Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
February 27, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

4 3 2 1

Truthdig Bazaar
Voices of the Chicago Eight: A Generation on Trial

Voices of the Chicago Eight: A Generation on Trial

Ron Sossi, Tom Hayden, Frank Condon

more items

Email this item Print this item

Marginalizing Ron Paul

Posted on Dec 29, 2011
AP / Charlie Riedel

Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul is seen in a viewfinder as he speaks during a campaign stop at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines.

By Robert Scheer

It is official now. The Ron Paul campaign, despite surging in the Iowa polls, is not worthy of serious consideration, according to a New York Times editorial; “Ron Paul long ago disqualified himself for the presidency by peddling claptrap proposals like abolishing the Federal Reserve, returning to the gold standard, cutting a third of the federal budget and all foreign aid and opposing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

That last item, along with the decade-old racist comments in the newsletters Paul published, is certainly worthy of criticism. But not as an alternative to seriously engaging the substance of Paul’s current campaign—his devastating critique of crony capitalism and his equally trenchant challenge to imperial wars and the assault on our civil liberties that they engender.

Paul is being denigrated as a presidential contender even though on the vital issues of the economy, war and peace, and civil liberties, he has made the most sense of the Republican candidates. And by what standard of logic is it “claptrap” for Paul to attempt to hold the Fed accountable for its destructive policies? That’s the giveaway reference to the raw nerve that his favorable prospects in the Iowa caucuses have exposed. Too much anti-Wall Street populism in the heartland can be a truly scary thing to the intellectual parasites residing in the belly of the beast that controls American capitalism.

It is hypocritical that Paul is now depicted as the archenemy of non-white minorities when it was his nemesis, the Federal Reserve, that enabled the banking swindle that wiped out 53 percent of the median wealth of African-Americans and 66 percent for Latinos, according to the Pew Research Center.

The Fed sits at the center of the rot and bears the major responsibility for tolerating the runaway mortgage-backed securities scam that is at the core of our economic crisis. After the meltdown it was the Fed that led ultra-secret machinations to bail out the banks while ignoring the plight of their exploited customers.

To his credit, Paul marshaled bipartisan support to pass a bill requiring the first-ever public audit of the Federal Reserve. That audit is how readers of the Times first learned of the Fed’s trillions of dollars in secret loans and aid given to the banks as a reward for screwing over the public.

As for the Times’ complaint that Paul seeks to unreasonably cut the federal budget by one-third, it should be noted that his is a rare voice in challenging irrationally high military spending. At a time when the president has signed off on a Cold War-level defense budget and his potential opponents in the Republican field want to waste even more on high-tech weapons to fight a sophisticated enemy that doesn’t exist, Paul has emerged as the only serious peace candidate. As The Wall Street Journal reported, Paul last week warned an Iowa audience, “Watch out for the military-industrial complex—they always have an enemy. Nobody is going to invade us. We don’t need any more [weapons systems].”

As another recent example of Paul’s sanity on the national security issues that have led to a flight from reason on the part of politicians since the 9/11 attacks, I offer the Texan’s criticism this week of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The act would allow the president to order indeterminate military imprisonment without trial of those accused of supporting terrorism, a policy that Obama signed into law and Paul opposes, as the congressman did George W. Bush’s Patriot Act. Paul said:

“Little by little, in the name of fighting terrorism, our Bill of Rights is being repealed. ... The Patriot Act, as bad as its violation of the 4th Amendment, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed (NDAA) continues that slip toward tyranny and in fact accelerates it significantly ... The Bill of Rights has no exemption for ‘really bad people’ or terrorists or even non-citizens. It is a key check on government power against any person. This is not a weakness in our legal system; it is the very strength of our legal system.”

That was exactly the objection raised by The New York Times in its own excellent editorial challenging the constitutionality of the NDAA. It should not be difficult for those same editorial writers to treat Ron Paul as a profound and principled contributor to a much-needed national debate on the limits of federal power instead of attempting to marginalize his views beyond recognition.


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

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

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By YarlanZey, December 30, 2011 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

Calgurlllw: You must not have been a very good teacher since you think that by name calling (Rand Rand Rand) that you are revealing anything except your ability to avoid ad hominem attacks instead of reasoned arguments. With such low standards, your assessment of educators is equally suspect. Since you are crippled in the area of history, you should know that in the United States, literacy was within 5% of its current figure (some say it was higher) when Alexis de Tocqueville wrote “Democracy in America.” This was before the compulsory state-run public school system was levied on the benumbed children and the taxpayer. One must ask then: what really is the source of literacy? Answer: what was the most important invention of the millennium? Yes, you have Johann Gutenberg to thank for literacy’s spread, not public schools. Children have a hardwired affinity for learning at a young age, and Gutenberg’s invention made books much cheaper—so much so that even by the early 1800s literacy may have been equal to its current figure. And in those days, nobody would have accepted your ad hominem and other invalid attacks as argumentation of any type. Such de-volution is the product of public schools. The people were too sophisticated then to accept fallacies as you do. So please, learn your lesson. Literacy is due to the widespread availability of cheap books, which have dropped even more in price since the 1800s—which makes one wonder how much higher literacy rates would have been if public schools had not been dumbinng kids down so much.

Report this

By diamond, December 30, 2011 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

“It is hypocritical that Paul is now depicted as the archenemy of non-white minorities when it was his nemesis, the Federal Reserve, that enabled the banking swindle that wiped out 53 percent of the median wealth of African-Americans and 66 percent for Latinos, according to the Pew Research Center.”

Oh, please. What kind of nonsense is this? The harm that Ron Paul would do knows no bounds and is certainly not predicated on race. He is an equal opportunity fanatic. He’s out to get everyone who is not rich and right wing and doesn’t share his Hobbesian, 18th century view of the world. He’s nutty as a fruitcake, that’s the problem, and so are the rest of the Republican candidates. To claim his policies make more sense than Mitt Ronmey’s, Newt Gingrich’s or Michelle Bachmann’s is not only untrue, it borders on satire. His policies make sense if you want to live in a society that resembles Dickens’ London complete with workhouses, destitute men, women and children living in the streets while the sick are dying in the streets and jails bursting at the seams. You’d be back to hanging children for stealing a loaf of bread in no time. The ‘good doctor’ is social justice’s undertaker.

Report this

By scott425, December 30, 2011 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

Some more questions for discussion…

Why is it considered thoughtcrime to support Ron Paul because he is bringing up the issues I want to see discussed?  Is it wrong to vote for Paul because I want to see a substantive debate in 2012, rather than Obama vrs. Romney with both sides claiming they are the lesser evil?  Isn’t my solidarity with the aspirations for freedom and law and order expressed by Paul and his supporters sufficient reason to vote for him? 

Why does the media tell us that one or two bad positions invalidates a candidacy?  In order to vote for a candidate, is it necessary to agree with all of his positions?  What if he is right on the positions that matter most to me?  Is voting a speech act or a religious act?

If a revolution were to happen, do you expect that the ensuing laws would be entirely to your liking?  Do you believe it is possible to construct a just society in America without the support of Christians and libertarian minded folks?  Without leaders like Ron Paul, how do you expect to mobilize these individuals and groups?

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 30, 2011 at 11:47 am Link to this comment


“I have a feeling that this very white-male forum doesn’t like to deal with actual facts (with the possible exceptions of tinkdnous and mrfreeze)”

I’d just like to point out that,being a white male, I’m as much of a white male as anyone here lol.

But yes, I agree with you. I’ve seen it in plenty of other fora already. A significant part of his base consists of “progressive” libertarian white males who are pretty ignorant of their own privilege and how it might inform their worldview.

I feel like I might explode every time I see one of them asserting that his stance on abortion rights shouldn’t matter to me at all…

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 30, 2011 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

The fact that you admire Cyr’s continuously absurd, outlandish, and downright hateful posts merely confirms my assessment of you as yet another static-generator in otherwise thought-provoking threads.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 30, 2011 at 11:44 am Link to this comment

Calgurlllw, Truth as facts will never feed fanatic dogmas! Your posted facts are not open to question for the Ron Paul fanatics, because they truth is ignored for the sake of their blind cause which is intended to stay that way!

Fanatics as they usually go, will argue their cause or even fight to death for it, but truth never gets in their way! This seems so for religion, politics and sports!

Report this

By scott425, December 30, 2011 at 11:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Serious question for those on here dissing Ron Paul.

If/when a revolution happens, do you expect this revolution to be carried out by people whose ideology is exactly like your own?  Do you expect the entire nation to suddenly decide to vote for Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson?  Do you believe a revolution can be carried out without the support of Christians or Libetarians, or are you expecting some sort of Communist/Socialist vanguard party revolution?

Surely if you appreciate radical views you can see how damaging the 2 party system is to discourse in America.  Surely you see that the issues Ron Paul brings up are not normally discussed.  Surely you can see that there is something wrong with mainstream media pundits telling us that because Paul has this or that offensive position (or even 10-12 offensive positions) that we should condemn his candidacy and fail to support his efforts to educate the public.

The Ron Paul campaign is a serious grassroots effort to confront government corruption and popular discontent.  It has helped educate millions of Americans as to the reality of government abuses.  This movement has fundamentally the same goals as the OWS movement—to take power from the banks and corporations and give it to the people.

If a revolution ever happens in this nation, it won’t be a socialist vanguard revolution.  It will be about liberty, equality, and fraternity.  It will be about the people’s right to live their own lives and determine their own values without interference from a paternal state.  And the Ron Paul campaign is all about promoting those values. 

Why can’t progressives see this?  Why can’t they understand that there are conservatives out there who want freedom just like they do?  Why can’t they act in solidarity with other freedom movements?

Stop hating.  Turn off the MSM propaganda and go talk to actual Ron Paul supporters.  Watch the Ron Paul videos, read about his positions, read his books.  Make up your own mind and decide for yourself.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 30, 2011 at 11:36 am Link to this comment


“Calgurlllw—Now you need to argue that these (if verifiable) outweigh Obama’s fondness for and actual practice of war, imperialism, surveillance, the police state, the Drug War, and bailouts, subsidies and immunity from prosecution for banksters.  These are serious matters for many people, if not for faithful established-order Democrats.”

I think they’re pretty verifiable, since most of them are on his campaign website.

But actually, no, she DOESN’T have to argue that, at least not until you can successfully convince her (and the rest of us) that our ONLY choices are Ron Paul or Barack Obama.

Considering you yourself have asserted the unlikelihood of Paul’s actually holding the office of POTUS, you must understand that the choice is hardly a choice at all. A vote for Ron Paul becomes a protest vote. So why shouldn’t I cast my protest vote for someone who (as far as I can tell at this point) does not hold ANY views repugnant to me, like Jill Stein?

Report this

By balkas, December 30, 2011 at 11:31 am Link to this comment

alas, nearly all posters keep on describing [in] accurately events but utterly omit to posit
causes or causative factors [it may or may not include rationalization; i.e., giving reasons for
what supremacists do] for, say,  wars, serfdom, exploitation, making ‘better weapons’,
issuing eternal tacit or explicit threats to nations and serfs.
s’mhow, they all do not know that everything is caused; so, causes do not exist, say, for
u.s&allies;’ aggression against korea, vietnam, iraq, palestina; or manufacture/maintainance
of wmd or ever ‘better’ killing metals.

but aggression against palestina, iraq, is caused. and the cause is always w.o an exception
lust for other peoples’ lands, control over them, and everything that is in it and on it; it may
or may not include its peoples.
if people, are driven out as in palestina, republika srpska, there’s no need for controlling
their pop.

such conquistadores know well to only give people rationalization; which, in theory, is
inexhaustible; limited only by limits of their imagination to invent new reasons.
and that’s all americans, et al wld ever get: ever more new reasons only. alas, 99.999% of
world pop may evaluate mere reasons as facts and empirical causes.
and obama get’s reelected….. or paul, romney elected. that’s the change i expect.
btw, i am not including anderson in this judgement; i have not studied everything he had
said. tnx

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 30, 2011 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

Calgurlllw—Now you need to argue that these (if verifiable) outweigh Obama’s fondness for and actual practice of war, imperialism, surveillance, the police state, the Drug War, and bailouts, subsidies and immunity from prosecution for banksters.  These are serious matters for many people, if not for faithful established-order Democrats.

Report this

By Calgurlllw, December 30, 2011 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

Right on the money, Blueokie!

Report this

By smitty8, December 30, 2011 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

When I first heard Paul, years
ago, he seemed a kook, but
seeing him in several liberal
interviews I liked his seeming
earnestness and the positions I
heard so came to think of him as
the least bad of the Republican
hopefuls. When someone sent me
the Sherry Wolf article I
couldn’t believe it so I checked
Paul’s official positions on
“issues” on his official
campaign website
america/). It is HORRIBLE! I
wonder if Sheer actually checked
these basic facts!? Let’s hear
more about Rocky Anderson and
forget about Ron Paul!

Report this

By Alan MacDonald, December 30, 2011 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

Anarcissie, December 30 at 10:50 am—- well said!

Personally, I’m not advocating for Paul, I’m advocating for a public debate of two alternate candidates who have the guts, brains, and courage to debate the most important thing in the world to my future, my kids and grandkid’s future, your future and kids future, and everyone in this country’s future to avoid the rather messy existential end that is coming, compliments of this ####ing Global Empire.

If only one guy is wiling to even ####ing whisper about this Empire, then shame on any of the real and principled ‘left’ who don’t challenge this treasonous prick, Obama, and join the real debate about our future without Empire ruling this world.

Hell, wouldn’t everyone benefit and enjoy seeing one alternate right libertarian principled, anti-war, anti-Wall Street, and anti-Empire candidate talking about the deadly danger of EMPIRE, while one alternate left social democrat principled anti-war, anti-Wall Street, and anti-Empire candidate ALSO exposed the American public to the deadly common danger of very same EMPIRE?

WOW, average Americans might actually ‘get it’, and this would make the lying prick posing as a gutless Democratic liberal (Obama), and the lying prick posing as a patriotic Republican conservative (Romney), both look like the whores of the very same ####ing EMPIRE—- which is what these jerks are!

BTW, it would be fantastic in my book if Ron did not win the Repug primary to Mitt the shit, and started a third-party shot, outside the duopoly of the two-party Vichy Empire, through the alternative of the Americans Elect on-line primary.  Then if Kucinich, Sanders, et al entered Americans Elect open primary as a reformed/former Democrat, and got the popular support, that would bring together a (former Dem.) Kucinich and a (former Rep.) Paul in a single ticket according to Americans Elect’s own commitment to a bipartisan ticket of the peoples choice—- and we might see how close the far right and the far left really are on almost all issues!  If I’m not too far off the mark, Kucinich and Paul’s Congressional voting records are quite compatible with each other.

But maybe that kind of a real debate against both of the ‘Vichy’ party fools is something that wouldn’t interest some posters here—- or maybe it would foul-up their viewing of “The Biggest Loser” or “Who Wants to be a Millionaire”, or “Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader” (we know the answer) on their rented TVs.

Thanks for your serious attention to the real topic of Paul regarding Empire, Anarcissie.

Best to you and yours,

Report this

By Calgurlllw, December 30, 2011 at 11:01 am Link to this comment


That’s the most ridiculous statement of the day. No, we don’t dislike Ron Paul because his ideas are radical. We dislike Ron Paul because his ideas are stupid.

Have you not read any of the thread? (If you like radical, but smart, try looking at the Green Party’s Jill Stein.)

@Paul supporters.

I’ve yet to have any of you actually confront the issues that I have been writing about on this thread. The best you can come up with are standard dissing of “people who worship the state,” or generalizations about anti-war stances.

I have a feeling that this very white-male forum doesn’t like to deal with actual facts (with the possible exceptions of tinkdnous and mrfreeze) and certainly has ignored most of my very specific complaints about Paul.

So I ask you supporters to specifically address these Paul issues:

1. Constitutional amendment to not only ban abortion, but claim “personhood” begins at conception. (And yes, he could pull it off if he were president.)

2. Supports home schooling as the norm.

3. Support unlimited oil drilling and coal mining.

4. Is anti-union. Wants to get rid of secret ballots.

5. Is for health savings accounts.

6. Is anti-immigration. End education and medical care for immigrants and their families. Get rid of birth-right citizenship.

7. Wants to get rid of FDA and EPA rather than fix these very important institutions.

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 30, 2011 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

I think Paul is also a threat to the Democratic Party.  Present Democratic organization and strategy assume that no matter how far to the right Obama moves, lefties, proggies, liberals, unions, feminists, Blacks, Latinos, etc. will follow on the basis of lesser-evillism and having nowhere else to go.  This will be true only as long as all the other visible candidates are to the right of Obama.  Paul is now running to the left of Obama on several major issues.  While he will probably not succeed in obtaining the nomination, and will probably be removed by one means or another if he does obtain it, or even comes near it, the obvious opportunities of the wide political space to Obama’s left, revealed first by OWS and now by Ron Paul, may cause other possibilities to arise.

Meanwhile, just to lighten the air a little, you all might consider throttling back the calumniation strategy.  It won’t work with the people now supporting Paul; they aren’t impressed with magical allegations of racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, insanity, stupidity, and so on.

Report this
Blueokie's avatar

By Blueokie, December 30, 2011 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

Yet another paean to a marginal Randian candidate to increase traffic on a site dedicated more and more to “centrist moderates”.  It always brings out the born again Paulites.

While I’m here let me say that I oppose Imperial wars on moral and legal grounds, not because they take away money that would be better served being redistributed upward.

I’m in favor of public education, public libraries, public parks, and not making everything under the sun a profit vehicle for the rich.

What a great idea, turning marijuana over to big Pharma, Oxycotin for everyone!

Equal Rights for all white males born into wealth!  State’s Rights are great, if your rich, male, white, and belong to the right Christian denomination.  How did your Articles of Confederation, and your Constitution of 1861 work out for you the first time?

Do away with the Fed and replace it with a different set of private banks?  That’s much much different from what we have now.  I’d want to return to the gold standard too if I and my John Bircher friends had been hoarding gold for the last 50 years, my profits would go through the roof! 

We would all be so much better off if we got rid of the Government/Private Security State by dropping the Government part.

I realize that its frustrating left with the choice of voting for a moderate conservative traditional Republican who has the gift of soaring populist sounding rhetoric that makes that bullshit seem like a great idea, or for whoever the actual Republicans nominate, but solving 21st century problems with failed ideas from the middle of the 19th century is a fool’s errand.  Stop seeing what you want to see in this professional candidate and see him for what he is, unless you’re in favor of moving into the future with the mistaken ideas of the past.  Paul is another example of voting aspirations instead of situations.

Report this
senorjab's avatar

By senorjab, December 30, 2011 at 10:46 am Link to this comment


No problem. Since you liked the counterpunch link, here is another…

Ron Paul hates women and minorities; Obama just kills and imprisons them

For those that missed it, my original comment is here:

Report this

By Donchi, December 30, 2011 at 10:45 am Link to this comment

It always amazes me how incredibly conservative “progressives” usually are.  Ron
Paul’s ideas are radical, so they are BAD?  Free your minds, liberals.  I thought you
wanted change you could believe n.

Report this

By Calgurlllw, December 30, 2011 at 10:22 am Link to this comment


Your opinion about public eduction is competely revealing your conservative/Randian bias. And is completely off-base.

I taught in public high-schools for many years, and I can tell you that most students are getting a good education and most teachers are excellent educators. MANY current studies are proving this to be true. (I’d be happy to give you the links to those studies, but I’m sure that you wouldn’t read them or if you did you conclude that they were written by “but” people and thereby invalid.)

The “special interest education industry” lies in the private/religious/home schooling industry that your boy wants to support.

You are a broken record with no nuance. Perhaps you should read something other than Ayn Rand for some perspective.

Report this

By Alan MacDonald, December 30, 2011 at 10:05 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind, December 30 at 8:56 am, thanks for putting me in the same category as Cyr—- I always enjoy his insightful comments.  Yours?  Not so much!

Regarding my “non-lucid” posting herein on Ron Paul, and more significantly the issue of excising this fucking EMPIRE:

We are now in the next era of a post-nation-state world wherein the empire is a single Global Empire, only working through, utilizing the powers of, and posing as an American Empire.

The actual Empire that needs to be publicly discussed by a panel (hopefully including knowledgeable people like; Antonio Negri, Michael Hardt, Sheldon Wolin, Christopher Hedges, Joseph Stiglitz, David Korten, et al.) is the underlying singular Global Empire that hides itself behind the camouflaged term ‘globalization’ and uses the military, political, economic/financial, and propagandist powers of America to best hide and effect this entirely new 21st century Global Empire—- which incorporates the top 1% ruling elites of America, UK, Israel, Germany, China, etc. etc.

This is the first global and ‘ruling class’ based Empire, you dopes, not an American Empire—- or a geographical and nation-state based EMPIRE at all!!

There remains no substantial recognition that our former country (and others like U.K. Israel et al) has been captured by a disguised global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE, which hides behind the facade of its TWO-Party modernized “Vichy” sham of faux-democratic government——just as the occupying Nazi Empire hid behind its far cruder single-party “Vichy” regime. This new 21st century Global Empire or Global Reich is what Hitler only dreamed of but never achieved with his crude propaganda of a single-party and national French ‘Vichy’ facade of empire.

‘Globalization’ is simply the branded and polite marketing term for global EMPIRE!

This disguised global empire is the causal cancerous tumor that creates all ‘symptom problems’ like wars, economic oppression, massive inequality, environmental destruction, finance capitalist ‘looting’, and all other ‘issues’ that are used to divide and distract resistance from attacking the core of the Empire ITSELF.

“Nobody does it better”——lying about the Empire——certainly not the Nazis, nor the Soviets:

Obama’s speech immediately reminded me of the old James Bond “Spy Who Loved Me” song, “Nobody Does It Better” — in that nobody does disguised global Empire better than the US and its new “Open Globalization” pitch-man.

Yes, Obama is a wonderful spokesman (better than even Ronald Reagan or Thomas Friedman) in promoting the appearance of a promising “Globalization” and looking forward to democracy for all, while glossing over the fact that the forced march to globalization by force of arms is essentially just a cover for the reality of “global Empire”.

The PR skills of the corporatist media and Obama are the only combination that can promise the advertising illusion of such ‘hope for change’ under the implied mantel of “democracy” and free market economic “Globalization”, and yet deliver the reality of deceptive, disguised, dysfunctional, and unsustainable “Global Empire” — Nobody does it better.

Who will tell Americans the truth; that 9/11 was a perfectly orchestrated event to divert the growing attention on ‘American Empire’, to engender patriotic sympathy with American victim-hood, and to thus cover-up the real 21st century post-nation-state global corporate/financial/militarist Empire which has taken over our former country?

Empire and not the American government is the real enemy of people everywhere!

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 30, 2011 at 9:54 am Link to this comment


Once again, you make a glib, incorrect assumption about me because you cannot address my points.

I made no claim whatsoever about the effectiveness or transparency of any humanitarian aid program.

But Ron Paul opposes their EXISTENCE, on principle. Not their ineffeciency, out of compassion for the poor.

Yet another consequence of a Ron Paul America that many of his supporters fail to consider is the resurgence of the influence of churches in private life. Many desperate, impoverished people will be forced back into the hobson’s choice of conversion or starvation.

Report this

By YarlanZey, December 30, 2011 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

It’s amazing how easily the opponents of Ron Paul are taken in by the “sell” language of political marketing. They actually think that “foreign aid” actually gets to poor people when the U.S. government or World Bank doles it out—directly into the pockets of the local dictator. And when a bit of it trickles down, it disrupts the situation by attracting the people to food-distribution centers that cause them to abandon their former habit of agriculture.

Similarly, yet another BUT person confuses education with what takes place in a government school. As if to oppose subsidizing the special-interest education industry and its privileged poodles (and thus raising prices because of the subsidies) actually educates anyone.

The list can go on and on. They don’t make the connection between tax subsidies and lack of price competition and corruption. It’s really hopeless arguing these points—especially when they make so many things up and then make outrageous claims!

Report this

By Calgurlllw, December 30, 2011 at 9:40 am Link to this comment

What’s amazing to me is the lack of interest with Paul supporters to some other very important issues!

Education is the basis of a society! Paul supports home schooling as the norm! What kind of an idiot thinks that system can work? One who would desire a constitutional amendment, not just banning abortion, but claiming that life begins at conception! (Which would then ban many types of birth control and fertility treatments.)

So in Paul’s world, he would want women birthing babies and staying home to school the children. (That would certainly help the unemployment rate wouldn’t it?)

In Paul’s world, women would be at home teaching the children, corporations would start drilling for more and more oil and burning more and more coal and our increased number of children would be breathing coal-poisoned air, and eating oil-poisoned fish, further rotting their brains to the point that they’ll never realize their parents elected a lunatic.

With unions busted, fewer employers would be offering health insurance. People would flock to churches again for support.

And remember, the president nominates the Supreme Court judges. With the Supreme Court in the hands of crackpots like Thomas and Scalia, the lines between church and state would begin to blur unrecognizably.

Think that’s not a possibility? Read you history books about the Dred Scott decision. The Supreme Court was packed with Southerners at the time, just like they’d be packed with conservatives under Paul.

Hyperbole? Perhaps. But it’s not really that far fetched when you look at Ron Paul’s positions on issues.

Report this

By balkas, December 30, 2011 at 9:34 am Link to this comment

in ten or fewer words: ron/et al have accepted personal
supremacism as his/their credo/faith.

Report this

By balkas, December 30, 2011 at 9:30 am Link to this comment

in ten words or fewer: paul bases objection to u.s wars on
rationalization and not on causation!
ok, i cldn’t do it in ten or fewer words.

let’s try again? shall we??
ron is casting a narrow[est] look: sensation sans causation.
ok, this time in only 9 words!

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 30, 2011 at 9:19 am Link to this comment


“FYI, even I know Ron Paul has repeatedly said that our interventions in the Middle East are non productive and are creating enemies rather than making us safer.  He implores Americans to put themselves in our enemies shoes and imagine how we would feel if they were over here bombing us and setting up Sharia law.  He simply does not believe our forefathers wrote the constitution to support the aggressive empire being foisted upon us.”

I would buy this reasoning if he weren’t so opposed to humanitarian foreign aid of any sort.

I’m not saying the guy lacks empathy, or that he WANTS to kill people. I’m not saying he’s stupid, either. He’s right about blowback (as are many, many people, many of whom happen to also believe in women’s rights). But his opposition to these wars is NOT based on a mantra of non-violence. It’s based on a blanket objection to foreign spending.

If that’s your bag, man, own up to it. But if you’re actually more of an idealist than that, I’d suggest you stop projecting your own idealism onto Ron Paul’s “pragmatic” isolationism.

The most upsetting thing about most Ron Paul supporters is that they themselves would probably make a much better president than he would, but they adore him too much to see his flaws clearly.

Report this

By glider, December 30, 2011 at 9:09 am Link to this comment


“it quite clear that he objects to these military misadventures because they’re TOO EXPENSIVE”

Do you care whether anything you say is a truthful?  Seriously dude I have read so much misinformation from you it makes me wonder if you are a plant designed to make Paul haters look stupid.  FYI, even I know Ron Paul has repeatedly said that our interventions in the Middle East are non productive and are creating enemies rather than making us safer.  He implores Americans to put themselves in our enemies shoes and imagine how we would feel if they were over here bombing us and setting up Sharia law.  He simply does not believe our forefathers wrote the constitution to support the aggressive empire being foisted upon us.  Stop with the lies and try thinking before posting for a change.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 30, 2011 at 8:56 am Link to this comment

When you have non-lucid posters like Cyr, Dr Quack and now MacDonald, it’s hard to have a coherent discussion based on REALITY and what are likely outcomes.

Paul is NOT going to be President. If we (and by “we” I mean the USA) is lucky, he may be able to break the Teaparty suicide grip on the GOP. Two parties ARE better than one.  But right now, the TeaParty is like a drowning person who in his panic is also drowning his rescuer.  I don’t LIKE the GOP.  But honest alternative views are necessary to the functioning of a free state.  Right now, such views are suppressed by Fox Noise and the T/P.

Paul threatens to break that.

Meanwhile the dance merely means Barack Obama will be re-elected and may well win back the House and keep the Senate.  Will he FINALLY use that mandate to fix stuff rather than trying ever again to actually get along with the GOP?  I don’t know.  Recently the trap he set and sprang on Boehner (and McConnell) was a first—and rather brilliant.  Maybe, maybe, maybe we have more of the same coming in the future?

One can only hope because either Obama will be re-elected or some damn fool Re-thug-lican will be.

Hey P-H!  Good to be back!  Being sick and in pain sucks.  Finally healing up though and am home!

Report this

By - bill, December 30, 2011 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the reminder that there’s a lot more to Paul than the mass media would like people to understand.  And thanks to senorjab for the Counterpunch link for its additional depth.

Being sufficiently to the left of Obama to be so thoroughly disgusted with his faux progressivism that I fully intend to vote Republican next November for the sole purpose of trying to kick him out of the White House, I don’t find a lot of Paul’s positions attractive in the least.  But the thought that I could temporarily switch party affiliation and vote for him in the up-coming New Hampshire primary had not really occurred to me (I had briefly considered voting for Romney while the Gingrich bubble existed, because voting for Gingrich next November would have taxed even my resolve and, besides, I think that Romney has a better chance of beating Obama - while there aren’t any significant primary contests on the Democratic side to care about).

But you (and perhaps more Counterpunch) are right:  Paul’s positions, on the whole, may come noticeably closer to my own than Obama’s actual performance does, with the immense added attraction that Paul would probably do the best job of derailing the MIC/corporate juggernaut that rules this country.  That’s a kind of lesser evilism that I can embrace with much more interest than the kind that the Democratic party has been preaching for the past 8 years, though I still wish that the Green (or some other progressive third) party would stand up on its hind legs and act like a serious alternative.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 30, 2011 at 8:48 am Link to this comment


What you call “cognitive dissonance” is actually nuanced thinking. I’m not really surprised to see the two conflated by a Ron Paul supporter, of course.

And I know quite well what the government can and can’t do. I paid attention in high school, college, and law school, and I know that on day one, he could informally but effectively eliminate every single federal department and cabinet level position, and while he couldn’t directly overturn Roe v. Wade, he wouldn’t really have to. Either he’d get his amendment (not as far-fetched as some people think, considering how many states are currently trying to increase their restrictions on abortion to push the line on Roe), or he’d get one or more Supreme Court appointments.

But honestly, regardless of what he could or couldn’t do in terms of abortion, it’s his DESIRE to let states control women’s bodies that is morally repugnant. To him, the rights of the states are MORE important than the rights of the people. That’s not the candidate everyone thinks they’re supporting…or else most of his supporters have WAY too much faith in their state government.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 30, 2011 at 8:38 am Link to this comment


“It does not surprise me to read comments like “I’m anti-war, BUT (any “but” will do), so I won’t support Ron Paul because of X.” The writer James Bovard long ago pointed out that many people feel comfortable engaging in a “calculus in human lives.” This “calculus” allows them to sacrifice of some people to obtain some desired domestic program. Neo-cons do it when they say the war in Iraq was “worth it”—as if they or anyone can excuse the current puppet government in Iraq (or even a successful one) and ignore the 200,000 to 1 million corpses and 3 million refugees, none of whom are asked for their opinion about what their lives were worth. Clinton’s Madeleine Albright also did this for the earlier 500,000 dead babies resulting from the sanctions as of 1996.

Face it. There is a fundamental difference between people who live on that human-life-swapping “trajectory” than those who refuse to treat humans as other than ends-in-themselves.”

Do you honestly believe that Ron Paul does NOT perform the same, or a similar, calculus? You honestly believe his opposition to these foreign wars is about resolute non-violence?

I don’t believe that for a second. He’s made it quite clear that he objects to these military misadventures because they’re TOO EXPENSIVE. I’m not saying the guy WANTS to engage in militarism, as long as it’s affordable. But before Ron Paul decides whether he thinks the US should be dropping bombs somewhere, he doesn’t viscerally react in favor of peace. He performs the same cost-benefit analyses you lob towards us as though it were a damning accusation.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 30, 2011 at 8:35 am Link to this comment

Now I seldom attempt to guess or assume other posters sexual, political proclivity’s nor assume their age, except for the obvious and the only thing obvious about Ron Paul supporters is they seem to be blind to the negatives which makes them zeolites in me mind! Some of the below questions are cause for considerations of concern for to me. 

Paul a racist?
Paul a sexist?
Paul likes homophobes. (a real question)?
Paul a small government person who wants the government to tell women what to do with their bodies?
Paul wants to return to the gold Standard?
Paul wants to eliminate Social Security, Medicare and VA programs?
Paul wants to give more States rights?
Paul wants to cut back on Federal Government?
Paul supports public schools?
Paul supports the 1 percent?
Paul support the 99 percent?
Paul is a conservative Libertarian!

All the questions and one truthy factoid, which sort of makes it easy and clinches it for me!

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 30, 2011 at 8:32 am Link to this comment

Matt Emmons:

“Paul made a fortune by investing in gold.”

No, he didn’t. Look again. He made his money investing in gold MINING. This is not the same. It does not even indicate a strong belief in the gold standard, as buying gold would.

No, it indicates a strong belief in the continued profitability of gold mining in a world where he can convince more and more people that gold is the only real, reliable currency (it has magical inherent value because you can eat it and cure disease with it, right…?). But it actually doesn’t depend in any sense on whether gold gains, retains, or even loses value. There’s ALWAYS profitability in mining gold when you can keep selling it to people with wealth, no matter how much or how little is mined.

As I’ve mentioned once or twice in other contexts, I’m actually extremely jealous of the guy for pulling such an effective scam on so many otherwise-intelligent people…

Report this

By YarlanZey, December 30, 2011 at 8:28 am Link to this comment

It does not surprise me to read comments like “I’m anti-war, BUT (any “but” will do), so I won’t support Ron Paul because of X.” The writer James Bovard long ago pointed out that many people feel comfortable engaging in a “calculus in human lives.” This “calculus” allows them to sacrifice of some people to obtain some desired domestic program. Neo-cons do it when they say the war in Iraq was “worth it”—as if they or anyone can excuse the current puppet government in Iraq (or even a successful one) and ignore the 200,000 to 1 million corpses and 3 million refugees, none of whom are asked for their opinion about what their lives were worth. Clinton’s Madeleine Albright also did this for the earlier 500,000 dead babies resulting from the sanctions as of 1996.

Face it. There is a fundamental difference between people who live on that human-life-swapping “trajectory” than those who refuse to treat humans as other than ends-in-themselves. I see it here in comments where bloggers “project” their fears and hatred into Ron Paul and make specious guilt-by-association arguments about things that result in hurt feeling—even as Obama continues a slaughter in real lives. Hint: if you voted for Obama despite his record on Patriot Act II, war funding, and telecon spying (all of which took place before the election), your judgment has already been proven faulty. So what can it be worth now? Have you learned anything?

The swappers in human life are the same people who castigate,  the oldest and only consistent antiwar website in the world. They do so because the website’s owners forgo the pleasure of ordering people around in domestic matters. Why does this not surprise me? Because the first income tax levied in this country were for war. War is the bed-partner of totalitarian government, and it always has been. That is why I do not find it ironic that so-called anti-war progressives always choose war over peace if it means they can trade obtain some desired domestic program out of it. They are very big on vicarious generosity – enslaving other people to “contribute” to things they never pay for on their own.Their use of this “human calculus” puts them in the same camp with the neo-cons and those who went before the neo-cons. And you know who they are, so I won’t use the S and the H words.

The unavoidable truth is that war is the enemy of all freedom, prosperity, and little guys and gals. Until you learn this lesson, you will see the same result. It is the biggest generator of totalitarianism, bar none. So continue to spice your commentary with ad hominem arguments, false claims, guilt-by-association arguments, and oh-so-precious “buts” as reasons to oppose the only person who will shake the structure. And please: don’t dangle yet another big-government socialists in front of us as some kind of “radical” fix. Those people are the enablers of the very entity that engages in war. Warfare and welfare are merely two sides of the same coin, the name of which is oppression.

The same goes for those who make a fetish of fearing corporations. I, too, hate them. The “inc” puts a wall between individual responsibility and corporate policies. But I’m not stupid enough to think that the government—which is a self-policing coercive monopoly that uses guns to order us around to purchase unwanted services and pay a price that they determine and have our disputes “judged” by people paid by the same system and enmeshed in that same entity—is less dangerous than even the most corrupt corporation. So if anyone wants to shake the voodoo doll of “fear of corporations,” please be forewarned that you are exhibiting (1) hypocrisy, (2) stupidity, and (3) a total lack of perspective. Translation: it’s just another rationalization so that you can continue to excuse your trading in human life through war.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 30, 2011 at 8:18 am Link to this comment


“YarlanZey, has provided numerous well reasoned posts addressing the motives and disjointed rants (e.g. tinkdnos) of the most persistent anti-Paulites, as well as the case for Libertarianism.”

You’re cute.

I can see I really hit a nerve with a few people. I may be abrasive, but none of you have actually been able to point out where I’m incorrect. Most of you have resorted to criticizing my tone or accusing me of lying about my motives and opinions. I don’t profess to be classy, but some of you are simply childish and shallow-minded. Those who have the requisite sense of perspective to recognize the validity of the reasoned anti-Paul position, regardless of their agreement, are wonderful, but far too few in number.

And make no mistake, zealots: there are LOTS of good reasons to refuse to support Ron Paul, and NONE of them include a preference for the Obama status quo. Stop with the George Bush “with us or against us” histrionics and try to consider for just a second that for the first time in your 18 to 30 year old life (as I’m sure most of you are in that age bracket), you MIGHT actually be completely wrong about something.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, December 30, 2011 at 8:15 am Link to this comment

Egomet Bonmot - If you look at election history it’s a well-known fact that winners of early republican caucuses have never gone on to win the party’s nomination.

Indeed, IA is a cultural and political backwater that hardly represents “what Americans believe.” Ya, sure, IA is predominantly white, conservative (except when it comes to taking federal money) and relatively unpopulated…..So a RP win there will usher in a “libertarian” revolution?........I have a very “liberal” bridge to sell you in NY, CA, WA, IL and a number of other states that won’t see it IA’s way.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 30, 2011 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

How does Paul stand on the desperation of Church and State?

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 30, 2011 at 8:02 am Link to this comment


“If you want to argue rationally that Paul is not the lesser evil, identifying him with Stalin is probably not your best move.

If Paul runs to the left of Mr. O on a lot of important issues, like war and peace, imperialism, the surveillance, security and police state, bankster immunity and impunity, and the Drug War, it’s going to create a considerable problem for Democratic Party lesser-evillists.”

I concede this, willingly. Hyperbole is a rhetorical device, but I employed it poorly there.

Frankly, though, I’ve never argued that Paul is NOT the lesser of the two evils. I think they’re about equal, as evils go, but they’re very different so it’s hard to compare them one-dimensionally.

I’m starting to read up a bit more on Jill Stein though, thanks to some of the posters here, and I’m wondering if another “wasted” protest vote might be in the cards for me this year.

Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, December 30, 2011 at 7:48 am Link to this comment

“Ron Paul would prefer to have no Federal Government”

This is a common mis-perception. We have no way to know the man’s deepest inner preferences, of course, but his stated preference, for decades, has been for a Federal government that follows a rule of law, and does not assume the power to manage and control every aspect of the lives of it’s citizens. He advocates a government that would respect state governments’ decisions with regard to fairly benign issues like raw milk consumption and marijuana legalization, as well as some more controversial issues like abortion.

Of course, all of this would require some cooperation from congress, the courts, and voters. Paul couldn’t make most of these changes unilaterally.

What he could do is start calling troops home, and start vetoing bills that strip Americans of their civil liberties. He could also immediately order the CIA to stop carrying out extrajudicial assassinations, and to stop spying on Americans in general.

As to the earlier comment that Paul is a “Wall Street fat cat like the rest of them,” it is just not true. Paul made a fortune by investing in gold. So he is a capitalist. Sorry folks, but most Americans are. You’re not going to get a non-capitalist elected. But Paul has nothing to do with the rapacious FIRE sector mass-theft of the past decades. Paul accurately predicted the general economic trends, and admirably has tried to warm Americans about the inevitable outcomes, for decades.

It is possible to disagree with Paul’s policy proposals, obviously, but it seems like people are forming strong opinions about the guy’s ideas without bothering to really find out what they are. Here’s a hint: you can’t do it by reading the general misinformation that’s spewing out of the main-stream press. If you prefer to take your information second-hand, you ought to be interested that well-informed liberal commentators like Scheer and Cenk Uyger are respectful of Paul, and voice a preference for him to any other realistic option, including Obama.

It’s not possible to accurately outline all of Ron Paul’s policy proposals here, but if you want to discuss them, go and read them.

Report this
prisnersdilema's avatar

By prisnersdilema, December 30, 2011 at 7:31 am Link to this comment

The Demo-Repiblican party is terriified of Ron Paul, as are their owners at the Fed and
above….Why he could make it dificult for them to enrich themselves and maybe even
stop the Trillions of dollars of loans to each other. You will never Thrive under the
Demo-Republican party, but be continually Fed poison and lies….

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 30, 2011 at 7:09 am Link to this comment

I think calumniation is not going to work either, and I suggest trying something else.

Report this

By Memory Stick, December 30, 2011 at 6:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ron Paul is Racist to the core.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, December 30, 2011 at 6:42 am Link to this comment

How would the world turn my stomach with Ron Paul as president?

States rights would be paramount, so states could marginalize some people and I suspect which states would start the discrimination ball rolling!

As for the military, I suspect Paul would be in the same boat as Obama in getting anything done through Congress, probably with the same opposition but from different directions.

Ron Paul would prefer to have no Federal Government, voting for someone like Paul as leader of the United States to become the “Divided States” makes all kinds of sense if you are from Texas and wants to succeed from the Union.

If the States are left on their own, we would be worse off as a Nation, but lets try it, I would for a starter give Texas to Mexico. 

As for Regulations, it is up to the voter. Vote for Ron Paul or any of the other anti Fed Republican Candidates under the “We don’t need no stinking regulations ticket!” Lets get rid of entitlements for the people and just keep them for the 1 percent!

Report this

By Rehmat, December 30, 2011 at 5:57 am Link to this comment

NYT editorials are mostly BS. The paper is listed as “Friendly” on Israel Hasbara Committee list.

Rep. Ron Paul do have some anti-Establishment views. He believes that USAID to Israel be stopped as Israel is strong enough to protect itself from its imaginary regional enemies. He believes that a nuclear Iran doesn’t pose any threat to US interests in the region and America should build friendly relation with Iran for the benefit of both countries - and he wants the Federal Reserve to be brought under control of the Congress.

Abraham Foxman, national director ADL, has summed-up US presidential hopefuls campaign by saying: “They’re all same with the exception of Ron Paul”.

Ron Paul’s former senior Jewish aide, Eric Dondero, recently claimed that Ron Paul is not anti-Semitic but he does have problem with Israel.

Report this

By Alan MacDonald, December 30, 2011 at 5:55 am Link to this comment

The most important factor in selecting a president (and any national representatives of the people) is not their claimed positions as deceitfully postured and pontificated on the ‘symptom problems’ of; increasing imperialist oil wars ‘abroad’, nor the financial ‘looting’ by Wall Street hedged fund whores and private equity pirates ‘at home’, nor the environmental destruction globally, nor vast economic inequality ‘at home’ and ‘abroad’, nor extra judicial assassinations by drones “abroad” and extra-Constitutional tyranny against Americans “at home”, but rather insisting on an honest and candid discussion of the core cancerous ‘casual’ tumor of the hidden global corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE—- which is the proximate cause of all these problems, and which has now fully ‘captured’ and ‘Occupied’ our former democratic Republic and country by hiding behind the facade of the EMPIRE’s bought and owned, modernized TWO-Party ‘Vichy’ sham of faux-democractic and totally illegitimate government, as surely as the Nazi EMPIRE ‘captured’ and ‘Occupied’ France while trying to disguise that earlier EMPIRE behind Hitler’s crude and single-party ‘Vichy’ facade regime.

I have written about the seminal importance of average and honest middle/working-class American citizens voting on this most serious basis since early 2007, and continually write about the seriousness of purpose that Hannah Arendt wrote, based on her painful experiences under the Nazi EMPIRE (and from her life-long study of all EMPIREs) to presciently warn:

“EMPIRE abroad entails tyranny at home”.

We have now, unfortunately, reached a point akin to the Nazi Empire’s enactment of the 1933 ‘enabling acts’, which are almost identical to the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Acts) passed by this faux-Congress and signed by the current  nominally “Democratic Party” faux-Emperor/president—- an act of treason which would certainly just as gladly be performed by any of the neo-fascist “Republican Party” shills running for the office of Emperor/president (with the exception of Ron Paul).

Only Ron Paul, of all the candidates of either of these dual ‘Vichy’ parties, has had the guts, courage, and candor to even raise the most critical issue of our country having been taken over by this disguised “Vichy Empire”.

My greatest hope, and one purpose that I work toward, is that based on the brave protesting of the criminally oppressed and viciously/illegitimately attacked ‘Occupy Empire’ movement, that a second principled candidate will arise to challenge the Democratic party’s current faux-Emperor/president Obama, and that Americans will be able to see and understand the exposure of this hidden corporate/financial/militarist EMPIRE when Ron Paul and his equivalent truth teller on the real ‘left’, both share with Americans the last best hope for them to help start the desperately needed Second American Revolution “Against EMPIRE”.

Until then, the duty of all patriotic and anti-Empire Americans is to raise the alarm and confront the deceitful Vichy Empire’s shills on both their Democrat and Republican campaign charades by publicly, loudly, and repeatedly ‘calling them out’ for the treasonous whores of “Vichy Empire” which they are.

Like modern Paul Reveres, we must shout out, “The Empire is coming.  The Empire is coming.  The Empire is HERE.”—- and point to these faux-Emperor/presidential shills, phonies, and Hitlerian level world-class liars and deceivers.

Nothing less can restore our democratic Republic in a non-violent manner.

Best luck and love to Occupy Empire.

Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality

Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine

Report this

By konst, December 30, 2011 at 5:49 am Link to this comment

Reading the comments on this article I can see that the cognitive dissonance of many progressives and liberals is very strong.

You know it when you feel that discomfort when you try to look at Ron Paul as a candidate you might consider voting for. Your mind just won’t let you look at the issues objectively.

I’ve read all the objections making the rounds of the internet lately and honestly they wouldn’t dissuade real progressives and liberals from considering voting for Ron Paul.

People seriously are you that clueless as to what a President has the power to do and what he hasn’t the power to do? I can’t believe I’m the only one who paid attention in school/college. You guys must have some idea of how the government works.

Report this
David J. Cyr's avatar

By David J. Cyr, December 30, 2011 at 5:32 am Link to this comment

QUOTE, Robert Scheer:

“Paul has emerged as the only serious peace candidate.”

That’s Scheer doing what the corporate party’s Democrats do. Marginalizing? Paul don’t know from.

Scheer lauds the corporate party’s Paul here, in a devious (D) effort to persuade people that non-corporate candidates who actually oppose war — not because they just don’t want to pay the war debts, but because America’s immoral and sociopathic resource wars are dead wrong — are not candidates voters should seriously consider.

Democrats seek to deceive with every breath they take… every MoveOn they make.

It is the corporate party’s (D) dedicated liberals who have made elections serve no good purpose.

Jill Stein for President:

Voter Consent Wastes Dissent:

Report this
THE SNED's avatar

By THE SNED, December 30, 2011 at 5:16 am Link to this comment

Seems Ron has a small problem with gays..well…maybe not small.
Go here. Read this. Get sick.

Report this

By iflizwerequeen, December 30, 2011 at 3:49 am Link to this comment

Ron Paul does have a few ideas that are not as bad as some of the others;
however, when all is said and done, Ron Paul, underneath all this exciting
rhetoric is just like the others—a Wall Street fat cat who is getting richer at the
expense of American workers and workers of the world.

Like the rest of his pals, Ron Paul is a Wall Street multimillionaire.  No, he did
not earn his money by his hard work or selling his talents. He earned his
millions by investing in the worst of worst Wall Street corporation—the kind
that even go so far as to literally murder their employees, not only by providing
dangerous and unsafe working environments but by actually shooting and
killing human beings who dare to try to start unions to protect the workers
from the crimes against humanity of their employers.  MINING COMPANIES. 

Ron Paul increased his wealth from $3,930,000 in 2008 to $5,064,000 in 2009
– over a million dollars richer while millions of Americans lost their jobs and

Ron Paul is invested in Anglogold Ashanti Ltd $250,001 to $500,000 According
to Forbes AngloGold Ashanti was accused in 2007 in Colombia for “murders of
trade union and community leaders who opposed the company’s activities in
the region”. Barrick Gold $100,001 to $250,000 Barrick Gold is known for its
tactics in “suppressing dissident voices, dividing communities, and
manipulating local and national politics”. And speaking of “Freedom”, Barrick
Gold is famous for their lack of free, prior and informed consent for local
people”. Newmont Mining $250,001 to $500,000 -In August 2004, the
Indonesian Ministry of Environment filed a US $133.6 million civil lawsuit
against Newmont, claiming the company’s Minahasa Raya mine contaminated
local fish stocks, causing serious illness and death for nearby villagers.

Report this

By bart, December 30, 2011 at 3:35 am Link to this comment

ron paul is an interesting out of the box personality, offering necessary criticism
of the reptile party. but his MO is of someone who can sleep soundly with a deep
pockets enemy and then the enemy of that enemy and then the ... but he sure has
some creepy bedfellows…

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 30, 2011 at 3:27 am Link to this comment

@ Ronald Thomas West
Liking the thought of war with Iran? Ron Paul is your man.

Obviously, it is rare that a republican candidate for the U. S. Presidency makes a
statement that tends to support Obama.  The comment, that the U.S. should respect
Israel’s sovereignty and not try to dictate her policy from Washington.  Does the
concept not apply to all foreign nations?  Especially the governments of the nations
in which the CIA and MOSSAD have instigated a coup d´tat ?

However, it is not Dr. Ron Paul who ordered the C.I.A. and al Kaeda into Egypt, Libya,
Syria, Iran, has ordered a U.S. fleet into the area, and has transferred the U.S.Military
as close to the borders of Syria and Iran as possible.  Other than those scheduled for
rotation to the U.S., where are the soldiers alleged to be pulled out of Iraq?  How
many were transferred as close to the borders of Syria and Iran as possible?  Instead
of being returned to the U.S. ?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 30, 2011 at 3:06 am Link to this comment


Patrickhenry - RP has had decades to become a serious “something” but continues to be a serious nothing in the big game of American politics…....

It is only since the end of the Bush administration politics has reached critical mass and needs a politician like Paul to restore our personal liberties and foreign policy objectives sans military.

While I don’t agree with many of Pauls domestic policies I believe our Congress will have to work together in a more bipartisan manner to get bills past Paul and many of the day to day legislative issues actually belong at the state level (10th amendment).

Good to see you back Inherit.

Report this

By Neal MacDonald, December 30, 2011 at 3:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You’ve driven off the cliff Mr. Scheer, because you haven’t been paying attention, or as I guess is actually the case you needed something to write about the Republican field and picked the only candidate that said anything sensible even though those things are only there because of a misguided dogma that in all other things make the Mr. Paul unsuited to clean septic tanks reliably.

Report this
Ronald Thomas West's avatar

By Ronald Thomas West, December 30, 2011 at 2:46 am Link to this comment

Liking the thought of war with Iran? Ron Paul is your man.

“When Israel attacked a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 almost the entire US
Congress voted to condemn the act, but Congressman Paul was one of the few
Republicans who stood up and said Israel should not have to answer to America
for how she defends herself”

If Israel were to attack Iran (with a green light from from Ron Paul) with
American weapons, it would be the USA that ended up pulling Israel’s chestnuts
out of the fire. Israel is seen widely as a USA proxy in the Middle East and Iran
has already stated it would retaliate with an attack on NATO in Afghanistan and
close the strait of Hormuz.

Ron Paul has stated he believes in a concept of ‘just Christian war’ and no
matter how you construe the word ‘just’ it boils down to just more bull shit

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 30, 2011 at 2:43 am Link to this comment

- - “Which requires the citizenry to realize how dangerous the situation is now, - - “

It appears to me that you have analysed the basic problem in the U.S.A.  Numerous
prophet-types have broadcast the nitty-gritty since the 1970s, to include Mrs. Mae
Brussel (radio alias) and Sherman Skolnick.  The citizenry classified them as communists
and generally un-American, and generally disregarded their message.  Meanwhile,
atrocities occurred such as the NAZIs in NASA and Texas declaring a Hubertus
Strughold day in Texas, for a NAZI M.D. who murdered innocent Jewish and other folk in
the death Stalag in Dachau, Germany, during WWII.  Where was the Simon Wiesenthal
clan when this happened?  Overlooking NAZI colonels in NASA, while scratching up
privates like John Demjanjuk in Detroit?,8599,2065073,00.html

Your emphasis on NDAA 2011 clarifies the current “democratic administration” very well. 
The election of “Barack H. Obama” was clearly a racial vote, by millions who were not
aware that Obama is a years-long C.I.A. operative, as were his mother, step-father, and
grandparents on his mother´s side of the family tree.  Nor are they aware of the history
of the C.I.A., many of whom disregard the testimony of Colonel John Stockwell and
other C.I.A. whistle-blowers who have placed their lives in danger by publicly revealing
the NAZI-type destruction done by the C.I.A. around the world since the 1950s: 

Currently, prejudiced folk slide the Obama entourage through the eye of the needle,
while balking at the idea of accurately evaluating the political history of Dr. Ron Paul. 
As John Stockwell and similar patriotic Americans have stated, everywhere in the world
political uprising and coup d´tat has occurred, the C.I.A. was at the core.  Egypt, Libya,
Syria and Iran, currently.  That the Dulles brothers hired NAZI spy Reinhard Gehlin to
revamp the duties of the defunct OSS into the C.I.A., 1945, summarizes the story, from
beginning to end, for persons acquainted with US history since 1942.  As per usual, the
CIA and the NAZI Bush family are at the core.            

Report this
blogdog's avatar

By blogdog, December 30, 2011 at 1:32 am Link to this comment

RE: ...The act would allow the president to order indeterminate military
imprisonment without trial of those accused of supporting terrorism…

as soon as it becomes law they’d better start rounding up anyone in any way
connected with installing Al Qaeda into military command and control of Libya;
then transporting that leadership to Turkey to invade Syria… e.g.

Leading Libyan Islamist met Free Syrian Army opposition group

Libyan authorities this week dispatched the country’s most renowned Islamist
militia leader to meet senior figures of the Free Syrian Army, The Daily
Telegraph has learned.


Qatar builds Sunni intervention force of Libyan, Iraqi terrorists against


...the Qatari and Saudi rulers approved a crash program for the Qatari chief of
staff Maj.-Gen Hamas Ali al-Attiya to weld this mobile intervention Sunni
Muslim force out of al Qaeda linked-operatives for rapid deployment on the
Turkish-Syrian border.

A force of 2,500 has been recruited up until now, our sources report. The hard
core is made up of 1,000 members of the Islamic Fighting Group in Libya-IFGL,
which fought Qaddafi, and 1,000 operatives of the Ansar al-Sunna, the Iraqi
Islamists which carried out 15 coordinated bomb attacks in Baghdad last
Thursday killing 72 people and injuring 200.


A year has gone by since the Arab Revolt first broke out in December 2010. Yet
this is the first time a Sunni Muslim power has established an intervention force
- one moreover which is composed almost entirely of fighting men drawn from
the ranks of al Qaeda and its extremist Islamist affiliates and allies.


Report this
Matt Emmons's avatar

By Matt Emmons, December 30, 2011 at 1:30 am Link to this comment

Go Scheer!

I will go head to head with anybody on who is more liberal, and I’m voting and campaigning for Ron Paul. It was an extremely difficult decision to personally align myself with the Republicans (I had to register R to caucus here in Colorado), and I have come to think of it as a beaver chewing off a leg to get out of a trap. At least you still have the tail.
I am sure that those who view Paul’s platform as leading to a “free market, dog eat dog” America are making those arguments in good faith, but it just doesn’t frighten me for some reason. I find much that I like in Paul’s ideas, including the fundamental presumption that all people possess the capacity to make wise choices for themselves to the extent that they are allowed to do so. But it all comes down to the issue of empire. Our militarized madness is ruining this country, but it also creates a moral imperative for all Americans: Stop murdering others, stop occupying their lands, stop supporting dictators who are our “strategic partners”, give up the bullshit Risk game that everyone in DC seems to take for granted as the essential component of American life. Paul is gold on this issue.
Obama is a stooge. Americans, we are in a trap. Chew the leg or die! Power to the beavers!

Report this
Ronald Thomas West's avatar

By Ronald Thomas West, December 30, 2011 at 1:28 am Link to this comment

truthdig simply kills itself time to time with buying into fantasy. With no vested
interest in any one candidate, this investigator [your truly] comes up with a Ron
Paul that is a deeply devious and dishonest politician. Like ‘just Christian war’ ?

Or perhaps Paul merely believes his own fantasies in which case Robert Scheer and
Ron Paul are only equal. Another case of truthdig needs to dig deeper, WAY

Report this

By Korky Day, December 30, 2011 at 1:05 am Link to this comment

All you Democrats who voted for “the lesser of 2 evils” all your life instead of the better Green candidates now are getting what’s coming to you.  A dove Republican, Ron Paul, has a much better chance of beating your hawk Obama than my Green Party has.  I hope you are proud of yourselves, but Ron Paul is a lesser evil than Obama. Nominate a dove Democrat over Obama or be prepared to lose, and I hope you do.

Report this

By konst, December 30, 2011 at 12:35 am Link to this comment

Future generations living in war torn regions of the U.S. and Europe will ask:
“Our parents had the opportunity to end the madness of the empire, to stop the wars, to stop the slavery to the MIC. Why didn’t they do something?! Why didn’t the elect Ron Paul president when they had the chance?! They could have worried about their petty differences after they stooped the madness but they were hypocrites in saying they were for peace and the poor while being authoritarians”.

Report this
senorjab's avatar

By senorjab, December 30, 2011 at 12:30 am Link to this comment

The latest “Is Ron Paul a racist?” video:

Report this
Egomet Bonmot's avatar

By Egomet Bonmot, December 30, 2011 at 12:11 am Link to this comment

Diversitii—Paul polls higher with blacks and hispanics than any other republican candidate, and there’s a concrete reason for this:  On his first day in office he’ll work to free a million of them from jail for nonviolent drug offenses, and thousands more from death in overseas wars.

White liberals can put a hood and cross on him all they care to, but the black people I know (my wife for instance) are actually listening to Paul’s message, and they like what they hear.  Maybe not enough to vote against Obama, but they don’t give a flying pink jesus about his 1980s newsletters.

Don’t believe me; try YouTubing the keywords ron paul black.

Report this
Egomet Bonmot's avatar

By Egomet Bonmot, December 29, 2011 at 11:50 pm Link to this comment

mrfreeze wrote:

” We’re not going to transform Americans into libertarians…......Unless you have some concrete ideas that will make all this stuff happen, I’m not holding my breath.”

I’ll give you three:

—Iowa caucus
—Republican nomination
—Presidential election

(kind of like last time)

Report this
Diversitii's avatar

By Diversitii, December 29, 2011 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment

There is a certain milieu in the white middle class that acts as if the country shouldn’t belong to either corporations *or* to other races. Paul is associated with organizations in that milieu, such as the John Birch Society, that have racist views on immigration and on oppressed minorities.

This milieu has in common with libertarianism its denial that any remedies are required for historical oppression (e.g., slavery).  Since this is a relatively well-off, white milieu, that’s a selfish, elitist, racist point of view.  So Paul’s relationship with these groups is not just demographic; it is also based upon overlapping ideologies.

There is an interview with Paul on an anti-immigration Web site here:

In this interview, he mixes his views on welfare and immigration together in a toxic manner, suggesting that the U.S. should eliminate welfare in order to force the nation’s poor to take inferior jobs that are presently being filled by undocumented immigrants. That is a pro-corporate, racist policy, because it removes the state from its role in ameliorating the extremes of a poverty that is based upon historical oppression, enabling intensified exploitation.

On the other side of the exploitative equation, he supports the use of state power in policing the border against immigrants.  For Paul this view is hypocrisy, because libertarianism says that people should make their own arrangements regarding who will do what for whom and at what price, without government interference. Why should national borders prevent this, then? Could it be because the people on the other side of the border are poor people of color, who are not in Paul’s own demographic?

To his credit, he does say that borders should also apply to corporations, by opposing NAFTA, GATT and other agreements that break down borders on behalf of corporate power. That is consistent with his libertarian views and, I believe, is an anti-corporate position.

However, this is a “U.S. nation of empowered white people” kind of sovereignty that he asserts vs. corporate power, in which people of color are excluded, by both unremedied oppression and by immigration policy, from sharing that sovereign protection from corporate rule.

In fact, in the above interview, he suggests that even constitutional protections should not be extended to the undocumented, as they are today.  Again, this is in conflict with his libertarian views, because the constitutional protection of rights for all is what keeps a people free, but he wants those protections to be denied to people because of their national origin and their means of entry into the country. And those to whom he would deny those rights are overwhelmingly poor people of color. So you can see the appeal of his views to racists in the anti-immigrant movement.  And such a policy would undermine constitutional protections for everyone, because if a particular group can be singled out for oppression, the apparatus that enforces that can expand to terrorize the entire population, including native-born citizens.

Finally, while he speaks against specific corporate abuses, his policies of reducing government would leave corporations as the only power standing.  And corporations are distinctly unfriendly to personal liberties.

So, Paul is not just *associated* with racist organizations; racism infects his specific positions on the issues, and it does so in ways that, wittingly or not, play into the hands of corporate power, which he otherwise claims to oppose.  Paul does try to defend his particular (white, elite) constituency from the incursions of corporate power, and anyone who questions corporate prerogatives, for whatever reason, is anathema to the corporations and their media; thus, the media bias against Paul’s campaign. But the enemy of our enemy is not, in this case, our friend.

Report this

By Dr_Snooz, December 29, 2011 at 9:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thanks for playing the devil’s advocate and defending
Congressman Paul. He’s not my cup of tea, but I
appreciate you defending him when it’s politically
inconvenient to do so.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, December 29, 2011 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

Patrickhenry - RP has had decades to become a serious “something” but continues to be
a serious nothing in the big game of American politics…....

As many other “crack smokers” on this thread have (correctly) noted, we know a crack pot
when we see one…...and RP fits the bill.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 29, 2011 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment

Sorry I haven’t been around but I’ve had some serious medical issues.  Much better now.  Only a few here know about them and I hope they won’t speak of it.

Meanwhile, my hypothesis is that the GOP believes that Ron Paul will give the Dems so much grist they’ll lose in a landslide in November and will do ANYTHING to prevent his getting the nomination.

It doesn’t really matter if it’s true or not: the big-wigs in the GOP and at their base, Fox Noise, believes it and therefore want to destroy Paul.

Now, I have no love for the man and think he’s off the wall on many issues, but no more so than each of the GOP’s “flavor of the week” as Al Sharpton calls them…Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum are all EASILY as nutty as Ron Paul if not more so…they just have better “Conservative Credentials”.

So….I’d like to see Cong. Paul do well, well enough to split up and scare the GOP into getting stupider and stupider.  This is just as Pres. Obama is finally wising up, figuring out how to trap the Re-thugs in Congress, and how to AVOID getting tarred by the OWS.  He’s been better at being “President” over the last 4 months or so than he has been since Jan 2009…and the polls prove me right.

I’m not a huge fan of Barack Obama, but next to the bat-shit-crazies that dominate the GOP (and even Romney is far crazier than he appears) Obama is clearly the better choice.  Perhaps, like Bill Clinton, he’ll be one of the few Presidents whose second term goes better than his first.

Report this

By glider, December 29, 2011 at 8:09 pm Link to this comment

YarlanZey, has provided numerous well reasoned posts addressing the motives and disjointed rants (e.g. tinkdnos) of the most persistent anti-Paulites, as well as the case for Libertarianism.  Robert Scheer on the other hand is clearly no Libertarian, and the highly commendable thrust of his article is simply that the 1% are intent on excluding debate about reigning in the MIC, ending wars of aggression, and restoring civil liberties as a 2012 campaign issue.  This is why the kicking and screaming is so vociferous amongst the special interests associated with the MIC machine.  Because if that discussion catches on, as it should, it could adversely effect their agenda.

I am much closer to Scheer than YarlanZey in my politics.  But I see a possible once in a lifetime opportunity to end our decline into a fascist empire, if Paul can get enough traction through an alliance of a subset of “progressives” and “tea party” types.  Those who argue against Paul on the basis of his domestic policies, never emphasize how these same issues (e.g. healthcare, social security, etc.) are being systematically eroded by all mainstream acceptable candidates, and they in the end offer no other viable solution.  That mess has evolved into its current state through decades of LOTE public acquiescence promoted by the MSM.

I in no way view Ron Paul as the complete solution to America’s ills.  Rather he provides a possible escape route from our dilemma.  As a candidate he can change discussion in America, and force Obama and the Democrats to defend their uncontested pandering to the Banksters and MIC.  A President Ron Paul would seem to me to have much more power to reign in the MIC, by stopping wars of aggression as Commander-in Chief, and not signing off yearly increases in the MIC budget, than he would in impacting domestic affairs.  In another 4 years we will hopefully have a chance at another POTUS that can better address domestic affairs. 

Even if one decides to support Obama over Paul, one still can have an opinion about who the best Republican candidate would be.  So for all the Paul haters can you please also comment as to whether you prefer Mitt Romney to be the Republican nominee?

Report this
Egomet Bonmot's avatar

By Egomet Bonmot, December 29, 2011 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

It’s certainly true that New Hampshire will annoint Romney after the Paul win in Iowa.

It’s equally true that Romney can’t possibly win super Tuesday.  A Mormon won’t carry a single cracker evangelical state—you can take it to the bank.

When the dust settles, Paul is left standing.

Report this
senorjab's avatar

By senorjab, December 29, 2011 at 7:31 pm Link to this comment

Sadly, other than Paul, every choice for president is to the far-right (including Obama). There is no way the corporate state would ever allow Paul to win because he too far left to be acceptable.

Ron Paul: Much More Progressive Than Obama

Report this
Night-Gaunt's avatar

By Night-Gaunt, December 29, 2011 at 7:02 pm Link to this comment

It is amazing to me how many Liberals and Progressives see something good in a Libertarian in general and Ron Paul in particular. As has already been pointed out he could simply set up the murder squads here instead of overseas. The fall of the Republic would happen swiftly. And the military-industrial complex would be as strong as ever and The People would be fully and totally at their mercy.

But then those in the 1% who want to set up an empire (done externally) and to crash our economy and Republic (nearly there) to replace it with the Iron Heel Oligarchs are very close to seeing their plan come to poisonous fruition. Taking over the two parties was one of them. And they have. Leaving us with really nothing to vote for. It took them decades but here we are. Not much time left, only the Occupiers are making any headway. Maybe our only hope of stopping this juggernaut.

Report this

By Carol DW, December 29, 2011 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Federal Reserve does more than sit at the center of the rot, it is the rot. The largest shareholders and the ones who call the shots are Banks of America, Citicorp and JPMorgan Chase.
There’s nothing Federal about it except its Orwellian name. It’s a private banking consortium that creates our currency (something we can do for ourselves) and charges us to use it. They manage for bubbles that transfer huge amounts of wealth upward. They should have had had their doors closed decades ago and real central bank established instead.
Sheer’s article may be revealing who is gunning for Paul, digging up his past and revealing it in the most unflattering light just before the caucuses when he cannot respond. The same folks who are dumping money on Romney….the felonious three who own the unFederal Reserve and their friends who conspired to defraud homeowners and destroy the economy.

Report this

By Luis, December 29, 2011 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr. Scheer,
Yes, the media has written off Ron Paul, and it is true that he has some genuine and insightful criticisms. But you should not dismiss the racism and paranoia that is strongly behind his seemingly rational critiques. Criticism has always been something that united polar opposite ideologies-communists and fascists both hated capitalism in the early 20th century. But hatred of what is wrong in the present does not mean common dreams and ideas, and I strongly doubt that Ron Paul’s positive agenda is similar to yours. It is, in my opinion at least, dangerous to seek an alliance with a candidate whose positive agenda consists of restoring a non-existent golden age of small government and cowboy-like independence. Let’s grow up from all this Hayekian nonsense and retrieve government rather than reject it outright for some ridiculous belief in the free market.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 29, 2011 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul marginalizing breakfast.

Report this

By Calgurlllw, December 29, 2011 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

Anarcissie is correct. Just look at the different opinions on this thread as a perfect example. We all agree the current system isn’t working, and yet most of us disagree on the fix.

Kibitzer, while I appreciate your heartfelt attempt, your two posts had very little that was concrete. And your assumption of God-based meaning is not “a fact of life” at all. Many, many religions and secular people find and apply meaning and purpose to life without the need of a deity. But that is a digression.

Here are a few concrete suggestions:

1. Limit the amount that one person/corporation can contribute to a candidate to $100.

2. Make the contributions anonymous.

3. Limit the amount a politician can spend on one election.

4. Limit the amount of time a candidate can campaign.

That’s a concrete start!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, December 29, 2011 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

Mr Freeze,

Besides, RP has no chance of becoming the Republican nominee

Crack pipe wishful thinking on your part.

One thing is for sure, the numerous AIPAC cubicle bloggers combined with the MIC militarist bloggers and those employed by the banks and media will be coming out of the woodwork to put a spin on the momentum Ron Paul has gained and is gaining daily.

Face it, no other Republican holds a candle to Paul on the issues as they are panderers one and all and are beginning to adopt Ron Pauls positions on many of the issues as their own.

As I have said before, we need to reestablish the checks and balances of government and a Ron Paul in the White House would put a damper on the free spending, pork laden congress we have diebolded in place.

If anything Ron Paul would raise the level of the debates between Republicans and Democrats for the presidency and what that office should stand for.

Report this

By joe, December 29, 2011 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What I don’t understand is why the antiwar crowd is talkng about Ron Paul instead of Ralph Nader.

Nader is good on the war issues
And he isn’t a crazy right winger when it comes to economics and social issues.

Both have been running unssuccessfully for president for years, both are marginalized by the media.  But Nader is actually defendable on most things.  Really the worst thing about Nader is that he favors nanny state nonsense like smoking bans.  But surely that’s a better deal than what you have to swollow to vote for Paul

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 29, 2011 at 5:10 pm Link to this comment

kibitzer, December 29 at 5:02 pm:


“Unless you have some concrete ideas that will make all this stuff happen, I’m
not holding my breath.”

Okay.  Here’s my full shot.  Which requires the citizenry to realize how dangerous the situation is now….’

The citizenry consists of 310 million different, highly variegated people.  How do you plan to get them to realize anything, if they don’t realize it already?

Report this

By kibitzer, December 29, 2011 at 5:09 pm Link to this comment


Consider a basic fact of life.  Either there is a ‘God’ - something more than Man
- or there isn’t.  If there isn’t, then nothing really matters anyway, and you
might as well sit at home and watch tv.  If there is, however -  and there is
plenty of evidence of that, in our day and enlightened age - then certain things
follow.  It follows, for one thing, that there is a Purpose to life, beyond just in
and for itself only.  And there you have the only motive you really need, to
create a viable, and harmonious, society: each to give of their best, in sharing
goods and services with one another, out of gratitude to their Creator for life
with meaning. 

Nonsense?  Never happen??  And YOUR answer to this situation we are deeply
embedded in now is…???

Think big.  You’ll be glad you did.  And so will all of humanity.  Who are our
brothers and sisters, on this lovely old, beleaguered old, planet we call Earth. 
Just waiting for us to give it our best shot.  Not our worst. 

Which could happen.  But in that, I’m a believer, in the best.

For good reason.

Report this

By kibitzer, December 29, 2011 at 5:02 pm Link to this comment


“Unless you have some concrete ideas that will make all this stuff happen, I’m
not holding my breath.”

Okay.  Here’s my full shot.  Which requires the citizenry to realize how
dangerous the situation is now, with the NDAA giving the federal government
the power to pick up anybody, alien or citizen (the latter category co-opted
under a developing loose definition of ‘terrorism’, which can include anyone
making “a belligerent act” towards the jackboots in power) and ‘disappear’
them, just like in any tinpot dictatorship in the world.  This state of affairs is an
abiding insult to the highest vision of America, and the importance of the
quality of self-governance in human affairs - ie, not for the individual to be
ruled by tyrants, in the form either of royalty or church or state, but to be
responsible for his or her own actions.  Because life has a higher meaning, than
strictly in and for itself only.

Once The People realize what is going on (as to the plans of TPTB for total
control OVER The People), and both ‘the Occupy Movement’ and ‘the Tea Party
Movement’ really get that they have a fundamental common cause, against
totalitarianism from either the Left or the Right (actually, it’s the same nest of
vipers at the top of the present pyramid of power in the world), they should
engage in a march on Washington OF The People, Assembled - with
Oathkeepers among them, as having taken an oath to defend the Constitution,
not the person temporarily in the position of the Commander in Chief - to
demand of the present occupier of the office of the president of the U.S. either
to release all of his bona fides, for inspection by experts (who have already
studied the bc’s that he has released on line, and found them to be forgeries;
and not very good ones at that) or vacate the office forthwith, as the usurper
that there is every reason to believe that he is, from his sequestering of all of
his records from scrutiny; with The People then selecting an Officer OF The
People, who will dissolve Congress (for not having carried out their
constitutional duty and responsibility in this sort of regard; and, indeed, for
some of them having directly aided and abetted this crime against the American
people, for which they will have to appear in a duly designated court of law) and
call for elections within a time certain (say 90 days); this Officer also to clean
out the Augean stables of the executive branch of the federal government, for a
clean sweep of the executive branch as well as the legislative branch.  The
judicial branch to be ignored, as it has ignored many calls for justice to be
served in this matter, of a purloined presidency.

The People need now to fully realize that THEY are the government, in this form
of government; not their representatives; and need to accept, now, that there’s
no specifically socialistic New World Ordure, or specifically fascistic New World
Ordure, in our future, in polar opposites to one another, but that it’s really the
same perps sitting up there in all their pomp and glory, ready to take over the
world.  And the key to their collapse is to do away with money.  Specifically,
interest-bearing money (and its partner, of fractional-reserve banking, to this
rickety vehicle that is about to self-destruct anyway).

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 29, 2011 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment

tinkdnuos, December 29 at 7:53 am:

“So Paul becomes the lesser evil.”

This is why we allied with Stalin in WWII.

But I wouldn’t want the sonofabitch in the oval office. And I don’t want Ron Paul there either. ...’

If you want to argue rationally that Paul is not the lesser evil, identifying him with Stalin is probably not your best move.

If Paul runs to the left of Mr. O on a lot of important issues, like war and peace, imperialism, the surveillance, security and police state, bankster immunity and impunity, and the Drug War, it’s going to create a considerable problem for Democratic Party lesser-evillists.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, December 29, 2011 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

YarlanZey - Thanks for your thoughtful response.

Ultimately, I find far to many Americans believe that the president (whoever that might be) will solve our big problems. RP is certainly “interesting” but, as Obama found (no matter what you think of him) he will find a Congress more than willing to sabotage any good ideas. After all, if Congress actually “fixed” anything, they’d be without a job.

Look, I grew up in UT where conservatives are considered too liberal. Today’s political landscape just looks like one big UT….an American-transactional-democracy based on the phony notion that if only the wealthy get richer and the government goes away, we’d all be better off.

Report this

By Steven Podvoll, December 29, 2011 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

JDmysticDJ is *spot* on target!  Thank you for your eloquence.  I hope you don’t
mind that I will quote you on occasion.

To folks seeking choices other than Pres. Obama and the mainstream GOP field,
dream on.  Those who wish to govern must either win elections in the real
world or incite a successful coup d’etat.  And those who wish to change public
policy must either pass legislation in the real world or successfully impose

My parents used to caution folk who were disappointed in Hubert Humphrey’s
nomination with two words: President Nixon.  I used to caution folk who were
disappointed in Pres. Carter with two words: President Reagan.  I warn people
today who are disappointed in Pres. Obama with two words: Pres. Romney. 
Those who fantasize about alternatives are suffering from delusions. 

If you think the Democratic and/or Republican parties have gone astray, I
encourage you to participate directly and help correct their courses.  To those
who seek “alternatives”, I suggest you become accustomed to irrelevancy.

Report this

By Michael Shaw, December 29, 2011 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

I’m not a fan of Ron Paul or any of the so called candidates for that matter. In Paul’s case his several suggestions concerning the destruction of Social Security-“though not all at once…” and his ties to the Koch brothers and the John Birch Society are enough for me not to touch him with a ten foot pole. That said, this Sheer article depicting Paul as a viable candidate presents many valid points, like his opposition to NDAA, his legislation that led to exposing shenanigans with the FED and his willingness to cut defense spending and end wars. When I look at the disappointment Obama has presented to us, putting Social Security on the table with his super committee, giving himself essentially dictatorial powers even beyond those of Bush. Breaking virtually every promise he made to progressives from the get go and a whole lot of other stuff that could fill a book, all I can say at this point is three things. One, a Paul nomination would probably divide the GOP and independents, giving Obama a better chance to get re-elected. Two, who in this nation actually believes we the people choose candidates from either party? Lastly, who agree politicians will say anything to get elected? The sooner we begin to realize there is no political situation out of this mess, the sooner we will get out of this mess. If you wish things to continue going downhill, vote for a republican or a democrat.

Report this

By Aquifer, December 29, 2011 at 4:15 pm Link to this comment

What amazes me is that the assumption in just about all of these comments is that there is no other choice than a Rep or a Dem and so one must twist oneself into a pretzel trying to justify the concept of a “progressive” actually supporting a guy like Paul.

There IS another choice, a real progressive voice for whom one doesn’t have to overlook a lot of crap in order to support - Jill Stein. Check her out ....

Report this
JDmysticDJ's avatar

By JDmysticDJ, December 29, 2011 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

Truthdig is the home of the counter productive “anti”; never seeing the glass as half full or even half empty, the glass is always empty to such as these. The “anti” who serve no good end will only advance the interests of those they abhor and they are just like the members of the electorate who continuously vote against their own interests. The “anti” are amoral libertines who give fuel to the enemies of the Left berating the Left/Center coalition while they themselves provide fodder for right-wing propagandists to portray the Left as being reprobates.

Robert Scheer’s history is one of being “anti” - a dissident voice. Scheer might be the most consistent and vehement anti-Obama Journalist published here on truthdig. Sheer’s diatribes will only serve the interests of the worst at the expense of the better.

Loans made to the Financial institutions at the over the counter window are generally repaid within 24 hours, portraying them as gifts to the financial institutions can only be considered demagoguery. Perhaps Sheer would have preferred the total collapse of the global economy along with the economic hardship and political dangers that would have accompanied that collapse.

The fact that economic injustice is a very real reality can not be denied, but condemning the one viable Political Party that seeks to correct that injustice thus facilitating the viable Political Party that seeks to continue that injustice is nihilistic stupidity.

Scheer being Managing Editor here at truthdig has as much influence on the thinking of truthdig readers as did Goebbels over the thinking of the German People.

“In the October 1, 2010, episode of the radio show “Left, Right and Center”, Scheer, a self-described Liberal, expressed support for Rand Paul, son of former Libertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul, in his bid for the 2011-2016 Kentucky Senate seat.”

The above endorsement coming five months after Rand Paul expressed his disapproval of the Civil Rights Act.

Rand Paul and his father are ideological loonies who are firm believers in laissez faire capitalism, no government regulation, and the compassionless ravings of Ayn Rand. Saying that Scheer is out of his mind might be too much of an exaggeration, but saying that he is bafflingly duplicitous is right on the mark. He is opposed to Obama because of Obama’s Wall Street Advisors, but he is in favor of Ron and Rand Paul? It appears that his hatred of Obama has interfered with his ability to think straight.

Any professed progressive that would consider voting for Ron Paul is a nihilistic moron possessing little more political acuity than that of a door knob.

The only glimmer of hope for ending war and empire lies with the Democrats, hear the pronouncements of Republicans, and be certain that condemnations of Obama, if effective, will have the affect of escalating the madness.

Enough said.

Report this
John Best asks,

By John Best asks, "What IS Progress"?, December 29, 2011 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

What would a person sound like if they weren’t ‘for anybody’, but was ‘for everybody’? 

Ron Paul is at least unguarded, perhaps catering to idiots, and indeed a little too ideologically anti-gummint, but how’s that reconcile with his anti-bankster bent? 

I find him interesting.  That the typical cry-babies jump on him does not bother me a bit.  Let’s see what the process does…...

Report this

By Calgurlllw, December 29, 2011 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

@YarlanZey. You extrapolate things that are not there. Not one person (on a cursory read of the thread) seemed to be “worshiping the state.” (When you use neologisms such as “state-olotry” you give away your Randian bias, btw.)

The thread seems to be made up of people who are sick of our current system and either support Ron Paul, don’t support Ron Paul, or see Mr. Scheer’s point in sticking up for Ron Paul.

While it is naive to think the government can solve our problems, it’s equally naive to think the free market can. It’s even more naive to think that corporations and individuals will do the right things on their own or because “it’s in their short or long-term interest” to do so.

Corporations rarely do things that are in anyone’s long-term interest. Immediate profit is the main motivation. We have seen that.

Until we get money out of politics we will see nothing much change.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment


“I know that tinkdnuos did not think you deserved a response, but I tried.”

...what the hell are you talking about?

When did I suggest mrfreeze didn’t deserve a response, for any reason?

I may have suggested he was being a little absurd for feigning offense at a few mild profanities, but at no point did I imply that his points did not deserve a response.

You’re 0-for-the-day, man.

Report this

By YarlanZey, December 29, 2011 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment

mrfreeze: I see you have an unmet need for Ron Paul repudiate those who wrote the newsletters. I do, too. That said, is his refusal to repudiate worth the lives of additional drone-killling victims and further dislocation of the economy? Why? So you can be personally satisfied on all counts? To disqualify him on that ground is the definition of deadly narcissism. I know that tinkdnuos did not think you deserved a response, but I tried. Other comments from others are taunts and not communication, but I understand their roots. I, too, was raised in a culture of state-worship that I was taught not to question, and for years I didn’t. As I studied and left graduate school many years ago, however, I began to think for myself instead of repeating what I was told. Self-discovery and growth are sometimes frightening, but eventually we leave the political slogans behind and learn to realize that totally decentralized power—where each of us directs our own lives—is a lot safer than power concentrated in a few people who can be more efficiently co-opted by wealthy people and companies. Maybe it’s not your time to learn this truth, but it is true—even if you aren’t ready for it. I find many faults with Ron Paul. I don’t even vote and haven’t for years, but the kind of commentary I see here is so sad. It’s what made me abandon politics long ago. Politics is the realm of people who want to seize the reigns of power to control others. I support Mr. Paul’s stance comparatively more because he exhibits less of that mental illness that drives people to control others as if they were not beings-in-themselves.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment


One more thing. You said “I addressed the content of the largest number of posts here.”

In my quick skim of the first page (newer comments) just now, I found almost NO anti-Paul positions based on the newsletters. Sure, they were mentioned, in the context of larger concerns about racism (you’re not stupid enough to think that’s just about the newsletters, are you?), but they have not been REMOTELY the focus of these objections.

So I still don’t think you even read the comments here. You just saw they were not in fawning adoration of your almighty messiah Ron “Christ” Paul, and decided to get right on the scripted offensive.

Report this

By Calgurlllw, December 29, 2011 at 2:28 pm Link to this comment

@YarlenZey. You seem very much like our man Ron Paul. A few good ideas thrown in with some very crazy ones

Most pollution is caused by government. Huh? I don’t really have the time to list the companies, corporations and individuals that cause and have caused major environmental harm…but it’s absurd to say that the free market will be the cure all. BTW, there is no such thing as the free market and the ideal could never really happen. But that’s another subject.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment


Are you actually a Romney supporter, here to play to the worst caricatures of a Ron Paul supporter?

Because the only other response they have besides “get over the newsletters, they were 20 years ago” is “you’re just a naive fool who loves THE STATE and BIG GOVERNMENT because you’re afraid.”

Why do you cling to such a faith-based belief in the free market? Can you point to ONE example of your preferred system working the way you claim, in the history of the world? I assure you, you cannot, because it’s never happened.

But ultimately, you misfire because you draw an untenable distinction between people and government. Government is an instrument of the people. It is a tool. It can be used by “good” people and “bad” people, and it can be used to do “good” or “bad” things. Sometimes good people try to use it for good things, and bad things happen anyway, either because the good things were ineffective or because they backfired.

But in the end, those are PEOPLE making the decisions.

Oh, and you have WAY too much faith in free market environmentalism. You do know that doesn’t work, right, no matter what crackpot theory you groundlessly extoll about how private control will do EVERYTHING better.

And you COMPLETELY ignored the “states over people” issue.

Not even a very good try, honestly. If I were teaching this class you’d get a D for at least showing up, but no chance for extra credit.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, December 29, 2011 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment

kibitzer - “Ron Paul would return America to a constitutional republic….”

Oh, baloney…...

Exactly how would he do that (even if anyone really knows what you mean by “constitutional republic”)? By definition the U.S. is a “democratic republic” which means that representatives make decisions based on the democratic will of their constituents. We’re a republic based on democratic values….not constitutional mandates.

But, I totally agree with you: We do need a BIG change in our government but RP doesn’t have solutions. He’s just another politician who says a lot and, once in place, would do NOTHING about the real issues. He’s not going to eliminate the things he wants to. We’re not going back to the gold standard. We’re not going to transform Americans into libertarians…......Unless you have some concrete ideas that will make all this stuff happen, I’m not holding my breath.

The only way we can change our political system in this country is to:

1) Vote in a whole new crop of representatives into Congress
2) Forbid lobbying
3) Reverse Citizens United
4) And encourage HUGE general strikes against corporations and Congress.

But, I’m afraid non of this is going to happen because, as I always say: Americans are too busy sitting on the couch playing video games and they couldn’t get their fat-high-fructose-corn-syrup asses out to protest anything….

Report this

By YarlanZey, December 29, 2011 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment

tinkdnuos: I addressed the content of the largest number of posts here. To you, I answer that private control of resources is less likely to lead to overuse and the “tragedy of the commons” that you fear. I, too, am an environmentalist, but I don’t have your faith-based religion: belief government is the answer. It never has been the answer. Most pollution and most oversight of pollution is either caused by the government directly (as on military bases with their poison plumes of sub-ground-water pollution) or by under-pricing resources on public lands—not to mention nuclear disasters. Nuclear power is NOT a private-sector phenomenon. It is a hybrid crony-capitalist creation of government-plus-business. Most pollution was a by-product of the violation of property rights because governments, like you, pretended to know what was “best” for us instead of merely enforcing the right not to trespass (which is what pollution is) or to harm others—which is what war and the drug war are. So get over your schtick and learn about the non-aggression axiom. Then you will be able to see that human rights will protect both people and property. I have yet to meet a left-environmentalist that wants to stop subsidizing the over-production of children—which is created through publicly funded programs such as public mis-education, tax breaks for breeding children, and other such things. Instead, they talk about the branches instead of simply getting to the root of it all and allowing the market to transmit signals about the true cost of expanding populations, mis-using resources, etc. Only a totally free market reveals the short- and long-term costs of an activity—and thus will stop pollution, war, and the other things you complain about. But you’d rather cling to your superstition-based religion of state-olotry.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, December 29, 2011 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

YarlanZey - Why is it that RP is SO defensive about discussing (openly) the nature of the newsletters? Actually, it’s not that he’s being pigeonholed as a racist….no, it’s simply this: he won’t repudiate what was said because those who used the inappropriate language and who hold those inappropriate views are either still RP friends or supporters. If he can’t simply say that the words and the thoughts behind them are wrong….well….what are we left to believe.

Besides, RP has no chance of becoming the Republican nominee.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

Wow, YarlanZey…

Your last post couldn’t have proved my point better if I’d written it myself.

GET OVER THE NEWSLETTERS. We anti-Paulites pretty much all have, or never thought they were the real issue in the first place.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment


Well said, in so many ways.

But I hope you realize, NOTHING you said in there makes a convincing argument for supporting Ron Paul. Armed revolution or expatriatism, possibly, but not for supporting someone who’s sat quietly in the back benches of that same establishment government for half his life and done exactly ONE significant thing to advance the causes he professes to hold so dear.

What too many Paul supporters fail to recognize is that we non-supporters AGREE with, and ENDORSE, almost all of the reasons Paul supporters CONSTANTLY cite (and force into false dichotomies) for their decision. We simply don’t think Ron Paul is the right guy to bring those changes about, because of all the OTHER things about him that we see and the supporters choose to overlook.

Report this

By YarlanZey, December 29, 2011 at 1:56 pm Link to this comment

Long ago in our introductory English classes, we studied informal fallacies such as over-generalization. That is what I make of attempts to pigeonhole Ron Paul as a racist based on a very few sentences printed by some jackass in a newsletter he published. After viewing the comments here, one would think that Ron Paul was a juggernaut for racism when over a multi-year period a tiny fraction of a percent of the content could be considered offensive—and none of it written or uttered by him, ever. This view through a tainted lens is a classic example of over-generalization. One has to ask: Why? Is it perhaps that people get hyper-defensive because they need to rationalize their future plans to continue to enshrine violence by voting for Obama or some other status-quo entity? So it is convenient to totally de-humanize a perceived enemy by exaggeration and over-generalization. These are dysfunctional ways of thinking, not analysis. The lack of balance and willingness to call names instead of think is profound in its implications. This is what is meant by identity politics—voting for someone you feel comfortable with despite the consequences and dismissing all others. I, too, am offended by what the jerk who wrote those things in the newsletter wrote (has anyone here even read them before over-generalizing about them?). Also, one’s fears and projections of one’s own inner hatreds are not thought-substitutes. Maybe it’s time for a little self-examination, eh? What are your motives? What do you really want? Who will do these things you want? Who won’t? And most important of all—am I respecting others and following the cardinal rule of not initiating violence to get what I want, or not? And more to the point: do I want to elect candidates who permit others to run their lives as they see fit, or am I treating other people as my property and attempting to act as I wish by pointing the violent guns of government at their head by electing people who have no qualms about initiating violence to get what they think they deserve?

Report this

Page 12 of 14 pages « First  <  10 11 12 13 14 >

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right 3, Site wide - Exposure Dynamics
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook