cdapress.com — Saddam Hussein has been removed. An elected government is now in place in Iraq that meets with US approval. The only weapon of mass destruction in Iraq is our military presence. Why are we still over there? Conventional wisdom would dictate that when the "mission is accomplished", the victor goes home, and that is not considered a retreat.
Sep 4, 2007 View in Crawl 4
blaze4metalSep 5, 2007
"Regardless, abortion and gay marriage are red herrings. We have some bigger things to worry about than that, such as inflation, a tanking dollar, the North American Union, uncontrolled government spending, erosion of individual rights, centralization of power, poor selection of Supreme Court justices, among many other serious matters which must take precedent at this point."Exactly! This is what pisses me off about the televised debates. Why do they waste a good 30 minutes asking each candidate their views on these topics? The fate of the nation does not depend on our actions against abortion and gay marriage. Leave it to the states and let the federal government deal with federal issues.
compdude32Sep 6, 2007
Ron Paul defiantly relies on the stupid for his support, that is absolutely clear and also explains his popularity here on Digg.
compdude32Sep 6, 2007
Ron Paul moving to an independent would be the best thing he could do for the country, it would make 2008 a cake walk for the republican candidate.
rationalistSep 6, 2007
To WinstonFriedman:Attacking the messenger is a classic logical fallacy and authoritarian tactic. First, here is a link to a post by a veteran libertarian blogger quoting Ron Paul's own words showing how far his positions are from libertarianism:<a class="user" href="http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1180003223.shtml">http://kipesquire.powerblogs.com/posts/1180003223.shtml</a>Second, here are direct links to the bills Paul has sponsored or co-sponsored or supported on the issues I raised above:(You'll note that, in fact, it is your post that is content-free and contains no substantive rebuttals of any of my assertions.)'The Sanctity of Life Act of 2007" H.R. 2597 Introduced June 2007 Sponsor: Ron Paul<a class="user" href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2597">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2597</a>This is the second time Paul has introduced this same bill in the current session of Congress; the first one was H.R. 1094, which Paul introduced in February 2007.It's also the same bill he introduced in the last Congress as H.R. 776Section 3 of that bill, as well as other bills Paul introduced, would prohibit the Judiciary ffrom hearing cases alleging violation of the Establishment Clause by federal or state or local governments passing bans on abortion, among other things. Energy Policy Act of 2005, shields 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:<a class="user" href="http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=129&chamber=H&congress=1091&tally=1">http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=129&chamber=H&congress=1091&tally=1</a>Incidentally, and more recently, Ron Paul of Texas voted AGAINST removing subsidies to energy companies for oil and gas exploration. H.R. 6 in the current Congress: <a class="user" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00006:">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.00006:</a>Of course, while campaigning in June of this year, he claimed to be against subsidies.I guess he was for them before he was against them - or, he is for them in the Halls of Congress, where the votes count, but against them in the public eye.So much for "libertarian" positions; when it comes to the oil companies, so powerful in Texas, seems Ron Paul suddenly becomes a corporate welfare champion.Incidentally, he also supports drilling in the ANWR wildlife refuge (which most experts say does not have enough extractable oil to have a significant or lasting impact on US supplies, and, in fact, the only real beneficiaries from its drilled are oil company short-term profits) while opposing incentives for the development of alternative fuels -and also opposing raising corporate average fuel efficiency standards for US automobiles.Paul also voted no on establishing a nationwide AMBER alert for missing kids, BTW. Apparently, he cares more about fertilized eggs and controlling women's wombs than about living children.He also voted in favor of goverment funding of health providers who do not provide information about abortion to women. Apparently, once again, his "libertarianism" takes a back seat to his theocracy. Of course, he opposes federal funding for stem cell research, for Family Planning abroad (heaven forbid them darkies learn how to control their population growth like Dr. Paul's patients did or did he withhold family planning information from his American patients?)In July 199 he voted in favor of banning gay adoptions in DC, a vote he has never repudiated, and indeed followed up with votes to deny funding for DC adoption agencies to go through the process if the parents were gay.In typical duplicitous fashion (say one thing on the campaign trail, vote for the opposite), Paul has opposed a Constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage - yet actually co-sponsored the "Marriage Protection Act', which would bar federal courts from hearing challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman as a matter of federal law.<a class="user" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.3313:">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.3313:</a> So, he can claim to be both for and against the issue, depending upon the audience he is speaking to - but when it counts, in actual votes on the equal rights of homosexuals, he votes pro-theocracy anti-libertarian every time.I've posted links to his votes against granting DC voting representation in Congress and the Electoral College in other comments, I can't find those right now but you can Google them yourself. Apparently, Paul cares more about how the DC population votes (overwhelmingly Democratic) than about their individual rights and liberties.In fact, anyone can either Google or go to thomas.loc.gov and search for the legislation I've mentioned.It is all public record. I don't work for any campaign; if you claim to be aware of my many posts on Digg, then you should know that I am an atheist and an anti-authoritarian and son of a holocaust survivor, and I am extremely alarmed by Paul's pro theocratic authoritarian votes and positions and by the blind and uninformed fanatical following he attracts - and by the kind of behavior people like you exhibit, frantically trying to discredit his critics without addressing the substance of his critique.Oh, and I'm a Democrat, by the way, so if anything, strategically, I should be delighted at Paul's campaign, because he is doing to Republicans what Nader did to us. For me, however, America is more important than party, and, in my opinion, Paul is a dangerous neo-fascist who is not at all what his supporters portray. We've had enough experience voting for people ("compassionate conservatives" who promise that one of their first acts as president will be to set stricter carbon emissions standards and reduce the size of the federal government, for example) who stand for things very different than they claim in their campaign.Ron Paul is a danger to this country ,and so are his supporters, and I will continue to point people to his Congressional record so they can decide for themselves.
rationalistSep 6, 2007
I am not eager to define life as starting anywhere. I leave that to our judicial system, informed by medical scientists, not partisan ideologues who deny evolution. Don't even use medical terms like "third trimester" and "fetus" if you reject the scientific method itself."Fetus" is a medical term with a very specific scientific definition; for humans, it applies from the end of the eight week. Paul's legislation would apply the legal term "person", with all the protections that entails, at the instant a sperm fertilizes a single human egg cell. Second, supporting a woman's right to choose an abortion within existing legal constraints is very different than "supporting abortion". I support your right to ejaculate into a slab of beef in the privacy of your own home, if that turns you on, but I hardly support that act as desirable or tasteful or something I would engage in myself.As for the "compdude" commenting below you, the start of life is not the issue, the start of human life is the issue - otherwise, it would be murder to pull a wheat stalk out of the ground. And it is, in fact, a matter of scientific definition - and the official medical definition (which forms the basis for the legal definition) is not, as you claim, at conception; there are, in fact, many reasons that it does not make sense to define it that way. For one thing (although your comment suggests you may need to learn a bit about actual embryology), fertilization does not ensure implantation; without proper implantation in the womb, a human fertilized egg will not grow or even continue to live very long. Under Paul's legislation, a woman who miscarries, even within days of fertilization, could be held liable for at least second-degree murder, for not adequately protecting the fertilized egg inside her.You can continue to attack the messenger, and use emotional terms - or misuse precise scientific and medical terms in ways that are outside their actual meaning or application. Or, you can choose to argue the substance on rational grounds.Unless, that is, you will admit that your argument is actually religious and irrational, rather than scientific, legal and logical.Because as far as scientific grounds re concerned, you have none to stand on. There is no scientific basis for Paul's definition, and he doesn't pretend there is. He calls it the "Sanctity of Life Act". That's a religious term, not a scientific one.
amoro99Sep 6, 2007
Fred is going to be president. Americans will never elect a black man or a woman before a white man. Even an oafish one.
winstonfriedmanSep 11, 2007
I think you need to look up the definition of ad hominem attacks. I didn't attack your character at all. I was expressing amazement at your ability to completely ignore the rebuttals to the same points made over and over again, which basically boil down to Paul's stances on abortion and gay marriage. Your points on these two issues have been addressed ad nauseum. Want the cliff notes version? I'm not going to go into length or detail on this stuff again, but here it is:Paul is not the perfect candidate. He is not the perfect libertarian. Most just consider him the best option. So discrediting a couple of his positions doesn't automatically eliminate him from contention. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. We don't live in perfect world. We don't get perfect candidates, we just have to go with the best. It is also absolutely essential to understand the current role of the executive. That branch of the government isn't quite a dictatorship yet, so it is important to understand in what areas he will have influence and in what areas he won't. Most libertarians disagree with Paul on marriage. It is definitely a philosophical inconsistency on his part. Due to the fact that this is just one of many issues, and not a high priority one for me at that, this fact doesn't automatically toss him in the bin for me. Again, doesn't work like that.Again, most disagree with him on abortion. His stance on abortion isn't as philosophically inconsistent as you might suggest though. If a libertarian believes in life at conception, that life is granted all of the protections and liberties any other human would get. Obviously, this would protect the life of the fetus. Again, I disagree with him on this, but I don't see him being able to do much about it as president and it doesn't invalidate his candidacy for me. One other important point to make: you MUST distinguish between his votes on D.C. legislation and national legislation. His authority as a lawmaker is different for the two areas, and he is very aware of this and it shows in his voting record. But you and other Paul bashers conveniently mix the two and love to put his D.C. votes into a light suggesting he steps over his bounds as a congressmen. It's dishonest and misleading to ignore this distinction.As a point of interest, who are you supporting for president? This is an election, and presumably you support someone. I can't imagine it is any democrat or republican, given your absolute and unwavering "anti-authoritarian" stance. Honestly, that is a good thing. We could use more people like that. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any candidate more anti-authoritarian than Paul. When it comes states' rights, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, habeas corpus, the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, foreign policy, and the role of the executive, Paul is a hands down winner. And frankly, these issues easily trump his distasteful stances on abortion and gay marriage, two issues that pale in importance compared the issues mentioned.