Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 26, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!






Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar
In the Hot Zone

In the Hot Zone

By Kevin Sites
$15.95

more items

 
A/V Booth

Honeymoon May Be Over for Ron Paul

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Aug 12, 2007
ENTER_ALT_TEXT

Ron Paul may have soured his antiwar appeal among progressives with a speech Saturday at the Iowa straw poll. Paul referred to Roe v. Wade as “that horrible ruling,” called for the abolition of the Departments of Energy and Education and the IRS, and attacked welfare and immigrants. But the most bizarre moment came when he suggested airline passengers should be allowed to carry guns, saying: “I think 9/11, quite frankly, could have been prevented if we had had a lot more respect for the Second Amendment.”

Watch it:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Rick Fisk, August 13, 2007 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Some clarifications.

In the speech Ron Paul does not say that citizens would have stopped the hijacks. He puts the onus on the airlines for providing their own defense.

However, what Ron Paul has also said about this is that the airlines should be able to decide what happens on their property. If they wanted to allow passengers to carry firearms and set regulations regarding this, they should be able to do so without federal interference.

If you don’t want to fly with an airline that allows passengers to carry weapons, pick another airline.

Up until the 1970s it was perfectly legal and common for customers to carry their firearms on airplanes.

When the feds outlawed it, we got our first domestic hijackings.

Roe V Wade is bad law. The reason it is bad law is that the federal courts should have no jurisdiction over state legislation. Period.

Ron Paul does not, as somebody else suggested, want to interfere in anyone’s “choice”. He wants the federal government to *refrain* from interfering. The federal government does not have the authority to prosecute crimes such as murder much less even define such crimes.

Report this

By B Reyes, August 13, 2007 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To the people that are making statements against Ron Paul, I ask that you read up on what he stands for and why.

Check out http://www.ronpaullibrary.com

As a medical doctor, he knows more about health care than every other candidate running.  As a man well versed in economics, he has a better understanding about what it takes (more accurately, what it doesn’t take) to have a healthy economy.  As an honest man with a consistent voting record, you can be sure you know where he stands when he says something.

I read in a previous post about how lack of gun control is bad, how welfare is good, federal control of education is a good thing, taxation is necessary, etc.  This line of thought is part of the problem.  As time has passed, for some reason—people have come to believe in more governmental control.

The past 30-40 years has shown that more governmental control is inherently bad.  Think of gigantic budget deficits, huge foreign debt, a decpreciating currency, loss of manufactuing jobs, the bureacratic nightmares that lead to the 1993 WTC attack and 9/11, FISA, the NSA illegal wiretappings, the Vietnam war, the 1st Iraq war, the current Iraq war, the Iran-Contra Scandal, FEMA’s response during Katrina, a war on drugs that makes no headway and never ends, and the list goes on and on.  So many failures that have caused so many ruined lives.  All because as americans, we’ve let lobbyists and an army of bureaucrats— sitting far away in cubicle desks that see us as nothing but statistics—damage the country all while they believe they are actually helping.

There is one important thing to point out:  Government has no power that the people do not give.  As citizens and individuals, it is our duty to ourselves to be responsible and self-reliant.

For the record, I do not agree with Ron Paul on all the issues.

However, he is the best candidate out there by far.  And even where I disagree with him, I understand his position and his reasons for it.  Because he is consistent, honest, and has a perfect near 30 year track record.  He does not change his views just to suit his political career.  He stands by his principles regardless if it’s unpopular.  He is most definitely not controlled by special interests.  I cannot say that about anybody else.

I ask that you set aside time to learn more about what he stands for and why he stands for it.

Report this

By Dick Cheney, August 13, 2007 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul, grrrrr, just another left-wing crybaby, grrrr, 9-11 was sponsored by Saddam Hussein, grrrr,
Halliburton is great, grrrrrr…..

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 13, 2007 at 3:33 pm Link to this comment

Concerning Abortion:

Whether it is a medical procedure or murder, both issues need to be addressed by the states not the federal government.

Some facts about guns on planes:

As Ron Hinderberger, director of aviation safety at Boeing, noted in testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives:

  “Boeing commercial service history contains cases where guns were fired on board in service airplanes, all of which landed safely. Commercial airplane structure is designed with sufficient strength, redundancy, and damage tolerance that a single or even multiple handgun holes would not result in loss of an aircraft. A bullet hole in the fuselage skin would have little effect on cabin pressurization. Aircraft are designed to withstand much larger impacts whether intentional or unintentional. For instance, on 14 occasions Boeing commercial airplanes have survived, and landed, after an in flight bomb blast.”
Source:  P.C. Air Security By John R. Lott Jr
http://www.nationalreview.com

Report this

By THOMAS BILLIS, August 13, 2007 at 3:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am a man and a liberal.I want Roe Vs Wade overturned tomorrow.It would decimate the Republican party.All those one issue moron zealots who do all the leg work for the republicans would be gone.The Republicans do not want Roe V Wade overturned it takes away the issue.It is one big con job on the right to life zealots.They have had total control of government for 6 years and except around the edges do you see any change.Barry Goldwater favored the pro choice side.
To the issue Ron Paul is a libertarian and what he said is basically the libertarian position.He left out legalizing all drugs.Other countries see All the killing with guns ,30 thousand in America,and look to limit access to guns .Our solution is more guns.There is no more wild west country than Austalia and a couple of years ago they had an incident involving guns they limited access to guns and the rate of people getting killed with guns went down.Trained personnel like air marshalls having guns on planes seems reasonable.To give a pilot a gun and 2 hours of target practice does not seem reasonable.The hijacker has no knowledge beforehand who he has to fear.The pilot can keep the door locked and there is no chance if the hijacker wins the gun battle that he can take over the plane.

Report this

By Cory, August 13, 2007 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m mildly pro-choice and support Congressman Paul.  The Roe decision is the ruling that pushed abortion onto the national stage, where it doesn’t belong.

In 2005 Paul introduced the “Sanctity of Life Act” to remove these social issues from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.  If passed, it would have effectively nullified the Roe decision.  With publicized pro-lifers in control of Congress and the White House, the bill was buried in commitee.  DC politicians want abortion to remain as a national wedge issue to divide the population, rather than leave it to the States.  This is why even the hardcore “pro-lifers” don’t really want it changed. 

As for the “gunshot in a pressurized cabin” thing, they tried it on Myth-Busters.  They pressurized a commercial airliner (around 8psi) and fired a pistol round through a window.  It made a small hole and the compressors maintained pressure.  It takes a large hole, like the loss of a cargo door, to completely depressurize an airliner.

All in all, I think that Paul is correct in his assessment that the 9/11 attacks were successful because we relied entirely on the government for security.

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 13, 2007 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Regarding guns fired on planes:

There are low velocity slugs made for just such pressurized environments. Additionally, there seems to be some confusion about the realities of “explosive” decompression.

If a bullet hole were to penetrate the hull, it would be very unlikely to cause an issue. In fact, in a pressurized cabin there are already valves to relive over pressure, so we aren’t talking about a hermetically sealed environ here.

If we protect our money during transport by having truck drivers with guns, why can’t we have our pilots armed?

Report this

By Ryan, August 13, 2007 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena, It’s a myth that a few bullet holes would cause an airplane to depressurize.  Airliners are nowhere near airtight and they stay pressurized because they have massive air compressors going all the time.  These are designed with extra capacity to be able to compensate for additional air leaks.  It would take something like a door falling off to cause it to depressurize at a rate enough to be dangerous.

And yes, armed pilots could have prevented 9/11.  Many people don’t know that pilots were allowed to carry guns up until 1994.  I’ve never heard of this causing any incidents.

I think Ron Paul’s speech was a little off and he didn’t explain his points as well as he usually does but I’ll bet his mind was elsewhere since his wife was in the hospital.  You guys should cut him some slack.

Report this

By Rob, August 13, 2007 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Oh not this “firing weapons in a pressurized cabin” thing again.

Firing a gun in a pressurized aircraft cabin has had the catastrophic consequences imagined by many of you only once: in the James Bond movie “Goldfinger”!

Airplanes already have fairly large holes in them. They are called “outflow valves”. They regulate the pressure by opening and closing.

So go ahead and fire away. All that will happen is that the outflow valve won’t open quite so frequently.

Report this

By banjoeyes1234, August 13, 2007 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

Simple question, who has more incentive to protect the lives of passengers and property of airlines, the airlines themselves that will lose money and perhaps go out of business if they fail or a federal
bureaucracy that mulcts more money from taxpayers if they fail?

Report this

By Michael Wagner, August 13, 2007 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You are aware that US Air Marshals carry weapons loaded with ammunition designed for use on airliners. The ammo is basically a capsule loaded with small shot instead of the standard slug. The powder load is calibrated so the shot cannot penetrate the fuselage of the airplane. The ammo is effective at short range only but that’s just fine in a plane.
As for the pilots being busy, don’t forget there are two. When hijackers make their first move it is usually to take a passenger hostage. Once that happens the pilots are usually reluctant to do anything.
What Ron Paul is saying is that if the pilots had been armed, one of them could have taken out the hijackers. It might have meant injury to one or more hostages, but consider the alternative.
Not only that, if it had been standard procedure to arm the pilots, the hijackers might not have even made the attempt.
It would only take one hijacker shot dead on the spot to put a real crimp in all future hijacker’s plans.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 1:55 pm Link to this comment

Uh - you’re kidding, right? The commercial airliners are so technologically advanced they practically fly themselves.

============================
No, I wasn’t kidding. The airliners may indeed be able to “fly themselves”, (they can even land themselves in a pinch) but they’re likely to fall out of the sky with the help of “shoots fired in the cabin”. I mean really. Do you think a pressurized aircraft at 37,000 feet can really sustain a shoot-out in the fashion of the OK Corral? Do you have a clue to how much is involved with making sure that such an event DOES NOT occur, when there are armed passengers or crew members on board? Do you have a clue to the fact that all the modern technology in the world won’t keep that airplane in the air if a few bullets go astray? 

I think you’ve been watching too much “made for TV”.

Report this

By DesertRat, August 13, 2007 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s face it, Ron Paul is running against impossible odds. If by some quirk of fate Ron Paul actually got elected, he would be immediately assassinated (worst case) or rendered impotent by the congress and senate (District of Criminals). A very large portion of the American public receive benefits from the feds (at the expense of others). These federal leaches will never vote for anyone like Ron Paul. On top of that, there are simply too many greedy powerful people and corporations that feed hungrily at the public trough to ever allow someone like Ron Paul to kill their golden goose.

The United States cannot maintain the welfare/warfare state indefinitely. It’s teetering on total collapse as it is. Only a man like Ron Paul has a snowball’s chance of saving what little there is left, but he’ll never get the chance. That simply means that we will get more of the same from the talking heads (in the echo chambers) and that the United States will collapse (like many countries before it) along with the economies of most other nations who depended on it. Those who believe otherwise are only fooling themselves.

Bottom line. The U.S. elections are decided long before a vote is ever cast. Only an elite few are selected and approved by the real ‘powers that be’. With the exception of Ron Paul, virtually all the other candidates are CFR members (or lawyers.) It doesn’t matter to the global rulers who is elected as long as they are card carrying club members (so that leaves RP out.)

So, to all of you simple minded Marxist socialists who rail against the only honest and decent man in the presidential race, I can only say that I believe that you will all get what you wish for. People ALWAYS get the form of government that they deserve. May you wear your yolk and chains lightly. If there is a God, he must be laughing his ass off at so many fools.

Report this

By Buddy, August 13, 2007 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sorry, but the man never fooled me. He has a despicable record to peruse. Maybe the rest of the people who support him will finally understand the man is a crackpot!

Report this

By samuel burke, August 13, 2007 at 1:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

what happened to ron paul? why did he go on this tirade just before the straw poll?

who the heck was advising him to throw himself in front of this bus?

resistance is futile, we are going to suffer through an energy recession and a war to remove the islamist.

Report this

By mark, August 13, 2007 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Talk about spinning, So Ron Paul believes that the constitution trumps all. this is a shock? Yes, He thinks Roe V Wade was a bad law. but you know, as much as I like the law, he does have a cogent point. Just because you don’t like it and feel that you can ignore the constitution because you don’t like what it implies for your ‘for the good of the people’ doesn’t make you any more right than Bush and his efforts to ignore the constitution when he doesn’t like the restrictions it tries to place on him.

Really, the only difference between democrats and republicans is how they want to increase government.

And you know what? if all 4 planes had crashed instead of hitting buildings, that would have been a much smaller disaster in economic and human life. Then throw in the distinct possibility that some of the planes would have managed to resist the hijacking and things can only get better.

I mean come on people, 9/11 was about the worst case scenario as you could imagine. pilots or even passengers with guns would have significantly increased the chances that the planes wouldn’t have hit buildings.

I may not vote for Ron Paul, but I think he is holding to a consistent set of beliefs with regard to the constitution and the US government.

Report this

By Gus, August 13, 2007 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a surprise how? Ron Paul is a principled libertarian-style conservative. Staying out of Iraq is a classic paleoconservative position. He isn’t changing his tune, you’re just getting a taste of his positions on other issues. No surprises here. This is why I always thought that the progressive embrace of the man based on his Iraq stance was humorous.

Report this

By Fixer, August 13, 2007 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I must have watched a different video clip than some. I heard Ron Paul express his belief regarding abortion, but did not hear him state his intent to foist his belief on everyone else. He states his desire to remove the federal government from the abortion issue. That seems reasonable.

Mr. Paul did not indicate that he hated immigrants - just the illegal ones. I don’t believe that laws should be broken without consequence, either.

It’s unfortunate that folks get so spun up about these issues that they don’t wait to hear what’s actually being said or bother to think it through when they do hear it. Isn’t that the definition of closed-mindedness?

Finally, some facts about the whole guns-on-airplanes thing, in no particular order.
- The TSA administrates the Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO) program that trains, certifies and equips pilots to fly armed aboard commercial aircraft. FFDO pilots are, in effect, federal officers when they are flying armed. Pilots are issued FFDO credentials and are required to carry only the pistols issued by TSA.
- TSA does not regulate airline operations. FAA does, and will not alter its regulations to allow airlines to arm flight crews.
- While shooting a hole in an aircraft will depressurize the cabin, it will not be an explosive decompression. You will not be sucked out through the hole. (Hollywood movies can’t be relied upon for technical accuracy in these matters.)
- Even before 9/11, it would not have been possible to sneak up on a crew sitting in the cockpit. Although cockpit doors weren’t reinforced in those days, FAA regulations still required them to be locked from takeoff to landing.
-Since a commercial aircraft has a minimum of two pilots, they actually can shoot and fly the airplane at the same time (autopilot notwithstanding).

Report this

By NH, August 13, 2007 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Are you kidding? That was his best speech yet.

I love the man even more.

Ron won NH with 65% and no one can beat that.


Huckabee, Brown and Tancredo have literally NO campaign machine here in NH, but Ron has an army.

Report this

By Scott McDonnell, August 13, 2007 at 12:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The ironic part of this is that the conservatives were all about letting the airline crew carry guns after 9/11. - with a GOP congress and Presidency, it still didn’t happen

Conservatives backed Blackwater and other private militaries getting the head of Osama. - With a GOP congress and President, it still didn’t happen.

They were all about banning gay marriage. - GOP congress, GOP president… didn’t happen

They want to ban abortion - well… you guessed it.

So, really, is the GOP just empty rhetoric? How are they different than the liberals again, besides the pandering?

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

#94534 by angelatc on 8/13 at 8:57 am

•  If you want the Constitutional right to abortion, them amend the Constitution.  It is absolutely not a federal issue.
I am pro-choice, but RvW is wrong law.

Angelatc,
This is a bit of an oxymoron here, to suggest that a “Constitutional right” to abortion should be amended into the Constitution, and then claim that it’s not a “federal” issue.

I would agree that it is certainly not a federal issue, but that being the case, there would be no constitutional basis for having it in the law at all. So, while I agree too, that RvW may be a “wrong” law, it’s because there shouldn’t be a “law” to begin with.

RvW was ultimately decided based on privacy. In effect, doctor patient privilege. That’s not how the decision is written, but it’s the bottom line, which is that it’s not anybody’s business, including the State, whether it be at the federal or local level. Roe v Wade only became a “federal” law because it eventually had to be brought to the S.C. Still, there should be no need for an additional law at any level, that protects a patient’s right to privacy, because we already have that.

An abortion is a medical procedure like any other one, so why should it be subject to public or state approval, instead of just being a normal decision between patient and practitioner? Why should the State decide whether or not that procedure can be done? Nobody requires men to seek a Constitutional amendment for the right to have a vasectomy.

The right to privacy is a concept that is never actually spelled out in the Constitution, (in so many words) but rather cobbled together from an interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And so, we have come to expect that as a right.

If in fact there is indeed that “right” such as in doctor/patient confidentiality, or attorney/client privilage, then it follows that the question of abortion should not need any special legislation. It’s already covered.

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment

” In reality, one cannot fire a weapon and pilot an aircraft at the same time. At least not a commercial aircraft. So, that’s all very stupid. “


Uh - you’re kidding, right? The commercial airliners are so technologically advanced they practically fly themselves.

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

Once again Ardee,

He was not saying that passengers should be armed. He was saying that when 9/11 happened, the airlines were forbidden by law to arm their pilots or to provide armed security on flights.

ANd that’s in spite of all the hijacking that almost routinely occurred in the ‘70’s.

And if you don’t want to fly if you can’t control the other passengers, then stay home, or give your business to airlines that do business ina manner that makes you fell comfortable.

Why do you find other people’s choices so objectionable?  That’s hostile.

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

ardee:

I’m not posting my life story in a blog comment section, but I assure you my story is true. Not sure what you mean by other blogs with different names. Are other people telling the same story? Doesn’t surprise me.

Believe it or nt, the government is wasteful, inefficent, and cruel.

If your plans were any good, you wouldn’t need to legislate participation.

(PS - are you by any chance Ardee Ann?)

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

ardee:

I’m not posting my life story in a blog comment section, but I assure you my story is true. Not sure what you mean by other blogs with different names. Are other people telling the same story? Doesn’t surprise me.

Believe it or nt, the government is wasteful, inefficent, and cruel.

If your plans were any good, you wouldn’t need to legislate participation.

Report this

By Sirkowski, August 13, 2007 at 11:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is silly. The left/liberals/progressives were never gonna vote for him. The reason we like him and even support him (and still do) is because he’s throwing the conservatives inadequacies in their own face.

This is old news.

Report this

By Ouch, August 13, 2007 at 11:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Honeymoon is over? This has just begun.

Paul didn’t attack immigrants, he’s for immigration, legal immigration. He’s for strong borders and right now the welfare state is a great incentive for mexicans to cross the border. If americans go over to the Mexio, their government wouldn’t offer free education. And respect for the second ammendment would have done the pilots good.

Get your head straight ‘truth’ dig. Paul’s not crazy for suggesting these straight-forward and honest suggestions.

Report this

By ardee, August 13, 2007 at 11:13 am Link to this comment

#94546 by cyrena on 8/13 at 9:39 am
Just what I want on an airline flight, a trigger happy fool shooting in a pressurised cabin…enjoy the flight, take some peanuts with you as you are squeezed out the tiny window…..

Report this

By ardee, August 13, 2007 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

#94532 by angelatc on 8/13 at 8:54 am
(4 comments total)

I will not infer that your pat and formulaic answer is untrue. I have seen this response, again and again though, with only the name changed.

If indeed there is even the germ of truth in your response you have hoisted yourself on your own petard. Firstly you note that noone helped you so you turned to the govt. I will not comment on the sophomoric and frankly false nature of your reasons why you got no help from them, you really need work on your fiction. Then and so conveniently you got help from a conservative ( how very lucky of you) so it changed your entire liberal outlook in one fell swoop, again most conveneient.

The rest of your silly Limbaugh like diatribe regarding liberals and conservatives is, again, formulaic , untrue and simply agendised stupidity, but thanks for playing…I hope to see the book when you finish it….

Anyone not this poster who can look at the results of the Bush privatisation of so much former governmental responsibilities, the cost overruns, the mismanagement and outright thievery, the tainted foods and falling bridges and the like and hold tot this philosophy is probably well past saving.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 10:39 am Link to this comment

#94334 by Christopher S. Lawton on 8/12 at 4:00 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

The airlines and the their pilots would not have been overcome by box cutters if they had been armed with smith & wesson’s!!
===============================

I hate to remind you of this Mr. Lawson, because it always seems to stir up the obvious argument. But, the fact of the matter is that we DON’T KNOW that the pilots were overcome by box cutters. Quite frankly, that’s a stretch. But, if they were, it’s because they were seat belted into those bucket seats, and easily overcome by whatever may have sneaked up behind them, and the Smith and Wessons wouldn’t have been anymore help to them than anything else, if that was the case.

In reality, one cannot fire a weapon and pilot an aircraft at the same time. At least not a commercial aircraft.

So, that’s all very stupid.

Report this

By Rich, August 13, 2007 at 10:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I demand a retraction or you prove to me where the words saying allow airline passengers to carry guns on a plane was said. Your a LIAR!!!. Prove it or print a retraction

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

#94346 by 911truthdotorg on 8/12 at 5:01 pm

If you want the Constitutional right to abortion, them amend the Constitution.  It is absolutely not a federal issue.

I am pro-choice, but RvW is wrong law.

Report this

By angelatc, August 13, 2007 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

To Ardee in response to: “Further proof of the awful nature of Libertarianism can be found on another thread here (find it if you care to)when one of our resident libertarians talks about walking by a starving person on the street.”

So you’re the next person that walks by - you help them!

I used to be a liberal, but then I went through some rough economic times.  In short, I was that person, and everybody walked by me thinking that the government would help me. The government didn’t, because I don’t make a career out of being poor. It was a conservative stranger who offered me a job, and let me rent one of his properties with no deposit and rent in arrears.

Liberals want to hand out other people’s money. Conservatives want to decide who to hand their money to. Neither set is compassionless, but liberals refuse to acknowledge their endless well-intentioned entitlement programs are bankrupting the children.

Report this

By Freedom to Facism, August 13, 2007 at 9:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source par·a·noi·a     (pār’ə-noi’ə)  Pronunciation Key
n. 
1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.
2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others. 

Give me a break!  Ron Paul’s message is a force that impowers the people.  If you cannot deal with the truth because of paranoia, I cannot help you.

Dr. Paul knows how to help America! This ia a conclusion by an awareness of one’s environment and one’s own existence, sensations, and thoughts any normal person should come to.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
brain·wash·ing    
n. 
1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person’s basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.

It is time to stop the brainwashing of America that we are the police of the world or we will all be taxed by the will of big government facist polititians from cradle to grave. I am not brainwashed that is why Dr. Ron Paul will have my vote.

Report this

By Richard, August 13, 2007 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Folks, don’t believe anything you read. Watch the video clips and see and hear Dr. Ron Paul speak for himself. You won’t get the truth from media outlets, they all have vested interests.

Truthdig? You’re kidding, right? Very little truth here, very much spin and propaganda. This is just another hit piece designed to distract people away from Ron Paul’s true message.

Honeymoon over? Not a chance. There are way too many of us who are fed up with the nanny state.

Report this

By BenFranklin73, August 13, 2007 at 9:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To those of you who don’t like Ron Paul—get over it! He’s the one person who actually gets the Constitution and I am more than sure that more than half of you don’t even know the Preamble much less understand it, since when did being for something which our Government was established on is no all of a sudden CRAZY! Well I guess you like Fascism and Socialism, so maybe you don’t deserve true Freedom. He’s right about Roe vs. Wade! It does need to be repealed Federally. Let the States decide on Abortion not the Government. As far as welfare goes, what did this country do before welfare?? I’ll tell you, people either worked or their families took care of them, if they couldn’t. You people have become so unattached from your families and do not even understand the true ideas of community. You want the state to care for you from cradle to grave instead of being self-reliant and community minded. As far as pilots having guns, they should! I’d feel a lot safer knowing they’d blow away a Terrorist than the Government, who refuses to even go after Bin Laden and instead invades Iraq and puts it ruin. You keep living in your pipe-dreamed world. You’ll get Billary of Ghouliani and then you’ll get WW3 and Martial Law..enjoy your FEMA Camps you unthinking sheep!

Report this

By gesellschaft, August 13, 2007 at 8:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The PROGRESSIVE’s voter challenge:

If you are not already familiar with the C.F.R. spend at least 2 hours research.  Once familiarized, decide if you want (a)that for your children, or wish for them to have the (b)Constitution, the Bill of Rights, freedom and liberty.  Compare your current candidate of choice to a list of current C.F.R. members.  Is your candidate on it?  If yes, and if you chose option (b) for your children, then see why so many defenders of the Constitution and liberty are voting for Ron Paul. Ronpaullibrary or his gov page have many of his speeches and letters.

Report this

By One Little Victory, August 13, 2007 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

#94426 by Mike on 8/13 at 12:23 am
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s pretty simple: those who support the constitution and freedom support Ron Paul.  Being forced to hand over your money to government for government functions that are not absolutely necessary (i.e. national defence) flies in the face of the American tradition of Liberty.

*******************************************************

OMFG - National defense? What’s to defend if the environment goes to hell? How can we defend it while we are hostage to foreign oil? Is it worth defending if we are a bunch of uneducated and unthinking Neanderthals?

If you are so concerned with American liberty, perhaps you could rant on something important, like restoring Habeus Corpus.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 7:24 am Link to this comment

•  Second, he referred to the Second Amendment preventing 911 because if the Second Amendment was respected, the pilots would have hand-guns, something he has talked about before.  Currently the FAA the bans Airlines from allowing their pilots to carry guns, a clear violation of the second amendment.  The government doesn’t need to nanny the people.  People should be free to choose to fly with an airline that lets its pilots have carry hand-guns.
Mike,

The US commercial air travel system is corporate/private, and you can rest assured that they would not allow their pilots to carry hand guns, even if the government was crazy enough to allow it.

You say that “currently” the FAA bans pilots from carrying hand-guns, as if it’s something that has EVER happened, or even something that a sane aviation professional would even consider. The only personnel that have ever been able to carry firearms on board a commercial airplane, ARE the feds!!! And, it’s a big ass bureaucratic/paperwork hassle, every time they do. There are also commercial pilots who will refuse to allow even them, to carry their guns on board. There aren’t many, since most don’t want the headaches from management for refusing. But, it’s still their call. Because…firearms discharged at 37,000 feet in a normal sized passenger jet can quite easily bring the whole thing down. Just what we neeed, eh? A bunch of folks whipping out their weapons to shoot up the next guy because you happened to notice that he had one too? Right there on the tray table next to his Wild Turkey 101?

PLEASE. Sometimes I wonder what happened to everybody’s brains.

And, for whomever suggested that this was already a done deal, because the Israelis do it…well, we aren’t Israelis. This is still America. I think.

But, it’s certainly true that the Israelis have never had a highjacking, it’s not because their pilots carry weapons. That would be directly related to their very agressive airport security measures. They don’t let anybody on their airplanes without a full investigation and interrogation, which would of course involve strip seaches and the like, when they feel the need. So, that’s why Israel hasn’t had any hijackings. (at least not in Israel).

Report this

By Nicholas Lineback, August 13, 2007 at 7:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For all of you that label yourselves “progressives”, just think about this.  When ever the government makes a regulation or law it is saying “do this or the government will take your life, liberty, or property.”  This is only justifiable if the “criminal” took or damaged someone else’s life, liberty, or property.  You people rail against corporations (which are definitely bad) but all too willingly give yourself up to the largest corporation in the world, the US Government.  The government has the only monopoly that matters.  A monopoly on force.  They can come take all of my possessions by force and I can do nothing to stop them.  If you think this is just crazy talk ask any one that has been accused of a drug or tax violation.

Report this

By legnakrad, August 13, 2007 at 6:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For the most part I think the righties here are seeing in this man what they want to see.  Example:

#94407 by Mike on 8/12 at 10:08 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

So many dangerous fallacies, where do I start..?

First of all, Ron Paul delivered 4000 babies, so he’s personally against abortion, but he has a serious regard for his oath to office, so he would never instate a nation-wide ban on it.  He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade because it oversteps federal control over the States, and makes the judiciary into a de facto legislative branch.

Just where exactly in the 10 minutes of this speech did Ron Paul say he wants to overturn abortion because of states rights?  He brought up abortion on two separate occasions and each time he stated his personal belief about abortion, quoting “right to life is not a choice…”.  I also find it interesting that candidate said the “government should protect lives” but then later imply with his call to end welfare that the government should not be protecting lives.  His seems to care more for the fetus than the human.  Like some many believe - once you leave the birth canal your on your own.

Ron Paul is a diversion.  He is a magician’s attention grabbing hand that keeps you from seeing what is really going on.  He gives guilty feeling Republicans an opportunity to vent, release pent up emotions and feel better about themselves before they actually have to cast their ballot.  All the anger and anti-war voters on the right will no doubt support their party’s nominee so it’s just mental masturbation at this point.

And don’t get me started with my fellow progressives that support this buffoon.  Outside of the war, he has very little in common with the ideals I hold as true.  Maybe he is actually acting as a diversion for us also as we wade thru the stink on our own side…

In the end, everyone will have to get over this guy.  He’s this election’s flash in the pan.

Report this

By cyrena, August 13, 2007 at 6:47 am Link to this comment

#94414 by Outraged on 8/12 at 11:06 pm

•  Now, I’m not anti-gun per se, but what Ron Paul’s suggesting is bizarre.  As if we’d be a lot safer with some “corporate nut-job” toting a gun on a PLANE! Use your damn head you idiot!
Well, I told you guys a while back. (well, maybe not that long ago). But still. I already knew…The guy is from Texas, and that already handicapped him, even before he came out with this totally demented stuff.  There can be nothing “reasonable” about anybody who denounces the law (Roe v Wade) and is actually crazy enough to suggest that we should have gun-toters in the airways, to protect ourselves from would be terrorists.

And speaking of which, we’ve already had these corporate nut-jobs insinuated into the air travel system, as Outraged mentions, resulting in exactly what we would expect to happen. It was a couple of years ago now, when a new “Federal Air Marshall”, (part of the beefed up TSA security program) shot and killed a passenger at the Miami airport. The marshall claimed that the passenger said he had a bomb, except that no body else heard the guy say that. Rather, the passenger was attempting to deplane an aircraft that he’d already boarded, (and before it had left the gate) most probably as a result of a panic attack of some sort, as it was later confirmed that he did suffer from bi-polar disorder, and had possibly run out of his meds while on his vacation. (from which he was returning with his wife.)

A professional would never have reacted by shooting him dead on the jetbridge. So, they’ve already completely corrupted the commercial air travel system in this country, because of the huge part it has needed to play in perpetrating the fear tactics that go along with the “war on terror”. So now, the commercial air travel experience has become a “terror” of it’s own.

Meantime, wouldn’t it be nice to hear one of these guys, just say that they don’t have an opinion on abortion or anything connected with it, because they accept the scientific reality of the fact that they CANNOT BECOME PREGNANT, and so they’ll just defer to those who CAN, on making those decisions?

Instead, we get guys like this who simply doom themselves right from the start, by saying of Roe v Wade…”that horrible thing”. We hear that and think, well…so much for you.

Report this

By ardee, August 13, 2007 at 5:52 am Link to this comment

Mindless advocates of socialist policies fail to understand that Ron Paul cares about the poor, but doesn’t believe in government dictating who gives how much to who. They fail to understand that a man who gave free medical care for his patients who couldn’t afford his services is not a heartless capitalist. They are too ideologically attached to big government socialism to consider that when Ron Paul worked for $3 an hour as a medical doctor in a church hospital in the 60’s, he did it because he cares about the poor. They fail to understand that it isn’t charity that Ron Paul objects to, but tyranny.

Speaking of mindless ,Mike, how much thought exactly have you given to this rant? Where are your examples of the altruism that supposedly will burst forth spontaneously once “socialistic welfare” is out of the picture? Arrogance and pomposity, not to mention pure selfishness are the real characteristics of the libertarian. Screw anyone who cannot keep up.

Whether or not Mr. Paul did work as you say for three bucks an hour is moot. It is also unlinked, suspiciously. There are currently 46 million Americans without health care, eleven million of them children,. It would take an awful lot of “altruistic” Ron Paul’s to cover that gap you betcha.

In an era highlighted by the greed and selfishness of the Cheney’s and those 1% who are gaining all the wealth, in a time when certain Churches pretend towards charity to gain large federal monies only to use that cash to proselytize and convert not assist it is simply mindboggling to see these Libertarians expose themselves so blatantly.

Report this

By Marjorie L. Swanson, August 13, 2007 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

Ron Paul will fortunately never get any closer to the White House than he is now. Libertarians are just Republicans dressed in sheep’s clothing. And Ron Paul is a one issure candidate in a party that has a majority of war-mongering folks who will never nominate him.

Report this

By Jassa, August 13, 2007 at 1:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Don’t worry, the government will protect us. Thank Jesus Bill Clinton killed almost half a million Iraqi children and now Bush has killed just as many or more. Just think of all the little terrorists our great presidents have saved us from. I’m so glad we’ve had presidents like Bush Sr and Bill Clinton who are members of the Council on Foreign Relations, promoting a One World Communist Government. Look at how great our country is doing under these socialist policies. The government will also educate our children the best. Just look at how well our public education system is doing! I love paying hundreds into Social Security, this Socialist program must not be destroyed even though no one under twenty will get a fucking dime from it. [/sarcasm]

You “liberals” need to wake the fuck up, seriously. There is no difference between the big wigs in either party. They are all members of the same secret and public organizations. What is the difference when the ultimate goal is the same?

We need a return to a constitutional government, quit pandering to party lines and educate yourselves. Don’t fall for the blatant spin on this article just like others fall for the spin from the old media.

Report this

By Mike, August 13, 2007 at 1:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s pretty simple: those who support the constitution and freedom support Ron Paul.  Being forced to hand over your money to government for government functions that are not absolutely necessary (i.e. national defence) flies in the face of the American tradition of Liberty.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 13, 2007 at 12:23 am Link to this comment

#94375 by ardee on 8/12 at 7:31 pm” “...to abstract oneself from the community in a John Wayne like false image of frontier self reliance when all sane folks understand that we are far stronger when we care for each other is simply unacceptable….”

Isn’t that what the USA does as a nation anyway? Care to treat the Chinese and the Japanese as humans now that they hold most of your foreign debt???

Don’t bother to treat the Iraqis as humans - just take the oil anyway. Same for Iran but with out any “reason”..... but make it nuclear, just in case!

**************************************************

#94417 by One Little Victory on 8/12 at 11:17 pm: “...Paul is not a true libertarian; if he was he would keep his politics off a woman’s body. .......The truly scary thing to me is that Paul is one of the more reasonable Republican candidates….”

Ron Paul - bounty hunter (but we must protect the unborn!). Note the bearded guy with the flute and the 1600’s-1700’s tricorn hat also at the beginning of the clip. Other countries which have a history of white invasion and occupation have similar celebratory characters - but they say that they “respect” freedom. Back to the gool ol’ frontier days - carry your gun on board any plane!?!? So much for the GOP cargo-cult tribals…....

Report this

By One Little Victory, August 13, 2007 at 12:17 am Link to this comment

Paul is not a true libertarian; if he was he would keep his politics off a woman’s body. He is invasive in areas like this, but wants hands off on things like energy and education; sounds pretty damn backwards to me.

I prefer being a liberal libertarian, with government involved where it should be (health, education, energy) and uninvolved where it would infringe on someone’s individual privacy. How about restoring Habeus Corpus as a nice place to start?

The truly scary thing to me is that Paul is one of the more reasonable Republican candidates. The others are either clueless (Romney, T. Thompson, and Huckabee), fear-mongers (Giuliani) or else completely out of touch with reality (McCain, Hunter, and Tancredo).

Oh, and Mr. Lawton, on Point #12 where the Second Amendment exists in case politicians ignore all the others? Where have you been? Read the Bill of Rights; eight of those ten rights no longer exist in this nation.

Report this

By Straydog07, August 13, 2007 at 12:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

He’s a Post-Willis Carto John Bircher.  His intentions may be benign but I’m not a big fan of his roots.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, August 13, 2007 at 12:06 am Link to this comment

I said before Ron Paul was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, I’ll rescind my statement and change it to: The man is a RAVING LUNATIC!

First of all, I have several children and I can qualify that the vast majority of OB/GYN’s are the worst of the worst of medical specialists.  They LIE about childbirth, insinuating it’s a “medical condition” which it is not.  And by supposed “necessary intervention” of childbirth they create “medical conditions” which they then “fix” in order to support their profitable TRUE agenda and their hidden misogynistic platform. 

So, it’s not surprising that Ron Paul is pro-life.  As a medical professional, Mr. Paul, can you PROVE that life begins at conception or are you just spewing more rhetoric here and using your “qualifications” as “proof”.  You know yourself, that you cannot. It has NEVER been proven EXACTLY when life begins, EVER. You can’t prove that anymore than you could tell a pregnant woman EXACTLY when she will go into labor or give birth. (Well, I’m not counting “necessary intervention” here, of course).

Now, I’m not anti-gun per se, but what Ron Paul’s suggesting is bizarre.  As if we’d be a lot safer with some “corporate nut-job” toting a gun on a PLANE! Use your damn head you idiot!

Sure Ron, then you attack those of the least of the least. The welfare recipients!  You sick demented piece of f**k.  The safety net, Ron, helps to ensure the stability and increase of EVERY American worker’s wage except those at the very TOP!  It also gives those without FOOD, FOOD!  As if people ought to be ashamed to be in NEED OF FOOD!

To those who support Ron Paul:  What, did you vote for GW and you just can’t leave your PARTY?  No matter how insane the candidate is, as long as they’re REPUBLICAN, PRO-LIFE, GUN HAPPY and beat up on WELFARE RECIPIENTS!  Shame on you.  Use your head this man isn’t for liberty, he’s for CHAOS!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, August 13, 2007 at 12:04 am Link to this comment

#94372 by carlito paquito on 8/12 at 7:24 pm: “...dam, got bamboozled again.  it’s back to Clinton & Kucinich carlito paquito official endoresment.  thanks for the oxygen…”

That’s what I thought before - but look at how Kucinich is falsely bagging Hillary now!

Quote Dennis Kucinich: “...I think that that single comment by Sen.  Clinton raises questions about her fitness for the presidency.  In a week in which we observe the [anniversaries of the] tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, any American presidential candidate who rattles the nuclear saber must be viewed with the greatest amount of skepticism.  Given Sen. Clinton’s commitment to the neocon doctrines of pre-emption, unilateralism and first strike, all Americans should be very concerned about how she would use the power of the presidency ........

There’s another question here, and that is: Is she unaware of the fragility of conditions on the Asian subcontinent with respect to nuclear parity and first-strike concerns?  Does she really mean what she says, and is she ready to take responsibility for potentially catalyzing a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan?  Has she really thought this through…..” 

As it is, events in Pakistan are proving that so far it has only been Hillary Clinton who has actually “really thought this through”. What’s more, it was actually Barack Obama last week who was “unaware of the fragility of conditions on the Asian subcontinent” and had made inflammatory commments which could have ended up “potentially catalyzing a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan” as a result of creating further instability.

Those remarks by Kucinich in an interview with Truthdig - http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070811_kucinich_throws_down_the_gauntlet/ - were made several days after Obama’s irresponsible and aggressive statements yet he has sought to deliberately smear and denigrate Hillary Clinton about an intentional mis-interpretation of her words on how a president should act instead.

Report this

By mas, August 12, 2007 at 11:47 pm Link to this comment

well said greenback,

If you want it slanted then you are in the right place.

This mindset only adds to the problem BUT this is known as a left leaning mag…Plus it did win an award and thats whats important…isnt it? 
Web hits, keep the people restless…more web hits…more stirring up of the people….ahhhh the sweet smell of success.

Report this

By Mike, August 12, 2007 at 11:08 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So many dangerous fallacies, where do I start..?

First of all, Ron Paul delivered 4000 babies, so he’s personally against abortion, but he has a serious regard for his oath to office, so he would never instate a nation-wide ban on it.  He wants to overturn Roe vs Wade because it oversteps federal control over the States, and makes the judiciary into a de facto legislative branch.

Second, he referred to the Second Amendment preventing 911 because if the Second Amendment was respected, the pilots would have hand-guns, something he has talked about before.  Currently the FAA the bans Airlines from allowing their pilots to carry guns, a clear violation of the second amendment.  The government doesn’t need to nanny the people.  People should be free to choose to fly with an airline that lets its pilots have carry hand-guns.

Third, proponents of socialism always rely on this logical fallacy: that freedom seekers don’t care about the poor.  No, this is wrong.

Mindless advocates of socialist policies fail to understand that Ron Paul cares about the poor, but doesn’t believe in government dictating who gives how much to who. They fail to understand that a man who gave free medical care for his patients who couldn’t afford his services is not a heartless capitalist. They are too ideologically attached to big government socialism to consider that when Ron Paul worked for $3 an hour as a medical doctor in a church hospital in the 60’s, he did it because he cares about the poor. They fail to understand that it isn’t charity that Ron Paul objects to, but tyranny.

Report this

By Kevin McDermott, August 12, 2007 at 10:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow, Mr. Paul, you are one callous son-of-a-bitch!

Report this

By Tom, August 12, 2007 at 9:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I smell fear, Truthdig. I thought real media didn’t care about Ron Paul, and here you are talking about him, trying to spin support away from those on your side of the isle.  You see progressives like yourself getting interested in him, so now you need to swat at their hands. That’s how all media is gonna end up talking about Paul, when they realize what a threat to their own establishment he is.

Abortion does not define a politician.

Signed,
Tom: Democrat who will probably end up voting for Ron Paul in 2008 if Obama doesn’t stop his pandering

Report this

By Rich Paul, August 12, 2007 at 9:01 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m pro-choice, but since the president does not have the power to overturn Roe-v-Wade (for those that don’t know, it was a supreme court decision), it doesn’t much matter.

Even if Roe-v-Wade was overturned, it would just mean that the states would decide whether to permit abortion.  Probably a few would prohibit it, which would mean that people in those states would have to drive a few minutes to a few hours in order to get an abortion in a neighboring state.  I would dislike that.  Compared to the coming economic collapse and the Eternal War for Eternal Peace, it’s a small price to pay.

As for armed pilots, it is already done.  The Israeli airline requires that all pilots carry firearms.  They have never had a hijacking.  They have never had an accidental discharge on a plane.  They have never had a homicide on a plane.  It works.  It’s common sense that you must have weapons if you want to protect people from violence.

Report this

By ardee, August 12, 2007 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

Further proof of the awful nature of Libertarianism can be found on another thread here (find it if you care to)when one of our resident libertarians talks about walking by a starving person on the street. Would any sane person fail to understand the horrific political allegiances that would suggest such a thing? To abstract oneself from the community in a John Wayne like false image of frontier self reliance when all sane folks understand that we are far stronger when we care for each other is simply unacceptable.

Report this

By carlito paquito, August 12, 2007 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment

i take back that offer of a kucinich and paul ticket.  rescinded.  verboten.  dam, got bamboozled again.  it’s back to Clinton & Kucinich carlito paquito official endoresment.  thanks for the oxygen Mr. Sheer:)

Report this

By Ben Mahallati, August 12, 2007 at 8:21 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

No he doesnt mean abortions are completely bad yo. He obviously means, girls that go out and have unprotected sex several times, dont deserve the privelage of killing there child they helped create.

About illigal immigrants,  he means they dont have to pay taxes like we do, basically we carry the whole weight of the country because mexicans and what not realize taxes arent affecting them.

And 911… not once did he say he belived 911 is real, but honestly yo, do you think he would have any chance at being elected if he was all about the conspiracy? He would be ridiculed beyond belief, by everyone. Tantalized.. Called michael moore. I mean come on. Cant you see farther than black and white?

And the education makes complete sense. Everything everyones being taught is regulated by the department of education leaving no room for doubt, or any questioning. Which is hideous. You cant learn anything if you dont really know both sides of the equation.

Report this

By ardee, August 12, 2007 at 8:11 pm Link to this comment

I have been constant in my distrust of the rather likeable Paul, getting jabs from our resident Libertarians along the way. I knew all along that Paul would reveal the seamy side of that political bent.

Report this

By Hemi*, August 12, 2007 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

Holy crap! So this is what a mental breakdown looks like. Try the decaf Ron. The man is all over the place on issues. His own backers had no idea how to react to his blathering. The man paused for audience reactions and was often met with only a smattering of cheers.

If there were passengers on the 9/11 flights, I’m sure a gunfight in coach would have been rather amusing. Am I mistaken or don’t planes depressurize if you shoot a few holes in the fuselage? Other passengers tend to depressurize if you shoot holes in them too, of that I’m certain. Imagine the flight stewards: “Can I get you a pillow miss? Perhaps some extra ammunition? Thanks for flying the Friendly skies!”

Doing away with the IRS will never happen under his watch and that’s his only selling point. Next!

Report this

By gesellschaft, August 12, 2007 at 7:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a horrible article.  Either by not knowing Ron Paul’s positions (well documented from all his years in Congress), or by design.

>>Paul referred to Roe v. Wade as “that horrible ruling,”
Yes, he follows the constitution and believes in the States rights that it is not appropriate for morals to be dictated by the Federal government.

>>called for the abolition of the Departments of Energy and Education and the IRS, and attacked welfare and immigrants.

Rightfully believes quite specifically the personal income tax on individuals labor is unconstitutional and that Federal government unarguably does a worse job at anything than local and state government.  He has never attacked immigrants.. that is a blatant lie, he is against the welfare state that acts as an incentive.

>>But the most bizarre moment came when he suggested airline passengers should be allowed to carry guns, saying: “I think 9/11, quite frankly, could have been prevented if we had had a lot more respect for the Second Amendment.”

Anyone who has watched him speak on gun control over the decades knows he believes airlines should set their own policies, that hijackings might be prevented if the pilot (whom is almost always retired military) were aloud to defend the cockpit.

Report this

By William Berry, August 12, 2007 at 7:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Everything he said sounds constitutional to me. He expressed his opinion on abortion. I don’t know about that issue, it seems entirely devisive, no matter which side you take. He only says the issue of automatic citizenship needs to be revisited, ie a constitutional amendment, not an executive decree, I think. I like Paul,I like his uncompromising stand on his constitutional beliefs and I’d rather see him as president than HER… or Rudy!

Report this

By Frank Krasicki, August 12, 2007 at 7:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would hope every progressive works for the dissolution of the Department of Education.  It is abusive of public school children and their best interests.

If it cannot function as an advocate for kids then it deserves to be dismantled until a good reason for such a Department can be found.

Frank Krasicki
http://region19.blogspot.com

Report this

By Sue, August 12, 2007 at 7:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In regard to the abortion issue, in 1970 I thought that it was better to make it legal rather than to have dangerous back-alley abortions. At that time, it was to have been in the first trimester of pregnancy.  I would never go that route, but thought that other women should have that choice.

Now I’m finding that for friends that had abortions in the ‘70’s, it was traumatic and they never forget and wonder about the child they never had.  Also please read

http://www.afterabortion.info/news/deaths_smj.html

It turns out that abortion is not as safe as we have been led to believe.  This all leads back to women saying no and men taking responsility for their actions.  My anthropology professor said that “the only thing that separates man from animals is cortical control of sexual behavior.”

Dr. Paul says it is up to the states, i.e. to determine whether life begins at conception, 120 days, quickening, the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb, or at birth.

On birthright citizenship - at first I was also indignant, since my great-grandparents came from Norway and Ireland and before that from England.  However, they came in legally, saved to bring the wife and children here and didn’t slip across the border in order to have their babies here.  They came, wanting to be Americans, and didn’t go back or retire to the Old Country.

Rep. Ron Paul is still the most forthright of the candidates.

Report this

By David, August 12, 2007 at 6:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#1 - Ron Paul is a former OBGYN and he is strongly Pro-Life, HOWEVER, he believes that issues like abortion should be left up to the states to decide and if you don’t like the laws in your state there’s 49 more.
#2 - He believes that a nation without strong borders is no nation at all. What’s wrong with believing in American sovereignty? If you want to be American, you can’t skip in line (ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS) and just because you pop out a kid in our country you’re American? He believes that needs to be revisited or else an illegal will do just that - spread their legs and pop out a kid to SKIP IN LINE.
#3 - As far as gun control, I don’t believe anyone should have a gun on planes except maybe pilots or federal marshalls but in most other places, the fear of everyone being able to level the playing field will keep criminals from having the advantage.

Report this

By Brandon Weaver, August 12, 2007 at 6:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You are misunderstanding his reasoning for wanting to abolish Roe vs. Wade. It’s because the federal government simply has no jurisdiction in the area of abortion. It’s a states issue, first and foremost, and he would let states decide.

And “believes the official lie”? Pray tell, what does Dennis Kucinich believe?

Report this

By 911truthdotorg, August 12, 2007 at 6:01 pm Link to this comment

Wow. Very disturbing. And I liked Ron Paul. He sounded like a right-wing demagogue pandering to middle America.

How can he talk about freedom, liberty and keeping the government off our backs when he wants to take away the right of women to have abortions if they choose to??

In one breath he says the founders would be ashamed of us for what has been done to the Constitution then says it needs to be changed to stop people who are born here from being US citizens!

And in implying that if the 9/11 passengers had had weapons, 9/11 could have been prevented means that he believes the official lie of 9/11!! My God!!

The only thing I still agree with him is that the IRS, Federal Reserve, WTO, NAFTA, etc need to be abolished. The 16th Amendment isn’t even legal since it was never ratified by 2/3 of the states. The gov’t just TOLD us that it was ratified. Some things just never change in this country.

We’re down to Dennis Kucinich, and he doesn’t have a chance in hell.

Folks, the ship is sinking fast and there are NO lifeboats.

Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition, America: Freedom to Fascism

Report this

By Robert Micheal of the Saints, August 12, 2007 at 5:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

He is right, bottom line the airlines relied on the government to protect it’s property and costumers,,and it failed. THE GOVERNMENT CAN NOT PROTECT YOU!!!
If the pilots had guns,,how many planes would have been highjacked on 9/11…answer NONE,,don’t bring a box cutter to a gun fight,,,

Report this

By Christopher S. Lawton, August 12, 2007 at 5:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The airlines and the their pilots would not have been overcome by box cutters if they had been armed with smith & wesson’s!!

price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
—Thomas Jefferson “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.”
~ Thomas Jefferson
(This is why Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton want gun control so badly! )
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c)1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control laws we ALREADY have; don’t make more.
24. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good (Hillary Clinton June ‘04)

Report this

By steve, August 12, 2007 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

He didn’t say anything about passengers carrying guns.  I just watched it again.  It’s about airlines under the control of inept federal bureaucracy.

Report this

By Rich, August 12, 2007 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul is in favor of letting the states decide their own abortion laws.  He says there shouldn’t be a federal law on abortion because it’s not covered in the constitution.

As for the guns comment that is in regard to allowing airline company’s to provide their own security on the flights and that it would be their job to protect us and not the government.

All those other departments are not authored by the constitution either.  The Federal Department of Education was only established in 1980.  What do you think we did before that?  The states ran the schools as saw fit and as it should be.  More power to the people because it’s at the local level.

Report this

By Ray Harmon, August 12, 2007 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would add that most supporters from whatever part of the political spectrum have looked into Ron Paul’s position and have a more comprehensive view of it.

Paul advocates getting the federal government completely out of the abortion business, pro or con.

This would leave the abortion issue up to each state to to decide. As it should be.

Also, your statement, “he suggested airline passengers should be allowed to carry guns” is incorrect. He was referring to the pilots/crew of the airlines.

For example, banks can employ armed guards, but our airplanes can’t? An airplane is private property, property owners should not be handicapped by federal mandates as they were on and before 9/11.

Report this

By justaguy, August 12, 2007 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Nice spin.

Report this

By Doug, August 12, 2007 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I don’t think it’s bizarre to suggest that armed airline pilots might have been able to defend their planes from a few guys with boxcutters.

Progressives were already aware that Ron Paul is pro-life and against the IRS, but they are supporting him anyway, because his positions on the war and civil liberties put those of the leading Democratic contenders to shame.

Report this

By greenback, August 12, 2007 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Honeymoon over? Are you kidding? Considering Romney spent about $1000 per vote to get about 4000 votes and Ron Paul barely spent a dime and recieved over 1200 votes, it sounds quite impressive. Also, considering Big Corp News has a concerted effort to pretend Ron Paul does not exist claiming Ron Paul is known by less tha 2% of the Republican voters yet recieved 10% of the Iowa vote (5 times the amount of Rudy), I mean come on Truthdig, maintain some integrity here otherwise we’ll start thinking you are a FOX affliate spinning news for anti-American special interests.

Report this

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook