Is Ron Paul a wolf in sheep's clothing?

by Rowan Wolf (105 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 146 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 1:51:15 PM

  (0+)

I missed the part that was supposed to explain why Ron Paul is a bad choice.

Where is it?

by Tom Davis (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 2:17:24 PM

  (0+)

Is Ron Paul a wolf in sheep's clothing?

No.

He's got a 30 year record of doing what he advocates, and advocating what he does. 

He is, by far, the most honerable man of integrity that sits on Congress today.

by fuzzy wzhe (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 33 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 2:40:17 PM

  (0+)

there's BIG reason number two.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 6:15:35 PM

  (0+)

Most people need to look at the philosophy behind to these issues. At first glance some of the things you mention seem odd, however, you need to understand the full intent and the backing philosophy.

I'll touch on a couple points:

Mises: Is one of the most inclusive economic philosophies. Need to understand that we haven't had "free markets" here in the US for a long time. What we have is a managed and governed market. This is one of the major causes of why we are in a financial crisis today. It's predictable.

The Income Tax: Taxing peoples income is the worst form of slavery. There is nothing wrong with reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government. In 2001 the Gov 'lost' 2.3 Trillion dollars. That equals almost 3 years of Income tax (at the time) simply lost. I'll have to check my references, but I think Clinton's admin 'lost' around 2 Trillion. The simple fact is the American People cannot afford to keep paying into a system where it ends up in the 'lost' category.

Christians: This is a mixed bag, because you have some Christians that want War (the bush/huckabee christians) and then you have the peaceful Christians that are very tolerant and supportive of Dr. Paul. The Warmongers are not.

I would argue that the one issue EVERYONE should be voting for this year is the Economy. Guess what? This issue is interlinked to most of the others. I have yet to see any other Candidate understand or really talk about the looming economic situation. It's much bigger than most people realize.

- National Debt: 9.1 Trillion
- Future Obligations: 50+ Trillion
- US Dollar: .67 vs. Euro (still falling)
- Iraq/afghan war: Estimated full cost to date 3.5 Trillion
- Mortgage Crisis: Will create the next depression, we've only just begun the meltdown.
- Inflation: Shadow stats has it at 10% per year.
- Manufacturing: most of our manufacturing base is overseas.
- Jobs: 40% of the jobs created over the last 5 years were in the building industry which is now crashing.
- Individual debt: average $9,000 credit card debt.
- Wages: Are not rising
- Housing equity/prices: Housing bubble areas are predicted to lose 50-60% of the house value. I'm already seeing it where I am.

These are just a handful of reasons why Ron Paul is the only choice for President. All of the safety nets and universal health care, social security, medicare, welfare, education, will all cease to exist unless something is done immediately. Not to mention the threat of WWIII and the next military arms race that is starting with Russia.

Wake up people!

by Michael Twain (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 2:57:44 PM

  (0+)

attractive points, as the article acknowledges. In my opinion, he's not only the best of the Republican candidates (admittedly, not saying much) -- he's the only one who even deserves consideration. For that matter, he's better than most of the Dem candidates, as well. (This is also not saying much.)

It's troubling, though, that the Ron Paul campaign attracts a striking number of vigilante types & belligerent loudmouths, who are simply uninterested in -- or in furious denial about -- Paul's many negatives. The RP campaign has also attracted a number of naive so-called "progressives," just because Paul is against the war. 

Many of these people are desperately searching for a candidate they can "believe in." They hear a few magic words (& indeed, Paul has some good words on certain subjects) -- and are then willing to close their eyes & ears to further information, & fling themselves into RP zealotry. Many RP supporters seem much worse than the candidate himself, but the fact that he attracts them is not without significance.

I regard the following as among Paul's many negatives. (He is admittedly somewhat difficult to generalize about, because his positions are nuanced & intricate, often based on reasoning that is the opposite of what his position might suggest.)

- opposes almost all social-spending programs, including Medicare, Social Security, student loans

- opposes government regulation of business

- is a devotee of "Austrian School" economists like von Mises & Hayek, the latter being the guru of Milton Friedman

- opposes US participation in and funding of the UN and the ICC

- opposes campaign finance reform

- against impeaching Bush & Cheney (though he supported Clinton's 1998 impeachment over sex, because "no president is above the law"!!)

- supported Reagan's "Star Wars" plan

- voted for the security fence on the Mexican border

- opposes free trade agreements but for the wrong reasons (they "impinge on US sovereignty")

-anti-choice

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 3:04:48 PM

  (0+)

I, too, missed the author's point...where is it? We need a non-frat daddy in the white house. I don't care about party affiliation....Like most americans, I want out of foreign policy and I want the debt to be paid off. Screw the patriot act!!! We supporters just need to get the word out. Every person I tell about ron paul becomes a supporter after they read up on him!!!!

by aaron benfield (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 3:05:27 PM

  (0+)

This article does not make sense.  I don't understand how the author concludes that Ron Paul is a one issue candidate. 

 All you have to do is watch Ron Paul speak during an interview or a rally and see that there are dozens of problems going on in the country that Ron Paul acknowledges and addresses with real solutions. 

Among the issues that Ron Paul talks about are:

1.  Excessive federal spending

2.  Illegal, unncecessary, and counterproductive foreign wars which must stop.

3.  Eliminating "foreign aid" to foreign governments.

4. Restoring the 4th Amendment and Habeas Corpus and repealing the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act of 2006.

5.  Ending the federal government interference with states' medical marijuana laws.

6.  Bringing competition to monopoly fiat money printed out of thin air by the federal reserve.

7.  Reducing the incentives the federal government grants to illegal immigrants.

8.  Letting young people voluntarily opt out of the Social Security tax and system.

9.  Reducing the motivation for suicide terrorists by ending our military occupation of 130 countries in 700 foreign bases.

I could go on and on.  Ron Paul's campaign addresses dozens and dozens of important issues we face.  To say that Ron Paul is a "one-issue candidate" is absurd.

 To learn about Ron Paul's positions, Google "Ron Paul 2008" or YouTube "Ron Paul"

by Jeff Schwartz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 3:17:25 PM

  (0+)

and one that will go directly over the heads of most of Paul's supporters. These come in several shades;

 avowed libertarians across that spectrum who are so blind to the damage that such a philosophy will wreak upon the social contract or who simply care not a fig for the needy. Especially the Ayn Rand variety.....get the governments hand out of MY pocket but continue to build roads, fund fire depts and police services, just do it with someone elses money. Oh and the poor, well screw them none of them live in MY neighborhood.  Public schools? we dont need no stinking public schools....of course those of us who have actually studied the progress of this nation understand how valuable was the public schools system in providing a melting pot that put forth decent hard working Americans..oh well, screw them too. Everyone knows, after all, that unfettered capitalism will bring peace, prosperity and good times......errr.

 Progressives who latch on to Pauls ability to sound so very sincere and his unwavering opposition to the Iraq War and simply look no further into the dark and dismal depths of his politics. Paul flourishes ( sort of) simply because there is noone who stands out among legitimate candidates. I cant wait for the ned of the primaries so all these Paulistas currently infesting these pages can go back to sitting on park benches muttering to themselves. Those that dont bomb abortion clinics anyway.....

Thanks, Ms. Wolf for a perceptive and finely written article , sadly one that will be ignored by the Paulistas...their choice of course.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 3:41:28 PM

  (0+)

Lookie here....no one is perfect. But come on. I don't like some of his views (i.e. pro-life), but I don't think you understand him all that well. He is for states rights and a lesser federal government. He believes states should choose their drug, abortion, etc laws....not the federal government. You sound like you are against the guy, but don't know a thing about him. My dad is a die-hard republican/conservative in Texas. He voted for Bush. I told him to look at ron paul...and now he loves the guy...Paul will get my dad's vote. I encourage you to look more into his what this guy is all about. But hey, if you are a pro-israel frat-daddy you probably won't like this guy.

by aaron benfield (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 3:54:10 PM

  (0+)

Ok, Ardee, I read the Rowan Wolf piece & do not find that it accomplishes the implied goal she set out for herself -- i.e., to demonstrate that Paul is not a good choice.   As one example, Wolf notes that the Mises Institute "defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations".  Now is that supposed to be a condemnation?  From my perspective that is exactly where I want my president to be.  In case you missed it, various communities have been abusing the eminent domain concept & have been forcibly evicting home-owners so that businesses could build on the stolen land.  That is but one example of government excesses that Paul would work to stop.

The political reality is that Paul, if elected, will not have carte blanche to implement all of his ideas.  He will have to work with Congress.  One reason I support Paul is that he will work to limit government & will act as a brake on the runaway spending.  The other candidates barely give lip-service to this notion.

If you know of any Paul supporters --or anyone else-- who bombs abortion clinics, please turn them into the law.  As much as Paul is opposed to abortion, I'm sure he would not want such deeds to go unpunished.

by Eric Wruck (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 3:59:47 PM

  (0+)

I am a responsible person.  All who know me know they can come to me in any time of need, and I will be there for them.

I don't pass by the homeless when I see them.  I offer some of whatever I have.  I do volunteer work and conduct a support group for the growing numbers of middle class Americans who are going through foreclosure and bankruptcy.

And although it is not possible for me to get pregnant, being a man, it's no one's business what I and an intimate partner might decide to do about a pregnancy we created. I am pro choice.  Vehemently.

Yet I also vehemently support Ron Paul, and I will tell you exactly why.

This nation was hijacked in a bloodless coup on the night of December 23, 1913.  In case you're not up on your history, that was the night a thinly populated congress handed over the keys to our freedom to a cartel of international banks that is now known as the federal reserve.

The plight of the poor and disadvantaged that is so important to the true progressive can be solved in a few simple moves.  Restoration of the gold standard to stop inflation, abolishment of the fed to get control of the issuance of our national currency, and closing the IRS and eradicating the economic slavery it enforces.

Then and only then, will the American dream be revitalized, and then the poor and disadvantaged will have more than the fish for a day handout government programs "provide".  They will have a fair chance to improve the quality of their own lives in a free system, not the rigged game we all play in now.

by Bob Tracey (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 46 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 4:51:20 PM

  (0+)

Nope not a chance, just like my chances of supporting a heartless and so very unAmerican political philosophy like Libertarianism. But thanks for remaining diatribe free in your response...oops , well you tried.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:15:39 AM

  (0+)

ardee D. has absolutely no idea of what he/she speaks. He/she makes grandiose statements without providing so much as a scintilla of supporting evidence.

Those of you old enough to remember the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 will recall that the government worshiping socialists (progressives) claimed that its passage would cause riots in the streets and mountains of starving babies. Such never occurred.

Ardee D., please do the world a favor and educate yourself. Until you do, please refrain from voting.

by Mark Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 11:35:53 AM

  (0+)

for this demonstration of your own unfitness to engage in adult debate. That you havent done the research on libertarianism, or on Paul's voting record is your own damn fault, or perhaps your genes are the real culprit.

Either way please perform an anatomically impossible task upon yourself and cease telling people what do or not to do. That you are impossibly stupid is obvious, that your rudenss and sophomoric crap speaks volumes abut you and belittles your own political position may not be known to you but I assure you it wont escape others.

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 1:25:52 PM

  (0+)

I think based on his OpEd, the author forgot the rest of his title: Ron Paul: Not a Good Choice -- but rather the ONLY real choice!

For the person who posted: Is Ron Paul a Wolf in Sheep's Clothing?  This is a biblical concept from Matthew chapter 7.  How do you know if someone is a wolf in sheep's clothing?  By their fruits. 

All politicians SAY the right thing, but does their voting record reveal them to be truthful?  Only Ron Paul's voting record and writings verify that he is indeed authentic.  Americans need to examine the fruits of their words.

For the person who posted the supposed negatives of Ron Paul -- these are actually the positives!  If more people were educated on our nation's founding and the unchanging principles that underlie our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, we would not be such a nation divided. I think liberals and neocon followers aren't stupid, they are just operating with limited information. The absense of the whole truth makes their conclusions seem totally logical to them.  That is why many cannot get their head around this Ron Paul Revolution. 

A true study of history and government reveals that all those things listed that Ron Paul is against is the reason that our nation is in a moral and economic decline.

"It does not take a majority to prevail, only a small irate minority keen on setting brushfires of liberty in the minds of men."  -- Samuel Adams

"Every generation needs a new revolution"  Thomas Jefferson

by Liberty in Law (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 3:44:08 PM

  (0+)

How many poorly written and unsubstantive opinion pieces am I going to have to suffer through.  These vacuous inane attempts at dissuading readers, who coincindentally are probably Paulites, are very tiresome and lacklustering.  The only reason people write about Ron Paul is for hits, because it is evident these intellectual lilliputians have not put a scintilla of effort at elucidating why a huge amount of DEBT caused by government spending and war is GOOD and ACCEPTABLE.  Ron Paul rocks.  

by Rich Lake (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 4:13:13 PM

  (0+)

We the people are too stupid to know what to do with our own money and our own lives. And we're too selfish to help people if they need it (we might decide only to help those who we think deserve it or something, like our own children or parents<gasp>). And some of us might become well off without getting permission first.

We need these superior beings of the elite ruling class to tell us what to do and to take control of all of our money, spend it on what they think we need, and maybe let us keep half of it.

Ron Paul must be a bad choice because he is stirring up the natives (us).

He is against outlawing smoking, too. What will they think of next, letting people go to the bathroom without raising their hand and asking first?

Give me a break, please!

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 4:24:36 PM

  (0+)

And that one issue is the Iraq war, everything else should wait, you cannot do everything at once anyway. Not to mention the next president will have to try to oversee the recession/depression of the american economy, the falling strength of the dollar and numerous other problems. I do not see ANY other candidate even talking about any of it. It's like they're in denial or something, or don't want to wake up the sheeple.

by ibrahim turner (26 articles, 32 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 184 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 4:58:30 PM

  (0+)

the only people saying ROn Paul is no good ,are people with an agenda .Hes the only candidate that is good

among the other douche bags and warmongers he stands out like a sore thumb.

HE doesn't beg to Israel for approval nor does he stoop to cheap tricks

Americans you are faced with dire consequences if he is not elected there is a depression coming your going to lose it all your pensions 401k,welfare state all will be gone unless you act now.

If on the other hand you choose to have a country that has lost it's constitution and has lost it's freedom along with all the safety nets and even control of their country to treaties like spp/Nwo/NAU then vote for one of the douche bags thats douche with a capital D

Ron paul's record stands before the AMerican people the other prefer you do not know their records because they are all war mongers and Douche bags.

America the ball is in your court

its the Constitution or Satan's pit your choice

Make no mistake America is on the brink of collpase though you would not know it by reading American Media outlets

except this one and a few others

by dave stanley (5 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 286 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 5:19:52 PM

  (0+)

I am vehemently anti-libertarian. At the end of the day, libertarianism supports unfettered capitalism - which these days means unfettered corporatism. Libertarianism is "every man for himself" which does not work well in a nation - or a community.

 On its surface, it is an attractive ideology (in the U.S.) because it appeals to the myth of the rugged individualist, and the myth of capitalism, and the myth of social class.

 The well worn myths are that capitalist class is premised upon everyone having an "equal" chance and that individuals rise or fall based upon their own efforts and abilities. Such is not the case, and never has been the case. Concentration of power via wealth is main function of capitalism. It is a doctrine of creating inequality - not equality. The ongoing mergers in media and finance are prime examples of removing the controls on corporations. As is the power that they hold in our government - also due to "deregulating: controls on their participation in policy and influence. No, I am not a "communist" or "socialist."

The Bush administration (which I imagine at least some of you have problems with) shares part of the "unfettered capitalism" ideal. Certainly they share it as far as deregulating and privatizing everything that they can. Neo-conservative economics and Libertarian economics share this. That is why both receive such large amounts of corporate support, and why Ron Paul is no threat to the corporations.

If you want to see unfettered capitalism (capitalism with no controls) then look to Iraq. This was the first initiative put in play. Namely to transfer all public/government controlled resources and industry into private (corporate) hands. That has remained one of the "sticking points" of the Iraqi government's lack of "progress" (from a U.S. perspective) as they have refused to ratify the transfer of the public oil resources to the highly skewed PSAs (profit sharing agreements).

Another glaring aspect of this is the use of mercenary forces in Iraq who are not accountable to either Iraqi law or U.S. law. Welcome "deregulated" corporations forming private armies. Private armies which tax payers must finance,<b>and</b> one of those few functions of government that libertarians support - defense. If war profiteering is an issue for anyone, then deregulated, uncontrolled corporatism should be an issue for you as well.

Libertarians (as mentioned by one of the commenters) do not support public funding of the social net - be that social security, public education, or national infrastructure. If we want to move to privatization, then prepare for every road and bridge to be for pay use only. No regulation of air or environmental quality.  No emergency response system (which has been gutted and increasingly privatized under Bush). No public fire or police departments - pay for your own protection ... which was a sad lesson learned in the great Chicago fire.

Throw out the public schools - and with them broad education of the populace. Hey who cares if we have a globally competitive workforce anyway? Every man for himself right? If you can't afford an education for yourself or your children well that's tough and not <b>my</b> problem. However, we do not "compete" globally as individuals - we compete as workforces.

While there is a prevalent philosophy that the enemy of my enemy is my friend (a philosophy I do not share), it is instructive to look at who is attracted to Ron Paul's positions (and who Ron Paul associated himself with). His most vehement supporters seem to be from the far right. His more recent support comes from all over and is largely based in a single issue (out of Iraq, pro-life, anti-immigration) though that issue varies from block to block.

I do not doubt Ron Paul's honesty or integrity. He has a firm track record on holding to his values. However, I find those values and principles more than problematic. I respect him for his integrity, but I cannot agree with his positions.

Further, if Paul did become President, he would do so in a United States that is far down the road of corporatism. A President does not rule alone (even Bush has had the largely willing compliance  and support of Congress), and Paul would step into a morass that in part follows his desired direction (corporatism, unfettered capitalism, deregulation, dismantling of much of the government), and in part does not (the neo-cons are decidedly imperialists and Ron Paul is not). Since the former is now heavily embedded and profiting from the latter, Paul might well be hamstrung by his own "free market" "small government" agenda.

I have not heard anyone ask Ron Paul how he would address this dilemma, nor have I heard him voluntarily speak about it.

I do not believe that we need more capitalism and deregulated markets:  sub-prime mortgage mess anyone, "voluntary" pollution controls anyone? I do not believe that we just need more of the same that is crumbling under our feet. 

by Rowan Wolf (105 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 146 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 6:18:34 PM

  (0+)

1) How unfettered capitalism played out in Iraq doesn't really approximate how it would play out here, because our laws and Constitution are different from what they were working with. Obviously, if a corporation here raised an army and started threatening people, they would go to jail for attempted manslaughter or whatever the case may be. We're not rallying for anarchy here.

2) I wish that those of you who rail against regulation would also grant the downside of it: limited access to goods and services that collusion between corporations and government have restricted; choked-back potential for progress when new and improved products and services are overregulated and can't compete, etc. Please grant that neither system is a panacea.

3) You wrote: "If you can't afford an education for yourself or your children well that's tough and not my problem." To have a good education really isn't as difficult or expensive as people think. Consider the famous autodidacts who  learned to  read and "cipher" with the most rudimentary materials: Lincoln, for instance, and Booker T. Washington, and countless others. The one-room schoolhouse was not well-funded according to today's standards and yet it commonly produced scholars who, in the eighth grade, would put our college grads to shame. 

I homeschool my children. I taught my oldest son to read with a book that cost me $15. That's all it cost me. He just turned 8 and reads at an 8th grade level. Because he loves to read, he teaches himself an awful lot. He is smart and set to excel.

Consider that education doesn't have to be expensive or public to be successful.

by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:48:16 AM

  (0+)

Equating capitalism with corporatism evades or attempts to conceal the fact that capitalism requires freedom (or it isn't capitalism), while corporatism is fascism, which is DEFINED as the mixing of government force with corporations.  The rest of your article, and indeed it appears that your entire position, are based on that fallacy.

And being based on a fallacy like that, your arguments that I don't deserve freedom and the right to keep my own property are singularly unconvincing.  At the end of the day, you have to bring a gun to take away what I've earned.  Do your theories help you feel better about that?  Or doesn't it matter to you what happens to the man who produces the loot you seek to redistribute? 

by John Danforth (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 98 comments) on Saturday, Jan 5, 2008 at 11:51:14 AM

  (0+)

For all of you who think that the government should take care of you please wake up! That is not what government is for. If you allow government to take care of you then you allow the government to tell you what to do. That is not part of our government. We the people means we tell the government what to do. They work for us. Yet now they are our brothers keeper and if we are not careful ours as well. Ron Paul made this very clear to me. I have always voted democrat and felt the government should do more to help the poor. I have spent much of my life helping other people and animals who needed help. I will always do this it is my nature as a Humanist to help others. But I feel the government should not play Robinhood with our money. They are not to be trusted with that and they have shown time and time again that they can not be trusted to do what is best for you. I want the government out of my life. So who other then Ron Paul can do this? No one else is even talking about doing it. I think you are scared of change. Yes you say you want change but really most of you just want comfort. What a bunch of weak do nothing people. So stand there and shake with fear that someone might actually change this country for the better. It will happen with or without you. It will be a great day when we can all say look what we have accomplished. Be a part of it or get out of the way. America can not handle another four years of your kind of government be it the Democrats or the Neo-Republicans. They are all traitors to the Constitution except Ron Paul. Beware of the Wolf outside your door but realize this there is a much bigger one inside your house.

by Louis Tash (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 7:00:56 PM

  (0+)

...and she is repeating all the same liberal myths about free market capitalism that work on people who are not well read about history, government and economics.

Every economic system is a capitalist system.  The difference is who owns and controls the capital. With free enterprise capitalism individuals own and control the means of production.  With monopolistic state controlled capitalism the state owns and controls the means of production to varying degrees (communism, socialism, nazism and fascism).  We've changed the terminology, but the principles remain and the US is becoming more and more fascist.  This has caused the problems -- not genuine free enterprise capitalism.  

The corpratism that Ms. Wolf speaks of was once referred to as "FASCISM"  when big government and big corporations merge.  Modern politics have seen the false dichotomy of pitting these entities against each other when in actuality they work together via corporate welfare.  Democrats bemoan big business and Republicans bemoan big government.  How is big government any different than big business?  No liberal has ever been able to answer that one.  It's still sinful man in positions of power.  And power corrupts.

This author's rhetoric is tired and illogical to those who are educated.  But sadly it works on those who rely on soundbites and not on history.  This is what I mean about liberals and neocons sincerely believing what they espouse because they are misled and missing vast amounts of critical information.

The author is right that the President cannot change everything -- but she is missing the point.  The Ron Paul Revolution is the manifestation of citizens embracing the principles of liberty that made the United States of America the most prosperous nation in HISTORY OF THE WORLD.  This was BEFORE the welfare and warfare state.  This revolution will outlast his candidacy -- win or lose. 

To return to our former glory will not be easy and will not be accomplished by one person.  But a movement has been sparked -- the fires of liberty have been lit and Ron Paul is the leader who is inspiring a revolution.  More leaders will come out of the woodwork to take back Congress for the people -- and Congress is where the real change will happen.

But while Ron Paul is in the oval office, he certainly will be educating the masses.  He will be challenging the Congress as he continues to reject legislation that is not specifically authorized by the Constitution.  And he will be inspiring a new generation of liberty minded citizens.   

Take heart fellow Constitutionalists and Libertarians.  The tide is turning and people are getting educated and seeing past the garbage which once made sense because their knowledge was limited.  But with the armor of truth and knowledge these liberal claims are revealed to be the wolves in sheeps clothing.

by Liberty in Law (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Wednesday, Jan 2, 2008 at 10:35:24 PM

  (0+)

fanatics, & their pronounced tendency to deal in ad hominem attacks. Let's take a moment to examine how "educated" you sound.

You start off with a flurry of ad homs against the article's author, though she sounds brighter & more astute than you do. You also take some slams at "liberal myths." You, meanwhile, are presumably a libertarian or constitutionalist -- which (for some reason that's entirely unclear) we're supposed to just assume is superior to all other political viewpoints.

You assert that "Every economic system is a capitalist system." What an impressively educated statement that is!

You repeatedly make statements like "This author's rhetoric is tired and illogical to those who are educated.  But sadly it works on those who rely on soundbites and not on history.  This is what I mean about liberals..."

- Note that there is no substance at all in what you said there. There's only your own insults & ignorant bombast. You're just saying that everyone who doesn't support Ron Paul is "uneducated", shallow, & lives in a world of soundbites. Meanwhile the great You (we're all supposed to assume) is deeply knowledgeable about "history."

Let's see how good you are at history. You claim that "The Ron Paul Revolution is the manifestation of citizens embracing the principles of liberty that made the United States of America the most prosperous nation in HISTORY OF THE WORLD.  This was BEFORE the welfare and warfare state."

OK. Let's try to figure out just when that was. The US became a warfare state in the late 1940's. Its economy has been on a permanent war footing since that time; the military-industrial complex is generally understood to date from the Truman administration. So you're saying that the time when the US was so wonderfully prosperous was before that.

The welfare state had its origins in the New Deal. Social Security and measures like unemployment insurance date from the mid 1930's. Other measures were added gradually, culminating with Medicare in 1965. So again, you're placing the US period of glorious prosperity before that.

Actually, though, the big boom in US prosperity really got under way AFTER WWII -- more or less coincident with the "warfare state." So, you've placed the prosperity boom incorrectly in time. Kind of a stupid mistake for someone so pompously claiming to be "educated" & to know "history."

Moreover, you claim that the US prosperity boom was due to embracing the "principles of liberty." This is laughable baloney. The US prosperity boom was due first & foremost to the US victory in WWII. This was capitalized on by aggressive US policies in the post-war era, which set the stage for the global dominance of US transnationals. Military spending (ie, building the MIC) and bullying 3rd world countries to force them to adopt economic policies in line with Washington's needs played major roles in this process.

In other words, the prosperity had exactly nothing to do with "principles of liberty." It was mainly militarism and imperialism that did the trick, combined with doing these things at a time when all economic rivals were still flat on their backs from the trauma of WWII.

In sum, you are wrong about the history, wrong about why & when the US was so magnificently prosperous, and you arrogantly insultingly attacked an author who has more brains than you do.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 12:39:48 AM

  (0+)

Unlike my own contemptuous views of these (mostly) right wing nut jobs, you have striven to be fair and polite. I say that the very best advertisement for rejecting the views and policies of Ron Paul are these wacko neocons who support him.

Each and every posting from these types, and sadly this website seems to have become an all Paul all the time variety, gives impetus to every other candidate in the race.

Disclaimer:

There are some Paul supporters who do not fit that description above, they are in the small minority and I apologize for lumping them together with the repulsive....

by ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:20:26 AM

  (0+)

I've never read a post by Rich that doesn't call Ron Paul's supporters names: belligerant, arrogant, blind, fanatical, and so on. He always has his list of insults handy. It seems he can't debate without them.

by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 8:01:36 AM

  (0+)

I have also stated in these last few days that Paul is the best Republican candidate, the only one who even deserves serious consideration; that he's better than most of the Democrats; & that it's an outrage that he's being banned from the debates.

However, it is impossible not to notice the extraordinary amount of cultist blowhard-ism exhibited by many (though not all) RP supporters. This is what has aroused my ire. If you don't enjoy being called out for arrogant blowhard-ism, quit practicing it.

For instance, you don't just come to this website & pompously assert, in your 2nd post here, that "Author of this Article is not well educated" -- which was the obnoxious approach of the poster I called out in this thread. It's offensive to assert that anyone who's not an RP supporter, & not a libertarian, is either stupid or "uneducated." 

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 12:02:10 PM

  (0+)

Sometimes Ron Paul's critics ARE relatively uneducated, especially about Ron Paul and his policies. I disagree that we should assume everyone who writes a post is educated, whether they support Ron Paul or not.

I disagree that pointing out a lack of education always constitutes arrogance. Sometimes it's just a declaration of fact.

Considering how many people enjoy throwing verbal darts at Ron Paul for the fun of it, saying whatever comes to mind- i.e. he's a racist, a crackpot, an isolationist, nothing more than a magnet for hippies, an irresponsible scientist- it's no wonder Ron Paul's supporters are often having to point out a lack of education. That lack of education exists. It's real. When my dear brother-in-law says, "Ron Paul wants to limit trade to the USA alone! We'll only be allowed to buy stuff that's made in the USA!" (like he said to us last night), he is proving that a lack of education really exists.

Occasionally I've seen an intelligent, well-researched detraction from Ron Paul's policies boorishly dismissed by Paul's supporters. The boorish dismissal rightfully was called "boorish" and a firestorm started over Ron Paul, who really had nothing to do with the exchange. It's a shame people have such a hard time using their discernment with each and every post they read. It's sad when sincere, educated attempts to communicate across the political divide are quickly batted away with partisan slurs or brute insults.

I don't like reading things about the Paulbots, Paultards, rabid Paul supporters and so on. Prejudiced terms like that really do get in the way of rational debate. They are incendiary and serve no purpose.

But at least you and I are friends now.

Cheers.

by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 2:34:40 PM

  (0+)

I wasn't commenting specifically on the exchange between Rowan Wolf and Liberty in Law. Ms. Wolf seems quite well educated to me, although I agree with the folks who pointed out that she failed to build an explicit, cohesive, well-defined argument. Also I raised some doubts about specific points with her.

I was just replying in general terms your insinuation that Paul's supporters tend to call anyone who disagrees with them "uneducated," and that anyone who uses that term is automatically arrogant.

And I was ignoring the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit as I took too long to make my point.

by Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 142 comments [20 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 4:21:23 PM

  (0+)

IS THE NATURE OF HIS SUPPORTERS.  THERE IS SIMPLY NOTHING MUCH TO ADMIRE OR RESPECT ABOUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF HIS SUPPORTERS BECAUSE THEY CONSISTENTLY AND ANNOYINGLY EXHIBIT THEIR LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE MANY MILLIONS OF AMERICANS THAT, LIKE THEM, WANT REAL, SYSTEMIC CHANGE TO ELIMINATE THE CURRENT CORRUPT, TWO-PARTY SYSTEM.  BUT UNLIKE THEM, WE TRUE DISSIDENTS REJECT THE POLICY POSITIONS OF RON PAUL.  AND I HAVE NOT HEARD PAUL VOICE THE KIND OF CRITICISM OF THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, LOU DOBBS PROUDLY AND ROUTINELY GIVES.

by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:38:48 AM

  (0+)

The economic boom in American history was from the founding of our republic to the war between the states when America embraced free enterprise capitalism. 

Your assertion completely ignores how we became a debt culture following WWII.  Of course America "appears" prosperous when you discount the debt.  In response to a commentater's assertion that the economy is healthy, Ron Paul said his bottom line would look a lot better too if he borrowed a million dollars a month.  But eventually the bill comes due.

Americans must stop accepting and repeating the propaganda of the mainstream media and start to study history and economics for themsleves.  How much debt did the United States have prior to the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act?  Prior to the income tax?  Prior to the welfare and warfare state?  The difference is truly astounding!

It's not surprising that this concept is lost on most Americans because we have seen a widespread depature for the principles of liberty and have embraced modern propaganda intead.  Like I said, liberal ideology makes sense in the absence of critical knowledge and understanding of history, the nature of government and economics.

I should know--I used to be a socialist who bought into everything I was being fed because I grew up on welfare.  But eventually I began independently researching all the garbage that I was embracing.  By elevating the intelect over emotion, wisdom begins to take shape and the truth is quickly revealed.

I notice that you didn't answer my question about the difference between big government and big business.  Nothing in my post was attacking the author -- merely pointing out how her logic fails and this has to be because of ignorance of history and ecomics and merely repeating the same recycled assertions. 

But obviously she is not alone -- most people simply repeat what they've heard.  If you cannot see that all economic systems are capitalist systems, then you must study economics.  Capital is the means of production.  All economic systems use capital the difference is who owns and controls the means of production and to what degree.  The terms have changed, but the ideology is the same. 

Thanks for the debate.  This is what will bring America together. 

by Liberty in Law (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 7:47:11 AM

  (0+)

Now I see. That makes it all clear.

Before the Civil War, half the US had an institution called "chattel slavery." This played no small role in the prosperity of the era. Killing the Indians & stealing their land also contributed mightily to the period's prosperity. There were also factors like the Napoleonic wars in Europe, which devastated agricultural capacity there, & led to an expansion of the American ag sector. // So, there was a bit more to it than just Ron Paul's "principles of liberty."

In your earlier post, you specifically defined the period of glorious prosperity as a time when the US was "...the most prosperous nation in HISTORY OF THE WORLD." I'd like to see your argument that the US was much more "prosperous" before the Civil War than, say, France and England were. Few would dispute that England was the great economic power of the time.

You describe the US economy from 1776 until 1861 as "free enterprise capitalism." To someone like you, who has already fatuously stated that "Every economic system is a capitalist system," everything looks like "capitalism." Actually, though, capitalism was still struggling to be born at that time, & the US economy was largely agrarian. // To the extent that capitalism existed in the US, there had already been Jackson's struggle with the Second Bank of the United States, a corrupt monopolistic institution that presaged the later era of full-fledged corporatism. Thus, even in the period you name, capitalism was not a pure "free enterprise" system. The Second Bank's influence was immense, from around 1816 until the mid 1830's.

You also write, "Nothing in my post was attacking the author." Anyone reading this exchange will have a good chuckle at that. I specifically cited several of your empty pompous attacks on her, & by no means listed them all.

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 11:08:00 AM

  (0+)

Bob please explain your logic here:

The plight of the poor and disadvantaged that is so important to the true progressive can be solved in a few simple moves.  Restoration of the gold standard to stop inflation, abolishment of the fed to get control of the issuance of our national currency, and closing the IRS and eradicating the economic slavery it enforces.

Then and only then, will the American dream be revitalized, and then the poor and disadvantaged will have more than the fish for a day handout government programs "provide".  They will have a fair chance to improve the quality of their own lives in a free system, not the rigged game we all play in now.

Are you saying that if you reduce/remove the taxation on people who are too poor to pay taxes anyway that that is sudenly going to give these people a better life?

Have you really thought through that statement or is it an idea that you like so best not to look at it too closely or it's logic might all fall apart. 

by RLAnchors (7 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 39 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 8:03:24 AM

  (0+)

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_caleb_fr_071225_ron_paul_3a_a_means_to.htm

by James W. Harris (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2 comments) on Thursday, Jan 3, 2008 at 12:17:43 PM

  (0+)