Tweet
Design by Avete Osservato Shirts
Lately, The Lake has played host to a small but very vocal group of people supporting Ron Paul for President. As The Lake encourages debate, I have no problem at all with people coming along and stating their opinions, even stating them with vehemence. That is after all what our little community is all about. What I have a problem with is that none of these people seem willing or able to defend Ron Paul’s more ridiculous beliefs. Instead they resort to attacking me or Barack Obama. This isn’t surprising, considering that true believers and ideologues, when unable to form a cogent argument, will resort to name calling and general venom.
I have laid out a clear and cogent description of words and actions that have come from Ron Paul, his staff and his campaign with citation but so far I haven’t seen an explanation as to why my accusations are wrong, why these things are irrelevant or why they are false, My intelligence has been questioned, my affiliation, my motives and even my willingness to back up my accusations. When called out on their shooting of the messenger, the fallback “defense” of Ron Paul becomes just another attack on Obama and the thinly veiled accusation that I must be an Obama supporter. I won’t put everybody through chapter and verse of all of my anti Obama bona fides because everybody who knows me at The Lake knows that I am no Obama fan but this is the same sort of crap I used to get when I would criticize Obama during the primaries in 2008. Ironic that these people would be using the same sort of strategy that was used against me by the Obama supporters. Only the vocabulary has changed because back then I was called everything from “PUMA” to “racist” to “Republican Troll”.
I will stipulate that Ron Paul is anti foreign wars/adventures. I will stipulate that he was for auditing the Fed, the separation of church and state, habeas corpus and medical marijuana. Also that he opposes the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs, torture, the national ID card, domestic surveillance and capital punishment. Those are all good things and I can support such a candidate. But he also opposes reproductive rights, membership in The United Nations, and the 1967 Civil Rights Act saying ,
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society”
He has been very credibly accused of racism, calling MLK Day “National Hate Whitey Day” as well as homophobia having stated,
“Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
Ron Paul also is a proponent of Austrian School economics and is anti taxation, has pledged never to raise taxes and, impossibly, to scale spending back to pre 2000 levels, (because we haven’t had enough austerity yet). He has advocated cutting the deficit by eliminating “most federal agencies”. and says that he would never support legislation that isn’t specifically supported in writing by the Constitution. He helped author and introduce The Sanctity of Life Act, designed to overturn Roe vs Wade, and calls himself a free market environmentalist, meaning that he thinks the free market, property rights and tort laws, rather than regulation are what are best suited to maintain the health of the environment. He also opposes birthright citizenship, (so much for his strict adherence to the Constitution), and voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Paul also would like to see the elimination of legal tender laws and the removal of sales tax on the sales of gold and silver, returning us to the wild west days of using whatever people find locally valuable,(gold, silver), to conduct business with. He would also like to see the federal government entirely out of health care provision or regulation, stating that the price will go down if only free market dynamics were allowed free reign.
I could go on but frankly I’d still be here this time tomorrow, typing and citing so I’ll stop here but let’s dispense with the false attacks on me in which I apparently make statements and then refuse to back them up. That’s a specious argument and nothing more than an ad hominem attack on my character for having the temerity to criticize Ron Paul. I’ve done my best to provide citation for each and every one of my accusations but I have no doubt the effort is wasted on the true believers.
I’ll at this time further stipulate that Obama is a neoliberal asshole who has no business calling himself a Democrat, let alone being President. I don’t believe that he has had his hands tied by the teabag Republicans any more than I believe Henri Phillipe Petain was just looking out for his fellow Frenchmen and women. I also agree that the power of a President is limited and that he or she can’t make unilateral decisions in most cases. I’m not attempting to evaluate his chances of winning the nomination, becoming President or enacting any of his policy beliefs however. My argument and my contention is that some of Ron Paul’s positions are so far outside the mainstream of the United States, that he could never be a good or effective chief executive and custodian of the United States.
Ron Paul supporters meanwhile, are invited to defend him, keeping in mind that defending Ron Paul does not include attacking me, Barack Obama or anyone else. If that’s your idea of defending a person, place or idea, then Clown Hall might be more your speed, (no, I won’t link to it). Defend him means to tell me why my assessment of Mr. Paul is wrong or unfounded and provide citation, (as I have), to refute my contentions. Defend him doesn’t mean telling me how much better he is than George Bush, Barack Obama or Attila the Hun. Defend him doesn’t mean giving me a list of his virtues that I have already stipulated to or other virtues to which I have not yet stipulated. Let’s assume I stipulate to all Ron Paul’s more progressive virtues and dispense with that right now. I have agreed that he does have some positive things to say. Defend him only means to tell me why all of these horrible and atrocious things that he has most definitely been guilty of are not relevant to your support for Ron Paul. Defend him means to explain to me why supporting this anti-choice, racist, anti social security, medicare et al, anti immigrant, homophobic, misogynistic, isolationist, Randian, Constitutionalist, (except where he disagrees with it), anti taxation, pro corporate rights, Godfather of teabaggery is consistent with any “Progressive values”, many of you claim to espouse.
Why?
I’ll wait.
The floor is yours.
311 Comments
Now you’ve gone and done it – written something rational about Ron Paul.
*hands peg kevlar suit*
Recc’d.
Thanks. I’ll shrug it on while I’m trying to track down the last of the typos.
Ron Paul reminds me of Louis Farrakhan in a way.
They both have some genuinely good ideas, and if you listen to them speak for just a few minutes they sound brilliant.
But if you listen a litle longer it will become clear that they are both bigots and that the elevators probably do not go all the way to the top.
let me help you Margaret–
in defense of Paul- wanting to defund the federal gov is a very progressive idea.
Education- under federal managment, most recently producing no child left behind we are 37th the bottom on most metrics
i appluad Paul for wanting to return control to the parents they could not do worse than the fed
Paul is against the Wars? crickets
He is against more war? crickets
he opposes the patriot act? crickets
he only speaks out against the governments claim to have the right to assinate citizens? crickets
he proposes using the fraud laws against the banksters
he wants to close most of our 900 bases around the world would use half the savinf for deficit reduction and half to shore up SS/medicare- caid
big issues jiust because obama Romney are on the other side of these issues does not me they do not shine well on Paul
there is so much more i will let you get started on these hopefully, for once, you will address these issues rather than hatin, start debatin’
Paul is against supporting dictators in the mideast, Paul states when no one else will that Iran did not attack us we attacked them
address that honesty and how important it is to the debate
ronPaul states we can not go around the world doing what we want without inciting hatred–who else says that–how important is it to the debate
SEC just got caught shredding evidence for wall street– Paul wants to get rid of this corrupt agency that serves wall street–its a revolving door of corruption-read taibbi’s peice
i support Paul fornot supporting that,
habeas and civil rights , spying on americans, patriot act I support Paul why not
I have already addressed and stipulated to Paul’s virtues. Over and over, clearly and concisely. I have stated that defense of Ron Paul does not include listing his virtues, to which, once again, I have stipulated. Unless you have something new to add or want to address what I very clearly stated the point of this diary is, (Ron Paul’s faults), then I won’t engage with you. If you want to write a diary extolling Paul’s virtues, then I invite you to do so.
the Agricultural dept– only benefits ADM-why would i support that- give me local grow– im with Paul and pround of it
Paul speaks out against and work to get rid of corporate welfare
he gets no oil, PHARMA, MIC, Insure money
Margaret that is a good thing
Perhaps you didn’t actually read my post before launching into your diatribe. I invite you to do so now or further erode your credibility.
he can have a HUGE amount of admitted virtue but if he has flaws that are so out weighed by the reality above–that’s your standard
PS look at your posts and comments you have taken great pains to avoid that, common for a partison progressive
oh Margaret.
Noble attempt. Well written. Nicely phrased. Solid logic.
And still completely and utterly useless.
You want to bang your head against the wall, go ahead.
if you just want to talk about his faults and do not want to compare them to any body elses faults and dont want to talk about his attributes
sounds that, by any reasonable standard, you require a conversation so tilted to the result that–
by the way my list of virtues is just getting started
on your concern on womens rights, you are losing big at the federal level–why not let states address it
as a form of application Paul’s stance is somewhat irrelevant if you consider the states pould have the say
That is a standard to use when choosing – do the flaws outweigh the benefits?
In Paul’s case the answer as far as I am concerned is a very clear “Yes.”
You can shout partisan all you like; please list the top 5 things you do not like about Ron Paul.
Sure – no rules or enforcement would be sooooo much better.
You didn’t read the post then. Typical for a blind follower.
Once more and this will be the last time: The purpose of this post is for you to explain to me why I’m wrong about Ron Paul. I’m not trying to “tilt the conversation”, you’re trying to change it.
on gay rights paul fully supports gays being treated exactly the same as everybody
he points out to conservatives that people should be able to do what they wantand stay out of their business–worry about yourself
Sure – you can’t get an abortion if you need one in Kansas as of a month ago. Leave it to the STATES!
rather than debt ceiling kabuki theater he openly advocates taking the 1.7 trillion the fed is trying to steal from us funding the government for a year and come up with a solution trhat does not have fear as the center peice
I support that
LOL! There was not one comment here while I was writing; damn; either I’m slow, or y’all are fast, LOL! Eek; I wrote a book…oh, well.
Hello, Margaret. I only read through part of the thread ThingsComeUndone put up, but I think I got the gist of it, and other Paul-supporting comments over the past few weeks. If I get ‘the gist’ wrong, I’m sure I’ll be set straight.
Most of the supporters seem to have a few positions that are absolutely key to them that Paul enunciates clearly: anti-war, isolationist, an end to the war on drugs, and investigating (and assuming limiting the power of) the Fed.
And I suppose to stretch a point, I can understand then, why the other issues should taken some lesser importance in their political calculations. Sorta the ‘Let’s take care of the Big Stuff, the little stuff we can sort out later’ argument. IF they stipulate to his being questionable on several, most, or all of the other social, economic, and ‘Big Three or Bf Four might seem justifiable.
But here’s where I think that argument fails for me: a person who could be so weak or toxic and divisive as to all-humans-deserve-the-best; no equivocating can’t have my support. A person who essentially doesn’t believe that the purpose of government is largely about making sure that the American economy serves us all equally as far as it can be made to do so, can’t have my support. A person who believe that, as flawed and in need of severe upheaval and reform as it is, that the we should pull out of the UN, which is the only planetary body that exists for all nations talking together, can’t have my support.
And a man whom, I am sure is or was true last I checked his website, wants the Department of Education, again very flawed and filled with bought or ignorant bureaucrats with the wrong agendas, can’t have my support.
To me, it all can be distilled into a key question: what sort of human values and basic morality inform this man, or any other candidate, for that matter?
Imagining that question about Ron Paul led me to thinking of Rand. I may be mistaken, but it’s seemed to me that he is really a more extreme version of Papa. If it’s so, it gets me wondering what his family life was, who his mother was, and how they reared him, i.e.., encouraging a moral conscience and empathy extending to all humanity or not, accepting and promoting a shallow and surface adherence to a form of Christianity that fostered divisions or not; teaching the belief that this nation should not draw emphatic lines between church and state, etc.
And if Rand is a product of two parents who coached him in their particular brand of ideology and doctrinal conceit, rigidity of thought and belief…he would be naturally either a more extreme version of them, or rebelled and broken away to become an authentic version of himself. (Maybe he did both; rumor has it that Billy Graham’s son may have left the family Christianity for a time, only to return as an ooky, divisive, uglier version of Papa. Ugh.
We were wrong about Obama’s character, or else he was lying to himself all along when he described it. But this man Paul: I don’t for a minute credit him with being a man who has tried to be moral in the expansive way I like my morality and ethics to run.
I do think he appeals to many here on ideological and intellectual levels, but again: to me, that is simply not the measure of a man (or any human). If I ask what does he really seem to value, on the whole…not the core values I hold and will fight for forever,
You’re right of course. One can’t reason with ideologues or psychopaths. Still, some of these Rondroids, jbade among them, have leveled some very specific accusations at me. Not being able to address them fully in comment form, I opted to write a diary for which I knew full well I would be attacked. It doesn’t matter though. I give them the rope and they hang their credibility at the Lake.
j, Listen this ain’t helping you or Paul.
You turn more people against Paul every time you do what you do.
Even the ones on the fence? … Not anymore thanks to you.
Part is your ridiculously aggressive attitude. I’ve talked to you before. Why can’t you talk like that now?
And posting all these individual comments? You don’t get points for each comment. All you do is flood the comments section without waiting for a response. Shouting the loudest does NOT mean you win. You’re turning a lot of people off from Paul.
Is there anyone here you have “converted”???
Everyone on the fence about Paul, like me, has been turned off from Paul because of you.
I still can’t understand why you can’t talk rationally like we did before? Are you trying to piss people off? Cause that ain’t helping Paul.
the EPA never prosecutes any one they are so so corrupt only when forced do they act and then it is usual to cover for industry
why not give the states the say
to not address a canidates virtues in comparison to flaws to make a decision
WOW I believe at looking at the entirety of a canidate
None of us are entitled to our own opinion if they differ from (insert ideologue here),. If we agree with said person, then yes, our opinions are valuable.
@jbade August 20th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
What part of entirety includes ignoring flaws?
List your top 5 flaws of Ron Paul. You can do it.
Ms Canfield Pauls remedy has been and will be let them use their own money not ours
then enforce the fraud laws
how can you support the SEC- they are the worse by very metric–even if you just remove them so people understand they do not protect them –because they dont
how do you support that? dont you get it?
your argument is so limited i am feeling sory for you
Not entirely true; there used to be a time before the EPA that one could light certain rivers on fire – they’d burn from all the crap that was in them. See Love Canal.
Also, the air in Denver is far superior to the bad old days when we had smog alerts. Would never happen with just state regs here.
I like my air here, thankyewverymuch.
do you really believe that when you had almost super majorities and your progressive agenda went backwards, that you will ever change the omni present corruption at the federal level
where is a sintilla of evidence
dont lret them play withyour money-let em lose their own
best your going to get
Best comment!
What I don’t get is why in your mind not supporting Ron Paul automatically equals supporting torture, domestic surveillance, the wars on drugs and other brown people, capital punishment, the SEC, The Fed, Barack Obama, et cetera? It’s a conservative trait to talk in such stark terms. The world is much more complex than that.
it is from her comment
isolationists are people who put sanctions on other countrys and attack other countrys your an isolationist-that dog wont hunt war monger
Thank you for that. I too have stood up and cheered for Paul, not the least of which was during his House speech in opposition to the Iraq war. But it’s my position that the bad stuff so very heavily outweighs the good that I could never support the man.
Libertarian political philosophy is like a beached whale. First it attracts and then it repels.
I was drawn to it as a young person, but soon saw that It was philosophic fool’s gold.
what have I said other than addressing Paul’s virtues
the truth can hurt
Margaret,
Keep up the “good” work. And highly recommended, on my part.
And my being an indigenous person, my perspective is “colored” to the extent that we, in the “racial and ethnic” communities will become the “majority” and as suggested by the U.S. Census Bureau. Now, if historians look back to today and from the perspective of future “racial and ethnic” historians, the recognition for august words, will illuminate as well as resonate.
Thusly, on the Capitol Mall in D.C., there will be built a monument titled, The Halls of Wise Counsel. And at the entry way, there will be erected a marble slab dedicated to Reagan’s releasing the Spirits of Criminal Stupidity. And on this slab, will be found Ron Paul’s name, and subsequently, Paul’s progeny will come to find the “truth” of his Ideas and reactionary behavior contra the mainstream Thought and Action.
Further, inside this Hall of Wise Counsel, another marble slab will be found in which the name of Bruce Bartlett will be found and somewhat prominently. Why? Despite Bartlett’s early political history, his epiphany came about at the outset of the Bush and Cheney Era, and consequently, he realized that “telling the Truth” is actualized by “telling the Truth” and which is inconvenient in today’s lexicon for ignoring the “unassailable” Facts or for the more appropriate “disregard for the facts.”
And as of today, I have yet to find a person of the “racial and ethnic” Identity that “defends” Paul and done intelligently. Therefore, the likelihood of a Paul “defense” done with “unassailable” facts may not even exist.
Therefore, don’t be “broken-hearted” should a “defense” done with verve and force, not exist. ;-)
Jaango
you must know you are not helping Paul.
You must know you are turning everyone here off Paul permanently.
Are you reading the comments.
Because if your intention is to turn people off Paul, then congratulations, mission accomplished.
Now people like me, who would attempt to work with those we share common goals, will have their work cut out for them.
Thanks for that.
nostalgia- things have changed corporate corruption
DEnver did that it was not the feds
as usual your argument supports letting the states take contol
they did great, no firplaces ect their actions are to comended but certainly do not support your position
i have addressed the abortion issue fully
take a look
Ok. I don’t agree with anything you just said.
But please don’t let them take you down into this BS waste of YOUR time. At least don’t spend all your time there, or even a minute.
Once in a while? So be it.
But don’t be drawn to the BS too much. Because the only one who is truly hurt is YOU, your intelligence, and your integrity.
You are much much better than this.
because every other canidate out there supports it- it is a default position
support the status quo you are part of the problem not the solution
see the ladst 30 years
jbade = crickets. Won’t list one flaw.
Must be a Paul partisan. Won’t or can’t compare flaws of candidates and show method of determining by both pros and cons of candidates.
Ben Franklin was famous for using that method on a sheet of paper to evaluate something, anything.
In fact, that’s why it’s called doing a Ben Franklin [PDF file]:
http://www.nickols.us/Ben_Franklin_Decision_Making.pdf
margaret there is not a single country out there that allows birthright citizenship, fact
we have the most problem of any country as it pertaints to illegal immigration
Americans are hurting bad for those jobs
have some compassion, they have families to feed
PS Paul is against deportation and e verify
what another virtue contraverting your allegation
say its not so
Let the States do it? Really….
My brother is a Libertarian. Earlier this summer his home was saved from a wildfire by a government helicopter dropping water. No word on if any of this has changed his philosophy. My guess is not.
Um, I have a fireplace here in me Denver bungalow which I may use on Blu days as I like, and you have no idea what you are talking about – again.
”
in defense of Paul- wanting to defund the federal gov is a very progressive idea.”
I support that
“Education- under federal managment, most recently producing no child left behind we are 37th the bottom on most metrics”
A Bush idea that Obama supports
”
i appluad Paul for wanting to return control to the parents they could not do worse than the fed”
Parents who want to reach their kids Creationism and Global Warming is fake? Parents who want to teach that the Founding Fathers were religious instead of Deists?
Get rid of federal control and the south will segregate schools, get rid of federal control and corporations will set up charter schools with no minimal standards and as evidence shows no improvement in test scores but a great return for investors.
The Problem is money the states that spend the most get the best school test scores the states that spend the least predictably get the worse results.
If anything we need more federal control to make school funding equal for everyone.
Austrian Economics may argue that parents with wealth should be able to fund their schools more however if we were to compare Red states with the most freedom as you put vs Blue States that spend the most money on education the choice is clear.
He is against more war? crickets
he opposes the patriot act? crickets
he only speaks out against the governments claim to have the right to assinate citizens? crickets
he proposes using the fraud laws against the banksters
he wants to close most of our 900 bases around the world would use half the savinf for deficit reduction and half to shore up SS/medicare- caid”
I support everything however the claim Paul wants to shore up SS and Medicare I would like a link for that I thought Paul was Against Government Spending.
I went to a barbecue today and I missed my biggest comment diary ever so I thought I’d pop up here before reading all my comments.
Anyway Ron is a Racist and Anti Gay. Ron is anti Federal Government creating jobs. Ron does not believe Government should help people losing their homes.
I doubt Ron believes government should help the unemployed.
Sorry Margaret I can’t think of a reason to defend Ron. I think that if he is elected President he will make things worse. I want the Government to regulate food more not less I want to eat shrimp again something I have not done since the Gulf Oil Spill.
I don’t want Fundies teaching their kids whatever they want their are scientific and historical facts that are true I don’t want states to set up their own local Big Brother lets rewrite school history for he who controls the past controls the future.
I want Government to create jobs not cut spending and prop up the Dollar President Hoover tried that and we got the Great Depression.
I want Banks to be regulated more putting Bankers in jail is acting after the fact.
Why is that relevant? The birthright citizenship is in our Constitution. Mr. I-believe-in-everything-in-the-Constitution-the-way-it-is-written isn’t as “consistent” as has been claimed.
kelly i am single payer, pro womens rights ect ect
i addressed him wanting to defund the Federal Government demonstrated why it was good then took bthe points you made and demonstrated your lack of knoweledge on some and on others that you were supportive of Paul.
what would you like addressed
you act like it is bizzare to require that one of your parents is a citizen to have birthright citizenship is adopted by the entire world
its hard to believe it bizarre- only in your world
did i convert you
What makes defunding the federal government a progressive idea? Just because you say it is? Defunding the government was big with the nullification crew in South Carolina from 1816 until about 1836. They didn’t want the feds to spend money on anything that would benefit the rest of the states but, just like today’s teabaggers, they wanted their share of the money for their state. Andrew Jackson faced them down.
Education in this country has been under attack since Reconstruction, again by the traitors who caused the War of Secession. They didn’t want blacks educated and they weren’t to keen on poor whites learning how bad they had it either. The current NCLB legislation was put in place by Bush with the help of Ted Kennedy, another example of it’s the fault of both parties how far we’ve fallen.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed but in the past thirty years it has become increasingly difficult to have legitimate discussions and debates with people because the critical thinking skills necessary to think on your feet and defend your arguments extemporaneously were the first skills to be denied to students at all levels of education starting with the Reagan Revolution, a revolution,btw, that came into office with the express purpose of destroying the Dept of Education and the teachers unions.
I wouldn’t trust most parents today to check my childrens’ spelling or math tests let alone make decisions regarding how education budgets should be allocated or who is qualified to teach what, let alone making decisions on what the curricula for the different levels should be.
Anyone who teaches his kids that the 14th Amendment and the ensuing Civil Rights Acts that came from it are unconstitutional has no place as the chief executive of this country. It’s bad enough the last three presidents decided the Bill of rights and certain portions of Articles One and Two aren’t worth as much as Scott Tissue; we don’t need someone as the head federal executive who outright refuses to accept the constitution and all of its amendments, along with foreign treaties which have become the supreme law of the land (UN Charter, Geneva Conventions, ICC).
Great diary, Margaret. For anyone who wants to know the facts, you have excelled. Good job.
what have i done other than forward pauls merits while addressing his flaws ands aledged flaws
That’s MR. Canfield to the rest of us.
wood burning fireplace
Dude, you just said that.
The same thing. You just repeated it. Have yo totally gone of the deep end?
Are you actively trying to turn off people here from Paul?
I’m not attempting to evaluate how bizarre it is, only stating the fact, (with citation) that’s it’s in the Constitution. Stop being deliberately obtuse. It’s not helping your argument.
socialist and green candidates do not support those things.
LMAO! *ssshhhhh, I have my Queen Crown on*
i have to run, you should look at your comments and understand that you seem to have come up empty
That does not bode well for your Obama/Romney vs Paul default position
if your not part of the solution youare part of the problem
what you do does it bring about any solutions, no, just arecord of straight loses and likely to continue un;less we can get Paul in-Join the Revolution
I have been following these threads with some interest. I don’t think it’s to soon to conclude that the FDL Community is not interested in any sort of “alliance” with the Ron Paul Libertarians. This is easily explained by ideological differences of course. The only reason this is being discussed is that some, from a sense of urgency, have felt a need for an alliance. And of course we got a green light from Jane to proceed. I don’t expect anybody to abandon their ideology but over time the felt need to seek an alliance might reach more people. I will check back later in the year.
Thanks for the post Margaret. Since I consider myself one of the “small but very vocal group of people supporting Ron Paul for President” I would like to point out that I have suggested voting for Paul in the Republican primary. Although Paul is my choice (unless a credible challenger emerges on the left) I consider it a bridge to far to ask Progressives to vote for Paul in the general election.
This is where the lack of critical thinking is obvious. It’s the McLaughlin Group style of having a discussion – rapid fire assertions with no evidence or facts made at the loudest possible shout in order to drown out whatever your opponent (because in this style of “conversation” there is no civil discussion, the other side’s the enemy) may try to say.
thatis so funny, got to run
Your assertions do not facts make – and in fact, you lose the debate.
Not one link – one – in support of your assertions, where Margaret has many in support of hers.
I wasn’t gonna touch that one!
Henry Kissinger, while Secretary of State, was one of the most powerful men in the world. Even after leaving that office, he still is powerful, due to his connections. Well, it turns out that Kissinger was a soccer fan, and tried to help soccer go big time in the US. However, this competed with baseball, which is a big business. (In fact, I think it has some special protections, under the law, but I don’t remember the details.)
Kissinger was not able to prevail against the baseball owners, regardless of his connections. (Sorry, I don’t remember more than that.)
A more recent example is GW Bush, who became a lame duck during the latter part of his Presidency, that Republicans ran away from in their re-election bids. How could that be, if they’re all lemmings? And GW Bush had more in common with Republican legislators and Ron Paul will ever have.
I pointed out to you in the other diary that your concerns are essentially irrelevant, since they don’t pertain (much) to the issue of what a Ron Paul Presidency would look like. When you say you want people to defend Ron Paul, you mean “defend his record as a Representative, defend his beliefs”. While obviously of some relevance, I pointed out why it’s mostly irrelevant. Actually, the most relevant point of his record may be that Ron Paul votes his convictions, as a Representative. That speaks to his integrity.
Try as you might to avoid the subject, as President, Ron Paul won’t be able to make laws. We criticize Obama – rightly – for not fighting for the common man (and indeed, fighting against the common man for the sake of his Wall Street buddies); but we also know that, at the end of the day, by the time legislation arrives at his desk, at that point there are only 2 choices for him. To sign or to veto. Likewise, you criticizing Ron Paul’s ideals, as though he could actualize those ideals as President, the same way he can as a Representative, without lots of Ron Paul clones and Ron Paul allies in Congress, is poppycock. It’s misleading nonsense, which misses what’s relevant about Ron Paul the candidate for President.
Perhaps you actually think that Ron Paul the legislator who doesn’t have both the rights and the limitations of a President, is more relevant to a Ron Paul Presidency than a cool, rational look at what is actually possible for somebody with Ron Paul’s belief system. But that is an absurd proposition, in his case moreso than most any analogous cases, because he is such an outlier, even within his own Party (especially compared to Republicans in Congress; wrt the Republican base, he’s closer, though still an outlier)*.
To put it in terms that might be more understandable to people reading FDL, imagine that Kucinich had been elected President in 2008, but the rest of the Congress was exactly like it is, today. We’ve seen how weak the Progressive Caucus is. We remember all the blue dogs.
A President Kucinich would certainly have gotten a better healthcare bill on his desk to sign, but how much better would it have been? I think we could have expected a public option, but single payer? With guys like Baucus in the Senate, who cares no more about an affordable healthcare plan than your typical Republican?
I don’t think so! One way or another, guys like Baucus would have extracted their mega-pounds of flesh (which is why, if Progressives were properly organized, they’d be working relentlessly to fire his ass during his next election). President Kucinich would not be Dictator Kucinich. Neither would he be Grand Wizard Kucinich.
Similar arguments apply to a Ron Paul Presidency. He can’t simply do whatever he wants to do, or dreams of doing.
Now, the military issues are a different matter. I don’t think that, if either a President Ron Paul or President Dennis Kucinich ordered the US military to withdraw from Iraq, that there is anything that Congress could do to counteract such an order. Well, I suppose there’s one thing they could do, under the Constitution, and that is, declare war. But I doubt they’d be so radical. And if they were so radical, it’d simply emphasize the point that a President is neither a dictator, nor a Grand Wizard with an all-powerful magic wand!
Do you at least agree with that last sentence – that a President is neither a dictator, nor a Grand Wizard with an all-powerful magic wand? You say you want a rational discussion, but I seriously doubt you want a rational discussion about what we could expect from a Ron Paul Presidency.
* As to why an outlier might win: The Congressional approval ratings are in the teens. Ron Paul is different, on the one hand; and honest on the other (which is part of his ‘difference’). There are very few Republicans who will perceive him as yet another corrupted insider. IMO, if he were smart, he’d promise to support Social Security in it’s current form, and leave any possible problems with it for future generations, even if doing so conflicted with his personal beliefs. He’s already moderated his pronouncement on Social Security. He may as go all the way.
Problem what problem loom at the number of immigrants who have helped America invent stuff fight in wars, had kids and grandkids who later did great things we are an idea economy we have high tech because of people like Steve Jobs of Apple, we have electricity because of Tesla, without our open immigration policy would nuclear scientists from all over the world come to America before WW2?
What would the entertainment economy a big part of our economy music movies etc be without so many different influences from immigrants ideas?
America is the power it is because of immigrants. Also unless your Native American who is to say your parents would have immigrated to America if they knew their kids would never be citizens. Canada, Australia have plenty of land and historically poor immigrants tended to be farmers.
We attract skilled and unskilled immigrants because we pay people more than they would get in their own country.
We attract immigrants because until recently we provided better schools and poor people knew they had a better chance to move up in America.
We attracted immigrants fleeing tyranny because we were better at protecting different races and religions fleeing persecution.
We still need to protect different religions, races Women, Gays etc but we in the Left are working on that.
When immigrants don’t want to come to America its because they lost hope they can get a better paying job than in their own country, their kids can be citizens, they can live free of persecution.
Stop immigration our entertainment economy will die in a generation.
Stop immigration stop birth right citizenship and all those High skilled immigrants Bill Gates hires will not stay in America but will instead go home after a few years and start companies that compete with American products.
If your worried about Outsourcing now Imagine how bad Outsourcing will be then.
When have you addressed his flaws? Kelly has asked you twice to list what, in your opinion, are five of his flaws but you have not yet done so.
whose default position. not anyone here, just yours.
doesnt look like it.
QUIK HISTORY- the constitution was designed to facilitate and support inequality. James Madison, the main drafter of the constitution, forwarded as an example of this, the fact that a man could still OWN another. He understood that such inequality would cause great resentment and that the C must be designed to protect the elite- he followed Aristotle and the constitution was drafted as such(THE SENATE) He looked at and rejected Plato who deemed it moral to battle against the inequality resulting from government. . Madison represented the plantation owners interests in a closed door drafting by elites.
The good news. The anti-federalist refused and the constitution did not go forward until there were guarentees that the BILL OF RIGHTS would be attached. The anti federalists- farmers,skilled tradesmen and small business owners feared the fed would become uncontrollable/unresponsiveve- held town halls, had open debate and the people produced the bill of rights. The anti’s are the hero’s – and profoundly correct to this day.
Supportinga stong federal government is against progressive common sense.
Thank you. A cogent and well thought out response.
i give a second, it has been suggested that a moderated debate would be beneficial to all persons
i agree
Did you read the post? Let me refresh your memory:
What part of that is unclear to you? Seriously?
workingclass have i been offensve in any way
The jeffersonian antifederalist were the real plantation owners, and we never had equality in the country till the fed was used against states rights during the civil rights movement.
just going to war in libya
thats some power
the federal government brought us slavery
I find it charming that you dictate to us how we should respond to your criticism of Ron Paul. I believe most people with a shred of self respect would tell you what do do with your stipulations.
Yes, of course, if we weren’t living in a nightmarish, dystopian world, Ron Paul would never be a credible candidate. That’s not the world we are living in.
you should read federalist paper 10 read about “faction” , look at the senate under the constitution one man could own another
and the anti federalist who nbrought us the Bil of rights were the problem
we could have a parlimentary system and the bill of rights and it would still be america
the constitution without the Bill is not america
worst argument i have heard today
You see, that’s what once made this place unique, you know in a quaint “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” kind of way. We were the refuge for those who thought outside the box when they were being persecuted and killed for thinking outside the box.
You know why the big push to get rid of illegal immigrants (and I sincerely hope I live another 40 or 50 years to see white people like me walking around in shock surrounded by all the brown people)? The powers that be would like to get rid of all the people currently doing the really shitty jobs, like cleaning out greasepits and wiping up vomit from restaurant bathrooms so that, once the impoverishment of the working and middle classes in this country is completed, there will be jobs to keep them busy and maybe, just maybe keep them from picking up rifles or whatever else they can get their ungrateful hands on to overthrow the system that has destroyed their lives and those of their children and grandchildren.
Once again, the too stupid to think for themselves Reagan democrats and teabaggers are being spoonfed bigotry with chocolate syrup and they can’t taste the foulness under the chocolate. I’ve been a white guy for 61 years. I remember fighting with my father when I was 11 and watched Bull Connor’s cops using high pressure firehoses and dogs on human beings. To my dad those people were n*****s who were getting what they deserved. That was 50 years ago and here we have someone like Ron Paul and his idiot progeny talking about the Civil Rights Act being unconstitutional and the 14th Amendment not meaning what it says it means.
Why don’t you and the rest of your little army break out the hoods and torches and start your own little bus tour across the country like Palin and the other exemplary exhibits of our failed education system.
And I find it predictable that you, not being able to defend Paul, instead attack me. *yawn*
you can respond any way you want
you should just base your comments on some facts
accept i dont see anyone arguing against the bill of rights so who are you arguing with?
i agree, i am a progressive whgo understands i will getsome progressive movement with Paul on big issues NONE with Obama/Romney those are my choices
i choose the capitalist over the corporatist and am very comfortable with that
no good choices
states rightist fought for slavery. that is a fact.
You’re one of the good guys jbade. Stay here and hammer away if you are so inclined. I’m going to work for Paul locally. I want to see him win Louisiana. I live in a target rich environment. Working class Republicans and non-voters black, brown and white. Trying to peel off disgruntled Democrats is a noble cause but I want to feel like I am accomplishing something.
when she implied the anti federalist, WHO BROUGHT US THE BILL OF RIGHTS, were the problem and not the Madison fe4drealist-support slavery ect
it implies that the bill of rights they forwarded with a Tenth Amendment to de-power the federal gov was the problem
only the feds saved us
follwalong im tired of explaining the obviuos
A defense of Ron Paul: He’s the only candidate who’s any different than the status quo who has even a remote chance of winning the office of President.
If he doesn’t turn out to be another Obama/Bush (govern 180-degress from his campaign), then he’s enough to possibly put a wedge into our current political monopoly of pro-war, pro-corporate, anti-civil-liberties establishment. If he’s enough to put that wedge in place, then there’s room for widening the gap with a leftist equivalent.
As much as I’ve derided the man, his ideas, and his followers… I’m most likely going to vote for him. I’ll probably even register as a Republican to vote for him in the primary here. There’s exactly zero benefit to voting for Obama or some other GOP candidate, and there’re exactly zero legitimate leftist candidates, let alone one with any chance of winning (or even really moving the frame of debate).
At this point I would vote for Mussolini just for the opportunity to drastically reform the country in the wake of his spectacular failure.
next you are going to tell me we fought bthe civil war over slavery
OK, I should have read it more carefully.
Next question: Do you actually care about what a President Ron Paul could bring about? (As opposed to want to bring about.)
I’m going to make my own diary, in which people are free to make rational arguments as to how a President Ron Paul could actually accomplish any number of horrors, from a progressive POV. I don’t think you’re interested in the subject, preferring to imagine the all kinds of nightmares, from your POV, but feel free to contradict that, either here, or in my upcoming diary.
Ron Paul doesn’t think it’s okay to extra-judicially murder American citizens. That’s a pretty big leg up in my opinion.
All the pretty rose petals and chocolates that the Democrats promise us don’t really matter much when they’ve decided that law by fiat, trial by pundit, and sentencing by grandstand are the operational parameters of our government.
kelly the evidence supports that as usual small red religiuos states continually impose their conservative beliefs on us and are successful
i am worried about saving my state- how you going to help Kansas
the feds pass bad consevative legislation exclusively
i can not support that
Thank you. Another cogent and well thought out argument. It’s my position that the bad in Ron Paul outweighs the good. We can disagree respectfully on this but I’m glad there are at least a couple of Paul supporters here who don’t resort to personal attacks and endlessly listing what they think is wonderful about the man.
Meh. There’s a pretty strong argument to be made that allowing them to blow themselves up is a whole lot better condition than the regulatory capture and lemon socialism we’re subjected to now.
getting progressives to understand that the corrupt federal government is our problem not the solution-gets the american people half way home- it is very important
can you change the fed for the good no
then why support that unbridled power
Thanks Twain!
the record i sight is not in dispute= the logical thing to do if you do dispute is assert it or get educated on the facts so you can say what is false
the antifederalist created the bill of rights and defended slavery.
I am going to respond to some of these issues, because I choose to, and in my own way, not according to any stipulations of yours, Margaret.
I think that the libertarian right has a lot of problems with coded racism, oftentimes thinly coded, and Ron Paul reflects that. But I notice that Obama, noted Black Man, declared that race was no longer an issue in America, even though it has become in some ways a more virulent issue than ever in recent decades, and especially during Obama’s term. And no, I’m not talking about ‘reverse racism’. I’m talking about oppression of blacks and latinos. So sure, let’s checkmark “racist” next to Ron Paul’s name. Let’s also check that box next to Obama’s name. Obama’s rule has been devastating to blacks in America. And what about Libya? The war on Libya has been a war in defense of ETHNIC CLEANSING OF BLACK AFRICANS! Obama is the cause of that war. Ron Paul has opposed it.
So, yes, I can see why it’s quite important to you to demand that we not make comparisons, because compared to whom I would like to see as president, Ron Paul is a vicious bigot, but compared to Barack Obama, he’s Martin Luther King.
I would argue that it doesn’t really matter. Both the bad and the good about Ron Paul are going to be absolutely in conflict with the majority establishment in Congress, and the end result is most likely going to be intractable gridlock.
I’m of the opinion that gridlock would be a welcome respite from the active dismantling of what tiny shreds of legitimate governance still remain in our society. At a minimum it might buy some time to actually organize useful opposition.
The way I see it the good outweighs the bad.
I see a tactical way to fundamentally change the face of the GOP and that is a win for us all.
Do you support switching to republican “for a day” and voting Paul in the republican primary, Margaret?
Did I attack you? Nope. How interesting that you chose to pose as being attacked, though. You seem all too aware that your arguments depend on stirring up progressive paranoia.
you got canidate one and all that want war and more war and one who does not it is a choice
when you dont choose-you have chose the status quo Obama/Romney
pretty much lost my interests now. we are not compatable.
I’m sure you’d like to stipulate my arguments for me, just as Margaret would like to do. And I’m not at all interested in satisfying you.
Yep, things suck, no doubt about that but Paul can do things like veto budgets that don’t meet his standards and he’s never had any qualms about allowing the nation to default. Man, if you think the jobs scene is bad now, wait’ll we get a really heavy dose of the tea party style austerity.
you are doing yeomans work appreciate the bump brother- keep up the good work
Here it is:
What horrors, from a progressive POV, would a President Ron Paul ACTUALLY be able to achieve?
At the end of the argument is electability – and no way is the US going to elect this lunatic Paul and send us from the loony pan into the loonier fire.
I could probably support that. I believe Paul deserves a spot on the primary ballot, in the debates and in the straw polls. I would never vote for him for the reasons I’ve listed. I don’t hold it against other people who support Paul but I just wanted to find some Ron Paul supporters who want to converse on a factual level and not just rant away ideologically. Thank you for your response.
Likewise, since you didn’t actually read the post and understand the arguments Margaret made, not a whole lot of interest in satisfying you either.
most everybody defended slavery at that time
Madison the federalist using at an example of the inequality that was intended in the constition
Ron Paul seems determined to hold on the line on some things that really matter right now, such as stopping imperial wars, civic rights (opposing the rising police state), challenging the power of the Fed and major banks, etc..
considering your lack of success so far i dont blame you
You seem to resort to political tribalism. I think THAT is something to defend, or better, to choose not to defend, a position one should choose to abandon.
exactly Paul is aterrible choice i constantly say that
but, by far. the best choice for progressives
yes the best of bad choices
and the only anti-establishment canidate
the only hope for change- status quo fears Paul thats a good sign
margaret-was that some love
It will move the parameters of the debate and have some possibility of finally setting in motion the undoing of Reaganism.
Nobody else is going to do anything useful about jobs anyway, and with a Democratic President there’s essentially no useful opposition at all on really horrible policies. Neither in votes nor rhetoric.
Really the only other option is simply abstaining from the process entirely, but that doesn’t really register any kind of useful protest. If there were anything even marginally resembling a leftist Ron Paul out there I’d throw my vote behind them instead.
However, for whatever reason most of our “discussions” about breaking from the status quo from the left just swirl in a pool of our own incompetence. Whether it’s making huge lists of people who we’d like to run from the left, but who resolutely won’t or realistically can’t. Or spending a 150 comments on a blog trying to come up with the best cool-kids name for a mythical and misguided “3rd-Party.”
Our vectors for reform at the federal level are purely via the rare opportunity to vote for a monkey-wrench. We lack all other worthwhile and effective democratic institutions at that level. A viable monkey-wrench comes along once every 75 to 100 years it seems.
I think it’s best to think of voting for Ron Paul as a means of electing a useful idiot. An idiot to be sure, but still a useful one.
He’s just saying what most of us have been saying. I don’t see anyone of the Left embracing Ron Paul as the exemplar of the progressive candidate.
I have posted on this site may time for one reason; support getting him through the primaries. This would have a astounding effect on the GOP and would help cull the neo-con/corporatist influence.
I have always hoped that Firedoglake could help drive this movement within the disgruntled democrat community. Now I see diaries like this pop up and this idea will be weighed and measured.
I would like to see the idea of Ron Paul as your chosen candidate differentiated from the idea of getting him through the primaries. I don’t want people on the fence to read your review and miss the overall scheme of changing the GOP via supporting him through the primaries.
Thanks Dameocrat and Margaret for being on my thread I had a barbecue to go to and was not expecting such a response. I did notice the Paulites avoided the question of is Ron a racist. I noticed they avoided the obvious question of if some of us don’t have rights then none of us do.
Thanks Dameocrat and Margaret for reminding me why I love the Lake.
The situation makes me sick to my stomach.
kelly even if we did not the benefit tto the American people on wars, more war civil rights ect the debate would move obama left
that is why i dont give a rats ass about this country as originally constituted. i am a women, i black friends and i am not a banker or plantation slave owner. i suspect he created the bill of rights because such people were not like even then, though the upside is it offers some protection to people who are antiwar, and procivil rights.
having said that most of the things that have happened in this country that benefited people like me were reforms of the original pro-elite constitution and things that made jefferson and madisons white slave owning descendent unhappy like kennedies nationalization of the guard to protect the little rock black students. in otherwords things ron paul and his supporters fought. not to mention fdrs reforms of the socalled freemarket.
Instead we can elect Perry.
Do you you see through the same lens as me regarding changing the GOP through primary support for Ron Paul?
progressive and libertarians have a lot more in common with each other than we do with Partisan dems or repubs
Well if you had actually read my post, you would see that part of the question was how you square some of Paul’s most egregious positions with progressive values you claim to espouse. Since you can’t, you resort to sarcasm and yes, attacking me or why else would you make a veiled reference to “where (I) can put (my) stipulations”?
just sticking it to status quo repubs would make it worth it
their party has shrunk so much alittle movement from progressive really matters
I don’t believe Perry is running for President. Rather he’s hawking his book.
Exactly, thank-you.
Well, I think you’re exaggerating, here. I can certainly foresee a lot of turmoil, which would mostly be welcome, as long as Congress acted reasonably. If a President Paul vetoed too many bills, ironically it would probably bring the D’s and R’s closer together, so as to overcome any Ron Paul veto.
During the faux debt limit crisis, eventually half the Tea Party Republicans voted for the phony ‘compromise’. D’s and R’s would band together to make lots of phony compromises :-), to overcome any Ron Paul vetoes. An working equilibrium would eventually ensue, not “intractable” gridlock. In the equilibrium state, the D/R coalitions that prevailed would have to throw President Ron Paul some bones, but not that many that anybody would mistake President Ron Paul for Dictator Ron Paul.
At least, that’s what my crystal ball tells me.
See also, regarding D/R collusion John Emerson on Indispensable Enemies
I’ll also seriously consider registering Republican, to vote for Paul. It’s too bad that Progressives don’t have their act together. Many progressive positions are actually mainstream (like national health care). If there was a more progressive Ron Paul, and progressive were organized and led by dynamic leaders who weren’t afraid the Democratic Party, and brought it to heal, then the progressive Ron Paul would probably kick the Republican Ron Paul’s ass.
For now, Ron Paul seems like the best bet.
I would like to believe that it’s possible for Lefties and Libertarians to debate some of the issues on which we agree and to come to some kind of understanding, ideally some understanding that can help both sides not only agree, but also to see more clearly than they did before.
I think that some principled people on the Right oppose abortion because they believe that a human life begins at conception. I hope that they will eventually listen to reason on this and other issues. I too think that a human life begins at conception, but I ALSO see that each and every human being must surely have sovereignty over their own bodies. It is a profound contradiction for libertarians to oppose government interference in the lives of citizens, while arguing that the government should take away the sovereignty of a woman over her own body. Again, I hope that we can prevail with sincere libertarians with this argument. I don’t know if we can, but I think this is part of what we need to hash out with them if we are to build a populist opposition to the corporatist fascist ‘mainstream’.
I too oppose abortion. But I support the right to choose. And I think libertarians clearly SHOULD support the right to choose. We on the Left must press this case.
ron paul and ralph nader show us the way libertarian/progressive coa;ition just common sense http://youtu.be/kwIZ4syCFLc
And I have said this as well, many times.
that is why i dont give a rats ass about this country as originally constituted. i am a women. i have black friends. i am not a banker or plantation slave owner. i suspect he created the bill of rights because such people were not liked by many, even then. Though the upside is it offers some protection to people who are antiwar, and procivil rights.
having said that most of the things that have happened in this country that benefited people like me were reforms of the original pro-elite constitution, and things that made jefferson and madisons white slave owning descendents unhappy like kennedys nationalization of the guard to protect the little rock black students. in otherwords things ron paul and his supporters fought, not to mention fdrs reforms of the socalled freemarket.
What can I say? You spend half your article tell people how to respond to you!!!! It’s truly unreal, and then you turn around and complain about any hint that your commands are not being profoundly honored!!!
Welcome, Margaret. For me, it’s the same reason I cannot ever vote for Obama again: the lack of an inclusive, wider morality, and the inability to question themselves about it, and blithely skate right on past it.
The only rough vision I hold about *the present* vis a vis *the future* is that it might just be that this is the time, even planetarily, to decide to pull the rug out totally from under those who have been gaining ascendancy in power, money and influence, and choose what we’re willing to risk to ensure that generations to come will not be enslaved by those who treat us so cavalierly and horrifically; that will still be able to wage wars for resources to line their pockets, who can ignore the wails of hungry and ill children and are able to kill this big blue-green ball we live on without conscience or imagination of what that really and truly means.
This is now a time ripe for demagogues who will lure us to support their several beliefs without considering sustainable and inclusive, non-eco-injurious seventh-generation ideas and a full-throated public education of why we all must do this. And it will take cooperation, not competition, not nationalism or stateism, to Do Good.
(Climbing down off my soapbox now; love to you, Margaret, and peace.)
wd
ralph nader did not endorse his candidacy, just working on issues where we agree.
And just to be clear: I’m not “setting conditions”. I’m telling you what I would accept as a legitimate answer to my very clear questions. The same way none of you would accept a child blaming ghosts for the broken lamp. I’m not restricting what you say. I invite you to say whatever the fuck you want.
I never really thought that I could get progressives to “like” Ron Paul.
Just think of Paul as a pawn that will be used to change the GOP through the reintroduction of pacifism and civil liberties.
The drug war issue is one that Paul could have a profound effect on. I think that would do a great deal for our country getting rid of the drug war via executive action.
If the Democrat’s ever get a Ron Paul type rouge going I would surely support that one. I had hopes for Alan Grayson.
Regarding the UN: it would be fairly reasonable to call for the US to withdraw from the UN at this point, because the UN, the security council at least, has turned into a tool for the extension of US power around the world. I would counterargue against Paul that the the UNSC should be reformed.
That’s a mighty dangerous game you’re talking about playing there. We’d be talking about forces way outside of anyone’s control, power struggles, that we’re not prepared for.
I do like the kind of revolutionary potential in the idea, I just don’t want to enable the rise of such a strong counter-revolutionary base just to make it happen.
but i am choosing. i am choosing a green or a socialist, who represents my interests as a working class women who cares about the environment. i am choosing true democracy over the joke we live in now that dictate lesser evil votes for people that make us want to hurl most of the time.
seems like Hunter offers more of those advantages without neoconfederacy and shockdoctrine economics.
dennis Kucinich chose ron Paul for his VP
Ralph would support Ron no doubt
which of your questions have i not answered
i had hopes for grayson and still do
Ron Paul is a selfish and urine-stained sociopath.
watch the video if yopu are not a partisan you will enjoy it
It scares me that Perry could take the field. I think he is dangerous.
Any of them.
Thanks for your addition to the conversation.
The concept of the Free Market IS a very powerful concept. The case we need to bring to the Libertarians is that 1) it is only a concept and 2) as such, it needs to be balanced with other concepts. However, I certainly prefer the relatively straightforward Libertarian version of laissez-faire to the vicious embrace by corporatist fascist Dems and Pubs (that’s virtually all Dems and Pubs) of a far more vicious Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest philosophy. As has been pointed out over and over again, neither Dems nor Republicans even mention the poor anymore, even though more and more of us are in fact poor, or sliding towards poverty (and if “poor” is defined in terms of imbalance of power in society, it includes perhaps 2/3 of our society).
The ‘mainstream’ is busy building a society which is dedicated to creating a tightly controlled top-down society, with a rapidly increasing disparity of power and wealth, justified by some version of meritocracy argumentation: the elites are elite because they are superior and it’s better for the herd to be herded, anyway.
So why on earth would any progressive ever criticize a candidate for being too far from the “mainstream”? My god, have you looked at what passes for mainstream now?
Well, I spent the morning reading over Ron Paul’s specific positions on the issues on his campaign website, and I was appalled by most of them. Not that I was surprised. But I thought about it again for the rest of the day, and I came to the same conclusion.
I am still with Charles Davis.* I believe we have a moral obligation to the world to vote for Ron Paul on the basis of his opposition to the murderous and expanding wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. People are dying. People’s lives are being destroyed. This is our responsibility; our country is doing this and we must do what we can.
We can vote for Ron Paul in the primaries as a protest. We can let it be known in advance that we are going to do that and the reasons why. We can do that in support of the millions of Americans imprisoned because of the War on Drugs, in support of civil liberties and against the national security state. We can at the same time vociferously disagree with Paul’s many other policies which we adamantly oppose. We can also recognize that Obama and the Democratic party are in the midst of dismantling public education, that the United States long ago perverted the UN into its own brutal, political arm, an adjunct of NATO, and continues to use it for criminal ends; that Obama sold out abortion rights, not to mention health rights, in the health insurance booster bill, and that our system of elected government has ceased to represent us anyway no matter what we believe or want, so putting a fine tune on it hardly matters.
The fact is that in the presidential primaries, there is no other choice. Even if you wouldn’t normally vote, it is a good strategic move, because of the possibility of changing the dynamic now. If it makes politicians recognize the serious reality of majority American opposition to our imperial, war-mongering, fascist state, then that, at least, is a beginning, and it’s worth the risk.
As a positivist would say, you have to focus on the ways in which you agree, not the ways in which you disagree.
This is not a lesser evil argument. This is about a positive good.
*Charles Davis http://www.counterpunch.org/davis04282011.html
I pointed this out in another of your diaries, what you are saying does not match the reality of his actions. Ron Paul supported FEDERAL legislation that would have stated that life begins at conception. You can keep insisting that this doesn’t move the ball further down the field for anti choicers but I doubt you’ll get a pro choice person to agree with you.
Paul is a non starter for me. If he doesn’t want to have access to a medical procedure that he’ll never have to have, fine. I certainly am not into FORCING someone into doing something they don’t wish to. However, he’s an absolute hypocrite for insisting business needs no legislation while working to FORCE WOMEN to risk their lives as if pregnancy were a one size fits all affair.
Electability, schmectability. Electability gave us Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Barack Obama. It didn’t even always work for the Democrats. I will vote for someone with whom I agree on issues important to me, not for whether they are “electable” or not. That someone is definitely not Ron Paul, but that’s besides the point.
You’re probably right that Paul will never be elected President, but I object to you calling him a “lunatic.” Just because someone disagrees with you does not make that someone insane. To say so is, well, an old Stalinist trick.
margaret ..you have mastered memorized and maybe tatooed on your ankles cliche and harmful jive that abounds in america today..beneath your sad distress somewhere is a knowing that from the surface you draw these conclusions about a person.. but knowing a mind and its true.depth is much more work than the shovel of websters crap you dump on everyone.. congrats ..you are at war with someone ..who is it..is it in the mirror..ron paul is many things but he is not all of the inner seething trash you wish he were……
I feel like the clouds have parted and the sun has shown through.
This is not due to you Evelyn, just in general. Someone else thinks along the same lines as I. I am much more of a supporter though.
kelly C
Ron Pauls five flaws for kelly band margaret
rejects e verify
rejects deportation of illegal
anti abortion rights
SS
Medicare-caid
you shoud read my posts, i am just a Progressive, for the most part, just left with no good choice but i never have and never will support warmongers
In my opinion, he’s a lunatic. He has not one real world clue about economics – not one.
He’s some kind of faith based whack machine – my opinion and I could care less if you agree or not.
And he’s not electable. America won’t choose him – just like they haven’t every other time he’s run.
that we do to ourselves so be it, that our government is the one that always starts the wars
the east timor footage will cause men of some character to reject war wholesale
in war the rich get richer the government gets more power and the people get screwed–ever time without excetion
Well, unfortunately you’re really for a lack of alternative methods. There appear to be a massive multitude of conditions which preclude cracking our political monopoly from the left, but a whole slew of those exact conditions which make it possible from the right.
I don’t like it either, but it’s got to happen.
And I’ll never support a racial and sexual bigot. Why are you allowed and not I?
this is lunacy to assinateect
Paul against- Romney/ Obama for: War, More War,patriot act, e verify, deportations of immigrants, incarcerating americans for victimless crimes- 60% of prison pop, corporate welfare, horrible free trade agreements, assainating Americans, no habeas, detaining people without trial, attacking Iran, attacking Yemen Attacking Somolia,attacking Libya, attacking Syria, supporting dictators in the middle east, the Banksters/The Fed, government secrecy, MIC, secrecy for corporate cash on contracting, secret interpratationsof any US laws, throwing whistle blowers in jail, prosecuting wiki leaks, taking PHARMA-wall street- insurer- big oil money, has never made a phone call for campaign cash, he is part of no fund raising-, sanctions on Cuba,on and on
he predicted the 2008 crash – come on
answered abortion wantes to defund the fed answered kellys five flaws what else
Yep – 20 years in a row he predicted it.
*makesmelaugh!*
they locked me out because i used the f word when i was told that voting for a green or a socialist was an imaginary choice.
how is he a bigot
It’s ironic that you would say Paul is for Civil Rights when the actual Ron Paul is on record as saying he opposed the Civil Rights Act. Let’s be real clear, Paul’s “support” for civil rights begins and ends with government spying. As for supporting tolerance for women’s choice, sexual orientation or skin color, not so much. There is a pretty broad swath of America that gets left behind in Ron Paul’s civic rights.
The question was, how do you square your supposed progressive values with Ron Paul’s radical, over the top, teahadist viewpoints? Either you have values that you believe in and stick to or they are malleable, subject to “compromise” worthy of Obama.
that the world was dumb enough to keep financing us to the tune of 16 trillion dollars
i admit i am surprised it took this long
good point kelly
Not this again! Either read my post and the citation or go away.
your post upthread where you said the civil war was not fought over states rights or slavery tells me you are are not all that progressive.
What on EARTH are you talking about?
Thank you for thanking me for expressing my opinion, because my words have weight.
LOL. I have a mental picture of Kelly in the Queen Crown!
And that has what to do with defending Ron Paul, exactly?
By the way, do you have a spell checker?
@msmolly August 20th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
It has devil horns on it too – aside from all the pretty stuff. :)
dennis is assuming he wont die in office and nader is working for a primary challenge in the democratic party not on pauls campaign.
what are my options, unless i want to just sit it out
again- i know i will get some progressive movement with Paul i knowit was just get worse under Obama/Romney
Ron Paul is a terrible choice for prez but so much better than the status quo party
reality dictates he is the only canidate that will try to change what is the most wrong with america. the fact the corporations own government. you can not change that dynamic through a more progressive agenda i would want. supermajorities and we went backwards. Pauls 10th amendment approach is the only thing that shows a possibility of working
That is why he does not get Pharma, oil, insurance, wall street money-everybodyelse does
The money has corrupted the system to the point where a fucking libertarian is has most progressive agenda for one reason. He is not bought by the corporations who own Obama/Romney– understanding that squares my conscience and gives me hope that what we used to call facism is addressed appropriately.
does that answer your question or in two words common sense
Fuck Ron Paul and his racist, misogynist n homophobic life.
187 comments!! N it’s not even LLN!!!
NICE!
I fear to read them . . . maybe later tonite with a major buzz on . . . ;-)
Well spoken Margaret, n thanks for doing so.
just weak
Neither Barack Obama nor Ron Paul should be president. Pick someone else. “Ron Paul is not Barack Obama” is not a worthy argument, as a hundred million other people fit that single requirement.
On second thought,
jbade, thanks for finally answering the question. I don’t disagree with most of the problems as you list them, especially the part about money poisoning and corrupting everything. I don’t have the answer but it’s my own opinion that Ron Paul isn’t it. That’s what this place is for; to discuss these things in a rational way. That’s all I wanted. That’s all this post is about.
@jbade August 20th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Who you kiddin “weak.”
You can’t support an argument to save your life. Not one linke -NOT ONE LINK from you ever.
Just assertions.
You totally lose in any debate – mostly because you don’t understand what they fundamentally are.
just reality based- never said that states were not a part
Lincoln’s ONLY interest as president was keeping the Union he did not matter to him if he freed a single slave or if he freed all slaves ( it involves the French and British). it is a complicated beautful/ugly history. on a personal he thought every man should live free
what do you contest that i have said, do you believe i have lied about something
On second thought, after scrolling to the end of comments and reading a few, Margaret I’m gonna stand with my comment to you at the top of comments.
This is just not worth my time to indulge in.
As Kelly rightfully predicted Margaret, ya brought out the psychopathic patois of the eternally damaged and sick libertarian lummoxes still sporting tails cuz evolution never caught up with them, not to mention their general lack of social graces and social interaction essential and inherent to the rest of the human race.
All that abused white space . . . LeSigh. ;-)
name one of those 350 mill i can vote for-deal in reality or just sit it out
boy that hurt
You wanna run that by me again? In English this time? Did you even read the post or my citations? You speak like I’ve pulled all of this out of my ass when clearly I have supported every point.
What can I say Larue? I bring out the best in people.
I’m gonna go watch Niners v Raiders for the sheer torture, it beats banging up against the abused white space from the hordes of short tailed devolutionists infesting the forum.
*G*
Beer, got brats, time to break out the camp grill n fahr it up!
Got some whole grain buns, red onion, diced maters, home made pesto schmear on the buns when toasted on grill. N of course, german whole grain spicy mustard.
Life is good, why ruin it wasted on . . . them. ;-)
N thanks much for the brat n beer idea earlier today!
You da man!
Bless ya Margaret, I’ll hoist a cold one for yas!
*gone*
*G*
Well, epiphany, a very fine greek word is spelled with an “a”, but the phony part seems apropos.
I will never support someone who is anti-abortion rights, anti-SS, anti-Medicare. I will never support an overt racist or homophobe. I don’t much care what else he SAYS he favors.
great, hope you will consider who might bring you the most progresssive change. that moment for me left me with no choice but reject both partys as something to be worked against because i knew they would just keep making things worse for the most part on purpose
Noam Chomsky, superhero, speaks eloquently to diminishing the power of the Federal gov because it is the best tool for working for the rich against the rest
I hope you watch this Nader Paul video it will give you hope
we are more like Greeks than groups they protest as a people no labels it is beautiful and appropriate for battle are involved in.
http://youtu.be/kwIZ4syCFLc
Your recipe earlier sounded yummy except I’d have to leave out the cilantro.
This reminds me of the Palestine/Israel debate. Nobody ever seems to convince anyone else.
Did anyone actually defend Paul as you asked? I didn’t see anyone do that.
ya know, I was thinking the same thing. It seems that Mr./Ms. Epiphony, (all in caps), registered just to make a snide and unsupportable comment on my little old diary. I guess I should be honored but I’m laughing too hard.
Well said.
Nathan and a few others laid out some cogent and valid reasons for supporting Paul but no real “defense” of his points of view.
Well friends, it’s been a slice but time is wearing on me and I have somewhere to go. I’d like to thank everybody for reading, (those who did), and commenting, especially our newest member of the Lake “EPIPHONY”, (in all caps), welcome aboard. Have a great evening all.
And I’m out.
Paul could not be more clear the federal government would have no power zilch,nada given his druthers
Perfect!
progressives that continue to support a big federal gov despite the fact that it is the center of corruption and works against progressive causes, must accept a limited role that relates to non-corrupt practices like adminstering SS and Medicare-caid
ulimnate all the corrupt departments the dea to homeland insecurity and everthing inbetween
recommended and tweeted margaret
Again if FDL had gold stars, I would rate you five of them (usually top number)
been busy working at a “real” job today for money :) and just came on and saw your post. I love your challenges to the readers to think about Ron Paul and I’m happy to see over 200 responses to your post.
Like Perry, I consider him a serious threat to the quality of the lives of the majority in the USA–exactly for the reason that about 50% of his ideology seems “reasonable” even to liberals. It’s about that other 50% . . .
Keep up the great work, Margaret. Who the heck was it who said: “They mock what they don’t understand?”
and again it goes back to what another Margaret–Margaret Heffernan wrote about in her book Willful Blindness–we are genetically wired to seek people and experiences that we are comfortable with.
a non vote same as a sit out
I’m not even sure I disagree with you per se. I just don’t like it, and I think it doesn’t have to be that way. It’s something reasonable people can disagree about.
It certainly looks like we’re headed that way.
Take another look at your argument Margaret, we’ve been running without a budget now for two years.
Ron Paul offered up a novel idea during manufactured debt crisis: to burn the Treasury bonds the Fed purchased for quantitative easing.
Go, Margaret!
I’ve been gone all day for a family reunion, but wow! I had no idea they were attacking you so badly. I’ve also given my reasons for not supporting Ron Paul, one that he is too old to be President and still stuck in the 1940′s.
Anyway, the very fact that these people are allowed to shared their opinions on Jane’s blog means that different thoughts may be placed here. We should never be brow beaten by words in order to like a Ron Paul, or his son Rand, or any other Ayn Rand true believer. Disagreement is part of what makes society great. Everyone cannot live in the same box, ticky tack in a row or else!
the one thing everyone agrees on with paul like him or not, he will not change after being elected he will be the wedge
let nader explain
http://youtu.be/kwIZ4syCFLc
Glenn Greenwald says it pretty well: “Aside from the truly disappeared former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party.”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/16/elections/index.html
If Paul were to simply 1) end the war on drugs and 2) make a large dent in ending the US as an imperial power, he would do more good for this country than almost any other president we’ve ever had. He is far from perfect, of course. I can’t defend him on social issues, just like you can’t defend Obama on economic or foreign policy or civil liberties issues. But having Paul as president wouldn’t give him final say over these things, while he is (other than perhaps Gary Johnson) the only anti-corporatist, anti-establishment candidate running right now. And he’s got a decent chance of winning, which is very exciting. Will there, in our lifetimes, be another chance to attack the military industrial complex in such an effective way as a Paul presidency?
Now that made me laugh, even though I am trying to be quiet because ‘he’ is asleep!
tell us what yoy think of ralph’s admiration of Paul and vice versa
their honorable liason goes way back and their attempts at opening up the system to third partys, superhero stuff
YO myFDL!!!!! EDITORS!!!
224 comments and you can’t front page this?
*disgusted*
224 phreakin comments!!!!
N you. Can’t and won’t. Front page this.
Why???
Thanks for posting that, it’s very very very relevant.
I’m a registered Green and a huge supporter of the Green Party but I’m considering switching to Republican to vote for Paul. I’d love to see him in the general election – there’s no way I’m voting for Obama in 2012 so if Paul did get the nomination it would be a debate between voting for him or a progressive third party/independent.
thats the rational argument brother
“I lean left, but I’ve learned a lot from the right.”
“I lean right, but I’ve learned a lot from the left.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7iQbBbMAFE&ob=av2e
free your mind and the rest will follow
jbade – you just might want to listen to tambershall. For some reason, the case for Paul is getting weaker and weaker…
@Nathan Aschbacher
Your comments are lucid.
@Margret You are right about all of those things, but maybe not all of the outcomes. I think we could use him strategically.
Where Ron Paul is bad, he’s horrible, and is so extreme on national and social policies he will be opposed, no one will cross over and help him out with votes. – I hope. (This point was expressed by Newt Gingrich in the paper CATO paper, looking back on Welfare Reform after 10 years. It’s the so-called moderates that can pass the other parties policies.)
On foreign policy he would have quite a free hand like all Presidents do. An anti-war faction will re-emerge and be supported from the voters. The IMF and world bank are used to further out hegemony; if he drowned them in a bathtub I wouldn’t complain, nor if he federalized the Fed.
He can’t dismantle the UN. He can stop paying dues like Bush did. He can drop out of the HR Commission. We shouldn’t be in it anyway because our leaders show such a lack of concern for them, except as a hypocritical excuse for more war.
The UN was created to avoid war, but now it has turned that on its head and is used as a cover for war. The rest of the world would cheer.
I don’t want food regulation diminished, but I don’t want Monsanto writing the rules, or UNAID and USAID money going to them. I want their subsidies ended. I don’t want them hiding from us under secrecy rules, if we are eating GM food.
The same for energy. What good does it do if the Gas/Oil magnates sit on the boards and committees of the EPA and such?
Education is being privatized, it wont be long before we have IQ means testing for poor kids. I would rather it be passed back to local communities, rather that have teaching to the test or NCLB. States can already decide what goes into their text books if they can afford to have them printed.
I think it would be nice if we could think outside of the box about what is possible.
That’s some funny stuff right there!
Evidently, they are all in jail, unfortunately.
We’ve already got Barack Mussolini Obama.
Margaret I’m with ya on this. I’ve given Ron Paul a look in the past, but just could not get past the domestic social issues.
I don’t get why government has to be out of everything but my uterus.
I agree that Libertarian economics cannot work. I agree that it is faith-based. It’s just as silly a concept to me as the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” “perpetual revolution,” “the invisible hand of the marketplace,” “the shining city on the hill,” or “the free market.”
But to call people who believe in such things “lunatics” is still a Stalinist technique.
under the freedom platform forwarded by Paul there is no infringment on anyones rights by government= that is what it is all about brother – you got it wrong take a look
That is the most reasonable post I have seen on this thread, Larue.
sweet i can feel the wave building against the establishment
get it together, he did not predict doom every year- but the consitant assertion that fiat currency EVENTUALLY ruin the economy
ya it is one of my favorites, thanks
100%
not out of your life, just the federal government part
it is not a nonvote. it is just a vote for someone you dont like because s/he represents me and not you.
Liberals and Democrats lost me with their support of unnecessary wars and global military babysitting of foreign lands. For me, foreign policy is the ONLY issue that matters. For three decades, I voted for the Democrat because I support abortion rights, gay rights, minimum wage, civil rights, Social Security, etc. I was the typical “progressive”, but not any more. I am a ONE issue voter now, the issue being foreign policy. If we don’t reverse course away from foreign policy madness, we can kiss our country GOODBYE financially along with your (and my) beloved domestic issues and any other principles we agree on. Only Ron Paul will reverse course. He’s our last hope, even if he is a Libertarian.
It isn’t just economics though.
Look at his position on the Civil Rights Act. He’s on the record acknowledging it’s advances while simultaneously suggesting he never would have voted for it because it infringed on businesses right to discriminate.
Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that if it had been allowed to continue in the South that African Americans would still be required to sit at the back of the bus, not allowed through front entrances or even allowed to eat at the same counters as caucasians? Because there is no doubt in my mind that without the push in the 60s and early 70s that we’d still have segregation here in Virginia.
Even suggesting that legislation that has brought gains for minority groups should never have been passed smacks of a real lack of understanding on the struggles minorities undergo and have undergone to get up to where they are today.
While I might not call it lunacy, I’d definitely call it wrongheaded.
the wars are it, the fact that only one man will step up and say your wars and empire are crazy, assination of citizens crazy,patriot act on and on you only one guy
When called Bush and Cheney war criminals and said they lied us into war- I was sold
if you have not seen this nader paul interview-you must
http://youtu.be/kwIZ4syCFLc
Hello, I didn’t say out of my life, I said out of my fucking uterus, state for federal.
Okay, abolish the constitution and let states do their own thing. Hello, we no longer have a country. We have Somalia.
Taxes+government-corporate influence= civilization.
your uterus is likely to have a better chance of not being bothered if federal government does not have a say.
the conservatives always win at the federal level
save your uterus vote Paul, could be a bumper sticker
All the Women in Kansas who can’t get a medically necessary abortion totally agree with your bumper sticker mentality…
kelly such a burden to get red states to do what you want
a futile venture, How are the feds protecting a womens rights. they are picking them apart as the conservative from Kansas actually effect your laws
you dream of helping Kansas, you should pray that paul gets in and your state may be able to fend off Kansas
@jbade August 20th, 2011 at 11:56 pm
You don’t even see the circular illogic you employ, do you:
-Let The States Decide
-Kansas Decides
-Best Bet is to Get The Fed Out and Let The States Decide
————————————–
= Fuck Women in Kansas, no matter which way
You truly have no sense of debate, argument, or consequence. Just none.
Lame. Actually, beyond lame. Ignorant.
i would vote for that too, but i dont want the corporatists to stay in power
Hey Margaret,
Well, that was gutsy of you. And very interesting for me.
Most of what I know about Libertarianism has come from conversations with people who espouse it – I have to confess to not really looking at literature or position papers of candidates, including Ron Paul.
Those conversations have mostly turned me off. Not so much because of nasty tone (although that shows up too often for my taste), but because of a thing that happens. It happened here. Sooner or later (mostly sooner) policies show up that are problematic from my point of view. And when they do, the person I’m talking to so often engages in a lot of hand waving, or worse reverting into a mantra of “Well, it’s bad now under the system we’ve got” Not only is this not satisfactory for me, but tends to makes me dismiss the whole philosophy.
It’s a shame, because there seems to be a lot of common agreement on many things. I’m probably too late on this thread, but can any of you Libertarians suggest some literature to me to look at? It’s too late in the evening to get into debate – and as I said such debates have only served to turn me off up to now. I’m not going to get into it with you on this thread.
But I’ll look at and recommended reading you have.
kelly that i am able to defend what we have in Washington and cant do anything for people in Kansas who overwhelmingly vote for ultra conservatives
ya brother i have better fights, no regrets
if they want to write jefferson out of their history books( not christian ) in Texas they voted for Bush and Perry for 12 years
i can not do anything for those people i have made great efforts to avoid that state- you go save’em their no indication they want you to do that
not a libertarian but i was motivated by the interview with Ron Paul and Ralph Nader on the things progressives and libertarians agree on
http://youtu.be/kwIZ4syCFLc
It’s well understood that you don’t give a shit about women’s rights in any jurisdiction but your own.
Well understood.
You will please pardon us that care about all women in all the states.
WomensRightsFAIL#
And the women being bombed by your president and being mamed by his bombs? Do you care only about women in your “jurisdiction” or about the women your tax dollars are needlessly killing?
its what you can do, under your criteria you dont care about killing women in afganistan, or incarcerating africans at at rates that demonstrate a racial assault, and you you support assinating americans
kelly i will not resond to you any more your to weird and your tribal speak is just boring–thanks anyway
“Your” president too whether you like it or not.
Conflate war and abortion to your hearts content – I’m not and won’t.
Evelyn–Thank you for the link, and thank you for expressing my own position so much better than I have managed to do.
You can call logic tribal if you like – in fact you can call a lollipop a bomb and it doesn’t make it so.
The fact that you can’t make logical refutations reflects poorly on you. And that’s sad that you can’t think for yourself or express yourself clearly.
I just said this on a different Ron Paul diary. I don’t need to hear anymore about Dr. Ron Paul. I’ve considered him, called his office after the vote for Endless War to thank him for being the lone Republican to Say No.
My line in the sand; Keep the Government’s Hands Off Our Bodies. if a man is sure he has the right to put Women under the control of the [Male?] Government……well, that’s just sick!!!
Fuck you very much, Dr. Ron Paul. And the septum you rode in on.
meant to say, the cold septum you rode in on.
devil’s in the details…:]
p.s. Margaret, you rock!!
I bow down.
Sincerely,
Openhope
Very interesting to hear Nader, who I think is the greatest American of our time, and Ron Paul agreeing on so much, though as a registered nurse who has done med/surg nursing in hospitals for many years, I am disgusted by Paul’s cluelessness about our desperate need for single payer healthcare.
I don’t agree with Paul on a lot of important issues, but I’m still voting for him in the Republican primary, because the most issue, I think, is for us to stop killing people all over the world, and stop locking up so many of our own nonviolent offenders, and a good first step might be to get Paul nominated, so that the media would be forced to allow a real discussion of these issues.
This article by Charles Davis, “Who is the Real Reactionary? Ron Paul: More Progressive Than Obama?” lays it out very well:
http://www.counterpunch.org/davis04282011.html
> name one of those 350 mill i can vote for
Your argument implies that any one of them who is not Barack Obama will do.
> deal in reality or just sit it out
I would hand that back to you. However, I am not the final arbiter of reality – and neither are you. Pick someone else.
@Kelly Canfield August 21st, 2011 at 12:44 am
I don’t think he’s conflating anything. He positing a realistic cost/benefit relationship, and framing it basically the same way that you did in your comment immediately preceding his.
It’s you that’s ducking his point, with a nonsense objection.
When a US taxpayer funded bomb explodes shrapnel into an Iraqi women’s uterus, or blows her legs off, she may very well ask “Why did this happen to me?” and furthermore “Why did a US President allow this to happen to me?
Those are reasonable questions, both for Iraqi women to ask, as well as US women. War mongers don’t think about these things too much – if at all. Non-war mongers should respect these questions, no matter who asks them. If they don’t, then perhaps they are being defensive over something.
What could that be?
The reality is people are fed up with Obama they (and me)are looking someone else….most of the GOP act nut bags and they are not worth anyone’s time. Ron Paul says and believes in enough issues he appears to be an attractive candidate. I chide the Media for only paying attention to Perry and friends…I want to hear from Paul and Huntsman,,if nothing else maybe these guys can move the debates to other topics such as the wars and so on,,,,,
my biggest problem is single payer also, but he does want to close down the wars and alot of bases useing half the savings for deficit reduction anfd half towards social security,medicare-caid
and the fact that we have the most expensive healthcare and they dontaddress that-we just need to give’em less and have them pay more
re-import of presciption drugs did for me with the Dems they all voted for it in 2006 knowing bush would veto then in 2008 they voted against it – if they could not do something that simple pro consumer, free market but bought and paid for by big PHARMA
i knew healthcare would not get any better if they so blantantly serve big PHARMA
To those of you who don’t know: Those li’l blue letters in my post are links that take you to my sources and citations. I only say this because of the unusually large number of people who are all but accusing me of pulling these things out of my ass. READ the post! READ the citations before commenting or risk losing all credibility.
Right on, Margaret.
When Giuliani held a fundraiser in 2008 at the Vinoy Hotel in St Petersburg, St Pete for Peace held a protest in front of the hotel during the event. Across the street were 100 or less Paul supporters. Some came over to join us after they saw the signs the white is right crowd were displaying. I’ve also seen and heard some of the racist comments Paul has made. Ron Paul is a bigot, period.
The President can do things like vetoing, (or just not signing), budgets he disagrees with. Paul is on record as wanting to cut federal spending to pre 2000 levels, (see citation above), and he has never exhibited a particular aversion to allowing the country to default on it’s debts. No, a President absolutely can’t rule by executive fiat but what some of you are ignoring is that the President has to sign bills before they become laws. He also hasn’t shown an especial interest in following those bits of the Constitution that he doesn’t agree with. So stop the warz, (a very good and desirable thing) and stop feeding the MIC, (also a wonderful and desirable thing) and that will take an enormous chunk out of some areas of the economy and then if he won’t sign debt ceiling extensions or budgets with which he disagrees and the nation’s credit rating is hugely downgraded and the private sector will be shedding jobs at a rate that will make 2008 and 2009 look like a hiring boom. So yes, he can do enormous, colossal damage. And all on his own, accepting for one second that his own party will fight him on anything but the warz and MIC, (which I don’t). Think unemployment is bad now? Then I hope you never see a Paul presidency. I don’t think you’ve considered all of the ramifications of what Paul can do. Agreed, a Paul candidacy would certainly shake things up and they need shaking up but it sounds like razing a village to save it to me.
Hey SD! Yep. There’s really no debate on that.
In most civilized places where they have moved beyond the simplicity of the “winner take all” system coalitions governments provide a somewhat more balanced approach to coexistence.
Yes, Margaret I read your post!
Anyone but me notice that the behavioral parameters for participation in this post were extremely restrictive, and got tighter as the discussion advance? A few had the guts to offer unpopular opinions while the Yuppie (mutated hippies) snobs with their over stuffed vocabularies and the lack of empathy bitch slapped anyone who disagreed.
Margret asked for one of Ron Paul’s positive points she did not list in her post: Below is a link to Ron Paul on camera explaining to a supporter of the Apartheid state of Israel why the American tax payer should not foot the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Jn2xCF92Y&feature=related
I wrote a post titled “the consistency of Ron Paul” ; I won’t provide a link (don’t want Margret to have a cow). If the man (Paul) is anything , on War and Peace he is consistent.
And yet the very content of your response indicates that you either didn’t read it or didn’t deign to comprehend it. I didn’t “restrict” what people could say. What I outlined were defenses that I would consider as valid and not just the rote listing of Paul goods vs everybody else’ evils. I tried to make it clear that you can, in fact, say whatever the fuck you wanted, (which you did), but that doesn’t mean that I, (as the author of the post, not final arbiter of the content of the conversation which I’m not), would accept that as a valid defense. Sorry if I was unclear but there comes a point when I am limited by the reader’s desire to understand or his/her predisposition to disagree with any and all criticism of Paul.
vector56 you hit the nail on the head a comparitive analysis of Paul vs Obama/Romney is a real eye opener but not in line with partisan talking points
Margaret,
You have done yeoman’s work. And Congrats. Further, like Larue, I too think this thread should have been front paged.
Now, more to my Indigenous Perspective.
As to any “defense” presented on behalf of Ron Paul, I would’ve “yardsticked” Paul’s “positioning” in the following manner:
Take, for example, my “gold standard” is premised on LBJ’s Great Society, and subsequently, it would be nice if the Fourth Estate “assessed” each presidential candidate, and given that I am writing about the 191 pieces of legislation that comprises the Great Society.
Therefore, one element is Legal Aid for the economically disadvantaged. Does Paul support legal aid, and if the answer is a “yes” then, does he support increased or decreased funding?
So, when I hear Paul being “opposed to war” my take is somewhat different in Paul’s “positioning. As described by the afficionados of Paul, Paul opposed the AUMF, and yet, Paul’s vote was a “free rider” given that his vote was inconsequential relative to the Republican “outcome.” And which means that Paul is a Republican and not a libertarian despite this libertarian wishful thinking. In contrast, Bernie Sanders ran as an Independent and Lieberman ran as a Independent. And therein is the “difference” between Paul and his Republican colleagues. As such, if you appeal to a Libertarian and are not a Libertarian, you’re in the Bamboozlement Biz, and anyone advocating Paul as a “cross-over” candidate, is selling snake oil. And what’s readily apparent to me, Paul does not see himself as a “libertarian” and libertarians, refuse to acknowledge Paul’s “reality.” In failing address Paul’s reality, libertarians are diminishing Paul’s “reality.” And finally, libertarians in support of Paul–the Republican candidate, are ‘trashing’ their fellow libertarians, and this is seen as such. Consequently, “vendidos” at the front-end, will still remain “vendidos” at the back-end.
Jaango
The question to be avoided is how could a libertarian be forwarding a dramatically more progressive agenda than Obama and the Democrats
Why are Obama and Romney so close on so many issues?
Why is Paul on the other side of those issues?
”
as Jane Hamsher recently commented ” Iwould tell him not to do it(debate Paul), because its a no-win situation politically”
I agree. this is why honest open debate on the best choice to forward progressive causes most be avoided at all costs
Maragaret it is good that you have not disputed any of the forwarded “virtues” (as you put it)of Paul and made it clear you did not disagree
but you have avoided Ralph Nader support for Paul the bigot
http://youtu.be/kwIZ4syCFLc
Or was Dennis Kucinich spo dumb that he chose a racist, bigot for his VP
Margaret call’em up and let Ralph andDennis know what idiots they are
let’em know how smart you are
Margaret thank you for the chat. that we agree that you do not dispute the virtues of Paul as listed below we have made great progress -good on you
Paul is against- Romney/ Obama are for the following: War, More War,patriot act, e verify, deportations of immigrants, incarcerating americans for victimless crimes- 60% of prison pop, corporate welfare, horrible free trade agreements, assainating Americans, no habeas, detaining people without trial, attacking Iran, attacking Yemen Attacking Somolia,attacking Libya, attacking Syria, supporting dictators in the middle east, the Banksters/The Fed, government secrecy, MIC, secrecy for corporate cash on contracting, secret interpratationsof any US laws, throwing whistle blowers in jail, prosecuting wiki leaks, taking PHARMA-wall street- insurer- big oil money, has never made a phone call for campaign cash, he is part of no fund raising-, sanctions on Cuba,on and on
Margret asked for one of Ron Paul’s positive points she did not list in her post: Below is a link to Ron Paul on camera explaining to a supporter of the Apartheid state of Israel why the American tax payer should not foot the bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Jn2xCF92Y&feature=related
I am repeating my statement and link above because Margret and a few others called Ron Paul a racist, yet Paul seems to be the only member of Congress willing to stick his neck out when it comes to our extremely “racist” foreign policy concerning Israel. Would any one in their right mind care to address this?
P.S.
At the risk of sounding like my girl Margret (Pushy), WATCH THE VIDEO BEFORE YOU COMMENT!
Thanks for the comment Jaango. :)
First, I watched the video.
Second, what’s the purpose of the snide comments, eg, “Would any one in their right mind care to address this?”
His stance re Israel doesn’t negate any of the other nonsense Paul comes up with, eg, get rid of the Fed, return to the gold standard.
Resorting to name calling again? Nice. And I’m not your “girl”. Disgusting to see misogyny isn’t dead even at FDL.
What it comes down to is that racism within the narrowly defined parameters allowed here are limited to MLK, and the American civil rights struggle. To have a Black man (Obama) calling a racist state like Israel “sacrosanct” is unforgivable.
These over educated “yahoos” build their morality on a house of cards. War is the greatest and most permanent denier of human rights.
Like it or not the deal remains: how many dead little brown people in the Middle East are we willing to trade for the old and the poor in America?
Margaret, Margaret, Margaret:
You and your Yuppie buddies have been putting down and brow-beating anyone who would dare to disagree: don’t take my word for it review your own comments. Just because you use big fancy words and make reverences to dead poets does not make your condescending put downs any less cruel.
Here’s an idea … if you don’t like Ron Paul, don’t vote for him. Maybe try voting for that Obama fella, I’m sure he’ll kick butt and create a world of opportunity for all Americans and be the very epitome progressive awesomeness.
I dunno. Considering it took losing a lawsuit (brought by republicans) and two court injunctions to get Obama to move on DADT … aren’t you really just exchanging someone who screws over homosexuals with a pretty speech for someone who does it honestly? Seems a wash at best.
The big problem I have with your formula is that on nearly every metric you highlight where Paul is disagreeable … there is a huge helping of Democratic Fail and sold-out policy on the very topic, making even Paul’s possibly retrograde solutions appear to be better by comparison. I mean, let’s face it … even with all that 60′s civil rights stuff, today we are seeing the ranks of disenfranchised demographics increasing, not the other way around. At what stage *CAN* people start to criticize a half-century old (or older) approach to enforced societal interaction that increasingly serves us poorly?
The SEC is another great example. It is a demonstratively corrupt structure that financial corporations are currently using to ensure their own profitability at the expense of the wider economy and smaller competitors. Glad to see you are so progressively dedicated to it.
IMO, the reason why the corporate interests rule your party’s day is because there is seemingly no sliver of the government or any of it’s institutions, no matter how corrupt and ineffective, that one can recommend eliminating or significantly changing which doesn’t end up being interpreted as treason. When it comes down to it, Democrats are far too scared to change anything substantial; far easier to keep throwing in with a party who you know will never do anything worth a spit and then just bitching a lot.
In a world of half-full glasses. What I see is that Ron Paul would advance many, many worthwhile things. And he has the benefit that we can be confident that he really would do what he promised. How many worthwhile things have Democrats advanced in the age of Obama? How many promises has he kept? Certainly you aren’t going to propose that a HCR “solution” that guarantees zero price controls and a customer base captive to private industry is preferable to Ron Paul’s vision of just keeping the (clearly) incompetent assholes of government the hell out of it?
Ron Paul would not be elected King. He can’t break the laws or overrule them and has clearly spoken out against the idea of an imperialist executive. He can only use his bully pulpit to make recommendations to congress and use his veto pen. I think he could be a very useful foil to the corporatist morass that is our legislative branch.
Democrats really do suck on a level that it is difficult to find a scale to measure. Sure, the GOP sucks … but with a certain honesty about who they are. Democrats are pretty much the same but massive liars about what they believe in on top of it all. If it’s between what you guys have been offering America as options and Ron Paul. Give me Ron Paul. He is only a viable candidate because Democrats are failing to do what they need to do on behalf of America.
Soooooo you’re saying on an opinion forum, that I should keep my opinions to myself. Why? Because like vector56 so obligingly pointed out, I’m a “pushy” “girl”? I’ll take it under advisement. Thanks for your participation.
Margaret, your diary presents an excellent resource in the consideration of the candidacy of Ron Paul. And you yourself have weighted the pros and cons, as have various responders, according to what you feel is most valuable both to you and to the country at large.
A huge issue for me, as it is for Paul supporters, is ongoing war. This colors and affects every aspect of our lives and it affects (for me) any future vote for Obama. I cannot do it. He can reverse course on every aspect of domestic policy to favor what I agree with, and I cannot ever again vote for the man. He’s a war criminal in my eyes.
If I vote, however, it will be for someone who will have Paul’s convictions against warmongering imperialism, but they will also have to have a sensible economic outlook which restores government’s regulatory powers on corporations and banks. The free market system has failed, and it has fused with warmongering in shock and awe. Someone has to be able to give that argument AS A WHOLE and Mr. Paul is not the one to do it; he only has half. And sadly, the half that he does have is weakened by the half he does not.
I really appreciate the attempts on your exhaustive thread by his supporters as well as your own and others in meeting the challenge – this to me expresses the anguish we have all experienced having for so long to endure a mainstream monopoly of entirely false arguments and ad hominem attacks from both sides on radio in particular, a dialogue wherein reasonable alternatives were hardly ever allowed on the table, and public protest against this muted, restricted, eliminated entirely.
So I ask, plead even, where is the candidate who can express the entire package for liberal-progressives? Please sir or madam, step forward and do so! Time is running low, and we fervently desire the whole seamless approach to our political
quagmire, let it be voiced! Then, only then, progressives and libertarians alike can unite. Not this government, but government; that’s what it is all about.
Very much recommended. Thank you for your efforts.
It may have been more misleading than rational. I took a look at Margaret’s wikipedia link for :
Here’s a fuller quote:
According to Paul, the articles were ghost-written. Therefore, he’s not the author. Which is not what I thought after reading the section you quoted.
At the very least, you should have noted that Paul claims not to be the author, and furthermore accepts “some moral responsibility”, but that you, personally, don’t believe him. (Alternatively, you could construct a more detailed argument as to why you don’t believe Paul.)
If I was a teacher, and somebody handed in a paper with such a misleading or unsupported claim, I’d mark it down on that basis.
“I’m not your “girl”. Disgusting to see misogyny isn’t dead even at FDL.”
Stop it with the labeling; the term “my girl”, is kinda like “homeboy” among we “ethic” types: its a term of endearment (believe it or not I like you in my own freaky way).
So, I’ll call your “misogyny” and raise you 2 “racisms”!
Enough all ready with the labeling!
Thank you for reading. :)
I did recommend this – but when I do so, there is an interminable wait so I don’t think it actually registers. Sorry about that.
Clueless liberal is clueless. The mush-headedness of your logic is brutal.
So, your proposal is that Bernie Sanders … who runs as an independent/socialist and then literally joins the Democratic party for the legislative session is somehow more true to their ideology or voters who sent them to office than a guy who just honestly tells the voters what party he’s going to be a member of before they cast their vote? And seriously, Lieberman? IMO, you discredit an already shaky premise by including him.
You also seem wholly clueless of the currents within Libertarian movement. Only Democrats view their party as a definitive entity that gives substance to their beliefs. The rest of us, libertarians in particular, realize that a party is just a label and use them as a VEHICLE to advance objectives while still being honest, free, Americans dedicated first and foremost to our Country and Families. Partisan loyalty is a terribly unpatriotic thing.
But I must admit to a bit of morbid morbid curiosity: What’s your take on Bob Barr and how does that fit with the idea of movement politicians that accurately represent the ideology of the party they purport to represent? Certainly you aren’t going to assert Barr’s neocon-leaning policy prescriptions are better aligned to libertarian views than Ron Paul’s? Who was the unquestioned star of the Libertarian counter-convention in ’08 again? Not Bob Barr.
That term is misogynistic among “ethnic types” too, even if the culture doesn’t see it that way. Stop pretending I’m some kind of elitist. The most I’ve ever made in a year is 39,250 bucks and I haven’t made anywhere close to that in years. I’m a working stiff and always have been. What college I have comes from pure interest in the specific subject or course and what was required for certain jobs. I spent five years as an airframe mechanic in the Navy, (enlisted) and served in the first Persian Gulf war. I am not, nor have I ever been prior to today, been accused of being a “yuppie”. So please take your stereotypes elsewhere.
“A huge issue for me, as it is for Paul supporters, is ongoing war. This colors and affects every aspect of our lives and it affects (for me) any future vote for Obama”
That’s it in a nut shell! While many here express compassion domestically, they do not seem to have that fundamental sense urgency (say as if their children were being ripped apart in front of their very eyes bu cluster bombs) when it comes to war.
Right. This is the same Ron Paul who, during the last election campaign, specifically said that his views on such things (the Gold Standard in particular) represented an ideological high-bar. Implementation of such concepts were not to be a part of his stated approach to practical governance in any way. He made clear his view is that the President is required to show deference to the laws of America and expressed a specific intent to work in harmony with them to make the system more effective and less corrupt.
But you bring up an interesting question about the Fed. In light of everything that’s been going on during the last few years … how the hell can you continue to assert that the current approach to money and economics is not due for a massive overhaul? What do you see wrong with the idea of reforming or radically restructuring that part of our government’s systemic approach?
[I'm guessing the snide comments are because this post started with snideness and that has been the tone of most Paul critics on the thread throughout. That sort of thing tends to beget more of the same.]
Poor, abused victimized Ron Paul supporters! Typical conservative pearl clutching.
Anyway, thanks for reading and responding everybody who took the time to do so, even if it was just to call me names. This post is almost twenty hours old now and standing in your withering fire for that long has taken a toll on me so I’m going to say thanks again and goodbye. :)
Soooooo …. where did I say to keep your opinions to yourself?
From where I sit, there is a lot of meat in this here comment to your article. Further, it seems as if you have decided to ignore all of it and instead address an inaccurate characterization of something you imagine I said.
Interesting. Intellectually dishonest, but interesting.
I love it when trolls come in wavin’ their troll flag via their username.
Prision planet that’s all you see there is Ron Paul shirts, mugs, he’s going to save us all bullshit. The fact that the people at that site love him is a big red flag for me. That’s the place that condems Soros but not a peep about the Koch brothers.
Pfffft!
Did anyone mention that he raised Rand Paul? That in itself should disqualify him.
We’ve seen the enemy, and you have kicked its butt.
I hope you have a long, cool drink and a warm kitteh to look forward to this evening.
Spectacular, Margaret. A tour de force on all levels. Rawk on!