The Ron Paul (Fundraising) Revolution

Move over John Kerry, the best single-day primary fundraising record no longer belongs to the prodigious money-collecting machine of the man who won the 2004 nomination.

Ron Paul is now the champ.

Kerry collected $5.7 million on one day in 2004.

Paul collected more than $6 million Sunday. And, unlike Kerry who raised his money from big donors on the day after he won the key primaries that secured him the Democratic nod, Paul is raising his money when it could actually help his quest for the Republican nomination.

Where the senator from Massachusetts was the insider collecting money from donors to rival candidates who now wanted to get on board with his already successful campaign, the congressman from Texas is a classic insurgent who is still dismissed by party leaders and media elites.

And Paul is continuing to raise money -- largely small contributions from individuals who in many cases have never before given money to a campaign -- at a remarkable rate.

The congressman's campaign is dramatically exceeding fundraising expectations in the current quarter. The campaign's unreasonable goal of $12 million has been exceeded by more than 50 percent already and there is every reason to believe that Paul will almost certainly finish the quarter with more than $20 million raised.

Paul could well end up raising more than any of the other Republican contenders and providing the only serious competition for Democratic money leaders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

But what is really fascinating about Paul's enormous haul of December 16 – in an effort organized by music promoter Trevor Lyman, a Paul enthusiast with no previous political experience – is that it drew 24,940 new donors to the campaign in a single day.

What's the trick?

Lyman, who raised more than $4.3 million for Paul on a single day in November, times his "money bomb" appeals to days that have deep historical resonance for those who fancy themselves insurgents against the current order.

The November appeal came on November 5, the anniversary of attempt by Guy Fawkes to blow up the Houses of Parliament in London.

Sunday's appeal was timed to coincide with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

Paul now has enough money to be a serious presence in the caucuses and primaries through the winter – he's currently tied with John McCain in Iowa and posting credible numbers in New Hampshire – and into the spring.

That means that Lyman may have an opportunity to make an appeal on April 19, the anniversary of "the shot heard round the world" skirmishes at Lexington and Concord that anticipated the American Revolution.

Paul's campaign refers to itself as "The Ron Paul Revolution" and there can be no doubt any longer that it is revolutionizing the way in which grassroots fundraising plays out in American presidential campaigns. Now, the question is whether Paul's crusade can revolutionize the campaign game itself by using the money to upset the political order. Even those who do not share his "Old Right" libertarian views – which tend to be throwbacks to the stay-out-of-trouble abroad and keep-government-small at home positions espoused by Republican Senator Robert Taft in the 1940s and 1950s – can and should be encouraged by the fact that a candidate is breaking the rules and getting a resounding response from grassroots donors.

If Republican primary voters follow -- even in reasonable numbers -- then Ron Paul's campaign really will be a revolution. And he will be the 2008 candidate who is remembered for doing something that can matter more than winning a party nomination or a November election, and that is changing the politics of a country that needs every new approach to altering a corrupt and dysfunctional status quo.

Comments (144)

1. "And he will be the 2008 candidate who is remembered for doing something that can matter more than winning a party nomination or a November election, and that is changing the politics of a country that needs every new approach to altering a corrupt and dysfunctional status quo."

   And imagine...he's doing it all WITHOUT a public financing law!!!! Why...that's strange?!?!?

   Speaking of "money bomb" days...

   Didn't Kucinich have one on Saturday?

   No report on his take?

   Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 10:23am

2. "Paul's campaign refers to itself as "The Ron Paul Revolution" and there can be no doubt any longer that it is revolutionizing the way in which grassroots fundraising plays out in American presidential campaigns."

   actually the campaign lets the grassroots make up whatever slogan they want. the revolution thing is one of many.

   here's report on pbs about dr. paul's campaign, including interviews with mr. lyman [pbs.org]

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 10:30am

3. dr. paul has some great ideas,

   but i really worry about what would happen to the environment if "the market" were left to decide.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 10:31am

4. Paul is like the anti-Gore: he is in favor of drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, wants the removal of the Department of Energy,he also voted against implementing portions of the Kyoto Protocol that are already allowed under law. So yea...don't think Paul has hugged any trees lately.

   Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 10:48am

5. Been a red blooded patriotic American all my life, but I'm very disturbed by the unwillingness of average GOP republican's to recognize the depth to which Marxism is institutionalized into the Federal Government. Most of the Communist agenda has been implemented and is fully accepted and supported by Citizens of The United States of America. The American peoples are good, but they have been deceived. They falsely believe they are free when in fact they are slaves, for we live in a defacto Communist State. We toil all our lives for debt instruments only to enrich the world banking elite while being subjected to the humiliation of a progressive income tax. We work all our lives to build our business, and when we pass away the USG confiscates half of our estates. No longer do we hold allodial title to our lands; instead we are allowed to have use of our property so long as we please the government. Every aspect of our economy is controlled through some facet of labyrinthine Federal and State regulations. All mass media save the Net is in the service of our self-proclaimed masters. We live in a country where the planks of the Communist Manifesto are implemented. Our governments dance to the tune of special interests even some that are foreign. http://www.greaterthings.com/Constitution/Associates/10Marx_planks.htm But there is hope for America. Dr. Ron Paul will if elected President of these United States of America roll back the institutional Marxism endemic to the Federal Government. He is a man of honor and means what he says. This is why the powers that be so fear him. When I see my political party kow-towing to the philosophy of dialectical materialism, I am ashamed to admit I am a Republican. But Dr. Ron Paul makes me proud to be in the GOP. His common sense views are right for America, for his views will rescue the United States from the dustbin of history. And that is surely where we are headed if anyone other than Paul gets the Grand OLE Party nomination to run for President. Only Paul can beat Hillary or Obama. Why would anyone choose democrat light when they can have the real deal? So it will go in a general election where any Republican other than Ron Paul versus Hillary or Obama. I say this because the only true conservative in the GOP field is Ron Paul. Small government, sound money, no more income tax, non-interventionist foreign policy, riddance of Federal regulations, individual Liberty, States Rights, and strictly construing the Constitution are the epitome of what conservatism and Ron Paul are really all about.

   Posted by RBumbalough at 12/17/2007 @ 10:59am

6. Posted by JRO555 12/17/2007 @ 10:48am

   Well, unlike Gore, atleast he's out there RUNNING.

   Who said "Democracy is for those who show up"?

   Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 11:02am

7. Posted by RBUMBALOUGH 12/17/2007 @ 10:59am

   but what about mercury in the air?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 11:04am

8. Posted by RBUMBALOUGH 12/17/2007 @ 10:59am

   Sitting behind the "Golden EIB microphone" are you, Mr. Bumbalough?

   LOL!

   Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 11:05am

9. Mr. Nichols: I hope you are right. I am realistic about Paul's chances, but he (and Kucinich) are the only two pols running this year who actually have ideas, and it is refreshing to see that there is such a broad base of support for his candidacy.

   Whatever my disagreements with Paul on certain points of policy, he is an honest man, and the country needs such men at this point.

   Posted by jkp1187 at 12/17/2007 @ 11:08am

10. Great synopsis Mr. Nichols! Thanks for covering a movement which is otherwise ignored by the Old Media.

    Posted by DelafieldGuy at 12/17/2007 @ 11:09am

11. "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man." And "The Woman." A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it." - Dr. Ron Paul from the "Ron Paul Political Report",1992. ::: Apparently Paul isn't just xenophobic, he's racist too.

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 11:12am

12. On the Democratic side, Obama is the grassroots fundraising champion!

    Although Obama does not share Ron Paul's radical conservative agenda, he is able to raise a lot of grassroots money because, like Paul's backers, Obama supporters recognize that Barack is the best hope for meaningful change from Washington politics as usual, a change that has a real chance of improving the state of the country.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 11:32am

13. Giuliani hiccups, Romney gets a new barber, Huckabee says the sun is shinning, Clinton, Obama or Edwards spars with a snide remark and it's at least 3 days of headlines.

    Almost 120,000 Americans backed Ron Paul with over $18 million of their own money (NOT lobbyists, NOT big business)....and the best that MSM can muster is a couple of sentences on a back page or a one liner about the $6mil in donations in one day squeezed in between interviews with 'leading' candidates.

    The PEOPLE are the story. They've been shafted by the government and now are getting more of the same from the media.

    Posted by Mair at 12/17/2007 @ 11:36am

14. I really worry about the environment if Ron Paul isn't elected President. The government, and especially the military, is the biggest polluter of all! Ron Paul wants to downsize both. And Ron Paul wouldn't allow anyone in his adminstration to take bribes from the polluting corporations! Ron Paul would appoint federal judges who would enforce private property rights. If someone pollutes your property you could sue, get them to stop, and receive compensation. That compensation would make it so expensive to pollute that the polluters would stop polluting. Lastly, think of all the depleted uranium that won't be expoding all over Iraq any more!

    Posted by homeschoolmom at 12/17/2007 @ 11:49am

15. Ron Paul, $6 million dollar man. Fear him. Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason. Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation. Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title): http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

    Posted by Reader11722 at 12/17/2007 @ 11:50am

16. "Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable...." Dr. Ron Paul, "Ron Paul Political Report", 1992. :::: another gem!! maybe this is why prominent white supremacists such as Don Black and David Duke are Paul supporters and contributors.

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 11:53am

17. In Re: Ron Paul's stance on the environment,this is a good source:

    http://greenpieceblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/ron-pauls-environmental-q.htm l

    Posted by Sigismundo at 12/17/2007 @ 12:07pm

18. jomamma- if you take his story to be true. He may have made that up in a way to justify his own hate. Either way, such inflammatory remarks bodes ill for a presidential contender, I would think. You don't write off an entire race of people because of one ill-mannered toddler in the stroller.

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 12:11pm

19. Posted by RBUMBALOUGH 12/17/2007 @ 10:59am

    Wow. What a freak show.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 12/17/2007 @ 12:18pm

20. Posted by DELAFIELDGUY 12/17/2007 @ 11:09am

    Posted by MAIR 12/17/2007 @ 11:36am

    Posted by HOMESCHOOLMOM 12/17/2007 @ 11:49am

    Posted by READER11722 12/17/2007 @ 11:50am

    Lotta newbies today?

    Paul'ines Google the Good Doctor and log on to "TN" to promote him?

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 12:26pm

21. "sounds like the parents of the black kid in the cart are the racists.."

    Posted by JOMAMMA 12/17/2007 @ 11:56am

    Yep. Sounds that way to me too.

    Also sounds like, assuming this anecdote was true, anyone who would utter the phrase, "Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it." , is far to clueless about the culture that surrounds him to ever lead it.

    Posted by Malcontent at 12/17/2007 @ 12:30pm

22. Ron Paul Political Report 1992 comments were written by a staffer who was then fired.

    Posted by edw987 at 12/17/2007 @ 12:33pm

23. So, Jomamma, am I to understand that you agree that black people are "terrorists"?? How about this quote, how do you feel about this: "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Dr. Ron Paul, same news letter from '92. How is one 13 yr old different from another? Are we to start prosecuting people by their upbringing rather than their actions? by the color of their skin?

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 12:36pm

24. "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around....They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but the campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.' " - Texas Observer in 2001. Is this what you are referring to edw987??

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 12:38pm

25. Posted by JRO555 12/17/2007 @ 11:12am

    "What we need is awareness, we can't get careless." Ron Paul has a little "Fear of a Black Planet"? I'd question anyone talking about a "revolution", who can't appreciate Chuck D.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2007 @ 12:49pm

26. And again, the Estate Tax touches virtually NOONE. In fact, some would say the Estate Tax is one of the few instruments in tax law that wholly serves the interest of most Americans.

    Posted by ZERO 12/17/2007 @ 12:24pm

    You're talking Federal, Zero. Your State government will whack you first, with a much lower threshold that effects ALOT more people. Fundamentally unjust taxation that taxes that which has already been taxed.

    Posted by Sliver at 12/17/2007 @ 1:00pm

27. "Fear of a Black Planet"?

    I much prefer "Fear of a Blank Planet". Check out Porcupine Tree on iTunes. Great stuff.

    Posted by Sliver at 12/17/2007 @ 1:02pm

28. I have been receiving the Ron Paul newsletter for about 2 years now and am a member of a Connecticut meet-up group. I talk him up to anyone who will listen. The first response from most people is that he will never win. Poor excuse for not voting for him. I think you have to cast your vote by using you head and knowing you are contributing to the greater good.

    Posted by Sinatra at 12/17/2007 @ 1:03pm

29. I know of nothing that discredits the anti-war movement more than its flirtation with Ron Paul. I think, like a lot of people, that the war is most pressing issue (though not necessarily the most important)That doesn't make it the only issue. Are you a woman, an ethnic minority, or outside the highest income tax bracket? Ron Paul would like to make your life immesuarable worse. And even the rich have some reason to be afraid, since Paul wants to put us back on the gold standard. (not that the rich don't like deflation, but that rapid an economic contraction would destroy the economy.) His ideas are pathetic. There is a perfectly intellectually respectable version of libertarianism (I would encourage people to read Robert Nozick's classic book 'Anarchy, Utopia, and State' if they already haven't, for an example), but Paul, who wants the state to take a position on whether a fetus is a person, doesn't hold to that kind of libertarianism.

    As for his fundraising, it looks good compared to other Republicans because this is the year that corporate America decided that the Democrats were going to win, and so the normal fundraising superiority is gone. Compare Paul to Clinton and Obama and you see how difficult it still is for candidates not approved by corporate donors and corporate media to compete.

    And I love it when people who have never read much Marx talk about how we are going Communist. Marx was an anarchist (I think the favored term is anarcho-syndicalist). Most of his writing concerns how the revolution gets here, but when he did talk about how things would be afterward he envisioned no state (since according to him that was just a committee for the ruling class), and also a pretty individualistic society (at least people got to pick what work they did). Unworkable and pollyanish. You betcha. Anything like what we have now? No way.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 1:05pm

30. Someone tell me just what has this republikkkin done for the people? Just voting no is not an accomplishment, what bills have he got through the congress? Who has his efforts ever helped?? And what does it mean "libertarian"? This is a fake candidate just like perot and nader. this guy is sucking up money and fame with no message other than he will vote no.!! We do not need a religion and we do not need the AMA to be running things..is he for health care or is he another AMA plant? Does he want to continue the bush family robery of our rights by going back to the constitution and making us relive the battles of abortion and equal rights? Don't fall for another republikkkin in office.

    Posted by whiteyward at 12/17/2007 @ 1:10pm

31. Oh no, money that gets taxed twice. Whatever shall we do silver? I mean look at our income. Not only do we get income tax, but every time I use it I get a sales tax. The estate tax is a one off tax, but the sales tax is where brothers in justice like ourselves need to be looking. I just won $80 dollars in a football pool, and can you believe that I will be taxed on every purchase I intend to make with that eighty dollars? It is disgusting. Every time you get taxed you should be able to take the dollars left over and put a big red stampt on them that says 'already taxed bub' so that the taxman knows to stay away.

    That way our government can collapse and all you free market partisans will get to see what survival of the fittest really means.

    In all seriousness, in case I missed something, what is the problem supposed to be that money gets taxed numerous times? I am made to stop at stoplights several times a day, and the repitition of that restriction of my perfect liberty doesn't seem to make the restriction worse (or even bad). The government needs money and it takes it at different times. Is it somehow more just for them to take it all at once? If the government calculated for each person the taxes they would have paid throughout their life, and presented the bill when they die, would that be more just (abstracting from how terribly inefficient and moronic that would be)? The government doesn't make a promise every time it taxes you to the effect that 'this is the last time'. No reasonable person would expect it to be.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 1:17pm

32. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 1:17pm

    Can I borrow your car every other weekend? If not, why not. We've at least been somewhat introduced. You'd rather send almost half your money to people you haven't met, and haven't stated what their using it for?

    Posted by Sliver at 12/17/2007 @ 1:27pm

33. their = they're

    Posted by Sliver at 12/17/2007 @ 1:27pm

34. jomamma- sure, hold parents accountable, I agree. but why does Paul make a distinction between regular 13 yr olds and "black male 13 yr olds"?? he goes on to state that since this black male 13 yr old was raised on the streets, he's therefore an adult- who's fault is that? the parents? the government? society? Is it his own fault, this 13 year old, for being neglected and maligned and therefore living on the streets and engaging in criminal behavior? why should he be tried as an adult because of his poor up-bringing? a 13 yr old is a 13 yr old, period, and they should all be tried and held accountable in the same way. Paul makes a distinction, based on color and class, and that is what I find objectionable.

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 1:32pm

35. Posted by JOMAMMA 12/17/2007 @ 11:56am

    I think this black kid story was made up and passed on to Ron Paul so he can use it to the "angry white men" crowd. If you saw the movie, "Betrayed", it showed a "true" story of an FBI agent who went deep undercover and became part of a KKK family. In Betrayed, it was clear that babies were raised to hate non-whites, so maybe Ron Paul should urge his followers to see this movie and then reflect on the "story" they were told about the black kid.

    If you look at Ron Paul's policies, they are right out of a John Birch Society meeting about the evils of government and their non-white surrogates that want to create a "new world order" of world government and world religion. It is all about hate of those who look different and have different culture than "White mountain culture" in the US.

    So anyone who is attracted to Ron Paul, should go attend a John Birch Society meeting and then decide if their view is really the America you want. I think most people will be repulsed by this experience and see Ron Paul for what he really is - a John Bircher.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 1:32pm

36. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 1:05pm

    Dentedpat,

    You keep spreading false information that Clinton AND Obama are approved by corporate America and this is why they are able to raise more money than Edwards. This may be the case with Clinton, but Obama, like Edwards, does not take money from registered lobbyists or PACS, and nearly all of his money has been raised by small multiple $20 donations, like Ron Paul.

    If Edwards really is the anti-corporate warrior that he claims to be, why can't he raise the same level of grassroots money as Obama, let alone Ron Paul?

    The reason Edwards can't do it, is because he is considered to be a phony, a DLC centrist in the senate when this was thought to be the ticket to the White House (e.g., Bill Clinton), and now a populist progressive when the DLC has fallen out of favor.

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 1:42pm

37. Posted by SIGISMUNDO 12/17/2007 @ 12:07pm

    well, if this is dr. paul's stance on the environment:

    "Page Not Found

    The requested URL was not found on this server. Please visit the Blogger homepage or the Blogger Knowledge Base for further assistance."

    we's in trouble!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 1:42pm

38. Lotta newbies today?

    Paul'ines Google the Good Doctor and log on to "TN" to promote him?

    Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 12:26pm

    watch the video i linked to above.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 1:44pm

39. Posted by JOMAMMA 12/17/2007 @ 1:49pm

    YOU may not see Ron Paul as a John Bircher, but they see him as one of their own!

    http://www.jbs.org/

    Posted by Metteyya at 12/17/2007 @ 2:00pm

40. well jomamma, despite your sentiments, the fact remains that Paul takes a persons ethnicity into account, especially if you are a 13 yr old black male.

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 2:11pm

41. dr. paul's environmental stances are "lacking":

    http://www.lcv.org/images/client/pdfs/LCV_2006_Scorecard_final.pdf

    30% lifetime score from the league of conservation voters. these folks study this stuff, so i'll trust them more than somebody's 1/2 hour on google.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 2:14pm

42. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 1:05pm

    The difference, of course, is that Ron Paul is responding to a historical situation and Nozick was engaged in a thought experiment.

    Take your fetus example, his bill appears to be geared toward preventing judicial review at the federal level of state-level abortion policies. To my mind it is like the GNU Public License (GPL), using the standard conception of law and reinterpreting it to achieve a particular end.

    The end Ron Paul has is to both enable states to restrict abortion and give states more power through the use of a federal law. It's not consistent from an libertarian perspective focused on individuals, but it may be an effective approach to limiting federal powers.

    Interesting you also bring Marx into the discussion because it is Marx's method that effectively prevents his desired end (which may also be a criticism we could make of Ron Paul). Centralizing and increasing the power of the state is not the means toward bringing about a stateless society - just as making a federal law to stop the encrouchment of federal powers is ultimately reenforcing the notion of states being granted rights at a federal level.

    Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 1:17pm

    The problem is threefold. If I pay tax on my income, for Social Security, sales tax, property taxes and every other tax and I'm left with less that half of what I've earned, I want to know why government thinks it is a partner in my labor that deserves half of what I make, what am I getting in return for this partnership, and what kind of say do I have in how this money is spent?

    If the answer to those questions is because we have the guns, you'll get what we decide to give you and you have no say - unless you want to contribute big to my re-election campaign, I'd say there is a fundamental problem in our "democracy". Don't you think?

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2007 @ 2:16pm

43. JRO555, Ron Paul never said or wrote those words. A staffer did and it was printed in his newsletter. He never saw it (name one publisher of a newspaper that reads every single issue) and it went to print. That staffer was fired shortly thereafter.

    In fact, Ron Paul said at a minority-based debate earlier (that none of the "top tier" candidates would even attend, that changing the drug laws so they are more equitable would save many minority families whose parents are in jail for victimless crimes.

    Stop with your disinformation.

    Posted by peterson553 at 12/17/2007 @ 2:21pm

44. Good...the idiots at the last UN meeting in Bali will accomplish the same thing...nothing...only spending bushels of our money doing it.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 12/17/2007 @ 1:50pm

    *sigh*

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 2:29pm

45. "Sanctity of Life Act of 2007. H.R. 2597, 2007-06-06 (formerly H.R. 1094, 2007-02-15), originally H.R. 776, 2005-02-10. Defines human life as beginning from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade" - bills supported by Ron Paul. Tell me- if the federal law says human life begins from conception, how then can abortion be legal in any state?? It sounds to me that Ron Paul is pro-life through and through, it wants it to be so on a national level.

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 2:31pm

46. DENTEDPAT, Ron Paul's intention is to trump federal law with the Constitution by returning rights to the states, not to force state's rights using federal law.

    As for Marxism being brought up, both parties have indeed been taken over by Marxists. These are the bankers and usury system referred to as Kapitalism, where we all work collectively for the elite who expend no effort for their wealth and instead ride on our backs like a parasite.

    With our social and medical programs - neither of which really help the vast majority of people as well as the favored tax treatment of the wealthy, you see pronounced Marxist attitudes.

    The government is not good at nor should be the director of the fruits of our labor.

    Ron Paul is spot on with his views and quite honestly the international revolution espoused by Karl Marx and his bolsheviks was anything but a revolution for the people, as attested by the millions of peasants, native Russians (those who brought this program to Russia were NOT natives, like those who brought it to America were not natives), Christians, Jews and many others killed in Russia by the international communists.

    Theirs is a group of egoist intellectuals who feel they are better suited to direct our economies and social programs better than anyone else, which is why they have systematically been destroying it, to prove that a free market doesn't work.

    THEY are the reason it's failing and they will also attempt to "save us" from ourselves.

    Read up on Russia in the mid to late teens of the last century. Note the goals and names of those pushing for international communism.

    Oh and they aren't gone; in fact, the wall falling wasn't the end of communism but rather the cohesion of it joining with the west.

    Posted by peterson553 at 12/17/2007 @ 2:36pm

47. Peterson, my disinformation?? perhaps you would like to give the name of said staffer and when he was fired? would you like to elaborate on the quote above, where Paul still claims responsibility for the article and news letter, no mention of an apology? ::Posted by JRO555 12/17/2007 @ 12:38pm | ignore this person:: and what of Don Black and David Duke of Stormfront Radio... why would these self professed racists chose Paul as their candidate?

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 2:41pm

48. "In fact, Ron Paul said at a minority-based debate earlier (that none of the "top tier" candidates would even attend, that changing the drug laws so they are more equitable would save many minority families whose parents are in jail for victimless crimes" - peterson:: did he also mention he is opposed to the Civil Rights Act and voted against its renewal?

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 2:44pm

49. Good...the idiots at the last UN meeting in Bali will accomplish the same thing...nothing...only spending bushels of our money doing it.

    Posted by JOMAMMA 12/17/2007 @ 1:50pm

    I'm guessing that FROSTY enjoyed that little dose of Global Warming that we experienced this past weekend.

    Posted by Sliver at 12/17/2007 @ 2:49pm

50. I'm guessing that FROSTY enjoyed that little dose of Global Warming that we experienced this past weekend.

    Posted by SLIVER 12/17/2007 @ 2:49pm

    i was waiting for THAT one.

    two years ago, my city broke a seasonal snowfall record.

    temps were still above normal, though.

    i'm sure many cancer patients wake up and have a great day. the problem is tomorrow.

    it's not global warming. it's global climate f*ck up.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 2:58pm

51. Mett,

    There are ways of getting corporate money besides PACS and lobbyists. Plus it is not true that Obama doesn't take any money from PACS and lobbyists. It is a smallish amount though.

    This is where he gets his money:

    http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

    Silver, And you think the only reason we have duties to the government is because we are acquainted with it? If you were my friend I would lend you my car. If I thought I had a moral duty towards you that required lending my car, I hope (but cannot, sadly, predict with certainy) that I would do it. As long as the government is the best way to help the sick and needy, I think, ceteris peribus, we have a duty to pay taxes. My question though is why is something being taxed twice worse than once. You seem to be arguing now that being taxed at all is not ok. I can at least understand why people think that. I disagree though.

    SrJenkins, Thoughtful response, thank you.

    1. With regards to the rights covered under Rawls' first principle of justice Nozick wasn't involved in thought experiments. He thought it followed straightforwardly from a Kantian conception for and justification of rights that rights to privacy were inviolate. He did use all sorts of extremely inventive thought experiments elsewhere though (Wilt Chamberlain, the experience machine, etc. The guy was a genius.)

    2. I don't know all the abortion jurisprudence well, but what I know of Roe v. Wade is that if Congress enacts a statute saying that fetus' are persons, then Roe no longer protects abortion rights. The basic argument, as I remember it, is that there is a privacy interest on the mother's part, and the court did not see itself as fit to weigh in on whether or not there were any interests on the fetus' part. I think Blackburn explicitly left it to the Congress to say something about that if it would. My guess is that if it is statutorily established that fetus' are persons then abortion is no longer constitutionally protected. After all how could the court say a privacy right overrules a right to life? They would have to overturn the statute saying that fetus's are persons, and I am not sure how they would do it.

    3. I think you are confusing federalism of an extreme variety with libertarianism. Making state governemnts more powerful with respect to an issue, and the federal government less doesn't make things better for a libertarian. You still have state coercive force being applied in an area where, they say, the right to self-determiniation and privacy is inviolate. Paul might be acting like a good federalist in offering the 'fetus is person' statute, but he isn't being a good libertarian, in any sense.

    4. Marx never suggested concentrating power in the government. That was Lenin with his vanguard party nonsense.

    5. I don't think you have to take yourself to be in a partnership with the government (though it is the case that you could not engage in any of the commercial activities you do without government providing background institutions and police protection). I think, and here I am diverting from most philosophical liberals, that there are certain moral duties that we get to force each other to fulfill, and that government is the best way to do that. I think we have moral duties to help other human beings in material need (unless they are pederasts or something like that). I don't think we have similarly strong moral right to all the property we acquire fairly (not that I think most of the wealthy have their property fairly. Interestingly enough, neither does Nozick. People always forget about what a radical change he was suggesting when he said the government has a duty to rectify all known past offenses. One word: Slavery).

    Peterson, I am not sure you know that Marx was anti-capitalist. Marx would not have endorsed a revolution in Russia in the first place (since it never fully industrialized prior to 1917) and would not have supported the Soviet state. Marx is wrong for all sorts of reasons. You have to do some reading to find out what they are though. The USSR's massive moral and economic failures do not accrue to Marx.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 3:21pm

52. FROSTY ZOOM wrote:

    "but i really worry about what would happen to the environment if "the market" were left to decide."

    It is about understanding property rights. If my neighbor dumps garbage onto my lawn, I sue the crap out of him and get compensated. If my neighbor pollutes my air or water etc, I do likewise. I agree with Mr. Paul's environmental positions and am the most enthusiastic environmentalists you will ever meet.

    MASK wrote: "Sitting behind the "Golden EIB microphone" are you, Mr. Bumbalough?"

    I believe that the "Golden EIB microphone" is Rush Limbaugh's, and since everything Mr. Bumbalough wrote is 100% opposite the neocon Bush-worshiping crap espoused by Rush, I have no idea what Mask's point is.

    Posted by mwaynebennett at 12/17/2007 @ 3:23pm

53. Republicans and Libertarians equal Hoover blankets. We tried Laissez-faire capitalism before, it didn't work. Why should we tread over ground that we already covered?

    Posted by Dethtol at 12/17/2007 @ 3:23pm

54. Again I misread, I think SrJenkins meant to be agreeing to what I wrote under number 2.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 3:24pm

55. So MWayneBennett who do we sue about Global Warming? And who do we sure when polar bears go extinct? Do we get to sue about overfishing? And who owns the air in Los Angeles? Renting an apartment sure doesn't give you a peice of that pie, so who do you sue when your kid gets asthma?

    You are not the most enthusiastic environmentalist I have ever met.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 3:26pm

56. Marx would not have endorsed a revolution in Russia in the first place (since it never fully industrialized prior to 1917) and would not have supported the Soviet state. Marx is wrong for all sorts of reasons. You have to do some reading to find out what they are though. The USSR's massive moral and economic failures do not accrue to Marx.----Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 3:21pm

    All debatedly true, but what's interesting is the small number of present-day "Marxists" who know and understand that as well.

    For instance, all attempts at a Marxist Revolution in an FULLY INDUSTRIALIZED state (the kind Marx predicted would be the ones to alter to his political theory)...haven't worked. While the "Marxist revolutions" of the 20th Century occurred in agrarian, minimally industrialized nations (Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.)

    SO the conflation is not merely on the Right but on the Left, who continually imagine a "workers' paradise" springing up in some industrially deficient nation...where Marx would have never predicted one. Or who keep hoping that their own (American, European) industrialized nation will become "so corrupt that Marxist revolution will become the only option"...and are constantly disappointedd (from the 1900s Marxists to today).

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 3:33pm

57. I fully understand the fears many of us harbor concerning Ron Paul's stance on the environment. After many hours of reflection, I have realized that my concerns have more to do with my own laziness, than Dr. Paul's position. I think a lot of us "tree huggers" just want someone to do the hard work for us: make and international law, enforce it, save the world. What I have learned from participating in the "Ron Paul Revolution" is that grass roots politics and grass roots environmentalism are one in the same: hard work. As environmentalists, we should learn from the Ron Paul movement and work at a state level to fix our local environments. If we were all active on a local level: forcing corporations to obey environmental laws ALREADY on the books, draft local and state wide environmental programs, educate the youth, we would be much more effective. The Ron Paul Revolution has taught us to not wait for some glad-hander in Washington to effect change, but to take responsibility for our own lives and environment. After all, we only have ourselves to blame for how far we have let our environmental priorities slide.

    Posted by rjhulsy at 12/17/2007 @ 3:34pm

58. JRO555, regarding Don Black, he was also used by the Bush aadministration in Florida, a person brought in to heckle the dems on stage, so these people are brought in to the fray whenever it's needed and perhaps many know that Ron Paul's ideas could easily be smashed to bits by inserting a bigot here and there - it's been known to happen before, so his "support" would not surprise me since he has been a tool used by neocons in the past.

    As for David Duke or anyone else, to support someone doesn't mean that person supports you back. Ron Paul doesn't acknowledge groups, group membership or group think; each man stands on his own laurels (or lack thereof) with his own preferences and choices. That said, if a white supremacist or neo-nazi or anyone else chooses to support Ron Paul, he would be a hypocrite if he rejected them based on their group membership. That would be discrimination as well.

    Why would they choose him? Because he is least likely than other candidates to make decisions based on group identification (whether gay, black, hispanic, white, Jewish, evangelical, etc.), which is what most people do to get THEIR beliefs through to law.

    That's why Ron Paul stands out - he doesn't cowtow to republican "group think" and instead marches to the beat of a different drummer. He can't be used by minorities, women, religious zealots or any specific religious group really, large corporations - since he doesn't side with any group whatsoever, no group can hope to influence his policy if it resides outside the Constitution. Ron Paul sees individuals as he looks out at his supporters unlike most other candidates who only see people they can pander to, each one trying to get a piece of the pie for them and theirs.

    As for the words put in his mouth, he took responsibility for something a staffer printed in his newsletter. It was not his words, it was not even his style of writing but it was in his newsletter so he took responsibility (too bad nobody else does that in politics). How could he apologize for something that he did not write or say?

    He did fire the staffer so I am looking for that reference - hopefully I'll find it shortly (I recall reading about it in October).

    Posted by peterson553 at 12/17/2007 @ 3:37pm

59. Posted by MWAYNEBENNETT 12/17/2007 @ 3:23pm

    Look, MWAYNE, like the rest of the Paulies who just "suddenly" showed up to defend Dr. Paul...I realize that you'll just as suddenly vanish after your work here is done, but happy to answer...

    my jab at BUMBALOUGH was based on (A) His name. "R BUMBALOUGH"...reminescent of R LIMBAUGH? (B) His rant on "Communism in the American government" (Maybe a ref to "General Jack Ripper" would be more appropos?) and (C) His rant, with no breaks for ease of reading...much as you'd suppose Limbaugh would if he were to go off here at "The Nation".

    We now return to the "Ron Paul Cavalcade of One Day Newbie Posters"....

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 3:39pm

60. You seem to be assuming that the laws on the books, after 8 years of Bush, are sufficient to adequately protect the environment. I will let that pass. Two points though.

    1. Ron Paul will, if he gets his way remove the laws currently on the books.

    2. There are global environmental problems (global warming, overfishing). It takes time for all the hard work grassroots organizers do to show any results, and that is even on a local scale. A grassroots solution to global warming would involve a global grassroots movement. As unions how easy it is to organize anything globally without government help. This is fantasy land. There are people who are doing things in this world which will kill millions of people in the next generation. They will not change unless they no longer make money doing it, or unless they have a gun to their head. So why would you suggest not using the organization with the most guns?

    (Ok that last part was written just to make libertarians cringe.)

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 3:42pm

61. Posted by RJHULSY 12/17/2007 @ 3:34pm | :: ok seriously, this is ridiculous. You Paul supporters will say anything, make any obscure analogy or connection just to tag on "vote ron paul 2008" at the end.

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 3:53pm

62. JRO555, he is opposed to the Civil Rights act because our rights come from our creator, not man; in fact, is it not true that what man provides man may also take away?

    Man can't touch my creator-provided rights. No man. Nowhere.

    By him disagreeing with "civil rights" doesn't mean he doesn't believe anyone should have rights (just like him not believing in government-funded stem cell research doesn't mean he doesn't believe in said research - just that it should be paid for with federal funds).

    Do you want a life where man dictates your rights? That is an awfully slippery slope.

    Posted by peterson553 at 12/17/2007 @ 4:00pm

63. Mask, I just took you off ignore, and I get rewarded with a very reasonable post. I think you are correct about the general lack of understanding about Marx.

    And I think there are good reasons the revolution doesn't happen in industrialized states. As big industry rises so do unions and community groups that oppose them in certain ways. They place pressure on the government to regulate the industries and the economy, and then Marx's dire predictions about the stability of global capitalism are falsified.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 4:18pm

64. "Man can't touch my creator-provided rights. No man. Nowhere."- peterson. And who is this creator?? are you speaking of "God"? What if I don't believe in "God"? and what "rights" do you refer to? life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness?? I'm not entirely sure I follow you.

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 4:19pm

65. Posted by PETERSON553 12/17/2007 @ 4:00pm

    Interesting theological point.

    SO...if there IS no God, or "God" is a being unconcerned with the rights of Man...

    does that mean we don't have any?

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 4:20pm

66. Maybe a more convincing response to peterson's silly excuse is to ask where in the Civil Rights Act it specifies whether or not the Creator gave us those rights.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 4:21pm

67. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 4:18pm

    Well, first, glad to be back...though I'm sure I'll say something soon to put me back on Ignore. Remember what Steinam said, "The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off!".

    Second, again, what's remarkable is the lack of comprehension of Marx...by those who most ardently say they support his teachings. (A) That he was dead-wrong about which nations would give rise to the proletariat revolution...and (B) that he was incapable of seeing effecitve and workable COMPROMISE (i.e. Rooseveltian ((Both TR and FDR)) reform, union power, classic US/European liberalism).

    So in real terms of application, Marxism fails...and in real terms of PREDICTION, it failed.

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 4:23pm

68. You are on a role Mask. A real role. I would like to interject with a claim about Marx's virtues. At the time it was pretty advanced economics, and I think without direct government intervetion the trend towards monopolization and increasingly extreme business cycles probably would have continued as he predicted it (the trend towards larger unemployment seems silly no matter how you look at it). Also, class analysis of institutions like religion and government still seems a viable approach to social science to me, and I am not aware of anyone who did that before Marx.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 4:27pm

69. He's going to end the drug war, aka the war against minorities and low income whites. From my perspective as a black man, that's the most important positive step that the government can take towards improving our collective standing as a black community.

    Also, he's going to do a $5000 tax credit for my kid's education, so I can actually afford to send my children to private school (they're currently being home schooled by my wife, because their government mandated "desegregated school" (read: barely any white kids because they all go to private school or live in rich suburbs) has a less than 40% pass rate for 4th grade math and language arts tests). 5 grand a year = they get to go to the white kids school and actually get a good education.

    So believe me when I say that I don't give even a slight hint of a damn if he said what he said about black people. He's going to do the things that will actually allow, and not specifically hinder, black people to raise ourselves to a standard we can be proud of.

    Posted by ahfornes at 12/17/2007 @ 4:36pm

70. Republicans and Libertarians equal Hoover blankets. We tried Laissez-faire capitalism before, it didn't work. Why should we tread over ground that we already covered?

    Posted by DETHTOL 12/17/2007 @ 3:23pm

    Ok. .....then why are always faced with more socialistic horseshit constantly renamed, now it is "progressive" and the religion is "Global Climate", when both are a rehash to get into tax payers wallets...for the ah, common good..that doesn't work..even the Russians and Chinese are dumping it faster than the Dems are dumping Edwards..

    Posted by john maasch at 12/17/2007 @ 4:39pm

71. The six formerly REGISTERED DEMOCRATS in this household have re-registered such that we can, and will, be voting for Ron Paul.

    Posted by tucanofulano at 12/17/2007 @ 4:44pm

72. "He's going to end the drug war, aka the war against minorities and low income whites" - ahfornes- :::oh really, and how is he going to do that?? You think ending "the drug war" is going to make everything better? that people will stop abusing drugs?:: "so I can actually afford to send my children to private school (they're currently being home schooled by my wife, because their government mandated "desegregated school" (read: barely any white kids because they all go to private school or live in rich suburbs) has a less than 40% pass rate for 4th grade math and language arts tests). 5 grand a year = they get to go to the white kids school and actually get a good education." -ahfornes-::: Pardon me, but I was a student of public schools and passed with flying colors. So blaming the school system is hardly the answer- maybe its the parents who are letting down their kids? I find its the parents that are the greatest inhibitor to a child's ability, not the school system.

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 4:46pm

73. "The six formerly REGISTERED DEMOCRATS in this household have re-registered such that we can, and will, be voting for Ron Paul." Posted by TUCANOFULANO ::: awww well isn't that special!! here's your trophy, oh and a cookie!!

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 4:47pm

74. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 3:21pm

    Excellent response. Couple of comments.

    1. Nozick never had to run his hypothetical state. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is thinking of applying his ideas to a particular state in a particular historical circumstance - the latter provides some limitations that have to be contended with.

    2. Ron Paul is positioning it as a move toward state's rights and not legislating it at a federal level. How it works out in reality, I think might be different (perhaps like you describe it) and that people that favor abortion are rightly concerned about this possibility.

    3. I'm not confusing federalism and libertarianism. I'm thinking that a pragmatic libertarian - like Ron Paul - might argue for states rights as an intermediate goal in a move that goes federal to state to local "home rule" to - perhaps a few more intermediate steps - and then to the individual. I don't think you can jump from the kind of federalism we have now to a libertarian conception of the state without some kind of gradual progression - certainly not without some kind of revolution.

    4. What is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" , if not a concentration of government power? Proletariat become the ruling class and assume ownership and control over the means of production and centralizes it. It sounds like extension and concentration of government power to me.

    5. ...there are certain moral duties that we get to force each other to fulfill, and that government is the best way to do that.

    I can agree that there are certain moral duties that need to be fulfilled, and some of them are best fulfilled by government. The administration of justice is a good example. However, I feel differently when government is spending nearly half of all my taxes on "defense" spending in the form of conducting wars, torturing people, defense related debt and veteran's benefits that collectively, support what are essentially immoral activities.

    Which brings us to the issue that we have no control over how our contribution is spent or that it is spent for the purposes it is austensibly justified in collecting taxes in the first place - contributing toward fulfilling our collective moral responsibilities. If it doesn't do that, then the justification isn't there.

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2007 @ 4:49pm

75. I will admit that I am a newer name on the nation boards...but I have been a longtime observer and know all the usuals. The influx of new names here is obvious and we all know the reason why. Ron Paul Parrots- erm I mean, supporters- will flock wherever their savior's name is mentioned and squawk incessantly, and usually incoherently. How is this kind of mindless mob mentality a step up from the orchestrated reporting of the MSM??

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 4:51pm

76. "You think ending "the drug war" is going to make everything better?"

    I think ending the US government's war against US citizens would be a great thing, yes.

    "that people will stop abusing drugs?"

    People are going to abuse drugs until the end of time, whether those drugs are legal or illegal. People have been abusing drugs since at least the beginning of recorded human history. The War on Drugs has really nothing at all to do with reducing drug abuse, otherwise they'd actually allocate significant funding to treatment and prevention of drug abuse. The very fact that they don't should tell you something.

    "Pardon me, but I was a student of public schools and passed with flying colors."

    Good, I'm glad you had the privilage of attending a good school. Many of us don't have that choice. Are you telling me I'm a bad person because I want my kids to have the same or similar educational opportunities as wealthy and mostly white kids?

    "maybe its the parents who are letting down their kids? I find its the parents that are the greatest inhibitor to a child's ability, not the school system."

    So what are you saying, black people don't know how to raise thier kids? Now who's the racist? :-)

    Posted by ahfornes at 12/17/2007 @ 4:56pm

77. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 4:27pm

    Well, the flaw in Marx' thinking was a fundamental problem of human psychology. He could never envision altruism on the part of the "capitalist exploiters" (yet the two men I mentioned, TR and FDR, were very wealthy, yet took on "their own side").

    Nor could he anticipate that human quality (dominant, despite even modern attempts to squelch it) that of ...AMBITION, and the desire (fantastical or reality-based, as you wish) for nearly EVERYBODY to believe that they or their children can become middle class or even rich, and to not want (despite the promises of the "class-less society") to be "just like everybody else once the Revolution comes".

    BTW, I believe the phrase is "on a roll", not "on a role". (Or is that going to get me back on Ignore??)

    Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 5:03pm

78. we are not electing a fundraiser in chief, we are electing a president. Paul is a disaster as a candidate, though like Kucinic he speaks truth to power. sometimes. ultimately they are both alsorans.

    Posted by Hondo at 12/17/2007 @ 5:07pm

79. It is about understanding property rights. If my neighbor dumps garbage onto my lawn, I sue the crap out of him and get compensated. If my neighbor pollutes my air or water etc, I do likewise.

    Posted by MWAYNEBENNETT 12/17/2007 @ 3:23pm

    what happens if you don't have the money to sue the crap out of him?

    what happens if you're a bear?

    what happens if you're a douglas fir?

    what happens if you're a glacier?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 5:11pm

80. So MWayneBennett who do we sue about Global Warming? And who do we sure when polar bears go extinct? Do we get to sue about overfishing? And who owns the air in Los Angeles? Renting an apartment sure doesn't give you a peice of that pie, so who do you sue when your kid gets asthma?

    You are not the most enthusiastic environmentalist I have ever met.

    Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 3:26pm

    dented minds think alike.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 5:19pm

81. I fully understand the fears many of us harbor concerning Ron Paul's stance on the environment. After many hours of reflection, I have realized that my concerns have more to do with my own laziness, than Dr. Paul's position. I think a lot of us "tree huggers" just want someone to do the hard work for us: make and international law, enforce it, save the world. What I have learned from participating in the "Ron Paul Revolution" is that grass roots politics and grass roots environmentalism are one in the same: hard work. As environmentalists, we should learn from the Ron Paul movement and work at a state level to fix our local environments. If we were all active on a local level: forcing corporations to obey environmental laws ALREADY on the books, draft local and state wide environmental programs, educate the youth, we would be much more effective. The Ron Paul Revolution has taught us to not wait for some glad-hander in Washington to effect change, but to take responsibility for our own lives and environment. After all, we only have ourselves to blame for how far we have let our environmental priorities slide.

    Posted by RJHULSY 12/17/2007 @ 3:34pm

    so what do YOU do when YOUR NEIGHBOUR really wants that new petrochemical plant?

    so what do you do when your neighbour drives a car that gets minus 4 mpg because he can afford it?

    of course responsibility begins at home. better said, in the heart. but ultimately it is beneficial to have some cohesion to all those little responsibilities, because,

    frankly,

    some people are dumb,

    and others,

    are very, very, greedy.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 5:26pm

82. Man can't touch my creator-provided rights. No man. Nowhere.

    Posted by PETERSON553 12/17/2007 @ 4:00pm

    my parents created me. i bet they had fun.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 5:31pm

83. Posted by AHFORNES 12/17/2007 @ 4:56pm:: ahfornes, you made this racial in your very first post, by proclaiming yourself as black. I don't feel any need at all to declare my ethnicity or color of my skin. "The War on Drugs has really nothing at all to do with reducing drug abuse, otherwise they'd actually allocate significant funding to treatment and prevention of drug abuse."- ahfornes:: and is this Paul's plan?? where has he proposed this?? please do post it for us all to see. otherwise, he's just cutting funds and ignoring the drug problem altogether. "Good, I'm glad you had the privilage of attending a good school. Many of us don't have that choice. Are you telling me I'm a bad person because I want my kids to have the same or similar educational opportunities as wealthy and mostly white kids?" - ahfornes-:: guess what?? The school I attended was 40% black, and a great many of them graduated next to me, so I don't understand your hold up. "Your kids" have the same opportunity as every other kid in this nation, and its your hang ups holding them back, not the school system.

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 5:40pm

84. Greetings, I have for several years classified myself as an "ecological" libertarian. I have had a really hard time reconciling my two seemingly different political views, however, I have recently found that resolution. Protecting the environment does not require "big Government". We abuse the environment by having a big government that does not respect the individual. Big corporations cant thrive without big government. The IRS puts small businesses at an automatic competitative disadvantage to big business. Eminent Domain defiles the idea that the individual has rights to property, without confiscation from big government to subsidize big business. Property rights are the fundamental issue when addressing pollution. No one should have the right to pollute another individual's property, no one should be allowed to confiscate another's property, as individual private ownership of a piece of property is more likely to result in a positive and holistic stewardship of that property.

    If you think capitalism has its problems with corruption, give the power to the government, the most inherently corrupt social structure ever dreamed by mankind, and you will see true pollution the likes that have never before been seen. Big government = Big business = corruption. Ron Paul '08

    Posted by druidmystic at 12/17/2007 @ 5:53pm

85. Greetings, I have for several years classified myself as an "ecological" libertarian. I have had a really hard time reconciling my two seemingly different political views, however, I have recently found that resolution. Protecting the environment does not require "big Government". We abuse the environment by having a big government that does not respect the individual. Big corporations cant thrive without big government. The IRS puts small businesses at an automatic competitative disadvantage to big business. Eminent Domain defiles the idea that the individual has rights to property, without confiscation from big government to subsidize big business. Property rights are the fundamental issue when addressing pollution. No one should have the right to pollute another individual's property, no one should be allowed to confiscate another's property, as individual private ownership of a piece of property is more likely to result in a positive and holistic stewardship of that property.

    If you think capitalism has its problems with corruption, give the power to the government, the most inherently corrupt social structure ever dreamed by mankind, and you will see true pollution the likes that have never before been seen. Big government = Big business = corruption. Ron Paul '08

    Posted by druidmystic at 12/17/2007 @ 5:53pm

86. Posted by JRO555 12/17/2007 @ 5:40pm

    are your schools still funded by local property taxes?

    that's not such a good idea.

    if the rich get richer, smarter, and fewer,

    while the poor get poorer, dumber, and more plentiful,

    there's trouble brewing in the melting pot.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 5:55pm

87. Posted by DRUIDMYSTIC 12/17/2007 @ 5:53pm

    excuse me,

    but who owns the air?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 5:57pm

88. Mask,

    No, because you are correct. I only ignore snark that is delivered with falsehoods. I am not the best source for spelling and grammar, and admit it freely.

    As to your diagnosis of Marx's flaws, I have to disagree. I don't think of TR or FDR as altruistic. TR was explicit in his letters that he supported the positions he did as a way to prevent the more radical populists from getting their way. Woodrow Wilson said similar things. I know less about FDR's motivations, but I am more prepared to think that insightful members of the upper class generally move to the left in order to prevent a popular movement from pulling the country more to the left. FDR could reasonably be seen as a thoughtful millionare who was worried about the country sliding into Soviet style communism (I endorse the fight against Soviet sytle communism by the way, so I don't think that poorly of FDR. Also it is rare for people of reasonable intelligence to have a very simple motive in their life's work. No doubt some altruism was to be found in there. I have trouble thinking that Woodrow Wilson was good in any way, given the virulent racism, but maybe I am just mean.).

    As for ambition, Marx certainly was aware of it, but thought it was a product of the class system. Here I have to agree that he was wrong. The perfectability of mankind seems to be one of those rare enlightenment holdovers in Marx's thought. I don't think everyone is ambitious in a way that is incompatible with communal living (ala kibbutz and monasteries), but enough people are that there would have to be an apparatus for dealing with them. Plus there are just evil people who like to make others suffer. I don't see these things going away just because control of the means of production changes hands.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 6:04pm

89. It is a myth that local government and the federal government are in opposition. At least, it use to be true, before the Bush Administration. The Library Department, the Sheriff's Department, along with a representative of the Board of Supervisors, the local Community College, the school district,A representative for the Congressman,and the city council use to come together once a month for Breakfast for the local Chamber of Commerce or a show and tell meeting and a local business or Government Department. Everybody knew each other and the personal contacts helped solve problems. It is my view that governments, local or national, do not have rights,but people have rights.

    Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/17/2007 @ 6:20pm

90. frosty- I couldn't tell you how my hometown's public schools are funded. I'd imagine its some sort of mix of federal, state, and city funds. How much from each I honestly don't know.

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 6:21pm

91. Posted by JRO555 12/17/2007 @ 6:21pm

    might be worth checking out.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 6:27pm

92. frosty- a simple google search has proved unfruitful. any other suggestions?

    Posted by jro555 at 12/17/2007 @ 7:25pm

93. Posted by JRO555 12/17/2007 @ 7:25pm

    Depends on where you live. Wikipedia states the following:

    "However, federal funding accounts for little of the overall funding schools receive. The vast majority comes from the state government and from local property taxes."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States

    Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2007 @ 7:44pm

94. Frosty...in Ohio, our public schools are largely funded by property taxes. The state Supreme Court has ruled 4 times that this is unconstitutional, but nothing has been done. Reason #427 that I don't have much faith in government at any level.

    Whoever stated that the Feds are one of the smaller contributors to PS, is true. A number that sticks with me is around $700-$800 per student (based on average per pupil funding of $10k-$12k/ year). The city and state kick in about double that of the feds, but much less than property taxes.

    You're assertion of rich/poor neighborhood funding mismatches is false. In my community, 71% of our school funding via property taxes stays in the community. The rest gets redistributed to other districts. The inner city PS's are at parity, and in some cases higher per pupil spending than the suburbs.

    Posted by Sliver at 12/17/2007 @ 8:24pm

95. People are sick-and-tired of the same-old song-and-dance from their presidents. See this new YouTube music video, a clip from the new international award-winning feature film, "Song of the Dead," featuring horror movie icon Reggie Bannister as the president of the U.S. under a "zombie terrorist" attack. It's a great satire on the president, the MSM, and the war on terror. The filmmaker, Chip Gubera, is donating a share of his profits from the film to the Ron Paul campaign.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw

    Posted by mketcher at 12/17/2007 @ 8:26pm

96. Waaah!!

    I need the GOVERNMENT to care of me! Help me, bureaucrats! I don't know what to do! When will I get my next check?

    Posted by nmatyas78 at 12/17/2007 @ 9:27pm

97. frosty- a simple google search has proved unfruitful. any other suggestions?

    Posted by JRO555 12/17/2007 @ 7:25pm

    call a neighbourhood school or better yet, school board.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 9:32pm

98. You're assertion of rich/poor neighborhood funding mismatches is false. In my community, 71% of our school funding via property taxes stays in the community. The rest gets redistributed to other districts. The inner city PS's are at parity, and in some cases higher per pupil spending than the suburbs.

    Posted by SLIVER 12/17/2007 @ 8:24pm

    then why are inner city schools in such bad shape?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 9:35pm

99. Nmat,

    Enlightened commentary. Bet that took a lot of thought to come up with. Having you as a fellow American fills me with patriotism and hope.

    Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 9:36pm

100. The fact that Ron Paul is getting so much media attention compared to Dennis Kucinich is probably because Ron Pauls devotion to the free market is more in line with the dominent orthodoxy. As to RBUMBALOUGH, his comments make little sense. How is the GOP following Dialectical Materialism? Bush is carrying out the Conservative agenda. The fact that the results have been disastrous show that Conservatism as an ideology is false.

     Posted by SeanM at 12/17/2007 @ 9:44pm

101. then why are inner city schools in such bad shape?

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/17/2007 @ 9:35pm

     You tell me, but it's not a funding issue. Which is why I support school vouchers that our Repub governor instituted and our Dem governor repealed.

     Posted by Sliver at 12/17/2007 @ 9:46pm

102. Posted by DENTEDPAT 12/17/2007 @ 6:04pm

     Well, take even the cynical view of both Roosevelts...

     it was still a situation that Marx wouldn't or couldn't forsee, and proved that his theories were incomplete at best, totally flawed at worst.

     Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 9:47pm

103. Can I ask any of the newbies here (aka Ron Paul campaign staff)...

     are you guys going to be gone soon?

     I, as a regular, like a little more variety.

     Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 9:49pm

104. FROSTY...here's a national microcosm that I found from a Toledo Blade report.

     New Jersey spent an average $12,981 per pupil in 2004 on public school education funding, which was more than any other state that year.

     New York was second with $12,930, followed by the District of Columbia with $12,801, Vermont with $11,128, and Connecticut with $10,788.

     Utah spent the least - an average $5,008 spent per pupil that year.

     Do you think Utah graduates a higher percentage of students than DC?

     Posted by Sliver at 12/17/2007 @ 9:57pm

105. I suspect the majority of the Ron Paulites here vote plenty in the Internet polls but when it comes to leaving the keyboard behind and going out to the voting booths, things will be different.

     I'd love to be wrong. I have to admit it's refreshing seeing people actually excited about candidates. I'm just too cynical I guess to believe these folks will actually vote when it would count.

     Posted by FritztheCat at 12/17/2007 @ 9:58pm

106. I suspect the majority of the Ron Paulites here vote plenty in the Internet polls but when it comes to leaving the keyboard behind and going out to the voting booths, things will be different.-----Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/17/2007 @ 9:58pm

     Uh, careful, FRTIZ....those "Internet polls" are the same ones that KUCINICH fans used to buck up THEIR candidate!

     (and "impeachment" and "Gore will run in '08" folks, mostly HSUBFOOLS, use to promote the idea that THOSE ideas are popular).

     Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 10:21pm

107. I find the Ron Paul revolution more depressing than apathy. People getting excited for good candidates is great. People getting excited for this guy just tears away more of my faith in my fellow Americans. I could at least explain apathy as a response to the poor selection of candidates and policies. Don't know what to say about Ron Paul supporters, especially those from the left.

     Posted by dentedpat at 12/17/2007 @ 10:24pm

108. Posted by SLIVER 12/17/2007 @ 9:57pm

     probably.

     education is the key, however. you can only dumb a people down so far before it becomes antagonistic to corporate "needs".

     Posted by frosty zoom at 12/17/2007 @ 10:33pm

109. Mask, I hear ya. I do put at least a little more validity to the internet polls than the telephone polls. At least the internet polls a person has to go to and actively fill out. Whereas in a phone poll, I can see folks just saying, "Yeah, whatever" so they can get the spammer off the line.

     I've read some of the Ron Paul stuff and I find him to be more scary than anything. He's got some good ideas but I don't think he's thought through the repercussions of his ideas.

     Posted by FritztheCat at 12/17/2007 @ 10:41pm

110. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 12/17/2007 @ 10:41pm

     No poll is valid that allows multiple entries. They're slightly less valid if they don't have a true "cross-section". "Fired-up" people for one candidate (Paul or Kucinich or whoever) get a disproportional vote, while there is still as strong a support for a candidate from folks just not particularly interested in whatever 'online MSNBC poll' happens to sweep the Blogosphere that day.

     I find those who use online polls are trying to push an agenda that is showing up MUCH WORSE in legitimate polling....not supplimenting such pollings.

     Posted by Mask at 12/17/2007 @ 10:58pm

111. Posted by MASK 12/17/2007 @ 10:58pm

     Representative random sampling is a better word than "cross-section" - (where the population being sampled is likely voters, U.S. population or whatever). Most polls rely on telephone surveys which already have a built in self-selection problem because some people don't respond to them at all. Online polls are even worse.

     Posted by srjenkins at 12/17/2007 @ 11:13pm

112. "then why are inner city schools in such bad shape?"

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/17/2007 @ 9:35pm | ignore this person

     If they, were not, you, could not, push charter (privatized education) schools as a solution. It would throw a monkey wrench into the whole marketing campaign. Jeez Frosty ... get with the program.

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/17/2007 @ 10:33pm | ignore this person

     I agree. Also, what you are getting is a pretty much dumbed down version of funding as well. No break down of how much goes to the producers versus consumers of education. How much goes into administrative costs, and other parts of the school bureaucracy, etc.

     There are also some interesting data that needs to be re-surfed, such as;

     90% of African American children test at or above the national average when they reach school, it's only later that the disparities (conditioning) show up.

     Above average African American children are placed in special education, while below average white children are receive advanced placement. This is a nation wide policy. (Source, 60 Minutes).

     Posted by V at 12/18/2007 @ 12:34am

113. RBUMBALOUGH ~

     Our modern corporate free market conglomeration economy is NOTHING like Marxism. It isn't even a facsimile of a dysfunctional welfare state. The only welfare this government spends too much on is protecting the welfare of it's top 1%. Billionaires pay disproportionately lower taxation rates on their wealth than we pay on our income. The insidiousness is the "free market." The free market that Ron Paul says is the end all be all of human aspiration. He touts the market as the answer to all our problems. Abolishing all estate taxes is a throwback to feudalism and entitlement. When people are worth 70 billion dollars and you decide their estates can be transfered tax free, you're talking about a transfer of empire without even a hint of oversight.

     Our constitution isn't our glory. It's a piece of hemp paper that the men who wrote hoped would pave the way for "all men are created equal" eventually...however this constitution was so weak that slavery, genocide, and rampant poverty were the American way for generations.

     How easily we forget "robber barons" "monopolies" "entitlement" "the gilded age" "the market crash."

     I'm so sick of right wing people throwing the word communist and marxist around without even a faint idea of the grotesque propaganda, genocide, illegal assassinations, etc etc of our Capitalist Empire. We are so not marxist. Workers have no protections. We've lost everything. The state IS the rich and the elite. The state IS the puppet of the rich and elite. The state is NOT bankrupting millionaires. The rich have never been richer than in today's USA.

     You sir need to redefine your terms and seriously get a grip on the cold hard fact of reality: marxism is dead, capitalism is destroying the air, the water, the land, the people, freedom, and democracy.

     The unregulated inexhaustible thirst for wealth is what's destroying this nation.

     And Ron Paul is very much a part of the right wing elitist instrumentation. His is an America of dogged exploitation and xenophobia.

     His is an America without minimum wage, consumer taxes on everything with almost no consumer protections, no safety net for the deregulated market which thinks nothing of slashing pays, pensions, benefits, jobs, etc etc etc

     None of Ron Pauls plans will effectively do anything other than solidify the strangle hold that the wealthiest have.

     He is against US imperialism in a military capacity only. He is certainly ready to subvert the American worker rather than foreign workers for this end.

     His is an America without OSHA, the UN, international oversight, EPA, FTC, his an America without a living wage, without workers union rights protected under law.

     His is an America that will fall, divided. He is a polarizing agent, he is racist and he is absolutely a hypocrite.

     This fanatic that insists we uphold the original constitution tried amend the constitution so that children born on US soil are no longer automatically US citizens.

     His racist comments and rantings from the 80's and 90's are easily found all over the net with a single google search to that end. Everything that workers fought for in the last 120 years will be lost. Welcome to Peasantry and a gilded age of sickening entitlement and greed so reckless and callous that will leave America divided and destroyed. An impoverished wasteland with private armies and private cities...no regulation but the almighty dollar. Money can buy anything, but work is worth nothing.

     Once these taxes are abolished and the government is small enough to drown in a bathtub do you really expect that the "market" won't slash pay anyways? I assure you the deregulated dollar first idolatrous power vacuum in wall street will see the bloodsuckers out in droves and they will be all too happy to keep what you already weren't getting.

     We'll restore our manufacturing base. We will slash incomes to and standards and environmental safety to do so. Profits will soar.

     People will fall further into wage slavery.

     College will get more expensive and unattainable as unregulated for profit institutions lose what little state oversight they had. There will be no pell grants or deferred interest for aspiring poor students that are "picking themselves up by their bootstraps."

     We are quickly becoming a monarchist empire of corporate kings and conglomerations. It's already here, but to quote Star Wars... "So this is how democracy dies, with thunderous applause..."

     Ron Paul is right to say the ships broke.

     But he'd rather blow it up, drown the weak, and set a new course for 500 years ago and money and god ruling the world in a marriage this time of free market kings and a new world of god fearing peasants that don't even have reproductive rights nor the equal right to education and services.

     Posted by exitandpanic at 12/18/2007 @ 12:46am

114. "then why are inner city schools in such bad shape?"

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/17/2007 @ 9:35pm | ignore this person

     If they, were not, you, could not, push charter (privatized education) schools as a solution. It would throw a monkey wrench into the whole marketing campaign. Jeez Frosty ... get with the program.

     Posted by V 12/18/2007 @ 12:34am

     kinda like what viceroy harper's trying to do with our health care.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 12:59am

115. education is the key, however. you can only dumb a people down so far before it becomes antagonistic to corporate "needs".

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/17/2007 @ 10:33pm

     Care to look at dropout and truancy rates? Or gang activity and general misbehavior? How can you dumb people down if they don't bother to show up?

     Posted by Sliver at 12/18/2007 @ 01:03am

116. Care to look at dropout and truancy rates? Or gang activity and general misbehavior? How can you dumb people down if they don't bother to show up?

     Posted by SLIVER 12/18/2007 @ 01:03am

     it starts VERY young.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 01:11am

117. Posted by SLIVER 12/18/2007 @ 01:03am | ignore this person

     There are certain tenants, of which, in order to promote same. One is forced from time to time, to form ones face to say things, moves ones fingers to write, or type things, that are so ignorant, that are so dog dumb, so, simple as a box of rocks, bone deep stupid. One wonders if such is capable of de-evolution, that if the children of such tragic creatures are impacted by such inanity, at the level of DNA.

     Get a pair, so you can grow a pair ... And then, give out and out racism a go. Go ahead try it, I think you'll like it. Bleach some sheets, and give it a shot, it's not too late ... Look at the upside, you won't even have to learn how to drag your knuckles, as you have that down to a science. Bring the same, next to none, degree of intellect as you do to the arguments you have presented here, and you'll fit right in.

     Posted by V at 12/18/2007 @ 01:55am

118. V, save some commas for the inner-city schools.

     Posted by mARKlATTIN at 12/18/2007 @ 07:06am

119. Online polls are even worse.----Posted by SRJENKINS 12/17/2007 @ 11:13pm

     Exactly. Worthless. Anytime anybody quotes an online poll, you can bet that it is almost never going to be in line with REAL polling...and the person quoting it is rather naive or ignorant.

     Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 09:14am

120. V, save some commas for the inner-city schools.

     Posted by MARKLATTIN 12/18/2007 @ 07:06am | ignore this person

     Sure, right after you kiss my a..

     Posted by V at 12/18/2007 @ 09:31am

121. Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 09:14am

     but wait.

     a recent on-line poll has shown on-line polls to be effective.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 09:37am

122. Posted by MARKLATTIN 12/18/2007 @ 07:06am | ignore this person

     O, and, ummm, what I said about him(?) ... pretend I said it about you too, ok? You can even throw in your mom, if you want. I did.

     Posted by V at 12/18/2007 @ 09:41am

123. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/18/2007 @ 09:37am

     Ahh, but it says that 78% of the information is, on average, 82% inaccurate.

     Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 09:47am

124. Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 09:47am

     three times out of twenty, plus or minus a sh*tload.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 10:00am

125. "ahfornes, you made this racial in your very first post, by proclaiming yourself as black."

     I decided to respond to somebody that obviously isn't black, trying to tell me and the rest of the black community how we're supposed to feel about the words of Ron Paul. And that somebody is you. You made this racial. As far as proclaiming to be black, I don't need to "proclaim" anything. I am black, I'm proud of that, and I'm not ashamed to tell people that I am black. If you have a problem with that, tough.

     "and is this Paul's plan?? where has he proposed this?? please do post it for us all to see."

     He's ending the drug war. We can take care of the rest at the local and state level. I don't want the federal government trying to solve our problems, when they've done nothing but specifically harm us with the drug war. And when I say us, I mean every single person, regardless of race, who has been hurt by the government's war on it's own people.

     "guess what?? The school I attended was 40% black, and a great many of them graduated next to me, so I don't understand your hold up. "Your kids" have the same opportunity as every other kid in this nation, and its your hang ups holding them back, not the school system."

     First, I actually do have kids. Second, if you think every kid has the same educational opportunities as every other kid, you are so far into the realm of fantasy, I don't even know what I can do to pull you back to reality. It has nothing to do with my hang ups, the raw data backs up the actuality that I have faced as a result of the location in which I reside, due to my relatively modest income. Ron Paul is going to give my family a tax credit so I can put my kids on the same playing field as wealthier families. That's one of the things America is supposed to be about, equal opportunity!

     Posted by ahfornes at 12/18/2007 @ 10:17am

126. Posted by AHFORNES 12/18/2007 @ 10:17am

     but what about mercury in the air?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 10:36am

127. Well, hopefully another couple posts to "Blog: Campaign 08"....and this thread heads off to the Archives....

     and the "one-timer" Paul guys go back to HuffPost or Kos.

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 10:39am

128. Decent Republicans are supporting Ron Paul because Ron Paul opposes the George Bush Disaster. Ron Paul would not make a very effective President because of some of his Conservative views. However, in the absence of the continued Bush-style assault against American ideals by any of the establishment Republican candidates, the country could get in real good shape over time with Ron Paul as President.

     Posted by conshame at 12/18/2007 @ 12:45pm

129. Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 09:14am

     68.73% of all ststistics, are made up on the spot.

     Posted by Malcontent at 12/18/2007 @ 12:50pm

130. Posted by AHFORNES 12/18/2007 @ 10:17am | ignore this person

     Notice, how you know in detail, I am referencing your comment?

     Posted by V at 12/18/2007 @ 12:57pm

131. Posted by MALCONTENT 12/18/2007 @ 12:50pm

     And 5/4ths of Americans are bad at fractions!

     Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 1:03pm

132. Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 1:03pm

     True. I am part of that 5th quarter.

     Posted by Malcontent at 12/18/2007 @ 1:49pm

133. Posted by MASK 12/18/2007 @ 10:39am

     Don't worry. There will be another Ron Paul article soon. Last article specifically on him was on 11/28/07. So maybe two a month? I'll predict we see another before the first New Hampshire primary is finished. Enjoy your Ron Paul free holiday's Mask - if you get them.

     Posted by srjenkins at 12/18/2007 @ 1:53pm

134. Posted by SRJENKINS 12/18/2007 @ 1:53pm

     Love to see Paul get the nomination...just hate all these Paul'ines showing up when we all know (including them) that they'll vanish on anything but a "Ron thread"!

     Posted by Mask at 12/18/2007 @ 2:14pm

135. ahfornes- well, that comeback was long in coming. Now its my turn: "I decided to respond to somebody that obviously isn't black, trying to tell me and the rest of the black community how we're supposed to feel about the words of Ron Paul."- ahfornes:: where did I say I was speaking for black people?? hmm? go ahead and post it. I was saying what I felt about Paul's apparent racist remarks. So if you're not black you can't have an opinion on a racist remark? Please. And I know you actually have kids, you clearly posted that before. The quotes around "your kids" was just driving home the fact that you make an exception to race, its all you see. "your kids" are different from the "rich white kids" - ONLY BECAUSE YOU SAY IT IS SO. oh and guess what, there are plenty of broke @$$ white people in this country too so don't feel too special. I may not have kids but I've worked with hundreds of them through the America Reads and Counts program, in none other than Brooklyn, NY. So many people would assume these "inner city kids" are nothing but trouble and have no chance, but I'm here to tell you how wrong you all are. They don't let race hold them up, they don't let the fact that they're "poor" hold them up, these kids I tutored worked hard and have unyielding hope for the future. The public school system has served me well, from the kids I've had the privilege of working with it's working for them too. I again state that it is awful parenting that is ruining this country, and maybe ahfornes, you should stop spending your time posting on some blog and spend more time with your kids.

     Posted by jro555 at 12/18/2007 @ 3:26pm

136. True. I am part of that 5th quarter.

     Posted by MALCONTENT 12/18/2007 @ 1:49pm

     i didn't know you were iraqi.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 3:29pm

137. For those of you with concerns about Dr.Paul's environmental policies, let me begin by saying he grows tomatos organically and is a founding member of a Land Trust where he lives. More importantly, he feels that strengthening the property rights of individuals will thwart polluters. Additionally, he feels that local solutions are always the best.

     Posted by H-daddy at 12/18/2007 @ 4:14pm

138. For those of you with concerns about Dr.Paul's environmental policies, let me begin by saying he grows tomatos organically and is a founding member of a Land Trust where he lives. More importantly, he feels that strengthening the property rights of individuals will thwart polluters. Additionally, he feels that local solutions are always the best.

     Posted by H-DADDY 12/18/2007 @ 4:14pm

     but who owns the air?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 4:17pm

139. For those of you with concerns about Dr.Paul's environmental policies, let me begin by saying he grows tomatos organically and is a founding member of a Land Trust where he lives. More importantly, he feels that strengthening the property rights of individuals will thwart polluters. Additionally, he feels that local solutions are always the best.

     Posted by H-daddy at 12/18/2007 @ 4:20pm

140. For those of you with concerns about Dr.Paul's environmental policies, let me begin by saying he grows tomatos organically and is a founding member of a Land Trust where he lives. More importantly, he feels that strengthening the property rights of individuals will thwart polluters. Additionally, he feels that local solutions are always the best.

     Posted by H-DADDY 12/18/2007 @ 4:20pm

     but who owns the air?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 12/18/2007 @ 4:31pm

141. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/18/2007 @ 4:31pm

     ClearAir INC.

     Coming soon! To a domed community near you!

     Posted by Malcontent at 12/18/2007 @ 6:43pm

142. "I again state that it is awful parenting that is ruining this country"

     Did you ever consider that families where both parents have to work, tend to have more issues raising their children than families where one of the parents can stay home? Look, I'm not saying it's impossible, and I don't discount that probably the greatest enemy of black progress is black people, but there's just no way you're going to convince me that there aren't a lot of public schools out there that are really, really bad. You say those schools are bad because of bad parents, I say they're bad because of simple economics. I acknowledge and understand that, for example, rural schools in Tennessee, mostly attended by white kids, have abyssmal performance. I also know that here in Nashville, and back in my hometown of Milwaukee, that the schools are mostly segregated along racial lines. The black and hispanic kids go to public schools, the white kids go to private schools. You're probably wondering why I keep bringing race into an economic argument? Well, maybe that's because blacks and hispanics make a lot less money on average, and are thus more strongly affected by less advantageous economic circumstances. Dr. Paul is specifically addressing this issue by offering a tax credit so that the economic playing field is a lot more fair, and those lower income families (some of which are white, many of which are minority) have the same opportunity to give their kids a good education when the public schools are failing (as is the case in Milwaukee and Nashville). I can see where you have a differing perspective concerning New York, I have a good friend that teaches right in Brooklyn, and there is a huge difference as far as resources and administration between NYC public schools and Milwaukee or Nashville public schools. I would suggest doing some additional research and looking at the hard data on southern public schools specifically, and see for yourself just how bad these schools are. It's not because the parents don't care, I know first-hand just how hard these parents are struggling to provide their children with a good education, but when the system itself just doesn't seem to give a damn, there's significant limits on what we can accomplish. Giving us the option to send our kids to private school might actually be the kick in the pants our school system needs to make the necessary reforms, and spend the necessary amount of money, to properly do their job on their end, so that we can do our job on our end.

     Posted by ahfornes at 12/19/2007 @ 09:50am

143. consider ahfornes, if the government was spending more money on education instead of war?? I understand Paul is an anti-war candidate, but why the privatized, capitalistic spin on education?? why not make the logical argument that funds from the war movement would be moved over to our public school systems? I refuse to believe that privatization is the cure all to our education ills- or other societal ills for that matter. I don't know who I have a harder time trusting these days- the government or the greedy corporations corrupting it.

     Posted by jro555 at 12/19/2007 @ 2:52pm

144. "I refuse to believe that privatization is the cure all to our education ills-"

     I agree, it definately won't be a cure all, and I'm really not advocating full or even partial privatization, any more than what we already have as an educational system. The voucher program is only intended to fix the problem of high performance students being stuck in low performance schools, because those students have parents that don't make upper tier cash. The counterargument is usually "those schools need those high performance students, or they'll be even crappier", which is true, but in that instance, why not force all high performance students, regardless of income, to also go to these low performance schools? How come only high performance kids from modest income backgrounds get the shaft?

     Posted by ahfornes at 12/20/2007 @ 05:00am