CNN’s John Roberts:
By on Jun 18th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
We know he is a Mormon, and extremely wealthy, but otherwise he is a phony GOPer.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:39 pmOh, this is too easy. Pro-extended family…like 8 wives (mostly minors). Shut up Roberts.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:42 pmunless your gay
June 18th, 2007 at 11:42 pm“We do definitely know that Mitt Romney is pro-family.â€
Which just means more of the Federal Government regulating morality.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:49 pmwho the hell isn’t pro-family; what not assess something important like whether the guy is pro-apple pie!!
June 18th, 2007 at 11:52 pmI am pro-Betsy Ross. Can I run for office?
June 18th, 2007 at 11:52 pmI’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone who is anti-family.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:53 pm“We do definitely know that Mitt Romney is pro-family.â€
Well La-Dee-Freakin’-Da!
I really should go to sleep now. Good night again.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:55 pmIf you believe in having multiple wives, does that make you more pro family than a man who believes in having only one wife? Just asking because I don’t know what the f*ck John Roberts was getting at.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:57 pmIt’s official….we can kick John Roberts’s ass now.
June 18th, 2007 at 11:58 pmYup, shane, pro multiple wives DOES make you more pro-family by definition.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:02 amIsn’t just about everyone pro-family?
June 19th, 2007 at 12:06 ampro multiple wives DOES make you more pro-family by definition.
I guess that depends if it is on a scale or an absolute. Like being partially pregnant vs a marble collection.
OK, That’s all I had and I had to reach for that one.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:07 amWe alway knew that Mitt Romney was pro-family.
The sole question was how many wives.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:07 amMitt Romney is just another flavor of Machiavellian-Trotskyite, Neo-Con shitheel.
There is only ONE real candidate of any consequence in this race – RON PAUL.
We MUST restore the rule of law, the separation of powers, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and we must restore the Republic, meeting out Justice to those who would reduce us to utter Despotism.
You only hear that from one person in this race – RON PAUL.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:08 amI am talking pure quantity, Tundra. More wives=more family. Honestly, if the LDS wasn’t making a push for polygamy this would just be a joke but they have just sunk his campaign.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:10 amRon Paul is a racist, knuckle-dragging strike-breaker. He has absolutely NOTHING to offer except his Iraq war stand.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:11 amComment by Smack — June 19, 2007 @ 12:08 am
I may be wrong but I believe him and Kuchinich are the only two that are running that voted against the Iraq war in 2002.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:13 amWhy isn’t the news media reporting on the excessive destruction of Rove’s emails? With all the scandals, filth and deceit, the media wants to report what a family man Romney is? It is unbearable.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:14 amWho the hell ISN’T pro-family?
Oh, wait — maybe someone who has met my in-laws…
June 19th, 2007 at 12:19 amHe has absolutely NOTHING to offer except his Iraq war stand.
Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003)
June 19th, 2007 at 12:19 amThe mormons aren’t pushing polygamy. They’re defending their forefathers practice of it. And in many cases it was a benefit to their society, mostly in providing husbands and therefore support for the myriad of widows resulting from the thousands of deaths along the mormon exodus from Missouri to Utah.
Husbands who bore the brunt of the danger and workload often died on the trail, and unmarried young women whose parents died on the trail needed support in the harsh rugged pioneer environment. They faced every danger known to man at the time, including disease, famine, pestilence and hostile indians. Unmarried women did not fare well in such conditions, and it was often believed that Polygamy saved them as a people.
Of course that doesn’t explain why Joseph Smith, (who never lived to see the exodus) introduced it in Illinois several years earlier. But it does cast a light onto why the mormons defend their ancestors practice of it.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:20 amKuchinich is the only one I trust – the others… they are either a corporatist, voted for the US led invasion/massacre, hide behind their religion, lying bastards…
June 19th, 2007 at 12:22 amI may be wrong but I believe him and Kuchinich are the only two that are running that voted against the Iraq war in 2002.
Comment by Tundra
Ron Paul is also definately racist.
I’m from Texas. I have seen Paul’s whole public political life.
His newsletter he wrote in the 90s was pure racist crap.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:22 amHarry Reid is a mormon and it hasn’t hurt him any.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:24 amNo, Bartlebee, Mormons (I don’t know how widespread it is) are pushing for recognition of polygamy. The AGs of AZ and UT said they WON’T prosecute it.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070612/ts_nm/usa_mormons_polygamy_dc
June 19th, 2007 at 12:25 amOf course Reid’s being mormon hasn’t hurt him. He isn’t running for President. He is a Utah Senator where Mormons are a majority. Yup, tough to run as a Mormon in Utah.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:28 amHarry Reid is a mormon and it hasn’t hurt him any.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Yeah, freedom of and from religion is one of the things so great about this country.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:28 amThey bitched because President Kenedy was irish and catholic.
Bigotry is really not cool.
The AGs of AZ and UT said they WON’T prosecute it.
If it’s not going to be enforced the law should be removed. AG’s deciding not to prosecute laws under their jurisdiction is just like Bush not enforcing the laws congress send up and using his signing statements as an excuse.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:29 amOops, sorry, Nevada only has about a 1/3 Mormon population.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:29 amWho isn’t pro-family besides corporate CEOs and divorced, philandering, Republican pedophiles?
June 19th, 2007 at 12:31 amThe thing is Tundra, they have absolutely no right saying they won’t prosecute a popular law. Now, if it was some 1860’s law against branding your cattle with the letter S in it, that is different. Some laws are outdated, polygamy isn’t.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:32 amJPark. You are reading the article wrong. (as I am sure most people do, hence the common misconceptions)
By labling the polygamist cults “fundamentalist mormons” they are planting the notion that the LDS Church is associated somehow, and is pushing polygamy.
They’re not.
I just read the article you provided, and it is simply talking about the polygamist cults in southern Utah and Arizona ( a little hole called “Colorodo City), and you, like most people, are confused by the usage of their term “Fundamentalist Mormons”.
They are not “mormons”. They are spinoffs of the church. Apostates as they are referred to by actual mormons. They do not have any association whatsoever with the actual mormon church, nor does the church in any way support them.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:35 amMormons (I don’t know how widespread it is) are pushing for recognition of polygamy. The AGs of AZ and UT said they WON’T prosecute it.
Comment by JPark
The main LDS Church is against it and excumunicates people that do.
That said, not all mormons are members of LDS, but belong to the offshoots that do push poligamy.
Just like the rest of chistianity, splintered into thousands of pieces that all believe the rest are going to hell.
heh
June 19th, 2007 at 12:36 amHe isn’t running for President.
Comment by JPark — June 19, 2007 @ 12:28 am
Give him time.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:36 amIf it’s not going to be enforced the law should be removed. AG’s deciding not to prosecute laws under their jurisdiction is just like Bush not enforcing the laws congress send up and using his signing statements as an excuse.
Comment by Tundra
Agreed
June 19th, 2007 at 12:37 amThe thing is Tundra, they have absolutely no right saying they won’t prosecute a popular law.
That’s what I meant, it’s a law they can’t “Decide” if they want to prosecute it or not. We don’t pay them to decide law, we pay them to prosecute violators of laws. We pay congress to enact laws.
Just like we pay police to enforce laws regardless of how they feel about them.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:40 amThat said, not all mormons are members of LDS, but belong to the offshoots that do push poligamy.
Comment by Wayne — June 19, 2007 @ 12:36 am
Really they cannot be called mormons. Mormon was a nickname given to early church members of the LDS Church, because of their belief in the Book of Mormon. The LDS Church members accepted that moniker, thus it refers to members of the LDS Church, which these breakoffs are not.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:41 amIt just goes to show how the mainstream media can be responsible for starting or perpetuating rumors or myths. Calling these polygamist cults mormons is incorrect, and confuses people as we’ve seen here tonight, into believing polygamy is still somehow supported by the LDS Church.
A fundamental mormon is a guy who pays his tithing regularly, does his home teaching, attends temple and doesn’t watch football on Sunday.
He is not a member of an apostate spinoff sect.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:45 am“That’s what I meant, it’s a law they can’t “Decide†if they want to prosecute it or not. We don’t pay them to decide law, we pay them to prosecute violators of laws. We pay congress to enact laws.”
I kind of disagree. Sort of. There are laws that are still on the books from over a hundred years ago that are just obsolete by now. I am sure there is some law in some state where it is illegal to lick a woman’s back. If I were a DA I certainly wouldn’t prosecute so it is kind of iffy for me about a DA’s discretion. If I were a DA I certainly wouldn’t prosecute the outdated sodomy laws that seem to be infiltrating the American conscience lately.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:52 amThe ONLY people who are ANTI-family are the FASCISTS led by Bush and Cheney and the PNAC neocons…
June 19th, 2007 at 12:53 amMormon was a nickname given to early church members of the LDS Church, because of their belief in the Book of Mormon. Comment by BARTLEBEE
Almost every split from the early church has a historical relationship with the early church. For example Sidney Rigdon and William Bickerton who lead the “The Church of Jesus Christ” without the added Latter Day Saint tag. The Community of Christ is the 2nd largest church in Utah, after LDS and was a split from Brigham Young as well. Thay all originally followed Joseph Smith.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:54 amBartlebee, you are mostly right. It looks like I have been a victim of being a fool and believing the MSM. On the other hand we have two USAs saying they will not prosecute polygamy, one in the Mormon bastion (do you think he is Mormon?). There is clearly a push for legality (and not just by fringe groups).
June 19th, 2007 at 12:54 am“Pro-Family” is code for “Anti-Gay”, because apparently gay people’s families don’t count. At least that’s what one would think looking at any given Christian-oriented “family” website.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:56 amRay Taliaferro from kgo.com, had a discussion about the magic under ware called garments the Mormon’s wear. A caller stated as he used to belong with the church, that when they greet one another, it is with a hug and a little feel to make sure the garment is being worn. If not a report is made.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:00 amShin, pro-family is code for anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-divorce and pro-adultery.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:08 amthe magic under ware called garments the Mormon’s wear. — had enough
And catholics perform a ritual, pretending to eat a person’s flesh. symbolic canabalism. Actually the practice can be historically traced back to pre-christian religions that actually did eat their relatives, leaders or enemies to gain power from them.
Face it, religions are all really, really weird. Some weirder than others =D
June 19th, 2007 at 1:10 amAlso, on Ray Taliaferro’s show it was mentioned that Mormon’s view the black race as the mark of Cain…. Ray is black – his remarks about that had me laughing …he is so funny when it comes to making fun of racists.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:12 amI guess that means he procreates whenever he can.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:12 amFace it, religions are all really, really weird. Some weirder than others =D
Comment by Wayne — June 19, 2007 @ 1:10 am
June 19th, 2007 at 1:15 amAgreed
Wayne, absolutely right. All religions are silly. If any religious people want to call me on this I will read from your preferred holy book.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:16 amAnd catholics perform a ritual, pretending to eat a person’s flesh. symbolic canabalism. Actually the practice can be historically traced back to pre-christian religions that actually did eat their relatives, leaders or enemies to gain power from them.
Comment by Wayne
This is too much…Ray Taliaferro would have fun with that – he now refers to the Christians as Christian Terrorists and has had over whelming support from his audience with that term.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:17 amI am waiting on your evidence that Ron Paul is a racist. Thought you could just spew crap like that and not get challenged on it?
Think again.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:18 amOh I’m sure you’ll produce some misquote about immigration.
Knock on the door and ask me to enter my house, don’t break in thru the window, threaten my family, claim that it’ is your house and then expect to live there peacefully. I know it’s a hard concept for some of you to grasp but, there is a difference between LEGAL and ILLEGAL immigration.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:24 amThis is too much…Ray Taliaferro would have fun with that — had enough
Do any stations carry him other than in the San Francisco Bay Area?
No one in Texas does that I know of =P
Have heard about him, but have not heard his show.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:26 am“I am waiting on your evidence that Ron Paul is a racist. Thought you could just spew crap like that and not get challenged on it?
Think again.”
How can you be waiting on evidence you never asked for. Ok, now you have so here it is.
Here are some quotes from your pathetic candidate.
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
“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.”
“Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people…I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city (Washington) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
“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.”
“our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”
“What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn’t that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?”
Next time do your own Googling or maybe know something about your Cro-Magnon candidate.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:27 amSmack
What’s up?
June 19th, 2007 at 1:27 amNone of those quotes were about illegal immigrants, smack. Try again.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:28 amNo Madison stations either. I am guessing it is just SF since Mad-Town is the second most liberal city in the country (sorry Austin)
June 19th, 2007 at 1:29 amI am waiting on your evidence that Ron Paul is a racist. Thought you could just spew crap like that and not get challenged on it?
Think again.
Comment by Smack
Anyonethat has posted or read here long knows I don’t say sh*t I can’t back up
A Houston Chronicle article from 1996 quoting for Paul’s newsletter for starters.
Some of the quotes:
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”
“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions”
“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,”
Back at you, prove he isn’t racist, then I will post more…….
June 19th, 2007 at 1:34 amThose Ron Paul quotes were not from him, but he did claim the moral authority over them.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
Was upset when he found out about them.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:35 amWayne
You can get kgo, 810 am on the west coast from Mexico to
June 19th, 2007 at 1:36 amcanada at night as the signal is 50(W?). Many listen on the internet kgo.com, even around the world as it is day time there when his show aires.
Context, Jpark. Thats really all the time and effort I want to spend debating you on this point.
I can see already it would be a waste of time and my sanity to persuade you that Ron Paul is not racist but rather he made those statements in CONTEXT and as a matter of fact.
I’m pretty sure I’ve got you figured out anyway, pal. Good luck with your Candidate of choice.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:41 am“pro-family” is all very well – how about being “pro-integrity”,”pro-honesty, “pro-restoring honour to the white house” and “pro-serving the people” as a president in a democracy should
June 19th, 2007 at 1:43 amWas upset when he found out about them.
Comment by Tundra
So he claimed. His name is on the articles from his newsletter from 1992.
I also happen to have an original copies of his newsletter stored in a box of books in my closet my grandad gave me to read shortly before he died. Never had the heart to throw them in the trash.
He can spin, but it doesn’t work on those that know the facts.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:44 amTundra, him being too busy to oversee his own newsletter does not give me too much faith in him. By the way, the article was not right, not only were the quotes erased the entire website disappeared. He and Rove would get along well.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:45 amSure smack, the context of those comments really matter. Go away. No progressive has any cause to vote for that moron. I could go into all of the things that actually matter, like his votes if you would like. I will not allow your Ron Paul BS to stand here. He is a regressive like no other.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:47 am…and you have some strange ideas about what it means to be “Progressive”, jpark.
I am glad to see you concede on the original point though.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:50 amI can see already it would be a waste of time and my sanity to persuade you that Ron Paul is not racist but rather he made those statements in CONTEXT and as a matter of fact.
Comment by Smack
Go ahead and try. I will pull that newsletter out and post the “context” for you as well.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:52 amPlease enlighten us.
Wayne/JPark,
I don’t know a whole lot about him yet. I have the time to do some looking (Not that he will get the nomination anyways). He does have alot of points I like though overall.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:53 amSmack, tell, me, what domestic idea would progressives not violently disagree with with Mr. Paul?
June 19th, 2007 at 1:54 amHe is not a Progressive candidate at all though. He is a small Federal government and has alot for states rights. The only real things that Progressives will find they like about him are his defense of the constitution/foreign policy/war stance and drug stance.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:56 amTundra, you might like him, I don’t know. Progressives absolutely wouldn’t. He would like to get rid of all social programs, including the 3rd rail. He is for regressive taxation (flat tax or national sales tax, he hasn’t decided). He is the anti-FDR.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:56 amTundra, you are right about the Constitution and the war on drugs. Most liberals would not be all that thrilled with his extremist isolationism. We WOULD like to do something about Darfur.
June 19th, 2007 at 1:58 amHe does have alot of points I like though overall.
Comment by Tundra
As part Native American, enough to be a victim of racist bastards in the past, I don’t care how many points he may be correct on, his racist crap wipes all that out.
Hitler had points alot of people liked too, that is how he got elected.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:02 amSmack, tell, me, what domestic idea would progressives not violently disagree with with Mr. Paul?
Comment by JPark — June 19, 2007 @ 1:54 am
I’ll help Smack cause he needs it :)
He is and has been against the Patriot Act.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:03 amEminent Domain (Against, that’s a Progressive trait right?)
Secure the borders
Government not deciding about municipal drug use (Weed, all Progressives like weed right? hehe)
Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting.
No money for corporations
Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests.
I suppose it depends on how you define “Progressives”.
If you mean the spineless twits that occupy the Congress now,
I am positive they are violently opposed to the concepts of a free society that Dr. Paul and the Founding Fathers espouse. They prove this every single day, by refusing to do their jobs and bring the Bush Dictatorship to an abrupt halt.
Really, I am shocked at the level of animosity and ignorance you display for the basic foundations of Liberty in our Nation and those that support a return to it. Is that what you define as Progressive?
June 19th, 2007 at 2:04 amAs part Native American, enough to be a victim of racist bastards in the past, I don’t care how many points he may be correct on, his racist crap wipes all that out.
Right now I am candidate shopping, I have to look at them all so I can make an informed discission. I have to see the things I like that he does and do the same with them all. I am not advocating him, just some of the ideas he has.
Like I said though Ron Paul is not a Progressive candidate by any means.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:08 amIs that what you define as Progressive?
Comment by Smack
A progressive is non-racist.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:09 amTundra, half of those are parts of the Bush foreign policy. Patriot Act, borders, drug war, corporations (trade).
The others, you have a point. Like I said, Paul is better than 98% of Republicans. He is, however, against any help for the poor. He is for regressive taxation (not really helping the rich but really hurting the poor). His is anti-gay, anti-abortion. He has some moronic notion that the Fed is the ultimate in evil (I find that obscene as an accountant). Just read his book “The Case for Gold” if you want to see anti-semetism at its finest. By the way, the gold standard? Is he stoned (I don’t think so despite his stance on pot)? There is not enough gold to support all the currency we have…even if we spent all that currency on gold!!! The guy is a moron.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:13 am- A progressive is non-racist.
Comment by Wayne — June 19, 2007 @ 2:09 am
nice Non sequitur, Wayne. You’ve neatly bypassed everything else I’ve said and leaped right into a hot bowl of stupid. Thanks for playing.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:13 amLiberty in our Nation and those that support a return to it. Is that what you define as Progressive?
No that is a Libertarian.
Progressives believe in a larger government that is responsible for the welfare of all of the citizens. Things like National Health Care, Free college for all etc.
Libertarians (Small government people) believe that the states need to run those programs and not the federal government. If you want it, then as a community you can get it without federal involvement.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:14 am“Really, I am shocked at the level of animosity and ignorance you display for the basic foundations of Liberty in our Nation and those that support a return to it. Is that what you define as Progressive?”
Read my last post. If you still, somehow, want to portray yourself as a progressive you might not want to support that idiot Paul.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:15 amTundra, actually, as far as I can tell Libertarians don’t want the states to run health care and colleges. The want it to be for profit.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:16 amWHITE AMERICA!!!
Seaver/Paul ‘08
June 19th, 2007 at 2:16 amTundra, I really don’t see Libertarians as Fed vs. State. I see them as gov’t vs. corp.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:17 amThanks for playing.
Comment by Smack
Yeah, right……
Still waiting on your proof to back up your claim Ron Paul is not racist.
ZZZzzzzzzzz…….
June 19th, 2007 at 2:17 amMike Seaver??? Left Behind baby!!!!
June 19th, 2007 at 2:17 amProgressives believe in a larger government that is responsible for the welfare of all of the citizens. Things like National Health Care, Free college for all etc.
Comment by Tundra — June 19, 2007 @ 2:14 am
You do mean free college for those who are qualified, don’t you?
June 19th, 2007 at 2:18 amWayne, do you think maybe Smack is schilling for Ron Paul? I just can’t tell. :)
June 19th, 2007 at 2:18 amWell well, Jpark. I thought i had you figured out and low and behold, I was right.
You are either fantastically stupid or you know what you’re doing here.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:18 amI’m not convinced on either point just yet, but continue to post. It’s very ILLUMINATING.
Primus, actually those would be liberals. And it would be a darned good idea.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:19 amSmack, you have not actually said anything enlightening. Until you do you might want to lay off the insults. I am waiting.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:20 amPrimus, actually those would be liberals. And it would be a darned good idea.
Comment by JPark — June 19, 2007 @ 2:19 am
I’m just going off what Tundra said in #82
June 19th, 2007 at 2:21 amSmack, I certainly hope Paul fires you. You are not gaining any supporters.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:22 amoops, #81
June 19th, 2007 at 2:22 amAhh, I see Primus. My apologies.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:23 amTundra, actually, as far as I can tell Libertarians don’t want the states to run health care and colleges. The want it to be for profit.
Comment by JPark — June 19, 2007 @ 2:16 am
Not at all, The overall principal of the Libertarian party is that the Federal Government stays out of citizens lives and allows states to rule. For instance Abortion/marriage etc should not be Federal issues and the “states” and “Communities” are allowed to govern themselves.
If a state wants to tax 45% and run all healthcare/education/fuel etc, the Libertarian party couldn’t care less (Well the libertarian party of the state maybe). But the Federal government isn’t going to fund it or make any laws regarding it.
The Libertarian party is all for a community “going into business for itself”, just not expecting someone in New York to fund your programs in Idaho.
Now Paul does have an Anti-Libertarian view on abortion and a few other things.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:23 amTundra, that was a good post but that is NOT what libertarians seem to think. States rights is nothing but a slogan. Libertarianism seems to me to be nothing but free market laissez faire foolishness. We did that once and it led to the great depression.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:26 am81,
Yeah that would be more Liberal huh?
Hmmm ok back to the drawing board on analogies.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:26 am“If a state wants to tax 45% and run all healthcare/education/fuel etc, the Libertarian party couldn’t care less (Well the libertarian party of the state maybe). But the Federal government isn’t going to fund it or make any laws regarding it.”
Tundra, with all due respect, that is totally wrong. Libertarians would have a fit over a state taxing 45%.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:27 amhttp://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml
Basic Platform
June 19th, 2007 at 2:28 amTundra, with all due respect, that is totally wrong. Libertarians would have a fit over a state taxing 45%.
Comment by JPark — June 19, 2007 @ 2:27 am
Not at a federal Level they wouldn’t. The Federal Libertarians would allow it fine, that state wouldn’t have a libertarian party in it (Not a successful one). But the Federal Government would have no say or argument to it.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:30 amWell off to bed.
smack Smack around a bit more if he pops up again, heh
Night, guys.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:31 amTundra, you might want to show that platform to most libertarians. It would shock the he!! out of them. I have never spoken to a states rights libertarian. I have spoken to an untold number of free market libertarians.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:32 amAnywho’s all, thanks for the conversation, but it is 2:30 and I must lay my head down.
Night!
June 19th, 2007 at 2:32 amNight Wayne.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:32 amNight Tundra.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:32 amI have never spoken to a states rights libertarian. I have spoken to an untold number of free market libertarians.
Yeah big differences. Some of the Free Market stuff gets pretty rough. The beauty with states rights is you decide how much of an anything you need. How much money for Welfare, how can we do healthcare, education. It ends up being on a scale that people can see and watch their money being used. Or you can be in an area that does very little.
Anywho;s Night guys!
June 19th, 2007 at 2:35 amTundra, there is absolutely no way you can itemize federal funds with all that state funding craziness.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:40 am#
Smack, I certainly hope Paul fires you. You are not gaining any supporters.
Comment by JPark — June 19, 2007 @ 2:22 am
I didn’t expect to find any of you “progressive” (read Trotskyite) types to be receptive of the Freedom message. I’ve learned enough about you, jpark, to know what your political views are – even if you don’t yet know it yourself.
“A good horse runs even at the shadow of the whip.” Siddhartha Gautama
June 19th, 2007 at 2:40 amSorry, I am an accountant. Having the states control all that money makes me nuts.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:40 amSmack, you just called progressives Trotskyites. Dismissed Adam Smithian.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:41 amThat JD Roberts is such a dope. Not too bright a bulb.
I can remember when he was a VJ (Video Jockey) up here in Canada, spinning them videos. DUH !
June 19th, 2007 at 2:43 amOh, WayneO, I feel for you. “And here is Alannis Morissette rockin the free world, which excludes the middle east and those freaking frenchies”. I can imagine.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:47 am#
Smack, you just called progressives Trotskyites. Dismissed Adam Smithian.
Comment by JPark — June 19, 2007 @ 2:41 am
I really think it’s pointless now to point out what should be obvious, but here goes anyway.
My comparison was with what I deduced from your posts, was YOUR definition of “progressive”. Do they teach Accountants reading comprehension in school?
Perhaps you should read Adam Smith again. …sigh.
June 19th, 2007 at 2:59 am… Re: Adam Smith
emphasis on mercantilism and Neo-mercantilism. Mk? thx.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:02 amSmack, you have bring up no points. Why should I actually take you seriously, especially after you have said you LOVE laissez faire economics. Enjoy the second great depression, dolt.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:15 amThat invisible hand works sooooooo well, doesn’t it Mr. Reality.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:16 am“My comparison was with what I deduced from your posts, was YOUR definition of “progressiveâ€. Do they teach Accountants reading comprehension in school?
Perhaps you should read Adam Smith again. …sigh.”
Perhaps you should read a history book. Adam Smith’s economics were not so successful. FDR’s advisors did a great job though. You can squirm around and say stupid things all you want but Keynes was right and you and Smith were and will always be wrong.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:18 amThe funny thing is you followers of Adam Smith don’t realize your idol was just as much of a fool as Karl Marx. Both ideas were based on the “fact” that humans were generally good. Well, that is not reality. Marx failed because people are greedy. Oh, and Adam Smith failed because people are greedy. Works out great, doesn’t it? Now, read Keynes. He is the soul of moderation. Kinda works out better (if governmental fools would actually follow it instead of using taxes as an election ploy). Again, dismissed.
June 19th, 2007 at 3:27 amHe’s pro HIS family.
Anybody else’s family gets the rug cut out from under them.
June 19th, 2007 at 5:38 amMaybe this is a story, because of what’s not being said. That Democrats are anti-family because via the two party system of opposites. Like if your Republican you must be pro-life. If your a Democrat, you must be pro-choice. This of course is a blanket generalization but anyone would be right 90 to 95% of the time on the issue of abortion.
Now, apply the same thinking to Pro-family. Maybe Democrats are Pro-Single Life?
Btw, people who are not pro-family, are pro-sociopaths. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe there are sociopaths with families.
I don’t think anyone that’s running for President in any party is anti-family.
June 19th, 2007 at 6:28 amHe is the anti-FDR.
Comment by JPark — June 19, 2007 @ 1:56 am
“Anti-FDR” is the entire basis of the modern conservative movement.
June 19th, 2007 at 6:52 amre #12 Everyone except Bush, Rice, Gonzalez, Cheney, et al.
June 19th, 2007 at 7:27 amBring back Miles O’Brien.
June 19th, 2007 at 7:41 am- Smack, you have bring up no points. Why should I actually take you seriously, especially after you have said you LOVE laissez faire economics. Enjoy the second great depression, dolt.
Comment by Jpark (the Oh-so-wise)
For someone who makes no points you certainly seem bent on shooting me down.
When did I say I was PRO Adam Smith? Im starting to think your brain isn’t wired right.
I am against a gigantic, bloated federal government. I am against Corporatism. I am against imperialism. I don’t agree with the belief that Government is the solution to all our problems.
You disagree with Ron Paul, fine. You think he’s a racist – again, fine.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:27 amYou think I don’t make any points, fine, don’t respond.
Methinks ‘pro-family’ doesn’t mean what it used to mean. Mainly its a synonym for pro-conservative, restrictive, taliban-style family. Saying you’re pro-family is a joke… it signals wing-nuttery.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:32 amYeah, and he smells good too.
Are these guys for real? They call themselves journalists. But they have forgotten the meaning of the word.
June 19th, 2007 at 9:33 amRegarding Mormonism —
June 19th, 2007 at 9:37 amread the book, “Under the Banner of Heaven.”
I won’t base my opinion on one book, but this controversial book based on historical fact was a real page-turner.
The Anti Family Dems are the problem. Anyone that is against the family is a problem in my opinion.
June 19th, 2007 at 10:08 amThe Anti Family Dems are the problem. Anyone that is against the family is a problem in my opinion.
Comment by Roger_Roger
No, anyone that cannot think critically and is a registered voter is the problem.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:00 pmYou, Roger “so dumb you have to repeat your name” Roger, YOU are the problem.
Wow, Pro-family. What a statement. I’m anti-murder, and pro-education, does that qualify me to be president?
Romney is pro-family… meaning pro-multiple wives.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:06 pmWhat in the hell is pro family? Please show me someone who is anti family. Ugh.
June 19th, 2007 at 12:55 pm