Ron Paul hit piece

[BillyDkid]

I haven't seen the scene, so I can't speak much on that.

However he does have a point.

Before you throw rocks at me, let me make my peace.

We shouldn't blindly follow anyone of any ideology.

I agree with a lot of the things that Dr. Paul says, however there are some things I disagree with.

One of them is abortion, which I am pro-choice for early abortions. As well as full rights to homosexuals. I am also quite as isolationist as him and think that minimalism while nice in practice is impractical in a large society.

Anyone who blindly follows any candidate, even Ron Paul, is destroying what this whole movement is about.

Nobody I know is "blindly following" anyone's ideology and, no, he doesn't have a point. The vast majority of us have waited for someone in the national spotlight who represents out views and feelings and our belief in liberty and Dr. Paul, with his campaign, gave that to us. The remainder are people who heard the message of liberty for the first time from Dr. Paul and it resonated with them - they understood it for the first time. This includes former diehard lefties and righties who finally had their ears opened to the truth of things.

 

[Reason]

Looks like the article has been edited now.

Happy I made that phone call

 

[free.alive]

Disorderlyvision: May 2009.

You're obviously new here. They guy needs a little traffic. Just ignore it, deaden the link (please), and give it no traffic.

 

[Reason]

Disorderlyvision: May 2009.

You're obviously new here. They guy needs a little traffic. Just ignore it, deaden the link (please), and give it no traffic.

1. Disorderlyvision has more posts than you do.

2. Now that the article has been edited I can't even say that I can entirely disagree with the authors sentiments.

 

[disorderlyvision]

Disorderlyvision: May 2009.

You're obviously new here. They guy needs a little traffic. Just ignore it, deaden the link (please), and give it no traffic.

Umm what does my sign up date have to do with anything? Have I offended the keyboard warrior elites

New to this site? somewhat, I was a lurker before a poster. New to the ideas of liberty...NO

Normally I wouldn't even have posted the article. however, I have seen a lot of libertarian leaning posts on the examiner. So felt the circumstances were different than your usual Paul bashing.

 

[Reason]

RE: Robin Westmiller Misrepresentations
Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 8:05 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
RE: Robin Westmiller Misrepresentations

http://www.examiner.com/x-17370-Ven...-the-curtain--Why-we-MUST-question-our-Heroes

Robin Westmiller states,
"specifically his anti-gay marriage, anti-gay adoption and pro - military "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy."


Reality Check
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Civil_Rights.htm

Q: On gay marriage. You’ve been quoted as saying, “Any association that’s voluntary should be permissible in a free society.” And you’ve expressed your opposition to a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

A: If you believe in federalism, it’s better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony. And it should be dealt with religiously. The [government] really shouldn’t be involved. The government got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago. But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they’re economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that’s already in the dictionary. We do know what marriage is about. We don’t need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an Amendment. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. There’s no need for the federal government to be involved in this.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida Oct 21, 2007

Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army
Q: Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?

A: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem
Source: 2007 GOP debate at Saint Anselm College Jun 3, 2007

Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups
After 200 years, the constitutional protection of the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone.

Today’s current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, student rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc.

Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack of definition of rights, the worse the economic and social problems will be.
Source: Freedom Under Siege, by Ron Paul, p. 14-15 Dec 31, 1987

Same-sex adoption

On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[192] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage," whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[193][194][195][196]

Just received this email in response to my email. (quoted my email for reference)

Thank you for your comments

And for being civil. I received a phone call this morning and have re-edited the article to clarify some points.

However, since you did take the time to write, I'll go through your points

"There’s no need for the federal government to be involved in this."

Yes, but they are. The issue of whether or not state or federal government should be involved does not not relieve his stand the the fact he would do nothing to change it, even on a state level. In his case, Texas, when he supports the Constitution Party Platform by endorsing their presidential candidate.



A: I think the current policy is a decent policy.

Don't ask, don't tell, DON'T SERVE. This policy is anything BUT decent. "Disruptive behavior" was also the main reason that women were kept out certain military service. "So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, (OF COURSE IT IS!) it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.

There is no "problem" other than the policy that he believes is "decent". Again, this is NOT a Libertarian policy, but is very much supported by the C.P.

Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups
After 200 years, the constitutional protection of the right of the individual to life, liberty, and20the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone.
Today’s current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, student rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc.
Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack of definition of rights, the worse the economic and social problems will be.

Yes, and as a Libertarian, I totally with this, but until there is such a thing as EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW, and we have an end to discrimination, then there will always need to be "protected classes" under the Constitution.

He forgot about the CP's "protected class" of the "unborn"

Same-sex adoption - is specifically stated in the CP platform.


The main part of the article is just to point out that, although Ron Paul was the Libertarian party's presidential candidate, ONCE UPON A TIME, he abandoned a huge part of their platform when it comes to human rights, and perhaps that was one of the reasons he was picked to be in the movie. Still haven't found out how that happened, but I'm working on it.< br>
Again, thanks for the email.

Robin C. Westmiller, JD

 

[Kludge]

Y'all have forgotten the shining moment of the 2008 presidential campaign...

YouTube - Sean Hannity Chased Down By Angry Republicans

 

[dannno]

Looks like the article has been edited now.

Happy I made that phone call

Could you call her back and tell her that Ron Paul ALSO endorsed Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader??

I mean, how can he infer anything just for endorsing all of the third party candidates who agreed with his 4-point liberty philosophy??


All she did was change it to:

I simply speculated that it might have been due to his ultra-conservative political positions, which are in direct contrast to Libertarian principles.

What ultra conservative political positions?? States rights on abortions?? Give me a frickin break..

 

[specsaregood]

She was very polite and admitted that she does get paid based on how many hits her article gets so writing somewhat controversial articles about Ron Paul are in her interest.

Hrm, it seems such a payperhit policy would not necessarily encourage good journalism but instead a trolling version of journalism. Will have to keep this in mind if I ever see a link to examiner.com. Any media outlet that encourages such behavior ranks no better than the national enquirer or daily sun or other tabloid mags, in my book.

 

[Reason]

Could you call her back and tell her that Ron Paul ALSO endorsed Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr and Ralph Nader??

I mean, how can he infer anything just for endorsing all of the third party candidates who agreed with his 4-point liberty philosophy??


All she did was change it to:



What ultra conservative political positions?? States rights on abortions?? Give me a frickin break..

I posted all her contact info in this thread,

Let's just stay polite.

 

[Wildlander]

If you want to support gays, go join the democrats.

Libertarian is about liberty and the constitution - not liberalism.

Don't ask, don't tell is right on. Mind your own business. Have some respect for others instead of publicly shoving your tongue down your partners throat. That goes for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Otherwise you transgress against others around you. Acceptance and tolerance works both ways folks.

Wildlander

Feel free to leave comments and go on the "offensive"

http://www.examiner.com/x-17370-Ventura-County-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m7d28-Beware-the-man-behind-the-curtain--Why-we-MUST-question-our-Heroes

 

[0zzy]

If you want to support gays, go join the democrats.

Libertarian is about liberty and the constitution - not liberalism.

Don't ask, don't tell is right on. Mind your own business. Have some respect for others instead of publicly shoving your tongue down your partners throat. That goes for heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Otherwise you transgress against others around you. Acceptance and tolerance works both ways folks.

Wildlander

Cause, ya know, libertarianism (also known as classical liberalism) don't "support" gays.

When a soldier gets off the plane with his fellow soldiers to see his wife and kids, and he goes to his wife, and kisses her, they should be punished?

I CAN'T STAND THIS PICTURE! I'M SO INTOLERANT OF HETEROSEXUALS IT'S OFFENSIVE!

 

[free.alive]

disorderlyvision: Normally I wouldn't even have posted the article.

Keyboard warrior elite? Hardly, especially since - even though I've been posting here for quite some time now - I don't feel the need to chime in anywhere near as much as you or CivilRadiant. Quantity really seems to matter to him/her.

CivilRadiant:

(bolded) 1. Disorderlyvision has more posts than you do.

It's generally accepted here that we try to avoid driving traffic to idiots who are no threat and just bash us or Dr. Paul in order to gain traffic. I thought you may not know that since you've only been posting since May. It wasn't even intended to be a dig, and after reading over it there was no reason to infer it was.

I didn't go to the article, and still haven't. Is there now some disagreement as to whether it's a hit piece or not?

And you CivilRadiant... actually, a nice bit of work putting heat on the author and getting results.

 

[Reason]

I didn't go to the article, and still haven't. Is there now some disagreement as to whether it's a hit piece or not?

IMO I don't think it ever was a hit piece.

She was a huge RP supporter and had lunch with him lol

The way it was written originally was somewhat misleading in regard to Ron Paul's stated positions on some issues but that wasn't really the point of the article. (which she now corrected/clarified)

The author basically is upset that RP embraced the constitution party due to some perceived conflicts between the goals of the libertarian party vs the constitution party.

It's worth reading imo.

 

[TortoiseDream]

http://www.examiner.com/x-17370-Ventura-County-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m7d28-Beware-the-man-behind-the-curtain--Why-we-MUST-question-our-Heroes

fail

 

[specsaregood]

IMO I don't think it ever was a hit piece.

She was a huge RP supporter and had lunch with him lol

She was a huge supporter that knew that if she wrote a piece critical of him it and with mistakes on his positions, it was sure to get lots of hits and she would get paid more. She must have had some debts she needed to pay off. Sleezy; but i guess it worked.

 

[Reason]

She was a huge supporter that knew that if she wrote a piece critical of him it and with mistakes on his positions, it was sure to get lots of hits and she would get paid more. She must have had some debts she needed to pay off. Sleezy; but i guess it worked.

After talking with the woman on the phone I have to say that I really don't think what you stated is true; of course we will never know for sure.

 

[specsaregood]

After talking with the woman on the phone I have to say that I really don't think what you stated is true; of course we will never know for sure.

I'm just going off what you said, that she admitted that she got paid based on the # of hits. That is an excellent incentive to troll is it not?

 

[Reason]

I'm just going off what you said, that she admitted that she got paid based on the # of hits. That is an excellent incentive to troll is it not?

Sure it's great incentive, like I said, we'll never know for sure, but it's just not the impression I got from the relatively long conversation I had with her. She seemed to genuinely care about the issues involved quite passionately.

 

[Flash]

Y'all have forgotten the shining moment of the 2008 presidential campaign...

YouTube - Sean Hannity Chased Down By Angry Republicans

While at the same time there were reports of actual Obama fans stabbing Hillary supporters.


Hypocritical much?

Edit: And people wonder why nothing ever changes in this country. Someone throws a snowball at a POS news reporter and people bitch about it on the internet for years to come, yet Obama radicals stab and intimidated voters of other candidates, and it gets brushed off as nothing. Haha.