Ron Paul On Leno's Couch Commenting On Michele Bachmann

[Dino Velvet]

I like Ron Paul but he was completely out of order here. Sharpton even was shaking his head.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-takes-swipes-at-gop-rivals-says-michele-bachmann-hates-muslims/

Appearing on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” Friday, the presidential hopeful took a swipe at his GOP rivals telling the crowd that Michele Bachmann “hates Muslims.”

When asked by host Jay Leno what he thought of his rivals, Paul shook his head, slowed his voice and said, “she doesn’t like Muslims, she hates them, she wants to go get ‘em”

[Ben]

I like Ron Paul but he was completely out of order here. Sharpton even was shaking his head.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-takes-swipes-at-gop-rivals-says-michele-bachmann-hates-muslims/

Appearing on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno” Friday, the presidential hopeful took a swipe at his GOP rivals telling the crowd that Michele Bachmann “hates Muslims.”

When asked by host Jay Leno what he thought of his rivals, Paul shook his head, slowed his voice and said, “she doesn’t like Muslims, she hates them, she wants to go get ‘em”


Ron Paul & Joe Rogan on the Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc)

[Ben]

He's the only GOP candidate I'd like to sit down and have dinner with. He's sincere. Thoughtful. Principled. And we should underscore: he's a fiscal conservative. Unlike all the other GOP crazeee candidates.
Albeit I disagree with him on a bunch of issues; on a lot of issues he is very good.

[Dino Velvet]

Looked like a Senior Moment too. He's 76. Surprised he said Blacks and not Coloreds too when speaking about them. I'll stay home before I put grampa in a rocking chair this important.

Again, I like the guy but he fucked up in front of millions.

[Ben]

If he gets the nod, um, I wonder who he'd choose as his running mate. I mean, he doesn't seem to align himself with anyone.
I'm guessing it'd be, say, Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson)

[Dino Velvet]

If he gets the nod, um, I wonder who he'd choose as his running mate. I mean, he doesn't seem to align himself with anyone.
I'm guessing it'd be, say, Gary Johnson.

Gary Johnson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson)

Comment on what he did on Leno. Nobody can defend a cheap shot like that.

[Ben]

Looked like a Senior Moment too. He's 76. Surprised he said Blacks and not Coloreds too when speaking about them. I'll stay home before I put grampa in a rocking chair this important.

Again, I like the guy but he fucked up in front of millions.

How old was Reagan? 69, 70? I mean, Reagan was clueless. Reagan had no idea what the policies were -- ha ha!
Congress will constrain him. He won't be able to scrap the income tax. Not a chance. Congress will not go along with that.
I mean, he wants to close all the military bases that we have throughout the world. Will that happen? Um, ending the war on drugs? Will he be able to do that. Ya know, treat it as a sensible health issue. Not a criminal issue. As Paul pointed out: do we throw alcoholics in prison?
Seriously cutting the Pentagon budget. Think the congress will go along with that.
I'm not sure how much he'll actually be able to do. There are too many politicians in Washington that'd be seriously against him and his policies.

[Ben]

Comment on what he did on Leno. Nobody can defend a cheap shot like that.

Maybe Paul was tired -- and his cognitive ability lagged at that moment.

[Dino Velvet]

Maybe Paul was tired -- and his cognitive ability lagged at that moment.

At his age tired might be confused for senile. I really thought I might vote for the guy until I saw him make this much of an ass of himself. He didn't embarrass Bachmann at all, just himself. I can't wait until they share an elevator and hope she kicks him in the cunt.

[Ben]

At his age tired might be confused for senile. I really thought I might vote for the guy until I saw him make this much of an ass of himself. He didn't embarrass Bachmann at all, just himself. I can't wait until they share an elevator and hope she kicks him in the cunt.

He should've been diplomatic. Like saying, "Michele and I have major disagreements about foreign policy." See. Diplomatic -- ha ha!
He seemed to be overly fond of Huntsman.
In his defense he said, "... she wants to go get (Muslims)."

[Dino Velvet]

Ben, this isn't funny to me. The stupidity was worse than the actual accusation. How did he think that would turn out?

I might forgive the guy but you should blame him too. I had to rewind and re-watch because I thought I was so high I imagined it.

I'm good with 80% of Ron Paul but the other 20 is nuts. He might be too no matter how sensible some of his stances are. Don't elect a guy claiming Congress will jump on him when he wanders into the street in his bathrobe. Hopefully he remembers to tie it for God's Sake.

[Ben]

Ben, this isn't funny to me. The stupidity was worse than the actual accusation. How did he think that would turn out?

I might forgive the guy but you should blame him too. I had to rewind and re-watch because I thought I was so high I imagined it.

I'm good with 80% of Ron Paul but the other 20 is nuts. He might be too no matter how sensible some of his stances are. Don't elect a guy claiming Congress will jump on him when he wanders into the street in his bathrobe. Hopefully he remembers to tie it for God's Sake.

He should apologize to her.

[Dino Velvet]

He should apologize to her.

Damn right, and to her face in public. Then we can move on but not until. I hate any kind of race card. Is he Cynthia McKinney now?

http://mackers-world.com/images/parody/race_card/rc_cynthia_mckinney.png

[russtafa]

if he hates musso's he welcome in Australia

[Dino Velvet]

if he hates musso's he welcome in Australia

You can impeach him by pushing him down the stairs. Have at it.

Life Alert - The Tribute - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BluFIbRZ3rM)

[Dino Velvet]

You can assassinate him by hiding his heart pills too. Rifles are so JFK.

[Ben]

Bachmann: I don’t hate Muslims, ‘I love the American people’

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/18/bachmann-i-dont-hate-muslims-i-love-the-american-people/

[hippifried]

I'm no fan of Ron Paul, but Michelle Bachman's batshit crazy. From what I saw, it seemed like he was trying to bite his tongue. That was probably the least offensice thing he could come up with. He deals with her on a daily basis in the House. It's not like he doesn't know her. I don't know what the big deal is. This'll probably gain her some points since her entire support comes from the tea toons in the first place.

[onmyknees]

Maybe Paul was tired -- and his cognitive ability lagged at that moment.


You've hit the nail on the proverbial head Ben. Hey...I like the guy, but he's loony. Face it. All politicians say crazy shit...how could they not...they're being interviewed 20 hours a day....but this guy is in a class by himself. Go back to the most recent debate and listen to his response to questions on Iran and tell me you want this guy as Commander in Chief. I think he'd better pass the political torch onto his son who is a lot less prone to foolish and puzzling outbursts.

[Dino Velvet]

You've hit the nail on the proverbial head Ben. Hey...I like the guy, but he's loony. Face it. All politicians say crazy shit...how could they not...they're being interviewed 20 hours a day....but this guy is in a class by himself. Go back to the most recent debate and listen to his response to questions on Iran and tell me you want this guy as Commander in Chief. I think he'd better pass the political torch onto his son who is a lot less prone to foolish and puzzling outbursts.

You see that senile crap on Leno? Hope he had a driver so he didn't confuse the brake with the gas pedal. He still hasn't apologized, has he? If not then no one force him so he can feel the consequences of his action.

How would you like Michele Bachmann pissed off at you when she is in the right? I wouldn't want her mad at me. Loose cannon with nothing to lose with a puncher's chance. Avoid, don't confront.

[hippifried]

You see that senile crap on Leno? Hope he had a driver so he didn't confuse the brake with the gas pedal. He still hasn't apologized, has he? If not then no one force him so he can feel the consequences of his action.

How would you like Michele Bachmann pissed off at you when she is in the right? I wouldn't want her mad at me. Loose cannon with nothing to lose with a puncher's chance. Avoid, don't confront.
Apologize for what? Okay, how's this:

Excuse me, bitch. So sorry for outing you as the ignorant, intolerant, lunatic fringe parrot that everybody already knows you are.

I should get a job as one of his speechwriters. So far, all Michelle (loose cannon) Bachman's done is shoot herself in the foot. I don't think anybody's worried about pissin' her off. Get her into full shriek mode, & Paul could jump ahead of Romney & Gingrich. She's only there for entertainment value anyway.

[Dino Velvet]

Apologize for what? Okay, how's this:

Excuse me, bitch. So sorry for outing you as the ignorant, intolerant, lunatic fringe parrot that everybody already knows you are.

I should get a job as one of his speechwriters. So far, all Michelle (loose cannon) Bachman's done is shoot herself in the foot. I don't think anybody's worried about pissin' her off. Get her into full shriek mode, & Paul could jump ahead of Romney & Gingrich. She's only there for entertainment value anyway.

Are you OK with somebody making an accusation like that without also bringing evidence?

[hippifried]

Are you OK with somebody making an accusation like that without also bringing evidence?
Oh I'm not okay with any of this crap. But this is what politics is now. It's become the sum total of Republican politics. It's all character assassination & personal lies about whoever gets in your way. What, ya hadn't noticed? Michelle Bachman is one of the worst offenders. Nobody ever briings evidence of any sort. These jerks make a living by breaking the Mosaic commandment against bearing false witness against others. I hope your weren't expecting any of these clowns to follow the real moral code.

As for this particular statement: It's the most specific comment he's made about anybody. I can't help but think that he knows her better than anybody who's just seen her on TV. She's not a serious contender for the nomination, & most people already think she's a goofball, so why would she be the target of a lie from someone who really isn't known for making personal attacks at all? Think the statement's inaccurate? Personally, I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, she already has enough negatives that it's irrelevant. If it is inaccurate, then I guess Ron Paul has shown his stripes as just another power hungry sleazy polititian that would eat his own young to get ahead in the game. (Agamemnon complex) If it's an accurate statement, then he doesn't owe her any kind of apology. Either way, I'm all out of sympathy.

[Dino Velvet]

Oh I'm not okay with any of this crap. But this is what politics is now. It's become the sum total of Republican politics. It's all character assassination & personal lies about whoever gets in your way. What, ya hadn't noticed? Michelle Bachman is one of the worst offenders. Nobody ever briings evidence of any sort. These jerks make a living by breaking the Mosaic commandment against bearing false witness against others. I hope your weren't expecting any of these clowns to follow the real moral code.

As for this particular statement: It's the most specific comment he's made about anybody. I can't help but think that he knows her better than anybody who's just seen her on TV. She's not a serious contender for the nomination, & most people already think she's a goofball, so why would she be the target of a lie from someone who really isn't known for making personal attacks at all? Think the statement's inaccurate? Personally, I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, she already has enough negatives that it's irrelevant. If it is inaccurate, then I guess Ron Paul has shown his stripes as just another power hungry sleazy polititian that would eat his own young to get ahead in the game. (Agamemnon complex) If it's an accurate statement, then he doesn't owe her any kind of apology. Either way, I'm all out of sympathy.

We'll see what happens. Good chance I end up staying at home and not voting for anyone.

Are you enthusiastic about an Obama second term or voting lesser of 2 evils?

[hippifried]

It's neither really. I never had a lot of high expectations of the President because I understand the limitations of the office. Therefore, I'm not disappointed. I'm also not taken in by the nonsensical accusations thrown his way. I've seen nothing to shake my opinion that the current President is squeaky clean. Despite the sniveling from the "professional left", he's put forth an effort on all the goals he set forth in the 2008 campaign. Nobody ever gets everything they want. The promise was to take a rational & pragmatic approach to problems, along with refraining from the stupid name calling & lies that do nothing but add to the vitriol & keep people from being able to work together. He's done that. Promise kept. So I don't have any problem with a second Obama term at all. When it comes to politicians, I don't do enthusiasm. I haven't seen anybody in the Republican field who impresses me even a little bit. What I don't want is an ideologue in the oval office.

[Stavros]

From this distance, it appears to me that the reason there are threads on this topic, on Perry, on Bachmann et al, is because the GOP has no obvious candidate with any depth or national appeal to run against Obama next year. Is it too late for someone with gravitas and a half-way decent record as a legislator/businssman who doesn't smear his opponents to enter the race? I don't know enough about the scene but I haven't seen any new names drop into the hat.

[Dino Velvet]

It's neither really. I never had a lot of high expectations of the President because I understand the limitations of the office. Therefore, I'm not disappointed. I'm also not taken in by the nonsensical accusations thrown his way. I've seen nothing to shake my opinion that the current President is squeaky clean. Despite the sniveling from the "professional left", he's put forth an effort on all the goals he set forth in the 2008 campaign. Nobody ever gets everything they want. The promise was to take a rational & pragmatic approach to problems, along with refraining from the stupid name calling & lies that do nothing but add to the vitriol & keep people from being able to work together. He's done that. Promise kept. So I don't have any problem with a second Obama term at all. When it comes to politicians, I don't do enthusiasm. I haven't seen anybody in the Republican field who impresses me even a little bit. What I don't want is an ideologue in the oval office.

Everybody likes a satisfied customer.

[Dino Velvet]

From this distance, it appears to me that the reason there are threads on this topic, on Perry, on Bachmann et al, is because the GOP has no obvious candidate with any depth or national appeal to run against Obama next year. Is it too late for someone with gravitas and a half-way decent record as a legislator/businssman who doesn't smear his opponents to enter the race? I don't know enough about the scene but I haven't seen any new names drop into the hat.

Is that why I started this thread? I never knew. Thanks so much for making that clear.

[Silcc69]

Maybe Palin can save it lol. But in all seriousness what happened to Fred Thompson?

[Dino Velvet]

Maybe Palin can save it lol. But in all seriousness what happened to Fred Thompson?

He's doing Reverse Mortgage Commercials with Robert Wagner.

Mike Huckabee's show is unwatchable.

I wouldn't vote for Palin any more than you would. Social Conservatives and me don't mix. Wouldn't vote for Bachmann either.

[hippifried]

I haven't seen any new names drop into the hat.

You won't. The Iowa caucuses are in 2 weeks. It's theoretically possible, but not likely. The PTBs in the Republican party blew this election off a long time ago. Hence the field that you see. Those aren't candidates. They're sacrificial lambs.

[Dino Velvet]

They're sacrificial lambs.

To who? The Pharaoh?

http://www.gladtidingsstudio.com/Graphic_Design/T-shirts300x300/PharaohObama300x300.jpg

[onmyknees]

It's neither really. I never had a lot of high expectations of the President because I understand the limitations of the office. Therefore, I'm not disappointed. I'm also not taken in by the nonsensical accusations thrown his way. I've seen nothing to shake my opinion that the current President is squeaky clean. Despite the sniveling from the "professional left", he's put forth an effort on all the goals he set forth in the 2008 campaign. Nobody ever gets everything they want. The promise was to take a rational & pragmatic approach to problems, along with refraining from the stupid name calling & lies that do nothing but add to the vitriol & keep people from being able to work together. He's done that. Promise kept. So I don't have any problem with a second Obama term at all. When it comes to politicians, I don't do enthusiasm. I haven't seen anybody in the Republican field who impresses me even a little bit. What I don't want is an ideologue in the oval office.

That's classic !!!!!!! The second and the last sentence tell us all we need to know about you.

But I give you props for originality. The limitations of the office? ROTFLOL....Better get that one emailed to Axlerod. He's in need of some new material, the class warfare thing is not workin' out and this one's better than anything he's been peddling.
Dude....every president pushes his constitutional limits of authority, and BO is no different. He sure used his "limitations" of his office to bribe, coax, and buy off enough votes for Obamacare...and if that didn't work, he was prepared to go reconciliation. In other words, by any means necessary. Additionally his numerous "Czars" have authority far beyond what we've ever seen . The limitations of his office insofar as his inability to move Congress, are 100% his own doing, and have noting to do with his constitutional authority. Clinton and Reagan had the same limitations, but understood the art of the deal.
You're not a dumb guy, you're just lazy....throw up your hands, light up a bone and come up with some inane defense of Obama, then contradict yourself a few sentences later. It's called LEADERSHIP...NOT LIMITATIONS.

[Ben]

He's doing Reverse Mortgage Commercials with Robert Wagner.

Mike Huckabee's show is unwatchable.

I wouldn't vote for Palin any more than you would. Social Conservatives and me don't mix. Wouldn't vote for Bachmann either.

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura:
Jesse Ventura on Thrid Party Voting and Ross Perot - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8RcBy32NI)

Republicans and Dems are chosen for us. Well, take, say, Haiti. In the late 80s and early 90s the people of Haiti got one of their own in office. Jean Aristide.
Same with Bolivia. When the people worked hard and got one of their own elected. Evo Morales.
How is Mitt Romney, with a net worth of $200 million, going to actually serve the interests of working people in America? Carpenters. Truck drivers. School teachers etc., etc...
Or someone like Jon Huntsman. His dad is a billionaire. Or the multi-millionaire Newt? How is he going to sympathize with truck drivers, school teachers, plumbers, electricians, construction workers, secretaries etc., etc.
We all know how the system works. We all know its structure. We don't have political parties anymore. We have two sides of the business party. And business interests are peculiarly attended to no matter the harm it inflicts on the general population. Like truck drivers, school teachers, plumbers, electricians, construction workers, secretaries etc., etc.
So, yes, politicians have always served special interests -- meaning: corporate power -- no matter the HARM it inflicts on the vast majority of the population.
This goes ALL THE WAY BACK to John Jay. Who was the first Justice of the Supreme Court. Who said: Those who own the country ought to govern it.

[Ben]

Giant Sucking Sound - Ross Perot 1992 Presidential Debate.flv - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls&feature=related)

[Silcc69]

Giant Sucking Sound - Ross Perot 1992 Presidential Debate.flv - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls&feature=related)

What he said made to much sense.

[Silcc69]

By Kim Geiger December 19, 2011, 1:54 p.m.

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/politics/michele-m.-bachmann-PEPLT000207.topic) fired back Monday after rival Ron Paul told late-night TV host Jay Leno (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/entertainment/jay-leno-PECLB003008.topic) that the Minnesota congresswoman “hates Muslims.”

“I don’t hate Muslims,” Bachmann said Monday. “I love Americans and want to make sure that as commander in chief, I will keep America free, safe and sovereign.”

Paul, a Texas congressman whose isolationist views on foreign policy have set him apart from the rest of the GOP (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/republican-party-ORGOV0000004.topic) contenders, has argued against engaging Iran (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/intl/iran-PLGEO0000011.topic) over its suspected nuclear weapons program and has opposed the wars in Iraq (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/intl/iraq-PLGEO0000012.topic) and Afghanistan.

During a Friday night appearance on Jay Leno’s show, the host asked for Paul’s thoughts on his opponents. Paul said Mitt Romney (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/politics/government/mitt-romney-PEPLT007376.topic) was a “nice guy,” suggested Newt Gingrich (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/arts-culture/newt-gingrich-PEHST000779.topic) should set his sights on becoming speaker of the House again, and called Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/politics/government/jon-huntsman-jr.-PEPLT00008438.topic) “a good diplomat.”

His views on Bachmann and former Sen. Rick Santorum (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/politics/rick-santorum-PEPLT005783.topic), however, were not so kind.

“She doesn’t like Muslims,” Paul said of Bachmann. “She hates Muslims. Yeah, she wants to go get 'em.”

“And Rick Santorum…seems like to him, gay people, oh my God, that’s the end of the world,” Leno said. “He doesn’t seem to talk about anything else.”

“Gay people and Muslims,” Paul replied.

Bachmann and Paul went at it last week during a Republican debate when Bachmann warned that Iran “will use” a nuclear weapon “to wipe our ally, Israel (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/intl/israel-PLGEO0000010.topic), off the face of the map.”

“And they’ve stated they will use it against the United States of America,” Bachmann said. “… We would be fools and knaves to ignore their purpose and their plan.”

Paul replied that, “To declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims and say all Muslims are the same, this is dangerous talk.”

“Yeah, there are some radicals,” he said. “But they don’t come here to kill us because we are free and prosperous.... They want to do us harm because we’re bombing them.”

Paul was booed earlier this year at a tea party (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/politics/tea-party-movement-ORCIG000068.topic) sponsored debate as he argued that the 9-11 (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/terrorism/september-11-2001-attacks-EVHST000001.topic) terrorist attacks were a reaction to U.S. foreign policy.

Responding to Santorum, who said “jihadists … want to kill us because of who we are and what we stand for,” Paul said: “As long as this country follows that idea, we’re going to be under a lot of danger.”
“This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true,” he said.
As the crowd booed, Paul went on to argue that 9-11 happened because terrorists were unhappy with U.S. military (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/defense/u.s.-military-ORGOV000021106.topic) bases in Saudi Arabia (http://www.hungangels.com/topic/intl/saudi-arabia-PLGEO00000070.topic), U.S. handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and U.S. bombing of Iraq.

“Would you be annoyed?” he asked. “If you’re not annoyed, then there’s some problem.”

[thombergeron]

Dude....every president pushes his constitutional limits of authority

That may or may not be true, and to varying degrees. Nonetheless, your argument is severely hampered by your near total ignorance of American governance. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed by votes of 60-39 in the Senate and 219-212 in the House, and was then signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. Certain funding mechanism to support PPACA were approved by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress (Senate: 56-43; House: 220-207) using the reconciliation process, in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

A) Both pieces of legislation were approved by a majority of both houses of Congress. It is unclear how passing legislation by majority vote in the U.S. Congress represents a president pushing "his constitutional limits of authority."

B) Contrary to your imperfect recollection, Democratic congressional leaders did use budget reconciliation to implement health care reform. I am actually shocked that you didn't know this, since it would tend to feed nicely into your fevered paranoia. But then again, you frequently have no idea what you're talking about.

C) Given your keen interest in the Obama administration's efforts to push "his constitutional limits of authority," you might consider the President's recent assassination of an American citizen of minor age without due process of law. It seems really bizarre to me that conservatives in this country think that efforts to regulate health insurance and home mortgages are a dire assault on the very foundations of liberty, but blowing up teenagers from Colorado based on secret evidence is exactly what the Founders had in mind.

[hippifried]

That's classic !!!!!!! The second and the last sentence tell us all we need to know about you.

But I give you props for originality. The limitations of the office? ROTFLOL....Better get that one emailed to Axlerod. He's in need of some new material, the class warfare thing is not workin' out and this one's better than anything he's been peddling.
Dude....every president pushes his constitutional limits of authority, and BO is no different. He sure used his "limitations" of his office to bribe, coax, and buy off enough votes for Obamacare...and if that didn't work, he was prepared to go reconciliation. In other words, by any means necessary. Additionally his numerous "Czars" have authority far beyond what we've ever seen . The limitations of his office insofar as his inability to move Congress, are 100% his own doing, and have noting to do with his constitutional authority. Clinton and Reagan had the same limitations, but understood the art of the deal.
You're not a dumb guy, you're just lazy....throw up your hands, light up a bone and come up with some inane defense of Obama, then contradict yourself a few sentences later. It's called LEADERSHIP...NOT LIMITATIONS.
Contradictions? Really? Where? Oh, & contradicting your assumptions of what you think my positions ahould be based on who knows what doesn't count.

So, what I'm seein' here is just more of those nonsensical accusations that I mentioned earlier. Vitriol for its own sake. It's hard to relate just how unimpressed I am.

[Ben]

What he said made to much sense.

Ross debated Al Gore (who was an absolute corporate shill back then... and maybe still is) in '93.
The debate is worth watching in full. (And Perot pointed out -- and this is the essence of corporate-capital free trade -- that it's a helluva lot cheaper to create jobs in Mexico to boost your bottom line.
I mean, corporations, by their rigid design and stringent structure, have to expand their overall income. And free movement of capital helps them achieve this core goal. (Their paramount purpose is to make as much money as they can and as fast as they can.
Corporations don't exist to create American jobs for American workers. Anyone who believes that is naive.)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1tHV_fztR4"]NAFTA: Ross Perot and Al Gore Debate 1993, Part 2 of 8 - YouTube

NAFTA: Ross Perot and Al Gore Debate 1993, Part 3 of 8 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr-aoolb7c0)

NAFTA: Ross Perot and Al Gore Debate 1993, Part 4 of 8 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMj5SHK6Yeg)

[onmyknees]

That may or may not be true, and to varying degrees. Nonetheless, your argument is severely hampered by your near total ignorance of American governance. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed by votes of 60-39 in the Senate and 219-212 in the House, and was then signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. Certain funding mechanism to support PPACA were approved by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress (Senate: 56-43; House: 220-207) using the reconciliation process, in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

A) Both pieces of legislation were approved by a majority of both houses of Congress. It is unclear how passing legislation by majority vote in the U.S. Congress represents a president pushing "his constitutional limits of authority."

B) Contrary to your imperfect recollection, Democratic congressional leaders did use budget reconciliation to implement health care reform. I am actually shocked that you didn't know this, since it would tend to feed nicely into your fevered paranoia. But then again, you frequently have no idea what you're talking about.

C) Given your keen interest in the Obama administration's efforts to push "his constitutional limits of authority," you might consider the President's recent assassination of an American citizen of minor age without due process of law. It seems really bizarre to me that conservatives in this country think that efforts to regulate health insurance and home mortgages are a dire assault on the very foundations of liberty, but blowing up teenagers from Colorado based on secret evidence is exactly what the Founders had in mind.


Well....it's our resident constitutional scholar chiming in. He'll stay awhile, sprinkle his own brand of self absorbed expertise on us...then disappear for months on end, more than likely under somebody's shoe. It's a free country, and you can interpret your reading of the constitution any way you desire, It may impress a hand full of posters on a porn forum, but don't tell my interpretation is incorrect, you pampas asshole.
Obama's constitutional powers, or lack thereof according to some ,is not at all as keen as your sarcasm might suggest. My interest in him chairing the legal department at The University of Chicago, in 11 months, is however acutely keen. Is that OK with you ?

Your concern about what conservatives deem as a threat to liberty is touching, but let conservatives worry about that. You seem to be attempting to say something...so just say it, and forget the sarcasm about the Conservatives and the Commerce Clause...The Supreme Court will decide that.... apparently you have no such concern, but are awful upset about incident in Colorado. State your case, and I'll state mine.




My point about the vote on Health Care was absolutely accurate. He did buy votes . How can there even be a debate on that...unless of course you're a bitter partisan. The voters certainly perceived as much by the seedy backroom process and presented him and his party with a historic mid term defeat....you can spin that any way you like, but the House now belongs to the opposition party. He did threaten reconciliation prior to the vote, that's a matter of record, pinhead. The intent of the sentence.....in the context of Hippie's claim, ( Obama's limited power) unstated, but certainly implied and easily understood by anyone with a modicum of comprehension skills was that reconciliation was a congressional process, and not of the Executive Branch. Get it now?
Spend more time digesting the posts, and less time pretending to be the community college Constitutional Law Professor. It's not workin' for ya.

[Ben]

Another vid Dino:

Ron Paul on CNN w/ John King 12/20/11 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VVNo0znuM0&feature=related)

[Ben]

Ron Paul Walks Out On Interview With CNN Media Whore - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zp6A-l-TwE)

[Ben]

The Rise of Ron Paul - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P_um7HsnV4&feature=related)

[Ben]

Ron Paul and his racist newsletters (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/22/ron_paul_and_his_racist_newsletters/singleton)

Why his philosophical allies embraced white supremacy

By Alex Pareene (http://www.salon.com/writer/alex_pareene/)


http://media.salon.com/2011/12/ronpaul-460x307.jpg Ron Paul (Credit: Reuters/Joshua Lott)


Topics:Ron Paul (http://www.salon.com/topic/ron_paul/), 2012 Elections (http://www.salon.com/topic/2012_elections/), Libertarianism (http://www.salon.com/topic/libertarianism/), Race (http://www.salon.com/topic/race/)
It is a fact that in the 1990s Ron Paul sold a newsletter in which a bunch of racist comments were published under his byline. We now also have evidence (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/3057) that Paul is lying when he claims not to have read the racist newsletters, which were most likely written by Lew Rockwell. (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter)
Here’s Paul on C-SPAN in 1995, talking about his newsletters:
Dr. Ron Paul 1995 Interview - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A)
The fact is, Paul has lied like a very old-fashioned sort of politician about these newsletters, and he has been lying for years. He has gone through the motions of public regret about their contents, but has never acknowledged knowing who wrote the offensive material or even being aware that offensive material went out under his name. That’s bullshit. Now he ducks questions on the subject entirely (and his supporters complain that it’s “old news,” because they have no serious defense of the comments or Paul’s responsibility for them).
Ta-Nehisi Coates has been essential reading (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/old-news-cont/250394/) on Ron Paul’s cynical embrace of racist populism and subsequent refusal to own up to it.
But while I imagine Dr. Paul doesn’t believe in the inherent criminality of black males (though I’d bet he does believe some variation on his newsletter’s remark that “only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions”) these comments didn’t originate in a vacuum.
Here’s why they happened: Years ago, a bunch of libertarians decided to act like huge racists to win votes. Reason explained it in 2008: (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter)
The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement.” Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an “Outreach to the Rednecks,” which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an “unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”
That’s Murray Rothbard, the legendary libertarian thinker.
There are, broadly, two different versions of American libertarianism: There’s Reason Magazine and Cato Institute libertarianism — “cool” libertarianism — and there’s Mises Institute/Lew Rockwell libertarianism — old crank libertarianism. Ron Paul is a Mises Institute libertarian. (Gary Johnson, more of a cool libertarian.)
The origins of the philosophical split are explained nicely by Brian Doherty in this piece on the late Murray Rothbard. (http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/a-tale-of-two-libertarianisms/singlepage) To drastically oversimplify, guys like Hayek made pragmatic economic arguments (and left room for a “limited” state to provide some measure of assistance to the needy) and Rothbard made Randian philosophical arguments (and was radically anti-state). And Rothbard went full-on neo-Confederate in order to win over the “rednecks.” (http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/20/the_secret_origin_of_ron_paul_s_newsletters.html)
Ron Paul’s libertarianism has plenty of room for nativism and racism because so much of it does sound like a Pat Buchanan-style call for America to return to a golden age of white privilege. Paul isn’t a futurist, like the libertarians who write hilarious odes to the coming “singularity,” when we’ll all become immortal cyborgs. He’s a goldbug. He’s a deeply religious anti-abortion small-town country doctor who basically wants the government to operate as it did in 1837.
“Liberaltarian” writer Wil Wilkinson’s September piece on Paul (http://www.tnr.com/article/94477/ron-paul-distorted-libertarian-ideology?page=0,0) is good reading. Wilkinson sums up the problem with an absolutist defense of the “natural rights” of property owners that ignores how those rights are often only protected for certain classes:
As a rule, libertarians have an unhealthy tendency to apply their principles without due regard to America’s history of state-enforced slavery, apartheid, and sexism, or to the many ways in which the legacy of these insidious practices persists to this day. Paul represents this tendency at his worst. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Paul has argued, led to “a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.”
Yeah, well, it’s not “racist” to believe that the Civil Rights Act was an unnecessary intrusion on private property rights that made discrimination worse, but it is idiotic.

Close (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/22/ron_paul_and_his_racist_newsletters/singleton/)

http://media.salon.com/2011/09/thumb_alexPareene.png (http://www.salon.com/writer/alex_pareene/)Alex Pareene writes about politics for Salon.

[Ben]

Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters? (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter)

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

[Ben]

And: the good side of Dr. Paul:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/21/ron-paul-challenges-the-gops-mindless-mi

[onmyknees]

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2011/12/21/tsr-bts-borger-ron-paul-newsletters.cnn


Well Ben.....I'm not concerned in the least by some newsletters he may, or may not have read a quarter century ago...nor do I have a problem with the press poking around in his past, as it's their job ( see above) ...In fact Gloria Borger is quite the pit bull, as are some others dogging Paul about this. My question is.....when did Gloria Borger , Wolfman Blitzer, and the others grow a set of balls? Must have been just recently because in 2007-08 they were too busy getting rug rash on their knees. If past questionable racial associations are relevant now....why the hell weren't they then? Do you recall Borger or Blitzer confronting candidate Obama about Rev. (" He's like an Uncle to Me" ) Wright ? Ha ha ha ...don't bother with a Google Search....it didn't happen.

No....I don't think Ron Paul has has a race problem
No....I don't think Barack Obama has a race problem
No....I don't like when the press has such and obvious double standard and bias. Ask the questions of all the candiates, and let the public decide.

[Ben]

This is what puts me off about Paul... quote: "He’s a deeply religious anti-abortion small-town country doctor who basically wants the government to operate as it did in 1837."
And he really doesn't have a position on gay marriage.... Or does he -- ha ha! I know: Less government... blah... blah... blah.

Ron Paul on gay marriage - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84&feature=related)

[NYBURBS]

It's neither really. I never had a lot of high expectations of the President because I understand the limitations of the office. Therefore, I'm not disappointed. I'm also not taken in by the nonsensical accusations thrown his way. I've seen nothing to shake my opinion that the current President is squeaky clean. Despite the sniveling from the "professional left", he's put forth an effort on all the goals he set forth in the 2008 campaign. Nobody ever gets everything they want. The promise was to take a rational & pragmatic approach to problems, along with refraining from the stupid name calling & lies that do nothing but add to the vitriol & keep people from being able to work together. He's done that. Promise kept. So I don't have any problem with a second Obama term at all. When it comes to politicians, I don't do enthusiasm. I haven't seen anybody in the Republican field who impresses me even a little bit. What I don't want is an ideologue in the oval office.

I have to be honest here, I'm a bit dismayed with your continued support of Obama. I've disagreed with you in the past on enough things, but I'd hope that you could see how disappointing he's been. The growing police/military state isn't all his doing, but he has certainly helped it progress by leaps and bounds. It was the hope of many that he would restore some semblance of sanity after Bush, but that obviously is not the case.

[hippifried]

I have to be honest here, I'm a bit dismayed with your continued support of Obama. I've disagreed with you in the past on enough things, but I'd hope that you could see how disappointing he's been. The growing police/military state isn't all his doing, but he has certainly helped it progress by leaps and bounds. It was the hope of many that he would restore some semblance of sanity after Bush, but that obviously is not the case.
But I'm not you. I'm not neurotic. I don't confuse my personal wish list with what I realistically expect other people to do. I don't pay attention to what pundits tell me I'm supposed to expect. Without all the fantasy expectations y'all keep telling me I'm supposed to have, there's no reason to be disappointed. Am I getting everything I'd like to see happen? Of course not, but I didn't expect that either. I expected thoughtful pragmatism. Got that. I expected honest effort toward the goals he set forth. Got that. After all the vicious attacks & lies during the campaign, & remembering the way Bill Clinton was accused of every ill to ever befall the earth before anybody ever heard of Monica Lewinski, I expected the attacks & lies to continue. So, uh... Why am I supposed to be disappointed in the President? Bevause he hasn't lived up to your fantasy expectations? Oh no, that can't be it. You didn't want him elected in the first place & have been on the attack from the outset. But I'm sure you'll think of something to enlighten me as to how I'm supposed to think according to your expectations. Color me expectantly waiting for some kind of explanation of why I should buy into this whole Republican diatribe about disappointment.

[Ben]

MSM Pounces on Ron Paul: Can he Survive? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JablRjibcLw&feature=channel_video_title)

[Ben]

Is Ron Paul Racist? Let's Figure This Out - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbU-gvOdABA&feature=channel_video_title)

[NYBURBS]

But I'm not you. I'm not neurotic. I don't confuse my personal wish list with what I realistically expect other people to do. I don't pay attention to what pundits tell me I'm supposed to expect. Without all the fantasy expectations y'all keep telling me I'm supposed to have, there's no reason to be disappointed. Am I getting everything I'd like to see happen? Of course not, but I didn't expect that either. I expected thoughtful pragmatism. Got that. I expected honest effort toward the goals he set forth. Got that. After all the vicious attacks & lies during the campaign, & remembering the way Bill Clinton was accused of every ill to ever befall the earth before anybody ever heard of Monica Lewinski, I expected the attacks & lies to continue. So, uh... Why am I supposed to be disappointed in the President? Bevause he hasn't lived up to your fantasy expectations? Oh no, that can't be it. You didn't want him elected in the first place & have been on the attack from the outset. But I'm sure you'll think of something to enlighten me as to how I'm supposed to think according to your expectations. Color me expectantly waiting for some kind of explanation of why I should buy into this whole Republican diatribe about disappointment.

A bit touchy I see. He's a disappointment because many people that voted for him, including myself, had hoped he'd roll back some of the civil liberty abuses that had taken place under Bush/Cheney and that he'd put an end to the military rampage.

Instead, he decided to grant immunity to federal officials over torture allegations, he claimed and used the authority to order the assassination of citizens, he entered into hostilities in Libya without any authorization and then refused to stop, and now he has agreed to sign a bill that not only codifies indefinite detention without trial but also includes US citizens within it's scope. He's been not only been a disappointment, he's been a downright disaster. Apparently though you can't get over the Obama worship even though you try to hide it behind some false aura of ambivalence.

[hippifried]

A bit touchy I see.
No. I was just explaining what you claimed you just couldn't grasp, & apparently still can't. I've been inundated with all this tripe about overly high & bogus expectations since before the 2008 election. It's just punditry trying to create a meme.

He's a disappointment because many people that voted for him, including myself, had hoped he'd roll back some of the civil liberty abuses that had taken place under Bush/Cheney and that he'd put an end to the military rampage.
Hmmm... & I thought we were pulling out of Iraq. Winding down the Afghan fiasco too. But I guess losing all our civil liberties in the last 3 years trumps all that. Good thing we have al those FEMA camps.

Instead, he decided to grant immunity to federal officials over torture allegations, he claimed and used the authority to order the assassination of citizens, he entered into hostilities in Libya without any authorization and then refused to stop, and now he has agreed to sign a bill that not only codifies indefinite detention without trial but also includes US citizens within it's scope.
So let me get this straight: You thought there was going to be wholesale prosecutions over the Bush/Cheney/Gonzales... violations of the moral code? Did you think the Former President & Vice President would be dragged through some show trial circus to satisfy the Jonathan Turleys & other self righteous vindictive reactionaries posing as progressive? Any such bogus expectations never came from the President or his campaign. Even if there was a credible argument that such actions could be taken successfully, or just that it wasn't a really bad idea in the first place, it would still be at the bottom of the priority list. Mo disappointment here.

"Assassination of citizens"? That's really what you're going to call the successful counter attack on a traitor who had moved to a foreign land to openly take up arms against the US? The President takes seriously & efficiently carries out a duty to protect the American people from physical harm by its enemies, & you're going to gripe about it. Don't expect me to hold your crying towel.

Oh & now he's some kind of war monger because he showed the NATO pussies how to enforce a no-fly zone. In & out in 2 weeks, Qadaffi's dead, there won't be any bloodline succession, & the Sudanese mercenaries are gone. Oh boo hoo.

Hasn't the "indefinite detention" panic already been debunked? Thought I saw that in another thread in here.

He's been not only been a disappointment, he's been a downright disaster. Apparently though you can't get over the Obama worship even though you try to hide it behind some false aura of ambivalence.
& there it is, the neurotic ad hominem, as expected.

[onmyknees]

Shockingly I find myself in more agreement with Hippie...sort of....although I do think he's downplayed his expectations. The irony is, to be fair...I think Obama has done a reasonably good job in the war on terror. Not to be confused with overall foreign policy. And I realize that's a pretty predictable reaction from me because he has essentially continued the Bush/Cheney policy except on steroids. I don't think it's all that difficult to explain. When you're flying around the country making campaign stops to your main constituency, college pinheads, it's easy to fall back on your own college reactionary days and talk about the horrors of the Bush/Cheney policies. But when you're sitting in the Oval Office getting raw intelligence reports every morning and seeing the gravity of those reports, you realize you're now essentially responsible for the protection of 320 million people, you man up in short order and put the foolish ideology behind.

But I do find it interesting that both of you non conservatives in attempting to evaluate your expectations of Obama chose topics that frankly most Americans don't give two shits about. In between NY and Imperial Valley there's 3000 miles of blue collar Americans who frankly are struggling to feed their families. Discussing the execution of enemy combatants becomes abstract when you're 6 months behind in your mortgage and have no prospects for a job, and heating oil is 3.90 per gallon.
The conversations you two are engaged in are made for cable TV pundits, not for folks in Dayton Ohio where there's a 35% foreclosure rate. So by all means have those conversations, but understand that Obama, weather he meets or exceeds your expectations on things like trials for Dick Cheney and John Yoo or covert operations in Pakistan, will rise and fall on his ability to manage the economy. Has he put in place a plan to address the foreclosure problem? Has he created an regulatory environment where businesses small and large feel comfortable enough to begin hiring on a scale large enough to make a difference? Has he put in place an energy policy domestically that begins to not only cut our dependence on Mid East oil, but also lower the huge percentage that Americans now lay out for energy costs. Has he addressed the "huge sucking sound" that continues to exist as businesses move their money, their jobs, and their operations to more business friendly countries? Has he implemented strong monetary growth policies through his Treasury Secretary, and his Fed Chairman ? Has he begun to address the Armageddon just over the horizon....the solvency of Social Security and Medicare ? Has he instructed all his Department heads to cut wasteful and unnecessary programs and eliminate chronic duplication in departments? Has he reduced the GDP to Debt ratio ? Has he come to the American People and explained the need for austerity and the catastrophic eventualities of borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the fed spends ? Has he pressured Banks to begin lending some of the money they received in bailouts to small businesses? Has he addressed To Big to Fail? Has he attempted to address the illegal immigration issue that saps resources in border states by providing benefits to illegals, allows the underground economy to flourish while depriving state, federal and local governments much needed tax revenue ?

These are the things folks in places like Toledo Ohio, Pittsburgh PA, Gary Indiana, Buffalo NY, Green Bay Wisconsin, Omaha Nebraska, and thousands of others in fly over country will judge him on, not so much each individual policy.....but rather a sum of the total. Has he met
their expectations and fulfilled his promises ?

[Ben]

He, in this YT vid, has some valid points. And some valid concerns. As to what a Paul presidency would bring about.
But I don't think Paul wants to intentionally bring about a corporate tyranny, as it were. (And Paul wouldn't bail the banks out.... Paul kinda believes in pure free market principles. Not entirely though. He does see a role for government. But does Ron Paul think, say, roads should be built and paid for by the government? Or should that be completely private? And should we discount all that the government has done and their contributions to a high tech economy? From aerospace, biotechnology, computer software (Bill Gates, contrary to popular opinion, didn't initially put in so-called capital investment into computers), robotics, & telecommunications. The state played a substantial role in these various sectors of the economy, as it were. What would happen under a Paul presidency? Would he leave it to private business? Would they take the risk?
Corporations operate along the lines of: externalities, they're externalizing machines. So, you externalize the costs and internalize the profits. Think: the military. Think: oil. Think: the Middle East. Ya know, Exxon says: get somebody else to protect our oil; we ain't gonna pay to protect our investment; get the "big" government to do it -- :)
Don't know how Paul would deal with protecting oil interests in the Middle East. I mean, that's a large part of the military budget: protect private profits for giant oil and energy companies.
Anyway, he has some legitimate concerns as to what a massive scaling back of government would do to society.
But it's frustrating because Paul is good on a lot of issues.

Ron Paul Wants Privatized Tyranny Says Noam Chomsky - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiyKNt_EGBM)

[thombergeron]

but don't tell my interpretation is incorrect, you pampas asshole.


Jesus wept you can't even spell it the way it sounds. Goddamn, you are just dumb as a fucking stump. It's really breathtaking. You should lead a seminar.