Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:13 PM Dec 2011

Please explain why some liberals support Ron Paul...

I understand that many liberals support the decriminalization of drugs and are fond of Ran Paul's stance on the wars. (I am, too!) However, I do not understand how they can support this man in the LARGER scheme of things: his extremist stance against government and its role; his opinion on a woman's right to choose; anti-gay rights; and hostility towards civil rights.

I don't get it, but perhaps someone can explain to me.

The major issue about Ron Paul and his son Rand that should scare us all is that he is for the dismantling of the 14th Amendment. He and his son would not have supported civil rights laws or Court decisions protecting the rights of all citizens. That means that if a private organization wanted to bar minorities--or ANY individual or group--from participating in the organization's activitities, it can. De jure segregation would be santioned and reinstated. I found out many years ago that Ron Paul was associated with certain ultra conservative groups that were hostile to civil rights. The Council of Conservative Citizens is one of these. See, there's an underlying reason for championing states rights and the privatization of EVERYTHING. In doing so, you can legalize discrimination of all types and those being discriminated against have no recourse.

Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC):

http://cofcc.org/

125 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Please explain why some liberals support Ron Paul... (Original Post) Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 OP
Ayn Rand. comipinko Dec 2011 #1
lots of people have one major issue that they dwell on rurallib Dec 2011 #2
You’re right … Cigar11 Dec 2011 #3
It would be like having a beer with that guy in the Tom Rush song GoneOffShore Dec 2011 #72
Including the war on drugs. DocMac Dec 2011 #5
And the "liberals" that DO support him think socialist_n_TN Dec 2011 #74
For my brother, who is generally not insane, but is an avid Paul supporter... Ed Suspicious Dec 2011 #4
Because they aren't reading the fine print. AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #6
I think there's a difference between support catabryna Dec 2011 #7
In this sense, I speak of "support," not just "agree with." As I mentioned in my OP, I agree with Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #14
I did read your entire post... catabryna Dec 2011 #22
Yep, I think many thinking people "agree" with Ron Paul. truedelphi Dec 2011 #50
I could never support a bigot no matter what other issue that I may be in agreement with Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #67
I voted for Obama, and I would have voted for Clinton if she won the nomination. ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #77
And Ron Paul is even MORE of a bigot towards the LGBT community. Next... Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #99
I was addressing your comment ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #112
Support = "vote for" Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #114
Please cease and desist from comparing MoRon Paul to DK or progressives MattBaggins Dec 2011 #93
+1! Excellent!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #100
Not true. Republicrat059 Dec 2011 #116
2 reasons Ratty Dec 2011 #8
The ones that live around here all have one thing in common. They are all racist asscarrots NNN0LHI Dec 2011 #9
I'm inclined to agree wholeheartedly because even when you point out his bigotry, Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #37
War, occupation, and drugs Seedersandleechers Dec 2011 #10
Convictions can be poor measurements Lefergus70 Dec 2011 #86
The old saying "politics make strange bedfellows" applies The Genealogist Dec 2011 #11
Because they think they are liberals but they are really libertarians frazzled Dec 2011 #12
Yeah, I think that they are actually modern day Libertarians but not Libertarians in the Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #16
Anarchists really don't care what you do in your own home. harmonicon Dec 2011 #88
Well then Ron Paul is not an anarchist because he does care what you do in your own home... Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #89
I know that. That was my point. harmonicon Dec 2011 #106
Got it! +1 Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #111
you can't be a liberal and support Ron Paul Motown_Johnny Dec 2011 #13
"You can't be a liberal and support Ron Paul." Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #17
agreed Motown_Johnny Dec 2011 #20
It's similar to asking "How can you support Democrats, with all the wars, War on Drugs, etc."? Romulox Dec 2011 #15
You are correct! ctwayne Dec 2011 #81
A false perception of concurrence on some positions. Viking12 Dec 2011 #18
so if you don't support someone overall, they can't be right about ANYTHING? Did you take critical yurbud Dec 2011 #64
Where did I say that? Viking12 Dec 2011 #101
Because they are fuckin ignorant? johncoby2 Dec 2011 #19
Maybe if our party would get with the fucking program on personal liberty- ending the war on drugs- Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #21
Two words: Dennis Kucinich Ratty Dec 2011 #23
Meh. I've gone in and out in terms of Kooch. I actually had a phase in 2008 where I was backing him. Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #25
See my Post #26. I agree 100% Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #27
I think I agree with you Ratty Dec 2011 #30
Yes, if the choice is between Paul or Kucinich, obviously Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #36
In my view, Ron Paul is also morally bankrupt if he is (1) a bigot; (2) believes that a private Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #44
if you think I'm going to defend Ron Paul or those views, you've got the wrong guy Warren DeMontague Dec 2011 #45
I hear you. No, we're on the same side. Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #49
Yes. The other problem with Ron Paul is that he is NOT as principled as everyone seems to believe. Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #40
Exactly! I supported Kucinich in 2008, but then he started to get crazy on me after that. Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #26
there were several people hoping for a Kucinich/Paul ticket back in 2008 fishwax Dec 2011 #80
I would think Aerows Dec 2011 #24
Have I mentioned Ron Paul isn't anti-war? ProSense Dec 2011 #28
THANK YOU! redqueen Dec 2011 #47
Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #58
stick to the facts Republicrat059 Dec 2011 #117
What is the mystery? Vattel Dec 2011 #29
The problem with your assessment is that Ron Paul is NOT really for civil liberties. Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #41
I guess I disagree to some extent. Vattel Dec 2011 #56
OK, but he is not consistent which is the point I was making. And he is a bigot! Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #66
I agree with that! Vattel Dec 2011 #73
His positions are a little more nuanced than that. Galle Dec 2011 #75
The "state issue" is a cop out. We don't let President Obama get away with Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #102
Well... Galle Dec 2011 #107
Perhaps, but I still think that Ron Paul is being a bit disingenuous here, just as Obama is. Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #110
Because they haven't seen this AlbertCat Dec 2011 #31
"I'll haunt your prostate!" progressoid Dec 2011 #46
Because (like my Mom) they don't know about the racism, KamaAina Dec 2011 #32
You forgot the "batshit crazy". n/t gkhouston Dec 2011 #84
When asked for a comment, a spokesperson for the local chapter of "Jews for Hitler" stated ... 11 Bravo Dec 2011 #33
Krugman: ProSense Dec 2011 #34
Thanks, ProSense! This should be the *COMPELLING* argument! The fact that his ideas are not only Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #43
There are a multitude of reasons to support Paul as the Republican Nominee Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #35
They are NOT liberals n/t librechik Dec 2011 #38
I agree. There's no way they're liberals. redqueen Dec 2011 #48
I think they (and I) agree with him on certain points (war, drugs, etc.) but aren't aware of his gateley Dec 2011 #39
NO LIBERAL would vote for Ron Paul. NONE. FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #42
the point of OP is to put stink on the few good ideas Ron Paul has by setting up this straw man yurbud Dec 2011 #63
Wrong! I'm trying to understand the blatant contradiction in ideas. And I've already Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #68
are you sure you aren't confusing ''support'' with ''agree with him on some issues''? yurbud Dec 2011 #51
I can say Hitler had a way with khakis without supporting his anti-Semitism or wishing he won WWII. yurbud Dec 2011 #52
Maybe he's not serious but I could agree with this proposal by Paul Uncle Joe Dec 2011 #54
They are Progressive Libertarians that value liberalism over DNC values. OneTenthofOnePercent Dec 2011 #53
Thanks! I made this point earlier. Love your signature pic, BTW! Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #69
Do you realize that if we continue as we are going, we are ALL in jeopardy? George Glass Dec 2011 #55
A Libertarian sulphurdunn Dec 2011 #57
simple. they don't take the time to read his whole platform. Javaman Dec 2011 #59
It's not that you don't understand- it's that they dont Dragonbreathp9d Dec 2011 #60
WOW! That's an interesting take on this! Thanks!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #70
why not? mdmc Dec 2011 #61
But this is *DEMOCRATIC* Underground. Should we be supporting ANY Republican, especially one Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #71
One-issue-ism. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #62
Epidemic of temporary insanity? That's how I explain my Mother's current infatuation. REP Dec 2011 #65
Tunnel vision. gtar100 Dec 2011 #76
His brand of Libertarianism intersects w/progressivism. Also intersects with racism & whatever you DirkGently Dec 2011 #78
Yeah, let me explain it. napoleon_in_rags Dec 2011 #79
Post removed Post removed Dec 2011 #82
I just read that Obama has a 84% approval rating amongst liberals madokie Dec 2011 #83
Because of his attitude about WAR. Stevepol Dec 2011 #85
Ron Paul is like a doctor who can diagnose a disease correctly... MrScorpio Dec 2011 #87
I thought he was neutral on gay rights and abortion? mainer Dec 2011 #90
See my response, Post #102 Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #103
I don't think it's that liberals support him. I think he just doesn't inspire disgust mainer Dec 2011 #91
This message was self-deleted by its author LaurenG Dec 2011 #92
Because he's only HALF crazy. PassingFair Dec 2011 #94
Are The Paul's Really Libertarians? DallasNE Dec 2011 #95
See my response, Post #16 Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #104
A suggestion Bragi Dec 2011 #108
Thanks! I'll try that. :) Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #109
Support No, agree with him on some issues Yes Sherman A1 Dec 2011 #96
See my response upthread. I made this distinction earlier, and in my OP... Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #105
Ron Paul is an Ugly Little Troll unionworks Dec 2011 #97
Do they? Laelth Dec 2011 #98
sirota has a soft spot for him, that's for sure dionysus Dec 2011 #119
I only support Paul thescreaminghead Dec 2011 #113
But he only holds this view because he hates government and regulation! Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #115
yesterday, sirota was filling in for randi and spent most of the show kissing ron pauls ass. dionysus Dec 2011 #118
Still angry at Sirota for his shots at Melissa Harris Perry. At any rate, I podcast Randi every day, Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #120
Message deleted by the DU Administrators Plume Dec 2011 #121
Huh. Not buying it. He wants to repeal Roe v Wade. PeaceNikki Dec 2011 #123
So the 6th Ammendment doesn't matter to you? hyacinth house Dec 2011 #122
I'm asking a fairly straightforward question. Has nothing to do with me or my own views. Liberal_Stalwart71 Dec 2011 #125
You mean why some Ron Paul supporters call themselves liberal? Orsino Dec 2011 #124

rurallib

(62,346 posts)
2. lots of people have one major issue that they dwell on
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:15 PM
Dec 2011

and for many it is war and America's penchant for it.
That at least has been my take.

Cigar11

(549 posts)
3. You’re right …
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:19 PM
Dec 2011

Ron Paul always starts of looking like the Intelligent Adult, but then fades into oblivion like a senile old fool.

I’m sure he would be a great conversation to over a beer, but as soon as he has two, he’s done!

GoneOffShore

(17,309 posts)
72. It would be like having a beer with that guy in the Tom Rush song
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:38 PM
Dec 2011

"Used to play with nah nah nah , god damned hippies
Off of my lawn."

Old Blevins (added on edit, because it took me 20 minutes to remember - suddenly I'm beginning to think that I'm Blevins)

DocMac

(1,628 posts)
5. Including the war on drugs.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:21 PM
Dec 2011

They must not understand his position on many social issues.

His supporters never answer just how he would get his ideas through Congress.


edit for spelling

socialist_n_TN

(11,481 posts)
74. And the "liberals" that DO support him think
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:34 PM
Dec 2011

that he couldn't get the REST of his agenda through Congress.

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
4. For my brother, who is generally not insane, but is an avid Paul supporter...
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:19 PM
Dec 2011

it has a lot to do with what he would call, "The criminal activity of the Federal Reserve".

catabryna

(2,080 posts)
7. I think there's a difference between support
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:23 PM
Dec 2011

and happening to agree with someone on certain issues. I agree with him on a few issues, but that doesn't mean I would ever consider voting for him or supporting him in any way.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
14. In this sense, I speak of "support," not just "agree with." As I mentioned in my OP, I agree with
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:34 PM
Dec 2011

Ron Paul on a number of issues, but I would never support his candidacy in any form or fashion.

catabryna

(2,080 posts)
22. I did read your entire post...
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:44 PM
Dec 2011

I was just responding to your question, from my perspective, of ..."why some liberals support Ron Paul". I suppose I did respond to your OP by using myself as an example, however.

I think liberals who support Paul are not truly liberals.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
50. Yep, I think many thinking people "agree" with Ron Paul.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:25 PM
Dec 2011

He is the only person I can think of, other than Dennis Kucinich, and a handful of Democrats on the Progressive Caucus, who happens to ALWAYS be against the always expanding, unending, unwinnable wars.

He is the only person other than Dennis Kucinich and other members of the Progressive Caucus who understands that the People at the top of our economic pyramid, that is, the Greenspan, Paulson, Kashkari, Bernanke, Geithner types, are indeed working very hard, they just are not working for us, but their Big Banking buddies.

I even agree with him about ending governmental agencies, as they are not at all working to protect the public, but to help the Big Interests use loopholes to avoid any penalties.

But supporting him is not something I can do right now.





ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
77. I voted for Obama, and I would have voted for Clinton if she won the nomination.
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:41 AM
Dec 2011

They both had bigoted views toward gay people.

ZombieHorde

(29,047 posts)
112. I was addressing your comment
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:48 PM
Dec 2011

about never supporting bigots. I know different people use different meanings for the word "support," but I was using it to mean "vote for."

MattBaggins

(7,894 posts)
93. Please cease and desist from comparing MoRon Paul to DK or progressives
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:04 AM
Dec 2011

there is a HUGE chasm of difference between them. Ron Paul is opposed to wars as he doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself. Where as Progs would offer alternative solutions to try and help the worlds oppressed, MoRon Paul would not. He simply does not give a shit.

Progressives would legalize or decriminalize most drug use and try to offer better support programs to help individuals and families ravaged by addictions, MoRon paul would not. He does not give a shit about anyone but himself and would not care one iota if parents dropped dead in front of their kids from an OD. Paul would not offer any assistance of any kind to communities trying to help poor people. He is a grade A asshole and not to be compared to DK.

 

Republicrat059

(3 posts)
116. Not true.
Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:58 AM
Dec 2011

"He does not give a shit about anyone but himself and would not care one iota if parents dropped dead in front of their kids from an OD. Paul would not offer any assistance of any kind to communities trying to help poor people. He is a grade A asshole and not to be compared to DK."

He worked for $5 an hour at a charity hospital for years and delivered 4000 babies. His hospital never turned anyone away if they couldn't pay... hospitals nowadays always take people and treat them regardless of whether they can pay or not.

He is not against gay rights. He is FOR gay marriage:

&t=34m39s

As much as I hate the Republicans, I don't have much faith in the Democrats after we got swindled by Obama. Would Ron Paul be better than Obama? I'm not so sure.

Ratty

(2,100 posts)
8. 2 reasons
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:25 PM
Dec 2011

1. He speaks his mind, i.e., he's perceived as being "honest."
2. He is perceived as having principles and sticking to them, never compromising.

Under normal conditions these would not automatically make someone admirable. Number 1 wouldn't be the best attribute for a diplomat for example. And a president who represents all of America would benefit from a bit more tact than Mr. Paul shows. And if we call number 2 what it really is, zealotry, it suddenly becomes a whole lot less flattering. Seeing the world in black and white and refusing to acknowledge that not all problems have simple solutions - I've never understood why some people think that's a a good characteristic.

Then he goes and sprinkles his craziness with a few things certain people like to hear - legalizing drugs and ending wars - and all the sudden the blinders come on.

NNN0LHI

(67,190 posts)
9. The ones that live around here all have one thing in common. They are all racist asscarrots
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:29 PM
Dec 2011

Every damn one of them. They display the same level of hate that you can find on stormfront.

Don

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
37. I'm inclined to agree wholeheartedly because even when you point out his bigotry,
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 04:55 PM
Dec 2011

they seem not to care. In fact, they become more strident in their support for him.

Seedersandleechers

(3,044 posts)
10. War, occupation, and drugs
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:31 PM
Dec 2011

is my only agreement to RP. Not enough to ever vote for the man. He does however stick to his convictions which is a plus - but other then that, not so much.

Lefergus70

(102 posts)
86. Convictions can be poor measurements
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:12 AM
Dec 2011

Dick Cheney and GWB stuck to their convictions, and still do. It's not a virtue.

The Genealogist

(4,723 posts)
11. The old saying "politics make strange bedfellows" applies
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:31 PM
Dec 2011

For some liberals, the current "wars" are the most important issues, and ending them is priority one, or at least a very high priority. Ron Paul seems to be in agreement there, although I have seen some at DU point out how this is not necessarily the case. Sorry, on the way out the door so I can't post links right now. Also, many liberals want to throw out drug laws and the "war on drugs." So does Ron Paul. There are probably other moments where there is agreement.

Personally, Ron Paul is one of the scarier Republicans, because of his extremism. What he proposes would turn the government at the US as a whole, on its head and really cause mass hysteria if he were elected and got his agenda through.

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
12. Because they think they are liberals but they are really libertarians
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:33 PM
Dec 2011

No liberal would support Ron Paul.

Also because certain people have pet issues only, and they don't care where the support comes from their pet issue. I recall people extolling Pat Buchanan to the skies when he opposed the Iraq war in the early 200s. They didn't care if his reasons for doing so (staunch isolationism in the world) were entirely antithetical to progressive values. If it was opposition, it worked. Just like some who fancy themselves progressives ally with people like Grover Norquist for convenience' sake.

Just in the last 24 hours here, I've seen a thread using conservative Blue Dog Dennis Cardoza to criticize the president, and an uber right-wing web site to spread doom about his chances for reelection. Whatever works.

Just never confuse these people with being actual liberals.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
16. Yeah, I think that they are actually modern day Libertarians but not Libertarians in the
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:38 PM
Dec 2011

Last edited Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:20 PM - Edit history (1)

traditional sense. Traditional Libertarians don't care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. Ron Paul Libertarians do. Traditional Libertarians are not anarchists or isolationists--at least not all of them. Ron Paul Libertarians seem to be.

(BTW, one of my posts in the Cardoza thread got hidden for pointing the very same thing you did. I was a bit nasty about it, though. I'm just sick of the BS.)

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
89. Well then Ron Paul is not an anarchist because he does care what you do in your own home...
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:23 AM
Dec 2011

...and, if you're a woman, to your own body!

harmonicon

(12,008 posts)
106. I know that. That was my point.
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:26 PM
Dec 2011

If it was possible to poll anarchists, I think you'd find that the vast majority would sympathize far more with a communist government than they would a libertarian one.

 

Motown_Johnny

(22,308 posts)
13. you can't be a liberal and support Ron Paul
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:34 PM
Dec 2011

Maybe they are one issue voters who are liberal on that one issue and Crazy Uncle Ron is even further to the left on this issue than Democrats.

For example, if you are against the "war on drugs" then Ron's statement in the debates on legalizing heroin would draw your support.

This doesn't make you a liberal. You can't be a liberal and support Ron Paul.
 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
17. "You can't be a liberal and support Ron Paul."
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:40 PM
Dec 2011

I agree with this statement. It's just bizzare. However, you can be a liberal and support some of Ron Paul's ideas.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
15. It's similar to asking "How can you support Democrats, with all the wars, War on Drugs, etc."?
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:35 PM
Dec 2011

Obviously, people value certain positions more than others, and are willing to accept trade offs. To support the President, one needs to support the SURGE! into Afghanistan, plus the drone war in Pakistan. In addition, one has to support an escalation of the drug war and a crack down on medical marijuana.

/not a Ron, and definitely not a Rand Paul supporter.

ctwayne

(71 posts)
81. You are correct!
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 06:46 AM
Dec 2011

When you support any politician, you have to take the good with the bad. I support Ron Paul's views of our bloated military-industrial complex, and our endless wars-both foreign and domestic (like the War on Drugs). I am opposed to Ron Paul's desire to end government social programs, such as Social Security.
When you support a politician like President Obama, you support a vast system of overt and covert wars against sundry third world countries. However, you do get to keep your Medicare and Social Security, minus a variety of substantial budget cuts.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
64. so if you don't support someone overall, they can't be right about ANYTHING? Did you take critical
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:16 PM
Dec 2011

thinking classes with Glenn Beck?

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
21. Maybe if our party would get with the fucking program on personal liberty- ending the war on drugs-
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:44 PM
Dec 2011

the appeal of off-the-rails nutters like Ron Paul would be greatly diminished.

The fact of the matter is, the American People are broadly socially libertarian- not just pro-choice, but also increasingly pro pot legalization and pro gay marriage.

Unfortunately, the people who $$$ really $$$ make $$$ the $$$ decisions have decided that spending over $40 Billion a year to throw otherwise law abiding people in prison for smoking a relatively harmless plant is more $$$ lucrative $$$ than $$$ finally $$$ embracing $$$ long-overdue $$$ sanity.

Ron Paul only looks appealing because our party is head-scratchingly idiotic in a few, key areas.

Ratty

(2,100 posts)
23. Two words: Dennis Kucinich
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 12:55 PM
Dec 2011

- Would decriminalize marijuana
- Emphasizes rehabilitation over incarceration
- War on Drugs benefits only the prison-industrial complex
- Racial bias in drug enforcement is pervasive
- Voted NO on more funding for Mexico to fight drugs
- Voted against invading Iraq
- Has said the US is engaging in an illegal occupation if Iraq

Other democratic congressmen share these same opinions. So why do so many morons crow every time Paul throws them a bone? They act as if Paul is the *only* member of congress who shares their positions. Kucinich will say something and you never hear a peep from these people about it. But once Paul pipes in it's an item in LBN. Very puzzling.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
25. Meh. I've gone in and out in terms of Kooch. I actually had a phase in 2008 where I was backing him.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:06 PM
Dec 2011

Yes, there are other Democrats who understand that pot needs to be legal, regulated, and taxed (and not just "decriminalized"...) but the Democratic Party establishment is still too enamored of bullshit conventional wisdom -not to mention big pharma and drug warrior gravy train $$$- to at this point come around to where the American People are increasingly at; i.e. spending $40 Billion a year to keep cancer grannies, Jamband Fans, and Willie Nelson from smoking pot is a gimungous waste of energy and resources.

You see evidence of this bad 'but everybody knows' thinking all over the place, from the President's failure to lead on Gay Marriage to the unrepentantly horrible decision regarding Plan B contraception. They're pursuing a "middle" that doesn't exist, and cowering before "values voters" who aren't nearly as numerous as they would have us believe.

For the record, I'm in no way a Ron Paul supporter. I'm just explaining the appeal of certain of his outside-the-box positions.

Ratty

(2,100 posts)
30. I think I agree with you
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:32 PM
Dec 2011

Perhaps Kucinich doesn't represent the Democratic Party, but do you think Paul represents the Republicans? Sorry, the thread is about Ron Paul and why people are drawn to him. They are both party outsiders and between the two individuals, sane people would choose Kucinich.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
36. Yes, if the choice is between Paul or Kucinich, obviously
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 04:32 PM
Dec 2011

I do not think RP represents the GOP, not at all. But I consider the GOP morally and intellectually bankrupt. OTOH, I *am* concerned about getting MY party on the right side of history and issues like personal freedom.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
44. In my view, Ron Paul is also morally bankrupt if he is (1) a bigot; (2) believes that a private
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:41 PM
Dec 2011

business should be able to discriminate based on physical characteristics; (3) doesn't believe that people have a right to health care coverage, and should in essence, DIE if they can't take care of themselves. That's not only morally bankrupt, it's sick! I don't know of any Democrat--no matter how conservative or neo-con--would agree with these Ron Paul ideas.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
45. if you think I'm going to defend Ron Paul or those views, you've got the wrong guy
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:46 PM
Dec 2011

He's the proverbial broken clock; however, on SOME issues, like the drug war, he makes a certain amount of sense. One can acknowledge that and still think he's a fucktard.

Shit, Pat Buchanan was against the Iraq War, but the guy is still a Nazi.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
40. Yes. The other problem with Ron Paul is that he is NOT as principled as everyone seems to believe.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:10 PM
Dec 2011

If he were, he would LEAVE the Republican Party and form his own neo-Libertarian party. I have been arguing this for years. If Ron Paul is so prinicpled, he wouldn't associate with the Republican Party because he would not agree with the direction in which they are going.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
26. Exactly! I supported Kucinich in 2008, but then he started to get crazy on me after that.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:23 PM
Dec 2011

Still, I support these issues, but am baffled that people who call themselves liberals act as if only Ron Paul holds these views. There are many Democrats who share their views. Why go to Ron Paul who is such an extremist?

fishwax

(29,146 posts)
80. there were several people hoping for a Kucinich/Paul ticket back in 2008
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:38 AM
Dec 2011

There is overlap in a few areas, and these areas find little support from the power structures of their respective parties. I think that outsider status is also part of the appeal (such as it is) that Paul has for some on the left.

 

Aerows

(39,961 posts)
24. I would think
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 01:07 PM
Dec 2011

It's because he's the only Republican so far that can construct a proper sentence and can actually speak intelligently. I'm not sure that equals "support" but he's right on several issues. He's wrong on many significant ones, as well, but considering that the rest of the bunch running on the Republican ticket are pretty much wrong on every single thing, that's saying something.

Again, though, I don't think that means "support" so much as "he's less awful than the rest of the Republicans." Of course, you don't have to do much to achieve that particular honor. It's like being smarter than Rick Perry.

Response to redqueen (Reply #47)

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
29. What is the mystery?
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:31 PM
Dec 2011

On several important issues many liberals and Paul are in agreement. On other important issues they are not. It's a trade-off. I have not looked into Paul's views in any detail, but from what I've seen, I think Paul's views on many issues are superior to those of Obama. Nevertheless, Paul is so crazy on economic issues that I would have a strong preference for Obama.

One thing that struck me about your post is your claim that Paul is generally anti-civil-liberties. With respect to a number of issues pertaining to civil liberties, the typical libertarian is way more pro-civil-liberties than Obama. Maybe Paul is not as much of a libertarian as I had thought--again, I don't know much about many of his positions.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
41. The problem with your assessment is that Ron Paul is NOT really for civil liberties.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:16 PM
Dec 2011

He wants to dictate to women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies; he wants to restrict gay people from marrying, and he believes that corporations should operate freely without any restrictions...EVEN WHEN THEY IMPINGE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES.

There are some issues where Ron Paul and liberals are in complete agreement. However, the underlying rationale is not the same. Paul hates government. He has a disdain for government, and is nearly anarchist in his philosophy. Liberals are not in agreement with that philosophy and DO see a role for government, albeit a limited one in private affairs and social policies.

So whereas there is agreement on these issues, the rationale is completely different. I don't think, for instance, that most liberals would support doing away with the police and living in a lawless society where people carry guns freely without ANY regulations. Ron Paul's position would be contrarian to that.

 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
56. I guess I disagree to some extent.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 07:45 PM
Dec 2011

His stated rationale for being skeptical about militarism and our recent war efforts would strike a lot of liberals as being right on the mark. As for civil liberties, he does seem to take habeas corpus and the bill of rights more seriously than most Democrats. And like many liberals, he is against the unconstitutional expansion of executive power (largely embraced by Obama) because the executive cannot be trusted to use that power in a way that respects the rights of the citizen.

Galle

(15 posts)
75. His positions are a little more nuanced than that.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 11:35 PM
Dec 2011

Well actually, he thinks that abortion and same sex marriage are state issues. He's against a federal ban of abortion as well as the federal marriage amendment. He even voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions and voted to repeal DADT.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
102. The "state issue" is a cop out. We don't let President Obama get away with
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:15 PM
Dec 2011

that rationale, and we shouldn't allow Ron Paul to get away with it, either. If Ron Paul is truly against government, then NO GOVERNMENT ENTITY--local, state or federal--should interfere with a woman's right to choose. No governmental entity should dictate to a woman what she does with her own body. These are private issues, and Libertarians--truly *traditional* Libertarians--would never suggest that this is a state or federal issue. It is a private issue. And that's the difference.

Galle

(15 posts)
107. Well...
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:54 PM
Dec 2011

I can understand both side on the abortion issue. Both sides, pro-life or pro-choice­­, could be looked at as constituti­­onal. It all depends on if you see an unborn baby as a person.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
110. Perhaps, but I still think that Ron Paul is being a bit disingenuous here, just as Obama is.
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:39 PM
Dec 2011

Either one believes in a principled right to privacy or one doesn't. Why leave it to the states when the state can stilll impinge on someone's rights if it so chooses. Looks like they want to have it both ways to appeal to a certain segment of the electorate. I support President Obama, but his "states rights" meme is something that turns me off because it reminds me so much of what my ancestors had to go through trying to fight racial discrimination and anti-voter laws. The folks that were for these things often shouted "states rights" at the top of their lungs. In reality, it was not due to some principled stance on the local/state being preeminent vis-a-vis the federal government. It was really that those who wanted to continue Jim Crow used "states rights" as a smokescreen to uphold de jure segregation. Knowing what I know about Ron Paul and his insensitivity towards race issues, it doesn't surprise me that he hides behind the states rights mantra.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
31. Because they haven't seen this
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:34 PM
Dec 2011
&list=UU67f2Qf7FYhtoUIF4Sf29cA&feature=plcp


He has about 3 good ideas.... the rest is covered in that video.

Free Bananas!
 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
32. Because (like my Mom) they don't know about the racism,
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:34 PM
Dec 2011

hompohobia, misogyny etc., let alone the hostility to civil rights (he said out loud that he thinks the Americans With Disabilities Act should never have been passed!).

Well, Mom knows now, 'cause I just sent her his anti-ADA rant.

11 Bravo

(23,922 posts)
33. When asked for a comment, a spokesperson for the local chapter of "Jews for Hitler" stated ...
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 03:41 PM
Dec 2011

"I"ll be fucked if I can figure it out!"

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
34. Krugman:
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 04:13 PM
Dec 2011
Speaking of People Whose Models Have Failed

<...>

Now, Paul is unique among the GOP contenders, or for that matter among politicians in general, in making monetary policy his signature issue. So it’s worth noting that he is among those who have been wrong about everything in this slump.

Here’s a sample from earlier this year: Ron Paul: Gold, Commodity Prices “Big Event” Signaling Economic Collapse. Oh, and for fun: Understanding Why Ron Paul Knows More About Inflation Than Does Paul Krugman.

Ahem:



The second of those articles, by the way, predicts a surge in consumer prices in the second half of 2011. Not according to either the CPI or, for those who are convinced that the government is lying, billion price index, both of which show prices leveling off in the second half. But hey, there are still 17 days left!

I’m sure that the Paulistas will find a way to claim that their man has been right about everything, even though his predictions have been all wrong. But he really has built his political career around the notion that he’s an expert in a subject about which he actually understands nothing.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/14/speaking-of-people-whose-models-have-failed/


Krugman just described the traits of a demagogue: fact-free fear mongering. You ask why "some liberals support Ron Paul"? Exhibit A, the first comment:

Hate the Congressman's monetary policy. It's immature. But I do support his liberal policies of ending the wars, removing the military bases, and eliminating the Patriot Act and its far-reaching attack on our liberties.

I'm afraid, aside from Paul's economic insanity, he's probably the most liberal candidate, yes, even more liberal than the Wall-Street bought incumbent.


Talk about clueless!

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
43. Thanks, ProSense! This should be the *COMPELLING* argument! The fact that his ideas are not only
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 05:35 PM
Dec 2011

extreme, but they haven't worked anywhere in the modern world.

Uncle Joe

(58,118 posts)
35. There are a multitude of reasons to support Paul as the Republican Nominee
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 04:22 PM
Dec 2011

from both political and policy standpoints.

1. The Nixon/Reagan inspired draconian fascist state "War on Drugs" is anathema to liberalism, here in the land of the free, we have the world record breaking number of prisoners at 2.3 million. A large % of those prisoners are held in our for profit prison industry for possession of cannabis. An outsized % of the disenfranchised victims from the WOD are minorities, what's so liberal about supporting that kind of injustice? To my way of thinking this is institutional racism and I thought liberals were against racism?

2. Paul has come out against the Patriot Act and I see nothing liberal about an intrusive police state government; continually expanding its' powers by oppressing the people and now using those same tools and tactics against the Occupy Protesters whether the Mayor or Governor is a Democrat or Republican, I don't view those actions as being liberal, to my way of thinking liberal and compassion go hand in hand. In my book if you can't enthusiastically support the First Amendment, there is nothing liberal about you.

3. If the Republican Party hadn't whole heartedly supported oppressive government at he behest of mega-corporations against the people and the Democratic Party joined them in lockstep I would be more alarmed of Paul becoming the Republican Nominee. However I view the current greatest enemy facing the American People as being corporate supremacy. Both parties have supported this as well over the last several decades it's just a matter of to what degree and manner. So from a poltical standpoint the times are screaming for Paul being the Republcian Nominee. This would force a serious black and white debate between the parties as they stake out their positions and the gray areas which ultimately always seemed to screw the people over will be left behind.

I believe Obama; has the good sense to take the best of Paul's Liberal/Libertarian ideas and adopt them if he were pressed to do so and Paul becoming the Republican Nominee would go a long way toward doing just that.

Thanks for the thread, Liberal_Stalwart71



librechik

(30,665 posts)
38. They are NOT liberals n/t
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 04:59 PM
Dec 2011

liberals would never support the exclusionary nature of Paul's philosophy. You are talking about independents who can't claim to be liberals, but perhaps enjoy smoking pot. Lots of those here for sure!

gateley

(62,683 posts)
39. I think they (and I) agree with him on certain points (war, drugs, etc.) but aren't aware of his
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 04:59 PM
Dec 2011

other scary ideas. Only hearing the talking points, haven't researched his entire agenda, IMO.



yurbud

(39,405 posts)
63. the point of OP is to put stink on the few good ideas Ron Paul has by setting up this straw man
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:15 PM
Dec 2011

of liberals who support him.

Abolish the Fed? Good idea.

Stop resource wars. Good idea.

Legalize pot. Good idea.

Elect a conservative libertarian president? No.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
68. Wrong! I'm trying to understand the blatant contradiction in ideas. And I've already
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:33 PM
Dec 2011

Made it clear that there are some issues on which liberals agree!

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
51. are you sure you aren't confusing ''support'' with ''agree with him on some issues''?
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:37 PM
Dec 2011

And on issues of war and peace in particular, his name might come up a lot because of frustration on the left that so few of our pols talk honestly about what constitutes a threat to our national security and what our military is actually be being used for.

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
52. I can say Hitler had a way with khakis without supporting his anti-Semitism or wishing he won WWII.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:38 PM
Dec 2011

Uncle Joe

(58,118 posts)
54. Maybe he's not serious but I could agree with this proposal by Paul
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:53 PM
Dec 2011
http://current.com/blog/93577773_from-the-community-lowes-mitt-romney-and-ron-paul.htm

"Ron Paul Proposes Interesting Salary For Himself As President (from the current $400,000 to $39,336 – the median salary of an American worker.)"

For that matter if the Congress and the Supreme Court's salary were indexed the same way, would they be more in touch with the American People and not living in a bubble so much?


 

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)
53. They are Progressive Libertarians that value liberalism over DNC values.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:50 PM
Dec 2011

There are conservative libertarians and progressive libertarians. The political spectrum is not just a Left versus Right continuum... there is also a "vertical" aspect to it. It's more of a grid. Progressive really describes the beliefs and goals of a government. It's analogue would be Conservative. Libertarian really describes ones belief in HOW the government should go about enforcing it's policies. It's analogue would be Authoritarian.

For example, bush was a conservative-authoritarian. I would describe Ron Paul as a centrist-libertarian... he has mixed stances on issues that normally divide progressives & conservatives but advocates a free "hands off" government with less restriction.

I can see how alot of libertarians that AREN'T conservative would choose to support Ron Paul.



 

George Glass

(22 posts)
55. Do you realize that if we continue as we are going, we are ALL in jeopardy?
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 06:56 PM
Dec 2011

The 14th Ammendment has been abused to allow the children of undocumented people to receive federal benefits (and done in every country I can think of and they don't get slammed for it). Paul favors states' rights anyhow, so even with abortion, etc. it would be the decision of each state. Nothing wrong with that.

If this satanic Senate bill passes (or at least the questionable article), NONE of us is safe from false imprisonment FOREVER.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
57. A Libertarian
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:32 PM
Dec 2011

is the property owner upstream who believes that the water in the river flowing past his house belongs to him. Since it belongs to him he can do whatever her wants with it regardless of the consequences for people living down stream. Libertarians are people who believe in their inalienable right to shit in the river so long as it flows down stream, unless they live down stream. Then they believe in water quality laws like everybody else.

Javaman

(62,444 posts)
59. simple. they don't take the time to read his whole platform.
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 08:45 PM
Dec 2011

they are generally the one (or two) issue voters. against war and legalizing pot, but the fail to read the rest of asshole pauls platform against women, minorities and the aged. Let along anyone not right wing.

Dragonbreathp9d

(2,542 posts)
60. It's not that you don't understand- it's that they dont
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 09:35 PM
Dec 2011

On more than one occasion I have at least been able to make the majority of liberal Paul supporters think by citing stance on healthcare and corporate deregulation- as well as education. Most of them see what they want in him- and not the whole package. When "end the fed!" and "legalize pot!" and "marriage equality!" are the main soundbites these people hear they automatically assume the canindate is extremely liberal. One of my actually libertarian friends (true libertarians I respect as a "difference in opinion&quot explained libertarianism as "so completely liberal it wraps back around the spectrum and becomes conservative."

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
71. But this is *DEMOCRATIC* Underground. Should we be supporting ANY Republican, especially one
Wed Dec 14, 2011, 10:37 PM
Dec 2011

who is a bigot?!?!?

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
78. His brand of Libertarianism intersects w/progressivism. Also intersects with racism & whatever you
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:01 AM
Dec 2011

call, "Let's all buy our groceries with gold bars"-ism.

He's a kook, but I don't mind him being out there, because he gets in the middle of the Republicans and says a lot of things that cut directly against their lockstep programming. Wars bad? Nooooooo!

napoleon_in_rags

(3,991 posts)
79. Yeah, let me explain it.
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 02:06 AM
Dec 2011

First of all, one very simple up front thing you need to see right now is that the only political game in town is THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY. So the question is not yet whether Ron Paul is the best guy to lead the country, the question people are talking about now is who among the Republican candidates is the best to lead the country should he get elected. Its fine, as a progressive, to disagree with Paul - but you should be willing to say, in this context, which candidate you prefer: Newt? Perry?

So the next question is why are people from a broad section of political backgrounds supporting Paul in the context of this question? The answer is twofold:

1) A recent poll shows that 50% of self identified American leftists say they fear "big government" as the biggest threat, while 30 something percent fear "big business". This has been twisted in the media to say that OWS is out of touch, but deeper polling would show those same Americans who fear "big government" support OWS. So what's it about? I'll tell you one thing, their focus isn't on Frank-Dodd or anything like that, its about CIVIL LIBERTIES. Americans aren't afraid of congress passing legislature to ban insider trading amongst its members, they are afraid of of legislation like [a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012"]
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012[/a], which
"codifies[5] the President's authority to indefinitely detain terrorism suspects, including American citizens, without trial as defined in Title X" Violating Habeus Corpus, and codifying into law the cartoonish situation where Americans who see missing children on milk cartons must wonder if they were disappeared by criminals or the military, because in the end there is no way to tell them apart, no way to verify who has been detained. The [a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00218#top"]voting record[/a] tells a familiar story, the majority of Dems voting for it, and in that handful of names in nay, "Paul (R-KY)", the son asserting the father's civil liberties values. So it feels good to stand up for him in that regard.

2) A growing number of Americans, right and left, are sick of pundit culture. We know America is now, and has been for awhile, teetering on the brink and we see it all around us. But except for a few sources, all we get when we turn on TV looking for information is pundits opining about how Ron Paul is the "crazy uncle" at Thanksgiving dinner who says things that make people uncomfortable, and other feel-good reductions. Yet we are increasingly aware that the situation America is facing is in fact quite uncomfortable, with almost nobody willing to talk about it. Instead, we see people opining about the so called "intelligence" of people who are "politically adept" enough to tell us what we want to hear, totally disregarding the fact that when they are alone in a room full of lobbyists they will do the same, and use their intelligence to happily abandon us for the money they are offered. There is a growing sense that it is only real men and women of unwavering principle who can get anything done, despite how the punditry despises them for saying "akward" things. This sense has started in the grassroots right, but is spreading to the left as well. In fact Newt Gingrich's recent rise to leadership can be directly attributed to his immigration comments, carefully calculated to defy conservative orthodoxy after he observed the positive crowd responses to Ron Paul defying conservative orthodoxy on ending the war on drugs. People are sick of being told what somebody thinks they want to hear, they want to somebody who stands by their own beliefs, to the extent they can't be bought or sold by pressure in Washington. Its been the great mistake of the Democratic party that they have let their men of strong emotion and principle, like Grayson, like Kucinich, (surpised Sanders isn't in this list) be abandoned to attacks while they exult the "intelligence" of people who deftly avoid the horrible burden of principled action. Had they defended these men more strongly, perhaps members of the left who value unwavering commitment to principles wouldn't be looking across the isle to find an example of it in a man with different principles than their own.


Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Original post)

madokie

(51,076 posts)
83. I just read that Obama has a 84% approval rating amongst liberals
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:15 AM
Dec 2011

so ron paul is getting some of the 16%. I would worry myself not over that

Stevepol

(4,234 posts)
85. Because of his attitude about WAR.
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:58 AM
Dec 2011

He's against it. Also he wouldn't get to first base in dismantling the government.

But at least we wouldn't be at war for fifteen years in 3 or 4 places b/c of some macho commander in chief.

WAR is the reason. Paul is against WAR and isn't afraid to stand up against those who favor it, even the psychopathic Reburps.

MrScorpio

(73,626 posts)
87. Ron Paul is like a doctor who can diagnose a disease correctly...
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:15 AM
Dec 2011

But always prescribes the wrong cure…

"I'm sorry, but you liver is only %10 functional… We're going to cure that with an enema."

mainer

(12,013 posts)
90. I thought he was neutral on gay rights and abortion?
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:27 AM
Dec 2011

I seem to recall he'd leave abortion up to the states.

mainer

(12,013 posts)
91. I don't think it's that liberals support him. I think he just doesn't inspire disgust
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 10:29 AM
Dec 2011

as so many other GOP candidates do.

And he's not afraid to say things that are refreshingly blunt. I remember him saying something like, "of course they hate us in the middle east! If someone were bombing us, we'd hate them too!" And he got booed for it by the GOP audience.

Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Original post)

DallasNE

(7,392 posts)
95. Are The Paul's Really Libertarians?
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:08 AM
Dec 2011

While they are on some issues I don't see them as consistent Libertarians. They are big government when it comes to a number of social issues such as gay rights and a woman's right to choose and I'm sure that is just the tip of the iceberg. I don't go as far as Ron Paul on the military. While I was strongly opposed to going to war in Iraq I did support going after bin Laden in Afghanistan. Frankly, I have always believed the Iraq War was illegal. The war Bush started was not the war Congress authorized. Congress authorized war if Saddam did not give UN inspectors full access to inspect for WMD. Hans Blix reported that, after a few issues in the beginning, Saddam complied with full inspections and that Saddam had no WMD. Bush failed to get a 2nd UN Resolution and he did not go back to Congress to authorize the war he started. Bush had a good start in Afghanistan but completely screwed it up when he diverted troops from Afghanistan for Iraq and allowed bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora. It took Obama to finish the job against bin Laden nearly 9 years later. The Paul's are like a stopped clock with Iraq being the one time they were right.

Bragi

(7,650 posts)
108. A suggestion
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 01:01 PM
Dec 2011

It is not easy to find numbered postings here because they aren't displayed and ordered in a way that makes it easy to find them.

If you want to refer readers to other postings, I find it's better to use the URL so we can just click and see it.

Thanks for your attention. Feel free to continue your day.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
105. See my response upthread. I made this distinction earlier, and in my OP...
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 12:26 PM
Dec 2011

I explicitly stated that many liberals *agree* on some of his policy positions. But there are some liberals who are declaring their *support* of his candidacy. I'm attempting to understand the motivations of the latter group.

 

thescreaminghead

(37 posts)
113. I only support Paul
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 05:49 PM
Dec 2011

...because he is the only one who gets that the bankers are the ones we need to be looking at, not the Republicrats. They set up this duality to keep us occupied so they can take all the money.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
115. But he only holds this view because he hates government and regulation!
Thu Dec 15, 2011, 09:49 PM
Dec 2011

Last edited Thu Dec 15, 2011, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Edited for spelling/grammar

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
120. Still angry at Sirota for his shots at Melissa Harris Perry. At any rate, I podcast Randi every day,
Sun Dec 18, 2011, 12:48 PM
Dec 2011

and I won't be listening to Friday's show. Thanks!!

Response to Liberal_Stalwart71 (Original post)

PeaceNikki

(27,985 posts)
123. Huh. Not buying it. He wants to repeal Roe v Wade.
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 12:56 PM
Dec 2011

So the whole "...do not take Ron Paul's personal views as his political philosophy" is pure BS.

Orsino

(37,428 posts)
124. You mean why some Ron Paul supporters call themselves liberal?
Tue Dec 20, 2011, 01:52 PM
Dec 2011

They may believe they are being generous by not mandating healing the sick, or feeding the hungry.

Ron Paul is the opposite of liberalism, though there are a few points of doctrine where his stated beliefs and ours intersect.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Please explain why some l...