House of Fusion
Search over 2,500 ColdFusion resources here
  
Home of the ColdFusion Community

Mailing Lists
Home /  Groups /  ColdFusion Community (CF-Community)

FW: Report: Paul approved racist portions of newsletters

  << Previous Post |  RSS |  Sort Oldest First |  Sort Latest First |  Subscribe to this Group Next >> 
Larry,
** Private **
02/08/12 12:28 P
> Larry,
** Private **
02/08/12 12:32 P
"Oh, I'll take the bait!"
** Private **
02/08/12 12:50 P
" Ron Paul's
** Private **
02/08/12 05:50 P
Ooooh....LOL...I was wondering.
** Private **
02/08/12 06:04 P
A typo maybe?
** Private **
02/09/12 09:38 A
forgot the relevant citations:
** Private **
02/09/12 10:05 A
"The Nazis were not socialists."
** Private **
02/11/12 06:18 P
So, back to the racism issue.
** Private **
02/16/12 08:41 A
In the context of the entire convo...no.
** Private **
02/16/12 01:02 P
> Kind of like falling for "Hope and Change".
** Private **
02/18/12 02:37 P
yeah? I'll check it out.
** Private **
02/18/12 07:35 P
simple do a search for his name at
** Private **
02/08/12 09:37 P
Top  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/27/2012 12:42 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/01/report-paul-approved-racist-portions-of-newsletters-112566.html Report: Paul approved racist portions of newsletters By EMILY SCHULTHEIS | 1/27/12 12:30 PM EST The question of Ron Paul's newsletters, and the racially charged portions of them, made headlines last month as Paul gained momentum in Iowa. At the time, Paul denied having knowledge of any of the more controversial passages -- but now, the Washington Post is reporting that he did actually sign off on them: [P]eople close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day. “It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. .?.?. He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman. The newsletters point to a rarely seen and somewhat opaque side of Paul, who has surprised the political community by becoming an important factor in the Republican race. The candidate, who has presented himself as a kindly doctor and political truth-teller, declined in a recent debate to release his tax returns, joking that he would be “embarrassed” about his income compared with that of his richer GOP rivals. Yet a review of his enterprises reveals a sharp-eyed businessman who for nearly two decades oversaw the company and a nonprofit foundation, intertwining them with his political career. The newsletters, which were launched in the mid-1980s and bore such names as the Ron Paul Survival Report, were produced by a company Paul dissolved in 2001. ... Jesse Benton, a presidential campaign spokesman, said that the accounts of Paul’s involvement were untrue and that Paul was practicing medicine full time when “the offensive material appeared under his name.” Paul “abhors it, rejects it and has taken responsibility for it as he should have better policed the work being done under his masthead,” Benton said. He did not comment on Paul’s business strategy. Benton, Paul's spokesman, also denied the Post report in an email to POLITICO, calling it a "silly goose chase" that distracts from more important campaign issues. The Post story "is especially troublesome given the many credible sources who were happy to go on the record and refute these lies," he wrote.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 12:28 PM

Larry, I guess you would say that Ron Paul should be responsible for racists who "work" for him?  At least in some fashion? Does this mean that you hold President Obama responsible for Eric Holder? J - One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain - Thomas Sowell

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 12:32 PM

> Larry, > > I guess you would say that Ron Paul should be responsible for racists who > "work" for him?  At least in some fashion? > > > Does this mean that you hold President Obama responsible for Eric Holder? Oh, I'll take the bait! Yes, Obama is Holder's boss, so he is responsible for his actions that happen as part of his job (though it is a Senate-confirmed position, so things are obviously slightly different but the same principle holds). However, the two situations have absolutely nothing to do with each other :) See, now that was easy, wasn't it? Juda

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 12:33 PM

Yes...if doesn't want to be associated with them...especially when said racists are high profile racists and leaders of the movement.  If you make a racist remark at your place of employment, you will more than likely get fired.   Larry, I guess you would say that Ron Paul should be responsible for racists who "work" for him?  At least in some fashion? Does this mean that you hold President Obama responsible for Eric Holder? J - One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce, subsidized those who refuse to produce, and canonized those who complain - Thomas Sowell

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 12:37 PM

Now I'm thinking about a LinkedIn profile that describes you as "a high profile racist". Marketing gold right there. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 12:46 PM

LOL.  The folks that are supporting Paul are guys like the webmaster for Stormfront and a Grand Dragon of the KKK...pretty high profile racists. Now I'm thinking about a LinkedIn profile that describes you as "a high profile racist". Marketing gold right there. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 12:50 PM

"Oh, I'll take the bait!" Chomping at the bit. "Yes, Obama is Holder's boss, so he is responsible for his actions that happen as part of his job (though it is a Senate-confirmed position, so things are obviously slightly different but the same principle holds)." Good. "However, the two situations have absolutely nothing to do with each other :)" Well, the Holder situation is much more serious considering how the newsletter only effected a small population while Holder's racism can conceivably effect every US citizen.  So, they are a different.  Good catch. "Now I'm thinking about a LinkedIn profile that describes you as 'a high profile racist'. Marketing gold right there." And what would you base it on?  Is it racist to call a Black person racist? Or is it the fact that I don't like Obama?  I hear the left spouting that one all of the time. Anyway, I'll share your line with my black friends and my gay friends just so they can get a kick out of it. Wonder what your linked in profile would say:  "Hopelessly mired in politics of theatre while ignoring the real issues" maybe. J - I tried to emphasize the fact that while the Negro should not be deprived by unfair means of the franchise, political agitation alone would not save him, and that back of the ballot he must have property, industry, skill, economy, intelligence, and character, and that no race without these elements could permanently succeed.  - Booker T. Washington

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 01:11 PM

"Ron Paul is responsible for articles going out under his name and with his approval. Or don't you believe in personal responsibility?" Fine.  Barrack Obama is responsible for Eric Holder's racist decisions (not to mention the other cover ups). Now, how long does it take RP to be forgiven for these articles? How long did it take for Robert Byrd to be forgiven for being in the KKK? For Ted Kennedy murdering a girl?  For Lyndon Johnson being a blatant racist?  For Woodrow Wilson being a blatant racist?  For Bill Clinton being a rapist? J - Nothing will take the place of persistence. Talent will not : Nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent . Genius will not : Unrewarded genius is a proverb. Education will not: The world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. - Calvin Coolidge

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 01:28 PM

Robert Byrd repudiated his past and became a champion of the people and civil rights.  Lyndon Johnson championed the Civil Rights Act.  Woodrow Wilson?  Seriously?  Was Clinton ever found guilty of rape?  I would love to see the court docs...  Ron Paul hasn't done any of that nor has he claimed responsibility for these pamphlets and newsletters.  Ron Paul's voting record shows that he hasn't changed the viewpoints expressed in these newsletters.  Big difference. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 01:42 PM

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Your reasoning only holds with a postulate that I reject: namely that Holder is racist and his actions are racist. So there you go. Pretty simple, really. You feel that Holder is racist, therefore try to draw an equivalence. I feel that the information that I've seen thus far to support such claims on the part of people who make such claims is rather laughably thin. Rejecting your postulate based on insufficient support leads to the collapse of the rest of your hypothesis. Pretty basic math, Jerry. > > "Now I'm thinking about a LinkedIn profile that describes you as 'a high > profile racist'. Marketing gold right there." > > And what would you base it on?  Is it racist to call a Black person racist? >  Or is it the fact that I don't like Obama?  I hear the left spouting that > one all of the time. Either you deliberately took my statement in the wrong fashion or perhaps I just did a poor job of making the statement in the first place. I'm guessing it is the later, but tough to say. What I said was a joke. Eric made a statement about "high profile racists" and the high profile made me think about LinkedIn and lead me down an amusing thought train to the absurdity of a LinkedIn profile for someone like, say, Pat Robertson who might write (in this absurdist play) a profile saying something like "I'm a high profile racist known for effective agitation of poor, ignorant people and being able to direct their anger at inappropriate but socially convenient target groups". Anyway, it was nothing more than amusement at the phrase "high profile racist". Cheers,

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 02:14 PM

What has he (Holder) done that can be considered racist? > > "Yes, Obama is Holder's boss, so he is responsible for his actions > that happen as part of his job (though it is a Senate-confirmed > position, so things are obviously slightly different but the same principle holds)." ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- catch. Your reasoning only holds with a postulate that I reject: namely that Holder is racist and his actions are racist. So there you go. Pretty simple, really. You feel that Holder is racist, therefore try to draw an equivalence. I feel that the information that I've seen thus far to support such claims on the part of people who make such claims is rather laughably thin. Rejecting your postulate based on insufficient support leads to the collapse of the rest of your hypothesis. Pretty basic math, Jerry. > > "Now I'm thinking about a LinkedIn profile that describes you as 'a > high profile racist'. Marketing gold right there." > > And what would you base it on?  Is it racist to call a Black person racist? >  Or is it the fact that I don't like Obama?  I hear the left spouting > that one all of the time. Either you deliberately took my statement in the wrong fashion or perhaps I just did a poor job of making the statement in the first place. I'm guessing it is the later, but tough to say. What I said was a joke. Eric made a statement about "high profile racists" and the high profile made me think about LinkedIn and lead me down an amusing thought train to the absurdity of a LinkedIn profile for someone like, say, Pat Robertson who might write (in this absurdist play) a profile saying something like "I'm a high profile racist known for effective agitation of poor, ignorant people and being able to direct their anger at inappropriate but socially convenient target groups". Anyway, it was nothing more than amusement at the phrase "high profile racist". Cheers,

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 02:16 PM

according to some because he's black and a democrat that makes him racist. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 05:50 PM

" Ron Paul's voting record shows that he hasn't changed the viewpoints expressed in these newsletters.  Big difference. " Where can I find that info? I've been reading what Ron Paul's position is on a few things and it seems pretty reasonable. The only thing that really jumps out at me is the charge of racism.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 06:00 PM

Well, on just the government side of things he has proposed to eliminate the Depts of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior, Education, Health and Human Services and the IRS. From his 2012 plan on his own website: "Cuts $1 trillion in spending during the first year of Ron Paul?s presidency, eliminating five cabinet departments (Energy, HUD, Commerce, Interior, and Education), abolishing the Transportation Security Administration and returning responsibility for security to private property owners, abolishing corporate subsidies, stopping foreign aid, ending foreign wars, and returning most other spending to 2006 levels." Also from his website: "Repeals ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, and Sarbanes-Oxley. Mandates REINS-style requirements for thorough congressional review and authorization before implementing any new regulations issued by bureaucrats. President Paul will also cancel all onerous regulations previously issued by Executive Order." http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/ Dunno about you but that seems remotely reasonable to me, all charges of racism aside. I mean, I think his support of virulent racists and courting legitimately violent right wing loons in the past is certainly worth bringing up and exploring. But, jesus, just look at what he's saying he wants to do for the future. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 06:01 PM

err... *nothing* about that seems remotely reasonable. Missing a word there :) Judah > Dunno about you but that seems remotely reasonable to me, all charges > of racism aside. I mean, I think his support of virulent racists and > courting legitimately violent right wing loons in the past is > certainly worth bringing up and exploring. But, jesus, just look at > what he's saying he wants to do for the future.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 06:04 PM

Ooooh....LOL...I was wondering. I had not seen all that. It's impossible to reset the clock that far, and certainly not in a year. I suppose there have been no independent analysis of what WOULD happen if those departments were not there, and the slack was picked up in other ways, though? On 8 February 2012 19:01, Judah McAuley <judah@wiredotter.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 06:12 PM

That's the thing though, he doesn't want the slack picked up (at least not by the federal government) otherwise it wouldn't be shrinking the size of government. He believes, and this is damn close to a direct quote, that the federal government should be responsible for national defense, a court system and little to nothing else. I understand where he is coming from. He takes a very Libertarian (with a capital L) view of things and basically thinks that the switch from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was a very bad move. I can appreciate the honesty in that but I happen to disagree and think that it has absolutely horrifying and terrible consequences for public policy. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 06:33 PM

Just go to Thomas.gov and look at the bills he has introduced or supported.  His record speaks for itself. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 09:49 PM

"Your reasoning only holds with a postulate that I reject: namely that Holder is racist and his actions are racist." Fine. Apparently you forgot all about the New Black Panthers, but hey whatever. Dr Martin Luther King said  ?Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."  Eric Holder obviously disagrees. I hold the Ron Paul is not racist and that his actions are NOT racist. Some of the policies he wants to put into effect would free a large number of blacks from prison. "True racism in this country is in the judicial system," Paul said, "the percentage of people who use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites. And yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately." "They're prosecuted and imprisoned way disproportionately," he continued, "they get the death penalty way disproportionately. How many times have you seen a white rich person get the electric chair or get, you know, execution?" "If we truly want to be concerned about racism, you ought to look at a few of those issues and look at the drug laws, which are being so unfairly enforced," said Paul. "You feel that Holder is racist, therefore try to draw an equivalence. I feel that the information that I've seen thus far to support such claims on the part of people who make such claims is rather laughably thin. Rejecting your postulate based on insufficient support leads to the collapse of the rest of your hypothesis. Pretty basic math, Jerry." Whatever man.  I certainly can put 2 and 2 together.  It always equals four.  Somehow, the just department keeps telling me it's five. As an aside on our main man Eric Holder, have you heard anything about his ties to the Oklahoma City Bombing.  Rumors circulating that he was in charge of a sting gone wrong. "Either you deliberately took my statement in the wrong fashion or perhaps I just did a poor job of making the statement in the first place. I'm guessing it is the later, but tough to say. What I said was a joke. Eric made a statement about "high profile racists" and the high profile made me think about LinkedIn and lead me down an amusing thought train to the absurdity of a LinkedIn profile for someone like, say, Pat Robertson who might write (in this absurdist play) a profile saying something like "I'm a high profile racist known for effective agitation of poor, ignorant people and being able to direct their anger at inappropriate but socially convenient target groups". My bad.  I don't get Eric's posts.  I blocked them ages ago.  Way too much vitriol and irrationality. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 09:57 PM

funny how the reich wing keeps brining that case up. In the end there was nothing, just a provocateur trying to do another fake Acorn hit. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 10:26 PM

"funny how the reich wing keeps brining that case up. " Reich wing.  Your'e killing me.  Since the third reich was a socialist party, I guess this means the progressive statists.  I might have to use this one myself. Anyway, speaking of Reich, what about Robert Reich:  Obama Has Handed The Election Over To The Super Rich<http://www.businessinsider.com/the-sad-spectacle-of-obamas-super-pac-2012-2>; Most people know this anyway, but now the intellectuals are figuring it out. J - 08-11-2009: I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter, because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country, with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that, I believe would be too disruptive. 06-30-2003: A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I?d like to see. - Barack Obama 03-24-2007: My commitment is to make sure that we've got universal healthcare for all Americans by the end of my first term as president. I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can't go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out. - Barack Obama

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/09/2012 05:24 AM

He's following the rules laid down by the Supreme Court (boneheaded decision if there ever was one) and that the Republicans are playing by. Hopefully this time he doesn't try to be bipartisan and hits the campaign trail hard and aggressively. He's going up against extremists and there is no appealing to anyone's better nature. Are you sure that the Grande Olde Party does not have a fourth candidate somewhere? On 8 February 2012 23:26, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/09/2012 09:29 AM

I am amazed that someone who is smart enough to be a programmer is dumb enough to believe that the Nazis we socialists.  This is what I call self-imposed stupidity.  By your logic...does that also mean that the Chinese are Republicans?  After all they do have Republic in their name. Idiots. "funny how the reich wing keeps brining that case up. " Reich wing.  Your'e killing me.  Since the third reich was a socialist party, I guess this means the progressive statists.  I might have to use this one myself. Anyway, speaking of Reich, what about Robert Reich:  Obama Has Handed The Election Over To The Super Rich<http://www.businessinsider.com/the-sad-spectacle-of-obamas-super-pac-20 12-2> Most people know this anyway, but now the intellectuals are figuring it out. J - 08-11-2009: I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter, because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country, with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that, I believe would be too disruptive. 06-30-2003: A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That's what I'd like to see. - Barack Obama 03-24-2007: My commitment is to make sure that we've got universal healthcare for all Americans by the end of my first term as president. I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can't go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out. - Barack Obama

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/09/2012 09:38 AM

A typo maybe? . On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > the Nazis we socialists.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/09/2012 09:54 AM

Yeah...my keyboard sometimes misses several letters if I am typing fast... So to restate that...anyone that believes that the Nazis were socialists.... A typo maybe? . On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > the Nazis we socialists.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/09/2012 10:04 AM

The Nazis were not socialists. They fit the definition of fascism more than socialism, in fact in the 1920's and 30's they were very violently opposed to socialism. From Wikipedia: (hey its a good starter). It is a unique variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.[5] Nazism was founded out of elements of the far-right racist völkisch German nationalist movement and the violent anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture that fought against the uprisings of communist revolutionaries in post-World War I Germany.[6] The ideology was developed first by Anton Drexler and then Adolf Hitler as a means to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[7] Initially Nazi political strategy focused on anti-big business, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist rhetoric, though such aspects were later downplayed in the 1930s to gain the support from industrial owners for the Nazis; focus was shifted to anti-Semitic and anti-Marxist themes.[8] ... Nazism promoted an economic system that supported a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent while rejecting universal egalitarianism, retaining private property, freedom of contract, and promoted the creation of national solidarity that would transcend class distinction.[15][16] The Nazis' official economic policies were designed to exclusively benefit Aryans while deliberately excluding non-Aryans. --- Nope doesn't sound like any form of socialism to me, classic, Fabian, social democracy or otherwise. It would appear that the canard that the Nazi's were socialist is just that an extreme right wing lie. On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Eric Roberts <owner@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/09/2012 10:05 AM

forgot the relevant citations: ^ Walter John Raymond. Dictionary of Politics. (1992). ISBN 1-55618-008-X p. 327. ^ Fritzsche, Peter. 1998. Germans into Nazis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. ^ Kele, Max H. (1972). Nazis and Workers: National Socialist Appeals to German Labor, 1919?1933. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. ^ Payne, Stanley G. 1995. A History of Fascism, 1914?45. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. ^ Neocleous, Mark. Fascism. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 1997 p. 23. ^ Thomas D. Grant. Stormtroopers and Crisis in the Nazi Movement: activism, ideology and dissolution. London, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Routledge, 2004. Pp. 30-34, 44. ^ Otis C. Mitchell. Hitler's stormtroopers and the attack on the German Republic, 1919-1933. Jefferson, North Carolina, USA: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2008. Pp. 47. ^ Frank McDonough. Hitler and the rise of the Nazi Party. Pearson/Longman, 2003. Pp. 64. ^ Blamires, Cyprian; Jackson, Paul. World fascism: a historical encyclopedia, Volume 1. Santa Barbara, California, USA: ABC-CLIO, Inc, 2006. p. 61. ^ Bendersky, Joseph W. A history of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945. 2nd ed. Burnham Publishers, 2000. p. 24. p. 30 ^ a b Bendersky, Joseph W. A history of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945. 2nd ed. Burnham Publishers, 2000. p. 24. ^ Simone Gigliotti, Berel Lang. The Holocaust: a reader. Malden, Massachusetts, USA; Oxford, England, UK; Carlton, Victoria, Australia: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. Pp. 14. ^ Richard Bessel. Nazism and War. Paperback Edition. New York, New York, USA: Modern Library, 2004. Pp. 24-27. ^ Lisa Pine. Education in Nazi Germany. Oxford, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Berg, 2011. Pp. 5. ^ a b Bendersky, Joseph W. A history of Nazi Germany: 1919-1945. 2nd ed. Burnham Publishers, 2000. p. 40. On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/09/2012 10:12 AM

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com>wrote: > > > Nope doesn't sound like any form of socialism to me, classic, Fabian, > social democracy or otherwise. It would appear that the canard that > the Nazi's were socialist is just that an extreme right wing lie. The only Socialists around now days are the NFL, it works for them :-) http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/02/01/the_nfl_equals_socialism_bill_maher_illustrated_by_fraser_davidson.html

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/09/2012 10:30 AM

Maybe not in the US but social democracy is pretty viable in both Canada and in Scandinavia.  By some definitions even the US could be considered a social democratic system. Contemporary post WW2 social democracy generally means support for regulation of the economy and ameliorative measures to benefit the working class within the framework of capitalism. Actually that sounds like the political platforms of both the democratic party and until recently the republicans (before the wild eyed crazies took over). On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:12 AM, Casey Dougall - Uber Website Solutions <casey@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/11/2012 06:04 PM

"He's following the rules laid down by the Supreme Court (boneheaded decision if there ever was one) and that the Republicans are playing by." Does that make it okay?  Didn't he run on the premise of being better than the system.  There seems to be a contradiction there (which is never a problem with the progressive statists when it's one of their own). "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."  - Barack Obama It took him about a day to back off this one.  Can't blame it on McCain either since he wanted both to use the publicly financed option.  Of course, Obama blamed his back tracking on McCain. All I am saying is that President Obama is no different from any other modern day politician (probably a lot worse).  Some of those who thought he was, particularly the intellectuals, might be waking up. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/11/2012 06:18 PM

"The Nazis were not socialists." Yeah, the name National Socialist German Workers Party makes that clear. Right? "They fit the definition of fascism more than socialism, ..." Fascism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive.  Benito Mussolini started off as a stalwart of the Socialist Party until they kicked him out. You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me. - Benito Mussolini " ... in fact in the 1920's and 30's they were very violently opposed to socialism." Wrong.  The Nazi's were opposed to Bolshevism.  Hitler thought Bolshevism was controlled from the top to the bottom by Jews. There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will. - Adolf Hitler Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings. - Adolf Hitler Another difference was the scope of socialism.  Hitler didn't give a damn if the workers of the world united.  He only cared that the workers of Germany united.  Hence the "nationalist" part. In the end, all flavors of socialism are not the same.  China's was different from the USSR.  China's current version is different than the China of ten years ago. Cuba's is different from North Korea.  Germany was different from Russia. One thing they do have in common is the dehumanization of its citizens. So, once again, I like your "Reich Wing".  I think it is a great way to describe the progressive statist element of the political landscape. J - I declare to you, from the bottom of my heart, that no Socialist system can be established without a political police. Many of those who are advocating Socialism or voting Socialist to-day will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them. - Winston Churchill

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/11/2012 06:42 PM

Just like The People's Republican of China makes it clear that the Chinese are really republicans?  Whatever Jerry...that has to be one of the most incredibly stupid statements you have ever typed....and you have typed quite a few. "The Nazis were not socialists." Yeah, the name National Socialist German Workers Party makes that clear. Right? "They fit the definition of fascism more than socialism, ..." Fascism and Socialism are not mutually exclusive.  Benito Mussolini started off as a stalwart of the Socialist Party until they kicked him out. You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me. - Benito Mussolini " ... in fact in the 1920's and 30's they were very violently opposed to socialism." Wrong.  The Nazi's were opposed to Bolshevism.  Hitler thought Bolshevism was controlled from the top to the bottom by Jews. There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will. - Adolf Hitler Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings. - Adolf Hitler Another difference was the scope of socialism.  Hitler didn't give a damn if the workers of the world united.  He only cared that the workers of Germany united.  Hence the "nationalist" part. In the end, all flavors of socialism are not the same.  China's was different from the USSR.  China's current version is different than the China of ten years ago. Cuba's is different from North Korea.  Germany was different from Russia. One thing they do have in common is the dehumanization of its citizens. So, once again, I like your "Reich Wing".  I think it is a great way to describe the progressive statist element of the political landscape. J - I declare to you, from the bottom of my heart, that no Socialist system can be established without a political police. Many of those who are advocating Socialism or voting Socialist to-day will be horrified at this idea. That is because they are short-sighted, that is because they do not see where their theories are leading them. - Winston Churchill

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/12/2012 12:35 AM

> All I am saying is that President Obama is no different from any other > modern day politician (probably a lot worse).  Some of those who thought he > was, particularly the intellectuals, might be waking up. Even so, he's better than any of the options the Republicans have offered in this election or the last

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/12/2012 10:33 AM

Actually, anyone, even Edwards would have been better. To put it another way, we couldn't possibly have done worse. I thought that was obvious. .. > > > Even so, he's better than any of the options the Republicans have > offered in this election or the last

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 10:35 AM

"Even so, he's better than any of the options the Republicans have offered in this election or the last" In your opinion. And remember, I can't stand John McCain, Mitt Romney, or New Gingrich. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 10:37 AM

"Actually, anyone, even Edwards would have been better. To put it another way, we couldn't possibly have done worse. I thought that was obvious." I'm not sure about Edwards.  He would have been useful as comedy gold for SNL. Hillary probably would have been better.  She definitely knows how to play the middle even if she is a progressive statists. J - Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. - George Orwell

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 10:49 AM

Biden as president, now that would be comedy gold. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/14/2012 11:15 AM

"Biden as president, now that would be comedy gold." He's comedy gold now. Funny how he gets a pass from the media. J - I never thought this day would happen. . . . I won?t have to work on putting gas in my car. I won?t have to work at paying my mortgage. You know. If I help him, he?s gonna help me. - Peggy Josep

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 08:41 AM

So, back to the racism issue. If Ron Paul is responsible for racist comments distributed by employee approximately 20 years ago, is President Obama responsible for the racist comments distributed by one his proxies 20 hours ago? Jim Messina, who is helming the president's reelection effort, tweeted a line from a column written by The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, in which he argues that Republicans will struggle to attract the Latino vote after coming out against the DREAM immigration reform ... "The fact that the campaign manager of President Obama's reelection campaign thinks it's appropriate to disseminate insulting jokes about the Hispanic community is a perfect example of the kind of empty rhetoric that characterizes this White House's so-called outreach to Latinos. We demand that Mr. Messina immediately apologize and we ask that President Obama disavow his campaign manager's ridiculous statement," said Jennifer Sevilla Korn, executive director of the conservative Hispanic Leadership Network, in a statement. http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/210859-gop-demands-apology-for-obama-campaign-managers-chimichanga-tweet J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 08:47 AM

False equivalence. What you are referring to was never sent out in Obama's name unlike Ron Paul. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 08:51 AM

"False equivalence. What you are referring to was never sent out in Obama's name unlike Ron Paul." I got it.  Since it wasn't in Obama's name, it's okay for him to send out racists messages.  That is, it is okay for Obama to hire and work with racists or people who propagate a racist messages. I wonder if you would be so forgiving if the show were on the other foot. I think we all know the answer. It is simply amazing how progressive statists can hold two opposing views in their minds at one time and not see the hypocrisy. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 09:06 AM

Exactly how is that comment racist by any conventional definition of the word? What exactly do the Republicans have to offer Hispanic voters?  That would seem to be the real question behind all the red herring nonsense that is being bantered about. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 09:25 AM

Ron Paul was involved in the publication of the newsletter that went out under his name. Obama did not. End of story. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 09:34 AM

It's not really that clear cut.  Jim Messina was hired by Obama to run his reelection campaign.  He, perhaps more than anyone else, speaks for Obama the candidate.  If he says something improper then Obama needs to hold him responsible.  But that tweet is a tempest in a teapot - a thoughtless use of a throw-away quote, and certainly nothing like what went out under Paul's name. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larryclyons@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ron Paul was involved in the publication of the newsletter that went > out under his name. Obama did not. End of story.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 11:38 AM

"Exactly how is that comment racist by any conventional definition of the word?" You don't believe it's racist? How about changing the context just a little. Chit'lins? It may be the only thing Republicans have left to offer Blacks, Is that racist? Maybe racism doesn't exist if it is directed towards Hispanics or Whites. Eric Holder would certainly agree. "It's not really that clear cut.  Jim Messina was hired by Obama to run his reelection campaign.  He, perhaps more than anyone else, speaks for Obama the candidate.  If he says something improper then Obama needs to hold him responsible." This is clear and rational thinking.  I like it. "But that tweet is a tempest in a teapot - a thoughtless use of a throw-away quote, and certainly nothing like what went out under Paul's name." It's a tempest in a tea pot because he is a progressive statist maybe?  The all seem to have a "get out of racism free card."  The bottom line, and you know it to be true, is that any Republican or Republican proxy would be excoriated for this.  That is not right. "Ron Paul was involved in the publication of the newsletter that went out under his name. Obama did not. End of story." The way of the progressive statist.  It's over because I say it's over. Kind of like a dictatorship or fascism. J - The assumption that spending more of the taxpayer's money will make things better has survived all kinds of evidence that it has made things worse. The black family- which survived slavery, discrimination, poverty, wars and depressions- began to come apart as the federal government moved in with its well-financed programs to "help." - Thomas Sowell

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 11:58 AM

"The bottom line, and you know it to be true, is that any Republican or Republican proxy would be excoriated for this.  That is not right." Maureen, I found just such an example: http://minx.cc/?post=326726 Chimichanga? Is anyone really offended?<http://univisionnews.tumblr.com/post/17659726914/chimichanga-republicans-twitter-jim-messina>; Was it a "great line" in the first place? I get it, though. Because no Republican in any position of prominence could have used Dana Milbank's lame line -- "All [Democrats] have to offer Hispanics is the chimichanga" -- without experiencing two months of fake, ginned-up "outrage." Liberals, by definition, are not racist. So if a comment comes along that pushes a stereotype, you must have just misunderstood. Conservatives, by definition, are racist. So if a similar comment comes along, that's proof of the racism. But I don't know if doing the same thing in return helps us at all. *But "I Might Have Tacos" Is Racist?* The nuanced decisions they make!<http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/26/10246992-2000-tacos-delivered-to-i-might-have-tacos-mayor>; I assume the mayor there who said "I might have tacos" as his suggestion for Latino outreach must be a Democrat, as MSNBC studiously refuses to identify his party. *Nope:* Rocks says he's a Republican. So, if a Republican says something similar he gets a national campaign directed against him. Jim Messina doesn't even issue an apology. J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 01:02 PM

In the context of the entire convo...no. He was commenting on something McCain said...responding that is all they have to offer Hispanics... I also didn't see why the Taco comment by the mayor was racist either... On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 12:08 PM

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: > > "Exactly how is that comment racist by any conventional definition of the word?" > > You don't believe it's racist? Nope.   Perhaps not politically correct, but not racist. > > How about changing the context just a little. > > Chit'lins? It may be the only thing Republicans have left to offer Blacks. > Is that racist? Also not racist.  Wouldn't be racist if he said rednecks and BBQ either.  Invoking cultural stereotypes is not racism.  Racism is a very serious problem, and labeling insignificant nonsense like this as racism reduces the ability to define and resolve real instances. > Maybe racism doesn't exist if it is directed towards Hispanics or Whites. >  Eric Holder would certainly agree. I would not.  As the mother of two white boys, I am a strong opponent of affirmative action programs that give preference to anyone based on their color or gender.  I am also not a huge fan of Eric Holder, and would be happier with him gone, but that has nothing to do with his purported racism. > "It's not really that clear cut.  Jim Messina was hired by Obama to run his > reelection campaign.  He, perhaps more than anyone else, speaks for Obama > the candidate.  If he says something improper then Obama needs to hold him > responsible." > > This is clear and rational thinking.  I like it. Thank you. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- It's a tempest in a teapot because it's a tempest in a teapot, and it would still be regardless of who said it.  Would the Democrats excoriate a Republican for saying it?  Of course they would.  That doesn't give it any more validity as a real issue.  It's just a distraction. > "Ron Paul was involved in the publication of the newsletter that went out > under his name. Obama did not. End of story." > > The way of the progressive statist.  It's over because I say it's over. >  Kind of like a dictatorship or fascism. You are conflating my posts with Larry's post.  I did not say

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:36 PM

Not only invoked...it was his newsletter.  It would be like saying that the chief editor of the Chicago tribune is not responsible for the articles that his editors post... Ron Paul was involved in the publication of the newsletter that went out under his name. Obama did not. End of story. On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 12:23 PM

Jerry, did you bother reading the Dana Milbank article that the tweet was about? The Chimichanga reference is a quote from John McCain. Here's the text from the article: "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) spoke about the wonders of his state. 'The lettuce in your salad this month almost certainly came from Arizona,' McCain said. 'It's also believed that the chimichanga has its origin in Arizona,'" the piece read. The tweet was then marveling at the incredible vacuousness of the Republican party. Really, chimichanga is all you got? The Hill, of course, eschews all context in an attempt to gin up controversy where none exists. All it takes is reading the fucking article that the tweet references. Of course, manufactured controversy is so much easier and more fun, right? And you fell for it. Judah On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Jerry Barnes <criticalj@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 02:24 PM

"You are conflating my posts with Larry's post.  I did not say" I am not trying to merge you and Larry together.  Just saving space. You are nothing like Larry.  While you might not agree with another side, you at least try to contemplate it.  Likewise, you refrain from making sweeping accusations about large swaths of people. I can appreciate these qualities. J - The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes. - Thomas Paine

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 02:28 PM

" Of course, manufactured controversy is so much easier and more fun, right?" Whatever.  I really don't care about the statement in and of itself.  Just the double standard.  That is, progressives get a pass while those who are not get excoriated for things not even remotely as offensive as this. "And you fell for it." Kind of like falling for "Hope and Change". J - The most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people. This means, among other things, that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit. - F. A. Hayek

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 02:37 PM

> Kind of like falling for "Hope and Change". The opposition would have a much better chance of defeating Obama if they would stop quoting sound bites from the bobble-heads that put forth the assumption that we are all naive fools who fell for anything resembling "Hope and Change" and did an analysis of the real reasons he won.  This would include the fact that there was no valid opposition candidate in 2008.  He will likely win again because there is still no valid opposition candidate.  No moderate or liberal will vote for Gingrich, Santorum or Paul, and even the conservative Republican base won't vote for Romney. If it's a brokered convention with a Bush/Palin ticket, as the media seems to suggest, the Republican party, for all intents and purposes, is dead.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 03:04 PM

"The opposition would have a much better chance of defeating Obama if they would stop quoting sound bites from the bobble-heads that put forth the assumption that we are all naive fools who fell for anything resembling "Hope and Change" and did an analysis of the real reasons he won" Of course everyone who voted for him was not a naive fool.  But I do believe there were quite a few. Do you think Peggy Joseph did some deep political analysis before voting? I never thought this day would happen. . . . I won?t have to work on putting gas in my car. I won?t have to work at paying my mortgage. You know. If I help him, he?s gonna help me. - Peggy Joseph Anyway, never underestimate the power of a good slogan.  It can capture the imagination of the "joiners". "This would include the fact that there was no valid opposition candidate in 2008.  He will likely win again because there is still no valid opposition candidate.  " Can't argue with this.  Same thing with Bob Dole, Al Gore, and John Kerry. "No moderate or liberal will vote for Gingrich, Santorum or Paul, and even the conservative Republican base won't vote for Romney. " I'll have to strongly disagree here.  I know several democrats who have said they will vote for Paul over Obama.  They like his "bring the troops home" platform and his personal freedom policies. As for Romney, I'll disagree as well.  While I would never vote for him, I believe that "moderates" would vote for him in droves. "If it's a brokered convention with a Bush/Palin ticket, as the media seems to suggest, the Republican party, for all intents and purposes, is dead." It's dead anyway.  It's base is eroding so fast that it will never be able to recover. J - The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. - Joseph Goebbel

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 03:15 PM

----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Perhaps, but likely no more than that naive fools on the other side who were slobbering over Caribou Barbie. > > Do you think Peggy Joseph did some deep political analysis before voting? > > I never thought this day would happen. . . . I won?t have to work on > putting gas in my car. I won?t have to work at paying my mortgage. You > know. If I help him, he?s gonna help me. - Peggy Joseph Who is Peggy Joseph, and why should I care what she says?  I've never heard of her, but if she truly felt that way, her ignorance was showing. > "This would include the fact that there was no valid opposition candidate > in 2008.  He will likely win again because there is still no valid > opposition candidate.  " > > Can't argue with this.  Same thing with Bob Dole, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Well, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but Dole and Kerry weren't much. > "No moderate or liberal will vote for Gingrich, Santorum or Paul, and even > the conservative Republican base won't vote for Romney. " > >  I'll have to strongly disagree here.  I know several democrats who have > said they will vote for Paul over Obama.  They like his "bring the troops > home" platform and his personal freedom policies. If they are supporting Paul based on his "personal freedom policies", they must be straight white men, because that is the only group for which he supports personal freedom. > > As for Romney, I'll disagree as well.  While I would never vote for him, I > believe that "moderates" would vote for him in droves. Moderates, yes.  Conservative base, as I stated, no. > > > "If it's a brokered convention with a Bush/Palin ticket, as the media seems > to suggest, the Republican party, for all intents and purposes, is dead." > > It's dead anyway.  It's base is eroding so fast that it will never be able > to recover. If it's dead, they should bury it, cause it's starting to stink u

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 04:40 PM

I know a few people who claim to be progressives even that are saying they are voting for Paul.  They like the legalize pot and no war stance while forgetting about his anti-woman, racist, anti-immigrant, anti-civil rights, corporatist, Randian dystopian views ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Perhaps, but likely no more than that naive fools on the other side who were slobbering over Caribou Barbie. > > Do you think Peggy Joseph did some deep political analysis before voting? > > I never thought this day would happen. . . . I won?t have to work on > putting gas in my car. I won?t have to work at paying my mortgage. You > know. If I help him, he?s gonna help me. - Peggy Joseph Who is Peggy Joseph, and why should I care what she says?  I've never heard of her, but if she truly felt that way, her ignorance was showing. > "This would include the fact that there was no valid opposition > candidate in 2008.  He will likely win again because there is still no > valid opposition candidate.  " > > Can't argue with this.  Same thing with Bob Dole, Al Gore, and John Kerry. Well, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but Dole and Kerry weren't much. > "No moderate or liberal will vote for Gingrich, Santorum or Paul, and > even the conservative Republican base won't vote for Romney. " > >  I'll have to strongly disagree here.  I know several democrats who > have said they will vote for Paul over Obama.  They like his "bring > the troops home" platform and his personal freedom policies. If they are supporting Paul based on his "personal freedom policies", they must be straight white men, because that is the only group for which he supports personal freedom. > > As for Romney, I'll disagree as well.  While I would never vote for > him, I believe that "moderates" would vote for him in droves. Moderates, yes.  Conservative base, as I stated, no. > > > "If it's a brokered convention with a Bush/Palin ticket, as the media > seems to suggest, the Republican party, for all intents and purposes, is dead." > > It's dead anyway.  It's base is eroding so fast that it will never be > able to recover. If it's dead, they should bury it, cause it's starting to stink u

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 05:18 PM

I had a major blow-up with a long time friend who is a rabid Paul support based on the stance on legalizing drugs when I tried to point out to him that based on Paul's actual legislative record he is much more conservative Republican than Libertarian.  Doesn't matter really, because no way is he going to get the Repub nom, and no way is he electable.  His stance on the Fed keeps the real money people away, possible even causes them to actively fund initiatives to bring him down. I wish a the Libertarian party had a viable candidate.  I often vote Lib in the local elections, but I have yet to see them field anyone on a national level that I could support. I actively despise what the Obama administration is doing to the medical marijuana collectives out here, and while I might hold my nose and vote for him simply because of that lack of better choice, I will not do anything beyond that to support his election. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 05:35 PM

yeah, and what happened in Mendocino County can't be described as anything but harmful, I agree. > I actively despise what the Obama administration is doing to the > medical marijuana collectives out here, and while I might hold my nose > and vote for him simply because of that lack of better choice, I will > not do anything beyond that to support his election.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/18/2012 07:14 PM

Great story about it in this month's issue of Rolling Stone. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/20/2012 09:46 AM

"Perhaps, but likely no more than that naive fools on the other side who were slobbering over Caribou Barbie." Sure there were.  That really goes without saying. And there were others who actually liked her. "Who is Peggy Joseph, and why should I care what she says?  I've never heard of her, but if she truly felt that way, her ignorance was showing." Peggy Joseph is a person who probably wouldn't have voted until the power of "Hope and Change" got ahold of her. Oh, and as side, people like Peggy weren't the only ones who fell for it. I work with some very well educated people who honestly thought Barrack Obama would be different than other politicians.  That he would change the nature of politics in the cesspool of DC.  Fortunately, I believe they know better now.  I bet poor old Peggy doesn't.  I have, from time to time, searched for her to see if she is still enamored with Barrack, but nothing seems to turn up.  She's gone underground. Here is the clip on why Peggy became famous or infamous: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI "Well, Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but Dole and Kerry weren't much." Which doesn't say much about the electorate.  Or does it actually say a lot?  Hmmmm. "If they are supporting Paul based on his 'personal freedom policies', they must be straight white men, because that is the only group for which he supports personal freedom." As I said, they like his anti-war message AND his personal freedom message. One thing I forgot to add was that they are completely disillusioned with Obama.  They think, rightly so, that he is a huge sell out. You are right though, they are white.  So, assuming your hypothese that whites are the only group which Paul supports freedom for (which is bogus), wouldn't it still be in their best interest to vote for him? "Moderates, yes.  Conservative base, as I stated, no." To some extent.  I believe a majority of conservatives will vote for him because he is not Obama.  Back to the lesser of two evils theme. "If it's dead, they should bury it, cause it's starting to stink u" The leadership doesn't realize they are dying.  They know something is wrong and are grasping at straws to fix it.  It's too late.  The party will hang on and maybe even win a few more elections.  However, each cycle, it dies a little more.  It political base is eroding to fast and there is nothing to support the foundation. J - Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. - Ronald Reagan

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/16/2012 10:28 PM

I would disagree that it was an insulting joke about the Hispanic community. It was an insulting joke about McCain and Republicans...who have little to offer Hispanics in AZ. So, back to the racism issue. If Ron Paul is responsible for racist comments distributed by employee approximately 20 years ago, is President Obama responsible for the racist comments distributed by one his proxies 20 hours ago? Jim Messina, who is helming the president's reelection effort, tweeted a line from a column written by The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, in which he argues that Republicans will struggle to attract the Latino vote after coming out against the DREAM immigration reform ... "The fact that the campaign manager of President Obama's reelection campaign thinks it's appropriate to disseminate insulting jokes about the Hispanic community is a perfect example of the kind of empty rhetoric that characterizes this White House's so-called outreach to Latinos. We demand that Mr. Messina immediately apologize and we ask that President Obama disavow his campaign manager's ridiculous statement," said Jennifer Sevilla Korn, executive director of the conservative Hispanic Leadership Network, in a statement. http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/210859-gop-demands-apology- for-obama-campaign-managers-chimichanga-tweet J - Ninety percent of politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation. - Henry Kissinger Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. - John Quinton

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 09:14 PM

Here's a listing of all the bills he has sponsored... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul " Ron Paul's voting record shows that he hasn't changed the viewpoints expressed in these newsletters.  Big difference. " Where can I find that info? I've been reading what Ron Paul's position is on a few things and it seems pretty reasonable. The only thing that really jumps out at me is the charge of racism.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 09:37 PM

simple do a search for his name at http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php it has a record of all bills that have come before the house and senate. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
02/08/2012 12:47 PM

Ron Paul is responsible for articles going out under his name and with his approval. Or don't you believe in personal responsibility? ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----


<< Previous Thread Today's Threads Next Thread >>

Search cf-community

April 17, 2014

<<   <   Today   >   >>
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
     1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30       

Designer, Developer and mobile workflow conference