 |
TNR Exclusive: A Collection Of Ron Paul?s Most Incendiary Newsletters | The New Republic
Poll question :
1.is Doctor Paul a racist, biggotted ,anti-semitic, conspiracy nut job theorist??
2. or is he being truthful when he claims he did not read this bile that was published in his news letters, that carried his name for many years... making him just an incredibly incompetent manager and unqualified to lead this nation??
Stop worrying Tom he is a true right wing radical
Wrong... guarantee... if he drops out his zombies will vote for the President.
Besides... I see many simularities with his positions and ones you have espoused here.
Hi Tom I never said my thinking wasn't radical. Yes it seems there are some democrats who will vote in your primary, what odds they can elect a candidate to lose to Obama.. or is it they are just bored like the rest of us?
This path to an octagenarian president has been tried by the Republicans before and has failed. His son looks a better candidate
I agree with him, why should the US station troops in Australia.
Why should the US police the world?
Why shouldn't the US make use of its resources?
Why should the FED continue to run up debt?
I agree with the last 2 points .
But that isn't the focus of his news letters . Did you not read the link ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't believe it anyway. No one with medical qualifications would hold the views expressed.
Then you are in the option 2 of the post ;that he is just too incompetent to be the country's leader . He could not manage the content of a simple news letter for a decade .
Do you really believe that he allowed that to be published under his name without reading it ? The American Nazi Party called the Paul newsletter a must read.
So you think he allowed something that did not represent his views to be published under his name ? How could you believe that from someone smart enough to have medical qualifications ?
No I read his websiteQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello tom:
Is half a loaf better than none? The bad is pretty bad... But, the good is pretty good. Personally, I'd be willing to suffer the bad as long as the good happened..
excon
I find it strange that people dismiss these smoking gun news letters . They would've taken out any other candidate because others have dropped out already over far less.
Paul is clearly lying about his knowledge of their content .It is a laughable pathetic denial .
Further.. I brought these newsletters up in 2008 and it had no affect on his popularity.
It is my hope that the people of Iowa see what's happening here with this candidate. Forget the message. If the message has value at all then he is the wrong messenger .
I will say it now... if he is the nominee .My vote will go to Obama.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This is the half a loaf that sucks... But, ending the drug war and NOT starting a new one with Iran is WORTH it to me...
Look. He's radical. I've been waiting for someone with SENSE to end the drug war, but ain't nobody stepping up. Maybe the ONLY way it will end is with a RADICAL doing it...
Yes, I believe the drug war IS, and has been, the SINGLE most damaging policy this government has EVER engaged in. That includes civil rights, because the drug war is just another Jim Crow law in different clothing...
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Good point.
Tut
Ex you really think a President Paul would be able to get a legalization bill through Congress ?
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes. I believe the nation is READY and just needs a push. If he can't, he can STOP prosecuting it. Surely if Newt can ignore the Supreme Court, President Paul can ignore the DEA.
excon
I decided to ask this here instead of posting a new subject //
Ron Paul just said in response to a question during the NBC debate that... entitlements are not a right .
Agree or disagree ?
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Agree.
However, if I CONTRACTED with the government to exchange my MONEY for particular SERVICES, I AM entitled to have my agreement upheld. That's CONTRACT law - not ENTITLEMENT law.
I DO believe, however, that HEALTH CARE is a right..
excon
Social Security was forced upon the people so it cannot be considered a contractual agreement unless you think the government is like the Mafia giving you offers you can't refuse .
By the way... I fundamentally disagree with the premise that health care is a right. All legitimate rights have one thing in common... they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people .The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want... not to be given it by other people's effort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I would have thought his statement is a contradiction in terms. In other words, rights and entitlements in legal jargon are the same thing. Trying to say entitlements are not rights is a bit like trying to say bachelors are not unmarried men.
Tut
Hi Tom.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Not sure what you mean by, "rights to action". Do you mean individual rights are implied rather than specified. A clarification would be good.
Tut
It means that certain behaviors are rights. In our Constitutional system there is no guarantee of outcome. None of our rights are dependent on the actions of others ;or the government . My rights do not impose an obligation on anyone else... be it my fellow taxpayers ,or some doctor who is forced to give me services for free or below market value .
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I get it. I'm a bit slow on the uptake this morning.
Paul and yourself are making the distinction between rights and entitlements. Entitlements might be a legal obligation of society to provide goods and services. Provided these goods and services are subject to legal definitions and are enforceable in a court of law.
Rights on the other hand are a type of 'paralegal' term (for the want of a better word). They are natural rights of people and exist by nature over and above entitlement law. These natural rights are not subject to the whims of the legal process.
As you are no doubt aware this idea goes back to Locke and the rights of people that existed before there was an organized society to grant people these rights.
Tut
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Couple things... As we've discussed, the 9th Amendment speaks of "other" rights that are maintained by the people... So, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss health care as a right...
Do you believe you have a right to have a fire put out in your house, even if it forces firemen to provide their services at BELOW market rates? Would it be better for each homeowner to hire his OWN fire company? Then you'd be paying market rates.
Why is putting out a fire in your stomach different than putting one out in your house?
excon
You are speaking of local laws and not ones imposed by the national government . So national laws do not apply in that case... although it could be argued that police and fire services are constitutional in the preambles goal of ' provide for the common defence'.
But I lean towards the 2nd argument . There are some communities that pay a salary to fire fighters and some like my town that provides equipment and relies on volunteers for the service. We as a community make that choice without the interference of the national government .
Yes we could debate that amendment and it's meaning . Suffice it to say that if it requires the government taking property (money) from someone else, to distribute to me ,for me to have that service ,then it is not a right.Quote:
As we've discussed, the 9th Amendment speaks of "other" rights that are maintained by the people...
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The defense of the nation requires that money be taken from some and distributed to others. I don't see health care as different.
excon
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'd say that is exactly what it means. If you are talking about ' other rights maintained by the people', then I would say you are talking about entitlements. But again, it depends what you mean by 'rights'. We know what we mean be entitlements. Some people would argue that rights are the same as entitlements.
Tut
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:25 AM. |