 |
|
Add to My Group
|
December 26, 2007 at 11:33:52
Agents of Disinformation, The Smearing of Dr. Ron Paul by Anthony Wade Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
December 26, 2007 Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.” This old truism seems to be playing out in the case of the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul for president. At first he was ignored. He was ignored in the early republican debates, getting one question for every 2.5 his opponents received. He was ignored by the corporate media in the early running too, as they assumed everyone would naturally gravitate toward their pre-selected candidates. Something funny happened on the way to our corporate election though; the people weren’t buying it anymore. Paul started to receive huge grassroots support across party and ideological lines. Once they could not ignore him, they tried to laugh him out of the race by marginalizing him at every turn. The proceeding debates saw the opponents microphones elevated so you could hear the snickering at Dr. Paul when he was answering questions designed to make him look foolish. I remember Moderator Chris Wallace actually asking Paul if he took his marching orders from al Qaeda and Paul slapping the fake reporter back into his place by answering that he took his orders from the Constitution. I recall post debate “analysts” dismissing the post-debate poll results showing Paul had clearly won the debates. One actually cried, “Oh no not again! Ron Paul did not win this debate!” Paul’s answers were mocked and his positions derided. But something funny happened on the way to dismissing Dr. Ron Paul. The people weren’t buying it. In fact, his contributions exploded to the point where he now is better positioned financially then all of his opponents and it was all done through local folks, not mega-corporations. Unable to ignore him and laugh him off the national stage, we now see the third tactic in the Gandhi truism taking place; they are now attacking him. The real problem is not the attack but the disinformation associated with it. Politicians with records as long as Dr. Paul should have plenty of ammunition lying around for opponents, but people are resorting to distorting that record and either boldly lying about what would occur under a Paul administration or simply being so ignorant, as to not understand how our system of government works. This is an attempt to clear the smear. I write this with full disclosure that I do not know if I would vote for Dr. Paul, as I would like to hear more specifics on certain policy issues. I am neither a registered democrat nor republican. I am a registered American. I believe that we are bound to a responsibility to listen and discern what would be in the best interest of our country and the people residing in it. If that person comes from the left, so be it and if not, so be it. I have written over 200 articles in the past five years about the abuses we have suffered under the Bush administration, so do not assume that I am some right-wing guy. I believe in the truth. The truth is that I have heard a lot of reasons over the past several days why people think they could not possibly vote for Dr. Paul and a lot of them are just inaccurate on their merits. The first reason I have heard is that he is a republican. While that is true, the notion that you cannot vote for a republican, highlights what has been wrong with this country for too long now. The two-party system is designed to make the two parties rich, that’s it folks. While there are some fundamental differences, they exist for the continual existence of each other. They pit one against the other so you have someone to blame for your lot in life or the perceived shape of the country. They introduce “wedge issues” to make us argue about minutia, while the larger problems are barely discussed. I could go on about the problems with blind party loyalty but since I just did an article yesterday about it, I will simply link it here:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__071224_blind_partisanship_i.htm
The next rationale I have heard is that you cannot vote for Dr. Paul because he is a corporatist, meaning he will allow corporations to do as they wish at the expense of individuals. This is patently false on its face. In fact, Dr. Paul is the only candidate who is actively speaking out against fascism in this country. He has consistently voted against corporate control and does not take a dime from lobbyists. Do you know who takes the most corporate donations in either party? Hillary Clinton. Paul is the only electable candidate who is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. It just really worries me when I see well intended people who consider themselves “progressive” who will not vote for Paul because they think he likes corporations over people but they will have no problem pulling the lever for someone like Hillary, who is bought and owned, pure and simple. So are Obama, Edwards and the entire GOP field except Paul. Judicial Watch just put out their 10 most corrupt politicians list and among the ten were Hillary, Obama, Rudy and Huckabee. This is the same Judicial Watch that has been suing the Bush Administration for years now. We have had seven years now of a corporate president and I do not want another. If the machine gets what it wants however, we will have two choices both owned by the corporate powers that be. The only voice for the people in the field is Dr. Ron Paul. So if you are deciding the not vote for him, fine; but don’t do it because someone tells you an untruth. Listen to what the man has to say and examine his voting record. There are people who either wish to purposefully mislead you or are simply misinformed.
Another rationale I have heard is that Ron Paul will eliminate everything the government does! Ehh, not exactly if you understand how government works. The first mischaracterization is that Paul would allow services to disappear. Not true. He would return the power to the state level as was designed by our founding fathers. I have heard, “but what about the Department of Education?” What about it? Has the federally mandated “No Child Left Behind” worked? Was it even funded correctly? Go ask your local teacher if they like having the federal government interfering in their curriculum. Go ask them if they like having to stop teaching their kids to prepare them for tests so their schools can pull down federal dollars. I worked in education for eight years and I do not know if eliminating the Department of Education and returning power to the state and local levels can work, but I know what is not working. The second mischaracterization is that Paul can somehow do all of this on his own. The Executive Branch cannot. There are precious few people in Congress who lean libertarian folks. Dr. Paul would be forced to come to the center and soften his positions if he were to get anything done. But at least he would start his move to the center without a dime from corporate lobbyists. At least his core principles include ending war, restoring civil liberties and a sound understanding of the problem we face with our devalued currency. The notion that any president can walk in and impose his will on Congress is ludicrous. The only way that can happen is if the congress sets aside their responsibility like the last six years out of blind party loyalty. That could happen under Clinton or Obama, but not under the libertarian Paul. He would be forced to work with Congress and he would. The reason for the corruption the past six years is not that the people were republican; it was because they had absolute power. They had no checks and balances. The same would have happened if it was all democrats. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When faced with the inability to smear Paul on the above mentioned issues, we see them turn to the wedge issues. These are designed to distract us from what is truly important and to have us argue over issues that truly do not matter to the powers that be. I have heard, “I can’t vote for Paul because he is pro-life.” That myopic view of voting is dangerous on both sides. I would not encourage any of my Christian friends to solely vote pro-life without considering the entire candidate and I would not recommend any liberal to solely vote for pro-choice. It is simply an ignorant way of voting. But moving past that, even if you are pro-choice, Dr. Paul can still be a viable candidate. As a libertarian, his stance on abortion is that it should not be the role of the federal government to decide the abortion issue. It should be left up to the states. Is he personally pro-life? Absolutely. He is a doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies. Is that personal belief so surprising? The larger point is that he would not interject his personal beliefs into his governmental beliefs. To say that because he is pro-life personally so you cannot vote for him is to completely not understand how he views the constitution. He does not want the federal government in the people’s bedrooms or doctor’s offices. This of course leads to the next boogy-man, who will a President Paul nominate to the Supreme Court? His beliefs are that the federal government should not police the world or the citizenry. He is actually quite progressive on that, more so then the democratic front-runners. He would not nominate pro-corporate judges like Bush did or strict anti-abortion judges. He would nominate judges who believe as he does that the government should be protecting our civil liberties, not taking them away. Another wedge issue I have heard bantered around is what he believes regarding evolution. When I hear this I know the end of the attacks are coming because his opponents are running out of things to say. First of all, Dr. Paul did not raise his hand in the debate when the moderator asked for a show of hands those who did not believe in evolution. It is my understanding that he does in fact believe in evolution but once again, the larger point is not what he personally believes but what he believes the role of the federal government is. He does not believe that the federal government should be involved in determining education. That should be left up to the state and local officials.
Look, I may not believe in everything Ron Paul believes in but the illusion is that any one candidate represents everything you would want. They sold you this two headed monster and you bought it. You believe that party is somehow more important than country. It is not. You fear the lie that Dr. Paul would side with corporations over people but are willing to vote for people like Hillary who is bought and owned by corporations. You fear Dr. Paul because you hear the lie that he wants to eliminate public education when all he wants to do is restore power to the states and localities but you will vote for people who got behind the ridiculous No Child Left Behind debacle. You fear the fact that he is pro-life and the lie that he doesn’t believe in evolution when neither would be an issue in a Paul presidency. You hear niceties such as universal healthcare and pre-k but do not realize that the candidates that are selling you these notions do not have the money to pay for them. I know we hear the amount of the national debt and shrug our shoulders but only Dr. Paul is talking about it for what it truly is, the greatest threat to our nation today. If our currency collapses we would see an economic 9-11 that would devastate this country. You are willing to vote for a candidate that supported this Iraq War and will not even commit to bringing all the troops home but Paul is somehow dismissed?
I do not know if I will vote for Dr. Paul, should he survive the primaries or run as an independent. But I do know that the main three planks of his platform are pretty appealing and progressive. He wants to bring all the troops home, stop using war as a policy and restore the constitution. Secondly, he believes in restoring civil liberties and is against a national ID card. Third, he understands the disaster looming in regards to our currency and will commit to paying down the ridiculous debt. The current debt is over 9 trillion dollars folks! Do you think it is “progressive” to add to it? Those are three pretty good places to start as a candidate. Remember, Paul could not do everything he wants. He would have to come to the center. Bush did not have to because he had a GOP Congress that abdicated their oversight responsibilities. Paul will not have a libertarian congress to work with, ever. He will always have to compromise. But at least he will do so from a fundamental position listed above; ending the wars, restoring civil liberties and paying off the debt to stabilize our currency. He is the only sane voice amongst the GOP. He is the only one not taking lobbyist money so he is not beholden to special interests. He is the only one speaking about fascism, curtailing the expanded powers of the executive, CIA and FBI. He is the only one outside of the machine that has a legitimate shot of winning. That makes him dangerous to the powers that be.
So dangerous that we have seen smear after smear on him. They tried to ignore him but the people liked what they heard. They tried to laugh him off the stage but people started sending him money. Now they are attacking him, spreading lies and disinformation; hoping to scare people away from him. The only thing left is for him to survive that and win. I am not endorsing him because there are still 11 months before the election. Of course I would endorse him for the GOP field because he is the only one doesn’t want to blow up half the world. I am not suggesting you make your final decision either. Just remember what Gandhi said. They are attacking him for a reason. They are throwing fear dust in your eyes, hoping you will be blinded from the truth. Listen to what the man says. See what he has voted for. Inform yourself so you cannot be misinformed by others. The only thing that matters is the truth and Dr. Paul is the only electable candidate who is not reading off a script. It is actually quite refreshing.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 64 comments |
|
Smeraing Ron Paul is easy
when you know the truth...he is an advocate for total privatization of all "public works" even the National and State Parks, all government services would be privatized under Ron Pauls plan.....he is also a racist, the neo-nazi white supremist are behind this rising star..just like the religious nuts are behind the rise of Huckabee...can't this country elect some one whose only agenda is to protect the Constitution, the laws, the country and all its people? by Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 287 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:36:03 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: Whom?
Who do you suggest? Which candidate is more Constitutional than Paul? Really, I'm curious. by Flannel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:51:22 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Chris Dodd's main platform is to restore the Constitution.
Further, he left the campaign trail to go to Congress to stand against immunity for telecoms. I did not hear of Ron Paul taking a stand with him on this important issue. by Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 1:06:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I do not dislike Dodd
But lets be fair, you will get more votes than him. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 1:13:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Dodd Ignores Constitution
Chris Dodd calls for national health care legislation, which is clearly not Constitutional under Article I, section 8. If Dodd were honest, he would ask for a Constitutional ammendment as stated in Article V. A radical change in government like national health care requires a broad public consensus and extended public debate. Dodd is NOT a defender of the Constitution, Ron Paul IS the defender. by Rolf Lindgren (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 2:48:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Neo-nazi racist.....
You throw out names but no evidence. Ron Paul is not a neo nazi, he is truly the only anti facist running. He is not a racist. Stop the name calling and labeling without support. by Tim P (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:58:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Read Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters (e.g. 1992 editions)
Sorry, Healthport, but Ron Paul is a racist, convicted by his own writings. See today's (12/26/07) Daily KOS for many excerpts, too many to constitute simply a fluke, a remark out-of-context, a slip-of-the-tongue. He's not a Constitutionalist, he's a small-town bigot. by R. Queisser (15 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 81 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:45:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: So there is no truth at all
to the fact that blacks make up 12% of the general population but vastly more than that in the prison population? When RP was talking about that he was merely making a statement of fact, not being racist. by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 1:46:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Take it even further
He did not even write that newsletter and the staffer who did was dismissed. This is a complete non-story being dredged up by the machine to try and Howard Dean his candidacy. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 2:49:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Racist...Ron Paul...not a chance....
That old regurgitated tripe about Ron Paul being a racist has already has been debunked months ago by several different and very reliable sources. First, I doubt if a racist bigot would say that Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks are two of his personal heros. I also doubt if a racist bigot would even consider an African American as a running mate...but Ron Paul has mentioned that he would like to have Walter Block consider the position of VP. Additionally, read this, does this sound like the words of a racist? "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups. Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however, well-intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism." by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 7:10:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: C'Mon
Are you that desperate? Paul is not a racist or a white supremicist. Go shill somewhere else. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 1:01:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Free the Innocent - Vote for Ron Paul
I've got a friend who was sent to prison a few years ago on a bogus drug charge. Now he can't get decent job, nor support his family. He never hurt anyone. Ron Paul will pardon everyone convicted of a victimless "crime" in the unconstitutional, immoral, and racist war on drugs. My friend will have a chance to get his life and familty back if Ron Paul is elected next year. Your comments are not vet productive. by Rolf Lindgren (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 2:39:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Smearing Paul
Of course smearing Dr. Paul is easy when you obviously know nothing about him. Have you gone to his website (www.ronpaul2008.com) and reviewed his positions....NO, of course not. Do not confuse me with the facts! by John Schupp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 2:56:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: mhmm...a racist, huh?
can't this country elect some one whose only agenda is to protect the Constitution, the laws, the country and all its people? Well, the entire post is completely without proof nor merits, however, I can and answer your question which was the last line of your post... The Answer is obviously Ron Paul...He openly is defending the Constitution and wakening the American People to the realizations of it currently being stomped on. The Constitution is the Greatest Law of the Land, Dr. Ron Paul is simply wanting to get the Federal Government back to the Constitutional Levels and give the Powers back to the States as well as the People. Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate for the country and the People. The Proof lies in the facts that every candidate running for President is a Member of the Counsel for Foreign Relations...Please do your Research on that "Counsel" Have a Nice Day. by countryboypride77 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:37:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Can you prove any of what you just said?
Go ahead. I'll wait. by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 1:43:10 PM (0+)
|
|
What I don't understand is this
I don't understand the, "Well, I support Ron Paul for the republicans". I am an Independent supporting Ron Paul, because of he doesn't get the GOP nomination (and I hope he does), it will be my turn to (again, because in the beginning this rEVOLution was absolute grassroots, the campaign didn't have a sign...and so now you know where we began...make the man a sign!)) to pull this rEVOLution forward into the future. Kucinich is NOT going to get the GOP nomination. Nader isn't going to run because the PN Courts have his bank account frozen over the 2004 law suits Dems piled on him for daring to run as an Independent, McKinney doesn't have a chance in Hell ... and what's your hold out on an endorcement for Ron Paul? I don't understand you. It's time for a regime change. Bush said "You are with us or against us." The rEVOLution is responce to that. What's so hard to endorce? by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:46:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Me?
If your question is directed to me, I would not endorse Paul for the general election because I try to be a responsible citizen. I want to see him in debates. I want to hear his policies and positions. I like what I see so far, but there are 11 months left. It is irresponsible to decide this far out to endorse anyone for the general election. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:58:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I don't accept that
Are you a government employee who might lose his job, and that's why you won't support Ron Paul? What do YOU have to lose supporting a rEVOLution? Hmmmmm. by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 3:57:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nope, nice try
As my bio indicates i work with the disabled for a living and I could find work tomorrow if i lost my job. I just think it is extremely irresponsbile to officially endorse a candidate this early. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. By the way maybe you should focus your negativity on those who seek to tear Paul down, not on those who defend him and the truth about him. Be well. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 5:49:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No no no
If it feels like I'm tearing you down, well, I am, but not doing it out of disrespect, but out of "need" to understand you. Hmmm, you see, I understand, or at least I think I understand what you are saying, and I think, I believe I said this before, that you are insightful and have the ability to express your insights in writing with clarity and skill, and I admire that, because it is not easy for me, being I have disabilities, like dyslexia (and one reason I write is to practice, because it's so hard to see letters clearly, giving up out of frustration and embarrasment over spelling errors, I can not see to fix, is an inner struggle that I fight when I write). When I learned about Ron Paul, I was taken in because his platform covered my top three issues, ending the war, ending the war on drugs, and making cannabis an industrial crop for the USA. No one else had these issues covered. But RP is a Republican, and so I can't go there. My friends did. And this led me to experience a "tearing down" by rEVOLutionaries who think I'm out there for remaining Decline to State Party, though the GOP has refused to offer it's ballot to Independants in history. No GOP ballot for me to vote for Ron Paul in the primary (stats figure this will be the case for 25% RP supporters). Now, I'm ok with it, because as a former Nader volunteer for three brutal elections, as an Indy, if Ron Paul decides to go there, I can help, but still think it's great how the rEVOLution is changing the GOP. I'm endorcing that. In 2004 I supported Kucinich and then switched to Nader...so based on my own experiences Mr. Wade, I don't understand YOU, I understand others here in that, they believe the social system we have now works, and they want to keep it, or they think the social systems are something they can control as they are and make changes...but they can't. Well, this is another subject. Ok you're "drafting Gore". Mr. Wade, you don't owe me an explaination for why you are not endorsing Ron Paul, but I would like to know why. It's apparent I can't imagine. by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 6:28:59 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I will try again
As far as the primaries go, I do endorse Paul. He is clearly the only GOP candidate i would vote for. As for the general election, i think it is irresponsible to draw conlcusions before even one debate is held. I like alot of what Paul says, but I do have questions about how the neediest in society fare under a Paul regime. The notion that "charities" will take care of them is silly and short sighted so i would be most disappointed if that is his stance. Plainly put, i have unanswered questions about how his policies would play out. We also do not know if he will be GOP or independent, who his dem challenger will be etc. That was the point. I am defending the man from lies and disinformation because I have seen it too many times where the machine assassinates a candidate's chracter unfairly. Ron Paul is not a racist but that is the charge being leveld against him every day now. It is not right and i try to stand up for the truth. Be well. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 2:55:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you
I understand. Thank you for giving me the time of day. Ron Paul says that you can not take a public dependent on the government off the welfare state, but what you can do is offer the next generation a choice and an economic base to a free market so they can empower themselves. I think the rEVOLution is a good example in that, it is a free market, like the rEVOLution funding RPs campaign...no one is waiting to see what Ron paul says is ok. Ok. So Thank you again. by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 5:02:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Well said...
I think I'll book mark this article, I have a feeling it will be linked quite a lot in the coming months. I for one support the good Doctor, not because I agree with everyone of his policies, but because I have heard him speak, shook his hand and looked him in the eye once. What I saw was a man I could trust and follow with honor when and if my country asks me once again. by Navyguy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:51:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Fantastic
Well thought out and well written. I agree whole-heartedly. by Leon Kassab (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 1:08:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you
Appreciate it. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 1:14:16 PM (0+)
|
|
To they even teach the constitution in school anymore?
Lies and fear have been created to force people to believe that they cannot exist without social security and medicare. Ron Paul says and believes what most decently educated Americans already know... our country is in deep trouble. My generation, 30-somethings and younger, are going to be faced with the reality that there will be no social security or medicare for us. We are going to have to dig ourselves out of a huge entitlement problem that the greedy Baby Boomer generation has created. "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." - JFK... I ask this, "Can my government get their filthy, gready paws out of my wallet and stop trying to tell me how to live?" The deficit, if you count future social security and medicare shortfalls, is well over $100 trillion dollars. Future workers will support multiple people's incomes under the status quo. I don't mind taking care of my parents. This I will do. I do not want to forcibly take care of someone else's parents in a manner in which I do not approve. Our government is corrupt and in need of revolution, albeit not a violent one. Voting for someone other than Ron Paul, is, in my opinion, voting for more of the exact same. Wedge issues are definitely designed to divide and conquer, although this election cycle, at least, is focusing on immigration, which is a start. by Justin Green (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 1:24:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Well written article
Thanks for writing such a concise article that clearly outlines the issues that have been raised against Ron Paul's positions. It is encouraging that so many people are aware of Ron Paul's positions that articles like this can even be written. I agree with your perception of wedge issues and the methods of control that are used to manipulate the emotions and minds of those controlled by their emotions. Any person, be they a political candidate or your neighbor has some beliefs that you can use to reject them. They also have some beliefs that can be used to unify. My support for Ron Paul comes from those beliefs and PRINCIPALS of his that I believe are good for the country. I've voted Democrat every chance I've had since I started voting in 1996 but I am going to vote Republican in this primary. He seems to be the only candidate who understands living within your means and do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. For the last couple of years I've been saying, "How would we feel if the Chinese came and did to us what we are doing to the Middle East." and Ron Paul is now echoing those words. They are common sense, and anyone with any sort of perception of what really drives human behavior can see that our foreign policy is creating many, many more enemies. Regarding his "home front" positions, I agree. I'm pro-choice and I like the idea that he will let the states decide. I live in California. We aren't going to outlaw abortion here anytime soon. I think that so many people are so conditioned to need a big protector to take care of them and to enforce their views on others. The government has become this big stick that we want to use to beat each other over the head with. The people keep giving the government more and more power in vain hope that the government will support their position over the position of others. In the end, the politicans do what they want to do and the people be damned. What it comes down to is that we really need to develop personal responsibility. We need to take care of ourselves and our loved ones and our neighbors. You can't legislate that kind of morality. by dave562 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 1:37:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Could you comment more on Paul's stance on private property?
Mr. Wade, you say “You believe that party is somehow more important than country. It is not. You fear the lie that Dr. Paul would side with corporations over people but are willing to vote for people like Hillary who is bought and owned by corporations.” Well, I am not willing to vote for Hillary because of her war hawk stance as well as her relationship with corporations, of which Walmart is (or was) one. So you can’t get me to excuse Dr. Paul on that basis that so is Hillary. From what I have read, he would side with the corporations over the welfare of the people -- say on health insurance and on energy production. So I would like to hear more of your defense of his stance on corporations and on the environment including national parks. Paul scores 5% by the LCV on environmental issues “The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) is the political voice of the national environmental movement and the only organization devoted full-time to shaping a pro-environment Congress and White House. We run tough and effective campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates, and support those leaders who stand up for a clean, healthy future for America. Through our National Environmental Scorecard and Presidential Report Card we hold Congress and the Administration accountable for their actions on the environment. “ from www.issues2000.org by Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 1:39:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks for the question
I tried to be clear that I am not endorsing Ron Paul for the general election yet as there are still some policy questions I would have. I am afaird i do not know his stance on everything. It is not to difficult to assume why the Conservation League would not like him. They need federal dollars to continue the projects they support. Paul always votes no for spending federal dollars for anything he feels the fed should not be involved in. It is not just the environment. I would like to hear his stance on how he views protecting the environment if the fed is not inviolved. While it is important, i feel the larger issues take precedent though. Remember, if elected he cannot just eliminate anything, he would have to work with Congress. The purpose of these articles is to stop the spreading of disinformation. There are alot of lies being spread about him because he bucks against the system. The system has alot of power and money behind it and they are attacking him now to try and short-circuit the momentum he keeps gaining. I believe in the truth. If at the end of the day, the environment is your number one voting concern and you are not satisfied with Dr. Paul's positions, and you choose to not vote for him because of it, great. That is how the process is supposed to work. I just cringe at the thought of people believing the lie that he is a corporatist and then voting for Hillary, the largest corporatist in the race. Be well. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 2:48:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Actually you're right about that
Dr. Paul's position on land is that if you own it (whether as a person or a corporation) you should be able to do what you want with it. That being said, he also believes that if you use your property to hurt OTHER people's property e.g. polluting the air of damming a river, those affected people have the right to sue you to make you stop and to recover damages. What he is AGAINST, is corporations having special laws that favor them over ordinary people. For instance, agricultural subsidies are often promoted as benefiting small farmers. Nothing could be further from the truth - the time and bookkeeping required put them out of most small farmer's reach. The agribusiness is the one who benefits from those policies. Same thing with ethanol tariffs - we could buy ethanol cheaper from Brazil than we could make it out of corn. Worst thing about that is when corn goes up so does ALL American food. But, it's not included in the CPI so it doesn't show up as "inflation". These are just two instances of how corporations "get over" on us regular folk. Dr. Paul wants to ELIMINATE that unfair advantage in the name of competition. by Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 7:46:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Private Property & Protection of the Environment
Here are a couple of links that may be helpful: Private Property - http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/property-rights-and-eminent-domain/ Environmental Issues - http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/environment/ by Deborah Wells (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 92 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 5:13:18 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: If Ron Paul gets elected
The environment would benefit more than under anyone else. Our demonic monetary system demands an ever increasing growth of the economy to prevent it collapsing in on itself. This requires the exploitation of resources on an ever increasing scale in order to keep the economy growing fast enough to stave off collapse. Ron Paul wants to replace our current monetary system with something more sustainable that does not require constant growth of the economy to maintain it. Without the pressure to prop up the monetary system then the exploitation of resources can be reduced. As long as the politicians in DC are in bed with corporations (and the Federal Reserve and IRS are corporations, not government agencies) then the exploitation of resources MUST accelerate or the entire world will be plunged into poverty. by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 1:57:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Interview with Ron on Environment
by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 5:12:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul on Private Property
Dr Paul takes the very libertarian position that something that is owned by an individual is better cared for than something that is owned by government. One need only look to the largest superfund clean up sites to see that the federal government of by far the largest polluter. If you owned the land that was polluted you could sue to get the government to clean it up. That is, if you could get past sovereign immunity. I know it is hard to imagine a system that accomplishes the same goals without government, but you have to try. Once you give the government the power to do something on your behalf (like clean up the environment) you can be sure of 3 things. First, it won't be done very well, second it will cost twice what it should, and finally, once done, government does not give the power back. They use on something/someone else! by John Schupp (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 3:13:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Thank you, Anthony
This is easily one of the most intelligent, well-reasoned articles I have ever read and I've read a lot of them, particularly over the past few months. Like you, I am not a registered member of any particular party. I tend to vote conservatively, but not without researching the candidates in advance. Even so, the entrenched two-party system usually leaves one with little real choice, much to the detriment of the country. Having done my research in the run-up to the Primaries, I have decided to support Ron Paul. I will be voting for him in my state's Primary on February 5th. His integrity and consistent record convinced me that he is a man of principles - something rarely seen on Capitol Hill. I do not agree with all of his personal views, but I do agree with Dr. Paul and Thomas Paine, who said, "That government is best which governs least." I believe you are correct that Dr. Paul would have to compromise to some degree to accomplish anything if elected president. But I also believe that a Ron Paul win in November 2008 would send a very clear, very strong message to Congress that they also better plan on compromising and working with President Paul, or plan on finding a new job when they come up for re-election. by Wendy Moore (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 3:56:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Little time left in campaign--LET'S USE IT WISELY
I think this is an EXCELLENT article, wide in its scope, and even taking into account a not-so-much-mentioned aspect that Ron Paul being Pro-Life would NOT MEAN that he would use Federal power to get it into Federal Law. "The larger point is that he would not interject his personal beliefs into his governmental beliefs." That could be applied to many things that some people "don't like" about Ron Paul. He would never shove his opinions down anyone's throat (he ONLY wants to follow the constitution-----------if American's were educated to understand just how wonderful that document is, and how it's simplicity covers a far-reaching range of the human condition, they would have no need to fear losing ANYTHING by following it. My second point is that there are too many of these articles (though I personally feel this one is the BEST I've seen)....Ron Paul is holding up just fine to the unfair tactics they use and intelligent people can see the bias against him....The real misunderstanding is the Constitution itself. If there were an equal amount of articles and reactions to THAT misunderstanding by the general populous, then how could they NOT support Ron Paul (it is the same as supporting THEMSELVES)...Like Ron Paul says, "it's the message" that counts. Have you seen how there are campaign groups in each of all the European countries? England, Ireland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Scotland, Portugal, Italy, plus Venezuela, Australia, and Canada....THESE OTHER COUNTRIES KNOW THE NEWS IS BIASED AGAINST RON PAUL AND FREELY SAY SO..so, come on, let's use the few days remaining writing and reading about something more constructive....I can't think of a better way for the enemy to accomplish their goal, than for us to spend all our time defending Ron Paul. by Sara DiNicola (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:01:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Very Well Said...
Very Well Said and Truthful...I wish you would have included the fact of how ALL other ""electable candidates" are members of the Councel for Foreign Relations except for one, Dr. Ron Paul. I really hope that the People will do their own Homework and Research on the elections and NOT allow the mainstream media, Paid for by the Corporations as well as the elite few, to do YOUR own homework and research. Another point in regards to Dr. Ron Paul is the fact is out of all the candidates voting records, it is Dr. Ron Paul who has been the Absolute most consistent. To help those who are focused in the media's duststorm Please check out Dr. Paul for your selves the one site has already been mentioned the other site is the Ron Paul Library where you will find the information you may need. ---> ronpaullibrary.org Again that was a very Well Written Article, Well Done. by countryboypride77 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:28:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Nicely done
I'm impressed with your objectivity and the fact that you clearly understand the principles involved. I hope you decide for Dr Paul; we certainly could use a voice like yours. Ron Paul 2008 by madzebra (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:54:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul for President
Mitt cries, Huck insults religion by using it as a campaign slogan, Rudy retreats, Tancredo quits, Fred sleeps and Ron Paul raises $6 million dollars in one day. Except for Dr. Paul, "[t]here's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, warrant-less wiretapping and the PATRIOT ACT. They are both guilty of treason. by Lorring II (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:56:12 PM (0+)
|
|
Yes, the Corporate & "Left" Media Hounds are Unleashed on Ro
Yes, the Corporate & "Left" Media Hounds are Unleashed on Ron Paul. Yesterday and today AOL did homepage hit pieces on Ron Paul, Alternet did a hit piece on him today, and the Huffington Post pulled one on him. The Huffington Post left readers with the impression that Ron Paul had gotten thousands of dollars from the military industry. When actually those donations came from active combat soldiers on the ground who want to get the hell out of there and come home. Why would the Huffington Post leave that out? I have come to the conclusion that any blog or news site, "Left/progressive" or whatever, is in the same camp as corporate media. William Colby, former Director of the CIA said, "There is no media of any consequence in America that is not controlled by the CIA." Ron Paul's revolution will dismantle the corrupt globalist CIA militarist empire. We will see the corporate media slash with everything they have to brainwash the dolts stupid enough to buy what they have to sell. They stand to lose trillions in ill gotten gains, when Ron Paul becomes President. Just like with abortion, gay rights, flag burning, etc. etc. the corporate media enflames the fake "left/right" divide in America to get people to vote against their own best interests. Over 50% of discretionary spending in the US is military spending. Average Americans pay so that corrupt leaders worldwide can be kept in power so corporations can steal their resources, and sell them to Americans at high prices. We pay so that corrupt leaders can be held in power worldwide, to ensure slave labor markets for corporations, so that US workers standard of living can be driven down down down. BUT, corporate which includes successful "left/progressive" media will relentlessly attack the ONE CANDIDATE THAT WILL BRING DOWN THE CORRUPT SYSTEM. The only question we have to ask ourselves is "are we stupid enough to swallow it?" "There is no media of any consequence in by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 5:26:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Thanks
Thank you for all of the nice comments. I just want a level playing field. I want everyone to have the truth about their positions to be heard. It became apparent to me that there has been a recent spike of anti-Paul sentiment all loosely following the same script. I have seen it before. They tanked Dean in 04 using the same nonsense. That means the man is dangerous to the status quo. That is good because the status quo is killing America. Thanks again, stay informed. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 5:43:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You're Welcome
and you are correct about the evil false slandering and even libel in regards to Dr. Ron Paul, I do believe we are prepared and will get through this and although I don't expect Dr. Ron Paul to take 1st in the Iowa caucus, I do expect him to place in the top 3 which will force the media to give him more coverage and also it will show All of America that Dr. Ron Paul is very electable...we are phase 3 which is in the phase of "...then they attack you,..." Let the Truth be Known, Dr. Ron Paul definately has a shot at getting elected. by countryboypride77 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 5:53:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Good Article
This was a good article. I already support Ron Paul for president and can’t reconcile myself with your position that you have 11 months to make up your mind. However, for those who plan to participate in the primary election process in states with closed primaries it is time to make up your minds. If you wait for a candidate to be chosen prior to deciding who to support you have already let the process pass you by. It is not in the general election that you can make your vote count. If you have neglected the primary election you have in all likelihood already lost your chance to make a difference. You will then be voting for whom the political machines have selected through media and corporate influence. All Americans need to become involved now.As for those of you who think "Big Brother" is responsible for your care and well being, you need to wake up while there is time. If you continue to give up your rights and freedoms for a little security remember this quote, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." by Chuck Hobbs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 6:21:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Party Change Today!
I have been registered as an NPA (No Party Affiliation) since 1996 when I first was able to legally register to vote. I have always refused to classify myself either a Republican or Democrat or any other party. Dr. Ron Paul has convinced me other wise so as of Today I personally handed in a "party change" to the Supervisor of Elections here in Florida and I am now a Republican. My sister is 18 and recently married a service man and are currently stationed in Washington and she also will be registering New as a Republican, as will be 2 of my brothers in Florida are also now Republicans and quite a few friends I know and non-voters. We don't need mainstream media, we want the Truth and Dr. Ron Paul is by far delivering the messege of Truth and the American People are waking up. I expect to see a surprising voter turn out after the primaries are over. by countryboypride77 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 6:42:36 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Me & My Wife are Re-registering in Kansas to vote for Dr. Pa
Me & My Wife are Re-registering in Kansas to vote for Dr. Paul, in the Kansas GOP Primary system. I've been a Democrat for 25 years, although I voted Green in one election. by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:57:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: well
I said as far as the GOP field is concerned, i do endorse Paul. It is the general election that it is irresponsible to have made your mind up about already. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 12:47:52 AM (0+)
|
|
Mr. Wade...
BAD IMAGE - click here (must exist and begin with http) by Dan Alba (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 52 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 6:55:22 PM (0+)
|
|
We know what Libertarianism is and thus for what Paul stands
... we just dont like it. by Steven Leser (255 articles, 58 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 2147 comments [63 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 7:42:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: we?
who is we? I might add it is very ignorant to assume that everything a particular party might stand for has to be attributed to Paul. It is further ignorant to not realize that he would not be able to enact sweeping libertarian reforms anyway due to the fact that congress would be checking him. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 12:50:24 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Who is We
Me and Sleezer and any Progressive Democrat who votes with either head or heart. We are the people of America. When "We" find out what Ron Paul really believes in we will laugh him back into the Libertarian cave from which you folks emerged. We are "We". by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 2:24:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Thank you!!
Thank you for the fair article on Dr. Paul and his positions. He is making the establishment very nervous and that is a good thing. I hope you will change your mind and find that you could vote for Dr. Paul in a general election. Kim E. PS I'm a voc rehab counselor too. Not many of us out there!! by Kim E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 8:39:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not many indeed
I have always worked with the disabled. Very rewarding work. To be clear, i am not saying i wouldnt vote for him in the general, just that i would need to hear more, particularly in the debates. It also would depend largely on who he was running against. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 12:52:06 AM (0+)
|
|
We know that above all, Paul stands for the Constitution
"... we just don't like it." by Dan Alba (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 52 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:29:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Great Article
I will be using many of your arguments as ammunition against the uninformed. Thank you for your objective and well thought out opinions. To me the root of the matter is a lack of understand of the Constitutional functions of our Federal government, coupled with dangerous fallacies in logic. Many seem unable to divorce the concept of personal belief with political philosophy. Because he holds the Constitutional rights of all citizens dear above all (as evidenced by his voting record), he would not sign or propose any bills that infringe on the beliefs or rights of others. This renders a good deal of "wedge issues" absolutely moot. Progressives, whom I thought would be in support of Ron Paul because of his acceptance of alternative lifestyles and beliefs, tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to seeing another old white guy running for candidacy. I spoke to someone who said they were commited to voting for Hillary or Obama simply because they thought it was about time that we saw a black or female president. I, being an Asian-American would love to see an Asian American candidate, but I won't vote for him if he takes money from special interests, and doesn't stand up for the Constitution. What our country needs today, is a shove back in the right direction. If elected, Paul will most certainly encounter resistance. Paul's somewhat "radical" ideas tempered by the political resistance he is sure to encounter in office is the ideal situation. It is the system of checks and balances functioning as they were meant to. It's a beautiful thing. Maybe one day we can end up back near center, instead of the neo-con twilight zone where we have somehow ended up. by Dennis Lee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 2:09:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Facts about Ron Paul
His voting record shows he votes with the Repub party line 75% of the time. Source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/ Key Votes and Pauls vote on those, if he voted at all: click here Vote 40: H R 6: This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late '90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a "conservation fee" for oil taken from the gulf.-Paul voted NO on this one along the Repub party line Vote 18: H R 2: This bill would increase the federal minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over two years..-Paul voted NO on this along the (R) party line Vote 135: H R 4297: Extended the Bush tax cuts.-Paul voted yes along the (R) party line Vote 6: H RES 5: Instituted a number of changes in the ethics rules that govern the conduct of individual members of Congress.-Paul voted NO along the (R) party line Ron Paul has missed 315 votes (27.2%) during the current Congress.Source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/ Ronald Paul has sponsored 350 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 345 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 0 were successfully enacted. Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311 His voting record sucks, his bill sponsorship sucks and his environmental support sucks..a real good candidate for anyone that supports Big Oil, wants a President that can't get anything done or who won't show up for work. by dusty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 2:35:04 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: None of your links work
I think ending the war will do allot more to curb global warming, and I think CA would have the freedom to have the lowest emmissions tests in the world if it was not for the feds and their rules. The Elected Democrats voted with the GOP on the war, Patriot act and Funding wars. Dr Paul did not. by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 6:34:46 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: That's what happens
when you cut and paste from someone else's outdated articles or blog entries rather than doing your own research. by Watching (0 articles, 1 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 313 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 2:07:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You important information
will be and is ignored by the Paul delusionists; his record as a lawmaker and politician and Republican is totally without merit by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 8:47:18 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: He didn't vote for Patriot Act
He voted no for the Patriot Act twice and wants to bring the troops home. That should make liberals happy, but they just can't get past the (R) by his name. Hillary voted for it. Obama voted for it. Paul's voted no where it counts. If more people voted like Paul, this country would be better off. by Justin Green (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 9:29:37 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: And Kucinich DIDN'T
vote for the Patriot Act. He's also far more in line with what progressive values are. Meanwhile, a question for the Paul People: why is this man still in the Republican Party? Why did he leave the Liberatarian Party? What is there about being a Liberatarian that's significant enough to make him leave the party and run GOP for his congressional seat? I personally think Mr. Paul should formulate his own platform and run for the presidency as an independent. An almost constant complaint from Paul People about those of us who want nothing to do with him is that we've "been seduced by the left-right false dichotomy," or some such. Why does Mr. Paul perpetuate that by running as a Republican? by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 9:53:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Kucinich, Yes! Paul, you kidding?
Kucinich is a real Progressive Democrat. Ron Paul is a far right wing Republican, so far he is a Libertarian Republican. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 2:28:40 PM (0+)
|
|
"Progressivism" isn't always progressive
Prohibition was "progressive". . . how did that turn out? A lot of progressive legislation backfires really badly. . . by Thomas Vietor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 4:53:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: BTW,
the definition of "progressiveims" is the fixing of societal problems thorugh legislation. . . that is, the fixing of society thorough government coercive force. . . by Thomas Vietor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 4:55:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Thank You
Right On! Your Analysis is clear, systematic, and accurate. You refute all the most commonly heard objections to Ron Paul. But I would like to add another objection / reply. A lot of people oppose Paul because he does not believe in global warming. That may be true, but his proposals for cutting troops levels and defense spending would seriously reduce the amount of CO2 coming from the No. 1 polluter in the world: the department of defense. Also, returning control to a more local level means that citizen activists can be more effective in lobbying for serious environmental policy change. by Caleb Friz (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 6:33:58 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
