Hardly any critical thinking regarding Ron Paul.

[Richard Masters]

Of all the candidates running for president, the only person who gets attacked here is Ron Paul. Sure, Ron Paul has some short-comings, and I don't agree with all his positions. I'm even willing to criticize him on the positions I disagree with him on.

However, most of the criticism here either attacks Ron Paul by generalizing about his supporters; Generalizing about Ron Paul via isolated examples of alleged Ron Paul supporters (Guilt by association); Ignoring rational arguments and assuming the worst from the start without evidence (appeal to ignorance).

A senior member here said Ron Paul was responsible for Kevin Trudeau's quackery, and smeared him by suggesting a connection between Ron Paul and cures they don't want you to know about; and homeopathy. That was a prime example of intellectual dishonesty, as Ron Paul has nothing to do with Kevin Trudeau; Ron Paul does not endorse homeopathy, nor does he endorse fake medicine.

A number of you show your incompetence in critical thinking by suggesting Ron Paul should return a single 500 dollar donation (out of over 30 million dollars he has raised so far) from a donor who is a white supremacist.

If you were critical thinkers, you would realize (1) giving money to a white supremacist is wrong; (2) guilt by association is a fallacy; (3) Ron Paul's platform opposes racism and Ron Paul himself has denounced racism.

So the only reason to give money back is to placate his illogical critics. That's called pandering. (4) The money has probably already been spent. (5) I hate Bush and the war in Iraq, but if he, Dick Cheney and Rudy Giuliani sent me money for my campaign, I would keep it and use it promote my anti-Iraq-war causes, not theirs. It would be illogical to return the money.

Many of you assume that Ron Paul is an extreme right-winger, which is also fallacious on many levels. Ron Paul endorses the legalization of drugs; He promotes civil liberties; believes gay people have the right to marry if they choose to do so; Ron Paul opposes the Iraq war and war with Iran (not strictly left or right); Ron Paul opposes subsidies for oil companies and other corporations; Ron Paul opposes the death penalty.

In fact, Republicans consider Ron Paul to be more liberal than the democrats. Seeing as how Ron Paul is more liberal than Hillary Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Richardson, etc., on certain issues (such as drugs and gay marriage), this is not surprising.

Ron Paul was rather rational in opposing the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act. This shows better judgment than most current candidates. Ron Paul predicted in 2001 that the Bush administration would tie Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and strongly advised the House of Representatives to avoid a baseless invasion.

http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/12/19/is-ron-paul-a-modern-day-prophet/

Ron Paul also predicted the housing bubble and has frequently challenged Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke on inflation.

Ron Paul challenges Fed Reserve Chairman Bernanke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmr6qzuK3zM
Traders cheer on Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvirM1goFq4

Ron Paul actually explains his policies quite rationally. He tells you exactly why he believes our intervention in the Middle East fuels terrorism. He cites his sources, including studies on suicide bombing compiled and analyzed by experts on terrorism.

Of all the candidates, only Ron Paul explains the reasoning behind his policies. No other candidate besides Chris Dodd is invited to talk about finances and the economy on CNBC and other channels focused on market news. This is because the other candidates know nothing about these topics.

Also, the left-right paradigm is old and outdated. Left-right means something different every 5 years. Every year even. In 1993 the right opposed wars of intervention. In 2007, the right is hawkish and wants to attack Iran, Lebanon, and soon they will want to attack Pakistan.

[l]ibertarianism involves trade offs like any other political ideology. However Ron Paul isn't interested in wiping out Social Security and public health care in one fell-swoop. He understands people currently depend on these programs. Instead, to cut taxes for everyone, he proposes ending the war (a war which has escalated beyond rationality. See irrational escalation of commitment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_escalation ). Our federal spending could be brought to fiscally responsible levels and we could still fund the social programs everyone is worried about.

Ron Paul is offering young people who want to opt out of social security the option to do so. If I want to use my social security money to start a small business, I would be allowed to do so. If want to donate it to charity, I could also do so. If I wanted to remain on public Social Security, I could do so as well.

There is nothing irrational about supporting Ron Paul or his policies. Take the following, for example: In California fluorescent light-bulbs are about to be banned from sale. If you are a pro-environment liberal you want to save energy and the planet. You might not care about the 50,000 people who depend on incandescent lighting industry in California. On the other hand, if you are a pro-business conservative, you could care less about the environment or the 50,000 workers that will be losing their jobs, you simply care about the costs of refurbishing your oil-refinery central offices with new expensive light-bulbs and your investment in GE. The libertarian, on the other hand, cares about both (and more): The libertarian cares about liberty (obviously), the liberty of the liberal to buy whatever light-bulb he wants and promote a clean environment, the liberty of the conservative not to be coerced into replacing his corporations light-bulbs, the liberty of 50,000 workers not to be forced out of their jobs by the government, the liberty of incandescent manufacturers to continue selling their light-bulbs, and the liberty of the common person to buy cheap light-bulbs that work.

But that's not all. Fluorescent light-bulbs contain mercury. As a libertarian I don't want to be forced to buy light-bulbs that might be harmful to my health. As a libertarian, I don't want the government to impose a tax on incandescent lighting either. Why should I not be allowed to buy whatever light-bulb I choose? Is it because it's bad for the environment?

Well, then consider the following: (1) Mercury is bad for the environment and your health. (2) 4% of the population suffers from epileptic seizures when exposed to the flicker of fluorescent lighting. (3) Many people suffer from eye strain and headaches when exposed to fluorescent lighting, especially those taking medications that affect photosensitivity.

So if Congress got the bright idea of outlawing all fluorescent light-bulbs, we would be subjecting over 4% of the population to lighting that causes them harm. Furthermore, they'd have to opt for candles or expensive alternative forms of lighting. Not to mention the millions of people who get eye strain and headaches, the increased cost to the consumer, fewer choices.

Next thing you know, if you want to get an incandescent light-bulb, you have to buy in the black market, travel abroad or import, or get a prescription for incandescent light-bulbs from your doctor whenever your light bulbs burn out.

I didn't even mention the unforeseen unintended consequences of outlawing incandescent light-bulbs.

Ron Paul, despite some shortcomings, is so much of a critical thinker that many of his solutions for current problems are, by nature, counter-intuitive. If you aren't willing to examine his reasoning (and he elucidates on his reasoning far more frequently than any other candidates), then you are being intellectually dishonest when you criticize him.

So instead of baselessly criticizing libertarianism, Ron Paul, and generalizing about his supporters, I invite you to think critically and use relevant evidence.

---

You would be better off criticizing people who are truly irrational, like Rudy Giuliani who is willing to fight 'terrorism' without making an effort at understanding the root of terrorism. Go after Cheney and the neoconservatives for their lies and irrational escalation of the war. Go after Hillary for irrationally and needlessly labeling the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Go after the top democrats for not making an effort to leave Iraq before 2013. Go after Hillary for wasting time on restricting the sale of video games. Go after the neoconservatives for sending 1/3 of our foreign aid to Israel (which doesn't need it - their GDP per capita is higher than that of Spain and Ireland, slightly less than Italy's [ http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1297/9712043.html ], two countries which we do not send foreign aid to, which of their own accord send foreign aid to other less fortunate countries).

[LawnOven]

Well I just disagree with his policies, cutting this government program and that. My vote would be better wasted on Kucinich, if I were to vote for a "fringe" candidate.

[hgc]

If you were critical thinkers, you would realize (1) giving money to a white supremacist is wrong;
...


That's the funniest part.

[Richard Masters]

//" If you were critical thinkers, you would realize (1) giving money to a white supremacist is wrong;"

That's the funniest part.//

I agree. I'm wondering why Wolf Blitzer and some of the posters who oppose Ron Paul want him to give money to white supremacists. I'm thinking maybe they are racist. But most likely they are not thinking critically.

[carlvs]

Actually, there is a lot of critical thinking on Ron Paul here - its just that quite a few people don't like what they see...

And they ESPECIALLY do not like the efforts by his supporters here to "shove" Mr. Paul down our throats...:mad:

[Brainster]

Well, there's certainly truth in advertising in the OP title. There is indeed a lack of critical thinking among Ron Paul supporters.

Paul gets way too much attention around here, certainly far beyond what he's getting from the mainstream media, and miles beyond what he'll be getting once people actually start voting. As I write this, Paul accounts for 10 of the top 13 posts on this sub-forum. But in the real world:

Ron Paul polls about 4.3% or 1/3rd of Fred Thompson (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html) nationally, putting him in sixth place among Republicans. He also polls about 4.3% in Iowa (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html), which translates into sixth place and zero delegates. In New Hampshire he does quite a bit better; 6.4%, which would be good for fifth place.

I do feel sympathetic for the Ron Paul fans; they are about to suffer the same disappointment that I felt back in the early 1960s while rooting for the New York Mets (and with no hope for a miracle).

[WildCat]

A senior member here said Ron Paul was responsible for Kevin Trudeau's quackery, and smeared him by suggesting a connection between Ron Paul and cures they don't want you to know about; and homeopathy. That was a prime example of intellectual dishonesty, as Ron Paul has nothing to do with Kevin Trudeau; Ron Paul does not endorse homeopathy, nor does he endorse fake medicine.
From Ron Paul's site (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/):
I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.
It is proven, Ron Paul supports quackery.

[Richard Masters]

Actually, there is a lot of critical thinking on Ron Paul here - its just that quite a few people don't like what they see...

And they ESPECIALLY do not like the efforts by his supporters here to "shove" Mr. Paul down our throats...:mad:

Well, I'm sorry if people are shoving Ron Paul down your throat. I'm not here to do that. Although I've read these forums before I joined only now because I saw Ron Paul falsely smeared.

Either way, this subsection is specifically for the 2008 Presidential Elections. If you are not interested in politics wouldn't you be better served reading a thread about a different topic?:confused:

[Richard Masters]

Well, there's certainly truth in advertising in the OP title. There is indeed a lack of critical thinking among Ron Paul supporters.

Paul gets way too much attention around here, certainly far beyond what he's getting from the mainstream media, and miles beyond what he'll be getting once people actually start voting. As I write this, Paul accounts for 10 of the top 13 posts on this sub-forum. But in the real world:

Ron Paul polls about 4.3% or 1/3rd of Fred Thompson (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html) nationally, putting him in sixth place among Republicans. He also polls about 4.3% in Iowa (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html), which translates into sixth place and zero delegates. In New Hampshire he does quite a bit better; 6.4%, which would be good for fifth place.

I do feel sympathetic for the Ron Paul fans; they are about to suffer the same disappointment that I felt back in the early 1960s while rooting for the New York Mets (and with no hope for a miracle).

What is the relevance of how he currently places on national polls? He is 5 percentage points behind the leader in most polls. Other measures of popularity rank him much higher. Even if he wasn't, it doesn't justify smearing him and being intellectually dishonest in your arguments.

[Richard Masters]

From Ron Paul's site (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/):

It is proven, Ron Paul supports quackery.

Thank you for stepping up and exposing yourself.

This bill gives the consumer the right to be treated with any medication as long as they have full knowledge of what to expect and are not misled.

This medication or treatment can include drugs that are currently being processed by the FDA, which have not yet received approval.

Do you have proof that ALL drugs and treatments that have been submitted for approval to the FDA are the product of quackery?

You can't, because some drugs have been approved by the FDA, meaning they were at some point unapproved, but effective. A single of those counterexamples is sufficient to show that not all unapproved medications are ineffective.

Supporting your decision to take whatever medication you want is not quackery. Are you done with the smearing?

[WildCat]

Supporting your decision to take whatever medication you want is not quackery.
Yes, it is. This bill is all about getting homeopathy into the mainstream, which is why it allows specifically for treatments approved by the European Union - which includes homeopathy.

Homeopathy = quackery.

[Brainster]

What is the relevance of how he currently places on national polls? He is 5 percentage points behind the leader in most polls.

If by "most polls" you mean "no polls" I agree. Perhaps you could present one of these polls for us? If we ignore national polls, where Paul is 17 points behind (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/122007_release_web.pdf) Giuliani (Fox), 16 points behind Giuliani (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsjnbcpoll20071219.pdf) (NBC/WSJ), 24 points behind Giuliani (http://www.gallup.com/) (USA Today/Gallup), and instead focus on Iowa, he's 25 points behind Huckabee (http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/results.htm) (Strategic Vision), 26 points behind Huckabee (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/12/28/news/latest_news/37d0c625226b8b8a862573bf005d9dff.txt) (Quad City Times) or 35 points behind Huckabee (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/bloomberg_la_times_poll_dec_27.html) (LA Times/Bloomberg).

New Hampshire? Paul's 30 points behind Romney (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/bloomberg_la_times_poll_dec_27.html) (LA Times/Bloomberg), 20 points behind Romney (http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/primary2008_nhprim122307.pdf) (Boston Globe/UNH), 25 points behind Romney (http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-12-20-nhpoll.htm?loc=interstitialskip) (USA Today/Gallup).

Other measures of popularity rank him much higher. Even if he wasn't, it doesn't justify smearing him and being intellectually dishonest in your arguments.

Perhaps you could point to where I smeared him or was intellectually dishonest in my arguments? Or did you pull that out of your nether regions, like the polls which show him within five points of the leader?

[billydkid]

Of all the candidates running for president, the only person who gets attacked here is Ron Paul. Sure, Ron Paul has some short-comings, and I don't agree with all his positions. I'm even willing to criticize him on the positions I disagree with him on.

Thank you so much for saying what I don't have the ability to say. I was so hoping and articulate, rational person would come in here and lay it out that way. I'm more a viscerally oriented guy and have wished I had to ability to express myself in such a way that would demand that people be honest about their irrationality about Dr. Paul.

[hgc]

//" If you were critical thinkers, you would realize (1) giving money to a white supremacist is wrong;"

That's the funniest part.//

I agree. I'm wondering why Wolf Blitzer and some of the posters who oppose Ron Paul want him to give money to white supremacists. I'm thinking maybe they are racist. But most likely they are not thinking critically.


I think that you and I find it funny for different reasons. You see, I find you funny, whereas you find Wolf Blitzer funny. Wolf Blitzer has a very serious beard.

[Richard Masters]

Yes, it is. This bill is all about getting homeopathy into the mainstream, which is why it allows specifically for treatments approved by the European Union - which includes homeopathy.

Homeopathy = quackery.

People are able to buy homeopathic "treatments" anywhere. Just because a bill allows someone to do something, doesn't mean that is its intent.

You should know better than that.

I'm quite aware that homeopathy is quackery.

What you need to learn is that correlation does not equal causation. And you should learn that some events, phenomena or decisions involve more than one cause or more than one reason.

That means there can be more than be a variety of reasons for supporting a particular bill.

[ZenFountain]

I learned that the more time I spent detailing how Paul's kooky ideas cannot possibly work as advertised, the shorter the response I receive or simply none at all. I tried to have a discussion with Paul supporters in Denver at a mall and in Chicago at the air show and they refused to engage in a reasonable discussion, one of them actually thought I was a plant. Paul supporters have more or less stopped coming to the weekly political round tables at my local coffee shop, after showing little common courtesy and annoying virtually everyone. You'll find similar stories from colleges:

I dealt with the Paulies on my campus all of last semester. They broke pretty much every election related regulation on my campus, but weren't affiliated with his campaign so the most we could do was call public safety

I feel justified in not engaging Paul supporters beyond short comments on Digg after having tried to engage in more substantial discussion. If Paul was within striking distance in IA, NH or SC I might be more interested.

[Richard Masters]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2007/12/21/straw-poll-dec-21-jan-4/90

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=50010

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/191107_zogby_poll.htm

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/14/410525.aspx

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123914.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/14/s.carolina.poll/index.html#cnnSTCText

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/017990.html

The following is from July and explains why polls don't reflect reality: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pitkaniemi1.html

A lot of polls don't actually include an option for Ron Paul for many reasons (some of these polls were designed back in July and didn't account for his rising popularity). A lot of people who will be voting for Ron Paul are not Republicans, didn't vote last election, or at least are not registered Republicans, which means they are ineligible to be polled. Some pollsters use vote multipliers to maintain consistency between one poll and the next.

Also, Zogby has praised Ron Paul, and expects him to surprise everyone. The media consistently ignores Ron Paul or smears him. And his polling continues to improve. Every other Republican (besides Huckabee) continues to poll worse as the primaries get closer.

And don't forget, he gets more money from active duty military and so far he has outraised every Republican.

He doesn't receive money from special interest groups or matching contributions from the government, and the average donation is between 50-100 dollars.

Since he is doing so well in other measures of support, and since the methodology for the national polls doesn't reflect the fact that many young people don't use land-lines anymore, or haven't voted in the past, national polls are not so relevant.



Perhaps you could point to where I smeared him or was intellectually dishonest in my arguments? Or did you pull that out of your nether regions, like the polls which show him within five points of the leader?

I didn't say you (singular) smeared him or were dishonest in your arguments. Please read carefully.

[Richard Masters]

I learned that the more time I spent detailing how Paul's kooky ideas cannot possibly work as advertised, the shorter the response I receive or simply none at all. I tried to have a discussion with Paul supporters in Denver at a mall and in Chicago at the air show and they refused to engage in a reasonable discussion, one of them actually thought I was a plant. Paul supporters have more or less stopped coming to the weekly political round tables at my local coffee shop, after showing little common courtesy and annoying virtually everyone. You'll find similar stories from colleges:



I feel justified in not engaging Paul supporters beyond short comments on Digg after having tried to engage in more substantial discussion. If Paul was within striking distance in IA, NH or SC I might be more interested.

It's nice that you never address said "kooky ideas", nor do you explain why they can't possibly work as advertised. This is typical of the posts I've read here. James Randi would be ashamed.

[WildCat]

That means there can be more than be a variety of reasons for supporting a particular bill.
True, he also wants herbal treatments, acupuncture, and massage therapy.

Quackery all.

[Richard Masters]

I think that you and I find it funny for different reasons. You see, I find you funny, whereas you find Wolf Blitzer funny. Wolf Blitzer has a very serious beard.

I knew you found it different for different reasons, which is why I clarified.

[Pardalis]

If you had any critical thinking skills, Richard, you'd know that Ron Paul running for the Republican ticket is pointless and a dead end, and you'd want Paul to run as an independant, at the very least.

[Richard Masters]

True, he also wants herbal treatments, acupuncture, and massage therapy.

Quackery all.

Your cynicism isn't going to win you any arguments. It's clear there are legitimate reasons for taking medications not yet approved by the FDA.

Ron Paul never specifically made any of the claims you attribute to him.

Should you be banned from this message board for making false claims?

Aren't you being hypocritical by spreading falsehoods?

[brodski]

Should you be banned from this message board for making false claims?


No, he shouldn't.

Stop trying to personalise the issue.

[Richard Masters]

If you had any critical thinking skills, Richard, you'd know that Ron Paul running for the Republican ticket is pointless and a dead end, and you'd want Paul to run as an independant, at the very least.

Why is it pointless?

I already explained to you that running as an "independant" [sic] would be fruitless because then Ron Paul wouldn't get any air time in the debates.

Since I've explained the rationale twice, and you have failed to explain why it is pointless, I think it's safe to assume, for now, that I am the better thinker.

Prove me wrong.

[Pardalis]

Why is it pointless?

As far as I know, to run for the presidential elections you need the support of your entire party.

I don't see that happening.

[Richard Masters]

No, he shouldn't.

Stop trying to personalise the issue.

Well, he continues to make personal attacks, generalize, and spread blatant lies. I thought the whole point of James Randi and this message board was about exposing fraud.

I'm deeply disappointed in the lack of intellectual honesty displayed by individuals like her. Furthermore, I find it ironic that you would choose to chastise me instead of her.

After all, she is not contributing to the discussion, but instead derailing it with lies.

[Richard Masters]

As far as I know, to run for the presidential elections you need the support of your entire party.

I don't see that happening.

No. That's not the case at all. You need the support of voters and delegates.

Also, no candidate has the support of the entire party.

[Pardalis]

Also, no candidate has the support of the entire party.

But don't they at some point have to rally behind the candidate, even if they disagree with him/her?

[Richard Masters]

..

[Richard Masters]

But don't they at some point have to rally behind the candidate, even if they disagree with him/her?

It's not a necessary precondition to getting elected if you have enough delegates. Also, the Republican Party has shrunk considerably because it is now mostly made up of neoconservatives who don't represent what the Republican party used to represent. Ron Paul is getting a lot of previously apathetic people to register to vote.

If Ron Paul won the primary by popular votes (and his supporters are enthusiastic enough to show up to the polls as evidenced by him winning most straw polls) the Republican Party would self-destruct by nominating someone else. They'd have to compete with Ron Paul, and then the Republican Party itself would have no chance of winning.

Ron Paul ran and served as a Republican congressman for 10 terms. Why should he run as a libertarian? That would be counterproductive at many levels.

[Michael Redman]

Of all the candidates running for president, the only person who gets attacked here is Ron Paul. First sentence, and you're already off the deep end.

[Richard Masters]

"First sentence, and you're already off the deep end."

It's hyperbole, but not far from the truth. The correct adjective would have been falsely "smeared".

[WildCat]

Your cynicism isn't going to win you any arguments. It's clear there are legitimate reasons for taking medications not yet approved by the FDA.
"Medications" or "supplements"? Ron Paul wants to allow quack medications, all a quack medication has to do is say their product is a "supplement" and Paul's legislation lets them off the hook for FDA regulation. Neat, usn't it?

Ron Paul never specifically made any of the claims you attribute to him.
Ron Paul's legislation would make all of that possible, whether he says it or not.

[Richard Masters]

Ron Paul wants to allow people to take whatever they want. It's got nothing to do with quackery. Read the legislation.

"Ron Paul never specifically made any of the claims you attribute to him."
Ron Paul's legislation would make all of that possible, whether he says it or not.

Yes, and letting people drive cars causes car crashes and insurance fraud. It doesn't mean all people want to drive cars so they can collect insurance money.

[Michael Redman]

"First sentence, and you're already off the deep end."

It's hyperbole, but not far from the truth. The correct adjective would have been falsely "smeared".No, it is quite far from the truth. You said only Paul gets attacked here, but the truth is that every major candidate gets attacked here. You are completely wrong.

The reason Paul gets more discussion than the others right now is that Paul supporters keep bringing him up. Before the Paul supported came in spamming the forum, he was relegated to the obscurity he deserved. And he'll return there once his campaign crashes and burns (which won't be long).

[Richard Masters]

"No, it is quite far from the truth. You said only Paul gets attacked here, but the truth is that every major candidate gets attacked here. You are completely wrong."

I may be, but I haven't read about any other candidate get falsely smeared around here as frequently as Ron Paul.

"The reason Paul gets more discussion than the others right now is that Paul supporters keep bringing him up."

And I'm bringing him up because people keep smearing him.

"Before the Paul supported came in spamming the forum, he was relegated to the obscurity he deserved."

What constitutes spamming, and how did you determine he deserves obscurity?

"And he'll return there once his campaign crashes and burns (which won't be long)."

If you are so certain then maybe you can explain how you arrived at your conclusion, and furthermore, perhaps you can tell me with certainty who will win the election. And if that's the case, then why hold elections at all, why waste money on voting machines and paper ballots? Just walk up to the Federal Elections Committee and tell them who won. That will save them a lot of trouble.

[Corsair 115]

From the part of the Republican debate I watched a few weeks back, Paul spoke as if the alleged "North American Union" and "NAFTA superhighway" were real. As those two things are complete fictions and are solidly in the realm of conspiracy theories, it would appear Mr. Paul's beliefs are not entirely grounded in facts.

[brodski]

"First sentence, and you're already off the deep end."

It's hyperbole, but not far from the truth. The correct adjective would have been falsely "smeared".

no, then you would be wrong on two counts, instead of one.

[Richard Masters]

The North American Union is an abstract term for the integration of the economies of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. I was skeptical about the NAU, and I still think people oversensationalize it, so I asked for proof. The Council on Foreign Relations does endorse a single currency (the Amero) and it does endorse a political union to strengthen the "North American Continent" so that the three countries can coordinate and protect themselves from terrorism.

Whether or not this is under way, the intent is there.

I personally don't care that much about a hypothetical NAU either way. But I do oppose any ideologies that are based on the assumption the we must make Homeland Security bigger to protect ourselves from terrorists. As such, I do oppose the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83112/robert-a-pastor/north-america-s-second-decade.html

[OneShotKi11]

No, it is quite far from the truth. You said only Paul gets attacked here, but the truth is that every major candidate gets attacked here. You are completely wrong.

The reason Paul gets more discussion than the others right now is that Paul supporters keep bringing him up. Before the Paul supported came in spamming the forum, he was relegated to the obscurity he deserved. And he'll return there once his campaign crashes and burns (which won't be long).

I went through the first 2 pages of this Section of the boards and surprisingly paul haters bring him up just as much as Paul lovers do.

There were 9 topics brought up by Paul Lovers. While Paul haters brought him up 8 times.

Also there were several threads about him that i could not come to a conclusion on because they were neutral questioning of him, nothing more nothing less!

[OneShotKi11]

The North American Union is an abstract term for the integration of the economies of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. I was skeptical about the NAU, and I still think people oversensationalize it, so I asked for proof. The Council on Foreign Relations does endorse a single currency (the Amero) and it does endorse a political union to strengthen the "North American Continent" so that the three countries can coordinate and protect themselves from terrorism.

Whether or not this is under way, the intent is there.

I personally don't care that much about a hypothetical NAU either way. But I do oppose any ideologies that are based on the assumption the we must make Homeland Security bigger to protect ourselves from terrorists. As such, I do oppose the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83112/robert-a-pastor/north-america-s-second-decade.html

OMg i love you!!! You actually have done your homework unlike most around. I am not a conspiracy nut, but i do know when the topics exist or not!

[ZenFountain]

It's nice that you never address said "kooky ideas", nor do you explain why they can't possibly work as advertised. This is typical of the posts I've read here. James Randi would be ashamed.

Careful when speaking in absolutes, I actually have taken the time to address in particular the realities of the federal budget and various statements Paul has made to drastically cut spending and end personal income taxes without dumping seniors reliant on Social Security and Medicare. vB has a nice feature to look at members post history.

[quarky]

I heard R.P. on xm's version of npr last night. I thought he was swell, actually.
I showed up here to learn more, and was overwhelmed by the quantity of threads.

Here's what I'm not getting:

relativity.
The few things that bother me about him are out-weighed by the big stuff, like leaving Iraq. His attitude towards being in a global community seemed by far the best I have heard. The homeopathy stuff is pretty small. The guy's a doctor. He delivers babies.
How quacky could he really be?

Anyway, what's the big alternative to Ron Paul? Kucinich?
Hillary?

Who should I vote for?

[Elizabeth I]

Of all the candidates running for president, the only person who gets attacked here is Ron Paul.

That's a vile canard. I have also said that I think Dennis Kucinich is a nut job.

Either way, this subsection is specifically for the 2008 Presidential Elections. If you are not interested in politics wouldn't you be better served reading a thread about a different topic?:confused:

If a person wanted to discuss the U.S. presidential election on this forum, where else would you suggest he/she go? :confused:

[Richard Masters]

no, then you would be wrong on two counts, instead of one.

Well, it's good to be wrong and admit it. However, I'd like to see your evidence, before I do so.

I'm surprised to see a moderator here, of all places, challenge others on this board without offering evidence.

As a moderator are you not asked to be neutral? Are you supposed to taunt members of this message board? Or are you supposed keep things civilized?

[Richard Masters]

Careful when speaking in absolutes, I actually have taken the time to address in particular the realities of the federal budget and various statements Paul has made to drastically cut spending and end personal income taxes without dumping seniors reliant on Social Security and Medicare. vB has a nice feature to look at members post history.

"vB has a nice feature to look at members post history."

Alright, then. I duly apologize. Your original comment came across as another baseless cynical statement, so I overreacted.

[Richard Masters]

OMg i love you!!! You actually have done your homework unlike most around. I am not a conspiracy nut, but i do know when the topics exist or not!

I was really surprised to read that article.

[brodski]

Ron Paul has not been smeared, other presidential candidates and politicians have been robustly criticised. Ron Paul gets more attention because, unlike any other candidate, some of his supporters are actively trying to use this forum to promote him.



As a moderator are you not asked to be neutral? no


Are you supposed to taunt members of this message board? I have not taunted you.


Or are you supposed keep things civilized? which is why I told you to stop making this about other members and start addressing the issues.

[Michael Redman]

I may be, but I haven't read about any other candidate get falsely smeared around here as frequently as Ron Paul.I might be wrong, but I'm guessing you have a little confirmation bias working here.

how did you determine he deserves obscurity?He doesn't have anywhere near the support to justify the amount of attention he's getting.

If you are so certain then maybe you can explain how you arrived at your conclusion, He doesn't have enough support to be a viable candidate. He isn't going to gain that support, because he favors policies that most Americans do not support.

and furthermore, perhaps you can tell me with certainty who will win the election.

Someone who isn't Ron Paul.

[Michael Redman]

I went through the first 2 pages of this Section of the boards and surprisingly paul haters bring him up just as much as Paul lovers do.You mean they start as many threads? That's hardly the same as what you're claiming. New threads can be responses to issues raised in other threads.

Ron Paul would be getting very little attention on this forum if not for Ron Paul supporters. The supporters should have anticipated that the reaction he gets would be largely negative, for the exact same reasons that his candidacy is not drawing more popular support: Most Americans do not support the policies Ron Paul is proposing.

Maybe this is because of wide-spread ignorance, conspiratorial misinformation, or some other phenomena causing only the select few to understand the truth. Or, maybe this is because Paul's ideas do not stand up to rational criticism very well.

[Richard Masters]

I heard R.P. on xm's version of npr last night. I thought he was swell, actually.
I showed up here to learn more, and was overwhelmed by the quantity of threads.

Here's what I'm not getting:

relativity.
The few things that bother me about him are out-weighed by the big stuff, like leaving Iraq. His attitude towards being in a global community seemed by far the best I have heard. The homeopathy stuff is pretty small. The guy's a doctor. He delivers babies.
How quacky could he really be?

Anyway, what's the big alternative to Ron Paul? Kucinich?
Hillary?

Who should I vote for?

Well, Ron Paul doesn't endorse homeopathy. He simply supports people's liberty to make decisions for themselves.

Hillary's foreign policy is very much like George Bush's. She's really vague about leaving Iraq (possibly after 2013). She voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and she wants to keep bases all over Iraq. She's rather vague on most issues, so I don't trust her to keep her word. She has offered sketches of a few social programs, although it's arguable whether they are practical, needed, or perhaps even counterproductive.

Obama is a fresh and mildly improved version of Hillary. He is slightly more likely to actually end the war, but he opposes gay marriage (he panders to the Christian right on this issue), although he does support "civil unions". He is a little hypocritical on drugs, since he has snorted cocaine, but nevertheless people should be punished for such behavior. Perhaps hypocritical is the wrong word as it is possible that he truly believes people should be punished.

Edwards is rather populist, and somehow overshadowed by Obama's race and Hillary's gender. He has called Bush's "war on terror" a "bumper sticker", which in my opinion, is commendable. He proposed a form of universal healthcare that would require mandatory check-ups. Hillary then adopted Edwards' plan. Edwards thinks homosexuality is immoral and opposes gay marriage.

Richardson is rather experienced in international politics and placed a strong emphasis on fixing the energy crisis by investing in new technology. Richardson speaks Spanish, which is a diplomatic plus.

Dodd also speaks Spanish and is one of the more level headed candidates on the Democratic side. He, like Richardson, also opposes the legalization of drugs or lowering the drinking age to 18. He voted to authorize the Iraq war but now opposes it. He also opposes the embargo on Cuba, which in my opinion is an excellent stance. On most issues he is rather moderate, but more intelligent that his colleagues on the Democratic side (and probably the Republican side).

Kucinich opposes the war in Iraq and voted against it and the Patriot Act, long before others recognized their mistakes. In his own words: "because I read it", regarding the Patriot Act, suggesting that his colleagues who voted for it did not. He wants to create a Department of Peace, which sounds Orwellian to me. He, like Ron Paul, wants to end the War on Drugs, and wants to withdraw from NAFTA. Most of his positions are rather socialist, but well-intentioned.

Biden wants to go straight to Darfur; although he doesn't pander, he appeals his audiences via emotion - pointing out the suffering in Sudan, though most of the time, in the debates, he makes substantial specific points while some of his colleagues (Hillary, Obama) speak in vague generalities.

Then, there is Mike Gravel who is somewhat ineloquent, but quite vocal critic of the war and the Democratic party.

In all, the Democratic Party has quite a few good options if the candidates keep to their word. That's unlikely in the case of Hillary and Obama.

Richardson, Dodd, are quite appealing were it not for some of their stances on liberty. Kucinich is appealing if you oppose the war and government involvement on the social issues, but some of his social programs seem rather elaborate, bloated and unnecessary.

All the democrats seem to welcome immigration, to have a healthcare plan reform and oppose the war. On the other hand, they do want to intervene and keep military bases around the world. They favor social programs over tax cuts.

On the Republican side, there's hardly anybody to highlight.

They mostly oppose immigration, most don't have a federal healthcare plan reform, except for Huckabee and Romney.

They all want to appear to be tough on terror, just like the Democrats want to be tough on Global Warming, so they sensationalize it.

Romney's healthcare plan is a clone of Hillary's but involves some form of privatization (not sure on the details).

If there is someone to highlight as definitely a bad candidate, it would be Giuliani, who has no clue when it comes to terrorism. He thinks terrorists simply attack us because they hate our freedoms, and won't look beyond that explanation. He seems to think the world started on 9/11/01. He probably dates his documents in relation to 9/11.

The majority of Republicans are neoconservatives (except possibly for McCain) in that they want to start wars abroad. They support foreign and corporate welfare, oil subsidies, etc.

The only different candidate on the Republican side is Ron Paul who voted against the war in Iraq, voted against the Patriot Act, wants to reduce spending and leave Iraq. He is a strict Constitutionalist, but also a libertarian, perhaps as a consequence thereof.

Ron Paul opposes the war on drugs, foreign intervention (such as the embargo on Cuba). He opposes setting up puppet governments as we did in Iran in the 1950s, our infamous coups d'etat and foreign aid.

His basic philosophy is we should let people do as they wish as long as they don't harm anyone.

If I were to recommend looking into anyone besides Ron Paul, I think it would be Richardson and Biden. Although, it is easier to advise against Hillary and Giuliani, possibly the most authoritarian candidates currently running for office.

[Richard Masters]

Ron Paul has not been smeared

Have you not read the lies people have posted about Ron Paul? I recommend you read the OP. I can show you several threads including this one where people blatantly lie about him. In fact, you chastised me for pointing it out.

Other presidential candidates and politicians have been robustly criticised. Ron Paul gets more attention because, unlike any other candidate, some of his supporters are actively trying to use this forum to promote him.

I can see that being the case.


no

I have not taunted you.

which is why I told you to stop making this about other members and start addressing the issues.

I have been addressing the issues unlike the other members. That's why I called it taunting.

[WildCat]

The North American Union is an abstract term for the integration of the economies of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. I was skeptical about the NAU, and I still think people oversensationalize it, so I asked for proof. The Council on Foreign Relations does endorse a single currency (the Amero)
The CFR has nothing to do with the government. Please list all elected officials or agencies in the Federal Government who are advocating "integration of the economies of Canada, Maxico, and the United States". Every other Paul supporter on this forum claiming some sort of intent to form a NAU has been unable to name one, will you be the first?

[Richard Masters]

I might be wrong, but I'm guessing you have a little confirmation bias working here.

It's a possibility. But it is doubtful as I really expected people here to support Ron Paul, not the the opposite.

He doesn't have anywhere near the support to justify the amount of attention he's getting.

How did he outraise most Republicans and most Democrats if he truly doesn't have such support? How does he consistently win nationwide straw polls if he doesn't have such support?

His record as Congressman is enough to justify the attention he is getting. The amount of money he has raised is enough to justify the attention he is getting.

He doesn't have enough support to be a viable candidate. He isn't going to gain that support, because he favors policies that most Americans do not support.

Do you personally know most Americans? Apparently 70% of people want us out of Iraq. I'd say a majority support Ron Paul on this policy.

The majority of Republicans want taxes lowered. Ron Paul supports this.
The majority of Democrats support gay marriage. Ron Paul is OK with this.
Democrats oppose oil subsidies. So does Ron Paul.
Democrats oppose corporate welfare. So does Ron Paul.
Republicans oppose domestic welfare. Ron Paul does too.

Of the most important current issues, Ron Paul seems to do fine. In fact, in blind polls Ron Paul came out on top.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/191107_zogby_poll.htm

So apparently people do agree with Ron Paul on his policies.

[Richard Masters]

The CFR has nothing to do with the government. Please list all elected officials or agencies in the Federal Government who are advocating "integration of the economies of Canada, Maxico, and the United States". Every other Paul supporter on this forum claiming some sort of intent to form a NAU has been unable to name one, will you be the first?


Well, since I never claimed that CFR has anything to do with the government, there is no need for me to list any government officials who advocate this.

[Rob Lister]

"First sentence, and you're already off the deep end."

It's hyperbole, but not far from the truth. The correct adjective would have been falsely "smeared".

skeptics and the honest need not resort to it.

[Richard Masters]

skeptics and the honest need not resort to it.

You are correct.

[brodski]

Have you not read the lies people have posted about Ron Paul? I recommend you read the OP. I have read the OP, you have not made your case at all


I can show you several threads including this one where people blatantly lie about him. please provide one example of an unequivocal lie about Ron Paul.


In fact, you chastised me for pointing it out. i did not such thing, I told you to stop personalising the issue.




I have been addressing the issues unlike the other members. That's why I called it taunting.
You have been attempting to personalise the issue, if you wish to discuss forum management issues take it to appropriate section. Your second sentence does not follow from your first.

[maxpower1227]

Well, since I never claimed that CFR has anything to do with the government, there is no need for me to list any government officials who advocate this.

So then quoting a CFR article proves what, exactly?

[Richard Masters]

I have read the OP, you have not made your case at all

please provide one example of an unequivocal lie about Ron Paul.

Wildcat's assertion that Ron Paul specifically promotes quackery and homeopathy and that it is his intention to do so.

You have been attempting to personalise the issue, if you wish to discuss forum management issues take it to appropriate section. Your second sentence does not follow from your first.

Actually, my second sentence does follow from the first. In my first sentence I said that I have been addressing the issues, while other people like Wildcat and others have instead been engaging in ad hominem attacks. It follows that since you are being unfair by calling me out instead of them, you are taunting me.

Please stop.

[brodski]

Wildcat's assertion that Ron Paul specifically promotes quackery and homeopathy and that it is his intention to do so. you have not shown this to be a lie.



Actually, my second sentence does follow from the first. In my first sentence I said that I have been addressing the issues, while other people like Wildcat and others have instead been engaging in ad hominem attacks. show where you have been attacked. criticism of the policies of Ron Paul do not constitute an personal attack, your personal commonest about other posters come close.


It follows that since you are being unfair by calling me out instead of them, you are taunting me. I am not taunting you I am reminding you of the rules of this forum.

[Richard Masters]

So then quoting a CFR article proves what, exactly?

It was a response to someone who said Ron Paul's discussion on an NAU was not grounded on reality.

I simply pointed out that there are political interest groups that indeed endorse and advocate the economical and defensive integration of these three countries.

That's all.

[Richard Masters]

you have not shown this to be a lie.

I guess it will be just fine if I call Rudy Giuliani a terrorist given such standards. After all it's not a lie. It's simply an unfounded accusation.

show where you have been attacked. criticism of the policies of Ron Paul do not constitute an personal attack, your personal commonest about other posters come close.

I've been called a cultist in another thread. I think that counts as a personal attack.

I am not taunting you I am reminding you of the rules of this forum.

Alright, then. I'll have a closer look at the rules.

[Kerberos]

It was a response to someone who said Ron Paul's discussion on an NAU was not grounded on reality.

I simply pointed out that there are political interest groups that indeed endorse and advocate the economical and defensive integration of these three countries.

That's all.
If some unofficial organisation working for something was proof it was grounded in reality you'd be hard pressed to find any piece of insanity not "grounded in reality".

[Richard Masters]

If some unofficial organisation working for something was proof it was grounded in reality you'd be hard pressed to find any piece of insanity not "grounded in reality".

What difference does it make whether it is "official" or "unofficial"? I think you are missing the point of my response.

[Kerberos]

What difference does it make whether it is "official" or "unofficial"? I think you are missing the point of my response.

The difference is that official organisations do not represent anyone but themselves, and I think you're the one who's missing the point. The NAU is a cranck conspiracy theory with no basis in reality. That some unoffocial organisation might work for it has no bearing on the case unless you can prove it has significant support either in the population, in official circles or better yet, both. However neither is the case, and we can therefore reasonably call RP a cranck for indorsing this nonsense.

[Corsair 115]

The NAU is a cranck conspiracy theory with no basis in reality. That some unoffocial organisation might work for it has no bearing on the case unless you can prove it has significant support either in the population, in official circles or better yet, both. However neither is the case, and we can therefore reasonably call RP a cranck for indorsing this nonsense.My thanks to Kerberos for restating my point more eloquently than perhaps I did.

[leftysergeant]

There are posts on this board from people whom other members clearly consider barking moonbats. Some of them are gone for good, and are referred to as lunatics and trolls. A few linger, and we are a little more cautious about how we refer to them. The barking moonbats all seem to share one political preferrence. They almost unanimously like RP.

There are RP supporters whjo are not total moonbats, but generally, they do not include our best and brightest or most congenial fellows.

[OneShotKi11]

There are posts on this board from people whom other members clearly consider barking moonbats. Some of them are gone for good, and are referred to as lunatics and trolls. A few linger, and we are a little more cautious about how we refer to them. The barking moonbats all seem to share one political preferrence. They almost unanimously like RP.

There are RP supporters whjo are not total moonbats, but generally, they do not include our best and brightest or most congenial fellows.

Thanks for your unwanted words of wisdom.

As for my "MoonBat' defense of myself sense you quite possibly could have been referring to me in that general bashing of the other members of the board, i have this too say.

I am rather new to the political game and will for the most part tell anyone i encounter i just dont know enough to debate with those who have been in the game for years, but refuse to just sit back and take there word for it because they supposedly know more then i.
Which is somewhat how most of the members who are "brightest or most congenial fellows" respond to people like myself. They expect to me just take there word for it, and if through my own research or lack there of proper information yet to be found i dont come to there conclusions i am and or anyone like myself is considered a "MoonBat".

They dont attempt to sway me through proper debating or presentation of facts. Nor do they even attempt to acknowledge me as an individual with an IQ over 85. Just pointless meaningless bashing, and those who share the same ideals jump into the convo with more meaningless bashing and slick terms like "Planet x" or "wingnut".

This board to me looks rather foolish at times with some of the more regular posters coming and taking quick Jabs at those who have views that may be considered slightly off to the left. Yet they claim they are correct with no actual evidence other then there own thoughts and views on what will and cannot work.

It seems you all desperately oppose Ron Paul and all of his ideals yet most know almost nothing about the man and i can safely say that many misinterpret him. I could fish the forums for the dozens of times the man has been miss quoted or interpreted wrong for i know some jerk of a forum clown will ask for the evidence and quoted cases of misinterpretations, but i do not have the time to do so. Does this mean it hasnt happened? Some of you will claim yes, and then try to speak on how my lacking ability to provide such evidence after making such claims no doubly points to me knowing nothing of what i am talking about, thus making me clearly wrong and a "moonbat".

So be it, for i no longer look for the approval of the moronic inhibitors of this forum nor do i need your approval to know my intelligence and my own abilities. I am beyond what most of you would consider to be critical thinking. For i constantly am looking for the information to prove what i believe wrong.

So in turn i will continue to be critical and come to my own conclusions, and if one day through years of "proper" research i am able to finally able to gather enough information to say that everyone here was correct and i have finally been able to prove it to myself. Then that would be great and would mean nothing more to me then i did what i always do, which is question.
BUT....
For all you to claim that i am not critical because i dont agree with you is stupid. I may not have come to your conclusions yet because i have been researching it for a total of 6 months, and being new to something doesnt imply they are stupid or not critical. It implies they just havent received and or come across the proper information.
For all of you to look at the likes of me and say i am not a critical thinker is rather absurd.
Instead i feel most of you have researched enough to come to the conclusions you are comfortable with and then decided they are the final word...."Just food for thought"

P.S.
Its not that all "barking MoonBats" on this forum support Ron Paul. Its that anyone who supports Ron Paul on this Forum you call a "barking MoonBat". There is a big difference my ignorant friend.

[leftysergeant]

I can't, for example, think of a racist or a no-planer who speaks ill of RP.

All no-planers and racists are, in my opinion, less than sane.

[Richard Masters]

The difference is that official organisations do not represent anyone but themselves, and I think you're the one who's missing the point. The NAU is a cranck conspiracy theory with no basis in reality. That some unoffocial organisation might work for it has no bearing on the case unless you can prove it has significant support either in the population, in official circles or better yet, both. However neither is the case, and we can therefore reasonably call RP a cranck for indorsing this nonsense.

But it does have a basis on reality. I already showed you the article published by the CFR. The CFR is not official, but it does influence foreign policy. Look at a list of their members.

In other words you are not really disagreeing with me, so stop pretending you are.

[Richard Masters]

There are posts on this board from people whom other members clearly consider barking moonbats. Some of them are gone for good, and are referred to as lunatics and trolls. A few linger, and we are a little more cautious about how we refer to them. The barking moonbats all seem to share one political preferrence. They almost unanimously like RP.

There are RP supporters whjo are not total moonbats, but generally, they do not include our best and brightest or most congenial fellows.

Well, the general population here doesn't appear any brighter. Most of you are partisan hacks. Obviously that's not a general rule, but on average the only arguments against Ron Paul are either smears, or cynical non-sequitur comments.

[Richard Masters]

I can't, for example, think of a racist or a no-planer who speaks ill of RP.

All no-planers and racists are, in my opinion, less than sane.

I suggest you visit Stormfront. The rhetoric there against Ron Paul is just as baseless as it is here.

Don't imagine for a moment that you (plural) are better than they are.

[Kerberos]

But it does have a basis on reality. I already showed you the article published by the CFR. The CFR is not official, but it does influence foreign policy. Look at a list of their members.

In other words you are not really disagreeing with me, so stop pretending you are.

I am most certainly not agreeing with you and I'd appreciate if you would stop putting words in my mouth. You should also stop putting words in the mouth of the CFR. I see no evidence whatsoever in your links that the CFR as such endorses the NAU, publishing an article in your magazine does not equal an endorsement, if it did then the CFR would be endorsing both the foreign policy of Gulliani and of Edwards, in the same issue no less. Actually I very much doubt that the CFR endorses anything at all, you see I did look at a list of it's members and applied some critical thinking.

"Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is a non-profit and nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to improving the understanding of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs through the free exchange of ideas. Its 3,400 members include nearly all past and present Presidents, Secretaries of State, Defense and Treasury, other senior U.S. government officials, renowned scholars, and major leaders of business, media, human rights, and other non-governmental groups."

Any club with such a diverse membership is clearly a honourary association, not a policy advocate because there's almost nothing it's members would agree on. It even says right there that it's purpose it to "improve the understanding of U.S. foreign policy" not that the purpose is to advocate anything. So in Sumery the CFR does not in fact endorse the NAU. The CFR does not in fact influence foreign policy as a group (though it's individual members do). The NAU is not in fractgrounded in reality for any reasonable definition of "grounded in reality" or even, as it turns out, for the extremely lenient defintion of "grounded in reality" that you prefer.

[Richard Masters]

I am most certainly not agreeing with you and I'd appreciate if you would stop putting words in my mouth. You should also stop putting words in the mouth of the CFR. I see no evidence whatsoever in your links that the CFR as such endorses the NAU, publishing an article in your magazine does not equal an endorsement, if it did then the CFR would be endorsing both the foreign policy of Gulliani and of Edwards, in the same issue no less. Actually I very much doubt that the CFR endorses anything at all, you see I did look at a list of it's members and applied some critical thinking.

"Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is a non-profit and nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to improving the understanding of U.S. foreign policy and international affairs through the free exchange of ideas. Its 3,400 members include nearly all past and present Presidents, Secretaries of State, Defense and Treasury, other senior U.S. government officials, renowned scholars, and major leaders of business, media, human rights, and other non-governmental groups."

Any club with such a diverse membership is clearly a honourary association, not a policy advocate because there's almost nothing it's members would agree on. It even says right there that it's purpose it to "improve the understanding of U.S. foreign policy" not that the purpose is to advocate anything. So in Sumery the CFR does not in fact endorse the NAU. The CFR does not in fact influence foreign policy as a group (though it's individual members do). The NAU is not in fractgrounded in reality for any reasonable definition of "grounded in reality" or even, as it turns out, for the extremely lenient defintion of "grounded in reality" that you prefer.

So again, how are you disagreeing with me? You have not refuted any of my claims.

[Kerberos]

So again, how are you disagreeing with me? You have not refuted any of my claims.

So we agree that the NAU is a cranck conspiracy theory and RP is a moron for endorsing it, thanks for clarifying. You see I was under the impresion that you claimed that CFR endorsed the NAU which I refuted and that the CFR influenced policy, which I refuted. Or that the nonexisting indorsement of the CFR for the nonexistent NAU lent credence to the conspiracy theory, which I also, just for good measure, refuted.

[Corsair 115]

But it does have a basis on reality. I already showed you the article published by the CFR. The CFR is not official, but it does influence foreign policy. Look at a list of their members.Ultimately irrelevant unless they can get legislators in the three involved countries to pass legislation which enacts this union. I can't speak for the U.S. or Mexico, but in terms of Canada, any legislation which puts forth closer ties to the U.S. beyond the purely pragmatic economic ones will not be well-received by the considerable majority of the voting public. As it was, the original Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. was the central (and contentious) issue in the 1988 Federal election.

A common currency? A non-starter, especially given that the Canadian dollar is now more highly valued than the U.S. dollar by international currency markets. Political union? An even bigger non-starter.

[Richard Masters]

So we agree that the NAU is a cranck conspiracy theory and RP is a moron for endorsing it, thanks for clarifying. You see I was under the impresion that you claimed that CFR endorsed the NAU which I refuted and that the CFR influenced policy, which I refuted. Or that the nonexisting indorsement of the CFR for the nonexistent NAU lent credence to the conspiracy theory, which I also, just for good measure, refuted.

How can the NAU be a crank conspiracy theory if there are people who are pushing for it?

How did you refute that the CFR endorses the NAU?

How did you refute that the CFR influences policy?

Did you read the article posted by the CFR itself?

[Richard Masters]

Ultimately irrelevant unless they can get legislators in the three involved countries to pass legislation which enacts this union. I can't speak for the U.S. or Mexico, but in terms of Canada, any legislation which puts forth closer ties to the U.S. beyond the purely pragmatic economic ones will not be well-received by the considerable majority of the voting public. As it was, the original Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. was the central (and contentious) issue in the 1988 Federal election.

A common currency? A non-starter, especially given that the Canadian dollar is now more highly valued than the U.S. dollar by international currency markets. Political union? An even bigger non-starter.

In other words, you are saying it has basis on reality, but it is unlikely to be approved by Canada for pragmatic reasons. So again, how are you disagreeing with me?

[corplinx]

I don't think anyone here would accuse me of being a Ron Paul supporter. I do agree that some of the Ron Paul criticism I see seems to be dogpiling and not born out of skeptical thinking.

However, many people have legitimate criticisms of Ron Paul's ideas and proposals.

I for one will not bother arguing against some of these unfair Paul criticisms. I'm sick of the Ron Paul advocacy on this forum. Advocacy is not skepticism. I'll turn a blind eye while people dogpile on Paul because some white nationalist retards send him money. I'm sick of you Paul supporters. You are a running sore on this forum and I can't wait for Ron Paul's campaign to go down in flames so that you all go back to posting whereever it was before you started posting here.

[Kerberos]

How can the NAU be a crank conspiracy theory if there are people who are pushing for it?
Because there are people psuhing for anything, unless there is significant support it's irrelevant that someone, somewhere supports it.

How did you refute that the CFR endorses the NAU?

"publishing an article in your magazine does not equal an endorsement, if it did then the CFR would be endorsing both the foreign policy of Gulliani and of Edwards, in the same issue no less."

How did you refute that the CFR influences policy?
"Any club with such a diverse membership is clearly a honourary association, not a policy advocate because there's almost nothing it's members would agree on. It even says right there that it's purpose it to "improve the understanding of U.S. foreign policy" not that the purpose is to advocate anything."

Did you read the article posted by the CFR itself?

I read the article by Robert A. Pastor. It is either extremely ignorant or extremely dishonest to attribute the views in it to the CFR. Not only does publishing an article not equal support for the ideas in it, but the "nearly all past and present Presidents, Secretaries of State, Defense and Treasury, other senior U.S. government officials, renowned scholars, and major leaders of business, media, human rights, and other non-governmental groups" who are members of this honourary association almost certainly has nothing to do with the day-to day running of Foreign Affairs magazine.

[WildCat]

Well, since I never claimed that CFR has anything to do with the government, there is no need for me to list any government officials who advocate this.
So when Ron Paul fear-mongers about how NAFTA will lead to a NAU he is trying to create hysteria over something tha does not even exist, yes?

And you're comfortable with your candidate tilting at windmills when there's real problems to be solved?

[OneShotKi11]

So when Ron Paul fear-mongers about how NAFTA will lead to a NAU he is trying to create hysteria over something tha does not even exist, yes?

And you're comfortable with your candidate tilting at windmills when there's real problems to be solved?

Fear-mongers?
How is he fear-mongering when the only time he talks about it is when he is asked a question about it?

If there are people who actually push for it then the idea has been brought to the table weather it goes through or not. If the idea has been brought to the table Conspiracy theorist nuts have a right to say "Look, Look, Look, i told you this is what they want!!! NWO blah blah blah." You cant call then they are crazy if it gets talked about. You can reason with them and explain to them why its almost impossible for it to go through, but to tell them the idea doesnt exist is stupid.

Also what do you expect Ron Paul to do when asked about it? Say oh that doesnt exist if he has clearly heard some of the people he deals with talk about it? He has been a Doctor and congressmen for 10 terms so clearly he isnt as crazy as you all claim he is, and there must be some validity to what he says.

[Michael Redman]

The conspiracy theory is not that some people support the idea of a NAU. The CT is that the powers that be are clandestinely at work right now, bringing about the Union, without the knowledge or consent of the public, and that NAFTA and other such cooperative measures are simply stepping stones along the way.

[Michael Redman]

Obviously that's not a general rule, but on average the only arguments against Ron Paul are either smears, or cynical non-sequitur comments.This forum is crammed full of rational critiques of libertarian policies, and robust discussions for and against. Since Paul supports a fundamentally libertarian position, those who have made up their mind about the desirability of libertarian policy do not feel the need to make detailed explanations of why they reject Paul. I suppose that if your only experience with political discussion on this forum were threads specifically about Paul, you might come to the conclusion that the opposition was not based on rational analysis. But that doesn't mean that this is the case.

[Kerberos]

Fear-mongers?
How is he fear-mongering when the only time he talks about it is when he is asked a question about it?

If there are people who actually push for it then the idea has been brought to the table weather it goes through or not. If the idea has been brought to the table Conspiracy theorist nuts have a right to say "Look, Look, Look, i told you this is what they want!!! NWO blah blah blah." You cant call then they are crazy if it gets talked about. You can reason with them and explain to them why its almost impossible for it to go through, but to tell them the idea doesnt exist is stupid.
Have you been reading this thread, if you have you will note that there is incontrocertiable evidence that we both can and do call them crazy. Futhermore it is perfectly reasonable for us to do so even if someone does talk about it as long as the proponents of the NAU are few and insignificant.

Also what do you expect Ron Paul to do when asked about it? Say oh that doesnt exist if he has clearly heard some of the people he deals with talk about it? He has been a Doctor and congressmen for 10 terms so clearly he isnt as crazy as you all claim he is, and there must be some validity to what he says.
So is it all doctors And all congressmen who are automatically right, or is it only those who are both? Also could you perhaps give us a full or partial list of proffesions and compinations of proffessions that automatically preclude gross stupidity in a person?

[OneShotKi11]

The conspiracy theory is not that some people support the idea of a NAU. The CT is that the powers that be are clandestinely at work right now, bringing about the Union, without the knowledge or consent of the public, and that NAFTA and other such cooperative measures are simply stepping stones along the way.

This i do know already, but i was talking in relation to people accusing Ron Paul of feeding into this. All that Ron Paul acknowledged is that there are people he says "In Washington" who wanted this to happen.
He just refuses to act like the topic just totally doesnt exist like other pretend to.

[Kerberos]

This i do know already, but i was talking in relation to people accusing Ron Paul of feeding into this. All that Ron Paul acknowledged is that there are people he says "In Washington" who wanted this to happen.
He just refuses to act like the topic just totally doesnt exist like other pretend to.

So let's hear names, who in Washington wants this? Certainly the voting public needs to know this so they can make the appropriate choice at the polls.

[leftysergeant]

Don't imagine for a moment that you (plural) are better than they are.

Not better than Stormfront people? How could we not be better, in at least one major aspect, than Stormfront? These are not rational people we are talking about.

They reject human dignity and they find Ron Paul the least objectionable of the Republican field.

They like RP for the havoc he would wreak on civilization as we know it, and the cover it would give white nationalists for some of the measures they would like to see put in place to return to the bad old days of racism.

[WildCat]

So let's hear names, who in Washington wants this?
This is the question that keeps popping up, and to which no Ron Paul supporter to date has answered.

[Michael Redman]

This i do know already, but i was talking in relation to people accusing Ron Paul of feeding into this. All that Ron Paul acknowledged is that there are people he says "In Washington" who wanted this to happen.
He just refuses to act like the topic just totally doesnt exist like other pretend to.

Ron Paul believes the NAU conspiracy is an active undertaking, involving, among other parties, the governments of the US, Canada, and Mexico.

This is a far cry from simply acknowledging, as you suggest, that more than one person in the city favors the idea.

[Corsair 115]

In other words, you are saying it has basis on reality, but it is unlikely to be approved by Canada for pragmatic reasons. So again, how are you disagreeing with me?There is already an established trading agreement between the three nations; it's been in place for fourteen years now (nineteen years between the U.S. and Canada).

Common currency, open borders, political union, etc., are a whole other different level of union well beyond the practical benefits of a trade agreements. But it's these type of things which are conjured up by the term "North American Union" not revisions or adjustments to NAFTA or other established trading rules.

Ron Paul believes the NAU conspiracy is an active undertaking, involving, among other parties, the governments of the US, Canada, and Mexico.That was certainly my impression of what he had to say during the Republican debate awhile back.

[OneShotKi11]

This is the question that keeps popping up, and to which no Ron Paul supporter to date has answered.

Its a stupid question when pointed towards me you morons!
Clearly if you can read i said Ron Paul stated and even put in quotes "Washington". When referring to people in Washington who wanted this. I did not say i know people in Washington or have seen papers with people names in Washington who want this, but i stated Ron Paul said. Huge difference Jackass's!!!! YOu have proved me wrong on nothing!

Now for those who dont know because of there own lack of research....

Ron Paul claims he has not said names because of the fact that these names never appeared on paper and if he were to say names then they could just deny the fact, and act as it was proof Ron Paul was crazy. So he avoids the topic of WHO. Clearly you big thinkers can understand the logic behind that! Paul only says that there was a push for this by those in Washington and doesnt elaborate because he doesnt have the hard evidence against it.
If he were to say names without the documentation there would be no point. They (People in Washington) could just say "No we Didnt" and there goes Ron Paul looking like a "WingNut" again.


Is it true? I dont know, but i cant tell him he is wrong for i have nothing to prove it. I also can not prove he is right, but the fact that you continuously ask this question and act like someones not being able to answer it is proof of its stupidity and how false it must be only shows how ignorant you are.

Im sorry that i do not have the paper documents in which a list of names of people who wanted this is on. Because even if i was able to state names it wouldnt be good enough for you all! You would then ask for some sort of evidence inwhich it proves that this was there intention. Also i never made the claim that i knew who it was sooo please stop asking me like i do!

If i knew these individuals personally and had heard them with my own ears all say they were plotting this and wanted it done within the next 5 years you all would still say i was lying and a loon because of the fact i dont have paper inwhich you can read it, and a confession signed by each member with there fingerprint in the upper right hand corner!

You guys are so smug as well as stupid when it comes to this. Again i dont believe in this huge conspiracy about the NAU and whatnot but i am not jackass enough to look at those who say they have heard of it and been around those discussing it and call them lairs!

So in the end i will again state that Ron Paul (not myself) claims he has heard people in Washington discuss this, and that there was a push for it. Is it true? Again i dont know but i do believe the topic was one that has been brought up before, and its approval was probably seeked between a small group of individuals.

It basically comes down to do you think Ron Paul is lying when he says that these discussions took place or not? NOt me being a loony...Jackasses


So intelligent members of this forum, please tell me where in this statement i say that i know who these people in Washington are...

"This i do know already, but i was talking in relation to people accusing Ron Paul of feeding into this. All that Ron Paul acknowledged is that there are people he says "In Washington" who wanted this to happen."

For those who dont know or are to lazy to read back that (quoted above) is the comment that sparked this question to me....

"So let's hear names, who in Washington wants this? Certainly the voting public needs to know this so they can make the appropriate choice at the polls."

Then this stupid comment....

"his is the question that keeps popping up, and to which no Ron Paul supporter to date has answered."

[leftysergeant]

Common currency, open borders, political union, etc., are a whole other different level of union well beyond the practical benefits of a trade agreements. But it's these type of things which are conjured up by the term "North American Union" not revisions or adjustments to NAFTA or other established trading rules.

I can't see the Canadians peacefully agreeing to take on a common currency with us after the mess that W has made of the dollar.

By ranting about the NAU, which does not even exist in as substantial a form as PNAC, RP just exploites a nameless fear of the menacing and intangible, thus undefeatable "Them."

He is playing the same game that W is playing in his unwinnable militarty "war on terror."

[Kerberos]

Ron Paul claims he has not said names because of the fact that these names never appeared on paper and if he were to say names then they could just deny the fact, and act as it was proof Ron Paul was crazy. So he avoids the topic of WHO. Clearly you big thinkers can understand the logic behind that! Paul only says that there was a push for this by those in Washington and doesnt elaborate because he doesnt have the hard evidence against it.
If he were to say names without the documentation there would be no point. They (People in Washington) could just say "No we Didnt" and there goes Ron Paul looking like a "WingNut" again.
So either there is a sinister and shadowy conspiracy among parts of the Washington establishment to bring about a NAU, or else Ron Paul is lying.

So intelligent members of this forum, please tell me where in this statement i say that i know who these people in Washington are...

"This i do know already, but i was talking in relation to people accusing Ron Paul of feeding into this. All that Ron Paul acknowledged is that there are people he says "In Washington" who wanted this to happen."
Quick English lesson for you: Your use of the word "acknowledged" implies a fact which one can "acknowledge" or not, but which is a fact regardless, asking for evidence of this alledged fact is perfectly reasonable. If you wish to acknowledge that you used the word "acknowledge" incorrectly to convey a meaning you didn't intend that is one thing, but don't blame me for having a better understanding of what the words you use means than you have.

[Michael Redman]

Again, it is not true that Ron Paul simply claims that some people want a NAU.

Ron Paul claims that there is an active conspiracy working to bring about a NAU against the will of the people, and that legislation like NAFTA is the work of this conspiracy.

[Checkmite]

Of all the candidates running for president, the only person who gets attacked here is Ron Paul.

Well, of course that's a lie; but it is almost true. He does get attacked here more than the other candidates. Maybe if his toadies would stop using this forum to gush about how Ron Paul is the second-effing-coming-of-Christ, he wouldn't attract so much negative attention here.

[sesshin]

The North American Union is an abstract term for the integration of the economies of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. I was skeptical about the NAU, and I still think people oversensationalize it, so I asked for proof. The Council on Foreign Relations does endorse a single currency (the Amero) and it does endorse a political union to strengthen the "North American Continent" so that the three countries can coordinate and protect themselves from terrorism.

Whether or not this is under way, the intent is there.

I personally don't care that much about a hypothetical NAU either way. But I do oppose any ideologies that are based on the assumption the we must make Homeland Security bigger to protect ourselves from terrorists. As such, I do oppose the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040101faessay83112/robert-a-pastor/north-america-s-second-decade.html



Hi, I read through that article and nowhere in it did I see where the CFR supported the idea of the Amero or dissolving our borders into a NAU. Care to quote the relevant passages for me?

[OneShotKi11]

Hold on quick question....

What is the big deal about this super highway anyway when the i35 already basically starts in mexico and ends in Canada???

[Kerberos]

Hold on quick question....

What is the big deal about this super highway anyway when the i35 already basically starts in mexico and ends in Canada???

There is no big deal, it's a crazy conspiracy theory. Leave facts and common sense at the door.

[Corsair 115]

I can't see the Canadians peacefully agreeing to take on a common currency with us after the mess that W has made of the dollar. It's especially not going to happen now that the Canadian dollar is worth more than the U.S. dollar. We've waited for some some thirty-plus years for that to happen again. It may down from the high of $1.10 US it hit back in November, but as of Friday's market close it was still worth more at $1.0188 US.

[Mister Agenda]

Just for the record I came to this forum because I'm interested in skepticism, I was a bit surprised at the breadth of topics. I expected more focus on superstition and quackery. Apparently as an RP supporter my timing renders me an object of suspicion as someone who is using 'your' forum to promote Paul. Frankly I can see how having a lot of RP supporters would be irritating to people with different viewpoints, especially if they're really earnest and enthusiastic (and somewhat uncritical). However, I won't be going anywhere when the primaries are over. It would be interesting to track how many RP supporters DO leave at that point, given the numerous predictions of their mass exodus. Are we REALLY overwhelmingly 'newbies'? I've seen some low post counts on both sides, but some very high counts in particular on the anti-Paul side. so...could be.

[MaGZ]

Just for the record I came to this forum because I'm interested in skepticism, I was a bit surprised at the breadth of topics. I expected more focus on superstition and quackery. Apparently as an RP supporter my timing renders me an object of suspicion as someone who is using 'your' forum to promote Paul. Frankly I can see how having a lot of RP supporters would be irritating to people with different viewpoints, especially if they're really earnest and enthusiastic (and somewhat uncritical). However, I won't be going anywhere when the primaries are over. It would be interesting to track how many RP supporters DO leave at that point, given the numerous predictions of their mass exodus. Are we REALLY overwhelmingly 'newbies'? I've seen some low post counts on both sides, but some very high counts in particular on the anti-Paul side. so...could be.

To all the Ron Paul newbies, welcome.

[Mister Agenda]

To all the Ron Paul newbies, welcome.

Thanks, you are very gracious. I expect I'll align with most of the skeptics on most topics, politics is an arena that is very subjective and where most of the evidence any side can present is suspect, it is hard even for people who otherwise have a lot in common to agree.

[Richard Masters]

So when Ron Paul fear-mongers about how NAFTA will lead to a NAU he is trying to create hysteria over something tha does not even exist, yes?

And you're comfortable with your candidate tilting at windmills when there's real problems to be solved?

I'm comfortable with his position on the Iraq War and foreign policy and several others. I could care less about the NAU.

[Richard Masters]

Not better than Stormfront people? How could we not be better, in at least one major aspect, than Stormfront? These are not rational people we are talking about.

They reject human dignity and they find Ron Paul the least objectionable of the Republican field.

If only Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani were available as choices to me, I'd choose Hillary Clinton. That doesn't mean Hillary Clinton agrees with most of my views.

In the same way, Ron Paul doesn't agree with those people on racism. In fact, there's only a handful of people there who actually support Ron Paul, as far as I know. The few times I went to see what was going on, people were saying Ron Paul did not further their cause at all.

They like RP for the havoc he would wreak on civilization as we know it, and the cover it would give white nationalists for some of the measures they would like to see put in place to return to the bad old days of racism.

"They like RP for the havoc he would wreak on civilization "

Sources?

[Richard Masters]

This is the question that keeps popping up, and to which no Ron Paul supporter to date has answered.

I have no reason to answer this, since I never claimed it.

[dudalb]

Ya gotta love all the Paul Shills who have shown up lately.

[Richard Masters]

Ya gotta love all the Paul Shills who have shown up lately.

I agree with your cynicism. There are some terrible apologist supporters.

[Darth Rotor]

Ya gotta love all the Paul Shills who have shown up lately.
Oliver left, which is a good thing for the forum. A German Paul shill we don't need.
@ Mr Masters:

Ron Paul will either succeed or fail based on his own merits, position, and ability to sell his vision.

His rhetorical style is still "the contrarian" which is all well and good when one's role is as a contrarian.

His problem is, insofar as packaging his vision, that he seems unable to adopt the rhetorical style of someone who is leading "the whole of American polity" in the direction where his vision is to lead us. If he wants to win, his message needs to transform toward "here is where I want us to go, come with me" a la Reagan, rather than "Bush sucks" or "foreign adventures are non Constitutional" or other such themes. The lack of a solid message "for" partly explains why John Kerry foundered: too much "I am not the current crook" and not enough "why I am a better choice."

I am not sure whether or not Ron Paul, given his charismatic stubbornness and his habit for sticking to his guns, has the skill and savvy to repackage his vision into that of The Leader of the Free World, like a Texan Phoenix arisen from the rhetoric of The Contrarian, the ashpile he risks being buried in.

If he and his team can change their messages and themes, his delegate count will rise.

If not, he gets stuck in the ashpile of political history as another fringe candidate. He'd be in good company, with Harold Stassen and Ralph Nader.

As I see it, if he were serious, he'd raise his game. If he wants to win, he has to.

I am frankly puzzled as to why his camp sticks to the same old Contrarian rhetoric, and chooses not to progress to "follow me here, this is where I am taking you." The primaries have begun, in freaking Iowa.

I'd like to know, as I vote.

DR

[Mister Agenda]

In the primaries, contrarian was the way to go in this particular circumstance, where 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq and none of the other Republican candidates (and some of the Democrat candidates) have any plans to spend less than five more years there. The campaign he has run has taken him to the primaries when only his supporters (and not all of them) thought he'd last more than six months. Should he win the nomination, he may need to shift rhetoric. I don't see how a nearly-unknown congressman who's out fundraising some of the 'first-tier' and winning over half the straw polls can be accused of not having raised his game about as high as it will go. We'll soon see if that was high enough.

[Darth Rotor]

In the primaries, contrarian was the way to go in this particular circumstance, where 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq and none of the other Republican candidates (and some of the Democrat candidates) have any plans to spend less than five more years there. The campaign he has run has taken him to the primaries when only his supporters (and not all of them) thought he'd last more than six months. Should he win the nomination, he may need to shift rhetoric. I don't see how a nearly-unknown congressman who's out fundraising some of the 'first-tier' and winning over half the straw polls can be accused of not having raised his game about as high as it will go. We'll soon see if that was high enough.

To win, you need to be more than a spoiler. All his raised game has achieved is spoiler level.

It is early yet, so I'll not comment further on that, but let's look at some possible outcomes:

Mitt and Ron, P and VP?

Rudy and Ron? P and VP?

McCain and Ron? P and VP?

Do any of those tickets resonate?

DR

[Mister Agenda]

He's certainly not going to be picked as a running mate by any of the neocons. That would never happen unless he becomes one himself. His chances of becoming POTUS are ten times better than his chances of becoming VPOTUS. Of the choices, maaaybe McCain and Paul.

[volatile]

I'm comfortable with his position on the Iraq War and foreign policy and several others. I could care less about the NAU.

It seems from our experiences of RP supporters here that this is common. Support for RP beigns and ends with his (admirable) stance on the War.

But that's not enough - read the bills he's sponsored and opposed, and his quotes such as this gem, on Katrina:

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"Also, from a sourced an evidenced (SFW) opinion piece at the potentially-NSFW doman SuicideGirls.com (http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Current+Events/223225/):

He voted no on establishing a nationwide Amber alert system for missing kids. On January 2nd, 2007, he was the only Representative to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and reconstruction. He voted against hurricane relief funding, even though most of his district is on the Texas gulf coast. He voted no on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.

...

But I don't want to make it sound like Ron Paul votes no on everything. He does come around once in a while. For instance, in July of 1999 he voted to ban gay adoptions in DC. He has also voted to ban partial-birth abortions and to ban Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (Remember, AIDS will work itself out) Paul also supports a constitutional amendment to allow prayer in schools.


And lastly, for you liberals who are swayed by his anti-war views, Paul is staunchly pro-life. He was given a 0% rating by NARAL, a political organization of the pro-choice movement. Paul believes a fetus is a person, that it is human and has legal rights. He believes if you kill a fetus it is an act of aggression and you should be punished accordingly.
Being anti-War is not enough, frankly.

[Mister Agenda]

Probably not. Although he's doing much better than I thought he would when I heard he was running, a decent showing to demonstrate there ARE Repubs against staying in Iraq is all I'm expecting.

[Richard Masters]

It seems from our experiences of RP supporters here that this is common. Support for RP beigns and ends with his (admirable) stance on the War.

That's not the only reason why I support Ron Paul.

But that's not enough - read the bills he's sponsored and opposed, and his quotes such as this gem, on Katrina:

That's a libertarian stand point. The government shouldn't promote living in danger areas for several reasons, the primary reason being that it endangers people. The second is that it is costly to subsidize the insurance of buildings that have a high risk of being destroyed.

Why should I pay taxes to subsidize a 10 million dollar mansion at the edge of crumbly cliff? It's financial nonsense. The millionaire gets free money from poor people to rebuild his home, again, in a location where it will be destroyed shortly after.

If a regular insurance company couldn't handle such a burden without charging exorbitant rates for insurance from the client, how do you expect the government to adjust without raising taxes?

A more responsible policy that will save more lives is to warn people of the dangers of living in a high-risk area and to encourage them to live in safer places. As a consequence, this also reduces the tax burden, and waste involved in rebuilding homes that really should not be built there in the first place.

As I mentioned before, most of Ron Paul's votes are misunderstood.

Also, from a sourced an evidenced (SFW) opinion piece at the potentially-NSFW doman SuicideGirls.com (http://suicidegirls.com/boards/Current+Events/223225/):

Ron Paul opposes most federal funding. He is personally fine with embryonic stem cell research. And the alleged vote against gay adoptions is inaccurate.

Being anti-War is not enough, frankly.

That's simplistic. And yet, I support Ron Paul for other reasons besides war.

EDIT: As for the other allegations, I don't have the time to address them adequately at the very moment.

[TriskettheKid]

How do you feel about privacy?

So far as I can tell, Ron Paul feels that we have no right to privacy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

[Richard Masters]

How do you feel about privacy?

So far as I can tell, Ron Paul feels that we have no right to privacy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html

Well I don't agree with it at many levels, but he is correct. There is no right to privacy under the 14th amendment.

If the Federal Courts stayed out of it, people would notice and pressure Congress or their State Legislatures to amend the Constitution.

[Michael Redman]

Well I don't agree with it at many levels, but he is correct. There is no right to privacy under the 14th amendment.

If the Federal Courts stayed out of it, people would notice and pressure Congress or their State Legislatures to amend the Constitution.There's no need to amend the Constitution. Contrary to Ron Paul's claims, the absence of the enumeration of a right in the text of the Constitution does not imply that we do not have that right. If that wasn't clear enough by the nature of the Constitution (granting and limiting only government's power), the 9th Amendment makes it explicit.

We have a right to privacy. Ron Paul does not understand the fundamental nature of the American legal/political system. He is unqualified to hold public office in the US, much less the Presidency.

[Undesired Walrus]

Ron Paul recently approved a message that called for immigrants to stop coming from 'terrorist states'.

Anybody who uses such a false and polarizing statement in the modern age, does not deserve to be president.

[Richard Masters]

There's no need to amend the Constitution. Contrary to Ron Paul's claims, the absence of the enumeration of a right in the text of the Constitution does not imply that we do not have that right. If that wasn't clear enough by the nature of the Constitution (granting and limiting only government's power), the 9th Amendment makes it explicit.

We have a right to privacy. Ron Paul does not understand the fundamental nature of the American legal/political system. He is unqualified to hold public office in the US, much less the Presidency.

I didn't know how to respond until I read the Constitution. Look at the 9th and 10th amendments side by side.

I just noticed an argument structure that is used by everyone in every political party to pretend they discredited a candidate.

Either way, the "Subject X does not understand P, therefore Q" meme is overused, frequently with heavy distortion and hyperbole. It might reach thought-terminating-cliché-status someday.

[Richard Masters]

Ron Paul recently approved a message that called for immigrants to stop coming from 'terrorist states'.

Anybody who uses such a false and polarizing statement in the modern age, does not deserve to be president.

I didn't approve of it, but you are engaging in the same cliché as the person above you.

[TriskettheKid]

I didn't know how to respond until I read the Constitution. Look at the 9th and 10th amendments side by side.



Amendments IX and X are largely irrelevant.

The right to privacy is found in Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

That's where the right to privacy is. If there is no right to privacy, then much of Amendment IV is pointless.

[Richard Masters]

Amendments IX and X are largely irrelevant.

The right to privacy is found in Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

That's where the right to privacy is. If there is no right to privacy, then much of Amendment IV is pointless.

Going from Amendment IV to right to privacy, and then from right to privacy to a right to engage in sodomy is a little sketchy. I would think the right to sodomy is granted by Amendment IX but also subject to the powers reserved to the state and the people under Amendment X.

Along those lines, does Amendment II guarantee my right to bear arms (compact nuclear devices) or can a state regulate specifics?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but merely confused by the inconsistency.

[Kerberos]

Going from Amendment IV to right to privacy, and then from right to privacy to a right to engage in sodomy is a little sketchy. I would think the right to sodomy is granted by Amendment IX but also subject to the powers reserved to the state and the people under Amendment X.

Along those lines, does Amendment II guarantee my right to bear arms (compact nuclear devices) or can a state regulate specifics?
A state or th