 |
|
Add to My Group
|
September 2, 2007 at 05:04:21
Why Liberals Should Support Ron Paul by Karsten Nicholson Page 1 of 2 page(s) |
|
|
Why Liberals Should Support Ron Paul September 1, 2007 By Karsten Nicholson This is a response to: Peace, Injustice and Ron Paul by David Swanson.
“If Ron Paul had been president for the past 6 years, a million more Iraqis would be alive, and another 4 million would not be refugees. The world would be a safer place, and Americans would have lost fewer freedoms.” -- David Swanson
This is very true. Many liberals have recognized and praised Ron Paul’s courageous stance on foreign policy and civil liberties. This is a man who is not afraid to go into a Republican debate, with 9 neo-cons, in South Carolina, on Fox News, and stand up to thugs like Rudy Giuliani. In the second Republican debate to which I am referring to, Ron Paul correctly pointed out that our foreign policy is a major contributing factor to the underlying cause of 9/11. “They don’t hate us because we’re rich or we’re free, they hate us because we’ve been over there, we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years.” Ron Paul stood his ground, and said that with a non-interventionist foreign policy, we’d be less likely to incite hatred, and therefore more safe and more free.
Nobody could call Ron Paul a neo-con. His record stands on his own. He voted against the Iraq war, and the funding bills for it that have come since the war started. Ron Paul spoke out against a possible war in Iraq years before it started. In 1998, he voted against regime change in Iraq. Ron Paul has also recently voted against a similar condemnation of Iran. Unlike many of the Democratic front-runners, he believes a nuclear first strike should absolutely be taken off the table. He believes that it makes no sense to preemptively attack 3rd world nations with no military, and no threat posed to us. Ron Paul believes that if we are to go to war, it needs to be done constitutionally. Congress, which represents the people, should declare war, and the people should be behind it. We should go to war, fight it, win it, and come home. He is completely against the War Powers Act, which gives the President the authority to go to war when he sees fit. Ron Paul has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. Ron Paul would never send troops unconstitutionally to invade a 3rd world nation, to enforce U.N. resolutions or pretend that nation poses a national threat to us. Ron Paul wants to bring all US troops home from Iraq immediately, and stop policing the world. He knows that it was not the intent of the founders to police the world. If Ron Paul were in office, we would follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, and the defense budget would be able to be cut significantly.
Ron Paul is also an ardent supporter of civil liberties. He voted against the patriot act. He has sponsored a bill to overturn the patriot act. He is strongly against warrant-less searches, government spying, and strongly opposes torture. He completely supports habeas corpus. He also opposes the death penalty. Also, a little known fact is that if Ron Paul got his way, there would be no federal war on drugs. He has called the war on drugs “as stupid as the war in Iraq”. He is uncompromisingly against federal laws banning medical marijuana, and completely opposed to the federal government coming in, when a state has legalized medical marijuana, and using force to nullify this legalization (such as has happened in California, where medical marijuana is legal, but the federal government uses force to effectively keep it criminalized. This would NOT happen under a Paul administration.)
Fascism is when the corporations and the businesses control a country. Liberals are completely opposed to this, and opposed to too much corporate power. The Federal Reserve is the most powerful and most dangerous corporate power in this country. It is the greatest threat to the poor, working poor, and middle class. The federal reserve is a private bank, which has a monopoly over the money making process in this country. The Federal Reserve is secretive, and nobody really knows who owns it. Congress has absolutely no oversight. When a private, secretive entity controls the nation’s money supply, it controls the nation. The fed also allows the banks to charge very high rates of interest, and makes it very hard to declare bankruptcy and get a fresh start. The federal reserve prints phony paper money, which has no more backing than Monopoly money. The more money it prints, the more inflation it causes. As you increase the money supply, you devalue it. Prices to food, housing, gas, health care, and everything else that is a necessity rises exponentially. Who does this hurt? The poor and middle class. It transfers their wealth to wall street. Wall Street benefits from inflation. The federal reserve was created in 1913, the same year the IRS was created. Is this a coincidence? No. We borrow money from the federal reserve, and pay fees on the borrowed money using income tax money. In the end, it all ends up in the hands of the private bankers. Liberals should be outraged by this. The income tax, and the federal reserve’s “inflation tax” (in all senses it is a tax when the fed prints money to causes inflation) eats up a HUGE amount of money from the average middle class person. It benefits the rich. Even with a progressive income tax, rich people who own real estate, or are in bed with Wall Street, benefit because of the inflation. The inflation tax is more regressive than the income tax could ever be progressive -- and they both go together. The income tax funds the federal reserve fascists, as well as the unconstitutional, empire-building foreign policy we now have. The income tax is itself unconstitutional and illegal. The 16th amendment was never ratified. Nobody has ever found a law requiring the majority of Americans to pay an income tax. Some might say that this sounds evil, but it is a necessary evil, because we need the funds to keep our government going. Otherwise, our roads and freeways would collapse. But, for example, our infrastructure is funded through gas taxes, not the income tax. Most social services are funded by taxes other than the income tax. It is a bait and switch to believe that we need the income tax to fund our social services, when really it goes to fund the fascists that control our government, and our empire building. Ron Paul has never said he would slash or get rid of social services. He would let young people opt out of social security if they wanted to (no social service should be forced on anybody), for instance, but he would not deny services to people who have paid into the system. In fact, Ron Paul has sought to protect the money from the social security find, rather than spending it on the general fund as the federal government often does. Ron Paul would work to get rid of the IRS, Federal Reserve, and our empire building the moment he got into office. He would return the authority to make money back to the government (as mandated by the constitution), and away from the private bankers. Money should be gold and silver, not printed money out of thin air. (Please google "Freedom to Fascism". You will see a free movie, labled "Director's Authorized Version". Please watch this. It discusses these issues in depth.)
Liberals have long recognized the evil of so called “free trade” deals. Ron Paul would end GATT, NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA, and all of these deals which hurt the American workers and American businesses. He is also opposed to our involvement in the UN, which sets him apart from all Democratic candidates. If you think America is becoming a police state now, do you really want to know what it will be like when an even bigger, more powerful entity, the UN, assumes control over our lives? What we have left of the Bill of Rights will not be there to protect us, as the UN grows in power. Also, it must be said that part of the reason for going to war with Iraq was their violation of the UN resolutions. We went to war, illegally, to enforce UN resolutions. If we do not get out of the UN, this could happen again, and again, and again. Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Ron Paul would trade (but not under so-called “free trade” deals), be friends with other nations, and talk with other nations. However, Ron Paul would put the American worker, and the American business, and the American citizen first. He would protect the constitution and the Bill of Rights, and never compromise them, no matter what some foreign entity might want.
Ron Paul is a staunch opponent of a National ID card. Some politicians have pushed a National ID card as the way we’re going to stop illegal immigration. Ron Paul realizes that a National ID card is an absolute infringement on the liberties of American citizens. It also makes absolutely no sense as a method to counter illegal immigration, since only American citizens would be required to have a National ID card. It is true that Ron Paul wants to secure the borders, but he believes that immigrants have become the “scapegoat” of our current economic system. Because of reasons I have already discussed, America is headed into bankruptcy. If we lived within our means, and did not have the runaway inflation caused by the Federal Reserve, and stopped policing the world, we would probably need the workers, and they would be welcome. First correct our economic policies, and then the immigrants will not be the scapegoat.
Ron Paul has called himself “pro-life”, and sometimes uses such rhetoric. He has delivered over 4,000 babies, and he is personally pro-life. However, he believes the federal government should be out of the abortion question. It should be an issue for the states. Ron Paul does not desire to ban all abortion at a federal level, the way some conservatives would like to. Ron Paul would leave the abortion issue up to the states. If the states want abortion to be legal, Ron Paul would not interfere. Ron Paul voted against making it a crime for minors to cross state lines to get an abortion. He also believes the federal government should be out of the marriage issue. Ron Paul voted against the federal marriage amendment. If a state like Massachusetts wanted to legalize gay marriage, Ron Paul would not stop it. That is the state’s right. Ron Paul has said that, ideally, government should be out of the marriage issue altogether, and it should be a private matter.
I hope I have convinced you to support the Ron Paul Revolution. The biggest reason to support Ron Paul, however, is to break up the Republican establishment. I hope I have already convinced you that Ron Paul is as far from neo-con as you can get (farther than most Democrats, even -- half of them running, unlike Ron Paul, voted for the Iraq war, and the front-runners, unlike Ron Paul, would take no options off the table regarding Iran). Wouldn’t it be a blast to see him win the nomination? All of the neo-con pundits would go ape. The imperial, neo-con movement might be fatally wounded. Do you really want to have to sit through months of the general election cycle, with a neo-con hawk like Thompson, Giuliani, or Romney? Do you want to see their ugly faces in the Newspaper every morning, or on TV every night? Let’s destroy the Republican establishment. Even though the mainstream media says that it can’t happen, it can. Ron Paul is currently leading in Straw Polls, which measure real support on the ground. He has over 34,000 active meetup.com members throughout the country, more than any other candidate running for President. Please, be a part of the Ron Paul Revolution. Register Republican now, and vote in the in the Republican primary for Ron Paul, and destroy the neo-con movement. Click here to see if your state has an open or closed primary (if it has a closed primary, please re-register immediately), and if you have to re-register to vote in the Republican primary: http://www.primarilypaul.com/ron-paul-in-the-primaries/.
Meet up with active supporters in your area: http://ronpaul.meetup.com
Become Ron Paul’s myspace friend: http://www.myspace.com/ronpaul2008
1 | 2
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 84 comments |
|
Ron Paul is a Libertarian
Libertarians hate government regulation. Vote for Kucinich. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 6:10:37 AM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: So untrue
Libertarians do not hate government regulation. Libertarians just beleive that government regulation should be limited to maintain a free society. Might want to double check your sources. by J. Vorhees (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:02:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Liberals who support Paul need brain transplant.
TAKE THIS POLL, BE HONEST, NO WAY, JOSE!! http://www.dehp.net/candidate/index.php Okay, here's a really simple way to find out which candidates share your views. This script is composed entirely of data collected by www.2decide.com. Enter your choices below and hit GO to rank the candidates. Here's how it works, if you want to know. If you agree with a candidate, he gets point(s). If you disagree, take point(s) away. Unkown/other results in no points. The number of points given or taken depends on the weight you set. "Meh" is worth 1 point, "important" 2, and "key" is worth 5. The items you disagree about will be listed directly underneath each candidate (if they score greater than zero). Anyway, this is not meant to replace the 2decide page and I hope you check it out. I would assume that most of you would have already seen it before this, anyway. Also, it is entirely possible that there are bugs in the script, so take it with a grain of salt. If for some reason you are inclined to contact me about this, go ahead. If you want to inspect my code for bugs, feel free. I don't care if you improve upon it and/or repost it somewhere else. Kucinich 82 (you have no disagreements with this candidate) Gravel 64 No Child Left Behind Edwards 40 Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage Clinton 40 Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage Obama 37 Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage Richardson 37 Death Penalty, Assault Weapons Ban, Patriot Act, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action, Same-Sex Marriage Dodd 35 Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Iran - Military Action Biden 33 Death Penalty, Patriot Act, Border Fence, Iran Sanctions, Same-Sex Marriage Paul 12 Abortion Rights, No Child Left Behind, Embryonic Stem Cells, ANWR Drilling, Kyoto, Assault Weapons Ban, Guns - Background Checks, Citizenship Path for Illegals, Border Fence, Net Neutrality, Minimum Wage Increase, Same-Sex Marriage, Universal Healthcare Brownback -25 McCain -26 Thompson -32 Cox -32 Huckabee -43 Giuliani -45 Tancredo -69 Romney -69 Hunter -73 by DinahMason (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 6:48:46 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thanks Dinah
That's a great resource. I hope Ron Paul supporters try filling out the form to see how poorly Paul does with regard to their important issues, especially compared with Kucinich. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 7:25:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Actually...
I promote Ron Paul on a wide range of websites, liberal, conservative, libertarian, and everywhere in between. And Ron Paul appeals to a wide range of people. by Karsten Nicholson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 2:36:01 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Progressives?
There are only neocon front runners in the democratic race. They want war and will not repeal the patriot act. If you can't hold your nose for one election to get rid of the patriot act and end the iraq war, then please don't pretend that you are against those things. by Rick Fisk (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 10:18:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I guess I need a brain transplant, then.
Funny: I took that survey you provided, and Ron Paul came out on top with a 64. Way down in second place was Gravel with a 21, Obama and Clinton ended up each with a 1. Then there was a whole slew (about 8, I think) of candidates--interestingly, both Republican AND Democratic--who ended up with a MINUS rating. So I guess Ron Paul IS the right candidate--for me, at least, and anyone else who thinks we are giving far too much of our freedom and our money to a bloated, runaway government. Thanks for the link, it pretty much confirmed what I already knew! by Melissa E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 11:31:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Missy
Missy, you are an arch conservative just to the left of Attila the Hun and Ghengis Khan and and a little to the right of Benito Mussolini. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 3:31:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Whats This
Why is everyone bashing Ron Paul. Ron Paul does not belong to the CFR who want to eliminate American sovereignty! All you anti-Ron Paul people ought to be ashamed of yourself for trying to kill America! You are the ENEMY!! by J. Vorhees (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:05:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sorry, I'm a very progressive liberal
And Ron Paul is nowhere near me on almost any issue. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 3:06:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Founder of the Democratic Party
Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic Party, said that our foreign policy should be based on the following motto: "Peace, commerce, honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Of all the candidates, Democrats or Republicans, only RON PAUL talks about this. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 6:50:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Department of Peace
Dennis Kucinich wants a Department of Peace. by Ed Buffey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 9:59:52 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I like that idea
and I like Kucinich, but he never goes far enough to renounce interventionism, the main cause of blowbacks. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 10:37:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: No Child Left Behind progressive?
No Child Left Behind is centralized authoritarianism at its worst. It also includes a clause that requires schools to turn in the names/info of 14-year old boys to army recruiters. Progressive? I guess we have different definitions. Some of us liberal-minded people are more concerned with stopping this war, preserving habeas corpus, and personal liberty than preserving government-as-parents. We are wary of governmental power and believe in self-government. I personally will vote for Ron Paul, as Hillary, Edwards and Barack "Nuke 'em" Obama will continue the neo-con endless war interventionist ideology. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 5:37:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul
Paul is a great choice for rational conservatives who loathe the far right, unethical direction their party has taken. His stance on the Iraq war is rational and admirable, but his blend of libertarianism and republican ideologies in no way resembles the principles supported by democratic voters. Paul opposes a national healthcare system, he opposes gay marriage, he believes that environmental legislation should be left up to the states, he believes that "don't ask don't tell" is good policy, and true to his former Libertarian roots, he believes that citizens should in fact have as little to do with the federal government as possible. As a member of the House of Representatives with the complete freedom to do so, "the renegade", has not attempted to cross party lines to co-sponsor HR 333, the formal efforts to impeach Dick Cheney undertaken by Dennis Kucinich, even though he regularly and rightly points out that the Iraq war was started under false pretenses with "Big Dick" being the driving force behind it. Is Dr. Ron Paul a lackey for the Republican party? No, he is by all accounts a capable, often independent minded politician and an honest man whose conservative political views are so conservative he can get elected in Texas, and that's saying a lot. If disaffected Republicans, Independents and undecided voters gravitate toward supporting Paul it will be because they too embrace his particular brand of conservatism, it will not, contrary to some accounts, be because he has more effective online organization or he represent's a new take on democratic values. by CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 10:19:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul supported by Liberals????? Are you nuts?
If you want to talk reasonably, you can't seriously think that Ron Paul is a viable candidate for anyone, much less liberals. He dosn't believe in government at all. If you want to talk reasonably, you have to choose Dennis Kucinich, not just for liberals but for all Americans because he is the only candidate who will make a difference for all Americans. All of the other candidates, Dem. or Rep., are whores for big business. Dennis takes no contributions from big business. All of his money has come from us, the people, hence he owes nothing to anybody but us, the people. This has always been his credo for his whole career. Check it out. You will see that this is correct. He is the best candidate for all of us. And he will win when the people learn the truth about that. by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 327 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 10:46:20 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Very Bad
Kucinich wants to control guns. Very bad. You might want to study history beginning with Nazi gun control and see where it leads you. Ron Paul is the only choice! by J. Vorhees (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:08:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Paul
may be a rational choice for conservatives who don't want panderers like Guilani and Romney, or men who don't even believe in evolution like Huckabee or Brownback, or those who believe that the war in Iraq was a good idea like McCain leading their party, but he in no way is liberal or even progressive on any issue other than the war in iraq. Any positive thing I could ever say about Paul is in the context of the caliber of the other candidates, as in Paul says what he is, sticks to it and doesn't try to hide it. (Except now for possible racist remarks). His views are an amalgamation of libertarianism and republicanism that is antiquated and detremental to a civil or compassionate society. Kucinich on the other hand is the only choice for liberals and in a sane world would be the only choice for all democrats. This debate that exists at least on the Internet, tries to lump Paul and Kucinich's status' together as somehow equal, predicated on their designation as longshots as if that somehow makes them comparable in their history or views. The only comparison is their views on the war on Iraq, and it is somewhat similar on Nafta and the WTO...but for entirely different motivations. Paul would see nearly everything deregulated, including guns, for the sake of urealistic, libertarian motivations while Kucinich would end the trade alliences I mentioned because they are the greatest threat to working people. by CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:46:37 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Couldn't agree more CDR
Paul is not going to get any support from me. by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 3:09:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Time to actually read some Ron Paul
Ron Paul is against corporatism and for free-enterprises. Government regulations (Republican or Democratic) in recent years have been hurting small business owners while helping and subsidizing politically-connected big corporations. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 5:42:42 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Kucinich wants to control guns?
And that's a bad thing? As a gun-owning progressive, I want to control guns, too. I want to keep them out of the hands of maniacs like that murderous soul at Virginia Tech. I want to keep them out of the hands of children, like those two killers at Columbine. I want to keep them out of the hands of criminals, such as may be accomplished with rational background checks. I want to keep them out of the hands of pissed-off ex spouses and ex-employees by making them wait a few days, a "cool-headed" purchaser policy, if you will. I also don't think a 12 year old should be able to buy an Uzi. Does this make me a 2nd-Amendment-hatin' librul? In what way do more guns in America make us a safer place? Safer from whom? The fact is, we, as a nation, have made a deal with the Devil. The N.R.A. and its goon squads have made sure, by opposing reasonable attempts to control the flow of firearms, that we will have more Virginia Techs, more Columbines, more rampages by unhinged gun owners. Our "shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out" interpretation of some bad grammar in the Second Amendment makes certain that more parents, not less, will weep for innocents gunned down here in the "land of the free and the home of the armed." Meanwhile, all across America, right-wing Second Amendment people have sat idly buy, polishing their guns while the single greatest wholesale abrogation of civil liberties has gone on: habeas corpus, right to privacy, right against unreasonable searches and seizures, right to security in our "persons, papers and effects." But they're ready, those stout-hearted Second Amendmenteers! They're ready! Never mind what's already been done. They're ready to Rize Up agin' the gummint if a lib'rul tries to "git there gunz." Sheesh. America, you're screwed. by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 3:06:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Yes, it's a bad thing!
Kucinich doesn't just want to control guns, he wants to BAN them. Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that includes a ban on the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. by Karsten Nicholson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 3:09:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: And I'm sure you have a copy of that "draft,"
Right? Please share. Might you be just the tiniest bit mistaken? Might it be a matter of controlling handguns, for which there is no real use, save that of humans killing other humans? While I wait, I'll continue to chuckle at the 2nd Amendmenteers who wouldn't know rising fascism if it came up and kissed them. Wait a minute. That happens all the time. It's what happens when Republican politicians go to NRA conventions. by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 5:54:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: draft
This was pretty quickly Googled. "Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill." That comes from a release here at Kucinich's house website. Original intent was that the citizens should be armed just in case they ever need to defend themselves against an oppressive state. Some might argue that a government that institutes the Patriot Act is not on our side. Is anybody really comfortable with Bush OR Kuchinich taking away the right to arm oneself? Might we want that right when the president after that comes to office? What about the president after that? President Cheney perhaps? I might feel better owning a gun in that case. by undergroundrr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 8:12:10 PM (0+)
|
|
I need some help from the Paulistas, please
Could you Ron Paul supporters infecting this otherwise progressive website please explain the following QUOTES from Ron Paul? "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." (emphasis mine) AND "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city [D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." (emphasis mine) Then there's THIS little gem: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action." (Emphasis mine; I love me some boldface!) I really need a little help here, Paulistas. Is this REALLY the guy you think will lead America "back" to freedom? Really? Which Americans? The slow-footed white ones? The law-abiding 5 percent of blacks? The ones with "sensible" political opinions? Sounds like he just . . . might . . . have a different definition of "freedom." Exits, whistling "Dixie." by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 11:29:57 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I
never heard those tidbits before, could you post links to the quotes you mentioned? Thanks, CD by CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 11:38:28 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: WHat?
Ron Paul has never made the above referenced statements. Show me where you get your information from.... by J. Vorhees (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 67 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:06:38 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: slander
He never said these things. It has been brought up before. Someone that worked in his office said these things, and was quickly fired for doing so. Ron Paul is the farthest from racist you can get. He doesn't beleive in Groups only the individual. by Cody B (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:51:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: So he DID say them then, right?
These words were penned in Ron Paul's newsletter. HIS newsletter. Not some staffer's newsletter. Ron Paul naturally doesn't want to own up to these words, but they came out under his name. Blaming a staffer ex post facto for words you sent out as being your own is a little, what's the word I'm looking for here, um, dishonest, right? So which is it, Paulistas? They're Ron Paul's words because he sent them out in his own name, or he lied about writing his own words. Pick one. Either way, it doesn't make Mr. Paul look very good. Paul has, of course, said that he has to take some "moral responsibility" for the words. How politically marsupial of him. What he needs to do is to take ACTUAL responsibility for them and explain them to the Progressives he's been placed in the race to enchant. Paulistas, it's time to come clean: either your man said them and he's a bigot (the answer I suspect to be true) or he uses the words of others as his own (plagiarism) or he's so negligent as to not read what's written for him and published as his words (also probably likely). Which is it, Paulistas? Any way you slice it, he's not fit to be president. I wouldn't have the man as president, but I must admit his wife makes some tasty fish cakes. by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 1:33:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: You're lying
Paul did say them. Actually, he put them in print. Paul said these things in his newsletter, mailed to about 7-8,000 people in the 90s. That's by Paul's own admission. Paul claims, after the fact, however, that a writer he paid to do his newsletter wrote these things without his knowledge. If you believe that a politician of Paul's stature just lets words go out to the public without reading them, then that's your prerogative. We don't know who actually wrote those things (either Ron Paul or that mysterious "staffer," but we do know that those words went out over Ron Paul's name and with his tacit consent. They are, therefore, his words, and Paul and his supporters need to account for them. Those are the facts. The Paulistas' wish to not have to deal with them does not make them any less factual. Even Ron Paul acknowledges the accuracy of the words. He merely weasels on whether or not he approved them. by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 3:19:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: bobkincaid
I dislike what Ron Paul stands for, and what I like what he is against for the most part: he is against a graduated income tax and supports a flat sales tax which would destroy the real middle class and the poor. He is against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, free public education, the UN, and on and on. Having said this. What you say is slander. You say in his newsletter. Since I put one out each month, I know they are listed by date, volume number, issue number and page; you need to haul your butt out of here or give us the date, vol #, issue # and page. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 3:46:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Is that an order?
Since you can't or won't do the work for yourself, please see quoted below the text of an Associated Press article from 24 May 1996. It was printed in, among other publications, the San Antonio Express-News. The Houston Chronicle also published the words: "A 1992 newsletter by Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul highlighted portrayals of blacks as criminally inclined and lacking sense about top political issues. Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." ---snip---- Citing statistics from a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia, Paul concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." "These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report. He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action." Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." ---End Quote---- If you have an issue, it isn't with me. It's with the two newspapers cited, as well as the Associated Press. The greatest problem, however, remains with Ron Paul. Now hustle your butt out there and find this stuff the way I did. by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 5:31:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: A hack job of a hack job
Either you a)snipped out a piece of potential "dirt" and posted it, without bothering to see if there was more to the story, or b)snipped out a piece of potential "dirt" and posted it, while DELIBERATELY withholding the rest of the story. Either is irresponsible, or downright malicious. So, which is it? This 1992 article, later debunked as being written by a since-fired staffer, was bandied about in 1996 by Democratic attorney Charles (Lefty) Morris, whose campaign was distributing edited versions of Paul's writings. (Associated Press, 329 words, 24 May 1996, San Antonio Express-News) Under the headline "Terrorist Update," Paul allegedly reported on gang crime in Los Angeles (note the change of location) and supposedly wrote, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." A little background/education is in order, I think: The Wikipedia page for Ron Paul is a good start, and furthermore, it cites references. "Houston Chronicle[63] alleges that Ron Paul made comments in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) which could be construed as racist, including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan, and that this could help his political opponents.[64] In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility for the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking: “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them…I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’”[65][8] He further stated: “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady… we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”[8] Texas Monthly wrote in 2001, at the time they printed the denial, “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[8] At the time the article was written, 1992, Paul was not directly involved in politics and that he had a staffer write the column in his place. Paul "has apologized repeatedly for his error, and he has been dealing with the incident for 15 years," added Michael Krekel, Ron Paul campaign spokesman, in an interview with "The Daily Background". "While the views expressed on African Americans do not reflect Congressman Paul's views, he understands that he is responsible for anything that goes out in his weekly column." Considering that Ron Paul has written things that contradict the offending newsletter both prior to, and since, I think it’s probably a credible defense. His only mistake, if any, was that he did not handle it with a public display of outrage. For HIS OWN WORDS on racism, read the April 2007 column he wrote on his official House of Representatives website: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm . Paul criticizes racism, saying: “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist. The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty." It's heartening, in a way, to see that Ron Paul's old-school, Constitutionally-sound ideas have gotten the Republican and Democratic establishments so riled-up that they have to resort to such smear tactics as dragging out "the race card". by Melissa E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 2:23:04 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Which is it, then?
Did Paul or did he not publish these remarks as his own words? That should be an easy enough question to answer. It looks from your quote like even Paul himself says they went out over his signature. I know you don't like it, but that makes them HIS words. Of course, Paul isn't just another bigot from the Deep South. Shucks, no! Even though he constantly prattles about "states' rights," that darling hot button of the New Confederacy and advocates for the elimination of social programs that largely benefit America's most needy, Ron Paul's no bigot. Ron may con some progressives, but not this one. I grew up in the Deep South and I've heard Paul's snake oil pitch before. "Mr. Paul? Telephone. It's the ghost of George Wallace. He wants original credit for all your ideas." by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 3:37:43 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not Ron Paul's words
You have fallen for the Giuliani smear campaign. Please do a research. Ron Paul did not write these words. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 5:45:28 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: He didn't?
He may not have technically "written" them (in the putting-pen-to-paper sense), but they went out in his newsletter under his letterhead and over his signature. He never recalled the newsletter. He didn't immediately disavow the words. He only retracted his comments when he was called on them. That tells me quite a bit about Ron Paul. Kinda reminds me of Mark Furman. by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 3:44:05 PM (0+)
|
|
Ramble on
Social programs he has explained, won't go away anytime soon. But we can start to faze them out. If we weren't' spending all our money in foreign countries and on illegal wars we would have money to support these social programs. At the same time though we need to get illegals out of the social programs. Right now the social programs are stealing from me and my children as we will never be able to participate in them by the time we need them. The country / programs will be bankrupt. I personally believe it is theft. Government can pay for anything they get there money from us, so what gives them the right to take from one and give it to another? This problems should be solved by charities, churches etc...I am an independent who will be voting for Ron Paul. He protects my liberties, follows the constitution (which is more than just a piece of paper). Any candidate that wants to take away our guns, take more money from the people, and decided who should get it in my book is a crook. We need smaller government. And rule of law. For people that are afraid of the free market, it doesn't mean companies will go unchecked. If they break laws they will be penalized. It just means let there be competition, don't make the government make the costs go up as they have. Free Medical care will never work in this country but we could have cheaper medical care with a free market. We can't afford it, if you think its worth robbing future generations of there stability and wealth then you have no morals. by Cody B (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 12:49:09 PM (0+)
|
|
Why does he believe these things?
Paul is under the impression that his views on government regulation and economics are very compassionate to the poor and serve to rein in mega-corporatism. Those who don't agree with him may want to follow his argument about the evils of the "inflation tax." Here's the gist of it. Consider a new government program, for example to give universal health care to uninsured children, an apparent boon for poor families and single mothers. Congress approves this measure and appropriates the funds. These funds are now added to the total government budget. The budget deficit (about a half trillion at the moment) is increased by the amount that it will cost to administer the program. Politicians hesitate to raise taxes on their constituents to cover the revenue shortfall. So the federal reserve prints the amount necessary to close the gap. This causes inflation, especially on categories that affect the poor, such as food, utilities, housing costs, etc. Paul argues that these costs have been increasing on the order of 10 percent annually in recent years. The poor family's living expenses go up accordingly, cancelling the supposed benefit of not paying for insurance for their child. Poor people without children pay the "inflation tax" for the new program, perhaps moving them from poverty to complete impoverishment. The buying power of the middle class is decreased moving them further toward poverty. Bankers, investors, corporate interests and the government, who got to use the freshly printed new dollars before inflation occurred, actually make money off of what was intended to ease the burden of the poor. Paul supporters have bought into this idea. Perhaps it deserves questioning and response. by undergroundrr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 1:56:43 PM (0+)
|
|
The way I see it,
I disagree with some major positions of Paul-- he's anti abortion and anti government regulation, for example. But I look at the field of Republican candidates and he's got more integrity and more respect for the constitution and democracy than most of them. What's wrong with allowing discussion of all the candidates? He's such a longshot. But it would be interesting if Ron Paul ran against the Dem longshot, Dennis Kucinich. They are both idealists in their own arenas. Or what if you had Ron Paul running against centrist DLC candidate Hillary Clinton? I think the crossover votes would be high on both sides. by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 2:25:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hi Rob
by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 3:14:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Small group?
johnmoffett on Sunday, September 2, 2007 at 3:14:16 PM wrote: "There is nothing wrong with discussing all candidates, but if you do a search, this relatively small group of people have put up more references to Ron Paul than all other posters have referred to any other candidate. I see a fraction of stories and comments pushing any other candidate at this point. I find it somewhat odd that they are trying to drum up support for a government-hating libertarian on a progressive web site." Hmm, being one of the members of the "relatively small group of people" who has put up references to Ron Paul, I am curious as to whether this "small group" you're referring to are RP supporters at Opednews.com, or in general? ...The mainstream media, including Faux News, has done its best to at first try to pass his supporters off as an overzealous minority of bloggers/spammers, but as his grassroots support network has been growing, and straw poll after straw poll across the country has showed increasing numbers of supporters voting for him, they are reluctantly having to concede that his widespread internet support has emerged into actual flesh-and-blood voters turning out. As to why there is such a largesse of references to Ron Paul vs. other candidates, I would submit that it is because of the sheer amount of enthusiasm these voters have for their (our) candidate. Myself, I'm a disenfranchised voter who, up till now, has never joined a political party in 20 years of voting, nor, up till now, has ever found a candidate who I thought best represented my opinions. As a pro-1st and 2nd Amendment, and pro-choice constituent, who despises the overintrusiveness of government into our everyday lives--from seatbelt legislation to anti-smoking legislation (even though I don't smoke), I've often felt myself in political Siberia. The far right and left idealogical sides hold absolutely ZERO appeal for me. On the right, there is a decided lack of enthusiasm for the candidates out there: A recent poll showed that only 19% of GOP voters were "satisfied" with their choices in candidates. There appears to be dissatisfaction on the Democratic side as well, with voters torn between the increasingly vitriolic campaigns of the Hillary/Obama camps, and disgust with the Democrat's lack of commitment to actually ending the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, non-mainstream presses increasingly point to "second-tier" candidates who are drawing support with those dissatisfied with the "mainstream" candidates: Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul. As an issue voter who first and foremost believes that our 2nd Amendment rights are key in defending our other Constitutional rights, there was no Democrat I was willing to vote for. But there was no Republican candidate who wasn't "Rah, rah, the War!", either: Even Cindy Sheehan was just yesterday--at the Texas GOP straw poll--quoted as saying, "There are no Republican candidates who are not against the war". Until I heard of Ron Paul a month ago, I believed she was right. If I--who had always considered myself reasonably politically well-informed on candidates--had never heard of a congressman who's been around for 20 years, and is running for President, it stands to reason that there are many others who have never heard of him, either. The main intent of his supporters is to encourage people to educate themselves on Dr. Paul and his voting record, and realize that there is a groundswelling of support for someone who could shake our country out of its terrible "business as usual" policies. I truly fear that if Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, she would mobilize all of the Clinton-hating GOP, and we would end up with either Mitt Romney, or--god forbid--Giuliani in the office of the Presidency. The last thing we need is for our country to be run like the City of New York! by Melissa E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 4:17:17 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: not a small group
"There is nothing wrong with discussing all candidates, but if you do a search, this relatively small group of people have put up more references to Ron Paul than all other posters have referred to any other candidate. I see a fraction of stories and comments pushing any other candidate at this point. I find it somewhat odd that they are trying to drum up support for a government-hating libertarian on a progressive web site." Actually, if you look at the statistics on meetup.com, Ron Paul has over 34,000 activie grassroots supporters on that site alone. He has the most youtube subscribers of any candidate, democrat or republican. his website gets more hits than any other republican candidate. he has more myspace friends than any other republican candidate. he has more google searches than "iphone" or "paris hilton". this is NOT a small group ;) by Karsten Nicholson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 4:22:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Karsten
Isn't the key word there, republican candidate? The issue is that there isn't a reason for liberals to support Ron Paul. by CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 4:29:11 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Sure, he is a Republican...
But not your parent's Republican. He is as far from the neo-con establishment as you can get. And registering Republican to vote for him in the primaries would really break up and destory the Republican establishment. For the reason alone, it should be tempting to vote for him. I was attempting to show that Ron Paul supporters are not a small group. On meetup.com and youtube.com, actually, he has far more subscribers than ANY presidential candidate, Republican OR Democrat. by Karsten Nicholson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 4:33:31 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: What are you afraid of?
I check out all kind of blogs, and your comment reminds me of another one I saw on the pro-Bush warblog Free Republic yesterday. That comment also questions why "anti-government" people are posting on the site. Funny how party-line purists/dogmatists talk alike. A true liberal is not afraid of unfamiliar and uncomfortable ideas, but welcomes a challenge. Ron Paul is not anti-government; he wants a contitutionally limited government as it was intended. I guess we forgot that the Contitution and Bill of Rights were written to limit the power of the government, not people. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 7:06:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Trying to drum up support on a progressive web site
You've hit the nail on the head, whether you know it or not. Paul is in this race for a very good reason, and it has nothing to do with Clinton or Obama or Edwards. Paul's candidacy is an overt attempt to divert progressive energies from the only real progressive in the race. In states with so-called "open" primaries, Paul's campaign may keep otherwise disaffected voters, sick of the Republican con and finally wised-up, from crossing the line to vote for the only candidate who's been dead-on correct about every issue confronting our nation. Ask yourself who benefits most from the Paul campaign's persistent wooing of progressives on sites like this and several others and the picture will get a lot clearer. In a word, Ron Paul is someone else's creature. Just as Nader took money from the Republicans in 2000 and 2004, we'll find out sooner or later who's behind the Paul campaign. It's the oldest trick in the American political playbook. by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 3:58:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Thank you, Rob.
Well said. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 7:29:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ron Kall
Most likely we will find out. I would love for you to list out Senator Clinton's voting record. How has she voted on social issues as SS, Medicare, tax breaks for the wealthy, public school and private school vouchers, national health care, mental health, death penalty, prison reform, legalized drugs, the environment, labor as pro-worker or management as pro-corporations, NRA and gun control laws. Surely after almost eight years of voting as a United States Senator, she has a pretty solid voting trail to follow. How does she rate on the liberal/conservative voting index? Why do blacks support her so overwhelmingly? Why do liberal women organizations support her overwhelmingly? Why is Labor (large L) in her corner time and again? I keep hearing "Hillary this" or "Hillary that" but all opinions; can't we get to something that is very provable in black and white? Pick six of the most liberal senators such as Kennedy and Biden; how does she stack up against their voting records? by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 4:11:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Hillary's support for war is enough
Her most important vote: the Iraq war. ...and her attempt at passing an Iran Liberation Act (she wanted to outdo her husband). Everything else is insignificant when the Republic is destroying itself...thanks to Hillary. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 5:44:58 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Babyhuey
The Iraq War is just one issue and not the most important one at that: health issues such as women's right to choice, stem cell research; infrastructure of bridges, highways and airports; nominees to the Supreme Court the next eight years; Social Sercurity, Medicare, Medicaid, death to all school vouchers, restoring voting rights, gun control, national health care for every American are as important as this war, the rights of workers to Unionize, enforcement of anti-trust and antimonopoly laws, a real teeth and fang graduated income tax making the ultra rich pay for for their power much like the graduated income taxes from 1932 though 1968. For Progressive Democrats to vote for Ron Paul, they must radically change to a one issue Party which is not going to happen. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 9:44:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul is supported by a wide range of people.
At a recent Ron Paul meetup, the question was asked "how many of you used to be Democrats?" About half of the people there (of about 60 people) raised their hands. There are liberals who are becoming Ron Paul Republicans, as well as people from across the spectrum. The freedom message brings us together, it doesn't divide us. by Karsten Nicholson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 2:32:41 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: This proves my point
Like Ralph Nader's candidacy, Mr. Paul's has an ulterior motive. The next question is just whose creature Ron Paul is. by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 6:22:51 PM (0+)
|
|
Hardcore
To all you hardcore Liberals, it's one thing to be stubborn and it's another to be blind. You hold on to your beliefs a little too strongly and help the hand that keeps us down. Do you really want more of the same? I have always believed in Liberty and everyone in this country deserves to keep their rights. Right now, we are in a time where an extreme make over ( if you will ) is most necessary. Forget what you think you all know and dig deeper. Stop believing government is just a larger version of a parent that needs to tell you 'what' and 'what not' to do. Karsten makes excellent points and all you see is Republican or Liberatarian. Please, wake up! by Ozzy Sandoval (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 3:26:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: OK, some real Ron Paul quotes
Quotes from Ron Paul’s web site that I just cut and pasted: by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 3:40:56 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ron Paul and Guns
"Ron Paul loves guns too much: “He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.” " That is correct. And that is why he has my vote: If you want a realistic, horrible view of what happens when the government tries to confiscate private citizens' guns, try Googling "New Orleans gun confiscation" (no quotes). It's happened right here in our country, and the direct results were some of the more horrid crime statistics we heard about shortly after Hurricane Katrina. We don't NEED useless government social programs: With the money saved by not having to pour our hard-earned income taxes into socialist government handout programs, we would have MORE money to put towards our many well-run, private charity programs. We are already the most generous country in the world, think of what the additional funds could do for Share Our Strength (a post-Katrina fund run by private restaurants), Doctors without Borders, United Way, The Red Cross, etc. could do with those additional funds. We really don't need a socialist government that takes care of its citizens, cradle to grave, at the expense of our liberties. While we were once the most free country in the world, our tyrannical government's decision to impose acts such as The Patriot Act upon us has left us, in some ways, as restrained by our government as, say, China's citizens are by theirs. by Melissa E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 4:33:20 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Social
As someone who works for a "well run charity" I'm telling you that we still need the social programs that in particular enable the weakest and most vulnerable among us to live a semblance of a safe, decent life. Liberals are not about what's good for me they're about what's good for us; a society, a culture. Take guns for example, as you say it's an important issue to you. Liberals look at the statistical evidence that correlates firearm homicide, accidental, and suicide deaths with a lack of stringent enforcement of handgun ownership laws and they see there needs to be control for the public good. Libertarians think of how they alone are being affected rather that how to best serve society as a whole. You won't change minds touting your desire to enable lighter gun control laws. by CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 5:07:34 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Social Programs
"As someone who works for a "well run charity" I'm telling you that we still need the social programs that in particular enable the weakest and most vulnerable among us to live a semblance of a safe, decent life." This is nonsense. What you are saying is that you would be willing to have me killed to fund your social programs. If you want to donate to a particular program, that should be your right. In spite of the high taxes, Americans give billions to charity. That number would be far higher without an income tax and the services wouldn't be run by government beaurocrats. by Rick Fisk (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 10:50:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Projected public good
We all have our notions of what's good for the society. Increasing governmental power to impose what one thinks is good on the rest of the population is ultimately undemocratic. It's really not all that different from so-called conservatives who want to use the government to impose their set of moral rules on people. A society where everyone wants to control everyone else's behavior, speech, and life style is not a healthy one. To allow behaviors of the few lawbreakers to define and determine the rights of lawful gun owners contributes to a polarized society. Those who is willing to sacrifice a little liberty for a little safety or security will get none. Government is limited by the Constitution to do what it is supposed to do, not to conduct social engineering on behave of certain groups. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 11:40:10 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: So true!
You are spot-on. by Madison (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 1:00:00 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Your interpretation is the problem
"Public education is bad according to Ron Paul." He never said that. He is against No Child Left Behind, a horrible, dictatorial, centralized program concocted by the bureaucrats at Department of Education. He wants the money (which comes out of Property Tax, not the dispicable Income Tax) to go directly to the state/local governments. In fact, parents and teachers, not the Feds, should have the ultimate say in the education of their children. Are liberal so willing to give up autonomy to allow power from faraway to decide on everything? Not the liberalism I know. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 7:18:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Here's my view
Ron Paul is against Roe vs. Wade: “I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.” by Madison (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 12:57:54 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Johnmoffett
John, you and I probably disagree on many things, but your are correct on this one. Ron, Paul is not a neocon, he is right wing like Barry Goldwater, Robert Dole, Strom Thurmond, John Warner and a host of other Republicans. I love Diana comment about twenty above this one. It cuts to the core of why Ron Paul fits more solidly in the Republican Philosophy mold than he ever could in a Democrat Party mold. The best way to get these few writers of many articles on this web to go away is just keep hammering at Ron Paul's plank every time they post. by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 4:25:18 PM (0+)
|
|
A few brief comments
1) Whatever California law might state about marijuana use, THC remains illegal under federal law (The Controlled Substances Act)(except for specifically approved research projects). 2) I find your economic rantings.. particularly in re: the federal reserve.. somewhat confused and brash. 4) I didn't realize "power in the hands of corporations" is necessarily called "fascism." That's curious. 3) you're right to point out that the worst that will happen if roe v wade is overturned is.. the question of the need for abortion laws will revert to the states. Some will allow it. Many will ban it. And herein lies the irony of libertarianism. I totally agree in principle with Ron Paul's constitutionalism. I believe that most of these issues were intended to be left up to the states.. and that the fed govt was designed to handle only those matters which a central government must. Power in the hands of the states is more democratic. We all talk about what faith we have in democracy. But what's funny is that liberals like us.. kinda don't. I wholeheartedly agree with Ron Paul that the founders intended precisely what he is advocating. But I'm afraid of what the locals around here would do! And this is the price I pay, of course, for being in the political minority. And so we liberals turn to rather ANTI-democratic (anti-majoritarian, rather) forces.. like the federal government.. and the courts.. to accomplish our ends. So that's my quandary. I am totally onboard with Ron Paul in terms of first principles. And he represents exactly what I would like to see the conservative party become in terms of our national debate (having a sane, responsible national debate).. but I'm AFRAID of what many localities will do with that power.. abuses of power that will come not from the federal government.. but from state and local governments. Maybe I just need to move to New England! by Matt (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 4:10:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Fascism
"I didn't realize "power in the hands of corporations" is necessarily called "fascism." That's curious. " When corporations control the government, that is fascism. The federal reserve is a private bank. Since this private bank controls our money supply, it controls our governmnet. When you control a nation's money supply, you control their government. Please google or wikipedia "federal reserve". Also please google "freedom to fascism". you will see a free video there on the first page that says "director's authorized version". please watch that video. by Karsten Nicholson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 4:17:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Medical Marijuana
"Whatever California law might state about marijuana use, THC remains illegal under federal law (The Controlled Substances Act)(except for specifically approved research projects)." Well, it shouldn't be. by Karsten Nicholson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 4:18:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The UN
The stuff about the UN is bullshit. The US did not invade Iraq to enforce UN resolutions. It is the US not Iraq that is guilty of violating UN resolutions and the UN charter. The US went to Iraq so American oil companies could gain control of Iraq's oil and for the benefit of Zionist Israel. The UN is no threat to the US but the US is a threat to the UN's independence. The US government uses the UN as its puppet. The UN is a weak institution that allows countries to violate UN resolutions all the time. The UN can't do anything without the approval of the US Government. The writer also distorted Paul's position on abortion and gay marriage as well as immigration. Read Paul's website not his lips. His voting record is more important than his speeches. I agree with Paul on certain things but I agree with Kucinich a lot more. Some of the things listed as reasons to vote for Paul, Kucinich supports also. Kucinich and Paul are both against the illegal wars and occupations of other countries. They're both against the USA Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act and generally defend individual rights although neither candidate is 100% perfect. They're both against the free trade agreements and the WTO although for different reasons. They're both against the war on drugs. The main difference is Kucinich is better on economic and social issues although I give Paul credit for wanting to eliminate the Federal Reserve. I don't know what Kucinich position is on the Federal Reserve although I've read that Kucinich and his wife support monetary reform but I don't know the specifics. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 5:57:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: The UN does the US bidding
The Iraq War (both of them) were indeed justified on UN resolution grounds. The UN has been used by our government (Bush and Clinton) to supercede the Constitution. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 6:10:48 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Freedom from Fascism
I understand your quandary. It took me several years of reading Ron Paul to get over that quandary. My conclusion? I think Ron Paul is a very principled man with a vision of a free society. In this free society, one can choose to be a liberal, a conservative, or whatnot, but one would not use the government to enforce his/her personal beliefs. In this free society, We the People would have more of a say as individuals than as separate groups.We may disagree with him on how to get to that free society, but Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he is a constitutionalist who would not use the power of executive branch to unconstitutionally change things. Besides, he only has a term of 4 years, and he will reverse the dangerous, self-destructive course of our foreign policy and put a stop to the erosion of civil liberties. Dictionary definition of Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing oppostion and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism/A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. (We are sliding fast in that direction. Our beloved government regulations favor politically-connected corporations over true free commerce.) Mussolini's definition: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 6:43:55 PM (0+)
|
|
I could not have said it better
Great post, Karsten. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 6:08:00 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul Is What's Needed... Not nessisarily What's Wanted
To steal money from one person is theft; to steal from many is the Federal Reserve. Dynasty Based Monetary Rulers; The Common Enemy I really dislike arguing about petty issues that divide people because of misinformation, distraction, and conflict based TV amusement. I prefer to discuss issues and potential solutions to the actual cause to large scale conflict; that if widely known and removed, would cure most all "major" issues in the world today on a massive scale empowering the bulk of the population of the world. This idea is not only true between individuals, but whole countries. It is universal in scope. It is commonly known by those who want you to argue yourself into petty oblivion. It gives them all the time they need, to do what they do best; gain power and make money. When there are “major issues” that are disagreed on between people, groups or counties, which are only “major” because they are made emotional issues based on what is “not wanted,” there is always a hidden third person, family, or group of people wanting the conflict for more selfish reasons. These “creatures” want you in that conflict, and you will find them dumping money into promotion of what is “not wanted” on both sides of the issue. These “creatures” help make issues emotional by using the media, corruption, and flat out lies to ensure the issues are “obviously irresolvable,” and thus more emotional by providing both sides with just enough disinformation to perpetuate the conflict. Creating reasons out of thin air (usually religious) to generate a conflict so that force appears to be the only solution; is a popular strategy these days. Rarely are there not some persons, families, or groups with enormous resources, that a desire these conflicts in order to destroy free will for their own monetary benefit. I am talking about the unconscionably wealthy people, families and groups that derive their wealth from conflict. It’s ONLY about power and money with these people. They are very easy to see if you’re looking for them. But they hate to be in the spot light and will pay any amount to keep it off of them Buying as much media of all forms possible is a common solution. So notice what the media isn’t talking about and you will know what they fear, follow the money and you will know who they are! By making otherwise easily resolvable problems emotional issues by making resources scarce, or by using the media and paying people to make conflicts happen, and/or by taking from many and pleasing a few, creating an army of in debt people willing to do anything for their ruler so they don’t loose what they have. These people only stand to gain monetarily from both sides, which is all they care about. It’s ingenuous in a overtly morbid way. Only by weeding out these “creatures” that gain from large scale conflict that solutions to most "major" issues will abound! Take the profit out of war and just watch what happens with these pea brained, unimaginative, abhorrents. If they run and hide like the rat cowards that they are, (as they normally do when exposed) they will show themselves in future attempts to create profit using more conflict and bigger wars, just like the scourge they are. These people, families, and groups of people, (The Creatures) are always hidden from view and usually united in their singular goal, PROFIT and POWER. Until a time they have drained all emotional and monetary resources from both conflicting powers, (pacification) then riding in on a white horse (normally painted white) claiming they will fix the problems if you do what they want. And the passive (generally Liberals) among us accept it because it’s “better than nothing.” I say it again; there is major profit to be gained in major conflict, and demoralization of a people, group or country, for the people, families or groups causing the conflict. Fear based reactionary issues are very effective tools for polarization of a person, group, or country. Those behind this are the same people that want war because it's "great for business" and power acquisition. Shine the spotlight on them and watch them scatter like rats in a fire. It is plain and simple. Follow the money! by shpshftr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 6:32:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Why big government is bad...
Karl Marx summed it all up in a nutshell: "In the bureaucracy, the identity of state interest and particular private aim is established in such a way that the state interest becomes a particular private aim against other private aims." Thomas Jefferson had this to say: "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government." That small government begets lawlessness is pure propaganda. We have big government and we have lawlessness because State interests have become particular private aims against other private aims. People wonder why certain "problems" never seem to get fixed, why congress seems to ignore the will of people, and so on... THIS is why. by Co6aka (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 68 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 7:11:44 PM (0+)
|
|
I'm not sure...
if you're talking to Dr. Moffett or me or who, but I'll put my two cents in for the last time with this membership for an agenda thread. Everyone knows that No Child Left Behind has not been implemented properly, and as far as liberals being willing to give up autonomy, liberals have been at the forefront of the criticism of even their own party for enabling the Bush Corp. affronts to civil liberties. I said somewhere above that Paul was preferable to the other republican candidates, as he says what his views are and they are reflected by his voting record here.
He is not preferable because he sort of, kind of, is liberal. by CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 7:50:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: And she now argues with self...
Meant to post to babyHuey on the "Your interpretation is the problem". Jeez by CD Rodgers (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 88 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 7:52:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Not just the implementation
No Child Left Behind is the type of program the Soviets used to have and Japan is quickly moving away from. It's about centralized government planning that is in direct opposition to the Jeffersonian idea of decentralization. It's the philosophy, not the implementation, that is the problem. As a liberal-minded person, I find any sort of government-imposed standardization a move towards tyranny. If liberals vote party-line, you'll get at least 4 more years of imperialism and war, as the top-tier Democratic candidates still hold on to the idea of attacking Iran. Hillary Clinton has already assured the Pentagon that there will still be US troopsin Iraq 8 years from her inauguration. The only way this government (Democratic or Republican) can sustain this kind of foreign intervention is by reinstating the draft. I have a school-age son, and I don't want his name turned into the office of war recruiters (part of No Child Left Behind) when he reaches 14 and eventually be part of the slave army. If the Democrats nominates Kucinich or Gravel, I'll vote for either one of them. Unfortunately, the Democratic establishment is in line with the neo-con agenda. The neo-cons originated in the Democratic Party anyway. You can say I support Ron Paul out of self-interest. by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 11:06:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Divided...
and Conquered. End of Story. R.I.P U.S.A. by mrk * (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 311 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 10:02:51 PM (0+)
|
|
A Liberal voting for Paul is like a chicken voting for KFC
So liberals should vote to give unrestrained, uncontrolled corporate power? We should privatize health care? Eliminate unions/workers protections? eliminate minimum wage? What are you going to do next time China sends toxic food or products here? there will be no agency monitoring and recalling. in his 1988 campaign he answered that the money lost by federal taxes would be made up by increases in state, county, and city. with states paying federal govt. so really he does not want to stop taxes, only the ability to get any refunds. He talks trickle down economics, which came from his mentor Reagan. any of you remember those years? unemployment at one time was almost 10%. the worse stock market crash in US history happened during those years. Paul states science is wrong about our environment. In fact I almost choked watching his youtube interview where he stated that by removing all govt control from business we will eliminate poverty and protect our environment. Since when did big business put anyone or anything above profit? Isn't that what has gotten us into all this mess? So for those who wish to give big business more control over your basic needs, without restraint, without any rights, without any environmental oversight: I say, you are just another greedy republican dressed up in the flag, constitution, and spewing the latest slang. People better start looking beyond his patriotic rhetoric and hear his "real" message. In fact, opednews has lost my readership, as I can see they have become just one more republican, free corporate rule advocate. POWER TO PEOPLE NOT CORPORATIONS by ann staley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 10:27:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Mrk Has It Right...We may already have lost this one...
"Divided... and Conquered. End of Story. R.I.P U.S.A. " Hubris55 Your post is exactly what I'm talking about. Petty issues about things that won't matter when you scraping for the left over chicken from a KFC dumpster feeling thankful someone left a partial drumstick for you. People of your ilk just can't see the forest through the trees. Ron Paul is the only one out there talking about it. Oh how soon we forget... Thomas Jefferson: "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." "I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816 Andrew Jackson, called a delegation of bankers into the White House and told them, “You are a den of vipers and thieves! I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out!” Here, these might help: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=money+masters&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv http://www.dollarcollapse.com/inp/view.asp?ID=47 If that doesn't do it...then I really don't know what to tell you... s To steal money from one person is theft; to steal from many is the Federal Reserve. by shpshftr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 11:30:35 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Ron Paul's Patriotic Rhetoric
Since you mentioned that, perhaps you should read or hear what Ron Paul has to say about patriotism: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html. I saw that congressional speech on CSPN, and my immediate reaction was "wow!" by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 1:26:17 AM (0+)
|
|
He didn't say that. Give a source if you are going to accuse
That's probably quoted from a newspaper article that had Ron Pauls name on it, but he never wrote it himself. But hard-liners out there still say he did. by Madison (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Sep 2, 2007 at 11:48:50 PM (0+)
|
|
My results
Here are my results from the above test someone was kind enough to post. Paul 19 by Madison (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 1:01:12 AM (0+)
|
|
Kofi Annan said invasion of Iraq was illegal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661134.stm "The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1305709,00.html "The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish." He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal." " by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 2:59:49 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: UN Charter vs the Constitution
As with all recent US military action, this Iraq War was carried out by the Bush/Cheney junta using UN Resolution 1441 as a justification. UN is okay as long as it is about giving nations in conflict/dispute chances to sit down and talk, but in recent years, it has been nothing but a tool for our government to start wars. The UN Charter, furthermore, does not supercede our Constitution. Our elected "leaders" are dangerous enough. Do we really want unelected UN officials to tell us what to do? by Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 12:44:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Illegal
It doesn't matter. The United States is not subject to any UN legal edict. The war in Iraq is illegal because it is explicitly unconstitutional. So will be the war in Iran. Only congress has constitutional permission to declare war, and it didn't. This is why we fight neo-conservatism and its infiltration of the Democratic party, because of the continuing erosion of our protection from the whims of a self-serving military-industrial complex. by undergroundrr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, Sep 3, 2007 at 12:49:33 PM (0+)
|
|
So who decides?
The problem with liberals is that they would run my life. The large programs control health - telling me which doctor I must use; education - controlling the schools and curricula; gun - telling me that the 2nd Amendment is gone. Our rights as individuals are being stripped away. Now, among the candidates, Dennis Kuchinich and Ron Paul (and maybe Mike Gravel) are worth a look. Most of the other candidates are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, which has a one world government agenda. This includes Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Bill Richardson and Tommy Thompson. At the moment the Mexican trucks are rolling into our nation and the North American Union is being prepared. This is all CFR stuff. So if sovereignty is important to you, then you need to disreagard the CFRs and select either Kuchinich, Paul or Gravel. Any one of these gentlemen would be certainly better than George Bush. by zenpiper (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2007 at 5:34:09 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
