The Real Danger Of Ron Paul

here's the real danger of ron paul. he has his whole "supply side mr rogers" act down perfect. sure, he tries to pass himself as a traditional conservative and libertarian, but in the end, he still does advocate the same old stuff economically.


sure, I agree with him about ending foreign wars and the whole war on drugs thing.


but the real danger is convincing people that, well, if we just cut taxes and deregulate everything and stop funding disaster relief, the market will solve all our problems. that if you just deregulate everything with no oversight, the market will solve itself. how many people would have to die before toyota made a recall and is punished vs oversight? this is a man who voted against disaster relief for hurricane victims, because "it's not the business of the federal government."



in the end, its still the same old disaster capitalism. that's the true danger of ron paul. just because you wanna make pot legal and bringing the troops home doesn't change the fact that the unregulated, Ayn Rand style of markets does not work.


he's still advocating the economic policies, more or less, of reagan. and we all know how well those worked out.



why vote for someone to do the business of government when they don't even believe in government? do you hire people to do a job and pay them if they refuse to do it, or worse, sabotage it?


"supply side mr rogers" is as dangerous as dick cheney or any other conservative who just doesn't get it.

We keep hearing from these people who want to run for office that claim government can't do anything. Would you hire a mechanic that says your car can't be fixed?

I keep wanting someone to ask one of these nuts why free people can't choose to use the instrument of their own government to address common problems and needs.

after all the investigations into AIG, it happened because conservatives don't believe in government.


they just LET it happen. think about it.


ron paul is on morning schmuck has flat out said he wants to see bankruptcies and failures and believing that the market will punish people.


how can you punish someone if you don't even know it? how can you punish someone for putting cadmium in your children's toys if theres no one there to let you know it?


and ron paul comes out with his Mr Rogers act, the velvet glove to dick cheney's iron fist.

I'm not sure what this means.

There are times when things can't be fixed no matter how much we wish they could.

Are you driving the first and only car you've ever owned?

I keep trying to remember not to speak in metaphores. They only work when you share a common knowledge base with the audience.

The obvious intention was to speak of an automechanic that suggests that cars can't be maintained.

It's deliberate.

But when I am accidentally obtuse, I give a bit of benefit of the doubt.

I do tend to try to not use metaphors in discussions with people that I don't share a common knowledge base. One can end up arguing the metaphor more than the point. That can be either be because of an attempt at derailing, or a legitimately different understanding of the metaphor. They're a bit like spelling flames. Nine times out of ten a spelling flame is an attempt to avoid the underlying point. The 10th time though, it's because of the precious irony the mistake presents. (i.e. calling your opponent a "moran").

Who knew?

:shrug:

I guess when you have a brother that's a mechanic the frame of reference may be a bit different than yours and I was reading your comment more literally than metaphorically.

I'll try to stay on the straight and narrow going forward.

:hi:

him after he tried to fix your car and made it worse?
After he said he could not fix your car?
After he tried again to fix your car and made it worse AGAIN?
Would you hire him again?

That is the same thing as electing a Conservative to run your government.
After they ran your economy into the ground again.

"Would you hire a *mechanic* who say he can't fix cars"

But I get what you're saying. The problem we have with this "car" is that the repubs have driven the hell out of it without an oil change or any other maintenence. It's going to need a major overhaul, and that's an expensive proposition.

decided they believe in Reaganomics along with the Republican party, centrist Democrats, and Blue Dogs though Paul differs from them in that he is for reducing military spending and empire while Reagan was for accelerating both.

and ending the war on drugs are about his only real libertarian credentials.


he pretty much would toss our economy to the wolves and make sure that the rich pay nothing in taxes.


he's as dangerous as any member of the Cheney clan.

They are full blown fascism. Paul is 18th century.

He's for ending corporate welfare, while Obama seems very comfortable with it. Thus the appointments of Geithner, Summer, Bernanke, and special favors for Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, Obama's largest contributor, etc..

And he's for restoration of a monetary system not controlled by private banks, i.e., an end to the FED as we know it (the fractional FED).

And restoration civil liberties, ending the Patriot Act.

On these issues, he's virtually indistinguishable from Dennis Kucinich. The difference lies in social areas, welfare, health care, entitlements, corporate regulations, environment, etc. But, you see that Obama does not support single payer or apparently even a public option, so I question how much difference there really is between corporate Democrats and Republicans. They both support the private insurance companies, the military industrial complex, Wall Street bail outs. These are the big issues of the day, yes?

The danger I see is not a Ron Paul, but the illusion that there is a meaningful difference between Republicans and Democrats. We're still in Afghanistan and Iraq after eight years (both wars for oil), still have no national health care, still supporting a corrupt banking system. In order to take down the rotten, corporate core I think it will take a collaboration between left and right, as well as environmentalists, like Kucinich, Paul, and Nader, and others not afraid to buck the system. And it will probably take entering into another great depression before we see any real change, because as long as people have their TV's, autos, their creature comforts, they don't seem to want to vote for real change. Hope and change was a slick marketing campaign by Obama, but when are we going to see any real change?

He is against public funding of schools, head start, college assistance, medicare, medicaid
He is against social security
He is for unfettered gun control

He's also wrong on:
Women's reproductive rights
Immigration
Gay Rights
Church-State Separation
International Relations
Worker rights
Campaign finance reform
Universal health care
and he wants to privatize EVERYTHING

Indistinguishable from Dennis Kucinich, my ass.

If he was so "libertarian" why the interference on women's rights?

"On these issues, he's virtually indistinguishable from Dennis Kucinich."

I'm not disagreeing with the points you make above, just that it's a very incomplete list. He's right on half of the issues, and it happens that the biggest problems facing us are corporate welfare, military industrial complex, corrupt banking system and monetary system failure as we have all witnessed these past two years. Obama supports the status quo, maintaining the corrupt banking system.

So, on these issues, it's essential to agree on and move forward, to forge a coalition of some type, including Independents, "real" Democrats and reasonable Republicans. Maybe it will take forming a new party. But, I think it will only happen when we enter a great depression, before people wake up, and I think we may be about to see that unfold.

Him and his followers could plunge our country into a civil war.

By building him up, by supporting him, by taking him seriously, you are not driving a wedge into the heart of the Republican Party--you are only giving him a helping hand along the road to his goal of destroying just about everything you stand for.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787

and really also so truthful.




ron paul has his act down pat but deep down, he's still a texas republican. he's still one of tom delay's boys.

"right" about drugs and war (he isn't really right about war, either--just opposed to it for the wrong reasons).

He dangerous because SOME progressives like to give him "credit" for being "right" on a couple issues. He's not right. He may agree with us on a couple issues but for all the wrong reasons. I am bothered that Kucinich validated this prick by even entertaining the idea of choosing him as a running mate. It made progressives think Paul is aligned with us. :puke:

He's not. He's a total piece of shit.

how's that working for you?"

Should be a sign ...

but ron paul's solution is to just destroy the federal government to fulfill grover norquist's dreams of reducing government to the size you can drown in a bathtub.


I mean, we can turn it all over to richard melon scaife and all the others and just wait for the wealth to piss down upon us.


ron paul is a fraud and also behind a lot of the tea party shit, and it's time to really start taking him to task.


a bigoted corporatist playing freedom fighter.

America is a funny place. No country in the world has as many different kinds of traffic signs: speed limit signs, stop signs, yield signs, school zone signs, warning signs, merge signs, amber alert signs, freeway status signs. In other countries of the world, you get one little sign indicating a populated area ahead with a lower speed limit. Compared to the U.S., driving there is deregulated and the free market supply of drivers determines how much demand there is for traffic.

Of course these same countries with deregulated roadways often have lots of government in other areas, with "government run health care", public transportation financed by high fuel taxes, and other services that Americans leave to the free market.

and wondering what your point is here?

Take down half the highway signs and people would drive like they do. But no, Ron Paul wants to remove the other set of regulations, like those pesky food safety rules, even though every other month there seems to be another batch of hamburger with E. coli in it.

I scratch my head too. :wtf:

That, and his stand on health CARE, is enough to damn him from serious consideration.

the dept of education too?

Who do not like the deficit and the war. He has good buzz words but horrible policies.

however, split their party which is good as that should benefit the opposition.

anti-choice. How very un-libertarian of him. Markets free from government involvement, but the government should be allowed to involve intself in a woman's body? The epitome of hypocrisy!

Try the veal, and give a smile and a nice tip to your servers, I'm here all week. Good night for now!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I've been looking for a term to replace the common "Paultard", since people with intellectual disabilities deserve better than to be compared to that racist, anti-choice snake oil salesman.

And Paul is not pro-choice.

I'm not going backwards.

If we can replace them with someone that isn't a corporate whore but also isn't pro-choice thats a trade off Im willing to make.

Also, unregulated free market would be absolute DISASTER (there's been too much of it already, and it has been disastrous, but the extreme form that Paul wants would be even worse).

The unregulated free market means going back to the early 19th century; allowing the poor to be destroyed utterly, as in letting them DIE; denying any provision of public services - it's a horrific nightmare. I don't know whether Paul is a 'corporate whore' or not; but his policies would certainly benefit the corporations, and the rich in general, at the expense of the poor, the old, the sick, and anyone in need of public services.

And if we must have republicans the more they look like Ron Paul the better.

but the idea is to marginalize them, not to decide which type of far right-winger we would prefer to some other type of far right-winger.

Paul is against this war. That's good. But his economic policies are essentially a war on the poor and the sick. I understand that over 40,000 Americans a year die prematurely because of lack of health insurance. If Paul and his followers implemented their policies it would be even MORE.

War isn't the only form of murder; unrelieved poverty and economic Social Darwinism are also murder.

with ANY other Republican. "We" are supposed to be replacing them with Democrats, aren't "we"?

"trade off" something.

And they wont let those contracts and other subsidies go away for some deep tax cuts.

They can already screw over people, nobody seems to be stopping them. They do this while enjoying huge government contracts and huge subsidies. Imgaine GE, Lockheed martin, halliburton, and other major corporations losing a huge amount (if not most) of their handouts. They would never let that happen.

but you have to have regulations in place. Tons of them, for it to work correctly

that just about nails it... , "can you say Depression-II Boys and Girls.. sure.. I knew you could".

I was watching morning schmuck and he was on trying to pass himself off as this kindly old man with his goofy voice and schtick and I was like, wow...he's like an evil mr rogers.



"give away your economic rights, boys and girls, and taking your ass fucking like a winner."

I mean, it just crashed two years ago, and was bailed out.

I'm not for it, but maybe the people need to finally learn the lesson of unrestricted capitalism.

You really honestly believe we've had anything close to a completely free market in the last 100 years? Where does a central bank that controls the reserve currency of the world and manipulates interest rates fit into a free market system? You guys honestly believe Halliburton came about because of the FREE MARKET? Are you really that thick or does your ideology just prevent you from looking at the actual facts?

It also never ceases to amaze me the faith you guys place in regulators. You really think these people are under no political influence and work for the people? Who was it who said Bernie Madoff's company was A-OK when they were flagged numerous times? The SEC.

In the corners where pure free market is allowed, the thing always crashes. The crashers don't mind, because they just made billions, and the government comes in to bail them out. There has never been a complete free market system, and it's an illusion, including Paul's version, which would be the freedom for the big fish to eat the smaller ones. You're right, Halliburton is obviously the product of corrupt government.

I have no faith in regulators. I would if the system were truly adversarial. The capture of the regulatory institutions by the regulated industries would have to end. Start by giving positions to the people who were right, like Elizabeth Warren and Brooksley Born and Harry Markopolos (the guy who nailed Madoff to the SEC). Instead, who's on top? All the guys who were wrong: Rubin, Summers, Geithner, Bernanke. There needs to be some kind of civil service created that keeps honest people in the lower ranks permanently, or a ban on them taking up consulting jobs with the very entities they regulate. It's not like they're properly staffed, either. To really do its job, if there was any interest in that, the SEC would have to be 10 times bigger. And 90 percent of the work, there and at the IRS, should be devoted to the 10 percent of corporations and people who are biggest or richest. That's not how it works, of course. Give us some minor miscreant's head on a pike (and compared to Goldman Sachs and AIG, that's what Madoff was) and pretend it's all good now.

What corners are you talking about? The reason the companies don't care about the crash is because they already knew the government was going to bail them out from the very beginning. That's why it's not a free market. Businesses are going to continue to act irresponsibly if they know for a fact their mistakes aren't going to be punished.

That's how our whole economy is built, not just the banking industry. It's all built on illusions. I wouldn't disagree with you that we probably won't ever seen a completely free market, at least not in our lifetime. But the part about Ron Paul's vision being where the big fish eat the small ones, I disagree. I think that's the system we have right now. All the biggest businesses (too big to fail) have all the advantages due to government guarantees and being able to game the system. Those with the most political power make the most money. That's not a free market.

A 10 times bigger SEC? I shudder at the thought. Where's the money going to come from?

I like this discussion though.. civil and thought-provoking.

It's worth the price.

So is public campaign finance and, believe it or not, higher Congressional salaries. They should get rich from their jobs, and be barred from getting rich from their sponsors - which is how it works. That's where your real plunder gets done. Corporations buy politicians for really nothing money. A few million in lobbying, campaign finance and "consulting" jobs for retired officials gets them billions in welfare. Fantastic returns. (It's analogous to the bank bonuses - those guys were happy to burn trillions just to make a few measly hundred million each.)

I hardly think that most politicians are coming out of the projects and inner-cities. Most of them are already rich way before they step into office, it's their lust for power that drives them to politics. And corporations wouldn't have near as much incentive to buy votes and favorable treatment if politicians didn't have their hands in so many things.

What you are describing is the effects of fiat money. The people who get the money first while it still has value (the people with the most political power) make huge returns on their original investment, and then the middle and lower classes suffer later on after the money supply has become diluted. But the people in power have already made a killing, then when the crash comes.. they come with their hands out waiting for the tax payers to bail them out so they can keep their plush salaries and bonuses. It's a vicious cycle that I think we can both agree we have done nothing to stop from happening all over again so far.

Mature.

low posts, going on and on about how we've never seen the free market (obviously, not a student of history, again a dead giveaway).



I bet you think being able to see russia from your house qualifies you to be president.

And I shudder to think of it. All the media air time and constant circus about Sarah Palin is simply to make Ron Paul look GOOD.

That is what most dems (this board included) fail to see. Obama seems hell bent on defining himself as ANTI-populist. So we have the next election as anti- vs populist. Who do you think is going to win?

He'll have relative authority to actually carry out the central tenets of his program: close the bases, end the Fed, end the war on drugs.

There should be sufficient opposition to stop him from ending Social Security.

He'd definitely be one term, but the bases would be just as closed and the wars just as ended at the end of it.

Anyway, this speculation is ridiculous, because: He will definitely NEVER be president. Not in a million tries. The GOP will never put him up for a nomination. It won't matter if he gets the most primary votes. It will be fixed long before he gets to a Convention. He'll be "screamed." Or shot.

as if he is to begin with.

Not enough people on the right will give up their war on terror. Nobody on the true left will vote for him. He might be a spoiler for the Republican party, but that is all.

Biden 2011, HRC picked by Congress 2012 in repeat of 1824 Election, Palin by military coup 4/4/2015

only because both of them appear socially liberal (in the case of Johnson I think he actually is), and could very easily appeal to independents and youth (far more than the religious nuts like Palin/Newt/Huckabee or the corporate whores like Romney). Their economic policy ideas would be an absolute disaster for this country, so I am afraid for someone like this getting the nomination.

Also, rabidly anti-social safety net. Anti Social Security, Anti-Medicare, anti-HC reform, anti-PO.

Anti everything including anti-people.

RP is a fascist of a slightly different sort.

A fascist is a fascist.

knr

as a thorn in the nanny-staters' sides. he would be HORRIBLE as the leader of a nation.

He is an enemy of the Banksters that control the Federal Reserve. He wants to reform monetary policy among many other things.

For this reason only, he will NEVER be President. Ever. He's barely tolerated in his own party, a party completely owned and operated by the Banking Industry.

So while he's correct about foreign wars, the "federal" reserve, and the war on drugs, being a groupie of a fascist lunatic to the point of naming a child after her pretty much cancels out his good qualities.

She is a joke among political theorists and fiction writers. She is beloved by detestable privileged young conservatives who, for obvious reasons, have very few heroes in literature or political theory. Edmund Burke anyone?

The whole RP libertarian thing sucks.

If you hate taxes and spending and regulation how will you address the current problems? Eliminate medicare? Why should seniors get to see a doctor if they don't have the cash? What about public education? WHy should I pay taxes to educate someone else's kid?

I'll never get behind a Ron Paul/Ebeneezer Scrooge ticket.

Ron Paul on Bill Maher's HBO Real Time 2.20.2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5lb0l3sYBo

Money quote @ 2:32

that is exactly why ron paul is a real danger to this country.



God help us if he ever was in the oval office.

sharing vodka & spring rolls just *waiting* for the opportunity to walk the through his little game of dodgy me-isms and prove Paul the timid, vacuous libertarian he is

of the nasty little toad.

Sure, he shows up at the top of a straw poll when they hold these little rallies. But that's because of a loud and organized fan base. It doesn't actually affect either real popularity or quality.

Of course, the Texas GOP did kind of rig things to keep the Paulists out. But overall these things reflect reality about as closely as the DU polls in 2007 showing overwhelming support for Dennis Kucinich.