Since you won't be reading it I'll keep my responses short. You are the one proposing the elimination of the FDA so I would say the burden of providing research worthy of consideration to support that claim is on you. Research that only considers the benefits of eliminating the agency while ignoring the deterimental effects does not meet my standard of worthwhile data. If you want to discuss changes to improve the agency, I'd be happy to listen--there are certainly plenty of problems including the slow approval of needed drugs--but that's not your position. You want the agency eliminated. If you want to see what potential problems that could result from its elimination simply look at the quality of medicines and the falsity of claims concerning them that occurred before the agency was created. You apparently would like drug manufactorers to be able to make whatever claims they want about their products without oversight. And I think the longevity of people in "Asian countries" (like China?) is not due to the fact that they can purchase rhino horn as a medication.
Double standard. If the Black Panthers supported Ron Paul would there be equal uproar? I don't think anyone equates a group like the Black Panthers with the NAACP or Rainbow Coalition. Ergo, it is safe to say the Black panthers are an extremist group and can be safely separated from those groups "just struggling for equal rights. So, what's the difference in a black or Mestizo extremist group supporting a candidate in contrast to a "white rights" group that supports a candidate?
I've been looking through the Black Panther website, and I'm not finding the call to black supremacy. Help us out on that point? In the first place, while certain groups like La Raza seem to have radical agendas, I'm not familiar with their blanket assertion of ethnic supremacy. Help us out with that, please? To the other, there is, in fact, a difference between advocating for a disempowered minority and declaring the ethnic, moral, and legal supremacy of the economically and politically empowered majority.
Tiassa, hope you had a good Thanksgiving. Sorry for the late reply. I've been a little busy but I'd like to continue this conversation if you do too. I don't think it's beside the point at all. He mentioned a specific issue which I addressed by pointing out that the DoE had no role in it. The inclusion of flat earth theory or creationism in public schools, something which I'm firmly against, won't be stopped by the federal DoE but at the local level. Even after paying attention to your post, I'm still left with the same response I had earlier. The fears you have about the issue already exist in reality. The DoE is by and large irrelevant to that discussion. From the DoE wiki: "Unlike the systems of most other countries, education in the United States is highly decentralized, and the federal government and Department of Education are not heavily involved in determining curricula or educational standards (with the recent exception of the No Child Left Behind Act). This has been left to state and local school districts. The quality of educational institutions and their degrees is maintained through an informal private process known as accreditation, over which the Department of Education has no direct public jurisdictional control. Rather, the primary function of the Department of Education is to formulate federal funding programs involving education and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights." The idea behind getting rid of the DoE is to remove this involvement in school funding by the federal government. Give back the money being used to fund it and the money it redistributes to the states and let them handle education as they think is necessary. If my understanding of the DoE and reasoning are wrong, I'll be happy to fix them provided some nice post-Turkey reading from you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's not just a matter of agencies being corrupt or inefficient, although they certainly don't help matters. It's also about the government taking a role that the Constitution doesn't give the authority for.
As Tiassa points out, ********** is in a unique category when compared to groups like the NAACP or Rainbow coalition or the Black Panthers. They're white supremacists to the core. That's not something that can or should be denied. What should be done, in my opinion, is pointing out WHY they support Paul, because it isn't for a racial reason. As I mentioned in another post, some posters at ********** are actually against Paul because of his staunch anti-racism. The question now is should Paul reject their support? Should he return the money? Clinton after all did return campaign contributions she received from a felon. Honestly, I don't have an answer. The money represents a support of the things Paul is running on but it comes from a source that's pretty disgusting. But is the fact that they're willing to vote for Paul in spite of, rather than because of, what they believe a factor that should be considered as well? Like I said, I don't really have an answer. :shrug:
I think you are confused, NAACP wants equality for Blacks, La Raza Party wants more equality for Mexicans, they never mention less equality for whites is their agenda, whilst S*F & most white supremacy groups are against non-whites, read their lit, hear their music & if whites are so- supreme, why do they need to be against non-whites, they should go about their business, leave others alone, let their so-called superiority rise to the surface just 1 question though, do most white supremacists feel inferior for having failed in a rigged system? just asking, cause all that hate has to come from somewhere or something, no?
Ron Paul ... coward? Author Steven Brust raised an interesting point yesterday: Paul supporters like to pretend he's some sort of refreshing change compared to what we're used to, but such statements, despite Andrew Sullivan's praise, only reiterate that Paul is merely another politician, subject to the same slings and arrows we cast at just about any politician. For more than a decade, Paul may have taken responsibility for not paying attention to what he allowed his name to be put on, but before that, as we are already aware, he chose to stand by the controversial remarks. After his strong showing in Iowa and a fifth-place (8%) finish in New Hampshire, Paul and his supporters should expect that the issue is revisited, and as the Houston Chronicle's Julie Mason reminds, the Texas Congressman's response has been less than stellar: In fact, it would seem that Mason isn't buying his line about moral responsibility, either: Political capital drawn from three decades that Paul chose to stand by, and then attempt to divorce himself from? The good doctor needs to realize that he's running for president, and claiming "moral responsibility" for allowing people to gather support for his cause with racist fear- and hatemongering does not mean ducking the issue by claiming it's some sort of unfair "conspiracy".
I believe that the ogranization that you mean to reference is MEChA. The National Council of La Raza is kinda racist, but nothing compared to MEChA. LaRaza can also refer to the Mexica movement that is responsable for the ethnic cleansing in LA County in California where these mexicans have been seeking out all the blacks they can to murder.
Ron Paul falls perfectly in line with the Republican platform. He supports the destruction of the Dept of Education and the reduction of the federal government, as well as the expansion of individual liberties. At least those are the Republicans that I remember when I was younger.
sandy, why is it that you care what someone looks like? after all your voting for them to RULE you not sleep with you its there policy that matter not there looks
Many Americans are very visually-oriented. I doubt we will elect an unattractive POTUS. Clinton may have won because of all the women who thought he was hot. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Huh? Sandy, you totally oversimplify things. To be certain, there is a segment that elects people because of superficial reasons (like, non-Anglo names you don't like, for example). That said, however, most Americans who vote, at the very least, vote because of some ideology. "Labor vs. Big Business" "Unions vs. Management" "Liberalism vs. Conservatism" "Left vs. Right" They may not think much more about the person or the ideas, but most people who vote, know that they either like the "guy who's pro life or the guy who's pro choice". ~String
