Paul Must Endorse McCain to Speak at MN Convention

[KG4JYD]

"Ron Carey, chairman of the Republican Party of Minnesota, said the only way Ron Paul can address the state convention is if he ends his candidacy and endorses John McCain.

Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University, said the Republican establishment wants Paul out of the way as they unify the party behind John McCain. But Abramowitz said Republicans run a risk if they close the door on Paul supporters.

"I mean they're obviously not a large group, but if you alienate them, shut them out of the process, I think there's a real risk that those people would then look to a third party or independent candidate in November," he said."


Full source:
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/05/29/paulbackers/?rsssource=1

[N9XR]

So should he endorse McCain? He needs to decide who he wants to endorse.

I am sure he will be invited to speak at the Democratic convention if he wants to endorse the Democratic candidate.

Or he can endorse Bob Barr.

What would you like?

[N4VGB]

So should he endorse McCain? He needs to decide who he wants to endorse.
I am sure he will be invited to speak at the Democratic convention if he wants to endorse the Democratic candidate.
Or he can endorse Bob Barr.
What would you like?


35 delegates and a million or so votes, you really believe Paul is a power player here? Making noise is all the Paul camp can do now.

[KG4JYD]

So should he endorse McCain? He needs to decide who he wants to endorse.

I am sure he will be invited to speak at the Democratic convention if he wants to endorse the Democratic candidate.

Or he can endorse Bob Barr.

What would you like?
Again, none of the above. He has said that he would not endorse any other Republicans running, nor accept their slot as VP.

Of course he wouldn't endorse a socialist like Obama / Hillary which is also why he won't endorse McCain either.

He might endorse Bob Barr... I honestly don't know much about Barr at this point... but I have a feeling he will probably be on my short list of choices to vote for.

[n2ize]

Again, none of the above. He has said that he would not endorse any other Republicans running, nor accept their slot as VP.

Of course he wouldn't endorse a socialist like Obama / Hillary which is also why he won't endorse McCain either.


Obama & McCain are socialists ? That's news.


He might endorse Bob Barr... I honestly don't know much about Barr at this point... but I have a feeling he will probably be on my short list of choices to vote for.


The libertarians have a few good ideas. Now if they can only move those ideas into a realistic framework which bears upon some sense and logic they might stand a chance.

[W3MIV]

The libertarians have a few good ideas. Now if they can only move those ideas into a realistic framework which bears upon some sense and logic they might stand a chance.

Never happen. Politics is the art of the practical, and the entire libertarian thrust is to seek impractical, even impossible, "solutions" of an "academic" nature rather than deal in the day-to-day reality of practical politics. They are the spoiled children of the modern age, preferring to stamp and howl in a tantrum rather than do the real work needed to actually govern.

[K8YZK]

Maybe McCain should indorse Ron.

[KG4JYD]

The libertarians have a few good ideas. Now if they can only move those ideas into a realistic framework which bears upon some sense and logic they might stand a chance.I don't think you understand libertarianism; it's one of the most logical political philosophies today.

[KV1M]

I don't think you understand libertarianism; it's one of the most logical political philosophies today.

It's anarchisms evil twin.
It's utopianism and won't work.

[W3MIV]

It's anarchisms evil twin.
It's utopianism and won't work.


Praise the Lord: Agreement for a change. Will wonders n'er cease?

[KG4JYD]

Never happen. Politics is the art of the practical, and the entire libertarian thrust is to seek impractical, even impossible, "solutions" of an "academic" nature rather than deal in the day-to-day reality of practical politics. Again you are incorrect and obviously ignorant of how the free market works. :rolleyes:

[W3MIV]

Again you are incorrect and obviously ignorant of how the free market works. :rolleyes:

Sure, Mattie. Explain to us again how the nation will be run once the libertarians have rid us of the IRS, how the airlines will function once you have freed us from the thrall of the FAA and how the economy will blossom loosed from the fetters of such impediments as the FTC, FDA, ICC, AFL and CIO have been beaten into plowshares.

We shiver here on the dark side of the hill awaiting the sun of your wisdom.

[KG4JYD]

Explain to us again how the nation will be run once the libertarians have rid us of the IRS, how the airlines will function once you have freed us from the thrall of the FAA and how the economy will blossom loosed from the fetters of such impediments as the FTC, FDA, ICC, AFL and CIO have been beaten into plowshares.

If you call me "Mattie" one more time I will put you on the ignore list.


Now to the subject at hand...


Well I think almost all Americans will agree that we will be better off without the IRS.

Airlines? You do realize that many, if not most, delays are due to the antiquated FAA ATC system, right? Without an FAA companies would be free to innovate to create the best solutions to handle the "overcrowding" of the skies.

FTC, FDA, ICC, AFL and CIO... Well the FTC is actually Constitutional although most of their actions however are not. The FDA is NOT Constitutional, and I am not sure what the ICC is. The AFL and CIO are NOT governmental entities. Nice alphabet soup by the way.

The FDA kills a lot of people by denying their ability to receive medication that the federal government hasn't approved. The reason drugs are so much? The FDA forces drug companies to spend 10 years and 1 billion dollars before they can bring a drug to market. Don't blame the drug companies for this, blame the government.

[W3MIV]

If you call me "Mattie" one more time I will put you on the ignore list.

Temper, temper, Mattie.


Now to the subject at hand...


Well I think almost all Americans will agree that we will be better off without the IRS.

Airlines? You do realize that many, if not most, delays are due to the antiquated FAA ATC system, right? Without an FAA companies would be free to innovate to create the best solutions to handle the "overcrowding" of the skies.

FTC, FDA, ICC, AFL and CIO... Well the FTC is actually Constitutional although most of their actions however are not. The FDA is NOT Constitutional, and I am not sure what the ICC is. The AFL and CIO are NOT governmental entities. Nice alphabet soup by the way.

The FDA kills a lot of people by denying their ability to receive medication that the federal government hasn't approved. The reason drugs are so much? The FDA forces drug companies to spend 10 years and 1 billion dollars before they can bring a drug to market. Don't blame the drug companies for this, blame the government.

What about NASA, Mattie? Is NASA Constitutional? How about NOAA, Mattie? Is NOAA Constitutional? How about the USAF? The CIA?

[K5FH]

Well I think almost all Americans will agree that we will be better off without the IRS.

The IRS is merely a collection agency for a spendthrift Congress. The world's most vicious collection agency, yes, but a collection agency nonetheless. They have a tremendous advantage over civilian collection agencies in that they are empowered to use deadly force in the pursuit of their collection activities.

They are also a means of social control used by Congress. Which means that, as usual, you want to attack the symptom and not the disease itself. The disease is the godawful Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.

The real problem is existing tax legislation; the IRS is merely the instrument of its enforcement.

Airlines? You do realize that many, if not most, delays are due to the antiquated FAA ATC system, right? Without an FAA companies would be free to innovate to create the best solutions to handle the "overcrowding" of the skies.

I seem to remember having this discussion in another thread a few months back.

It's pretty much agreed that the ATC system needs major overhaul and upgrading, and the sooner the better. Research is ongoing as to just how to accomplish this. The problem isn't being ignored, it just isn't being addressed as quickly as we would like.

BUT...and here is where you and the Libertarians go off the rails...expecting each state to run its own ATC system and to have all those systems integrate seamlessly smacks of drug-induced fantasy. It ain't gonna happen. The FAA maintains control of the ATC system for a number of good reasons but the most obvious (and most important) one is, simply, to ensure one set of guidelines and standards for operation of the system.

FTC, FDA, ICC, AFL and CIO... Well the FTC is actually Constitutional although most of their actions however are not. The FDA is NOT Constitutional, and I am not sure what the ICC is. The AFL and CIO are NOT governmental entities. Nice alphabet soup by the way.

The ICC is the Interstate Commerce Commission. We have already explained to you why it is constitutional for the ICC to exist so go back and re-read that thread.

The FDA kills a lot of people by denying their ability to receive medication that the federal government hasn't approved. The reason drugs are so much? The FDA forces drug companies to spend 10 years and 1 billion dollars before they can bring a drug to market. Don't blame the drug companies for this, blame the government.

Blame them both, since both share responsibility for the problem.

This happened long before you were born, but google "thalidomide" and see what happens when a new drug is rushed to market without extensive or proper testing. To point you in the right direction, here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry:

"From 1956 to 1962, approximately 10,000 children were born with severe malformities, including phocomelia, because their mothers had taken thalidomide during pregnancy. In 1962, in reaction to the tragedy, the United States Congress enacted laws requiring tests for safety during pregnancy before a drug can receive approval for sale in the U.S. Other countries enacted similar legislation, and thalidomide was not prescribed or sold for decades."

Now, your predictable response will be, "Well, the lawsuits that resulted from this made the drug companies more careful." Maybe, maybe not. But what about the parents of the 10,000 kids born with deformed limbs and a host of medical problems? It is a lot better to prevent such tragedies from occuring in the first place.

I know it's hard for you to accept, Matt, but not all government regulation is a bad thing. A large percentage of it, yes, but not all.

[KG4JYD]

expecting each state to run its own ATC system and to have all those systems integrate seamlessly smacks of drug-induced fantasy. It ain't gonna happen. The FAA maintains control of the ATC system for a number of good reasons but the most obvious (and most important) one is, simply, to ensure one set of guidelines and standards for operation of the system.The Constitution does NOT give the federal government authority to regulate travel. It doesn't matter "if it's a good reason" or not, it's unconstitutional.

Besides, not only could the States handle it better, private industry could and I am sure handle it better than the State governments.


The ICC is the Interstate Commerce Commission.

I don't think I ever said the ICC was unconstitutional. In fact it's one of the few federal agencies that actually IS spelled out in the Constitution.



This happened long before you were born, but google "thalidomide" and see what happens when a new drug is rushed to market without extensive or proper testing.

"The Thalidomide tragedy wasn't due to lack of testing, but ignorance of what testing should have been done. At that time, scientists didn't know how sensitive the fetus could be to drugs that were safe for adults, so they didn't test for it.

"The FDA simply dragged their feet and became heroes. As a result of this positive feedback, they delayed more and more.

"The Thalidomide tragedy was the worst drug disaster in modern history, yet it pales in comparison to the damage done by the delays of life-saving drugs. The FDA's three year delay in introducing propranolol after it was sold in Europe, cost (conservatively) 30,000 U.S. lives. In comparison, 10,000 children were affected by thalidomide. Every time the FDA delays a life-saving drug, we have the equivalent of three thalidomide tragedies.

"The moral of the story is that the delays caused by FDA regulations cost many more lives than they save. The cure is worse than the disease. For the terminally ill, denying access to drugs that could potentially save their lives, prolong their lives, or make them more comfortable, is especially cruel.

"FDA delays mean that companies have fewer years left on their patent to recover the cost of development when a drug is finally marketed. As delays get longer, fewer drugs have enough market life to pay for themselves before going generic. Drugs that could save lives or alleviate suffering are simply not offered to the public because the cost of their development can't be recovered. In all likelihood, drugs that are never developed because of FDA regulations cost even more lives than the delays!"
-Dr. Mary Ruwart.


I know it's hard for you to accept, Matt, but not all government regulation is a bad thing. A large percentage of it, yes, but not all.I never said all government regulation was a bad thing... just most of it is unconstitutional and unnecessary.