Huckabee

[Griffin NoName]

  Is this game like Mornington Crescent?

:ontopic:

Keep up the good work. Serious debate does good things to the cockles of my heart. I'm just jealous as we don't have anywhere near as much fun here. All we get is to compare Boratt with Red Ken.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Edited or not the phrase "I think it's a theory -the theory of evolution- and I don't accept it" is there. Here it is without the edit:
[youtube=425,350]zz94-OrnXzE[/youtube]

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Granted, and I don't particularly like that. But he has made it clear he doesn't plan to force it on the rest of us, which is more than we can say for a lot of other candidates.
He's not the perfect candidate, but he's pretty decent, I think.

[Griffin NoName]

Granted, and I don't particularly like that. But he has made it clear he doesn't plan to force it on the rest of us,

devils avocate: and you believe him?

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

 
Yes. I believe in his record of Constitutionality, and I don't think he has any intention of breaking that. Moreover, as I said before, he's a states' rights guy. It violates states' rights to force them to teach either ID or evolution.

[Swatopluk]

I have followed the Ron Paul issue on Orcinus and at Glenn Greenwald's. The comment sections work as magnets for Pauliacs of the whacko kind. What seems the most scary thing (and Neiwert documents it in detail) is that Paul seems to be the undisputed champion of all major white supremacist groups and not just recently. Although some of the connections those groups claim to have with him for many years are disputed by his campaign (understandably: swastika flag waving people are not likely to improve his public image with the rest of voters) there seems to be enough undisputed evidence left for some strong affinity. This does not mean that Paul is the second coming of Hitler but that he should be forced to openly and unmistakably take a stand on that (and be held to it whichever way it goes). The same should also be applied to all other candiadates (not just the Democrats while GOPsters get away with anything however horrible).
Anyway, everything should be judged on merit not just based on a person being pro or con on it

[ivor]

All politicians have wacko followers but that doesn't mean Paul is a racist.  I don't believe in guilt by association.  I want to hear what people have to say for themselves on issues, not some "gifted" blogger.

Ron Paul on racism:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . . By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racists . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."

I didn't see anything Brayton said that looked like a real argument against Paul.  I doubt the 14th amendment is going anywhere even though it did make a giant central government possible.  Government is going to keep growing until we are all poor and Ron Paul is the only one that wants to do anything about it.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Well put, MB.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

He is known as 'Mr. No' in congress, I imagine he would be vetoing 90% of all legislation reaching his desk.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

"Dr. No" is his nickname, I believe.

Not that vetoing 90% of the legislation would be a bad thing. Gives Congress something to do besides prying into other people's business.

EDIT:
An addition to MB's post, sort of. I was the Hilary rally near my school back in October to support Paul. There was a lot of diversity--a couple of old conservative ladies, a couple of kids (myself included), a couple of vets, and a transvestite, who ended up lending me a spare sign she had.
So there's just as many people who aren't crazies who support him as there are actual whack jobs. He has a really broad base of appeal.

[Swatopluk]

I fear that there is more than the inevitable whacko following of every candidate, and my own experience reading comments by confessed Pauliacs also hints toward something else (e.g. they are about the only whackos that always identify with the candidate, while the standard trolls are generic ultra-right without specific endorsements).
My impression (from very afar) is that Paul plays with fire by actively courting certain groups or professing to certain positions that will (deliberately or not) work in favor of those. In my (personal and irrelevant for everyone that can make up his/her mind her/himself) opinion some things are too risky to give them a try. As a general rule a candidate can only be chosen or rejected completely because it is the person that is elected not just a selection from his opinion menu (to be very nasty: maybe voting for Paul on his anti-war stance is like voting for Nixon because of him founding the EPA).

You might think this to be biased but there is a lot of interesting quotes and further links in that.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html
Agaian, this is not to discourage anyone from anything.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I disagree with a number of the assertions made by this article--I don't recall seeing him discuss NWO theories, and frankly as a formerly active member of the Facebook group, I can tell you that a lot of people try to ask the CTs (Troofers and others) to shut up about it. Moreoever, I think the guy's stretching a little.
But I'm perfectly willing to admit he's a libertarian in Republican's clothing. And I have no issue with that, seeing as I'm a registered Libertarian anyway.
I don't like the war, but that's not the only reason I intend to vote for him: he's anti-torture, which a HUGE voting issue of mine, pro-civil liberties, has a track record I can respect, and is a state's rights guy, which I think I've made clear is huge for me, and I do agree with him that our recent foreign policy has made the world a little more dangerous.
He put his foot in his mouth in '92, there's no denying that, and the things he said (" "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote. [sic], etc.) were stoopid and insensitive and reflect ignorance, but I personally think he's still the lesser of a couple dozen evils.

[Aphos]

It does seem Paul has ties to dominionist and white supremacists.  He has met with their representatives on several occasions.  What troubles me about Paul is that he seems to accept their support and does not try to distance himself from them.

Fortunately, at this time, Paul doesn't seem to have much of a chance.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

Don't remind me. I'd rather sulk privately about it. 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

To be fair, while honest libertarians believe in the laissez faire philosophy and civil liberties, there is a number of radical nuts who were displeased with the republican party and its 'moderate' policies who call themselves libertarian because there is (in their minds) nothing further to the right. So far the little evidence of Paul being friendly to white supremacists is circumstancial at best but I do agree with Swato in that he should explicitly dissasociate himself with the nuts.