Looks like all of Pauls quotes Odin posted were nearly 20 years ago. Do we always assume what people said then is what they still believe now?

However I will note with some interest Pauls thought slave owners should have been compensated to free their slaves. I thought Paul opposed bailouts of any form.

Related to Ron Paul:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...terstitialskip
Voters leaving Republican, Democratic parties in droves

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON – More than 2.5 million voters have left the Democratic and Republican parties since the 2008 elections, while the number of independent voters continues to grow.

A USA TODAY analysis of state voter registration statistics shows registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party. Republicans dipped in 21 states, while independents increased in 18 states.

The trend is acute in states that are key to next year's presidential race. In the eight swing states that register voters by party, Democrats' registration is down by 800,000 and Republicans' by 350,000. Independents have gained 325,000.


The pattern continues a decades-long trend that has seen a diminution in the power of political parties, giving rise to independents as Ross Perot and Ralph Nader and the popularity this year of libertarian Republican Ron Paul.
"The strident voices of both the left and the right have sort of soured people from saying willingly that they belong to one party or the other," says Doug Lewis, who represents state elections officials. "If both sides call each other scurrilous dogs, then the public believes that both sides are probably scurrilous dogs."
Registered Democrats still dominate the political playing field with more than 42 million voters, compared to 30 million Republicans and 24 million independents. But Democrats have lost the most — 1.7 million, or 3.9%, from 2008.
Democratic registration has fared worse than Republicans in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina and Pennsylvania — the eight swing states with party registration. Republican losses are biggest in Nevada, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania.
The decline is due to a variety of factors. People move, people die, people revolt in disgust. Many are stripped from registration rolls by states seeking to remove inactive voters.
By contrast, the number of independents has grown for years and is up more than 400,000 since 2008, or 1.7%. States with big gains: Colorado, Florida, North Carolina — and Arizona, a possible target for President Obama in 2012.
The 2012 winner, says North Carolina elections director Gary Bartlett, will be "whoever is attractive to the unaffiliated voter."

It has been covered, and covered, revisited, and blah, blah, blah:

Republicans, Democrats, and Mass Media Unite Against Ron Paul

A Google News search reveals that more than 200 articles have been published today in mainstream papers that are related to the twenty-year old newsletters that once went out under Ron Paul's name.

In every election since then, Ron Paul has denounced the content of the newsletters and denied writing them. This claim is highly believable to anyone who has followed the writings and speeches of a man who claims Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as personal heroes and idols.

At the time these newsletters were published, the Representative from Texas was active in his medical practice. A practice that, I might add, never turned a single patient away for race, religion, creed, or even an inability to pay. Consistent with his libertarian principles, the doctor would rather take a loss on delivering a poor family's child than accept funding from Medicare and other federal sources.

If anything, the newsletters show a lack of oversight and a managerial failure for a man who had little such experience at that point in his life. Twenty years out, I believe he may just have learned a lesson and grown from the consequences of his mistake. While he does accept a moral responsibility for allowing such racist trash to go out under his name, there is nothing else in his history to suggest he ever believed or intended to endorse the things that were written.

On actual policy proposals, Ron Paul is the only candidate who would end the incredibly racist wars on drugs and terrorism.

The stuff in the newsletters is pretty horrible... but there's no one who even claims to have heard such a thing come from the man's mouth.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Looks like all of Pauls quotes Odin posted were nearly 20 years ago. Do we always assume what people said then is what they still believe now?

However I will note with some interest Pauls thought slave owners should have been compensated to free their slaves. I thought Paul opposed bailouts of any form.

In this case the slave owners would suffer a huge loss not because of their own errors in judgment but because the government would be changing the rules on them rather abruptly. I think the reason you consider this to be a bailout is the quite understandable desire to punish the slave owners. In a way this is similar to allowing the government to take someone's land from them without compensation simply by passing a law that says that they don't own it anymore which I think that you would agree is not a bailout. In both of these cases we have the government suddenly abrogating long standing property rights.

It seems to me that not punishing slave owners and ending slavery is much preferable to having a war the kills six-hundred thousand people.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

However I will note with some interest Pauls thought slave owners should have been compensated to free their slaves. I thought Paul opposed bailouts of any form.

Heh. Good one there.

At the same time, manumission has long been a way used to release slaves. It worked for every slaveholding European nation, after all. If I recall correctly, there were even abolitionist organizations set up in the USA the 18th and 19th century which solicited donations to achieve that very result.

In any case, it beats the heck out of killing a half a million people. Especially if you do it clever-like and pay off the slaveholders in a scrip that you immediately thereafter inflate into worthlessness.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

If Lily Tomlin & Jane Fonda are to be considered Boomers that is, Dolly Parton is one--to be sure. Tussilago thinks so, and he often thinks of the Boomer generation as 1938 - 1958. We used to get into arguments about it.

That is the Pluto in Leo generation; a Leo-influenced generation wants self-expression and creative fulfillment.

However IME Boomers typically hate this style of working AS MANAGERS. You guys may love it as workers, but you hate it as managers--detest it, loathe it, spit on it, and stamp it into the ground. And this has been true of all my Boomer bosses to date. Even the current one. Thank god an Xer is there though to balance her out.

~Chas'88

The downside of Leo; they can be arrogant and protective of their power perogatives. Boomers lost a good share of their idealism once the 3T started. Some of us now are self-righteous and conceited goons.

Originally Posted by Galen

In this case the slave owners would suffer a huge loss not because of their own errors in judgment but because the government would be changing the rules on them rather abruptly. I think the reason you consider this to be a bailout is the quite understandable desire to punish the slave owners. In a way this is similar to allowing the government to take someone's land from them without compensation simply by passing a law that says that they don't own it anymore which I think that you would agree is not a bailout. In both of these cases we have the government suddenly abrogating long standing property rights.

It seems to me that not punishing slave owners and ending slavery is much preferable to having a war the kills six-hundred thousand people.

You have a point there. It is difficult to escape the conclusion, however, that owning and treating slaves in the way they were was simply a crime; at any rate, a crime against humanity. If the criminals were paid off, helping to avoid the bloodbath, the least that could have been done was to make the criminal slave-owners also pay compensation to the slaves (i.e. "reparations", being discussed today in fact), enough to give them a good start as free men and women. The government should have done this too. Not to mention, not giving up on justice and equality in the South, as Grant and the Republicans did after Reconstruction.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The downside of Leo; they can be arrogant and protective of their power perogatives. Boomers lost a good share of their idealism once the 3T started. Some of us now are self-righteous and conceited goons.

Pretty much all of you in my experience. The sooner the Boomer demographic stranglehold on politics is broken the better. That is why I liked the Lost so much because they didn't feel this constant need the Boomers have to meddle in other peoples lives.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Related to Ron Paul:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...terstitialskip
Voters leaving Republican, Democratic parties in droves

WASHINGTON – More than 2.5 million voters have left the Democratic and Republican parties since the 2008 elections, while the number of independent voters continues to grow.

A USA TODAY analysis of state voter registration statistics shows registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party. Republicans dipped in 21 states, while independents increased in 18 states.

Considering the stats, the main trend is simply lack of registration, especially among Democrats. Many of these were probably young voters who registered in 2008 and didn't vote in 2010. To be sure some of them have been disillusioned with Obama. The gain in independents does not account for the loss among Democrats, and since Republicans lost too it doesn't look like a switch in party. The overall voter total declined in these stats. The Democrats have work to do to register voters.

Originally Posted by Galen

Pretty much all of you in my experience. The sooner the Boomer demographic stranglehold on politics is broken the better. That is why I liked the Lost so much because they didn't feel this constant need the Boomers have to meddle in other peoples lives.

Chas was talking about managers in the private sector. The problem in politics is how people vote, not how they manage. The problem is Republicans, going back to Reagan; The Republican ideology is not generational. I know you don't agree, Mr. Galen.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Chas was talking about managers in the private sector. The problem in politics is how people vote, not how they manage. The problem is Republicans, going back to Reagan; The Republican ideology is not generational.

Maybe but it seems to me that the same generational traits create this kind of person. The tendency of Prophet generations to use government to shape us into what they deem acceptable is a generational trait, an obnoxious one at that.

Originally Posted by Galen

Maybe but it seems to me that the same generational traits create this kind of person. The tendency of Prophet generations to use government to shape us into what they deem acceptable is a generational trait, an obnoxious one at that.

Sometimes humanity needs some improving. Without care for the content of individual character we can all decay to entities who have only the most primitive and unrefined drives. A conservative like you and a liberal like me recognize where such leads -- as a rule to a debased world that resembles the hedonistic, myopic, inequitable, and corrupt world that the fictional Harry Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) finds would exist in his absence in It's a Wonderful Life. There must be more to life than sex, drunken or drugged euphoria, luxury, bureaucratic power, and Roman circuses lest things go rotten fast.

Effective leaders find ways in which to get people to do the not-so-obvious with methods other than brutality. Rebuilding the rotten and obsolete infrastructure of America is going to require no less hard toil than did building the railroads or the Interstate Highways. Our ability to work smart may depend more upon people learning to do hyperbolic trigonometry and differential equations than to do 'basket-weaving' in college -- and even before that, parents insisting that the TV does not get turned on until homework is completed. Add to that, we may need to pay higher taxes just to have a political order capable of making some human investments, let alone dealing with a 4T war.

A 3T is the rot that makes a 4T inevitable in intensity and nastiness. We Americans might have dodged the worst for a couple of decades only to end up with the weak-willed, unimaginative George W. Bush who encouraged our economic elites to live as if sultans capable of enriching themselves by treating the rest of us badly. "Just cut taxes!" is the perfect appeal to people who think that they owe nobody else anything. We change our ways now or things go really bad very fast.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Sometimes humanity needs some improving. Without care for the content of individual character we can all decay to entities who have only the most primitive and unrefined drives. A conservative like you and a liberal like me recognize where such leads -- as a rule to a debased world that resembles the hedonistic, myopic, inequitable, and corrupt world that the fictional Harry Bailey (Jimmy Stewart) finds would exist in his absence in It's a Wonderful Life. There must be more to life than sex, drunken or drugged euphoria, luxury, bureaucratic power, and Roman circuses lest things go rotten fast.

I am a Libertarian actually and I have learned that until someone decides to change themselves any attempt to impose what you see an improvement will simply cause them to rebel. In fact my experiences with idealists doing things to me for my own good have been worse than dealing with sociopaths. Much of Generation X has had the same sort of experience which is why we prefer people to just leave us the hell alone.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Just cut taxes!" is the perfect appeal to people who think that they owe nobody else anything

More like the the cry of people who are tired of having their money wasted by governments that have clearly gone insane no matter which political party is running things.

Originally Posted by Galen

Maybe but it seems to me that the same generational traits create this kind of person. The tendency of Prophet generations to use government to shape us into what they deem acceptable is a generational trait, an obnoxious one at that.

Beyond any question all generational types have their faults. Reactive generations at their worst are callow, vengeful, and materialistic; they can see the world as nothing more than an arena for salving their hurt feelings by inflicting great suffering on others. Just think of the Nazis, fascists, and Klansmen of the last 4T and Stalinists of the last 4T and 1T. Civic generations can get singularly robotic and unimaginative, as shown in the empty grandeur of some Civic-directed grand projects like the attempt of Nicolae Ceausescu to reshape Romania into an inhuman showcase of collectivism... or the designs of Albert Speer for a "new" Berlin. Adaptive leaders often show excessive permissiveness through their indecisive, neurotic tendencies. Idealist ruthlessness, arrogance, and selfishness corrupt causes that they create and cherish.

Originally Posted by Galen

I am a Libertarian actually and I have learned that until someone decides to change themselves any attempt to impose what you see an improvement will simply cause them to rebel. In fact my experiences with idealists doing things to me for my own good have been worse than dealing with sociopaths. Much of Generation X has had the same sort of experience which is why we prefer people to just leave us the hell alone.

A few months ago, some criminal nutcase (Phillip Gallardo) was busted for having kidnapped and abused a child (Jaycee Dugard), keeping her a captive through her adolescence and much of her adulthood -- and I will say instead of the lurid crimes that that beast inflicted upon her that he denied her the usual experiences that a middle-class American girl normally can expect. I'm sure that you know of that case, and I have commented on it. I think that you would concur with me that Phillip Garrido is a horrible person who exemplifies the most objectionable features of an Idealist type -- that he is ruthless, selfish, and arrogant, the sort who can convince himself that his severe abuse of others is beneficence. This beast has a long rap sheet of abusive behavior toward females and managed to get his wife involved to the extent that she has a long prison term for her complicity.

If you were to tell me that so far Boomers are the worst business executives since at least the Gilded Age and are without excuse for such, and that Idealist traits contribute to the worst characteristics, then I concur. As a Boomer I can attest to the egotism of Boomers even in childhood. Some grew out of it as they got exposed to a real world more interested in a passable hamburger than in the alleged glory of someone else's vanity. Maybe the Boomers who got consigned to menial jobs that enforce subordination and poverty didn't get to stay so arrogant, ruthless, and selfish... but such people don't join the elites and don't play key roles in history. Those who found their way onto the fast track of bureaucratic success learned that they could get ahead only by exploiting others and casting them aside when those others are no longer useful to them. America didn't get so rotten when the GI executives were still in command and still had some desire to uplift their subordinates or when Silent executives tried to put on an air of civilized "niceness". Once such people were off the scene, Boomers in economic leadership could be their absolute worst and could poison the political process.

Success in the corporate bureaucracies of our time often bears a strange resemblance to sociopathic behavior that will bring ruin to America if it is not reversed. An economic order in which 95% of the people suffer for the upper 5% has a tendency to implode in revolution or go on a course of disastrous conquests intended at first to expand markets, exploit foreign labor, and extract resources on the cheap only to be defeated by military enemies that seek the demise of that order.

More like the the cry of people who are tired of having their money wasted by governments that have clearly gone insane no matter which political party is running things.

Yeah, sure. Let the drunks turn our roads into slaughterhouses, let the drug traffickers turn people into savages, let kids grow up ignorant and gullible, let buildings burn for lack of fire protection, let epidemics ravage the people... just cut taxes on elites so that they can live like sultans after they corner markets and turn workers into serfs.

The problem isn't that we have a bloated public sector; we can live with that so long as the services are better than the costs. The problem is that we have a public sector that does better at enriching the well-connected than it does in meeting basic needs that the private sector can never do well.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And thus the smear campaign begins. I guess we've moved from the "First, they ignore you" stage to the "Then they fight you" one.

If this is the best they've got (oohh... once upon a time, people used Paul's name to say bad thing...), then Paul's got nothing to worry about at all. At least, unlike the current and previous (and so on) holders of the office, he doesn't kill people.

So you deny that Paul said all these bigoted and loony things?

Originally Posted by Galen

Not really. What you fail to realize is that many people do not believe the mythology that surrounds Lincoln or the War Between the States. The fact of the matter is that the British ended slavery in much the way that Ron Paul believes it should have been ended. It might be worth reading what Abel Upshur had written about the nature of the union. In fact the New England states considered secession at the Hartford Convention and did use nullification on more than on occasion.

Even on this issue Ron Paul is showing a strict adherence to the Constitution along with a preference for solutions to problems that don't require coercion or a high body count.

Slavery was an evil institution and the planters did not deserve one cent of compensation for treating HUMAN BEINGS as property. Southern Planter culture would never have accepted such a buy-out anyway, their whole culture was built on an ideological foundation with slavery and racism at it's center. In fact Lincoln threw that out as an idea and the slave owners rejected it.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Heh. Good one there.

At the same time, manumission has long been a way used to release slaves. It worked for every slaveholding European nation, after all. If I recall correctly, there were even abolitionist organizations set up in the USA the 18th and 19th century which solicited donations to achieve that very result.

In any case, it beats the heck out of killing a half a million people. Especially if you do it clever-like and pay off the slaveholders in a scrip that you immediately thereafter inflate into worthlessness.

The "Fire-Eaters" who dominated southern politics rejected the emancipation of slaves in ANY form, that is why what worked in the British Empire would never have worked in the US.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

If you were to tell me that so far Boomers are the worst business executives since at least the Gilded Age and are without excuse for such, and that Idealist traits contribute to the worst characteristics, then I concur. As a Boomer I can attest to the egotism of Boomers even in childhood. Some grew out of it as they got exposed to a real world more interested in a passable hamburger than in the alleged glory of someone else's vanity. Maybe the Boomers who got consigned to menial jobs that enforce subordination and poverty didn't get to stay so arrogant, ruthless, and selfish... but such people don't join the elites and don't play key roles in history. Those who found their way onto the fast track of bureaucratic success learned that they could get ahead only by exploiting others and casting them aside when those others are no longer useful to them. America didn't get so rotten when the GI executives were still in command and still had some desire to uplift their subordinates or when Silent executives tried to put on an air of civilized "niceness". Once such people were off the scene, Boomers in economic leadership could be their absolute worst and could poison the political process.

Well said. Prophets focus their idealism inwardly and it can manifest a culture of selfishness. Civics focus their idealism outwardly on the world and institutions.

The linchpin between the two opposites is the nomad. The nomad bears the brunt of the selfish ones as children and encourages and supports a change in direction for the next generation.

Civics may be a hero generation, but the table is set for them by nomads who reset the cycle from its worst nature to its best. S&H were very prophet-centric, but I am here to tell you that the most critical force in the cycle is neither prophet nor civic, it is the unheralded nomad.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Well said. Prophets focus their idealism inwardly and it can manifest a culture of selfishness. Civics focus their idealism outwardly on the world and institutions.

The linchpin between the two opposites is the nomad. The nomad bears the brunt of the selfish ones as children and encourages and supports a change in direction for the next generation.

Civics may be a hero generation, but the table is set for them by nomads who reset the cycle from its worst nature to its best. S&H were very prophet-centric, but I am here to tell you that the most critical force in the cycle is neither prophet nor civic, it is the unheralded nomad.

The Liberty Generation during the American Revolution is a good example.

Though Nomads play a large role creating the new world, they never become part of that world. In the book I am reading on the early US from 1789 to 1815 the Liberty Generation Nomads never really accepted the egalitarian path the Revolution Generation Civics were taking society.

Back to the 2012 election, it seems Gingrich, Bachman, Perry, and Huntsman all failed to qualify for the Virginia March 6th ballot primary. Virginia is a winner take all with 49 delegates. Likely Romney will get them (although Paul is on the ballot too.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...html#pagebreak

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Back to the 2012 election, it seems Gingrich, Bachman, Perry, and Huntsman all failed to qualify for the Virginia March 6th ballot primary. Virginia is a winner take all with 49 delegates. Likely Romney will get them (although Paul is on the ballot too.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...html#pagebreak

And apparently the reason they didn't qualify is because the vote-suppression legislation by RWers whining about "voter fraud" (AKA, poor black people voting) backfired.

Originally Posted by Odin

And apparently the reason they didn't qualify is because the vote-suppression legislation by RWers whining about "voter fraud" (AKA, poor black people voting) backfired.

Odin in Virginia, to get on the Ballot a Candidate (10,000 total) must get 400 signatures from each of the 11 Congressional Districts. So please temper your comments.

Originally Posted by TeddyR

Well said. Prophets focus their idealism inwardly and it can manifest a culture of selfishness. Civics focus their idealism outwardly on the world and institutions.

The linchpin between the two opposites is the nomad. The nomad bears the brunt of the selfish ones as children and encourages and supports a change in direction for the next generation.

Civics may be a hero generation, but the table is set for them by nomads who reset the cycle from its worst nature to its best. S&H were very prophet-centric, but I am here to tell you that the most critical force in the cycle is neither prophet nor civic, it is the unheralded nomad.

This Boomer may have little delight in old age except to witness the current Boom elite of corporate bureaucrats, economic hucksters, and political gangsters (like Karl Rove and Grover Norquist) getting their due as the last Boomer leadership inspires Millennial adults to create a more just and equitable social order. This will result in no small measure from Generation X deciding that the Bad Boomers are not their allies even if they espouse conservative or libertarian ideology. Boomers can't even get conservatism right -- which explains why this Boomer is no conservative.

Originally Posted by Odin

So you deny that Paul said all these bigoted and loony things?

Even your source doesn't claim he said them.

You tend to do this, Odin -- get so all frothed up over your first contact with an objectionable thing that it blocks your critical-thinking skills. It's unbecoming.