Can we settle this once and for all? Ron Paul IS a right wing loony.

[cali]

OK, he's against the war. That in and of itself does not mean he's not a wingnut.

Paul is adamently against choice. But he goes beyond wanting to overturn Roe. He's authored a Constitutional amenment defining personhood as beginning at conception. He wants to abolish the income tax. He proposes substantially dismantling the social safety net, including privatizing social security. He doesn't just support building walls on the borders, he wants to severely limit legal immigration.

So yeah, even though he makes sense on a few subjects, he's still a right wing loon.

[Beelzebud]

1. Agreed. Any liberal that votes for him is not paying attention.

[bryant69]

3. Well it's hard to pay attention with so many quality TV shows coming out

But I do agree that Ron Paul, despite being the only Republican candidate to reject the Bush foreign policy madness - has plenty of madness of his own.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Lerkfish]

36. wasn't aware this was an issue. Are there threads where liberals are going to vote for him?

not saying there aren't, just saying I must have missed them.

[rox63]

2. Don't forget the fact that he thinks public schools should be abolished

That's pretty looney. :crazy:

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Not quite, he is a RIGHT WING Libertarian

small but very important qualifier.

Unfortunately he is the best the republicans are offering, and that speaks volumes of where they are as a party.

In the field he is the most rational.

[cali]

6. Actually, he is a republican.

That's just a fact. And there's nothing rational about his domestic policy. It's insane, and the worst of the right wing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. He runs as a Republican, but he is a libertarian

the same way Bloomberg ran as a Republican, never mind he wasn't

And that is a fact

By the way, libertarians are in some ways worst than the worst of right wing republicans

[Recursion]

13. But "libertarian" is usually a codeword for "let corporations run things" -- which he's not

Every time I've heard him talk he's said just as much about corporations having too much power as he has about government having too much power.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Yet, he is for getting rid of

the department of labor, department of education and the FDA among others, did I miss NIH?

These are pure libertarian points

He is also for the true 'free market' to take over and buyer beware with no government regulation of food distrubution or medical research

Again, pure libertarian POVs,

And he self identifies as a libertarian

[Chulanowa]

56. And yet he still leeches from the GOP coffers

He's their very own useful idiot.

A libertarian politician is someone who wants you to believe that, if elected, they will cut their own salary and then fire themselves.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. He RAN on the libertarian ticket in 2000

In a recent interview he explained why he would not do it again, mostly that silly thing about getting on the ballot

But he has been consistently a libertarian all his career

And I may not agree with the man, but at least he sticks to his convictions

That is more than I can say for the other eight republicans

[reggie the dog]

121. he is for

setting up all of these things at the state level. Dept. Of labour etc. Instead of 1 there would be 50. Not necessiarily good mind you, but not the complete end of the system either.

[truedelphi]

26. Iknow - there are these strange contradictions - that is why

I cannot figure him out.

Love him for his ardent anti-war stance - which goes all the way back to Poppie's original Iraq War.

But the no more public schools, life begins at conception, etc. ideas are very whack-o.

Still he is the only one of the Repugs that has made any sense at any time.

How can half of him be right on and half of him be totally off the wall NUTS ?

[Javaman]

52. or a pot smoking republican LOL nt

[hfojvt]

17. which explains his appeal to LEFT WING libertarians

I am not sure I would call Paul 'more rational' than Tommy Thompson. I lived in Wisconsin for eight years while Thompson was Governor. He sucked, but in sorta normal Republican ways. As you said, Libertarians are often worse than moderate Republicans. The money of Koch, for example, a former Libertarian candidate, has helped to make the Republican party more libertarian than it was in the 1960s and 1970s.

[LanternWaste]

27. left-wing Libertarians =

left-wing Libertarians = conservatives without the convictions of their own beliefs...


:hide:

[reggie the dog]

86. actually

I support libertarian ideals on questions of my personal liberty. In turn I do not support helmet laws, seat belt laws, laws against prostitution, laws against using certain drugs, laws discriminating agaist gay people not letting them marry legally, basically any kind of personal conduct that does not harm the life, liberty or property of another. I do not include taxation as a harm to private property, however, and am socialist when it comes to economic issues. I think the government should publically control essential services such as energy, water, schools, health insurance or health care in general, and basic staple food supplies. Ron Paul would let states decide about these kinds of programs, whereas I would prefer nationalization.

He also wants to make abortion a states decision, I do not support this, I think a federal law should be made legalizing it.
Wanting to make social security etc. a state run program instead of a federally run program would seem to increase the gap between wealthy and poor states so I do not support that.

On the other hand he thinks that states should be able to choose about medical marijuana, well and all drug use in general. This I support.

He also thinks that gay people should be able to marry and adopt children. I saw a video where he spoke and said that he would not force churches to marry homosexuals but that government weddings in front of judges should include homosexuals because in his constitutionalist interpretation marriage was a union between 2 people, not between a man and a woman. I support this view as well.

He was agaist the war in Iraq, parts one and 2, against the war in Afganistan, AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT I AND II, and is staunchly anti big business. He is not a corporate candidate and this is a large advantage.


He is the only Republican calling for the legalization of all drugs. No other candidate from either the Republicans or Democrats calls for this, and I am for such a reform. The best the Democrats have is Kucinich who is pro marijuana legalization. Seeing as he is better economically speaking and for abortion rights I would vote for him over Paul.

Ron Paul is one of very few candidates that is not bought and sold by big business. No he is not as great as the Democratic party version, Kucinich, but the war is killing a lot of people and I really want an anti war president. Hopefully the Democratic party will not run a war monger, especially if Paul is the opposition candidate.

[Taverner]

134. Hey - I'M A LEFT-WING LIBERTARIAN

Or as I like to put it, Libertarian Sympathizer in The Democratic Party :)

I'm anti drug war - legalize ALL drugs now. Yep, ALL DRUGS. The war on them isn't helping, its hurting.
I'm anti war, anti-draft
I think gays should marry, adopt, have every right straight people have
I think we pay too much in taxes - dismantle the Military Industrial Complex and reduce our taxes. Did you know we've been in a state of war since we were attacked at Pearl Harbor in 41?
I think we need to restart the Great Society and Welfare. It costs us next to nothing.
I think the environment is a serious problem, and we need to turn our attention away from the War on Terror to the environment. Honestly - your chances of dying in a terrorist strike are less that of being hit by lightning if you golf in the rain.
The war on terror is a sham. A joke. A lie. Sure, there is an Osama Bin Laden and sure he wants death to all Americans. This is nothing new. We are in much more peril from climate change than we are from all of the Muslim world.

Oh, and I might add something on Immigration and NAFTA (they are joined at the hip). Since we set course on this whole NAFTA thing, its about time to dig into why we were so in love with NAFTA. The European Union worked very well for everyone, so we wanted to do something similar. Great, however NAFTA is no EU. Make it more so: incorporate NAFTA-wide worker protection, environmental protection and a common currency unit. Hell, even extend health care across all NAFTA countries. Use Canada's as a model. Again, this would cost us next to NOTHING.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

5. I believe he is, what's called a paleoconservative.

But, whatever. I am capable of agreeing with him on certain issues and disagreeing with him on others. Do I want him as the next president? Hm. What's my choices? Would I have to pick between him and McCain? I'd pick Paul. Between him and Guiliani? I'd pick Paul. Between him and Jeb Bush? I'd pick Paul. Between him and ANY DEMOCRATIC candidate? I'd pick ANY Democratic candidate.

Questions?

[harun]

129. I would agree

He falls in to the non-neoconservative paleoconservative group.

[ismnotwasm]

7. Agreed

I'm not even sure why it's a debate ANYWHERE. Dude is off.

[durrrty libby]

9. Thank You. He sucks as much as the rest of them

He was a blatant racist. I doubt he's been rehabilitated

[Astrad]

10. To an Iraqi he wouldn't be a right wing loony...

He'd be a godsend.

[cali]

12. Way to miss the point. To American women he'd be a

nightmare. To older Americans he'd be a nightmare. To anyone who cares about the environment he'd be a nightmare. To illegal immigrants he'd be a nightmare.

Being good for the Iraqis is not enough.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

53. Don't forget children, parents...people who don't like when bridges collapse...

[Chovexani]

42. Let him run for president of Iraq then

Last I checked, this election was for President of the US. Yes, he's against the war, which is laudable, but dude is batshit insane.

Crazy people can often be right about things but that doesn't make them any less crazy.

[BootinUp]

92. I like the way you think. n/t

[Recursion]

11. BUT he's not pro-corporate

He's also concerned that corporations have way too much power.

He's a loony, but that's moving farther away from right-wing.

[cali]

15. He wants to drastically cut taxes

and that includes corporations. That's right wing. He wants a friggin' amemendment defining life as beginning at the moment of conception; that's about as right wing as you can get. He wants to build a wall along the border, etc.

[Disturbed]

28. Libertarians are not all the same.

I watched the Libertarian Convention for Pres. in '04 to educate myself about them.
It was educational. I learned that they have varying views regarding what American policies
should be. Ron Paul is most definitely Libertarian and he is to the right of some of his fellow
party members. He only switched to the Repug Party so that he could garner his office in his District.
He is not a Paleo Conservative. He is way to the right of that crowd.

LIBERTARIAN PARTY - The LP, founded in 1971, bills itself as "America's largest third party" (and, along with the Greens, are definitely among the two largest third parties in the nation). The Libertarians are neither left nor right: they believe in total individual liberty (pro-drug legalization, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-home schooling, anti-gun control, etc.) and total economic freedom (anti-welfare, anti-government regulation of business, anti-minimum wage, anti-income tax, pro-free trade, etc.). The LP espouses a classical laissez faire ideology which, they argue, means "more freedom, less government and lower taxes." Over 400 LP members currently hold various -- though fairly low level -- government offices (including lots of minor appointed officials like "School District Facilities Task Force Member" and "Town Recycling Committee Member").

In any given election year, the LP fields more local and federal candidates than any other US third party -- although the LP has clearly been eclipsed by the Greens in size since 1996 in terms of having the largest third party following and garnering more media attention. Former 1988 LP Presidential nominee Ron Paul is now a Republican Congressman from Texas -- although Paul is still active with encouraging the LP. The LP's biggest problem: Ron Paul, former NM Governor Gary Johnson, humorist/journalist PJ O'Rourke, the Republican Liberty Caucus and others in the GOP are working to attract ideological libertarians into the political arena -- arguing they can bring about libertarian change more easily under the Republican label. LP Presidential nominee Ed Clark carried over 921,000 votes (1.1%) in 1980. Subsequent nominees for the next dozen years, though not as strong as Clark, typically ran ahead of most other third party candidates. The late financial consultant and author

Harry Browne was the LP Presidential nominee in 1996 (485,000 votes - 5th place - 0.5%) and 2000 (386,000 votes - 5th place - 0.4%). Computer consulant and tax-resister Michael Badnarik was the LP Presidential nominee in 2004 (397,000 votes - 4th place - 0.3%). And, FYI, the LP typically obtains ballot status for the Presidential nominee in all 50 states. The LP also has active affiliate parties in every state. The party has been divided for years between two warring factions: a more purist/hardcore libertarian group and a more moderate "reform" faction.

The hardcore group are uncompromising anarchistic-libertarians in the Ayn Rand mold. By contrast, the moderates are interested in focusing on only a handful of more popular issues (drug decriminalization, gun rights, tax cuts, etc.) in exchange for attracting a larger number of voters. Allies of the hardcore faction firmly held control of the party from the late-1980s until the moderates seized control at the 2006 national convention and gutted the party's original platform. Other related LP sites are: the Libertarian Party News (official LP newspaper), College Libertarians (official student group), LP Ballot Base (official GOTV site), GrowTheLP.org (official LP outreach), Libertarian Reform Caucus (LP moderates), LP Radicals (LP purists), Libertarian Leadership School (official LP training program), LPedia (official LP Wiki history site).. The LP web site features a link to the World's Smallest Political Quiz -- designed by LP co-founder David Nolan -- and take the quiz to see if you're a libertarian (a bit simplistic, and slanted in favor of the LP, but interesting just the same).

[krispos42]

14. Yes, but he's an amusing looney making the GOP headliners squirm

So I'll sit back and munch on the popcorn while the show lasts...

:-)

[cali]

16. Yeah, I'm with you on that.

I just don't like seeing liberals defend him.

[conscious evolution]

22. Same here

What I like is around my area he seems to be siphoning off the redneck metalheads from the rest of the gop field.
If he wants to divide the puke party let him.

[judaspriestess]

19. I have two ron paul revolution banners in my neighborhood

puh-lease!! I wonder if his supporters really know what he is about.

[bullwinkle428]

37. I've seen a couple of those banners where I live as well

in the Iowa City, Iowa area...

[SemiCharmedQuark]

54. I have 3! Including one I think could accurately be described as a shrine..

It's a campaign sign with streamers and sparklies all over it and then it says on top "Honk for Ron Paul"

[Chovexani]

105. I've seen some around town here, too

I had no idea who the hell he was--I just assumed he was a rapper promoting an album. :rofl:

Then I looked him up on wiki and :wow:

...I liked it better when I thought he was a rapper.

[Recursion]

114. Dismissive much?

I bet they do. He's saying things that are really striking a chord with a whole lot of people.

[proud2BlibKansan]

140. They are buying billboards here.

[MrCoffee]

20. i had no idea that there was a question regarding his lunacy.

cali, master of the obvious.

[cali]

21. Actually, there is.

There seem to be a fair number of people who are willing to ignore his lunatic policy platform due to his anti-war position. See post #10 on this thread for an example.

[semillama]

24. I think I've seen at least one DU'er state they'd vote for Paul over Clinton. n/t

[reggie the dog]

88. yep

2 iraq wars opposed
war in afganistan opposed
patriot acts I and II opposed

these are 4 damn important votes.
I voted Kerry, I voted Obama for senate, I voted Democrat for Rep but a republican won my district in the suburbs anyway. I voted José Bové in the first row and then Ségolène Royal the Socialist for president in the second row, I also voted Partie Communiste Français and then Socialist for the 2 rounds of our legaslative elections here in France. I vote left out of economic and social ideology. BUT I MUST ADMIT THAT THE WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN are killing many and that the Patriot acts turned the constitution into toliet paper.

They guy also has nothing wrong with public aid, HE WANTS IT ALL CONTROLLED BY STATE not FEDERAL government. He has policies that would greatly WEAKEN the power of the federal government. Granted I think rich states should help out poor states, but they guy does not want to get rid of aid, he just wants Alabama, Illinois, and Maryland to have 3 different welfare systems instead of the centralized system we have today. Think of the progress that states like Minnesota could make if they were able to run their own welfare system, hell some states may even come up with public health care.

The biggest problem I see with him was the bill to change the definition of when life started but I do not think the two thirds necessary for an amendement will ever materialize for this issue. Under todays constitution he respects the validity of Roe V Wade.

[MrCoffee]

25. then by all means, let him run for president of Iraq

we must cut off our noses in spite of our faces.

[blondeatlast]

23. Agreed and absent his PatBuchanaesque views on foreign policy,

would never be worthy of any debate here.


And Pat Buchanan is against the war for all the wrong reasons, as is Ron Paul.

[sonias]

29. Biggest and stupidest a-hole in Texas for now

We have lots of them in Texas, but for now the focus is on this giant a-hole from Texas. He hates the government and is right in there with Grover Norquist in wanting to drown it in a bathtub.

He voted against funding the Katrina rebuilding and against any help after Hurricane Rita too. And that one hit Texas. He thinks all of them should have just bootstrapped themselves out of the rising floods.

Sonia

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Except for his stance on the war, he is the ultimate extension of

Republican economic policies.

Just as Pat Buchanan was one of the first to mention the plight of workers whose jobs have been sent overseas, Ron Paul is right about ONE thing.

[CTD]

31. Yes, but Hillary can't commit to getting troops out of Iraq by 2013 and won't rule out bombing Iran

What is a more imminent threat to our existence?

The remote chance Paul would follow through on overturning Roe v Wade (when Bush didn't even with the Congress and Supreme Court all heavily tilted to the GOP) is of MUCH lesser concern to me than Hillary or any of the other GOP candidates following through on Bush's plan to start WWIII.

Priorities.

[MrCoffee]

33. Ron Paul's priorities (copied directly from his website)

Immigration
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Reproductive Rights
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
Foreign Affairs
Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.
Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.
H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely

[CTD]

38. If you had to pick one, which is more important? Not invading Iran or protecting legal abortion

Don't get me wrong - I want both. But if Bush and the Congress didn't move to overturn Roe when they held a huge majority in both houses of Congress, Paul will get no where with a Dem majority in both houses. Yet Hillary and her AIPAC-funded DLC-mates in Congress are VERY likely to support strikes against Iran.

On the "holy shit" scale, attacking Iran scares me A LOT more than the very remote chance of losing Roe.

[MrCoffee]

45. a couple of things...ok, it turned out to be 3 things

1) We're not going to invade Iran. I'm not part of that particular brand of crazy, so your argument is irrelevant to me. It's insane to even think we would.

2) The 2008 presidential elections are for the president of the United States, not the president of either Iran or Iraq. There is a whole lot more to the presidency than Iraq. I'm not so narrowly focused as some here, and domestic issues are hugely important to me. If you're less interested in the well-being of Americans than Iraqis or Iranians, fine, go join an NGO, get on an airplane headed east and do something about it.

3) If you don't think any Democrat in the WH would do everything in their power to responsibly draw down the US presence in Iraq, you're on the wrong board. If you insist that US troops must be withdrawn from Iraq the day after inauguration, you're not only misguided, but dangerous.

[CTD]

48. When Pelosi and reid won't even do everything in THEIR power, why would Hillary if she became POTUS?

And they should already be out. Funding should have already been cut off.

[cali]

50. Could we return to the real world for one moment?

Pelosi and Reid haven't earned my admiration, but cutting funding for the war is near impossible. In the House, if Pelosi kept funding from the floor, the repukes, with enough signatures could override her. Furthermore, cutting funding wouldn't end the war. bushco would simply divert funds from elsewhere.

[Jacobin]

62. That's an easy one

Before we worry about our way of life in this country, we should make DAMN sure that we aren't maiming and killing millions in other countries which have not attacked us.

At least, its easy for me to make that decision

[cali]

40. Don't forget this:

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

[cali]

35. Whether he'd be able to actually follow through on his abhorrent

ideas isn't the point. And he wouldn't be able to follow through on getting us out of Iraq either. He's a nut, and though I'm not a HIllary supporter, she's not.

[CTD]

43. But the social wedge issues are used by the left as well as the right.

DLC types whip out this argument whenever anyone contemplates not supporting a candidate like Hillary to try to shore up support. But the Reps like going to the well on this issue too (it motivates their base to the polls as well) so no one is about to make this issue go away.

The prospect of us all dead after we invade Iran is much more tangible to me. And Hillary (and others) are on the wrong side of it.

[cali]

44. I don't think Hillary will attack Iran

Saying she won't take anything off the table is pretty standard. It doesn't serve as an indicator that she will.

Are you telling me that if you had the choice of HIllary or R.Paul, you'd vote for Paul?

[CTD]

47. No. But it'd be a tough call.

On one side you'd have a socially liberal, pro-Corporate Neo Con. On the other you have an isolationist, anti-corporate, socially draconian Libertarian.

Throw in that right now I perceive that the greatest threats to America's continued existence come from our foreign policy debacles and our corporatist pandering and it gets even tougher.

And I am HUGE on social justice and equal protection under the law - basically VERY socially liberal.

Ron Paul won't get the nomination, so the question is moot. But the take-away here is that Hillary is not the candidate that necessarily best represents the liberal ideals as held by many members here. Her foreign policy reeks of Bush and Lieberman and I just cannot condone such belligerent positions.

[cali]

49. I'll dispute that Hillary is a neocon

or that her foreign policy platform can remotely be chararacterized as such. Nor is Paul less corporate friendly than Hillary, despite his anti-Nafta, Cafta, etc. position. He wants to cut taxes on corporations. I don't support Clinton for a myriad of reasons, but I don't think for a minute that she'd embroil us in further wars. She has a liberal record in the Senate despite a couple of real doozy votes.

[Chulanowa]

57. So, allow me to get this straight...

You are willing to see your country turn inside out, become an institutionalized debt serf to unrestricted corporatism, and want to see women legally forced to give birth, if the alternative is a war with Iran?

As it stands, the first option WILL happen under Ron Paul. He's a nutbar, and unlike the other nutbars in politics, actually means what he says. The second option MIGHT happen and is still quite preventable.

Now if you want to vote for another GOP corporatist fuckhole, be my guest. But save your breath trying to convince people that he's not a GOP corporatist fuckhole, hmm?

[reggie the dog]

96. he

is very anti big business

[Chulanowa]

145. And yet, who rules his state?

Texas ain't exactly a populist paradise, last I heard.

[reggie the dog]

94. Hillary thinks

that cannabis uses like myself belong in jail. Paul does not. Why give up on cannabis smokers? Kucinich is the only Democrat that thinks I do not deserve some kind of punishment for my lifestlye. I have supported pro choice after pro choice candidate fielded by the Deomcrats since I was a teenager and the Democratic party still will not stand up and say that people like me do not deserve punishment. Hell at least the main opposition party here, the Socialists, called for outright legalization of cannabis. To many of you you think this is just some small issue or whatever, but I never drink alcohol, never smoke tobacco, smoke cannabis 6 days a week, work out 4 days a week and am in good health yet I am considered a criminal in most states in the USA because harly any politicians will stand up for MY RIGHTS.

Give me Kucinich and I will be happy, give me a pro war, pro patriot act, pro cannabis Clinton versus an anti war, anti patriot act, anti cannabis prohibition Paul and I will have a hard time voting Democrat for president. I will still vote Democrat for senate and house, as well as Illinois senate and house as well as Governor, unless it looks like a blowout victory for the Democrat again in which case I will vote green.

Paul cannot change the constitution there is no 2 thirds willing to oppose Roe V Wade.

[blondeatlast]

32. DU Ron Paul "because he's anti-Iraq war" supporters: a very valid question...

Just how does he propose to get us OUT?

It's good that he's against the invasion, even if it is for all the wrong, Buchananesque reasons.

But we're there, we want out, and as of yet, I've seen no plans from him to get us out. I don't care to go to his site because he's proven to be anti-woman, anti-gay, way pro-corporation, and on beyond zebra. He could cure cancer tomorrow and he still wouldn't get my vote.

If there's any reason to debate him positively here, his stance on this issue is the only one I can imagine.

So out with it--how would our great so-called "revolutionary" hero get us out of Iraq?

Edit: Not to mention--how will he manage to do this with BOTH parties in Congress fuming at him?

[Jed Dilligan]

55. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter by any stretch, but

I think as commander-in-chief he can just tell the army to leave without congressional approval.

[historian]

34. regardless of what he is

anything he says which makes the repukes squirm and have to justify themselves is valid.

[bullwinkle428]

39. Not to mention all of the racist garbage he's spouted over the years!

Really, people...if you want to get aboard the campaign of someone that really wants out Iraq now and has maintained some modicum of sanity, we've got Gravel!

[Mojorabbit]

41. I respect him

for plain speaking. You know exactly where he stands. No triangulating. He is not my cup of tea but he is one of only a few in power who mean what they say.

[Jim__]

46. Ron Paul is rated 100% on the John Birch Society's Conservative Index.

see here. He's the only congressman rated 100% on their conservative index. Enough said.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

51. I keep a list of his voting record in my DU Journal to show people who don't know him

Here's the link: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Lone_Star_Dem/32

It exposes him for what he really is.

[reggie the dog]

98. thanks

I had forgotten that he was anti NAFTA and CAFTA too

[ecstatic]

58. k&r nt

[wildbilln864]

59. Why shouldn't we abolish the income tax?

It's unconstitutional. It's fascist IMO. And all that money goes into the fatcat international banker's pockets. Not one dime goes to services.
video, "The Truth Behind The Income Tax"

[cali]

60. ridiculous. If the income tax is unconstitutional so is

the right to peaceably assemble and our right to free speech or to bear arms, etc.

And what on earth are you talking about saying that all the monies collected go to international bankers?

What would you replace it with?

[wildbilln864]

64. Your post #60 is rediculous.......

Read it. Study up some. Here's a short video too. :hi:

edited to add: "# 60"

[cali]

72. That's spelled ridiculous.

Pathetic response. There was a constitutional amendment codifying the legitimacy of the income tax.

[wildbilln864]

75. No there was not!

If there was, why has the IRS been loosing cases? The info is there for all to see.
Why is the truth pathetic?

[cali]

76. So I just made this up?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[wildbilln864]

82. No but you have to understand what ....

income means as defined by the constitution. Please check this out and see what you think. This is the same guy that won his case against the IRS in July(maybe?) this year. Read about the estoppel federal order.

[wildbilln864]

85. and please read.......

this. :hi:

on edit: here's an excerpt/
"With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Government contributions to transfer payments.
In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their government."
How can that be? In order to answer this question, an individual must learn how the privately owned "Federal" Reserve (central bank) actually works. In a nutshell, this is how the scam works: "

[wildbilln864]

87. also.....

"Don't be fooled by this chant around the country for a flat tax, a consumption tax, sales tax or any other kind of personal income tax. There is absolutely no authority in the U.S. Constitution to implement any of these forms of taxation without apportionment. It is for this reason and this reason alone, that when it became apparent that the 16th Amendment was not going to be ratified by the states, fraud was committed and it was simply "proclaimed" ratified by then Secretary of State Philander Knox."

[wildbilln864]

106. someone else made it up. n/t

[wildbilln864]

74. Do you understand that....

in 1913 (IMSMR), the federal reserve bank was created by international bankers? We were taken off of the gold standard. The fed, which is not federal(think federal express), prints money and loans it to the government at interest. The national debt is that interest paid by tax dollars. Why doesn't congress print the money and save the interest? Would you believe an ex IRS agent? How about two or three? short video

[wildbilln864]

90. And in the "Bill of Rights"....

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

This part...
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,"
Since the IRS uses your return form in order to incriminate you, aren't you waving your right by filling it out in the first place? :shrug:

[Jacobin]

61. RW loonies are way better than neocons

At least they are unalterably opposed to invading and blowing up countries to steal their resources.

Save venom like this for the neocons. They are the new Nazis

[cali]

63. Venom? This is a factual summary of his positions

and he's just as bad in his own way as the neocons.

[Jacobin]

67. There is an extremely serious distinction

He has consistently railed against the invasion and occupation, as do all 'libertarians' or whatever he might be.

I think its our first duty to stop the power of the united states from decimating millions of people who have done us no harm.

After that, we can talk about our internal policies which affect united states citizens

[cali]

68. It's not either/or.

And other issues are important. Your last line is a real doozy.

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

65. I'd take him over any other candidate running Right.

I agree with the Libertarians on many issues. I'd would definitely prefer Kucinich, but I'd take him over any other RW candidate. Hell, I'd take him over Hilary.

[cali]

69. Yeah, because a right wing racist woman hater

with a 100% rating from the John Birch Society is just so much better than Hillary Clinton with her high ADA and Progressive Punch ratings.

[reggie the dog]

101. what did the clintons ever do

for cannabis smokers like me? They smoked weed when they were younger but still support the idea that I should be punished for the hash I am about to smoke. At least Ron Paul thinks I deserve no punishment. Kucinich is the only Democratic presidential candidate that thinks I do not deserve punishment.

[cali]

115. Could you sound any selfisher or

whinier. I'm a pot smoker too. Big deal. It's hardly the most important issue.

[reggie the dog]

119. you live in California I assume

In Illinois if you have an ounce it is a felony. In California it is a ticket. How is drug prohibition not an important issue? How much money is wasted on prohibition each year? Nearly a million people were arrested for cannabis in 2006. Millions risk jail every day to smoke. Drug prohibition touches more lives than abortion. As I have said before I support pro choice after pro choice candidate when speaking about abortion yet the Democrats do not seem to want to run a pro legalization candidate.

So am I to think that people pushing for gay marriage are selfish or whiney? What about abortion rights people? Or the anti war crowd. I support womens right to choose (Kucinich, Clinton), I am anit war(Kucinich Paul), I am anti patriot act(Kucinich Paul), I think the war on terror is bs as well as the war on drugs(Kucinich Paul). I also think health care should be a right (which is one reason I support Kucinich over Paul and Clinton).

Sorry but explain to me what is selfish about wanting to end prohibition of cannabis, something that roughly 30 million americans have to worry about in a given year not counting family memebers of people that get busted? What is selfish about not wanting teachers, lawyers, hairdressers, truck drivers, burger flippers, etc. to not loose their job if they get busted or popped by a workplace drug test? What is selfish about not wanting people to get a DUI for the cannabis they smoked a week ago?

[cali]

123. You're comparing

pot smoking to abortion rights or full civil rights for gays and lesbians? Sorry, I don't think that's a good comparison. And no, I don't live in CA.

[reggie the dog]

128. why is it not a good comparison?

Why not? What do cannabis users do that merits punishment? What do choosing to abort do that merits punishment? What does being gay do that merits punishment?

[blondeatlast]

70. Really? He'd abolish Roe v. Wade, he's racist, sexist,

homophobic, pro-corporatist, I don't even want to think about who he might put on SCOTUS.

Lord, I'm no HRC fan especially after K/L, but I'd prefer Ghoul9/11 over Ron Paul.

Gad, where's the Clorox? I need a shower. :puke:

[wildbilln864]

95. agreed! n/t

[Exultant Democracy]

66. Don't forget that he says some vile racist shit.

[blondeatlast]

71. Apparently, many newcomers to this thread have forgotten it--or didn't know it

(how conveeeenient) in the first place.

[BootinUp]

73. ATTN: People attacking Hillary in this thread

WTF are you doing here? This is the democraticunderground.

[upi402]

80. Yes, and she's a Republican in the formewr Democratic party.

Am I missing something? Yes she's in the Democratic party, but it is not an indication of where on the political continuum she actually is -in terms of her right-leaning votes and statements of position.

[cali]

84. Hillary has 95% rating from the ADA

Progressive Punch rates her as the 18th most liberal Senator. She is not by any stretch of the imagination a republican. Not in word or deed.

[Virginia Dare]

91. You're clouding hyperbole with facts again Cali...

damn, I love it when you do that, even to me...:hi:

[reggie the dog]

110. Paul

has an extremely high rating from NORML.

[blondeatlast]

111. That goes a very long way to convincing me that he should appoint

four SCOTUS justices.

NOT.

Good lord, he's a racist, corporatist, sexist, homophobic wackjob who has the right position on two issues--reagradless of the fact he hasn't got the sense to refrain from making his wacko, hate-filled views public.

He doesn't mind if I smoke a joint, though--there's a stellar reason for me to support him. :eyes:

[reggie the dog]

112. he is not

homophobic, he supports gay marriage by judges. he is not corporatist, he is anti big business pro small business. I have heard nothing to support that he is sexist or racist. He is not at all hate filled. He is anti war, anti patriot act, anti big business, anti big government.

And yes, the fact that he does not mind that I smoke a joint is a stellar reason to support him. You can loose a lot with a drug record. University grants and loans, the right to be a teacher, lawyer, doctor, hell even a licensed hairdresser cannot have a drug record in many states. In some states you can loose the right to vote for crack possession. Paul is against that. He is against prohibition, prohibition feeds violence in the USA. Gang violence is largely related to turf wars that would be done away with through legalization. A lot more commerce would be taxed, and less money laundered.

do not mistake me for a Paul supported. I prefer Kucinich, pro cannabis legalization anti war, pro choice etc. I would vote for my senator from Illinois. I have trouble voting for candidates that supported the patriot act and the iraq war .

[CTD]

100. Wake me up when she stops being a corporatist and Neo-Con and I'll consider her.

As far as positions on key issues go, there is ZERO difference between her and Rudy. None.

And both scare the piss out of me.

[BootinUp]

103. You're only hope is to repeat that

enough times that you brain wash people into believing it, cause you'll never win that argument on facts or evidence.

[cali]

113. That's simply not true.

She's my last choice among the dem candidates, but she is not a neocon and the differences between her and Rudi are vast.

[Puregonzo1188]

78. He has several issues that he takes stances on I agree with,

the war on Iraq, the pending disaster looming with Iran, the death penalty, and the drug war. His stances on these four issues are lightyears better than those of most politicians, of both parties. However, he is a right wing loony. He wants to abolish the Department of Education, the FAA, the income tax. His We the People Act scares the hell out of me and he just may be a racist.

But, it is so nice to hear someone who tells the truth about the CIA or the Iraq War and isn't discredited as a "liberal moonbat" on the MSM. These are positions that many Progressives have been waiting for ever for mainstream democrats to take hold of or even be legitimized in anyway what so ever and somehow since he is a right wing loony it legitimizes these positions in the eyes of the MSM. I don't really understand how or why, but at least maybe he can help ending the War on Drugs or the possibility of war with Iran (the mere suggestion of it even happening in some circles instantly makes you a leftist conspiracy nut) become legitament items for discussion.

[upi402]

79. Pon Paul and Pat Buchanon

A pair to pass on.

Pat was right on fighting NAFTA and was against the Iraq war. But then the mask is pulled off and Scooby says, "Ruh Ro!"

[abq e streeter]

81. Seen this before

concerning our former Governor, Gary Johnson. A right wing libertarian; very anti-education , anti worker etc. but solely because of his admittedly brave and intelligent crusade for drug legalization, I've witnessed people who should have known better, on more than one occasion, telling him he should run for president.

[blondeatlast]

83. Single issue politics scares the hell out of me. Who the hell might

these people appoint to SCOTUS or their Cabinets?

:scared:

[H2O Man]

89. A friend of John Dean's.

And an enemy of the neoconservatives. Important points, in the context of this thread.

[cali]

93. So it's a friend of my friend and an enemy of

my enemy thing? No thanks. That he's hostile to neocons doesn't make up for his racism and horrendous policies on choice, the environment, taxes and social services. It's no more important than David Duke's being an enemy of the neocons.

[H2O Man]

97. No. I assume

that you are not attempting to put your words in my mouth. I didn't say what you said. I did add some context to your thread.

[cali]

99. I asked you a question.

I don't see what context you added, as the point you made about his being hostile to neocons was made several other places in the thread, and I can't figure out how Paul's being a friend of John Dean, adds any context.

[H2O Man]

102. You can't?

I'll take your word for that. I think that other DUers might look at Dean's book "Worse Than Watergate," including the information that Ron Paul provided to John Dean, and understand the context. They will likely not feel the need to try to squeeze or twist it into any other shape, such as the "enemy of my enemy" bit. It is what it is.

[cali]

107. I wasn't trying to squeeze or twist anything.

I'll be blunt: As a liberal, I find support for Ron Paul repugnant, despite his being against the war and hostile to the neocons. His racism, and radical policies offend the hell out of me. Whatever aid or information he may have given Dean does not ameliorate his reactionary policies.

[H2O Man]

108. That's fine.

If that works for you, it's fine. What I think is a bit different. I don't think there is really anything that should be mistaken for, or misrepresented as, any significant "support" for Ron Paul amoungst democrats. I do think that a lot of traditional democrats (those who I identify as "progressives," which is distinct from your "liberal"), view things in terms similar to something I wrote on a thread about Governor Cuomo yesterday.

There are people we share values with. They are our friends, and our close allies. There are also people we do not share values with, but who we have common interests with -- sometimes frequently, and other times infrequently. They are not our friends, yet we do not have to attempt to depersonalize them by calling them names. (I recall that you stated on a thread yesterday that you attempt to avoid using insults.)

I do not think of Ron Paul as a friend. I am happy that he is in the republican primary. And there are times when progressive democrats may have common interest with him. When there is a group that I recognize as posing a threat to our Constitutional democracy, for example, I tend not to atteack others who share that same concern, even if I disagree with them on almost everything else.

Certainly, you are entitled to your viewpoint. Likewise, others who view Paul in a different way, such as John Dean, are equally entitled to their opinion.

[CTD]

109. Great post. Thanks. Sums up my POV as well.

[Mike03]

104. Thank you

I think I will email this post to my local talk show host, who is irrationally infatuated with Ron Paul; I seriously doubt he has the slightest notion what Paul does believe in, other than the end of the war.

[Faryn Balyncd]

116. Isn't diversity great?

[leftofthedial]

117. cali!!!

we agree.

can the end be far off?

[autorank]

118. On many issues I agree totally. What do you say about candidates who say we're in Iraq until 2013?

Are they left wing loonies? The attack on a nation that posed no imminent threat to us is the definition of a war crime, by international law.

So do the Democratic candidates who say we'll be there until 2013 or, more cleverly, who say they
can't commit to be out by 2013 - do they count as left wing loons by endorsing this criminal war?

Paul's position on choice is mirrored in other strangeness like opposition to workers rights.

But nothing is stranger than saying this madness is going on for another four years, and that's
EXACTLY what the big three said.

There are a documented 1,000,000 civilian causalities due to this war. One million. Who on earth
could say it may continue until 2013? Now that's loony.

Los Angeles Times

Friday 14 September 2007 (Now)

Civilian Death Toll in Iraq May Top One Million
Original Source - ORB Polling, GB

By Tina Susman

A British survey offers the highest estimate to date. At least 4 die in a Sadr City car bombing.

Baghdad - A car bomb blew up in the capital's Shiite Muslim neighborhood of Sadr City on Thursday, killing at least four people, as a new survey suggested that the civilian death toll from the war could be more than 1 million.

The figure from ORB, a British polling agency that has conducted several surveys in Iraq, followed statements this week from the U.S. military defending itself against accusations it was trying to play down Iraqi deaths to make its strategy appear successful.

The military has said civilian deaths from sectarian violence have fallen more than 55% since President Bush sent an additional 28,500 troops to Iraq this year, but it does not provide specific numbers.

According to the ORB poll, a survey of 1,461 adults suggested that the total number slain during more than four years of war was more than 1.2 million.

ORB said it drew its conclusion from responses to the question about those living under one roof: "How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003?"

--------------
New York Times

October 11, 2006 (Almost a year ago)

Iraqi Dead May Total 600,000, Study Says
Original Source - JHU School of Public Health

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.

BAGHDAD, Oct. 10 � A team of American and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 American invasion, the highest estimate ever for the toll of the war here.

The figure breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, a number that is quadruple the one for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a United Nations report in Iraq. That month was the highest for Iraqi civilian deaths since the American invasion.

But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of error that ranged from 426,369 to 793,663 deaths.

It is the second study by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence between March 2003 and July 2006.

[reggie the dog]

120. I am with you

A war that kills a million innocent civilians, sucks our taxes up to fund private contractors like Halliburton and Blackwater, and ruins our image in the world should have been opposed all along were the Democrats a true opposition party. Cannot leave until 2013? this i not a good solution. Withdrawl perhaps coupled with begging the UN to have a peace keeping force (including no one that was ever part of the coalition of the willing)love in in exchange for massive US funding of humanitarian programs to set up hospitals, schools, etc.

[cali]

122. I'm completely dismayed by those comments.

I view it as lacking in intestinal fortitude and covering your ass. But I don't think that any of the 'big three' want to continue the occupation of Iraq, but they're all overly cautious about making promises. They need to have more guts on the subject. Saying they
re endorsing the war, is not accurate.

[autorank]

136. Thanks for the response. "Dismayed" was my first response too ...on Edwards

I'll revise what I said and make it clearer vis a vis "reendorsing" -

They are "in effect" accepting a continuation, although they could say their continuation would be much less violent than say, oh, McCain's. My inadequately expressed point is - the war's illegal, immoral, and has to stop right away. Of course, any of these three are vastly preferable over any Republican, all of whom (those who can get nominated) would pursue the war with gusto.

I'd like to see our side raise this issue from the point of:

reality - 1,000,000 dead civilians/tens of thousands of dead and disabled Americans - big number, appalling;

morality - the war was based on lies - the American public isn't responsible, THEY ARE (BushCo); the vast majority of Iraqis want us out, we must accept their will (or adopt a sperior attitude - Uncle Sam knows best);

practicality - we make things worse there (look at Basra after the British leave) and we have a brilliant diplomat, Richardson, who has a clear plan for prompt withdrawal.

Working on it;)_

[Perry Logan]

124. Paul is the darling of alienated white guys. StormFront is crazy about him.

[Silver Gaia]

127. Yep. David Duke thinks he's great, too.

I did some research into Ron Paul last week. I won't post links because it's too disgusting, but check out Duke's site "White Civil Rights" (.com) and you'll find an article there entitled "Is Ron Paul the One?" They love him.

And as noted, the lovely neo-nazis over at StormFront think he's just the cat's pajamas, too.

There's no way I could ever support a candidate who's endorsed by people like these.

You have to wonder WHY it is that folks like these like him so much. There has to be a reason. Ya know?

He may be against the war, and there may be a few other cross-over issues, but all in all, I find him to be positively draconian.

A Ron Paul presidency would set this country back a hundred years or more in terms of social policies, health issues, and just plain good sense.

[Ganja Ninja]

125. Aren't the terms right wing and loony redundant? n/t

[Echo In Light]

126. I'm unsure if...

....all of what the poster has attributed to Ron Paul is accurate. Actually, I've seen numerous interviews with Ron Paul and he sounds far less "loony" than many other candidates, dem or rep. Remember, America has one corporate party with two right-wings.

Besides, I know many card-carrying dems would find Greg Palast, Mark Crispin Miller, or David Ray Griffin "loony," simply because they disagree with said auther's findings and conclusions.

[Bridget Burke]

130. "one corporate party with two right wings".....

Ralphie, is that you?

[progressoid]

131. Yep, but it's fun watching him pester Mitt, Rudy, et. al.

Just having one of "their own" pointing at the emperors new clothes is fun.

After 2008, he'll hopefully retreat back into whatever hole he came out of.

[Nimrod2005]

132. Ok, I still would vote for him over Hillary...

Just FYI..

[cali]

133. That's just fucked up

and not consistent with DU posting guidelines either.

[Nimrod2005]

142. Ok Rush...

He thinks you can't be a Republian and NOT support this war?

[dave123williams]

135. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

[Prophet 451]

137. Yeah, he is

Still, credit where it's due, at least he HAS principles, even if they are batshit insane.

[Marrah_G]

138. After reading this thread I swear I am standing in Freeperville......

This is just insane. Completely. Fucking. Insane.

[blondeatlast]

141. The fact that he's worthy of debate--HERE--just is mind boggling.

Racist--and too stupid to hide it when speaking publicly. Endorsed by Storm Front and David Duke. Virulently anti-abortion. Anti-war for all the wrong reasons.

But some would vote for him over HRC (whom I don't care for, but will support if she's nominated).

Can you imagine the type of people he might nominate to SCOTUS?

Yikes.

[knowledgeispwr]

139. Thank you!

The so-called "democrats" saying they'd support Ron Paul scare me. I hope it's only a case of ignorance about Ron Paul and not true, well-informed support.

[WoodrowFan]

143. K&R

it's a good measure of people's judgement, just who think HRC is beyond the pale but Ron Paul is acceptable!

[JVS]

144. The parts of his politics we don't like we can just rely on the Democratic Senate to resist, right?

[cali]

146. Yes. Do you know of any dems that want to dismantle

abortion rights, environmental protection, privatize social security, reduce the income tax on corporations, and build a big honking wall several thousand miles long?

[JVS]

147. So unless they roll over, none of that shit will happen, no?

I mean, I thought the democratic party didn't favor the war either, but here we are looking at 2013