(@ rationalist)Your rejoinder is peppered with half-truths and outright distortions:First, regarding 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007:Note the wording of the question: "Would you bring abstinence-education funding ONTO EQUAL GROUND with contraceptive-based education?" He said yes. I think that makes perfect sense - he represents a lot of voters who find encouraging the use of contraceptives abhorrent. While I don't, I think it's unfair that other taxpayers ARE forced to subsidize a message they honestly believe is immoral. As a compromise (since politics is the art of compromise), he supports "equal time" for both points of view. I personally don't think that the federal government should take any position on contraception (either pro or con) but I think this is the best Paul can do. Is this libertarian of him? Sure, it's also realistic.Second, re. 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007 his positions on vouchers: Again, Paul stood up for states rights in this case, which I applaud him for - he opposed the DC voucher program because it was essentially another add-on of federal welfare programs (in that it simply was more federal redistribution of wealth through means-testing), while in the other case Paul supported the state-based program because it was being administered by THE STATES (again, states rights).Third, re. Ron Paul voted YES on an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage:True, he did, and point taken. However, Washington DC is *not* a state and *is* in fact under direct federal jurisdiction. While I don't agree with Ron Paul's personal position regarding gay marriage, I defy you to find one case where he has supported direct federal intervention preventing states from exercising jurisdiction over adoption laws. There isn't one.Fourth, you said, "Energy Policy Act of 2005, shielded oil companies from MBTE lawsuits. Motion to strike that feature failed by 4 votes. Ron Paul of Texas voted AGAINST the motion to strike, thus in favor of the immunity for oil companies..." Now that's just downright disingenuous of you. He voted AGAINST the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which contained the measure that would have shielded oil companies against MTBE lawsuits. You're essentially saying that an unrelated parliamentary maneuver is more dispositive of his political philosophy than his actual voting record? You're not making any sense.Fifth, regarding HR.6:It looks like Ron Paul has voted against HR.6 going out of committee (reference roll call 36 and 37 for HR.6 in particular). I would expect this of him - his pattern is to co-sponsor spending votes and then either kill them in committee or vote against them when they hit the general House for consideration. He has *NOT* voted for any energy subsidies according to the Library of Congress. You call that trying to have it both ways? I call it smart politicking. There's a reason why Paul has been such a successful politician for so long. Anyways, the moment Paul actually votes an earmark into law, you let me know. There *is* a reason why his colleagues call him "Dr. No."Sixth, regarding the gay marriage issue: again, Paul has consistently opposed ALL federal definition of marriage, whether gay, straight, or what have you, and has consistently supported allowing states to independently define marriage however they see fit. He has NEVER opposed state's right to regulate marriage. Period. I defy you to find a case where he has not done so. Again, libertarian.Regarding the Establishment Clause issue, Ron Paul has always consistently held the view that it refers to the limit of the government on establishment of a state religion, and DOES NOT mean "separation of church and state." He has a strict constructionist view of the Establishment Clause that I am comfortable with and that he has held since before he was the Libertarian Party Presidential nominee. Your 10 commandments example merely underscores this position of his.Lasty, regarding your final point on abortion - like I said in my original post, his two "weak points" regarding his consistency of Libertarian positions is contained within his views on abortion and immigration (I'm suprised you didn't look into that issue - you'd find plenty there to skewer him with).Aside from the abortion issue, I found little in your post to support the idea that Paul is somehow a "theocrat." He's certainly pro-states rights to the exclusion of virtually all other issues. But let's be realistic - the Libertarian Party has an extremely strict vetting process for it's candidates. They would not have nominated him for President in 1988 if he wasn't consistently libertarian on most issues.
tell me something when you don't have enough money to pay your cancer operation. my screwed-up country will open its doors for you to come and have it for free.
How will we be judged by other nations of the world for:1. Spending $1,000,000,000,000 to get rid of Sadam HUSSEIN2. Spending another $2,000,000,000 to put Barak HUSSEIN in our highest office?Remember, according to Islam law, if the father is Muslim, then the son is Muslim.And in the eyes of Muslims worldwide, Barak Hussein IS a Muslim despite what ordinary people in this country believe.Our country is in the midst of major economic decline right now, one that is only partly reflected in the state of the current recession. This is a dangerous trend that is already having negative impact on the allocation and distribution of investment money, a critical resource that fuels our scientific and technology progress, the lifeblood of our nation.Do you really want to give our economic engine to someone who has never been responsible for more than 50 employees and has never been responsible for more than $10 million?Would it not be wiser to support the only administration that has given our great nation the ONLY NATIONAL BUDGET SURPLUS in the last 40 years, and the largest one in history. Note that the Clintons are also responsible for the LONGEST peace time economic expansion in US history.<a class="user" href="http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Work/040299.html">http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Work/040299.h ...</a>All smack talk aside, you cannot ignore the real possibility that we will be made the laughing stock of the world. Given the economic troubles we face, coupled with an all-time-low in the eyes of our global peers and competitors, we have no room for games. Barak wants to play fair? He wants to change the party system? He wants to invite scrutiny? Then he should start by making his own change: put his real middle name in all media references, just like Hillary Rodham Clinton does.I do not want to see us go backwards, economically, scientifically, technologically, or as a humanitarian nation.You decide.Hillary Rodham Clinton '08
Lip service. He voted in favor of it, then read that crap into the Congressional Record to sucker people like you.Anyone can talk, but when the chips are down and he has to actually vote, you can see which side he's *really* on.
fuzzynyankoJan 4, 2008
So did George W. Bush...
hypomanicJan 4, 2008
Someone's a little bummed they gave a couple hundred to Paul while their campaign dropped the ball in Iowa and continue to drop the ball in NH and SC?
leesoongJan 6, 2008
Is it true that Chuck Norris is planning to run for political office himself ?
szaszmanJan 7, 2008
(@ rationalist)Your rejoinder is peppered with half-truths and outright distortions:First, regarding 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007:Note the wording of the question: "Would you bring abstinence-education funding ONTO EQUAL GROUND with contraceptive-based education?" He said yes. I think that makes perfect sense - he represents a lot of voters who find encouraging the use of contraceptives abhorrent. While I don't, I think it's unfair that other taxpayers ARE forced to subsidize a message they honestly believe is immoral. As a compromise (since politics is the art of compromise), he supports "equal time" for both points of view. I personally don't think that the federal government should take any position on contraception (either pro or con) but I think this is the best Paul can do. Is this libertarian of him? Sure, it's also realistic.Second, re. 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007 his positions on vouchers: Again, Paul stood up for states rights in this case, which I applaud him for - he opposed the DC voucher program because it was essentially another add-on of federal welfare programs (in that it simply was more federal redistribution of wealth through means-testing), while in the other case Paul supported the state-based program because it was being administered by THE STATES (again, states rights).Third, re. Ron Paul voted YES on an amendment banning adoptions in District of Columbia by gays or other individuals who are not related by blood or marriage:True, he did, and point taken. However, Washington DC is *not* a state and *is* in fact under direct federal jurisdiction. While I don't agree with Ron Paul's personal position regarding gay marriage, I defy you to find one case where he has supported direct federal intervention preventing states from exercising jurisdiction over adoption laws. There isn't one.Fourth, you said, "Energy Policy Act of 2005, shielded oil companies from MBTE lawsuits. Motion to strike that feature failed by 4 votes. Ron Paul of Texas voted AGAINST the motion to strike, thus in favor of the immunity for oil companies..." Now that's just downright disingenuous of you. He voted AGAINST the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which contained the measure that would have shielded oil companies against MTBE lawsuits. You're essentially saying that an unrelated parliamentary maneuver is more dispositive of his political philosophy than his actual voting record? You're not making any sense.Fifth, regarding HR.6:It looks like Ron Paul has voted against HR.6 going out of committee (reference roll call 36 and 37 for HR.6 in particular). I would expect this of him - his pattern is to co-sponsor spending votes and then either kill them in committee or vote against them when they hit the general House for consideration. He has *NOT* voted for any energy subsidies according to the Library of Congress. You call that trying to have it both ways? I call it smart politicking. There's a reason why Paul has been such a successful politician for so long. Anyways, the moment Paul actually votes an earmark into law, you let me know. There *is* a reason why his colleagues call him "Dr. No."Sixth, regarding the gay marriage issue: again, Paul has consistently opposed ALL federal definition of marriage, whether gay, straight, or what have you, and has consistently supported allowing states to independently define marriage however they see fit. He has NEVER opposed state's right to regulate marriage. Period. I defy you to find a case where he has not done so. Again, libertarian.Regarding the Establishment Clause issue, Ron Paul has always consistently held the view that it refers to the limit of the government on establishment of a state religion, and DOES NOT mean "separation of church and state." He has a strict constructionist view of the Establishment Clause that I am comfortable with and that he has held since before he was the Libertarian Party Presidential nominee. Your 10 commandments example merely underscores this position of his.Lasty, regarding your final point on abortion - like I said in my original post, his two "weak points" regarding his consistency of Libertarian positions is contained within his views on abortion and immigration (I'm suprised you didn't look into that issue - you'd find plenty there to skewer him with).Aside from the abortion issue, I found little in your post to support the idea that Paul is somehow a "theocrat." He's certainly pro-states rights to the exclusion of virtually all other issues. But let's be realistic - the Libertarian Party has an extremely strict vetting process for it's candidates. They would not have nominated him for President in 1988 if he wasn't consistently libertarian on most issues.
elevensupJan 10, 2008
tell me something when you don't have enough money to pay your cancer operation. my screwed-up country will open its doors for you to come and have it for free.
steveranJan 10, 2008
How will we be judged by other nations of the world for:1. Spending $1,000,000,000,000 to get rid of Sadam HUSSEIN2. Spending another $2,000,000,000 to put Barak HUSSEIN in our highest office?Remember, according to Islam law, if the father is Muslim, then the son is Muslim.And in the eyes of Muslims worldwide, Barak Hussein IS a Muslim despite what ordinary people in this country believe.Our country is in the midst of major economic decline right now, one that is only partly reflected in the state of the current recession. This is a dangerous trend that is already having negative impact on the allocation and distribution of investment money, a critical resource that fuels our scientific and technology progress, the lifeblood of our nation.Do you really want to give our economic engine to someone who has never been responsible for more than 50 employees and has never been responsible for more than $10 million?Would it not be wiser to support the only administration that has given our great nation the ONLY NATIONAL BUDGET SURPLUS in the last 40 years, and the largest one in history. Note that the Clintons are also responsible for the LONGEST peace time economic expansion in US history.<a class="user" href="http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Work/040299.html">http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Work/040299.h ...</a>All smack talk aside, you cannot ignore the real possibility that we will be made the laughing stock of the world. Given the economic troubles we face, coupled with an all-time-low in the eyes of our global peers and competitors, we have no room for games. Barak wants to play fair? He wants to change the party system? He wants to invite scrutiny? Then he should start by making his own change: put his real middle name in all media references, just like Hillary Rodham Clinton does.I do not want to see us go backwards, economically, scientifically, technologically, or as a humanitarian nation.You decide.Hillary Rodham Clinton '08
Closed AccountFeb 7, 2008
"Skeeves", implies insanity? That's a new one for me.
shatneresqueFeb 13, 2008
Lip service. He voted in favor of it, then read that crap into the Congressional Record to sucker people like you.Anyone can talk, but when the chips are down and he has to actually vote, you can see which side he's *really* on.