Except when he did. He quit the Republicans and ran as a Libertarian in 1988.
You're right, of course. I should have qualified it, since I was referring specifically to nationwide (Presidential) races.
so he went back to the Republicans and started working *within* the party to steer things back to the principles of Goldwater and Reagan.
And that strategy is paying off big time this cycle. His supporters are banning together and taking over the party in a big way. The Ron Paul folks are motivated, educated, and banding together to get rid of the old-guard statists. Just this last weekend I participated in a district convention in my state. The outgoing chairman already knew he had lost, and withdrew his candidacy for the position entirely and left the convention in a huff.
I'm not completely familiar with US politics, but does this mean that he's going to continue running under a third-party ballot?
No. He never has and will not run as a "third-party" candidate. And the LA Times quote, of course, entirely mischaracterizes the announcement.
Note that the media has stubbornly refused to cover ANY of his campaign in the last few weeks. He has been gaining delegates and winning states (at least 8 so far), enough to be officially on the ballot for the ACTUAL selection of the Republican nominee (which the mainstream media does NOT get to decide, even if they think they do). But of course when Paul announces some pull-back or strategy shift in his campaign, they use it to declare once and for all "Romney is the winner!" - which they have been trying to do all along.
Ron Paul has decided not to spend any campaign resources in the remaining primary states. He will, however, continue to amass "delegates" for the Republican National Convention, where the nominee is officially declared. And we still hope to see a brokered convention, which will be a lot of fun, because the Republican establishment wants it to be a show, not a real contest.
Yes, curse cold hard science, tool of the despot! Soft, warm batshit insanity shall set the people free!
Oh, yes, I see... the prevailing scientific "consensus" should be the only thing that is allowed in a discussion of public policy. Is that your contention? Think carefully about your answer - that has been tried in the past.
It's hardly an ad hominem at all, much less a "pretty perfect example". But your conflating of opposition to hypocrisy to "opposing science" is a pretty perfect example of a straw man.
You're right. It is censorship. Appropriate, measured, reasonable censorship.
You sound like Leon Pennetta. Any means is justified when the cause is just, huh? "Sure, it's droning, carpet bombing and indefinite detention. Appropriate, measured, reasonable droning, carpet bombing and indefinite detention."
Maybe part of the attitude comes from the hypocrisy of many of the people telling everyone else they should drive smaller cars and turn down their thermostat, while they themselves lead lavish, jet-setter lifestyles of opulent luxury. Kind of hard to take seriously when someone says, "Hey, you can't expect to keep using all that fossil fuel. We'll talk more when we get back from our Hawaiian vacation and our teen gets back from her spring break in Cancun."
Loorz says kids his age are much more worried about climate change than many of their parents might imagine.
Sounds like Loorz has been well indoctrinated by his teachers. Because his assertion is demonstrably false. Unless my "many" he means "a few of us brainwashed cloistered kids".
But they said he (and other immigrants) have "pluck". So that's the difference. It's "pluck". If opportunities aren't appearing, it's simply because those people don't have enough pluck.
I think you missed this one It compares those who believe in climate change to terrorists.
And I guess YOU missed the meme the alarmists are propagating claiming that "client change deniers" are "condemning our children to greenhouse gas ovens."
When the president of any country publicly calls you out by name and says you're on the "wrong side of the law", you have every reason to be afraid. Especially when the president's appointees have openly practiced and justified the unlimited detention and the killing of citizens without due process.
Claiming that it's "conservatives" are against this is a pretty disingenuous way to defend this kind of behavior. Especially considering it's likely a conservative president will likely be elected at some time in the future. When he tries these things, will you defend it then, too?
I know, I know, they don't teach history in school anymore. It's all about indoctrination, propaganda, and conformity instead of critical thinking.
Here's a bit of history of indoctrination and propaganda you ought to consider before branding the previous poster as ignorant.
I don't think I labeled anyone as ignorant.
There's plenty of propaganda going around in the past and today, you can find lots of examples of it all over the place. But your examples are quite insignificant compared to the anti-smoking propaganda dispensed today, and none of them are examples of indoctrination.
To be accurate, it's not "news" at all. It's what is commonly referred to as a "hit piece", except it goes a little further and starts claiming that there is "a group" of people, some conspiracy, then goes on to try to prove that's the case by talking about Richard Lindzen. Yea, it's a small group - of 1.
But then, there are so few people left doing anything like journalism anymore, it's no wonder people are confused by reading stuff like this and calling it "news".
You realize Obama is threatening to veto this, because we are all being so noisy about it? The guy is actually listening.
Better make sure it gets passed now, then, while he's still in campaign mode, because he's sure to sign it after the election when he's back to let 'em eat cake mode.
Bravery and freedom changed meanings. Now they mean bravery to commit acts of violence and freedom to attempt to control the world. Who needs personal liberty when individuals are only interested in games and trivialities -- sports, music, TV, movies, politics, books, parties?
Huh. I always thought that "Home of the Brave" referred to Native American warriors.
Sorry, I didn't mean to call *you* out as a culprit, I think your concerns are legitimate. But too often they are used as excuses to roll back the clock on technologies and implement the Wildlands Project agenda. Pollution and environmental degradation harms everyone and need mitigation, I'm sure we can agree on that (although we may disagree on the methods of stewardship). My other points about, for instance, the Interstate Highway system being impossible to build in this climate of overcautious paralysis is germane to that discussion (I don't mean I think *you* would be supporting unreasonable barriers to it).
There's no problem in being afraid of nuclear...those disasters you mention proved that inadequate monitoring, construction, or control of nuclear facilities can invite disaster - so thanks for proving my point.:)
Actually, you just proved mine - the response has NOT been "Let's ensure adequate monitoring, construction, and control of nuclear facilities" - the response has been "NO NUKES! BE AFRAID!"
Your other points don't have any bearing.
They bear exactly on my thesis - they just don't have any bearing on the straw man you would prefer to construct.
Point is, if we don't start enforcing some intelligent and impartial study of these projects, we'll only screw ourselves more. I like electricity, and I don't mind coal. I don't like asthma or dying of lung disease. If you don't see the science in linking those two, well......
Linking what? Electricity and asthma? Coal and lung disease? Vaccines and autism? Where is the "science" you are trying to invoke?
The US has the cleanest coal-fired power plants in the world. But the fear-mongers have convinced the EPA to impose rules that will stop any new ones and eventually force the shut down of all the rest. The result of that will be even more export of US coal, and import of cheap, Chinese-made crap (bought with money borrowed from the Chinese), and plenty of Chinese-generated lung disease, courtesy of pollution carried on the wind from the really dirty Chinese coal plants.
This isn't learning from history - it's being paralyzed by irrational fear of the future. Can't build nuclear plants because our only lesson from Chernobyl, Three-mile-island and Fukushima is to be afraid of nuclear. And we're afraid of the waste. Can't use natural gas or coal because we're afraid to have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Can't have windmills because they kill birds and spoil the view. Can't build homes because there's a puddle on the land. Can't mine uranium. Can't develop land. Can't farm organically for fear of fecal contamination. Can't drink raw milk because the FDA says it's dangerous.
Can you imagine building the Interstate Highway system today? I can't - it would never be allowed to happen.
Gold is valuable for its rarity, but it's also valuable as a product besides. It's incorruptible and never tarnishes, making it an excellent material for many electrical applications. And even if it doesn't have the rarity value, it still makes attractive jewelry and accessories, and people will still want it. Gold fillings and dental work would likely become more popular. So, yea, you could flood the market with vast sums of gold and drive the price down a lot, but it would always have a market value.
I mean, they've flooded the market with over $16 trillion of fiat Federal Reserve Notes in just 2 years, and yet they say there is still hardly any inflation (devaluation of the dollar) at all!!
That's because the scale of federal spending isn't nearly as massive as it was in the 80's or 30's-50's, and quantitative easing is the wrong approach.
Slashdot Mirror
Except when he did. He quit the Republicans and ran as a Libertarian in 1988.
You're right, of course. I should have qualified it, since I was referring specifically to nationwide (Presidential) races.
so he went back to the Republicans and started working *within* the party to steer things back to the principles of Goldwater and Reagan.
And that strategy is paying off big time this cycle. His supporters are banning together and taking over the party in a big way. The Ron Paul folks are motivated, educated, and banding together to get rid of the old-guard statists. Just this last weekend I participated in a district convention in my state. The outgoing chairman already knew he had lost, and withdrew his candidacy for the position entirely and left the convention in a huff.
I'm not completely familiar with US politics, but does this mean that he's going to continue running under a third-party ballot?
No. He never has and will not run as a "third-party" candidate. And the LA Times quote, of course, entirely mischaracterizes the announcement.
Note that the media has stubbornly refused to cover ANY of his campaign in the last few weeks. He has been gaining delegates and winning states (at least 8 so far), enough to be officially on the ballot for the ACTUAL selection of the Republican nominee (which the mainstream media does NOT get to decide, even if they think they do). But of course when Paul announces some pull-back or strategy shift in his campaign, they use it to declare once and for all "Romney is the winner!" - which they have been trying to do all along.
Ron Paul has decided not to spend any campaign resources in the remaining primary states. He will, however, continue to amass "delegates" for the Republican National Convention, where the nominee is officially declared. And we still hope to see a brokered convention, which will be a lot of fun, because the Republican establishment wants it to be a show, not a real contest.
Yes, curse cold hard science, tool of the despot! Soft, warm batshit insanity shall set the people free!
Oh, yes, I see... the prevailing scientific "consensus" should be the only thing that is allowed in a discussion of public policy. Is that your contention? Think carefully about your answer - that has been tried in the past.
It's hardly an ad hominem at all, much less a "pretty perfect example". But your conflating of opposition to hypocrisy to "opposing science" is a pretty perfect example of a straw man.
You're right. It is censorship. Appropriate, measured, reasonable censorship.
You sound like Leon Pennetta. Any means is justified when the cause is just, huh? "Sure, it's droning, carpet bombing and indefinite detention. Appropriate, measured, reasonable droning, carpet bombing and indefinite detention."
It is not censorship when you insist that only scientific conclusions be heard during debates about scientific issues.
Yea, it is, when you get to decide how "scientific conclusions" is defined.
Maybe part of the attitude comes from the hypocrisy of many of the people telling everyone else they should drive smaller cars and turn down their thermostat, while they themselves lead lavish, jet-setter lifestyles of opulent luxury. Kind of hard to take seriously when someone says, "Hey, you can't expect to keep using all that fossil fuel. We'll talk more when we get back from our Hawaiian vacation and our teen gets back from her spring break in Cancun."
Loorz says kids his age are much more worried about climate change than many of their parents might imagine.
Sounds like Loorz has been well indoctrinated by his teachers. Because his assertion is demonstrably false. Unless my "many" he means "a few of us brainwashed cloistered kids".
But they said he (and other immigrants) have "pluck". So that's the difference. It's "pluck". If opportunities aren't appearing, it's simply because those people don't have enough pluck.
I think you missed this one It compares those who believe in climate change to terrorists.
And I guess YOU missed the meme the alarmists are propagating claiming that "client change deniers" are "condemning our children to greenhouse gas ovens."
It compares them to genocidal dictators.
It's an old practice of not just killing your political enemies, but their family too.
When the president of any country publicly calls you out by name and says you're on the "wrong side of the law", you have every reason to be afraid. Especially when the president's appointees have openly practiced and justified the unlimited detention and the killing of citizens without due process.
Claiming that it's "conservatives" are against this is a pretty disingenuous way to defend this kind of behavior. Especially considering it's likely a conservative president will likely be elected at some time in the future. When he tries these things, will you defend it then, too?
I know, I know, they don't teach history in school anymore. It's all about indoctrination, propaganda, and conformity instead of critical thinking.
Here's a bit of history of indoctrination and propaganda you ought to consider before branding the previous poster as ignorant.
I don't think I labeled anyone as ignorant.
There's plenty of propaganda going around in the past and today, you can find lots of examples of it all over the place. But your examples are quite insignificant compared to the anti-smoking propaganda dispensed today, and none of them are examples of indoctrination.
it was not that long ago that smoking was not considered bad.
Really? When was that? The 18th century, maybe? Probably not even then. In fact, as far back as the 17th century Dutch painters had used tobacco and smoking to symbolise human folly. In the opinion of King James I of England, tobacco was "loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain" and "dangerous to the lungs". That was 1609.
I know, I know, they don't teach history in school anymore. It's all about indoctrination, propaganda, and conformity instead of critical thinking.
But nevertheless this is a good news.
To be accurate, it's not "news" at all. It's what is commonly referred to as a "hit piece", except it goes a little further and starts claiming that there is "a group" of people, some conspiracy, then goes on to try to prove that's the case by talking about Richard Lindzen. Yea, it's a small group - of 1.
But then, there are so few people left doing anything like journalism anymore, it's no wonder people are confused by reading stuff like this and calling it "news".
More evidence that there are no more journalists at the New York Times.
So it's quasi-evil? It's the margarine of evil?
You're a little behind. Margarine is now known to be full-on Pure Evil.
You realize Obama is threatening to veto this, because we are all being so noisy about it? The guy is actually listening.
Better make sure it gets passed now, then, while he's still in campaign mode, because he's sure to sign it after the election when he's back to let 'em eat cake mode.
Bravery and freedom changed meanings. Now they mean bravery to commit acts of violence and freedom to attempt to control the world. Who needs personal liberty when individuals are only interested in games and trivialities -- sports, music, TV, movies, politics, books, parties?
Huh. I always thought that "Home of the Brave" referred to Native American warriors.
How does surrendering our freedom out of fear match up with our motto?
It doesn't, and it's not our "motto", but you could at least get it right:
Sorry, I didn't mean to call *you* out as a culprit, I think your concerns are legitimate. But too often they are used as excuses to roll back the clock on technologies and implement the Wildlands Project agenda. Pollution and environmental degradation harms everyone and need mitigation, I'm sure we can agree on that (although we may disagree on the methods of stewardship). My other points about, for instance, the Interstate Highway system being impossible to build in this climate of overcautious paralysis is germane to that discussion (I don't mean I think *you* would be supporting unreasonable barriers to it).
There's no problem in being afraid of nuclear...those disasters you mention proved that inadequate monitoring, construction, or control of nuclear facilities can invite disaster - so thanks for proving my point. :)
Actually, you just proved mine - the response has NOT been "Let's ensure adequate monitoring, construction, and control of nuclear facilities" - the response has been "NO NUKES! BE AFRAID!"
Your other points don't have any bearing.
They bear exactly on my thesis - they just don't have any bearing on the straw man you would prefer to construct.
Point is, if we don't start enforcing some intelligent and impartial study of these projects, we'll only screw ourselves more. I like electricity, and I don't mind coal. I don't like asthma or dying of lung disease. If you don't see the science in linking those two, well......
Linking what? Electricity and asthma? Coal and lung disease? Vaccines and autism? Where is the "science" you are trying to invoke?
The US has the cleanest coal-fired power plants in the world. But the fear-mongers have convinced the EPA to impose rules that will stop any new ones and eventually force the shut down of all the rest. The result of that will be even more export of US coal, and import of cheap, Chinese-made crap (bought with money borrowed from the Chinese), and plenty of Chinese-generated lung disease, courtesy of pollution carried on the wind from the really dirty Chinese coal plants.
You either learn from history or you don't.
This isn't learning from history - it's being paralyzed by irrational fear of the future. Can't build nuclear plants because our only lesson from Chernobyl, Three-mile-island and Fukushima is to be afraid of nuclear. And we're afraid of the waste. Can't use natural gas or coal because we're afraid to have too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Can't have windmills because they kill birds and spoil the view. Can't build homes because there's a puddle on the land. Can't mine uranium. Can't develop land. Can't farm organically for fear of fecal contamination. Can't drink raw milk because the FDA says it's dangerous.
Can you imagine building the Interstate Highway system today? I can't - it would never be allowed to happen.
Gold is valuable for its rarity, but it's also valuable as a product besides. It's incorruptible and never tarnishes, making it an excellent material for many electrical applications. And even if it doesn't have the rarity value, it still makes attractive jewelry and accessories, and people will still want it. Gold fillings and dental work would likely become more popular. So, yea, you could flood the market with vast sums of gold and drive the price down a lot, but it would always have a market value.
I mean, they've flooded the market with over $16 trillion of fiat Federal Reserve Notes in just 2 years, and yet they say there is still hardly any inflation (devaluation of the dollar) at all!!
That's because the scale of federal spending isn't nearly as massive as it was in the 80's or 30's-50's, and quantitative easing is the wrong approach.
That's bullshit