Michigan Republican Primary: VOTE FOR RON PAUL ! ! !

**rb336** · February-24-12, 05:50 PM

Paulites crack me up

**oladub** · February-25-12, 01:37 PM

**rb336** · February-25-12, 01:46 PM

well, it's wrong on Obama & SOPA/PIPA, so therefore it is suspect

http://tinyurl.com/7uemcvg

**oladub** · February-25-12, 02:47 PM

Ah, thats's good news to see that Obama reversed course when the internet community rose up against him. It's too bad, however, that he also quietly signed A.C.T.A. in 2011 without the support of Congress to accomplish much the same thing. You will like it because it is a treaty he signed to bypass Congress; like your rationale for bombing Libya.

If You Thought SOPA Was Bad, Just Wait Until You Meet ACTA

**rb336** · February-25-12, 05:33 PM

here is the actual treaty. tell me to what you object:

http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy...cta1105_en.pdf

ARTICLE 6: GENERAL OBLIGATIONS WITH RESPECT TO ENFORCEMENT
1. Each Party shall ensure that enforcement procedures are available under its law
so as to permit effective action against any act of infringement of intellectual property
rights covered by this Agreement, including expeditious remedies to prevent
infringements and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements. These
procedures shall be applied in such a manner as to avoid the creation of barriers to
legitimate trade and to provide for safeguards against their abuse.
2. Procedures adopted, maintained, or applied to implement the provisions of this
Chapter shall be fair and equitable, and shall provide for the rights of all participants
subject to such procedures to be appropriately protected. These procedures shall not be
unnecessarily complicated or costly, or entail unreasonable time-limits or unwarranted
delays.
3. In implementing the provisions of this Chapter, each Party shall take into
account the need for proportionality between the seriousness of the infringement, the
interests of third parties, and the applicable measures, remedies and penalties.
4. No provision of this Chapter shall be construed to require a Party to make its
officials subject to liability for acts undertaken in the performance of their official duties.
Section 2: Civil Enforcement
2
ARTICLE 7: AVAILABILITY OF CIVIL PROCEDURES
1. Each Party shall make available to right holders civil judicial procedures
concerning the enforcement of any intellectual property right as specified in this Section.
2. To the extent that any civil remedy can be ordered as a result of administrative
procedures on the merits of a case, each Party shall provide that such procedures shall
conform to principles equivalent in substance to those set forth in this Section.
ARTICLE 8: INJUNCTIONS
1. Each Party shall provide that, in civil judicial proceedings concerning the
enforcement of intellectual property rights, its judicial authorities have the authority to
issue an order against a party to desist from an infringement, and inter alia, an order to
that party or, where appropriate, to a third party over whom the relevant judicial
authority exercises jurisdiction, to prevent goods that involve the infringement of an
intellectual property right from entering into the channels of commerce.
2. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Section, a Party may limit the
remedies available against use by governments, or by third parties authorized by a
government, without the authorization of the right holder, to the payment of
remuneration, provided that the Party complies with the provisions of Part II of the
TRIPS Agreement specifically addressing such use. In other cases, the remedies under
this Section shall apply or, where these remedies are inconsistent with a Party’s law,
declaratory judgments and adequate compensation shall be available.

or maybe here:

ARTICLE 27: ENFORCEMENT IN THE DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT

1. Each Party shall ensure that enforcement procedures, to the extent set forth in
Sections 2 [[Civil Enforcement) and 4 [[Criminal Enforcement), are available under its
law so as to permit effective action against an act of infringement of intellectual
property rights which takes place in the digital environment, including expeditious
remedies to prevent infringement and remedies which constitute a deterrent to further
infringements.
2. Further to paragraph 1, each Party’s enforcement procedures shall apply to
infringement of copyright or related rights over digital networks, which may include the
unlawful use of means of widespread distribution for infringing purposes. These
procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers to
legitimate activity, including electronic commerce, and, consistent with that Party’s law,
preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and
privacy.
13
3. Each Party shall endeavour to promote cooperative efforts within the business
community to effectively address trademark and copyright or related rights infringement
while preserving legitimate competition and, consistent with that Party’s law,
preserving fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and
privacy.
4. A Party may provide, in accordance with its laws and regulations, its competent
authorities with the authority to order an online service provider to disclose
expeditiously to a right holder information sufficient to identify a subscriber whose
account was allegedly used for infringement, where that right holder has filed a legally
sufficient claim of trademark or copyright or related rights infringement, and where
such information is being sought for the purpose of protecting or enforcing those rights.
These procedures shall be implemented in a manner that avoids the creation of barriers
to legitimate activity, including electronic commerce, and, consistent with that Party’s
law, preserves fundamental principles such as freedom of expression, fair process, and
privacy.
5. Each Party shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies
against the circumvention of effective technological measures
6. In order to provide the adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies
referred to in paragraph 5, each Party shall provide protection at least against:
[[a) to the extent provided by its law:
[[i) the unauthorized circumvention of an effective technological
measure carried out knowingly or with reasonable grounds to
know; and
[[ii) the offering to the public by marketing of a device or product,
including computer programs, or a service, as a means of
circumventing an effective technological measure; and
[[b) the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a device or product,
including computer programs, or provision of a service that:
[[i) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing an effective technological measure; or
[[ii) has only a limited commercially significant purpose other than
circumventing an effective technological measure.
15
7. To protect electronic rights management information,

14
that are used by authors,
performers or producers of phonograms in connection with the exercise of their rights in,

13
For instance, without prejudice to a Party’s law, adopting or maintaining a regime providing for
limitations on the liability of, or on the remedies available against, online service providers while
preserving the legitimate interests of right holder.
14
For the purposes of this Article, technological measures means any technology, device, or component
that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works,
performances, or phonograms, which are not authorized by authors, performers or producers of
phonograms, as provided for by a Party’s law. Without prejudice to the scope of copyright or related
rights contained in a Party’s law, technological measures shall be deemed effective where the use of
protected works, performances, or phonograms is controlled by authors, performers or producers of
phonograms through the application of a relevant access control or protection process, such as encryption
or scrambling, or a copy control mechanism, which achieves the objective of protection. E-16
and that restrict acts in respect of, their works, performances, and phonograms, which
are not authorized by the authors, the performers or the producers of phonograms
concerned or permitted by law.

16
each Party shall provide
adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against any person knowingly
performing without authority any of the following acts knowing, or with respect to civil
remedies, having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or
conceal an infringement of any copyright or related rights:
[[a) to remove or alter any electronic rights management information;
[[b) to distribute, import for distribution, broadcast, communicate, or make
available to the public copies of works, performances, or phonograms,
knowing that electronic rights management information has been
removed or altered without authority.
8. In providing adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies pursuant to
the provisions of paragraphs 5 and 7, a Party may adopt or maintain appropriate
limitations or exceptions to measures implementing the provisions of paragraphs 5, 6,
and 7. The obligations set forth in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 are without prejudice to the
rights, limitations, exceptions, or defences to copyright or related rights infringement
under a Party’s law

something screwed up in my cut-n-paste. please feel free to go to the original to find what you object to.

**rb336** · February-25-12, 05:43 PM

Oh, and btw, just because Obama signed the treaty, it doesn't mean that it is law, it cannot be until it is ratified, so stop acting as if it is some horrible transgression on his part. That is how ALL treaties work. Doing so shows your ignorance.

**oladub** · February-25-12, 10:02 PM

Glancing through the document Obama signed without the consent of Congress and to your apparent delight, I think it just might enable corporatist entities to shut down the internet as we know it or at least turn it several shades grayer as SOPA/PIPA were accused of . There seems to be a lot of vague talk about intellectual property and copyrights and punishing for damages in the ACTA document. Maybe you are more comfortable with that but I am imagining what that would do to Google images, YouTube, and websites like this where copyrighted articles are often mentioned or excerpted. I can't prove that but it is what other people are suggesting as in the Forbes article.

Wikipedia has an article on ACTA. Exerpts-

Opponents say the convention adversely effects fundamental rights including freedom of expression and privacy. The secret nature of negotiations has excluded civil society groups, developing countries and the general public from the agreement's negotiation process and it has been described as policy laundering by critics including the Electronic Frontier Foundation [[EFF). The signature of the EU and many of its member states resulted in the resignation in protest of the European Parliament's appointed chief investigator, rapporteur Kader Arif, as well as widespread protests across Europe.

Newspapers reported that the draft agreement would empower security officials at airports and other international borders to conduct random ex officio searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travellers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed.

Opponents have criticized the act for its adverse effects on fundamental civil and digital rights, including freedom of expression and communication privacy.

One more reason to vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming Michigan primary if you don't like this thing Obama signed.

**rb336** · February-25-12, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Glancing through the document Obama signed without the consent of Congress and to your apparent delight

I do not delight in exposing your ignorance to the way both the constitution and international treaties work - this one especially, seeing as it explicitly includes ratification - yet you provide so many opportunities.

I think it just might enable corporatist entities to shut down the internet as we know it or at least turn it several shades grayer as SOPA/PIPA were accused of . There seems to be a lot of vague talk about intellectual property and copyrights and punishing for damages in the ACTA document.

Really? nothing vague about it. SHOW me the section that you think is vague and show me where it will allow "the corporate elites" to shut down the internet.

Maybe you are more comfortable with that but I am imagining what that would do to Google images, YouTube, and websites like this where copyrighted articles are often mentioned or excerpted. I can't prove that but it is what other people are suggesting as in the Forbes article.

Forbes is about as accurate as the weekly world, especially their analysts. Here's a question for you - do you think anyone should have the right to use YOUR intellectual property without your permission or at least without them paying for it? Do you not want YOUR property protected?

Wikipedia has an article on ACTA.

I give you the actual treaty, and all you can come up with is totally unverified Wikipedia crap?

One more reason to vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming Michigan primary if you don't like this thing Obama signed.

paulites make me laugh. most wouldn't know the difference between fact and opinion is it smacked them in the face with a rotten herring

**oladub** · February-26-12, 12:56 PM

Rb, to summarize your response: You like it when Obama legislates via treaties when he can't get his way in Congress, you don't think that corporate elites are behind A.C.T.A., A.C.T.A. is somehow more benevolent then the SOPA/PIPA legislation Obama was forced to scurry away from, you suggest that just because this treaty doesn't specify what Wikipedia and Forbes sources warn us about that they won't happen - or is it that you don't care if they happen? On the subject of Libya, however, you endorsed Obama's bombing of Libya based on a UN resolution which was also vague and did not spell out bombing. Also, you believe that Forbes is not accurate and Wikipedia is "crap". If you wish, I will find the same take on A.C.T.A. on non-political techie web sites but then you could do the same. Maybe you should post your list of acceptable sources e.g, DU, Daily Kos, the Daily Worker , etc.. And of course, Ron Paul is nuts because he doesn't support your wars and emerging police state.

A summary of my response: I disagree with you on all points for reasons already given. I liked the Wikipedia take on A.C.T.A so well though that I will add some more. Perhaps you could explain why you opinion is more valid than those expressed below because I can't. You support the oddest things being an apologist for Obama.

Threats to freedom and fundamental human rights

An open letter signed by many organizations, including Consumers International, EDRi [[27 European civil rights and privacy NGOs), the Free Software Foundation[[FSF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation [[EFF), ASIC [[French trade association for web 2.0 companies), and the Free Knowledge Institute, states that "the current draft of ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy."^[89] The Free Software Foundation argues that ACTA will create a culture of surveillance and suspicion.^[90] Aaron Shaw, Research Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, argues that "ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties. Even though the precise terms of ACTA remain undecided, the negotiants' preliminary documents reveal many troubling aspects of the proposed agreement" such as removing "legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers" in effect giving ISPs no option but to comply with privacy invasions. Shaw further says that "[ACTA] would also facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process".^[91]
The Free Software Foundation [[FSF) has published "Speak out against ACTA", stating that the ACTA threatens free software by creating a culture "in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting."^[90] ACTA would also require that existing ISPs no longer host free software that can access copyrighted media; this would substantially affect many sites that offer free software or host software projects such as SourceForge. Specifically, the FSF argues that ACTA will make it more difficult and expensive to distribute free software via file sharing and P2Ptechnologies like BitTorrent, which are currently used to distribute large amounts of free software. The FSF also argues that ACTA will make it harder for users of free operating systems to play non-free media because DRM protected media would not be legally playable with free software.^[90]
On 10 March 2010, the European Parliament adopted a resolution^[92] criticizing the ACTA with 663 in favor of the resolution and 13 against, arguing that "in order to respect fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy" certain changes in the ACTA content and the process should be made.^[92]
Criminalizing generic medicine

According to French EP member Kader Arif, "The problem with ACTA is that, by focusing on the fight against violation of intellectual property rights in general, it treats a generic drug just as a counterfeited drug. This means the patent holder can stop the shipping of the drugs to a developing country, seize the cargo and even order the destruction of the drugs as a preventive measure." He continued, "Generic medicines are not counterfeited medicines; they are not the fake version of a drug; they are a generic version of a drug, produced either because the patent on the original drug has expired, or because a country has to put in place public health policies," he said.
A number of countries such as India and African nations have histories of seeking generic cheaper versions of expensive drugs for infections such as HIV, something that has often been historically resisted by pharmaceutical companies. "There are international agreements, such as the TRIPS Agreement, which foresees this last possibility," he said. "They're particularly important for developing countries which cannot afford to pay for patented HIV drugs, for example. Arif has stated ACTA would limit the freedom of countries such as India to determine their own medical choices

Parallels with SOPA and PIPA

Main articles: SOPA, Protect IP Act, and Protests against SOPA and PIPA
Connor Adams Sheets of the International Business Times outlined five categories where digital rights advocates compared but expressed greater concern about ACTA than SOPA. Among these were the treaty's broader international nature, its fundamental lack of transparency, the relative ease of enactment, the degree of support by signatories, and a lack of visibility on the global political stage.^[96] Forbes writer E.D. Kain compared the characteristics of ACTA with that of SOPA and PIPA, noting that they were each "defined by [their] opacity: secret negotiations, closed door talks, no public discussion."
Opponents have criticized the act for its adverse effects on fundamental civil and digital rights, including freedom of expression and communication privacy.

**rb336** · February-26-12, 04:39 PM

I'm done with you, ola.
1) Obama wasn't "legislating via treaties." If you don't remember civics 101, treaties don't become law until RATIFIED

2) I ask you for specifics -- and to come up with YOUR OWN response and what do you do? cut-n-paste from a source that is factually dubious at its best

**oladub** · February-27-12, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

I'm done with you, ola.
1) Obama wasn't "legislating via treaties." If you don't remember civics 101, treaties don't become law until RATIFIED

2) I ask you for specifics -- and to come up with YOUR OWN response and what do you do? cut-n-paste from a source that is factually dubious at its best

Did you even read what was in the wikipedia reviews of ACTA? such things as "the current draft of ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy." and "ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties. Treaties also have to be consistent with the Constitution not that you are big on civil liberties.

Wikipedia cites it's sources. Why don't you send in your opinions to wikipedia? Maybe they will be printed if considered worthwhile. Meanwhile, I find the wikipedia information and sources regarding ACTA more persuasive than your opinions.

**rb336** · February-27-12, 12:40 PM

I didn't post opinions, I posted THE ACTUAL TREATY and asked you to point out to which sections you have objections. you took the lazy man's route. i've seen the citations on wikipedia. The veracity of many of them [[note - I did NOT say "all" or even "most") is questionable and many of them are opinion pieces - or stories about protests. I've read several of the original sources and none of the ones I've read provide anything like the clear reasons provided in the anti-PIPA protests.

What I want to know is YOUR specific objections, NOT what you've read. I also want to know what you would propose to protect intellectual property rights, or do you believe that the internet renders them null and void? Do you think someone can steal YOUR work, post it anonymously, and that you would not have the right to find out who it was that stole from you?

I would note that many of the countries that have backed out of ACTA are countries that are the sources of many counterfeit good - Mexico, Bulgaria, Slovenia, etc

**oladub** · February-27-12, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

I didn't post opinions, I posted THE ACTUAL TREATY and asked you to point out to which sections you have objections. you took the lazy man's route. i've seen the citations on wikipedia. The veracity of many of them [[note - I did NOT say "all" or even "most") is questionable and many of them are opinion pieces - or stories about protests. I've read several of the original sources and none of the ones I've read provide anything like the clear reasons provided in the anti-PIPA protests.

What I want to know is YOUR specific objections, NOT what you've read. I also want to know what you would propose to protect intellectual property rights, or do you believe that the internet renders them null and void? Do you think someone can steal YOUR work, post it anonymously, and that you would not have the right to find out who it was that stole from you?

I would note that many of the countries that have backed out of ACTA are countries that are the sources of many counterfeit good - Mexico, Bulgaria, Slovenia, etc

I did respond in my post number 107 part of which I will repost for you here to save you the inconvenience of looking up what I previously wrote and you ignored. "Glancing through the document Obama signed without the consent of Congress and to your apparent delight, I think it just might enable corporatist entities to shut down the internet as we know it or at least turn it several shades grayer as SOPA/PIPA were accused of . There seems to be a lot of vague talk about intellectual property and copyrights and punishing for damages in the ACTA document. Maybe you are more comfortable with that but I am imagining what that would do to Google images, YouTube, and websites like this where copyrighted articles are often mentioned or excerpted. " In addition. I provided links to some people pretty well placed and concerned with liberty who had similar takes. I don't like things which are too vaguely written and allow mischief between the lines such as bombing libya because of a broadly worded UN document. That is what happens.

My concerns about copyright overreach possibilities have already been expressed. If a part of a copyrighted movie are improperly posted on YouTube, YouTube takes it down when notified and the copyright holder already has the right to sue or the US can take reprisal action against countries like China. The solutions already exist. I am apparently not as enamored by international corporatism and police state solutions to control the media as you are but then i am for Ron Paul and you are an Obama apologist; drone attacks, ACTA, bank bailouts, hope, believe, change whatever...

**rb336** · February-27-12, 04:31 PM

you replied not with your own take, or even any evidence that you read the treaty, but with a cut-n-paste based on the dubious info on Wikipedia.

Please state how a treaty to enforce existing law is corporate state? go to the treaty and tell me what section it is and why/how it infringes on individual liberties that AREN'T THEFT [[or do you consider extradition treaties violations as well?). don't merely regurgitate whatever your hero or his minions forward to you

**rb336** · February-27-12, 04:51 PM

Paul is the living embodiment of Emerson's "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Consistency in believing something for which there is no evidence, in ignoring or attempting to reason away the contradictions in his philosophy, consistency in denying historic fact, consistency in redefining words or phrases to fit his philosophy, consistency in putting forth a philosophy that ignores human nature

**HistoryNotHisStory** · February-27-12, 07:25 PM

TOMORROW!

Vote for Ron Paul!!!

**oladub** · February-27-12, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

you replied not with your own take, or even any evidence that you read the treaty, but with a cut-n-paste based on the dubious info on Wikipedia.

Please state how a treaty to enforce existing law is corporate state? go to the treaty and tell me what section it is and why/how it infringes on individual liberties that AREN'T THEFT [[or do you consider extradition treaties violations as well?). don't merely regurgitate whatever your hero or his minions forward to you

I already answered that twice. please review posts # 107 and 111.

Rb: Paul is the living embodiment of Emerson's "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Consistency in believing something for which there is no evidence, in ignoring or attempting to reason away the contradictions in his philosophy, consistency in denying historic fact, consistency in redefining words or phrases to fit his philosophy, consistency in putting forth a philosophy that ignores human nature

I don't think that Paul can attract enough corporate money to even win the Republican nomination but if the election were held today, the Rasmussen poll claims Paul would beat Obama. Maybe people are getting sick of wars, the encroaching police state, and banker bailouts.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul leads the president
Paul 43 - Obama 41
Romney 45 - Obama 43
Obama 45 - Santorum 43
Obama 49 - Gingrich 39

"Let it not be said that we did nothing." -Ron Paul

**vetalalumni** · February-27-12, 09:33 PM

Ron Paul Town Hall at Little Rock Baptist Church in Detroit, Michigan. February 27, 2012.

Ron Paul Town Hall Detroit, MI 2/27/2012 [[1 of 4)

Ron Paul Town Hall Detroit, MI 2/27/2012 [[2 of 4)

Ron Paul Town Hall Detroit, MI 2/27/2012 [[3 of 4)

Ron Paul Town Hall Detroit, MI 2/27/2012 [[4 of 4)

**rb336** · February-27-12, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

I already answered that twice. please review posts # 107 and 111.

no, you didn't. been there, re-read them. not an original thought in either

Rasmussen is a self-selecting poll - not random. I used to take part, but they are boring.

**Patrick** · February-28-12, 04:34 PM

Paul wants an end to excessive foreign aid to all countries, saying that "Israel can take care of itself...they have nuclear weapons

Holy smokes, that takes a lot of courage to say. I am waiting for the Evangelicals and AIPAC Israel-firsters to jump all over him for that...

**rb336** · February-28-12, 04:51 PM

I generally agree in principal with much of what Paul says on foreign policy, but much of it is far to ignorant of the potential consequences. In fact, most of what I disagree with is based on the lack of acknowledgement of the consequences of his policies if implemented in the real world

**oladub** · February-28-12, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Patrick

Paul wants an end to excessive foreign aid to all countries, saying that "Israel can take care of itself...they have nuclear weapons

Holy smokes, that takes a lot of courage to say. I am waiting for the Evangelicals and AIPAC Israel-firsters to jump all over him for that...

Ron Paul claimed that we give twice as much to Israel's enemies as we give to Israel Politifact says that is essentially true. We give much more to just Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, the Palestinian territories, and Jordan. Those countries received $17.7 billion compared with $2.4B given to Israel in 2009. It is puzzling why the Evangelicals and AIPAC Israel-firsters hate Ron Paul so much for proposing to end all that spending which overwhelmingly benefits Israel's enemies.
Ron Paul says "the Arab and the Muslim nations" get twice as much foreign aid as Israel -Politifact
Another clear choice for anyone who hasn't voted in Michigan's primary today.

**Danny** · February-28-12, 06:49 PM

Ron Paul will not win Michigan. He has to pass Romney and Santorum to win that state. He will drop out by this summer. And maybe either Mitt and Rick might choose him as their running mate for vice president.

**rb336** · February-28-12, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Ron Paul claimed that we give twice as much to Israel's enemies as we give to Israel Politifact says that is essentially true. We give much more to just Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan, the Palestinian territories, and Jordan. Those countries received $17.7 billion compared with $2.4B given to Israel in 2009. It is puzzling why the Evangelicals and AIPAC Israel-firsters hate Ron Paul so much for proposing to end all that spending which overwhelmingly benefits Israel's enemies.
Ron Paul says "the Arab and the Muslim nations" get twice as much foreign aid as Israel -Politifact
Another clear choice for anyone who hasn't voted in Michigan's primary today.

considering that "foreign aid" to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq includes paying for our military operations, that is more than a little disingenuous. He should have left it alone at something like "Egypt and Israel receive one-third of all foreign aid." The statement pointing out that they are Islamic countries is a disgusting attempt at pandering to anti-Muslim sentiments

**oladub** · February-29-12, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by rb336

considering that "foreign aid" to Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq includes paying for our military operations, that is more than a little disingenuous. He should have left it alone at something like "Egypt and Israel receive one-third of all foreign aid." The statement pointing out that they are Islamic countries is a disgusting attempt at pandering to anti-Muslim sentiments

Ron Paul only said that we give twice as much to Israel's enemies as we give to Israel. Politifact says that is essentially true and elaborated to point out that seven nearby Muslim countries received 7x as much US aid as Israel and further broke that down into categories. I thought they did a good job. Ron Paul doesn't want to give foreign aid away to anyone including Israel and Muslim countries. He doesn't even want to be spending it in military operations over there. Every bit of that money is elective spending that Ron Paul would put an end to in the unlikely event that he became President. Maybe Ron Paul is pandering to the anti-war, anti-interventionist, and taxpayer crowds.