Here ya go Valentein - 01/09/08 07:25 PM
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/09/08 07:29 PM
It's really sad when people cannot find much fault with Ron Paul, so they're forced to dig-up falsified history as an act of desperation.
C'mon. Step out from under the turd-sandwich of Politicians and LISTEN to what RP has to say. That's all I ask.
C'mon. Step out from under the turd-sandwich of Politicians and LISTEN to what RP has to say. That's all I ask.
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/11/08 01:42 PM
co worker checks most of the news he sees on snopes lol
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/11/08 06:28 PM
lol what a name
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/17/08 05:14 AM
Thanks but no thanks. I've got better ways to spend my time than reading something by that nut job. The guy is nothing more than a fad.
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/17/08 05:27 AM
Do you even know what he says? Or did someone on dailyKOS blog that he was a nutjob and you took it at face value?
You can think he is a nutjob all you want, but slandering someone without knowing anything at all about them is unseemly.
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/17/08 03:52 PM
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Well, that statement alone prompts me to want go right out and vote for the nut-job.
Even now, however, he doesn't unambiguously repudiate the racist things published in his name.
Well, that statement alone prompts me to want go right out and vote for the nut-job.
Even now, however, he doesn't unambiguously repudiate the racist things published in his name.
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/17/08 06:44 PM
Quote:
Thanks but no thanks. I've got better ways to spend my time than reading something by that nut job.
Great, open-minded statement. I guess I can always save that one and use it against arguments you decide to throw my way some time down the road.
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/17/08 07:18 PM
You have to admit, Crim, Ron Paul does himself no favors when he tries to tell us that he wasn't aware of the kind of crap that has been printed in his own freakin' newsletter for the last 10 freakin' years.
Don't know about you, but if what he says is true, I want a President that has a bit more on the ball than that, and if it isn't true, I want a President who doesn't tell me a lie as stupid as that one.
Don't know about you, but if what he says is true, I want a President that has a bit more on the ball than that, and if it isn't true, I want a President who doesn't tell me a lie as stupid as that one.
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/17/08 09:37 PM
Quote:
I want a President that has a bit more on the ball than that
You didn't vote for George W., did you? :P
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/17/08 09:47 PM
You think I would vote for either Al Gore or John Kerry?
Meh...
Meh...
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/17/08 10:44 PM
Hey Derid, who do you think is the right choice for President this time around?
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/18/08 12:20 AM
Quote:
You have to admit, Crim, Ron Paul does himself no favors when he tries to tell us that he wasn't aware of the kind of crap that has been printed in his own freakin' newsletter for the last 10 freakin' years.
Don't know about you, but if what he says is true, I want a President that has a bit more on the ball than that, and if it isn't true, I want a President who doesn't tell me a lie as stupid as that one.
You seriously believe that RP would look in every direction for anyone saying negative things about him? He's better than to lower himself to that petty nonsense. I don't know about you, but when rumors fly around about me, I usually don't acknowledge them - let alone try to find out if there are any.
If that hypothetical crapola is all people can dig up on RP, I'd say he's in excellent shape for a politician.
Jet: not sure if you're being facetious or what, but judging by some of Derid's other posts I'd wager it's Ron Paul.
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/18/08 12:44 AM
Actually he did repudate it live on CNN Owain, I saw it on youtube lol. Wolf Blitzer grilled him about it, and he answered.
Right choice for president?
No democrat, unfortunatly. More of th same from them , but now with more socialism. Depressing IMO, because there were some actual good ideas on how to reshape the party coming out of the Democratic Leadership Council a couple years back.
Some elements of the DLC were advocating things like:
- Stop going after peoples right to bear arms
- Dis-entangle from the unions and culture of entitlement
- Focus on helping and improving programs that were
efficient, and actually work to some extent, like
Medicaid as opposed to new huge bueracracies
- Focus on reigning in Bush's new intelligence doctrines
and maintain the DEMs as the party of civil liberties
- Focus on popular federal programs regarding federal
funding of science, such as broadband initiatives
and stem cell research***
Unfortunatly the current Democratic candidates do not
represent any of those ideals really, and honestly probably
will never happen. When things go well, people stop voting
for the party who promises to help those who arent as well
off. They feel that they re-learned that with Clinton(1)
so dont expect any rational policy out of the Dems anytime
soon.
Obama out of the group though, if one is forced to vote democrat. As I have said elsewhere, Hillary is plain evil. If someone wants me to back that claim up, I will be happy to , but to sum it up - shes a socialist, shes for censorship, she hates video games (more like she loves the special interests who hate them) , she hates liberty, she loves huge government and also wants to enshrine massive profits for the insurance companies into a national policy that your average Joe cannot escape. Oh, and she takes massive sums from those who spy on us. (information brokers like seisint and equifax)
Obama I think wants to do good, he just doesnt know how. Edwards is even more of a socialist than Hillary, even though I would consider him a generally decent person for a politician.
On the republican side, we have a Mormon, a Senile Senator** and a Preacher who all seem to want to be a bigger, badder Bush. Some of the things flying out of their mouths are plain frightening, I hope they are talking about how they would lead a video game guild, not a RL nation.
Then of course we have Ron Paul. Ron Paul wont get nominated, unfortunatly- but his movement in the GOP is the only remnant of rationality left as far as I can tell. What he says about the economy, finance and the need for us to give up our "empire" are, to the best of my reasoning correct. He does not advocate instant abolition of most
of the current programs, but does advocate a gradual movement of many of them to the free market.
He is the only candiate who advocates for LESS government, even the other GOP players now think the answer to everything is more government control of your life, and more government spending.
Incidentally, among accountants and other financial workers, he is far and away the favorite. I can find the articles about it, it was interesting. He is also in line with the philosophies of Ayn Rand.
So, vote for Paul - at least in the primary. Because if we dont start giving the RNC a clue that what we want and need is liberty, as opposed to religion-based cultural conservatism, frankly in the long run we are all screwed.
I am firmly convinced that the only real hope for liberty and prosperity in this nation, is a rejuvination of the GOP
by young, rational minds who have re-realized that people should live for themselves and want the liberty to do so unhindered by overwhelming taxes, regulation and economic pidgeonholing at the federal level.
**( I voted for McCain in the 2k primary actually,and think he would have been 100x the Prez Bush was, but in the last few years he embraced the Bush Doctrines and also voted for the Patriot act, plus likes to limit political speech so I dont consider him a worthy candidate. Watching him speak over those years, it was pretty clear from his body language
that he had become fairly bitter and insincere, and had basically sold his own sense of morality down the pike to pander to the power-brokers and money-raiser who helped propel Bush to the White House, in anticipation of his own bid. )
Right choice for president?
No democrat, unfortunatly. More of th same from them , but now with more socialism. Depressing IMO, because there were some actual good ideas on how to reshape the party coming out of the Democratic Leadership Council a couple years back.
Some elements of the DLC were advocating things like:
- Stop going after peoples right to bear arms
- Dis-entangle from the unions and culture of entitlement
- Focus on helping and improving programs that were
efficient, and actually work to some extent, like
Medicaid as opposed to new huge bueracracies
- Focus on reigning in Bush's new intelligence doctrines
and maintain the DEMs as the party of civil liberties
- Focus on popular federal programs regarding federal
funding of science, such as broadband initiatives
and stem cell research***
Unfortunatly the current Democratic candidates do not
represent any of those ideals really, and honestly probably
will never happen. When things go well, people stop voting
for the party who promises to help those who arent as well
off. They feel that they re-learned that with Clinton(1)
so dont expect any rational policy out of the Dems anytime
soon.
Obama out of the group though, if one is forced to vote democrat. As I have said elsewhere, Hillary is plain evil. If someone wants me to back that claim up, I will be happy to , but to sum it up - shes a socialist, shes for censorship, she hates video games (more like she loves the special interests who hate them) , she hates liberty, she loves huge government and also wants to enshrine massive profits for the insurance companies into a national policy that your average Joe cannot escape. Oh, and she takes massive sums from those who spy on us. (information brokers like seisint and equifax)
Obama I think wants to do good, he just doesnt know how. Edwards is even more of a socialist than Hillary, even though I would consider him a generally decent person for a politician.
On the republican side, we have a Mormon, a Senile Senator** and a Preacher who all seem to want to be a bigger, badder Bush. Some of the things flying out of their mouths are plain frightening, I hope they are talking about how they would lead a video game guild, not a RL nation.
Then of course we have Ron Paul. Ron Paul wont get nominated, unfortunatly- but his movement in the GOP is the only remnant of rationality left as far as I can tell. What he says about the economy, finance and the need for us to give up our "empire" are, to the best of my reasoning correct. He does not advocate instant abolition of most
of the current programs, but does advocate a gradual movement of many of them to the free market.
He is the only candiate who advocates for LESS government, even the other GOP players now think the answer to everything is more government control of your life, and more government spending.
Incidentally, among accountants and other financial workers, he is far and away the favorite. I can find the articles about it, it was interesting. He is also in line with the philosophies of Ayn Rand.
So, vote for Paul - at least in the primary. Because if we dont start giving the RNC a clue that what we want and need is liberty, as opposed to religion-based cultural conservatism, frankly in the long run we are all screwed.
I am firmly convinced that the only real hope for liberty and prosperity in this nation, is a rejuvination of the GOP
by young, rational minds who have re-realized that people should live for themselves and want the liberty to do so unhindered by overwhelming taxes, regulation and economic pidgeonholing at the federal level.
**( I voted for McCain in the 2k primary actually,and think he would have been 100x the Prez Bush was, but in the last few years he embraced the Bush Doctrines and also voted for the Patriot act, plus likes to limit political speech so I dont consider him a worthy candidate. Watching him speak over those years, it was pretty clear from his body language
that he had become fairly bitter and insincere, and had basically sold his own sense of morality down the pike to pander to the power-brokers and money-raiser who helped propel Bush to the White House, in anticipation of his own bid. )
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/18/08 03:15 AM
Yap, basically my stand.
RP, to me, is the only candidate who is willing to bring back the ideals of freedom, etc that made this nation great to begin with. If we burn our roots and forget our founding principles, then the U.S. eventually isn't going to be much different than any other empirical government, regardless of whether you aim for democrats or republicans.
LOOK at the issues.
RP, to me, is the only candidate who is willing to bring back the ideals of freedom, etc that made this nation great to begin with. If we burn our roots and forget our founding principles, then the U.S. eventually isn't going to be much different than any other empirical government, regardless of whether you aim for democrats or republicans.
LOOK at the issues.
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/18/08 05:13 AM
Hypno-Toad for President. . . . .
. . . all hail the mighty hypno-toad !
lol
. . . all hail the mighty hypno-toad !
lol
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/18/08 02:16 PM
Quote:
You seriously believe that RP would look in every direction for anyone saying negative things about him? He's better than to lower himself to that petty nonsense. I don't know about you, but when rumors fly around about me, I usually don't acknowledge them - let alone try to find out if there are any.
Crim, it wasn't stray rumors, it was articles printed in the RON PAUL NEWSLETTER, with Ron Paul's letterhead on it, and Ron Paul's signature on it, a newsletter for which he was generating income from. This is hardly a matter of stray rumors.
Do you buy his story that for 10 years, racist articles were printed in his own newsletter, unbeknownst to him, by people he didn't know, while he was busy making money off the silly thing?
Now THAT is something that requires a willing suspension of disbelief...
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/18/08 02:36 PM
Thats actually not correct, it wasnt "for 10 years" as some people mistakenly say- it was over 10 years "ago".
The 2 truly offensive articles happened a fairly short period time apart from one another while RP was primarily practicing medicine.
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/18/08 03:21 PM
Quote:
Thats actually not correct, it wasnt "for 10 years" as some people mistakenly say- it was over 10 years "ago".
You are correct. Mea culpa. Even so, it isn't very palatable.
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/18/08 06:59 PM
I did not inhale.
Re: Here ya go Valentein - 01/18/08 07:13 PM
lol
I take his word on it though, primarily because the views contained do not fit in the slightest his general principles which he espouses and acts on.
If his behavior, voting record, personal writing over the past several decades that "is" attributable to him were not what they were, I might be more inclined to believe it.
But, as he says - racism is a collectivist idea.
I honestly think he just goofed, and honestly didnt pay attention. Alot of people who have media staff working on their behalf, or who own media companies do not read every word of every issue - far from it. It just so happens that he had a goofball put a couple issues of his own out.
But people believe often what they want to believe, and many people seem to want to believe he was condoning racism, as opposed to having a goofball put out a couple bad newsletters before it was caught, and he was fired.
Whole thing reminds me of when he was accused by many (faux news, and by extension some people on this forum) of saying
sept 11 was the work of the government.
In reality, aside from the BS propogated by the Looter elements of the GOP establishment he voted in favor of going to afghanistan to punish Al Quada and " the persons responsible for sept 11" , though he did also suggest using more Constitutional wording, he still voted in favor.
The only foreign military adventure he has ever voted in favor of, mind you.
The one thing you will NOT see, is someone discussing the issues or discussing workability of various policy, instead its just lame attempts at personal slander.
Which stands to reason, most of the candidates dont have the first clue about real policy or governing, they just sell what their pollsters tell them to sell.
I take his word on it though, primarily because the views contained do not fit in the slightest his general principles which he espouses and acts on.
If his behavior, voting record, personal writing over the past several decades that "is" attributable to him were not what they were, I might be more inclined to believe it.
But, as he says - racism is a collectivist idea.
I honestly think he just goofed, and honestly didnt pay attention. Alot of people who have media staff working on their behalf, or who own media companies do not read every word of every issue - far from it. It just so happens that he had a goofball put a couple issues of his own out.
But people believe often what they want to believe, and many people seem to want to believe he was condoning racism, as opposed to having a goofball put out a couple bad newsletters before it was caught, and he was fired.
Whole thing reminds me of when he was accused by many (faux news, and by extension some people on this forum) of saying
sept 11 was the work of the government.
In reality, aside from the BS propogated by the Looter elements of the GOP establishment he voted in favor of going to afghanistan to punish Al Quada and " the persons responsible for sept 11" , though he did also suggest using more Constitutional wording, he still voted in favor.
The only foreign military adventure he has ever voted in favor of, mind you.
The one thing you will NOT see, is someone discussing the issues or discussing workability of various policy, instead its just lame attempts at personal slander.
Which stands to reason, most of the candidates dont have the first clue about real policy or governing, they just sell what their pollsters tell them to sell.