Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 2, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates








Truthdig Bazaar
The Lives of Riley

The Lives of Riley

By Mark Heisler
$6.00

more items

 
Report

Cheering for Ron Paul

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

Posted on Nov 20, 2007
Ron Paul
AP photo / Charles Dharapak

By Robert Scheer

What can you get for a trillion bucks?  Or make that $1.6 trillion, if you take the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as tallied by the majority staff of Congress’ Joint Economic Committee (JEC).  Or is it the $3.5-trillion figure cited by Ron Paul, whose concern about the true cost of this war for ordinary Americans shames the leading Democrats, who prattle on about needed domestic programs that will never find funding because of future war-related government debt?

Given that the overall defense budget is now double what it was when President Bush’s father presided over the end of the Cold War—even though we don’t have a militarily sophisticated enemy in sight—you have to wonder how this president has managed to exceed Cold War spending levels.  What has he gotten for the trillions wasted? Nothing, when it comes to capturing Osama bin Laden, bringing democracy to Iraq or preventing oil prices from tripling and enriching the ayatollahs of Iran while messing up the American economy.

That money could have paid for a lot of things we could have used here at home.  As Rep. Paul points out, for what the Iraq war costs, we could present each family of four a check for $46,000—which exceeds the $43,000 median household income in his Texas district.  He asks: “What about the impact of those costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings?  Forty-six thousand dollars would cover 90 percent of the tuition costs to attend a four-year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four.  But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq, where the best news in a long time is they [the insurgents] aren’t killing our men and women as fast as they were last month.”

How damning that it takes a libertarian Republican to remind the leading Democratic candidates of the opportunity costs of a war that most Democrats in Congress voted for.  But they don’t need to take Paul’s word for it; last week, the majority staff of the Joint Economic Committee in Congress came up with similarly startling estimates of the long-term costs of this war.

The White House has quibbled over the methods employed by the JEC to calculate the real costs of our two foreign wars, because the Democrats in the majority dared to include in their calculations the long-term care of wounded soldiers and the interest to be paid on the debt financing the war.  Of course, you need to account for the additional debt run up by an administration that, instead of raising taxes to pay for the war, cut them by relying on the Chinese Communists and other foreigners who hold so much of our debt.  As concluded by the JEC report, compiled by the committee’s professional staff, “almost 10 percent of total federal government interest payments in 2008 will consist of payments on the Iraq debt accumulated so far.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
However, even if you take the hard figure of the $804 billion the administration demanded for the past five years, and ignore all the long-run costs like debt service, we’re still not talking chump change here.  For example, Bush has asked for an additional $196 billion in supplementary aid for his wars, which is $60 billion more than the total spent by the U.S. government last year on all of America’s infrastructure repairs, the National Institutes of Health, college tuition assistance and the SCHIP program to provide health insurance to kids who don’t have any.

On this matter of covering the uninsured, it should be pointed out to those who say we (alone among industrialized nations) can’t afford it that we could have covered all 47 million uninsured Americans over the past six years for what the Iraq war cost us.  How come that choice—war in Iraq or full medical coverage for all Americans—was never presented to the American people by the Democrats and Republicans who voted for this war and continue to finance it?

Those now celebrating the supposed success of the surge might note that, as the JEC report points out, “[m]aintaining post-surge troop levels in Iraq over the next ten years would result in costs of $4.5 trillion.”  Until the leading Democratic candidate faces up to the irreparable harm that will be done to needed social programs over the next decades by the red-ink spending she supported, I will be cheering for the libertarian Republican.  At least he won’t throw more money down some foreign rat hole.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: What Would Jesus Buy?

Next item: A Telling Rejection of Rudy



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.

Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 24, 2007 at 10:41 am Link to this comment

As Canning neatly reminds us of Kucinich’s reply to Ted Kopple, Kucinich lucidly lets us, the somnambulistic public, know about the slippery slope of “media-disfavored candidates.”  Aren’t you just damn tired of it?  ABC is one of the hack stations I wouldn’t watch for a minute for any truth about either this presidential election year or anything even mundane.  For that matter I can’t think of one, including PBS, I would look to for the truth!  The rampant media policing in this country is comparable to the media bias totalitarian dictators (the latest being Musharif in Pakistan) exert in their attempt to impose their dogma on their people.  It is a huge problem in this “free” country of America.  We need to generate a list of news media who are really objective about the news.  The practice of have one representative from one camp and another one from an opposite camp is deceptive in that these persons are handpicked to express their views.

Report this

By Mulligan, November 24, 2007 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

Here are your words cyrena. Read these, then get back to the crucial world of writing smear blogs.

“the same mob of whackos…”

“as well as the whackos that have responded to Dr. Paul’s newsletter”

And I meant who is Lee, not Ted.

I can understand why you missed that fact that you resort to name calling. You’re posts are way too long and overly sanctimonious to actually read. And you’re anger is evident in the tone of you’re writing. You don’t have to say “I’m angry”; your tone betrays you. And your excessive use of capital letters is also disturbing.

Oh well; at least you didn’t call me a Paultard…

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 24, 2007 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

Just for the record, Non Credo #115470 what stupor are you coming out of?  You might just reread LWM at #115435 to see how exactly he used the allusion to Hitler.  You are way off course or you have poor critical reading skills, or both.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 24, 2007 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

Non Credo, your observations about Tim Russert’s mistreatment of Kucinich during a recent debate are but a part of what John Nichols & Robt. McChesney refer to as the corporate “media policing” of the political process—a process where the corporate media replaces serious discussion of the fundamental questions of war and peace with poll watching and punditry involving meaningless duscissions as to which candidate “appears presidential,” all the while shunning serious candidates who lack sufficient funds to purchase expensive political advertising.  It is a process that produces decidedly undemocratic results, such as the nomination of a pro-war candidate (Kerry) by an anti-war party.

The classic example arose during a 2004 debate moderated by Ted Koppel, who not only sought to marginalize the media disfavored candidates but went so far as to label Kucinich, Al Sharpton & Carol Mosley Braun as vanity candidates who should drop out of the race.  Kucinich replied:  “I want the American people to see where media takes politics in this country.  We start talking about endorsements, now we’re talking about polls and then talking about money.  When you do that you don’t have to talk about what’s important to the American people.”  Though the remark prompted a loud and sustained applause, one week later ABC made “a formal decision to cut back on its already scant coverage of Kucinich….”  This drew not only a sharp e-mail response from Kucinich supporters, but a rather insightful comment from the candidate himself.  “The American people clearly do not want the media to be in a position where they’re determining which candidates ought to be considered for the presidency….Such practice by the media represents a tampering with the political process itself.  The role of the media in this process has now become a national issue central to the question of who’s running this country….”

Kucinich’s media reform proposals reveal precisely why the corporate media regards his candidacy as unworthy of coverage.  They include “breaking up the major media conglomerates” by “limiting the number of media outlets one corporation can own in a given medium, such as radio, print, or television…; a ban on cross-ownership of newspapers, radio and television in the same market by the same corporation…; expansion of funding for public broadcasting…and community-controlled [non-commercial] media…; requiring broadcast and cable networks to provide substantial free air time for candidates and parties during elections…; opening up the regulatory process so that citizens can easily challenge the licenses of local broadcast outlets that fail to provide local coverage and to direct coverage at the entire community they are supposed to serve.”

I am not surprised by the continuation of media policing.  I am surprised, and disappointed, that it continues to succeed, even to the point of persuading otherwise knowledgeable people like TW & Cyrena to suggest we abandon Kucinich for the supposedly electable empty shell, Obama.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 24, 2007 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

Re: Wicher #115285

Breakfast is over and time to revisit the military question…
Who is going to attack us?  How about box cutters?  Haven’t you heard the latest reports on how unreliable security is in this country even now with all the Homeland Security exertions put in?  It is so bad that even the Bushelites use it as a subtheme in their argument against illegal immigration even though Homeland Security systems are Bushelite created.  Talk about schizophrenia.  Stop the Bush war and $500 billion will be a drop in the bucket.  The Marshall Plan?  Ron Paul would throw that idea in the incinerator. And Bush and company has all but exchanged imperialism for reciprocity.  Do you imagine in your wildest dreams that stability in the world would magically appear should all the military be brought home?  Other ramifications of that action would not only affect the US position in the world, and regardless of how much you want to deny that a military presence in the world is necessary for the containment of peace and security, there is the small question of unemployment of those military personnel returning to the private sector would be incredibly substantial.  If a recession is on the horizon, it will rise to a zenith rather quickly.  The devaluation of the American dollar would be exacerbated when other countries notice (rather quickly) the lack of presence of the United States in the world.  Of course you don’t say how quickly you would reassign the troops back home.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 24, 2007 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

LWM.  My support for Kucinich has nothing to do with a “cult of personality” and everything to do where he stands on “issues” that truly matter.  That’s the problem.  It is the corporate media which erects these cults of personality as it astuteley evades informing the public of where candidates stand on those “issues.”  That is the source of the “democracy deficit.”

I’ve invited other posters to come forward with a single position of “any” candidate that they can honestly argue is superior to the positions taken by Mr. Kucinich and to tell me why they believe the position is superior.  It is an open invitation to anyone and everyone who posts at Truthdig.

To date, no one, not a single poster, has offered even one issue of “any” other candidate.  Of course, I realize that this is not a fair question.  When it comes to substance, no other candidate can measure up to Kucinich.  But that is the point, isn’t it.  We the People should select our representatives based on the substance of their policies.  If we examine policy rather than image, the selection becomes a no-brainer.  There is only one candidate whose policies qualify him to be President of these United States.  His name is Dennis Kucinich.

Report this

By ElkoJohn, November 24, 2007 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

Ron Paul is advocating we dismantle a US government corrupted special interest lobbies (left & right), and let the states handle all duties not assigned the Feds under the Constitution. Very radical idea, but I remember how the states handled integration until the Feds stepped in. Rather than dismantle the gov. I would have a constitutionalist like Kucinich fix it (if it can be fixed)—and dismantle it only as a last resort.  Rather than have the big-money oligarchy control the US government, and the American Empire exploiting the world, I would let Ron Paul dismantle it. As usual, it’s always about the lesser of the evils.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 24, 2007 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

Yes, LWM, I’d rather see the snake than have it bite me in the ass when I’m not looking.  And because we are not omniscient, we can’t be looking everywhere all the time.  Some places have to be left to observers such as you and like a few others on this forum.  I’ve checked out the sites you noted in your commentaries and was enlightened much farther.  Thank you. 

It was heartening to see the Labor Party Rudd in Australia unseat the eternal conservative Howard government for Prime Minister.  But the resurgence of fascism in Pakistan and Russia ought to perk up the ears of everyone if only because of their nuclear capability under power-hungry despots.  Our despot is a bit more controllable albeit just a bit because of our impotent Congress.  With the likes of Ron Paul’s, and his quasi Don Quixote posture, covert and not-so-covert plans to dismantle every beneficial social program we have, and particularly and furthermore, his isolationist intentions, we must exorcise every aspect of this neo-fascism for the world to see.  For how would he handle terrorist attacks if we no longer pay to have homeland security?  How would he handle trade with the world, particularly the third-world, he would have us no longer support?  Some of that casting out of the devil is actually happening right here on this TD discussion site. 

I do not know at this time who of the Democratic candidates I will vote for in the primary except right now Clinton is definitely not appealing.  I am tending toward Kucinich because of his purer ideas, but there are problems even with him.  There is still a lot of time to hear their soliloquies.

Report this

By LWM, November 24, 2007 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

There is a world of difference between Mearsheimer and Walt,

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

And Ron Paul.

This area is a rhetorical minefield and not readily comprehended and navigated by most. The fact that Neo-Nazis support Ron Paul and not Kucinich tells you all you need to know.

Report this

By LWM, November 24, 2007 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

“Now, if Ron Paul really said some of the things the article charges him with saying, particularly about African Americans, he’s beyond consideration.

However, I am suspicious of this article, because it shows signs of being a hatchet job. Much of the article is smearing by association. So what if David Dukes likes Ron Paul. On Duke’s website, there’s a link to the book on the Israel lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt. Does that discredit them or their book? Certainly not.”

This ground has all been covered and recovered. If it was a hatchet job, it was a damn far-sighted and prescient one. Those comments are from a 1992 Ron Paul “Survival Report” Weekly or Monthly Newsletter targeted at survivalists, White Nationalists, Christian Patriot/militia movement types. It was unearthed and printed in an article in the Houston Chronicle in 1996. More like the guys ugly past came back to bite him in the ass.


It’s all here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

No hatchet job unless Ron Paul chopped off his own foot and stuck it in his mouth.

Report this

By LWM, November 24, 2007 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

Having said that, we are all glad Ron Paul is in the race. As Kevin Drum puts it:

“RON PAUL….Speaking of Ron Paul, check out the Unabomber-esque fundraising letter he recently sent out to his supporters. Hoo boy.

It really says something when a guy who drones on about “fiat money,” thinks we ought to abolish the Federal Reserve, claims the UN wants to confiscate our guns, and apparently believes that Canada is conspiring to annex us, often sounds like the sanest Republican on the stage.”

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_10/012194.php

Let’s face it. The Right is just not right in the head.

Report this

By LWM, November 24, 2007 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

Ernest says… “TW—it isn’t a question of who “could” possess integrity.  I have watched and studied both, closely!  Kucinich has integrity.  Obama is just another disingenuous politician.”

Ernest,

Politicians are human beings, just people, like the rest of us with all the faults and imperfections. I assume they have a character defect the minute they choose to enter politics in America. At first, they are too idealistic. After some time in the game, they are tainted and jaded. DK is still very idealistic but I reject all this cult of personality crap. That’s the main reason Ron Paul smells so bad to me. No one man is going to *Save America*. In fact, that one guy is the most dangerous politician around. Hitler came to power to Save Germany. History is replete with other examples of this cult worship.

Report this

By LWM, November 24, 2007 at 6:46 am Link to this comment

And just to put the nail in the coffin, so to speak…

This is Tom G. Palmer of the Cato Institute. Not neocon, definitely libertararian and most certainly right wing, with some posts about the slime at antiwar.com, LewRockwell and elsewhere. These are the people supporting a Ron Paul presidency. This first one is truly disgusting. And they blame the left for not supporting the troops? The Ron Paul right cheers when our troops are killed.

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/026869.php

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/022289.php

http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/019636.php

I pity the progressives who read that garbage site antiwar.com. Justin Raimondo is a sick and disturbed individual, like most of the people associated with that extremist, anti-statist right wing crap. If you want to get a better product and just as antiwar, you should be reading WSWS.

http://www.wsws.org/

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 24, 2007 at 6:38 am Link to this comment

The truth will out.  Just go to Ron Paul’s own website that advertises he is the leading candidate for “freedom” in our nation’s capital. His rhetoric about racism is utter claptrap logic and pure bunk.  By setting up an artificial distinction between the ‘individual’ and the ‘group’ he intends to pose as an anti-racist when in fact there is no real content to what he says.  He uses ideas like ‘liberty’ in demagogue fashion to gather the ears of a public what is trying to eke out a sense of national pride, national morality that has thoroughly been trashed these last seven years.  Quoted from his website, he says, “Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.”  Has a nice ring to it doesn’t it.  But what he would do is to take away any social program that would give support to those of skin color (meaning any one but white), gender (meaning women) and ethnicity (meaning everyone except American Christians).

He says, ‘the antidote to racism is liberty.” What that really means is the libertarian way to pay little or no attention to the real problems of racism, particularly when he says “Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart…”  How inane and insane to think that there will be some anti-bigotry program somewhere, cause it won’t be coming from the limited constitutional government, that will change the heart about the bigoted mindset.  Unless it is mandated through government institutions, there ain’t no heart changing against racism gonna happen, particularly with Christian supremacists running the nation.  It has only been through federal edict that racism has been diminished to the degree it has.  We have learned that in spades.  Who does he think he is kidding?  Only the illiterate who cannot read and understand the clever vocabulary he uses and those neophyte college students who never learned real critical thinking skills who have bandwagon mentality.  College students in general like to be thought of as smug and audacious.  Ron Paul’s clever firebrand put-more-money-in-your-own-pocket fanatical politics naturally appeal to the college set.  But there are other candidates becoming the darlings of the campuses.

His libertarian program, regardless of the camouflage of the Republican party he signed up to run under since he knows any third party candidate is doomed to electoral oblivion in this country, is classic decentralization of everything.  Were this to happen, you need to think about the consequences.  Everything would come to a bloody halt.  Education would go further down the toilet than it has under the Bush ideology.  National infrastructure meaning highways, safe water systems, navigable waterways, bridges (just recall the latest incident in Minneapolis, for some memory is very short or glossed over), tunnels, and so forth, will go straight to hell.  All social programs would be cut or decimated to be in effect useless.

Report this

By LWM, November 24, 2007 at 6:36 am Link to this comment

Whenever there is a post about Ron Paul, the Pauliacs, Paulistas, Paultards, whatever, come out in force.

http://wonkette.com/politics/the-war-on-paultards/

In fact, it looks like left and right are finally coming together in a truely bipartisan effort to rid ourselves of this dangerous kook.

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2378

“- Paul Krugman has a nice smear piece today in the NYT on Ron Paul where he attempts to claim that he is a ‘friend of corporate fraud’ because he is critical of elements of Sarbannes Oxley.  Are you kidding me? Krugman is a political hack of the worst kind and his economics suck too.”

Righhhhht.

“Kook” is what academics call him, (a technical term), mostly for his adherence to the Austrian School of economics. I call him a kook for a whole host of other reasons. In time, these Pauliacs reveal themselves as who and what they are. Kooks and racists.

These are not “left wing” academics saying this either:

From The Library of Economics and Liberty (hardly a left-leaning site)

About the Author

E. Roy Weintraub is an economics professor at Duke University and associate editor of History of Political Economy.

“What can be contrasted to neoclassical economics? Some have argued that there are several schools of thought in present-day economics. They identify (neo-)Marxian economics, (neo-)Austrian economics, post-Keynesian economics, or (neo-)institutional economics as alternative metatheoretical frameworks for constructing economic theories. To be sure, societies and journals promulgate the ideas associated with these perspectives. Some of these schools have had insights that neoclassical economists have learned from; the Austrian insights on entrepreneurship are one example. But to the extent these schools reject the core building blocks of neoclassical economics—as Austrians reject optimization, for example—they are regarded by mainstream neoclassical economists *as defenders of lost causes or as kooks, misguided critics, and antiscientific oddballs. The status of non-neoclassical economists in the economics departments in English-speaking universities is similar to that of flat-earthers in geography departments: it is safer to voice such opinions after one has tenure, if at all.*”

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/NeoclassicalEconomics.html


The Federal Reserve nonsense?


Debunking the Federal Reserve Conspiracy Theories

http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/Federal_Reserve.html

Report this

By cyrena, November 24, 2007 at 4:23 am Link to this comment

#115393 by LWM
LWM,
Sorry I’m just getting a chance to respond to your excellent posts and collection of links and other information. You can see that my patience allowed me to become temporarily sidetracked, if only to address the BS first. Now we can move along.

I was particularly appreciative of the link on the “Laws of the Sea”, because I’d received an email from a friend that had a petition attached, regarding this thing. AND, I didn’t have a clue to what it was about. My own knowledge of “Laws of the Sea” comes from my academic background in International Law, so this is obviously VERY NEW to the scene. (International Law has long ago established these things, but they are inseparable from jurisdictional, territorial, and other legal issues…none can be considered separately from the others).

Anyway, I said all of that to say that I’ve only just had an opportunity to read through it,(and even then, not thoroughly) and still would like to check it further, (against already established treaties, conferences, and the like) before I can make any informed comment on it.

I CAN say that I’ve always been a firm supporter of the UN, based on it’s REAL purpose and intent. The problems with the UN of course, is that its original purpose and intent has been thoroughly undermined by the current administration of thugs in DC/Houston. In short, the US has always had an out of proportion influence on the UN, (in my own opinion) but in the past 7 years, the regime in charge has as much as eviscerated it. In short, they’ve taken total control of it, and used it for their own destructive purposes. (Note the recess appointment of John Bolton as our ‘representative’ to the UN, after Congress had already twice refused to confirm him.) cheney/bush used the ‘recess’ trick to slide him in, and indeed he created the destruction that everyone knew he would, which is at least part of the reason why the rest of the world now hates us. And, cheney/bush has used the recess trick on multiple occasions, to place their selected thugs in these positions that would never have otherwise been approved or confirmed. (That’s why Leahy has now been forced to resort to the parliamentary tool of keeping congress in session; (technically) even during what would ordinarily be a standard recess. So, they meet every three days, just to keep cheney from doing anymore of the standard damage of appointing his various and sundry criminals to these posts that require congressional approval. What a horribly sad state of affairs we’ve been reduced to.

So, I said all of that to say that I’m still reading and comparing this “Law of the Seas” thing, to what the REAL “Law of the Seas” actually mean, and I’d like to run it by an expert opinion as well. (far more ‘expert’ than my own). My own opinion (for the moment), is that it would never be taken seriously by anyone. BUT, that was in the old century, before everybody fell into the rabbit hole. I stopped ‘predicting’ anything based on logic or precedent, (or the Constitution and the rule of law) sometime around 7 years ago. Nothing has made the slightest bit of common sense for at least that long.

So, my own initial reaction to this:

•  The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world’s oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13135.html

Would be this…I’m not so sure this is really a UN thing, (unless we consider the UN elite to be the cheney/bush controlled elite) because it doesn’t sound at all like the REAL UN to me. The LAST thing the original purpose of the UN would decree, is for the US military to police the world. THAT is the problem; The US military imposing itself as policepersons of the world. Just like everything else the past 7 years, it’s the OPPOSITE of what is best for the world and US!!!

Report this

By cyrena, November 24, 2007 at 3:26 am Link to this comment

•  #115404 by Mulligan on 11/24 at 12:55 am
(4 comments total)
“So, we know who you are, and what you’re about…”
—cyrena
That’s the kind of talk that gets people to support Ron Paul. And noticing that you practice the politics of name calling and anger is NOT a personal attack.
Mulligan, what does this mean?

•  AND NOTICING THAT YOU PRACTICE THE POLITICS OF NAME CALLING AND ANGER IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK.

You have another post that says something similar. It just says…”again with the name calling”. Please try to articulate what the hell you might be talking about, for anyone willing to actually pay any attention to you. (looks like I’m the only one).

So, can you somehow find a way to maybe point to something that would provide an example of this ‘name calling”? I can’t seem to find anything in any of my own posts that would be construed as ‘name calling’.

Can you also expound on the ANGER not being a personal attack. I haven’t mentioned anything about anger. Nope…not me. Now I didn’t miss your own Dr. Phil wannabe post that ‘diagnosed’ ME as having all of this alleged anger. But let’s just try and read through your posts, (and since YOU wrote them, it shouldn’t be THAT difficult for you) to find out where this anger issue popped up.

Well Mulligan, seems like YOU’RE the only one who has said anything about this ‘anger’ thing. First you accused ME of having all of these anger issues. (very odd, since you obviously don’t know anything about me, but I was willing to extend/stretch the benefit of the doubt, and give you some credit for having read some of my previous posts) and then you accused LWM of having ‘anger issues”. Now, LWM hasn’t written enough posts as of yet, to reveal any “anger’ issues. STILL, you’re the only one who’s said anything about anger. So, tell us what you mean by anger not being a personal attack. Does that mean that YOUR anger isn’t intended as a personal attack? (that’s what a rational mind might guess) But then, in your 4 posts, you’ve never suggested that YOU were angry; only that LWM and I were.

And, you were wondering who Ted was? That’s why I provided the post number as a reference. (it’s sort of standard procedure on these reader comment blogs) So, here it is again. #115391 by ted Tyson

Now, what you can do here, (if you don’t get confused, like you admitted to being about the Constitution) is to just scroll down the page, until you come to this number. Then you’ll have a reference for what we’re actually talking about.

Last but certainly not least Mulligan, there is absolutely NOTHING in my comments that can be interpreted as “the kind of talk that gets people to support Ron Paul, or ANYTHING OR ANYBODY ELSE!!

I am NOT in the business of ‘getting people” to do ANYTHING, nor is it my intention to PREVENT anybody from doing ANYTHING, unless it is something that is likely to bring HARM to any other living being(s).

So, I will repeat this once more for you…intelligent people form their OWN opinions when they have clear, correct, and TRUTHFUL information. That’s just how it works. I guess it’s just the way Nature planned it.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 24, 2007 at 2:48 am Link to this comment

Fact - Ron Paul’s personal hero and intellectual touchstone is Ludwig Von Mises a Jewish Austrian economist.  Claiming that he is an anti-semite is simply absurd.

Fact - Ron Paul feels exactly the same about foreign aid to ALL SOVEREIGN NATIONS as he does the aid to Israel (who happen to be the largest recipient of US foreign aid and who also MUST spend their aid dollars buying weapons from US defense contractors).  That said, he views all of it the same and feels we shouldn’t be giving it out to any nation because it often undermines our interests and the recipients interests as sovereign nations.  He also cites numerous examples in recent history where our tax payer dollars, doled out as aid, are used to purchase weapons that ultimately end up being used against our own troops or innocent people.

Fact - Plans do exist for a North American Union…
Vicente Fox on Larry King: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIIh0UjgCYQ

“However, if there was even an iota of sincere admiration for Rosa Parks by Ron Paul, he would never have suggested something as stupid as a medal, or gone along with whomever did have such a stupid suggestion.”

Fact - Ron Paul did not suggest the medal for Rosa Parks. He was the ONLY member of Congress to vote against it.  He was also the only member to put forward a proposal for each lawmaker to pay for it out of their own pocket. They cost $30K

Fact - Ron Paul also voted against congressional medals for Ronald Reagan, Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, and the Dalai Lama just to name a few.

Fact - Nobody “gives a crap about a stupid medal” until they are trying to smear Ron Paul as a racist that hates Rosa Parks.

PS - Paul Krugman has a nice smear piece today in the NYT on Ron Paul where he attempts to claim that he is a ‘friend of corporate fraud’ because he is critical of elements of Sarbannes Oxley.  Are you kidding me? Krugman is a political hack of the worst kind and his economics suck too.

PPS - An excellent article that tells the whole story regarding Ron Paul’s very principled stance on Sarbox (not just Krugman’s half truths) that also refutes the character assassination that Krugman attempts is here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson201.html

Report this

By Novista, November 24, 2007 at 2:14 am Link to this comment

“Ron Paul is a kook. Anyone who claims otherwise is a kook.”

Ah, the epitome of rational discourse. Since you have the Only True Conclusions and that other bloke is channeling George Washington, mo need for anyone else to think or respond.

Have a nice day.

Report this

By Mulligan, November 24, 2007 at 1:55 am Link to this comment

“So, we know who you are, and what you’re about…”

—cyrena

That’s the kind of talk that gets people to support Ron Paul. And noticing that you practice the politics of name calling and anger is NOT a personal attack.

Report this

By Mulligan, November 24, 2007 at 1:38 am Link to this comment

Again with the name calling. And who is Ted?

Report this

By cyrena, November 24, 2007 at 1:30 am Link to this comment

#115391 by ted tyson
4 comments total
#115400 by Mulligan
2 comments total

Ted & Mulligan
Not sure where either of you popped up from, but based on my own close observations of these and other posts, including the chronology and content, I’d bet money that you’ve been recruited by the same mob of whackos that has prompted the despicable discourse, from the likes of the Lees of the world.

And, I suspect that you will discover soon enough, that nobody is going to pay any attention, OTHER than to make the same observations that I can obviously make, which make it abundantly clear that you are out to attack ME personally. So, we know who you are, and what you’re about, and we thank you for allowing us to figure this out so quickly.

My own post, (to which you were apparently attempting to respond) was simply an article from another web site, which was correctly attributed as such. The link was provided, for anyone who wanted to go to the source of it. You obviously didn’t.

The point is that I made it abundantly clear where that stuff came from. I did NOT write it…not now, and not in 1992. The stuff is attributed to Ron Paul, and from what I can gather from the article, he has not DENIED writing the newsletter. IOW, there is nothing that I could find from him, that would say that he no longer has these opinions. Maybe he has in fact changed his mind about all of these things. I personally doubt that very seriously.  But, that’s really not the point. The point is that these are HIS words, and HIS political newsletter, NOT MINE.

It should also be clearly obvious to any person of even minimal intelligence, that the newsletter written by him, WAS the ‘attraction’ or ‘prompt’ that brought the white supremacists out from under their respective rocks, (or prison cells) to SUPPORT him. The ARTICLE conveys this, and it can be attributed to its author, who apparently posts a regular column on line, though admittedly I have not read her work before. (I am a regular reader of the website where this was posted). The NAMES of the author, as well as the whackos that have responded to Dr. Paul’s newsletter, are ALSO included. So, I’m not real sure why you’re having problems with that, unless you are unfamiliar with this type of media.

It seems simple enough to anyone with a reading/writing skill that has developed beyond the 6th grade. (and that even includes Texas 6th graders)

It was not MY intention to PROVE the racist and reactionary nature of Ron Pauls ideology. Intelligent people will decide that for themselves. And, as you’ve mentioned, he’s presumably a grown man, and so can speak for himself. Based on his propaganda, I suspect that he has.  If one writes it, and puts their name to it, that’s pretty clear to most. He also has a Congressional voting record.

Both of you are treading on new territory here, and you’ve gotten off to a bad start. This website is in fact one that will post nearly anything, by anyone, making it about the most ‘lenient’ of those around. (you could never get away with these personal attacks on other sites). So, maybe you believe that you can easily pick up where Lee has been forced to resign. I think you’re treading on dangerous ground however, because there IS a line. So, step back. Take a deep breath, and give some thought to how you’ve ALREADY SHOWN YOUR HAND/AGENDA…making it clear that it is based solely upon attacking me, or anyone else whom you ‘assume’ might agree with me.
This is not a kindergarten exercise here. We are grown people, sharing information, (ie, the link from the other website) as well as points of view; and indulging in adult-style debates. So far, (and so quickly) you’ve proven that you’re out of your league. So maybe, you should just quit while you’re ahead. (free advice)

Note how RP’s own words have come back to haunt him. People DO keep track. Like I said; free advice.

Report this

By Mulligan, November 24, 2007 at 12:24 am Link to this comment

Now that I look at it, it’s LMW who has the REAL anger problem. Read the Constitution and it will most likely bore you into some much needed slumber. I know I fall asleep when I read something that I don’t understand, so maybe my meaningful advice can be of some help.

Report this

By Mulligan, November 24, 2007 at 12:15 am Link to this comment

There are way too many quotation marks surrounding words that are attributed to nobody. And anger, which cyrena holds in abundance, is a heavy burden to carry. I feel sorry for you cyrena, not just because of your own political bigotry and sanctimony, but also because you’re so angry. You’ll no doubt go to sleep angry, and then wake up angry. And you’ll be uninformed and angry at that. Anger is usually a result of fear. Don’t be afraid cyrena; it’s just the Constitution.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 24, 2007 at 12:08 am Link to this comment

TW—it isn’t a question of who “could” possess integrity.  I have watched and studied both, closely!  Kucinich has integrity.  Obama is just another disingenuous politician.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 23, 2007 at 11:59 pm Link to this comment

Re #115367 by Ernest Canning on 11/23 at 7:53 pm
(1161 comments total)

“Yes, Kucinich and Obama supporters should come together—for the purpose of exposing which is the charleton.”

It seems to me that it is not I who am trying to pin the “progressive” label on Obama, but you who are pinning the “not” progressive label on him. I am trying to avoid labels. Does either man have to be a “charlatan”? Couldn’t they both be honest men?

Report this

By LWM, November 23, 2007 at 10:48 pm Link to this comment

ted tyson says:

“cyrena,
you set out out to give proof of ron paul’s racism; instead, you give examples of the racism of others.”

That is the weakest attempt at refutation I have ever seen. 


Ghostwriter, my ass.


“Reading the entire article will show that I have not taken these quotes out of context, though the article is definitely not for everyone: it’s a 3700-word racist tirade that is frankly stomach-turning in its depiction of African-Americans as violent, unevolved savages and even rapists.  Without a doubt, it was articles like this one that prompted the Heritage Front, a Toronto-based neo-Nazi organization, to include the Ron Paul Political Report in its list of “Racialist Addresses and Phone Numbers.”

During Paul’s 1996 Congressional run, the Houston Chronicle unearthed some additional racial comments from his newsletter (emphasis mine):</i>

Just have a look.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

Then look at his “new nuttiness”.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13135.html

Better yet read where he channels Bill O’Reilly and the war on Christmas.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Fortunately this old racist kook will be too advanced in years to run for the WH again and will probably lose his seat in Congress. Some say that was intended and this is all a publicity stunt to facilitate moving to New Hampshire to run for Governor and give a boost to the failing Free State Project. Whatever.

C

Report this

By LWM, November 23, 2007 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena,

I think more true progressives in Congress is the goal. No matter who gets elected to the WH, wars of conquest are over. We are broke. Empire has a habit of doing that. Just ask the Brits. It will take a few election cycles to get back to normal.

Ron Paul is a kook. Anyone who claims otherwise is a kook. If that’s a “true conservative” you won’t get an argument from me. Conservatism is dead, at least the racist, paranoid variety is. People are sick of it. He can claim that some “ghostwriter” wrote the openly racist Survival Report back in the 90s.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740

He can’t make the same excuse about this:

“I don’t need to tell you that our American way of life is under attack. We see it all around us — every day — and it is up to us to save it.

The world’s elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming the European Union, the good ‘ol USA will only be a memory. We can’t let that happen.

The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world’s oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty. And they want to use our military to police the world.”

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13135.html

Nutbar.

Report this

By ted tyson, November 23, 2007 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

cyrena,
    you set out out to give proof of ron paul’s racism; instead, you give examples of the racism of others.  this is curious.  ron paul is a grown man and defends himself quite effectively when he needs to.  so far the more inflammatory accusations thrown at him have turned out to be reactionary exaggerations from people who purposely misrepresent his words out of jealousy, fear or both.


                  sincerely,

                  ted tyson

Report this

By cyrena, November 23, 2007 at 10:17 pm Link to this comment

#115370 by Ernest Canning


“Getting back to the original subject of this post, while I would like to be wrong, it appears to me that Mr. Scheer has attempted to compensate for the fact that his honest and outspoken criticism of the Bush regime”….. “by leaping at the chance, whenever possible, to deny political partisanship via openly declared support for any Republican who opposes the war.”

Ernest,
I would like for you to be wrong as well, but I fear that you are correct, and that maybe this is a far more generous way to put things than I would have come up with myself. Frankly, I was both surprised and disappointed, but NOT so much by the inclusions of Ron Paul on the website, (which has happened more than I personally would like) but by the whole thing on “cheering” for him and using Hillary as the person to hold him up against. I don’t want to see HER in the final race either. And, I say that in the same breath as I make the admission that the Chuck Hagel piece didn’t disturb me nearly as much. Matter of fact, if we HAD to have a republican in the race at all, (needless to say there isn’t much way around that) I’d take him over any of the ones currently wasting our time.

Be that as it may, I hope this advice from you will be considered by ALL journalists:

•  Mr. Scheer would do well to remind himself that he should first, and foremost, be a journalist; that journalists need not engage in the charade of “fair and balanced” by seeking to demonstrate a faux non-partisanship by leaping to support Republicans as an offset for the audacity to speak truth to power.

•  #115363 by LWM on 11/23 at 4:39 pm
“So who really believed in giving Rosa Parks a medal for her massive contribution to our society?  The members of Congress who would only do so using OTHER people’s money and none of their own?  Or Ron Paul who was willing to spend $100 of his own money to pay for it?”

So who really gives a crap about a stupid medal?
What about Katrina relief. Was he going to pay for that out of his pocket, too? No. He wasn’t going to pay for it at all.

LWM

I’m just REALLY with you on your assessment of the medal. And, while I have not been ‘appointed’ in any form or fashion to posthumously speak for Rosa Parks, I suspect that she would have felt the same way. (I DID have the pleasure of speaking with her a number of times when she was here among us). Now, she probably would NOT have had my particular suggestion, which would be that Ron Paul take his $100.00 and shove it right up his ass, since she was far too “cultured” for such comments. However, if there was even an iota of sincere admiration for Rosa Parks by Ron Paul, he would never have suggested something as stupid as a medal, or gone along with whomever did have such a stupid suggestion. How about an everlasting educational fund in her name? How about some of that Katrina relief that you mentioned? How about a forever funded institution of professionals to uphold the Civil Rights for which she so dedicated her life, along with countless others? A medal? PLEASE.

As for the question that Tony Wincher answered for me. He answered the same way that I would have. If it comes down to it, (and we’re left with Hilary as the only other opponent against the current collection of deadbeat repugs) then yes…I would have to vote for her, even though she is the one who suggested 7 years ago, (after the December Coup of 2000) that the entire electoral process needed to be revamped. Well, no kidding. She hasn’t done anything to bring that about, and it should be very clear that she wouldn’t be my choice in the primaries. But, if that’s who we get, then yes, that’s what I would do, even though it would amount (AGAIN) to accepting the lesser of the evils.

I still would like to see the Obama and Kucinich camps join forces to make sure that she isn’t our only choice against the greatest of the evils. I believe that Obama is far closer to Kucinich in views and ideology than he is to Hillary.

Report this

By Sleeper, November 23, 2007 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment

I hate all the fear mongering.  Paul is a true conservative.  All the racist stuff is nothing worthless.  That is precisely what the Corporatins want this election to be about.

They want 80% of the women to vote for Hillary except for a few that may be black they are figured into the Obama camp.  Edwards gets the rest of the good ole white boys from the south and everyone forgets about holding all the liers and criminals accountable.

Hillary gets elected or even better a Rudy comes through and they celibrate.  After all it is the image they sell which the sheeple will buy.  I think a band named CAKE has a line in one of their song that says"excess ain’t rebellion.  Your drinking what they are selling”.

Report this

By ted tyson, November 23, 2007 at 9:37 pm Link to this comment

robert,
      ron paul has been willing to admit there has been a cover-up of the true events of 9/11.  loose change: the final cut is now available.  it clearly presents the basic framework of the argument put forth by the 9/11 truth movement. this documentary, along with 9/11: press for truth and 9/11 mysteries, is a great place to start as you educate your readers and this nation regarding the cancer growing on America.

   
                  sincerely,

                  ted tyson

Report this

By cyrena, November 23, 2007 at 9:33 pm Link to this comment

Here’s the stuff I was referencing on RP in an earlier post. Yep, there are always gonna be ‘apologists’ and deniers. Still, it is what it is.

Why Are White Supremacists So Attracted to Ron Paul?

Pam Spaulding: Could it be a political newsletter Rep. Paul put out in 1992 where he made some comments that are, well, racist?


•  Stormfront.org, a white supremacy web site, as well as others, such as WhiteWorldNews.com, have actively supported Paul’s bid for the presidency, including directing donors to his campaign. Stormfront has also endorsed Paul for president.

•  “Once in a great while a presidential candidate is presented to us. A candidate who not only speaks to us, but for us…I am supporting Ron Paul in his run for the presidency,” the Stormfront endorsement says. The endorsement praises Paul’s plans to reduce taxes, close the borders and eliminate trade deals, such as NAFTA.

•  “Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you are a white nationalist,” the endorsement continues. “Put your differences with one and other aside and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man. Look at the issues. Look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul 2008.”


•  ...On the Vanguard News Network , convicted bomber and neo-Nazi Todd Vanbiber posted his support for Paul, saying, “I think I’m going to get in touch with the local Paul people and see if I can help. I am serious about this shit.”; Vanbiber was convicted and spent 5 years in a Florida prison for planning to bomb over a dozen Orlando locations.

Ain’t that America. Apparently the attraction to Paul of the supremacist set stems from a political newsletter from 1992 where Ron Paul made some comments that are, well, racist. I would hope the Paul campaign would explain this:

* “Opinion polls show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.”

* “We are constantly told it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Even more embarrassing, according to Lone Star Times, Paul has the support of David Duke, and Stormfront has a YouTube audio commercial up supporting Paul.

Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters actually posted on Paul’s writings several months ago—and there’s more.

But, hey, Paul’s paranoia isn’t limited to African-Americans. He fears the Joooooooos, too:

•  Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, “By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

Article and Reader Comments here
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/67651/

The rhetoric of the current RP is defied not only by his more recent congressional voting record, but also by his past comments, over decades. Leopards don’t change their spots.

 
...“But Ron Paul has special interests of his own. Mixed economy? Forget it. Regulatory agencies? Not on his watch. Taxes? He’ll do his best to wipe them out. Social Security? Dream on. Cooperation with the United Nations? He’ll probably try to pull out of it. And if you’re a Jew or a Black, folks, the best you can expect is no sympathy. At worst, crazy things could happen. “...

Report this

By Sleeper, November 23, 2007 at 8:50 pm Link to this comment

I think we all do a service to America when we add to the credibility of the candidates on all sides who are less owned by the corporate money.  Edwards receives his share of corporate donations yet they are less then the corporate darlings from the two parties.

Kucinich and Paul both would be better as executives then the ones we are sold, but Edwards may yet be a good compromise.  The Corporate money should be used to draw disinctions as well as support for infractions on civil rights in the name of security. 

This is the premiss for gathering a data base that will be shared with certain corporations while held from the veiw of the public under the guise of National Security.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 23, 2007 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment

Wow!  This forum reminds me of a Roger Fedderer tennis match.  Zing, zing, zing…I most appreciate it as a lot is getting said.  Thank you all.
All that notwithstanding it is highly doubtful Paul will get the Republican nomination anyway and it is the rising Huckabee that needs a whole lot more scrutiny.  Huckabee is coming on as the white suede shoes, smiling, weight reduced, pal-of-a-candidate.  But in essence the evangelical storm troopers are just waiting in the wings to vote for him and are much more enamored of him than Morman, Mitt Romney.  Four out of five Republican voters in Iowa are evangelicals was reported on the News Hour today.  Can you just guess now who they are going to vote for?
For those who are of the liberal Democatic persuasion (and the Republican devotees if you are interested) check it out further at http://www.ontheissues.org/
Some are not so bad, others an abomination and bloodcurdling.
Just for general information here are a few of Huckabee’s stand on some of the issues, so right-wingers mayyyyyybbeeeee heeeerrrre’s your guy:
A pro-lifer, wants to repeal Roe vs Wade
Outlaw all abortions
Wants to cut spending but not clear where.  He is Republican so what ought we to expect?  Cut social programs that would benefit the middle and poor classes.
Contradictory stand of gays and gay rights
Against affirmative action
Did support principles in the Equal Rights Amendment but vague as to what that support exactly was.
Thinks the corporate organization of Walmart is a study in genius.
Weird philosophy on consumerism, thinks it is addictive but tranquility (peace? What, a calm market?) is immaterial.
Seems reasonable stands on crime: 
Three strikes nonsense, more revenge than restoration
Build more prisons and privatize management
Flexible federal block grants for crime programs, too vague to be understandable
Tougher juvenile crime penalties but states to set them.
Not acceptable stands on crime:  For the death penalty (although reluctantly (for whatever that could mean).
Opposes hate crimes legislation but defends death penalty biblically (What is evidenced in the bible? What does that say about a supposedly benevolent god? And by inference, Huckabee?)
Prosecute all illegal adult pornography, (What would “legal” adult pornography be?)
God and punishment prevent people’s natural selfishness.  (What evidence does he give for God’s prevention?)
On education:
Impeach judges for barring legislature prayers to Jesus. (Sep 2007)
Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007)
Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)
But,
I’m running for president, not writing science curriculum. (Jun 2007)
But,
Ending school prayer was one step in society’s moral decay. (Jun 2007)
SmartStart: early character-based education. (Jun 2007)
Does not believe in evolution. (May 2007)
And,
Sends his kids to public school; says other officials should. (Jan 2007)
Supported creation of Arkansas charter schools. (Dec 2006)
Authorize & advance more charter schools. (Jan 2007), guess if his kids are going to public school, the charter schools ought to be increased.
Incorporate character education into school curriculum. (Jan 2007). Wonder what form that would take?
Replace entire school board for failing schools. (Jan 2007) Isn’t this a state’s issue?
Raise teacher salaries; hire more teachers. (Nov 2002).  Now this one makes a whole lot of sense.  (I’m a teacher by profession, I have a bias)
Support displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools. (Nov 2002) uh, what?
Can you tell which ones are the waffling ultra-conservative ones?

Report this

By cann4ing, November 23, 2007 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

Getting back to the original subject of this post, while I would like to be wrong, it appears to me that Mr. Scheer has attempted to compensate for the fact that his honest and outspoken criticism of the Bush regime, especially with respect to what he aptly described as the “five greatest lies” that led to the imperial conquest of Iraq, by leaping at the chance, whenever possible, to deny political partisanship via openly declared support for any Republican who opposes the war.  The current article on Ron Paul is not the first.  On 1/16/07 Truthdig published Mr. Scheer’s piece, “Chuck Hegel for President.”

Mr. Scheer would do well to remind himself that he should first, and foremost, be a journalist; that journalists need not engage in the charade of “fair and balanced” by seeking to demonstrate a faux non-partisanship by leaping to support Republicans as an offset for the audacity to speak truth to power.  To the contrary, as Bill Moyers noted, “When journalism throws in with power that’s the first news marched to the guillotine.”  Real journalists don’t apologize for honest exposure of official prevarications, and they don’t need the cover of claiming to support Republicans either.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 23, 2007 at 5:53 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena, the one and only point on which I can agree is that Kucinich and Obama supporter should come together.  The real reason they should do so is so that each can compare where the two candidates stand on issues that truly matter.  Where you and Tony would like to pin the progressive label on Obama, whose wife served on the Wal Mart Board, in truth he is not and never will be a progressive.  Obama does not support single payer health care.  Like Hillary Clinton he has offered up a sham “universal coverage” proposal that amounts to a subsidy scheme for the health care insurance industry.  Obama, like Clinton, was unable to say that we should be out of Iraq by the end of his first term, 2013.  He has repeatedly said that Democrats do not have the votes to end the war—a flat out lie given that it only takes 41 votes in the Senate or a bare majority in the House to cut off further funding.  He has never advocated a return to the Fairness Doctrine, a roll-back of corporate consolidation of the media or a repeal of NAFTA or the WTO—and this man is supposed to be a progressive?

Obama is a product of what is wrong with our electoral system.  He projects an “image” of a “healer” (whatever that is) when, in reality, he represents a continuation of the corrupting influence of corporations over our lives, an influence that is, day-by-day slowly destroying our democracy.

Yes, Kucinich and Obama supporters should come together—for the purpose of exposing which is the charleton.  If Obama supporters would stop buying into deceptive image and examine the substance of where these two men stand on issues that truly matter, they would abandon the Obama campaign in droves, coming over to Kucinich, bringing about real change.

Tony:  Please don’t misunderstand me.  I do not think you “betray the progressive movement” by supporting Obama.  I think you betray yourself.  I know you from your prior posts to be an honest progressive.  I also know where you would have voted had you participated in the blind poll conducted last Aug. that listed candidate positions but withheld their names.  You would have been one of the 58% who supported Kucinich while the rest of the field was at or near single digits.  When you buy into this crap about voting on the basis of whom the corporate media tells you has a chance—something the corporate media has sought to convey from day one before the first poll was conducted—you help to create what Noam Chomsky aptly referred to as the “democracy deficit”—the “substantial gap between public policy and public opinion,” a point he underscored in “Failed States” noting that during Reagan’s 1984 landslide election polls “showed by 3 to 2, voters hoped Reagan’s legislative program would not be enacted….The public favored tax increases devoted to New Deal and Great Society programs….The public preferred cuts in military spending to cuts in health programs by about 2 to 1.”  “None of this matters,” Chomsky concludes, “as long as elections are skillfully managed to avoid issues and marginalize the underlying population…freeing the elected leadership to serve the substantial people.”

Don’t you see, TW & Cyrena, Mr. Kucinich presents a fantastic opportunity to break out of the box, to eliminate the democracy deficit.  Obama, I am sorry to say, does not.

Where Cheney’s greatest accomplishment is insuring that Bush awakes each morning thinking he is in charge, the corporate media’s greatest accomplishment has been in convincing Americans from day one that Kucinich doesn’t stand a chance.  So long as he doesn’t stand a chance, neither do we.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 23, 2007 at 5:41 pm Link to this comment

Re #115362 by LWM on 11/23 at 4:25 pm

Let me answer that one. Hillary.

Report this

By LWM, November 23, 2007 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment

“So who really believed in giving Rosa Parks a medal for her massive contribution to our society?  The members of Congress who would only do so using OTHER people’s money and none of their own?  Or Ron Paul who was willing to spend $100 of his own money to pay for it?”

So who really gives a crap about a stupid medal?

What about Katrina relief. Was he going to pay for that out of his pocket, too? No. He wasn’t going to pay for it at all.

Ron Paul’s Personal Pork.

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html

Report this

By LWM, November 23, 2007 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment

“Cyrena… So, with all due respect to Ernest Canning, and Dennis Kucinich as well, we DO need to consider the realities of joining these camps, because the primaries are indeed right around the corner, and Hillary cannot/should not be the person that the Dems send into the 2008 election. It’s really that simple.”

And if she is, what will you do? Vote for… who?

It’s like Henry Ford’s Model T. You can have it in any color you like, as long as it’s black. She’s not my first choice, she’s a moderate conservative like most of the Democrats, but at least she’s a moderate.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007

Have you even read her FoPo Manifesto? You can find it in Foreign Affairs magazine online.

Report this

By LWM, November 23, 2007 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment

“Also, citing a quote from an obscure left wing, Canadian professor who has written books about authoritarianism does not refute years of history and countless examples of left wing authoritarianism.”

And FYI, that “obscure left wing, Canadian professor” is the author of the only serious study, 20 years in the making, done on the subject since Adorno. He is the basis for much of the work of John Dean and Glenn Greenwald. What people like you fail to understand is that the left/right spectrum applies to economics, not authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Stalin is nowhere near Gandhi, a truly left wing libertarian. Stalin isn’t even that much economically to the left. Stalinist Russia was a privately owned state, after all. Just like the Czar’s before him, Mao’s China and Hitler’s Germany. Calling FDR a “leftist” is the funniest thing I’ve heard since Justin Raimondo claimed he lied us into WWII. You people need help.

Report this

By LWM, November 23, 2007 at 5:05 pm Link to this comment

Furthermore,

It was Jefferson, not Washington, who first used the term “entangling foreign alliances”. If any of you wish to know the real thoughts of the founders and framers, I urge you to read their correspondences, letters and personal papers. Public addresses and writings intended for public consumption only give you half the picture. Washington himself never had such an isolationist foreign policy in mind. His caution was one of a General who knew the country was still too weak to throw it’s weight around but he knew that day would come. He would think little of George W. Bush or Ron Paul in either case, as far as foreign policy is concerned.

Read Washington’s Dec. 22, 1795 letter to Gouverneur Morris.

“It is well known that Peace has been (to borrow a modern phraze) the order of the day with me, since the disturbances in Europe first commenced. My policy has been, and will continue to be, while I have the honor to remain in the administration of the government, to be upon friendly terms with, but independant of, all the nations of the earth. To share in the broils of none. To fulfil our own engagements. To supply the wants, and be carriers for them all: being thoroughly convinced that it is our policy and interest to do so; and that nothing short of self respect, and that justice which is essential to a national character, ought to involve us in War; for sure I am, if this country is preserved in tranquillity twenty years longer, it may bid defiance, in a just cause, to any power whatever, such, in that time, will be its population, wealth, and resource.”

Report this

By cyrena, November 23, 2007 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment

#115316 by Tony Wicher
•  At this point I think Kucinich supporters should be talking to Obama supporters, and offering their badly needed support in return for Obama making it clearer where he stands on the issues of greatest concern to them.

Tony,
This is a particularly excellent post, and I’m not just saying that because I personally agree, or because I too, have had my feet in both camps, for well over a year. (I also liked Gravel, who we know has been ostracized to the same extent as Kucinich…probably more, since he is no longer a member of Congress, or holds any political office that could allow him to actually ACT upon any of the issues might at least bring a halt to the on-going destruction of the Republic and the world.) So, I say that it is a particularly excellent post because it does address the realities of the less than desirable election process that only continues to become more corrupt as time goes on, thanks to the corporately controlled media, and all of the spin docs in action.

So, with all due respect to Ernest Canning, and Dennis Kucinich as well, we DO need to consider the realities of joining these camps, because the primaries are indeed right around the corner, and Hillary cannot/should not be the person that the Dems send into the 2008 election. It’s really that simple.

I have carefully watched, (as you have) these ‘proceedings’ (if that’s what we can call them) and I too, allowed myself to be caught in a few pieces of negativity on Barack. One, was when he and Edwards ‘appeared’ to join the more politically experienced (at evasiveness) Hillary on a tricky debate question regarding the ending of the Iraq catastrophe prior to the end of their terms in office. It would appear that was yet another ‘trick’ question, since Obama has stated in too many speeches to count, that he WOULD have us out of Iraq, and that he would begin the process immediately. I also had a concern (more recently) that he (along with Hillary) had apparently either not been present for the senate confirmation of Mukasey, (to cast a NO vote) or had simply not cast a vote whether they were present or not. Looking at the breakdown of that later, I realized that it would not have made a difference if he’d been there to cast a vote against that confirmation, and one can assume that he knew that himself.
More importantly however, Barack HAS in fact addressed ALL of my own nagging misgivings in his speech in Iowa, and made it abundantly clear that torture is NEVER OK, (in ANY form) and that the ‘questions’ directed at political candidates are in fact designed in such a way as to muddy the waters. (my paraphrasing). In short, his speech, (which was available here on this site) cleared all of those issues up – at least for me. He also made it clear that he has NOT taken corporate donations to his political campaign, but that was not a ‘sin’ that I’d ever much accepted anyway, unless we want to consider the typical support that candidates have ALWAYS garnered from privately managed wealth from well know people such as Oprah Winfrey. She’s not the only ‘well known’ supporting him, but it’s not exactly the same as being supported by and/or receiving ones funds from major corporate entities. So, we need to scratch that created connection to Obama, as well as the Wal-Mart affiliation that his wife allegedly had at some point. Michelle Obama didn’t ‘establish’ Wal-Mart, and I’m sick of hearing it.

I also think it would be a really good idea for the public to listen to the speech that Barack presented at Iowa, and hear what he has to say about ALL of these issues.

Meantime, this particular piece involves Ron Paul, who is quite frankly an ENORMOUS DANGER to the possible recovery of our republic, as it existed for over 200 years, prior to the December Coup of 2000. Any chances of recovering from that coup will be forever lost with the involvement of a Ron Paul brand of radical extremism in our Executive Branch.

Report this

By LWM, November 23, 2007 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

Tony,

I fail to see how Dennis Miller is to the left of anything. Left out, perhaps. Hitchens is the more apt case but when you factor in the debate at the time over whether it was Hitchens or David Horowitz who would be the “new Orwell,” you can see that neither turned out to be, although they both fancied themselves as such, and still do. Perhaps you were unaware of the debate. If you are unaware of the proto-fascist, right wing populist rhetoric and undercurrents inherent in the “Ron Paul revolution” I’d be happy to point them out to you.

As far as Ron Paul and religion:

“I am running for president to restore the rule of law and to stand up for our *divinely inspired* Constitution.”

~ Ron Paul

If this is the new Thomas Jefferson, someone needs to explain to him that Jefferson was a Deist and didn’t even believe Jesus was divine and certainly not the son of God. He knew the constitution was no more divinely inspired than the Bible was. Jefferson called the Bible a “dunghill”. Jefferson thought the teachings of Jesus, who was just a man like Jefferson himself, were the “diamond” in that “dunghill” but there was nothing divine about it and Jefferson was not alone in those opinions. We know Paine, Adams, Madison and Washington shared similar opinions which they expressed privately. Paine being the most outspoken. Google the “Jefferson Bible” and read all about it.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 23, 2007 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

Dave23 why should we be about to teaching the world English?  Better that we teach them how to think critically in their own language.  What exact report are you quoting on the education scores?  Regardless, it is kind of moot since the socialization of education in the world testifies to better education.  Thank you for the statistics. 

Tony Wicher, I’m surprised how much I agree with you.  You argue very well for the race in Iowa.  I have vascillated between Obama and Kucinich with my admiration for Kucinich very high.  Because I am a woman and because of her stand on issues I hold a most valuable, I am terribly disappointed that I am unable to support Hillary.  But I am exceedingly glad she is running.  I am watching Iowa just as you are. I will vote for her if she gets the Democratic nomination. 

Depending on the myopic view from one’s own pocketbook, and set of morals, a quick glance at the pros and cons of the theories and practices of both the conservative and the liberal economic approaches convinces me that the liberal policy provides better results for the kind of composite population we have in the United States and that Ron Paul is not “our” guy.  He really is an old fart that ought to be thrown back.

I don’t have a degree in economics but I do have a pocketbook and an egalitarian view of what I consider the best of societies.  What I say is what I have formed from gathering information from the media and journals over the years and admittedly I have paraphrased from those.  You are welcome to correct me if I am wrong.

My perception of the two competing economic theories, conservative and liberal, is as follows:  Trying to be succinct, I don’t want to give a detailed explication what each of these mean except that briefly and in general conservatives push and shove equivalence of opportunity over equivalence of outcome with the defining features of tax cuts and limited social spending, with the assumption that monies free from taxes and restrictions, private and corporate spending will be an incentive to spend thus jolting the economy.  People mistakenly think this will increase their own purses.  I will explain why I think this is a mistaken prospect.

But first I will say what I believe the liberal theory of economics is.  Their values include an active government that tries to balance equivalence of opportunity and equivalence of outcome.  Tax revenues are crucial to giving support for the lower-income strata of society and to fund the infrastructure of the nation such as roads, military, social security for the aged, medical benefits for the poor, environmental concerns and so forth.  Since no one really likes taxes, myself included, it is harder to balance between providing those with money enough freedom to prosper and cull enough tax money to properly deal with spending necessities.  Therefore, the conservative approach has more popular prima facie appeal. 

But the conservative approach presents more unsolvable covert problems.  The rich tend to hoard their money (regardless of how they make it), and they hoard it for financial safety as well as prominence, prestige.  They tend to invest their capital rather than keep in hard cash available for spending and boosting the economy as was thought.  This actually benefits a smaller segment of society, uh, the rich.  Hence allowing the wealthy to keep most of their money does not produce a better economy, but actually presents a worse one.  It is a classic case of inverse ratio.  The more they have the less is there for the ordinary folks who do all the backbreaking work.  And a direct ratio is the more they have the more they want to sock away.  Therefore the mistaken expectation of more money in our pockets from obedience to the conservative attitude.  There is much more that could be discussed but I think you get my argument.  I will take on the military issue in another post.  It is dinner time.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 23, 2007 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

From financial author, Bill Bonner:

*** Our old friend, Ron Paul, candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President, makes the news from time to time.  He’s proving that you can use the Internet to rally followers…to inform people…and to raise money.  Bravo…and smooth sailing!

“We’re going to send Ron some money,” we announced to daughter Sophia last night.

“Why would you want to do that, Dad?  You’re just wasting your money.  Ron Paul is fine.  I like him.  Or, at least most of what I’ve heard about him.  But he can’t win. What’s the point?”

“Winning is over-rated,” we replied.  “You know what Gen. Washington said during the Revolution.  ‘We can’t guarantee victory, but we can deserve it.’  Well, you can never guarantee anything.  As it says in the Bible, ‘the race goeth not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.’  I guess people meant by that that there is a fair amount of luck involved in everything.  But there’s something else.  If you can’t know how things will turn out, what can you do?  All you can do is to do the right thing.  And I’ll give you another saying, since I’m getting warmed up: ‘Fiat justicia pereat mundus.’  I don’t know if the Latin is correct.  But the sentiment certainly is: you follow the law even if the world should perish.  I think the idea is the same for all of these things.  All you can do in any situation is the right thing…not necessarily the smart thing.  You can’t know what the smart thing is, because you can’t know what tomorrow will bring.  But you can pretty much figure out the right thing.  So, you do the right thing.  You don’t necessarily get what you want.  Things don’t necessarily go your way.  But at least you will deserve success.  And deserving success is more important than actually getting it.  Doing the right thing is more important than doing the thing that turns out to be ‘smart,’ in other words.

“Well, what does this have to do with Ron Paul?”

“He’s the only candidate to come along – practically in my entire lifetime – who is worth voting for.  He doesn’t believe in robbing people with taxes so some people can pursue their own crackpot world improvement project.  And he doesn’t believe in going to war unless the country is attacked…and there is a declaration of war by Congress…which is what the constitution requires.

“All I’m saying is that you can vote for Ron Paul…and send him money…with a clear conscience.  You haven’t been able to do that for a long time.  Better take advantage of it.”

- Bill Bonner

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 23, 2007 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

To add a bit more to Paulo’s comment regarding the medal for Rosa Parks… nobody (that I am aware of) supported Ron Paul’s proposal for members of Congress to pay for the medal themselves.

So while they were all happy to give Rosa Parks a medal, it was conditional upon them using our tax dollars to do so.

Ron Paul wanted to pay for it out of his own pocket.

So who really believed in giving Rosa Parks a medal for her massive contribution to our society?  The members of Congress who would only do so using OTHER people’s money and none of their own?  Or Ron Paul who was willing to spend $100 of his own money to pay for it?

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, November 23, 2007 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment

Regarding the separation of church and state: the first amendment states that CONGRESS shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. In other words, there was to be no “national church.” Thus, according to a strict reading of the Constitution, the individual states did in fact have a right to “establish” a religion. In fact, historically, this had already been done, as many states and communities had established religions, such as the Puritans in New England communities, Quakers in Pennsylvania, and Methodists in Rhode Island.

Speaking as a libertarian, I don’t think any government at any level should be supporting religion in any way. However, it is easy to mistake a strict reading of the Constitution for supporting or opposing a certain underlying cause. For example, Ron Paul was once the only member of Congress to oppose giving a medal to Rosa Parks, using taxpayer money. He opposed this because Congress has no such enumerated power; in fact, he made a counter-proposal that all Congressmen should pony up $100 and buy her the medal themselves. Many mistook his opposition to the medal for opposition to Rosa Parks, but in fact he admires her deeply.

To truly protect and defend the Constitution, as the oath states, one has to set aside popular but unconstitutional gestures. This takes a great deal of intellectual courage, which Ron Paul possesses. No other candidate would be willing to take such intellectually complex stands when it is so much easier just to pander to the mob.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 23, 2007 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

Left wing websites and neo-conservative (the modern day right wing) websites have only a couple things in common. They both love big, authoritarian government and they both HATE Ron Paul.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 23, 2007 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment

Re #115315 by LWM on 11/23 at 1:09 pm

“Why would “left wing websites” do that? He’s the NEW LEFT HIPNESS!”

You’re cracking me up! Kinda reminds me of Dennis Miller and Christopher Hitchens marching off to war with Bush. I guess they thought that was the latest New Left Hipness.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 23, 2007 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

LWM,

According to Truthdig you joined today so I’m not sure what you are pointing out. Furthermore, I’m not sure how the date I started commenting on this website has any bearing on my understanding of Ron Paul’s positions.  I have read his books, most of his speeches, and followed him closely for years and more importantly, well before he announced his candidacy.

The first amendment protects our right to freedom of religion. This means that the government will not establish an official religion, nor persecute people for their beliefs or practice of religion.

Have you forgotten that it was Bill Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno, that supervised the attack on the Branch Dividians in Waco?  80 men, women and children were killed in that siege and, according to Wikipedia, it was “was the deadliest government action taken against American citizens on U.S. soil since the Civil War.”  What about her action against the Montana Freemen?  What about the Elain Gonzales incident?

What about another Clinton appointee Madeleine Albright and her support and defense of the economic sanctions against Iraq (which were also cited by Osama Bin Laden as one of the reasons he attacked us on 9-11).... Wikipedia: “UNICEF announced that 500,000 child deaths have occurred as a result of the sanctions.[9] The sanctions resulted in high rates of malnutrition, lack of medical supplies, and diseases from lack of clean water. Chlorine, was desperately needed to disinfect water supplies, but it was banned from the country due to the potential that it may be used as part of a chemical weapon. On May 10, 1996, Madeleine Albright (U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time) appeared on 60 Minutes and was confronted with statistics of half a million children under five having died as a result of the sanctions. She replied “we think the price is worth it”“

I guess none of those could possibly be considered left-wing authoritarianism either?

Report this

By LWM, November 23, 2007 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment

@ Tony Wicher,

Well put.

Kucinich is the most progressive candidate in the race, followed by every other Democratic candidate to varying degrees. Followed by every GOP candidate to varying degrees, and then Ron Paul, who is the most regressive candidate in the race, if not a true reactionary. His antiwar stance is not that unusual for the Old Right. Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com, or one of his sockpuppets, will gladly tell you that his idol is none other than “Mr. Republican” himself, Robert Taft. In truth, it is a shame that so few true progressives are candidates for the presidency. The electorate is slowly moving in that direction. A few more election cycles and we may see some real “progress”.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 23, 2007 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

#115253 by Ernest Canning on 11/23 at 7:14 am
(1157 comments total)

“TW:  Obama is “not” a progressive.  A vote for Obama will simply bring to power another “do-nothing” who, like Pelosi, Hoyer & Reid, will offer bogus excuses for their failures to end the war and restore the rule of law.  There is no reason whatsoever to abandon Mr. Kucinich simply because the punditocracy tells us he can’t win.  Our present malaise is the direct product of people just like you who buy into this nonsense of selecting from the lesser of two evils rather than chosing candidates based on substance.  These are the primaries!  If you can’t vote based upon whom you see offering meaningful change now, then when?”
——————————————————————————
EC,

Our objective as progressives is to make the most real progress possible in the existing concrete political situation. I have had a foot in both the Obama and the Kucinich camps for over a year now. I have been supporting both campaigns. Within the Obama campaign, the two issues I have focused on have been breaking the grip of the Israel Lobby on the U.S. foreign policy debate, and impeachment. I have found plenty of support on both issues, especially on breaking the grip of the Israel Lobby and adopting a policy of requiring Israel to respect international law by voting against them in the U.N. Security Council.

My support for Obama does not mean I am “betraying” Kucinich or our progressive agenda. On the contrary, this is the best way I can see to make Kucinich and his policies as influential as possible in the coming Democratic administration.

I do watch the political horse race, and right now in Iowa, Clinton is in the lead with Obama closing, Edwards fading. Even a fourth-place finish would be a big victory for Kucinich. One great thing about the Iowa caucuses, unlike the usual brain-dead way we conduct our elections is that second choices matter. If I were myself in the caucuses, I would unhesitatingly vote for Kucinich and hope he gets the required 15% of the vote. If so, great! If by some miracle he even manages to beat Edwards and comes in third, which I doubt, even cynics like me will start to think he might have a chance. But if he does not get 15%, which I think likely, Kucinich delegates will have to throw their votes to a second choice. Right now Obama leads not only as first choice but also as the second choice of those who prefer some other candidate. He has positioned himself as a unifier of the party. Clinton like Pelosi has scorned us anti-war progressives and for that I hope she will pay.

You say that Obama is “not” a progressive. I say “progress” is relative and a matter of degree. There is a spectrum of progressivity that goes from the lunatics currently running the country on the reactionary end to Kucinich on the progressive end. At this point, the dream of a Kucinich presidency just seems too far-fetched. My dream, which may also be far-fetched but not I hope as far, is of a more progessive Democratic Party united under Obama, with Kucinich in a prominent postition within an Obama administration. In my dream, Obama adopts a policy of consistent support for human rights and international law. Kucinich is appointed Ambassador to the U.N. which under an Obama administration would be a far more important position than it has ever been before. I could see Biden as Secretary of State, Wes Clark as Secretary of Defense. This to me would be a team that the whole nation could be proud of.

At this point I think Kucinich supporters should be talking to Obama supporters, and offering their badly needed support in return for Obama making it clearer where he stands on the issues of greatest concern to them.

Report this

By LWM, November 23, 2007 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

“All that tells me is that you actually understand very little about him while claiming that the people who have actually done their homework on the man and have actually read the volumes of things has written, are the one’s who are clueless or have been ‘tricked’ as you seem to imply.”

Joined Oct. 23, I see.

“Also, citing a quote from an obscure left wing, Canadian professor who has written books about authoritarianism does not refute years of history and countless examples of left wing authoritarianism.  Roosevelt was a massive authoritarian just to cite one glaring and fairly recent example.”

You are cracking me up! Keep it coming!


“Furthermore, equating modern anti-statism with slavery in the antebellum south is ludicrous and it ignores a century or two of evolution of political thought and the rise of the concept of ‘natural rights’ in this country.”

Aha! We are in agreement. Ron Paul is an anachronism.

“You seem to have a very selective view of history.  Perhaps your practice of using a single quote to describe highly complex ideas, situations, arguments, and people is a practice you should discard?”

I do? 

“You say that Paul ‘makes noises’ and you say people are only listening to ‘sound bites’ yet then you use ‘sound bites’ to support your arguments… Try reading entire speeches by Ron Paul instead of collecting quotes from left wing websites that try to discredit or misrepresent him.”

Why would “left wing websites” do that? He’s the NEW LEFT HIPNESS!

Report this

By LWM, November 23, 2007 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

“If you are trying to argue, with an out of context quote, that Ron Paul doesn’t firmly believe in the First Amendment as it relates to religious freedom you have got to be kidding me.”

What context would change the explicit meaning?

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 23, 2007 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment

LWM,

If you are trying to argue, with an out of context quote, that Ron Paul doesn’t firmly believe in the First Amendment as it relates to religious freedom you have got to be kidding me.

All that tells me is that you actually understand very little about him while claiming that the people who have actually done their homework on the man and have actually read the volumes of things has written, are the one’s who are clueless or have been ‘tricked’ as you seem to imply.

Also, citing a quote from an obscure left wing, Canadian professor who has written books about authoritarianism does not refute years of history and countless examples of left wing authoritarianism.  Roosevelt was a massive authoritarian just to cite one glaring and fairly recent example.

Furthermore, equating modern anti-statism with slavery in the antebellum south is ludicrous and it ignores a century or two of evolution of political thought and the rise of the concept of ‘natural rights’ in this country.

You seem to have a very selective view of history.  Perhaps your practice of using a single quote to describe highly complex ideas, situations, arguments, and people is a practice you should discard? 

You say that Paul ‘makes noises’ and you say people are only listening to ‘sound bites’ yet then you use ‘sound bites’ to support your arguments… Try reading entire speeches by Ron Paul instead of collecting quotes from left wing websites that try to discredit or misrepresent him.

Report this

By LWM, November 23, 2007 at 1:02 pm Link to this comment

“Thanks, Robert Scheer, a voice of sanity from the non-authoritarian Left.”

Read your Altemeyer.

Leftwing authoritarians are “as rare as hen’s teeth”. That’s a direct quote. Paul is apt to be as authoritarian as any other right wing person.

The Confederacy was anti-statist, too. They also kept slaves. That’s authoritarian.

“Tyrants always have some slight shade of virtue. They support the laws before destroying them.”

-Voltaire

Unfortunately Ron Paul is neither a libertarian or anyone that people of a progressive mindset should even consider. Ron Paul is an ultra-conservative cultural paleocon with some very bizarre ideas. He doesn’t even believe in the separation of church and state. That’s not “libertarian”.

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.”

- Ron Paul

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Paul may make noises that make sense when compared to the other GOP candidates, who are all verifiably insane, but they are little more than sound bites.  Where’s the beef? Mr. Scheer should figure out what he is and what Ron Paul is and act accordingly. David Neiwert would be willing to assist him.

Report this

By L.W.M, November 23, 2007 at 12:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Thanks, Robert Scheer, a voice of sanity from the non-authoritarian Left.”

Read your Altemeyer.

Leftwing authoritarians are “as rare as hen’s teeth”. That’s a direct quote. Paul is apt to be as authoritarian as any other right wing person.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

The Confederacy was anti-statist, too. They also kept slaves. That’s authoritarian.

“Tyrants always have some slight shade of virtue. They support the laws before destroying them.”

Voltaire

Unfortunately Ron Paul is neither a libertarian or anyone that people of a progressive mindset should even consider. Ron Paul is an ultra-conservative cultural paleocon with some very bizarre ideas. He doesn’t even believe in the separation of church and state. That’s not “libertarian”.

“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers.”

- Ron Paul

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Paul may make noises that make sense when compared to the other GOP candidates, who are all verifiably insane, but they are little more than sound bites.  Where’s the beef? Mr. Scheer should figure out what he is and what Ron Paul is and act accordingly. David Neiwert would be willing to assist him.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 23, 2007 at 12:46 pm Link to this comment

Re #115271 by Dave23 on 11/23 at 9:07 am

I agree with every word of your post re “Shenonymous”, espcially where you say, “It is ridiculous that you try to argue that we need to maintain our global empire because our global empire has inspired murderous hatred throughout the world.”
That is indeed the sense of what he said. I would call it brain-bogglingly ridiculous. Come on, Shenonymous! If you would like to persuade progressives to vote for Obama, this isn’t the way to do it.

Report this

By Paracelsus, November 23, 2007 at 12:30 pm Link to this comment

@ #114858 by DetainThis

Ron Paul: Truthdigger of the Millennium

Welcome to the R3VOLUTION.

A big AYE to that!

Let me say this. Ron Paul is a quaint, and old fashioned type. He seems a figure more from the 1890’s than the 2000’s. His ideas may sound outmoded. More vulgar types may call him an old stick in the mud, an old fart. I am voting for him precisely because he is a throwback. God bless him. I want a pre-1913 mindset on so many things. So I will be voting for the old fart with all my prayers for his success. I believe in that outmoded, quaint Bill of Rights. I am proud to be a stick in the mud.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 23, 2007 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

GW=MCHammered,

“Yikes. Talk about myopic and shortsighted. Some, few these days, run businesses with their basic human nature wanting to help others. You know, they still see America as a team, not as their narcissistic exploit. I know someone who just brought very highspeed internet to hundreds of people for just pennies a day.”

The truth is, the vast majority of people run businesses ‘wanting to help others’.  It is called customer service or providing a viably marketable product that improves how someone does something or entertains them etc.  Businesses that set out to ‘harm people’?  Only one that comes to mind is defense contractors and guess who their biggest customers are that allow them to thrive?  Your beloved governments!

It’s great that you know someone bringing the internet to hundreds of people for pennies a day. Is he/she running a charitable organization, is he wealthy and donating this service to a community that he is close to, or is he running a business?

If he is running a business, and isn’t independently wealthy due to another self-interested business he either was a part of (or an enterprising and self-interested ancestor perhaps) I can assure you that he didn’t go to a bank to borrow money with a business plan citing his “basic human nature to help others” as the reason why they should loan him risk capital for his venture.  They lent him money because by providing “internet to hundreds for pennies per day” there must be a reasonable potential for profit which would allow him to repay his loan with interest to the lender.  The exception again would be if he was going to a community lender with money that was earmarked for charitable giving and development.  I will also point out that the charitable money for community projects wouldn’t even exist unless free associating individuals, with SELF-INTEREST were getting together, taking risks, and opening businesses that generate profits and in turn pay back their loans providing return on the risks that the banks took.

Money, in the real world, doesn’t come out of thin air like it does for our government.  Furthermore, the government, by creating money out of thin air, is damaging everyone that has to live in the real world! Again, however, it is hurting the lower and middle class the most.  Ron Paul’s policies (particularly his solution to solving the insidious ‘inflation tax’) will do more to help the poor in this country than all of the supposed ‘do-gooders’ tax and spend and print money social policies combined.

Team America!  F—- YEAH!!!

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 23, 2007 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

Re #115239 by Shenonymous on 11/23 at 7:19 am

“Withdraw the troops Tony Wicher and you will see.  What do you suppose that form of “peacekeeping” would take?  The United Nations depends on the United States for its military presence in the world.  The troops deployed today are not used in the most valuable way but that is because the current government in Washington does not know how to use its military.

By the way, I could not agree more with you, Wicher, about Clinton, Kucinich and Obama. If only Kucinich were electable, but then if only a frog had wings.”
——————————————————————————
It sounds as if you and I have a similar view of the political realities and we are therefore both recommending that progressives unite behind Obama. We disagree on the role of the military. I would like to see the military budget cut by a good 75%. That would still leave us with by far the largest military budget in the world, by far the most powerful army in the world, not to mention tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. Who is going to attack us? Get real. It would also leave us with $500 billion a year for health care, education, and a policy of generosity toward undeveloped countries in the form of a new Marshall Plan which would create international peace and goodwill and make us much safer than any amount of military spending. 

I hope that Obama moves closer to Kucinich on this issue. I think he is already doing so, because his strategy for winning the Democratic nomination is based on getting the anti-war vote. If the anti-war vote splits, Clinton wins.

Report this

By Nabih Ammari, November 23, 2007 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To:#115235 by cyrena on 11/23 at 3:30 am.

cyrena,

Perhaps,I am one of the earliest people who expressed
support to Ron Paul.Reasons/causes for such a support
are the following points:

(1)His solidly expressed position on the Iraq War.He will stop it,if elected.What has given a huge
credibility to his current position is the fact that
he voted against going to war against Iraq,in the
first place.Being a Republican it certainly was not
then a popular position for him to take.Yet,he took
it.This reason alone gave me the notion that he might
be a moderate Republican of President Eisenhower’s
implacable character:HONESTY and MORAL AUTHORITY.

(2)His call to change American foreign policy from
military “adventurism”, as is the case in the war in
Iraq to a policy of “Realism” as the statistical
numbers he keeps quoting dictate to do.I happened to
agree with the statistics he had/has presented for
good reasons stem from the basic gradual and steady
fall,recently,of the real value of the dollar.This
fact alone has compelled some members of OPEC to
start thinking of not accepting the dollar as the
standard acceptable currency for their oil.It is very
scary business,believe me.Ron Paul’s statistics surly
shine here.

(3)This third reason is,somehow,related to the second reason outlined above.Because of the solid and rather
persuasive statistics,he appeared/appears to many as
a man of great fiscal sense and responsibility;and I
still think he is.

No one including me will be honest; if he/she tries
to take any or all of the above reasons from Ron Paul
in order to discredit him as a candidate for public
office,including the Presidency.In fact, I consider
the above reasons as solid assets working in favor of
Ron Paul.That is perhaps why Mr.Robert Sheer has
chosen to devout one full article about him.

That is enough about the POSITIVE assets of Ron Paul.
Let now the NEGATIVE liabilities roll on.I have to
address the rest of this post to cyrena whose knowledge and straight-forward nonsense I personally
respect profoundly:

Cyrena,I must admit that you have caught me by a
complete SURPRISE when you stated that “he has been
a RABID John Bircher!!!”.

I trust that you would not have made such a comment
as the foregoing without being certain.Therefore,I
refrain from using any qualifying words such as “if”
and “however”,“although”,“nevertheless” etc..in order
to stick to a degree of objectivity.I believe that I
have been objective enough by citing Ron Paul’s positive assets as I PERCEIVE them based on his publicly declared positions.Therefore,what has given your foregoing statement even more credibility is the fact that I have obtained my Master and Doctorate
Degrees from a university in Texas.I had lived long
enough in Texas to accumulate enough information
about “The John Birch Society”,especially in the
Dallas area which would compel me to withdraw my
earlier support to Mr.Ron Paul.

I will continue my support to Dennis Kucinich,unless
I am confronted with another repulsive SURPRISE about
the relentlessly energetic Kucinich.
Sincerely,
Nabih Ammari
An Independent in Ohio.

Report this

By Dave23, November 23, 2007 at 10:07 am Link to this comment

Shenonymous: “What exactly is our student scoring against the others in the world?  Spouting what pretends to be facts is so lame.”

In a study of 45 countries:
- the United States received a score of 471 in mathematics and science literacy, well below the international average of 500.
- In advanced mathematics, the United States’ score of 442 was below the international average of 501.
- In physics, the United States was last with a score of 423, well below the international average of 501.

Shenonymous: “Oh yeah, I just heard that Canada is going bankrupt from their infrastructure problems.  Seems their frugal conservative attitude of getting rid of taxes over the decades has given rise to decay of roads, bridges, etc.”

Canadians pay higher taxes than we do. It is the incompetence of socialized nanny government that caused that decay in infrastructure.

Shenonymous: “To act like there is no reason to have a military presence anywhere is to act like an ostrich with its head in the sand.  Or rather up its ass.  America and Americans are no longer liked in the world because of its imperialistic and militaristic practices.  Have we forgotten “the ugly American” so quickly?  It was only as recent as the 1960s Southeast Asia, Vietnam, Cambodia; it does not need listed.  Dave23 must be very young.  He certainly seems naïve.  That however repugnant as we have been made to be in the eyes of the world, is the reason we are compelled to keep military bases in strategic places”

And this argument reaches a level of fallacy that surpasses even your assertions that Canada is too libertarian, and that American education ain’t that bad. I lived in Southeast Asia for most of the past several years. The “ugly American” reputation in that part of the world remarkably does not really exist anymore (except Indonesia) despite the horrors that our government inflicted on that region. Once the government got the hell outta there, and the private citizens went in, started up non-profits and taught English, our reputation improved significantly. There is not a soul in SE Asia (outside Indonesia) who has any desire to inflict harm on America or Americans, despite the atrocities that we committed there. Once the government gets out and the private concerned citizens move in, people don’t want to kill us. They want to learn English and do business with us. Look at Vietnam now.

It is ridiculous that you try to argue that we need to maintain our global empire because our global empire has inspired murderous hatred throughout the world. Our global empire cannot protect us from terrorists. Military installations in Okinawa will not stop terrorists from legally coming into this country on commercial airlines and carrying out some horrible attack. Bring our military and government back to America, send out the private non-profits and English teachers, and before you know it, Al Qaeda’s future recruiting classes disappear (or at least turn their attention against their own corrupt governments), and the people just want to do business with us. If anyone still wants to attack us, we still have enough firepower to destroy the world 100 times over, if that makes you feel more secure. Vote Ron Paul and end the empire, for our own sake and that of the world.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 23, 2007 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

It is somewhat irrelevant what the current budget for the federal Department of Education is.  It is more relevant what they do with the money:  what school districts get funded and how.  What exactly is our student scoring against the others in the world?  Spouting what pretends to be facts is so lame.  Well times have changed and now we have computers, iPods, iPhones, the Internet.  The three Rs are just not enough.  Just as the roads in 1913 no longer service the exponentially increased automobile-driving population.  Teachers do not deserve the bad rap they get from the uninformed.  School administrators, education standards, school boards, and the degree of deterioration in a school district always need thrown into the equation.  Do try to remember that.  But that is the education problem and we are here about the dangerous and deceptive candidate Ron Paul.

We can always count on Cyrena to bring up the rear guard and remind us of issues passed over in our zeal to champion the downtrodden.  We are lucky to have her consciousness in our society.  Thank you Cyrena.
Thank you Ernest for putting my head on straight.  You are right of course on the value of primaries.  Guess Dennis will get my vote and let the chips fall as they may.  We might all be surprised if these forums are any indication.  Kucinich does speak bravely for the people.

This country is the only country in the world with a blend of races and cultures and a constitution that defends it by law.  No other country has multiculturalism as a foundation, although they do have similar economic strata.  The other enlightened countries, however, are much more social minded and thereby have more depth to their life outlook.  Americans are as shallow as their caring for their fellow man.  Oh yeah, I just heard that Canada is going bankrupt from their infrastructure problems.  Seems their frugal conservative attitude of getting rid of taxes over the decades has given rise to decay of roads, bridges, etc., and now it will take billions to fix it all.  A normal outcome of such predilections.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 23, 2007 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

TW:  Obama is “not” a progressive.  A vote for Obama will simply bring to power another “do-nothing” who, like Pelosi, Hoyer & Reid, will offer bogus excuses for their failures to end the war and restore the rule of law.  There is no reason whatsoever to abandon Mr. Kucinich simply because the punditocracy tells us he can’t win.  Our present malaise is the direct product of people just like you who buy into this nonsense of selecting from the lesser of two evils rather than chosing candidates based on substance.  These are the primaries!  If you can’t vote based upon whom you see offering meaningful change now, then when?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 23, 2007 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

First, If Paul does win the Republican nomination, then the seemingly silent zionist and corporate controlled press will open its barrages against him.

He is far and away the best real republican in the field and deserves the nomination.

While I live in Maryland and was a registered independent for many years, My friends and I recently re-registered as republicans to vote for Ron Paul in the Feb08 Maryland primary.  I will enjoy confronting all the Rudy, McCain, Romney supporters as they bum rush me as I go to vote.

If I can re-register as a Democrat in time to vote in their primary I will vote for Kucinich.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 23, 2007 at 5:19 am Link to this comment

It is farsighted to have centralized social programs when the spread of the wealth is skewed with the bulk residing in 1% of the population and the “toil” existing in the poor who, regardless of how much they work, cannot afford a decent life.  The truth is more and more power to the government is not the agenda.  That is only a clever repetitious but tedious litany distracting from the actual parti pris of the Republican, Libertarian, Anarchist idea of servitude for the exclusive benefit of the rich.

Egalitarian centralized government never fits the conservative mind set.  They just don’t get it that the poor and middle class deserve more than they do a better government than the less fortunate get to have decent education, decent health care, decent housing, decent roads to travel while they serve the needs of the rich, while the upper classes sip their cocktails and worry about the stock market.

It is grotesque how quickly the bogeyman is pulled out of the hat in the guise of that question about “what our public schools…are teaching our children?”  What exactly are they teaching our children in the public schools?  So clever to use vague accusation without any specificity to besmirch the teaching sector.  What evidence do you give that Germany was more educated than England or America?  Or Holland, France (that citadel of public education in the 19th century).  Again the commenter Nomascerdo recedes to fuzzy facts. Let’s not forget the ignorance that religion imposes on the population and Germans are just as susceptible to indoctrination as anyone else, and susceptible to hubris.

Another one of those glitzy facts is the amount of money spent on defense.  Well… yeah…this is a big country unlike Holland, or even England.  China is catching up in its arsenals as it increases its capitalistic character.  It is all relative.  The box cutters hit an unsuspecting naïve country, or blindsided the arrogant intelligence culture that had definite indications of an impending attack, whatever way you want to look at it, chum.  Your fantasy of authoritarian practice of mental screening is typical hysteria making.  Get a grip.

Withdraw the troops Tony Wicher and you will see.  What do you suppose that form of “peacekeeping” would take?  The United Nations depends on the United States for its military presence in the world.  The troops deployed today are not used in the most valuable way but that is because the current government in Washington does not know how to use its military.

By the way, I could not agree more with you, Wicher, about Clinton, Kucinich and Obama. If only Kucinich were electable, but then if only a frog had wings.

Report this

By Novista, November 23, 2007 at 4:35 am Link to this comment

To introduce a little ‘devil in the details’ the current budget for the federal Department of Education is $67.2 billion.

Given our student scoring against others in the world is pretty damn poor, how’s that expenditure working out for you? Or, what might we do with that amount if we didn’t waste it on NCLB and other nonsense. Ask good teachers what they think about the current regime. You’ll likely find it’s time for regime change.

Remember, for 200 years we didn’t have that Department of Education and once upon a time, American kids (and adults) could spell, read, write, and enumerate quite well.

Report this

By cyrena, November 23, 2007 at 4:30 am Link to this comment

If ya’ll think things are pretty rotten under the Dick Bush regime, you can figure on just moving to the cemetery under anything that Ron Paul might put into action. (and that’s only if you have someone left on this side, to make sure that you’re buried, or that he’ll even sell you a plot)

So, it’s obvious to me, that folks are pretty much lost in the BS here again, and haven’t a clue. It reminds me of the comments that were running ‘round about the Thug-in-Chief, back in the stupefying days of 2000, and the run-up to the Coup in December of that year, that kicked us off to the ruin that we have now. Remember how ‘sincere’ and ‘honest’ everyone was claiming the burning bush was back then?


Repeating from another post from another site, (which I will try to find, in order to quote directly) Ron Paul is now, and has always been, a RABID John Bircher!!! I don’t know if Mr. Scheer is aware of this, though I would think he should know what the John Birchers are about, and they are as dangerous (if not more) than any brand of the neocons, if only because they’ve been sprouting this radical agenda for far, far, longer…going way back in time.

Now, I HAVE to assume that Mr. Scheer is aware of the dangerous extremism of this brand of ideologues, so I can only assume that he is UNAWARE of the exceedingly close affiliation that Ron Paul has always maintained – with these SUPREMISTS. People don’t just go from a radical conservative agenda to an all of a sudden ‘mellowed out’ – ‘live and let live’ mentality. The guy is a RADICAL, and that’s NOT the same as a ‘maverick’.

So PLEASE…let’s call a spade a spade, and understand that there is far more to this than meets the eye, or that filters through his campaign bullshit. Yes…he claims he wants to end the war, and close the military bases where we don’t belong. Sounds just dandy.

It’s more what he ISN’T saying, that we need be extraordinarily concerned about. The only thing that Ron Paul has acknowledged here, (or that Robert Scheer has focused on) is all of the money and debt that has been wasted on wars and destruction. So what’s new? We ALL know that!!!

Home Schooling? PLEASE! He just wants EVERYBODY to go back to being illiterate.

He’s just going to ABANDON any source of collecting revenue for common projects, such as keeping our flippin’ infrastructure from caving in 1000%?? PLEASE!!

Has everybody fallen into the damn rabbit hole? How about a reality check here folks.

Another conservative from Texas with a RADICAL agenda?!? PLEASE!! Get a grip folks. This ain’t no ‘little house on the prairie’.

He also claims to be so committed to the Constitution. So, why does he keep flim-flamming around his own personal disapproval of the abortion issue, by claiming that it should be decided by “the States”? The issue was decided CONSTITUTIONALLY, 30 plus years ago, so why the hell is he talking about it AT ALL?

And if he’s so devoted to the Constitution, why don’t we have a look at his voting record on the past SEVERAL changes to the fundamentals of the Constitution?

Should I repeat this yet again? Ron Paul is a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN FROM TEXAS!! His particular ‘brand’ of RADICAL ideology is as dangerous as the RADICAL CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN from TEXAS that has destroyed us thus far. Do you need NAMES? George W Bush. Richard B Cheney. Karl Rove. Tom Delay…I could go on. Are all of you just suicidal?

And Scheer…I just don’t know what you were thinking on this.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 23, 2007 at 1:36 am Link to this comment

Re #115218 by Ernest Canning on 11/22 at 10:04 pm

What I think is unrealistic about some of the posters here is not their trenchant anti-war, anti-imperialist position. I am in complete with them about that. I also agree with you that Kucinich is right about “strengh through peace”, right on single-payer and on most other issues. However, the Iowa caucus is now less than six weeks away; the Democratic nomination will be decided within three months, and from what I can see, the only one that can stop Clinton is Obama. Kucinich is not in the running for the top spot. Therefore, progressives including Kucinich supporters should unite behind Obama.

Clinton is a total corporate Democrat, which, by the way is still vastly preferable to the lunatic reactionaries currently in power - Remember the (Bill) Clinton administration? Compared to the current one, it was eight years of peace and prosperity.

However, my hope is that we can do better than Clinton. Obama is our best bet. My intuition is that Obama is less in the power of corporations, less in the grip of the system and more responsive to the people. The more progressives join his campaign, he will respond by taking more progressive positions.

In the Iowa caucuses, if Kucinich gets less than 15% of the vote, his votes will have to be given to another candidate. If Obama and Clinton are close, the only thing to do is to give the votes to Obama in order to stop Clinton. Such solidarity and cooperation will give Kucinich a lot of influence in an Obama administration. This is the way politics works.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 23, 2007 at 12:52 am Link to this comment

Re #115215 by Shenonymous on 11/22 at 9:13 pm
(193 comments total)

“To act like there is no reason to have a military presence anywhere is to act like an ostrich with its head in the sand.  Or rather up its ass.  America and Americans are no longer liked in the world because of its imperialistic and militaristic practices.  Have we forgotten “the ugly American” so quickly?  It was only as recent as the 1960s Southeast Asia, Vietnam, Cambodia; it does not need listed.  Dave23 must be very young.  He certainly seems naïve.  That however repugnant as we have been made to be in the eyes of the world, is the reason we are compelled to keep military bases in strategic places not only to protect America but those countries in which the military are stationed.  It is insanity to withdraw to within the borders of our country.  There are territories that are not conjoined to the mainland that would be in jeopardy.  Even one of our states, Hawaii.  And to think those who utterly despise everything American would not at its first opportunity do devastation and damage and would not do so is just plain stupid.  Utopia is a dream.  What reasonable man must do is to learn how to be protective rather than aggressive.  To stop wars, all mothers everywhere must teach their sons to not participate in war. 
—————————————————————————-
Shenonymous:

Now I agree with Dave25 more than you. I am for closing all U.S. military bases outside this country around the world. U.S. troops should be stationed outside the country only for peacekeeping purposes fully sanctioned by the United Nations. Those troops are not protecting the United States. What they are “protecting” is U.S. imperial interests and global hegemony. Maybe you hadn’t noticed, but China, Russia, India, Japan and the EU all have interests all over the world, but for some reason they do not have to have $750 billion dollar military budgets and military bases all over the world to protect them. The United States military budget is bigger than the rest of the world combined. Why is this, do you suppose?

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, November 23, 2007 at 12:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: #115217 by Nomascerdo

“Furthermore, you are entirely ignoring the basic nature of human activity.  People don’t open businesses to act ‘in the interests of the people as a whole’.  People open businesses to promote their own self interests.”

Yikes. Talk about myopic and shortsighted. Some, few these days, run businesses with their basic human nature <u>wanting</u> to help others. You know, they still see America as a team, not as their narcissistic exploit. I know someone who just brought very highspeed internet to hundreds of people for just pennies a day. No, America is not all about over-feeding the family (beyond belief) at the expense of others.

And “the free market”? Where have you been? Free Markets don’t exist under BushCo. Canadian/Euro Pharma anyone? Spin is about the only thing you can count on and it comes at a steep fee: if my buddies and I own all the gas stations in your city and decide to charge doctors and lawyers ten times more for fuel (let’s say, because they earn that much more than the average), then just let drs-n-liers drive to another city for fuel. That’s BushCo’s free market.

“It is shortsighted to give more and more power to the government…”
Then let’s remove this government’s power (cost and waste) completely. The way our forefathers removed King George before. I’m all for it. Right NOW. That will rid us of K-Street’s crooked influence too.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 22, 2007 at 11:27 pm Link to this comment

Equating how our government handles our national security favorably and saying that it should also do the same with government provided healthcare ignores a major truth.  We spend more money on defense than any country in the history of the world.  Even after having spent all of that money, including $46B on intelligence in the year 2000, a small group of men with $50 worth of box cutters were able to perpetrate a spectacularly devastating attack and kill thousands of innocent people.  The true beneficiaries of our national defense spending are the defense contractors.  The true beneficiaries of national healthcare coverage would be the pharmaceutical and healthcare companies.

Wait until the government forces mental screening on every child in the country, at the behest of some lobby group with a slanted study.  Who will benefit from that?  I’ll give you a hint, it’s not our nation’s children.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 22, 2007 at 11:09 pm Link to this comment

“To stop wars, all mothers everywhere must teach their sons to not participate in war. “

You mother has no say in the matter if the government has a claim on your life via “selective service”.

Governments make wars, not young men.

“Our education system is one of those set for sacrifice.”

Not via Ron Paul’s hand.  Public education is largely paid for at the municipal, county and state level.  The federal government involvement in education grew more during the Bush years than it did during Clinton. When education is centrally controlled and curriculum is designed by a few bureaucrats how is that a positive?  What happens when you don’t like the political philosophy or ideas of the people in control?  How can we possibly give up that type of control over what our public schools in our communities are teaching our children?  That is so scary it gives me chills.

“...educated people are less likely to allow despots to arise.  In America as well as everywhere else.”

Germany was one of the most (if not the most) advanced and educated nations in the world and look what happened there. 

If you want to give computers to kids in the third world you have four days to participate in this great PRIVATE program http://laptopgiving.org/en/index.php
and you can give a laptop to a child in the third world, get one for your own children, get a $200 tax deduction, and also get one year’s worth of T-Mobile hot spot subscription for free.  The commitment is $425 and is completely VOLUNTARY as it should be.

Report this

By cann4ing, November 22, 2007 at 11:04 pm Link to this comment

The major problem with Mr. Scheer is his myopic tendency to latch onto any Republican willing to speak out against the war when what is needed is to pierce the carefully erected “images” maintained by each candidate, to expose their actual positions and to appreciate what those positions translate into when taken as a whole—an examination that reveals why Mr. Kucinich stands head and shoulders above all other candidates, including Mr. Paul. 

Where other candidates have proposed sham “universal coverage” plans that amount to subsidy schemes for the healthcare insurance industry, Kucinich stands alone in advancing single-payer.  Under single-payer cost of healthcare would be borne by the nation as a whole just as the cost of our national defense is borne by the nation as a whole.  These two necessary “national costs” are not unrelated.  In a Kucinich administration you would see a drastic reduction of wasteful expenditures on the voracious military-industrial complex and, of course, an end to the bottomless money pit we call Iraq.

While there would immediately be an approximately 30% reduction of administrative costs for healthcare by the elimination of for-profit carriers and HMOs as well as a move to institute price controls on run-away pharmaceutical costs, one has to consider the interrelatedness of Mr. Kucnich’s policies across the board.  His plan to repeal NAFTA & the WTO and return to bilateral trade agreements that respect workers’ rights and the environment will serve to stop the bleeding of our manufacturing base, initiating a reversal of neoliberal policies in order to move us back towards New Deal era reductions in inequality. 

Thirty years ago, at $1.3 million, the average annual CEO compensation was 39 times that of the average worker.  Today, at $37.5 million, it is over a thousand times that of the average worker, who experienced a 10% loss of real wages during the same thirty years.  The gap is so great that by 1999 the net worth of just three individuals, Bill Gates, Paul Allen & Warren Buffet, was larger than the gross domestic product of the world’s 41 poorest nations and their 550 million people.

Policies that would work to reinstate a vigorous middle class, creating energy efficient, environment sustaining jobs here at home as opposed to inefficient and enrgy-wasteful practices of importing goods produced by sweat-shop labor in China and India would serve to restore a fiscally sound tax base, which, when coupled with elimination of wasteful military expenditures and the elimination of the Bush tax cuts, would more than amply underwrite our healthcare and educational needs.

While I applaud both Gravel and Ron Paul for opposing the war in Iraq, there is only one candidate who truly appreciates the need to restore the “public interest” in governmental policies.  Mr. Kucinich is the only candidate speaking out for a restoration of the Fairness doctrine and a roll-back of corporate monopoly consolidation and control of the media.  When, during an early debate, a moderator asked who would join Mr. Kucinich in standing up for the constitution by calling for a show of hands as to who would join in his courageous call for impeachment, every single one of them, including Gravel, stood stifly, too scared to move a muscle.

There is only one candidate whom we should support, and it is “not” Ron Paul.  Vote Kucinich!

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 22, 2007 at 10:55 pm Link to this comment

People who think that handing healthcare over to the government will NOT massively benefit the major corporations are delusional.  The only thing that our government is truly effective at is handing out favors to politically connected corporations.  The examples of this are literally endless.  Why would anything be even remotely different after handing healthcare entirely over to the government? 

Tony writes, “The solution is honest, strong government with principled elected officials who will make and enforce laws that compels big business to act in the interest of the people as a whole.”

How many ‘principled elected officials’ do you think are out there?  Where are they?  Where have they been for the past 50 years?  Am I missing something?

Let me ask another question… If Democrats win the White House and then enact socialized medicine, what happens when the political winds inevitably shift and Republicans come back into power?  Then what?  With our healthcare completely in the control of government (and their major corporate friends with influence) what will you expect to happen at that point? 

Furthermore, you are entirely ignoring the basic nature of human activity.  People don’t open businesses to act ‘in the interests of the people as a whole’.  People open businesses to promote their own self interests.  I don’t get out of bed in the morning for work to act ‘in the interests of people as a whole’ and nobody honestly does either. We toil to put food on our table, to provide for our children, to provide for our shelter, and to provide for our quality of life.  Even people that work for charities and non-profits do so to provide for themselves and their family.  While their work is massively beneficial to society they don’t do that work for free and the satisfaction they receive personally for contributing to society is a form of compensation that they value on a personal level.  Again, the beauty (and basic human truth) of self interest at work.

However, despite all of this self-interested behavior going on, all is not lost (in fact immeasurable benefits are gained) because any business that is going to thrive on its own merit (and without the benefit of political favoritism and the massive government subsidies and contracts that go along with it) MUST have its interests (products or services) aligned with some segment of the population, i.e. their target market.  If a business is not benefiting some segment of the population or doing so profitably, or causing harm, it will cease to exist (unless it benefits from no-bid contracts doled out by the government). If a business is fraudulent law enforcement and the judicial system should prosecute those who are acting illegally.

The truth is, the free market, with its diversity of our population and of our tastes, needs, desires, etc promotes benefits widely and efficiently to the most people possible in the form of employment, productivity, and quality of life improvements.  Government, which doesn’t create any wealth, cannot ever come close.

It is shortsighted to give more and more power to the government, especially when it comes to something as crucial as our nation’s healthcare,  because while you may like who is in power now, you inevitably won’t like who is in control at some point in the future.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 22, 2007 at 10:13 pm Link to this comment

Life is what it is.  Obviously I detest the war in Iraq and think it should never have been launched.  I detest all war.  It wastes everything: men and women soldiers, innocent people, armaments, resources sustaining deployment of troops and weapons and equipment of war, defilement the earth, war deaths affect a cascade of people related in some way to those occupied with war.  The affect is unending.  The effects of war are overwhelming, both bodily and mentally.  This is a given.  But the facts of life are a given as well.  To act like there is no reason to have a military presence anywhere is to act like an ostrich with its head in the sand.  Or rather up its ass.  America and Americans are no longer liked in the world because of its imperialistic and militaristic practices.  Have we forgotten “the ugly American” so quickly?  It was only as recent as the 1960s Southeast Asia, Vietnam, Cambodia; it does not need listed.  Dave23 must be very young.  He certainly seems naïve.  That however repugnant as we have been made to be in the eyes of the world, is the reason we are compelled to keep military bases in strategic places not only to protect America but those countries in which the military are stationed.  It is insanity to withdraw to within the borders of our country.  There are territories that are not conjoined to the mainland that would be in jeopardy.  Even one of our states, Hawaii.  And to think those who utterly despise everything American would not at its first opportunity do devastation and damage and would not do so is just plain stupid.  Utopia is a dream.  What reasonable man must do is to learn how to be protective rather than aggressive.  To stop wars, all mothers everywhere must teach their sons to not participate in war. 

All this notwithstanding, there are other life threatening issues Ron Paul would demolish.  And isn’t it interesting he has chosen the Republican Party to cloak his libertarian intentions?  Our education system is one of those set for sacrifice.  There is this fellow Nicholas Negroponte who is about providing millions of computers to the children of the world that they may become educated.  Could there be anything more humanitarian?  That the future citizens of the world would be profoundly not ignorant?  When the world relaxes it hatreds, then we can relax.  Does an educated world promise no more war?  Probably not, as greed and power are not easily eradicated.  But educated people are less likely to allow despots to arise.  In America as well as everywhere else.

Yes end the war.  We must as a species.  But keep your minds alert.  Other issues already stated that Paul would adversely afflict weigh in too heavily for this country to allow him to be president.

Report this

By John Hanks, November 22, 2007 at 9:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I don’t trust Ron Paul because he is another Republican who wants to get rid of social security.  He will do the right thing about the war (maybe?) but probably for the wrong reasons.  Libertarians are blind to the power of money.  They will give what we have left to the rich so they can use it to enslave us with poverty.

Report this

By John Hanks, November 22, 2007 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tony Wicker?  If you have a direct line to the “real world”, would you please prove it with some facts?

Report this

By Dave23, November 22, 2007 at 8:40 pm Link to this comment

It’s amazing that the fundamental views of our founding fathers are now considered lunatic ideas. It’s scary that “progressives” like Shenonymous still think that it is imperative that we maintain a global military empire. The only reason that we need a global empire to protect ourselves is BECAUSE we have a global empire and it justifiably makes people all over the world mad as hell. Why doesn’t Switzerland need a global empire to defend itself? To illustrate the absurdity of this double-standard, Ron Paul asks “How would we feel if China had a military base in the Gulf of Mexico?” Small government and a non-interventionist foreign policy were fundamental political philosophies of our founders and now people like Shenonymous call them lunacy.

Tony Wicher:
Barak Obama is NOT an anti-war candidate. Do you really think that he’ll reign in the military industrial complex? No way. The man wants to invade Pakistan. Barak Obama is also NOT a humanitarian. How much have you heard him speaking out against torture, warantless wiretapping, or extraordinary renditions? Not at all. Ron Paul is the only candidate who wants to restore civil liberties and abolish the empire. All of the other candidates with the exception of Kucinich will only carry on the destructive path of empire. One more president who doesn’t believe in the foundational philosophies of our nation may be more than our country can bear. Our founding fathers experienced the horrors of empire and government meddling and they constructed the Constitution to keep us from going down that same path. Paul is the only candidate heeding those warnings. Or respect in the world has dissipated, our global empire has reached mammoth proportions, our civil liberties are being reduced, and our dollar is weakening rapidly. These are the signs of crumbling empires, and only by turning to the Constitution can we avoid the societal self-destruction that the Constitution was made to prevent. Stop dismissing the wisdom of our predecessors that Paul represents as lunacy.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 22, 2007 at 7:04 pm Link to this comment

Re #115204 by Shenonymous on 11/22 at 5:52 pm

“It is imperative we stay realistic about what is going on.”

I’ll say! Many people posting on this thread do not seem to be living in the real world at all.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, November 22, 2007 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment

When the whole story is not told. 
That mental pocketbook appears to be singing that ever seductive siren song…again.  Some of those posting here such as Contraband, #115030 sees into the alluring trap of the metaphoric cash register.  It is absolutely inane to think the local liberal communities can “pool” their resources for the disenfranchised.  And that we can have a decent country without taxes.

In his zeal to beg attention to the outrageous robbery Bush and company committed with his Bush War in Iraq, and don’t forget this is entirely his own war, and with a many faceted drama that included Secretary of State Powell, Dick Cheney, and the master illusionist Karl Rove, Bush duped Congress into approving funding.  Now we have seen for many many weeks the extent of that robbery.  But Robert Sheer is willing not to simply jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon, but leap onto it body and mind and liberal soul(?)  However, it was never a legally declared war and that is being swept away and intentionally made to be forgotten by smoke screens such as the Iranian threat, the Pakistani crisis, etc.  We are being distracted from making Congress stop the war. 

House of Representative congressman Ron Paul has a bloody point.  But we mustn’t be dazzled by what appears to be a windfall of tax return, for it certainly would not be.  If the Joint Economic Committee in Congress came up with “similarly startling estimates of the long-term costs of the war,” then it is not the case that Ron Paul came up exclusively and clairvoyantly with the projected cost of the war.  His program of “saving money” is not based strictly on the Bush war in Iraq.  As noted earlier isn’t he counting in those dollars bringing troops home from everywhere.  Where would that leave the United States in the case of protection?  Is that what we really need to do?  Furthermore, the dazzle of this $46,000 for every taxpayer front page news break blinds the eyes to the often–voiced Ron Paul scheme to deal a concussion to a woman’s right to abortion, to the education system, the Social Security program, and particularly that single-payor health care program everybody is talking about.  The Paul agenda is just like every other politician, that is to say the magic words that will catapult him into the limelight. And it is flagwaving for the cameras.  Talking those kinds of dollars in everybody’s pocket is just that.  It is called demagoguery.  Well I want to see his thumpwhacking machinations to trade our crucial social programs for what is merely at this moment only “concern” for the true cost of the war in the limelight.  Is it really possible to redeploy the troops within 90 days of taking office?  It is imperative we stay realistic about what is going on.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, November 22, 2007 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

Re #115176 by Dave23 on 11/22 at 12:28 pm

“Saying that Ron Paul is another pro-businees and anti-people conservative is just wrong. He’s only on the republican ticket because he knows that our “democracy” is rigged against third parties. Look at his views and not his party, then change your political party to republican, vote for Paul in the primaries, and we can get a real candidate for ending empire into office. “
——————————————————————————
Why in the world would any progressive vote for Ron Paul when he could vote for Dennis Kucinich? I heartily agree with Paul about the war and I heartily disagree with him about everything else. Libertarians are nuts. Paul and every other reactionary tell you that “big government” is the problem. A progressive democrat understands that the problem is big business, not big government. When big business controls the government as it does now democracy is lost, and the government is run for the sake of corporate profits instead of in the interest of the people. The solution is honest, strong government with principled elected officials who will make and enforce laws that compels big buisness to act in the interest of the people as a whole. That is what democracy is for, the regulation and control of the free market so that society as a whole benefits from it. If you follow Ron Paul and the Libertarians, the end result will be totalitarian dictatorship by corporations.

In the real world, the best bet for an anti-war, principled and humanitarian president is Barack Obama. The differences between Obama and Clinton are substantial on many issues. Progressives should unite behind him. I am not going to waste my vote on Ron Paul. By staying a Democrat as I have always been, I can really make a difference by stopping Clinton and getting Obama nominated. I am not going to throw away my vote on some wet dream.

Report this

By SteveL, November 22, 2007 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment

After listening to all the arguments about not registering as a republican in voting for Ron Paul, decided to do it.  When DLC democrats want to carry out this affront to history and keep this mess in Iraq going until 2013 I decided to look else ware for a candidate with some sense.

Report this

By Novista, November 22, 2007 at 2:53 pm Link to this comment

Dave23 on 11/22 at 12:28 pm

A well-presented statement of policies. Thanks!

Report this

By Bobby, November 22, 2007 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Free-Market Healthcare for the uninsured:

Testimony of Robert S. Berry, M.D. before the Joint Economic Committee of Congress

http://www.aapsonline.org/freemarket/berry.htm

“I represent a growing movement in cash only practices and the patients who use them. Yet our clinic is a little different in that we center medical services around the unique needs of the uninsured. They are the most cost effective healthcare consumers, and we all could learn something for them.

Our clinic is similar to charity clinics in that it serves patients falling through the cracks of our broken healthcare system - except we don’t receive any taxpayers’ funds either directly as subsidies or indirectly as a tax-exempt 501c3 corporation. It is similar to boutique clinics in that it contracts directly with its patients - except that most of our patients don’t have insurance. “

“Costs to the patient here are about 60% those of other physicians’ offices, 40% of the local urgent care, and 10 to 20% of the local ER’s.”

Report this

By Jonas South, November 22, 2007 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

RE: 115173 Paulo

Single payor health care is not a charity; far from it. In all other advanced countries, the cost of providing health care is shifted from the employer to the state. GM must pay up to $4000 per car for employee and retiree health, while Japanese car makers do not, which explains why GM lost money every year for the past four. Single payor health care increases the competitiveness of American companies.

Tax payors actually pay less for single payor health care, because the overhead of running this type of program is far less than our non-system. When all costs to society are tabulated, France and England and Canada spend far less for better quality health care than we do for ours, which is lower quality. Overall quality is based on outcome analysis such as longevity, morbidity and the like.

We in America value freedom, but how is freedom defined? If you can turn down a dead end job with a corporation, move to a small town and start a business, is that American freedom we can cherish? If your boss is an idiot, and you join another company more to your liking, is that freedom we should celebrate? Single payor health care provides that freedom, while lack of it shackles many to a hateful job because of the fear of the loss of health care. (Pre-existing condition exclusions, waiting periods, etc leads to gaps in coverage few can ignore.)

As for the rest of us taxpayors who ‘pay’ for this freedom in others (we actually save money, as discussed above), we are repaid many times over for a happier society, and for more productive and creative fellow citizens who in turn support the U.S. in times of her need. Single payor health care is not charity; it is a way to nurture the can-do American spirit we can’t do without.

Report this

By Dave23, November 22, 2007 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

OUTRAGED:
You are failing to look past your views of the republican party and actually understand what Ron Paul stands for. There is a big difference between a small-government conservative like Ron Paul and a massive-government facist like Rudy. The facist republicans want to take all of our money and spend it on war profiteers and other awful corporations owned by their buddies. That is pro-business and anti-American people. Getting rid of government spending and regulations is NOT pro-business, it is pro-people. If you don’t like big, evil corporations, then don’t give them any of your money. Big government is an enabler of the Halliburtons and Bechtels of the world. Without government support, these corporations that you rightfully condemn could not survive. Only ethical businesses that gave the people what they wanted would survive. We would choose which businesses thrived and which died, rather than having our corrupt politicians make that decision based on who contributes to their campaigns. Saying that Ron Paul is another pro-businees and anti-people conservative is just wrong. He’s only on the republican ticket because he knows that our “democracy” is rigged against third parties. Look at his views and not his party, then change your political party to republican, vote for Paul in the primaries, and we can get a real candidate for ending empire into office.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, November 22, 2007 at 1:05 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul might just motivate me to vote—something I have not bothered with for years.

Many who call themselves “progressives” note that Ron Paul wouldn’t support their particular pet project: Universal Health Care, Social Security, Medicare, and so forth.

In a free society with limited or no taxation, nothing would prevent people from getting together—on either a charitable or for-profit basis—and providing services. If you want to start a charitable organization to help the elderly pay for medical care (for example), you are free to do so. The only difference is, you can’t put a gun to peoples’ heads and force them to pay into your program. This means you have to be able to demonstrate you can run your charitable organization efficiently, with most of the money going to actually help those in need.

I would like to see a Ron Paul versus Dennis Kucinich presidential race. If that’s not in the offing, I would like to see the two get together for a third-party run. The D’s and R’s have essentially become one big-government, invade-the-world party.

Report this

By Nomascerdo, November 22, 2007 at 12:29 pm Link to this comment

From Wikipedia:

“The first U.S. state tax on fuel was introduced in February 1919 in Oregon.[3] It was a 1 cent per U.S. gallon (0.3¢/L) tax. In the following decade, all of the U.S. states (48 at the time), along with the District of Columbia, introduced a gasoline tax. By 1939, an average tax of 3.8¢/gal (1¢/L) of fuel was levied by the individual states. The fuel tax in Texas is currently set at 20¢/gal since being raised to that amount in 1991. In May of 2007, the Texas House of representatives unanimously voted to pass a ‘gas-tax relief’ measure for the 2007 summer driving period. The measure was not passed by the state Senate.

While state fuel taxes had been around for more than a decade, the first federal gasoline tax in the United States was created on June 6, 1932 with the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1932 with a tax of 1 cent/gal (0.3¢/L). The U.S. federal gasoline tax as of 2005 was 18.4¢/gal (4.86¢/L), and the gasoline taxes in the various states range from 10 cents to 33 cents, with an average about 22 cents per U.S. gallon (5.8¢/L), making the average combined tax on gasoline 42¢/gal. Unlike most goods in the U.S., the price displayed includes all taxes, rather than being calculated at the point of purchase.

The head of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation stated on 15 Aug. 2007 that about 60% of federal gas taxes are used for highway and bridge construction. The remaining 40% goes to other, unrelated uses.”

From The Tax Foundation and API:

“Today, the combined burden of federal, state and local gas taxes costs American drivers an average of 45.9 cents on every gallon purchased. As Figure 2 illustrates, in some states the combined taxes exceed 60 cents for every gallon purchased. According to data on gasoline use from the U.S. Department of Transportation, that amounts to an annual gas tax burden of roughly $271 for every man, woman and child in the United States. In these times of concern over high gas prices, American consumers should remember that gasoline taxes have a significant impact on the amount they spend at the pump.”

If fuel taxes were spent ONLY on infrastructure and roads and not siphoned off into special interest pork projects I bet you our infrastructure and roads would be world class instead of on the verge of collapse.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, November 22, 2007 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul supporters need to realize that Ron Paul consistently aligns himself with BUSINESS and single issue voters.  He is not for all of America.  This is exactly the same strategy Bush/Cheney used.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?CID=N00005906

Then check out Dennis Kucinich:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/allsummary.asp?CID=N00003572

Ron Paul is a snake in the grass.  I’m sure you have heard of the “divide and conquer” tactic.  What do you think will happen when each state makes its own rules but the president is for business interests.  He is using your “single issue voter” status to ensnare you.  It will be the same as it was with Bush.  How many times will you be taken advantage of before you realize THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PROTECTS BUSINESS INTERESTS and NOT THE PEOPLE.  If you are really looking for progressive, not Paul’s regressive change, check out Elizabeth Kuchinich speaking for Dennis at a fundraiser in Colorado:

http://www.jwharrison.com/blog/2007/11/21/elizabeth-kucinich-speaks-in-denver/

Have a good Thanksgiving….Enjoy.

Report this

By citizen paine, November 22, 2007 at 11:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

contraband—

Where is the basis for the assertion that no economic mobility is “a libertarian’s dream”? A true libertarian by definition believes in a free market system, wherein economic mobility depends only on how hard one is willing to work to make their own way, and on one’s propensity for innovation and foresight. Free market capitalism is what brought us the economic mobility and living standards we have today. Socialism brings you serfdom, where one’s lot in life is determined solely by the ideology of some dictator and their arbitrary power to carry out their plans accordingly. It is only since the state has started intervening and stifling free market processes that we have seen the growth of social and economic injustice beginning to reverse the trend of rising living standards that laissez faire capitalism brought us.

Ryan F.—

You ask “what is [Ron Paul’s] plan” for Iraq?
That’s the thing, he doesn’t believe the U.S. government has the right, the authority, or even the qualification to “plan” what will happen to other nations and their governments. Thats how we got the incoherent foreign policy we have now, and the complete disaster that has resulted from it; because politicians and bureaucrats in our government felt it was their right and duty to “plan” the affairs of foreign countries.

Report this

By Bobadi, November 22, 2007 at 10:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The elephant in the room guys!
What does it take to make you see it?
The numerous replies since I posted my concerns about science backed apodictic global hell on earth coming to destroy us with fire and water have so far only brought about a glancing reply by Dave23;

“Yes, he does” (Ron Paul) “want to eliminate virtually all FEDERAL social programs. That doesn’t mean that those of you living in liberal communities are barred from pooling your resources to provide health care for those who can’t afford it, or forming groups to fight environmental issues, or starting charities to help the homeless.”
 
This is what I am talking about: Ron Paul would have us all living in clusters of cowboy towns, do anything ya’ like, freedom for all, drain yer’ oil in a ditch, burn coal as ya’ see fit, clear cut yer’ trees with yer’ own mitts;  FREEDOM! … YEE-HAW!

No more Environment Protection Agency, and under Ron Paul’s liberation of the individuals; “free market potential,” those few Greens doomed to obscurity in today’s politics would somehow become a force “to fight environmental issues?”

“Get rid of government, it can’t do anything right” is just exactly what libertarians are saying, and if you think we are running full throttle over the cliff of Global Warming now, just wait until Ron Paul supercharges that engine!

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, November 22, 2007 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

Quote Robert Scheer: “What has he gotten for the trillions wasted? Nothing,...  oil prices from tripling and enriching the ayatollahs of Iran while messing up the American economy…...

That money could have paid for a lot of things we could have used here at home. ....for what the Iraq war costs, we could present each family of four a check for $46,000—which exceeds the $43,000 median household income in his Texas district…”

Despite war-mongering Robert Scheer slagging Iran but leaving out Saudi Arabia (its all becoming obvious now about Truthdig, uhh), Americans will be paying double for having lived in a sick fantasy for so many years.

Not only the cost of the Eye-Rak + Afghanistan “war” (invasion) but also the banking crisis which is about to follow the sub-prime mortgage crisis: -

Hundreds of banks threatened by new subprime crisis - Court ruling blocks institutions from profiting from foreclosures….. Quote: “The reserves of hundreds of banks are at risk, including some major banks, after a little-noticed federal court decision signaled the crisis in securitized home mortgages could spell much more trouble for financial institutions than previously realized, even on Wall Street…..

“The holders of those slice-and-dice derivatives could have zero legal redress or collateral in foreclosures,” he said. “This reduces their values substantially.”......

Over the past few years, Wall Street has bundled billions of dollars of home loans into various MBS securities and derivatives products. The full dollar amount of MBS obligations owned by financial institutions is not yet fully determined, not even by top experts on Wall Street. Conceivably, MBS obligations, in trouble because of the bursting of the real estate bubble, could number in the trillions of dollars….”

Report this

By MikeL, November 22, 2007 at 9:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

People who are afraid that Ron Paul will eliminate all social programs should consider two points, both of which have already been pointed out. But they are worth repeating. First, Dr. Paul has said over and over again that he will not kick any dependents on federal programs out into the streets. Those people will be cared for as long as it takes to transition to market- and community-based services. That process could take a generation, at least. Second, if this war continues—and it most definitely will if any other D or R front-runner wins—then there will be no money for any social programs or the environment or anything but more warfare! Fiscal and moral sanity must be restored to the Republic or else it’s all over, gang.

If you want a glimpse of how bad your life might be in ten years without a Ron Paul presidency, read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli9.html

And for a utilitarian reason for voting Paul, even if you’re a liberal, see this:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_mej_071115_ron_paul_3a_the_pragma.htm

Report this

By DennisD, November 22, 2007 at 9:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Vote for Paul and light the candle of change or continue down the same Coke vs. Pepsi path and forever curse the darkness.

While few if any will agree with every one of Dr. Paul’s positions. He at least has been consistent and the positions themselves haven’t been arrived at after taking an opinion poll or seeing which side has the biggest pile of money backing it.

Report this

By Phil W, November 22, 2007 at 9:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As Joh Stewart put it: Dr. Paul, you are a man of consistent, principled integrity…... Americans don’t usually go for that.  Some of you are here. Open your eyes.  No question that Ron Paul stands alone in supporting the rule of law and a federal republic as was designed by the Constitution. A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to restore the republic. Nearly every other candidate is a member of the CFR which is intent on destroying a sovereign America.  A man can not serve two masters.  The State is the opposite of liberty. Which do you want?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, November 22, 2007 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

Ron Paul doesn’t feel the government (you and I) should pay for anothers health care.  I’m sure with the numerous plans in congress, a nationwide employer financed plan like those found in trade unions could be implemented.

I’m sure when Paul gets in office fireworks between the military industrialists, lobbies, and pharma will begin, not to mention that staunch 20% of Americans who support neverending U.S. Imperialism,  the same one who still support Bush now.

The 200,000 civilians (military support personnel) Bush has threatened to lay off due to congress cutting his war slush fund will go, if Paul gets in office.

Ours is a capitalist economy not a socialist one, given the increasing numbers of government workers collecting federal checks, you could hardly tell.

Report this

Page 6 of 7 pages « First  <  4 5 6 7 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
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