Ron Paul - What is the DU consensus on him?

[Liberation Angel]

I am doing some research on him and am looking for the best and worst facts so that i can get a perspective on him.

Can anyone here (as I am relatively new as a poster) give me info on his positions on:

abortion?

racism/stormfront?

Capitalism?

I am doing my own research but I know many of you have info at your fingertips that could help me.

is he really awful or is he actually okay in your opinions?

and details and links would help if you have good dirt or good info...

Thanks

[saltpoint]

1. He's a racist wacko.

[FSogol]

5. +1 n/t

[tridim]

12. With a heaping side of homophobia

He wants no healthcare, no social security, no public education, no public roads and parks. If you fall, you're on your own.

[saltpoint]

13. He's a bleak bloke, that's for sure. Kind of barren of flourish, kind of

stark, sun-fried, and clueless.

[Liberation Angel]

26. details on his homophobia?

link or general info?

[tridim]

32. Link

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

[Liberation Angel]

57. Thanks - Brilliant link

much appreciated

[kjackson227]

41. My thoughts, exactly. He has even written a few racist op-eds...

on his website, which were CONVENIENTLY REMOVED/DELETED when he made a run for the presidency. He is definitely against most everything GOVERNMENT. I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher.

[icnorth]

158. Wadda ya mean vote for him for dog catcher??

Jest anuther socialust guvment posishun. Yah gotta ketch yer own dawgs! :)

[JerseygirlCT]

58. Yup. Exactly! nt

[Orsino]

87. And yet he's more of an honest conservative in some ways...

...than most or all Republicans. He takes the ideal of small government seriously enough, at least, to oppose needless war. That's something.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

93. Small government, until it comes to a woman's right to control her own body or marriage equality.

[saltpoint]

165. He has his moments, or at least he seems to, but even in the televised

watered-down GOP debates, a monolithic thug like Giuliani made Ron Paul look like a toothless hound.

Paul caught on among the hyper-libertarians, which didn't surprise me, but it didn't help the Libertarians' cause at all. The closer you look at Paul's public record and comments, the less appealing he becomes.

[musiclawyer]

99. I liked his cameo in BRUNO

he's either very cool, it it waws staged, or pretty uncool, if he didn't know it was a spoof

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

175. No, he got trolled. Big time.

[MNDemNY]

2. ...

:rofl: :tinfoilhat:

[BlooInBloo]

3. A fair number of DUers like the bigot.

[el_bryanto]

15. To be fair, a lot of DUers appreciated his stance on the war

and mostly before his racial views were brought out into the light of day.

I'm not sure he still has a lot of supporters here.

Bryant

[Kahuna]

63. LOL! The same number were also crazy about lou dobbs...

Emphasis on "crazy." ;)

[gorfle]

4. Ron Paul.

He's what the Republicans should be.

[ProudDad]

155. And then they should all march over a cliff

on edit: WAIT, they already are!! :bounce:

[Oregone]

6. fucktard

[Warpy]

7. He's fine if you like crazy people

Like Buchanan, he's right maybe twice a day. The rest of the time he's a racist, sexist, homophobe who believes in free market fairies.

[Odin2005]

8. Racist crackpot.

[maddezmom]

To get a feel for how DU feels use the Google function at the top right

:hi:

[Liberation Angel]

19. Thanks Maddezmom

I wanted to collect the opinions in one place from all the vocal types

This has been the most and fastest responses to a post i have ever gotten.

DUers LOVE to opine, I've learned!

And i LOVE that.

[Cha]

98. I've never used that..thanks.

I was just scrolling this thread because a customer at work was using ron paul after the election in her case to disparage Pres Obama. Actually, more than disparage but I kept my cool and just kept saying how much I loved the new president. She was kinda nasty for being one of those "christian" ladies.

:hi:

[kenfrequed]

9. Hmm

For a republican he talks sense on foreign adventurism and civil liberties.

BUT, there is waaaayyy too many things I disagree with him on to ever consider giving him actual support of any kind.

If I am going to reach outside of the Democratic party for a candidate it would probably NEVER be to a damned republican.

[kenfrequed]

10. And...

Yes, he also has said a few racist things which pretty much sinks him in my book.

[scheming daemons]

11. GOP version of Kucinich..both too crazy (and truthful) to ever win a statewide or national office

[kenfrequed]

17. Uhm ... NO.

Well for one thing Kucinich is not a racist, so comparing him with Ron Paul is revolting to me and a false analogy.

I also notice you don't seem to be terribly good at qualifying yoru comments. Just a quick newsweek style bullet point and you are gone.

[scheming daemons]

31. didn't say their views were same... they are similar in that they're the "crazy uncle in the attic"

for their respective parties.

[kenfrequed]

43. Yeah...

And AGAIN, I want you to clarify this point if you are going to make it.

If you are going to just slam a democrat you sort of owe it to us, on this democratic board, to give at least the shadow of justification that does not involve a book written by kooky hollywood new age astrologer.

[scheming daemons]

73. Ok... some clarification

Both Kucinich and Paul ran for President of their respective parties in 2008

Both Kucinich and Paul garnered less than 5% of the vote in their respective parties' primaries and caucuses.

Both Kucinich and Paul are regarded as far outside the mainstream of their parties by any objective observer.

Both Kucinich and Paul have a history of pushing conspiracy theories about how our government operates.

Both Kucinich and Paul attract supporters who are fed up with both parties.

Both Kucinich and Paul are largely rejected by the leadership of their respective parties and most of the leadership of those parties wishes they would "go away" politically.

Neither Kucinich nor Paul has ever won a political race that involved a wide and diverse electorate (state-wide races like Governor or Senator or presidential primary).

Both men have a small, but vocal, legion of followers who think their "leader" has all the answers to the nation's problems. These followers both operate under the delusion that their leader actually has a chance to someday be President in this country - when in fact, neither would ever even garner 10% of the vote in a national election.

They are both fringe candidates in their respective parties, but have a loud and vocal following that attempts to shout down anyone who points out how wacky and fringe they are.

[kenfrequed]

121. To simplify

And I am simplifying because your arguments are redundant and undescriptive:

Let us divide them into categories:

x ran for president:
You ought to throw this analogy out right away because it is dead weight. Or maybe list weighting, I'm really not sure which at this point.

--------------------------
x is a fringe candidate:
Well actually that could cover four or more of points of your little analogy. If you rate it by issues the majority of Americans actually are closer to Kucinich than any other candidate on the board.


---------
X could not win in a statewide election or national election:
speculatory in the extreme and everything that is wrong with politics. Being a Minnesotan I feel obliged to inform you that many, many people had counted out Paul Wellstone back in his 1990 senatorial bid.

But as an analogy it is unprovable since we cannot truly ascertain if they are similar unless they both somehow get their respective parties endorsement.
---------
x attracts voters fed up with both parties:
Usually the DLC sorts that rag on Kucinich most would applaud at anyone that could appeal to independents or self described moderates. Apparantly this is only the case if THEY get to define the word moderate and exlude issues from the discussion.

I suppose I could give you this one, since Kucinich is such a step back towards pre-reagan progressive-pro labor democrats that he might attract people that do not believe they have a party anymore. And Ron Paul sounds crazy and people like crazy...

--------------

Belief in conspiracy theories:

I will grant you that Ron Paul definitely gets really wild about his theories. As to Kucinich, well there must be Some people that have been quietly working for the former VP these last six months or so. I presume they are nominally associated with the federal government so maybe Kucinich has a point.

Also unless you were sleeping during the run-up to Iraq, Kucinich was right about nearly everything. It was everyone else that ended up being suckers. Is a conspiracy theory still a conspiracy theory if it is true?

[scheming daemons]

105. See post #78..... and then I expect an apology

[kenfrequed]

122. So do I.

I expect everyone that heaped scorn on leftists and liberals for ragging on Bush around 2003 during the run up to the Iraq war to apologize to me. I expect that every DLC dipstick and blue dog shitheel that decided to go along with Bush for all of his wild and crazy adventurism to come up to me and tell me: "Yeah man, you were right, we should have listened to you."

I expect these wanna-be democrats to also come to me (er... well to the progressive left side of the party) and say something to the effect of: "Heck you guys seemed to be right about this war propaganda and about diplomacy and maybe some other stuff, maybe we could listen to your ideas on this other stuff that has recently come up."

Are we going to get this kind of apology or respect?

I would say it is unlikely.


Now you want an apology from me for challenging you to present evidence or examples to back up what is effectively a smear of congressman Kucinich?

Yeah, see that might be the problem, because I see it as my duty in putting forth my opinion to back it up with a few examples. In other words I really wouldn't hold my breath.

[scheming daemons]

128. Kucinich wanted to have Paul as his running mate... case closed

They are two peas in a pod.

[kenfrequed]

131. Yeah...screw the issues.

Screw what he stood up for.

stood up to the bushies when it counted. doesn't matter. Case Closed.

Stood up against the War in Iraq. Doesnt matter. Case Closed.

Stood up for universal healthcare? Doesn't matter. Case closed.


I am sorry but suggesting some cooperation with someone in the other party in a very off handed sort of way is no where near as bad as completely bending over for them when America needed an opposition party to actually stand up for the truth.


There is no comparison and your inability to recognize that suggests to me that you are more concerned with symbols than issues, with appearance than reality, and ultimately with the noise ove rthe signal.

[Maru Kitteh]

183. No, you said Ron Paul was "too truthful" to win a national election.

If you've not expanded on that, you should, to clear it up.

If I'm right, you're saying that Ron Paul has teh nerve to vocalize what most Puglicans think, which is to say that poor people can piss up a rope, it's their own fault, minorities are bad, and wimin's should be forced to carry pregnancies they don't want and stay at home in the kitchen where they belong.

Do I have it right?

[BlooInBloo]

106. Um, Moonbeam McCrazypants wanted Ron Paul as his running mate.

[ColbertWatcher]

137. Who do people insist that r0N pAuL is anything like Kucinich?

r0N pAuL is a fringe "libertarian". This means he is a person too ashamed to be a Republican, who calls himself a "libertarian," yet sticks with the Republican Party because of some vague claim akin to "ideological purity" without using the words "ideological" (it's too big a word for the people who would support such a candidate) or "purity" (it's too close to exposing their true ideology).

r0N pAuL is an political opportunist, who will call himself whatever it takes to get the support he needs from the people who have the decency not to expose what policies he supports.

Kucinich is none of these things.

[TheWatcher]

186. No he isn't.

Kucinich = Paul = You don't know your ass from your ears.

Period.

Although those who believe Kucinich = Paul and expressed such in this thread hardly surprise me at all.

Par.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. He is a libertarian-Randian nutjob.

Every now and then he takes a position you could agree with, such as opposing the Iraq war, but the reason for it is goofy. He is pretty much against most things liberals believe in. For example, he's against welfare of any kind, including Social Security, and he is intensely anti-choice. IMO, he's really awful, but some DUers like him, for reasons that are not at all clear.

[Liberation Angel]

30. Randian?

just asking

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. Ayn Rand. Author of such tendentious, tiresome tomes as

"Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." She developed a sort of philosophy called "Objectivism," which holds that the proper moral purpose of life is to pursue your own happiness, and to hell with everybody else. Rand advocated pure laissez-faire capitalism and opposed any form of welfare. She was also a shitty writer.

[kenfrequed]

54. Horribly shitty writer.

Comic book superheros were complex character studies compared to the olympian demigods she wanted us to believe in and her narratives terrible. If she hadn't had rich patrons who were desperately seeking to justify their greed her books would have ended up buried under the worst pulp every written.

Her ideas were truly awful and she was obviously angry when she realized that she was completely cribbing the idea of 'rational morality' from Kant. Though her philosphy ended up being anything but rational, whereas Kant actually believed in Ethical behavoir.

[MineralMan]

71. Almost unreadable, Rand is. I waded through her crap

years ago, but it was a slog through a swamp of bad writing. I almost got devoured by a bad metaphor at one point.

[Liberation Angel]

55. Oy thanks

that makes sense.

That is the kind of info I would not find easily in a google search

appreciated

[get the red out]

16. Strong against reproductive choice

Which means I need to know nothing else about him. I guess he is for the "liberty" of white males to exert their power and fire their guns.

[obliviously]

18. Wack job! N/T

[SidDithers]

20. Well, I don't think he's a Sacha Baron Cohen fan...nt

sid

[Starry Messenger]

21. We're against him.

I think that's one of the few things we almost all agree on.

[Liberation Angel]

22. Anybody got good links handy?

I like the opines but solid info would help.

[MineralMan]

25. Google is your friend.

You can find all the links there you could possibly use.

[Liberation Angel]

28. yeah but a DU snapshot is what i was hoping for plus I can ask questions

of posters who weigh in.

Can't do that on google.

at least not easily

[MineralMan]

36. And you see the results.

You're asking DUers to do your work for you. If you want links, use Google. If you want opinions, you've gotten some. What exactly is this project you're working on, anyhow? I have a guess, but I won't make it.

[Mrs. Overall]

51. +1

I'll explain again to you, Liberation, it means I echo what MineralMan said.

[Liberation Angel]

53. I am contemplating working with someone who is a ron paul fan

I am trying to find out if I can stomach that or whether I should distance myself.

Somebody mentioned an association with stormfront which really bothered me.

But i figured folks here might be wiling to shorten the sarch time.

and I was right.

and I am truly appreciative.

I liked his antiwar stuff but when i found out more I was truly disturbed by him.

But after that I ignored him.

My friend is a diehard fan and i need ammo to work with.

I know DU can help.

Google may be my friend but DU is better IMHO. Google can be gnarly.

[Mrs. Overall]

60. DU is much, much gnarlier than Google. Just wait.

[hiphopnation]

145. this is classic

"I am contemplating working with someone who is a ron paul fan"

:wtf: is that supposed to mean? :rofl:

yeesh, you need to work on disguising your intent a little better

"I'm contemplating working with someone who is a Michael Jackson fan"

translation

"We're printing giant posters of him, donning white gloves and leather jackets, and going down to the Staples Center to jump, cry and moonwalk as the procession files in for the service."

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!

[BlooInBloo]

61. Yep. It seems clear now.

[Mrs. Overall]

49. Yeah, I think you are after a few DU snapshots.

You are becoming more transparent.

[SidDithers]

50. +1...nt

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

67. whose a ron paul supporter and whose not?

I don't care much about who responds at all

but I do have a few "followers" who pester me kind of.

But i do not need a ron paul thread to have snapshots.

People voice their opinions here. i like that.

But I really did want to get general info and specifics.

a DU snapshot of what PAUL is about. NOT DUers.

But it is okay to be paranoid.

If you're not paranoid, i always say, you are not paying attention.

Fascists can be deadly and usually are.

and as my name implies my perspective is to try to help liberate people from fascists and fascism.

Paul sounds kinda like a fascist in sheep's clothing.

[Mrs. Overall]

74. Really? You are liberating people from fascists and fascism??

And you have "followers"?

Messiah complex much?

[Liberation Angel]

79. Yeah, I'm an antifascist activist and People who "follow" me on threads

are sometimes not nice either, usually.

I do not have a "favorable" "following" here. I meant more like stalkers who like to try to make me look bad (as if I am not capable of doing that myself)

And no I am not annointed for this.

Just a preoccupation.

I am not sure if there is such a thing as being "chosen" for such things (like boddhisattvas volunteer and may be "chosen" according to some esoteric teachings).

But I am nowhere near righteous enough to consider myself in that category.

Barak "Blessed" might fit the bill though if you believe in that sort of thing

[Mrs. Overall]

83. Yep, you got your Clinton dig in on another thread and now you say "Barack Blessed"--

from your post above:

"Barak "Blessed" might fit the bill though if you believe in that sort of thing."

Holy shit! And I do mean "Holy"!

[Liberation Angel]

96. Barak literally means "blessed" in arabic. In Hebrew it is "Baruch"

I study languages

Some people see him as a gift from the Creator (Messiah, chosen, Moshiach, annointed, blessed by G*d?).

and that his election was divinely "special"

I am not saying I believe that --- he is just a guy

one I admire and respect in most issues and whom i have hope in.

But his name "Barak" literally means "Blessed"

and if you put any credence at all in prophecy (which most people of the "books", Jews, Christians, Muslims and even Buddhists) then the idea of a divinely ordained "Messiah" ) could certainly laed many to believe that Barak is such an incarnation (maybe an Avatar or Righteous person_ in Judaism one of the 35 minimum tequired on the planet at any time.

And I do not mean the kind of messiah as predicted by Isaiah and the psalms. I mean more like an incrnation of Buddha. Spiritual. Holy. Maybe not perfect but awfully good.

so sue me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Is there a "DU consensus" on anything? nt

[Liberation Angel]

24. Ask the unwreckers. ; )

just funnin'

(altho that is the reason it is there, APPARENTLY)

[MineralMan]

27. Hmm...

Withholding judgment for the moment...

[Blue_Tires]

35. kittens

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. OK.

You got me there.

[TCJ70]

29. I would encourage you to go to...

...YouTube and search "Autotune The News 3". Enjoy.

[Liberation Angel]

68. Thanks I will

when i get a chance soon

but is ron paul there?

Or is it just to lighten me up.

I LOVE that and watch some with my kids

[TCJ70]

139. He's in the video...

...it's just to lighten everyone up. And it does a good job of it!

[Phoonzang]

33. He's an excellent way of splitting of even more voters from the Republican Party

I find his politics and background distasteful, but I'm all for him. Go Ron Paul!! :toast:

[Liberation Angel]

70. good point

nt

[Blue_Tires]

34. nutbar whose politics are absurd more than left or right

but he has a cult fringe appeal because he is against the drug war, iraq war, taxes, ANY government regulation or intervention, and wants to investigate the true cause of 9-11 -- so you can see he draws one of the strangest mixes of voters you can imagine...

[Hepburn]

Wack job....

...truly nuts and waaaaaaaaaaaay RW on some issues. Scary....:scared:

[superduperfarleft]

37. Links:

Ron Paul Hates You: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/5/193414/2787

Ron Paul: 19th Century Man: http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1389

Angry White Man: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

Basically, he's a nutjob libertarian who is opposed to abortion, a racist fuckwad, and is a firm believer in the "invisible hand of the free market." If it was up to him, the US would look like Somalia with a little fundie Saudi Arabia thrown in.

[blondeatlast]

147. Perfect summation with great links thrown in.

:thumbsup:

[Iggo]

38. Right Wing whackjob.

[alfredo]

39. He's a mixed bag. Sometimes he's lucid, sometimes he's quite nuts.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

42. Racist , Homophobic SCUMBAG...

http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/racist/video/x408cr_ron-pauls-racist-quotes_news

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ron_paul_racist_anti_semite/

ETA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dPD832-gsw&eurl

[LeftishBrit]

44. He horrifies me. Here's a mini-essay that I wrote about him about a year ago

RON PAUL: WHY SHOULD HE WORRY SOMEONE THOUSANDS OF MILES AWAY?


Ron Paul won’t win the presidential election, or come anywhere near it. He will continue to be a Texas Congressman. I will continue to live in England, thousands of miles away from him. So why should I worry about him?


Some quotations from his own website indicate some of the serious problems with his views, from a progressive perspective:


'A Republic, If You Can Keep It’ by Dr. Ron Paul, U.S. Representative from Texas

Address to the U.S. House of Representatives delivered on the Floor of the House January 31 - February 2, 2000

....The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide.
.
....Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th Century did not experience this kind of propaganda.

....It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment.

...Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad.

....The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.


....Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is even permitted without derision by the media, the university intellectuals, and the politicians to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them...'


So let's see. Paul is totally against any form of welfare state, even in its current American sense (very limited compared with most other developed countries); considers benefits for poor people to be 'theft'; does not think that people are entitled to medical care. Despite all his libertarian justifications for all the above, thinks that the government is entitled to ban abortions and 'defend marriage', (though he considers that these, like other government functions, should be carried out by individual states rather than the national government). He is opposed to gay rights ('heterophobia') and considers concern about the environment to be based on 'mythology'. Moreover, he is so isolationist or anti-Soviet or both, that he would apparently rather have had Hitler take over Europe than have an alliance between America and the Soviet Union during the war.

Moreover, despite his support for his country’s Constitution, he seems to be a less-than-fervent supporter of his country’s democracy. Democracy, in the sense of allowing all adults to vote, was not a feature of American politics at the beginning, or specified in its original constitution, even if America was closer to democracy than England or most other places in the late 18th century. America’s constitution was amended to allow women to vote in 1920. It had been amended to allow African-Americans to vote in 1870; but this was frequently evaded in southern states until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Paul has gone on record as opposing this act, as contrary to ‘states’ rights’, even to this day. Should he really be trusted to uphold democracy?

However, most of the Republican candidates have worrying right-wing views; and some of them are far more likely than Paul to win their party’s nomination. What is specifically worrying about Paul is that some ‘progressives’ sympathize with him, and prefer him to some if not all of the Democratic candidates. This is predominantly due to his opposition to the Iraq War and to the Patriot Act: both of which are rightly important issues to liberals. But in addition some people support him because they are frustrated with the status quo, and he is seen as opposing it. Some people even describe him as ‘anti-corporate’ despite the fact that his extreme economic libertarianism, if ever put into practice, would undoubtedly increase the power of corporations.

Some argue in this connection that the old distinction between ‘right’ and ‘left’ is no longer relevant. And it is indeed accurate to say that the right/left distinction should not be seen as a unitary dimension. People can be right vs left on a number of different issues, and different asp. Four important ones are: war/defence; economic/welfare; civil liberties; and social/ civil rights.

So here is where I would rate Bush, Blair and Paul:

Bush:

War/defence: Extreme right

Economic/welfare: Right

Civil liberties: Right

Social/civil rights: Right



Blair:

War/defence: Extreme right

Economic/welfare: Centre-right by British standards (i.e. to the left of Thatcher, but to the right of moderate Tories of the past such as Harold Macmillan)

Civil liberties: Right

Social/civil rights: Centre-left.


Paul:

War/defence: Left on Iraq war, but right on other aspects of world policies

Economic/welfare: Extreme right (could go no further right)

Civil liberties: Left with regard to Federal government infringements of civil liberties; Right with regard to such infringements by state governments or private organizations.

Social/civil rights: Extreme right.


So Blair overall is to the left of either Paul or Bush, but to the right of what I'd find acceptable. Paul and Bush are both thoroughly right-wing. Bush is right-wing on more issues; Paul is more extreme on the issues where he is right-wing.. If Bush is more dangerous than Paul, it's simply because he has more power.



What is frightening here is not so much Paul as a fairly powerless individual, but that some supposedly liberal anti-war people seem to be prepared to ally themselves with RW extremists, if they happen to be against the war. If this leads to liberals' acceptance of a combination of far-RW economic 'libertarianism', social conservativism, and xenophobia, this could have serious impact for future politics. Some of the danger is, I think, not so much from Paul himself, as from the groups and websites that support him. I fear that Paul and other of his ilk may appeal to disaffected progressives in a way that could get them to join a far-right movement without initially realizing that it *is* far-right.

Some of the original fascist organizations/ parties appealed to some left-wingers and lots of apolitical disaffected people at first, and this contributed to their success. And communism was and is of course 'left-wing' in its original impetus, but most Communist states ended up, according to the above classification: "War/defense: Right; Economic/welfare: Left; Civil liberties: Extreme right; Social/civil rights: Right".

I don't think that the particular form of right-wing movement that Paul represents is likely to lead to old-style fascism or other totalitarianism – though such things might be possible if different right-wing movements joined under one umbrella; but it could readily lead to a xenophobic scapegoating of ‘outsiders’ and to a far-right economic libertarianism that murders the poor or sick just as surely, if a bit more slowly, as an act of direct violence. It is important that progressives avoid getting involved, directly or indirectly, in such a movement. That is my real concern. Once the distinction between progressivism and far-right populism is blurred, dangerous hybrids could grow and readily spread to other parts of the world. I fear that an alliance between progressives and Paul supporters could be a step on a slippery slope to forming links with far-RW nationalist groups and individuals that oppose the war, such as Pat Buchanan; the British Nationalist Party; Jean-Marie LePen; even David Duke; etc. If that happens, and such groups gain respectability, especially in the eyes of people on the 'left', we may be sunk!


.

[Liberation Angel]

82. Great essay - thanks

That says a lot.

[zipplewrath]

45. Probably no consensus

I was struck recently on how he might be favorably compared to Jefferson. Jefferson was an anti-federalist at heart. Had a relatively minority point of view on the relations between the states and the federal government. And he could occasionally "go off the deep end" and looked to certain friends like Madison to "rein him in" on occasion. I suspect, but do not know, that his more personal side might show some similarities as well. Jefferson could have a really strange view on slavery and tended to say one thing and ultimately do another. Jefferson also apparently had an irritating voice, albeit also a bit quite and soft.

[LeftishBrit]

48. The only thing that Paul has in common with Jefferson...

is that they were both pretty dedicated to bringing their country into the 19th century!

[zipplewrath]

77. Ha!

You might be surprised how unpopular Jefferson might be in DU in many ways. He was huge "state rights" and thought they had the right to leave the union. He was also kinda big on popular uprisings and didn't mind that they often spilled blood. He was afraid of a strong central government and objected to John Marshall's expansion of SC authority over the issue of constitutionality. He thought the SC should be more "responsive" to the people as well and wanted to reduce justice's terms to 5 years.

[Deep13]

46. Bat shit insane.

[Recursion]

47. Anti-Federal Reserve, pro-Gold standard, anti-government, anti-corporate, anti-war

Kind of a weird mixed bag.

[laconicsax]

91. You left out anti-women, anti-gay, and anti-minority.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

100. How is trashing OSHA and environmental protections anti-corporate?

[Recursion]

132. That's not what's anti-corporate about him

Though he does point out that a lot of regulations get written by and for corporations to squash their smaller competition.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

150. Well you should add "anti-worker" to his list of accomplishments then.

[Recursion]

151. Yeah, he's anti-labor

I don't get why everybody keeps thinking I defend this guy. I just think some of his views are interesting.

I think comparing him to Kucinich is apt because both are examples of how the current party/political alignment doesn't match a lot of our actual fault lines anymore.

[Romulox]

52. He's no Arlen Specter (D!) or Evan Bayh (D?), that's for sure!

[Mz Pip]

56. He's against the war

and for legalization of marijuana. OTher than that, I can't think of anything else I agree with him on.

Here's a website
www.ronpaul.com/

and his personal website
www.ronpaul.org/

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

59. Correct on legalizing drugs. Correct about being against the Iraq War and correct about the Federal

Reserve. Bat shit crazy with most every else.

[Liberation Angel]

80. stopped clock pretty much covers it. That and batshit crazy

seems to be the consensus

[immoderate]

62. Here's a good link.

http://wwjv4.com/republicans/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-ron-paul-159

I also recall some DUer posting a lengthy thread about Ron Paul's flaws some time back. (c. 2007?) I can't find it :( . I thought I had it bookmarked.

Here's some more:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

Hope that helps.

--imm

[Liberation Angel]

69. THX

appreciate it

[immoderate]

86. Y' welcome.

:)

--imm

[Stop Cornyn]

64. Nut job

[dropkickpa]

65. Batshit crazy

[Terry in Austin]

90. ...and that's dissing the bats!

[slackmaster]

72. Batshit crazy with a few good ideas

:nuke:

[graywarrior]

75. Nuttier than a fruitcake.

[harun]

76. He's the only Repuke I like. Is against Imperialism and the War.

Which says a lot.

I'm not with him on dismantling the Fed or moving back to the Gold Standard.

So probably the only free thinking Repuke out there.

[ecstatic]

78. Kucinich wanted him to be his running mate...

:eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjaMLuOpj38

My view of Kucinich was forever tarnished when he pulled that stunt. It showed his true colors. What does Kucinich really stand for if he's willing to put a racist/homophobic REPUBLICAN back in the top slot?

[Liberation Angel]

84. yikes really?

jeesh

[Recursion]

133. They've been personal friends for a while

Paul said during one of the GOP debates that Kucinich was his favorite Democrat because he is "a good man" or something like that.

[kjackson227]

85. Wow, I didn't know this!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

92. Oh my god. I couldn't believe it until I found him actually saying this himself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py8cXlLyX18

I thought that was just a rumor.

[BlooInBloo]

95. Wonderful. Says a lot about DK's supporters

[Liberation Angel]

102. I WAS a DK supporter but this makes me kind of regret it

But I worked for Obama.

I oppose the Clintons.
I LOVE Al GORE

I LOVED Edwards (what a total idiot he was to fall for that honey trap BS) but not so much now.

I still think he had a big heart. but he also had something else big that got him into stupid ass trouble (his ego).

I knw DK never had a chnce. But he said most of the right things and his antichoice histort troubled me.

[scheming daemons]

101. See post #11 and followups.... and the dude said *I* was slamming Kucinich

[BlooInBloo]

107. :)

[kenfrequed]

130. Really?

Because I think I have seen his "true colors" in every piece of legislation he has backed and put forward and signed his name to.

Somehow one half joking/half allegorical speech to 70 people recorded by the Cleveland Plain Dealer doesn't really feel as much like his "True Colors" as what he has spent the last ten years standing up for.

If you listened to the whole speech you might get an idea of why he suggested something like that.

[Stevenmarc]

81. One of Ayn Rand's dingleberries

[Botany]

88. Nuttier than a squirrel turd

n/t

[devilgrrl]

89. I don't know about DU but I think he's a bag of hot gas.

:popcorn:

[Liberation Angel]

94. Here's a snapshot for you: a snapshot of ME

Liberation Angel (628 posts) Wed Jul-15-09 12:10 PM

here's snapshot of me

.

Don't assume anything about me and watch what i say and argue for or against.

I'm antiwar

prochoice

pro GLBT rights

antiNuke

antifascist

pro 100% renewables

pro self defense (altho with limits on guns)

pacifist

satyagrahaist

pro reparations for slavery

pro reparations and return of land and sovereignty to Native peoples and aboriginals globally

pretty much a social democrat and anti-monoply capitalism and anti corporofascism

There's a snapshot of me

you can count on that

also watch those who like to disparage me to know what I stand for and against.

Some criticism is cool and I am tough, but those who don't know me might get the wrong impression.

I m a sweety with little tolerance for bullies

[musette_sf]

116. hmmm. so you say you're "pro-choice".

given the topic of your inquiry (which for the life of me i can't understand as i am not sure why we should do your research) and your assorted posts in this thread,

let me ask YOU something:

so, do you agree that women's reproductive health rights and access must be a FEDERAL right?
or do you think it should be left to the states?

your answer will answer SO many questions for many on this thread.

[Mrs. Overall]

119. Please see post #96 above.

[Liberation Angel]

123. I believe it is a constitutional right (federal)

As for doing my research I will concede that what i really wanted was a more indepth perspective than what google searches would give me knowing that DUers are not loathe to share their opinions and their research..
I think the most helpful responses were the dailykos piece and the Ayn Rand responses.

I would not have gotten that from google very quickly

with respect to abortion, I am against it on moral grounds but believe it is a natural right of women to control their own bodies and therefore it should neither be criminalized (for providers or patients) nor should it be infringed in any way upon except under very limited circumstances (viability of the foetus). I support abortion decisions when the life of the mother is involved at all stages and generally believe that any prohibitions at all really must deal with the viability of the foetus (late term abortions as "birth control" of a viable foetus only I can see being prohibited). But even where prohibited i do not believe they should be criminalized.

I am hesitant to enter into a debate on this issue BUT

I see it as a constitutional right and a natural right of women to control their health rights and their access to safe abortions without fear of sanctions for them or their doctors. I do NOT beieve that states can or should infringe upon that right except as I stated above (late term abortions solely as birth control).

doe that answer your question?

And if you want to go further on the abortion issue I would prefer it to be in a different thread but whatever...

[musette_sf]

129. i just wanted to make sure you weren't a Paulbot

and if you agree that the reproductive rights must be FEDERAL, then my question is answered.

[Liberation Angel]

135. cool -- not at all

i looked at him for about ten minutes

then

not so much

[Lasher]

97. Ron Paul is a nut and a hypocrite.

He has a small but enthusiastic number of irrational followers. If you care about tax cuts and nothing else whatever, he might be saying the things you want to hear.



His radical views are inconsitent with those of other libertarians, as seen in this December 2007 interview with Noam Chomsky.

He respects a Constitution that doesn't exist, one that is controversially defined by his own self-assumed authority alone.

If he is sincere and honest as his supporter claim, why does he bemoan "spending other peoples' money" to grant Rosa Parks a medal from Congress, while he lobbies for $8 million in federal expenditures for in his own district? That was just part of his $400 million in earmarks for FY 2008 alone.

Edit: Change oxymoron and include this link to James Kirchick's 2008 Angry White Man article

[SemiCharmedQuark]

103. LOL @ your picture there.

[Lasher]

110. Paulards didn't like it when I used it during 2008 primaries.

Glad you like it. Heh heh.

[musette_sf]

104. "credible libertarians"

up there with

jumbo shrimp

and

colossal olives

[Lasher]

109. OK, got me there.

I couldn't think of anything better to use and just went with the oxymoron. Less radical libertarians? Help me out. I can still edit.

[musette_sf]

112. they have no solutions

and they have no working model

so i can't think of anything to call them but... libertarians.

[Lasher]

115. Ha ha! OK I just changed it to 'other libertarians'.

Also added a link to an article that chronicles Paul's racism.

[taught_me_patience]

108. He doesn't believe in evolution

a sign of mental illness imho.

[noamnety]

111. Pros and Cons

Pro:

against the war (probably because it costs tax payer money)
against government subsidies to corporations (probably because it costs tax payer money)
excellent choice if you are a white male from a privileged family who was born into success

Con:

racist
sexist
supports the rights of corporations over people (less government regulation over harmful practices)
doesn't much care if the unwashed masses die of starvation or illness or are homeless, so long as it doesn't cost the tax payers

[Stinky The Clown]

113. A boil on the ass of politics

[Fearless]

114. Well idiot comes to mind...

Based on his cameo in the new movie Bruno, I'd say bigot as well. I do enjoy how he splits the Rethug party however. That's a plus. I enjoy that he's anti-war, but wouldn't vote for him regardless.

[OnionPatch]

117. He made such absolute perfect sense regarding the Iraq war.

He almost sounds like a liberal in that sense but on any other issue he's one of your worst nightmare Republicans. I shudder to think him in a position of significant power.

[LWolf]

118. You expect to find consensus at DU?

:spray:

In my opinion:

He is neither the devil nor a saint.

He holds many positions that I strongly disagree with, and a few that I strongly agree with. He had one of the better positions on the war than most Democrats, for example.

That doesn't get him a pass on his other positions, though. I do not support withdrawing from the UN or NATO, for instance.

One plus: he is a more independent Republican, not always toeing the party line.

I wouldn't support a campaign of his; first, he's a republican, and second, because of some of his more extreme libertarian views.

Neither do I "hate" him, or consider him an "enemy."

[Junkdrawer]

120. So, reading the OP, I did a Google News search on Ron Paul...

The OP is one of those slow-over-the-plate lobs designed to allow people to trash Ron Paul. So I said: "OK, why today ?"

And here's the answer:

Ron Paul's audit the Fed bill is ready for the House, but will Obama veto it?

H.R. 1207 Federal Reserve Transparency Act has reached its first momentous goal: the bill has the support of the majority of Congress, now possessing 256 co-sponsors. Now, the bill can - and likely will - move through the House. Its fate in the Senate and on the President’s desk is much less certain.

There is a strong, bipartisan following for this bill both in Congress and in the general public. Both are beginning to see through the smoke and mirrors of the Fed and are looking at this as an opportunity to see what has been going on inside the lair of the puppet masters of our monetary system since the Federal Reserve’s inception. As the law stands right now, the Fed is immune from being audited, among other curious privileges.

Naturally, the Fed is countering the bill, threatening that auditing it will only hurt the economy. Federal Reserve Vice-Chairman Donald Kohn responded to the efforts of the bill’s supports by saying to the House of Representatives Financial Services Subcommittee, “Any substantial erosion of the Federal Reserve’s monetary independence likely would lead to higher long-term interest rates as investors begin to fear future inflation.” As an outsider who studies America’s current economic problems, I translate this as meaning: if people knew how much debt America has and how much interest foreign creditors will demand in order to further finance us, they would become privy to the financial crisis that has been swiftly blooming since the Nixon Administration: we have so much debt, no one wants to give us more money without charging us more interest. This translation is also verified by another quote from Kohn: “The bond rating agencies view operational independence of a country’s central bank as an important factor in determining sovereign credit ratings, suggesting that a threat to the Federal Reserve’s independence could lower the Treasury’s debt rating and thus raise its cost of borrowing.” This scare tactic of the Fed, however, wrongly implies that this situation won’t eventually happen regardless of what comes of this bill. Right now, a lack of transparency shields the public from the true nature of America’s economic crisis; however, if the people choose to look the other way, they will themselves get swept up within the crisis.

...

http://www.examiner.com/x-14129-Grand-Rapids-Ron-Paul-Examiner~y2009m7d15-RonPauls-audit-the-Fed-bill-is-ready-for-the-House-but-will-Obama-veto-it

[LWolf]

124. Good catch. nt

[Liberation Angel]

125. I wanted pros and cons, not just trashing Ron Paul

I knew nothing about this audit bill at all.

It was purely for personal info for me to use with respect to deciding how to deal with a friend who strongly supported Paul.

I did not feel i knew enough and this was the quickest way to get up to speed without wading through the corporate google crap.

[ProudDad]

157. He's being trashed because there ARE NO PROs...

He would have been a disaster as pResident...

Think Rush Limpballs/Randall Terry/Lyndon LaRouch all rolled up into one racist little package...

[hiphopnation]

141. good catch, indeed

kucinich endorsed

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx14_paul/audit.shtml

[hiphopnation]

144. karl rove and barney frank agree! LOL

http://libertymaven.com/2009/07/14/karl-rove-and-barney-frank-agree-on-ron-pauls-federal-reserve-audit-bill/6459/

[blondeatlast]

148. Kinda like they did here with Sarah Palin. Very good catch, thanks. nt

[Liberation Angel]

126. Sort of - a well reasoned response like yours helps

Thanks

[LWolf]

159. Any time. nt

[Arkana]

127. PRON HAUL is the political equivalent of a stopped clock.

Right only twice a day, but wrong as sin at all other times.

The man wants to put us back on the gold standard. Think about that.

[librechik]

134. adorable loonytunes?

some find his libertarian side compelling, but there are so many negatives, from his anti-abortion stance to his idea that medicaid should be abolished.

[Iris]

136. tool. n/t

[LAGC]

138. He Claims to be a Libertarian

But his views against abortion rights put off even most Libertarians.

He's really more in line with the Constitution Party -- religious and pro-sovereignty.

Check out their party platform if you want a better understanding of his views:

http://www.constitutionparty.com/

[KamaAina]

140. Way anti-choice. Not quite Stormfront but pretty damn racist nonetheless.

Best to just ignore him. :eyes:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

142. An absolute bald-faced liar.

A LIAR.

He has practiced OB/GYN in Lake Jackson, TX, for decades. I heard about him in the 1970s.

He says that he has never had a patient that had a life-threatening pregnancy.

That is statistically impossible with the number of women he has treated over the years.

Ectopic pregnancies, preeclampsia, and various other life-threatening conditions are fairly common.

He has a higher infant mortality rate among his patients than among the average OB/GYN in Texas.



He's a LIAR.

[hiphopnation]

143. would you be so kind as to share some of YOUR research

maybe even...FIRST...like, in the OP? If not, don't expect to be taken seriously here or for DUers to provide you with a bunch of links that you can then attempt to bat down and thwart (it's been tried here - A LOT).

He's a racist, homophobic, looney-tune douchenozzle from yester-year, which seems to be the consensus of this board. I'll give you some links after you give me some....

[blondeatlast]

149. +1. nt

[Liberation Angel]

152. okay hip hop nation

how's this?


http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=stormfront++%22ron+paul%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I won't post the links I found because I am sure they are forbidden sites

[hiphopnation]

160. you crack me up

this is such predictable paulite windbaggery. look at the frenzy you've worked up here in the name of "working with someone that supports ron paul". And when asked to provide some substantive linkage to support the need for said frenzy, you post a google search. yeesh.

save yer freakin' breath and time - there's a severe lack of love amongst the reality-based community for Ron Paul, of which, I would guess, the vast majority of DUers are a part. Paul's ideas and ideals, like just about every f-in libertarian I've ever talked to or debated, sound good on the surface, but after you scratch the surface, you realize they're based on nothing other than xenophobia, women-hate, and good ol' fashioned NATIONALISM. It's like they're rendered myopic by their own nostalgia, their own sense of what USED to make America great. Know who else I happen to feel suffers from this same condition - Antonin Scalia. Guess what: You can never go back, get used to it. It doesn't mean that some real reality-based change can't come, but it ain't coming by withdrawing all troops from every outpost in the world and going back to a time when a man could be hung for stealing a horse.

/rant

[blondeatlast]

162. Well put!

:applause:

[Liberation Angel]

171. Believe what you want but I do NOT support Ron Paul

I wanted to get the DU perspective.

Google searches are okay but i RESPECT this community and the opinions here.

That is why I asked.

I just wanted some ammo to debate him with. Don't know much about him - hw was NEVER someone I took seriously (but I paid attention to him for a minute when he was a republican against the war - so I NOTICED him.

But then paid him little mind at all.

I was not trying to whip up any frenzy - I was just looking for some good ol' DU perspectives.

EOM

[blondeatlast]

146. Racist, nationalistic, sexist, homophobic, scary asshole. nt

[bobbolink]

153. Ron Paul is GREAT... for those who hate us poor people

[ProudDad]

154. The ONLY thing he's been "right" about...

is Iraq -- and for the WRONG reasons!

He didn't like Iraq because they didn't win...

On EVERY other issue, he's horrendous!

[SleeplessInAlabama]

156. I think

His "Dr. No" reputation is an interesting study in legislating with minimal BS but most of his beliefs are REALLY hateful at best.

[Sebastian Doyle]

161. He's right on Foreign Policy and the Federal Reserve

Pretty much out to lunch on everything else though.

[Occam Bandage]

169. "Pretend other countries don't exist" is not a reasonable foreign policy.

If by "foreign policy" you mean "the invasion of Iraq," then yeah, sure, but beyond that he's simply a xenophobe isolationist.

[NoPasaran]

163. Fucking looney

And a wacko nutjob magnet

[realisticphish]

164. Nutter nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

166. He was unintentionally funny in Brüno

[Occam Bandage]

167. 18th-century throwback turd. nt

[ThoughtCriminal]

168. Belfry Loads

of Bat-Shit Crazy. But when it comes to Republicans, that's relative.

[Boddingham]

170. What If Ron Paul Is Correct?

What If Ron Paul Is Correct?

What if we had a limited federal government, no federal income taxes, a dollar that is worth a dollar (instead of ten cents, as it is now thanks to the central bank), no military industrial complex, no wars of aggression for oil and control of foreign lands, and a free market? If all of these things came to fruition, would we have that great of a need for welfare and health care? We will never know.

What if we had largely state control over powers not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution? Frankly, it is hard to argue with his narrow interpretation of the Constitution. That is because it was intended to be interpreted that way.

Sure. “Times” change. But the Constitution has not changed much, except through interpretation by the Feds, congressional action, executive action, and Supreme Court case law that arguably expands the original meaning. Before the 17th Amendment, Senators were accountable to state legislatures, and therefore by proxy, to the people of the states.

I have been a registered Democrat for 35 years. I did not vote for John McCain or Ron Paul.

Ron Paul did open my eyes to one concept. If all of the powers granted to states and to the people (based upon a narrow interpretation of the powers granted to the federal government), then the people could give the states such hell over their policies, they would probably respond. It is one thing to send an E-mail to a U.S. Senator. It is another thing to drive to the state capitol, bang on your representative’s door and demand action.

Paul thinks the issue of abortion should be left to the states. What would the states do when 150,000 men and women march on the state capitol demanding reproductive rights? Therein lies the power of the people from which Washington and the Supreme Court, are insulated.

I do agree with the ruling in Roe v. Wade. I’m just askin’.

I watched with great scrutiny the democratic and republican debates. Honestly, I don't think any of them are racists in their hearts.

For what it is worth.

Boddingham

[CRF450]

172. Very good points! And welcome to DU!

[Laelth]

174. Generally speaking, the State Governments are more corrupt (cheaper to buy).

And the American people have no clue what their state governments are doing as business interests buy law after law. We at least pay a little attention to what the Federal Government is doing.

I trust the Feds a lot more than my state government. Many states are better than GA, however. YMMV.

Ultimately, though, we had a war in the middle of the last century that pretty much has already settled this question. It's pretty much moot now.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Boddingham]

176. Isn't that the fault of the people?

Is this a flaw in the system, or is this a flaw in the activism of the people who are supposed to be vigilant in protecting their freedoms and looking out for their own interests? We fought a revolution over a silly fucking tax stamp.

Your assertion that the people don't care about state governments and their lack of action is an indictment against the sleepwalking slaves in the states . . . not whether the fed or states are more responsive.

If the people have no clue what their state government is doing, then they are dead and they deserve what they get.

[Laelth]

177. It is the people's fault.

But we can't force them to pay attention to politics. We would only exacerbate the problem if we gave more power to the states.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Boddingham]

179. Yes.

Leave all of the power with the foreign lobbyists, guaranteed to be re-elected corrupt and bought-off incumbents, international banks, the federal reserve, pharmaceutical companies, Monsanto, Agra-Business, weapons manufacturers, Brown Root And Kellogg, and all of the other corporate interests that run Washington with not one fucking thought about the people anywhere on the fucking planet.

[Laelth]

181. At least we can vote the party in power out from time to time.

That happens even less frequently in state governments.

Believe me, I understand your frustration, but I do not believe that crippling the Federal Government is the answer. It's the only real tool "We the People" have to control the fate of the nation. Crippling it is crippling ourselves and handing all our power to big corporations who will fill that power vacuum in a heartbeat. We still have a little power left to control our destinies (no thanks to Republicans). I can not support voluntarily giving up the only real power we have.

:dem:

-Laelth

Edit:Laelth--sloppy proofreading.

[krispos42]

185. That's not an inheirent problem with the federal government, though

Those problems you mention are an inheirent problem with Reaganomics and global free trade.


The federal income tax that Ron Paul hates so much used to be a brake on the excesses of the rich by limiting their income and, therefore, the amount of "free speech" they could buy with Congress.

Slashing the FIT for rich people and corporations, as well as not enforcing anti-trust laws and embracing global free trade is what has caused things like corporate dominance of our political process and the lack of intelligent discourse.


To a certain extent we need a defense industry... the science and technology of the sinews of war is something that is so advanced and cutting edge that we need to keep working on it year around. However, we don't need the defense industry running the show!



But the federal government ran just fine before Reaganomics and globalization.

[upi402]

173. and UPI402 shrugged

:shrug:
Ayn Rand types are as whacky as anarchists. We live in a civilization, and that's why whack jobs are able to thrive. Naive fools pretending to be rational intellectuals. They'd be eaten alive in 3 seconds flat.

[johnaries]

178. A very ignoble person, but an ignorer of History and Reality.

I've had this discussion with several co-workers without much success. I respect Ron Paul in that he wants to return to the original philosophies of the Founding Fathers. HOWEVER, the original Founding Fathers were able to admit they could be wrong.

For instance, Ron Paul seems to advocate the philosophies of the original Articles of Confederation. Those articles were a paragon of later Randian virtues. There was only one problem - they didn't work. They were very idealistic, but they weren't practical. We tried it, it didn't work. Paulites want us to try it and fail again. To further prove that Paulites have no connection to reality: Paulites are very anti-income tax and point to the pre-income tax periods as proof that "we don't need it". However, what they refuse to admit is that during that "pre-income tax" period we had very protectionist tariffs which not only provided lots of revenue for the Federal Government but also encouraged rampant graft for the tariff collectors.

But Paulites are against tariffs. They are against taxes. They are against any kind of Government Revenue except that which is "given as charity". Just like the failed Articles of Confederation.

I have had several "conversations" (arguments) with Paulites and other Libertarians. They seem to forget the writings of Upton Sinclair or Rachel Carson based on real-life experiences in favor of the unproven fantasies of Ayn Rand.

Seriously, one of Rand's closest friends and most ardent followers (Alan Greenspan) recently admitted "I was wrong."

Meanwhile, Keynesian Economics has been proven to been effective in every single case. Some people may argue "Stagflation" and "Reaganomics", but it was actually Reagan's Sec of Treasury applying modified Keynesian principles that brought us out of that recession. It was Reagonomics that led to GHW Bush's "it's the economy, stupid" defeat.

For all of those who argue "FDR didn't bring us out of the Depression, WW2 did!". Well, what about WW2 brought us out of the Depression? It was because of the greatest stimulus package ever. The war gave us an excuse to spend over 100% GDP on internal stimulus. Once the economy was stimulated, revenues were increased and we managed to balance our budget (once there was no more war).

Remember, Bush hid the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the reasons Obama's budget looks larger is that he is no longer trying to hide those costs. He wants honesty.

Sorry, this was supposed to about Ron Paul. Bottom line, he is out of touch with Reality. He is a nice guy, but he is self-deceptive and therefore unreliable.

[Boddingham]

180. I don't know where you got this.

I haven't found anything substantiating that Paul is against tariffs or willing to abandon the Constitution for the old articles.

As far as hidden costs of war goes, Paul has made it very clear that he would never have invaded Iraq.

Links?

[Clintonista2]

182. Racist homophobic bigot.

[Kievan Rus]

184. Ron Paul = KKK

[mp9200]

187. One of the better right-wingers

Though I still wouldn't vote for him.