A lot of truth here

On the war, on the military, on globalization-- Paul is very good.

I have problems with his libertarian approach to government and the commons. But you are dead on about so many democrats. They are risking losing a whole lot of folks like you, who are sick and tired of being lied to and betrayed by Bush enablers Nancy, Stenny, Harry and Chuck.

Even if you are a progressive who would never vote for Ron Paul, one thing he is doing is showing that a Republican can oppose the war, oppose globalization, oppose big military and imperialist, neocon thinking. Just as Kucinich and Gravel push the dems to the left, Paul does the same for the Republicans. I think that of the Republican candidates, he is by far the best.

It will be interesting to see. If Huckabee does much better than all the Republicans who stand up for traditional conservative values-- lower taxes, small gov, big military, Iraq forever war-- that will show that the most powerful base the right wing still holds is the religious right, and it may persuade those traditional republicans to loosen up on some of the issues they have been most neanderthal about.

by Rob Kall (805 articles, 3917 quicklinks, 331 diaries, 1697 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 9:02:26 AM
 

Huckabee TV spot reminds Ron Paul of fascism prediction

A new campaign ad from Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee sounds a lot like a literary prediction about the coming of fascism, according to fellow GOP Oval Office seeker Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

Huckabee's ad, a Christmas message referencing the "celebration of the birth of Christ," depicts the former Arkansas governor in front of a window frame that appears to resemble a cross.

Asked by Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy what he thought of the TV spot, Paul minced no words.

"Well, I haven't thought about it completely, but you know, it reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said," Paul responded. "He says, 'When fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag carrying a cross."

Read entire piece and watch video:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Ron_Paul_suggests_Huckabee_selling_fascism_1218.html

by Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 10:47:34 AM
 

Ron Paul on Meet the Press! The man was AMAZING!! A true v

by Bill Douglas (68 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Sunday, December 23, 2007 at 5:55:57 PM
 

R. Paul is not going to change enough of what's wrong

I have trouble with R. Paul's Libertarian stance too. IMHO _well not so humble - we have so many different corporate welfare programs these days that it amounts to an international corporate communism - but we have fewer and fewer programs or policies designed for the benefit of our citizens.   Unfortunately, Ron Paul would only encourage the growth of corporate control and manipulation of our government & the appropriation of our tax money to add to their profit margins without regard to any national interests. Ron Paul would not stop the rampant piracy of the international corporations on our national treasury and resources because Ron does not believe in regulation.

Remember the deregulation of the banking industry cost this country millions to bail out the savings and loans.?  Regulation is in the best interests of the nation - our tax money souldn't be used to compensate the perpetrators of fraud. In my opinion, laissez faire - unregulated capitalism is ruthless and savage  and promotes the most ruthless and those with the least conscience. Communism is another system that is totalitarian, ignores civil liberties and human rights, and offers no rewards for the exceptionally talented, the exceptionally creative, or the exceptionally motivated.

In my world view there are two economic extremes: Communism and laissez faire capitalism. I think the true moderate center is socialism - and the countries of Canada and many European countries are much closer to the center than we are. In our system the extremes of capitalism and communism have met and married one another. Our system marries the worst of the totalitarian communist system and will increasingly encourage the worst abuses of which unregulated capitalism is quite capable: sweat shops, the virtual enslavement of labor, child labor and the criminalization of poverty if not debtor prisons.  I'm afraid that Americans, because their sense of history is nil, are doomed to repeat it.   The power of huge monopolies that have grown ever bigger since the Reagan era are beyond the ability of any one country to stem their abuses. The international mega  corps are not interested in any piddling welfare check they want the wole damned bank;and our deficit, thanks to deregulation and the "free market", have turned America into an impoverished debtor nation. 

Unrestrained corporations are in pig heaven now as long as BushCo keeps deregulating everything and passes out no-bid contract as literal "party favors".  Yesterday's robber barons have become international pirates.

Ron Paul as a Libertarian or a free market enthusiast does not believe in regulation of the Enrons or WorldComs. There are two extreme opposites in the economic sphere - those 2 extremes, I think, are communism and laissez faire capitalism.   The latter evil is one Ron Paul does not recognize as such.

For instance: do you want safe food?   Since 2000 the one  small meat packing company that wanted to inspect ALL its meat for mad cow was told that to do so was unfair competition with huge companies that didn't want to be bothered with the additional cost.

I do not believe thatRon Paul is a man who will heal the racial divisions in this country either.  The racial divides in this country do not serve the interests of the middle class or the working man.  As long as the crabs are fighting at the bottom of the barrel over crumbs they will all subsist on fewer and fewer crumbs and ignore the boiling pot readied on the stove top nearby.

by Kathleen Bushman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 19 comments) on Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 9:42:28 PM
 

Awesome

I'm a three time Nader supporter and recall the days when Jerry Brown Ran for president 92.  Seemed the yard sign poll showed Jerry Brown and Perot to be in the favorites.  That was also the election when Clinton was announced "president" before all the ballots were turned in.  It's a good time to be a rEVOLutionary.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 10:05:01 AM
 

Are you a Liberal?

If you were truly a liberal you could in no way support a man like Ron Paul. A Paul Presidency would signify an attack on the single most successful government program in history, social security. Libertarian politics would work to end all government run social programs in fact and would support the continued control of our government by corporations, this is, by the by, is the very definition of Fascism.

I believe that it is the paucity of good candidates and Paul's correct stance on the war that make so many good intentioned but self deluded folks support him.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 10:57:32 AM
 

Nope, I'm not, but you still got this wrong.

First, Ron Paul is not out to take social security or medicare or medicaid or anything else away from people who need it, so this should be a non-issue.  However, I've noticed with you liberals (so kind of you to label yourself for me) you hear exactly what you want to hear and nothing else.  While he wants to make the social security program optional for those currently paying into it, he has said many times that he would not seek to take away anyone's benefits and would make good on the obligation the government has to it's citizens at this point.  And if allowing people to opt out of your program is a sure way to end it, it must have been pretty poor to start with.

Second,  if social security is the most successful social program ever, everyone in favor of social programs should be somewhere hiding under a rock right now.  The social security funds are empty, and likely when the baby boomers start retiring we are going to be severely strapped as a country just paying for all of the benefits.  In addition to this, at the same time social security benefits haven't kept up with inflation and don't allow a person a decent retirement if that is all they have to depend on anyway.  It's horrible any way you look at it, even if you don't include the fact it's just a wealth redistribution scheme.

by Cliff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 12:01:09 PM
 

Sarcasm is a two way street

and if you want this discussion to degenerate into insult you have made an excellent start.

Now, Ill give you the benefit of actually having a brain and ignore the rant above, which, by the by, is a direct lie or an abysmal ignorance of Dr. Paul's politics. For an unwitting support of my contention see the quote of Dr. Paul's own words re: social security below. Thanks Frisco for so eloquently proving my point.

I am a Liberal, as a matter of fact, and that you see that as an insult exposes you as an agent of the right..I see my political position as one to be proud of, you see I do not have to lie and distort the position of those whom I support, why then do you?

Take a journey of discovery to any of the several Libertarian sites on this vast internet of ours, well not you exactly but anyone reading your scribblings who actually seeks the truth of Paul's politics and positions.

I view this outpouring for Paul as a way to keep votes from those who may defeat whichever abysmal candidate the GOP puts forward. I t wont work of course and Paul will fade away, and good for the nation that he does.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 7:24:21 AM
 

Thou doth protest too much, methinks

because your title and first sentence were condescending.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 278 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 3:06:53 PM
 

speaking of which

My first comment was for the author, that this neocon chose to intercede and spread his childish garbage about liberals earned him the second response. What your problem is Ive no idea, not that I care. Intelligent debate is beyond you apparently or you wouldnt descend into cryptic and silly nothings...

But thanks for trying to keep up with the adults. I understand that any topic concerning Ron Paul brings the righties out of the woodwork.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 3:11:23 PM
 

Just saying, you don't even know how often you offend

You said the author was not a liberal if he supported Ron Paul, Ron Paul would attack Social Security (in a way that implies cuts would come immediately, or at least you make no effort to clarify that), Libertarians would work to support Fascism, and Ron Paul’s supporters are deluded, and you said it as if you are the authority on who’s a real liberal and who is not.

The commenter disagreed with the way you characterized Ron Paul’s position on Social Security, and was obviously offended by your tone.  But, he did present facts and opinion about Ron Paul and Social Security.  Yet, you chose to respond to his liberal crack and with much greater sarcasm than he used rather than take issue with his facts and opinion about Social Security.

I was just giving you a little poke in the side, like hey, wake up.  You started it, and you don’t even know it.  This is after reading many posts in which you do, yes you do misrepresent Ron Paul’s positions, also a few posts in which you responded to comments of mine and mischaracterized me.

I have two other posts in this thread.  If you want intelligent debate, you are welcome to comment.  If not, well I won't poke you again.  You are way too angry inside.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 278 comments) on Thursday, December 20, 2007 at 8:26:53 PM
 

You gotta wake up sometime

Just saying, you don't even know how often you offend

Who says I dont? When that poster took it upon himself to address a post aimed at the author he was within his right. When he tried to show how witty he was by insulting liberals he showed quite the opposite. I am rather blunt, and I like it that way. Especially in the face of abysmal stupidity. Are oyu his keeper that you leap to the defense of such a moron?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, December 21, 2007 at 11:23:39 AM
 

Yes, it's time to wake up

Have you seen the posts, "Ron Paul cured my apathy"?  Ron Paul is affording us a rEVOLution.  What does that mean to you?  To those who have woken up, it means we have an opportunity to take power from the feds.  That is the bottom line.  It's ok to be a liberal and support Ron Paul depending on what issues are important to you and how passionate you are about those issues.  Will Ron Paul end the war?  YES.  I am very passionate about that and if I was a one issue person, he would have my vote on that alone.  But I am more than a one issue person.  I want the war on drugs to end.  He's got my vote.  And I want cannabis crops in the USA.  Ron Paul has MY top three issues covered, thus, he has my vote.  Now maybe abortion or ANWAR are more imporant to you than ending the war.  I understand that and our votes will cancel each other.  May the best man win!  Indeed Paul and I have issues, we do not agree, however, I can live with what he is proposing, to give it to the states...ACT LOCALLY...I like that.  I'm reading more about Ron Paul and I think his ideas are worth a shot.  They are the best shot.  I supported Kucinich in 2004 until Nader told me, "Kucinich is going to fold, I'm running".  Allot of antiwar GOP supported Nader..Justin Raimondo at www.antiwar.com.  I in Paul rEVOLution I see a new day dawning and sweeping us into a new age.  Time for TRUTH and Justice.  Look.  Rob Kall just endorced Ron Paul with exception, so I'll send Rob Kall $25.00 because I'm supporting those who support the rEVOLution.  There it is and it's AWESOME.  WE CAN is you and me joining together for GLOBAL PEACE.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments) on Monday, December 24, 2007 at 11:29:23 AM
 

Do all liberals think alike?

     Here are some of Dr. Pauls words and thoughts re: Social Security.

     It may help. It may not. Sounds sensible to me and worth thinking about. 

     Most Americans already know that Social Security is in trouble. Demographic shifts and an aging population have undermined the unspoken foundation of the system, which is the practice of taxing younger generations to pay benefits for current retirees. Younger generations, however, simply aren’t big enough to pay for the millions of baby boomers who will begin retiring in the next decade. When Social Security began in the 1930s, many Americans never reached age 65. Today, however, millions of retirees live well into their eighties and nineties. These realities mean the current system could collapse in as little as twenty to thirty years.

     Seniors hope the system will hold together for the remainder of their lives, while younger working people hope government will somehow fix things before they retire. Not surprisingly, Congress has chosen to ignore the problem until it becomes acute. It’s hard to sell voters on austerity today to avoid a relatively distant crisis. Politicians usually operate on the opposite principle, by promising great things now and leaving the bills for others to pay later.

     The greatest threat to your Social Security retirement funds is Congress itself. Congress has never required that Social Security tax dollars be kept separate from general revenues. In fact, the Social Security “trust fund” is not a trust fund at all. The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not deposited into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are spent immediately to pay current benefits, and to fund completely unrelated federal programs. Your Social Security administration “account” is nothing more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be around to pay your benefits later. Decades of spendthrift congresses have turned the Social Security system into a giant Ponzi scheme, always dependent on new generations. The size and longevity of the Baby Boom generation, however, will finally collapse the house of cards.

     We’ve all heard proposals for “privatizing” the Social Security system. The best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. But putting Social Security funds into government-approved investments could have dangerous consequences. Private companies would become a partner of sorts with the government. Individuals still would not truly own their invested Social Security funds. Payroll taxes likely would be raised to cover payments to current beneficiaries, as the President alluded to when warning us that fixing Social Security would be “costly.”

     Furthermore, who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles deserve government approval? Which politicians would you trust to build an investment portfolio with billions of your Social Security dollars? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would seek to have their favored investments approved by the government. In a free market, an underperforming or troubled company suffers a decrease in its stock price, forcing it either to improve or lose value. Wary investors hesitate to buy its stock after the price falls. If a company successfully lobbied Congress, however, it would enjoy a large investment of your tax dollars. This investment would cause an artificial increase in its stock price, deceiving private investors and unfairly harming the company's honest competition. Government-managed investment of tax dollars in the private market is a recipe for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.

     The Social Security crisis is a spending crisis. The program could be saved tomorrow if Congress simply would stop spending so much money, apply even 10% of the bloated federal budget to a real trust fund, and begin saving your contributions to earn simple interest. That this simple approach seems impossible speaks volumes about the inability of Congress to cut spending no matter what the circumstances.

November 9, 2004 Dr. Ron Paul

     peace

by mikel paul (10 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 388 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 12:09:01 PM
 

OMG, We Agree on Something!

Ardee, we may have other differences but on this one we agree nearly completely. Paul is cleary a small-l libertarian in his thinking and his politics. I find a good bit t admire in libertarianism as a philosophy but as political policy, I cannot support it. While you and I probably have different reasons for not being in favor of "the other L word", at least we seem to agree on Paul.

by Dan Shafer (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 34 comments) on Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 2:14:26 PM