C’est What? Robideaux backs Ron Paul

...
written by Brandon Penning , January 23, 2012 - 02:20 pm

To Walter Pierce

Did you ever watch the unedited version of Ron Paul's interview with Gloria Burger? Obviously not, because it was edited to look like he walked off when in fact he did not and stayed until well after the interview was over.

Another point that shows you are a tool is your claim that Paul never appologized or claimed responsibility for those letters even though he didnt write them.

Nice try though... you "journalist".

...
written by Brandon Penning , January 23, 2012 - 03:14 pm

To Walter...

Are you a journalist or an editorial writer? Why don't you back up these claims with cited references? Why didn't you cover your false claim that he walked off of the Gloria Burger interview? You are obviously applying your own "Rose Colored Lenses" to this situation without making any statements based in fact or backed up by actual sources to those claims.

...
written by B Faul , January 23, 2012 - 03:59 pm

"Another point that shows you are a tool is your claim that Paul never appologized or claimed responsibility for those letters even though he didnt write them."

I have a real problem with these news letters, whether or not Paul authored them. I'm thinking to myself, if I were in his position at the time would I let a newsletter go out year after year bearing my name in the title that contained this kind of off-the-wall fringe stuff if I didn't believe in it? There's no way in hell. No way. I don't care how he spins it, if he let it continue under his name then that represents an endorsement of sorts. You know that old military saying - "Once is a fluke, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action". No sir, I'm not buying his explanation. It happened for too many times for far too long. He should have to answer for that, and were he to get the nomination he will get beaten over the head with it. Count on it. It would be irresponsible journalism NOT to bring it up.

I agree with many of Paul's views, but if you want to see what an unregulated environment looks like google "pollution in China" and browse some of the images you find. It's disgusting and unbelievable what they've allowed to be done to much of their air and water, just like the Soviets did to theirs before them. That would be us without the EPA. It WAS us in the late 70's and early 80's. I went to Los Angeles in '84 and, eerily, you couldn't see the sun on a cloudless day. Those strict environmental rules on cars that California implemented - the ones that conservatives love to gripe about - are the only thing that turned it around. It would be far, far worse by now if California hadn't decided to take action and had instead let industry - specifically the automotive industry - keep doing what they were doing. It would be a big problem in nearly every state by now if the EPA hadn't implemented similar Federal standards for various industries - although less strict than California's.

I'm not willing, as Paul seems to be, to discard one hundred years of hard learned lessons about the abuses that unregulated corporate greed is capable of visiting on people. A corporation can deprive people of property, steal their resources and put them at risk just as effectively as a government can, and often with far greater speed and enthusiasm.

Paul would save us from the pigs to feed us to the wolves.

-Brent Faul

...
written by Brandon Penning , January 23, 2012 - 04:26 pm

You have still failed to cover your false claim that he walked off the Gloria Burger interview. Ever gonna touch on that?

...
written by Brandon Penning , January 23, 2012 - 04:46 pm

My viewpoint of Ron Paul's views is not the point here. Your lack of journalistic integrity by making unsubstaniated claims that he walks off of interviews without citing sources or the specific interview... is.

...
written by Josh Baldwin , January 23, 2012 - 06:38 pm

"Those strict environmental rules on cars that California implemented - the ones that conservatives love to gripe about - are the only thing that turned it around."--Brent Faul
Sounds like another strong argument for states rights instead of Federal Govt regulations to me. 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.

...
written by Michael A. Moss , January 23, 2012 - 06:47 pm

Ron Paul has about as much chance of being President as Robideaux had of being Louisiana Speaker of the House. They are both pissing in the wind!!

...
written by Luke Jason Willis , January 23, 2012 - 06:59 pm

First of all, I would like to thank you, Mr. Pierce, for doing such an excellent job of discrediting yourself by adopting such an insulting and condescending tone in these comments; you have already done half of my work for me.
First off, racism: You attempt to insinuate that Dr. Paul is a racist simply because the white supremacist group "Stormfront" finds something to like in his policies. I suppose, then, that Dr. Paul must also be a BLACK supremacist, since Louis Farrakhan has also praised Dr. Paul. The more common sense approach would be to infer that even violent racist idiots can sometimes recognize good sense when they see it.
As to any less laughable, direct charges of racism-- not only has Dr. Paul practiced medicine for many decades, providing free and cut-rate medical care to people of ALL races, but has spoken out in condemnation of racism throughout his public career. Also, Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the NAACP has known Dr. Paul for 20 years and has handily dismissed the idea of Ron Paul being a racist.
The race issue leads me to my next point, his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. This opposition comes from the fact that said Act infringes upon private property rights, one of the foundations of any free society. A person should not be forced, either by aggression or coercion, to manage or dispose of their property in any way that they do not see fit. If a white business owner does not want to serve people of color, then boycotts and other legal channels of recourse are available, which all thinking people would support in this day and age. In the same way, a black business owner should not be forced to use his private business to serve a Klansman, or a Jewish business owner forced to serve a Neo-Nazi. The rights of a free man to do as he wishes with his property and person, so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of another, is absolute in a truly free society.
As for the newsletters-- as pointed out above, Dr. Paul has accepted moral culpability for not having overseen the publishing of those articles more closely. However, to impugn Dr. Paul for something written by another, of which he was unaware is ridiculous. It's akin to saying that Rupert Murdoch is a bigoted, unintelligent, reactionary simply because of what comes out of Bill O'Reilly's mouth.
As to Dr. Paul's views on climate change and evolution: The man is running for the office of Commander-in-Chief and head of the Executive branch of our government. He is not campaigning to be elected as Evolutionary Biologist-in-Chief or Climatologist-in-Chief. I know it seems hard to fathom, but Dr. Paul actually understands that the POTUS is not an elected dictator, tasked with imposing his views upon the nation at large.
As to Dr. Paul and the environmental issue: The revolving-door policies and practices between our regulators and those being regulated has led to massive corruption. Also, the biggest corporations have used their influence (both the bought influence and that which comes from having former board members doing the regulating) to have regulations enacted which cripple smaller competitors while leaving themselves loopholes to continue their malfeasance. (This applies not only to environmental regulations, but those concerning business practices as well.) You would do well to learn more about Dr. Paul's solution to these problems, which involve reforming tort laws and removing limited liability protections from corporations, among other things.
In closing, I ask you this: If Ron Paul's presidency would be such a boon to corporate exploiters, why does the majority of their support go to his competitors?

“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 racist . . . we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.” ~ Ron Paul

...
written by Luke Jason Willis , January 23, 2012 - 07:19 pm

@B Faul: If you read the very short book "The Revolution" by Dr. Paul, you will see that he is well aware that in our present legal climate, removing regulation over polluters would be ill-advised, to say the least. Chinese society is in no way comparable to ours, nor is their legal system for addressing private property concerns. 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.
I would recommend that, short of reading his (very short) book, you go to RonPaul.com, and click on the "Issues" tab at the top of the page.

...
written by Luke Jason Willis , January 23, 2012 - 08:13 pm

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.

...
written by Brent Faul , January 23, 2012 - 09:35 pm

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.

...
written by chano leal , January 25, 2012 - 11:59 am

Come on, really who cares what couillion is in office, every office holder has a jar of stickem in thheir closet

...
written by chano leal , January 25, 2012 - 12:05 pm

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.

...
written by Justin Price , January 25, 2012 - 11:53 pm

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.

...
written by Justin Price , January 25, 2012 - 11:57 pm

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. :)

...
written by Justin Price , January 26, 2012 - 01:00 am

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.

...
written by Justin Price , January 26, 2012 - 01:47 pm

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.

...
written by Laci Nicole Buller , March 15, 2012 - 08:28 am

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.

...
written by Laci Nicole Buller , March 15, 2012 - 10:17 am

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.

...
written by Laci Nicole Buller , March 15, 2012 - 02:36 pm

How very mature and professional of you. Kudos...