The Washington Post today had Ron Paul in the spotlight. After raising 5.1 million dollars, 70% from online donations, Ron Paul is making big-time waves in the GOP. This is particularly noteworthy as the Mainstream Media gave the Representative from Texas hardly any media “play”. This has truly been a grassroots success story that still has a long way to go before we find out what the ending will be.
Ron Paul seems to have struck a nerve in the vast blogosphere where he has gotten two thirds of his contributions from. His strict constitutionalist stand, after the savagery that the Bush Administration subjected the Constitution to, seems to have endeared him to Independents, Republicans and even Democrats that yearn for someone that can restore the basis of our representative republic. The civil liberties and the rights that the American people have allowed this administration to remove, law by law, are seen by many Americans as an attack on the Constitution that Bush has called a “quaint piece of paper”. Apparently most Americans want that piece of paper restored to its proper place… as the law of the land.
What makes Ron Paul’s campaign so important to America besides the platform that he is running on is that this campaign clearly shows the world the power of the internet. Paul, formerly dubbed a “tier three candidate” by the media, has risen to the status of a contender without the media glitz that surrounds the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guiliani, Fred Thompson and others. The spotlight has been, for the GOP anyway, on Guiliani and Thompson, while the Paul camp has steadily received contributions and support from the internet. This clearly shows that the Mainstream Media, while still an important force in American politics, is not the only venue that candidates can use effectively. This development should be used as a wake-up call to the MSM to do their jobs and not only cover their “favorites” lest they end up with egg on their face…again.
While Ron Paul’s stance on the war and the Constitution are certainly appealing after two terms with “The Unitary Executive”, many liberals won’t be pleased to learn that some of his views don’t really meld with many liberal/progressive views. He is pro-life, and being a strict constitutionalist, he is against many social programs such as universal health care and many educational programs run by the federal government. Paul believes in a smaller, less powerful federal government and is a proponent of states rights. In a perfect society this would work, but in a very broad sense, many individual states have at times neglected to provide for the social programs that many segments of their populations need. One of the best examples of this was the social programs of the 60’s when the federal government had to intervene to force the end of segregation.
This is not to say that Ron Paul’s views on the role of the federal government and relegating power back to the states on such things as education and health care wouldn’t or couldn’t work. The only way that they would work is if citizens of took an active role in making sure the individual states did fill the gap that would be left if federal programs were discontinued. The desire to trim the federal budget and limit the power that it now wields in desirable, as long as people understand that the state taxes will rise in proportion to the cuts the federal government makes. Of course the President can’t cut federal programs alone; it must be done with the consent of Congress. Still, a Paul victory would probably bring in a Republican majority in Congress. I bring this up only to illustrate what a Paul presidency might look like. I don’t in any way suggest that this in itself should influence anyone from supporting Rep. Paul in his bid for the Presidency; as far as I’m concerned he may be exactly what the country needs.
Unless Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel can garner the same kind of support that Paul has managed to gather, it looks as if the race could end up in Paul facing Clinton in ’08. If this were to be the case, unless something happens between now and then, Paul could very well get my vote.
http://liberalpro.blogspot.com
Tim was banned from the site for posting private email from the publisher to him on his blog, and then attacking the publisher and the site in emails and articles. OEN has no responsibility to publish articles from people who attack the site.
Tim's accusations that he was banned for his political positions are untrue. Check his articles. He repetitively wrote about and had published exactly the things he claimed he was banned for doing.
Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.
Democrats for Ron Paul, Eagle Pass Texas salute You sargeant Gatto,and dont forget to register as a republican to vote in the primary. Who do we want? RON PAUL! I CANT HEAR YOUUUU!
by
john riggs (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 441 comments)
on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 2:53:55 PM
Hey, I checked this guy out and I did not like what I found at all! He is against abortion and is a Christian Fundamentalist. He is also anti Gay. I am a Trans person, and this guy is bad news! A Republican by any other name is still a RepubliKKKan! x Jayne County (Legendary Trans Rock performer, original Stonewall girl and political activist!) PLEASE someone proove me wrong, cause I really wanted to like this guy untill I checked out his stand on certain issues. SMASH THE STATE!
by
Jayne County (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 5:48:28 PM
Ron Paul Hates You by phenry Let's have a look at some of the many, many issues on which Ron Paul places himself squarely in opposition to me and, presumably, you:
Abortion: Ron Paul's "libertarianism" famously does not extend to the right of a woman to control her body. In February he introduced H.R. 1094, "[t]o provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." He voted against overriding Bush's veto of the stem cell bill.
The Environment: Ron Paul may be a Republican, but he's certainly not a Republican for Environmental Protection. That fine organization gave Paul a shameful 17 percent rating on its most recent Congressional Scorecard (warning: PDF). He doesn't fare much better in the eyes of the American Wilderness Coalition or the League of Conservation Voters. Paul's abysmal record on the environment is driven in large measure by his love of sweet, sweet oil: in the 109th Congress alone, he voted to voted allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Par for the course for a man who called the Kyoto accords "bad science, bad economics and bad domestic policy" and "anti-Americanism masquerading as environmentalism."
Immigration: Paul marches in lock-step with the xenophobic right wing on immigration, calling last month's compromise immigration bill "a compromise of our laws, a compromise of our sovereignty, and a compromise of the Second Amendment." Yet even the hardcore nativists in the immigration debate have been hesitant to support repealing birthright citizenship as enshrined in the Fourteenth Amendment, as Paul has done. His proposed Constitutional amendment, introduced as H. J. Res 46 on April 28, 2005, reads: "Any person born after the date of the ratification of this article to a mother and father, neither of whom is a citizen of the United States nor a person who owes permanent allegiance to the United States, shall not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States." Only four other Representatives, all Republicans, were willing to cosponsor this proposed amendment.
Civil Rights: Paul doesn't much care for ensuring your right to vote. Like when he voted with just 32 other members of Congress against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Or when he voted for the bogus "Federal Election Integrity Act" voter suppression bill.
But at least Ron Paul knows who's responsible for racism in America: you are. "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality," he writes, "the advocates of so-called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups." So now you know. (Apparently, saying that "[i]f you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" is not racist, as long as it's said with a proper appreciation for free-market economics.)
Gay Rights: Paul's rigid, uncompromising libertarianism leads him to take a number of positions that liberals find objectionable or even reprehensible but which should not in themselves be taken as ipso facto evidence of bigotry. His reflexive opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, is consistent with libertarian positions on federalism and the right of the individual to be free from government "coercion," even if that means limiting the ability of minorities to seek employment and housing free from discrimination.
Still, libertarian orthodoxy can't fully explain Paul's hostility to gay rights, and indeed to gay people in general. The Libertarian Party, which nominated Paul as its presidential candidate in 1988, has strongly opposed the so-called Defense of Marriage Act from the beginning; Paul supports it. While he opposed the "Federal Marriage Amendment" that would have outlawed gay marriage everywhere, he actually cosponsored the odious "Marriage Protection Act," which would nonsensically bar federal courts from considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which is a federal law. "The definition of marriage--a union between a man and a woman--can be found in any dictionary," he writes condescendingly. Despite Paul's disingenuous claims that he is a "strict constitutionalist," most legal scholars agree that the so-called Marriage Protection Act would be unconstitutional.
You also will not find Paul listed among the 124 co-sponsors of the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2007, which would repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy barring gays and lesbians from serving in the military. Maybe he's worried that they'll take their "gay agenda" to far-flung corners of the world. He also doesn't want gay people adopting children while they're not serving in the military, either.
On a personal level, we have this 1993 quote wherein Paul equates homosexuality with "sexual deviance." And let's not forget his wink-wink characterization of Hillary Clinton as "a far leftist with very close female friends".
Church-State Separation: From keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to co-sponsoring the school prayer amendment to keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, this "strict constitutionalist" isn't a big fan of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. "Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths," he writes. "...The collectivist left" --that's you!-- "is threatened by strong religious institutions, because it wants an ever-growing federal government to serve as the unchallenged authority in our society.... So the real motivation behind the insistence on a separation of church and state is not based on respect for the First amendment, but rather on a desire to diminish the influence of religious conservatives at the ballot box."
And just in case the dirty liberals in the federal court system might take it into their heads to enforce the Establishment Clause, Mr. Strict Constitutionalist introduced a bill to bar the federal courts from hearing any such cases. No wonder James Dobson's Family Research Council gave Paul a 75 percent rating on their 2005 scorecard.
International Relations: Like crackpot paleoconservatives everywhere, Paul wants us out of the United Nations, which is just a bunch of un-American non-Americans out to destroy America. Darfur is also filled with non-Americans, so you certainly won't find Ron Paul lifting a finger to stop the genocide, or even acknowledge that genocide is taking place. I guess that's why he's one of only four members of Congress to receive an "F" rating on Darfur from the Genocide Intervention Network.
Peace and Military Issues: With all the hooting and hollering about Paul's opposition to the Iraq war, it sure seems like he should have been able to get better than 58 percent from PeacePAC, doesn't it? Even Joe Lieberman managed to get 63 percent. (Still, it beats the 45 percent Paul got from them in the previous Congress.) He did a little better from Peace Action, managing 67 percent--easily the top score for a Republican, but a below-average score for Democrats. (Still, it beats the 40 percent he got from them in 2004.)
And while Paul may oppose the Iraq war, he doesn't seem to have much use for the men and women who have to fight it. Paul received an "F" rating from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It's not easy to get an F from the IAVA; Paul shares this distinction with only six other members of the House.
Taxes: Do we even need to go into this one? If you audaciously believe that we need a progressive system of taxation in this country, here's what Ron Paul thinks of you:
"[W]e have exactly the kind of steeply progressive tax system championed by Karl Marx. One might expect the left to be happy with such an arrangement. At its core, however, the collectivist left in this country simply doesn’t believe in tax cuts. Deep down, they believe all wealth belongs to the state, which should redistribute it via tax and welfare policies to achieve some mythical 'social justice.'... The class war tactic highlights what the left does best: divide Americans into groups. Collectivists see all issues of wealth and taxation as a zero-sum game played between competing groups. If one group gets a tax break, other groups must be rallied against it- even if such a cut would ultimately benefit them.... Upward mobility is possible only in a free-market capitalist system, whereas collectivism dooms the poor to remain exactly where they are." "Collectivist politicians forget that the American dream of becoming wealthy is alive and well. They seek to encourage resentment of the wealthy, when in truth most Americans admire successful people. They forget that upward mobility, the chance to start from humble beginnings and achieve wealth and position, is virtually impossible in high-tax socialist societies. Most of all, however, the pro-tax politicians forget that your money belongs to you. As a society, we should not forget their dishonesty when we go to the polls." Screw this; this diary's way too long already. Worker rights: Voted to defund OSHA's ergonomics rules. Voted against increasing mine safety standards. Hates unions. Campaign finance reform: Opposes. Social Security and Medicare: Repeats the Republicans' lies about the programs' solvency. Consumer protection: Voted for the bankruptcy bill. Voted to make it harder to file class-action lawsuits. Universal health care: don't make me laugh. Privatizing everything: the Internets are not large enough to hold all the citations.
"But he's against the war!" Yes, he is. So is Pat Buchanan. So is David Duke. If either of them were on the stage in New Hampshire today, full of sweet words about the war, would you be as quick to praise their "independence," to gush about how well of course I wouldn't vote for him myself but he sure is awesome anyway? Do you truly require nothing from a political candidate other than that he oppose the war?
Think about it.
by
Jayne County (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 6:20:11 PM
This phenry article you reposted is filled with the kind of anti-Ron Paul language coming from warblogs. Notice it includes the bit about veterans giving him a F while neglecting to mention that more than half of military donations for presidential candidates have gone to Ron Paul (why would anyone want to die for the aggressive ideology of the elites?) I also like the bit about PeacePac, another brilliant lobbist group. Giving the war-loving Joe Lieberman a higher score? Good, they can have him. Reveals the mindset of the Democratic Establishment. I also like the mention of David Duke. The warblogs did that not long ago with Cindy Sheehan.
Think about it!
by
Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 12:15:58 AM
There You Have It! Ron Paul Is Just Another Bigot!
The truth hurts. This man is a great deceiver! He is NOT left leaning, He is NOT a liberal. He is just another right wing religious NUT JOB. A wolf in sheep*s clothing! How eaisly we all are FOOLED! Just because someone is against the WAR dosn*t make him some hero! Hitler was a vegetarian and he loved animals!!! Get real! Get informed! And most of all, get over this silly, delusional fantasy about Ron The Con!!! x Jayne County (Stonewall Activist, Transexual Revolutionary and Punk Icon.) PS. Oh and don*t hate me! I am only the messenger!!!
by
Jayne County (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments)
on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 6:40:28 PM
the part of a messenger. These are your views.If you are proud of the views you hold never portray yourself as a "messenger". Thanks for the information. I have asked Dr.Paul onto my radio show. I will question him on these things you brought forth. I would like to hear what he says if he accepts my invitation.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 574 comments)
on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 8:20:52 PM
Abortion: So, you can kill a pregnant women and be charged for double homicide. You can do harm to an unborn child, and you are at fault. An unborn child can have inheritance rights. 1 minute before birth it is called an abortion, and 1 minute after it is called murder. Under the law, an unborn as legal rights - and yet, it is not protected.
He has delivered over 4,000 babies, and has seen an abortion. So what does he want to do? He wants to leave the issue to the states. He doesn't believe the federal government should be involved, he doesn't believe abortion should be funded if people believe it is murder. Is this so bad? We are living in a much dangerous society than this issue of abortion. Bush is also pro-life, look how far he has gone with that agenda.
And where in the hell does it say we should fund stem cell research in the constitution? I would like to know. He votes against all unauthorized funding. And he believes that the free market can do better, with government money comes string attached.
The Environment: So let us depend on the oil which we do not own. Let us get into wars which we should not wage. So he voted for this, what is the problem? And he's the only one talking about NOT subsidizing oil companies (has LOT to do with the environment), the ONLY one talking about private property rights (where people can own their land, and sue those who violate property rights - environmental defects and all.)
Immigration: Xenophobic? Nice with the name calling. Guess what happens when you subsidize illegal immigration, you get more of it. Why should illegal parents come over to America to have a baby so that baby can become an American? This does nothing but damage to the country economically, because then we have to subsidize the parents in this welfare state, and we can't afford it. When you subsidize something, you get more of it.
Civil Rights: Now you throw in sourceless claims. Good job on this one! “[i]f you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be”. I have yet to see this type of language from him, since he has been in Congress since 1976. But no, let us add it in! People say he said it, it must be true! No, let us not do our own research and realize this is something he never wrote!
Gay Rights: That is a basic libertarian claim. He does not believe people, owners of property and of businesses, should be forced to do anything with their business or property. And he wants to leave marriage up to the states? My my, what a crazy idea. Actually, I think he doesn't want government involved in marriage at all, the government only got involved recently for health reasons.
And he has already said that people SHOULDN'T be fired from the military if they are gay or lesbian. But no, let these great “facts” begin!
And again with the sourceless “quotes”. I've heard Paul think homosexuality isn't a sin, and that it could be from birth that people are gay. He had to defend himself to a homophobic radio host. Just like he defended the homosexuals that they should be able to serve in the military. BUT NO, lets not listen to that!
Church-State Separation: So, we should never say anything about god? I do believe that people are going overboard when they want to get rid of “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance or “Christmas, it's for Christians! We can't say that!” There is a DIFFERENCE between separation of Church-State and separation of religion-state. Schools should be allowed to have a moment of silence, voluntarily. Religion SHOULDN'T be forced, but it shouldn't be barred from public institutions. The Founders were religious, mixed religion and institutions. Noooo, let's not bring that up though!
International Relations: Yes, because the UN has helped us before. Like when we went to a Korean War under UN resolution. Or the Iraq war under UN resolution. Or when we pass bills through Congress because of the UN. Yaaa, they are great people, I'll tell you what! No...the UN is pretty corrupt. There is a difference between speaking with all nations, and having unelected bureaucrats make decisions for the US. And he encourages everyone to help what they want to help, but why should we spend billions when it always tends to backfire on us?
Peace and Military Issues: And yet again, you are ignorant beyond belief. Let's not look at the records, his speeches, his reasoning! LETS LOOK AT THE REPORT CARDS! YAY! Because, you know, voting to not fund the war means you get an F for Veterans? Voting to stay out of all wars, worse the Mr. Iraq Iran Lieberman!
Taxes: So, get rid of the Income Tax = bad idea? Let's not keep the fruits of our labor? Okay. I happen to think... that the Income tax is horrible.
Worker Rights: Government intervention in all of these things. Hates Unions? They should be able to collect together for worker rights, but they should not have any legislation changed for them in Congress. That's hating unions? Because he doesn't believe in special rights for special groups under the government? Wow.
Campaign Finance Reform: The government tells me what I can and cannot do with my own money? And yet we can only have a 2 party system (he wants to change that)?
Social Security and Medicare: It is a LIE that they are both doomed? You're kidding me, right? So, he wants to save money from overseas to help those who depend on it, and let young people opt out. But no, EVERYONE should HAVE to pay into these programs! AWESOME IDEA! Wait... I don't want to pay into Social Security. Guess what? TOO BAD FOR ME! I MUST!
Consumer Protection:It should be harder to file class-action lawsuits. America is sue-happy.
Universal Health Care: Ya, you are crazy if you think that's a good idea. Look at any VA Hospital. Look at Canada, the UK. People die waiting, literally. Healthcare sucked once government got involved, look at healthcare before 1970. Look how they say “NO! You can't have medical marijuana!” or “NO! You can't have that pill, take this!” Those pushing for Universal Health Care are the lobbyist.
Good lord oh mighty. You have so much sourceless facts. You omit facts. You don't get his point of view. In fact, you are a real knitpicker. You just pick the things that support your claims. God, you're ignorant.
by
Brent Burk (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, October 15, 2007 at 10:37:38 PM
I think people have forgotten that government-managed care (ie the collusion between government and subsidized insurance companies) is the cause of the health care crisis. Expanding that will prove to be disastrous.
by
Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 12:19:38 AM
I urge anyone considering supporting a Ron Paul candidacy to read and consider the above rant prior to deciding. While I understand that this bigot does not , by any measure, represent the mentally healthy majority of American voters he is, in fact, describing the path a Paul Presidency will take.
While Paul is a decent man no person who wishes to be true to the intentions of our founders can support the abysmal libertarian views that will cause even more hardship to the poor and disenfranchised, will further decimate our public education, and will continue to unleash rampant capitalistic greed upon our nation and the world.
As to this blatantly racist and misanthropic individual;, well, his own words judge him far better than can I.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 8:38:57 AM
Jayne, I think I have one of those Wayne County records somewhere in my vast music collection. I used to play your stuff on my radio show. Good to know you are still around. I have to disagree with you on Ron Paul though. If it comes down to Hillary vs Paul, I would vote for Ron Paul in a second. I simply cannot vote for someone who has repeatedly supported war, and is now pushing for the next one with Syria or Iran. Replacing the Bush Dynasty with the Clinton Dynasty isn't my idea of change. Let's not forget that it was Bill Clinton who was responsible for the "Iraq Liberation Act" that led to the current atrocity.
Of course Ron Paul is not a liberal. He comes from the limited government/anti-war tradition of the Old Right (contrary to popular belief, the origin of anti-imperialist movement in the US can be traced back to the Old Right). Yes, it is possible to be a conservative and anti-war. Ron Paul is not just anti-war; he is anti-military industrial complex and anti-mercantilism. He is for free-enterprise, but against corporatism (his latest target is the collusion between the federal government and big Pharma). His campaign only accepts donations from individuals.
I think it is quite unfair to call him a right-wing "religious nutjob". Unlike the Christian Right, which wants to use the government to control our "moral" behaviors, Ron Paul wants to get the government out of our personal lives and "our bedrooms". When asked about his religious belief, he said that he had felt very uncomfortable talking about it in public. Yes, he is a Christian, but he has used his belief to denounce the "unjust war". Let's not forget that his personal hero is Gandhi. There are dangerous religious fanatics (and dangerous atheist pro-war fanatics like Christopher Hitchens). Ron Paul is only fanatical about preserving the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Ron Paul is also pretty consistent with his 'pro-life' view. He is anti-war, against the death penalty and, like the equally admirable Dennis Kucinich. personally against abortion. On the abortion issue, he wants it taken out of the jurisdiction of the federal government, and given to the state and local governments according to the 10th Amendment. Agree with it or not, it may just be the most democratic way to solve a problem Americans are not about to agree on any time soon(if ever).
There are some nasty smear campaigns going on from both the neocons and the Democratic Establishment. Both are warmongers threatened by Ron Paul's uncompromising view. To me, the American political landscape is no longer about Left vs Right or the even more inane Liberal vs Conservative. It's about autonomy vs government-as-parents. It's about Constitutionally-limited government vs Warfare State. Ron Paul supporters come from the political spectrum. Their common goal: stop the war and the rapid slide towards authoritarianism (as displayed by both Giuliani and Hillary). Smash the state indeed.
by
Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 12:00:38 AM
I thought I might read some information that I did not know already about Dr. Paul but you just repeated it with a socialist twist. I think 98% of Dr. Pauls supporters know everything about him already (the good and bad) and it seems like its always the socialist or hard right wingers that find some things we already didnt know. Most Paulites are well informed( how do you think we found him?)being lied to by most politicians we are probably the most skeptical as well.
I do know Dr. Paul is so honorable with the constitution that he doesnt vote for anything that is not specifically outlined as powers delegated to the U.S. Government. This may make him look bad to those that base decisions on emotion rather than logic. He is there to protect all our rights and liberties which means he will not vote to make law to benefit some group over others. He is a strong believer in INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY to where he may not agree with what you believe or do but he will do everything to make sure that your INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY is not compromised by the U.S. Government by those that do not have the same beliefs that you do.
A Government large enough to give us everything we want is large enough to take it all away.
Dr. Paul of all the candidates when president will do everything I imagine to get us out of Iraq and keep us from going into Iran. He is not power hungry and obviously will do what the people elect him to do which is to simply uphold and protect the U.S. constitiution.
He is the only candidate that cares about individual liberty and following the consitution, which is very appealing to me and tens of thousands of others. Every day new people hear the message and remember we have a document called the constitution, we are all indivduals that make up a nation and we want to have liberty and be FREE. People are finally waking up and they want the U.S. government to return the POWER back to the PEOPLE by following the rules written in the constitution. Dr. Paul is the voice for all of us(individuals) that want it back.
by
Seapilot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 12:06:52 AM
Paul will not come close to winning the Presidency, obviously. But supporting the candidate of your choice is your right and I applaud your convictions.
In an America governed by Paul and the Libertarians Social Security would be privatised, welfare abolished, public education turned over to for profit companies, and anyone notice how successful that has been under Georgie? (NOT).
We will see a continuance of unbridled capitalism and naked greed and this nation will resemble a third world landscape in short order. The money will migrate to the wealthiest as it is doing under every President since Reagan and there will be no Middle Class, a real strength of democracy.
This is far to high a price to pay for a president who speaks about ending a war that will soon enough fall of its own weight and complexities.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 1:48:11 PM
Actually, the neocon endless war will not end soon. It will take off with a Giuliani or Hillary Administration. Just take a look at their advisors. Ron Paul will stop endless war.
As for the other worries you have, I suggest you read Ron Paul's own writing. I know, I know, it's so hard to change the way we've done things for the last forty years, but big-government-as-usual has given us more than 9 trillion in debt. A Ron Paul Administration will give us "unbridled" free-enterprise, and put an end to corporatism, mercantilism and lobby-driven politics.
You mentioned the "founder's intentions". The founders wanted a small government limited by the Constitution. The federal government's duty is well-defined, not easily expanded.
by
Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Tuesday, October 16, 2007 at 8:50:11 PM
The single most efficient helath care provider in existence is.........../.ta da
Medicare! A three percent overhead.
You are simply buying into the myth of incompetent government foisted upon us by Reagan. We simply must elect better leaders and not throw the baby out with the bath water. Only our governments, State and National, can deliver the social safety nets our conscience should demand we have. Only the Federal government can provide the State governments with the funds to operate them.
I , for one, believe in Social Security and Medicare, Ron Paul does not. Case closed, and for a great majority of American voters too.....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at 8:20:05 PM
But blind faith in government programs? Sorry but I do not want my future dictated and monopolized by the single biggest corporation in America-the government.
You haven't been listening to or reading Ron Paul carefully. He said he wants to bring the troops home and stop militarism. That would save a lot of money that could be put into Social Security for the elderly while allowing younger generations to opt out of social security if THEY WANTED TO. He is also one of the few Congressmen who has spoken out against looting the Social Security by the federal government. Besides, as a staunch constitutionalist, Ron Paul is not a "decider", but someone who would work with the Congress to explore possibilities.
A change of government is superficial as long as it (both wings) clings to corporatism, a foreign policy of intervention, and the unsound, inflationary monetary system of printing unlimited amount of valueless fiat money to sustain this welfare/warfare state of ours. With 9 trillion in debt, nothing is "safe". That beloved "net" of yours would more likely be there to restrain your liberty than providing you, or anyone else, any safety.
by
Babyhuey (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 1:59:22 AM
I presented a fact, you responded with a myth. If you wish to base your political philosophy on lies, distortions and falsehoods be my guest. Do not, however, expect to win any converts or have your future opinions held in esteem.
Once again, Medicare is the most efficient administrator of health care in this nation with a three percent overhead, total. This points to the fact that, despite your Reagan-like ravings, Government programs can be efficient. And they are, despite your ingrained selfish lack of concern for those in this nation less fortunate than you, very necesary to the continued welfare of our fellow citizens.
Your rants are long on distortion and falsehood and short on practicality, truth and reality.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Thursday, October 18, 2007 at 8:39:22 AM
