The Ron Paul that Ron Paul does not want you to know

Darla said:
First of all, I do talk about gay marriage and abortion. Second of all I have no idea what you mean by I support every trade restriction between individuals ever thought up.

And third of all, your labels are meaningless, since you know very little about me.
Click to expand...

OK.
 
Cypress said:
I guess I just don't understand your position. On the one hand, the constitutional sound position is to say the Feds don't have the authority to prohibit child labor. On the other hand, you say you don't care if we do have a federal prohibition.

I care. And yes, I'm certain there are state labor laws pertaining to child labor. Federal laws can only apply to interstate commerce, and set a minimum national regulatory baseline. States are free to enact their own functionally equivalent, or stricter, labor laws.




I'm saying that it's merely an opinion that a political movement that didn't really exist until the 1950s, are the ideological heir to jefferson.

Portraying one's self as the ideological heir to Paine and Jefferson certainly sounds better than the real reason the american Libertarian ideology kicked off in the 1950s - to oppose New Deal progressive reforms. Since the New Deal reforms were largely high popular (and remain so to this day), it's harder to sell your ideology as being fundamentally anti-New Deal. The Jefferson-Paine angle sounds so much better ;)





LPs get caught up in periphreal things around the margins, like tax rates, and specific government programs.

Liberalism at its core, is about individual freedom. LP's seem to always assume that one's marignal tax rate, is somehow a measure of "freedom". Freedom can, and is, measured in many other ways. A government that promotes and protects individual rights, promotes the common welfare, and reduces risk to citizens, is a liberal philosophy. At it's core. Jefferson and Paine were violently opposed to inheritance, aristocracy, and concentrations of corporate power and wealth. These are liberal traditions. Every LP I've heard in cyberspace defends the extreme wealth gap in this country, and the extreme concentration of wealth. That's neither a Jeffersonian or a Paine position to take.







So, we agree that the "General Welfare" clause isn't some meaningless phrase: A throw away line the founders just tossed into Article I Section 8.

Good. We agree that the general welfare clause does give congress some grant of authority to raise taxes for the common good and the general welfare of the nation, beyond the enumerated powers in the clauses that follow it.

The confederate constitution removed the general welfare clause - because they too knew it gave congress a broader grant of authority than libertarians accept. The confederate constitution would thus have been more in line with modern libertarian thinking.
Click to expand...



I don't believe I've ever said that clause doesn't give congress the power to regulate all interstate trade.

Saying that it wouldn't would be quite a radical change in American government. It also wouldn't make sense, because most of the first presidents used that same, Hamiltonian definition. Madison was the only one that really didn't, and his refusal to accept it and the policies that resulted have been blamed for a lot of the problems in the 19th century, and the poverty in the south.
 
blackascoal said:
The compassion and intelligence of Ron Paul

Paul on Social Security:

"We didn't have it until 1935. I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment?...Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."

WHAT?

Paul on Hurricane Katrina and Rita:

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

HUH? .. Robbed?

Paul on Medicare and Medicaid, which he thinks are unconstitutional:

"I think it's a flaw in the perfect society I would like to see where individuals take care of themselves."

WHAT?

Paul's choice for Vice President:

"John Stossel, John Stossel would be good"

WHAT? .. John Stossel is the worst news reporter in America. A BAD NEWS REPORTER AS VP?

Paul on Bill and Hillary Clinton in a letter he distributed:

Dear Fellow American:

You may not have much time left. Next year, or next month,
Bill Clinton's New Money could wipe you out. I don't mind telling
you: I'm scared.

Not that I miss George Bush. On November 1, 1988, I predicted
to a skeptical _Wall Street Journal_ that he would bring us "war
and depression." Little did I realize that he would also raise our
taxes, impose race quotas, and put East Africa on food stamps!

But bad as Bush was, Bill Clinton gives me the willies. The
slick willies. This guy will even make us nostalgic for Jimmy
Carter, the first Trilateralist "moderate" foisted on us.

It's sometimes thought that Rockefeller and his friends are
capitalists. But they're not. They're for special government
privileges and subsidies for themselves, and massive welfare for the
underclass. Your job, as a member of the middle class, is to pick
up the tab.

Clinton campaigned on a Rockefeller agenda: more spending and
more taxes to benefit big business and the welfare class. No wonder
Clinton was publicly blessed by David Rockefeller in the _New York
Times_, and by the Establishment media all during the campaign.

What kind of a man is Bill Clinton? Our families tell much
about us. Clinton's wife is a far leftist with _very_ close female
friends (while her husband is a sexual playboy of John F. Kennedy
proportions). A friend of mine who attended Yale Law School with
Hillary says that she was known as the "class commie." Today, I
guess, she is merely a pinko. And "Co-President" of the United
States.

According to the _Washington Times_, Clinton's mother spends
every day at the horsetrack near corrupt Hot Springs. According to
_The New Republic_, as a nurse anesthesist, she once let a patient
die while doing her nails. She was found to be criminally
negligent, and then cleared. Her son Bill, the governor, then
promoted the man who cleared her.

You may have read about the uproar over pardons of hardened
criminals signed by a state senator who was temporary Arkansas
governor during the inauguration. Now the _Washington Times_
reports that the pardons were engineered by Clinton before he went
to Washington. One of the criminals let out of prison was the son
of a politician who had been exposing Clinton's black and white
illegitimate children with photos and addresses. "Woods colts,"
they're called in Arkansas slang. Then they made a corrupt deal.
The man agreed to shut up during the campaign; Clinton agreed to
spring his son.

Then there is Clinton's brother Roger, who according to the
_Washington Post_, is a convicted cocaine dealer. What a "First
Family."

Politically, Clinton -- a VIP student visitor to Brezhnev's
Moscow under circumstances that have never been explained -- is a
McGovernite, not a "moderate." Just one example: his chief economic
advisor, Professor Laura Tyson of Berkeley, wrote three books
praising Stalinist economics in Romania! And when he was attorney
general of Arkansas, Bill Clinton declared a "war on cash." It was
good preparation for what he plans for you.

The good news is: you don't have to let it happen. But unless
you take action, it will.

Picture this: your feet are aching and your patience ran out
a long time ago. How dare these bureaucrats make you wait in line
to turn in your greenbacks? Then, when it's finally your turn, you
wish it weren't.

An IRS agent asks -- with that chilling politeness -- for your
name, address, Social Security number, and explanation and
justification of your cash. While muggers and rapists run free on
the streets, the government focuses on you.
***********

"I (Ron Paul) am reminded about all the stories of CIA-Contra cocaine smuggling through the Mena, Arkansas, airport when Clinton was governor, and his supposed protection of the racket.

The cocaine speculation would explain certain mysteries. During the campaign, Bill never released his medical records.... Could the reason for his reticence be DOPE? Clinton has perpetuated troubles with his throat and voice, which could be related to the nasal drainage a cokehead experiences. He is also an insomniac, which dopers are. None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting."

Paul on Gold and Money

In a July 29, 1985 issue of Barron's Magazine, Paul issued this dire warning in a picth letter for his new investment bulletin ..

"Dear Friend.

Will you survive the "new money"? You must be prepared, because within one year, the U.S. Treasury will impose a radically different currency on the American people. Government officials won't tell you the truth about this ominous new development and most of your neighbors will be caught napping.... I saw the ugly new bills, tinted pink and blue and blighted with holograms, diffraction gratings, metal threads and chemical alarms."

The government, Paul assured his readers, would be recalling the old currency at the same time, which would cause a real problem for "the underground economy," most of whose participants are doing "a very worthwhile thing" that's good for the country. Paul's June 1985 newsletter told of one Professor Claude Martin of the University of Michigan, who supervised consumer testing of the new money in 1983: "Today... the professor sounds frightened and refuses to talk. After muttering that he no longer is permitted to discuss the project, he hangs up."

Professor Martin discussed the project at length with Barron's and said he'd never spoke to Paul. When confronted with this discrepancy, Paul said he'd heard the story from another person, "who I choose not to name." Ten years later, of course, the Treasury did begin redesigning our paper money—minus, one presumes, the chemical alarms—but never recalled the old bills; civilization did not fall.

Paul's solution? Gold. As with Bush and tax cuts, Paul has never found a problem for which gold was not the solution. A longtime proponent of returning the US to the gold standard, Paul's writings on gold—and there are a lot of them—are liberally sprinkled with references to the Federal Reserve, Bretton Woods, and the rest of the usual gang of tropes; they imbue the shiny, somewhat arbitrarily chosen metal with almost supernatural powers to save us from the impending doom that is always just around the corner but, somehow, never quite arrives. Fortunately, Barron's notes, the ever-helpful Paul had just the thing for the discerning gold buyer, "a coin dealer you can trust": Ron Paul & Co., Dealers in Precious Metals and Rare Coins.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/22/104728/153

THIS is the man you want to see as President?
Click to expand...




He is absolutely crazy, Black. I knew about some of this, and never really wanted him to be president in any case. I still had a lot of respect for him, and that's why I defended him, but he seems crazier and crazier each day.
 
Watermark said:
He is absolutely crazy, Black. I knew about some of this, and never really wanted him to be president in any case. I still had a lot of respect for him, and that's why I defended him, but he seems crazier and crazier each day.
Click to expand...


Then we are on the same page here my friend.
 
There is a serious problem with Ron Paul's antiwar stance ..

He's antiwar, but he's also against campaign contributions and for unfettered access by "the market". He wants ALL restrictions lifted on contributions to politicians by individuals and corporations claiming First Amendment rights.

The problem with that illogic is that this administration is owned by the market, i.e.; oil corporations and this war is all about oil, i.e.; the market, so was the attack on Afghanistan which he voted for.

This war was never about WMD, mushroom clouds, terrorism, or freedom for the Iraqi people. It's all about oil.

The Bush Administration is filled with ex-oil executives, including Cheney, who had secret meetings with a host of oil executives BEFORE the war began that he will not divulge to the American people.

BEFORE the attack on Afghanistan, oil corporations and PNAC, who Bush takes his marching orders from, were anxious to build the Central Asia pipeline through Afghanistan. John J. Maresca, a Unocal executive went before the Congress to implore them to overthrow the Taliban to build it.

BEFORE the attack on Afghanistan PNAC sent a letter to then President Clinton urging him to overthrow Saddam.

"On January 26, 1998, the PNAC, sent a letter to President William Clinton urging the military overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The dictator, the letter alleged, was a destabilizing force in the Middle East, and posed a mortal threat to "...the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's oil supply."

Clinton did not honor their request, but they intended the subjugation of Iraq to be the first application of "pre-emptive war.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

PNAC membership is filled with those who were part of or close to the Bush Administration and just about everyone who signed the letter to Clinton.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_administration:_Project_for_the_New_American_Century

PNAC, which argues for US global domination by military force, was also behind building the Central Asia pipleline as well as pre-emptively seizing Iraq's oil resources. All they needed to make this happen was "a New Pearl Harbor".
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...nac+new+pearl+harbor&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

After George W. Bush was installed as US President .. enter Afghan-American Zalmay Khalilzad, who in the early 1990s served Unocal as an advisor on the nascent pipeline project. In 1997, Khalilzad was present with Unocal representatives when they hosted a delegation of Taliban officials in Houston. A meeting hosted by Ken Lay of Enron who gave the Taliban millions.

Khalilzad was part of a full-court press by the Bush administration to see the pipeline deal through to completion. When the Taliban refused to go along with the pipeline deal, the Bush Administration threatened them with war. “Accept our carpet of gold or be buried under a carpet of bombs.”

US Invasion of Afghanistan was announced months before 9/11
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm
http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy

Bush given Afghanistan invasion plans two days before 9/11
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

October 7, 2001, Bush announces opening of attacks against Afghanistan
CNN.com - Bush announces opening of attacks - October 7, 2001

Former Unocal Consultant Karzai elected new Afghan leader
BBC NEWS * World * South Asia * Karzai elected Afghan leader

John J. Maresca, the Vice President of the Unocal Corporation who had implored Congress to have the Taliban overthrown is installed as the first US Envoy to Afghanistan

September 20, 2001: PNAC Think Tank Pushes for Iraq War .. "even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack.”
Letter to President Bush on the War on Terrorism

December 27, 2002, Afghanistan pipeline deal signed
BBC NEWS * South Asia * Central Asia pipeline deal signed

This is the war Ron Paul voted for. A war designed by PNAC and the Bush Administration and dreamed of by oil corporations.

Yet Paul still insists that corporations should be allowed to essentially buy politicians. This from a politician who has gotten as much as 93% of his campaign funds from outside his district.

He's antiwar but the frontman for the entities behind it. This is what unfettered unchallenged access to American politicians by corporations/"the market" will get you.
 
Last edited:
Paul get's about 93% of his money from INDIVIDUALS outside of his district. Not corporations. Corporatiosn very rarely give to the Paul, campaign, Black. Most of his money is probably from Libertarians across the country, and it makes him a very uniqure politician. He's just about the only politician that doesn't get most of his contributions from corporations.
 
I mean, Black, getting politicians off of corporate influence is a good thing, of course, but I don't think contribution limits are the best way to go about that. The people it mostly helps is incumbents, because few candidates can garner enough money anymore to challenge the money that incumbents have been snowballing for years.

A superior way to do away with this would be public campaign funds.
 
Watermark said:
I mean, Black, getting politicians off of corporate influence is a good thing, of course, but I don't think contribution limits are the best way to go about that. The people it mostly helps is incumbents, because few candidates can garner enough money anymore to challenge the money that incumbents have been snowballing for years.

A superior way to do away with this would be public campaign funds.
Click to expand...

Again we agree .. on public campaign funding .. but I still believe in ending corporate contributions, gifts, honorariums, and expense paid anything.

In fact, I want to limited to no access to government by paid lobbyists.

Incumbents have been sucking off the corporate teet for years, that's why they're hard to beat.

I say end all of that.
 
Watermark said:
Paul get's about 93% of his money from INDIVIDUALS outside of his district. Not corporations. Corporatiosn very rarely give to the Paul, campaign, Black. Most of his money is probably from Libertarians across the country, and it makes him a very uniqure politician. He's just about the only politician that doesn't get most of his contributions from corporations.
Click to expand...

When you're only getting 7% of your money from the constituents, who are you representing?
 
Watermark said:
I mean, Black, getting politicians off of corporate influence is a good thing, of course, but I don't think contribution limits are the best way to go about that. The people it mostly helps is incumbents, because few candidates can garner enough money anymore to challenge the money that incumbents have been snowballing for years.

A superior way to do away with this would be public campaign funds.
Click to expand...
Do a quick study on how it has effected Arizona's elections. If there has been no adverse effects other than a better chance for other candidates then implement it across the board. Requirements for those seeking office is not a limitation on free speech.
 
Watermark said:
"WHAT? .. John Stossel is the worst news reporter in America. A BAD NEWS REPORTER AS VP?"

Stossel actually won like 10 different Emmy's once. But he's a Libertarian, so it'd make sense for Ron Paul to choose him. Not like it's ever going to happen.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I started to just let this one go .. but I can't

Stossel has been a complete embarrassment for ABC on several occassions and has been caught in several lies and distortions.

The Twisted World of John Stossel Propaganda
http://atbl1.blogspot.com/2007/06/twisted-world-of-john-stossel.html

Forced to apologize for lying:

On February 8th, 2000 20/20 broadcast a story by John Stossel claiming that foods sold at organic and health food stores were no more safe to eat than food bought at conventional supermarkets. Stossel claimed that tests commissioned by ABC TV showed that food purchased at organic markets had higher rates of E. Coli contamination and equivalent amounts of pesticides.

Investigation by the Environmental Working Group revealed that the experts cited by ABC's 20/20 for the story had never actually performed the tests ABC claimed in the story.

Despite the embarrassment, Stossel repeated the story on July 7, 2000, informing the EWG through an intermediary that he would not even respond to the allegations. ABC TV, however, embarrassed by the publicity, ordered Stossel to apologize.

Stossel has also been accused of misreporting in his story on Erin Brockovich, the California woman who found Chromium 6 in her town's drinking water.

Stossel presented skewed 20/20 segment on "stupid" public schools

"On the January 13(2006) broadcast of ABC's 20/20, host John Stossel presented an hour-long "special report" on the purported failures of public schools in the United States. Titled "Stupid in America: How We Cheat Our Kids," the report tilted heavily in favor of those who advocate for expanding such "school choice" initiatives as voucher and charter school programs, ostensibly as the means for increasing academic achievement. Through a series of misleading claims, a lack of balance in reporting and interviews, and video clips apparently created primarily for entertainment, Stossel's report failed to offer viewers an accurate picture of the debate over charter schools and voucher programs, and gave significantly greater coverage to the arguments of "school choice" proponents, with Stossel frequently criticizing public schools. At one point, the reporter warned, "Most Americans don't know what stupid schools are doing to American kids."

John Stossel Should Do a Fraud Investigation on Himself
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/05/john_stossel_sh.html

Economist's View "John Stossel makes a false claim about tax cuts. As we know, tax cuts do not pay for themselves. No credible analyst claims that. But John Stossel does:

The Tax-Cut Myth, by John Stossel, RCP: ...[T]ax cuts stimulated the economy and increased tax revenues. It happens because, as the Laffer Curve illustrates, lower rates mean higher rewards for productive activities. ...
Any decent reporter would know that isn't true. He can't even keep his story straight. After saying it was tax cuts that increased revenues, he then says:
President Bush brags that the deficit is coming down -- and it is. ... But that's largely because your FICA taxes currently exceed Social Security and Medicare payments. ...

He then goes back to the tax cuts increase revenues propaganda and quotes the president pushing the same myth:

Bush boasted last year, "This economy is growing, federal taxes are rising, and we're cutting the federal deficit... Some in Washington say we had to choose between cutting taxes and cutting the deficit. Today's numbers show that that was a false choice. The economic growth fueled by tax relief has helped send our tax revenues soaring."

Remember what Andrew Samwick, who was chief economist of the Council of Economic Advisers from 2003 to 2004, said about statements like this?
Next, Stossel gets himself all tied up in knots. Tax cuts are good. But if tax cuts increase government revenue, then tax cuts are bad because it means government takes more of our money. So tax cuts aren't good after all:
But I don't want tax revenues to soar. That's money you and I could be spending for things we want. I want revenue and spending and government overall to shrink. So I'm not celebrating with the president.

So a higher tax rate is bad, a lower tax rate is bad, and the tax rate we have is unacceptable. It's all the government's fault anyway. Because of politicians, we'll never, ever get to the promised land on the other side of the Laffer curve:

If revenues are pouring in, why don't the politicians return it to the taxpayers instead of spending it? Because politicians love to spend money. They get reelected not by how much they save but by how much they shower on interest groups.

He has a book called Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity. I haven't read it and don't plan to, but from the above, I assume it's autobiographical."


Foes Won't Give Stossel A Break
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2000-08-11

Members of the organic food industry are stepping up their attacks on ABC News' John Stossel, even as Stossel prepares to go on the air tonight (Friday) to acknowledge gross errors in a report about organic vegetables that aired in February and was repeated in July. Kenneth Cook president of the Environmental Working Group, an organization that first claimed that some of Stossel's remarks during his "Give Me a Break" piece on 20/20 were false, insisted Thursday that Stossel ought to be fired. If he is not, Cook told the New York Post, "then I will continue to make noise until he gets fired." ABC has said only that Stossel has been reprimanded for the report. (His producer, David Fitzpatrick, has been suspended for a month without pay.) "What exactly is the nature of that reprimand anyway?" New York Post TV writer Adam Buckman asked in today's (Friday) edition. "Does he get hauled into some executive's office for a bawling out? Does he have to go sit in a corner, or go to bed without his supper, or write 100 times on a blackboard, 'I will be more careful the next time I condemn an entire industry?'"

20/20's Stossel Exposed As a Fraud in Anti-Organic Story
http://www.veganstreet.com/news/00_08_02.html

"Zero journalistic intergrity"

More Adventures of the Stosselator
http://rrpa.wordpress.com/tag/popular-culture/television/

John Stossel cracks me up. Actually, it’s not so much that he cracks me up as he always reminds me of the definitive Gawker comment about him: “Ah, Stossel. He’s just the way I like ‘em. Hot and stupid.”*

The Stosselator devoted an entire 20/20 special to the subject of our failing schools. His primary hypothesis is that school failures are due to:
*Lack of “choice”
*Teachers’ unions

Stossel cites some troubling facts in order to support his hypothesis. First, the United States spends as much or more money on education (per student) as countries that perform better. Second, fourth graders in this country actually test on a par with their international peers. However, by the time they get into high school, they’ve started to test well below the international average.

Unfortunately, Stossel makes some erroneous assumptions about schools both here and abroad, about social structures both here and abroad, and about the actual behavior and desires of American kids and their parents.** That’s not even including the histrionics of throwing in examples of high school seniors who can barely read. Oh, John, John, don’t you know that they are the exception, not the rule? Come on now. If they can barely read in high school, then they could barely read in fourth grade. Yet, our fourth graders do very well. So, let’s be serious here.

Could it be that Stossel is full of shit?

John Stossel Is A Pathological Liar
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/john-stossel-is-a-patholo_b_21903.html

Webster's Medical Dictionary defines a "pathological liar" as "an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder." Next to this definition should be this picture - a photo of a self-important, smarmy looking, all-too-coiffed ABC News "reporter" named John Stossel.

You may have noticed that Stossel is out hawking a book called "Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity" purporting to debunk those things. Instead, what we see is that Stossel is spewing them - and using his media platform as a megaphone of dishonesty. Stossel, in many ways, is exactly why I wrote my new book Hostile Takeover - to strip bare the opportunists, shills and half-wits who dominate our political debate and show them for what they really are: pathological liars.

Stossel appeared on ABC's "The View" to talk about his book's assertion that the minimum wage supposedly hurts low-income workers. The host was surprised that someone could make such a ludicrous claim. "Why does raising the minimum wage -- this one I don't get -- actually hurt poor people?," she asked Stossel. "I don't understand that one at all."

Stossel replied with a straight face: "The truth is that people on the margins lose jobs when minimum wages go up. We used to have people washing windshields at gas stations. We don't anymore because of the minimum wage. There's no opportunity for kids, for entry-level workers."

Mind you, Stossel is making this claim at the very same time President Bush is claiming we need a guest worker program because there are actually too many entry-level, low-wage jobs that aren't being filled. But beyond that, the actual data exposes Stossel's pathological lying. As I note in my new book's section on this very lie about minimum wages supposedly hurting the job market:

"In a comprehensive 2004 study, the nonpartisan Fiscal Policy Institute reported that since 1997, states that had boosted their minimum wage above the federal minimum actually created jobs faster than those that did not. In higher minimum wage states, employment grew by 50 percent more than it did in states still at the pathetic federal level. Even in tough economic times, the minimum wage doesn't hurt jobs: Princeton University economist David Card found that even the minimum wage increases during the 1990-91 recession 'were not associated with any measurable employment losses.' As Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) once noted, "history clearly demonstrates that raising the minimum wage has no adverse impact on jobs."...In Oregon, for instance, the state raised its minimum wage in 1998, and the average earnings of newly-employed welfare recipients climbed by 9 percent, while the percentage of welfare recipients who found a job actually rose."

I could go on for days. Stossel is a joke and embarrassment to journalism and he isn't respected by his peers. Standing behind him because he's a libertarian only makes libertarians look as foolish as he is.

More importantly, Paul's suggestion that a bad, disrespected, fraud of a NEWS REPORTER would make a good Vice President only further exposes his dementia and total ignorance. Good news reporters don't become Vice Presidents.

Ron Paul is out of his mind.
 
Last edited:
Stossel is an idiot and an advocate, not a journalist. I well remember his organic "expose". I was laughing at it before it was even debunked.
 
Gee, Black.

OK. Stossel often reports fallacious things. The opinion format is generally considered good if you want to tell straight facts.

But it would still make sense for Paul to choose Stossel, because Stossel and he are so simialar politically, even if he does sometimes think fallaciously.
 
Watermark said:
Gee, Black.

OK. Stossel often reports fallacious things. The opinion format is generally considered good if you want to tell straight facts.

But it would still make sense for Paul to choose Stossel, because Stossel and he are so simialar politically, even if he does sometimes think fallaciously.
Click to expand...

Have you EVER heard of a news entertainment/opinion reporter EVER becoming part of ANY presidents' cabinet?

Do you realize how big of a joke and farce that would make this country look?

So they share the same illogical opinions, does that mean a President of the United States should choose his frat brother who's never been in politics as his running mate?

This is indicative of two things I've been saying about Paul ..

He has no political alliances .. which is why he can't get legislation passed and despite his years in Congress, has never chaired a committee and never held a leadership position. He is the most ineffectual and ineffective Member of Congress.

AND

He's crazy and probably in the early stages of Alzheimer’s .. not suggesting that Alzheimer’s patients are crazy .. but this dude is.
 
Ron was a lot crazier in his earlier days, Black. Just take a look at all of your posts. They're from ten years plus back. I've seen interviews of the guy in the 80's - he was a hell of a lot more divisive.

The most innefective member of congress? Wouldn't that be that Democrat that voted for the Republican for speaker and was denied any committee assignments? It's horrible that our parties bully our reps like that. Party leaders run the country, not voters.

And, actually, Paul has a deal with the Republican leadership where he votes with them on certain matters in exchange for committee ranking according to his seniority. I think they probably don't count his earlier terms towards his seniority ranking, which is why he holds no committe leadership post.
 
Watermark said:
Ron was a lot crazier in his earlier days, Black. Just take a look at all of your posts. They're from ten years plus back. I've seen interviews of the guy in the 80's - he was a hell of a lot more divisive.

The most innefective member of congress? Wouldn't that be that Democrat that voted for the Republican for speaker and was denied any committee assignments? It's horrible that our parties bully our reps like that. Party leaders run the country, not voters.

And, actually, Paul has a deal with the Republican leadership where he votes with them on certain matters in exchange for committee ranking according to his seniority. I think they probably don't count his earlier terms towards his seniority ranking, which is why he holds no committe leadership post.
Click to expand...

Much of what you've said here is true, but some of his participation with hate groups and insane people is recent. I do believed he tempered his insanity somewhat facing the new realities of a changing district. Most of his really insane comments came when he was out of office completely, such as when he published his newsletter.

But shades of that insanity are still apparent, (John Stossel) and he cannot be trusted not to revert to form, which may in fact be the real Ron Paul after all. He was completely insane when unencumbered by political office and I believe that is who he is.
 
blackascoal said:
Much of what you've said here is true, but some of his participation with hate groups and insane people is recent. I do believed he tempered his insanity somewhat facing the new realities of a changing district. Most of his really insane comments came when he was out of office completely, such as when he published his newsletter.

But shades of that insanity are still apparent, (John Stossel) and he cannot be trusted not to revert to form, which may in fact be the real Ron Paul after all. He was completely insane when unencumbered by political office and I believe that is who he is.
Click to expand...

If there's one member of congress who couldn't give a flying flip about maintaining their seat one second longer, it would be Ron Paul. Not to say he hates his constitutents. But he really considers himself more of a trustee - he's honest about what he does, and if the district likes him, they keep him in, and if they don't, they're completely free to vote him out.
 
But RS posted this one clip about him in the 80's. Some kid on this conservative TV show was critiscizing him about the war on drugs, and he says "The government can't make people not do drugs. They can't make you not do something you're going to do. You're a bit chubby. Maybe they should put you on a diet?" I was kind of amazed. I've never heard the guy talk like that.
 
Darla said:
Stossel is an idiot and an advocate, not a journalist. I well remember his organic "expose". I was laughing at it before it was even debunked.
Click to expand...

Yet Paul suggests that he would be a good choice for the Vice President of the United States .. one heartbeat of a 72 year-old man from becoming the President .. John Stossel.

Additionally, many Paul supporters see this as "good news" ..

Ron Paul Included in First Texas Poll .. at 6%
http://paul4prez.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-included-in-first-texas-poll.html

I said .. He's polling at 6% in his own home state where he and his record are better known .. and you think this is good news? Without Thompson in the race he trails Huckabee and a great many people have no clue who he is.

Could a candidate that polls 6% in their own home state and 0-2% nationally be considered a serious candidate for president?

Absolutely not.

I can think of no candidate for president in American history, EVER, that had anything near such an incredibly miserable showing as this in their own home state.

Actually this is further proof that the national polls are correct and the so-called "media/poll" bias is a figment of his supporters imagination.

Much of his support comes from democrats, progressives, and independents, who would not be supporting him against progressive antiwar candidates with far less baggage, insane politics outside of his antiwar views, and a vile background as Paul's.

He's running in the REPUBLICAN primary and REPUBLICANS, many of whom detest him. will not support him under any circumstances.

This is light years from being a "revolution", "express", or even a bandwagon. This is indicative of a slow death.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top