Now that Kucinich has withdrawn from the race, there is no excuse for anyone who wants to end this war not to vote for Ron Paul.
Let it be known that I am a peace and social justice organizer working in far-left Eugene Oregon. I consider my political affiliation to be more Anarchist that Leftist, and I am completely puzzled by the vitriol that Ron Paul inspires in peace-loving hippy types. All I have to do is mention the name and I get mobbed by angry quakers.
What is so offensive about saying that unborn people have rights, as well as their desparate mothers with unintended pregnancies? What is so offensive about having a religious belief about the creation of the world which contradicts current scientific wisdom? What is so offensive about having friends who are racists, if you explicitly state that you don't sanction or condone their ideas? Didn't Jesus hang out with robbers and thugs? I know I wouldn't want people reading what some of my friends and family have said about black people.
More importantly, why is anyone on the Left concerned with these issues during a presidential race? Anointing the president is primarily about foreign policy and the military. When millions are dead and millions more lives hang in the balance, why are we eschewing a candidate who is for ending the war and is convincing more and more hard-to-reach conservatives everyday that peace is a good idea?
I think that Ron Paul is the best candidate left in the race who has a chance to impact the discussion about foreign policy in the national media and especially in the Republican party.
Furthermore, I think that it would be nothing short of small-minded for the peace movement to neglect this unprecedented opportunity to extend our membership and recruit new people who six months ago, and six months from now would be unreachable. Join a Ron Paul meetup, go to their events, and invite them to the local peace activist rallies and meetings that you have going on. I'm sure they'd be delighted to get further involved in helping to end the war.
And so to anyone who still feels like leaving a raging comment: peace be with you and I'll see ya at the next rally.
I get a similar response down here in right-wing Southern Oregon. In a county where Republicans outnumber Democrats 2to1, the only people I find willing to stand up for peace are the Paulistas.
Initially, I was suspicious of their motives, but as I became involved in their cause (RonPaul2008), they gladly have donated their time and effort to mine(StopThisStinkin'War).
After getting used to the idea that we don't look or even sound alike, we've all discovered something: We're all people that want a better world, and are willing to work for it.
Peace and prosperity aren't Progressive or Conservative values. They are Human Values.
by
Cagey B (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 5:20:17 PM
I agree. We have many common values. We just forget this sometimes.
I know the differences between right and left on issues such as the economy are important - but we should not let that sunder the common dedication to securing individual rights and liberties. And this war is for foolish for many reasons - we all agree on that.
by
Dan Hansen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 6:55:50 PM
You make several good points - especially about the bizarre elevation of abortion over issues of war and peace.
However, as an independent leaning toward the Democrats, I will vote for Edwards. He remains a strong, focused candidate who has raised the question of corporate irresponsibility. I do hope, however, that Paul runs as a Libertarian in the general election to keep the banner of peace flying... especially if Clinton wins the nomination.
by
Eric Roth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 7:06:52 PM
Vote Ron Paul, that we might return this country to the essential freedoms necessary to argue another day. Reward the only one promising to repeal the PATRIOT Act, end torture, stop unconstitutional wiretapping, return habeas corpus, bring the troops home from 130 countires!, pardon all non-violent drug offenders, etc.
Even his economic ideas are the most humane because if substantial changes are not made to return this country to a fiscally-sound footing: 'aint nobody gettin' nothin.' Bankrupt nations, like bankrupt companies and individuals, can't do a whole lot to assist anyone.
Thanks for the great article.
www.ronpaul2008.com DONATE NOW!
by
Dagny Taggart (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 8:05:37 PM
There is a lot to be said for the basic principle of a non interventionist foreign policy that Ron Paul advocates. Paul is also to be commended for taking a firm position that we must end the war NOW, and devote those resources to doing good things for our own people in our own country. Go to the website of the American Friends Service Committee (www.afsc.org) for some examples of what we could be doing with the $720 million a day being spent on the war.
Having said that, there are two planks of Congressman Paul's platform that hold me back from being able to support his candidacy. The first is his pro-gun stance. The NRA loves Ron Paul. I have a lot of trouble understanding how you can be pro-peace and pro-gun at the same time. It's seeing the instruments of violence as a viable solution to problems that got us into the mess in Iraq in the first place. We need peace at home as well as in Iraq. Guns are not making people safe. Particularly not in Philly or Detroit or Compton or Camden or . . . (I could go on). Do you know the percentage of guns used in crime that were manufactured for the "legitimate" market that Paul wants to protect? One hundred percent! How do I know? Well, when was the last time you heard of a criminal forging a gun barrel in his garage?
The second is Paul's hostile and punitive position on immigration. I do not even understand how that is a libertarian position. It's funny how the biggest advocates of "free markets" have a block on this; they do not understand that much of the economic pain caused by globalization and outsourcing happens because capital can freely move across borders but people can't.
I also think that Kucinich and whoever wants to be the next Kucinich really needs to figure out how Paul is tapping into the mood of a segment of the electorate and generating a buzz about his campaign (not to mention pulling in an impressive haul of money).
And I recognize that perfect candidates are few and far between. But the above two issues are too important for me to overlook, in good conscience.
-- Frank in GA
by
Frank in GA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 9:32:17 PM
Good to see there are people who are calmly examining Ron Paul's positions.
In response:
1. On Guns: I too am troubled by Dr. Paul's position on guns, just as I was with Howard Dean's, which was identical. Dr. Dean said at the time that he saw things from the perspective of a Vermonter, where it is normal to have guns for protection from animals, etc. He said that it should be up to the states to decide what to do with guns. Also, he realized that opposing the NRA would sink his chances in the South. In Dr. Paul's case, I doubt it is as calculating as that - I am certain that he just believes that people have the right to bear arms, according to the 2nd amendment, which is certainly not very clear either way on the issue, maybe intentionally so. Lastly, I don't know that reducing the number of guns would really have much impact on crime; it is useful to look at Canada, where guns are plentiful, yet shooting are 90% rarer per capita (and per gun, I think).
2. On immigration. Libertarians are actually split on the issue. Ron Paul has stated that he would like to see more open immigration and movement across borders, but he believes that we cannot do so as long as we have a welfare state. I tend to agree with him, although I have always felt that it is wrong to prevent free movement of people across borders. In the absence of a welfare state, the flows of people across the border would be balanced according to the job market; the welfare state distorts this balance, and ends up causing tremendous resentment by the native-born population. Ron Paul realizes this, and never stoops to criticizing the immigrants themselves - he realizes that it is the system that is the problem.
by
Someone Somewhere (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 9:54:00 PM
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government... Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778)
This is why we have the second amendment. So the people have the ability to rise up against tyranny. A militia according to Webster's dictionary of 1776 is:
MILITIA: a body of citizens organized to defend themselves against the tyranny of government.
As has been proven dramatically in England, A disarmed populace is also completely defenseless against the criminals who will still have access to guns. To eliminate guns in any country, the whole world would have to disarm. As long as any nation continues to manufacture weapons for warfare, a number of those weapons will fall into the black market to be purchased by criminal organizations in all countries. I prefer to be able to defend myself against those criminals, and the tyranny of oppressive government. If you believe that oppressive government can never happen in the USA, then you do not understand history, and should read the second part of Jefferson's quote again.
To defend oneself is a god-given right. The second amendment does not confer a right. It simply says that the government shall not infringe upon that god-given right.
by
J.R. Thompson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 6 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 11:16:08 PM
"It's funny how the biggest advocates of "free markets" have a block on this; they do not understand that much of the economic pain caused by globalization and outsourcing happens because capital can freely move across borders but people can't." (emphasis added)
Well said, Frank from GA, and a point which Arthur MacEwan made explicitly clear in "Neoliberalism or Democracy" (1999).
I must admit tho, I gotta give a thumbs up to support of the 2nd Amendment.
by
Rady Ananda (128 articles, 290 quicklinks, 37 diaries, 1130 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 11:20:51 PM
You wrote: "I have a lot of trouble understanding how you can be pro-peace and pro-gun at the same time."
and
"Guns are not making people safe."
The problem is that you are operating under several misconceptions.
1) Paul is not so much pro-peace as he is anti-aggression. Dr. Paul has no problem with individuals or nations defending against aggression through the use of violent weapons. In Iraq, we are the aggressors. We are the bad guys. Dr. Paul wants us to stop filling that role.
2) Your second misconception is the guns are not making people safe. That is pure lunacy. When guns were effectively outlawed in Australia, the crime rate soared. In the USA criminals are thwarted many thousands of times each year by citizens with guns.
3) Lastly, It is my understanding that Ron Paul merely wants immigrants to come here legally, not illegally. I too believe that it makes sense for the USA to be able to limit the number of criminals that come here. Crossing at a controlled boarder crossing and ensuring that we are not letting murders and career criminals enter seems logical. Also, under Dr. Paul’s reign, efforts would be made to remove the incentive for deadbeat immigrants to come here to take advantage of our social welfare programs and education system.
by
Mark Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 1:42:04 PM
If you want to help ensure your future articles about Ron Paul are noticed by even more Ron Paul supporters and others following the Ron Paul message go to www.WhatTheySayAboutRonPaul.com and post links to your own articles as soon as they are available online.
by
Lars Kristiansen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 10:14:23 PM
Caleb, for me you are so right on, I want to move back to Eugene and be your new best friend.
Frank in GA, you're more than a little fuzzy on a couple issues about gun ownership and Ron Paul's stance on issues. Ron Paul doesn't claim to be a libertarian across the board so it's incorrect of you to make the tie between the liertarian platform and Ron Paul's stance on an issue. You also make the wrong connection about Paul being against the War in Iraq and the "right to bear arms". Think of Paul more as a constitutionalist, he was against going into Iraq for many reasons personally but his Congressional objection was that it was unconstitutional. You may persanally be for living in a country where there are no guns, but that's your little peaceful dreamland and I applaud you for visiting it. Oh Yea, immigration, Ron Paul is not hostile at all on this issue. He is for enforcing the law which every other country does. He also doesn't place any blame anywhere except on our government for making it a problem, by providing welfare to illegals we have made them more of a drain on our economy rather than an aid to it. It's simply rediculous to suggest that we continue this practice, we're broke, we can't feed the world. Again, a nice dream land you wish for, but what candidate is going to provide you with your fantasy?, no one. It's fine that Ron Paul isn't right for you, he's obviously not, but you are still confused about the issues and where he stands on them.
by
Scott Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 10:32:48 PM
For Peace Voters, Kucinich dropping out this time is a near re-do of 2004 when Kucinich dropped out leaving us to work on Nader's ballot access to be in the race for PEACE. Ron Paul rEVOLution was born against the war.
Ron Paul REVOLUTION (I think that word scares some folks) is offering PEACE voters a real opportunity, the enlightened are jumping on, the rest are debating how to divide.
by
Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 304 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 11:38:50 PM
... back Ron Paul. Paul was not invited to speak at the NRA's Celebration of American Values forum last Sept., while every other candidate was. The only mention he gets on their website is as an afterthought, probably due to outraged Paul supporters.
The NRA is not singing Paul's praises for the same reason that Dobson's Focus on the Family ignores him: He represents a serious threat to the very existence of these powerful corporate lobbyists!
"Ron Paul is thin because he won't let the lobbyists buy him lunch!"
We can all agree that this war must end and government intrusion must be scaled back. I believe that Congressman Paul is just the man to do it!
by
Dagny Taggart (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 12:26:03 AM
The real problem I have with Ron Paul, among other things, is his being a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan. The man that started the deregulation of big business opening the door for all the corporate crimes and rip-offs we have been seeing. His incessant reduction of social programs while giving tax breaks and bailouts to big business .His wasting Americas wealth on building up the military for no justifiable reason. I know that it is a conmen myth that that is why the soviet union collapsed. But the fact is that it collapsed under the weight of its own burocrasy and strong arm tactics and was showing all the signs of collapse before Reagan ever took office. Then there is his union busting. Now unions are not without corruption but they are the only thing between the workers and the greedy corporate masters. I can agree with the some of what Ron Paul says. But to me the only reason to have a government at all is to do things that are better done collectively than individually and for the good ofthe greatest number of the citizenry. From what I can see that is the idea behind the constitution and Dr. Paul seems to have missed that point.
by
arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 288 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 12:13:57 PM
Ron Paul says that Reagan was a "failure", and defended that position when challenged about it on Meet the Press. Reagan, like Bush, ran on one set of policies, but in office acted like a compeletely different person. Paul likes his stated policies, but not his actions in office.
by
Caleb Friz (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments)
on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 7:39:50 PM
I must admit that I had rejected Paul initially out of hand because he is a Republican and at this point in my life I would *never* vote for anyone associated with the Republican party, but at the urging of a friend who thought he was really worth looking at, I went to do some research.
I ended up writing a very long email to my friend after a careful review of Ron Paul's various stands on a variety of issues, and here's the summation:
It's good you've spurred me to educate myself about RonPaul - before I had simply dismissed him out of hand because he's a Republican and at this point in my life, I would never vote for any Republican after they've so completely decimated our economy, ruined our standing in the world, given corporations billions of dollars in *our* tax money, redistributed the wealth of the country away from the middle class and to the top 1/2% of the wealthiest people, all the while doing everything possible to make sure that the average person in this country has no safety net whatsoever - but now I know all the reasons I truly do not like RonPaul or his positions on various aspects of our government. I find his stand against basic humanity to be completely skewed toward giving the Christians a free ride, with even more dole-outs of our tax money, while continuing to make sure that women, people of color, kids, seniors (read: people not like him) don't have equal (human) rights, or equal access to resources. While his singular stands on Iraq and hemp might be appealing, at least for me, when I look at the totality of the agenda he's pushing, I find it just short of reprehensible and certainly not something I would ever endorse or vote for....
I hope you'll take the time to educate yourself about the rest of the candidates...
by
Julianne Jaz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 12:22:56 PM
THE CFR IS THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF SOCIETY WHICH ORIGINATED IN ENGLAND AND BELIEVES NATIONAL BOUNDARIES BE OBLITERERATED AND ONE-WORLD RULE ESTABLISHED.
THE POWER AND INFLUNCE OF THE CFR IS MUCH LIKE A SHODOW GOVERNMENT. MOST OF THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES INCLUDING THE LIKES OF MITT ROMMEY, JOHN MCCAIN, FRED THOMPSON, CHRIS DODD, BILL RICHARDSON, JOHN EDWARDS, AND HILLARY CLINTON ARE EITHER MEMBERS OF CFR OR HAVE CLOSE AFFILIATIONS WITH THIS GROUP OF ELITES. WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT SO MANY PEOPLE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WOULD BE LINKED TO THIS GROUP. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE FORMIING THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION. SO A VOTE FOR ANY OF THESE CANDIDATES IS A VOTE FOR THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION AND OPEN BORDERS. NOW WHO DO WE HAVE LEFT TO PICK FROM, WHAT SAY YOU.
by
RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments)
on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 7:56:14 AM
Okay, we read it for like the 2nd or 3rd time now and still agree with the majority of it. So what is your point?
Let us know what is so appalling to you because most, if not all of his stands on the issues, are from a Constitutionalists point of view.
What everybody, but a Dr. Paul supporter, does not realize is that his supporters know where he stands better than most other supporters know where their candidate stands.
As for Obama or anybody that is left as a candidate, other than Dr. Paul, they are ALL a CFR Member and look to World goals first and USA second.
We would rather support a STATESMAN that has written many books on Economics and is supported by Economists and other Academia scholars as well as Hard Money Investment Advisers than ALL the other CFR Member candidates that care more about being President than they do about the people.
As we have said many, many times before We The People are running for President and Dr. Paul is merely our vessel that we have chosen to represent We The People in the White House.
It TAKES A Doctor To HEAL Our Country,
Freedom4America Group
by
Freedom4America Group (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 2:03:42 PM
Beside the fact that our election system is broke, broke, broke, and voting may be a joke.... there are many, many things to like about Ron Paul.
However, a couple of things I just can't get past... sick people, for one. Do we just let sick and dying people lay all over the streets because we're too cheap to help them; sorry, you're on your own dude, but thanks for your vote.
Or for the young girl raped by her papa who has to panhandle and hitch-hike through five states for her own survival; sorry little girl, freedom ends at your vagina, but thanks for your vote.
These two things in particular stop me cold. I know life and politics are a series of compromises but Ron Paul doesn't cut it, for me.
by
Shannon Rudolph (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments)
on Sunday, January 27, 2008 at 2:11:45 PM
