 |
|
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. First thread | Last thread |
| Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
|
madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:16 AM Original message |
| Ron Paul's views are scary. |  |
 |
He is way off base on life before Social Security. His pro-life, anti-abortion views are upsetting as well. I wonder how many people see his anti-war stance and fail to look at the rest of what he is about.
As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation." Actually there were such things happening, and most people did not have access to doctors. That is a very idealized picture he paints. I remember the tales of my grandparents about after the depression hit in 1929. Not only could they not afford medical care, many could not afford food on the table. I have seen article after article this week comparing Ron Paul to Howard Dean...there just is no comparison. Ron Paul is not the "Howard Dean of 08". Their views on our taking care of each other are drastically different. Dean on Social Security: "Social Security is a moral value for people who have worked all their life. They deserve to retire with dignity. We ought not to turn our retirement programs over to the same people who gave us Enron." ...."You know the Social Security debate is not just about money. It's about whether we have responsibility for each other as a community, or not." Ron Paul did not believe we should send aid to Katrina victims. This is why I am so angry when I see all the comparisons of him to people like Howard Dean...who said we are our brother's keeper. Voted NO on sending aid to Katrina victims. "Last year, Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted. "Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?" He'd rather say not I do believe we must "bail out" each other. It is a terrifying thought that he is one who wants us to be on our own. Neighbor can not always help neighbor. When 3 hurricanes hit us, we were all shown our helpless side. When neighbors are down and out and struggling, they can not do much for each other. We were all so busy after the 3 storms in 6 weeks just getting ourselves off the floor emotionally, that a neighbor in great stress died alone before we knew to help him. There must be a government program to help "bail" us out. I am troubled also by Ron Paul's views on abortion. "Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder. He authored a bill that declared that life begins at conception, a view which is NOT conducive to some forms of birth control nor with stem cell research. His views disturb me. Apparently it was dramatic enough to cause Paul to author H.R. 1094, a bill that declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception," a standard Christian Right viewpoint. While Paul has written, "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena," this faith, in conjunction with his traumatic residency experience, seems to have left him deeply troubled by abortion in a way organizations like Focus on the Family would no doubt find familiar. "Many talk about being pro-life," Paul continued. "I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn." Ron Paul's pro life rhetoric Here is more about his view on stem-cell research. While he says he opposes it because it is a funding issue....it seems his staunch pro-life stance would cause him to be against it. Most who view life as beginning at conception do oppose stem cell research. Stem Cell Research Paul backed President Bush's veto of congressional legislation to expand federal funding for non-embryonic stem cell research, saying he doesn't oppose such research but objects to federal funding for it. The founding fathers, Paul also wrote, "intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washington's hands." His views on health care go along with what he said about Social Security above. Every man for himself. That philosophy scares the hell out of me. That is a bare bones hands off approach that I find appalling. Health Care In 2006, Paul wrote that "the problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention but, rather, too much." The solutions, he argued, lie in allowing individuals to deduct from their taxes all of their health care costs, as businesses do, and in promoting "true competition" in the market for health care provisions. Paul has also supported legislation permitting individuals to buy "negative outcome" insurance before major medical treatments in order to reduce "the burden of costly malpractice litigation." Ron Paul on the issues How does one have tax deductions when one is not working? That happens a lot to the best of people....being out of work. I truly was alarmed at his statement about Social Security....I believe that really is the worst. Here is a little bit about life after the 1929 depression and before FDR's formation of Social Security...Ron Paul is way off base on this . The trauma for the elderly of that era can hardly be overstated. As W. Andrew Achenbaum, a historian at the University of Houston, put it, ''The Depression destroyed every mechanism that had existed for covering the vicissitudes of old-age dependency." "Before the creation of Social Security, some Americans had private or state pensions, but most supported themselves into old age by working. The 1930 census, for example, found 58 percent of men over 65 still in the workforce; in contrast, by 2002, the figure was 18 percent. The elderly also relied heavily on their families. ''Children, friends and relatives have borne and still carry the major cost of supporting the aged,'' the Committee on Economic Security, the Roosevelt administration panel that developed Social Security, reported in 1935. ''Several of the state surveys have disclosed that from 30 to 50 percent of the people over 65 years of age were being supported in this way.'' The Depression swept this world away. Many of the elderly could no longer find work. Those who had been lucky enough to have a pension or some savings saw them disappear. And many who relied on their children saw them buckle under the strain. ''I am in no position to do the right thing for my mother,'' one woman wrote to Roosevelt. "I thought as long as I lived there was no need to worry about her being taken care of, but I never dreamed of a depression like we have had." The World: Life Before Social Security; 'A Great Calamity Has Come Upon Us' And Michael Katz in the WP has some things to say about that. "Where to begin with this one?" asks Michael Katz, a historian of poverty at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied charity case records from the early 20th century. "The stories just break your heart, the kind of suffering that people endured. . . . Stories of families that had literally no cash and had to kind of beg to get the most minimal forms of food, who lived in tiny, little rooms that were ill-heated and ill-ventilated, who were sick all the time, who had meager clothing . . ." Congressman Paul's Legislative Strategy? He'd Rather Say Not. His anti-war views are good, but I wonder if all the people making those huge donations this week are truly aware of the rest of his philosophy. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Replies to this thread |
| Union Thug
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:20 AM Response to Original message |
| 1. Of course they are - he's a Libertarian; the spoiled rotten 8 year olds of.. |
 |
..the political world.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| rwheeler31
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:26 AM Response to Reply #1 |
| 6. Keep him in the mix as long as you can. |
 |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| cboy4
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:22 AM Response to Original message |
| 2. He scares me less than every other single last |
|
Republic candidate who just can't wait to shoot nuclear missiles at Iran.
Social security doesn't matter much if there's no world. But that's just me. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:24 AM Response to Reply #2 |
| 4. Your statement scares me. | |
|
I don't think you see the big picture of our humanity.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| cboy4
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:25 AM Response to Reply #4 |
| 5. I hope you're not mistaking my comment as an |
|
endorsement.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:27 AM Response to Reply #5 |
| 7. No, I'm not. He is just anti most things I strongly believe in. | |
|
Things that make us a great nation. I don't take it as an endorsement.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 11:55 AM Response to Reply #4 |
| 57. That wackos probably one of the "war blind" |
 |
People so blinded by the fact that we've murdered a few hundred thousand people or maybe a million that they think we have a moral imperative to do something about it. Maybe even take a risk that two congressional houses controlled by Democrats will cave in to a president Paul and do away with social security.
I think a few more hundred thousand dead is definitely worth not taking that risk. Any good Democrat should agree. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| LeftishBrit
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:32 PM Response to Reply #57 |
| 76. Are these the only alternatives? |
|
Can't someone be anti-war AND liberal? Why not elect a liberal Dem?
I am a bit surprised that you can have any sympathy with Ron Paul, given your signature line, which perfectly describes the economic and social attitudes of people like Ron Paul. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:38 PM Response to Reply #76 |
| 77. Sympathy with Ron Paul? |
|
You haven't been reading my posts, obviously. I'll support whomever the Democratic nominee is. I'm willing to stay in Iraq until 2013 and beyond if it means we get a Democrat in the White House. That's what's critical. People let the war cloud their vision and they lose sight of all other issues.
We desperately need our social security safety net, especially in the hard times we're experiencing. Doing away with the Federal Reserve? At a time when we need the banks to protect us from a worsening economy more than ever? Reducing the size of government just when we're going to need it the most? All just to save the lives of people in some distant country or save a few tax dollars? That's crazy! If swallowing a continuing war or a widening war is what it takes to get a Democrat in the White House, that's a price we all should be able to accept. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| lvx35
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:10 AM Response to Reply #2 |
| 18. I agree, he is way less scary. |
|
The FUNDAMENTAL THING is to preserve our constitution and liberties, because everything else depends on that. Yes he would mess up entitlement programs and all other kinds of things, but you can't bank on ANYTHING, including entitlements, when you've handed your government over to dictatorship, when the constitution is null and void. Ron Paul is the only republican aware of the risks of where we are at right now, and that puts him a head and shoulders above the rest.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:15 AM Response to Reply #18 |
| 20. Considering the field of Republicans, that is not such a great thing. | |
|
He wants to return to the days when grown children stayed home and took care of aging parents. I am sorry but that scenario does not fit today's conditions.
He doesn't believe in Medicare either, so let's see how much young people would love paying for their parents medical bills. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| lvx35
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:19 AM Response to Reply #20 |
| 21. Oh yeah, he's no temptation whatsoever. |
|
Though I feel like some around here are worried that he is. The guy is almost an anarchist, he's a just a symbol really, of Conservative discontent with Bush's big totalitarian government, which is why he's fundamentally good for them. But he has nothing to do with us.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| cali
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 04:21 AM Response to Reply #18 |
| 46. He does not preserve the Constitution or are liberties |
 |
he's a revolting little man with a conception of the Constitution that is locked in the 18th century.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| lvx35
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:33 AM Response to Reply #46 |
| 48. Oh yes, that silly 1776 era constitution. Revolting. |
|
I much prefer the post 9/11 constitution...Its so much less...provincial. (sniff)
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| cali
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:59 AM Response to Reply #48 |
| 49. ignorance; it's so depressing. |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-08-07 05:59 AM by cali
the Constitution is not, thank the gods, a static document. Paul believes it is.
Let's provide some very basic information for you; it's clear you need it: There is no 1776 Constitution. The Constitution was adopted in 1787 in Philadelphia. The government didn't start operating under the Constitution until 1789. The Bill of Rights was added three years later. Good as that document is, in many way, it's also largely a reflection of an 18th century Enlightenment mentality: It excluded far more people from its protections than it included. It was a document for wealthy white land owners. It's to their credit that the Founders recogninzed that they had created a document that would, of neccessity, require alteration. Ron Paul doesn't have their foresight. The Constitution is not only an old piece of paper, it's Supreme Court case law. It truly is a living breathing document that should always be used to expand the rights of the people, not shrink them. And that's exactly what the not so good Dr., wants to do: Shrink the rights of the people. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| divinecommands
(68 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 04:00 PM Response to Reply #49 |
| 99. Good point, Cali! |
|
One of the most important parts of the Constitution Ron Paul and his supporters seem to want to ignore is the 14th Amendment. I came across a post on that (written by a libertarian, no less) the other day.
http://anonymouslibertarian.blogspot.com/2007/11/case-a... It seems fact based, but I'm not a lawyer or law student. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| lvx35
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:11 PM Response to Reply #49 |
| 132. Bush agrees with you. |
|
the Constitution is not, thank the gods, a static document. Paul believes it is.
Bush: Heckuva comment, Cali! Let's provide some very basic information for you; it's clear you need it: There is no 1776 Constitution. The Constitution was adopted in 1787 in Philadelphia. The government didn't start operating under the Constitution until 1789. The Bill of Rights was added three years later. Bush: Hehehe. Got him on that one...He even knew it was an airror when he said it, that's why he said "1776 era". He's not even smart enough to spell "airror" right. Good as that document is, in many way, it's also largely a reflection of an 18th century Enlightenment mentality: It excluded far more people from its protections than it included. It was a document for wealthy white land owners. It's to their credit that the Founders recogninzed that they had created a document that would, of neccessity, require alteration. Ron Paul doesn't have their foresight. Bush: I hear them jewish people don't have foresights either, they cut em off when they're babies. The Constitution is not only an old piece of paper, it's Supreme Court case law. It truly is a living breathing document that should always be used to expand the rights of the people, not shrink them. And that's exactly what the not so good Dr., wants to do: Shrink the rights of the people. Bush: Tell me about it! Those constitutionalists want to shrink all my liberties...The liberty to torture, the liberty to come in people's homes without warrants, the liberty to Habeus corpus whatever that is...I'm glad you see this all as what it is, expansion of rights. Who would want to go back to that old document when we have rights like this! |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 11:57 AM Response to Reply #48 |
| 58. Me too. 9-11 changed everything. |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| ozone_man
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 07:16 PM Response to Reply #46 |
| 196. Sure he does. |
 |
Where have you been? Just a few weeks ago he introduced a bill into Congress to do exactly that.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbna... |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:44 AM Response to Reply #2 |
| 25. Dems should WANT Ron Paul to be nominated... |
|
Paul is by far the least offensive and scary of any Republican candidate.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| onenote
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:46 PM Response to Reply #2 |
| 149. so does David Duke scare you less than every other repub candidate? |
|
After all, he's opposed to the war too.
http://www.davidduke.com/general/no-war-for-israel_4.ht... |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| NoodleBoy
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:23 AM Response to Original message |
| 3. kick for helping people know a dangerous radical when they see one. |
 |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| JeffR
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:29 AM Response to Original message |
| 8. fellow floridian, I commend you as always for your diligence, hard |
 |
work and dedication to the truth. But I could have boiled this down a little for you:
Ron Paul is wind-in-the-riggings, flea-crap, angelus-bell, edge-of-a-flat-earth, threadbare, naked-as-a-jaybird fucking nuts. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be better informed. His stance on Iraq? Great. Otherwise, please refer to the previous paragraph. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Viva_La_Revolution
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:47 AM Response to Reply #8 |
| 14. and peak oil Jeff! |
|
He used to give great late night lectures on peak oil on the House floor before he got too busy running for prez.
 other than that... what you said. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| JeffR
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:58 AM Response to Reply #14 |
| 17. That's a nice amendment to my crude sentiments |
|
yes, he's been right about other things. I wish I knew what kind of synapse failure one would have to be experiencing to be right on some things and so utterly wrong on so many others? Strange thing is that's as near to a classic definition of the typical Republican as I can imagine.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:35 AM Response to Reply #8 |
| 24. Chuckle. | |
|
That's called saying what you really think.
 |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:30 AM Response to Original message |
| 9. He's riight only on the war, but that has to do with the nativist impulse |
 |
and isolationist impulse of Libertarians
As to him being Howard Dean... only as far as gathering money on the web.. that is as far as it goes Though he has a hell of a grasp of the Neocon movement... and his explanation on the floor, during special orders is a must see. He was amazing that day. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:00 PM Response to Reply #9 |
| 59. Exactly--he's correct oin the war for all the WRONG reasons. nt |
 |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:30 AM Response to Original message |
| 10. He's riight only on the war, but that has to do with the nativist impulse |
|
and isolationist impulse of Libertarians
As to him being Howard Dean... only as far as gathering money on the web.. that is as far as it goes Though he has a hell of a grasp of the Neocon movement... and his explanation on the floor, during special orders is a must see. He was amazing that day. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| rwheeler31
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:37 AM Response to Original message |
| 11. He is scary but right on the big stuff. |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:41 AM Response to Reply #11 |
| 12. Clarify what you consider "the big stuff".... | |
|
 |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Disturbed
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:48 AM Response to Reply #12 |
| 15. Ron Paul doesn't talk much about his Libertarian views. |
 |
He only joined the Repug party so that he would be elected as a Rep from TX. He ran for Pres. before on the Libertarian ticket & got nowhere. He is a hard core Libertarian, ultra RWing.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| aquart
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:43 AM Response to Original message |
| 13. Every dime he raises is a dime not in Giuliani's pocket. |
 |
If the Republicans have to waste their already diminished resources in going after him, YAYYY Ron Paul. Let them feel the attack from both sides for a change.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Hoof Hearted
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:50 AM Response to Original message |
| 16. boot-straps, rub some dirt on it, they just don't WANT to work |
 |
Edited on Thu Nov-08-07 01:13 AM by Hoof Hearted
oh. Excuse me.
I think some short-sighted people support him because he: 1. Is against the war. No big surprise here. Libertarians get this one right most of the time. Don't fight unless you're directly attacked. It leaves out WWI & WWII, but for many of our other wars, that would have been a good rule of thumb to follow. 2. Is against the drug war. This appeals to the large contingent of MJ smokers, and those who understand the "war on drugs" is counterproductive (as least as far as a law enforcement/incarceration issue) 3. Is against property taxes to support schools. Now we are getting to the short-sighted portion of tonights illustration. I have seen many people on this site and others bemoan the taxes they pay to educate children because they are not "breeders" or they have chosen a childless lifestyle, or my personal favorite........ they're a college student with no children who bought a house to live in while they attend. 4. Is against SS. Many people, including myself, harbor deep suspicions that we will never again see the money being taken out of our checks for this program. The real difference here is whether or not one has the the maturity to set aside the very base impulse towards selfishness and understand that the elders of society need additional support and care. I grumble about it sometimes but really, when you get down to it, only a future Republican would stare down some 91 year old lady and tell her your pizza and beer money meant more than her medicine and ADL care. type-oops. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| DeSwiss
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:14 AM Response to Original message |
| 19. Madfloridian, you're absolutely right, the man's a flaming loon.... |
 |
Edited on Thu Nov-08-07 01:24 AM by DeSwiss
Ron Paul assuredly has a couple of position statements and policies that I could support. But the vast majority of his positions are so extreme as to be totally ludicrous.
Here are some of his nutty political positions obtained from his campaign website:  Ron Paul on Abortion Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly *life begins at conception. (Sep 2007) Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007) *Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007) No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007) Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007) *Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007) *Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005) Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003) Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003) Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002) *Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001) No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000) Ron Paul on Budget & Economy Can't legislate economic fairness; so make government small. (Sep 2007) Prioritize spending based on Constitution--and lower it too. (Sep 2007) Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004) Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000) Ron Paul on Civil Rights No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007) No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007) *No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007) *First Amendment was written for controversial speech. (Sep 2007) Use power of presidency to restore habeas corpus. (Sep 2007) *Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) *Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004) *Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998) Ron Paul on Corporations *Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007) Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004) Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001) Ron Paul on Crime *Opposes "hate crimes" legislation. (Sep 2007) Ron Paul on Education *Don't impeach judges for decisions on legislature prayers. (Sep 2007) ***Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007) *Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007) ***Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007) ***Guarantee parity for home school diplomas. (Sep 2007) *Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006) ***Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006) ***Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997) ***Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997) Ron Paul on Energy & Oil Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007) Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) *Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007) *Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) *Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006) ***Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) ***Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001) ***Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001) Ron Paul on Environment Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007) *Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006) *Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003) Ron Paul on Families & Children Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005) *Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003) Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001) Ron Paul on Foreign Policy No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007) *Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007) Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007) *Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007) Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007) *Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005) Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001) Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001) *Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000) Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000) Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999) Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000) Ron Paul on Free Trade No North American Union; no WTO; no UN. (Sep 2007) ***China trade not contingent on human rights & product safety. (Sep 2007) Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005) Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004) Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003) Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003) Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000) *No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000) End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001) Ron Paul on Government Reform *DC voting representation should be determined by Amendment. (Sep 2007) *Disallow lawsuits that stop public officials invoking God. (Sep 2007) ***Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) *Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007) Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006) Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005) Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004) ***Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002) ***Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999) ********Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000) Ron Paul on Gun Control ***Let airlines make rules about passenger guns to fight terror. (Sep 2007) Opposes the DC Gun Ban; it's not just a "collective right". (Mar 2007) Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996) *Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996) Ron Paul on Health Care Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007) Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. (Sep 2007) *Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000) Ron Paul on Homeland Security Protect military chaplains' right to pray in preferred faith. (Sep 2007) *Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002) ***Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999) ***Federal duty to provide missile defense . (Dec 2000) Ron Paul on Immigration *No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007) *Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007) ***Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006) Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006) Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004) *Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998) Ron Paul on Jobs *Minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (Sep 2007) *No "sexual orientation" in Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (Sep 2007) ***Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007) ***Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007) Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001) Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001) Ron Paul on Principles & Values ***Congress should write fewer laws regarding church & state. (Jun 2007) Ron Paul on Social Security Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one's future. (Sep 2007) Federal government won't keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007) Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000) ***Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999) Ron Paul on Tax Reform Get rid of the inflation tax with sound money. (May 2007) *Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005) ***Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002) *Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001) *Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001) *Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001) *Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000) Ron Paul on Technology ******No Fairness Doctrine: no equal time if morally objectionable. (Sep 2007) ******Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006) Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003) Ron Paul on War & Peace Preemptive war is against Christian doctrine of just war. (Sep 2007) Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999) Ron Paul on Welfare & Poverty ***Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000) LINK K&R!!! on edit: added link |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 11:50 AM Response to Reply #19 |
| 56. Thanks for the links...I had not seen that. | |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-08-07 11:50 AM by madfloridian
Ron Paul on Health Care
"Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007) Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. (Sep 2007) *Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)" Ron Paul on Social Security Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one's future. (Sep 2007) Federal government won't keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007) Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000) ***Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999) |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Quixote1818
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:23 AM Response to Original message |
| 22. Oh yes, I think he is worse than all the other Republicans accept on the war |
 |
His foreign policy ideas are ok but his domestic policy ideas are so incredibly insane!!!!
He scares the hell out of me! His domestic policies would be even more harmful than Bush's. Our country would be ruined under Paul. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| zforce
(150 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:51 AM Response to Reply #22 |
| 27. That's weird.. |
|
I've met many Democrats in my community who are supporting Ron Paul because of his anti-war position(and sometimes because of his anti-Private Federal Reserve Corporation position) , even though they disagree with most of his domestic policies.
I think they understand that Paul really wouldn't have much effect on what we deem as to be important domestic policies, which makes sense in light of the fact that congress would still be made-up of the staus quo(Dems and Repubs). Fact of the matter is, he would have full control of Foreign Policy(Military), and based on his track record we can know with certainty that Mr. Paul will do what he said he wwould do..bring the troops back immediately, and from EVERYWHERE. I don't know, call me crazy..but if its not Paul, its "more war and more than likely, bankruptcy". I hope some of you will reconsider. Peace |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Naturyl
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 03:54 AM Response to Reply #27 |
| 42. So, is that an edorsement of a Republican? |
 |
These "Democrats" supporting Ron Paul are the biggest disappointment of the whole thing.
What part of "he is more Republican on economic issues than the Republican party itself" is so hard to understand? As for stopping the war, have you heard of a guy named DENNIS KUCINICH? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
pinto
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 04:20 AM Response to Reply #27 |
| 45. Who we are: |
|
Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party
Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here. You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website. Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate. http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detai... |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Naturyl
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 04:48 AM Response to Reply #45 |
| 47. Yeah, I alerted on the post. |
|
As I will alert on all posts supporting Ron Paul.
I don't have a lost of posts here, but I've been lurking a long time. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:07 PM Response to Reply #47 |
| 63. Good for you! |
|
Dissenters shouldn't be allowed to clutter up these boards with their wacko ideas.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:49 PM Response to Reply #63 |
| 81. dissent is one thing, lunacy quite another n/t |
 |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:01 PM Response to Reply #81 |
| 82. Fortunately we have moderaters to keep us aware of the difference! |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:03 PM Response to Reply #82 |
| 84. the informed among us already know, mods just lock threads! |
|
 |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 10:07 AM Response to Reply #27 |
| 52. Well said. n/t |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:04 PM Response to Reply #27 |
| 60. He's correct on the war--for all the WRONG reasons. |
|
And he's a scary, racist, misogynist, stupid, selfish fuck besides.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:06 PM Response to Reply #27 |
| 62. That's very disloyal of you. |
|
To think of some other country first. We need to be worried about domestic issues, not what happens to a bunch of foreigners, and the most important thing is getting a Democrat into the White House, even if she's someone who won't rule out a nuclear first strike.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:49 PM Response to Reply #27 |
| 80. "I don't know, call me crazy.." |
|
you're crazy
happy to oblige! |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Hissyspit
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:56 PM Response to Reply #27 |
| 94. Reconsider what? He's running as a REPUBLICAN. |
 |
Fuck Republicans.
Also, he's a loon. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 04:34 PM Response to Reply #94 |
| 110. and a bigot!! |
|
 |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Andrewthedecent
(5 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 04:08 PM Response to Reply #27 |
| 102. Dennis and Ron |
|
Personally I would love to see a Dennis Kucinich V.S. Ron Paul general election, even though I don't agree with these guys on many of the issues. They both sincerely believe they are doing what is best for the American People, something it seems none of the other candidates are interested in. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Name removed
(0 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:05 PM Response to Reply #27 |
| 126. Deleted message |
|
Message removed by moderator. [link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click here] to review the message board rules. |
| nadinbrzezinski
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:47 PM Response to Reply #22 |
| 150. He is not a Republican, he is a Libertarian |
|
and yes, there is a difference, and right wing libertarians can be AS scary as neocons
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| femrap
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:35 AM Response to Original message |
| 23. I'm hoping ron paul splits the right wing... |
 |
that would be sweet. He could be Perot II.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| gateley
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:44 AM Response to Original message |
| 26. I attribute the fact that he's getting so many supporters as a result of what |
 |
we've had to endure during the Busco years. An election or two back there was a Libertarian candidate by the name of Harry Brown who wasn't as radical as Paul. Much more palatable to the masses. Granted, he wasn't a congressman but who the hell ever heard of Ron Paul before this campaign began?
When Harry Brown ran we weren't feeling as abandoned, stifled, betrayed as we do now. I think that the response to Paul is almost a knee-jerk reaction to the oppression. We're just so desperate! Unfortunately those who are understandably drawn to him aren't looking beyond the relief he seemingly offers to our situation. I'm fascinated to see what this will do to the Republican race. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| TimBean
(103 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:02 AM Response to Original message |
| 28. only if a small government is scary |
|
I would of course prefer a bad government to an evil government. But a small government is of course the best thing.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:06 AM Response to Reply #28 |
| 31. You wanna drown it in a bathtub? Heh Heh | |
|
We of course very much disagree. Grover Norquist would love you.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| TimBean
(103 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:20 AM Response to Reply #31 |
| 34. I hope you're enjoying the Patriot Act. |
|
We'll have to agree to disagree about that one.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Naturyl
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 03:57 AM Response to Reply #34 |
| 43. Government is NOT the problem. |
|
Why am I having to tell Democrats this? "Small government" is a Reagan talking point, for heaven's sakes.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 10:05 AM Response to Reply #43 |
| 51. If government isn't the problem, what is? n/t |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| IronLionZion
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 11:50 AM Response to Reply #51 |
| 55. Greed |
 |
Corporate greed is going unchecked. In the case of Republicanism (fascism), it's the merger of corporation and government power that is helping to enrich a few greedy individuals at the expense of the rest of us. Take a look at the energy and defense companies.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:10 PM Response to Reply #55 |
| 64. Why the backhanded attack on Hillary? |
|
So what if she has the backing of the energy and defense companies, now? That's no reason to criticize her on a Democratic discussion board.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| IronLionZion
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:25 PM Response to Reply #64 |
| 73. It is an interesting but undeniable fact |
|
that I didn't mention Hillary. I didn't know who is backing her and I wasn't even thinking of her...obviously you were. And that says a lot about your candidate.
The energy and defense industries have made out like bandits during the Bush admin. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 01:30 PM Response to Reply #73 |
| 75. They are backing a winner. Hillary is going to win the nomination ... |
|
...and the presidency. It's smart of the major industries to get behind her. When you go after those industries or after the folks they've backed as if that's some kind of indictment of the system, you are really going after her (and like I said, in a backhanded sort of way). Maybe once she's nominated this criticism of those industries will slow down a little here, huh?
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| IronLionZion
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:02 PM Response to Reply #75 |
| 83. What's she going to do for them? |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:08 PM Response to Reply #83 |
| 86. That's really up to her, isn't it? |
|
At some point we have to trust that she'll put the interests of America over her personal or political ones. After all, that's her history.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| IronLionZion
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:19 PM Response to Reply #86 |
| 89. I wish it were up to the people |
|
but that's too much to ask.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:28 PM Response to Reply #89 |
| 90. Defense contractors are people, too. |
|
It's true that they depend on tax dollars, but we depend on them to keep us safe. If it were left to the "people", by which I assume you mean the common people on the street, not the leaders, we probably wouldn't be a superpower. It sounds like you are advocating that kind of thinking.
How is America going to be the greatest nation on Earth if we don't have the greatest military on Earth? Hillary understands this, and the contractors know that she does. That's why she gets money from them. She'll keep the nation strong. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| madfloridian
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:32 PM Response to Reply #90 |
| 92. Your views are acaring me. | |
|
I am hoping it is a form of satire.
 |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:34 PM Response to Reply #92 |
| 93. Now, what kind of satire could I possibly intend? |
|
I don't even understand what the point of it would be.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 04:39 PM Response to Reply #90 |
| 112. Spoken like a true neocon. n/t |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 04:59 PM Original message |
| "neocon" that's just great. |
|
People complain that when I used the term "Islamofascist" that it's a made up propaganda term used to demonize and distort the views of a vast and disparate group of Muslims from many cultures and with many ideas. Some of them are even more peaceful and have less crime than the US. And that's a valid criticism of the term "Islamofascist", but my motives for using the term were, I think, explicable.
And then you turn around and throw the term "neocon" at me. I'll have you know, "neocon" is ALSO a propaganda term, and it's been used in a broad manner to unfairly brush such disparate people as Richard Perle, Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney. And now, because I'm an ardent fan of Hillary Clinton, you want to paint me with the same propaganda brush. Now it may be true that the so-called "neocons" are now either firmly in the camp of Giuliani or Hillary, and it may be true that the so-called military-industrial-complex has switched its backing to her candidacy, but that doesn't mean ALL of her supporters are "neocons"; any more than it means that everyone who wants America to be a kick-ass tough country with real leadership is a "neocon". Maybe you need to exercise a little discernment and a little less vitriol. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 06:55 PM Response to Original message |
| 191. Now I know you're joking. n/t |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Fri Nov-09-07 09:34 AM Response to Reply #191 |
| 207. I can't imagine how you came to that conclusion, sir. |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Selatius
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 06:27 PM Response to Reply #90 |
| 178. We don't need to be the greatest military power on earth to be a democracy. |
 |
That's where I disagree strongly with you. At the end of Washington's administration, he warned America in his farewell address to avoid foreign entanglements and alliances precisely to avoid the situations America finds itself in today. He urged friendliness and neutrality towards all nations. We have failed to live up to George Washington's advice, and we have paid a dear price for it.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Fri Nov-09-07 09:44 AM Response to Reply #178 |
| 208. Washingtons' Farewell Address? |
|
How many times have I see Ron Paul's supporters pony up that old thing?
Here's something to consider. George Washington didn't live under the shadow of nuclear annihilation. Take a look at his farewell address, where he decries blind loyalty to parties, decries "entangling alliances", decries foreign interventions, and then ask yourself, how much of it would he have changed if he'd faced the end of the world from nuclear armed terrorists, sir? We can't live in the kind of world our founders envisioned for America. The world has changed, and the blueprint they laid has become obsolete. We need to live in the modern world, and exercise leadership and control over it so that we can stay free. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Fri Nov-09-07 12:30 PM Response to Reply #208 |
| 222. "the blueprint they laid has become obsolete..." |
|
Edited on Fri Nov-09-07 12:33 PM by hiphopnation23
the blueprint is exactly the part that has NOT become obsolete, or ideally should not become so. to continue the metaphor, it's the *structure* that has changed, but the blueprint should ideally remain in tact, and I think that's what selatius is getting at here. you can draw a similar correlation to eisenhower's "military industrial complex" speech -- it's the only area that i come even remotely close to aligning myself with a libertarian, but ron paul takes the isolationist tack to extremes.
seems to me the truth lies somewhere between "we need to be outfitted with the most current and deadly weapons if we want to be the most powerful nation on earth" and "we need to pull out of every country and stop all foreign aide of any kind". See how they're kind of both extreme? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Fri Nov-09-07 12:37 PM Response to Reply #222 |
| 224. I don't. |
|
"we need to be outfitted with the most current and deadly weapons if we want to be the most powerful nation on earth" simply describes reality.
"we need to pull out of every country and stop all foreign aide of any kind" describes defeat. I agree that THAT is an extreme view. We need to engage the world so that they can become free and democratic, like us. We need to use our military to protect countries that are free like us, and to encourage other countries to be free. Ron Paul's position, that we have no alliances, give no foreign aid and trade with anyone who shows up with money? That's the crazy position. Our military bases also give important economic boost to a lot of small countries where they are stationed. The idea of getting rid of them? Crazy. Most of the places where we have bases aren't even qualified to recognize a threat, much less deal with one militarily. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Fri Nov-09-07 12:45 PM Response to Reply #224 |
| 225. ... |
|
you're preaching to the choir regarding paul's stance, i concur fully.
it's your view that the path to a completely free, peaceful and democratic world must continue to come from the end of a weapon. it speaks of anti-progress. have the teachings of Gandhi and mlk taught us nothing? as i said, it seems to me that the truth is somewhere between a continued arms race and the complete neglect of every country in the world, including those that genuinely need aid, like places in sub-saharan Africa. of course, the world won't get rid of its weapons tomorrow, but seems to me if we're talking real leadership, we lead by example and not by force which means beginning to adopt peaceful and diplomatic solutions, world wide. these are the qualities of adroit and adept politicians which we unfortunately do not currently have. progress, to me, is an inching toward doing away with all violence. impossible? |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:15 PM Response to Reply #55 |
| 66. Greedy corporatists and government enable each other... |
|
Greed is part of the human condition, I'm sorry to say, and we obviously can't eliminate it by changing which party controls Congress or the White House.
We find ourselves in a crisis today because we have an gigantic government, which is operated by people -- and people are almost universally corruptable. When government becomes as large and invasive as ours is now, the opportunities for corporatist influence are almost limitless. We must reduce the ability of the government to impliment corporatist plans, and that means nothing less than reducing the power, size, and influence of government. Rearranging the deck chairs so "our guys" are getting the goodies isn't going to keep this ship from going down. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:46 PM Response to Reply #66 |
| 70. so you support paul then? |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 03:33 PM Response to Reply #70 |
| 97. I support him in that I hope he's the Republican nominee. I think all Dems should hope so. n/t |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 03:39 PM Response to Reply #97 |
| 98. because... |
|
the dem will handily defeat paul?
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 04:37 PM Response to Reply #98 |
| 111. Because if the Dem doesn't win, there wouldn't be a neocon fascist in the White House again. n/t |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:06 PM Response to Reply #111 |
| 127. Are you saying that if the Dem wins, there might be? |
|
That's a pretty aggressive posture. Try to keep a civil tongue in your head.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 06:49 PM Response to Reply #127 |
| 186. How do you get that out of what I said? n/t |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Fri Nov-09-07 12:20 PM Response to Reply #186 |
| 219. It's the obvious inverse of your post. |
|
Are you trying to be clever, sir?
Are you intimating that Hillary is some kind of fascist or tool of the military machine or neocons or AIPAC or something? That's not very nice, and not very Democratic. She's running to WIN. If that means alliances with people that you "purists" don't like, that's tough. She's going to win, and you'd better get on board. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:26 PM Response to Reply #111 |
| 138. lol |
|
well let's just agree for different reasons -- i'd love for him to be the nom because any dem would clean his clock because he's racist nutcase who espouses completely anti-american ideas.
but i don't think that a smart default position to take is: any repub candidate=neocon fascist another repuke admin would suck for different reasons |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 06:50 PM Response to Reply #138 |
| 187. I was thinking mainly about the fascist Guiliani. n/t |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 06:52 PM Response to Reply #138 |
| 188. I think "racist nutcases" exist on all sides... |
|
And each side can call the others "anti-American", and probably be right!
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 06:54 PM Response to Reply #188 |
| 190. right... |
|
the dem candidate who's a racist nutcase is....wait, who is that again?
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Al Federfer
(214 posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 06:57 PM Response to Reply #190 |
| 192. I was talking about "sides", as in the broader political debate. n/t |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 07:13 PM Response to Reply #192 |
| 194. i ask again |
|
who's the racist in the dem field?
the "sides" you're referring to are not clear |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Fri Nov-09-07 11:43 AM Response to Reply #138 |
| 216. He IS a racist. |
|
That's what I keep saying, and then his defenders (who should be banned) keep bringing in all this apologetic stuff trying to debunk his racism.
He may have written a bunch of non-racist tolerant stuff, and it may be true that the racist things attributed to him weren't actually written by him, but he's an old white Republican guy. It shouldn't be up to us to prove he's a racist. Let him prove that he isn't. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| hiphopnation
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:16 PM Response to Reply #51 |
| 67. mismanagement thereof |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:21 PM Response to Reply #67 |
| 69. Precisely. If wal-Mart (as despicable as they are) were run like the government |
|
we'd have nary a concern about them. They would cease to exist in short order.
Hmm--could someone get George, Dick, and Condi on their boards, please? SOON?! |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:59 PM Response to Reply #43 |
| 96. He can't hear you anymore, bless his wrong-turning on the info hiway soul... nt |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| blondeatlast
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 12:05 PM Response to Reply #34 |
| 61. Apparently we won't. RIP. nt |
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| devilgrrl
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:31 PM Response to Reply #34 |
| 91. D'oh! Gone so soon? |
 |
 |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:09 PM Response to Reply #31 |
| 87. I think maybe it's already drowning. |
|
We need to pull it out of the tub and save it.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| LSK
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 04:04 PM Response to Reply #28 |
| 101. THE EU SAYS YOU ARE WRONG |
 |
Edited on Thu Nov-08-07 04:05 PM by LSK
Google euro survey. Read it. They like the EU.
 |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:07 PM Response to Reply #101 |
| 128. I'm trying to think of a reason why we should emulate Europe... |
|
still thinking...
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| LSK
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:24 PM Response to Reply #128 |
| 135. ummm universal healthcare, much stronger euro, balanced budgets |
|
No war, less working hours, labor unions, less crime, more efficient vehicles, less pollution...
But stay clueless.... |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:53 PM Response to Reply #135 |
| 157. Those are good ones. |
|
You might also mention non interventionism, fiscal responsibility, non-aggression, not having a network of worldwide bases to maintain and respect for the Geneva Convention and Nuremburg laws.
But then you'd be making a case for Ron Paul, and that's a bad idea. Better to limit it like you did. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| LSK
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 06:04 PM Response to Reply #157 |
| 164. Fiscal responsibility??? I guess you missed the headlines of Germany having a surplus |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-08-07 06:05 PM by LSK
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=germany+budget+sur...
Respect for Geneva conventions?? HAVE YOU SEEN THE NEWS IN THE PAST 4 YEARS? LOL!!!! PLEASE DONT ARGUE WHEN YOU DO NOT KNOW ANY FACTS!!! |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Fri Nov-09-07 09:50 AM Response to Reply #164 |
| 210. That was the point I was making, sir. |
|
In Europe it's true, they are more fiscally responsible and they honor treaties and Nuremburg and Geneva Conventions more than we do. Sure, their people are more prosperous and happy.
That doesn't make us Europeans. And just because Ron Paul also wants fiscal responsibility and a return to the principles of Nuremburg and Geneva and wants to eliminate torture and domestic spying, that doesn't make him a Democrat. Stick to your party, sir. This is Democratic Underground, not "support-anyone-I-think-is-great Underground". |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Naturyl
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 07:48 PM Response to Reply #157 |
| 198. You are not for real, dude. |
|
I'm on to you, whether anyone else is or not.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Fri Nov-09-07 09:47 AM Response to Reply #198 |
| 209. I'M NOT FOR REAL !?!?!? This board is being cluttered up with Ron Paul |
|
Spambots, who are basically just ghosts of people living in their momma's basement spamming every site they can connect with and you say I'M not for real?
Believe me, sir. I'm completely real. |
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| MonkeyFunk
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:04 AM Response to Original message |
| 29. He's a right-wing nut job |
|
and anybody here who supports him is an idiot.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| txaslftist
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 05:54 PM Response to Reply #29 |
| 159. I agree. His support of the Patriot Act, the AUMF and torture proves it. |
|
I'm for Hillary. She's against those things.
|
| Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
| Swamp Rat
(1000+ posts)
|
Thu Nov-08-07 02:05 AM Response to Original |
