Comments on: Ron Paul’s new following http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/ A forum for discussion of news that arises at the intersection of Christianity and culture. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:28:53 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: outkast http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/comment-page-1/#comment-243625 outkast Wed, 28 Nov 2007 19:14:41 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/#comment-243625 The financial knife cuts both ways, JessT, and you know it. The financial knife cuts both ways, JessT, and you know it.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: jesst http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/comment-page-1/#comment-243386 jesst Wed, 28 Nov 2007 04:01:54 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/#comment-243386 Distance himself? The financial support send to Ron Paul is in support of his policies--not vice versa. I think it is so interesting that Dr. Paul has for example voted against the giving of an award to Rosa Parks. He was the sole vote in opposition. Why? Because he thought that Congress should not spend money to give out awards. Dr. Paul suggested to the others that if they wanted to give her an award they just chip in some cash and buy it themselves--they all voted to use someone else's money to give her the award. Distance himself? The financial support send to Ron Paul is in support of his policies–not vice versa. I think it is so interesting that Dr. Paul has for example voted against the giving of an award to Rosa Parks. He was the sole vote in opposition. Why? Because he thought that Congress should not spend money to give out awards. Dr. Paul suggested to the others that if they wanted to give her an award they just chip in some cash and buy it themselves–they all voted to use someone else’s money to give her the award.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: jjf http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/comment-page-1/#comment-242894 jjf Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:41:25 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/#comment-242894 Meaner: Even militarily, your goal is the same as Paul's (and every American's): to make this country safe. The question is <i>how to best do that</i>. You're assuming that military presence and aggressive <b>pre-emptive</b> wars around the globe will accomplish that. But every intelligence report I have ever heard of disagrees with you. Sure, some say that violence is recently reduced in Iraq, but <b>none</b> (that I am aware of) say that our presence in Iraq makes America more secure. In fact, those intelligence reports say exactly the opposite: our presence in Iraq makes our country less safe. You must also weigh dangers to our country other than physical attack. Our country can lose its soul. If we become an oppressive nation (define that how you will, I'll leave out the details to solicit your agreement in principle), what is there to defend anymore? Meaner:

Even militarily, your goal is the same as Paul’s (and every American’s): to make this country safe. The question is how to best do that. You’re assuming that military presence and aggressive pre-emptive wars around the globe will accomplish that.

But every intelligence report I have ever heard of disagrees with you. Sure, some say that violence is recently reduced in Iraq, but none (that I am aware of) say that our presence in Iraq makes America more secure. In fact, those intelligence reports say exactly the opposite: our presence in Iraq makes our country less safe.

You must also weigh dangers to our country other than physical attack. Our country can lose its soul. If we become an oppressive nation (define that how you will, I’ll leave out the details to solicit your agreement in principle), what is there to defend anymore?

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: jjf http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/comment-page-1/#comment-242892 jjf Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:27:45 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/#comment-242892 TJ & Victoria: I think you have to admit (don't you?) that the sexual and corruption scandals of the past few years have been disproportionately Republican. Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, and Newt Gingrich all come readily to mind, and I know there are others. And that's not even counting the "disputed scandals" -- like the Midnight Ride of Alberto Gonzales (to pressure a sick man at his bedside) and the outing of Valerie Plame -- that for some reason many Republicans try to pass off as <i>not really that bad</i>. With varying degrees of sanity, I might add. I think it was Neil Cavuto (or maybe Glenn Beck, one of those Fox pinheads) who opined that whoever outed Plame should be given a medal because she and her husband were working against the president at a time of war. 8-0 But so what? Does this prove anything about conservative political philosophy? I don't know. I suspect that there is some correlation between heavy-handed public morality and temptation to sin. Human nature gravitates toward the illicit, so if a politican makes a career out of shrilly decrying homosexuality or pedophilia, he's planting his forbidden fruit and thereby inviting temptation. That old "when you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you" idea applies. I also think conservatism (in its modern American iteration) values secrecy over transparency, power over prestige, loyalty over honesty. These values contribute to a climate more susceptible to abuse. TJ & Victoria:

I think you have to admit (don’t you?) that the sexual and corruption scandals of the past few years have been disproportionately Republican. Mark Foley, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, Duke Cunningham, and Newt Gingrich all come readily to mind, and I know there are others. And that’s not even counting the “disputed scandals” — like the Midnight Ride of Alberto Gonzales (to pressure a sick man at his bedside) and the outing of Valerie Plame — that for some reason many Republicans try to pass off as not really that bad. With varying degrees of sanity, I might add. I think it was Neil Cavuto (or maybe Glenn Beck, one of those Fox pinheads) who opined that whoever outed Plame should be given a medal because she and her husband were working against the president at a time of war. 8-0

But so what? Does this prove anything about conservative political philosophy? I don’t know. I suspect that there is some correlation between heavy-handed public morality and temptation to sin. Human nature gravitates toward the illicit, so if a politican makes a career out of shrilly decrying homosexuality or pedophilia, he’s planting his forbidden fruit and thereby inviting temptation. That old “when you stare into the abyss the abyss stares back at you” idea applies.

I also think conservatism (in its modern American iteration) values secrecy over transparency, power over prestige, loyalty over honesty. These values contribute to a climate more susceptible to abuse.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Mr_Meaner http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/comment-page-1/#comment-242878 Mr_Meaner Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:50:30 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/#comment-242878 My take on Ronpaul the Hobbit: I like a lot of what he has to say. There is nothing I'd love to see more than our bloated Federal government cut in half. Where he loses me, is when he says he wants to eliminate the CIA. If your plan is to bring the military home from Korea, Germany, Japan, the ME, and every where else, then it is dangerously irresponsible to disband the only agency you'd have left capable of giving us a chance at dealing with threats before they become just another unfortunate event that we were unprepared for. If we want to down-size our presence in the world, I say go ahead. They don't appreciate what we do for them anyway. But after we do, we had better gather more courage (as the uninformed, impatient people that we apparently are) to secure our border, than we've mustered in supporting our efforts to keep the battle off our soil. I say this, because when we do retreat from the battle they waged on us, they will bring it to our home. Of course this means we will actually get the pleasure of being reminded on a daily basis of how close the threat will be, because instead of finding and killing them, we will be just fighting to keep the enemy on the other side of "the wall".(that RP says he'll build) Isn't that a pleasant thought? A president who doesn't care that Iran, NK, Venezuela, along with most of SA, would love nothing more than to see us totally annhialated. And with all the nukes and WMDs these guys will be passing around like marijuana at a phish concert, that should make us all feel better. Boy how I miss those days back in school when we had the nuke-bomb drills in school. Yeah, we should bring that back for the children. So Ron Paul, If you actually get everything you want in it's entirety, you had better be sure you can stop the massive influx of terrorists that will infiltrate our society at will. You''re going to have to get that Brownsville to San Diego wall up pretty quick..not to mention deploying the national guard from now till the end of time, with authority to apprehend, detain, and deport all illegal entries...And, you'll have to do the same at the Canadian border now. They have declared jihad. They don't care if we quit Iraq, and Afghanistan, and go home, or not. They are coming for every infidel nation on this planet. And we are the first (or second) most important on their list. They will come here and attack us again. Why shouldn't they? There will be no one impeding them from their carrying out their stated goal of killing or converting us. Fred is the only decent small govt. conservative running, that has a chance, and isn't suicidal My take on Ronpaul the Hobbit:
I like a lot of what he has to say. There is nothing I’d love to see more than our bloated Federal government cut in half. Where he loses me, is when he says he wants to eliminate the CIA.
If your plan is to bring the military home from Korea, Germany, Japan, the ME, and every where else, then it is dangerously irresponsible to disband the only agency you’d have left capable of giving us a chance at dealing with threats before they become just another unfortunate event that we were unprepared for.
If we want to down-size our presence in the world, I say go ahead.
They don’t appreciate what we do for them anyway.
But after we do, we had better gather more courage (as the uninformed, impatient people that we apparently are) to secure our border, than we’ve mustered in supporting our efforts to keep the battle off our soil. I say this, because when we do retreat from the battle they waged on us, they will bring it to our home. Of course this means we will actually get the pleasure of being reminded on a daily basis of how close the threat will be, because instead of finding and killing them, we will be just fighting to keep the enemy on the other side of “the wall”.(that RP says he’ll build)
Isn’t that a pleasant thought?
A president who doesn’t care that Iran, NK, Venezuela, along with most of SA, would love nothing more than to see us totally annhialated. And with all the nukes and WMDs these guys will be passing around like marijuana at a phish concert, that should make us all feel better.
Boy how I miss those days back in school when we had the nuke-bomb drills in school. Yeah, we should bring that back for the children.
So Ron Paul, If you actually get everything you want in it’s entirety, you had better be sure you can stop the massive influx of terrorists that will infiltrate our society at will.
You”re going to have to get that Brownsville to San Diego wall up pretty quick..not to mention deploying the national guard from now till the end of time, with authority to apprehend, detain, and deport all illegal entries…And, you’ll have to do the same at the Canadian border now.
They have declared jihad. They don’t care if we quit Iraq, and Afghanistan, and go home, or not. They are coming for every infidel nation on this planet. And we are the first (or second) most important on their list. They will come here and attack us again. Why shouldn’t they? There will be no one impeding them from their carrying out their stated goal of killing or converting us.

Fred is the only decent small govt. conservative running, that has a chance, and isn’t suicidal

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: TJ http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/comment-page-1/#comment-242824 TJ Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:55:07 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/#comment-242824 As far as Nixon goes, certainly he was corrupt. So was his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. It was Johnson's VP that the Dems put against Nixon (perhaps a stronger candidate would have relieved us all of the Nixon presidency). And it might have been such things as the mass rioting and a plot to contaminate the Chicago water supply that also contributed to the failed Dem effort to secure the White House in 1968. It seems most Americans had enough of that kind of lunacy. As far as Nixon goes, certainly he was corrupt. So was his predecessor, Lyndon Johnson. It was Johnson’s VP that the Dems put against Nixon (perhaps a stronger candidate would have relieved us all of the Nixon presidency). And it might have been such things as the mass rioting and a plot to contaminate the Chicago water supply that also contributed to the failed Dem effort to secure the White House in 1968. It seems most Americans had enough of that kind of lunacy.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: TJ http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/comment-page-1/#comment-242823 TJ Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:46:39 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/#comment-242823 Anlir, Ted Kennedy is still in office, Barney Frank is still in office, William Jefferson is still in office. John Murtha is still in office (remember ABSCAM). Beyond that, I'm not sure. Is Gary Condit still in office (9/11 certainly helped him out)? Does the corruption cut both ways? Of course. But quite a few of those guys keep getting voted in, it seems. Anlir, Ted Kennedy is still in office, Barney Frank is still in office, William Jefferson is still in office. John Murtha is still in office (remember ABSCAM). Beyond that, I’m not sure. Is Gary Condit still in office (9/11 certainly helped him out)?

Does the corruption cut both ways? Of course. But quite a few of those guys keep getting voted in, it seems.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: HamachiTwo http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/comment-page-1/#comment-242783 HamachiTwo Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:14:07 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/#comment-242783 TJ. Victoria. Seems this page is still active ;-) http://craig.senate.gov/ TJ. Victoria. Seems this page is still active ;-)

http://craig.senate.gov/

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Anlir http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/comment-page-1/#comment-242776 Anlir Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:46:32 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/#comment-242776 TJ, I'm trying really hard to think of a Dem that's gotten into a sexual "indiscretion" of late. Other than Bubba Clinton, I can't recall any right off. If you're talking about corruption in general, then yeah, there have been some Dems in trouble. But it still pales in comparison to the Repubs over the last 6 years. The general public sensed in 2006 that the Repubs had become as corrupt at the Dems they kicked out previously. So they put the Dems back in charge. The idea that Dems get a free pass while Repubs are booted is more myth than reality. It sounds good coming from Rush and Bill-O. But really, most folk recognize it as political carping of the first order. Fact is, if a guy (or gal) becomes too corrupt, the voters will boot them eventually. Or karma gets them at some point. If we gotta go back nearly 40 years to find "lunacy", let's talk about it. The Repubs picked Nixon, who turned out to be one of our most, if not the most, corrupt Presidents we've ever had. That is the real "lunacy". TJ,

I’m trying really hard to think of a Dem that’s gotten into a sexual “indiscretion” of late. Other than Bubba Clinton, I can’t recall any right off.

If you’re talking about corruption in general, then yeah, there have been some Dems in trouble. But it still pales in comparison to the Repubs over the last 6 years. The general public sensed in 2006 that the Repubs had become as corrupt at the Dems they kicked out previously. So they put the Dems back in charge.

The idea that Dems get a free pass while Repubs are booted is more myth than reality. It sounds good coming from Rush and Bill-O. But really, most folk recognize it as political carping of the first order. Fact is, if a guy (or gal) becomes too corrupt, the voters will boot them eventually. Or karma gets them at some point.

If we gotta go back nearly 40 years to find “lunacy”, let’s talk about it. The Repubs picked Nixon, who turned out to be one of our most, if not the most, corrupt Presidents we’ve ever had. That is the real “lunacy”.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Victoria http://online.worldmag.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/comment-page-1/#comment-242771 Victoria Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:25:51 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/11/26/ron-pauls-new-following/#comment-242771 A big difference, I agree TJ - A big difference, I agree TJ -

Report comment to moderator

]]>