Ron Paul News - 'NYTimes', 'LATimes', and 'The Nation' Cover Paul; New Paul Video; Evansville Meetup Group News (1805 hits)
Category: PoliticsRating: 0.07 on 74 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2007-07-25 17:36:00 EDT
For those of you following Ron Paul's progress, you might be glad of even dismayed to know that he is receiving coverage from some pretty mainstream papers now.
First, the New York Times wrote what, at first, seems like a fair review of Paul's candidacy, then sort of deteriorates into another "but he's a 'fringe'-type wacko" hit-piece. But the important thing is that he's getting some coverage and some people might be inspired to look further into Ron Paul knowing the Times' track record of smudging the facts for political reasons. I honestly don't even like giving the Times a link, but here it is in case you'd like to read it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Lest it be left behind in the coverage wars, or perhaps on queue, it seems that the Times' article also inspired the other Times, the LA Times, to get in on the Paul action. This article is, perhaps, a bit more friendly to Paul, but still has the net effect of creating the impression that Ron Paul is a "fringe" candidate and a wasted vote. The article paints Paul and his closest Democratic counterpart Mike Gravel as a couple nowhere men and pygmies lashing out against the status quo of their respective parties. Eerily similar to an AOL "Blogger" article suggesting Dennis Kucinich and Paul run together (http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2007/07/24/kucinich-paul-in-08/), the LATimes article suggests, that they might do better if they pooled their resources and ran together as a third party collective ticket. This, of course, makes the general assumption for the reader that neither stands a chance in the primary, an assertion that I contend on the principle that this is still an open and transparent Republic with a democratic and constitutional process. Of course, that is just an assumption at this point.
LATimes article: http://tinyurl.com/2hjom6
Third up is the self-proclaimed liberal rag, "The Nation", who have actually given Ron Paul a fair shake by pointing out some of the statistics that show that more U.S. military soldiers have donated to his campaign than any other republican. They make the natural connection between this statistic and the soldiers' general feelings about the war.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/engelhardt
In other news, Ron Paul has a new hour-long video up on his website that shows his visit to Google headquarters and his interview with Google executive Elliot Schrage. It's worth a watch: http://ronpaul2008.com/ (Click the top video link.)
I can also proudly say that, locally, the Evansville, Indiana Ron Paul Meetup Group is really beginning to expand and take off. There are upcoming plans to make signs en masse and distribute them. There is a DVD project already in the works. We will be distributing packets of Ron Paul information to local people. There is a trip planned to a large Republican political rally in Paducah, KY on August 2nd - the largest in the state. There we plan to merge with the Paducah Ron Paul group and flood the rally wearing our Ron Paul t-shirts, holding signs, and distributing Ron Paul materials. Our Meetup Group here is growing and is populated with some good people with good ideas...very driven individuals. And this is a small Meetup Group by comparison to some of Dr. Paul's other supporters' groups.
In other words, this thing is about to get off the internet and hit the streets here in Evansville, Indiana. For those of you who profess to support Ron Paul, I encourage you to join your local Ron Paul Meetup Group and help do the same in your area. http://ronpaul.meetup.com/
That's all for now.
User Reviews
Submitted by The-Armed-Samurai (user info) at 2008-07-14 15:35:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-07-27 14:02:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I offer my penis as a "peace pipe" to the females in this post.
Submitted by JulsInsane (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:48:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
So do we prosecute women who get inadequate prenatal health care, or smoke during pregnancy, or drink or don't take prenatal vitamins? These choices can have dire adverse effects on a fetus even result in the death of the fetus. Where does the line between religion and government get drawn? I think it's immoral that many people allow thier children to go without a basic respect for the world around them, but as long as they don't break any laws of the United States the government should have no role in that.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:46:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I also told you you that you weren't actually that bad. Lies come in all sizes don't they?
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:39:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I didn't miss the point... I don't think of it as the government's imposing their rules on a person's body... I agree with ETS that the rights of human beings should apply to those who haven't been born yet... I think if I were to be pregnant, it's not MY body, it's another person's body that just happens to be enjoying a brief tenure in my own, and just because my actions caused it to be there doesn't give me the right to decide to end a life that is not in fact my own.
But then hey, animals eat their babies if they can't take care of them, so maybe there's something going there.
Submitted by JulsInsane (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:33:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You missed the point again.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:32:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah I'm really pretty indifferent to the whole issue at this point, it just gives me a headache really. I just think that in my personal experience, none of the women I know who have had abortions got pregnant because their birth control failed. For my part, I've had my fair share of years of promiscuity, but I managed to not get knocked up, so I tend to assume that most women who don't want babies have the ability to be at least as careful as I was, which is not very.
And Hadly, you want to talk shit to me on here? How about I hop on AIM so you can turn hypocrite and tell me how bad you'd love to fuck me/wish you had fucked me in Orlando, like you did for so long after?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:27:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
don't except anything intelligent coming out of QA's comments
Submitted by JulsInsane (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:22:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:07:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"So you have a situation where young women are forced to have children that they don't want for many reasons"
___
I bet these hypothetical young women weren't "forced" to spread their legs for every guy that bought them a drink, or forced to disregard any number of available methods of birth control...
I'm just sayin'.
-----------------------------
See this is where this debate gets silly, we aren't talking about promiscuity, we are talking about governmental rights on the individual. To debate the practices that some of these women employ or don't empoy in regards to their sex lives is completely unrelated to the argument. When using all available methods of birth control perfectly there is still a slight margin of error, when used imperfectly as the majority of women do that margin of error grows larger. I would personally never have an abortion, and believe that if you are mature enough to engage in sexual acts you should be mature enough to deal with the consiquences of those acts. That is the principal for which I lead MY life, that cannot correlate with what the government should impose on other individuals.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:14:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Women who have left slug trails all over Orlando really shouldn't throw stones.
Submitted by QueenAshlee (user info) at 2007-07-27 13:07:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"So you have a situation where young women are forced to have children that they don't want for many reasons"
___
I bet these hypothetical young women weren't "forced" to spread their legs for every guy that bought them a drink, or forced to disregard any number of available methods of birth control...
I'm just sayin'.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2007-07-27 12:46:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS just got his shit pushed in by Juls.
Awesome.
Submitted by JulsInsane (user info) at 2007-07-27 12:29:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 19:39:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JulsInsane (user info) at 2007-07-26 11:30:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman."
This is directly from his website, so he is either saying that there are no circumstances that an abortion is ever an option or he just somehow in his 40 years of practice never encountered such a situation.
The whole website is thinly veiled bible thumping and yeeehawwww Americana rhetoric.
I actually was fairly indifferent to him until I read his own words on his website.
--------------------
What's wrong with that statement? What about that is "bible-thumping"?
There is a very clear point to be made here that I just don't think you have the maturity to see because of your selfishness in wanting any rights you think are "coming to you" as a woman. This isn't about being anti-women's-rights to be anti-abortion.
It is these issues that have made the American political system so fucking up to begin with. You want to attack a constitutionalist like Ron Paul for not being liberal enough in wanting mothers to shuck responsibility for their sexual activities by having abortions and insisting that a consistent philosophy of life and liberty INSISTS that we protect the rights of all human beings, including those awaiting life in the womb (for more on this see my other review below), but you are all for electing some motherfucker who will further erode your personal liberties on a direct march to socialism as long as he pretends to support women's rights or gay rights in the process?
You people are so fucking warped by the media it isn't even funny. You have completely lost the ability to separate your emotion from your thinking, which is going to ultimately be the downfall of this country. Hell, maybe it will be good riddance.
Again, I used to think like you, and I have changed my mind because I've taken the time to sit down and think about it without preconceptions and look at the facts of the argument. I suggest you do the same for your OWN benefit.
---------------------------------------------------
A. How you read into a statement I made about abortion as what rights I believe I have "coming to me" just goes to show how knee jerk your reactions are to opinions that you don't agree with. My point has nothing to do with sexual irresponsibility nor women's reproductive rights. My point is that due to ectopic pregnancies,Preeclampsia, Eclampsia, Placenta Previa, Placental Abruption ranging from anywhere from 8% to .5% of all pregnancies to say that during his 40 years he never encountered a situation that abortion was medically necessary leads me to believe that his opinions are based in a religious ideology. I am a religious person, hell Im actually personally pro-life when it comes to my own body. I have the insight though to know that despite my own personal beliefs due to religion or culture the government has no right to impose themselves on other's bodies.
What bothers me even more about this situation is that he is pro-life and against so many government funded social welfare programs. So you have a situation where young women are forced to have children that they don't want for many reasons much of which includes economics, and they have little recourse in supporting themselves via government welfare programs.
You can't change human nature with government edicts.
Also my opinion on the flag waiving rhetoric was based on statements he had made in regards to strengthening the military protection surrounding the United States while disagreeing with a National ID card scheme, so the idea is for the government to be strong in every other respect but stay out of my backyard. It just doesn't wash in my mind. He wants to impose the government in respect to abortion, gay marriage, and border patrol, but stay away from white straight male's civil liberties.
ETS I think your want to be involved and knowledgable about the government and the world around you is admirable, but your tendancy to attack the individual as sheep for not instantly having some epiphany about your point of view and adopting it as their own really counteracts what I assume you are trying to achieve.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 20:03:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 19:28:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Really? He voted against gay couples being allowed to adopt. I would call that anti-gay (and I am against gay marriages)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
How about stem cells?
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
------------------------------------------
You people are fucking morons. I really don't know why I waste my time with you.
You can't tell the difference between someone who doesn't want to FEDERALLY FUND a program like fucking stem cell research and someone who is AGAINST people with diseases.
--------------------------------------------------------
The first one mentioned does involve federal money (which would be a good idea seeing as how other countries are pumping money into it and whoever "cracks the code" will reap the benefit), the second one is just for ALLOWING human embryonic stem cell research. Which he is clearly against.
How about you actually research your demagogue.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 19:56:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That "0" should be a "20"
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 19:53:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/110526
that Ron Paul meet up is sure doing good work!!!
They met up 3 times, of course most of the 0 members have never met, but, boy, they sure are doing good work!!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 19:39:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JulsInsane (user info) at 2007-07-26 11:30:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman."
This is directly from his website, so he is either saying that there are no circumstances that an abortion is ever an option or he just somehow in his 40 years of practice never encountered such a situation.
The whole website is thinly veiled bible thumping and yeeehawwww Americana rhetoric.
I actually was fairly indifferent to him until I read his own words on his website.
--------------------
What's wrong with that statement? What about that is "bible-thumping"?
There is a very clear point to be made here that I just don't think you have the maturity to see because of your selfishness in wanting any rights you think are "coming to you" as a woman. This isn't about being anti-women's-rights to be anti-abortion.
It is these issues that have made the American political system so fucking up to begin with. You want to attack a constitutionalist like Ron Paul for not being liberal enough in wanting mothers to shuck responsibility for their sexual activities by having abortions and insisting that a consistent philosophy of life and liberty INSISTS that we protect the rights of all human beings, including those awaiting life in the womb (for more on this see my other review below), but you are all for electing some motherfucker who will further erode your personal liberties on a direct march to socialism as long as he pretends to support women's rights or gay rights in the process?
You people are so fucking warped by the media it isn't even funny. You have completely lost the ability to separate your emotion from your thinking, which is going to ultimately be the downfall of this country. Hell, maybe it will be good riddance.
Again, I used to think like you, and I have changed my mind because I've taken the time to sit down and think about it without preconceptions and look at the facts of the argument. I suggest you do the same for your OWN benefit.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 19:28:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dolson (user info) at 2007-07-26 15:22:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 07:20:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:29:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
First, Ron Paul voted AGAINST a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He's NOT "anti-gay". He voted this way on the same constitutional principle that the federal government has no business being in our personal lives as he does on everything else to do with individual choices.
------------------------------
Really? He voted against gay couples being allowed to adopt. I would call that anti-gay (and I am against gay marriages)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
How about stem cells?
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Who does he back when it comes to bankruptcy and salaries, big business or average Joe. Big business is the winner!!
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Vouchers for education? He can't make up his mind.
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
One thing he is sure of is that prayer should be allowed in school.
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
How does he feel about helping missing kids? Fuck them!
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Campaign finance reform?
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Net Neutrality?
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of those things that comes with being Canadian (and not from Alberta or Quebec) is that I really prefer the idea of a strong central government over stronger local (read: state or provincial) governments. I have a really hard time caring about state rights as an issue.
I'd say to look at this list for more articulate reasons why I don't like Ron Paul.
Consumer electronics are not like health care, and as a doctor, he should know that. Medicine is a highly specialized field; we can't outsource the production of health care to where the labour is cheap, and we can't retail health care in bulk at Walmart. It requires the individual attention of a skilled professional to be done correctly, and the free market will result in these prices continuing to rise because we like our doctors competent (and thus, limited).
I can't see abortion as unnatural or aggressive. A fetus is like a parasite, and women should have the option of getting rid of it. Adoption isn't a good stopping point with people like Ron Paul, because that would require a decently funded foster care system, which requires more government. It's an unethical stance, plain and simple.
------------------------
You people are fucking morons. I really don't know why I waste my time with you.
You can't tell the difference between someone who doesn't want to FEDERALLY FUND a program like fucking stem cell research and someone who is AGAINST people with diseases.
You have fallen pray to the oldest trick in the political book.
What's next? He voted against wanting America to join the United Nations...he must be anti-WORLD!
THINK. Stop accepting what's being fed to you, stop copying lists that don't even include the actual bill he voted against or the stated reasons for doing so and THINK, goddamnit.
Submitted by Dolson (user info) at 2007-07-26 15:22:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 07:20:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:29:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
First, Ron Paul voted AGAINST a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He's NOT "anti-gay". He voted this way on the same constitutional principle that the federal government has no business being in our personal lives as he does on everything else to do with individual choices.
------------------------------
Really? He voted against gay couples being allowed to adopt. I would call that anti-gay (and I am against gay marriages)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
How about stem cells?
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Who does he back when it comes to bankruptcy and salaries, big business or average Joe. Big business is the winner!!
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Vouchers for education? He can't make up his mind.
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
One thing he is sure of is that prayer should be allowed in school.
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
How does he feel about helping missing kids? Fuck them!
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Campaign finance reform?
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Net Neutrality?
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of those things that comes with being Canadian (and not from Alberta or Quebec) is that I really prefer the idea of a strong central government over stronger local (read: state or provincial) governments. I have a really hard time caring about state rights as an issue.
I'd say to look at this list for more articulate reasons why I don't like Ron Paul.
Consumer electronics are not like health care, and as a doctor, he should know that. Medicine is a highly specialized field; we can't outsource the production of health care to where the labour is cheap, and we can't retail health care in bulk at Walmart. It requires the individual attention of a skilled professional to be done correctly, and the free market will result in these prices continuing to rise because we like our doctors competent (and thus, limited).
I can't see abortion as unnatural or aggressive. A fetus is like a parasite, and women should have the option of getting rid of it. Adoption isn't a good stopping point with people like Ron Paul, because that would require a decently funded foster care system, which requires more government. It's an unethical stance, plain and simple.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-07-26 14:52:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
On an unrelated note, check out this documentary
http://www.noendinsightmovie.com/
Submitted by JulsInsane (user info) at 2007-07-26 11:30:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman."
This is directly from his website, so he is either saying that there are no circumstances that an abortion is ever an option or he just somehow in his 40 years of practice never encountered such a situation.
The whole website is thinly veiled bible thumping and yeeehawwww Americana rhetoric.
I actually was fairly indifferent to him until I read his own words on his website.
Submitted by JulsInsane (user info) at 2007-07-26 11:18:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-07-25 22:47:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Abortion, health care, and gay rights are small issues to me compared to other issues like foreign policy, immigration, limited federal government, and taxes.
The reasons are as such:
1. Abortion- I am not a woman, thus I will never become pregnant. Thus it is none of my fucking business.
2. Univeral Health Care- I'm a veteran, thus making health care completely free for me right now and dirt cheap later on.
3. Gay marriage- I am not gay nor do I have any gay friends or family memebers so I could give two shits about gay marriage.
These are issues that Ron Paul opposes. They are also issues I really don't give two flying fucks either way about. So I'm still voting for Paul.
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. you don't have sex? If you have sex abortion is your business be it if you oppose it or support it.
2. Universal Health Care might not be important to you specifically given your circumstances but the indication that he opposes government funded social services should be important to you. His ideology falls in direct opposition to many of the government funded programs offered to veterans.
3. Gay marriage should be important to everyone, not because of any personal involvement with gay rights but due to the implications that government involvement in something like marriage brings. Marriage is a legal contract in the United States, the religious ceremonies associated with marriage are not binding in the US to my knowledge. Thus it is simply a legal contract, thus applying Judeo-Christian "morality" to a legal contract is against the seperation of church and state. And we all know what happens when you start mixing religion and politics... yeah.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-07-26 09:21:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
it's no suprise that ets believes in botched conspiracy theories when he's ready to accept mythology over science.
"OPEN YOUR EYES! ACCEPT MY FAITH!"
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 09:09:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-07-26 09:01:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/cities/us/in/evansville/?from=loc_pick
---------------------
"I can also proudly say that, locally, the Evansville, Indiana Ron Paul Meetup Group is really beginning to expand and take off."
hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2007-07-26 09:05:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I feel I know too much about Ron Paul, I really do.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-07-26 09:01:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://ronpaul.meetup.com/cities/us/in/evansville/?from=loc_pick
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-07-26 08:59:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
americans are fucked either way
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 07:28:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-07-25 22:47:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Abortion, health care, and gay rights are small issues to me compared to other issues like foreign policy, immigration, limited federal government, and taxes.
The reasons are as such:
1. Abortion- I am not a woman, thus I will never become pregnant. Thus it is none of my fucking business.
2. Univeral Health Care- I'm a veteran, thus making health care completely free for me right now and dirt cheap later on.
3. Gay marriage- I am not gay nor do I have any gay friends or family memebers so I could give two shits about gay marriage.
These are issues that Ron Paul opposes. They are also issues I really don't give two flying fucks either way about. So I'm still voting for Paul.
------------------------------------------------
I think those are wedge issues (other than the health care).
But stem cell research should intrest you, and his position should worry you.
His economics are loony, and that is generous. Do a little digging on his stances and beliefs. The gold standard, which he wants to move back to, would cripple the Us economy. his belief in Dollar Hegemony comes from a third rate political and financial "thinker" with no training in either who writes to get people to buy into his own investment firm (Henry C.K. Liu, look him up it is worth the laugh).
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-07-26 07:20:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:29:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
First, Ron Paul voted AGAINST a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He's NOT "anti-gay". He voted this way on the same constitutional principle that the federal government has no business being in our personal lives as he does on everything else to do with individual choices.
------------------------------
Really? He voted against gay couples being allowed to adopt. I would call that anti-gay (and I am against gay marriages)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm
How about stem cells?
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Who does he back when it comes to bankruptcy and salaries, big business or average Joe. Big business is the winner!!
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Vouchers for education? He can't make up his mind.
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
One thing he is sure of is that prayer should be allowed in school.
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
How does he feel about helping missing kids? Fuck them!
Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Campaign finance reform?
Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
Net Neutrality?
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
These are just the things that he voted for that annoyed me (I actually really like his position on immigration, and his voting record for healthcare, just not the direction he wants to take it).
I wonder if ETS is going to flip flop on any of these issues he didn't agree with before just because Ronny says it is the way to go, just like he did with abortion.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:57:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I never believe anything that comes out of the mouths of our politicians, this you will soon learn with my awesome post.
WITH LINKABLE LINKS!
AND PIRATES!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:52:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey, I wouldn't dream of it. In fact, I find British politics to be most amusing.
In all seriousness, I think you guys have quite a lot to sort out politically. A lot of your liberties are being flushed down the toilet too, and I think it's pretty appalling. I also happen to think that your media and intelligence services, because of the state-run aspect of them both, work more in collusion to create some of the "crises" you see on television that, in turn, result in the further limiting of your liberties.
I know that's a difficult pill to swallow especially coming from a yank, but I think it would serve your country well if you all remained a little more skeptical of some of the shit you're being fed, particularly when it comes to these "terror attacks".
But that's just crazy ETS talk, I know.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:38:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
TEH RAPEORZ?!!?
British politics post coming soon, can't have you having the sole monopoly. Theres rules against that sort of thing.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:26:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:20:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
What the hell are you rapists doing up anyway?! Its like half 8 in the morning here!
------------------
The answer's in the question. :P
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:26:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:05:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This bit "We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."
which seems to include things such as the U.N. and international war crimes tribunals.
-----------------
What he's saying is that this pathological mindset of "adherence to the U.N." whether it be in our trade or whatever severely undermines our national sovereignty and consequently the very Constitutional Republic that made America such a beacon of hope and liberty to the world so long ago.
That's the key... Keeping our Constitutional Republic intact and not succumbing to the globalist movement that is, in my humble opinion, getting increasingly dangerous for ALL of us.
Think about it... What do you think is really going to happen if world power is consolidated between a shrinking number of people? Do you think they're going to hand out Popsicles to everyone? Hell no. They're going to use it as an engine to exploit and control just like leaders have been doing for millenia.
What Dr. Paul says is that we should try to get along with, talk to, and trade with other nations instead of trying to exert domineering control over them. We should hold to the values of our Constitutional Republic and resist the urge to relinquish sovereignty of the people of our country to determine their own direction. In essence, he's doing exactly what some in your country do every time they argued against joining the E.U. What you do when you do that is you put your own destiny in the hands of others, to be determined in a socialistic way for the stated "good of all".
Problem is, under such systems, as our founding fathers wrote, the liberties of the individual die on the alter of the whole. Search yourself deeply and ask yourself if that's really any kind of life. And look at the past examples of totalitarianism and ask yourself which is the better path.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:20:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
What the hell are you rapists doing up anyway?! Its like half 8 in the morning here!
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:13:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Good points all round.
and isolationism is isolationism in his book apparently.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:09:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 08:08:10 BST (#)
Ranking: 0
A close examination of the reasons for all our wars should tell you that we CREATE problems, not solve them.
----------
Good point. MON THE PAUL!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:08:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:53:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Having read a good portion of old Ronnies website he seems a difficult man to pigeon hole, no wonder the press don't cover him.
Fuck I'd vote for him if I was a septic.
As a non-septic though his "America First" rhetoric terrifies me.
---------------------
Dude, trust me... Ron Paul is EXACTLY who you want as our president over here. Dude, he wants to pull American troops out of all these bases we've been occupying for the last 60-100 years all over the world! What could possibly we so bad about that?
He doesn't want to get us into entangling alliances that create wars and stifle the diplomatic process. He's sick, like so many of us over here and around the world are, of American acting like the fucking world police.
A close examination of the reasons for all our wars should tell you that we CREATE problems, not solve them.
Besides, how can we ever really help each other and live in peace if our own houses aren't in order?
Isn't that one of the oldest proverbs in the book?
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 03:05:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
This bit "We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America."
which seems to include things such as the U.N. and international war crimes tribunals.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:59:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
his platform includes non-intervention in the affairs of soverign nations as a foreign policy. Is that what you meant by America First rhetoric?
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:53:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Having read a good portion of old Ronnies website he seems a difficult man to pigeon hole, no wonder the press don't cover him.
Fuck I'd vote for him if I was a septic.
As a non-septic though his "America First" rhetoric terrifies me.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:44:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
His American Independence and Sovereignty rants are scary from a frothy headed "World First, Nation Second" liberal goofs point of view.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:41:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
yes
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-26 02:29:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
First, Ron Paul voted AGAINST a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He's NOT "anti-gay". He voted this way on the same constitutional principle that the federal government has no business being in our personal lives as he does on everything else to do with individual choices.
Second,
d_prime: I am in partial agreement with what you said. However, I don't think he's necessarily wrong on abortion. I have found from reexamining my position on this matter that opposition to state-sanctioned abortion is counterintuitive to the rule of law.
We can all agree that free will is the cornerstone of humanity. It is indeed what makes us human and life's experience valuable beyond the level of controlled automata. And I'm sure there aren't manyamong us who would disagree with an assertion that an act of free will that does not impinge upon someone else's free will should, in all cases, be allowed by law.
The problem is that in the case of abortion, pro-choice arguments hinge upon the fetus having no right to life because it is not yet an autonomous being which could survive outside the mother's womb on its own. This neglects to consider the other facts involved, such as the DNA of the fetus and its independent structure from that of the mother. This cannot be argued. From the moment of conception, the DNA is technically distinct, making it a completely different, albeit unfunctional, being. The potential for another being, if left to nature's intended course, cannot be denied at this point.
Let me give an example... When an animal is labeled an "endangered species" under conservation legislation, it is not only the live animals that are protected, but their food sources, their hunting and breeding grounds, AND in the case of animals that lay eggs, their eggs. WE could not go smashing a bald eagle's nest containing eggs because causational reasoning tells us that those eggs represent the potential for new life, therefore it is just as destructive to the species to destroy the eggs as it is the live creature at length. Likewise with their habitat. We protect it because as humans we have the power of memory and reason enough to see the causational effects of the destruction of these things on the species' survival.
Why is this different in human beings? What's the true reasoning? The constitution makes no mention of a mother's right to an abortion, on the contrary, if one truly respects the scientific definition of a unique being as having a distinct set of DNA, then we must respect the rights of the potential life that now forms because of the mother's presumed choice to engage in an activity she knew could potentially lead to pregnancy. To endorse abortion at the Federal level is an abberration that undermines the principles of true liberty by rewarding the shucking of responsibility for one's actions and by advocating the destruction of potential life, which, by definition, is the impingment of the right to life and liberty.
For most of my life I was pro-choice. Throughout the 1990s growing up and even today it is seen as the uncool thing to be pro-life. It is associated with the other cardinal sin, being Christian...or worse, Catholic! I have changed my opinion on this for the reasons I've mentioned above.
I am with you in the sense that this isn't a huge issue to me. I think I could live in a world that went either way on it namely because I think there are much bigger fish to fry right now that threaten ALL of our liberties, not just the ones for unborn babies.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2007-07-26 01:44:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-07-26 00:59:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:43:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:40:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ikari_shinji
Yay another Klingon. We need more like you...people who have just arrived and will be gone in 6 months acting like they know everyone intimately in a desperate ploy to find acceptance quickly on a website.
Attacking me will get you plenty of friends. Good decision, sycophant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, cumrag. I attack EVERYONE, or damn near it, because SO MUCH pisses me off.
What's more, I LIKE DOING IT. It's FUN, because people react. They just CAN'T help themselves. No matter how mature they act, getting ragged on by someone on the Internet is a universal irritant. So guess what? I'm not going fucking ANYwhere.
You just became another glaring target in my crosshairs. Enjoy the ride, fuckwit.
=========================================================================
this will probably work on 99.9% of the people here.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-07-25 23:53:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why do Ron Paul supporters, when labeling the problems with him, name his opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and "universal" health care? The first two he's wrong on, but state health care is evil.
Submitted by Flack (user info) at 2007-07-25 22:47:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Abortion, health care, and gay rights are small issues to me compared to other issues like foreign policy, immigration, limited federal government, and taxes.
The reasons are as such:
1. Abortion- I am not a woman, thus I will never become pregnant. Thus it is none of my fucking business.
2. Univeral Health Care- I'm a veteran, thus making health care completely free for me right now and dirt cheap later on.
3. Gay marriage- I am not gay nor do I have any gay friends or family memebers so I could give two shits about gay marriage.
These are issues that Ron Paul opposes. They are also issues I really don't give two flying fucks either way about. So I'm still voting for Paul.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 21:15:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Dolson (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:35:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This is an incredible waste, given that it's Ron Paul. Isn't there some other anti-establishment candidate you can hitch you wagon to, rather than this abortion-hating, public-health-care-hating douchebag? Like seriously? There may be a reason he's sort of unpopular, you know.
---------------
He dislikes public heathcare as an option because the man was a doctor and happens to think there's a better way to solve our healthcare woes than creating another giant government bureaucracy around it, such as letting the free market determine the price of medication like it does for virtually everything else. His example is consumer electronics...while the demand for consumer electronics has gone up, the prices have still come down over time. This is not true with medical care precisely BECAUSE of government interference.
As for the abortion question, his argument is simple...it's a state's rights issue, plain and simple. His personal feelings are against it because he's seen abortions performed as a doctor and did not think it was the right thing to do. He also asserts, rightly so, that to stop abortion would require an amendment to the constitution, or legislation defining life as the start of conception (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1094), which is something that is up to congress, NOT the president.
As it is right now, state's rights are being usurped by the Federal government by overturning state laws as unconstitutional that prohibit abortion. This is the wrong approach to the issue. Just like we don't want the Federal government coming in and arresting people anyway when our states pass laws that legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes, we don't want them interfering with our local decisions on this issue. It's really simple if you just THINK about it and stop superimposing your knee-jerk reactions onto it. It's the only way that makes constitutional sense, to leave it up to the states and grant them the authority to enforce their laws.
The problem of abortion is one that consists of legitimate arguments on both sides of the issue, but one of them (the pro choice side) hinges on the assumption that a fetus is not a life and a prospective mother has a right to do something unnatural to terminate the pregnancy. This makes it the weaker of the two arguments and even though I have been pro choice for most of my life, I have recently reexamined this issue and found that there is far more merit to the arguments that abortion is an aggressive and unnatural act that champions the selfish desires of a woman over the rights of her unborn child.
For those who would raise the economic factors in a woman's choice to abort, I'd say there is always adoption. For those who would site health factors, I'd say that if there is evidence the mother's life would be in jeopardy to go through with a pregnancy there should be a provision in the law recognizing this special circumstance, as it would then become an aggressive act on the part of legislators to endanger her life.
Anything else?
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-07-25 20:56:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Is the rest of the world any less collectivst-minded than North America, Donovan?
Submitted by DonovanMD (user info) at 2007-07-25 20:45:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Its too bad this will be for not ETS. Americans (and usually Canadians too) are such sheep, the majority will just go for who gets the most attention.
Submitted by UnderDog (user info) at 2007-07-25 20:18:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I liked it.
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:48:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Dolson: If popularity is your means of judging something's merits, how does the populace decide what to like or dislike in the first place?
Submitted by Dolson (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:35:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This is an incredible waste, given that it's Ron Paul. Isn't there some other anti-establishment candidate you can hitch you wagon to, rather than this abortion-hating, public-health-care-hating douchebag? Like seriously? There may be a reason he's sort of unpopular, you know.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:09:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow, you're so cool. So hip. I want to be just like you when I grow up and get in high school.
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:06:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Nah, I'm done for now. I should go reload, eat some dinner, take a shit, etc.
You'll know when I'm ready for some more.
Keep dreaming that impossible dream, sonny! *thumbs-up*
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 19:05:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yawn.
Anything else?
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:55:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:51:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ooo, I'm scared. Nothing scares me quite like a little teenage boy being a troll on the internet. Well, get ready for a long and frustrating battle, there buddy. I've survived much more irritating 'adversaries' than you.
There's something you should know up front though that everyone else here knows but you, apparently... I THRIVE on negative attention. It's what pushes my posts to most heated. So, thank you.
One thing you've got going for you is that these days I'm pretty fucking apathetic when it comes to my "image" on ubersite. To me, this place is like a disease. If it didn't suit a larger agenda for me at the present moment I wouldn't be coming here still. At the moment, whether you realize it or not, you are helping me.
===
Whatever helps you sleep better at night, buddy boy. I'm sure that when everyone clicks on your "Most Heated" posts they aren't doing so to immediately berate you for your awesome stupidity and dedication to the most futile cause since the "Save the Sewer Rat" campaign.
Your larger agenda is a fool's errand and only serves to further display the fact that you have even more time to waste than ME.
Now, I think I hear the black helicopters coming. Better scurry to don your tinfoil hat; you don't want the CIA reading your thoughts again, do you?
You fucking WISH you were Koresh.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:51:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ooo, I'm scared. Nothing scares me quite like a little teenage boy being a troll on the internet. Well, get ready for a long and frustrating battle, there buddy. I've survived much more irritating 'adversaries' than you.
There's something you should know up front though that everyone else here knows but you, apparently... I THRIVE on negative attention. It's what pushes my posts to most heated. So, thank you.
One thing you've got going for you is that these days I'm pretty fucking apathetic when it comes to my "image" on ubersite. To me, this place is like a disease. If it didn't suit a larger agenda for me at the present moment I wouldn't be coming here still. At the moment, whether you realize it or not, you are helping me.
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:43:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:40:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ikari_shinji
Yay another Klingon. We need more like you...people who have just arrived and will be gone in 6 months acting like they know everyone intimately in a desperate ploy to find acceptance quickly on a website.
Attacking me will get you plenty of friends. Good decision, sycophant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, cumrag. I attack EVERYONE, or damn near it, because SO MUCH pisses me off.
What's more, I LIKE DOING IT. It's FUN, because people react. They just CAN'T help themselves. No matter how mature they act, getting ragged on by someone on the Internet is a universal irritant. So guess what? I'm not going fucking ANYwhere.
You just became another glaring target in my crosshairs. Enjoy the ride, fuckwit.
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:43:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The irony lies in a man hell bent on dissuading every single one of us to his train of thought, but aknowledges he stubbornly refuse to change his own.
Or was that not clear enough for you?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:41:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:40:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You people should know by now that you will not dissuade me with anything you say, so why do you even bother?
--------------
Well, if that isn't the most ironic statement I have ever read I will eat my car.
--------------------------
There's no irony there. I started this post by saying "FOR THOSE OF YOU ALREADY FOLLOWING RON PAUL..."
Where's the irony?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:40:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ikari_shinji
Yay another Klingon. We need more like you...people who have just arrived and will be gone in 6 months acting like they know everyone intimately in a desperate ploy to find acceptance quickly on a website.
Attacking me will get you plenty of friends. Good decision, sycophant.
Submitted by DeadToast (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:40:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You people should know by now that you will not dissuade me with anything you say, so why do you even bother?
--------------
Well, if that isn't the most ironic statement I have ever read I will eat my car.
Submitted by YELLOW-MAN (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:32:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That guy was on the Colbert Report..........
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:22:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You people should know by now that you will not dissuade me with anything you say, so why do you even bother?
The bottom line is, I want things to change in this country and I'm trying to do something about it. If you don't like that or if your apathy is too deeply rooted for it, fine, but kindly move yourself and your negative opinions to the side.
---------------------------------
Put a gun to my head and make me, shithammer. If we're not dissuading you, why be assed to try and make us leave you be?
Shut the fuck up and go back to getting ready for the Reckoning, or whatever you call it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2007-07-25 18:03:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You people should know by now that you will not dissuade me with anything you say, so why do you even bother?
The bottom line is, I want things to change in this country and I'm trying to do something about it. If you don't like that or if your apathy is too deeply rooted for it, fine, but kindly move yourself and your negative opinions to the side.
Submitted by hidden101 (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:57:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:55:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ENOUGH!!!
==============================
hahahaha
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:57:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
heh.
Submitted by ikari_shinji (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:55:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Shut the fuck up about this man, please.
He is not going to win.
Your endless Uber posturing and online-shining-of-his-knob will get you, and him, nowhere.
Die, die, DIE you motherfucker.
Submitted by i_can_get_you_a_toe (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:55:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
ENOUGH!!!
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:51:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
We still get no news about him over here. Whenever the US election is discussed in the news its like he doesnt exist.
Submitted by Axolotl (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:49:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
lolwut?
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2007-07-25 17:45:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
And even with all of this hot publicity, this guy will garner a stunning 1 % OF THE POPULAR VOTE!!!!