Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul Campaign Answers Slashdot Reader Questions
On January 15th we asked you for tech-oriented questions we could send to the various presidential candidates, and you responded like mad. The candidates were the exact opposite: not a single one answered emails we sent to their "media inquiry" links or email addresses. Slashdot has more readers than all but a handful of major daily papers, so that's kind of strange. Maybe they figure our votes aren't worth much or that hardly any of us vote. In any case, the Ron Paul campaign finally responded, due to some string-pulling by a Slashdot reader who knows some of Ron Paul's Texas campaign people. Perhaps other Slashdot readers -- like you (hint hint) -- can pull a few strings with some of the other campaigns and get them to communicate with us. Use this email address, please. But first, you'll probably want to read the Ron Paul campaign's answers to your questions (below).
1) Global high tech
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Ron Paul campaign:
America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
4) What do you think about technology?
Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?
Ron Paul campaign:
I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights; however, some of the steps taken to protect these rights impose unreasonable burdens on the consumers and even raise civil liberties concerns. As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media.
5) What do you think about patents?
People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.
It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.
As President, would you fix our broken patent system?
Ron Paul campaign:
Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation. While I do not have a plan for patent reform yet, I would want to work with Congress to make sure that the US patent system encourages and rewards innovation. Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
1) Global high tech
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Ron Paul campaign:
America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests, including its interests in a viable space program. As president, I will also work to remove barriers to private space flight.
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail.
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
4) What do you think about technology?
Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?
Ron Paul campaign:
I favor enforcement of intellectual property rights; however, some of the steps taken to protect these rights impose unreasonable burdens on the consumers and even raise civil liberties concerns. As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media.
5) What do you think about patents?
People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.
It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.
As President, would you fix our broken patent system?
Ron Paul campaign:
Patents have a role to play in encouraging innovation. While I do not have a plan for patent reform yet, I would want to work with Congress to make sure that the US patent system encourages and rewards innovation. Making sure the patent system is fair to small business and entrepreneurs, rewards the actual inventors of a product, and does not tilt the playing field to large corporations will be a priority in my administration's approach to patent law.
To me the answer to question 2 very much conflicts with the answer to question 1.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
So, like, I'm confused. Who is actually answering these questions here? The title and story intro say the questions are answered by the "Ron Paul campaign." So does that mean this is, in fact, Ron Paul himself answering, or his people, or a combination, or...?
His answer to question #3 contradicts his resolution in answer to question #2.
Which is a less than huge surprise, considering how leading most of those questions were!
Seems like the libertarian version of a typical politician - light on details, light on commitment, and exactly what the audience was looking for.
Good point. Why didn't the poster use something like the Hivelogic Enkoder? At least only real people would then send messages to the account.
I'm overwhelmed by RP's insight and commitment to these issues, and can't wait to put him into a leadership position.
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
Not trolling at all here, but I was rather underwhelmed by the responses.
Basically, the responses given by the Ron Paul campaign carried the tone I expected (more focus on personal liberties and free market) but were truly lacking in depth. For once, it would be nice to get a more detailed response from a politician, and not just the typical buzzword jockeying.
Of all the candidates, this was the one I least expected generalizations and "typical response" muck. Oh well... at least they responded... I guess...
Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.
They're Republicans who want to smoke pot and get laid.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Much like Linux on the desktop, right?
...I still support Ron Paul and am very vocal in proposing him as a choice to my many family, friends and customers who do vote.
Nonetheless, these answers were a bit short and vague, but I do agree with how he answered them. Ron Paul's greatest asset is that he does listen. I have an interesting story dating back many years to a gold conference I attended in San Mateo. Ron Paul was a keynote speaker there, and after his speech, everyone left the convention room to gather for drinks and snacks. Outside the room, I started speaking with some younger folk who gathered outside the convention room (the average age of people in the room was probably 70, and I was the only person under 40 who wasn't a nurse of an old person in a wheelchair). Even almost a decade ago, Paul had young fans who would gather to talk to him outside of the official convention. As I spoke to these teenagers and young adults, many from the convention gathered to hear me out. After about 45 minutes of fielding questions, the crowd finally dispersed, and then I noticed that Dr. Paul was in the crowd listening. A congressman who took time out from his then-hectic schedule to actually hear me speak about gold and freedom. We spoke for a few minutes, and since then I've regularly talked to him at other conventions he's attended. It's ridiculous to me to think that a popular congressman would take even a few minutes out of his life to listen to anyone but lobbyists, but Paul has done it again and again with people around him. Even during the current campaign I've seen Paul spend hours after a speech to shake hands, answer questions bluntly, and sign pocket Constitutions.
Paul's most magic words I've heard him speak is to say that as President he doesn't have the power that people would want HIM to have. He admits that the President's powers are very limited, and his sole purpose to be President is to use the bully pulpit to raise awareness on Constitutional issues. He would be wonderful with the veto pen, and he would call our big business and lobbying groups for their actions, as he has done (on C-SPAN) over his many years in Congress.
On the war issue that many neoconservatives hate him for, Paul has said repeatedly that he is against undeclared wars. He's also said that Presidents are to follow Congress on declaring war or refusing it. This means that Paul _would_ go to war if Congress declared it, even in Iraq. He's putting politicians in their responsible positions by demanding that they follow the Constitution.
Paul wants the Federal Department of Education gone, because they make a mess of education. He also admits he can't do it alone. He wants the IRS gone, because of its unconstitutionalist, but he can't do it alone. A vote for Paul is NOT a vote for getting rid of anything, or stopping a war, or ending rampant government growth -- it's a vote to put a freedom lover in the most powerful bully pulpit, to remind the politicians and the masses that freedom and responsibility are the individual's right to protect and follow through on.
Even though I don't vote, I support voters who make clear choices based on the Constitution that we believe in to protect the freedoms that I believe are God-granted, or inherent at birth for all people in all countries. Paul's message is powerful in that he's not looking to lead people, but to follow them, and protect their freedoms so they can make responsible, or irresponsible choices, and learn lessons from those choices. He's not looking to stop abortion, but to stop Federal involvement in an issue that is debatable as a "murder" cause. The definition of murder is a State issue, and Paul wants to force the issue there. I appreciate his candor and honesty even though I disagree with many positions of his.
I'm glad he answered these questions simply, because it allows you to see that Paul believes the President is near powerless, except for the veto pen and the bully pulpit.
Just blowing off steam. Sheesh.
Except this time, make it clear how many subscribers are actively reading slashdot. Instead of some crackpot geek site they'll see it as a forum for a significant amount of voters. Or maybe they just don't think geeks vote :)
It is highly unlikely then Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination. This is unfortunate because he is an extremely smart man who is consistent in his policies. His voting history carries this out. Not only that, be he is the only candidate that seems to have a solid understanding of sound economic fiscal policy.
Even more unfortunate, we will soon be left with elections that are exactly as they have been in the past: A choice between the lesser of two evils.
Tell me, of the 4 front-runners (Clinton, Obama, Romney, McCain), who deserves your vote? The answer is: None of the above.
[ exhale a sigh of desperation ]
More non-answers from a guy who claims to be running on a "not more of the same" platform.
/Quote
For instance:
Quote:
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions.
3) Marijuana : My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Ron Paul campaign:
I oppose federal laws outlawing marijuana and I oppose federal interference with state medical marijuana laws.
Does anyone else think that Answer #2 conflicts with Answer #3? Did he just not answer the guy's direct question? (i.e. "what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?")
Another non-answer: "As president, I will seek a balance between the interest of copyright holders and consumers of digital media. "
I must say, after all the hoopla about this guy being a "real candidate", I'm not impressed. He sounds like more of the same to me.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
How about the "Ron Paul stands just about as much chance of being elected as you do" posts? It doesn't really matter if the person reading is 15, an atheist, Chinese, or a member of Al Qaeda; the statement is still accurate.
The best thing about Ron Paul this year is how he can be the ultimate form of humiliation. Pundits and pollsters were all over Rudy "9/11" Giuliani before the primaries started. Some of them were practically writing his victory speeches before the first vote had been cast. Then people started voting and he got less votes than even Ron Paul.
As far as the "nut" complaint, just Google "Gold Standard". He's also protectionist as hell. He also stands behind a lot of things that Slashdotters find acceptable that are political suicide in America today (legalize drugs, gay marrage is ok, privatize Social Security). It's one thing to be against "wasteful government spending", but when it ends up involving people dying on the street (social programs), it's a lot harder to stomach. From a purely economic point of view it is probably better to let the mentally ill and unemployable just die on the street instead of subsidizing them for the rest of their life, but that's not what most people consider acceptable for the first world.
I read the internet for the articles.
Maybe they figure our votes aren't worth much or that hardly any of us vote.
I know this story is slanted such that we are supposed to feel that only Ron Paul cares enough about us to actually respond, but the truth of the matter is that despite slashdot's large readership, a significant fraction of the readership is not eligible to vote in U.S. elections, whereas large U.S. newspapers can boast a much larger percentage of eligible U.S. voters. Also, politicians still pay more attention to print publications than to internet publications. Print media still holds more respect. One of my coworkers once told me he had e-mailed his resume to 100 companies and not gotten a single response. I told him that I would bet money that he had sent his resume by regular mail to the company that he would have gotten multiple responses. Of course, that would have cost him over $40 in stamps, plus more effort to address everything. This is the same reason you are more likely to get a response from a politician if you send them a letter than an e-mail. You have to put more effort into a letter, so they are going to pay more attention to it.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You serve politicians up questions like that, where their answers will either alienate the Slashdot population or the general electorate, and you expect answers? Come on. Those were cherry picked by Ron Paul fanboys. The pot smoking question especially.
President Bush wanted to chime in as well, and ./ also has Bush's response: http://www.soundboard.com/sb/Monkey_Sounds_audio.aspx .
I hope everything is clearer now. It's funny how Ron Paul haters love to point out he will never win. Well, his views won't die, and Nader had no chance either, but how many votes did he win in FL, 100k? And how many votes were in dispute with Bush, less than 1000?
I get the feeling big media, fox news, and hardcore dems or repubs love to live in denial that he isn't a threat.
The question was not "Do you oppose Federal Marijuana laws..." it was "What are you going to do to protect me from being arrested". It's an indirect answer at best. And just one paragraph above, he said we deserve direct answers.
-- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
1) Global high tech
...It is very cold in space.
In the last year, India and China have both announced and made progress towards implementing their own space programs. How should America respond to such growing technological boldness in such countries? Is it a threat or an opportunity?
Khan Paul campaign:
Do you know the Klingon proverb that tells us revenge is a dish that is best served cold?
2) Why Can't I Get a Straight Answer?
I've noticed that a number of candidates (I'm not naming names) and a number of administration officials will not answer a question in a clear and concise fashion. The subject could be anything from "Do you think waterboarding is torture?" to "What will be your stance toward the war in Iraq if you are elected?"
So my question to you is, "Do you think that I want someone in that office (Whichever one it is) who is deliberately attempting to deceive me?"
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Khan Paul campaign: Oh, I've given you no word to keep, Admiral. In my judgement, you simply have no alternative.
3) Marijuana
I'm a college graduate with a decent job in a technical field. I pay my taxes, my debts are minimal. I get along well with others, and am close to my family. I like to think that I am a good citizen and contribute to society. Yet because I smoke marijuana instead of drinking beer when I come home from work, my government has declared war on me.
My question is this: Do you believe I belong in jail? If so, why? If not, what are you going to do to protect me from being arrested?
Khan Paul campaign:
I've done far worse than kill you. I've hurt you. And I wish to go on... hurting you. I shall leave you as you left me, as you left her. Marooned for all eternity, in the center of a dead planet. Buried alive... buried alive.
4) What do you think about technology?
Can you clarify your policy around fair use of digital media and content? More specifically, can you explain how you will balance the rights of the average citizen to use digital content in "fair use" ways (backups, time-shifting, parody, etc.) with the need for corporations to protect IP investments? With the previous two administrations we have seen an erosion of fair-use rights via the DMCA and copyright extension bills. As President, will your policies tend to favor these trends or reverse them?
Khan Paul campaign:
You see, their young enter through the ears and wrap themselves around the cerebral cortex. This has the effect of rendering the victim extremely susceptible to suggestion. Later as they grow follows madness.. and death.
5) What do you think about patents?
People complain about taxes being the main hindrance of innovation, but when someone creates a new product, be it an iPhone or a Blackberry, they aren't looking out for the tax man. The main hindrance to American technological innovation is a patent system that rewards people for sitting on ideas and punishes those who create new products.
It has become an accepted fact that when you create something new, you will likely have to pay companies that had nothing whatsoever to do with your invention, just because they filed a patent while never intending to actually produce or sell anything.
As President, would you fix our broken patent system?
Khan Paul campaign:
No. No, you can't get away. From hell's heart, I stab at thee. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee.
Khan Paul 2008
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Don't worry... the sarcasm came through loud and clear!
So we should vote based on who's viable rather than who's right? Anymore, this seems to exemplify exactly what's wrong with this country.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Not just leading, but real "softball" questions. I'm surprised they didn't ask if he likes puppies. I'm pleased to learn he believes in providing direct answers to direct questions and I'd like some answers to questions such as:
Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?
How will you reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?
Is healthcare a right?
Please give you opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London (Supreme court deciison which gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenues).
etc.
Frankly, I'd like answers to those questions from ALL politicians. It would be a step forward, instead of the current internecine squabbling : the "he said/she said/you made the girl cry" pandering Soap Opera.
He's actually made pretty clear some of his positions on technology, I'll give him that.
In general, Obama is:
a) in favor of investing in education
b) against the NASA manned program to the moon and mars. I believe he was going to use that money to fund some third world development fund.
c) is absolutely in favor of copyright protection in general, and is committed to the DMCA in particular.
d) is in favor of environmental technology in general, ethanol in particular (thanks Iowa!)
e) deploy next generation broadband
f) in favor of net neutrality
This is my sig.
Asking Ron Paul questions about what he'd do if he was President is like asking me. I have as much chance of becoming President as RP does.
Advice: on VPS providers
which is how a lot of us in Europe think America is run today!
If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck - them Dont *%$& vote for it!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
If you don't vote, then your opinion doesn't count for much, does it?
Why don't you quit blabbermouthing for "insightful" posts on slashdot, and instead do something that makes a difference like try to get the man some delegates! I mean, damn, what the hell.
Good. I make my own damn plans. I'm a free person. I don't need a politician to make plans for me.
Much like Linux on the desktop, right?
Yes.
Well, actually the answer is probably "yes." If you actually want to make a difference you should vote in a way that enables that rather than voting in some idealistic attempt to make a statement. If you want to enable change, vote for the "right" people at a more local level where they stand a chance of getting into office where they can actually do something! Don't vote for someone who clearly has no chance of winning just to "make a statement" and then whine that things aren't how you want them. Change usually happens from the bottom up, only rarely from the top down.
As far as the "nut" complaint, just Google "Gold Standard".
What exactly is nuts about the gold standard? The fact that the founders supported it, or the fact that we had it up until 1971? Is the gold standard any more 'nuts' than the Petrodollar? If anything the petrodollar is nuts!
He's also protectionist as hell.
Are you kidding? You might as well call him pro war too. I'm not sure if you're unaware of his position, or purposefully misstating it. Paul wants to open up trade with EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, including countries we currently do NOT trade with such as Cuba and Iran. His view is that we shouldn't punish the citizens of Cuba and Iran because we dislike their governments, and that OUR government shouldn't tell us who we can trade with.
Yes, Ron Paul opposes things like NAFTA and CAFTA, but really those are controlled trade, not free trade.
He also stands behind a lot of things that Slashdotters find acceptable that are political suicide in America today (legalize drugs, gay marrage is ok,
His view on both is that the federal government SHOULDN'T be involved, so no he wouldn't be legalizing drugs, or gay marriage. He simply wouldn't be making them illegal on the federal level either, so your state would be left to decide.
How is letting the states decide political suicide?
Should we go on pretending that Alabama has the same culture as Vermont, and have the citizens of both States fighting politically to pass laws to force each other to live by their moral code? Or should we just let the states decide?
privatize Social Security).
Ron Paul would keep all current social security benefits the same as they are now, and wants to make it so the government doesn't tax social security checks like they currently do. You're spreading FUD. Ron Paul does want to let young people 'opt out' of social security if they want.
It's one thing to be against "wasteful government spending", but when it ends up involving people dying on the street (social programs), it's a lot harder to stomach. From a purely economic point of view it is probably better to let the mentally ill and unemployable just die on the street instead of subsidizing them for the rest of their life, but that's not what most people consider acceptable for the first world.
Look at the FUD monster! Jesus, Paul has said multiple times that he would NOT end benefits for people who are currently on them, and the main way he plans to slash our national budget is to end our current foreign policy. Nobody would be starving on the streets, in fact Seniors would have MORE MONEY than they do now since Paul would get rid of the ridiculous tax on social security checks.
Nonsense. It is: Me>everyone else.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
Well, what "viable" really truly means is "able to be supported by enough real voters to make it into office". "Real voters", in contrast to the vast horde of just-like-you voters that exist only in your mind.
You are free in a democracy to vote for whomever you like, but confining yourself to "viable" voters is indicative of the kind of maturity it takes to function in a democracy (by which I mean any system with a major democratic component, including the US Republic), which requires understanding that a lot of people don't agree with you.
This anger about people seeking "viability" strikes me as coming awfully close to a totalitarian impulse. What, am I just supposed to ignore the fact that I'm in the minority and angrily push my views through anyhow? No.
It's not a sign of degeneracy. It's maturity.
Even if you don't answer this question, I hope you think about it the next time someone asks you a question.
Ron Paul campaign:
The American people should expect clear and direct answers to their questions. Not only have I always strived to clearly state my position on issues, but my voting record backs up my commitment to the free-market, limited government philosophy I espouse on the campaign trail. What the fsck has giving a straight answer have to do with commitment to free market and limited government? Do they (Ron Paul campaign) have such a short attention span, or do they expect that their voters have? I felt like someone spat on me, when I read those answers.
I have seen this sort of BS in all of the answers. Either Ron Paul doesn't care enough to think about these answers himself and lets his minions do the job (but they did it SO poortly!), or his logic device is fried and severely compromised.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I'm glad you feel that way. And just imagine a life were everyone could live that way.
I mean, wouldn't it be liberating to wake up and get an electric bill for 50c/KW hour because of complete de-regulation of the electricity generation market? And how free I would feel when all those crappy last mile ISP's are bought out by the back bone owners and all of my traffic gets tiered, filtered, and over charged.
And just think about how cool it would be if the government got it's fat nose out of the way so that we could have 1 supreme software development company that could use it's control of the desktop market to crush any of those pesky competitors.
Yeah, the combination of libertarian reduction of government ideals with the open market theory and the republican 'business first!' attitude... that would truly be an inspiring country.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for the reduction of government in some arenas, but the idea of having a fire sale of all of the federal government's powers is not the way to do it. All that will result in is shifting power from the government to a small number of corporations. And corporations as we all know, can not be held accountable, have no morals, and have a responsibility only to the stock holders' investments.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You are a free person who is a citizen of a Republic. Here in America, we elect people to make plans for us, because we are free, and we choose to do that. Sorry if you don't like that, but the majority of citizens do, so it is unfair of you to force your 'no government is good government' view on the rest of us.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Oh geez, someone has been drinking the Gold Standard Kool-Aid. Do you know why we got away from the gold standard? Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression. It is also far less flexible than the monetary systems we use today such that an attempt to go back to it would cause a major deflation in the currency while skyrocketing the value of gold. Oh, and guess who has a lot of holding in gold? You guessed it, Ron Paul. The Wikipedia article alone has some rather compelling reasons why return to the Gold Standard is a bad idea.
He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.
States rights is a familiar dodge for people who rooted for the South in the Civil war but don't want to give the appearance of being pro-slavery. In here it appears to be a way to dodge for uncomfortable social issues that, while probably correct in the long term, are politically unpopular today.
Like most Libertarians, Ron Paul would much prefer getting rid of the socialized support systems we currently have, believing that people would be better off just saving on their own instead of having the government do it. In general, that is probably true, however if people were good at that we wouldn't have needed those systems in the first palace. Once he starts cutting the funds for those systems it is inevitable that more people will fall through the gaps. There is the promise that everybody currently on it will continue getting their support, but if the money is not there then there is no way to keep that promise.
For an extensive rundown of where Ron Paul stands on the issues, visit On The Issues. This is actually a good place to visit for all of the candidates.
I read the internet for the articles.
http://www.signaturemachine.com/
http://www.signaturemachine.com/products/demo_page.htm?source=google_ad&gclid=CKujifnPrZECFQlxOAodakCHdg
Actual signing speed will be faster than displayed on this video.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Thank You! I kept wondering why I kept thinking that the name Ron Paul sounded like the name of a transvestite. I could not figure out where I was making that connection. Ru Paul explains it.
Do you honestly think the vast majority of beer drinkers are doing it for the taste of beer? That's a hoot.
And to be extremely frank about it, what's wrong with altered states? Why is it as an adult that sitting in front of the tube for 4-6 hours watching guys throw around or beat around a ball while getting wasted on Coors is acceptable but smoking up and listening to some Tangerine Dream or Pink Floyd is considered bad?
I'd love a real answer to this question. And no, I'm not a pot smoker but I've spent more than enough time around alcohol to know that "social drinking" is largely a joke for the vast majority of drinkers. If you choose not to smoke dope that's great but please don't act like we don't already have an available intoxicant that isn't abused just as much. The only difference is that one can be taxed easily.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
As for NAFTA, it was not free trade
I remember Ross Perot's proposal of simple reciprocity: any trading partner would get the very same terms for their exports to the USA that American exports got to their country. That went over like a lead balloon in DC.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The problem with that philosophy is that the candidate does not know that you don't agree with on most issues and only voted for them because they were "viable". In their perspective you fully support the platform they ran on. This can be seen from the 2004 election where the many voters felt they were voting for "the lesser of 2 evils", but Bush took winning the popular vote as a "mandate" for his policies.
In order for anything to actually change, you sometimes have to vote for candidate "A" who has no chance of winning the current election. When this occurs then the other candidates/parties will be forced to consider the positions of "A" and likely integrate some of "A"s positions into their platforms.
Java has no friends.
He is running for a federal position. He believes the federal has no business in this as a matter of constitutional principle. Any personal opinion he may have on pot is therefore irrelevant.
If he were to get his way people should be asking their state elected officials this question, not him.
The Captain James T. Kucinich campaign had a one word rebuttal to this:
Khaaann!!!
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Legalization of drugs is in a similar situation. If pot is legal in California and Utah, what happens when you drive through Nevada and are caught with a Nevada state felony possession?
Gun laws are currently in this dilemma, and it's extremely hard to even realize when you're doing something illegal when you go from one state to another. For example, concealed carry reciprocity between states is very fragmented (http://www.ccrkba.org/reciprocity.html)
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Let me see if I have this straight: Paul's website is a sales pitch, but the wishy-washy answers Roblimo got from the Paul campaign and posted as the article isn't? As far as I'm concerned, there's no difference between the two. Both are claims as to where Ron Paul stands on particular political issues. That is all they are: sales pitches.
You can call me cynical, but as far as I'm concerned, all news is propaganda. Hard facts are diamonds trapped in a matrix created by the manner in which a journalist chooses to present the facts. Read a news article, and you are not just getting the facts, but the journalist's (or his editor's) perception of the facts.
This post is also propaganda, like every other post here.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Right now there are millions of Christian fundamentalists who will tell you that you are stupid to think any of these things matter because the morality of the country is going down the tubes and we're straying from God's word, and that's what will destroy us.
Oh geez, someone has been drinking the Gold Standard Kool-Aid.
Man, I love it when people make original insults like 'drinking the kool-aid!' rather than debating the subject at hand. I usually know there is a lot of bunk coming afterwards.
Do you know why we got away from the gold standard? Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression.
Umm, no. The gold standard might have made it harder to handle the great depression (because the government couldn't inflate their way out of it), but it certainly didn't cause the great depression. Wikipedia lists several causes, but really the federal reserve, created in 1913, inflated the money supply, leading to looser lending standards. From Wikipedia:
Americans consumers and businesses relied on cheap credit, the former to purchase consumer goods such as automobiles and furniture and the later for capital investment to increase production. This fueled strong short-term growth but created consumer and commercial debt. People and businesses who were deeply in debt when price deflation occurred or demand for their product decreased often risked default. Many drastically cut current spending to keep up time payments, thus lowering demand for new products. Businesses began to fail as construction work and factory orders plunged. Massive layoffs occurred, resulting in unemployment rates of over 25%. Banks which had financed a lot of this debt began to fail as debtors defaulted on debt and bank depositors became worried about their deposits and began massive withdrawals.
The Austrian school of economics, which Paul subscribes to, predicted this would happen prior to the crash.. Ron Paul was saying there would be a recession or worse back during the first debates when everyone was talking about the strength of the Bush economy. Once again, the Austrian school is ahead of the curve. It's not that hard to predict really. In the 1920's you had a housing boom with easy to obtain credit which lead people and businesses to spend beyond their means. We've had the same thing in the 1990's through today, with the small recession around 9/11 which Greenspan inflated his way out of, which just ended up causing a larger bubble.
It is also far less flexible than the monetary systems we use today such that an attempt to go back to it would cause a major deflation in the currency while skyrocketing the value of gold
Ron Paul doesn't want to go back to the gold standard, but he does want to create a new currency backed by gold, so you could hold your 'dollars' in whichever currency you prefer. So once again, you are misstating his position.
. Oh, and guess who has a lot of holding in gold? You guessed it, Ron Paul. The Wikipedia article alone has some rather compelling reasons why return to the Gold Standard is a bad idea.
Yeah, and if he were elected, and he created a gold backed currency the price of gold would likely DROP. The only reason gold is priced so high since 9/11 is because of our irrational fiscal and foreign policies. Gold is a hedge vs inflation, so implementing a rational fiscal policy would actually hurt gold's value.
He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.
Once again, you are mindlessly smearing the man, based on something you probably read from one website. If someone votes against NAFTA and CAFTA but says 'we should trade with no restrictions with every nation on earth' they are not a protectionist.
States rights is a familiar dodge for people who rooted for the South in the Civil war but don't want to give the appearance of being pro-slavery. In here it appears to be a way to dodge for uncomfortable social issues
Sure, he should at least be (very lightly) commended for admitting he hasn't thought about it, rather than giving a bullshit answer.
But why hasn't he thought about it? All of RP's policy decisions come down to this decision: is the power mentioned in the Constitution? If so, then it merits resolution, else the 10th Amendment prohibits it. Well, IP is there, right in Article 1 Section 8. There are so few issues actually at stake, once you look at it in this manner, so I'm kind of disappointed that he doesn't have a position on this one.
More to the point, I find it hard to believe. Maybe we really did get a bullshit answer. That doesn't really line up with what we know about the guy, but nevertheless I'm getting a whiff of it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
"Little is much when little you need."
Now, back to the real world...
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Given the way candidates are nominated, I don't think third parties really have much of a chance.
What I'd like to see (though, I'm sure there's a flaw in it somewhere) is for all the states to have partyless primaries, like Louisiana, where everyone running for prez is on the same ballot, and the two top vote getters go to the general election in November, even if they're from the same party.
Of course, it has been noted that even this system locks out third parties, because the two top vote getters will always be the favorites of the two main factions. Say candidate A is the favorite of faction A, and candidate B is the favorite of faction B, and nobody in faction A would ever consider candidate B as a second choice, and nobody in Faction B would ever consider candidate A as a second choice. But if there is a moderate candidate C that everyone could live with, even if not their favorite, C doesn't have a chance in the Louisiansa system.
I would modify that system such that everyone votes for TWO candidates in the partyless primary. So that everyone gets to vote for their favorite, and second favorite. That way Candidate C ends up in the general election.
That having people stationed all over the world and going on wars of adventure on shaky evidence might just not be the best use of taxpayer money. So yes, shave the defence fund.
Ron Paul votes against free trade laws because no law is necessary for free trade -- for free trade you need to *get rid* of protectionist laws. "Free trade" laws like NAFTA or CAFTA go on and on for pages when only one sentence is needed: "Congress shall pass no law respecting trade between nations."
Anything else stupid you have to say? Please, by all means, continue tarnishing your reputation.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
A Slashdot reader truly interested in the issues you mention can find many statements about them from every candidate. The point here was not to ask questions the candidates have answered (often many times, and often on their own websites), but to ask questions that have not been answered by the candidates in easily-found material published elsewhere.
Yes, those people call themselves "Republicans" and "Democrats" and they are the majority.
That is why libertarians exist; and also why they lose.
The vast majority thinks the government exists to be their mommy, and their political parties have turned this cowardly and un-american outlook into the primary legislative theme of almost every representative. This in turn has led directly to the essential irrelevance of the constitution with regard to law, uncontrolled government expansion, loss of liberties, privacy and property, and a general feeling of helplessness when government abuse is directed, as it eventually is, at one's self.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Slightly OT, but what is with the fascination with gold? I mean, it has value in manufacturing of electronics, and makes an average metal for jewelry, but aside from that I find it to be entirely over-valued. I always want to smack the hell out of economists that take about using things with "intrinsic" value for currency, and then list gold and jewels as examples. Being pretty does not add "intrinsic" value. If you want something with intrinsic value, how about a loaf of bread, or a gallon of gas. At least with the gas it has a fairly well defined energy output that can be used to perform work.
The thing they all overlook is that gold just like the dollar only has value because we all agree that is has value. Since the only value of currency is what we agree to give to it, it doesn't actually matter what you use for currency.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
Are you daft? If the government pulls out of regulating the electricity market, the power lines have to belong to someone and you can be damn sure that without regulation no power company is going to allow competition. The same with ISPs and roadways. I guess you'd propose that these new companies spend billions of dollars digging new power lines laying new data lines and roadways, just so that they can compete, it wouldn't happen and people would be horribly exploited. Not to mention having two of everything would create a huge sink in both economic and natural resources. This just wouldn't work and there's no way to enforce competition in such a system without government intervention.
We could go into hospitals as that as the perennial examples against free market systems, but I am sure everyone has heard these, besides I think the electricity/roadways/data lines make a an even better example.
The truth is free market is a very limited idea like trying to solve a physics problem assuming the problem exists in an environment without air and without friction, it's happy thoughts all the way until you really that it's not real life.
----------
Just your ordinary BOFH
http://killertux.org
If anyone points out he didn't write those comments, you can claim that as a practicing doctor, his involvement in a political newsletter is representative of his involvement in the country as president.
You can't take the sky from me...
Woh, wouldn't that be a crazy idea, if a bunch of States, United, and formed some kind of group, or Republic, to help them combat interstate and international issues that could not be resolved at the local level?
Man, that's some out there thinking!
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Not only is this absolutely true, the worst part is Ron Paul supporters are very active on the Internet trying to shut up everyone pointing this out and twisting the truth. This so called democratic question-answer debate is just an example: it won't touch the subject to start with like we're morons, people who touched it are voted down as "trolls". Personally I think if you proclaim you don't believe in evolution than that's a troll right there of huge proportions. Still, after his admission I haven't got a single question left for Mr. Ron Paul. Just as I have no questions for some candidate who denies the earth is flat. Silencing that fact down is just pure madness and turns Ron Paul into just any candidate. Twisting and spinning and as insane as the guy who thinks the earth is flat. It just doesn't seem to be a small point you should try to silence. This man wants to be your president for gods sake. P.S. Dismissing the evolution theory as just a "theory" different from "the earth is flat" is just plain ignorance, and exactly a repeat of the earth is flat supporters. Read up on Richard Dawkins or something, but just guessing is plain ignorance.
The Austrian school of economics, which Paul subscribes to, predicted this would happen prior to the crash.
A couple Austrian economists were quoted as saying there would be a "crash", but one thing they could not predict was the keynesian economic policy would prevent recessions from spiraling into depressions ever again, which used to happen regularly and has not happened even once since. Which is why economists abandoned the Austrian school many, many decades ago.
Ron Paul was saying there would be a recession or worse back during the first debates when everyone was talking about the strength of the Bush economy.
Again, this is easy to do. There will be a recession. Sooner or later. Apple will make better, smaller iPods. You will meet someone new this week.
And, I'll also bet that Ron Paul has predicted recessions lots of times, and only the few times that he turned out to be right count. If he can reliably predict recessions more than one quarter in advance and is willing to write his method out, he should send it to Stockholm so he can get a Nobel.
Once again, the Austrian school is ahead of the curve.
As I said, the Austrian school was abandoned by economists generations ago. The Austrian school in its heyday used to seriously debate Marxist economics, which shows you the state of the field at that time. It died out because Keynes could explain the relationship between the money supply and economic growth much better than they could. Today almost no economists still believe in the Austrian school outside of a couple suspiciously well-funded "think tanks".
It's not that hard to predict really.
Now this is getting good. It's not hard to predict recessions and depressions?
So, why haven't you written this up and collected your Nobel prize?
Or, better yet, since you know when to buy and sell stocks, are you fabulously wealthy?
I normally wouldn't answer a rant like yours, but I feel I must as it's been rated "insightful" for some frightful reason. Guess I'll be losing my Karma.
You are wrong. Most people do not want to have the gov't be their mommy. Most people either feel helpless to fix the system, are just greedy, or don't think at all. They know the government is broken, but don't feel that they can do anything about it. One man I know feels that the tax cuts are wrong, and that W. has betrayed his conservative ideals, but this man still wants his tax cut money. Why? Because he says that the system is so far gone, he may as well "get his". I think that if you ask around, most people will say they just "want theirs". Greed is good, right Mr. Libertarian? Problem is, if we don't work together sometimes things just don't work.
Gagh, you made me defend centrists. Now I must shower.
Moderation +3
40% Informative
Someone's moderating drunk, that's the only explanation I can think of.
You can't take the sky from me...
Why was Spain attacked by middle eastern terrorists? Or the UK, for that matter?. Because Spain and the UK were involved in your interventionist foreign policy.
Also, Spain has been at war with islam for nearly a millennium. Go crack open a history book and a newspaper or two, sheesh!
You can't take the sky from me...
You can't take the sky from me...
Did you miss where I quoted his sarcastic comment and rationalized it? Or did you simply feel the need to re-rationalize my own point? Well, you are correct. Nobody earning more than $100 Billion dollars per year would be compelled to continue earning if his take home pay were on $1 Billion.
That being said, anybody earning that much is cheating the system somehow...
What's more to the point, how can you compare a progressive tax in a capitalist economy to communism? If somebody DID earn $100 Billion and he had to give 99% of it up to benefit the rest of us.... and then we all made within 1% of $1 Billion as our annual income (i.e. between $990 Million and $1.1 Billion) then I would agree with you. But *most* people earn 0.005% of $1 Billion, and that hardly meshes with the communist economic ideal that everybody is entitled to the same amount of resources. Thus, you are 99.995% wrong with your analysis.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
The vast majority thinks the government exists to be their mommy, and their political parties have turned this cowardly and un-american outlook into the primary legislative theme of almost every representative.
The majority thinks that a representative government exists to serve their interests and values. That is a decision any organized community is entitled to make. Whether the money goes to erect a traffic light on main street, pay for the health inspector at the local meat packing plant, or or help provide a minimum income for the disabled is simply a matter of choice.
On the other hand, let's suppose, for the sake of argumentation, that you're correct, that neither new power lines aren't built, nor some other solution is developed (and yes, you underestimate the level of ingenuity the "profit motive" can leverage), and thus that electricity stays very, very expensive, in a true "natural monopoly" situation. Well, wouldn't that mean a lower amount of electricity being produced over a given period of time compared to what we have now? Now, where does electricity come from? Mostly from oil, coal, gas and nuclear sources, right? So, doesn't less electricity being consumed means a lower consumption of finite natural resources? In other words, the options we have in a free market of energy are either correct offer vs. demand prices due to creative competition, or a kind of forced nature preservation. I don't know about you, but whatever the outcome of such a move was, to me it still would seem like a win-win situation.Er... I haven't. But from what I see here in Brazil, where we have a lot of both public-owned and private hospitals, the private ones are always better, and not too expensive. I pay $60/month for a private health plan, and I have access to all (yes, all) evidence-based treatments available to all known illnesses. Now, admittedly, the government has had some influence in this, as it has over time increased the minimum requirements private health plans must obey, all the while however failing miserably in making their own hospitals reach 10% of what it demands from private ones. Even so, though, the health plan companies manage to comply, and as they compete against each other for customers, their services improve, as do their hospitals.
But I have no precise idea on how the health system in the USA works, though. If you would be so kind as to explain I'd be thankful.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
The federal government exists to serve the specific goals enumerated in the constitution. The president swears to "preserve, protect and defend" the constitution; congressmen and all executive and judicial officials swear to "support and defend" the constitution. This is the constituting authority for the federal government. If the government is to expand its authority beyond those things specifically laid out in the constitution, then it must amend the constitution. All power taken outside that which is specified in the constitution is taken illegitimately, and certainly all power taken that is specifically forbidden — for instance, the power to make ex post facto laws — is illegitimate. When power is taken without authority, that power is of no different character than that which is exercised by a dictator or a monarch. The constitution allows for change, because it was well understood that the document could persist as the basis of government into times when situations demanded revision; this process is called amendment, and generally speaking, it is being roundly ignored in favor of outright power grabs.
The majority could not quote you the constitution chapter and verse if you stopped them on the street. They couldn't even enumerate the amendments. Why don't you try asking ten random people? They have no idea why the federal government actually exists. Then ask them if they think the feds should be protecting them from child molesters, raiding people's houses in California for using Marijuana, and controlling who has guns. Guess what answers you're going to get. They'll be "mommy" answers.
The decision on how the federal government is to serve their interests and values has already been made. If they want to change it, they need to instantiate the amendment process. In the meantime, those powers descend to the states and the people. It specifically says so — can you guess where?
Yes indeed. The choice of the state government, and the people, not the federal government.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You are full of shit. Period.
Nothing in his congressional record, personal life, nor his medical practice leads one iota of credence to the newsletters. In fact, it's just the opposite.
Would the president of the NAACP back someone like you just described? Of course not. Would someone that you just described deliver babies for free to African American and Hispanic families that were too poor to afford it? No.
He was running a full time medical practice and left the newsletters in care of people he thought he could trust. That was a mistake, as there were those who had a different agenda. At least he admitted he had been careless, unlike MOST of our elected officials (Iraq War).
His actions speak a lot louder than the words written by some assholes who had a vendetta. Here's a challenge for you. I want you to find one, just one instance where an action in his personal, medical, or political life shows paranoid racism. You won't find one.
He's not a libertarian. He's a constitutionalist. There is a difference.
~X~
~X~
Oh, but they do. Ask people if they think the feds should be raiding people's homes in California for using Marijuana. Ask them if they think the feds should be controlling who has access to guns. Ask them if they think the feds should be making laws about sexuality. Ask them if they think the feds should be concerning themselves with burning flags. Ask them if the feds should be making national databases of criminals. Ask them if the FBI and the DEA are legitimately constituted agencies. Go ahead, ask. If you just ask these questions and don't set them up as clear violations of constitutional authority, people will generally just nod. I've asked, I continue to ask; it is my way of agitating. Then I explain that there is no authority given to the feds for these things and that the state and local governments can be given that authority if the people so choose, that's the constitutional design, and this makes sense to them (of course — it was designed to make sense by people who were quite bright and very intent on trying to get it right.) When I do my asking, the answers are generally the same, most people, and by that I mean almost everyone I ask, think this is all ok, and furthermore, they are unable to tell me what the constitution says. Without that knowledge, it isn't hugely surprising that they don't understand the basis for the feds being out of hand, but nonetheless, that is the case.
No. Greed is ultimately destructive. The urge to grow, develop and expand knowledge, technology, medical care and creature comforts, however, is highly positive. Greed is what drives the federal government today. They are the penultimate example of people involved in a power grab.
Problem is, the federal government isn't doing the job it was constituted to do, and it has used force to steal the power to work together within the states, from the states, thereby making the people unable to work together in favor of their own interests. You act like I'm an advocate of chaos or lack of control; I most assuredly am not. However, if the government does not obey the law, then what controls it? Nothing — and that is both the problem in an anticipatory sense, and in the contemporaneous sense. Today, we have a government making war on a people who did not attack us. It is making ex post facto laws. It has turned the commerce clause on its very head. It has usurped powers that belong to the states and the people. It has grievously violated every one of the bill of rights (amendments one through ten) with the single exception of amendment three. The president is acting as if he is literally above the law, when the constitution specifically says otherwise. It has suspended habeas corpus outside of a time of war. It has made treaties and then not honored them. It has taken money and property from its citizens without trial. In short, the federal government is completely out of control. Any impression that anyone has that it isn't out of control is the result of propaganda. And as for your remark, sir, the implication that we have to let the fed abuse us in order to work together is both disingenuous and without any basis in reality.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=227844
The president and 20 year long friend of Ron Paul defended him. Ron Paul has also written a treatise about how to eliminate racism, which seems rather odd for someone who would be a racist.
Lew Rockwell and the Mises institute ARE NOT FRIENDS of Paul. You will find that they have been attacking Paul almost non-stop. Lew Rockwell was fired I believe. It was Lew and pals who orchestrated The New Republic release. Not exactly something you do to someone you support.
As far as your "extensive ties" go, I can find no such evidence other than some PO blogs and people thinking that Ron Paul supports them. There was one story in the USA Daily, but it was retracted on the basis that they could not find any credible sources to back it up. Other than that there doesn't appear to be any credible information.
The John Birch Society support Paul for his constitutional views. Other than one speech he gave (on constitutional principles no less), I don't find any other ties to the group. The same with the league of the south. They support him because of his views on the Constitution and states right.
I do not see any PAC money coming from these groups. Nor do I see Ron Paul actively endorsing or supporting these groups either. I don't see it in his congressional record, and certainly not in his public record. You would think that if what your saying is true, the mainstream media would have picked it up and utterly destroyed him with it.
But I suppose you want to make a leap from some of the crazies supporting Ron Paul to Ron Paul being a crazy himself. o_0
The only thing I've managed to find with any racism at all has been the newsletters. Everything else has been word-of-mouth or unsubstantiated, uncorraborative stories. How about something from real source or news outlet.
But since your so keen on on political wrong-doings and such, try this site http://www.judicialwatch.org/. Obama has quite a record. Another one for more recent statements is factcheck.org.
~X~
~X~