2008 Presidential Election Discussion [Archive]

Plekto

11-14-2007, 08:35 PM

Huh? You need to re-look at Ron Paul's positions.

# Anti-choice
- He doesn't think government should say one way or another what we should do with our bodies. The general Libertarian(which he is in reality) line is that there should be 0 legislation on the subject to begin with. (not the same thing as anti choice)

# Anti-universal health care
- True. But not because he's trying to nerf peolpe. He thinks that government subsidies are a bad thing, and all current proposals to date have essentially been about turning Medicare into a behemoth that covers everyone. The amount of waste and overhead of all of them is astounding.

# Pro-don’t ask-don’t tell
- Again, mostly because govt (not equal sign) our personal business. Note - he's also 100% dedicated the the cause when it comes to privacy. The Patriot Act would have never seen the light of day.(and removing it would be one of his first acts, unlike well, EVERY other person just about - they all seem fine with it and don't want to rock the boat)

# Anti-Darfur Divestment
- Well, he does have a point. A private company can't do business in a country because Congress says so? They also nerf Cuba using the same logic, after all. Doctors facing interrogations and possible jail time for visiting Cuba? If the *government* doesn't want to do business, fine. Where I fly or spend money as a private citizen... not their business to stop me.

Yes, Darfur is a mess, but that's what the U.N. and such are for - or should be if we bothered to give them more than lip service.

# Anti-Affirmative Action
- True, but again, because of a belief that legislating morality is a bad thing. Now, laws to protect against discrimination - perfectly fine in his book. But pro-actively putting one group ahead of another because of any reason means someone else got nerfed. I myself find as much good as bad in our current policies in this age. (ie - typical all but broken govt. program)

# Anti-Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Yeah, he's not the best here. But compared to the other conservatives, he's much better over all.(and he's not got some quasi-religious fanatical thing either - he truly believes that religion and politics is a dangerous combination.

P.S. while I think he's the best Libertarian/Republican choice, I'll see who is chosen on the other side before making any choice)

Swede

11-14-2007, 08:54 PM

Leaning towards Obama atm. I think Hilary could do a decent job as well, but for improving our international reputation I think Obama is better suited for the job. I went and saw Samantha Power (author of 'A Problem from Hell') speak about genocide last night at my school, and she has been one of Obama's advisers. I liked a lot of what she was saying, and to me personally restoring the global standing of our nation in the next presidency is one of the top priorities. Acting out against genocide (non-militarily) could go a long way towards giving America the 'moral authority' it used to claim.

The whole genocide problem is a really complicated issue though, as when we stop trading/embargo nations committing genocide, China has been taking advantage of it since there is no domestic outcry for human rights, particularly for outside nations. If we did take all the steps though to stop genocide and hold China responsible for its infringement on human rights, the world would be a lot better off I think.

edit: Ron Paul's going to lose. He's too idealistic and not realistic in what he's proposing to do. For example, getting rid of income tax and every form of bureaucracy he can think of. Bureaucracies exist for a reason, and they aren't entirely negative. Read into some sociology for specifics. And affirmative action isn't intended to give one group advantage over another, its just to give everyone an equal opportunity. I think people like him because his ideas sound fresh, when to me they just seem dated...

Chuckles

11-14-2007, 09:08 PM

What Plekto said really. He's not exactly "pro don't-ask-don't-tell", if you read his actual words on the issue. He has stated that if sexual activity of any sort is disruptive it should result in being discharged, not just homosexual activity.

Roxie

11-14-2007, 10:33 PM

Huh? You need to re-look at Ron Paul's positions.

# Anti-choice
- He doesn't think government should say one way or another what we should do with our bodies. The general Libertarian(which he is in reality) line is that there should be 0 legislation on the subject to begin with. (not the same thing as anti choice)
Actually, he has said (and this is straight from his own website) he is a "unshakable foe of abortion" (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/), meaning anti-choice. I don't trust the states to decide, read: South Dakota

# Pro-don’t ask-don’t tell
- Again, mostly because govt (not equal sign) our personal business. Note - he's also 100% dedicated the the cause when it comes to privacy. The Patriot Act would have never seen the light of day.(and removing it would be one of his first acts, unlike well, EVERY other person just about - they all seem fine with it and don't want to rock the boat)
He doesn't have a problem with "don't ask don't tell" and I have a problem with that!

# Anti-Darfur Divestment
- Well, he does have a point. A private company can't do business in a country because Congress says so? They also nerf Cuba using the same logic, after all. Doctors facing interrogations and possible jail time for visiting Cuba? If the *government* doesn't want to do business, fine. Where I fly or spend money as a private citizen... not their business to stop me.
Ok, I'm not sure why you're talking about Cuba here...

Yes, Darfur is a mess, but that's what the U.N. and such are for - or should be if we bothered to give them more than lip service.
Funnily enough, he's Anti-U.N.

# Anti-Affirmative Action
Now, laws to protect against discrimination - perfectly fine in his book. But pro-actively putting one group ahead of another because of any reason means someone else got nerfed. I myself find as much good as bad in our current policies in this age. (ie - typical all but broken govt. program)
Yeah. I have a problem with that. It's viewing power as a zero-sum game and I can't get down with that

Also if this is true laws to protect against discrimination - perfectly fine in his book.
Then how can he be
# Anti-Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Shuft

11-14-2007, 10:43 PM

Ron Paul is not electable. The best he can do is be vocal and convert people to libertarianism. I completely support this.

Jetsetlemming

11-14-2007, 10:46 PM

Jetsetlemming

11-14-2007, 10:50 PM

And John McCain's disappointed me as well with his validation of the question "How do we beat the bitch?" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b) (referring to Hilary)

That was funny as hell. I don't see how that cast McCain in a bad light, he laughed it off then said he respected Clinton. Can't blame him for what someone else said, or not getting all hot and bothered over what someone else said. Some people are honestly thick skinned, you know?

Shuft

11-14-2007, 10:58 PM

Ron Paul's getting my vote. I know he won't win the election, but the concept of only voting for people you think can win idiotic and what got us into the current political mess.
All of those points all fall in line with his steadfast stance of total libertarianism. Never have I ever read him say he's in favor of anti-abortion (I fucking hate the terms "choice" and "life" when it comes to this issue) legislation. As for the civil rights act...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Straight from the horse's mouth. He was against the civil rights act for a very good reason, and it was implying it's racism is very incorrect.
Affirmative action is retarded, and anyone who supports affirmative action is retarded. There is NO justification in any possible way for racial quotas.
Whenever I feel that way, like I'm compromising my beliefs or whatever, I just remember the 2000 election. People knew Nader didn't have a chance, but they didn't want to vote for just another suit in the machine. Consequently, we got 8 years of Bush and company. I don't really know what Kerry would have been like as a president, but I'm pretty sure he'd preside more in line with what I think America's best interests are. If we had runoff elections, it wouldn't be an issue at all. Gore would have won, and I'd be voting Kucinich in 08.

Jetsetlemming

11-14-2007, 11:08 PM

I can't stand Gore.

h2orowe

11-14-2007, 11:22 PM

I will be able to vote in the next election and I must say, I'm quite excited. If Gravel were somehow to gain enough support to actually be in the real running, I'd vote for him in a second. However, I doubt that will happen.

I'm not voting for Obama, because, http://anti-war.com/justin/?articleid=11390 he plans on going to war with Pakistan. I want a president who will get us out of war, not throw us into another one.

I'm not sure about Hillary, I haven't read up on her enough.

Ron Paul, though, seems to be the one I feel like I'd want to vote for. I don't agree with him on everything, but the things that I do agree with outweigh the things that I don't.

Roxie, you have to realize, he's going to let the states decide whether they want abortion or not. There's no one way to go about it. That's the best solution. If the government completely BANNED abortions, would you not be furious? Yeah, well, if the government completely made them legal, then I'm sure plenty of right wingers would be just as furious. I don't understand their thinking, really, but that's the sad truth.

If Giuliani gets elected, I am going to go to a shooting range with my newly turned 18 ID and just blow my brains out.

Swede

11-14-2007, 11:42 PM

Ron Paul's getting my vote. I know he won't win the election, but the concept of only voting for people you think can win idiotic and what got us into the current political mess.

I wasn't saying I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul because he can't win. I'm saying I won't vote for him because his views are unrealistic. And I'm not in favor of getting rid of all federal involvement in the education system, along with many other institutions he plans to get rid of because of his favor of a small government.

Our systems kind of fucked up right now, and I don't think just getting rid of all the institutions (which would also leave many people out of work) would help much.

Plekto

11-14-2007, 11:48 PM

I brought up Cuba, because his ideology is one of letting people and businesses do what they want and not imposing restrictions except where it's absolutely necessary(ie - Libertarians as a rule are very much against monopolies as it kills free markets and open competition.)

He's just paying from a different set of rulebooks, so his positions are always "well, you have to let me explain". Oh - he did try to run a few elections ago as the Libertarian candidate, so his claiming to be a "republican" is merely a facade and everyone in the party knows it(but he has huge traction with non-affiliated economic conservatives so they are at a loss - can't kick him out or he'll split the vote)

Should be interesting to watch. He's currently the best chance they've got, because 70%+ of the U.S. is conservative(real conservative - nothing like political "conservative") by nature and he appeals to them.

Plus, any damage that he could try to do will quickly be nerfed by Congress.

EDIT: IF Guilliani gets elected, you'll be drafted soon enough, so same difference...

Beowulf

11-14-2007, 11:50 PM

Ron Paul's getting my vote. I know he won't win the election, but the concept of only voting for people you think can win idiotic and what got us into the current political mess.
All of those points all fall in line with his steadfast stance of total libertarianism. Never have I ever read him say he's in favor of anti-abortion (I fucking hate the terms "choice" and "life" when it comes to this issue) legislation. As for the civil rights act...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Straight from the horse's mouth. He was against the civil rights act for a very good reason, and it was implying it's racism is very incorrect.
Affirmative action is retarded, and anyone who supports affirmative action is retarded. There is NO justification in any possible way for racial quotas.
Ok lets get a look at the really insane bullshit Ron Paul advocates such as (oh I don't know) abolish both the Education System and the IRS. How the US will pay for its trillions in debt without an income tax is a mystery.

Folks libetarianism DOESN'T WORK. AT ALL. EVER.

If you need proof of this then why don't you go and read The Jungle.

Ron Paul has good ideas when it comes to foreign policy. Bad ideas when it comes to EVERYTHING ELSE.

Swede

11-14-2007, 11:52 PM

h2orowe

11-14-2007, 11:57 PM

Libertarians actually kind of annoy me. However, moderate democrats and right winged conservatives annoy the shit out of me way more than any libertarian can.

Pierrot le Fou

11-15-2007, 12:12 AM

Jetsetlemming

11-15-2007, 12:40 AM

Ok lets get a look at the really insane bullshit Ron Paul advocates such as (oh I don't know) abolish both the Education System and the IRS. How the US will pay for its trillions in debt without an income tax is a mystery.

Folks libetarianism DOESN'T WORK. AT ALL. EVER.

If you need proof of this then why don't you go and read The Jungle.

Ron Paul has good ideas when it comes to foreign policy. Bad ideas when it comes to EVERYTHING ELSE.
I've been in favor of abolishing the public education system and replacing it with state-based tuition vouchers since I was in middle school, and I haven't seen a single thing in the last 7 years to change that opinion. Our public schools are utter shit, and most of the talking heads who claim to champion the cause of educational improvement can do nothing more than parrot things that have yet to ever help, like teacher wage hikes, affirmative action, removing competition between students and schools, and politically slanted textbooks. Even if you aren't a worthless private-sector loving total libertarian like me, it's pretty goddamn hard to argue with the statistics of comparing the average grades, performance, and futures of kids in public school to kids in private schools. Teachers in private schools get payed less and work longer hours than teachers in public schools and accomplish far, far more.
The gross overcomplication of our tax code to the point where we need to hire people to do them for us is a problem, not a good thing. The IRS if not replaced needs to be gutted and changed from the ground up. The benefits to society a simple tax code, low taxes, and low spending would create are far more than the lost jobs of government workers when their sections are cut. They'll be more room in the private sector for them anyway.

ruaidhri

11-15-2007, 12:40 AM

Personally, I will vote in the Primary for Edwards. Why? Because I believe he can win against any competition. I like Hillary but I'm afraid if she is the Democrat's candidate we will face the dirtiest election of all time. Many men don't like her and won't vote for her simply because she is a strong woman. Conversely, many women will vote for her because she is a woman. Can she win? Probably, but I'm not anxious to face 8 years of constant jokes and hatred. Obama just doesn't speak to me and Ron Paul is a joke. The only thing I like about Ron Paul is that he will steal more votes from past Republican voters than from past Democrat voters.

Oh, by the way, I am a Democrat, a liberal Democrat. I believe in strong government and I believe in taxes to pay for that government.

Swede

11-15-2007, 12:56 AM

I love how people say that Ron Paul 'isn't realistic' and that's why they won't vote for him. What kind of excuse is that? Of course he won't be able to abolish the entire federal government structure that's in place, but is it better not to even try to cut back? To continue spending ourselves into poverty by taking loans we can't repay without some serious changes to how the government spends money?

I will vote for Ron Paul in the primary, and I will write in Ron Paul on the real ballot if he doesn't win in the primary. And I advocate each and every one of you who believes in his ideals to do the same. He is a real voice based on a real philosophy that sounds real good. The fact that he won't be successful shouldn't be a condemnation of him, it's a condemnation of our government and how far it's strayed from its foundations.

To refuse to vote for him because he's not planting questions like Hillary, or playing to the voters of Iowa like Obama, McCain, or Giuliani with support of ethanol tax credits is just damned silly.

Get out of the war? Great.

Eliminate taxes? Awesome.

Stop this social security nonsense? Tremendous.

Reduce spending? Perfect.

You misunderstand what I mean when I say unrealistic. I don't mean that what he is saying is bad because it would be hard to do. I'm saying its bad because things aren't as simple as he making it out to be, and his proposals (getting rid of the income tax, for example) are ridiculous and would not help in any way.

As for "getting out of the war", the issue is nowhere NEAR as simple as that. Yeah, it was fucking stupid to get into the war, and most people are of the opinion that it was not the best thing to go do. Problem is, we can't just leave and hope to have any sort of credibility when it comes to foreign affairs. Anybody who is saying either "get the troops out!" or "stay the course!" is either lying or they don't know what the hell they are talking about. Staying the course at this rate means occupying the country until either all the Iraqis or all of our troops are dead. The war is a big fuck up right now, and something needs to be done to make progress, but that does not mean just getting out.

Eliminate taxes is, again, unrealistic. Taxes are a necessity. Sure, getting some money taken out of your paycheck sucks, but with the state our economy is in (see massive deficit) I don't think eliminating taxes is going to help anything, other than hurt the institutions that are already suffering (education).

Reduced spending I have no problem with, but I would rather see the money being spent now used more effectively. This was seen to an extent when Clinton had the power of line-item veto, and then we actually had a surplus.

I think we can agree that changes should be made to government spending, but eliminating the income tax, IRS, etc., in favor of an increased sales tax and weakened central government isn't the way to go. In particular with weakening the federal government to its constitutional limits, as he would like, I really, really think that would be a bad idea considering the globalized world we live in today.

Personally, I will vote in the Primary for Edwards. Why? Because I believe he can win against any competition. I like Hillary but I'm afraid if she is the Democrat's candidate we will face the dirtiest election of all time. Many men don't like her and won't vote for her simply because she is a strong woman. Conversely, many women will vote for her because she is a woman. Can she win? Probably, but I'm not anxious to face 8 years of constant jokes and hatred. Obama just doesn't speak to me and Ron Paul is a joke. The only thing I like about Ron Paul is that he will steal more votes from past Republican voters than from past Democrat voters.

Oh, by the way, I am a Democrat, a liberal Democrat. I believe in strong government and I believe in taxes to pay for that government.

Initially, I was leaning towards Edwards too. I still don't think he's a bad guy, and your justification was mine as well, I thought that he had the best chance of winning the actual election. I am still not 100% set on anybody, but listening to Samantha Power speak about genocide did a lot to make me think that solving that particular problem would be in our best interests internationally. And Obama seems to have a pretty clear stance on this.

Chuckles

11-15-2007, 01:00 AM

I agree with PLF on one major thing (well, I agree with him on a lot of things, but this one stands out) :

Ignorance. Voting for others based on tiny little issues that are tweakings of the status quo rather than addressing the gaping policy holes that every candidate other than Ron Paul has.

I don't like voting on single small issues at times like this. Whether you're pro or anti-abortion, big government or small government, you should be focused on the good of the nation as a whole. The most pressing question isn't "Will I be able to have a gay marriage in America in 2010?", it's "Will America be worth having a gay marriage in?" or "Will my gay marriage take place in English, Spanish, or Chinese?"

Edit : And that's not supposed to be taken as pro-Paul, PLF's message just happened to be.

ZaichikArky

11-15-2007, 01:22 AM

No time to get into this right now. Hillary FTW. I've read her autobiography when I was 18 and ever since I've been in love with her, despite the censorship.

I'll get into this later.

Roxie

11-15-2007, 02:41 AM

That was funny as hell. I don't see how that cast McCain in a bad light, he laughed it off then said he respected Clinton. Can't blame him for what someone else said, or not getting all hot and bothered over what someone else said. Some people are honestly thick skinned, you know?
He really should've said how that was poor form, incredibly disrespectful or something! I mean, come on! Professionalisms gotta count for something

People like Roxie who oppose him because he provides choice that isn't there are selfish and ignorant of what this country is founded on. You want to live in a country where the liberal mores control the country regardless of opposition? I'm sure there are plenty of places in Europe that you can find. Why don't you emigrate instead of trying to destroy the few unique things about the US that made it what it is today?
Hyperbole much? Thanks for that though, I needed that laugh.

That's almost as good as the time my ex, ex b/f told my that my idea for a women's magazine that discusses serious issues would be the "final nail in the coffin of freedom".

I don't oppose him running. I don't oppose people who want to vote for him. I just won't vote for him b/c of his stances. And for you to personally attack me for it, claiming I'm trying to "destroy the few unique things about the US that made it made it what it is today" is either a special level of insanity or you're really bored and trying to troll me :) how sweet.

Now, do I think the world will end if he's elected? No. But what I do know is that I won't be voting for him. Do I know who I will be voting for? Not yet! Still researching!

I don't like voting on single small issues at times like this. Whether you're pro or anti-abortion, big government or small government, you should be focused on the good of the nation as a whole. The most pressing question isn't "Will I be able to have a gay marriage in America in 2010?", it's "Will America be worth having a gay marriage in?" or "Will my gay marriage take place in English, Spanish, or Chinese?"

I get that. My decision isn't based on gay marriage, alone however. and to me, some of those issues would factor into a question "Will America be worth having a gay marriage in?" Or you could look at as he's so against so many of the "smaller issues" that it's ONE BIG issue for me.

Hell, we've still got months and months before election day and who knows what'll happen between now and then. But for NOW..

belladonna

11-15-2007, 02:42 AM

Pierrot le Fou

11-15-2007, 02:44 AM

You misunderstand what I mean when I say unrealistic. I don't mean that what he is saying is bad because it would be hard to do. I'm saying its bad because things aren't as simple as he making it out to be, and his proposals (getting rid of the income tax, for example) are ridiculous and would not help in any way.
Eliminating the income tax wouldn't help? Pardon me? Are you honestly telling me that getting a 25% pay hike wouldn't help me out at all? Is it really that ridiculous for me to believe that the money I earn should be spent as I want it to be, rather than swallowed up into special interests at little or no benefit to myself?

This is no way means that the government will be unable to pay for anything. Last I checked there are plenty of corporations which could still very well be taxed without having to charge a taxi driver income tax based on an absurd notion of what he should earn in tips, etc. that is so complicated that university graduates have trouble with it.

To say that it's 'ridiculous' is to indicate a vast misunderstanding on your part about what the income tax is and what need it fills.

As for "getting out of the war", the issue is nowhere NEAR as simple as that. Yeah, it was fucking stupid to get into the war, and most people are of the opinion that it was not the best thing to go do. Problem is, we can't just leave and hope to have any sort of credibility when it comes to foreign affairs. Anybody who is saying either "get the troops out!" or "stay the course!" is either lying or they don't know what the hell they are talking about. Staying the course at this rate means occupying the country until either all the Iraqis or all of our troops are dead. The war is a big fuck up right now, and something needs to be done to make progress, but that does not mean just getting out.
Ron Paul said something smart about this on the Tonight Show. He said, "I'm a doctor. If I misdiagnose a patient, and prescribe them medicine they don't need, which is more harmful? Acknowledging my mistake and taking them off the medication, or continue to medicate them for a problem they don't have?"

It is that simple. We went where we didn't belong. We've sunk a lot of money and lives due to a mistake that we made and refuse to admit. What do we do? Create some sort of exit strategy to spend more money for no gains? How about we just say, "We were wrong to go in" and get the troops out of there ASAP?

There is no good answer. Getting the troops out does good to Americans (which, perhaps you've forgotten, the US is responsible for taking care of). That's good enough for me, and certainly better than the alternatives. Do you have a brilliant exit strategy there?

Eliminate taxes is, again, unrealistic. Taxes are a necessity. Sure, getting some money taken out of your paycheck sucks, but with the state our economy is in (see massive deficit) I don't think eliminating taxes is going to help anything, other than hurt the institutions that are already suffering (education).
Eliminating all taxes is unrealistic. Eliminating some or many taxes is very realistic, and should be done post-haste.

Reduced spending I have no problem with, but I would rather see the money being spent now used more effectively. This was seen to an extent when Clinton had the power of line-item veto, and then we actually had a surplus.
Under Clinton, revenues increased, outlays did not decrease. That's what caused the surplus.

If you looked at the budget of the US for any fiscal year, you'd be hard pressed to say that we're spending responsibly. Pork Barrel, Pork Barrel, Military Military Military.

I think we can agree that changes should be made to government spending, but eliminating the income tax, IRS, etc., in favor of an increased sales tax and weakened central government isn't the way to go. In particular with weakening the federal government to its constitutional limits, as he would like, I really, really think that would be a bad idea considering the globalized world we live in today.
And why would that be? What about this 'globalized world' should prevent citizens from making their own choices on a state level rather than having it dictated from on high by the Feds?

Swede

11-15-2007, 03:11 AM

Ron Paul said something smart about this on the Tonight Show. He said, "I'm a doctor. If I misdiagnose a patient, and prescribe them medicine they don't need, which is more harmful? Acknowledging my mistake and taking them off the medication, or continue to medicate them for a problem they don't have?"

It is that simple. We went where we didn't belong. We've sunk a lot of money and lives due to a mistake that we made and refuse to admit. What do we do? Create some sort of exit strategy to spend more money for no gains? How about we just say, "We were wrong to go in" and get the troops out of there ASAP?

There is no good answer. Getting the troops out does good to Americans (which, perhaps you've forgotten, the US is responsible for taking care of). That's good enough for me, and certainly better than the alternatives. Do you have a brilliant exit strategy there?

I'll comment on the other stuff later, but I'll touch on this one for now.

First off, that is far from a "smart" thing to say about the Iraq war. Sticking with the medical example, its a little more like this. We didn't give them medicine they didn't need. We gave them medicine that, I don't know, made them terminally ill. So which is worse, "Acknowledging my mistake and taking them off the medication, or continue to medicate them for a problem they don't have?"

See the problem here? They have a new problem. Its not what was there initially, but it is still very much a problem, and say "Oops, my bad, hope everything is all better" is not a good alternative. We need to FIX the problem, or else, as I said, our credibility is fucked in foreign politics. Its bad enough now, if we leave Iraq without giving it a stable government, its hard to imagine us having anywhere near the influence in foreign affairs as we have in the past.

I'm for a stronger centralized government because the world is a smaller place than it used to be; and removing power from that government so that states can manage their own affairs is just going to divide the country further than it already is, and weaken the U.S. in global politics.

jindojim

11-15-2007, 03:37 AM

I'm strongly considering writing in Al Gore simply because I'm not strongly favoring any of the candidates in the Democratic Party (even though I'm registered with them). I know that there's a lot of hoohah surrounding his support of global warming. But, I think it's admirable that he's so passionate about something and can actually get things done, even without being President. And, if he were elected, I believe he wouldn't waste a second once he starts to try reforming things for the better. I have a great deal of respect for him, and I think there's a lot he could do for the country if he actually were elected.
Then again, he could just use his Presidency to spend a huge amount of tax dollars on making our country more "green" without taking care of other issues. But, I still say that's doing something worthwhile.

Clinton...well... She's a strong, brilliant woman. But she's also pro-war, pro-amnesty for immigrants, and her plans seem like they would cost voters and the government a lot of money. I like her attempts at bringing healthcare to everyone though, but I can't see it being done very well. State programs seem to be more beneficial in that scope. She also strikes me as being too "Republican" for a Democrat, as in doing her best to hide that she actually is a Democrat.

I like some of Ron Paul's stances. I wouldn't dismiss voting for him actually if I could, especially with his strong stance on immigration. And, the last thing America needs is entering any more wars. But, America needs taxes. However, what needs to be done is to impliment tax dollars into better budgetting and spending (as in trying to get our country out of debt). If that were the case, then raising taxes would be justifiable, especially from those who can afford it. But, that'll probably happen when politics and corruption stop going hand in hand...:bored:

I guess Obama is probably the only running candidate that I can and would vote for (since I can't vote for Ron Paul). I think he's a great speaker and could do a lot to invigorate politics and bring a new perspective of America to the world. I don't agree with some of his views, but I think overall he's the best Democratic candidate. He might need more experience, but I think he can still do a great job.

I'm sure my state will choose Hillary to be the Democratic candidate though...considering she's the Senator here...

On a side note, I can see Roxie being really excited about this election, what with the top two Democratic candidates being a woman and an African-American. What to go with though...gender or race? :P

Matt W

11-15-2007, 03:40 AM

I'm pretty moderate... I'm much more liberal than my parents, but still conservative in many views. I'm pretty stuck on Paul, he's the best I've seen and I believe that he is the most like what our nation was meant to be, more freedom of the individual. Many of you that claim to be Democrats, just sixty years ago, would have claimed Republicanism.

Libertarianism may seem to be idealistic, however, the smaller government and the freedom of choice is what the founders of our nation wanted.

Whatever you think of Ron Paul, he is by no means a moderate, so if you are supporting him I don't know how you can say you are a moderate.

I have respect for Ron Paul, but I am a liberal so I don't support him. I like his position on Iraq and ending the drug war, and a few other things.

One HUGE Paul negative in my mind that hasn't been mentioned yet is that he doesn't believe in global warming, and doesn't believe government should be regulating and setting standards for pollution. He would be an absolutely disastrous president when it comes to the environment, which America can not afford.

belladonna

11-15-2007, 03:53 AM

Whatever you think of Ron Paul, he is by no means a moderate, so if you are supporting him I don't know how you can say you are a moderate.

I have respect for Ron Paul, but I am a liberal so I don't support him. I like his position on Iraq and ending the drug war, and a few other things.

One HUGE Paul negative in my mind that hasn't been mentioned yet is that he doesn't believe in global warming, and doesn't believe government should be regulating and setting standards for pollution. He would be an absolutely disastrous president when it comes to the environment, which America can not afford.
I said I have moderate views, not that I am a Moderate. I have views of both sides. And by the way, I don't believe in global warming, it's a bunch of BS. I can see getting rid of pollution, but global warming is not real, it's a natural change of events, the finality of the last Ice Age.

Pierrot le Fou

11-15-2007, 03:55 AM

I'll comment on the other stuff later, but I'll touch on this one for now.

First off, that is far from a "smart" thing to say about the Iraq war. Sticking with the medical example, its a little more like this. We didn't give them medicine they didn't need. We gave them medicine that, I don't know, made them terminally ill. So which is worse, "Acknowledging my mistake and taking them off the medication, or continue to medicate them for a problem they don't have?"

See the problem here? They have a new problem. Its not what was there initially, but it is still very much a problem, and say "Oops, my bad, hope everything is all better" is not a good alternative. We need to FIX the problem, or else, as I said, our credibility is fucked in foreign politics. Its bad enough now, if we leave Iraq without giving it a stable government, its hard to imagine us having anywhere near the influence in foreign affairs as we have in the past.

I'm for a stronger centralized government because the world is a smaller place than it used to be; and removing power from that government so that states can manage their own affairs is just going to divide the country further than it already is, and weaken the U.S. in global politics.
You act as if we can fix Iraq. What exactly would fixing Iraq consist of? Maintaining the multi-ethnic 'Iraq' in its present borders despite the fact that the three major groups essentially hate each other? Allowing them to decide to become three separate countries? Support the Kurds attempt to become Kurdistan, annexing parts of Turkey? Letting the Shiites join in with Iraq? Letting everyone smite the Baathites for the shit they did under Saddam?

And even if we do fail in this epic task of 'fixing' something that's been broken for a long long time, you think that this will hurt our foreign policy, as if we should have a foreign policy which involves getting in situations like this and policing the world. How about a big no to that? Y'know, get back to the whole, commerce, free trade, friendship thing that we've long since lost post-WWII?

If the world complains about us pulling out of a situation that we created and couldn't fix, then we can tell them that they're perfectly entitled in trying to fix it themselves, but that we've acknowledged our mistake, tried in vain to fix it, and have decided not to waste more lives and money on a lost cause. Unpopular? Sure. But what has America done recently that is popular on a global scale? The only thing I can think of is the sympathy that arose not from what we did, but for what was done to us on 9/11.

And that should be a very clear indication of the state of foreign policy in the US, and how badly it needs to be changed.

Whatever you think of Ron Paul, he is by no means a moderate, so if you are supporting him I don't know how you can say you are a moderate.

I have respect for Ron Paul, but I am a liberal so I don't support him. I like his position on Iraq and ending the drug war, and a few other things.

One HUGE Paul negative in my mind that hasn't been mentioned yet is that he doesn't believe in global warming, and doesn't believe government should be regulating and setting standards for pollution. He would be an absolutely disastrous president when it comes to the environment, which America can not afford.
Let us restate that point Matt.

He doesn't believe in the federal government regulating pollution. I'm quite certain he would be very content to allow states to create their own limits, and if it really is a concern for the whole countries, much like the UCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code) or other uniform acts it can be passed in all states in much the same form.

In my opinion, ending the drug war, amnesty and benefits for illegal immigrants and the war in Iraq would go a long way towards aiming this country back in the right direction. Getting rid of the Patriot Act and the erosion of civil liberties would be another huge step. Lifting sanctions and reducing foreign aid would be another step.

That would save enough money for a massive tax cut, and turn the US back into the dominant global power economically, which is as it should be. Right now the weakening US dollar is causing some big problems, and will continue to as long as we keep borrowing beyond our means. At some point, the other shoe has to fall, and China/Japan will realize that while the US economy is strong, there are better ways to invest out there that are worth the brief hit in having their economies be re-evaluated against the dollar (something they have been fighting to prevent because of their export-based economies).

These are all things that have a large chance to screw us over in our lifetimes. And yet people are worried about abortion? People are worried about gay marriages (which are currently a state issue, and would continue to be under Paul mind you)? People are worried about these tiny little problems on a grand scale, while ignoring the elephant in the room!

It's absolutely absurd.

Swede

11-15-2007, 03:58 AM

I said I have moderate views, not that I am a Moderate. I have views of both sides. And by the way, I don't believe in global warming, it's a bunch of BS. I can see getting rid of pollution, but global warming is not real, it's a natural change of events, the finality of the last Ice Age.

lol.

You act as if we can fix Iraq. What exactly would fixing Iraq consist of? Maintaining the multi-ethnic 'Iraq' in its present borders despite the fact that the three major groups essentially hate each other? Allowing them to decide to become three separate countries? Support the Kurds attempt to become Kurdistan, annexing parts of Turkey? Letting the Shiites join in with Iraq? Letting everyone smite the Baathites for the shit they did under Saddam?

And even if we do fail in this epic task of 'fixing' something that's been broken for a long long time, you think that this will hurt our foreign policy, as if we should have a foreign policy which involves getting in situations like this and policing the world. How about a big no to that? Y'know, get back to the whole, commerce, free trade, friendship thing that we've long since lost post-WWII?

If the world complains about us pulling out of a situation that we created and couldn't fix, then we can tell them that they're perfectly entitled in trying to fix it themselves, but that we've acknowledged our mistake, tried in vain to fix it, and have decided not to waste more lives and money on a lost cause. Unpopular? Sure. But what has America done recently that is popular on a global scale? The only thing I can think of is the sympathy that arose not from what we did, but for what was done to us on 9/11.

And that should be a very clear indication of the state of foreign policy in the US, and how badly it needs to be changed.

I didn't say it would be easy. My job also isn't to figure out the exact plan of action for 'fixing' Iraq. I also am by no means saying that it needs to be 'perfect'. But there needs to be some sort of stability there before we leave. Yeah, I agree "the whole, commerce, free trade, friendship thing" is the ideal way to go, and I'm not sure where I said anything that goes otherwise. I'm completely against starting new wars, and I'm completely against the pretenses and goals that we have shown thus far in Iraq.

You are saying Iraq has been 'broken' for a long, long time. I'm saying that right now its a different kind of broken, and its our fault. You can't just say "my bad" and fuck everyone else if they think otherwise. And, hate to break it to you, but the "friendship thing" part of your views is affected by this.

Plekto

11-15-2007, 03:58 AM

Ron Paul has good ideas when it comes to foreign policy. Bad ideas when it comes to EVERYTHING ELSE.

See, that's the beauty. Congress won't let him do anything too outgrageous and the only REAL power he has is foriegn policy. Every other candidate is an ass, frankly, when it comes to this. We need to take care of our own, batten down the hatches, and start playing along with the world before it really goes south.

As for "getting out of the war", the issue is nowhere NEAR as simple as that.

The thing is, he controls the military. Commander in Chief. We are out tommorrow, we are out. It really is exactly that simple. AND he looks fantastic to the rest of the entire world. "My predecessor was a myopic ass of a man who was the worst President in the last century. This war ends tomorrow. I'll be working with the U.N. to help restore at least some order to the region."

And we are out the next day.

Every great country makes mistakes and it's that they admit it that makes them great in the end(note - even the U.K. did this, and last I checked, Australia doesn't want to light fire to them, nor does India)

I'm strongly considering writing in Al Gore simply because I'm not strongly favoring any of the candidates in the Democratic Party (even though I'm registered with them).

The smart thing is to register for the opposite party ASAP to help swing the vote towards a better candidate in case the other side wins. Technically I'm registered Green - helped to do my part nearly 20 years ago to get them on the ballot in California in fact. But I register as every OTHER party for every election, because we don't have open primaries. If you're unsure of the Democrats, register Republican, vote for Ron Paul, and then switch back. The primaries are where every vote actualy does make a difference. LAtely, though, I'm swinging more towards LIbertarian. Go figure.
If every single person in the U.S. that was Democrat waked up to this strategy, they would easily affect the other party's convention to get a better choice.

Honestly, with the way our country is headed, we are at a crossroads. Either we clean our image up fast, which requires a man with a vision and a desire for massive change in how things are done, or we miss this one chance to make ammends. The we go down the path to a de-facto dictaorship like they have in Mexico.

P.S. I think this is the only reason the entire world isn't chashing out and calling in their debts. There is a slim hope in their minds that the next President might change things.

Oh - and PLF, I compeletely agree. You'll note that California is RIGHT NOW suing the Federal Government over pollution standards - they want to set their own tighter standards but can't. Ron Paul would make that a total non-issue. "Sure - legislate yourselves into alternative power all you want if the people want it" People in Missouri can have their SUVs and be unaffected if they want from California's crazy rules and regulations.

belladonna

11-15-2007, 04:05 AM

lol.
For serious, that wasn't meant to be funny, that's the way I think. In all of the science books that I have read, this is the time that it should be happening. People are just too gullible.

Roxie

11-15-2007, 04:06 AM

On a side note, I can see Roxie being really excited about this election, what with the top two Democratic candidates being a woman and an African-American. What to go with though...gender or race? :P
You go with the best

Pierrot le Fou

11-15-2007, 04:15 AM

You go with the best
So the white male named Ron Paul, eh?

MEGA SATAN 3000

11-15-2007, 04:19 AM

Folks libetarianism DOESN'T WORK. AT ALL. EVER.

If you need proof of this then why don't you go and read The Jungle.

Anecdotal evidence about one family from the beginning of the previous century doesn't really carry any weight when it comes to political arguments about the country as a whole nowadays. Especially when you take into account things like broader historical trends.

For example, did you know that poverty existed before capitalism or industrialization did?

Blaming poverty and horrible working conditions on market economies is like blaming slavery on democracy: sure, they've coincided within the history of the US, but one existed long before the other in the world at large.

Pierrot le Fou

11-15-2007, 04:19 AM

I didn't say it would be easy. My job also isn't to figure out the exact plan of action for 'fixing' Iraq. I also am by no means saying that it needs to be 'perfect'. But there needs to be some sort of stability there before we leave. Yeah, I agree "the whole, commerce, free trade, friendship thing" is the ideal way to go, and I'm not sure where I said anything that goes otherwise. I'm completely against starting new wars, and I'm completely against the pretenses and goals that we have shown thus far in Iraq.

You are saying Iraq has been 'broken' for a long, long time. I'm saying that right now its a different kind of broken, and its our fault. You can't just say "my bad" and fuck everyone else if they think otherwise. And, hate to break it to you, but the "friendship thing" part of your views is affected by this.
You're very right. It's not your job to figure out the exact plan of action. It's the job of the person in charge of this giant mess, which happens to be the president (or perhaps Congress if they grow a sack -- unlikely).

So, pray tell, which of the candidates has anything resembling an even semi-passable plan for stabilizing Iraq? Which candidate has provided anything that will buck the status quo of money being poured in, and corpses being returned by air in return? Even the candidates in 'opposition' to the war are opposed in a deep moral sense (at least as conveyed to voters), not in an 'I will do something to fix it' sense.

And as for the 'commerce, free trade and friendship', the reason I thought you were opposed was because you were indicating that leaving Iraq would lose us foreign policy leverage/power (to quote you exactly, "if we leave Iraq without giving it a stable government, its hard to imagine us having anywhere near the influence in foreign affairs as we have in the past."). If I misinterpreted your intent, my apologies, I figured that it meant you believed in getting entangled in stuff that's not our business overseas. If you don't, then great.

jindojim

11-15-2007, 04:22 AM

You go with the best
Since there's no Asian male running for President, I have only second-rate candidates to choose from :P

Roxie

11-15-2007, 04:35 AM

So the white male named Ron Paul, eh?
Perhaps for you.

Swede

11-15-2007, 04:35 AM

You're very right. It's not your job to figure out the exact plan of action. It's the job of the person in charge of this giant mess, which happens to be the president (or perhaps Congress if they grow a sack -- unlikely).

So, pray tell, which of the candidates has anything resembling an even semi-passable plan for stabilizing Iraq? Which candidate has provided anything that will buck the status quo of money being poured in, and corpses being returned by air in return? Even the candidates in 'opposition' to the war are opposed in a deep moral sense (at least as conveyed to voters), not in an 'I will do something to fix it' sense.

And as for the 'commerce, free trade and friendship', the reason I thought you were opposed was because you were indicating that leaving Iraq would lose us foreign policy leverage/power (to quote you exactly, "if we leave Iraq without giving it a stable government, its hard to imagine us having anywhere near the influence in foreign affairs as we have in the past."). If I misinterpreted your intent, my apologies, I figured that it meant you believed in getting entangled in stuff that's not our business overseas. If you don't, then great.

The war in Iraq wasn't our problem. We shouldn't have gone to war with them. I don't think many people try to contest that, and I've long been against the war in general. But you are talking about being "entangled in stuff that's not our business overseas". Like it or not, Iraq is our business now. You can't walk in, fuck something all the hell up, and just leave. Because as brutal a dictator Saddam was, Iraq was more stable under him than it is now.

I am against any sort of escalation in Iraq, enough has been lost. I'd like to see the troops out just like everybody else, but I can't see that happening right now, or even at the beginning of the next presidential term unless there is some serious change in how things are being handled. And to be honest, I haven't seen any candidates making much of an effort to acknowledge this.

The problem is the polarization in our political system. Most of the views that are getting thrown around are "Stay the course!" or "Get our troops back home!". All I've been trying to say is that the issue is too complicated to sum up an effective view in a sentence.

Though there ARE issues outside of Iraq. For example, global warming has been touched on here, which I think is huge. That's an issue that is bigger than just our country, but it's an issue we could do a lot to help. And it would also help improve the tainted reputation we've received as a result of the Bush presidency.

MurphBurger

11-15-2007, 04:37 AM

He doesn't have a problem with "don't ask don't tell" and I have a problem with that!

so you'd rather have a small, strictly heterosexual military rather than a large mixed sexuality military? The entire "don't as, don't tell" policy was meant to protect those that are homosexual from the crazies that are extremely anti-gay. Its a discriminatory view that gay men aren't as capable as straight men and your gettin pissed over civil rights when its basically the same thing, save skin color and preset legislation covering rights? You're just being hypocritical.

with that Ron Paul has my vote and i swear to god if Hilary gets elected i'm moving out of the country.

Roxie

11-15-2007, 04:40 AM

Conversely, many women will vote for her because she is a woman.
And black people will vote for Obama b/c he's black? This is simply not true. Unless you want to quantify "many", women and black people pay attention to the issues that are important them just like other people.

belladonna

11-15-2007, 04:49 AM

with that Ron Paul has my vote and i swear to god if Hilary gets elected i'm moving out of the country.
my god YES!!! I am moving to France

MurphBurger

11-15-2007, 04:51 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A (brought to my attention by Fab)

Watch it and i defy anyone of you to say you'd vote for Romney

and another reason why Paul is the best, he doesn't pander to the camera and say what the people want to hear but what he wants to tell them is what he believes they need to hear to make the best decision for their country

MurphBurger

11-15-2007, 04:51 AM

my god YES!!! I am moving to France

Sweden for me....gotta find some blonde Swedish triplets :clap:

Jetsetlemming

11-15-2007, 05:13 AM

And black people will vote for Obama b/c he's black?
Oprah is. :hat:

Micah the Great

11-15-2007, 05:25 AM

I have to honestly say i'm too ill-informed about politics at the moment to say i'd vote for anyone, so i proly won't. Lazy? Proly. But as PLF was saying, people get too worked up on one of two small issues instead of the candidate's BIG picture. It seem logical not to do this, but some things can't be compromised i guess, as i wouldn't vote for someone pro-abortion. Doesn't leave me many options i guess.

If i do decide to vote, i'd definitely look deep into each candidates stances on the war in Iraq. It's obviously an extremely important issue. Things like tax and education reform are also, i just don't give a damn about researching them. I also think illegal immigration should be a fair concern.

Things like gay marriage and global warming are stupid. Gay marriage is dumb, but honestly don't give a shit if it got passed... who cares. "Now gays can be married! Wheeeee!" Awesome, whatever. Also, from all the earth science i've been hearing/reading about lately, the Earth is where it's supposed to be in its stages of heating up and cooling down. It's supposedly done it several times over whatever X billion years. As if some US policy in 2008 is going to cause or prevent the world from going into a ice age or tropic period or whatever.

Conversely, many women will vote for her because she is a woman.And black people will vote for Obama b/c he's black? This is simply not true.

You must have blinders on.

Pierrot le Fou

11-15-2007, 05:39 AM

Roxie

11-15-2007, 05:49 AM

You must have blinders on.
No, that would be you. Or I am the only who knows that black people don't vote race alone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbq2-99TiIU)?

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

11-15-2007, 05:56 AM

Micah the Great

11-15-2007, 06:14 AM

PLF, well, good thing i already claimed i was ill-informed. Weh.. but really i know just because a candidate has a specific view on some one specific topic doesn't mean a lot in the end. I do have a basic understanding of how the government works. The president isn't going to get in there and be like "BAM!", no more this, but more of that. But people do sometimes tend to determine the candidate they want to vote for solely off their stance on an issue that they will barely ever have any control over when in office. It's weird.

Roxie, i wasn't talking about the black part. But anyways, some people WILL vote for Hillary purely because she's a women. Same for Obama b/c he's black. You forget lots of people are very stupid. These things will happen because a lot of the time people will support something purely b/c it relates to them. It's already obvious that a voter that isn't a waste of a human being will actually vote on issues and stances of the candidate, not random demographic relations.

Roxie

11-15-2007, 06:18 AM

\

Roxie, i wasn't talking about the black part. But anyways, some people WILL vote for Hillary purely because she's a women. Same for Obama b/c he's black. You forget lots of people are very stupid. These things will happen because a lot of the time people will support something purely b/c it relates to them. It's already obvious that a voter that isn't a waste of a human being will actually vote on issues and stances of the candidate, not random demographic relations.
that's what I addressed when I talked about quantifying "many".

Micah the Great

11-15-2007, 06:22 AM

I'm not sure how "many"... but i would say "several". Considering the amount of idiots that exist... i'd say a healthy little percentage.

Shuft

11-15-2007, 06:35 AM

Micah. The president does not decide whether or not women can have abortions. The president does not decide whether or not gays have the right to marry. The president doesn't really have many powers (in writing) beyond taking care of foreign policy and war.

Yet the fact that people focus on things like gay rights and abortion rather than war and foreign policy is what makes me think that people are fucking stupid, and should be culled like cattle and/or be returned to the point in time when only educated land-owning white men could vote.

As horrible as that may sound, the joys of women's suffrage brought us Warren G. Harding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_G._Harding) because he 'looked more presidential' to put it simply.

I'm sure there are intelligent women out there, and they should be allowed to vote too, just as their are dumb white men who should be culled. My point here is that we should eliminate idiocy from the pool of voters so that we don't end up with the same ol' same ol' consisting of people voting for an office they don't even understand the powers of.

If I were still in the US, I'd probably feel the urge to kneecap those blasted 'get out the vote' people whose job it is to motivate the unmotivated to check some boxes without the faintest idea or care about what it stands for or will accomplish.
Lol, that's not very libertarian of you. Some people shouldn't get to vote because they care about different issues than you do?

Try seeing things from the other person's point of view a little. If you truly believe abortion is murder, than by sheer numbers, it is more important than the war in Iraq. If you are a gay person who feels oppressed in their own country, then you might not care all that much about international free trade.

Also, if you don't think the president's cabinet drafts legislation and passes it over to friendly congresspersons in exchange for not vetoing one of their pet projects, you'd be a little mistaken.

Pierrot le Fou

11-15-2007, 06:43 AM

Lol, that's not very libertarian of you. Some people shouldn't get to vote because they care about different issues than you do?

Try seeing things from the other person's point of view a little. If you truly believe abortion is murder, than by sheer numbers, it is more important than the war in Iraq. If you are a gay person who feels oppressed in their own country, then you might not care all that much about international free trade.

Also, if you don't think the president's cabinet drafts legislation and passes it over to friendly congresspersons in exchange for not vetoing one of their pet projects, you'd be a little mistaken.
My goals tend to be close to the libertarians', I just have different ideas regarding suffrage.

Also, while I realize that these other issues have large impacts on small groups, but for fuck's sake, social security, national debt, and the sad state of the economy have large impacts on large groups. To ignore the second in favor of the first is idiocy in the first degree, and should be indicated as such.

stsparky

11-15-2007, 07:22 AM

Why assume the GOP has dismantled the Diebold voting machines they used in Ohio in 2004 or have altered their dirty tricks they still do in Florida? It's absurd to believe this election will be clean.

I don't want to hold my nose and vote for Hillary the "Centrist" when I like the experience of Bill Richardson better. Joe Biden will likely be Secretary of State when this all ends though. I detested Reagan for many reasons and the last time I voted independent was when Jimmy Carter caved in 1980 before many Californians got to vote.

Ron Paul can do more outside the system than in. I think he is a fool whereas I merely don't trust the others.

The Hamburglar

11-15-2007, 07:29 AM

This might be the wrong place for a "First Post" but here it goes:

In my earnest opinion I think the best candidate for President of the United States at this time. With the way the way things are now with our foreign relations in shambles pretty much and the losing war is Sen. Barack Obama. I'm white by the way.

While I don't doubt that Hilary will be a great President I don't feel like she is the right person to be next president right now(Vice President?). Her stance on the war seems to change frequently like she is only saying what she thinks will make the people in front of her happy. I get the "feeling" that our foreign policy and the war we are fighting are not the top things on her list.:box:

If I remember correctly the main roles of the US President are Foreign affairs/relations and being Commander in Chief. He/she have many other important roles but the 2 main ones that come to mind are those 2, in my mind anyways.

Obama was an early opponent of Bush administration policies on Iraq. In the fall of 2002, before the start of the Iraq War, he addressed an anti-war rally in Chicago, saying:

I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
:clap:
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)

Anyways this is starting to turn into a rant so i'll stop. :duh:

P.S. Obama/Clintion 2008? I think Hilary would be a good Vice president with obama as president.

Chuckles

11-15-2007, 07:41 AM

Wow, that was the shortest rant ever! I can tell you're new here! :p

The Hamburglar

11-15-2007, 07:49 AM

It was much longer but i cut it down. It was my first post after all:wave:

Pierrot le Fou

11-15-2007, 07:52 AM

Ron Paul can do more outside the system than in. I think he is a fool whereas I merely don't trust the others.
C'mon now. A fool?

h2orowe

11-15-2007, 07:59 AM

I seriously don't see why anti-war people want to vote for Obama if he's just going to go to war with Pakistan.

The Hamburglar

11-15-2007, 08:23 AM

I never said I was Anti-War. But in my opinion we went into Iraq with out a plan past capturing Saddam. So it was pretty stupid to go there in the first place half cocked. I mean we haven't even finished what we started in Afghanistan nor have we found Osama.

But I mean look at Pakistan, The President has Suspended the Constitution, is trying his best to completely get rid of what once was a Democratic Goverment. He also seized power by way of a coup. Pick up the Nov. 19th issue of Time Magazine it goes great detail about the state of Pakistan.

Matt W

11-15-2007, 11:26 AM

Let us restate that point Matt.

He doesn't believe in the federal government regulating pollution. I'm quite certain he would be very content to allow states to create their own limits, and if it really is a concern for the whole countries, much like the UCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code) or other uniform acts it can be passed in all states in much the same form.

Your right, I should have specified the federal government. However, I believe that the federal government should be taking an active role and leading the way. I know that the Bush EPA is suing cali, my home state, because we are demanding higher fuel economy than the national standard, but in general the federal government is in a unique position to combat the problem of global warming. This is a problem that affects all of us, and aggressive action by the federal govt would be so much more effective than aggressive action by just a few states. The Clean Water, Air Acts for example were highly effective. If the federal govt raised the CAFE standards 20 or 30 mph, invested heavily in alt forms of energy, subsidized heavily solar, wind, raised efficiency standards for things like driers, refrigerators, taxed heavily things like incandescent bulbs, offered tax incentives to retrofit buildings to make them more energy efficient, provide money for training people for green businesses, start a cap and trade system for co2, it would make a world of difference, and much faster than a state by state approach would. Not only would this help mitigate global warming, it would improve our air and water quality, our health, our economic efficiency and competitiveness, and create many new jobs. Not to mention we wouldn't have to care what was happening in the Middle East. Plus, the U.S. could then speak with one voice to the rest of the world, and it would be easier to get countries to work together on this global problem.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all of have quite good environmental/energy plans, though I wish they would not support subsidizing ethanol, which is clearly just a political thing. I also wish they would back a kickass train system, we already subsidize car and airplane companies so much, why not put a ton of federal money into a bullet train system, which would reduce emissions and be good for our steel industry? To me, this is better than the Paul approach.

Matt W

11-15-2007, 11:35 AM

so you'd rather have a small, strictly heterosexual military rather than a large mixed sexuality military? The entire "don't as, don't tell" policy was meant to protect those that are homosexual from the crazies that are extremely anti-gay. Its a discriminatory view that gay men aren't as capable as straight men and your gettin pissed over civil rights when its basically the same thing, save skin color and preset legislation covering rights? You're just being hypocritical.

with that Ron Paul has my vote and i swear to god if Hilary gets elected i'm moving out of the country.

You are missing the point. Don't ask don't tell was a compromise, it was all that could be done at that time, its far from ideal. Hillary Clinton supports allowing people to be OPENLY gay in the military, for them not to be kicked out if someone finds out they are gay. So her view is less discriminatory than Paul's. Why would you move out of the country if Clinton got elected? She is not my ideal choice either, I'm not voting for her in the primaries, but I don't see what is so objectionable about her.

Matt W

11-15-2007, 11:41 AM

I'm leaving a blank on the spot where I'm supposed to vote for a U.S. president in 2008.

Basically because every single one of them (with the exception of Ron Paul) piss me off to no end.

They will be horrible leaders. I know it, you know it, we all pretty much know it.

We're just trying to narrow down know between who is shitty shitty shitty and who is stinky farty smelly.

Both suck, but to what degree?

That's sad when American politics reaches a point like that.

I agree the Republican field is extremely weak this year, but the Democratic field in my view is quite strong. They are extremely intelligent, experienced and capable people. Why would they be horrible leaders? There are real, big differences in the Rep and Dem fields, the degrees of sucking are quite large, and you seem to be talking out of your ass. Give me examples of years where you think the candidates were so much better.

ZaichikArky

11-15-2007, 12:33 PM

I'm glad that basically all of you are too smart for the election.

It works in my favor since I love Hillary and want her to win. She will probably barely lose, but it will still be a big dent in history and in 2012 it will be grand.

Jetsetlemming

11-15-2007, 02:28 PM

Pierrot le Fou

11-15-2007, 02:35 PM

Your right, I should have specified the federal government. However, I believe that the federal government should be taking an active role and leading the way. I know that the Bush EPA is suing cali, my home state, because we are demanding higher fuel economy than the national standard, but in general the federal government is in a unique position to combat the problem of global warming. This is a problem that affects all of us, and aggressive action by the federal govt would be so much more effective than aggressive action by just a few states. The Clean Water, Air Acts for example were highly effective. If the federal govt raised the CAFE standards 20 or 30 mph, invested heavily in alt forms of energy, subsidized heavily solar, wind, raised efficiency standards for things like driers, refrigerators, taxed heavily things like incandescent bulbs, offered tax incentives to retrofit buildings to make them more energy efficient, provide money for training people for green businesses, start a cap and trade system for co2, it would make a world of difference, and much faster than a state by state approach would. Not only would this help mitigate global warming, it would improve our air and water quality, our health, our economic efficiency and competitiveness, and create many new jobs. Not to mention we wouldn't have to care what was happening in the Middle East. Plus, the U.S. could then speak with one voice to the rest of the world, and it would be easier to get countries to work together on this global problem.

Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all of have quite good environmental/energy plans, though I wish they would not support subsidizing ethanol, which is clearly just a political thing. I also wish they would back a kickass train system, we already subsidize car and airplane companies so much, why not put a ton of federal money into a bullet train system, which would reduce emissions and be good for our steel industry? To me, this is better than the Paul approach.
If these things are economical (and an end to fuel subsidies would go a long way toward that end, something I'm almost positive Ron Paul would be in favor of), then they will spread naturally. The problem is that we are already subsidizing energy sources, which seems to me to be counter-productive (as well as anti-environment). Ethanol, for instance, is supposed to be this great thing, yet it's less energy efficient than oil. The big thing about ethanol is that it's a renewable resource, which is a good thing. That doesn't mean it's economically feasible, however.

What people should do is to demand higher energy use standards for the companies/manufacturers they purchase from. I know that there are many companies (top 10 in the world-size companies) that are making moves toward energy efficiency in recent years, and that may go a long way toward moving the market.

I don't have real big opposition to things like carbon credits beyond the fact that they're (essentially) an additional tax. I do like the incentive-creation aspect of them, however, and if they were used to replace a portion of tax revenues from companies rather than to supplement them, I'd be far more interested in them. If it can be finagled such that the government doesn't get a cent out of it, it'd be even better.

I think that the concept of the government subsidizing and meddling in environmentalism by throwing money at things isn't very sound. As technology constantly improves, especially if there is a bigger financial incentive to reduce energy use, then the technologies that help in achieving those ends will become more profitable, and probably be feasible on their own.

Subsidies may help move it along, but there's a much bigger chance that they result in companies sprouting up to fill a desire without actually having to be good at what they do.

stsparky

11-15-2007, 03:54 PM

C'mon now. A fool?
Sadly, it leaves him the smartest man in the room. I don't trust politicians. Having been employed by Ross Perot in the 80s makes me detest Texans (and make-believe ones). While the small 'L' libertarians are the best the GOP has to offer - they remain Republicans. And I hope that people tar Bush and those Republicans who want to be the next President with the brush we used for Foley, Craig, and next two-faced asshole who'll be outed by a jilted drug addled male prostitute while having an anti-Gay rights voting record. My dislike of Paul stems from the fact he led the Texas delegation that nominated Reagan.

Plekto

11-15-2007, 04:13 PM

The president isn't going to get in there and be like "BAM!", no more this, but more of that.

The thing is, it really IS that simple. The President now has almost king like powers. Incredible ability to control things. So, yes, if he said "pull out tommorrow", it would be over tomorrow.

BTW, h2orowe - your quote should read: War is over. If our President wants it." And, yes, Obama is a class-A fool. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and will use them. We gave them the things, after all, so we know they ahve them and that they work.

ZaichikArky

11-15-2007, 04:29 PM

Holy shit, Sparky you lobbied for ROSS PEROT? wAt.

Please tell me stories, I love the guy. I mean, sometimes I mix the feelings I have of him as hate, but yeah, I think he's the most interesting canidate we have had in the last 4 elections other than Nader.

stsparky

11-15-2007, 04:34 PM

The President has king like powers? Let's hope not.

Liza: I didn't lobby for Ross. I was employed as a non-union IT worker by EDS which he owned. My mom is a lobbyist for AIPAC. The joy there is I got to call him a quitter twice. :D

My hate for Reagan remains deep and strong. I will always view him as a cowardly rapist bully who would go to Alfred Bloomingdale's sex parties with his wife.

ZaichikArky

11-15-2007, 04:51 PM

Well I still want to know about what you think of him... in detail.

And as for Regan, I don't like him, but then there are people such as my dad and others from former communist nations who worship him. *shrug*. Whatever floats your boat

Jetsetlemming

11-15-2007, 05:03 PM

Guilt by association, sparky? You should be better than that.

Roxie

11-15-2007, 05:21 PM

so you'd rather have a small, strictly heterosexual military rather than a large mixed sexuality military?
Where in the hell did you get that impression? What're you, new?

The entire "don't as, don't tell" policy was meant to protect those that are homosexual from the crazies that are extremely anti-gay. Its a discriminatory view that gay men aren't as capable as straight men and your gettin pissed over civil rights when its basically the same thing, save skin color and preset legislation covering rights? You're just being hypocritical.
Ok, uh "protecting" someone by not allowing them be who they are IS NOT PROTECTION! How about we through out the extremely anti-gay crazies? And let people be who they are w/o getting fired for it?
Hypocritical how?

Trump

11-15-2007, 05:33 PM

Well, first... when are the primaries for the presidential race? They start next year right?

That still gives me time to watch, listen, and learn about the candidates. Many of you all seem to have completely made up your minds. How? There is so much happening in the political arena right now it is impossible to keep track of it all. Between the debates, news conferences, and interviews alone there is far too much information. It's also interesting how people can't even decide what each candidate really supports...

To say the president has no powers outside of foreign policy and the military is simply ignorant. He has the power to veto any bill coming from Congress. He is the spokesperson for his political party. He has easy access to introduce bills into Congress. How can you say he has no power? He selects supreme court justices and his hand-picked cabinet members handle some of the most powerful agencies in the country. How is that powerless? The president's views have a tremendous impact on the direction of most aspects of the country.

I also find it interesting how people jump the bandwagon so easily. So, Mccain didn't respond to the bitch question like you would have hoped. Wow, so he messed up one totally inappropriate question. Yet that is enough to make you vote for someone else? I hope you don't watch the news when the elections are close because I'm sure all the mudslinging will make you change your mind thousands of times.

Finally, I have a sad feeling there would be many who voted for or against Clinton because she is a woman, and many who would vote for or against Obama because he is black. There are pockets of people all around the country who have very racist and sexist views. My father has visited towns where maybe 5% of the entire town has access to the internet. Furthermore, I mean people have been posting news articles about racism and sexism all year! Sure, I'd expect people here not to be swayed by race and gender as much, but to say that it won't have much impact on the election is just naive.

Jetsetlemming

11-15-2007, 05:39 PM

Ok, uh "protecting" someone by not allowing them be who they are IS NOT PROTECTION! How about we through out the extremely anti-gay crazies? And let people be who they are w/o getting fired for it?
Hypocritical how?
They can be who they are just fine. They just can't tell everyone about it. There's a very good reason for this; would you be comfortable if your employer made you share bathroom, shower, and beds with men? Men who haven't gotten any action or seen their lovers in months? Being in that kind of atmosphere is uncomfortable, and many straight men would feel uncomfortable in being in that situation with gay men, and may ostracize or torment or haze them for it. We can't exactly go with seperate gay and lesbian barracks and bathrooms . It's better if everyone just kept quiet about a subject that's meaningless to the matter at hand. Sexualizing the military doesn't do anyone any good.

Roxie

11-15-2007, 05:45 PM

They can be who they are just fine. They just can't tell everyone about it.
Not exactly. Did you hear about the interpreter who got fired for having an aim conversation with an old army friend about an ex-b/f? Yeah.
That's just too much.

There's a very good reason for this; would you be comfortable if your employer made you share bathroom, shower, and beds with men? Men who haven't gotten any action or seen their lovers in months? Being in that kind of atmosphere is uncomfortable, and many straight men would feel uncomfortable in being in that situation with gay men, and may ostracize or torment or haze them for it. We can't exactly go with seperate gay and lesbian barracks and bathrooms . It's better if everyone just kept quiet about a subject that's meaningless to the matter at hand. Sexualizing the military doesn't do anyone any good.
You don't have to sexualize it. It's not "sexualize" or complete denial of any sexual anything what-so-ever. And "don't ask don't tell" isn't going to solve the problem with heterosexual men feeling "uncomfortable" enough to terrorize homosexuals. It just exacerbates the problem. And it's not just gay men, it's gay women too.

Beowulf

11-15-2007, 07:43 PM

Ron Paul: The Ralph Nader of 2008.

Pierrot le Fou

11-15-2007, 11:24 PM

Sadly, it leaves him the smartest man in the room. I don't trust politicians. Having been employed by Ross Perot in the 80s makes me detest Texans (and make-believe ones). While the small 'L' libertarians are the best the GOP has to offer - they remain Republicans. And I hope that people tar Bush and those Republicans who want to be the next President with the brush we used for Foley, Craig, and next two-faced asshole who'll be outed by a jilted drug addled male prostitute while having an anti-Gay rights voting record. My dislike of Paul stems from the fact he led the Texas delegation that nominated Reagan.
A politician who's goals are REDUCTION of government, in my opinion, can be trusted over someone who's goals are to INCREASE government. Why? Because failure turns to the status quo, while success goes the way I'd like.

Plekto

11-16-2007, 01:24 AM

One thing to note is what areas that The President has complete control over. Most other areas Congress will (usually) fight with them and create gridlock if it's too outrageous. So the what really matters is what they can do without having Congress get involved.

Basically it is this:

1 - Control the military for 60 days.
2 - Appoint heads of departments and justices.(most don't require confirmation hearings)
3 - Deal with foreign affairs and diplomacy.

All the soundbytes and junk are meaningless. These three areas are under their total control and are what we need to focus on.

So where do each of them stand on these three areas? So far, Ron Paul hates the WTO, hates NAFTA, hates spending money for wars overseas instead of our economy and internal problems. He'll bring our troops home and use old-school Cold War tactics to deal with Iran instead of playing whack-a-mole. We won vs Russia, which makes Iran look like a 2nd Lieutenant compared to their General - without firing a single shot. Smart and sneaky versus Cowboy Diplomacy.

He hates big government. He also would destroy the Patriot Act instantly(nobody else has said they'll do this!), and give back an enormous amount of power back to the States(the old argument of States versus Federal rights that dates back to the founding of our nation). There's also a good chance he'll scale back the powers that The President has and nullify just about every signing statement Bush ever made.

The other stuff, like killing the IRS or social Security(good as that may or may not be - we can debate that elsewhere), Congress will nerf him on or keep him in check like any President. The stuff that matters that he controls alone, he's nearly perfect on, IMO - or at least a solid B+/A- rating.

Obama gets a D rating by comparison. He started off well, but he sounds like he's been bought off or some Mafia guys have his family hostage the way he gets all mealy-mouthed and toting the line lately.

Kaji

11-16-2007, 02:36 AM

I'm all for a restoration of the 10th amendment, personally. Holds the record as one of the most-raped laws in the history of our nation not repealed. Let the states deal with state business and the federal government deal with the international stage.

Pierrot le Fou

11-16-2007, 02:40 AM

Then you'll need to overturn the 14th, otherwise it will be a lost cause when it comes to the courts.

Plekto

11-16-2007, 04:49 AM

Not really. 90% of the power balance as it is is enforcement. If Ron Paul says "ignore it - let the states run their own affairs" to the Attorney General, You're not going to get anyone in Congress really complaining, and not much resistance from the public for giving them back some control over their own affairs.

Hillary - I'm with that sentiment as well. I'll move to Canada or Japan if she gets elected. No, really. I'm a pretty liberal person but I hate her as much as I hated Regan. Mr. Clinton was a well meaning if a bit dense country boy. She's always been the power behind him running in the first place and is 110% into politics for her own potential gain. A lot like Lincoln's wife in fact - just incredible ego and drive. And an absolute disaster.

4letterwords

11-16-2007, 05:06 AM

Swede

11-18-2007, 01:07 AM

At the beginning of these presidential shenanigans, I was leaning more towards Obama. I hate hilary with a passion and I wasn't too informed about the other democratic candidates... If I'm not informed enough, I won't vote. I would rather keep myself out of it and face ridicule by patriotic idiots than to make an misinformed decision. I missed being able to vote in the last election by a month and some change, and I had hoped to feel really good about the first time I vote... I've done a lot of research but I'm just not comfortable with any of the candidates. If I don't vote though I'll get ridiculed by just about every person I know. I don't see how voting for something I don't agree with (on either side) is better than not voting. My mom will start bitching about how women of the past gave us the right to vote and it's a shame not to take that responsibility head on... IMHO Americans don't just have the right to vote... we have the right not to vote and I consider it my personal responsibility to keep my ass out of it so I don't contribute to a stupid decision.

/mixed thoughts

I say you should go for the person you disagree less with at this point. I respect it that you aren't like some people who just go out and vote based on what people tell them to do, but at the same time, I have to think that there are some people that you would absolutely under no conditions want to see in office.

We do have the right to vote, and it isn't something everyone has so I really think we should take advantage of it. Vote for who you think has your best interests in mind. If no political candidate is acceptable to you, form your own party or try to run for office yourself. That's (supposedly) why our system is supposed to work. If the system ever stops working for the people, we are supposed to get fed up and change the system.

stsparky

11-18-2007, 04:46 AM

Guilt by association, Sparky? You should be better than that.
Selene Walters (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0910366/bio) lives down the hill from my folks, and my uncle was doctor to the Warner's and that included Jacqeline Park. The Reagans were pigs. Just because one is dead and the other sick - won't get me off their case.

All the mentally ill folks kicked out of the State Mental Homes in the late 1960s who became the core of the homeless problem here were his fault. There's more - but later ... heh.
----
Hollywood A-list

The Hollywood A-List has this to say about Nancy in a nastier manner: “The eminence grise(ly) in the Reagan White House. Used astrology to determine policy decisions. Slept with Frank Sinatra in the White House itself.

Personally pro-choice but kept quiet and supported anti-choice actions for her husband's career. Former "Hostess Girl Escort for the studios when they needed to recruit investors or starpower; Famous for giving the best head in Hollywood in her day. Was three months pregnant when she married Ronnie."

Her husband was in bed with Christine Larson when she gave birth to Patti. Failed to say no to pot at least once. Supposedly verbally abused her children. Sexually linked with:
Milton Berle
Yul Brynner
Clark Gable
Peter Lawford
Frank Sinatra,
Spencer Tracy
Mike Wallace.

Peter Lawford
Relevant to the above, Peter Lawford's biography has him saying that:
"Nancy Davis was a party girl who gave the best head in Hollywood!"
====
Liza: Perot is likely the best salesman I've ever met. But he also understands how to exploit people to his benefit.

The_Penguin

11-20-2007, 02:42 AM

Fred Thompson for me.

Swede

11-20-2007, 03:28 AM

A politician who's goals are REDUCTION of government, in my opinion, can be trusted over someone who's goals are to INCREASE government. Why? Because failure turns to the status quo, while success goes the way I'd like.

success goes the way YOU'D like? Sounds like a dictatorship may be more up your alley.

Buckwheat

11-20-2007, 03:33 AM

Best campaign ad ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDUQW8LUMs8

Roxie

11-20-2007, 04:04 AM

That was pretty awesome....now I just need one with Bauer

Micah the Great

11-20-2007, 04:21 AM

I can't believe that just happened.... that was obviously so awesome. It would have been better if he'd kicked the guy in the face at the end.

Shuft

11-20-2007, 04:23 AM

If Mike Huckabee wasn't the polar opposite of everything I want in a president, I'd totally vote for him because of that.

Roxie

11-20-2007, 05:24 AM

Oh, wow. Check out Chuck Norris' response to Chuck Norris Facts. (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52567)

Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: "Chuck Norris' tears can cure cancer. Too bad he never cries. Ever."

There was a man whose tears could cure cancer or any other disease, including the real cause of all diseases – sin. His blood did. His name was Jesus, not Chuck Norris.

Digital Masta

11-20-2007, 05:33 AM

Frank Sinatra,

Who wasn't?

Roxie

11-21-2007, 04:53 AM

From here (http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=v&m=89857)

* When Mike Huckabee participated in the Iowa Straw Poll, they had to re-name it the Iowa Iron Pole.

* Mike Huckabee can cut taxes... with his penis.

* Stephen Hawking told Mike Huckabee the universe was 12 billion years old once. Once.

* Mike Huckabee lost 100 pounds of body fat by eating it.

* Jesus asked Mike Huckabee for career advice, but Huckabee was too busy body-slamming Satan.

* Mike Huckabee flosses his teeth with the bones of abortion doctors at least twice a day.

* Mike Huckabee is forbidden to interfere with human history.

* Top scientists believe global warming is a direct consequence of Mike Huckabee getting angry.

* Mike Huckabee opposes gay marriage because every man on earth wants to marry him.

* Mike Huckabee won't repeal the Estate Tax out of sympathy for the families of his victims.

* Mike Huckabee has completed six marathons, two of which aren't until next year.

* Fred Thomspon, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani all got cancer because Mike Huckabee looked at them too hard.

* If Mike Huckabee is elected, he'll bring all the troops home--he can handle this himself.

* If Mike Huckabee had been around in Biblical times, the symbol of Christianity would be Pontius Pilate with a cross up his ass.

* Mike Huckabee would've stopped the attack of 9/11, but there was an asteroid hurtling toward Earth that day.

* Mike Huckabee doesn't talk in sound bites; he speaks in decibel munches.

* Charles Darwin was actually born the same year as Mike Huckabee, but Huckabee punched him back to the 1800s.

* If Mike Huckabee had been President, the levees in New Orleans never would've broke, because Katrina would've known better.

* Mike Huckabee's philosophy on showing mercy is "abstinence-only."

* Atheism can be cured by Mike Huckabee's farts.

* Mike Huckabee is so powerful, even the ugly, unwanted, weight he discarded is running for president: Dennis Kucinich.

* Most bass players tune to a low E; Mike Huckabee tunes to F U.

* The 1976 Tangshan earthquake killed over 250,000 people. Nine months later, the Huckabees welcomed their first son.

* Mike Huckabee spelled backwards is "Jesus Loves You." It's not? I dare you to tell that to Mike Huckabee.

* Mike Huckabee is only running for President because he's reached his term limit as Grand Master of Space and Time

* Mike Huckabee opposes the right to die... painlessly.

* Mike Huckabee is running the greenest campaign transporting his entire staff from state to state on his c*ck and huge rolling balls.

* In Soviet Russia, President runs for Mike Huckabee!

* Fifteen years ago Mike Huckabee cured "Andrew" Coulter of his vestigial male genitalia.

* If elected, Mike Huckabee will replace the Justice Department with his fists.

Urameshi YuSooKey

11-21-2007, 05:15 AM

Mike Huckabee is so powerful, even the ugly, unwanted, weight he discarded is running for president: Dennis Kucinich
I lold at this one.

stsparky

11-21-2007, 03:58 PM

Report: Homeless Bribed With Food To Support GOP Ballot Initiative (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/21/report-homeless-bribed-w_n_73675.html)
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/2221/thumbs/s-BRIBING-THE-HOMELESS-FOR-VOTES-large.jpg

The chairman of a committee formed to fight a ballot initiative to change how California's electoral college votes are apportioned has asked the city attorney here to investigate a report that a group collecting signatures for the initiative has offered food to homeless people in exchange for signing the petitions.

The Republican-supported initiative would replace California's winner-take-all system of allocating its 55 electoral college votes with one that allots the votes by Congressional district.
----
Which links to this NY Times story below:
Opponents of California Ballot Initiative Seek Inquiry (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/21calif.html?ei=5088&en=edcc05e38a05afee&ex=1353301200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1195654277-rfOzziD8/h0Vv7meR9ORYQ)

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER
Published: November 21, 2007

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 20 — The chairman of a committee formed to fight a ballot initiative to change how California’s electoral college votes are apportioned has asked the city attorney here to investigate a report that a group collecting signatures for the initiative has offered food to homeless people in exchange for signing the petitions.

The Republican-supported initiative would replace California’s winner-take-all system of allocating its 55 electoral college votes with one that allots the votes by Congressional district.

“We respectfully request that the office of the Los Angeles city attorney conduct a comprehensive investigation into this matter,” Thomas F. Steyer, the chairman of the steering committee for the group Californians for Fair Election Reform, wrote to Rocky Delgadillo, the city attorney.

Mr. Steyer’s letter, dated Nov. 19, stems from an article in The Los Angeles Downtown News that detailed reporters’ observations of signature gatherers asking homeless people on the city’s notorious Skid Row for their signatures to help qualify the electoral vote initiative and three others, as well as asking them to fill out voter registration cards.

In exchange, the paper reported, homeless people and those in nearby shelters were given Snickers bars, instant noodles and other snack foods.

Dave Gilliard, a Republican strategist who is directing the initiative, said, “It doesn’t seem possible to me that it would get signature-gatherers to do that.”

Michael Arno, who is leading the professional signature-gathering effort, did not return calls.

Frank Mateljan, a spokesman for Mr. Delgadillo, said that the office had yet to receive the letter.

Supporters of the initiative have been frantically raising money and gathering signatures in order to get it on the June ballot here. The proposal has roused strong opposition from Democrats because it would transform California from a reliably Democratic state in presidential elections and hand the Republican nominee roughly 20 votes from Republican strongholds.

Plekto

11-21-2007, 09:54 PM

I found this in the news today. Looks like the rats are fleeing the ship before it sinks. Too bad that this sort of thing isn't just limited to a few people in government. Most of the potential replacements aren't going to probably do any differently.
***
Ex-Press Aide Links Bush, Cheney to Plame Outing

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has implicated President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney in misleading the public on the outing of ex-CIA agent Valerie Plame. As White House spokesperson, McClellan repeatedly claimed senior aides Karl Rove and Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby were not involved in revealing Plame’s identity. But in a forthcoming memoir, McClellan writes: “I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president’s chief of staff, and the president himself.”
***

stsparky

11-22-2007, 06:31 AM

Here's one more reason to never trust the GOP again.

Mark Kleiman: Voter fraud (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/voter-fraud_b_73808.html)

The Bush Administration plans to steal hundreds of thousands of votes, most of them Democratic votes, in the 2008 elections by the simple expedient of sitting on new citizenship applications until after the elections. Time for Congress to step in. (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2007/11/who_says_the_bush_administration_is_incompetent.ph p)

Mark Kleiman: Who says the Bush Administration is incompetent? (http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2007/11/who_says_the_bush_administration_is_incompetent.ph p)

They've very skilfully arranged that hundreds of thousands of citizenship applications filed last summer won't be approved in time for the new citizens to vote. Remeber, this crew makes no actual distinction between campaigning and governing: everything is geared toward winning the next election.

Fortunately, Congress isn't helpless on this one. Stick some extra funding on the next appropriation thorough, and put a deadline of 1 year on all applications: unless DHS gives a specific reason by that time why the application should be rejected or held for further investigation, it's automatically accepted. (Note that immigration fraud is grounds for revocation of citizenship, so a false citizenship award isn't irrevocable.)

Footnote Of course, none of the loudmouth politicians making such a fuss about "illegal" immigration are going to lift a finger to help legal immigrants become citizens.

-----------
Mark Kleiman is Professor of Public Policy in the UCLA School of Public Affairs.

Pierrot le Fou

11-22-2007, 06:36 AM

And the Democrats are saints StSparky?

You surely know better...

I don't like the current GOP one bit, but I hardly think that the Democrats are something to be admired.

Vaelus

11-28-2007, 07:54 PM

I'm gonna be supporting Obama primarily because I absolutely hate Hilary and I think he has the best shot of taking her down in the primarys. Honestly I am not all that thrilled with most of the candidates running. John Edwards is a decent candidate and honestly I'm pretty sure he could win unless the republicans came up with someone spectacular (Doesn't look like they will). Unfortunetly I don't think he will beat Hilary in the primaries. She has too much support from women and many of the same people who would vote for Edwards are going to be voting for Obama.

As much as I hate the republican party I may have to vote for whoever they have running if it comes down to him vs Hiliary. And thats a scary thought. We will be damned if we do and damned if we don't.

As for why I don't like Hiliary, I won't mince words. She is a bitch plain and simple. We don't need a bitch right now. We just had stupid jackass, and if thats followed by Bitch well...we are screwed even more. I think just electing Obama would improve our international reputation a great deal and I think thats what we need most right now. Hilary would probably hurt it.

Shuft

11-29-2007, 04:50 AM

...As for why I don't like Hiliary, I won't mince words. She is a bitch plain and simple. We don't need a bitch right now. We just had stupid jackass, and if thats followed by Bitch well...we are screwed even more. I think just electing Obama would improve our international reputation a great deal and I think thats what we need most right now. Hilary would probably hurt it.
Are you saying you don't want Hilary to win because of her general disposition? Can you explain the difference between a bitch and a powerful ambitious woman? I hear this from lots of people who dislike Hilary. What about her is so detestable?

belladonna

11-29-2007, 06:22 AM

Are you saying you don't want Hilary to win because of her general disposition? Can you explain the difference between a bitch and a powerful ambitious woman? I hear this from lots of people who dislike Hilary. What about her is so detestable?
because she;s a clinton, and the clintons are abominations after the riffs of the 90s.

Roxie

11-29-2007, 06:35 AM

What, they grew an extra finger we don't know about?

belladonna

11-29-2007, 07:15 AM

Shuft

11-29-2007, 07:33 AM

because she;s a clinton, and the clintons are abominations after the riffs of the 90s.
Thank you. Now I have the image of Bill and Hillary on the guitar busting out some riffs so epic they are labeled abominations and define a decade.no, when the clinton administration downsized the military thousands of people lost their jobs. my mom was one of them, two years away from retirement, she got so depressed because she couldn't find a job that she gained sixty pounds in three months. it's stupid people like that that don't deserve the power of that officeI sorry your mom lost her job. The amount the US spends on the military is ridiculous though. Just a quick glance at some stats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States) show some crazy-ass figures. My favorite, "The current (2005) United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next fourteen biggest spenders combined, and over eight times larger than the official military budget of China."

belladonna

11-29-2007, 07:47 AM

meh... that was 16 years ago and she's still trying to get her grey card as a disabled vet... but she's had this great job as a radiology technician for about eight years now

japanat

11-29-2007, 01:03 PM

no, when the clinton administration downsized the military thousands of people lost their jobs. my mom was one of them, two years away from retirement, she got so depressed because she couldn't find a job that she gained sixty pounds in three months. it's stupid people like that that don't deserve the power of that officeWhat happened with your mom sucks, of course. But the Clinton administration downsized the military because we didn't need that large a military at the time.

Bill Clinton couldn't keep his dick in his pants (other than when he was home, apparently), and Hilary put off a lot of people with her intellect, inability to communicate with the blue-collar class, and desire to push through her national insurance so quickly; but for the only time in my life, the US had a budget surplus, and was attempting to build on George HB's international overtures. Other than some overly optimistic techies and IT IPOs, the economy appeared to be moving along pretty well, and the US was forcing Japan to open up in ways they couldn't ignore or posture away.

I prefer that to the Patriot Act, non-combatant status and the new, improved Guantanamo Bay.

Vaelus

11-29-2007, 01:43 PM

Are you saying you don't want Hilary to win because of her general disposition? Can you explain the difference between a bitch and a powerful ambitious woman? I hear this from lots of people who dislike Hilary. What about her is so detestable?

Its her general attitude to me. She just comes off as a bitch to me. I think she is trying to come off as a strong ambitious woman but she just seems hateful to me. She seems like she has a nasty temper and thats not something I want in a president. If you watch her during debates she has flat out just cut off people a few times and generally tries to make her self look tough and its just not working for me. She is outright hostile towards Obama and it sort of makes her look like a bully in a school yard to me. She seems like a heartless cold person to me. That is the difference between a bitch and a strong woman, a strong woman still has a heart and can care about others. I don't think Hilary cares about anything but herself.

I actually thought Bill was a good president. I didn't agree with everything he did but our economy was strong under him. Thats more than we can say now. But to me Bill is far more charismatic than his wife. I just don't see her as being as good a leader as him.

Swede

11-29-2007, 02:50 PM

Anyone watch the Republican debate last night?

I am not planning to vote Republican in the primaries, but I wanted to see what they were saying in any case. I'm still not impressed by any of them. A couple didn't really have any time to speak, so I can't say much about them.

Huckabee seems to at the least have his heart in the right place, but I disagree with him in terms of things like abortion rights, gay marriage, etc., and I'm not really into the fact that he's a minister. Religion+Politics= Bad

Romney seemed okay at first, but he just was skirting the issues way too much. In particular his inability to actually say "waterboarding is torture" got to me. And again, like pretty much all the candidates, I just disagree with a lot of their positions.

Giuliani just got trounced, especially early on. He was trying to accuse Romney of harboring illegal immigrants in his home because he hired a company to paint his house that may have employed them. Lots of little things, like the way in the beginning he was just disregarding Anderson Cooper saying they had to move on when he had been talking like 2 minutes over the initial response limit also pissed me off. And apparently the crowd as well, since he got booed like crazy.

Fred Thompson... what can I say. He looks like he's about to die, his 'campaign video' was just assaults on Romney and Huckabee, and the rest of his statements just went along with what everyone else was saying. Pretty unremarkable.

McCain.... I dunno about him. Some parts of him I like, such as how outspoken he is against torture. I also liked when he spoke against Ron Paul about things like avoiding isolationism and immediately pulling out of Iraq. Though he is still WAY too hawkish for me to vote for him.

Ron Paul... Oh, Ron Paul. You silly little man. He didn't have a whole lot of time to talk then, but I'm not for the fair tax, immediate troop removal, but most importantly to me I don't want the board of education eliminated.

I think ruaidhri said it perfectly earlier; "I believe in a strong government and I believe in taxes to pay for that government".

Paul just wants to put everything in control of states, which in my opinion isn't going to do anything but divide people even more at this point. Its about compromise, not just saying things like if a state wants to have gay marriage fine, but it doesn't have to be recognized in other states.

Overall, I thought Huckabee seemed like the most straightforward, and McCain seemed like he had the best handle on what the issues were, even though I disagreed with him on a lot of it. There's still no chance in hell I'm going to be voting republican come primaries though, and this debate certainly solidified that point for me.

stsparky

11-29-2007, 06:21 PM

And the Democrats are saints Sparky? You surely know better... I don't like the current GOP one bit, but I hardly think that the Democrats are something to be admired.
I'm not liking the lack of backbone I see.

I so want to see Bush impeached, Nancy Pelosi let me down day one (and I did let her know she did quite vocally). And then she snubbed Jane Harman's security work. I'd love to see creditable Greens and big "L" Libertarians work with the Democrats to give us good government.

We're going have to settle for a slightly less obviously corrupt bunch of clowns that should be easier to clean up.

I weep it is baby steps when we should talking giant strides towards the future.

Pierrot le Fou

11-29-2007, 10:15 PM

McCain in that debate came off as the eternal schmuck.

His discussion of 'isolationism' was total and complete garbage, and anyone with two ears and a brain heard what Paul said and understood how utterly misinformed McCain was, and how unafraid Paul was to point that out.

"I want to trade with other countries, be friendly with other countries, have good relations with other countries -- that isn't isolationist. It's obvious you don't understand that John doesn't understand the difference between isolationism and non-intervention."

Romney was a bore. He's a centrist 'say anything to get elected' sort of guy. However, he would probably have the best chance in the general election from the Republican side. He was, after all, elected by the Democrat-loving Massachusetts people for governor.

Oh, and FYI Swede, Ron Paul doesn't support the fair tax. He doesn't support ANY tax as far as I know. I don't know where you'd get the impression he does.

Ron Paul will lose, and that's a damned shame, but hopefully he'll make a big enough impact in Iowa or elsewhere, and keep the donations rolling in, to get a bigger voice on the national stage and make the other Republicans get their heads out of their big-spending asses and actually address fiscal conservatism as it used to be.

Jetsetlemming

11-29-2007, 10:55 PM

I'm not liking the lack of backbone I see.

I so want to see Bush impeached, Nancy Pelosi let me down day one (and I did let her know she did quite vocally). And then she snubbed Jane Harman's security work. I'd love to see creditable Greens and big "L" Libertarians work with the Democrats to give us good government.

We're going have to settle for a slightly less obviously corrupt bunch of clowns that should be easier to clean up.

I weep it is baby steps when we should talking giant strides towards the future.
How'd you manage to get so old, being that naive? :P

You should know the demcrats would NEVER EVER do anything in support of a third party to make them seem legitimate or bring them attention. They depend on the setup they've got with the republicans; only two parties and two candidates means that power will always stay in these interconnected groups.

As far as I'm concerned, the first step to disbanding the racket would be removing the "one candidate per party" restriction. Multiple republicans and democrats running in each election, not just the primaries, without anybody's party listed next to their name on the ballot. Individual members of a party tend to be so far apart from each other they might as well be seperate groups. Can you with a straight face claim that Ron Paul, George Bush, and Rudy Guiliani share a message? Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Barak Obama?

Swede

11-29-2007, 11:01 PM

My bad on that one, I got mixed up looking back in hindsight since McCain responded to the fair tax question, and that led to a response from Paul. Though the response was over the war in Iraq.

I heard what Paul was saying about "I want to make friends and trade" etc., etc. Believe me, I'm all for negotiating, and I think using the military should be the last option, but as for the situation we are in right now, just leaving isn't an option. We have to bring a responsible end to it and make sure Iraq is stable before we leave. I've always been against the war, but I recognize now that while yes, it wasn't a good thing for us to get involved with at all, its something we have to take care of.

As I said though, even if we aren't talking about any of that, I don't see how the privatization of the education system is a good thing. That's just so regressive in terms of where we've come in terms of opening up education to as many people as we have today. An education shouldn't just be some sort of commodity for people who can afford it.

As far as I'm concerned, the first step to disbanding the racket would be removing the "one candidate per party" restriction. Multiple republicans and democrats running in each election, not just the primaries, without anybody's party listed next to their name on the ballot. Individual members of a party tend to be so far apart from each other they might as well be seperate groups. Can you with a straight face claim that Ron Paul, George Bush, and Rudy Guiliani share a message? Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Barak Obama?

I really don't see that happening, because its more of a system of practicality than an actual restriction. If you have two members from a party running against one from the other, the one is going to win because the vote gets split. There used to be more parties a long time ago, but it just ended up coming down to this. I don't think its really the best solution, but I don't see what would bring about the change for it.

Masa the Masta

11-29-2007, 11:17 PM

The reason why third parties never make it is because once an issue pressed by a 3rd party becomes large enough that they get a significant amount of votes, one of the two major political parties will start to adopt that concept, thus the 3rd party becomes useless because then you now have the same choice but in a much stronger party.

If the environment becomes such a problem that voters put a lot of votes in like say, the Green party, then either the Democrats or the Republicans (hypothetically, chances are the democrats would absorb that ideology I think, as it stands, or it's more likely) would take that ideology and make it their own, then the people with those issues would vote for that party.

Pierrot le Fou

11-29-2007, 11:26 PM

I heard what Paul was saying about "I want to make friends and trade" etc., etc. Believe me, I'm all for negotiating, and I think using the military should be the last option, but as for the situation we are in right now, just leaving isn't an option. We have to bring a responsible end to it and make sure Iraq is stable before we leave. I've always been against the war, but I recognize now that while yes, it wasn't a good thing for us to get involved with at all, its something we have to take care of.
I really don't want to be a downer, but this is the exact same attitude that screwed us over in Vietnam.

The assumption by 99% of the candidates is that Iraq can be stabilized. What if it can't? We say we can't leave until it's stable, but what if it never is stable? What if it would take 20 years? 10 years? What cost is acceptable before we simply need to cut our losses?

Responsible is not going in where we don't belong. That's responsible. Now that we've gone in, trying to clean up the mess we made is only responsible if we have a clear way of doing it without causing more harm.

As I said though, even if we aren't talking about any of that, I don't see how the privatization of the education system is a good thing. That's just so regressive in terms of where we've come in terms of opening up education to as many people as we have today. An education shouldn't just be some sort of commodity for people who can afford it.
Privatizing education would make it cheaper and better. Public schools are a disaster. Private schools would not necessarily be perfect, but they'd cost less and provide more than the current schools do. Charitable organizations could pick up the slack where needed.

The thing is that we're pretending education is free now. It certainly isn't. While some people may pay less due to regressive taxation, those people are still paying, and they're suffering due to the quality of those schools. What's worse is that they don't have the money to take the choice.

You think that education isn't currently a commodity? Do you truly think the ambitious kid living in a poor urban area who goes to an inner city public school system followed by a community college is going to get the same education as a suburb kid who goes to prep schools before enrolling in a $40,000/year Ivy League school?

Education is a commodity, and always has been. By trying to pretend it doesn't follow market rules is to hamstring the education system, and make it worse than it is.

The reason that private schools are better is because they have to abide by market forces to be successful. A shitty public school will still receive funding. A shitty private school will go belly up.

I really don't see that happening, because its more of a system of practicality than an actual restriction. If you have two members from a party running against one from the other, the one is going to win because the vote gets split. There used to be more parties a long time ago, but it just ended up coming down to this. I don't think its really the best solution, but I don't see what would bring about the change for it.
The solution would be Instant Runoff Voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting). It would allow people to vote their conscience without feeling like they're throwing out their vote. It will never be passed though, because it would hurt the two major parties.

Swede

11-30-2007, 12:01 AM

Iraq is different from Vietnam in that Vietnam in the long run didn't matter. We were there to try and stop the domino effect that would lead to other countries in the region turning Communist. That didn't end up happening.

In Iraq, the entire region is already one of the least stable regions in the world. With our current dependence on the area as an energy source, the future of Iraq will actually effect us. That is the difference. Saddam was a horrible dictator, yes, but it was more stable then than it is now. Please stop trying to spin my words around by saying "Responsible is not going in where we don't belong". I never said, nor will I ever say, that the war in Iraq was justified. But Iraq is in worse condition now than it was before we went in, and something needs to be done about that. I don't have any direct answers on how to do it, but something needs to be done. Its not as simple as ANY of the candidates are making it out to be.

I think you may have nailed it on the head when you said "some people may have payed less due to tax regression". That's my problem. The privatization would be almost entirely for the benefit of the rich. Sure, a kid who, from the sounds of what you are saying goes to a private school his whole life will probably has a better chance at getting a better education. And the reason private schools are 'better' (I can honestly say that I feel the public high school I attended was better than one of the major private schools in my area) is because all they are more expensive. I am not saying that private schools should be banned. But saying that we should privatize the entire system is ridiculous.

The ambitious inner city kid you were talking about has the opportunity to go to some of those higher institutions if he or she does actually apply themselves. Is it harder than the path the other kid took? Sure it is. But the opportunity is there. Under the current system, education is seen as something that is a societal good, and something nobody should be denied. While I do think the system needs to be changed (the role of a teacher needs to be taken more seriously and the level of quality at schools needs to be more uniform), I don't think people should have to depend on charitable organizations in order to receive an education.

Pierrot le Fou

11-30-2007, 12:19 AM

You should look into some stats for inner city Catholic schools to show that it isn't only the rich who benefit.

As far as whether or not Iraq is better off or not, that's entirely debatable depending on how you view betterment. The one patent truth is that prior to sanctions being placed on Iraq during Bush #1's time in office, Iraq was a whole bunch better than it was prior to the current war, and post-war as well.

Does that mean we should try to return Iraq to the wealth and splendor it had in the mid-80's?

Swede

11-30-2007, 12:22 AM

I would say at the least its condition before we started the war would be a decent starting point, but that's just me.

Jetsetlemming

11-30-2007, 12:25 AM

Right now just about the only thing that can help Iraq would be the infinite power of nanoaugmentation.

Swede

11-30-2007, 12:28 AM

Right now just about the only thing that can help Iraq would be the infinite power of nanoaugmentation.

I agree. This thread has gotten too serious.

geesehoward4life

11-30-2007, 09:37 PM

I have really enjoyed reading the posts on this thread and I like the fact that people are speaking honestly. As far as me, I've been talking about who would you vote for, on the Lincoln University group forum. Many people have stated that Barak Obama being Black is not enough, which is why his support by Blacks is shaky. Hillary Clinton has far more support from the Black community than she deserves, since most of her husbands policies didn't cover the aspects that were essential to Black people, for all of his so-called chocolateyness. Everything he did was easily and essentially erased immediately upon his leaving the White House. In all honesty neither of these parties is helpful to what I believe is needed for what is going on within the Black community today.

A panel is now considering review and release of many of the Black criminals that got those ungodly high mandatory prison sentences during the late 80's/90's of the crack epidemic, but it's pointless to release them back into the Black community now. God knows what has happened to them after lightyears in prison, plus they were already there for getting caught with crack cocaine in the first place. Who's gonna hire them? Where the hell are they gonna stay or sleep at? It's already been stated that they don't even have enough halfway houses TO HOUSE all of these people if their reviews come back as approved and they get released.

Moving beyond that is the fact that anybody with two cents to rub together knew that invading Iraq was a dummy move and most Black Americans were pretty vocal about how idiotic it was. Never mind the White protestors we had here in Philadelphia who were clubbed like seals in Center City and called losers, etc, by many of Philadelphia's TV and radio personalities and talkshows. Who's the loser now? Government policies, politics, the politicians who love them and the corporations who fund them. Have become blatant now about what they'll do, when they'll do and how they'll do it, whether it makes sense or not. And you'd better LIKE IT! Or else...

Even Bush Sr had attempted to talk Taejo Emperor El Presidente for life Bush-o, out of invading. That didn't work either. My brother served in the first Gulf War and he asked me sittin here stateside what I thought and I told him that Iraq is held together by Saddam. You remove Saddam, the cookie crumbles and you have a mess that you simply can't clean up as an outsider. Never mind that we put HIM THERE, anyway. He's now been cycling through four or five tours in Iraq and he knew from day one when he arrived in Kuwait. We aren't here to do anything but set-up some kind of oil deal with whomever we shove into power here. It's no different than the failed attempt at bringing democracy to Iran. People have short memories in this country, for good reason.

I can't remember who, but someone stated that with sanctions, Iran will fold. No. We had our chance to puppeteer Iran and we blew it, as usual. It needs to be remembered that this country, America ISN'T that old. We may have money, manpower, whatever, but we don't have experience in the areas of successfully pulling off foreign affairs without having to blow someone, somewhere, UP! And when we do, such as with Afghanistan against the Soviets, we don't honor our word once its over. So we got them money, munitions, training, etc. And it needs to be remembered that other Muslim nations contributed with money, manpower and their lives as well. But when the Soviets decided to burn and destroy everything during their withdrawal. The US gradually faded away from Afghanistan and left them to fend for themselves. Eventually the Taliban won the Civil War, so screwing people over, abandoning non-American allies, is par for the course, not the exception to the rule.

As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). In order to bolster the local Communist forces, the Soviet Union—citing the 1978 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness that had been signed between the two countries—intervened on December 24, 1979. Over 100,000 Soviet troops took part in the invasion, who were backed by another 100,000 and plus pro-communist forces of Afghanistan. The Soviet occupation resulted in the killings of at least 600,000 to 2 million Afghan civilians. Over five million Afghans fled their country to Pakistan, Iran and other parts of the world. Faced with mounting international pressure and great number of casualties on both sides, the Soviets withdrew in 1989.

The Soviet withdrawal from the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was seen as an ideological victory in the US, which had backed the Mujahideen through three US presidential administrations in order to counter Soviet influence in the vicinity of the oil-rich Persian Gulf.

Soviet troops withdrawing from Afghanistan in 1988. Following the removal of the Soviet forces, the US and its allies lost interest in Afghanistan and did little to help rebuild the war-ravaged country or influence events there. The USSR continued to support President Najibullah (former head of the Afghan secret service, KHAD) until 1992 when new Russian government refused to sell oil products to Najibullah regime.

The result of the fighting was that the vast majority of the elites and intellectuals had escaped to take refuge abroad, a dangerous leadership vacuum thereby coming into existence. Fighting continued among the victorious Mujahideen factions, eventually giving rise to a state of warlordism. The most serious fighting during this period occurred in 1994, when over 10,000 people were killed in Kabul alone. The chaos and corruption that dominated post-Soviet Afghanistan in turn spawned the rise of the Taliban. The Taliban developed as a politico-religious force, and eventually seized Kabul in 1996. By the end of 2000 the Taliban were able to capture 95% of the country, aside from the opposition (Afghan Northern Alliance) strongholds primarily found in the northeast corner of Badakhshan Province. The Taliban sought to impose a very strict interpretation of Islamic law.

During the Taliban's seven-year rule, much of the population experienced restrictions on their freedom and violations of their human rights. Women were banned from jobs, girls forbidden to attend schools or universities. Those who resisted were punished instantly. Communists were systematically eradicated and thieves were punished by amputating one of their hands or feet. Meanwhile, the Taliban managed to nearly eradicate the majority of the opium production by 2001.

So here we are in 2007 and Afghanistan is once again a gigantic opium producing pagoda. Meanwhile, if the work would have been done once the Soviets pulled out, then we'd be looking at a totally different country. Personally, I see Japan as no different and also par for the course when it comes to America wanting to impose itself or tinker and tamper with others lives, then when it comes time to put forth the honest effort of teaching what you're trying to impose? Ahhhhh, I'm too busy now! This bores me! I got something else ta do, LATER! So... you get what you pay for. And keep in mind that people in these regions, in these countries, they talk to each other the same way we talk to one another. Word gets out that so-and-so just likes to use you and then roll with your wallet when they're done havin their kicks.

So any president that comes up now is in for one helluva cluster-fuck clean-up on aisle's 3, 4, 5 and 10! Plus the Men's bathroom! Meanwhile the level of violence domestically is just blowing through the goddamn roof. More and more shootings or attacks on college campuses, people are just shoot first and forget later! I haven't heard a soul address the fact that people's attitudes in this country is like someone is constantly pissin in their cheerios and they're fixin to take it out on anybody who even looks at'em funny. Public Education is crap because we allow it to be crap. Public Education is NOT going anywhere, no matter how anyone thinks it should be gotten rid of, changed, microwaved or tossed into, the Bad Place.

Roxie

12-08-2007, 03:59 PM

From feministing (http://feministing.com/archives/008212.html#comments)

In an interview with GQ, (http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_6238&pageNum=3) Mike Huckabee claims that gay marriage would lead to the demise of civilization. That, any society that has changed the rules of marriage, has not survived.

I don’t think the issue’s about being against gay marriage. It’s about being for traditional marriage and articulating the reason that’s important. You have to have a basic family structure. There’s never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived. So there is a sense in which, you know, it’s one thing to say if people want to live a different way, that’s their business. But when you want to redefine what family means or what marriage means, then that’s an issue that should require some serious and significant debate in the public square. And if you look at states that have had it on the ballot—I know in our state it was a 70-percent-against issue. Most states are similar to that.

I see some examples of when marriage laws were changed, a society or civilization crumbled. Beyond the fact that many, many, many societies have changed marriage laws and traditions, including our own when we overturned anti-miscegenation laws, civilizations have not been destroyed. Devilstower at Kos makes the point that (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/6/12739/4633/378/418636),

The truth is that every society rewrites the rules of marriage and family. That's what happens to all our social values as they respond to changes in how we live, what we know, and our available resources. Yes, friction occurs when the boundaries of a social convention no longer match those of a society in which it's embedded, but the societies that survive are exactly those which demonstrate the flexibility to change and adapt.

And

Huckabee pushed (http://feministing.com/archives/008199.html)for release of serial rapist (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/04/documents-expose-huckabee_n_75362.html)

stsparky

12-08-2007, 05:09 PM

Huckabee believes in stuff that makes him appear to be a nutter.

japanat

12-09-2007, 02:50 PM

As far as I'm concerned, the first step to disbanding the racket would be removing the "one candidate per party" restriction. Multiple republicans and democrats running in each election, not just the primaries, without anybody's party listed next to their name on the ballot. Individual members of a party tend to be so far apart from each other they might as well be seperate groups.Nice idea, but the parties would then police themselves, maintaining one candidate so as not to split their vote.

stsparky

12-13-2007, 05:34 PM

Iowa is freezing Dennis (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/13/kucinich-fumes-over-exclu_n_76643.html) out of the debate. What a shock.

Kucinich complains about Iowa debate exclusion after refusing to debate district opponents (http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/12/kucinich_complains_about_iowa.html)

Posted by Sabrina Eaton December 13, 2007 06:24AM
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/4364/thumbs/s-KUCINICH-FUMING-large.jpg
Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, who routinely refuses to debate challengers in his Cleveland-area congressional races, is fuming over his exclusion from this afternoon's debate for Democratic presidential candidates in Iowa.

The Des Moines Register newspaper, which is hosting the debate, says Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel didn't meet its criteria for participation.

"Neither Dennis Kucinich nor Mike Gravel had a campaign office in Iowa by the Oct. 1 deadline, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission," the newspaper said in a statement on its Web site. "Gravel also did not have any paid staff in the state by the deadline."

Kucinich's campaign complained the Cleveland congressman is being discriminated against because his Iowa field director, Marcos Rubinstein, works from a home office in Dubuque rather than a rented storefront. The campaign added that Rubinstein's efforts have been "bolstered by a dozen-or-so senior campaign staff who have traveled the state over the past several months."

"The Iowa caucuses have been portrayed as having national implications, and if the Register has decided to use hair-splitting technicalities to exclude the leading voice of the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, then the entire process is suspect," according to a statement from the Kucinich campaign. The Iowa Democratic Party, Iowa Public Television, and well-funded political interests have barred Kucinich from previous public appearances. "The Des Moines Register's arbitrary and unreasonable exclusion of Congressman Kucinich is consistent with the treatment that the Congressman has received from the entrenched political and institutional interests in Iowa."

Kucinich has refused for years to debate his primary and general election opponents in Ohio.

This time around, one of the four candidates seeking Kucinich's seat in the 2008 Democratic congressional primary, anti-war activist Rosemary Palmer, has repeatedly challenged him to debates. Kucinich has ignored her requests.

"Kucinich, no stranger to debate challenges, has issued a number of statements lamenting his exclusion from the limelight of the presidential campaign," Palmer said in a press release. "Following reports that his presidential primary opponents were conspiring to limit his exposure at debate appearances, Mr. Kucinich was quoted as saying "Imperial candidates are as repugnant to the American people and to our democracy as an imperial president." In light of her newly issued challenge, Palmer countered, "Now that this challenge has been issued, we shall soon know if we have an imperial and repugnant Congressman".

The debate between Democrats Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson starts at 2 PM. It will be broadcast live on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel and C-SPAN 3. It will also be carried by XM Radio POTUS Channel 150, C-SPAN Radio and Fox News Radio, and can be seen via live web cast at DesMoinesRegister.com.

Plekto

12-13-2007, 08:50 PM

Still, I can see why. I would make a 5% limit myself. Otherwise all he does is make noise and take up time from the real candidates.

(he has a whopping 1-2% in polls)

Pierrot le Fou

12-13-2007, 11:35 PM

Still, I can see why. I would make a 5% limit myself. Otherwise all he does is make noise and take up time from the real candidates.

(he has a whopping 1-2% in polls)
That is utterly absurd. You're saying that we should exclude ideas and voices based on polling numbers for the moment?

Sweet Jesus!

What should really happen is that the Goddamned media should let the campaigns speak for themselves, and let people decide based on what the candidates said, rather than on who the media says is the front-runner all the time.

Bear in mind I'd never vote for Kuchnich, I just feel that the way things are working now is bunkus.

Plekto

12-14-2007, 12:24 AM

What it is is "Here is the DNC's approved slate of potential candidates in a discussion" If his party says "sorry - you're out...", well he's out. That's part of what happens when you sell your soul to one of the two main parties.

Their own forum and their own candidates. It's *already* a bunch of B.S. at this point. Such are primaries.

If he was an independent or from another party and was getting nerfed, I'd be upset. But if his own party doesn't think he has a chance... Well, I don't have a say in what they decide. They technically could ignore the votes of the primaries and do their own thing.(which has happened actually)

Shuft

12-14-2007, 06:28 AM

...If he was an independent or from another party and was getting nerfed, I'd be upset...
They don't let independents in the debates anymore ever since Ross Perot. The debates used to be run by the League of Women Voters since they are fairly non-partisan. Unfortunately they withdrew their sponsorship because they didn't like the rules the 2 major parties drew up. Now it is run by the Commission on Presidential Debates (a group run by the 2 main parties). So they'll let in 3rd party candidates when hell freezes over.

Trump

12-17-2007, 01:59 PM

You are missing the point. The debate was for democratic candidates, run by the democratic party. It has absolutely nothing to do with third parties.

Also, polling is so much influenced by stupid media advertisements, making that a factor in who gets to debate is just retarded and would turn it into an advertising circus.

ruaidhri

12-17-2007, 02:59 PM

Pierrot le Fou

12-18-2007, 12:29 AM

Ron Paul would destroy anyone if he made it to the national election. Unfortunately he probably won't. He'll likely get my vote anyway (if I don't decide to vote libertarian).

stsparky

12-18-2007, 02:30 AM

Who is the most pathetic GOP candidate? And Democratic one?

Thanks.

Swede

12-18-2007, 02:43 AM

Ron Paul would destroy anyone if he made it to the national election.

Why do you think that? I'll keep my opinion to myself for now, I'm just curious what makes you think that aside from the fact that he has your support.

Pierrot le Fou

12-18-2007, 03:24 AM

Because he'd be running on the Republican ticket, and would most likely garner almost all conservative votes, plus he'd sap a lot of supporters from the Democrats, because young people (who generally vote Democrat because they're dumb and don't know any better) flock toward Ron Paul because he's different (and they don't know any better).

That's my theory at least, and I'm sticking to it. White men would vote for him, and that means a whole hell of a lot, like it or not, when it comes to US politics.

Fermented Yeast Paste

12-18-2007, 03:29 AM

I have a question: Who from each party do you believe has the best chance of winning the general election where the independent and undecided voters often tip the scale? Also, aside from gender, race or religion, what chance would you give a candidate from Massachusetts, New York, or Illinois? Further, do you believe the different gender, race or religion of a Northern candidate makes them more or less electable.

Personally, I fear both parties often nominate candidates that are more acceptable to the party faithful than the general electorate. Obviously, intelligence, leadership ability and experience pale in comparison to image in both primary and general elections. I support Edwards for the Democratic nomination. However, he is not my first choice, just the most "electable". If Edwards were way ahead in the primary polls, I'd vote for my true favorite, but he isn't. So once again I'm not supporting my true favorite, only the most "electable"

For the general election on the Democratic side, I'd say Obama. He's an excellent speaker and can make himself appeal to many moderates that aren't Democrat, especially with the current Republican choices. He has some stances I disagree with, but on the whole I think he would have the best shot if he were to be the Democratic nominee in the general election. He could make himself even more electable by choosing a running mate with experience and from the South or Midwest.

The most pathetic of the Democratic candidates, as of right now, is Hillary I'd say. She's gotten extremely desperate with her campaign as of late and it really is quite pathetic. Her standing in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina has fallen, but with her recent DMR endorsement my hopes of Obama winning Iowa are quickly diminishing.

who generally vote Democrat because they're dumb and don't know any better

I generally vote Democratic and I consider myself smart and informed. Are you implying those that generally vote Republican are any better?

Swede

12-18-2007, 03:31 AM

young people flock toward Ron Paul because he's different (and they don't know any better).

I agree.

I still don't think he would be able to win though, he hasn't been too terribly successful as a politician in the past, and skill as a politician can have a big impact on elections. I personally kind of see him as a novelty act right now; he's going against the status quo, for sure, but that doesn't automatically mean its a good thing.

Pierrot le Fou

12-18-2007, 03:46 AM

I don't think he has a chance to win the primary, because he's not what a majority of Republicans want.

Unfortunately, the fiscally conservative Republican party of the 70's and 80's gave way to the religious right and socially conservative spendthrifts of today. As a result, people are more focused on Ron Paul's stance on social issues than his message of returning to true fiscal conservatism as God (or the founding fathers perhaps?) intended.

I don't think Ron Paul himself is a very effective politician, I just like the message. And lots of people like me like that message. And hopefully other members of BOTH parties listen to the message and start changing their damned speeches to reflect the shift in voters interest much like Ross Perot was able to do in '92.

Ron Paul has the best message of any candidate out there bar none. He doesn't mince words or try to appeal to demographics with sound bytes, he just speaks. It's unfortunate that people respond more to Obama making ethanol pledges because he wants to win Iowa, thinking that it's of substance (it isn't -- subsidizing an inefficient fuel source because it will make the average Iowan richer is absolutely absurd), rather than seeing it as the vote-garnering pork it is.

Politicians suck. Ron Paul is the least evil, because he's a politician who wants to undo/not do, rather than muck up the damned system more.

MNJetter

12-18-2007, 06:45 AM

If you watch her [Clinton] during debates she has flat out just cut off people a few times and generally tries to make her self look tough and its just not working for me.
You know, I based a vote off an opinion like that once. Saw two candidates in a debate. One of them, while he didn't have a lot to say, was at least respectful of the rules and kept his debates fairly free of personal jabs. The other one laughed at his opponant's answers, interrupted, took too much time, and was a general dick when it came to etiquette in what was supposed to be an adult discussion.

....I have since had 7 long years to regret voting for our current president.

Don't vote for or against people because of their personalities. Debates bring out the worst in everybody. If they have the charisma to pass the primaries, they can probably hold a civil conversation with a foreign leader after the election craze is over. Vote for them because of issues you care about.

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

12-18-2007, 11:03 PM

Oh for the love of God, just shut the hell up!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071218/ap_po/huckabee_christmas_ad

Politically correct jackasses.

I'm starting to grow on Huckabee as a person, but I still don't think he'll be a good president.

Y.T.

12-19-2007, 10:03 PM

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11142007.html

From Nixon Girl to Watergate
The Making of Hillary Clinton

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
and JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

First in a three-part series.

Hillary Clinton has always been an old-style Midwestern Republican in the Illinois style; one severely infected with Methodism, unlike the more populist variants from Indiana, Wisconsin and Iowa.

Her first known political enterprise was in the 1960 presidential election, the squeaker where the state of Illinois notoriously put Kennedy over the top, courtesy of Mayor Daley, Sam Giancana and Judith Exner. Hillary was a Nixon supporter. She took it on herself to probe allegations of vote fraud. From the leafy middle-class suburbs of Chicago's west side, she journeyed to the tenements of the south side, a voter list in her hand. She went to an address recorded as the domicile of hundreds of Democratic voters and duly found an empty lot. She rushed back to campaign headquarters, agog with her discovery, only to be told that Nixon was throwing in the towel.

Mightily interesting...

Don't vote for or against people because of their personalities. Debates bring out the worst in everybody. If they have the charisma to pass the primaries, they can probably hold a civil conversation with a foreign leader after the election craze is over. Vote for them because of issues you care about.

But how to vote if there is no good choice ? Eh ? And what if both of them can be counted on to do the right things to pay back their backers?

Roxie

12-27-2007, 08:14 PM

I think I posted this in another thread, but anyway Ron Paul hates black people. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/15/124912/740)

Jetsetlemming

12-27-2007, 08:21 PM

I think I posted this in another thread, but anyway Ron Paul hates black people. (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/15/124912/740)
Bullshit and whatnot. I'm going to have to assume from your presumption that you just read the bold parts and assumed everything was true, then.

Roxie

12-27-2007, 08:50 PM

I was being a bit cheeky with the title, but are the bold parts not enough for you? I have actually read the whole article before. I suggest you not be an ass and do the same. He's hardly loving.

Jetsetlemming

12-27-2007, 09:54 PM

Neither is Bill Cosby. Either way, the intro to the article explicitly lays out that the article source is hardly trustworthy, and there's not the slightest proof that any of it was really written by Paul.
So no. The bold parts are not enough for me. Hell, even if it was true, it would be enough for me not to like him personally, but not enough to not like him politically. That's like saying Clinton was a bad politician for adultery, or vegetarianism is bad because Hitler practiced it.

Roxie

12-27-2007, 10:35 PM

lol, whut? Those examples are hardly analogous!
"hard to find" and "secondary sources" is not = "hardly trustworthy"

The Report only had about 7,000 subscribers, and Paul has—unsurprisingly—refused to release copies to the media. Lexis/Nexis is of no help, as the obscure publication largely escaped the notice of major media publications during Paul's hiatus from electoral politics. What remains to us today comes almost entirely from secondary sources, such as quasi-samizdat publications and contemporaneous Usenet postings from sources like Google Groups. These few fragments of a much larger body of work—almost all of which have been preserved by Paul's supporters, not his opponents—

Being racist isn't enough for you to dislike someone politically? What does it take?!
You know what, forget it. NO need to answer that.

Pierrot le Fou

12-28-2007, 12:16 AM

This reminds me of the time that I pulled out the numbers that black people proportionally commit more crimes than white folk do, and you jumped on me for being racist despite the fact that it's a fucking truism.

Calling someone racist for taking a position grounded in verifiable unbiased fact is absolutely absurd.

Furthermore, that article is biased nonsense: "And the November 1, 1996 issue of the alt-weekly Austin Chronicle offered some additional gems from Paul's oeuvre, including his thoughts about his former House colleague, the legendary Barbara Jordan (D-TX):"

Legendary, eh? Give me a break.

I'm sure whatever candidate you support would likely be just as racist were they dropped in the middle of black LA in the early 90's as well. But we can all pretend that it was hunky dory, and there was no problem with crime.

MEGA SATAN 3000

12-28-2007, 03:47 AM

Also, if you actually look at the context of what he's saying, it's not "dem nigras is apes doncha know", it's that he thinks that entitlement programs/the welfare state have had a strong influence on black culture, leading to things like crime. He articulated it poorly, but it's not a racist message.

Pierrot le Fou

12-28-2007, 03:51 AM

He probably articulated it well -- it was a 3700 word essay! Chances are that only the worst bits were pulled out to make it sound bad and taken out of a greater context.

sOkU

12-28-2007, 03:58 AM

"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

IF he said that, it sounds pretty racist to me.

MNJetter

12-28-2007, 06:20 AM

It sounds more like a nonsensical jump in logic to me. 5% of black people have sensible political opinions, based on his opinion of what a sensible political opinion is, and therefore the other 95% are criminal? What about the white people who don't share his political views? Are they criminal too? The implications of considering political dissent to be a sign of criminal tendancies worries me more than the implications of possible racism. :P

Pierrot le Fou

12-28-2007, 06:37 AM

Shuft

12-28-2007, 09:19 AM

I don't think Ron Paul has sensible political opinions. We can safely assume he is a criminal.

One of the things I like about fringe candidates (yes I'm calling Ron Paul a fringe candidate. If he wins, I promise to run naked through the streets apologizing), is that they speak their mind without worrying to much about the little pieces that people can pick out of it without regard for context. I wish all politicians could do that.

Also, I don't feel it is all that fair to judge him without reading the entire context. On the other hand, I'm not reading a 3700 word essay just for the sake of internet discourse.

Beowulf

12-28-2007, 02:59 PM

It's a part of a 3700 word essay! That's along the lines of a 15 page paper, and we only saw about 200 words of it. You're ready to jump to conclusions on the basis of 200 words allegedly transcribed by a white supremacist posted on the internet?

Mind boggling.
So the fact that he has about $315 in campaign disbursements at the same restaurant frequented every thursday by Bill White and his Nazi supporters means nothing too right?

It sounds more like a nonsensical jump in logic to me. 5% of black people have sensible political opinions, based on his opinion of what a sensible political opinion is, and therefore the other 95% are criminal? What about the white people who don't share his political views? Are they criminal too? The implications of considering political dissent to be a sign of criminal tendancies worries me more than the implications of possible racism.
It's not so much political dissent so much as it is rather blatant racism.

Also, if you actually look at the context of what he's saying, it's not "dem nigras is apes doncha know", it's that he thinks that entitlement programs/the welfare state have had a strong influence on black culture, leading to things like crime. He articulated it poorly, but it's not a racist message.
lolk

Roxie

12-29-2007, 10:42 AM

Ah, my link also links to the essay. So you all can go read it.

Pierrot le Fou

12-29-2007, 05:24 PM

And did you bother to read it Roxie?
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,
individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know
many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as
representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,
however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence,
reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center
also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before
they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their
lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal
justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
The part in bold was NOT included in your wonderful quote. Do you truly think the quote you presented accurately represents what Ron Paul wrote?

The entire article focuses not on black people being evil, but that a culture of entitlement and disrespect is. Perhaps you should have read it?

Roxie

12-29-2007, 06:45 PM

Unfortunately that part in bold still doesn't take away from him saying

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5%
of blacks have sensible political opinions and I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

And I would never suggest Kos was unbiased. Nor did I make an attempt to. So, I'm not going to argue a point I never made nor intended to make.

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

12-29-2007, 11:14 PM

I wish someone, at some point, would ask him to clarify what Ron Paul meant when there is a debate going on.

What kind of gets me is that I've watched CNN, Fox News, and that wonderful thing with Katie Couric (or however you spell her name). The thing is that they talk to every candidate out there. They even focus on Mitt Romney who has a chance in hell being President due to the fact that he is Mormon. Know why? Because that's just how America is. Not only are we not going to have very many people vote, but the majority of voters happen to biased on personal beliefs.

Anyway, I digress. The point I am making is that you don't hear anyone talk about Ron Paul. There is a big focus on the main headliners and that's it. The only time you hear anyone talk about Ron Paul is in a passing news story. The tone of the stories are even pressed to, "Holy shit can you believe this guy has supporters." to my favorite, "Holy shit can you believe this guy raised a whole lot of money?"

Like it or not Ron Paul doesn't try to run off of the emotions of his party or the American people. He's the only candidate I've seen (aside from McCain, but he's smug about it) that speaks his mind and is straightforward about what he wants for America.

Still there is little focus on this guy. I mean, recently I talked to my Dad about the Presidency and he didn't even know he was running for President.

Unbiased news is bullshit.

Roxie

12-30-2007, 12:18 AM

maybe it's the shows I watch and news I listen to...but he was on The Daily Show and I believe "Real Time with Bill Maher"

Agreed, there is no unbiased news. The closest I think I've heard/read is NPR. Oh also, I only used the KOS link b/c it was the only one (seemingly) that linked directly to the article. I actually went from blog to blog to blog till I got there.

Jetsetlemming

12-30-2007, 12:53 AM

Agreed, there is no unbiased news. The closest I think I've heard/read is NPR.
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Fermented Yeast Paste

12-30-2007, 01:05 AM

NPR isn't unbiased, but it's certainly one of the better sources of news out there, compared to the crap you get on TV here. It depends what you're looking for; the Christian Science Monitor has great Middle Eastern coverage in my opinion, for example. Though I generally just read the local newspaper here and the LA Times.

Roxie

12-30-2007, 01:16 AM

NPR isn't unbiased, but it's certainly one of the better sources of news out there, compared to the crap you get on TV here.
Exactly what I meant, if it wasn't clear enough.

Beowulf

12-30-2007, 01:32 AM

Still there is little focus on this guy. I mean, recently I talked to my Dad about the Presidency and he didn't even know he was running for President.

Unbiased news is bullshit.
There's no focus on him because he has the support of about 5% of the country. He's a non-factor so he isn't covered.

Edit: Good compilation of racist Ron Paul sources. (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/71834/)

Pierrot le Fou

12-30-2007, 03:26 AM

Unfortunately that part in bold still doesn't take away from him saying

and

And I would never suggest Kos was unbiased. Nor did I make an attempt to. So, I'm not going to argue a point I never made nor intended to make.
The part in bold DOES take away from it. He cited a statistic that 85% of black males in the DC area will be arrested in their lifetime. He said 95% because he believes the DC justice system is incompetent. He is not simply making up the 95% figure -- he's extrapolating from the 85% one.

You are willfully ignoring what he wrote in favor of painting him a racist. How quaint.

As far as the sensible political opinions, you really think that's racist? If so, you're daft. He's saying 95% of blacks vote for big wasteful government. That isn't sensible in his opinion. Would it have made you feel better if he wrote, "95% of blacks vote for wasteful government programs"? Because they're really interchangeable.

Pierrot le Fou

12-30-2007, 03:29 AM

There's no focus on him because he has the support of about 5% of the country. He's a non-factor so he isn't covered.

Edit: Good compilation of racist Ron Paul sources. (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/71834/)
He's a non-factor? That's why liberals are scrambling to paint the guy as a bigot? Sure.

More likely they're scared shitless that were he to actually make it past the primaries, he'd wipe the floor with any Democratic candidate, so they're trying to sabotage any chances he had before they grow.

Real cute.

Swede

12-30-2007, 03:32 AM

lol

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

12-30-2007, 03:47 AM

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

12-30-2007, 03:50 AM

Oh yeah. Non-factor.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9a/BostonAir2.jpg

Oh: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/21/eveningnews/main3640041.shtml

sOkU

12-30-2007, 06:00 AM

There's no reason to "paint" Ron Paul as a bigot, he does that quite well on his own.

Beowulf

12-30-2007, 07:34 AM

Oh wow, a blimp. So the fuck what?

The part in bold DOES take away from it. He cited a statistic that 85% of black males in the DC area will be arrested in their lifetime. He said 95% because he believes the DC justice system is incompetent. He is not simply making up the 95% figure -- he's extrapolating from the 85% one.

You are willfully ignoring what he wrote in favor of painting him a racist. How quaint.

As far as the sensible political opinions, you really think that's racist? If so, you're daft. He's saying 95% of blacks vote for big wasteful government. That isn't sensible in his opinion. Would it have made you feel better if he wrote, "95% of blacks vote for wasteful government programs"? Because they're really interchangeable.
Actually the part you bolded still sounds pretty racist...

Roxie

12-30-2007, 12:44 PM

The part in bold DOES take away from it. He cited a statistic that 85% of black males in the DC area will be arrested in their lifetime. He said 95% because he believes the DC justice system is incompetent. He is not simply making up the 95% figure -- he's extrapolating from the 85% one.

You are willfully ignoring what he wrote in favor of painting him a racist. How quaint.

As far as the sensible political opinions, you really think that's racist? If so, you're daft. He's saying 95% of blacks vote for big wasteful government. That isn't sensible in his opinion. Would it have made you feel better if he wrote, "95% of blacks vote for wasteful government programs"? Because they're really interchangeable.
I'm not "willifully ingoring" that he finds a few blacks to be good and sensible blacks. He can say all the swell things he wants to say about those 5%, but that does not make the statements surrounding that portion dissappear! In fact, it just makes him sound more racist, if that's possible.

I'm not painting him at all. He wrote the words, not me. I'm not even so much as pinching them. It's pretty clear on it's face. I really don't know how you can defend it.

japanat

12-30-2007, 04:10 PM

I don't know much about Ron Paul, but the statistics quoted in that article have been around for a long time, compiled by the DC Police Department and the Department of Social Services, among others. There is a blog by an ex-DC police-beat reporter, fredoneverything.net, which paints the same picture, albeit with a definite conservative slant.

I wouldn't call this particular statistic racist so much as a condemnation of social services, the welfare system and drug culture in the DC area. Don't forget that DC was the murder capital of the US in the '80s and early '90s, and has one of the highest drug-related crime rates in the country. Hell, the damn mayor was arrested for crack possession and use, and re-elected after he got out of jail...

stsparky

12-30-2007, 05:11 PM

I think I'll re-register as a Republican for the primaries - looking at this I suspect I'd vote for Alan Keyes as I think his cause is more lost than Ron Paul.

Presidential Candidates (http://votesmart.org/election_president.php?dist=bio.php)

The personality race between Obama and Clinton bothers me, while he appears to be an agent of Change - I get the whiff of "Jimmy Carter" from him. And I trust Edwards more than Clinton ...

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

12-30-2007, 05:30 PM

Ron Paul:

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.”

I think I'll have to admit that what he said was either taken out of context or saterical. Either way his statistics DOES compare to the national average that 1 in 3 black males will go to prison sometime in their life. I think his mistake really was making overtly broad claims around that time.

Still, I don't think Ron Paul is racist at all. Anyone who does just needs to look at the bigger picture.

Beowulf

12-30-2007, 10:06 PM

Still, I don't think Ron Paul is racist at all. Anyone who does just needs to look at the bigger picture.
What about the fact that he meets with Nazi's on a regular basis?

Plekto

12-30-2007, 10:17 PM

Well, as distasteful as that may be, they are Americans and free to believe what they want. Politicians reach out towards (in his case conservative) voters as much as they can, because a vote is still a vote, even if they don't personally like the group in question. Plus, a lot of those groups are mostly in it not because of racist issues but because they are fed up with the status quo and looking for an outlet(same as those survivalist nuts).

Note - the Nazis merely used minorities as a tool to focus their inner angst at the overall situation(though to awful means to be sure) - but if there were no Jews in Europe at the time, they would have surely targeted another group. That is, it's a social thing, much like how a lot of people blame illegal immigrants for our problems in California.

THis isn't to say that they are acceptable in any way in my book, merely that there are a lot of these types of groups in his home state and he's really not in a position to throw away potential votes. You gotta do what you gotta do as a politician. It's one of the downsides of the process.

ie - They may be your enemy, but if they vote for you instead of your opponent, it's more of an "enemy of my enemy" thing than let's be best friends.

EDIT - this is why Politics is such a nasty thing that eats your soul. You have to be friends with everyone who you meet or you don't have a job.

Swede

12-30-2007, 10:21 PM

Maybe its just me, I suppose I just don't like the idea of a president's constituents being Nazis...

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

12-30-2007, 10:28 PM

What about the fact that he meets with Nazi's on a regular basis?

Proof? Oh WAIT! I have some that says your wrong.

Okay, I looked it up myself and it turned out that you got sucked into something and believed it on first shot.

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2007/12/20/tara-thai-ron-paul-and-white-supremacists-fec-report-data/ (It said that the meetings may have happened, but there is no proof)

Then someone running the meetings:
"I ran those dinners -- Ron Paul was never there ... nor did we run some sort of neo-nazi meeting: we had academics and activists of national repute. In the audience were people who work in gov't, businessmen, and grass roots types too. If Bill White ever came to the meetings, he didn't use his real name -- he doesn't even get the name of the restaurant correctly. White is so obviously playing the media -- anyone on the right does not pay one moment's notice to him, but the media is always on the lookout for kooks like him." -Peter Gemma

sOkU

12-30-2007, 11:00 PM

MEGA SATAN 3000

12-30-2007, 11:33 PM

So. . .because some other guy is racist, that means Paul is racist.

Okay, got it.

Swede

12-31-2007, 12:09 AM

No, because he accepts money from one of the biggest racists in the country without returning or donating the money makes him, if not racist, in the same league.

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

12-31-2007, 12:28 AM

Right. That's why he get support from David Duke, right?

http://www.whitecivilrights.com/is-ron-paul-the-one_818.html

Oh yeah, and money from Don Black. That he didn't return or donate.

http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/25/rpb1/

Wahhh he's supported by someone who he doesn't associate with yet and he hasn't jumped on returning the money because I bet he doesn't even know he has it.

Beowulf

12-31-2007, 01:07 AM

Wahhh he's supported by someone who he doesn't associate with yet and he hasn't jumped on returning the money because I bet he doesn't even know he has it.
You will just say anything to prove Paul isn't a racist. Accept the facts in front of your face. The fact that the David Duke donations were publicized all over the press and internet would mean that Paul is either a racist, blind, or retarded. Take your pick.

Jetsetlemming

12-31-2007, 01:29 AM

You will just say anything to prove Paul isn't a racist. Accept the facts in front of your face. The fact that the David Duke donations were publicized all over the press and internet would mean that Paul is either a racist, blind, or retarded. Take your pick.
You'll just say anything to prove Paul is a racist. Accept the face in front of your face. The fact that most politicians have their campaign finances and donations handled by staff rather than personally, and neither you or anyone else is entitled to demand they give up money just because you don't like where it came from when money is the very bottom line when it comes to running a campaign makes you either biased, blind, or retarded. Take your pick.

Seriously, is that what your argument boils down to? "You're just proving me wrong because you LIKE HIM! WAAAA!"? Find some real proof of guilt and quit grasping at stupid, easily proven wrong straws.

MEGA SATAN 3000

12-31-2007, 03:19 AM

No, because he accepts money from one of the biggest racists in the country without returning or donating the money makes him, if not racist, in the same league.

How so?

Roxie

12-31-2007, 03:58 AM

More stuff on Ron Paul (http://www.realchange.org/ronpaul.htm) from The Skeleton Closet, which claims on its homepage (http://www.realchange.org/)that they have

All the Dirt on All the Candidates for President
--Since 1995--
Because character DOES matter.

You've come to the right place for dirt, attitude and
opinionated character reviews of all the presidential candidates.

the website is sponsored by http://www.realchange.org/rpfrc.htm

A video of Ron Paul at first saying he doesn't mind taking white supremacist money (cause he's going to do good with it), but then saying he does not want white supremacist money. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9Er4FHgvZo)

Beowulf

12-31-2007, 08:10 AM

Seriously, is that what your argument boils down to? "You're just proving me wrong because you LIKE HIM! WAAAA!"? Find some real proof of guilt and quit grasping at stupid, easily proven wrong straws.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - Ron Paul, 1992
Are you blind, stupid, or retarded? Take your pick.

Shuft

12-31-2007, 11:06 AM

lol @ posters claiming 95% of black males are criminal is a realistic statistic

Beowulf

12-31-2007, 12:26 PM

lol @ posters claiming 95% of black males are criminal is a realistic statistic
It is because Ron Paul said so.

Swede

12-31-2007, 05:14 PM

neither you or anyone else is entitled to demand they give up money just because you don't like where it came from

You know what people can do though? Vote for a different candidate. And that's what the campaign is trying to achieve, no? Isn't the entire purpose to receive votes? You think that $500 is going to negate the damage that is caused to your campaign when you accept that money and allow yourself to be publicly associated with one of the most bigoted, racist men in the country?

stsparky

12-31-2007, 06:02 PM

I think voting for Keyes will send the right message to the GOP. Voting for Ron Paul doesn't. What have you got?

Urameshi YuSooKey

12-31-2007, 07:40 PM

What's mind-bogglingly scary is how many people will openly support a racsist candidate so long as the majority of his views line up with their own. I guess if he isn't a bigot towards your ethnicity it's okay then. :duh:

I think voting for Keyes will send the right message to the GOP. Voting for Ron Paul doesn't. What have you got?
As long as he doesn't pay himself (http://www.realchange.org/keyes.htm) out of his campaign funds again he's cool with me.

Jetsetlemming

12-31-2007, 08:08 PM

I think voting for Keyes will send the right message to the GOP. Voting for Ron Paul doesn't. What have you got?
What messages are those?
...
And was that last bit a come-on?

Roxie

12-31-2007, 10:21 PM

lol @ posters claiming 95% of black males are criminal is a realistic statistic
Ok? 95% is all of them. It makes law abiding black males into practically a freak occurrence!

Swede

12-31-2007, 10:24 PM

^ I don't think Shuft was arguing with you.

Roxie

12-31-2007, 11:32 PM

And I'm not arguing with Shuft. I'm agreeing.

Swede

12-31-2007, 11:38 PM

I guess the "Ok?" Threw me off, my bad.

Shuft

12-31-2007, 11:48 PM

Yay, I got the third off from work.

This will be my first presidential caucus (I had to miss the last one, but I voted in the general election).

The people at the Obama HQ said there would be snacks there. They were also kind of cultish. I imagine the supporters are that way at every candidate's HQ though.

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

01-01-2008, 12:22 AM

You know what?

Ron Paul isn't a racist, but I wont deny that either past comments were a) narrow minded/stupid or b)something else.

However people had to dig wayyy back to find something he said and its pretty fucking bold to call someone a racist. There is a huge difference in what Ron Paul said and what Don Imus or Trent Lott said.

So you don't like the candidate? That's fine. Even if I didn't like Ron Paul and you said Hilary Clinton was racist I would say that's a pretty fucking bold statement. Maybe even Mitt Romney was claimed racist and HE was supported by David Duke.

I'm just trying to say this.

He's not. You don't have to agree that he's a good candidate, but he isn't racist.

Find something else because this argument is pointless when countless times you just throw up that same quote over and over again.

stsparky

01-01-2008, 01:23 AM

What messages are those? ... And was that last bit a come-on?No to the come on. The message that tired old white guys aren't the only viable candidates at the very least. I don't like the Reagan connection with Paul at all. This also bothers me.
Paul is strongly pro-life, advocates overturning Roe v. Wade, and affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion.
It is clear that "Doctor No" has problems - especially as Fox News hates him. Whereas - Keyes has none of those problems. He isn't white, he has no history of being a racist. And he is the only Republican I know who has been in a mosh pit on TV.

Beowulf

01-01-2008, 01:55 AM

Paul is strongly pro-life, advocates overturning Roe v. Wade, and affirms states' rights to determine the legality of abortion.
That's another HUGE problem I have with Paul is the absolute retardation of the idea of "state's rights." As far as I'm concerned if you are pro-states rights then you are also pro-segregation because that's obviously what would happen. Another notch in the "RP = Racist" column.

He's not. You don't have to agree that he's a good candidate, but he isn't racist.

Find something else because this argument is pointless when countless times you just throw up that same quote over and over again.
I agree that he's both a bad candidate with batshit policies, and a racist. Not just because of the quote, that merely articulates his inner views, but because of the Nazi meetings combined with the state's rights advocations.

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

01-01-2008, 02:07 AM

Did you ignore the information that I showed or were you dead set on just believing everything thrown at you?

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/ron_paul_ny_times_retracts_racist_smear.htm

Roxie

01-01-2008, 03:58 AM

Either way, the intro to the article explicitly lays out that the article source is hardly trustworthy, and there's not the slightest proof that any of it was really written by Paul.

Found something for you

#

You can find a copy in the UC Davis library. The title search on WorldCat should be: Race terrorism with Ron Paul as author. If you just search under author, among many other interesting titles, you will find his different volumes of his newsletter under various but similar titles. However, I saw no library that had the whole run. Here is the citation from UC Davis:

Author Paul, Ronald N.
Title Race terrorism in America / by Ron Paul.
Published Houston, Tex. : Ron Paul Survival Report, c1993.
Description 12 p. ; 22 cm.
Record format BK Book
Check Availability All items
Call no. Shields Special Collections P-008 62:35
Note Cover title.
Per.Sub. King, Rodney.
Subject Riots — California — Los Angeles.
African Americans — California — Los Angeles.
Add.Entry Ron Paul Survival Report.
Local Added Entry Walter Goldwater Radical Pamphlet Collection

Jetsetlemming

01-01-2008, 04:55 AM

So you don't like the candidate? That's fine. Even if I didn't like Ron Paul and you said Hilary Clinton was racist I would say that's a pretty fucking bold statement. Maybe even Mitt Romney was claimed racist and HE was supported by David Duke.

http://www.iccaustin.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=310
You can find shit like this on pretty much EVERYBODY.

Plekto

01-01-2008, 09:05 AM

It's like I said. Such is politics. Unless you've lived in a bubble your whole life, there's way too much dirt on everyone and the sad truth is that you must accept money from anyone who will donate it, or nearly so, if you want to actually stand a chance.

Ron Paul is getting all of the "other" votes in droves because all of the marginalized and disenchanted people who want to vote for anyone who isn't doing the same old thing.

Also, there's a big difference between being uninformed, misinformed, biased, biggotted, and racist. Of course the knee-jerk reaction is to automatically call someone "racist" if they make any statement for any of the other reasons.

Also, Ron Paul's quotes are from 15 years ago or so - I have to give the benefit of the doubt. As opposed to Bush who sticks his foot in his mouth every week AND is clearly a biggot, elitist snob, and wacko fundamentalist.

Ron paul seems a lot less awful in that light. Certainly better than most of the other choices running for the Republican nomination.

FYI: The talk about Hillary was actually started three years ago by the *Republicans* who spent a lot of effort to make it seem as Hillary was already the next candidate. From the fake fear to the whispering it in the press and so on... Because they knew if they can work it to their advantage to get her to BE the candidate, they win. She's just too strident, agressive, and a woman.(sad, but true - a LOT of the U.S. won't vote for her just because of that)

The amazing thing is that Hillary is such a piece of work that she is milking this for all she can. I can only hope that she crashes and burns and we get a better choice. Edwards/Obama would be a sure fire win-win scenario, which is why so much of the same big business that typically supports the Republicans is behind her. They want her to win the nomination so that she can lose the race. Hillary they can beat. Edwards and Obama on the same ticket... Game over.

Roxie

01-01-2008, 02:23 PM

It's like I said. Such is politics. Unless you've lived in a bubble your whole life, there's way too much dirt on everyone and the sad truth is that you must accept money from anyone who will donate it, or nearly so, if you want to actually stand a chance.Bull. You pick and choose the GROUPS that you want to be associated with. True, you can't look into every individual, but one should make a good faith effort to distance themselves from white supremacists don't ya think?
Ron Paul's quotes are from 15 years ago or so - I have to give the benefit of the doubt. It's not like he made these statements as misguided youth! 15 years is NOT "long ago and far far away" It's also not like he's said "I disagree" either. As opposed to Bush who sticks his foot in his mouth every week AND is clearly a biggot, elitist snob, and wacko fundamentalist.

Ron paul seems a lot less awful in that light. What is Ron Paul foggy or something? What a choice. Bush or Paul? I mean, it really says something about Ron Paul when you compare him to Bush to make Paul look better

Wow, ppl are surprising some times. Needless to say I won't be voting for Paul nor Huckabee

Pierrot le Fou

01-01-2008, 04:23 PM

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

01-01-2008, 04:40 PM

Accepting money from racists does not make you racist. Is McDonalds racist if it serves Neo Nazis? No. So why the Hell is Ron Paul (or any other candidate) racist for accepting a donation from a racist?

Because he's running for a political office and should be infallible.

Swede

01-01-2008, 05:06 PM

^ I think maybe you meant to say fallible, but that's the main difference I see with that. McDonald's is a company, whose primary purpose is to make money. If they were overly selective in who they let eat at their restaurants, they would both not grow and potentially be taken to court for discrimination.

A politician doesn't have to worry about going to court over not accepting donations. Also, the man is running for president, and one of the president's roles is to act as the representative of the people. It's just a little unsettling when a major white supremacist becomes an open part of his constituency, and he seems to be fine with that.

If that type of thing doesn't borrow you, then fine. But it bothers a lot of people, and I'm willing to bet the $500 he could easily return or donate being used for his campaign is going to lose more voters than it's going to gain him.

Roxie

01-01-2008, 05:11 PM

Beowulf, Shuft, Roxie; are you all willfully ignoring what was written? Are you honestly incapable of following the (documented) logic?

85% of black males in the DC area will be arrested within their lifetime (as of 1992 when it was written). He said that the DC police are inefficient/the 'justice' system in DC is anything but, so the figure should probably be closer to 95%. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement on the surface, and unless you have something more constructive to provide than a quip about how he thinks all but 5% of black people are criminals, then please, piss off.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying 95% of blacks DO NOT have "sensible" political opinions? There's absolutely nothing wrong with ASSUMING 95% of black men in DC are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal"?

Which is what it says. He assumes it should be closer to 95%. Not "extrapolates".

It really pains me to see people crying about racism come off as the biggest racists of the bunch. You ignore the reality in favor of this stupid ideological stance that is almost entirely manufactured by people who make money off of your ignorance.
Wtf are you talking about? You think the article is a day dream? It's a fantasy essay? A short novella?
I mean, what's the reality? Has he renounced or disavowed these quotes? Has he said they were wrong and this is not what he believes? That someone used his name for ill and he would never say something like that? That it's his responsibility to know what his name is put on and to make sure of what it says? Can you point me towards something like that?

And who is making money?
Accepting money from racists does not make you racist. Is McDonalds racist if it serves Neo Nazis? No. So why the Hell is Ron Paul (or any other candidate) racist for accepting a donation from a racist
He's not racist for accepting those donations. He's racist because of the things he writes, approves, and says.

You lie down with dogs, you get up with flees and when you're running for political office you have to be careful with whom you are associated with (plain and simple). It will come back to bite you. This is true for any politician.

You're all just blowing hot air at this point, and rehashing the same damned quotes out of context while displaying absolutely no understanding of what was said despite having it pointed out to you several times.

To put it bluntly: are you really all that daft?
I might ask you the same.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

Beowulf

01-01-2008, 10:47 PM

You're all just blowing hot air at this point, and rehashing the same damned quotes out of context while displaying absolutely no understanding of what was said despite having it pointed out to you several times.

To put it bluntly: are you really all that daft?
State's rights advocation = racism.
I'm assuming that Ron is an educated (if not entirely sane) man. I'm assuming that he's studied politics and policies. I'm assuming that he's studied history (but not hard if he's a libertarian). If you study state's rights at all or you have any common sense, then you know that state's rights leads to segregation, racism, and bigotry.
The math isn't difficult.

Jetsetlemming

01-02-2008, 02:28 AM

State's rights advocation = racism.
I'm assuming that Ron is an educated (if not entirely sane) man. I'm assuming that he's studied politics and policies. I'm assuming that he's studied history (but not hard if he's a libertarian). If you study state's rights at all or you have any common sense, then you know that state's rights leads to segregation, racism, and bigotry.
The math isn't difficult.
You could've let us know you were just pulling things out your ass from the beginning, Beowulf, it woulda saved everybody the effort of bothering to respond to you. :sarcasm:
"State's Rights" was one euphamism for support of Jim Crow laws, yes.... 45 fucking years ago. We are no longer in the middle of a civil rights movement, there are not current segregationist laws on the fucking books in states, and in the modern day and age its possible to state something that sounds sorta like something a racist said decades ago and not mean the same goddamn thing. Do you assume anybody that says "I like the south" or has a rebel flag to be racist, too? Are people that listen to country music bigots? Are all democrats horrible racists? I mean, its the same party, after all!

Christ, man.

Fermented Yeast Paste

01-02-2008, 02:38 AM

Beowulf

01-02-2008, 03:32 AM

You could've let us know you were just pulling things out your ass from the beginning, Beowulf, it woulda saved everybody the effort of bothering to respond to you.
"State's Rights" was one euphamism for support of Jim Crow laws, yes.... 45 fucking years ago. We are no longer in the middle of a civil rights movement, there are not current segregationist laws on the fucking books in states, and in the modern day and age its possible to state something that sounds sorta like something a racist said decades ago and not mean the same goddamn thing. Do you assume anybody that says "I like the south" or has a rebel flag to be racist, too? Are people that listen to country music bigots? Are all democrats horrible racists? I mean, its the same party, after all!

Christ, man.
Is it lonely up there on your pedestal JSL?

Go to the South and you'd find racism in abundance. Go anywhere other then Massachusetts and homosexuals are openly discriminated against in both the workplace and in marriage. In Texas there were still anti-sodomy laws on the books up until a few years ago when the federal government stepped in. It was literally illegal for gay people to have sex. Hell there "sun-down towns" in the South right up until the 1970s. It's basic fucking history.

If you honestly think that state's rights won't end in a lot of horror for a lot of people then you lead an even more sheltered life then I previously thought.

Shuft

01-02-2008, 04:03 AM

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying 95% of blacks DO NOT have "sensible" political opinions? There's absolutely nothing wrong with ASSUMING 95% of black men in DC are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal"?

Which is what it says. He assumes it should be closer to 95%. Not "extrapolates"...Ok, for the sake of argument let's assume the 85% stat is accurate, and let's assume the courts/police are incompetent. Why would you just assume that their incompetence lies in the direction of too many criminals going free?

Also, if we assume the 85% stat to be true, and even if we assume the courts/police are more likely to let people who break the law go than convict innocent people, I am much more likely to take that as evidence that our legal system is fucked up. When mandatory minimum laws fill our jails with harmless drug users, the only stat that really bothers me is violent crime.

All that is assuming the 85% stat is accurate. If it actually is, I'll eat my hat.
State's rights advocation = racism.
I'm assuming that Ron is an educated (if not entirely sane) man. I'm assuming that he's studied politics and policies. I'm assuming that he's studied history (but not hard if he's a libertarian). If you study state's rights at all or you have any common sense, then you know that state's rights leads to segregation, racism, and bigotry.
The math isn't difficult."State's rights" nowadays may as well just be a euphemism for support of anti-abortion laws and legislation banning marriage between homosexuals. Or rather not even marriage, but also civil unions and benefits. In other words, "Something I'm against or for won't be achieve federally, but let's allow my screwed up home state to pass a law for it." Because really, that's all it's been brought up for recently. Most don't generally give a rat's ass about state's rights. I'm not necessarily talking about Paul here though, but frankly the rest of his positions are screwed up just as much.

And I find people who proudly fly the rebel flag to be idiots.
States' rights (and federalism in general) is very simple. It allows a wider variety of beliefs/laws/systems. Some times that leads to laws you and I would find unjust, but I believe in general it leads to an overall advancement in freedoms. Once one territory has certain freedoms, the others see it working out and follow suit.

Some examples: How many states do you think would have decriminalized marijuana by now if people actually read the 10th amendment? States' rights are also why a federal ban on same-sex marriages means nothing, it has to be a constitutional amendment to actually have any weight. States' right are how there were "free states" before the emancipation proclamation. With a greater respect for states' rights, the "no child left behind act" would not exist.

Beowulf

01-02-2008, 04:31 AM

Shuft

01-02-2008, 04:33 AM

The United States of America

If you really believe the people being intolerant and intelligent will prevail as the majority, then perhaps democracy isn't for you.

Beowulf

01-02-2008, 04:44 AM

If you really believe the people being intolerant and intelligent will prevail as the majority, then perhaps democracy isn't for you.
Our country was founded on the principle that men are untrustworthy and any power they receive must be limited. Our founding fathers counted on us being intolerant and ignorant.

And if you really do think we live in a color-blind, non-racist society then I encourage you to read the following:
Alabama Plan Brings Out Cry Of Resegregation (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/education/17schools.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)
TUSCALOOSA, Ala. — After white parents in this racially mixed city complained about school overcrowding, school authorities set out to draw up a sweeping rezoning plan. The results: all but a handful of the hundreds of students required to move this fall were black — and many were sent to virtually all-black, low-performing schools.

Kendra Williams and other black parents argue that the plan violates federal law.

Black parents have been battling the rezoning for weeks, calling it resegregation. And in a new twist for an integration fight, they are wielding an unusual weapon: the federal No Child Left Behind law, which gives students in schools deemed failing the right to move to better ones.

“We’re talking about moving children from good schools into low-performing ones, and that’s illegal,” said Kendra Williams, a hospital receptionist, whose two children were rezoned. “And it’s all about race. It’s as clear as daylight.”

Tuscaloosa, where George Wallace once stood defiantly in the schoolhouse door to keep blacks out of the University of Alabama, also has had a volatile history in its public schools. Three decades of federal desegregation marked by busing and white flight ended in 2000. Though the city is 54 percent white, its school system is 75 percent black.

The schools superintendent and board president, both white, said in an interview that the rezoning, which redrew boundaries of school attendance zones, was a color-blind effort to reorganize the 10,000-student district around community schools and relieve overcrowding. By optimizing use of the city’s 19 school buildings, the district saved taxpayers millions, officials said. They also acknowledged another goal: to draw more whites back into Tuscaloosa’s schools by making them attractive to parents of 1,500 children attending private academies founded after court-ordered desegregation began.

“I’m sorry not everybody is on board with this,” said Joyce Levey, the superintendent. “But the issue in drawing up our plan was not race. It was how to use our buildings in the best possible way.” Dr. Levey said that all students forced by the rezoning to move from a high- to a lower-performing school were told of their right under the No Child law to request a transfer.

When the racially polarized, eight-member Board of Education approved the rezoning plan in May, however, its two black members voted against it. “All the issues we dealt with in the ’60s, we’re having to deal with again in 2007,” said Earnestine Tucker, one of the black members. “We’re back to separate but equal — but separate isn’t equal.”

For decades school districts across the nation used rezoning to restrict black students to some schools while channeling white students to others. Such plans became rare after civil rights lawsuits in the 1960s and ’70s successfully challenged their constitutionality, said William L. Taylor, chairman of the Citizens’ Commission on Civil Rights.

Tuscaloosa’s rezoning dispute, civil rights lawyers say, is one of the first in which the No Child Left Behind law has become central, sending the district into uncharted territory over whether a reassignment plan can trump the law’s prohibition on moving students into low-performing schools. A spokesman, Chad Colby, said the federal Education Department would not comment.

We need the federal government to step in in situations like this. This was allowed to come about the whites outnumbered the blacks on the board (despite the fact that there were more black students) they were simply voted down.

Shuft

01-02-2008, 04:50 AM

There are more white people than black people in the US, does that mean we need an international body to tell us how to govern?

Just because thee are a few instances where a community acts unjustly doesn't mean that a system with all the power concentrated in a smaller number of people (the national government) makes more sense than one with the power spread out more evenly.

Plekto

01-02-2008, 04:55 AM

Two things:

1 - Ron Paul is a Libertarian. When he talks about State's Rights, he means local control over laws and regulations should be more important than crap like The Patriot Act, the IRS, NHTSA/road funding, and other top-down scearios where the government basically asks us to bend over and take their B.S. He's not talking about what the term has come to mean, but the dictionary definition that goes back to the original reason we had the Civil War. Federal versus State control over our lives.

IMO, he should have run as a Libertarian instead of being a wuss and getting in bed with the Republicans. But then again, if he manages to get the nomination by some miracle, it'll effectively be the first third party win since Lincoln. I could live with that compromise.

Oh, and he'd flat out win come the actual election. He's just scaring the piss out of the Republican Convention because he'll blow apart half of the power and theft or our rights that they have worked since Regan to make a reality.

2 - That statistic he quoted in that book was for D.C. alone. The murder capitol of our country at the time, and the place with some of the most appalling statistics. And he was obviously talking for political/media effect. He's not racist - not any more than most candidates at least. Maybe a bit myopic and biggotted, but who isn't in politics? Listen to Hillary or McCain. Wow.

Fermented Yeast Paste

01-02-2008, 04:58 AM

States' rights (and federalism in general) is very simple. It allows a wider variety of beliefs/laws/systems. Some times that leads to laws you and I would find unjust, but I believe in general it leads to an overall advancement in freedoms. Once one territory has certain freedoms, the others see it working out and follow suit.

Some examples: How many states do you think would have decriminalized marijuana by now if people actually read the 10th amendment? States' rights are also why a federal ban on same-sex marriages means nothing, it has to be a constitutional amendment to actually have any weight. States' right are how there were "free states" before the emancipation proclamation. With a greater respect for states' rights, the "no child left behind act" would not exist.

Yes, I very well know what the concept of "state's rights" is. However, you missed my point. I was saying that the issue of "state's rights" isn't brought up by politicians so much these days that are actually very well in favor of it-- they only use it as a means to and end, in many cases being such hot button issues as abortion and homophobic laws. As my example, many candidates in the elections favor "state's rights" in regards to abortion, but only because they disagree with Roe v. Wade-- if there were a federal law stating abortion was pretty much illegal, then they wouldn't give a shit about "state's rights" and would just call it "the law of the land."

State's rights can be a good thing, but I don't like how it's suddenly supported by politicians who don't actually give a shit about it. With that said, I think there needs to be a real limit on what "state's rights" constitutes, otherwise it could become extremely ridiculous:

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards."

Moving from that, I think that state's rights should be built upon a strong federal support, but also retaining enough of their own authority so that they are still states. For example, a minimum federal law on let's say environmental standards that all states must at least abide by, but also have the freedom to expand them.

EDIT: To clarify what I mean, I'm not saying if a state wants to pass any arbitrary law they need federal approval-- only if it might conflict with a current federal law. If there is no law on the federal books regarding X issue, then the state has every right to have its own special law for X issue. If a federal law later comes into effect conflicting with law regarding X issue, the federal law overrides.

Then again, that could just lend itself for easy power grabs, too. Damn.

Beowulf

01-02-2008, 05:20 AM

He's not talking about what the term has come to mean, but the dictionary definition that goes back to the original reason we had the Civil War. Federal versus State control over our lives.
Lol at the fact that you think that's why we had the Civil War.

IMO, he should have run as a Libertarian instead of being a wuss and getting in bed with the Republicans. But then again, if he manages to get the nomination by some miracle, it'll effectively be the first third party win since Lincoln. I could live with that compromise.

Oh, and he'd flat out win come the actual election. He's just scaring the piss out of the Republican Convention because he'll blow apart half of the power and theft or our rights that they have worked since Regan to make a reality.

Wow the delusion of you Paulsies...
How in God's name does a 5% support in the country count as a win in any election, anywhere, for anything? He doesn't have the support you people all like to pretend he does. But as long as we're wishing for things then I want a pony.

Kaji

01-02-2008, 06:06 AM

Five percent with a palette spread out across how many candidates for nomination at the moment? Further, where does that 5% lie, and who was polled as part of it? If he were to get the Republican nomination he's be a shoe in for all your voters who just run down the R column, he'd pull in the people who don't normally vote but who would want to get off their ass to make sure Hillary doesn't get into office (should she be nominated), and he's further pulling a fair bit from the center. I've seen more non-Republicans making noise in favor of him than Republicans (granted, those who speak are not necessarily proportionally representative of those who vote).

As to states' rights, half the reason we call them states and not provinces is that each colony intended to maintain its own soverignty when this nation was created, with federal oversight limited to affairs that violated basic rights (hence the bill of rights) and those that involved more than one state. The 10th Amendment was put in place to ensure this distance was maintained.

Properly executed, states' rights leaves matters that affect the individual states to the individual states to deal with, and leaves the federal government to deal with foreign nations and ensure that all states are playing by the same core rules. If there's something that all states need to abide by, that's what the Constitution is for.

As to the taxation issue, people seem to pretend income taxes have always been the sole means of raising revenues for the government. Seems to me that prior to that the federal government collected its taxes directly from the states, which were to raise the money through whatever means it deemed necessary (which could theoretically come from tarriffs, sales taxes, and taxes on corporations as opposed to or as a means of minimizing the need for taxing the income of individuals).

Sock Full of Boiled Dimes

01-02-2008, 06:30 AM

http://thestressblog.com/2007/05/22/ron-paul-is-not-a-racist/

stsparky

01-02-2008, 07:34 AM

Texas Ranger' Norris goes negative for Huckabee (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0108/Texas_Ranger_Norris_goes_negative.html)
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/6269/thumbs/s-HUCKCHUCK-large.jpg

Despite claims that he’s running a positive campaign, Mike Huckabee stood by silently today as celebrity endorser Chuck Norris attacked Mitt Romney’s record on abortion and gay marriage.

“He should own up to the mistakes he’s made as governor of Massachusetts,” said Norris.

Huckabee drew heavy scrutiny from national press yesterday after pledging to stay positive but then showing a negative ad about Romney that he had decided only moments earlier not to air on television.

Norris, meanwhile, made his comments at a “meet and greet” for pro-Huckabee bloggers at the Des Moines Marriott Downtown. Other members of the media were invited but barred from asking questions.

Earlier at that same event, Norris told bloggers: “I hate the negative campaigning. I’m a very positive individual.” Norris went on to praise Huckabee for his positive campaign style.

After Norris had concluded his attacks on Romney, Huckabee made a joke without referencing the attacks and moved on to another topic.

Pierrot le Fou

01-02-2008, 08:17 AM

"State's rights" nowadays may as well just be a euphemism for support of anti-abortion laws and legislation banning marriage between homosexuals. Or rather not even marriage, but also civil unions and benefits. In other words, "Something I'm against or for won't be achieve federally, but let's allow my screwed up home state to pass a law for it." Because really, that's all it's been brought up for recently. Most don't generally give a rat's ass about state's rights. I'm not necessarily talking about Paul here though, but frankly the rest of his positions are screwed up just as much.

And I find people who proudly fly the rebel flag to be idiots.
Which is why the federal government hasn't allowed gay marriage, yet Massachusetts, Vermont, and Hawaii have?

Or does that not count?

State rights allow New Hampshire to have no state sales tax, state rights allow Hawaii to marry people of the same gender, state rights allow Massachusetts to tax the fuck out of its citizens for whatever reason.

State rights allow non-smoking bars and restaurants, state rights mean different speed limits, and they used to mean different drinking ages (until the holy federal government stepped in and tied federal funding for roads to a drinking age of 21).

Stating that the federal government is better than states rights is to assume (very incorrectly) that the needs of someone in Utah are the same as those of someone in Maine is the same as someone in Oregon.

It just ain't the case.

The federal government has grown and grown to the point where it takes money for something I don't want because whiners like the lot of you think that everyone should believe what you do, or else you'll label us a segregationist, racist, or some form of bigot! How absurd!

There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying 95% of blacks DO NOT have "sensible" political opinions? There's absolutely nothing wrong with ASSUMING 95% of black men in DC are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal"?

Which is what it says. He assumes it should be closer to 95%. Not "extrapolates".
He cited a statistic of 85%. Due to inefficiencies in the system (do you truly think that the DC police are perfectly efficient?), he thinks it's likely closer to 95%. If he assumed anything, it was 10% -- not 95% -- or if you want to be entirely negative, he assumed that 66.6% of the black non-criminals in the DC area have likely done something criminal. And that's entirely ignoring the facts of the matter.

I don't see anything wrong with that. If 85% are criminal, then assuming that 66.6% of the remainder are non-criminal is perfectly fair, and less than the rate in the rest of the population.

Wtf are you talking about? You think the article is a day dream? It's a fantasy essay? A short novella?
I mean, what's the reality? Has he renounced or disavowed these quotes? Has he said they were wrong and this is not what he believes? That someone used his name for ill and he would never say something like that? That it's his responsibility to know what his name is put on and to make sure of what it says? Can you point me towards something like that?
You ignore what the quotes are saying in favor of making up flights of fancy about what you want them to mean. You are the one putting words in his mouth out of context, rather than reading what he said and looking at the context historically as well. Or perhaps you were too young in the early 90's to remember the massive crime waves and other serious problems especially in urban areas?

And who is making money?

He's not racist for accepting those donations. He's racist because of the things he writes, approves, and says.

You lie down with dogs, you get up with flees and when you're running for political office you have to be careful with whom you are associated with (plain and simple). It will come back to bite you. This is true for any politician.
So now accepting money from a racist equates to lying with them? Cute. In that case, why aren't you railing against Hillary and Obama from accepting money from the biggest racists in this country: the 'rainbow' coalition and Rev. Sharpton? Or is it only racism when it's white people saying anything about black people, and not when it's black people blaming white people for all their problems? Do I need to remind you of quotes about Obama 'acting white' in regards to the Jena incident?

I might ask you the same.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992
Would that have been racist if it read "If you have ever been robbed by a teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."? Because in the context of the article, it would have meant the same damned thing, and you wouldn't have batted an eyelash.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"Matthew 7:3

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal JSL?

Go to the South and you'd find racism in abundance. Go anywhere other then Massachusetts and homosexuals are openly discriminated against in both the workplace and in marriage. In Texas there were still anti-sodomy laws on the books up until a few years ago when the federal government stepped in. It was literally illegal for gay people to have sex. Hell there "sun-down towns" in the South right up until the 1970s. It's basic fucking history.

If you honestly think that state's rights won't end in a lot of horror for a lot of people then you lead an even more sheltered life then I previously thought.
It was literally illegal in most states for a straight man to receive a blowjob from a woman too, so let's no go pretending it was only an anti-gay law. The enforcement was as much the problem. Suggesting that it's only federal law that can end 'discriminatory' treatment is a load of bull. The anti-sodomy laws being enforced unfairly is a problem of the rule of law -- not of state versus federal rights.

If you can't acknowledge these simple facts, then it's a defect in your education, not mine, and attributing problems to states' rights that have nothing to do with states rights is absurd. Furthermore, if you think that the US has suddenly become more tolerant due to the Supreme Court striking down anti-sodomy statutes, then you'd be absolutely wrong.

The other irony, were you to take a look at this map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map_of_US_sodomy_laws.svg), that Massachusetts, which you try to paint as one of the more liberal states, was actually one of the later states to strike down sodomy statutes (in 2002 -- one year before the Supreme Court decision).

In fact, only 4 states (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Alabama) had exclusively anti-gay sodomy laws on the books.

So please, get your facts straight before you argue that I need to do more research. The above quote from Matthew applies to you too.

Plekto

01-02-2008, 08:45 AM

Lol at the fact that you think that's why we had the Civil War.

First off, nice reply Kaji. The thing is, Conservatives are about 60% of the U.S. - Of that, maybe 60% are "Republicans". There is a large chunk that is the so-called swing vote who vote either way, but mostly because their true ideals are about being economically conservative and a lot closer to Libertarian ideals. If he can also pull out 5% of the undecided vote, given the winner take all approach in a lot of states, he just might pull a Regan and capture California or another large state like Illinios. It's a gutsy move by the Republican Party, though, and they are a lot like T.V. executives. By the formula and don't make waves.

As for the Civil war, look... I went to visit relatives in Illinios this last summer. I spent half a day at the new Lincon museum. It was interesting how during his Presidency, he was the most reviled, ganged up on, hated, and besieged President that we had had to date. All that instantly changed when he died, though, but the press hated him before then.

They also went into great detail on why the war started, and it boiled down to one critical issue.

When the election happened, there were two main parties. One wanted states to function like a confereracy of smaller nation-states, similar to how the original colonies were. The other party was against this. Lincoln split the vote three ways and eeked through to victory. But the issue didn't go away - it got worse. The states rights party, mostly from the South, that wanted more autonomy for states, decided that they had had enough of Washington telling them what to do. LIncoln wanted to shelve the issue and who could blame him - he was a country boy who hadn't spent his life in upper class society and politics, so he was clearly the outsider in a 50+ year long feud.

Issues like slavery and trade and so on were big factors in this as well, but the main issue was that they didn't want the Government(tm) telling them what to do with their slaves, goods, and so on. Least of all, taxing them.

Remember, income tax wasn't done until World War One as an emergency measure - and kept in force since then(illegally, but they have the guns and police, so it's meaningless to avoid it).

So the main way that Washington gained money was through import tarriffs, fees, and well, pretty much the same things that England had done a hundred or so years earlier. And the Southern States felt that they were essentially second class citizens and had unfair representation and power.

Most of Congress had been siding with the more wealthy North - so there was a lot of protectionism and corruption involved. Yet most of the population(but slaves counted for a fraction of a vote each) and raw materials were in the South. Less power, less representation, and they saw new imperialistic laws being passed every month or so, because the North had the votes to run their agenda pretty much as they saw fit.

So it was only logical that they decided to revolt like we had against England. Texas tried as well and almost made good on it, a bit later on.

P.S. It is interesting how similar we have become recently to what we fought against 200+ years ago. Bush has done a good job of converting the Presidency into nearly a king-like position.

Shuft

01-02-2008, 10:07 AM

That 85% stat has been bothering me a bit. I did some googling and as far as I can tell, it is credited to Adam Walinsky, the author of "A Crisis of Public Order," an article in The Atlantic. I didn't feel like paying here (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/crime/puborder.htm) to read the full article, but from what I gathered, it is a bit paranoid. Adam Walinsky is trying to make the case for more police. He also seems to make it pretty clear that it isn't the white people that need policing. It is no surprise that his statistics for black incarceration rates are a bit high.

If someone has a subscription to The Atlantic I would really appreciate a little piracy in order to better pick through his statistics.

Also, I looked around a bit for any sort of statistics that you could derive the percent of a black Washington DCites who will be convicted of a crime in their lifetime, but I didn't find anything that specific. The FBI has some stats on their site, but I didn't see anything broken down by race, and I also couldn't find the recidivism rate for Washington DC (I didn't poke around too much though).

If I get to the library tomorrow (unfortunately they aren't open at 4am), I'll see if they have a copy of the article.

japanat

01-02-2008, 03:44 PM

I mean no offense to Roxie and others, and I really don't have an opinion of Ron Paul one way or the other (haven't started studying who I'll vote for, yet), but the selective quotes will drive me crazy.

Yes, he did say that he believed the figure was closer to 95%. Yes, it sounds horrible. Yes, his word choices were poor, to say the least ("a black teen" instead of "a teen"). And apparently he accepts donations from sources you find objectionable (not a bad thing to point out, IMO).

Now, look at the actual stats. The figure given at that time was that 85% of black males in the DC area would be arrested in their lifetime. It doesn't say what they would be arrested for (murder, robbery, DUI, parking tickets?), nor if they would be convicted, nor even that they would necessarily be guilty. Only that they would be arrested. Well, with profiling, etc, again not surprising (talk to any beat cop, black or white, in that city and they will tell you that DC has major problems).

Not hard to believe in early 1990s Washington, DC: "The chance of being murdered in Washington,DC in 1990 was 3 times greater than the chance of an American soldier being killed in the Gulf War. The average American city with a population of 250,000 or greater has a murder rate of about 20" http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#usa

as reported by SafeStreetsDC.com for the year 2002 (quoted on the same site):
TEN WORST LARGE CITIES FOR MURDER, 2002 (PER 100,000)
(1) Washington, DC 45.8More than double the average of 20 for large cities...
Look at that number - 45.8 in 2002, down from 81.8 in 1990
District of Columbia Crime Rates 1960 - 2006
Year Population Index Murder
1960 763,956 20,725 81
1969 798,000 83,040 287
1988 620,000 61,471 369
1989 604,000 62,172 434
1990 606,900 65,389 472
1991 598,000 64,393 482
1992 589,000 67,187 443
1993 578,000 67,979 454
1994 570,000 63,186 399
1995 554,000 67,441 360
2006 581,530 34,165 169 Now consider that the US Census reports Washington, DC is 60.0% black as compared to 31.8% white. Persons below poverty level (1999) 20.2%. Compare this to neighboring Montgomery County, Maryland, which has a race breakdown as follows: White: 64.8%; Black: 15.1%; Persons below poverty level (1999) 5.4%. Now couldn't I reasonably expect the arrest rate to be double for blacks as for whites in DC, as well as much higher for all races due to quadruple poverty levels as neighboring Montgomery County (maybe not PC, but higher poverty levels have been statistically shown to equate to higher crime levels across the board), as well as comparatively 4 times the population, black-vs-white, in DC.?

Now look at the following numbers:
(from the FBI website)
Table 49.—City Arrests, Distribution by Race, 1995
[6,539 agencies; 1995 estimated population 132,911,000]
TOTALS. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total 8,681,112
White 5,564,403
Black 2,917,401
American Indian or Alaskan Native. 96,761
Asian or Pacific Islander 102,547
Percentage:
Total 100.0
White. 64.1
Black. 33.6
American Indian or Alaskan Native. 1.1
Asian or Pacific Islander 1.2 A natural assumption would be that the Native Americans are a law-abiding bunch. So are them Asians and Pacific Islanders. Them White boys are a bunch of criminals. Let's just ignore other numbers like percentage of population, or the fact that many of the Indian nations deal with much of their crime internally and therefore such stats don't show up on the national radar.

What this long post means is that I/you can find numbers to support any conclusion, any at all. It just depends where you pick them from, which ones you choose to use, and which ones you conveniently ignore.

If you don't like Ron Paul, if you believe he's racist; fine. Convince me. Just don't use these numbers any more, they're too easy to manipulate and have too little real meaning to an uninformed reader. :duh:

Fermented Yeast Paste

01-02-2008, 04:47 PM

As for the Civil war, look...
Was this your first time studying the American Civil War or something? Because when it comes down to it, it really was about slavery.

Swede

01-02-2008, 04:51 PM

Kaji

01-03-2008, 05:42 AM

Er... not quite sure what you're trying to prove there. Specifically referring to a "black teen-aged male" is what makes the comment racist. The comment wouldn't have been racist if he said what you just typed, because there is no mention of race in the comment. I don't believe I've seen the context of the article you're talking about, but I according to what you said, the quote would have meant the same thing either way, so I can't see it not coming off as being at the least wildly stereotypical.

His point is that in an article dealing with black crime, the meaning of the statement is exactly the same, regardless of if the word is present.

Plekto

01-03-2008, 07:23 AM

Was this your first time studying the American Civil War or something? Because when it comes down to it, it really was about slavery.

You know, I'll believe what Lincoln's own museum in Springfield, IL. says on the subject. Most of what our schoolbooks and "history"(as opposed to what really happened) says tends to be simplified to the extreme. There were many issues. Slavery was an issue because of the problem of votes and population. The Southern states had more actual people and yet less members in Congress. Ie - it wasn't about freedom - it was about votes and the power balance on both sides. Honestly, most of The North didn't want them to be free, either. They liked the status quo and freeing them in reality would make the power balance move to the frontier states and south.

The states rights, though, were the biggest issue. Slavery could be worked out over time, but the feeling that they were taking it in the rear end over all of the laws and tarrifs and so on - it's what led to the actual shooting. Like Texas, they wanted out and to be able to run their own business.

People saw themselves as citizens of their state first and as members of the U.S. as a 4th rate afterthought. In fact, the military was formed state by state as militias they were so used to working as their own separate entities. It was a vastly different world than the one we live in now.

So taking it from Washington just lit a fire under them and they merely needed an excuse to start shooting. Slavery and Lincoln getting elected pretty much was a pretext to start something that had been brewing for decades.

Kaji

01-03-2008, 07:33 AM

If slavery was the real issue, then why did Lincoln wait until January 1, 1863 to "free" the slaves in the seceded states (and further, why did he not make any effort to free them in border slave states that remained in the union such as Tennessee, Kentucky, and Maryland?)

Fermented Yeast Paste

01-03-2008, 07:41 AM

You know Plekto, I think I'm going to go ahead and believe what I've been told by actual historians on the subject, that is those with doctorate degrees in United States history, than whatever museum you read this in. I don't care if it's the "official" Lincoln museum.

Slavery was the main catalyst in starting the Civil War. It wasn't merely part of the overall issue leading to the war, it was the issue. Every state in the Union was hideously racist, we (and especially I) know this already, but the "Northern" states (States that never seceded) were already banning slavery with only a few that still permitted it (Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and eventually West Virginia). However, at that point the United States were expanding and the Union states didn't want future territories and states to be ones that permitted slavery. This was a problem for the southern states as they already had a minority representation and both sides knew that slavery would eventually die out if it couldn't spread. The southern states wanted to then make sure that wouldn't happen, especially since, as I said, they already were lacking in representation nationally.

Of course, that's where the whole poetic story of it being a fight for states' rights that you like to believe comes into play, because the federal government was becoming a threat to the southern states. Why did states' rights become an issue? That main one is simple: Because of slavery. That's what it came down to.

This reminds me of something I once was told by lecturer of mine:

1. People who don't know much about the Civil War know it was about slavery.

2. People who know more about the Civil War know it was regarding many issues including the ever-so-poetic states' rights stuff.

3. People who know the most about the Civil War know it was about slavery.

If slavery was the real issue, then why did Lincoln wait until January 1, 1863 to "free" the slaves in the seceded states (and further, why did he not make any effort to free them in border slave states that remained in the union such as Tennessee, Kentucky, and Maryland?)

Firstly, Tennessee was one of the states that seceded. Secondly, the reasons for the southern states seceding were not the same reasons for the union going after them. Northern states weren't big on keeping slavery and as I said, knew if it couldn't expand it would eventually go extinct. However, the union didn't fight the seceding states because they were evil and allowed slavery. Lincoln himself was never particularly gung-ho about ending slavery, but he wasn't really for it either; he just wanted to preserve the union first and foremost. He even said, if he could keep the Union together without ending slavery, then he'd do it. If he could keep the Union together and also end slavery, then he'd do that too.

The reason why the Emancipation Proclamation didn't affect slaves in the border states was because it wasn't meant to. It was more of a strategy of Lincoln's to help cripple the Confederacy further because slaves were so important in the Confederate war machine. It wasn't necessary to declare slaves in areas already taken under control or states already under federal control (border states) to be free.

MNJetter

01-03-2008, 09:33 AM

It's not like wars are simple things that can be summarized in a few paragraphs. Is it so hard to believe that both issues might have been a factor? In school, I was taught about all of these issues and more as part of the complicated muck that led to the start of the war.

EDIT
Also, I have a question. Or questions, I guess. I saw it mentioned earlier on this thread that the Ron Paul article being hashed around is pretty old. Is there any evidence that he is still a racist, regardless of whether or not he was at the time of the article? Is there a shred of proof that he has ever actually pushed a racist view in congress? Has he ever voted for a racist policy? Had a hard time getting along with other members of congress because of racial issues? Indicated in any way that he would encourage racist tendancies during a term as president?

I'm not saying we should deny his personality completely, and I'm not making a statement. Just questions. I realize that it's a big deal that he possibly was/is a racist. But I'm not sure that I've seen an indication that he lets it interfere in his political practice, which is what we should really be paying attention to.

Trump

01-03-2008, 03:27 PM

While Pletko may not have said it in the best way, he is correct. Regardless of what any museum says, states rights were the underlying issue in the civil war. FYP, as you said slavery was only a catalyst. However, I'm not sure you understand what catalyst means. (From Wiki) "A catalyst does not allow for a reaction to take place, but it provides an alternative route to products, the catalytic route being subject to lower activation energy than in the uncatalyzed reaction." Basically, the presence of a catalyst allows things to happen more quickly, but the same reaction will still happen without the presence of a catalyst.

So yes, slavery was very important, however it was not "the" issue. If you do some reading on the civil war, look into how the southern states were afraid the government was going in a direction they did not like and how they felt they had no power to stop it. In this case the issue was slavery, but it could have been many other things.

Fermented Yeast Paste

01-03-2008, 04:22 PM

Plekto

01-03-2008, 04:30 PM

Trump - this is also why after the war had ended, that many states still wanted to be free. It wasn't until nearly WWII and the last of the soldiers that had fought were dead that it died out. Even twenty years ago, it was common to see a Confederate Flag flying.

Slaves were important to The South because of the economics - a very small amount of the population even cared about the morality of it - they were all too busy killing all of the native people they could find, and indentured servitude under the guise of apprenticeships and so on was a daily fact of life.

BTW - beware that your history teachers don't have an axe to grind about this issue. Most of them are just regurgitating what they learned in school. Nobody starts a war over just one issue.

japanat

01-03-2008, 05:05 PM

I know full well what "catalyst" means and I used it correctly, but you're giving me the wrong definition. The definition I was using it for was "a person or thing that precipitates an event or change" (Dictionary.com), not as an analogy to a chemical reaction.

But don't bother to get so pedantic though because then you're just sidestepping the discussion. Either way, slavery was the issue, because it was the reason states' rights became such a big reason for the war starting. I have done "some" reading on the Civil War, thanks.Well, so have many, many people. On my way to receiving a minor in history, it was repeatedly emphasized that the reason given for going to war at that time was slavery. But the war would have happened anyways (many historians say that without slavery as an issue, it would still have started within 20 years).

The biggest reasons for the war were economic. State's rights, the slavery issue evolved from those. The North was industrializing; the South, with King Cotton, was largely agrarian. The economic power that was developing, the political power that accompanied the larger population in the North, and the prohibition against any new slave-owning territory entering the Union all conspired to reduce the South to secondary status.

Rather than become effectively powerless in the Union, Southern leaders were resolved to secede and compete against the Union in their expansion westward. Lincoln, meanwhile, was convinced that the dissolution of the Union would give both England and France the ability to play both sides against each other (which they did, providing arms and aid to either side) and gain a new foothold in the Americas. Hence his famous quote: "United, we stand; divided, we fall."

While slavery was something that many in the North abhorred, intellectually, it was not something for which most people would have given their lives. It became so after the South seceded, and people began dying.

stsparky

01-03-2008, 05:06 PM

Earl Ofari Hutchinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Ofari_Hutchinson): Ron Paul is Scary, But Those That Cheer Him Are Even Scarier (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/ron-paul-is-scary-but-th_b_79495.html)
http://blogs.trb.com/news/politics/blog/Paulcorrect.jpg

The scariest thing about no hope GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd ball racial views. It's not that he polls in single digits in all national polls and has zilch of a chance to get the nomination. It's not that at times the GOP candidates sound just as racially isolationist as he does. It's certainly not that he will wow a national audience with his trademark shoot-from-the-lip zingers even if ABC and Fox recants in a moment of compassion and dumps him back in a seat in their January 6 televised GOP New Hampshire presidential debate.

The scariest thing about Paul is that even though only a few hard core Paul backers will waste a vote on him, millions more seem to agree that his off beat views, especially on race matters, make sense. They even stand logic as high as it get can go on its head to defend their leader against all comers. That's especially true when it comes to Paul's views on race and ethnic politics. That's not a small point given the open but more often sneaky role that race and ethnicity will increasingly play in the presidential derby. Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson have pulled out all stops to woo and court blacks, Latinos and Asian voters. They have made poverty, affordable health care, immigration reform, and job protections the linchpins of their campaigns.

Paul and the GOP candidates have done just the opposite. They duck, dodge, and deny racial issues. The only departure from their racial blind eye is to fan anti-immigrant flames. Paul has gone one better. In an ad, he demanded that students from alleged terrorist countries should be denied visas into the U.S. Paul offered not a shred of proof that there are hordes of students pouring into America to commit terrorist acts. The ad was more than just a cheap ploy to fan terrorism fears. This reinforced the worst in racial and religious stereotyping and negative typecasting. The stereotype is that any one in America with a non-white face and is a Muslim is a terrorist.

Then there's Paul's now infamous slavery quip that he made on Meet the Press. Paul claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath that could and should have been avoided. All Lincoln had to do was buy the slaves. Other slave promoting countries, asserts Paul, didn't fight wars and they ended slavery peacefully. Paul's historical dumbness would have been laughable except for four things. One, he was dead wrong. Lincoln twice made offers to the slave owners to buy the slaves. They turned him down flat. The countries that freed the slaves without war, presumably France and England, unlike the U.S., did not practice slavery in their countries. And France did fight a war-- Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Haiti to put down the slave revolt there.

Two, he's running for president and has a national platform to spout his wrong-headed views (Meet the Press!). Three, he's done and said stuff like this many times before. Among the choice Paulisms are that blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic welfare deadbeats. There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a noted white supremacist. Here's what Paul on his campaign website ronpaul2008.com has to say about race. In fact he even highlights this as "Issue: Racism" on the site. "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, says Paul, they actually promote bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class.

Paul's cure for racial bigotry is to change people's hearts. Whew!! The ghosts of Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, the unreconstructed George Wallace, and packs of Southern States Righters and Citizens Councils big shots would lustily cheer Paul on that one. They railed for decades against the federal government's lift of even the tiniest finger to protect black rights and lives. Their stock line was that race relations can only change when hearts change. If we waited for that to happen the "whites only" signs would still be dangling prominently from every toilet and school house door in the South.

Paul's views are a corn ball blend of libertarianism, know-nothing Americanism, and ultra conservative laissez faire limited government. This marks him as a type A American political quirk.

Now there's the fourth reason not to laugh at Paul. And this is really what makes him scary. There are apparently millions that don't see a darn thing wrong with any of this and pillory anyone who does. They are even scarier than him. Maybe ABC and Fox should let Paul crash the New Hampshire debate. It's always good to see an extremist publicly confirm just how scary he and those that cheer him on really are.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February, 2007).