What's wrong with you people? Have you lost the ability to think straight? Is there a virus going around attacking progressive brains cells? Have you slept with a Republican lately?

Paul said ''evolution is only a theory''. Just what we need, another religious nut in the White House!

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 6:36:33 AM

  (0+)

first of all francince, you are dead wrong, please do your research before wrongly smearing a candidate and read as follows

 official campaign response

south carolina debate question "who here does not believe in evolution- raise your hand."

Subject: Re: Didn’t see his hand
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400
From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
To: Ron Shank

Ron,

Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.

so please kindly retract your religious nut comment.

secondly, let me just say no offense, but actions like this column and your subsequent comment are why i left the democratic party and why we are so polarized. everyone like you says oh  he's a republican? f*ck him! just the same as idiots on the right say oh i hate democrats and i will never support one!! people WE ARE NOT THAT DIFFERENT we all simply misunderstand each other!! it is your poor perception that all republicans are neo con bush's AND THEY ARE NOT, just like the misconception that all democrats are gay loving tax raising welfare touting church burners that would fill schools with transexual teachers. GET A DAMN CLUE PEOPLE. PLEASE. learn to look at things JUST SLIGHTLY outside of your sheltered preconceived notion!

Ron paul is not a corporatist in any way and the fact anyone would say this only proves their incredible ignorance. he has voted against every corrupt piece of the republican agenda even railing against the federal reserve, THE ULTIMATE FORM OF CORPORATISM. he takes zero corporate money as well (UNLIKE NANCY PELOSI WHO TAKES MONEY FROM SUNOCO- LOOK IT UP)

if you would actually research this man and his record you'd learn why "progressives" are leaving the Democratic party in droves to support him.

by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 12:44:08 PM

  (0+)

pelosi is funded by occidental petroleum, not sunoco. and according to wikipedia:

Researchers at the University of Massachusetts Amherst have identified Occidental Petroleum as the 47th-largest corporate producer of air pollution in the United States, with roughly 1.2 million pounds of toxic chemicals released annually into the air.

also look up their involvement in a helicopter bombing in colombia for business interests killing innocent colombians. it's awesome. glad to see such upstanding corporations are funding our leaders!!

by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 1:09:16 PM

  (0+)

Someone gets it straight!!!

Ron Paul has consistently spoken against the rise of corporatism. But the mainstream dems (sorry Dennis K, but the machine will NOT allow you to be the dem candidate) are all corporate bought and sold. The very thing this article argues why we should not look at Paul, are the very things you will end up electing with someone like Hillary.

Excellent post, good job on spotting the error on evolution. I have not heard Paul say ONE thing about religion. As a libertarian, the last thing he wants is the government involved in religion or promoting religion.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 2:04:49 PM

  (0+)

Here's What I'm Dismayed With - Progressives Who Worship Political Parties over rightness and truth!

Your devotion to Democrats, to a party that has betrayed truth, justice, and compassion for their corporate masters is disturbing at the highest order.

I have worked in refugee camps where innocent children had escaped mass murder from thugs supported, supplied and trained by the CIA and US militarist policy.

We have seen starvation and slave labor worldwide made possible by a corrupt corporatist CIA led policy of murder of good leaders, and throning corporate prostitutes we call Prime Ministers or Presidents so they seem legitimate after our CIA destroyed their democracy and replaced it with painted whores.

We've seen the American national coffers diverted to mostly militarism.  Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. warned a nation that year after year spends more on military than social uplift, is approaching spiritual death.

These Democrats you worship, have participated in the growing spiritual death of our nation.  Bill Clinton is a case in point.

I've sweated and slaved to get these Democrats elected.  I've given my life to it as a low paid professional staffer and a full time volunteer.  I've been betrayed over and over again.

The "left / right paradigm" the corporate media feeds you is a lie.  A Hollywood show, like all star wrestling to make you think you have a choice.

NO CANDIDATE HAS CHALLENGED THE CIA GLOBAL EMPIRE OR THE MILITARIZATION AND CREEPING FASCISM AMERICA IS EMBRACING LIKE RON PAUL HAS.  (Except Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney).  No Democrat has, that's a fact.  Kucinich was best and the Iowa Democrats simply deleted him from the race.

The Democratic Party is not your savior.  The Republicans are your destroyer.  It is time to stop settling for the "evil of two lessers."

Ron Paul is a sage, and true patriot, who wants a foriegn policy that will end the CIA's filthy disgusting crimes worldwide.  The savings for American tax payers will be more than we will ever see from the modest tepid changes Hillary Obama promise.

Ron Paul will NOT leave some troops in Iraq as both Obama and Hillary have already promised to do.  Stop worshipping a political party and stand up for what is right.

Anyone who is a true progressive hates the international crimes perpetrated year after year around the world in our name.  Any true liberal hates the militarization and creeping fascism America is seeing.

Only one candidate is challenging this with soul force.  The $18 million Ron Paul raised in the 4th quarter, breaking all fundraising records without lifting a finger, is because "some" Americans do care about truth and peace.  Not just their petty little "Democratic talking points."

No one has been a more dedicated Democrat than me, and I say I've had enough!

Join the Ron Paul Revolution!!  Let's get this country back from the corporations and militarists!!

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 4:11:25 PM

  (0+)

"Here's What I'm Dismayed With - Progressives Who Worship Political Parties over rightness and truth!"

Of course, anyone who "worships political parties" is not really a progressive are they?

I get the thrill that Paul gives to people who havn't had anyone to speak for them in the Republican Party. It is the same thrill I get when I hear Kucinich. (But not Edwards, as I see him as a liberal populist, not a progressive.) 

I admire Paul and his sticking to his principles, and I do think he is the least objectionable Republican candidate, At least like Kucinich he has a Constitutional analysis when most don't (Dodd hit the nail on head with the Retroactive Telecome Immunity issue, but he has a hit and miss analysis), but I'm not going to join Paul or his candidacy because I just don't agree with his Constitutional analysis. I think Paul and the libertarianism that he speaks for has denied the fundamental social purpose of the Constitution as expressed in its preamble and structure that by taking the position that government should be so minimized as they do, they actually attempt to annul the Constitutional purpose of promoting the General Welfare. Thus they are advocating a form of Constitutionalism that violates the Constitution, IMHO.

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 3:53:04 PM

  (0+)

Science says that all explanations are "only a theory," and if a better explanatory theory comes along it is the duty of scientists to analyze and adopt it in addition too or instead of evolution  So the quote from Paul that you provide is both accurate and scientific.   If you have a quote of Paul that supports your allegation that he idenies the current scientific validity of the theory of evolution, then please post that quote so we can have something real to discuss.,

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 3:37:18 PM

  (0+)

Every candidate, on both sides of the aisle, is a Corporatist. Ron Paul is the only Presidential candidate who is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. How can any candidate claiming to be a progressive, and "against" corporate control of our government, be a member of the group once presided over by Dick Cheney? The left/right democrat/republican paradigm is ridiculous. You have to wake up. Ron Paul's interview Sunday on Meet the Press was a stunning event. He's the only one who is railing (RAILING) against corporate control. That's why he is getting play from contributers to OpEd. Who else in this race has the courage to talk about facism? He said it was rightly called Corporatism, Big Business in bed with Big Government.

by Lydia Compton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 7:25:45 AM

  (0+)

There are different kinds of corporatism.  Ron Paul is the most strongly opposed to the kind of government-aided corporatism we now have.  But libertarianism would wind up handing over power to large corporations.  I know libertarians don't see it that way, but I'm convinced that is the case.  So I consider libertarianism to be a form of corporatism, while acknowledging that libertarians are among the strongest opponents of existing corporatism.

The major party candidates with any legitimate claim to be opposed to corporatism are Kucinich, Gravel and Huckabee (I know it seems a bit strange to have him classed with Kucinich and Gravel, but he has drawn more ire from corporatist interests than any other candidate - the only candidate targeted by the "Club for Growth" which Huckabee rightly calls the "Club for Greed" - and has the strongest anti-corporate rhetoric).  Edwards talks anti-corporate, but it is not believable when you look at his record, his financial supporters and his lifestyle.

by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 2:26:25 PM

  (0+)

that just makes no sense whatsoever, and the proof is 2 reasons-

number 1 is kucinich endorsed him as a possible vp! kucinich would choose a corporatist as his vp?! are you kidding?!

secondly look at where the corporate money and election influence is going? one hint- it's not going to ron paul, they haven't sent a single dollar to him and are actively funding his opponents! why would they fund people running against the man that would somehow empower the corporate machine?

by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 3:24:40 PM

  (0+)

   Libertarianism would remove all government controls on corporations since they consider such controls a restraint of trade and interference with free competion. Libertarians consider antitrust laws a restraint of trade and interference with free competition.

   With corporations free to compete free of antitrust restraints in a survival of the fitest battle, only one, or at most a few corporatons would survive.  The survivors would find it most profitable to institute a monoply.  The paradox of free market capitalism is that it would lead to monoply and the end of the free market.  The few surviving corporations would dominate the government more than the many competing corporations do now.

   Hence the statement that Ron Paul's program would leat to even more corporate control.

Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 4:14:53 PM

  (0+)

and secondly  you still haven't explained why they are not giving him money if that is somehow the case.

 just explain that to me and i'll respect your opinion

by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 4:18:57 PM

  (0+)

So the Walmartization of America is not happening because Libertarians haven't been elected President???

Give us all a break, you insult our intelligence.  Our country is a fascist state, meaning the our government has become corporate.

Who has had the courage to say that??  ONLY RON PAUL

Yet you tell these horror stories to get people to vote for morally bankrupt Democratic corporate shills instead of the only man with the courage to say the truth.  America is becoming fascist.

Yes, RON PAUL said that on national corporate TV.  No Democrat has the courage to say that.  Not one!

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 4:22:27 PM

  (0+)

No true monopoly can exist without force.

And that force is always government force.

Corporatism (fascism, the marrying of the government gun with corporations) is what enables monopolies.

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 7:34:19 AM

  (0+)

Nothing and no system of economic relationships can exist without governmental force. Just as the physical laws of thermodynamics are required for all existing things there are also social laws of economicdynamics for markets and other socially existing things.  So what is the point about monopoly, since along with everything else, it too as well as it's prevention is dependent on force? 

The core of all political debate is all about who will weild the force and for what purposes? 

Libertarian analysis imagines a world without force through the fallacy of thinking that small government would mean and result in small force. That equation of the smallest government with the greatest liberty is libertarianism's greatest flaw.  

Liberty is not in and of itself the greatest good. The greatest liberty is not that liberty with the least social conscience or that subject to the least social forces.

All things in balance applies to Liberty as well.  The best liberty is a balanced liberty, not an unrestrained liberty or a liberty without social and governmental  forces existing to regulate it. 

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:10:50 PM

  (0+)

I thought about answering your points, but they speak so well for themselves, I believe I will just let them stand where they are.

 Thanks for being honest, at least.

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 7:10:28 PM

  (0+)

Why does all the money pour into Washington from lobbyists?  Because this government is for sale. 

What is the largest welfare payout?  Corporate welfare.  Ron Paul will try to end that.  Democrats will "massage it."

Say there was a Libertarian America, just for the sake of argument.  Does that mean there is no legislative branch anymore?  No.  If a company pollutes and that pollution hurts someone, that company can be sued. 

These hysterical statements, and the delusion that the current system actually is protecting us, is naivity at its worst.

People are dying worldwide because the CIA is destabilizing their countries.  Ron Paul would end that.  But the so called "liberals" on this list who attack him, could care less about this global suffering.

The just worship the Democratic Party.  Its disgusting.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 4:19:21 PM

  (0+)

please explain how you plan to get by the rigged E-voting machines? All this Hoorah for Paul means nothing if you don't fix the election fraud first. And I don't care who the choices are, the one that will be POTUS will be whomever that powers that be want in if you don't first have an honest election system.

Tell me how you plan to fix the system and I'll get excited about this election - until then this is nothing. It's not even interesting. It's a Dog and Pony Show with no dog, no pony and little to show.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 3:22:50 PM

  (0+)

I worked my a*s off for both Gore and Kerry.  Then when it was obvious the elections had been stolen . . . they conceeded.  We now know the both Gore and Kerry won.  On election days they knew that legally registered voters had been denied their votes in Florida, Ohio, etc.

Did they fight for us?  For our democracy?  NO, they gave up on us.

Ron Paul is on national TV taking on the CIA corporate globalist behemouth.  If he has the courage to do what no Democrat has the courage to do . . . then he will have the courage to fight for votes.

How so called "progressives" can be so blind to a Democratic Skull and Bones party that has served up our democracy on a silver plate to the GOP thugs . . . is enough to make me want to serve up my lunch on my computer screen.

Join the Ron Paul Revolution!  Our democracy depends on it.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 4:27:58 PM

  (0+)

Wall Street Journal wrote on Dec 21, that the two major corporate parties are blaming each other for both of them not seating any Federal Election Commissioners, thus presently, we do not have a FEC.  This is going under the radar, and very important to those who fear fraud.  Now the Federal Elections Commission says one must be in the race to contest an election, so maybe not having a FEC will give some attorney, or Nader, the opportunity to contest an election, and "Don't Taz me bro" but Kerry and Gore BOTH threw their elections.  Ron Paul is offering us an opportunity to take the Republic from the neocon/libs and remake it.  Let's go for it.  Go Ron Paul!  And please know, over on the many Ron Paul bloggs, election fraud is a hot hot topic, along with many conspiracy theories and facts.  It's the most facinating political terra in my lifetime.  YouTube Ron Paul

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 10:12:07 PM

  (0+)

but please explain to me how you're going to over-come the election fraud? Just how are you fighting it? Will there be poll watchers at every poll? Exit polls? High powered attorneys ready to file legal proceedings immediately in case of suspected fraud? Are there plans to stop E-voting machines and have paper ballot public counting? Is there a effort to purge all the State Attorneys rove placed all over the country? Because if you're not doing this and more I wouldn't be chilling any champagne just yet.

We're talking over 30 years of systematic destruction of our election process and perfected over the last 7yrs., and if you have a plan as to how you're going to overcome it before the 08' election I would like to know. Otherwise ... I don't care how many you'll have is this "revolution", you aren't going anywhere.  

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 2:15:45 AM

  (0+)

Please Google "Ron Paul election fraud".  That will link you up to several organizations that have been formed and working on this issue right now.  The rEVOLution shares your concern and others far more on top of this than me have formed organizations.  Check it out.  If you are not impressed, maybe you could help to make it better?

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 9:40:56 AM

  (0+)

If you want Bigger Federal Government then vote for any body on the ballot except for Dr. Ron Paul.  Ron Paul is for a Limited Federal Government as the Constitution Mandates.  Ron Paul wants to give the Power back to People and the States as well as Local Levels.  If you are too Blind to see how enormous our Federal Government  is well then I don't know what to say. It has gotten out of hand and out of control and not only will Dr. Ron Paul restore the Federal Government back to the norms as the Constitution states, he is restoring the People's faith back into the Government, Look at the voter turn out of previous elections.  We will all see a huge surge in voter turn out come 2008 and it is that reason why you will see Dr. Ron Paul win the nomination and then the General Election.  The #1 Priority of our Federal Government is to serve and to Protect our American People.  If we are unable to secure our borders at home what makes us think we can protect the American People from abroad.  Having our Troops brought back home will Tremendously help Protect our Borders.  Ron Paul simply wants to give the Power back to the People the way the Constitution intended it to be...Is that so bad or do you all prefer to be 100% dependent on the Big Government...let it continue to grow, spend, borrow money that isn't here or there, etc... Oh, by the way, by having a Limited Government also means most of the lobbyists and special interest groups go away...is that really so bad?  Think about it and Plz regardless who you vote for Do your own Homework, whatever you do don't allow the mainstream media to do your homework for you and do NOT allow them to tell YOU who to Vote For.  Merry Chrismas Everybody.

by countryboypride77 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 7:35:05 AM

  (0+)

to find the government hiding there? This oh so typical right wing rant is both disturbing and false. You use governmental services daily, and give it no thought, yet, when some of those services go to deserving causes that isnt you you foam and rant about how big our government is and how deep in your pocket as well.

We, each and every one of us, has a duty to this nation and to our fellow citizens. This is the very heart of the progressive, no dammit, the Liberal agenda. If there is incompetence in our government then it is because we the voters have elected the wrong people to run that government.

 This is so elementary and your right wing kool aid , including support of a man , Paul, who would further free the corporations from restraint, who would further allow our education system to deteriorate, who would abandon those who need our help the most, simply supports the CHeney agenda and further diminishes our nation.

The greatness of a nation is judged, not by how the wealthiest live, but by how the neediest are cared for.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:15:46 AM

  (0+)

so by what you just stated, I hope you clarify that statement, wait, let me ask you a question, By your post, "...who would abandon those who need our help the most,...", are you insinuating that the Iraqi's need our help the most?  or the Koreans, or Isreal, How about the American People for a change... For the past many decades, our Government has put People of Foreign Nations above the needs of the American People, Minority needs have been given above the needs of the American People... When will we begin to take care of the American People's Needs?  The answer is as soon as Dr. Ron Paul takes office of the Presidency of the United States of America.  A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for the American People.

by countryboypride77 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:03:16 AM

  (0+)

yep. No doubt about it. You sound like one of those racist haters who talk about fair treatment for white people. Only you rephrase it as Americans.

I know we can't blame Ron Paul for who is attracted to his campaign, or maybe we need to take a closer look. 

I've always like that saying that we judge a culture, country, civilization by how it treats its most vulnerable members. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:22:44 AM

  (0+)

I wasn't going to reply to your Arrogant post, then changed my mind...

There is nothing racist nor belonging to the White Supremacy by asking when will we take care of our own...Our Children are dropping out of school by record numbers each day, our Veterans are becoming homeless by the mass numbers, our hospitals as well as our schools are fast approaching bankruptcy, America's Poverty levels are growing, the Middle Class People are barely making it some of which are falling, Our Government is Growing as the People are losing their Liberties, their rights, their MONEY, The Constitution is fading, the list is mountainous so...

IF YOU WISH TO CALL ME A SPOKESPERSON OF THE WHITE SUPREMACY THEN GO AHEAD>>>IT"S ABOUT DAMN TIME THAT WE TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN AND WHEN EVERY AMERICAN IS TAKEN CARE OF THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT CARING FOR THE NEEDS OF OTHERS... by the way my previous post to me anyway didn't sound like White Supremacy talk...

by countryboypride77 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:51:47 AM

  (0+)

"Minority needs have been given above the needs of the American People..."

That is the line that has a race based flavor to it.  Why? Because it sets up a framework of opposition between "minorites" on the one hand and "the American People" on the other.   The oplitical opposites of "minorities" are the "white majority", so the frame of minorities verses the American People equates the white majority with the American People.  Can you see how that appears to be racist?

If "minorities" are accepted as a fully participating subsection of "the American People" then responding to their needs is part of responding to the needs of the American People, and such response does not oppose the needs of the American People. 

If what you really meant is that the needs of "the few" have been put above the needs of "the many" then that is what should be stated, not the code words of "minorities" and "the American People."

Of course the problem  with saying that there is a problem when the needs of "the few" have been put above the needs of "the many" is that it goes against the grain of libertarianism which places the needs of the few above the needs of the many, and the needs of the individual as the highest need of all, and not only that but it defines the individual as an ego and not as an indivisible member of the community and social fabric. 

So any reference to "minotities" in contradistinction to "the American People" is a racist reference that has many unstated presumptions.

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:43:27 PM

  (0+)

Yes so let us feed and clothe the needy. Of all colors and stripes... It is up to YOU to do that. If that makes me racist to go down and feed the needy and help my fellow neighbors then i guess I am one of the biggest ones... How dare I take care of my fellow citizens and if I am high minded enough on a particular day and have the extra funds I try and give my money to those who use that energy to help others in other nations. I do not think it is a good idea for a nation to give other nations money. Do you see what has happened playing sides against eachother, using aid to begin to control nations, holding it over their heads along with the debts via the world bank and IMF. Do you not see what happens when you give one group of people milliosn of dollars to fight the other side so that we may have someone in charge of that nation that favors our foreign policy. It all ties into together.. this is not racism.. this is reality and if you are so naive to think that this is not occuring then i do not were you have been living the last century. We also cannot afford it. We are broke as a government. Imagine cutting the spending 75 percent... imagine how much money we could have to use for bettering our nation. Imagine not getting involved in others affairs as a nation. It has always backfired against us. remember you have the power and you control your own destiny.. and that means if you choose to help others here and abroad.. YOU CAN!!!

by Col (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:07:57 AM

  (0+)

man, i'm sorry but i don't know what kind of a rock you're living under. Look at any candidate that receives money and i guarantee there are hundreds of terrible people donating it. i bet there are people who gave money to barack that have beaten their wives, people that gave money to kucinich that have cheated on their spouse, i bet there are people who have given money to richardson that have stolen from retailers before. soooo whaaaaat! does this somehow invalidate that person's message or change their legislation record?? when a candidate asks for support does he accompany it by say ing 'unless you are a bad person. please, no bad people votes!'

 he obviously gave paul money to promote the white pride agenda.

or maybe, just maybe, he gave money to paul because he would stop the war, end the income tax, reinstate solid money that can't be inflated, and fix about a million other things that need fixing?? no, no. you're right. it must have been that time ron paul said 'vote for me and all the blacks are as good as back on the boat!'

waaaaaaaaake uuuuuuuuuuupppppppp

by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 4:16:37 PM

  (0+)

We must all come to understand that as long as anyone depends on their minority status to determine their rights then the majority will only recognize a degree of rights based solely upon a specified set of what the majority considers allowable and therefore, contingent freedoms. In other words, the majority will always restrict the rights of the minority unless the minority can base their rights upon something other than the specific attributes and or definitions of that minority. 

The government is not inclined to, nor does it obligate itself to ensure the Rights of any person in this country although it was created to protect the Rights of every individual. It is up to the individual to combatively insist and aggressively pursue his or her Rights before the government. It is People, first and foremost, that form the State Republics through acting on a cooperative and voluntary basis, but with an extreme prejudice toward their Rights. It has been said that the majority opinion is the true ruler; if that is the case then perhaps it is time for us all to become the majority and not base our Rights upon a specific status as a minority. This does not preclude any attributes that a person has who is a member of a minority or their identity, but in the eyes of the majority and therefore the law, a minority is only a minority and will remain as such as long as they base their Rights solely upon their minority status. 

The problem with every democracy is that the majority always rule to the exclusion of the minority. The reason the Founders purposed a Republic instead of a democracy was to blunt the force and power of the majority through layers of checks and balances to equal out the playing field. The more democratic a political system becomes the more the majority “lords over” the minority. It is strange that people are all for democracy until it actually rules against them and in a democracy, since the majority always rules, the minority will always suffer under the prejudices of the majority. There is a defined tyranny within a democracy and yet so many clamor for such a system because they feel that it will provide them with more voice while just the opposite is true. In every democracy the government system appeals to the material interests of the majority’s large voting block, in turn the government will then merely placate the minority with a degree of rights and yet never “grant” them the same degree of rights as the majority.

The established elite ruling class, the governing “gentry” fears nothing more than a unified People. As long as sectionalism can be promoted and therefore pseudo-legalized, then this nation will remain divided and that is exactly what the “State” desires: a house divided. Until We take the stance that the only status that is legally meaningful and powerful is that of the Citizen, then We will remain a conquered People subject to the will of majoritarianism and their preferred democratic tyranny. The majorities will always, whether by vote, referendum or even by a form of legal or judicial enforcement, secure their perceived rights over the rights of a defined minority. Majoritarian democracy desires the artificial designation of minorities, it keeps the “majority” holding the reigns of power while providing the minority with a degree of satisfaction based upon their struggle to gain or retain a certain allowance of rights, but such a system will never provide equality because it inherently promotes and maintains social, racial, religious, ethnic or sexual divisions among the People.

The “State” readily supports the idea that a particular class or group requires or is entitled to recognition based upon that class or group or category, because segmentation will continue to allow its decisions to be based upon the majority and keeps the perceived minority, of which ever particular group, in check or within a majority defined scope of “civil rights”. In such a “democratic” system the minority will always yield to the will and power of the majority. The majority will always enact policies which ensure that the minority is not strengthened and will never allow the total empowerment of the minority. The “State” will always seek to breed social divisions in order the restrict minority power or empowerment. The solution therefore, must be found through a very powerful and very different view: that of the Majority of Citizenship.

It is interesting to note that you rarely hear the word Republic, but democracy is tossed out by most politicians and for good reason: a democracy will always protect the majority first and keep any minority under the thumb of the ruling powers. Minorities are not only required, but desired within democratic majoritarian system of government because it will always demand that all minorities yield to the will and allowances of the majority. A Republic is anathema to democratic majoritarianism because it equalizes the power and force of government among all People of the Land when the People press their Sovereignty, based solely upon their Natural Rights of Citizenship, over the “State”. 

by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:15:31 PM

  (0+)

The smallest minority is the individual.

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 7:42:56 AM

  (0+)

Watch the movie, Syrianna, written by a former CIA agent.

In it he shows how the CIA murders leaders in countries that want to educate their people, and build with their national resources a better country.

Then the CIA helps elevate brutal thugs who will whore their nations to the corporate interests.

This policy has murdered millions worldwide through military aggression, and starvation.

So called "progressives" on this list are trying to shoot down the ONLY candidate vowing to end this brutal policy.

So I don't see any "progressives" as far as the ones on this list attacking Ron Paul who give a care about the least among us.

I see them willing to let the entire world continue to suffer so they can keep their pet Democratic talking points.

I'm a progressive, and have been a Democrat for 25 years, working for them, donating to them, promoting them.

I'm done with them.  They allowed the war, they allowed torture, they allowed the Patriot Act.

Ron Paul will end all those things.  Any real progressive would love the Ron Paul Revolution, not trash it with these flimsly Democratic talking points that the liberal media, and I don't mean corporate media but the so called "left media."

Former CIA Director William Colby said that any media of consequence in this country is controlled by the CIA.

When I see "left" media attacking the only candidate that will dismantle illegal CIA operations worldwide . . . I smell sulpher.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:32:54 AM

  (0+)

is what you are, Rob, and the comments here & on DailyKos to your strategic article about "Endorsing Ron Paul" prove it. I'll defend you because I know you don't really want to see Paul president, and after seeing some of the things I have about him I don't want him either.

Just for the record there was another person who wanted to dismantle our corrupt CIA, and he was assassinated (very likely by them) in Dallas...John F. Kennedy.

by Paul Magill Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 135 comments [46 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:30:28 PM

  (0+)

You are right we shoudl take care of our citizens. So how much time and money have you volunteered personally?  Charity starts with yourself. if you are not feeding and clothin the homless and needy yourself and expecting the government to do it for you, then I must say that is the saddest most hypocritical thing I have read.  IT IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS RESPONISBILITY. IT IS YOURS!  plain and simple.  I enjoy having free will and I enjoy helping my community and my fellow humans. I take the time to do it and if we all did that imagine how many changes would occur. remember you are in charge. if you do not like a product, you do not buy it, if you do not like your representation in government, you vote him or her out. I am not a right winger and i am not aleft winger. Labels are a short cut to thinking and I can only tell you is I am an American or better yet a human. We have been given the awesome reponsibility of free will and freedom of choice it is up to you to use it wisely.

by Col (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:01:35 AM

  (0+)

While I do not usually converse with right wing wackazoids I will correct you this once.

My charitable contributions yearly may very well exceed your total yearly net income. Nevertheless it is a very real responsibility of the state, as we are all a part of that definition. Individual contributions, regardless of amount or frequency, is no yardstick for measuring need or an excuse to end the social contract of government with its citizenry.

Most folks who spout that childish position wouldnt give a dime if they found one on the street. Perhaps it is guilt that makes one posit that we the people have no obligation to feed and clothe the poor, educate our children out of tax revenue maybe it is the sheer and utter selfishness that characterises the libertarian. I frankly do not care much.

Governments principle and primary responsibilities are two fold, defense and the peoples welfare, both in maintenance of the infrustructure as well as proividing fo rthose in need. To believe otherwise is to have not read very far into the thoughts and purpose of our Founders. But ignorance is still no excuse for your selfishness.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:12:57 AM

  (0+)

The Constitution starts with this;

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Argue its' legitimacy all you like, it still says "promote the general welfare". If you are a constitutionalist, the only legitimate way to keep the government out of the general welfare promotion business is to get the preamble changed. Good luck with that. I think most Americans agree that our general welfare must be protected and promoted... especially by the government. If not OUR general welfare, then WHOSE. 

by jdoss (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:40:05 AM

  (0+)

In the final analysis, the Preamble and the Constitution mean whatever it is we think it means and the overall political system (never ending, always changing) determines it means, but here is what I think.

There is a problem with trying to use the Preamble to justify any specific program instead of sticking to powers actually enumerated in the body of the Constitution. The Constitution was written the way it was because the Founders thought that the powers enumerated in it would achieve the six goals stated in the Preamble, and if the people wanted changes, they should amend it, or achieve their goals via State government.

The general welfare clause might just as easily have been used to justify the involvement of the Federal Government in the chartering of corporations, but it wasn’t because that power, like the right to establish national social welfare programs, was not enumerated in the Constitution. Today, the chartering of Corporations is still a State’s right.

But the granting of favors as a way to get elected or stay elected is a constant in politics, and the Federal government could not keeps hands off. Even if Dr. Paul were to somehow eliminate all social welfare programs at the national level (how likely is that?), they would without question re-emerge at the State level, and re-emergence there would not necessarily be bad.

The “establish justice” clause is clearly followed by powers enumerated in the body, and so is the “common defense” clause, but what powers do the: “more perfect union”, “insure domestic tranquility”, and “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” clauses justify?

If you want to use the Preamble as the end-all and be-all, then the “insure domestic tranquility” clause can be invoked to justify suspension of habeas corpus and martial law. The “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” can be used by your children to justify revolting against the burden of the national debt… There is no end to the specifics that can be erected on the foundation of vagary.

No, clearly the Preamble is just a preamble, and the Founders were smart enough and plain-spoken enough to clearly enumerate the powers they wanted in the body of the Constitution.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 8:03:48 PM

  (0+)

and your hero, Ron Paul, believes in a far more inflexible constitution than you posit here. Not that I blame you for convoluted argument, you have no justifiable position anyway.

Ultimately you seek a hard hearted and sick society in which people die but corporations flourish, nice stance that.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 7:00:19 AM

  (0+)

I’m get the feeling I would get a more meaningful response by talking to the wall, but here goes anyway.

1) Read Steven Leser’s latest diary entry and my article Reforming the "Private-Benefit" Corporation.

2) Yes, Ron Paul does posit a far more inflexible Constitution than I posit here. And, most lay readers of the Constitution who are not lawyers, will never see nor hear nor think about the hundreds of years of historical context, legal interpretation, legislation, plus the political schenanigans, lying, cheating, and just plain bumbling that lead us to the government we have today.

Instead they will see the argument that four words, “promote the general welfare”, in the introduction to the Constitution, are sufficient to justify everything and anything a “progressive” desires. The average person is likely to conclude you believe in a Constitution so flexible, it permits anything at all of Government, or you are so arrogant that you think you are the only one who knows what it really means, and you ain’t really talkin’.

3) The Ron Paul phenomenon is exactly this. There are a lot of people who think that is exactly the kind of attitude that brought us to the situation we find ourselves in today, and they are angry about it. They are thrilled that issues, basic issues they understand and care about are now being discussed in public in plain language, well cyberspace anyway.

You see, the Constitution is written in plain language. An eighth or ninth grader can read it and thinks he/she pretty much fully understands it. So does the average American. Thinks they understand it, I said!!! If you think they are being conned, it is insufficient to simply say so. They will not believe you. A child thinks magic is really magic until you explain how it actually works. I am not calling Paulites children. I am stating a maxim about the human mind that you would do well to understand.

4) You can take advantage of their interest in ideas by participating in discussion and possibly change some minds, or throw pot-shots. When you take the low road by picking on the weakest arguments, ignoring the better ones or presenting weak arguments, and engaging in unfounded character assassination, insults, etc, you do not change any minds, you just look bad.

This a public discussion that is long overdue, and if you think it should not take place because it revolves around Ron Paul, then you had better get out there and make it revolve around someone else by promoting another candidate.

5) Ultimately, I will adjust to whatever environment results from whoever gets elected, Democrat or Republican, no matter how bad. Yes, I think Dr. Paul is a long shot, and yes, I am prepared to be depressed for another four years under Hillary or any of the Republican front runners. Realistically, I think our next president will be a Democrat. Really now, with Bush at 28% or whatever in approval rating, does any Republican really have a chance?

6) But take notes now, because in the Paulites, you are hearing what a growing, passionate, vocal group cares about. They have been allowed on this site. That is commendable. Now, influence them as Rob Kall suggested.

7) Now, as much as I resent holding up both ends of this (non)discussion, if you really wish to prove the folly of an inflexible Constitution to the satisfaction of anyone other than yourself and people you already know completely agree with you, shouldn't you be busy:

1) Proving in what respects the Founders meant the Constitution should be a living breathing document

2) And proving in what respects, the Founders meant it should be inflexible and last forever.

with compelling arguments? Because I will continue to be critical, challenging, flippant even, until you do.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 9:22:28 PM

  (0+)

Apparently you do.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 6:59:46 AM

  (0+)

I've written the same thing for many years about the six purposes of government as represented in preamble. The Republicans act like defense is the most important one when it is only one of six equals.

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 9:26:59 PM

  (0+)

I'm proud to see/read/agree with your posts.

You are one of the few voices of sanity and true Liberal thought.

by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 12:29:23 PM

  (0+)

How can so called "liberals" and "Progressives" be so ignorant of the CIA militarist machine that has caused the murder of millions worldwide?

How can they be ignorant of the CIA militarist machine that has destroyed democracy in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, and on and on again and again IN OUR NAME?

How can the so called "liberal" and "progressive" turn a blind eye to the CIA militarist machine enabling slave labor markets worldwide to flourish, driving down the American standard of living.

I am a liberal and progressive.  That is why Ron Paul is the ONLY one I can support.  He is the ONLY one with the raw courage to take on the CIA and militarists.

The CIA specializes in ruining people that challenge them.  For those on this list who want to ruin the only chance America has . . . you'll have plent of ammo.  The CIA will see to it.

I for one, am not buying the propaganda any longer.  So long as Ron Paul continues to demand the CIA and militarist machine be dismantled and no one else has the courage to do it . . .  RON PAUL WILL BE THE ONLY ONE I'LL WORK FOR, DONATE TO, AND VOTE FOR.

I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF BEING USED BY WHAT I ONCE THOUGHT WAS "MY" DEMOCRATIC PARTY.  CORPORATIONS OWN IT NOW.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 4:34:45 PM

  (0+)

The problem with libertarian (small "l" intended)  analysis is that it equates smaller with better.  That is far from reality. Yes, the largeness of the Federal Government appears to be problematic, but the problem doesn't come from the size alone. The problems with our governement are primarily from what the government is used for.  Size should fit the need and when the governmental need is greater than the size of government, it is smallness that is the problem not largeness.

 For example, the Homeland Security Department (HSD) created by the Wall Streeters who are in control of both the Republican and Democratic Parties is an affront to the principles (if there are any) of both parties.  HSD violates everything sacred to small government values of rank and file Republicans but it also violates the civil liberties principles of rank and file Democrats. HSD violates everyone's concerns for fiscal management and accountability.  Nothing about HSD really accomplishes the stated purposes for what it was sold as.  So yes HSD is an example of wasteful big government, but it is what HSD does and what it fails to do that is what is really wrong with it, not just its size.

Now if we had a Health and Education Department as large as Homeland Security to deal iwth the large problems of health and education in our nation, then I think that our country would be much better off, as well as much safer in the world than the phony security offered by Homeland Security.

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:24:10 PM

  (0+)

You're either with Ron Paul rEVOLution or Bush/Clinton.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 7:40:10 AM

  (0+)

How simplistic and false a statement you have made here. Please, you owe it to us all to think harder.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:17:00 AM

  (0+)

Perhaps YOU don't see it the way I do, but I clearly see the Duopoly AKA Bush/Clinton and their NWO Agenda 21 as being so simular, there's not a dime's worth of difference.  Meanwhile there is a rEVOLution, not to be confused with the campaign, because I myself will not register for any cporporate party, but I will absolutely support the Ron Paul rEVOLution to defeat the GOP and the DNC.  Conservatives and Progressives who can think out of a box are uniting together, in the name of LOVE and peace, to  take your duopoly regime away from you.  I know that is threatrening to many, even those who want regime change.  And it is simple, and that's the beauty of it, either you get it, or you don't.  And if you don't get what the rEVOLution is about, it matters not of you are a GOP or a Dem, or a third party, the rEVOLution is going to win.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:20:57 AM

  (0+)

What's a "MAROON". We should keep color out of this discussion.

by Alan Scher (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 12:18:56 PM

  (0+)

Knows nothing, believes he knows it all. Bugs Bunny, you Maroon!

I am completely sick and tired of this barrage of selfishly motivated stupid political diatribe. I understand that as soon as Paul loses, as he certainly will, with radicalised cultists who know not the first thing about libertarian exclusionary practices and corporatist philosophies the public will quickly turn off to him.

I guess I will leave these Paulista pages to you guys for your small momnet in the sun, it will fade quickly thank goodness. You folks havent a clue as to the danger and anti Americanism you support, and all because Paul hangs his hat on ending a horrid little war. The war will fall of its own volition soon enough and we will not be left with the damage a Libertarian will do to our already suffering nation.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 6:53:06 AM

  (0+)

Why do you feel so desperate to hold onto this government?  What has this government done for you that makes you reject the rEVOLution?  There's no way in hell I'm going to join the GOP.  Too many elections supporting Nader to be able to join a corporate party...and I am part of this rEVOLution, I am not part of the campaign, though I do fund the campaign, (my special interest in the capitalistic industry of cannabis for the USA, and there is only one candidate for me on that issue, so, I support Ron Paul).  I wish he wasn't a Republican, but he is, the grassroots is not.  I am an independent and if Ron Paul does not get the GOP nomination (which I hope he does) as an Indy I will move into position to get him on the ballot.

There's a place for everyone in this rEVOLution.  You either want your repubic back and see this as an opportunity, or you're got hang ups and don't get it yet.  But you've got a year...so, take your time, we'll be here.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 10:00:29 AM

  (0+)

the truly stupid and the truly devious. Which, I wonder, are you? Paul is going to fade away, guarranteed. Some of his supporters will grow politically some will remain in neverneverland.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 11:15:42 AM

  (0+)

Apologies, Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel are also not CFR members. Btw, the theory of Evolution, like Relativity, is still just a theory. It's not necessarily religious nuttery to call Evolution a theory.

by Lydia Compton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 7:43:57 AM

  (0+)

Calling Evolution "just a theory" is, for an MD trained physician, not nuttery, it's dishonest pandering to right wing evangelical nuttery.

How can a physician go through a medical education and actually believe that evolution is "just a theory?"

Sorry. I don't buy it. Evolution is 150 year old science, proven 10,000 times over. Talking about theory is just disingenuous word play. 

Ron Paul is good on his antiwar stance, his support for habeus corpus, his opposition to globalism (like Kucinich) but this evolution nonsense is a real negative, as are his positions on women's rights to control their bodies, and his extreme libertarian views on government and privatization.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 7:51:27 AM

  (0+)

Evolution, Abortion--these are wedge issues, designed to divide us.  I see it as the highest form of hipocrisy for progressives--who regularly make fun of evangelical voters for being duped into voting against their best interest because of a single issue, most commonly Abortion--to then turn around and say that they won't support someone who is light years ahead of the corporate democrats Clinton, Obama, and Edwards in his stance on the War and Civil Liberties because the candidate doesn't like the idea of killing foetuses. 

Honestly, what are you more concerned about: ending the genocide in Iraq or eradicating creationism?

by Caleb Friz (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:15:36 AM

  (0+)

Ron paul does not think the government has any place controlling womens bodies... it is between the doctor and the patient.  I do wish he would lay off the states choice, but as a decentralist that is the game you have to play. he is not running for governor. He is running for President and the federal government has no place in the doctors office.  Of course is pro life.. he delivered babies most of his life... but the great thing about how the government was formed that his personal beliefs  mean nothing when it comes to consititutional law.. there is no need for judicial legislation when the law all ready say that a woman has the right over all this.  Dr. paul has been pretty rigid with his belief on this issue and on the opposite end of things the government has no right to put people to death for crimes either.

As far as evolution being a theory... hmmmm.. yeah I know what you mean... I certainly am not a creationsit, but I guess the crazy thing about freedom of choice is you can have all sorts of nutty ideas and I can disagree with them, funny thing about freedom eh??? 

by Col (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:14:57 AM

  (0+)

I usually agree with you Rob, but here's the thing. evolution is a theory. So is the theory of relativity and Newtonian physics. It doesn't mean anything bad that it's a theory. Even some scientific laws have been disproven. Moreover, "proof" in science is an ambiguous word because science works on induction, not deduction.

Rob, you've observed Ron Paul enough to know that he's a very intellectual guy. I would inquire more about this before rushing to judgment. The greatest philosophers of science would say the same thing: Popper, Kuhn, Quine...they all agree that science is not provable. So I would inquire as to whether Paul is coming from an intellectual position like a philosopher would, or simply a creationist position that rejects evolution out-of-hand simply because it doesn't comport with his own paradigm.

by Greg Albert (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 34 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 12:51:40 PM

  (0+)

for the sake of truth and honesty, please check your facts before posting such things.

see the post above that disputes what you just said.

Ron Paul is not a creationist.  And he never brings religion into politics.

what people need to think about is whether they like how things have been working so far with a big government.  do you like how your money has been used?  do you trust the government to efficiently use your money for good causes?  

 I used to be a democrat but no longer.  I want change and I support ron paul.  He is not racist, sexist, or bigoted.  Those who try to smear him with these labels are just trying to bring him down because they have other agendas.

I would like more control over where my money goes.  If I want to donate to a charity or help my neighbors then I will do that with my hard earned cash.  I do not believe the government will take care of the needy.  they have failed so far.  the democrats had a good chance to prove themselves over the last year and they failed miserably.

Look at ron pauls record and see for yourself that he is not part of the bush regime.  Do not think according to party lines or stereotypes.  Think for youselves people. 

by robin Robin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 2:51:59 PM

  (0+)

official campaign response to south carolina debate question

"Does anyone on this stage not believe in evolution- please show by a raise of hands."

Subject: Re: Didn’t see his hand
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400
From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
To: Ron Shank

Ron,

Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is a physician and believes in evolution.

Please ammend your posts. 

Secondly

abortion is not about a "woman's right to her body" and i am very fed up with this bogus argument. we all agree everyone has a right to their body, men and women alike so please stop with this distorted phrase. The issue is whether the fetus has rights even though it resides in the woman's body, ok?! So Paul thinks the law demonstrates that it does because the law has said that he can be sued for harming a fetus and people have been convicted of 2 counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman and her fetus. So what?? that is his opinion and he has a right to it! That is the only debate here so please open your mind just a little bit and learn to be tolerant of people who don't see things 110% the same way you do. isn't that what liberals tout left and right?? tolerance?? jeepers h christmas

 the best part is- he'd leave it to the states anyway! no federal laws allowing or banning abortion! so his opinion doesn't even matter anyway!

man, isn't anyone sick of being wrong about ron paul yet?? 

(fyi i'm a former liberal from wisconsin and i support russ feingold, the lone senate vote against the patriot act and arguably the most liberal senator in washington, so i've looked at both sides of the political aisle and ron paul is by far the best candidate)

by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 3:52:38 PM

  (0+)

And I don't mean Wayne or Fig. I'm talking about Isaac. Isn't the little ditty he came up with around 400 years ago still called a "THEORY"? You know, the "THEORY of Gravity". What nut would ever deny that "THEORY" is fact?

by Paul Magill Smith (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 135 comments [46 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:46:10 PM

  (0+)

I originally posted this on another comment section, but that one had over 120 comments so I doubt many people saw it. I would like to get some reactions and comments from you.

US is broke. It doesn't have money to be in a war and it doesn't have money for universal health care. US loans 3 billion every day from China to keep the economy running. When China stops, US(and Europe) economy will fall. And if China doesn't stop the system will still collapse on itself eventually. This is what my professor of macroeconomics says and I find that many other economist will say the same. This means everybody, especially those who are dependent on government programs will suffer(no matter if they live in US or Europe).

So to try to prevent this US needs to stop spending money on wars and on government programs. I believe that even if Paul is elected he doesn't have the time to prevent the collapse of economy, but at least he has time to soften the blow and eventually build a better more sustainable system.

So basically I'm saying that, you are not going to get universal healthcare even if you elect president who supports it. You will not get it because US is broke. Hard times are ahead, not just for US but for Europe also. And Ron Paul seems to be the only one who is talking about this and who has shown real concern about it, and who is trying to fix it.

So please, stop dancing around controversial issues like abortion and see what is truly important. Because when country falls in deep depression it will be perfect surroundings for extremist groups to gather support which might lead to fascist state if people start seeking protection and leadership over personal liberties. In a situation like this you need a president who believes in freedom, not big government control.

Also, Ron Paul is against corporate controlled markets. Why do you think those mega corporations do so well? It is because of corrupt government that subsidizes them and creates "free trade" treaties like NAFTA, which take the freedom away from consumers and give power to corporations. US doesn't have free trade, US has corporates controlled markets. Ron Paul will stop that. So stop treating Ron Paul's free market ideas with "more the same" - label. Ron Paul might not be your cup of tea, but saying that he is protecting big corporations and doesn't care about poor or middle-class is very ignorant and sad. Look at his record, look at his principals, you know he is a good honest man who is not controlled by the corporate lobbyist.

by Matt Hill (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 7:46:27 AM

  (0+)

In fact, we cannot afford our CURRENT form of for profit health care, it is contributing both to our bankruptcy and our poor health as a nation. We are 1st among nations in health care cost and 37th in providing care. We are 13th in infant mortality, thirteenth, get it! We have 47 million of us without any care whatsoever excepoting emergency room services which is the very most expensive form of treatment. Eleven million children have no health care in this nation, and your rant and distortion of the situation doesnt help one single bit.

Please acquaint your self with the topic prior to forming an opinion on it. For profit health care is not working due to the greed of the providers and the hands off policies of the government, a policy ,by the by, that Dr. Paul wholeheartedly supports.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:24:07 AM

  (0+)

"profit" is not a dirty word.  Profits in health care drive the entire system forward by rewarding those who provide better health care.  Please consider that if the US adopts a socialized healthcare system similar to other nations, and the incentive for profits disappears, then the incentive for medical research disappears.  Currently the US is footing the bill for the majority of the world's medical research.

and why else is our system so expensive?  Doctors convince us that we need stuff we don't need.  Had your tonsils out?  Had your wisdom teeth out?  Got that extra X-ray that didn't prove anything?  Of course doctors want to do more, they earn more money then.  But don't blame the government, blame yourself.  People need to take a greater responsibility in their own healthcare.  It is your body after all.

John Stossel's "Sick in America" is a good watch, look it up on youtube.  "Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine Is Making Us Sicker and Poorer" by Shannon Brownlee is a good book to consider.

Merry Christmas!! 

by Patrick Henry (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 49 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 12:19:15 PM

  (0+)

It is the profit motive that causes care givers to evade actually giving care. Focussing on the bottom line is fine until that focus leads to avoiding expensive diagnostics and treatment, which is the case far too often under our for profit system.

Time after time, in case after case we read of poor folks who die because HMO's wont pay the necesary monies to keep them alive. I speak from personal experience here as well as from informed perspective.

I guess you will continue to be misled until, and I hope this never occurs, you are faced with a lifethreatening situation and your health care provider turns her back on you. Maybe thats what it will take for you to see the truth.

Do we ask our Fire Dept to turn a profit? Our Police Depts? Is health care  less important? We are 37th in providing health care as a nation what part of that is unclear to you?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 6:56:03 AM

  (0+)

I understand your argument... my best friend nearly died of brain cancer and her insurance company has yet to pay a dime (over 6 years now).  They are basically hiding behind lawyers waiting for her to die, absolving them of any payment.  I was angry.  I was pissed off.  I wanted to kill the people who work for these companies.

This is why I have researched the issue and why I am so passionate that we need a real solution.

As a rational person, I can put aside my friendship and realize that these are tough decisions in life.  The treatment for her particular diagnosis is not commonly successful, so should the insurance company incur that huge cost (and pass the cost along to you) just to prolong her life a few days?  What about a lung transplant for a life-long smoker?  Liver transplant for life-long alcoholic?  Heart transplant for someone who has never even attempted to care for himself?

The hard reality of healthcare is that these are not easy decisions.  I wish they were, but they aren't.  We cannot afford to cure everyone.  We simply cannot.

The current system is structured such that insurance companies make the tough decisions.  The benefit here is that there are many different companies making these decisions in different ways.  If they get too greedy or callous with this heavy responsibility, consumers will punish them by taking their business elsewhere.

Your proposal, I assume, would have the government making this decision.  This means you have one person (or group) in Washington making these tough decisions, and no alternative.  I personally want to retain the freedom of choice.

All that said, our current system is still flawed.  I think two major specific changes are needed.  First, people need to buy their own insurance.  We should not allow our employers control over our health care, it is our body.  This requires some changes of law and some changes of public mindset.  My friend's insurance company would have had no grounds for denying her care if she had not recently changed jobs.  Second, high deductible health plans need to become the norm.  This means people pay for everything up to a certain limit.  What this will do is make us all more aware of what we are spending.  This will keep the providers more honest and cost-competitive, and it has been shown to work.  Some other nations have no insurance at all.  People pay for everything themselves, and it is actually affordable.

Please don't make this a personal attack on me or my beliefs, I want the same thing you want.  By the way, my friend is still alive today because of the charity of an amazing neurosurgeon and his hospital.  They saved her life pro-bono. This is also a part of our system and should remain so.

Thanks for reading and God bless. 

by Patrick Henry (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 49 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 1:09:10 PM

  (0+)

then you know this:

We are:

1. 1st in health care costs, by a huge margin

2. 37th in the providing of health care to our citizenry

3. 13th in infant mortality among industrialised nations

4. there are currently 47 million of us without health care whatsoever

5. 11 million of those are children.

some great profit driven system you support, I wonder why?

Each and every western nation is far higher statistically in providing health care than are we, especially those who offer free care or single payer care to their citizenry. Please do nto spout the tired right wing mantra about the distortion of those nations care providing, it is lies and I am sick of reading those lies. The numbers speak eloquently enough.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 7:06:25 AM

  (0+)

yes, thank you, I am very aware of the WHO report.  since you love those numbers so much, I am certain you understand where they come from. yes?  you know how they were calculated.  you know how the source data was gathered.  how the various factors were weighted to calculate a composite ranking. yes?  you've researched this?  The fact is that their calculations were not entirely transparent (which already indicates a problem) and that most (yes, MOST) of the data they used were estimates.  this makes the results inaccurate at best and biased at worst.

all that being said, you and I still agree that we have a problem.  I have suggested two very specific changes that should be made to improve the system.  you have just attacked my character, which speaks volumes for yours.

by Patrick Henry (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 49 comments) on Friday, Dec 28, 2007 at 2:31:35 PM

  (0+)

"American health care became what it is today not as a result of too little government intervention, but rather too much. Contrary to the claims of many advocates of increased government regulation of health care, the problems with the health care system do not represent market failure. Rather, they represent the failure of government policies that have destroyed the health care market. To think that by creating a new level of government bureaucracy -- which all the plans did -- will magically solve the problems is analogous to assuming a wolf can guard the sheep without disastrous consequences ensuing.   

No one can take a back seat to me regarding the disdain I hold for the HMO's role in managed care. This entire unnecessary level of corporatism that rakes off profits and undermines care is a creature of government interference in health care dating to the 1970s. These non-market institutions could have only gained control over medical care through collusion between organized medicine, politicians, and the profiteers, in an effort to provide universal health care.   But the government intervention in health care pre-dates the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), with Congress granting tax benefits to employers for providing health care, while not allowing similar incentives for individuals.

As such, government removed the market incentive for health insurance companies to cater to the actual health-care consumer. As a greater amount of government and corporate money has been used to pay medical bills, the costs have artificially risen out of the range of most individuals.  Only true competition assures that the consumer gets the best deal at the best price possible by putting pressure on the providers. Once one side is given a legislative advantage in an artificial system, as it is in managed care, trying to balance government-dictated advantages between patient and HMOs is impossible.

The differences cannot be reconciled by more government mandates, which will only make the problem worse.  Patients are better served by having options and choices, not new federal bureaucracies and limitations on legal remedies. Such choices and options will arrive only when we unravel the HMO web rooted in old laws, and then change the tax code to allow Americans to fully deduct all healthcare costs from their taxes, similar to what is already allowed for employers.  While neither the current system, nor the mess produced by the House vote last week, constitutes traditional socialism, it is rather something almost worse: corporatism.

As government bureaucracy continues to give preferences and protections to HMOs and trial lawyers, it will be the patients who lose, despite the glowing rhetoric from the special interests in Washington, DC. Patients will pay ever rising prices and receive declining care while doctors continue to leave the profession in droves."--Ron Paul-1999  

Ron Paul on the 2004 elections...

"Both candidates supported the Iraq War and the continuation of it. 
Both supported the Patriot Act and its controversial attack on personal privacy. 
Both supported the UN and the internationalism of UNESCO, IMF, World Bank, and the WTO.
 Both candidates agreed that a president can initiate war without a declaration by Congress. 
Both supported foreign interventionism in general, foreign aid, and pursuing American interests by maintaining a worldwide American empire. 
Both supported our current monetary system, which permits the Federal Reserve to accommodate deficit spending by Congress through the dangerous process of debt monetization. 


Both supported expanding entitlements, including programs like the National Endowment for the Arts, medical benefits, and federal housing programs.
 Both candidates supported deficit financing.
 Both candidates supported increased spending in almost all categories.

Though President Bush was more favorably inclined to tax cuts, this in reality has limited value if spending continues to grow.  All spending must be paid for by a tax, even if it’s the inflation “tax,” whereby printing press money pays the bills and the “tax” is paid through higher prices-- especially by the poor and the middle class.

The immediate market reaction to the reelection of President Bush was interesting.  The stock market rose significantly, led by certain segments thought to benefit from a friendly Republican administration such as pharmaceuticals, HMO’s, and the weapons industry.  The Wall Street Journal summed up the election with a headline the following day:  “Winner is Big Business.”  The stock market rally following the election likely will be short-lived, however, as the fundamentals underlying the bear market that started in 2000 are still in place.

More important was the reaction of the international exchange markets immediately following the election.  The dollar took a dive and gold rose.  This indicated that holders of the trillions of dollars slushing around the world interpreted the results to mean that even with conservatives in charge, unbridled spending will not decrease and will actually grow.  They also expect the current account deficit and our national debt to increase.  This means the economic consequence of continuing our risky fiscal and monetary policy is something Congress should be a lot more concerned about.

One Merrill Lynch money manager responded to the election by saying,  “Bush getting reelected means a bigger deficit, a weaker dollar, and higher gold prices.”  Another broker added,  “Four more years of Bush is a gift to the gold markets-- more war, more deficits, more division.”

During the Bush administration gold surged 70%, as the dollar lost 30% of its value.  A weakened currency is never beneficial, although it’s argued that it helps our exporters.  People who work to earn and save dollars should never have the value of those dollars undermined and diminished by capricious manipulation of the money supply by our government officials.

The value of the dollar is a much more important issue than most realize in Washington.  Our current account deficit of 6% of GDP, and our total foreign indebtedness of over $3 trillion, pose a threat to our standard of living.  Unfortunately, when the crisis hits our leaders will have little ability to stem the tide of price inflation and higher interest rates that will usher in a dangerous period of economic weakness.  Our dependency on foreign borrowing to finance our spendthrift habits is not sustainable. We borrow $1.8 billion a day!  The solution involves changing our policy with regards to foreign commitments, foreign wars, empire overseas, and the ever-growing entitlement system here at home.  This change is highly unlikely without significant turmoil, and it certainly is not on the administration’s agenda for the next four years.  That’s why the world is now betting against the dollar.

When the shift in sentiment comes regarding the U.S. dollar, dollars will come back home.  They will be used to buy American assets, especially real property.  In the late 1970s it annoyed many Americans when Japan, which was then in the driver’s seat of the world economy, started “buying up America.”  This time a lot more dollars will be repatriated.

It’s important to note that total future obligations of the United States government are estimated at well over $70 trillion.  These obligations obviously cannot be met.  This indebtedness equates to an average household share of the national debt of $474,000!

Talking about the 2004 elections....."One cannot expect the needed changes to occur soon, considering that these options were not even considered or discussed in the campaign.  But just because they weren’t part of the campaign, and there was no disagreement between the two candidates on the major issues, doesn’t distract from their significance nor disqualify these issues from being crucial in the years to come.  My guess is that in the next four years little legislation will be offered dealing with family and moral issues.  Foreign policy and domestic spending, along with the ballooning deficit, will be thrust into the forefront and will demand attention.  The inability of our Congress and leaders to change direction, and their determination to pursue policies that require huge expenditures, will force a financial crisis upon us as the dollar is further challenged as the reserve currency of the world on international exchange markets.

There will be little resistance to spending and deficits because it will be claimed they are necessary to “fight terrorism.”  The irony is that Patriot Act-type regulations were all proposed before 9-11, and are now becoming a costly burden to American businesses. I’m getting more calls every day from constituents who are being harassed by government bureaucrats for “infractions” of all kinds totally unrelated to national security.  This immeasurable cost from the stepped-up activity of government bureaucrats will further burden our economy as it slips toward recession-- and do little to enhance homeland security.

The only thing that allows our borrowing from foreigners to continue is the confidence they place in our economic system, our military might, and the dollar itself.  This is all about to change.  Confidence in us, with the continuous expansion of our military presence overseas and with a fiscal crisis starring us in the face, is already starting to erode.  Besides, paper money-- and that’s all the U.S. dollar is-- always fails when trust is lost.  That’s a fact of history, not someone’s opinion.  Be assured trust in paper money never lasts forever."--Ron Paul 2004

Ron Paul on the failure of government intervention into economic issues....

"We must remember the Soviet system was not destroyed from without by military confrontation; it succumbed to the laws of economics that dictated communism a failure, and it was unable to finance its empire.  Deficit-financed welfarism, corporatism, Keynesianism, inflationism, and Empire, American style, are no more economically sound than the more authoritarian approach of the Soviets.  If one is concerned with the Red/Blue division in this country and the strong feelings that exist already, an economic crisis will make the conflict much more intense."--Ron Paul 2004

...and Ron Paul on Capitalism verses our present poorly managed and centrally planned economy...

"It is now commonplace and politically correct to blame what is referred to as the excesses of capitalism for the economic problems we face, and especially for the Wall Street fraud that dominates the business news. Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government- for which they are directly responsible. Instead, it gives the Keynesian crowd that run the show a chance to attack free markets and ignore the issue of sound money.

So once again we hear the chant: "Capitalism has failed; we need more government controls over the entire financial market."  No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn’t prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings. That failure surely couldn’t have come from a dearth of regulations.

What is distinctively absent is any mention that all financial bubbles are saturated with excesses in hype, speculation, debt, greed, fraud, gross errors in investment judgment, carelessness on the part of analysts and investors, huge paper profits, conviction that a new era economy has arrived and, above all else, pie-in-the-sky expectations.

When the bubble is inflating, there are no complaints. When it bursts, the blame game begins. This is especially true in the age of victimization, and is done on a grand scale. It quickly becomes a philosophic, partisan, class, generational, and even a racial issue. While avoiding the real cause, all the finger pointing makes it difficult to resolve the crisis and further undermines the principles upon which freedom and prosperity rest.

Nixon was right- once- when he declared "We’re all Keynesians now." All of Washington is in sync in declaring that too much capitalism has brought us to where we are today. The only decision now before the central planners in Washington is whose special interests will continue to benefit from the coming pretense at reform. The various special interests will be lobbying heavily like the Wall Street investors, the corporations, the military-industrial complex, the banks, the workers, the unions, the farmers, the politicians, and everybody else.

But what is not discussed is the actual cause and perpetration of the excesses now unraveling at a frantic pace. This same response occurred in the 1930s in the United States as our policymakers responded to the very similar excesses that developed and collapsed in 1929. Because of the failure to understand the problem then, the depression was prolonged. These mistakes allowed our current problems to develop to a much greater degree. Consider the failure to come to grips with the cause of the 1980s bubble, as Japan’s economy continues to linger at no-growth and recession level, with their stock market at approximately one-fourth of its peak 13 years ago. If we’re not careful- and so far we’ve not been- we will make the same errors that will prevent the correction needed before economic growth can be resumed.

In the 1930s, it was quite popular to condemn the greed of capitalism, the gold standard, lack of regulation, and a lack government insurance on bank deposits for the disaster. Businessmen became the scapegoat. Changes were made as a result, and the welfare/warfare state was institutionalized. Easy credit became the holy grail of monetary policy, especially under Alan Greenspan, "the ultimate Maestro." Today, despite the presumed protection from these government programs built into the system, we find ourselves in a bigger mess than ever before. The bubble is bigger, the boom lasted longer, and the gold price has been deliberately undermined as an economic signal. Monetary inflation continues at a rate never seen before in a frantic effort to prop up stock prices and continue the housing bubble, while avoiding the consequences that inevitably come from easy credit. This is all done because we are unwilling to acknowledge that current policy is only setting the stage for a huge drop in the value of the dollar. Everyone fears it, but no one wants to deal with it.

Ignorance, as well as disapproval for the natural restraints placed on market excesses that capitalism and sound markets impose, cause our present leaders to reject capitalism and blame it for all the problems we face. If this fallacy is not corrected and capitalism is even further undermined, the prosperity that the free market generates will be destroyed.

Corruption and fraud in the accounting practices of many companies are coming to light. There are those who would have us believe this is an integral part of free-market capitalism. If we did have free-market capitalism, there would be no guarantees that some fraud wouldn’t occur. When it did, it would then be dealt with by local law-enforcement authority and not by the politicians in Congress, who had their chance to "prevent" such problems but chose instead to politicize the issue, while using the opportunity to promote more Keynesian useless regulations.

Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military- industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!

To condemn free-market capitalism because of anything going on today makes no sense. There is no evidence that capitalism exists today. We are deeply involved in an interventionist-planned economy that allows major benefits to accrue to the politically connected of both political spectrums. One may condemn the fraud and the current system, but it must be called by its proper names- Keynesian inflationism, interventionism, and corporatism.

What is not discussed is that the current crop of bankruptcies reveals that the blatant distortions and lies emanating from years of speculative orgy were predictable.

First, Congress should be investigating the federal government’s fraud and deception in accounting, especially in reporting future obligations such as Social Security, and how the monetary system destroys wealth. Those problems are bigger than anything in the corporate world and are the responsibility of Congress. Besides, it’s the standard set by the government and the monetary system it operates that are major contributing causes to all that’s wrong on Wall Street today. Where fraud does exist, it’s a state rather than federal matter, and state authorities can enforce these laws without any help from Congress.

Second, we do know why financial bubbles occur, and we know from history that they are routinely associated with speculation, excessive debt, wild promises, greed, lying, and cheating. These problems were described by quite a few observers as the problems were developing throughout the 90s, but the warnings were ignored for one reason. Everybody was making a killing and no one cared, and those who were reminded of history were reassured by the Fed Chairman that "this time" a new economic era had arrived and not to worry. Productivity increases, it was said, could explain it all.

But now we know that’s just not so. Speculative bubbles and all that we’ve been witnessing are a consequence of huge amounts of easy credit, created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve. We’ve had essentially no savings, which is one of the most significant driving forces in capitalism. The illusion created by low interest rates perpetuates the bubble and all the bad stuff that goes along with it. And that’s not a fault of capitalism. We are dealing with a system of inflationism and interventionism that always produces a bubble economy that must end badly.

So far the assessment made by the administration, Congress, and the Fed bodes badly for our economic future. All they offer is more of the same, which can’t possibly help. All it will do is drive us closer to national bankruptcy, a sharply lower dollar, and a lower standard of living for most Americans, as well as less freedom for everyone.

This is a bad scenario that need not happen. But preserving our system is impossible if the critics are allowed to blame capitalism and sound monetary policy is rejected. More spending, more debt, more easy credit, more distortion of interest rates, more regulations on everything, and more foreign meddling will soon force us into the very uncomfortable position of deciding the fate of our entire political system.

If we were to choose freedom and capitalism, we would restore our dollar to a commodity or a gold standard. Federal spending would be reduced, income taxes would be lowered, and no taxes would be levied upon savings, dividends, and capital gains. Regulations would be reduced, special-interest subsidies would be stopped, and no protectionist measures would be permitted. Our foreign policy would change, and we would bring our troops home.

We cannot depend on government to restore trust to the markets; only trustworthy people can do that. Actually, the lack of trust in Wall Street executives is healthy because it’s deserved and prompts caution. The same lack of trust in politicians, the budgetary process, and the monetary system would serve as a healthy incentive for the reform in government we need.

Markets regulate better than governments can. Depending on government regulations to protect us significantly contributes to the bubble mentality.

These moves would produce the climate for releasing the creative energy necessary to simply serve consumers, which is what capitalism is all about. The system that inevitably breeds the corporate-government cronyism that created our current ongoing disaster would end.

Capitalism didn’t give us this crisis of confidence now existing in the corporate world. The lack of free markets and sound money did. Congress does have a role to play, but it’s not proactive. Congress’ job is to get out of the way."—Ron Paul--2002

by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 6:15:14 AM

  (0+)

Thank you for posting this, Ron says it well!

by Patrick Henry (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 49 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 2:30:56 PM

  (0+)

In the exact same manner as gravity is a theory.

And if you care about the constitution, you'll vote for Dennis Kucinich. 

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 7:53:20 AM

  (0+)

So, to move from the stance of reason made by one candidate to the irrational one who is a new-age crystal rubber.....hmmmm....no thanks.

Ron Paul has never said he didn't believe that Evolution was not viable as a theory, he said we were not at the scientific point to make the necessary conclusions on the issue. 

I am not a christian and believe it is superstition, but I also know that there are numerous holes in the theory of evolution that have not been answered. Such as the so called Living Fossils...if evolution is a universal law then why did it simply stop when it came to these particular species? Some are the same today as they were 410 million years ago, such as the Coelacanth...why hasn't it evolved, did it reach a peek in perfection? My questions, and I am sure any rational person, such as Dr. Paul would ask the same question, is if it is a law in nature it would be a universal law in the same way as the laws of thermodynamics, but since it doesn't follow the law of universal law then it must be a theory since it doesn't follow a law, like the Law of Gravity.

So...get real and understand the difference between the two..one is a universal law the other is merely a theory that has a degree of proofs and thats all. 

by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 6:26:05 AM

  (0+)

Gravity is a law. Evolution is still a theory. ;-)

by Lydia Compton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 7:59:14 AM

  (0+)

Please tell me how gravity works. If it is a law, then you ought to be able to tell me exactly how it works.

You'll be hard pressed to find a biologist who doesn't use evolution as the underpinning for all the rest of the field, from molecular biology to population ecology.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:27:47 AM

  (0+)

Well, gravity is measurable and quantifiable with specificity and predictiblity. In my lifetime, it's been referred to as the "law of gravity". Einstein was able to see further into gravity, as not just a force of attraction to a mass, but actually a warp in space-time, a gravity well. His set of equations, while able to explain, for instance, the anomaly of Mercury's orbit, has not been accepted as law, and experiments are continually being conducted to test the predictions of relativity. I've never heard the phrase "law of evolution". We now have amazing evidence of the genetic code expressing itself directly in response to environmental conditions, but I don't think there is a consensus that we know exactly how humans, for instance, while genetically 99% chimp, came to walk upright and develop spoken and written language. I think Evolution has not yet made the known links to become law. Aren't you an "active research neuroscientist in the Washington, D.C. area"? Doesn't the scientific method go hypothesis->theory->law? Can you tell me when Evolution became law?

by Lydia Compton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:02:37 AM

  (0+)

There is Newton's law of universal gravitation, but that is just the formula for how fast objects accelerate in a gravitational field. There is no "law of gravity" in modern science, there are theories about how it might work, ranging from gravitons to warped space.

No one has figured out exactly how gravity works, so it can't be a "law", whatever that means.

If you don't think that evolution occurs, then there is nothing I can say to change your mind. Personally, I don't want another anti-science president in the White House. Period.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:13:25 AM

  (0+)

Well, I was looking at a map of W. Texas this morning that showed variations in the gravitational field strength among the mts. It looks like a topo map. I've never seen anyone able to predict or measure with specificity, how an organism evolves. I still posit that Evolution is not accepted with the same certainty of reproducibility as gravity, and is considered, by the scientific method, still theory.

In a Ron Paul administration, it wouldn't matter what he thought of Science. Why should the President have any thing to do with Science? The Constitution doesn't give him any power to have influence over Science. A Constitutional government would be much, much smaller, and much less powerful. If Kucinich can do that? He's got my vote! But Dr. Paul understands banking! That's the real problem, imo.

by Lydia Compton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:32:47 AM

  (0+)

As you know, Bush vetoed the recent NIH budget because he thought it was too big.

The mechanisms of evolution have been detailed in tens of thousands of books and articles. You should try reading some of them.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:56:03 AM

  (0+)

Ah, NIH. So you're out to get the government to spend big money on your field of interest. You want the hand out? So why not Hillary Clinton over Kucinich? Hillary's much more likely to expand NIH with her program of universal health care. Are you a special interest voter?Shoot, I just want my Liberty back. I guess that's just me responding to the law of evolution!

by Lydia Compton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 10:29:57 AM

  (0+)

Good job!!! I am tired of people pimping evolution as fact when it is still theory. I also liked the excellent point about how the president is not supposed to have anything to do with science.

Its about liberty folks!!!

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 2:15:20 PM

  (0+)

NIH Spending is almost all pharmaceutical spending.  Only .5% goes to natural health solutions, even when natural health solutions offer profound benefit with only good side effects.

Geez, I wonder why it all goes to drugs?  Wouldn't be because corporations own the NIH, just as they own the rest of the government.

JOIN THE RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!  Our democracy depends on it.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 4:37:31 PM

  (0+)

Gravity is observable, while evolution is not. If I can experience something, then for me it is real, and as "provable" as it can be. For everything else, including evolution, I must rely on the word of others, and weigh the level of trust. In that sense, everything beyond my personal experience in life is theoretical.

by Bill Cain (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 434 comments [67 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:00:09 AM

  (0+)

but it is a theory.  

 also, fyi, ron paul is not a creationist and has never disputed evolution.

by robin Robin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 2:55:42 PM

  (0+)

HELLO??

official campaign response to FOX NEWS south carolina debate question "who here does not believe in evolution- raise your hand."

here is the paul campaign's e-mail

Subject: Re: Didn’t see his hand
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400
From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
To: Ron Shank

Ron,

Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.

by Jeremy Frombach (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 68 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 10:26:25 PM

  (0+)

Why do you persue this when Ron Paul does not argue Evolution??  I find it highly suspect when a poster knows full well that Ron Paul has never said he doesn't believe in evolution, and in fact when asked in a debate he indicated he does believe in evolution.

When a poster continues to issue false talking points, in order to character assasinate the only candidate challenging the corporate militarist structure . . . I begin to wonder what his motivation is.

Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate a true progressive could support in this field of corporate shills.  Ron Paul ALONE is the one that will bring down the US militarist empire, and end mass suffering worldwide by doing so.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:39:42 AM

  (0+)

Bill, this is not directed at you, but I wanted it to appear at the bottom of this sub-thread.

OMG, all this quibbling over a few words. John Moffett is technically correct, gravity and evolution are both scientific theories. Scientific theories vary greatly in the detail and certainty of their predictive power. Quantum theory is exceeding exact in its statistical predictive power, but it can never tell you exactly what will happen. Scientific theories are not only evaluated on their predictive powers but the breadth of what they explain. Evolution is a powerful theory in that regard. Law is an old science word that typically refers to theories that have simply stated and accurate predictive powers, like Newton’s Three Laws of Motion, yet Newton's Laws really explain nothing.  They only predict and the predictions are not entirely accurate as Einstein proved.  No scientific theory is ever proven absolutely true in the sense of pure logic, but is always open to question, refinement, and replacement by a new theory via scientific method and empirical evidence.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 8:49:12 PM

  (0+)

The fact that you call Ron Paul a "corporate Republican" shows that you don't know much about this candidate.  If you did your homework, you might find out that Ron Paul has become the most effective and widely heard voice for Progressive policies since Bobby Kennedy.  Ron Paul is not just against the war, he's against American empire, against the military-industrial complex, and against the slow implementation of the fascist police/surveillance state.  Ron Paul is saying these things repeatedly and adamantly on National TV, and he is rapidly gaining the street cred to make his remarks part of mainstream discourse--something that the bitterly bickering progressives have failed to do for decades. 

If you are seriously interested in supporting a progressive platform, then you should be serious about Ron Paul.  He is doing for us what we could not do for ourselves in the past 5 years of the war.  Spend a few days checking him out and then see if you want to repeal or edit the above article.

by Caleb Friz (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:07:29 AM

  (0+)

Saying it does not make it so. I do not know if your really believe this stuff but sprend a half hour researching Libertarian politics and you will rather rapidly come to the unavoidable conclusion that your theory about Paul holds no truth.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:26:46 AM

  (0+)

On a few issues, Ron Paul shares the same position as some progressives-- opposing the war is one.

Anti big military--- that's another.  

Opposing globalization is one which he shares with Kucinich.

But to call Paul a progressive is to ignore Paul's most basic principles. He's a libertarian who espouses some of the old fashioned conservatives' most cherished values- anti-tax, anti-government, anti-international engagement. These are not progressive in any way, shape or form.  

Of course, trying to claim the progressive banner is not something just Paul supporters do. After all, Hillary claims to be a progressive too. And that's just plain BS. She's a DLC right wing democrat. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:58:36 AM

  (0+)

discussing how he puts all the earmarks in the bills and then doesn't vote on them?? I can't remember if it was with Tim Russert but I thought that was ridiculous. If you really are against the way the money is used and don't want the earmark process to continue than stop using it.

by shanti (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 43 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 6:51:31 PM

  (0+)

IT WAS IN HIS INTERVIEW ON MEET THE PRESS.  PEOPLE NEED TO STOP LISTENING TO A FEW SOUND BYTES AND LISTEN TO WHAT ALL THESE CANDIDATES ARE SAYING.  FOR ME, JOE BIDEN IS THE ONLY CHOICE.

by Robert Oen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 10:57:51 PM

  (0+)

Yes, you are correct.  Ron Paul voted AGAINST THE WAR, when Hillary voted for it.

Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act.  How many Democratic Senators voted for it?  Only 10 voted against it.

Geez, folks get a few facts straight before you ditto-head the CIA's talking points to trash Ron Paul.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 4:42:12 PM

  (0+)

The reason that support has shifted to Paul is clear; Kucinich has no broad based constituency. He has little support from the Democratic Party or the Democratic Congress and none at all from the conservative side of the aisle. In other words, he may be the most unelectable candidate in the race. There is a point in time to call in the coroner, pronounce the horse dead, and select one that may be up to the journey.

I have been politically homeless for years and chose Paul as the only long shot for substantive change. From the mind of an economist, I studied Kucinich's plan for America and readily dismissed him as a viable crusader. In prose, it's wonderful and written directly from FDR's hand book. In practice, it is so elementary flawed as an answer for this time and place as to be comical.

This says nothing derogatory about Mr. Kucinich's intentions, which I think are well intended.

I wrote an article on the Kuchinch Plan that remains up in the OP-Ed column, please comment as to why my math and logic are incorrect.

I do understand your frustration, I authored a book on the subject.

Thank you for writing thought provoking articles.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:17:04 AM

  (0+)

It's not about math or logic, it is about how different people have different priorities. As a very progressive person I disagree with many of Ron Paul's stands on basic issues ranging from abortion rights to the role the federal government is supposed to play in our society.

Let me just quickly go over all the reasons why I could never vote for Ron Paul.

1) if a Republican, any Republican, wins the White House in November 2008 then the electorate will basically be declaring that no matter what degree of malfeasance and illegality has been perpetrated on America, that there are no penalties, no consequences, no loss of power or prestige for the Republicans.

2) I am ardently pro-choice. I do not believe that human life begins at conception, or that a fertilized egg is the same as an adult human being. Potential life is not the same as existing human life, just like potential threats in Iraq are not the same as actual threats.

3) I am a scientist and I have no doubt that evolution of life has occurred, and is still occurring on earth. It is virtually impossible to understand biology and the interconnectedness of all life without evolution.

4) As a progressive, I understand that government can be a very positive, or a very negative social organizing system. That is why I want someone like Thomas Jefferson running our country, someone who believes that government can promote the common good and the general welfare of the society. I am pro citizen-activist type government and am vehemently against corporate controlled government, which in essence is fascism.

5) I am strongly in favor of a robust and fully functional public education system that is free to all, and fully staffed with highly educated and well paid teachers.

6) I want government-sponsored universal health insurance for all. No one should be made destitute in order to pay for health care.

7) I want the NIH budget quadrupled, with the increase being paid for by reductions in military expenditures. Many more lives would be saved by increased funding for research and decreased funding for war.

I am unwavering on these issues and therefore can never support Ron Paul for president. He is the best Republican running, but the operative word there is Republican. I'm not going to reward the Republicans for what they have done to us over the last seven years.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:02:51 AM

  (0+)

I understand you may be "unwavering" on your issues, which is your God given right, however, I personally feel it is wrong to vote precisely on party, example:  Well, he's a Republican so I won't be voting for him or he's a Democrat and because he is one of those guys I'm not voting for him...

That just doesn't seem appropriate nor right and too many today determine who they are voting for precisely by the descriptions of "Democrat" and "Republican"

Ever since I was first eligible to register to vote, back in 1996, I registered as an NPA, for those who don't know what that is, it is "No Party Affiliation" I have always been opposed to classifying myself with any particular party, I'm strictly for the American People, period.  However, after extensive research and my own dependency on myself to do such homework, research, and investigation... I am now holding a voter registration so I may change the party to enable me to vote in the Primary Election on Jan. 29th of 2008 here in Florida.  I am registering as a Republican to vote for Dr. Ron Paul.  He has the strongest messege and he has NO FEAR of speaking the ABSOLUTE TRUTH to the American People which the vast majority of politicians are unable to do simply because it is against their own Corporate and Special Interest Groups Interests...To even insinuate that Ron Paul is for only the Corporate Interests and Rules is completely absurd and obviously shows you did NO homework or research considering Ron Paul. He is Consistent, He Speaks the TRUTH, He is For the American People's Individual Rights which is why he wants to Limit the Federal Government and return what rightfully belongs to the American People as well as the states. 
Yes he has his abortion views whether you agree or disagree, he has stated MANY Times that the Federal Government has NO BUSINESS RE: that issue...It belongs to the People and the State to determine anything on that issue...Ron Paul is giving the Power back to the People and the States...The Main Issue that our Government needs to control is on the issue of Protecting Americans... I've asked this before I'll ask again...If we are unable to Secure and to Protect our Own Borders then What makes us think we are Protecting Americans from abroad?

Merry Christmas to All

by countryboypride77 (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:37:12 AM

  (0+)

1. Yep, Ron Paul is a Republican, but Bush is not. Bush is a neocon. Republican party has been taken over by neocons. The movement behind Paul is trying to reverse that.

2. But Ron Paul is not going to make a law that prohibits abortion. He will just take government out of the issue and leave it up to states. His personal view towards abortion is very understandable, he is a doctor and a Christian. 

3. Again, Ron Paul is not going to make laws that prohibit teaching evolution in schools. So what is your problem?

4. Ron Paul would use government to protect individual freedoms and provide national defence. Ron Paul is strongly against corporate controlled government, just like you.

5. Ron Paul agrees with you. He will do this by doing away with federal bureaucracy(depertment of education) and moving the control to states and parents. Remember that nothing is free, government doesn't have money(it only distributes money it gets through taxes).  Education will always costs something, but with plan Paul has it will cost very litte and has much better quality.

6. Ron Paul agrees with you. He will have different plan to do accomplish this. In a nutshell-->Take away corporate power, lower the cost, give freedom of choice, make sure no one is left behind.

7. Ron Paul agrees with you. He wants to end the military-industrial-complex. As an economist Paul surely knows that science and innovation is the best way to improve the well-being of citizens in a long run.

by Matt Hill (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:47:32 AM

  (0+)

The problem is, when you give the money and power to the government, for NIH, for instance, it becomes about politics, not health. Then you get an anti-science president elected, and the whole apparatus you built for health, is now serving some other twisted end, and is your enemy! Only now the enemy is funded by your own tax dollars!

I was of your mind, for an activist govt, but was enlightened by von Hayek, "Road to Serfdom," and reminded of the genius of Jefferson. We give governments specific and limited powers, and we work diligently to limit them to those powers, and we "keep our Republic." We have not done that, as americans. We got lazy.

by Lydia Compton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:47:59 AM

  (0+)

I too am an avid Kucinich fan, not because of the man, but because of his agenda. Anyone who does not support DK's ideas appears to me to be ignorant of their own best interests, or too lazy to justify taking up space on the planet. Once you do the homework, it is next to impossible to reach conclusions other than those that Dennis does. This man has so thoroughly studied the issues and grasped the complexities, while at the same time keeping the fundamentals of our Constitution and our humanity in the forefront, that he is head and shoulders above all other candidates. He is the only politician I know of with truly global vision and the overall health of the planet in mind.

My problem with DK has been his failure to organize his campaign, to be creative, to step outside the msm, to listen to his constituants, and his failure to see that his own campaign is either infiltrated or radically inept. I have thus considered RP as a strictly practical matter--he appears to offer us a Large Step Out of Hell. And from that slightly cooler place, perhaps we could move forward. Then again, with some of his lunatic ideas and no further change, it would be a matter time before we would be no better off than before. I'm not trying to win friends or influence people here, just explain how things look to me.

I disagree with you on just one point, John, where you wrote, "It is virtually impossible to understand biology and the interconnectedness of all life without evolution."

It is LITERALLY impossible to understand these things--or for that matter, human behavior. The degree to which we hear anything else is a direct measure of the failure of our educational system, or perhaps individual lethargy.

P.S. I have read that DK and RP are friends; and it has been suggested that  RP, if elected in the primaries, might pick DK as a running mate. I don't know how much credence to give that possibility, but I believe I could live with that combo fairly easily.

by Daniel Geery (26 articles, 95 quicklinks, 126 diaries, 912 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:51:48 AM

  (0+)

Good to hear from you.

I'll switch it around, how about if Dennis gets the nomination, and picks RP as his running mate?

Happy holidays!

:)

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 10:00:58 AM

  (0+)

I love Dennis, I lived iN Lakewood, I have hung out and had cofee with the man. he is kind, gentle, caring and a good representation of the people of Lakewood. I would gladly shake his hand, hug him and thank him for what he does.

With that said, I do not support his growth in government and some of his ideas are a bit to pie in the sky. I encourage all democrats to vote for Dennis or Gravel. It is in your best interest if you believe in Democratic government over Republic government. They are you champions... since we have lost mr. Wellstone.

I am sticking to Dr. Paul though, because he will shrink it all and if we choose to regrow a government by the people and for the people we can vote Dennis later... seriously think about what the Dr. paul presidency will do to the powerful corporations and politicians.. it neuters them right then and there... It is a big F You to that system... because the system that we have now is failed and the problem with Dennis, gravel, and Nader is they want to use the system to fix the system..

We are past that...

after we decentralize it is up to us how we want to rebuild this nation...

by Col (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:23:13 AM

  (0+)

You are exactly wrong. Ron Paul would have a complete 'hands off' policy toward the corporations. He believes, as a Libertarian, in NO, ZERO government oversight of the rich and powerful.

And as far as this 'smaller government' stuff...that is straight, unadulterated right wing clap trap. Smaller government is a code phrase for 'cutting the poor off without a crumb'. You will NEVER hear about cuttting the corporations off without a crumb. And even though Paul says he's anti-corporatocracy, his Libertarian, right-wing views would do the exact opposite and do even more than Bush has done to give the country to the corporate wolves.

Sorry but you can't use a reactionary to put in a progressive agenda. Won't work.

by JOHN LORENZ (23 articles, 117 quicklinks, 118 diaries, 313 comments [25 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 1:55:24 PM

  (0+)

Despite Paul's rhetoric, he is still arch conservative in a lot of his social values, although he is a mixed bag on that somewhat, but overall, he even said on Meet the Press that he considers himself an old style Republican a la 'pre-neocon'. In other words, the 'smaller government' cry of the right really amounts to Herbert Hooverism (laissez faire, complete unfettered activity of the rich) but cutting off of most Federal government help for average people. We have little enough help now and Paul wants even less. He is not progressive, as someone tried to say in these comments. Paul said right on the air that he has been a Republican for years and continues to be one, even though he is a Libertarian-style-Republican. He had no good answer to Russert asking him what he'd do to replace the lost services for poor people. All Paul could do was shrug and say 'let the states handle it'. Yeah right. Is that why in Mississippi right now, anyone who is out of work but not on Social Security Disability can't even get basic medical care (medicaid)? I know because I have a friend there in that predicament. The states won't do anything. Many are under the control of right wing Republican 'poor haters'.   So please, Paul people, quit trying to paint Ron Paul as somehow more viable than Kucinich: that is just plain malarkey and isn't true by Paul's own admission that he is arch-conservative.

by JOHN LORENZ (23 articles, 117 quicklinks, 118 diaries, 313 comments [25 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 2:06:00 PM

  (0+)

The US government is divided into 3 branches. 

Executive

Legislative

Judicial

When President Ron Paul is elected, he will not be a social policy dictator.  He will work within the constraints of the Legislative and Judicial branches.

WHAT A PRESIDENT (Commander in Chief) RON PAUL CAN DO, is:

1) Bring the entire US military back home

2) End CIA manipulation of the world

3) Save us hundreds of billions of dollars each year in the process.

I just wonder, if the multi-trillion dollar interests that profit off our corrupt system may want progressives to be distracted by endless character assasination and petty Democratic issues . . . in order to save their profits.

Everyone might consider that as they read the shrill alarmist posts about a Ron Paul presidency.

Food for thought.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 4:47:19 PM

  (0+)