posted December 15, 2011 12:25 PM            

I want to take myself off the table and ask you some questions, if I could.

Who would you like for President? It appears to be Ron Paul.

If so, if Romney got the Nomination and ran against Obama, who would you support?

If Ron Paul does not want to make Israel "special" who will be our friend when we need to take out Iran and things like that?

Again, you know my opinion and I will not give it again.
I am interested in yours, only!

------------------
Want a peek in to my journal?

posted December 15, 2011 01:31 PM            

quote:

---

I do not want to give my opinion. It is known. I agree with Jwhop, in everything I have ever seen him write.
I want to take myself off the table and ask you some questions, if I could

---

Well Amie Ann you don`t play fair, do you? That`s ok because most people don`t and I take it in stride.

quote:

---

Who would you like for President? It appears to be Ron Paul.

---

If he got the nomination, you bet your life on it.

quote:

---

If so, if Romney got the Nomination and ran against Obama, who would you support?

---

Easy peasy, Romney.

quote:

---

If Ron Paul does not want to make Israel "special" who will be our friend when we need to take out Iran and things like that?

---

If you are combining religion with politics by "special" I won`t go there

juni!

posted December 15, 2011 01:36 PM            

juni

posted December 15, 2011 03:07 PM            

Dear. God.

posted December 15, 2011 03:15 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
"when we need to take out Iran and things like that" ???????

Dear. God.

Is this for real?

---

Well, look back in history when Israel took out the Iraq nuclear reactor and people were VERY happy to have Israel as the only like minded democracy in that tempest of a region.

------------------
Want a peek in to my journal?

posted December 15, 2011 06:17 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by juniperb:
Did I answer your questions?

---

Not really but let me phrase it, differently. Taking away religion, do you think Israel deserves a special place in US foreign policy as the only like minded democracy in this hot bed region?

Why? Why not?
Let me just reiterate that I am just interested in hearing your point of view. I do not wish to debate. I want to say that, outright.

------------------
Is Your Life a Greek Tragedy? Check Out My Asteroid Articles.

posted December 15, 2011 08:22 PM            

Ron Paul: The Most Pro-Israel Candidate

First of all, it may come as a surprise to many that Ron Paul is actually the most pro-Israel candidate in the presidential race.

With hundreds of nuclear weapons in her possession, Israel has become the most powerful state in the Middle East. She could easily take on her neighbors and eliminate any and all threats to her existence.

Ron Paul would not stop Israel from defending her interests in any way she saw fit. When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, almost the entire U.S. Congress voted to condemn the act. Ron Paul was one of the few dissenters: he voted against the condemnation and in favor of Israel’s right to self-determination.

Ending Foreign Aid Sets Israel Free

Ron Paul has also been criticized for wanting to “end foreign aid to Israel.” He had in fact called for an end to all foreign aid in general. Foreign aid acts like an entitlement: eventually the recipient grows dependent on it and will do everything in his power to continue the flow of funds. This might even involve spending some of the already-received payments to “lobby” for more money.

Ron Paul believes this is a bad thing. Not only does foreign aid lead to corruption on both sides; it is inherently immoral. Ron Paul said that “foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country.”

If foreign aid to all countries were stopped immediately, Israel would be the biggest net beneficiary. This is because the U.S. pays much more foreign aid to Israel’s enemies combined than to Israel.

Like a discouraged unemployed person whose welfare payments are about to run out, Israel would finally have the motivation to take care of herself, for example by ending socialist domestic policies within Israel. This in turn would make Israel much stronger and more independent. Ending all foreign aid would indeed set Israel free.

Iran Is a Big Nobody

Iran is a large country, but from a military point of view they are a big nobody. They are surrounded by nuclear powers, they have no air force, no navy, and they are even incapable of producing as much gasoline as they need. Iranian officials are relegated to grudgingly hoping that “the Zionist regime will collapse”, which is the real meaning of Ahmadinejad’s infamous phrase frequently mistranslated as “we will wipe Israel off the map”.

It is understandable that Iran wants to gain the international respect they deserve as a country of 75 million people. But according to U.S. intelligence reports there are no indications whatsoever that Iran is actively working on creating or obtaining a nuclear weapon.
http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-14/ron-paul-the-most-pro-israel-candidate/

posted December 15, 2011 08:34 PM            

------------------
Is Your Life a Greek Tragedy? Check Out My Asteroid Articles.

posted December 16, 2011 05:21 PM            

"With Ron Paul ascending in Iowa, winning the hearts of independents, and even the endorsement of Andrew Sullivan, it’s worth pointing something out: Ron Paul is not a kindly old libertarian who just wants everybody to be free. He’s a really creepy bigot.

posted December 17, 2011 12:05 AM            

------------------
Find Your Personal Asteroids and You Will Find Your Own Greek Myth.

posted December 17, 2011 08:32 AM            

Anyhow as noted by Chait and found tucked in the last paragraph:

There’s way, way more of this in Kirchick’s piece. The slight complicating factor is that Paul’s newsletter was unsigned, so even though it purported to express his views, he can plausibly deny having authored any single passage personally. But the general themes of white racial paranoia are so completely pervasive that the notion that they don’t represent Paul’s own thinking is completely implausible. It is possible that another contributor could have snuck in a line here or there that did not reflect Paul’s thinking, but they couldn’t have set the consistent ideological line for his newsletter.

posted December 17, 2011 12:37 PM            

quote:

---

News Bulletin: Ron Paul Is A Racist http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html
"With Ron Paul ascending in Iowa, winning the hearts of independents, and even the endorsement of Andrew Sullivan, it’s worth pointing something out: Ron Paul is not a kindly old libertarian who just wants everybody to be free. He’s a really creepy bigot.

Around four years ago, James Kirchick reported a lengthy story delving into Paul’s worldview. As Kirchick writes, Paul comes out of an intellectual tradition called “paleolibertarianism,” which is a version of libertarianism heavily tinged with far-right cultural views. The gist is that Paul is tied in deep and extensive ways to neo-Confederates, and somewhat less tightly to the right-wing militia movement. His newsletter, which he wrote and edited for years, was a constant organ of vile racism and homophobia. This is not just picking out a phrase here and there. Fear and hatred of blacks and gays, along with a somewhat less pronounced paranoia about Jewish dual loyalty, are fundamental elements of his thinking. The most comparable figure to Paul is Pat Buchanan, the main differences being that Paul emphasizes economic issues more, and has more dogmatically pro-market views."

---

These are old accusations. They date back to Paul's 1996 congressional run when his Repub primary opponent, "Lefty" Morris, dug up the old issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report in a last ditch effort to win the election. fwiw the Kirchick piece was published the on Jan 8, 2008 - the NH primary and Kirchick is what our Jwhop would no doubt call a flaming leftist. Here's an excerpt from a 2001 article where Paul addresses the controversy. You'll need an account to read the entire article (it's free and worth your while)
http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7

"We just have to get his ideas out, and people will know what he really stands for," Morris said at the time. He ran ads saying that Paul advocated the legalization of illegal drugs, which was not entirely accurate. Though some of Paul's public remarks had suggested that he supported full drug legalization, his official position was (and is) that federal drug laws ought to be repealed: Let the states handle all drug laws. Then Morris' subalterns dug up something even more damaging to Paul: copies of a 1992 newsletter he had published that contained racially tinted remarks.

They caused a minor sensation. In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "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." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

I think this is also worth a read ..
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

There's quite a lot I like about Paul, at heart his belief in the individual and distrust of any form of collectivism. This resonates not only with my political beliefs but my religious beliefs as well. Nevertheless, I'm not one of the Ron Paul faithful. I support gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. I do question these racial allegations though. Also, drawing similarities between Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan is absurd.

posted December 17, 2011 12:40 PM            

------------------
Find Your Personal Asteroids and You Will Find Your Own Greek Myth.

posted December 17, 2011 12:53 PM            

I try to keep my head out of American politics as an American and global citizen. I don't support the political philosophies or systems in this country. And I'm not looking forward to the suffocating media press covering the upcoming election in 2012.

posted December 17, 2011 12:56 PM            

------------------
Find Your Personal Asteroids and You Will Find Your Own Greek Myth.

posted December 17, 2011 01:07 PM            

And I'm not looking forward to the suffocating media press covering the upcoming election in 2012.

posted December 17, 2011 01:27 PM            

quote:

---

I do not wish to debate

---

yk, Ami, that's probably a smart move on your part.

quote:

---

Are you a Scorpio?

---

posted December 17, 2011 01:43 PM            

If that is the only card left in Kirchick`s deck, he needs new subject matter...

posted December 17, 2011 01:46 PM            

------------------
What is Your Own Greek Myth?

posted December 17, 2011 03:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by shura:
Am I in the astro forum?

Off topic is nice within reason, the ability to focus is also nice.

---

Just using my radar

------------------
What is Your Own Greek Myth?