Ron Paul: We're All Austrians?
Here's a pretty bizarre moment in Ron Paul's quite-long speech celebrating his third place finish in the Iowa caucuses Tuesday.
...and we had the task, for which we are very successful, is reintroducing some ideas Republicans needed for a long time, and that is the conviction that freedom is popular.
[applause]
But once again, we have had a fantastic showing for this cause and challenging people. Not the status quo that we have been putting up with for decade after decade. But challenging 'em and saying 'You know, let's challenge them. Let's go back to this real old fashioned idea, this very dangerous idea, let's obey the Constitution!
[applause]
And too often, those who preach limited government and small government, they forget that invasion of your privacy is big government and we have to emphasize protecting your personal rights and your economic rights are what the government's supposed to do.
Before I continue with the transcription, let me just interject the observation that Ron Paul abandons the whole "protect your personal rights" when it comes to things like same-sex marriage, LGBT issues, and women's right to choose what happens to their bodies, even in cases of rape and/or incest. But I digress. Back to the speech.
They're not supposed to run our lives or spend our money.
[applause]
And also, along those lines, what we have introduced with so much enthusiasm I hear so often from so many volunteers -- The other day someone came up to me and he was refreshing my memory because he knew I - knew the statement because I've said it.
Back in the old days in the early 70s, Nixon said we're all Keynesians now, which meant that even the Republicans accepted liberal economics. He says I'm waiting for the day when we can say we're all Austrians now.
But the biggest change I think in intellectual and political changes that we have brought about is the emphasis on a very important matter: Making sure we get to the bottom of the ultimate bailouters, and that is our Federal Reserve system, we need reforms there, and we need a new monetary system and obey the Constitution. This is something that we made great progress on, so the first and initial and important step that we've worked so hard for and it's on the table. Today there was a national poll came out and they were talking about how many people supported the gold standard. How long has it been since they've taken a national poll on the gold standard? And guess what? The majority of the American people believe we should have a gold standard and not a paper standard.
But also, also the great strides that we have made has been really on the foreign policy. The fact that we can once again talk in Republican circles and make it credible, talking about what Eisenhower said, to beware of the military-industrial complex. Talk about the old days when Robert Taft, Mr. Republican said we shouldn't be engaged in these entangling alliances. He believed what the founders taught us. He didn't even want to be in NATO. We certainly don't need NATO and the UN to tell us when to go to war.
But we have seen a great difference. The majority of the American people are behind us on this total war effort. They're tired of the war, it costs too much money, too many people get killed, too many people get injured, too many people get sick, and the majority, maybe 70 or 80 percent of the American people now are saying it's time to get out of Afghanistan.
A couple of comments. First, Ron Paul is an expert at finding wedge issues to split liberals. The wars are one; the privacy issues are another; and the Federal reserve is the third. He uses these like candy to feed to the willing masses. I seriously doubt those who were polled on the gold standard have the slightest idea what a return to that monetary standard would mean for this country, and the 99 percent in particular. The same for privacy issues. He's all about being against privacy invasion until it involves a woman's private dealings with her doctor or what two consenting adults might do in their bedroom. Finally, on the wars, yes. Most of us not only think it's time to get out of Afghanistan, but we also think we should never have gone there in the first place. This is not news. And it's in process.
I'll just close with this excellent post by David Atkins over at Digby's blog. This is why liberals and progressives do not vote for Ron Paul:
Which leads us to Ron Paul, a man whose detestable ideals are directly in opposition to those of liberalism--even if he happens, like a stopped clock, to end up in the right place a couple of times for entirely the wrong reasons.
Ron Paul is against the drug war, yes, but for the same reasons he is against preventing factories from dumping mercury in our rivers: he opposes any sort of intervention at all by the government to assist those in need, or to stop those who would do harm to others, except in the most simplistic cases of the use of force.
Ron Paul is against foreign interventions, yes, but for the same reason he opposes providing healthcare to sick people: he believes that the U.S. government should not be in the business of interfering against almost anyone, on behalf of anyone else.
Unless that person is a fetus, in which case state intervention is apparently just fine. Or unless that interference is taking place by, say, the State of Alabama, in which it's just fine, as opposed to the evil jackboots in Washington, D.C. trying to tell those good Alabamans just what they can and can't do with gays, undocumented immigrants, and women seeking abortions.
HITLER!
That's who!
Schwarzenegger!!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
You realize he's talking about the school of economics and not the country literally. Look up Friedrich Hayek.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
It's a joke!
Hayek...the other white joke.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
W/O her, there'd be no mobile phonage!
Oh yeah, VR, it's a fuckin joke, just in case.
me-oww!
yea lets go back to the old days back to when white ruled go back to when there was a commie behind every bush but what about JOBS and OUR FUTURE
It's the Randian way! You are freeee! Free of the shackles of oppression!! Free to be poor! Malnourished! Uneducated!!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
the govt does not "nourish" us.
or educate us...or make us "not poor"
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Public education, food stamps and Social Security (which raised and has kept millions of seniors out of poverty for decades).
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
. . . effortless.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
It got the money from us in the first place.
govt does not produce food, teachers, or money.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
. . . was that government produces money.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I am constantly amazed at the nonsensical knots a Paul-Bot will twist himself in to, to make sense of the non-ideology of a man who espouses that only those that can afford it, get Health Care, Police, Fire Department, Roads... (the list is virtually endless)
Then there is the supposed Christian Values of Paul who says if someone is sick or hungry, "Well, fuck him... he shoulda been prepared." More Calvinism that Christian.
And more to the specificity of the Point: The Government doesn't get "the money from us in the first place." The Government is "Us," you macaroon. Remember that whole Constitutional thing that Paul always burps out of his contradictory flappy lips (The ones on his face... lower part)? "We The People." (Or for those Star Trek fans, "Ee Pleab Misty..." which may be more an homage to Clint Eastwood's Disc Jockey career).
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
Yep, public education sure is helping us compete in the global market.
US Position in Education Slipping
You got punked, Milquetoast.
As Rousseau once said: “All ran to meet their chains thinking they secured their freedom."
Really? Is there any idea more discredited than the Austrian/Chicago/Friedman school of ecnomics?
"Our thirst for the truth has led us to question the Keynesian economic theories taught in our schools and propagated in the media, which sound sensible on the surface, but fall apart under logical scrutiny."
Excerpt from: http://mises.org/daily/5845/Gloom-Doom-and-Op...
karoli your attempt to demonize Ron Paul is a sham, he is far more consistent in his message than Obama or any other politician.
This video shows just how accurate and knowledgeable Ron Paul is on the issues that matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5nGCpzel6o&sn...
Show me a video like this where Obama or any Democrat for that matter showing they have the same foresight and comprehension of the issues facing our nation years before they happen.
The only defense the left ever has for this video is to say "just because he saw it coming doesn't mean he knows what the solution is" while they defend those who were utterly clueless and even argued he was wrong.
That's a pretty lame argument
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
This guy named his son after Ayn Rand.
Please sit down, and think this through.
We'll wait...
Here is an address Paul made in the House April 24, 2002 transcribed from the video:
"The congress and the president will shift radically to expanding the size and scope of the federal government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives. Military and police powers will grow satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international will expand satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas. This is the most important of my predictions. Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring, unfortunately that will not occur. In due course the American constitution will be steadily undermined and the American republic further weakened. During the next decade the American people will become poorer and less free while they become more dependent on the government for economic security. The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policy in the middle east. Agitation and more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically. And believe it or not I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos. I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let's hope and pray that I'm wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased"
Really? Ayn Rand's name was short for Randell?
Wow, liberals love to lie!
. . . blow it way out of proportion, and still manage to screw up on the basics.
Really? Rand is short for "Randell"? Was "Randal" really all that difficult to figure out or was it the complexity of Wikipedia that got you?
Was it Muphry's Law? Or were you just "lying"?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
...I'll give you that, but a lot of people were accurately predicting the housing bubble, both left and right. Just because we accurately predict something, does not mean that we accurately understand its causes. That is simply a twist on the causality fallacy: A precedes B; therefore A causes B. Or in your case: A precedes B; therefore A accurately predicted B.
I predict that Romney will be the Republican nominee this year, but if it turns out that I am correct, that doesn't make me an expert in Republican politics; let alone does it make me correct about who should be president. See the difference?
In the early 2000s, Paul was correct about the subprime mess, but I noticed that he was silent on the issues of banking leverage limits, false AAA investment ratings, and the mortgage derivatives market that let the privately owned investment banks to bundle, sell, and then actually bet against mortgage-backed securities. All of that happened in the private sector, without government forcing anyone's hand, and for the sole purpose of ripping off unsuspecting investors. And it worked. Where was Paul's omniscient understanding of the market on those factors?
BTW, an example of someone on the left making an accurate prediction in 2005 can be found here: http://www.kc.frb.org/publicat/sympos/2005/PD...
Beware of anyone promising a future full of yesterdays.
I'll tell you where...Ron Paul invested in gold.
and the reason you didn't is because you weren't listening.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
If his plan was to make money off his Godlike understanding of free enterprise, then he should have been shorting the mortgage-backed securities market. Had he done so, he would have made a ton more money than from gold.
But on the issue of gold... The price of gold has been inflated through speculation, just like the tech bubble and the housing market after it. The price will come crashing down to earth as soon as the speculators start to sell their gold for real goods and services.
There is nothing intrinsically valuable about gold; its "value" is based solely on a quirky human fascination with lifeless shiny metals. That's what Paul and his cronies never seem to understand: Money is a social construct that is equally valid when printed on paper, made of metal, or traded as clamshells, as long as a society agrees to evaluate goods and services relative to agreed-upon denominations.
The gold standard (which Paul pines for) essentially sets a ceiling for how much money can be in circulation at any one time, thereby limiting inflation, but at the cost of impoverishing nations whose populations grow, but whose physical stores of gold do not. It's tantamount to telling a trading society that no matter how many people there are, there is a strict limit of ten chickens to be traded in any one year. That's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully you get the point.
Beware of anyone promising a future full of yesterdays.
although I disagree about it "limiting" inflation. It virtually guarantees deflation. And that's just as bad if not worse.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
...
Beware of anyone promising a future full of yesterdays.
today to write an essay on your points but I will say this.
"All bubbles pop"
The two largest bubbles in history is the US bond market and the nearly $250 trillion in derivatives. Read the intro to the OCC Q1 report and then page pack to the table on page 24.
Office of the Comptroller of Currency
OCC Quarterly Derivatives Report Q1/11
http://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/capital-marke...
There is roughly $14 trillion in the all the worlds markets right now, if even a fraction of that crashes, we're screwed. In the 2008 crash there was $60 trillion which in derivatives in the markets.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
"Ron Paul made all this money from gold stocks, but if he knew exactly when to short the housing market he could have made tons more! What an idiot!" -You
Wait wait...
So, since I predicted that:
Since Bush II in early 2001 was surrounding himself with advisers that all thought alike (neo-cons), that Groupthink was very likely going to manifest.
That this contributed to to the decision to invade Iraq
That the wars were going to be divisive
That the combination of the Bush tax cuts and the war were going to rip the budget to absolute shreds, leading to more economic hardship for the poor and increased profits for the military industrial class
That 9/11 was going to be used as an excuse to centralize power in the executive branch, and reduce individual liberties
And that I made investments in such a way that the recent profits in gold would actually have decreased my overall returns
That you should listen to me about anything?
One needs to base their judgments on the evidence that is presented to them at that time regarding a specific topic. Know why?
Because just by sheer probability, someone is going to be right. I can trot out all those things listed above to claim the mantle of uber-prophet, but if those things didn't happen, someone else would be able to make the same claims ("See, I was right!")
Sorry, while I agree with some of Paul's positions, I vehemently disagree with the reasoning he used to get there. THAT's the point.
And, while I agree with many of Obama's positions, I vehemently disagree with his actions - such as his willingness to use murder, imprisonment and war as a first resort in foreign policy and bailouts and no interest loans to the biggest corporations while ignoring the needs of anyone in the bottom 99.9% as his fiscal policy the past 4 years. WOuldn't it be nice to have a Republican candidate who can call Obama out on these issues? THAT's my point.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Well, then that really is a stupid point (as per your namesake?):
Going and pointing to one pile of crap as the criterion that you are going to use to evaluate another pile of crap? Useless.
Oh, and the bailout? Bush, not Obama.
And I am in now way shape or form defending many of Obama's decisions. But I evaluate them based on his reasoning...
What part of Paul's reasoning do you support?
Bush was responsible for the first $700 billion. Obama and Geithner have followed through with the next $14 trillion in bailouts.
If you weren't aware of this you don't know much about what's happening in our world.
Also, I don't support people who use murder, indefinite imprisonment and war as a first option and don't bother with things like due process or the rule of law. I don't care what Obama's reasoning is.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
That 14 Trillion number is speculative at best, and doesn't represent actual dollars spent. It's not impossible that the figure could someday be accurate, but as of right now, it's pretty much bullshit.
http://my.firedoglake.com/wendydavis/2010/11/...
Wouldn't it be nice if this effort to keep the banks afloat was put into keeping our country afloat? Not that Ron Paul would do it either, but at least he'll make sure to tell Americans in the debates that this is going on. Can't expect Obama to let Americans know what Geithner has been up to (most likely Geithner doesn't even tell Obama what he's up to).
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
I didn't click on your link, because I assume it makes the same false point. Unless you have a link that shows where 14 trillion dollars have actually been spent, then don't bother. I wouldn't be so bothered by it if you would just add the word "could" cost 14 trillion, which would make it accurate.
Here you go:
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/01/real-...
It's even got pretty pictures to help clarify it all for you.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
He voted for it. He left the campaign trail to rally votes for it (it passed through a Democratic House and Senate with mostly Democratic votes). He also dispersed much of the money as President.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Thanks. Even I often forget it was Republicans who voted against the bailout the first time and Democrats who couldn't wait to transfer the nation's current and future wealth into the hands of a select few.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
progressives engage in serial exxageration and falsification of events
at a level which would make Teabaggers heads swim, this subthread is it.
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
What horseshit. Obama and the Dems didn't support the bailout because of a desire "to transfer the nation's current and future wealth into the hands of a select few", they did it to prevent the economy from spiraling out of control. You mentioned that the 'Pubs voted against the bailout the first time, but do you remember what happened in the following few days? The Dow having it's biggest drop ever? World markets in panic? Any of that ring a bell?
And just to be accurate, the votes against that bailout were cast by 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats, so it's not as if the GOP was taking a principled stand while the Dems were blindly supporting Gee Dummya.
. . . was with zillions of dollars in no-strings-attached cash.
Nonsense.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
in the manure you have been spreading. Especially since it was you who gave me the link that disproves most of the most inflated of the charges being thrown about here. You know better and choose to ignore it.
And I did thank you for the link. Twice.
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
I never said I liked the form the bailout took, but that's different from arguing that the government should have just stepped aside and let the chips fall.
Letting the banks fail and using that money to instead address the fall out from their swindles (e.g. foreclosures, unemployment, lost retirement funds, etc.) is quite a bit different than simply letting the chips fall where they may. So is nationalizing the banks while wiping out the banksters or a host of other possible solutions.
I'm guessing we're on the same page to a large extent. Sorry for the miscommunication.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
because it steams longer on the plate they plop it down on.
Like the $7.7 trillion equine turd they have been recycling since the day Bloomberg foolishly misused the figure.
"After Bloomberg included the $7.77 trillion figure in a Nov. 28, 2011, story, some media outlets mischaracterized it as the Fed’s actual lending."
"Folks, this is not your father's Republican Party."
Joe Biden
one, just one example of a successful libertarian society as espoused by Paul and the other Ayn Rand acolytes?
to see Paul condemning and promising to prosecute the banksters that robbed us all blind.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -- Robert E. Howard
For the most part the bankers were doing their job. While a handful did illegal things, most just did morally reprehensible things that are technically legal. It is the Federal Reserve which has transferred Trillions of dollars of capital (much of which created solely for this purpose) to allow them to survive their bad business, expand and escalate those same practices.
So, why scold the bankers for being good Capitalists? That's what they get paid millions to do - rob the poor to feed themselves. It is our government that allows them to continue instead of paying the price through bankruptcies and firings. Do you think any of these CEOs would still be on top of the world if Goldman, BoA, Citi and so many others had been dismantled instead of expanded?
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
The bankers were not just "doing their job" or being "good Capitalists", they were putting their companies at risk, defrauding their investors and relying on the idea that if "all else fails" they could stick the American taxpayer with the tab for their intentional malfeasance. And then of course there's that whole pushing the world economy to the brink of disaster thing.
Yes, the banks have made the government their accomplice, but in no way should anyone forget that an accomplice is someone who aids someone else in wrongdoing.
Exactly my point.
And the Government let them get away with it no strings attached. DId you know $700 billion was $2,290 for every man woman and child int he US at the time the bailout was passed. INstead of using that money to relieve homeowners and the over-indebted citizens, it was given to the banks to allow them to grow and continue int heir actions we both condemn. In that regard, it's like the US Fed was a cop who instead of helping the victims, gave the gunman more ammo.
As I said, the bankers are doing their job and the government is helping them continue in stealing from the nations wealth.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
It's not "exactly your point".
You were addressing the idea that the banks "were" doing what is right and natural for them to do, which is horseshit. What is right and natural for a business to do is turn a profit for it's investors while growing and remaining solvent in the future. What they did was throw caution to the wind and grab money with both hands with no concern for consequences. Their behavior was shocking even to those familiar with the banking industry, and even to some of those who fought to deregulate it.
You continue to equate the actions of the government and the banks as if they are the same, and clearly they are not. To borrow your cop analogy, you seem to want to place all of the blame on the cops because after they showed up at the scene of the robbery, they decided to go for coffee instead of arresting the criminal. I'm sorry, but doesn't the criminal take any responsibility, regardless of the actions of the cops after the fact?
I didn't say right and natural, I said their job - which is to make profits anyway they can get away with (sadly this is what has become of banking with the tearing down of the needed protections and weakening of regulatory bodies -which obviously Paul would only make worse). No, a criminal doesn't take responsibility if they are enabled by the cops. What criminal hands himself in to the cops on their own freewill?
And, under Obama's leadership, they have been refunded their money and given trillions in loans to continue doing as they were.
That is, was and will remain my point. The Fed is responsible for not protecting the American people from the bankers, for protecting them from their own failed gambling and supporting them in escalating their terrible policies. Much as Obama did in regards to the Bush Doctrine - didn't want to look back at past abuses, continued int eh same direction and amplified the intensity of it.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
You ignore once again the crux of my point, which is that the banks chose to make money by endangering the very survival of their businesses. If you think the "job" of those who run a business is to kill the golden goose, then you're mistaken. Only a person with a criminal mind would run their business the way many of the banks did.
Your argument is that it's okay to look at the FDIC as an insurance policy for your customers should your dangerous actions take your bank down. I'll bet the banks clients and investors might have a different opinion.
And you intentionally miss my point that the criminal is still a criminal, even if the cops look the other way, or yes, even if the cops are "on the take". It's not just about being held accountable, it's about being responsible for their actions. These corporations are a creation of law and our society, they do not exist in nature, and therefore they do ultimately answer to us all, morally, legally or otherwise.
Whatever. I've made my point and so have you, and there's no sense in making it again and again...
They made huge profits and didn't kill the goose because they gambled that the gov would save it and they were right. Therefore, they succeeded. I'm not stating they are running a business that is wholesome and beneficial, but it is for the most part legal and supported by the Geithner at the Fed and the administration.
Who will hold them accountable? Their conscience? The invisible hand of the free market? A Fed run by bankers? I don't get what your point is here. We both want them held accountable but my argument is that those who are supposed to do that are part of the swindle. I may be mistaken, but you appear to be defending the Fed for it's role in encouraging the actions of the bankers.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
"The only defense the left ever has for this video is to say "just because he saw it coming doesn't mean he knows what the solution is" while they defend those who were utterly clueless and even argued he was wrong.
"That's a pretty lame argument"
Who exactly is "defending those who were utterly clueless..." I mean besides you? Paul is and has always been a bigoted, Racist Clueless ass.
And you honestly think that because a person "saw it coming" that he knew what do do about it? That makes no linear sense at all.
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
but he is consistently wrong. Anyone who thinks you can base a currency on a commodity is nuttier that a fruitcake. Problem is even fruitcakes have their fans. I've asked you some pretty simple questions about this policy and all I get back is some Hayekian bullshit. I'll ask again. If you base your currency on gold how do you expand the money supply when the economy grows ? How do you prevent inflation or deflation? Do you print more gold as required? How do you stop others who have gold from playing with your currency? They can buy up or dump gold as required to screw with your trade balances and there's not a damn thing you can do to stop them. Ron Paul does not even grasp what currency is, never mind how it should be regulated. And yet he wants not only to base a currency on a commodity but he wants it's valuation to be in the hands of politicians. That's a recipe for hyperinflation disaster.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
crazy is still crazy.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -- Robert E. Howard
his third place showing in Iowa last night:
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVid...
I loved the part where Ron Paul says Newt needs to read the Constitution!
And here's what the second place Rick Santorum would like to see happen:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/01/04/3973...
As Ron Paul says, there are more Independents in New Hampshire than Republicans. And because the youth vote is going for him he will have a good shot at doing well there.
Plus now that Bachmann is out and probably Perry and Huntsman will be dropping out soon, maybe even Gingrich, I think the debates will become more focused on the issues that need to be discussed.
Ian Masters had David Sirota on his show (KPFK - Los Angeles) yesterday and he drove the point home that America needs to have the discussions Ron Paul is forcing that would otherwise be ignored in a campaign with Obama, Romney and Gingrich:
http://ianmasters.com/sites/default/files/mp3...
The war on drugs, the current dangers to our civil liberties, the dangers of never-ending military quests for global hegemony with illegal pre-emptive wars and occupations, the fraud being perpetrated by the Federal Reserve:
http://dailybail.com/home/former-fed-vice-pre...
I realize the vast majority of folks here at C&L loathe Ron Paul. But I believe that as the weeks move by more and more here will come to realize that it is better for our country that Ron Paul's voice is out there to move the discussion/agenda to where it needs to go.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
They just loathe their own reflection in the mirror he holds up.
To be an Obamabot is having to either endorse or apologize for things such as torture with impunity and financial fraud on a massive scale with no repercussions for the criminals.
It's pretending that endless war, including machine gunning children and bombing of weddings, will make us safer instead of creating far more terrorists than we kill. It's having to mindlessly cheer for the killing of Osama Bin Laden just as the Bushies cheered the capture of Saddam Hussein.
It's watching the rich get richer while the rest of the country is robbed blind while trying to pretend it's all some sort of unavoidable accident. It's trying desperately to ignore that Obama has not only received more Wall Street cash than any two presidential candidates in history but has also kept a Wall Street representative as his chief advisor since his election.
It's watching as more people are rounded up and deported than ever before, as more whistleblowers are persecuted, and as imprisonment and even execution without charge or trial become acceptable to them.
In short: Ron Paul holds a mirror to the face of former liberals, and they see that they have become the conservatives they used to loathe.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Thank you. Great comment and clears up much of my confusion as to why so many here hold Paul in such distain.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
congratulations!!!!!!! you have just won a trip to denver and five ovens!!!!!!!!!
Bush's foreign policies are on auto-pilot or are being ramped up under the Obama administration. Why is that?
Don't believe me? Ask Seymour Hersh.
What a wonderful bit of supposition about why "former liberals" despise Ron Paul.
Except that it's not impossible to despise all those things you mentioned about life under Obama and still have the mental candlepower to understand that Ron Paul is a raving lunatic.
I think Ron Paul holds a mirror to the face of supposedly thoughtful progressives and reveals them for the reactionary thinkers they always were.
. . . whenever Ron Paul is mentioned. For some reason, Paul can't be attacked by Obama loyalists as simply "wrong" on issues; he has to be cast as a "raving lunatic" or some such hyperbole.
In other words: Methinks the Obamabots doth protest too much.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
And you make that point with a diatribe full of suppostion and hyperbole? There are plenty of people here who have repeatedly stated their objections to both Obama and Ron Paul, but for some reason all of a sudden anyone who posts anything negative about Paul is labeled an "Obamabot".
Was that because "librul" was already taken?
. . . to both Ron Paul and Barack Obama.
I'm one of them.
And I certainly didn't apply that comment to all critics of Ron Paul, Cinderella. You put that slipper on all by yourself.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Your entire diatribe about Obamabots and Ron Paul was a response to what Abbywood wrote about a majority of people here at C&L loathing Ron Paul. So it shouldn't be surprising that those of us who fall into that "majority" might infer that you were speaking about us, and calling us Obamabots.
Is that slipper comfortable?
Nor is it my fault you chose the glass slipper for yourself.
I've pointed out my opposition to many of Ron Paul's policies repeatedly at C&L including on this very thread. I also headlined my comment by saying: "Many bots don't necessarily loathe Ron Paul."
When clearly contradicted by what I actually stated, your inferences are hardly my fault.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
....to your 24/7 Obama = Bush bullshit. And your "anyone who disagrees with my assessment of Obama is an Obamabot" is simply fucking stupid.
Your solutionless diatribes will only get us another republican in the white house in November.
Neither Romney nor Obama. But that's already a done deal.
I don't apologize for, nor much doubt, Paul's racism though I think his son Rand is far more compelling evidence of that racism than 15-20 year old newsletters. Nor have I ever labeled you as an Obamabot or anyone else who merely "disagrees with my assessment of Obama." Yet ignoring the fact that on nearly every policy point Barack Obama is virtually indistinguishable from George W. Bush isn't getting anybody anywhere.
"Republicans are worse" is a mantra that will not only guarantee that any Republican position becomes acceptable merely by Republicans adopting an even worse position but is, in the words of a respected commenter, "simply fucking stupid."
Oh, and fuck you for the "racism apologist" accusation.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
But suggesting that Obama = Bush and now Obama = Romney damages your credibility. W had nearly complete cooperation from the senate, the congress, the courts, the media, the American public, etc. and still was a history making catastrophe. Obama(who has made awful mistakes...minus the malice) has had anything he's tried to attempt(good or bad) obstructed(including closing gitmo, giving alleged terrorists trials in our courts, etc) And your constant "lesser of two evils" mantra is meritless unless you can prove that Obama is the sociopath W was and Romney is.
For me Ron Paul is a nasty racist, homophobic, woman hating lying coward, unqualified to lead all Americans and this Nation.
Call it hyperbole all you wish, but for me anyone who says that they were and still oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act is dead to me...a walking corpse.
. . . "nasty racist, homophobic, woman hating lying coward, unqualified to lead all Americans and this Nation."
I've never disagreed with any of that. Still don't.
But don't go calling me a "racism apologist" and pretend you're not trying to pick a fight. That's bs.
On the merits: Bush never enjoyed the majorities Obama did for two years. Moreover, your argument appears to be less based on Obama being less of a catastrophe than Bush and more upon Obama's lack of "malice." It would be nice to be mind reader, but I don't have that talent - and neither do you.
Peace.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I don't think Ron Paul is a "raving lunatic". I think he's quite intelligent. He's talking about things that NEED to be talked about. I don't agree with a lot of his policies, but I think he's much better than Newt or Mittens or Santorum.
far left loon >.<
So far, I've yet to get a response to that same statement. Who would be a better Republican candidate? It's like many here think whoever wins the Republican nod is automatically president. Or maybe they're afraid Obama can't beat Paul in the general election... I don't know.
I do agree with what you said though. Paul would be awesome int he debates against Obama on issues like the escalation of the Bush Doctrine, continuing the Bush bailouts and other undisclosed Fed loan policies to the banks and top corporations, and many civil liberty issues such as this new indefinite detention of Americans bill Obama signed (but pinky swears he won't utilize).
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Thanks, fiver. Love it.
far left loon >.<
to move the discussion/agenda to where it needs to go."
agreed. so that we have less vets with ptsd whose families go to check on them and find their brains all over the floor, which tends to happen when you a take deeply moral man and have him kill people from 1'000 yards, in a "police action" called the vietnam war. sorry to be so graphic, true story.
once more, paul would have no traction whatsoever if our political class was doing their jobs.
"Starin' at the boob tube, turnin' on the big knob
Tryin' to find some life in the waste land
Fin'ly found a program, gonna deal with Mary Jane
Ready for a trip into hate land
Obnoxious Joe comes on the screen
Along with his guest self-righteous Sam
And one more guy who doesn't count
His hair and clothes are too far out
While pushin' back his glasses Sam is sayin' casually
"I was elected by the masses"
And with that in mind he starts to unwind
A vicious attack on the finest of grasses"
Steppenwolf
from 40 years ago, how many citizens have spent years in prison over this fiasco? started by ronnie rayguns? and now continued by our most beneficent emperor?
war vets and they are voting for Paul. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of vets would prefer to defend the U.S. rather than invade non threatening countries and kill innocent civilians for the enrichment of multinational corporations.
he was never the same after the war, he had the stare.
BUT I am in total agreement with you with regard to the very important issues that he brings up that absolutely would NOT be brought up with the usual gang of jerks.
How can anyone with a brain/insight not see what a total boob Ron Paul is? Indeed, his consistency is there, and can be somewhat disturbing. You Americans have some serious issues, and need to bypass some of the stupidity that is Republican. I can't believe CNN is treating these folks like real people, as if they had a real chance of winning the election. Surely you're not that far gone, to believe that any of the clowns trying to sort out who will be the chief clown has a chance of beating Obama? Not that he is a demi-god, but holy crap--look at the field!!
Shake your heads and grow up!
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine"
Hey, this is the same country that gave dubya enough of an edge he could cheat his way into office (while, btw, the band played on) and thinks Ron 'Asshole' Reagan is a fucking god. Why anyone is shocked at the collective stupidity demonstrated day in day out by the USA and its denizens is a puzzle to me.
me-oww!
Nice exposure of the anti-Pauls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-26c7WxaiE
i would laugh if it didn't hurt so bad. so the madman is "finding wedge issues to split liberals" is he? geez, that is so naughty of him, isn't it? i have a small suggestion, perhaps our elected officials should honor their oaths? perhaps do what the american citizenry wants? a few suggestions.
1- do not engage in military actions unless the country or our citizens are attacked.
2- do not engage in wars without a declaration from congress
3- do not assassinate american citizens w/o at least a pro-forma trial (got to keep up appearances)
4- quit printing monopoly money, stabilize the currency, close the discount window
5- bring the federal reserve under complete govt. control, break the monopoly of the banking consortium's control over our economy
6- represent the people, all the people, not the 1% who bankroll campaigns
7- legalize marijuana, it grows in the ground, it is not manufactured, there is no documented case of anyone dying from a marijuana overdose.
this is for starters, check my comments for some specific serious reforms such as outlawing credit default swaps.
Matt Taibbi
Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/ta...
it is totally bogus to criticize ron paul for running on things that the dimbulbs should already be taking care of, ask the disproportionate number of people of color in our prison system how they feel about marijuana possession.
Ron is against Public Schools. He thinks only those that can afford it should have an Education.
He's not really for Separation of Church and State: "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion."
He thinks Evolution is just a theory: "You know it is a theory, nobody has concrete proof of any of this. But quite frankly I think it's sort of irrelevant, that because we don't know the exact details and we don't have geologic support for evolutionary forms…"
He stated that he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and he is not against individual states practicing discrimination against their gay and lesbian residents.
Just like his idiot son, He says he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
He's for the Regressive idea of a Flat Tax.
He opposes regulations on industries… He believes that government regulations are burdens rather than consumer protections, and the much hailed "free market" will regulate itself. This ignores the fact that the financial industry had steadily been in a state of deregulation for over two decades, and look what happened.
He calls anti-trust laws "much more harmful than helpful.
He also opposes the federal minimum wage,
He believes that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs are unconstitutional and should be abolished.
He also believes that the Departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor should all be abolished.
Paul also opposes the notion that man-made climate change is a "major problem."
http://www.peoplesworld.org/why-progressives-...
~albabe (The Writer/Artist Formally Known As Al Gordon)
http://www.comicon.com/gordon/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gordon
it does not address my point that all these issues should be taken care of by our elected reps already, the only reason paul has any traction is the dereliction of duty displayed by the dimbulbs, and the pukes, for that matter.
It is fascinating how those who distain Paul the most are the ones who defend Obama the most. I wonder if they dispose Paul simply because a good ol' boy Texan bigot Republican looks like a DFH compared to Obama's Kissinger-style foreign policy and CEO-love affair of the past 4 years (Immelt as Jobs Czar... really? How is that defensible in any dimension of reality?).
Or is it that they really think Obama is right all the time and therefore the few small items Paul is correct on are of no importance since Obama's on it!!! I'm sure Obama will regulate the Fed as soon as Geithner returns his calls, end the war in Afghanistan soon as he has a spare minute and will retract his signing of a bill allowing the greatest abuse of Civil Liberties in generations as soon as he realizes his signing statement was laughable inept.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Paul's positions on civil liberties and congressional approval for war force them to confront how far Obama and the Democrats have strayed from their core values.
Because so many Dems think that the civil rights act was a bad idea.
indefinite detention is a good idea.
of the time. He's a Harvard educated Constitutional scholar, dontcha know.
So true. Don't know which is worse - the chance that Obama knows how terrible his actions are and doesn't care, or that our education standards have collapsed so far that a top grad from our most esteemed schools doesn't know jack shit about his main field of study.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
I disdain ron paul's stupid-arsed selfish thoughtless, shitty headed philosophy and the old old fucker himself whenever I can. I rarely stand up for Obama. And only in the most general of terms. I can't even give you a 'for instance.'
Let me make this clear to you and all members of the Zombie Army of paulbots™--dislike and/or disdain of ron paul in no way confers approval of another person, unless it's specifically stated, as in, the person is named.
IMO, ron paul is a stupe. A self-involved, angry, too-old loser, packing around one of the most stupid, ill-informed philosophies on the face of the Earth. No mention of support of anyone else, is there?
me-oww!
This is their new mantra: "Only Obamabots oppose Ron Paul".
They seem incapable of defending all of Paul's nutty positions, so attacking his detractors using the Obamabot strawman is their only option.
Karl Rove would be proud of them.
there's just something about the underlying stupid throughout the entire spectrum of these bots I find so fascinating. I'm sure Lee Atwater would be tickled pink as well.
me-oww!
Can you defend ALL of Obama's positions?
Also, Paul is running for the Republican nomination. Of the candidates in that clown car, he is the least detestable and would be a good debate partner for OBama by helping bring to the forefront many vital issues about the US and it's role int he world. What about that is so bad?
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
PEOPLE WHO FIND ron paul OFFENSIVE AREN'T NECESSARILY PRO-OBAMA.
me-oww!
Read the post I was responding to. He asked me to defend all of Paul's positions. That was what I was responding to.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
I know how to read in-line and use the parent button.
Why have you decided Bill Lumbergh's pro-Obama? That's what you're implying, that he'd have that shit all lined up because he's anti-paul. Or at least as for Obama as you are for ron paul?
me-oww!
And I never once stated I am pro-Paul.
I am pro-Paul as a Republican candidate because I think he'd be better for the national dialogue than a Romney or Gingrich or Santorum candidacy. I have stated this numerous times and yet have not had one single answer by the anti-Paul people as to why they think he's a terrible Republican candidate. I've also not seen much by the anti-Paul crowd as to why It's OK to disagree with Obama on so much of what he does and still support him but disagreeing with Paul on a bunch of his views while thinking he plays an important role in our national dialogue is so bad.
Why is thinking Paul is the best Republican candidate offend so many here?
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
expressing agreement with three or four planks of a politician's otherwise looney tunes platform does not constitute wholesale advocacy of that politician.
We are in a shitty situation in which the only person on the national stage who's raising the issues of civil liberties and illegal and/or undeclared wars is a South Texas whackaloon. Democrats, particularly Obama supporters, are especially sensitive to this fact since it highlights their party's complete abandonment of what were once its core values.
So just to be clear, yes, Ron Paul is a racist who, if he had his way, would send America back to the 18th century. His presidency would be utterly disastrous for many reasons.
But wouldn't it be nice to have someone challenge Obama on a national platform on issues like indefinite detention? Without Ron Paul in the mix, no one will do that.
Ron is against Public Schools. He thinks only those that can afford it should have an Education.
The presidency is weak. He can't tell Congress what to do. He can't write bills and introduce them. Basically he's powerless. What do you expect, he'd bully people into shutting down schools?
far left loon >.<
"Paul is against the wars! Paul is an isolationist" Yeah mother fucking yeah.
This compassionless racist homophobic freak is the prototypical 1940's-1950's White man who wants govern well off White people and ignore everyone else.
Fuck him.
Some dark skinned people on Ron Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_e...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5_rZof7MA&fe...
Someone on the outside looking in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axN53qCJChY
...on confused Blacks in White America.
You are absolutely wasting your time with me asshole. A Texan who all his political life was against the 1964 Civil Rights Act that provided people like me the necessary protection from sick racist violent apartheid loving American terrorist rednecks, is COINCIDENTALLY associated with decades of awful hateful racist, homophobic newsletters written in his name.
Look Mr. Bigot, I do understand that for most of this Nation's history racism is a minor distraction to people like you, but to many of us, it's a dealbreaker.
You actually believe that I would even consider voting for Paul over Obama, fucking lol!
You either need to quickly get off your meds or double your dosage.
Indeed, Obama has been quite the godsend to dark skinned people.
So far you've been complicit in the death and destruction of 10's of thousands, if not more, and you're perfectly willing to be complicit in the continuation. Not good.
Has it ever occurred to you that Obama's disdain for his father could possibly be transferred to others with dark skin?
...began his political career as a community organizer.
"Has it ever occurred to you that Obama's disdain for his father could possibly be transferred to others with dark skin?"
Stupid racist projecting mother fucker.
Why won't you address the complicity issue?
After Madeline Albright claimed the death of 500,000 Iraqi children's was "worth the price" and Janet Reno defended the 51 day military-style assault on a home full of women and children in Waco, and liberals didn't speak out in condemnation of any of it, I stopped accepting the lie that liberals care about human life any more than conservatives.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Just because it wasn't reported in the corporate media doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Not liberals in the press or government. Yet, Republicans did (mainly from their distain of Clinton but many did on legitimate grounds). This is why I have no patience for those who hold Paul with such distain. He has been on the right side of important issues which define our nation since the beginning and the wrong side of others. But at least he will stand up for us on some of the big ones and if Kucinich and Sanders can work with him I think we owe Paul a thanks for the good he does and to continue fighting him on the bad.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
because the MSM showed it. Get this straight: There are NO LEFT LEANING people on MSM news. No one, nowhere. You actually have to do legwork to find left leaning feedback.
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/1/23/peace_a...
http://www.democracynow.org/2001/11/1/as_u_s_...
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084
http://www.thenation.com/article/killing-sanc...
God help ya if you had to look OUTSIDE the oh-so-easy sources for 'liberals' speaking out against this bullshit, just exactly like you.
me-oww!
Thank you for proving why the opportunity for Ron Paul to debate Obama would be a good thing. Then Americans who are unable to or too incurious to do the legwork to find out about such things can be exposed to what America is doing around the world and within our own borders.
He is, along with Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich the only person in government with a national spotlight talking about such things. Like him or not, he is vital to keeping these issues in the open. We sure can't expect Obama's "transparent" presidency to let us know about all the Geneva Conventions and Human Rights violations he's been a part in breaking.
I've not once said a Paul presidency would be a good thing. I have repeatedly stated a Paul candidacy is a good thing. Can you honestly say a Romney or Santorum candidacy would be productive to the national dialogue?
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
I can honestly say none of them, including your man there, ron 'GET THE HELL OUT IF HERE! HE'S QUEER!' paul.
Look it's all fake. fake fake fake fake. Fake. No matter WHO gets in or WHAT they are allowed to say, it's a fake show. No matter what they promise, they all get in and do what they're told to do. remember how everyone thought Clinton would be the one, then Obama? You little paulbots sound just like any other group of adherents who think their guy will do it, be the one to shake things up.
ron paul has a teeny power base. He's old, and is in no position to beef shit around to get get his (and presumably your) way. You'd be here, 4 years from now, just as disappointed in your man (if he was still alive) and his legacy as are realistic Obama supporters/ex-supporters are today. Guaranteed. It would be referred to as 'Bush's 4th Term.'
There's no one up for the job now. And ron paul is a step in the wrongest of directions.
me-oww!
So your advice is, "Don't bother with any of this."?
It doesn't matter if it's Paul, Obama, Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Joe the Plumber or Charlie Sheen?
Forgive me for feeling that national dialogue matters and having someone who talks about real issues would be a positive for then nation by getting Americans to talk about more than the latest news cycle. See,t he beauty of dialogue is to hear things you don't agree with just as much as things you do. IN this, Obama would have to defend his bad policies against Paul's ideas, just as he would get to promote his good policies over Paul's ideas. And in this process, the American people will get to hear about America's actions over the past decades in the Middle East, our ceaseless funnel of free money to banks and corporations through the Fed and much more that they don't hear in any depth from the MSM.
That to me is a good thing.
Having Romney and Obama debate which healthcare plan is the least Socialist and who is more willing to bomb Iran doesn't appeal to me.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
where DID I say that?
Are you incapable of reading comments w/o making up a whole inaccurate backstory to go with them? That thought never even crossed my mind. If you can't figure out what I told you, I'm afraid any kind of elaboration on my part would just lead to more misinterpretation on your part.
me-oww!
What was this intended to mean then:
I took it as meaning they are all fake and don't deliver.
And you still refuse to answer why it would be bad to have someone debate Obama about his escalation of the Bush Doctrine in front of the American people.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
there is none. I truly don't care who debates or doesn't debate whom.
me-oww!
so why do you interpret it as "So your advice is, "Don't bother with any of this?" as well? There was no advice dispensed. Get with it.
me-oww!
'GET THE HELL OUT IF HERE! HE'S QUEER!' paul.
Frothy won. Should I celebrate? Saved from the evil Paul?
(I don't live there anyway, but... )
far left loon >.<
Paul twice (2001, 2007) introduced legislation to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal- bounties- on the heads of AQ members (he also introduced legislation for Letters of Marque against Somali pirates in 2009).
That doesn't line up with the anti-war stances of Sanders and Kucinich.
Neither does Paul's isolationist policy of No-Foreign-Aid-To-Anyone-Ever align with Sanders and Kucinich.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
. . . of being anti-ear ;)
Corruption favors the wealthy.
...I saw your reply!
:P
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
He really walks the pro-ear walk, especially on those 3/4 portraits!
me-oww!
Wow. Paul, Kucinich and Sanders aren't identical clones!!! Thanks for the insight.
Seems many here have missed this but we're talking about the Republican nomination, not the Presidency. Can anyone name a better person to debate Obama over the next year of the potential field of rightwing loons?
Also, does anyone here think Obama deserves to be re-elected without being publicly taken to account for his escalation of the Bush Doctrine amongst other things? Wouldn't it be nice to know Obama "the Constitutional Scholar's" reason for signing a bill allowing for the indefinite detention of American Citizens?
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
...NDAA doesn't allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens, I think that it's people like the main agent of that meme- a certain Mr. Greenwald- who initially supported the invasion of Iraq, who should be called to the carpet for enabling Bush to open Pandora's Box.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
Do you have a link to verify the claim that it does not in fact authorize the indefinite detention of Americans? Everyone from the ACLU to Forbes to Salon to the Atlantic to Fox News to Mother Jones says it does.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
And Human Rights Watch.
It seems only a select few still believe it does not. (If you can prove it does not, I'll eat my words.)
If I might add, how about the rest of the world? An act of US Congress and we can be detained indefinitely. That's a positive thing? Do you support that?
And, secondly, there is a great deal of confusion around this NDAA bill (it seems). What happened to open transparent government? Is there no one that can end the 'rumours' and set the record straight? Anyone with access to the internet knows it's a hot topic and Americans are divided. Wouldn't it be prudent for the President, or VP, or Janet Napolitano to hold a press conference to ease Americans' minds? Is that asking a lot?
Topic: Can we be indefinitely detained without trial, or not? We'd really like to know.
far left loon >.<
But it's cheaper to just knock you off.
...NDAA doesn't allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens...
Yes, it does.
Thanks. Excellent clip. A MUST watch!
far left loon >.<
I was beginning to look around for Rod Serling to comment, since I feel like I stepped into a "Twilight Zone" episode.
Sure, legalizing drugs, not getting involved in senseless wars, and not "droning" people from the sky, are noble causes.
But after you look at him some more, Ron Paul is a racist and misogynistic xenophobe.
And a "Gold Standard" loon.
Period!
And to project other values onto him is naive at best. "Stopped clock...," and all that.
He ain't worrying about YOUR rights!
He only cares about the rights for himself, his family, and his pals.
It shouldn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure out the rest.
HOMOPHOBE!
Constitution as the highest priority is unworthy to be President.
That would be Obama. When he signed the NDAA in secret on New Year's Eve he forfeited his right to ever take the oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic" again.
Ron Paul NEVER would have signed legislation stripping the American people of their rights.
Romney would. Santorum would. Gingrich would. Perry would.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
"Ron Paul NEVER would have signed legislation stripping the American people of their rights."
Well, except for women and girls, and gays ...
He'd be 77 in the alternate universe where he actually is sworn in as pres, and he'd be 95 by the end of his first term, the way the job ages a guy.
me-oww!
He's as crazy as a shit house rat when it comes to economic and monetary policy. He understands neither but offers a glibly superficial understanding with a thick layer of unsupported grievance. And brother does that sell these days.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
if he had a chance of winning either the Republican nomination or the presidency, which he doesn't. But in any case, all of the Republican candidates are potentially dangerous, especially Santorum. How on earth did he do so well? He was polling in the single digits just a few weeks ago.
the anybody but Mitt syndrome. Santorum was the bottom of the barrel and I'm guessing the voters went with him because they didn't know much about him. They just didn't have time to vet him.There were no attack ads directed at Santorum. He wasn't considered worth it.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
"Republican Insider: GOP Establishment Planning To Subvert Iowa to Prevent Ron Paul Win"
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/102545-20...
You think they want a nutbar as their nominee?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
no matter how you slice it.
Yawn....both corporate schmucks.
http://jasonsane0908.deviantart.com/art/Spy-V...
Point taken. The lesser of all nutbars I expect but you are correct.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
And if I might interject, Santorum, the winner, is the most HOMOPHOBIC person in the running.
far left loon >.<
All this vitriol toward Ron Paul is really short sighted from a few angles.
1. Just because he comes to the right conclusions "from the wrong direction" doesn't mean we should dismiss him. If Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich can work with him, I think we only do ourselves harm by not joining with others who we may disagree with on other issues to promote causes we mutually agree on. (i.e. Montana's Libertarian courts striking down Citizens United - something we liberals can cheer and support)
2. For a modern Republican, Paul is one of the good ones. He at least is willing to work with Democrats on those issues they agree on and he's been instrumental in our fights to preserve and/or defend our remaining civil liberties - much more than many of our so called Democrats.
3. If Paul wins the Republican nod and runs against Obama it will shift the presidential electoral process further to the left than it's been in generations. Wouldn't it be nice to see Obama called out in the public eye for his escalation of Bush doctrine? To see Obama defend his actions on renditions, arms sales, covert wars in numerous countries and all those things we liberals are supposed to be repulsed by? In turn, Obama can grill Paul for his stances on Civil Rights, social programs and the likes. In short, we would have a real debate of beliefs and ideas. Something we haven't seen in presidential debates for a long time and something we won't see if it's Romney, Santorum, Gingrich or any of the other opportunists.
We can disagree with Paul on many issues, but to dismiss and demean him is self destructive as he is one of the few allies we have on some of the most important issues we face today (you know, war, Civil Liberties, Fed Reserve accountability, little things like that). Marginalizing Paul only makes it harder for other fringe candidates (like Kucinich, Nader, McKinney) to gain traction in the future.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Comments are closed on this entry