news.aol.com — With a whole lot of media out there with nothing to do now, interest in the Ron Paul event has risen. Paul's press spokesman, Jesse Benton, tells me that they will not cancel and have received an additional 50-60 new requests for press credentials since the Republicans announced their truncated schedule yesterday.
Sep 2, 2008 View in Crawl 4
yetanothercrocSep 2, 2008
<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTN3s2iVKKI</a>this is the reason.
charliebuckettsSep 3, 2008
People just get nervous when politicians invoke "states rights" because that argument has been used to oppress minorities. That being said, it's still sad to see the libertarian side locked out of the debates like other third parties.
drewedmanSep 3, 2008
just like bill clinton "crushed" america right?
laminarcissusSep 3, 2008
--"So I will admit I was wrong. The max deductions that can be declared is $8,000 not $6,000." --You're admitting to the wrong thing -- those limitation are in Section 4 and apply only to health saving accounts. In Section 1, in which the insurance companies have a direct interest, those limitations have mysteriously been left out. --"Besides, I don't recall ever seeing any sources citing Ron Paul's current investments in the health industry, so I fail to see how he stands to make any money and thus it be "his" market."--He is a physician, they are paid almost entirely these days by the insurance industry. That's where their money comes from. But that's no matter, I'm not making a conspiracy to profiteer argument, I'm making an hypocrisy and incompetence argument. You're middle section is a stirring speech, I may feel like a troll when I'm merely expressing my personal opinion, but otherwise I'm factual and I source. It may make you uncomfortable when I do that, but it's hard when citations bumps up against beliefs, no matter where they originate.-- "Through all your failed attempts to discredit the man this is the only piece of legislation you can find." --It is? I didn't realize you were ready to concede this one. Are we ready to move on to the next? I just don't like discussing ten things at once -- it allows the RP supporters to run in circles and avoid the truth. But if you're ready to concede this one and move onto the next then just say the word. -- "And, even if I grant you that the bills has it problems" --Thank you.-- "It still doesn't prove that the man is a "hypocrite" at all."It does. And if you're ready to move on to subsequent bills they will continue painting the same sad picture: -- He calls himself a strict Constitutionalist, but submits bills containing unconstitutional powers. -- He says he can cut spending and balance the budget, yet he submits bills that reduces revenue (by potentially billions) and don't include a single method for balancing the budget for the shortfall. -- He says the government should not bow to special interests, yet he submits that, if many people take advantage of them, simply hand money out like candy to lobbies and special interests. Hypocrisy or incredible incompetence. I wouldn't expect you take comfort in either one.You can write all you want on the other candidates. Really. I enjoy it, it's just not relevant. I am here specifically to oppose the involvement in American politics of Ron Paul and explain, in uncomfortable detail, why I oppose his involvement in government, discourse, or any other intellectually-driven pursuit, so vehemently. Other candidates have nothing to do with any of those reasons. It's like talking about my favorite brand of ice cream or concert pianist.
apostledeetsSep 4, 2008
<a class="user" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-300">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110 ...</a> Includes Status, Summary, and full text of the bill. inform and decide for yourself what it means.
Closed AccountSep 4, 2008
"So what would you rather -- I provide more Ron-Paul-authored legislation as comedy gold, or a detailed discussion of the vast organizational difficulties of controlling a one-room publishing operation?"I call your bluff.
laminarcissusSep 4, 2008
Oh for heaven's sake.Remember how we were working on your reading comprehension and specificity? Well let's try again.Which "bluff" are you calling?A) That I provide more Ron-Paul-authored legislation as comedy goldorB) That we begin a detailed discussion of the vast organizational difficulties of controlling a one-room publishing operation?Please re-read this several times in detail, and then respond by indicating the letter corresponding to the action you'd like to take.Remember to put the letter in a post, don't just mark the screen, I won't be able to see that.