How is Ron Paul 'Dangerous'?
Here's how.
Got to agree, myself. After all, I'm one who's studied the global threats environment, both past, present and apparent future, for years.
Why would I abandon my hard-earned understanding just because some guy named Ron Paul claims to have a better understanding, especially without providing valid evidence, valid logic, valid reason?
Got to agree, myself. After all, I'm one who's studied the global threats environment, both past, present and apparent future, for years.
Why would I abandon my hard-earned understanding just because some guy named Ron Paul claims to have a better understanding, especially without providing valid evidence, valid logic, valid reason?
posted by Canadian Sentinel at 11:33 AM
8 Comments:
I agree that Mr. Paul could never be elected. I also disagree with many of his views and positions (as I disagreed with many of George Bush's views, and disagree with Obama on a number of issues.)
It's too bad that actual discussion of ideas in the current campaign is impossible. There is no moderation or reason in American politics. Mr. Paul is making assertions that at the very least would, in a reasonable society, be discussed, instead of being distorted and amplified to the point of hysteria.
For example, in the link Sentinel provides, Mr. Paul is accused of being "a leading spokesman for, and recycler of, the long and familiar litany of charges that point to the United States as a leading agent of evil and injustice, the militarist victimizer of millions who want only to live in peace.”
This is as silly an exaggeration as Sentinel's suggestion that Obama is the Antichrist.
Silly exaggerations and distortions of the truth are the job of the MSM.
Most of what is in print are opinion pieces, very short on fact and much to do about what is said by a candidate being translated by the columnist or op-ed writer.
This article being the perfect example. This is an opinion piece. This is according to the writer, and that writer is all for big government, or so it would appear. How else could one explain why cutting back the military funding and pulling the troops.
And the author is quoting a Wall Street Journalist, like he is some kind of media demigod. Does he form much of his opinion from other sources as well?
Constitutionalists are very dangerous as they are principled and not taken to being bribed.
That is what scares the cr*p out of the liberals and RINO's.
"Silly exaggerations and distortions of the truth are the job of the MSM."
Nope. That's the kind of thing ideologues at both ends of the political spectrum like to say when they find facts too inconvenient. It's incorrect.
Credible MSM set and try to adhere to journalistic standards and policies (most of which are either published, or available upon request); employ fact checkers: retract their errors; try to achieve balance in their coverage; contact "the other side" for their story; and never knowingly publish lies. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for garbage like "World Net Daily", or most of the so-called "citizen journalists".
'Constitutionalists are very dangerous as they are principled and not taken to being bribed."
Heh. It's funny - any time a political movement claims it's produced a new and highly principled kind of person by virtue of its ideology, it's time to head for the storm cellar. Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot all liked to claim that.
I've personally known extremely principled politicians from every end of the political spectrum, from Marion Dewar to David MacDonald. It's not the politics that produces the person; it's the moral strength the politician brings to the position.
Kind of like the CeeBeeCee?
And how about the jounalistic purity of Dr. Fruitfly (David Suzuki)? And his panhandling work for globull warming?
If you want to espouse the moral character of recent politicians, shall we look at the likes of Brian Mulroney, Jean Cretien, Paul Martin, Joe Who, Bob Rae and the very famous Jack Layton?
They were all elected, and their "connections" are what got them into the positions which they were spawned.
Balb, I whole-heartedly agree with you about the character issue. Money and power do not make a person, they reveal that person.
I just wish that as much scrutiny would be done of every candidate, on a personal, moral and financial level as necessary to get a very good grasp of who and what they are, and what would be their tendencies?
Maybe all this media attention is a good thing for Ron Paul, as all the skeletons are out of the closet...unlike the Manchurian President the States now have.
Sorry, Glacierman - I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
"Kind of like the CeeBeeCee?"
Not sure what you're asking here. If you're asking whether the CBC has published journalistic standards and policies, employ fact checkers, a policy on error retraction, and commitment to seek both "sides" when covering a news story, the answer is yes, they do.
I'm not sure what you're asking about David Suzuki.
I don't understand the point of your statement about Brian Mulroney, Jean Cretien, Paul Martin, Joe Clark, Bob Rae and Jack Layton, and it doesn't seem to related to anything I said; could you rephrase?
"I just wish that as much scrutiny would be done of every candidate, on a personal, moral and financial level as necessary to get a very good grasp of who and what they are, and what would be their tendencies?"
I think that level of scrutiny IS being paid to pretty much every candidate, by their opponents.
"...unlike the Manchurian President the States now have."
I hope political discourse in the US evolves to the point where silly name calling like that ceases to be the norm and people can actually discuss politics like adults again. I fear the opposite is happening, however.
Balb, the CBC has left the ranks of a balanced and factual news agency. They are for the most part a Liberal/Socialist mouthpiece which has been spouting the AWG mantra of David Suzuki for years. Even when the documented shell game of the climate scientists have been exposed as nothing but a money-making ponzi scheme by the likes of Al Gore and George Soros.
I have yet to hear, see or read any retractions by your most beloved CBC regarding this most inconvenient truth.
The moral character of those I mentioned were left wanting in the list which I mentioned. That is the point, nothing to see there...move along.
The reference to the Manchurian Candidate - BHO - is entirely in order. He is not constitutionally eligible to be the President of the United States. The rule of law states this, yet the judges who are covering Barry's hind quarters are unwilling or paid handsomely to refuse the proof necessary to prove O's Presidency. To believe otherwise is foolishness.
O is a fabrication, made up to do the bidding of the Bankstas and Socialists.
"Balb, the CBC has left the ranks of a balanced and factual news agency. They are for the most part a Liberal/Socialist mouthpiece which has been spouting the AWG mantra of David Suzuki for years. Even when the documented shell game of the climate scientists have been exposed as nothing but a money-making ponzi scheme by the likes of Al Gore and George Soros.
I have yet to hear, see or read any retractions by your most beloved CBC regarding this most inconvenient truth."
Well, that's a good summary of your personal view. Unfortunately emotional statements of opinion aren't really subject to rational discussion, so I'll content myself with reiterating that serious news media have certain characteristics, as described. That's not a "left/right" thing: there are several predominantly right wing media outlets that meet those criteria as well (e.g., the Economist.)
"The reference to the Manchurian Candidate - BHO - is entirely in order. He is not constitutionally eligible to be the President of the United States."
Yes, I'm familiar with the arguments and "evidence" supporting that assertion. Since the majority of Americans, and American Judiciary system (which is the arbiter of the Constitution) disagree with you, I think it may be time for you to reconsider that position. But if not, enjoy yourself.
Meanwhile, the real world is moving toward the selection of a Republican candidate.
So what would really happen if Ron Paul were as elected President?
"President Paul would immediately push for $1 trillion cut in federal spending (per year, not the $3 trillion that Democrats proposed over 10 years with half of that from increased taxes)."
'President Paul would have some empty chairs in his Cabinet - the Department of Commerce, Department of Education and other Cabinet positions would be eliminated. Civil service employees would be ushered into other government jobs. "
"Imagine Ron Paul appoints a new chief at the Food & Drug Administration who turns that institution upside down, who complies with the law (Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act) rather than repudiates or ignores it as the current FDA does, and works to allow health claims for natural medicines that work far more safely and effectively than synthetically made drugs, and at much lower cost. Imagine the National Institutes of Health is forced to generate studies to reveal the true effectiveness of vitamins C and D, as previously documented by this author in the archives atLewRockwell.com, and the life expectancy of Americans soars and their quality of life in their retirement years greatly improves. Dr. Ron Paul is committed to this kind of real change, not give lip service to it."
Read the rest at
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/12.11/elected.html
Post a Comment
<< Home