Comments for C’est What? Robideaux backs Ron Paul at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 34 out of 20 comments http://www.theind.com Tue, 21 May 2013 05:56:39 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-26192 How very mature and professional of you. Kudos... - Laci Nicole Buller Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:36:27 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-26189 I'm rolling my eyes. - Walter Pierce Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:32:39 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-26188 I'm almost certain that you have absolutely no clue what you are writing about. The constitution was written in a way so as to allow adaption following the will of the people. It is in no way unclear in its mission to maximize liberty and freedom. It is also clear in assuring federal law will not degrigate states rights. As to whom would remove rights, all who voted for the patriot act, sopa, indeffinate detention, and most recently hr 347. But hey, it's all propaganda anyhow right? Your credibility is weak and your article is nothing but bias opinion. - Laci Nicole Buller Thu, 15 Mar 2012 10:17:01 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-26187 Laci, By your reasoning regarding the federal government's business forcing social reform the Confederacy should have been allowed to secede from the Union and slavery allowed to continue in perpetuity. Pray tell, who is about to take away your First Amendment rights? Satorum? Obama? Romney? Moreover, if the Constitution were a perfect document as written by the Founders it wouldn't have needed to be amended dozens of times over the last two centuries. Your right to vote is afforded you by an AMENDMENT to the Constitution, which is more or less the federal government forcing social reform (with agreement from the states). - Walter Pierce Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:34:20 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-26185 This article is absolute rubbish. Ron Paul may hold views that are outdated on things such as global warming and evolution, but, there is absolutely no smoking gun. He is older than most politicians and for the simple fact of generational gap, deserves wide birth. Most Americans his age still find it difficult to grasp the full weight of evolution. The concerns over climate change will matter very little in a war torn global society. The focus is being driven in the asinine direction of social issues instead of where it belongs, constitutional issues. It is very easy to say he disagrees with civil rights. It is convenient to make it appear he is basing that on race. When the honest truth is the constitutional side of the issue. The federal government has no business forcing social reform. The civil rights movement didn't stop racism. The gay and lesbian movement hasn't stopped bigotry. This is evident by Rick Santorums sweeping wins in the south. The endorsement for Ron Paul is far more valid then Bobby Jindals endorsement for Rick perry. While the people of Texas struggled with wild fires via lack of rain, Perry publicly prayed for rain. The ideals of Ron Paul have been viewed for too long as conspiracy. The events of the last 3 decades have proven him correct. He stood before congress in July of 2001 warning of blow back due to our global militarization. He is the ONLY one who will stop the senseless murder of our troops in a missionless war. Our media cries for afghanis dead, and ignors the soldiers killed over the Koran. Where are your priorities? Where is your integrity? Enjoy your first amendment right to publish rubbish like this. Soon, the 1st amendment will be a thing of the past if the "mainstream" candidates have their way. - Laci Nicole Buller Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:28:09 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25793 I agree, a president should respect scientific consensus, and I believe Paul would. I don't think it's fair to lump him with the anti-intellectual crowd. If you listen to Paul on the issues, you'll find that he is the only one who expresses fact-based, in-depth reasoning for his positions...as opposed to shallow slogans and condescension from the other candidates. So really, he is the only intellectual in the Republican field. - Justin Price Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:47:01 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25792 Justin, A president's willingness to consider (and give weight to) scientific consensus in policy decisions is very important in my view. The Republican Party's aggressive anti-intellectualism, which has been used to woo blue-collar voters and no doubt has William F. Buckley Jr. spinning in his grave, is dangerous, and Ron Paul represents more of the same. - Walter Pierce Thu, 26 Jan 2012 10:02:22 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25791 Luke, one point of contention I have with you is this comment: "As Dr. Paul puts it, corporations should be dealt with in the same way in which private individuals are. If I dump a barrel of toxic sludge on your lawn, not only am I liable for physical damage to your property and the damage to its value, I am liable for any ill effects your health may suffer." This is one area where I think Paul is weak. Environmental pollution can't be solved simply by property rights. Clean air and clean water are public assets which travel freely across boundaries. These public assets should be protected by government through regulations. Corporations can do a lot more damage than individuals. - Justin Price Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:00:23 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25789 Also, Walter, the suggestion that there is a "Ron Paul Army" working in cohesion...that's kind of a red herring too, ain't it? At least some kind of diversionary tactic. :) - Justin Price Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:57:10 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25788 I agree with much of what Walter says but on Ron Paul I think he's way off. (sounds more like some talking points from some talking head than your usual informed perspective, Walter) And I think Luke Jason Willis did a splendid job of refuting Walter's comments. (I note there has been no response from you, Walter...yet you went boldly after the easy meat of Brandon Penning). Concerning evolution and global warming, Luke is correct that a president does not need to be biologist-in-chief or climatologist-in-chief. Paul is religious and probably pays heed to the creationist mantra, but I see no evidence that Paul would interfere with the scientific principles of evolution. He is not a rabid evangelical. If the pope said creationism can co-exist with evolution, why should we expect Paul to be any more radical than that? On global warming I have heard Paul acknowledge that we are indeed warming. If he questions how much we have to do with it, that's OK. But I wouldn't expect Paul to interfere with climate research or its conclusions. He is not a rabid fossil fuel lobbyist. If Newt Gingrich can sit on a bench with Nancy Pelosi and say we need to do something about global warming, why should we expect Paul to be any more radical than that? There are much bigger things that Paul has his sights on, like ending corporate control of government and ending our obsession with invading other countries. - Justin Price Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:53:31 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25783 So many have something to say complaintively about the administration, " the insider one for all and all for one status existing within the administration and their cronys will never change unless forced to do so through your individual efforts, speak your mind state your piece or eat crap. - chano leal Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:05:18 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25782 Come on, really who cares what couillion is in office, every office holder has a jar of stickem in thheir closet - chano leal Wed, 25 Jan 2012 11:59:34 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25773 @Brent - You are misled on the issue of states right's...slavery would not exist in some states vs. others because the 13th amendment does not allow it. The federal government has a guideline to follow by and enforce rules on the states, which are outlined in the constitution. Outside of these rules, everything else should be left to the states. Do you disagree with the constitution and it's purpose? Do you think American legislatures guided by lobbying and an over-regulated have devised a better system than outlines by the constitution, because that's what we are dealing with now. - Dr. Paul want's the state's to have the power to make the environmental restrictions...You may be corrected in stating that "Had conservative voices had their way throughout my lifetime there would be horrendous similarities between their pollution levels and ours, politics be damned." but we aren't talking "conservatives" here, we are talking Dr. Paul. It is not written in our constitution, to support legislation such as the EPA. So you are really disagreeing with the constitution and RP... I'm am first and foremost a fan of the constitution. My following of Ron Paul is only because he follows that document. Trevor R. Baton Rouge - Trevor R Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:20:29 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25772 Readers, After determining that a few of those who posted comments here were using assumed names and not their real names, their comments were removed. Clearly we need to be more diligent in enforcing our comment policy. Have the courage of your convictions, folks, and use your real name. - Walter Pierce Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:06:18 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25771 seams to me the governments current policy, in domestic affairs,foreign policy, and economic policy, which has been in place for the past thirty years is ten times more dangerous then any thing dr paul wants to put in place, nand the leaders our nation have had in that time have been basically the same crap from a different asshole all of this garbage about ant semitism and racisims that these week minded fools believe have all been thouroly debunked and explained but the mainstream dosen't cover that and so fools like the one who wrote this article and call them selves journalist despite the fact that they don't do their own research, perpetuate the lies and myths put in place to protect the status quo establishment who have worked endlessly to bring our once great nation to its knees. i agree with ron paul his ideas are based on common sense backed by the facts of this naton current situation. they are treid and tested and they will help bring our nation back, and get us off the current path of destruction. most of the lies told come from lobbying groups who are affraid of paul because he'll take their power away interms of their ability to turn elected officials away from the needs of the american people. WE NEED TO STOP STEALING MONEY FROM THE POOR OF THIS NATION TO GIVE TO THE RICH IN OTHERS, INCLUDING ISREAL AND ALL THE OTHERS WHO DANCED AND PARTIED IN THE STREET ON 9/11 AND YES THAT DOES INCLUDE ISREAL THEY PARTIED THE HARDEST OUT OF ALL OF THEM. THEY DON'T LIKE US!, AND THEY COULDN'T IVE A SHIT IF WE WERE ALL ANIALATED OVER NIGHT. WE NEED TO TAKE THAT MONEY WE SEND OVER SEAS AND USE IT TO TAKE CARE OF OUR VETRENS, OUR PEOPLE WHO ARE DEPENDANT ON THE SYSTEM, AND TO TAKE CARE OF OUR BORDERS AND INFRUSTRUCTURE. we just took money from china to send troops to austraia to defend them against china how does this make sense. we've started a group in asia of smaller asian countries to discuss defending them against chinese influence and yet we pay for it with loans takin from china!!! THIS SHIT HAS GOT TO STOP. IM PISSED ABOUT IT, IM PISSED ABOUT THE LOANS, IM PISSED ABOUT THE BAIL OUTS, IM PISSED ABOUT THE UNPATRIOTIC ACT, IM PISSED ABOUT THE BAIL OUTS, AND IM PISSED ABOUT THIS NEW NDAA ACT, AND IM PISSED AT THE TSA THAT USES MY TAX DOLLARS TO MOLEST THE ELDERLY AND CHILDREN. AND YOU ALL SHOULD BE PISSED ABOUT IT TO!! AND THERE IS ONLY ONE CANDIDATE WHO WILL STOP ALL THIS GARBAGE AND NOT PERPETUATE THIS BROKEN SYSTEM OF BROKEN PROMISES. AND THE ONLY CANDIDATE YOU CAN TRUST TO DO IT IS RON PAUL!! AND IF YOU THINK ISREAL IS OUR FRIEND AND THAT WE SHOULD BE STEALING FROM THE POOR IN THIS NATION TO GIVE TO THEM FOR SOME REASON YOU REALLY NEED TO GO BACK AND STUDY HISTORY AND HERE LET ME GIVE YOU A REFERENCE POINT TO LOOK INTO FOR YOU LAZY JOUNALISTS OUT THERE TO PROVE MY POINT LOOK UP THE USS LIBERTY THAT COST OVER A HUNDRED LIVES OF AMERICANS SAILORS WITH NO EXPLANATION, APOLOGY, OR COMPENSATION AND COME BACK AND TELL ME ISREAL IS OUR FRIEND!! VOTE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A VOICE VOTE RON PAUL 2012 TO KEEP IT THAT WAY! ps i have seen no difference between bush jr and obama, or bush jr and clinton, or clinton and bush sr so lets have some real change ron paul 2012 - Marco Feola Tue, 24 Jan 2012 17:01:02 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25770 I agree with most of Dr. Paul's domestic policies, but frankly, he scares me with his foreign ones. If a third party is formed all of you who vote for whoever the candidate is will be responsible for getting that Muslim in the White House re-elected. It happened back in the Nixon days when the American Party was formed and I was a big supporter of it and of course, it got the wrong guy elected. This isn't the time for a third party to split the conservative votes and reelect Obama. - Richard Warner Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:37:37 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25767 If in fact Ron Paul's ideals are "fringe", one has to ask why? Why is fiscal responsibility or a balanced budget "fringe"? Why is sound money or a strong dollar "fringe"? Why is the Just War principle "fringe"? Why is defense of individual liberties or adherence to the Constitution "fringe"? EVERY representative swears an oath to the Constitution. Why is Ron Paul the only one to honor this oath? Ron Paul has been warning us for decades about the coming economic catastrophes. His motivation to enter politics was the abolishment of the gold standard by Nixon, when gold was $35/ounce. He knew then that this would lead to run away debt and a destruction of our economy. And where are we today? $15 Trillion in debt, a dollar which is worth 15% of what it was in 1971 and gold at $1650/ounce. He repeatedly warned us about the coming economic catastrophe, entering his comments into the Congressional record in 2001 and 2003, specifically citing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the Federal Reserve and a “housing bubble”. Ron Paul is the only candidate to actively defend our liberties let alone mention them. He opposed the warrantless spying on citizens via the Patriot Act, has tried to stop the TSA and their "VIPER" teams and has even introduced a Bill to strip the NDAA of its indefinite detention clause as it applies to citizens. If Ron Paul is "fringe", I think its time to abandon the mainstream. - Bobby D. Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:52:15 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25766 Mr. Pierce How does it feel to be smacked around by "Paulbots"? You sir, have been outwitted by them. I suggest you do a little more research before you hash up old defamatory remarks of a candidate you understand so little about. - Severn Christian Rash Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:29:19 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25765 Josh Baldwin wrote: "Sounds like another strong argument for states rights instead of Federal Govt regulations to me." Many of these California laws were stricter versions of federal law, although some federal law was modeled after the success of certain California law, the point being that it required federal law to expand the benefits of controlled emissions to other states. If we left rights up to the states I suspect we would have had slavery in some states right up through portions of the 20th century, and I have little doubt that civil rights of blacks and some other minorities would have been suppressed to the point that the situation would have eventually been corrected only after another massive round of bloodshed in the mid to late 20th century. You can't step on a large population of people forever. It's going to blow at some seam sooner or later. Josh Baldwin also wrote: "Also it seems a little silly to compare two communist regimes to the United States when it comes to pollution. That is not a cogent argument." Had conservative voices had their way throughout my lifetime there would be horrendous similarities between their pollution levels and ours, politics be damned. People wearing masks while walking down the street in Houston would care little that they were being slowly suffocated by "capitalist" smog as opposed to "communist" smog. Here is a silly notion for you: Pretending that the pollution levels of two nations can't be compared if they don't share the same political system. - Brent Faul Mon, 23 Jan 2012 21:35:55 +0100 http://www.theind.com/news/indreporter/9783-cest-what-robideaux-backs-ron-paul#comment-25764 I would also like to address the idea of any type of real "organization" in our comments here in defense of Ron Paul. Normally, articles mentioning Dr. Paul are picked up by people who, like me, google "Ron Paul" and see what the media is saying on a given day. I usually look for a comments section, and attempt to refute anything which I perceive to be a misrepresentation of Dr. Paul's positions. I do this because of my dedication to the principles for which he stands, not because of anyone suggesting it or telling me to do it. And to add to what Mr. Leedskalnin said above: He voted against a medal for Rosa Parks, because he felt it was unethical for the federal government to spend even a penny of taxpayer dollars for something not essential to fulfilling its Constitutionally prescribed duties. He did, however, take money from his own pocket and attempt to take up a collection from the other members of Congress in order to pay for said medal. Now, I don't know about you, but not only does that not sound racist, but the whole notion of voting against something like that on principle show me that Dr. Paul is a man who is willing to sacrifice political expediency and good PR for the sake of standing steadfastly by his principles. And THAT is why I feel he, as well as the principles he stands for, deserve my support. Thanks. - Luke Jason Willis Mon, 23 Jan 2012 20:13:10 +0100