The Paul File

Seems Dr Paul knew about what was in those racist newsletters.

Big surprise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html
:rolleyes:

Paul was practicing medicine full time when “the offensive material appeared under his name.” Paul “abhors it, rejects it and has taken responsibility for it as he should have better policed the work being done under his masthead,” “I’ve never read that stuff. I’ve never read — I came — was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.’’ Paul said.
 
Ron Paul isn't going to do that! Ron Paul believes in deregulation and a small (weak) government that corporations can run over whenever they wish.
Oooooo my iPhone... so so so scary :eek:

Eeeeee Apple.... help mommy!:D


The truth is government is IN the POCKET of big business. They're not protecting you FROM business -they're selling you out TO business.

Look how Clinton deregulated the banks so they could gamble with YOUR money, lost and then (thanks to the government) left YOU with the bill. Look how Bush and Cheney made up a war and then sent YOU to fight in it and made YOU pay the military industry complex for it. Look at how Obama kept most of Bush's advisers, hired more Goldies than any previous POTUS and signed AWAY more of your rights, not protect them.... ... . .


Go ahead and vote Obama, Romney, Gingrich, whoever ... they're all the same.
 
Ron Paul isn't going to do that! Ron Paul believes in deregulation and a small (weak) government that corporations can run over whenever they wish.
I am surprised at how little you really know about our government. It is the regulations that allow corporations to run over the weak. Who decided that corporations had rights? Who decided that corporations were people and needed "protecting?" I'll tell you who protects the corporations, GOVERNMENT. Ron Paul thinks that corporations don't need protection. People that run them need to take the personal responsibility for their actions so we can once again have a moral society.

How little you really know. Don't you know what a LLC is? It makes a mint, but when it kills millions, or causes millions in damages, it can just go bankrupt and leave the public holding the bag. Thanks government. Corporations are people. Ha, what an idiotic notion. :rolleyes:
 
I am surprised at how little you really know about our government. It is the regulations that allow corporations to run over the weak. Who decided that corporations had rights? Who decided that corporations were people and needed "protecting?" I'll tell you who protects the corporations, GOVERNMENT. Ron Paul thinks that corporations don't need protection. People that run them need to take the personal responsibility for their actions so we can once again have a moral society.

How little you really know. Don't you know what a LLC is? It makes a mint, but when it kills millions, or causes millions in damages, it can just go bankrupt and leave the public holding the bag. Thanks government. Corporations are people. Ha, what an idiotic notion. :rolleyes:

I'm not against corporations, and neither is the government. Yes, regulations help corporations and they help people. The problem lately is that corporations are able to buy influence in government, and that isn't democratic. The solution isn't to make government impotent. The solution is reasonable regulation that preserves the best things about corporations combined with more regulations that eliminate the evils of corporate money in the government.
 
The US Dollar's share of forex reserves is currently increasing. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/20/uk-markets-forex-uptrend-idUSTRE80J1LH20120120...
Here is graphically the monthly variation thur Nov 2011, but I was speaking of more than china and for longer (decade like) period, and of the relative, not absolute, fraction of reserves held as dollars:
BB01261244.gif
Quad´s link is about the value of the dollar increasing recently (with Euro´s troubles) NOT the dollar fraction in central bank reserves. Most nations are and have been trying for many years to lower that fraction, as I stated, but lack suitable alternatives still to make much progress.
from Email of Oakshire Financial dated 26 Jan12 (also know as Oakshire Investment research) They are based in Baltimore.

I also note that gold is sharply up recently probably in part because central banks, especailly China, are buying at 300% or higher rate than last year.
(Gold is one alternative to dollars for rezserves, but price will need to be $5000 per oz before that is significant part of their reserves even with the faster rate of buying.) The market place and China are behaving very consistently with my suggestion that China does plan to back RMB bonds (for central banks only) with gold, but it may be with twice my prior my prior guess of 5000 RMB to the oz. I.e. Gold backed RMBs will be in 3 or 4 years a significate part of central bank reserves, but firt the RMB will be added to the base for the SDR.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not against corporations, and neither is the government. Yes, regulations help corporations and they help people. The problem lately is that corporations are able to buy influence in government, and that isn't democratic. The solution isn't to make government impotent. The solution is reasonable regulation that preserves the best things about corporations combined with more regulations that eliminate the evils of corporate money in the government.

Lately? Those regulations are over one hundred years old!!! How do these regulations help the common person? They don't. They protect the corporation. The solution is to stop the government from protecting the corporation. The solution is to follow the constitution. The constitution has clearly defined what the government can do, and what it can not. We have gotten away from that because of corporate influence.

Your solution to over regulation, is. . . more regulation? How has that worked out for us over the past one hundred years? :shrug: Well, lets look. The tea party protests, and occupy protests, are, in essence, protesting the same things, the root and cause, are in reality, the same. We must destroy it.

Dr. Paul's solution is, if the corporations do something bad, let the free market, the people and their associations take it up in the courts, and not let the government protect the corporations in the assorted federal agencies, codes, laws, and regulations protect them as they do presently.

Your understanding of these issues is clearly informed by state compulsory education, State supported Universities, and corporate media.
 
Lately? Those regulations are over one hundred years old!!! How do these regulations help the common person? They don't.

The constitution is over two hundred years old. Does that mean that it doesn't help the common person?

Your solution to over regulation, is. . . more regulation? How has that worked out for us over the past one hundred years?

Pretty well. We have safer workplaces, cleaner air and water and better technology. Indeed our biggest problems have come because our standard of living is TOO high; no one wants to work for what an assembly line worker in China will work for so we lose business to Chinese companies. Which is a problem but a much better problem to have than the converse.

Dr. Paul's solution is, if the corporations do something bad, let the free market, the people and their associations take it up in the courts, and not let the government protect the corporations in the assorted federal agencies, codes, laws, and regulations protect them as they do presently.

Worker: Your Honor, my child has emphysema from the pollution emitted from that coal fired power plant!

Judge: Is he dead yet?

Worker: Well, no, but . . . .

Judge: Come back when he's dead, you'll have a case then. NEXT!
 
The constitution is over two hundred years old. Does that mean that it doesn't help the common person?
It's a pretty small and elegant document with only a few amendments. More of a philosophical approach to governing than anything else IMO :shrug:

Pretty well. We have safer workplaces, cleaner air and water and better technology. Indeed our biggest problems have come because our standard of living is TOO high; no one wants to work for what an assembly line worker in China will work for so we lose business to Chinese companies. Which is a problem but a much better problem to have than the converse.
In a vibrant economy this could be dealt with through worker choice. In a moral society this could be dealt with through consumer choice. At the very least, supposing we live in an economically depressed of immoral sycophants sucking on the government teet, well, this could be dealt with locally through State Law. But, then one wonders how you change such a society, one that never has to live up to it's intellectually lazy immoral collective choices? I'd maintain you don't, its only after it gets so bad society collapses that MAYBE people will reflect on their poor immoral behavior - but, still doubtful if there's someone to blame, like Great Satan USA or Joos or Nazi's or someone..... anyone......

Take the smoking ban as an example. Some people think it's great to smoke and eat, other's don't. Some States passed laws making it illegal, other's didn't. I personally think it should be up to the restaurant to decide whether they want to ban smoking or not in their own establishments. I certainly am NOT going to patronage a place that allows smoking indoors as I hate the smell of smoke. To me THIS is the way to deal with smoking indoors.

Do we need a Federal Law? I don't think so. Why should I tell people what to do over in some other state? How about the EPA just comes in and makes it illegal themselves? Is that moral? I don't think so. So, it becomes a questions of how far one feels they should stick their nose into another Citizens personal business.

In the case of emphysema obviously no one would KNOW to begin with that the working conditions caused emphysema. I mean, you drink soda now and again? I think of drinking Coke or Pepsi like I would think of drinking insecticide. Obviously most people think Diabetes in a can is just fine and dandy. Now, suppose it swings the other way and people realize this shit is killing them. By your reasoning people are too stupid to not drink bug-poison in a can and so we NEED to pass a law? Come on? I'd like to think people are plenty smart enough to NOT drink that shit. If they do, that's their business not mind.
Do we really NEED to pass a law?
Or can we let people, through their personal choices, drive change?
If you do think we need a Law do you think it should be Federal? How about someone at the EPA just up and decides today to shut down all Coke and Pepsi sales across the USA? Is that OK?
What do you expect from judges? Suppose you bring your kid into court today and say I fed my kid Coke and Pepsi and over time it gave my son Type-2 diabetes. It's really the same argument. You'd have to ban candy, chips, fast-food, etc.. etc.. etc... Is that OK? Should some unelected employee at the EPA ban all this stuff at the Federal level?

What is the role of government?



Do you believe the economy can be centrally planned? Do you think it was reasonable to "bail-out" the banks? I don't. I know some people around (who probably work in finance) think the world would be living in the Stone Age (talk about hyperbole) if we hadn't. Me OTOH, I think we'd be doing really much better now. We wouldn't be as deeply in debt and we'd have gotten rid of a lot of corrupt banking oligarchs. At least the incompetent ones - like Corzine.
 
Last edited:
297193_2307659703681_1614979105_2287471_1063900441_n.jpg

Talk about cutting through the murk. Self-declared "liberal-leaning libertarian" blogger James Sinclair wrote an interesting post looking at where the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street protests meet. It's obviously simplified, which he admits, but still useful.

"The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together," Sinclair writes. "There are currently two sizable coalitions of angry citizens that are almost on the same page about that, and they're too busy insulting each other to notice."
 
... So you agree that there is increased demand for dollar holdings, including in the foreign exchange reserves of central banks, and that your previous statement (to which I replied {Post by Billy T:
“… Point is China, like most every one else of importance, is reducing the fraction of their reserves held in dollars as much as they can, …”})

... is clearly wrong. In which case, it would have been better on you to just admit such like an adult and move on, instead of engaging in the inane tactics seen above.
I was so upset by your "cheery picked" one quarter of data showing an up turn in dollar held by China et. al. in the decade long, well documented, move by most central banks to get out of the declining value dollars that I forgot to reply to above part of your post.

We both agree that brief up turn was cause by the Euro´s problems and fact that the dollar was at that time (perhaps not in a few years, even before end of 2014) the "least dirty shirt" in the financial laundry bin.

I do NOT admit to saying less dollars were held by central banks.

My full text of several posts clearly shows I spoke of the dollar´s Relative Value Decline. in central bank reserves. I did not say that the absolute number of dollars held by central banks was decreasing. In fact even in your quote of me, used as a “proof” that I was wrong, my text is:

Post by Billy T:
“… Point is China, like most every one else of importance, is reducing the fraction of their reserves held in dollars as much as they can, …”

Again it states, I am speaking of the value of dollar in reserves being reduced compared to the total value of their reserves. I.e. dollars are becoming an every smaller fraction of most countries reserves, with AFAIK, the one brief quarter when many though the Euro was about to collapse. I.e. as document in post 1196´s external link the dollar fraction fell from 70.9% in 1999 to61.4% in 2010, but I would not be surprised if despite this fractional drop in value in reserves, the actual number of dollars (or face value of dollar bonds) held did increase a little. (A lot more dollars are now required to be even just 61.4% of the reserve´s total value.)
 
A Little Help, Here?

A Little Help, Here?

Rep. Ron Paul appeared on CNN's Piers Morgan Tonight.

Could I get a little help understanding something here?

MORGAN: Here's the dilemma, and it's one I put to Rick Santorum very recently. I was surprised by his answer, although I sort of understood from his belief point of view that he would come up with this.

But it's a dilemma that I am going to put to you. You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped—and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen. But if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?

PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen or give them—

MORGAN: You would allow them to abort the baby?

PAUL: It is absolutely in limbo, because an hour after intercourse or a day afterwards, there is no legal or medical problem. If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it, it's a little bit different story.

But somebody arriving in an emergency room saying, I have just been raped and there is no chemical—there's no medical and there's no legal evidence of a pregnancy—

MORGAN: Life doesn't begin at conception?

PAUL: Life does begin at conception.

MORGAN: Then you would be taking a life.

PAUL: Well, you don't know if you're taking a life either, because this is an area that is—but to decide everything about abortion and respect for life on this one very, very theoretical condition, where there may have been a life or not a life.

MORGAN: But here's the thing: although it is a hypothetical, it does happen. People do get raped and they do get impregnated. And sometimes they are so ashamed by what's happened that weeks go by before they may even discover they are pregnant.

They have to face this dilemma. And they are going to have a president who has a very, very strong view about this.

PAUL: This is like the proposal that the people who like abortion, endorse abortion because it's the woman's right to her body. You say, well, does that mean one minute before birth, you can kill the baby? I did this on one of the TV programs where some women were opposed to what I was saying.

I said, this nine-pound baby is in the woman. She has the right. She argues her case. I said you would abort this baby because the woman has had unfortunate some circumstances, so the doctor gets paid a handsome fee to kill this nine-pound baby?

Oh, that's not what we're talking about. But that is what they are talking about. They are talking about a human life. So a person immediately after rape, yes. It's a tough one. I won't satisfy everybody there.

But to tell you the truth, what I saw happening in the 1960s and the change in the law and—no, the change in attitude, people were doing illegal abortions. To me it is a moral problem. It was to change the morality of the '60s, the lack of respect for life, leads to the lack of respect for liberty and all the things that I believe in.

So it was a change in morality that had the Supreme Court change the law. So I don't believe the change in the law is the magic cure. I do believe, though, very sincerely, if we don't have an understanding of life and have a lot of respect for life, I can't defend people on their personal liberties. I can't be as tolerant as I am on how they use liberties.

So that's why I think it's really a moral issue, rather than a legal solution to all these problems. As a physician, as a gynecologist, I have had to face some of these very, very difficult problems. I understand them. Even before Roe versus Wade, many of those problems that existed, where there is no perfect answer, they were taken care of, but it was always done—they respected the fact that they were dealing with a life.

MORGAN: Finally on this point, do you accept there is a slight contradiction between a candidate who is pro liberty, pro personal choice, pro personal responsibility in almost every other area, but on the specific area says no, you don't have choice?

PAUL: See, I don't see the inconsistency because I see the nine-pound baby that's still within the mother as deserving some protection, too. Who deserves protection? That fetus has rights, because if I do harm to him, I get sued. If you have a car accident and kill a fetus, there are legal right there. But to say that it's only the mother, it's very, very unique.

If you carry your argument to the—all the way through, we have a right to our homes. Shouldn't we have the privacy of our homes? Do we have a right to kill the baby one minute after birth? No. Everybody say—as a matter of fact, this is what happens: we can kill the baby before it's born and a doctor is paid. One minute after birth, if the woman who was unfortunate enough to have this baby—if she throws the baby away, she gets arrested for a homicide.

To me, the one minute before birth and one minute after birth isn't a whole lot different.

MORGAN: You understand that to a lot of people with serious religious conviction, it is. They say life begins at conception.

PAUL: Life does begin at conception.

Let us, please, start with something that ought to be simple enough: What, exactly, is an "honest rape"?
____________________

Notes:

Paul, Ron. Interview with Piers Morgan. Piers Morgan Tonight. February 3, 2012. Transcript. Transcripts.CNN.com. February 4, 2012. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/03/pmt.01.html
 


Let us, please, start with something that ought to be simple enough: What, exactly, is an "honest rape"?


It's what people who don't actually believe it happens--or believe it's the fault of the woman--call the hypothetical concept or rape as it is portrayed in the media. That he qualified it with "honest," gives us a glimpse of the misogyny that unfortunately informs much of this debate.
 
Ron Paul is a doctor, a gynecologist, who, I think has delivered about 1000 babies. He surely knows more than what I post below, extracted from wiki. Although he says “life begins at conception” I have not read his definition of “conception.” As he is so knowledgeable in this area he must mean something like “a viable, fertilized egg implanted in the uterine wall.”

On the market is the anti-conception drug (originally developed by Barr) cleverly called “Plan B.” It can prevent conception even up to two days after intercourse. It does so by interfering with the uterine wall implantation of the fertilized egg. Sexually active fertile women typically have this attachment naturally fail several times for every time they successfully become pregnant.

Only after the egg has attached and can it trigger the hormonal changes of pregnancy in the woman. I.e. most fertilized eggs are flushed down the toilet at home with little knowledge by the woman that she could have become pregnant. I.e. for me (and I think, RP), pregnancy only begins with fertilized egg implantation and then is when life begins also. If there is not yet any pregnancy how can there be any abortion?

Conception is a process that begins with a sperm penetrating the egg wall and ends with the successful implantation of the fertilized egg in the placenta, not an instant in time as many ignorant of the complex PROCESS of conception tend to believe.

Any other POV means “Plan B” drug and doctors providing in-vitro –fertilization service are murdering many dozens of “yet to be born babies” for every live birth that occurs. Thus RP has no inconsistent as suggest by Morgan in his interview of RP.

“… Egg retrieval & Fertilization

“…The eggs are retrieved from the patient using a trans-vaginal technique called transvaginal oocyte retrieval, involving an ultrasound-guided needle piercing the vaginal wall to reach the ovaries. Through this needle follicles can be aspirated, and the follicular fluid is handed to the IVF laboratory to identify ova. It is common to remove between ten and thirty eggs. The retrieval procedure takes about 20 minutes and is usually done under conscious sedation or general anaesthesia. … The sperm and the egg are incubated together at a ratio of about 75,000:1 in the culture media for about 18 hours.

Embryo culture

… The fertilised egg is passed to a special growth medium and left for about 48 hours until the egg consists of six to eight cells. … In many Canadian, American and Australian programmes, however, embryos are placed into an extended culture system with a transfer done at the blastocyst stage at around five days after retrieval, especially if many good-quality embryos are still available on day 3. Blastocyst stage transfers have been shown to result in higher pregnancy rates.

Embryo selection

Laboratories have developed grading methods to judge oocyte and embryo quality. In order to optimise pregnancy rates, there is significant evidence that a morphological scoring system is the best strategy for the selection of embryos.[10] However, presence of soluble HLA-G might be considered as a second parameter if a choice has to be made between embryos of morphologically equal quality. Embryos are failed {trash canned} by the embryologist based on the amount of cells, evenness of growth and degree of fragmentation.

{Billy T insert: (1) “morphological selection” is just fancy way to say trash can the obviously mal-formed embryos. At the Balastocyst stage of development there are many cells forming a hollow ball. Soon one linear section of one side will fold inward to form the “neural tube” one end of which will become the brain and most of the length the spinal cord.}
Quotes from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilisation


“Spina bifida (Latin: "split spine") is a developmental congenital disorder caused by the incomplete closing of the embryonic neural tube. – more at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spina_bifida

Summary: For every birth by in vitro fertilization, on average more than 10 fertilized eggs are trash canned. Is that "murder" especially the "morphologically defective" fertilized eggs / embryos which had zero chance to become babies? If not, what is wrong with helping a rapped girl not get pregnant or even a woman chooising not to with "Plan B"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Let us, please, start with something that ought to be simple enough: What, exactly, is an "honest rape"?

rape. You're trying to nitpick the wording of a man who isn't really the most eloquent speaker? If i remember the interview correctly prior to this moment he used the phrase 'honest x'' (i don't remember x)... it is very likely that 'phrasing' just carried over later at this point. It happens, people tend to use these wording techniques. But really now, no one considers him the best of speakers so to go after his speech wording is well....I don't know the word ;)

I'm sure it just means 'rape'. But on a side note, there are 'false rapes' where the woman just lies- I know a few cases personally where its a 'payback' tool used by some woman. And it works because 'awwww the poor defenseless woman'.. Anyways I think Ron just meant 'rape' the 'honest' was just a phrasing technique that carried over from before. He uses it often 'honest montary system', I've even heard him say 'honest money'... and so on..
 
Last edited:
I'm sure it just means 'rape'. But on a side note, there are 'false rapes' where the woman just lies- I know a few cases personally where its a 'payback' tool used by some woman. And it works because 'awwww the poor defenseless woman'..

Tiassa, do you see what I mean? See how impossible it is for the misogynist to hide their hate for women?

These are the kinds of people who use terms like "honest rape" when the question already implied an actual rape situation.
 
Back
Top