show+that+only+about+5+perc

>> > ent+of+blacks+have & hl=en & ct=clnk & cd=3 & gl=us & ie=UTF-8

>> >

>>

<http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:LA_SOfsTq-sJ:dsadevil.blogspot.com/2007/

>> >

>>

05/rep-paul-on-race.html+Opinion+polls+consistently+show+that+only+about+5+per

>> > cent+of+blacks+have & amp;hl=en & amp;ct=clnk & amp;cd=3 & amp;gl=us & amp;ie=UTF-8>

>> >

>> > Not sure what to make it as to whether he is personally a bigot, but I

>> > don't think so.

>> >

>> > Chris

>> >

His excuses are incredibly lame.

[Guest guest]

On 12/26/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> On Ron ¹s views about blacks: some juicy stuff here:

>

> http://www.bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=8A24F55A36B8A200C8E0A92

> AD87ADDFB?diaryId=2595

A quote from this page:

===============

First of all, the alleged racist content in his newsletter from the

early 90's is old news. It was covered by the New York Times, and they

analyzed it against many writings verified to be by him, and found the

style totally different. They concluded that he was telling the truth.

The New York Times isn't exactly known for being Republican or

Libertarian apologists. So yes, he unknowingly hired a racist

ghostwriter whom he fired once he found out about it, and then to

compound matters listened to bad advice from campaign staffers (whom

he hopefully also fired) nine years ago.

=============

Sounds plausible to me, as I've read a lot that Ron has written

and the writing styles sounds totally different to me. And in the

historical context, after the LA riots, it's conceivable how it

happened. Of course, this is a pretty embarassing mess up for ,

but I really don't think it's likely that these represent his own

views on blacks. And yeah, it seems he totally mishandled this 25

years ago.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 12/26/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> His excuses are incredibly lame.

I agree the way he handled the whole thing is very lame and pretty

embarassing, but I still find his explanation more plausible. Is it

possible that he's a closet racist? Yes -- but I find that much less

likely than that his explanation is correct and his handling of the

situation very lame.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> On 12/26/07, <oz4caster@...> wrote:

> > I wouldn't be surprised if Ron ends up running as an

> > independent,

>

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Unlikely, since he has repeatedly stated he has no intention of

> doing that whatsoever.

since he is currently seeking the republican nomination, it

would be foolish for him to say now that he would run as an

independent if he didn't get the nomination. But just because he has

no intention at present doesn't mean he can't change his mind if he

doesn't get the nomination.

> Is he likely to get the nomination? Not terribly likely. But does

> he have a chance? Absolutely. You can't predict a need for a

> miraculous finish when the race hasn't started yet.

I thought you believed in miracles Chris?

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> I don't think this analysis is quite fair in its methodology. You

> assume that next-to-nothing is substantially better than nothing,

> when global warming and peak oil are both issues that are pretty

> much, if the theories are correct, disasters without drastic action.

the theory of human cause for global warming is poorly

supported by the evidence at best and is a hugely misguided fraud and

hoax at worst. So, it would probably be a huge waste of resources to

try and reduce human CO2 emissions - an effort that would not likely

have any significant impact on global warming.

The web pages below provide a good assessment of the evidence and give

a good perspective of climate change.

Influence of greenhouse gases and human activities:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Historical climate change perspective:

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263