News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://tinyurl.com/2jym4n Dismissing Ron Paul By Ivan Eland February 28, 2008
Editor’s Note: For most of George W. Bush’s presidency, the Washington press corps acted like the submissive subjects of the emperor whose overweening vanity led him to think he was wearing the finest clothes when he actually was prancing about naked.
\In Campaign 2008, Rep. Ron Paul played the role of the child who dared state the obvious -- and was hushed up by shocked journalists who dismissed him as a kook. In the guest essay, the Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland dissents:
As the nation’s major media outlets crown John McCain (George W. Bush on steroids) as the Republican nominee for president, their nearly criminal neglect of Ron Paul’s candidacy in the 2008 presidential campaign is nearly complete.
“Big media” have never deemed Paul a “major candidate,” as their paltry coverage of him shows.
In fact, the media often brand the ardent groundswell of popular support for Ron Paul as an odd curiosity. The problem is that if Ron Paul is a kook -- as they imply -- then so are the nation’s founders.
His policy prescriptions of more limited government at home and military restraint abroad put him far closer to the spectrum of opinion at the founding than any other candidate in the 2008 race.
The media barons would never dream of implying that the founders were loony tunes. But the country’s current massive government, with its intrusive activism at home and abroad, is so far removed from the founding vision that the modern-day manifestation of such values appears downright weird to today’s press corps.
Most appalling is the media’s emphasis on criticizing Paul’s foreign policy views. The Washington Post, in an op-ed dedicated entirely to undermining Paul’s candidacy, argued that Paul is an “isolationist” who would withdraw from Iraq immediately, wouldn’t defend South Korea if it were attacked by the North, and has attempted to understand why Osama bin Laden attacks the United States.
Yet the nation’s founders were not isolationists, and neither is Paul. Like the founders, he wants to avoid unneeded and unconscionable military attacks on other countries that pervert the republic at home.
In his usual frank manner, Paul bluntly admits that the United States has failed in Iraq. Alone among all of the Democratic and Republican candidates who ran or are still running in 2008, Paul understands the oft-neglected domestic ill effects of a quixotic and overly broad “war on terror,” including the war in Iraq.
He grasps that the erosion of the Constitution and civil liberties, which make the United States unique among nations, may be the war’s most important negative consequence.
Paul is also unique among the candidates in pointing out that now, rich U.S. allies, such as South Korea, are capable of defending themselves against far poorer foes. South Korea’s economy is about 30 times that of the North and no longer needs a U.S. security guarantee.
With the Soviet Union long relegated to the trash bin of history, no longer must the United States subsidize European defense through retaining the outdated NATO alliance and stationing of U.S. forces in Europe.
Paul is a rare politician who actually acknowledges expert opinion on al Qaeda. That opinion has concluded that bin Laden attacks the United States because of its foreign policy toward the Middle East -- that is, the invasion and occupation of Muslim lands, and support for Israel and corrupt, autocratic Arab dictatorships.
Yet contrary to empirical evidence and polls in the Arab/Islamic world, other politicians in both major parties -- to buttress their interventionist foreign policy prescriptions -- either conveniently ignore al Qaeda’s motives or disingenuously attribute bin Laden’s hostility to his distaste for American culture or political and economic freedom.
In sum, Paul has astutely realized that the republic’s founding principles have never been more relevant to today’s world.
No matter what the outcome of the 2008 election, Paul’s participation in the campaign and its debates has been a huge plus in highlighting the long-forgotten founders’ policies of limited government and military restraint and in advocating their relevancy and renewal in today’s world.
That is why I was proud to accept an invitation to serve as a foreign policy advisor to Paul’s campaign. Like being a Maytag repairman, however, it is a lonely job, because the already savvy Paul doesn’t need much advice.
Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office. His books include The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting “Defense” Back into U.S. Defense Policy.
-- Dan Clore
My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_ http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: http://tinyurl.com/292yz9 News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is in charge on this island? Professor: Why, no one. Skipper: No one? Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy! -- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan"
Tim Crowley
2008-03-02 16:43:53 EST
Ron Paul is a racist pig. it's proven in his own newsletters. nothing he says is of any value to Americans. He's free to decide if he has a baby, but he will keep his filthy hands on my wife. America looked at him, saw sickness and moved on. He will be lucky to win re- election. and to think he once ran as a Libertarian.
Michael Price
2008-03-02 19:23:15 EST
On Mar 3, 8:43 am, Tim Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ron Paul is a racist pig. it's proven in his own newsletters.
Well for a start the things said in the newsletters weren't racist until they were taken out of context. For instance one quote was talking about how _other people_ would think not how the author (not Dr. Paul) thought. In fact there is zero evidence that Ron Paul is a racist. Barak Obama on the other hand freely associates with people with racist views.
> nothing he says is of any value to Americans.
Ahh... the old ad hominem argument, this person is bad therefoer everything he says must be wrong or irrevelent. Still a stupid argument still made by stupid people.
> He's free to decide if he has a baby,
He is? Since when? His wife made that decision.
> but he will keep his filthy hands on my wife.
When has he ever expressed an interest in your wife?
> America looked at him, saw sickness and moved on.
What sickness? The crap creeps like you dragged up from newsletters and branded as racist? Most of it was damn well correct and you know it. And the most "objectionable" part judged people on actions not race.
> He will be lucky to win re-election.
Yeah right because this Peder guy is a real challenge. The GOP tried to oust Ron before and it blew up in their faces. Sending this nobody who praised Paul only months before isn't going to work.
> and to think he once ran as a Libertarian.
*Anarcissie*
2008-03-02 21:26:08 EST
On Mar 2, 7:47 am, Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote: > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > http://tinyurl.com/2jym4n > Dismissing Ron Paul > By Ivan Eland > February 28, 2008 > > Editor's Note: For most of George W. Bush's presidency, the Washington > press corps acted like the submissive subjects of the emperor whose > overweening vanity led him to think he was wearing the finest clothes > when he actually was prancing about naked. > > \In Campaign 2008, Rep. Ron Paul played the role of the child who dared > state the obvious -- and was hushed up by shocked journalists who > dismissed him as a kook. In the guest essay, the Independent Institute's > Ivan Eland dissents: > > As the nation's major media outlets crown John McCain (George W. Bush on > steroids) as the Republican nominee for president, their nearly criminal > neglect of Ron Paul's candidacy in the 2008 presidential campaign is > nearly complete. > > "Big media" have never deemed Paul a "major candidate," as their paltry > coverage of him shows.
I don't think Ron Paul was done in by the media, although certainly one is reminded of "The New Decalogue":
Thou shalt not kill; but need'st not strive Officiously to keep alive
Generally, I don't believe Americans think rationally about candidates or their programs in the sense of using evidence and logic to analyze them. (This is actually a rational approach, since in a large election one's vote does not perceptibly affect the outcome; might as well vote your feelings.) Mr. Paul's appeal is to reason; it cannot compete with appeals to military values , fundamentalism, the traditional brew of sententiousness, sentimentality and sanctimony which are the staples of mainstream American political discourse, or the various illusions and prejudices the Republican Party specializes in.
This is probably just as well for Mr. Paul, since if he did start to attract a lot of votes and looked like he might succeed in inconveniencing the established order, something unpleasant might have to be done about it
> In fact, the media often brand the ardent groundswell of popular support > for Ron Paul as an odd curiosity. The problem is that if Ron Paul is a > kook -- as they imply -- then so are the nation's founders. > > His policy prescriptions of more limited government at home and military > restraint abroad put him far closer to the spectrum of opinion at the > founding than any other candidate in the 2008 race. > > The media barons would never dream of implying that the founders were > loony tunes. But the country's current massive government, with its > intrusive activism at home and abroad, is so far removed from the > founding vision that the modern-day manifestation of such values appears > downright weird to today's press corps. > > Most appalling is the media's emphasis on criticizing Paul's foreign > policy views. The Washington Post, in an op-ed dedicated entirely to > undermining Paul's candidacy, argued that Paul is an "isolationist" who > would withdraw from Iraq immediately, wouldn't defend South Korea if it > were attacked by the North, and has attempted to understand why Osama > bin Laden attacks the United States. > > Yet the nation's founders were not isolationists, and neither is Paul. > Like the founders, he wants to avoid unneeded and unconscionable > military attacks on other countries that pervert the republic at home. > > In his usual frank manner, Paul bluntly admits that the United States > has failed in Iraq. Alone among all of the Democratic and Republican > candidates who ran or are still running in 2008, Paul understands the > oft-neglected domestic ill effects of a quixotic and overly broad "war > on terror," including the war in Iraq. > > He grasps that the erosion of the Constitution and civil liberties, > which make the United States unique among nations, may be the war's most > important negative consequence. > > Paul is also unique among the candidates in pointing out that now, rich > U.S. allies, such as South Korea, are capable of defending themselves > against far poorer foes. South Korea's economy is about 30 times that of > the North and no longer needs a U.S. security guarantee. > > With the Soviet Union long relegated to the trash bin of history, no > longer must the United States subsidize European defense through > retaining the outdated NATO alliance and stationing of U.S. forces in > Europe. > > Paul is a rare politician who actually acknowledges expert opinion on al > Qaeda. That opinion has concluded that bin Laden attacks the United > States because of its foreign policy toward the Middle East -- that is, > the invasion and occupation of Muslim lands, and support for Israel and > corrupt, autocratic Arab dictatorships. > > Yet contrary to empirical evidence and polls in the Arab/Islamic world, > other politicians in both major parties -- to buttress their > interventionist foreign policy prescriptions -- either conveniently > ignore al Qaeda's motives or disingenuously attribute bin Laden's > hostility to his distaste for American culture or political and economic > freedom. > > In sum, Paul has astutely realized that the republic's founding > principles have never been more relevant to today's world. > > No matter what the outcome of the 2008 election, Paul's participation in > the campaign and its debates has been a huge plus in highlighting the > long-forgotten founders' policies of limited government and military > restraint and in advocating their relevancy and renewal in today's world. > > That is why I was proud to accept an invitation to serve as a foreign > policy advisor to Paul's campaign. Like being a Maytag repairman, > however, it is a lonely job, because the already savvy Paul doesn't need > much advice. > > Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The > Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress > on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the > House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the > Congressional Budget Office. His books include The Empire Has No > Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting "Defense" Back into > U.S. Defense Policy.
William Flax
2008-03-03 11:35:50 EST
You hurl insults, but cannot cite one Constitutional issue where Ron Paul has not stood fast for everything that is of the highest value to Americans. What a silly bunch of baseless accusations. Or are we to believe that Dr. Paul really is your wife's OB?
"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3343b483-b017-4328-9f2e-5d79882ec218@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > Ron Paul is a racist pig. it's proven in his own newsletters. > nothing he says is of any value to Americans. He's free to decide if > he has a baby, but he will keep his filthy hands on my wife. America > looked at him, saw sickness and moved on. He will be lucky to win re- > election. and to think he once ran as a Libertarian. > >
Al Dykes
2008-03-03 11:53:49 EST
In article <pyVyj.4251$fX7.1566@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, William Flax <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote: >You hurl insults, but cannot cite one Constitutional issue where Ron Paul >has not stood fast for everything that is of the highest value to Americans. >What a silly bunch of baseless accusations. Or are we to believe that Dr. >Paul really is your wife's OB? > >"Tim Crowley" <timmyturmoil@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:3343b483-b017-4328-9f2e-5d79882ec218@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> Ron Paul is a racist pig. it's proven in his own newsletters. >> nothing he says is of any value to Americans. He's free to decide if >> he has a baby, but he will keep his filthy hands on my wife. America >> looked at him, saw sickness and moved on. He will be lucky to win re- >> election. and to think he once ran as a Libertarian. >>
Ron Paul rejects evolution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g&e
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I saw you in one of the earlier debates, all of the candidates were asked if they believe the theory of evolution to be true and they had a show of hands, but I didn.t see which way you voted, and I was wondering if you believe it to be true, and should it be taught in our schools.
PAUL: First, I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And I, um, I think it.s a theory, theory of evolution, and I don.t accept it, you know, as a theory.. I just don.t think we.re at a point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side.
Here's a summary of all the legislation that Paul has not just voted for but sponsored. The anti-war folks that back him just for troop withdrawal should be in for a surprise. His gold standard stuff is k00k economics according to essentially all economists.
------ -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
No Surrender
2008-03-03 12:12:29 EST
"Dan Clore" <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote in message news:47CAA1EC.5030802@columbia-center.org... > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > http://tinyurl.com/2jym4n > Dismissing Ron Paul > By Ivan Eland > February 28, 2008 ****** Just learned that Ronnie complained about being excluded from the so-called presidential debate cattle calls, but refuses to debate his primary election opponent for his House seat. Curious, eh.
Dennis
> > Editor\ufffds Note: For most of George W. Bush\ufffds presidency, the Washington > press corps acted like the submissive subjects of the emperor whose > overweening vanity led him to think he was wearing the finest clothes > when he actually was prancing about naked. > > \In Campaign 2008, Rep. Ron Paul played the role of the child who dared > state the obvious -- and was hushed up by shocked journalists who > dismissed him as a kook. In the guest essay, the Independent Institute\ufffds > Ivan Eland dissents: > > As the nation\ufffds major media outlets crown John McCain (George W. Bush on > steroids) as the Republican nominee for president, their nearly criminal > neglect of Ron Paul\ufffds candidacy in the 2008 presidential campaign is > nearly complete. > > \ufffdBig media\ufffd have never deemed Paul a \ufffdmajor candidate,\ufffd as their paltry > coverage of him shows. > > In fact, the media often brand the ardent groundswell of popular support > for Ron Paul as an odd curiosity. The problem is that if Ron Paul is a > kook -- as they imply -- then so are the nation\ufffds founders. > > His policy prescriptions of more limited government at home and military > restraint abroad put him far closer to the spectrum of opinion at the > founding than any other candidate in the 2008 race. > > The media barons would never dream of implying that the founders were > loony tunes. But the country\ufffds current massive government, with its > intrusive activism at home and abroad, is so far removed from the > founding vision that the modern-day manifestation of such values appears > downright weird to today\ufffds press corps. > > Most appalling is the media\ufffds emphasis on criticizing Paul\ufffds foreign > policy views. The Washington Post, in an op-ed dedicated entirely to > undermining Paul\ufffds candidacy, argued that Paul is an \ufffdisolationist\ufffd who > would withdraw from Iraq immediately, wouldn\ufffdt defend South Korea if it > were attacked by the North, and has attempted to understand why Osama > bin Laden attacks the United States. > > Yet the nation\ufffds founders were not isolationists, and neither is Paul. > Like the founders, he wants to avoid unneeded and unconscionable > military attacks on other countries that pervert the republic at home. > > In his usual frank manner, Paul bluntly admits that the United States > has failed in Iraq. Alone among all of the Democratic and Republican > candidates who ran or are still running in 2008, Paul understands the > oft-neglected domestic ill effects of a quixotic and overly broad \ufffdwar > on terror,\ufffd including the war in Iraq. > > He grasps that the erosion of the Constitution and civil liberties, > which make the United States unique among nations, may be the war\ufffds most > important negative consequence. > > Paul is also unique among the candidates in pointing out that now, rich > U.S. allies, such as South Korea, are capable of defending themselves > against far poorer foes. South Korea\ufffds economy is about 30 times that of > the North and no longer needs a U.S. security guarantee. > > With the Soviet Union long relegated to the trash bin of history, no > longer must the United States subsidize European defense through > retaining the outdated NATO alliance and stationing of U.S. forces in > Europe. > > Paul is a rare politician who actually acknowledges expert opinion on al > Qaeda. That opinion has concluded that bin Laden attacks the United > States because of its foreign policy toward the Middle East -- that is, > the invasion and occupation of Muslim lands, and support for Israel and > corrupt, autocratic Arab dictatorships. > > Yet contrary to empirical evidence and polls in the Arab/Islamic world, > other politicians in both major parties -- to buttress their > interventionist foreign policy prescriptions -- either conveniently > ignore al Qaeda\ufffds motives or disingenuously attribute bin Laden\ufffds > hostility to his distaste for American culture or political and economic > freedom. > > In sum, Paul has astutely realized that the republic\ufffds founding > principles have never been more relevant to today\ufffds world. > > No matter what the outcome of the 2008 election, Paul\ufffds participation in > the campaign and its debates has been a huge plus in highlighting the > long-forgotten founders\ufffd policies of limited government and military > restraint and in advocating their relevancy and renewal in today\ufffds world. > > That is why I was proud to accept an invitation to serve as a foreign > policy advisor to Paul\ufffds campaign. Like being a Maytag repairman, > however, it is a lonely job, because the already savvy Paul doesn\ufffdt need > much advice. > > Ivan Eland is Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at The > Independent Institute. Dr. Eland has spent 15 years working for Congress > on national security issues, including stints as an investigator for the > House Foreign Affairs Committee and Principal Defense Analyst at the > Congressional Budget Office. His books include The Empire Has No > Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Exposed, and Putting \ufffdDefense\ufffd Back into > U.S. Defense Policy. > > -- > Dan Clore > > My collected fiction: _The Unspeakable and Others_ > http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr > Lord We\ufffdrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page: > http://tinyurl.com/292yz9 > News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo > > Skipper: Professor, will you tell these people who is > in charge on this island? > Professor: Why, no one. > Skipper: No one? > Thurston Howell III: No one? Good heavens, this is anarchy! > -- _Gilligan's Island_, episode #6, "President Gilligan" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
*Anarcissie*
2008-03-03 13:18:10 EST
On Mar 3, 11:53 am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <pyVyj.4251$fX7.1...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, > > William Flax <krtq7...@prodigy.net> wrote: > >You hurl insults, but cannot cite one Constitutional issue where Ron Paul > >has not stood fast for everything that is of the highest value to Americans. > >What a silly bunch of baseless accusations. Or are we to believe that Dr. > >Paul really is your wife's OB? > > >"Tim Crowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:3343b483-b017-4328-9f2e-5d79882ec218@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >> Ron Paul is a racist pig. it's proven in his own newsletters. > >> nothing he says is of any value to Americans. He's free to decide if > >> he has a baby, but he will keep his filthy hands on my wife. America > >> looked at him, saw sickness and moved on. He will be lucky to win re- > >> election. and to think he once ran as a Libertarian. > > Ron Paul rejects evolution > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g&e > > AUDIENCE MEMBER: I saw you in one of the earlier debates, all of > the candidates were asked if they believe the theory of evolution > to be true and they had a show of hands, but I didn.t see which > way you voted, and I was wondering if you believe it to be true, > and should it be taught in our schools. > > PAUL: First, I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you > know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And > I, um, I think it.s a theory, theory of evolution, and I don.t > accept it, you know, as a theory.. I just don.t think we.re at a > point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side. > > Here's a summary of all the legislation that Paul has not just voted > for but sponsored. The anti-war folks that back him just for troop > withdrawal should be in for a surprise. His gold standard stuff is k00k > economics according to essentially all economists. > > http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html > > He's been a busy little legislator.
So what do you propose with reference to Evolution? A religious test, that is, those who don't believe in Evolution as a settled, undeniable, completely understood fact must be excluded from office? How does this impinge on the duties of the presidency?
As for gold, if you think the present basis of our money -- credit inflated by the government for political ends -- is more rational that a gold standard, please explain why. Gold, or any other commodity, has its defects as a currency basis, but there is a day of reckoning coming for the present system which is going to make the gold standard look pretty good.
K*@gmail.com
2008-03-03 16:52:55 EST
On Mar 3, 11:53 am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: > In article <pyVyj.4251$fX7.1...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, > > William Flax <krtq7...@prodigy.net> wrote: > >You hurl insults, but cannot cite one Constitutional issue where Ron Paul > >has not stood fast for everything that is of the highest value to Americans. > >What a silly bunch of baseless accusations. Or are we to believe that Dr. > >Paul really is your wife's OB? > > >"Tim Crowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:3343b483-b017-4328-9f2e-5d79882ec218@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >> Ron Paul is a racist pig. it's proven in his own newsletters. > >> nothing he says is of any value to Americans. He's free to decide if > >> he has a baby, but he will keep his filthy hands on my wife. America > >> looked at him, saw sickness and moved on. He will be lucky to win re- > >> election. and to think he once ran as a Libertarian. > > Ron Paul rejects evolution > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g&e > > AUDIENCE MEMBER: I saw you in one of the earlier debates, all of > the candidates were asked if they believe the theory of evolution > to be true and they had a show of hands, but I didn.t see which > way you voted, and I was wondering if you believe it to be true, > and should it be taught in our schools. > > PAUL: First, I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you > know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And > I, um, I think it.s a theory, theory of evolution, and I don.t > accept it, you know, as a theory.. I just don.t think we.re at a > point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side. > > Here's a summary of all the legislation that Paul has not just voted > for but sponsored. The anti-war folks that back him just for troop > withdrawal should be in for a surprise. His gold standard stuff is k00k > economics according to essentially all economists. > > http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html > > He's been a busy little legislator. >
You left this one out:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
Then there's this . . .
=-=
What Gunny Had To Say:
Interestingly enough, the 'explanations' of Paul's record which this blogger provides, contradict the facts of his record posted right with them.
For example, the blogger posts a bill sponsored by Ron Paul to allow Congress to prosecute people who destroy flags OWNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. But in the bloggers analysis, he claims that Paul's bill would make it illegal for people to burn flags which they themselves own.
Looking through the entire post, this pattern s repeated throughout the list of bills. In nearly every single instance, the bloggers 'analysis' of Paul's legislation is radically different from what the legislation itself actually says.
Of course, the comments reflect people's inability to separate the biased 'analysis' from the actual record itself. The reader comments almost universally reflected the positions of the bloggers analysis, instead of the record itself.
The only issue which they got even close to, was in Dr Paul's stance on the right to life. Ron Paul does believe in the right to life, which comes from his several decades as a registered and licensed OBGYN, having delivered over 4000 babies in his lifetime. -- Gunny Freedom's Blog: http://libertyline.blogspot.com/ Gunny's Hangout: http://www.rwva.org/yabbse/index.php "Liberty's Price" Become a Rifleman: http://appleseedinfo.org/
> ------ > -- > Al Dykes > News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. > - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
What are YOU trying to suppress, Al?
(It certainly isn't your hatred for America, that's for sure.)
Al Dykes
2008-03-04 14:04:21 EST
In article <1b2b10d3-1e0f-4fa5-b73a-5fb44686d1ed@e31g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, *Anarcissie* <anarcissie@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mar 3, 11:53 am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote: >> In article <pyVyj.4251$fX7.1...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>, >> >> William Flax <krtq7...@prodigy.net> wrote: >> >You hurl insults, but cannot cite one Constitutional issue where Ron Paul >> >has not stood fast for everything that is of the highest value to Americans. >> >What a silly bunch of baseless accusations. Or are we to believe that Dr. >> >Paul really is your wife's OB? >> >> >"Tim Crowley" <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:3343b483-b017-4328-9f2e-5d79882ec218@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> Ron Paul is a racist pig. it's proven in his own newsletters. >> >> nothing he says is of any value to Americans. He's free to decide if >> >> he has a baby, but he will keep his filthy hands on my wife. America >> >> looked at him, saw sickness and moved on. He will be lucky to win re- >> >> election. and to think he once ran as a Libertarian. >> >> Ron Paul rejects evolution >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPoCsC8VT9g&e >> >> AUDIENCE MEMBER: I saw you in one of the earlier debates, all of >> the candidates were asked if they believe the theory of evolution >> to be true and they had a show of hands, but I didn.t see which >> way you voted, and I was wondering if you believe it to be true, >> and should it be taught in our schools. >> >> PAUL: First, I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you >> know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And >> I, um, I think it.s a theory, theory of evolution, and I don.t >> accept it, you know, as a theory.. I just don.t think we.re at a >> point where anybody has absolute proof, on either side. >> >> Here's a summary of all the legislation that Paul has not just voted >> for but sponsored. The anti-war folks that back him just for troop >> withdrawal should be in for a surprise. His gold standard stuff is k00k >> economics according to essentially all economists. >> >> http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html >> >> He's been a busy little legislator. > >So what do you propose with reference to Evolution? A >religious test, that is, those who don't believe in Evolution >as a settled, undeniable, completely understood fact must
That there was evolution and the human race is a product of it is an established fact.
I don't want a president that doesn't believe that. Education is much too important and the President can affect it for good or ill.
I don't care what someone believes in private.
-- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail