Ron Paul received contributions from over 100,000 different people this quarter. He received $18,000,000 from those 100,000 people. His support is wide and deep. Look around your town and notice you see RP signs everywhere. Grab a cup of coffee and go to http://freeme.tv

by Mayberry (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 8:37:46 AM

  (0+)

Sorry but it's not going to happen folks. I don't care how good Ron Paul is. You could have a candidate with Paul's integrity, Kucinich's world-view intelligence, Edward's looks' and sense of justice rolled into one they won't get past the corporate media monster nor more importantly the massive election fraud.

Paul is handling the media fairly well right now, but he hasn't had his Howard Dean "scream" moment yet. And if he should become a real threat I would suggest he stay away from small airplane flights. He might want to think bus. Wellstone was an early warning to anyone that would threaten the powers-that-be, and anyone that thinks they won't take out Paul is naive.

But, even if by some miracle Paul should become the candidate, republican or otherwise, he'll never get past the massive election fraud now in place in this country. So unless we somehow fix a system of voting that has been systematically corrupted over the past 30-odd years and perfected in the past seven I wouldn't be getting too excited about a Paul presidency.

May I suggest you watch Uncounted and get behind the effort to have verifiable, public witnessed, paper ballot voting, or all your efforts and excitement is for nought.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:55:09 AM

  (0+)

actually, I think Paul came close to the scream moment on Meet the Press; so now even committed progressives are suppose to drink the Paul Kool-Aid; my God, things have really degenerated worse than I imagined

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 1:42:10 PM

  (0+)

Paul is what happens when all else has failed and people start looking for anything that looks like it might the "the answer". He's the "grasping-at-straws" candidate.

Because Paul as a simplistic answer to every question (gee, who does that remind me of?) he's attractive to those that don't do nuance. We live in a world with basically no borders anymore. To think that we can revert back to a more isolationist view when the only means of travel were animal and wind power and the only means of communication was paper and carrier pigeons is well, let's all just move to the Land of Oz.

I'll admit there are some things attractive about Paul's message, but they're not reality based in today's world. And I would hope that if the best thing to come from his campaign is that some of his message gets people to study the Constitution a bit more. But the Constitution Paul waves like bush does the flag, was meant to be a flexible document to fit into whatever the society would evolve into. Paul's strict adherence to the original edith's of the Constitution simply don't match today's realities no matter how hard people wish them to.

But, again, I'm not worried about a Paul presidency. It wouldn't matter if 90% of eligible voters voted for him, if we don't fix the corrupted voting system who will be our next POTUS will be whomever the powers that be want to be president and there isn't a thing "we the people" can do about it unless by some miracle the voting process is fixed before the next election. So I wouldn't worry about Paul, I'm more worried about those behind the scene that are laughing at the dog and pony show they're giving us as some of us take our candidates seriously.

The first step we should be taking is in destroying every E-voting machine in existence and after that we can start purging the State Attorney's rove has placed all over the country. Until that happens, you might as well wait for Santa Claus to slide down your chimney for all the good it will do.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 2:44:37 PM

  (0+)

Paul certainly takes hard lines on any issue the pundits throw at him: he wants to abolish the Depts. of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, etc. but the reasoning he has behind his positions is very nuanced - just listen to an interview of Paul longer than three minutes where he actually gets to explain his positions. I don't think giving direct and forceful answers to questions like these is simplistic, I think it shows that he doesn't pander to any specific group. Just try to get Hillary or Obama to answer a question about drivers' licences and they'll ho-hum for a couple minutes without giving a satisfactory answer. The product of deep comprehension of an issue is the ability to give a clear answer, not a convoluted dodge.

Paul is not an isolationist - he wants to talk and trade with countries around the world rather than bombing the hell out of them if they don't do what we say. That warmongering is the real isolationist policy, as it leads to greater hatred towards Amerca, the ultimate result of which is that countries around the world will be less inclined to deal with us.

by Jesse Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 3:03:53 PM

  (0+)

it doesn't matter.

Now please tell me how you plan to get him past the election fraud?

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:08:27 PM

  (0+)

Pushing for paper ballot trails is certainly a start. Rolling over and playing dead isn't going to solve anything.

by Jesse Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 5:19:17 PM

  (0+)

Maybe I am the simple one but I stand for progresss and reform more than Ron Paul.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alone_071201_day_2_of_the_campaig.htm

by ALONE (196 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 557 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:57:32 AM

  (0+)

That Rob would post such as this simply astounds me, that he believes Paul's antiwar stance outweighs the nature of his Libertarian beliefs, beliefs that would seek to alter two hundred years of progress, is more than amazing, its made me faintly ill.

Rob has every right to be wrong though.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 2:54:31 PM

  (0+)

is better than Paul, on the whole, on all the issues? That's what I said in this article, that Paul was better than the other republicans. I'd rather see him running as a republican than Romney or Giuliani, Huckabee or McCain.

Can we discuss the strengths of Republican candidates without calling names?

Can I say that I'd like to see this guy win the republican primary? Or is that being a traitor to the progressive cause. On dailykos, I've been called more names than I can remember, and it's taught me that I don't want to tolerate that kind of name calling here. Every member of this site will soon be getting an email letting him and her know about it too.

Not that you've been anything but civil. But I do think you misread me. I support Paul as a Republican PRIMARY presidential candidate. I'm not endorsing him for president.  I've narrowed my choice down to five democrats.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 3:51:39 PM

  (0+)

Apparently nobody can read, or they read very selectively.

In reading comments, not only the ones I get, but comments to other columns, I can't believe how many of them have absolutely nothing to do with the gist of the article.

They go so far afield of anything the author said, that I can't imagine where they're coming from.

I saw immediately what you were getting at in an opinion supporting Paul and your well-reasoned whys.

I don't like Paul, but he's the least dislikable of the dislikables.

by Sandy Sand (198 articles, 0 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 1548 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 2:20:18 AM

  (0+)

Look Rob don't worry about the name calling, people need to learn that there needs to be someone to tell the truth to people and not everyone is going to like what you say or even full heartedly disagree with you for that matter. Like Petey Greene the old Wasington D.C. disc jockey would say, "Hey people wake up God-dammit!". I think what's throwing people off is the title header of your op-piece. Sometimes people will only read the header, then read the rest of the story with a certain frame of mind. 

by unau2k (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 2:28:15 AM

  (0+)

I am certainly acerbic, but I certainly expected a more nuanced stance from you as well. You ask which Republican candidate is worthy of support from the progressives, and I say yhe answer is obvious, none of them.

Look at the folks who flock here in support of Paul, newbies with one or two posts indicating an almost cult-like following for Paul, which, by the by, you give at least tacit support to with an article such as this. Suggesting Liberals support the candidacy of Paul is absurd, Rob, especially as I know you to have something most Paul supporters do not have, a grasp of libertarianism. Further its absurdity is evident in the fact that no progressive is registered republican anyway and cannot vote in their primaries. I know you are not suggesting contributing to someone who seeks to pull this nation back to 1850, are you?

What you have done is simply to give the supporters of libertarianism and the poorly informed voter a forum. Nothing wrong with that to be sure, but then there is nothing wrong with my pointing out absurdities when that is my own opinion.

I can be rude, it is true, more to the point I am blunt. I do not believe I have been rude to you here, simply dismissive of, what is in my opinion an ill conceived article.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:48:39 AM

  (0+)

I seem to be afflicted with a plague of lack of clarity this past few days. I thought I made it clear, ardee, that you were NOT at all rude.

I agree with you too, that I couldn't vote for any of the current batch of republican candidates. I suggested that progressives support Paul by telling their REPUBLICAN friends and family to support him. I should have been clearer and said that progressives should persuade people who were absolutely going to vote republican to support paul in the republican primary.

I don't think he has a chance in hell of winning. But if people support him and his positions, they'll be in a better place, political-thinking-wise, to jump to a progressive candidate. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 10:51:48 AM

  (0+)

Actually, I know a few registered Republicans who are quite progressive. The courageous transgendered activist who ran against Roy Blunt in the primary, Midge Potts, being one of them.

by Pete Perry (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 1:11:16 PM

  (0+)

Oh?  I wasn*t aware of this! Thank you for pointing it out! Speaking as someone who is trangendered themselves it heartens me to know that more transgendered people are involved in our political process!  x Jayne

by Jayne County (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:26:48 PM

  (0+)

Rob;

Just wanted to thank you for your sane article on Ron Paul.  Ron Paul can win, and the next blow will be 3rd place in Iowa.

by Rolf Lindgren (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 40 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 5:16:21 PM

  (0+)

How is it that people aren't clued in to the dangers of Libertarianism?

Astounding for sure.

by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:03:34 PM

  (0+)

Why Liberal Progressives Can and SHOULD Support Ron Paul

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_dou_071224_why_a_liberal_progre.htm

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 1:01:59 PM

  (0+)

There are some attractive PHILOSOPHICAL elements to libertarianism, but if it ever actually came into power -- it would be a problem for our economically diverse society. There is a claim that folks would just make donations (replacing taxes) to keep the infrastructure going, which, excuse me, is largely laughable. There's also all this emphasis on property rights -- I got mine, screw you. So libertarianism maybe very attractive in theory, but in REALITY it would most likely be a nightmare for the poor, the unarmed, the disabled and for those living in areas where the infrastructure has already seriously started to crumble.

by Pete Perry (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 1:17:14 PM

  (0+)

Here is another left-wing misconception that needs straightening out. Liberty, ie libertarianism has been the best thing for the poor. A quick look at history shows that mass education was brought about by the free market making society afluent enough not to have to have the kids working. Then what did parents start to do? Send them to school. (Private schools BTW.)

Then there where the mutual aid societies that provided all manner of help like medical, suvivors, & unemployment insurance.

This is not to mention the fact that the poor benefit from the booming economy in a free market & suffer most under the harsh economic conditions brought about by socialism.

This book is well worth reading, but these highlights explain the basic points:

The Voluntary City
Choice, Community, and Civil Society
Edited by David T. Beito, Peter Gordon, Alexander Tabarrok
Foreword by Paul Johnson

Highlights | Synopsis | About the Editors | Product Details

Highlights

• Posing the Problem: The rise and decline of American civic life has provoked wide-ranging responses from all quarters of society. Unfortunately, most proposals for improving communities rely on renewed governmental efforts—without recognizing that the inflexibility and poor accountability of governments have often worsened society’s ills. Most would-be reformers seem profoundly unaware of the wealth of historical and contemporary evidence that decentralized, competitive markets can contribute greatly to community renewal.
  
  
• What is a Voluntary City? It is a community built and maintained by private initiative and cooperation, not by the coercive political institutions that many people assume are needed to make communities work. The voluntary city is a paradigm for the community of tomorrow. It is also a historical reality: All of its key pillars—the physical infrastructure, services, and institutional framework that make communities livable—have at various times and places been provided by private initiative. Current legal, political and social trends suggest that its separate pillars may unite to build complete voluntary cities, allowing us to enjoy the myriad benefits of living in a truly civil society.
  
  
• Compassionate Mutual Aid: Before the rise of the welfare state, mutual-aid societies provided social services to millions of Americas, Britons and Australians. By 1925, member societies of the National Fraternal Congress represented 120,000 American lodges. Member benefits often included medical care, unemployment insurance, sickness insurance, and other services.
  
  
• Responsive Law Enforcement: Community policing is seen as responsive to local needs because it is relatively decentralized. Law enforcement in Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries was even more decentralized and responsive because the private sector provided for public safety and the enforcement of contracts. When Britain’s Bobbies (public police) later came on to the scene, they were jeered not praised.
  
  
• Fairer Laws: The Law Merchant was a non-governmental system of commercial-dispute resolution that arose in Europe after the collapse of the Roman Empire. Merchants viewed it as fair and abided by its decisions because it was created and administered by and for merchants. The Law Merchant was highly successful until governments began to subvert it and expand their own power. But because government-run legal systems have become increasingly slow and arbitrary, the Law Merchant is returning in the form of private arbitration and mediation services, which now help resolve criminal as well as commercial disputes.
  
  
• Livable Communities: Private neighborhood associations have grown dramatically in the United States in recent years. An important alternative to government zoning and the tragedy of the urban commons, they represent the most far-reaching trend in privatization today. The hotel, the forerunner of better residential communities, is the prototypical “proprietary community.”
  
  
• Educational Innovation: Prior to state involvement, literacy and school attendance rates in England, Wales, and the United States were 90 percent and rising. Perhaps more surprising is that private education is enjoying a remarkable ren-aissance in many developing countries today such as India, Brazil, Colombia and South Africa. In these countries, a large private-education industry, often aimed at serving the poorest of students, exists to alleviate the failure of government-run schools.
  
  
• Government Failures and Market Challenges: Many laws governing cities are based on faulty notions about what governments are likely to achieve. In contrast, the non-governmental alternatives presented in The Voluntary City are based on historical case studies that illustrate the difference between entrepreneurial incentives and political incentives. Private entrepreneurs typically deliver better “public” goods and services than do government bureaucrats, and market failure is less common than government failure.

click here

This is what libertarianism is all about, voluntary interaction between people, not the dog-eat-dog free for all Progressives make it out to be.

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 9:40:44 AM

  (0+)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alone_071130_i_decided_to_run_for.htm

You need to consider get the Republicans a real committed peson towards reform--like someone making an immediate demand of resignation by Bush and Cheney--and major spending cuts to reduce dependence of government on M1 and m2 poliices that are just plane flakey

by ALONE (196 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 557 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:41:51 AM

  (0+)

Good to see you come around to Paul. What I like is he is the only one on the stage who truly speaks from what he believes, not a script. I saw the Meet the Press debacle and was floored at how Russert seemed to have only one thing in mind, making him look like a liar or a flip flopper.

He is not perfect but he is not owned. Remember America, without a Libertarian Congress, a Paul presidency would be checked and balanced. He would have to move to the center more.  But like Rob points out, his stance on alot of things are actually more progressive than the alleged progressives out there.

Also, he is not against things like education, he simply interprets the constitution corrrectly to say that the federal government should not be in the business of regulating what are state issues.

It is a shame what the press has tried to do to him. I hope he can steal an early primary and start getting some momentum. What is truly upsetting is he won't run as an independent, which i think this country is ready for. Could you imagine a Paul-Rudy-Hillary race??? I honestly think that people would gravitate to Paul!

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 8:57:25 AM

  (0+)

As Commander in Chief, Ron Paul, would be able to unilaterally without anyone's permission . . . end the US military globalist empire that is causing misery worldwide and dragging down US labor markets, be promoting corrupt leaders worldwide who allow their people to be slave labor markets for corporate leaders.

For all other issues, Paul would need to work with Congress.  Paul as commander in chief could end so much global misery, but ending the US CIA military globalist empire.

by Bill Douglas (69 articles, 2 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 434 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 1:05:07 PM

  (0+)

I like Paul for President.  We need to cut defense spending because very little of it goes to defense.  Most of it goes to empire building.  A large portion is covert and if not quite covert getting a straight explaination is impossible besause it is cloaked in supposed National Security.  Too much is classified not because it is essential only because it is easier then telling the taxpayers the truth about how the money is spent.

Ron Paul is not owned by the Corporatists.  Edwards probably is the least owned out of the rest of the Democratic Candidates except for Kucinich and Gravel.  I think Ron's other choices have a little too much blood on their hands for me. 

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:15:22 PM

  (0+)

Paul is a liar and a flip-flopper; even worse is his ludircrous and misleading position on earmarks - the currency of corruption in Congress; instead of seeking systemic political reforms, you Paul Kool-Aid drinkers are putting your faith in one person who has achieved virtually nothing useful in his long congressional career; the progressive community is brain dead

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 1:46:44 PM

  (0+)

For crying out loud, they're attacking Paul on earmarks? When he's never even voted for one in his life?

Here's a bit of truth for ya: EARMARKS DO NOT INCREASE SPENDING. They allocate funds that have already been collected. Any tax dollars left over go to the executive branch, to pay some Cheney staffer or his cronies.

Paul, and other congressmen, have a moral obligation to return some of the tax dollars taken from their constituents, rather than letting the money waste away in some department in Washington. It's not ideal, as some constituents receive special treatment, but it's better than out-and-out robbery. That's why Paul includes the earmarks in the bills, even though he always votes against the bills in the end. It's really just making the best of a bad situation.

Ideally you would reduce taxes to the point where the congress would have no money left for earmarks - that's where Paul's plan to get rid of the income tax and return to year 2000 spending levels comes in. Then again, your preferred candidate may have a better plan for dealing with the evils of earmarks - though I bet his or her record wouldn't show it.

I'm not even going to ask you to explain how Paul is a "liar" and a "flip-flopper" - it's obvious you've drunk the anti-Paul kool-aid.

by Jesse Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 3:43:23 PM

  (0+)

As much I as I dislike the right wing pawn, Tim Russert, he did a good job of proving that Paul is a flip-flopper and will say anything to get elected as any candidate will do. Ron Paul was not up front on several issues.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:04:59 AM

  (0+)

Tim Russert is really something. He investigates OTHER people back to what they said 20 years ago, but does Mr. Russert disclose his OWN conflicts of interest? No, instead he silently plans his character assassination attempt without letting anyone know he has a dog in the fight. Well, you kind of have to expect that type of hatchet job from someone who in bed with the status quo. I did my OWN little fact checking expedition and found the advertisers for Meet The Press.

GE lists 824 items regarding defense contracts on their website for 2007.NBC is owned by GE.

Boeing lists 72,200 items regarding defense.

Fidelity Investments - tax and 401k services, need I say more?

Hummer - child company of AM General the company that makes all the HMMWV's for the Army

UBS - Another banking company, certainly they have nothing to fear from Dr. Paul, right?

Toyota - makes cars which are CURRENTLY cheaper to make in Japan (and then assemble here).

Aleve - you think Bayer Pharmaceuticals has a reason to fear Ron Paul - who wants to allow young adults to opt out of SS and Medicare and is vehemently opposed to socialized medicine?

ABE - (shill for coal companies) do they have nothing to fear from Ron Paul's desire to deregulate nuclear power so we have afe, clean unlimited power?

CVS - A Pharmacy whose bread and butter is insurance and Medicare. Dr. Paul wants to remove the incentives for hospitals to overbill us.

Xerox - another defense contractor.

MasterCard - Huge banking coop.

Why didn't Mr. Russert let us know that he had a HUGE conflict of interest BEFORE THIS SEGMENT AIRED? When half of your advertisers are in defense, the other half split between banking and Big Pharma doesn't that constitute NEWS? I mean, Mr. ussert dug back 20 years or more on Dr. Paul to try to find "dirt". Why not look in your own mirror? I find the FACT that Mr.
Russert did NOT disclose this relationship highly disturbing.

by Louis Nardozi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 29 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:06:49 AM

  (0+)

Rob,

Your explanation of Paul not being the absolute answer, but in fact, being a catalyst with which we can begin substantive change, was well written and well taken.

Do I think Paul will be the candidate? I'm far to cynical of both our system and our citizenry to give him much chance. But, I do support the Paul campaign for the reasons that you gave.

The perfect candidate has not emerged and is not likely to do so. While I am politically homeless, I lean toward the belief that the strength to persevere as a nation must come from strong people, not strong government.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:08:01 AM

  (0+)

This a great article about Ron Paul.  I have one concern about the statement that, "Libertarianism has NEVER been proven to work for a nation. The US is not the place to test that."

The United States was founded by those who espoused libertarian ideals.  The country has just drifted more and more towards socialism and against personal freedom.  Ron Paul wants to make a "course correction" if you will, in order to get the country back to what the founders envisioned and away from nanny-state socialism.  

Liberty is a powerful message the mainstream media doesn't understand.  A great article I read today can be found here: http://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-122307A.html

by Liberty Dude (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:12:42 AM

  (0+)

This is a perspective on our history that is pretty distorted. Which of our founders in particular were libertarians (by today's definition), and how so?

by jdoss (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:42:52 PM

  (0+)

Thomas Jefferson, while for his time, a real progressive, would, by modern standards no doubt be considered to have Libertarian tendencies. However, his was a largely agrarian society with 90% of a continent to expand into. Even the cosmopolitan areas in the country, would likely remind us more of a large county seat, than the megalopoli we have today.

Libertarianism is admirable for its emphasis on individual responsibility and self reliance, but its every man for himself features are a much better fit to the frontier than to a modern cosmopolitan society. Unfortunately, the nearest frontiers are 5 miles below sea level or 250,000 miles above it. 

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 5:00:09 PM

  (0+)

perhaps you meant that our founders were liBRarians? It is not a good thing to distort history to your own purpose, because, as it is a written record and thus indelible, one immediately sees how silly is your argument.

Were Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Hamilton and Paine such as you postulate the preamble to our constitution would never have contained the words,"promote the general welfare" in reference to our governments purpose. These men were so enlightened for their time as you are unfortunately not.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 3:00:00 PM

  (0+)

At least you know and understand the issues and dangers of Libertarianism. The "every man for himself" attitude of that bunch is actually contrary to what our Constitution espouses.

And whoever said that Ron Paul waves a very stiff and unbending version of the Constitution, is absolutely correct. He, like so many Libertarians and other right wingers, are mired in the 18th Century. The Constitution is a living breathing document and yields to the necesities and realities of the times. Ron Paul, nice guy though he may be, isn't smart or honest enough to admit this.

by fou (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 98 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:11:18 PM

  (0+)

I feel EXACTLY as you do with the exception of "thinking long and hard about a Hillary/Paul match-up. I already piblished an article asking the Edwards campaign to become more "defensive" of our liberties. You are completly right, paul is good for America, his camp[aign is a breath of fresh air. Let's see what happens.

by Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:13:45 AM

  (0+)

Right on Rob!  Your endorsement for Ron Paul is sure to bring much excitment to the rEVOLution.  You just gave me the best Xmas gift of the year!  THANK YOU  for Rockin the RON PAUL rEVOLution!

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:26:50 AM

  (0+)

Did I hear him right?  What a novel idea, saving trillions of dollars, helping to balance the budget, improving international U.S. relations.  Possibly saving the dollar which is in such deep trouble that some observers think it may not be sustainable as a currency.  Other presidents have tried to eliminate the Dept of Education and have failed, so I'm not so worried about his Libertarian take on some issues as I am thrilled with his common sense on others.  Even for a died in the wool progressive like me, I'd welcome his candidacy for president.  Totally agree with Rob.

by Cameron Salisbury (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:40:50 AM

  (0+)

All good posts. Ron Paul is not perfect; but he has the right medicine for what ails us. No one is perfect...but he;s real close with his philosophy. To me thats as close as we can get while on this earth. We are being given this great man, to help us solve our problems. Let's give him the chance.

by ronheri (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 256 comments [45 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:37:52 AM

  (0+)

I know you said that Paul, out of all the Republicans is your choice for a candidate, but you can't possibly mean that you would choose him over Kucinich for president. There is no comparison. Dennis is the real thing and Paul is not. I don't trust what he says and I would rather stick needles in my eyes than have him for president.

by Caronome (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 327 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:49:21 AM

  (0+)

...strange that Kucinich and Paul are friends then  - and agree on most things, just not how to fund them. 

by pdubya (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:05:47 AM

  (0+)

Rob - Good read, thanks.  The assessment that Paul's candidacy will also give rise to the progressive movement within the Democrat Party...well, I'm witnessing that too.  But, alot of Dems have already come to the Paul camp because they don't think Kucinich could win and they realize this is not an election for a protest vote.  Many are aware that Gravel, Kucinich and Paul are the only non Council on Foreign Relations members...the rest on both sides are answerable to globalist agendas.  Those agendas go beyond just a global economy.  Our pesky constitution is in their way.  This isn't a partisan happening on the Hill.  Most are corporate statists.  Paul's supporters know this.  If we don't elect him in the primary, then it will be a neocon statist running against a neolib statist.  As much as the Telly shows some of the Dem candidates touting "feel good" politics, when you go look at their record, it stinks.  Dr. Paul not only makes us feel good because he tells the truth, he tells us the truth on how we're going to fix our problems, with details and reality-based concepts.  BTW- Our constitution is libertariansism, and it worked quite well until 1913 - the invent of the Federal Reserve System (private cartel bank).  Peace.

by pdubya (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:57:01 AM

  (0+)

It's interesting, like Timothy Gatto, I published an open letter to Dennis Kucinich's campaign staff and pointed out that Ron Paul is gaining in popularity like wild-fire because he openly discusses fascism - he isn't politically correct and instead chooses to be blunt and honest -and that’s a quality we haven't seen in a politician since the days of John F. Kennedy, and Ron Paul gets to the point even quicker and more honestly than even Kennedy did.

If something drastic doesn't happen and we still have elections in 2008 with all of the population present and accounted for, it appears that our future will be decided and this decision is the most important one this country has ever faced. It transcends every war we've ever been in and boils down to whether or not we will remain a nation that respects the rule of law and we go back to our constitutional values; anything else and liberty and freedom will be nothing more than memories.

 My only question is why Paul and Kucinich haven’t changed to Independents, which would insure they were on the Presidential ballot and then anything goes when election time rolls around. I still believe Nader helped Bush to win because he knew beforehand that he had no chance of winning as an independent. (I’m not implying it was intentional, although it took votes away from Gore.) Ron Paul and Kucinich are horses of a different color, and as an Independents, nothing the Republican or Democratic parties could do would be able to stand in the way of the Internet serving to swing into full action - and most of us that truly care about America don't care who wins the Presidency - just so that individual respects the constitution and the rule of law.

I believe a lot of Kucinich’s inability to raise enough campaign cash is because many know the Democrats have already anointed Hillary as their candidate and don’t see Kucinich as a real contender. If he went Independent and spoke of the real issues, he could give Paul a run for his money. If Paul Ran as an Independent, I believe that the Presidential election, if it isn’t stolen again would show Paul trouncing Mitt Romney, who I believe will get the Republican nomination.

If Kucinich doesn’t wake-up, and fast, then the only other choices for a free America appears to be Ron Paul.

William Cormier 

by William Cormier (152 articles, 11 quicklinks, 21 diaries, 418 comments [9 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:57:56 AM

  (0+)

I couldn't agree more with any article Rob has produced, or  for that matter, any I may ever have read.

Last December at the Lew Rockwell conference in San Francisco on "Health and Wealth" I met, talked with at some length and ate with Dr. Ron Paul - it convinced me that what you say, Rob, couldn't any more be on the mark.

Oy, Moishe and Absalom, can anyone imagine the campaign with Ron Paul and Al Gore...how would you resolve that one, Rob?  I have no problem choosing with Hillary - Hillary Who!

by nelswight (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:08:59 AM

  (0+)

Very fair analysis of the Paul campaign from a left perspective.  I too would like to see him in the general, as either the GOP nominee or an independent, because the war is a single-issue vote for many people, and his presence would force the Democrat, whoever it is, to take an unequivocal position in favor of withdrawal, which so far only Kucinich and Richardson have really been willing to do.

But I think he has ZERO chance of being nominated.  He's running in a party where the majority is so delusional they still think the war in Iraq was a good idea, that now we're "winning," and we really should do it more often.  Their numbers thankfully grow smaller every day, but they haven't disappeared, and Paul ain't gonna win that group.

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:12:00 AM

  (0+)

I'm sorry but I watched his interview and he put himself beyond the pale with me by saying that segregation is fine as long as it is practiced on private property. If that were the case all the rich towns and neighborhoods would privatize their schools and we'd be back to where we were in the 1950s. All the Republicans and most, maybe all, the Democrats are promoting the increase in the gap between the Upper Middle and Lower Middle/Working classes. Ron Paul is just less subtle about it. I'm old enough to remember the 1940-50 period and I don't want to go back, thank you anyway.

by Karlek (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:18:03 AM

  (0+)

We don't agree often, but I agree with you on this one.  We need to get away from the establishment refuse that is the perennial offering of each major party. 

That's why my dream election would be Ron Paul vs. Barack Obama.  I wouldn't care too badly (actually I would, but I could get over it) if Obama beat Paul.  Both candidates are not bought and paid for by the establishment, and in their own separate ways, they are and would be a breath of fresh air for America.

There are a plethora of reasons that Ron Paul is the best republican candidate.  Perhaps the only thing we disagree in is that I think he is the best candidate on either side of the aisle, but Barack Obama wouldn't be a bad choice either. 

by Frank Staheli (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:23:55 AM

  (0+)

Ron Paul is not to the left of any of the Democratic candidates on anything.  However, his being right of the establishment leads to some common ground with those who are left of the establishment.

I start from the premise that most of the implicit and explicit assumptions of the American political mainstream are wrong. The key then is not the gradations among those who accept the basic assumptions, but getting those assumptions challenged for the dangerous falsehoods they are.

From that perspective, you can look upon the candidates from the viewpoint of how tied they are to the establishment assumptions.  Then you can see Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and Thompson all as thoroughly establishment politicians.  Richardson is mostly establishment.  Huckabee is borderline between establishment and anti-establishment.  Rob has mistakenly classified Huckabee as a corporatist candidate, while his record clearly shows strong hostility to the corporate establishment (this explains why he has so much trouble raising money even while his poll numbers are good), and in fact he may be the most anti-corporate candidate from either party, although in some other ways he does not question the establishment assumptions.   Paul, Kucinich, Gravel and Hewes (a Democratic candidate the mass media totally ignores) are basically anti-establishment.

This analysis makes for seemingly strange bedfellows.  But I think it is valuable in seeing the effect candidates would have on the American political system.

Ron Paul is by no stretch of the imagination a progressive.  Yet, because he may be the major party candidate who most thoroughly rejects the assumptions of the establishment, it does indeed make sense for progressives to view him positively.  Rob seems to be essentially saying that Paul would really shake up the establishment, and that's good for the progressive cause, and I basically agree with Rob on that. 

by Bill Samuel (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 445 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:24:07 AM

  (0+)

I plead guilty to ignorance and encourage you to write more about it. Huckabee will be a tough challenger to any democrat because he is not a typical anti-tax, anti big gov Republican, and is probably, with McCain, the toughest challenger to Paul on the GOP side.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:30:11 AM

  (0+)

Huckabee become a threat? Hardly. All one has to do is ask this nut-case how old he thinks the Earth is or if he believes in evolution and only those few insane that would agree with him will remain.

As bad as our whole election process is, as corrupt as our media is, as ignorant as the general public is, I can't in my wildest imagination see someone who believes the Earth is only 6,000 years old and doesn't believe in evolution becoming president.

But, then again, bush was (s)elected - twice.

by Mr M (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 66 diaries, 2845 comments [654 recommended, 27 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:07:04 PM

  (0+)

Among Republicans, it's not really as if there's not a candidate who isn't extremely conservative or authoritarian. That being said, there is absolutely no reason why liberals, progressives, or democrats should change their party affiliation and vote for Paul. Paul is a guy who doesn't believe in evolution, who wants to eliminate the IRS, and who will, by his policy, make the United States less secure. The only reason to even pay attention to his is because is a Republican who is against the war, but his exit plan, like Bush's is non-existent.With the current crop of democrats in the running, I might even rather vote for Hillary than for Paul, and I can't stand her. But at least I can Biden, Edwards, etc. to raise taxes on the wealthy and establish a progressive tax and the social programs that we need. Paul is against every form of social program. His core philosophy as a libertarian is essentially that government exists to provide national security and nothing else. I am sorry, but the government should exist to provide for the wellbeing of the citizenry as well. Finally, Paul's view of the Constitution not based in reality. The idea that by reading the text and it can only be interpreted in one way and one way only is absurd. In fact, that's counter to its design. Fortunately, the founders realized that when they created the separation of powers and endowed the judiciary with the exclusive ability to interpret law. That being said, I agree with this article in its entirety.

by Rev. Robert Vinciguerra (32 articles, 5 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 50 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:28:33 AM

  (0+)

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/onelesson.html

Libertarianism in One Lesson
Part of the "Critiques of Libertarianism" site.
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libindex.html

Last updated 10/25/07.

No, this isn't David Bergland's evangelistic text. This is an outsider's view of the precepts of libertarianism. I hope you can laugh at how close this is to real libertarianism!

Introduction

One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat".

This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!

Philosophy
In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government.
Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist.
Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.
Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.
Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia. Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!
Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace!
The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals.

Government
Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.
Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra "Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.
Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private police.
Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the economy. Money retained by individuals grows the economy, even if literally burnt.
Private education works, public education doesn't. The publicly educated masses that have grown the modern economies of the past 150 years are an illusion.
Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil economists serving the government as described in the "Protocols of the Elders of Statism".
Central planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.
Paternalism is the worst thing that can be inflicted upon people, as everyone knows that fathers are the most hated and reviled figures in the world.
Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. Therefore, we should avoid it entirely, as we do all forms of combustion.

Regulation
The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.
Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable right to own any weaponry: conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.
All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated: every industry should be able to kill 300,000 per year in the US like the tobacco industry.
If you don't have a gun, you are not a libertarian. If you do have a gun, why don't you have even more powerful armament?
Better to abolish all regulations, consider everything as property, and solve all controversy by civil lawsuit over damages. The US doesn't have enough lawyers, and people who can't afford to invest many thousands of dollars in lawsuits should shut up.

Libertarian Party
The Libertarian Party is well on its way to dominating the political landscape, judging from its power base of 100+ elected dogcatchers and other important officials after 25 years of effort.
The "Party of Oxymoron": "Individualists unite!"
Flip answers are more powerful than the best reasoned arguments, which is why so many libertarians are in important government positions.
It's time the new pro-freedom libertarian platform was implemented; child labor, orphanages, sweatshops, poorhouses, company towns, monopolies, trusts, cartels, blacklists, private goons, slumlords, etc.
Libertarianism "rules" Internet political debate the same way US Communism "ruled" pamphleteering.
No compromise from the "Party of Principle". Justice, happiness, liberty, guns, and other good stuff come only from rigidly adhering to inflexible dogmas.
Minimal government is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree.
Government is "moving steadily in a libertarian direction" with every change libertarians approve of; no matter if it takes one step forward and two steps backwards.
Yes, the symbol of the Libertarian Party is a Big Government Statue. It's not supposed to be funny or ironic!

Political Debate Strategy
Count only the benefits of libertarianism, count only the costs of government.
Five of a factoid beats a full argument.
All historical examples are tainted by statism, except when they favor libertarian claims.
Spiritually baptize the deceased as libertarians because they cannot protest the anachronism: Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Spooner, etc.
The most heavily armed libertarian has the biggest dick and thus the best argument.
The best multi-party democratic republics should be equated to the worst dictatorships for the purposes of denouncing statism. It's only a matter of degree.
Inviolate private property is the only true measure of freedom. Those without property have the freedom to try to acquire it. If they can't, let them find somebody else's property to complain on.
Private ownership is the cure for all problems, despite the historical record of privately owned states such as Nazi Germany, Czarist and Stalinist Russia, and Maoist China.
Require perfection as the only applicable standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly judged to have flaws.
Only libertarian economists' Nobel Prizes count: the other economists and Nobel Prize Committee are mistaken.
Any exceptional case of private production proves that government ought not to be involved.
 

Copyright 2007 by Mike Huben ( mhuben@world.std.com ).
This document may be freely distributed for non-commercial purposes if it is reproduced in its textual entirety, with this notice intact.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:44:30 AM

  (0+)

OK this is not a scholarly review of the principles of Libertarianism. But give me a break, the politics is simplistic, selfish and very, very wrong.

I am aware that anyone can hold any opinion but for heavens sakes Rob have you at all researched the harm that will devolve upon our poorest and most in need should libertarianism become the decision making force here?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:00:31 AM

  (0+)

I merely endorsed him in the Republican Primary. He's better than the rest of them. And I specifically addressed his libertarian ideas.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:51:40 PM

  (0+)

How does one separate Paul the Libertarian from Paul the honest antiwar candidate? One simply doesnt. While the cut and paste was tongue in cheek it was, nevertheless, pretty darned accurate even in its sarcasm.

As much as I detest Guiliani, as much as I think Romney and Huckabee the antithesis of my vision for this nation I see Paul as an even greater threat to that vision. His apparent honest demeanor and call for an end to the forever war ( thanks to Joe Haldeman) hides a desire to alter dramatically the reason for and the purpose of government.

It has been said, among the religiously leaning, that Satan is the great charmer, well Paul is certainly charming but someone who would end all government assistance, further free the corporations from any restraint, continue to keep buried the Sherman Antitrust Act, imperil our system of education simply is not deserving of support unless you share those beliefs.

I do not for one minute believe that Rob shares those beliefs, but I do believe that he has made the same egregious error than so many progressives have made. Single issue voters are anathema to me......

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 2:50:00 PM

  (0+)

He ain't gonna win.

by Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 4:51:27 PM

  (0+)

what wins around here is the truth.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:52:50 AM

  (0+)

Rob,

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that.  I would vote for Paul over the majority of Democractic Candidates in the General Election.  I think I will support this Revolution enough to change my party affiliation just so I can attend a Republican Caucus and stand up for Ron Paul.

Many states have caucuses so you don't just show up fill out a vote and leave.  Ron Paul and probably Dennis Kucinich have a majority of dedicated members who will show up, raise their hands and try to become delagates to their sate Conventions. For that reason I think they will do better there then in primary states.

I may end up voting for an Edward's.  Other Dems would be doubtful but not totally out of the Question, except for Kucinich.  I would support him over Paul but the Corporatist Dem leaders will never let that happen.  I would never support any of the other Republican Candidates.  I may end up voting for a Candidate of some third party should the choices of the parties be unsatisfactory to me.  That the way it is with me. 

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:20:26 PM

  (0+)

that a Libertarian is a Republican that likes to do drugs and get laid.

by John Sanchez Jr. (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 25 diaries, 1791 comments [148 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 5:05:46 PM

  (0+)

"I like Thom Hartmann's definition...

that a Libertarian is a Republican that likes to do drugs and get laid."
 

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. I'll give you one example of a drug free libertarian (there are many more):

ProLibertate Blog 

Observations and commentary from a Christian Libertarian perspective, written by a freedom-obsessed father of five children and husband to one exquisitely lovely wife.

 http://www.freedominourtime.blogspot.com/ 

by Darren Wolfe (15 articles, 400 quicklinks, 141 diaries, 1031 comments [84 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 8:06:06 AM

  (0+)

Paul not a neanderthal? Do you even understand the dog-eat-dog and pie in the sky bye and bye of libertarians? A true "strict constructionist?" These people are so idiotic as to think everything works itself out as social darwinism has its way. Well, the republicans have proven that economically, but from a historical perspective, women would still be barefoot and pregnant in the libertarian world. As Paul says, he is the true republican, the true conservative (conservationist of the status quo). What you imagine as being on the left is really being on the right. For yes, libertarians believe in civil libertarian values as they see that as strictly constitutional, strictly on the right. Thus, many liberals are civil liberarians. But because also grown up in the world that has taught us that things are not quite like they were in 1776, or even 1876 or 1976. A mean, one need not own land or be white and male to vote, right? And slavery is a thing of the past, something hardly constiutuional in a strict sense. (Or did the forefathers not point out their obvious discrepancies?)  Too, a global economy, corporate cronyism, and simple observation has taught us things rarely work out as they should when leaving them to unstricted and unrestrained forces. Indeed, power always win. And power for the people is what a contemporay and contextual reading of the Constitution tells us we need socially and economically. Thus, support a neanderthal libertarian? Give me a break! See it for what it really is. There's far more to learn from western Europe and even Canada (and I lived there a number of years and know all the misconcepetions and lies about Canada's economy, healthcare, education, etc--as we're all beginning to learn down here with a weaker dollar than theirs') than from some wide-eyed interpretation of American history and the Constitution. Indeed, the forefather themselves noted things would likely need reinterpretation and revision in time. Why can't we Americans know our history and our Constitution well enough to finally let these occassional seeming conservative novelists been seen for what they are (power to the elite) and just get on with the program!

by JonX (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 10:47:35 AM

  (0+)

I nearly fell off my chair when I read your first few lines. 

How in the world can a progressive fall for that hype Paul's group is putting out,  Then I read your article completely. 

I agree!  It will push the envelope further to the left if Paul gets the support.

I don't agree with Paul's logic of dropping the imcome tax.  States and cities need the federal support to be able to function.  I know this because I worked within that system for most of my career.  Cut the federal income off, and many state and city functions would cease and cutbacks in Fire and Police would be devastating since they have the largest personnel budget.  Infrastructure would perish under 4 years of these federal budget restraints.  This is a fact, not a guess.  Just look at how much state and city funding comes out of the federal side.  No real fire protection or police response, sewage and starving people in the streets the is the result of this moronic anti-tax mentality.  Go to border town Mexico and see the result of a backwards tax structure.

by Rufus2 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:04:51 AM

  (0+)

I have to wonder just how long we will continue to allow this government to maintain its Social Ruse on the People? 

The subject is Income Tax, Social Security and Medicare Tax and its usage. We are told that it is to provide the government with much needed revenue to operate and keep our nation strong and safe, to provide the needed services and benefits. 

It is a very useful tool in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats, but its purpose is not that which is publicized or promoted. 

You see, these taxes form a very powerful system of social compliance, but little else. It all starts with the monetary system that has been imposed upon this country: The Federal Reserve Bank and its Fiat Currency System. 

In reality, what the banks do with mortgages and loans is very similar to what the government does. Banks lend you and me money that doesn't exist until the moment you sign the mortgage or loan note.

In the Federal Reserve publication "I Bet You Thought" states: "Printed Federal Reserve Notes that sit in the Treasury's vault do not become money until they are released into circulation in exchange for checkbook money that was CREATED BY A BANK LOAN. As long as the bills are in the vault with no debt-based money to replace them, they technically are just paper, not money."

Debt and Circulation are equal...someone has to borrow every single Federal Reserve Note for it to enter circulation. As I said before, the bank doesn't have the money they lend you sitting in a vault somewhere waiting for a person to take out a loan, it comes into existence the moment that person signs the Mortgage. 

In other words, in a very basic sense, the bank is loaning you money that they really don't have sitting in their vaults, or anywhere else for that matter. So, then they expect you to spend the next 30 years paying them back money, that never existed before you signed the mortgage note, and on top of that, they expect you to pay them interest on the money that they never really had to lend you in the first place. Your signature on that mortgage note actually creates the money, out of thin air, that you are "borrowing".

When you scour off all the pretense of banking...all they do is pretend to lend us money and charge us for the pretense. The government does basically the same thing when borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. The only difference is that the government is well aware of the scam while so many people taking out mortgages are not.

The Federal Reserve provides an unlimited supply of money to the government in the very same process, creating money out of thin air and then on top of it they charge the government interest. Unfortunately, the debt is never paid, can never be paid off due to the multiplication of debt in an endless cycle of Fiat Circulation.

In fact, think of a Trillion Dollars in this way: If you started borrowing 1 Million Dollars in the Year 1 A.D., and borrowed a Million Dollars each day, 365 days a year, every year, year after year, you would finally have borrowed just One Trillion Dollars in the year 2037. Now imagine what this government has borrowed. 

My point is that the money the government borrowed will never and can never be paid back because the system simply doesn't allow it to be paid back. Only periodic interest and principle payments are made. Of course, the owners of the Central Banking System love that fact.

In such a system, the amount in circulation is exactly the same as the debt; one does not exist without the other. Every single dollar in circulation was borrowed, either by the government or by business or an individual.

Every time a portion of the periodic principle and interest of the debt is paid by the government, it must turn around and borrow that same amount from the Federal Reserve, usually more because the government is the government and since it is no longer limited by an Honest Weight and Measure of Constitutional Money (i.e. gold and silver), it grows uninhibited.

Now, what about those taxes? The whole purpose of taxation has nothing what so ever to do with the creation of revenue for government operations or programs. Its primary purpose is to force you and I to use Fiat Currency pumped out by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

It was a strange coincidence, don't you think, that the Federal Reserve Act and the introduction of the modern Income Tax were introduced around the same time, then you add the passage of the 17th Amendment to the mix and you have a witches brew of socio-economic tyranny. Speaking of the 17th Amendment, it was used to eliminate the potency of the States and to bring the Senators into the national political market, where they are easily bought and paid for, and taking them out of the hands of the State Legislatures. So, now instead of having a House of Representatives representing the People's Rights, and Senators representing the State's Rights in Congress, you have a system which can easily be manipulated by the federal political machine's money and corruption. 

So, underneath all the pretenses used by the government, we were forced into a system, which would eventually use Fiat Currency and institute a Progressive Income Tax to support its acceptance. 

In the Federal Reserve's own publications you will find the following:

"In the United States neither paper currency nor deposits have value as commodities. Intrinsically, a dollar bill is just a piece of paper. Deposits are merely book entries. Coins do have some intrinsic value as metal, but generally far less than their face amount. What then makes these instruments: checks, paper money, and coins acceptable at face value in payment of all debts and for other monetary uses? Mainly, it is the confidence people have that they will be able to exchange such money for other financial assets and services whenever they choose to do so. THIS IS PARTLY A MATTER OF LAW; CURRENCY HAS BEEN DESIGNATED "LEGAL TENDER" BY THE GOVERNMENT, THAT IS, IT MUST BE ACCEPTED."

"Modern monetary systems have a fiat base, LITERALLY MONEY BY DECREE with depository institutions, acting as fiduciaries, creating obligations against themselves with the fiat base acting in part as RESERVES. The DECREE appears on the currency notes: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." WHILE NO INDIVIDUAL COULD REFUSE TO ACCEPT SUCH MONEY FOR DEBT PAYMENT, EXCHANGE CONTRACTS COULD EASILY BE COMPOSED TO THWART ITS USE IN EVERYDAY COMMERCE. HOWEVER, A FORCEFUL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY MONEY IS ACCEPTED IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES IT AS PAYMENT FOR TAX LIABILITIES. Anticipation of the need to clear this debt creates a demand for the pure fiat dollar."

Now why does the government enforce the payment of Income Taxes, simple to maintain the system of Fiat Currency, but that is not the only reason? Another, more insidious reason is found in the writings of another Federal Reserve Chairman named Breadsley Ruml in 1946. He states, in no uncertain terms the reason behind the Progressive Income Tax:

"The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government. Two changes of the greatest consequence have occurred in the last twenty-five years, which have substantially altered the position of the national state with respect to the financing of its current requirements. The first of these changes is the gaining of vast new experience in the management of central banks. The second change is the elimination, for domestic purposes, of the convertibility of the currency into gold."

"Final freedom from the domestic money market exists for every sovereign national state where there exists an institution which functions in the manner of a modern central bank, and whose currency is not convertible into gold or into some other commodity."

"The United States is a NATIONAL STATE, which has a central banking system, the Federal Reserve System, and whose currency, for domestic purposes, is not convertible into any commodity. It follows that our Federal Government has final freedom from the money market in meeting its financial requirements. Accordingly, the inevitable social and economic consequences of any and all taxes have now become the prime consideration in the imposition of taxes. In general, it may be said that since all taxes have consequences of a social and economic character, the government should look to these consequences in formulating its tax policy. All federal taxes must meet the test of public policy and practical effect. The public purpose, which is served, should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue."

Concerning the use of Taxation for the Distribution of Wealth, Ruml was very clear:

"The second principal purpose of federal taxes is to attain more equality of wealth and of income than would result from economic forces working alone. The taxes, which are effective for this purpose, are the progressive individual income tax, the progressive estate tax, and the gift tax. What these taxes should be depends on public policy with respect to the distribution of wealth and of income. It is important, here, to note that the estate and gift taxes have little or no significance, as tax measures, for stabilizing the value of the dollar. Their purpose is the social purpose of preventing what otherwise would be high concentration of wealth and income at a few points, as a result of investment and reinvestment of income not expended in meeting day-to-day consumption requirements. These taxes should be defended and attacked it terms of their effects on the character of American life, not as revenue measures."

As you can see, the purposes of the Progressive Income Tax are little more than an instrument of Socio-Economic Construction by the State. The government does not need Tax Revenue in order to function. In the Fiat Currency system the government simply allows the Federal Reserve to "lend" it money, doesn't matter how much, at least not to the government. 

Now, the only problem with the whole system is that there is a nasty side affect by the unlimited printing of Fiat Currency and placing it into circulation: it's called INFLATION. There comes a time when the pressure of Inflation eats up the wages of the People and the whole economic market begins to suffer, as we have all seen. 

So, they take massive amounts of income away from the People in the form of Income Taxes in order to maintain some degree of control over the Inflation they create, which is just another form of taxation. Our tax rate, counting the percentage of Income Tax we pay, plus the massive amount of Inflationary Tax we pay, leaves us with precious little to live on and in fact, it makes the People of the United States one of the heaviest Taxed peoples in history.

Our money is debt; it is created and backed by nothing more than debt. Now since it is nothing but debt, and there is no value to it, why would the government want to decree its usage? Simple, it is a system that controls you and me; it makes each of us compliant to the various laws imposed outside of the framework of the Constitution. 

So, what are you and I going to do about it? We have another swing in Congress; once again we have placed the Democrats in office in hopes that they might thwart the abuses of power found in the Bush Administration. We take this action every so many years, flipping the coin to see if the other side is any better then the one we just had in office. We let one Party take their respective turns at the helm of government only to find that neither Party appears to be able to do anything worth while. Both Political Parties have taken their turn at driving this Nation to the place we found ourselves today, do we think this time around will be any different? 

We are a Flip-Floppy Nation and guess what; we have been conditioned to be Flip-Floppy, apathetic and compliant. In a very few years, to our horror, we will once again be anxious to flip the political coin over again to see if the other Party has any ideas to come to Our Beleaguered Nation's rescue. The Republican and Democratic Parties have proven their fecklessness and obsolescence.

by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 12:05:57 PM

  (0+)

Great overview of the Fed and our monetary system. Anti-Paulites should read up on our monetary system before they start name-calling.

by Jesse Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 5:44:45 PM

  (0+)

First, let me say I do not really buy the original argument about Ron Paul.  Best of unacceptable is still unacceptable.  Libertarians are a creation of the aristocracy, and the enemy of the middle class (no one gives a d*mn about poor people).  This is what "right wing" means, by the way -- the party of the aristocracy, while left wing is the party of the middle class.

 With respect to the state and local programs collapsing if the federal income tax is repealed, this is not a fact, but only an assumption.  It might be true in some (poorer) states.  In other states, relief from federal taxes would allow the states and local jurisdictions to increase taxes (with a net slight decrease, since state and local governments do not fund expensive foreign wars).  It was Nixon, hardly a progressive, who instituted the idea of collecting money at the federal level and distributing it to the states.  It was done to increase the power of the federal goverment.  It worked.

My state, Washington, is one that would benefit from abolishing the federal tax.  We pay a lot more than we get in benefits.  With a fairly non-corrupt local government system, we would simply increase taxes at the local and state level, fund the programs that really benefit us, and not fund imperial aggresson or global domination.  I realize there are some states that are so corrupt, or so poor for other reasons, that they really do need federal support to maintain their present level of services.  But it is wrong to say that ending federal income tax would be universally harmful.  Because of the reduction of waste (corporate welfare) and war spending, the states would have more money, in general.  And America would be a better place for Americans!

The federal government has become a tool of the imperialists and the moneyed aristocracy.  If we can remove most of its funding, that is a good thing.  Even if the libertarians also want to end the income tax.  Note that this would not (in itself) affect social security, which is funded by dedicated contributions of workers (like insurance premiums).  Other useful federal programs, such as a national health plan, could be funded the same way.  This would prevent the politicians from misusing the money.

by Larry Lawton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 4:24:49 AM

  (0+)

Awesome.  Ron Paul is far and away the best candidate. There's no one else who even remotely interests me for the job.

by Jeremy R. Hammond (42 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 86 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:06:53 AM

  (0+)

I believe it's a mistake to endorse Paul without explicitly discussing his negatives, now.

Even as a tactic, the cult-like zeal of many of his followers suggests to me that they'll either vote for some other libertarian if he doesn't run or sit the election out. Many would probably buy into the Reaganesque anti-tax-talk of the Republican candidate if Paul is out of the running.

Do Paul supporters really care so much about the 1% - the troops and families fighting or suffering from the war - or do they really like the talk of "no taxes"? A Paul presidency, any Republican presidency, will mean less taxes, less spending on the environment, health and safety, education, etc., but more user-fees and local taxes - especially for the poor and middle classes, the ones without the lobbies. He doesn't need to advocate cutting spending on social programs; all he has to do when the time comes is throw up his hands and say there's no money. For the poor and middle class it will be break-even, at best, on payments (user-fees, sales taxes, property taxes rather than federal income taxes), forget about public schools, public benefits - and "forget about" oil prices. For the rich and the corporations it will be like Ali-Baba in the cave.

The "free-market" mantra is code for grab all you can, don't worry about the government getting in the way of throwing out the unions, preventing the spewing and dumping of pollution, cutting costs on safe products and a safe workplace, or preventing the most avaricious from gaining a monopoly and dictating prices.

A doctor supporting a "free market" in health care? Guess which insurance companies and hospitals are going to win that "competition"? The ones who put patients' health first?  Yeah, as-if unregulated profit-mongers can't win a price- and benefits-war till that competition is gone. A doctor supporting a "free market" in health care? Run for your life.

If Paul is so in-love with the Constitution, why isn't he leading the charge for impeachment? Check out what he really says about civil liberties. He doesn't rant about big-brother at the state level, it's just the federal government (those damn Yankees?) he's against. 

Sure, Paul may be best among the Republican candidates. I'm not really worried about him. I'm worried about his supporters. 

by Jim Arnold (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 147 comments [18 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:11:38 AM

  (0+)

Yeah!  What you said!  The only advantage to Ron Paul winning the Republican nominatiion would be the downfall of the Republican Party.  Good riddance!

by Mary Pitt (77 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 282 comments [11 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:11:33 PM

  (0+)

1) A Kucinich-Paul debate would be awesome. I huge government guy versus a limited govt guy, both of whom truly believe in what they preach!

2) I saw the Russert piece and Paul did not advocate against civil rights. He spoke aginst the way the law was written to provide extended powers to the federal govt, including the seizure of property.

3) Some are acting as if Paul gets elected we automatically become libertarian. We do not. He will have to compromise with the Congress. He will have to move to the middle and I believe he will.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:13:42 AM

  (0+)

that sent troops to integrate that High School? If those troops had not been sent we would quite possibly still be seeing segregated and unequal schools. Why is it that so many think any lessening of governmental influence is a good thing? If our government has made bad choices then it is we the voters who have used bad judgement in sending the wrong folks to run that govt.

Libertarianism should be anathema to every moderate and progressive, and the excuse that its ok to vote for paul because Congress will keep him in check is so laughable as to be downright scary. Have you not been paying attention to current events ( seven years worth).

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 3:12:21 PM

  (0+)

I have been paying attention and writing 200 articles about the past 7 years. Your comparison makes no sense. The only way it would is if the congress was libertarian as well, which would never happen.

What should be anathema to progressivism is electing any candidate from either party that will continue the current march to destruction and corporatism.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 5:05:20 PM

  (0+)

to promote this absurdity.....Vote for Paul because Congress will protect us from him??????

You mean like they've protected us from Georgie?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 8:56:18 AM

  (0+)

once again i will be a loud naysayer to this paul cult that has developed.  this man is a cross between the republicans and libertarians.   presidents, please remember, are nothing more than figure heads of those behind them.  the republican party is what it is--pro-military, pro-pharmaceutical, anti- social services, etc.  paul's positions are no different despite his small government, isolationist politic.   he does oppose social security which has always been a safety net for seniors.  supporting an opt-out choice for younger people is not different than the idea of privatizing the program which is designed to make more money for investment firms and no more money for the unwary.   he does not support public education when he supports vouchers for religious schools.  his lack of platform and speech on humanistic values is old style republican.  and his so-called constructionist efforts of the constitution are nothing but a thinly disguised attempt to roll back civil rights for women and people of color.  his undying faith in the free market is capitalism as usual--hands off free for all for corporations.

 and while i dilike and distrust clinton, i would feel compelled to vote for her because the democrats still maintain a strong base that supports social service programs.  although not a big difference between the 2 parties, that difference is still there. 

i think we need to support progressive thinking and we need to constantly raise the concepts of human values.  there is virtually no talk about the kinds of values that really define this culture:  justice, liberty, democracy and EQUALITY.   a concept of collective efforts for collective survival, instead of the self-centered greed and individualism that has come to characterize the personality of this culture.  that is what needs major changing.  and corporations need to be set back in terms of their overriding control that they exert.

 Clean Elections are what people should be demanding and getting corporate money out of politics.

by tanya (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:14:05 AM

  (0+)

You could not be more correct. I decided a long time ago, about forty years ago, that all politicians lie. At first I was upset, and then it hit me, "The Party controls the candidate, not the candidate the Party." All I must do is find which Party lines up best with my philosophy of government and vote for that Party. If Ron Paul was a Liberal or Progressive, he would not belong first to the Republican Party, (flip ) to the Libertarian Party, (flop) back to the Republican Party.

As much as I disagreed with some of Clinton's policies, I must ask myself am I more satisfied with Ginsburg or Roberts on SCOTUS? I must ask myself in Clinton's eight years, how many wars did Clinton lead us into? How many did the Republicans in Clinton's previous eight years lead us into? How many wars in the succeeding eight years did the Republicans lead us into? How was the economy doing in the eight years before Clinton? How is the economy doing eight years after Clinton compared to Clinton's eight years?

In these answers, you find the difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:41:00 AM

  (0+)

I'm not a Repiglickin, so I don't give a rat's pestilent rear end about who those people choose.  The vast majority of our problems today were caused by a Repiglickin Congress of which Paul was a compliant member.  Leopards don't change their spots and a liberatarian's still just a p-o'd Repiglickin who wants to smoke dope till its time to collect HIS Social Security.

Please, Rob, stop equating Ron Paul with Progressive ideas.  What's progressive about slittling the throats of America's most vulnerable by eliminating Social Security? 

What's progressive about perpetuating a busted healthcare system where the well-being of our citizens is deemed a subject for the profit motive; a system that lets multi-millionaire insurance executives hold the literal power of life and death over your neighbors? 

What's progressive about a tax-dodge that imposes higher out-of-pocket expenses on the lower and middle class?

I understand why some of the folks in the GOP think Paul's a breath of fresh air.  When you live in an oxygen-free environment, a fart is fresh air.

For someone I thought to have solid progressive credentials to bruit Paul's name about, however, is a tad disappointing. 

by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:15:03 AM

  (0+)

Mr. Kinkaid:

To some of your statements:

"The vast majority of our problems today were caused by a Repiglickin Congress of which Paul was a compliant member."

NOT TRUE - Ron Paul has a consistent record opposing virtually all of the neocon agenda items like the "Iraq war", the "PATRIOT" Act, etc.

"What's progressive about slittling the throats of America's most vulnerable by eliminating Social Security?"

Ron Paul wants to allow younger Americans the chance to opt out of this "Voluntary" Ponzi scheme and would protect the benefit for the generations that have been duped into being dependent on this program which was long ago co-opted into yet another source of general funding for the federal government and a huge burden on future generations of Americans.

"What's progressive about perpetuating a busted healthcare system where the well-being of our citizens is deemed a subject for the profit motive; a system that lets multi-millionaire insurance executives hold the literal power of life and death over your neighbors?"

INCORRECT AGAIN - Ron Paul clearly wants to change the system of health care in the USofA. The current regulatory structure benefits the industr, not the people, and this is something Ron Paul wants to change.

"What's progressive about a tax-dodge that imposes higher out-of-pocket expenses on the lower and middle class?"

THIS STATEMENT IS INANE! What is the statement referring to?

by Sean Freeman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:49:06 AM

  (0+)

I spelled my name correctly.  Can you?  Thanks.

Ron Paul's position on gutting Social Security is the same incremental execution that the Repiglickins have used on other sectors of our government.  Utilizing the Bush Plan for Social Security Piratization is nothing more than a death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach to getting rid of it.  Paul can't come out and advocate his real position on Social Security because that would pull his rubber mask off and we'd see him for the right-wing tool he is.

We have a basic disagreement on healthcare.  Paul believes government is the problem and profit-driven insurance executives are the answer.  I don't.  I object on the most essential level to having my fellow Americans' very lives made pawns in the drive for profit in the healthcare industry.  It's not just wrong, it's wicked.  The for-profit system we have now feeds literally on the flesh and bone and blood and sinew of American citizens.  Last I checked, that's cannibalism.  Calling it a "free market" plan doesn't make the "long pig" taste any less like people. 

The tax dodge to which I refered is, of course, the "Fair Tax/Flat Tax/No Tax"  scheme that's being bandied about.  No matter how much lipstick you put on that pig, it's still a regressive tax.

Saying that womens' health rights are subservient to states' rights is an abomination I can't even begin to conceive, bearing in mind that with Ron Paul at the helm, women in the Olde Confederacy will, however, be doing lots of conceiving.  They just won't be able to do anything about it.

My overall point is that I personally don't care who the Repigs nominate.   There's not a one of them, from Magic Underwear Willard to Reverend Mike Hucksterbee to Market Miracle Ron who has a blessed thing to offer America.  It's all the same old, tired, worn-out sideshow cons they've been offering for years.  Ron, as noted, however, seems "fresh" to a crowd of voters who have been drinking Kool-Aid so long that bongwater tastes "fresh."

To be fair, they don't have a corner on the con market.  There's very little at all I like about Senators Clinton or Obama.   I'm firmly behind Kucinich, the only real Progressive running on either side of the race.  Sadly, it's been made abundantly clear by the powers that be that he won't be heard.  More's the pity.  Still, I'd trust any Democrat running to appoint Supreme Court justices before I'd trust any of the Repig candidates with so much as the carcass of a dead skunk.  At the end of the day, that's probably my final analysis, since Ron Paul or any other of his right-wing ilk could only screw up the country (even more) for eight years.  His SCOTUS appointments, however, would screw up not only my world, but that of my kids and grandkids.

by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 1:21:46 PM

  (0+)

Mr. Kincaid,

The R. Paul/Social Security issue has been beat to death on this website, however, you might try explaining why America had the best healthcare system in the world at one time and why it doesn't now.  Dr. Paul was probably practicing medicine then, so you should at least listen to what he has to say about it.

If you see corporate medicine and medical insurance companies as the greatest threat to healthcare, then what is the best course, universal health care or corporate reform? Correct me if I am wrong, but no progressive Democrat on this website has proposed any changes that would get directly at: the root of the corporacracy involved in medical service providers and insurance companies.  If you are interested I recently posted an article on this subject.

Nor has there been a mention of the AMA, the legal private monopoly in control of doctor certification and licensing.

The worst possible tax system is one that the middle class and the middle class alone cannot beat.

You are of course free to believe that a single abortion law represents the ultimate expression your political philosophy and all 300+ million Americans must accept it, however, reasonable people might think it wiser to believe that that smaller populations with varied demographics, the States, might prefer some variation in the law. When a life becomes a life and who has the right to decide when to end it, is as much a philosophical or religious question as a legal one. I’m not in favor of or against abortion in all circumstances, however, it is damned difficult to draw that line so everyone is satisfied. 

Hell, many American States are bigger than many foreign countries, and not all of the latter have uniform abortion laws.  If you respect the idea that a Muslim country might have a difference abortion law than we do on the basis of cultural difference, then what principled objection would you have to a Southern State having a different law than a Western or Northern one?

It has already been said, but if Ron Paul is so bad, why is he apparently friends with Kucinich, the Democrat I like best, and you say likewise. How can you like a guy who likes a guy whose views you hate so much?

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 11:55:37 PM

  (0+)

but some of his positions are more to the left than Hillary.

I never said I'd vote for him. I said he's the best of the Republican lot. And You make a BIG mistake not caring who they choose.  

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:55:18 PM

  (0+)

How do I make a mistake by not caring who they choose?  I won't vote in a Repig primary.  That's the only functional way I could care about their choice.

To be fair, this might be different for people living in states where one may vote willy-nilly in the other party's primary.

No matter whom the Repigs nominate, they will rally around him and, with one loud, hateful voice, swear that he's the second coming of their Lord and Saviour Ronald Reagan.  We've already seen it in the dog-and-pony shows that pass for "debate."

My job, as I see it, is to point out the flaws of ALL the Repiglickin freaks during their primary process so that whomever enters the general election, does so with a millstone around his neck, an Albatross on his shoulder and a running mate mumbling "Call me Ishmael." 

Speaking of which, can you imagine anyone who would be ideologically pure enough to serve as a running mate to Market Miracle Paul and not completely alienate his cult?

by Bob Kincaid (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 47 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 2:24:59 PM

  (0+)

This post has depressed me more than any other on this site - EVER; that so many seemingly intelligent people can fall for the idiotic policy positions of Paul is driving me to hit the bottles I was saving for New Year's eve....

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 1:53:54 PM

  (0+)

you'll see why I'll join you in working on those bottles... never had so many people call me nasty names.

And try looking at it this way Joel. You see the constitutional convention as an out of the box alternative way to bring about change. 

I'm looking at the potential for a very different Republican candidate to wake up republicans and independents to a different way of thinking about candidates. Maybe once they "fall in love" with Ron Paul, they'll be open to progressive messages that are similar-- anti war, pro habeus corpus, pro constitution, anti globalism... Maybe it's possible. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 9:00:24 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul's seeming candor is definitely refreshing. It might even be real. But, he has a history of doing the wrong thing for libertarian reasons. He was against civil rights and he has a forced religious agenda (He does not always protect the weak from the strong.) Everything else about him has the same cheap perfume that we have suffered from since before Reagan. (No taxes, money trickles down, privatization, and so forth. I don't think I could ever vote for him because his libertarian notions serve the interests of the rich crooks who have done more harm to this country than the Germans, Japanese, and Soviets combined. (I like his charm, though)

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:21:25 AM

  (0+)

2 comments:

#1. It's nice that you say that there is a place for Ron Paul in the Progressive Democrat's heart.  But let's be honest, a true Progressive Democrat would cry if Ron Paul ever became president.

 #2. To say that no country has ever survived with a Libertarian government is preposterous.  Look at the Constitution and read a little history.  You'd probably notice that this form of government more or less parallels Libertarianism.  So, to say that the US is not a good test tube for a Libertarian society is just ignorant.  No other political form, including prevailing forms in the US, comes close to what the Founding Fathers originally intended.

I would love for Progressive Democrats convert and support Ron Paul, but it's very important that people understand that to support Ron Paul is the very opposite of being a liberal.

by Anthony (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:43:18 AM

  (0+)

Ron Paul is way too far on the right on a number of issues for me to ever vote for him; I don't believe that giving free reins to capitalism and going back to 19th century ''laissez faire''  will solve our problems. Bush has already taken us way too far in this direction.

Besides, Paul's positions regarding minorities and women are apalling. I am a woman and anybody who wants to do away with Roe vs Wade wants me  barefoot and pregnant and is no friend of mine. Many women voters feel the same.

It will be a cold day in hell; give me Edwards or Obama anytime.

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:44:38 AM

  (0+)

then I'm not telling you to vote for him. I'm suggestint that you get your republican relatives and neighbors to support him, because he's not as toxic as the rest of the republican candidates. At least on some issues, he's on the good side.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 1:18:40 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul does not support a woman's right to choose whether to bear a child.  He does not support self-determination for 50% of the population.  Kucinich does.  Nuff said.

by Eileen McCabe (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 11:49:13 AM

  (0+)

Although RP personally is not Pro-Choice, you must understand that the fundamental idea of a Libertarian is that his view will not be imposed.  In fact, it is that everyone else's view will be respected.  He wants to give this issue to the state/local level instead of having one mandate over every case in the entire country.

This is his personal view by the way:

   As a doctor, if he does something to a pregnant woman that kills the fetus, he is accountable.  Under the law, the fetus has the same rights as any human being, and it is considered homicide or manslaughter.  If both the mother and fetus die due to malpractice, he is responsible for two lives.  The same is true if someone attacks a woman and in the process the fetus is killed.  The attacker is responsible for the life of the fetus, which has all the rights of any other person, and they will therefore, again, be charged with homicide/manslaughter.  His question is this: Why is the woman who terminates the life inside of her not just as responsible for that life as the outside parties.  Yes, indeed it is her body.  But do we say that in this case, the fetus does not have the rights of anyone else????

Now, if you are pro-choice then you're pro choice.  There's no use arguing the fundamentals of the right to choose vs. the right to life.  But don't you think that Dr. Paul at least has some logic in his argument and is not just a babbling right-wing Christian. 

Abortion is a difficult issue and every case is different, which is why Dr. Paul believes that it should be dealt with on a more local level.  It's just a different way to look at the role of the federal government, and I think Dr. Paul deserves a little more credit than you are giving him. 

by Anthony (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:59:04 PM

  (0+)

Not only does he have a good argument, it is based on the assumption of law. How can the law be considered equal on all levels when it is applied differently in the case of abortion compared with say a murder of a pregnant woman and the murderer is then charged with double homicide. If the fetus is considered an individual with rights in one case how can it not be considered an individual in the other case...or vice-versa.

by Republicae (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 35 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 12:12:10 PM

  (0+)

We understand the fundamental idea of Libertarianism very well, and we reject it even more well.

by pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 972 comments) on Thursday, Dec 27, 2007 at 10:53:54 AM

  (0+)

Did someone add this to the litmus test for what is a progressive? I have to be pro-choice to be prgressive? That is nonsense. Sorry.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 5:14:22 PM

  (0+)

Well, Anthony, the answer to that unbelievable question you pose is a resounding YES, you do.

How on earth can you call yourself progressive if you deny fifty percent of us the right to choose what happens to her body?

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 9:08:03 AM

  (0+)

Allowing the States to decide is not making abortion illegal.  That is rhetoric that insists on infringing on the right of a majority of any state that wishes not to allow it in their state

I am pro choice.  I wholeheartedly believe the residents of my state will protect choice.  I believe the residents of most states will protect choice, but it is the states that should deside and control many things that are now mandated by the federal government often without adaquate funding. 

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 312 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 25, 2007 at 1:58:26 PM

  (0+)

Firstly to say that Obama isn't bought is not really correct. A good gauge of which candidates are part of the current globalist cabal is whether or not they are members of or attend Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) meetings. Obama is and does. Clips exist on youtube.

 Also to fault Dr. Paul for being Pro-Life or 'anti Pro Choice' is a bit short sighted considering he's an OB/GYN who's delivered 4000 babies into the world. I'm very conflicted on this issue myself as I'm not keen to have women using coat hangers and think we should use a lot more common sense regarding this issue, e.g. morning after pill in first trimester is ok, abortion after 2nd trimester is not. I agree strongly with Paul's thoughts that our laws are currently conflicted, prosecuting someone who shoots a pregnant women for two murders (1 for mother and 1 for unborn child) or one murder if woman survives and unborn is killed while allowing a women to 'kill' at will. Let's not be so black and white and use our brains regarding this issue. I also believe Dr. Paul may have some insight the rest of us don't. I also believe that a woman knows best whether she has the ability to mother a child at a given point in her life.

by Ro Bo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:12:55 PM

  (0+)

For disclosure purposes, let me say first, that I am a bleeding heart liberal, who believes in socialized medicine, education and the people's collective ownership of the commons, and right to regulate industry. That being said, I would like to point out that there have been some very progressive republicans in our history. Theodore Roosevelt comes to mind. Eisenhower was a republican, and he spoke out strongly against the rise of the military industrial complex.

Let's pretend we're all type A personalities for just a little while, and put together a candidate pros and cons list. Screw party affiliation, just take a step back and think about all the issues that are important to you. I've been doing this, and I'm having a hard time denying Paul's appeal on a growing number of issues.

I'm not ready to vote for Paul, but if he runs as an independent I might reconsider, particularly if my options end up being Hillary/Ghoullianni.

I'd also like to say, our founding fathers were not libertarians. This is a myth that has been written into our history by conservatives. They were mostly a mix of liberals, born of the enlightenment, and conservatives (many of whom thought we should have stayed a part of the british empire). There were certainly some of what we might call libertarians or anarchists among them, but they didn't get things their way. I suggest that anyone who thinks we were founded as a libertarian nation (I think that's an oxymoron- like anarchist government) read the constitution again, and maybe add the federalist papers if you want an even broader perspective of what some of our founders were about.

Peace to all. 

by jdoss (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:37:33 PM

  (0+)

Understand that liberals "born of the enlightenment" held a much different philosophy than the liberals of today. They fought against mercantilism and for free-markets, against big-government and for local governance, against high taxes and for property rights, against standing armies (the military-industrial complex as seen by Jefferson) and for militias. Cast in today's terms such positions fall under the category of libertarian. And who among our founding fathers wanted to remain a part of the British Empire?

 Equating libertarian with anarchist is like equating Republican with Fascist, or Democrat with Communist. It's nothing but a smear.

by Jesse Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 4:05:54 PM

  (0+)

I also want to point out that although it's good to want to spend all of our money on social programs to help people out, Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate on either end that has come to the realization that we as a country have no money.......at all.  He wants to cut out spending on foreign policy.  However, it is also the entitlement programs and the funds that they promise which are contributing greatly to our financial situation.  The only reason we are able to handle it now is because our dollar is artificially propped up by foreign investment in U.S. treasuries.  There's a breaking point to all of this.  What happens when you don't pay off your debts?  Well, you have no credit left and any wealth you may have had is taken away.  Well, it's the same thing with a country.  If you can't pay your debts, it's all going to fall apart.  It's just logic.  You cannot live beyond your means forever.   If you do, you will end up severely below your means in the long run.  Spending does not work when you don't have the money to spend

by Anthony (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:42:16 PM

  (0+)

I agree with most of Ron Pauls ideology concerning the constitution, his dislike of our current trade policies and the loss of our sovereignty to to U.N. and WTO. I  find his libertarian views interesting and I feel the only way to find out if they really work would be to implement them. Taking away corporate welfare and personal welfare would cause some tough moments but Paul claims True free markets would perform much better when the government gets out of the way. Churches and private charities could help the poor as they did years ago.

What i believe would happen if Pauls libertarian economics were put in place would be giant mega corporations monopolizing and running the Little guys out of business with a variety of clever methods. One thing that might tend to offset this would be Pauls belief in eliminating our trade agreements and restoring our trade sovereignty. This would give American entrepreneurs a chance at creating jobs for Americans and competing with the big boys, Not competing with a Chinese government funded sweatshops.

by Gary Denson (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 283 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 12:46:45 PM

  (0+)

what exactly do you think is happening now???

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 5:17:30 PM

  (0+)

“What I believe would happen if Paul’s libertarian economics were put in place would be giant mega corporations monopolizing and running the little guys out of business with a variety of clever methods.”

The problem is, under current government and corporate laws, that is not a good trend. Some mega-corporations are now economically the equal of small countries. Corporate officers cannot be sued for the misdeeds of the corporation, they can exert undue influence on government, they permit a minute fraction of the country's population to control far too great a fraction of the country's assets, and unlike people they do not have a limited lifespan. You cannot have political freedom in a country without economic freedom, and there are no requirements that these mega-corporations serve any useful public benefit.

How to effectively reign in corporations is a legitimate issue that Ron Paul and his supporters need to try harder to address.

by Paul Rye (7 articles, 2 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 500 comments [44 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, Dec 26, 2007 at 12:24:00 AM

  (0+)

Rob, as I'm sure you know, I agree with you 99% of the time, but now you've crossed the line. Ron Paul indeed. Under his presidency what will happen to the social programs for the poor, aged, disenfranchised, etc. among us. The negatives have all been said by others and unfortunately there are no positives;once you rigorously examine the so-called positives, you immediately uncover the worst of the negatives.

Please Rob, instead, work with the progressives in the Democratic Party to reform it and make it what it should be for the aged, the poor, and all others who need the social programs that  only the Democratic party can  bring about once we get rid of the Republicans in the DLC and other places where they hide.

by Kenneth Briggs (186 articles, 88 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 142 comments [6 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 1:04:40 PM

  (0+)

personally voting for Ron Paul. The point of my article is that he is changing the landscape for Republicans, in terms of issues and positions. Some of the people who have been energized by him just may make the leap to the left.

Of course, he is many things to many people. SOme see him as the ultimate conservative. Some see him as liberal on enough issues.

I find his approach to the military refreshing, but something we'll never see democrats do. I detest his positions on government funding of education, healthcare, etc. And his rejection of evolution... that's ridiculous. But I stand by what I argued for in my article-- that his presence in the Republican primaries, with his voice and positions is a good thing for progressives. I never said he's a progressive either. 

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 1:50:33 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

You seem to have articulated a position pretty close to my own on this. As a Canadian, I have been appalled by the events of the Bush presidency; not that I believe that Bush himself is anything but a puppet for others.

 Regressive right-wing libertarian positions are not to my liking, but the strong anti-war stance of Paul is. So, I think that his apparent success is a good thing. The MSM will try even harder to take him out as he grows in popularity. Right now, his popularity is underestimated using the old (and increasingly obsolescent) survey methods. For instance, I suspect most of his younger supporters don't even have land lines, so they are not included in surveys.

 As far as I can tell, the term "libertarian" has been appropriated by right-wing conservatives in the U.S., perhaps illegitimately. My readings have lead me to believe that its use for left-wing anarchism predates the usage in the U.S., and that in Europe especially, a libertarian is assumed to be a socialist of some sort, perhaps an anarcho-syndicalist. In any case, Canadian George Woodcock has written extensively on anarchism,  and when I get around to it, I will see if and how he uses the term "libertarian". Others with deeper and broader historical perspective may correct me if I am wrong.

Daily Kos? I guess they are influential enough that you feel that you must play with them. They seem to be a farm team for the DLC, don't you think?

Good to see how well you are doing in the blog rankings. You deserve to be up there. 

Regards

Mike Zimmer

http://www.TheProgressiveMind.info 

by Michael Zimmer (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 20 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 2:18:58 PM

  (0+)

There had to be one Republican candidate who could make some sense about the Iraq madness and our financial situation. But  I'd doubt the Republicans voting in the primary are generally the progressive types. So unless this is being aimed at voters in the few states who are allowed to vote in the primaries across party lines, I don't get this at all.  Paul is a libertarian as far as domestic government is concerned. He has the same penchant for wanting to turn back federal government functions to the states. The libertarian oversimplification is, I believe, a grave mistake. In a nation that can be traversed in several hours; with virtually all of our citizens indebted to out-of-state corporations with almost no consumer protections, with an even greater need than ever to set stronger national standards for the environment, for our food and for all consumer products, we cannot count on the fragmenting of standards and safeguards. What we need is a restoration of control of our federal government by a functioning democracy as well as securing states rights where applicable. For instance, the federal government should never be standing in the way of tougher environmental protection laws in California. But Paul wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater. All of the Democratic candidates, ALL OF THEM, would make better presidents than Ron Paul.

by Pat Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 84 comments) on Monday, Dec 24, 2007 at 2:21:43 PM

  (0+)