‘
Hence,, why Ron Paul will NEVER be president

Poor sad little racist.

The Ronulan Overlord still thinks he’s viable.

What a hoot.

VoiceofReason said:
Poor sad little racist.

Why do you consider him racist?

BTW to the Ronulan Overlord with respect to his question number 6…………..

It is a crime to even receive that which you know was stolen. You would think a person tasked with writing THE law would have a bit firmer grasp on it to begin with.

What a little Rogue.You betcha!

Atticus Draco said:
Why do you consider him racist?

Because he is.

He published racist comments in his newsletters. One of the articles not only was published in his newsletter but was either penned by him or endorsed by him as it carried his signature.

No……..not only is he a racist but he is also a coward, liar and quick to throw a collegue/friend under the bus like he did with Lew Rockwell (another racist) when the newsletters came to light.

This was first link from a “Ron Paul Racist Newsletters” Google.

After a brief scan it seems to have been written early in the dustup before further evidence (the one with his signature) came to light.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS

I can see the Ronulans are out in force thumbs downing what they can’t refute.

Just like all the internet polls they queered last election cycle trying to trick folks into thinking this little racist asshole was a viable candidate for president.

I’d love to see this bastard with sole purview over the Fed……..but anything else……..no thanks.

VoiceofReason said:
Atticus Draco said:
Why do you consider him racist?

Because he is.

He published racist comments in his newsletters. One of the articles not only was published in his newsletter but was either penned by him or endorsed by him as it carried his signature.

No……..not only is he a racist but he is also a coward, liar and quick to throw a collegue/friend under the bus like he did with Lew Rockwell (another racist) when the newsletters came to light.

Okay,, lol
You’re NOT a Birther are ya,,
possibly one of them truhters?
lol,,, or both?

Atticus Draco said:
Okay,, lol
You’re NOT a Birther are ya,,
possibly one of them truhters?
lol,,, or both?

excuse me,, ‘truthers”,, as in 9/11 truthers

Atticus Draco said:
Why do you consider him racist?

because when a leftie doesn’t like what someone says, it’s easy and convenient to accuse him or her of racism. the race card is usually the first one played.

justanotherconservative said:
because when a leftie doesn’t like what someone says, it’s easy and convenient to accuse him or her of racism. the race card is usually the first one played.

lol,, i know after i thot about it,, i felt bad about asking him about being a birther,, lol
“This NUT is a LEFT WING NUT!”
“NOT A RIGHT ONE”

Sorry folks,,, my badd

Atticus Draco said:
Okay,, lolYou’re NOT a Birther are ya,,possibly one of them truhters?lol,,, or both?

No sir/ma’am I am not. My beef with the current president lies in his policies not in his birthplace.

And I am an engineer so thinking 9/11 was an inside job is too stupid to consider.

That’s the real Libertarian, the other are faking it.

VoiceofReason said:
VoiceofReason says:
December 10, 2010 at 11:07 am VoiceofReason(Quote)
Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Atticus Draco said:
Okay,, lolYou’re NOT a Birther are ya,,possibly one of them truhters?lol,,, or both?

No sir/ma’am I am not. My beef with the current president lies in his policies not in his birthplace.

And I am an engineer so thinking 9/11 was an inside job is too stupid to consider.

Okay,, you sound reasonable there,,lol
but when it comes to Ron,, you wanna so easily bash him as a racist over some emails?

I knew nothing about this incident until you brought it up
and,, googled here and there,, and
c’mon,, that’s quite harsh dont you think?!?

justanotherconservative said:
because when a leftie doesn’t like what someone says, it’s easy and convenient to accuse him or her of racism. the race card is usually the first one played.

I’ll match my conservative cred with any of you.

I am a founding member of the Greencastle Defenders of Liberty TEA Party group. This last election cycle I worked for Larry Bucshon, Marlin Stutzman and Todd Young. And by “worked” i mean I knocked on doors, manned phone banks, assisted with public appearences and gave my money.

I sent money to Marco Rubio, Mike Pence and Jim DeMint.

How about you?

VoiceofReason said:
I’ll match my conservative cred with any of you.

But yet,, you’re so easy to throw the word “racist” around,,
on such flimsy evidence?!?

THAT’S NOT CONSERVATISM IN MY BOOK!
I DONT CARE HOW MANY DOORS YOU KNOCK ON!!!

Atticus Draco said:
Okay,, you sound reasonable there,,lolbut when it comes to Ron,, you wanna so easily bash him as a racist over some emails? I knew nothing about this incident until you brought it upand,, googled here and there,, andc’mon,, that’s quite harsh dont you think?!?

No sir/ma’am I do not.

I think anytime you arm the opposition with a club with which to beat you and others who are on your side about the head with…..no matter if the club is of wood or titanium……I have a beef.

Also, I truly don’t believe you can label any group’s participants all the same. I have been a Rams fan for nearly 45 years and a few of the folks I watch games with are liberals. Should I shun them because we disagree politically?

so for Paul to tacitly support the statement that the LA riots ended when black swent to pick up their welfare…….makes it IMPOSSIBLE for to support him at all.

In fact for putting the club in non-conservati9ve hands I take it upon myself to clown on his silly little personage at any op I get.

And his fanboys garner little more of my respect. I am a moderator at a well known conservative pundit’s chat site and have had to deal with the Ronulans before. Frankly, many are every bit as bad as those who blindly rush to co-sign the blather from such erudite scholars of the human condition as Jason Biggs Maddow and BathTub Obermann.

Sorry but I have a zero tolerence policy towards bullshit and if bullshit was music much of this would be of brass band level.

Atticus Draco said:
But yet,, you’re so easy to throw the word “racist” around,,on such flimsy evidence?!? THAT’S NOT CONSERVATISM IN MY BOOK!I DONT CARE HOW MANY DOORS YOU KNOCK ON!!!

Well then perhaps you should look inward instead.

If after doing your own research because by all means don’t trust me……I don’t trust you…….you find what he has said and done ok…..then the issue is yours…..not mine.

I also think he has zero character when it comes to political speak.

Point in fact…………

He has decried pork barrel spending for years. Earning himself the moniker of “Dr. No” for all of his no votes on spending matters.

YET……..during the 2008 election cycle I found he had requested and recieved over $400 million dollars in earmarks for a theater renovation in Galveston and for a Gulf of Mexico Shriping coalition fo some sort……IOW a subsidy for Gulf Shrimpers.

but guess what….he covered his ass by voting no on the spending bill…but he damn sure took the money when it passed a Dem Congress.

Is that the sort of character you respect and aspire to as a person and patriot of America?

Sorry should read “Gulf of Mexico Shrimping”

VoiceofReason said:
Well then perhaps you should look inward instead. If after doing your own research because by all means don’t trust me……I don’t trust you…….you find what he has said and done ok…..then the issue is yours…..not mine.

Also, how much evidence of one’s racism would do it for you?

How many times does he have to profess his disdain for people of color SIMPLY due to their color until you call enough?

Atticus Draco said:
‘
Hence,, why Ron Paul will NEVER be president

Because being blunt and more direct just doesn’t work in politics?

VoiceofReason said:
I also think he has zero character when it comes to political speak.

Point in fact…………

He has decried pork barrel spending for years. Earning himself the moniker of “Dr. No” for all of his no votes on spending matters.

YET……..during the 2008 election cycle I found he had requested and recieved over $400 million dollars in earmarks for a theater renovation in Galveston and for a Gulf of Mexico Shriping coalition fo some sort……IOW a subsidy for Gulf Shrimpers.

but guess what….he covered his ass by voting no on the spending bill…but he damn sure took the money when it passed a Dem Congress.

Is that the sort of character you respect and aspire to as a person and patriot of America?

Let’s get rid of all the politicians who behave that way and see how many we have left.

CosmosDan said:
Because being blunt and more direct just doesn’t work in politics?

Not at all.

But……..

Lying, being a racist, being a porker while expressing a public disdain for the practice, insolationism, misunderstanding the world at large and out right lunacy probably SHOULD preclude your holding public office.

But tell that to the burnouts in his Texas district……………..

CosmosDan said:
Let’s get rid of all the politicians who behave that way and see how many we have left.

So since we might only have a handful of people who actually deserve our respect and to be allowed to lead our country we should simply turn a blind eye to their behavior and not see to it that if they are going to behave this way they can do it on somebody elses dime?

Man I have heard a butt ton of pitiful excuses for not being active or not calling a spade a spade or not putting these crooked bastards out on their ass….but this one is right up there among the best.

Are you a Paul supporter Dan?

VoiceofReason said:
BTW to the Ronulan Overlord with respect to his question number 6…………..

It is a crime to even receive that which you know was stolen. You would think a person tasked with writing THE law would have a bit firmer grasp on it to begin with.

What about issues of free press? This was not a stereo system he bought from the trunk of a car. I don’t see that Paul is really questioning the technicality of the law but larger principles.

“If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?”

Pretty much sums it up…

Despite being 180 degrees out of political alignment with my own values, I am a big supporter of the earnest honesty of Congressman Paul. People accuse me of attacking Mr. Beck because I disagree with him, but if Beck had a small fraction of the integrity and honor (yes, honor, that which Mr. Beck was in no position to claim or restore last summer) of Paul, he would be ignored by people like myself.

Ron Paul speaks truth to power. He also puts to sham (no spelling error) Beck’s attack on Assange. Beck is a neo-con empire builder, and Paul’s words here makes it so clear that Beck is no Libertarian. Beck invites a new political philosophy: Charlatarianism.

VoiceofReason said:
Are you a Paul supporter Dan?

To a limited degree. I think we need people who are more inclined to speak their mind on issues and give an honest fact based opinion, rather than political spin. If we got more of that from both sides we could have honest discussions about important issues,but instead we’re distracted by superficial BS.

I’m also able to compartmentalize the issues, so while I may agree with someone on certain details, or a specific issue I can also disagree on a separate issue. People, including politicians, are not all one way or the other and if we could appreciate that we might have more useful discussions.

Generally speaking, I like Paul even though I’m much more liberal.

VoiceofReason said:
So since we might only have a handful of people who actually deserve our respect and to be allowed to lead our country we should simply turn a blind eye to their behavior and not see to it that if they are going to behave this way they can do it on somebody elses dime?

Man I have heard a butt ton of pitiful excuses for not being active or not calling a spade a spade or not putting these crooked bastards out on their ass….but this one is right up there among the best.

It’s a matter of degrees and an accepting of reality. I’d love to have just people of sterling integrity in congress but that is an unrealistic expectation in the near future. On the list of offenses by people in DC the one you mentioned is pretty minor IMO.
Personally I think there’s plenty of elected officials that need to go and we need to continue to weed them out. but I think we need to do a better job of finding decent candidates than we saw last election cycle.

VoiceofReason said:
Not at all.

But……..

Lying, being a racist, being a porker while expressing a public disdain for the practice, insolationism, misunderstanding the world at large and out right lunacy probably SHOULD preclude your holding public office.

But tell that to the burnouts in his Texas district……………..

Respond to the conversation as it goes please, rather than create your own.

CosmosDan said:
What about issues of free press? This was not a stereo system he bought from the trunk of a car. I don’t see that Paul is really questioning the technicality of the law but larger principles.

Actually I don’t think this rises to the level of “free press”. Assange is not “press”. He is a meglomaniacal extorsionist. He has something that another does not want disclosed and if they will go along with him….their secret is safe.

He is a simple blackmailer.

A free press divulges without regard to “side” or ulterior motive.

How is this different than somebody trying to blackmail a public figure with unflattering pictures or info? Just on a grander scale with respect to target and “stuff”…………..

CosmosDan said:
To a limited degree. I think we need people who are more inclined to speak their mind on issues and give an honest fact based opinion, rather than political spin. If we got more of that from both sides we could have honest discussions about important issues,but instead we’re distracted by superficial BS. I’m also able to compartmentalize the issues, so while I may agree with someone on certain details, or a specific issue I can also disagree on a separate issue. People, including politicians, are not all one way or the other and if we could appreciate that we might have more useful discussions. Generally speaking, I like Paul even though I’m much more liberal.

I oncur with the first point you offer. More open and honest people in Washington is very desirable. I think unfortunately if you looked a little deeper into Rep. Paul you would find these are qualities he lacks on certain venues.

I also agree that if both sides operated sans spin and a looking out for number 1 attitude we would be in much better shape than we find ourselves today. but again…..i don’t think he fits that bill either.

I am able to also set aside certain “frailties” he may possess for the greater good which I feel is in his dogging of the Fed. I would work tirelessly for him to be appointed Fed Czar with dictatorial powers over that shady entiity in a heartbeat. But as to his presidential chops or his opinionating on this blackmailing ho chaser……sorry.

I still don’t feel he is right on many things and this Wikileaks is just one of them.

CosmosDan said:
It’s a matter of degrees and an accepting of reality. I’d love to have just people of sterling integrity in congress but that is an unrealistic expectation in the near future. On the list of offenses by people in DC the one you mentioned is pretty minor IMO.Personally I think there’s plenty of elected officials that need to go and we need to continue to weed them out. but I think we need to do a better job of finding decent candidates than we saw last election cycle.

“In the near future…..” then when? when are you going to feel you’ve had enough? You seem to be more than just an angry keyboard pounder so I assume you give this stuff conderable thought so I ask again…….

When will you have had enough? You are obviously smart enough to know they work for us. Have you ever supervised folks before? Would you accept this from your subordinates? Hell, would you take this from a boss if another opportunity was available?

You state the example I provided was weak….which one was it? His racist newsletters? His lying about not having anything to do with them until his signature was found on some of the work? His lying with regard to his pork busting cred? His obvious lack of understanding of the nature of radicals and their lust for destruction? If you will point to what it is I am lacking on…..I will try to provide more if you prefer.

I’m sorry Dan…..but it is like me watching Babs on TV bitching about global warming after finding out she spends THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of dollars of scarce water resources to keep her lawn green.

Hypocrital behavior is to me worse than just being an outright dirtbag. At least the dirtbag is honest about his dirtbagginess and I don’t have to wade thru mountains of garbage to ferret out his dirtbaggy ways. but sitting up there wagging your finger at me, telling me what for all the while neck deep in ti yourself…….sorry…..non starter for me.

As to your last paragraph…..I couldn’t agree more. MANY of them need to go. From both sides. And the fact that you find the candidates lacking is your own fault.

It is up to you. It is up to me. WE have to work if we want anything more than what we have gotten for DECADES.

it certainly isn’t going to change with a gang of us sitting around bitching about it on the internet………..

CosmosDan said:
Respond to the conversation as it goes please, rather than create your own.

Sorry but I thought I had. Ron Paul made points that some here seem to think hold merit.

i don’t concur.

Should I have gone point by point in his questions? Because it is enough for me to know that if he isn’t talking about regulating, audting or outright shutting down the Fed……he really offers little I am interested in. And were it in my purview, I would offer him the job of Baseball Bat Toting Fed Czar or suggest he could go back to being an OB/Gyn.

But I vote in Indiana and before that Cali…..not SE Texas.

OMG!!! It’s a Conspiracy Lover’s Christmas Dream!! The perfect gift for the patriot in the family: “FREE Julian” Button, a “Go Ron Paul T-Shirt, and the DVD of “Stock Shock-The Short Selling of the American Dream.” Hopefully no republicans in the family because Stock Shock will rub them the wrong way….ha! And don’t support Amazon (the DVD is cheaper at http://www.stockshockmovie.com anyway)

FreeAnimal said:
OMG!!! It’s a Conspiracy Lover’s Christmas Dream!! The perfect gift for the patriot in the family: “FREE Julian” Button, a “Go Ron Paul T-Shirt, and the DVD of “Stock Shock-The Short Selling of the American Dream.” Hopefully no republicans in the family because Stock Shock will rub them the wrong way….ha! And don’t support Amazon (the DVD is cheaper at http://www.stockshockmovie.com anyway)

Don’t quit your day job.

VoiceofReason said:
Sorry but I thought I had. Ron Paul made points that some here seem to think hold merit.

Not on that one. I responded to someone else who said in the 1st post.

Hence,, why Ron Paul will NEVER be president

which indicates to me to me that there is something about his statements in this matter, no other, that meant he would never be viable. That was the question I directed at someone else that you responded to.

VoiceofReason said:
A free press divulges without regard to “side” or ulterior motive.

And how does this leak favor one side over the other?

VoiceofReason said:
How is this different than somebody trying to blackmail a public figure with unflattering pictures or info?

What demands are these blackmailers making to stop releasing information?

Regardless of your personal positions on Assange, there is some major information in the leaks. One example is the amount of influence Shell has in Nigeria, a big deal looking forward as the world’s dependence on oil continues to grow. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-cables-shell-nigeria-spying

Even if Paul is a screaming bigot, what does that have to do with Wikileaks being right or wrong?

CosmosDan said:
Not on that one. I responded to someone else who said in the 1st post. which indicates to me to me that there is something about his statements in this matter, no other, that meant he would never be viable. That was the question I directed at someone else that you responded to. And how does this leak favor one side over the other? What demands are these blackmailers making to stop releasing information?

Dan,

The leak doesn’t favor one side or the other……..that was a shot across the bow at bias driven media……who in their own way reveal info that suits their ulterior motives. Like the Times leaking security measures so that terrorists can modify their plans.

It is my understanding that Assange is anti-war and stated after the first round that he would relent if Obama did as he said and vacated Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sorry but that is blackmail plain and simple.

Also his threat to drop the poison pill if arrested is blackmail most foul. Is it not? Are his minions not carrying this out as we speak?

Thelonious Funk said:
Even if Paul is a screaming bigot, what does that have to do with Wikileaks being right or wrong?

Would these statements coming from David Duke carry the same weight for you?

The character of the individual plays a major role in the level of voracity I place in their statements.

Do you have another methodology?

There seems to be a bit of angst over my pointing out that I doubt some of what Paul says or that he may not be the stright shooter folks picture him as so perhaps if I addressed his questions I will inflict less heartburn…..

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

A: To an extent. Any time information release endangers operational security I say no.
I have family in harm’s way.

BTW, when did we place troops in Yemen? i understand we have unlawfully attacked Pakistan but I was unaware of our on-going military actions in Yemen.

Perhaps one of you Ronulans could point me to where the data is to support Paul’s contention here…….

Number 2: Could a larger question be how can an army private access so much secret information?

A: Actually congressman we have these newfangled gizmos now called computers. You can plug this little domajickey into them and put a BUNCH of data on them really fast…….not like in your day when you wrote on shovels with charcoal.

I need an eyerolling icon.

Does the congressman not know there are low ranking support personnel all over the place? Somebody has to make the general’s coffee.

A more pertinent question might be that much like the blind eye turned to Major Hasan because he was Muslim and PCness MUST be maintained……..was a blind eye to some of this Pfc’s behavior ignored because he was gay?

Number 3: Why is the hostility directed at Assange, the publisher, and not at our governments failure to protect classified information?

Not sure about the rest of you but I am plenty mad at all concerned.

The military/our govt.
This lowly Pfc.
Assange
The NYTimes
Our Justice Dept.
Rep. Paul and any other supporters

Given a bit more time I could probably come up with a few more……….

Number 4: Are we getting our moneys worth of the 80 Billion dollars per year spent on intelligence gathering?

For this I have no answer because I am not tasked with developing a budget or reviewing said budget…….ONE of which is the ballywick of this congressman I believe.

I will say this……..787 billion of our dollars bought us higher unemployment despite promises it wouldn’t so I’m not so sure anyone in DC is qualified to speak to what 80 billion buys these days.

Number 5: Which has resulted in the greatest number of deaths: lying us into war or Wikileaks revelations or the release of the Pentagon Papers?

Actually Rep. Paul might ought to peep that which he is pimpin’ because there are docs there that put truth to his lie about war motives.

And nobody died as a result of the leak of the Pentagon Papers so that ones out too.

Can’t be Wikileaks cuz nobody has got whcked over it yet.

Bad question I think. futher research on Paul’s part might motivate him to rephrase or withdraw this query.

VoiceofReason said:
“In the near future…..” then when? when are you going to feel you’ve had enough? You seem to be more than just an angry keyboard pounder so I assume you give this stuff conderable thought so I ask again…….

When will you have had enough?

I’ve had enough right now , but my feeling is we have to be realistic and prioritize a gradual change in a corrupt system that has been there a long time. Daniel Ellsburg of the Pentagon Papers has said the system is set up to encourage corruption and discourage those who are too honest and ethical. I tend to agree. IMO campaign fiance reform is one top priority. We also need to work at getting factual relevant information to people and teach them to value it over political emotional platitudes.

VoiceofReason said:
You state the example I provided was weak….which one was it?

The only one I responded to. The fact that he speaks against pork spending but took some while it is still the practice is a minor offense in my book. I’d ad that not all money labeled as pork is badly spent but it certainly is a practice we need to get a grip on in this financial crisis.

VoiceofReason said:
I also agree that if both sides operated sans spin and a looking out for number 1 attitude we would be in much better shape than we find ourselves today. but again…..i don’t think he fits that bill either.

You may be right. My impression of him is only built from brief clips over a period of years.

VoiceofReason said:
But as to his presidential chops or his opinionating on this blackmailing ho chaser……sorry.

I still don’t feel he is right on many things and this Wikileaks is just one of them.

Never supported him for president and I’m sure there are several things I’d disagree on. I think in general we as a nation, the media and the public, tend to focus on far less crucial issues than we ought. There are polticians and pundits making a lot of noise about the embarrassment of wikkileaks bnut even though it can hurt, often the truth helps as well. I firmly believe we have been lied to about why we are still in the ME. and this is something I agree with Paul about. I appreciated his What if moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHfdSi-GDo

Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

I already spokle to this above but it bears repeating…..it is unlawful to recieve that which you know was stolen. So that puts that part to bed now as to the 1stA and free press……..

We can kind of wander back to the above and look at what the SCOTUS said with regard to the Pentagon Papers…….and that is what is controlling here…..what the SCOTUS feels they understand the 1st A to mean…..but they did concur that there were limits on free speech and where the possibility of that that data could get people killed is one of them IIRC.

VoiceofReason said:
There seems to be a bit of angst over my pointing out that I doubt some of what Paul says or that he may not be the stright shooter folks picture him as so perhaps if I addressed his questions I will inflict less heartburn…..

Number 1: Do the America People deserve know the truth regarding the ongoing wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen?

A: To an extent. Any time information release endangers operational security I say no.
I have family in harm’s way.

BTW, when did we place troops in Yemen? i understand we have unlawfully attacked Pakistan but I was unaware of our on-going military actions in Yemen.

Perhaps one of you Ronulans could point me to where the data is to support Paul’s contention here…….

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/us-military-drones-over-yemen.html

VoiceofReason said:
Number 6: If Assange can be convicted of a crime for publishing information that he did not steal, what does this say about the future of the first amendment and the independence of the internet?

I already spokle to this above but it bears repeating…..it is unlawful to recieve that which you know was stolen. So that puts that part to bed now as to the 1stA and free press……..

We can kind of wander back to the above and look at what the SCOTUS said with regard to the Pentagon Papers…….and that is what is controlling here…..what the SCOTUS feels they understand the 1st A to mean…..but they did concur that there were limits on free speech and where the possibility of that that data could get people killed is one of them IIRC.

Dont you have a real job? You have time to write novels on a comments thread?

Ryan Jernigan said:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/11/us-military-drones-over-yemen.html

So gathering intel is now prosecuting war on a country? Are we at war with China? Because I am damn sure we are watching them like a hawk. Do you think we spy else where?

Sorry but that’s weak sauce.

Ryan Jernigan said:
Dont you have a real job? You have time to write novels on a comments thread?

Actually I possess this skill that called “typing”………….

VoiceofReason said:
It is my understanding that Assange is anti-war and stated after the first round that he would relent if Obama did as he said and vacated Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sorry but that is blackmail plain and simple.

Also his threat to drop the poison pill if arrested is blackmail most foul. Is it not? Are his minions not carrying this out as we speak?

Okay, but that hardly fits the standard model of blackmail does it? It doesn’t appear to be about personal gain.

VoiceofReason said:
So gathering intel is now prosecuting war on a country? Are we at war with China? Because I am damn sure we are watching them like a hawk. Do you think we spy else where?

Sorry but that’s weak sauce.

You didnt read it, buddy.

Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Not for me. My beef is that some information is best kept from our enemies and leaking or threatening to leak because you can’t get your way is wrong.

OT but here is one of the BIG reasons why Paul will NEVER be much more than a loud mouthed back bencher.

We don’t have an overseas empire. If we did would we pay through the nose for wha those supposed serfs pull from the ground in sufficient quantity to make them some fo the richest peole on the planet? All the while possessing little to no self defense?

Number 8: Is there not a huge difference between releasing secret information to help the enemy in a time of declared war, which is treason, and the releasing of information to expose our government lies that promote secret wars, death and corruption?

Nice strawman Paul. Both instances are illegal.

AND the Wiki stuff puts to bed the canard this was lies.

Number 9: Was it not once considered patriotic to stand up to our government when it is wrong?

Sure,……but revealing certain things like strategic defense locations isn’t wrong and should not be leaked.

VoiceofReason said:
Number 7: Could it be that the real reason for the near universal attacks on Wikileaks is more about secretly maintaining a seriously flawed foreign policy of empire than it is about national security?

Not for me. My beef is that some information is best kept from our enemies and leaking or threatening to leak because you can’t get your way is wrong.

OT but here is one of the BIG reasons why Paul will NEVER be much more than a loud mouthed back bencher.

We don’t have an overseas empire. If we did would we pay through the nose for wha those supposed serfs pull from the ground in sufficient quantity to make them some fo the richest peole on the planet? All the while possessing little to no self defense?

Wow, you are on over politicized hater! Take a smoke break buddy.

James D. Watson of Watson and Crick fame was a morally repugnant racist, sexist, homophobe and all around bigot… but I still believe in DNA.

CosmosDan said:
I’ve had enough right now , but my feeling is we have to be realistic and prioritize a gradual change in a corrupt system that has been there a long time. Daniel Ellsburg of the Pentagon Papers has said the system is set up to encourage corruption and discourage those who are too honest and ethical. I tend to agree. IMO campaign fiance reform is one top priority. We also need to work at getting factual relevant information to people and teach them to value it over political emotional platitudes. The only one I responded to. The fact that he speaks against pork spending but took some while it is still the practice is a minor offense in my book. I’d ad that not all money labeled as pork is badly spent but it certainly is a practice we need to get a grip on in this financial crisis. You may be right. My impression of him is only built from brief clips over a period of years. Never supported him for president and I’m sure there are several things I’d disagree on. I think in general we as a nation, the media and the public, tend to focus on far less crucial issues than we ought. There are polticians and pundits making a lot of noise about the embarrassment of wikkileaks bnut even though it can hurt, often the truth helps as well. I firmly believe we have been lied to about why we are still in the ME. and this is something I agree with Paul about. I appreciated his What if moment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHfdSi-GDo

As to the corruption and it taking time to change …..I cannot argue. but it seems we spend an inordinate amount of time quibbling over what we don’t agree on rather than working together to fix that which we do.

To the pork lie…….It speaks to his character and while not as critical as this leak stuff……I have to take all things into consideration that I know on a subject or about a person to determine how I will act or what I will beleive of what they have said.

I think the rest we just differ on approach.

Thelonious Funk said:
James D. Watson of Watson and Crick fame was a morally repugnant racist, sexist, homophobe and all around bigot… but I still believe in DNA.

DNA is a scientific fact provable by analysis of empirical evidence and experiment.

Paul’s rantings are not.

AND he isn’t curing cancer…….he is trying to get re-elected and send MY money to burnouts in SE Texas to facilitate that endeavor.

CosmosDan said:
Okay, but that hardly fits the standard model of blackmail does it? It doesn’t appear to be about personal gain.

Really? The guy who brought down the mighty USofA? You do know they give a million bucks with the NPP right? Forget about the book, movie, speaking deals he would garner and still might if he manages to stay out of Leavenworth.

Sorry…..but when he did it then threatened to do it again only worse if they didn’t do as he said is blackmail pure and simple.

fb1359390905 said:
You didnt read it, buddy.

What didn’t I read?

And we are likely far from “buddies”………….

fb1359390905 said:
Wow, you are on over politicized hater! Take a smoke break buddy.

Actually i would have to say that it is impossible to be “over politicized” since these folks have control over our very lives and the actions that take today affect not only me but my family for years to come.

I don’t smoke either.

Zat it?

I’m outtie in 30 minutes and likely will not see y’all again until Monday morning.

If so…….thank you CosmosDan. While we do not agree i find you far from disagreeable.

I hope you have a great weekend.

The first ever Mediaite filibuster. VoiceofReason is Mediaite’s resident Bernie Sanders.

VoiceofReason said:
As to the corruption and it taking time to change …..I cannot argue. but it seems we spend an inordinate amount of time quibbling over what we don’t agree on rather than working together to fix that which we do.

I really agree with this. The media seems set up to focus on trivial and manufactured controversy rather than inform the public on relevant matters.

VoiceofReason said:
I think the rest we just differ on approach.

I think so too. At some point, to get things done, people who disagree have to come to an agreement and move on right?

VoiceofReason said:
Really? The guy who brought down the mighty USofA? You do know they give a million bucks with the NPP right? Forget about the book, movie, speaking deals he would garner and still might if he manages to stay out of Leavenworth.

Sorry…..but when he did it then threatened to do it again only worse if they didn’t do as he said is blackmail pure and simple.

Did Woodward and Bernstien profit from Watergate? Ellsburg from the Pentagon Papers?

I’m not defending the guys motives as pure. I’m just skeptical about the government using “national security” and “Classified” as a blanket to keep us in the dark. I have no reason to trust his motives, or theirs and I would agree that info like that needs to be combed through to prevent direct harm to anyone or unnecessary and unhelpful damage to the state department.

VoiceofReason said:
If so…….thank you CosmosDan. While we do not agree i find you far from disagreeable.

I hope you have a great weekend.

Thanks to you as well. I learned some time ago that if you want to refine and challenge your ideas you need to talk to intelligent people who disagree with you and know how to have a discussion.

Well I have no problem with most of those question’s

I wonder if Ron Paul feels the same way about Jonathan Pollard, the CIA agent who gave Israel information. After all, if Assange is such a hero then Pollard who pled guilty should not be doing life in a federal penitentiary. Oh, and unlike Assange, Pollard never threatened the United States. He released information to an ally while Assange is threatening to reveal a list of places that Al Quaeda could use.
http://politicallyincorrectlibertarian.wordpress.com/

Fact: VoiceofReason is that you Babbling Backus?

greg454 said:
He released information to an ally while Assange is threatening to reveal a list of places that Al Quaeda could use.

I couldn’t find that on your link, which appears to be just a blog anyway. Anything to back that up? Not saying it’s false, I’d just like to know, and see verification.

VoiceofReason said:
BTW to the Ronulan Overlord with respect to his question number 6…………..

It is a crime to even receive that which you know was stolen. You would think a person tasked with writing THE law would have a bit firmer grasp on it to begin with.

You couldn’t be more incorrect. Legal culpability lies with the person that stole the documents, not on the third-party that publishes them. There is no crime.

recieveing stolen property is a crime

wikileaks is this year’s version of the Christmas Bomber – much ado about nothing but man the right loves to whine about them. Ron Paul is the blind squirrel who has found that acorn – he’s right about this one thing. Who gives a rat’s ass about wikileaks? Only those who are embarrassed. I wish Assange could would reveal more about the Weapons of Mass Deception con back in ’02-’03. That would be great.

cjd ohio 1 said:
recieveing stolen property is a crime

Where’d Assange receive that property? That’s the jurisdiction that will determine whether it was a crime..

Just going to say, Ron Paul isn’t racist in any way, shape or form. In fact he wants to end the drug war which disproportionately hurts blacks.

RACE BAITING FAIL.

cjd ohio 1 said:
recieveing stolen property is a crime

Read the decision in “New York Times Co. v. United States.”

In cases of stolen documents, the individual breaking the contract of his employment are subject to legal action, the third party publishing those stolen documents are not subject to action by the government.

Click on our website:☆ ==== http://yep.it/fyphgj ==== ☆
☆ ==== http://yep.it/fyphgj ====

☆ ==== http://yep.it/fyphgj ====

☆ ==== http://yep.it/fyphgj ====

☆ ==== http://yep.it/fyphgj ====

Christan Audigier bikini $23

Ed Hardy Bikini $23

Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15

ed hardy short_tank_woman $16
=
Sandal $32

Will bring you different surprise:

Sunglass $15

COACH_Necklace $27

handbag $33

AF tank woman $17

puma slipper woman $30

handbag $33

AF tank woman $17

puma slipper woman

☆ ==== http://yep.it/fyphgj ====

☆ ==== http://yep.it/fyphgj ====

☆ ==== http://yep.it/fyphgj ====

☆ ==== http://yep.it/fyphgj ====

Bill Adkins said:
ime.

Ummm right here in the good ole USA when Manning uploaded that to the WIkileaks site over the internet!

Bill Adkins said:
Where’d Assange receive that property? That’s the jurisdiction that will determine whether it was a crime..

Ummm right here in the good ole USA when Manning uploaded that to the WIkileaks site over the internet!

JoeRyMI said:
You couldn’t be more incorrect. Legal culpability lies with the person that stole the documents, not on the third-party that publishes them. There is no crime.

Fact: He sold bits and pieces to America’s enemies for money that haven’t been released to public eyes that made it a treasonable offense and you would know what’s right or wrong if you have ever been around secrets! Get your facts straight!

Good news: this website === http://bingstore.us ===

we has been updated and add products and

many things they abandoned their increases

are welcome to visit our website.

Accept cash or credit card payments, free transport.

You can try oh, will make you satisfied.

===== http://bingstore.us======

VoiceofReason said:
BTW to the Ronulan Overlord with respect to his question number 6…………..

It is a crime to even receive that which you know was stolen. You would think a person tasked with writing THE law would have a bit firmer grasp on it to begin with.

Actually, it’s illegal to receive stolen property. So, for example, if Ellsberg had given the actual documents which he stole to wikileaks, the law which you’re referring to would apply, however, information is a wholly different case. The government would have to prove that it owns knowledge. Let’s see how that goes for them.

As to the claims of racism, it shows a real ignorance and lack of due diligence to make the claim. Anyone who’s listened to Ron Paul knows that the claim is just non-sense to smear his name. Only the most dim of individuals will believe this claim.

VoiceofReason said:
I also think he has zero character when it comes to political speak.

Point in fact…………

He has decried pork barrel spending for years. Earning himself the moniker of “Dr. No” for all of his no votes on spending matters.

YET……..during the 2008 election cycle I found he had requested and recieved over $400 million dollars in earmarks for a theater renovation in Galveston and for a Gulf of Mexico Shriping coalition fo some sort……IOW a subsidy for Gulf Shrimpers.

but guess what….he covered his ass by voting no on the spending bill…but he damn sure took the money when it passed a Dem Congress.

Is that the sort of character you respect and aspire to as a person and patriot of America?

I’m so tired of having to explain this; a simple google search would explain his very reasonable explanation. Ron Paul is against earmarks in principle, and votes no on the spending bills which include them, however, his argument is that earmarks don’t actually change the dollar amount of the appropriations bills. The earmarking process directs the already appropriated funds. If the money isn’t all “earmarked” the surplus goes to the executive branch for the President to use in any way he feels, eg, funding secret wars against say Yemen…. Additionally, his constituency is taxed by the federal government. Ron Paul does not support taxation of income by the Federal Government and therefore, any money that can be retrieved from the Federal government is a good thing. It’s important to note that his position is that the federal government should not be taxing people and that the government ought to stop spending Americans hard earned money in the form of earmarked funds or otherwise.

Speaking as an Australian, and I guess mostly on the basis of internet comments, US politics seems incredibly partisan. It seems – and please correct me if you think this is out of line – like it doesn’t take very long before a discussion on any particular issue just turns into people shouting ‘Liberal!’ and ‘Conservative!’ at each other. Like it’s all about tribal loyalties rather than discussing an idea on its merits.

Maybe it seems different from the inside? I’ll readily admit this is an outsider’s view, and I’m not sure if others outside the US would agree with me. It’s certainly what hits me every time I scroll down to the comments section of any US-related story though.

First, he’s not an American citizen, therefore treason does not apply.   Second, I as an American citizen deserve to know where my tax dollars are going.  I would like all of government to be transparent. I applaud him for throwing light on these nefarious activities, I don’t condone my government using my tax dollars for secret wars, and blowing innocent people up and assassinating american citizens without due process, and torturing prisoners, of lies our politicians told about Iraq having WMD’s they intended to use on us.  We DESERVE to know!  I for one and I’m sure I’m not the only one am furious that my money is being used to fund an aggressive and fraudulent war against a country that was no threat to us.  All the other lies our government has told us, both democrat and republican alike, the foreign policy never changes, from one administration to the next, it just gets more aggressive.  

no he did not..he clarified that by saying that he was unaware of what was posted in the news letter . It doesn’t match his character.He is not a racist by any stretch of the imagination. 

and one year later, he’s about to win Iowa, and could sweep the republican primaries.

Yeah, Rockwell wrote them.  No, Ron NEVER threw him under the bus.  Others have brought this to light.