Activism Discussion: Dismissing Ron Paul

Dismissing Ron Paul
Posts: 43

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)

Dan Clore
2008-03-02 07:47:40 EST
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.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

He's been a busy little legislator.


------
--
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

Page: 1 2 3 4 5   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron