 |
|
Add to My Group
|
December 28, 2007 at 00:29:53
Put Up or Shut Up, Time for the Anti-Paul Crowd to Offer Alternatives by Anthony Wade Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
 
|
December 28, 2007 I have spent the better part of this week writing on behalf of Dr. Ron Paul. I did so because it became apparent that the powers that be were becoming scared and they started a malicious smear campaign against him to try and stop the momentum he has generated. I do not mind having a rational discourse about why one candidate would be better than another; that is what the process should be about. But when the machine that wishes to keep the status quo starts distorting the truth to achieve their ends; that is where I feel responsible to at least set the record straight so the debate can be fair. The ensuing debate after each article has been vigorous to say the least. I realized tonight though when reading the article by Joel Hirschorn what has been missing from the debate, alternatives. Now let’s be fair up front. Dennis Kucinich is a principled guy. I really believe he is as honest as a politician can be. I would love to see a general election between the big government Kucinich against the limited government Paul. I also would like to hit lotto and probably have a better chance of that then seeing Kucinich in the general election. I felt the same way about Paul at the beginning but you cannot ignore his rise in the rigged polls and his fundraising from the grassroots level. I have heard a lot of people trying to wish Paul away but it simply has not happened. When you see the negative attacks orchestrated by the machine against him, you have to realize that he has become a viable threat now. So please, do not offer Dennis Kucinich as a viable alternative to Ron Paul. It is simply fantasyland. That said, I will present why I find Dr. Paul to be intriguing as a candidate. First, he is clearly against the war and using war as a foreign policy. A Paul presidency would guarantee and end to the Iraq War and prevent the GOP dream of an Iran War. No more of our kids would die unnecessarily. The money being wasted abroad would be diverted to concerns about America. I like that. That makes sense to me. Secondly, he is virulently opposed to the consolidation of executive power and the resulting erosion of civil liberties. A Paul presidency would see the return of habeas corpus, a restoration of civil liberties, an end to the Patriot Act, and a return to proper checks and balances. War powers would return to the Congress where they belong. Torture as policy would end. Illegal wiretapping and data mining would end. That all makes sense to me. I like that. Thirdly, Dr. Paul seems to be one of the only people in government who understands the looming currency disaster we are facing. The nine trillion dollar debt would be paid down, primarily through the money no longer spent blowing other countries up. Sure, Halliburton would take a hit but overall Dr. Paul understands that empires collapse financially and that is where we are heading if we do not do something about it. I know that the other democratic candidates are busy promising all the nice “progressive” bonanzas we have been hoping for but you cannot have universal healthcare if you are broke. You especially cannot fund everything you want if you cannot even promise to pull troops out of Iraq. I am sorry but stabilizing our currency makes sense to me and yes, I like that. 
Now there are some areas of a Paul presidency that I still would have questions about. Those questions would be answered during the general election campaigns and debates. More importantly though is we must understand how our government works. Just because Ron Paul believes in limited government, he would be forced to come to the center with Congress to get anything done and I am confident he would. The doom and gloom crowd pretends that as soon as he is sworn in he will eliminate all functions of the federal government. He can’t folks! He would have to work with Congress. But at least he would be moving to the center coming from the position that war as policy must end, civil liberties must be restored and we must pay down our debt to stabilize our currency. That is a lot to begin with that he will find plenty of agreement on with Congress.
So there you have it. I think that Dr. Paul is sincere and not owned by any corporations. He believes in his philosophy and does not read from a script. I have heard a lot of naysayers tell me why Dr. Paul is not the right candidate. Some reasons have been thoughtful and others slanderous. I really do not want to rehash that here. Given the state of the country, the three points I outlined about Dr. Paul seem to me to be the most important things we can focus on as Progressives and Americans. So I ask the naysayers to intelligently tell me who they think would make a better candidate. I assume the entire GOP field is out, and rightly so. Dennis Kucinich has zero chance of surviving the primaries and we all know it; so please do not offer up DK. That basically leaves Hillary, Obama and Edwards. Please tell me why any of them would be better for the primary issues discussed in this article or if there is another issue you feel is more important than what has been discussed.
No more smears. No more nonsense. There is too much at stake in 2008. Stay informed.
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 |
|
|
|
|
| 143 comments |
|
Well Said
I agree. Paul is not the ideal candidate, and I am absolutely in love with Dennis Kucinich. But I am personally going to work a lot harder to support Paul because he already has the organization, the money, the buzz, and let's face it, the number of supporters it's going to take to have a chance. A lot of the Paul smears are based on two central fallacies: 1. Simple misinformation from liberals who have maybe heard a thing or two about Dr. Paul, but haven't looked into his campaign enough. It's time we, the progressives of this nation, took stock of where we're at and cut our losses. We can't win everything, but we can have peace and repeal the police state, and I think that that is a good start to achieving all our other goals. Remember, Paul won't be president for life, but he may be a good transition to a smarter, leaner, more responsive federal government as opposed to the current beaurocratic monstrosity that is impervious to the cries of the majority of its own citizens. 2. People confuse his personal values with his political platform. Personally, he's basically a soft anarchist and believes in no government, or very limited government whose only job is to protect--not coerce--its citizens. But he's not running on dismantling the government. Everything he wants to do--from abolishing the IRS, getting out of NAFTA and the WTO, changing immigration laws, etc. is going to require congressional approval. So he won't actually be that successful in phasing out popular programs (although he might help eliminate a lot of waste and corruption). But what he can do, as commander in chief, is stop the CIA and FBI from spying on citizens, stop the CIA from overthrowing other democratic nations, and end the current wars. This would not only go a long way to dismantling the ubiquitous military-industrial complex (which he is constantly critical of), but would reduce the federal budget, freeing up MORE MONEY for those social programs everyone is concerned about. In short, Ron Paul is the smart choice for progressives who are more interested in having a meaningful impact on changing America's disastrous impact on the world than in simply registering a purist protest vote that will be unheard and unrespected by the democratic party establishment. by Caleb Friz (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:03:38 AM  (0+)
|
|
I agree
Well said indeed. Thanks for your comments. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:16:21 AM (0+)
|
|
I absolutely love Dennis Kucinich and
I am NOT going to work for Ron Paul. PERIOD. I don't like the racism of many of his "fans", I worry about those on the fringe of society (including myself) who would be hurt by his economic policies (you know not EVERY American lives in the contiguous US states! so states' rights would surely not help us, this is NOW, NOT 1913, you know) .. so his answers are Not Answers. Besides acting like a pack of rabid animals (and consistently suggesting there is NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE, which is patently untrue . there is the SANE Dennis Kucinich), the Ron Paul bandwagon conveniently overlooks such issues as native sovereignty CONSISTENTLY. If one publishes any single piece of reservation about what they see about Ron Paul, they entire pack is on your back - and they don't answer the questions, they just take YOU to task. I posted my opinion about taking money from neonazis to get money for campaign funds, and I was beseiged when I pointed out that the writer from Mother Jones was kicked out of her local Ron Paul meetup group. This was just FACT. But most woefully, Ron Paul himself has not come out for impeachment. He hems, he haws, and he wastes every day of your real live political energy by raising money for HIS CAMPAIGN, rather than advocating for national healing which is a return to the RULE OF LAW, something America (and all of North America really) is badly in need of. To wit: IMPEACHMENT. I see this flag waving nonsense as just a nonsense unless you read the Constitution and then DO what it suggests. In this case, the US is subject to the international rules governing international law on torture, rendition, genocide and all else as it applies to CONDUCT in Afghanistan, Irak, Lebanon, Syria and now Pakistan (where US special forces are being sent send in as just COINCIDENTALLY Bhutto is assassinated, weird that, eh?) If I fear anything about the US becoming even worse, it's what precisely would happen if people who can't think straight get into power following the disastrous BuZh adminstration, people who want Easy Answers as the climate change hits, the peak oil hits, the economic crash hits, the ME ONLY sensibility continues and hits a huge crescendo .. Sure the Federal Reserve Bank and the stoopid, ignorant economists who run things for the Big Boyzd are pretty rotten - their just salesman for an insane economic system that eats up the resources of the entire planet. Score a point for Dr. Paul figuring THAT out - that their policies are an anathema. However, the real problem with America is a SPIRITUAL One - not a political one and I fail to see how his winning is the answer. In fact, I cannot think of a single WORSE reaction than to see Ron Paul as President. And that is what it is -- pure reaction, and just more of the same old, same old. Same stuff, different TECHNIQUE. I am not attacking Ron Paul personally. I think within the confines of his thinking, we have seen very great things from him throughout the years. But ideologue answers are not ANSWERS, they are reactions. Everyone in CONgress should be as high minded about keeping the lobbyists out of their offices; but this does not qualify one REALLY to be the US President inheriting the rich decay and fall of an empire in modern history - which is exactly what is about to "hit". Baiting people is not The Answer. Accepting that some of us wish to work for Dennis Kucinich to continue to grow as both a leader and as a human being seems a better use of my precious time on this planet, and that is what I am going to do. I have no regrets whatsoever about my choice. He is the man with a plan, a sane, adult, well thought plan to save not "just" America, but an entire planet using all the God-given talents of the people that are in America today. by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:21:33 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Correction about Paul raising money
Just so you know the money that he raised was raised by individuals supporting Ron Paul and had nothing to do with the Ron Paul campaign, infact if you read anywhere Paul has mentioned the money he states he was in shock. It was a grass roots movement. As far as social beinfits :If you want a free ride get in line with next regime because last i knew it was a Communist contries where you stood in line and got free food handed to you by your goverment. I am so tired of lazy people saying we need more social programs it's a democracy get off your butt and work for your own money stop taking it out of my paycheck! I don't want to give my hard earned money that can go to much better uses then for you to sit and get lazy! and when is beliving in Aliens more sane then beliving in the Constituion? by Kitt Rezner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 4:02:45 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Is it better for a DC to decide on issues facing people in ?
Paul thoughts Solutions for climate change Those industries which pollute need to pay a tax on that pollution. As opposed to buying carbon credits from a farmer, me, to sequester carbon in my fields. Social Issues - How did FEMA do in New Orleans? Would not it be better for those areas that were effected by the storm to have a plan. require construction that would withstand hurricane force winds, earthen shelters, lowering energy requirements at the same time. As opposed to DC deciding what is best and turning away truckloads of relief supplies. Health care, what about the fact that the latest NAFTA requires us to sign up with codex standards. Not allowing us to choose an alternative medical path. Education, that has been a disaster at the federal level. Another layer of hoops to jump through and if you opt out the Feds withhold your highway funds. I think that Paul wants to return control to a local level, as opposed to DC where they are trying to require me to keep track of every time I move an animal, it is born gets sick, etc.. This simply raises the price of production for small farmers and concentrates power in a few large hands. Native Soverignty?? As to your point of wether we are living in 1913 or 2008. Are you speaking of people being born in the US or giving all lands back to descendants of the iriquois who migrated here at some point themselves. He has addressed the first issue. by john w (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 9:42:39 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Big Government is not what we need
I'm sorry, perhaps this country has been too dumbed down to understand the simple math behind Ron Paul's politics. There is a looming $11 trillion shortfall in social security and medicare over the next 30 years. How do proponents of these entitlement programs intend on paying for this shortfall? Borrowing more money, going deeper into debt. It's brilliant. Borrow, borrow, borrow, borrow, and borrow some more. Already, we have a weak dollar, a fiat currency, and seriously underreported inflationary pressures. Going deeper into debt to maintain the status quo is killing this country. What's worse than all of this? A litany of republican candidates who want to maintain this status quo and enact tax-cuts, further compounding the problem. That's why I support Ron Paul. That's why MANY savy people support him. I resent that you feel the need to label Ron Paul supporters "racists". We're not. At least not all of us. Don't know where you got that idea, but you have no factual support for such a wide-sweeping assertion, I can guarantee you. I cannot vote for someone who supports the Patriot Act, as Hillary and Obama did, as did most of the Republican candidates. Ron Paul voted against it twice, as well as numerous other bills which deny us the constitutional right to privacy, unreasonable searches, etc. Perhaps if the school system did a better job of teaching the constitution and ignored trying to teach global warming, our citizenry might actually understand the deep doodoo this country is in. So, I respect your right to vote for Dennis, but he's part of the problem here. Take some time and think about all of the trillions of dollars we've wasted fighting unconstitutional wars, giving our money to other countries so they can kill each other, and going deeper into debt to finance all of this horse pockey. Then look for a candidate who wants to end the madness. There's only one. by Justin Green (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:46:10 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not Encouraging
The purpose was to offer a viable alternative. I knew that some would only be offer Kucinich, who I outlined is a good guy but has zero chance. If you wish to get behind him fine. I will ask the question again. When it is general election time and DK has cowed to Hillary Clinton as his choice, who will you vote for Hillary? Because ultimately DK said so? That is no solution. That continues the corporate control of america. I am sorry that you felt attacked, i can assure you I have not attacked anyone who speaks intelligently on what they believe. But please leave the nonsense about racism out of this debate. It is unseemly and untrue. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:04:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Putting up
and not about to shut up, please refer to my recent diary for the reason why I believe RP is no real alternative : Debating Ron Paul is a waste of time A new aspect of the RP craze hits the stage...while Dennis Kucinich is (imho) worth discussing, debating and worth fighting for (or with), RP really doesn't stand an ice cube's chance in hell. The Author needs to come to terms with the fact that this country is and will remain - a War Machine. Of course we would all like to change that but it isn't going to happen. Let's get real, folks ! You cannot change this system from within. It's water tight, sealed off, sold out and well on it's way as a 100% bonified fascist (full fledged btw, not the light version as RP would have it) War Machine. Get your facts straight for a change and get real. The MIC knows RP doesn't stand a chance. They're certainly laughing there arses off over this. And do try to think outside of the box. The MIC is not limited to Banks and large Corperations in the USA. No blindfold required, thank you ! by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 4:21:21 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Amazing Fools Love War Form A Distance
You Need To Do Us All A Favor And Join The Military. It is easy to be brave with other people’s lives. When War and Force is all that is your focus it soon comes back to you with a vengeance. by Brad Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments [11 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:42:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Poor understanding
I agree the machine can steal alot but it cannot steal more than 5-6% of a general election without getting caught. So theoretically, Paul could win if the people are pissed off enough. Do you think the MIC wanted the dem revolution of 2006? Hell no. The bottom line is they got beat because the grounswell overode their cheating. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:53:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Blinded by apathy
Your own apathy is blinding you. The country will always be a war machine? It will only be that way when people continue to support and believe in the war machine. At the end of the day, the country isn't a machine but a group of people working together to achieve a desired goal. Is War what you want? Is War what your neighbors want? Do your friends want War? Where is the War machine coming from? I will give you a clue... It comes from people who are focused, dedicated and determined to keep it going. Kucinich is a good guy. If you pay attention to him, he says that he supports Ron Paul and agrees with him on a great many things. So the guy you want to support actually supports the guy that you don't want to support. Oh noes, what ever will you do when faced with such a dichotomy? by dave562 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 2:53:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Wrong man for the times.
Unfortunately negative campaigning is part of politics and I've seen an ample helping of it from the Ron Paul crowd when they form a lynch mob to attack anybody critical of Ron Paul's policies. I fully agree with you that personal attacks are undesirable and add nothing to the debate. So yes, lets keep the debate based on issues and facts. by all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 144 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 4:40:41 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Laughable
I said some very nice things about DK and I meant them and you accuse me of atacking him for stating the obvious??? He has zero chance, he is done, finished. I wished he would have the guts to run as an independent but he will not, he has said so. By the way, the government is the part that stands for the people, not corporations? Are you serious? Have you looked around your government lately? When you cast your vote for Hillary in November i want you to think back to this moment when you actually decided that you would vote for her and the continuing corporatization of America. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:57:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Enougjh of your Conspiracy Theories
So much for taking you seriously, they're all out to get my cult leader, bring out the true believers. You folks have now sunk into paranoid delusion, another one of the classic signs of cult-hood. Your appeal to victim-hood, while dominating the bandwidth with your right-wing nonsense is absurd. You cult members have zero chance. We've already seen 7 years of your type of thinking, no more, thanks. by all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 144 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:55:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: all owners
Your ignorance is staggering. Did you even read my articles? Apparently not. I have conistently said that i have some concerns about Paul but was asking who you think was better? You come in here and claim that Paul is my cult leader? Goodbye shill. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 4:09:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Your Arrogance and Ego Dwarf your Diminutive Intellect.
I've read some of your stuff, the quality can often be discerned with the title, as is the case here. And my answer to your question is Dennis Kucinch, but you aren't listening because close-minding authoritarians don't do that, they only try to dictate. by all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 144 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 5:43:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: lol
Keep posting and convincing everyone that while you may own a thesaurus, you clearly do not have a clue. Read a title, dismiss an article, nice strategy. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 6:04:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Explain that to me one more time, please
"I fully agree with you that personal attacks are undesirable and add nothing to the debate. So yes, lets keep the debate based on issues and facts." So far, so good. Then: OooooohKAY, then. by Big Dave (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 2:46:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: FREE WILL
are you ready for this.... YOU HAVE A CHOICE to buy the things you want to or not. If you do not like a corporation you do not purchase from them. if you do not like your representation in government, vote them out. Have you ever heard of free will. It is a huge responsibility and it is OURS. I also do not want the government taking care of people, my community does that. i go out every week and volunteer my time to make my community better. If we all did that we would live in a better nation and one that takes responsibility for themselves and their neighbors. Remember Free will and freedom of choice are important to the fabric of our society and I feel we have lost touch with that long ago. by Col (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 4:39:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: my free will, alternative
Free Will: Spring 2007, after seeing that I paid $52K federal income tax, I dropped out. My wife, daughter and I are done paying federal income tax. I'm not a slave to pay for big government social benefits, so I'm not paying anymore. (No debt, $ in the bank for 4+ years, some IRA/401K funded.) This is my free will to stop paying for corruption. Note to big-government folks - you can create more programs for which my family will qualify, but you can't make me work to tax my wages to pay for the programs. Alternative: a few months ago my father started sending "we must defeat ____" emails. I told him to provide a positive alternative rather to the candidates he doesn't like. He found Ron Paul and now has a cause to support. Thanks for the forum for everyone's ideas! by john 2 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 3:56:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: John 2
I and about a thousand plus single mothers in my community would love to pay fifty-two thousand (52 k) Federal Income tax every year for the rest of our lives. Some of them live on less then ten thousand (10 k) per year; I haven't even spoken about some the elderly people in our community. Talk about elitist. You have no idea where most of the people live. Most of the people in our country do not approach 52 k working two full time jobs. WOW! We really feel sorry for you and going to have a special prayer for you. Poor, Poor guy. One of the terribly disenfranchised in our land in our land of the rich on the backs of the poor. You are the type of thinking person that supports Ron Paul, the others poor suckers just don't think. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 5:06:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Unity08
There is an Independent organization, Unity08 http://www.unity08.com/ If Ron Paul does not get the GOP nomination Unity08 will kick into action trying to unite antiwar/pro-peace. Allot of names have been suggested, the top two now are: Ron Paul-Dennis Kucinich 08 ticket. by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 6:15:18 AM (0+)
|
|
Whats that smell?
I got this far, Anthony: I have spent the better part of this week writing on behalf of Dr. Ron Paul. I did so because it became apparent that the powers that be were becoming scared and they started a malicious smear campaign against him to try and stop the momentum he has generated Please dude, get real. Do you honestly and truly believe what you wrote there? Isnt the reverse the real truth? We have been inundated with Paul cultists, post after post from folks with one comment to their credit, two or five whatever, and each in a Saint Paul thread only. Yet you claim some conspiracy against him, how disengenuous can you get? I have stated before that I understand the deperation of progressives to find some candidate worthy of support. I have also noted that most of this support from the left is shameful in its lack of knowledge about the libertarian position, one that is anathema to any real progressive. Paul may be correct about ending wars of imperialsim, and that is an important point, so where was he on the original vote to authorise that war? Paul has found a position that appeals to the foolishly uninformed, no more, no less. It is far, far outweighed by his libertarian bent which would seek to wreak considerable hardship on many Americans, the poor, the children, those in need of health care. It would destroy the fabric of our governemtns social contract with all of us. In short Anthony, you are free to posit any claim you choose, but we are free to note the truth of the matter. Claims of conspiracy, the refuge of those with a weak case. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 8:21:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: smells like crack to me? Not the kind you smoke either.
To say that I am ill informed is false. I like Kucinich. Only having dealt with big brother off and on my entire life, I know for myself, big brother is rarely the answer. Im working poor. I DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT HEALTHCARE. Take a good look at the state of FEMA or social security. I dont need those bozo's to raise my taxes to give me a half ass service where I dont have the freedom of choice. When are progressives going to quit looking for big brother to bail everyone out? The reason our country was founded was to give us freedom. Not to make us slaves to the state. And not to be a 'nanny' to the country or the world. People feel compelled to use just a couple of arguements. 1. Kucinich is better. Well, to be straight forward, Kucinich doesnt have a chance. Paul will at least get our troops home, slash government programs and lower taxes. That will go towards paying down the federal debt and saving the dollar from collapse. Wake up folks.. you cant have anything if the country is BROKE. 2. Paul is a racist. False. Some a**hole wrote a column in his newsletter. Got fired for writing it. Dont believe me? Fine. Just look up the rest of Pauls writing for the past 30 years and judge for yourself. 3. Paul doesnt have a chance. He's got $19M chances right now. He's outraised the rest of the GOP and will more than likely lock up the nomination by the end of Janurary, if not, by Super Tuesday. The GOP candidates dont stand a chance against him... all of them back Bush's idiot policies. Nobody wants a Bush lite. Hillary, Obama and Edwards wont commit to bringing troops home at ALL!!! 2013 is the soonest Hillary and Obama will guarantee. Ive lived with government intrusion my entire life. Ive seen welfare tear homes apart, Ive seen regulation strangle business owners, Ive felt the long arm of Big Brother for to long. Ive learned in my short lifetime that the answer is not more government, its less. The larger government grows the more freedom is lost. In a truly free society the government wouldnt be needed in health care.. because providers would have to compete for individual money. The way its set up now, employers are forced to provide it, which creates a smaller market and causes the prices to go up (thank Nixon for that one). Logic tells me, that if big brothers involvement screwed healthcare to begin with, then more big brother WONT FIX IT. You certainly will lose your freedom of choice, you will have to see doctors that play by the government rules. No homeopathy doctors, massage or holistic choices. I support Ron Paul for these reasons. 1. Get us out of the mideast. Cut off foriegn aid. End meddling in other country affairs. 2. Pay down our debt. We are on the verge of a big problem. Ron Paul has studied economics for 30+ years and understands how to fix the dollar crisis. 3. Restore our liberty. If we do not have our rights, what have we become? He is not a saint. He is not perfect. What Ron Paul represents to me is a chance to save this country before we are destroyed financially. All empires come to an end when the currency is destroyed. Only this time, unlike during the Depression, we will not have our civil liberties. That my friends, is more scary than whether or not we have a government sponsored healthcare program. by Parke Nicholson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 9:27:59 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Nice
Well said by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:38:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Uninformed?
Ardee, you wrote this: Paul has found a position that appeals to the foolishly uninformed, no more, no less. It is far, far outweighed by his libertarian bent which would seek to wreak considerable hardship on many Americans, the poor, the children, those in need of health care. It would destroy the fabric of our governemtns social contract with all of us. I think there is always a danger in blindly adhering to any particular creed because it can easily lead to excesses that were never anticipated and with which we would be very uncomfortable. That said, I also think there is a danger in blindly refusing to consider a point of view. You indicated that you read the above article only far enough to find that the writer was pro-Ron Paul and you subsequently refused to read what else he had to say. Then you went on dismiss Ron Paul supporters as uninformed while at the same time asserting a whole raft of negative effects of a Ron Paul/libertarian presidency. I have found the Ron Paul Kooks (as we are now calling ourselves) to be pretty well informed, mostly well read, sometimes well written. I, too, have seen the ocasional abusive name-calling post from my fellow supporters, and I believe they embarass themselves, especially because their comments are so far out of the norm. Please forgive them their exhuberance, if you can. Ron Paul does not resort to name calling or smears, and neither should people who claim to be his supporters. All of the things you claim will be the inevitable effects of a Ron Paul/libertarian presidency have been addressed intelligently by Dr. Paul himself. While I am tempted to take each of the items on your list of concerns and dispute them, I will refrain because this post would have to be many pages long to do it properly. Dr. Paul's extensive writings contain most of the information that would address your concerns. I can only say that many of your concerns are also his concerns, but his solutions are different from your implied solutions. He believes, as do all libertarians, that free individuals can solve their own problems, and those of people most in need, far better than unaccountable government officials. I encourage you to give Ron Paul's record and his writings another look. A thoughtful person cannot be expected to accept everything he says, but I have found that most people have no quarrel with majority of it. If I can be of any assistance, please feel free to contact me. by Ron Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 9:33:39 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: let us nitpick
You said, about my critique: You indicated that you read the above article only far enough to find that the writer was pro-Ron Paul and you subsequently refused to read what else he had to say. Then you went on dismiss Ron Paul supporters as uninformed while at the same time asserting a whole raft of negative effects of a Ron Paul/libertarian presidency. I didnt stop reading because Tony is pro Paul, I already knew this full well, and the title of the piece wouild have kept me from even starting the article had your supposition been true. Likewise you , in your zealousness perhaps, failed the test of comprehension as I stated , not that Paul's supporters were uninformed ,only that those progressives among them would have to be such. No true progressive could possibly support a libertarian, period. In fact, several of Paul's zealots are disengenous more than uninformed. Just as Anthony Wade once asked whether a litmus test for progressives included supported a woman's right to choose, which I truly believe it does, I state that Libertarianism is the very antithesis of progressivism. I was aware of the dangers of this doctrine long, long ago, when my uncle, Milton Friedman, fell under the thrall of Ayn Rand and her group. He went from reasonably conservative to wacked out selfish and unconcerned with the plight of the poor and the working class. A family scandal actually. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:25:48 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Your uncle was Milton Friedman?
Cool. by Ron Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:10:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: err not so very
He was a constant guest in my Granddad's house, until his conversion to libertarian economics and his subsequent move to Chicago. The family was soooo scandalised! by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:10:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Litmus test
I am sorry Ardee, but YOU do not get to decide what a progressive is and is not. You clearly have allowed the rovian tact of wedge issues to pervade your sensibilities. You will vote for a candidate that claims the pro-choice side even though they would continue to ruin this country economically and cannot guarantee and end to the war. That is not progressive, it is stupid. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:41:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ardee
Everyone knows you are a rabid anti-Paul person. That has blinded you from the truth. If you had been paying attention, you would have seen articles by Moffett and Hirschon (sp?). There has been alot of pro-Paul responses to artivles, but not articles themselves. My articles have been designed to rebut the lies and smears. Please save the lectures for someone who might at least appear unbiased, you clearly are not. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:37:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: what a crock of absolute crap
Calling out those who become hyperbolic and then becoming so yourself. Nice going, Anthony, your slip is showing. Rabidly antiPaul huh? No litmus test for progressives huh? You are simply a fraud sir, and each post and new article shows this more and more. I have not attacked Ron Paul, I have attacked the politics of Libertarianism, and rightly so, as selfish and abandoning every damn principle all TRUE progressives hold dear. You may continue to call yourself anything convenient to the point you try to foist upon us, but those REAL progressives know full well that anyone opposed to a womens right to control her own body is far from with us. Just as anyone conversant with the facts of Pauls libertarianism know full well that his political beliefs are every much as dangerous to the fabric of our nation as was George Walker Bush. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 12:13:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ardee
The smell is that poor, poor John 2 having to pay that wicked Witch Federal Govrnment of the Wes tfifty-two thousand dollars for just one year. With his kind of money and his kind of lawyers, I wonder what his gross salary is. Have you any idea? Ardee, I have an idea. Lets start taking up "A Hand Out for Poor John 2." It has to total more than 50 k for him because that is just the left overs, just chicken scratch for Uncle Sam. Ardee, you get the black glasses, and I will paint the tip of my cane red for this "A Hand Out for Poor John 2. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 5:14:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ardee
Anthony and I break even. I spent the better part of the Week writing against Ron Paul. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 5:16:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hi Rev
All Im looking for here is honesty. Unfortuately I get not a drop thereof from Wade and his fellow Paulistas. Anthony calls any negative comments about Libertariansism and Pauls candidacy hyperbole and lies, he calls himself a progressive yet every post reveals less of that stance in his politics. It used to be that everyone thought themselves a centrist, no matter how far to one side or the other they stood, I guess Anthony is the new progressive, heaven help us all. The best defense I have seen from the cult is the one where they say,"well, yes, Paul is a libertarian and that is bad, but Congress will prevent him from smashing Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and all other aspects of the social contract with our government. He is against the war and that where I stand with him." Of course these last seven years have shown plainly what a huge force Congress can be in curtailing an insane or incompetent President...errr wait..... Reverend, I simply cannot wait for the end of this wave of libertarian insanity to pass, let Ayn Rand and Uncle Milton rest in peace! No libertarianism for this nation thanks for asking.... by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 4:08:54 PM (0+)
|
|
Against Iraq War from Day 1
Ron Paul House Floor Speech on Iraq (October 8, 2002) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TZ5cpaPlf4 Since you apparently have not watched this video, or you would NOT of asked how Dr. Paul voted on the Iraq War, we would wager that you have never even checked his site out to see how he stands on the issues. We, on the other hand, have checked out the other candidates. Although Kucinich and Gravel are NOT Neo-Cons like ALL the other candidates from BOTH parties, other than Paul, their ideas of BIG Government will NOT work at this point in time. The USA is going bankrupt and if the Government is NOT shrunk down some bankruptcy will occur and we will see a Depression like no other. We are also the most Optimistic person you will find. Although from what we just wrote it sounded the opposite. lol We are also a Forex Trader and have seen the dollar lose over 1276 pips, against the euro, since August 16th. For those that do NOT know what a pip is that is a loss of 12.76 cents or 9.05% which is NOT good for the dollar. Most of the time it bounces back but that is NOT happening now and we doubt it will unless some radical changes are made. Check out what a Swedish Bank is predicting for 2008. http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=210132 Here is another Democrat that is joining the rEVOLution. http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/248/197/ They are coming by the droves now. Check this one out. http://www.obamala.com ONLY A Doctor WILL HEAL Our Country, Freedom4America Group by Freedom4America Group (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 9:31:43 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: and what about IMPEACHMENT!!!!!! Follow the CONSTITUTION
"ONLY a doctor will heal our country ..." This PRECISELY why I do not support the Ron Paul bandwagon. The real HEALER is Dennis Kucinich. The Scientologists are ALL lined up behind Dr. Ron Paul - why, so they can get rich on the very lucrative health food, health supplement, environmental products. This where a HUGE BULK of Ron Paul's money is coming from. Entreprenuers of opportunity; not folks with a true healing agenda. I KNOW - I offered to be on a Ron Paul committee to write an agenda on natural healing for his campaign. The Scientologists come in and smash all honest agendas/opinions on the topic, while hiding their TRUE IDENTITIES. Stay in denial, America! and the entire farm gets sold while the drunkomaniacs of power continue their spin. I read these comments and I realize that my gut instinct is correct; with Ron Paul as President and Libertarians (remember he comes with BAGGAGE intact and ready to roll!) - those on the "fringes" of society are TOAST. I just LOVED the comment that the indigenous people of America MIGRATED HERE, too! You are so full of bullshit it is not to be believed. You pick and choose the "spin" your racist mind wishes to assimilate. The poor and the disabled? You don't care to help them? My family has shed quarts and quarts of blood to protect YOU, paid its taxes, propogandized its children to fight for WARZ to protect America .. and yet, you would deny me the right to LIFE, but object to children being born when rape, incest might have caused pregnancy? I am poor and disabled. Can't work with that, can you ???? I gotta say this - after watching this phenomena for MONTHS and MONTHS (years really) - the propositions of the Ron Paul supporters are totally nuts (they won't work) and I do not care to see these people in power. America has signed an agreements to stop torture, biochemical weapons use, and yet does not abide by its agreements. Ron Paul says we must be BOUND by our contracts when it comes to minimum wage jobs! Yet he cannot figure out that the US is bound by international agreements it has made. Really, it is to LAUGH to read the incongrueities of the Ron Paul supporter. And now when I watch him avoid the IMPEACHMENT ISSUE I realize that he is no plaster SAINT either. Just another sadly mistaken (but potentially dangerous) individual. by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:44:25 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Impeachment
Is that all that matters to you? I agree they all should be impeached but the majority of the people you think are progressive will not even side with it! Wake up! by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:44:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ron Paul in favor of impeachment
As I recall from the news a few weeks ago: When DK's bill was submitted for a vote, Ron Paul issued a statement that he believed the bill had merit and should be passed. However, he continued, the usual procedure was to submit the bill to (I forget the name) commitee, and that if this impeachment was going to stick, it was going to have to go through normal procedures or there would certainly be a group crying 'foul.' He then, reluctantly, voted to refer it to the proper committee.. Whether you like the guy or dislike him, he is not the kind of politician to toss the law and established procedures out the window for political gain. by Ron Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 6:18:44 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Impeachment yep that should happen
Well if the democrats would actually understand that is why they won in 2006 to impeach and do so, maybe they would garner a vote from Paul. On Immigration, I was looking for a frame of reference. My cousins are part Native Americans. I am not, do I commit suicide, to address the issue? Or where should I go one of the 4+ nations that my family has emigrated from. Many East coast "native" artifacts contain an old Welsh dialect, as such they probably emigrated. Trade existed between the Americas and the egyptians as coca-aine residue was found in mumified remains in Africa. On Health Care, for crying out loud. I am a strong advocate of I suppose what you are speaking of in treating health problems natropathicaly or nutritionally. I believe that allowing more ability for people to choose their own health paths would be in the cards with a Paul presidency. I have voted several times for Ralph Nader and somehow find myself in the position to vote in the Republican Primary as I registered as a Republican so I could vote against a Republican candidate in the Primary. I think that we would agree on more than you can imagine. Peace by john w (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:47:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I'm not sure if you follow
I've read your angry comments expressing your distaste for Ron Paul and his campaign. I understand that you disagree with his methods (understatement!), but you really need to be more reasonable as a service to yourself and your readers. It's easy to hate Ron Paul for being a Republican, and not backing universal health care, and not backing impeachment, but it is also unfair to base an opinion on such. The man's ideas follow very, very sound reasoning, of the kind that I'm not accustomed to hearing in politics. I'd be happy to debate with you, point for point, why his ideas are reasonable, and your statements sometimes sound as nutty as you may accuse Ron Paul's supporters of being. It makes me cringe a bit. I understand your frustration with the world we live in, we're all frustrated. We must, however, above all, think clearly, and think about what would be best for our country, not judge the candidates based on pre-determined standards that tell whether he/she aligns with your political ideology or not. In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is that you're posting comments under an article asking the Anti-Paul People (down with APP?) to define their arguments against the man, and you are being very, very ineffective in this. Our friends here have also tried to make the point to you in their comments. Please, refocus. by Armando (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 5:06:15 AM (0+)
|
|
If you've got a minute..
Hi there, I've been an avid Ron Paul supporter for a long time now. It saddens me to see comments stating that "WE THE PEOPLE" cannot change the system from the inside. How did we arrive here? When did Democracy end at the election? If you've got a few minutes, I'd like you to read a full page ad from the New York Times (Dec.27th) that Lawence Lepard took out. It is one of the best representations of why I, and many others, support Dr. Paul. http://www.dailypaul.com/files/common-sense-2-nyt.pdf WE can change the system. Thanks for your time Patrick by Patrick Roy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 9:34:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Link correction
http://www.dailypaul.com/files/common-sense-2-nyt.pdf by Patrick Roy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:31:17 AM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul absolutely sucks on healthcare
He has a long history of opposing universal healthcare. The lack of universal healthcare kills American citizens. Ron Paul would gut the limited healthcare currently provided. It is absolutely going in the wrong direction on this life and death issue to support him. He is the worst Presidential in either Party on the issue. All the Democratic candidates would be much better and at least make some improvements. Even the other Republicans are unlikely to worsen the already awful status quo on healthcare. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 9:39:20 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Lack of healthcare kills American citizens in greater number
Healthcare is a moral and economic issue. Ron Paul fails the test completely. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 9:41:41 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Halllllooooooo? Anyone in that head?
Question: Is it a right to be provided healthcare by the state? Is it fair to tax me for something I may never use, or want to use? Is the solution to a government inspired problem, more government solution? Do you honestly believe that the government will keep healthcare funded? Do you trust the government to provide decent healthcare? Do you trust the government will provide you with the maximum choice for your healthcare? WAKE UP!!! The solution I find the most appealling is this. Get the government out of the healthcare business. It will force providers to compete at the end user. Prices will drop. Quality will be maintained because competition is there and freedom of choice is there. Otherwise, end up with crappy healthcare for ALL that taxes everyone another 10%, which hurts our economy. What is the incentive to do good work when the gov will pay the bills? Anybody had to deal with local government before??? It amazes me that people think that the government can do anything efficiently. You would think that after seeing the disaster FEMA is, and the fact that S.S. has been looted would wake people up to the fact.. THE GOVERNMENT SUCKS. The free market provides the best service at the best price for all. Do you need more examples or a larger dose of reality? by Parke Nicholson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:06:47 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: ?????
Well, you're being taxed to fund an illegal war ~ and your children, grandchildren, great-grandchilden, etc., etc., etc will also be taxed for that. Do you use that? by tabonsell (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 318 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 6:31:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I dont get it..
Whats your point? Give up on my beliefs because I cant stop the war? by Parke Nicholson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Monday, Dec 31, 2007 at 7:18:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: We don't need universal health care
We don't need it, period. Get an education, work hard in school, and you too can have a job that provides health care. Life if about choices, and the middle class, much of it, is tired of paying for other people's bad choices in life. Washington DC now has a needle exchange program. Thanks! Glad as all get out that I don't live in DC and have my tax-dollars going to fund some drug abuser's habbit. Take care of yourself and you will need less doctor's visits. Stop taking your male children to the doctor for drugs when they show the first signs of being male. There's lots of room to fix the system without taxing each other out the wazoo to pay for it, which is progressive's plan. Frankly, I pay enough in taxes. If Dennis wanted to cut port spending, handouts to foreign countries, etc., to pay for health care for the poor, fine. That's why we have medicare and medicaid. They work soooooooo well, don't they? I cannot understand how progressives look at other countries with socialized medicine and see something there that they want. NOTHING IS FREE. Get that through your thick skulls. by Justin Green (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:57:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ah, the true voice of the Paul-ista libertarian rings out -
Let's see... Where have we heard this stuff before? Here's someone who earlier in the thread complains about "big government," & now proudly declares himself "... tired of paying for other people's bad choices in life." This is doubtless someone who finds Rush Limbaugh & Newt Gingrich eminently sensible on many issues. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:08:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Basically
Basically, you are saying that you care more about poor people than I do, or Ron Paul does. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you, nor do I believe that you are some sort of wonderous do-gooder. by Rolf Lindgren (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:51:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ha....
First, Universal Healthcare is nothing more than a scam, even Canada is now trying to back out of the entire system because it has failed. They are proposing that the government allow private practice and private insurance back into the country because their healthcare system is falling apart. Concerning healthcare, the good Dr. has first hand knowledge of the mess the current system is in and why it is such a mess. Dr. Paul has said: He also said: by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:54:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ha ha HA!
"If Congress practiced medicine, they'd be using leaches on their patients and offering bullets for amputee candidates to bite before hacking off irreparable limbs." Oh man that cracks me up, I love that. by Armando (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 5:12:25 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Another pile of horsebleep
Congress does practice medicine or have you forgotten Bill Frist and his remote diagnoses capabilities. Or his ownership of a large, large HMO and sitting upon committees that decided much for that industry...conflict of interest? You guys just make stuff up to fit your agenda, just like most everyone I guess, but your stuff is and always will be confined to a narrow and very self centered little group. Thank goodness for that! by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 4:19:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: About that Universal healthcare...
The more I think about it, the less I like it. I feel suspicious towards it. You must realize that setting up universal healthcare in a place like Sweden or Denmark is an entirely different endeavor than setting up FEDERAL universal health care in our United States. It's worked fairly for a lot of other countries, but if you speak to their citizens, as some others have already posted, you will find that the people of these countries aren't entirely happy with these healthcare systems anymore. Our federal government is a big, ambitious, American animal, and I trust it less every day. by Armando (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Sunday, Dec 30, 2007 at 5:19:35 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Let us ponder this
so-called "socialist" health care has worked for other nations, but it wont work here. Whyt you ask, well this "pundit" doesnt bother to say why, probably because he doesnt have the faintest clue. In fact our current health care is abysmally inept, terrifically expensive and very, very exclusionary. Despite his unknown sources expressing disatisfaction, and considering hundreds of millions live with government run health care are there not bound to be a few malcontnents, Canad, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, and many other nations rank far above the USA in inclusionary, affordable and professional health care. So wheres the beef, Clara? by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:11:14 AM (0+)
|
|
What date is that going to be in NYT?
Patrick, We have not been to the forum lately. Do you know what date that will be in the New York Times? As for Universal Healthcare at this point of time the Government can NOT even afford to have it. That is unless you want to pay 60% in taxes. Also, provided the dollar has not totally crashed. Every time the Fed lowers the rate they increase inflation. ONLY A Doctor WILL HEAL Our Country, Freedom4America Group by Freedom4America Group (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 9:46:16 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It said..
it was from Dec 27 on page A17. I picked up yesterday's paper today and it wasn't there. It may be because I got the New England edition. by Patrick Roy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:12:15 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Universal healthcare if Affordable
That position is sheer nonsense. Read the Medicare For All via H.R. 676 thread on this site. We could save about 5-9% of total GNP as a society by adopting universal healthcare by expanding Medicare. by Stephen Crockett (140 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 130 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:14:40 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: That's the savings in overhead, I believe
I believe the amount of savings you're talking about is from eliminating the duplication of overhead. By having one large clearinghouse for claims, or by eliminating claims altogether, much can be saved. On the other hand, the great unknown is how much demand will go up when there is no longer a cost attached. Other countries (Canada, for one) have found it necessary to impose dollar limits on their programs, resulting in waits for various procedures so that demand won't outrun supply. Add to that the aging of the baby boom generation and you can discard any notion that health care will cost less in the future, especially if it is "free." by Ron Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:47:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Correct
More and more countries with universal healthcare programs are looking at alternatives. There systems are failing to fulfill its promise of good healthcare for all their citizens. Why on earth would anyone want to go to a system that will not only not provide the best care, but will do so at the expense of our privacy, our ability to redress grievances or have a choice in the matter of doctors or anything else concerning your personal or family medical care. There is a much better way...get the government out of the medical and every other business. by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 4:31:07 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: the truth is far from what you posit
The health care systems of Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Canada and France are thriving, are better by far than what the working poor here in America have access to, are inclusionary for all its citizens and are run for very little overhead. They pay so much less than do we, get so much more for the money and every damn statistic available proves that. Please do not believe for one second that your right wing prattle will sell here. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 1:40:47 PM (0+)
|
|
The media's racist smear has worked
LadyOak: Ron Paul's fans ARE NOT a bunch of racists as you stated. Sure, there might be a few, but that can be said about any candidate, and I would dare say there are fewer racists in a crowd of libertarians than any other group of people, since libertarians recognize that everyone has a right to life, liberty and property. The New York Times actually printed a retraction about a smear they posted concerning neoNazis who supposedly met with Ron Paul regularly. IT WASN'T TRUE! But obviously the smear worked since you are repeating it. by Eric Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 9:51:18 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: damn dude
there are freaking pictures of them together...and right here on this site too! by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:28:09 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: How did the pictures come about?
Did Ron Paul know who these people were who were asking to have their picture taken with him? I've watched numerous videos of Ron Paul, and other candidates, on the campaign trail, and they generally make themselves available to have pictures taken with, or to sign autographs for, anyone who claims to be a supporter. If Ron Paul sought out the white supremacists for a photo-op, I'd say we have something to be concerned about. I have no reason to believe that is what happened. None of his past writings or actions would support the idea that he would endorse any kind of racism. Indeed, his approach to race and racism is similar to Dr. Martin Luther Kings: judge a man by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin. by Ron Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:30:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The article notes
that Pauls staffers say that there are constant meetings between Stormfront, Paul and his staff. The real issue remains the damage libertarianism can and would do to this nation. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:12:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: NO!
You do not get to smear a man and walk away Ardee. The entire story was completely debunked. Go read antiwar.com and you will see how that picture ended up being. Until you at least acknowledge that you were wrong about this you have no credibility on anything else. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:49:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Picture Means Little
A picture means little. I paid $1k/plate so we could have lunch with Dr. Ron Paul recently. Nice place, nice people, nice food, Dr. Paul took time to speak with each of us and signed my copy of our Constitution and we had pictures taken. Ron Paul is a genuine and caring man, and didn't have overbearing handlers. I have pictures, so what does this prove? This proves I can write checks for access. It proves nothing else. by john 2 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Dec 29, 2007 at 4:10:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hey Anthony
This comment has been flaggedReason: (Nasty Attacks) Nasty Attacks
If you ever remove your head from your rectum be sure to respond to my posts again. Until that time please perform an anatomically impossible task upon yourself. Imagine this tree swinging baboon , insulting every single critic of his cult leader Ron Paul, is insulted by my reporting of a link here at Op Ed. Poit meet kettle..... by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Jan 4, 2008 at 7:10:39 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I, the author, flagged this
I allowed my utter contempt for this phoney progressive to overule my restraint. This site has become nothing more than an all Paul all the time website, a real pity as it used to be a nice little moderate place. As a leftists I cannot participate any longer in this discussion of a political system as horrid as is Libertarianism, as harmful to the poor, the weak, the sick and the children. It appeals to the selfish, the greedy, the racist and those folks who refuse to understand their own obligation to this nation. Maybe Ill return after the candidacy of Ron Paul has returned to the dustbin of history. I opine that it stems from a desperate attempt by the right to hold on to some vestige of power after the debacle they have wrought during the last seven years./ by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Jan 4, 2008 at 8:14:27 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yeah, Yeah...
...and there was a black man standing behind them too! When I met Ron Paul I had about 10 seconds to shake his hand and get a picture taken with him due to the enormous crowd. You would think that someone would use their minds just a tad more when stuffing this smear food into their gullible mouths. Ron Paul's stated years ago that two of his personal heros were Dr. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, and on top of that he has stated that he would love to have Walter Block as a running mate...Walter, by the way, is an African American. So, you can either continue to open a vacant mind to all this Smearbund crap, or you can begin to think for yourself. by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 6:51:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sorry...
Sorry, I meant to say Walter Williams, not Block...I was reading Block today by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 7:07:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul is a Nut
Ron Paul is a nut, and his supporters are crackpots. If you are a conservative, it is better to support Obama or Clinton than Paul, and if you are a progressive, it is better to support Giuliani, McCain, Romney, or Huckabee than Paul. Because if you are a reasonable Democrat or Republican, you acknowledge and embrace several core ideas that have evolved over the past century, which Paul has the audacity to question. Paul's views on the Constitution, national security, and money are just too far out of the mainstream. Moreover, they are crazy. While there may be some room for quibbling around the edges, most educated, rational people would agree with all, or almost all, of these seventeen principles: 1. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which states "The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes," gives the federal government the power to tell you what decisions you can make regarding your own property. 2. The penumbra of the Bill of Rights creates a "right to privacy" that forces states to respect a woman's right to choose abortion, but does not force the federal government to respect a woman's right to choose medical marijuana. 3. The United States has an obligation to fight poverty worldwide - and also has an obligation to create even more poverty through economic sanctions against certain regimes we don't like. 4. Iraq was a failure in execution, but not in principle; in principle America's young men and women should be sent overseas to fight wars that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. 5. Inflationary policies are good for the poor, and falling prices relative to precious metal-backed dollars are bad for the people. 6. Deficits don't matter. 7. There should be compulsory national service (military or civil) for young people; the Constitution's prohibition against "involuntary servitude" means something else. 8. The Second Amendment empowers the federal government to restrict personal firearms ownership. 9. If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn't trouble you that the government is monitoring your activities. 10. When the country starts an ill-conceived war, rather than end the war, we must instead pull together and try to save the careers of the politicians responsible. 11. The Crusades were evil, but we must impose Western-style freedom and democracy on foreign peoples through the barrel of a gun. 12. Imperialism and colonialism were racist and evil, but today the USA and European powers have the right to dictate the economic and defense policies of every other country in the world. 13. Prohibition didn't work, but we must continue the War on Drugs. 14. Communism doesn't work, but central planning in education and health care is a necessity. 15. Fascism is evil, but the federal government must invest the Chief Executive with more powers, must go to war against more countries, must spy on its own people without warrants, must regulate the campaign speech of non-incumbents, and must control the economy while Big Business collects the profits. 16.When Congress authorizes the President to "use force," i.e., to start a war, Congress is exercising its Constitutional power to "declare war." And when it authorizes unelected bureaucrats to write and impose regulations on businesses, Congress is fulfilling its responsibility to "regulate commerce." That is to say, Congress has the authority to surrender its powers to the Executive Branch. 17. "Free trade" doesn't mean unregulated, tariff-free trade, it means surrendering the nation's sovereignty by transferring its power to make its own laws to bureaucrats in international organizations. This is a good thing. How can anyone, Left or Right, liberal or conservative, possibly dispute these rational, common-sense positions? It's not possible, but Ron Paul is doing it. That's why he must be stopped, by any means necessary. -courtesy of James Leroy Wilson by Adam Love (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:04:39 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Obama and Hillary supported Patriot Act
No thanks. Conservatives should NOT consider Hillary or Obama. Better to "waste" your vote by voting for Ron Paul and then writing him in on election day than to comprimise your beliefs to vote for thugs like Hillary or Guiliani or to vote for Big Government Obama. by Justin Green (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:00:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: lol, you were being sarcastic?
nevermind, great sarcasm by Justin Green (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:16:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Paul is the nut?
I really hope this was a sarcastic post, because as I reply to it, I cannot believe that someone honestly believes such ridiculous statements. Calling RP a nut and then assuming that everyone agrees to those ridiculous assumptions you posted makes me question who the nut really is. And in case you want to know, I am an educated individual (with a Master's degree), and I do not agree with these assumptions. Let's take a look at these assumptions. 1) Incredible reach here. The constitution gives the government the rights to regulate inter-state commerce. This has nothing to do with telling me what I can and cannot do with my land, unless I am using this land to engaged in inter-state commerce, which most of us are not. 2) Another reach. The bill of Rights does not guarantee a right to privacy, though it is implied by the bill, but taking that to mean that it supports a woman's right to choose is ridiculous. That only works if you assume that an unborn baby is not alive and has no say in the issue. I don't think you want to go down that route, given the obvious problems you have with the ability to deliver babys and keep them alive pre-term, as well as the legal ramifications that a doctor, such as Dr. Paul, would have to face if they were to do something (intentionally or not) which harmed an unborn baby. 3) We do not have an obligation to fight world wide poverty, and we are doing a horrible job fighting poverty in our own country. If you haven't bothered noticing, poverty levels are rising in this country, not falling. And spending more of my hard earned money tackling the problem in other nations is not only ridiculous but counter productive. 4) It was a failure in both execution and principle. I for one do not want to see myself, my son, or my daughter going overseas to risk their lives for something that does not affect the greater security of our nation. That is not the prupose of our millitary. These people are putting their lives on the line for what??? a crusade? I'd also note that if the principle is what we are in Iraq for, why not continue on the same line and invade all of Africa along with Iran, China, Russia, central America, Mexico, and Pakistan? Wars are not to be fought on principle... They are to be fought on security. 5. This is a pile of croc. Tell me how it is that rising prices are good for the poor, who typically have fixed incomes. Have you not been shopping lately? Have you not noticed the rise in the price of milk, gas, bacon, coffee, or lumber (just to name a few)? How is this beneficial to people with a fixed income? How is this beneficial to people who are making minimum wage? 6. I have a proposition for you. Try running your own personal finances on that principle and see how far it gets you. Do you really think that it is somehow different for the goverment? The books must balance, and if they do not, you must borrow. You can only do that for so long until the lenders refuse to lend to you anymore, and when that happens, you are toast. Deficits are fine in a short term scenario where they are paid off quickly or you have a slush fund to draw on, but they do not work as a way of life. This is why bankrupcies and foreclosures are on the rise. 7. Re-read your consitituion, and study the history of this country. A draft is involuntary servitude, and it is one of the reasons why we declared independence from England. I'm fine with it in the even of a real crisis of national security (i.e, an invasion or attack is happening), but I'm whole heartedly against it as a method to police the world. Furthermore, I will not serve under those conditions and will do what it takes to save my children from them as well. If we had a draft to go to war with Iran, my service to my country would be from a jail cell. 8. Re-read the second ammendment. It says no such thing 9. Didn't you just mention something about the right to privacy? It apparently is useful for women seeking abortions but not for people who dont' want the government questioning how they spend their money? I have nothing to hide, but I do not want to have to justify everything I do to a bureaucracy that does not have my best interests in mind. 10. I prefer a different method. It's called accountability. We should hold them accountable, not protect their careers. 11. Because it will take so well. Are you blind to history? do you not realize that Musharff in Pakistan overthrew the democracy, and we now support him to the tune of 1B/year? The same with Iran, as we supported the Shah. It isn't about democracy. It's about keeping our puppet governments in power. 12. I believe that is called imperialisim and colonialism. The only difference is that we are now the imperial power instead of the colony. 13. Neither worked or is working. We were wise in ending one. We would be wise in ending the other. 14. Even though it doesn't work? Even though we cannot afford it? 15. To restate: fascism is evil, but we must be fasicst. You do realize the definition of fasicism is an unchecked executive waging war for corporate interests, do you not? 16. In both cases, it is shirking its responsibility, mainly to avoid accountability. 17. Then free trade is not free. I really hope this was sarcasm on your part, which if it is, then I'm the idiot. If someone actually believes any of this, then I guess they get exactly what is coming to all of us. Unfortunately, those of us who are enlightened enough to realize the fallacy will be stuck paying for the ignorance of others, while the perpetrators get off scott free. by Nathan Gau (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:18:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Dude...
...I'd never call a fellow supporter an idiot, but my long post was absolutely sarcastic. Just trying to point out to neocons and capital "P" progressives what they're being sold. by Adam Love (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 7:38:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Please explain...
80 million baby boomers are about to start filing for social security. The estimates for entitlements for these people are in the neighborhood of $50,000,000,000,000. Yes, trillion. On top of that you want universal health care? Who is going to pay for this? The war is still going on at enormous cost. Are you willing to shell out 70%-80% of your wages in taxes (Like much of the rest of the world) to provide this care? Universal health care is a great concept but I'm more concerned about putting food on the table and having a roof over my head. by Patrick Roy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:24:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: economics much?
Our health care is currently the most expensive of any nation on earth, what part of that equation escapes your illogic? by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:29:43 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Escape?
It's six of one....Either pay it in insurance or out of pocket (NOW) or through taxation (universal). What needs to be addressed is the root cause of the astronomical cost. From the Boston Herald: Health Care: Paul pledges to preserve “health freedom.” Supports making all medical expenses tax-deductible. Pledges to eliminate federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage and supports giving doctors ability to collectively negotiate with insurance companies to drive down the cost of care. Supports making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account and supports reform of licensure requirements to allow pharmacists and nurses to perform some basic medical functions to improve access to care and lower costs. Introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies. Supports the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments. Opposed legislation that increases the FDA‘s legal powers because he feels that the FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Believes government should not have the power to mandate immunizations or vaccinations. by Patrick Roy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 10:39:14 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Are you joking?
Yeah, a monopoly on health care really will work, won't it? Do YOU economics much? Choice lowers cost. Right now, health care is regulated in the wrong areas. by Justin Green (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:18:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Who are you to tell anyone to "shut up"? The blow-hardism &
thuggishness of the Paul-ista attack dogs is significant & revealing. It reminds one of an angry mob of vigilantes, champing at the bit to string someone up. When a mob becomes enraged, the individual mob members may well have legitimate initial cause for their anger. This is certainly part of the picture with the Paul-istas. As with a mob, however, there is also an irrational & ignorant-beast aspect to the Ron Paul phenomenon. The coordinated pack-attacks by his supporters on websites like OEN illustrate this tendency. Many of the attack-dogs have less than 10 lifetime posts on OEN -- meaning, they came to this site in the last few days, simply & specifically to attack critics of RP. Their tone is rude, slashing, & inappropriately aggressive. Even in ordinary times, one can stand on a soapbox & have some success at rabble-rousing by choosing the right theme. For instance, "Let's do away with the IRS" often plays pretty well. Abolishing the IRS is basically an ignorant & shallow way to think about a serious problem. Everyone hates paying taxes, so there's always a pool of not-so-latent resentment to tap into, in this area. But it's not enough to simply hate the IRS, and want to do away with it. You also need a well worked-out alternative plan for raising government revenue. Simply playing to visceral resentment of the agency (or proposing a regressive tax scheme to replace it) is not a solution. Similarly, the Paul-istas are correct in feeling that something is deeply wrong with politics-as-usual in America. And Paul himself is not "politics-as-usual." Some of the things he says on foreign policy & military spending are excellent, so there are valid reasons to find him interesting. On the other hand, there's lots wrong with him too, as anyone who's looked into it would know. His underlying philosophy of government is reactionary. He basically opposes all forms of socially-constructive government spending. One can only ignore such things by accepting (or willingly ignoring) reactionary ideas. There's a word for people who willingly ignore such things: "cultists." The RP phenomenon reeks of cultishness and vigilante-like anger -- as the bullying tone of many of his supporters attests to. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:01:56 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Look...
...I will admit that some Paul supporters have gotten the reputation, in many cases rightly so, of being aggressive, pack-oriented, and, shall we say, less than intellectual. But one of the hallmarks of Ron Paul's philosophy is an emphasis on individual, not collective, responsibility. You know as well as I do that "Put Up or Shut Up" is just a phrase, and a commonly used one at that. No need to take it personally. One of the main reasons Paul doesn't advocate a system to replace the revenue lost through a repeal of the income tax is that he (and we, his supporters), don't WANT to replace it. The IRS and the Federal Reserve, through taxation and inflation, finance Big Government. If his (and our) goal is to drastically reduce the size of government, he and we understand the the only way to do it is to starve it. You can't wage illegal war and conduct illegal wiretapping and data mining if the money's not there. You can't fund a welfare state that encourages illegal immigration if the money's not there. Finally, on a purely philosophical note, I and hundreds of thousands (with more converts each day) believe that the federal government has NO authority or mandate to conduct "socially constructive" spending. Social construction is the right of individuals only, not a massive beauracracy. by Adam Love (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:29:58 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: the last post was sarcasm.
so you were being sarcastic. I feel better now. by Nathan Gau (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:20:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I have 6 posts now
Because I only have 6 post I shouldn't voice my opinion? That's absurd. I take it you signed up and miraculously had 660 post next to your name? You do realize how websites get paid, right? By people visiting the site. Are you saying you welcome new people to keep the site running, but please don't make any comments until you have at least a 100 comments? I don't think anything I have posted today (my first day) has been offensive in any way, shape, or form. Making a generalized statment like the one you made is ignorant and ridiculous. You should be thanking these people for coming here and supporting the site and commenting on issues they are passionate about. How else would you be able to add another post to your already impressive stats. If you don't like what people have to say stop reading or join the discussion without belittling them. by Patrick Roy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:37:41 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you for helping me make my point, Re: the vacuousness
of most of the Paul-ista attack dogs. I'm sure anyone reading your post will quickly see how empty & vacuous it is. Your basic problem is that you have nothing to say that's worth saying. It's hard to disguise a deficiency like that. by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:06:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Temper, temper...
Rich M: Please reread your own posts, then read the pro-Paul writers. I am seeing attacks going on here, but they're not coming from the "Paulistas". Is this what progressivism has come to: name calling? by Ron Johnson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:21:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: In 2 posts
You have called me/Paul supporters: Thugs Attack dogs Empty & Vacuous (a little redundant but...) Blow-hards Cultists A mob "Paul-istas" All while only submitting about a paragraph and a half of substantive arguments on your opposition to his canidacy. Hypocritical? by Patrick Roy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:50:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Rich
I am the guy who has over 100 more articles written than you. I see yuou have 1 and over 600 comments. Nice balance. It is a phrase that is commenly used. I am tried of people slamming someone and providing no reasonable alternative. It doesnt take alot to say "dont do this", tell me who is the better choice. We clear sparky? by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:53:49 PM (0+)
|
|
i get it.
I have to be pro choice to be progressive. I have to love big brother to be progressive. Im personally pro life. That doesnt mean I want laws for those who are not. Big Brother sucks. Anyone looking around for the past 8 years can see that. The free market will do it faster, better and more efficiently than government will ever dream of. by Parke Nicholson (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 11:12:59 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Preach it!
Thats the point. I am personally pro-life as well but have fought the progressive fight long before the majority of these people with 600 opinions and no clear asnwer to solutions. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:56:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Great Article!
You hit the nail on the head. Just one other plug for Dr. Paul: The most destructive event going on in the United States the past 20 years is the war on drugs. The war on drugs is unconstitutional, immoral, illegal, and racist. Dr. Paul will not enforce any federal drug laws, and will pardon everyone convicted of a nonviolent federal drug crime. He will also work to end the drug was in the states as well. If Dr. Paul gets in there, we are talking about a million people getting their lives and families back. Pardons for people locked up 30 years. Pardons for those already released and can't get a job because of a "criminal" record. We are talking about saving billions of dollars of waste. No more battering rams breaking down people's doors for smoking weed or tooting up some coke. No more civil liberties seized. Legal medical marijuana where the states have voted it in. All the disasters associated the federal war on drugs gone, and a great reduction at the state level. Even if everything else you wrote was false, and it isn't, this one reason alone, the war on drugs, is the reason to elect RON PAUL! by Rolf Lindgren (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments [29 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 12:12:56 PM (0+)
|
|
It's Paul or it's Rudy
Hillary and/or Obama cannot win. You know the reason why (America always votes for the white guy). So who will win the Presidency? Let's examine the players? Mitt cries, Huck's Huckaboom raises $89,000 (that's as absurd as his duck-hunting hat), Rudy retreats to Florida, 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 Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:10:12 PM (0+)
|
|
An utterly ridiculous and contradicting statement
"his rise in the rigged polls"-Pick a side and stick to it..either they are rigged and therefore worthless or they are viable polls and he is rising up through the ranks of Repubs. There is no shame in voting for Kucinich. To vote your conscience is not a foreign concept to most folks. Yet the author attempts to marginalize anyone that supports Kucinich. Sounds like a republican tactic to me. by dusty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 1:17:40 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Dusty
Take a lesson on polling and get back to me by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:58:10 PM (0+)
|
|
These comments are representative of America's Problems
Geez, being accused of racism because of wanting to vote for a decent person. Someone who's actions match their words. Arguing over universal healthcare (or single payer) which is what we already have! See 071015_Single Payer Healthcare Already Here at People can't even have a civil discussion, so no wonder our civil war is just around the bend. And the people we're b*tch'in about are rubbing their hands together with a smirking face. by Edward Ulysses Cate (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 232 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 2:15:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Regarding Kucinich
When Paul is president he is going to need a top shelf cabinet. What would it tell theworld about the fundamental shift in our nation towards responsible and peaceful governing if Dennis Kucinich were the secretary of state? Paul is going to win, because it's OUR country. Let's start envisioning what it's all going to look like when we get our our country back. by Bob Tracey (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 46 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 2:50:39 PM (0+)
|
|
TWO CHOICES AND THAT IT FOLKS
ITS EITHER DENNIS KUCINCH OR RON PAUL, AND I THINK THE BEST WAY GO IS WITCH EITHER GETS THE NOMINATION OF THEIR PARTY, THAT THE ONE TO VOTE FOR ITS THAT SIMPLE, OR YOU COULD VOTE FOR ONE OF THE CFR GLOBALIST. AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO NIGHT SCHOOL, WAIT STOP, FORGET THAT GO TO DAY SCHOOL BECAUSE YOU WON'T HAVE JOB ANYWAY AND LEARN SPANISH. LIFE IS SO EASY WHEN WE JUST USE COMMON SENSE. I HOPE THIS STOPS THE CHICKENS FROM SQUABBLING. by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:02:41 PM (0+)
|
|
I wish Ron Paul was black
I wish Ron Paul was black so people would not play the raciest card. by John Coyle (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:17:57 PM (0+)
|
|
WHAT SMEARS?
I have read dozens of articles about Ron Paul; both pro-Paul and anti-Paul. The pro-Paul articles have been filled with glowing praise, the anti-Paul articles have only presented his political record, statements and affiliations. I fail to see how reciting his record is smearing. Would you please refer me to those articles of smear. by tabonsell (33 articles, 0 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 318 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 3:27:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: sure
see: any artuicle written against him in the last week they all play this nonsense about a 1992 newsletter and call him a racist. Or they show the picture of him and a white supremicist and say he has ties which he never has had. Please. Be objective. by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 4:00:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Proposals Based On Failing Systems....
Let’s see…first you base you proposals and the premise behind them on a system that is approaching its inherent maximum lifespan. Our entire contemporary society has been structured on a foundation built solely with debt creation. Under such a system, commerce becomes a finite as it approaches the terminal point of the monetary system. Since the entire monetary system relies upon the creation of debt, the debt multiplies and is irreversible; i.e. it can never be paid down or paid off. The reason it can’t be paid off under the system, which has been imposed upon us all by government decree, is that the entire economy is dependent on the expansion of the debt. The circulation of the money supply is in direct proportion to the debt principle itself because the money supply is created and completely backed by the act of borrowing. Every single Federal Reserve Note is a legal notification of a debt; in other words, each FRN is an IOU, a debt obligation. Every Federal Reserve Note and every other major currency, both physical and digital, has been borrowed into existence. Now, if a portion of the debt [periodic principle and periodic interest] is paid down, the economy is contracted in an equal proportion because that amount of currency is removed from circulation. The enormous expansions in the economy in recent years has been due to the inflation of the money supply, if the money supply is reduced so to is the economy. So, in order to avoid this problem, the government must introduce [borrow] more debt through the expansion of the money supply to ward off any contractions in the economy. Due to the addition of an interest obligation on top of the debt obligation, the entire debt, both periodic principle and interest, multiplies exponentially and there in is the primary problem with the system. Eventually the debt upon which they whole system is created begins to demand far more servicing from the economy than the economy can produce, we are seeing the beginnings of this period in the system called the Practical Possible Lifespan. This period is marked by an increase in the level the economy can tolerate minor disruptions; such as small interest rate increases. If you are old enough to recall the late 70s and 80s then you will remember the extremely high interest rates; while the economy faltered under the burden of those rate hikes, it was still able to maintain itself relatively well. That is not the case today, and while there are definitely several factors today that were not present in that previous time, the primary problem is that the debt has exploded beyond anything anyone would have dreamed of back in the 70s and 80s and is now placing a massive burden on economic growth. The next period in the time-line of the fiat monetary system’s lifespan is when the system reaches its Maximum Possible Lifespan. At this point everything goes into overdrive. The central banks of the world will find it more and more difficult to manipulate the economy and can only place patch upon patch on the ever-increasing panics and crisis’ that rapidly plague the global economy. Soon, we will see that commerce begins to fail to produce growth sufficient to maintain itself and business failure after failure will become commonplace. The capacity of the economy will shrink as the multiplication of the debt continues to expand; more and more of the money supply will be required to service the debt while less and less will be dedicated to supporting the economy. Therefore, the inherent total collapse of the entire central banking system and its fiat currency is escalated. Super-sonic hyperinflation will be the next to the final stage of the system before total collapse and total chaos grips our society. It is mathematically impossible for such a total fiat system to continue indefinitely, it will terminate and that point is rapidly approaching thanks, in a large part, to the monstrous debt expansion policies of the criminal Bush. An interesting little fact about the total fiat system and taxation is that taxation is completely unnecessary for the collection of revenues. Strangely enough, the Federal Reserve provided the real explanation for taxation in some of their publications. n the Federal Reserve’s own publications you will find the following:
"In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount. What then makes these instruments: checks, paper money, and coins acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such money for other financial assets and services whenever they choose to do so. THIS IS PARTLY A MATTER OF LAW; CURRENCY HAS BEEN DESIGNATED "LEGAL TENDER" BY THE GOVERNMENT, THAT IS, IT MUST BE ACCEPTED."
"Modern monetary systems have a fiat base, LITERALLY MONEY BY DECREE with depository institutions, acting as fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base acting in part as RESERVES. The DECREE appears on the currency notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." WHILE NO INDIVIDUAL COULD REFUSE TO ACCEPT SUCH MONEY FOR DEBT PAYMENT, EXCHANGE CONTRACTS COULD EASILY BE COMPOSED TO THWART ITS USE IN EVERYDAY COMMERCE. HOWEVER, A FORCEFUL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY MONEY IS ACCEPTED IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES IT AS PAYMENT FOR TAX LIABILITIES. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a demand for the pure fiat dollar"
Now why does the government enforce the payment of Income Taxes, simple to maintain the system of Fiat Currency, but that is not the only reason? Another, more insidious reason is found in the writings of another Federal Reserve Chairman named Breadsley Ruml in 1946. He states, in no uncertain terms the reason behind the Progressive Income Tax:
“The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it IS NOT TRUE FOR A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years, which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements. The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks. The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold.”
“Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity.”
“The United States is a NATIONAL STATE, which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. THE PUBLIC PURPOSE, WHICH IS SERVED, SHOULD NEVER BE OBSURED IN A TAX PROGRAM UNDER THE MASK OF RAISING REVENUE.” That last statement is absolutely amazing and should raise more than a few questions regarding the reasons behind taxation in this country, it should also make everyone extremely angry that we have been snookered to the extreme. Concerning the use of Taxation for the Distribution of Wealth, Ruml was very clear:
“The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes, which are effective for this purpose, are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. WHAT THESE TAXES SHOULD BE DEPENDS ON PUBLIC POLICY WITH RESPECTS TO THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH AND OF INCOME. IT IS IMPORTANT, HERE, TO NOTE THAT THE ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES HAVE LITTLE OR NO SINIFICANCE, AS TAX MEASURES, BUT FOR STABILIZING THE DOLLAR. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, NOT AS REVENUE MEASURES.” As you can see, the purposes of the Progressive Income Tax, Estate Taxes and Gift Taxes are little more than an instrument of Socio-Economic Construction by the State. The government does not need Tax Revenue in order to function because of the structure of the Fiat Monetary System. In the Fiat Currency system the government simply allows the Federal Reserve to “lend” it money, doesn’t matter how much, at least not to the government.
Now, the only problem with the whole system is that there is a nasty side affect by the unlimited printing of Fiat Currency and placing it into circulation: it’s called INFLATION. There comes a time when the pressure of Inflation eats up the wages of the People and the whole economic market begins to suffer, as we have all seen.
So, they take massive amounts of income away from the People in the form of Income Taxes in order to maintain some degree of control over the Inflation they create, which is just another form of taxation. Our tax rate, counting the percentage of Income Tax we pay, plus the massive amount of Inflationary Tax we pay, leaves us with precious little for many working men and women to live on and in fact, it makes the People of the United States one of the heaviest Taxed peoples in history.
Our money is debt; it is created and backed by nothing more than debt. Now since it is nothing but debt, and there is no value to it, why would the government want to decree its usage? Simple, it is a system that controls you and me; it makes each of us compliant to the various laws imposed outside of the framework of the Constitution. THIS IS A CRIME OF UNBELIEVEABLE PROPORTIONS AND WE JUST LET IT CONTINUE…IN FACT, YOU COULD SAY THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE ENTIRE FIAT MONETARY SYSTEM AND THE PROGRESSIE TAXATION IS TO MAKE THIS PEOPLE A NATION OF PRODUCTIVE SERFS IN A MODERN FEUDAL SYSTEM WHERE THE LORDS OF THE MANOR DEMAND HOMMAGE THROUGH THE FRUITS OF OUR LABOR. Today, it takes over $20,000.00 Federal Reserve Notes to purchase what $1,000.00 bought in 1913 Sound Greenback Dollars. It is not the price of goods and services that have increased that much, but the purchasing power and value of our currency by decree that has decreased. In 1913, a Dollar was valued at 1/20th of an ounce of gold, today our Fiat FRNs are valued at approximately 1/800th of an ounce of gold. All that wealth has been siphoned off from the working men and women of this country, for generations it has been diverted into the coffers of big banking, big business, big military and big government. Make ya angry, it should! There was a time in our country when our money was our property. It was more than just a medium of exchange or an economic instrument; it was, in a very real sense, property. When a man labored he received compensation in value equal to his work, his produce or his creativity; the money he earned was his property, just as anything else he owned. He could be assured that his money was a store of real value, he could spend it as he pleased, he could store in a bank, stuff it in his mattress or bury it in a mason jar in his back yard and it was no ones business but his own. He could be confident in the value of his money, that he could dig that Mason jar from the ground years later and still have money that kept an equivalent value as when he buried it, it was real money, sound money and it was his private property. He could be assured that his government could not confiscate it, track it or regulate it once it was in his hands; it was real property, his property. He need not worry about whether he carried a suitcase full of it from city to city, state to state or country to country because it was, without any equivocation, his property to do with what he wanted.
In our Constitutional Republic, the Founders were well aware of the potential dangers involving the nation’s currency and with that knowledge they gave us with some extremely strong admonitions concerning the value of money as property. They had experienced the results of unsound money and knew that monetary instability would not only threaten the nation’s economic freedom, but all freedoms and liberties enjoyed by the people.
In the preliminary draft of our Constitution the following words were considered: "To borrow money and emit bills [fiat currency] on the credit of the United States." The wording however, was struck from the final document and for good reason. Due to the Founders knowledge of history and even their experience with the “Continentals”, they knew the danger that emitting such bills posed to the nation and the value of the monetary property of the People. Indeed, it was more than just the monetary property Rights, but all Rights of the People that concerned the Founders; for they were aware that if the monetary system was ever corrupted that the entire system could be corrupted.
In fact, there were some in the Constitutional Convention that believed that it would be better to discard the entire Constitution instead of allowing “and emit bills” to remain. The passion concerning the ability of Congress to “emit bills” was so powerful because the Founders knew that such ability had the potential to undermine the Republic.
The cardinal rule of money as real property is essential for a Free People; absent that cardinal rule the government assumes powers that will always infringe upon the Rights of the People. As we have seen, when money is little more than an impotent instrument of exchange, monopolized and regulated by the government then the government is; apparently, free to treat it as such. The government can debase it, confiscate it, control it, track it and basically manipulate it to benefit any agenda it pleases.
Is it any wonder why the Founders were so concerned about taxation without representation? Such taxation allowed the King's government to tax the fruit of the people’s labor indiscriminately. It totally ignored their property rights and amounted to open robbery of the people’s private property. Today, we have the semblance of representation, but in reality those we elect rarely consider our consent when crafting legislation. Perhaps if we actually considered what has taken place over the last century we would once again raise our arms in revolution and cast out those who should be considered nothing more than common criminals acting for their own benefit instead of that of the people.
Through the years our financial privacy has been invaded through a system that has completely eliminated not only the property rights of our money, but also the value of our money and indeed the essence of our money itself has been detrimentally altered. Today, our money has been transformed, by certain factions in both the banking cartel and government, as an instrument of a government. A government that no longer places value upon the Rights of the People to keep their property and to use that property in ways that should be considered private and inviolate is a government operating outside the Consent of the People and the Law of the Land. Along with the Central Bankers, such a government seeks to use unsound money for purposes other than the real benefit of the People.
This government began to follow the path toward unsound money the moment it bowed down to the power of the bankers by passing the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Since that time we have witnessed some of the most heinous acts against the People and their property in the history of this nation. Under the watch of the Federal Reserve, this country and its people suffered numerous depressions and recessions, including the Great Depression. These financial crises served the bankers and the government well, it provided opportunities to both bankers and the government unparallel in our nations history. The scope and power of the government was immensely expanded in the wake of the Great Depression and although the Federal Reserve was intended to avert such economic panics, it was the major contributor to that economic catastrophe and, indeed, as it turns out, a prime beneficiary of the economic disaster. During the Great Depression there was a tremendous amount of wealth that was transferred into the hands of not only the Central Bankers, but into the coffers of the government itself.
The Great Depression provided the government with an opportunity never before seen in this country’s history; the Crash of 29 and the ensuing depression followed the natural progression of monetary debasement and control. It also proved to be the impetus for the destruction of the property rights associated with money. It gave the government the rights over the people’s money, making it nearly impossible for a man to control or maintain his money as private property. FDR’s confiscation of gold and the government’s decision to renege on its promise to redeem its Liberty Bonds marked the beginning of the end of private money property in this country; it also marked the end of the full faith of the United States government.
By 1971, the goal of destroying private money, and the rights associated with it, was completed when the government quietly achieved a total fiat currency coup d’état and their banking partners, the Federal Reserve now had free-reign to control the monetary interests of this nation through a complete monopoly. This effectively ended all property rights the people retained in their money. Since that time, we have witnessed a drastic confiscation of the wealth of this nation by the government and its banking cartel. This confiscation is hidden from the masses of people and takes the form of inflation, draining away the purchasing power of the nation’s money and the ability of the majority of the people to maintain a stable livelihood.
Alan Greenspan once said: “In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.” He should know, for under his tenure at the Federal Reserve, the people of this country have been victimized and seen their wealth robbed through that insidious form of theft called inflation. We have seen our standard of living stolen from us and with the complicity of our own government we have witnessed the demise of our property rights, and indeed all our rights. The fruit of our labors are being siphoned off by those who are no longer worthy of being called our Representative Government, they have long ago abandoned good government for abusive powers and what amounts to little more than blatant highway robbery. They have replaced our Liberty and Rights with something that is totally contingent upon our compliance under the illusion of freedom. They have transformed this nation from one of producers, manufacturers and good labor into a debt-dependent serfdom created to increase their own real wealth and powers while reducing the actual standard of living for millions of hard-working Americans.
How many times did our Founders clearly warn us of the potential for deceit and corruption associated with the unsound money, but through trickery and overt deception this nation was lead down a path that will, ultimately, prove its undoing? The Father of the Constitution, James Madison stated that unsound fiat money would destroy the necessary confidence between man and man, in public councils, industry, the moral standing of the people and the complete character of the republican government.
The last century saw a progressive disregard for the Constitution and authority, in many cases it is simply ignored by government. Such disregard should not be considered anything less than criminal, a breach of contract between the government and those who have consented to be governed under that agreement. The people must come to understand that one of their fundamental rights is that of money property and the only way to have money property is for money to be a sound store of value, untouchable by government, separated from the influences of a monopolistic Central Bank, free of the threat of confiscation or undue taxation without appropriate Constitutional Representation. It is a Right that must be restored to the People, without it restoration there is little hope of us maintaining the few vestiges of freedom left to this People.
We stand at a time when this nation will face a great turmoil, the next few years will determine the future of our nation as the fiat monetary system follows all fiat systems before it and collapses. The fiat monetary system is on the verge of reaching the terminal point within its lifespan, it struggles under minor disruptions and small interest rate hikes; chaos that ensues during its collapse will either end in a return to sound money or overt tyranny as the government seeks to control the collapse of society.
The Right of Money Property is a revolutionary right; it stands as a bulwark against those who would assume authority over us and our future. The Right to produce, to labor in exchange of just and sound compensation without the interference of government or the overt monopolistic control of the Central Bankers is essential for a good and prosperous future. We must repudiate all extra and un-Constitutional usurpations and hold those within government accountable for such crimes.
The People must once again take an offensive stance against all those within and without the government who continue to seek to overthrow the remaining remnants of our Constitutional Republic. Our call to sacrifice is no less vital as that of our Founders, our call to defend this Constitutional Republic is no less essential for the survival of this nation. by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 8:37:38 PM |