Ron Paul decries looming New World Order dictatorship under Obama
By David Neiwert Monday Nov 17, 2008 5:00pm[Video: Ron Paul decries "New World Order" at Nashville rally, Oct. 2007]
Ron Paul already has a considerable track record of actively promoting Patriot-movement "New World Order" conspiracy theories. In recent years, he's even been joined by mainstream right-wing pundits like Glenn Beck.
And while you didn't hear Paul spouting much of this nonsense during his presidential campaign, now that the election is over, he's back to business as usual -- and predictably, he's casting Barack Obama as the new embodiment of the conspiracy.
Paul recently gave an interview to a conspiracy-theory radio program in which he warned against "a cataclysmic shift toward a new world order":
Commenting on the much touted “International crisis” that luminaries such as Colin Powell, Joe Biden and Zbigniew Brzezinski have all guaranteed will occur within weeks of Obama entering the White House, the Congressman stated that he believes it may be a catalyst for a shift toward world government:
“I think it’s going to be an announcement of a new monetary order, and they’ll probably make it sound very limited, they’re not going to say this is world government, even though it is if you control the world’s money and you control the military, which they do indirectly.”
“A world central bank, worldwide regulation and world control of the whole system, of all the commodities and all the natural resources, what else can you call it other than world government?”
“Obama wouldn’t be there if he didn’t toe the line, and when the meeting starts on November 15th for the new monetary system, this could be the beginning of the end of what’s left of our national sovereignty.” Paul said, also warning that the global media are already hailing Obama as the world’s leader.
It has been clear for awhile now that the far right would see an Obama presidency as a pretext for reviving its 1990s-style conspiracy-mongering and scapegoating on a broad scale, and so far that's clearly the case. We saw signs of this before the election with the resurrection of zombie 1990s-style black-helicopter smears of Obama.
And now Ron Paul, who successfully presented himself as a mainstream "libertarian" throughout the campaign -- when the reality is that he is a classic Bircherite -- is advancing "New World Order v.2" for mass consumption.
Boy, we can hardly wait to see what this produces. [/snark] If the 1990s -- when last we endured a wave of paranoid fearmongering like this -- were anything to judge by, it won't be pretty. The next four years or more are as fraught with rightist peril as they are with promise for progressives.
Login or Register to post comments.
Why anyone follows this nutcase Ron Paul is beyond me- he's as bad as Lyndon LaRouche..
Remember that Ron Paul is a rabid bigot- so the fact he doesn't particularly like black people will cause him to think the worst of Obama and his intentions.
I've heard plenty of people both left and right say we have to get rid of the federal reserve. The Ron Paul movement wants to return the republican part to its roots, I don't see what is wrong with that.
He'd need to rewrite history, then.
The 14th Amendment was passed by the Republicans. Ron Paul hates the 14th Amendment.
Andy K:
Yep! And the Fourteenth is one of the most important sections of the Constitution overall.
The Paul Bearer's brand of liberty entails, first and foremost, the sovereignty of local communities. It ultimately becomes more concerned with maintaining the jurisdiction of local governments than the rights of the people governed by them.
"Oh, the suppression of individual liberty in that state is bad," they'll maintain, "but outside forces do not have the jurisdiction to do anything about it."
Where were you in January, when the Paulists were thick as thieves?
Jesus, you don't know how many times I linked HR 300.
Okay, maybe you do. But having you around would have been nice.
Andy K:
Well, I do apologize if I neglected to defend you in past arguments.
Often when I interject my views about libertarians, my intellect is derided, and a shout-fest emerges. ;)
In any case, jurisdiction stripping is old hat for Congress. It's an old tactic of anti-federal government folks. It usually doesn't work. But people do need to know how close we are to it. Had Obama not been elected, the next justices on the Court could very likely have stripped the federal government of all jurisdiction to interfere with state infringement on basic liberties. Very scary.
So count me in on any conversation about the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, which I think are the most important in the Constitution.
:D
You, derided? Hey, I've disagreed with you once or twice, but anyone who gets derisive with you needs to go looking for a new brain.
Thanks for the compliment, Andy K. :)
You know, I think I'd like to do a piece on HR 300 for my own blog. I'd love to spark a conversation about civil liberties, and the difference between the way a libertarian-conservative and a libertarian-progressive understands basic rights.
Have anything you might like to contribute?
I'm sure I can come up with something.
Ron Paul isnt a big fan of the Republicans either. What he's been advocating isnt the anti-Obamaisms of Palin and Joe the Plumber and others who are against Obama's policies for no other reason than that they hate Obama.
Libertarianism should absolutely have its place in US policy not as an isolationist policy but as a 'Prime Directive' policy.
Obviously, we should not be a strictly Libertarian nation. But I recall a lot of the poster applauding a lot of Dr. Paul's ideas during the GOP primaries.
But here's the REAL question...shouldnt Libertarianism be the new direction of the GOP? I know that a lot of you guys what nothing but Dems, and thats never going to happen, but for the good of the country, isnt it better to have competitive GOP candidates who are running on Libertarian ideals than Neo-Conservative ones?
David L. Hill:
I would welcome that (though I don't particularly like Ron Paul's brand of libertarianism).
I have long argued that libertarians and progressives work together in order to marginalize authoritarians. And yes, if the opposition party were controlled largely by libertarian-minded people, instead of the fascists, imperialists and theocrats, we'd all be better off.
Of course, I would really rather break the duopoly through electoral reform, and have a viable, multi-party system.
I'm all for returning the Republican party to its roots. The further underground we bury it, the better.
Snowball:
Ha! Yes, I like to call his supporters "Paul Bearers," since they're largely carrying around an archaic, and hopefully dead, understanding of liberty.
But, if we returned the Republican Party to its roots, we'd suddenly discover that it supported enlarging the federal government in order to protect people from the states. That would be, well, the opposite of what the Paul Bearers want.
And to clarify: My preemptive strike below isn't aimed at comments like this.
...yes, but you have to give his followers credit for being USEFUL nutcases, at least. After all, they had the common sense to chase down Sean Hannity and make him leave a load in his pants.
But seriously though. What kind of system do you think needs to be supplemented to deal with our outmoded, outspent financial system? The money isn't worth its value, it costs more to print the money than its worth. I don't think a new world banking system will be created off the bat, it's going to take a lot of Euros, world diplomacy and trust of other nation's governments to pull something of this scale off. It's frightening to think that China is the nation that our nation will have to lean on in these coming months.
The Chinese probably are thinking the same about us!
Ron Paul, do you see why you lost this election and the previous gazillion elections you've run in? What'd you get this time? Three votes?
I think this world would be a much better place if you would just shut up.
Ron Paul won the majority of elections he has participated in, though they've mostly been Congressional, and along the way garnered millions of votes.
Telling people with whom you disagree to "Shut up" is not only the weakest position to take, but also runs counter to open discourse and freedom of expression.
Everybody on the left loves to hate on Ron Paul because he has that "R" by his name. Well, if you take a look at what he said and predicted about the war BEFORE it took place, you might reconsider. Those on the right love to hate him too, but once again, if you just take a look at his deep understanding of the markets and how he predicted this whole financial mess way before others, they might also reconsider.
Yeah, he may get caught up in grand conspiracy rhetoric on occasion, but try not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
_
I like Ron Paul more than I like George Bush. Paul may be crazy, but he makes a little sense now and again...
I still cannot understand why the genuinely anti-war left folks aren't willing to put aside differences, and embrace all genuine anti-war politicians. You dont have to agree on his abortion stance, yah know.. He is in fact more outspoken on the Iraq and Afgahnistan wars than Hillary, Barack, and Pelosi combined!!
No he isn't.
The Right has accepted defeat gracefully,is now willing to work with the President Elect to ensure a smooth transition of power,and are not at all ratcheting up hysteria to levels more commonly witnessed in insane ayslums say,oh 200 years ago.
about the theoretical physicist who insisted that the seat next to him at the bar always remain empty because there is always a chance that the woman of his dreams would walk in and sit next to him.
There is always a theoretical chance of New World Order, but methinks Ronnie is sitting alone at the bar again.
And to think I actually thought this guy had some good views when I first started seeing him....turns out he is another natter nutcase...with his video game looking ad of nuclear war and tsunamis....come on. What is wrong with this guy....he isnt a revolutionary....he just wants to oppose the status quo whatever it may be, and that is just as dangerous as being a part of the status quo. What would he do if somehow a vote for him wasn't a protest vote, and he actually won, would be be calling himself hitler??
he voted against the war, the patriot act, and these idiotic bailouts the democrats support. Does your congressman have a voting record like that?
he can have a good voting record and be nuts. Hey, maybe he's right, maybe obama was a grand facade to enslave the world....or maybe obamas record speaks for him....he would have had to have planned this new world order since he was a teenager!!
present.
I do not believe that Ron Paul is saying that Obama is 'single-handedly' scripting the rise of the New World Order. Playing 'a part in its implementation', and 'masterminding it' are two far separate things, and your confusion of the two, i find to be disingenuously crafted.
He's just another flavor of nut - but still a nut.
*
Instead of hopeful and optimistic Ron Paul is paranoid and fearful.
Yep, he's a Republican alright.
Yes, we'll see how Obama's "surge" in Afghanistan goes.
you fucking dickweed...he wants us to do what bush fucked up
stabilize the ground war, and rebuild the infrastructure
right now, all we are doing is bombing citizens and allowing the taliban to regain a foothold
It was a mistake to go, so it is a mistake to stay. "Mind our own business at home and abroad".
He doesn't believe in minding his own business at home. He believes in breaking government down to the local level and allowing the tyrrany of the majority based out of the state house and the city hall. He's an unreconstructed Confederate.
It seems to me a lot of your best politicians are at the State and local level.
HR 300, in which Ron Paul stands firmly against the incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the individual States.
Guy Cybershy:
Oh, of course. There are wonderful politicians at the state and local level.
But one of the great things about living under a federal Constitutional system of dual sovereignty is that citizens of a state can appeal to the federal level when a local government oppresses its own citizens.
It is that very aspect of the federal system that Ron Paul opposes. And it translates to his broader view of the world. He fears a further transfer of sovereignty upward to some "New World Order," under which localities will have less jurisdiction over their own affairs. I think history shows, though, that a multi-level system of sovereignty is the best protectorate of rights and liberties.
you're writings in this thread have been excellent, but I wanted to correct one thing for you.
You said: "I think history shows, though, that a multi-level system of sovereignty is the best protectorate of rights and liberties."
When you should have said "I think history shows, though, that a multi-level system of sovereignty is the ONLY protectorate of rights and liberties.
Thanks for all the great material for my next "How crazy is Ron Paul?" debate :)
my representative at the state level than i have with the president. ron paul doesn't believe in majority rule, ron paul is all about individual rights. the individual comes before the group. that's why were not a democracy, right?
he doesn't underestimate the ability of people to think and act in their own best interest.
you'd think the last 8 years would have wised him up on that not underestimating "ability of people to think and act in their own best interest..." thing. Apparently not.
this election did.
so after 9/11, we shoulda just allowed the taliban and al quiada to continue to control afghanistan....which they never wouldve done had we assisted in rebuilding their infrastructure after the russian invasion
there is a difference between the war in iraq and afghanistan...but paulbots are all isolationist nutjobs
now tell me how israel planned 9/11 so i can really bitchslap you
you guys are much more fun when you are chasing down hannity or spamming redstate
Who's spamming? Can't honest people disagree?
Absolutely they can, and should. This site needs people like you to challenge us, and we need to go to sites like Red State and challenge their ideas.
To find Bin Laden, but not to engage in nation-building. I trust you havn't been privy to that fact, and would rather assume you know what you are talking about. Shame.
Oh goody, this thread should be fun.
If he knows about medicine as much as he does the Constitution I wouldn't be at all surprised when he puts on a large wooden mask, shaking rattles and banging drums
Whilst I'll be banging the nurse.
I knew it - the guy is bat-shit crazy.
*
Me?
No - I didn't mean you - but if you'd like, I can include you?
*
Ehhh...I've never been a joiner
That'tssa my rejoinder.
Now maybe the far-right nutcases will flock to Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, and form a new party. (Maybe revive the A.I.P.) Thus, splitting the right wing coalition for good.
Wow. A Palin/Paul* ticket. I don't know if the country could survive the campaign.
(*She'd insist on top billing.)
*
I can imagine her settling for the second spot in exchange for an unlimited clothing expense account, and a signing statement that allows her to send Katie Couric to GITMO if they win.
You betcha! :wink:
Perhaps, wouldn't more partys be good for democracy? I can think of a lot of good reasons for Alaskan independence. People laughed at the independence movement in Scotland for a long time, now look where they are.
Oh, more (viable) political parties would definitely be better for democracy. (By the way, when I said AIP I was referring to The American Independent Party, not the Alaskan Independence Party. ie-wingnutism on a GRAND scale. Why think small, and limit American independence to just Alaska? When psychotic nutcases are invisioning Obama as a sort of 21st century Ming Dynasty emperor, growing his fingernails like Dr. No, they'd have no trouble invisioning the entire COUNTRY separating from the United States?)
If Yugoslavia could be broken into 6 or 8 countries with NATO support, why not the USA?
Yugoslavia was 6 or 8 countries before it was artificially put together (much like Iraq) by WWII and communist partisans fighting against Nazis and Chetniks. All it did was revert back to its former states (more or less), and prove that the communists failed completely in their attempts to errase the centuries old grudges.
There's no reason to believe member states of the U.S. would want to do the same, unless right wing xenophobes work their magic again, and foment ethnic and religious divisions, the same way they did in Yugoslavia.
The USA has been formenting ethnic and religious divisions all over the world for generations.
No, the USA been fomenting ethnic and religious divisions all over the world for generations, and we've been formenting BEER at the Budwiser plant for only a few generations. (It's a small point, but one that's very important to people like John McCain, for instance.)
Pericles:
Actually, that'd be fermenting. ;)
Not when the beer is made from the juices of distilled red ants. (Just try and tell me that's NOT what Budwiser is! :)
That's why I'm drinking Guiness as we speak...
...Ok, as I slur...
Stumpwater. I hope you strained the flies out first.
Cause Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are the EXACT same kind of Republican...the EXACT SAME...
because he loves to feed peoples paranoia
but he is a gutless wonder....
Oh, great! Just when we finally shut up McCain and Palin, this whackaloon starts firing up the troglodyte base. At a time when there have already been 200 racially inspired incidents since the election.
Actually, it would seem that the 'troglodytes' are in a paul-tard feeding frenzy now, chewing up 14 month old campaign videos that didn't seem to be important back when Ron Paul was still running for President. Slow news day?
Ron Paul like others can't deal with the change Americans have asked for and voted on. Ron Paul's history says alot and some things will never go back. As Mr. Paul was born in 1935 and even ran for the first time as President in 1988 it's time for Ron Paul to deal with the fact American have moved forward since his 73 years. Yes he has some good ideas but we are never going to go back to where he thinks. He knows the Constitution very well and he like the rest of Americans will have a vote with the Obama/Biden Administration. But Paul had his time to help America and never spoke up during the Bush/Cheney 8 year crime wave, now he's talking. If only one Republican had stepped forward to stick up for Americans things might be different.
Well said
Again he voted against the war and against the patriot act, how many democrats did the same?
It makes me a little bit ill to say this, but there are only three congressmen that I actually respect with regards to their stance on the invasion of Iraq. Lieberman, Paul, and Kucinich, all of whom either voted FOR the invasion on principle, or AGAINST it on principle. Everybody else who voted for it did so not because they thought there was a link between Iraq and 9/11, or that there was 'no doubt' that Saddam had WMDs, but because they thought IT WOULD BE EASY! Nevermind the principle of not invading or attacking countries preemptively, something we prosecuted the Japanese leaders for doing after WWII. Most of those who voted for it did so because they were too spineless to vote against it, believing that it would succeed and then they'd look 'weak' for not having supported it.
Lieberman voted for it because Conneticut needs the jobs from defense contractors.
Pericles:
Don't forget Barbara Lee --- the ONLY dissenting vote on the original 9/11-retaliation resolution.
go read his statements during 2003
he was spewing the same bs as the wingnuts about sadaam being a threat
he DID speak out against the war and patriot act, etc...
What the hell have you been smoking?
never spoke up?
I can't count how many speeches against Bush's policies he's made.
Just because YOU didn't watch C-Span to catch them and YOU only watch CNN and MSNBC isn't Ron Paul's fault.
Were YOU ever on TV making speeches against Bush?
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004...
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004...
i wonder if you'll read even one.
Crooks and Liars did not report this. Don't stick your head in the sand, and then tell me its dark.
...didn't work very well for billions of people so I guess we need a new world order. I certainly hope Obama is able to help fashion a workable, sustainable world order over the next four years -- at which time Ron Paul will still be a libertarian nut.
should do the trick.
Do you all feel that the WTO, NAFTA and the IMF, etc are acting in our best interests? I understand his comments about the UN could be offensive to some, but you need to listen to what he is saying instead of jumping on the "he's a loon " bandwagon.
As pointed out before, he has agreed with C&L ers on a lot of issues. Don't be so quick to call someone a right wing nut case.
We talk about independence from foreign oil. But what about econimic independence from countries like China?
Exactly, most democrats supported these idiotic trade deals.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Just because Paul occasionally gets some point right does not mean that he is not still a whackaloon.
god, i love inititials
he agrees with progressives in principle...but not in the solutions...which are nuts
no progressive wants to wipe out every trade agreement...just change some of the language
and his comments about the un feed into the racist, chauvinistic base of the republican party...which is why he will never leave...he loves that shit
There is racism and chauvinism in all our parties. What could be more racist than the war in Iraq?
Maybe only opposing it because you think it was orchestrated by a Jewish international banking conspiracy.
I opposed it the name of human decency. The truth is (and Naomi Klein was the first to point this out) the neo cons were heavily under the influence of the Israeli far right.
I wasn't necessarily implying you yourself, I was talking about Libertarian/Bircher conspiracy theorists in general.
The neocons view Israel as a client state and strategic hamlet for American empire. Try reading the PNAC documents, I did. Don't put the cart before the horse.
n/t
Except for the part about Israel being a 'strategic hamlet.' Makes it sound like a non-kosher omelette made of scrambled American weapons and religious dogmatism. Which it is, in a way.
leaving the un equate to racist?
The WTO, NAFTA, and the IMF have ruled overwhelmingly in favor of the US of A. Which is no surprise, since they are pretty much proxy elements set up by the US of A.
There are countries that are real victims of those organizations, alas it takes a real set of balls for any American... to play the victim card because we have managed to fucked up *despite* having the WTO, NAFTA, and the IMF in our favor.
The level of entitlement of some people is astounding. Is like a team who paid the referee, and who is so bad that they still lost, and goes all crying about bad referring in the league (never mind that the calls were all in the favor).
NAFTA was opposed by a majority of the population in all three countries. Millions of small Mexican farmers were dispossesed, many ending up as illegal immigrants. Corporations benefitted at the expense of workers in all three countries. Obama spoke against it, briefly then said he didn't really mean it.
Ron Paul's son is my ophthalmologist.
Great eye doctor.
These conspiracy nuts may have been given the benefit of the doubt in the 90's, but now in the age of blogs and the internet their bullshit can be exposed and shamed whenever need be.
k
The world could use a good dose of old fashioned internationalism. Nationalism is the illness, not the cure.
http://www.iww.org/
Truth is much of the world would be glad to be rid of us. Can you blame them?
This joker delivers babies for a living. Would you let him deliver your baby? Inquiring minds want to know.
Want oil independence? maybe stop importing oil from the oil producing nations? Well that would hurt the economy of several very "friendly" countries. Now that we are one world, we are all in this together.
Only a lunatic would deny corporations the ability to make an easy buck on third world markets.
people need to really re-think world trade. It has many un-intended consequences. the consumption of fuel, the spreading of disease, the need for regulations that apply to a PLANET for christ sake.
The recent salamonella outbreaks in vegetables were hard to contain because they were so widely distributed from mega farms and processing facility. If the east coast can grow spinach and green onions, why truck it in from California for christ sake.
Because the California producers are more heavily subsidized and rely on exploited labour.
And because Popeye is from New England, and would have kicked the asses of any east coast spinach farmers who caused him to have an attack of the trots while he was screwing Olive Oyle.
Actually, the salmonella outbreaks could have EASILY been contained if the FDA was still bothering to tag food products with their area of origin. The Republicans ranted about excessive government control, and George Bush stacked the FDA with cronies who weren't interested in testing the safety of food or drugs. Their philosophy was that we shouldn't have a 'nanny state' that tries to protect the public beforehand. If you get poisoned by eating tainted lettuce, you can just sue the store that sold it to you, and thus the free market and the law courts will ensure the safety of the food supply.
You've got to give George Bush credit. He was the master of "stealth deregulation." Rather than get rid of all these government regulatory agencies that were put in place to protect the public (which would have been political suicide), he simply staffed them with people who did nothing but sit in their offices all day doing crossword puzzles.
He's a fucking freakmantle.
I just want to thank David Neiwert for putting the word, "libertarian," in quotes when describing Ron Paul's views. There is absolutely nothing libertarian about Paul's market fundamentalist ideology, and given that he actually wants to put more power in the hands of an authoritarian, corporate oligarchy is a testament to his anti-socialist views.
Where are the real libertarians when you need them...
Did you vote for Bob Barr?
No, Candy Barr...
Is Barr a real libertarian?
I'm asking that seriously.
No, he isn't. The entire Libertarian Party has stolen the word for their own right-wing, market fundamentalist agenda. Libertarian used to mean (and still does in every other part of the world) anarchism. Anarchists support the abolition of all illegitimate forms of hierarchy, including those found in the private sector, and unlike Ron Paul, they advocate a decentralized network of autonomous workers' councils to replace the corporate tyrannies that exist today.
With the creation of the Libertarian Party's oxymoronic term, "libertarian capitalism," libertarians now have to describe themselves as "anarchists" (despite the negative connotations), or "libertarian socialists." If you happen to be one of those people who think that anarchists are just punks who throw rocks at windows, I encourage you to read more about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_soci...
After attending a couple of libertarian meetups at the behest of a friend who promised me it was going to be the most fun we were gonna have that particular weekday. It seemed to me that most of what passes for "libertarians" in this country was another word for "undiagnosed mental disorder."
The average member seemed to be a college drop out, sysadmining somewhere, and washing it all down with deliriums d'grandeur.
The views, and ideologies expressed by the people I interacted with couldn't be any further from what that wikipedia article expresses, so I am fascinated in a way. What the #$@# went wrong?
My coworkers and I were having a going away party for some department that was being laid off. Ron was playing Scrabble with one of the dudes who was about to be canned.
If anyone can explain what this all means, I'd love to know.
I researched him during the primaries and guess who is the favorite politician among white supremacist wackos? Don't believe me? Visit stormfront.com. (warning, it may make you puke)
Our entire foreign policy is a form of white supremacism, if you hadn't noticed.
Then what's the deal with:
"These yanks do get in a tizzy sometimes, I think it is election withdrawl. They'll come to their senses in a few weeks."?
You want Ron Paul up there in Canada, you fuckin' take him. But don't come in here and tell us what's best for us, eh? I'll agree with you that we've cocked up the foreign policy badly enough, but I don't want to see Ron Paul's skinhead fanboys given free rein to bash in the skulls of every one of my friends and neighbors they disagree with. And I kinda like my own skull, too.
if I decline your handsome offer will you Andy? I believe we have an adequate supply of nutters at the moment and our domestic reserves should see us through the next several centuries.
Just asking for some reciprocity on that front.
Sorry you guys got that AIP buddy of the Palins on your hands up there, Peter.
that sort of nutter actually. The room temperature type I mean.
I said "our" because Canada ceased to have an independent foreign policy some time ago.
Don't try to shove Mr. HR 300 down MY throat.
to our troops in Iraq.
the black panthers is?
so what's your point?
Lieberman will still be chair of Homeland Security and the USA will attack Iran on trumped up allegations.
Once again, Dave Neiwert bash journalism is alive and well at C & L. "Bash" meaning: you bash and bash and bash but never ONCE actually refute or debunk what you're bashing. Did anyone notice that? This whole article basically says "Ron Paul is a kook" but yet doesnt give ONE reason why...not ONE. If there is a refutation here, I missed it. Can anyone point it out for me? Now watch---MY comment will be deleted while others like "bellesouth" called Ron Paul a "fucking freakmantle" or DrDick calling him a "whackaloon"---BOTH violations of the posting policy. Nearly EVERY comment on this board is attacking Ron Paul's character---saying he's racist, or a nut or whatever----and not ONCE does anyone on here actually ADDRESS any issue he ever talked about---nor do you refute anything and make your case. You guys on this blog are doing the EXACT same thing you accused the McCain camp and right-wingers of doing---smearing and ad hominem attacks and not addressing issues. Now when it's YOUR guy in there, it's a different story now, isn't it? Ron Paul was against the war from the start AND the Patriot Act---two things that are unconstitutional, yet BOTH Obama and Biden supported the Patriot Act and now liberals like Rachel Maddow promote the Iraq war. You all are becoming EXACTLY who you despised just 2 weeks ago---the enemy. Hey site monitor---I will be be screen saving this so I can prove you delete comments that you just "DONT LIKE" but yet dont violate policy. You leave comments stay of people who do violate the policy.
[You stay on topic, refrain from abusing other posters and simply follow the commenting policy and you won't be deleted. Site Monitor]
I agree these Fox like tactics have no place on C&L.
There has been a very noticeable change on the Dem blogs since the election Larry. Maybe it's from Bush/Republican fatigue after the last 8 years. I do not know but do notice it on here as well as in others. It does seem quite strange to see the similar tactics. Having said that, Ron Paul does have some odd ideas. Agree with some? Yep. Shake head at others? You sure betcha.
These yanks do get in a tizzy sometimes, I think it is election withdrawl. They'll come to their senses in a few weeks.
I've noticed it too, Canuck.
Uh, maybe if you Paulistas didn't rant and throw temper tantrums every time someone disagrees with you, we could have a rational discussion about what's wrong with many of Dr. Paul's ideas and why they amount to paranoid, ultra-nationalistic conspiracy theories.
I've heard Ralph Nader on the Federal Reserve. He sounds not much different than Ron Paul. Its an undemocratic and unaccountable institution that should be dismantled.
You're right, these days, Ralph Nader doesn't sound too much different than Ron Paul (which is sad) except I'll bet they don't agree about the UN.
Perhaps the UN would be better off without that American veto?
who have defended some of Pauls issues in this thread. I personally gave him credit in this thread for voting against the war and patriot act. And others still have debunked and refuted his points quite clearly.
The facts are that Ron Paul is a separatist, and would love to see a day where we could return to complete state's rights, and the south could rise again (without the slaves this time). What this means however is that individual states could outlaw specific things, and as we've just seen with Prop8 in California, allowing states to write laws based on mob rule can lead to a slippery slope. Which state would be the first to try and adopt Christianity as the state religion via ballot initiative? Currently the federal government prevents any state from doing this, and Paul is deathly afraid of power and jurisdiction moving even further upwards to the international level. To some extent we all should be. Proof of this belief has been posted in here several times (see HR 300, or talk to Karen).
So in summary, Ron paul holds some reasonable positions and some positions that I (and others) might consider unreasonable. If you're polite and cordial, and make your point, your comment won't get deleted.
... that in some issues they are right, but for the wrong reasons.
And that to me is what decimates any validity he may have.
Ron(Dracula's servant)Paul will say practically anything to rile up his fellow disenchanted nut-bags. The guy is nothing but a political instigator with a band of malcontent nomadic cult followers.
Yes, and he could destroy the Republican party forever which would be a good thing. "My enemy's ememy is my friend".
My other enemy is an enema.
Nah. His appeal is to the margins, not the traditional GOP voters. The GOP will destroy themselves. There's no good that comes out of allowing Paul to reap any sort of benefit from that destruction.
i've met democrats, republicans and people who have never paid attention to politics before. if you actually read what he says, his belief is that you are more capable of making decisions for your own benefit far better than some misguided politician. he doesn't approve of the republican party any more than you.
You may be right, but have you read any of the blogs about Ted Kennedy. Love him or hate him, THAT man and family have a cult following. Has he ever had a job besides politics? Regardless what anyone says, there never will be any kind of change, when people have been in Washington for decades. There is a reason for that. They don't really want to change anything.
I really don't see what sort of change Zbegnew Brzenski and Madeline Albright are supposed to represent.
in developing a new administration, obama is getting the advice of many
thing brzenski or albright will be on his cabinet???
guess you would prefer another 4 years of bush....who got advice from one guy....rove
[Deleted. Abusive. Please tone it down, Uncle Joe. Thanks. Site Monitor]
Is everybody a "fuck" that doesn't agree with you? How Republican of you.
We elected this guy to be his own man, not consult with us. I choose to give the person I trusted time to make his plan work.
Kennedy is far from perfect, but the way he addresses issues of the poor like immigration, education, health care, etc., I've viewed him as a very privileged man who actually cares.
Sorry if you interpreted my post as thinking anything bad on Ted Kennedy. I agree that he just may care. Enough to change the status quo? I don't think so. He has tried over the years to make changes to policies, and that more than anything makes me admire the man. But, when your main elected officials have been in Washington for umpteen years, you gotta wonder how much is just lip service or they would be railroaded out in the same manner that Bush was planted into the WhiteHouse.
Noblesse Oblige.
Ronfield?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qczo3uxl1-A
Login or Register to post comments.