Re: POLITICS My Ron 2008 Endorsement

[Guest guest]

Speak for yourself. His views are good on some things, but I'd never vote for

such a heartless ass.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...>

> Yep, Ron , same Congressman who was one of two to show up to the

> WAPF thing on raw milk, advocate of liberty and fierce opponent of the

> FDA, is running for president and can actually win if we get behind

> him while it's still early:

>

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Ron--Health-Freedom.html

>

> Chris

[Guest guest]

OK ya'll. I still like Dennis Kucinich better, tho I guess that's not

PC on this forum since he is a vegan! Here's an interesting point of

view from Lew Rockwell (I love that site!) that links the two

candidates:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/silber/silber10.html

I'd love to see the two of them as running mates! LOL! Maybe against

Clinton and Obama. If a libertarian and a democrat can get along,

maybe there is hope for world peace! ;o)

>

> Yep, Ron , same Congressman who was one of two to show up to the

> WAPF thing on raw milk, advocate of liberty and fierce opponent of the

> FDA, is running for president and can actually win if we get behind

> him while it's still early:

>

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Ron--Health-Freedom.html

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

kucinich = good

paul = evil

me = simplistic

but yeah, I'll go with it.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " haecklers " <haecklers@...>

> OK ya'll. I still like Dennis Kucinich better, tho I guess that's not

> PC on this forum since he is a vegan! Here's an interesting point of

> view from Lew Rockwell (I love that site!) that links the two

> candidates:

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/silber/silber10.html

>

> I'd love to see the two of them as running mates! LOL! Maybe against

> Clinton and Obama. If a libertarian and a democrat can get along,

> maybe there is hope for world peace! ;o)

>

>

> >

> > Yep, Ron , same Congressman who was one of two to show up to the

> > WAPF thing on raw milk, advocate of liberty and fierce opponent of the

> > FDA, is running for president and can actually win if we get behind

> > him while it's still early:

> >

> > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Ron--Health-Freedom.html

> >

> > Chris

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/07, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

> Speak for yourself. His views are good on some things, but I'd never vote

> for such a heartless ass.

Last I checked, " my " was a first-person pronoun. Yes, the only people

who deliver babies for free when their patients cannot afford to pay

are heartless asses!

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

> On 7/27/07, implode7@... <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net>

> <implode7@... <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote:

>> > Speak for yourself. His views are good on some things, but I'd never vote

>> > for such a heartless ass.

>

> ³Last I checked, " my " was a first-person pronoun. Yes, the only people

> who deliver babies for free when their patients cannot afford to pay

> are heartless asses!

>

> Chris²

>

> Well, it¹s certainly a point in your favor that you checked. Most people would

> have just assumed it.

>

> As usual, your logic is self serving. You endorsed him, and suggested that we

> all support him. Generally, I don¹t hear people ³endorsing² political

> candidates, unless they expect their voice to carry some weight.

>

> Whether, in his personal life, he has been compassionate is irrelevant. I

> remember hearing over and over about what a nice man Reagan was. The

> point is that his politics (and yours) are heartless.

[Guest guest]

I don't like Ron much either, tho he is better than some, but

why do you think he's so heartless? You keep saying it without any

substantiation. Is it because as a libertarian he'd like to give

large corporations free rein to do as they'd like and remove some of

the laws that keep us safe? Because he's actively anti-

environmentalism and believes global climate change is a hoax?

Because he's endorsed by the Birch Society and hates communists

and socialists? Or because groups the KKK supports, support him?

> >> > Speak for yourself. His views are good on some things, but I'd

never vote

> >> > for such a heartless ass.

> >

> > ³Last I checked, " my " was a first-person pronoun. Yes, the only

people

> > who deliver babies for free when their patients cannot afford to

pay

> > are heartless asses!

> >

> > Chris²

> >

> > Well, it¹s certainly a point in your favor that you checked. Most

people would

> > have just assumed it.

> >

> > As usual, your logic is self serving. You endorsed him, and

suggested that we

> > all support him. Generally, I don¹t hear people ³endorsing²

political

> > candidates, unless they expect their voice to carry some weight.

> >

> > Whether, in his personal life, he has been compassionate is

irrelevant. I

> > remember hearing over and over about what a nice man

Reagan was. The

> > point is that his politics (and yours) are heartless.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Can you tell me about him politically? Is he a Libertarian?

On Jul 27, 2007, at 7:58 PM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe wrote:

>> The

>> point is that his politics (and yours) are heartless

Parashis

artpages@...

zine:

artpagesonline.com

portfolio:

http://www.artpagesonline.com/EPportfolio/000portfolio.html

[Guest guest]

On 7/27/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > As usual, your logic is self serving. You endorsed him, and suggested that

> we

> > all support him. Generally, I don¹t hear people ³endorsing² political

> > candidates, unless they expect their voice to carry some weight.

I don't know if it carries any weight or not, but my web site reaches

15,000 new people per month, so my web site certainly gets enough

exopsure, I think, to refer to an opinion publicly expressed on it as

an " endorsement. " Had I been just posting my opinion to the list

without that context, it probaby would have been a strange use of the

word.

Yes, I'm suggesting other people support him. That is still speaking

for myself -- to others. If I said something like " Native nutrition

members want Ron to win! " than that would be speaking for

others. But if I say, " Native nutrition members, here is why I think

we should want Ron to win, " that that is speaking for myself to

others.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/07, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> I don't like Ron much either, tho he is better than some, but

> why do you think he's so heartless? You keep saying it without any

> substantiation. Is it because as a libertarian he'd like to give

> large corporations free rein to do as they'd like and remove some of

> the laws that keep us safe? Because he's actively anti-

> environmentalism and believes global climate change is a hoax?

> Because he's endorsed by the Birch Society and hates communists

> and socialists? Or because groups the KKK supports, support him?

I'd be curious where this idea of giving corporations " free reign " and

not " keep us safe " from them comes from. I haven't read all of Ron

's writings but I've never gotten that sense from them or from the

general " libertarian " circle he is involved in. A pretty hefty part

of the " libertarian " crowd he belongs to consider the personification

of corporations that has occurred in the courts to be a violation of

libertarianism, and, whether rightly or wrongly, believe that the net

effect of big government is to increase the power of corporations.

You can dispute this as a matter of fact, but, even if it is wrong

(and I'm not saying it is), this is altogether something totally

different than claiming Ron wants to increase the power of

corporations!

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/07, Parashis <artpages@...> wrote:

> Can you tell me about him politically? Is he a Libertarian?

The best way to learn about his positions would be to read his own stuff.

Here is his position on the FDA and health freedom:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul400.html

I would highly recommend this video interview with Google's executive:

It is 65 minutes long, but it gives you a good sense of his ideas. In

particular, in the last half with questions, he explains what federal

agencies he would abolish in what order. It gives you a good sense of

his priorities.

Here is his " issues " page from his campaign web site:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Here are the archives of his articles on LRC, most of which are

transcripts of his speeches before Congress:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

In short, he is a Republican, may be styled a conservative or a

libertarian, but such a name can't substitute for learning his

positions, because both of these terms mean widely variable things.

His main position is that he is required to obey his one oath as a

congressman and possibly future president to uphold the constitution,

which no one else does. The Google video is a good place to start.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> Well, to tell you the truth, I didn¹t know too much about him until Chris

> ³endorsed² him, at which point I figured that he must be pretty bad. I hadn¹t

> paid much attention to him previously because, after all, he¹s affiliated

> himself with the Republicans, and I view the statement, Œhe¹s a Republican,

> but his politics are very good¹ as somewhat equivalent to Œhe¹s a member of

> the Nazi party but his politics are very good¹. We choose who we affiliate

> with for a reason.

>

> In the brief time that I researched him, I didn¹t uncover some of the stuff

> that you mention below (which if true is rather disturbing), but simply that

> he just strikes me as an EXTREME survival of the fittest, freedom for all of

> the wrong reasons, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-U.N., anti-income tax. Let

> the rich rule everything and let¹s call it freedom.

>

> A VERY dangerous candidate, and while his views on Iraq, and the PATRIOT act,

> etc, seem on the surface to be courageous in the context of Congress, they are

> borne of the kind of courage that comes from crazy right wing extremism.

>

>

>> >

>> > I don't like Ron much either, tho he is better than some, but

>> > why do you think he's so heartless? You keep saying it without any

>> > substantiation. Is it because as a libertarian he'd like to give

>> > large corporations free rein to do as they'd like and remove some of

>> > the laws that keep us safe? Because he's actively anti-

>> > environmentalism and believes global climate change is a hoax?

>> > Because he's endorsed by the Birch Society and hates communists

>> > and socialists? Or because groups the KKK supports, support him?

>> >

>> >

>>>>>> >>>>> Speak for yourself. His views are good on some things, but I'd

>> > never vote

>>>>>> >>>>> for such a heartless ass.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> ³Last I checked, " my " was a first-person pronoun. Yes, the only

>> > people

>>>> >>> who deliver babies for free when their patients cannot afford to

>> > pay

>>>> >>> are heartless asses!

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> Chris²

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> Well, it¹s certainly a point in your favor that you checked. Most

>> > people would

>>>> >>> have just assumed it.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> As usual, your logic is self serving. You endorsed him, and

>> > suggested that we

>>>> >>> all support him. Generally, I don¹t hear people ³endorsing²

>> > political

>>>> >>> candidates, unless they expect their voice to carry some weight.

>>>> >>>

>>>> >>> Whether, in his personal life, he has been compassionate is

>> > irrelevant. I

>>>> >>> remember hearing over and over about what a nice man

>> > Reagan was. The

>>>> >>> point is that his politics (and yours) are heartless.

>>> >>

>>> >>

>>> >>

>>> >>

[Guest guest]

> Well, I don¹t see anything wrong with my reasoning, and it really boils down

> to something pretty simple:

> If you publicly endorse a pig....

>

>> >

>> > On 7/27/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...

>> > <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net> > wrote:

>> >

>>>> >>> As usual, your logic is self serving. You endorsed him, and suggested

>>>> that

>>> >> we

>>>> >>> all support him. Generally, I don¹t hear people ³endorsing² political

>>>> >>> candidates, unless they expect their voice to carry some weight.

>> >

>> > I don't know if it carries any weight or not, but my web site reaches

>> > 15,000 new people per month, so my web site certainly gets enough

>> > exopsure, I think, to refer to an opinion publicly expressed on it as

>> > an " endorsement. " Had I been just posting my opinion to the list

>> > without that context, it probaby would have been a strange use of the

>> > word.

>> >

>> > Yes, I'm suggesting other people support him. That is still speaking

>> > for myself -- to others. If I said something like " Native nutrition

>> > members want Ron to win! " than that would be speaking for

>> > others. But if I say, " Native nutrition members, here is why I think

>> > we should want Ron to win, " that that is speaking for myself to

>> > others.

>> >

>> > Chris

[Guest guest]

I haven't read all of Ron 's views yet either, when I got the the

part that he hates environmentalists I kind of stopped right there.

Maybe I overgeneralized because the libertarians I know believe that

government should stay out of the affairs of business, like not stop

them from using their economic power to get monopolies because they

believe the market will prevent it somehow. They also told me

(libertarians, not Ron ) that we don't need the FDA, USDA, EPA or

any other government regulatory agency because nonprofits like

Consumer Reports will spring up to fill the gap to keep us safe from

toxins in our food or unsafe additives or toxic additives in our

clothing, cleaners, etc. Americans will somehow wake up out of their

fog and start caring and boycotting all the coroporations that

pollute or poison their customers. Sounds to me like a nice way to

allow businesses to keep more of their profits and stop following

even the weak protections we have now.

By the way, a foreigner told me yesterday that many other countries

know that the US inspects seafood very much less than other countries

do, so if there is a batch of fish that's likely to be " off " they'll

send it here.

Personally, I think that a false dichotomy has been made

between " capitalism " at one extreme and " facism " at the other, when

really people should be seeing that there can be a facist capitalist

state, just as surely as there can be a democratic socialist state.

Indeed, the extremes of capitalism seem to be driving a lot of the

spread of facism while the extremes of democracy are pushing toward

more socialist states, with land reforms, better childcare and

healthcare, more environmental reforms, etc. Unfortunately when

there are land reforms and countries grab for control of their own

resources to keep the profits out of foreign investor's hands, the

capitalists often exert their influence to bring about a shift toward

facism.

If you doubt this, see " What I've Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy "

here

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-985018981255915016

and Parenti's " Terrorism, Globalization, and Conspiracy " here

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6573660441809242121

> > I don't like Ron much either, tho he is better than some, but

> > why do you think he's so heartless? You keep saying it without

any

> > substantiation. Is it because as a libertarian he'd like to give

> > large corporations free rein to do as they'd like and remove some

of

> > the laws that keep us safe? Because he's actively anti-

> > environmentalism and believes global climate change is a hoax?

> > Because he's endorsed by the Birch Society and hates

communists

> > and socialists? Or because groups the KKK supports, support him?

>

> I'd be curious where this idea of giving corporations " free reign "

and

> not " keep us safe " from them comes from. I haven't read all of Ron

> 's writings but I've never gotten that sense from them or from

the

> general " libertarian " circle he is involved in. A pretty hefty part

> of the " libertarian " crowd he belongs to consider the

personification

> of corporations that has occurred in the courts to be a violation of

> libertarianism, and, whether rightly or wrongly, believe that the

net

> effect of big government is to increase the power of corporations.

> You can dispute this as a matter of fact, but, even if it is wrong

> (and I'm not saying it is), this is altogether something totally

> different than claiming Ron wants to increase the power of

> corporations!

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/07, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Well, to tell you the truth, I didn¹t know too much about him until Chris

> > ³endorsed² him, at which point I figured that he must be pretty bad. I

> hadn¹t

> > paid much attention to him previously because, after all, he¹s affiliated

> > himself with the Republicans, and I view the statement, Œhe¹s a

> Republican,

> > but his politics are very good¹ as somewhat equivalent to Œhe¹s a member

> of

> > the Nazi party but his politics are very good¹. We choose who we affiliate

> > with for a reason.

I think he has affiliated himself as a Republican because he had to

choose one or two of the major parties in order to be electable, and

his politics are somewhat like the original conservatives were. But

if you look at his record, he has been heavily critical of neocons and

virtually the entire Republican Party, so I think it would be a

mistake to consider his party affiliation as the main judge of his

politics.

> > In the brief time that I researched him, I didn¹t uncover some of the

> stuff

> > that you mention below (which if true is rather disturbing), but simply

> that

> > he just strikes me as an EXTREME survival of the fittest, freedom for all

> of

> > the wrong reasons, anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-U.N., anti-income tax.

> Let

> > the rich rule everything and let¹s call it freedom.

He is definitely anti-income tax. He is pro-life, but he has a 65%

pro-choice rating from NARAL, which I suppose originates from his

opposition to various unconstitutional restrictions on abortion -- but

I am just guessing. I don't see how he is anti-gay; if you watch the

Google video that comes up in a few questions, one from the Google

executive and another from someone asking abotu gays in the military.

His view of gay marriage is rather nuanced -- he supported the Defense

of Marriage and Marriage Protection Acts, but opposed the

constitutional amendment on marriage -- but ultimately his philosophy

is that the government should get outo f the business of marriage and

honor all voluntary contracts and let the people who engage in them

call them whatever they want. I don't think this makes him " anti-gay "

or " pro-gay " but is a rather more complex position that is derived

from his theory of government rather than his use of government to

advance his own position.

> > A VERY dangerous candidate, and while his views on Iraq, and the PATRIOT

> act,

> > etc, seem on the surface to be courageous in the context of Congress, they

> are

> > borne of the kind of courage that comes from crazy right wing extremism.

He is nevertheless the only bona fide anti-war candidate with any

credibility as an anti-war candidate.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> On Behalf Of Ancient

>Eyeball Recipe

So, is there really a recipe Gene? Or are you just trying to make us

salivate everytime we see your handle?

Suze

[Guest guest]

>He is definitely anti-income tax. He is pro-life, but he has

>a 65% pro-choice rating from NARAL,

when was the date of that NARAL rating? Because his 2003 NARAL rating

on abortion was 0% according to http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_.htm

Suze

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/07, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> I haven't read all of Ron 's views yet either, when I got the the

> part that he hates environmentalists I kind of stopped right there.

I'm curious where you read that he " hates environmentalists. " I'd be

interested to see if you could produce a statement of his to the

effect that people have the right to pollute anything besdies their

own property.

> Maybe I overgeneralized because the libertarians I know believe that

> government should stay out of the affairs of business, like not stop

> them from using their economic power to get monopolies because they

> believe the market will prevent it somehow.

This is true, however, and history proves it. Standard Oil, for

example, had lost the majority of its market share before it was

broken up, and during its initial ascendancy to " monopoly " it had

brought order to a literally violent and chaotic oil market and

lowered prices dramatically. Historically, anti-trust laws have been

used first to break up unions and second to favor less efficient

competitors that don't deliver to the customer as well.

You may not agree with the economic theory or the interpretation of

history, but to say a libertarian's position is " give all the power to

the corporations " because you disagree with their economic and/or

historical analysis is disingenuous. You might argue that their

position is misguided and will lead to such power; but that this

should be the consequence is not their position at all.

>They also told me

> (libertarians, not Ron ) that we don't need the FDA, USDA, EPA or

> any other government regulatory agency because nonprofits like

> Consumer Reports will spring up to fill the gap to keep us safe from

> toxins in our food or unsafe additives or toxic additives in our

> clothing, cleaners, etc.

Since these agencies spend most of our tax money approving deadly

drugs with the government stamp of credibility, suing and issuing

cease and desist orders to people like Dr. Mercola and Garden of Life,

and making propaganda campaigns against raw milk, I'm not so sure

someone who wants to get rid of them is a threat to our health!

I can see the EPA being a more difficult question, but do you

seriously give the FDA and the USDA -- or the FTC for that matter --

any credibility in promoting health?

> Americans will somehow wake up out of their

> fog and start caring and boycotting all the coroporations that

> pollute or poison their customers. Sounds to me like a nice way to

> allow businesses to keep more of their profits and stop following

> even the weak protections we have now.

I guess it depends whether their power stems more from the lack of

strong protections or more from the active government support of their

power.

Although he would consider many libertarian positions to be

pro-corporate, Noam Chomsky has, from what I have read/listened to,

located the ultimate source of corporate power in the judicial

system's creation of the legal fiction of the corporation as a person.

I'm not sure what Ron 's exact stance is on this, but a great

many libertarians, like I said, take the same view.

Ron is heavily critical of the judicial system's treatment of

corporations and polluters, especially during the industrial

revolution when they put the " public interest " above the individual's

rights, and dismissed cases where small farms and other individuals

were suing polluters for polluting their property.

Our current system is to socialize risks and privatize profits. Most

Republicans and Democrats support it. Radical leftists approach this

injustice by wishing to socialize the profits; libertarians approach

it by wishing to privatize the risks.

Both outlying positions are anti-corporate power. Which one is more

workable, better for society, more moral and just, etc, is an issue

that can be debated, but if we start out by pretending the latter is

motivated by putting all the power in the hands of corporations, the

debate is doomed from the beginning.

> By the way, a foreigner told me yesterday that many other countries

> know that the US inspects seafood very much less than other countries

> do, so if there is a batch of fish that's likely to be " off " they'll

> send it here.

Well to be for government inspection is not the same thing as to be

for good quality inspection, and to be for private inspection is not

the same thing as to be for poor quality inspection. What we have

now, apparently, is poor quality government inspection. Obviously

good quality private inspection and good quality government inspection

are both much better alternatives.

> Personally, I think that a false dichotomy has been made

> between " capitalism " at one extreme and " facism " at the other, when

> really people should be seeing that there can be a facist capitalist

> state, just as surely as there can be a democratic socialist state.

I have never in my life seen anyone posit a political spectrum that

has fascism on one side and capitalism on the other.

Democratic states tend to be socialistic, which is one of the reasons

why the Founding Fathers opposed the idea of democracy so bitterly.

One of the other major reasons was they predicted that an excess of

democracy would lead to paper money instead of a gold or silver-backed

commodity money.

I think there are elements of some type of captialism in fascist

states, and obviously there are elements of fascism creeping up in our

state, especially with the Bush Administration. It is just that most

libertarians would not consider our economiy " capitalist, " and to the

extent our economy is " capitalist " then most libertarians would oppose

" capitalism. "

> Indeed, the extremes of capitalism seem to be driving a lot of the

> spread of facism while the extremes of democracy are pushing toward

> more socialist states, with land reforms, better childcare and

> healthcare, more environmental reforms, etc. Unfortunately when

> there are land reforms and countries grab for control of their own

> resources to keep the profits out of foreign investor's hands, the

> capitalists often exert their influence to bring about a shift toward

> facism.

>

> If you doubt this,

I don't doubt it; that is exactly what has happened throughout our

history. Again, Ron opopses this type of foreign policy and all

these international instutitons who under the guise of " free trade "

use big government to support favored big businesses.

Anyway, you could argue that Ron is just spouting a certain

philosophy because deep down what he wants to do is promote corporate

power even though he does not say this openly. But, if this were the

case, corporations would be supporting him. The fact is that 100% of

his campaign funds come from individuals, and from the $2.4 million he

has raised so far, 50% of it comes from contributions under $200. He

has the greatest proportion of his campaign funds from small

contributions among all the candidates.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/07, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>

> >He is definitely anti-income tax. He is pro-life, but he has

> >a 65% pro-choice rating from NARAL,

>

> when was the date of that NARAL rating? Because his 2003 NARAL rating

> on abortion was 0% according to http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_.htm

Here is NARAL's list for each year since 2001:

http://www.naral.org/elections/statements/paul.html

2006: 65 percent

2005: 75 percent

2004: 65 percent

2003: 0 percent

2002: 20 percent

2001: 35 percent

Chris

[Guest guest]

>>> A VERY dangerous candidate, and while his views on Iraq, and the PATRIOT

>> act,

>>> etc, seem on the surface to be courageous in the context of Congress, they

>> are

>>> borne of the kind of courage that comes from crazy right wing extremism.

>

> He is nevertheless the only bona fide anti-war candidate with any

> credibility as an anti-war candidate.

>

Kucinich? And I don't consider him a serious anti-war candidate if his

politics preclude any sensible person from voting for him.

[Guest guest]

>> >

>>> >> On Behalf Of Ancient

>>> >> Eyeball Recipe

>> >

>> > So, is there really a recipe Gene? Or are you just trying to make us

>> > salivate everytime we see your handle?

>> >

>> > Suze

Well, coincidentally, the recipe requires saliva.

[Guest guest]

>Here is NARAL's list for each year since 2001:

>

>http://www.naral.org/elections/statements/paul.html

>

>2006: 65 percent

>2005: 75 percent

>2004: 65 percent

>2003: 0 percent

>2002: 20 percent

>2001: 35 percent

Huh, perhaps the On The Issues website was trying to skew his stance on

abortion by only including the 2003 rating.

Suze

[Guest guest]

>

>

> kucinich = good

> paul = evil

> me = simplistic

>

> but yeah, I'll go with it.

Can you please explain why you believe Ron is evil and a heartless

ass?

I will be supporting Ron in the upcoming primaries and elections

for a few reasons. First, he upholds the oath that every politician

makes to defend the constitution. As far as I know, he is the only

politician in the last 50 years or more to actually fulfill this oath.

Second, he believes in returning power back to the states where it

belongs in a republic. All these issues (gay marriage, abortion, stem

cell research, healthcare) can be determined by the people of the state

on a local level where a democracy can actually work, not at the

national level by the beaurocrats. He has no ties to any corporate

interest, and would end every kind of welfare including military and

corporate. As far as environmental issues, he has stated time and time

again that if you pollute the air, land, or water your should be held

accountable for it in our judicial system. The EPA, FDA, UN, IMF, etc.

do not protect the people, they protect corporate interests.

He is a doctor so he knows how the healthcare system works. He was in

the military so he understands the military industrial complex. He is

a diligent student of Austrian economics so he understands how markets,

trade and foreign policy work.

Who cares if he is republican? To get elected in this bi-partisan

system you have to run as a demopublican or republicrat, unless you

have billions of dollars to run as an independent.

Dennis Kucinich wants to put restrictions on the 1st amendment, so I

doubt would choose him as a running mate. Perhaps Mike Gravel who

is the only one I like on the other side of the coin.

Collectivism = Slavery = Evil

Marc in Asheville

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> Speak for yourself.

I think he was.

> His views are good on some things, but I'd never vote for such a heartless

ass.

What makes him a heartless ass?

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

Ancient,

> > As usual, your logic is self serving. You endorsed him, and suggested that

we

> > all support him. Generally, I don¹t hear people ³endorsing² political

> > candidates, unless they expect their voice to carry some weight.

But " carrying weight " doesn't mean he is speaking for others, which is

what you originally accused him of doing when you said to him " speak

for yourself. "

> > Whether, in his personal life, he has been compassionate is irrelevant. I

> > remember hearing over and over about what a nice man Reagan was. The

> > point is that his politics (and yours) are heartless.

Being nice is not the same as putting your political/personal beliefs

into action. One suggests a personal demeanor, the other demonstrates

what you truly believe. His willingness to deliver babies, even free

of charge if need be, certainly illustrates that his opposition to

federal involvement in abortion is not just some passing whimsy. Like

the good Samaritan of the New Testament, he put his *own* time and

money where his mouth is.

--

" Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long. "

Luther

[Guest guest]

On 7/28/07, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> Huh, perhaps the On The Issues website was trying to skew his stance on

> abortion by only including the 2003 rating.

That seemed incredibly obvious to me just looking at the votes they

presented; however, I'm not too worried about it since I claimed he

was pro-life to begin with!

Chris