Re: My biggest fear about Ron Paul
greg3347
> I have to admit that I like Ron Paul. A lot. While Mike Gravel and
> Dennis Kucinch are also speaking up against the transformation of the
> USA into a Neocon empire, the former, while certainly sincere and well-
> meaning, is too prone to antics and the latter showed an unforgivable
> lack of courage when he abstained during the vote on the infamous
> House Resolution 1400. In contrast, Ron Paul has shown impeccable
> character and courage in opposing the Neocons and he has a sterling
> record on refusing to vote for idiotic and propagandistic resolutions
> in Congress. Nobody, not even his opponents. seriously disputes that
> he is an honest and dedicated man.
>
> The fact is that Ron Paul is in a league of his own. Not only that,
> but from all the anti-Neocon candidates he is the only one who has a
> conceivable chance, however small, of getting the nomination of his
> party (that could only happen if the Republicans finally realize that
> Ron Paul is the only Republican who, being anti-war, could beat the
> AIPAC-controlled Hillary).
>
> So what is my biggest fear about Ron Paul? That he might throw in the
> towel when the USA will need him most:
>
> http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/10/my-biggest-fear-about-ron-p...
JG
And his nutcase supporters hanging banners over I-55, when Anti-war
people were arrested over I-355 for "throwing rocks".
Brent P
> And his nutcase supporters hanging banners over I-55,
What makes them nutcases?
spamtr...@gmail.com
My biggest fear is that Ron Paul is neither Ron nor Paul. Discuss.
Elmo
--
Those who can make you believe absurdities
can make you commit atrocities -- Voltaire
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <1192063025.1...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, JG wrote:
>>
>>> And his nutcase supporters hanging banners over I-55,
>>
>> What makes them nutcases?
>>
> They value the Constitution more highly than any political party.
Sounds perfectly sane to me, but I can see how many would consider it
nutty since nationalist, socialist, fascism with globalist policies at
home is the current style.
mrmcafee
Elmo wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <1192063025.1...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, JG
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And his nutcase supporters hanging banners over I-55,
>>
>> What makes them nutcases?
> They value the Constitution more highly than any political party.
And yet they violate the law (the Constitution by extension) by hanging
illegal signs on the freeway right of way thus endangering the lives of
motorist, and littering the area.
Somehow, I don't think that these people value the Constitution more
than they value anarchy.
>
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
spamtr...@gmail.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> And his nutcase supporters hanging banners over I-55,
>
> >> What makes them nutcases?
> > They value the Constitution more highly than any political party.
>
> And yet they violate the law (the Constitution by extension) by hanging
> illegal signs on the freeway right of way thus endangering the lives of
> motorist, and littering the area.
>
> Somehow, I don't think that these people value the Constitution more
> than they value anarchy.
Yep, Ron Paul supporters do not respect the rule of law. Because I
abide by the strictures of the law, I do not want to associate myself
with them. They could get their message across lawfully by holding the
banners on the freeway overpasses, which is perfectly legal.
Brent P
>
>
> Elmo wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article <1192063025.1...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, JG
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And his nutcase supporters hanging banners over I-55,
>>>
>>> What makes them nutcases?
>> They value the Constitution more highly than any political party.
>
> And yet they violate the law (the Constitution by extension) by hanging
> illegal signs on the freeway right of way thus endangering the lives of
> motorist, and littering the area.
>
> Somehow, I don't think that these people value the Constitution more
> than they value anarchy.
The law is not the constitution by extension. You might also want to read
admendment one.
I think you are upset about the message. There are numerous banners that
get hung from overpasses of all sorts. The are for everything from
promoting the next blood drive on up.
Brent P
I find it amusing that people can bitch about 'the rule of law' when it
comes to a banner but don't even blink regarding undeclared war, rampant
corruption, stealing from us by manipulating the dollar, etc. Talk about
priority and scale problems...
BTW: If there is going to be a banner, I'd rather it be tied to something
secure in several locations (required to keep it readable) than being
held by a couple people who might lose their grip in a gust of wind...
mrmcafee
Brent P wrote:
> In article <z1qPi.16617$Pn2....@newsfe16.phx>, mrmcafee wrote:
>>
>> Elmo wrote:
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>> In article <1192063025.1...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, JG
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And his nutcase supporters hanging banners over I-55,
>>>> What makes them nutcases?
>>> They value the Constitution more highly than any political party.
>> And yet they violate the law (the Constitution by extension) by hanging
>> illegal signs on the freeway right of way thus endangering the lives of
>> motorist, and littering the area.
>>
>> Somehow, I don't think that these people value the Constitution more
>> than they value anarchy.
>
> The law is not the constitution by extension.
Of course it is. The Constitution is the foundation of law in this
country. Violate the Constitution, you violate our law. Violate our
laws, you effectively violate our Constitution.
> You might also want to read
> admendment one.
The number of Supreme Court findings based upon Freedom of speech fulls
volumes. Basically they boil down to mean that you can't hang your
political banners on the freeway right of way because it litters and it
obstructs the view and it is therefore dangerous. If Paul supporters can
do it then everybody else can (and will) do it thus creating an ugly and
dangerous situation. Do Ron Paul supporters care whether or not their
signing may crate a potentially lethal atmosphere on our nations
freeways? Apparently not. There are plenty of legal and safe ways for
Paul supporters to advertise their man. Littering the thoroughfares
against the law isn't one of them.
>
> I think you are upset about the message.
You think wrong.I'm an active political volunteer. I have been known to
display a sign or two supporting my candidates. As a result, I've grown
to appreciate the thinking that goes into where and where not such
temporary signs ought to be displayed. The freeway right of way isn't
the right choice.
> There are numerous banners that
> get hung from overpasses of all sorts.
Stupidly and illegally.
> The are for everything from
> promoting the next blood drive on up.
Blood drives would be unlikely. House painters, phone solicitors more
likely and done without thinking of the safety of the public, only
selfish concerns.
Stick to planting your "Ron Paul" signs in appropriate places and during
the appropriate season. You will fair better.
BTW, Why isn't Paul honest enough to run as a Libertarian?
Seth Hammond
> BTW, Why isn't Paul honest enough to run as a Libertarian?
Because so few Republicrats are smart enough to vote Libertarian.
He also appeals to anyone looking for a rational man instead of stupidly
voting traditional 2-party loyalties that have brought us here.
Vote Libertarian for more like Ron Paul. Read the Libertarian Platform.
Brent P
> Of course it is. The Constitution is the foundation of law in this
> country. Violate the Constitution, you violate our law. Violate our
> laws, you effectively violate our Constitution.
That has to be one of the most insane things I've ever read. I suggest
you read the US constitution, because you clearly haven't. The US
constitution defines the operation and limits of government. There is no
way that I can think of at the moment an individual citizen without acting
as a member of government or wielding government power can violate the
constitution. That said, laws enacted by government and the actions of
government routinely violate the US constitution.
>> You might also want to read admendment one.
> The number of Supreme Court findings based upon Freedom of speech fulls
> volumes.
That's nice.
> Basically they boil down to mean that you can't hang your
> political banners on the freeway right of way because it litters and it
> obstructs the view and it is therefore dangerous.
Cite? I see local governments hanging banners from all manner of places.
The 35th street overpass over the Dan Ryan has permanent signage on it
for the Chicago White Sox and the Illinois Institute of Technology.
> If Paul supporters can
> do it then everybody else can (and will) do it thus creating an ugly and
> dangerous situation. Do Ron Paul supporters care whether or not their
> signing may crate a potentially lethal atmosphere on our nations
> freeways? Apparently not. There are plenty of legal and safe ways for
> Paul supporters to advertise their man. Littering the thoroughfares
> against the law isn't one of them.
I find it amusing how trivial the complaints are against Ron Paul and
'Paul supporters'. It's as if some people are desperately seeking
anything that they can at all use. It's rather funny actually that
instead of telling us the benefits of Rudy McThomromey you complain about
a banner.
>> I think you are upset about the message.
> You think wrong.I'm an active political volunteer. I have been known to
> display a sign or two supporting my candidates. As a result, I've grown
> to appreciate the thinking that goes into where and where not such
> temporary signs ought to be displayed. The freeway right of way isn't
> the right choice.
>> There are numerous banners that get hung from overpasses of all sorts.
> Stupidly and illegally.
But somehow it's less stupid and less illegal when the government does
it?
>> The are for everything from
>> promoting the next blood drive on up.
> Blood drives would be unlikely. House painters, phone solicitors more
> likely and done without thinking of the safety of the public, only
> selfish concerns.
They are put up by the government itself. Usually some civic event of one
sort or another put on by government or some org in the area. Maybe not
so much expressway overpasses, but I do see them on ped overpasses
frequently.
> Stick to planting your "Ron Paul" signs in appropriate places and during
> the appropriate season. You will fair better.
> BTW, Why isn't Paul honest enough to run as a Libertarian?
Why isn't Hillary running as a socialist? Why isn't Rudy running as a
fascist? Because election law in this nation is set such that one can
only run effectively from within one of the two parties. Duh. Of course
in Ron Paul's case, the great many of his views are shared with old
time republicans. From before the 'old right' was driven to into the
corner and certainly long before the neocon Trotskyites / Straussians
took over the party.
Bert Hyman
news:xHtPi.108$qv6...@newsfe04.phx:
> Violate the Constitution, you violate our law.
An individual citizen can not "violate the Constitution."
The US Constitution enumerates the limited powers of the branches of
government; it has nothing to do with the behavior of individuals.
--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | be...@iphouse.com
az willie
news:xHtPi.108$qv6...@newsfe04.phx:
====================
Hanging a sign from an overpass violates the Constitution,eh?
Never heard of civil disobedience as a form of protest?
You have become a total hypocrit.
Vosotros
"mrmcafee" <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote in message
news:xHtPi.108$qv6...@newsfe04.phx...
Because he's not a libertarian.
Libertarians don't promote the idea that the establishment clause is a one
way street protecting church from government. Neither do they go on about
how the church should eclipse the state in importance. Ron Paul is more of a
dominionist.
Paul is also friend to Christian nationalist and separatist organizations.
He's also connected to David Duke and other institutionalized bigots.
Libertarians are usually promoters of liberty for all, not just whites.
Brent P
> Paul is also friend to Christian nationalist and separatist organizations.
> He's also connected to David Duke and other institutionalized bigots.
> Libertarians are usually promoters of liberty for all, not just whites.
This sort of unfounded spew must mean Ron Paul has reached stage 3.
Stage 1: They ignore you.
Stage 2: they ridicule you.
Stage 3: they fight you.
Stage 4: you win.
Magus
Ron Paul ran as the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in 1988.
Tom Servo
(Brent P) mumbled:
Uh...you'd stand a better chot at getting Perot elected than Paul,
fool.
Vosotros
"Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:R6Wdne9BK90m04_a...@comcast.com...
> In article <13h4g9q...@corp.supernews.com>, Vosotros wrote:
>
>> Paul is also friend to Christian nationalist and separatist
>> organizations.
>> He's also connected to David Duke and other institutionalized bigots.
>> Libertarians are usually promoters of liberty for all, not just whites.
>
> This sort of unfounded spew must mean Ron Paul has reached stage 3.
Stage dementia, maybe.
As far as them being unfounded, care to take up my claims point by point?
Ron Paul has spoken for and is supported by many far right christian
ationalist and racist groups such as Stormfront, the John Birch Society, and
the White Citizens Council. He gave a speech at a secessionists conference
in 1995 about how Texas should secede and form its own government. He also
has the avid endorsement of David Duke and has appeared on white supremists
radio programs.
Care to refute any of that?
Paul also claimed that blacks were "fleet footed" and "95% criminal. He has
also said there was an international conspiracy to overthrow the U.S.
government, that we should go back to the gold standard (coincidentally he
owns a company that markets gold coins). He has also said Hillary Clinton
was a lesbian, Bill Clinton had illegitimate white and black babies, and
that they murdered Vince Foster, who was their cocaine dealer.
I could go on for much longer. Care to see this "libertarian's" voting
record?
Vosotros
"Magus" <No...@noway.net> wrote in message
news:hcsQi.2640$K7....@bignews2.bellsouth.net...
Did you know that the Nazi Party's candidate for president complained that
Paul's candidacy would steal votes from him?
Tom Servo
mumbled:
>Did you know that the Nazi Party's candidate for president complained that
>Paul's candidacy would steal votes from him?
Godwin's law for you too.
Brent P
> As far as them being unfounded, care to take up my claims point by point?
Um, it's your job to prove them true.
> Ron Paul has spoken for and is supported by many far right christian
> ationalist and racist groups such as Stormfront, the John Birch Society, and
> the White Citizens Council. He gave a speech at a secessionists conference
> in 1995 about how Texas should secede and form its own government. He also
> has the avid endorsement of David Duke and has appeared on white supremists
> radio programs.
> Care to refute any of that?
Why don't you care to prove it? You can just type anything you want, you
need to provide the proof. It seems that you're a little unclear on how
things work. And since when does a person have control over who endorses
them?
> Paul also claimed that blacks were "fleet footed" and "95% criminal.
That was something written by a ghost writer and was long since delt
with. As in over a decade ago. Of course you're too dishonest to cover
the whole story. that's politics.
> He has
> also said there was an international conspiracy to overthrow the U.S.
> government,
Cite? Of course not. I could just as well type that you've said that
there is an intersellar plot to overthrow the governments of earth but
it's the proof that counts.
> that we should go back to the gold standard
That would be a good thing. That way your savings is worth something
after the federal reserve fucks around with the dollar at will and the
government funds wars by creating money causing inflation. Fiat currency
only helps those who get the new money first. Those people get to buy
things at the old prices. By the time the poor and middle class get the
money, all the prices have gone up and they have been using the old
dollars buying at the new prices for some time. PLUS the government gets
to steal wealth. Let's say you have $100,000 through careful investment
you are able to keep pace with inflation. You end up with a $150,000 that
will buy the same amount of stuff. The government taxes the $50,000
'gain' and you end up behind.
> (coincidentally he owns a company that markets gold coins).
Cite? And even if we did go back to the gold standard, the USMint would
make the coins. DUH.
> He has also said Hillary Clinton
> was a lesbian, Bill Clinton had illegitimate white and black babies, and
> that they murdered Vince Foster, who was their cocaine dealer.
I still see no cites.
> I could go on for much longer.
Of course you can, typing made up nonsense with one piece of truth mixed
in is easy.
> Care to see this "libertarian's" voting record?
I have seen his voting record. Beats the shit out of the other options.
Brent P
> Did you know that the Nazi Party's candidate for president complained that
> Paul's candidacy would steal votes from him?
That's about as relevant as saying that the democrats complained Rudy G
would steal away the cross-dressers vote.
Wayne
"Tom Servo" <gy...@bot.not> wrote in message
news:udp4h3pbb2g3ttlj9...@4ax.com...
That brings up the absolute scariest thing about Ron Paul. Remember how we
got Slick Willie for president, because that big eared Perot siphoned off
some G. Bush votes. We could end up with a Hillary-Billary landslide if Ron
Paul siphons off votes from whoever is the republican candidate.
Tom Servo
mumbled:
Just as Nader siphoned the D's hardliners, I agree - a trojan horse
candidate.
Brent P
> That brings up the absolute scariest thing about Ron Paul. Remember how we
> got Slick Willie for president, because that big eared Perot siphoned off
> some G. Bush votes. We could end up with a Hillary-Billary landslide if Ron
> Paul siphons off votes from whoever is the republican candidate.
1) Ron Paul said he isn't going to be in the general election unless he
_IS_ the republican candidate.
2) There isn't two cents of difference between "Hillary-Billary" and Rudy
McThomromney. Either way it's war with Iran, more empire, more federal
entitlement programs, economic harmonization with mexico, etc and so
forth... maybe those three will be mixed up a bit priority wise, but
it's just the same crap either way.
Tom Servo
(Brent P) mumbled:
>In article <oLxQi.17083$uC1.1537@trnddc04>, Wayne wrote:
>
>> That brings up the absolute scariest thing about Ron Paul. Remember how we
>> got Slick Willie for president, because that big eared Perot siphoned off
>> some G. Bush votes. We could end up with a Hillary-Billary landslide if Ron
>> Paul siphons off votes from whoever is the republican candidate.
>
>1) Ron Paul said he isn't going to be in the general election unless he
>_IS_ the republican candidate.
And you believe him?
Brent P
Considering he had to be pushed to run in the first place, yes.
Now if Rudy McThompromney can't keep the people Ron Paul brought to the
republican primary (those who haven't bothered voting in years mostly,
that ~50% of the population that doesn't typically vote), that's his
fault for being yet another big government empire building
authoritarian tool of the CFR, not Ron Pauls.
Tom Servo
(Brent P) mumbled:
>> And you believe him?
>
>Considering he had to be pushed to run in the first place, yes.
Oh pshaw, no push was needed.
Brent P
I've been aware of him a wee bit longer than most and no where near as
long as many. His reluctance was obvious before and during the exploratory.
It's quite a bottom up drive. That's why most people don't understand
it. It's not functioning like a typical campaign.
Rudy McThompromney simply can't lose votes they never had anyway.
Bama Brian
Your fear is just that - an unfounded fear.
Exit polls taken after the Perot elections showed clearly that Perot
drew voters from BOTH the Republican and the Democrat parties, literally
in equal numbers.
But you go right ahead voting for "the winner". After all, we wouldn't
want you to lose your bet money. You'll just lose your freedom instead;
something you'll never notice since you don't know what it is.
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Bama Brian
Cite please.
It's the most amazing thing. That a third party candidate ONLY draws
his votes from one party.
The amazing part is that you believe it.
Bama Brian
Have you ever heard of a citation?
Try posting a few to back up your points. So far, all you've done is to
wage a smear campaign.
Tom Servo
(Brent P) mumbled:
>In article <3gv5h39ma0gmbo5rg...@4ax.com>, Tom Servo wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 23:15:35 -0500, tetraethylle...@yahoo.com
>> (Brent P) mumbled:
>>
>>>> And you believe him?
>>>
>>>Considering he had to be pushed to run in the first place, yes.
>>
>> Oh pshaw, no push was needed.
>
>I've been aware of him a wee bit longer than most and no where near as
>long as many. His reluctance was obvious before and during the exploratory.
>It's quite a bottom up drive. That's why most people don't understand
>it. It's not functioning like a typical campaign.
>
>Rudy McThompromney simply can't lose votes they never had anyway.
The road to irrelevance is paved with true believers.
Obadiah Wheeler
<bamaNO...@mindspring.com> mumbled:
http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/14052/ralph-nader-prepares-to-ride-again/
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader told the Green Party’s national
convention that he is considering a 2008 presidential run and accused
Democrats of trying to shut smaller parties out of the political
process.
In 2000, Nader got 2.7% of the votes in the general election.
Democrats say he siphoned votes from the party’s nominee, Al Gore, in
Florida, New Hampshire and elsewhere, giving the election to
Republican George W. Bush.
>It's the most amazing thing. That a third party candidate ONLY draws
>his votes from one party.
Depends which candidate he is, doesn't it?
>The amazing part is that you believe it.
The amazing part is that you deny it has happened.
http://citizensadvisory.org/systemoverhaul/overhaul3_instantrunoff.html
In 1992, Ross Perot siphoned enough votes from George Bush senior that
he threw the election to Bill Clinton. In 2000, Ralph Nader siphoned
enough votes from Al Gore to throw the election to George Bush Jr.
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v1n2/schramm.html
Consider this sobering fact. Most estimates claim that the vast
majority of those who voted for Ross Perot would have voted for the
Republican nominee if Perot were not running. Although in public the
Democratic Party claims to be worried about Perot, and their inability
to woo Perot supporters, I believe that they privately acknowledge the
fact that without Perot running in ?92, Clinton would not be
President. It is to the Democrat?s advantage in 1996 if Perot were to
run as an independent candidate again.
In short, Clinton got elected with only 43.3% of the national vote (as
compared to Dukakis? 45.6% in 1988) because of the votes, 19%
nationwide, that Perot siphoned off from the GOP.
Obadiah Wheeler
<bamaNO...@mindspring.com> mumbled:
>Vosotros wrote:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1835179/posts
Copyright (c) 1996 National Journal Inc.
A 1992 political newsletter by former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, included
portrayals of African-Americans as inclined toward crime and lacking
sense about political issues, the Houston Chronicle reported Thursday.
Paul, a former Libertarian Party presidential candidate who defeated
Democratic-turned-Republican Rep. Greg Laughlin in the March primary,
in November will face Democratic attorney Charles (Lefty) Morris,
whose campaign is distributing Paul's writings.
Under the headline "Terrorist Update," Paul reported on gang crime in
Los Angeles and wrote, "If you have ever been robbed by a black
teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
About blacks in Washington, D.C., Paul wrote, "I think we can safely
assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are
semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Paul said Wednesday that his
comments came in the context of "current events and statistical
reports of the time," and that he opposes racism
Brent P
Yet, you don't put in the followup of this over decade old story...
The followup being is those were the words of a ghost writer and Ron Paul
took full responsibility for them having been published and fired the
ghost writer.It's old and Ron Paul apologized repeatedly for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletter_article_controversy
In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that
the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but that they
were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said
the derogatory remarks about Congresswoman Jordan were "the saddest
thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a
delightful lady."[52] He stated that he took moral responsibility for
comments with which he disagreed being published under his name. Texas
Monthly explained, "What made the statements in the publication even more
puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one
presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[32]
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never
say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me.
It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as
I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing,
because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful
lady.' ...
"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They
were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I
actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me
directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared
in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to
live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and
ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face
in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in
retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the
truth at the time."
mrmcafee
Brent P wrote:
> In article <xHtPi.108$qv6...@newsfe04.phx>, mrmcafee wrote:
>
>> Of course it is. The Constitution is the foundation of law in this
>> country. Violate the Constitution, you violate our law. Violate our
>> laws, you effectively violate our Constitution.
>
> That has to be one of the most insane things I've ever read. I suggest
> you read the US constitution, because you clearly haven't. The US
> constitution defines the operation and limits of government. There is no
> way that I can think of at the moment an individual citizen without acting
> as a member of government or wielding government power can violate the
> constitution. That said, laws enacted by government and the actions of
> government routinely violate the US constitution.
You are, of course, correct. My blunder. I think that I got caught up
with this apparent disconnect between reverence for the Constitution and
disdain for rule of law. I can't see how anyone can demand that the
government operate within the confines of the Constitution on one hand,
yet let slide individual acts of lawlessness on the other.
>
>>> You might also want to read admendment one.
>
>> The number of Supreme Court findings based upon Freedom of speech fulls
>> volumes.
>
> That's nice.
>
>> Basically they boil down to mean that you can't hang your
>> political banners on the freeway right of way because it litters and it
>> obstructs the view and it is therefore dangerous.
>
> Cite?
Schenck v. United States
> I see local governments hanging banners from all manner of places.
> The 35th street overpass over the Dan Ryan has permanent signage on it
> for the Chicago White Sox and the Illinois Institute of Technology.
I'm in Mesa, AZ I wouldn't know about your local conditions. Are the
thoroughfares in question US Interstate Highways? Can they be at least
considered limited access freeways?
>
>> If Paul supporters can
>> do it then everybody else can (and will) do it thus creating an ugly and
>> dangerous situation. Do Ron Paul supporters care whether or not their
>> signing may crate a potentially lethal atmosphere on our nations
>> freeways? Apparently not. There are plenty of legal and safe ways for
>> Paul supporters to advertise their man. Littering the thoroughfares
>> against the law isn't one of them.
>
> I find it amusing how trivial the complaints are against Ron Paul and
> 'Paul supporters'. It's as if some people are desperately seeking
> anything that they can at all use. It's rather funny actually that
> instead of telling us the benefits of Rudy McThomromey you complain about
> a banner.
We complain about the dangerous situation that is created when illegal
signs are hung on our freeway right of ways. So far as the Republican
Party candidates for President are concerned, I couldn't care less. I'm
a Democrat. At least Paul has the right idea about getting us out of the
Iraqi War.
>
>>> I think you are upset about the message.
>
>> You think wrong.I'm an active political volunteer. I have been known to
>> display a sign or two supporting my candidates. As a result, I've grown
>> to appreciate the thinking that goes into where and where not such
>> temporary signs ought to be displayed. The freeway right of way isn't
>> the right choice.
>
>
>>> There are numerous banners that get hung from overpasses of all sorts.
>
>> Stupidly and illegally.
>
> But somehow it's less stupid and less illegal when the government does
> it?
In my neighborhood, the government doesn't hang banners in the freeway
right of ways. It's dangerous to distract motorist on our crowed freeways.
>
>>> The are for everything from
>>> promoting the next blood drive on up.
>
>> Blood drives would be unlikely. House painters, phone solicitors more
>> likely and done without thinking of the safety of the public, only
>> selfish concerns.
>
> They are put up by the government itself. Usually some civic event of one
> sort or another put on by government or some org in the area. Maybe not
> so much expressway overpasses, but I do see them on ped overpasses
> frequently.
Signs displayed on local streets (main street for example) are one
thing. Signs displayed on high speed, crowed freeways are quite another.
>
>> Stick to planting your "Ron Paul" signs in appropriate places and during
>> the appropriate season. You will fair better.
>
>> BTW, Why isn't Paul honest enough to run as a Libertarian?
>
> Why isn't Hillary running as a socialist?
Because she isn't a socialist. Never has been. Not even close to being a
socialist. She is a Democrat.
> Why isn't Rudy running as a
> fascist?
I think he should be, but there isn't a Fascist Party of America that I
know of, so he is running as the next closest thing.
> Because election law in this nation is set such that one can
> only run effectively from within one of the two parties. Duh.
Oh. He sold out his principles for a better chance at winning. That's
what I thought too.
> Of course
> in Ron Paul's case, the great many of his views are shared with old
> time republicans. From before the 'old right' was driven to into the
> corner and certainly long before the neocon Trotskyites / Straussians
> took over the party.
"Old Time Republicans" like who? Joseph McCarthy? Warren Harding?
>
>
--
*******************
Michael R. McAfee
Mesa, AZ
*******************
Brent P
>>> Violate the Constitution, you violate our law. Violate our
>>> laws, you effectively violate our Constitution.
>> The US
>> constitution defines the operation and limits of government. There is no
>> way that I can think of at the moment an individual citizen without acting
>> as a member of government or wielding government power can violate the
>> constitution.
> You are, of course, correct. My blunder. I think that I got caught up
> with this apparent disconnect between reverence for the Constitution and
> disdain for rule of law. I can't see how anyone can demand that the
> government operate within the confines of the Constitution on one hand,
> yet let slide individual acts of lawlessness on the other.
I see you're yet another person who thinks that all laws are golden and
must be obeyed.
>> I see local governments hanging banners from all manner of places.
>> The 35th street overpass over the Dan Ryan has permanent signage on it
>> for the Chicago White Sox and the Illinois Institute of Technology.
> I'm in Mesa, AZ I wouldn't know about your local conditions. Are the
> thoroughfares in question US Interstate Highways? Can they be at least
> considered limited access freeways?
If your argument is safety, it doesn't matter what the roadway below is.
The Dan Ryan is I90/94 BTW.
>> I find it amusing how trivial the complaints are against Ron Paul and
>> 'Paul supporters'. It's as if some people are desperately seeking
>> anything that they can at all use. It's rather funny actually that
>> instead of telling us the benefits of Rudy McThomromey you complain about
>> a banner.
> We complain about the dangerous situation that is created when illegal
> signs are hung on our freeway right of ways.
Then you have far more groups to complain about than a few people looking
to have someone elected to office.
> So far as the Republican
> Party candidates for President are concerned, I couldn't care less. I'm
> a Democrat. At least Paul has the right idea about getting us out of the
> Iraqi War.
Yet the democrat front runners are in the 'nuke Iran (or pakistan)' camp
with the neo-cons...
>>>> There are numerous banners that get hung from overpasses of all sorts.
>>> Stupidly and illegally.
>> But somehow it's less stupid and less illegal when the government does
>> it?
> In my neighborhood, the government doesn't hang banners in the freeway
> right of ways. It's dangerous to distract motorist on our crowed freeways.
Government couldn't much less care less about safety than they already
do.
>> They are put up by the government itself. Usually some civic event of one
>> sort or another put on by government or some org in the area. Maybe not
>> so much expressway overpasses, but I do see them on ped overpasses
>> frequently.
> Signs displayed on local streets (main street for example) are one
> thing. Signs displayed on high speed, crowed freeways are quite another.
If the sign were to fall the potentional for carnage is no less. A ped
overpass on a major 6 lane arterial is little different from an
expressway.
>>> Stick to planting your "Ron Paul" signs in appropriate places and during
>>> the appropriate season. You will fair better.
>>
>>> BTW, Why isn't Paul honest enough to run as a Libertarian?
>>
>> Why isn't Hillary running as a socialist?
> Because she isn't a socialist. Never has been. Not even close to being a
> socialist. She is a Democrat.
You're missing the point. She's as much a socialist as Ron Paul is a
Libertarian. She shares much with socialists, but isn't following the
socialist (or democrat) party line 100%.
>> Why isn't Rudy running as a
>> fascist?
> I think he should be, but there isn't a Fascist Party of America that I
> know of, so he is running as the next closest thing.
So you see moderation in those you favor but extremes in those you don't.
>> Because election law in this nation is set such that one can
>> only run effectively from within one of the two parties. Duh.
> Oh. He sold out his principles for a better chance at winning. That's
> what I thought too.
His principles are unchanged as far as I can tell. There are some big
issues where Ron Paul is not libertarian in many libertarians' view.
For instance, he would act to control the borders, a full-out 10/10ths
libertarian does not believe in border controls.
>> Of course
>> in Ron Paul's case, the great many of his views are shared with old
>> time republicans. From before the 'old right' was driven to into the
>> corner and certainly long before the neocon Trotskyites / Straussians
>> took over the party.
> "Old Time Republicans" like who? Joseph McCarthy? Warren Harding?
The anti-war republicans that didn't much like FDR's attempts to drag
the USA into WW2.
Obadiah Wheeler
(Brent P) mumbled:
>In article <ake7h3l89u69d6942...@4ax.com>, Obadiah Wheeler wrote:
Convenient ploy, who's to say what's true then?
Obadiah Wheeler
<use...@DE.LETE.THISljvideo.com> mumbled:
>Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net>
>said:
>
>> Because she isn't a socialist. Never has been. Not even close to being a
>> socialist. She is a Democrat.
>
>If you don't know the answer make your best guess. Answer all the
>questions before looking at the answers way down at the bottom.
>
>Who said it?
>
>1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common
>good."
>
>A. Karl Marx
>B. Adolph Hitler
>C. Joseph Stalin
>D. None of the above
>
>2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by
>the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility
>for shared prosperity."
>
>A. Lenin
>B. Mussolini
>C. Idi Amin
>D. None of the Above
>
>3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means
>something has to be taken away from some people."
>
>A. Nikita Khrushev
>B. Josef Goebbels
>C. Boris Yeltsin
>D. None of the above
>
>4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to
>give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common
>ground."
>
>A. Mao Tse Dung
>B. Hugo Chavez
>C. Kim Jong Il
>D. None of the above
>
>5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
>
>A. Karl Marx
>B. Lenin
>C. Molotov
>D. None of the above
>
>6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most
>profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
>
>A. Pinochet
>B. Milosevic
>C. Saddam Hussein
>D. None of the above
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Answers:
>
>(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
>(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
>(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
>(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
>(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
>(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
Sweet!
mrmcafee
Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net>
> said:
>
>> Because she isn't a socialist. Never has been. Not even close to being a
>> socialist. She is a Democrat.
>
Nobody but you falls for this kind of distortion anymore, Larry
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
mrmcafee
Brent P wrote:
> In article <LvQQi.27830$054....@newsfe14.phx>, mrmcafee wrote:
>
>>>> Violate the Constitution, you violate our law. Violate our
>>>> laws, you effectively violate our Constitution.
>
>>> The US
>>> constitution defines the operation and limits of government. There is no
>>> way that I can think of at the moment an individual citizen without acting
>>> as a member of government or wielding government power can violate the
>>> constitution.
>
>> You are, of course, correct. My blunder. I think that I got caught up
>> with this apparent disconnect between reverence for the Constitution and
>> disdain for rule of law. I can't see how anyone can demand that the
>> government operate within the confines of the Constitution on one hand,
>> yet let slide individual acts of lawlessness on the other.
>
> I see you're yet another person who thinks that all laws are golden and
> must be obeyed.
Yep. Especially those that make sense.
I presume that you believe that we all ought to follow just those laws
that we find convenient and or agree with no matter the harm that it
might cause society.
>
>>> I see local governments hanging banners from all manner of places.
>>> The 35th street overpass over the Dan Ryan has permanent signage on it
>>> for the Chicago White Sox and the Illinois Institute of Technology.
>
>> I'm in Mesa, AZ I wouldn't know about your local conditions. Are the
>> thoroughfares in question US Interstate Highways? Can they be at least
>> considered limited access freeways?
>
> If your argument is safety, it doesn't matter what the roadway below is.
Sure it does. There is a big difference between hanging distracting
signs on a freeway with bumper to bumper traffic going 65 MPH and
hanging it over a 4 lane downtown street with traffic going 20 MPH and
with frequent stops.
> The Dan Ryan is I90/94 BTW.
I'd complain to the local city attorney about the distraction and the
lack of fairness. Maybe they will allow "Ron Paul" signs if you apply
for the permit?
>
>>> I find it amusing how trivial the complaints are against Ron Paul and
>>> 'Paul supporters'. It's as if some people are desperately seeking
>>> anything that they can at all use. It's rather funny actually that
>>> instead of telling us the benefits of Rudy McThomromey you complain about
>>> a banner.
>
>> We complain about the dangerous situation that is created when illegal
>> signs are hung on our freeway right of ways.
>
> Then you have far more groups to complain about than a few people looking
> to have someone elected to office.
And we do. Mostly they are signs advertising "work from home" or a guy
who wants to paint your house. Those are cleared off rather routinely
and promptly by the maintenance crews. Our politicians ask their
volunteers to obey the law and post campaign signs legally. They want to
be part of the solution, not of the problem.
>
>> So far as the Republican
>> Party candidates for President are concerned, I couldn't care less. I'm
>> a Democrat. At least Paul has the right idea about getting us out of the
>> Iraqi War.
>
> Yet the democrat front runners are in the 'nuke Iran (or pakistan)' camp
> with the neo-cons...
I haven't noticed that in any of their information.
I support Kucinich.
>
>>>>> There are numerous banners that get hung from overpasses of all sorts.
>>>> Stupidly and illegally.
>>> But somehow it's less stupid and less illegal when the government does
>>> it?
>
>> In my neighborhood, the government doesn't hang banners in the freeway
>> right of ways. It's dangerous to distract motorist on our crowed freeways.
>
> Government couldn't much less care less about safety than they already
> do.
Our government spends a tremendous amount of time and resource in trying
to keep us safe. Chicago must be hell.
>
>>> They are put up by the government itself. Usually some civic event of one
>>> sort or another put on by government or some org in the area. Maybe not
>>> so much expressway overpasses, but I do see them on ped overpasses
>>> frequently.
>
>> Signs displayed on local streets (main street for example) are one
>> thing. Signs displayed on high speed, crowed freeways are quite another.
>
> If the sign were to fall the potentional for carnage is no less. A ped
> overpass on a major 6 lane arterial is little different from an
> expressway.
The concern isn't that the signs will fall. The concern is that they are
a distraction.
>
>>>> Stick to planting your "Ron Paul" signs in appropriate places and during
>>>> the appropriate season. You will fair better.
>>>
>>>> BTW, Why isn't Paul honest enough to run as a Libertarian?
>>> Why isn't Hillary running as a socialist?
>
>> Because she isn't a socialist. Never has been. Not even close to being a
>> socialist. She is a Democrat.
>
> You're missing the point. She's as much a socialist as Ron Paul is a
> Libertarian.
Paul was a Libertarian candidate for President, for goodness sake!!!
>She shares much with socialists, but isn't following the
> socialist (or democrat) party line 100%.
Hilary shares almost nothing with socialist that identify them as
socialist! Where is it that you get your information?
>
>>> Why isn't Rudy running as a
>>> fascist?
>
>> I think he should be, but there isn't a Fascist Party of America that I
>> know of, so he is running as the next closest thing.
>
> So you see moderation in those you favor but extremes in those you don't.
I'd rather have Paul as president than Giuliani.
>
>>> Because election law in this nation is set such that one can
>>> only run effectively from within one of the two parties. Duh.
>
>> Oh. He sold out his principles for a better chance at winning. That's
>> what I thought too.
>
> His principles are unchanged as far as I can tell. There are some big
> issues where Ron Paul is not libertarian in many libertarians' view.
> For instance, he would act to control the borders, a full-out 10/10ths
> libertarian does not believe in border controls.
>
>>> Of course
>>> in Ron Paul's case, the great many of his views are shared with old
>>> time republicans. From before the 'old right' was driven to into the
>>> corner and certainly long before the neocon Trotskyites / Straussians
>>> took over the party.
>
>> "Old Time Republicans" like who? Joseph McCarthy? Warren Harding?
>
> The anti-war republicans that didn't much like FDR's attempts to drag
> the USA into WW2.
Lindbergh? Hoover?
Brent P
>> I see you're yet another person who thinks that all laws are golden and
>> must be obeyed.
>
> Yep. Especially those that make sense.
>
> I presume that you believe that we all ought to follow just those laws
> that we find convenient and or agree with no matter the harm that it
> might cause society.
I find it amusing that as usual, you law is the law types excuse
government but wish to punish people for the same thing. Also concern of
the most trivial of things by the people while government crime from
everywhere from billions in theft, endangering people, and even killing
of masses isn't of concern.... who cares about the bigger picture....
some ron paul supporters put a banner up!
>> If your argument is safety, it doesn't matter what the roadway below is.
> Sure it does. There is a big difference between hanging distracting
> signs on a freeway with bumper to bumper traffic going 65 MPH and
> hanging it over a 4 lane downtown street with traffic going 20 MPH and
> with frequent stops.
Actually with frequently stopped traffic, a distraction is _MORE_
dangerous. Because traffic ahead may stop while a driver is reading a
sign... even if the driver is reading an exit sign... or the sign that
says take-metra (the local transit system has signs hanging from over
passes and the like on the expressways) Of course you law is the law
types... it's just bad if the people do it to further something that
isn't in the interests of the state, government can do it all it wants.
> The concern isn't that the signs will fall. The concern is that they are
> a distraction.
You should contact the USDOT... all those distracting signs. US
interstate signage sucks. Especially since the interstate signs often
give some far off city.... They should copy the Autobahn signage. If
you're worried about distraction, well you simply have no case. Hooters
has a huge billboard along I294 as does a strip club or three. I doubt
'GOOGLE RON PAUL' has anywhere close to that sort of distraction.
>> You're missing the point. She's as much a socialist as Ron Paul is a
>> Libertarian.
> Paul was a Libertarian candidate for President, for goodness sake!!!
And if Hillary ends up out of office for awhile, she might choose to be
the socialist canidate.
>>She shares much with socialists, but isn't following the
>> socialist (or democrat) party line 100%.
> Hilary shares almost nothing with socialist that identify them as
> socialist! Where is it that you get your information?
Everytime she opens her mouth it seems it's about one plan or another to
take from some people to give to others. Socialism.
>>>> Why isn't Rudy running as a
>>>> fascist?
>>
>>> I think he should be, but there isn't a Fascist Party of America that I
>>> know of, so he is running as the next closest thing.
>>
>> So you see moderation in those you favor but extremes in those you don't.
>
> I'd rather have Paul as president than Giuliani.
That makes Ron Paul the compromise canidate between the MSM front runner
extremes of Hillary and Rudy. Let's do like Hillary says and compromise!
>> The anti-war republicans that didn't much like FDR's attempts to drag
>> the USA into WW2.
>
> Lindbergh? Hoover?
Go study some more history.
Bama Brian
Obadiah, you need to be reading what you're posting. That first cite is
nothing more than another creative voting method and has nothing to do
with the reality of the '92 and '96 elections.
Then that second cite was written in '93. In it, the author claims that
all the voters who voted for Perot in '92 would do so again in '96 - yet
that didn't happen, as the numbers showed.
Here's a cite showing CNN's results on the '96 and '92 elections:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html
Voting for Perot, by % in '96
Republican - 6%
Democrat - 5%
Voting for Perot in '92
Republican - 4%
Democrat - 4%
You've got a far bigger problem with Repubs voting for Demos and vice versa.
In '96, voting for the opposite party:
Republican - 13%
Democrat - 10%
People forget just who was running against Clinton. In '92 it was Mr.
"Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES!" Bush. Then in '96 it was doleful Dole.
It's easier to blame a popular rumor than it is to do the homework and
look at the Repub candidates in '92 and '96, and put the blame where it
belonged - on the Repub party itself.
Given those two losers in '92 and '96, it's no surprise that Clinton
won. The Repub party was its own worst enemy - as it has become again
today.
Bama Brian
In a smear campaign, people delight in believing the worst about
someone. That is what will be remembered. Those who do the smearing
know this and use it effectively, as it was done here.
In Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar", we have the immortal words, "The evil
that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."
Vosotros
> In article <13h4mjv...@corp.supernews.com>, Vosotros wrote:
>
>> As far as them being unfounded, care to take up my claims point by point?
>
>
>> Ron Paul has spoken for and is supported by many far right christian
>> ationalist and racist groups such as Stormfront, the John Birch Society,
>> and
>> the White Citizens Council. He gave a speech at a secessionists
>> conference
>> in 1995 about how Texas should secede and form its own government. He
>> also
>> has the avid endorsement of David Duke and has appeared on white
>> supremists
>> radio programs.
>
>> Care to refute any of that?
>
> need to provide the proof. It seems that you're a little unclear on how
> things work. And since when does a person have control over who endorses
> them?
One has control over whether or not he distances himself from these types of
endorsements. Ron Paul has never done so. He also continues to do interviews
in papers and radio that specifically target the radical element.
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/essay1.htm
The neo-confederate Rockford Institute, April 7th to 9th 1995, held a
symposium on "Secession, State, and Economy" in Charleston, South Carolina.
Speakers were former member of Congress Ron Paul, Clyde Wilson, Hans-Hermann
Hoppe, Yuri Maltsev, Joseph Salerno, and Dr. David Gordern.
Its flyer states:
Secession!
From Staten Island to Quebec, Scotland to California, Chechnya to Texas,
secession is in the air. ...
You'll also see him on the guest list at The Political Cesspool, the
official radio program of the White Citizen's Council:
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php
And Here's an interview with the John Birch Society
Have fun.
>
>> Paul also claimed that blacks were "fleet footed" and "95% criminal.
>
> That was something written by a ghost writer and was long since delt
> with. As in over a decade ago. Of course you're too dishonest to cover
> the whole story. that's politics.
If you believe that, then either you are either an apologist for a
transparent liar, or you are supporting someone who is not in control of his
own staff and doesn't bother reading what is put out in his name.
Politicians put out secretive newsletters for big donors and the party
faithful all the time that contain little tidbits that they don't want the
average voter to read. Inevitably they are surprised when something gets
out, and are shocked, shocked I tell you that it was in there in the first
place. They of course blame someone else, like the writer or publisher, and
said they never meant it in the first place.
>
>> He has
>> also said there was an international conspiracy to overthrow the U.S.
>> government,
>
> Cite? Of course not. I could just as well type that you've said that
> there is an intersellar plot to overthrow the governments of earth but
> it's the proof that counts.
2004 interview:
http://www.illuminati-news.com/ron-paul.htm
First question: do you believe there are secret forces at work that are
attempting to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Congressman Ron Paul - I don't know what the best word is, but secret is
pretty good. They're certainly not known to a lot of people; it's actually
what their doing. But then again, it's not absolute secrecy. If you look
around you can usually get the information. There was a time when nobody
even knew who was a member of the CFR or the Trilateral Commission. I think
it's a bad sign that they're not as secret as they used to be. They're
bolder now. But there is an agenda. They're behind the scenes in many way -
very secretive. And, that was certainly the case on those individuals who
planned and pushed us into the Iraqi War.
>
>> that we should go back to the gold standard
>
> That would be a good thing. That way your savings is worth something
> after the federal reserve fucks around with the dollar at will and the
> government funds wars by creating money causing inflation. Fiat currency
> only helps those who get the new money first. Those people get to buy
> things at the old prices. By the time the poor and middle class get the
> money, all the prices have gone up and they have been using the old
> dollars buying at the new prices for some time. PLUS the government gets
> to steal wealth. Let's say you have $100,000 through careful investment
> you are able to keep pace with inflation. You end up with a $150,000 that
> will buy the same amount of stuff. The government taxes the $50,000
> 'gain' and you end up behind.
>
>> (coincidentally he owns a company that markets gold coins).
>
> Cite? And even if we did go back to the gold standard, the USMint would
> make the coins. DUH.
>
>> He has also said Hillary Clinton
>> was a lesbian, Bill Clinton had illegitimate white and black babies, and
>> that they murdered Vince Foster, who was their cocaine dealer.
>
> I still see no cites.
Ron Paul's Coin dealership.
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/taylor/taylor031706.html
"TAYLOR: Okay. For the benefit of our subscribers, here is the number for
Ron Paul Coins as published in Richard Maybury's letter, "U.S. & World Early
Warning Report." It is 1-800-982-7070.
Ron Paul's hit piece on Hillary being a lesbian and Bill having illegitimate
white and black children:
http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.words-l/msg/72e1d3d11aa4755b
What kind of a man is Bill Clinton? Our families tell much
about us. Clinton's wife is a far leftist with _very_ close female
friends (while her husband is a sexual playboy of John F. Kennedy
proportions). A friend of mine who attended Yale Law School with
Hillary says that she was known as the "class commie." Today, I
guess, she is merely a pinko. And "Co-President" of the United
States.
From Ron Paul's Survival Report, March 15, 1993
"There is another story that has gained some importance in the upper reaches
of Washington, D.C. It alleges that Bill Clinton has long used cocaine, and
that Foster was his "connection".... I (Ron Paul), am reminded about all the
stories of CIA-Contra cocaine smuggling through the Mena, Arkansas, airport
when Clinton was governor, and his supposed protection of the racket.
The cocaine speculation would explain certain mysteries. During the
campaign, Bill never released his medical records.... [C]ould the reason for
his reticence be DOPE? Clinton has perpetuated troubles with his throat and
voice, which could be related to the nasal drainage a cokehead experiences.
He is also an insomniac, which dopers are."
>
>> I could go on for much longer.
>
> Of course you can, typing made up nonsense with one piece of truth mixed
> in is easy.
You got what you wanted, citations. Now let's see you explain them away.
>> Care to see this "libertarian's" voting record?
>
> I have seen his voting record. Beats the shit out of the other options.
Just for shits and giggles:
109th Congress alone, he voted to voted allow drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination
lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore
drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government
for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
He also voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and voted
for the bogus "Federal Election Integrity Act" voter suppression bill.
He's also staunchly anti-gay and anti-church state seperation, voting for a
bill that would ban federal courts from hearing establishment clause cases.
Some libertarian he is.
Brent P
>> Why don't you care to prove it? You can just type anything you want, you
>> need to provide the proof. It seems that you're a little unclear on how
>> things work. And since when does a person have control over who endorses
>> them?
> One has control over whether or not he distances himself from these types of
> endorsements. Ron Paul has never done so. He also continues to do interviews
> in papers and radio that specifically target the radical element.
In other words you don't have jack-shit.
>>> Paul also claimed that blacks were "fleet footed" and "95% criminal.
>> That was something written by a ghost writer and was long since delt
>> with. As in over a decade ago. Of course you're too dishonest to cover
>> the whole story. that's politics.
> If you believe that, then either you are either an apologist for a
> transparent liar, or you are supporting someone who is not in control of his
> own staff and doesn't bother reading what is put out in his name.
> Politicians put out secretive newsletters for big donors and the party
> faithful all the time that contain little tidbits that they don't want the
> average voter to read. Inevitably they are surprised when something gets
> out, and are shocked, shocked I tell you that it was in there in the first
> place. They of course blame someone else, like the writer or publisher, and
> said they never meant it in the first place.
Considering your undocumented and piss-poor track record and Ron Paul's
consistant one, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say it's more
likely he's telling the truth. Especially considering the details of how
it became known that it was ghost-writing staffer.
>>> He has
>>> also said there was an international conspiracy to overthrow the U.S.
>>> government,
>> Cite? Of course not. I could just as well type that you've said that
>> there is an intersellar plot to overthrow the governments of earth but
>> it's the proof that counts.
> 2004 interview:
> http://www.illuminati-news.com/ron-paul.htm
> First question: do you believe there are secret forces at work that are
> attempting to dismantle the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
>
> Congressman Ron Paul - I don't know what the best word is, but secret is
> pretty good. They're certainly not known to a lot of people; it's actually
> what their doing. But then again, it's not absolute secrecy. If you look
> around you can usually get the information. There was a time when nobody
> even knew who was a member of the CFR or the Trilateral Commission. I think
> it's a bad sign that they're not as secret as they used to be. They're
> bolder now. But there is an agenda. They're behind the scenes in many way -
> very secretive. And, that was certainly the case on those individuals who
> planned and pushed us into the Iraqi War.
That's not what you wrote above. It's well known that CFR members are
placed throughout government and anyone with half a clue can see they are
implementing the CFR agenda. Again, you just spew crap with no foundation.
Read the CFR's publications then compare that to the actions of the CFR
members in office. And yes, they don't make it known that is what they
are doing is a CFR agenda, that's for people to put together on their
own. Nor do they openly claim their CFR membership if they are still
subject to being thrown out of office in the next election.
Condi Rice (CFR member) just had a little speech about joining the
americas in economic union. Fun stuff... http://www.mexidata.info/id1565.html
Ron Paul is very much correct about these groups and their agenda. It's
being implemented. Read the CFR papers, read what Robert Pastor writes
and then read the legislation, the treaty-thats-not-a-treaty (SPP), and
much more. The parallels are much more than random chance. It is logical
to assume CFR members believe in the CFR agenda and push it. That's all
Ron Paul is saying above.
>> I still see no cites.
> Ron Paul's Coin dealership.
>
> http://www.321gold.com/editorials/taylor/taylor031706.html
>
> "TAYLOR: Okay. For the benefit of our subscribers, here is the number for
> Ron Paul Coins as published in Richard Maybury's letter, "U.S. & World Early
> Warning Report." It is 1-800-982-7070.
You're an idiot. The 'Ron Paul Coins' are the creation of Ron Paul
supporters. You can mint a coin with your face on it if you want.
You are also dishonest. Directly above that quote:
CONGRESSMAN PAUL: I had a coin dealership with Bert Blumert. It still
exists. I have no commercial benefits from it, but I still recommend it
because I think he is very trustworthy. If I could remember that number
correctly, I would say it.
BTW, if you want to by a silver or gold round with Ron Paul's face on it:
http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/ronpauldollar/index.htm
> Ron Paul's hit piece on Hillary being a lesbian and Bill having illegitimate
> white and black children:
> http://groups.google.com/group/bit.listserv.words-l/msg/72e1d3d11aa4755b
You're recycling the ghost-writer stuff into multiple line items. You're
being dishonest again.
>>> I could go on for much longer.
>>
>> Of course you can, typing made up nonsense with one piece of truth mixed
>> in is easy.
> You got what you wanted, citations. Now let's see you explain them away.
>>> Care to see this "libertarian's" voting record?
>>
>> I have seen his voting record. Beats the shit out of the other options.
> Just for shits and giggles:
> 109th Congress alone, he voted to voted allow drilling in the Arctic
> National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination
> lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore
> drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government
> for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico
Cite? At least bill names?
BTW, he should vote against CAFE. CAFE is idiotic and a failure.
Considering that the oxigenates were mandated by the EPA, that the EPA
was warned of the contamination issue of MTBE, the blame lies with the
EPA. As to the rest, I want cites.
> He also voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and voted
> for the bogus "Federal Election Integrity Act" voter suppression bill.
Cite? My guess these are more of 'vote <yes/no> because of the name' bills
where the devil of constitutional violation can be found in the text.
The voting rights act the devil is in the state's rights vs. federal
powers. "Federal Election Integrity Act" Reading the summary it's
about the states from making sure that the people who vote are
legit. Heaven forbid that the status-quo of cheating and more cheating
have a road bump thrown in front of it.
> He's also staunchly anti-gay and anti-church state seperation, voting for a
> bill that would ban federal courts from hearing establishment clause cases.
Cite? My guess is that this is your creativity at work again.
> Some libertarian he is.
Finally you get something correct, he's not 110% libertarian.
Vosotros
> In article <13h9sj8...@corp.supernews.com>, Vosotros wrote:
>
>>> Why don't you care to prove it? You can just type anything you want, you
>>> need to provide the proof. It seems that you're a little unclear on how
>>> things work. And since when does a person have control over who
>>> endorses
>>> them?
>
>> One has control over whether or not he distances himself from these types
>> of
>> endorsements. Ron Paul has never done so. He also continues to do
>> interviews
>> in papers and radio that specifically target the radical element.
>
> In other words you don't have jack-shit.
Yeah, I kind of figured it would go that way if I bothered to dig up and
post references. True believers have a habit of screaming for links and then
dismissing them for whatever flimsy reason when provided.
The fact is that Ron Paul quacks like a right wing bigot theocrat duck, and
that makes him a right wing bigot theocrat duck.
You can scream "I'm not listening!" as loud as you want, the message is
still getting out. Your candidate is a loon.
Brent P
>
> "Brent P" <tetraethylle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:zMqdnU9_VZg1l4ja...@comcast.com...
>> In article <13h9sj8...@corp.supernews.com>, Vosotros wrote:
>>
>>>> Why don't you care to prove it? You can just type anything you want, you
>>>> need to provide the proof. It seems that you're a little unclear on how
>>>> things work. And since when does a person have control over who
>>>> endorses
>>>> them?
>>
>>> One has control over whether or not he distances himself from these types
>>> of
>>> endorsements. Ron Paul has never done so. He also continues to do
>>> interviews
>>> in papers and radio that specifically target the radical element.
>>
>> In other words you don't have jack-shit.
>
> Yeah, I kind of figured it would go that way if I bothered to dig up and
> post references. True believers have a habit of screaming for links and then
> dismissing them for whatever flimsy reason when provided.
The links are irrelevant. You spend time on nonsense. Because some
crackpots endorse a canidate that canidate is tainted is utter nonsense.
It only fools morons and other simple minded fools.
If you are refering to the others, it was blantent dishonesty. The cites
themselves said something entirely different from what was posted. You're
a liar, plain and simple or you didn't bother to read your cites.
> The fact is that Ron Paul quacks like a right wing bigot theocrat duck, and
> that makes him a right wing bigot theocrat duck.
Now you're just flinging insults.
> You can scream "I'm not listening!" as loud as you want, the message is
> still getting out. Your candidate is a loon.
Anyone non-empire is a loon for those spoon fed by the status-quo empire
loving media. Either we get Ron Paul or we get wiped out economically
trying sustain an empire while the CFR/globalist policies undermine
the ability of the economy to sustain it. The candle is burning at both
ends and only Ron Paul is talking about puting out both flames. Most of
the rest (CFR members) want to add blowtorches to each end.
Obadiah Wheeler
<"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> mumbled:
As reported by the Associated Press, Sen. Clinton said, "Many of you
are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're
saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to
cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away
Obadiah Wheeler
<bamaNO...@mindspring.com> mumbled:
Wrong.
>Then that second cite was written in '93. In it, the author claims that
>all the voters who voted for Perot in '92 would do so again in '96 - yet
>that didn't happen, as the numbers showed.
So his _opinion_ was in error, his reporting of what happened in 92
however was not.
>Here's a cite showing CNN's results on the '96 and '92 elections:
>
>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html
>
>Voting for Perot, by % in '96
>Republican - 6%
>Democrat - 5%
>
>Voting for Perot in '92
>Republican - 4%
>Democrat - 4%
Try representing the numbers fairly:
Clinton 43 %
Bush 35 %
Perot 12 %
Perot's 12% added to Bush's 35% = 47% = a landslide.
>You've got a far bigger problem with Repubs voting for Demos and vice versa.
>
>In '96, voting for the opposite party:
>Republican - 13%
>Democrat - 10%
Clinton 49.2%
Dole 40.7%
Perot 8.4%
Basically a dead heat minus Perot.
>People forget just who was running against Clinton. In '92 it was Mr.
>"Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES!" Bush. Then in '96 it was doleful Dole.
>
>It's easier to blame a popular rumor than it is to do the homework and
>look at the Repub candidates in '92 and '96, and put the blame where it
>belonged - on the Repub party itself.
>
>Given those two losers in '92 and '96, it's no surprise that Clinton
>won. The Repub party was its own worst enemy - as it has become again
>today.
The DumboCraps and liberal shape shifters are the true enemy.
Obadiah Wheeler
<bamaNO...@mindspring.com> mumbled:
Yet he's had several incidents, not just one.
mrmcafee
Larry! You have company!
JG
> Elmo wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> And his nutcase supporters hanging banners over I-55,
>
> >> What makes them nutcases?
> > They value the Constitution more highly than any political party.
>
> And yet they violate the law (the Constitution by extension) by hanging
> illegal signs on the freeway right of way thus endangering the lives of
> motorist, and littering the area.
>
> Somehow, I don't think that these people value the Constitution more
> than they value anarchy.
>
>
>
> --
> *******************
> Michael R. McAfee
> Mesa, AZ
> *******************
The sign is still over I-55, after a week. And the Dupage Co. Sheriff
continues to prosecute anti-war banner hangers.
A stiff storm will blast the sign off the bridge and into traffic,
nice job Paulie Ron-Nuts...shoulda voted Kerry..JG
metaluna
>
Denial runs deep...
Obadiah Wheeler
<"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> mumbled:
Dog shit, you deny the facts?
Bama Brian
Heh! This is a stretch of reality that moves right over into total fantasy.
You have to assume that ALL of the disaffected who voted for Perot were
Republicans and would have voted for Bush, had Perot not been there.
Yet as CNN's polls show, that was absolutely not the case. You may
quibble with the numbers, but you're going to need better sources.
>
>> You've got a far bigger problem with Repubs voting for Demos and vice versa.
>>
>> In '96, voting for the opposite party:
>> Republican - 13%
>> Democrat - 10%
>
> Clinton 49.2%
>
> Dole 40.7%
>
> Perot 8.4%
>
> Basically a dead heat minus Perot.
>
>> People forget just who was running against Clinton. In '92 it was Mr.
>> "Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES!" Bush. Then in '96 it was doleful Dole.
>>
>> It's easier to blame a popular rumor than it is to do the homework and
>> look at the Repub candidates in '92 and '96, and put the blame where it
>> belonged - on the Repub party itself.
>>
>> Given those two losers in '92 and '96, it's no surprise that Clinton
>> won. The Repub party was its own worst enemy - as it has become again
>> today.
>
> The DumboCraps and liberal shape shifters are the true enemy.
When you descend into name calling and fears of the boogeyman from under
the bed, this dialog goes nowhere.
Bama Brian
And your Terrorist Update has been debunked. Shall we work on all of them?
Then there's Mitt Romney, a known liar. Who was so clearly anti-gun and
pro-taxes when he was the Governor of Mass, but has somehow seen the
light since he's running for president.
And Rudi Giuliani, the so-called hero of 9/11, whose contribution to NYC
was what, exactly? He started his stewardship of NYC with a $2.3
billion deficit - and ended it with a $4.8 billion deficit.
Now we could go on with this diatribe, since nobody is perfect. But so
far I've not seen anything in Ron Paul to say that he would not be a
good president.
Brent P
> Now we could go on with this diatribe, since nobody is perfect. But so
> far I've not seen anything in Ron Paul to say that he would not be a
> good president.
The problem is that Ron Paul would have to fight tooth and nail for
everything and there would be out right destructive actions taken by
those in government that favor the status quo.
I don't think for a minute that the CIA would just stand by and let a Ron
Paul dismantle it. If they didn't use the JFK solution they would use
tactics that they've been using to over throw governments overseas since
the 1950s. The media would aid the CIA in it's efforts. There is little
that is off the table as far the CIA is concerned.
Vosotros
"Bama Brian" <bamaNO...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:13hcfh0...@corp.supernews.com...
Well, he has little understanding of the constitution, and he's a racist and
a theocrat.
Obadiah Wheeler
<bamaNO...@mindspring.com> mumbled:
No I really do not have to.
The world is full of indepents.
>Yet as CNN's polls show, that was absolutely not the case. You may
>quibble with the numbers, but you're going to need better sources.
The numbers tell the take - exit polling is, as we've seen of late,
not to reliable.
>>> You've got a far bigger problem with Repubs voting for Demos and vice versa.
>>>
>>> In '96, voting for the opposite party:
>>> Republican - 13%
>>> Democrat - 10%
>>
>> Clinton 49.2%
>>
>> Dole 40.7%
>>
>> Perot 8.4%
>>
>> Basically a dead heat minus Perot.
>>
>>> People forget just who was running against Clinton. In '92 it was Mr.
>>> "Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES!" Bush. Then in '96 it was doleful Dole.
>>>
>>> It's easier to blame a popular rumor than it is to do the homework and
>>> look at the Repub candidates in '92 and '96, and put the blame where it
>>> belonged - on the Repub party itself.
>>>
>>> Given those two losers in '92 and '96, it's no surprise that Clinton
>>> won. The Repub party was its own worst enemy - as it has become again
>>> today.
>>
>> The DumboCraps and liberal shape shifters are the true enemy.
>
>When you descend into name calling and fears of the boogeyman from under
>the bed, this dialog goes nowhere.
When you adopt a loonertarian poiltical philosophy that is on the
nationala wwarning track you can't be taken seriously.
Obadiah Wheeler
<bamaNO...@mindspring.com> mumbled:
It wasn't debunked, it was denied.
>Then there's Mitt Romney, a known liar. Who was so clearly anti-gun and
>pro-taxes when he was the Governor of Mass, but has somehow seen the
>light since he's running for president.
Political philosophies mature, even if yours haven't.
>And Rudi Giuliani, the so-called hero of 9/11, whose contribution to NYC
>was what, exactly? He started his stewardship of NYC with a $2.3
>billion deficit - and ended it with a $4.8 billion deficit.
What costly even happened around 9?11?
>Now we could go on with this diatribe, since nobody is perfect. But so
>far I've not seen anything in Ron Paul to say that he would not be a
>good president.
He's an utetr isolationist.
Recall what happened the last time the US adopted that stance?
Obadiah Wheeler
(Brent P) mumbled:
>In article <13hcfh0...@corp.supernews.com>, Bama Brian wrote:
Sound analysis.
Bama Brian
So you are saying that it's already too late for anything to restore the
republic?
You know that if this is the case that there's only one solution.
Brent P
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <13hcfh0...@corp.supernews.com>, Bama Brian wrote:
>>
>>> Now we could go on with this diatribe, since nobody is perfect. But so
>>> far I've not seen anything in Ron Paul to say that he would not be a
>>> good president.
>>
>> The problem is that Ron Paul would have to fight tooth and nail for
>> everything and there would be out right destructive actions taken by
>> those in government that favor the status quo.
>>
>> I don't think for a minute that the CIA would just stand by and let a Ron
>> Paul dismantle it. If they didn't use the JFK solution they would use
>> tactics that they've been using to over throw governments overseas since
>> the 1950s. The media would aid the CIA in it's efforts. There is little
>> that is off the table as far the CIA is concerned.
>
> So you are saying that it's already too late for anything to restore the
> republic?
It's going to be a huge fight and those groups have already demonstrated
what they would do with regards to a president that started to be a
little bit for the people. They have only grown more powerful and more
experienced in the last 40 some odd years.
Ron Paul as president by himself may be able to achieve some degree of
stalemate and the undoing of much of the executive branch. This is a good
thing. But to expect restoration of the republic by him alone is simply
wishing for the impossible.
> You know that if this is the case that there's only one solution.
It may come to that. But for that to work, first those who are the festering
cancer in government must be forced to show themselves openly in the
light of day.
Bama Brian
Now you're just being an asshole.
>
>> And Rudi Giuliani, the so-called hero of 9/11, whose contribution to NYC
>> was what, exactly? He started his stewardship of NYC with a $2.3
>> billion deficit - and ended it with a $4.8 billion deficit.
>
> What costly even happened around 9?11?
FEMA paid for 9/11. Insurance paid for 9/11. Donations paid for 9/11.
>> Now we could go on with this diatribe, since nobody is perfect. But so
>> far I've not seen anything in Ron Paul to say that he would not be a
>> good president.
>
> He's an utetr isolationist.
>
> Recall what happened the last time the US adopted that stance?
To the best of my knowledge, the US has never been isolationist. Nor is
Ron Paul.
BTW, what's the difference between minding one's own biz and being a hermit?
Obadiah Wheeler
<bamaNO...@mindspring.com> mumbled:
>So you are saying that it's already too late for anything to restore the
>republic?
>
>You know that if this is the case that there's only one solution.
Oh go for it Libertoonian, enjoy Waco 2.
Obadiah Wheeler
<bamaNO...@mindspring.com> mumbled:
Bend double and blow yourself.
>>> And Rudi Giuliani, the so-called hero of 9/11, whose contribution to NYC
>>> was what, exactly? He started his stewardship of NYC with a $2.3
>>> billion deficit - and ended it with a $4.8 billion deficit.
>>
>> What costly even happened around 9?11?
>
>FEMA paid for 9/11. Insurance paid for 9/11. Donations paid for 9/11.
BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!
It wreaked havoc with the entire NYC economy!
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2004/06/art1full.pdf
The effect of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
on the New York City economy was far reaching and extended
to every borough of the city; hardest hit was New York’s “export”
sector—the most internationally oriented part of that economy.
Between 2000 and 2002, the Manhattan economy lost
133,026 jobs and $11,850,297,717 in wages, with 82.7 percent
of the job declines and 111.0 percent of the lost wages associated
with the “export” economy.
>>> Now we could go on with this diatribe, since nobody is perfect. But so
>>> far I've not seen anything in Ron Paul to say that he would not be a
>>> good president.
>>
>> He's an utetr isolationist.
>>
>> Recall what happened the last time the US adopted that stance?
>
>To the best of my knowledge, the US has never been isolationist.
You are a willing moron!
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/6_3/6_3_1.pdf
The isolationist tradition in America, as it was manifested from 1939
to 1941, was
based on two fundamental doctrines: avoidance of war in Europe and
unimpaired
freedom of action. Isolationism differs from pacifism (a refusal to
sanction any
given war), and one could call for strong national defense, seek
overseas territor-
ies, and demand economic spheres of influence and still he an
isolationist. To be
sure, isolationists and pacifists often joined forces, and the
onslaught of the
European war saw a renewal of this tenuous alliance. It was, however,
always a
marriage of convenience.
Isolationist and pacifist opponents of American entry agreed on one
basic
premise: participation in war would weaken the United States and
indeed place her
survival as a free republic in jeopardy.
mrmcafee
Brent P wrote:
> In article <eVTQi.7163$oC3....@newsfe08.phx>, mrmcafee wrote:
>>> I see you're yet another person who thinks that all laws are golden and
>>> must be obeyed.
>> Yep. Especially those that make sense.
>>
>> I presume that you believe that we all ought to follow just those laws
>> that we find convenient and or agree with no matter the harm that it
>> might cause society.
>
> I find it amusing that as usual, you law is the law types excuse
> government but wish to punish people for the same thing.
You laugh about nothing?
> Also concern of
> the most trivial of things by the people while government crime from
> everywhere from billions in theft, endangering people, and even killing
> of masses isn't of concern.... who cares about the bigger picture....
> some ron paul supporters put a banner up!
I think you enjoy employing selective thinking.
>
>>> If your argument is safety, it doesn't matter what the roadway below is.
>
>> Sure it does. There is a big difference between hanging distracting
>> signs on a freeway with bumper to bumper traffic going 65 MPH and
>> hanging it over a 4 lane downtown street with traffic going 20 MPH and
>> with frequent stops.
>
> Actually with frequently stopped traffic, a distraction is _MORE_
> dangerous.
We already know that your judgment is defective.
> Because traffic ahead may stop while a driver is reading a
> sign... even if the driver is reading an exit sign... or the sign that
> says take-metra (the local transit system has signs hanging from over
> passes and the like on the expressways) Of course you law is the law
> types... it's just bad if the people do it to further something that
> isn't in the interests of the state, government can do it all it wants.
You should investigate and determine if those signs that you complain
about are indeed illegal. Maybe it is OK to hang signs in the freeway
right of ways in Chicago? It isn't here, and posting signs for any
politician illegally just tells the public that he doesn't respect the law.
Is that the case with Ron Paul?
>
>> The concern isn't that the signs will fall. The concern is that they are
>> a distraction.
>
> You should contact the USDOT... all those distracting signs. US
> interstate signage sucks. Especially since the interstate signs often
> give some far off city.... They should copy the Autobahn signage. If
> you're worried about distraction, well you simply have no case. Hooters
> has a huge billboard along I294 as does a strip club or three. I doubt
> 'GOOGLE RON PAUL' has anywhere close to that sort of distraction.
I do.
>
>>> You're missing the point. She's as much a socialist as Ron Paul is a
>>> Libertarian.
>
>> Paul was a Libertarian candidate for President, for goodness sake!!!
>
> And if Hillary ends up out of office for awhile, she might choose to be
> the socialist canidate.
I can't see why. She doesn't share their philosophy of government. We
know that Paul shares the Libertarian ideology (at least most of it). He
was their Champion after all.
My point is that since there is a Libertarian Party, and since he does
share their philosophy, isn't it dishonest of him to run as a
Republican? I think so.
>
>>> She shares much with socialists, but isn't following the
>>> socialist (or democrat) party line 100%.
>
>> Hilary shares almost nothing with socialist that identify them as
>> socialist! Where is it that you get your information?
>
> Everytime she opens her mouth it seems it's about one plan or another to
> take from some people to give to others. Socialism.
That's not socialism.
>
>>>>> Why isn't Rudy running as a
>>>>> fascist?
>>>
>>>> I think he should be, but there isn't a Fascist Party of America that I
>>>> know of, so he is running as the next closest thing.
>>> So you see moderation in those you favor but extremes in those you don't.
>> I'd rather have Paul as president than Giuliani.
>
> That makes Ron Paul the compromise canidate between the MSM front runner
> extremes of Hillary and Rudy. Let's do like Hillary says and compromise!
Let's elect Kucinich, a candidate that can make a true difference.
>
>>> The anti-war republicans that didn't much like FDR's attempts to drag
>>> the USA into WW2.
>> Lindbergh? Hoover?
>
> Go study some more history.
Already did that.
I know enough history to know that the isolationist in America during
the Thirties cut across party lines. I mentioned two prominent
Republicans; Lindbergh and Hoover, who met your criteria. Now tell us
who you had in mind.
Brent P
>>> I presume that you believe that we all ought to follow just those laws
>>> that we find convenient and or agree with no matter the harm that it
>>> might cause society.
>> I find it amusing that as usual, you law is the law types excuse
>> government but wish to punish people for the same thing.
> You laugh about nothing?
I've never seen a law is the law type care one bit about the USC or any
of the laws that government is supposed to follow or laws that restrict
government. So I'm going to treat your law is the law message as the
smoke screen for authoritarian control it is.
>> Also concern of
>> the most trivial of things by the people while government crime from
>> everywhere from billions in theft, endangering people, and even killing
>> of masses isn't of concern.... who cares about the bigger picture....
>> some ron paul supporters put a banner up!
> I think you enjoy employing selective thinking.
Not at all. The amount of 'ron paul and his supporters are moon bats'
stuff far outweighs many serious issues in volume of 'news'. Hell so-so's
wife is a throphy wife and obama doesn't wear a flag pin outweigh
serious issues too.
>>>> If your argument is safety, it doesn't matter what the roadway below is.
>>
>>> Sure it does. There is a big difference between hanging distracting
>>> signs on a freeway with bumper to bumper traffic going 65 MPH and
>>> hanging it over a 4 lane downtown street with traffic going 20 MPH and
>>> with frequent stops.
>> Actually with frequently stopped traffic, a distraction is _MORE_
>> dangerous.
> We already know that your judgment is defective.
Nice projection. Where are there more stopped objects to run into?
Stop and go traffic or free flowing traffic? Don't let your brain explode
trying to figure that one out.
>> Because traffic ahead may stop while a driver is reading a
>> sign... even if the driver is reading an exit sign... or the sign that
>> says take-metra (the local transit system has signs hanging from over
>> passes and the like on the expressways) Of course you law is the law
>> types... it's just bad if the people do it to further something that
>> isn't in the interests of the state, government can do it all it wants.
> You should investigate and determine if those signs that you complain
> about are indeed illegal. Maybe it is OK to hang signs in the freeway
> right of ways in Chicago? It isn't here, and posting signs for any
> politician illegally just tells the public that he doesn't respect the law.
I'm not complaining about them, just pointing out the double standard.
> Is that the case with Ron Paul?
It's funny how you don't look at serious law breakage by the MSM
canidates but are so concerned about guilt-by-proxy of a supporter
hanging a banner when it comes to Ron Paul. It tells me you're just
another non-thinker beating the drum of the status-quo.
>>> The concern isn't that the signs will fall. The concern is that they are
>>> a distraction.
>> You should contact the USDOT... all those distracting signs. US
>> interstate signage sucks. Especially since the interstate signs often
>> give some far off city.... They should copy the Autobahn signage. If
>> you're worried about distraction, well you simply have no case. Hooters
>> has a huge billboard along I294 as does a strip club or three. I doubt
>> 'GOOGLE RON PAUL' has anywhere close to that sort of distraction.
> I do.
That only makes sense if you're homosexual. (assuming mr = mister )
>>>> You're missing the point. She's as much a socialist as Ron Paul is a
>>>> Libertarian.
>>
>>> Paul was a Libertarian candidate for President, for goodness sake!!!
>>
>> And if Hillary ends up out of office for awhile, she might choose to be
>> the socialist canidate.
> I can't see why. She doesn't share their philosophy of government.
Coulda fooled me. She keeps talking about taking from some to give to
others. She keeps talking about government take over of an entire area of
business. Sounds like socialism to me, not pure socialism but close
enough.
> We
> know that Paul shares the Libertarian ideology (at least most of it). He
> was their Champion after all.
Ronald Regan was once a democrat. Hillary was once a republican.
> My point is that since there is a Libertarian Party, and since he does
> share their philosophy, isn't it dishonest of him to run as a
> Republican? I think so.
He is more old-school republican than libertarian. His stance on the
borders and several other issues are in conflict with many libertarians.
You're just coming up with a non-issue of bullshit. Maybe it stems from
so many people being (neo)conned by the MSM into the left-right nonsense
of the day that you really don't understand things in a historical sense.
>>>> She shares much with socialists, but isn't following the
>>>> socialist (or democrat) party line 100%.
>>
>>> Hilary shares almost nothing with socialist that identify them as
>>> socialist! Where is it that you get your information?
>>
>> Everytime she opens her mouth it seems it's about one plan or another to
>> take from some people to give to others. Socialism.
>
> That's not socialism.
It very well is a big part of it.
>>>>>> Why isn't Rudy running as a
>>>>>> fascist?
>>>>
>>>>> I think he should be, but there isn't a Fascist Party of America that I
>>>>> know of, so he is running as the next closest thing.
>>>> So you see moderation in those you favor but extremes in those you don't.
>>> I'd rather have Paul as president than Giuliani.
>>
>> That makes Ron Paul the compromise canidate between the MSM front runner
>> extremes of Hillary and Rudy. Let's do like Hillary says and compromise!
> Let's elect Kucinich, a candidate that can make a true difference.
Well I like the Monty Python and the Holy Grail way he's played off his
first name for his website URL. I can't but think of 'some call me
Dennis'. But he's not good enough because he still wants socialized
health care. If gets the nomination for the D's and Ron Paul doesn't get
it for the R's I might vote for him since he's not CFR and opposes CFR
policies, but that's a fall back at best.
> I know enough history to know that the isolationist in America during
> the Thirties cut across party lines. I mentioned two prominent
> Republicans; Lindbergh and Hoover, who met your criteria. Now tell us
> who you had in mind.
Why not read what Ron Paul has said himself? Nahh... too hard. google it
up.
Bama Brian
Why? You're already blowing me.
>
>>>> And Rudi Giuliani, the so-called hero of 9/11, whose contribution to NYC
>>>> was what, exactly? He started his stewardship of NYC with a $2.3
>>>> billion deficit - and ended it with a $4.8 billion deficit.
>>> What costly even happened around 9?11?
>> FEMA paid for 9/11. Insurance paid for 9/11. Donations paid for 9/11.
>
> BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!
>
> It wreaked havoc with the entire NYC economy!
>
> http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2004/06/art1full.pdf
>
> The effect of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
> on the New York City economy was far reaching and extended
> to every borough of the city; hardest hit was New York’s “export”
> sector—the most internationally oriented part of that economy.
>
> Between 2000 and 2002, the Manhattan economy lost
> 133,026 jobs and $11,850,297,717 in wages, with 82.7 percent
> of the job declines and 111.0 percent of the lost wages associated
> with the “export” economy.
"Between 2000 and 2002..."? What year was 9/11?
>
>>>> Now we could go on with this diatribe, since nobody is perfect. But so
>>>> far I've not seen anything in Ron Paul to say that he would not be a
>>>> good president.
>>> He's an utetr isolationist.
>>>
>>> Recall what happened the last time the US adopted that stance?
>> To the best of my knowledge, the US has never been isolationist.
>
> You are a willing moron!
The actual insult is "useful idiots", supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin,
although the actual author is in doubt. You might at least get your
insults straight. But I doubt you're smart enough.
Was the US isolationist during the First Barbary War?
Was the US isolationist during the War of 1812?
During the Second Barbary War?
During the Mexican-American War?
During the Civil War?
How about during the Spanish-American War?
During WWI?
During the occupation of Haiti in 1915? Maybe during the later
occupations of Haiti in 1994 and 2004? Pesky country - just won't stay
occupied.
Prior to the US' official entry into WWII German u-boats were attacking
US shipping in the Atlantic. Know why? Because the US was providing
arms to Britain, up to and including naval vessels. Look up the
"Destroyers for Bases" agreement. Then look up "Lend-Lease".
All prior to the US entry into WWII. Some isolationism.
Was the US isolationist during the Korean War?
During the Cuban Missile Crisis?
During the Vietnamese War?
During the invasion of Grenada?
During the invasion of Somalia?
Maybe we were isolationist in Bosnia?
During Desert Storm?
BTW, with which country is the US at war today? Just which "army" are
we fighting? Is there a difference between what is happening in Iraq
and the war with the Axis powers? If so, what is it?
Are you seeing a pattern yet? Or are you really that stupid?
>
> http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/6_3/6_3_1.pdf
>
> The isolationist tradition in America, as it was manifested from 1939
> to 1941, was
> based on two fundamental doctrines: avoidance of war in Europe and
> unimpaired
> freedom of action. Isolationism differs from pacifism (a refusal to
> sanction any
> given war), and one could call for strong national defense, seek
> overseas territor-
> ies, and demand economic spheres of influence and still he an
> isolationist. To be
> sure, isolationists and pacifists often joined forces, and the
> onslaught of the
> European war saw a renewal of this tenuous alliance. It was, however,
> always a
> marriage of convenience.
> Isolationist and pacifist opponents of American entry agreed on one
> basic
> premise: participation in war would weaken the United States and
> indeed place her
> survival as a free republic in jeopardy.
You might even try reading your own posts - but then, you're too busy
blowing me...
--
Jeers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
Electro
<bamaNO...@mindspring.com> mumbled:
Faggot you can get your action at the truck stop, allI'm doing ios
sanitizing the bowl.
>>
>>>>> And Rudi Giuliani, the so-called hero of 9/11, whose contribution to NYC
>>>>> was what, exactly? He started his stewardship of NYC with a $2.3
>>>>> billion deficit - and ended it with a $4.8 billion deficit.
>>>> What costly even happened around 9?11?
>>> FEMA paid for 9/11. Insurance paid for 9/11. Donations paid for 9/11.
>>
>> BULL-FUCKING-SHIT!
>>
>> It wreaked havoc with the entire NYC economy!
>>
>> http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2004/06/art1full.pdf
>>
>> The effect of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
>> on the New York City economy was far reaching and extended
>> to every borough of the city; hardest hit was New York’s “export”
>> sector—the most internationally oriented part of that economy.
>>
>> Between 2000 and 2002, the Manhattan economy lost
>> 133,026 jobs and $11,850,297,717 in wages, with 82.7 percent
>> of the job declines and 111.0 percent of the lost wages associated
>> with the “export” economy.
>
>"Between 2000 and 2002..."? What year was 9/11?
Gee, you really ARE as stupid as I thought!
>>>>> Now we could go on with this diatribe, since nobody is perfect. But so
>>>>> far I've not seen anything in Ron Paul to say that he would not be a
>>>>> good president.
>>>> He's an utetr isolationist.
>>>>
>>>> Recall what happened the last time the US adopted that stance?
>>> To the best of my knowledge, the US has never been isolationist.
>>
>> You are a willing moron!
>
>The actual insult is "useful idiots",
I modified it, just for you, stupid.
PLONK.
mrmcafee
Brent P wrote:
> In article <sBMRi.1002$hZ2...@newsfe06.phx>, mrmcafee wrote:
>
>>>> I presume that you believe that we all ought to follow just those laws
>>>> that we find convenient and or agree with no matter the harm that it
>>>> might cause society.
>
>>> I find it amusing that as usual, you law is the law types excuse
>>> government but wish to punish people for the same thing.
>
>> You laugh about nothing?
>
> I've never seen a law is the law type care one bit about the USC or any
> of the laws that government is supposed to follow or laws that restrict
> government.
Well then, you have now... Well not actually SEEN, but corresponded with.
>So I'm going to treat your law is the law message as the
> smoke screen for authoritarian control it is.
You are always making poor decisions.
>
>>> Also concern of
>>> the most trivial of things by the people while government crime from
>>> everywhere from billions in theft, endangering people, and even killing
>>> of masses isn't of concern.... who cares about the bigger picture....
>>> some ron paul supporters put a banner up!
>
>> I think you enjoy employing selective thinking.
>
> Not at all.
Well apparently you do. Plenty of people who respect the law also insist
that governments abide by it too. I for just one example support
Kucinich's bill of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. I have
noticed that Congressman Paul has not signed onto the bill (House Res
333 http://tinyurl.com/2velgt. I wonder why that is? I also think Bush
ought to be impeached for his abuse of the 4th Amendment.
> The amount of 'ron paul and his supporters are moon bats'
> stuff far outweighs many serious issues in volume of 'news'. Hell so-so's
> wife is a throphy wife and obama doesn't wear a flag pin outweigh
> serious issues too.
Well, that's America. People complain about Edward's hair cut costs, but
let Republican Presidents slide on mass murder.
>
>>>>> If your argument is safety, it doesn't matter what the roadway below is.
>>>
>>>> Sure it does. There is a big difference between hanging distracting
>>>> signs on a freeway with bumper to bumper traffic going 65 MPH and
>>>> hanging it over a 4 lane downtown street with traffic going 20 MPH and
>>>> with frequent stops.
>
>>> Actually with frequently stopped traffic, a distraction is _MORE_
>>> dangerous.
>
>> We already know that your judgment is defective.
>
> Nice projection. Where are there more stopped objects to run into?
Where there is time to view the signs while stopped.
> Stop and go traffic or free flowing traffic? Don't let your brain explode
> trying to figure that one out.
Already did, no mess to clean up. Why is it that do you believe that in
most places they don't allow you to post campaign signs on the freeway
right of way, but do on the surface streets? Let me help you out. It is
because it is safer for motorist to view those signs going 0-20 than it
is when they are going 65.
>
>>> Because traffic ahead may stop while a driver is reading a
>>> sign... even if the driver is reading an exit sign... or the sign that
>>> says take-metra (the local transit system has signs hanging from over
>>> passes and the like on the expressways) Of course you law is the law
>>> types... it's just bad if the people do it to further something that
>>> isn't in the interests of the state, government can do it all it wants.
>
>> You should investigate and determine if those signs that you complain
>> about are indeed illegal. Maybe it is OK to hang signs in the freeway
>> right of ways in Chicago? It isn't here, and posting signs for any
>> politician illegally just tells the public that he doesn't respect the law.
>
> I'm not complaining about them, just pointing out the double standard.
Now it wouldn't be a double standard if you could legally post your
signs in the right of ways, would it?
>
>> Is that the case with Ron Paul?
>
> It's funny how you don't look at serious law breakage by the MSM
> canidates but are so concerned about guilt-by-proxy of a supporter
> hanging a banner when it comes to Ron Paul.
Who are the serious lawbreakers among the MSM candidates? What crimes
have they done?
> It tells me you're just
> another non-thinker beating the drum of the status-quo.
ANOTHER poor judgment!
>
>>>> The concern isn't that the signs will fall. The concern is that they are
>>>> a distraction.
>
>>> You should contact the USDOT... all those distracting signs. US
>>> interstate signage sucks. Especially since the interstate signs often
>>> give some far off city.... They should copy the Autobahn signage. If
>>> you're worried about distraction, well you simply have no case. Hooters
>>> has a huge billboard along I294 as does a strip club or three. I doubt
>>> 'GOOGLE RON PAUL' has anywhere close to that sort of distraction.
>
>> I do.
>
> That only makes sense if you're homosexual. (assuming mr = mister )
Well, I agree that that the Hooters signs are distracting. That's not
what I meant. The directional signs are useful and necessary, far from
distracting.
>
>>>>> You're missing the point. She's as much a socialist as Ron Paul is a
>>>>> Libertarian.
>>>
>>>> Paul was a Libertarian candidate for President, for goodness sake!!!
>>> And if Hillary ends up out of office for awhile, she might choose to be
>>> the socialist canidate.
>
>> I can't see why. She doesn't share their philosophy of government.
>
> Coulda fooled me.
Apparently, that's easily accomplished.
> She keeps talking about taking from some to give to
> others.
Which isn't socialism. And isn't accurate even if it were.
http://tinyurl.com/27phxe
> She keeps talking about government take over of an entire area of
> business. Sounds like socialism to me, not pure socialism but close
> enough.
>
>> We
>> know that Paul shares the Libertarian ideology (at least most of it). He
>> was their Champion after all.
>
> Ronald Regan was once a democrat. Hillary was once a republican.
Reagan's values changed. Hillary was a Republican in name only while she
was in her father's house. What values if Paul's have changed since he
won the Libertarian Party's nomination for President?
>
>> My point is that since there is a Libertarian Party, and since he does
>> share their philosophy, isn't it dishonest of him to run as a
>> Republican? I think so.
>
> He is more old-school republican than libertarian. His stance on the
> borders and several other issues are in conflict with many libertarians.
Is that the only difference he has with them?
> You're just coming up with a non-issue of bullshit. Maybe it stems from
> so many people being (neo)conned by the MSM into the left-right nonsense
> of the day that you really don't understand things in a historical sense.
History was one of my college majors. I understand better than most. I
also know a charlatan when I see one.
Now tell me why Paul isn't a Libertarian any more.
I've read it already. I'm for peace too. That isn't the point to the
question. I want to know to who you had in mind.
Brent P
>>So I'm going to treat your law is the law message as the
>> smoke screen for authoritarian control it is.
>
> You are always making poor decisions.
That's what it is, a smoke screen. What the USA is, is a nation where
laws are such that people have to break some every day just to get
through their lives. Enforcement is selective. You probably broke several
laws today yourself. You might not even know what they are.
>>>> Also concern of
>>>> the most trivial of things by the people while government crime from
>>>> everywhere from billions in theft, endangering people, and even killing
>>>> of masses isn't of concern.... who cares about the bigger picture....
>>>> some ron paul supporters put a banner up!
>>> I think you enjoy employing selective thinking.
>> Not at all.
> Well apparently you do. Plenty of people who respect the law also insist
> that governments abide by it too. I for just one example support
> Kucinich's bill of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. I have
> noticed that Congressman Paul has not signed onto the bill (House Res
> 333 http://tinyurl.com/2velgt. I wonder why that is? I also think Bush
> ought to be impeached for his abuse of the 4th Amendment.
I don't see Kucinich signing on to Paul's bill, HR 3855 which is an
attempt to correct things including but not limited to a repeal of the
military commisions act. Btw, don't be such a fool, Thomas searches
expire so your url is useless. There's quite a bit of difference between
signing on to a bill to repeal the military commissions act and signing
on to one of impeachment of those in party of which you seek the
nomination. You know this.
>> The amount of 'ron paul and his supporters are moon bats'
>> stuff far outweighs many serious issues in volume of 'news'. Hell so-so's
>> wife is a throphy wife and obama doesn't wear a flag pin outweigh
>> serious issues too.
> Well, that's America. People complain about Edward's hair cut costs, but
> let Republican Presidents slide on mass murder.
Well, you're joining in on a bullshit issue... Ron Paul Banners, you are
the equal of those who push bullshit issues like Obama's pin wearing.
>> Stop and go traffic or free flowing traffic? Don't let your brain explode
>> trying to figure that one out.
> Already did, no mess to clean up. Why is it that do you believe that in
> most places they don't allow you to post campaign signs on the freeway
> right of way, but do on the surface streets? Let me help you out. It is
> because it is safer for motorist to view those signs going 0-20 than it
> is when they are going 65.
That's clearly bullshit as demonstrated by countless billboards along
expressways.
>>> You should investigate and determine if those signs that you complain
>>> about are indeed illegal. Maybe it is OK to hang signs in the freeway
>>> right of ways in Chicago? It isn't here, and posting signs for any
>>> politician illegally just tells the public that he doesn't respect the law.
>> I'm not complaining about them, just pointing out the double standard.
> Now it wouldn't be a double standard if you could legally post your
> signs in the right of ways, would it?
I'm not posting signs.
>>> Is that the case with Ron Paul?
>> It's funny how you don't look at serious law breakage by the MSM
>> canidates but are so concerned about guilt-by-proxy of a supporter
>> hanging a banner when it comes to Ron Paul.
> Who are the serious lawbreakers among the MSM candidates? What crimes
> have they done?
Clinton. Rudy. start with them, a couple of books could be written.
Just learned of a new one about Clinton last night, see the whole thing
about how she took money from Stan Lee's company. Rudy... holy fuck where
do I start?
>> It tells me you're just
>> another non-thinker beating the drum of the status-quo.
> ANOTHER poor judgment!
No, you're quite the D vs. R binary team player given your posts.
>>>>> The concern isn't that the signs will fall. The concern is that they are
>>>>> a distraction.
>>>> You should contact the USDOT... all those distracting signs. US
>>>> interstate signage sucks. Especially since the interstate signs often
>>>> give some far off city.... They should copy the Autobahn signage. If
>>>> you're worried about distraction, well you simply have no case. Hooters
>>>> has a huge billboard along I294 as does a strip club or three. I doubt
>>>> 'GOOGLE RON PAUL' has anywhere close to that sort of distraction.
>>> I do.
>> That only makes sense if you're homosexual. (assuming mr = mister )
> Well, I agree that that the Hooters signs are distracting. That's not
> what I meant. The directional signs are useful and necessary, far from
> distracting.
And the hooters billboards are completely legal... I never noticed how
distracting the directional signs were until I drove on the autobahn. The
autobahn's signage to complete the same tasks took far less time on
unfamiliar roads. And I don't even know German. Many US interstate road
signs would be rather troublesome for a non-english speaker. I remember
when the world cup came to chicago, they put all sorts of proper
international road signage on the Dan-Ryan. I thought it was great thing.
Of course after the world cup was finished, it all came down sadly.
>> She keeps talking about taking from some to give to others.
>
> Which isn't socialism. And isn't accurate even if it were.
> http://tinyurl.com/27phxe
I never cited that email. I only go by those things I've heard come from
her mouth myself or from places that considered it a 'good thing'. Her
plan to give every baby money, her socialized health care, her other
plan(s) to give other people money are quite real things she talked
about. Government doesn't have any money to do that with, it must tax
other people to do it.
> Reagan's values changed. Hillary was a Republican in name only while she
> was in her father's house. What values if Paul's have changed since he
> won the Libertarian Party's nomination for President?
None to next to none, from the time he was republican in the late 70s.
You always skip over that. He was initially a republican. BTW, your
touching story of Hillary there says to me she's interested in power and
does what it takes to get it and is consistant with much of what she's done.
This disqualifies her from office IMO.
>>> My point is that since there is a Libertarian Party, and since he does
>>> share their philosophy, isn't it dishonest of him to run as a
>>> Republican? I think so.
>> He is more old-school republican than libertarian. His stance on the
>> borders and several other issues are in conflict with many libertarians.
> Is that the only difference he has with them?
The Libertarian party platform is to eliminate welfare, apparently
immediately. Ron Paul wishes to phase it out.
Those are the two hard differences. But there are many in-the-details
differences which you could learn for yourself by reading Ron Pauls own
words on his house website and then reading the platform on lp.org. Sure
they are small, but they are differences. Ron Paul was a republican before
his one run for office as a libertarian. It's funny how you seem more
concerned that Ron Paul should run as a libertarian than that neocons run
as something else when neocons are the one's that have taken the
republicans in the big-government facist direction. Of course that's because
the MSM tells you that you should see being republican and being a neocon
one and the same and keeps saying Ron Paul is a libertarian in
republican clothes. They never address the vast overlaps between parties.
>> You're just coming up with a non-issue of bullshit. Maybe it stems from
>> so many people being (neo)conned by the MSM into the left-right nonsense
>> of the day that you really don't understand things in a historical sense.
> History was one of my college majors. I understand better than most. I
> also know a charlatan when I see one.
Then you should understand that the two party system perpetuates itself
using election law and by absorbing the stances of would be 3rd parties.
> Now tell me why Paul isn't a Libertarian any more.
I've been trying to explain to the vast overlap between political
parties obviously you don't know enough to grasp it. I couldn't expect
that a D vs. R thinker would get it especially when one goes to the
actions of the Ds and Rs their overlap is considerable.
>>> Let's elect Kucinich, a candidate that can make a true difference.
>> Well I like the Monty Python and the Holy Grail way he's played off his
>> first name for his website URL. I can't but think of 'some call me
>> Dennis'. But he's not good enough because he still wants socialized
>> health care. If gets the nomination for the D's and Ron Paul doesn't get
>> it for the R's I might vote for him since he's not CFR and opposes CFR
>> policies, but that's a fall back at best.
>>
>>> I know enough history to know that the isolationist in America during
>>> the Thirties cut across party lines. I mentioned two prominent
>>> Republicans; Lindbergh and Hoover, who met your criteria. Now tell us
>>> who you had in mind.
>>
>> Why not read what Ron Paul has said himself? Nahh... too hard. google it
>> up.
> I've read it already. I'm for peace too. That isn't the point to the
> question. I want to know to who you had in mind.
Dr. Paul has explained it many times. If you've been paying attention you
know. That's what I am getting at, exactly what he said himself.
JG
> On Oct 10, 6:52 pm, greg3347 <theodor...@lycos.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 4:43 pm, vees <vineyardsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have to admit that I like Ron Paul. A lot. While Mike Gravel and
> > > Dennis Kucinch are also speaking up against the transformation of the
> > > USA into a Neocon empire, the former, while certainly sincere and well-
> > > meaning, is too prone to antics and the latter showed an unforgivable
> > > lack of courage when he abstained during the vote on the infamous
> > > House Resolution 1400. In contrast, Ron Paul has shown impeccable
> > > character and courage in opposing the Neocons and he has a sterling
> > > record on refusing to vote for idiotic and propagandistic resolutions
> > > in Congress. Nobody, not even his opponents. seriously disputes that
> > > he is an honest and dedicated man.
>
> > > The fact is that Ron Paul is in a league of his own. Not only that,
> > > but from all the anti-Neocon candidates he is the only one who has a
> > > conceivable chance, however small, of getting the nomination of his
> > > party (that could only happen if the Republicans finally realize that
> > > Ron Paul is the only Republican who, being anti-war, could beat the
> > > AIPAC-controlled Hillary).
>
> > > So what is my biggest fear about Ron Paul? That he might throw in the
> > > towel when the USA will need him most:
>
> > >http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2007/10/my-biggest-fear-about-ron-p...
>
> And his nutcase supporters hanging banners over I-55, when Anti-war
> people were arrested over I-355 for "throwing rocks".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
GOP sheriff and DA continue the political witchhunt:
"Sarah Hartfield, of Naperville, and her friend, Jeff Zurawski, of
Downers Grove, were accused of disorderly conduct after a May 6
demonstration along a highway overpass.
The two rode their bikes to a pedestrian bridge that spans I-355 near
Glen Ellyn and unfurled a banner that read: "Impeach Bush and Cheney
-- liars." They also displayed an upside-down American flag.
Weeks later, sheriff's deputies pursued criminal charges after they
said a passing trucker complained. Initially, prosecutors accused them
of tossing something onto the roadway, causing motorists to swerve,
and illegally displaying a sign on a highway. Earlier this week,
though, they dropped both allegations but persisted with a disorderly
conduct charge for making a throwing "motion" toward motorists.
The protesters deny pretending to or actually throwing anything and
allege they are being prosecuted because of their political beliefs.
Their arrests sparked a letter-writing campaign, petition drives,
Internet forum debate and Thursday's protest. Zurawski said he's heard
from folks as far away as Australia, Britain, China, Ireland and the
U.K.
"Sarah and I demonstrated on the bridge peacefully and within our
constitutional rights," he said while picketing. "We are not backing
down."
State's Attorney Joseph Birkett has said he is all for free speech,
but not when the law is broken and the public is put at risk. The
truck driver is prepared to testify if it goes to trial. The case is
due in court again Monday, before DuPage Associate Judge Ronald
Sutter.
Protesters from groups such as DuPage Against War Now (DAWN) and the
DuPage Peace Through Justice Coalition took part in Thursday's
demonstration.
If convicted, Hartfield and Zurawski face fines and up to one year
behind bars. Neither has a criminal history.
"This is truly a gross misuse of the power of the county and
taxpayers' money," said their attorney, Shawn Collins. "They did
nothing wrong, and the fact that they (the prosecution) keep changing
their story tells you how desperate the county is to nail Jeff and
Sarah with something -- anything at all."
mrmcafee
Brent P wrote:
> In article <BdbSi.8582$J3...@newsfe07.phx>, mrmcafee wrote:
>
>>> So I'm going to treat your law is the law message as the
>>> smoke screen for authoritarian control it is.
>> You are always making poor decisions.
>
> That's what it is, a smoke screen.
Keep thinking that way. It wasn't the Democrats that instigated torture
and warrantless eavesdropping. That was YOUR guy.
> What the USA is, is a nation where
> laws are such that people have to break some every day just to get
> through their lives. Enforcement is selective. You probably broke several
> laws today yourself. You might not even know what they are.
Unlikely, but possible. I do try to obey the law, but occasionally,
unintentionally, I speed. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't obey the
speed laws, because we all should. What I don't do is intentionally
break laws just because I don't agree with them.
>
>>>>> Also concern of
>>>>> the most trivial of things by the people while government crime from
>>>>> everywhere from billions in theft, endangering people, and even killing
>>>>> of masses isn't of concern.... who cares about the bigger picture....
>>>>> some ron paul supporters put a banner up!
>
>>>> I think you enjoy employing selective thinking.
>
>>> Not at all.
>
>> Well apparently you do. Plenty of people who respect the law also insist
>> that governments abide by it too. I for just one example support
>> Kucinich's bill of impeachment against Vice President Cheney. I have
>> noticed that Congressman Paul has not signed onto the bill (House Res
>> 333 http://tinyurl.com/2velgt. I wonder why that is? I also think Bush
>> ought to be impeached for his abuse of the 4th Amendment.
>
> I don't see Kucinich signing on to Paul's bill, HR 3855 which is an
> attempt to correct things including but not limited to a repeal of the
> military commisions act. Btw, don't be such a fool, Thomas searches
> expire so your url is useless.
HR 3855??? I can't seem to find such a bill introduced by Paul. Found
one by Rep. Ken Meek (D_FL) dealing with military surplus IFF devices.
Could it be that you meant H.R. 3835?
You know, it is embarrassing to castigate someone for a minor mistake
like not knowing that a search would expire and therefore negating the
helpful link to a referenced (make that properly referenced) bill and
then, in the same breath, blunder profoundly by not even being able to
properly ID the bill you refer to. I feel sorry for you.
Now that we are finished beating each other up for no apparent real
reason, I found Paul's bill worthy. I'll pass my recommendation on to
Rep. Kucinich (as well as Rep. Mitchell - my Congressman) that they
co-sign. I'm pretty sure GOP President Bush will veto it if it does pass.
> There's quite a bit of difference between
> signing on to a bill to repeal the military commissions act and signing
> on to one of impeachment of those in party of which you seek the
> nomination. You know this.
Yes, I do. One would undo (?) some of the evil created by this run away
Republican Administration, and the other would provide some justice, and
help set a standard for the future.
>
>>> The amount of 'ron paul and his supporters are moon bats'
>>> stuff far outweighs many serious issues in volume of 'news'. Hell so-so's
>>> wife is a throphy wife and obama doesn't wear a flag pin outweigh
>>> serious issues too.
>
>> Well, that's America. People complain about Edward's hair cut costs, but
>> let Republican Presidents slide on mass murder.
>
> Well, you're joining in on a bullshit issue... Ron Paul Banners, you are
> the equal of those who push bullshit issues like Obama's pin wearing.
It isn't against the law, or dangerous in any way for Obama not to wear
a flag pin.
>
>>> Stop and go traffic or free flowing traffic? Don't let your brain explode
>>> trying to figure that one out.
>
>> Already did, no mess to clean up. Why is it that do you believe that in
>> most places they don't allow you to post campaign signs on the freeway
>> right of way, but do on the surface streets? Let me help you out. It is
>> because it is safer for motorist to view those signs going 0-20 than it
>> is when they are going 65.
>
> That's clearly bullshit as demonstrated by countless billboards along
> expressways.
Billboards are not in the freeway right of ways now, are they?
>
>>>> You should investigate and determine if those signs that you complain
>>>> about are indeed illegal. Maybe it is OK to hang signs in the freeway
>>>> right of ways in Chicago? It isn't here, and posting signs for any
>>>> politician illegally just tells the public that he doesn't respect the law.
>
>>> I'm not complaining about them, just pointing out the double standard.
>
>> Now it wouldn't be a double standard if you could legally post your
>> signs in the right of ways, would it?
>
> I'm not posting signs.
Good for you!
>
>>>> Is that the case with Ron Paul?
>
>>> It's funny how you don't look at serious law breakage by the MSM
>>> canidates but are so concerned about guilt-by-proxy of a supporter
>>> hanging a banner when it comes to Ron Paul.
>
>> Who are the serious lawbreakers among the MSM candidates? What crimes
>> have they done?
>
> Clinton. Rudy. start with them, a couple of books could be written.
> Just learned of a new one about Clinton last night, see the whole thing
> about how she took money from Stan Lee's company.
All I see is their lawsuit dismissal being upheld by the CA Court of
Appeals. Apparently, she isn't guilty or responsible.
>Rudy... holy fuck where
> do I start?
His is your party's guy. Start at the beginning.
>
>>> It tells me you're just
>>> another non-thinker beating the drum of the status-quo.
>
>> ANOTHER poor judgment!
>
> No, you're quite the D vs. R binary team player given your posts.
And you like to alter the discussion through selective editing of
previous posts.
>
>>>>>> The concern isn't that the signs will fall. The concern is that they are
>>>>>> a distraction.
>
>>>>> You should contact the USDOT... all those distracting signs. US
>>>>> interstate signage sucks. Especially since the interstate signs often
>>>>> give some far off city.... They should copy the Autobahn signage. If
>>>>> you're worried about distraction, well you simply have no case. Hooters
>>>>> has a huge billboard along I294 as does a strip club or three. I doubt
>>>>> 'GOOGLE RON PAUL' has anywhere close to that sort of distraction.
>
>>>> I do.
>
>>> That only makes sense if you're homosexual. (assuming mr = mister )
>
>> Well, I agree that that the Hooters signs are distracting. That's not
>> what I meant. The directional signs are useful and necessary, far from
>> distracting.
>
> And the hooters billboards are completely legal... I never noticed how
> distracting the directional signs were until I drove on the autobahn. The
> autobahn's signage to complete the same tasks took far less time on
> unfamiliar roads. And I don't even know German. Many US interstate road
> signs would be rather troublesome for a non-english speaker. I remember
> when the world cup came to chicago, they put all sorts of proper
> international road signage on the Dan-Ryan. I thought it was great thing.
> Of course after the world cup was finished, it all came down sadly.
I think it must be a law to post confusing signs near airports where
motorist unfamiliar with the area are guaranteed to be driving.
>
>>> She keeps talking about taking from some to give to others.
>> Which isn't socialism. And isn't accurate even if it were.
>> http://tinyurl.com/27phxe
>
> I never cited that email.
No, but that is the sentiment that you employed.
> I only go by those things I've heard come from
> her mouth myself or from places that considered it a 'good thing'. Her
> plan to give every baby money, her socialized health care, her other
> plan(s) to give other people money are quite real things she talked
> about.
It is quite apparent you don't understand the definition of "socialism"
as employed by political scientist.
>Government doesn't have any money to do that with, it must tax
> other people to do it.
Just as the government must tax to provide the funds to create and
maintain a fire department, or a military, or to build roads, or keep
our fellow citizens from starvation.
>
>> Reagan's values changed. Hillary was a Republican in name only while she
>> was in her father's house. What values if Paul's have changed since he
>> won the Libertarian Party's nomination for President?
>
> None to next to none, from the time he was republican in the late 70s.
> You always skip over that. He was initially a republican.
So what you are telling us is that Paul has been a "fair weather friend"
of the GOP from the beginning. Well, I don't doubt it. I remember Paul
form the Seventies when I lived in Houston. He didn't much look like a
Republican then either, but running as a Libertarian back then didn't
make any more sense than it does today.
> BTW, your
> touching story of Hillary there says to me she's interested in power and
> does what it takes to get it and is consistant with much of what she's done.
> This disqualifies her from office IMO.
Makes me wonder what kind of contortions you have to put yourself
through to support Paul as a Republican candidate. Clearly, he has
little to associate himself with in that party. I guess he runs as a
Republican because he doesn't have a prayer of winning as a Libertarian.
>
>>>> My point is that since there is a Libertarian Party, and since he does
>>>> share their philosophy, isn't it dishonest of him to run as a
>>>> Republican? I think so.
>
>>> He is more old-school republican than libertarian. His stance on the
>>> borders and several other issues are in conflict with many libertarians.
>
>> Is that the only difference he has with them?
>
> The Libertarian party platform is to eliminate welfare, apparently
> immediately. Ron Paul wishes to phase it out.
Same end.
>
> Those are the two hard differences.
Hard differences? More like hair splits. Well at least the stand on
illegal immigration is significant. I'll give you that. Makes me wonder
if Paul is just pandering to his constituents, or if he really feels
like kicking 10 -12 million people out of the country and possibly
creating an over night depression?
> But there are many in-the-details
> differences which you could learn for yourself by reading Ron Pauls own
> words on his house website and then reading the platform on lp.org. Sure
> they are small, but they are differences.
You NEVER get 100% compliance with your platform. Never. If you do,
somethings wrong.
> Ron Paul was a republican before
> his one run for office as a libertarian. It's funny how you seem more
> concerned that Ron Paul should run as a libertarian than that neocons run
> as something else when neocons are the one's that have taken the
> republicans in the big-government facist direction.
It is because the GOP doesn't stand for libertarian ideas. Never has.
They have always been a party that advocates strong government, and rule
of the elite. That's where they get their reputation for being the party
of big business. George Bush is much more representative of the GOP than
Ron Paul ever has been or will be.
> Of course that's because
> the MSM tells you that you should see being republican and being a neocon
> one and the same and keeps saying Ron Paul is a libertarian in
> republican clothes. They never address the vast overlaps between parties.
The whole idea of "party" is for people of similar political persuasion
to coalesce to elect their champions to office. When a party becomes too
divergent to hold everyone together, it splits (or the membership
deserts one in favor of the other). That's what has happened to us
Democrats during the 20th Century. The racist, and conservatives, and
the elites have (by in large) left the Democrats and joined the
Republicans. Those in the GOP that support more liberal and progressive
issues are coming over to the Democrats. Anarchist have never had a
following of any substance.
>
>>> You're just coming up with a non-issue of bullshit. Maybe it stems from
>>> so many people being (neo)conned by the MSM into the left-right nonsense
>>> of the day that you really don't understand things in a historical sense.
>
>> History was one of my college majors. I understand better than most. I
>> also know a charlatan when I see one.
>
> Then you should understand that the two party system perpetuates itself
> using election law and by absorbing the stances of would be 3rd parties.
Sure. Otherwise we would look like Italy.
>
>> Now tell me why Paul isn't a Libertarian any more.
>
> I've been trying to explain to the vast overlap between political
> parties obviously you don't know enough to grasp it. I couldn't expect
> that a D vs. R thinker would get it especially when one goes to the
> actions of the Ds and Rs their overlap is considerable.
I see nothing but overlap between Paul and the Libertarians. On the
other hand, I don't see much that Paul shares in common with Bush,
Giuliani, Romney, Thompson et al. Makes me think that he should run in
the party that his views represent.
>
>>>> Let's elect Kucinich, a candidate that can make a true difference.
>
>>> Well I like the Monty Python and the Holy Grail way he's played off his
>>> first name for his website URL. I can't but think of 'some call me
>>> Dennis'. But he's not good enough because he still wants socialized
>>> health care. If gets the nomination for the D's and Ron Paul doesn't get
>>> it for the R's I might vote for him since he's not CFR and opposes CFR
>>> policies, but that's a fall back at best.
>>>
>>>> I know enough history to know that the isolationist in America during
>>>> the Thirties cut across party lines. I mentioned two prominent
>>>> Republicans; Lindbergh and Hoover, who met your criteria. Now tell us
>>>> who you had in mind.
>>> Why not read what Ron Paul has said himself? Nahh... too hard. google it
>>> up.
>
>> I've read it already. I'm for peace too. That isn't the point to the
>> question. I want to know to who you had in mind.
>
> Dr. Paul has explained it many times. If you've been paying attention you
> know. That's what I am getting at, exactly what he said himself.
So. You don't know who your referenced. It happens.
Brent P
<blah, blah, blah>
Too bored of this and too tired of trying to convince you of simple
things like overlap borg-like abilities of the two party systems to wade
through 300 lines so I didn't read it.
But anyway, so many republicans worship Reagan as a god, Ron Paul
supported Reagan when few others did, and lastly....
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism
is libertarianism. . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less
government interference or less centralized authority or more individual
freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what
libertarianism is. . I think that libertarianism and conservatism are
traveling the same path."
~ President Ronald Reagan
If nothing explains the overlap to you, that should. If it doesn't it is
hopeless.
mrmcafee
Brent P wrote:
> In article <7J6Ti.18685$oC3....@newsfe08.phx>, mrmcafee wrote:
>
> <blah, blah, blah>
>
> Too bored of this and too tired of trying to convince you of simple
> things like overlap borg-like abilities of the two party systems to wade
> through 300 lines so I didn't read it.
Good by.
>
> But anyway, so many republicans worship Reagan as a god, Ron Paul
> supported Reagan when few others did, and lastly....
>
> "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism
> is libertarianism. . The basis of conservatism is a desire for less
> government interference or less centralized authority or more individual
> freedom, and this is a pretty general description also of what
> libertarianism is. . I think that libertarianism and conservatism are
> traveling the same path."
>
> ~ President Ronald Reagan
>
> If nothing explains the overlap to you, that should. If it doesn't it is
> hopeless.
What it explains is that "B" movie actors ought to leave political
science to the political science. Reagan never did a good job of
understanding political philosophy. All you have to do is look at his
record.
mrmcafee
Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net>
> said:
>
>> What it explains is that "B" movie actors ought to leave political
>> science to the political science. Reagan never did a good job of
>> understanding political philosophy. All you have to do is look at his
>> record.
>
> Political philosophy is for classroom discussion. Political action gets
> things done.
Reagan's amateurish political philosophy lead to some disastrous
political action. All you have to do is compare the 1980 campaign goals
with the results results.
RayGun promised to balance the federal budget. He tripled the federal
deficit by the time he left office.
RayGun portrayed himself against the power of government, yet he broke
the back of the Air Traffic Controllers over the federal government's knee.
The list is near endless of Reagan's disassociations with his purported
"philosophy", and the carnage is deep as a result.
mrmcafee
Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net>
> said:
>
>> RayGun
>
> Stop being a childish dope and we'll discuss somthing...
Get'em while you can.
http://www.zazzle.com/presidential/product/235869593299878603
mrmcafee
Larry in AZ wrote:
> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net>
> said:
>
>> Larry in AZ wrote:
>>> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> RayGun
>>> Stop being a childish dope and we'll discuss somthing...
>> Get'em while you can.
>> http://www.zazzle.com/presidential/product/235869593299878603
>
> Another reason why you cannot be taken seriously.
>
> BTW - Regan is dead and hasn't been President for 20 years. You can stop
> fighting him now...
It wasn't me that invoked him, or weren't you paying attention?
Lithodendron
> RayGun promised to balance the federal budget. He tripled the federal
> deficit by the time he left office.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200406100915.asp
> preparedness, and worldwide peace had worked with a stunning swiftness that literally no one but the former Hollywood actor had ever visualized.
>
> The greatness of Ronald Reagan was his optimistic vision. His unequivocal belief in freedom and democracy, in America as a city on the hill, never faltered. His free-market prescription for economic growth relied on the creativity of ordinary people working in free enterprise rather than under government planning. He believed in entrepreneurship, not welfarism. He understood how to use military power. And his optimistic faith in America gave a moribund country a new life.
>
> Reagan saved America. His passing is a sad occasion. But as his soul gazes down from the heavens, he will see that his ideas will l
Lithodendron
>
>
> Larry in AZ wrote:
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee
>> <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> said:
>>
>>> RayGun
>>
>> Stop being a childish dope and we'll discuss somthing...
>
> Get'em while you can.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200406100915.asp
Economists were vexed during the 1970s, as unemployment and inflation
rose together to stifle economic growth and all forms of investment. The
Keynesian Phillips-curve paradigm, whereby employment and inflation are
supposed to move in opposite directions, completely broke down. The Ivy
League formula of increasing the money supply to spur growth, and high
taxes to hold back inflation, had failed utterly.
Between the late 1960s and 1980, the U.S. inflation rate rose from 2
percent to 14 percent, while the unemployment rate gradually drifted
higher, from 4 percent to almost 10 percent. It was a period of decline
for the country. Americans were demoralized.
As stagflation became more deeply embedded in the U.S. economy, Soviet
adventurism in Central and South America, Asia, and elsewhere around the
world became more pronounced. The Soviets saw the U.S. cut and run from
Vietnam. Our Cold War adversary saw nothing but weakness emanating from
the U.S.
Ronald Reagan changed all that. From the moment of his swearing-in in
Jan? uary 1981, with his extraordinarily strong character and deep and
abiding faith in God, Reagan acted relentlessly to revive the nation.
More than any modern president, Reagan understood the link between
economic growth at home and American strength overseas. It was the
Gipper?s most brilliant insight. He acted swiftly to show our enemies
that we would produce the necessary economic resources to do whatever it
would take, for however long was necessary, to triumph over the
Communist menace.
Immediately upon assuming office, he reversed the economic policy of the
decline years. He brought down marginal tax rates, restoring the
incentives necessary for economic growth. He gave Federal Reserve
chairman Paul Volcker the strong ground to stand on, allowing him to
harden the value of the dollar and slay inflation.
At bottom, what became known as Reaganomics was a new pro-growth policy
mix of tax incentives at the margin and stable money. But there was
more. The Californian launched a massive military buildup totaling about
$1.5 trillion. He deregulated oil prices, proving the conventional
wisdom wrong as energy became much cheaper. He launched U.S.-Canadian
free trade. He was unyielding in his opposition to the air-traffic
controllers? strike, firing thousands of these government workers and
ending the anti-growth union stranglehold on private industry. He
created individual retirement accounts and 401(k)s, giving birth to the
investor class. He also slashed social spending by reducing domestic
program levels (excluding Social Security and health care) by nearly $50
billion in 1981. That amount would come to about $90 billion today.
By 1986, Reagan?s tax-reform plan left two marginal rates of 28 percent
and 15 percent, a long stone?s throw from the 70 percent top rate he had
inherited. His plan also cut about 2,000 pages from the tax code.
Ideas matter. Results quickly followed for Reagan. Between 1982 and
1989, the economy grew, adjusting for inflation, by 35 percent: more
than 4.5 percent per year. As growth was restored, tax revenues came
flowing in. Income-tax revenues grew by 50 percent during this period
even as tax rates dropped. By 1986, the inflation rate had fallen to 1
percent. By the end of his term, unemployment had dropped to 5.5
percent. Interest rates had plunged. The stock market had soared.
From July 1982 through the end of 1988, the S&P 500 averaged a near 21
percent annual gain. Brand-new industries arose in computing, software,
communications, and the Internet — original endeavors that completely
streamlined and transformed the American economy for the decades to
come. In effect, Reaganomics launched a 20-year boom, the longest
prosperity period in the 20th century.
Reagan critics to this day continue to harp on deficits and debt, rather
than the growth miracle produced by Reaganomics. But they are factually
wrong. Reagan inherited a budget gap of roughly 2.5 percent of the
economy. By the end of his two terms, he left it exactly where he found
it. In between, he restored our economic health and revitalized our
standing around the world.
By the time of his summit meetings with Soviet chairman Gorbachev,
Reagan was able to say calmly and diplomatically that the U.S. could
produce the goods and the Soviets could not. In the next few years, the
Berlin Wall came down and the Soviet Union collapsed.
Reagan?s visionary linkage of domestic economic recovery, military
Lithodendron
>
>
> Larry in AZ wrote:
>> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee
>> <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> said:
>>
>>> Larry in AZ wrote:
>>>> Waiving the right to remain silent, mrmcafee
>>>> <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> said:
>>>>> RayGun
>>>> Stop being a childish dope and we'll discuss somthing...
>>> Get'em while you can.
>>> http://www.zazzle.com/presidential/product/235869593299878603
>>
>> Another reason why you cannot be taken seriously.
>>
>> BTW - Regan is dead and hasn't been President for 20 years. You can
>> stop fighting him now...
>
> It wasn't me that invoked him, or weren't you paying attention?
>>
>
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200406100915.asp