Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

(This is the forums archive - If you want to get back to the main site simply click the banner above and you will be taken to our homepage.)

Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums is the Ultimate Online Resource for Owners and Enthusiasts of American Luxury Cars. Feel free to browse through our archive - but make sure you make it back to our main site - Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums

Cadillac XLR : Cadillac CTS : Cadillac : 2005 Cadillac STS : Cadillac Forums : 2000 Lincoln LS : Lincoln Mark VIII : Lincoln Mark VII : Car Wax
Lincoln Town Car : Lincoln Air Suspension : Lincoln Continental : Lemon Law : Do It Yourself Car Repair : Lincoln vs Cadillac Forums : Mesothelioma

Back to the Archive Main Page

Pages: 1

The bigoted past of Ron Paul

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: 04SCTLS

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...5-4532a7da84ca

Angry White Man
by James Kirchick
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
Post Date Tuesday, January 08, 2008

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on constitutional principle," while The Nation wrote of "his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jake Tapper described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped."

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

To understand Paul's philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a "distinguished counselor." The institute has also published his books.

The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described "anarcho-capitalist" who viewed the state as nothing more than "a criminal gang"--but one aspect of the institute's worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the "War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not). In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, "We'll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it." Paul's newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that "the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society" and that "there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it."

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, "There are too many libertarians in this country ... who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, ... find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought."

Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."

This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul's "old colleague," Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for "speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby." In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine "who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist." In an item titled, "The Pink House?" the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet." "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, "Bring Back the Closet!" Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended "parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims." Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better. The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul's Investment Letter called Israel "an aggressive, national socialist state," and a 1990 newsletter discussed the "tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise." Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little."

Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America." It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, "You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head," "Keep the group size down," "Keep quiet and you're harder to find," "Leave no clues," "Avoid the phone as much as possible," and "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."

The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul's obsession with the "industrial-banking-political elite" and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and "fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests" for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called "one of the saddest events in the history of the United States." A 1988 newsletter cited a doctor who believed that AIDS was created in a World Health Organization laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. In addition, Ron Paul & Associates sold a video about Waco produced by "patriotic Indiana lawyer Linda Thompson"--as one of the newsletters called her--who maintained that Waco was a conspiracy to kill ATF agents who had previously worked for President Clinton as bodyguards. As with many of the more outlandish theories the newsletters cited over the years, the video received a qualified endorsement: "I can't vouch for every single judgment by the narrator, but the film does show the depths of government perfidy, and the national police's tricks and crimes," the newsletter said, adding, "Send your check for $24.95 to our Houston office, or charge the tape to your credit card at 1-800-RON-PAUL."

When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."

In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.

What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones--whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into "superhuman" computer hybrids able to "travel throughout the cosmos"--estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years.

Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul's congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society. Christian Reconstructionists share common ground with libertarians, since both groups dislike the central government. North has advocated the execution of women who have abortions and people who curse their parents. In a 1986 book, North argued for stoning as a form of capital punishment--because "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." North is perhaps best known for Gary North's Remnant Review, a "Christian and pro free-market" newsletter. In a 1983 letter Paul wrote on behalf of an organization called the Committee to Stop the Bail-Out of Multinational Banks (known by the acronym CSBOMB), he bragged, "Perhaps you already read in Gary North's Remnant Review about my exposes of government abuse."

Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week's Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a "straight-talker."

From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.

Corrections: This article originally stated that The Nation praised Ron Paul's "full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." The magazine did not praise Paul's position, but merely described it. The piece also originally misidentified ABC's Jake Tapper as Jack. In addition, Paul was a surgeon in the Air Force, not the Army, as the piece originally stated. It also stated that David Duke competed in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. In fact, he was a Republican candidate in an open primary. The article has been corrected.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor at The New Republic.

selections from Ron Paul's newsletters

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-de262573a129

Posted by: MonsterMark

Too long an article for me to read. A.D.D. and all that.

Ron Paul is done.

He can still do great harm to the Republican Party by running as an Independent. My greatest fear, guys like Fossten will still follow him even though it means that they will end up cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Peace.........

Posted by: Tricky-Dick

Posted by: Calabrio

It's a duplicate post, but I'll just erase the other.... When the story first went online, I captured the initial responses to it. Some of the opinions cast doubt on the story... some were irrational.... but it did offer some counter balance. My concern has been, while I don't think Paul is a racist, I question the judgement of a man who routinely aligns himself with lunatics... just as he wouldn't address the 9/11 truthers in the last debate (I did think it was smart of him to make his excuse and THEN address the real debate topic)

Some of the responses to the article in New Republic (and prominently posted on Drudge Report right now).

Posted by Ken
Unfortunately, your information is simply that propaganda that is misleading, inaccurate, and definitely with a political agenda. I am ashamed that I read your entire post. Moreover, you contradict yourself. Van Meses was a jew- so how can Dr. Paul be an anti-Semite. Do ytou research thoroughly without a political agenda and you will see that your are way off. Thank you very much but no thank you. Note: I am Hispanic and I despise smears.

Posted by teplukhin2you
THANK YOU, Mr Kirchick. Nice to see TNR back in the muckraking business-- Ryan Lizza's shoes are being filled. Appreciate especially your diligence in actually getting away from the modem and schlepping out to Lawrence KS to comb through old newsletters and do what we expect journalists to do. --Doesn't fully atone for this abortion of a website revamp, but you guys are making a start. I'll renew my subscription.

Posted by Chris
Ah, the old Ghostwritten Newsletter Smear with some guilt by association thrown in. Must be that time of the month... So how is being a Giuliani shill going for you after that 4% in Iowa? Bad? It appears so.

Posted by lavaman
Where's your bibliography? I'd like to know the exact name, issue number, article title, etc. that each of these quotes were taken from.

Posted by Tom Demas
Yeah.. Paul's a closet racist...sure...dude you surprise me..I thought you guys although misguided policy wise would at least acknowledge that Paul has been consistent philisophically.

Posted by TJ
I thought all of these accusations had already been delt with?

Posted by paul
haha that's all you got. Your bark was bigger than you bite.

Posted by Lucinda
I come from Hispanic decent and have met Dr. Paul. With that said how dare you say these things without research. This is not what the man stands for. Why don't people in the media realize all he wants to do is follow the constitution?

Posted by Richard
If he's a minority owner, then it's impossible that he wrote this. It's like blaming the Forbes Family for everything written in Forbes Magazine, or blaming Opera for everything written in O magazine!

Posted by ralphnelle
Outstanding investigative journalism.

Posted by S. Kristol
I see a lot of inference and innuendo, but not much in the way of solid evidence. Is it because I haven't learned the secret language or don't have the my receiver tuned to the right transmitter?

Posted by Bob
Or..... You could just be a rabid Romney supporter who likes to take things out of context in ad-hominem attacks against someone you see as threatening to take support away from your focus-grouped neo-con wannabe candidate.

Posted by JD
Your smears are going to get more people voting for Ron Paul. So please keep smearing. Only fools, sadists and psychopaths think there's something wrong with being fearful of state power in this age of rising fascism in the American government.

Posted by Me
off Kirchick...just OFF. Angry enough?

Posted by Hunter S.
Better keep digging - I think you're coming up way short if you think any of this stuff is "dirt". That's the problemn Ron Paul presents to those trying to smear him, you have to go back 20 years and try to twist somebody else's words to try to make him look bad. With all the other candidates you can just look at what they themselves have actually been doing in the recent past and even the present.

Posted by blakmira
Thanks for the attempted smear. NY Times cleared this up MONTHS ago. Eric Dondero, the author of that newsletter who worked for Ron Paul at the time, was subsequently fired. Perhaps you received this "information" from him? Let's just say he's a very disgruntled former employee with sour grapes. Ron Paul's record is impeccable. This is all you can "find" on him? For shame, for shame. Who are you shilling for? D- for effort.

Posted by Rocky
Paid MSM shills like you should be shipped to some banana republic.

Posted by fred jones
It sounds like Gary North wrote these newsletters. The "race war" and AIDS stuff sounds like him. A lot of unsubstantiated smears here. Kirchik's "presumably Paul" crap is a flat-out lie -- to be expected from the publication that brought up Stephen Glass et alia. Another lie is the "anti-Semitism" crap -- that is even backed up by Kirchik with quotes from the newsletter. Sorry, but it's not "anti-Semetic" (whatever that even means) to criticize Israel. Another lie. Why doesn't Kirchik try to engage in substantive reporting about Waco or WTC '93 or for that matter OKBOMB? All of those passages are fraught with assumptions on Kirchik's part. He can't confront the issues head on because he has no facts. Perhaps that's better than just printing false facts; something TNR is well-known for and Kirchik is carrying on in the tradition of.

Posted by James Henderson
You, sir have an agenda. You are among the delusional people who think Paul's wanting to defund Israel is antisemitism, even though Paul wants to stop giving money to Arabs, who get 3 times the aid going to Israel. Paul fired a ghostwriter of the most inflammatory items you mention. There are other sources that have axes to grind with Paul. He has explicitly stated he does not want money from hate groups and has denounced racism as immoral. Barbara Jordan was a socialist and, unfortunately, the democratic socialist establishment has brainwashed a large portion of the black community to vote for their own continued oppression and destruction through the welfare state. I caucused for Paul in Iowa. If he does not get the nomination, I will support Obama based on his foreign policy and his energy policy. I disagree with Obama on taxes and some of his social policies, but he trumps any of the pseudo-republicans in the race with his foreign policy. Am I racist too? You are a biased dork who has bought into the Israeli lobby. Paul is not antisemitic, but realizes our alignment with Israel is destructive. You and your ilk disgust me.

Posted by thejauntyboulevardier
whoa, good work James. Because of his gadfly status, I have never paid too much attention to Paul. On an almost instinctual level, I have sensed that he is a loon but your article really brings out the more unsavory and sinister elements of his persona. Again, good work...

Posted by joshie
Well I am a liberal supporting Ron Paul. I disagree with his stance on many issues. However ending the war, genocide, tyranny, and police state outweigh my liberal perspectives. Ron Paul is payback to the pandering warmongers. We gave the Democrats a chance to stand up to the dictator but they crumbled. If it takes a righwinger to end the slaughter of innocents then I am comfortable with that. What good are gay rights or race relations if we are starting world war III. What good is affirmative action if you are in prison?

Posted by Lucia Schmitz
First Ron Paul gets excluded by the neocons of Fox News and now oh!, what a coincidence just the night before New Hampshire primaries this trashy article written by the neocons of The New Republic. Well I tell you what, it is not going to work because even if Ron Paul is not going to get elected president he has started a movement of freedom and respect of the constitution that you guys can't stop. Have a great day!!

Posted by fud
This is all rubbish that has been debunked. Much of it been mentioned on his wikipedia page for months. This is journalism?

Posted by jonnyfrag
Must be getting scared. This kind of blatant lie-filled diatribe is just what to expect when someone challenges your comfort zone and neo-con reality. All these charges have been brought up before and thouroughly dismissed.

Posted by ATS
"First they ignore you, then they make fun of you, THEN THEY ATTACK YOU, then you win." Gandhi.

Posted by mjhlaw
Concerning allegations. I carry no water for the Ron Paul campaign, but unfortunately must "consider the source" in light of the recent Beauchamp affair. Are any images of these purported excerpts available, perhaps a scanned .pdf document or digital camera shot? Even absent the Beauchamp affair, I'm suspicious of undocumented allegations during an election year by ANY publication.

Posted by Jim
James Kirchick is using the oldest tricks in the book. This is nothing but an intentionally timed smear attempt. It's disinfo and "journalism" at its worst. Give me break.

Posted by: turborich

Ron Paul Says that he will close the borders down & deport the aliens, That's good enough for me!

Posted by: Joeychgo

Well, Huckabee has lost all appeal for me. I think I'll be voting for Ron Paul on Feb 5th.

Posted by: MonsterMark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

I think I'll be voting for Ron Paul on Feb 5th.

I knew you and Fossten were gay.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I knew you and Fossten were gay.

HA!!!

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonsterMark

I knew you and Fossten were gay.

Gay? Huh? I thought you liked Ron Paul?

I liked Huckabee but I just cant take the religon anymore. He cant seem to open his mouth anymore without something about religon coming out.

This is what Huckabee said: "What we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in God?s standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other."

A rather opaque statement, but one message is clear: Huckabee wants to change the U.S. Constitution to reflect what he sees as divine law.

No Thank you. He lost me and my vote when he started down that road.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Ya, Huckabee's becoming a joke.
McCain beat him in SC.
Even the evangelicals are starting to see
he's playing them.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

Yeah, Huckabee is referencing religion as subtly as George Lucas directs a love story.

Huckabee says he wants to rewrite the constitution to fit in with Gods standard, the democrats are already slowly rewriting the constitution (and have been at least since the 1930's through judicial activism) to meet their own standards. They are both wrong. We need someone who will try and return the constitution to the original standards it was founded on, even if that means "rewriting" the constitution as it is misunderstood today. Those founding sandards lined up with God's just fine, and worked pretty good too.

It should be pointed out that this country was created with the idea that our rights come from God, and as such cannot be taken away by any government because they come from a higher power.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Ya, Huckabee's becoming a joke.
McCain beat him in SC.
Even the evangelicals are starting to see
he's playing them.

That last cartoon is damn accurate. Huckabee is playing to the media and liberals misguided perception of what evangelical christian values are, not what evangelical christian values truely are. It is a bad political move that he will pay for.

The libs like that he reinforces their stereotype of what a christian conservative is. Ironically, that playing to the stereotype is one of the things that makes him unelectible, which is another reason why the libs love him.

Posted by: Calabrio

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Ann Coulter has a great column out right now regarding the media love for Huckabee and McCain...

The argument I made in 2000 is as true today as it was then- just because Democrats (or so called liberal "independents") think he's the best Republican, that doesn't mean they'll vote for him.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Here's a few more cartoons:
Huckabee isn't just living up to the stereotype
of the dim hillbilly preacher, he's actually adding to it.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Here's a few more cartoons:
Huckabee isn't just living up to the stereotype
of the dim hillbilly preacher, he's actually adding to it.

Yeah, I guess you could say he is to the Christian conservative stereotype what Reagan was to conservatism, and what FDR was to liberalism. Basically he becomes the poster child for that school of thought and redefines it.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Yeah, I skimmed that article. I think it was basically "don't take advice from your opponents"....

Posted by: Joeychgo

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

It should be pointed out that this country was created with the idea that our rights come from God, and as such cannot be taken away by any government because they come from a higher power.

You know what - we are hiring a president here - Its a job, and we're interviewing candiates we may hire for that job.

I dont know about you but I wouldnt hire someone or not hire someone for another job based upon his religous beliefs -- In fact, thats illegal I believe.

Im so sick of religon in elections. It makes me wanna puke.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

It's not illegal, on a personal level, as a voter. It is illegal for the government to require that he be of a certian religion (at the federal level). A case could be that the consititution allows for requiring that he have a religion, but I don't hold that view. The state could (and often did) require that one be christian to hold elected state office.

Basically, Christianity played a large part in the founding of this nation and in the ideals of it, and that shouldn't be overlooked or discounted. As such, this country was created, in many ways as a non-traditional Chistian nation with a Federal government which didn't subscribe to any one religion (though the states more often then not, did).

Posted by: Joeychgo

I dont overlook the history. I am just growing tired of elections that have such a heavy religous undertone.

Of course, I'l sill working on the first republican debate (I think) where only 3 of the candidates said they believe in evoloution. Sorry, that makes me nervous.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joeychgo

I dont overlook the history. I am just growing tired of elections that have such a heavy religous undertone.

Of course, I'l sill working on the first republican debate (I think) where only 3 of the candidates said they believe in evoloution. Sorry, that makes me nervous.

What is so wrong with not "believing" in evolution? I don't "believe" in evolution (in the Darwinian sense). I have show in other threads that there is legitimate reason not to. All "not believing in evolution" shows is that they aren't beholden to a scientific ideology.

I don't think you would overlook history intentionally, but with the amount of misinformation and distortion out there, a little reminder of the truth can't hurt, for not only you but anyone else reading this thread. Sorry if I offended.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Here's proof of evolution that is irrefutable.

Bacteria race ahead of drugs
Falling behind: Deadly infections increasingly able to beat antibiotics
Sabin Russell

Sunday, January 20, 2008

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...0/MN1234A1.DTL

At a busy microbiology lab in San Francisco, bad bugs are brewing inside vials of human blood, or sprouting inside petri dishes, all in preparation for a battery of tests.

These tests will tell doctors at UCSF Medical Center which kinds of bacteria are infecting their patients, and which antibiotics have the best chance to knock those infections down.

With disturbing regularity, the list of available options is short, and it is getting shorter.

Dr. Jeff Brooks has been director of the UCSF lab for 29 years, and has watched with a mixture of fascination and dread how bacteria once tamed by antibiotics EVOLVE rapidly into forms that practically no drug can treat.

"These organisms are very small," he said, "but they are still smarter than we are."

Among the most alarming of these is MRSA, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, a bug that used to be confined to vulnerable hospital patients, but now is infecting otherwise healthy people in schools, gymnasiums and the home.

As MRSA continues its NATURAL EVOLUTION, even more drug-resistant strains are emerging. The most aggressive of these is one called USA300.

Last week, doctors at San Francisco General Hospital reported that a variant of that strain, resistant to six important antibiotics normally used to treat staph, may be transmitted by sexual contact and is spreading among gay men in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles.

Yet the problem goes far beyond one bug and a handful of drugs. Entire classes of mainstay antibiotics are being threatened with obsolescence, and bugs far more dangerous than staph are evolving in ominous ways.

"We are on the verge of losing control of the situation, particularly in the hospitals," said Dr. Chip Chambers, chief of infectious disease at San Francisco General Hospital.

The reasons for increasing drug resistance are well known:

- Overuse of antibiotics, which speeds the NATURAL EVOLUTION of bacteria, promoting new mutant strains resistant to those drugs.

- Careless prescribing of antibiotics that aren't effective for the malady in question, such as a viral infection.

- Patient demand for antibiotics when they aren't needed.

Heavy use of antibiotics in poultry and livestock feed, which can breed resistance to similar drugs for people.

Germ strains that interbreed at hospitals, where infection controls as simple as hand-washing are lax.

All this is happening while the supply of new antibiotics from drug company laboratories is running dry.

Since commercial production of penicillin began in the 1940s, antibiotics have been the miracle drugs of modern medicine, suppressing infectious diseases that have afflicted human beings for thousands of years. But today, as a generation of Baby Boomers begins to enter a phase of life marked by the ailments of aging, we are running out of miracles.

Top infectious disease doctors are saying that lawmakers and the public at large do not realize the grave implications of this trend.

"Within just a few years, we could be seeing that most of our microorganisms are resistant to most of our antibiotics," said Dr. Jack Edwards, chief of infectious diseases at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center.

At Brooks' microbiology laboratory, the EVOLUTIONARY struggle of bacteria versus antibiotics is on display every day. He grabbed a clear plastic dish that grew golden-hued MRSA germs taken from a patient a few days earlier. Inside were seven paper dots, each impregnated with a different drug. If the antibiotic worked, the dot had a clear ring around it - a zone where no germs could grow. No ring meant the drug had failed. This test was typical. Three drugs worked, four had failed.

The strategy for nearly 70 years has been to stay a step ahead of resistance by developing new antibiotics. In the past decade, however, major drugmakers have been dropping out of the field. The number of new antibiotics in development has plummeted. During the five-year period ended in 1987, the FDA licensed 16 novel antibiotics. In the most recent five-year period, only five were approved.

For drugmakers, the economics are simple: An antibiotic can cure an infection in a matter of days. There is much more money in finding drugs that must be taken for a lifetime.

Toll of antibiotic resistance
With antibiotic research lagging, the bugs are catching up, and infections are taking a terrible toll. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that each year 99,000 Americans die of various bacterial infections that they pick up while hospitalized - more than double the number killed every year in automobile accidents.

Of the 1.7 million hospital-acquired infections that occur each year, studies show, 70 percent are resistant to at least one antibiotic.

Drug-resistant staph is rapidly becoming a major public health menace. Last fall, the CDC estimated that MRSA alone has killed 19,000 Americans. Most of these patients picked up the bug in the hospital, but it is now spreading in urban and suburban neighborhoods across the nation.

"MRSA is killing people. It almost killed me," said Peg McQueary, whose life was upended when she nicked her leg with a razor three years ago.

Within days, her leg was grotesquely swollen, red from foot to knee. Her husband wheeled her into a Kaiser medical office, where her doctor took one look and rushed her to an isolation room.

She was placed on intravenous vancomycin, a drug reserved for the most serious cases of MRSA. Since that frightening week, the 42-year-old Roseville woman has spent much of her life in and out of hospitals, and she's learned just how difficult these infections can be to treat. McQueary has burned through drug after drug, but the staph keeps coming back.

She's been hooked up at her home to bags of vancomycin and swallowed doses of linezolid, clindamycin and a half a dozen other antibiotics with barely pronounceable names and limited effect.

One of the newest antibiotics, intravenous daptomycin - approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2003 - seems to work the best, but it has not prevented recurrences.

"It's just a struggle to do everyday things," she said. "I am ready to scream about it."

Today, she moderates a Web site, MRSA Resources Support Forum, swapping stories with other sufferers. "Giving them a place to vent is some sort of healing for me," she said.

McQueary's travails are becoming an all-too-familiar American experience. As bacteria evolve new ways to sidestep antibiotics, doctors treating infections find themselves with a dwindling list of options. Old-line drugs are losing their punch, while the newer ones are both costly and laden with side effects.

Drugs' weakening grip
Dr. Joseph Guglielmo, chairman of the Department of Clinical Pharmacy at UCSF, closely tracks the effectiveness of dozens of antibiotics against different infectious bacteria. Laminated color-coded cards called antibiograms are printed up for hospital physicians each year. They chart the success rate of each antibiotic against at least 12 major pathogens. These charts show how antibiotics, like tires slowly leaking air, are losing strength year by year.

As head of the hospital pharmacy, Guglielmo oversees a small warehouse at the medical center that stores millions of dollars worth of prescription drugs that are used every day to treat patients there. Strolling down the aisles that houses bins of antibiotics, he reached for a bottle of imipenem, and cradled the little vial in the palm of his hand.

"This one is the last line of defense," he said.

Imipenem was approved by the FDA in 1985. A powerful member of the carbapenem family - the latest in a long line of penicillin-like drugs - it is frequently used in hospitals today because it can still defeat a wide variety of germs that have outwitted the earlier-generation antibiotics.

But at a cost of about $60 a day, and with a safety profile that includes risk of seizure, it is a "Big Gun" drug that must be used carefully. As soon as doctors discover that a lesser antibiotic will work, they will stop prescribing imipenem, like soldiers conserving their last remaining stores of ammunition.

Now, there are signs of trouble.

Imipenem has been the antibiotic of choice for doctors treating Klebsiella, a vigorous microbe that causes pneumonia in hospitalized patients. But in June 2005, New York City doctors reported in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine outbreaks of imipenem-resistant Klebsiella. Fifty-nine such cases were logged at just two hospitals. The death rate among those whose infections entered their bloodstreams was 47 percent.

Last year, Israeli doctors battled an outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella that has killed more than 400 patients.

Cipro's dramatic decline
The antibiotic Cipro, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1987, is familiar to millions of Americans because it is widely prescribed for pneumonia, urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted diseases. It was the drug used to treat victims of the anthrax mailings that followed the Sept. 11 attacks.

Unlike most antibiotics, which originated from natural toxins produced by bacteria, Cipro came from tinkering with a chemical compound used to fight malaria. The German drug giant Bayer patented Cipro's active ingredient in 1983, and it subsequently became the most widely sold antibiotic in the world.

At hospitals across the country, however, clinicians have witnessed a remarkable drop-off in the utility of Cipro against more commonly encountered germs.

Antibiograms from the UCSF lab highlight the alarming erosion: As recently as 1999, Cipro was effective against 95 percent of specimens of E. coli - bacteria responsible for the most common hospital-acquired infections in the United States. By 2006, Cipro would work against only 60 percent of samples tested.

The bacterial evolution that has so quickly sapped Cipro has also reduced the effectiveness of the entire family of related antibiotics called fluoroquinolones - drugs such as Levaquin, Floxin, and Noroxin. "If there is ever a group of drugs that has taken a beating, it is these," said UCSF pharmacy chief Guglielmo.

Against Acinetobacter - a bug responsible for rising numbers of bloodstream and lung infections in intensive care units, as well as among combat casualties in Iraq - Cipro's effectiveness fell from 80 percent in 1999 to 10 percent just four years later. Cipro has also lost ground against Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a common cause of pneumonia in hospitalized patients. Nearly 80 percent of the bugs tested were susceptible to Cipro in 1999. That fell to 65 percent by 2004.

At UCSF, doctors carefully monitor the trends in drug resistance and modify their prescribing patterns accordingly. As a result, they have been able to nudge some of these resistance levels down. Cipro's effectiveness against Acinetobacter crept up to 40 percent last year, for example, but the overall trend remains alarming.

Although MRSA infections have been capturing headlines, bugs such as Acinetobacter, Klebsiella and Pseudomonas are keeping doctors awake at night. They come from a class of pathogens called Gram-negative bacteria, which typically have an extra layer of microbial skin to ward off antibiotics, and internal pumps that literally drive out antibiotics that penetrate.

Gram-negative infections have always been difficult to treat, and few new drugs are in development. Some researchers believe that the pipeline for new antibiotics is drying up because it is simply getting more difficult to outwit the bugs. "It may be that we've already found all the good antibiotics," warned Chambers, San Francisco General Hospital's infectious disease chief. "If that is so, then we've really got to be careful how we use the ones we have."

Bacteria's natural evolution
Terry Hazen, senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and director of its ecology program, is not at all surprised by the tenacity of our bacterial foes. "We are talking about 3.5 billion years of evolution," he said. "They are the dominant life on Earth."

Bacteria have invaded virtually every ecological niche on the planet. Human explorers of extreme environments such as deep wells and mines are still finding new bacterial species. "As you go deeper into the subsurface, thousands and thousands of feet, you find bacteria that have been isolated for millions of years - and you find multiple antibiotic resistance," Hazen said.

In his view, when bacteria develop resistance to modern antibiotics, they are merely rolling out old tricks they mastered eons ago in their struggle to live in harsh environments in competition with similarly resilient species.

Drug industry economics are also a factor. "It takes a hell of a lot of effort to find the next really good drug," said Steven Projan, vice president of New Jersey pharmaceutical giant Wyeth Inc.

The costs of bringing a new drug to market are hotly debated. A Tufts University study estimated $802 million; the consumer group Public Citizen pegs it at $110 million. Either way, the investment is huge.

By 1990, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of America, half the major drugmakers in Japan and the United States had cut back or halted antibiotic research. Since 2000, some of the biggest names in pharmaceutical development - Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbott Laboratories, Eli Lilly, Aventis and Procter & Gamble - had joined the exodus.

By common measures used to gauge the profit potential of new drugs, antibiotics fall way behind, Projan explained. For every $100 million that a new antibiotic might yield, after projected revenue and expenses are tallied, a new cancer drug will generate $300 million. A new drug for arthritis, by this same analysis, brings in $1.1 billion. Investors have been placing their bets accordingly.

In 2002, Wyeth had sharply curtailed its own antibiotic drug discovery programs. "We tried to get out of the field, but one of the reasons we did not get out altogether is we feel we have a public responsibility to fund more research," said Projan.

Wyeth's decision to keep some antibiotic research alive eventually paid off. In June 2005, the FDA licensed Tygacil, an intravenous antibiotic for complicated skin diseases such as drug-resistant staph infection. Only one new antibiotic for oral or intravenous use has won FDA approval since.

Pointing a finger at doctors
The waning of antibiotics in the arsenal of modern medicine has been going on for so long that some doctors fear a kind of complacency has set in. Increasingly, the medical profession is pointing a finger at itself.

"We have behaved very badly," said Dr. Louis Rice, a Harvard-educated, Columbia-trained specialist in infectious diseases. "We have made a lot of stupid choices."

His words brought a nervous silence to thousands of his colleagues, as he delivered a keynote speech in 2006 for the American Society for Microbiology's annual conference in San Francisco.

Rice, a professor at Cleveland's Case Western Reserve University, said doctors and drug companies alike are responsible for breeding resistance by "the indiscriminate dumping of antibiotics into our human patients."

Drug-resistant germs contaminate the bedrails, the catheter lines, the blood pressure cuffs and even the unwashed hands of doctors, nurses and orderlies. The germs keep evolving, swapping drug-resistance traits with other microbes. He likened American intensive-care units - the high-tech enclaves where the most seriously ill patients are treated - to "toxic waste dumps."

Drug companies, he said, have a responsibility to refill the nation's depleted medicine chest. He suggested that a tax - similar to a Superfund tax placed on polluters to clean up toxic waste sites - be imposed on companies that have dropped antibiotic research. It would support drugmakers that are still in the game. "Your products that you've made billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars on have created this problem, and you can't just walk away," he said.

Rice has stressed that the existing arsenal of antibiotics should be used wisely, and that often means sparingly. During a half century of antibiotic use, he said, there is scant research on how short a course of drugs is actually needed to cure a patient. Instead, doctors routinely prescribe a week to 10-day course of drugs recommended by manufacturers. If patients are taking antibiotics after their infections are truly gone, they are creating conditions that breed resistance. Indeed, a Dutch study showed that one kind of pneumonia can be treated just as successfully with three days of amoxicillin as with the traditional eight.

Since drug companies cannot be expected to spend money on research that could trim sales of their products, federally funded agencies such as the National Institutes of Health should do the job, Rice said in a recent interview.

He also took his own specialty to task for failing to protect the most important weapons its arsenal. Infectious disease experts at hospitals must find the "backbone" to stop other doctors from prescribing antibiotics unnecessarily, Rice said. He argued they should assert their authority to control antibiotic usage, just as cancer specialists have a say in which chemotherapy drugs are prescribed by surgeons.

And all health care professionals, he added, "have to wash their damn hands."

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by 04SCTLS

Here's proof of evolution that is irrefutable.

Bacteria race ahead of drugs
Falling behind: Deadly infections increasingly able to beat antibiotics
Sabin Russell

Sunday, January 20, 2008

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...0/MN1234A1.DTL

That article is proof of adaptation not evolution. Evolution (defined by darwin) is very specific, and what the article cites isn't evolution, according to darwin.

Check this thread; namely posts #71 and #74:
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/sho...t=36769&page=3

I spell out out what Darwinian evolution is and isn't as well as some of the tactics used to confuse the issue of evolution.

Also, 04SCTLS, Thanks for that other article. It was an interesting read. You don't hear of that point of view too often and it was a bit refreshing to hear (or in this case, read).

Posted by: Calabrio

Thanks for posting that Shagdrum,
....Let's avoid a thread hijack that leads to an endless debate regarding whether evolution exists, what is the definition of evolution, is evolution the origin, ect. ect. The "pro-evolution" types are every bit as close minded as the stereotype they draw of the anti-evolution people.

Posted by: shagdrum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calabrio

Thanks for posting that Shagdrum,
....Let's avoid a thread hijack that leads to an endless debate regarding whether evolution exists, what is the definition of evolution, is evolution the origin, ect. ect. The "pro-evolution" types are every bit as close minded as the stereotype they draw of the anti-evolution people.

Someone should just make an evolution vs. ID thread. hmmm....

Posted by: Marcus

Quote:

Originally Posted by shagdrum

Someone should just make an evolution vs. ID thread. hmmm....

I'd even be up for that, however it wouldn't be any fun without Fossten around.

Posted by: 04SCTLS

Glad you liked it shagdrum

I'll post the link here for the others

THE NEW THEOLOGY

http://www.chicagotribune.com/featur...ck=3&cset=true

A different view of God and evolution