One reason Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are presidential vanity candidates and long shots to win their parties presidential nomination.
"The Patriotic Sheep" are often the most difficult to work with because they won't take a minute to consider that which they do not know…these folks are so busy defending the Constitution that they are often the last to consider the damage they are inflicting. — Rick Koerber, The “Brain-Off” Conspiracy…
Article comments
176 - Irene Wagner
Aren't "vibrant democracies" supposed to have freedom of speech and religion?
177 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Sorry sweetheart;
I'm not a nice boy at all. But you haven't answered my question. Who the hell are you to shovel your trash down our throats in Israel? And no, I'm not talking about some little web-site. I don't have to listen to a web-site.
I'm talking about the scum who try to steal our souls in our own homeland. I'm talking about the loudmouth assholes who hustle your garbage on our streets!! Israel was founded precisely because of shit like Christian missionaries assaulting our sensibilities with their trash and garbage, and trying to coerce Jews to convert with all kinds of pressure. This country exists as a refuge from YOU!!!
It's disgusting to have to countenance your scum in OUR country that we have paid for with our blood!
And I don't give two shits about YOUR forgiveness. We have yet to forgive YOU for seventeen centuries of persecution.
Aren't seventeen centuries of rapes, murders, rigged justice, auto da fés enough? Have you NO shame at all? Do you think that because Orthodox Jews haven't killed the loudmouths in our streets heretofore, that they won't?
You do not have "Christian liberty", the right to hustle your religion, in this country!
SO ANSWER MY QUESTION!!!
178 - A.K. Smith
I'm pretty confident that he is opposed to gay marriage in any form on a religious basis and that his states rights cop out is his way of avoiding having to admit it.
Dave
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dave - You seem like a pretty reasonable guy. And maybe he is indeed opposed to gay marriage on a personal level. I don't know, however, that his "states' rights" position is a cop out. I think he truly wants to divest the federal government of any powers it is not supposed to possess. Admittedly, he and I and apparently you, don't always agree on the proper powers of the federal government. But I do think he's making an honest effort to differentiate what is a federal and what is a state/local/individual issue. That goes to the question of intent. And on that, I'm not sure it matters. I know he only cares about gays in the military if sexual conduct becomes disruptive, the same as for non-gays. And I know he doesn't believe in group rights, only individual rights. And I believe the bill he voted against in congress (can't recall the bill number) was described as one that was meant to stymie gay marriage. I can't swear that that's the proper take on the bill because admittedly there are usually dozens or hundreds of often conflicting parts of each bill.
But I do think we quibble here. For the first time in my lifetime (51 years) we have a candidate who is making a serious stab at following the Constitution (at least the Constitution as he sees it.) That is a major step from every other candidate. They all follow the "whatever I say goes" or "whatever I think works" theory of constitutional construction.
I am not a Constitutionalist. In my heart I am an anarchist. But I have been saying for almost thirty years that if a truly constitutionalist candidate ever ran, I would support him or her because I'd rather live under the document as written than just having the government make it up as they go. And that's why I'm supporting Dr. Paul. I have my disagreements with him just as you do. But I see this as an opportunity that I can't pass up because it'll clearly never come again during my life, and I plan to make it to well over 100.
Btw, did everyone see the video of Dr. Paul getting Fed chairman Bernanke to admit the fed causes inflation. Then telling Bernanke he was answering a question with his fingers crossed? How could we not support a guy who will say that?
179 - Irene Wagner
The comment facility keeps on telling me I've put a naughty word in, A.K.Smith It's not TRUE. I've already forgiven Ruvy and have moved on.
Dave I hope my answer to your question about polygamy shows how a person with strong religious beliefs can be fair, in government and other matters, to people who don't share that belief.
I think people's reservations about Ron Paul's strong faith will melt away once they see how reasonable and fair his economic policies are to everyone.
I think I'll go try that link you gave about Ron Paul getting Bernanke to back down on inflation.
http blogcritics.org mt tb 66511
The only way I can get that link to post is to take the colons and slashes out. I'd ahref the link for you, but I haven't been able to put in any HTML for hours.
180 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I've already forgiven Ruvy and have moved on.
The woman has no answer to what I say. Or refuses to answer. But note, this is the typical behavior of the religion hustlers. They refuse to recognize their own sins when their noses are rubbed in them - they "forgive" the person and move on. I've dealt with such people before.
This is why they rouse only my contempt...
Disgusting hypocrites...
181 - Dave Nalle
Good lord, Ruvy. You didn't close the bold tag EITHER? May you accept an appropriately Jewish load of shame for your failures.
Dave
182 - Irene Wagner
But I DID have an answer Ruvy, and it was "Shouldn't a 'vibrant democracy' [Keogh's words] have freedom of speech and democracy?"
Please stop being so angry, Ruvy. I'm not mad at you anymore, except for putting so much verbiage between the end of the comments and my reply to Dave on polygamy and how it relates to the RON PAUL CAMPAIGN.
183 - Irene Wagner
That should be "Shouldn't a 'vibrant democracy' [Keogh's words] have freedom of speech and religion?"
184 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Irene,
You have not answered me at all.
You do not have "Christian liberty", the right to hustle your religion, in this country! And you haven't answered my question. Who the hell are you to shovel your trash down our throats in Israel?
In light of Christian behavior to Jews over the last seventeen centuries, your "evangelists" still presume the right to walk in OUR streets, spreading the lies and poison of your "religion?"
Why shouldn't we kill such scum on our land? I'm not talking about America anymore. This is a Jewish country with Jewish norms and proselytizing is in bad taste here, to put it most politely.
185 - Irene Wagner
Who am I? I'm someone who's never even BEEN to Israel, Ruvy. I've never assaulted anyone on your streets or on any streets, for that matter.
I am a person who loves...the J fellow...and I love talking about him, and I tend to grab opportunities to brag on him whenever there is an opportunity. I guess I am a little like the way YOU are, only you talk about your passion for the nation of Israel. I think we BOTH annoy people sometimes.
I'm not going to make any apologies for people who claim to be Christians, who, in persecuting Jews in actions such acts as the disgraceful European pogroms, ignore the clear teaching of Romans chapter 11 (one of the longest books in the Christian Bible.) This scripture states that Jews were the original olive vine, and that Christians better not be haughty towards them.
Ruvy, I hope some day you can go to a place called the Avenue of the Righteous over there in Israel, Ruvy. At that memorial, the Jews give honor to Christians who are my heroes, Christians who risked their lives to hide Jews during the Holocaust. Like Corrie ten Boom.
In this thread, I didn't notice anyone else besides me identifying themselves as Christians. So when others in the thread brought up Ron Paul's Christianity as a stumbling block towards their support of him, I decided to take breaks between laundry and vacuuming to take up for him.
I wasn't meaning to force...the Big J...down anyone's throat.
Now, can we PLEASE bury it and let the others get back to talking about politics in America, Ruvy?
ronpaul2008 com
186 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
And Irene, let's get a few points straight. This "those people who persecuted Jews are not Christians in my eyes" garbage doesn't wash here. Christians waving their damned crosses and stuffing your religion down Jewish throats did evil: just as you have held Jews responsible for the acts of other Jews, I'm holding Christians responsible for the actions of other Christians. And since you are so proud of Christian missionaries hustling your "gospel" to the "heathen", I'm going after you.
If you don't have an answer, it's because no Jew ever DEMANDED that you face up to the many sins that Christianity has committed in the name of G-d - particularly against Jews.
Finally, just to set you straight, you haven't got a clue as to what the Tana"kh talks about - the message in Isaiah is for us, and not you. The Spirit of G-d will break all of you - all the would be destroyers of Israel - and that is what you are.
And that is how I view you.
187 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Irene,
Your comment came on line at 20:02 - two minutes before mine did at 20:04. I was still typing my remarks and did not see what you had to say. Had I seen those comments, I'd have not posted mine.
Just so you know, I visited Yad va'Shem and visited the Street of the Righteous. One visit is more than enough for me - my father's family died in Poland at the hands of the Nazis. I do not need any further reminders.
And now, I'll let the subject drop.
188 - Irene Wagner
Yes, Ruvy. Have a blessed Sabbath, if Sabbath isn't over for the week in Jerusalem.
189 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, if you don't develop a more complete set of manners, you're going to be added to the shortlist for a compulsory holiday in Siberia. FACT.
In a modern society, anybody has the right to campaign for their views, no matter how absurd they be. Unless it is illegal, they can also do it wherever they want. You can write all the ill-mannered sound and fury you want but it isn't going to make you right, it is going to make you edited, deleted or possibly even holidayed.
Furthermore, you aren't shy of championing your own views here on this American site, so by your own "logic" how do you defend that?
190 - Dave Nalle
So when others in the thread brought up Ron Paul's Christianity as a stumbling block towards their support of him
Let me make entirely clear that I have no problem at all with Paul's personal choice of religion. What I have a problem with is his demonstrated willingness to set aside the constitution so that he can impose the dictates of that religion on others.
Dave
191 - Clavos
Here are a couple of interesting quotes from an opinion piece by Christopher Caldwell in today's NYT Magazine: (Requires free registration)
"Paul understands that his chances of winning the presidency are infinitesimally slim. He is simultaneously planning his next Congressional race. But in Paul’s idea of politics, spreading a message has always been just as important as seizing office. “Politicians don’t amount to much,” he says, “but ideas do.”"
And:
"But what is “Ron’s message”? Whatever the campaign purports to be about, the main thing it has done thus far is to serve as a clearinghouse for voters who feel unrepresented by mainstream Republicans and Democrats. The antigovernment activists of the right and the antiwar activists of the left have many differences, maybe irreconcilable ones. But they have a lot of common beliefs too, and their numbers " and anger " are of a considerable magnitude. Ron Paul will not be the next president of the United States. But his candidacy gives us a good hint about the country the next president is going to have to knit back together."
192 - A.K. Smith
I think this is sophistry. McCain's advisers told him to quite the Senate to make his campaign more effective. Did he also think he didn't have a chance? Is that why he didn't retire from the Senate? Even though he was the early front runner and being in the Senate has clearly hurt him?
Politicians don't amount to much but ideas do? Yeah, he says this all the time. I think it actually makes him a humble person, not one who doesn't think he has a chance. Yeah, at first it seems he didn't think he had a chance. But I think he's since changed his mind.
And the second quote is the author's opinion. That has as much validity as anyone else's INDIVIDUAL opinion. My guess is that anyone who reads the article, paying close attention to the writer's bias, will be interested in the candidate. Even though the author's bias does come through, I think on balance it was a pretty good piece and not the overt hit job I expected from the NYT.
193 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Personally, I think that Ron Paul hasn't a ghost of a chance in any American presidential race, assuming that one actually takes place in 2008. This has nothing to do with his positions, or lack of them, or his religion, or lack of one. At best, he is a latter day "Clean Gene" in an era that doesn't seem to want one.
But politicians are known by the enemies who attack them as well as those who support them. When CAIR starts going for Ron Paul's goiter, as they have done to Rudolph Giuliani, I'll pay some attention to him.
194 - A.K. Smith
Ruvvy - Why would CAIR go after Ron Paul? He is not trying to support Israel at the expense of any other country. I think the U.S. getting disentangled from the Middle East will be very good for Israel. But I'm sure CAIR thinks that the U.S. has been helping Israel, even though you and I know that isn't true.
Yeah, I always depend on those who live in Israel to divine what's going to happen in American elections. I live here and often can't tell what's going to happen. In fact, I was sure Bush would lose the second time. And so was almost everyone else.
Of course, we'll see what happens. But I wouldn't count the man out. He's always had to run against his own party when running for Congress, and nobody ever thought he'd get as much support as he has so far in the presidential campaign. A.K.
195 - Michael Ross
War is only good for the pocket books of dick Chenney.
196 - will
I can't believe I wasted the time to read this. I actually feel like this killed some brain cells I was going to use.
197 - Jared
For anyone that thinks Ron Paul is a kook. Take a look at this video from Bush's Sec of Treasury.
198 - Michael Bass
How many liberties are we willing to give up to obtain safety? Benjamin Franklin stated that "those who sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither." Many people today believe that ole man Franklin is outdated and obscure - surely he couldn't have realized the modern advances of terrorism when he made these statements. On the contrary, our Founding Fathers probably saw more death and destruction than any technologically advanced culture like "ginger bread America" ever dreamed of. They brought down the brick wall of tyranny, greed, and supression - and replaced it with it's worst enemy, the United States Constitution.
199 - Clavos
Actually, Franklin never said that.
From Wikipedia:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
* This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania." (emphasis added)