ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
  Search
 
 
Users Threads  
  Forums  
SHORTNEWS
SUPPORT
WHAT'S NEW?
POLL
AUTOMOTIVE
CURRENT EVENTS
ECONOMY
ENTERTAINMENT
HEALTH
HIGH TECH
POLITICS
RECREATION
REGIONAL
SCIENCE
SOCIETY AND CULTURE
SPORTS
ShortNewser of the month
  59 comments
      Back to Forum
 
  The Ron Paul deception  
  
I thought the whole point of the Ron Paul movement was honesty and transparency. But what we´re seeing, as Paul tries to round up the type of support needed to sustain viability as a presidential candidate, is not honest.

As shown in the so-called news summary submitted today, the Paul movement is trying to unite his traditional base -- the right-libertarians who have risen in visibility since the 2008 election -- with war-weary progressives and civil libertarians.

I don´t fault their logic. Some of Paul´s stances are certainly appealing to those groups. Paul wants to end wars ranging from the war in Afghanistan to the war on drugs. These are laudable, worthy causes.

Nor do I condemn the attempt to create an alliance -- far from it. This is traditional politics, particularly in America. It´s practical and sound and it gets things done. It´s what is needed now particularly, as partisanship seems to be worse than ever before.

I do however fault the deception, which is coming in the form of Paul supporters promoting his progressive- and liberal-friendly stances and downplaying positions which are anathema to the progressive cause and to the liberal cause.

For example, no self-respecting liberal would vote for a candidate who wants to abolish Social Security and Medicare, but that´s what Paul wants to do. He believes, incorrectly, that both programs are unconstitutional (http://thinkprogress.org/... ).

No self-respecting progressive would embrace Paul´s view on environmental protection -- that pollution must always be punished after the fact rather than prevented from happening -- or who laughs when asked whether he thinks global warming is a threat (http://www.grist.org/... ).

When people decide who our leaders are to be -- just as when they decide on legal cases -- they need the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

In this election, Ron Paul and his supporters should commit themselves to telling the whole truth about their candidate, especially if they are to claim to be about honesty, transparency and principles.
 
 From: Ben_Reilly     08/20/2011 10:53 PM     
  Non Sequitur  
  
Your example of Ron Paul ?lying? is like saying that Ron Paul is lying when he calls a 9 month old baby in the womb a human being.

It?s not a lie, it?s an opinion, just like it?s an opinion that the baby is an extension of the mother, or owned by the mother.



What liberals like about Ron Paul is that he doesn?t bow to the corporations. He will help put an end to the corporatists tax loopholes. They like that he is pro-peace, will end the wars, and bring the troops home.


That?s why this registered democrat ended up supporting him.

I also like him because he provides the framework for having the option of a social safety net. The economics we?re participating in now actually robs everyone of their ability to have a social safety net through bankruptcy.


Also, did you know that Ron Paul has said that since so many already depend on welfare here, he thinks it would be unfair to get rid of it?

Instead he said he would close the tax loopholes, stop sending money to other countries, and focus on bringing our troops home so we can better pay for the welfare for the people who have planned their lives around receiving it.

You can listen to the PBS interview here:
http://pbs.vo.llnwd.net/... _pxI0=A3337 _pxL0=begin _pxM0= _pxR0=12838 _pxK=17082/newshour/rss/media/2011/07/20/20110720_ronpaul.mp3



[ edited by Questioning_Answers ]
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/20/2011 11:52 PM     
  LOL Shortnews edit = editing in question marks  
  
Without the question marks:


Your example of Ron Paul ´lying´ is like saying that Ron Paul is lying when he calls a 9 month old baby in the womb a human being.

It´s not a lie, it´s an opinion, just like it´s an opinion that the baby is an extension of the mother, or owned by the mother.



What liberals like about Ron Paul is that he doesn´t bow to the corporations. He will help put an end to the corporatists tax loopholes. They like that he is pro-peace, will end the wars, and bring the troops home.


That´s why this registered democrat ended up supporting him.

I also like him because he provides the framework for having the option of a social safety net. The economics we´re participating in now actually robs everyone of their ability to have a social safety net through bankruptcy.


Also, did you know that Ron Paul has said that since so many already depend on welfare here, he thinks it would be unfair to get rid of it?

Instead he said he would close the tax loopholes, stop sending money to other countries, and focus on bringing our troops home so we can better pay for the welfare for the people who have planned their lives around receiving it.

You can listen to the PBS interview here:
http://pbs.vo.llnwd.net/...

 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/20/2011 11:57 PM     
  @Ben  
  
All the interviews i saw Ron making after 2009, he stopped attacking welfare and stopped asking for hospitals to be privatized. And if you see his 2010+ you will notice he steers far from economic assertions. Like almost everyone else, he got the bitchslap of god in 2008 and revised his stances and his entire campaign now is just soundbites like freedom and constitution and bring the troop back home. Unfortunately his throngs still did not catch up yet that their leader took Two steps back already.

Personally I would totally respect him if he was to revise his ideology in public: "My fellow liertarians, this is what i thought, this is what happened, this is what i now believe. But instead he is trying to maintain his momentum by quietly taking couple steps back and hope no one will notice.
 
  by: kmazzawi     08/21/2011 12:45 AM     
  He didn´t reverse his ideology.  
  
His ideology has been the same for 30+ years.

That doesn´t mean he doesn´t recognize that millions have planned their lives around welfare.

Do you honestly think it´s a good idea for him to instantly take millions of people off welfare?

Well he sure doesn´t.

He wants people who have already planned to have welfare to have it. And for those who don´t want it, he wants them to be able to opt out. And for those who want to buy their health care coverage, he wants them to be able to do that too.


 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/21/2011 01:08 AM     
  Or you could read what the man wrote  
  
1. Paul, Ron (1981) (PDF). Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Currency

Last. Paul, Ron (2011). Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom

with more then a dozen in between
 
  by: t-bagger   08/21/2011 05:07 AM     
  @QA  
  
I didn´t say Ron Paul lied. I said the movement in general presents him as having several stances that would appeal to the left, which is true, while downplaying or not mentioning his stances which would be anathema to the left. That´s deceptive.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/21/2011 05:24 AM     
  Ben  
  
I´ve been diligently searching for your other articles, "The <insert democrat politician> deception" and "The <insert corporatist republican> deception" and I can´t find them anywhere. Perhaps you haven´t penned them yet?

I think you should make it a series, btw. You could include "The Used Car Salesman deception", "The Religion Hawker deception" and The Permits and Fees Bureaucrat deception". Oh and this one will be great... "The Cop Who Needs to do a Routine Search deception".

Of course, I am claiming copyrights to all those I mentioned but, I would be more than happy to negotiate a nominal fee for the use of my intellectual property. :-)
 
  by: silencedmajority   08/22/2011 05:09 AM     
  @SM  
  
You cant blame him too much, Shermer is his boyfriend.

He is uber smart
 
  by: t-bagger   08/22/2011 07:43 AM     
  i was decieved  
  
last week a very nice cookbook arrived in my mailbox addressed to ron paul at my address.
 
  by: superchicken   08/22/2011 07:56 AM     
  Reddit  
    
  by: nimira     08/22/2011 12:11 PM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
  
Well then you´re stereotyping.

I can do it too. And I know for a fact that many Obama supporters actually do this with democrats:

Obama has proved to be:

Pro-war
Pro-corporatism
Pro-Patriot Act
Pro-Jailing sick marijuana patients

Tell me, how many democrats about actually support that? Not me, and not many that I know.




I also don´t agree that it would be deceptive in the case of Ron Paul supporters, as he directly or indirectly supports just about everything democrats want.

End the drug war
End the corporatism
End the wars
Allow sick patients to get their medicine (even if it´s marijuana)
Thinks man made global warming is likely happening



Welfare:

His ideology also indirectly supports welfare because you can´t possibly have welfare without being able to pay for it. Obama doesn´t support welfare because he wants things that will directly bankrupt us.

Paul has the economic plan which lays the foundation for the government actually having surpluses, spurring government to be be able to pay for welfare benefits.




Global Warming:


His position on environment is that man made global warming is likely happening and being blown out of proportion.

Also, if you pollute your neighbor´s property, that neighbor can legally take suit against you.....Even if the polluter is 1000s of miles upstream on a river.


"It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well."

- Ron Paul

(can read the rest here)
http://www.ronpaul.com/...


 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/22/2011 01:07 PM     
  Oh yeah  
  
Ron Paul voted against and is against the Patriot Act too.
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/22/2011 01:08 PM     
  @SM  
  
""The <insert democrat politician> deception" and "The <insert corporatist republican> deception" and I can´t find them anywhere. Perhaps you haven´t penned them yet?"

Ah, but I thought Ron Paul was supposed to be different. Thank you for helping to point out that Paul is different -- just like every other politician running for office -- and that the "Paul is different" mantra is just marketing, like it is for every other *unique and special* politician seeking power.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/22/2011 05:03 PM     
  @QA  
  
More of that deception I was talking about! Here´s the part from your very own link that you chose, for some reason, not to quote directly:

"After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009"

Yeah -- typical Republican corporation-lovin´ stance.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/22/2011 05:05 PM     
  Ben  
  
Successful marketing resembles successful marketing whether you´re selling shoes or running for political offices. No successful sales person will voluntarily tell you about his product´s shortcomings. This isn´t deceptive, it´s how marketing and sales function.

Paul is different not in his marketing but in his actions as a public servant. He does what he says he will do, even if what he says he will do is unpopular, because he does what the constitution guides him to do.

Other politicians will say, for instance, market themselves as being one who will end federal attacks on medical marijuana users and once in office, will continue the federal attacks on medical marijuana users.

That, sir, is deception.
 
  by: silencedmajority   08/22/2011 05:33 PM     
  @silenced  
  
"No successful sales person will voluntarily tell you about his product´s shortcomings."

Wrong.
 
  by: kmazzawi     08/22/2011 06:20 PM     
  @kmazzawi  
  
You say SM is wrong?? How so?

I spent 5 years in the Philadelphia Art Institute for Commercial Art and we were not taught anything that even comes close to disclosing the products down fall.
Please enlighten me on what you know.
 
  by: hellblazer     08/22/2011 09:35 PM     
  @HB  
  
Selling arts. Selling arts, even commercial arts, is to appeal to people emotions and feelings and moods. Selling technical devices and engineering projects, means you are going to stand up to other techs and engineers who often understand the product usage better than you. You try to stand there and bullshit them and they will smell you coming a mile away.

Your best hope is often to build up your credibility with them. Which means come clean.

So ultimately it comes to this, is ron selling art, in that case he just needs to appeal to people emotions and mood. Or is he selling a product, in that case he needs to come clean, because technical people like me, will smell him coming a mile away when he does not.


[ edited by kmazzawi ]
 
  by: kmazzawi     08/22/2011 09:52 PM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
  
Why do you insist upon using fallacious logic?

Is it contrived to fool others? Or do you actually not know when you´re using it?


I already mentioned what you said, but without the logical fallacies.

Hence:

"His position on environment is that man made global warming is likely happening and being blown out of proportion."



Stop misleading people. Ron Paul is Anti-Corporatist. If you want to complain about those who are pro-corporatist, look directly at Bush and Obama.
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/23/2011 01:34 AM     
  @ kmazzawi  
  
how can you be a technical person?

you should learn to write first.

you leave out words and use wrong punctuation. you put commas where they do not belong. you probably don´t even know what a comma splice is.

a real technical person wouldn´t do this.

example:

"So ultimately it comes to this, is ron selling art, in that case he just needs to appeal to people emotions and mood. Or is he selling a product, in that case he needs to come clean, because technical people like me, will smell him coming a mile away when he does not."[sic]

should be:

So ultimately, it comes to this: Is Ron selling art? In that case, he just needs to appeal to people´s emotions and mood. Or, is he selling a product? In that case, he needs to come clean, because, technical people like me will smell him coming a mile away when he does not. (some commas are optional as long as they are not misplaced.)

one good question: when he does not what?

how can any one person smell oneself coming from a mile away?

one would need a very long nose to do that.

i find this whole last paragraph of yours to be truly confounding.

 
  by: superchicken   08/23/2011 02:02 AM     
  @QA  
  
You said:

"His position on environment is that man made global warming is likely happening and being blown out of proportion."

Ron Paul said:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.”

And *you* accuse *me* of misleading people?
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/23/2011 03:38 AM     
  kmazz  
  
When one successfully sells anything, one appeals to people´s emotions. Often times, there is also an appeal to the buyer´s rational thought process but to be sure, if the salesman has no emotional connection the likelihood of a sale is diminished greatly.

The above holds true regardless of what one is selling and regardless of who one is attempting to selling to.

You either understand human emotion enough to see that or you don´t. If you do, you can succeed at sales and if you don´t, you can fail.

Oh and, if you don´t understand it... all the books about sales and all the college courses in the world will not make you a successful salesman.
 
  by: silencedmajority   08/23/2011 05:12 AM     
  @stupid  
  
don´t you think ron paul is the best man for the job?
 
  by: superchicken   08/23/2011 06:04 AM     
  @silenced  
  
"When one successfully sells anything, one appeals to people´s emotions. Often times, there is also an appeal to the buyer´s rational thought process .."

And also frequency, if you are going to see them once, then it is highly emotional, if they are repeat customers or the product ´has to work´, and they will come back again and again, then there is less emotional and more rational. I may like you, but if your product does not work for me I am not coming back.

"but to be sure, if the salesman has no emotional connection the likelihood of a sale is diminished greatly. The above holds true regardless of what one is selling "

That is a mistake in logic: In the First paragraph, it states the seller needs to appeal to emotion AND rational thoughts, yet the Second paragraph only talks exclusively about the importance of the emotional skill.
Please Correct that mistake and rephrase a more complete form of the argument.

"You either understand human emotion enough to see that or you don´t. If you do, you can succeed at sales and if you don´t, you can fail."

Again, the paragraph is correct as it relates the importance of the oh-so-important understanding of emotions for a sale. But I will refer to the First paragraph which states you need "Emotions AND Rational Thought". And that some products require more of One.

"Oh and, if you don´t understand it... all the books about sales and all the college courses in the world will not make you a successful salesman."

I understand your First paragraph, it was honest and complete. The following paragraphs were just a sale pitch by you trying to blind-sight me and appeal to my emotion. That would work on me when I was a teenager, now the years and living in a consumer market taught me to see past the frivolity of emotional appeals, and I am not the only one in my generation.

We are not as Stupid as we seem.

[ edited by kmazzawi ]
 
  by: kmazzawi     08/23/2011 04:34 PM     
  Another deception  
  
Very few liberals or progressives are going to agree with Ron Paul´s stance that an egg cell fertilized on American soil by two American citizens or legal residents is itself an American citizen.

But when the campaign of the supposedly "most principled man in American politics" tries to pimp his candidacy to liberals and progressives, they never mention this either.

I´m sure Ron Paul would readily admit his stance on abortion. It´s too bad that his disciples don´t.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/23/2011 04:55 PM     
  @ben a zygote before  
  
lucky you, eh.
 
  by: superchicken   08/23/2011 05:58 PM     
  @SC  
  
Lucky all of us. 25 percent of zygotes are spontaneously aborted, usually without the mother knowing anything happened.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/23/2011 06:38 PM     
  kmazz  
  
I wasn´t trying to sell you anything. You either agree with what I said, disagree with what I said, agree with part of what I said or don´t understand what I said.


I won´t be rephrasing any of if it because it makes perfect sense. Again, you don´t have to agree with it, but it is still very clear.
 
  by: silencedmajority   08/23/2011 11:58 PM     
  @ben  
  
sounds like god approves abortion to me!
 
  by: conflictdiamond   08/23/2011 11:58 PM     
  @ conflicted  
  
if he agrees with you, he would be admitting there is a GOD!

 
  by: superchicken   08/24/2011 12:41 AM     
  Chicken...  
  
So in other words, if I agree that Winnie the Pooh likes honey, I´m admitting that there exists a blonde haired bear who talks and wears a half shirt?
 
  by: silencedmajority   08/24/2011 01:24 AM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
  
And that´s exactly his position in other words, is it not? He thinks man-made global warming is happening, but is being blown out proportion.

Of course you´d probably want me to say exactly what you said in your first post: "laughs when asked whether he thinks global warming is a threat"


Which one provides more logical information to make an accurate judgement? Which one is more balanced?


"Laughs when asked whether he thinks global warming is a threat?"

OR

"He thinks man-made global warming is happening, but is being blown out proportion"



One uses emotion to sway the reader´s point of view. The other uses logic to let the reader decide for themself.



And of course I do, as you mislead like this quite often. The real question is do you do it on purpose, or are you unaware of it?

I´m thinking that since you admitted to being an editor at one point, that the former is within the realm of possibility, but I´m willing to forgive the latter.
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/24/2011 02:19 AM     
  @kmazzawi  
  
"We are not as Stupid as we seem."

Some of you should try having what is supposedly a genius level IQ for a couple days. Then you´d see how stupid most of the population seems.

Or you can imagine it in this way: Does a person with downs syndrome look smart to you?

Now imagine the majority of the population with downs syndrome. Same deal.



People get fooled all the time. ALL THE TIME. I get fooled and I don´t even know it, but at least later I question my old beliefs. That way I don´t keep getting fooled forever.

Why do we get fooled? Because many of the techniques they use are mostly subconscious. You can´t consciously block them out -- because -- they´re subconscious. So you have little choice but to get fooled by them. It happens to everyone.



For example, a portion of an Award Winning BBC Documentary on how they get us to go to war (I think you said you had seen it kmazzawi, but many others haven´t):

Snippet from the Award Winner for Historical Film of the Year:
http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/24/2011 02:33 AM     
  @major stupid  
  
why don´t you just admit you like eating poo and watching cartoons.
 
  by: superchicken   08/24/2011 02:45 AM     
  i took an iq test once  
  
i was more than 3 standard deviation curves above average.

gee wiz, average people must really be stupid.
 
  by: superchicken   08/24/2011 02:50 AM     
  @QA  
  
"He thinks man-made global warming is happening, but is being blown out proportion."

No, you´re wrong, he said it was a hoax.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/24/2011 03:13 AM     
  @Ben  
  
He personally doesnt like abortion. But he wont stop the states from deciding their own issue

State rights...got it yet?
 
  by: T-bagger   08/24/2011 03:20 AM     
  global warming  
  
is made in china, like everything else these days.
 
  by: superchicken   08/24/2011 03:21 AM     
  Nope, he said the ´panic´ was a hoax  
  
You would have already known this if you had actually read what you were quoting from:


"After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:"

http://www.ronpaul.com/...



Ron Paul believes man made global warming is likely happening.

[ edited by Questioning_Answers ]
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/24/2011 03:21 AM     
  Thanks for the inane comment, chicken.  
  
Now, do you care to answer my question?
 
  by: silencedmajority   08/24/2011 03:24 AM     
  @t-bagger  
  
Paul has introduced several bills that would define human life as beginning at conception at the federal level. Everyone knows that would make abortion murder. Stop trying to twist the truth.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/24/2011 04:27 AM     
  @major stupid  
  
it depends on whom you are agreeing with. if they aren´t real either, maybe you should make an appointment at some funny-farm clinic, because, your little buddy is known to be a fictional character. GOD, however, is different:

http://www.youtube.com/...

 
  by: superchicken   08/24/2011 04:28 AM     
  @QA  
  
Then he´s an idiot -- how do you "hoax" a panic? That´s just stupid. Here´s what he said:

"The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming."

He didn´t say the "panic" was a hoax on Fox Business. He said global warming itself was a hoax. (And that the environment is an, um, hoax as well. Not the most intelligent-sounding thing he´s ever said ...)

Ron Paul is a global warming denialist. Here´s proof:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth´s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth´s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (Wrong)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/...

"They can find just as many places where the ice is building up - in Greenland, in certain parts of Greenland, in Antarctica." (Deceptive)

http://www.prisonplanet.com/...

"Contrary to claims repeated over and over, there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade." (Wrong)

http://www.ronpaul.com/...

Can´t wait to see how you twist those statements, QA.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/24/2011 04:51 AM     
  LOL, thanks chicken.  
  
After the volumes of scientific evidence I´ve read, coupled with the volumes of religious explanations that don´t hold water I´ve read, I was convinced that there is no god.

But now, since you´ve shown me that Tanya Tucker wrote a song about god, it seems clear that I was wrong.

Since you and Tanya have now proven that god does indeed exist, all I can say is that he is the most arrogant, depraved, misogynistic, misanthropic, narcissistic son of a bitch I´ve ever in my life heard of and I would much rather burn in a lake of fire for eternity than abide by his demented set of societal dictates.

But again, thanks for all that irrefutable evidence from Tanya Tucker.
 
  by: silencedmajority   08/24/2011 04:52 AM     
  @SM  
  
God -- He´ll kill your child to teach you a lesson. Plenty of people will tell you that he did it to them. Even though God, being omnipotent, could just make you know whatever he wants you to know, he´ll still kill your kid.

You can live the life of a saint, but if you don´t believe in God -- and there´s no tangible proof he exists -- you´ll be tortured for eternity.

On the other hand, you can brutally murder millions of people, but if you believe in God, he´ll give you an eternal life of non-stop, indescribable bliss.

Remember -- God loves you. That´s why he told one guy 2,000 years ago all about himself, so that you could be with God forever in happiness instead of being eternally tortured.

God knows everything -- he knew lots of decent people would have a hard time believing in him -- yet he refused to provide convincing evidence of his existence. That´s our God! What a scamp.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/24/2011 05:05 AM     
  @Ben  
  
Hmmm, thats kinda sheety. I wonder why he did that?

Hes clever, so im leaning towards he was up to something else, but im gonna look into it
 
  by: T-bagger   08/24/2011 05:31 AM     
  Will you pray for me, Ben?  
  
That way, maybe God will save me from my evil ways while he let´s a three year old girl be sodomized and murdered by her mother´s boyfriend?

After all, that three year old little bitch never even thought about Him.
 
  by: silencedmajority   08/24/2011 05:41 AM     
  @Ben_Reilly  
  

Take a look at your original post.

Then ask yourself: "Is it a possibility that I was the one being deceptive about Ron Paul´s stance?"


....Including in things like this, from those very same links:


"Contrary to claims repeated over and over, there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming is getting worse or that it is manmade. In fact over 30,000 scientists signed a petition recently directly disputing the claims on which this policy is based."
http://www.ronpaul.com/...

* Now we know what he means by "consensus". When 30,000 scientists disagree, there is no scientific consensus to him.

And what do you know, this explanation was in the -- very next sentence -- of what you quoted in the 3rd link.

Which you ´forgot´ to include.


-----------------------------------------


"The Congressman said that his advice was to "listen to scientists on both sides" and that people who uniformly make up their minds that something is a certain way are often proven wrong.

"Right now there needs to be a little contrarian thinking about the fearmongering that is going on with global warming like it´s the end of the earth," said Paul, responding strongly when challenged by Kayleigh, who used to work for Al Gore´s TV network. "

^^ Quotation from the 2nd link
http://www.prisonplanet.com/...

Here again Paul is talking about what he thinks is the overblown "fearmongering´.

He also says that we should listen to the scientists on both sides. I agree, listening to both sides is actually the most balanced, scientific thing one can do.

....so is including a person´s full views on a subject, and not just using misleading soundbites, like some people I know...


----------------------------------------


And of course what he says after the quote in the first link:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/...

"The peer-reviewed summary, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide´´ by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon includes 132 references to the scientific literature and was circulated with the petition.

.....

This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful."

(read what´s in between that too as he´s quoting a scientist)


As it can be seen above, that´s not denying human caused climate change, that´s denying that there´s no evidence that "increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful."


All in all, his position is shown most readily by this quote:

"Science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations. The question is how much?"



As it so easily can be seen, Paul doesn´t deny that human caused global warming is happening, he believes that considering both sides is important. His approach is a balanced, scientific one.

So next time ask yourself:

"Did I read -- everything -- that Paul said, or am I just cherry picking his quotes?"
 
  by: Questioning_Answers     08/24/2011 05:57 AM     
  @major ignorance  
  
you have it all wrong.
you are so spiritually dead.
you need to get down on your knees every day and beg yourself to repent.
and maybe someday, the advocate will awaken you.

http://www.youtube.com/...

 
  by: superchicken   08/24/2011 06:18 AM     
  chicken  
  
You religious types seem to be pretty keen on having other men get down on their knees, aren´t you?

Not that I have an issue with men getting on their knees for other men. If that´s what you need to make you happy, then by all means find someone who will oblige. Ted Haggard and Larry Craig are both men of god and I´m certain they would be much more interested in your proposal than I am.
 
  by: silencedmajority   08/24/2011 06:34 AM     
  @Ben  
  
To tell you the truth, I just dont know. Im a economic/business guy.

I would support abortion if the womans life was at stake. but if not, its tricky imo.

hypothetically,

If someones believes in the big bang theory, shouldnt they also believe in life at conception?
 
  by: t-bagger   08/24/2011 06:54 AM     
  @major maggot  
  
i see you are a host of Belial.

probably you can´t be helped.

try contacting father daniel, once he is released from prison.

it is risky business trying to remove this demon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
 
  by: superchicken   08/24/2011 06:55 AM     
  @major filthy  
  
also, i recommended you get down on your knees and beg yourself, no one else. but your filthy mind twisted it into something filthy. why? because you are a bag of filth, nothing more, nothing less.
 
  by: superchicken   08/24/2011 07:01 AM     
  @T  
  
"If someones believes in the big bang theory, shouldnt they also believe in life at conception?"

No correlation whatsoever.

However, if we´re going to talk about what life is, a zygote doesn´t fit the definition in several key ways. It can´t obtain its own nourishment, it can´t survive even a minute outside its host (its mother) and it can´t reproduce.

Will it develop into something that can? With luck, yes. That´s why I´m against late-term abortions, and also why I think the laws on adoption need to be reformed.

I don´t take the Murray Rothbard view toward abortion:

"But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body." (http://mises.org/... )

But I do see a libertarian argument to be made here, particularly when we compare this issue to issues such as drug use (i.e., it´s my body, thus my property, and any restriction on how I use it better have a damn compelling rationale).
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/24/2011 07:04 PM     
  @QA  
  
I read the entirety. *You* left out the fact that in Paul´s (discredited) petition, only 10 percent of those scientists had a job even *remotely* related to climatology. A lot of them were dentists.

There is a broad scientific consensus on several facts:

1) The earth is warming.

2) Human activity plays a key role.

3) This will likely have serious detrimental effects in the coming decades.

There has been skepticism the whole way -- that´s science. Science isn´t accepting something the first time it appears to make sense; it´s about testing theories over and over and refining them until they hold up against every possible challenge. This is how global warming has been studied, just as it is how biology and physics have been studied.

Nobody can honestly state that Ron Paul takes global warming as seriously as the scientific community says it needs to be taken, and that is something progressives and liberals ought to know.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/24/2011 07:25 PM     
  More on that "petition"  
  
"What Ron Paul is referring to is the infamous “Oregon Petition,” a public relations stunt started in 1998 by a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, whose acronym, OISM, is a dyslexic version of OMSI, the well-respected Oregon Museum of Science and Industry in Portland. OISM has nothing to do with OMSI, but they’re probably hoping you mix up letters easily. OISM is a conservative group concerned about “socialism in public schools” which also happens to believe that climate change is a liberal conspiracy. In 1998—yes, twelve years and two Presidential administrations ago—OISM circulated a “petition” signed by a varying number of scientists (usually 19,000, 30,000 or Ron Paul’s current number, 31,478) claiming that they agree with the position that there is no scientific basis for global warming.

Who are these “scientists?” You may recognize some of their names: Perry S. Mason, Michael J. Fox, and John C. Grisham. Sound like more like a fictional lawyer, an 80s actor and a novelist than respected climatologists? Yeah, they are. Most of the “scientists” who supposedly signed the petition are fake. Some of them, such as Geraldine Halliwell, have said they never signed it, yet her name is listed three times under various permutations. Others are dead. Many of the “Ph.D.s” don’t have Ph.D.s in anything even remotely related to climate science. W. Kline Bolton, for example, is an M.D. specializing in kidneys. Zhonggang Zeng has a Ph.D., but it’s in mathematics—he knows nothing about climate science. Hub Hoagland is a dentist and sometime basketball player. These are climate experts?"

http://muertos.blog.com/...
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/24/2011 07:28 PM     
  In sum  
  
Ron Paul -- who never lies -- takes an infamously debunked joke of a petition on global warming, signed by the likes of Michael J. Fox, Perry Mason and one of the Spice Girls, before the United States Congress and has the balls to declare:

"Our energy policies must be based upon scientific truth."

He presented to Congress this petition, started by a conservative organization to deceive the public into believing that climate change is not a concern, yet then I´m told:

"His position on environment is that man made global warming is likely happening and being blown out of proportion."

Thank goodness I took the initiative to look into this for myself and was able to find the truth, including this damning Ron Paul quote:

"The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming."

Yeah, my title is completely accurate.
 
  by: Ben_Reilly     08/24/2011 07:40 PM     
  Bump it!!!  
  
Yeah!!!
 
  by: Lurker     09/23/2011 03:53 AM     
  @Ben  
  
quote:I thought the whole point of the Ron Paul movement was honesty and transparency.

Hey that sounds just like Obama, he ran on that pledge too!
It is a proven fact Obama failed at making that happen yet you never mentioned it at any time in the last two years. Odd that you jump immediately on Ron.
Do you have a particular reason for mentioning one and not the other?
 
  by: hellblazer     09/23/2011 05:35 AM     
  59 comments
   Back to Forum
 
 
 
Copyright ©2017 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com