The Gazette Opinion StaffOpinion Page Editor, The Gazette |
|
Email the author
Ron Paul is more extreme than Obama
Ron Paul is an extremist Libertarian, not a Republican. He is more extreme than Obama.
He blames us for 9/11. He is willing to abandon Israel and offer friendship to Iran, which is willing to destroy itself in order to rid the world of infidels. He has no objection to a nuclear Iran that would coerce and blackmail every country in the Mideast. He is unconcerned about the loss of oil to our energy-dependent country. He makes unrestrained personal attacks on Republican candidates. Should he win the Iowa primaries, Iowa will be a laughing stock and will never again be first in the nation.
Paul objects to the Patriot Act, which has proved to be a necessary protection against terrorism. He believes a border fence could be used to keep Americans in. He has no plans for jobs creation and apparently believes he can change all of government with executive orders. Sound familiar?
How about his proposal to legalize heroin and marijuana? Paul would be worse than Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. Electable? You’ve got to be kidding!
Ronald Boyer
Cedar Rapids
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Storm damages jet, hangar doors at The Eastern Iowa Airport
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
Sexual harassment allegations in Iowa Senate should be investigated: Branstad
Severe storms blow through Eastern Iowa
Powerball jackpot triggers frenzied Iowa sales
Interactive: Shelter from the storm
I find it sad that if since Paul says things that someone else does not want to hear (or goes against the lies the American public has been fed their whole lives) then that he is labeled as an extremist.- I guess by definition that would be true however (ie out of the mainstream). Mr Boyer you have bought into the lies the govt is telling you to control you so they can continue to justify robbing American citizens’ money and rights. For example, 9/11 was our fault! The terrorists even told us that! How much more proof do you want? We have been paying high taxes for an over-bloated military to fund never ending wars in the Middle East. These high-priced and never-ending military endeavors sole purpose is for the Military Industrial Complex corporations and other defense contractors get super rich off our tax money- not to protect the American people- its time we realize that!! If the govt wanted to protect us, they would stop invading countries and pissing those foreigners off. Why isn’t Switzerland, who is also a freedom loving nation, a prime target that the terrorist want to attack?
See President Eisenhower 1961 warning about the destructive grip the Military Industrial Complex was starting to have over the our nation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaPwpVdsWWM
Not only are American citizens having to pay more in tax money to fund these overseas actions, but we are also losing our liberties by having to enact the “Patriot Act” to get the terrorists (who would have never been wanting to attack us on 9/11 if we had not be meddling in the middle east in the first place).
“I find it sad that if since Paul says things that someone else does not want to hear (or goes against the lies the American public has been fed their whole lives) then that he is labeled as an extremist.”
I love hearing from people who portend to “know” the lies we Americans have been fed our whole lives. Goody.
“I guess by definition that would be true however (ie out of the mainstream). Mr Boyer you have bought into the lies the govt is telling you to control you so they can continue to justify robbing American citizens’ money and rights. For example, 9/11 was our fault! The terrorists even told us that! How much more proof do you want?”
And you gotta love the Blame-America-firsters.
“We have been paying high taxes for an over-bloated military to fund never ending wars in the Middle East.”
Wrong. We have been paying higher taxes because of unchecked entitlement spending.
“These high-priced and never-ending military endeavors sole purpose is for the Military Industrial Complex corporations and other defense contractors get super rich off our tax money- not to protect the American people- its time we realize that!! If the govt wanted to protect us, they would stop invading countries and pissing those foreigners off. Why isn’t Switzerland, who is also a freedom loving nation, a prime target that the terrorist want to attack?
See President Eisenhower 1961 warning about the destructive grip the Military Industrial Complex was starting to have over the our nation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaPwpVdsWWM”
Wow. Just wow.
“Right. You enjoyed seeing the Pentagon on fire.”
“My pleasure,” Moussaoui said. Spencer was leading Moussaoui exactly where Spencer—and Moussaoui himself—wanted to go.
“And you remember hearing Lt. Col. John Thurman describe he had to crawl out with his face against the floor to save his life?”
“He was pathetic.”
“You enjoyed that, didn’t you?”
“I was regretful he didn’t die.”
“Well, here is somebody who did die,” Spencer said, as a paralegal flashed a victim’s picture on the courtroom’s screens. “Do you remember that gentleman?”
“I remember his wife, the blond-haired girl,” Moussaoui said.
“That’s Vince Tolbert, who worked for the United States Navy, right? He was killed on 9/11 in the Pentagon.”
“Yes, the one that said to her children that some bad people have killed her husband. And she forgot to tell to her children that her husband was working classified, something about targeting.”
“And it made you particularly happy that he was killed that day, correct?”
“Make my day,” Moussaoui replied.
“Do you remember the testimony of Lt. McKeown?”
“The woman like was talking about: Where are my boy, where are my boy?”
“Right,” Spencer said, “sobbing in that very chair because the people under her command were killed. Do you remember that?”
“I think it was disgusting for a military person to pretend that they should not be killed as an act of war. She is military. She should expect that people who are at war with her will try to kill her. I will never, I will never cry because an American bombed my camp.”
“And you were happy that her two men were killed that day?”
“Make my day.”
“All right,” Spencer said. “You were happy that every single person who came in here sad, telling about the effect that you and your brothers [had], you were happy about all that, weren’t you? No regret, no remorse—right, Mr. Moussaoui?”
“No regret, no remorse.”
“Like it to all happen again, right?”
“Every day, until we get here to you.”
Testimony from Moussaoui’s trial. Pay particular attention to the last sentence, Pat.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/moussaoui_v_the_united_states/
“Not only are American citizens having to pay more in tax money to fund these overseas actions, but we are also losing our liberties by having to enact the “Patriot Act” to get the terrorists (who would have never been wanting to attack us on 9/11 if we had not be meddling in the middle east in the first place).”
What liberties are law-abiding people losing with respect to the Patriot Act?
“What liberties are law-abiding people losing with respect to the Patriot Act?”
I better hurry to Facebook and de-friend Ahmadinejad before the FBI comes calling…
Oh Jeff, you bad, bad boy….
That’s what I thought.
You THINK, Ray!?
I guess not too much when responding to your posts, Jeff.
Not a whole bunch of “intellectual” going on in that respect.
Zingerino, Ray! I’ll say this for you, you’re consistent.
http://www.hark.com/clips/zlvxmmzzbf-ill-say-this-for-him-hes-consistent
Do you need to borrow my glasses as you already took my tinfoil hat ?
On July 03, 2009 the CRPD used the Patriot Act to do a sneak and peak of my apartment to find “cause” to arrest me as they had nothing before the search. Since 9/11 things have changed; 80 year old people get tazed; people who are mentally incapable of understanding an order are just shot to death when no real treat to anyone exits. They strip search 3 year old girls at airports. No Cop needs a search warrant to go through your financial records anymore as they just say you are a terriorist; and some how that is good enough.
Now, the National Defense Authorization Act as amended in 2011 and signed by OBAMA allows the United States Government to indefenitly detain any U.S. citizen on a whim and no proof they are in fact what they are accused of being.
My case exactly, they had nothing and had I not recorded the break in I would be sitting behind bars just because they CAN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rob,
I just went back to read your post regarding the events of July 03, 2009. I hope readers take your past statements into account before weighing any current opinion you may offer.
Wow!
Ken: No name-calling allowed by our rules of engagement. So we will delete “nutjob.”
Ray, your post does not “refudiate” anything I said. The only “refudiation” you made to a claim that I presented was where you said “Wrong. We have been paying higher taxes because of unchecked entitlement spending.”
If you look closely at the govts budget receipts and spending, you will see that entitlements are not “true” expense to the general fund because they are for all practical purposes self-funded programs from payroll taxes not income taxes. To that point I will direct you toward the following links. This link shows where the govt spends its money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png Now before you say that graph proves your point, you need to look at this graph which shows where the govt gets its money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png As you can see with these two graphs, the govt gets 40% of its money from FICA payroll taxes (ie Social Security and Medicare taxes), but spends only 20% of it for actual Social Security entitlements (see the first graph). The remaining 20% is spent toward Medicare/Medicaid entailment spending (see first graph). Since the govt spends 23% on Medicare/ Medicaid that leaves a deficit of 3%. This 3% comes from other revenue sources and in reality is what you can truly claim that the govt “spends” on entitlements. In other words, if SS/ Medicare taxes that are collected from workers paychecks went into a separate “lockbox” (as it should be) and did not go into the general fund, entitlement spending would only be 3% from the general fund. Where as defense spending is 20% from the general fund. As a side note there is even more military spending “hidden” in the Discretionary spending category from the first chart. The chart at this link shows how discretionary spending is broken down: http://dissidentvoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2-Discretionary-Budget-2010.jpg 58% of it goes to the military. So 58% of 19% is 11%- you can add that to the 20% Defense Spending from the main category chart. So in the end, when you break down the confusing shell game Congress plays to deceive the American people, we see that the govt spends 31% of our income taxes on defense spending and only spends 3% of income taxes on entitlements. I would not call 3% runaway entitlement spending, would you?
As for your trial quotes, I know they hate us. The question is why? please see my reply to your other post on this thread for a more detailed response on this…
More refutation for you Pat. It certainly is not in the least about us “bombing” them like Paul says:
On Thursday, “Muslims worldwide will again be watching replays of the collapse of the Twin Towers, praying to Allah.” But they won’t be praying for what you might expect: these Muslims will be asking Allah to admit into Paradise “those magnificent 19,” the September 11 terrorists.
Is this more “Islamophobia” from the Right? Another venomous Orientalist caricature of Islam, begging for a rebuke from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)? Hardly. These are statements from the British radical Muslim group Al-Muhajiroun, which asserts that Muslims worldwide will also be praying on the 11th that the “reverberations” of the attacks two years ago will “continue until the eradication of all man-made law and the implementation of divine law in the form of the Khilafah [caliphate].” In other words, Al-Muhajiroun is calling for the restoration of the caliphate (the last caliph, the successor of Muhammad as political and spiritual leader of Sunni Muslims, was forced to resign by secular Turkey in 1924) and the universal imposition of Islamic law, the Sharia.
Bush, Blair, and Co. are just the enemies of the moment: “What we see before us is merely the collapse of another evil empire (i.e. the USA) just like the collapse of the empires of Pharaoh, Caesar and Nimrod in the past.” The larger, global struggle will continue until Muslims achieve “Izhar ud-Deen, i.e. the total domination of the world by Islam.”
Huh.
I have tons more quotes if you like.
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=16420
So Ray, I can quote Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church as a fair representative of ALL christians, evangelical or otherwise!?
Oh, please do!
I’m thinking about penning an LTE about the recent murders of christians by Muslim extremists in Nigeria, and tieing that incident to the recent anti-gay law passed in Nigeria, and the influence American evangelicals have had in stoking homophobia in Uganda, to argue that christians may be victims of sectarian violence while committing their own brand of sectarian violence. Whaddya think?
Do it, Jeff.
Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129422524
“Jeff Sharlet has written extensively about the Family, whose members include senators and representatives. He’s the author of The Family and the forthcoming book, C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy.”
Jeff…I can give you hundreds of quotes from people which make Pat’s presumption look sill. It has nothing to do with us being “over there”.
It’s so hard to find good help anymore!
“It certainly is not in the least about us “bombing” them”
Ray, your argument does not disprove this. You only list yet more proof that they hate America. I don’t deny this! They do hate us; Why do you keep arguing something that we both agree on and then trying to position me as not thinking that they don’t hate us? (can you say straw-man?)
Again, I agree with Ron Paul, the reason why the hate has been fomented and directed toward America is because we have been meddling in their affairs and bombing them for decades.
Are the terrorists are attacking us is because they are trying to dominate the world? No. This is an illogical for two reasons: 1) They are not attacking counties like Sweden, Norway, Germany, Russia and other countries that don’t constantly meddle in Middle East affairs like the US and Great Britain does. If their motivation was to dominate the world, wouldn’t these counties be attacked too? 2) How does flying planes into buildings further the supposed goal of Muslims wanting to dominate America or dominate the world? It doesn’t. Terrorists attacking us does absolutely nothing to advance toward a supposed goal of world domination, does it? There must be some other reason for terrorist attacks. Maybe Ron Paul is right!
“Again, I agree with Ron Paul, the reason why the hate has been fomented and directed toward America is because we have been meddling in their affairs and bombing them for decade.
Yet the opinion I quoted directly contradicts this, and I have many other quotes which disprove your theory. They have attacked in man other countries, Pat. Why are they bombing Malaysia? Other places in Europe?
Answer please to the example I have given.
Ray, I did answer directly to your example. You do this all the time where you only focus on one part of my reasoning and ignore the totality of the argument that I present. I will say it again: Terrorists carrying out attacks is not a logical way to spread Islam to be a dominant religion throughout the world. Killing 50 or even 2000 people at a given time does nothing to archive this supposed goal in a world of 7 billion, and add to that they only target specific folks, and these folks they specifically target just happen to be the same folks who are meddling in the Middle East- that being us Americans. As for the Malaysian terrorist attacks, those attacks were aimed at foreigners, not the Malaysian people- which supports Ron Pual’s point that the terrorists are only mad at America for meddling in the middle east and bombing them over the past several decades. It is becoming a tactic of terrorists attack Americans in other counties which have weak security because it has become increasing difficult to for them to freely move about in the US since the Patriot Act allows for easier govt spying of people inside the US.
Please read Andrew Wellnitz comment on this thread here: http://thegazette.com/2012/01/10/ron-paul-is-more-extreme-than-obama/#comment-1069029 Ray, you need to ook terrorist attacks from a different perspective: What would American citizens do if a superior country bombed us for decades, set up their military bases in America to make sure our military remained weak? We too would have “freedom fighters” (ie terrorists) try to conduct raids and terrorist attacks against that country too, right?
Do you now see the true reason the terrorists are attacking us, Ray?
The author is very poorly informed on every point he makes. I’ll address just his first topic Iran. The US used the CIA to overthrow the Iranian democratically elected government to install the Shah to protect British Petroleum profits in the 1950′s. The Shah imposed a brutal dictatorship with all the attendant horrors. When overthrown and the Muslim leadership took over, the US next used Iraq and Sadam to try and get access to the oil again. Millions of more deaths again in Iran. That has still not worked. The US is trying again to obtain Iran’s oil wealth by fomenting a war under false pretenses. If Iran is attempting to obtain nuclear weapons, it would be because of US corporate imperialism. Iran has not been the aggressor here. The following video goes into the false pretense concept http://youtu.be/8KiRAMvAlpQ and the history of US aggression in Iran here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE
The letter writer implies that President Obama is a left wing extremist and that is just not true. Why do you think liberals are so disappointed in him.
About the only liberal thing he has done is to advocate for affordable health care. But even in that, he adopted a very Republican oriented idea. Everyone knows that it is modeled after the Massachusetts plan developed under Romney. People forget that it is also modeled after a plan promoted by the Republicans in the legislature in the early 90s as a preferred alternative to Hillary Clinton’s plan.
President Obama slightly left of center. To imply that he is a left wing extremist is just a mendacity.
“Everyone knows”
Criminey, Rich, why should Iet you get away with using that phrase when I excoriate my students for doing so!?
Generally I support you but your didactic lecture is not appreciated or appropriate. It’s a logomachy that distracts from the, much more important, subject at hand.
Deal with it, Rich: the “everybody knows” phrase is grating and inaccurate, and indicative of an epistemological issue. How do you “know” what “everbody” does!?
“Everyone knows” is an “allness statement”. Terms like “it is well established”, “the evidence shows”. “it is widely known” or even “is is common knowledge” would be better.
Wow. Not only is this letter stale, Mr. Boyer’s tone is hardly that of a person who can label another “extremist.”
Mr. Boyer, since you are so enamored of the Patriot Act, I hope you’ve been careful about what you check out from the CR Public Library…
Calling someone “more extreme than Obama” is like declaring that someone is more physically intimidating than Elmo of “Sesame Street”. In other words, the writer has set a low reference point.
Having made that observation, has anyone else noticed the similarity between Ron Paul’s TV persona and that of the Mike Hamar character from the old “Red Green Show”?
‘Why isn’t Switzerland, who is also a freedom loving nation, a prime target that the terrorist want to attack?’
Maybe because all their money is in Swiss banks?
Obama is certainly not an extremist and I would place his leanings at right of center, but there is certainly something very scary about Ron Paul. You need to listen carefully to what he says and what he has done in the past. Now that the Republican candidates for President must likely to lead us into World War III have dropped out, there is still Ron Paul left. He has demonstrated that he is clueless about international affairs. Sometimes I wonder if he is really Neville Chamberlain reincarnated. I also recommend that you stay away from all those conspiracy websites.
Don’t forget that Chamberlain was a Tory, a member of the Conservative Party…
Uh, Iowa held a caucus Mr Boyer, the primaries begin in New Hampshire, today actually.
As for who’s more extreme, Obama or Paul, that of course depends on one’s political views. Just as Paul’s supporters don’t see him as “extreme,” many of Obama’s supporters see Obama as left of center. To each their own.
Just read this piece by (horror of horrors!) Charles Blow in the NY Times. It seems that Rick Santorum, off his successful showing in the Iowa Caucuses, is violating christian norms by bearing false witness: Santorum claims Obama is “elitist” for wanting every American child to be prepared for either college or vocational training after high school. Santorum may be the most dangerous radical in the GOP field, and his focus on “culture war” politics as being somehow evidence of his status as a working-class candidate is bogus beyond words.
Am I the only one who is getting fed up with: GOP lies about Obama’s record and statements, and; the pathetic pandering of GOP candidates to anti-intellectual bigotry?
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/rick-santorums-anti-college-rant/?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=thab1
Of course you would read it that way, Jeff. and from a very biased blog site. The point is ANY POTUS should have nothing to say about any post HS education. It’s not his job. People can choose want they want to do with out having O’bummer offering any sort of initiative. That is what you would call FREEDOM. Leave education to parents and educators.
I HAVE been fed up with leftist/progressives/Marxists for a long time now. For myriad reasons.
That you dismiss the NY Times as “a very biased blog site” speaks volumes about how extreme your perspective is, Ray.
Why shouldn’t Obama, or any president for that matter, speak about educational goals for Americans? Obama was simply saying that we, as a nation, need to ensure our young people graduate high school ready to enter post-secondary education, which can be a four-year school, a two-year college prep program at a community college, or vo-tech.
And, Santorum LIED about what Obama said, but you’re OKAY with that!?
“That you dismiss the NY Times as “a very biased blog site” speaks volumes about how extreme your perspective is, Ray.”
LOL…I love how a progressive like youself (extreme progressive) looks at the obviously biased NY Times and thinks its OK to call others out because it is some “moderate” piece of journalism. I would be happy to point to a number of biased pieces, not in the opinion pages, of the NY Times, Jeff.
“Why shouldn’t Obama, or any president for that matter, speak about educational goals for Americans?”
Why should he? The federal government should not have a say in education in the first place, per the Constitution. Secondly, no POTUS should speak to choices regular everyday Americans can make on their own. Have him concentrate on what he should…Take a look at Article I Section 8 if you are unsure of what “should” means.
“Obama was simply saying that we, as a nation, need to ensure our young people graduate high school ready to enter post-secondary education, which can be a four-year school, a two-year college prep program at a community college, or vo-tech.”
Again, not needed. My parents did no quote the POTUS when it came time for my educationsl choices post-HS.
“And, Santorum LIED about what Obama said, but you’re OKAY with that!?”
How?
BTW Jeff, here is a nice study done on the bias of the NY Times, published this last April:
http://www.pubchoicesoc.org/papers2005/Puglisi.pdf
Again, I suggest you look at yourself in the mirror prior to pronouncing how extreme people you disagree with are.
Good grief, Ray, the essay originally appeared in 2004, and covers 1946-1994, with a methodological bias of how issues are defined as “Democratic!” I’m not dismissing Puglisi, just noting some important biases in his own work. And this is a classic example of “argument by authority,” i.e. that your contention is “true” because you can find a corroborating link. And, do you know how “Red” the LSE can be!?
I stand by my characterization of Santorum as an “extremist,” given his oppostion to same-sex marriage, desire to limit women’s access to legal abortion, and his reliance on such “culture war” issues in the GOP primaries. Santorum is playing the resentment card by whining about “elites.” The Rangers and SEALS are “elite,” (as are YOU, given your time and rank in the service) but I hardly think you’d gripe about THOSE guys! Funny, but aren’t the old-school “country-club” Republicans also elite!? Ray, Santorum will soon be another also-ran: do you think the GOP will REALLY nominate a guy who lost a Senatorial race in a key battleground state, Pennsylvania, by 17 points?
Finally, Santorum LIED when he claimed that Obama said all American high-school graduates should go to college: that is emphatically NOT what Obama said. And, I reject your originalist interpretation that a president cannot speak about education. As a responsible leader, it is Obama’s duty to see where the US strands in relation to the rest of the world in educational achievement and propose policies which serve this country and its people’s best interests.
Again, I do not see your originalist interpretation of the constitution as normative, but you knew that…
The NYT is biased? You live in a different world than I do.
In any case, you may have noticed that the piece in on the NYT OPINION blog page. Get it? ‘Opinion’, not ‘reporting’. The Campaign Stop Opinion Blog on the NYT website is described as follows:
‘ABOUT CAMPAIGN STOPS
Weekly pieces by Op-Ed columnists Charles Blow and Ross Douthat, as well as regular posts from contributing writers like Thomas B. Edsall and Timothy Egan. This is also the place for opinionated political thinkers from all over the United States to make their arguments about everything connected to the 2012 election. Yes, everything: the candidates, the states, the caucuses, the issues, the rules, the controversies, the primaries, the ads, the electorate, the present, the past, and even the future.
Ummm, yes Elias. They are incredibly biased. I suggest you take off your progressive/leftist blinders to see for sure. And yes that fact it is a blog is why I said something to Jeff in the first place.
That’s a tactic, Chapelle. Discredit a source by labeling it “biased” or “leftist/liberal” or “right-wing” and then claim anything from the source is thereby discredited. (I’ve seen posts on the Gazette board claiming the Gazette is one or the other. Obviously it can’t be both — and if you can’t “see” it as one or the other you’re blind ! .) A similar tactic is used against individuals as well (Marxist, Commy, wing nut, or claiming association with same (witness the black-listing back in the 50′s).
FREEDOM!!!
Did you know the new statue erected to William Wallace in Scotland looks exactly like Mel Gibson? Unfortunately, I had to see it to believe it.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=braveheart+freedom&view=detail&mid=8697431ADE302E70EFF58697431ADE302E70EFF5&first=0&FORM=LKVR26
Fox News hates Ron Paul, Redstate hates Ron Paul, FReepers hate Ron Paul, RINOs hate Ron Paul… sheesh, sounds like EVERYBODY hates Ron Paul except his small group of core supporters!
I’m going to agree with the letter writer: Ron Paul is more extreme than Obama.
I happen to agree with Boyer as well Julie, but again it’s all in who you ask as to who’s extreme, and who’s not.
I don’t hate Ron Paul, I actually kind of like the guy. For one thing he tends to say what he thinks rather than say what he thinks his audience wants to hear when most politicians do the opposite (pander). I respect that. That being said, I think a number of his ideas border on loony and I couldn’t possibly consider voting for him. For now I only see Romney and Huntsman as having the potential for getting my vote.
If I were a Republican, I would vote for Huntsman.
Ditto, followed by Romney.
Harumph! Given how the GOP has run this country and disgraced itself, if I were a Republican with a shred of honor, I’d commit seppuku…
“a Republican with a shred of honor”
Surely you jest. (And don’t call me Shirley)
If you were a Republican with a shred of honor, you’d be called a “RINO.”
right lori and I’m sure zell miller was a shining example of liberalism in your eyes…
If you say so Ray…
I don’t “hate” Ron Paul either, Julie. I simply contend that the brand of libertarianism he espouses is naive at best, and serves the ideological purpose of justifying laissez-faire capitalism. As for his newsletters, the very best they say about him is that he was lazy about protecting his name and ensuring they were an accurate representation of his views and character
Ray had to go, fox news must of come on.
LOL!!! That’s funny!
I get news from a number of different sources, francis. I also have other things going on on my life as well, and cannot live on these message boards as many here do. Now by all means make sure you make it to your next workers world pary rally on time…
“I also have other things going on on my life as well, and cannot live on these message boards as many here do.”
Sometimes you practically trip over your own ironic statements Ray….
Enjoy Ray’s talent, Lori…
What’s ironic about it Lori? Look at the number of posts by the resident progressives here, and then compare that total to mine.
That is the only point I was making.
So says the man who had, like 4 zillion posts under the old IntenseDebate system…
If you can’t see the irony Ray, then I can’t help you.
That 4 gazillion still didn’t touch the volume you regurgitated here Jeff.
And Lori, thankfully, I don’t need, nor want your help.
So Ray, is the rumor I heard true, that you did a screentest for the DI role in “Full Metal Jacket,” but lost because R. Lee Ermey was more photogenic?
Still can’t accept the truth, can you Ray?
We need a third party in this country. One that represents the people and not the corporations and self concerted political hacks.
While I don’t agree with all of Ron Paul’s idea, I do agree with most. Right now, we are caught up with Iran and nukes. Who wants them to have the bomb? It sure the h*** isn’t Saudi Arabia, Turkey, or any other country in the Middle East. If we weren’t there, they would be cleaning up their own back yard. Iran is the only Shia country in the Middle East. The rest of the Islamic world would do everything in their power to stop this. China receives large amounts of oil from Iran, as does Russia. Both have said that they will back Iran in a conflict. Are we really willing to risk WWIII over Iran? Just a note here: The US has been at a state of war since 1990, Desert Shield. We have had armed conflict with Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, and I might have missed some, all in the last 20 years.
The other argument I hear a lot is Ron Paul’s stance on drugs. He views on this are as a true Libertarian. While I don’t agree, I don’t see the problem with this on a Federal level. Let the States regulate drugs (they are ready do). If CA wants to legalize pot, it would be up to them. Right now federal law prohibits that. Give power back to the states. That is the true message of Ron Paul.
With his comment on him not seeing himself in the white house, I want a person who doesn’t dream of it. I want a president that hasn’t dreamed of it since he was five years old. Every comment I see about Ron Paul is based on fear. Freedom can be scary. It means it hurts when you fail. However, the day you sacrifice your freedom for security, you are no longer free.
Ron Paul’s credo:
“If you’re white, you’re alright, if you’re brown, stick around, if you’re black get back, and if you have green, I’m very keen.”
Have you people never heard of Blowback? If China’s military marched into the U.S. and set up military bases in our country, how do you think we would respond? Who would we blame for the response? What about the just war theory of Christianity? None of these wars that we are engaged in are legal consitutionally declared wars.
As far as legalizing heroin, do you really need the govt to tell you not to shoot heroin? Besides RP does not want to completely legalize heroin. He wants to end the deadly federal drug war and put the responsibility of handling these problems back in the hands of the states where it properly belongs.
…and what about the federal reserve? Do you care nothing at all that the fed counterfeits money to bail out the banks and corperations and fund the military industrial complex, all the while devaluing our dollar and robbing from the middle class. The liberal Romney nor any other candidate ever talks about the Fed!!!
Ron Paul is an extremist, that is for sure!
“extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! …moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue”
-Barry Goldwater
And as far as distinguishing between libertarians and republican…
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”
-Ronald Reagan
“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”
-Ronald Reagan
Andrew, RUN, don’t walk, to the nearest medical clinic and begin the anti-rabies shots NOW!
good argument!
It’s the reply you earned and deserved…
Excellent post Andrew, well said!! I didn’t know the concept was called “blow-back”.
PS- Don’t mind Jeff’s snark comment, he is a good guy. He is just jealous that you have such as well reasoned argument and he cannot come up with a logical response to discredit any points of your argument, so he just resorted to an ad hominem attack to discredit you.
Sheesh, Pat, there you go enabling again.
Paul’s version of federalism would not only shift drug policy back to the states, it would also end federal protection of American citizens’ civil rights and women’s abortion rights. I will continue to make the class argument about abortion: if she has enough money, a woman will always be able to travel to those localities which allow abortion. If you can’t afford to travel and want to end a pregnancy, well, that’s your tough luck. And, Paul calls himself “pro-life,” which is enough evidence for me to conclude he and I are on opposite sides of the abortion issue.
Let’s dig deeper. The concept of the federal government asserting its supremacy in protecting citizens’ rights dates to the end of the Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. The Civil War also settled the question of whether individual states could leave the Union. Lincoln fought a war to preserve the Union; Ulysses Grant laid the foundation for federal enforcement of civil rights law. Ron Paul’s vision of federalism has been superseded by history.
Andrew did get the concept of blowback right, but look at what he missed. He quotes Reagan approvingly, but overlooks that it was Reagan who armed the Afghan mujahadin, which included a wealthy young Saudi, Osama bin Laden. I contend it was Reagan administration support of the mujahadin which was the genesis of Al Qaeda and 9/11. And, did you forget the birthday cake Reagan sent to the Ayatolluh and the Iran-Contra scandal!?
Is that cogent enough for you, Pat? Criminey…
Yes, I am happy now. I don’t agree with everything Paul says on the states rights stuff (i.e. civil rights, abortion, drugs, etc), but he is dead on 100% right about our flawed foreign policy, wars, and role of govt,- Why can’t you give him credit for that? I admit Paul is a little to extreme about ending the Fed idea, but I do think we need to have serous overhaul of the Fed (namely don’t allow it to be controlled by private for-profit banks anymore).
Even though I strongly disagree with Paul on the states rights stuff, that does not mean I should outright dismiss his other positions too. My intent was to stick up for Paul on the ideas he is right about, not be an “enabler.” I will support anyone (left or right) when he/she is right on an issue and speak out against him/her when they are wrong on an issue. If you want to call that enabling, so be it…..
Pat, I have to be an equal opportunity offender, especially since my mere presence here honks off so many of the righties.
As for Paul, there is a difference between being anti-imperialist and isolationist: Paul is the latter. I know enough about economics to dismiss Paul’s implied desire to return to the gold standard as unrealistic and potentially ruinous: imagine what deflation of the currency would do to this economy.
I think it was John Mellencamp who sang, “You’ve got to stand for something, or you’ll fall for anything.” Much of what Paul preaches is anathema to me.
Jeff, you missed my point. I personally believe that TRUE conservatism and libertarianisn are one in the same and republicans, if they are going to call themselves conservatives, should hold to libertarian beliefs. I was not quoting Reagan to praise or “approve” of him. I was trying to make the point to the letter writer, who is an obvious die-hard republican, that even his likely idol, understood this.
understood this… to an extent.
Sorry, Andrew, but I’ve had a bellyful of people trying to describe their ideology as “true” conservatism, which is a chimera.
I define “conservatism” in its most basic form: an ideology which defends the status quo and all of its injustices as somehow natural and inevitable.
I think human beings can do better than that in organizing how we live.