RP Spammers Unite to Win North Carolina County Strawpoll

[Damocles]

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.

Do you actually READ any of my posts? Seriously, I already explained how CDC easily fits into Interstate commerce, why don't you go back so I don't have to make another post you won't read?

As for the National Parks, not Interstate Commerce, states should handle that. Except where they cross state lines.... Hmmm....

The Livermore Science Lab is what started my "Why don't they read Section 8 that specifies how the Federal Government can support science?"

So there you are right.

 

[blackascoal]

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

Paul is the ONLY person in Congress to get a 100% rating from the John Birch Society .. which means that he agrees with them on a lot more than their narrow view of the Constitution.
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004474M

From the article you posted ...

But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not.

So what his his denial "quite believable" .. particularly when he stated "voters would not understand my tongue-in-cheek academic writings?"

 

[Damocles]

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.

My guess is that is exactly the advice he got from his Political Advisors.

 

[blackascoal]

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.

It is absolutely mindless to believe that he would not distance himself from the comments if they were not his immediately.

HE DID SO 5 YEARS LATER.

So the non-argument that "he doesn't distance himself" is a foolish argument because when the heat was on, that is exactly what he weakly tried to do.

 

[Cancel7]

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.

Dave, I'm a writer, writing styles mean nothing to me, they can be changed easily by someone with even the smallest talent. Also, I trust my own ear when trying to tell the difference between two writers, if that difference exists, and very few other people. They are easily fooled. I know when I cannot tell, and am up against someone with some talent. Most are too arrogant to conclude that.

What a reporter for the NY Times, whose own political affiliation I have no idea of btw (and ny times reporters have them, and if you think they are always liberal, I have a few I'd like to introduce you to), thinks of a "writing style" just has no meaning, especially compared to the common sense questions I have asked.

Why was no one fired? Why was nothing done? Why did it take him all of those years to disavow the comments, and "I was advised" not to is not an answer. Nobody could advise me not to scream that those comments weren't mine, but then, as I have stated, there would be bodies for me to point at, to prove it.

 

[Damocles]

It is absolutely mindless to believe that he would not distance himself from the comments if they were not his immediately.

HE DID SO 5 YEARS LATER.

So the non-argument that "he doesn't distance himself" is a foolish argument because when the heat was on, that is exactly what he weakly tried to do.

I was talking about the John Birch Society thing, he explains that they agree on a lot constitutionally. A more narrow interpretation of the constitution.

He doesn't distance himself very often from such.

 

[blackascoal]

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.

That's bullshit Dave and I believe that you are smart enough to know that.

Why then try to distance himself 5 years later .. in the midst of a campaign?

Why is he fighting what republicans are saying about him now if his manner is simply to lay down and take it?

 

[Cancel7]

My guess is that is exactly the advice he got from his Political Advisors.

In a conservative district in Texas, he was advised not to disavow his racist remarks, already being called attention to by his running mate, because he didn't want to call attention to them?

Stop, ok, just stop guys.

I didn't fall off the turnip truck two days ago, and I don't know who here you think did.

 

[Cypress]

Do you actually READ any of my posts? Seriously, I already explained how CDC easily fits into Interstate commerce, why don't you go back so I don't have to make another post you won't read?

As for the National Parks, not Interstate Commerce, states should handle that. Except where they cross state lines.... Hmmm....

The Livermore Science Lab is what started my "Why don't they read Section 8 that specifies how the Federal Government can support science?"

So there you are right.

Why don't they read Section 8 that specifies how the Federal Government can support science?"

No, a conservative reading of the constitution does not show that the Feds can fund Science labs.

They have only the power to protect intellectual property and enforce scientific patents

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

I think you're agreeing with me, on this.


I appreciate that you state you would eliminate the Federal National Park Service.

Federal park lands, are owned by all the citizens of the United States. Not by citizens of an individual state. Americans from sea to shining sea, bought, paid for, and maintained Rocky Mountain National Park. It doesnt' just belong to the citizens of Colorado.

 

[blackascoal]

I was talking about the John Birch Society thing, he explains that they agree on a lot constitutionally. A more narrow interpretation of the constitution.

He doesn't distance himself very often from such.

Black people are barbarians and terrorists that can be identified by the color of their skin .. why didn't he distance himself from that when it appeared in a newsletter .. one of many .. with his name on it?

It's ridiculous to suggest he'd let that go if he didn't believe it.

 

[Damocles]

Why don't they read Section 8 that specifies how the Federal Government can support science?"

No, a conservative reading of the constitution does not show that the Feds can fund Science labs.

They have only the power to protect intellectual property and enforce scientific patents

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries

I think you're agreeing with me, on this.


I appreciate that you state you would eliminate the Federal National Park Service.

Federal park lands, are owned by all the citizens of the United States. Not by citizens of an individual state. Americans from sea to shining sea, bought, paid for, and maintained Rocky Mountain National Park. It doesnt' just belong to the citizens of Colorado.

That doesn't change that it shouldn't have been done if working within the limitations of the constitution.

And yes, I was agreeing that they are limited in how they can support science.

 

[DigitalDave]

Paul is the ONLY person in Congress to get a 100% rating from the John Birch Society .. which means that he agrees with them on a lot more than their narrow view of the Constitution.
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004474M

From the article you posted ...


So what his his denial "quite believable" .. particularly when he stated "voters would not understand my tongue-in-cheek academic writings?"

I see no quote where Ron claims them as his own. The only place I see that is the link you provided from the Austin Chronicle and the only quoted piece is the 'toungue-in-cheek' part. They don't quote him saying they were his, because he never said that.

 

[Damocles]

Black people are barbarians and terrorists that can be identified by the color of their skin .. why didn't he distance himself from that when it appeared in a newsletter .. one of many .. with his name on it?

It's ridiculous to suggest he'd let that go if he didn't believe it.

I believe that he was told by advisors to say as little as possible on those rather than to draw attention to them, that they believed that others would not believe that he hadn't written them regardless of the writing style differences. I also believe that he regrets following that advice.

 

[Cancel7]

I see no quote where Ron claims them as his own. The only place I see that is the link you provided from the Austin Chronicle and the only quoted piece is the 'toungue-in-cheek' part. They don't quote him saying they were his, because he never said that.

Can you honestly state that if you were black, you would accept this shit? Or are we just glossing over it, because it makes us feel better not to believe it?

If you were black, you'd have NO problem with what has been presented on this thread?

Ask yourself that, by yourself, not here, and give yourself an honest answer, you deserve one.

 

[Damocles]

I see no quote where Ron claims them as his own. The only place I see that is the link you provided from the Austin Chronicle and the only quoted piece is the 'toungue-in-cheek' part. They don't quote him saying they were his, because he never said that.

Like I said, I think the advice was to say as little as possible, not to claim or deny them and to not draw any attention to them himself. I believe he regrets taking that advice.

 

[evince]

How do you explain having people in your camp who think like this and then giving them the power to in essance speak for you?

 

[Damocles]

How do you explain having people in your camp who think like this and then giving them the power to in essance speak for you?

I don't. I will bet that they work there no more, nor did they for long afterward.

 

[Cypress]

Paul is the ONLY person in Congress to get a 100% rating from the John Birch Society .. which means that he agrees with them on a lot more than their narrow view of the Constitution.
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004474M

From the article you posted ...


So what his his denial "quite believable" .. particularly when he stated "voters would not understand my tongue-in-cheek academic writings?"

Paul is the ONLY person in Congress to get a 100% rating from the John Birch Society

I don't like this. This is pretty freaky


So what his his denial "quite believable" .. particularly when he stated "voters would not understand my tongue-in-cheek academic writings?"

I haven't read all your links, but if this is accurate, I'm calling bullshit on this

 

[Cancel7]

How do you explain having people in your camp who think like this and then giving them the power to in essance speak for you?

Libertarianism can be a religious fervor, look at how some here speak of..."The Constitution" as if it were the Holy Bible and the word of God himself. (if you believe that about the bible).

It blinds them to an extent.

 

[Damocles]

Libertarianism can be a religious fervor, look at how some here speak of..."The Constitution" as if it were the Holy Bible and the word of God himself. (if you believe that about the bible).

It blinds them to an extent.

I actually agree with this, in a way. Often people believe in it so strongly that they take it places it shouldn't go. It is why I am not a Libertarian Party member. Well, one of the reasons. That and I am no "pure" libertarian. I am a constitutional conservative that leans libertarian.