2008 Presidential Race!

[Jeseth Cloak]

Political and Theological Discussions: As a rule, heated political and/or theological discussions are not allowed in the OOC forum and will be closed at the discretion of the staff. History of these forums show that discussions such as these usually only promote OOC conflict with posters and a general negative atmosphere within the forums.
Does talking about the 2008 Presidential Election fall into this category? I really want to know who people are voting for in the primary elections and (very specifically), why?

I registered as a Republican so I could vote for Congressman Ron Paul in the primaries. This is mostly due to his non-intervention foreign policy and his staunch support for (what is in my opinion) the one of the greatest documents ever penned, the Constitution of the United States of America. If he doesn't get the nomination, I'm not very likely to vote for any of the other Republican candidates in the general elections. My second choice would likely be John Edwards, though I feel that I'd be comfortable voting for any of the Democrats.

[Hartus Kenobi]

I'm an independent in NY, so I can't vote in either major primary. If I could, I'd either vote for Democrat Senator Joe Biden, or Republican Senator John McCain. I follow politics extremely closely, and could go on for pages about each candidate, but these two would make the best Presidents overall, imo. They each have their flaws, and sometimes on some pretty major issues, but they're close to the complete package.

[Khendon Sevon]

I'm an independent in Jersey.

Ideally, Kucinich would win and become our president. Talk about a guy that doesn't match the typical mold of a politician. Awesome.

Realistically, Hillary '08. Go ahead, boo and jeer. She's a Clinton. I want the economy bubbling and happy again and for countries to not hate us/our political figure.

Oh, Green party... where are you?

[Jeseth Cloak]

I also feel that Biden, McCain and Kucinich are all honest about their views. I also agree that more than likely, Clinton will win the White House.

[Eluna Thals]

Ron Paul is a crazy who believes in the gold standard and genocide. He's also backing the conservative social line on many issues so I'm not sure why he's so popular among libertarians nowadays. Yeah he's the closest thing their party will ever get to a viable candidate, but he's still irreconcilably apart from their ideology. Doesn't the LP have somebody running who they can vote for and not feel like they are selling themselves short?

Clinton is a disingenuous demogogue who will say and do anything to get elected, and if she is elected, we might as well forget about any tenets of democratic rule. Twenty four years and the American public can't elect a leader outside of two family dynasties? We deserve everything we reap at that point.

John Edwards is a smarmy smooth-talker whos only real hope is to ride coattails on sympathy for his wife and her cancer battle, since he double-talks more issues than anyone I've ever seen.

McCain can't even remember who to suck up to and curry favors with. He's lost every shred of confidence he could ever have with me by not getting behind the movement to ban torture. I mean, are you serious? Of all people. Has he murdered a prostitute and the GOP is just blackmailing him with releasing the body if he doesn't toe the party line? I remember when he at least pretended to have a spine.

Rudy Giuliani is the greatest threat to freedom that our country has faced in our lifetime. He has absolutely no morals and no problem with expanding the face our our authoritarian police state at home and abroad, and has stated many many times his comfort level with such tactics. Mitt Romney is only marginally better, in the sense that having AIDS is maybe better than having Ebola. Our children will be far lesser Americans living under the shadows of their legacies.

There are only two candidates I can think of that don't cause the bile to rise in my throat and those are Bill Richardson and Barack Obama. Since Richardson has no real shot at the title, my best bet would be for Obama to tap him for a VP, which he should do anyway since that shores up any questions at all about his foreign policy rep.

Then again I'm being set up for disappointment again since it sounds like he's courting that evil litigious harpy Michael Bloomberg in NYC.

[Morgan Evanar]

My assessment is the same as Charley's.

[Cat X]

If you lot dont elect Barack Obama, it will only reinforce the very widely held negative international views of America. But if we can elect someone sane, there's hope yet. Long live Chairman Rudd

[Hartus Kenobi]

Wrote this a couple of months ago:

DEMOCRATS
http://bp3.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPuBocoZBI/AAAAAAAAABM/1VANbm-aqAg/s200/clinton.jpg (http://bp3.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPuBocoZBI/AAAAAAAAABM/1VANbm-aqAg/s1600-h/clinton.jpg)Hillary Clinton - Mostly the big name establishment candidate that Democrats believe will bring sanity and competence (a.k.a. Bill Clinton) back into the White House. Her biggest advantage is that because she's a Clinton, she can color herself as the Anti-Bush Candidate. Ironically, she's effectively a warhawk and her political style is - out of all the top tier Democrat candidates - most similar to George W. Bush's. Top fund-raising numbers will make her formidable.

http://bp2.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPuIYcoZCI/AAAAAAAAABU/ZzaKCBy0OEA/s200/obama.jpg (http://bp2.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPuIYcoZCI/AAAAAAAAABU/ZzaKCBy0OEA/s1600-h/obama.jpg)Barak Obama - Currently the top Anti-Hillary Candidate. Good style and a commanding presence. The trendy candidate, who likes to present himself as the fresh face that will change Washington. It's an illusion. He has had virtually no influence in Washington, and has had no connection at all with any significant legislation passed through Congress. His supporters like to point out he was against the war since the beginning, but seem unaware with the fact that his actual voting record on Iraq is identical with Hillary Clinton's, and neither he nor Clinton can say that they will have the US withdrawn from Iraq in their first term.

http://bp0.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPuP4coZDI/AAAAAAAAABc/3uwoj72Z5N0/s200/edwards.jpg (http://bp0.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPuP4coZDI/AAAAAAAAABc/3uwoj72Z5N0/s1600-h/edwards.jpg)John Edwards - Smart and pretty, he's the populist candidate. His youthfulness and polish can be a liability. He will have a lot of trouble because he seems most honest about the possibility of raising taxes. His signature issues involve expanding domestic welfare programs as well as creating global welfare programs (including taxing to pay for public education in Africa). Currently fighting to replace Obama as the Anti-Hillary Candidate, which very well may happen - for racial rather than political reasons. He'll be the last resort for the people who don't believe a woman or a black man CAN win the general election in 2008.

REPUBLICANS
http://bp2.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPuVYcoZEI/AAAAAAAAABk/_4St4nDqgrU/s200/giuliani.jpg (http://bp2.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPuVYcoZEI/AAAAAAAAABk/_4St4nDqgrU/s1600-h/giuliani.jpg)Rudy Giuliani - a social moderate (relative the to rest of the Republican field), which is a liability in the primaries but an asset in the general election. A fearmonger, but for honest purposes - he sees terrorism as a huge threat and he's a pitbull that wants to go for Al Qaeda's throat. Extremely intelligent and articulate, his snappish and impatient demeanor may not win the affection of Middle America. Also needs to expand his message: he's too often associated only with New York and 9/11, and his foreign policy is to continue GW Bush's.

http://bp2.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPubYcoZFI/AAAAAAAAABs/l6x4XXnWX2s/s200/mccain.jpg (http://bp2.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPubYcoZFI/AAAAAAAAABs/l6x4XXnWX2s/s1600-h/mccain.jpg)John McCain - Has the best politics, but has lost his roguish charm - he's an establishment candidate. He's starting to at least appear old and senile, losing his ability to inspire excitement. His campaign is in a disarray, he's shedding support (although he's gaining some back). Out of the top tier of the GOP Candidates, he's least likely to give specific answers and explanations to the issues of the day. His Immigration bill hurt him... a LOT. It remains to be seen whether or not he will be able to raise enough money now to continue a top tier campaign.

http://bp3.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPulocoZGI/AAAAAAAAAB0/P6xDEJ1Mgjo/s200/romney.jpg (http://bp3.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPulocoZGI/AAAAAAAAAB0/P6xDEJ1Mgjo/s1600-h/romney.jpg)Mitt Romney - Most organized and disciplined campaigner. But also most vulnerable to the "flip-flopper"-image that crippled Kerry's campaign in 2004. Extremely nuanced, he lacks the clarity of GW Bush. It's difficult to really understand his politics on a deeper level - he's extremely good at selling his ideas even when they're not good. It remains to be seen how his Mormonism affects his chances, but he has relatively few vulnerabilities. In fact, his biggest vulnerability (other than flip-flopping) may be that he seems to be to good to be true. Soon we'll have the "robot" and "mannequin" references that slowed down Al Gore's and Kerry's unsuccessful campaigns.

http://bp3.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPutocoZHI/AAAAAAAAAB8/pomNatdTfOQ/s200/biden.jpg (http://bp3.blogger.com/__O74xox2CnI/RyPutocoZHI/AAAAAAAAAB8/pomNatdTfOQ/s1600-h/biden.jpg)My favorite candidate overall: Joe Biden. I'd encourage all to look him up.

[Hartus Kenobi]

If you lot dont elect Barack Obama, it will only reinforce the very widely held negative international views of America. But if we can elect someone sane, there's hope yet. Long live Chairman Rudd
Why so much confidence in Obama? He gave a good speech once and... that's about the sum total of his claim to fame. He's been pretty much insignificant as a Senator, has never had to feel the pressure of actual responsibility or authority since joining Congress. He is not associated with any major legislation. He's not a bad guy, but if this guy wins the Presidency because he has a nice smile, and because he looks young when he doesn't wear a tie, I'm just gonna give up on the American people. Since joining Congress, he's basically voted identically to Hillary Clinton on everything, including Iraq. Where is he getting all of this goodwill from the people and the press? Are people just too nervous to be hard on him because they don't want to be accused of racism?

[Jeseth Cloak]

Ron Paul is a crazy who believes in the gold standard and genocide. He's also backing the conservative social line on many issues so I'm not sure why he's so popular among libertarians nowadays.
I used to think these sort of things about him, but after actually studying his voting record and his campaign message, I found that I was completely wrong about him. As far as everything I've learned about him goes, I've never seen record of him endorsing genocide. Do you know where you heard that? I'm interested to find out more about it.

About the gold standard: that's a really complicated economic issue and I'm not really qualified or knowledge enough about it to discuss it in detail... I just know that when he says he advocates the gold standard, he doesn't mean bartering in gold and silver. He advocates backing our money with gold.

[Jeseth Cloak]

Posted twice. Sorry.

[Morgan Evanar]

About the gold standard: that's a really complicated economic issue and I'm not really qualified or knowledge enough about it to discuss it in detail... I just know that when he says he advocates the gold standard, he doesn't mean bartering in gold and silver. He advocates backing our money with gold.There isn't enough gold to back the amount of money. Not enough gold on the entire planet.

[Jeseth Cloak]

There isn't enough gold to back the amount of money. Not enough gold on the entire planet.What about if you consider other valuable metals like silver, too?

[Hartus Kenobi]

Well, Ron Paul would prefer people only use Gold and Silver as legal tender, but he said that since that doesn't sound feasible right now, he at least wants to legalize using gold and silver as an alternative to paper, but without getting rid of paper money.

[Jeseth Cloak]

All I can hope for this election cycle is to have two good candidates to choose from, in case our electoral system breaks down again. After the 2000 election, I'd rather not have to feel as if I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place; Gore lost the election to Bush, even though the popular vote placed him over 1,000,000 votes above Bush. If something like that were to happen again, I'd probably move back to Australia!

[Eluna Thals]

The genocide issue is to his consistent refusal in approving aid of any sort towards Darfur. It's a part of his "Dr. No" critiques which while they do fall under his sales pitch of preserving the constitution (how does being pro-life do that I wonder?), they're also incredibly crass and short-sighted.

Failure to move on fuzzy data in Iraq is one thing. Darfur's genocide is vastly documented, and to say that we shouldn't even offer assistance of any kind is just sort of reptilian of him.

Also Dr. Pron Haul would kill a bunch of our poor people by totally gutting social services domestically which help the disaffected and homeless. He's a swell guy.

[Cat X]

If you lot dont elect Barack Obama, it will only reinforce the very widely held negative international views of America. But if we can elect someone sane, there's hope yet. Long live Chairman Rudd
Why so much confidence in Obama? He gave a good speech once and... that's about the sum total of his claim to fame. He's been pretty much insignificant as a Senator, has never had to feel the pressure of actual responsibility or authority since joining Congress. He is not associated with any major legislation. He's not a bad guy, but if this guy wins the Presidency because he has a nice smile, and because he looks young when he doesn't wear a tie, I'm just gonna give up on the American people. Since joining Congress, he's basically voted identically to Hillary Clinton on everything, including Iraq. Where is he getting all of this goodwill from the people and the press? Are people just too nervous to be hard on him because they don't want to be accused of racism?


Because every other candidate is as far as the people who live in the HERE BE DRAGONS part of the world is scary, he looks like the least insane of a terrible bunch. He is very much like Kevin rudd when he became opposition leader - and the more you dug into what he was really like, the better he got. Obama gives off the same vibes. He is simply the person most likely to restore the battered and shaken confidence in Amercia that the world has.

America is no longer the leader of the free world because of the actions of buffons. It no longer have a moral leg to stand on after the unjustified warmongering and destruction of Iraq. It has no leadership in climate change with it's stupid refusal to retify Kyoto, which at the least would now be a powerful symbol that someone gets it and that climate change is real and is going to affect us all. It's economy is basically broke and owned by the Chinese and Saudi's - ask where the finance for the proifigant spending of the last 6 years has come from. The Chinese own 1.5 trillion in treasury bonds - they now effectively have your economy by the nuts. America lost the moral high ground on torture, human rights and habeus corpus with the denial of that to innocents and the torture of innocents, turning them into the thing they were accused of. Afghanistan has been hung out to dry and that's where the real terrorists are.

Now are you telling me that you are willing to vote for the people that let this happen again? Your country has a lot of things to fix now and voting republican after that mess is just beyond insane. Inviting back Washington insiders liek Clinton isnt the answer either. The USA doesnt have a lot of chances or time left if it wants to haul itself to what it once was, because in only a few more years the real world leaders will be Russia and China, with Europe and the Asian block lead by Japan / Oceania balancing. Oceania will become a lot more important I think simply because it's one of the few very stable regions with big raw material deposits that can be exploited at will. China knows this and is out to lock them in for itself. That's going to become a real problem for other western countires sooner than later.

Your next leader has a lot to deal with and it looks like you got a dud bunch and an untried rookie who may be the USA's version of Chairman Rudd.


Well, Ron Paul would prefer people only use Gold and Silver as legal tender, but he said that since that doesn't sound feasible right now, he at least wants to legalize using gold and silver as an alternative to paper, but without getting rid of paper money.
Ron Paul is certifiably insane and that's highly clear from across the ocean. Back to the GOLD standard? That's madness.

[Khendon Sevon]

Obama isn't the solution. He's like everyone else; just, he has nicer packaging.

Kucinich is the only one that's really, really different/special. Guess what? He'll never get the party's nomination. He's too much of an anti-politician.

[Telan Desaria]

Sadly, there are no Germans to vote for, so I will settle for Madam Hilary Clinton.

Hopefully she will get into office and change the name - Premier or something a little more stirring.

[Jeseth Cloak]

The genocide issue is to his consistent refusal in approving aid of any sort towards Darfur. It's a part of his "Dr. No" critiques which while they do fall under his sales pitch of preserving the constitution (how does being pro-life do that I wonder?), they're also incredibly crass and short-sighted.

Failure to move on fuzzy data in Iraq is one thing. Darfur's genocide is vastly documented, and to say that we shouldn't even offer assistance of any kind is just sort of reptilian of him.Don't take this question in a condescending way, but how much of your income have you donated to charities currently rendering aid to Darfur? Humanatarian aid doesn't have to come from the United States government; there are many private organizations that can take money from anyone willing to donate it and render aid on their behalf.


Also Dr. Pron Haul would kill a bunch of our poor people by totally gutting social services domestically which help the disaffected and homeless. He's a swell guy.
This is something that does trouble me, but I suppose it's low on my list of concerns, since realistically Ron Paul wouldn't be able to accomplish that even if he did somehow manage to win the general election (which he has an even slimmer chance of winning than the primary election).

[Telan Desaria]

Let us not plunge into the legality of American politics as we will turn this thread to quagmire. While the genocide in Darfur is horrific to act there would be to condone the American position in Iraq and Afghanistan thus legitmizing their occupation of sovereign nations and giving truth to the myth that the US can act where and when it chooses.

[Hartus Kenobi]

If you lot dont elect Barack Obama, it will only reinforce the very widely held negative international views of America. But if we can elect someone sane, there's hope yet. Long live Chairman Rudd
Why so much confidence in Obama? He gave a good speech once and... that's about the sum total of his claim to fame. He's been pretty much insignificant as a Senator, has never had to feel the pressure of actual responsibility or authority since joining Congress. He is not associated with any major legislation. He's not a bad guy, but if this guy wins the Presidency because he has a nice smile, and because he looks young when he doesn't wear a tie, I'm just gonna give up on the American people. Since joining Congress, he's basically voted identically to Hillary Clinton on everything, including Iraq. Where is he getting all of this goodwill from the people and the press? Are people just too nervous to be hard on him because they don't want to be accused of racism?


Because every other candidate is as far as the people who live in the HERE BE DRAGONS part of the world is scary, he looks like the least insane of a terrible bunch. He is very much like Kevin rudd when he became opposition leader - and the more you dug into what he was really like, the better he got. Obama gives off the same vibes. He is simply the person most likely to restore the battered and shaken confidence in Amercia that the world has.

America is no longer the leader of the free world because of the actions of buffons. It no longer have a moral leg to stand on after the unjustified warmongering and destruction of Iraq. It has no leadership in climate change with it's stupid refusal to retify Kyoto, which at the least would now be a powerful symbol that someone gets it and that climate change is real and is going to affect us all. It's economy is basically broke and owned by the Chinese and Saudi's - ask where the finance for the proifigant spending of the last 6 years has come from. The Chinese own 1.5 trillion in treasury bonds - they now effectively have your economy by the nuts. America lost the moral high ground on torture, human rights and habeus corpus with the denial of that to innocents and the torture of innocents, turning them into the thing they were accused of. Afghanistan has been hung out to dry and that's where the real terrorists are.

Now are you telling me that you are willing to vote for the people that let this happen again? Your country has a lot of things to fix now and voting republican after that mess is just beyond insane. Inviting back Washington insiders liek Clinton isnt the answer either. The USA doesnt have a lot of chances or time left if it wants to haul itself to what it once was, because in only a few more years the real world leaders will be Russia and China, with Europe and the Asian block lead by Japan / Oceania balancing. Oceania will become a lot more important I think simply because it's one of the few very stable regions with big raw material deposits that can be exploited at will. China knows this and is out to lock them in for itself. That's going to become a real problem for other western countires sooner than later.

Your next leader has a lot to deal with and it looks like you got a dud bunch and an untried rookie who may be the USA's version of Chairman Rudd.


Well, Ron Paul would prefer people only use Gold and Silver as legal tender, but he said that since that doesn't sound feasible right now, he at least wants to legalize using gold and silver as an alternative to paper, but without getting rid of paper money.
Ron Paul is certifiably insane and that's highly clear from across the ocean. Back to the GOLD standard? That's madness.
Hate to burst your bubble, but you seem to not be aware of Obama's positions on a lot of things. Yes, he did not support the Iraq War initially when he didn't even have a vote anyway, but he is not anti-military action, or even necessarily anti-preemptive nuclear first strikes. He just didn't support the Iraq War specifically.

No offense, but you're falling for extremism in one direction just because the extremism in the other direction is frustrating you. True, Iraq was not a major threat to the United States' national security interests, but that does NOT mean that no viable threats exist in the entire world. The world has been relatively stable since WWII and even moreso since the end of the Cold War NOT because the countries of the world have become so enlightened, but because of deterrence. The U.S. can deter nuclear war by having a nuclear arsenal, and the U.S. can deter conventional war by having a large and technologically superior military with a clear strategic advantage. You assume that because peace can exist with the threat of the U.S. military, then that same peace can exist without the threat of the U.S. military.

Of course our military should almost never be used to settle disputes when not necessary, but the fact of the matter is that the threat of the U.S. military is a vital and important bargaining chip in international diplomacy, even if we never choose to use it. It's all about game theory. Even if you have absolutely no intention of supporting a military strike on a foreign country, you still shouldn't publically advertise that. And it's a part of sensible diplomacy and everyone knows that. For you to expect the next President of the United States (the sole protector of a large percentage of the inhabited world) to overtly be a Dove is, frankly, naive.

Australia is fortunate to be able to be non-interventionist if it decides to be. It has very little international responsibility. The United States, on the other hand, protects trade routes around the world, and provides a security umbrella for many countries in the Western Hemisphere, Europe, and Asia. U.S. Presidents have to be willing to use tough rhetoric. The stability of the free world depends on it. And most foreign leaders understand that it's usually just talk- which is why the US President sends diplomats and proxies to do most negotiating- diplomats who are free to show more flexibility.

[Morgan Evanar]

I'm sorry but if you think that any of the front running Democrats are extreme in almost any way you really need to sit down and think about what "extreme" is. This country had been yanked hard to the "right" over the past twenty years.

I'm not expecting any of the Dems to be Doves, he's expecting they won't do anything so monumentally boneheaded as make up a fake war that gets real people killed and waste trillions of dollars.

Elect me and I'm not going to be a Dove, because that's almost as crazy as what the current administration did. The closest thing we've had is Carter, and sadly the world just doesn't work that way.

[Slayn Cloak]

Let us not plunge into the legality of American politics as we will turn this thread to quagmire. While the genocide in Darfur is horrific to act there would be to condone the American position in Iraq and Afghanistan thus legitmizing their occupation of sovereign nations and giving truth to the myth that the US can act where and when it chooses.

I think are nation has spent the better half of the last hundred years proving that.


Beyond that though, I love it how people want to feel good about themselves ( I live in Berkeley ca, and am referencing hippies not charley )and cry about Darfur but no one wants to demand that we take responsibility for our participation in the forging of a failed state, that being Afghanistan. The basic issues Afghanistan faces are largely result of direct American (let’s not forget about the motherland) influence during the cold war period.



Unfortunately for many of the countries in Africa war is an economic principle, which Sudan is in no way a stranger to. I’m obviously not entertaining the idea that this type of behavior is acceptable, nor should be to the global community. What I am saying however is that we as a nation should deal with the problems and evils we’ve forced on the world before we go around making marry for everyone. The issues in Darfur are also interesting because it really is a conflict of Genocide.


I would suggest the term and use of the word politically has only really been accepted after world war two, yet you get groups and politicians throwing the word around in any situation you’ve seen huge casualties, regardless of the motives behind the situation. A good example of this is a recent attempt to have Diane Feinstein or Nancy Pelosi (I forgot which) introduce in to congress a bill validating the legend of Armenian genocide, by the Turkish, not the Ottoman empire (who would be the actual group in question).



The tragedy of the Genocide in the Darfur region is truly unfortunate, but not the soul responsibility of our nearly exhausted nation.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I'd support Edwards pretty much for two reasons. I support his issues on poverty and social injustice and I think he is the best candidate on the Environment. I would go with Biden but he doesn't have a chance based on what I see. I am not sure if Edwards really has a chance since he trails Hillary and Obama so much in terms of money. When the primary for my state comes up I will see who has the best chance to beat Hillary. I don't really care for her. I liked her husband but I find her too cold for me. Of course I vote for her over Rudy. I don't like him, he scares me. I am afraid my personal liberties will be taken away by his administration.

[Slayn Cloak]

I like Edwards as well; unfortunately being a student of polity my personal views are fairly apathetic.

[Telan Desaria]

Whomever wins, hopefully they will do away with the title of President - as if the country were a corporation. Something more powerful is necessary. Prime Minister, Premier, something else.

But seriously, before the United States begins to explode into a well practised sabre rattling campaign, issues domestically need to be dealt with. Among them:

Billions of dollars were raised for tidal wave victims but no money was raised to help homeless and disabled combat veterans of the Armed Services.

The border is unsafe and illegal migation continues with soft laws in place to prevent it, including the LEGITIMIZATION of them in states like NY that want to give them drivers lisences!

Petrol prices skyrocket when the price of a barrel goes up a few cents. It is very slow to go down; price gouging by corporations need to be dealt with.

Alternate energy sources need to be invested in and not squashed, such as the scientist in Nevada who has created a microwave that turns old tires into base petroleum fit for automobile use.

Realistic GPM standards, not a ten mile increase in TWENTY YEARS!

Fire companies across the US are being disbanded because funding has dried up, yet US monies are distributed to other nations. Why?

ETxc.

Let me address one issue if I may using anecdotal evidence. immigration. As you may or may not know, since having moved to the US I have become a police officer in the State of Delaware (having moved down from Pennsylvania). In the course of my duties I stopped a vehicle for a traffic violation and was unable to communicate in English - a language I had to master as myself an immigrant. Further investigation revealed that the four occupants of the car were illegal. Not undocumented, not whatever, they were criminals who willfully and knowingly contravened the territorial boundaries of a sovereign nation posing a clear and direct security threat not to mention economic.

I communicated with my department's dispatch center then the county communications office and finally the nearest INS/ICE office which happens to be forty-five minutes north in Dover, DE. I informed them of my problem and asked when they would be able to come down to arrest and deport the offenders.

I was curtly informed that four was not enough for them to send a unit down to my town to pick up and that it was not worth their time. I asked what number was worthy of their time and was told at least tne. I replied I would call back in an hour and have that number and they hung up on me.

Now, for the record, the Dover ICE office is not exactly busy. How do I know this? I drive ambulance part time and the Dover station happens to be in proximity to their office. Their vehicles do not often leave nor do they return much. Veiled inquiries to the city police in which said office is located validated my fears - the ICE agents and officers are often rude and refuse to pick up illegals no matter who calls or when.

Now why is it that they will not pick up illegal immigrants who are here illegally working and violationg the sovereignty of a nation but will waste thousands of dollars investigating citizens such as a Minneapolis Police Officer how was recently deported! Here was a man who was brought to the US when a minor and now risked his life in protection and defense of the people as a public servent - a low paid one, at that - having mastered English???

Someone, pelase explain it to me.



Last issue - legal immigration. Why are they trying to raise the prices and waiting times? If the country is combatting illegal immigration, why make it harder to do so legally? Thus forcing people to enter the country illegally. It would make sense to me at least to LOWER the price of legal immigration and RAISE the penalties and costs of illegal immigration, such as mandatory and un-appealable seizing of illegal migrants assets monies and possessions.

[Telan Desaria]

. hmmm
.
.

[Morgan Evanar]

Realistic GPM standards, not a ten mile increase in TWENTY YEARS!
Hi I'm Telan and I don't know anything about internal combustion or how heavy cars have gotten because of ever increasing safety standards, nor about the lack of Low Sulfur Diesel until 2 years ago.

FYI weight kills fuel economy, along with all of the stupid gizmos people want in the car.

[Slayn Cloak]

Telan, I've always liked you and plan, to some degree, to field your conserns with a realistic responce; I have finals though and am losing my mind.
I don't even really have the desire to spell check this post.

[Jeseth Cloak]

Realistic GPM standards, not a ten mile increase in TWENTY YEARS!
FYI weight kills fuel economy, along with all of the stupid gizmos people want in the car.The current weight of consumer vehicles is ridiculous when you consider the leaps and bounds that we've made with plastics, but essentially - looking at it from the point of view of a car manufacturer - they can either charge you a reasonable amount of money for a car that is heavy and has mediocre fuel efficiency, or they can charge you an outrageous amount of money for a car made of light materials that has excellent fuel efficiency.

The issues that will influence my vote heavily this election are: civil liberties, the economy, the economy and the economy. I couldn't care less about foreign countries in need of aid or people in the Middle East killing one another over religious differences. I just want them to focus on getting our country back on track economically.

[Telan Desaria]

Courteous and oversimplfying as ever, Morgan; almost make me glad I returned. Almost

[Cat X]

Courteous and oversimplfying as ever, Morgan; almost make me glad I returned. Almost

He's also completely right. He and I both know just a tiny bit on this subject, so pick your reply carefully and make sure you get your facts right.


The current weight of consumer vehicles is ridiculous when you consider the leaps and bounds that we've made with plastics, but essentially - looking at it from the point of view of a car manufacturer - they can either charge you a reasonable amount of money for a car that is heavy and has mediocre fuel efficiency, or they can charge you an outrageous amount of money for a car made of light materials that has excellent fuel efficiency.


Do you have any idea what goes into the design of a car? Light cars are bloody cheap to make - Tata in India and the Chinese prove it. Light, cheap because it's actually pretty simple to make a small light car with cheap steel and plastics.

And utterly bloody terrible in every way with absoutly NO crash compliance. Real car design is not cheap and nor is crash afety doable with cheap steels and plastics.

There are several reasons driving weight incars up and the first one is exactly as Morgan stated - crash safety has added upwards of 400 kg PER CAR in the last 20 years. You can not just use just any kind of material or aluminium for that kind of engineering, you need metals and structures that fold and bend in predictable ways, safety cells that will take a huge batterign before even looking like giving way, the simple air bag calls for motion sensors, accelerometers, certain designs of bumbers, reinforcements and protection from waht is basically a small bomb.

Next, demand for retarded garbage gzmos and simply unessary sound deadening. You can stack up 200 kg in this alone.

Third is simply the cars that the consumers demand. And this is the real killer - add in the crash safety, the BS gizmos and the fact light trucks seem to be regarded as necessary when clearly they are not, you have a disaster for any kind of light engineering and fuel economy. Size means weight and there can be no such thing as a light pickup or 4WD.

In Europe, they have a lot of smaller cars with diesels that get incredible economy. But that's because Eurpoeans arent car retarded and understand a small hatchback actually is a far better thing to drive about and also usually has much better engineering for crash safety. So the first step is not to make up l/100km laws, it's for US drivers to realise the cars they want are ridiculous for their real needs. And I add that these hatchbacks are well designed and usually quite affordible. Still quite a bit heavier than Tata's or Chinese cars but they dont fall apart in a crash. And they have dynamic safety in spades.

[Khendon Sevon]

It should be the responsibility of the government to ensure the sustainability of resources and processes within the United States and, inherently, the world.

It should also be every corporation's personal quest to guarantee sustainability in their resources and processes.

Guess what? It's not. Why? Because 80%+ (random no.) don't care. Car manufacturers wouldn't make SUV's if no one wanted to buy them. Chain stores wouldn't put out socks made with child labor that required the burning of fossil fuels to make the elastics if people wouldn't buy them.

They wouldn't do it if the government said it was illegal (well, they might).

Of course, for the government to do anything requires one of three things: 1) the people to actually demand it, or 2) a lot of money behind a lobbyist for a special interest group, or 3) a congressman/senator to gain either monetarily or have her constituents gain monetarily (and, intrinsically, she gains).

The entire government should be overhauled. The founding fathers didn't insist this was the best form of government. Indeed, government must adapt to the time and people.

We've given American Republicanism a good go. Let's look at modifying it a whole lot to keep out those crummy special interest freaks that ruin our lives (more often than not).

/end rant (all political talk is ranting)

[Telan Desaria]

Here here Khendon, therein lies the primary failure of democracy and heralds my call to autocracy. People do not always want what they need, they need to be told what is right and forced into compliance.

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

Forcing people into compliance would more than likely make the issue worse, I'd like to think.

I mean, this country was founded on the freedom to choose how we live. Does that mean there are going to ALWAYS be good choices made in how we conduct ourselves? Of course not. That's a part of life; can't grow and gain experience if there aren't any bad decisions being made at some point along the line.

[Telan Desaria]

Thats true but the purpose of government is to enforce policy and protect the people, even sometimes from themselves. What am I saying? I am saying, in regards to the SUV matter, there comes a point when the government says, yes, a soccer mom that lives is Syracuse NY and has to battle snow for half of the year can buy an SUV. She needs it. A soccer mother in Nevada who nevers battles snow floods or harsh rains has no need of such a device and therefore is forebidden from driving one. The government steps in and says no, buy a minivan of better fuel efficiency and equal carrying capacity.

Cars are heavier now than before since we use plastics and polymers when cars of old were made from iron and steel. But Morgan is right - the gadets are ridiculous as well. A car that can back itself in? DVDs in every seat? That is ridiculous. Eliminate them

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

You've obviously never been to Nevada before, son.

But my issue isn't about cars and who can drive what; it's the freedom to choose. The key to that though is proper education, and making sure people understand and know the ramifications of what their choice will entail.

For myself, elections have always been about choosing the lesser evil. And the more I know about those who are running for office, the better a decision I feel I can make.

[Jeseth Cloak]

Courteous and oversimplfying as ever, Morgan; almost make me glad I returned. Almost

He's also completely right. He and I both know just a tiny bit on this subject, so pick your reply carefully and make sure you get your facts right.


The current weight of consumer vehicles is ridiculous when you consider the leaps and bounds that we've made with plastics, but essentially - looking at it from the point of view of a car manufacturer - they can either charge you a reasonable amount of money for a car that is heavy and has mediocre fuel efficiency, or they can charge you an outrageous amount of money for a car made of light materials that has excellent fuel efficiency.

Do you have any idea what goes into the design of a car? Light cars are bloody cheap to make - Tata in India and the Chinese prove it. Light, cheap because it's actually pretty simple to make a small light car with cheap steel and plastics.

And utterly bloody terrible in every way with absoutly NO crash compliance. Real car design is not cheap and nor is crash afety doable with cheap steels and plastics.

There are several reasons driving weight incars up and the first one is exactly as Morgan stated - crash safety has added upwards of 400 kg PER CAR in the last 20 years. You can not just use just any kind of material or aluminium for that kind of engineering, you need metals and structures that fold and bend in predictable ways, safety cells that will take a huge batterign before even looking like giving way, the simple air bag calls for motion sensors, accelerometers, certain designs of bumbers, reinforcements and protection from waht is basically a small bomb.

Next, demand for retarded garbage gzmos and simply unessary sound deadening. You can stack up 200 kg in this alone.

Third is simply the cars that the consumers demand. And this is the real killer - add in the crash safety, the BS gizmos and the fact light trucks seem to be regarded as necessary when clearly they are not, you have a disaster for any kind of light engineering and fuel economy. Size means weight and there can be no such thing as a light pickup or 4WD.

In Europe, they have a lot of smaller cars with diesels that get incredible economy. But that's because Eurpoeans arent car retarded and understand a small hatchback actually is a far better thing to drive about and also usually has much better engineering for crash safety. So the first step is not to make up l/100km laws, it's for US drivers to realise the cars they want are ridiculous for their real needs. And I add that these hatchbacks are well designed and usually quite affordible. Still quite a bit heavier than Tata's or Chinese cars but they dont fall apart in a crash. And they have dynamic safety in spades.
I do know what goes into the design and manufacture of consumer vehicles. Mind you, I have very little knowledge about the internal design of modern reciprocating engines, but I have drag raced, rally raced and repaired/maintained/tuned my own RX-7 (and my MR2, when it didn't involve opening up the engine) many times.

I'm not disagreeing that worthless light weight cars are cheap to make, but these cars are usually extremely unsafe (as you stated) and don't get significantly better fuel efficiency than the heavy ones. The technology to design very light cars that are both safe and fuel-efficient exists, although it's not cheap. For example, rotary powered vehicles weigh considerably less than vehicles that come equipped with piston engines. Rotary engines don't get very good gas mileage though, largely due to a lack of commitment by motor companies to invest in research.

As for European cars, yes some of them are good on gas, but since the value of the dollar is collapsing, they're not exactly affordable for middle-class people who live in the United States. Hybrid cars are also normally $3,000 - $6,000 dollars more expensive than a normal vehicle of similar size.

I agree with you though, American's on average could save themselves some money if they cut all of the excess bells and whistles that come with many assembly line cars - it would certainly trim down on the weight of most vehicles. I'll take my car without power steering, ABS, A/C (if I live someplace where that's feasible), soundproofing or power windows and locks, thank you. I normally strip most of these things from the cars that I drive anyway.

[Khendon Sevon]

Here here Khendon, therein lies the primary failure of democracy and heralds my call to autocracy. People do not always want what they need, they need to be told what is right and forced into compliance.

I think you might have misread what I was saying :) I'm calling for a return to democracy. The problem is that we have special interests (look at them as aristocrats, but only in the monetary sense) controlling the nation. Money makes policy.

Popular opinion is controlled by money and...



But my issue isn't about cars and who can drive what; it's the freedom to choose. The key to that though is proper education, and making sure people understand and know the ramifications of what their choice will entail.

That's right. Education.

Socrates, anyone? Education is the key to democracy. Sure, America isn't a true democracy; but, since we do have some democratic tenets, we require education.

The problem is, of course, that our current government is mucking up education :(


Forcing people into compliance would more than likely make the issue worse, I'd like to think.

I mean, this country was founded on the freedom to choose how we live. Does that mean there are going to ALWAYS be good choices made in how we conduct ourselves? Of course not. That's a part of life; can't grow and gain experience if there aren't any bad decisions being made at some point along the line.

Athens made several poor decisions. Part of "democracy" is making wrong decisions and not having a dictator to blame, just the people. In our case, we're a lot less of a democracy.

Still, we elected the man with the most power. The Executive has an egregious amount of control. We have to choose wisely.

Sadly, it comes back to education.


Thats true but the purpose of government is to enforce policy and protect the people, even sometimes from themselves. What am I saying? I am saying, in regards to the SUV matter, there comes a point when the government says, yes, a soccer mom that lives is Syracuse NY and has to battle snow for half of the year can buy an SUV. She needs it.

That's not the problem. The problem is that the government isn't putting enough weight on manufacturers who have the technology to producer more eco-friendly vehicles.

No one better say, "Oh, but, it'd be too expensive for them!" Sure, the first few iterations might be pretty expensive. Guess what? New technology is expensive!

That's never stopped us before.

Why now? Because the oil industry and car manufactures have strong lobbyists that protect them from the government, powerful advertisement campaigns that protect them from the people, and an insane amount of money that they use to purchase Green technology to help prevent it from becoming well developed and dispersed.

Still, there's enough getting through the cracks that we have some amazing, renewable technologies. I can buy a solar panel for my backpack for $100 that will charge my digital camera and iPod while I'm hiking through a forest with the nearest power outlet being 200+ miles away!

That's awesome!

It's time we applied our technology to fix some other, more serious issues.

[Cat X]

I do know what goes into the design and manufacture of consumer vehicles. Mind you, I have very little knowledge about the internal design of modern reciprocating engines, but I have drag raced, rally raced and repaired/maintained/tuned my own RX-7 (and my MR2, when it didn't involve opening up the engine) many times.

Real rallying or rallycross?



I'm not disagreeing that worthless light weight cars are cheap to make, but these cars are usually extremely unsafe (as you stated) and don't get significantly better fuel efficiency than the heavy ones. The technology to design very light cars that are both safe and fuel-efficient exists, although it's not cheap. For example, rotary powered vehicles weigh considerably less than vehicles that come equipped with piston engines. Rotary engines don't get very good gas mileage though, largely due to a lack of commitment by motor companies to invest in research.


Your example is flawed. Rotaries have two reasons why they are not good on fuel economy - one, they are two stroke in nature and fire every compression stroke. More firing strokes mean more fuel used. Two, the flame front is slow and inefficent, leading to incomplete combustion. You can not design around either of these two issues, that is flat out the nature of the engine and means that as a petrol motor, it's toast and has been for two decades.

The reason why it's kept around is however is exactly those two reasons and why Ford and Mazda are dropping multi tems of millions into a unique motor - the very things that make it bad on economy for a petrol engine are the reasons why it uniquely will run almost any alternate fuel, ranging from natural gas to hydrogen. The fact it can run both petrol AND hydrogen in a production car today is why the RX8 exists. Mazda have known the rotary runs hydrogen for over a decade and are production ready and actually DO sell a twin fuel RX8. If the probelms with hydrogen production and delivery are solved, Mazda has the car ready right now.

If it's not for that fact, the rotary would be gone.



As for European cars, yes some of them are good on gas, but since the value of the dollar is collapsing, they're not exactly affordable for middle-class people who live in the United States. Hybrid cars are also normally $3,000 - $6,000 dollars more expensive than a normal vehicle of similar size.

Hybrids are nonsense. Diesels are what you want and Europe has much experience in diesels that give jaw dropping economy for low prices, even against the tanking dollar. The issue is not design or the tanking dollar, the issue is sulpur content in US diesel. Otherwise you might have access to the multitude of fairly cheap and decent European diesels now.



I agree with you though, American's on average could save themselves some money if they cut all of the excess bells and whistles that come with many assembly line cars - it would certainly trim down on the weight of most vehicles. I'll take my car without power steering, ABS, A/C (if I live someplace where that's feasible), soundproofing or power windows and locks, thank you. I normally strip most of these things from the cars that I drive anyway.

Most of what you describe are in fact either not adding that much weight (Modern power windows are every bit as light as manual winders), power steering makes the modern suspension with it's high castor angles possible
, air con weighs about 20 kg, power locks also add to the security of a vehicle.... If you picked things like ICE and big squisy leather I'd have no quibbles. Nor do I quibble about the 100kg of sound deading each car seems to be cursed with.

[Morgan Evanar]

Khendon, you're really overestimating the abilities of materials research, although we do have some great stuff (nanotubes) just around the corner that will hopefully lower vehicle weight a lot in the near future.

Mark, we now have diesel that conforms to the same standard as Everywhere Else, mandated 2 years ago :) Most of the problem is California's stupid air standards.

[Khendon Sevon]

Erm, Morg, I'm not talking about weight :)

I'm talking about eco-friendly in general. I don't blame the weight. I blame the combustion engine and its coupling with fossil fuels. I blame a system of government supported in-sustainability.

I blame companies that are more concerned about getting cash than how they get it.

Reducing the weight of fossil fuel combustion vehicles to increase mpg is just silly. It'd cost a lot to develop and deploy all of the awesome lightweight materials in development and that have been developed and would reduce our impact on the environment minimally.

We need to move away from non-sustainable fuels. It's the only solution.

There are plenty of intelligent engineers and scientists around the globe. Give them the money spent for lobbying. Give them the money that pads the wallets of senators and congressmen.

Anyway, rambling in this thread doesn't really help, does it?

Guess I'll just have to go work for Google.

[Morgan Evanar]

Google has a clever project regarding making new solar cells.
http://www.nanosolar.com/

Mind you, I still think that the only thing that may save us in the short term is nuclear energy.

[Cat X]

Erm, Morg, I'm not talking about weight :)

I'm talking about eco-friendly in general. I don't blame the weight. I blame the combustion engine and its coupling with fossil fuels. I blame a system of government supported in-sustainability.

I blame companies that are more concerned about getting cash than how they get it.


Internal combustion engines caused a revolution that lead directly to the vastly better standard of living that we have right now than even 50 years ago. Internal combustion engines are also in fact highly efficient in converting potential energy to kinetic energy. And I add that internal combustion is in fact less stressful on the enviroment than traditional long distance power generators with the majority of them to be highly polluting and inefficent. If you want to convert to electrical propulsion, you need nuclear for a guarentteed clean solution.



Reducing the weight of fossil fuel combustion vehicles to increase mpg is just silly. It'd cost a lot to develop and deploy all of the awesome lightweight materials in development and that have been developed and would reduce our impact on the environment minimally.



SILLY????? Wrong. Reducing weight is the first and best step to efficency. Why do you think racers like me spend hours taking out a kilo from the race car? And as noted before, most of these so called awesome materials are simply NOT acceptible with the laws and regulations pertaining to safety and long term maintainability. And repairability.

[Khendon Sevon]

I'm not arguing the importance of the internal combustion engine in the development of technology and culture.

I am arguing their place in modern culture. Solar, hydroelectric, fission, and nuclear energy are all clean, sustainable methods of producing power. Hydrogen fuel cells and combustion are two sources that a lot of money are being pumped into (which is a red herring, by the by).

The problem is that we're looking for ways to make fossil fuels last longer, to find new sources of fossil fuels, and to blend our fossil fuels instead of completely removing our dependence on them.

Reducing weight DOES NOT induce sustainability! That was my entire message! I'm not talking about making fossil fuels less harmful or increasing miles per gallon. That's great; but, it doesn't solve the problem.

Why bandage the broken leg when we can set it and completely remove the problem?

Answer: big business and government.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think wind and Solar energy is the future. Wind Energy is a very easy to get right now and works. Not sure why you don't see more wind power plants.

[Mitch]

Answer, because I still want a big huge V-8 that wakes the neighbors, and allows me to lay down thirty feet of rubber in a cloud of smoke before my Detroit behemoth takes off like a rocket, and thunders down the road with two tons of smooth ride to it.

We can want to fix the planet all we want, but some of us still want muscle cars, luxury, and sheer power.

And, fossil fuels have become vastly more efficient in the last several years, as well as cleaner. While the cars I want don't even have emissions controls on them, nearly everything rolling out of factories today have a very clean output. While you might not like Fossil fuels, they are integral to the world right now until a replacement can not only be made widespread and affordable, but the fuel for that new technology be able to be delivered in the same capacity as gasoline and diesel.

Diesels nowadays can most all run on biodiesel, the original design for that engine's fuel. I love diesel. Screw hybrids, screw hydrogen, give me turbo'ed diesel in new cars.

But, that still won't stop me from wanting a big, huge, 60's muscle car with a massive engine in it, or getting one eventually.

[Mitch]

I think wind and Solar energy is the future. Wind Energy is a very easy to get right now and works. Not sure why you don't see more wind power plants.

Wind is still expensive to do because of up-front costs, as well as locations for wind farms are tricky sometimes due to bird migration pattens.

After all, we can't have clean power if a duck gets killed, so say the environmentalists.

But, the new printable solar technology should be hitting the market soon. Great article on that stuff in last month's Popular Science. Right now Solar runs about $3 per watt to produce. Coal costs about $1 per watt produced. NanoSolar's new product, the PowerSheet, will deliver solar at about 30 cents a watt, and it can literally be printed on a giant roll and cover almost anything. Not THAT is a product to back!

[Cat X]

I'm not arguing the importance of the internal combustion engine in the development of technology and culture.

I am arguing their place in modern culture. Solar, hydroelectric, fission, and nuclear energy are all clean, sustainable methods of producing power. Hydrogen fuel cells and combustion are two sources that a lot of money are being pumped into (which is a red herring, by the by).

Holy.... you are so wrong

a) Solar is expensive and above all laced with some stupidly dangerous chemicals and inefficent. Even the newer cells dont solve the issues of sapce and inability to support baseload.
b) Eco vandalism on a grand scale and unsustainable with water resources becomign more polluted and scare. Desalination must come online for sustainability but that required item c)
c) Only thing correct but the gutlessness of governments and the NIMBY's who dont realise how safe and good nuclear is will slow the building of the plants we need right now. Nuclear can handle baseload right now and reduce carbon emissions hugely.

Anyone who wants to dispute nuclear had better get informed. Many of the issues have now been solved and nukes are right now the best thing for baseload.

d) Money is being pumped into it because they work right now. You can have a hydrogen car if you can produce and transport the hydrogen. Production is simple, the energy cost is too high except if you use nuclear and then you can knock yourself out and produce as much as you want. Transport issues are being solved rapidly by hydrates and the advancement of fuel cells that work right now and are now coming into production.



The problem is that we're looking for ways to make fossil fuels last longer, to find new sources of fossil fuels, and to blend our fossil fuels instead of completely removing our dependence on them.

Oh Lord. Do you have any idea just how plentiful oil sources really are? What is running out is easy cheap sources. But at the current prices, oil sources like we used to use like oil shale and oil sands become economical and quickly - there is no supply problem if we wish and that's been known for decades. The problem is the pollution and that wont be easy to deal with because oil has no direct replacement and it's uses are far beyond just the humble internal combustion engine. And those engines just so happen to be the best at their jobs.

For an example, just north of where I domicile is the closed Nepean shale oil mines. There is huge reserves of oil shale and coal that can be cracked for oil right under my computer. It costs about $60 USD a barrel to be economically viable. And today's oil price is.....?

And as Mitch correctly points out, diesel can be a renewable fuel with biodiesel with a net carbon footprint of zero.

And I also agree with Mitch about you an go take a long walk off a short pier if you think I'm lettign go of my tire destruction machine (And yet for all it's power and speed,... it's also remarkably light for its hardware with ample use of alloys, boron, plastics and composites while being also very efficent in it's energy use)



Reducing weight DOES NOT induce sustainability! That was my entire message! I'm not talking about making fossil fuels less harmful or increasing miles per gallon. That's great; but, it doesn't solve the problem.
[quote]

There is no sustainability issue. There is cost and production rpoblem, but there is not a sustainability one. The issue straight out is about efficiency and pollution. THIOSE issues are addressed with efficency and weight of they device your using is in that case very important.

Oh and I add, how does reducing the amount you need to burn per km NOT helping with sustainabilty, removing fromt he argument about known reserves and alternate sources?

[quote]
Why bandage the broken leg when we can set it and completely remove the problem?

Answer: big business and government.
I'm sorry, citizen, take your tin foil hat off and come for processing. You have not consumed enough today.

*sigh*

The real issues is in fact the citizens of the USA who have been demanding a lifestyle that is now being shown up to be illogical and unsustainable. They collectively produce more pollution per person than any other country on the planet. The next issue is the clear persistence of your government in refusing to deal with the known facts about pollution. You collectively elected the worst problem in dealing with climate change, so next election you have a chance to do something about it. Your BUSINESS leaders are being more proactive for crying out loud! Doesnt that say somethign is badly wrong?

We here had the second biggest problem, but we voted the bastard out. And now we have someone who ratified Kyoto immediatly and WILL be introducing mandatory emissions cuts, just like most responsible Western and developing governements.

[Telan Desaria]

The problem is not business, the problem is not consumers - people who are poorly or not forcefully enough lead are bound to go off on whatever passing fancies they want. Hence the current state of affairs. The solution will comes through stronger regulation and ENFORCEMENT of common good doctrines. As such, this NIMBY nonsense would be eliminated. The government will build reactor x at point y and those who don't like are free to move elsewhere.

The point is - a time comes when individual rights (mostly wants) must be subordinated to the good of all. If the people do not chose to be sacrificial in and of themselves, then the government must step in and exercise its mandate to assist protect and defend, at the cost of a few.

Cars and such could be heinously more efficient if the government would step in and command petrol companies to release the patents it holds on such efficient devices as high mileage energies or alternate production means. And if they refuse despite a governmental dictate then the government, which controls the patent office, must simply go to said office, secure said patents and devices, and construct them itself or give the designs to other manufacturers to produce.

Rule with an iron fist when neccessary. This bleeding heart we want this but wont give up anything nonsense can be quelled with the truncheon and lash, I assure you.

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

Assure all you want, but history and its' countless revolutions and revolts against such tactics of leadership say otherwise.

edit - I still want to know where you get this notion that it doesn't snow or rain or flood in Nevada. Considering the state is declared a federal disaster area quite often for flooding due to, you know, rain and snow. (http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters_state.fema?id=32)

[Yog]

It warms my heart to see green energy is becoming a hot topic. Maybe it deserves it's own thread though, seeing it's sorta dominating the topic about the president election.

Nanosolar, (as already mentioned) is really awesome:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html

What I want to know is, why can't a big government (for example the US) buy the patent / technology, ramp up the production x100 and sell these worldwide for production cost. Whoever president / prime minister did that might actually have something interesting to remember them by for their political legacy. As it stands, the U.S. Department of Energy only spent $20M funding this project, which is drop in the bucket.

Once these panels get easily available and cheaply, it opens up for all kinds of posibilities. You gotta admit the thought of generating your own electricity is appealing. Heck, why not sell it to your neighbour or back to the electrical grid and make some profit. Why spend money buying power when you can get paid making it? I want some of those on my own, shame they already sold out for next year.

[Jeseth Cloak]

The city of Berkeley, where I live, has an interesting program wherein the city provides you with solar planels for your home, and it's investment of $30,000 or so is payed back along with the buildings property tax. So far I haven't seen it take off, but it's still very new.

[Morgan Evanar]

Cars and such could be heinously more efficient if the government would step in and command petrol companies to release the patents it holds on such efficient devices as high mileage energies or alternate production means. And if they refuse despite a governmental dictate then the government, which controls the patent office, must simply go to said office, secure said patents and devices, and construct them itself or give the designs to other manufacturers to produce.You can take that tinfoil hat off any time now. The fact of the matter is that until recently, serious strides in efficiency by any means other than lowering mass wasn't very possible. We've only just started using technologies like direct injection or had the computational power to start modeling things like flame fronts and particle distribution during combustion. You should really drop the subject instead of arguing with people who are far better versed in it.

On a more serious note, I'm sincerely hoping the economy doesn't totally tank during the term if a Dem takes office. I'm hoping it doesn't tank either way, really. :|

[Jedi Master Carr]

It warms my heart to see green energy is becoming a hot topic. Maybe it deserves it's own thread though, seeing it's sorta dominating the topic about the president election.

Nanosolar, (as already mentioned) is really awesome:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.html

What I want to know is, why can't a big government (for example the US) buy the patent / technology, ramp up the production x100 and sell these worldwide for production cost. Whoever president / prime minister did that might actually have something interesting to remember them by for their political legacy. As it stands, the U.S. Department of Energy only spent $20M funding this project, which is drop in the bucket.

Once these panels get easily available and cheaply, it opens up for all kinds of posibilities. You gotta admit the thought of generating your own electricity is appealing. Heck, why not sell it to your neighbour or back to the electrical grid and make some profit. Why spend money buying power when you can get paid making it? I want some of those on my own, shame they already sold out for next year.


That is really cool. I wish there was more of a push by the government into technology like this. I still think wind power is feasable. i know other countries like the Netherlands are now using it. I think it just isn't realistic to depend on it completely. Oh about Nuclear, the problem isn't that it isn't safe. Accidents like Chernobyl almost never happen, the problem is the waste. The waste from Nuclear power has to go somewhere. I know all of this because I live not far from a nuclear facility and my father works there so I know the issues with Nuclear waste. The stuff is nasty and you can't just dump that anywhere.

[Cat X]

That is really cool. I wish there was more of a push by the government into technology like this. I still think wind power is feasable. i know other countries like the Netherlands are now using it. I think it just isn't realistic to depend on it completely. Oh about Nuclear, the problem isn't that it isn't safe. Accidents like Chernobyl almost never happen, the problem is the waste. The waste from Nuclear power has to go somewhere. I know all of this because I live not far from a nuclear facility and my father works there so I know the issues with Nuclear waste. The stuff is nasty and you can't just dump that anywhere.

Use the right reactors then. All waste can be reprocessed and reburnt into isotopes that have a far lesser half life and safely stored. This not only makes nuclear safer but turns it into a renewable energy source. You use a breeder reactor, you feed the waste of normal reactors into it and then you can reprocess over and over again.

The thing about nuclear is that the age old bogieman that are used against it have been solved. The new reactors have incredible safety in that they DO shutdown when something goes wrong and thence accidents just wont happen. You can reprocess the waste. Costs are even coming down with the new peble bed reactors.

And also, there is simply no shortage of uranium. While present reserves are 50 years, this does not acknowledge the far bigger known deposits not presently being mined in Australia that could last hundreds of years. And with reporcessing, the reserves can then last not hundreds, but thosands of years. And then your not even looking at uranium in seawater which basically could last until the sun's thermal death!

So, nuclear now has very powerful and compelling arguments for it.

Also, nuclear produces such is tiny fraction of the waste compared to the thousands tons of CO2 per year wastes for coal.... the wastes of fossil fuels are threatening to wipe humans out. Nuclear waste only contaminates a very small area.

France has 80% nuclear and has the least pollution.

So really, nuclear's problem is 50 years of pro-enviromentalist screaming about omg atomss!!!! that has permantly planted into the minds of people who dont know the truth into running scared of nuclear. It will take time to educate people on the facts but we just dont have the time anymore. A Nuclear plant takes a long time to build and we need them now.

[Figrin D'an]

There is a power company in Texas that recently filed a permit with the NRC to build a new reactor at it's nuclear power plant site. It's the first such filing for new reactor construction in the US since the Three-Mile Island incident in 1979. From what I have read, it is likely to be approved as well.

I don't claim to be the foremost expert on nuclear power technology, but I do know a lot more about it than the average person (I almost majored in Nuclear Engineering, and actually did a fair amount of research in college for some other classes I took). Nuclear fission, while it does produce a waste product that can be very harmful, has two huge advantages over our other forms of available energy production. It generates immense amounts of power for the amount of consumed raw materials, and it's waste product, despite what you read in mass media, is highly controllable. Now, it's obviously not going to beat solar or wind power in terms of waste produced, but the radioactive material that is left over can be contained in a safe manner, and in some cases, can be reprocessed. The vitrification process functions very well to contain the isotopes common to fission reactions.

Honestly, a lot of the hype about nuclear waste disposal issues arose (at least here in the US) from the fiasco that was/is the Yucca Mountain project.

Solar power has it's place, as does wind power. In certain areas, they are great alternatives for power production, and can/will be part of the solution to ween the world off of fossil fuels. But nuclear fission is going to a huge part of this solution as well. We have the technology right now to do this. We simply need the will and desire to move forward with these solutions, while continuing to push research to even better solutions (like fusion).

[Yog]

It's the first such filing for new reactor construction in the US since the Three-Mile Island incident in 1979.

I am astonished to learn this. I read up on it, and found that no nuclear plant had been ordered without subsequent cancellation for over twenty years. It just shows an energy policy gone terribly wrong, and no politician neither republican or democrat can be excused for letting this happen. What is worse, it collides with public opinion. According to a 2005 poll, 67% of americans favor nuclear energy, 26% oppose it while 7% are undecided. I would love to see poll numbers for coal, I doubt it would rate as highly.


Solar power has it's place, as does wind power. In certain areas, they are great alternatives for power production, and can/will be part of the solution to ween the world off of fossil fuels. But nuclear fission is going to a huge part of this solution as well. We have the technology right now to do this. We simply need the will and desire to move forward with these solutions, while continuing to push research to even better solutions (like fusion).

You are absolutely right. We need wind, solar AND nuclear power to fully replace the coal plants. While nuclear waste is a an inconvenience, it is a microscopic one compared to the problems we're going to get with current CO2 emissions. Nuclear fission might not be a permament solution, but it is an excellent solution for the next few decades.

[Jedieb]

Legitimate Candidates
Democrats
Clinton
Obama
Edwards

Republicans
Giuliani
Romney
Huckabee
McCain
Thompson

Irrelevant Candidates
Democrats
Biden
Kucinich
Richardson
Dodd

Republicans
Paul
Hunter
Tancredo

The only irrelevant candidate that catches my eye is Richardson and I think he has a legitimate shot at VP spot on next year's ticket. The Republican race is clearly wide open. Huckabee has made some amazing gains in the last few weeks and it'll be interesting to see who eventually survives the Republican slugfest.

The Democratic race is all but over. Honestly, Hillary has too much money, support, and history to blow this lead. It'll get interesting at times, but this is a race she would win 9 times out of 10. I think it's a shame it's gotten so nasty these last few weeks between her and Obama because I think that would have made a formidable ticket. But like I said, it leaves the door open for Richardson or even someone like Wes Clark and I could live with both of them.

Anyone who thinks another Clinton presidency would spell the end of democratic rule in this country is on crack. If we survived 8 years of Dumbya without turning into a police state or self imolating ourselves we can survive a term or two under the biatch from Arkansas without the Republic crumbling. The Clintons were always more centrist than right wigners wanted to admit. We need that right now, someone, Republican or Democrat, to pull us back towards the center more. I swear, if we get another president that still thinks there's a legitimate debate between creationism/intelligentdesign/theflinstonesisreallyadocumentary and evolution I think my head will implode.

But good lord the election process has gotten ludicrous. I hate to admit it, but Gingrich was right, the nominating process has gotten ridiculously long and anyone wanting the job should have their sanity questioned.

[Dasquian Belargic]

I'm not going to be voting in this election, what with being British and all, but I was curious so I took a quiz to see which candidates policites etc most closely matched my own...

84% Mike Gravel
83% Dennis Kucinich
77% Barack Obama
75% John Edwards
75% Chris Dodd
74% Joe Biden
71% Hillary Clinton
70% Bill Richardson
43% Rudy Giuliani
35% John McCain
34% Ron Paul
31% Mitt Romney
30% Mike Huckabee
19% Fred Thompson
14% Tom Tancredo

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz (http://www.gotoquiz.com/candidates/2008-quiz.html)

I guess that makes me a Democrat, haha.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I think Obama is going to win NH. I think if he does that he is great shape. The question is second. If Hillary finishes third I think she is finished. I disagree with you Jedieb about the money factor. Money means nothing. Hillary just is disliked by a lot of people. I have seen polls on CNN that says she is disliked by 50% of the American public. That is a tough thing to overcome. I am right now rooting for an Obama-Edwards tickett because they will bring much needed change for this country. Clinton is bought and paid for by corporate America.

[Fraro Alvir]

ron paul is awesome.

[Byl Laprovik]

Ron Paul is CRAZY. He sold his LP buddies up the river with some disappointing social conservative crap (ie, gay marriage, abortion etc) and maintained some of their moonbat economic ravings.

I know the LP is always desperate for credibility, but anybody who rides their coattails and fails to stand true to social liberalism is a con artist.

Honestly with Richardson not being viable, Obama is looking better and better each day.

[Fraro Alvir]

obama is looking better everyday? what are is thoughts in foreign policy? how does he want to end our dependence on foreign oil? what does he intend to do about inflation ? here is a better question, what does he believe in? i know he wants change, but what does that mean?

say what you want about dr. paul but he has real ideas. he has raise over 17 million dollars and not a penny of it comes from big business or special interests groups. he is not moved by public opinion polls. he belives in civil liberties, the abolishment of the income tax and ending the federal reserve. he believes in the principles of the united state constitution. yep, that sound CRAZY to me.

[Darth Binky]

I recently changed my party to Republican to vote Ron Paul. He's the only candidate worth voting for on any level.

As for Darfur, someone settled that quite nicely on the top of page two.

Right now America has military bases in 130 nations, yet no other foreign country has a military base on American soil. We do this, we claim, to protect our interests, to defend us, and all that good stuff. Well what if China decided that they wanted to put military bases in the US to protect its interests? We, as Americans, would cry blasphemy. What if they, protecting their interests, decided America needed a regime change?

America has lost the moral, economic, and social high ground. We have the recognition of being hated the world over. Yay for us. Right now its because of American foreign policy in the last 50 years. We keep having to pay for our actions in the past (we trained Osama Bin Laden, we supported a corrupt Korea and South Vietnam, our interferance in Iran from the 50s-70s) and when we pay for them, we make the world hate us. Ron Paul wants us to pull out of all that, because much more can be achieved through peace, rather than war. The mindset of the terrorist is that they hate us, not because we're rich, but because we're the dick who sticks his hand in everyone's cookie jar. Call me unpatriotic, but they're right. I don't agree with their means, but I agree with their cause.

There also seems to be some confusion here concerning Ron Paul and the gold standard. Currently the Federal Reserve prints all of our money. The Federal Reserve is as federal as Federal Express. Its a private company that prints money when we need more, and this has led to the USD being worthless compared to the Euro. As of about this time last year the Euro is now worth an additional 12 cents in the conversion. So its $1.43~USD=1 EURO. To solve this problem, and restore value in our currency, Ron Paul wants to do away with the Federal Reserve (which is unconstitutional by the way) and make it so that our money has to be printed in accordance with something, rather than printing it based on how much money we need today.

[Jeseth Cloak]

I recently changed my party to Republican to vote Ron Paul. He's the only candidate worth voting for on any level.

As for Darfur, someone settled that quite nicely on the top of page two.

Right now America has military bases in 130 nations, yet no other foreign country has a military base on American soil. We do this, we claim, to protect our interests, to defend us, and all that good stuff. Well what if China decided that they wanted to put military bases in the US to protect its interests? We, as Americans, would cry blasphemy. What if they, protecting their interests, decided America needed a regime change?

America has lost the moral, economic, and social high ground. We have the recognition of being hated the world over. Yay for us. Right now its because of American foreign policy in the last 50 years. We keep having to pay for our actions in the past (we trained Osama Bin Laden, we supported a corrupt Korea and South Vietnam, our interferance in Iran from the 50s-70s) and when we pay for them, we make the world hate us. Ron Paul wants us to pull out of all that, because much more can be achieved through peace, rather than war. The mindset of the terrorist is that they hate us, not because we're rich, but because we're the dick who sticks his hand in everyone's cookie jar. Call me unpatriotic, but they're right. I don't agree with their means, but I agree with their cause.

There also seems to be some confusion here concerning Ron Paul and the gold standard. Currently the Federal Reserve prints all of our money. The Federal Reserve is as federal as Federal Express. Its a private company that prints money when we need more, and this has led to the USD being worthless compared to the Euro. As of about this time last year the Euro is now worth an additional 12 cents in the conversion. So its $1.43~USD=1 EURO. To solve this problem, and restore value in our currency, Ron Paul wants to do away with the Federal Reserve (which is unconstitutional by the way) and make it so that our money has to be printed in accordance with something, rather than printing it based on how much money we need today.
Yes! Vote Ron Paul 2008! :D

You rock.

[Drin Kizael]

Interesting statistic... only 2 candidates in the last 40 years who won Iowa went on to be President. Just throwing that out there to illustrate that Iowa doesn't mean everything.

But in this case, at least for the Democrats, it means a lot. Clinton got trounced. If she only places 3rd in NH tomorrow, too, she's doomed. Safe bet that Obama's heading for the nationals, because he's probably the party's only chance of winning in November and the grown ups in the head office know that.

Over on the Republican side, it's still anyone's race. Well almost anyone's. Something pretty miraculous would have to happen for Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul to get noticed at this point. I have serious doubts that the Huckster will even place in any more states. He'll end up an also-ran in South Carolina with the kind of focus Rudy and Fred are putting there.

I have no prediction yet on the GOP candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if they go all the way to the convention and still have a decision to make.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I wouldn't bother voting for Paul he doesn't have a chance. He is running fourth in New Hamshire. It would be like democrats voting for Kucinchi(sp). I think McCain is going to win the Republican nomination.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Interesting statistic... only 2 candidates in the last 40 years who won Iowa went on to be President. Just throwing that out there to illustrate that Iowa doesn't mean everything.

But in this case, at least for the Democrats, it means a lot. Clinton got trounced. If she only places 3rd in NH tomorrow, too, she's doomed. Safe bet that Obama's heading for the nationals, because he's probably the party's only chance of winning in November and the grown ups in the head office know that.

Over on the Republican side, it's still anyone's race. Well almost anyone's. Something pretty miraculous would have to happen for Duncan Hunter or Ron Paul to get noticed at this point. I have serious doubts that the Huckster will even place in any more states. He'll end up an also-ran in South Carolina with the kind of focus Rudy and Fred are putting there.

I have no prediction yet on the GOP candidate. I wouldn't be surprised if they go all the way to the convention and still have a decision to make.


I could see a Barter Convention come August. I think MCcain can get the move delegates but he might not get enough to clinch. Romney, Guillani and Huckabee could split the rest of the delegates. The last time this situation happened was back in 64 when the Republican party was split between Goldwater and Rockefeller.

[Jeseth Cloak]

I wouldn't bother voting for Paul he doesn't have a chance.
More people voted for Ron Paul in Iowa, than voted for all of the Democrat's candidates combined. That's something to consider. He actually didn't do too poorly when you look at it that way. If he does well in NH - a libertarian-minded state - then it could change things significantly for the rest of the race.

My plan was to vote for him in the primaries, and throw my vote in with the Democrats for the general election if he doesn't win.

[Yog]

My money is on McCain to win the GOP nomination. As for democrats, I think Obama wins it now, and that he will eventually win in the national race. Obama would be a great president, at least with European eyes. These latest developments in polls restores some of my faith in american voters. I'm happy for USA :)

[Cat X]

I wouldn't bother voting for Paul he doesn't have a chance.
More people voted for Ron Paul in Iowa, than voted for all of the Democrat's candidates combined. That's something to consider. He actually didn't do too poorly when you look at it that way. If he does well in NH - a libertarian-minded state - then it could change things significantly for the rest of the race.

My plan was to vote for him in the primaries, and throw my vote in with the Democrats for the general election if he doesn't win.

Democrat caucuses reported nearly 2-1 more people attending for Democrat than Republican so you are quite clearly wrong.Not to mention he is certifiably insane and no more than a popularist.

George W Bush was bad enough in 2004 - what ARE you pleople thinking for voting for someone who could actually be more crazy???? Do you actually sit down and study the real effect of his policies or do you just listen to small soundbites and go no further?


At least there looks like a move to Obama.

[Jedieb]

What Obama has done in the last few weeks is really stunning. Yes, it's early, and Iowa hasn't meant much in the past, but I believe it's been moved up so it's significance may have changed. Obama has opened up a 10 point lead on Hillary in NH. The numbers just a month ago had him trailing by almost the same margin. Surprisingly, he's also taken some points from Edwards who's slipped to around 16% with Hillary at close to 30%.

If Hillary takes second Obama can claim yet another solid victory and keep his momentum going. But it's still along way from Super Tuesday and all of those Southern states. I'm not sure how Obama is going there but Iowa and NH are completely different beasts from the Super Tuesday states.

And whoever said that Ron Paul got more votes than all of the Democrats combined in Iowa, you obviously don't understand what happened in Iowa. That sounds completely and utterly insane. Over 100,000 Democrats participated in the Iowa caucus. You're probably looking at the the votes cast by the Democratic delegates and assuming they're actual individual voters instead of delegates representing hundreds, sometimes thousands of precinct voters. If you think that a Republican candidate polling around 10% actually outdid the entire Democratic field than Paul may actually be the candidate for you. I don't think the guy is nuts, but he's basically a Republican Kucinich. Some of his ideas sound nice, but he's got no realistic shot whatsoever.

[Jeseth Cloak]

Democrat caucuses reported nearly 2-1 more people attending for Democrat than Republican so you are quite clearly wrong.
Popular vote-wise, yes - but the popular vote is not very important in Iowa - delegate votes are. If you click here (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA) you will see that Ron Paul had 11,817 votes. Obama, Edwards and Clinton combined only had 2421 votes.


Not to mention he is certifiably insane and no more than a popularist. You were trying to use the world populist.

Populism means, "the political philosophy of the People's party," or "any of various, often anti-establishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies." There are a few other definitions, which are equally as positive in nature. So to say that he is merely a populist, only goes to prove that his ideas transcend partisan politics. Just because you hear a word used by the media on a regular basis, doesn't mean that they are using it in the proper context.


George W Bush was bad enough in 2004 - what ARE you pleople thinking for voting for someone who could actually be more crazy????
Congressman Paul and President Bush are in no way similar. George W. Bush has very little respect for the constitution, has never been consistent in his views about foreign policy, and was never qualified to hold office to begin with. He rode in on the coattails of his father, with little real experience of politics on the national or international level.

Congressman Paul has been in congress for a very long time, has never voted in a manner that would go against our country's constitution, and has no intent to damage our standing with the world by expanding America's aggressive foreign policy. I really respect everyone's opinions on issues of politics in the United States - even when they're not United States citizens - but if you're going to just come out and start smearing a politician, at least do it by attacking his platform, and not his sanity.


Do you actually sit down and study the real effect of his policies or do you just listen to small soundbites and go no further?
Do you? I've read most of Congressman Paul's book, A Foreign Policy Of Freedom, and I'm pretty well educated on the issues of American foreign policy and international relations. I can tell you right now that out of all the candidates running, only about four have solid and realistic views on the that one issue. Luckily - and to concede to your closing point - Obama is one of them.

[Morgan Evanar]

Yeah, but when it comes to domestic issues he's pretty much way, way out there. Gold standard?! It's clear his grasp of economics is delusional at best. We all know how that's worked out for the past 8 years.

[Cat X]

Popular vote-wise, yes - but the popular vote is not very important in Iowa - delegate votes are. If you click here (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA) you will see that Ron Paul had 11,817 votes. Obama, Edwards and Clinton combined only had 2421 votes.

I know well the actuall votes handed to the delegates are different as per different party rules, which you are trying to twist. Now if I can see the difference in a blink, so should you. My point remains correct.


Do you? I've read most of Congressman Paul's book, A Foreign Policy Of Freedom, and I'm pretty well educated on the issues of American foreign policy and international relations. I can tell you right now that out of all the candidates running, only about four have solid and realistic views on the that one issue. Luckily - and to concede to your closing point - Obama is one of them.

You are not politically educated if you give Ron Paul a seconds worth of thought - and yes I am being delibertly provokative - and I damn well should be in this case because It is obvious his polices are garbage (Gold Standard??? What the hell?) and all he appeals to is a popularist section. Now I could sit here and spend hours picking apart his platform but it has been plucked apart elsewhere by people who actually have the time to mount arguments against it (Lord knows why you would spend that time, but hey, their loss) You are advised to go looking because frankly all it's worth is derision from me.

[Mitch]

Strangely enough, I'm actually rather enjoying Huckabee.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Popular vote-wise, yes - but the popular vote is not very important in Iowa - delegate votes are. If you click here (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA) you will see that Ron Paul had 11,817 votes. Obama, Edwards and Clinton combined only had 2421 votes..[/QUOTE]

The democrats in Iowa don't release vote totals. Those numbers are delegate numbers not vote totals.

[Darth Binky]

Hey folks, you're ignoring my earlier post if you still think that Ron Paul wants to reinstate the actual gold standard. He had an interview on CNN yesterday, I suggest you watch it, as he talks about the issue.

[Cat X]

Hey folks, you're ignoring my earlier post if you still think that Ron Paul wants to reinstate the actual gold standard. He had an interview on CNN yesterday, I suggest you watch it, as he talks about the issue.

Political Translation - Oh hey guys I got called on my stupid idea and so I'll minimise the damage. Look KITTIES!

What surprsies me is that there are bunch of RON PAULities here. Oh well, we have to have our fair share of loonies. At least it's amusing from the other loonies going ape about cricket.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Paul is popular with a certain crowd. I am not really sure why.

[Darth Binky]

Hey folks, you're ignoring my earlier post if you still think that Ron Paul wants to reinstate the actual gold standard. He had an interview on CNN yesterday, I suggest you watch it, as he talks about the issue.

Political Translation - Oh hey guys I got called on my stupid idea and so I'll minimise the damage. Look KITTIES!

What surprsies me is that there are bunch of RON PAULities here. Oh well, we have to have our fair share of loonies. At least it's amusing from the other loonies going ape about cricket.

If you bothered to notice I posted the comment before I even mentioned it. I've been a Ron Paul supporter for quite some time and he's never changed on the issue.

Here is the interview, notice how he doesn't mention a gold standard. You're bastardizing his message without actually bothering to read it. Ron Paul has been vocal about the Federal Reserve for sometime, as are many Americans. I've been protesting the FR and the IRS for several years now, they're unconstitutional.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/070108Blitzer.htm

So Cat X, we Ron Paul supporters here on Fans have been polite and have tried to elucidate our points, clearly and calmly. You decide to ignore and troll us, calling us crazy. Right...O_o

[Cat X]

So Cat X, we Ron Paul supporters here on Fans have been polite and have tried to elucidate our points, clearly and calmly. You decide to ignore and troll us, calling us crazy. Right...O_o

Ron Paul does not have points worth putting up with and nor am I going to bother further other than this.....


Here is the interview, notice how he doesn't mention a gold standard. You're bastardizing his message without actually bothering to read it. Ron Paul has been vocal about the Federal Reserve for sometime, as are many Americans. I've been protesting the FR and the IRS for several years now, they're unconstitutional.

Un... constitutional.

Oooooooooh dear.

[Pierce Tondry]

Here is the interview, notice how he doesn't mention a gold standard. You're bastardizing his message without actually bothering to read it. Ron Paul has been vocal about the Federal Reserve for sometime, as are many Americans.

On the one hand, yes, the Federal Reserve does deplete the worth and rarity of the American dollar by increasing the amount of dollars in circulation. On the other, fixing or otherwise pinning the value of currency to any item or product tends to be very risky on its own merits, to say nothing of the actual potential for the currency to crash the economy during a recession. As we have a more sharply negative experience with the latter than the former, the American public is likely not going to desire another monetary policy outlook.


I've been protesting the FR and the IRS for several years now, they're unconstitutional.

In which way, exactly?

[Darth Binky]

[quote]I've been protesting the FR and the IRS for several years now, they're unconstitutional.
In which way, exactly?

Glad you've asked, I've signed and put together petitions on the matter, attended rallies and seminars, and most importantly, I've been telling people about it. I have yet to pay income tax, despite working on the books, and nothing has happened to me yet, or 30 million other Americans.

My brother has not paid income tax in over a decade and he's 40 years old.

There is a quite large scandal involving the constitutionality of the income tax, and the issue is currently going through the Supreme Courts. Its ??? vs. The State of Nevada. Sorry, I can't recall that fellows name off hand. I'll look it up for you when I feel more motivated:p unless you care to do it youself.:)

EDIT: I think its Shiff vs. The State of Nevada.

[Mitch]

[quote]I've been protesting the FR and the IRS for several years now, they're unconstitutional.
In which way, exactly?

Glad you've asked, I've signed and put together petitions on the matter, attended rallies and seminars, and most importantly, I've been telling people about it. I have yet to pay income tax, despite working on the books, and nothing has happened to me yet, or 30 million other Americans.

My brother has not paid income tax in over a decade and he's 40 years old.

There is a quite large scandal involving the constitutionality of the income tax, and the issue is currently going through the Supreme Courts. Its ??? vs. The State of Nevada. Sorry, I can't recall that fellows name off hand. I'll look it up for you when I feel more motivated:p unless you care to do it youself.:)

EDIT: I think its Shiff vs. The State of Nevada.

Well, while it's nice you haven't been paying for the same government programs I have been, you failed to answer the question.

In what way is the FR or IRS unconstitutional?

[Pierce Tondry]

I've been protesting the FR and the IRS for several years now, they're unconstitutional.
In which way, exactly?

Glad you've asked, I've signed and put together petitions on the matter, attended rallies and seminars, and most importantly, I've been telling people about it. I have yet to pay income tax, despite working on the books, and nothing has happened to me yet, or 30 million other Americans.

My brother has not paid income tax in over a decade and he's 40 years old.

You're dodging the question. Stop it. :p


There is a quite large scandal involving the constitutionality of the income tax, and the issue is currently going through the Supreme Courts. Its ??? vs. The State of Nevada. Sorry, I can't recall that fellows name off hand. I'll look it up for you when I feel more motivated:p unless you care to do it youself.:)

EDIT: I think its Shiff vs. The State of Nevada.

Doing internet research isn't as possible as I would like. I work for the Commonwealth of Virginia and so my computer use is monitored and restricted while I'm using state equipment. I don't currently have internet access outside work except on odd occasions. By all means, share what you have. I'll gladly read it.

Fair warning though, I do dissect an argument down to fine hairs. :)

[Darth Binky]

Well, while it's nice you haven't been paying for the same government programs I have been, you failed to answer the question.

In what way is the FR or IRS unconstitutional?

Well for starters, what do you think the income tax pays? The US Income Tax regulated by the IRS and the United States Government does not pay for a single government program. Many argue that without the income tax, how would be able to pay for roads, hospitals, etc.Well go on and see what your income tax pays. Every single penny garnered from the income tax goes to the national debt. We're taxed in hundreds of ways anyway, and thats where the government gets the money to institute its programs. If I buy a gallon of gasoline, I'm supporting those same government infrastructure programs that you do, as the tax on gasoline is used for road maintanence. (Thats because the amount of gas bought divided by the average mpg equals the amount of roadwear to be fixed. Ingenious eh?) Government programs you might be referring to, such as Medicare and Social Security, are NOT paid by your income taxes. They are paid through your payroll taxes.

As for the Federal Reserve being unconstituional, the Federal Reserve is a private bank, with no accountability. The FR takes out Federal Loans to print money, however they only pay for the cost of the ink and paper. However since it only costs them 4 cents to make a 100 dollar bill, they can print as many as they please to pay debts. This is why our money is worthless.

As for the IRS being unconstitutional, the Federal Government does not have the right to directly tax its citizen's income as stated by the Constitution. However Congress passed the 16th amendment, which gave congress the power to tax. Unfortunately, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified, as Congress met over Winter Recess, with few delegates showing up to pass it. In addition to this it violates other rights as well, and specifically does not repeal the terms of the Constitution stating that the government does not have the power to tax. The 16th Amendment directly violates the First and Fifth Amendments and could also be argued to violate the 13th and 14th amendments as well.
Income (in the legl sense) is most commonly defined as corporate profits, and therefore the salaried profits (meaning your pay check) is unconstitutional to tax.

To date there is no law saying you have to pay an income tax.

[Morgan Evanar]

Paul is popular with a certain crowd. I am not really sure why.A completely delusional one.



Well for starters, what do you think the income tax pays? The US Income Tax regulated by the IRS and the United States Government does not pay for a single government program. Many argue that without the income tax, how would be able to pay for roads, hospitals, etc.Well go on and see what your income tax pays. Every single penny garnered from the income tax goes to the national debt. We're taxed in hundreds of ways anyway, and thats where the government gets the money to institute its programs. If I buy a gallon of gasoline, I'm supporting those same government infrastructure programs that you do, as the tax on gasoline is used for road maintanence. (Thats because the amount of gas bought divided by the average mpg equals the amount of roadwear to be fixed. Ingenious eh?) Government programs you might be referring to, such as Medicare and Social Security, are NOT paid by your income taxes. They are paid through your payroll taxes.

As for the Federal Reserve being unconstituional, the Federal Reserve is a private bank, with no accountability. The FR takes out Federal Loans to print money, however they only pay for the cost of the ink and paper. However since it only costs them 4 cents to make a 100 dollar bill, they can print as many as they please to pay debts. This is why our money is worthless.

As for the IRS being unconstitutional, the Federal Government does not have the right to directly tax its citizen's income as stated by the Constitution. However Congress passed the 16th amendment, which gave congress the power to tax. Unfortunately, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified, as Congress met over Winter Recess, with few delegates showing up to pass it. In addition to this it violates other rights as well, and specifically does not repeal the terms of the Constitution stating that the government does not have the power to tax. The 16th Amendment directly violates the First and Fifth Amendments and could also be argued to violate the 13th and 14th amendments as well.
Income (in the legl sense) is most commonly defined as corporate profits, and therefore the salaried profits (meaning your pay check) is unconstitutional to tax.

To date there is no law saying you have to pay an income tax.I'm sorry but go ahead and try not paying income tax and see how it works for you. Income is money someone takes in (versus money they paid out).

Your argument boils down to what? The government has no ability to maintain itself? Well! Isn't that grand? What, we can run on hope, good will, and puppy turds?



As for the Federal Reserve being unconstituional, the Federal Reserve is a private bank, with no accountability. The FR takes out Federal Loans to print money, however they only pay for the cost of the ink and paper. However since it only costs them 4 cents to make a 100 dollar bill, they can print as many as they please to pay debts. This is why our money is worthless.
Oh good lord. You mean it's worthless like every other currency? It costs 2c to make a dollar ear of corn! It's worthless!

The main reason our national debt is so absurd is because of nonsense tax cuts for megacorps, megarich and a war waged based on vile lies.

I'm going to lay it out, because you clearly fail to understand something so very critical:
If you are against taxes, you are against government.

[Darth Binky]

Fair warning though, I do dissect an argument down to fine hairs. :)

I decided to just google the case to get the name right. It is entitled Irwin Schiff vs. The State of Nevada.

Quick Summation (because I don't feel like typing, shoot me a PM if you want more)
Schiff argues that the income tax isn't applicable for a variety of reasons, while the State of Nevada argues to the contrary. Schiff has, to date, lost the case. However it is currently going through appeals, due to the Judge's action including failure to allow the defendant to cite evidence.

This case was famous because when the jury asked the Judge what was the specific law that Schiff was breaking, the Judge failed to provide it and said something along the lines of "my word is law" Sorry I don't remember the exact quote as its 3am and my noodle is tired.

[Yog]

Paul is popular with a certain crowd. I am not really sure why.

I will try to explain why (note: I'm no fan of him). The reason he is popular among a certain crowd, he is a true libertarian (a rare commodity among the republicans), advocates a non intervention policy in foreign policy, wants to lower taxes and budget spending (fiscal conservative), and he is a strong believer and protector in what many americans find holy, the constitution. If you watched some of the republican debates, he is also the only intellectual of the bunch.

The problem is, some of his ideas are way out there in alpha omega 5 million lightyears away: the gold standard and gradual elimination of the Federal Reserve central bank, replacing it with free market (no federal control of interest rate or money flow), pulling US out of all international organisations like NATO, UN, International Criminal Court, WTO etc (here is an idea, how about working more closely together with those instead..), defederalization of the health care system (the exact opposite is needed if you ever going to get UHC), using free market to solve environmental problems (yeah right...). Basically, what we're dealing with is an anti-government presidential candidate.

[Morgan Evanar]

He's not a true libertarian. A true libertarian is more liberal than I am about social rights issues. Paul panders to many aspects of the more conservative. IE: abortion etc.

[Darth Binky]

I'm sorry but go ahead and try not paying income tax and see how it works for you. Income is money someone takes in (versus money they paid out).

Your argument boils down to what? The government has no ability to maintain itself? Well! Isn't that grand? What, we can run on hope, good will, and puppy turds?

I already don't pay income tax. And yes, the government currently has no ability to maintain itself, which is why we're an additional 800 billion dollars in debt every year. We do not have a viable economic system.



Oh good lord. You mean it's worthless like every other currency? It costs 2c to make a dollar ear of corn! It's worthless!

The main reason our national debt is so absurd is because of nonsense tax cuts for megacorps, megarich and a war waged based on vile lies.


No, do your research. Currently, whenever we need money we print more, without any actual wealth to base it on. The Federal Reserve has no accountability and currently prints as much money as it needs. The problem is, when you keep making so much money, without any backing, it becomes worthless. Take some economics or maybe a history class, as the same problem happened to Germany after WWI.



I'm going to lay it out, because you clearly fail to understand something so very critical:
If you are against taxes, you are against government.

I am against useless government that doesn't know how to manage itself. I guess that makes me either realistic or an anarchist.

[Morgan Evanar]

So your solution is to not pay for something that was working 8 years ago? How is that going to fix the problem? Before Bush cut taxes and decided to go to Iraq we were paying down our debt.

[Yog]

Guess the correct term is "moderate libertarian". My point though, he is more of a libertarian than the other republican candidates.

Here is a very good site to compare candidates and their stance on the issues. Just click on their name..
http://www.issues2000.org/Candidates.htm

[Darth Binky]

So your solution is to not pay for something that was working 8 years ago? How is that going to fix the problem? Before Bush cut taxes and decided to go to Iraq we were paying down our debt.

It wasn't working 8 years ago either. It hasn't worked since the early 80s.:\

[Morgan Evanar]

What are you talking about? The inflation corrected debt went down in 99 and 2000. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Until Bush took office we were on a leveling trend with projected reductions in the numerical debt.

[Darth Binky]

What are you talking about? The inflation corrected debt went down in 99 and 2000. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Until Bush took office we were on a leveling trend with projected reductions in the numerical debt.

Look at a long scale timeline of the national debt, since Reagan built up the military in the 80s with all those shiny new tanks, debt went way up, and we've had to maintain those toys and buy new ones.

You can't just look at an 18 month dip and declare that the system has miraculously fixed itself, at least in my book.

EDIT: Although, it is worth noting that in 1999 and 2000 government spending was at a low, and thus we were not printing as much money to pay out debts.

[Will Serrot]

i think it is funny i am called a loony and a crazy on these boards because i am supporting ron paul. a man who had real policies and initiatives. a man who has a 22 year record in congress to stand on. a man of principles.

however, if i said i like obama, a dude who has been a senator for less than three years, a man who has no real ideas, (i know he wants change?) i would be praised and told i was casting a responsible vote. why is that?

others talk of change ron paul is the only one who believes in change.

[Morgan Evanar]

If you don't believe in taxes, you don't believe in government, and then I don't believe in your sanity.

[Darth Binky]

If you don't believe in taxes, you don't believe in government, and then I don't believe in your sanity.

I never said I didn't believe in taxes, I don't believe in the income tax.

But thanks for doubting my sanity.:(

[Morgan Evanar]

Are you proposing a consumption based tax?

[Darth Binky]

I propose we tax goods and services, like we already do, and not taxing our labor, which we unfortunately do.

[Jedieb]

As for the IRS being unconstitutional, the Federal Government does not have the right to directly tax its citizen's income as stated by the Constitution. However Congress passed the 16th amendment, which gave congress the power to tax. Unfortunately, the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified, as Congress met over Winter Recess, with few delegates showing up to pass it. In addition to this it violates other rights as well, and specifically does not repeal the terms of the Constitution stating that the government does not have the power to tax. The 16th Amendment directly violates the First and Fifth Amendments and could also be argued to violate the 13th and 14th amendments as well.
Income (in the legl sense) is most commonly defined as corporate profits, and therefore the salaried profits (meaning your pay check) is unconstitutional to tax.

To date there is no law saying you have to pay an income tax.

I don't believe that statement about Congress meeting over the winter recess is correct. You seem to imply that the 16th Amendment was somehow snuck into the Constitution. That's completely false. It was a major issue in the Presidential Election of 1912. Check the ratification dates and you'll see it was a lengthy process that took place over YEARS, not weeks or months.

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:

Alabama (August 10, 1909)
Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
Illinois (March 1, 1910)
Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
Maryland (April 8, 1910)
Georgia (August 3, 1910)
Texas (August 16, 1910)
Ohio (January 19, 1911)
Idaho (January 20, 1911)
Oregon (January 23, 1911)
Washington (January 26, 1911)
Montana (January 27, 1911)
Indiana (January 30, 1911)
California (January 31, 1911)
Nevada (January 31, 1911)
South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
Colorado (February 15, 1911)
North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
Michigan (February 23, 1911)
Iowa (February 24, 1911)
Kansas (March 2, 1911)
Missouri (March 16, 1911)
Maine (March 31, 1911)
Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
Arkansas (April 22, 1911, after having previously rejected the amendment)
Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
New York (July 12, 1911)
Arizona (April 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico (but see Delaware and Wyoming below). The amendment was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then existing:

37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913, after rejecting the amendment on March 2, 1911)
The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently ratifying it:

Connecticut
Florida, which rejected the amendment after it had already been ratified by three-fourths of the states
Rhode Island
Utah
The following states never took up the proposed amendment:

Pennsylvania
Virginia

[Morgan Evanar]

I propose we tax goods and services, like we already do, and not taxing our labor, which we unfortunately do.I have no issue with it, but why should labor not be taxable?

[Byl Laprovik]

i think it is funny i am called a loony and a crazy on these boards because i am supporting ron paul. a man who had real policies and initiatives. a man who has a 22 year record in congress to stand on. a man of principles.

however, if i said i like obama, a dude who has been a senator for less than three years, a man who has no real ideas, (i know he wants change?) i would be praised and told i was casting a responsible vote. why is that?

others talk of change ron paul is the only one who believes in change.

Wait, you're arguing for "Dr. No" on an experience ticket? Yeah he's been in congress a while, but look at the non-progress he's made with anything. He's a gimmick congressman for the most part.

And all of this Federal Reserve talk is incredibly amusing.

[Cat X]

So I decided to go digging about RON PAUL today.

And this was one of the best I found. I'm sure there's a lot more.



If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on constitutional principle," while The Nation praised "his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jack Tapper described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped."
Congressman Ron Paul.Credit: Getty Images
View Larger Image View Larger Image
Congressman Ron Paul.

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Army surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a non-profit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black congresswoman Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first-person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.



To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a "distinguished counselor." The institute has also published his books.

The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"--but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the "War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, "we'll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it." Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society" and that "there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it."

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, "There are too many libertarians in this country ... who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, ... find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought."

Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."

This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.



Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul's "old colleague," Congressman William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for "speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby." In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine "who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist." In an item titled, "The Pink House?" the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet." "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, "Bring Back the Closet!" Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended "parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims." Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better. The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul's Investment Letter called Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state," and a 1990 newsletter discussed the "tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise." Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."



Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America." It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, "You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head," "Keep the group size down," "Keep quiet and you're harder to find," "Leave no clues," "Avoid the phone as much as possible," and "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul's obsession with the "industrial-banking-political elite" and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and "fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests" for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called "one of the saddest events in the history of the United States." A 1988 newsletter cited a doctor who believed that AIDS was created in a World Health Organization laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. In addition, Ron Paul & Associates sold a video about Waco produced by "patriotic Indiana lawyer Linda Thompson"--as one of the newsletters called her--who maintained that Waco was a conspiracy to kill ATF agents who had previously worked for President Clinton as bodyguards. As with many of the more outlandish theories the newsletters cited over the years, the video received a qualified endorsement: "I can't vouch for every single judgment by the narrator, but the film does show the depths of government perfidy, and the national police's tricks and crimes," the newsletter said, adding, "Send your check for $24.95 to our Houston office, or charge the tape to your credit card at 1-800-RON-PAUL."



When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."

In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.

What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones--whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into "superhuman" computer hybrids able to "travel throughout the cosmos"--estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years.

Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul's congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society. Christian Reconstructionists share common ground with libertarians, since both groups dislike the central government. North has advocated the execution of women who have abortions and people who curse their parents. In a 1986 book, North argued for stoning as a form of capital punishment--because "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." North is perhaps best known for Gary North's Remnant Review, a "Christian and pro free-market" newsletter. In a 1983 letter Paul wrote on behalf of an organization called the Committee to Stop the Bail-Out of Multinational Banks (known by the acronym CSBOMB), he bragged, "Perhaps you already read in Gary North's Remnant Review about my exposes of government abuse."

Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week's Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a "straight-talker."

From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor at The New Republic

[Figrin D'an]

One of the reasons Ron Paul established such a strong following online and had massive success via internet fund raising has been his strong support for network neutrality... it's earned him a lot of friends in certain tech circles, ranging from free software people to large Silicon Valley companies. Just a little factoid to add to the discussion.


If you honestly think that you will be able to simply not pay income tax with impunity and be left alone by the IRS, you will be in for a significant shock. Simply because no action has been taken against you yet does not mean that the lack of tax payment on your part is being ignored because of a dubious legal idiosyncrasy. It's simply a matter of resource management on the part of the IRS to determine which persons are audited in a given year. If you choose to play with fire on this, so be it, but be aware that your chances of getting burned are significantly higher than you appear to believe.

[Jeseth Cloak]

This (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173) video is a very good in depth explanation on the subject of the income tax and the FR.

[Jedieb]

This (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173) video is a very good in depth explanation on the subject of the income tax and the FR.

"good" is in the eye of the beholder as far as that video is concerned. The director recently died of cancer but he'd had 2 million dollars in liens against him by the IRS. Gee, think that anything to do with him making a documentary about income tax? :rolleyes I'd put that video in a bin next to one about 9/11 conspiracies.

Looks like McCain will win New Hampshire again and Clinton has an early 4 point lead over Obama. It looks like she's going to stop her slide with a win or a strong second place finish. I'm still impressed by what Obama is doing. I think he's going to find himself on the ticket, one way or another.

[Morgan Evanar]

This (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173) video is a very good in depth explanation on the subject of the income tax and the FR.I read a lot faster than I can watch a hour+ documentary regarding the evils of income tax. Please, enlighten me.

[Mitch]

Heh, I saw that video in a funny thread on SA. Oh, I wish I could find it again, they had delightful, factually-based commentary about it.

[Jeseth Cloak]

The only thing I really would want to elaborate on right now - due to a lack of time - is the fact that there is no federal law requiring you to pay an income. Some states do have laws which state you have to pay the income tax if liable under federal law, but since there is no federal law, no one is liable. Additionally, the 16th amendment does not repeal parts of the original constitution which state that the government can not directly tax your wages.

As for the FR, someone would have to be very naive to support it. A private non-government agency, controlling our money, with no elected officials and no accountability to the people? That's dangerous. I shouldn't even have to explain why, because the reasons are obvious.

[Cat X]

This (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173) video is a very good in depth explanation on the subject of the income tax and the FR.



Federal income tax issues and interviews in the film

Through interviews with various individuals including former IRS agents, Russo sets forth the tax protester argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_arguments) that, "there is no law requiring an income tax", and that the personal income tax is illegally enforced to support the activities of the Federal Reserve System. The film refers to both article 1 section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants Congress the right to impose taxes, and the Sixteenth Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion), which removes any apportionment requirement. The film disputes the legitimacy of the Amendment and contends, through a series of interviews, that there is no law imposing the income tax.
One of the listed stars of the film, Irwin Schiff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff), was sentenced on February 24 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_24), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006) to 13 years and 7 months in prison for tax evasion and ordered to pay over $4.2 million in restitution.<sup id="_ref-3" class="reference">[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism#_note-3)</sup> In pre-sentencing documents filed with the court, Schiff's lawyers had argued that he had a mental disorder related to his beliefs about taxation. Initially, the film portrays Mr. Schiff as a tax "expert," though his qualifications and those of many other "experts" in the film are not mentioned. It is not until later that the film reveals Mr. Schiff has gone to jail.
Mr. Schiff appears in the film for another reason as well. The filmmaker lampoons Judge Kent Dawson's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Dawson) reaction to Schiff's defense. The film alleges that the judge "denied Irwin the ability to prove to a jury that there was no law requiring Americans to file an income tax return. He denied Irwin the right to attempt to prove to a jury there was no law . . . by stating, 'I will not allow the law in my courtroom.'" At 0:48:28 of the film, Mr. Russo introduces the judge and his statement.
Under the U.S. legal system, the general rule (with exceptions) is that neither side in a civil or criminal case is allowed to try to prove to the jury what the law is. For example, in a murder case the defendant is not generally allowed to persuade the jury that there is no law against murder, or to try to interpret the law for the jury. Likewise, the prosecution is not allowed to try to persuade the jury about what the law is, or how it should be interpreted. Disagreements about what the law is are argued by both sides before the judge, who then makes a ruling. Prior to jury deliberations, the judge, and only the judge, instructs the jury on the law.<sup id="_ref-4" class="reference">[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism#_note-4)</sup>
Another listed star, Vernice Kuglin, was acquitted in her criminal trial for tax evasion in August of 2003.<sup id="_ref-5" class="reference">[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism#_note-5)</sup> This means she was not found guilty of a willful intent to evade income taxes. (A conviction for tax evasion requires, among other things, proof by the government that the defendant engaged in one or more affirmative acts of misleading the government or of hiding income.) Kuglin entered a settlement with the government in 2004 in which she agreed to pay over $500,000 in taxes and penalties.<sup id="_ref-6" class="reference">[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism#_note-6)</sup> On April 30, 2007, the Memphis Daily News reported that Kuglin's Federal tax problems continued with the filing of a notice of Federal tax lien in the amount of $188,025. The Memphis newspaper also stated that Kuglin has "given up her fight against paying taxes, according to a Sept. 10, 2004, Commercial Appeal story."<sup id="_ref-7" class="reference">[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism#_note-7)</sup>
The preview clip for the film includes assertions contradicted by official government publications regarding the activities and nature of such institutions as the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Reserve System<sup id="_ref-8" class="reference">[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_From_Freedom_to_Fascism#_note-8)</sup>


So in summary this is a film made and backed by people with a personal interest in spreading outright lies and misinformation about subjects they are wilfully misrepresenting or are wilfully misinformed. They have a large financial interest of at times several million, have been taken to court and successfully prosecuted also in some examples.

So these are people ho are wilfully breaking laws and deserve to be in jail ot paying huge fines spinning a story to somehow mak themselves out to be heros who are bringing people "The Truth"

What complete and utter crap. These people deserve what they got for their definace of the laws that they have made no case for being illegal - or even proved unjust. It is a film about personal greed and denial of reality.


The only thing I really would want to elaborate on right now - due to a lack of time - is the fact that there is no federal law requiring you to pay an income. Some states do have laws which state you have to pay the income tax if liable under federal law, but since there is no federal law, no one is liable. Additionally, the 16th amendment does not repeal parts of the original constitution which state that the government can not directly tax your wages.


Yes they can and you are completely and utterly wrong on every single count.


<sup id="_ref-12" class="reference">
</sup>

[Mitch]

*Applauds the kitty*

Thank you, that is some of the information I was looking for.

[Jedieb]

The only thing I really would want to elaborate on right now - due to a lack of time - is the fact that there is no federal law requiring you to pay an income. Some states do have laws which state you have to pay the income tax if liable under federal law, but since there is no federal law, no one is liable. Additionally, the 16th amendment does not repeal parts of the original constitution which state that the government can not directly tax your wages.

As for the FR, someone would have to be very naive to support it. A private non-government agency, controlling our money, with no elected officials and no accountability to the people? That's dangerous. I shouldn't even have to explain why, because the reasons are obvious.

16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That's good enough for me, but feel free to roll the dice and not pay it. Hell, my wife and I get back around 4K every year. I loves my 3 walking talking deductions.

[Jeseth Cloak]

Find the federal law that states Americans have to pay an income tax. The 16th amendment gives congress the power to tax, but they have not made a law that would enforce payment of the income tax. Also note the 16th amendment doesn't repeal sections of the constitution which state that congress does not have the power to collect taxes on income.

[Jeseth Cloak]

Also note: I do pay the income tax voluntarily, but not because I believe it is required of me by law. Picking a fight with the IRS is a bad idea, anyway.

[Jedieb]

Find the federal law that states Americans have to pay an income tax. The 16th amendment gives congress the power to tax, but they have not made a law that would enforce payment of the income tax. Also note the 16th amendment doesn't repeal sections of the constitution which state that congress does not have the power to collect taxes on income.

Um, I think I'll just stick with this...

Yes they can and you are completely and utterly wrong on every single count.

I'm sure the guys behind the documentary who had millions in tax liens against them and wounded up in jail spouted the same arguments. Keep believing it's all a big hoax that was passed in a long deep wintery session of Congress. Good luck, I hope you stay out of jail.

EDIT: Glad to hear you're paying your taxes. The last thing I want is for anyone to go to jail or find themselves in serious financial problems because they believe illegal income tax rhetoric.

[Cat X]

Find the federal law that states Americans have to pay an income tax. The 16th amendment gives congress the power to tax, but they have not made a law that would enforce payment of the income tax. Also note the 16th amendment doesn't repeal sections of the constitution which state that congress does not have the power to collect taxes on income.

Count yourself lucky that your posting in a place that wont allow me to say what I really want to say.

What I say instead is the onus is on YOU to prove this nonsense, not us. So far your doing a bloody awful job of it.

[Morgan Evanar]

Also note the 16th amendment doesn't repeal sections of the constitution which state that congress does not have the power to collect taxes on income.What sections are those?

BTW neither you nor Binky have not answered this very important question:

Why should labor not be taxable? Further, what is the difference between labor and a service?

[Jeseth Cloak]

[quote=Jeseth Cloak;252341]Count yourself lucky that your posting in a place that wont allow me to say what I really want to say.
Can't you have a healthy debate without losing your temper? No one is being uncivil to you. Now, getting off the vague and nigh unwinnable debate over tax legality and constitutional semantics: what does everyone predict for NH?

I can see McCain, Thomas, and Paul doing very well on the Republican side, and can't really speculate on what could happen with the Democrats.

[Jedieb]

Paul is going to pull in 8% in NH. CNN has him on right now and he's talking about the Fed and the Gold Standard. Yeah, he's a bit nuts. I may hate the war as much as him, but that's just not enough.

[Jedieb]

Clinton and Obama are very close, but Clinton has to breathing a sigh of relief. Some people had her falling like a rock behind both Obama and Edwards. And Paul pulling in 8% just means he's leading the back of the pack. He's not going anywhere, let's be realistic.

[Yog]

Does anyone have a link to a decent website with updated trackings of election results in New Hampshire?

[Morgan Evanar]

[quote=Jeseth Cloak;252341]Count yourself lucky that your posting in a place that wont allow me to say what I really want to say.
Can't you have a healthy debate without losing your temper? No one is being uncivil to you. Now, getting off the vague and nigh unwinnable debate over tax legality and constitutional semantics: what does everyone predict for NH?

I can see McCain, Thomas, and Paul doing very well on the Republican side, and can't really speculate on what could happen with the Democrats.Probably tossup between Obama and Clinton, although Edwards could surprise.

The fact is you've done nothing to actually refute Mark's assertions. Instead, you parrot that it is unconstitutional and fail to provide any links from a credible scholar or lawyer.

[Cat X]

[quote=Jeseth Cloak;252341]Count yourself lucky that your posting in a place that wont allow me to say what I really want to say.
Can't you have a healthy debate without losing your temper? No one is being uncivil to you. Now, getting off the vague and nigh unwinnable debate over tax legality and constitutional semantics: what does everyone predict for NH?


We're not having a healthy debate. We have a delusion being passed off as some version of reality that does not match any I am aware of and will be treated as such.

[Byl Laprovik]

Hillary takes NH.

Son of a bitch.

[Figrin D'an]

And it looks like McCain on the Republican side.

[CMJ]

I don't see any Republican getting the nom out right. We may have our first convention fight in like....50 years.

[Cat X]

Hillary takes NH.

Son of a bitch.

DAMMIT. Well maybe Edwards drops out and endorses Obama?

[Mitch]

As a Republican, I do not enjoy McCain. Nor do I like many of our candidates.

[Darth Binky]

Count yourself lucky that your posting in a place that wont allow me to say what I really want to say.

What I say instead is the onus is on YOU to prove this nonsense, not us. So far your doing a bloody awful job of it.
Well I'm thinking its the onus of you to prove that nonsense. All of your arguments have basically translated to:

ZOMG!!!!11!! I <3 the govenrtments and taxz11!!! im alwayz right and ur dumb LOL

So I think if you're going to troll at least do a halfway decent job of it. Now notice how no one has said anything bad about your chosen candidate?



BTW neither you nor Binky have not answered this very important question:

Why should labor not be taxable? Further, what is the difference between labor and a service?

Well thats not very fair, saying I haven't answered when I wasn't even online.

Labor should not be taxable because your actual work is being taxed, which to me, sounds pretty dumb. Here, let me pay you so I can work?

The difference between labor and service is that labor is labor performed for you and another party where you recieve money, while a service refers to a service rendered, meaning that when I pay you, I get taxed for it.

As I've said, I do not have a problem with payroll taxes, only the income tax and I believe that its unconstitutional, and its been a debate thats been going on since the 60s.

[Cat X]

Well I'm thinking its the onus of you to prove that nonsense. All of your arguments have basically translated to:

ZOMG!!!!11!! I <3 the govenrtments and taxz11!!! im alwayz right and ur dumb LOL

So I think if you're going to troll at least do a halfway decent job of it. Now notice how no one has said anything bad about your chosen candidate?


Trolling is not being blunt and saying what I think - just because you dont liek the answer doesnt negate it, especially when the position you have is hardly defendable and to someone with a bit of political knowledge quite silly. Much to my displeasure and waste of my time I have in fact even chosen to have a bit of fun and bring to light some history of Ron Paul and you have conveniently chosen to ignore it. You have not posted a single thing that is true in regards to economics, the Federal reserve, the IRS or any other policy. You have not denied Paul has been directly attribed as saying he wants the Gold standard back, which is economic madness. In fact you have done nothing than to repeat fallacie that far better people than I have already and publically dealt with.

And let me also tell you, the Laizese fair (sp) approach to economics that Paul espouses has already been proven not to work and can not work.

So basically if you think I am trolling - deal with it sweethart, you'll find peole a lot more blunt and obnoxious than I am. Go find some support for the ridiculous positions of Paul.... oh wait. That might mean findong out just how wrong those polices are and how much trouble a genuine free market is, how the Feds are not run by a cartel who want to see the ruin of the USA..... the reason why you are getting both barrels is that so much of it is patent nonsense, it is hard to believe a rational person can be taken by it. It is pure political snake oil.

Now if you want an actual polictical debate on sane topics, go right ahead. You will find me more than willing and for someone that doesnt live anywhere near the USA, remarkably across a lot of issues that affect you.



BTW neither you nor Binky have not answered this very important question:

Why should labor not be taxable? Further, what is the difference between labor and a service?

Well thats not very fair, saying I haven't answered when I wasn't even online.

Labor should not be taxable because your actual work is being taxed, which to me, sounds pretty dumb. Here, let me pay you so I can work?

The difference between labor and service is that labor is labor performed for you and another party where you recieve money, while a service refers to a service rendered, meaning that when I pay you, I get taxed for it.

As I've said, I do not have a problem with payroll taxes, only the income tax and I believe that its unconstitutional, and its been a debate thats been going on since the 60s.[/quote]


I perform a job for someone. I get paid for it. As part of the Goods and Serives Act of 2000 (Aust), this is defined as a service. This definition of service is also the basic economic definition of what a job is - you hire yourself out to someone to perform a service. An Employee, even if they are paid a wage is still in economic terms defined as performing a service - trading their time and skill in return for income. Even if the price paid is zero, Labor is always classed as a service. Wether you are in the service industry, primary sector, government or voluntary, it is always a service to someone or somethign else.

Income tax is payment for a service - in this case services provided to you by the Government. Wrther that be governance, law making, roads, hospitals, defence, a huge porn haul, does not matter. It is still a service and as per any service, you are requested - or enforced - to pay.

[Darth Binky]

Well I'm thinking its the onus of you to prove that nonsense. All of your arguments have basically translated to:

ZOMG!!!!11!! I <3 the govenrtments and taxz11!!! im alwayz right and ur dumb LOL

So I think if you're going to troll at least do a halfway decent job of it. Now notice how no one has said anything bad about your chosen candidate?


Trolling is not being blunt and saying what I think - just because you dont liek the answer doesnt negate it, especially when the position you have is hardly defendable and to someone with a bit of political knowledge quite silly. Much to my displeasure and waste of my time I have in fact even chosen to have a bit of fun and bring to light some history of Ron Paul and you have conveniently chosen to ignore it. You have not posted a single thing that is true in regards to economics, the Federal reserve, the IRS or any other policy. You have not denied Paul has been directly attribed as saying he wants the Gold standard back, which is economic madness. In fact you have done nothing than to repeat fallacie that far better people than I have already and publically dealt with.

And let me also tell you, the Laizese fair (sp) approach to economics that Paul espouses has already been proven not to work and can not work.

So basically if you think I am trolling - deal with it sweethart, you'll find peole a lot more blunt and obnoxious than I am. Go find some support for the ridiculous positions of Paul.... oh wait. That might mean findong out just how wrong those polices are and how much trouble a genuine free market is, how the Feds are not run by a cartel who want to see the ruin of the USA..... the reason why you are getting both barrels is that so much of it is patent nonsense, it is hard to believe a rational person can be taken by it. It is pure political snake oil.



Cat I say you are trolling for the mere fact that if you look at the majority of your posts in this thread, they amount to nothing more than "so and so" sucks, without any backing, and you're trying to ellict a negative response.
You say you're blunt and obnoxious, I say you have the mentality of a high schooler.

[Darth Binky]

Clinton and Obama are very close, but Clinton has to breathing a sigh of relief. Some people had her falling like a rock behind both Obama and Edwards. And Paul pulling in 8% just means he's leading the back of the pack. He's not going anywhere, let's be realistic.


If Ron Paul doesn't get through the primaries I'll probably vote for Edwards because of his ideas for UHC.

I have no idea what Obama wants besides "change."

[Darth Binky]

I perform a job for someone. I get paid for it. As part of the Goods and Serives Act of 2000 (Aust), this is defined as a service. This definition of service is also the basic economic definition of what a job is - you hire yourself out to someone to perform a service. An Employee, even if they are paid a wage is still in economic terms defined as performing a service - trading their time and skill in return for income. Even if the price paid is zero, Labor is always classed as a service. Wether you are in the service industry, primary sector, government or voluntary, it is always a service to someone or somethign else.

Income tax is payment for a service - in this case services provided to you by the Government. Wrther that be governance, law making, roads, hospitals, defence, a huge porn haul, does not matter. It is still a service and as per any service, you are requested - or enforced - to pay.

Income tax is not payment for service, what the income tax pays is the national debt incrued by the Federal Reserve.

I believe that they payment to workers can be taxed, but the actual labor shouldn't be. Itamounts to little more than a work tax.

[Morgan Evanar]

Why does it matter if you are taxed or "the business" is taxed? Would you rather that a business files against the money it spent to employ you or you file individually? It sounds irrelevant to me.

I hope you realize your argument boils down to the semantics of when you are being taxed.


Income tax is not payment for service, what the income tax pays is the national debt incrued by the Federal Reserve.So what pays for our defense budget?

[Jedieb]

I don't see any Republican getting the nom out right. We may have our first convention fight in like....50 years.

I think that's a fascinating probability. In the end, I can see Romney, Huckabee, and McCain battling it out. Who knows, Thompson may even do well enough on Super Tuesday to get in there. Candidates will be making deals practically on the convention floor.

Hillary needed that win, and I think Edwards was hurt badly with his 3rd place finish. I don't know if he'd throw in with Obama quite yet, even if he does poorly on Super Tuesday. It'll be interesting to see if he wants to parlay his delegates into another VP nomination. I actually think that Edwards is the best candidate the Democrats could field in a general election. He consistently performs better than Hillary and Obama in head to head polls with Republican candidates, but I just don't see how he can pull it off.

This whole Income Tax debate is rather pointless. All the people arguing that it's unconstitutional have one thing in common, when they've gone to the trouble of taking their arguments to court they've lost. When you get it to the Supreme Court and they find the 16th Amendment unconstitutional and crews start taking down IRS buildings, then I'll give and say you were right. Until then, you're wrong and been proven wrong over and over and over...

And I still haven't seen a defense of the 'it was ratified in the dead of winter' argument. The ratification dates I posted clearly showed that was a ridiculous statement. It just sounds like a typically flawed conspiracy "fact" that gets repeated so often that believers accept it without bothering to do even some basic research.

[Drin Kizael]

I can see it now...

"It's not easy, Mr. Musharraf. It's not. *sniffle* I just have so many opportunities for your country. I just don't want to see you fall backwards."

[Drin Kizael]

Well right now, both the indivdual AND the business get double-taxed on earned income.

[Jedieb]

Why does it matter if you are taxed or "the business" is taxed? Would you rather that a business files against the money it spent to employ you or you file individually? It sounds irrelevant to me.

I hope you realize your argument boils down to the semantics of when you are being taxed.


Income tax is not payment for service, what the income tax pays is the national debt incrued by the Federal Reserve.So what pays for our defense budget?

Forget about the defense budget, can someone show the money trail that shows the debt gets paid directly from the Income Tax? And do the numbers match up so perfectly that the extra money doesn't go anywhere else? What if the Income Tax isn't enough, where does the rest of the money come from? Please, post the government site that shows where the taxes are drawn from and where they go, because if you're still getting your information from a tax documentary made by tax dodgers, some of whom ended up in prison then you've got to give us more.

[Morgan Evanar]

Well right now, both the indivdual AND the business get double-taxed on earned income.So? Eliminate one or the other and you still have to get the money from somewhere.

[Jeseth Cloak]

I really wanted to stay off of this topic... but since you've asked for something to back up our claims that the 16th Amendment should be considered unconstitutional, I'll explain further, and after this I want to move on from the subject, so if you want to debate it further you can contact me over PM to have a civilized discussion about it. The following is a summary:

When 16th Amendment was "ratified," there 48 states, and 36 of them would have been required to approve it for it to go into affect. Responses came in from 42 states when it (the 16th Amendment) was declared "ratified," in 1913. 38 states had supposedly approved it.

The version of the amendment that the Kentucky legislature made up and acted upon omitted the words "on income." They weren't even voting on an income tax, if you put it into prospective. When it was finally corrected, the Kentucky senate rejected the amendment. Kentucky was still counted.

Texas' constitution doesn't allow the state to approve any amendment that would give congress the power to tax. They did so anyway, illegally.

In Oklahoma, the wording ended up getting changed, and although the changes were small, they altered the nature of the amendment so that legislatures could have easily thought they were voting for a different kind of tax. This alone would have been sufficient enough reason for that state's approval to have been thrown out. Oklahoma was still counted though, even though legally, it shouldn't have been.

Tennessee's constitution explicitly states that the legislature can not act on any amendment to the constitution until after the next election of state legislators. The Tennessee legislature acted upon the amendment anyway. They're approval should not have been counted.

Several other states violated their constitutions by not verifying the documents that they were voting on, and this should have rendered their votes null and void. They were counted anyway.

A handful of states did not follow correct procedures for ensuring the integrity of the document, too. The final number of states that "ratified" it - when you exclude all of the ones that acted illegally or did not follow procedure to safeguard the validity and integrity of the document - was less than 23.

Additionally, Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution states: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States…

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 says: No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration….

Now, read the 16th Amendment: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

There's no mention of a repeal of those two sections of the constitution; of course, the courts have almost always ruled in favor of the 16 Amendment taking priority. So how you feel about it really depends on what side of the fence your on. There is no clearly defined "win" to this argument, because it all comes down to personal opinion and semantics: Do you believe in the purity of the U.S. Constitution, or do you believe that it's just a piece of paper open to interpretation? Either way, it's an opinion.

And Cat X, you have been kind of a troll, but I won't hold it against you. Just be a little nicer to people... it wouldn't kill you. :p



Well right now, both the indivdual AND the business get double-taxed on earned income.So? Eliminate one or the other and you still have to get the money from somewhere.
There are hundreds of other taxes in existance, and the income tax is only one of them. Without it we'd be just fine. It would just mean that our country would need to stop stretching itself thin overseas and start minding its own business, like some other countries in the world have learned to do.

[Slayn Cloak]

I’m so sick of this Ron Paul garbage, it might even be worse when it’s DR. Paul, as if he’s some kind of talk show host. What annoys me those most maybe is that I fall in to his demographic of worshipers but haven’t been taken in by him. So I’ve included three links and one excerpt from a SA front page. Most of you go there anyway but the paulites most likely don’t. Also, I plan to throw my vote away on Edwards but am hoping he latches on to someone viable for a running partner and takes up VP status. I feel like Hillary and Osama (p0wned) have the same agenda but Hillary seems a little mean to me, and I let personal opinion beat out reason in all my decisions. I’m afraid however that Barak won’t have a real chance given that this is America, one of the most racially tense countries in the world, but it would be nice if people would kill themselves instead of spread their American Hate.



http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/526482501.html



http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/election-thoughts.php

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/press-conference-republicans.php

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/press-conference-democrats.php








Ron Paul's Defeat Another unexpected benefit of the Iowa results was the crushed dreams of Ron Paul supporters across the nation. These angry young suburbanite white men, burdened with every advantage society could give them, were sure that a revolution would happen in which Dr. Paul, despite appearing in every poll as the minor punchline he is, would somehow leap to the top of the pile like some kind of gnomish free-market superman.

Unfortunately, it appears that relying on the World-of-Warcraft-playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDyheKhwWf8) demographic meant having a base that couldn't be bothered to get off their asses and vote, resulting in a less than stellar fifth place showing. Although he still, gold standard lunacy and all, beat Giuliani, which might have been because Giuliani didn't bother to campaign in Iowa, or might have been because Giuliani could be replaced at almost any public appearance with a large American flag propped up against a small boombox playing patriotic music. The boombox/flag combo would probably also more directly address the issues.

In any case, fifth place with a double-digit percentage is not a bad showing for a lunatic fringe candidate, but for those people sitting at their computers waiting for other people to somehow do some kind of revolution or something, it was nothing less than the end of a dream. Which meant that the official Ron Paul forums were extremely entertaining just after the Iowa loss, if you're into that kind of thing. I am. Here are some excerpts

[Jeseth Cloak]

I fall in to his demographic of worshipers
You mean supporters - and no, you don't fall into the demographic.

[Slayn Cloak]

no I meant what I said, and I do.

"These angry young suburbanite white men, burdened with every advantage society could give them...Unfortunately, it appears that relying on the World-of-Warcraft-playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDyheKhwWf8) demographic meant having a base that couldn't be bothered to get off their asses and vote, resulting in a less than stellar fifth place showing."

Also since when are you “well educated” on foreign affairs and international relations? Every time you’ve gone to Miami Dade College you studied journalism for a semester and would drop out. Then there was that one time you went to FIU for a semester, maybe two… is that were you became well educated?



Learn2read

[Jeseth Cloak]

no I meant what I said, and I do.

"These angry young suburbanite white men, burdened with every advantage society could give them...Unfortunately, it appears that relying on the World-of-Warcraft-playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDyheKhwWf8) demographic meant having a base that couldn't be bothered to get off their asses and vote, resulting in a less than stellar fifth place showing."


Learn2read
This random guy on SA isn't describing Paul's supporters accurately. We're all politically active, vote and get involved in local politics (for the most part). I'd say the angry WOW-players are in the minority amongst us. So - hearsay from a nobody on SA aside - tell me how you fit the demographic?

[Slayn Cloak]

Why are you downplaying the integrity and “fairness” of the staff at Something Awful? Why didn’t you answer my other question? Oh right because you won’t directly answer anything anyone has asked you.
You’ve only been all of those things you mentioned for a few months now, this I’m sure is to fit in somehow, maybe at the small office you work at, ( as I doubt it makes any difference at the hotel considering you’re like 25% of the office staff there) or maybe just to impress someone.
<o></o>
Let’s see….
Politically active – yeah
Vote – uh huh check
Have my head up my own anus with a holier than thou attitude based on nothing – right on
Involved in local politics – yeah I voted for the mayor in my town.
<o></o>
Stop pretending to be something you’re not, or at least stop trying to chastise people for it. It’s your right to support a political clown, but acting like you know something, or more importantly are better than everyone is a little annoying- Mostly because you don’t try to have an argument, or a stand on something. You regurgitate rubbish you’ve dug up and when some one blasts it with a bit of reality you move on, ignore them, or change the subject.

[Jeseth Cloak]

Why are you downplaying the integrity and “fairness” of the staff at Something Awful?
They have that stuff? Doesn't seem like it, based on their work.


Why didn’t you answer my other question? Because it was obviously a personal attack aimed at provoking an off-topic personal confrontation.


Oh right because you won’t directly answer anything anyone has asked you. I answered all of those income tax questions above, when I had the time and wasn't busy doing someone's bookkeeping or accounting. Aside from that, I will - and have - avoided being drawn into heated topics or allowing others to provoke me.


You’ve only been all of those things you mentioned for a few months now, this I’m sure is to fit in somehow, maybe at the small office you work at, ( as I doubt it makes any difference at the hotel considering you’re like 25% of the office staff there) or maybe just to impress someone.Again, I'm going to ignore your personal attack, since it has nothing to do with this discussion.


Stop pretending to be something you’re not, or at least stop trying to chastise people for it. Stop trying to chastise people for what? You aren't making much sense... and I'm always myself, and I've learned the value of being myself over the last few years. If my shortcomings aren't to your liking, then I'm sorry, but they can't be helped.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

Knock off the arguing - this is a discussion forum, not a place for personal attacks or flame wars.

Keep it up and this thread will be closed. Keep it up after that and more severe consequences will be handed down.

Also - Slayn you tripped the swear filter in post 150. Edit in a real word please.

[Slayn Cloak]

It has everything to do with the discussion. You said that the Paulites were all of those things, and you’re obviously one of his worshipers. Given that, trying to take an example from real world experience is completely relevant.

I’m not attacking you, I’m trying to give good solid examples based on the information you’ve provided. You’ve avoided lots of questions, and I don’t mind any of your shortcomings, those are what make us human… like huckabee’s crazy eye. Acting better than everyone else has never been one of your shortcomings, (that was supposed to imply that usually you don’t act like that, but reads differently.) everyone likes to feel important. Me asking when/how you became “well educated” in the matters you professed to have a mastery of were again just a way of providing a baseline and example.

I’m a polysci major, but won’t go around saying I’m well educated in it until after I’ve been awarded articles to support such a claim (BA ETC ).

Again huckabee’s eye is freaky and I can’t see how anyone can interview him without giggling a little. Maturity aside some things are just creepy.

The fairness statement about SA was a jab at fox news, being a Paulite I can’t believe you missed it.

[Yog]

http://www.mneh.org/pics/macro/serious.jpg

Uhm... yeah, carry on :)

[Morgan Evanar]

None of you have actually pointed out a link as to why income tax is bad, just that you think it's wrong for no concrete reason (because it's bad to tax labor?) and that it's supposedly illegal.

Like I said, if you want to shift around where you tax the revenue stream go ahead, but if you don't increase the tax somewhere else, you're pulling a Reagan era nonsense "Starve The Beast" "Government Small enough to drown in a bathtub" crap that got us all of this wonderful debt. It would be another regime of tax cut, borrow and spend tons and tons of money on a perpetual war.

All of you who support Paul have failed to provide a good source of information regarding the supposed evils of income tax.

[Jeseth Cloak]

Well, I listed in one of my previous posts why it doesn't seem to be legal in my eyes: There are too many things wrong with the way it was ratified, and it goes against the constitution's original intent, which is to treat all persons equally. We are all born with the same rights, ne?

So why should I be taxed more than you, or you more than I? The income tax doesn't assume that every man and woman is equal. It asserts that some individuals should be taxed more, and others should not be taxed at all. I know that the income tax hits people in the higher income brackets harder than it hits me, but that doesn't mean I think it's right. That's just my opinion.

[Slayn Cloak]

it hits them to the same percent it hits you.

I love serious cat, I wish I had one.

[Cat X]

Income tax is not payment for service, what the income tax pays is the national debt incrued by the Federal Reserve.



The last I looked, America's debt was incurred by excessive private consumption fueled by easy credit (Hint, read about the Sub Prime problems and where the money comes from) and also wars that have cost 3 trillion dollars. The reserve does not incur these debts. You and your Governemt in fact has. The Feds on the other hand have the responsibilty for trying to set the cost of money to borrowers and to also somehow find money to fund the US Governements demands in borrowings. This is called either bonds or securities. The securities and bonds are a promise by the US Governement to pay back a specific amount with a specific rate of interest. The Feds have the responsibility of then paying those bonds off from consolidated revenue on behalf of the US Government

So what you have is an mistruth built on truth - the Feds may pay the debt but they do not incur it. Your government incurred it. And they are liable for it in the end and they tax to get the money to pay the liability. If you dont like that liability, vote the Administration out that incurred it.

The service that caused most of this debt was "Defence of citizens" If you dont liek how they did that service, vote them out.

Thence, it is shown that the Feds dont incur the debt and you are paying for a service.


Also look up trade balance and interest rates to see where the problems of defiect spending lies.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Lets get back on topic. We have two primaries in the next week SC and Nevada for the Democrats and SC and Michigan for the Republicans, should be an interesting week. I am still hoping for one part to have a barter convention that would be fun.

[Yog]

Lets get back on topic. We have two primaries in the next week SC and Nevada for the Democrats and SC and Michigan for the Republicans, should be an interesting week. I am still hoping for one part to have a barter convention that would be fun.

South Carolina, thats around the area where you are, right? What are the polls saying there?

Should be most interesting to see how that turns out. Of course the big one is super tuesday.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well Obama is in the lead right now 42-30 (Clinton)-20(Edwards). I think the black vote in this state will really help him. As for the Republican side McCain is in a fight with Hucklebee. They are only seperated by 2%. If McCain could pull out SC then he should win the Republican primary easily.

[Erasmus Daragon]

About the gold standard: that's a really complicated economic issue and I'm not really qualified or knowledge enough about it to discuss it in detail... I just know that when he says he advocates the gold standard, he doesn't mean bartering in gold and silver. He advocates backing our money with gold.There isn't enough gold to back the amount of money. Not enough gold on the entire planet.

That's not entirely correct. I'm not sure what you mean by your statement, but all that backing the dollar with gold would mean would be tying the value of the dollar to an amount of gold held by the government, which doesn't require an outrageous amount of gold beyond what's available on earth, right?

[Erasmus Daragon]

[quote=Hartus Kenobi;247203][quote=Cat X;247201]
Ron Paul is certifiably insane and that's highly clear from across the ocean. Back to the GOLD standard? That's madness.

Why would you say that?

[Jedi Master Carr]

[quote=Hartus Kenobi;247203][quote=Cat X;247201]
Ron Paul is certifiably insane and that's highly clear from across the ocean. Back to the GOLD standard? That's madness.

Why would you say that?

Because the dollar hasn't been backed by Gold since the 1800's. We would be going back to the horse and buggy days. Paul reminds me of the Populist movement in the 1890s who wanted to go back to the Gold Standard. I think the Gold Standard was pretty much abolished by Andrew Jackson.

[Figrin D'an]

That's not entirely correct. I'm not sure what you mean by your statement, but all that backing the dollar with gold would mean would be tying the value of the dollar to an amount of gold held by the government, which doesn't require an outrageous amount of gold beyond what's available on earth, right?


At the moment, gold is trading for about $900 per Troy ounce. The total amount of gold ever mined is under 150,000 metric tons. This translates to approximately $4.8 trillion in gold that could possibly be on the market, at most (the actual amount of gold is significantly less than this). Right now, the Federal Reserve estimates that there is about US $7.46 trillion in circulation. Bear in mind, this is only US dollars in circulation, and this is ALL the gold on the entire planet. You can't just arbitrarily assign an amount of gold to represent the backing for seven and half trillion dollars in currency. The price of gold would have to be ridiculously inflated for it to even be feasible.


I'm certainly not going to claim that the current fiat money system is flawless and ideal... it's not. But the people clamoring for a return to the gold standard really need to pick up a history book and realize how fixed commodity monetary standards have caused problems in being able to react to financial crises in the past (the case study for this is the Great Depression). There are problems with each system, and thinking that the gold standard is going to be some sort of all-purpose fix is foolish.

[Cat X]

[quote=Hartus Kenobi;247203][quote=Cat X;247201]
Ron Paul is certifiably insane and that's highly clear from across the ocean. Back to the GOLD standard? That's madness.

Why would you say that?


1929 is a good place to start.

[Erasmus Daragon]

It should be the responsibility of the government to ensure the sustainability of resources and processes within the United States and, inherently, the world.

It should also be every corporation's personal quest to guarantee sustainability in their resources and processes.

Guess what? It's not. Why? Because 80%+ (random no.) don't care. Car manufacturers wouldn't make SUV's if no one wanted to buy them. Chain stores wouldn't put out socks made with child labor that required the burning of fossil fuels to make the elastics if people wouldn't buy them.

They wouldn't do it if the government said it was illegal (well, they might).

Of course, for the government to do anything requires one of three things: 1) the people to actually demand it, or 2) a lot of money behind a lobbyist for a special interest group, or 3) a congressman/senator to gain either monetarily or have her constituents gain monetarily (and, intrinsically, she gains).

The entire government should be overhauled. The founding fathers didn't insist this was the best form of government. Indeed, government must adapt to the time and people.

We've given American Republicanism a good go. Let's look at modifying it a whole lot to keep out those crummy special interest freaks that ruin our lives (more often than not).

/end rant (all political talk is ranting)


I'm with you on thinking that the government should be overhauled, but I don't know if I'm agreeing with what you're describing.

We really haven't given American Republicanism a good go. That's what the problem is. These "special interest freaks" are a result of the system being corrupted. It's been corrupted for decades and decades. It's slowly come down to this: where we are now. You're right about overhaul, but I think I have something different in mind than you do.

What would you suggest?

[Erasmus Daragon]

Hehe, i'm not sure if you're serious or if it's just satirical, but it's pretty funny.

[Erasmus Daragon]

Actually, you're way off. Our money was tied to gold until the Nixon administration finally managed to dissolve that connection. Just do a quick search, about.com and a few other websites have the answer. (History of the Dollar). The nature of it's connection to gold has changed over the years, but even then, I don't see why it would be a bad idea. This would ensure a sound base of value to our money, and act as a check against the Fed going crazy with printing bills.

[Erasmus Daragon]

That's not entirely correct. I'm not sure what you mean by your statement, but all that backing the dollar with gold would mean would be tying the value of the dollar to an amount of gold held by the government, which doesn't require an outrageous amount of gold beyond what's available on earth, right?


At the moment, gold is trading for about $900 per Troy ounce. The total amount of gold ever mined is under 150,000 metric tons. This translates to approximately $4.8 trillion in gold that could possibly be on the market, at most (the actual amount of gold is significantly less than this). Right now, the Federal Reserve estimates that there is about US $7.46 trillion in circulation. Bear in mind, this is only US dollars in circulation, and this is ALL the gold on the entire planet. You can't just arbitrarily assign an amount of gold to represent the backing for seven and half trillion dollars in currency. The price of gold would have to be ridiculously inflated for it to even be feasible.


I'm certainly not going to claim that the current fiat money system is flawless and ideal... it's not. But the people clamoring for a return to the gold standard really need to pick up a history book and realize how fixed commodity monetary standards have caused problems in being able to react to financial crises in the past (the case study for this is the Great Depression). There are problems with each system, and thinking that the gold standard is going to be some sort of all-purpose fix is foolish.


I admit that this particular issue is something I'm not an expert on, but I have some questions about what you're saying that need to be answered for me to be convinced.

I'm not going to defend gold backing to the death, because it's specifically not what is important to me, but undoing the corrupt system the way it is, is what is important to me. The fiat money system flat out sucks the way it is. I'm familiar with the great depression, and how our capitalist economy needs a safety net to prevent extremely high highs, and extremely low lows.

The problem is that the organization in charge of this has been very irresponsible with it. The value of the dollar has dropped immensely since the Federal Reserve has been in action. I am not quite sure if a strict gold standard is the solution, but I am definitely sure that something needs to be done about the way the system works now.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after the event where gold backing for our dollar was abandoned, the price of gold actually went way up because of the loss of confidence in the dollar.

I'm not sure that we shouldn't try something else that isn't what we're doing now. There are several ways to stabilize our currency's value in tying it to gold, not just one. This leads into complicated economics that I don't understand, and most people shouldn't unless they are financial experts.

Your opinion seems very reasonable, but I've seen opinions on the other side of the table that are just as if not more convincing.

My point is, the gold standard will not ruin us anymore than we're already ruined, really, so I don't see what the big fuss against it is.

[Erasmus Daragon]

The Great Depression?

You must consider though, that there are other ways to solve those problems.
"1929 is a good place to start" is not a good enough answer to "Ron Paul is insane", so you might want to clarify that one for me.

As for the Fed and the Great Depression, although I learned in economics classes that the Fed and most of its policies were put in place because of the Great Depression, it seems they weren't, because the Fed. Reserve was founded in 1913. (hard to get good info these days, isn't it?)

As I responded to another poster, in short, there is more than one way to skin a cat, and I don't see anyone giving very convincing reasons against gold backing to our currency versus the current system where an unregulated entity haphazardly decides what to do with our money and our economy.

[Erasmus Daragon]

Ron Paul is CRAZY. He sold his LP buddies up the river with some disappointing social conservative crap (ie, gay marriage, abortion etc) and maintained some of their moonbat economic ravings.

I know the LP is always desperate for credibility, but anybody who rides their coattails and fails to stand true to social liberalism is a con artist.

Honestly with Richardson not being viable, Obama is looking better and better each day.


The guy is an individual, not a mob! Relax! haha. He doesn't have to stay true to ANY party line, just like NO POLITICIAN SHOULD ever worry about staying true to any party line.

I swear, everyone is just so satisfied with writing this guy off as "crazy" and letting that be the end of it. He has tons of articles to read, they're easy to find. Hell, when I did it, I started supporting him.

[Erasmus Daragon]

I wouldn't bother voting for Paul he doesn't have a chance. He is running fourth in New Hamshire. It would be like democrats voting for Kucinchi(sp). I think McCain is going to win the Republican nomination.

Wow. That's a really amazing thing.

So, a voting citizen in a democratic system is judging candidates based on who is thought to win instead of who he thinks is the best asset to the nation? Interesting.

I thought that was the point of voting, wasn't it? To officially express your agreement with a particular issue, candidate, subject, etc?

But now, you're not worrying about what you want to see happen, you're figuring since a candidate "doesn't have a chance" he isn't worth voting for. So if everyone thinks the same way as you, whoever those caucusing farmers in Iowa pick will be President, since they picked first. Nevermind the other 49 states.

Interesting.

No wonder democracy sucks.

[Erasmus Daragon]

I wouldn't bother voting for Paul he doesn't have a chance.
More people voted for Ron Paul in Iowa, than voted for all of the Democrat's candidates combined. That's something to consider. He actually didn't do too poorly when you look at it that way. If he does well in NH - a libertarian-minded state - then it could change things significantly for the rest of the race.

My plan was to vote for him in the primaries, and throw my vote in with the Democrats for the general election if he doesn't win.

Democrat caucuses reported nearly 2-1 more people attending for Democrat than Republican so you are quite clearly wrong.Not to mention he is certifiably insane and no more than a popularist.

George W Bush was bad enough in 2004 - what ARE you pleople thinking for voting for someone who could actually be more crazy???? Do you actually sit down and study the real effect of his policies or do you just listen to small soundbites and go no further?


At least there looks like a move to Obama.


Actually, yeah. Glad you asked. I have sat down and studied his policies. Have you?

If I may use personal experience as an indicator, most Ron Paul supporters I meet are better informed than supporters of other candidates. They also happen to be stronger independent thinkers.

The great thing about Ron Paul is that his views are ALL OVER THE PLACE. Try RonPaulLibrary.org. He isn't merely a populist either. Maybe John Edwards is more of a populist. Ron Paul has stuck to his guns since his first terms as a congressman.

What exactly is it that you don't like about Ron Paul? Can you explain?

[Erasmus Daragon]

Popular vote-wise, yes - but the popular vote is not very important in Iowa - delegate votes are. If you click here (http://abcnews.go.com/politics/elections/state?state=IA) you will see that Ron Paul had 11,817 votes. Obama, Edwards and Clinton combined only had 2421 votes.

I know well the actuall votes handed to the delegates are different as per different party rules, which you are trying to twist. Now if I can see the difference in a blink, so should you. My point remains correct.


Do you? I've read most of Congressman Paul's book, A Foreign Policy Of Freedom, and I'm pretty well educated on the issues of American foreign policy and international relations. I can tell you right now that out of all the candidates running, only about four have solid and realistic views on the that one issue. Luckily - and to concede to your closing point - Obama is one of them.

You are not politically educated if you give Ron Paul a seconds worth of thought - and yes I am being delibertly provokative - and I damn well should be in this case because It is obvious his polices are garbage (Gold Standard??? What the hell?) and all he appeals to is a popularist section. Now I could sit here and spend hours picking apart his platform but it has been plucked apart elsewhere by people who actually have the time to mount arguments against it (Lord knows why you would spend that time, but hey, their loss) You are advised to go looking because frankly all it's worth is derision from me.


Since you are getting quite aggressive, let me say this.

If you haven't read what the man has to say, then you haven't made an objective judgement on him. Just because you read the arguments against Paul does not mean that they are all you need to hear to make a judgement. I've read what he thinks, and I've read and heard what his opponents think. I don't feel like I've been stumped once, and not a single argument I've heard against the man's value as a President of the United States is convincing. His arguments are consistently logically sound, and I can't say the same for the other candidates running against him. He is practical, natural, and very well educated.

I think he and his followers are well enough educated taht a guy like you yelling "CRAZY CRAZY!!!" isn't a good enough argument.

What do you take us for, Giuliani supporters?


Also, you've mentioned you can't vote, and reside overseas. Wherever you are, all you should be concerned with is his foreign policy, which is something that I can't possibly imagine a foreigner would complain about!! A lot of people overseas support Ron Paul, except for maybe people with their hands in our cookie jar (stealing a metaphor from another poster, heh.). Wouldn't you want the U.S. to stop meddling with other nations and have a higher respect for their soverignity?

The United States government was a grand political experiment, and yes, it has turned to *bleep*. This doesn't automatically mean we need to jump on the socialized government bandwagon. I don't want to copy European governments, and neither does Ron Paul. We don't need to be policing the world when we can't even get our own country in good working order. I DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT, and it is not there to help you. The more power you give it, the less power you have. The American system was set up to avoid this, and we've corrupted it.

How could a firm belief in the value of the U.S. constitution be lunacy?

How could you compare a man with such beliefs to a president who says the constitution is just "a goddamn piece of paper"?


You really aren't convincing at all, and don't seem like you know what you're talking about. Please, enlighten us.

[Erasmus Daragon]

Hey folks, you're ignoring my earlier post if you still think that Ron Paul wants to reinstate the actual gold standard. He had an interview on CNN yesterday, I suggest you watch it, as he talks about the issue.

Political Translation - Oh hey guys I got called on my stupid idea and so I'll minimise the damage. Look KITTIES!

What surprsies me is that there are bunch of RON PAULities here. Oh well, we have to have our fair share of loonies. At least it's amusing from the other loonies going ape about cricket.

If you bothered to notice I posted the comment before I even mentioned it. I've been a Ron Paul supporter for quite some time and he's never changed on the issue.

Here is the interview, notice how he doesn't mention a gold standard. You're bastardizing his message without actually bothering to read it. Ron Paul has been vocal about the Federal Reserve for sometime, as are many Americans. I've been protesting the FR and the IRS for several years now, they're unconstitutional.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/070108Blitzer.htm

So Cat X, we Ron Paul supporters here on Fans have been polite and have tried to elucidate our points, clearly and calmly. You decide to ignore and troll us, calling us crazy. Right...O_o


Awesome! Thanks.

[Erasmus Daragon]

[quote]I've been protesting the FR and the IRS for several years now, they're unconstitutional.
In which way, exactly?

Glad you've asked, I've signed and put together petitions on the matter, attended rallies and seminars, and most importantly, I've been telling people about it. I have yet to pay income tax, despite working on the books, and nothing has happened to me yet, or 30 million other Americans.

My brother has not paid income tax in over a decade and he's 40 years old.

There is a quite large scandal involving the constitutionality of the income tax, and the issue is currently going through the Supreme Courts. Its ??? vs. The State of Nevada. Sorry, I can't recall that fellows name off hand. I'll look it up for you when I feel more motivated:p unless you care to do it youself.:)

EDIT: I think its Shiff vs. The State of Nevada.


I want in on this. I've only recently made these discoveries, and I want to sign your petitions, and help this cause in anyway possible.

[Cat X]

His arguments are consistently logically sound, and I can't say the same for the other candidates running against him. He is practical, natural, and very well educated.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh dear.



\
You really aren't convincing at all, and don't seem like you know what you're talking about. Please, enlighten us.


This whole Paulite thing is very much like alcohol and driving. ANY alcohol in yoru ststem while you are in control of a car is just plain stupid and already well proven - you dont need to even discuss this anymore it is so well proven. Anyone claiming that they can control a car with alcohol in their system is just a plain idiot and will be simply dismissed as such.

Now, in fact I have done a resonable amount of research on PRON HAUL. And that is why I posted that rather long article on racist and bigoted ravings of Paul in the 90's, which by a great deal of convenience none of you Paulities have even attempted to answer. None of you have even gone close to attempting to come up with any questions come up with, like Morgan's one about labor and when I posted the fact that labor is a service and what taxes really are, plus the Feds real relationship to debt and governemnt spending, there was a strange silence.

This is because things like the Gold standard, the BS about the 16th amendment, attitudes to labor and Lasieze (sp) fair economics are like drink driving. Should be dismissed at anything approaching a first look that you just shouldnt even have to discuss, it is that obviously dumb.


Also, you've mentioned you can't vote, and reside overseas. Wherever you are, all you should be concerned with is his foreign policy, which is something that I can't possibly imagine a foreigner would complain about!! A lot of people overseas support Ron Paul, except for maybe people with their hands in our cookie jar (stealing a metaphor from another poster, heh.). Wouldn't you want the U.S. to stop meddling with other nations and have a higher respect for their soverignity?

Only the foreign policy affects us? No. Economies around the world have a great deal more intertwinement than ever, the most pertinant right now example is the sub-prime collapse and the effects it is having around the world. So in fact the utter stupid of his economics will have a big effect around the world if they were to be applied. While China and India are becomming big enough on a global scale to shortly make what the USA does not matter as much, the biggest economy i the world is still the USA's, it is still true if it sneezes the entire world catches cold.

In fact the economics of the USA have a great driver in the foriegn policy so the two go hand in hand.

[Yog]

At the moment, gold is trading for about $900 per Troy ounce. The total amount of gold ever mined is under 150,000 metric tons. This translates to approximately $4.8 trillion in gold that could possibly be on the market, at most (the actual amount of gold is significantly less than this). Right now, the Federal Reserve estimates that there is about US $7.46 trillion in circulation. Bear in mind, this is only US dollars in circulation, and this is ALL the gold on the entire planet. You can't just arbitrarily assign an amount of gold to represent the backing for seven and half trillion dollars in currency. The price of gold would have to be ridiculously inflated for it to even be feasible.


I'm certainly not going to claim that the current fiat money system is flawless and ideal... it's not. But the people clamoring for a return to the gold standard really need to pick up a history book and realize how fixed commodity monetary standards have caused problems in being able to react to financial crises in the past (the case study for this is the Great Depression). There are problems with each system, and thinking that the gold standard is going to be some sort of all-purpose fix is foolish.

This is the correct answer. There is so much money in circulation compared to the gold.

The gold price itself is not that stable either. With a growing world economy, it has become vulnerable to speculation itself and fluxes in production levels. Here is gold price chart illustrating that (right now, it is at $900).

http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/3875/0401981understandinggolyt9.gif

What's worse, when you tie your to currency to gold, you can no longer use the interest rate to cool down or stimulate economy to the same extent. A recipe for disaster right now with employment rates in the US going up, the credit loan crisis, and strong indicators for a coming recession. On top of that, currently you have financial institutions and banks close to going bust, kept alive by the federal reserve. You have one heck of a headache coming up on a macro economic level, and now is not a good time to experiment...

You don't have to go far back in time to find examples of where a fixed price currency rather than a floating one leads to bad results either. There are countries all over the world who seen what devaluation can do the economy. Heck, I seen it in Norway as recent as the early 90s. It's not pretty I can assure you.

[Erasmus Daragon]

no I meant what I said, and I do.

"These angry young suburbanite white men, burdened with every advantage society could give them...Unfortunately, it appears that relying on the World-of-Warcraft-playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDyheKhwWf8) demographic meant having a base that couldn't be bothered to get off their asses and vote, resulting in a less than stellar fifth place showing."

Also since when are you “well educated” on foreign affairs and international relations? Every time you’ve gone to Miami Dade College you studied journalism for a semester and would drop out. Then there was that one time you went to FIU for a semester, maybe two… is that were you became well educated?



Learn2read
Are you seriously quoting a blog site? You're kidding right?

Look, you can't just take what some numnutz on the internet states as his opinion/theory and say that it's fact!

That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of his supporters. Don't let the media minimize this. The guy has a campaign that is just as respectable as the other candidates' campaigns, and he has many supporters, presumably of all different walks of life.

Unless you cite a professional random sample that shows that this garbage (on that garbage site) is true, then that's a ridiculous thing to say.

[Jeseth Cloak]

The suspense leading up the Florida primary is killing me. The vote there is always unpredictable, no matter what polls say.

[Morgan Evanar]

FYI you still have not addressed any of my questions nor have you countered at all.

Further, many of those newsletters have been found and they're ugly. Are you going to continue supporting a racist bigot who is a KKK front? Even if he didn't write those newsletters, it's got his name on them, as an organization he represented.


Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

In conclusion: you are supporting a canidate with a hideous past and no grasp of economics.

[Jeseth Cloak]

FYI you still have not addressed any of my questions nor have you countered at all.
Me? O_o

[Jedi Master Carr]

I am pretty sure he means Eramanus. I don't know about a racist past. I do know he has said some stupid stuff about the Civil War (at least I think they are stupid, but lets not argue that point in this thread). Also Eramanus are you trying to increase your post count or something? Most of that could have been said in one thread and then wait for somebody to respond. Posting 10 messages makes it hard to really respond. I am not going to bother disagree wtih you for that reason.

[Morgan Evanar]

Eramanus = Jeseth.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Eramanus = Jeseth.

lol okay I didn't know that.

[Jeseth Cloak]

No, Erasmus isn't me guys! That's my roommates account. He hasn't ever posted in any large threads before, so he didn't know the way the board functioned. He told me he was used to other styled boards where you respond to someone and it creates new threads. >_<

[Milivikal k'Vik]

The United States government was a grand political experiment, and yes, it has turned to *bleep*. This doesn't automatically mean we need to jump on the socialized government bandwagon. I don't want to copy European governments, and neither does Ron Paul. We don't need to be policing the world when we can't even get our own country in good working order. I DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT, and it is not there to help you. The more power you give it, the less power you have. The American system was set up to avoid this, and we've corrupted it.And that is the fundamental flaw of the ALL of the Republican candidates. They want you to hate the government, to distrust it, instead of giving it a chance to do something good. They don't believe government is capable of doing good, even though history has proven otherwise again and again that is better at doing certain things much better than private industry.

[Cat X]

Thinking of the Republicans...

Probably not new to anyone here, but just found this attack ad...

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/new_antihuck_527_ad_stars_mother_of_one_of_dumonds _victims.php

You guys not much around, that's one hell of an attack ad.

[Mitch]

Wow, Mark, that's a horrendous attack.

Not to mention pathetic, seeing as it doesn't even remotely discuss WHY he was released, or mention that Huckabee might not have even KNOWN about the early release of ONE prisoner.

I mean, it's not like we never cut sentences short, anyhow. Oh, and let's not blame local law authority for not keeping an eye on such an offender as they should be...

That was a sickening attack.

[Erasmus Daragon]

Christ, guys! Ok, ok, I'm back!

You know, I do have a life outside of this forum. I'm not going to take the time to meticulously respond to EVERYTHING, IMMEDIATELY... I started an account after my roommate finally convinced me to roleplay, although I haven't mustered up the will or found time for it yet. Sorry for not watching like a hawk! Expect there to be days between posts.


I apologize with the posts, I just started from the beginning of the thread and let go of thoughts as they came hitting the reply button. I'm not sure how to quote the way I'd like to, but I'll deal with that hassle later. I post however I can right now.

I also seem to have let this thread draw me into a bit of rabidness, and I apologize for that too. There's a lot of people posting on here really offensively. Calling someone an idiot in so many words just because they disagree with you doesn't seem like appropriate behaviour for adults discussing candidates in an upcoming political election. I prefer not to be aggressive and to be open-minded in debates and discussions, but got carried away after reading so many rude posts on the threads. I'm apologizing, and for anyone else that has been rude, you should be ashamed of yourself.


And unless you can see our IPs, you shouldn't think that Jeseth and I are the same person. But I see the person who claimed that is an admin, so I see where the confusion could come up.



As for the Ron Paul stuff, here we go in more detail:

Morgan: "FYI you still have not addressed any of my questions nor have you countered at all."

Me? What questions? You haven't posted anything new since I have, and I haven't read the whole thread but I didn't get any questions addressed to me.

I'll answer what I think about the alleged racism represented in the newsletters. Ron Paul has written extensively on his views in racism and discrimination. Although those newsletters were published under his name in the past, they don't match up to his pretty basic individualist beliefs.

By my evaluation, the word choices in the newsletters aren't anything like Ron Paul's usual word choice in his other writings. I'm also suspicious of his current campaign newsletter, which isn't being offensive, but doesn't read the way Ron Paul does. I'm sure that he has someone writing those for him too. I agree that it's a disaster for him to trust other people to pen in his name like that. It should be a no-brainer for anyone. He's admitted that he considers himself responsible for allowing the material to be published, and although he claims he didn't write it, he is ultimately responsible for catching things like that.

Because so many of his other writings, speeches, and actions, disagree with the anomaly of the newsletters, I don't really pay them too much mind. I feel he has expressed his intentions, honesty, and opinions on racism sufficiently. I don't expect any presidential candidate to be perfect, and his opponents are not without scandal either.

Here are excerpts from his campaign website:

"A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities. The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
...

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."


This is what his campaign claims, and he hasn't committed any actions that would lead me to believe that this is not true. There have been no people who have worked with Ron Paul that have come out to claim he's discriminated against them, there are several black voters that support him, and there is a general lack of evidence, as far as I know, to charge him with being a racist. Some people bring up his desire to stop giving aid to Israel as reason to call him anti-semetic, but this is baseless as well, because he wants to cut funding to Arab countries, and any countries in general. It's to be expected considering the foreign policy he would want an executive branch presided over by him to execute.


Back to the Gold Standard thing. I stated this before, but I want to make this more clear. I am not an economic expert. I know most people are not, and that the financial world is a very, very complex one, with basic economic principles that lull those of us without an extensive education in finances into thinking we are experts. Be wary of this, and always be humble with your opinions in this field.

I want to make clear that I understand a return to the gold standard would inflate the price of gold, thus inflating the cost of whatever else that would be related to it, which isn't exactly pleasant in the face of all the current inflation.

My support and trust in his financial ideology is backed by the knowledge of the extreme flaws in the current system, not by the necessarily superior alternative of returning to a gold standard. In spite of what others have posted on the boards, I don't see how returning to a system where our currency is bound to gold in some way, or is fixed in its value within a certain range, is any worse than allowing the Federal Reserve to print money as a solution to economic woes, when the Federal Reserve is a privately owned entity which may cater to the will of its owners, other wealthy wall street lobbyists, or print money for a runaway executive branch and their ridiculous war. One way or another, I expect that you guys agree that the way it works right now is definitely not ideal, and damaging to our economy and our nation. At least when currency is somewhat fixed, inflation by over-printing isn't a problem, and the wealthy can't manipulate currency to suit their fancy.

Here's another bit: Oil is priced in U.S. Dollars, right? I don't know too much about it except that this happened at about the time that Nixon put us on a strict fiat currency system. Saddam Hussein began to ask for Euros instead of U.S. Dollars in 2000. This accelerated the depreciation of our currency in relation to the Euro. Our government attacked his regime shortly afterwards. Why? Because the trading of oil in Euros will severely depreciate our currency. With the kind of economy we have, fiat currency is extremely dangerous according to this and several other observations. Is the gold standard better? In some respects, yes, in others... go ask a few economists. It's not my specialty.


Now, to answer the post by Milivikal K'Vik:


Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> The United States government was a grand political experiment, and yes, it has turned to *bleep*. This doesn't automatically mean we need to jump on the socialized government bandwagon. I don't want to copy European governments, and neither does Ron Paul. We don't need to be policing the world when we can't even get our own country in good working order. I DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT, and it is not there to help you. The more power you give it, the less power you have. The American system was set up to avoid this, and we've corrupted it. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->And that is the fundamental flaw of the ALL of the Republican candidates. They want you to hate the government, to distrust it, instead of giving it a chance to do something good. They don't believe government is capable of doing good, even though history has proven otherwise again and again that is better at doing certain things much better than private industry.


It is historically and intrinsically American to distrust government, isn't it? I wish it was easy to trust the government, but the men in charge of government are no angels. It is said that power corrupts, and men in government have power. (Quote Ron Paul: "We should have a strong president. Strong enough to resist the temptation of taking power that a president shouldn't have.") I was liking Dennis Kucinich, and Joe Biden as well, and I believe that they would agree with the quote.

The men that run our government are no different than any men that run corporations around the world. They, we, are all humans with flaws. Don't fall into the trap of polarizing them into businessman=evil and government=good. I recently had the same prejudices in my own mind. History has proven again and again that man is ambitious and seeks power, whether in government or private business.

History has also proven again and again that the government plain sucks at doing certain things, and private industry can do much better. If the government running our lives was a good option, soviet socialism wouldn't have grown corrupt and fallen.

Consider yourself lucky that you don't have so many personal examples in your own life as proof of why big government is bad, no matter whether it's a democrat or republican, or anyone else at the wheel.

If you would defend socialism, know that I'm not some aging neo-con hack with a residual fear of the Soviet Union when I say that it has no place in our country. My family is Cuban, and my wife is Russian, so I know what true conditions exist when a government takes charge of everything the sun touches on it's land. I take the issue to heart.

And in our U.S. government, there is absolutely no way that I am going to believe that I can trust them the way they are now. The constitution is full of balances for government, and we've subverted so many of them. By the way, the Republican candidates don't want you to be anti-government, at least not in this election, except Ron Paul.

Examples:

My father is in prison right now for a crime he is innocent of. I'm sure there are at least thousands of other people in similar situations. This is an extremely private matter, so let it suffice to say that his civil rights were violated by the court 30+ times, many times by the judge herself. The appeals courts continue to throw it out and cycle my father through legal nonsense to delay him, we suspect until they have time to cover up what they need to cover up, because evidence uncovered in my father's defense suggests that the government is trading drugs and weapons to itself and certain unstable governments. My family was destroyed by a careless, lumbering giant of a federal government. My father has a life sentence, all because he was asked by the FBI to be an informant for them... the same people that helped put him in prison. The whole thing stinks of corruption. Some of the tactics used are linked to changes in law enforcement due to the patriot act.

I work at a hotel and a lady is staying here right now that is going through a terrible divorce with her husband. The state of California has an immense and ridiculously bureaucratic family law court system. You can't have an amicable divorce, for example, and omit them. Once they find out, they will summon you and tell you what your divorce terms are, according to what California law says. According to this system, she has gone to several court hearings and a judge decided that her son's father is not fit to be in custody of the child. The woman is now nearly homeless because through legal loopholes, her husband has been delaying payment of the money the court ordered him to pay her through demanding "reevaluation", which is a set of meetings with a "mediator" who takes into account no previous court decisions, or evidence, and speaks with the parties involved in the divorce in a therapy session-like format. This "mediator" is to decide in one or two short meetings, based on appearances, what the court had already considered based on evidence. Like another guest who spoke out about a similar situation, the husband in this case is paying money to a lawyer to drag this out trying to drive the woman into poverty where she would be unfit to take care of their son. It is important to add that their son is 17, and thus of legal age to make a decision as to who he wants to stay with. California's bureaucracy lets the father challenge this, though.

Why should the state be so heavily and forcefully involved in their personal lives? Why doesn't the son's decision count? How can a stranger in the government know how to protect you after barely knowing you? No, bureaucratic government is not your friend.

What about the private ownership of the federal reserve? Was it a few rich men or the well being of the people that took precedence in that matter?

Socialized health care? It seems like a great idea at first, but then why are many citizens of countries using socialized health care denouncing it?

We can point the finger at the government and blame them for everything, and ask them to protect us and involve themselves in us, and be responsible. I am a very self-reliant person, and in my opinion, don't find it particularly necessary or pleasant to have the government take care of my woes for me. They screw up everything they touch anyway. I don't really turn to government programs to help, with the exception of financial aid for my education. I'd rather do things on my own then have them babysit me anyway. I'd go into this further, but my day must come to an end, so I guess maybe next time.

[Jaime Tomahawk]

Wow, Mark, that's a horrendous attack.

Not to mention pathetic, seeing as it doesn't even remotely discuss WHY he was released, or mention that Huckabee might not have even KNOWN about the early release of ONE prisoner.

I mean, it's not like we never cut sentences short, anyhow. Oh, and let's not blame local law authority for not keeping an eye on such an offender as they should be...

That was a sickening attack.

Well, I wasnt commenting on the appropriate nature of it... I honestly haven't seen anything even close to it here. The whole 527 type of organization to bypass election advertising rules just does not happen here. The Swift Boat Veterans lying BS was an eyeopener for me in 2004 because that kind of blatant crap would be hammered down by our electoral commission in two seconds flat.

This is just a whole step beyond and to me even more mind blowing is the fact that particular 527 is Republican backed - so that means people in his own party are trying to ruin his chances. That simply does not compute for me.

[Yog]

That got to be the ugliest political commercial I have seen. That kind of ad makes me glad we don't have political commercials over here. If you want to make a point, do it in a debate where people can refute it, not paying commercial time so you can fling dirt at your opponents.

[Morgan Evanar]

<a href="http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Ron Paul had several newsletters printed under his name over <i>several decades</i> that were pervasive with anti-semetic, homophobic, racist, and extreme right-wing paranoid conspiracy theory ramblings</a>. (The sheer number of craziness, filth, and crazy filth contained in these newletters is staggering; just read the article to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes.)

Despite denying any connection to these newletters that bore his name--and were published by "Ron Paul & Associates"--for decades, Ron Paul <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/index1.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">continues to make prejudice remarks, describing those working for the Transportation Security Administration as looking "more suspicious to [him] than most Americans who are getting checked,"</a> not to mention that he not too long ago <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">voted against the renewal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and published his reasons for disaproval with the Act</a>.

It is not surprising that Ron Paul continues to make these types of remarks considering the newletters and his legislative past, where he sponsored <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3863:" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">a bill that would make it easier for private schools to discriminate</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:HR04982:@@@L&amp;summ2=m&amp;" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">another that would weaken the Civil Rights Act of 1964</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">yet another that would deny Iranian students federal aid</a>, and finally one that would <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@L&amp;summ2=m&amp;" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">require unmarried minors to notify parents they requested an abortion or contraceptives, "[prohibit] the expenditure of federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle or which suggest that it can be an acceptable lifestyle," endorse "corporal punishment" against children, and repeal the estate tax--a tax which affects only the wealthiest of Americans</a>.
He has also recently published articles stating that he <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">believes that the Left is waging a war on Christmas, that Churches should serve a role in society eclipsing that of the state</a>, and that he <a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">opposes gay marriage</a> . Plus, Ron Paul has <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02597:" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">recently (6/6/07) introduced legislation that would define life as beginning at conception</a> and <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">legislation that would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like--a bill which he has repeated reintroduced</a>. (A list of all the ridiculous bills he has sponsored over the past few decades can be found <a href="http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here</a>.)

Oh, there's more. SO MUCH MORE!

He was <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.</a>. He wants to <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">pull out of the U.N.</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">disband NATO</a>, <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">abolish the federal reserve</a>, <a href="http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">reinstate the Gold Standard</a>, <a href="http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">believes in New World Order conspiracy theories</a>, <a href="http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">believes that the International Baccalaureate program is U.N. mind control</a>, and...

Aw hell, just <a href="http://www.ronpaul2008.com/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">take a look at his own website</a>, where he advocates abolishing the Department of Education, the Food & Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Social Security Administration, and a ton of other agencies that provide vital public services.

Thanks to Goon Gio for neatly compiling this list.

[Slayn Cloak]

no I meant what I said, and I do.

"These angry young suburbanite white men, burdened with every advantage society could give them...Unfortunately, it appears that relying on the World-of-Warcraft-playing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDyheKhwWf8) demographic meant having a base that couldn't be bothered to get off their asses and vote, resulting in a less than stellar fifth place showing."

Also since when are you “well educated” on foreign affairs and international relations? Every time you’ve gone to Miami Dade College you studied journalism for a semester and would drop out. Then there was that one time you went to FIU for a semester, maybe two… is that were you became well educated?



Learn2read
Are you seriously quoting a blog site? You're kidding right?

Look, you can't just take what some numnutz on the internet states as his opinion/theory and say that it's fact!

That's a ridiculous misrepresentation of his supporters. Don't let the media minimize this. The guy has a campaign that is just as respectable as the other candidates' campaigns, and he has many supporters, presumably of all different walks of life.

Unless you cite a professional random sample that shows that this garbage (on that garbage site) is true, then that's a ridiculous thing to say.


Well it's not a blog.
As far as taking what any random numnutz says on the internet, isn't that what you're doing?

[Erasmus Daragon]

Look, I understand where you're coming from on your perspective towards Ron Paul. I might not have agreed with him if I still lived in Miami, FL, although I'd disagree less enthusiastically than you do. It's really easy to call the guy a looney, but it's difficult to understand his perspective.

Look, I've always voted and supported liberal and mostly democratic causes, although calling myself an independent. It just seems to be what has made more sense. Unfortunately, after truths that have been exposed from living in Berkeley, CA, watching politics in the last few years, personal anecdotes and experiences from friends and people I come across at work (hotel front desk... a little like being a bartender, without the barfights), and injustices in the current election system, as well as the enlightening words and methods of Dr. Ron Paul.


To start off with, I already addressed the matter with the newsletters previously, and I personally don't think that it's a very convincing argument to commit the man as being unfit to lead because organizations bearing his name, that he may or may not have been actively involved with at the time, printed material that is disagreeable.

You're an admin on SW-Fans, Morgan. If a letter was posted by the admins in general that expressed prejudice against a culture, and some of the posters responded with blatantly racist comments, you would get heat for it, even if you weren't directly responsible. Unless someone confessed full responsibility, you would unfairly be labeled racist, bigot, or whatever. Maybe some of your ideas were further processed and twisted to seem that way, maybe not. I wouldn't really know, and couldn't judge you for it unless it came from your mouth, and the same goes in the newsletters scandal for Ron Paul. I'd consider you responsible as a part of the whole, in the same way that I consider him responsible. Sure, a person loses points for that, but the man in my opinion just seems otherwise qualified to the extent that a scandal about vagueness and hearsay just isn't convincing enough beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for his quote about the TSA, you should cite the entire quote: "We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked," he says. "Most of them are, well, you know, they just don't look very American to me. If I'd have been looking, they look suspicious ... I mean, a lot of them can't even speak English, hardly. Not that I'm accusing them of anything, but it's sort of ironic."

This quote was something he said in the context of severely criticizing the taking over of airline security by the feds, and creating the TSA. It's definitely a "white guy" comment, you're right. To imply that he was directly attacking minorities working for the agency as a vessel of attack for the agency itself is misleading, though.

He is right to a certain extent, though, in his statement about the irony. C'mon. You've gotta know how the TSA is treating people in airports, right? Picking them out by last name, clothing styles, appearance in general. It's silly that appearance, culture, or name can warrant a security check alone. He's an old white guy, probably sees a lot of blacks, Indians, Mexicans, whatever, working in the TSA checking on other minorities for being suspicious because they're minorities to be ironic. I find it a bit silly myself, although I wouldn't express it using the word "un-American". You're right. Not cool. He's made a few other insensitive remarks, and seems to have little regard for "political correctness".

How this relates to his voting record, beliefs, and what he would accomplish in office, is still elusive, and if we go around judging candidates for every stupid thing they say, we end up whining a lot and accomplishing little. And if you think that the other candidates in the race are squeaky clean, you're dead wrong. Hillary Clinton stages questions (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/12/clintons-planted-questio_n_72294.html) in debates, John Edwards has given racist remarks more offensive in how specific they are than the quote by Paul that you referred to ("...Pretty soon we're not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They're all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.") (http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2007/09/30/edwards-predicts-prison-or-death-for-all-african-american-males/) Senator McCain has also made offensive comments. (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml)

Are we shocked that politicians and public figures with years under their belts have made mistakes somewhere down the line?

You've also posted that he refused to support the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Have you read his speech to congress, that you posted a link to? He is not voting against it because he's racist! He simply finds it to be a violation of other personal rights. Is there a conflict in this statement, which is part of his speech: "The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."?

I am not sure if something like the Civil Rights act really NEEDS to be renewed at this point anyway. The racial bias that is often left in our society is too subtle to be solved by that legislation, which was meant to integrate us. Well, we're integrated as far as it can integrate us. You imply more evidence of his racism for his refusal to support the renewal, but racism does not necessarily follow, if you look at this logically, because it is plausible for him to take this position when one takes into account that his views are that the government has no place violating anyone's rights, and the Civil Rights legislation allows infringement upon certain rights.

Your reference to the bill in which he "makes it easier for private schools to discriminate" is a bill that ensures the government does not meddle in the affairs of a private educational institution, and also prevent the Internal Revenue Service from wielding certain powers. It clearly states this in the link you provided. There are several public school systems in the nation, so why should private schools be forced to do anything? Why should a body like the IRS be wielded as leverage for this sort of thing, when it shouldn't exist to begin with? This is the argument that Ron Paul makes. According to logic, racism is improbable and does not necessarily follow, again.

You posted a link to H.R.4982 sponsored by Ron Paul in 1984, which is summarized as a bill to "[Eliminate] inferior Federal court jurisdiction to issue any order requiring the assignment or transportation of students to public schools on the basis of race, color, or national origin."

So, it's a bill preventing any court to assign bus routes that pick up only white kids or black kids? I'm not clear on why you would bring this up, unless I misunderstand the bill, but it seems this was meant to prevent segregation in public school transportation. It seems to contradict the point you try to make. Seems fine to me, though.

As for the bill preventing aid to Iranian students, how is this discriminatory and racist? He is against aid for any non-citizen, be it Iranian or Italian. Note that he is opposed specifically to government funding or financial assistance, not private. He's not stopping a private scholarship fund from giving aid to Iranian students, so the logic here is once again flawed, and this act cannot be named as an example of immoral discrimination.

Finally, there's the big one, the bill that: "require unmarried minors to notify parents they requested an abortion or contraceptives, "[prohibit] the expenditure of federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle or which suggest that it can be an acceptable lifestyle," endorse "corporal punishment" against children, and repeal the estate tax--a tax which affects only the wealthiest of Americans (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@L&summ2=m&)."

First of all, it was 1980. He wasn't exactly a loner in conservatism against homosexuals at the time. Second, this was a very, very large piece of proposed legislation that had several good points in it, and you should read all of them.

Corporal punishment = spanking. Spanking? So the bill proposed that the definition of "child abuse" be defined specifically to include neglect and physical harm, but exclude spanking. I personally don't think this is such a big deal. Some people may have a problem with it, and I understand that, but a parent spanking his/her child isn't exactly savage brutality. My dad spanked me when I was a kid, and never left a mark on me. I know people who say their parents "hit" them, but refer to punches in the face and bruises. There's child psychology involved in this that would turn into a different discussion completely.

Unmarried minors required to notify their parents of abortions/contraceptives: Actually, that's not an accurate description. It reads that Federally-funded clinics are required to inform parents of unmarried minors' requests or acceptance of such treatments and services.

Now, I might be crazy to think so, but this particular piece of it doesn't seem to have a political bias, does it? It's simply a legal issue. Notice it reads "unmarried" minors, because (I believe) a married individual is not considered a dependent of any parent legally. When laws state that a minor is in the charge of his/her guardian (i.e. parents), wouldn't it make sense for the government to wash its hands of any liability? You list this as a reason against Ron Paul's viability as a candidate though, which leads to the conclusion that you are bothered by an election candidate clarifying or respecting laws and their intent? This point isn't a very good example for your argument either. As for the Estate tax, well... this guy is against just about any tax, as far as one can tell. Any direct tax, at least. He's definitely not doing it for corporate lobbyists, if that's what you're trying to imply. They're not even allowed in his office. Heh.

Just about the only point you listed in disagreement from this entire bill that actually makes your point well is the provision to refuse federal funding to any organizations that promote homosexuality. Maybe in 1980, that could fly, but I would consider that as bad as racial bias in our current age. Still, there are several provisions in this bill that you didn't list, because they would not support your argument that Ron Paul is crazy.

This Bill also:

-Allows any taxpayer that pays tuition to an educational institution to receive 100% of that back as a tax credit

-Specifies that Social Security Benefits are exempt from taxation

-Repeals the Selective Service Act of 1967 (THE DRAFT, it would REPEAL THE DRAFT)

-Allows an income tax deduction for adoption expenses

-Grants tax-exempt status for organizations that care for abused children and runaway children

Do you disagree with those provisions as well? You missed one in the bill that got rid of government regulations of standards in orphanages and such run by churches, because it is perceived through some interpretation that it is infringement on freedom of religious practice, or something of the sort. That one's touchy, and makes your point better.

As for the left waging a war on Christmas, hehe, not many people would know anything about that unless they live in a place like Berkeley, CA, where I live. It is really quite silly. Kids in Alameda County schools (Berkeley, Oakland, Fremont, CA) and other counties' schools in the area are reprimanded for saying "Merry Christmas". A bit ridiculous, no? We preach freedom of speech, but then take the perspective that silencing each other is the only way to protect each other? Sounds awfully fascist to me. Who is offended by "Merry Christmas" anyway, and how does silencing the celebration of a person's holiday respect their right to celebrate it? This is also a huge discussion outside the scope of my essay-response here. In short, after moving here from Miami, I've found that the "left" lives HERE, in the San Francisco Bay Area. I thought I was moving into a wonderland, but it's ridiculous over here. His claim of the left waging war on Christmas and whatnot is not ridiculous or extraordinary, it's true. I'm seeing it!!

Churches should have a role eclipsing that of the state: everything should have a role eclisping that of the state! unless you're fascist. (no offense, not directing that at you, just saying, lol) Not that I'm particularly religious. The church can be scary, but the state is too.

He opposes gay marraige: you're absolutely, dead on, directly right. (What a relief!). I also, like yourself, absolutely, dead on, disagree with him. Then again, he wants to keep the federal government OUT of marraige completely, and leave it to the states if they want, which is much better. Opposition to Gay Marraige is his personal view, and I don't like it, but at least he doesn't plan on forcing that one on anyone.

And yes, he is pro-life, so he will support pro-life legislation. I bristle a little at that, because I personally believe that neither position, pro-life, nor pro-choice, can be soundly chosen without knowing when a sentient lifeform can actually begin to be considered as having its own rights as an individual. Of course, no one will ever know the answer to that question. It's like asking whether or not God exists.

Of course, his decision is reached soundly and not just out of some sort of partisan political zeal (like many pro-life, AND pro-choice voters), and that is respectable. He wants to reverse Roe v. Wade, but allows that no decision a state makes on abortion can be heard in a Federal Court. He claims that it is done this way with other issues of violence, and so believes that abortion should be no exception. Abortion is another lengthy and complicated philosophical debate, and a cluttered political one. That's what he thinks... I'm not sure if it makes him crazy, or not crazy, a good candidate, or a bad one. Abortion is a difficult issue.

Legislation that would prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause... : I have read the summary of this bill and find that its purpose is to limit the authority of the Judicial System, which is abused from time to time. It preserves certain rights of the states as guaranteed by the constitution. I'm not sure if I understand it the same way you do, and would appreciate clarification on where this is a dangerous bill.


He was the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan. (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2007-764). Well, this has an easy answer to it. His proposed foreign policy involves no sanctions against any nations, and he feels the government shouldn't impose itself in discriminating who people do and do not trade with. This is a difficult decision and can definitely be scrutinized. I understand his reasoning as well as yours for opposing him. He would deal with any nation, no matter what they do. So his vote is not because of any ties to Sudan or defense of their ways, but in consistency with his beliefs. I feel that a foreign policy like that which he proposes would be beneficial to the United States and other nations overall. An open hand is better than a fist.

He wants to pull out of the U.N. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), disband NATO (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:), abolish the federal reserve (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:), reinstate the Gold Standard (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm), believes in New World Order conspiracy theories (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/ron_paul_first_bush_was_working_towards_nwo.htm), believes that the International Baccalaureate program is U.N. mind control (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r109:E14AP5-0007:) :

Well, about this stuff, I know you're probably going to think I'm crazy for what I say about it, but try to evaluate it forgetting what you know and think you know about the U.N.

The U.N. and it's programs are not merely devices of international relations. It is trying to subordinate the internal workings of its member governments, declaring it's own rule of law superior to theirs. This is a dangerous thing, and he is right for wanting out of it.

Saying that he called the I.B. Program "mind control" is a distortion. He is defending the right of the United States people to educate themselves as a sovereign nation without resorting to guidelines set by a foreign body. Saying that he "believes in New World Order conspiracy theories" is also misleading, and makes him sound like a kook. He has sound reasons for believing what he does, and does not take part in conspiracy cults. Are you dismissing it as crazy simply because it sounds so far-fetched, or because you have evidence against it? I believe I've seen much evidence for his perspective, and against our membership in U.N.

Did you know that the U.N. is proposing the creation of the International Tax Organization? (http://www.freedomandprosperity.org/Papers/un-report/un-report.shtml)

Have you read about UN's CEDAW, (http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1870&department=CWA&categoryid=nation) the treaty for Women's Rights? It sounds pretty, but the comittee in charge makes several demands of nations which agree to the CEDAW which it shouldn't have the power to make. It demanded the decriminalization of prostitution in China. It told Ireland that the Catholic Church has too much influence in their society (which is something for Ireland to decide!!!). Complained to Slovenia that only 30 percent of children under 3 were in a formal day care (age 3... what's wrong with parents teaching their children under age 3 at home?)

The U.N. is a suspicious and unnecessary entity, susceptible to corruption, and a threat to national sovereignty. The more I read about their proposals, the less I like it.

The Federal Reserve: look, the legality of the Federal Reserve is QUESTIONABLE, at the very least. Is it ideal? No, I don't think so. It is privately owned, and generally unrestricted in its policies. Do we need to abolish it? No, maybe not, but has the issue received appropriate attention? DEFINITELY NOT. I found an article (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty3.html) online that explains that it's constitutionality hinges on a clause that says congress has the right to make any law that is "necessary and proper" for the execution of its powers, such as it's powers to regulate currency. The article refers to a debate about the original Bank of the United States, however, and doesn't specifically dive into what problems the opponents of the Federal Reserve present. It's interesting though, read it.

Anyway, I'll repeat that I'm not a financial expert, and I doubt that you are, so you shouldn't call someone crazy for his opinions in a field in which you don't have a high degree of expertise in. I know this: the value of the dollar has dropped ridiculously since the 1913 founding of the Federal Reserve, and we keep needing to raise the damned minimum wage laws because of inflation. Meanwhile, my dad worked at Burger King in 1973 making $4.75/hour, which is about $22.00/hour today if you take inflation into account. WTF man.

So look, in the end, most of the points you made up there are perversions of Ron Paul's positions and opinions, or assumptions and conclusions reached without sufficient data. I am definitely missing pieces of the puzzle here too, but I'm sure I just offered you some that you were missing. Some of which I only found after researching in response to your posts, so I really appreciate it. Ironically, a lot of what you posted secured my comfort in supporting Ron Paul. I understand it's a long essay, but the length was necessary to explain what you tried to say in too few words and out of context.

He's not proposing the typical solutions, and you might not agree with him, but calling him crazy doesn't really support your opinion, either.

[Yog]

The other night, there was a really heated exchange between Obama and Clinton:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/MD9F1t9GQzA&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/MD9F1t9GQzA&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

It went something like this..

Obama: You and your husband is teaming up on me! Let's stop the dirt flinging and talk about the political issues! Healthcare, education etc..

Clinton: No! Your record stinks! Nothing you say makes sense! (long rant trying to discredit Obama)

Obama: "While i was working on the streets helping out poor people who had had their jobs shipped overseas, you were a lawyer working on the board of Wal-mart!" (Wal-mart being the major corporation responsible for sending those jobs overseas)

Clinton: "I was fighting against those ideas (republican ideas) when you were practicing law and representing your contributor ResCo in his slum landlord business in inner city chicago!"

:lol

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/103/stareofdeathms6.jpg
If looks could kill...

[Eluna Thals]

And tonight, Obama took a majority of all democratic primary votes. He beat Hillary by a greater than 2:1 vote ratio.

That is brutal!

[Jedieb]

He needed to win SC because of the amount of black voters and he did just that. He pulled in over 80% of the black vote. That's much better than what he was polling last year and to do that well against a historic Clinton strength is impressive. Blacks weren't automatically giving Obama their support. He's actually had to prove himself to them and win them over. He should still have a lead in delegates when Super Tuesday rolls around. I think tonight was clearly disastrous for Edwards. If he can do no better than 3rd in SC then he's done.

McCain is taking SC for the Republicans. Damn, I know Guiliani is waiting for his key states to come up, but this has still been a poor showing for a supposed front runner. He came in 6th tonight and even failed to beat Paul. McCain has to feel great right now. If I remember right, SC is where the wheels started to come off in 2000. To win there tonight must be really satisfying.

[Eluna Thals]

psst the GOP primary wasn't tonight, it was a week ago ;)

[Jedieb]

I was looking at the results for the state and they had them side by side, didn't even notice the dates. :o

Still, great showing for McCain last week and a craptacular one for Edwards tonight.

[Yog]

Yeah, Guiliani is actually no longer the front candidate for the republicans. McCain is. Now, I am almost certain McCain will win the primary for the republicans.

[Turbogeek]

Yeah, Guiliani is actually no longer the front candidate for the republicans. McCain is. Now, I am almost certain McCain will win the primary for the republicans.

That's a good thing because Guiliani scares the crap out of me.

That and his ridiculous reliance on 11/9

I would think McCain would have a good chance verses Clinton - but in all honesty if Obama does win the Democrat nomination I cant see how any Republican will beat him. Clinton is a risk she could motivate the Republicans to come out and vote against her - Obama however woudl stand a damn good chance of motivating independants + Democrats and maybe get Rebulicans to switch.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-iVAPH_EcmQ

: jawdrop: Dear USA pls vote this guy in.

[Jedieb]

Republicans
Guiliani is DONE. I find this to be quite amazing. This is going to go down as one of the more inept campaigns in recent memory. Guiliani had everything going for him, name recognition, huge warchest, and early momentum. But he foolishly ignored the early primaries and put all of his eggs in a Florida basket and it bit him in the rear. I can't ever remember a former front runner stumbling this badly out of the gate and then crashing to the ground. After all of the months and millions in Florida he only pulled in 15%. Now, I don't know if that counts the early Florida write in votes that he spent weeks gathering, but it doesn't matter. If it does, then it's even more pathetic, if it doesn't, there aren't nearly enough of those votes to get him into the 20's.

McCain and Romeny seem ready to battle it out next week and I still think Huckabee can make some noise. Next week is going to be very interesting.


Democrats
Florida is a good example of just how tough it's going to be for Obama to beat Hillary. I know I keep going on about her, but I have my reasons. It's not that she'll get my vote when my state's primary comes up, it's a recognition of her organization and the money behind it. These things matter. Obama is the new, hot, sexy candidate, but he doesn't have the machine behind him that Hillary does. I think he's done well enough to give her a run for her money next Tuesday. Next Tuesday night will be the first time I'll be glued to the television watching results. Here's who's in play;

Alabama primaries
Alaska caucuses
Arizona primaries
Arkansas primaries
California primaries
Colorado caucuses
Connecticut primaries
Delaware primaries
Georgia primaries
Idaho caucuses
Illinois primaries
Kansas caucuses
Massachusetts primaries
Minnesota primaries
Missouri primaries
Montana caucuses
New Jersey primaries
New Mexico primary
New York primaries
North Dakota caucuses
Oklahoma primaries
Tennessee primaries
Utah primaries
West Virginia convention

[Jedi Master Carr]

Well Obama didn't even campaign in Florida plus 1 million more people voted in the Republican primary. What if Florida counted? I bet the turnout would have have 3-4 times higher. A lot of people said why vote when it doesn't count. So really I would throw Florida out the window because it doesn't count for anything for the Democrats. Also John Edwards dropped out today. I am kind of sad that he didn't get farther. I supported him for President but he never got the money nor the attention hillary or Obama got. I think he actually has better ideas and was more honest than either one of them, but that doesn't get you elected any more which is very sad for our country.

[Jeseth Cloak]

Republicans
Guiliani is DONE. I find this to be quite amazing. This is going to go down as one of the more inept campaigns in recent memory. Guiliani had everything going for him, name recognition, huge warchest, and early momentum. But he foolishly ignored the early primaries and put all of his eggs in a Florida basket and it bit him in the rear.
I think what killed Giuliani is the fact that few people would ever really vote for him. He was trying to be the right-wing candidate, but was tolerant of abortion, wanted tough gun laws and had a very spotty personal record where his morals were concerned. His campaign platform was fear and terror. McCain and Huckabee were much better looking choices for right-wing voters, with a lot more experience and integrity.

Aside from that, very few polls really count for much. Their sample sizes are usually just too small to be accurate. The media really made too much of a fuss over him, and blew the significance of poll result way out of proportion.

I think Obama has a good chance to win this now that Edwards is out of the race.

[Erasmus Daragon]

FYI you still have not addressed any of my questions nor have you countered at all.

You were so full of energy then, and pushed Jeseth to address your posted response to his.

Funny, it's been a couple of weeks since I posted in response to you, and I'm surprised that lo and behold, there is no further discussion on the subject of Ron Paul's character.

Hmm... might that be because there is a severe lack of evidence for most attacks on this guy, and the media's treatment of him has convinced mainstreamers that he's a joke, when he is actually the least scary republican out of all of them?

Even the rude Australian guy (Cat) hasn't taken a shot at who was the political punching bag of this thread, until recently.


Say, for good measure, I thought I'd show you guys this. (http://thebestofronpaul.blogspot.com/2008/01/does-this-look-like-racist-to-you.html)

[Figrin D'an]

McCain and Huckabee were much better looking choices for right-wing voters, with a lot more experience and integrity.


Huckabee, maybe, just because he's plays himself up as a Bible Belt preacher who doesn't want big government, despite that he had an insane record of pushing for tax increases when he was a governor.

The right-wing portion of the Republican party hates McCain... they see him as practically being a Democrat. One only has to look at the things that neocon boobs like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter have said about McCain over the past month. Granted, it's a lot of hot air and completely inaccurate, but still, it shows how split the conservative base really is right now because, sadly, there are people who take that sort of drivel as gospel.



Just my opinion, but here is how I see this playing out... barring a significant upset on Super Tuesday, McCain is probably going to end up being the Republican nominee. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I think he is likely to win the general election in November. However, if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I think McCain would win for the simple reason that, as much as the conservative base that supported the likes of George W. Bush really doesn't care for McCain, they absolutely despise the Clintons, and I think they would hit the polls in droves and vote for McCain just to keep Hillary and Bill out of the White House.

[Park Kraken]

<b>67% <span style="color: #f00;">John McCain</span><br>65% <span style="color: #00f;">Bill Richardson</span><br>60% <span style="color: #00f;">Hillary Clinton</span><br>60% <span style="color: #f00;">Mike Huckabee</span><br>60% <span style="color: #f00;">Mitt Romney</span><br>58% <span style="color: #00f;">John Edwards</span><br>57% <span style="color: #00f;">Joe Biden</span><br>56% <span style="color: #00f;">Barack Obama</span><br>54% <span style="color: #00f;">Chris Dodd</span><br>54% <span style="color: #f00;">Fred Thompson</span><br>46% <span style="color: #f00;">Rudy Giuliani</span><br>45% <span style="color: #00f;">Mike Gravel</span><br>44% <span style="color: #f00;">Tom Tancredo</span><br>43% <span style="color: #00f;">Dennis Kucinich</span><br>36% <span style="color: #f00;">Ron Paul</span><br></b><br><a href="http://www.gotoquiz.com/candidates/2008-quiz.html">2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz</a>

Right now, I'm going for McCain, and this little questionnaire just helps to confirm my choice. But I think a pressing issue is not so much should our troops in Iraq be sent home, but rather should be re-deployed to Afghanistan. Seriously, there is an Al-Qaede in Iraq, but there is a greater threat in Afghanistan, one which is regaining ground. And what should happen if a terroist backed regime takes control of Pakistan and it's arsenel of one hundred+ nuclear weapons?

[Turbogeek]

Even the rude Australian guy (Cat) hasn't taken a shot at who was the political punching bag of this thread, until recently.





Because Ron Paul is completely bloody stupid. Some things are just too idiotic to be worth my time and a racist waste of space is one of them. That link proved nothing (it's nothing more than a biased blogger mashing crap into the keyboard and spewing a trail of poo onto a database), when you had actual writing attributed to Paul espousing some foul views with no place in society.

Now someone please tell me where the hell the ignore button is? I want to debate real politics and not the waste of space Ron Paul is.

Australia has already had two very Paulique idiots raised into the public concious. Both racist bigoted throwbacks with no economic sense

Pauline Hanson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson

Joh Bjeelke-Petersen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen

Petersen also ran one of the most corrupt governments ever in Australia. Yay. Oh and he basically wrote the book on gerrymandering.

[Erasmus Daragon]

Well, I'm not sure if Turbogeek and CatX are the same person, but I'll assume you are because I directed something at CatX and you're responding in a fashion pretty similar to what I'd expect CatX to respond with.

You're a fun guy, you know that? I was afraid you'd light up at that, but was hoping you'd try to refute my claims logically instead. For a guy who claims to want to "debate real politics", you use the words idiotic and stupid a lot, you're terribly offensive and try to be condescending, and prefer to ignore the arguments of others rather than address them. I've had more productive responses from my little sister's high school friends.

If you want to debate real politics and have a real discussion, I posted plenty of evidence, logic, and theory in defense of my opinions. I reviewed the claims that others have made attacking my opinions, and found those claims erroneous. I've already addressed the claims that he's racist, and you haven't told me how I'm wrong yet. Tell me how I'm wrong, or find more evidence that I haven't addressed.

I have never heard of and don't really care about the Australian politicians you listed, because they are irrelevant to the point that you are trying to make and have absolutely no connection with Ron Paul.

But I guess since you like spreading lies and using faulty logic, and you can't seem to tell me where I'm wrong, but claim to be an expert in economics (while I doubt you are ^_^ ), that "isn't worth my time" stuff is not a surprising response.


I'm not trying to antagonize someone to get stones thrown at me here. I really want to test the validity of my opinions and debate this on philosophical and logical levels. I'm not trying to shove Ron Paul down your throat either: you don't want to talk about it? DON'T RESPOND.

It's a lot better than telling me it's not worth your time and then taking time to respond to me with NAMECALLING anyway.

Grow up, dude.

[Morgan Evanar]

Please point out what CatX/Turbogeek said is a lie (as they are one in the same person).

[Erasmus Daragon]

Yes sir, here you go:


... Some things are just too idiotic to be worth my time and a racist waste of space is one of them.

The key word here is racist.



...when you had actual writing attributed to Paul espousing some foul views with no place in society.

If this is a reference to the newsletters, this is again racism, and I think I addressed this factually and thoroughly.


Both racist bigoted throwbacks with no economic sense

Pauline Hanson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Hanson

Joh Bjeelke-Petersen

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen

Petersen also ran one of the most corrupt governments ever in Australia. Yay. Oh and he basically wrote the book on gerrymandering.

Irrelevant, the Australian politicians have no more connection to the subject in question than Cat does to Vladimir Putin. It's convenient to mention them in an attempt to create a false relationship and have people associate the subjects.

[Morgan Evanar]

The newsletters haven't been discredited and there are a lot of them, which may have not been written by Paul, were done under his name for YEARS. Paul recently had a KKK organizer run part of his Michigan campaign. When are you going to realize that the guy has racist leanings?

[Erasmus Daragon]

Ok, many newsletters have existed written over a substantially long period of time, yes. This is true. However, certain things need to be realized about the allegations being presented here.

First, as I have said repeatedly, considering these newsletters, we do not see any evidence that Ron Paul has written these newsletters himself. Just because his name is associated with them does not prove necessarily that he has written them. It merely lends weight to the argument that he has.

Second, there is not a single instance caught on tape or video of racist statements like those in the newsletters being uttered by Ron Paul. Because of this, we have no direct evidence of his racism. Thus the only evidence we have is a plausible theory based on hearsay and bad journalism.

Finally, the theory becomes less plausible when one considers not just the evidence we consider above, but the evidence against him being a man of that character, with particularly racist goals. The evidence against his being racist is far more specific and vast than a pile of old newsletters. There are videos of his speeches, there are archives of his writings. Black or hispanic people who have worked with him claim that he has not treated them badly. I have even heard that he has a portrait of Martin Luther King Jr. hanging on his office wall, although I have not verified that.

So weighing the evidence, it is BY FAR MORE LIKELY that the allegations of racism are false, and LESS LIKELY that they are not. Of course, no one takes the time to do this, and this is why people are so annoyed at Ron Paul supporters. Because we constantly have to be telling everyone else that they are wrong, have been duped by the media, or have the wrong story, etc.

[Slayn Cloak]

Grow up, dude.

Lawl, that's a good one. (For clarity, I find you posting that ironic, I don't find the idea of Marcus growing up amusing. )

Listen to a lecture about “DR. Paul” from someone with a PhD in polysci (specifically American Politics would be best) and try as best possible not to pick someone who is a supporter (if you eliminate people who got their PhD from an online based curriculum, such as the university of phoenix online, this ought to help maintain perspective) . I would suggest they would bring up some key points. (Although probably not call him crazy)


Although many things in print (such as the racist propaganda he has branded, or his abstract solutions to our economic issues) seem good and noteworthy in print, reality will quickly teach you these things don’t work in real world practice.



Anyone is marketable, choosing a market that will religiously make donations, regardless of whether or not the amount they can tithe is minuscule, (everything adds up when done often enough) is a good idea.


Everyone wants to feel special, to be a part of something and in all else to have a savior - Appearing to martyr yourself, even if the gesture is only in just, will deliver on to you followers with faith the caliber of unobtainium (A rare and mythical alloy known only to EA games); further blurring the line between obsession and stupidity.


I had to sit through one lecture on all the candidates at some point last semester (novemberish of 07) but it was more like a weekend edition of “Ron Paul’s political report”. This guy had some obvious issues with your deity and basically made me sit through a full hour and a half of his presentation, I would go so far as to say, slandering him. I’m sure it’s possible to find the opinion of a third party nonpartisan academic, maybe someone from Australia. You should go after them to test your... whatever you called it, political views? I'm just going to go with opinions.

[Slayn Cloak]

Ok, many newsletters have existed written over a substantially long period of time, yes. This is true. However, certain things need to be realized about the allegations being presented here.

First, as I have said repeatedly, considering these newsletters, we do not see any evidence that Ron Paul has written these newsletters himself. Just because his name is associated with them does not prove necessarily that he has written them. It merely lends weight to the argument that he has.

Second, there is not a single instance caught on tape or video of racist statements like those in the newsletters being uttered by Ron Paul. Because of this, we have no direct evidence of his racism. Thus the only evidence we have is a plausible theory based on hearsay and bad journalism.

Finally, the theory becomes less plausible when one considers not just the evidence we consider above, but the evidence against him being a man of that character, with particularly racist goals. The evidence against his being racist is far more specific and vast than a pile of old newsletters. There are videos of his speeches, there are archives of his writings. Black or hispanic people who have worked with him claim that he has not treated them badly. I have even heard that he has a portrait of Martin Luther King Jr. hanging on his office wall, although I have not verified that.

So weighing the evidence, it is BY FAR MORE LIKELY that the allegations of racism are false, and LESS LIKELY that they are not. Of course, no one takes the time to do this, and this is why people are so annoyed at Ron Paul supporters. Because we constantly have to be telling everyone else that they are wrong, have been duped by the media, or have the wrong story, etc.

You're rationalizing...

[Zem-El Vymes]

First, as I have said repeatedly, considering these newsletters, we do not see any evidence that Ron Paul has written these newsletters himself. Just because his name is associated with them does not prove necessarily that he has written them. It merely lends weight to the argument that he has.


Is Ron Paul a racist or is he incredibly negligent and incompetent? Which one is he?

[Slayn Cloak]

First, as I have said repeatedly, considering these newsletters, we do not see any evidence that Ron Paul has written these newsletters himself. Just because his name is associated with them does not prove necessarily that he has written them. It merely lends weight to the argument that he has.


Is Ron Paul a racist or is he incredibly negligent and incompetent? Which one is he?

Arn't those nobel qualities?

[Zem-El Vymes]

Arn't those nobel qualities?

Well there has to be some rationale to these being out here for so long. Paul has been a rep for years and years and a former prez candidate so it isn't like he's suddenly new to the idea of good press.

He's either a racist because he actually wrote these, or he was unaware of their existence or failed to call out the people who wrote that in his name, making him negligent in his PR or incompetent in his ignorance.

I honestly think he should man up to being a racist, because that kind of idiocy is certainly not what we want for a commander in chief.

[Erasmus Daragon]

Lawl, that's a good one. (For clarity, I find you posting that ironic, I don't find the idea of Marcus growing up amusing. )


Ahhhhh.... geez. In all fairness, I should respond to you. Lets try our hardest to keep anything personal from outside the forum, outside the forum, k?



Listen to a lecture about “DR. Paul” from someone with a PhD in polysci (specifically American Politics would be best) and try as best possible not to pick someone who is a supporter (if you eliminate people who got their PhD from an online based curriculum, such as the university of phoenix online, this ought to help maintain perspective) . I would suggest they would bring up some key points. (Although probably not call him crazy)

So, in between all the attempts at being witty conveniently placed in parentheses, this is what I got: I should find someone with a PhD in Political Science and try NOT to pick a Ron Paul supporter, so that this person can bring up some key points. I should make sure that this is someone that DOES NOT agree with me, and listen to what this person has to say.

The purpose of this exercise is to learn why this man's suggestions for this country are radical and outrageous, and cannot be put in practice, I presume.

In a way, this is ridiculous because I could tell you to go do the same thing vice-versa, and find experts that agree with him. There are plenty of those too.

Listen, I've spent plenty of time looking for arguments against him, and for him. If you can't tell, right now my goal is for someone out here to prove him wrong, to prove me wrong, without trashtalking, and with logic. If I'm blindsided somehow, I want someone to show me. (Not you, though)



Once AGAIN, for debating racist propaganda, see previous posts by me, so I don't have to repeat myself continuously. As for whatever about choosing markets, whatever you're trying to say is irrelavant. Something about how he's gotten so many donations? So you're picking on him because there are people that support him and he doesn't take large corporate lobbyists' monies?


As for this:


Everyone wants to feel special, to be a part of something and in all else to have a savior - Appearing to martyr yourself, even if the gesture is only in just, will deliver on to you followers with faith the caliber of unobtainium (A rare and mythical alloy known only to EA games); further blurring the line between obsession and stupidity.

Your statements are full of distractions and roughly draft what you're trying to say. In other words, he's found peoples' hearts through martyrdom? This doesn't make sense. Are you saying he's leaving politics after this? Be clear so I don't have to decipher your posts.

As for the lecture: ok. a short anecdote?

[Zem-El Vymes]

Once AGAIN, for debating racist propaganda, see previous posts by me, so I don't have to repeat myself continuously.


So he's an "aw shucks" incompetent from your own observation then?

[Erasmus Daragon]

Is Ron Paul a racist or is he incredibly negligent and incompetent? Which one is he?



He's admitted his negligence in not reviewing the publications previously. It's not like he's giving any excuses. How this makes him INCOMPETENT... there I'm losing you. Especially how this would make him less competent than his opponents. It's well known that all of them have several integrity problems, and have been listed on factcheck.org SEVERAL TIMES. Ron Paul has the distinction of not being listed on factcheck.org any time.

factcheck.org calls the candidates on lies they make in official statements and debates. The only time I found his name on there was when someone else, Huckabee or Romney, mentioned him.

So, if someone is incompetent because of a neglect to review a number of writings being done under his name, does that make the other candidates unthinkably inept, or something?

[Zem-El Vymes]

Incompetence comes from these newsletters being neither isolated in terms of number or date. It would be understandable to have one or two unfavorable blurbs miss the radar. The sheer number of incidents that have been brought to light under is name is incredible.

[Erasmus Daragon]

Incompetence comes from these newsletters being neither isolated in terms of number or date. It would be understandable to have one or two unfavorable blurbs miss the radar. The sheer number of incidents that have been brought to light under is name is incredible.


This is true, these organizations were in place publishing material for years without him so much as noticing it. Ridiculous, and he's paying the price for it now. You're right. Now, considering that these are organizations (at least one of them, that I know of) that he had once been a part of, it's reasonable and probable that someone, somewhere, must have been able to tell him that this was going on while they were still writing it.

So now we know that it is very improbable that he wrote them himself, but it is plausable to think that he knew about them earlier on. If this is the case, why wouldn't he be concerned about them back then?

Yes, yes. Very good.

Still, the number of incidents, and the nature of the situation, when weighed against his far greater number of written articles and speeches, is dwarfed. And again, he has a much, much cleaner record than the other politicians, so I don't see how the newsletters disqualifies him as a viable candidate for the Presidency. I've already made reference to far worse statements made by other candidates, DIRECTLY. The statements came out of their mouths. It is still improbable that he wrote them himself, even with the mysterious development that there is a good chance he would have known about it earlier.


Does this newsletter situation still eliminate him from being a reasonable choice for the Presidency?

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

Eh, regardless of any sort of 'this in comparison to that' argument, the last thing I want to hear is my president saying "Oh gosh folks, I didn't even know about such-and-such!"

[Zem-El Vymes]

Does this newsletter situation still eliminate him from being a reasonable choice for the Presidency?

No, his odious stances and policies did that for him. This is just putting an exclamation point on the end of that rap.

[Erasmus Daragon]

Eh, regardless of any sort of 'this in comparison to that' argument, the last thing I want to hear is my president saying "Oh gosh folks, I didn't even know about such-and-such!"

The sorts of this in comparison to that arguments is there to put the newsletters in perspective.

The last thing you want to hear is your president saying "Oh gosh folks, I didn't even know about such-and-such!" ??

Funny, because the last thing I want to hear is we're staying in Iraq for ten more years. We're once again DRAFTING soldiers. The dollar is still plumetting, we took over Iraq but didn't prevent oil from being traded in Euros, and since we were banking a lot of the value of our buck on that, we're screwed. All that social security money that you're paying now? You can't get it back, we won't give it back, so tough luck, we spent it on the war. Et cetera, et cetera.

There are a lot of greater issues at stake, but for some reason everyone overlooks the other candidates' scandals, flaws, and lies (like i said, factcheck.org) and wants to pin Ron Paul, with an extremely consistent, nearly flawless, strictly constitutional record, as a joke.

[Loklorien s'Ilancy]

Regardless of what we have now with Bush, we as a people have the chance to now put a stop to that. Of course most of us don't want to be in Iraq for ten more years. I'm not that stupid, thank you.

What I'm getting at is that the American people are ready and willing (from what I've seen) to change the nature of our leadership for the better. Why would we want to replace one incompetent with another?

And yes I can already see you calling every other candidate other than Ron Paul incompetent, but if that were the case, why isn't he sweeping the floor with those he's running against?

[Turbogeek]

Well, I'm not sure if Turbogeek and CatX are the same person, but I'll assume you are because I directed something at CatX and you're responding in a fashion pretty similar to what I'd expect CatX to respond with.

You're a fun guy, you know that? I was afraid you'd light up at that, but was hoping you'd try to refute my claims logically instead. For a guy who claims to want to "debate real politics", you use the words idiotic and stupid a lot, you're terribly offensive and try to be condescending, and prefer to ignore the arguments of others rather than address them. I've had more productive responses from my little sister's high school friends.


I dont debate because frankly.... I am a truly high end geek. My time is worth almost more than you can imagine. Pay me 250 an hour, I'll bother wasting my time disproving obvious rot. 500, I'll even post like a rational adult too.

BTW, I'm also very much more experienced in politics than you are. In fact at one time I was a card carrying member of a polictial party very heavily involved - and a family member was so well conencted that that person was offered a seat in a local parliment. I am still well conencted in that party in fact. I have even had lunch with the ex Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard. (NAME DROP!!! NAME DROP!!!!!)

So basically, I know politics. And I know how foul politicans are. And I know how to sift BS from them. There is a damn good reason why that I turned down membership / candicacy and the fact is people like Ron Paul with their lunany and inability to extract their head out of their contributors' backsides make me furious.



If you want to debate real politics and have a real discussion, I posted plenty of evidence, logic, and theory in defense of my opinions. I reviewed the claims that others have made attacking my opinions, and found those claims erroneous. I've already addressed the claims that he's racist, and you haven't told me how I'm wrong yet. Tell me how I'm wrong, or find more evidence that I haven't addressed.


Ron Paul is obvious crap. Thence, it gets the same attention crap usually gets from me.



I have never heard of and don't really care about the Australian politicians you listed, because they are irrelevant to the point that you are trying to make and have absolutely no connection with Ron Paul.


Did you not happen to read that they are / were of the same vein as Ron Paul? Oh hey, it's not like these same people are very good examples that I am very familiar with, so thence I can make some very good comparisions!



But I guess since you like spreading lies and using faulty logic, and you can't seem to tell me where I'm wrong, but claim to be an expert in economics (while I doubt you are ^_^ ), that "isn't worth my time" stuff is not a surprising response.


Much more expert than Ron Paul is, tho that's not hard. For one, I clearly understand how lazeise fair (sp) style "Let the market decide" is worthless and would be a disaster. I understand how the Gold standard is worthless and cant not possibly be resumed. I understand how a strong foreign policy and trade polices enhance or detract trade, which is highily important to economies growth. Which makes me a few steps ahead indeed.


Lawl, that's a good one. (For clarity, I find you posting that ironic, I don't find the idea of Marcus growing up amusing. )

AWWWW dont you want me to grow up I dont like you anymore :(

[Slayn Cloak]

Arn't those nobel qualities?

Well there has to be some rationale to these being out here for so long. Paul has been a rep for years and years and a former prez candidate so it isn't like he's suddenly new to the idea of good press.

He's either a racist because he actually wrote these, or he was unaware of their existence or failed to call out the people who wrote that in his name, making him negligent in his PR or incompetent in his ignorance.

I honestly think he should man up to being a racist, because that kind of idiocy is certainly not what we want for a commander in chief.



I'm not voting for him anyway, but would rather have him racisit than incompotant; at least then his states need more power crap would make sense.

[Slayn Cloak]

wow someone changed the post order, that's awesome.

[Slayn Cloak]

Lawl, that's a good one. (For clarity, I find you posting that ironic, I don't find the idea of Marcus growing up amusing. )


Ahhhhh.... geez. In all fairness, I should respond to you. Lets try our hardest to keep anything personal from outside the forum, outside the forum, k?



Listen to a lecture about “DR. Paul” from someone with a PhD in polysci (specifically American Politics would be best) and try as best possible not to pick someone who is a supporter (if you eliminate people who got their PhD from an online based curriculum, such as the university of phoenix online, this ought to help maintain perspective) . I would suggest they would bring up some key points. (Although probably not call him crazy)

So, in between all the attempts at being witty conveniently placed in parentheses, this is what I got: I should find someone with a PhD in Political Science and try NOT to pick a Ron Paul supporter, so that this person can bring up some key points. I should make sure that this is someone that DOES NOT agree with me, and listen to what this person has to say.

The purpose of this exercise is to learn why this man's suggestions for this country are radical and outrageous, and cannot be put in practice, I presume.

In a way, this is ridiculous because I could tell you to go do the same thing vice-versa, and find experts that agree with him. There are plenty of those too.

Listen, I've spent plenty of time looking for arguments against him, and for him. If you can't tell, right now my goal is for someone out here to prove him wrong, to prove me wrong, without trashtalking, and with logic. If I'm blindsided somehow, I want someone to show me. (Not you, though)



Once AGAIN, for debating racist propaganda, see previous posts by me, so I don't have to repeat myself continuously. As for whatever about choosing markets, whatever you're trying to say is irrelavant. Something about how he's gotten so many donations? So you're picking on him because there are people that support him and he doesn't take large corporate lobbyists' monies?


As for this:


Everyone wants to feel special, to be a part of something and in all else to have a savior - Appearing to martyr yourself, even if the gesture is only in just, will deliver on to you followers with faith the caliber of unobtainium (A rare and mythical alloy known only to EA games); further blurring the line between obsession and stupidity.

Your statements are full of distractions and roughly draft what you're trying to say. In other words, he's found peoples' hearts through martyrdom? This doesn't make sense. Are you saying he's leaving politics after this? Be clear so I don't have to decipher your posts.

As for the lecture: ok. a short anecdote?

just fyi, you did respond to me, and you're fighting the batle for me. What part of nonpartisan didn't you unserstand?

[Slayn Cloak]

Lawl, that's a good one. (For clarity, I find you posting that ironic, I don't find the idea of Marcus growing up amusing. )
AWWWW dont you want me to grow up I dont like you anymore :(


I've always liked you just as you are and am surprised you caught that (I alwaysed pictured you skiming).

[Slayn Cloak]

post #5, take that not letting me delet posts crap... /drink more.

[Turbogeek]

Lawl, that's a good one. (For clarity, I find you posting that ironic, I don't find the idea of Marcus growing up amusing. )
AWWWW dont you want me to grow up I dont like you anymore :(


I've always liked you just as you are and am surprised you caught that (I alwaysed pictured you skiming).

I actually will read a thread, no matter even if I find the contents offputting :)

.............

.............


I just had a "Boobies are nice" moment

[Yog]

I just had a "Boobies are nice" moment

^^ I very much support this!


Now, on a more serious note Obama is doing some gains on the polls two days before super tuesday:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0345866120080203?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

[Slayn Cloak]

dammit yog, I saw I support boobies and clicked that link. I can't think of anymore of a let down just after i wake up.

[Yog]

dammit yog, I saw I support boobies and clicked that link. I can't think of anymore of a let down just after i wake up.

Sorry to disappoint you. I'd love to post boobies, but I doubt the staff would fancy that as much as you.. :lol

[Cat X]

dammit yog, I saw I support boobies and clicked that link. I can't think of anymore of a let down just after i wake up.

Sorry to disappoint you. I'd love to post boobies, but I doubt the staff would fancy that as much as you.. :lol

Especially if they are Hillary Clinton's boobies.

[Erasmus Daragon]

Well, I'm not sure if Turbogeek and CatX are the same person, but I'll assume you are because I directed something at CatX and you're responding in a fashion pretty similar to what I'd expect CatX to respond with.

You're a fun guy, you know that? I was afraid you'd light up at that, but was hoping you'd try to refute my claims logically instead. For a guy who claims to want to "debate real politics", you use the words idiotic and stupid a lot, you're terribly offensive and try to be condescending, and prefer to ignore the arguments of others rather than address them. I've had more productive responses from my little sister's high school friends.


I dont debate because frankly.... I am a truly high end geek. My time is worth almost more than you can imagine. Pay me 250 an hour, I'll bother wasting my time disproving obvious rot. 500, I'll even post like a rational adult too.

BTW, I'm also very much more experienced in politics than you are. In fact at one time I was a card carrying member of a polictial party very heavily involved - and a family member was so well conencted that that person was offered a seat in a local parliment. I am still well conencted in that party in fact. I have even had lunch with the ex Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard. (NAME DROP!!! NAME DROP!!!!!)

So basically, I know politics. And I know how foul politicans are. And I know how to sift BS from them. There is a damn good reason why that I turned down membership / candicacy and the fact is people like Ron Paul with their lunany and inability to extract their head out of their contributors' backsides make me furious.



If you want to debate real politics and have a real discussion, I posted plenty of evidence, logic, and theory in defense of my opinions. I reviewed the claims that others have made attacking my opinions, and found those claims erroneous. I've already addressed the claims that he's racist, and you haven't told me how I'm wrong yet. Tell me how I'm wrong, or find more evidence that I haven't addressed.

Ron Paul is obvious crap. Thence, it gets the same attention crap usually gets from me.



I have never heard of and don't really care about the Australian politicians you listed, because they are irrelevant to the point that you are trying to make and have absolutely no connection with Ron Paul.

Did you not happen to read that they are / were of the same vein as Ron Paul? Oh hey, it's not like these same people are very good examples that I am very familiar with, so thence I can make some very good comparisions!



But I guess since you like spreading lies and using faulty logic, and you can't seem to tell me where I'm wrong, but claim to be an expert in economics (while I doubt you are ^_^ ), that "isn't worth my time" stuff is not a surprising response.

Much more expert than Ron Paul is, tho that's not hard. For one, I clearly understand how lazeise fair (sp) style "Let the market decide" is worthless and would be a disaster. I understand how the Gold standard is worthless and cant not possibly be resumed. I understand how a strong foreign policy and trade polices enhance or detract trade, which is highily important to economies growth. Which makes me a few steps ahead indeed.



Ok. Thanks for the resume. =)

Like I said though, I 'm not interested in you flashing your feathers. If you don't want to debate, that's fine. Hell, if no one wants to debate it, that's fine. But please, stop it with the all the hot air you're spouting. I've been going back and forth with Young Vymes just fine, (I appreciate that very much, by the way) and he's making valid points without having to tell me what politicians he's eaten dinner with or telling me he's not worth my time. Other people aren't even responding, which means they are politely declining to involve themselves with my post.

I made a jab at you by mentioning your name, true enough, but this is only because after being so passionate about trashing the politician in question, you gave up after I posted a few things. I should have known better than to think you might actually respond with substance.

I'm tired of the words "stupid", "crap", "lunacy", etc. Please don't respond to me any further with that stuff.

[Erasmus Daragon]

Regardless of what we have now with Bush, we as a people have the chance to now put a stop to that. Of course most of us don't want to be in Iraq for ten more years. I'm not that stupid, thank you.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were stupid!


What I'm getting at is that the American people are ready and willing (from what I've seen) to change the nature of our leadership for the better. Why would we want to replace one incompetent with another?

And yes I can already see you calling every other candidate other than Ron Paul incompetent, but if that were the case, why isn't he sweeping the floor with those he's running against?

You see, that's the thing. You're right, we need out of this situation and we're heading for disaster. Everyone has a different idea on how to get out of it. I would be relatively content with Barack Obama. When I first started researching the candidates, I was mostly supportive of him in the early stages of it. I figured I'd scrutinize the democrats because there was no chance I'd vote for a Republican. I researched them anyway, and watched debates. I was turned on to Ron Paul's honest ideology and consistency.

You're right, he's not sweeping the floor with those he's running against. There are probably a lot of reasons for that. Sometimes, the most effective ideas don't get the most support, and horrible ideas are sold to us as good deals. Plenty of people voted for Bush both times, didn't they? He hasn't had the kind of campaign that makes him a household name to the average person. The media essentially handicaps at least half of the candidates from the start, by calling a few of them "front-runners". His ideas I imagine are NOT appealing to the media corporations (he strongly supports the idea of a diversified competitive media market), Fox News has repeatedly trashed and misquoted him (man, i thought that was just some paranoid theory. Didn't believe it until I saw how crooked they really were with my own eyes). Most of all, he doesn't really play the political game. He doesn't pander for votes, doesn't take a penny from corporate lobbyists and doesnt' even give them the time of day, and consistently, like a solitary splinter in the hand of the governmant machine, casts his lonely vote, evaluating FIRST before anyting else whether or not he can consider it constitutional. He isn't doing whatever he needs to do to look good, he's just speaking plainly and honestly.

You'd think this would get him good press, and it has, but people can't get past the trashing that he gets, based on flimsy evidence. Finally, we've shifted away from our original intent as a nation so far, that any voice trying to remind us of that is a strange and distant one. A lot of people aren't ready to understand the things that he says, which seem shocking (they did to me, anyway). People who like the game of politics and the analysis of it aren't interested in him, because he's not playing the game. The majority of Americans, that get their news from mainstream media, are convinced that he doesn't make sense. Most of his supporters found him on the internet because we were already accustomed to individual research, and a distrust of the integrity of the media.

Anyway, to the best of my ability right now, there's my answer to that, although I'm sure that i forgot something.

Thanks for responding seriously... =)

[Morgan Evanar]

Ron Paul Is Either A Racist Or Incompetent. Pick One. Do You Want Someone Of Either Stripe In The White House?

If You Like Ron Paul You Are Either A Fan Of Incompetents Or Racists.

This Evidence Is Not Up For Debate, No Matter How Flimsy You Can Try To Call It. Over Ten Years Of Awful Newsletters.

End.

[Cat X]

I made a jab at you by mentioning your name, true enough, but this is only because after being so passionate about trashing the politician in question, you gave up after I posted a few things. I should have known better than to think you might actually respond with substance.

I'm tired of the words "stupid", "crap", "lunacy", etc. Please don't respond to me any further with that stuff.


RON PAUL IS UTTER RIDICULOUS AND OBVIOUS CRAP THAT I SHOULD *NOT* HAVE TO WASTE MY TIME WITH.

Your postings in defence of this idiot are a rabble of absolute no substance, with no evidence to back them up and yet when we have listed things that SHOULD concern you about Paul.... with some actual debate points, you wander off into your own wall of text that makes no sense and has no logical foundations apart from those provided by soundbytes and words that frankly I think you have plagerised in the most part because they read exactly the same as other deluded rambling of other Paulities that I have had the misfortune to come across. This pretty much shows there is a mass lack thinking outside of the set talking points.

Now tell me, how are you goign to defend Paul's pathetic position on Dafur? I saw that yesterday. Paul was from memory the *ONLY* Congressman to oppose a bill about Dafur that would have at the least spoken the disquiet the USA has about that terrible situation, a situation that actually justifies bombing the hell out of the parties currently slaughtering thousands, laying land to waste for no good reason.

Paul disgusts me and your support of a racist bigot that opposes intervention in a place that actually justifies it is unbelieveable. Now you damn well justify that at the least, even if you wont justify or counter the points I've raised about economics.

Go on. Justify allowing millions to starve and die just as Ron Paul yesterday was asked to and failed misrebly

[Jeseth Cloak]

Now tell me, how are you goign to defend Paul's pathetic position on Dafur? I saw that yesterday. Paul was from memory the *ONLY* Congressman to oppose a bill about Dafur that would have at the least spoken the disquiet the USA has about that terrible situation, a situation that actually justifies bombing the hell out of the parties currently slaughtering thousands, laying land to waste for no good reason.

Paul disgusts me and your support of a racist bigot that opposes intervention in a place that actually justifies it is unbelieveable. Now you damn well justify that at the least, even if you wont justify or counter the points I've raised about economics.

Go on. Justify allowing millions to starve and die just as Ron Paul yesterday was asked to and failed misrebly
You're just clueless about the way government in the US works, aren't you? Ron Paul doesn't support legislation relating to Darfur because it's none of our business. Darfur is Darfur, not a US State! America has NO BUSINESS wasting AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS on a foreign nation. If you think it's such a big issue, and if other US citizens feel that way, then they can donate money to one of hundreds of humanitarian organizations funneling money into aid efforts for Darfur. US military involvement in defense of another country's people is never needed.

The US fought its way out from under the thumb of tyrants. Darfur can do the same.

As for your claims that Ron Paul is a racist... you're just wrong. But of course, you'll just respond with "nonsense" and provide the same faulty evidence (some news letters that he did not even write) in defense of your childish arguement - which really, is more like a tantrum.

[Morgan Evanar]

Now tell me, how are you goign to defend Paul's pathetic position on Dafur? I saw that yesterday. Paul was from memory the *ONLY* Congressman to oppose a bill about Dafur that would have at the least spoken the disquiet the USA has about that terrible situation, a situation that actually justifies bombing the hell out of the parties currently slaughtering thousands, laying land to waste for no good reason.

Paul disgusts me and your support of a racist bigot that opposes intervention in a place that actually justifies it is unbelieveable. Now you damn well justify that at the least, even if you wont justify or counter the points I've raised about economics.

Go on. Justify allowing millions to starve and die just as Ron Paul yesterday was asked to and failed misrebly
You're just clueless about the way government in the US works, aren't you? Ron Paul doesn't support legislation relating to Darfur because it's none of our business. Darfur is Darfur, not a US State! America has NO BUSINESS wasting AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS on a foreign nation. If you think it's such a big issue, and if other US citizens feel that way, then they can donate money to one of hundreds of humanitarian organizations funneling money into aid efforts for Darfur. US military involvement in defense of another country's people is never needed.

The US fought its way out from under the thumb of tyrants. Darfur can do the same.

As for your claims that Ron Paul is a racist... you're just wrong. But of course, you'll just respond with "nonsense" and provide the same faulty evidence (some news letters that he did not even write) in defense of your childish arguement - which really, is more like a tantrum.Can't you read evidence? http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

He has a consistent racist and anti-semetic stance throughout the years. Please provide your evidence, I can provide the actual newsletters written under his name.

PS: the only thing required for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing.

Even we had help from the French.

[Erasmus Daragon]

I made a jab at you by mentioning your name, true enough, but this is only because after being so passionate about trashing the politician in question, you gave up after I posted a few things. I should have known better than to think you might actually respond with substance.

I'm tired of the words "stupid", "crap", "lunacy", etc. Please don't respond to me any further with that stuff.


RON PAUL IS UTTER RIDICULOUS AND OBVIOUS CRAP THAT I SHOULD *NOT* HAVE TO WASTE MY TIME WITH.
...
Go on. Justify allowing millions to starve and die just as Ron Paul yesterday was asked to and failed misrebly


Oh, good grief. I directly requested that the offensive and unproductive language stop, but someone is so bored that I have to be told my words are a waste of his time, repeatedly.
Thanks for the accusations of plagairism, too. I do think for myself, actually. It's better than cussing atrocities at someone offensively. More people should try it.

Look, Cat, I'm not talking to you, ok? Just calm down. I hadn't the intention of making anyone angry. Why are you so angry? From the very beginning I only responded to Morgan anyway. You don't have to worry about wasting any time on my frivolous pea-brained intellect anymore. Please pursue something that is worthy of a person of your stature, and caliber.

[Erasmus Daragon]

Can't you read evidence? http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

He has a consistent racist and anti-semetic stance throughout the years. Please provide your evidence, I can provide the actual newsletters written under his name.

PS: the only thing required for evil to prevail is for good men and women to do nothing.

Even we had help from the French.



Morgan, thank you for keeping your cool.

Look, I feel like this man deserves a little respect, and he's not getting it. That's what I find most sad. He isn't any less qualified for the Executive Branch than any of the other candidates are. If people would just consider what he's saying, I think they might understand that he does make valid points. I'm under the impression most people dismiss what he says without giving it consideration, and I find this to be tremendously unfortunate.

I know the post I wrote with all the references in it was very long, but I feel like I placed a lot of evidence in there that no one has given any attention to. I get plenty of harassment from a few people here, but no one has told me how I'm wrong. I'm comfortable with the idea that I might be wrong, because if I am, I'll learn from it. That's what people debate for--not to make oneself look better than another--no one is keeping score. I'm honestly open to admitting that this man is seriously flawed to the extent that he does not belong in a Presidential race. The problem is, no one has shown me this yet.

You're even asking for evidence now, but I feel like I presented it clearly a couple of pages back. Just the same way that I went through what you posted, point for point, and refuted it, if you are really interested in making your point clear, I would challenge that you similarly tell me why my arguments fail in arguing that this man has every right to be on the presidential stage.

If you don't want to do that, fine. I just don't see why I should find more "evidence" when I have already provided logical arguments and references that no one has refuted. I'm sure that Ron Paul has other vulnerabilities that aren't this petty and unprovable racist allegation. I would be happy to discuss those. I already have issued enough logical theory and evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is very unlikely that he wrote those letters.

I mentioned racist and careless comments made by other candidates, caught on video. Ron Paul has never been seen acting racist on video.

My problem is not that too many of you aren't voting for him, or something like that. None of my business. I just don't think it's rational to dismiss him and discuss the other candidates respectfully, based on indirect evidence of something, when there is direct evidence for other candidates of doing worse.

If I'm not making sense to anyone, I'm just going to give up now, because I don't see how any more of this will make it make more sense than it already does.




As for the Darfur thing, not wanting the United States government involved doesn't equate to an immoral choice. Look deeper. It's already well known that he believes in non-interventionism, and advocates peaceful means in solving all problems. He only advocates military force in self-defense. He never said that he wants them to die. As Jeseth said, there are many channels of support to the people there outside of our cumbersome beast of a Federal government.

What you would do about Darfur has more than one answer to it. It comes down to whether you think that power should be invested in government, or whether you believe that it shouldn't. There are ways to help on one side, and ways to help on the other.

[Yog]

Obama is doing a sensational turnaround, one day before Super Tuesday!

National Super Tuesday poll shows dramatic Democratic shift (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/04/national.poll/?iref=mpstoryview)


Obama, who trounced Clinton in January's South Carolina primary, garnered 49 percent of registered Democrats in Monday's poll, while Clinton trailed by just three points, a gap well within the survey's 4.5 percentage point margin of error.

Go go gooooooo Obama! :crack

[Yog]

Today is the day! Voting has started!