Hey John,

Is that "fringe vote" comment you made for real or what? I think you mean hanging Chad, the dark kid down the street, in Florida. I don't think they count the fringe votes or any hanging Chads.

There's a slight, teeny-weeny differnce between a huge campaign machgine receiving donations from someone they have no clue is involved in innapropriate behavior . . . and a racist like Ron Paul taking money from the KKK. Spare me the nonsense that those comments were effectively debunked - they were not. His newsletter that he was responsible for and familiar with printed those racist comments. Not to mention being the ONLY person in Congress to be against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Embraced by the KKK and White Supremacists and Nazis. Give me a break - where there is smoke there is fire. He is what he is.

If any progressive takes the time to really read and research what Ron Paul believes; they would realize that he is an incredibly dangerous zealot. The few positions he is right about are for all the wrong reasons and his political philosophy embracing states rights and strict constitutional, constructionist thinking is identical to the thinking of Scalia, Roberts and Thomas, the greatest enemies to justice and equality that the country has ever seen.

Thanks god Ron Paul is a fringe joke.

Ron's taking flak over $500 from the less-than-desirable sources, but we have candidates in this race (who shall remain nameless) who have been caught in fundraising scandals on orders of millions of dollars. Was there something illegal about this $500 contribution, such that he should be *required* to give it back? Because I think that the 9/11 Truth movement are a bunch of lunatics, does that mean I have the right to tell Ron Paul to give back any contributions by them? If idiots want to part with their money legally, what better way to do it than in favor of the only candidate who wants to end the Iraq war, not to mention the war on drugs, which, as Dr. Paul rightly pointed out (to a mostly black audience at Morgan State) has been unfairly imprisoning a disproportionate amount African-Americans in this country?

To respond to Rich up above:

> I don't understand the logic here. I'm sure there
> are some *major* a-holes in every political camp
> -- do their odious positions actually justify
> entirely writing off a candidate who doesn't
> even share the views of people too stupid to
> realize it?

Unfortunately, responding to unfair attacks is one of the most important things a politician can do. For example, why in the hell hasn't he returned that stupid $500 check from the Klan yet?

I love Ron Paul's positions on some issues such as the War on Drugs & fighting inflation, but positions are only 1/3 of the battle - fund raisin and PR are the other 2/3.

Thanks for sharing your opinion Rich, they are always welcome. You and I will never agree. I detest states rights, I value the federal government. I believe in the Department of Education, I don't mind paying taxes. Cheers.

John,

So you're willing to compromise on a few things you don't like about PETA, and I can understand that. I feel very much the same way about Ron Paul. The amount of good that will be done to this country through the end of our occupation in Iraq, the restoration of our civil liberties, and an open, honest presidential dialogue with the American people will far outweigh some of the minor things I tend to disagree with him about.

No candidate is perfect, and I tend to never buy into the scare mongering that seems to be done about any candidate (Hillary as Communist, Giuliani as Fascist, Paul as Racist, etc...), mostly because I am tired of fear as a political tool. It seems that some very determined, negative individuals can tap into the collective fear of society spiraling into chaos should X Candidate actually be elected as President, and as a sane, mature individual, I know that's not going to happen.

Paul's policies are radical, only in that they have been intentionally marginalized in an increasingly corrupt political system. I consider his more conservative policies (the ones that seem to grate very hard with the "progressive" movement) to be constitutionally sound and actually only extend to the federal level. A Paul "conservatism" gives the states more power to architect their own destiny. This means that the People's Republic of Vermont and California can bark it up at the moon as much as they want at the tax payers' expense, without Federal meddling.

Decentralization makes us freer to change our local political and social landscape. It removes the imposition of special interest values upon a nation, and instead allows those values and positions to mature organically, at no expense to the taxpayer.

I just don't get the logic used in the video.

If abortion doesn't kill, what does it do? Resurrect?

Perhaps the reason there was no priority seating for the handicapped is because handicapped people are in wheelchairs and don't need seats?

The camera pans from the Constitution monument to Paul, and the caption is, "I'm a total loon." So what is the point of the juxtaposition? That the Constitution is for loons?

PETA works tirelessly to defend animals who have no voice. Unfortunately in this world, euthanasia of very sick animals is the humane thing to do. If there were individuals who committed innapropriate acts without PETA management's endorsement those people should be held accountable and from what I understand they were.

The truth is that PETA by means of their anti-fur campaign and other advocacy efforts for animals do the world a great service. Are they perfect? No. Do I agree with every single thing they do? No. Does the good they do in exposing the conditions in slaughterhouses, the fur trade and corporate animal farms outweigh any mistakes they have made. Absolutely.

I am a member of PETA

Peope Eating Tasty Animals

John Ehrenfeld,

I am a pet owner and very disturbed by the fact that PETA KILLS ANIMALS. Over the couse of 5 years, using death vans (a la China) and tackleboxes of lethal drugs, PETA has killed almost 14 THOUSAND homeless pets .

And the only way they could win in court when they are caught doing this? By defining the animals as legally WORTHLESS. That's right. The same organization that fights for all the rights of the lab rat that might help cure AIDS considers homeless pets WORTHLESS.

I realize that he voted against it and his explanation of why I think is satisfactory.

Sagan do you realize that Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote against supporting the Civil Rights Act. The only one.

And what makes Ron Paul so arrogant to think that he alone can decide what is best for African-Americans? Interesting also that Ron Paul is supported by so many white supremacists and neo-nazis isn't it? Coincidence right?

Sagan I'm not sure what you mean, but Republican or Democrat, I wouldn't ever support a CFR member. They should be removed from government. CFR members should all be investigated for treason.

Hey Anonymous, do you think the CFR just wants to have the "Right" side of it's ass kissed, it gets it's "Left" side kissed really good too.

Rudy Giuliani is so many times worse then Ron Paul. Giuliani will destroy America as we know it. Giuliani is exactly who Fox wants in the white house.
Giuliani is a tyrant.
Giuliani is CFR member just like the rest of the canidates.
Giuliani will continue white house policies that are identical to Bush.

Ron Paul is the only republican that can be given any trust at all.

When will Brave new films wake up and stop backing CFR candidates. Seriously where is the documentary on the CFR and the Trilateral commission?

O.k., here, I am proud to give his words to the world, this is Ron Paul.....

The Trouble With Forced Integration

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

July 3, 2004

Ron paul 2008

Anyone worried about Equal Rights should be first in line to vote for Ron Paul, Dr.Pauls goal is to make the prejudice Federal Government smaller, if it gets bigger and keeps doing things, like, putting cameras up everywhere, where are some of the first neighborhoods they're going to put them in, there are already plans to have law enforcement vehicles with telescopic cameras on them to go into neighborhoods and park, random mobile surveillance, get it. "The people" are for that? Ron Paul wouldn't let that happen.

Ron paul 2008

you, sir, are an unimaginative dickhead. I hope to never encounter your website again. Pray tell... what it is like to have two assholes and no penis?

cliffschecter and JohnE here you go guys.....

The World Doesn't Want to be Saved

"The world is a teeming mishmash of cultures with a bewildering array of values and ideologies engaged in their own version of the good life. People are generally not interested in changing the metaphors through which they view the world, so real understanding between groups with conflicting viewpoints is not achievable in the short term. The good news is, that's OK, because the world isn't supposed to be saved on a global scale. It must be saved at the level of the individual. And despite the fact that the level of the individual appears to be statistically insignificant, it is in fact the most significant, because it is only at the level of the individual that a creative synthesis of conflicting metaphors can occur. Once a connection is made at the individual level, the process of spreading successful new metaphors throughout society is essential automatic if the society is ready for them. If the society is not ready, the new metaphors will not be accepted under any circumstances. So don't beat you head on a rock. Solve your own interpersonal communication problems. If the world is ready to benefit from your solutions, you will not be able to stop it from using them."

-- The Meaning of Life

Sagan, is Ron Paul against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which has overwhelming support of African-Americans? Yes or no. Since we both know the answer is yes, please articulate for all of us why Ron Paul rejects something so important to African Americans.

Don't you like how these guys label everyone and anyone with a "word"... labeling everyone with quick and easy politically and socially correct words is downright prejudice, say something they don't like and you're a downright "neo", don't agree with them in any way shape or form and they'll send you to the "camps".

Ron Paul is continuously moving upward and what better way to get "clicked on" than to put him down.

If people don't want to deal with reality then don't complain about the future, now, you can bet it doesn't matter who wins or what happens, these guys will still be going off, that's there job!

People in general want something to happen with "the system", everyone agrees, something has to be done and it can't be done in a fairytale way, quit trying to stop change, it only hurts, it never helps.

Progressive means to move forward, uuhhhh are you guys comin' or what.

Rich, I agree.

Anyone reading these posts about Ron Paul, please, don't take them word for word, from anyone, including me, do some research of your own, ask some questions and see what you can see...

Thank You

In my opinion Ron Paul is as dangerous a man as Rudy Giuliani.

I was addressing a comment Rich made about PETA. Sorry you feel that way about animals anonymous. Thankfully millions of animal lovers dont feel as you do. I think progressives are able to care about many issues at the same time.

I can't help but, not give a shit about PETA when we are on the verge of losing the Bill of Rights to a Tyrant whom the congress is to chicken shit of to impeach.

I'm pretty sick of seeing Ron Paul smeared on here.

Keep the focus on the true evil Rudy.

Even if your so partisan you could never vote for a republican under any circumstances getting Ron Paul the GOP nomination at least keeps Rudy and many of the other horrible GOP candidates from getting elected to the white house.

Rich, PETA defends animals who have few who are willing to speak for them. What is your problem with PETA? To me and millions of others animal rights is a very serious issue.

This is a smear job and a bad one at that.

Skin heads are hardly Ron Paul's "base".

Alex if you live in BC I may know of your whereabouts. Now if you want to be a Bushy feel free to come south to D.C. and take over Karl Rove's position.

I don't know if I'm a "progressive" either. Personally, I have considered myself independent for quite some while. I do believe that there are too many lobbyists and special interest groups from all camps who are currently having a feeding frenzy on our tax dollars in an attempt to federally enforce their ideological views on the general American populace. This is something I fundamentally disagree with, regardless of whichever side of the fictional "political spectrum" these collectivist douchebags are attempting it from -- Christian Right to the PETA left, I can't stand them.

I can understand Paul's position on abortion. Constitutionally, I don't see the act of abortion as a "right", like the right to free speech or gun ownership, but I do understand that some people consider it a privacy right. At best, to me, it's a "nice to have." In that respect, I'm rather nebulous on the issue, compared to most people. I think that that the debate on abortion in this country has matured to a degree that, in the event Roe V. Wade was repealed, we wouldn't see an entire nation completely ban abortion overnight, state by state, but rather a patchwork of 50 solutions that every woman would be free to choose from and free to travel to expedite. I don't see the dark ages descending upon us.

On the Church v. State issue, this quote is so absent of context, I really don't know where to start. So let me preclude this by saying that I'm an atheist. I am in the smallest spiritual "minority" in the entire country. I don't congregate with atheists, nor do I really have a burning desire to join in some mass movement for rights or protections that we supposedly should be enjoying. Shit, I own a concealed carry license. That's really the only protection I think I need, should some mouth-breathing Jesus nut intend on beating the fear of God in me. (I can't really say that argument is entirely of my own invention -- I take a few pages from the Pink Pistols.) Having said that, given the minimized Constitutional government that Ron Paul wants, I really don't see a great deal of harm in the right to hold a Christmas pageant or have a prayer circle around a flag on public land. If that's how they get their rocks off, and as long as it isn't some forced march to an alter call, I'm pretty sure that people can figure an equitable solution out without the impedance of Federal intervention. If you're scared of something like the Moral Majority, exactly how powerful could they be with no large government to lobby?

And on the racist quotes, these have been SOOOO debunked. This is just recycled crap from 5 months ago that has long been processed and rejected as an incorrect attribution to Ron Paul.

I'm a Canadian, living in Canada.
..and you sir are a jackass.

Thanks for the comment Rich. I mean it. I think we should have an honest debate here. And you know what, I really appreciate his stance on the war. I think he has been very principled. Ditto with torture and illegal spying.

But if you want me to look beyond the followers to the man, I will. There is a reason some of those fringe elements like him. I don't know if you're progressive Rich, but if you are, are you comfortable with this:

"Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion." - National Right To Life Convention, 2007

Or this:

"The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state. The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

Or this series of outright racist statements:

"Although we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

"Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people."

"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in the District of Columbia are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

So to me, Rich, he seems like a foreign policy libertarian (ie isolationist), economic libertarian and social conservative. Yes, better than Rudy, by far, but no, not progressive by a long shot.

I don't understand the logic here. I'm sure there are some *major* a-holes in every political camp -- do their odious positions actually justify entirely writing off a candidate who doesn't even share the views of people too stupid to realize it?

Seriously, when you have to go into a CROWD of 7000 people to dig up some dirt, you should realize that whatever argument you eventually come up with will be minimized by the fact that you failed to find anything wrong with your intended target, namely a very principled politician.

I'm not a supporter but let's be careful about slamming the guy on certain connections. They may like him for his isolationist stance but it doesn't mean he's a kindred soul of theirs.

"He also attracts support in some fringe, anti-Semitic or white supremacist Web sites, even though Paul himself strongly rejects those views."

From the second link in your previous post.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyQLduiFMFTNmeUdgpf5cMvLi6awD8SODK8G2