The Ron Paul 08 thread! Step on in and learn about him :)

[ziadel]

Well, I've volunteered for the Ron Paul campaign. But, living where I am theres only so much assistance I can render locally. So I figured why not step onto TFProject and discuss him with some intelligent hip peeps


I'm not sure where to start, does anyone have any questions about him? I really dont wanna just start out by yelling he wants this and he wants that.

[Willravel]

As said, he wants the Fed to go bye bye, so he's got my positive attention. Frankly, he's the perfect libertarian constitutionalist candidate. He's pro capitalism and free market, he's anti-big government, he's anti wars of aggression (like conservatives of yor), and a slew of other real honest to goodness smart decisions.

I haven't decided whether to vote for him yet, being a lot more socialist than he, but as a die hard liberal even considering voting for someone on the republican bill should say something.

[Telluride]

I like Ron Paul. It's refreshing (and unusual) to see a politician who generally seems to care about freedom and the Constitution. He's the only one of the current Republican and Democrat candidates I will vote for, and I think he would make a great president.

[ziadel]

Telluride and Willravel make a GREAT point, this guy is running under the Republican ticket, but don't be fooled by the R next to his name. This guy is drawing a lot of bi-partisan support, because he's honest. Something that at this point in history both parties are sorely in need of.

[host]

I posted this on May 18th, in the last "Ron Paul" thread....I think that it is worth
reposting, because I do not think that Rep. Pau;, although I agree with his attitude towards the Federal Reserve and it's doomed fiat paper currency "scam", I don't see him being a pluralist with a grasp and a support for the concerns of those who government should be most concerned about representing and actually standing up for....the 150 million Americans who own just 2-1/2 percent of total US assets:

"I predict that too many of Ron Paul's supporters will chalk the following up as oversensitivity from the "politically correct", but I found the 11 year old examples that describe Paul's thinking....the prejudices he harbored that would disqualify him from even holding his current office....make him seem just another unprincipled opportunist, pandering to the flawed sentiments of "his base", in exchange for their politcal support:"

http://www.chron.com/content/chronic...5/23/paul.html
9:16 PM 5/22/1996

Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent
GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime

By ALAN BERNSTEIN
Copyright 1996 Houston Chronicle Political Writer

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, <b>Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."</b>

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Selected writings by Paul were distributed Wednesday by the campaign of his Democratic opponent, Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris.

Morris said many of Paul's views are "out there on the fringe" and that his commentaries will be judged by voters in the November general elections.

Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare.

Morris and Paul are seeking the 14th Congressional District seat held by Greg Laughlin of West Columbia. Laughlin lost the Republican primary to Paul, a former congressman and the Libertarian Party's 1988 presidential candidate.

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

<b>"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions</b>, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote.

<b>Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people."</b> Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' <b>I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.</b>

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. <b>Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."</b>

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.

Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but <b>black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."</b>

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? <b>Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.</b>

In later newsletters, Paul aimed criticism at the Israeli government's U.S. lobbying efforts and <b>reported allegations that President Clinton used cocaine and fathered illegitimate children.</b>

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that <b>the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.</b>

Relaying a rumor that Clinton was a longtime cocaine user, Paul wrote in 1994 that the speculation "would explain certain mysteries" about the president's scratchy voice and insomnia.

"None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting," he said.

[Willravel]

Jesus Christ. I forgot all about that.

Here's the thing, even bearing in mind the dangerous air of racism on several racial fronts, he's by far the best Republican candidate and he is bringing forward VERY important issues that are ignored by the puppets in the Dem and Republican parties. The fact alone that he believes in evolution puts him centuries (millennia?) ahead of many of the others.

[filtherton]

I don't see what the big deal is with him. He's essentially the right's answer to kucinich. I'm not a libertarian, so it's difficult for me to get excited about him.

[host]

Originally Posted by filtherton

I don't see what the big deal is with him. He's essentially the right's answer to kucinich. I'm not a libertarian, so it's difficult for me to get excited about him.

willravel...in fairness to Ron Paul, after my last post, I checked on the points from the 1996 article and I found that Ron Paul said that they were the work of a "ghostwriter", but that Ron Paul accepted that the words were published in literature that displayed Paul's signature, and it was too complicated to deny or to explain to the public, so he accepted responsibility for their distribution, while emphasizing that he was not a racist.....

It's not 1996 now, and if Ron Paul wants to appeal to enough voters to win primaries and the general election in 2008, he'll have to explain better than that, and he'll have to explain how his entire philosophy will benefit the "least of us".....because it's been the other way already, for the last six years, and for 18 years out of the last 26....

If you're an upper middle class, or wealthier....white male with no concern for women's reproductive rights, civil rights, or an accurate assessment of "the Reagan years"....I guess Ron Paul is "yer guy". The poor, the women without resources to travel to blue states where affordable, legal, medically safe and antiseptic abortion is obtainable, as well as minorities with no access to the "legacy appointments" of Ivy league schools, as Bush enjoyed, or the networking opportunities that are the "bennys" of attending good schools, fraternities, civic organizations, professional groups, social clubs, or to job opportunities via referrals of friends already employed by that business, or that state or city agency....if Ron Paul is able to implement his agenda, I guess you would all be shit outta luck.

Ron Paul would roll back the 17th amendment, the one that took the selection of US senators out of the
hands of state legislators and into the hands of individual voters....In Paul's view, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, SCOTUS decision, and even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, would be "states rights", not any of our federal government's business. Paul's ideology would allow for segregation as official state law or policy, and I would enjoy reading a post that persuades that a slavery law passed by an individual state would be counter to Ron Paul's political "vision".

http://www.goupstate.com/article/200...040337/-1/LIFE
Government can't create moral society, Paul says

Published July 4, 2007

.....SHJ: You're against abortion. How do you counter the view that's the government telling a woman what she can or can't do with her body, infringing on personal freedom?

PAUL: There are two lives. You have a right to privacy in your home - I don't want any cameras or any invasion in the home. Your home is your castle in a free society. That doesn't give you the right to kill a baby in the bed. If there is another life involved, and that crib happens to be the uterus, the issue is not telling the woman what to do. The issue is whether there's another life. I tell my libertarian friends that if you have a live fetus, and it's 4, 5, 6, 7 pounds, and it has a heartbeat, and brainwaves, moves and sucks its thumb, and you kill him, you're committing an act of violence. So, it's a little more complicated than saying a woman can do what she wants with her body, and that's why it's been difficult for a lot of people to sort this out. The one thing I say is that we should repeal Roe v. Wade, and it should be a state issue........

Ron Paul's selective memories of Ronald Reagan....no $1,500,000,000,000 deficit, added to an existing Treasury debt in 1980, accumulated over 200 years, that was just $998,000,000,000 before Reagan's inauguration. No mention of Iran/Contra crimes and obstruction, or Reagan's dismal civil rights record and message, either...or Reagan's "non response" to the AIDS epedemic....:

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr061004.htm
Remembering Ronald Reagan

(Representative Ron Paul in the congressional record, Wednesday June 9th)


Mr. Speaker, all Americans mourn the death of President Ronald Reagan, but those of us who had the opportunity to know him are especially saddened. I got to know President Reagan in 1976 when, as a freshman congressman, I was one of only four members of that body to endorse then-Governor Reagan’s primary challenge to President Gerald Ford. I had the privilege of serving as the leader of President Reagan’s Texas delegation at the Republican convention of 1976, where Ronald Reagan almost defeated an incumbent president for his party’s nomination.

I was one of the millions attracted to Ronald Reagan by his strong support for limited government and the free-market. I felt affinity for a politician who based his conservative philosophy on “… a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom…” I wish more of today’s conservative leaders based their philosophy on a desire for less government and more freedom.

Ronald Reagan was one of the most eloquent exponents of the freedom philosophy in modern American politics. One of his greatest achievements was converting millions of Americans to the freedom philosophy; many he inspired became active in the freedom movement. One of the best examples of President Reagan’s rhetorical powers was his first major national political address, “A Time for Choosing.” Delivered in 1964 in support of the Goldwater presidential campaign, this speech launched Ronald Reagan’s career as both a politician and a leader of the conservative movement. The following excerpt from that speech illustrates the power of Ronald Reagan’s words and message. Unfortunately, these words are as relevant to our current situation as they were when he delivered them in 1964:

It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government."

This idea - that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power - is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream - the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.

Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government set out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.



One of the most direct expressions of Ronald Reagan’s disdain for big government came during a private conversation I shared with him when flying from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base. As the helicopter passed over the monuments, we looked down and he said, “Isn’t that beautiful? It’s amazing how much terrible stuff comes out of this city when it’s that beautiful.”

While many associate Ronald Reagan with unbridled militarism, he was a lifelong opponent of the draft. It is hardly surprising that many of the most persuasive and powerful arguments against conscription came from President Reagan. One of my favorite Reagan quotes comes from a 1979 article he wrote for the conservative publication Human Events regarding the draft and related “national service” proposals:

“...it [conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state- not for parents, the community, the religious institutions or teachers- to decide who shall have what values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”

I extend my deepest sympathies to Ronald Reagan’s family and friends, especially his beloved wife Nancy and his children. I also urge my colleagues and all Americans to honor Ronald Reagan by dedicating themselves to the principles of limited government and individual liberty.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
The Trouble With Forced Integration

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

July 3, 2004

Some other "warts" on Ron Paul's ideology of strict "states rights", to consider:

http://yuriybilokonsky.newsvine.com/...wsvine#c788067

......Hm, I've haven't been particularly clear in the scope of this discussion, but I don't think the federal government does everything best, and I don't think we should rely on the federal government before we take any sort of action. Northern states outlawed slavery and segregation before the South, yes, and Oregon entered the Union allowing Women's Suffrage decades before the 19th amendment. But it took federal policy to ensure that being a citizen of the United States meant you enjoy civil rights no matter what state you reside in.

Yes the states *can* protect minority rights and they *should* act responsibly. but you seem to take for granted the fact that they will. I hate to keep harping on gay marraige, but it's the most recent and visible violation of civil rights currently existing. 18 states made gay marraige constitutionally illegal, many in 2004 through voter referrendum. That's over a third of the country. I refuse to give up federal oversight over civil rights because, when it comes to discrimination states' rights are NOT inviolable.

A lot of things handled federally right now would probably be far better handled locally but the point I will not move from is small government is not the solution in every scenario.......

America waited 101 years after the Emancipation Proclamation for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. By 1964, some states had advanced to a point where the 1964 Act mandated little significant change. In other states, implementation of the ACT changed the face and "the pecking order" of the social landscape. In those states, the ACT was needed. Economic and social pressure from other states, and the world, did not influence TPTB in those states to budge from their racist, segregationist traditions. Ron Paul would have left those states to their own devices.....no problem for him if he had cause to venture into those ignorant, backward places. This was not the case for minority travelers of the American continent....they had to "watch themsleves"......treading carefully through, or avoiding entirely.....the shorter route that might have taken them through Georgia or Alabama.... But you're not a woman, and your not black.....so that part of Paul's political ideology is not your problem, do I have that right?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by host

willravel...in fairness to Ron Paul, after my last post, I checked on the points from the 1996 article and I found that Ron Paul said that they were the work of a "ghostwriter", but that Ron Paul accepted that the words were published in literature that displayed Paul's signature, and it was too complicated to deny or to explain to the public, so he accepted responsibility for their distribution, while emphasizing that he was not a racist.....

Interesting. I suppose coming out in public against the words would bring further attention to them, so from a political standpoint letting it die was the right idea. I prefer honesty, but w/e.

Originally Posted by host

It's not 1996 now, and if Ron Paul wants to appeal to enough voters to win primaries and the general election in 2008, he'll have to explain better than that, and he'll have to explain how his entire philosophy will benefit the "least of us".....because it's been the other way already, for the last six years, and for 18 years out of the last 26....

If it's a simple matter of "someone else wrote that", wouldn't that put the matter to rest? Or is there further evidence of racism or classism?

Originally Posted by host

If you're an upper middle class, or wealthier....white male with no concern for women's reproductive rights, civil rights, or an accurate assessment of "the Reagan years"....I guess Ron Paul is "yer guy". The poor, the women without resources to travel to blue states where affordable, legal, medically safe and antiseptic abortion is obtainable, as well as minorities with no access to the "legacy appointments" of Ivy league schools, as Bush enjoyed, or the networking opportunities that are the "bennys" of attending good schools, fraternities, civic organizations, professional groups, social clubs, or to job opportunities via referrals of friends already employed by that business, or that state or city agency....if Ron Paul is able to implement his agenda, I guess you would all be shit outta luck.

Supports don't ask don't tell, which is a step ahead of other republicans who disrespect service men and women who happen to be homosexuals. RP voted no on the constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages. RP voted against making the Patriot Act permanent. He voted no on a constitutional amendment banning flag burning. He has come out in support of non-violent civil disobedience.

But he did change his views of homosexuals when he voted yes on banning gay adoptions in DC.

Originally Posted by host

Ron Paul would roll back the 17th amendment, the one that took the selection of US senators out of the hands of state legislators and into the hands of individual voters....In Paul's view, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education, SCOTUS decision, and even Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, would be "states rights", not any of our federal government's business. Paul's ideology would allow for segregation as official state law or policy, and I would enjoy reading a post that persuades that a slavery law passed by an individual state would be counter to Ron Paul's political "vision".

I've heard both sides of the 17th argument, and while I've chosen that it should remain, I can understand why some want it gone. I only wish that instead of focusing on the 17th, they would focus on doing what they could to help keep the voter informed. That would solve the problem.

As to the race relations decisions and legislation being at a state level... I do like the idea of state's rights, but I see no reason for that to be retroactive. Racism allowed is racism committed.

Originally Posted by host

Ron Paul's selective memories of Ronald Reagan....no $1,500,000,000,000 deficit, added to an existing Treasury debt in 1980, accumulated over 200 years, that was just $998,000,000,000 before Reagan's inauguration. No mention of Iran/Contra crimes and obstruction, or Reagan's dismal civil rights record and message, either...or Reagan's "non response" to the AIDS epedemic....:

Wasn't that quote intended to be an eulogy after Reagan died? If that's so, I can understand a little white-washing. If the stuff I've gotten into comes up at my funeral, my family wouldn't sleep for a week. With all the skeletons in the Reagan closet, and most people being aware of them (unless you're in a Republican presidential debate, where Reagan-love runs rampant), I would see no point in bringing them up right after he died.

Originally Posted by host

Some other "warts" on Ron Paul's ideology of strict "states rights", to consider:

Don't forget you're talking to a socialist.
I love that California can pass legislation pushing for alternative fuels years before similar federal laws, but if it honestly works here and the federal government wants to move, I don't think that some backwards, oil loving idiots to stand in it's way.

I remember something Aaron Russo once said in a interview that got my attention:

(paraphrased)"Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner. In a republic, the sheep would have a gun.

Democracy is an interesting idea, but it hardly serves or protects the individual. The best form of government is a constitutional republic, like we have. My only improvement would be less reliance on corporations to make the free market run smoothly. Small businesses are what really make the free market work.

[ziadel]

Originally Posted by willravel

If it's a simple matter of "someone else wrote that", wouldn't that put the matter to rest? Or is there further evidence of racism or classism?

After I read that blurb he wrote, I went looking up info on it. The ghost writer argument holds water because I havent been able to find anything else that would suggest hes a racist or anything.

A 1996 article in the Houston Chronicle[85] alleges that Ron Paul made comments about race in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985), including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan.[86]

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"

He further stated:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[12]

Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[12]

[jorgelito]

Host, thanks for posting the correction and additional info. I think Ron Paul is definitely one of the better candidates the Republicans are considering, though it makes it interesting to see what Libertarian candidate will run.

On the Dems side, who do you like or feel is a good candidate (if this is too much of a threadjack, maybe we should open up another thread to discuss the Democratic candidates).

[Elphaba]

The supposed front runner, McCain, has now been left in Paul's dust. He's gained this traction with his ideas and very little money. I wonder if the other candidates misjudged the public's mood with the "I'm tougher than Bush" claim.

[roachboy]

at the moment, the 800lb gorilla appears to be bloomberg.
given that the guy is worth about 5 billion and has more money to blow than both conventional parties combined, i've decided to wait a bit and see how things shake out before actually caring too much about the jockeying for position.
not that i would vote for a conservative libertarian in any event.

[ubertuber]

Out of fairness to Ziadel, who was very clear about why he started this thread, let's talk about other candidates in other threads...

[Telluride]

Originally Posted by ziadel

After I read that blurb he wrote, I went looking up info on it. The ghost writer argument holds water because I havent been able to find anything else that would suggest hes a racist or anything.

I don't know Ron Paul personally, so I have no insight into whether or not he's a racist. But I didn't find the comments in that article particularly hateful. They seemed more like politically incorrect facts.

I'm not offended when somebody points out that most serial killers in America are white guys. In the area I live in, most home invasion robberies are committed by Asians. This fact doesn't offend me. Most of crimes against American abortionists and/or their clinics are undoubtedly committed by Christians (and most of these Christians are probably white, too). Again; doesn't offend me. So on and so forth.

[tecoyah]

The more I learn about all these closet issues everywhere, with everyone.....the better Hillary looks every day, this scares me. Oh well, at least the majority of her stinky shit is already in the open....I think?

[Kadath]

In this interview with Stephanopoulos, Ron Paul says that taking student loans is an immoral act because it takes money from taxpayers.

He seems pretty out there, honestly. I don't see how he can ever get the nomination, which is a good thing as far as I can see.

[dc_dux]

I can understand the curiosity around Ron Paul, particularly as a result of his steadfast opposition to the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.

But his positions on many issues are WAY out of the mainstream - from his bill in the House to overturn Roe v Wade...to his desire to further loosen the limited federal gun control provisions on registration and background checks...and his opposition to stem cell research and basically prohibiting federal "subsidy" of many areas of medical research...his desire to end federal Medicare program and totally privatize Social Security....to his comment above about the federal student loan program and numerous other issues that Americans care about (energy policy - opposing any funding of alternative energy, an abysmal environmental record........)

None of these positions will attract centrists or independents, but I hope, by some miracle, he wins the Republican nomination. It will guarantee a Democratic president...even Hillary.

[ziadel]

Originally Posted by Kadath

In this interview with Stephanopoulos, Ron Paul says that taking student loans is an immoral act because it takes money from taxpayers.

He seems pretty out there, honestly. I don't see how he can ever get the nomination, which is a good thing as far as I can see.

He doesn't believe that the federal goverment has the right to tax income. Thats not really that far out there if you ask me.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

But his positions on many issues are WAY out of the mainstream - from his bill in the House to overturn Roe v Wade...

He feels its an issue to be left up to the states. and while I am not thrilled about that, thats the way our system is supposed to work.

to his desire to further loosen the limited federal gun control provisions on registration and background checks...

Again, if an individual state wants background checks/fingerprints/urine sample thats their business. The states can individually pass whatever legislation they want as long as it doesnt violate the constitution.

and his opposition to stem cell research and basically prohibiting federal "subsidy" of many areas of medical research...his desire to end federal Medicare program and totally privatize Social Security....to his comment above about the federal student loan program and numeours other issues that Americans care about(energy policy, an abysmal environmental record........)

again, the feds have no business in this, he's not saying one way or another what should be done, he is saying leave it up to the states from what I understand.

None of these positions will attract centrists or independents, but I hope, by some miracle, he wins the Republican nomination. It will guarantee a Democratic president...even Hillary.

we shall see.

[dc_dux]

Ziadel...I completely understand the rationale behind his positions ( I dont agree with it) and I also understand where most Americans stand on the issues I cited, and many are diametrically opposed to his hardline radical alternatives..or leaving everything "up to the states".

But as you say, we shall see, as his positions beyond the war become well known to the voters.

[jorgelito]

DC, Ron Paul's ideas (the ones you listed) are hardly extreme or radical. I think they are very mainstream (in a broad sense). States rights is very salient and not radical at all.

[dc_dux]

Jorgelito....perhaps you have information that I have not seen, but I am not aware of any studies, polls, etc that suggest broad based support or a "states rights" movement when it comes to these issues of concern to many Americans.

Do you think most America wants to replace Roe with 50 state abortion laws or the Brady Bill with 50 different state gun control laws? The same applies to stem cell research, Medicare and Social Security reform, disaster planning and response, etc.

Do you believe most American want to see no federal role in medical, science and technology R&D...or no federal support for developing alternative energy resources...or very limited federal enviromental regulations?

Do you think most Americans support a NO vote on a National Amber Alert system for missing children...or no federal minimum wage...or less federal regulations on workplace safety?

These are all Ron Paul positions...all under the guise of "not authorized in the Constitution and should be left to the States". Yet there is no evidence that Americans want these (and many other issues) left to the states.

There is a place for folks like Ron Paul (and Dennis Kucinich) in the House of Representatives, where they are one voice among 435. It is refreshing and contributes to the debate when they vote against the mainstream Ds and Rs based on their respective understanding of the Constitution and the role of the federal government. They also know that their positions are far from the mainstream and will have no impact on passage or failure of most legislation.

However, these guys dont translate well to the Executive Branch. Assume a Ron Paul presidency and his "abolish the income tax" position. Would he veto student loans bills because they are dependent on revenue derived from income taxes....Would he veto the annual budget and appropriation bills (he votes against many of the appropriation bills). Not a chance because he knows the blowback that would come from Americans across the country who benefit from programs like student loan guarantees, getting their Social Security check, farm subsidies, community development programs, etc.

Sorry, he is WAY out of the mainstream and more people will recognize that as they become familiar with his positions beyond the sound bites of "abolish the income tax" and "get the federal government out of our lives"

Ron Paul's voting record in his 12 years in Congress...a very mixed record in many respects, but a very clear pattern on some issues.

[host]

The milestones that measured progress in the areas of racial, gender, and income equality, and the equal opportunity to vote, came as a result of weakening the "states rights" movement, during the 20th century, not by strengthening it.

I look forward to reading where the significant advocacy for strengthening states rights is coming from, and how it is measured......polling results, etc.

States Rights is an anachronism that harkens back to a dismal, intolerant time in American history. I know that advancing it's theme is part and parcel to the message, turned into reality via the current administration, that the federal government is not competent to accomplish anything. They've intentionally made it that way. It needs new, accountable management, not the dismantling that the people who advocated for and brought about it's dismal, recent performance record, intend for it.

The same folks who support states rights, proclaiming that this...or that...is best left up to each state to decide, or manage...because the federal government "can do nothing right"...are the folks who advocate for "a strong military", and national security apparatus, as if "the purpose", somehow minimizes the incompetency that they perceive permeates all other government functions. FEMA under James Lee Witt in the 90's was transformed....in reverse....by Bush, Brownie, and DHS...and the degradation that resulted, can be reversed, just as the decline in the DOJ can be reversed.

There is no going back....states rights caused a war.....it ended in 1865. It's the 21st century, and conservatism is not what raised the level of rights and protections of women, minorities, and for those working for wages, during the 20th century, and it is certainly not the solution today....

http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/...15-884794.html
The Voting Rights Act in Perspective
By Micheal Jay Friedman
Washington File Staff Writer

.....What The Voting Rights Act Does

The problem was not that African-Americans lacked the legal right to vote -- as we have seen, the Fifteenth Amendment already barred racial discrimination in voting rights -- but rather that some state and local officials had systematically deprived blacks of those rights. The Voting Rights Act accordingly authorized the federal government to assume control of the voter registration process in any state or voting district that in 1964 had employed a literacy or other qualifying test and in which fewer than half of voting age residents had either registered or voted. Six entire southern states were thus "covered," as were a number of counties in several other states. Covered jurisdictions were prohibited from modifying their voting rules and regulations without first affording federal officials the opportunity to review the change for discriminatory intent or effect. Other provisions barred the future use of literacy tests and directed the Attorney General to commence legal action to end the use of poll taxes in state elections.

The introduction of federal "examiners" ended the mass intimidation of potential minority voters. By the end of 1965, the five states of the "Deep South" alone registered 160,000 new African-American voters. By 2000, African-American registration rates trailed that of whites by only 2 percent. In the South, where in 1965 only 2 African-Americans served either in Congress or a state legislature, the number today is 160.

The VRA was originally enacted for a 5-year period but it has been both extended and expanded to introduce new requirements, such as the provision of bilingual election materials. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension of the VRA. "The right to vote is the crown jewel of American liberties," he said, "and we will not see its luster diminished."

Conclusion

Writing in 2005, Representative John Lewis lauded the "tremendous progress since the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965." Forty years ago, he continued,<b> only 7% of eligible black Mississippians were registered to vote. The figure today is 70%, and 71 Members of Congress boast of African American, Latino, Native American, or Asian descent.</b> The VRA, he concluded "has indeed been successful and has revolutionized enfranchisement in America during the past forty years."

[/quote]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...n9398915/pg_34
Lincoln, the Declaration, and the "Grisly, Undying Corpse of States' Rights": History, Memory, and Imagination in the Constitution of a Southern Liberal
Georgetown Law Journal, Apr 2004 by Forbath, William E
<< Page 1 Continued from page 33. Previous | Next

From the late 1930s onward, the White House and the non-southern branches of the New Deal Democrats in Congress championed not only broadened labor standards and social insurance but also anti-lynching and antidiscrimination legislation; they were met by eloquent southern Democrats' appeals to Slaughter-House and the Civil Rights Cases and to the congressional Constitution of states' rights and limited federal authority to interfere with local "race and domestic matters" such as welfare and employment. Administration figures like Eleanor Roosevelt and Henry Wallace and leading New Deal lawmakers like Robert Wagner insisted that the future of New Deal reform hinged on attacking Jim Crow and Southern disenfranchisement. They nudged FDR to step into a number of 1938 primary elections in the South, with the aim of defeating reactionary Democrats.283 Roosevelt openly assailed the South's congressional bloc for stymying New Deal reforms simply because those reforms threatened the South's "feudal economic system."284 The president found enthusiastic support among southern labor and tenant farmers, but this support did not translate into defeat for the reactionaries285 because the poll tax and other restrictions kept these supporters from voting.286

Roosevelt's campaign to elect southern liberals did inspire the founding of the Southern Conference on Human Welfare (SCHW), a biracial coalition of southern trade unionists and civil rights activists funded by the CIO to attack disenfranchisement and carry out the liberal realignment of the Democratic Party.287 "There is another South," SCHW President Clark Foreman assured the CIO Executive Committee, "composed of the great mass of small farmers, the sharecroppers, the industrial workers white and colored, for the most part disenfranchised by the poll tax and without spokesmen either in Congress, in their state legislatures or in the press."288 This South, he claimed, was the great majority of the region's population.289 Were this majority mobilized and enabled to vote, the South would become "the most liberal region in the Nation."290

In 1944, the Supreme Court decided Smith v. Allwright, declaring Texas's all-white primary unconstitutional;291 this decision combined with a generous influx of money and black and white organizers from the CIO to produce an extraordinary voter registration drive in the South.292 New Dealers of the North and South hoped to witness a test of Foreman's hypothesis that a latent, biracial, liberal majority existed among the South's disenfranchised citizens. In a few southern states like Alabama and Georgia, the number of black and poor white voters increased severalfold.293 A black leader in Birmingham evoked "those 'first bright days of Reconstruction . . . [which] gave to our region its first democratic governments.' It was time, he said, for 'history to repeat itself.'"294

Instead, however, the SCHW's voting drive was put down by force and fraud. This only confirmed that such a southern movement could not prevail without national support. But the national government and the party system from which such support would have had to emerge were too deeply mired in states' rights and white supremacy, too tied to political bosses like Texas's Jim and "Ma" Ferguson. The Solid South's ongoing defeat of Reconstruction and its promise of national civil and political rights-the "grisly, undying corpse of states' rights"-ensured the defeat of national social and economic rights to work and livelihood in the 1930s and 1940s....

[ubertuber]

In my opinion, support for states' rights in the US is support for the slogan, not for what states' right would actually mean.

In that way, this issue is like most others - it enjoys broad support in general, but weak support in particular instances.

[host]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

In my opinion, support for states' rights in the US is support for the slogan, not for what states' right would actually mean.

In that way, this issue is like most others - it enjoys broad support in general, but weak support in particular instances.

okay, so now either uber or jorgelito can provide polling results that indicate support for states rights, when folks are asked, "do you support states rights"?

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by host

okay, so now either uber or jorgelito can provide polling results that indicate support for states rights, when folks are asked, "do you support states rights"?

No.

I'm not saying that there is broad support for states' rights. I'm saying is that there are people who support the idea, and that they are responding to a phrase that resonates more than they are to the meaning behind it. In other words, not all of those people understand the implications of the phrase they like.

Is your post a contention that there aren't people who react positively to the idea of states' rights? If you live in GA and don't know of individuals who rally behind states' rights, you need to get out. That's not an issue of poll numbers.

[host]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

No.

I'm not saying that there is broad support for states' rights. I'm saying is that there are people who support the idea, and that they are responding to a phrase that resonates more than they are to the meaning behind it. In other words, not all of those people understand the implications of the phrase they like.

Is your post a contention that there aren't people who react positively to the idea of states' rights? If you live in GA and don't know of individuals who rally behind states' rights, you need to get out. That's not an issue of poll numbers.

uber, we are in complete agreement.... jorgelito used the word "broad", not you.
I think that the majority of white southerners support "state rights", and that many of the younger ones....as well as many transplanted southern residents from other parts of the US, are not aware of the history or the former disasterous consequences of the struggle to preserve "states rights". Ironically, the blue states, where "states rights" is not a concept on the political radar screen, would benefit significantly, financially, if "states rights" were to gain traction. Those states send much more money to DC than they get back in federal subsidies, military spending, etc......

[Elphaba]

Ahem. Gentlemen, I assure you that all four states on the left coast are vociferous in defense of state's rights. Federal intrusion into our rights rarely goes unchallenged.

[Kadath]

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Ahem. Gentlemen, I assure you that all four states on the left coast are vociferous in defense of state's rights. Federal intrusion into our rights rarely goes unchallenged.

What's the forth state on the left coast?

[The_Jazz]

I count 5 actually - AK, CA, HI, OR, WA

[Elphaba]

My map shows Alaska as the 4th left coast state; Hawaii bobs offshore.

[jorgelito]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Jorgelito....perhaps you have information that I have not seen, but I am not aware of any studies, polls, etc that suggest broad based support or a "states rights" movement when it comes to these issues of concern to many Americans.

Do you think most America wants to replace Roe with 50 state abortion laws or the Brady Bill with 50 different state gun control laws? The same applies to stem cell research, Medicare and Social Security reform, disaster planning and response, etc.

Do you believe most American want to see no federal role in medical, science and technology R&D...or no federal support for developing alternative energy resources...or very limited federal enviromental regulations?

Do you think most Americans support a NO vote on a National Amber Alert system for missing children...or no federal minimum wage...or less federal regulations on workplace safety?

These are all Ron Paul positions...all under the guise of "not authorized in the Constitution and should be left to the States". Yet there is no evidence that Americans want these (and many other issues) left to the states.

There is a place for folks like Ron Paul (and Dennis Kucinich) in the House of Representatives, where they are one voice among 435. It is refreshing and contributes to the debate when they vote against the mainstream Ds and Rs based on their respective understanding of the Constitution and the role of the federal government. They also know that their positions are far from the mainstream and will have no impact on passage or failure of most legislation.

However, these guys dont translate well to the Executive Branch. Assume a Ron Paul presidency and his "abolish the income tax" position. Would he veto student loans bills because they are dependent on revenue derived from income taxes....Would he veto the annual budget and appropriation bills (he votes against many of the appropriation bills). Not a chance because he knows the blowback that would come from Americans across the country who benefit from programs like student loan guarantees, getting their Social Security check, farm subsidies, community development programs, etc.

Sorry, he is WAY out of the mainstream and more people will recognize that as they become familiar with his positions beyond the sound bites of "abolish the income tax" and "get the federal government out of our lives"

Ron Paul's voting record in his 12 years in Congress...a very mixed record in many respects, but a very clear pattern on some issues.

DC, no, I doubt I have any information you have not seen; thanks for the clarification on your part. I suspect the "broad" sense support is closer to what uber alludes to. Sometimes we can analyze things to death but there are intangibles like public opinion and perception that defy traditional polling or quantification.

In Ron Paul's case, I think generally, he does have broad appeal, but as you have indicated, a closer examination reveals a much more complex platform. For example, I am very much in support of states' rights to begin with, but not so much in favor of abolishing the income tax (reducing yes, abolishment no). I definitely think it should be up to the state's to decide abortion, stem cells etc. At least, we the people would have a choice.

Basically, I have yet to come across the "perfect" candidate that embodies everything I believe in or agree with. That's just life, it's about compromises. The same applies to ALL the candidates. If I could have my way, I would pick and choose the aspects I like from each and combine them into one super candidate.

Ron Paul may not be perfect etc..but in my view, he is pretty darn good and has definitely intrigued a lot of people.

I do see where you are coming from in your post DC, but I was thinking more along the lines that uber mentioned.

What do you think of Ron Paul (regardless of party affiliation, just as a candidate etc)? Is there any other potential candidate you like (any party or none of course)?

Oh yeah, thanks for the link to Ron Paul's voting record DC, I will take a look at it later when I have more time.

Host, I deliberately used the term "broad" (in the broad sense of the word) precisely because I do not know of any polls etc.

[ubertuber]

Here's my question about Ron Paul:

It's all well and good to have an exotic destination in mind, but you still have to know how to get there. How in the world would he implement his principles as policies 1) in the real political world in which the President must work with the Congress, and 2) without destabilizing the economic and political structures to the point of chaos and coup?

[dc_dux]

Jorgelito....I'll offer up an assessment of Ron Paul by the conservative pundit Armstrong Williams, with whom I agree on virtually nothing, except this:

Just who is Ron Paul? Ask anyone on the Hill and they’ll tell you he’s a quirky House back-bencher often heralded for his “libertarian” views on issues. That’s not how I see it. For years, I’ve witnessed Congressman Paul (R-Texas) trot to the well of the House, only to vote no on seemingly every issue critical to this country. I’m not kidding — he’s voted against entire defense bills and the war in Iraq. “Well, he opposes the war,” you retort. OK, but why vote against farm bills? Water-quality bills? Anti-terrorism legislation? Education bills? Bills where he is the only Republican to vote no? To hear Congressman Paul tell his story, he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved in those issues. So why, then, is Ron Paul in Congress?!? Isn’t that his job — to ensure the taxpayer’s dollars are spent wisely and on the services that are necessary to run the Commonwealth? And now this guy wants to run for president??! Give me a break! There are far more qualified individuals who deserve a slot on that stage, and Ron Paul isn’t one of ’em.
http://pundits.thehill.com/2007/05/21/ron-who/

A postiion of "its not provided for in the Constitution and should be left up to the states" is not a solution to the challenges of competing in a global economy; providing opportunities for a livable wage to those on the margin or living in poverty; protecting the environment; ensuring energy independence and developing alternative energy resources; keeping the US in the forefront of medical, science and technology R&D; providing affordable health care, working with allies on common security issues, etc.

I dont see solutions from Paul on many of these issue; all I see is anti-federal rhetoric.

And I dont see any evidence of the broad appeal you say he has. Perhaps his sound bites during the debates was appealing. But`he still barely registers in single digits in the national polls and not much better in polls in Texas, where he is more widely known.

I am currently leaning towards Bill Richardson and still intrigued by Barak Obama, who I think may ultimately have the potential to be the best hope as a "uniter, not a divider" that was falsely promised by Bush and that the country desperately needs.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I can understand the curiosity around Ron Paul, particularly as a result of his steadfast opposition to the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.

But his positions on many issues are WAY out of the mainstream - from his bill in the House to overturn Roe v Wade...to his desire to further loosen the limited federal gun control provisions on registration and background checks...and his opposition to stem cell research and basically prohibiting federal "subsidy" of many areas of medical research...his desire to end federal Medicare program and totally privatize Social Security....to his comment above about the federal student loan program and numerous other issues that Americans care about (energy policy - opposing any funding of alternative energy, an abysmal environmental record........)

None of these positions will attract centrists or independents, but I hope, by some miracle, he wins the Republican nomination. It will guarantee a Democratic president...even Hillary.

It's terribly telling how alot of people see that the closer a candidate is to the constitutional law of things, the more 'out of the mainstream' they are. What does that say about people nowadays?

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

It's terribly telling how alot of people see that the closer a candidate is to the constitutional law of things, the more 'out of the mainstream' they are. What does that say about people nowadays?

I would suggest that is says that the American people are generally comfortable and supportive of a federal government that most consider the best in the world and that benefits every citizen in one manner or another, even with all its warts, including most recently a more secretive government than ever, intrusions into personal lives, a growing disparity between haves and have nots.

I think most citizens believe it needs tweeking, not a complete overhaul replaced by an 18th century "strict constitutional law" approach.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I would suggest that is says that the American people are generally comfortable and supportive of a federal government that most consider the best in the world and that benefits every citizen in one manner or another, even with all its warts, including most recently a more secretive government than ever, intrusions into personal lives, a growing disparity between haves and have nots.

I think most citizens believe it needs tweeking, not a complete overhaul replaced by an 18th century "strict constitutional law" approach.

Ok, is it that people are too stupid to realize that the constitution is 'the law of the land', or is it that they just don't care anymore because it's too hard to live by?

Those that don't like the way the constitution is, know how to amend the damn thing, so why torture and render it meaningless?

[dc_dux]

How condescending of you. No....they just dont agree with your interpretation.

[powerclown]

Broadly, I don't see an effective stance on caring for the weaker members of society in the libertarian ideology. To me, their motto seems to be "Only the Strong Survive" which to me is counterproductive. Weaker members of society constitute the main sources of this countries' violent crime, overflowing prison populations, illegal immigration issues, welfare, substance abuse & addiction, mental health cases, on down the line. We as a society - and our government as its representative - are morally, ethically and strategically responsible for providing sustenance to them. An apathetic attitude in addressing these issues weakens the country - a proactive attitude strengthens the country. We are not now - or will ever be - a nation of self-sufficient superbeings.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by dc_dux

How condescending of you.

I'm still speaking the truth though

Originally Posted by dc_dux

No....they just dont agree with your interpretation.

How in the bloody hell do you misinterpret the following?

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

THIS is a legal document that specifically states how the constitution is to be amended. Why is anything else that 'tweeks' or in any other way modifies that legal document OK??????

By approving of 'tweeking' the constitution OUTSIDE of the legally documented path of amending the constitution is de facto approval for anything else that modifies the constitution, even with the current administration.