Fundamental flaws in the Republican Party

[Symmetry]

FYI - Andrew Sullivan is gay.

No shit, Sherlock.

[Symmetry]

I dislike his homophobia and racism, for a start.

"...I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."[180]
"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day!"[178][187]
"An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth [to defend yourself against armed robbery], you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible... I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."[178][188]
“I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any coincidence that the AIDS epidemic developed after they came 'out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy? I don't believe so, medically or morally.”[189][190]
“[Magic] Johnson may be a sports star, but he is dying [of AIDS] because he violated moral laws.”[179][191]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletters_controversy

I seriously doubt he wrote that. Not because I think he's a saint, but because I don't think he's an idiot. Which is what you would have to be to write that and then run for office.

Because it's the kind of message libertarians would subscribe to? It's pretty clear he approved it and had it sent out under his name.

[stahrgazer]

Because it's the kind of message libertarians would subscribe to? It's pretty clear he approved it and had it sent out under his name.

Where's the evidence he approved it and had it sent?

Just because it was sent; just because it had his name on it; does not mean he approved or "had it sent."

[Symmetry]

Because it's the kind of message libertarians would subscribe to? It's pretty clear he approved it and had it sent out under his name.

Where's the evidence he approved it and had it sent?

Just because it was sent; just because it had his name on it; does not mean he approved or "had it sent."

Other passages referred to former Secretary of Health & Human Services Donna Shalala as a “short lesbian” and Martin Luther King, Jr. as a pedophile and “lying socialist satyr" – while offering praise for former Ku Klux Klan Imperial Wizard David Duke and other controversial figures.[178][179][189]
When criticism of the newsletters was leveled against Paul during his 1996 congressional election, he did not deny writing the newsletters, but instead defended them and said that the material had been taken out of context.[180][181][182] In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by members of a team that included 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles until years after they had been published.[182][193] He eventually disavowed those passages, and stated that in 1996 his campaign advisers had thought denying authorship would be too confusing and that he had to live with the material published under his name.[182][193] Some political commentators made note of the changing nature of the explanations he had provided over the years about his involvement with the newsletters.[194][195][196]
An estranged former long-term aide of Paul, Eric Dondero, alleged that Paul was lying about his role in the production of the controversial newsletters.[197][198] During the 2012 Republican presidential primary campaign, in January 2012, the Washington Post reported[199] that several of Paul's former associates said that Paul had been very involved in the production of the newsletters and had allowed the controversial material to be included as part of a deliberate strategy to boost profits. Paul's former secretary said, "It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product... He would proof it."[199] Paul continued to deny the accusations and to disavow the material.[200]

The links can be easily found,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletters_controversy

[stahrgazer]

The links can be easily found,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Newsletters_controversy

In later years, Paul said that the controversial material had been ghostwritten by members of a team that included 6 or 8 others and that, as publisher, not editor, he had not even been aware of the content of the controversial articles
...
Paul continued to deny the accusations and to disavow the material.

Links aren't evidence. It's his word against "former" associates who may have been supporting someone else in 2012 when they supposedly came forward. So, it's possible that they, not he, were lying.

So it isn't "pretty clear" that he had them sent at all. YOU simply choose to believe it.

So, what other evidence can you bring that reflects this much of a tainted character? Because if he IS that tainted, there should be more than this.

[Symmetry]

Witnesses give evidence, and we know from Paul's own words that he lied about his involvement.

TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters

[stahrgazer]

Witnesses give evidence, and we know from Paul's own words that he lied about his involvement.

TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters

Okay. Too many issues exist for me to give credence to the idea that he didn't know.

You're right, he's a racist pig.

[Symmetry]

Witnesses give evidence, and we know from Paul's own words that he lied about his involvement.

TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters

Okay. Too many issues exist for me to give credence to the idea that he didn't know.

You're right, he's a racist pig.

Aye there's pretty much no way he wasn't involved. His weird attempts to deny them bother me more though.

[BigBallinStalin]

More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"...

Yes we know, we know, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
Common, say it with me, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
One more time, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."

The fact that they hide behind ignorance does not excuse them from the impact of their decisions.


and that, basically is exactly why the pursuit of money is the root of evil. Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts. No, the people involved don't want the harm... but they are working hard to make sure the fact that harm is being caused is ignored.

But autism is largely genetic in its basis.

The pursuit of money is the root of evil? So, before the days of money, there was no evil?

[thegreekdog]

Witnesses give evidence, and we know from Paul's own words that he lied about his involvement.

TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters

Okay. Too many issues exist for me to give credence to the idea that he didn't know.

You're right, he's a racist pig.

I'm sure you're being sarcastic. I give him the benefit of the doubt (like I do with everyone else) unless it's proven that he actually wrote the newsletters. If he had actually written (or approved after reading) the newsletters, there would be evidence that he did so. Since there is no evidence other than disgruntled former employees AND Ron Paul has the support of numerous African Americans, gays, lesbians, Hispanics, and other people belonging to groups he allegedly defamed, I give him the benefit of the doubt.

Long story short, Symmetry likes Andrew Sullivan despite that Sullivan supported (publicly) Ron Paul and despite that Sullivan is a libertarian. The question is why. He hasn't answered that question.

No shit, Sherlock.

I wasn't sure you knew since you apparently didn't know he was a major Ron Paul supporter and a libertarian; two things that makes you automatically disregard someone's arguments.

[Symmetry]

Witnesses give evidence, and we know from Paul's own words that he lied about his involvement.

TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters

Okay. Too many issues exist for me to give credence to the idea that he didn't know.

You're right, he's a racist pig.

I'm sure you're being sarcastic. I give him the benefit of the doubt (like I do with everyone else) unless it's proven that he actually wrote the newsletters. If he had actually written (or approved after reading) the newsletters, there would be evidence that he did so. Since there is no evidence other than disgruntled former employees

What would convince you? You don't believe evidence from Paul or the people who worked on the letters...

[stahrgazer]

I'm sure you're being sarcastic.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic.

So many issues were published according to the site Symmetry posted, that I don't believe he didn't know the tone "his" article was taking. "His" because it was his name on those columns.

Even if he didn't put the specific words on those pages, he had to know what type of publication he was at; not many publications would tolerate the types of things that were credited to his byline.

So when I said "too many issues," you can substitute "editions" for "issues" or "articles" for "issues" if it helps you understand.

It wasn't one pamphlet as it seemed you guys were discussing. It was a series of racist pig commentaries that had his name on them.

I'd forgive him a pamphlet with the excuse he hadn't given it approval.

I cannot forgive an entire series of similar trash with his name on it UNLESS he had taken folks to court for using his name on that series of trash when he saw it come out.

However, we've gone off-topic, so to turn it back, "protecting the guilty" seems to be a flaw of all political parties (not just the main 2).

[thegreekdog]

Witnesses give evidence, and we know from Paul's own words that he lied about his involvement.

TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters

Okay. Too many issues exist for me to give credence to the idea that he didn't know.

You're right, he's a racist pig.

I'm sure you're being sarcastic. I give him the benefit of the doubt (like I do with everyone else) unless it's proven that he actually wrote the newsletters. If he had actually written (or approved after reading) the newsletters, there would be evidence that he did so. Since there is no evidence other than disgruntled former employees

What would convince you? You don't believe evidence from Paul or the people who worked on the letters...

I'm not going to answer this question until you answer mine with respect to Andrew Sullivan.

[thegreekdog]

I'm sure you're being sarcastic.

No, I wasn't being sarcastic.

So many issues were published according to the site Symmetry posted, that I don't believe he didn't know the tone "his" article was taking. "His" because it was his name on those columns.

Even if he didn't put the specific words on those pages, he had to know what type of publication he was at; not many publications would tolerate the types of things that were credited to his byline.

So when I said "too many issues," you can substitute "editions" for "issues" or "articles" for "issues" if it helps you understand.

It wasn't one pamphlet as it seemed you guys were discussing. It was a series of racist pig commentaries that had his name on them.

I'd forgive him a pamphlet with the excuse he hadn't given it approval.

I cannot forgive an entire series of similar trash with his name on it UNLESS he had taken folks to court for using his name on that series of trash when he saw it come out.

However, we've gone off-topic, so to turn it back, "protecting the guilty" seems to be a flaw of all political parties (not just the main 2).

It is disturbing, on that I agree.

I can't think of an example of "protecting the guilty" from the parties other than the Republicans and Democrats.

[PLAYER57832]

More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"...

Yes we know, we know, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
Common, say it with me, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
One more time, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."

The fact that they hide behind ignorance does not excuse them from the impact of their decisions.


and that, basically is exactly why the pursuit of money is the root of evil. Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts. No, the people involved don't want the harm... but they are working hard to make sure the fact that harm is being caused is ignored.

But autism is largely genetic in its basis.

The pursuit of money is the root of evil? So, before the days of money, there was no evil?

Its not the root of ALL evil. Even so, the advent of money and the establishment of church/religion rather cooincided per some accounts.

[BigBallinStalin]

More correctly, the Republicans want to cut anything that benefits average Americans, but not the things that benefit their big business cronies... and they will do this while proclaiming "family values" and "low taxes"...

Yes we know, we know, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
Common, say it with me, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."
One more time, "Republicans want dirty air, dirty water and kids with autism."

The fact that they hide behind ignorance does not excuse them from the impact of their decisions.


and that, basically is exactly why the pursuit of money is the root of evil. Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts. No, the people involved don't want the harm... but they are working hard to make sure the fact that harm is being caused is ignored.

But autism is largely genetic in its basis.

The pursuit of money is the root of evil? So, before the days of money, there was no evil?

Its not the root of ALL evil. Even so, the advent of money and the establishment of church/religion rather cooincided per some accounts.

correlation != causation.

Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts.

So, back in the day, when there were more mutual aid societies and less government-provided welfare, profit-seeking companies (mutual aid societies) pooled money (which is allegedly evil) in order to provide a safety net.

The "profit and/or money = a form of evil" isn't correct. I've got plenty more examples, which if you applied your stance consistently, then you'd have to call yourself evil.

[stahrgazer]

I can't think of an example of "protecting the guilty" from the parties other than the Republicans and Democrats.

Didn't I read someone say this guy is Libertarian, not Republican? Didn't he and his campaign try to spin stuff for a few years till someone broke ranks? During the spin years, in other words, they were sort of protecting the guilty.

Politicians in general do that, and it's not new. Remember the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was about protecting the guilty, too, until Mr. Smith came along and refused to do that.

So, "protect the guilty" is a fundamental flaw of the Republican party, even though it's not isolated to the Republican party.

[PLAYER57832]

The pursuit of money is the root of evil? So, before the days of money, there was no evil?

Its not the root of ALL evil. Even so, the advent of money and the establishment of church/religion rather cooincided per some accounts.

correlation != causation.

Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts.

So, back in the day, when there were more mutual aid societies and less government-provided welfare, profit-seeking companies (mutual aid societies) pooled money (which is allegedly evil) in order to provide a safety net.
The "profit and/or money = a form of evil" isn't correct. I've got plenty more examples, which if you applied your stance consistently, then you'd have to call yourself evil.

Not really. The "net" to which you refer had some pretty big holes and gaps in coverage... thus the new era.

And, pollution was rampant until regulations. It still is, but because we operate under a "prove it is dangerous" instead of "prove its truly safe" paradigm, we keep playing catch up.

[PLAYER57832]

I can't think of an example of "protecting the guilty" from the parties other than the Republicans and Democrats.

Didn't I read someone say this guy is Libertarian, not Republican? Didn't he and his campaign try to spin stuff for a few years till someone broke ranks? During the spin years, in other words, they were sort of protecting the guilty.

Politicians in general do that, and it's not new. Remember the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was about protecting the guilty, too, until Mr. Smith came along and refused to do that.

So, "protect the guilty" is a fundamental flaw of the Republican party, even though it's not isolated to the Republican party.

It used to be that there was little difference between Repubs and Democrats, folks tended to switch frequently up until they achieved a major office. (sometimes even then) The fight provided nice cover for the "real work" of meeting their supporters (big money donors.. business) demands.

Now, the Liberaterians and Republicans are gaining ground in opposing anything Democratic as their platform. As long as they do that, they can be as blatant as they like about supporting big business, because they have folks focused on the social issues.

[BigBallinStalin]

The pursuit of money is the root of evil? So, before the days of money, there was no evil?

Its not the root of ALL evil. Even so, the advent of money and the establishment of church/religion rather cooincided per some accounts.

correlation != causation.

Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts.

So, back in the day, when there were more mutual aid societies and less government-provided welfare, profit-seeking companies (mutual aid societies) pooled money (which is allegedly evil) in order to provide a safety net.
The "profit and/or money = a form of evil" isn't correct. I've got plenty more examples, which if you applied your stance consistently, then you'd have to call yourself evil.

Not really. The "net" to which you refer had some pretty big holes and gaps in coverage... thus the new era.

And, pollution was rampant until regulations. It still is, but because we operate under a "prove it is dangerous" instead of "prove its truly safe" paradigm, we keep playing catch up.

Nevertheless, profit and money aren't evil.

[thegreekdog]

I can't think of an example of "protecting the guilty" from the parties other than the Republicans and Democrats.

Didn't I read someone say this guy is Libertarian, not Republican? Didn't he and his campaign try to spin stuff for a few years till someone broke ranks? During the spin years, in other words, they were sort of protecting the guilty.

Politicians in general do that, and it's not new. Remember the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was about protecting the guilty, too, until Mr. Smith came along and refused to do that.

So, "protect the guilty" is a fundamental flaw of the Republican party, even though it's not isolated to the Republican party.

Ron Paul is and was a Republican. He has libertarian tendencies with respect to spending and some other issues. And Ithink he was more protecting himself than others protecting him. His libertarian ideology is not compatible with neo-conservatives and thus he was seen as a dangerous person and so was marginalized.

[PLAYER57832]

The pursuit of money is the root of evil? So, before the days of money, there was no evil?

Its not the root of ALL evil. Even so, the advent of money and the establishment of church/religion rather cooincided per some accounts.

correlation != causation.

Because profit is being used to justify leaving seniors with no safety net, leaving families without medical coverage and ignoring multutides of problems with product safety, pollution impacts.

So, back in the day, when there were more mutual aid societies and less government-provided welfare, profit-seeking companies (mutual aid societies) pooled money (which is allegedly evil) in order to provide a safety net.
The "profit and/or money = a form of evil" isn't correct. I've got plenty more examples, which if you applied your stance consistently, then you'd have to call yourself evil.

Not really. The "net" to which you refer had some pretty big holes and gaps in coverage... thus the new era.

And, pollution was rampant until regulations. It still is, but because we operate under a "prove it is dangerous" instead of "prove its truly safe" paradigm, we keep playing catch up.

Nevertheless, profit and money aren't evil.

ah, but see that is a misinterpretation of the saying.

The saying is not "money is evil". The saying is the “pursuit of money is the root of evil.”

Profit, itself is not evil. Putting profit above people can be.

[tzor]

and that, basically is exactly why the pursuit of money is the root of evil.

Democrats always remind me of that old Reboot episode where Enzo, getting access to the core functionality of the CPU, slows down the processes of everyone else in the desire to be the smartest one.

"We are helping," everyone says as they only caused the problem to get worse.

Or in other words, the road to HELL is paved with "good intentions."

The root of evil is placing the self over that of everyone else. The pursuit of money is not in and of itself the root of evil, but when that pursuit is done at the expense of everyone else, it is.

[PLAYER57832]

and that, basically is exactly why the pursuit of money is the root of evil.

Democrats always remind me of that old Reboot episode where Enzo, getting access to the core functionality of the CPU, slows down the processes of everyone else in the desire to be the smartest one.

"We are helping," everyone says as they only caused the problem to get worse.

Or in other words, the road to HELL is paved with "good intentions."

The root of evil is placing the self over that of everyone else. The pursuit of money is not in and of itself the root of evil, but when that pursuit is done at the expense of everyone else, it is.

Are you under some impression that this saying doesn't apply to Democrats?
Or are you just unaware of the source?

[majorheadache876]

Left-Right Paradigm Is A Hoax

By Chuck Baldwin

February 16, 2012

There may have been a time when the words “conservative” and “liberal” meant something, but that time is no more. Today, “conservatives” in government are doing as much to promote Big Government, as are “liberals.” In fact, if one were to honestly evaluate the twelve years of the George Herbert Walker Bush and G.W.
Bush administrations, one could say that “conservatives” even eclipse “liberals” in promoting Big Government. Under the two Bushes, the federal government expanded (and even exploded) to levels that for-real liberal Democrats could only dream about.

Let’s get realistic. Just because a politico says he or she is “pro-life,” or “pro-family,” or “pro-marriage,” etc., does not mean that they are going to do anything to help save the country. Come on, folks; think! “Conservative” Republican administration appointments have dominated the US Supreme Court since the infamous
Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions that effectively legalized abortion-on-demand. And we are no closer to overturning Roe and Doe after almost forty years of electing “pro-life conservatives” than we were the year after the Roe and Doe decisions were rendered. And for the first six years of the 21st Century, “conservative”
Republicans dominated the entire federal government, and still the Roe and Doe decisions stand.

And when it comes to marriage and family, there is not a darn thing that Washington, D.C., can do to “save” it. Washington can no more “save” the family than it can “create” jobs! Washington is not God--the attitudes of most Washington politicians and national newscasters notwithstanding.

To continue reading Chuck's column, click here:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=4581