RP Spammers Unite to Win North Carolina County Strawpoll

[evince]

Damn the R field has nothing but assholes in it.

 

[Cancel7]

Why did he take 5 years to disavow this madness?

Why did he claim the words were his?

Why did he call the comments his "tongue in-cheek academic writings"?

Why did hie spokesman say "the comments were similar to Jesse Jackson's" .. which only a complete fool would believe?

Another question...why didn't he fire the people who were responsible for the writings in his newsletter? Somebody signed off on that content, whoever he put in charge of editorial decisions, because he says "it wasn't me".

If that happened to me, you'd know I didn't know about it, because there would be a trail of bodies, when I found about it, that you could point to and say "see?"

I would fire everyone involved, and possibly sue the person who put that slander in a newsletter with MY name on it, if it was possible to do so. But either way, you'd find a trail, trust me.

 

[Cypress]

Would the National Weather be an Interstate Commerce issue? As well as FEMA? Hmmm... Methinks you exaggerate because it makes you feel smart, but in reality it gives the impression that you are being disingenuous purposefully.

Anyway, Interstate Commerce is one of the powers granted the Feds under the constitution, many things that you mention fall under that. But heck, you can pretend that they only fall under "General Welfare", and if it were so, then Amendments to the constitution would be necessary. Thankfully it isn't so, and pretending this isn't working here.

Would the National Weather be an Interstate Commerce issue?

LOL

Please, this is about as broad and dare I say,, liberal interpretation of the commerce clause as you could imagine. Why not leave climatological data up to the States? lol

What about the National Park Service, USEPA, US Geological Survey, Center for Disease Control, Sandia and Livermore National Labs?

If the constitution is limited to the libertarian view of enumerated powers, you should advocate eliminating these federal functions.

 

[Damocles]

Why did he take 5 years to disavow this madness?

Why did he claim the words were his?

Why did he call the comments his "tongue in-cheek academic writings"?

Why did hie spokesman say "the comments were similar to Jesse Jackson's" .. which only a complete fool would believe?

I think he took bad advice and is embarrassed about it. I know I would be.

 

[Damocles]

Would the National Weather be an Interstate Commerce issue?

LOL

Please, this is about as broad and dare I say,, liberal interpretation of the commerce clause as you could imagine. Why not leave climatological data up to the States? lol

What about the National Park Service, USEPA, US Geological Survey, Center for Disease Control, Sandia and Livermore National Labs?

If the constitution is limited to the libertarian view of enumerated powers, you should advocate eliminating these federal functions.

Because the states would be unable to see into the next one and thus accurately predict the weather, well as accurately as possible.

And Interstate Commerce is one of the enumerated powers. I don't advocate going beyond what is actually there. Much like a national Aircraft Control. It would be nearly impossible to ignore the Interstate Commerce issue in that one. As well as noting the weather would effect such Interstate Commerce as Airlines as well as the Trucking industry...

My guess is you assume that all libertarians agree on everything perfectly and thus can dismiss any comment by a libertarian without actually reading it.

 

[blackascoal]

Yeah. Its Bullshit.

This is why an ultra orthodox libertiarian or ultra conservative can never be trusted to run the federal government. If they really believe in the limited enumerated powers (their intrepretation), there are only two choices:

1) They can advocate abolishing the National Park Service, Center for Disease Control, National Hurrican Center, etc.

2) Or they can lie, and say they support keeping those agencies.


Even if they choose the second option, they can't trusted. No one who is philosophically opposed to a Federal National Hurricane Center, can be trusted to run it, or be committed to it.

With all the anger and horror about the disaster of Katrina, he would leave that horror and lives that hang precariously in the balance to "charity" and eliminate FEMA. After taking credit for disaster relief legislation, that he voted AGAINST .. here is what he had to say ..

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"

Robbed???

This man has no sense socio-ethical responsibility for his fellow citizens. He thinks it's robbery for Americans to have a sense of duty and responsibilty to help in times of disaster.

 

[Cypress]

Anybody who is opposed to it ignores the Interstate Commerce implications.

It isn't like this guy is going to get elected as President people. I stated long ago people take way too much energy to discredit an extreme longshot, even taking writing from blogs and editorials that aren't even archived on the newspaper's site itself as evidence of something heinous. I believe that those newsletters went out, I don't necessarily believe that they were the sentiments of the man in question. I get his current newsletters and there is nothing in them that gives any indication that this is in his heart.

Damo, if you're going to justify all the federal functions I outlined, by using the commerce clause, you are truly being creative and LIBERAL in interpreting the commerce clause. CDC, National Park Service, Sandia Lab, and USGS are interstate commerce issues? LOL When did you become an extreme liberal, using broad and almost comical interpretation of the commerce clause?

Frankly, it doesn't matter on a functional level. If you want to keep all the federal functions the liberals have wisely implemented at the federa level, by citing the commerce clause, rather than the tax and spend clause, I'm cool with that.

Because, liberals win either way

 

[Damocles]

Damo, if you're going to justify all the federal functions I outlined, by using the commerce clause, you are truly being creative and LIBERAL in interpreting the commerce clause. CDC, National Park Service, Sandia Lab, and USGS are interstate commerce issues? LOL When did you become an extreme liberal, using broad and almost comical interpretation of the commerce clause?

Frankly, it doesn't matter on a functional level. If you want to keep all the federal functions the liberals have wisely implemented at the federa level, by citing the commerce clause, rather than the tax and spend clause, I'm cool with that.

Because, liberals win either way

No. I explained, but as I said you don't listen. You assume my opinion without regard to what I actually state.

It would be very difficult to not note the Interstate Commerce issues I outlined above.

 

[evince]

This is why Libertarians will never get any traction.

Young bright white males always seem to toy with its ideas in their youth and then grow up, old libertarians like Paul are just crazy bigots I guess.

 

[Damocles]

With all the anger and horror about the disaster of Katrina, he would leave that horror and lives that hang precariously in the balance to "charity" and eliminate FEMA. After taking credit for disaster relief legislation, that he voted AGAINST .. here is what he had to say ..

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"

Robbed???

This man has no sense socio-ethical responsibility for his fellow citizens. He thinks it's robbery for Americans to have a sense of duty and responsibilty to help in times of disaster.

There is some point to this though. Do they take no responsibility for choosing to live in the path of Hurricanes in a city with much of it below sea level?

 

[DigitalDave]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/m...d=4&ei=5070&en=fe4aa26b26120ce5&ex=1187323200

The question is whether the old ideologies being resurrected are neglected wisdom or discredited nonsense. In the 1996 general election, Paul’s Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and stated that “by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.” Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul’s newsletter as a laudably “racialist” publication.

Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.

What is interesting is Paul’s idea that the identity of the person who did write those lines is “of no importance.” Paul never deals in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians do. In his office one afternoon in June, I asked about his connections to the John Birch Society. “Oh, my goodness, the John Birch Society!” he said in mock horror. “Is that bad? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with. Because they’re real strict constitutionalists, they don’t like the war, they’re hard-money people. . . . ”

 

[Cypress]

Because the states would be unable to see into the next one and thus accurately predict the weather, well as accurately as possible.

And Interstate Commerce is one of the enumerated powers. I don't advocate going beyond what is actually there. Much like a national Aircraft Control. It would be nearly impossible to ignore the Interstate Commerce issue in that one. As well as noting the weather would effect such Interstate Commerce as Airlines as well as the Trucking industry...

My guess is you assume that all libertarians agree on everything perfectly and thus can dismiss any comment by a libertarian without actually reading it.

They problem is Damo, you libertarians confuse me.

On the one hand, you all claim with great certainly, that Section 8 of the Constitution limits federal function to about ten or twelve very specific functions. And that states should handle everything else. If your interpretation of the Constitution is correct, I read Section 8 and don't see ANY way to squeeze a Center for Disease Control, or one of our world class national science labs (e.g. Livermore) into Section 8.

But then, ten mintues later I'm being told that libertarians will support these federal functions anyway.


You guys have to pick one.

I'm not comfortable putting someone into a position of governance, who is philosophically oppossed to the feds doing anything beyond national defense, property rights, and patent enforcment (i.e., the so called enumerated powers)

 

[Cancel7]

Dave, that NY Times piece does not tell me anything I did not know, and is proof of nothing other than what I already believe, which is, this "explanation" years later, does not pass the smell test.

I think that Desh is correct when she says that a lot of bright white men flirt with being a libertarian when they are very young, but then wake up. Believe it or not? That was once Ornot, long ago. So that's cool.

But this stuff, come on, just stop. I truly feel as you are insulting my intelligence by even asking me to believe this stuff.

 

[Damocles]

They problem is Damo, you libertarians confuse me.

On the one hand, you all claim with great certainly, that Section 8 of the Constitution limits federal function to about ten or twelve very specific functions. And that states should handle everything else. If your interpretation of the Constitution is correct, I read Section 8 and don't see ANY way to squeeze a Center for Disease Control, or one of our world class national science labs (e.g. Livermore) into Section 8.

But then, ten mintues later I'm being told that libertarians will support these federal functions anyway.


You guys have to pick one.

I'm not comfortable putting someone into a position of governance, who is philosophically oppossed to the feds doing anything beyond national defense, property rights, and patent enforcment (i.e., the so called enumerated powers)

There are many who would ignore the clear Interstate Commerce implications in a CDC, but I would not be one of them. But then I have always "leaned" libertarian, I have always been clear where I was politically with you, but you can pretend that several years of past threads and conversations don't exist because I am "libertarian" and therefore "easily dismissed" in your mind as believing "this" or "that".

Instead of wondering whey more libertarians don't take the whole document.

I would limit these agencies to Interstate commerce issues, as I said in another recent thread. I would not assume authority over every piece of medicine because there are Interstate Commerce issues. And I would pay attention to the limitations as well as the powers.

 

[blackascoal]

Another question...why didn't he fire the people who were responsible for the writings in his newsletter? Somebody signed off on that content, whoever he put in charge of editorial decisions, because he says "it wasn't me".

If that happened to me, you'd know I didn't know about it, because there would be a trail of bodies, when I found about it, that you could point to and say "see?"

I would fire everyone involved, and possibly sue the person who put that slander in a newsletter with MY name on it, if it was possible to do so. But either way, you'd find a trail, trust me.

I wrote an article on Ron Paul that details everything I've stated here. Then I sent it to Ron Paul and defied him to charge me with slander.

Libertarians read my article and started to deludge me with hate mail .. until I did exactly what I've done here .. then they went away. I defied every single one of them to have Ron Paul accuse me of slander. My article wasn't the first to detail this truth but NOBODY has been charged with slander because their information still exists.

To ANY Paul supporter here .. CALL RON PAUL AND TELL HIM TO CHARGE ME WITH SLANDER .. I DEFY HIM TO DO SO.

The man is running for POTUS and if this wasn't true, would he not accuse me and others who know with slander?

Let me also state that I'm a writer, among other things, and I know how to research. I've spoken to two people from the Houston area NAACP, who were mentioned in some of the evidence, I've spoken to Eric Dondero who was Paul's Campaign Manager and Executive Aide, I've spoken to Chris Peden who is running against Paul in the upcoming election in CD14, and I've spoken to reporters from Texas Monthly and the Houston Chronicle.

The evidence is solid, documented, and undeniably true.

SHOW ME ONE STATEMENT OF HIS .. JUST ONE .. WHERE HE DENOUNCES THE HATE GROUPS AND PEOPLE HE'S PARTICIPATES WITH.

 

[DigitalDave]

Dave, that NY Times piece does not tell me anything I did not know, and is proof of nothing other than what I already believe, which is, this "explanation" years later, does not pass the smell test.

I think that Desh is correct when she says that a lot of bright white men flirt with being a libertarian when they are very young, but then wake up. Believe it or not? That was once Ornot, long ago. So that's cool.

But this stuff, come on, just stop. I truly feel as you are insulting my intelligence by even asking me to believe this stuff.

I'm posting the NY Times article because they give another piece of evidence that the words were not his own. A NY Times journalist explained that the writing style was not similar to Ron Paul's.

 

[Damocles]

I wrote an article on Ron Paul that details everything I've stated here. Then I sent it to Ron Paul and defied him to charge me with slander.

Libertarians read my article and started to deludge me with hate mail .. until I did exactly what I've done here .. then they went away. I defied every single one of them to have Ron Paul accuse me of slander. My article wasn't the first to detail this truth but NOBODY has been charged with slander because their information still exists.

To ANY Paul supporter here .. CALL RON PAUL AND TELL HIM TO CHARGE ME WITH SLANDER .. I DEFY HIM TO DO SO.

The man is running for POTUS and if this wasn't true, would he not accuse me and others who know with slander?

Let me also state that I'm a writer, among other things, and I know how to research. I've spoken to two people from the Houston area NAACP, who were mentioned in some of the evidence, I've spoken to Eric Dondero who was Paul's Campaign Manager and Executive Aide, I've spoken to Chris Peden who is running against Paul in the upcoming election in CD14, and I've spoken to reporters from Texas Monthly and the Houston Chronicle.

The evidence is solid, documented, and undeniably true.

SHOW ME ONE STATEMENT OF HIS .. JUST ONE .. WHERE HE DENOUNCES THE HATE GROUPS AND PEOPLE HE'S PARTICIPATES WITH.

Political slander is specifically exempted from those laws. This makes it so they can make up crap on those ads and still get away with it. So I would not expect R. Paul to be able to "charge" you with slander. That being said, he often does not distance himself as the NYT article states.

 

[Cypress]

There are many who would ignore the clear Interstate Commerce implications in a CDC, but I would not be one of them. But then I have always "leaned" libertarian, I have always been clear where I was politically with you, but you can pretend that several years of past threads and conversations don't exist because I am "libertarian" and therefore "easily dismissed" in your mind as believing "this" or "that".

Instead of wondering whey more libertarians don't take the whole document.

I would limit these agencies to Interstate commerce issues, as I said in another recent thread. I would not assume authority over every piece of medicine because there are Interstate Commerce issues. And I would pay attention to the limitations as well as the powers.

C'mon Damo: Trying to squeeze the CDC, Livermore Science Lab, or the National Park Service, into the interstate commerce clause is just a way for you to appear ideologically consistent with your assertion about the limits on federal functions, vis a vis the "enumerated powers".

CDC is a public health function. Livermore is a science function. As is USGS.

 

[Battleborne]

"ditto head" is a snarky expression, which, you used directed at me, and I think it's because you're jealous that you don't have any of your own dittoheads, unless you count BB when he was trying to get into your pants.

I think this comment applies to you darla...damo is straight as well as I...this works better for y'all code pinkies!

 

[DigitalDave]

I'm guessing Ron doesn't distance himself because he doesn't want to draw more attention to it. He knows you can't explain things away. Darla is showing that to be true. Ron gave an explanation for those writings, and she thinks they are far-fetched. I don't blame her, but I know in politics, there is a lot of dirty shit that goes on, and it's best just not to draw attention to someone who is slinging the shit, and just ignore them.