Never heard that. No politico of any stripe will pass the smell test these days if there's even a whiff of being anti-gay.
Depends on your definition. Some would say that being against same sex marriage or being allowed to be openly gay in the military is anti-gay or at least ignorant of sexual persuasion issues. Seems to me like that position is almost a litmus test for Republican candidates. So it is not that simple.
I have held back on posting this — TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul's Most Incendiary Newsletters— because I thought it is kinda irrelevant, and I want Ron Paul to split from the Republicans and run as an independent candidate because 1) I like some of the things he says 2) I want to see him debate my hero Obama about real issues 3) I want Ron Paul to split the Republican vote and allow Obama to coast into reelection...
but I am gonna post this anyway, for what it is worth, because I like Nouriel Roubini a LOT... he's kooky cool...
I've never heard of this Noureil guy, but when someone resort to the ad hom attacks and the race card, they've lost all credibility.
It is so sad when people like Noureil actually support a cartel of banks called the Federal Reserve who have a license to counterfeit money. It's begs the question, are they that ignorant, or just corrupt?
I don't consider the truth to be either attacking or smearing.
The truth is he's not anti-gay. So when someone plays that false card against him; it is an attack or smear. It's the oldest trick in the book and no one falls for it anymore! They tried on Obama too, in case you forgot.
Ooh, an Adam Smith quote attacking property rights! From a book and an author noted for their vigorous defense of property rights, no less. Was the rest of the book (and his life's work) negated by this, or was it quote mined from a section describing pastoral societies? Gosh, if only we could read it in context perhaps we could resolve this conflict, either rendering Adam Smith's great treatise as incoherent gibberish, or your quote as dishonest scholarship.
Can you point me to the works of a notable, (living) libertarian that doesn't contain any of the above nor any ramblings about property rights and taxes = theft and the like?
If you'll clarify what "the above" means maybe.
Liberalism started out quite well but went astray at some point:
"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is, in reality, instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have property against those who have none at all."
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776
Ooh, an Adam Smith quote attacking property rights! From a book and an author noted for their vigorous defense of property rights, no less. Was the rest of the book (and his life's work) negated by this, or was it quote mined from a section describing pastoral societies? Gosh, if only we could read it in context perhaps we could resolve this conflict, either rendering Adam Smith's great treatise as incoherent gibberish, or your quote as dishonest scholarship.
did i see something on FB today (didn't read it, but i glanced for a sec) that he's homophobic or something? i've not kept up with this guy much as you can tell...i just, well...nevermind. anyway, just curious.
He's not at all.. if he was, I wouldn't support him.
He supports gays serving openly in the military and their right to marry.
They are just really attacking and smearing him now that he is surging in the polls.
Utter nonsense. You're and MSM are still using the same old smears and lies from ONE disgruntled staffer who was fired. No one buys it.
And funny, he's in first place in Iowa, yet you're still parroting the old, tired 'he's not electable' meme given to you by the establishment.
Of course he wont run again, he said that. He is 77 years old. He is retiring from Congress.
The bottom line is everyone wants to attack him because he won't kowtow to the NeoConservative agenda that the establishment and status quo pushes onto us. If you think there's a dimes worth of difference between a Newt, Romney or Obama, then think again.. their policies are same across the board, from monetary to foreign to domestic, it's all the same: more war abroad and more police state at home, not to mention inflation and dollar devaluation. So if you support of that, I'm very sorry to hear it.
There is definitely a difference between Obama and the others, and it lies in his attitude of what our country should look like. He still is a politician, but he has a different vision, one that supports The People. I have hopes for his second term.
Paul is such an easy target. Not credible let alone electable as a presidential candidate. Sad that the system permits the kooks to take a spot on the stage.
I suspect once his current term expires, he'll hang it up and won't run for office again.
did i see something on FB today (didn't read it, but i glanced for a sec) that he's homophobic or something? i've not kept up with this guy much as you can tell...i just, well...nevermind. anyway, just curious.
Actually Bachmann is on the list of those who didn't vote, unless there are two Bachmanns. The list I looked at only listed last names. I don't think Congress people missing any vote is acceptable.
I don't either, but with the tricks that are pulled in Congress, along with being out on the campaign trial, I can see how a missed vote might happen. We know where he stands, that's what's important to me.
Paul is such an easy target. Not credible let alone electable as a presidential candidate. Sad that the system permits the kooks to take a spot on the stage.
I suspect once his current term expires, he'll hang it up and won't run for office again.
He's already announced his retirement from Congress after this term.
Paul is such an easy target. Not credible let alone electable as a presidential candidate. Sad that the system permits the kooks to take a spot on the stage.
I suspect once his current term expires, he'll hang it up and won't run for office again.
Utter nonsense. You're and MSM are still using the same old smears and lies from ONE disgruntled staffer who was fired. No one buys it.
And funny, he's in first place in Iowa, yet you're still parroting the old, tired 'he's not electable' meme given to you by the establishment.
Of course he wont run again, he said that. He is 77 years old. He is retiring from Congress.
The bottom line is everyone wants to attack him because he won't kowtow to the NeoConservative agenda that the establishment and status quo pushes onto us. If you think there's a dimes worth of difference between a Newt, Romney or Obama, then think again.. their policies are same across the board, from monetary to foreign to domestic, it's all the same: more war abroad and more police state at home, not to mention inflation and dollar devaluation. So if you support of that, I'm very sorry to hear it.
There's more to it than that. It was moved off the agenda, then quickly moved back and voted on. If it was close he would have been there, I'm sure. But the important thing is that he is against these types of things. Bachmann voted FOR it!
Paul is campaigning to become president to he can veto things like this. We know where he stands and doesn't flip flop, something we can't say about anyone else in this race.
Actually Bachmann is on the list of those who didn't vote, unless there are two Bachmanns. The list I looked at only listed last names. I don't think Congress people missing any vote is acceptable.
"Ron Paul appeals to black helicopter paranoids, white supremacists, gold standard freaks, laissez faire wackos, anti-semites and racists." Nouriel Rubini
oh, snap.
