While Mr. Gosztola has, in my view, commented upon the only two candidates for president who have remotely expressed ideas that are their own, and who have demonstrated that they are even remotely "of the people by the people", I must protest his lapses into pejorative rhetoric, and his misrepresentation of Dr. Paul's positions.

 To name a few:

At least a year ago, and maybe earlier, Dr. Paul has clearly supported investigating to see if there are grounds for impeachment. He has stated that Mr. Bush has operated "perilously close to a dictatorship". Dr. Paul is invariably deliberative and does not rush to judgement, nor condemn out of hand.  He sticks to the issues, and does not personalize them. That is why he has a reputation among his peers on both sides of the aisle, of one of the easiest congressmen to work with.  Wouldn't a little maturity, civility and adult behavior be a nice thing in Washington for a change?

Dr. Paul has not  advocated abolishing all taxes. If you listen to what he says, although he is against the income tax, he clearly understands that it cannot be dropped summarily. He also clearly states that the income tax only accounts for about 1/3 of federal revenue, and that phasing it out can only be done as Congress downsizes bloated govenment (now mostly operated for the profit of the well connected, and largely accounted for by vast international adventurism) is downsized, and the public functions that can best be dealt with locally are reverted back to the state and local governments.

Pejorative words like "neoliberal" or"neoconservative" have little definition, but lots of emotional overhang. They are best left out.

Dr. Paul clearly supports free trade,  with a level playing field.  This is drammatically different than the current multinational government sanctioned monopolies now passing as free trade.  

Dr. Paul does not "falsely claim" that lower taxes benfit all of us. He claims it, period, and makes a good case for it.  What do you think the federal govt does with your social security, aviation excise, and myriad other taxes?  They count them against the huge federal deficit so it won't look as bad as it really is, and it looks really bad even with that ledgerdemain.  Dr. Paul's position is that most of these expenditures can be better managed locally.  It is a valid an reasonable point.  His most important point is that federal deficit spending results in a hidden tax that most adversely affects the poor.  Space does not allow elaboration. Hopefully you understand this already.

Simplistic solutions to health care insurance such as "not-for-profit" belie the incredible complexity that invovles bureaucratic practicing of medicine by insurance or Medicare clerk, individual waste and abuse, exploitation of government ineptitude by huge corporations, etc.  I will let it be. 

Dr. Paul does not "shamelessly exploit 911", nor does he blindly support the govenment's position. He clearly states that these allegations should be investigated.  The facts he has available to him do not support conspiracy theory.

Immigrationwise, Dr. Paul has clearly stated that the current situation unfairly scapegoats and exploits illegal immigrants. He is an advocate of a legal system for them to be here.  Are you indicating a preference that the doors be left wide open unattended (which is what we essentially have now)?  That the accepted mode of coming to this country from another be to simply walk over the border?   Have you read the immigration statutes and border control systems of other countries?  None behave in this way.

Dr. Paul is not an anti abortion "fanatic".  His pesonal belief is that this is the taking of a life that he believes has rights.  If you read or listen to his comments on this, he advocates that these highly charged personal and emotional issues be resoved at the state level, and that the federal government stop trying to impose its will.  Most importantly, once again, he advocates that this be a decison of Congress, or, even better, state legislatures, rather than a choice by an all powerful national executive.  He clearly acknowledges that it is a very difficult problem. Which it is.  I hope you too can appreciate it.  I have participated in medical abortions in my earlier days, and I support a woman's right to choose.  But, anyone who sees it as a casual decision is not worthy to comment.   The most important error you make is stating that Dr. Paul seeks to impose his view on the rest of us.  You have not read, or at least not understood the foundational aspects of his positon on this and other issues.  Are you saying that you will base your selection for president based on the proxiity of the candidate's personal values to your own, or on the candidate's record of honest and truly representative, fiscally responsible government?

The most important concept Dr. Paul advocates is that YOU decide these intimate, personal issues, and a lot more.  The reason that you have Big Brother micromanaging the details of your life, stealing your money in countless ways, and inexhorably impoverishing you, is that you have allowed your elected representatives to represent big business,  abrogated your own responsibilities and freedom to centralized agencies and legislative and regulatory bodies who have inevitably responded to the pressure and attraction of power and money.  Thee are the "Republicrats" you have elected over the years.  Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee.

I would feel much more postive about the future of the republic if we were to have a choice between Dr. Paul and Mr. Kucinich.  Today, my balance tips in the direction of Dr. Paul.  Unfortunately, I am not optimistic.  What can I reasonably expect of a populace that has demonstrated its willingness to be shafted in so many ways, invariably demands  Big Brother solutions to its problems, and that shows no more sophisticaton than the Israelites 3500 years ago when they panicked and gave up all their liberties and governmental representation to a King in the face of an outside terror threat (from Babylon, just south of Baghdad.  And they were warned that is what would happen.  They insisted on it anyway.)? 

I will hope for the above tow men as choices next November, but I would bet on an Obama, a Hillary, a Giuliani, or a Cousin Willard as the choices presented to us in November 2008.  They are all safe bets for the power elite.  You and I don't get to choose.  And there is always Choicepoint and the Supreme Court if the populace gets too insistent upon real representation.

 Cheers 

by wch (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 28 comments [8 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 26, 2007 at 6:59:34 PM

  (0+)

This is not my article. I posted it for somebody else so that would mean that when I went to submit I clicked "submit an article by another author".

The author asked me to do so I assume because that author does not have an OpEdNews account.

Now, I do support Kucinich. And I do support Kucinich over Ron Paul for some key reasons such as I support a universal health care single-payer, not-for-profit system being established in America. 

I did not write this article though. So whatever flaws it has I will have to direct to the writer of this and then give you a response so you can see what the writer has to say.  

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 26, 2007 at 7:10:42 PM

  (0+)

The article is a little unfairly harsh on the issue of Ron Paul.  Paul was the first member of Congress to use the word "impeachment."  Paul voted against a bill criminalizing the transport of a minor to get an abortion.   Paul is not going to harm a woman's right to choose at the national level because he feels it is a state's rights issue.Ron Paul is running for the Republican nomination.  He is the best of the Republicans and he is better than most Democrats, since he wants immediate withdrawal from Iraq, to get the United States out of the Middle East with NO MORE WARS, and an end to USA-PATRIOT and an end to free trade.  Paul is one of the most outspoken critics of the Bush Administration and he is warning that Bush is planning a new 9/11.  Although I don't agree with him on some issues, he is a good man.  He is certainly more honest and better on foreign policy than Edwards or Obama, both of who are to the right of Hillary Clinton.

A lot of people are calling for a Kucinich-Paul ticket, considered a winner by most who have looked at it.  Kucinich and Paul have routinely stood up together against war with Iran.

In most places Republicans cannot vote in the Democratic Primary.  It would be far better if the Republicans selected Paul than any of their other candidates.  This would allow a general election of the best vs. the best, assuming Kucinich is the Democratic nominee.

by California (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:43:25 AM

  (0+)

Kucinich looks to the federal government as the savior for the country's ills to where Paul recognizes that the federal government is the root cause of most of the country's ills. Now I want you to think for just a moment: Which course of action will reduce the influence of special interests and crooked bureaucrats the most: increasing the size and scope of federal government (Kucinich) or decreasing the size and scope of federal government (Paul)? 

As for impeaching Bush, I am all for it, but even more to blame is the congress that ceded (and continues to cede) power to him. It doesn't matter which of the two major parties are the majority, the results are the same. Why would anyone want to give this lot even more power?

As for Roe vs Wade, the author doesn't think that you can kill someone that hasn't yet been born; that life begins at birth. I would normally challenge that argument, but I won't. Instead, lets take a look at the primary argument as to why women should have the right to an abortion: that their bodies are their own and they should have dominion over the decisions that effect it. Then it only follows that all drugs should be made legal since it would be extremely unfair to claim that pregnant women have a right that is not afforded to men and non-pregnant women: the dominion over their own body. Yet, even the most vocal pro-choice politicians still support the insane war on drugs. Ron Paul is the only politician that will end this nonsense.

Also, where did the author get 88 issues discussed on Kucinich's web site? I only counted 7.

And animal rights? Give me a break... 

by rc (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Aug 26, 2007 at 7:52:15 PM

  (0+)

There are at least 88 issues and the research to back them up his positions.  Kucinich's site is a good place to quickly find extensive research on almost any topic.

With American's dying from lack of health care, we need social programs.  The problem with the health care plans of all the Democrats but Kucinich is that they will cost America what is left of the job market while providing no better health care than we have now.  Kucinich's plan is cheaper, more effective, universal and will take the burden off the employers.

Some of us a more than a little concerned about saving the planet.  As a doctor, Paul should care a little more about creating a healthy world for his children and grandchildren than about free enterprise.   This doesn't mean that most Democrats will save the environment.  All the Democratic Presidential candidates but Kucinich have plans that could result in repeats of Chernobyl in the United States.

I like Paul.  I think that he is the third best candidate in the race.  He is right behind Kucinich and Gravel.  All three of them are honest. 

The general view of most peace supporters is Kucinich, then Gravel, then Paul, then independent for the general election.

by California (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:58:15 AM

  (0+)

from LA Indymedia.  Sometimes they're flakes over there, but this one is documented. Has Paul renounced any of this yet?

by nazis for target practice Saturday, Jul. 07, 2007 at 10:08 PM

All I know is what I read, and I read that the minutemen love this guy. Check out the following.

------------------------------------------------
Racism in Ron Paul’s Past Writings?
By Arlen Parsa
Filed: Monday June 04th 2007, 5:48 PM

Some bloggers have been digging around and researching Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul’s history, and it may come as a surprise to find that he’s not the person a lot of supporters on the internet thought he was. New information dug up by bloggers reveals that Congressman Paul has had ties to White Supremacist organizations and has published fringe racist rants in the past.

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions,” Paul wrote in a 1992 edition of his newsletter The Ron Paul Political Report (later renamed to The Ron Paul Survival Report).

Paul also once suggested that the vast majority of African Americans were criminals, writing “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Paul was referring to Washington DC, which is heavily populated by African Americans.

Congressman Paul also once seemed to encourage fear of African American men because of the color of their skin, saying “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

The Congressman also advocated treating young black males who are accused of committing crimes differently than young white males accused of the same crime. “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23,” he once wrote. “That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such” (emphasis added).

Virtually all scientists agree that children’s brains are not fully developed at age 13, no matter where they are raised.

In another stunning case of racism, Congressman Paul once declared “our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin.” He also talked about how “unbelievably fleet-footed” young black men are, when they rob white people.

Paul also has seemed to welcome the support of prominent White Supremacist leaders and groups. In the 1990s, Paul accepted the endorsements of Larry Pratt, an associate of the infamous White Supremacist and former KKK leader David Duke. Pratt has been featured at neo-Nazi events. Paul has also received the support of a Texas separatist group and racist anti-Martin Luther King and pro-confederacy organizations.

Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, which has responded previous requests from The Daily Background for comments on other issues was given a chance to respond to this article but did not.

Update:

Michael Krekel, a spokesperson for Congressman Paul’s campaign, has now responded to the allegations of racism in the Congressman’s writings. Krekel called the writings “unfortunate,” but said that the writings referenced above were “not written by the congressman personally.”

“It was composed by a ghostwriter, and then sent out with Dr. Paul’s name attached to it, Krekel told The Daily Background. He also said that at the time, Paul was not directly involved in politics and that he had a staffer write the column in his place. Paul “has apologized repeatedly for his error, and he has been dealing with the incident for 15 years,” Krekel added.

“While the views expressed on African Americans do not reflect Congressman Paul’s views, he understands that he is responsible for anything that goes out in his weekly column.”  

The Daily Background
-----------------------------



A Ron Paul for President thread at Stormfront, a Neo-Nazi website, lifts up the rock and uncovers Ron Paul’s racist base.

It’s no secret that until he became the darling of the anti-war crowd, Ron Paul extensively catered to racists. He’s been endorsed and has ties to far right figures such as Larry Pratt and Pat Buchanan. He has a 100 percent approval rating from the John Birch society. His newsletter contained statements that most black men were criminals and welfare recipients or looters. He’s gone on about Jews controlling America and Asians embezzling the banks.

At the Stormfront thread meanwhile followed by an article from a David Duke website, we had Ron Paul supporters with extensive links to both Ron Paul and racist sites praising and talking up Ron Paul.

Cheimon: Ron Paul would collapse the Jewish infrastructure in this country.

lyo616: You bet your last dollar hes the best guy for the job.

terminus: Yes, he IS the one. He stands against the NWO, he has identified it several times in speeches. He clearly understands what is really going on in the world, and he is against it.

AllWhiteAllRight: Anyone who doesn’t vote for Paul on this site is an assclown. Sure he doesn’t come right out and say he is a WN, who cares! He promotes agendas and ideas that allow Nationalism to flourish. If we “get there” without having to raise hell, who cares; aslong as we finally get what we want. I don’t understand why some people do not support this man, Hitler is dead, and we shall probably never see another man like him.

Pat Buchanan’s book “Where the Right Went Wrong” is a prime example of getting the point across without having the book banned for anti semitism. The chapters about the war in Iraq sound like a BarMitzvah, but he doesn’t have to put the Star of David next to each name for us to know what he means. We are running out of options at this point, and I will take someone is 90% with us versus any of the other choices.

Not to mention if Paul makes a serious run, he legitimizes White Nationalism and Stormfront, for God’s sake David Duke is behind this guy!

Woodsy: I believe Ron Paul represents a true opportunity for most of America. He’s the real McCoy. A humble, educated, honest and determined man who is a real, patriotic American. You want business as usual? Cast your lot with Giuliani the Mayor of Jew York or Obama the dark horse from Minnesota (?). This coming election represents the Internet vs. the Jew-controlled mass media.

Jager88: Everyone should try to get as many people as possible to vote for Ron Paul!

President of Peach: Step foot outside of your cave/basement and start looking at the big picture: Ron Paul is the last chance the white race has for just 10% of its survival, much less America… And how do you know that’s not his priority? Remember: the game is rigged. Paul can’t come out swinging.

white-patriot: Ron Paul is the only true Constitutionalist and non-globalist in the bunch. He will have my support and vote.

The thread in question not only includes discussion but the usual links and prompts to vote for Ron Paul in web polls and text messaging polls. These are not abstract discussions but vocal and active Ron Paul supporters. Should Ron Paul be judged by the company he keeps? Hell, yeah.

Spaceramblings 

by Leslie Radford (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Sunday, Aug 26, 2007 at 8:45:05 PM

  (0+)

Should Ron Paul be judged by the company he keeps? Hell, yeah.

Hell no!  If someone, say Timothy McVie or the Unibomber, claims they support Ron Paul or any other candidate for that matter, you'd expect me to take that endorsement to heart? Hell no!

by Jeff Bubb (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Aug 26, 2007 at 9:27:22 PM

  (0+)

A typical attack on Ron Paul, often used by MSM. Don't mention anything of his record or his stands on the issues, instead find some politically incorrect group supporting him and highlight that instead.  Focus on something totally irrelevant; create a diversion from the real issues at hand; attempt to disparage through guilt by association.

Politics as usual.

This is what government, MSM, and others that want to hide the truth from you do to keep your attention from the facts:

. Ron Paul voted against giving Bush powers to invade Iraq.

. Ron Paul voted against the patriot act.

. Ron Paul voted against the CDA and has consistently stood against all forms of censorship. 

. Ron Paul will not raise your taxes nor increase the size and intrusiveness of federal government (and he has the voting record to back that up). 

There is not a single other candidate running (from the two major parties) that can make these claims. 

by rc (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 12:42:02 AM

  (0+)

1- If you want a "not for profit" health care system. Do it yourself. Anyone can start their own charity organization. Do your fund raisers (ala Red Cross, American Cancer Society etc...) and negotiate with local hospitals to cover the "uninsured". You don't need the government to create additional bureaucracies and additional taxes to cover the uninsured. Get off your butts and do it yourself. I'll give you your first fund raising lead. The Gates Foundation....

2- If Ron Paul wants to uphold the constitution that should unite ALL Americans. It is what gives everyone of us our freedoms. Just because "Some" groups seem to like that idea, does NOT mean that Ron Paul supports their ideals. It's about ensuring freedoms by the rule of law. Anyone breaks the law and they are dealt with accordingly.

3- The tax issue. Now I've been on all sides of the spectrum. I've had no money and I've had a lot of money. The bottom line here is that an income tax is so harmful to the economy, it doesn't matter what class you are. I've owned small businesses all my life and having a little extra money makes all the difference in the world. It allows you to hire more people and pay them better wages or increase their benefits. I think everyone that whines about keeping the tax system in place, should start and run their own small business for a couple years. This will give you a realistic sense of what the economy is all about.

A quick note on the capital gains tax. This can hurt the poor people the most. What happens when a poor person invests wisely and over the years his/her income rise at the rate of inflation and their lifestyle is still poor. However, they had a good investment strategy saving every penny. Then they want to cash out and buy that wonderful new house. After Capital gains is taken out they can't afford to buy the house that they wanted. Another thing is in the 10 years or so that they saved up, the dollar is worth 3-5% less per year. Now they just got double whammyed.  There should be No income taxes....period.

That will give you some food for thought.

by Michael Twain (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Sunday, Aug 26, 2007 at 9:28:25 PM

  (0+)

Business is about making profits.  That is why the insurance companies make money if they refuse to treat patients and the patients die.  That is why the pharmaceutical companies make money if their drugs make patients sick and the patients have to buy more drugs, which will probably also keep them sick.  Free enterprise is not the way to go when it comes to saving humanity.

by California (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:02:45 AM

  (0+)

tried to get a law passed saying defining a "person" as existing from conception, that's about as anti-choice as anyone can get.

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Sunday, Aug 26, 2007 at 9:52:14 PM

  (0+)

Choice is important.  A woman has the right to do with her body whatever she feels like doing with it.

However, some of the concepts designed to protect choice, don't make sense to most women who have had kids.  Women who want to have a child see that child as alive and human from the time they realize they are carrying the child.  Look at how many women, shortly after conception, change their diets, get ultrasounds so they can see their babies, and get baby clothes and furniture.

The reason for the myth that life begins at birth is to protect choice from infringement.  It is a myth that makes flies in the face of reality.  I think it would be far more honest to say that life or potential life begins at conception but acknowledge that the life is not certain to survive until birth.  The woman's life is already surviving and we don't want her to have a risky (illegal) procedure that could kill her as was the case with a great many women and girls prior to Roe V. Wade.

by California (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:16:13 AM

  (0+)

Just so you people know I'm the person who wrote the article. Kevin just copied it with my permission.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Aug 26, 2007 at 10:52:05 PM

  (0+)

These statements are directly from Ron Paul's website.

These statements make it clear that he wants every immigrant without valid documentation deported. Where he says 911 terrorists had expired visas he is exploiting and lying about 911.

Yes we need to guard the borders to keep criminals out of the country. However those who come to America who are not criminals should be allowed to stay as long as they want as long as they don't commit any felonies. If we don't want too many people coming here then we must stop economically exploiting the people of 3rd world countries and stop imposing corrupt governments on these countries.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.

Defining life as beginning at conception would not only criminalize abortion but make it an act of murder under the law. HR300 is unconstitutional. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the Roe vs Wade decision, Congress has no constitutional authority to overturn Supreme Court decisions. State legislatures do not have the right to violate the US Constitution and that includes the 9th amendment to the Constitution which abortion falls under as a right not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

As far as impeachment the time for investigating is long over. The facts are the facts and the fact is Paul still has not cosponsored Kucinich bill to impeach Dick Cheney.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 12:12:28 AM

  (0+)

Should Ron Paul be judged by the company he keeps?

This is the stupidest thing I ever saw. There are black racist websites that support Obama. Does that inherently mean anything about Obama? Paul has even mentioned that he might consider Walter Williams as a running mate. Williams is a black economist. Oh wait, maybe he's a racist too. Doh.

by Sasha Sapiers (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 2:08:36 AM

  (0+)

Yesterday (August 26) I watched both Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich on CSPAN. What I did not like about Kuchinich, despite his ideas, was his grandstanding: "I did this.. I did that..." There is a disturbing ego at work here, one that Dr. Paul thankfully does not share. As far as some of the author's points is concerned, I think he is a little naive. Supporting impeachment--although a fine idea--is impractical at this point. It would further marganilize Dr. Paul, his work in congress and his campaign efforts. Regarding 911, that he does not publically state that he accepts the demolotion theory, does not mean has ruled it out. To go on the record with the 911 truth people would destroy whatever chance he may have; he would be torn to shreds in the debates for such a position, even though it is probably correct. A smart poker player knows which cards to play, and when. To spill all the beans right away, at Kuchinch has done, tips his hand. Paul is a bit wiser; his cards are closer to his vest and he will play them when the time is right.  He has my vote.

by zenpiper (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 7:33:40 AM

  (0+)

Let's be realistic here. All candidates grandstand in some way. Kucinich's is noticeable because a) he believes he can win and b) he believes he is right on all the issues.  His arrogance lends to his character ad charisma much the same way that arrogance leads to any politician's character and charisma.

Yet, while he may be arrogant in his demeanor, his policies have nothing to do with arrogance in the way that Bush's governing of America does, what with signing statements, etc. No, Kucinich promises a White House with one of our own in it.

Obama and Hillary and all others grandstand...they just may not be as excited about their policies as Kucinich is because Kucinich doesn't have to worry about convincing people. Once he says what he means, people cheer and agree. Obama, Hillary, Edwards, and the rest have to justify and twist their points until finally, well, until finally...Someone agrees that they get it. 

by Kevin Gosztola (302 articles, 146 quicklinks, 81 diaries, 1082 comments [77 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 9:24:12 AM

  (0+)

Any candidate who hasn't had the time or inclination to study the mountain of overwhelming evidence surrounding 9-11 Truth, and come to the informed conclusion that anyone with an IQ higher than mud is capable of, doesn't deserve my vote.

At least Kucinich has stated his support for a new 9-11 investigation, which indicates he has done his homework. Too bad even he doesn't have the courage to make it a campaign issue.

by Bill Cain (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 435 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 9:05:00 AM

  (0+)

I have followed Dennis' career since he was the mayor of Cleveland. Never in all that time have I seen a scintilla of arrogance. He tells the truth. What a unique idea. We watched The Road the the White House  last night and it was so refreshing to hear him utter the truth about every issue, clarifying every one.

There is no comparison between him and Paul. Please!!! Dennis is right and Ron  Paul is wrong.

by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 327 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 9:56:22 AM

  (0+)

I like Kucinich somewhat but his understanding of the economy will be as damaging as many of the other candidates. The free market theory is not only the smartest economic stance from a "reducing poverty" level, after all people need jobs and an advancement in capitalist innovation creates them...except at the government level, boo hoo, but it is the freest stance. Socialist health care, welfare, etc they all take from someone to give to someone else. The perpetuate the idea that people who have earned less than someone else still "deserve" what someone else has. America is the most compassionate and giving country in the world. People give more to charity per capita here than anywhere else. We'd give more if not for the excessive taxation (of most varieties) and spending by our governments at all levels. Single payer healthcare will actually raise the amount doctors and hospitals charge because they will now know they can get it becaue the government has mandated they get it. Forget negotiating fees, it will only reduce the number of doctors and increase the number of lawyers. Is that what we really want? Part of the reason costs are high, besides over-regulation, are that there aren't enough doctors and nurses. This is a supply and demand issue that will get worse when 45 million patients are thrust on the medical community over night. It will be chaos. What we need to do to alleviate costs and access is A) end the drug war, many illegal drugs can cure pain and diseases; B)eliminate the FDA (who do you think wanted those drugs to be illegal anyway? Big Pharma who owns the FDA regulators...is Vioxx safe? It was regulated so it must be, yeah right), there will only be more regulations and control with universal health care; C) de-regulate because over 30% of insurance and doctors' costs come from unnecessary regulation and rules, most insurance carriers are not permitted to sell differing policies based on customer choices, all policies must cover the same string of services despite charging different rates, the rates are tied to employer group size, not type of policy, it is time to allow emergency only plans or at the very least plans without massage therapy and gym memberships many of us will never use. Let people choose, or have a la carte coverages (this is the single biggest part, but all of these reasons working together will do wonders) D) the government labels alternative therapies and medicines as taboo, not only that but it is actually illegal for anything to be labeled a cure unless it is an FDA approved drug, even though marijuana can actually CURE some cancers! That is lobbyists at work, you think these rules will get better with the government operating the health care system? There's a reason Canadians and wealthy Europeans come here to get care even though they pay taxes to get it "free" in their own countries -- BECAUSE THEY WANT TO LIVE! Socialist medicine will be the ruin on our already fragile economy and social fabric. You think there's class dichotomy now, wait until everyone is in line at the hospital. E) the government should get out of decisions made by patients and doctors, so they can make choices that suit them, not some bureacrat. E) Allow charities to set up funds to cover costs for the poor. The lower costs from deregulation and the end of the drug war, advancement of alternative medicines etc, will make charities able to cover the costs for those that truly cannot afford to pay. If insurers must offer group coverages all individuals to join consortiums to get better rates. There are a lot of ways to improve. Single payer is not the answer.

This is one of the many reasons why I support Ron Paul over Dennis Kucinich. They will both end the war, so my decision has to be made on other issues. And he will not criminalize abortion at the federal level because he will only work to make it a state issue which constitutionally speaking it should be. Examination of many of his proposed bills shows that he proposes them in response to another bill, sometimes he even proposes bills to show how the slipper slope works and has no intention of voting for his own bills. He has done this several times. Considering his state's rights abortion stance I would guess that is the case with his "criminalize abortion federally" bill.

by Nick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:41:40 AM

  (0+)

First off let I will come right out and say that I studied 911 for about 6 months, 2 to 3 hours a day and 6 to 8 hours a day on weekends. 911 was an inside job, I ask anyone who disagrees to please objectively examine the mountain of evidence before you make idiotic comments about my position.

With that said we obviously need a new investigation, we have two ways of getting one, Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, but we also must eliminate the root cause of 911 which is the political corruption and the world banking system.

With that said Ron Paul becomes the obvious choice, don't get me wrong I think Dennis Kucinich is an honest politician and an all around great guy, but he is not presidential material nor does he have the brilliance that Ron Paul has, the fact is that Dennis bankrupted Cleveland when he was mayor, so even by the remote chance that he wins the nomination, there is no way he could win the general election.

ALL 911 TRUTHERS NEED TO COME TOGETHER NOW AND VOTE FOR RON PAUL, IT IS NOW OR NEVER, TOGETHER WE WILL STAND, DIVIDED WE WILL FAIL!!!!

by Matthew Miller (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 3:59:35 PM

  (0+)

Saying "Leaving things to charity creates poverty and death" is a silly notion. You are correct in saying that the insurance & pharma companies are in business to make money and to perpetuate their income. That's not necessarily the root of the problem. They should be allowed to make as much money as they can. However, there also should be free access to the market. What has happened is that these big companies have too much power to regulate the laws to prevent any relevant competition. A couple of things to start off fixing healthcare.

1- Eliminate the insurance & pharma lobby in Washington. You can do this by eliminating the federal funding & subsidies to these companies. The pharma companies line up for the government grants, the FDA regulates the hell out of them, costing them millions, then in return the government subsidizes when they run out of money. Not to mention the pharmaceutical patents that run way too long and help create the monopolies that keep prices inflated over 1000%.

The FDA doesn't allow free importation of pharmaceutical from other countries, because of the testing & trial procedures put in place. Now, some of these drugs are the ones people are going to canada or mexico to purchase for pennies on the dollar. The government needs open up the market and this will lower the costs of pharmaceuticals.

2- The insurance companies are in a near monopoly in most markets. Here is an interesting article:

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/ama_insurance_study.html

A charitable organization that provides healthcare would be a great step in reducing the strangle hold the insurance companies have on the people and the government. Government healthcare would bankrupt the country and wouldn't be any better than the VA Hospitals or medicare. Another interesting thing people should see:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7461407498377956300&q=

by Michael Twain (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 6:33:29 PM

  (0+)

This article is flat out misleading.

Ron Paul IS, in fact, Pro-Life.  He is an obstetrition.  That would make sense.  HOWEVER - Ron Paul does not believe that the FEDERAL govermnet should be involved in this issue.  I honestly don't think I have ever met someone who was Pro-Abortion, have you?  The issue here is not a persons belief, but how it should or should not be effected by our FEDERAL government.

by Reverend Mark J. Seydel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 9 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 7:59:28 PM

  (0+)

What went wrong with my spell-checker?  LOL

by Reverend Mark J. Seydel (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 9 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 8:16:18 PM

  (0+)

Paul is not the only candidate that opposes the war on drugs. Kucinich opposes the war on drugs also. In fact opposition to the war on drugs is one of Kucinich's main issues. Paul on the other hand doesn't say anything about the issue on his website.

Kucinich has 88 issues listed on his old website at http://www2.kucinich.us

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 10:47:32 PM

  (0+)

How exactly would supporting impeachment marginalize Paul? The majority of the American people support impeachment. If Ron Paul was the constitutionalist that he claims to be then he would support impeachment.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:02:42 PM

  (0+)

If you believe that the federal government is the root of all the countries ills then you should be advocating the abolition of the federal government to establish complete anarchy. It wouldn't be long then before we discovered the real cause of the countries ills which is corporate capitalism and the lack of democracy.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:25:18 PM

  (0+)

"Corporate Capitalism" is corporatism. Most of these corporate monopolies have come into existence with the support of legislation and the government. Take the "new" corporations (i.e. internet companies), they have come about with little or no regulation and look at what we have today. Technology and information that is light years beyond what it would be if the FCC stepped in and regulated it. Free entry and little regulation enforced by laws.

We live in a Republic, not a democracy. Mob rule doesn't usually work for the "little guy", something the democrats are always squawking about, but never seem to understand the rules they put in place are put on the backs of the "little guy".

Why is this debate between Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich even happening in the primaries? Have they both won their respective parties nomination already?

by Michael Twain (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:39:45 PM

  (0+)

Paul doesn't have to publicly state he supports the demolition theory. All he needs to do is say that he supports a new independent investigation of 911.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:40:36 PM

  (0+)

Dennis Kucinich did not bankrupt Cleveland. Dennis Kucinich saved Cleveland which is why he's so popular there now and wins his elections easily. Dennis Kucinich stood up to the bankers in Cleveland who tried to force Dennis to sell the public electric company but Dennis refused to sell it. I'm sure if Ron Paul had been in the same position he would've been more than happy to sell off the electric company since libertarians oppose publicly owned businesses. Libertarians believe everything should be privatized.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Aug 27, 2007 at 11:58:39 PM

  (0+)

Why are some "progressives" even considering this candidate?  He's a Republican who used to be a Libertarian and now claims to be a conservative in the Ronnie Raygun mold.  That should tell anyone with any sense all they need to know.   Case closed. 

by teeem (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2007 at 1:34:36 AM

  (0+)

Ron Paul does support a new investigation and working with Kucinich on this. I'm not sure why people have a fit when they don't even take the time to research the answers to the misrepresented information they put forth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91a13Yr3oQ   

Ron Paul is VERY different from Reagan. People don't realize that Reagan used to be a Democrat. Paul's fundamental philosophy and subsequent voting record is very different and very progressive. This is years of indoctrination that feeds most peoples political philosophy. There is a much deeper connection with the two political parties than most people realize. For your own sake, it's worth trying to forget what you think you know and research a little deeper and you will see the corruption, stagnation and bureaucracy that has cemented itself in todays society.

Breaking up some of the overspending and large bureaucracies & corporate monopolies will be a great start in end the stranglehold they have on us.

by Michael Twain (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2007 at 8:22:59 AM

  (0+)

I believe that people who support Ron Paul are cowards. They can't or won't leave their party, a party that abandoned them, fiscal conservatives I mean, with mixed libertarian traits. You folks still vote with your pocketbooks. And you look at your pocketbooks with the telescope turned the wrong way around. You never stop to realize how much taxes have helped your life. In providing for your parents an income (social security) ..something you may or may not have to shell out more for. I can give other examples...I have a republican friend (who atually just switched to democrat) who got wealthy from section 8 tenants. Paid for his apartments for years and when the real estate went up he sold them. He nearly punched me in the face when I pointed this out to him. Imagine cutting back on the insane defense budget to spend a little toward your son or daughters education, thats less out of your pocket if the government picks up some. Same for health-care. Socialized programs can and do work if the burden for paying for them isn't placed soley on the middle class. Politicains have convinved voters like you, republicans I mean, that every nickel of your taxes goes to by some welfare mon in DC oreo's she didn't work for....when in reality, its been going to line the pockets of ceo's and corporations and very wealthy major shareholders, like Enron, Haliburton, Brown and Root, etc. Thats where the real money goes. They have also convinced a lot of you that being concerned about your brother, the lady across the street, whether she has food or medicine...is somehow weak and liberal and stupid. They would like to break the idea of 'solidarity' in this country. Dividing one American from another they have painted a land of 'fend for yourself'. If they pit you against each other by demonizing one from the other, and by telling you that the woman across the street who has 'no food' and 'no medicine' is not your concern, not your worry. So why wouldn't it be logical to assume that these types are the ones republicans choose to put up as candidates? Types that don't care about people and that primarily think of their own bottom line. Like our current crop of war profiteers, who ripped off your 'pocketbooks'. Vote for them again at your own peril. You'll get the same every time. This commentary is rampant in between liberal bashing on right wing talk shows that dominate radio and tv.

You need to see things through a better set of eyes. The world is not zero sum gain. As I pointed out to my friend of the section 8's. There is a way to see things through better eyes.

If money is opportunity then huge money is huge opportunity? And no money is no opportunity? And insane kingly wealth corrupting money, is insane kingly wealth corrupting opportunty? Can we supporting a tax on poverty making, country crushing, politically corrupting meglomania? I'm serious here. You folks need to contemplate what it is you're defending. What you mean by liberty and libertarian. It's time to see the world in bigger terms. You need to be Democrats. It's ancient utopian nonsense. Go study london, and europe in the early days of the industrial revolution. There's your economics at work. Nasty.

by Geno Matthias (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 17 comments) on Saturday, Sep 1, 2007 at 2:38:16 AM

  (0+)

I am really tired of the 'abortion' thing. I get tired of listening to men weigh in on it. Controlling women, and their wombs, what a woman can and does with hers, has been a preoccupation with men historically for ever. It's flat out a women's issue and a women's health issue and woman's moral issue and an issue with her family of friends.

If men got pregnant and carried babies for nine months in their bodies we would not be having this argument. Abortion would be in the constitution.

They should be safe, rare, and legal.

God does not mean every piece of fruit that falls to make a tree. If you pick a piece of fruit and eat it? Are you aborting a tree? Wise up monkeys...wise up. 

by Geno Matthias (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 17 comments) on Saturday, Sep 1, 2007 at 2:51:56 AM

  (0+)

Ron Paul will not be able to stop abortions. This is the supreme courts job. It's a non-issue.

Traditional Democrats are not the answer. The DNC & RNC are the same, except for a few philosophical positions. Both parties in the end vote party lines or vote to stay in office or vote to spend more money, without actually following up with audits and progress reports. The entire system is bloated and out of control.

Just because you we have a department of education, does not mean that what it does is truly beneficial in the long run. Although, it was put in place with the best intentions, what it does now is a disservice to society, because it's bloated, has general guidelines that are not held to a high enough standard.

Taxes are another issue. I don't necessarily want kids. However, I don't believe it's right to tax me the highest. Why do a family of 4 kids get a huge tax write off and then I do not get a single write off. To top it off, I have to pay THOUSANDS of dollars every year to put their kids through the education system. This is hardly what I call fair. This kind of taxation needs to stop and it wont happen under any kind of Democrat or Republican.

There are so many reasons why not to vote for the status quo in any party. I only wish people would do some serious investigation into the world of our government bureaucracy. You would also do yourself a big service if you were to really study what Ron Paul has to say overall. Ask yourself, "How can this work" and "How can I make this world better for the less fortunate" and set it into motion. Government is not the answer (ala Hurricane Katrina, just one of many examples).

For the record. I pay to many charities, I employ and train many people so they can get higher paying jobs. In the next year I will be starting a charity to help with the health care industry.

I want to challenge all of you people to stand up and start your own charities and creating an environment that is better for yourself and others. The Democrats just want to point fingers and tax people and turn it over to the government and then brag about how they are helping the people. It makes me want to vomit.

Get off your butts people!  Make real change in this world, and it starts with YOU! 

by Michael Twain (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 1:10:53 PM

  (0+)