@bcglorf, sorry, I was mostly trying to explain why I came down on you so hard way back up with my first comment, not meaning to come down hard on you a second time.

I'll cop to posting this as a piece of political activism, not to educate anyone. I think my objection to what you said was that your first reaction to the video was to try to undermine that political activism by casting doubt on the validity of the point being made.

Keep in mind, this wasn't a video of someone proposing some radical course of action, it was basically just saying "Yes virginia, temperatures are really rising, even if it's cold where you are right now."

It wasn't even meant to be the definitive proof that global warming is man-made, or that the future impacts will be significant, etc.

You raise a curious issue though. I'm not disapproving why you agree with me, I'm disapproving you undermining my advocacy of the kinds of policies we ostensibly agree about, because you disapprove of the reasons I am supporting them...

As for the denier label, that's easily settled. Do you agree that man-made CO2 emissions are causing significant changes to the planet's climate?

Like I said, I only skimmed through the earlier conversation, but it looked to me like your answer boiled down to "there's no proof that it is, and people who say otherwise are being dishonest."

@MilkmanDan a lot of ink has been spilled around the interwebs over this particular Politifact finding, but I gotta say what they did here was completely wrong.

Obama said the incontestable truth here:

Most of the job losses happened before he was sworn in.
The rest of the decline happened before any of his policies took effect.
In the last 22 months businesses created 3 million jobs.

Now, what's Politifact calling a lie? Did Obama claim personal credit for every job? No. Did Obama claim partial credit? Only in the most oblique and indirect way possible.

So is Politifact saying Obama definitely deserves no credit for the job creation? If so, that's pants-on-fire false, according to Politifact.

So again, what's their objection? That Obama presented accurate, non-misleading facts that support the notion that he's actually doing a good job on the economy? That's not lying, that's making an argument, and using facts to support it. It's how honest people try to make their case.

netrunner is right about the cause of the increase in foodstamp recipients

but... i also agree with bobknight - your last paragraph has a bit of hyperbole... he's not whitewashing - if anything, newt's words dig him a deeper hole with the left, and even some on the right... but there is a resonance of truth for many - putting things bluntly can be labeled 'racist' but it doesn't necessarily need to be so

imagine a hypothetical scenario wherein herman cain gives a stump speech to a predominately white crowd in a west virginia coal-mining community... he tells them to "stay in school" and stresses the importance of education in bettering one's station in life -- racist?

gingrich's broth of reasoning lacks a necessary dash of empathy to make the recipe for recovery more popularly favorful... that, imho, is why he won't get the nomination

My grade school gave out "E"s instead of "F" for failing grades, we didn't know much in West Virginia, but we did know the first digests of the letterbet.

This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

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

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

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

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

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

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

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

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

No, I feel sorry for troops to have to serve with THIS kind of thing going on:

The Dover Air Force Base mortuary for years disposed of portions of troops’ remains by cremating them and dumping the ashes in a Virginia landfill. /washington post

>> ^vaporlock:

Aren't they speaking with US accents?
Let me see if I get the argument correct. "Candy or food, you choose. We're giving out candy and you know you like it. So screw real food and eat some candy with us."


Nope, those are Canadian accents. The normal crazy accent that people talk aboot is by and large from Canadians living in Quebec or on the east coast. Much the way not all Americans have an accent like those from in Virginia, Alabama or Texas.

The simple fact is the vast majority of educational policy is already done by the state and local governments, and it obvious to anyone who teaches. I was a public school teacher for 4 years in Virginia. What impacted me more, NCLB or Virginia Standards of Learning? The SOW's by a very wide margin.

What you're suggesting is the federal gov't should play no role whatsoever in educational policy. It's not a case of all or nothing. NCLB is an example, and I agree with you, of bad national education policy. But many states are also enacting standardized multiple choice tests for state accepted curriculum, and judge teacher effectiveness based on these scores, which is IMO also bad policy. Bad policy can come from federal, state, or local government. Why would you think federal gov't is any more likely to generate bad policy than any other level of gov't? And past that, NCLB being a mistake is not a good point for abolishing the Dept. Of Edu. It's an argument to change federal education policy.

Sure, there's a portion of educational policy where what works for one state doesn't work for another. However, there's also shared policy that's in common across all states, too. Across the US for example, there is an increased demand for workers with technology skills. Federal gov't initiatives can help facilitate that. Federal tax dollars have also helped to supplement state and local gov't funding for education, too. A federal apparatus is useful in these situations.

>> ^Grimm:

It's easy to say "just change bad policy". But the reality is when the Federal government has control it's not an easy thing to do. Why do you have a problem with putting that power back in the hands of the states? What works for one state may not work for another. Or what works for one state can then be adopted by other states who are looking for a better solution.
No child left behind is finally getting repealed....but how long did that take? Good for the new students...but what about the kids like mine that had to live with that failed experiment for the last 10 years?

I have two degrees in biology and chemistry and my individual, annual salary out of college was $35k, pretty rough in metro-Virginia where rent is unreasonable. Frugal spending (but short-term investments ) left small margins and essentially no buffer; not a comfortable life by any means.

Then again, that's just me and what do I know?

My dad used to play a game with his old international scout jeep. Akin to cow tipping, he would trying and climb up the base of the tree with the jeep with the hopes that it didn't snap and impale him. On another note, there isn't much to do in West Virginia when all the roads are frozen over and you live on a mountain.

@blastido_factor:

There's an old Jewish proverb that runs something like this:

"A fool can throw a stone into the water that ten wise men cannot recover."

Your stones, fortunately, aren't irrecoverable. I'll offer some counterpoints to a few of your claims, and I'll leave it up to you to fish for the truth about the others.


- The alleged masterminds of 9/11 have never been produced and never put to trial, despite having supposedly been captured in 2001/02

I don't know what you mean by "produced," but here's something I do know: I started a case in small claims court earlier this year (in New York City, nonetheless), and I was told I'd have to wait at least four months to appear before an arbitrator. (It's likely that I'll have to wait longer, if, for example, I opt to appear before a judge.) Simply put, trials take time. Given the complexities of a trial involving the masterminds and perpetrators of 9/11, ten years is hardly cause for conspiracy.


- Total failure of the air defense system. The Pentagon was struck One hour and Twenty minutes after the attacks began, yet there was no response from Andrews Air Force base, which is just 10 MILES away and supposed to be in charge of defending the capitol."

The North Tower was struck at 8:46 AM, the South Tower at 9:03 AM, and the Pentagon at 9:37 AM. By my math, the Pentagon was hit fifty-one minutes after the first plane hit the WTC and thirty-four minutes after the second plane hit. The 9/11 Commission estimated that the hijacking of Flight 11, the first plane to hit the WTC, began at 8:14 AM. It's misleading, in this context, to consider the hijacking of Flight 11 as the beginning of the attack (I assume this is what you meant); it wasn't until the second plane hit the WTC that the nature and the scale of the attacks became evident. Could the communication between the FAA and NORAD have been more prompt, and, thus, more effective? Yes. (Rightly so, this is one of the major criticisms lobbied against the agencies responsible for responding to the attacks.) Is the delay of thirty-four minutes cause for conspiracy, given the lack of precedence in handling such a coordinated attack and the confusion surrounding the events of the attack? No.


- The remains of the twin towers were quickly carried off and buried before any forensic investigations could be done.

Your use of the word forensic is categorically flawed. (The first and third definitions of forensic, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, are as follows: (1) "belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate, and (3) "relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems.") NIST's reports are chock-full of forensic analyses; have a look for yourself: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/index.cfm. Forensic investigations also led to the identification of a significant number of victims. According to Wikipedia: "Within a year, medical examiners had identified the remains of 33 victims who had been on board Flight 11. They identified two other Flight 11 victims, including the lead flight attendant Karen Martin, after body fragments were discovered near Ground Zero in 2006. In April 2007, examiners using newer DNA technology identified another Flight 11 victim. The remains of two hijackers, potentially from Flight 11, were also identified and removed from Memorial Park in Manhattan." The methods used to identify these victims (DNA testing, in many cases) were nothing if not forensic.

You're also neglecting the simple fact that the removal of debris was necessary from a health standpoint. Again, according to Wikipedia: "The thousands of tons of toxic debris resulting from the collapse of the Twin Towers contained more than 2,500 contaminants, including known carcinogens. Subsequent debilitating illnesses among rescue and recovery workers are said to be linked to exposure to these carcinogens."


- Of all the cameras around the pentagon, including the security tapes taken from local gas stations, only one blurry clip was released.

Three videos, not one, were released. According to Wikipedia: "A nearby Citgo service station also had security cameras installed, but a video released on September 15, 2006, did not show the crash because the camera was pointed away from the crash site. The Doubletree Hotel, located nearby in Crystal City, Virginia, also had a security camera video, and on December 4, 2006, the FBI released the video in response to a freedom of information lawsuit filed by Scott Bingham. The footage is 'grainy and the focus is soft, but a rapidly growing tower of smoke is visible in the distance on the upper edge of the frame as the plane crashes into the building.'"


I don't fault you, or others like you, for wanting to "think twice" about the explanations given for certain of the events surrounding 9/11. I do fault you, though, for spending so little time on your second round of thinking, and for so carelessly tossing conspiracy theories to the wind.

Fracking could have caused East Coast earthquake

>> ^rottenseed:

Dear Haiti,

Seriously, it's 2011. 3rd world country shit ain't cute anymore
Signed,
the rest of the fucking world
PS: yours was only 7.0...nice building code, dicks>> ^Selektaa:
Dear America,
Please STFU.
Love,
Haiti



You do know that the richter scale is logarithmic, right?
The energy yield from a 5.9 is equivalent to ~43 kilo tonnes of tnt, whereas the energy yield from a 7.0 is over half a million tonnes.

I don't normally think of Virginia as earthquake territory.

Dear Haiti,



Seriously, it's 2011. 3rd world country shit ain't cute anymore

Signed,
the rest of the fucking world

PS: yours was only 7.0...nice building code, dicks>> ^Selektaa:

Dear America,
Please STFU.
Love,
Haiti