Letters to the Editor
-
@ Mona
To pick just one point in your litany of rage about Paul, if you could show him where in the Constitution Congress is authorized to fund overseas family planning and population control programs, he might well take a different view.
Well, the states sure aren't going to do it (not to mention that since foreign affairs is a national affair, it's pretty much limited to the federal gummint).
Should it be done? Perhaps, perhaps not. Can it be done? But of course; treaties and foreign relations are integral to the function and success of the gummint. We wouldn't have survived as a country w/o help from others (see, e.g., the French), and what goes around, comes around (see "Lend-Lease" and the Marshall plan). Is it in our national interest to ensure a stable world? Of course. You can argue it may not be desirable to fund such family programs, but it's much harder to assert that they are Constitutionally barred.
Cheers,
-
GG will figure it out
You wrote an article about Ron Paul distortions and smears and it is followed by 50+ pages of similar distortions and smears. Does that qualify as ironic?
Have Bruce Fein and Naomi Wolf been concealing a neo-Nazi agenda which they are finally able to express through the Ron Paul campaign, or are they simply impressed by the obvious convictions and intense (though rare) passion he brings to issues which they seem to think are of vital importance -- restoration of our constitutional framework and the rule of law, along with principled opposition to America's imperialistic and militarized role in the world?
No, the only answer is that they must be useful idiots and that you are being sucked into a trap laid by the Grand Wizard behind the curtain.
-
@ Arne
See George's letter to Gouverneur Morris dated Dec. 22, 1795.
The warning on "foreign entanglements" was a short term prescription, though I hardly think he would approve of his namesake, the current occupant, and the neocon vision.
-
That would be news
You wrote an article about Ron Paul distortions and smears and it is followed by 50+ pages of similar distortions and smears. Does that qualify as ironic?
No, the only answer is that they must be useful idiots and that you are being sucked into a trap laid by the Grand Wizard behind the curtain.
--Anonymous
If you can find another candidate, besides Tom Tancredo, (forget the long list of unabashed wingnuts who are running), who has this much "smear" to run away from, that would be ironic.
-
My Question
What ignant ponce was it who decided to run this turkey?
As others have suggested, this smells like Rove. What did the fellow say? Divide and conquer?
-
HRC?
who has this much "smear" to run away from
Clinton?
-
The Internet
What ignant ponce was it who decided to run this turkey?
The Internet is who. The buggy is pushing the horse, not the other way around.
-
Your tax dollars at work fighting terrorism.
"A 21-page draft of a new report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee obtained by the AP estimates that the Iraq and Afganistan wars have cost the average U.S. family of four more than $20,000"
Language is interesting. You can use the word "terror", in any phrase like "war on terror" or "terrorist" and suddenly all things are possible; torture, ignoring the constitution, privacy, unitary power instead of balance of power, dumb wild assed spending (see title above) and so on.
Regrettably, another bug-a-boo word is "taxes", taxes being as bad as terrorists are since like terrorists apparently, "taxes are killing us". The reality is there is not a community, from the most primitive to the most advanced, that does not require some form of resource pooling and sharing in order to survive as a community. Taxes are our method of maintaining the community we call the USA. However it is not taxes or even terrorists that are killing us as a nation, it is mismanagement and corruption, not only corruption in the form of $$$ but the corruption of ideas.
I do not believe that GG supports Ron Paul but rather he supports the level of debate that Ron brings and that level of debate may be a hope for escaping the current corrupting mismanagement of blood, funds, information and ideas.
-
@ tempus, Casia Bella
Hello-
tempus finally outs itself as the baseless liar that it is. Way to be a propagandist, fellow traveler.
Try reading all of the letters here. I've already addressed Ron Paul's environmental stance. Try youtubing Ron Paul and you'll be able to find him talking about the environment. Ron Paul would protect the environment via property rights. No one has the right to pollute another's property, and one cannot pollute one's own property without polluting another's down the line. The Federal government is authorized, constitutionally, to protect property rights.
It's not hard to get. Try and respond rationally as opposed to emotionally.
-
Competent schrink
I guess we need the opinion of a competent schrink to give us a definitive answer to the core question: Is Ron Paul a nut? That would not include Dr. Kraut....., whose casual, sophomoric, unprofessional public diagnoses of the public figures he disdains only serve to discredit and disgrace his former profession. And undermine his own nonexistant credibility.
But that's not really the point Glenn is making. Once again I agree with him.
Thanks, Glenn, for a great post on lemmings in the political and media spheres, and the dangerous, media-enforced narrow and shallow parameters of our public debate.
And thanks to William Timmerman, Joel Grant, and others who get it.
-
The hate is to be expected
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.
- Mahatma Gandhi
Dr. Paul's campaign is entering the "fight" stage at this time.
-
Glenn Greenwald and "bystander"
To Glenn Greenwald:
Obama is wrong about Social Security, too. I am disapointed in him.
When you evaluate Paul's statements, you should always do so in the context of his anti-government beliefs. By the way, here's a link to Paul's website:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/
To bystander:
Here's Paul's website link to the SS statement.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/social-security/
There simply is no crisis in Social Security. It's a pay as you go system, and has worked better than any other program. If it's in crisis, the remainder of the Federal Government is already dead.
Since you're an aficionado of Krugman (as am I) check out his past columns about how Social Security is NOT in crisis. And, it would take a relatively small payroll tax increase to fix the shortfall forever.
Bill B.