Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I've seen no good evidence of antisemitism or racism in any of Ron Paul's writings or speeches. Nor is it even close to true that most of his support comes from antisemites or racists. Most of his support (such as it is) comes from libertarians.

Oh, and also, objecting to the U.S. unilaterally going to war just because we don't like some other country's government, is not the same as approving of that government. It's just objecting to American pretensions that we're supposed to rule the world by force, that's all.

Paul want to repeal the Americans With Disabilities Act, that makes him Persona Non Grata to me.

There is a difference between wars of choice and a just war. Just because of the iraqi detour was ill-concieved does not mean that there are no enemies plotting to destroy the free world. Remember we did not start the war on terror; anti-war democrats and republicans should not make the mistake of assuming that everyone has the same good intentions. In our desire for peace we must take care not to make the same mistakes as neville chamberlain did.

This would add to the information pertaining to elections. Don't you think?

Contractors donate more to Joint Strike Fighter Caucus members

http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...nt-strike.html

Originally Posted by Deb C

This would add to the information pertaining to elections. Don't you think?

Contractors donate more to Joint Strike Fighter Caucus members

http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...nt-strike.html

Defense pork. UGH!

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

There is a difference between wars of choice and a just war.

I disagree. A just war is a war that we have no choice but to fight; a war begun by the enemy, not by us.

Remember we did not start the war on terror

Yes, we did. Prior to President Bush's declaring it, there was no "war." Nor should it have been begun. Those responsible for 9/11 should have been hunted down and captured or destroyed, but that should not have been a "war." In the end, the wars in Afghanistan and (especially) Iraq have been of little to no importance in the "war on terror." Of much greater importance have been police, financial, and intelligence operations, none of which constitute "war."

In our desire for peace we must take care not to make the same mistakes as neville chamberlain did.

Chamberlain was following a procedure that, under almost all circumstances, is the right one. He was dealing with the national leader of a powerful nation who could not be appeased because he was bent on war. We are not.

In my limited estimation, I would suggest that if there are any *champions* who actually represent the people, it would be Bernie Sanders.


“Democrats cave? How could you suggest that?” Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), an outspoken liberal independent, said with a heavy dose of irony when asked last week whether he feared Democratic leaders would give too much in the payroll tax negotiations.


http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/200403-dems-vow-not-to-cave-on-payroll-tax-upping-pressure-on-boehner?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page =

Bernie's Newsletter: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/n...A-E57012508DF6

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I've seen no good evidence of antisemitism or racism in any of Ron Paul's writings or speeches. Nor is it even close to true that most of his support comes from antisemites or racists. Most of his support (such as it is) comes from libertarians.

I think that I've seen some articles about Paul being either anti-Semitic or racist, but I can't recall when and I don't have time right now to Google it. I'll be back if I can find something.

Update: Found a link that isn't from a crazy source. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...etters-2011-12.

So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny. And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.
There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.
Some choice quotes:

• "Given the inefficiencies of what DC 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."
• "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."
• After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
• One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys"
• Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.
In 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)
When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign, Paul explained that he didn't actually write the newsletters but because they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content. Further, he didn't know exactly who wrote the offensive things and they didn't represent his views.

.........

But the questions remain. If Ron Paul is so libertarian that he won't even police people who use his name, if his movement is filled with incompetents and opportunists, then what kind of a president would he make? Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?
These are all legitimate questions. And the media is going to start asking them now.
If there isn't already a "ceiling" on Ron Paul's support, widespread knowledge of the newsletters can build one quickly.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/heres...#ixzz1h6dA5uAB

Yeah, I keep hearing people say Ron Paul is an anti-semite because he wants to cut off foreign aid to Israel. (no one seems to mention what other nations would lose aid)

Ben Stein also called RP anti-semetic because he tried to argue against bombing Yemen. (The "logic" here being that if you don't kill Israel's enemies, you must hate Jewish people)

There are also some incredibly racist, ghostwritten newsletters that went out under his name decades ago, but for some reason he's never said anything like that before or since that particular incident and no one can recall hearing such words coming out of his mouth.

Of course, the war on (some) drugs is probably the most racist set of laws we have in this country right now, and there's only one candidate who wants to put a stop to that...

Its obvious that ron paul is a racist and an anti-semite and his supporter's psychopathic denials are not going to change that fact.

He doesn't want to nuke the Middle East into the stone age because Israel says so. Is the reason why most Neo-Con's think he's unqualified, reason for the Hate-on the past 2 weeks. He is far less dangerous than the Grinch.

Originally Posted by Deb C

This would add to the information pertaining to elections. Don't you think?

Contractors donate more to Joint Strike Fighter Caucus members

http://www.bizjournals.com/washingto...nt-strike.html

JSF is a failure, like F-22 before it. ACC (Airborne Combat command) never dared take a major risk of a loss in combat with an F-22. JSF is the desire to have a one-size-fits-all aircraft. Drones will supersede most of it's missions before the first squadron reaches IOC (readiness).

Originally Posted by Deb C

In my limited estimation, I would suggest that if there are any *champions* who actually represent the people, it would be Bernie Sanders.


“Democrats cave? How could you suggest that?” Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), an outspoken liberal independent, said with a heavy dose of irony when asked last week whether he feared Democratic leaders would give too much in the payroll tax negotiations.


http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/200403-dems-vow-not-to-cave-on-payroll-tax-upping-pressure-on-boehner?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page =

Bernie's Newsletter: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/n...A-E57012508DF6

And I'm stuck with Blunt and Talent.

Originally Posted by The Rani

EDIT:
And holy smokes, he didn't even write some of those things himself!

You put something out under your name, you take responsibility for it.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

He doesn't want to nuke the Middle East into the stone age because Israel says so. Is the reason why most Neo-Con's think he's unqualified, reason for the Hate-on the past 2 weeks. He is far less dangerous than the Grinch.

It appears that you know much more about him than some of us do. Would you share what you know about his thoughts on some of our major issues? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Monsieur Le Chien

You put something out under your name, you take responsibility for it.

Taking responsibility for something is not the same thing as automatically adopting the position as your own.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

Taking responsibility for something is not the same thing as automatically adopting the position as your own.

Tell that to your troops after you've signed the order.

Ron Paul on Health Care:

He will work with Congress to:

* Repeal ObamaCare and end its unconstitutional mandate that all Americans must carry only government-approved health insurance or answer to the IRS.

* Allow purchase of health insurance across state lines.

* Provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.

* Exempt those with terminal illnesses from the employee portion of payroll taxes while they are suffering from such illnesses or are incurring significant medical costs associated with their conditions.

* Give a payroll deduction to any worker who is the primary caregiver for a spouse, parent, or child with a terminal illness.

* Ensure that those harmed during medical treatment receive fair compensation while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system by providing a tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance purchased before medical treatment.

* Guarantee that what is taken from taxpayers to pay for Medicare and Medicaid is not raided for other purposes.

* Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and remove government-imposed barriers to obtaining HSAs.

* Stop the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from interfering with Americans’ knowledge of and access to dietary supplements and alternative treatments.

* Prevent federal bureaucrats from tracking every citizen’s medical history from cradle to grave by prohibiting the use of taxpayer funds for a national database of personal health information.

Ron Paul proudly worked every day to honor the trust his patients placed in him, and he will do the same as President with the confidence of the American people, who deserve a government that “does no harm” to their health care.

Ron Paul On Taxes

KEEP MORE OF YOUR MONEY

The power to tax is the power to destroy, which is why Ron Paul will never support higher taxes.


Our national debt is currently over $14 trillion, with the government spending nearly $2 trillion more per year than it collects. The American people should not have to pay for Washington’s reckless and out-of-control appetite for debt.

High taxes stifle innovation, prevent saving, destroy production, crush the middle class and the poor, and discourage investment. Every American is entitled to the fruits of his labor, especially during these tough economic times.

Lowering taxes will leave you more money to take care of yourself and your family, and it will allow businesses greater opportunities to hire new workers, increase current salaries, and expand their companies.

As President, Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes. And he will be proud to be the one who finally turns off the lights at the IRS for good.


Capital gains taxes, which punish you for success (and interfere with your efforts to hedge against inflation by purchasing gold and silver coins), should also be immediately repealed.
Struggling college students and those working to support their families would be greatly benefited and receive an immediate pay raise by eliminating taxes on tips.


As a congressman, Ron Paul has consistently endorsed legislation to let Americans claim more tax credits and deductions, including on educational costs, alternative energy vehicles, and health care. He also believes it is immoral to tax senior citizens twice by requiring them to include Social Security benefits in their gross income at tax time. A first step to eliminating that requirement would be to repeal the 1993 increase in taxes on Social Security benefits. Then we must abolish that tax entirely.


While a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax would each be a better alternative to the income tax system, Congressman Paul believes we would have to guarantee the 16^th Amendment is repealed to avoid having both the income tax and one of these systems as an additional tax.


But there is a better way. Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans.
The answer to spending and debt is to return to a constitutionally limited government
that protects liberty – not one that keeps robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Those last two posts were from Ron Paul's official site.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I've seen no good evidence of antisemitism or racism in any of Ron Paul's writings or speeches. Nor is it even close to true that most of his support comes from antisemites or racists. Most of his support (such as it is) comes from libertarians.

Oh, and also, objecting to the U.S. unilaterally going to war just because we don't like some other country's government, is not the same as approving of that government. It's just objecting to American pretensions that we're supposed to rule the world by force, that's all.

I agree. We should only go to war when our national interests are at stake. Then we should go all out and try to end hostilities is the shortest time possible.

I've been looking at the astrology for the election again, now that things have worked out as expected so far, and Gingrich became the next challenger to Romney as I predicted he might. But he is already declining, so the question is whether another challenger could arise, or is there a dark horse whom the Republicans might turn to. I doubt in these times when so much is decided beforehand, that it would happen at the convention. It will have to happen in the next few months, and it is not likely to happen after most of the primaries have been held.

One thing I see is that Santorum may not drop out soon after all. Jupiter in his sign may indicate some good fortune, especially later (March and the Spring) if he makes it that far. So it is not out of the question that he could be the next challenger, but his chart does not indicate he can win the election or the nomination.

Ron Paul, as I indicated, has a horoscope that is at least as good as Romney and Gingrich. The only strong drawbacks he has to becoming the nominee are non-astrological: his age, and his narrow appeal to the extreme right on economics and the extreme left on foreign policy (libertarian). That is an interesting combination though, and independents and Democrats can vote in many primaries. He might well be the next challenger to Romney in the polls if he wins Iowa. I expect Romney to still win New Hampshire though fairly easily. Paul might go the distance, and he might also run as an independent or Libertarian in the Fall.

I still think Obama has the advantage over Paul, as well as over Romney or Gingrich, and my original prediction for Romney as the nominee still stands.

Though some of the other candidates may rise a few points in the polls if Gingrich falls, none of them have horoscopes that indicate electability, so they aren't going anywhere. But what about a dark horse late entry? Two of them have horoscopes which indicate they are electable: Jeb Bush and Gary Johnson. But Bush has a Saturn return going on now, and so does Johnson. That's a big obstacle. Being born in 1953 is not a fortunate thing this year if you want to be president. Having the last name Bush is not an advantage this year either. So I don't see it happening, though 2016 is quite possible for them-- although Johnson still lacks enough recognition. He could be an independent contender later in the year though.

Update: Michael Bloomberg (potential independent moderate) has a score of 10 to 9 according to my research of best and worst aspects for candidates. That is not above average, and not as good as Obama, Paul, Romney, Gingrich or even Perry.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Love it, very Boomer (not the doing it part, the bragging about it).

Of course, the "pretty good" part of it referred to the meal. One problem I have in writing is assuming others know what I'm talking about.

Was the other person who bragged a boomer too?

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

Its obvious that ron paul is a racist and an anti-semite and his supporter's psychopathic denials are not going to change that fact.

Excuse me? It is not obvious to me, and flat assertions that it is will not convince me. Nor will calling contrary opinions "psychopathic denials."

"n 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.) "

Two scenarios off the top of my head, from real life, without even thinking about it.

1) "Some people say (offensive quote), but I call that nonsense."

2) "Long ago, when I was young, I used to believe (offensive position), but I learned better when....."

Is that context enough for whoever said the above?

Position #2 is a reality whose most vivid and memorable expression goes back to the 18th Century and is often sung in church and played on the bagpipes at funerals. I doubt anyone can deny its truth in human affairs.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Of course, the "pretty good" part of it referred to the meal. One problem I have in writing is assuming others know what I'm talking about.

Was the other person who bragged a boomer too?

I didn't consider you bragging. I considered it sharing what you did. And kudos to you for being there with some of our disadvantaged brothers and sisters.