Basra attacks down 90% since British troops left

Great article! You are right, the occupation forces are one of the major cause of the violence and the best thing for all concerned if for us to fold our tents and steal off into the night--that is go home and leave them to sort things out among themselves.

@ lensman67
Great article! You are right, the occupation forces are one of the major cause of the violence and the best thing for all concerned if for us to fold our tents and steal off into the night--that is go home and leave them to sort things out among themselves.

We will save trillions of dollars and can use it for education and health care or even pay the country's debt back.

@ lensman67
Great article! You are right, the occupation forces are one of the major cause of the violence and the best thing for all concerned if for us to fold our tents and steal off into the night--that is go home and leave them to sort things out among themselves.

That was my thoughts as I read this too. This needs to be sorted out by them without outside interference.

@ Chris V. (cgull)
We will save trillions of dollars and can use it for education and health care or even pay the country's debt back.

It would be nice if that's what would happen to all the money "saved", but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Interesting article,this is vindication for Ron Paul who has held this position all along. Not even the Democrats are willing to concede to this line of thinking or bringing the troops home by 2013. I hope this article gets allot more coverage.

@ American
Interesting article,this is vindication for Ron Paul who has held this position all along. Not even the Democrats are willing to concede to this line of thinking or bringing the troops home by 2013. I hope this article gets allot more coverage.

This is a vindication of the PEACE movement which has held this position all along. The fact that a racists like Paul also agrees is beside the point.

As for who will "concede to this line of thinking and bring the troop home" I don't think many Republicans are on the list. Some dumb Democrats got suckered into this war (and they should be held responsible for that mistake) but make no mistake, this was a Republican war from jump street.

@ lensman67
This is a vindication of the PEACE movement which has held this position all along. The fact that a racists like Paul also agrees is beside the point.

As for who will "concede to this line of thinking and bring the troop home" I don't think many Republicans are on the list. Some dumb Democrats got suckered into this war (and they should be held responsible for that mistake) but make no mistake, this was a Republican war from jump street.

lensman67, you're clearly a moron. Ron Paul has been against this war since before it started. how dare you sully his good name with your slanderous filth, you piece of crap. I bet that you weren't even against this war from the beginning. I bet you were one of those "dumb Democrats" that you mentioned, because you've obviously got an IQ of less than 90.

@ lensman67
This is a vindication of the PEACE movement which has held this position all along. The fact that a racists like Paul also agrees is beside the point.

As for who will "concede to this line of thinking and bring the troop home" I don't think many Republicans are on the list. Some dumb Democrats got suckered into this war (and they should be held responsible for that mistake) but make no mistake, this was a Republican war from jump street.

This might have been the peace movement all along but there is not current politician that follows the "peace" line like Ron Paul. Ron Paul was against the regime change act in 1998 under Clinton, this was and has always been part of the left to "make the world safe for democracy" well that means you need to go into other countries and change minds, if not by example by force which, I hope it would be the peace platform and you would be against it as well.

The racist remark was uncalled for, there is ONE person who sent him money and how that makes Dr. Paul a racist only shows you ignorance and makes you no different then the racists themselves.

But either way I hope we both can agree we want the war to stop. The current day political landscape wants us to do just what we are, argue - as long as the status quo can keep us divided they can have there way with this country.

If your for peace and prosperity then please take a look at Dr. Paul. he isnt your everyday politician, this is why you see such a huge outpouring of support. He has meetup groups all over the world, not only here the freedom message doesn't divide, it unites.

Peace

@ American
This might have been the peace movement all along but there is not current politician that follows the "peace" line like Ron Paul. Ron Paul was against the regime change act in 1998 under Clinton, this was and has always been part of the left to "make the world safe for democracy" well that means you need to go into other countries and change minds, if not by example by force which, I hope it would be the peace platform and you would be against it as well.

The racist remark was uncalled for, there is ONE person who sent him money and how that makes Dr. Paul a racist only shows you ignorance and makes you no different then the racists themselves.

But either way I hope we both can agree we want the war to stop. The current day political landscape wants us to do just what we are, argue - as long as the status quo can keep us divided they can have there way with this country.

If your for peace and prosperity then please take a look at Dr. Paul. he isnt your everyday politician, this is why you see such a huge outpouring of support. He has meetup groups all over the world, not only here the freedom message doesn't divide, it unites.

Peace

Dennis Kucinich has a much better record on peace and is not a racist bigot like Paul nor a Libertarian loony. The fact that the neo-Nazis give money to Paul because they like where he stands on the issues, and that he does not give it back nor denounce their views, proves that he is not the man to lead this country.

And it is more than ONE Nazi giving him money, he has also written some really disgusting stuff that he admits to and some even more disgusting stuff that he has tried to pretend was "ghost written" for him but he does not say by whom.

As for his "huge outpouring of support" he is currently ranked at 3% in the polls. Maybe that is some new sort of "libertarian loony" math but that does not strike me as much of an outpouring.

If I thought that this nut job had a chance I would be working against him with all my might. Since he does not have a showball's chance in Hell I just write articles exposing his faults.

@ lensman67
Dennis Kucinich has a much better record on peace and is not a racist bigot like Paul nor a Libertarian loony. The fact that the neo-Nazis give money to Paul because they like where he stands on the issues, and that he does not give it back nor denounce their views, proves that he is not the man to lead this country.

And it is more than ONE Nazi giving him money, he has also written some really disgusting stuff that he admits to and some even more disgusting stuff that he has tried to pretend was "ghost written" for him but he does not say by whom.

As for his "huge outpouring of support" he is currently ranked at 3% in the polls. Maybe that is some new sort of "libertarian loony" math but that does not strike me as much of an outpouring.

If I thought that this nut job had a chance I would be working against him with all my might. Since he does not have a showball's chance in Hell I just write articles exposing his faults.

I see personal attacks are your thing so let me just make it real simple.

If you need to get your identity from the Federal Govt then Ron Paul isnt for you, if you like have censorship in everything you do then Ron Paul isnt for you. If you like working 6 months out of the year for the Federal Govt then Ron Paul isnt for you. If you think free speech is only speech you agree with then Ron Paul isnt for you.

While its obvious that you like the idea of a socialist type of Govt there are those who dont. Freedom to choose is what you loose under a socialist system. Welfare keeps people poor, an puts more people out in the streets in record numbers.

And my uninformed friend libertarian literally means you believe in liberty, The Constitution is a libertarian document. While I agree to some extent with the libertarian remark you made, the purest libertarian ideology is WAY out there but the civil libertarian ideology is very close to the conservative Republican.

What you expose is your own ignorance is what you expose. You claim peace then talk absolute nonsense. I think Dennis has some good points on foreign policy but his idea on domestic policy is for fantasy land retards. We are going broke, he promises shit he doesnt have.....and he doesnt have any money and surely doesnt stand a chance.

The best way to deal with peace with other countries is let them figure out there own business. Would you like it if someone got into your business then told you what you need to? Maybe you would, you have already said you like a socialist system. Taking responsibility for your own actions isnt always easy, but either way to assume we need to police the world is the most aggressive thing you could do against a country. Want peace, mind you own business.

I know Ron Paul has always maintained domestic insecurity has been amplified for the purposes of justifying invasions and domestic surveillance programs. I don't find his viewpoint in this regard profound or enlightening, but considering the headlines at DJ and elsewhere........

He is an interesting player in the field. I understand why he has supporters.

@ Helena Handbasket
I know Ron Paul has always maintained domestic insecurity has been amplified for the purposes of justifying invasions and domestic surveillance programs. I don't find his viewpoint in this regard profound or enlightening, but considering the headlines at DJ and elsewhere........

He is an interesting player in the field. I understand why he has supporters.

Having "supporters" is no big deal, so did Hitler. He is opposed to integration and he had some really vile stuff about the LA riots

I judge a candidate by his words, his deeds, and the company he keeps and Paul fails on all counts.

“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
Ronald Reagan


We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

by Ron Paul, Dr. February 7, 2005

@ American
“…man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts.”
Ronald Reagan


We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.

George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?

A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.

Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.

Few Americans understand that all government action is inherently coercive. If nothing else, government action requires taxes. If taxes were freely paid, they wouldn’t be called taxes, they’d be called donations. If we intend to use the word freedom in an honest way, we should have the simple integrity to give it real meaning: Freedom is living without government coercion. So when a politician talks about freedom for this group or that, ask yourself whether he is advocating more government action or less.

The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away. But philosopher Ayn Rand (and many others before her) demolished this argument by explaining how such “freedom” for some is possible only when government takes freedoms away from others. In other words, government claims on the lives and property of those who are expected to provide housing, medical care, food, etc. for others are coercive-- and thus incompatible with freedom. “Liberalism,” which once stood for civil, political, and economic liberties, has become a synonym for omnipotent coercive government.

The political right equates freedom with national greatness brought about through military strength. Like the left, modern conservatives favor an all-powerful central state-- but for militarism, corporatism, and faith-based welfarism. Unlike the Taft-Goldwater conservatives of yesteryear, today’s Republicans are eager to expand government spending, increase the federal police apparatus, and intervene militarily around the world. The last tenuous links between conservatives and support for smaller government have been severed. “Conservatism,” which once meant respect for tradition and distrust of active government, has transformed into big-government utopian grandiosity.

Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.

Every politician on earth claims to support freedom. The problem is so few of them understand the simple meaning of the word.

by Ron Paul, Dr. February 7, 2005

You like Ray Gun? Here is a clip for you. It was recorded before he became senile.

@ lensman67
You like Ray Gun? Here is a clip for you. It was recorded before he became senile.

Not really, I've always voted Democrat until now. The point I'm making is the polarization of the American people is just what the status quo wants. Ron Paul is a Barry Goldwater conservative, same as Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl. With both parties not really representing the average American Ron Paul is a long awaited relief in the political landscape. As long as we think in terms of Democrat or Republican then "we the people" lose.

Our elected officials take the oath to uphold the constitution and until now no one has, on either side.

The Ray Gun reference was part of this writing he wrote, I wanted to keep it intact.

RON PAUL 08!!

I g2g

cheers,

@ American
Not really, I've always voted Democrat until now. The point I'm making is the polarization of the American people is just what the status quo wants. Ron Paul is a Barry Goldwater conservative, same as Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater girl. With both parties not really representing the average American Ron Paul is a long awaited relief in the political landscape. As long as we think in terms of Democrat or Republican then "we the people" lose.

Our elected officials take the oath to uphold the constitution and until now no one has, on either side.

The Ray Gun reference was part of this writing he wrote, I wanted to keep it intact.

RON PAUL 08!!

I g2g

cheers,

Citing Barry Goldwater is hardly an appealing prospect. He was part of the Libertarian fringe that knows, or cares, nothing about American history and what happens when the Government is not strong enough to stand up to Corporations and economic imperialism. It was the Progressives of the late 19th century, and their heirs in the union movement of the early 20th century that pulled us out of the industrial nightmare of the 19th century.

Read Upton Sinclare's "The Jungle" if you would like to see the paradise that the Libertarians are leading us to like a Judas goat leading the lambs to slaughter.

People who talk of "limited" government have not done enough study of American history to know what sort of world that produces. Government is not the problem, corporations, racism, and all forms of injustice are the problem and government is the solution. That is why Paul ranting about the "evils" of integration makes me sick to my stomach.

@ lensman67
Having "supporters" is no big deal, so did Hitler. He is opposed to integration and he had some really vile stuff about the LA riots

I judge a candidate by his words, his deeds, and the company he keeps and Paul fails on all counts.

I understand.

I will not have the privilege of casting a vote in America as I'm not a citizen of your beautiful country. The world (I think) is counting on Americans to see clearly, and make a good decision for their people, country and the world at large. Here's hoping.

... it is Upton Sinclair.

@ Helena Handbasket
... it is Upton Sinclair.

Thanks for the spell check. Have your read the book?

Welcome.

So far Dr. Paul has garnered more support from the African American community, the Military community and quite frankly the world is behind Ron Paul.

You history only goes back 100 years when we have been a country for over 230 years. Also if you think having private bankers control and print money out of thin air, then charge an interest to use. Since your a Big Govt person surely you would think the Govt can print and distribute money without a usury tax attached to it, right?

I know, you have the inside track on something special and different.

France, Germany and a few other European groups who support Ron Paul are going to do a "Tea party" in front of the European Parliament building on Dec 16th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07TVBLFroSM

As Dr. Paul says, FREEDOM IS POPULAR!!

http://asia4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://bavaria-for-ron-paul.blogspot.com/
http://switzerland4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://belgians4paul.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaulbrazil.wordpress.com/
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaul.blog.de/
http://ronpaulspanish.blogspot.com/
http://europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaulfr.blogspot.com/
http://www.holland4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://hungary4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://indiansandpakistanisforronpaul.wordpress.com
http://italians4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaullatvija.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaulish.blog.onet.pl/
http://portugal4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://romania4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaul.liberal-venezolano.net/

Yes, but many years ago. Sinclair's tome where he makes his case for socialism. Well written as I recall. I know it isn't in my personal library. Is it your bible? *wink*

Seeing as you are a fan of Sinclair's -- did you ever wonder about his friendship with Jack London? I mean they seemed an odd linking, but their correspondence is worth a read if you haven't already. More ire than warmth at times. Some despairing. London once wrote to him saying he felt alienated by Sinclair's "sex-attitude". I thought that was an interesting term for 1913. I use it sometimes. lol

@ Helena Handbasket
Yes, but many years ago. Sinclair's tome where he makes his case for socialism. Well written as I recall. I know it isn't in my personal library. Is it your bible? *wink*

No, simply a text book I sometimes assign to my students. It is a good insight into the social conditions that lead to the Progressive movement.

@ American
So far Dr. Paul has garnered more support from the African American community, the Military community and quite frankly the world is behind Ron Paul.

You history only goes back 100 years when we have been a country for over 230 years. Also if you think having private bankers control and print money out of thin air, then charge an interest to use. Since your a Big Govt person surely you would think the Govt can print and distribute money without a usury tax attached to it, right?

I know, you have the inside track on something special and different.

France, Germany and a few other European groups who support Ron Paul are going to do a "Tea party" in front of the European Parliament building on Dec 16th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07TVBLFroSM

As Dr. Paul says, FREEDOM IS POPULAR!!

http://asia4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://bavaria-for-ron-paul.blogspot.com/
http://switzerland4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://belgians4paul.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaulbrazil.wordpress.com/
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaul.blog.de/
http://ronpaulspanish.blogspot.com/
http://europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaulfr.blogspot.com/
http://www.holland4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://hungary4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://indiansandpakistanisforronpaul.wordpress.com
http://italians4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaullatvija.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaulish.blog.onet.pl/
http://portugal4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://romania4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://ronpaul.liberal-venezolano.net/

You will pardon me if I don't hold my breath until your hoped for Parousia. Wake me when Paul is President. (Snicker).

To lensman67, you really need to read the articles you post. Ron Paul is no racist; he will simply vote against anything not authorized in the constitution. If you can't understand that then there's no point in arguing with you. Here's a quote straight out of your article.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

You see? He is actually for individual freedom, and let me tell you that minority doctors and lawyers - to this day - want to get rid of Affirmative Action because it actually makes them look bad. They want to be considered where they are for their merits - not because of their skin color.

Before you go running off at the mouth, understand that I'm Mexican-American and I support Ron Paul.

First two lines from the article you linked about Ron Paul.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

Now, if that is racist then you need to work on your reading comprehension and take some PolySci courses! You damn well shouldn't be teaching!! Oh, but you are! A great case for home schooling!

Americans, if you think the Iraq War was a mistake and are tired of this growing and monstous government regulating you to death, join us on December 16th as we again make history for Ron Paul! www.teaparty07.com.

@ rj916
To lensman67, you really need to read the articles you post. Ron Paul is no racist; he will simply vote against anything not authorized in the constitution. If you can't understand that then there's no point in arguing with you. Here's a quote straight out of your article.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

You see? He is actually for individual freedom, and let me tell you that minority doctors and lawyers - to this day - want to get rid of Affirmative Action because it actually makes them look bad. They want to be considered where they are for their merits - not because of their skin color.

Before you go running off at the mouth, understand that I'm Mexican-American and I support Ron Paul.

You need to read the stuff that Ron Paul posts. He tries to distance himself from his remarks but it will not wash.

As for the Civil Rights Act I really don't think you are qualified to make the judgments that you have posted. It is NOT unconstitutional and has withstood repeated attacks in the Supreme Court, even the Right Wing one of today. It was one of the greatest pieces of legislation since the 13th Amendment and, contrary to what the revisionist would have you believe, it worked splendidly.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember "whites only" drinking fountains, lunch counters, restrooms and all the other racists garbage that the Civil Rights Act helped kill but I am and I know from first hand experience what you only claim to know. The Civil Rights Act worked and helped change this country for the better and sickos like Paul were the potholes on the road to equality.

My sister in law is Mexican/American, and I have Korean/American,Vietnamese/American, India/American, African/American and Swedish/American relatives and, thank God, they are all against this fruit cake.

As for me "running off at the mouth," the next time you use that tone of address with anyone on DJ I will report you for abuse. You may be new around here (unless you are a sox puppet) but we have a rule that says that while we can disagree we cannot be disagreeable about it.

@ rj916
First two lines from the article you linked about Ron Paul.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

Now, if that is racist then you need to work on your reading comprehension and take some PolySci courses! You damn well shouldn't be teaching!! Oh, but you are! A great case for home schooling!

I teach American History at the College level and don't need you to tell me about the US Constitution, which you apparently do not understand. There is a reason that neo-Nazis contribute money to this guy and there is also a reason that he does not return it--he does not want to offend those with whom he is in agreement.

@ meebabo77
lensman67, you're clearly a moron. Ron Paul has been against this war since before it started. how dare you sully his good name with your slanderous filth, you piece of crap. I bet that you weren't even against this war from the beginning. I bet you were one of those "dumb Democrats" that you mentioned, because you've obviously got an IQ of less than 90.

It seems as if both meebabo77 and rj916 need to read what the rules are here at DJ.

meebabo for one thing just because you disagree with Lensman does not make him a moran.
He can disagree with you all he wants to.

If I would have seen this at the time you wrote it I would have reported it as abuse.

Wow lensman67, you really are a Ron Paul hater aren't you? Instead of addressing what I presented - which was CLEARLY SPELLED OUT IN MY POST, you instead ran-on with something different.

Anyhow, contrary to you backwards logic, if someone does not agree with H.Res. 676, they are not automatically qualified to be a racist. I would also like to point out that labeling someone - who isn't a racist - as a racist can get you into big trouble as it IS LIBEL. So you might want to consider that before posting articles and comments.

If Ron Paul is a racist then why have you not once presented any specific document or speech - other than something you wrote - from Ron Paul that supports your claim? Oh that's right, Ron Paul isn't a racist and currently has more black voters than all other GOP candidates. Yes my friend, he must be a racist.

The bottom line is this. Ron Paul's campaign spoke out about the StormFront question at a press release and here's the result.
We’re not rushing to spend a lot of time reading what’s over there, but what you’ve described is certainly repugnant, and completely anathema to everything Dr. Paul stands for.
If that's not enough for you then you will NEVER be satisfied.

Hey, we all dislike stormfront, well most of us do, but regardless they do have the right of free speech. And if they want to contribute money to someone who DOES NOT AGREE WITH THEM; It's their loss.

Why single out Ron Paul? Why not look at donors from all people like Obama, Clinton, and Giuliani. I'm sure you can find pedophiles, rapists, and murderers in those millions upon millions they've raised. Should we say they support pedophilia because I'm sure we can find one or two in there?

BTW- It's unwise to ask me not to offend you and then offend me with how I "apparently do not understand the constitution."

And Picasso, calling someone a racist is MUCH worse than calling them a moron! Do you not agree?

Thanks Rj916, Lensman, for your comments, let us stop calling names, let us just stick to the topic if possible. I doubt either of you will change each other's opinion. I am not qualified enough to say who is right or wrong, but I just hope we will be like the British withdraw from Iraq and try to help the local people first.

@ rj916

And Picasso, calling someone a racist is MUCH worse than calling them a moron! Do you not agree?

Not necessarily.

A racist is someone who hates another race.
I do not see where you or anyone else commenting here was called a racist.

rj916 has called Lensman a moron, which he is not, a piece of CRAP, which he is not and then said that he has an IQ of less than 90.

So yes you calling Lensman those names and saying he has an IQ of less than 90 are far worse and do constitute abuse on this site.

cgull, you are right; we were completely off topic. I am just happy the Iraqi's may finally see some peace within their land. It's saddening to watch what has been happening over there. I hope others will follow the British move - namely the US - and leave other areas. It will all prove Ron Paul's point that the one's who say if we leave there will be a blood bath are the same ones who said (when we went in) it would be a cakewalk. Occupation causes most of the violence in Iraq and America needs to get the heck out of there ASAP! I think it was the day after we toppled the Saddam statue that someone wrote "thank you America for removing Saddam. Now please go home."

picasso, I never called Lensman a moron or a piece of crap. I think you meant someone else? I did say "before you go running off at the mouth." What I should have instead written was "before you reply."

@ rj916

picasso, I never called Lensman a moron or a piece of crap. I think you meant someone else? I did say "before you go running off at the mouth." What I should have instead written was "before you reply."

I offer you my deepest apology rj916.

@ meebabo77
lensman67, you're clearly a moron. Ron Paul has been against this war since before it started. how dare you sully his good name with your slanderous filth, you piece of crap. I bet that you weren't even against this war from the beginning. I bet you were one of those "dumb Democrats" that you mentioned, because you've obviously got an IQ of less than 90.

It is meebabo77 that called him those names.
Once again I do apologize.

@ Cynthia T. [Picasso]
It is meebabo77 that called him those names.
Once again I do apologize.

Picasso, rj916 is a new user, he understands, no need for apologies. Cheers.

@ rj916
cgull, you are right; we were completely off topic. I am just happy the Iraqi's may finally see some peace within their land. It's saddening to watch what has been happening over there. I hope others will follow the British move - namely the US - and leave other areas. It will all prove Ron Paul's point that the one's who say if we leave there will be a blood bath are the same ones who said (when we went in) it would be a cakewalk. Occupation causes most of the violence in Iraq and America needs to get the heck out of there ASAP! I think it was the day after we toppled the Saddam statue that someone wrote "thank you America for removing Saddam. Now please go home."

Yes, it is better late than never, I hope the next government does a wise thing and gets off of Iraq and try to improve the situation here and boost the US dollar currency. The Congress has not done anything yet about this problem.

I couldn't agree more. The dollar is nose-diving and this administration could care less. What gets me so upset is the price of gas. Fortunately for me, I can afford it, but it's the poor people who are being destroyed. I have some family members and friends who cannot afford to buy groceries because of it. It's like they work to buy gas.

And apology accepted Picasso. No foul there. I know you just keyed in the wrong name. :)

@ rj916

And apology accepted Picasso. No foul there. I know you just keyed in the wrong name. :)

Thank-you rj916. And may I welcome you to DJ. I do hope that you will stay and be a part of DJ.

Sometimes someone new will come on for just one post, which is fine, but when they come on with just insults and name calling that is not right and also against DJ rules.

Lensman is tough and strong in what he believes but does not deserve to be called what meebabo called him.

When someone resorts to name calling I believe it shows their ignorance and that they are unable to participate in a debate.

A word that Lensman uses
PAX