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

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

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

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

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 9:02:26 AM

  (0+)

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

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

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

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

Read entire piece and watch video:

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

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:47:34 AM

  (0+)

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 5:55:57 PM

  (0+)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (0+)

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

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 10:05:01 AM

  (0+)

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

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

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

  (0+)

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

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

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

  (0+)

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

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

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

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

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

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

  (0+)

because your title and first sentence were condescending.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 3:06:53 PM

  (0+)

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

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

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

  (0+)

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

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

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

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

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 8:26:53 PM

  (0+)

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

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

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

  (0+)

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

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:29:23 AM

  (0+)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 9, 2004 Dr. Ron Paul

     peace

by mikel paul (14 articles, 1 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 570 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:09:01 PM

  (0+)

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

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

  (0+)

Politics is , as is life itself, complex and finding commonality is difficult. That doesnt mean we shouldnt try......Im certainly fascinated by some of the things offered by the Libertarian perspective and, as you noted, am repelled by others . That these things that repel us both may be different things entirely is funny......that we two seek truth in our own way is a good thing.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:27:53 AM

  (0+)

You have to look at what he says, not what the spin meisters try to frighten you with.

When over 50% of discretionary spending is military and black budget CIA ops, and Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who would slash that evil behemouth . . . you play into their hands by pretending the Democrats would do anything about it.

9/11 was designed by the powers that be to immasculate the Democrats into never being able to touch military spending in any significant way.

We are in an Alice in Wonderland situation here.  The only way that sacred cow can be slaughtered is by a Republican.

Anyway a President doesn't write laws, he signs them.  Congress would never take apart medicare.

However, if a President Ron Paul within months of being elected withdrew troops from worldwide, thereby slashing defense spending . . . the coffers of America would see the light of a black budget, rather than endless deficit.

A good Democratic Congress could use that bounty to do all kinds of wonderful things.

Some of you may be too young to remember, but Reagan said his plan was to bankrupt the country thru military spending, in order to destroy all social programs.

So, since you put the question to me "are you a liberal?"  I put it right back to you.  How can you be a liberal and support Democrats who will NEVER slash defense spending in any meaningful way?

If you are a liberal how can you not support a candidate who will end the global corporate savaging of poor people around the world?  Since the US started its "drug war" in Columbia, have drugs stopped coming in?  NO.  But, what has happened is the number of union labor organizers in Columbia being murdered is skyrocketing.

The US military empire is used to steal poor nations resources, and keep workers as slave laborers, by killing good leaders, and supporting corporate lackeys.  SEE THE MOVIE SYRIANA.

If you support this pathetic field of Democrats corporate media and the party support YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL.  Yes, Gravel and Kucinich are good men, good candidates.  Where are they?  The corporate Democratic Party with the help of corporate media have destroyed their candidacies.

WAKE UP LIBERALS, what you seek is not found in the corporate Democratic structure, and God knows not in the reprehensible GOP corporate structure . . . but in a visionary running the smartest campaign in my lifetime.  His name is RON PAUL.

JOIN THE REVOLUTION!!

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 2:26:10 PM

  (0+)

As a liberal I DO NOT support any of the democratic candidates, though I admire Dennis Kucinich I cannot support him precisely because he IS a democrat and is thus trapped in a system that guarrantees inequality and failure of progressive goals.

To posit that the only road to slashing our military industrial complexes hold upon our economy is to vote republican is to much of a 'through the looking glass' philosophy for me, thanks. I will stick with my opinion of the harm Paul would seek to do to the social contract between our government and our neediest folks. To posit that its OK to vote for such as he because Congress would block his attempts to do away with those programs is foolishness itself.

Look all you folks who are desperate to stop this war, Paul is not the way. Single issue voting is a most dangerous action and Libertarianism would change the very fabric of that which made America great.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:35:00 AM

  (0+)

is the huge financial support for Ron Paul not reflected in his standing in the polls? The fact that "wheelchair thief" Giuliani is way out in front and Ron Paul is bringing up the rear, why is that? Is it just manufactured fear of Islamofascism?

by Karen Fish (55 articles, 14 quicklinks, 41 diaries, 106 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:00:16 AM

  (0+)

The corporate media has systematically played up Guiliani.  My suspicion is the the deal was from the powers that be, "you destroy the WTC collapse evidence by shipping the steel to India and China to be destroyed before an investigation . . . and we'll make you President."

It isn't working out quite the way they planned.  Even though, as mentioned the corporate media has kept Paul in the sidelines by avoiding him as much as possible in the debates, and avoiding him almost completely in their reporting.  Many corporate media polls early on actually deleted Ron Paul from their polling questions.

The other fact is that Ron Paul's voters tend to be young ones who haven't voted before, and also older people who've never voted before.  They aren't on the polling lists if they didn't vote last time.  Also many of his young voters have only cell phones, which aren't on polling lists.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 2:41:14 PM

  (0+)

why do you inflate the support Paul is getting? That there are folks so desperate for an antiwar candidate, and for an honest candidate as well that they choose to ignore the seamier side of Libertarianism and support Paul is moot. That there are damn few and they will fade away as Paul's numbers in the primary never reach respectability is a good thing for the disenfranchised, the poor, the neediest among us and the children.

It is a really sad commentary about our electorate that they refuse to do the honest work in understand where Libertarianism takes this nation.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 3:17:13 PM

  (0+)

Excellent article. As an aside from Congressman Paul's popularity in the U.S., his popularity in many foreign lands is worth our notice. These people who inhabit the planet with us sense a goodness in Dr. Paul that has not been witnessed for some time.

My own leanings toward Ron Paul follow his economic prowess. We must reduce the size and cost of government and return the associated returns back to the people. There is simply no other mathematical possibility of providing some measure of sustainability.

And lastly, reality, is a word that Congressman Paul seems to have firm grasp of.

Thank you for your point of view.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:38:11 AM

  (0+)

I am a conservative, Christian Iraq veteran.  Ron Paul can truely unite all Americans, conservative, liberal and inbetween, under one word - freedom.

by Gary Skubal (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:40:04 AM

  (0+)

If he's so damned cool, why isn't he an Independent anyway?  The major problem I have with him goes back to his Libertarian philosophy.  He believes that the government's social programs must go.  That's pretty much taking the side of the have-mores (as Bush called them) and forgetting about everyone else.  The ole sink or swim take on things...  Ask a person who depends on Social Security, food stamps, welfare, state health programs etc. if they'd consider voting for Ron Paul after they were informed of his views regarding those subjects...  I don't personally know you but I'll assume that you don't rely on any of those programs at present.  If you did, maybe you'd reconsider your endorsement.  Make no mistake,  I completely agree with you on the disgust felt by a lot of Dems.  I'm one of them.  And though he has many admirable qualities and ideas, Ron Paul isn't the answer.

Are you still buying into the myth of the 'liberal media' or did you mean to say progressive web-sites and such?  Surely you can make that distinction.  There is no, never has been a, looking pretty impossible for it to even ever exist now... Liberal Media.  It was once a little more reliable, but never 'Liberal'. 

by C.Bid (0 articles, 7 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 739 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 11:49:41 AM

  (0+)

Getting rid of social programs would eliminate dependency on government, as well as a lot of the government's power over people.  It would hurt some people, yes, but it would also free many.

 In addition, Ron Paul also constantly speaks out against inflation and our country's monetary policies (which is used to make the rich richer and the poor poorer more than anything else in government).  Inflation hits poor people more than any other sector, and this hidden tax is why those people struggling to get ahead can find themselves falling farther and farther behind.

 He is not against the poor or for the rich, he is for Freedom.

by Cliff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:10:31 PM

  (0+)

how can you possibly believe this .....

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:36:05 AM

  (0+)

What I mean by liberal media is Huffington Post, Daily Kos, The Nation, etc. etc.

 All the media I had admired until they began censoring anyone questioning 9/11, and then I just started to see on some liberal blogs the talking points against Ron Paul being fed out.  Ones like you mention above.

The fact is that the social programs in this country are dying a slow death, as is education, etc. etc. BECAUSE OVER 50% OF DISCRETIONARY SPENDING GOES TO MILITARY.

Guess what?  Clinton barely changed that at all.  The corporate media, which hasn't been liberal for decades, made you think Clinton changed that.  He didn't.  Democrats will not change that in any real way.  They'll put lipstick on that rotting corpse, but it'll still stink and it won't have a heart beat.

The only way any real re-invention and re-invigoration of American society can occur is if we roll back the American global military empire.  Only Ron Paul is talking about doing that.

American workers are also losing ground annually?  Why?  Lou Dobbs and his ilk will tell you that its because of poor Mexicans, and that poor Mexicans are going to bring bombs in and blow us up because Muslims ask them to.  Disgusting and untrue.

Fact is that the American worker is losing ground because the US military/CIA global empire kills good leaders, and supports corporate whores.  Who runs Afghanistan today?  Who's the President of Aghanistan?   FORMER UNOCAL OIL EXECUTIVE!!  (See the movie Syriana if you haven't yet.  It explains it all.  Written by a former CIA agent.)

The American worker is losing ground not because of poor Mexicans but because those poor Mexicans are unable to organize unions here.  Also many Latin American immigrants fled from countries where labor organizers are murdered by thugs trained by the SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS.

Wake up liberals.  Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with a hope in hell, that will end this global evil we all pay for.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 2:51:43 PM

  (0+)

I am a self-avowed Democrat who voted for Kerry in 2004 (mostly out of disgust for Bush).  Heck, I even volunteered at the DNC phone banks in 2004!  But I am repulsed and disgusted with partisan brownshirts who pose as liberals and progressives, yet viciously attack the only viable anti-war, anti-Mlitary Industrial Complex, pro-personal liberties candidate running, just because he's not running in their "chosen party."

by Barrett "Buddy-Rey" Reynolds (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:26:45 PM

  (0+)

My wife and I both worked for Kerry, here in Missouri, and then flew to Vegas to work an entire week of 12 hour days in the massive get out the vote effort there when Nevada was ready to swing to Kerry.

My wife worked sick as a dog for three of those days.  I got sick the last day. We were exhausted.  We'd left our jobs and worked our butts off for Kerry.

When we got up to drive the van on election day to drop precinct walkers around town, and walk ourselves . . . the liberal talk radio was popping champaign corks because exit polls said KERRY WINS KEY STATES.

Then later in the afternoon . . . a funny thing happened . . . all those states went back to Bush.  And they all had electronic voting machines.  What a coincidence.  And most had voting irregularities, and vote suppression in poor black areas.

So, a real Democrat would have fought, and fought hard to demand a new vote count, in honor of all of us who worked our butts off for him, and also for democracy.

But, the Skull and Bones Kerry (Bush is Yale Skull and Bones too) . . . stood there in the late afternoon/early evening . . . and gave up.

I almost puked!

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 2:59:06 PM

  (0+)

I could vote for Paul. His control of the military would be welcome. I would hope congress would fight Ron Paul to keep what few social programs we have in place.

by DCDobbs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 18 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:29:38 PM

  (0+)

With the Money Ron Paul would bring back home - It would be a golden age for America.

Over 50% of federal discretionary spending is now military.  When President Ron Paul brings back US military from all over the world, and ends US military intervention, the US economy will be flush with funds we never dreamed of.

The potential of what to do with such funding is mind boggling.  I get excited just thinking about it.  The first thing is to join the Ron Paul revolution.

We can all argue over what to do with the trillions of dollars later :-)

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:02:42 PM

  (0+)

may well have been adopted as a good program, but was also adopted by the mathematically challenged. The premise that there would always be sufficient people paying in to provide for those collecting, is mathematically impossible in a finite world. No different that any pyramid scheme, there is a predicable barrier to sustainability. And no, if they had not robbed the fund would it still be a viable program. Our economy cannot and will not grow exponentially, which was the original premise of Social Security funding.

Medicare on the other hand make S.S. look like a walk in the park.

Those depending on welfare, food stamps, social security, Medicare etc. are not the signs of a good and caring government, it is the symptoms of a government gone awry and exactly what Ron Paul would like to change.

Which other candidates have a fix? Any fix? Please include the math to make it happen. The U.S. is in serious trouble and more of the same will bring more of the same.

Those who believe that it is possible under any circumstances to continue with our present form and size of government and that higher taxes are the answer to a long term solution are simply ignoring math and reality.

Our system isn't failing, it failed. I certainly don't agree with everything that Ron Paul says, but drastic change is necessary to have any hope of saving those most needy. Otherwise, we simple add to the numbers living in poverty, but then misery loves company.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:48:26 PM

  (0+)

Social Security is NOT failing.  That is a myth.  When Reagan came into office he for the first time rolled social security funds into the general budget.

As I said before, the GOP's goal as stated by Reagan, was to bankrupt the US economy with military spending, in order to kill all social programs including Social Security.

Since then SS money has been used for things like . . . as Ron Paul says, "We are paying to bomb bridges in Iraq and then we are paying to rebuild those same bridges."

The only way to "save" anything liberals care about is to end the looting of our economy for military spending and the global corporate looting our military has been obscenely used to act as body guards for.

If the US military didn't support thugs who keep people down worldwide, why those corporations would have to treat those people fairly.

What a concept.  And American workers would benefit because they wouldn't have to compete with slave labor, kept in slavery with their own tax dollars.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:07:15 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul is a man that can alter the future of humanity in a way that will enable a human renessance.

WOW! That statement really says it all!

The "Left Media" is just corporate media, i.e., it's neither "left" nor "right", just corporate--owned by, sponsored by, shilling for the globalist corporations and the state they feed off of, i.e., Washington DC.

Here is why the "left", the "right" and everyone else are defecting to the Ron Paul Revolution:

by David C (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 12:57:19 PM

  (0+)

I very much appreciate Dr Paul's openness about his politics, but does anyone know of a country in which his libertarian philosophies have proven themselves to be beneficial to the nation as a whole? Ron Paul does not believe we should have a department of education, to ensure that all states provide a minimum level of education to their citizens (who are, by the way, American citizens), or that government has any business building, maintaining, or even providing oversight of critical infrastructure. He believes the magical free market will solve all our problems, while we watch as the last 30 years of free market/flat earth globalism leads us down the road to third world status; bridges collapsing, power grids privately owned, and incapable of getting power back to people after a winter storm, huge areas of the gulf coast still unliveable, or sold to developers after it's former inhabitants were displaced, stolen elections(and still the hackable, corporate owned voting machines are used)... the list goes on and on. The privatization of the commons has been devastating to this nation, and Dr. Paul is in favor of more privatization.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the author about the Dems, but Ron Paul is not the answer. We need someone who will call on America to be a WE nation rather than a ME nation- and he is definitely not that person. We do NOT need more corporate freedom or less government oversight. What we do need are people in the government who don't want to dismantle it, but who want to make it work for all the people.

In what part of the world are people the happiest, healthiest, best educated? It's not here anymore, but in countries where they believe in good government and a strong social contract with it's citizens. Why don't we talk about that in our election cycles?

What's wrong with standing up for true liberal values like ending poverty, taking care of the sick and needy, ending war and focusing on peace, and ensuring that those with the most money and power don't take advantage of those with the least? These are American values. These are moral values. These are the values most emphatically pronounced by Jesus of nazareth and every other great spiritual leader throughout history.

Let's not give up on the things that make us truly great as a nation, as a people.

by jdoss (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 1:21:47 PM

  (0+)

How about these United States of America?  Our country was founded on libertarian principles; limited government, state's rights, non-interventionist policies.  We did pretty well early on following them, but unfortunately have gotten off track in the last 100 years.

by Cliff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 1:32:16 PM

  (0+)

People who say that they would vote for Ron Paul if he didn't support this or if he wasn't against that, don't really see how deep sh*t US is. They don't see why there is a need to get out from status quo as fast as possible.

If you want a perfect candidate to vote you have to run for president yourself. If you want to save US(and the world), you vote for Ron Paul.

by Matt Hill (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 2:11:21 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul is not for more privatization ala Black Water in New Orleans.  Another media spun myth to blind us to the hope he offers.

What Ron Paul is for is allowing State and local govt. to have the funding to do those things, rather than allowing Washington DC to use disasters as an excuse to line the pockets of their pals.  As we've seen in New Orleans, and in Iraq, etc. etc.

This MYTH, and I capitalize the word MYTH, that Ron Paul is going to ride into DC and suddenly the Congress is going to destroy every program is a myth.

A President doesn't wield such power, and Paul has said that isn't his intention anyway.

What power does a President have?  He is the Commander in Chief.  He can single handedly call back all US military presence worldwide, and call by CIA interventionist programs worldwide.  He can do that immediately the day he enters office.

Not one Democrat will do that.  I don't even think Kucinich who I love, would do that.  They can't because 9/11 was used and intended by its planners (who aren't Arab by the way.  See Cheney.) to put Democrats in a corner where they could NEVER reduce military spending or significantly stop US intervention worldwide.

That is Paul's main goal.  JOIN THE REVOLUTION !!

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:13:45 PM

  (0+)

New Zealand had a giant bureaucracy that was hampering their education and economic growth, and by reducing it to a fraction of its former size they were able to advance their country greatly. Here is a link that talks about it - it is definitely an interesting read:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=04

by Al Meeks (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 6:18:54 AM

  (0+)

The only thing we have to do to solve the supposed 'crisis' with our Social Security system is to raise the cap on taxable income for SS, so that people making over $90K a year pay the same percentage on that income that everyone else pays.

by jdoss (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 1:26:49 PM

  (0+)

I realize that to liberals for some reason taxing the rich to give to the poor is morally as high as it gets, but I fail to see how you can really be so blind about taxes.  It's almost as if you want to stifle business as much as possible, and to what end I can't figure out.  You have to know if you crush business you've crushed this country, but it's like you don't care. 

As it is in the last 10 years we've had the highest volume of millionaires and billionaires leaving the country to avoid taxes.  Then tack onto that all of the businesses leaving to globalize and maybe people would start to think that it'd be a good idea to tax less.  Nope, as always, we need to tax more, and raise them on the rich most of all.  The evil evil rich.

The reason that people making over $90,000 don't pay on the upper income is because they won't get anything back from it ever.  When social security started, they had it glossed over as a savings plan instead of the wealth distribution plan it was, and had to do things like the 90k barrier to get it passed.  The problem is, if you take away that barrier, all of the disguises are gone, and people will see it for what it is.  And while I know you think everyone who knows anything should be "progressive" and hip to it, many people out there aren't particularly enthralled with the idea of wealth distribution.  Afterall, what would be the difference between socialism and communism when it comes down to actual results? 

by Cliff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 2:14:02 PM

  (0+)

belong in a wacko right wing website, not here. Are you simply a propagandist unconcerned with truth, only with spreading a false agenda? Or, perhaps you are simply misled and ignorant of the facts?

Absurdities that liberals want to only tax the rich speak volumes about you and nothing about the reality. Are you so happy that an increasing number of very wealthy pay no taxes whatsoever? Does it make you feel a part of a club that would despise you and leave you to rot to support such untruths? Are so so freaking happy that many US corporations have chartered themselves abroad and pay no taxes despite reaping billions from government contracts?

Do you always wear an orange wig and bright red nose when you post?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:42:58 AM

  (0+)

Or End the US Global Military Empire, and use the savings to solve SS and all kinds of problems.

 Over 50% of all US discretionary spending is MILITARY.  Ron Paul can end that in his first day in office.

Because of that as he rises in popularity and fundraising power (all from small donors), you will see him ATTACKED VISIOUSLY FROM LEFT, RIGHT, ETC. MEDIA AND POWER BROKERS.

In the Bible (I'm not a bible thumper but as in most books there's some good lines there), it says "Beware the wolf in sheeps clothing, by their fruits you shall know them."

The media, "liberal" or whatever in this nation will be tested by how they treat Ron Paul.  When they attack him, we shall know them by their fruits.  We are already beginning to know many of them, and have since they visiously attacked anyone who questioned the official 9/11 myth.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:18:37 PM

  (0+)

The author originally suggested that in the Democratic field, Rep. Dennis Kucinich is the most credible candidate on the issues with which the author is concerned but then out-of-hand dismisses him as a candidate because of the illegal and disgusting tactics of the Iowa Democratic Party. That seems to me to be a singularly weak reason to jump ship to a Republican, regardless of his political stripe.

Kucinich is the only candidate from either party who will extricate us from Iraq and make sure that the poor and lower middle class on whose backs the Right has financed its illegal war against Iraq in the defense of Big Oil, are made whole again. No other combination of stances is morally defensible. 

by Dan Shafer (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 34 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 2:21:18 PM

  (0+)

Dennis may get us out of Iraq, but will he destroy the US military empire?  As I've explained, 9/11 was designed (see Cheney) to put the Dems in a corner where they can never seriously cut military spending.

And your idea that only what the Iowa Dems did to Dennis is the problem denies history.  If you read my essay, I pointed out that this same suppression of Candidate Jerry Brown, who's "I won't take a donation over a $100" campaign threatened the power elite and cause local Dem Party offices to suppress support for Brown and bump Clinton into office . . . and Kerry's surrender to Bush in 2004 when it was obvious, painfully obvious his Skull and Bones pal . . . er, opponent, George W. Bush had cheated.

There is a pattern here.  No one, no one on these threads has donated more blood, sweat, and tears to the Democratic Party than I and my family have over the last 25 years.  Enough is enough.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who has a prayer of doing what must be done.  Ending the US corporate globalist military empire.

50% of US federal discretionary spending is military.  The poor and middle class the "liberals" denying Ron Paul are so worried about, which I am too . . . are the ones this corporate military empire has been paid on the backs of.

AND they see their lifestyle destructinig because their labor has to compete with slave labor worldwide, because US military CIA ops keep thugs in power in their nations who whore their people out as corporate slave labor.

The powers that be will have poster after poster convincing us liberals why "Ron Paul is evil."  While Dems and Republicans have been in power the monster that is corporate military globalism has grown like a hydra.

Dems have not ended it.  Of course the GOP is the corporate military globalist constructor, body guard, and loudest cheer leader.  But, none of the Dems, Clinton, Kerry, etc. have really touched it.

Ron Paul is POKING THAT DRAGON IN HIS EYE BALL.  Don't fall for the nay sayers who will cause you to pass up the best opportunity you may see in your life.  The Dems knew (Pelosi, etc.) that people were being water boarded.  They did nothing.

They knew Bush stole the election from Gore.  They did nothing.  They refused to go for impeachment.  They refuse to call for a 9/11 investigation.

Know them by their fruits.  Join the Ron Paul Revolution !!

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:29:41 PM

  (0+)

Kucinich and Paul have different ideologies, but both strike me as being honest and pro-people, not pro-elites or pro-corporations. Paul will not be able to dismantle the Federal government w/o the cooperation of Congress and public support, and though he believes the size and scope of the current federal govt is unconstitutional, he strikes me as one who will obey and enforce current laws until he gets them legally changed.

I used to be a Dem, quit after Skull and Bones Kerry thru the election to his fellow member GW Bush. My values are generally liberal, but these days i'm much more concerned about election integrity, campaign finance reform, media access, net neutrality, unfair and people/environment/nation-destructive trade agreements, auditing and nationalizing the Federal Reserve (Jefferson believed the People rightully own the money supply; why has it been outsourced to private banks? Why are our income taxes paying interest that need not be charged?), false-flag terror and the emerging fascist Republocrat police state. 

I'm seeing that on the really important issues, progressives and conservatives have a lot in common. I believe people should be encouraged to be creative, productive and self-sufficient- not to rely on the govt. People should be encouraged to get involved in overseeing and participating in our government.

by Better World Order (4 articles, 568 quicklinks, 39 diaries, 1112 comments [56 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 2:23:06 PM

  (0+)

Tonight at 8pm EST on Third Rail check out our live exclusive interview with democratic presidential candidate Senator Mike Gravel. We will discuss his current campaign as well as his recent exclusion from the Des Moines Register debate. Call in and check it out at thirdrailradio.com

by Chuck Browder (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:18:54 PM

  (0+)

If you're fed up with Democrats, then you should be really fed up with Republicans.

Why isn’t Ron Paul running as a Libertarian?

Because he is a Republican.

Spin it any way you want, but Ron Paul is not a progressive, he is a regressive. Ron Paul is a Republican. Go back, not forward.

Republicans got us into the mess we are in.

Sorry folks, I’ll never vote for a Republican no matter how long I live.

Ron Paul is a Republican.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 4:02:33 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that will end the American Empire of militarism and stolen third world resources and slave labor.

 If you want to rant and paint Ron Paul with the same cloth as the neo-cons, you are, in the words of my wise mother "cutting off your nose to spite your face."

Do just a modicum of homework.  Ron Paul voted AGAINST war in Iraq.  He voted AGAINST the Patriot Act.

Blind Democrats are just as bad as blind Republicans.  I've been a Democrat for 25 years, not just in name, but as in working my butt off for the Democratic party and candidates.

I've been betrayed, as you have, again and again and again.

Not voting for Ron Paul because he's a Republican, is like condemning Mahatma Gandhi because he breathed the same air as Adolph Hitler.

RIDICULOUS!!   IF DEMOCRATS CAN'T STOP SUCKLING AT THE BREAST OF LIES THE DEM.S FEED THEM, WE DON'T DESERVE A DEMOCRACY.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 8:44:55 PM

  (0+)

Republicans are all corporatists. Ron Paul is a corporatist Republican.

You can try all you like, but if you think your Ron Paul fanaticism is going to spill over to progressives, your in for a big disappointment.

Like I said, you can spin it all you want, but he is a Corporate Republican who hates government, and thinks it needs to be reduced to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub, just like Grover Norquist.

Good luck getting Ron Paul nominated on the Republican side. Personally, I think he is the best Republican running, but that is like saying he’s the best water borne disease you can catch.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:11:33 AM

  (0+)

Not very "progressive" of you now is it?  I find it extremely ironic to see such close-mindedness in a person claiming that label.

by Cliff Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 9:26:20 PM

  (0+)

Just not an idiot who would vote for a government hating Republican to run our government.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 9:12:46 AM

  (0+)

Today I read that Paul is popular with Minutemen and Neo-Nazis.  

And let's not forget:

He. Is. A. Republican. 

And as someone else on this thread pointed out, if he's so different from other Republicans, why hasn't he left the Republican party and become an Independent?   

http://www.thedailybackground.com/2007/06/04/racism-in-ron-pauls-past-writings/

by teeem (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 2:42:41 AM

  (0+)

* - and NAZI's too - like the spawn of Prescott Bush, Hitler's man on Wall St.

This is just the beginning of the lame and pathetic attempts to assassinate Ron Paul in the media. The hilarious thing is that the entire GOP has benefitted immensely off of the white supremacy by playing the race card with aplomb ever since the civil rights movement. 

The Republicans have institutionalized racism since the days of Richard Nixon’s infamous Southern Strategy. It was a plan that sought to divide and conquer by fomenting racial enmity. It was immensely successful in charting the path to GOP power by capitalizing on the festering resentment in the deep south over their being forced to accept their ‘devils’ as equals instead of relegating them to subhuman status. The epitome of the charlatan as politician that was Ronald Reagan tapped into this when in 1980 he shamelessly pandered to the peckerwoods in Philadelphia, MS the site of the 1964 murder of three civil rights workers. The film Mississippi Burning was based on that tragic incident where animosity and raw hate combined in brutal murder that opened the eyes of a nation in torment to the cruelty and repression within. The Gipper used this carefully chosen forum to continue the sly peddling of the demagogy of race baiting that would form the cement for the next quarter century of disastrous conservative rule:

"I believe in states' rights. I believe we have distorted the balance of our government today by giving powers that were never intended to be given in the Constitution to that federal establishment"

Preached doddering Dutch to the delight of hordes of sweaty, knuckle draggers assembled at the Neshoba County Fair.

The importance of Reagan’s speech was the inclusion of the code word ‘states rights’ being newspeak that fanned the flames of racism. The late Lee Atwater admitted as much in a 1981 interview with historian Alexander P. Lamis that was published in his book Southern Politics in the 1990s:

Atwater:

As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…

But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…?

You start out in 1954 by saying, 'n-word, n-word, n-word.' By 1968 you can't say 'n-word' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.

And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'n-word, n-word.'

Atwater incidentally was the man who as a campaign strategist for Poppy Bush was behind the lowball sleaze of the Willie Horton commercials that helped to bring down Michael Dukakis in the 1988 election. One of Atwater’s protégés was an ambitious and amoral man of some renown in recent history, a man named Karl Rove who continued Atwater’s legacy by using an orchestrated clandestine slime campaign based on innuendo that Senator John McCain had fathered a black child to lay waste to his momentum in the 2000 GOP primaries and catapult George W. Bush into a lead that he would never relinquish. Under the destructive influence of Bush’s Brain American politics have disintegrated into an orgy of slander, racism, religious discrimination, swift boating, slander, fear, hatred and animosity of a level that has now begun to feed upon itself, growing exponentially with each diatribe by a hired propagandist.

Smearing Paul as a racist and white supremacist is laughable given the pocket media's silence on the Bush-Nazi connection, Reagan's support of Apartheid and a legacy of demagoguery against blacks. What of Romney's affiliation with the virulently racist history of the Mormon Church and the gaggle of white buffoons screeching about all those damned Mexican illegal aliens at their ridiculous 'debates' or for that matter the evangelical war against those brown Muslims?

Just more of the same hypocrisy.

EE

by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 5:06:08 AM

  (0+)

Ron Paul is our gift from above.  It is time all of mankind is given back the freedoms our Creator bestowed on us all. I love my freedom and the Ron Paul Revolution.  This is our best and last hope. Vote Ron Paul 2008

by ronheri (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 257 comments [45 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 5:21:15 PM

  (0+)

The Ron Paul Revolution is largely a result of the growing realization that the entire system is rotten to the frigging core and will endure long after this coming election or more appropriately auction of illicitly purloined goods.

The establishment is terrified and knows that they must take down Paul, from what I understand he will be on Press The Meat this Sunday where reliable beltway elitist hatchetman Tim Russert will do everything that he is able to in order to discredit him.

We all have our differences when it comes to philosophy but we need to work at coming together against the common enemy that is the Wall Street looter, military industrial complex police state. Ron Paul's supporters are enthusiastic and well educated and there is a willingness with libertarians to work with progressives to reign in the empire and return this nation to the rule of law.

In the coming weeks as the mockingbirds and shills do the wetwork on Paul it is in all of our best interests to begin to expose the system as the grand fraud that it truly is and to come together as a kick ass pro-constitution, antiwar, anti-globalization and anti-corporatist movement that draws the best from both the left and the right.

Screw the A list left bloggers, they are all exposing themselves as the sell outs and suckups that they always were as they scramble for position to get close enough to sniff the seat of Hillary's throne.

Just my two cents but we need to use this unique opportunity to find some common ground for a rare political realignment that puts America first and will hold the traitors and war criminals accountable by bringing their asses to trial and putting them into prison where they belong.

EE 

by Ed Encho (12 articles, 20 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 438 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 5:24:40 PM

  (0+)

I think he holds the best possibility at doing the most good for the people of the United States.  He can only act on what is brought before him.  I think such an effort would yeild some truly great bipartisian legislation.

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 9:57:01 PM

  (0+)

The question has taken me back and forth like a see-saw.

DK operates at a much higher level of consciousness than RP. Eg.: RP hollers about property rights, but doesn't give a hoot about Native Americans, whom we stole the land from. What the hell is that all about? (And as Chief Seattle asked, how can you buy and sell the earth, anyway?) DK wants to make amends to Afro-Americans.

But Paul appeals to the masses and evidently understands how to run a campaign. If DK can't run a campaign, how can he run the country?

RP might actually get elected (I once said that about DK, before realizing that he really can't run a campaign); and if he does, it would be a large step out of hell.

In addition, RP does seem to listen to his constituants. Thus whatever failings one might see in him, they appear to be correctable.

In any event, these are the only two candidates I care to even think about.

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 6:37:41 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul is Committed to a 9/11 Investigation - NIST INDICTED TODAY by Martin Luther King "with a slide rule.

Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth today stunned the NIST (National Institutes of Science and Technology) by attending their phone press conference and indicting them of THE LARGEST COVER UP IN HUMAN HISTORY !!

http://911blogger.com/node/13052

 King's spirit is alive and well in the heart of a lion, formerly a mild mannered engineer speaks for the millions starving for 9/11 truth.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 9:53:22 PM

  (0+)

Simple...  Imagine that we had never strayed from the Gold Standard, ....that the dollar retained it's purchasing power.  By understanding that you would see that a single gold backed dollar would have more than $22 dollars worth of purchasing power.  Now imagine who benefited from the uncoupling of the dollar from the Gold Standard.  It would appear to be a no brainer, can you guys make the jump?

by Larry Wainwright (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:07:36 AM

  (0+)

Not only did they loot the country by playing our money, but that hat trick enabled them to drive our nation into endless debt through military spending and adventures that have helped ensure slave labor, and cheap corporate resources to the misery of the developing world.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 6:08:37 AM

  (0+)

Does anyone know of a Libertarian country that has made it???  -  Yes, I do.  This was the ideals and stances of early America.  I think we made it, but it appears that these ideals are being altered to make someone's points or bankrolls.  This country was founded by libertarians.  That is a fact.

by Larry Wainwright (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:13:38 AM

  (0+)

Dr. Paul's supporters are very intense and intellectual people but another reason he is getting so much support is because of the many that listen to his Weekly Government Update Hotline below that he has been using for years.

1-888-828-PAUL(7285)

He has also AWAKENED the Giants in the Network Marketing Industry, such as myself, and we make a living by building downlines.  Personally I send out an email to 50,000 people every day with information about Dr. Paul and I have 300+ people in my address book of one of my 100+ email accounts I have.  I even have over a 10,000+ downline in a Network Marketing company I belong to and have a friend that has 3 Million people in their downline.

Until now I have NEVER even registered to vote let alone voted in any election and I am 45 years young.  I had too much respect for myself to vote for the "Lessor of 2 Evils" or as a good friend of mine says the "Evil of 2 Lessors".  Once I heard Dr. Paul was running I went out and registered as a Republican because my stupid state is a Closed Primary so I was forced to in order to vote for this STATESMAN.  That is another reason I believe so highly in Dr. Paul because he is NOT a politician but more like our Founding Fathers so I consider him as a STATESMAN.  Politicians lie through their teeth, Dr. Paul tells the TRUTH no matter who is listening.  He will NOT tell you what you think you want to hear just to get you to listen to him.  Since the 70's he has been saying the same thing.  His record is so spotless and unblemished that the LSM goes after his supporters as he will read below.

We are ALL Americans first so forget the fact Dr. Paul is a Republican, I have.  We The People are running for President and Dr. Paul is merely Our Vessel and Our Representative in the White House.

If you would like to see Dr. Paul's supporters Secret Weapon then check out the link below.  It is the site that many of us check out on an hourly basis and the reason we are able to come onto blogs by large numbers in such a short time that it looks like we are spammers.  lol

by Freedom4America Group (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 5:21:36 AM

  (0+)

Dr. Paul's supporters are very intense and intellectual people but another reason he is getting so much support is because of the many that listen to his Weekly Government Update Hotline below that he has been using for years. 1-888-828-PAUL(7285) He has also AWAKENED the Giants in the Network Marketing Industry, such as myself, and we make a living by building downlines. Personally I send out an email to 50,000 people every day with information about Dr. Paul and I have 300+ people in my address book of one of my 100+ email accounts I have. I even have over a 10,000+ downline in a Network Marketing company I belong to and have a friend that has 3 Million people in their downline. Until now I have NEVER even registered to vote let alone voted in any election and I am 45 years young. I had too much respect for myself to vote for the "Lessor of 2 Evils" or as a good friend of mine says the "Evil of 2 Lessors". Once I heard Dr. Paul was running I went out and registered as a Republican because my stupid state is a Closed Primary so I was forced to in order to vote for this STATESMAN. That is another reason I believe so highly in Dr. Paul because he is NOT a politician but more like our Founding Fathers so I consider him as a STATESMAN. Politicians lie through their teeth, Dr. Paul tells the TRUTH no matter who is listening. He will NOT tell you what you think you want to hear just to get you to listen to him. Since the 70's he has been saying the same thing. His record is so spotless and unblemished that the LSM goes after his supporters as he will read below. We are ALL Americans first so forget the fact Dr. Paul is a Republican, I have. We The People are running for President and Dr. Paul is merely Our Vessel and Our Representative in the White House. If you would like to see Dr. Paul's supporters Secret Weapon then check out the link below. It is the site that many of us check out on an hourly basis and the reason we are able to come onto blogs by large numbers in such a short time that it looks like we are spammers. lol http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com But I am just one of the many of Dr. Paul's supporters. Here is what many others are doing. 1. A Hedge Mogul spent $85,000 of his own money on a Full Page Ad in USA Today and is NOW spending his OWN money once again and putting Full Page Ads in Newspapers throughout New Hampshire. http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=52741 2. Supporters have raised over $200,000 to launch a Ron Paul Blimp 3. Supporters Donated $4.3 Million on November 5th 4. Supporters have Donated over $6 Million on December 16th 5. People from over 20 Countries are supporting Dr. Paul and many even had their own Tea Parties on December 16th in front of the American Embassies 6. A supporter is bicycling from California to Washington,DC to raise awareness of Dr. Paul and raise funds as well 7. A Google Employee gave up his high paying job to go to New Hampshire and put together a group of 1,000 Volunteers that come from all over the USA to go door to door for Dr. Paul and spread his message. I have also heard that 300 College Students from around the country are going to go to Iowa and help with the Campaign on their Christmas vacation. 8. Many, many more things are happening and way more than I know of myself. Dr. Paul has over 1,300 MeetUps last I heard and they are always coming up with new ideas to create awareness and funds for Dr. Paul and his Message. Why do I bring this info to you? To let you know that I am just one of hundreds of thousands of Network Marketers that support Dr. Paul. The Media is doing all they can to try to keep Dr. Paul out of the spotlight and that is why his supporters do these "Money Bombs". Even though it ONLY gets media coverage for him for a day or so it still helps some. Don't believe me that the LSM (LameStream Media) is deliberately marginalizing Dr. Ron Paul? Then check out the article below. LSM is also using same tactics on other candidates from both parties that they do NOT wish to win. http://www.libertymaven.com/2007/12/19/the-official-media-guide-to-attacking-ron-paul/ As you all know by now the majority of the LSM is owned by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). If you have not yet watched President Eisenhower's black and white video warning the people to watch out that the MIC does NOT get so BIG that it starts controlling government then check out the site below. Since 2006 they have receive over $239 Billion in Government Contracts. http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com What all of you do NOT realize, whether conservative or liberal, is that I do NOT care what party he is running under and neither do ALL of us Network Marketers. The ONLY reason Dr. Paul does NOT run as an Independent is because the Media is BIASED as well as Politics is and you have to be a Billionaire just to get on the ballots. Dr. Paul tried that in 1988 as a Libertarian and found out that it is impossible to get on ballots as well as a 3rd party is NOT allowed to the Debates unless they are a Billionaire. Did you hear that Bloomberg is going to run? He is an Elitist and is planning to run to stop Dr. Paul from becoming President. Read the article below. http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=52682 Here is an excellent article from an American living in Costa Rica but will be voting for Dr. Paul as will many ex-patriots that are flying back to the USA just to vote for Dr. Paul. http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=46251 How many watched that joke of a display of the candidate's Christmas videos on the Neil Cavuto show on Fox yesterday? Dr. Paul has had a Christmas ad out for a week now and Neil said he could not find one. I guess Fox news is not only full of BS they are also blind. Check it out, when it came out it was most watched. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZPCWGtIupE Here is a Song from Dr. Paul's supporters. Nice song for the Holidays. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhtDVJ3N7VQ ONLY A Doctor WILL HEAL Our Country, Freedom4America

by Freedom4America Group (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 5:24:00 AM

  (0+)

We just signed up and am just getting familiar with the system.

We to have a lot of respect for Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel but he is NOT getting the funds in that he needs to compete against the 3 CFR Members that the LSM has deemed Front Runners in the Democratic Race.

Since we are brand new to politics (yuk) maybe one of you could answer a question for us. 

When Dr. Paul is nominated as the Republican choice can he choose his VP from any party or does he have to stick with a Republican?

Thank you.

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 Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 5:34:08 AM

  (0+)

Yes, I'm hoping when Paul gets the GOP nomination, he'll choose Kucinich as his running mate.

If corporate media and the GOP screw Paul out of the nomination, then my hope is that Cynthia McKinney, Green Party Presidential Candidate, will choose Ron Paul as her running mate.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 6:03:51 AM

  (0+)

do you think many DEmocrats and Republicans plus other parties would support a Paul/Kucinich candidacy over a Hillary/? or Obama/?

by Freedom4America Group (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:04:47 AM

  (0+)

What I think, is that millions of Americans sick of the GOP and DEMs bankrupt corporate policies would come out to vote.

 Very few Americans vote now.  Only a slice of the American public coming out could over ride all the dedicated Dem and GOP backers.

The disenfranchised are in the large majority now.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:10:52 AM

  (0+)

Sorry, the link was broken for some reason. Here is the correct one:

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2004&month=04

by Al Meeks (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 6:24:28 AM

  (0+)

Story in the Washington Post today focused on a study that was done in Iraq. That Iraqis groups blame the US invasion for the primary root of violent indifferences between them and see reconciliation only with US troop withdraw. Our foreign policy needs a drastic change with no influence from THE CFR/NEOCONS/UN/WTO/NAFTA etc etc etc. How about a foreign policy that respects the peoples views and maybe the constitution?

by Freedom4America Group (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:07:15 AM

  (0+)

Read most of the page but my eyes are getting tired and need some sleep. Will see about getting this to Dr. Paul. The Education System they set up looked interesting although we still believe a much better job can be done at the State level, closer to the people.

As we ALL know the Federal Government is an expert at wasting money and if they do control Department of Education we are afraid they would allow Lobbyists to tell them what to do and misappropriate funds like they are famous for.

Under a Paul Presidency we are very sure Lobbyists would NOT come to him but there are still hundreds of other politicians that they could try to influence.

Many think Dr. Paul would be ignored by the current Congress but we are here to tell you that will not be a problem. Dr. Paul's supporters will be writing Congress and letting them know, under no circumstances, will ignoring Dr. Paul be a very good idea if they wish to remain in office and be voted in again.

Politicians are like whores and will do what you want in order to keep their jobs. If not then we ONLY have to wait 2 years to replace Congress because this rEVOLution has started a new movement and many supporters already have plans to run for office.

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 Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:21:05 AM

  (0+)

Congress may ignore Dr. Paul all they want.

BUT, he'll be the Commander and Chief.  Which means that the entire back breaking expense of the US global military and intelligence empire . . . will be taken off our collective backs, as he brings our empire of militarism back home from the world.

Congress has ZERO say in how the Commander in Chief deploys troops.  they can only deny him new funding for new military ventures, which is not what Paul would want anyway.

THIS IS EXCITING!!

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:17:29 AM

  (0+)

who we have running for president, if we don't fix the voting system whomever the people want won't be elected, be it Paul, Kucinich, Gore, or a reincarnation of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Kennedy, it will be the person the powers that be want in - period.

Between groups like the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission and Illuminati where the top 1% of the elites have been controlling things for near 1,500 years and their near complete control over the message through the media and you add in the near completely corrupted election system "we the people" don't stand a chance in hell of getting anyone that represents us in office.

Fix the election process where every vote counts and smash the control of corporate media and we'll fix 99% of our problems - until then, forgetaboutit.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 8:54:05 AM

  (0+)

Gore Gave Up, Kerry Gave Up . . . the Dems don't "want" to win.  It's all a side show to make us think we have a democracy.

If Ron Paul loses because of voting irregularities and cheating, he'd be the most likely candidate to FIGHT FOR THE VOTES!!

We've seen what the Dems will do.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 10:20:15 AM

  (0+)

we were to get the perfect candidate, which again is highly unlikely given the state of the control of the message, but, let's just take it that Paul or Kucinich, or whomever it is that isn't part of the corrupted system we now have gets to be a candidate, they would have to get by the many (not just the e-voting machines, in Ohio alone 38 different violations of voter suppression so far have been uncovered and counting) different means of election theft we have in this so-called democratic/republic. And since the farce of an election of 2000 not only has little been done to fix the voting process in most cases it has gotten worse. So the idea that one: we get a candidate that is worthy is far-fetched and two: that they can be elected doesn't stand much of a chance. The system is that far gone.

But let's take it one step further, let's say by some miracle Paul or Kucinich become president, does anyone really think that with the awesome power that the MIC and the elite powers have that they'll just roll-over and abdicate that power willingly? That the massive amount of money being made through continued wars that they foster, that they'll just fold-up their tents, close their war-profiteering factories and be nice? Are we that naive? Or do you think that they would find themselves suffering the same fate as Wellstone, the Kennedy's, Gandhi and King? I would lay good money that one: we'll again be presented with the choice of the lesser of two evils, and two: if by some fluke we do get a real choice and that person becomes president they wouldn't last 6 months before they're eliminated.

This whole conversation is useless. Our whole election process is a Dog and Pony Show with no dog, no pony and little to show. It's something to give us the illusion we have some say in the process. It's a joke. If voting could change things they'd make it illegal. We need much more than an election, especially one held in the present state they're in, we need to change the very core of our government by any means possible. But that won't happen either, because for the most part people aren't even aware of what's going on. They're too busy, too much in debt, too frightened, too uneducated, too uninformed or just too stupid to do anything about it.

What I believe is going to happen is what has always happened to states in the past that have suffered similar faiths, we'll continue down the path of insanity until the whole rotten structure falls under the weight of it's own corruption, and if there's anything left of this planet after that it won't hardly be fit to live in.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 12:52:17 PM

  (0+)

I don't think God gave us hands and feet and minds, so we could wallow in desolation.

Pull out those check books and credit cards and join the Ron Paul revolution.

Or we could all just sit around and wait for the end times :-)

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 2:53:24 PM

  (0+)

The founders of this country were not libertarians. Libertarianism didn't really even exist until Ayn Rand defined it. We have been a great nation only when our progressive values have been at the forefront of our politics. It was not libertarians that got us safety in the workplace, or set a minimum wage, so anyone who works hard could raise a family or send their kids to college. No libertarian would set up free college education for all, yet that's what Jefferson did. No libertarian would have set up work programs during the Republican great depression of the '30's.

 Because of the progressive values of FDR, we stopped starvation from being the #1 killer of the elderly in America. Progressives fought for women's rights, civil rights, social security, medicare. Libertarianism has not been helpful to the building of our country. Social Democracy(along with well-regulated capitalism), on the other hand is proving itself around the world as the way to have a happy, healthy society. It's not about redistribution of wealth, although the founders of America worked very hard to set up a system that would discourage our being ruled by monarchy and inherited wealth.  If we went back to the top marginal tax rates done away with by Reagan (or Kennedy, for that matter), we could solve a lot of our problems. It is precisely the greed of the ME mentality which is so hurtful to us all.

I  don't want the government telling me which drugs I can take, or who I can have sex with, where, or for how many cookies, but I sure want the fire department to put out my neighbors house if it's on fire, EVEN IF THEY'RE NOT RICH! I want roads everyone can drive on in every town, not just the wealthy. I want the police to respond to my call, even if I don't make the top tax bracket, or live in the best neighborhood. If these are SOCIALIST principles- the idea that we are all in this together, and must care for each of our citizens as if they were the most important person in the world, sign me up! After all, what we do to the least among us, we do to all of us. 

by jdoss (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 11:44:19 AM

  (0+)

But, we are in times now when the military industrial complex is creating a plantation world of slave labor.

Over 50% of discretionary spending is for military.

President Ron Paul is a hope of ending this massive money down a toilet and international degradation in our names.

We can use this opportunity, or not.  Your choice.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 2:56:57 PM

  (0+)

The earliest history of the U.S. included the settlements of Plymouth and Jamestown.  The governor of Jamestown founded a socialist system in 1607, forbidding private property and demanding that each settler work for “the common good.”  Within six months, all but 38 of the original 104 settlers were dead, most due to famine. Two years later, the Virginia Company sent 500 more ‘recruits’ to settle in Virginia, and within six months, a staggering 440 more were dead by starvation and disease.”  Finally, in 1611, a new governor was sent from England and he quickly realized that the problem was the colony’s system of communal ownership. Private property was put into place, and as soon as the people could directly benefit from their labors, production increased and famine ended. Thus, capitalism — freedom — succeeded where government had failed.  [Ref.: How Capitalism Saved America, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo]

The founders of this country were nearly all Christians and between a third and a half were also Freemasons who prized reason over blind faith.  Regardless of when Ayn Rand coined the term “libertarians”, this country had a long tradition of Christian leaders who prized reason over blind faith.  Yes, I know that they seem to be in short supply today, or at least I can agree that the reasonable ones don’t speak up nearly often enough, but that was true in early U.S. history, too.  The Freemasons were a secret society precisely because religious bigotry and intolerance would not permit public discussion of many topics.  You might say they were early libertarians, but only to the point of applying rational thought and principles to problems, whereas it seems that Christian values are not a requirement of modern Libertarian thought.  Certainly the founding fathers favored education, but early government just as certainly did not have any of the safety nets of modern government.

Although I agree it is true that the founders of America worked very hard to set up a system that would discourage our being ruled by monarchy and aristocracy, it is not so clear they were against inherited wealth.  Certainly there were supporters of the Revolution who had gotten rich in the colonies and who saw the Crown and English taxes as threats to their wealth, and they wanted to keep what they had earned.  Two things worked in the people's favor after the revolution.  People kept what they earned for the most part, and Christian charity took the place of social programs. 

It was not only “progressives” that got us safety in the workplace, or set a minimum wage, or made it possible for more people to attend college, either.  The standard of living in this country has risen steadily since the advent of cheap energy, the industrial revolution and capitalism.  That was a trend firmly in place, independent of party politics, and barely disturbed even by the Depression, which was caused by monetary problems, not production problems.  There is even a good case that FDR’s policies extended the Depression instead of ending it.

As the term progressive when invoked on this site is almost invariably linked with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, universal health care, welfare, and “regulation” of capitalism, I respectfully ask what precisely do you mean by the statement that Social Democracy is not about redistribution of wealth.  I admit, I really do not know the principles of progressivism, because in my opinion “helping children, the poor, and the elderly” is not really a principle, it is a goal, and I would like to know the principles that you follow to achieve that goal.  I mean progressives are not the only ones interested in helping children, the poor, and the elderly, so that cannot be a principle that distinguishes progressivism from any other "ism".  You seem to be saying that these programs literally do not redistribute wealth, when in fact they do, but are you really saying that it is justified because corporations and the rich have a political advantage that only redistribution regulation can rectify?  If so, then might there be other remedies to our current situation, or are redistribution and regulation the only possible remedies?

Finally, although I support Ron Paul, my worry is based on the fact that we are not the cohesive Christian nation we were two hundred years ago.  I want small government and the Constitution back, and I think I can handle it, but can enough people handle it to make it work for everyone?  Is it foolish to want to stop, reverse, or change so many things?   When my doubts start getting to me, I look around and remind myself, the system is broken; it isn't working now.  The most foolish thing would be to continue with business as usual.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 6:40:38 PM

  (0+)

the gold standard became irelevent. The dollar was backed by a ten trillion dollar GNP and the economic power of the USA. Not by a pile of bars in Fort Knox. Just as it has been destroyed, not by going off that standard, but by the economic policies of Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush.......

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 3:24:39 PM

  (0+)

America was bankrupted by design.  Reagan said publicly his goal was to bankrupt American through military spending in order to starve social programs.

Ron Paul is the only viable candidate who is dedicated to ending the US globalist military empire.

That is the ONLY thing that will save our economy.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 3:29:15 PM

  (0+)

On a gold standard, any attempt to debase a paper currency backed by gold results in draining of the gold reserves.  Therefore, it is impossible to fund both wars and social programs without raising taxes.  The alternative is to immediately damage or destroy the currency.  Congress would have to choose between war and social programs (guns and butter) and then face the voters.  Government gets around that now by printing ever more dollars backed by "the full faith and promise" of the U.S. Treasury.  That means a blank check that the government pledges its full power to tax you to cover, literally.  No limit.  Needn't raise taxes.  Just print money.

Gold never became irrelevant, it became inconvenient... to government and socialists.  Both hate gold backed currency because it restrains government spending.  They do not discuss it, they just hate it.  You apparently support this financial setup, so you enabled the last four presidents.  Accept some blame.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:08:55 PM

  (0+)

I am also a member of the Bilderberg Group and I ,personally, am responsible for suggesting that we go off the gold standard, yup you are correct....holy hyperbole Batman.....Believe what you wish, by the by, can you name a time in our history when we reduced the amount of stored gold to affect the value of our dollars?.....Thought not.

The simple fact is that you do not have a grasp of how our economy works, believe in the power (mythic) of some silly shiny metal growing dusty in a concrete prison and fail to understand it is the wealthiest among us that determines our economy and our budgetary requirements. Heck oil has more affect on the dollar than ever did gold......

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:59:58 PM

  (0+)

1940: U.S. gold reserves were 2/3 of official gold reserves in the world. Dollar was convertible into gold at $35/oz.

1940-1971: Gold steadily drained from official reserves as the U.S. debased the dollar to pay for wars and social programs and sold gold to maintain a false impression of the value of the Federal Reserve Note dollar. Yes, this means they “reduced the amount of stored gold to affect the value of our dollars.”

1971: U.S. dropped all pretense and suspended dollar convertibility to avoid a massive flight from dollars into gold. In the 26 years since, the dollar has lost over 90% of its value.

Re: oil/dollar/gold. You are partly correct there, although I doubt you understand why. With the discovery of oil in the Middle East, oil production literally powered industry and fueled its growth world-wide. World production increases were deflationary in sound-money terms, making it possible for governments to inflate their money supplies without large price increases (so-called “price inflation”).

Do you know the difference between monetary inflation and “price inflation”, and why price inflation is in quotes? If any nation had remained on a gold-backed currency, or had permitted gold to circulate as legal tender in parallel with their unbacked paper currency, the people would have discovered that prices declined in terms of gold. In other words, when production rises faster than the gold supply (which does not and cannot rise very fast), prices decline and the result is “price deflation.”

You obviously do not understand what the value of gold was when we had a gold-backed currency. When gold or any other commodity is used to back a currency, it’s value is not determined by its intrinsic value as a commodity anymore. It is its value as money that matters. The above-ground world gold supply has always been exceedingly difficult to change by more than 2% per year. Linking a currency to gold gives the currency a stable value and caps monetary inflation at 2% a year, usually less.

No, it is really you that needs an economic education.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 2:58:54 PM

  (0+)

What does the Bildeberg group have do with any of this?  You have a political philosophy.  Accept some responsibility for the consequences of that political philosophy.  No sound money policy means no effective restraint on government spending, for social programs or for war.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 3:19:46 PM

  (0+)

From none other than hotbed of neocon fascist NPR!

http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2007/12/who_are_ron_pauls_supporters.html 

by David C (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 5:23:29 PM

  (0+)

The Social Security Funds are not empty.  Do you know anyone who hasn't received their check?

The point is, without taxes, how would Mr. Paul propose to continue the program?

by Digitboy (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 26 comments) on Thursday, Dec 20, 2007 at 7:04:13 PM

  (0+)

Over 50% of US discretionary spending is military spending.  When President Ron Paul calls the US military empire back home and closes over seas bases, the US will be awash with funds we never dreamed of.

No Democrat has proposed, or will endeavor to end the US globalist military empire.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 1:04:15 AM

  (0+)

Bingo Mr. Douglas!!! 

Again, The funding that our "Representitives" just approved? for these "Illegal Activities" without our approval. How did it come this far?

You'd only understood this if you are a taxpayer... 

by Joseph Le (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 11:51:27 AM

  (0+)

Who Are Ron Paul's Supporters? http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2007/12/who_are_ron_pauls_supporters.html Hopefully I am typing the correct link, the posting system sometimes adds characters. Here is an online Poll that was done that I am sure you will love the results. Kucinich and Dr. Paul came in 1st in their parties. Results on IndependentPrimary.com Polls http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2489/t/4823/content.jsp?content_KEY=3623 Listen to Aimee Allen's rEVOLution song if you have not heard it yet. It really gets the patriotism juices flowing. Behind The Scenes: Ron Paul Revolution Theme Song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9MDyl8xq9I You can listen to her entire song on MySpace. http://www.myspace.com/aimeeallen There is even a website that you can purchase a calendar that the Hotties For Ron Paul have created. Other than beautiful women in it there are statements in it written by Dr. Paul. People, and especially the LSM, can NOT even fathom just how tremendously large this rEVOLution is and the MOVEMENT that has been launched because of Dr. Paul's MESSAGE. 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 21, 2007 at 5:08:16 AM

  (0+)

If you wish for Kucinich to get these poll results advertised now is the time for you to help it get done by donating so that group can advertise the results everywhere. 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 21, 2007 at 6:04:13 AM

  (0+)

I didn't mean to say that socialism isn't concerned with redistribution of wealth, just that it's not my personal aim. However, isn't all capitalism redistributing wealth? And doesn't government regulate on behalf of corporations all the time?

And I'm not sure the Jamestown story says anything at all about communal living. The natives of the area had been living that way for centuries, and managed to do alright until they had their wealth distributed by greedy capitalists...sorry...colonists...no, wait...libertarians?  

by jdoss (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 10:33:39 AM

  (0+)

I didn't mean to say that socialism isn't concerned with redistribution of wealth, just that it's not my personal aim. However, isn't all capitalism redistributing wealth? And doesn't government regulate on behalf of corporations all the time?

And I'm not sure the Jamestown story says anything at all about communal living. The natives of the area had been living that way for centuries, and managed to do alright until they had their wealth redistributed by greedy capitalists...sorry...colonists...no, wait...libertarians?  

by jdoss (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 10:36:28 AM

  (0+)

OK, redistribution of wealth is not your aim, but I am still interested in what you mean by Social Democracy.  What are its basic principles?  

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by saying capitalism redistributes wealth.  To me, capitalism means producing more than is needed for subsistance, then using the extra wealth to reinvest and make a production process more efficient.  In that sense, I would say capitalism increases total wealth rather than redistibutes it.  Redistribution would seem to imply a zero sum game while capitalism increases the sum. 

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 5:00:22 PM

  (0+)

Thank you for your courage for standing up for truth!

You are an inspiration to the community.

Dr. Paul is correct when he used the phrase from his hero Mohandas Gandhi "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

But, how dare of them to ask us to surrender, when "We the People" haven't even begun the fight!!!

"Freedom, Prosperity and Peace" for all nations to cherish and for the sake of humanity…

Happy Holidays

by Joseph Le (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 11:41:32 AM

  (0+)

Great video!!!

Love it.... 

by Joseph Le (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 12:18:05 PM

  (0+)

Ardee,

 Go to youtube and search for "philosophy of liberty" and watch the little animation. That's libertarianism.

What regulation has acheived is it has put governemnt in the hands of corporations. Our economy is in the hands of government, which is run by corporations through lobbysits and other such corrupt practices. Regulations may be a nice idea but it's backfiring. 

You know, Prohibition is very much a "progressive" piece of legislation(but not liberal). It backfired really badly, and what's going on today is no different. Progressivism is the "fixing" of societal problem through legislation, in case you didn't know the definition. If you'd like a libertarian interpretation of that, it's "the 'fixing' of societal problems through coercive force" and that is something we consider a short cut and intellectual sloth, and ultimately doomed to failure.

by Thomas Vietor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Friday, Dec 21, 2007 at 1:38:36 PM

  (0+)

except this one of course...sorry Rob a little joke..

I , unlike most of the Paul cultists, have studied the principles of libertarianism , and summarily rejected them. Any philosophy that believes an uncontrolled capitalism will somehow find compassion and make charitable contributions when taxes are diminished, or that the churches will fill the void of government programs is unrealistic and is just not paying attention.

Anyone who frequents youtube and thinks they get facts is just childishly simple. Do the damn brainwork, do the damn research, stop using lazy and sophomoric excuses for acquiring false information and running with it.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 7:30:36 AM

  (0+)

Check out the video!!!!

I have studied libertarianism. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.  

You talk about "uncontrolled capitalism" and that is utter bullshit. 

by Thomas Vietor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 4:47:52 PM

  (0+)

Cannabis is a capitalists crop.  They don't pay taxes, they don't pay social security, FICA, they don't buy licences (except a few counties in CA) they don't have tests and checks by the EPA, AG Dept, they are unregulated and offer no workers benefits or pay into helping the environment, roads, schools, utilities, indoor growers are major energy hogs, if it comes from across a border it has escaped paying international tarriffs, yet, that does not stop liberals from supporting the legalization of medical cannabis, a crop protected by guns, a crop destroying the national and state parks.

The Grateful Dead's Zoo/Shakedown Street/Parking Lot was a capitalists dream come true.  You could buy anything you wanted at any price you wanted, you could barter, trade, no taxes, no government official stamping "safe" of the LSD.  Allot of people lived a very happy life touring with the dead, and some profitted tremendously.

Of course neither example I gave is that of an international corporation that finds borders and old papers like the US Constitution in the way of profit.  Profitting off war is immoral, and THAT is why it's time for a rEVOLution to move forward.  It's time to make the republic stand for US, or not stand at all.  Either this republic of America will stand, or it will not, and I suggest to you, if Ron Paul does not win, the international corporations who profit off global war, death, and destruction will.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Dec 22, 2007 at 7:14:35 PM

  (0+)

A HOLD LOT OF COMMENTS WHY I WILL NOT VOTE FOR RON PAUL, BUT WHERE ARE THE NAMES OF THE CANDIDATES YOU PEOPLE WOULD VOTE, SOME WHERE IS THIS DEBATE THERE SHOULD BE LIST OF BETTER CANDIDATES, BUT I CAN'T SEAM TO FIND IT, IF NOT RON PAUL WHO? LOOKS LIKE EVERYBODY DID THEIR HOME WORK, WHO IS A BETTER CHOICE? WILL THE NEXT GLOBALIST PLEASE STAND UP AND BE COUNTED.

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Sunday, Dec 23, 2007 at 6:57:04 AM

  (0+)

Bush ignores and violates the Constitution. The courts do the same, and the Democrat Leaders of Congress ignore their duty to remove Bush, Cheney, and judges who undermine our Constitution, who violate the law, and who lie about the facts. There are only a few members of Congress who have even tried to stand up against the corruption which threatens the very foundation of our country.

Although there is widespread evidence of election fraud in the last few elections, the leaders of both parties have failed to act to make sure that we remain a representative democracy by ensuring that our votes are counted accurately. Our leaders have refused to act in spite of the efforts of thousands of activists who are calling for election reforms.

The Republican Party leadership is doing all it can to exclude Ron Paul. The exclusion of candidates who represent the grass roots goes on in the Democratic Party, too. In Florida, Democratic candidates who were anti-war got no support while the Democratic Party spent millions supporting former Republicans who were running as Democrats. Of course, these Democrats in name only also wanted to stay the course, keep the world safe for democracy (AKA dictators who do what we want), and fight the terrorists over there so that they won’t attack us over here. For an example of how the Democratic Party treats a candidate who wants to restore election integrity and who wants to end the war, see http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8277764543286144839 and see John Russell’s campaign web site at http://johnrussellforcongress.com/

It has been working, too. For example, almost a quarter of the members of Pennsylvania’s legislature were thrown out of office in 2006. However, that was not newsworthy according to the big corporate media. If you want to know more about that see, http://www.pacleansweep.com/legal.html

Ron Paul supporters are tired of Neo-cons throwing elections and trashing our Constitutional rights and our economy. They are working on doing the same thing this year. For information on this movement to take back our country from the Neo-cons, see http://www.paulcongress.com/

I hope that members of the Democratic Party will take action to expose the failures of the leaders of their party to represent the people, and remove the DINOs (Democrats In Name Only – one who is really for undermining worker rights and shipping jobs overseas) from leadership positions in their party.

The leaders of both major parties are corrupt from top to bottom because they are bought and paid for by the same people who profit from war, inflation, high oil prices, and the prison industry. They do not care about our liberty or prosperity. They only care about their power and profits. Noam Chomsky, Mark Crispin Miller, Michael Collins, and many others have been pointing this out for a very long time, but the cartel which controls the media has kept this from the public.

Of course, it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, but far too many think that by ignoring the problem it will go away. How well did that work when fascists took over in Germany, Italy, Russia, and China? Did ignoring the problem protect anyone? No, it allowed millions to be tortured and killed? Do we want that to happen here to our families, friends, and children?

If not, then NOW is the time that we must take a stand against those who have undermined our Constitution, our liberty, and our prosperity for far too long. We need to take back our government before it is too late.

If you don't want more of the same, get active right now. Send this to your friends, family, and contacts. Tell your neighbors. Register to vote. Vote on a paper ballot if possible. Take back control of your local party.

If there is no one running against your incumbent, then step up and run for office. Change parties to vote against or run against your incumbent if necessary. Remember, they have gerrymandered their districts so that they can usually only be beaten in the primary. Make election reform, ending the war, and restoring justice in our courts the issues that cannot be ignored any longer.

If you are still wondering whether you should act, see the following:

Naomi Wolf on The End of America http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/177.html

Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson Calls for Action http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28179

Mark Adams speaks at the FCC Hearing in Tampa http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAni0WoI7LI

Bill Faulkner and Mark Adams speak at the Voting System Reform Rally in Tallahassee, Florida on March 21, 2007 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrNxSzw_qvI

John Russell and Mark Adams speak at the St. Petersburg peace rally on March 17, 2007