[hrdman2luv]

I think you guys are idiots. Ron Paul is the only one that can bring some sanity and simplicity back to the USA. And he is the only one that can beat Hillary. If you like 4 more years of over-spending warmongering dumba$$'s running the country into the ground, along with our reputation, fine vote for Hillary, or Rudy the Doody, or Romney the flip floppin Homo.
That will show your ignorance.
$10 say Romney is a closet homo.

[Smurf-316]

sounds like you need to visit the "I hate gay's" thread.....lol

[hrdman2luv]

I just don't like the way they parade around in public places, hoilding hands, kissing. ANd then your watching some TV show with the kids, and then all of a sudden, from out of no where, the lock limps right there in front of the kids.
I don't want to see it. I don't want my kids to see it. I think it's offensive.

Romney looks like he's hiding something.

[hrdman2luv]

Ron Paul

To the Editor

I read [LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link. on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (“kook,” as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.

1. Dr. Paul’s commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn’t pardoned Libby either, by the way.

2. If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.

3. Ron Paul is dead serious and very sober about what it will take to reform things like our oppressive tax system. Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years. Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the income tax. The United States could end the IRS and still fund the same level of big government we had less than ten years ago. There is nothing “unserious” about that.

4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk Column,” for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.

Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.

Mona, I can not expect everyone to support Dr. Paul, especially those who have sunk so much of their own credibility into supporting the Iraq war. In fact, Dr. Paul welcomes open and spirited discussions, and even legitimate criticism. But, I had to get a few things off my chest.

Jesse Benton
Communications Director
Ron Paul 2008 PCC
Arlington, Va.

[hrdman2luv]

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/251/ad5topbu4.jpg
http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/2...5bottomri3.jpg

Check em out. They were paid for by a Ron Paul supporter. Not by the campaign.

Ron Paul 08. The only man to beat Hillary. And the only one standing up for the American Trucker.

[dsolo802]

Originally Posted by hrdman2luv

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies.

Liberty, at least insofar as our Bill or Rights is concerned - means freedom from interference from government. When it comes to racism, anti-Semitism, gay bashing, etc., freedom from government interference is not the point at all. If the government did not exist at all, it would be the law of the jungle, under which minorities of all kinds have always suffered mightily.

The history of this country shows, but for government protection of the rights of individuals from encroachment by other individuals, racism, anti-Antisemitism, sexism, gay bashing etc. would be MUCH MUCH worse.

Ron Paul and Libertarianism in general promotes something even worse than law of the jungle. With law of the jungle, if a small segment of the population takes for itself a disproportionate share of the resources needed for survival, the other animals - men or otherwise - would kill those that horde. With total faith in free enterprise, and some government to protect "property", we would have power protecting power, and the police protecting the ultra haves from the ultra have nots - thwarting what would otherwise happen naturally.

While Dr. Paul may not be courting the Truthers, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and their ilk, the likely if not intended impact of Liberatarianism is not lost on them. That they want what the good Dr. is selling should send off warning alarms of all kinds, whether or not Dr. Paul himself thinks his brand of freedom is anything to be concerned about.

[hrdman2luv]

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link.

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

[dsolo802]

Originally Posted by hrdman2luv

[LINK POSTED BY MEMBER] Only Members Can View This Political Forum Link.

Originally Posted by hrdman2luv

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

You chose not to respond directly to what I've written. Give it a shot - I didn't write what I wrote just to talk with myself.

Originally Posted by hrdmanluv

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies.

Originally Posted by dsolo802

Liberty, at least insofar as our Bill or Rights is concerned - means freedom from interference from government. When it comes to racism, anti-Semitism, gay bashing, etc., freedom from government interference is not the point at all. If the government did not exist at all, it would be the law of the jungle, under which minorities of all kinds have always suffered mightily.

The history of this country shows, but for government protection of the rights of individuals from encroachment by other individuals, racism, anti-Antisemitism, sexism, gay bashing etc. would be MUCH MUCH worse.

Ron Paul and Libertarianism in general promotes something even worse than law of the jungle. With law of the jungle, if a small segment of the population takes for itself a disproportionate share of the resources needed for survival, the other animals - men or otherwise - would kill those that horde. With total faith in free enterprise, and some government to protect "property", we would have power protecting power, and the police protecting the ultra haves from the ultra have nots - thwarting what would otherwise happen naturally.

While Dr. Paul may not be courting the Truthers, Neo-Nazis, white supremacists and their ilk, the likely if not intended impact of Liberatarianism is not lost on them. That they want what the good Dr. is selling should send off warning alarms of all kinds, whether or not Dr. Paul himself thinks his brand of freedom is anything to be concerned about.

I hope you will take the challenge and respond to the above.

In the meantime, I will respond directly to what you write. Our country was presumably most rugged and devoted to individualism at the time of its founding - a time when the country was most racist. We had a great document - but our rugged individuals of the time chose to interpret it according to the ignorance and bigotry in their hearts. What sprung out of that rugged individualist heart? Genocide against the indigenous population and iron-tonged, lock and stock slavery.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

The collectivist mindset is not the root of bigotry. It is the fear and ignorance of the people, exploited by monied people for their own political and economic ends.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender.

Now that's a whopper. But for a great document - the Constitution - and a independent Judiciary, both part of our Government, we'd still have separate-but-equal, and women in this country would still not have the right to vote.

Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails.

There is no question that Corporatism is a scourge and plague upon this country. But Ron Paul would throw the baby out with the bath water. He doesn't want just to keep the fingers of government off the scales of economic justice, he would chop the hands of a government that could play a beneficent role in domestic affairs (for example, keeping the private sector honest) clean off at the wrists. Also, let's not forget - the private sector is not an innocent raped by government. Corporatism demonstrates that the private urge to subvert the public ends of government for limited private ends is very much a live and a force to be reckoned with.

Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Enforcing the laws and the Constitution, ensuring that business does not profit from the sale of lead toys to children, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, creed, religion or sexual orientation, and preventing the unscrupulous from hawking heroin at our school yards is not "benevolence" - that is what a nation through its government does to protect and preserve itself.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

People who are targets of racism - typically a minority of one sort or another - want and expect not to be the target of bigotry. The actions of people who already think in terms of collectives to target, i.e., have such a "group mentality", and who act to harm members of those groups as they imagine them to be, are actions that are positive deprivations of liberty and property - and can be and should be dealt with as such.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

This is a conclusion in search of a basis. All of the religions which presuppose a man will steal and murder and covet what does not belong to him stand against this simple but unsupported premise. No sir, free market capitalism cannot and will not naturally police itself for the good of the people.

Further, there is no BASIS theoretical or otherwise for the conclusion that fundamental societal inequities - e.g., sexism, racism and religious bigotry of various and sundry kinds - would even be touched by unfettered free-market capitalism.

Moreover, while free-market capitalism is about the market establishing the value for a good or service among the targeted monied audience, that says nothing about its relative value to the People. A society must be judged on the basis of how well it enables everyone in it a equal opportunity to feed, clothe and care for themselves.

OH and PLEASE: There is a HUGE difference between rewarding skin color, gender and ethnicity and preventing people from being disadvantaged on such a basis.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

Nice strawman. If it only had a brain!

It is not too much to expect a government that will function to make real the promise of equal opportunity to all.

[Smurf-316]

well he is from Mass so you could be onto something.

[Cybergal]

Originally Posted by BIGJ

My heart maybe with Obama, but my head is with Biden. Biden have common sense on the issues.

WOW...I never knew we could separate our bodies like that...