 |
|
Add to My Group
|
October 6, 2007 at 09:02:29
Why The Antiwar Left Should Support Republican Ron Paul in '08 by Mike Mejia Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
I must admit, I only agree with Texas Congressman Ron Paul on about 10 to 20% of his political stances. Ron Paul is pro-Life, while I am pro-choice. Paul believes universal health care is socialized medicine. I believe some form of universal health coverage is essential for the U.S. to become as civilized as just about every other industrialized nation. I was appalled when the Congress caved in to the Banking industry on a new bankruptcy law. Paul voted for this atrocious bill. And yet, with all the differences between my views and those of Mr. Paul, I plan on crossing over and voting for him in the GOP primary. The reason is simple: Paul is the only candidate, save Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, who recognizes the dangers the continuing expansion of the U.S. Empire poses to our freedoms and quality of life. In other words, that 20% on which I agree with Candidate Paul is the 20% that will, more than any other factor, determine the quality of life the American people in the coming decades. Paul is also the only candidate with the guts to ‘tell it like it is’ in regards to the so-called ‘war on terror’: the reason the U.S. is facing so many threats from terrorism is because of our interventionist foreign policy. This interventionism, unfortunately, cannot be placed solely on the backs of the Republicans: from Korea to Vietnam to Haiti, Democratic politicians have participated in trying to micromanage the affairs of other countries. In some cases, the U.S. has appeared to ‘succeed’ in choosing the leaders of these other nations. But as was the case with the U.S. intervention in Iran in the 1950s, these ‘successes’ have engendered the kind of blowback that make it apparent that nonintervention would have been the best policy. Paul’s program for success in Iraq and Afghanistan is simple: get out now. This position is far more in line with the antiwar Left than the positions of any of the mainstream Democratic candidates. From John Edwards to Hillary Clinton, the Democratic positions on the war depend on the latest poll numbers; Mr. Paul, on the other hand, has consistently held his position: occupation is the problem, not the solution, to terrorism.
I know there are some who will strongly disagree with my support for Paul. They will point out to his seemingly ‘far right’, pro-corporate positions on several issues and on his support for unfettered access to firearms. Some label them ‘kook’ positions. But Paul is no kook and he is no right-winger. He is a Libertarian Republican who has well thought out views and convictions that span decades. Many of these positions are unlikely ever to become law: I do not think Social Security, the IRS, the Federal Reserve and the CIA will ever be abolished. Furthermore, it is unlikely the U.S. will ever go back to the gold standard, a position held by most Libertarians.
But, if Paul could somehow be elected President, I believe for the first time ever the American government would have a leader who would only deploy U.S. troops as an absolute last resort. I believe we might actually have a chance of downsizing America’s imperial ambitions, or at least slowing them a bit. And even if Paul does not win, as most experts predict he won’t, every vote for his candidacy is a vote for a return to, as George W. Bush disingenuously put it in 2000, a “more humble foreign policy”.
Personally, I would rather be on record as voting for someone of substance, like Mr. Paul, than a pure politician like Clinton, Edwards or Obama. There is plenty of time to vote for the Lesser of Evils in the general election. In my opinion, those who really want to change American foreign policy need to stand up now and cast their vote for someone who, though they may not agree with him on many other issues, is a staunch, unabashed antiwar candidate.
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 |
|
| 39 comments |
|
I applaud you!
Thanks for your article. I applaud you! ...not simply for supporting Ron Paul (yes, I am a Ron Paul supporter) but for being wise and brave enough to prioritize your issues. For years I've heard people make statements like, "I wouldn't vote for him because he is pro-___ or anti-___" when their issue is minor compared to the bigger issues at stake. Abortion is a good example. If the candidate's position is in opposition to theirs, but the candidate happens to be the ONLY one who is unbendable about protecting First Amendment rights, then the voter risks losing the ability to take their stand on abortion if a different candidate is elected. I use abortion as an example because it seems to polarize people so much. Today, I cannot think of any one particular issue that isn't more important (except, in a global sense... to reinstate Constitutional government) than foreign policy. Our aggressive international meddling has created problematic reverberations (security, economic, privacy, personal liberty etc.) that erode the basic foundation of our Republic. On this, Ron Paul has set himself far apart from the "RepubliCrat" pack. Thanks for your courage and wisdom! by Dan Druck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 at 11:33:42 AM  (0+)
|
|
Thank You!
I fully second Dan's post! It's good to see a good comment, even with pointing out some disagreement (I agree with you on abortion), but without the usual neo-con attacks with no or bad logic nor substance. I see from your post that there is still a lot of misunderstanding on Paul's ideas. Not unexpected, I still have some questions as to where exactly he stands, but I can recommend a couple of things: Check out a little book called FairTax at your local bookstore, it's very quick and easy to read(make sure you read the intro). Also, check Paul's YouTube videos frequently, and the ones on the Federal Reserve too (read the passage the 16th amendment replaced, then read the 16th amendment - you're in for a suprise). Ron Paul 2008 PS: Make sure you are registered as a republican, your state might be closing your primary and only registered republicans will be able to vote. Registration deadlines are approaching fast, so find them out today. by Thomas Vietor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 at 12:56:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Very good!
This is a well thought out and common sense approach to our current political situation. If more people were as rational and intelligent as you, this country wouldn't be so F'd up right now. I have always thought that for capitalism to work there had to be a healthy dose of socialism mixed in. I have not completely abandoned that position, but after educating myself about the monetary and fiscal policies of our government, and how there is this collusion between government, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, and the corporations to use inflation to steal wealth from the poor and middle class and transfer it to the wealthy -- I must admit that I am wondering if Ron Paul's approach isn't closer to "the way it should be" than my approach. Either way, I see Ron Paul as the only rational choice for president today. No more empire! by J. Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 at 1:55:05 PM (0+)
|
|
The left is coming around
Nice article Mike, I have been telling my democrat friends this for some time now. Ron Paul actually changed my mind about the war, making me see that it IS possible for us to just leave. I understand, however, that many on the Left may be afraid of his other policies, but know that he has said countless times that he believes that foreign policy is the best way to save ourselves money and lower taxes, helping everyone. He has said on many occasions that he despises corporate welfare much more than common welfare, and believes in dismantling those structures before touching things like Social Security, Medicare, and welfare. If there are any on the left that are thinking about voting for Dr. Paul but are hesitant for these reasons, please know that while he may talk extreme, he is a very practical public servant and understands that people have become dependant on the system and that he can't just pull the rug out. by Jason Walls (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 at 2:19:57 PM (0+)
|
|
Thank you
I think alot of progressive or "left" voters are making a similar decision regarding Ron Paul. It is not possible to dismiss Ron Paul as "pro corporate"; indeed, the incumbent Republicans and Democrats represent the corporate ideal, a duopoly which will be served no matter which side of the aisle has the majority. Since he was first elected to congress, in 1976, Ron Paul has stood against this pro corporate environment, the kind which responds to large campaign contributors trying to buy their next public contract. A look at campaign finance records will reveal none of the typical corporate honchos are supporting Ron Paul...you'll find that each well funded presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, does take money from such interests, indeed, without it, would receive comparatively little funding. As a member of congress, Ron Paul consistently has attracted more individual donors than almost all other Republican or Democrats on The Hill. The current average contribution to the Ron Paul campaign reportedly is approximately forty dollars...and over 40,000 new donors came aboard in this last quarter. Some Americans appreciate an honest politician, and I think most of us marvel at the incongruity of it all. Finally! by John Slevin (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 at 3:22:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Where do I find donor numbers?
"The current average contribution to the Ron Paul campaign reportedly is approximately forty dollars...and over 40,000 new donors came aboard in this last quarter." Could you please let folks know where we can find this data? I believe it IS important to find out exactly where a candidate's money is coming from, and from how many people: It lets voters know if he's in the pockets of lobbying groups, or if he's wanted BY THE PEOPLE. by Melissa E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 1:58:12 PM (0+)
|
|
The Pro-Choice issue
Don't fret too much. This is an issue that would ultimately be left to the individual states, along with just about everything else. Ron Paul makes sense. "I just saved a bunch of money by switching to Ron Paul!" by zenpiper (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 at 5:36:18 PM (0+)
|
|
Sorry ,wrong web site
If you believe that those on the Left would consider your suggestion then you know little about what being a Leftist means. I think that voting for any candidate based upon a single issue is unbelievably naive and I choose my words with care to avoid insult. It is far too similar to those who will only vote for Pro-Life candidates. One must do one's duty to her nation and consider a candidates entire platform , even unto how he or she has voted in the past. When one does so with Paul, a decent enough man who simply stands for much that is anathema to moderates, liberals and leftists, how can we cast a ballot for such as he? I believe that the major purpose of government is to administer social programs to educate, assist and care for those who need it most, Paul certainly does not. I believe that corporations must be regulated by government for the good of the people, Paul does not. The list goes on for far too long. Ron Paul is an intelligent and very honest man, thus I note his attraction in an era when such traits are simply rare in politics. But to suggest that those on the left support his belief system , one which will wipe out medicare, social security, stop progress on single payer health care and widen the gap between the healthy and the ill, the rich and the ever increasing numbers of poor, a policy that will continue to see corporate powers on the ascendancy and the power of the people waning simply will not fly...but thanks for trying. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 at 6:43:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: response to ardee D.
I know I won't change your mind, so I won't try, but "the gap between the healthy and the ill, the rich and the ever increasing numbers of poor" that you speak of, has come about under the auspices of the "Demopublican" Party and THEIR policies -- not Ron Paul's. I would encourage everyone to read as much as they can about the disastrous effects of a fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, inflation, government debt, and Austrian economics. I began studying these things a few years ago, and I was shocked by my own ignorance. It can really change your view on some things. I always knew deficit spending was bad, but I had no idea how it fit into the larger picture of creating economic hardship for poor and middle class people. Ron Paul (among others) has written some very good books on those subjects that you can find here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/ by J. Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 at 7:55:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: correction
That was supposed to be "Keynesian" instead of "Austrian" in my last comment. by J. Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 at 7:58:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: your assessment of the symptoms is correct
but your support of one who would increase the factors that cause those symptoms is not believable. Paul is a Libertarian, and I assume you to be one as well. If you are a well meaning Libertarian, as is Ron Paul, then you believe in some pie in the sky emergence of christian charity that will pour forth once all controls are thrown off the corporations. It is precisely this weakening of governmental controls that has caused that which you rail about, yet, with astonishing naivete you call for a continuation of such uncontrolled capitalism. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 9:03:30 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Please read the US constitution
ardee D. criticizes Dr. Paul for not supporting Medicare, social security, etc. Since there is no legal authority for any of these programs and they are all violative of the US constitution, Dr. Paul is basically being criticized for following his oath of office. by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 1:42:06 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: It is you that is UnAmerican
Firstly for attempting to stifle free speech, secondly for distorting, whether through genuine ignorance or agendised bullshit the intent of the founding Fathers in creating this government with one stated purpose being to "Promote the General Welfare". I doubt you have bothered to read the Federalist Papers, too busy attending your "American Purity" meetings no doubt, but get someone to read them to you before you further embarrass yourself by spouting such sophomoric crap. I fought for this nation , I lost good friends right before my eyes and helped put them into body bags. Thus I will decline you stupid and worthless suggestion, though I have been to Cuba, twice in fact, while you, I would guess, havent left your mothers house. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Oct 8, 2007 at 4:32:47 PM (0+)
|
|
Correct J. Jones
Much of the corruption stems from governments dealing with anything other than they are supposed to do: protect people. The use of coercive force is only acceptable and rightly used to protect life, liberty, and property. The taxing of property to give to those less fortunate is still stealing. Those who vote for socialists are asking for the government to take the role of thief for them, so that they don't land in jail. Unconsciously, but to the same effect. Policitians DO NOT have any more rights than me or any person. Ridiculous tax levels have led to outsourcing, the exapntion of tax havens, and the expansion of the black market economy - none of which is taxed a single penny. by Thomas Vietor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 at 8:25:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Anyway
Anyway, that's my take on socialism. I know some people who disagree. by Thomas Vietor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Saturday, Oct 6, 2007 at 10:06:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: this is sheer and utter nonsense
and could have come directly from the mouth of George Bush. You folks are just wasting your time and ours as well. Perhaps you should be busy checking under your bed for the boogeyman of government. You guys are just reincarnation of Reagan republicans and he has caused such incalculable damage to this nation as can still be felt. The government is charged with promoting the general welfare and wriggle as you might this means protecting us from such as you. Taxation is necesary to the maintenance of our infrastructure and to think you shouldnt have to pay for that, or for education, or welfare makes you appear an abysmally selfish and ignorant person. Worse you are missing a key ingredient in what it means to actually be an American. The very worst thing about folks like you is , franly, your absolute blindness. If you look carefully at what Bush has wrought you will see the inevitable outcome of Paul's desire to end controls on corporations, kill public education and abandon our poor. You do not live in my America, and thank goodness you do not live in the America of the majority of us. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 9:11:49 AM (0+)
|
|
One Issue Might Be The Best Reason To Vote For RP
Very Good Article!! A couple years ago I watched this video. It changed what I thought and what I knew about world economics forever. It's why I support Ron Paul and why I am done with politics as usual. It is time to shake things up and get back what has been incrementally stolen from us. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936 shpshftr PS. I wonder; If you take the fear out of politics and TV how much healthier physically, emotionally and financially we would be? I think fear creates more disease than any virus or bacteria. National health care might acctually be affordable without an enforced system. (Just a thought) by shpshftr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 1:41:44 AM (0+)
|
|
Socialism is the 20th century's failed "quick fix" idea
You obviously have no idea about Dr. Paul's ideas. He's not pro-corporations. Your blind socialism and "progressive" ideals (fix societal problems through legislation) has led to even more problems, a divided nation based on class, and has led to the current state of affairs in this nation. It is YOUR virtues that have come into play, not libertarians and not the Founding Father's. Even GWB has voted in "progressive" legislation. And please don't associated me with GWB. by Thomas Vietor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 9:35:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Something you lefties should keep in mind.
Whilst I couldn't disagree more with Mr Mejia concerning socialised medicine and, I expect, a lot of other issues, I'd like to point out to those of you who do agree with him one thing: The resources of a country, just like the resources of any individual are limited. There's a limit to the control of our national resources that we, collectively, as a country, are willing to cede to government. We each have limits beyond which we individually resist going in cession of our own resources to government. Given that the resources it controls are limited, government must choose what it spends those resources on. The present administration has chosen to spend (or waste, depending on your point of view) enormous resources fighting wars most of us don't want fought. It wastes more resources harassing people for smoking pot and spying on our emails, and on and on. Ron Paul would end all that. He would end, or at least try to end, all this waste. That would make more resources available for all the social safety-hammock things you lefties hold so dear. I personally would never condone any kind of socialised medicine (been there--done that--it sucks) or any of the "entitlement programs" that encourage poverty and erode individual responsibility. I don't think Dr Paul would support such things either--nothing in the Constitution gives the government the power to compel one segment of society to to support another segment. (Or, phrased another way, nothing in the Constitution, allows complete strangers to steal, by government proxy, my resources to support themselves.) But, likewise, nothing in the Constitution prohibits anyone from voluntarily supporting such things if they want to. Going back to my first paragraphs, we all have limits on what of our resources we're willing to surrender to government. At the moment, government is seizing more of our resources, in taxes, than almost all of us are willing to tolerate. But in a minimal-government, Ron Paul, world, we'd all have more of our own money to spend--we wouldn't all be sucked dry by out-of-control bureaucrats demanding we pay for things most of us don't want. And, absent being compelled to support "the poor," I expect a lot of us, if asked politely, might voluntarily donate to their support. Absent being ordered to subsidise other people's medical bills, we might offer to help. Those of you who think it your moral obligation to do so could, with your wealth not being taxed away to support wars of which I suspect you don't approve, support any social services you like. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution says you couldn't lobby to have your own municipalities, or counties, or states, provide the social services you like. What services Boston, for example, offers--and demands taxes to pay for--isn't the concern of the Federal government. I wouldn't tolerate it--I'd pack up and leave Boston--but if there truly is enough popular support for your programs, they'll happen. (And if there isn't enough popular support, then, in a democracy, they shouldn't exist...) Think about it...a minimal-intrusive, minimally fiscally coercive, Ron Paul government might actually result in more resources being made available to the things you lefties hold so dear. by Henry Miller (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 10:30:55 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Less tax money=more money to spend/donate
"At the moment, government is seizing more of our resources, in taxes, than almost all of us are willing to tolerate. But in a minimal-government, Ron Paul, world, we'd all have more of our own money to spend--we wouldn't all be sucked dry by out-of-control bureaucrats demanding we pay for things most of us don't want. And, absent being compelled to support "the poor," I expect a lot of us, if asked politely, might voluntarily donate to their support. Absent being ordered to subsidise other people's medical bills, we might offer to help." BRAVO. That's it in a nutshell: If we weren't losing so much of OUR hard-earned dollars in taxes to subsidize government-subsidized programs, we would have more money to support those worthy social causes that DESERVE donating towards--NOT subsidizing. Simply look at two recent disasters: The Christmas Day tsunami, and Katrina. Private organizations, including the Red Cross, provided FAR more assistance--both monetary and on the ground--than our government EVER did. And the government aid provided to Katrina victims turned out to be a bungled mess of bureaucracy, wasted money, and downright inconsideration for victims, while private charity groups, such as Share Our Strength, Habitat for Humanity, the Red Cross, etc., CONTINUE to work to bring New Orleans back to life. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have had far more success, and donated far more money, than our government has in key areas such as worldwide malaria control, education, and vaccinations in third-world countries. The idea of socialized programs--be they medical, food, housing, etc.--runs under the assumption that if people were not FORCED to subsidize these programs, then their funding would simply dry up because people would greedily keep their "extra" income, if it wasn't being taxed away. It's a misguided notion that assumes that WE are not able to make the right decisions ourselves, that we have to have the government do it for us. It is because we are a free society that we are already able to do as much good as we have in the world. The erosions of our freedoms have made it more difficult to do so, if we work to bring those freedoms back to where we once were, we could so so much more. by Melissa E (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 2:15:19 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul??????? You must be kidding!
It's hard to believe that you could mention Dennis Kucinich in your piece and still think that Ron Paul is a viable candidate for president. The difference is like night and day. Only Dennis Kucinich voted against the war from the beginning; only Kucinich puts forth a real, not for profit, health care plan that covers all of us - Medicare for all- only he gad the guts to introduce a bill to impeach Cheney , then Bush. He is the only candidate who is not a whore to big business and the lobbyists. He is pro-choice, and he will not get us into any war. I am going to quote his statement from Iowa -"This campaign is about calling forth the courage of the American people to reject not just the occupation in Iraq, to reject not just a potential attack on Iran, but to reject war as an intrument of policy". He was inspired by JFK to enter politics and as you can see, he has absorbed some of the teachings of JFK. Good for us, good for the world and if we're smart enough to elect him, good for our young people who will not have to die for the greed of a corrupt administration. by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 327 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 12:26:16 PM (0+)
|
|
A right-wing parrot
Ron Paul just happens to be right about the war and all the lies that fuel it. The rest of his opinions are pure libertarian welfare for the rich. He gives them a licence to steal even more, while reducing the rest of us to total demoralized poverty. He is just a parrot who happens to be saying the right thing for the wrong reasons. by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 12:39:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Every pro-Ron Paul article
brings out his passionate and yet delusional supporters; thank god a few people are able to see the truth that Ron Paul has only achieved his grassroots support because he is so different than virtually all other mainstream politicians. BUT: consider this; Ron Paul as a true Libertarian has never had the courage to run as a Libertarian Party candidate; why is he not criticized for being part of the cruel and inhuman Republican Party?? And why please tell me why this self-professed "champion of the Constitution" who has advocated for some constitutional amendments has never, ever spoken up in favor of using Article V and giving the nation its first Article V convention that was created by the Framers in case Americans lost confidence in the federal government???? Most sane people would never want the majority of Paul's policy positions implemented. Yes, he has clearly attracted the near fanatical support of mostly younger people that have given him incredible visibility on the web and raised significant money, BUT will these people actually vote in Republican primaries?? To think so you have to discount every poll and survey that finds totally insufficient support for Paul for him to win ANY state Republican primary. Sorry, I prefer to avoid self-delusion. I wonder what all the Paulusts will say when he loses EVERY Republican primary -- who will they blame?? And when Paul doe NOT get the Republican nomination will he then run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket??? by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 2:21:39 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Who is delusional?
Dr. Paul was the Libertarian presidential nominee in 1988. by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 2:34:53 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: and what happened?
Just how did he do?????? Had he ever run for Congress as a Libertarian???? by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 2:36:33 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul in 1988
by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 2:41:13 PM (0+)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reply: Will RP run as a 3rd party....
Watch Cnn's Wolf B. interview RP the other nite. He asked him if he would run as a 3rd party candidate.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpUKcBAQ_4Y by SeamusMac (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 2:56:16 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Perhaps
That may be so, but it would be more of a commentary on the profound ignorance of the American electorate than anything else. Remember that most voters are products of a government-run educational system. That may be the greatest argument to get the government out of the education business and all other realms where gov.org has no business being. by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 3:26:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Misleading chart
Furthermore, if 466863 popular votes received by all the other presidential candidates other than Bush, Dukakis and Paul was 0.19% of the total, then the 431750 votes received by Paul constitutes 0.17% not the 0.00% your chart indicated by M. Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 109 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 5:32:14 PM (0+)
|
|
Because the DINO's will nominate a PRO-WAR candidate again
FYI - I have supported true progressive candidates all my voting life; more than 40 years. For most of those 40 odd years I was registered as a Democrat so as to be able to vote in their closed NY primary. As Both parties, actually branches of the same party, generally run pro-war candidates I vote for a 3rd party candidate in the general elections. Agape SeamusMac http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/ by SeamusMac (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 2:42:13 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul voted against the war from the beginning
and he is completely opposed to lobbyists, unlike hillary. Yes, Kucinich voted against the war from the beginning, but so did Paul. by Thomas Vietor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 3:52:27 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul
Ron Paul is a fraud. Why do you think Ron Paul has raised so much more money for his campaign than Dennis Kucinich? Its because Paul is heavily supported by special interests and corporations because he's a right winger. Shame on any liberal who doesn't support Dennis Kucinich. Both the anti-war left and anti-war right need to support Dennis Kucinich. Ron Paul supports corporate friendly economic policies so he won't do anything to end corporate control of government. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate that supports impeachment and stands up to big business. http://www.dennis4president.com http://www2.kucinich.us/issues by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 4:19:21 PM (0+)
|
|
Haha
Yeah right, Ron Paul's average donation in the last quarter was $40 bucks. by Thomas Vietor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 5:09:15 PM (0+)
|
|
A few of Ron Paul's positions
2007 Ron Paul speaks in favor of pork spending through congressional earmarks: “Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats.” 2004 Ron Paul wants to keep the Electoral College and NOT go to a popular vote: 2004 Ron Paul speaks against civil rights law: by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 5:26:08 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Go get 'em Joel
I was getting a bit tired, not only at defending sanity alone, but at this spamming of this site by these Paulistas coming out of the woodwork suddenly. I would only suggest that most are not evil, just unlettered and ignorant of what Libertarianism means. Given the real evil of the actions of Bush and the Republican majority, and the incompetence of the Democrats , I cannot blame some for casting about for a better candidate. Paul is honest and sincere, he is also intelligent yet his solutions will bring further disaster upon this nation and its poor. Libertarianism is simply childish selfishness and the antithesis of what our Founders wrought. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Oct 8, 2007 at 4:41:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Get a clue, Joel
He's in favor of the earmekrs, not of the spending. by Thomas Vietor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 at 7:31:26 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul Support
Great, another Ron Paul supporter. That just goes to show you that Ron Pauls message crosses all party/political lines. I wish you could agree with all his stands on all issues, but its tougher for some people to shake loose of all the years of mind kontrol the corporate elite has placed on us with their propaganda. It is obvious to me that some posters here have done very little research on Ron Pauls views on the issues. They have not truly listened to him. They hear, but don't comprehend it completely. I knew much of government was corrupt, but didn't understand how deep it was until I did further research on FACTS. Documented FACTS. We have been lied to and incrementally spoon fed truth spun with lies. If you tell a lie long enough, eventually you actually believe it to be the truth and so do the people that you've told it to over and over again. Telling the truth is a revoluntionary act. All I ever wanted is the truth of things told to me. Guess what? Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow. It can shake your core beliefs. Then you have to admit you were wrong... you had to change your beliefs. I took a long hard look at Ron Paul, not wanting to jump on the bandwagon for him immediately. After months of sitting idle, reading all I could get my hands on about him and watching him in the debates, at rallies and talk on specific issues, he just made sense. Perfect sense. Common sense. Ron Paul supporters are not spammers. WE the people are geninuely interested in all aspects of him and since the mainstream media refuses to give him much air time, we have to search the internet for anything and everything regarding him. The internet is the great equalizer of corporate controlled mainstream media. They spew lies and misinformation. We watch in horror how they twist his words. For instance, he is not a "isolationist". He is a "non-interventionist". He states that over and over again, yet the other day I watched a CNN reporter state that he was an "isolationist" 4 times. Pure propaganda for mainstream media viewers. Say the word over and over again to grind it in to the minds of the people. Mind control. So if you all want the mind kontrol agents of mainstream media to choose your next president, keep listening to all the dis-information and lies they spew. Or get a back bone and do the research yourself. One last point I'd like to make. All the other candidates have websites too. People are using the internet to look at them as well. But the other candidates lack one thing. People support. They've got major corporate support and a few supporters, but not the major support of the people. We count, don't we? You want the Corporate elite to tell you who should be your president, or would you like to make that choice yourself? That's Ron Paul's support. People. And lots of them. WE the people. And you hate us for that? You hate people supporting who they believe represents them the best? You hate people giving a voice on the internet? We can't do it on the mainstream media because they blackout his messages, so we use the next best equalizer we have available. The internet. It has become even more important than TV and the mainstream media Corporations hate that because they are losing control of the people's minds and voices. That's why they now want to regulate and tax the internet... to control us thru that media also. So get use to the Ron Paul supporters being anywhere and everywhere on the internet. Oh yeah... while you're driving around, you might just see many of us, smiling, waving signs and holding banners IN PERSON to support our candidate. (It's not against the law.... yet!) So we're not just on the internet... we're everywhere! We happen to like freedom... It's popular! Don't just plan to vote for him in the primaries. He needs your support in dollars as well, he is not accepting corporate donations. Find a comfortable pair of shoes, get a sign and become visiable on the streets with the rest of us! Join the Revolution! by Mary in Oregon (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, Oct 8, 2007 at 7:18:29 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Some DO hear and understand
For example, I understand that Medicare operates at a three percent overhead, the most efficient administration of health care anywhere in the land. I also understand that most of you Paul supporters begin with a false premise, learned no doubt under Reagan's tutelage, and totally false, that government is the enemy. The REAL enemy is unbridled capitalism and if you need proof of that , well try opening your eyes. by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 at 1:42:50 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Capitalism not the enemy
If you think that what we have now is unbridled capitalism, you obviously don't know what actual capitalism is. We're told that we have a free market economy, and many accept that premise on its face, thus extrapolating that all of the myriad problems we have today are caused by it. Capitalism would have no place for things such as subsidies to oil companies or agricultural subsidies (almost all of which go to huge agri-business, not private farmers anyway). There would not be the kind of ridiculous regulations that make it next to impossible for many less well-off people to start their own businesses. There are many examples of abuse of capitalism in the current system. The current economy today is more of a corporatist system. You make the same mistake as many, many others in equating the two. by Justin Offermann (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, Oct 13, 2007 at 9:41:41 AM (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 |
