# Iowans for Tax Relief Hold Pres. Forum & Exclude Only Candidate for True Tax Relief



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

An organization called "Iowans for Tax Relief" is joining with the
Iowa Christian Alliance to host a forum for Republican presidential
candidates on June 30. All of the first and second tier Republican
candidates were invited to attend, with one notable exception.

It recently came to light that Representative Ron Paul, a Republican
congressman from Texas, was not invited to attend. This seemed very
odd, considering the fact that Dr. Paul has received the "Taxpayer's Best
Friend" award from the National Taxpayers Union, holds very strong
positions on the constitutionality of the IRS, and has never voted to
raise taxes during his ten terms in Congress. One would think that
this kind of candidate would be ideal at a forum sponsored by the
so-called Iowans for Tax Relief.

When a columnist from LewRockwell.com contacted Mr. Ed Failor, Jr.,
the organization's executive vice president and the man in charge of
the event, to ask why Dr. Paul had been excluded, Mr. Failor simply
said that Ron Paul was not invited and would not be allowed to
participate because he was not a "credible" candidate.

Again, this didn't make sense. What made Mr. Failor decide that Dr.
Paul is not a "credible" candidate, even as he invited such also-rans
as Tommy Thompson and Duncan Hunter"? This merited a little more
investigation.

Some deeper digging has revealed the truth. It turns out that Mr.
Failor has clear and selfish motives for excluding Dr. Paul from the
forum. Mr Failor, you see, is a Senior Campaign Advisor for none
other than John McCain. Perhaps he knows that Dr. Paul's clear-cut
record on issues of taxation, accompanied by his persuasive oratory,
would trump his own candidate's views on the issue. Mr Failor obviously
views Dr. Paul as a threat to his own candidate's success,
and so has opted to underhandedly exclude him from the forum.

Why isn't Mr. Failor acting in the best interest of his group's members? 
If he truly cared about tax relief, and if he truly had the members' best 
interests at heart, he would allow them to hear from the candidate who 
has the strongest record, out of all the Republican hopefuls, of being on 
the taxpayers' side . It is clear, however, that Mr. Failor is more concerned 
about his political cronyism and supporting John McCain's presidential bid
than he is with working for true tax relief for the Iowan taxpayers he
claims to support.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Turns out that Paul's supporters have raised such an outcry about this that some of the other sponsors of the event have pulled out.

Americans for Fair Tax, another of the sponsors, have sent a letter to Ed Failor telling him that they think *all* the candidates should be invited.

Failor squared off against Kent Snyder, Paul's campaign chairman, yesterday on Jan Michelson's talk show on WHO radio. Even the host told Failor that his excuses were "lame".

Now it's come out that Failor's organization was one of the co-sponsors of the National Taxpayers Union's conference last weekend, where Dr. Paul was the keynote speaker and placed second in their straw poll.

If Failor's organization decided "months ago", as he claimed, that Dr. Paul is not "credible" enough to speak in Iowa, why did they think he was credible enough to speak at a _national_ event last weekend?

That dog don't hunt.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> An organization called "Iowans for Tax Relief" is joining with the Iowa Christian Alliance


There's your answer.

I think it has more to do with other issues (read: Iraq) than taxes.

It doesn't take much of a bullet to pierce the armor of pro-war Christians, and last time around for Ron Paul it was like shooting fish in a barrel. I mean, all these nice faithful Christians defending the catastrophic foreign policy of Bush/Cheney, defending torture etc?? Give me a break. That didn't play well for the Republican Party, and exposed fake Christians for who they really are.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

You'd think a Christian organization would *want* to hear from Ron Paul, since he's the only candidate with a consistent pro-life record, unlike somebody like Romney, who has flip-flopped all over the place on the issue, or somebody like Fred Thompson, who answered a congressional opinion poll by saying that he believed abortion should be legal for any reason during the first trimester. I mean, compare those guys to Paul, who is an OB/GYN who personally delivered over 4,000 babies and authored a bill in the House that would declare that life begins at conception.

Plus there's the fact that Paul is the only one who has come out and explicitly said that he believes, per the Consitution, that issues like abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools should be decided at the state and local level without interference from DC. That's a Christian conservative's dream candidate!

On other conservative issues, Paul's record is stellar. He's never voted to raise taxes and he's never voted for a gun control measure (unlike Fred Thompson).

It may very well be the war issue that's hurting him here, but that doesn't float either.

Heck, Paul voted *for* going after Osama bin Laden and the people that attacked us 9/11, and he's been repeatedly asking the hard question: Why did we stop going after those guys and attack Iraq instead? Rudy Ghouliani and company may get all indignant about this, but that don't mean jack when even the head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden task force has endorsed Paul.

Paul understands that we should defend ourselves when attacked, but that going around and attacking other countries that were no threat to us is bound to have negative consequences. Makes sense to me. I didn't like it when Clinton did it, and I don't have to like it now.

Numbskulls like Hannity are trying to convince people that Paul is weak on national defense, but it sure sounds to me like his policy is more sound than the eternal war policy of the neocons.

Rudy and pals keep invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, but in Ronald Reagans own memoirs he called Rudy "crazy".

On the other hand, here's what Reagan said about Ron Paul:
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

I agree with President Reagan on this one. And the amazing thing about that quote is that Ron Paul hasn't changed a bit since those days. What's changed is the Republican Party.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> You'd think a Christian organization would *want* to hear from Ron Paul, since he's the only candidate with a consistent pro-life record, unlike somebody like Romney, who has flip-flopped all over the place on the issue, or somebody like Fred Thompson, who answered a congressional opinion poll by saying that he believed abortion should be legal for any reason during the first trimester. I mean, compare those guys to Paul, who is an OB/GYN who personally delivered over 4,000 babies and authored a bill in the House that would declare that life begins at conception.
> 
> Plus there's the fact that Paul is the only one who has come out and explicitly said that he believes, per the Consitution, that issues like abortion, gay marriage, and prayer in schools should be decided at the state and local level without interference from DC. That's a Christian conservative's dream candidate!


But the problem is, one of the issues where Paul disagrees with his right-wing brethren is the very issue that's primarily responsible for the Republican catastrophe last election. The last thing America wants or needs is another four or eight years of relentless sabre rattling, war and fear mongering, and I think it's clear that's exactly what we'll get from some or all of the Republican candidates. Except Paul.



Jolly Roger said:


> It may very well be the war issue that's hurting him here, but that doesn't float either.
> 
> Heck, Paul voted *for* going after Osama bin Laden and the people that attacked us 9/11, and he's been repeatedly asking the hard question: Why did we stop going after those guys and attack Iraq instead? Rudy Ghouliani and company may get all indignant about this, but that don't mean jack when even the head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden task force has endorsed Paul.


Last I heard, Bush quietly disbanded bin Laden's CIA task force last year. (I'm looking for the news clip.)



Jolly Roger said:


> Rudy and pals keep invoking the name of Ronald Reagan, but in Ronald Reagans own memoirs he called Rudy "crazy".


Yes, the last throes of Reagan's coattails are looking pretty ragged.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> But the problem is, one of the issues where Paul disagrees with his right-wing brethren is the very issue that's primarily responsible for the Republican catastrophe last election. The last thing America wants or needs is another four or eight years of relentless sabre rattling, war and fear mongering, and I think it's clear that's exactly what we'll get from some or all of the Republican candidates. Except Paul.


Exactly. And what the Republican Party doesn't seem to understand is that with another pro-war candidate _they cannot win the general election_.

If it comes down to Hillary vs. Fred Thompson or Rudy McRomney, the Republicans are going to lose. No one actually likes Hillary or wants her to be president, but 70% of the American people want us out of this war, and third party candidates like Bloomberg are going to fracture the Republican vote anyway.

On the other hand, Ron Paul is drawing support from all ends of the political spectrum. I even know Democrats who have switched parties to vote for this guy in the primary. He's honest, sincere, and isn't just telling us what we want to hear. That has a lot of appeal across the board.

If the Republican party gives Paul the nomination and supports him in the general election, they win. If not, they lose.

Of course, they may not. That's why a recent article in Pat Buchanan's American Conservative magazine called them "The Stupid Party" over their treatment of Paul.



> Last I heard, Bush quietly disbanded bin Laden's CIA task force last year. (I'm looking for the news clip.)


Yeah, Michael Scheuer was the head of that task force. After the last debate, he and Dr. Paul held a press conference titled "Educating Rudy" in which they assigned Ghouliani , including the 9/11 Commission Report.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> You'd think a Christian organization would *want* to hear from Ron Paul, since he's the only candidate with a consistent pro-life record...


Sadly, very few Christian organizations, particularly those allied with far-right political causes, have anything like a pro-life belief; they are simply anti-abortion. Whether scriptural or not, there's no way to equate "pro-life" with pro-death-penalty and pro-war.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Just an update:

The blowback from this has been incredible.

The Des Moines Register broke the story to the people of Iowa, and several other Iowa papers have picked up on it.

CNN ran the story yesterday.

It's been the hot topic on Jan Mickelson's WHO radio show for three days running. Apparently, this is the top political talk radio show in Iowa, and it's blown the lid off this story. All three day's broadcasts are available commercial-free here:

https://www.jivasrecords.com/mickelson-2007-06-20-redact.mp3
https://www.jivasrecords.com/mickelson-2007-06-21-redact.mp3
https://www.jivasrecords.com/mickelson-2007-06-22-redact.mp3

Mickelson was amazed that over 10,000 people downloaded that first day's broadcast. Last I heard, over 17,000 people have downloaded today's.

Even John Fund of the Wall Street Journal's Political Diary has come out and said that stuff like this is actually _good_ for the Paul campaign.

It's funny, after the first Republican debate, the heads of the GOP in Michigan and South Carolina tried to get Ron Paul banned from all further Republican activities. The outcry over that essentially shut them down for days, and they were forced to retract.

Apparently, these Iowa fatcats didn't learn from that. Now people are all over them. Supposedly, some of their members are so incensed and raising such a stink over this that there's even a chance the organization could lose its tax exempt status.

When are these guys going to realize that trying to censor somebody like Ron Paul is just going to come back on them?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Rip,

Pro-lifers who are against abortion and support capital punishment are almost as hypocritical as the Pro-abortion crowd that is strongly opposed to capital punishment. 

Almost, but not quite.

And for the record. the largest Christian organization, namely the Catholic Church, is pro-life, against capital punishment and opposes all wars, even when they remove homicidal dictators. 

Don't let the facts hit you on the way out Rip.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Rip,
> 
> Pro-lifers who are against abortion and support capital punishment are almost as hypocritical as the Pro-abortion crowd that is strongly opposed to capital punishment.
> 
> Karl


I disagree that being pro-life and pro-death penalty is hypocritical. The distinction is "innocent life". I'm sure that's lost on several of the members of the Interchange.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

ksinc,

The distinction is not lost on me BUT in the case of state sanctioned executions you do run the risk of killing an innocent man. I also think that a pro-life position is far more defensible if one is also against capital punishment.

For the record I am pro-lfe and against capital punishment. Abortion may be the greater wrong in my opinion but I still believe capital punishment is wrong.

Karl


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Rip,
> 
> Pro-lifers who are against abortion and support capital punishment are almost as hypocritical as the Pro-abortion crowd that is strongly opposed to capital punishment.
> 
> ...


I suggest you try to look past the jerk of your knee to the words as written. You seem to have missed certain qualifying words such as "few" and "allied with far-right political causes", but that's typical of your responses.

For your specific edification and information, although I realize it falls on deaf ears, I think the pro-life position of the Catholic Church, at least as described by Pope John Paul II in his remarkable _Evangelium Vitae_ or _Gospel of Life_, is probably the most defensible position taken by any Christian organization.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I disagree that being pro-life and pro-death penalty is hypocritical. The distinction is "innocent life". I'm sure that's lost on several of the members of the Interchange.


Right, and no innocent person has ever been executed by the state. Or do you just consider that acceptable collateral damage of having a death penalty?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am 100% for capital punishment. However, I am about 100% against the current way it is used in the US. Not only am I positive innocents are on death row, as recent DNA "cold case" testing has demonstrated, I believe the "deterrent" aspect of this punishment is so little as to be useless. How long does it take the average condemned to actually meet his fate? The answer can be given in terms of decades. For any punishment to be a successful deterrent, it needs to be swift. Capital punishment is anything but swift.

However, on a philosophical basis, if you gave me a comfy chair, I could "push the button" on them all day long.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> ksinc,
> 
> The distinction is not lost on me BUT in the case of state sanctioned executions you do run the risk of killing an innocent man. I also think that a pro-life position is far more defensible if one is also against capital punishment.
> 
> ...


Before you called pro-life and pro-death penalty people hypocrits. Either you can see the distinction or you can't. Pick one!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rip said:


> Right, and no innocent person has ever been executed by the state. Or do you just consider that acceptable collateral damage of having a death penalty?


That an innocent person may be convicted is the problem, regardless of the sentence.

By lowering the sentence ramifications you actually make it easier for juries to justify convicitions in iffy situations. That's not a better situation.

The sentence should equal justice. If you rape or murder someone you should get the death penalty.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> ksinc,
> 
> The distinction is not lost on me BUT in the case of state sanctioned executions you do run the risk of killing an innocent man. I also think that a pro-life position is far more defensible if one is also against capital punishment.
> 
> ...


So do I. So does virtually all of the industrialized world.

If capital punishment deterred crime, or was necessary for self-defense or served any conceivable useful purpose, maybe a case could be made for it. But in a country which has a secure penal system (like the U.S.) it serves no useful purpose whatsoever, except to appease vengeful pea brains and morally degrade us all to the same level as intentional murderers.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> So do I. So does virtually all of the industrialized world.
> 
> If capital punishment deterred crime, or was necessary for self-defense or served any conceivable useful purpose, maybe a case could be made for it. But in a country which has a secure penal system (like the U.S.) it serves no useful purpose whatsoever, except to* appease vengeful pea brains and morally degrade us all to the same level as intentional murderers.*


The death penalty does deter crime. If you would DYOH you could go back and find that in the USA the death penalty has been used for up to 44 crimes from kidnapping to murder. As we have become more 'civilized' there have been exponential increases in these crimes to the point they are now epidemic. This was the case even 25 years ago when the liberal train left the station. Your moronic, bigoted, hateful characterizations of those of us that believe in justice and statistics are just par for the course.

The epidemic lack of clear thinking people with a clear conscience that can sit on these juries; along with prosectors and police that function properly to avoid or reduce the horrific act of convicting an innocent man is also due to the moral relativism and bigoted elitism inflicted on our country by functionally incompetent people like yourself that reward the lowest common denominator so you feel better about yourself.

I thought you were the anti-personal attack police? Yet you persist, *FraudDC*.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I am 100% for capital punishment. However, I am about 100% against the current way it is used in the US. Not only am I positive innocents are on death row, as recent DNA "cold case" testing has demonstrated, I believe the "deterrent" aspect of this punishment is so little as to be useless. How long does it take the average condemned to actually meet his fate? The answer can be given in terms of decades. For any punishment to be a successful deterrent, it needs to be swift. Capital punishment is anything but swift.
> 
> However, on a philosophical basis, if you gave me a comfy chair, I could "push the button" on them all day long.


Yes, I agree with you. Certainly it's sad how the pervasive incompetence of our police, prosecutors, defenders, judges, and juries damages our right to the moral high ground on the question of justice. However, the solution is to raise the bar, not lower it further or even totally acquiesce that we are simpy unable to make fair decisions of justice amongst ourselves IMHO.

Perhaps this Duke-Nifong case will serve as a wake-up call to many in these professions and positions of influence with dire consequences to our way of life and fundamental values? Nah, it's just another way to sue and get rich. LOL


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> The death penalty does deter crime.


That's an absolute, unqualified lie. Every study ever done on the issue has reached the same conclusion: capital punishment does not deter crime. In fact crime rates are and have been as high or higher in states which still practice this institutionalized barbarism compared to those which do not.

References to this claim gladly furnished upon request.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> So do I. So does virtually all of the industrialized world.


Most of the industrialized world also has double our unemployment, fewer freedoms, a higher tax burden, and less upward mobility. So this is a great argument.



FrankDC said:


> If capital punishment deterred crime, or was necessary for self-defense or served any conceivable useful purpose, maybe a case could be made for it. But in a country which has a secure penal system (like the U.S.) it serves no useful purpose whatsoever, except to appease vengeful pea brains and morally degrade us all to the same level as intentional murderers.


Ah Frank, the world is ever so simple for you. If radiation therapy for cancer occurred 10 years after diagnosis, it would be very unsuccessful. Would radiation oncology therefore be deemed for the pea brains in the world of Frank?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> That's an absolute, unqualified lie. Every study ever done on the issue has reached the same conclusion: capital punishment does not deter crime. In fact crime rates are and have been as high or higher in states which still practice this institutionalized barbarism compared to those which do not.
> 
> *References to this claim gladly furnished upon request.*


*I hereby request FraudDC provide one or more studies showing per capita rates of the crimes of rape and kidnapping in states that once gave the death penalty for these crimes conclusively showing the before and after trends in these crimes. signed, KSINC*


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> *I hereby request FraudDC provide one or more studies showing per capita rates of the crimes of rape and kidnapping in states that once gave the death penalty for these crimes conclusively showing the before and after trends in these crimes. signed, KSINC*


Utter nonsense, since rape and kidnapping per se are not adequate crimes for the state to impose the death penalty:
https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=433&invol=584

"Today, nearly all death sentences are imposed for homicide."
https://www.answers.com/topic/capital-punishment?cat=biz-fin

Care to discuss something relevant (e.g. murder rates) now?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Utter nonsense, since rape and kidnapping per se are not adequate crimes for the state to impose the death penalty:
> https://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=433&invol=584
> 
> "Today, nearly all death sentences are imposed for homicide."
> ...


Utter nonsense, no. I merely called you on your moronic accusatory and declaratory statement.

If you actually read the thread you accepted the challenge and called it a unqualified lie. There was no implicit limitation to homicide, in point of fact there was an explicit acceptance of the use of the death penalty to deter "crime". Even in your own statement where you promised to provide references.

Nice try Fraud, but it is relevant and it is the truth. The death penalty was historically used as I said for as many as 44 crimes including child kidnapping, molestation, forceable rape, and murder.

I'm sure this is lost on you, but most forceable rapes and murders are committed by repeat offenders and escalators. If they were given the death penalty the first time this would show by far the largest impact on crime statistics.

Interestingly, "social indaquecies" is the number one contributing factor! That should mean something to you! 

I found this interesting in your own link



> Sixth, as a class, paroled murderers show lower recidivism rates for their crimes than do most classes of felons. There is no evidence that the death penalty, as opposed to long‐term imprisonment, is an effective specific deterrent. Murderers on death row are more likely to engage in violent crimes within prison than are those serving life terms.


Are we really to believe that paroled murderers show lower recidivism rates than dead ones?

Fraud, you are a really funny guy.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Every study ever done on the issue has reached the same conclusion: capital punishment does not deter crime.





FrankDC said:


> Utter nonsense, since rape and kidnapping per se are not adequate crimes for the state to impose the death penalty:


Francis, I hate to bother you with those nasty things...you know, facts? However, you simply said, "Capital punishment does not deter crime." Now you want to change your argument to only homocide? What phrase am I looking for? Ah yes, _ad hoc_ rescue?

Good work as usual Francis.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Case-1)What percentage of current death row inmates and recent death penalty recipients do you think have been wrongfully convicted? 

Case-2) What percentage of forceable rape and murders do you think are repeat offences or escalations? 

Question-1) What is society's relative moral culpability to the victims in cases 1 and 2?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Ksinc,



ksinc said:


> Before you called pro-life and pro-death penalty people hypocrits. Either you can see the distinction or you can't. Pick one!


There are varying degrees of hypocrisy. Perhaps I should frame it in a way you can understand. I find your hypocrisy more sympathetic than a pro-abortion/anti-capital punishment viewpoint, but your view is still hypocrisy.

Karl


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> There are varying degrees of hypocrisy.* Perhaps I should frame it in a way you can understand.* I find your hypocrisy more sympathetic than a pro-abortion/anti-capital punishment viewpoint, but *your view is still hypocrisy.*
> 
> Karl


Karl,

Wow! Just when I thought your lofty opinion of your relative merit couldn't go any higher you impress us again! LOL

Pray tell, enlighten us with what entitles you to judge the degees of hypocrisy of other's moral values while behind your computer keyboard?

Don't forget to frame it in words we can understand, of course. 

There is no hypocrisy in my view.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Utter nonsense, no. I merely called you on your moronic accusatory and declaratory statement.
> 
> If you actually read the thread you accepted the challenge and called it a unqualified lie. There was no implicit limitation to homicide


And there still isn't. But the question of whether capital punishment is a deterrent for rape and kidnapping is both irrelevant and moot, since laws which prescribed capital punishment for these crimes were found to be unconstitutional nearly 30 years ago. Two of the justices in the majority opinion believed capital punishment PER SE constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and I happen to agree with this view.



ksinc said:


> in point of fact there was an explicit acceptance of the use of the death penalty to deter "crime". Even in your own statement where you promised to provide references.


Here's a good start: https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

Pick a state, any state which formerly prescribed the death penalty for rape (or murder) prior to 1977, and compare the changes in crime rates before and after 1977 in that state. You'll discover the changes in per capita rates of rape and murder followed those of non-capital offenses such as burglary and robbery. The presence or absence of a death penalty had zilch to do with either increasing or decreasing rates of murder and rape.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Francis, I hate to bother you with those nasty things...you know, facts? However, you simply said, "Capital punishment does not deter crime." Now you want to change your argument to only homocide? What phrase am I looking for? Ah yes, _ad hoc_ rescue?
> 
> Good work as usual Francis.


Both you and Ksinc keep throwing out these _assertions_ about executions and deterrence without any supportive data, yet you challenge Frank to support his assertion to the contrary. While waiting for you to try to garner facts to support your statements, let me entertain you with the following article:

_"Among the many factors in the debate about the death penalty is whether capital punishment deters violent crime. Although solid research indicates that there is no valid evidence of such deterrence, recent attention has been given to a few flawed studies concluding that the death penalty does deter murder.

A June 10 Associated Press article pointed to statistical studies that claimed to directly link numbers of executions with numbers of murders prevented, including a 2003 study from the University of Colorado at Denver and studies from 2003 and 2006 by researchers at Emory University. But follow-up studies by top social scientists soundly reject those conclusions as well as the flawed methodology used to reach them. Jeffrey Fagan, a professor at Columbia Law School and an expert on statistics, testified to Congress that the Emory and Denver studies were "fraught with numerous technical and conceptual errors," and "fail[ed] to reach the demanding standards of social science."

The truth is that it might be impossible to determine a true statistical relationship between homicides and executions because the number of executions is so small compared to the number of homicides. But what we can say with certainty is that there is no legitimate statistical evidence of deterrence.

John Donohue, Yale Law School professor and Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Justin Wolfers, Wharton School of Business professor and Research Affiliate at the NBER, analyzed the same data used in the Emory and Denver studies, as well as other studies by the same researchers and many other nationwide reports. They found that if anything, executions increase homicides, concluding: "The view that the death penalty deters is still the product of belief, not evidence ... On balance, the evidence suggests that the death penalty may increase the murder rate."

Donohue and Wolfers analyzed data from the 2006 study by the Emory researchers using non-death penalty states as a control group, a basic statistical tool used to study causation not used in the Emory study. When they compared death penalty states with non-death penalty states, they found no evidence of any effect of executions on murder rates, either up or down. Donohue and Wolfers also analyzed the data from the 2003 Emory study that concluded that each execution prevented 18 murders and found that the reduction or increase in murders was actually more dependent on other factors used in the study than whether or not the states had the death penalty. For example, when Donohue and Wolfers slightly redefined just one of the factors included by the Emory researchers, they found that each execution caused 18 murders.

Donohue and Wolfers also recomputed data from the Denver study of select states to account for overall crime trends, a factor not included in the Denver study, and reached inconclusive results. For two states included in the Denver study that had abolished the death penalty, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Donohue and Wolfers found that the homicides rates actually fell after capital punishment was ended.

Other studies also refute the deterrence theory. For example, researchers Lawrence Katz, Steven Levitte and Ellen Shustorovich analyzed state data between 1950 and 1990 and did not find a correlation between the death penalty and crime rates. Moreover, one of the Emory researchers, Joanna Shepherd, published a state study of her own and found that while the death penalty deterred murder in six states, it actually increased murder in 13 states, and had no effect on the murder rate in eight states.

Other statistical analyses show that states with the death penalty do not have the lowest murder rates in the country. In fact, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates than states with the death penalty, even when comparing neighboring states. In addition, while southern states account for over 80 percent of the executions in this country, they have consistently had the highest murder rate of the nation's four regions.

Comparing American and Canadian statistics is also telling. While Canada has not had a single execution since 1972 and the United States has executed over 1,000 people in that time, the homicide rates in the United States and Canada have closely tracked each other. If anything, Canada's experience suggests that ending executions leads to a drop in the murder rate.

As the death penalty debate continues, it will inevitably be filled with the emotion and passion that have historically and rightly characterized it. But when it comes to analyzing data and reaching statistical conclusions that are used to affect our nation's policy and legislation on a matter as dire as capital punishment, it is critical that the research use statistically valid methodology. When we come across studies that are as specific as to tie a number of executions to a number of prevented murders, a healthy skepticism is in order, especially in the face of substantial countervailing evidence. This is, after all, a matter of life and death." _ Cassy Stubbs, The Huffington Post, June 23, 2007. Cassy Stubbs is a staff attorney with the ACLU Capital Punishment Project. Before the ACLU, Cassy worked as a New Mexico State public defender, as an employment attorney in Los Angeles, and for the New York Civil Liberties Union. She received her B.S, with honors from Brown University in 1995 and graduated magna cum laude from New York University School of Law in 2000.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

rip said:


> While waiting for you to try to garner facts to support your statements, let me entertain you with the following article:


Great post. Looks to me like MOST of these death penalty posts are big on hot air and rhetoric with little substance. I'm interested to see what follows here.

-do the crime, *serve* the time


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> Pro-lifers who are against abortion and support capital punishment are almost as hypocritical as the Pro-abortion crowd that is strongly opposed to capital punishment.
> 
> Almost, but not quite.


As you stated yourself, a case can be made for being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty ("innocent life"), although I personally find it rather dubious.

Similarly, a pretty good case can be made for being anti-death penalty and pro-abortion. The key this time is that a foetus is not considered a human being. Once again, it is a pretty coherent position, not "hypocritical" at all.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rip said:


> John Donohue, Yale Law School professor and Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and Justin Wolfers, Wharton School of Business professor and Research Affiliate at the NBER, analyzed the same data used in the Emory and Denver studies, as well as other studies by the same researchers and many other nationwide reports. They found that if anything, executions increase homicides, concluding: "The view that the death penalty deters is still the product of belief, not evidence ... On balance, the evidence suggests that the death penalty may increase the murder rate."
> 
> Donohue and Wolfers analyzed data from the 2006 study by the Emory researchers using non-death penalty states as a control group, a basic statistical tool used to study causation not used in the Emory study. When they compared death penalty states with non-death penalty states, they found no evidence of any effect of executions on murder rates, either up or down. Donohue and Wolfers also analyzed the data from the 2003 Emory study that concluded that each execution prevented 18 murders and found that the reduction or increase in murders was actually more dependent on other factors used in the study than whether or not the states had the death penalty. For example, when Donohue and Wolfers slightly redefined just one of the factors included by the Emory researchers, they found that each execution caused 18 murders.
> 
> ...


Rip,

Did you actually read this? This is greatly flawed IMHO. However, before you were concerned about wrongful convictions. I will address that first. Since you have jumped ship and then come back in with a new opinion.

"William Bradford, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, was ordered to investigate capital punishment. In 1793 he published An Enquiry How Far the Punishment of Death is Necessary in Pennsylvania. He strongly insisted that the death penalty be retained, *but admitted it was useless in preventing certain crimes*. In fact, he said the death penalty made convictions harder to obtain, because in Pennsylvania, and indeed in all states, the death penalty was mandatory and juries *would often not return a guilty verdict* because of this fact."

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html

As I said before, the harsher the punishment the less likely a jury will convict. The issues of wrongful conviction vs. deterence is a separate one. Here you have a supporter of your broader view honestly discussing the problem. Of course, they had to go back to 1793! LOL Please notice it says 'certain crimes' that will be relevant further on.

Second, to the quoted text as you may know and what the study attempts to address is "correlation does not imply causation" a common statistical principle.

Consider it is the cultural environment which creates murderers, the number one cause is as I said "social inadequacies". Does the death penalty address this? No, of course not. So, on that merit it does not reduce murders. I agree. However, what shows that the 80% of southern states would not not have even higher rates without the death penalty? Nothing because they would as I will show.

Besides addresssing social causation, the best way punishment works is to limit repeat offenders and escalations. This seems so simple perhaps it is being lost. But, even death row inmates have known recidivism rates. Dead murderers do not kill again and dead rapists to not rape again or escalate to murder. When you find something else that works 100% of the time, please let me know. This is the meaning of the cases and question I asked which demonstrates this and no one will address. *You have to count the repeaters and escalators in your statistical study in a separate control group.*

Those that study the sociology of pedophiles, rapists, and murderers know they are never "cured". In the one link of Frank's it showed that murderers have the lowest recidivism rates. Why is that? Well, because most of these are either never let out or receive the juice. Pedophiles conversely are just the opposite many receive probation. However, at one time this was also true of pedophiles that were caught. Yes, another flaw in these studies is that a much higher percentage of murderers are caught than rapists and pedophiles. Particularly so, because of the reporting rates. I believe the last statistic I saw was that still 60% of rapes go unreported.

Even in the section you quoted, it compares murder rates in Canada vs America or in different states as a control group. However, the social parameters in these are not the same. I realize this can seem vague, but consider this question and the ones I asked before Case-1 and Case-2: Take a State with a high murder rate and the death penalty, do the studies show that if the death penalty was removed the murder rate would fall? No, of course they can not. Do the studies show it would go up? Actually they do, but they do not address it. It will go up by the known recidivism and escalation rates. I believe a broadly accepted average is something like 6% and 32% respectively. Certainly, it is lower for murder for a variety of reasons. In addition to retention and executions, most people only kill someone they know like their wife or business partner for instance and are not faced with the social impulses and decision to kill again. Do these types of studies actually study this causation? Well, those involving sociology do.

I don't understand what is so hard to fathom that limiting the death penalty to first degree murder creates more murderers via repeat offenders and escalations from pedophiles and rapists? However, it does seem to me that if one can't see it one will never see it.

Cheers!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

rip said:


> Both you and Ksinc keep throwing out these _assertions_ about executions and deterrence without any supportive data, yet you challenge Frank to support his assertion to the contrary. While waiting for you to try to garner facts to support your statements, let me entertain you with the following article:


rip, thanks for wasting all that bandwidth addressed to me. Now please go back and quote for me exactly what assertion I made other than that the current system DOES NOT act as a deterrent. All your data is based on the current system, HENCE I AGREE WITH IT! Suggestion...train your eye...to read...and your brain...to comprehend.

Next?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> rip, thanks for wasting all that bandwidth addressed to me. Now please go back and quote for me exactly what assertion I made other than that the current system DOES NOT act as a deterrent. All your data is based on the current system, HENCE I AGREE WITH IT! Suggestion...train your eye...to read...and your brain...to comprehend.
> 
> Next?


Well gee, that's a lot shorter than what I said!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Well gee, that's a lot shorter than what I said!


Trying to waste as few keystrokes on people that already have decided I am "wrong" as possible. I figure they *might* actually read a whole post that way. Of course, I am assuming comprehension...a dicey assumption! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Étienne said:


> As you stated yourself, a case can be made for being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty ("innocent life"), although I personally find it rather dubious.
> 
> Similarly, a pretty good case can be made for being anti-death penalty and pro-abortion. The key this time is that a foetus is not considered a human being. One again, it is a pretty coherent position, not "hypocritical" at all.


Etienne,

Although we disagree on the issue, I applaude your integrity and defense of the accurate definition of the word hypocrisy.

Cheers!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

You beat me to it ksinc. That was a pretty earnest and reasonable post Etienne.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Trying to waste as few keystrokes on people that already have decided I am "wrong" as possible. I figure they *might* actually read a whole post that way. Of course, I am assuming comprehension...a dicey assumption! :icon_smile_big:


Ah! I read all their posts and links. So, I fall into the trap of expecting reciprocation. Well, I admit I also do it because I enjoy finding the things in their own links they also didn't bother to read! LOL

Since I agree, how do you think the current system can be fixed? I fear all is lost as the system relies on the people in it and the values of the people are so far gone now how can they sit in judgement of another reliably.

Obviously, I reserve the largest grief for those that are victims of a previously convicted rapist or pedophile. I just find that the saddest thing and a real failure of society's covenant to the victim.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Ah! I read all their posts and links. So, I fall into the trap of expecting reciprocation. Well, I admit I also do it because I enjoy finding the things in their own links they also didn't bother to read! LOL


I used too also. Then I realized that most are totally immune from having their sources shredded. I did it time and again for one person and he just simply refused to ever address it. So I quit wasting the energy.



ksinc said:


> Since I agree, how do you think the current system can be fixed? I fear all is lost as the system relies on the people in it and the values of the people are so far gone now how can they sit in judgement of another reliably.


There is the Catch 22. If the system is dependent on the people and the people are flawed, how can you have a valid system? In such a situation, I like to attempt to start with cases that people would find impossible to argue with. For instance, if you have clear video, that clearly has not been tampered with, and there are multiple eye witnesses in agreement, we can feel fairly certain we have a guilty person.

At that point, make the punishment swift and sure. I do not see how liberals could argue with the idea of swift and sure punishment, since _tabula rasa_ and behavioral modification is usually pretty big with them. Given that, how can they argue against Pavlovian protocols?


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Étienne,

I don't think a good case can be made for abortion. And I don't think a good case can be made for capital punishment. 

But the argument that abortion could be justified bc a fetus is not legally considered a person is faulty. Not bc a fetus is necessarily a person (though I suspect a fetus is a person I cannot be absolutely sure) but rather bc the law has in many instances denied personhood to people as a way to sanction institutionalized discrimination. African-Americans in the South were only considered 3/5ths of a person until the Civil War Amendments and in many parts of the world women lack many basic civil liberties that are accorded to a person. Does this mean that African-Americans in the South only became persons after constititional amendments or that women who are denied basic rights are not really persons? Of course not! Rather it means that law often has been and continues to be wrong on many instances of what constitutes a person.

But the most compelling secular reasonto adopt a pro-life/anti-capital punishment view is the question of doubt. Just as we should not execute a person bc there exists the possibility that they could have been wrongly convicted, there exists the possibility that abortion may be the murder and bc of such an extreme possible result we should err on the side of caution.

A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds as Emerson said but I favor a consistent view that protects life rather than destroys it.

Karl


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> I don't think a good case can be made for abortion. And I don't think a good case can be made for capital punishment.


I was not addressing the issue itself, only your characterization of people holding various positions on the subject.



> But the argument that abortion could be justified bc a fetus is not legally considered a person is faulty.


My position is not really grounded on the fact that a foetus is not "legally" considered a person, but that I am convinced it is not, morally and on principle.

I think I will refrain from debating more on the subject. An abortion debate would probably go on and on and this was not the subject of the thread.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You beat me to it ksinc.


Well, thanks guys. Gee, twice in a little while we agree on something, Wayfarer, now I *am* sure there is something wrong with me :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Étienne,

Fair enough. Though people get too jumpy about the term hypocrisy. As I said earlier there are various levels of hypocrisy, and hypocrisy in and of itself is not always a bad thing. The father who smokes yet telsl his children that they must not smoke may rightly be viewed as a hypocrite but would any of us comdemn his hypocrisy?

Again I have sympathy for a pro-life/pro-capital punishment viewpoint, but such sympathy cannot overcome the fact that it is an incorrect view.

Karl


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Ah! I read all their posts and links. So, I fall into the trap of expecting reciprocation. Well, I admit I also do it because I enjoy finding the things in their own links they also didn't bother to read! LOL
> 
> Since I agree, how do you think the current system can be fixed? I fear all is lost as the system relies on the people in it and the values of the people are so far gone now how can they sit in judgement of another reliably.


The current system can't be fixed because it's not broken: murder and other violent crime rates have been plummeting across the U.S. since the mid-1990's, regardless of whether states have death penalty laws. If that's not conclusive proof that these laws don't accomplish anything, nothing else ever could be.

Reference was made earlier to Pope John Paul II. This may fall on deaf Protestant ears, but if possible open your minds and read two of his encyclicals: Veritatis Splendor (1993) and Evangelium Vitae (1995).

Capital punishment is the ultimate and worst form of totalitarianism, and is a major part of the "culture of death" so eloquently spoken against by the last Pope.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

FrankDC,

Somewhere a Redcoat band is playing The World Turned Upside Down. I think your last post is right on the money.

Karl


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

Btw, since we are tossing around the enyclicals of JP2, while I think that Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae are important and have a certain majesty to them, in my opinion Centesimus Annus (1991) and Fides et Ratio (1998) are the two most important works of the last papacy, especially the former.

Karl


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

Getting back to the original topic, I predict that this move will backfire; Dr. Paul has scheduled a rally near the site of the forum, to begin immediately after the forum ends. The rumor is it may attract not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of people. If that happens, it will attract significantly more attention to Dr. Paul's campaign than his participation in an obscure forum would have. 

The grassroots support that's growing for Dr. Paul is further, wonderful evidence that the establishment's ability to set the agenda via the vertically-structured, top-down method that has existed throughout all of history is crumbling in favor of the horizontal structure of the Internet. If Dr. Paul emerges as a major contender by the end of the year, as I predict he will, it will show that the day the Internet supersedes the establishment media is no longer coming, but is here. 

The addition of Thompson is wonderful news, because:

A: It just further splits the pro-war, neocon vote.

B: The way the establishment is fawning all over him indicates that they can see that the front-runners they've anointed so far aren't catching on with the public (if you look at the establishment polls, Giuliani's, McCain's and Romney's numbers have significantly eroded over the past 6-8 weeks, even before the addition of Thompson, and 20-25% are now undecided), so now they're throwing something else out there to see if it sticks. 

In an 11-person race, Dr. Paul conceivably could win primaries with only about 20% of the vote. And the first primary is in New Hampshire, probably the most libertarian state in the country. If he wins there, it could set off an unstoppable tidal wave of support for him (I'm not predicting any of this as the future is unknowable; I'm just saying it's not impossible by any means.)


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Harry96 said:


> Getting back to the original topic, I predict that this move will backfire; Dr. Paul has scheduled a rally near the site of the forum, to begin immediately after the forum ends. The rumor is it may attract not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of people. If that happens, it will attract significantly more attention to Dr. Paul's campaign than his participation in an obscure forum would have.


Harry, it's not just _near_ the other forum, it's in the room next door! :icon_smile_big:



> The addition of Thompson is wonderful news, because:
> 
> A: It just further splits the pro-war, neocon vote.
> 
> B: The way the establishment is fawning all over him indicates that they can see that the front-runners they've anointed so far aren't catching on with the public (if you look at the establishment polls, Giuliani's, McCain's and Romney's numbers have significantly eroded over the past 6-8 weeks, even before the addition of Thompson, and 20-25% are now undecided), so now they're throwing something else out there to see if it sticks.


Yeah, I can't believe so many people are buying into Thompson, though. Hopefully when Thompson's pathetic record comes out, his support will drop off. I hope to goodness the Republican Party doesn't give the nomination to someone who served as a paid lobbyist for a communist dictator who kept his people in line by placing gasoline-soaked tires around their necks and setting them on fire.



> In an 11-person race, Dr. Paul conceivably could win primaries with only about 20% of the vote. And the first primary is in New Hampshire, probably the most libertarian state in the country. If he wins there, it could set off an unstoppable tidal wave of support for him (I'm not predicting any of this as the future is unknowable; I'm just saying it's not impossible by any means.)


I really think he can pull New Hampshire. I hear that his on-the-ground support up there has gotten down to business and the numbers are growing. Remember the way a surprise victory in New Hampshire propelled Buchanan from a long-shot to a top-tier candidate way back when? I'm hoping for a repeat of that, only Dr. Paul needs to take it all the way.


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

Yes, I saw that it's in the room next door. Again, I think this is going to attract far more attention to him than he would've gained by participating in the forum. 

The big thing I'll be watching is the FEC disclosures next week. In the last quarter that ended March 31, Dr. Paul had raised about $500,000, as I recall. The first week of June, a source in the campaign told the Free Market News Network that Dr. Paul's support has exploded so much in the six weeks (at the time) since his appearance in the first televised debate that he "definitely" had over $3 million, and "probably" had over $4 million and was closing in fast on $5 million -- and this was over two weeks ago. 

If those numbers turn out to be accurate, and the donations for the other candidates are on par with what they were in the first quarter, Dr. Paul will have far and away more money than any of the "second-tier" candidates. And McCain only had about $5 million on hand on March 31, and his fund raising for this quarter is rumored to be anemic, so it's possible (although probably not probable) that Dr. Paul could even be in third place financially now.

It'll be fun watching the mainstream media try to spin this. I guess Dr. Paul's "few" supporters are spamming his bank account the way they've "spammed" all of these online polls! 

If these numbers are accurate, at the rate he's raising money, Dr. Paul could conceivably be in a position to compete on a state-by-state basis with the front-runners by the end of the year. 

Another thing Dr. Paul has mentioned is he doesn't need as much money as the others because most of his support is coming from the free advertising of the Internet, and that he doesn't waste money like a politician the way the others do. The last time I looked at the numbers, some of the front-runners had already spent about half of what they'd raised. 

Yes, I recall that Buchanan won NH in 1996, and Dr. Paul is a heck of a lot more attractive to liberty-loving voters than Buchanan was. 

I've long been saying that elections are mostly scams perpetrated by the ruling elite to con average, unsophisticated people into thinking that they control the government (Not that I'm so smart or sophisticated; I bought into the scam too into my early-20s), and that this irrelevant, left vs. right, Republican vs. Democrat "struggle" is mostly a distraction from that fact. 

In my view, the Republican establishment's failure to get behind Ron Paul is further evidence of my belief. All of the other 10 GOP candidates still support the Iraq debacle (and, at one of the debates, Dr. Paul was the only of the 10 candidates on the stage who spoke out not just against expanding the war into Iran, but against NUKING them -- in other words, he was the only candidate willing to promise that he wouldn't initiate a nuclear strike against a country that hasn't attacked us), and anyone can see that no one supporting continuing the war is going to be elected president next year. But the GOP establishment doesn't really care whether a Republican is elected; they just care that one of their own establishment, pro-government candidates is elected, regardless of whether that person has the Republican or Democrat label. 

Although things could change, Hillary appears unstoppable on the Democrat side. Ron Paul is Hillary's worst nightmare; her two pet issues are healthcare and Iraq, and she can't touch Dr. Paul on either one. 

He voted against the Iraq War resolution in 2003; she voted for it. He also has a far stronger overall anti-war record than she does. 

On healthcare, he was a practicing M.D. before the federal government got so involved in the mid-late-60s, and can explain -- partially through personal experience, partially by being so well-schooled in economics and history -- how government has distorted the market since the late-19th Century, and how further distortions will just cause further problems, especially for the poor whom the "universal healthcare" advocates claim to want to help.

Dr. Paul would be the first Jeffersonian president since Grover Cleveland, so we're way overdue for a major correction.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The Economist recently had a great analysis of the so-called "private" U.S. healthcare market. Very educational and impacted my view a great deal. 

Note: While expensive, has the most value out of any magazine subscription IMHO.

Ron Paul says some interesting and accurate things that are going to threaten a lot of people. I hope he has enough money to qualify for the proper security.


----------



## jsq (Jun 25, 2007)

ron paul thinks the people have a right to the money they earn.
ron paul thinks the government should be for the benefit of the citizens, not the other way around.
ron paul believes taxes should be much lower and government should be much smaller and less intrusive into the lives of the populace.


----------



## Harry96 (Aug 3, 2005)

ksinc, here's a great example of our "private" healthcare system: Firms like Wal-Mart try to bring healthcare to the poor, and the evil AMA tries to get such clinics banned because the clinics undercut their cartel. We haven't had anything even close to a free market in healthcare for well over 100 years.

https://nalert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ama-takes-on-retail-clinics.html

From what I've seen, government regulation has basically always been a scam for elites to fleece the poor and middle class. But, of course, they can't say "We're going to force you to give us more money," so it's framed as being for the public's "protection."

Dr. Paul has spoken frequently about how, when he was in practice, he refused to participate in Medicare, and offered discounted or even free care to anyone who couldn't pay their bill. He's also frequently spoken of the charity hospitals and clinics that were widespread in the U.S. until the 1960s, when they were driven out by government regulation, and that he never once saw or heard of anyone being turned away because they couldn't pay. And even then, there was significant government distortion of the market.

Contrast that with countries with "universal healthcare." I've seen numerous stories from Britain, for example, where bureaucrats have denied surgery for treatable conditions for people as young as their 60s, because they calculated that the person probably wouldn't live long enough, and thus pay enough taxes, for it to be worth it to the state to keep the person alive, plus the system is overburdened and the person "is going to die of something eventually anyway." The very idea of something like "universal healthcare" is unspeakably evil.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I am a big supporter of physicians but not of the AMA. There is no doubt that the AMA is anti-competition and artificially drives up the cost of medical personnel.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Ron Paul is either a loon or the most respectable man on Capital Hill, depending on where you stand. 

Everyone there swore to uphold the Constitution, judging by thier actions, how many took it seriously?


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

crazyquik said:


> Everyone there swore to uphold the Constitution, juding by thier actions, how many took it seriously?


I can point to at least one. :icon_smile:


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

*What Went Down in Des Moines?*

Here's a little update on how things played out in Des Moines. I know you guys were waiting with bated breath. 

Dr. Paul's Iowa rally was an overwhelming success.

The ITR forum with the 'acceptable' candidates drew about 500-600 people. I understand it was a rather subdued crowd.

While it was going on, Dr. Paul's people were setting up their stuff in the room next door, and his supporters were out in Des Moines spreading the word. There's some great footage on youtube of some marches, people distributing literature, etc.

Dr. Paul himself was also out and about in the city with his wife. He made a stop at the big art festival going on that day, where he was introduced during some kind of awards ceremony for some student artists. I watched his speech, and I thought it was interesting that he didn't grandstand or tell the people that they should vote for him. All he did was tell them that he was proud to see things like these students being creative, then remind them that it is only in a free society that we are free to be creative. He told them that totalitarian societies stifle creativity, so they should always cherish living in a free society. That was it. With him, it's always the ideas, not the ego.

Anyway, when the ITR forum wrapped up, people started moving into Dr. Paul's room next door. Apparently there was a long procession of rather spirited supporters moving into the building. I've seen some footage, and it's great to see people so excited about a presidential candidate. I honestly don't think I've ever seen people this excited. Granted, I've only been voting for about twelve years now, but still...

The room was packed. The seating capacity was 1,000 people, but it turned out that all those seats were filled and people were lining the walls. There are some great pictures of all this floating around out there. Somewhere I also saw a video of the playing of the national anthem before the start of the event. At around the last stanza, the music cut out and the audience just kept singing, till "Land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE!!!!" was even louder than the music had been. 

Dr. Paul spoke for about an hour. Some live bloggers from LewRockwell.com and Red State Eclectic were posting running updates. I'll post the youtube links for his speech at the end of this post. He received lots of standing ovations, especially when he said we need to get rid of the IRS. :aportnoy:

All told, I think it was a rousing success. He even got his first positive coverage in the Iowa media, through a nice article in the Des Moines Register. I think it was one of the first mainstream media articles I've seen that didn't call him a "longshot" or mention his status in the so-called "scientific polls". One guy on the comments section who had previously been arguing that Dr. Paul didn't deserve an invite to the forum because he had no support in Iowa changed his tune and declared that it's obvious Dr. Paul is a contender.

Missouri State Congressman Jim Guest was a guest speaker (no pun intended) before Ron Paul came on, and today he stated that when he contacted the area broadcast news to find out why they weren't covering the event, he was repeatedly told that they would only cover it if the AP gave the go-ahead, and one station jokingly told them that they didn't want to get in trouble with the FCC for covering Ron Paul. Now, who knows how much there is to that, but since Dr. Paul's stance on deregulation of the media would put the FCC out of business, well...

Either way, things sure backfired for Ed Failor. When are these people going to learn that the harder they try to marginalize Dr. Paul, the louder his message of Liberty is going to get?

Here are the youtube links to his speech:
Ron Paul speech, Des Moines, 6/30/07: Part One
Ron Paul speech, Des Moines, 6/30/07: Part Two
Ron Paul speech, Des Moines, 6/30/07: Part Three
Ron Paul speech, Des Moines, 6/30/07: Part Four
Ron Paul speech, Des Moines, 6/30/07: Part Five
Ron Paul speech, Des Moines, 6/30/07: Part Six
Ron Paul speech, Des Moines, 6/30/07: Part Seven
Ron Paul speech, Des Moines, 6/30/07: Part Eight

Enjoy. I for one think it's refreshing to listen to a candidate who treats us like adults. :icon_smile:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Thanks for the update. I - at least - was really interested in the outcome.


----------



## android (Dec 8, 2004)

jsq said:


> ron paul thinks the people have a right to the money they earn.
> ron paul thinks the government should be for the benefit of the citizens, not the other way around.
> ron paul believes taxes should be much lower and government should be much smaller and less intrusive into the lives of the populace.


Ron Paul is my Hero!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

The links are a very good listen. TY


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

No prob. Glad you enjoyed.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

How did I get sucked into this? LOL


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

ksinc said:


> How did I get sucked into this? LOL


Yeah, that's a great video. I got a little choked up at the end.

The guy that made it is a good guy; he's a US veteran who's really been working hard to help this grassroots movement.

Did you see his "Stop Dreaming" video? It's excellent also.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> Yeah, that's a great video. I got a little choked up at the end.
> 
> The guy that made it is a good guy; he's a US veteran who's really been working hard to help this grassroots movement.
> 
> Did you see his "Stop Dreaming" video? It's excellent also.


yeppers


----------

