[MP-Ryan]

So why call it a "Mexican customs facility" if it isn't involved with Mexico? I have yet to see an American customs facility not staffed by americans and not considered to be american soil.

You don't get it.

It's called pre-clearance.  That Customs office would process people entering Mexico; it would be staffed by Mexican Customs and it would be Mexican territory; just like the various airport pre-clearance areas in both the US and Canada are already.

In my city, there is an American customs office, staffed by Americans, which is considered American soil.  I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

That would be a Mexican customs facility doing pre-clearance into Mexico.  Chances are there'd be a US customs facility eithe right next to it, or across the border in Mexico doing pre-clearance for US entry.

[Nuclear1]

Have other countries taken it upon themselves to condemn secret prisons, extraordinary rendition of the use of torture? Have national parliaments issued stern declarations that those responsible for the destruction of Iraq will be heldaccountable? Have the infinitely wise and just governments of Europe wagged their finger disapprovingly at the monumental erosion of privacy in the UK?

No. Because it's none of their business.

Apples and oranges.

No it's not.

Yes it is, because those are not developing countries which arrest opposition leaders and violently crack down on peaceful protests, and of course that's also "THOSE GUYS DO IT TOO" -argument which does not in any way invalidate the original argument, even if the two were directly comparable.

No it isn't.

The EU condemning the US for what's happening in Iraq is the same thing as the EU condemning a revolutionary movement that silences other voices in its political process.  The UN blasting the UK for viciously invading privacy is the same as the UN blasting the Sudanese government for genocide.

It's the same concept.  Different names and different people are focused on, yes, but its still the same concept.

[Janos]

No it isn't.

The EU condemning the US for what's happening in Iraq is the same thing as the EU condemning a revolutionary movement that silences other voices in its political process.  The UN blasting the UK for viciously invading privacy is the same as the UN blasting the Sudanese government for genocide.

It's the same concept.  Different names and different people are focused on, yes, but its still the same concept.

But the situations are not the same. Is all international critique equally valid or invalid?

[Nuclear1]

No it isn't.

The EU condemning the US for what's happening in Iraq is the same thing as the EU condemning a revolutionary movement that silences other voices in its political process.  The UN blasting the UK for viciously invading privacy is the same as the UN blasting the Sudanese government for genocide.

It's the same concept.  Different names and different people are focused on, yes, but its still the same concept.

But the situations are not the same. Is all international critique equally valid or invalid?

Given the situations I listed, yes.  Some critique may not be necessary or valid, as in who a people elect as leader or minor nitpicky issues; condemning an administration for gassing its own people, causing a civil war, or blatantly violating human rights, on the other hand, is very valid.

[Janos]

No it isn't.

The EU condemning the US for what's happening in Iraq is the same thing as the EU condemning a revolutionary movement that silences other voices in its political process.  The UN blasting the UK for viciously invading privacy is the same as the UN blasting the Sudanese government for genocide.

It's the same concept.  Different names and different people are focused on, yes, but its still the same concept.

But the situations are not the same. Is all international critique equally valid or invalid?

Given the situations I listed, yes.  Some critique may not be necessary or valid, as in who a people elect as leader or minor nitpicky issues; condemning an administration for gassing its own people, causing a civil war, or blatantly violating human rights, on the other hand, is very valid.

So, where does arresting opposition leaders, keeping them in custody for... 17 years, by now, and also violently cracking down on peaceful protest fall?

[Nuclear1]

The valid and necessary international condemnation.

So why are we arguing this point?  We seem to agree on it anyway.

[Rictor]

See, I'm against the notion that any government which isn't a prosperous, peaceful, liberal democracy is the devil incarnate. In other words: if you ain't Sweden, you're evil.

Europe's love affair with human rights has lasted for all of about fifty years. Maybe a hundred, if you're generous. For the other two thousand, they were busy butchering each other and executing dissidents left, right and center. And now suddenly, because they decree it to be so, anyone who wants to run their country differently should be sanctioned and/or bombed into compliance. It's all a bit hypocritical, y'know? If modern standards were applied, every European statesman of the past millennium would be brought up on charges that would make Milosevic seem like a choir boy.

And then there's the little matter of diplomatic condemnation being so damn selective. I don't hear too many tough words about Saudi Arabia coming from Brussels or Washington. Maybe it's all that oil money the princes keep giving away, eh? Or Egypt, Jordan, Georgia, Haiti, Pakistan (until recently), Iraq (death squads, what? torture, what?) or the aforementioned US and UK. If you (meaning the government) are going to be a self-righteous prick, it might help to apply that standard equally.

[Janos]

The valid and necessary international condemnation.

So why are we arguing this point?  We seem to agree on it anyway.

I don't know.

It most likely started with the entire "Ron Paul voted 'no' on condemning Myanmar's leaders" thing, which I found somewhat weird.

[Janos]

See, I'm against the notion that any government which isn't a prosperous, peaceful, liberal democracy is the devil incarnate. In other words: if you ain't Sweden, you're evil.

Europe's love affair with human rights has lasted for all of about fifty years. Maybe a hundred, if you're generous. For the other two thousand, they were busy butchering each other and executing dissidents left, right and center. And now suddenly, because they decree it to be so, anyone who wants to run their country differently should be sanctioned and/or bombed into compliance. It's all a bit hypocritical, y'know? If modern standards were applied, every European statesman of the past millennium would be brought up on charges that would make Milosevic seem like a choir boy.

And then there's the little matter of diplomatic condemnation being so damn selective. I don't hear too many tough words about Saudi Arabia coming from Brussels or Washington. Maybe it's all that oil money the princes keep giving away, eh? Or Egypt, Jordan, Georgia, Haiti, Pakistan (until recently), Iraq (death squads, what? torture, what?) or the aforementioned US and UK. If you (meaning the government) are going to be a self-righteous prick, it might help to apply that standard equally.

That's still a bad equivalency argument and does not make any critique invalid. Mugabe condemning UAE's insane policies might look insane, and it is, but his argument would still be equally valid. You are not attacking the argument. You are attacking the potential arguers. Actually, you are knocking down huge a strawman, since nowhere in this thread have I talked about European leaders.

[Rictor]

Woohoo!

$5.7m in a single day!
Overall Q4 contributions are over $18m.


How d'ya like dem apples!? "Not a top-tier candidate" my ass. Things are starting to look very, very promising.

[Goober5000]

Yay!

Now, the question remains, did he break John Kerry's 2004 record.  By the looks of things, he did.

EDIT: Awesome.  Over $6 million.  Beat it by $300k.

EDIT2: There's a new campaign slogan for you.  Ron Paul, the six million dollar man.

[Rictor]

But remember that was when Kerry had already won the primary. He had the entire Democratic Party behind him.

In this case, not only is it merely a primary campaign but people are emptying out their wallets and literally asking family members to donate whatever money they would have gotten for Christmas presents. It's quite amazing. And the fascinating thing is that Paul's official campaign had nothing at all to do with the fundraising drive. He accomplished more by doing nothing than any other candidate has with the aid of savvy pollsters and media people and PR firms.

edit: any idea of how much the other candidates raised in Q4 so far? Do they even publish the data? I remember RP's Q3 take of $5.2m put him 3rd or 4th, but this time he may actually come out on top.

[Janos]

But remember that was when Kerry had already won the primary. He had the entire Democratic Party behind him.

In this case, not only is it merely a primary campaign but people are emptying out their wallets and literally asking family members to donate whatever money they would have gotten for Christmas presents. It's quite amazing. And the fascinating thing is that Paul's official campaign had nothing at all to do with the fundraising drive. He accomplished more by doing nothing than any other candidate has with the aid of savvy pollsters and media people and PR firms.

They aimed for 10m and got ~6m. That's a pretty good fundraising rush though! Although, sadly for Paul... http://www.pollster.com/AUSTopReps.php

edit: any idea of how much the other candidates raised in Q4 so far? Do they even publish the data? I remember RP's Q3 take of $5.2m put him 3rd or 4th, but this time he may actually come out on top.

Official numbers for Q4 come out in January, but here are confirmed numbers so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_presidential_election

[Rictor]

They aimed for 10m and got ~6m. That's a pretty good fundraising rush though! Although, sadly for Paul... http://www.pollster.com/AUSTopReps.php

They aimed for $12m and got $18m. So far. It'll probably hit $20m. Thanks for the donations info, though.

Also; F**k you Frank!.

[Janos]

They aimed for $12m and got $18m. So far. It'll probably hit $20m. Thanks for the donations info, though.

Also; F**k you Frank!.

Are we talking about the Tea Party thing from just a couple of days ago? That's the one that netted 6m, 4m short of intended amount but still pretty impressive.

As for the Q4, I'm struggling to find good info about current estimations of funds raised.

[Rictor]

For other candidates' Q4 donations, I have no idea. For Ron Paul, you can check a live donation ticker on his website. Right now it's saying $18,270,000 and the goal for Q4 was $12,000,000. That's what I meant.

Traditionally, candidates see a drop-off in Q4 donations, but assuming that Q3 numbers are repeated across the board RP is coming out on top.

[Janos]

For other candidates' Q4 donations, I have no idea. For Ron Paul, you can check a live donation ticker on his website. Right now it's saying $18,270,000 and the goal for Q4 was $12,000,000. That's what I meant.

Traditionally, candidates see a drop-off in Q4 donations, but assuming that Q3 numbers are repeated across the board RP is coming out on top.

He's still polling at roughly 4% nationwide, with double digit polls in New Hampshire (big surprise).

Hey Rictor what do you think of slavery

or what do you think of iranian labour right activists

[Rictor]

It's bad and they're probably OK guys, respectively.

[Janos]

Allright! Thank you for your answers! May I ask some more?

What about theory of evolution? What do you think of people who don't "personally accept theory of evolution?"

Ok! Yet one more: What would you think about a presidential candidate who, after receiving Stormfront money does not give it back but instead announces to give a speech in a right wing extremist meeting?

[Rictor]

What about theory of evolution? What do you think of people who don't "personally accept theory of evolution?"

I don't much care what people personally believe, as long as it doesn't affect their policies. And if there's one man who I can trust to not impose his personal opinions on others its the most libertarian guy in US politics. But just to cover my bases, I'm not aware of Ron Paul disbelieving evolution. AFAIK he's not an Evangelical and was born well before the current wave of anti-evolutionist insanity.

Ok! Yet one more: What would you think about a presidential candidate who, after receiving Stormfront money does not give it back but instead announces to give a speech in a right wing extremist meeting?

I can only address the first part, since I don't know what right-wing extremist meeting he has attended.

First of all, let's establish that we're talking about $500 out of around $25m donated so far. Secondly, let's establish that anyone who wants to throw their money away is perfectly entitled to do so. Since we know that a) Ron Paul has never been bought, for any sum, to the point where lobbyists don't even bother going to his office, and b) even if he were for sale, $500 ain't gonna cut it, we can safely conclude that the support of a single white supremacist (or even a thousand of them) has no bearing whatsoever on his policies.

I will also ask you a rhetorical question: even if Ron Paul was receiving massive amounts of money from the likes of Stormfront, which he's not, is that worse than when all the other candidates receive money from the military-industrial complex? Remember that Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon, CACI, Blackwater etc don't talk about killing people, they actually make products which are designed specifically for that purpose. Stormfront may, if they're extremely crazy and successful, kill one person a year. The military-industrial complex has, among other things, the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis on their hands. And every major candidate is taking money from them, except one.