Ron Paul for President pic

[Don1]

This Ron Paul for President picture is hillarious.

[hlthe2b]

1. ahhhh..

Makes ya feel all sappy for the ole guy...I just wish he weren't so very wrong on so many issues. For a Repug, he's got some integrity.

[Don1]

4. He seems to have integrity.

However, I don't think he really does. The biggest example I see is this whole "states rights" policy of his. It looks like it is just an excuse to push back progress in favor of a discriminatory conservative policy.

[MADem]

6. Yep, a real Potemkin candidate--that "antiwar" bullshit looks great from a distance.

That "fuck the environment" and "Go Big Oil, Go!!!" attitude...not so nice.

And he'd be FOR the war if a) It were declared, and B) We did a better job of it, and c) We'd been able to get our hands quickly and easily on all that oil.

We fought the Civil War for a reason, after all...! He would like to undo that.

[ozone_man]

7. Can you support that claim?

"he'd be FOR the war if a) It were declared, and B) We did a better job of it, and c) We'd been able to get our hands quickly and easily on all that oil."

Those seem to be Democratic talking points from 2004. Kerry would have done a better job. He didn't like Dean's anti-war position. Please show me some evidence to support your statement.

[rAVES]

8. No he most likely cant.

[MADem]

9. Ron Paul's OWN words on the war

When Congress issued clear declarations of war against Japan and Germany during World War II, the nation was committed and victory was achieved. When Congress shirks its duty and avoids declaring war, as with Korea, and Vietnam, the nation is less committed and victory is elusive. No lives should be lost in Iraq unless Congress expresses the clear will of the American people and votes yes or no on a declaration of war.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2002/tst101402.htm

Now, let's put aside the bullshit he spouts on the campaign trail, let's check his VOTES when it comes to Big Oil (see, this explains why he gets so much money from them):

Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Pay less attention to what they say, and more to how they vote.

Bush ran as a non-interventionist, making fun of Clinton for butting in re: Bosnia, who could persuade the Saudis to "open the spigots" to keep those gas prices from going up to a buck forty or fifty.

If you want to go back to the dark ages, vote for Ron, there.

[ozone_man]

13. He didn't vote for the Iraq war.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml

But the Democrats like Kerry and Clinton did.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

Based on that I would say that you are incorrect in your assumptions. Look at the record. Look at Hillary Clinton's vote on Iran. She has no remorse about her vote for the Iraq war.

I think what Paul is saying is that Congress has to uphold the Constitution. If it measn declaring war or not, so be it. At least the decision will be made Constitutionally. He's right when he says that they don't want to get stuck with the blame of an unpopular war, like Vietnam or Iraq. Watch them wiggle out of it.

He's anti-war and anti-corporate welfare, which are two very important issues to me. On those issues, I'd say he was every bit as good as Kucinich.

Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul discusses the economic consequences of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the scars of PTSD and the administration’s betrayal of wounded veterans, how nice it would be if the War Party had to clean up the DU, why the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq as soon as physically possible, the role of the Military-Industrial-Complex in determining foreign policy, the likelihood and possible consequences of war with Iran for our troops in Iraq, our economy, and our liberty, why all the tax money spent militarily “securing” recourses is being wasted due to a mistaken and outdated mercantilist understanding of economics, the failure of the Congressional Democrats to check the war powers of the president, why U.S. intervention on behalf of Israel is bad for us, bad for them and bad for their neighbors, America’s deteriorating relationship with Russia and China and why the U.S. government should stay out of Darfur.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/08/17/rep-ron-paul-3/

I recommend a documentary "Why We Fight" if you would like a better understanding of how the military industrial complex works and why we are at a perpetual state of war.

[slick8790]

16. Take your ron paul defense elsewhere.

When I come to DEMOCRATIC underground, I don't expect to see ron paul apologists defending his pro-free market, pro-big oil, racist bullshit.

If you prefer him to Clinton and Kerry, go post on his forums.

[ozone_man]

18. Since when is DU pro-war?

Sorry, if being anti-war offends your delicate pro-war sensibilities, but if you can't stand the heat, you should stay out of the kitchen. :)

Their are those of us who believe in defending the Constitution, and that includes the democratic wing of the party, like Dodd and Leahy, and Kucinich, and Republicans like Paul, who introduced a bill to restore the Constitution.

Clinton and Kerry got us into this mess and they aren't the ones to lead us us out of it. So, elect leaders who will, not corporate shills like Clinton. Kerry at least voted against the Kyle-Lieberman bill, but not Clinton. Edwards claims to have seen the error in his ways. Others like Kucinich and Paul voted correctly the first time, but they are anti-imperialists, not beholden to corporate interests, the MIC.

[slick8790]

22. Since when is DU full of one issue voters?

Paul's rabid anti-government and racist attitudes more than negate his war stance.

[ozone_man]

23. Our government is part of the problem.

Or haven't you noticed? When it behaves recklessly like running up a $9 trillion deficit and spending $3.5 trillion ultimately on Iraq/Afghanistan war, then it needs a major overhaul. It is Democrats almost as much as Republicans that are part of the problem of this kind of reckless foreign policy and fiscal irresponsibility.

I would defend Kucinich just as readily as I would Paul for making the right choices and speaking out against war, corporate welfare, suspension of constitutional rights. It has nothing to do with single issue voting. The poster above made a statement that he would go to war, but didn't provide anything to support that statement. Paul has consistently opposed the war in Iraq/Iran and has voted against it.

Ron Paul makes the observation that with that $3.5 trillion dollars that we will eventually spend on these wars and which was approved by a Democratically controlled congress, could have gone to providing social programs. Not that he really supports these programs, but I'm sure their are plenty of Democrats that do. So, are we happy with the fact that our Democratic leaders have essentially killed our Social Security and hopes for single payer health care by approving and financing a war on terror costing $3.5 trillion? I'm not.

[Silent3]

19. I don't think it's as easy as simply looking at how someone voted.

It's a combination of how and why. The "why" is trickier of course, because than harder to discern than the black-and-white factual tally of a voting record. You can't avoid guessing there, you can't avoid possible errors about how much you can trust about what someone claims informs their decision making process.

I don't think Ron Paul voted against the war because he's some a wonderful, peace-loving man. He simply votes no against almost anything that involves spending money or exercising government power in nearly any way, shape or form. He's reflexively anti-government, not angelically anti-war.

People like Clinton and Kerry voted yes on the IWR, but I don't believe either of them are "pro war". They mistakenly trusted Bush to use the vote as leverage, and I don't think either thought he'd rush headlong into war, nor were either aware of how much the intelligence regarding Iraq had been manipulated. The same decision made with a different President in charge at the time might very well have been the best decision.

I'd rather trust a Democrat, including Clinton, and the values promoted fairly consistently by all of the current crop of Democratic candidates, to lead to better decisions in the future regarding military force, taxation, health care, environmental policy, etc., etc., than I would trust Ron Paul's extreme libertarianism to get things right.

I think a lot of DU-ers are overly proud of the fact that they were against the war with Iraq from the start -- many of them were simply lucky to be right, not right by virtue of some extraordinary talent they had in processing intelligence data, predicting military outcomes, etc.

[ozone_man]

24. Why isn't it that easy?

You can't tell me that Kerry or Hillary Clinton didn't vote for the Iraq war resolution because they thought it was the politically safe thing to do. They had presidential aspirations. They weren't fooled by the WMD evidence. Don't kid yourself. Both my senators voted against it. It was obvious what was about to happen and the right wing Democrats enabled it. It's that simple.

It took Dean and Kucinich to make the right decision the first time. But they were criticized for that by the DLC wing of the Party. We should be proud at DU that we saw through the WMD issue, but that doesn't change where the guilt lies in making those choices. Why would you trust Clinton? She shows no remorse over her decision to support the Iraq war and continues to make votes that could lead to war with Iran.

[Silent3]

26. DK is reflexively anti-war

Which isn't a bad basic attitude to have, but won't always yield the right decision. The US getting involved in WWII was probably a much better thing than letting Germany overrun Europe and letting Japan have its way in China and southeast Asia. Faced with a similar situation, DK would probably become the next Neville Chamberlain.

It's easy to pat yourself on the back for having gotten a complex decision about Iraq right (which I can easily imagine you insisting wasn't complex at all), but the very fact that you want so much to oversimplify the issues and are so very sure that the only reasons Clinton and Kerry could have voted as they voted was crass political calculation tells me that you probably made a lucky good decision and not a smart good decision.

[ozone_man]

27. Then why did 23 other senators vote against it?

Both of my senators voted against it. Were they not making a smart good decision? Or was it just a good decision? Was Dean making a smart good decision to not support the war? Were all of us here at DU making just a good decision? I don't think so. It was based on a knowledge of U.S. past, present, and future financial and strategic interests in the region and that there was no credible evidence that WMDs were there. Saddam Hussein was a bogey man and 911 was the pretext to launch a preemptive war against a country that nothing to do with 911.

Kerry and Clinton were testing the political winds and making a decision based on that. It wasn't that complex, bot complex enough for them to claim that they were fooled by the intelligence. They had cover for their decision.

Regarding Paul, he has some very good positions, one being anti-war, not all wars, but in particular those wars that are not declared by Congress. So, we need to change that. Restore the Constitution. No more wars declare by the executive branch.

He is not a "progressive" like Hillary Clinton claims to be, yet is quick to point out the hippocracy that Congress is willing to spend $3.5 trillion dollars that could have gone to funding social programs. So socially liberal Democrats like Hillary Clinton are not so social when they spend all of this money that could have shored up social security and launched a single payer health care system. This is an issue that any one of the more progressive candidates can run with to take Clinton down. More war means less social security or other social programs.

Remember also that Kerry was for the war before he was against it. I know that's a RW talking point, but I still love it. It fits him. :)

[sarcasmo]

28. Hillary voted for the War it's as simple as that to this voter.

[Silent3]

29. Congressional voting shouldn't be guided...

...by making things clear for simple-minded citizens evaluating votes by simple-minded black-and-white standards.

[MADem]

20. I've seen WHY WE FIGHT and I understand the MIC better than most people on this board

I worked INSIDE it for many decades.

Ron Paul is a fucking flake who wants to drag the country, kicking and screaming, back to the time before Lincoln. You know that asshole Grover Norquist and his bathtub? Ron Paul wants to drown the federal government in a small hand bucket. Anyone who doesn't realize his full agenda, and who focuses on the bullshit--and it IS bullshit--coming out of his mouth, instead of paying sharp attention to ALL his votes, and his stated philosophies over the years, is whistling past the graveyard.

With Ron Paul, the rich will get richer. After all, he wants them to keep their money. They'll live in guarded, gated communities. The rest of the serfs will have to make do the best they can. You'll NEED that "absolute right to gun ownership" if your neighbors don't want to pay for cops. Abortion will be outlawed. Schools will be worse than they are now, and if you want good ones for your kids, well, PAY UP. There will be no protection for those serfs, their food and medicines won't be safety-checked, the "marketplace" will decide--hey, it's killing people, maybe we shouldn't buy it!

One issue voters are tiresome. And he's come down on the right side of one issue for the WRONG reason.

That's NOT OK with me, and it's not OK with anyone who is a Democrat and a progressive.

Some gems from the nut--he's against government interference, EXCEPT when it's HIS pet issue:

Speaking at Maxine's Restaurant to 50 people on a steamy afternoon, Paul spoke passionately in criticism of abortion rights and the war in Iraq. Paul, a doctor who delivered more than 4,000 babies prior to serving 10 terms in Congress, introduced the Sanctity of Life Act to overturn the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court Roe Vs. Wade case that gave women a right to have an abortion.

On the abortion issue, Paul said, "we as a nation can't bury our heads and pretend we don't see anything." The issue is paramount, he said, since "if you don't have respect for life, you can't have a respect for liberty."

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/08/07/news/latest_news/ce4f6a207deb0f8486257330006ff656.txt

Here is where it's broken down: http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul_VoteMatch.htm

Screw the minorities, watch your kids pray in voucher schools, hope they grow up smart because your social security will be privitized, get the drill out and head for ANWR, and screw any environmental legislation---yeah, he's a real PEACH, that guy. He doesn't care who you associate with, so he's OK on gay domestic partnership benefits, but he also thinks it hunky-dory to DISCRIMINATE against gays in the workplace! Gee, ain't THAT special!

:eyes:
The guy is a fucking idiot. The youngsters think he's cool because they think President Paul will get them their herb and end the war, but they don't realize that his government will foster the ability to discriminate at will. That's NOT OK.

And touting his candidacy here isn't "OK" either. Rule 2 applies.

[Bucky]

12. Having integrity and being correct on the issues are two different things.

He's not a panderer. He's a bit of a bigot. He's an idealogue, but not a zealot. Like most libertarians he doesn't fully calculate the value of how day-to-day government makes life better for all of us. His ideas on the gold standard are an absolute mess. But he does stand consistantly for his beliefs. He's wrong, but he's not evil. Well, except for the racism stuff.

[Didereaux]

14. Ron Paul is a re-elected Pol in Texas...that excludes possibilty of integrity or honesty!

[Didereaux]

15. Barbra Jordan being possibly the SOLE exception to the above.

[ilovesunshine]

2. Too funny!

Almost looks like he is hooked up to the wall outlet.

[Don1]

5. His sneakers are the best part. n/t

[zabet]

3. Looks like his

shoes are too big and he
is almost as 'hang-dog' looking
as McCaint.

[Rydz777]

10. Ironic. He's a medical doctor and he looks like someone who has

been sitting in the waiting room for three hours.

[DutchLiberal]

11. Looks like Bush on 9/11. Only thing missing is 'My pet goat'.

[Evergreen Emerald]

17. Is he sitting in the corner as punishment?

[smokey nj]

21. I wonder what he did to get the time out.

[Quixote1818]

25. It looks like a photography shoot. There is a hair light stand off to the left. nt