Debate

[karl marx]

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

Why should i support people like Ron Paul if they do not even understand how the US mint works?

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html

Why should i support someone who wrote a racist newsletter,and then defended it when first asked about it,but than later lied about his involvement when the issue was brought again during the presidential campian?

Ron Paul supporters often shy from debate and run away from defending Ron Paul,of course i could be wrong.

[Jeremy]

You are using a blog, which has a specific agenda against Paul, as a source???

[micahnelson]

Ron Paul supporters often shy from debate and run away from defending Ron Paul,of course i could be wrong.

Its true. Ron Paul supporters have had a reputation during this election cycle for keeping their mouths shut and not trying to get their opinions heard.:rolleyes:

Welcome to the forums. Why are you here?

[Kludge]

Why are you bringing this up if you know(?) Ron Paul is no longer running?

It's not about the person, it's about the movement. But... For the hell of it.

#1 : The gov't has no reason to go into the business of manufacturing novelty coins. It's not a fucking theme park.

#2: What does his personal life have to do with his political career? libertarians cannot be racist, Ron Paul is a libertarian. Please give recent references to words coming out of Dr. Paul's mouth if you believe he's a racist.

[brandon]

I was going to reply but the three posts above sum up everything that needs to be said about this issue.


Marx, what do you feel the proper role of government is?

[micahnelson]

I was going to reply but the three posts above sum up everything that needs to be said about this issue.


Marx, what do you feel the proper role of government is?

The making of novelty coins.

[Unspun]

karl marx is a brilliant screen name.

[brandon]

Anyway, this guy is an obvious troll. His last sentence gives him away. He is not interested in debating, only trolling

[brandon]

The making of novelty coins.

lol!

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

His name gives him away. Though he might be useful for devil's advocate purposes to strengthen our own arguments.

[belian78]

there's a guy on the MS political forums that absolutely cannot stand RP, he goes by Groucho Marxist. wonder if it's one and the same? although, Groucho is pretty intelligent and a better troll than this.

[micahnelson]

His name gives him away. Though he might be useful for devil's advocate purposes to strengthen our own arguments.

Yes, let us keep him as a pet. A pet troll will make a wonderful collection to our little freakshow.

[Kludge]

there's a guy on the MS political forums that absolutely cannot stand RP, he goes by Groucho Marxist. wonder if it's one and the same? although, Groucho is pretty intelligent and a better troll than this.

Hm.. I never liked Groucho Marx.

[pacelli]

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

Why should i support people like Ron Paul if they do not even understand how the US mint works?

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html

Why should i support someone who wrote a racist newsletter,and then defended it when first asked about it,but than later lied about his involvement when the issue was brought again during the presidential campian?

Ron Paul supporters often shy from debate and run away from defending Ron Paul,of course i could be wrong.

Why would you support the 10 planks of the communist manifesto?

[AJ Antimony]

..

[Kludge]

....

Barr has no chance of winning, why do you insist on attacking libertarians? An "opportunistic neocon" has no reason to hijack the LP to take 4% of the vote. Start thinking.

[karl marx]

//
His name gives him away. Though he might be useful for devil's advocate purposes to strengthen our own arguments.//

I like your approach and agree with you on this.

[karl marx]

Alott of people here are chageing the subject. If you want to talk about communism or whatever start another thread and ill discuss,but this thread is about Congressional gold medals,and his newsletter.

[acptulsa]

Alott of people here are chageing the subject. If you want to talk about communism or whatever start another thread and ill discuss,but this thread is about Congressional gold medals,and his newsletter.

One of two duplicates, at that. Haven't responded to my comments in the other one yet, have you Mr. Workers Control the Means?

[Kludge]

Alott of people here are chageing the subject. If you want to talk about communism or whatever start another thread and ill discuss,but this thread is about Congressional gold medals,and his newsletter.

Is the proper role of gov't to maintain a novelty coin shop?

[MikeSmith]

Alott of people here are chageing the subject. If you want to talk about communism or whatever start another thread and ill discuss,but this thread is about Congressional gold medals,and his newsletter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFLSwDvBUA

http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexican-american-i-worked-for-ron.html

[AJ Antimony]

Barr has no chance of winning, why do you insist on attacking libertarians? An "opportunistic neocon" has no reason to hijack the LP to take 4% of the vote. Start thinking.

I hope that wasn't directed at me. That's is my argument for Barr.

[pacelli]

HON. RON PAUL

OF TEXAS

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights.

Because of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution--a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold.

Perhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people's money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people's money. We should look for another way.

It is, of course, easier to be generous with other people's money.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm

[Kludge]

I hope that wasn't directed at me. That's is my argument for Barr.

*sheepish smile* Errrr no. That was directed at errr him. Yep.

[pacelli]

Nelson A. Linder, President of the Austin NAACP:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtNUJ2vy_eo

[karl marx]

O cool a you tube video about nelson linder, I remember Ron Paul supporters would often twist this mans words.
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/austin-chapter-naacp-president-backs.html

Nelson Linder does not support Ron Paul,but this key member of the KKK does
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/01/breaking-ron-pauls-klansman-kampaign.html
I am sure you herd of randy gray?
perhaps i should mention bill johnson and don black.

Of course why are you changeing the subject?

[karl marx]

except for the fact that congressional medals are not tax payer funded.

btw how would you feel if i could show you that Ron Paul did vote for a congressional medal after the rosa parks incident?

[Kludge]

O cool a you tube video about nelson linder, I remember Ron Paul supporters would often twist this mans words.
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/austin-chapter-naacp-president-backs.html

Nelson Linder does not support Ron Paul,but this key member of the KKK does
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/01/breaking-ron-pauls-klansman-kampaign.html
I am sure you herd of randy gray?
perhaps i should mention bill johnson and don black.

Of course why are you changeing the subject?

Randy, Bill, and "The Don" live with me and pay rent together. We disagree on key issues but they support my fight for civil liberties and donated $5000 combined toward my gubernatorial race.

What's your point?

[pacelli]

O cool a you tube video about nelson linder, I remember Ron Paul supporters would often twist this mans words.
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/austin-chapter-naacp-president-backs.html

Nelson Linder does not support Ron Paul,but this key member of the KKK does
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/01/breaking-ron-pauls-klansman-kampaign.html
I am sure you herd of randy gray?
perhaps i should mention bill johnson and don black.

Of course why are you changeing the subject?

Just following your example.

[Kludge]

except for the fact that congressional medals are not tax payer funded.

btw how would you feel if i could show you that Ron Paul did vote for a congressional medal after the rosa parks incident?

I would feel like my entire belief system were flawed. I'd sob for hours, get wasted, and angrily masturbate for days until I could bear to wake up in the morning.


By the way, who is buying the medals if not taxpayers? Illegal immigrants?

[MikeSmith]

O cool a you tube video about nelson linder, I remember Ron Paul supporters would often twist this mans words.
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/austin-chapter-naacp-president-backs.html

Nelson Linder does not support Ron Paul,but this key member of the KKK does
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/01/breaking-ron-pauls-klansman-kampaign.html
I am sure you herd of randy gray?
perhaps i should mention bill johnson and don black.

Of course why are you changeing the subject?

Linder wasn't endorsing him, but he thinks Paul is a good man. I'm sure many racist people support Obama as well, maybe because they're in a union or whatever, but having the support of racists just means you're offering them something they want. In Paul's case, he's offering less government and more secure borders, etc. Nothing racist...

btw... Paul has suspended his campaign... Why are you still trolling? No life whatsoever?

[karl marx]

I would feel like my entire belief system were flawed. I'd sob for hours, get wasted, and angrily masturbate for days until I could bear to wake up in the morning.


well it would show that Ron Paul is either a liar or incompetent.

[pacelli]

I would feel like my entire belief system were flawed. I'd sob for hours, get wasted, and angrily masturbate for days until I could bear to wake up in the morning.


well it would show that Ron Paul is either a liar or incompetent.

Why are you changing the subject?

[Kludge]

well it would show that Ron Paul is either a liar or incompetent.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/95/17/23211795.jpg

[karl marx]

i am staying on subject because i am commenting on the topic of congressional gold medals and Ron Paul's insistance that it is tax payer funded which is not true.

[AJ Antimony]

Question karl, if you don't support Ron Paul, who is your next choice?

[pacelli]

i am staying on subject because i am commenting on the topic of congressional gold medals and Ron Paul's insistance that it is tax payer funded which is not true.

Actually, you aren't. Did you bother to read the subject of this sub-forum?

"Discuss, analyze, share, plan, collaborate and report on the latest happenings and other important topics affecting the Ron Paul Campaign For Liberty."

Both issues you bring up are old news and thus do not fall under the definition of "latest happenings".

Let's stay on subject, shall we. Report thread to Hot Topics, anyone?

[pacelli]

Question karl, if you don't support Ron Paul, who is your next choice?

Probably this guy: http://www.votebrianmoore.com/

[Kludge]

Probably this guy: http://www.votebrianmoore.com/

I was thinking www.zod2008.com

[MikeSmith]

i am staying on subject because i am commenting on the topic of congressional gold medals and Ron Paul's insistance that it is tax payer funded which is not true.

It doesn't matter if they print the money and dilute the value of the dollar or take it from taxpayers; either way, the taxpayers pay. If Congress wants to give out medals, they should pay for it with their handsome salaries. As Paul says, "It's easy to be generous with other people's money."

[pacelli]

I was thinking www.zod2008.com

:) :)

[powerofreason]

Probably this guy: http://www.votebrianmoore.com/


blech

[devil21]

i am staying on subject because i am commenting on the topic of congressional gold medals and Ron Paul's insistance that it is tax payer funded which is not true.

Ill bite. Then who pays for them? Please enlighten us.

[karl marx]

It doesn't matter if they print the money and dilute the value of the dollar or take it from taxpayers; either way, the taxpayers pay. If Congress wants to give out medals, they should pay for it with their handsome salaries. As Paul says, "It's easy to be generous with other people's money."

The Medal is funded through the sales of replicas, and consumers cover the costs of the labor involved when they buy the bronze replica's. There is not tax payer money involved.

[MikeSmith]

The Medal is funded through the sales of replicas, and consumers cover the costs of the labor involved when they buy the bronze replica's. There is not tax payer money involved.

It said the secretary may do that. It gives permission. The government is not a small business. The taxpayer's shouldn't have to take the risk that the medals might not sell.

[Kludge]

The Medal is funded through the sales of replicas, and consumers cover the costs of the labor involved when they buy the bronze replica's. There is not tax payer money involved.

So then there are no "private donations" which you have cited. The gov't is truly running a ridiculous novelty coin shop which has no benefit to society.

So tell us, Karl, what novelty medal did Dr. Paul approve?

[karl marx]

Ill bite. Then who pays for them? Please enlighten us.

Ill bite. Then who pays for them? Please enlighten us.

consumers.

often times you may see ads from the US mint on TV talking about coins or maybe a congressional medal.


in fact due to the improvement in technologies they have also expanded there services to the internet.

http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=11074&langId=-1

the replica costs 38$

[karl marx]

So then there are no "private donations" which you have cited. The gov't is truly running a ridiculous novelty coin shop which has no benefit to society.

So tell us, Karl, what novelty medal did Dr. Paul approve?



http://hortnon.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-of-pauls-hypocrisy.html

Well that's what I set out to determine. Was he so set in his beliefs, that he voted against every medal Congress proposed?

The common example used is that Paul voted for Frank Sinatra's medal. However, I could find no proof of this. The medal passed with a 2/3 majority, and the individual votes weren't recorded. So he could've voted either way, there's no way to know.

I decided to randomly pick a medal given after the Rosa Parks medal and see how Paul voted on it. I ended up with the medal given to the Tuskegee Airman, passed Feb 28, 2006. Results? Ayes: 400. Nays: 0.

Well, there were 32 no-votes, so maybe Paul was just absent for the vote, but he would've voted against it, right?!

Wrong: Aye TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]

So, at the very least, this suggests Ron Paul didn't vote against the Rosa Parks medal for purely racist reasons. But, what it does prove is that Paul did have a reason to vote against the Parks medal, and it doesn't look like consistency in fiscal responsibility was the reason.

[Kludge]

Well that's it, I'm no longer voting for a candidate not relevant to Ron Paul, but voting for Obama. In fact, I may become an authoritarian liberal, obviously libertarians are hypocrites!

[pacelli]

http://hortnon.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-of-pauls-hypocrisy.html

Well that's what I set out to determine. Was he so set in his beliefs, that he voted against every medal Congress proposed?

The common example used is that Paul voted for Frank Sinatra's medal. However, I could find no proof of this. The medal passed with a 2/3 majority, and the individual votes weren't recorded. So he could've voted either way, there's no way to know.

I decided to randomly pick a medal given after the Rosa Parks medal and see how Paul voted on it. I ended up with the medal given to the Tuskegee Airman, passed Feb 28, 2006. Results? Ayes: 400. Nays: 0.

Well, there were 32 no-votes, so maybe Paul was just absent for the vote, but he would've voted against it, right?!

Wrong: Aye TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]

So, at the very least, this suggests Ron Paul didn't vote against the Rosa Parks medal for purely racist reasons. But, what it does prove is that Paul did have a reason to vote against the Parks medal, and it doesn't look like consistency in fiscal responsibility was the reason.


You just about done yet?

[karl marx]

nope i am still waiting for someone to give me a reply that i find interesting.

[devil21]

Ill bite. Then who pays for them? Please enlighten us.

consumers.

often times you may see ads from the US mint on TV talking about coins or maybe a congressional medal.


in fact due to the improvement in technologies they have also expanded there services to the internet.

http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=11074&langId=-1

the replica costs 38$

Ive never seen a replica CMOH for sale on tv but YMMV. Based on your assertion, they would have to sell 790 replicas of one medal to cover the cost of a real medal. But since you seem to want to get into the minutae of the topic, would it be safe to assume that the $30K is spent FIRST from taxpayer money to the Mint to make the real medal, in order to hope to recoup that cost at a later time? In order for your assertion to be true, they would have to sell 790 replicas BEFORE they give someone their real medal for it to not be paid for with taxpayer money.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

The medal DID cost the taxpayers $30,000 from the MINT PUBLIC FUND.



SEC. 5. FUNDING.

(a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS- There is authorized to be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the medals authorized by this Act.

(b) PROCEEDS OF SALE- Amounts received from the sale of duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund.


The blog says

Another attempt to twist and squirm, because Ron Paul never opposed the medal on the basis that he didn't think that the replicas wouldn't be popular enough to cover costs.

Irrelevant. Tax dollars paid for the medal, end of story.

[MikeSmith]

http://hortnon.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-of-pauls-hypocrisy.html

Well that's what I set out to determine. Was he so set in his beliefs, that he voted against every medal Congress proposed?

The common example used is that Paul voted for Frank Sinatra's medal. However, I could find no proof of this. The medal passed with a 2/3 majority, and the individual votes weren't recorded. So he could've voted either way, there's no way to know.

I decided to randomly pick a medal given after the Rosa Parks medal and see how Paul voted on it. I ended up with the medal given to the Tuskegee Airman, passed Feb 28, 2006. Results? Ayes: 400. Nays: 0.

Well, there were 32 no-votes, so maybe Paul was just absent for the vote, but he would've voted against it, right?!

Wrong: Aye TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]

So, at the very least, this suggests Ron Paul didn't vote against the Rosa Parks medal for purely racist reasons. But, what it does prove is that Paul did have a reason to vote against the Parks medal, and it doesn't look like consistency in fiscal responsibility was the reason.

Since the Tuskegee airmen were all black, and considering you thought voting for a medal determines whether one is racist or not, you are now conceding Paul isn't racist?

Also, military members who were denied medals by their government and civilians are two completely separate issues.

[LibertyEagle]

Also, military members who were denied medals by their government and civilians are two completely separate issues.

Very good point. Paul has a long history of helping military men and women obtain their medals.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul on the Rosa Parks medal (starts at about the 6:30 mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVwuYKGIn38

[karl marx]

Since the Tuskegee airmen were all black, and considering you thought voting for a medal determines whether one is racist or not, you are now conceding Paul isn't racist?

Also, military members who were denied medals by their government and civilians are two completely separate issues.

I am saying Ron Paul is racist because of his newsletter,but i am saying he is a dumb ass or a liar because of his insistence that he votes not against congressional medals because they are tax payer funded,of course this is bullshit and he would have known this if he read the bill. Furthermore not only does Ron Paul break his principles but even after he votes for one congressional medal he discontinue to use the same bullshit excuse.
http://kineticreaction.blogspot.com/2007/10/ron-paul-opposes-medal-to-dalai-lama.html

[Lucille]

nope i am still waiting for someone to give me a reply that i find interesting.

I'm still waiting for you to capitalize and spell properly, or at least learn how to use a spell check which would cover both problems. (Obviously, Karl is another victim of our public school system. Karl's t-shirt should read: I went to public school for 12 years and all I got was this lousy socialist indoctrination!)

Now it's your turn:

1) Why do Democrats love Che? Don't they know that he was a homophobic, racist, vile, murdering pig?

2) Why do Democrats continually victimize, use and undermine the black community like they do? What have they done for them lately but continue to tear black families and communities apart by replacing fathers with welfare, and locking them up in their racist War on Drugs?

3) Why do Democrats hate liberty and individualism?

[karl marx]

Ron Paul on the Rosa Parks medal (starts at about the 6:30 mark)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVwuYKGIn38

yeah But congressional medals are not tax payer funded.

[karl marx]

I'm still waiting for you to capitalize and spell properly, or at least learn how to use a spell check which would cover both problems. (Obviously, Karl is another victim of our public school system. Karl's t-shirt should read: I went to public school for 12 years and all I got was this lousy socialist indoctrination!)

Now it's your turn:

1) Why do Democrats love Che? Don't they know that he was a homophobic, racist, vile, murdering pig?

2) Why do Democrats continually victimize, use and undermine the black community like they do? What have they done for them lately but continue to tear black families and communities apart by replacing fathers with welfare, and locking them up in their racist War on Drugs?

3) Why do Democrats hate liberty and individualism?


ah yes another ron paul supporter attempts to change the subject. Democrats do not love che,but at least they do not slander there opponents in order to gain support.

[Kludge]

ah yes another ron paul supporter attempts to change the subject. Democrats do not love che,but at least they do not slander there opponents in order to gain support.

:rolleyes:

[karl marx]

If giving Rosa Parks a gold medal is inherently unconstitutional, then why would Ron Paul (falsely) offer to chip in his own funds? Is Ron Paul a fan of donating to unconstitutional causes, or does he realize that his claims on constitutionality are bullshit? And don't say, 'it's unconstitutional because it uses taxpayer dollars,' because it didn't.

[Kludge]

If giving Rosa Parks a gold medal is inherently unconstitutional, then why would Ron Paul (falsely) offer to chip in his own funds? Is Ron Paul a fan of donating to unconstitutional causes, or does he realize that his claims on constitutionality are bullshit? And don't say, 'it's unconstitutional because it uses taxpayer dollars,' because it didn't.

Coercive theft of taxpayers' money vs. voluntary donation by those who absolutely want the medal given.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

yeah But congressional medals are not tax payer funded.

Comrade, I proved above that tax dollars DO IN FACT pay for the medal.

Did YOU read the bill?

[LibertyEagle]

If giving Rosa Parks a gold medal is inherently unconstitutional, then why would Ron Paul (falsely) offer to chip in his own funds? Is Ron Paul a fan of donating to unconstitutional causes, or does he realize that his claims on constitutionality are bullshit? And don't say, 'it's unconstitutional because it uses taxpayer dollars,' because it didn't.

Where in the Constitution does it give Congress the authority to issue gold medals to private citizens, funded from other people's pockets?

BTW, you didn't prove anything about the funding of the medals. From what you posted alone, it looks like they are hoping to recoup the $30k that they spend on the medal, from the FUTURE sale of replicas. But, the hopeful sale of the replicas, would be occurring AFTER they had already spent the money on the gold medal. Where do you think that money came from anyway?

[Jeremy]

Are we talking about the Rosa Parks thing here? If I remember correctly, Ron Paul spoke on this issue and suggested each representative chip in to pay for it out of their own walltets. So you see, Ron Paul was really being selfless: putting others before himself. This is also why he gives back part of his salary.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

The $30,000 authorized by HR 573 is essentially a taxpayer loan to pay for the medal, monies stolen from the Public TRUST.
Whether the US Mint makes that money back through the sale of replicas is irrelevant.

RPRA (Ron Paul Right Again)

[devil21]

It seems karl is ignoring the posts that destroy his assertions and moves on to some other minute detail to argue about. That's not "debating" karl, that's trolling. How about you address my post on page 6?

[brandon]

I think the government should also send flowers to women who lose their children. They should start a Public Department of Floristry. Maybe they could also send balloons to anyone who loses a tooth. And we could have congressional platinum trophies for the winner of American Idle! These are all great ideas. Thanks for shining a light on this karl marx. I never realized how cool it would be for our federal government to do all these things.

Hell, maybe they could send birthday presents to my parents when I forget to buy them something.

[pacelli]

It seems karl is ignoring the posts that destroy his assertions and moves on to some other minute detail to argue about. That's not "debating" karl, that's trolling. How about you address my post on page 6?

Agreed. He just moves from this thread to the one he has on "bad reporting" with the exact same issues. Seems he's double-trolling.

[LibertyEagle]

I think the government should also send flowers to women who lose their children. They should start a Public Department of Floristry. Maybe they could also send balloons to anyone who loses a tooth. And we could have congressional platinum trophies for the winner of American Idle! These are all great ideas. Thanks for shining a light on this karl marx. I never realized how cool it would be for our federal government to do all these things.

Hell, maybe they could send birthday presents to my parents when I forget to buy them something.

lololol :D

[Lucille]

ah[sic] yes [sic] another ron paul[sic] supporter attempts to change the subject. Democrats do not love che,[sic]but at least they do not slander there [sic] opponents in order to gain support.

I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. WTF are you talking about?! LOL!

Look, princess -- you can't even engage in a "debate" without getting your talking points from some stupid blog. "How to Nail a Paultard, Part 1: The Rosa Park Medal"


Can everyone just stop indulging this Marxist now? Don't even dignify this ..... with even one more response.


Comrade, I proved above that tax dollars DO IN FACT pay for the medal.


They absolutely are paid for by the taxpayers. Of course they turned down Ron's offer to all chip-in and pay for it themselves. It's much easier for those thieving criminals in CONgress to spend our (stolen) money rather than their own.

[karl marx]

Comrade, I proved above that tax dollars DO IN FACT pay for the medal.

Did YOU read the bill?



Did you read the bill?

Funded through the sales of replicas,and secondly the US mint is self funded.

http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/
Since Congress created the United States Mint on April 2, 1792, it has grown tremendously. The United States Mint receives more than $1 billion in annual revenues. As a self-funded agency, the United States Mint turns revenues beyond its operating expenses over to the General Fund of the Treasury.

The United States Mint applies world-class business practices in
making, selling, and protecting our Nation’s coinage and assets.
— U.S. Mint Strategic Plan

[devil21]

Come on karl, Im still waiting for your response to my page 6 post where you explain which came first, the chicken or the egg. I'm waiting.

[JK/SEA]

Karl is working it today. My take is he/she is a McCain supporter, and harbors ill will towards those of us who are in fact waking people up, and well, i beleive he /she reflects the fear the NEOCONS have towards this movement. The 'issues' he/she is bringing up have been addressed, and are irrelevant as debatable topics.

Classic troll.

Ron Paul is not a racist. If anyone has any REAL proof, other than silly smear pieces that ANYONE can type out and print, lets see it.

Carry on.

Un-opposed PCO in Washington State, and State Delegate for Ron Paul.

[MikeSmith]

Did you read the bill?

Funded through the sales of replicas,and secondly the US mint is self funded.

http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/
Since Congress created the United States Mint on April 2, 1792, it has grown tremendously. The United States Mint receives more than $1 billion in annual revenues. As a self-funded agency, the United States Mint turns revenues beyond its operating expenses over to the General Fund of the Treasury.

The United States Mint applies world-class business practices in
making, selling, and protecting our Nation’s coinage and assets.
— U.S. Mint Strategic Plan

The Fed/Banks pay for the US mint to press money... how do you think they get that money? Seriously, read more please.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

Did you read the bill?

Funded through the sales of replicas,and secondly the US mint is self funded.

http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/
Since Congress created the United States Mint on April 2, 1792, it has grown tremendously. The United States Mint receives more than $1 billion in annual revenues. As a self-funded agency, the United States Mint turns revenues beyond its operating expenses over to the General Fund of the Treasury.

The United States Mint applies world-class business practices in
making, selling, and protecting our Nation’s coinage and assets.
— U.S. Mint Strategic Plan

That's their hope, but Ron was factually correct when he stated taxpayer dollars paid for it - hence your entire argument is intellectually void.

You god/government education didn't do much for your intellectual development, and knowing the definition of what a PUBLIC TRUST is.

Your cut n' paste from the US Mint is irrelevant to HR 573. So the mint makes money. Swell. I hope we got our money back.

[driller80545]

So again we see that the government is in business for itself and competing with tax payer money. Here is the source of the problem in this discussion, not the silliness this hard head keeps spewing.

[karl marx]

That's their hope, but Ron was factually correct when he stated taxpayer dollars paid for it - hence your entire argument is intellectually void.

You god/government education didn't do much for your intellectual development, and knowing the definition of what a PUBLIC TRUST is.

Your cut n' paste from the US Mint is irrelevant to HR 573. So the mint makes money. Swell. I hope we got our money back.

If the US mint is tax payer funded at the core, then the boy scout medal would be tax payer funded as well?


you can buy the Rosa Parks medal for 38$

I'm a consumer who pays income tax, property tax, and sales tax in the late 90s. Please explain to me how my money goes from me to the government collection agency to the funding of this medal.

[revolutionman]

The idea that Revolutionaries shy away from debate is really entirely comical. For crying out loud, one our biggest vehicles has been going out and trying to confront the Establishment. Unfortunately 1/2 the time we get a cold shoulder. Fascists and socialists cant hang with Libertarians. They don't have a a prayer, because almost every position they support is in defiance of the premier legal document of ths USA.

[karl marx]

That's their hope, but Ron was factually correct when he stated taxpayer dollars paid for it - hence your entire argument is intellectually void.

You god/government education didn't do much for your intellectual development, and knowing the definition of what a PUBLIC TRUST is.

Your cut n' paste from the US Mint is irrelevant to HR 573. So the mint makes money. Swell. I hope we got our money back.

Please show the path from how these tax dollars go from point a (e.g., the pocketbooks of anyone who was still alive at the time that the medal was being awarded) to point b (the rose parks medal itself.).

[acptulsa]

Yo, Karl, remember me?

On the duplicate thread you let die, I explained the medal to you. Why are you still confused?

Let's talk about all of it, shall we? Nelson Linder is or was head of the NAACP chapter in the capital of Texas, and he says Dr. Paul isn't racist. I believe him, not you, Herr Marx, as I have no doubt he knows it when he sees it. Nonetheless, though I wouldn't support him myself if I thought he were racist, it almost doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter because of his unfailing support of the Constitution, which as amended is blind to color and ethnicity.

Even so, he is no racist. He is guilty of, and has apologized for, not supervising the newsletters published in his name and not cracking down on these enthusiastic but disgustingly provincial South Texas youths. This is the most like a politician I've ever seen him act and, to be honest, given the number of times McCain and Obama have each flip-flopped just this season I find that it's a relief to discover that this is the man's most deadly skeleton after more than three decades in politics.

As for the medals, I believe I mentioned that there are several private mints in the nation that could have commemorated Rosa Parks. What's the difference in the end, Karl? Well, think about it. If Congress had followed Dr. Paul, the mint would never have created that coin. A private mint or three would then, the way being clear for them, have approached the Parks and offered them a percentage for the rights to her image and name. What would the Parks have done with the money, Karl? A playground? A scholarship fund?

The mint set that money aside so Congress could insist on another pandering medal with less sales potential at a later date. That's all.

This isn't a socialist nation, Karl. Not yet, and we don't intend to let it happen. The reason? Katrina. Get over it.

[LibertyEagle]

You're not familiar with the reality of taxes? :confused: What about them, do you not understand?

[karl marx]

The medal DID cost the taxpayers $30,000 from the MINT PUBLIC FUND.




The blog says

Irrelevant. Tax dollars paid for the medal, end of story.




are you saying that the medal was paid by the US mint enterprise fund? Because the US mint is self-funded hence no tax payer dollars were involved.

[Flash]

Why should i support someone who wrote a racist newsletter,and then defended it when first asked about it,but than later lied about his involvement when the issue was brought again during the presidential campian?

I don't believe he wrote it since his Libertarian ideology does not go along with it.

Please tell what is wrong with 'racism'?

[Kludge]

Please tell what is wrong with 'racism'?


Errr..... what?

[Bryan]

Copying over from other thread- these questions need to be answered. :)

Thanks!



Congressional medals are funded through the sales of replicas and the US mint is a self funded agency. Hence The Congressional mint is like a business,

Does this include paying for all the overhead associated with the metals, such as Congressional time, etc? If so, where is the documented proof of this? Just covering the costs of the metals is a fraction of the expense when considering the overhead of the government needed for the people to operate within to get the job done (even on a percentage bases).

What if the coins don't sell? Then what? Who loses?

What percent of time do you mind your Congressional representative spending on deciding who gets medals, drafting such legislation, voting, etc? 0.5%? 1%? 5%? Please provide a specific number, hours per year, or the like. Who should be in charge of this and what do you do if you get 500,000 applications per year? Who pays to review that?

Where in the Constitution is Congress enumerated with this authority? Cite the passage please.

What about the suppression of the free market (as pointed out) by having a government agency operate with special powers to act "like a business"? How about if the government starts to offer discounted services in your field of work? What's the difference between you and someone else in the novelty coin business?

[acptulsa]

Please tell what is wrong with 'racism'?

This is the best we can do? Dr. Paul didn't write them. I don't like racism. Yeah, that's better.

What's wrong with racism? Flash, get on the wrong side of it some time and find out, 'kay?

[Flash]

Errr..... what?


Many famous black comedians and activitist like Malcom X had said racist things in the past. Don't say "err what?" as if they had a "all races are equal" attitude all their life. So even if Ron Paul did say those things, it doesn't mean he still holds that attitude. I'm sick of this politically correct attitude where people expect everyone to be a saint all their lives.


What's wrong with racism? Flash, get on the wrong side of it some time and find out, 'kay?

I wasn't actually promoting racism I wanted him to say what he thought racism was (his definition) and why it was wrong. If he believes racial seperation is racism, or if saying a racist comment in one's life makes them a racist, then a lot of people would be racists.

And stop with all this complaining as if someone has to cry everytime you hear someone of the opposite race say a bad word about your own. They act as if its the end of the world or something.

[acptulsa]

Copying over from other thread- these questions need to be answered. :)

Thanks!




Does this include paying for all the overhead associated with the metals, such as Congressional time, etc? If so, where is the documented proof of this? Just covering the costs of the metals is a fraction of the expense when considering the overhead of the government needed for the people to operate within to get the job done (even on a percentage bases).

What if the coins don't sell? Then what? Who loses?

What percent of time do you mind your Congressional representative spending on deciding who gets medals, drafting such legislation, voting, etc? 0.5%? 1%? 5%? Please provide a specific number, hours per year, or the like. Who should be in charge of this and what do you do if you get 500,000 applications per year? Who pays to review that?

Where in the Constitution is Congress enumerated with this authority? Cite the passage please.

What about the suppression of the free market (as pointed out) by having a government agency operate with special powers to act "like a business"? How about if the government starts to offer discounted services in your field of work? What's the difference between you and someone else in the novelty coin business?

Our circulating coins, discounting commemorative reverses during the Bicentennial and over the last decade, were designed in 1909 (obverse) and 1959 (reverse, penny), 1938 (both nickel and quarter, I think), 1946 (dime), 1964 (half dollar) and variously for experimental dollars. How small a staff could meet those requirements? How much money would that save? And how much private enterprise could be stimulated by the market for commemoratives thus not served?

P.S. The only thing worse than capitalism is your alternative, Karl. As has been proven time and again. Remember the U.S.S.R? What ever happened to that?

[karl marx]

Yo, Karl, remember me?

On the duplicate thread you let die, I explained the medal to you. Why are you still confused?

Let's talk about all of it, shall we? Nelson Linder is or was head of the NAACP chapter in the capital of Texas, and he says Dr. Paul isn't racist. I believe him, not you, Herr Marx, as I have no doubt he knows it when he sees it. Nonetheless, though I wouldn't support him myself if I thought he were racist, it almost doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter because of his unfailing support of the Constitution, which as amended is blind to color and ethnicity.

Even so, he is no racist. He is guilty of, and has apologized for, not supervising the newsletters published in his name and not cracking down on these enthusiastic but disgustingly provincial South Texas youths. This is the most like a politician I've ever seen him act and, to be honest, given the number of times McCain and Obama have each flip-flopped just this season I find that it's a relief to discover that this is the man's most deadly skeleton after more than three decades in politics.

As for the medals, I believe I mentioned that there are several private mints in the nation that could have commemorated Rosa Parks. What's the difference in the end, Karl? Well, think about it. If Congress had followed Dr. Paul, the mint would never have created that coin. A private mint or three would then, the way being clear for them, have approached the Parks and offered them a percentage for the rights to her image and name. What would the Parks have done with the money, Karl? A playground? A scholarship fund?

The mint set that money aside so Congress could insist on another pandering medal with less sales potential at a later date. That's all.

This isn't a socialist nation, Karl. Not yet, and we don't intend to let it happen. The reason? Katrina. Get over it.

Richard Ramirez's wife says that he's not a killer,And I'm pretty sure that she knows Richard Ramirez better than Nelson Linder knows Ron Paul.Therefore, Richard Ramirez isn't a killer.

[acptulsa]

Richard Ramirez's wife says that he's not a killer,And I'm pretty sure that she knows Richard Ramirez better than Nelson Linder knows Ron Paul.Therefore, Richard Ramirez isn't a killer.

Richard Ramirez' wife is not an objective witness, in my opinion. Nelson Linder, as you pointed out yourself, endorsed Obama.

[Kludge]

Many famous black comedians and activitist like Malcom X had said racist things in the past. Don't say "err what?" as if they had a "all races are equal" attitude all their life.


I never did, I also never condoned their speakings. However, I appreciate you collecting me into a group and assuming :p

Racism isn't so much "wrong" as foolish. Irrationality stems from faith and emotions. Racism is faith because you are believing in something not necessarily true of all people of the race. For instance, a group of Hispanics rob a liquor store. While you could have faith and assume their is a high rate of robberies committed by Hispanics based on your history with them, it'd be irrational to believe all/many/most Hispanics rob liquor stores.

[karl marx]

Copying over from other thread- these questions need to be answered. :)

Thanks!




Does this include paying for all the overhead associated with the metals, such as Congressional time, etc? If so, where is the documented proof of this? Just covering the costs of the metals is a fraction of the expense when considering the overhead of the government needed for the people to operate within to get the job done (even on a percentage bases).

What if the coins don't sell? Then what? Who loses?

What percent of time do you mind your Congressional representative spending on deciding who gets medals, drafting such legislation, voting, etc? 0.5%? 1%? 5%? Please provide a specific number, hours per year, or the like. Who should be in charge of this and what do you do if you get 500,000 applications per year? Who pays to review that?

Where in the Constitution is Congress enumerated with this authority? Cite the passage please.

What about the suppression of the free market (as pointed out) by having a government agency operate with special powers to act "like a business"? How about if the government starts to offer discounted services in your field of work? What's the difference between you and someone else in the novelty coin business?

There's less than $100 worth of gold in an olympic gold medal.Certainly, a private organization could craft their own version of an olympic gold medal, and start awarding it to atheles.The Rosa Parks medal of honor wasn't special because "hey look, shiny medal".It was special because it meant that the entire democratically elected US congress, who were representing the entire nation, stood behind it.(With the exception of Ron Paul).And there is no way that a private institution could ever match that sort of honor.

[acptulsa]

There's less than $100 worth of gold in an olympic gold medal.Certainly, a private organization could craft their own version of an olympic gold medal, and start awarding it to atheles.The Rosa Parks medal of honor wasn't special because "hey look, shiny medal".It was special because it meant that the entire democratically elected US congress, who were representing the entire nation, stood behind it.(With the exception of Ron Paul).And there is no way that a private institution could ever match that sort of honor.

And the shameless pandering of the United States Congress would have or should have meant more to her than what her next of kin created in her honor with the money they made licensing her likeness and name?

You remember--a scholarship fund or playground, perhaps? Anything but a mint fund Congress can use to create a medal just to pander to a big donor, preferably? Congress could have paid as great an honor with a simple declaration...

[Flash]

I never did, I also never condoned their speakings. However, I appreciate you collecting me into a group and assuming :p

Racism isn't so much "wrong" as foolish. Irrationality stems from faith and emotions. Racism is faith because you are believing in something not necessarily true of all people of the race. For instance, a group of Hispanics rob a liquor store. While you could have faith and assume their is a high rate of robberies committed by Hispanics based on your history with them, it'd be irrational to believe all/many/most Hispanics rob liquor stores.

I wasn't assuming anything.
And atleast you replied unlike that other poster who assumed too much from a simple question and seemed to pass judgement. I hate when people do that. Notice he won't reply back and he'll just pretend I'm a racist.

You are describing whats more like sterotyping that direct racism. Ron paul's newsletter seemed to be sterotyping.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

I don't give a rat's behind about the newsletters. Neither do the people of Paul's district. Paul's 1996 democratic opponent, Charles Morris, made a big deal out of them and he lost. That's when those newsletters were still fresh. Bringing them up now is just sad. It's like talking about Chappaquiddick or Robert Byrd's KKK involvement.

Can someone please ban this Karl Marx troll? Let him find people who care.

[karl marx]

Copying over from other thread- these questions need to be answered. :)

Thanks!




Does this include paying for all the overhead associated with the metals, such as Congressional time, etc? If so, where is the documented proof of this? Just covering the costs of the metals is a fraction of the expense when considering the overhead of the government needed for the people to operate within to get the job done (even on a percentage bases).

What if the coins don't sell? Then what? Who loses?

What percent of time do you mind your Congressional representative spending on deciding who gets medals, drafting such legislation, voting, etc? 0.5%? 1%? 5%? Please provide a specific number, hours per year, or the like. Who should be in charge of this and what do you do if you get 500,000 applications per year? Who pays to review that?

Where in the Constitution is Congress enumerated with this authority? Cite the passage please.

What about the suppression of the free market (as pointed out) by having a government agency operate with special powers to act "like a business"? How about if the government starts to offer discounted services in your field of work? What's the difference between you and someone else in the novelty coin business?


are you able to justify Ron Paul's votes on rewarding football teams,in light of the same criticisms that he outlines here.http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/dr-nay-votes-yes-to-football.html

[acptulsa]

Can someone please ban this Karl Marx troll? Let him find people who care.

We can ban them here, but we can't ban them in real life. If we want to really pwn those people we are trying to persuade, we need to observe each other's points and sharpen our own. By the time we ground him to powder, our blades will be sharp.

Glad to have you here, Herr Marx.

[karl marx]

Richard Ramirez' wife is not an objective witness, in my opinion. Nelson Linder, as you pointed out yourself, endorsed Obama.



Non-sequitur

Endorsing Obama doesn't make you objective.Or if it did...Then does that mean that everyone who votes for Obama is therefore an objective source?SWEET!Or are they only objective if they also defend Ron Paul?Rather than critique him?

[Kludge]

are you able to justify Ron Paul's votes on rewarding football teams,in light of the same criticisms that he outlines here.http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/dr-nay-votes-yes-to-football.html

The Tibetan gov't has a disgusting serf system that abuses its lower classes. It may result in serious complications if we're going around submitting to international opinion polls and alerting everyone to whom we like and dislike.

I don't see college football teams ever posing a serious risk to liberty.

[acptulsa]

How much does it cost to commend a football team, doktor? A quantity of hot air, as I recall. This would be to Congress your basic waste byproduct, would it not?

[RonPaulFanInGA]

are you able to justify Ron Paul's votes on rewarding football teams,in light of the same criticisms that he outlines here.http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/dr-nay-votes-yes-to-football.html

You sure seem to believe EVERYTHING on that site as the gospel truth. You don't write it, do you?

How is voting for a meaningless "congratulate the football team" resolution tantamount to spending money giving someone a medal?

[karl marx]

And the shameless pandering of the United States Congress would have or should have meant more to her than what her next of kin created in her honor with the money they made licensing her likeness and name?

You remember--a scholarship fund or playground, perhaps? Anything but a mint fund Congress can use to create a medal just to pander to a big donor, preferably? Congress could have paid as great an honor with a simple declaration...
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html
Point #1: Was the medal against the spirit of Rosa Parks?
We already knew that Ron Paul deludes himself into believing that he can speak on behalf of the long dead founding fathers, but apparently, Ron Paul also seems to think that he can speak for people who were still alive at the time. Here's what Rosa Parks, the real Rosa Parks, had to say on the subject:
"This medal is encouragement for all of us to continue until all have rights," said Parks, 86, during her brief remarks.
I think that it's incredibly arrogant for Ron Paul to assume that he has a greater authority to speak on behalf of Rosa Parks than Rosa Parks herself, something that he has also done with Martin Luther King.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9906/15/rosa.parks.medal/

[acptulsa]

Non-sequitur

Endorsing Obama doesn't make you objective.Or if it did...Then does that mean that everyone who votes for Obama is therefore an objective source?SWEET!Or are they only objective if they also defend Ron Paul?Rather than critique him?

Non argument. Endorsing Obama certainly showed beyond question that when he declined to critique Ron Paul he had no apparent immediate vested interest in making the man look good. You have evidence to the contrary? Are you willing to besmirch Nelson Linder's good name in this fishing expedition?

[karl marx]

How much does it cost to commend a football team, doktor? A quantity of hot air, as I recall. This would be to Congress your basic waste byproduct, would it not?

The FAQ has always pointed out that the congressional medal was not tax payer funded. Congressional medals are funded through the sales of replicas,and the US mint is self funded.

Point #1: Was the medal against the spirit of Rosa Parks?
We already knew that Ron Paul deludes himself into believing that he can speak on behalf of the long dead founding fathers, but apparently, Ron Paul also seems to think that he can speak for people who were still alive at the time. Here's what Rosa Parks, the real Rosa Parks, had to say on the subject:

"This medal is encouragement for all of us to continue until all have rights," said Parks, 86, during her brief remarks.

I think that it's incredibly arrogant for Ron Paul to assume that he has a greater authority to speak on behalf of Rosa Parks than Rosa Parks herself, something that he has also done with Martin Luther King.


Point #2: Was the Medal Unconstitutional?
I dare anyone who says this to cite the specific passage within the constitution that prohibits the awarding of medals. They won't be able to do this, because there isn't one. At best, they can argue that the awarding of medals isn't "explicitly" endorsed in the constitution, which therefore makes it unconstitutional. Now, you could try arguing that it falls under sections like the necessary-and-propers clause, but that will only give them room to squirm. Instead, I would point out that Congressional Gold Medals have been around longer than the constitution itself, and have been given out ever since. Here's a brief history of some of the earliest awards:

* 1776 George Washington.
* 1777 Major General Horatio Gates
* 1779 Major Henry Lee
* 1781 Major General Nathaniel Greene
* 1787 John Paul Jones
* 1800 Captain Thomas Truxtun

If the founding fathers disapproved of Congressional Gold Medals on principle and found them unconstitutional, then why isn't there any record of this? Why do the founding fathers need Ron Paul to speak on their behalf? Is it the same reason that Rosa Parks needs Ron Paul to speak on her behalf?


Point #3: But those were military gold medals, not civilian!
Please let us know the exact passage in the constitution that says that congress can award medals to the military, but not to civilians. Oh wait -- it doesn't. If you're going to make an argument on constitutional grounds, then you need to be apply the constitution consistently. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the constitution that endorses or restricts either of these awards. Either both types of awards are constitutional, or both types of awards are unconstitutional. The first case disproves Ron Paul, and the second case is disproved by history. Which is it?


Point #4: Congressional Gold Medals Fall Under the Tenth Amendment!
Ah, the "states right" argument. It's bullshit. Are you honestly telling me that the authority of Congressional Gold Medals falls under the individual states? Do you even understand what the phrase congressional gold medal entails? Do you actually believe that when Captain Thomas Truxtun was awarded the congressional medal in 1800, that he received that award on behalf of the individual states, and not on behalf of all of congress?


Point #5: Even if the constitution doesn't prohibit it, the medal was still tax payer funded!
Wrong. The bill in question was only a few pages long, and would have taken less time to read then it would have taken for him to deliver his speech against it. If he didn't read it, then that's another example of Ron Paul incompetence. If he did read it, then he would have caught the following passage:

SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS. The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the gold medal.

SEC. 4. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS. The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

SEC. 5. FUNDING. (a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS.--There is authorized to be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the medals authorized by this Act. (b) PROCEEDS OF SALE.--Amounts received from the sale of duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund. 113 Stat. 50-51

In other words, the money to pay for the medal would have come from the sale of replicas, and not from tax dollars.


Point #6: Is there any evidence that a medal was ever created?
Yes, there was. In fact, you can still order a replica online from the US Mint for $38. Of course, this is another attempt to twist and squirm, since Ron Paul never opposed the bill on the basis that they would be unable to live up to section three.


Point #7: But what if they couldn't sell enough replicas to cover the cost?
Another attempt to twist and squirm, because Ron Paul never opposed the medal on the basis that he didn't think that the replicas wouldn't be popular enough to cover costs. Which is a silly argument to begin with, because why should profitability be our main criterion for whether or not we honor an American hero?


Point #8: But the first medal was still tax payer funded!
Wrong. From the US Mint Homepage:

Since Congress created the United States Mint on April 2, 1792, it has grown tremendously. The United States Mint receives more than $1 billion in annual revenues. As a self-funded agency, the United States Mint turns revenues beyond its operating expenses over to the General Fund of the Treasury.

What part of "self-funded agency" do Paultards not understand? The US Mint has been around since the time of our founding fathers, and not are they non-tax payer funded, but they also turn over a surplus that provides an additional source of revenue (which would actually save money in the long run.). They make over a billion dollars per year, from the sale of coins and medals, which is enough to cover the cost of the Rosa Parks medal 33,333 times over. Far from being a waste of money, the popularity of the Rosa Parks Medal would have likely been very profitable for the US Mint. I think they've been around long enough and made enough in sales to know what they can and can't make money from.

So no, the medal wouldn't have been tax payer funded. The initial cost would have been funded from the sale of previous products, and the revenue from the duplicates would be used to fund more congressional medals in the future. That's sort of how the US Mint works, which I was able to figure out after two minutes on google. I would hope that Ron Paul, a congressman hoping to run for President based on his knowledge of economic policy, would be aware of US Mint.


Point #9: But the sale of congressional gold medals is unprofitable!
This line comes from an article by Joelle Cannon, a congressional staffer. The article reads as follows:

As of September 11, 2006, gold’s closing price was around $590.40. According to the Treasury, each Congressional Gold Medal contains 14.5 troy ounces or 16 regular ounces of gold. Thus, the gold in a medal minted today is worth roughly $9,446.40. As stated below, the CBO estimates the cost of the bill to be $35,000. Sales of most duplicate medals are not strong enough to offset the cost of the gold medal (source: http://goldprice.org/gold-price.html).

Sound pretty damning, huh? Few problems. First off, the article isn't written in response to the Rosa Parks medals. It was written in response to a congressional medal for Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, who I'm sure that most people have never even heard of, so it's hardly surprising that his medal would have been unprofitable. And since the proposal made it past the opening introductions, it's irrelevant. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that Rosa Parks is a tad bit more well known, and would have slightly better sales. Moreover, this claim on insufficient isn't warranted or qualified in anyway:

* The source provided doesn't actually support the main claim on profitability, it only supports the claim that gold is expensive. And why is a congressional staffer citing goldprices.org anyway? Shouldn't they be citing something more official?
* In April of 1999, the cost of gold was roughly $280-$285, less than half of the 2006 figure cited in the article. So even if a Congressional Gold Medal wouldn't be profitable today, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be profitable in 1999.
* No numbers are provided to back up the claim. Examples, "In the past 50 years, duplicates only pull in an average of X dollars in profit per medal, while the medals themselves have cost Y dollars produced, using constant dollars that were adjusted for inflation."
* There is a fallacy in assuming that just because some or even most congressional medals are unpopular, they must all be unprofitable, or even unprofitable as a whole. This is a faulty assumption. Along the same lines, most movies have traditionally been unprofitable, when you factor in the costs of marketing and productions. However, the movies that did pull in a profit were so profitable that they were able to make up for the difference.

Of course, this is all just another attempt to twist and squirm. The fact is, even if most medals are unprofitable, there is no evidence to suggest that the Rosa Parks medal was unprofitable, and Ron Paul never made his argument based on this assumption anyway. The US Mint is profitable overall, completely self-funded, and the cost of the Rosa Parks medal is still insignificant in terms of their overall expenses and revenue.


Point #10: But if the US Mint is a source of revenue, then any loss in revenue would have to be made up for in tax dollars!
This is a really, really, really stupid attempt to twist and squirm, and again, not the argument that Ron Paul was making. You can't equate a potential loss of additional revenue with direct tax payer funding. This argument is such an incredible stretch that it's hard to come up with a sensible analog. The best I can come up with is a person who spends $1000 on a new computer, assuming that the productivity gains from the new computer will pay for itself in the long run, and someone else insisting that the purchase on the new computer represents an unfair waste of tax payer money, because the person who spends $1000 on a new computer will have less money to donate to the his son's high school school and the school will have to make up for the funds in elsewhere. Huh? And of course, this is only assuming that the Rosa Parks medal is a complete failure and pulls in zero dollars of revenue, which is entirely baseless.


Point #9: But Ron Paul said it was tax payer funded!
Well, it wasn't. Read the bill for yourself. Either Ron Paul is lying, or he's incompetent.


Point #10: Ron Paul volunteered to donate $100 of his own money to the medal!
Well, then he lied, because he didn't. This speaks wonders on Ron Paul's ability to live up to his own promises. He got his wish, the medal wasn't tax payer funded, and it would be paid for by private donations (through the sale of replicas.). Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Ron Paul ever followed through on this promise, not even from Ron Paul himself, even though he's had ample opprotunity to bring it up. Hell, remember that $500 that he received from Don Black a few months ago, which Ron Paul refused to return? Ron Paul could have purchased 13 bronze medals with that money. Why didn't he? He had the cash, he didn't need it, and it would have shown that he was sincere in his rejection of Neo-Nazi support and his praise of Rosa Parks. Instead, I supposed that Ron Paul figured that the money would be better spent on more important things, like turning uppity Negroes into living billboards.


Point #11: Ron Paul never promised to donate to a duplicate, he only promised to donate if other congressmen did!!
So in other words... Ron Paul was only willing to donate to charity if it was mandatory for all congressmen? And not from the kindness of his heart? That's not the libertarian rhetoric I've heard regarding private charity in the past. But I forgot -- most libertarians are raging hypocrites. They like to talk about private charity all right, but actually contributing is another matter.


Point #12: But Ron Paul also voted aginst the medals for Ronald Reagan, the Tony Blair, and Frank Sinatra!
Yeah, so? Ron Paul has called Ronald Reagan a complete failure, and he's called Tony Blaire a pinko commie. And while Frank Sinatra might be a great guy, I don't think he's quite at the level of Rosa Parks.


Point #13: The point is that Ron Paul is consistent!
No he's not. In December of 2001, Ron Paul actually attempted to introduce legislation to congressional medals to every veteran of the cold war:

Sec. 1134. Cold War medal: award

`(a) AWARD- There is hereby authorized an award of an appropriate decoration, as provided for under subsection (b), to each person who served honorably in the armed forces during the Cold War in order to recognize the contributions of those person to United States victory in the Cold War.

`(b) DESIGN- The Secretary of Defense, in designing the decoration for the purposes of this section, shall consult with appropriate organizations and entities, including veterans' organizations. The decoration shall be of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances.

`(c) CHARGE- The Secretary of Defense shall furnish the decoration under this section subject to the payment of an amount sufficient to cover the cost of production of the decoration and of the administration of this section.

`(d) PERIOD OF COLD WAR- In this section, the term `Cold War' means the period beginning on September 2, 1945, and ending on December 26, 1991.'

Estimated cost: $240,000,000. Enough to pay for the Rosa Parks Gold medal 8,000 with 8,000 different designs. And unlike the Rosa Parks medal, these medals medals actually would have been tax payer funded.


Point #14: But the cold war veterans were more deserving than Rosa Parks!
Really? The one that was won without a single shot being fired? That cold war? I'm not going to say that Rosa Parks put herself in more danger than all of them, but I am willing to say that she probably put herself in more danger than at least some of them. Mind you, it's not like soldiers serve entirely for free, and without compensation. They get money and training for the time they spend in the military, as well as plenty of other benefits. Rosa Parks? Not so much.


Point #15: Is any of this really important?
Well, it proves that Ron Paul is a liar, a hypocrite, and generally incompetent. So... yes. It also sets the backdrop for any future debate. Unfortunately, most Paultards have a habit of falling back on an Appeal to Ron Paul fallacy, where they assume that Ron Paul is honest and infallible and therefore we should always assume that whatever he says must automatically be true.


Point #16: But it's such a minor and insignificant point!
Then you should have no problem conceding it. Unfortunately, if you can't even concede on a "minor point" even when you're completely and utterly wrong, then you concede to the fact that you're completely incapable of rational/open minded debate. And if you're incapable of rational/open minded debate, then there's no point in going any further, with more abstract/general matters that would give you more room to twist and squirm and generally avoid accountability. On the other hand, if you refuse to concede because you think that you're right, then you should be willing to present an actual argument, rather than attempting to change the subject.

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

[acptulsa]

"This medal is encouragement for all of us to continue until all have rights," said Parks, 86, during her brief remarks.

It is truly unfortunate that we cannot ask her if she would have considered a Congressional commendation as encouraging and/or if she would have found a good use for the percentage a private company would have paid her for the right.

Congress pirated her image and name, Karl. They could have commended her without commercializing the event. Private enterprise wouldn't have been able to steal this from her for pander and plunder.

[karl marx]

Non argument. Endorsing Obama certainly showed beyond question that when he declined to critique Ron Paul he had no apparent immediate vested interest in making the man look good. You have evidence to the contrary? Are you willing to besmirch Nelson Linder's good name in this fishing expedition?



ill be back later i have to go work out.

because i am stud XC runner, who has MEDALS all over his room.

[MsDoodahs]

There's less than $100 worth of gold in an olympic gold medal.

Cite your source, please?



The Rosa Parks medal of honor wasn't special because "hey look, shiny medal".It was special because it meant that the entire democratically elected US congress, who were representing the entire nation, stood behind it.(With the exception of Ron Paul).

No, they don't represent the entire nation.



And there is no way that a private institution could ever match that sort of honor.

To those who do not worship the state god, any private institution honoring with a medal would be more honorable.

:)

[RonPaulFanInGA]

because i am stud XC runner, who has MEDALS all over his room.

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Why don't you go blogpimp somewhere else? No one cares about the Rosa Parks medal vote. Or the Pope medal vote, or the Mother Teresa medal vote, etc.

[acptulsa]

ill be back later i have to go work out.

because i am stud XC runner, who has MEDALS all over his room.

Have fun, Karl. By the way, I don't care if it made money for the mint or lost it. After all, they have plenty. What I care about is how much better and more efficient a job a private mint could have made of it.

Why, just look at that pretty chunk of gold Dr. Borlaug got up in Scandinavia. Much nicer than that coin.

How much nicer for Rosa Parks if she'd had a chunk of swag to spend on her old neighborhood...

Private enterprise is good, Karl. Your old buddies found out the hard way...

[Kludge]

ill be back later i have to go work out.

because i am stud XC runner, who has MEDALS all over his room.

:rolleyes:

[SnappleLlama]

Well, that was three hours of my life that I'll never get back... :)

[Flash]

communism now!

[MsDoodahs]

because i am stud XC runner, who has MEDALS all over his room.

lol...

High school kid.

Be gentle, folks.

:)

[constituent]

ill be back later i have to go work out.

because i am stud XC runner, who has MEDALS all over his room.

jesus christ, i think i might know you.

[acptulsa]

Well, that was three hours of my life that I'll never get back... :)

Well, he was outnumbered, but go ahead and name the pwner--him or us?

[SnappleLlama]

Well, he was outnumbered, but go ahead and name the pwner--him or us?

Aww, come on...I gotta go with the home team, here! ;)

He didn't have a clue.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Well, he was outnumbered, but go ahead and name the pwner--him or us?

I can only speak for myself, but 'Karl Marx' came off like a petty and incoherent babbling ass.

He keeps bringing up Paul's Rosa Parks medal vote, but never mentions that Paul also voted against giving the same medals to Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa. Paul has been very consistent in his congressional votes when it comes to giving people these medals.

[acptulsa]

:) You're not getting much of a workout in yet, Karl. Enjoying your look around?

Go to the Oklahoma forum and check out my Will Rogers thread while you're procrastinating. Guy was good.

[pacelli]

are you able to justify Ron Paul's votes on rewarding football teams,in light of the same criticisms that he outlines here.http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/dr-nay-votes-yes-to-football.html

Answer people's questions instead of continually quoting the same source. It is not a valid shortcut to having a rational process in your mind.

[MMolloy]

If giving Rosa Parks a gold medal is inherently unconstitutional, then why would Ron Paul (falsely) offer to chip in his own funds? Is Ron Paul a fan of donating to unconstitutional causes, or does he realize that his claims on constitutionality are bullshit? And don't say, 'it's unconstitutional because it uses taxpayer dollars,' because it didn't.

LOL... You can't even put together a coherent argument

His money is HIS not the Federal Governments

You have no idea what the constitution is, do you!?!

[Bryan]

are you able to justify Ron Paul's votes on rewarding football teams,in light of the same criticisms that he outlines here.http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/05/dr-nay-votes-yes-to-football.html

Again, answer the questions and then we can move on to new ground. Here they are again-- thanks!!:


Congressional medals are funded through the sales of replicas and the US mint is a self funded agency. Hence The Congressional mint is like a business,

Does this include paying for all the overhead associated with the metals, such as Congressional time, etc? If so, where is the documented proof of this? Just covering the costs of the metals is a fraction of the expense when considering the overhead of the government needed for the people to operate within to get the job done (even on a percentage bases).

What if the coins don't sell? Then what? Who loses?

What percent of time do you mind your Congressional representative spending on deciding who gets medals, drafting such legislation, voting, etc? 0.5%? 1%? 5%? Please provide a specific number, hours per year, or the like. Who should be in charge of this and what do you do if you get 500,000 applications per year? Who pays to review that?

Where in the Constitution is Congress enumerated with this authority? Cite the passage please.

What about the suppression of the free market (as pointed out) by having a government agency operate with special powers to act "like a business"? How about if the government starts to offer discounted services in your field of work? What's the difference between you and someone else in the novelty coin business?

[Danke]

Not Yours To Give

Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee

Originally published in "The Life of Colonel David Crockett,"
by Edward Sylvester Ellis.


One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called
candidates, and---‘


"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolager...I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" ’Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.
…But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.’

“ ‘No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?’

" ‘Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

" ‘It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.' "The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'

" 'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

" ‘Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

"He laughingly replied; 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

" ‘If I don't’, said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.'

" ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

" 'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.’

" 'My name is Bunce.'

" 'Not Horatio Bunce?'

" 'Yes.’

" 'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him, before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

" ‘Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.’"

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

" ‘And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

" ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the
credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'

"He came upon the stand and said:

" ‘Fellow-citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'

"He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.'

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.'

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

"There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased--a debt which could not be paid by money--and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

[karl marx]

Oh brother. :rolleyes:

Why don't you go blogpimp somewhere else? No one cares about the Rosa Parks medal vote. Or the Pope medal vote, or the Mother Teresa medal vote, etc.


Rosa Parks cared about the medal and i think it is important that people that are as important as Parks receives such respect.

[Kludge]

//

[Jeremy]

Rosa Parks cared about the medal and i think it is important that people that are as important as Parks receives such respect.

What's your point? Like I said, it was suggested by Paul that the congressman and congresswoman all chipin to pay for it. But these people are not like Paul. They are big politicians. They don't truly care about Rosa Parks or any expense to the people that they are supposed to represent. They'd rather force the people to pay for it... when actually that's illegal according to the 10th amendment.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Rosa Parks cared about the medal and i think it is important that people that are as important as Parks receives such respect.

Interesting watching you avoid answering any real questions. Are you BO?

[Cowlesy]

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

Why should i support people like Ron Paul if they do not even understand how the US mint works?

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html

Why should i support someone who wrote a racist newsletter,and then defended it when first asked about it,but than later lied about his involvement when the issue was brought again during the presidential campian?

Ron Paul supporters often shy from debate and run away from defending Ron Paul,of course i could be wrong.

The answer is you should have voted for Kyle Busch.

Wake up!

[brandon]

Rosa Parks cared about the medal and i think it is important that people that are as important as Parks receives such respect.

Then you should make sure people recieves [sic] that respect personally. It is not the job of the federal government to give tribute to people.

[karl marx]

I can only speak for myself, but 'Karl Marx' came off like a petty and incoherent babbling ass.

He keeps bringing up Paul's Rosa Parks medal vote, but never mentions that Paul also voted against giving the same medals to Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa. Paul has been very consistent in his congressional votes when it comes to giving people these medals.

No he has not

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-medals-ron-paul-and-dalai-lama.html
This NO vote Came After the following yes VOTE.

http://hortnon.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-of-pauls-hypocrisy.html
Where in the constitution is the distinction made between medals for military individuals and civilian individuals? Rember i am using Ron Paul's version of the constitution.

Point #13: The point is that Ron Paul is consistent!
No he's not. In December of 2001, Ron Paul actually attempted to introduce legislation to congressional medals to every veteran of the cold war:

Sec. 1134. Cold War medal: award

`(a) AWARD- There is hereby authorized an award of an appropriate decoration, as provided for under subsection (b), to each person who served honorably in the armed forces during the Cold War in order to recognize the contributions of those person to United States victory in the Cold War.

`(b) DESIGN- The Secretary of Defense, in designing the decoration for the purposes of this section, shall consult with appropriate organizations and entities, including veterans' organizations. The decoration shall be of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances.

`(c) CHARGE- The Secretary of Defense shall furnish the decoration under this section subject to the payment of an amount sufficient to cover the cost of production of the decoration and of the administration of this section.

`(d) PERIOD OF COLD WAR- In this section, the term `Cold War' means the period beginning on September 2, 1945, and ending on December 26, 1991.'

Estimated cost: $240,000,000. Enough to pay for the Rosa Parks Gold medal 8,000 with 8,000 different designs. And unlike the Rosa Parks medal, these medals medals actually would have been tax payer funded.

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

[Kludge]

Then you should make sure people recieves [sic] that respect personally. It is not the job of the federal government to give tribute to people.

Ask not what your gov't can tribute to you... ;)

[MsDoodahs]

Rosa Parks cared about the medal and i think it is important that people that are as important as Parks receives such respect.

So I see you've been raised a selfish child to boot.

:rolleyes:

[Cowlesy]

No he has not

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-medals-ron-paul-and-dalai-lama.html
This NO vote Came After the following yes VOTE.

http://hortnon.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-of-pauls-hypocrisy.html
Where in the constitution is the distinction made between medals for military individuals and civilian individuals? Rember i am using Ron Paul's version of the constitution.

Point #13: The point is that Ron Paul is consistent!
No he's not. In December of 2001, Ron Paul actually attempted to introduce legislation to congressional medals to every veteran of the cold war:

Sec. 1134. Cold War medal: award

`(a) AWARD- There is hereby authorized an award of an appropriate decoration, as provided for under subsection (b), to each person who served honorably in the armed forces during the Cold War in order to recognize the contributions of those person to United States victory in the Cold War.

`(b) DESIGN- The Secretary of Defense, in designing the decoration for the purposes of this section, shall consult with appropriate organizations and entities, including veterans' organizations. The decoration shall be of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances.

`(c) CHARGE- The Secretary of Defense shall furnish the decoration under this section subject to the payment of an amount sufficient to cover the cost of production of the decoration and of the administration of this section.

`(d) PERIOD OF COLD WAR- In this section, the term `Cold War' means the period beginning on September 2, 1945, and ending on December 26, 1991.'

Estimated cost: $240,000,000. Enough to pay for the Rosa Parks Gold medal 8,000 with 8,000 different designs. And unlike the Rosa Parks medal, these medals medals actually would have been tax payer funded.

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html

You totally miss the point. Please try to stay on topic.

Thx.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Get some new sources. The cheap blogspot sites wear thin.

[pacelli]

kid karl,

I will no longer read any information that you post from the source which you continually post. You've spammed that source repeatedly. Specific points have been addressed. You ignore them. Other related questions have been posed to you. You ignore them.

If you are truly interested in a debate, then stop posting the source and use your brain to debate with us. Ron Paul didn't need to use cue cards during his debate, and neither should you.

If you wish to continue your debate with us by spamming this source, you have de facto resigned from this discussion and admitted defeat in attempting to prove your ideology. One thing is that if you want to debate with Ron Paul forums, you will be held to Ron Paul debate standards.

Done yet?

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Well, I see our tiresome troll is gone. He did make one thing clear though: the source of renewed attacks on Ron Paul will probably come from that blogspot site. It looks like a garbage trawler of anti-Paul material.

[Kludge]

Well, I see our tiresome troll is gone. He did make one thing clear though: the source of renewed attacks on Ron Paul will probably come from that blogspot site. It looks like a garbage trawler of anti-Paul material.

I'll work on fixing it tonight :D

[brandon]

Well, I see our tiresome troll is gone. He did make one thing clear though: the source of renewed attacks on Ron Paul will probably come from that blogspot site. It looks like a garbage trawler of anti-Paul material.

All the articles he linked to were written last december. There is no new activity on that blogspot site. I have no clue what inspired Mr. Marx to start trolling about these old articles now.

[pacelli]

all the articles he linked to were written last december. There is no new activity on that blogspot site. I have no clue what inspired mr. Marx to start trolling about these old articles now.

centcom ;)

[Cowlesy]

I have no clue what inspired Mr. Marx to start trolling about these old articles now.

One word:
Attention. --- well, a need for it.

[pacelli]

One word:
Attention. --- well, a need for it.

Very glad he got the most unique form of attention we can deliver on these forums-- a ban ! :)


Nice job mods!! We're happy and Karl is probably set for attention until he's of legal voting age.

[Paul.Bearer.of.Injustice]

the US mint is not anymore self-funded by the Enterprise Fund than the federal government is "Self-funded" by the Treasury.

Is that guy really that obtuse? Is he a goner?

[rajibo]

So why was Karl Marx banned?

As far as I can tell, after his initial post he only posted to replies. Granted, he couldn't figure out how to use the quote function, and his arguments were weak, and he was without a doubt trying to get a reaction, but if there wasn't 15 pages of replies to his posts, he'd have been no more annoying than a gnat.

Personally, I welcome opposition to this forum. It advances the dialog and would likely cut the silly infighting. I hope people are not being banned for having alternative viewpoints. I thought that was the domain of the hannity forums.....

I could be wrong, for all I know he threatened somebody on another thread or something and deserved a ban.

[devil21]

So why was Karl Marx banned?

As far as I can tell, after his initial post he only posted to replies. Granted, he couldn't figure out how to use the quote function, and his arguments were weak, and he was without a doubt trying to get a reaction, but if there wasn't 15 pages of replies to his posts, he'd have been no more annoying than a gnat.

Personally, I welcome opposition to this forum. It advances the dialog and would likely cut the silly infighting. I hope people are not being banned for having alternative viewpoints. I thought that was the domain of the hannity forums.....

I could be wrong, for all I know he threatened somebody on another thread or something and deserved a ban.

I think we're past the stage of debating trolls on medals and newsletters. It's fun to shoot at a troll for a bit for practice but there's no need for them past that.

[driller80545]

What strikes me is that if this guy is so upset about a medal or an article many years ago that RP didn't write, what must he think of all the lies and dirty dealings of the republicans and democrats over the same time period. Damn, they have invaded countries in hitleresque fashion destroying our reputation around the world, destroyed our own economy with debt, and made lies and deceit the order of the day.
What must he think of these characters if he is so obsessed with RP and a medal refusal.