Ron Paul On CNN

[Annie]

"Libertarians CANNOT be racists." So who wrote the newsletters and why were they not Libertarian? He comes off way too scary kooky uncle. "67% of blacks are in prison"? He doesn't 'know' who wrote those articles. He loves 'Rosy Parks'.

Nitpicking? Way back when? Not enough time to look them up and denounce? Oh wow! 'This is coming out because so many blacks are backing him.'

<object width="425" height="373"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RKBlk1Vpeuw&rel=1&border=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RKBlk1Vpeuw&rel=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="373"></embed></object>

 

[dawks2020]

I can see you don't like Ron Paul, and you will probably never see past this.

Let's put something in perspective here, 6 newsletters in his name for decades, he is not going to be able to monitor all of those. None the less it is his fault for not monitoring something under his name. But come on these are not his views and never have been. This has been rehashed consistently throughout his campaign and is a political ploy to try to discredit Paul. Some of the information provided in the TRN report were also exaggerated. The conference Paul attended was titled Succession, State, and Liberty. The title was a book written by Dr. David Gordon, a collection of secessionist documents including the Declaration of Independence. A law suit is being threatened against TRN from Thomas DiLorenzo who also attended the conference.

In 2003 three there were 192,000 African Americans ages 18-24 were in prison, where as only 400,000 African Americans this age where attending college. I think the total African American population in this age group is 1,896,000. The total inmate population for African Americans is 50%, and I think that out of 67% of those African American inmates are imprisoned for drug charges, I think that is the Ron 67% meant. I agree he didn’t make it clear. It is ridiculous though the amount of African Americans imprisoned, and many of those arrest are drug related.

But like I said you have your mind made up about Paul. You should judge his voting record, issues, and character. He has an impeccable voting record regarding minority issues. Like I said if you think that this current slant against Paul is an indication of his character than you will never look past this incident. I don't know maybe you never liked Paul.

 

[jillian]

But like I said you have your mind made up about Paul. You should judge his voting record, issues, and character. He has an impeccable voting record regarding minority issues. Like I said if you think that this current slant against Paul is an indication of his character than you will never look past this incident. I don't know maybe you never liked Paul.

She doesn't like his politics. Doesn't like or trust his supporters and he doesn't believe in the things she believes in. So why would she bother?

You Paul-loonies are as bad as evangelicals.

 

[dawks2020]

Paul-loonies? That sounds like a personal attack there, I take offense to that. How is that in any way like an evangelical? What specifically makes Paul loony and maybe we can get somewhere with that.

What specifically do you not like about Paul's politics? What specific policies are you concerned about, than tell me what your biggest concerns are like economy, war, etc. After that tell me which candidate you would support. Then maybe we can get somewhere.

Paul absolutely does believe in what he says. There is not a single vote in his 10 term congressional record that contradicts anything he says. No offense but why would someone campaign and vote for over 30 years on the things they advocate and not truly believe what they are running on? Claiming that Paul doesn't represent what he says seems unfounded.

 

[jillian]

Paul-loonies? That sounds like a personal attack there, I take offense to that. How is that in any way like an evangelical? What specifically makes Paul loony and maybe we can get somewhere with that.

What specifically do you not like about Paul's politics? What specific policies are you concerned about, than tell me what your biggest concerns are like economy, war, etc. After that tell me which candidate you would support. Then maybe we can get somewhere.

Paul absolutely does believe in what he says. There is not a single vote in his 10 term congressional record that contradicts anything he says. No offense but why would someone campaign and vote for over 30 years on the things they advocate and not truly believe what they are running on? Claiming that Paul doesn't represent what he says seems unfounded.

wasn't so much intended as a personal attack. Was more that I see the Paul-folk as zealots. I'm afraid, though, I do see Paul as loony. But I don't find him interesting enough to bother restating what we've already said about him.

I don't need to "get anywhere" on this issue. I am just looking foward to him sucking the last possibilty of even coming close in the presidential race from the repubs when he runs his third party campaign.

Right now, I'd support any of the top three dems and I would have supported Biden. (Biden would actually have been my top choice, but the media didn't give him any play, so his moment passed and his candidacy died on the vine). On the republican side, the only one who doesn't make me gag is McCain because he's at least a man of honor... but mostly I don't think a repub should ever have the power to appoint a supreme court justice again til they drop the religious right as their "base".

 

[dawks2020]

Paul candidates as zealots? That seems like a generalization and collective thinking there. So you assume that all RP are zealots or at least the majority and you probably know very few. Maybe you wanted to say you see some RP supporters as zealots, but that could be said of every candidate.

I see you don't want to get into why you think Paul is loony, but just give quick one word or one issue answers and maybe we can exchange some ideas.

I expect some disagreement between us. I am a palo-conservative meaning, economically conservative, civil rights liberal and libertarian, believe strongly in the constitution, and the need to restore power to congress.

I do not like nor support the neo-conservative movement, nor do I appreciate the current mainstream liberal democratic movement. I found that the best president of the 20th century was JFK, and the worst was Wilson, followed by Clinton and Bush I tied for second.


By the way I like the Bruce Magic quote, went to his show in Albany was excellent.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

She doesn't like his politics. Doesn't like or trust his supporters and he doesn't believe in the things she believes in.

Right, that's been my point all along, I'm glad we agree. The reason for the smears is because she doesn't like his politics, and she's taken a page from the left-wing playbook and resorted to labeling opponents as racist. It isn't about the alleged racism of course; after all she gave a big fat yawn when someone pointed her to a video about Arnold Schwarzenegger's nazi past.

 

[eots]

Paul candidates as zealots? That seems like a generalization and collective thinking there. So you assume that all RP are zealots or at least the majority and you probably know very few. Maybe you wanted to say you see some RP supporters as zealots, but that could be said of every candidate.

I see you don't want to get into why you think Paul is loony, but just give quick one word or one issue answers and maybe we can exchange some ideas.

I expect some disagreement between us. I am a palo-conservative meaning, economically conservative, civil rights liberal and libertarian, believe strongly in the constitution, and the need to restore power to congress.

I do not like nor support the neo-conservative movement, nor do I appreciate the current mainstream liberal democratic movement. I found that the best president of the 20th century was JFK, and the worst was Wilson, followed by Clinton and Bush I tied for second.


By the way I like the Bruce Magic quote, went to his show in Albany was excellent.

You must be new here...it seems you are under the belief that rational thought and reasoned debate will be tolerated or respected..hope you stick around tho

 

[dawks2020]

You must be new here...it seems you are under the belief that rational thought and reasoned debate will be tolerated or respected..hope you stick around tho

Its ok I am used to getting attacked, name called, etc. It can be expected. I was a long time poster on Newt Gingrich's forum until he pulled the plug on it. I wasn't a suppoter on many of Newt's views.

I am glad I found this forum, it seems like there are a lot of people here.

Thank you for the kind words and encouragement, hopefully we can all have some good discussions.

 

[pegwinn]

She doesn't like his politics. Doesn't like or trust his supporters and he doesn't believe in the things she believes in. So why would she bother?

You Paul-loonies are as bad as evangelicals. Am not! I have never been accused of evangelizing....

Paul made a big mistake by not distancing himself from certain of his supporters. People are judged by the company they keep or the money they take. Ask Barak and the money from the guy suspected of corruption.

wasn't so much intended as a personal attack. Was more that I see the Paul-folk as zealots. I'm afraid, though, I do see Paul as loony. I think he needs to choose his words with more care because people misunderstand what he's trying to say. I know I used to, I have to carefully listen to him in context. But I don't find him interesting enough to bother restating what we've already said about him.

You are a lawyer. You are trained and educated above mere mortals. And, I assume you took con-law? I would think that you would look at his record IRT to constitutional issues. If we remove the loonytix who are killing his chances, RP has actually been very consistent at tilting at the windmills blowing the constitution all over the maps.

You must be new here...it seems you are under the belief that rational thought and reasoned debate will be tolerated or respected..hope you stick around tho

Please dude. Everyone, me included, has thier moments. But, overall, this place is a shitload more tolerant than say.... Daily Kos, Redstate, etc.

 

[jillian]

Paul made a big mistake by not distancing himself from certain of his supporters. People are judged by the company they keep or the money they take. Ask Barak and the money from the guy suspected of corruption.

Yes. But if you think about it, to me, anyway,I think politics is always a dirty business and expect a little corruption here and there. Paul putting in with white supremacists is a deal breaker for me, for obvious reasons.

You are a lawyer. You are trained and educated above mere mortals. And, I assume you took con-law? I would think that you would look at his record IRT to constitutional issues. If we remove the loonytix who are killing his chances, RP has actually been very consistent at tilting at the windmills blowing the constitution all over the maps.

lol... I am merely mortal. I just studied in a particular area.

As for this "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution, I think it's dead wrong. No, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but strict constructionism didn't even exist as a means of constitutional construction until recently. In fact the term "strict construction" was first used in an Opinion that dealt with the santity of the First Amendment and reaffirmed individual liberties. It was never intended to limit the Court's right of review in any manner. It's a sham, IMO, that the right wing relies on to turn back the advancements that we've made since the 1960's.

Since Marbury v. Madison first addressed the Court's right of review, we have never bound ourselves by the strict letter of the document. We have always read into its intent and purpose. It was supposed to breathe enough to need very rare modification by way of amendment. And attempting to use the amendment process to limit individual protections and rights (as they did with prohibition and as the right would like to do vis a vis gay marriage) would have been anathema to the men who wrote the document.

 

[Annie]

Right, that's been my point all along, I'm glad we agree. The reason for the smears is because she doesn't like his politics, and she's taken a page from the left-wing playbook and resorted to labeling opponents as racist. It isn't about the alleged racism of course; after all she gave a big fat yawn when someone pointed her to a video about Arnold Schwarzenegger's nazi past.

and what you've failed to recognize all along is that I agree with his take on most 'issues.' It's the 'politics' part where he makes himself unelectable. He is either a racist or he cares so little about those types of political backers, that all money is the same. Whether it's collected for newsletters or campaign contributions. At least with the newsletters he had only those that hung around hate groups, with this campaign he managed to have them connect the dots and THAT I find dangerous in many ways for our country.

 

[jillian]

Paul candidates as zealots? That seems like a generalization and collective thinking there. So you assume that all RP are zealots or at least the majority and you probably know very few. Maybe you wanted to say you see some RP supporters as zealots, but that could be said of every candidate.

To be fair the only RP supporters I've seen have been on this board. Not a single person I know in real life is looking at him as a candidate. So my only experience with Paul folk is here. And they tend to be a bit evangelical about their candidate.

I see you don't want to get into why you think Paul is loony, but just give quick one word or one issue answers and maybe we can exchange some ideas.

See, it's just that to me, discussing Paul's candidacy is like discussing Bill Richardson's. It's interesting, but it's not going anywhre. What I thikn in a nutshell, though, is that his protectionist policies are naive. His middle east policy is outright dangerous and his idea of what government should do is a recipe for disaster, with our oldest, youngest, poorest and weakest being hung out to dry.

I expect some disagreement between us. I am a palo-conservative meaning, economically conservative, civil rights liberal and libertarian, believe strongly in the constitution, and the need to restore power to congress.

We probably aren't very far apart on a lot of issues. But I think "strict constructionism" isn't any kind of standard appropriate for constitutional review. Paul picks and chooses what he likes and doesn't like.

I do not like nor support the neo-conservative movement, nor do I appreciate the current mainstream liberal democratic movement. I found that the best president of the 20th century was JFK, and the worst was Wilson, followed by Clinton and Bush I tied for second.

I thik if Kennedy had lived through his second term, he wouldn't be as cannonized as he's been. I think Bill Clinton was the best president I've seen and Baby Bush the worst, and probably one of the worst historically.

By the way I like the Bruce Magic quote, went to his show in Albany was excellent.

Thanks re the quote. Always good to meet Bruce people!

I saw him in Hartford and at Madison Square Garden. Might go back to Hartford next month and definitely Uniondale in March and Giant's Stadium in July. In case you can't tell... well, I kinda like him.

Have a good day. Sorry if I was a bit curt with you.

 

[dawks2020]

Jillian,

I am not sure where you see Ron Paul as a protectionist. He is very straight forward about his beliefs in free trade. This is one area that I actually do not see eye to eye with him, I think he is too libertarian with trade. The fact is that every single great industrial power was built on protectionism; our country was specifically built on competitive protectionism. If you really read Adam Smith carefully you will found out he favored use of tariffs on many occasions and that Smith himself actually advocated use of protectionist tariffs on the Unites States in the 1970s and shortly after.

The fact is that the EU has tariffs on American imports by use of VAT (value added taxes). what happens here is that every product you buy in the UK has a VAT tax on it, if it is a domestic good you can a tax rebate, however if it is an imported good, like from the US you cannot get a tax rebate. This is essentially a tariff, our country should respond with a tariff on the EU. Japan and many Asian countries have the same scheme, again we should throw a tariff on them immediately. (Adam Smith advocated the use of tariffs for retaliation).

As far as China, they use currency manipulations to keep their currency the Yuan valued low compared to our dollar, making their imports cheap for US buyers. They also impose very heavy and high tariffs on US imports into China, and even US company goods manufactured in China that are marketed in China. Again we could fix our trade problems very easily and impose a tariff to establish more free and fair trade. ( I am sure I will get a lot of responses from people on this issue).

Regarding Paul's stance on social welfare. he has advocated cutting back welfare while not turning away any of those already dependent on the current system. Our current social security systems is declining, yearly benefits rise much more slowly than the cost of living; Medicare and the drug program is expected to see a 700% increase by 2025, a rather conservative measurement. As a country we will not be able to afford this. The idea that America is the richest nation on earth is not a good mentality. Our country does not have the highest standard of living, nor does it have the highest income of any other country, and we are also the most indebt nation in the history of the world.

As far as the constitution goes, RP does believe in amending the constitution as do I. The biggest constitutional problems we have are restriction of free speech via the restriction of the right to protest in many cities which can only be done in "free speech zones." Regarding the first amendment I do believe that states should be able to restrict pornography and violence, as they are not communication and do not hold a message, but should not do so by invading the fourth amendment.
The fourth amendment via the patriot act with wire tapping. (Reminds me of Ben Franklin quote "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I also believe strongly in the second amendment, all citizens do have the right to bear arms and provide their own defense, our founder definitely had that in mind, here’s a quite from Jefferson "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." I feel the same way Jefferson does on this issue (I would expect some disagreement, but arms is the only thing we have to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, gun disarmament didn't work out so well for the Germans, the Russians, nor the Chinese).
Another problem is that we commit troops and fight wars without the congress declaring wars, putting war powers into one person's hand is dangerous and a mistake.

As far as JFK goes he is a tail of two presidents, one before the bay of pigs and one after the bay of pigs. The bay of pigs represented a major ideological shift for Kennedy, prior to the bay of pigs he was a Rockefeller democrat and heavily bought into Council on Foreign Relations international policy. After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy essential killed the IMF and World Bank's involvement in the US and areas around the world through the alliance for progress, he was also very conservative, cutting corporate taxes, and cutting tax loopholes, such as the oil depreciation allowance, which would have cost oil companies roughly $20 billion at the time had it been passed. JFK also oversaw the most successful boom in modern American history; the boom was comparable to the one in the mid 90s and was never followed by a recession. The boom in the mid 90's was followed by a recession which wiped out $7 trillion in the economy, accounting for nearly all of the gains made during the prior boom.

Regarding Clinton, I will bring to light some of the things he did while president you may not be aware of, that may quickly change your mind. But I will do that elsewhere since my post is already so long.

 

[Paulie]

On the republican side, the only one who doesn't make me gag is McCain because he's at least a man of honor.

Apparently you haven't spent much time doing your homework on McCain.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=52029

A Man of "Honor". Yeah, ok.

 

[Vintij]

Personally I love ron paul. He has good conservative values (even though Im not a conservative) mixed with vigorous opinions and strong change policy. The first republican that I am voting for ever.

 

[AllieBaba]

What's wrong with Evangelicals?

Sounds like bigotry to me. Sort of like saying all Muslims are killers.

Or all pro-abortionists are zealots.

 

[jillian]

Jillian,

I am not sure where you see Ron Paul as a protectionist. He is very straight forward about his beliefs in free trade. This is one area that I actually do not see eye to eye with him, I think he is too libertarian with trade. The fact is that every single great industrial power was built on protectionism; our country was specifically built on competitive protectionism. If you really read Adam Smith carefully you will found out he favored use of tariffs on many occasions and that Smith himself actually advocated use of protectionist tariffs on the Unites States in the 1970s and shortly after.

The fact is that the EU has tariffs on American imports by use of VAT (value added taxes). what happens here is that every product you buy in the UK has a VAT tax on it, if it is a domestic good you can a tax rebate, however if it is an imported good, like from the US you cannot get a tax rebate. This is essentially a tariff, our country should respond with a tariff on the EU. Japan and many Asian countries have the same scheme, again we should throw a tariff on them immediately. (Adam Smith advocated the use of tariffs for retaliation).

As far as China, they use currency manipulations to keep their currency the Yuan valued low compared to our dollar, making their imports cheap for US buyers. They also impose very heavy and high tariffs on US imports into China, and even US company goods manufactured in China that are marketed in China. Again we could fix our trade problems very easily and impose a tariff to establish more free and fair trade. ( I am sure I will get a lot of responses from people on this issue).

Regarding Paul's stance on social welfare. he has advocated cutting back welfare while not turning away any of those already dependent on the current system. Our current social security systems is declining, yearly benefits rise much more slowly than the cost of living; Medicare and the drug program is expected to see a 700&#37; increase by 2025, a rather conservative measurement. As a country we will not be able to afford this. The idea that America is the richest nation on earth is not a good mentality. Our country does not have the highest standard of living, nor does it have the highest income of any other country, and we are also the most indebt nation in the history of the world.

As far as the constitution goes, RP does believe in amending the constitution as do I. The biggest constitutional problems we have are restriction of free speech via the restriction of the right to protest in many cities which can only be done in "free speech zones." Regarding the first amendment I do believe that states should be able to restrict pornography and violence, as they are not communication and do not hold a message, but should not do so by invading the fourth amendment.
The fourth amendment via the patriot act with wire tapping. (Reminds me of Ben Franklin quote "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
I also believe strongly in the second amendment, all citizens do have the right to bear arms and provide their own defense, our founder definitely had that in mind, here&#8217;s a quite from Jefferson "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." I feel the same way Jefferson does on this issue (I would expect some disagreement, but arms is the only thing we have to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government, gun disarmament didn't work out so well for the Germans, the Russians, nor the Chinese).
Another problem is that we commit troops and fight wars without the congress declaring wars, putting war powers into one person's hand is dangerous and a mistake.

As far as JFK goes he is a tail of two presidents, one before the bay of pigs and one after the bay of pigs. The bay of pigs represented a major ideological shift for Kennedy, prior to the bay of pigs he was a Rockefeller democrat and heavily bought into Council on Foreign Relations international policy. After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy essential killed the IMF and World Bank's involvement in the US and areas around the world through the alliance for progress, he was also very conservative, cutting corporate taxes, and cutting tax loopholes, such as the oil depreciation allowance, which would have cost oil companies roughly $20 billion at the time had it been passed. JFK also oversaw the most successful boom in modern American history; the boom was comparable to the one in the mid 90s and was never followed by a recession. The boom in the mid 90's was followed by a recession which wiped out $7 trillion in the economy, accounting for nearly all of the gains made during the prior boom.

Regarding Clinton, I will bring to light some of the things he did while president you may not be aware of, that may quickly change your mind. But I will do that elsewhere since my post is already so long.

Ron Paul thinks all our troops should be called back from all over the globe, without any assessment of what is necessary and what is not. He thinks we shouldn't give any foreign aid. He's naive enough to think that if he puts his hands over his ears and says "lalalalalala" that Israel and the pals will make all nicey-nice...

He doesn't believe in government providing services. He doesn't believe in public education.

His policies are so pro white, anti-minority IN THEIR EFFECT, that the white supremacists adore him.

He claims to believe in term limits, yet he's been in Congress for 19 years. He says he doesn't believe in earmarks but he'll take them for his district. He's a hypocrite, IMO.

As for Clinton, well, I don't really see the point in more anti-Clinton innuendo. I made the assessment I made of his presidency based on reasonable criteria... you know, like is it better now than it was then. Answer: A resounding no no no no no. And he was investigated up the yin yang for six years, so any "real scoop on Clinton" would have already been investigated and discounted by good ole Ken Starr... or he wouldn't have gone for just a blue dress.

So, I'm going to opt out of further Ron Paul discussions at this time. They really are a waste, IMO, because he's not a serious contender for the whitehouse and I find the real race much more exciting.

But we can still agree on Bruce.

 

[pegwinn]

Yes. But if you think about it, to me, anyway,I think politics is always a dirty business and expect a little corruption here and there. Paul putting in with white supremacists is a deal breaker for me, for obvious reasons. From what little I've seen it looks to me more "putting up with" than "putting in with". But, as I have said, you are judged by the company you keep and the money you take. This is a tactical mistake for RP

lol... I am merely mortal. I just studied in a particular area.

As for this "strict constructionist" view of the Constitution, I think it's dead wrong. No, I'm not a constitutional scholar, but strict constructionism didn't even exist as a means of constitutional construction until recently. In fact the term "strict construction" was first used in an Opinion that dealt with the santity of the First Amendment and reaffirmed individual liberties. It was never intended to limit the Court's right of review in any manner. It's a sham, IMO, that the right wing relies on to turn back the advancements that we've made since the 1960's.

Since Marbury v. Madison first addressed the Court's right of review, we have never bound ourselves by the strict letter of the document. That is the first error. We have always read into its intent and purpose. Second mistake. Reading the minds of dead men doesn't work. It was supposed to breathe enough to need very rare modification by way of amendment. Uh, no ma'am. It isn't alive. It is a document that specifically limits what the fed can do. It is rules and regulations. The amendment process is how we are supposed to allow it to change with the time. Why do judges make ruleings based on the writen statute but feel it is ok to read into the Constitution. And attempting to use the amendment process to limit individual protections and rights (as they did with prohibition and as the right would like to do vis a vis gay marriage) would have been anathema to the men who wrote the document. I agree

I am not going to debate the origins of "strict construction" or "living document" etc. I prefer to simply read the document and apply it literally. Not bad for an illiterate Jarhead huh?

Happy Friday

 

[Psychoblues]

See what I mean about obfuscation? Republicans cannot debate. They scream bloody muder while they shit their pants. By now it should be a common understanding.