Texas Congressman enjoys support across political spectrum, anti-war pro-freedom hero represents America's last hope

Prison Planet | January 12, 2007

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/paul_ron_next_president_of_usa.htm

By: Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones

quote:

---

Ron Paul's office has confirmed reports that the Texas Congressman is set to run for the 2008 Presidency.

Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum and in contrast to the current gaggle of criminals running the White House, represents everything that America truly stands for. A gargantuan effort in support of Ron Paul needs to be mobilized now to prevent Americans from being hoodwinked once again into electing a different puppet of the same dark establishment in 2008.

Paul first ran for President as the Libertarian candidate in 1988, receiving a massive 400,000 votes. He now commands the support of those all across the political spectrum, from libertarians through anti-war Democrats to real paleoconservative Republicans.

Paul has been in and out of Congress since the 70's and is universally hated by the Republican elite, who routinely back Democrats against him just to try and get him out of office.

The former Vietnam flight surgeon is the perfect candidate for President and activists from every corner of every political persuasion should mobilize now in an attempt to help Paul shatter the power monopoly of the Republican and Democrat establishment who have worked together for decades to slit America's throat in the interests of power, greed, and ego - all working towards the realization of a new world order.

The Texan represents a dying breed in Congress, those who actually cast their votes in accordance with the Constitution and not at the discretion of lobbyists or the fear that the elite will tarnish their political careers if they don't continually support the establishment. As a result Ron Paul is the elite's worse nightmare, simply having him on the ticket itself will be a massive public relations blow, and that's why media organs will probably be activated to try and discredit him before 2008.

Paul was one of only a handful of Republicans to vote against the illegal invasion of Iraq, contenting rightly that the Constitution clearly states that only Congress can declare war. In bucking a trend, Paul was anti-war long before the majority of the country came around to a similar way of thinking following the catastrophe of the occupation.

While Democrats soft-peddle and cozy up to Bush, creating phony arguments about the level of troop presence in Iraq and ignoring the majority will of the country to bring the troops home immediately, Ron Paul's opposition to unnecessary wars of intervention has remained steadfast throughout his entire political career.

If a gargantuan effort is made from now until the end of 2008 to heighten Paul's media profile and forward him as America's last hope, he truly has a significant chance of giving Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani or whichever elitist puppet the Republicans choose to put forward a real run for their money.

At the very least it's a chance to attract attention to some serious issues and hold the establishment's feet to the fire. But with the favor of the political landscape continually swinging away from the scam repeatedly run by the Republicrats and Democans, we should really start off on a positive footing and consider the fact that Ron Paul, though still an underdog, has a real chance of becoming the next President.

According to the Associated Press , "Paul bills himself as "The Taxpayers' Best Friend," and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government."

On every single issue of national importance - borders, the war, limited government, U.S. sovereignty, tax and the federal reserve - Ron Paul stands for populist ideals that the country is screaming out for after seven years of hell under Bush, preceded by eight years of disgrace under Bill Clinton.

Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act, opposes the draft, advocates the abolition of the income tax, urges the re-introduction of the gold standard, and stands against initiatives to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty such as CAFTA and the FTAA.

During several appearances on The Alex Jones Show , Ron Paul has consistently upheld his commitment to civil liberties, slammed the militarized police state that Bush has created and also called for immediate impeachment proceedings to be brought against the current incumbent of the White House.

President Ron Paul could truly return America to the great nation it once was and his decision to run is an exciting development that we should all embrace and stand beside him in the fight to restore some form of dignity to the office of President that has been completely absent since the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963.

"Congressman Ron Paul is a dream candidate, a super patriot, a total Constitutionalist, an American hero."

"We must elect him President."

---

quote:

---

Although a Republican congressman and a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, Paul has not renounced his status as a lifetime Libertarian Party member, and even addressed the party's national convention in 2004. He remains arguably Congress' most conservative member....He champions conservative positions on issues ranging from gun rights to abortion, and believes the U.S. should resign from the United Nations.

---

Paul also favours a crackdown on illegal immigration and boosting border security. He has wacky ideas about fiscal and monetary policy, centred around a worship of gold as a basis for the monetary system (much of his personal wealth is invested in gold and gold mines). He wants to return the US to the gold standard and abolish the Federal Reserve Board. He's prepared to go to war against any petroleum-producing country such as Venezuela if it starts trading in Euros instead of Dollars and weakening the US monetary system.

He would abolish income tax and greatly boost states' rights by, for example, defederalizing the healthcare system and allowing states to legislate on abortion and SSM without interference by the feds or the Supreme Court. He's anti-abortion. He opposes nearly all government intervention in the economy. He favours "tort reform" to limit the recovery of damages by injured people against corporations.

quote:

---

This right-wing libertarian bullshit doesn't belong on a progressive discussion board.

Shame on you Dana! Apparently you will support anyone who wants to legalize pot.

---

I don't see in my post where I expressed any opinion or support for Ron Paul. I just posted that Ron Paul is seeking the nomination.

But since my opinion on Ron Paul seems to matter, let me say that if I had to pick between George Bush and Ron Paul as a Republican President, I'd pick Ron Paul.

quote:

---

He's prepared to go to war against any petroleum-producing country such as Venezuela if it starts trading in Euros instead of Dollars and weakening the US monetary system.

---

I think you have this claim totally backward.

Ron Paul completely OPPOSES going to war over the Dollar, but he is worried that this kind of war could soon happen, because the US has a Petro-backed dollar instead of a Gold-backed dollar.

Here's what I got from Wikipedia:

quote:

---

He says that if a petroleum producing state starts trading in Petroeuro instead of Petrodollar the world's dollar reserves will shrink and hurt the US economy. The US might seek to prevent such an action by going to war, a scenario that Paul opposes and says could be prevented by a return to backing the USD with gold.

---

Actually Ron Paul is very anti-war. He voted against the Iraq war, he is speaking out now against the potential of the Iran War.

He also broke with the Republicans (and most Democrats) by voting against the Patriot Act in 2001 and again in 2005.

quote:

---

Anyone hoping for progressive electoral reform should be aware that Paul has spoken against abolition of the Electoral College and opposes campaign finance reforms that limit campaign contributions.

---

You are not being fair because you are not giving the whole story. He has consistently supported ballot reform to make it easier for third parties to get onto the ballot.

Here's what Wikipedia says about Ron Paul and his efforts to create electoral reform:

quote:

---

Election law reform
As a former Libertarian Party candidate for President, Congressman Paul has been a proponent of ballot access law reform, and spoken out on numerous election law reform issues.
In 2004, he spoke out against efforts to abolish the Electoral College, stating that such a reform would weaken the “voting power of pro-liberty states”.[19]
In 2003, he introduced H.R. 1941, the Voter Freedom Act of 2003, that would have created fairer and uniform ballot access laws for independent and third political party candidates in Congressional elections [20]. He supported this bill in a speech before Congress in 2004.[21]
In 2003, he spoke out against the enacted law that appoints members of Congress in the event of the death of several members due to an act of terrorism.[22]
In 2002, he spoke before the Congress in opposition to campaign finance reforms that place any restrictions on citizens and businesses making campaign contributions to the candidate of their choice on First Amendment grounds.[23]

---

You also say that Ron Paul is "anti-abortion" but what I see is that he thinks abortion laws should be set by the states, not by the federal government, and he bases this on the US constitution's division of powers.

I'm not saying I love Ron Paul or that I agree with all of his views. But your list of criticisms is inaccurate and misleading on some points. And compared to most Republicans he seems more consistent and principled. Even though I disagree with many of his beliefs, it seems to me that Ron Paul has more integrity and intellect than fellow Republicans like George W Bush and Dick Cheney.

Also, you are correct that Paul has been an opponent of the War on Drugs and supporter of medical marijuana and hemp. I will excerpt again from Wikipedia:

quote:

---

Medical marijuana
Dr. Paul was Co-Sponsor of H.R. 2592, the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana and is Pro to the question "Should marijuana be a medical option?"
Industrial hemp
In 2005 he introduced H.R. 3037, the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2005, “to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana, and for other purposes”.[18] This bill would have given the states the power to regulate farming of hemp. The measure would be a first since the national prohibition of industrial hemp farming in the United States.
He believes that the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to ban or regulate drugs in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:
I don't see in my post where I expressed any opinion or support for Ron Paul. I just posted that Ron Paul is seeking the nomination.

---

Anyway, it looks like I made a lucky guess, in view of your last post which tries to paint this jerk as some kind of liberal progressive.

[ 27 January 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Anyway, it looks like I made a lucky guess, in view of your last post which tries to paint this jerk as some kind of liberal progressive.

---

I think you are being far too harsh in your criticisms of my posts.

It is you who is "painting" an inaccurate image of Paul, not me. In your zeal to attack him, you posted claims about his political beliefs which included some completely inaccurate information, which I corrected. Everything I posted is true as far as my research shows. So how is posting accurate information "painting" an inaccurate image?

I posted some other views of Paul's because I think they are of interest.

I made my original post because I thought Ron Paul's candidacy for President was a worthy topic of discussion, that's all. Besides, I'm not sure what my "support" for Ron Paul would mean anyways, as I cannot vote or donate to any American politicians.

And no, I wouldn't call Ron Paul a "liberal progressive" and I am not trying to portray him as such. I would describe him as a "libertarian" and a "constitutionalist".

I am curious, which Republican candidate for President do you like better than Ron Paul?

Yes, Paul has many beliefs which I disagree with. And as I mentioned, I'd donate to and volunteer for the Democrat Dennis Kucinich campaign if I lived in the US.

But for a Republican Presidential candidate, I think Paul's pretty good. Ron Paul has been consistently against the Iraq War and against the Drug War, and also consistently against the Patriot Act. Can any other Republican candidates say the same thing? I consider those three issues to be pretty darn important, and on other issues where I disagree with Paul I also disagree with all the other Republicans. If forced to pick between the Bush-style Republicans and Ron Paul, I'd pick Ron Paul.

So I ask, who is the best REPUBLICAN candidate for President, if it's not Ron Paul?

quote:

---

your one and only political cause in these parts - legalization of marijuana.

---

I participate in many discussions on Babble that have nothing to do with marijuana or drugs.

And to be clear, my pet cause is not "legalization of mariuana" but rather "ending the drug war." I believe that legalizing marijuana is part of the solution, but we need to end the whole drug war, not just the war on weed.

quote:

---

vile right-wing libertarian philosophy

---

Hmmmm. So all libertarians are "vile" in your view?

What about Noam Chomsky, who calls himself a "libertarian socialist"? Is he half-vile?

While Ron Paul may find himself on the same side as progressives in regards to a few issues - such as Iraq, gay rights, and drug use - he is more right wing than even Bush on many issues - with his main goal being reducing taxes. I was fooled into thinking he was OK before I read his rant about how the US is giving TOO MUCH to foreign aid.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.

I'm OK with Obama from what I've seen so far, but I actually like Kucinich and Feingold (although Feingold has decided not to run).

[ 29 January 2007: Message edited by: Palamedes ]

quote:

---

I believe Noam refers to himself as Social Libertarian - as socialist is not very popular in the US.

---

Wikipedia says: "Chomsky describes himself as a libertarian socialist and a sympathizer of anarcho-syndicalism (he is a member of the IWW)."

There are many references to Chomsky calling himself a "libertarian socialist".

quote:

---

While Ron Paul may find himself on the same side as progressives in regards to a few issues - such as Iraq, gay rights, and drug use - he is more right wing than even Bush on many issues - with his main goal being reducing taxes. I was fooled into thinking he was OK before I read his rant about how the US is giving TOO MUCH to foreign aid.

---

Most US "foreign aid" is really corporate handouts that do nothing to benefit the nations which are allegedly receiving the aid. And much of that "aid" is propping up undemocratic regimes which the US is supporting for srategic purposes.

Also, I've read that about a third of US "foreign aid" goes to Israel, one of the world's wealthier nations.

However, in regards to Ron Paul, we're talking about REPUBLICAN candidates here. I acknowledge that Ron Paul has many issues where we would strongly disagree with him. But compared to the other Republicans, I think Ron Paul is superior. Are there any Republican candidates who have better policies than Paul? Any Republicans who oppose the Iraq war, the Drug war and the Patriot Act?

If Babblers were forced to choose a Republican presidential candidate, who would we pick?

How about WhiteCivilRights.com?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dana Larsen:

I believe Noam refers to himself as Social Libertarian - as socialist is not very popular in the US.

---

Traditionally the term libertarian was a synonym for anarchist and "libertarian socialist" was something between anarchism and socialism however, in the North American context, right wing pro capitalist liberals (as they'd be called in Europe) appropriated the term. Chomsky may still use the term "libertarian socialist" but he means something completely different, some would say the opposite, of what US "libertarians" mean by the term. It's completely misleading to suggest any overlap of Chomsky and Paul just because Paul uses a term appropriated from the left in way that's anathama to the left not unlike the way fascists appropriated the term "socialist" in the 20s and 30s. Chomsky wants to abolish capitalism, Paul wants to strengthen it.

[ 28 October 2007: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

Ron Paul is not necessarily "anti-social programs", but he is anti-big government as is applies to outfits like the CIA and American foreign policy.

He says that "all EMPIRES in history have collapsed because they went broke", referring to the Bush spending on everything but what Americans need.

Save that money and spend it on fixing up the New Orleans dikes, highways and other infrastructure. He even wants health care funding for all Americans, and getting the corporate profiteering out of health care.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noah_Scape:
Who said that this forum had to be limited to "progressives"? Or any limitation?

---

So.. first, the policy statement says so.

Second, I fully support Ron Paul as a candidate. He would destroy the US within a matter of months and we'd be done with them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quelar:
He's rabidly anti-social programs (or any programs at all), he would be radically right wing way beyond what we've seen from them. He would remove virtually all social programs, all healthcare programs, all welfare programs., etc... It would be great to see him give to the Americans what they've been forcing on the rest of the world.

---

Yes they should get what they deserve because it's ordinary Americans who are forcing the imperialist agenda.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noah_Scape:

I just thought that sounded rather harsh, but then the previous post has a point - it IS Babble policy, to my surprise!!!

---

He says [welfare programs are]{quote}: "matters best left to state and local governments, and individuals".

What caught my ear about Ron Paul was what he says about the CIA and the USA being the "world's policeman". I think that is where so much of the trouble in the world begins, due to their meddling.

Here is some of the PBS interview, and a link so you can decide for yourself:

quote:

---

Don't accept this notion that it's our responsibility to police the world. It backfires on us. There's too many blowback consequences. There's unintended consequences, and the financial is the big one. And so we have to change that.

But at home, we -- I mean, why do we need a Department of Education? And why should we have this Department of Agriculture, just to subsidize farmers? You take money from the taxpayers; you subsidize farmers; then, the taxpayers pay for higher prices in the grocery store. And that's just coming alive again now because we're coming up with a lot of inflation once again.

JUDY WOODRUFF: You'd do away with the CIA, I saw. Is that correct or not?

REP. RON PAUL: Well, not all of the functions, but essentially so. The CIA is what gets us into trouble. I mean, the CIA is what really started things in the Middle East, because the CIA went in and overthrew Mosaddeq in 1953. We put in the shah. The CIA murdered Diem, or participated in the overthrow of the government in Vietnam, which leads to trouble.

It's a secret government. Congress has no idea what the CIA is doing, because nobody knows, other than what the CIA is. It is one of the things that is not characteristic of a free society.

---

PBS interview with Ron Paul

The US does not. The US has a debt dollar, which is rapidly being perceived as worthless.

With interest on a $10 trillion debt, and military expenditures of $1 trillion per year, much value is being sucked out of the US economy.

As a result, London has overtaken New York as the world's financial centre, and the Canadian dollar is at 40-year highs.

Because while I have stated repeatedly that I disagree with much of what Ron Paul says, I still say that he is the best Republican candidate out of the current batch. And I'd also put him above many of the Democrats.

Along with his other beliefs, Ron Paul is also against the Patriot Act, against the Iraq War, and against the coming Iran War, as well as being against the Drug War.

Despite his shortcomings, I would pick Ron Paul over Rudy Guilani or pretty much any of the other Republican candidates. I am curious which of the Republicans other Babblers would choose, if forced to pick from one of the Republican candidates.

By the way, for someone who is "rabidly anti-socialist" he has good things to say about the most socialist Democratic Candidate, Dennis Kucinich:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/davis4.html

quote:

---

CD: Congressman Dennis Kucinich is kind of similar in that he is one of the more vocal antiwar critics on the Democratic side of the debates. I know you guys probably disagree on a load of things, but you’ve come together a lot to work on issues of war and peace. So could you talk about your relationship with Congressman Kucinich over the past couple years, what it’s been like, what you think of him?

RP: We’re close friends, and we certainly agree [on the war]. And I think we may end up voting closely all the time on the war issue. Sometimes some of these funding bills are a little bit complex, and even Walter Jones and I will disagree even though we agree on what we’re supposed to be doing, but the interpretation will be a little bit different.

But I think Dennis and I usually come down on the same side of it. That is, if you don’t want the war you quit the funding, and that’s our responsibility and it’s not the president’s authority to do what he wants because we have the purse strings, so you have to vote against the spending.

So we get along very well on that, and since it’s such a major issue I think I will continue to work with him the best we can.

And you know, take some of the liberal welfare spending that Dennis might support more than I. But you know, I’m not hostile toward that. If I can save the money from overseas, put some of it against the deficit, end up with a net reduction in the size of the budget, at the same time stopping a war, I may well be very open to funding some of these programs.

Because I’m not out to gut some of these programs that have taught people to be very dependant on the government, like medical care. I mean, that’s not my goal.

I’ve never run for office with the goal of slashing [those programs] even though philosophically I don’t think it’s the best way to deliver services and prosperity to poor people.

---

I don't want a Republican winning. I don't want Hilary winning. I think Kucinich is the best candidate. He won't get elected.

quote:

---

Why do we have to chose a Republican we like Dana?

---

Uh, how about for the sake of an interesting discussion?

As we're all Canadians we have no say in who gets elected down south anyways. But this is a political discussion board, and I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion about Ron Paul. I am surprised that there is so much anger directed towards this guy, considering he is by far the best Republican candidate for president.

He shames the other Republicans because he stands for the things they claim to stand for but they don't. A real "Conservative" should support a small government, individual liberty and a non-interventionist foreign policy. But the current US "conservatives" all end up doing the opposite, which makes them more "facist" than "conservative."

quote:

---

Just read the last two sentences of that quote of his you posted. You think that is good?

---

Yes I do. He reiterated that although he is at heart a libertarian who opposes most government programs, he also said that his main goal as president would be to end the Iraq War, and protect civil liberties.

He always says that he doesn't consider cutting social programs his first priority, that he would focus on the really harmful government programs to cut, like the Iraq War, the Drug War, and so on.

I just think Ron Paul is interesting and worthy of discussion. He certainly stands out from the rest of the Republicans.

quote:

---

I don't want a Republican winning. I don't want Hilary winning. I think Kucinich is the best candidate. He won't get elected.

---

I bet that if Kucinich had to choose, he would pick Ron Paul as the best Republican candidate for president.

Even the MSM pundits have begun noticing. They've been pretty much forced to. He's become an Internet sensation and that has been due not to his campaign so such as to grassroots mobilizing, particularly on campuses across the country.

If you're a campaign manager or a political party strategist, therefore, the Paul phenomenon is worth watching.

As to his views, his pro-life stance should come as no surprise. He is, after all, a Republican. But even here, he says that the abortion issue shouldn't be decided by the national government, but by state governments, thus opening up the possibility of abortions being allowed in parts of the USA.

quote:

---

As a libertarian leftist, I understand viscerally the charm of Paul's message. Who wouldn't be charmed? He's anti-war, anti-torture, anti-drug war, and anti-corporation -- a real progressive dream date. Until you reflect on the fact that he's also anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-environment, anti-sane immigration policy, and apparently, anti-separation of church and state as well:

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life."
....

Another site that's endorsed Paul is the Dixie Daily News, a neo-Confederate website full of articles on states' rights, gold-backed currency, and how the South was right all along. Paul writes for this site frequently -- as does his friend and former legislative aide Gary North, who is also R.J. Rushdooney's son-in-law and a leading light of the Christian Reconstructionist movement. At the moment, the headline at the site is promoting Ron Paul's appearance at the group's "FreedomFest" in Las Vegas next month.

If Paul is making public appearances for this group, we need to be asking: why is he running for office in a government he clearly doesn't believe in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Naci_Sey:
he says that the abortion issue shouldn't be decided by the national government, but by state governments, thus opening up the possibility of abortions being allowed in parts of the USA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector: Give your heads a shake, people! It's one thing to be so politically useless as to support/vote for a Democratic Party candidate, but what kind of a loser do you have to be to start rationalizing about who is the "best" Republican candidate?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Naci_Sey:
You have to insult people just because we want to have a discussion?

---

[ 30 October 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Give your heads a shake, people! It's one thing to be so politically useless as to support/vote for a Democratic Party candidate, but what kind of a loser do you have to be to start rationalizing about who is the "best" Republican candidate? Have you been asleep for the past ten years?

---

This is an example (among many others, by many other posters, myself included) of the kind of personal attack that intimidates more timid posters, and makes people who don't post very often, like Naci_Sey (among others), feel unwelcome.

Can we keep the hostility to a minimum, especially when discussing things with people who don't post quite so often? Sometimes those of us who are constantly on here and scrapping regularly find it hard to understand that for some people, it can be very scary to put their ideas out there and then have people attack them personally over them.

Anyhow, I don't think any of the Republicans are particularly principled or appealing. None is really all that moderate, let alone small l liberal, let alone even the least bit progressive. I think the right-wing libertarianism, of the kind Paul proposes, is ridiculous and untenable and is appealing to extreme anti-government types. And for the most part he's actually somewhat socially conservative and talks about how abortion shouldn't be used as birth control like a condom (is it now?!?). Nevertheless, I think if one must choose a Republican that's the least objectionable, I'd say John McCain. While he's kind of gone off the deep end, lost his credentials as a "Maverick" for pandering to the so-con crowd, and won't likely win the nomination at least he's against Torture and doesn't come across as vile. Also his being a victim of that "he has a black baby" thing, because he adopted a Bangladeshi child, makes it come across like he's at least non-racist - and he isn't harping on how the US should "build a fence to keep out the scaaaary Mexicans" in spite of the fact that he's from a border state. But isn't it kind of pathetic that their best candidates are ones where you have to say, "at least....". Unlike say Romney who thinks they should "double Guantanamo" or Giuliani who believes in taking "any means necessary" *wink**wink* when dealing with terrorists, leaving the torture card on the table. Huckabee, another extreme social conservative, is affable too - though then again, so was Bush in his pre-2000 days.

[ 30 October 2007: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]

This was the dude who said "I hate the F#$%ing gooks".(he later apologized) The same one who promised to put boots on the ground in Serbia in 2000. IOW an occupation of a sovereign nation.
The site antiwar.com even dedicated an article to him in 2000, with an concise title "why that man must be stopped"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
This is an example (among many others, by many other posters, myself included) of the kind of personal attack that intimidates more timid posters, and makes people who don't post very often, like Naci_Sey (among others), feel unwelcome.

Can we keep the hostility to a minimum, especially when discussing things with people who don't post quite so often? Sometimes those of us who are constantly on here and scrapping regularly find it hard to understand that for some people, it can be very scary to put their ideas out there and then have people attack them personally over them.

Let's try to make this place a little less intimidating for people who might not have as thick skins as those of us who have no problem with brawling on a daily basis. Progressive discussion forums should not exclude those people who are a little more timid than the strongest posters.

---

Ron Paul is a very, very dangerous man. He associates with, and encourages, some of the most notorious racist and fascist elements in the United States today. His policies are anti-woman, anti-worker, anti-gay, and anti-immigrant. Through deregulation, privatization, slashing government revenue, weakening government power, and unleashing corporate greed, all in the name of liberty, he would destroy what little remains of the social safety net and vastly increase social inequality and economic exploitation.

For anyone to come to babble and suggest that all of that can be overlooked and forgiven because Paul would decriminalize cannabis, or because he would bring the troops home from Iraq, or because he is a man of “principles”, is deeply offensive to me. I don’t care how fucking “timid” they are.

I reserve the right to take offence at such people’s rationalizations for supporting this destructive and malevolent politician.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BetterRed:
Heh, you serious about McCain?

This was the dude who said "I hate the F#$%ing gooks".(he later apologized) The same one who promised to put boots on the ground in Serbia in 2000. IOW an occupation of a sovereign nation.
The site antiwar.com even dedicated an article to him in 2000, with an concise title "why that man must be stopped"

He recently promised to kick Russia out if G8 and replace it with India.
Yes, a real classy diplomatic gentleman, that one.
He's a senator and though he seems like a nice grandfatherly type, he probably has bigotry and anger management problems inside.
As a psychology student, i'd say he is probably mentally unstable to a degree.

---

Ron Paul, like Lou Dobbs, are incredibly dangerous because beneath all that venear of right wing liberalism (the proper term to describe them) is a desire to completely strip the state of all its worth and services. All would be turned over to the private sector and there would be service levels on par with those of 150 years ago (with life expectancy and working conditions to match).

Even worse "state's rights" is a code word from a far darker time. This was the mantra of the old Confederacy of which Texas was a proud member. 160 years they argued that slavery was a state right and that Washington was interfering in their rights to conduct state affairs per the people's wishes.

Ron Paul still believes this and it would only be a matter of time before the south rises again in all their Jim Crow (with this time muslims and hispanics included on the "coloured" list) glory.

quote:

---

Originally posted by a lonely worker:
Asking who your favourite republican is about as pointless as discussing who is one's favourite Nazi.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
Don't bother asking I live in BC and it is the good stuff.

---

Conservative talk radio host Michael Medved has written an open letter to Paul asking him to repudiate the neo-nazis who support him.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:
I hope Ron Paul runs as an independent and splits the Republican vote.

---

Remember another Republican congressman who ran as an independent in 1980, John Anderson, probably cost Carter more votes than Reagan.

I think the Republican establishment would be very happy if Paul ran as an independent, not the least because it would mean he would not be able to run for re-election to the House at the same time.

I don't agree with much else of what the guy stands for, but it's at least refreshing to see some dissent from the party line from an elected Republican.

Oh by the way, I find it bizarre that anyone on this board would think that just to talk about Paul, or express some preference for him over other other Republicans, is some kind of violation of this board's mandate. I don't think anyone would get all steamed up if a poster expressed a preference for Benazir Bhutto over Pervez Musharraf, for example, even though they are both autocratic sleazeballs in their own way.

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: brookmere ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
Quelar you never answered my question - should poor Americans be forced to suffer the most because the American populace as a whole needs to be "punished" for its imperialist policies abroad?

---

Sorry LP, I missed this one since I've been offline a while.

No, I don't think the poor Americans should suffer for their nations destructive policy, but they already do, it's really only the rich who are going to be hurt by a collapse in the system, poor people are unnecessarily punished because they are poor in the US.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
This right-wing libertarian bullshit doesn't belong on a progressive discussion board.

Shame on you Dana! Apparently you will support anyone who wants to legalize pot.

---

My first thought, too.

Ron Paul is a joke of a candidate. Yeah, here's someone who is 72 years old and independently wealthy. And they'd like to abolish Social Security and income tax! WHAT A FUCKING SURPRISE!

quote:

---

People seem to like that he appears to be an unusual Republican candidate, but right below the surface of the libertarian mask that Paul wears is an ultra nationalist, gun loving Christian conservative that opposes affirmative action, a woman's right to choose and same-sex marriage. And… oh yeah: he hates immigrants....

Despite his record-breaking online fundraising effort, it's more likely that pigs will fly before Paul wins the Republican primary. Regardless, I'm dismayed at the left-wing, anti-capitalist buzz around him, including the comparisons between him and Noam Chomsky. Paul's vision for the harsh privatization of everything from education to social security would only yield monopolies that don't work for everyday people, much like our current healthcare system. The presidential candidate advocates dismantling the few positive governmental regulations that secure working-class rights and benefits, including welfare – again, clearly not anti-capitalist. And while I can admire that any politician would call for ending the US' support of Israel, it follows in the vein of Paul's nationalist, isolationist concept of abolishing the United Nations and other diplomatic efforts to conserve our own opulence while leaving the rest of the world to waste.
Source

---

quote:

---

Discontent with the status quo and the drumbeat of electoralism is driving many activists and progressives to seek out political alternatives. But libertarianism is no radical political solution to inequality, violence, and misery. When the likes of Paul shout: "We need freedom to choose!" we need to ask, "Yes, but freedom for whom?" Because the freedom to starve to death is the most dubious freedom of all.

---

WRT the war on terror and preemptive policies of imperialism and colonialism, many find his stance to be humane, progressive and anti-establishment. Again, true.

But those are only 2 issues, what about the other 50-100 ? I tend to think that many unwittingly overlook his other policies, in the interest of seeing harmony, agreement & optimism with someone outside of their political camp.

1) Economic Policy : According to Libertarians, the US has too much socialism, too much welfare, too much taxation, and all of the US problems are to be blamed on the evil bloated gov't. Nothing could be more untrue. The US is predominantly capitalist/corporatist, and Libertarian policies would only give the extremely wealthy more power, and the poor even less of a safety net.

Instead, we should realize that the US problems are overwhelmingly due to underfunding of essential services, and a complete absence of socialism, or even semi-socialism. Contrast the US socio-economic statistics with those in Europe & Scandinavia. Then, contrast the US gov't infrastructure / implemented policies with those in Europe & Scandinavia.

Conclusion ? There is far too much authoritarian capitalism & corporatism in the US, and virtually no safety net for the poor.

2) Social Policy : He wants more entrenched gun rights and less legal abortions, though the latter sets him apart from many Libertarians. The rights and status of women & minorities are not needed to be seperately protected, according to him, even though their socio-economic statistics indicate otherwise.

3) Foreign Policy : Non-Interventionism sounds great, but with more capitalism & corporatism, the subsequent desire and temptation for manipulative foreign meddling certainly won't go away, and might just take another, less explicit, more insidious form, possibly via a greater degree of monetary manipulation/bribes/mergers.

While those don't represent a total analysis, I think it's important for those left of center to look far beyond the isolated issues which make him & Libertarianism seem humanitarian & appealing.

IMO, Paul & the Libertarians represent a true step backwards, with the exception of a few issues/policies, which would induce a sort of wild west scenario, where your money determines your power, quality of life and happiness in what would ultimately degenerate into a dog eat dog society, with virtually no protections or safeguards for those who couldn't keep up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brookmere:
[QB]That's a pretty tall assumption. Do you think anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 would vote for someone who opposed the Iraq war from the start and has been highly critical of Bush, and has views sharply opposed to any of the other Republican contenders? The Republicans' core issue, indeed their only issue to speak of, is their War on Ragheads, er, "War on Terror".

---

[ 15 December 2007: Message edited by: guy cybershy ]

Although Buchanan is portrayed as a protectionist and social conservative and Ron Paul a "libertarian" both are isolationists in foreign policy and both support taking a tough line on immigration. And like Buchanan, Paul is also anti-gay and anti-abortion.

There are 50-100 policies not being addressed, and it is the dozens of brutally capitalistic economic policies which those on the left will object to, along with a handful of regressive social policies.