Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
June 22, 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.

Senate GOP Releases Obamacare Overhaul to Immediate Criticism From Both Sides of the Aisle

What’s Next for the Bill Cosby Sex-Assault Case?

Truthdig Bazaar 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.”

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
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.


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
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.

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 Calgurlllw, December 29, 2011 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

Oh Lord, a constitutional republic? Really? Please go to Ron Paul’s website and read his “Issues” page.

If anyone other than right-wing-white-Christian-fundamentalist-males want to vote for him after reading his stance on the issues than I’d say, you’re living an a fantasy world.

Report this

By norman harman, December 29, 2011 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I need only hear one word to convince me to never vote for Ron Paul:

Obama’s just another war mongering corporatist, so he’s out.

Mitt’s just another war mongering corporatist, so he’s out.

Newt, Rick, Michelle, Rick(S.), are just another bunch of war mongering
corporatists, so they’re out.

Ron Paul’s a self-labeled and proud Libertarian who’s moronic
economic/political philosophy would enable and empower the war mongering
corporations even more than they already are, so he’s out.

I say we should have a “None of the Above” box on the ballot. Let’s try four
years without an obnoxious, war mongering, corporate ass-kissing bullshitter
f*cking everything up.

Report this

By Steven Podvoll, December 29, 2011 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Get real, folks.  I will look past Dr. Paul’s racism if *you* will look past his
admittedly admirable anti-war stance.  Instead, let’s all look at both his voting
record and at his ability to achieve his objectives.  The following link will provide
all you need to know:

Rep. Paul has had an almost singularly lackluster legislative career *and* he’s
voted *against* many, many of the bills which Liberals and Progressives,
ostensibly including Robert Scheer, hold near, dear, and almost sacrosanct. 

Wake up!  Ron Paul is a nightmare.  His only positive quality is that his presence in
the race may weaken Mitt Romney before the general election.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment


You clearly didn’t actually READ any of the comments appended to this article.

Everything you said has been said a thousand times over, here and elsewhere, by many, many Paul supporters. And here, as elsewhere, some of us have done a pretty thorough job of ripping it apart. The newsletters have only been mentioned in these comments in passing, and yet you parrot the Ron Paul propoganda point that “it’s ridiculous to worry about 20 year old newsletters when he will end the wars!”

So is it ridiculous to worry about the end of the most significant of women’s rights? Or the unfettered destruction of the environment? How about the staggering, 30+% unemployment rate that would likely follow from his policies? Or the fact that he thinks states deserve more rights than individuals?

Address the REAL objections to Ron Paul, and you might get somewhere. Keep playing the victim because you THINK his objectors are worried about something they’re not, and you’ll just look like another brainwashed fool.

Report this

By kibitzer, December 29, 2011 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment


“All of those idiots are nothing but “regressives” who believe we’re still living in
the 1950’s.”

Ah yes, the old ‘living in the 1950’s’ argument..

And as a good ‘progressive’, do you just lurv a big government, that can give
you all kinds of goodies?  With a flexible constitution - excuse me; a ‘living
constitution’ that can make it happen??  And tell me, Mr. Progressive, where do
you go, what do you do if that big government that you just lurv cuts against
you?  Like, takes away your right to your day in court, before a jury of your
peers, because that ‘other’ Big Government that somehow got in power and
spoiled everything, decided that you were an undesirable, under the defining
terms of ‘living legislation’??...

Ron Paul would return America to a constitutional republic, where that sort of
thing - a behemoth of a central government - could not happen, under the
checks-and-balances terms of its constitution; wherein, if you want your rule
of law to change, you change the contract legally.  Not by legalistic
lergerdemain.  Another word for which, you must understand, is tyranny.

Government of, by, and for the people - ie, essentially, self-government - is
imperishable, except by its own hand.  Too many Americans over the years
have decided to Let George Do It.  And boy, is he…

Robert Scheer recognizes this.  That it’s payback time, for having sold your
souls to ‘the Devil’ - to the very wealthy, and very powerful, who have waited,
and schemed, for just such a time as this.  Ready to spring their trap.  Because
people like you are oh so progressive; and didn’t grok the creature that you
were spawning. 

If you live by the sword, you will die by the sword.

It’s time for a change.

Real change.  And it won’t come about by letting those who are in power today,
stay in power.  With the powers that they have schemed for, to put in the
hands of the federal government of America, regardless of which political party
was, is, in nominal ‘power’. 

Power, of course, being relative.  And you would let it remain in the hands of
THESE people??...what a sad, sad end to the experiment in self-government
that America was in and for the world.  Ah, well.  That’s life.

Tyrants: Front and Center!  Your Day has arrived!  The World awaits you!

...not by some.

So where do YOU stand, Citizen??  And how do YOU think this scenario can play
out in any other way, if that’s really not the kind of world you want to live in???

Report this

By YarlanZey, December 29, 2011 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment

After Scheer’s thoughtful article, the comments by the bloggers here are really a case-study in prejudice, ignorance, and misplaced (if not absent) priorities. Here we have a man (Ron Paul) who wants to end the mass-murder of war and the violent and evil drug war that incarcerates tens of thousands of minorities and destroys entire neighborhoods. He also wants to end the pilfering of the Wall Street crowd that Bush and Obama embrace—the people that are responsible for financial manipulations that impoverish everyone. And Paul has never personally said or acted in a racist manner despite decades of public activity. But the bloggers have their panties in a total twist about what some jack-ass wrote in a Ron Paul newsletter that hurts their feelings—things that Ron has never supported or spoken in person. I agree that it reflects badly on Ron Paul’s duties as a boss, and I think you should complain about that! Yet from what I read here, the bloggers will vote again for Obama and thus enable him to kill thousands more and continue killing and caging minorities by the thousands with the drug war—which seems to be OK by these people and less harmful than Paul’s merely associating with a jackass underling. One has to ask if you are protesting too much. How much death and racism that actually has real bleeding victims will you tolerate so that you can retain your “progressive” sticker?

Report this

By tonysmith, December 29, 2011 at 2:33 pm Link to this comment

I am always amazed how the antiwar crowd overlooks many
of Paul’s frightful proposals. I am antiwar as well,
but I am not myopic. Paul is not the answer.

Report this

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

Anyone that thinks a different president or party is going to solve our problems has to be on crack cocaine. Our present government, big business, banks and Wall Street can’t and won’t solve anything. Let me give you a clue what’s really wrong with the Untied States and the world. It’s called Technology. Until we deal with it, nothing is going to change. The story only has a happy ending if we’re willing to open our eyes in time.

Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( )

How foolish can the human race be? Simple! I can show you freedom and you wouldn’t be smart enough to choose it.

Report this
Angel Gabriel's avatar

By Angel Gabriel, December 29, 2011 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment

Face it folks, choice is non-existent if you want a change for the better in the
US. Either vote for the team of idiots on the Republican side, or the Whipping
Boy who can’t get anything right for anybody because of the mess he inherited
from the last team of idiots!
Ron Paul, although a number of his ideas are what America needs to reform the
broken down bus, has far too shady of a Southern White Racist background
following him around to be taken as a contender. Besides he’s not alligned with
Wall Street and the monied up 1% who have run the place since Nixon abolished
the Gold Standard in 1971, or Kennedy was killed trying to abolish the Federal
Reserve in ‘63. OR, Lincoln was killed 100 years prior for his feelings about
Paper Currencies! Face it - you’re completely f—ked! There’s no choice! Occupy
the Vote and collapse the system is the only choice you will have to build
anything from the mess that Greed and Power have created from the very
beginning of the Republic. Even then you’ll have to use some pretty heavy duty
Roach Spray to keep the oligarch’s out of the new Pie!
Your Standard of living cannot be supported any longer. You have stripped the
world of resources, created extreme fear and distrust of American’s by
murdering innocents to protect your interests, and you keep spouting off about
all those terrorists out there envious of your Freedom - Those Terrorists out
there were just regular folks in regular cultural existences satified with their
existence until YOU came along and disarmed them of their beliefs, land and
resources… Go figure???! Now that you’ve pissed the entire world off with your
Greed by force philosophy (PNAC) you are starting to feel the heat. That’s what
happens when you shit in other’s Nest’s. Congratulations!  You have earned
everything you’ve gotten from the world,  welcome to your American nightmare!

Report this

By BerkeleyProgressive, December 29, 2011 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a great article.  But you failed to mention that Ron Paul is one of the few
political leaders who has criticized Obama on his use of unmanned drones, and
has come down hard on Obama’s ordering of an assassination of an American
citizen abroad. 

While Ron Paul is a “Republican,” he’s actually a libertarian, which used to be
considered part of the liberal movement.  Paul cares much more about
protecting civil liberties than any so-called progressive out there. 

I plan to break ranks and vote for Ron Paul.  I think that Obama has sold out to
the bankers and the Federal Reserve.  Obama has appointed more bankers to
his administration than any other President. 

Progressives are, in my opinion, asleep at the wheel by supporting Obama. 
Most of the far left progressives I respect (Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg)
consider Obama to be worse than Bush when it comes to protecting our civil

Report this

By EDGE, December 29, 2011 at 12:50 pm Link to this comment

It is to be expected that the state capitalist establishment—those who believe that government exists to promote and protect the interests of international business—should oppose the libertarian (no government involvement) policies of Ron Paul.  It doesn’t make Paul’s policies desirable.  Such policies would likely institutionalize a dog-eat-dog world where the strong devour the weak.  Though the lack of government promotion of an elite, militant (1%) agenda is desirable, Libertarianism is mainly advantageous to the wealthy and strong.  There is little room for compassion in a libertarian world; certainly no public expression of it.  No social security, public health, public retirement, civil rights, welfare, or public assistance of any sort.  All of these programs the 1% would love to eliminate; they only avoid endorsing this philosophy because they don’t want to lose their own government safety net, a necessity exposed by the last financial crisis.  Other libertarian atrocities include the elimination of public safety regulations, financial regulations, and virtually all business restrictions.  Powerful companies would have free reign, even more than they now do; the rest of us would be free to starve.

Report this

By NABNYC, December 29, 2011 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

As always, Robert Scheer gets it right.  I am not a Ron Paul supporter.  But you’d have to be deaf not to notice the unified chorus of Republicans and Democrats attacking Ron Paul as if he was Satan himself.  Suddenly he’s disqualified for office because he’s a racist, but who ran the Willie Horton ads, which popular Democratic president halted his campaigning for the 1992 election to run back to Arkansas to oversee the murder/execution of a black man with mental damage described as the equivalent of a lobotomy (that was Bill Clinton).  Both parties are equally guilty of racism in their policies and practices.  If they weren’t, we would occasionally see a few people in the Senate and House other than the dominant white millionaire males who run everything in this country.

I don’t care if people support or would vote for Ron Paul.  That’s not the point.  The point is that he is raising critical issues about the military, foreign bases, and the ongoing wars for empire, and these are subjects which should be debated publicly, submitted to the citizens.  You know the democrats won’t do it, nor will the Republicans.  I want Ron Paul running, and I hope he stays in the race to the end because we need somebody to raise publicly these critical issues about war, the end of our constitution and civil rights, and the economic policies of our country.

Report this

By Steven Podvoll, December 29, 2011 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

@wilbur$ - Indeed, with “friends” like Robert Scheer:  I wonder if Mr. Scheer waxes
nostalgic for the elections of 1968 and 1980 because “flawed” Democrats lost. 
After all, if we can’t have absolute perfection, it’s better to strive for it’s polar

@greatferm - Mr. Scheer has proven over the course of many years that he would
prefer to dig though a trashcan to find a few tasty morsels while rejecting a
gourmet meal because the wine pairing constitutes a compromise.

Maybe that’s why Mr. Scheer feels some empathy for the politics of fear, loathing,
and tin-hat paranoia to which Dr. Paul ascribes.  It can’t be Ron Paul’s positions on
the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc., can it?

Report this

By gerard, December 29, 2011 at 12:37 pm Link to this comment

After a (still unstudied) period of time during which a majority has become so under-educated, so disheartened, and so easy to manipulate, any country (including the U.S.) will reach a low point where previoius “rights” all become “wrongs” and nobody can trust anybody.
  From that low point, the only place to go is up. With luck, this election (plus the profound canny and creative influence of the Occupy Movement) may open doors to a saner future.  Here’s hoping—but don’t think for a moment that it is going to be due to whoever gets “elected” president. That scene is no more than a puppet show these days.
  The real difference will have to be made by the people—the real u.s.—sommehow,sometime,a.s.a.p. who will see the need to dedicate a period of time to re-form our “unholy alliance” of corporate money and government.

Report this

By Tom Wilberding, December 29, 2011 at 12:36 pm Link to this comment

Every Republican candidate has at least one good
idea; that does not mean I am going to vote for any
of them. Your article today seems like a Chris
Hedges, clinically depressed rant.
I like and support Truthdig, but must chalk up your
article today as a miss.

Report this

By blackgrl71, December 29, 2011 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

Paul’s ideas might ‘sound’ good, but considering his
state is one of the leading federal government : more
than 33,000 federal employees in Texas, massive
corporate “welfare” dollars to both the airline
industry (i.e. American Airlines) and the oil
industry, the hundreds of millions of dollars going
towards environmental ‘projects,’ aka super-fund
sites—including one of the most polluted waterways
in HIS district, how does he propose to meet these
challenges w/ his ideas. I suspect, w/ the usual GOP
mentality—“You’re sh%t outta luck…”

Not to mention, in a nation that’s bubbling forth the
hidden (in some cases) resentment against a country
that’s becoming a little browner, less Christian,and
more non-traditional families, and of course, an
Interracial president with his black wife, Ron Paul
has w/o apology, created a rallying cry for white,
racist, homophobic, misogynistic, bullies. This is
exceedingly dangerous when you have so many
struggling Americans looking for someone to blame for
their problems—instead of their political choices
in places like Texas. So I’ll pass on the
rationalizing Paul and I certainly won’t sign onto
the white folks who choose to dismiss his racist
ideology, in order to consider him presidential

Report this

By justmiming, December 29, 2011 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

Ron Paul Marginalized? If the efforts of our MSM does not work and Ron Paul is
successful and poses a real threat of capturing the Republican nomination…
what then? The Obama Administration has mainstreamed the practice of
unaccountable assasinations throughout the world. It is a bit of a mindset. It is
even okay to assassinate Americans in Obama’s America. Look at who may have
the most to lose if Ron Paul climbed upon America’s throne. The top three that
come to my mind are the Military Industrial Complex, the Bankers and Israel. Do
you wonder if Blackwater( or whatever it is called these days ) would have any
qualms in doing just another hit? The Bankers certainly would would not. They
would surely keep their hands clean. They could just hire Blackwater. We know
the Israelis have no problem killing Americans. The USS Liberty attack killed
scores of US sailors and it was covered up from the President Johnson on down.
This cover up continues today. If the US finally had a President that refused to
do Israel’s bidding wouldn’t they do something about it? I would surprised if
there isn’t a section in the Mossad actively planning such an operation. In fact,
it has been reasonably argued that Obama has only embraced the
unaccountable assassination programs the Israelis have practised for decades.
There seems to be no reason for them to not just take Ron Paul out. Americans
just wouldn’t want to believe that such entities would do such a thing, if WTC#7
is any barometer.  And it could be that America will experience a bit of Karma
and Instant Karma could get Ron Paul.

Report this
bluerootsradio's avatar

By bluerootsradio, December 29, 2011 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment


It doesn’t matter and therein lies the whole libertarian dilemma.  It’s doubtful you
could have a libertarian federal government and not state or local.  I don’t care if
the pothole is on a federal, state or local road, no libertarian will want to accept
responsibility to fix it.  @Katie Corbet said it best, “the libertarian ideology is a
blatant excuse for infinite greed.”

I say people who propose simple solutions to complex problems are often simple-
minded.  In the absence of government all that’s left is tyranny.

Report this

By Chris, December 29, 2011 at 12:11 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Robert Scheer—taking a man seriously who wants to
repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  (Yes he has a few
good ideas, so do a lot of people you wouldn’t want
near the White House let alone in it. But you want to
take the man seriously.)  I had a good opinion of you,
until today.  Anyone who would say that repealing the
Civil Rights Act is merely “worthy of criticism” is a
nut job, or isn’t aware what decade it is.

Report this

By deadpool, December 29, 2011 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


1. Anti-choice. Life begins at conception.

“protect the American people’s freedom of conscience by working to prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions, Planned Parenthood, or any other so-called “family planning” program.”

That’s NOT anti-choice. He doesn’t believe taxpayer dollars should be spent on abortions.

2. Anti-public schools. Supports home schooling.

“Tax credits for homeschooling.”

That’s NOT anti-public school.

3. Anti-environment. Supports lifting restrictions on oil drilling and restrictions on coal and nuclear energy. Wants to get rid of EPA.

“Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of oil we have here at home.” -

So we don’t have to be at the mercy of foreign oil, creates AMERICAN jobs, and…

“Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington.”

Right, civil law restitution paid directly to those affected/victimized instead of fines being paid to Big Government.

4. Anti-American Health. Supports HSA-Health Savings Accounts.

“Repeal ObamaCare and end its unconstitutional mandate that all Americans must carry only government-approved health insurance or answer to the IRS.”

That’s pro-choice. And the Health Insurance companies are in bed with this administration.
1) force all Americans to BUY HEALTH COVERAGE,
2) Health Insurance Companies make HUGE PROFITS.

5. Anti-Workers. Wants to get rid of unions.

” As a result, national union bosses rake in $8 billion every year from workers who are forced to pay dues to a labor union just to provide for themselves and their families.
Then, to add insult to injury, Big Labor uses this forced-dues money to bankroll the campaigns of tax-and-spend, big government politicians all across the country like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama!”

OK, wants to get corporations (and make no mistake, labor unions in the 21st century ARE CORPORATIONS) and their special interests out of politics.

6. Anti-Immigrant. Too many offensive policies here to mention. Read them.

” …it continues to push mandates on the states to provide free education and medical care to illegal immigrants at a time when the states are drowning in debt.”

Nothing offensive there unless you’re an illegal suckling on the teet of the American taxpayer. Why should there be “free-rides” for illegals in America. I’m a citizen. I don’t get state/govt. aid.

I could go on. Ron Paul is NOT the answer!

And who is, professor? The corporate-owned puppet we have in the Oval Office now? The other laughably inept GOP candidates?

And FYI, your reading comprehension skills are sh*t.


Report this

By steve pesce, December 29, 2011 at 12:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

One note, Bob.  You could have mentioned that Ron Paul voted against repealing GLASS-STEAGLE.

Report this

By greatferm, December 29, 2011 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

OK Mr.  Scheer, there are a few shrimp in the Ron Paul trashcan, but to get them,
you have to eat the whole thing.

Report this

By Cliff Carson, December 29, 2011 at 11:58 am Link to this comment

By djnoll, December 29 at 10:24 am

“2012 is the year we make or break this nation - don’t be fooled by the media or political hacks in the pay of corporate parties.”

Excellent posting djnoll.  I agree that if we don’t get busy for this election and start changing the Face of America we may never again find the vulnerability that is now in our Corrupt Government.  And with the passing of the NDAA the entrenched criminals may become become so permanently fixed that nothing short of physical reform may be possible.

I agree with your very well written platform.  I encourage everyone on this thread to go to your provided links and do some reading.  However it may be too early or too late this time for an individual Party to make a serious run.  But I think that we must at all costs avoid a Republican takeover.  This would be a surrender possibly forever.

Report this

By steve pesce, December 29, 2011 at 11:58 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

We love you, Bob!  You’re principled and fearless to speak the truth about someone the corporatist media is trying to destroy. 

Have you seen the Ron Paul anti-war commercial.  The Young Turks said of it, “Do you really have to think about who you’re voting for if you’re a progressive? Because that (RON PAUL AD) is a million times better and strong than any Democrat would run about the WAR.”

If we on the FAR LEFT can work with the FAR RIGHT on key issues to save us from WW3, destroying the middle class, and ending the drug war, maybe we can still save ourselves from the corporatist centrist liars on the payroll of Wall Street Banksters.

Report this

By Mort Glickman, December 29, 2011 at 11:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have read up to only half of the comments here and Ron Paul has already been compared to both Hitler and Stalin. Lol to this.

The more I read about Ron Paul the more I start to like about him. Maybe it is the authenticity of his beliefs and the pervasive left/right establishment fear of him that makes him attractive to me.

I hope he stays in the race so that Obama and whoever the republicans finally choose have to answer to issues that Ron Paul so strongly argues about.

Report this

By kazy, December 29, 2011 at 11:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It doesn’t matter how much you favor Paul’s policies no matter how much you agree and approve of him, the question is CAN he succeed in making it happen? I’m not questioning his intent - although we all should, considering how often politicians have lied - what I’m questioning is his ability to deliver on his promises. The things he wants to change I think are bigger and more powerful than he is and with a lame Congress who aligns themselves with big money making corporations such as the Military Industrial Complex along with Wall St., he will be obstructed every step of the way and should he use Executive Privilege to get at the crux of the corruption, he will be assassinated. I don’t think he has the power to deliver on his campaign promises, no matter how popular they are with the people and no matter how determined and well intentioned Paul is in getting it done. You need more than good ideas to make changes. You need to know how to work Washington and finagle Congress - something Obama is an abject failure at and I am not convinced Paul will be any better

Report this

By wilburS, December 29, 2011 at 11:32 am Link to this comment


I hear your bitching and moaning about President Obama on that clap trap radio program every week and now you come out and write this nonesense in support of that racist a-hole Paul???  With friends like you, who needs enemies.

Report this

By djnoll, December 29, 2011 at 11:24 am Link to this comment

I find it interesting that Mr. Scheer and so many others who post on these sites all seem to think that Ron Paul is the only one who holds with audits of the Fed, reduced military spending, repealing the Patriot Act and that the NDAA is unconstitutional.  I am not a Ron Paul supporter, never was and never will be, because I am neither a racist nor a misogynist.  However, at my website,, I hold with many of his views on other things like the Fed and reduced military spending.  I have made some videos on reduced military spending on YouTube under “Devon Noll” as part of an online presidential campaign.  But I am not a member of any party, I would too liberal for Dr. Paul and certainly for his very odd son, and maybe too conservative for some liberals on my stand on immigration.  I am running based on principles of patriotism (you remember the kind - where people actually felt that supporting each other and our government was not reserved for war, but was a civic obligation?), our Constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights, and economic and social justice for everyone.  I even wrote up my platform in a book that is available at, iPhone Bookstore, and for NOOK. 

Ron Paul is a man who is dangerous, not because of his stand on such things as auditing the Fed or reduced military spending.  His danger comes from his belief that a reduced government in a nation this large is what is needed.  He does not like women as his stand on women’s issues shows and they make up half the nation.  He is a racist, as his actions as well as his words show.  He is anti-public education at a time when we need educated people to help this nation.  He is anti-health care for the poor, elderly, and disabled who cannot afford the cost of private insurance, and said that they should be denied treatment even if it means that they die.  This man is a disgrace to his oath as a doctor, so what makes anyone think he would be any more willing to uphold his oath of office as President?  At 70+ years of age, his chances of living through his presidency are slim, but what if he was to declare martial law at some point and the appoint his son his successor?  More than one dictatorship started that way.

Support the GOP is you must, support Ron Paul if you are fool enough to do so.  Support the Dems and Obama as one alternative.  Or, run as Independent, non-Affiliated candidates and support me to start putting this nation back on the track to economic health, stable policies for a sustainable and equitable future.  I am no better in many respects than anyone else who is running, and in some ways, as a person who is not bought and paid for by political factions, I might even be better than most.  Consider not voting for the lesser of any evils, run yourself, support my efforts, or find someone who can actually offer you better solutions and support them.  2012 is the year we make or break this nation - don’t be fooled by the media or political hacks in the pay of corporate parties.  Our nation is in danger, and as true patriots, we must stand up and be counted.  Nazi Germany rose up because good, educated, honest people did nothing.  The same is happening here, and we must not make the same mistakes of letting hidden money steal our way of life and our government behind the campaigns of old men.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, December 29, 2011 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

kibitzer - Hit a nerve did I?

Not only is RP too old to be president, HE’S an aging libertarian, which makes him even less likely to face the challenges of the world. He’d do better as Prophet of the Mormon Church or as religious leader….All of those idiots are nothing but “regressives” who believe we’re still living in the 1950’s.

No, my position has more “validity” than arguing over what RP believes. We already know his ideas are firmly grounded in the past…....

Report this

By Cliff Carson, December 29, 2011 at 11:07 am Link to this comment

By Calgurlllw, December 29 at 9:32 am

“we first need to change how our elections are run.”

Actually, I agree that we think that we must change how our elections are run, but in my list I did not name that as the priority.  In Fact that should be the priority - after - we average Americans decided what is really important to us And in a Prioritized order.

My reason is that List should show most accurately the very minimum change we must accomplish and therefore then we could - best plan how we need to reform our Government.

Election reforms might not be the most likely method to achieve successes needed to reform our Government.

Report this

By claygooding, December 29, 2011 at 10:57 am Link to this comment

I find t alarming that none of the other candidates seem to feel the way Ron Paul does about a lot of his promised changes,,and change is what we need.

The time for business as usual is over,,it is time to take our government back from the corporations that are running it,,the more people that support candidates promising change,the louder the mainstream media screams,,and when they scream,,America needs to vote for the one they are screaming the loudest about,because they are owned by the people running the government now and don’t want change happening.

We are in a desperate situation and if we don’t change our government’s policies then we will lose what little of freedom we now have.

We were promised change by Obama,,and the people believed him,,,if the Republicans want a man in the Whitehouse,,they best not put Romney in the race because he has already danced to the corporations tune too many times to believe he will change anything.

It is time to flush congress,the good with the bad,send a message to our legislators that it is time for change and just continuing driving our country into the ditch is not acceptable.

No incumbents back too DC until we get our country back.

Report this

By Aquifer, December 29, 2011 at 10:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, folks - for those of you who would like a better candidate than the choices presented so far, i suggest Jill Stein - - A Green doc from Mass. She has the whole package.

I always find it amusing when folks dismiss an excellent candidate because they are “not viable” - just who is it that determines “viability”? There seem to be plenty of folks who would support Paul in spite of the fact that he is declared “non-viable” by TPTB.

I strongly suggest that folks check out Stein, and if they like her, as i do, then we can, indeed, make her “viable” ...

Time to pick who we want and not settle for the best the MSM tells us we can get ...

Report this

By tapxe, December 29, 2011 at 10:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

so if Paul makes sense according to sheer, why then so much hate in NYT and other msm?

because under Paul, israel would no longer have special status and would no longer receive taxpayer dollars to start wars which ameriKan goyims have to finish using American blood.

That’s the real issue.

The aipac / aei / neocon dual citizens with ambiguous allegiance fifth column running America’s banking and finance, msm, entertainment industry and gov’t   won’t have any of it.  Read the wsj and nyt…

Americans reclaiming their country and Constitution which this fifth column of traitors has trampled?

Surely you jest, that would be anti-ameriKan !

That kind of ameriKa which these people have managed to hoodwink us into with their 9-11, manufactured financial crisis and all the rest.  It’s called game theory.  And that’s what’s been played upon America. Look it up.

al-cia-da?  They’re our “best” ally and asset!  i.e. They’re the ones who facilitated our illegally and criminally invading and pillaging Libya, and they’re the ones shooting civilians to pin the blame on Assad in Syria now.

Report this

By kibitzer, December 29, 2011 at 10:38 am Link to this comment


” Ron Paul is too old to be president. 70+ year olds can barely drive…why put
them into the highest office in the land?”

The mind boggles…and not just this 70+ year old mind.  How old could you be,
son?  In your twenties?  In your eyes, is everybody over fifty well on their way
into senility, and everybody over seventy barely making a breathmark on a
mirror held close to their mouths to determine if they’re still alive??

Get a life, son.  I don’t need glasses to read or drive, both of which I do very
capably.  I’ll tell you another thing.  If you don’t know what’s going on in the
world, and has been for years, regarding the agenda to control the world of a
very powerful cabal of people, then you are too wet behind the ears to be
judging your elders with any kind of legitimate reason to be listened to.

So, as you can see, I can be “as nasty and cynical” as you can be as well, but
with far more life experience behind it, to have good reason to BE that way. 
What’s your excuse??

Give me Ron Paul over the lot of them who don’t have a clue what’s going on in
the world.  Try one clue on for size, sonny.  It’s called ‘blowback’.  Look it up. 
And perhaps you, too, will get angry at how America has been used and abused
for years - whose good name has been dragged into the mud, by masters of
deceit, who need to be ejected from their seats of power.  And fortunately,
other young people are beginning to see that.  It’s time for your homework,
sonny.  Perhaps there’s still hope for you yet.

Report this

By Steven Podvoll, December 29, 2011 at 10:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

In addition to my previous observations, I challenge all Ron Paul supporters to
look not only at his (IMO highly suspect) voting record, but at his legislative track
record.  Dr. Paul has frequently took to the floor and delivered passionate
speeches which convinced *none* of his colleagues. In fact, in the last 15 years,
he’s only had three bills make it out of committee and only one bill successfully
enacted.  What makes anybody, even the most diehard Libertarian think he will be
*more* successful pushing legislation through Congress when his *only*
legislative tool would be the presidential bully pulpit?  Help me out here; is it
ignorance or cognitive dissonance?

Report this
drbhelthi's avatar

By drbhelthi, December 29, 2011 at 10:33 am Link to this comment

“Hitler said a few interesting things too, and that led millions to overlook the
balance of his bat crap crazy nonsense and hundreds of thousands died !”

Plz update that number to approximately seven million total deaths, to include the
innocent folk murdered in NAZI death stalags during WWII.  Then, update that total
with the uncounted millions who have been murdered by the USMilitary and CIA
instigators after the NAZIs moved their HQ from Berlin to DC, South Carolina, Alabama,
Texas (1945-1947), and the NAZI CIA began the coup d´etat in 3rd world countries,
about 1950.  click on no. 12

The influence of NAZI leadership in NASA- and Texas- was displayed when Hubertus
Strughold Day was established in Texas.  Hubertus Strughold, MD, murdered victims in
the NAZI Stalag in Dachau, Germany, during WWII, with experiments that proved to
be worthless.  Texas now celebrates a NAZI murderer of innocent Jewish and other
folk, on “Hubertus Strughold Day.”  Who was the governor that signed this miscarriage
of justice into law?

Report this

By Calgurlllw, December 29, 2011 at 10:32 am Link to this comment

@Cliff Carson.

I would say that if we are to address those things you mention, we first need to change how our elections are run. Specifically, how money in politics affects politicians’ choices.

Ron Paul is doing nothing to remedy that.

@Most people on this thread. I don’t want to get into any personal attacks. But I must say that I imagine most of you to be white males. Ron Paul’s racist newsletters (yes, he knew about them, c’mon!!!) and his support of a constitutional amendment banning abortion should be enough to turn off any card-carrying liberal/progressive.

But if that is not enough for you, please check out the issues on his website and then get back to me!

Report this

By omygodnotagain, December 29, 2011 at 10:32 am Link to this comment

You should be congratulated for giving credit to a candidate who does not share many of your views, but has noteworthy things to say.
The biggest threat right now to the US is another war, with Iran. There is no hiding the fact that Israel wants American soldiers to fight and die for their security. Further wars are funded by the Financial sector, they make enormous profits from bonds and other financial vehicles. The weapon makers make a killing. I don’t care what some hack in a newsletter wrote 20 years ago.
I am sick of seeing our representative act as shrills for lobbies and special interests that are ruining this country. Ron Paul is the only choice for the sane connected public to vote for.

Report this

By Troy Davis, December 29, 2011 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

Human beings are not born racist. Racism has to be learned.

Generally, it is taught to children by a trusted adult, usually a parent, who infects the child with the virus of racism long before the child is aware of it.

Rand Paul, is a racist.  That much is clear. He is still very close to his father Ron Paul and therefore I think it reasonable to surmise that Rand learned his racist ideations from his father.

The fact that Ron Paul disavows the racist comments he made earlier in his career by claiming he did not make them and was unaware of their existence is absurd on its face.

The point is their is a racist base in the libertarian/tea party that is fully aware of Ron Paul’s racism and they simply do not care.

In fact, it is a positive for him in their minds. So, Ron Paul marginalizes himself and if he were President he would return us to the “genteel” antebellum south that so many of his supporters dream of longingly.

Report this
Katie Corbet's avatar

By Katie Corbet, December 29, 2011 at 10:31 am Link to this comment

Libertarianism seems to be very much in vogue these days and not knowing
much I did what most of us should o, namely read about it. And by read I don’t
mean youtube soundbites and angry blogs, but rather serious discussions by
intellectuals who have attempted to dissect the concept.

What I came to discover is that libertarianism is a childish, juvenile ideology
based on sheer selfishness and nothing else. The overriding themes seem to be
don’t mess with my wealth (property) and freedom (to keep my wealth) at any
cost. And non-violence it espouses is to deter people from interfering in one’s
wealth and not for any altruistic desire. The defenders of this movement often
resort to personal attacks when honestly challenged by their simplistic

Libertarianism is cult-like in that all roads often lead to “end-the-fed” and
return to the gold standard. There is NOT enough gold in the world for a gold

Libertarians are also shallow fanatical people that fail to realize the
complexities of societies which they often deal with a multitude of competing
problems with never any easy solutions. Their one size fits all solutions are
nothing more than magical thinking.

Most of all, the libertarian ideology is a blatant excuse for infinite greed. The
few comments concerning social problems such as poverty that one finds in
their rants is never a genuine desire alleviate them but an insistence that they
will magically go away once we give them carte blanche to acquire and keep
(i.e. freedom) 100+% of their property (i.e.wealth).

Report this

By BigJer, December 29, 2011 at 10:30 am Link to this comment

Ron Paul detractors (including myself) too often fail to address the merits of his individual positions, i.e. the sins of the Fed are well known but what are the merits of his individual positions.  There are differences between not invading hostile powers and withdrawing from the world stage; Ron Paul seems all of one or the other.  That may be the function of behavior of the press towards him and other candidates. When has the press published an extended interview with Paul about our dysfunctional policy?
BTW Ayn Rand was insane but I loved “The Fountainhead”, go figure.

Report this

By balkas, December 29, 2011 at 10:28 am Link to this comment

globalization turned out to be a sham. i expected it. but now that the
blogalization had arisen, i wonder which is less evil: blogalization or
let’s not feed it. and may be it’ll go away??? [fat chance, eh?] i for one am
not going to read nor respond to trollers.
much of what trollers do is to blame or praise individuals, call them
names or endlessly build theories upon theories just like all MSM
columnists do [on td also] tnx

Report this

By DornDiego, December 29, 2011 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

To all you ding-a-lings attacking Scheer… he’s saying the NYTimes ought not to
be dismissing the impact of Paul’s candidacy, not that Ron Paul should be ELECTED
President.  If Ron Paul is the only one out there talking down the defense budget
and warning about the military industrial complex and the loss of civil liberties to
the Pentagon, can’t that be said without trash being thrown at the author? 
Obama has yet to show me any deep attraction to democratic traditions, and
appears to be a military-loving, plutocrat in the pocket of the defense industry
and the financial establishment.  If Bob Scheer is being attacked, he’s being
attacked by the trolls of those establishments.  And that’s a tribute to Truthdig’s
real value and impact on the runaway train called American Politics.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

“@stink . . eh, I mean, tinkdnuosdnuos:
OK—NOW I’m “obnoxious.”

“If you don’t like my language, cry to a moderator.”

No no no.  That’s what right-wing, armchair warriors do. 
Fighting’s fun.”

Oh, yes, Rudolfo and mrfreeze, clearly I’M the problem here.

Anyway, to stay on topic: my objection to Ron Paul has everything to do with his policy positions. I’ve explained that here several times.

Anyone care to weigh in on THOSE issues, rather than try to avoid them with misdirection or personal attacks?

Report this
Non-Compassionate Liberal's avatar

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, December 29, 2011 at 10:15 am Link to this comment

@stink . . eh, I mean, tinkdnuosdnuos:
OK—NOW I’m “obnoxious.”

“If you don’t like my language, cry to a moderator.”

No no no.  That’s what right-wing, armchair warriors do. 
Fighting’s fun.

Report this

By Calgurlllw, December 29, 2011 at 10:14 am Link to this comment

Here’s an idea. How about the people on this thread stop squabbling with each other and let’s deal with the real issue. Ron Paul is not a valid alternative to anyone!

Check out his website and go to his “Issues” link.

1. Anti-choice. Life begins at conception.

2. Anti-public schools. Supports home schooling.

3. Anti-environment. Supports lifting restrictions on oil drilling and restrictions on coal and nuclear energy. Wants to get rid of EPA.

4. Anti-American Health. Supports HSA-Health Savings Accounts.

5. Anti-Workers. Wants to get rid of unions.

6. Anti-Immigrant. Too many offensive policies here to mention. Read them.

I could go on. Ron Paul is NOT the answer!

Report this

By Cliff Carson, December 29, 2011 at 10:12 am Link to this comment

I suppose that a person must prioritize issues and then use some scorecard system to decide the worth of the principles of any candidate.  To me the most important qualification should be the score other than seeking a principle that can be used as a disqualification.

For example if I were to rank the five or ten most important issues facing the average American (Not the 1%, they will have a different agenda I promise you) , this would be only my opinion.  If the 99% did this there would be a consensus emerging that should be the true litmus test for the American people. 

As an example, consider these three.

What are the ranked priorities of the average American ?

1.  Employment and Debt?  What drives this?  Corporate Greed, Jobs Outsourcing, Wall Street immorality?

2.  Endless War?  How does this affect you? Life and Death, Loss of Freedoms, Trend to a Police State?

3.  Corrupt Government?  Does this enable the first two concerns? Corporate Domination, Political Party Loyalty, Favoritism for the Few at the expense of the many?

If you ranked your top ten concerns and the majority of Americans had a different top ten, would you accept the majority top ten if any one of your top ten concerns was missing?

Looking at the top three I have listed, would you re-order them?  Would taking control of any of the three seriously weaken the other two?

If you had to choose one Party , which Political Party would you trust to correct these three?

Republican or Democrat

I listed these things to ask you to think:  “Is Ron Paul more likely to fix these three problems than any other Republican Candidate?  If so should he be disqualified because he made racial statements thirty something years ago?

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 10:08 am Link to this comment


What gratuitous nonsense?

And Rudolfo, it’s NOT idiotic. It’s actually true, when read in the context in which I wrote it.

Really, now. It seems I offended one or two very sensitive people, and now they’ve decided I’m the bad guy for calling them on their bullshit. Get over it. Or cry more. I really don’t care.

But NONE of you has managed to demonstrate anything incorrect or unreasonable about any of my points or positions. Your sour grapes whinging is unbecoming.

Report this
mrfreeze's avatar

By mrfreeze, December 29, 2011 at 10:04 am Link to this comment

tinkdnuos - You certainly will get your wish regarding the moderators. As nasty and cynical as I can be here on these boards, your gratuitous nonsense really adds nothing to this discussion.

For the record (I’ve said this before): Ron Paul is too old to be president. 70+ year olds can barely drive…why put them into the highest office in the land?

Report this

By Rudolfo, December 29, 2011 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

&tinkduous; ..

You asked why your posts seem offensive, and just as a whim I accepted the challenge ..

“most Ron Paul supporters lack the ability to think for themselves”

Yep, that’s idiotic.  If this is the level of critical analysis you’re capable of, best to just keep those razor sharp insights to yourself.

Report this

By MeHere, December 29, 2011 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

It’s all about the perennial infatuation the liberal class has for the lesser of two,
three or more evils.

How can the good things we hear about R. Paul be separated from the awful
ones?  In the end, they are all interrelated unless, as it happened with Obama,
people choose not to hear the full message. As far as a vision for the future of
the country, R. Paul doesn’t have a clue.

You Might Be A Ron Paul Supporter if…...

Report this

By Paul Ron, December 29, 2011 at 9:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s seldom that people are wrong about EVERYTHING. Ron
Paul says a lot of things that make a lot of sense, and
need to be heard.

But, I would NEVER for for such a bigot!

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 9:54 am Link to this comment

Oh, but:

“Too bad Obama’s buddy Elizabeth Warren isn’t challenging him in a primary.”

Agreed, ten thousand times over.

She’s not exactly perfect herself, but she’d be FAR preferable to either Obama or Paul.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 9:51 am Link to this comment

@Non-Compassionate Liberal:

Not really. Maybe you’re just sensitive.

Or, hey, I have an idea! Maybe you shouldn’t be so obnoxious as to tell people what they actually believe, even though you don’t have a clue, and then accuse them of LYING when they tell you that you’re wrong?

If you don’t like my language, cry to a moderator. If you don’t like my positions, how about you address them instead of whining?

Report this
Non-Compassionate Liberal's avatar

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, December 29, 2011 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

You’re really nasty.  Either stop or start drinking.

If the election is soley between Ron Paul and Obama, I’m voting for Paul.  Better would be Ron Paul with a liberal congress—Paul to end the military and drug wars, thus saving us money—and liberals to help him spend it (and block social conservatives from the high court(s)).  That would be ideal (but doubtful to happen). 
If a third party candidate, like Rocky Anderson, liberal-ex-Democrat mayor of Salt Lake City jumps into the race, that would be an even better option. 
Too bad Obama’s buddy Elizabeth Warren isn’t challenging him in a primary.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 9:46 am Link to this comment


Where am I being coarse or abusive?

I’m not gentle, and I don’t pander to those who make blatantly false claims about MY beliefs.

But please, do explain what you find so offensive in my posts.

Report this

By tops, December 29, 2011 at 9:44 am Link to this comment

Also, I forgot to mention in the last post that Paul wants to eliminate the capital gains tax, lower the corporate tax rate, as well as eliminate the estate tax.

While it’s refreshing to hear a candidate address our out of control military industrial/ security complex, as well as the fed and the Wall Street bailouts. I just don’t see him as an alternative to Obama I can get behind. (I’m not saying I will vote for Obama either). Although… it would be fun to see Paul run against Obama and challenge him on the Wall Street/ bank bailouts, and Obama’s foreign policy.

Report this

By GoyToy, December 29, 2011 at 9:43 am Link to this comment


Why do you use such coarse/abusive language to express your opinion? Just wondering….

Report this

By Calgurlllw, December 29, 2011 at 9:42 am Link to this comment

Mr. Scheer, I’ve been a fan of yours for years. However, I must depart with you on your enthusiasm for Ron Paul. The man may have a few good ideas, and he certainly is correct in his anti-Iraq War stance, but he is most certainly a lunatic like most of the other GOP candidates.

You do not mention in your article that he supports a constitutional amendment defining a fetus at the moment of conception as a “person.” What kind of doctor could possibly support this position?

In addition, he supports school vouchers and home schooling as the norm.

He would have charities and churches step instead of a REAL comprehensive health care system.

And really, to think that he was not aware and responsible for those “newsletters” is a joke. He was asked about them in 1996 and said they were “taken our of context.”

Mr. Scheer, please save your praises for someone who is truly worthy!

Report this

By smitty8, December 29, 2011 at 9:41 am Link to this comment

Although Ron Paul says some
things I strongly disagree with,
I do feel like I can trust him
(how would you feel about buying
a used car from any of his
opposition clowns?) and strongly
agree with most of what he says.
I would vote for him over Obama.
My ideal race would see him run
against Rocky Anderson who I see
as Paul without baggage.

Report this

By alton grimes, December 29, 2011 at 9:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am continually grateful to Truthdig for stirring
the coals of freedom. That there are those men and
women among us(Scheer,Hedges,Goodman,etc.)that have
been gifted to help us “navigate” the murky realm of
politics is deeply appreciated. I am perplexed that
our country seems so “stuck in the mud”. There seems
no opportunity to halt this “runaway train”. America
seems a kind of big and beautiful ship, but with no
wind in her sails. I relish Eisenhower’s quote:“may
we never confuse honest dissension with disloyal
subversion”. P.S. I would surely vote for Eisenhower
if he were running!!

Report this

By Ray Beckerman, December 29, 2011 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This article is an abomination. Until today I subscribed to Truthdig’s rss feed; today I’m removing that subscription. Doesn’t this publication have editors who can spot a piece of propaganda and remove it before it sees the light of day?

Ron Paul is a contemptible, rightwing, white supremacist, corporatist. He is not a legitimate candidate for anything other than sheer and utter madness.

Report this

By DBM, December 29, 2011 at 9:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

whoa !  I submitted a comment, and something entirely
different appeared under my ID.  My comment never

What is going on here????

Report this

By tops, December 29, 2011 at 9:33 am Link to this comment


You make a good point “that it’s highly unlikely that Ron Paul’s cutting the Federal budget by a third would mean slashing defense spending only.”

There was an informative analysis on KPFA’s “Guns and Butter” show yesterday (12/28) where the guest dissected Ron Paul’s budget proposals and its affect on social/ domestic programs. He made the point that Ron Paul’s proposal to cut the federal budget by one trillion in one year would absolutely savage many social programs progressives care about. After carefully looking at, and breaking down Paul’s budget proposal the guest on the show says that Paul’s proposal will cut defense/pentagon spending by 15% on average, while average domestic programs will take a 35% cut. Even with Paul the military industrial complex comes out on top.

Also, many are assuming that Paul will have the power to make his proposed cuts to the military. I think it’s likely that a Paul administration would not get substantial defense cuts, but the social would pass. This means in a Paul presidency we would be left with nominal/ marginal defense cuts and massive domestic cuts to programs progressives care about. This is just food for thought.

Report this

By John Sullivan, December 29, 2011 at 9:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just to add to the 50,000 comments any editorial on Ron Paul is bound to engender—-
If you’re looking for a candidate who is willing to challenge the establishment, let me remind everyone that the Green Party’s presidential candidate Jill Stein not only supports civil liberties and cutting the military budget, she also support regulations that would prevent economic collapse—regulations that libertarians like Ron Paul oppose.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 9:23 am Link to this comment


““And while their preferred regulations may be weak, ineffective, or (just as likely) an underhanded gift to some buddies in the insurance industry, they still do support some regulation.”

Tell it to the people in California, who have seen huge spikes in healthcare premiums SINCE the healthcare bill was passed.

According to one study, “if insurance [in CA] keeps rising at the current rate, the cumulative impact will result in a 72 percent increase in premiums and push the average family premium to almost $24,000 by 2020.” [1]”

Do you have the minimal critical thinking and logical reasoning aptitude necessary to understand that what you said is only tangentially-related to what I said, and that “they support regulation” is IN NO WAY a claim that what they are actually doing is good? Indeed, can you see that in the very same words you quoted, I suggested that the ACA is essentially a gift to private insurance companies, and NOT a particularly effective solution to the problem?

I have the aptitude, as I’ve just demonstrated. Now, either you lack it, or you’re just making a disingenuous attempt at creating an argument where one does not exist. Which would it be?

My money’s on the latter.

Oh, and just for good measure…the ACA has not really come into effect yet. The passage of the ACA may have prompted insurers to raise premiums, but it didn’t actually CAUSE them to do so. More likely, like in most other states, they recognized an opportunity to exploit the market for a necessity, and took it to satisfy shareholder greed.

I think the ONLY thing we really disagree about is whether Ron Paul is the right answer. Don’t try to turn this into an ideological rift just so you can feel more morally justified in your position on that ONE question.

Report this

By Magistrate_apeman, December 29, 2011 at 9:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The enemy of our enemy is not always our friend. Ron Paul is a
confederate still fighting the Civil War, protecting the rich.

Report this

By John V. Walsh, December 29, 2011 at 9:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Shame on the progressives!  Ron Paul is the only anti-war, pro-civil liberties
candidate in either party.  Why would you not cross over and vote for him in the
Republican primaries - which can be done in the Iowa Caucuses and NH Primary
and elsewhere?  That would go a long way to changing the Republican Party and
force Obama to curtail his insane global military crusade which has seamlessly
continued Bush’s.
Then let us see in the general election who emerges as the better candidate.
I find that pwogs all to often conduct politics “unencumbered by the thought
process” as the Car Talk guys say.
If Paul loses and the war goes on, it will be in no small part that the “Left” antiwar
forces did not help.  Shame!

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 9:17 am Link to this comment

If Ron Paul were everything his supporters claim, and nothing more, I would vote for him IN A SECOND.

But as his supporters are so keen on insisting, I did my OWN research. I didn’t listen to the media (how could I, when they were ignoring him for the last 4 years?), and I didn’t listen to his supporters OR his detractors.

And based on what I’ve found, Ron Paul is NOT who most of his supporters think he is. He’s less in some ways, and so much more in other, often insidious ways.

It sucks that I have no one to vote for (so far) in 2012. But Ron Paul supporters’ “with us or against us” mentality is obnoxious, counter-productive, and reeks of the very sort of irrational social-control bullying they claim to decry.

Just because the other guy is wrong doesn’t make your guy right. And just because your guy is right about SOME things doesn’t mean that his OTHER ideas won’t leave us worse off.

Yet predictably, I will be attacked as an Obama supporter, or a dupe, or some other such idiotic nonsense, all because most Ron Paul supporters lack the ability to think for themselves, and find solace in accepting, wholesale, a movement that persuades them that they do.

Report this

By MK77, December 29, 2011 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

“And while their preferred regulations may be weak, ineffective, or (just as likely) an underhanded gift to some buddies in the insurance industry, they still do support some regulation.”

Tell it to the people in California, who have seen huge spikes in healthcare premiums SINCE the healthcare bill was passed.

According to one study, “if insurance [in CA] keeps rising at the current rate, the cumulative impact will result in a 72 percent increase in premiums and push the average family premium to almost $24,000 by 2020.” [1]


Report this

By upgradeyourlife, December 29, 2011 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

It amazes me the flak Paul gets,  I’m a liberal who would never vote for
Obama but would for Paul in a second. We’re talking about the only person
not interested in escalating into a war with Iran, and striking at the root of
our empire—look at what the US is doing to the world, and you won’t vote
for him why? It makes you question where some people’s priorities are—
just who are you waiting for? Unify behind someone, something, anything.

Report this

By kibitzer, December 29, 2011 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

Thank you for keeping a clear eye on the key issues, Robert.

The American federal government has been captured by powers who want to
destroy the public’s civil liberties and return the world to a form of feudalism, run,
of course, by them.  They are doing it by having created the phony War on
Terrorism, thus giving the federal executive dictatorial powers, and thereby
collapsing the Constitution; making America ripe for takeover by tyrants.  Ron Paul is the only candidate who sees through the smokescreen being blown into the
public’s eyes.  The key to the collapse of the scenario of TPTB is to eliminate the
central bank control of the Federal Reserve on the American Republic - the sort of
scenario that the Founding Fathers warned about, over and over.  Both the non-
totalitarian Left and the non-totalitarian Right can rally around this flag.  They
should do so, while there’s still time.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 9:08 am Link to this comment

@Non-Compassionate Liberal,

Ok, you’re free to be a delusional moron. That’s not really my problem.

I’ve made VERY clear where I stand. If you care to know, try working on your literacy. But I’m sure your ignorance is too blissful to rebuke.

Report this
Flickford's avatar

By Flickford, December 29, 2011 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

All the candidates and the present administration marginalize me and everything
that matters to me. Libertarians suck for the environment so I don’t give a damn
about Paul. The only thing that matters to me is smashing the global
banktatorship. If you care a whit about the rights of man and the future of the
planet playing into the pointless practice of political posturing for the coming el-
auction won’t change a damn thing.

Report this

By jon, December 29, 2011 at 9:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Just ask yourself if you want freedom from tyrannical government and to restore the Constitution?  If you said yes count that as a vote for Ron Paul.  Ask other people the same question.  It is apparent Ron Paul already has all the votes.  Anyone who talks about any other topic or resorts to name calling or identifies themselves with a certain party, are either ill informed or government shills.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 9:04 am Link to this comment

Sorry, last comment meant for Anarcissie, not ardee.

Report this
Non-Compassionate Liberal's avatar

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, December 29, 2011 at 9:03 am Link to this comment

“did you just stupidly assume that because I don’t like Ron Paul, I MUST necessarily support Obama”
Yeah, I still assume it—you doth protest too much.

Report this
M Henri Day's avatar

By M Henri Day, December 29, 2011 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

Some of you may remember that Doris Lessing, the Nobel laureate in literature for 2007, predicated in February 2008 that Mr Obama would be assassinated were he to win that year’s US presidential election. More than three years after his win, albeit his hair is a bit more grizzled, Mr Obama’s health seems good, and those who run the United States have not yet found it necessary to do away with him, as he hardly represents a direct threat to their interests. Mr Paul, I suspect, is another matter ; given his views on the US constitution and his lack of reticence in expressing them, were he to become the Republican candidate for US president and go on to win the 2012 election, his life insurers would be advised to invoke force majeure and revoke his policies. As a lone congressman from a rural district in Texas, he can be tolerated - as president of the US, no way….


Report this

By MK77, December 29, 2011 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

“You have such a black and white view of the world that you assume a lack of support for Ron Paul is NECESSARILY support for Obama…”

I assumed no such thing. All I said is that on any number of important issues, Paul happens to be to the LEFT of Obama. And I’m right - he is.

Report this

By Don, December 29, 2011 at 9:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I love your critique because it fits exactly my own sentiment. The oligarchs don’t want Ron
Paul because his libertarian-populist sentiment threatens the status quo. Well written

Report this

By glider, December 29, 2011 at 8:58 am Link to this comment

Ron Paul is perhaps the last, ever so remote chance, to stop the MIC killing machine.  It is difficult to imagine another candidate getting as close.  The “progressive” Democrats won’t support a Kucinich-Sanders type. That the most viable anti-war candidate is coming out of the Republican Party is fascinating.  The excited anxious name calling and illogical rants of the pro-MIC crowd, feigning to be so concerned about Paul’s character, rings hollow.  What they fear is the idea that their gravy train is threatened.  The pigs want to continue to feed at the trough no matter how many bodies pile up.

Report this

By Michael Rivero, December 29, 2011 at 8:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am not going to name names, but I think we found one of the paid GOP online shills hired to derail Ron Paul and clear the path for an Israel-approved, Wall-Street loved candidate to take the lead!

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 8:53 am Link to this comment


“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.

Gimme Kucinich, Feingold, hell, I’d probably take Gary Johnson at this point. But Ron Paul is NOT the answer.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

Non-Compassionate Liberal:

I’m well aware. What’s your point?

Or did you just stupidly assume that because I don’t like Ron Paul, I MUST necessarily support Obama?

I bet that’s what you did. So fucking predictable…

Report this
Anarcissie's avatar

By Anarcissie, December 29, 2011 at 8:48 am Link to this comment

ardee, December 29 at 5:01 am:

‘Those of us who have attempted to shine the light of reason and truth on the politics and personal life of Ron Paul have encountered scorn and derision from the libertarian cultists that make up Paul’s coterie.

I doubt that most claiming to be progressives in support of Paul are what they claim, if only because I tend to credit progressive thinkers with intellect and the ability to see the truth of libertarian politics.

Well, as MK77 points out, Paul is to the left of Mr. O on many, many issues.  (And he forgot to mention the Drug War, which has imprisoned hundreds of thousands of innocent, harmless people, and which Paul claims he would end.) Thus far, no viable progressive competitor has appeared in this enormous field.  So Paul becomes the lesser evil.

We are talking here about the slaughter of the innocent.  It is hard to get much more involved with evil, for or against, than that.

Report this

By Puzzled, December 29, 2011 at 8:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Many commenters here are people I could easily see eye to eye with - after they learn some basic economics.  We share so many goals, yet the opposition here to Paul seems to be borne in a failure to understand how to attain those goals.  Policies, no matter how well-intentioned, will not work if they are in opposition to reality.

Everyoe advocating more government solutions to (government-made) problems - how’s it working for you?  You screamed for years that the government had to be more involved in healthcare, and you got a handout to insurance companies from your leftist president.  You wanted more regulation - and your leftist president gave a perpetual bailout to Wall Street.  Haven’t you noticed that you don’t get the results you want when you employ this tool?

Indeed, what is the corporate form, if not a creation of government?  A quick study of US history - heck, choose a leftist historian, like Zinn - quickly shows that, from at least 1800 on, there is a simple pattern in place.  The government enriches and entrenches the 1% and the corporate leaders, and the turns around, expresses heartfelt concern for the poor, as if the government hadn’t robbed them, and gives a pittance of welfare to the poor to prevent riots or demands for a fundamental change.

Many on the left have taken today to calling themselves Progressives.  I don’t know if this is done in ignorance of what the Progressives did, or in support of it.  But we shouldn’t wonder why leftists calling themselves Progressives fail to be anti-war.  The Progressive movement has always been a utopian movement that didn’t hesitate to use warfare heavily, usually to support corporate interests.  It was Progressives who lied the nation into WW1, it was Progressives who gave us the Federal Reserve, and it was Progressives who invaded South American nations in defense of United Fruit. 

The Progressives were also pro-corporate, in their own way.  Teddy Roosevelt saw that the attempts by the right to defend corporate power were failing - if they continued, the populist movement would actually score a victory and start to get rid of corporate welfare.  So he chose a third way - loud rhetoric against corporations, and some mild regulation, to undercut the growing opposition to the corporate structure itself.  He himself said that corporations should welcome his regulations, because without them, the populists would gain power.

The problem is, the corporate welfare system is fragile.  It, unlike free markets, tends to collapse under its own weight.  One reason is its reliance on fiat money and inflation, which produces business cycles.  Another is the building of artificially large business and the elimination of traditional safety nets - consolidation of business leads to unemployment and less bargaining power for employees, and raises land price.  Regulations prevent the unemployed from going into business for themselves.  The welfare state and regulations get rid of traditional lodge plans for healthcare, mutual aid societies, and the like.  So the collapse comes, and hits hard.  This might be an opportunity for real reform, as it might have been in 1929.  We can wipe out the big boys, start co-ops, and build a freer economy.  So, in the guise of help, the representatives of corporate power once again stepped in, prolonged the depression, and propped up the corporations.

Again, this is no right-wing narrative, it’s the narrative given by real leftists such as Vidal, Chomsky, and Zinn. 

Today, too many fail to learn from history and persist in calling for more of the same.  Many won’t be satisfied, it seems, until hospitals look like VA hospitals.  What will you do when you get single-payer, and a future GOP administration denies healthcare to liberals?  Will you then finally admit the blind spot in your ideology?

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 8:45 am Link to this comment


“2. “In fact, Paul opposes ANY curbs on the health insurance market.”

So do Obama and the Democrats.

3. “Paul thinks health insurance companies should be able to refuse coverage at will, drop covered patients when their expenses get too high, etc.”

So do Obama and the Democrats.”

I’ll give you number 1, gladly. SOME Dems support single-payer, but it’s definitely not part of the platform in any sense. But these two are actually false. I’m not an Obama supporter anymore. But part of what the ACA does right is it prohibits health insurers from dropping patients who’ve paid their premiums on time for any reason, and from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. And while their preferred regulations may be weak, ineffective, or (just as likely) an underhanded gift to some buddies in the insurance industry, they still do support some regulation.

But you see, THIS is the reason I called you a typical Paul shill. You have such a black and white view of the world that you assume a lack of support for Ron Paul is NECESSARILY support for Obama, or another Republican candidate. He’s not the savior. He would be JUST AS BAD. Get the fuck over it.

Report this

By brisa, December 29, 2011 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

If US citizens are stripped of their “inalienable” rights by an unethical and corrupt political system, what else matters?

Inalienable means God-given or natural rights.  These rights are codified in the Bill of Rights which use to justify the US call to the world to respect all human rights. 

Talk all you want about policies and possible solutions to intractable problems (mostly related to historically elevated energy costs), but when the US government does not respect human rights, nothing else much matters.

Report this

By ewkeane, December 29, 2011 at 8:41 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Find here a bit about the author of the alarmist slam “Marginalizing Ron Paul”;
New Left. It figures.

Report this
Non-Compassionate Liberal's avatar

By Non-Compassionate Liberal, December 29, 2011 at 8:41 am Link to this comment

“Paul opposes single-payer healthcare too”
Yeah, just like Obama.  In fact, Obama didn’t like the public option, either.

Report this

By alturn, December 29, 2011 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

If no republican is going to beat Obama, then Paul is the best foil in the general election.  The good points he raises re the Fed, the military and the attack on civil liberties certainly would make Obama uncomfortable and potentially could lead to Obama and congress actually having to take action on some of these unseen elephants in the room.

Report this

By MK77, December 29, 2011 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

1. “Paul opposes single-payer healthcare too.”

So do Obama and the Democrats.

2. “In fact, Paul opposes ANY curbs on the health insurance market.”

So do Obama and the Democrats.

3. “Paul thinks health insurance companies should be able to refuse coverage at will, drop covered patients when their expenses get too high, etc.”

So do Obama and the Democrats.

Obama and the Democrats believe people should be forced by law to buy corporate health insurance or else face tax penalties. Paul is opposed to the mandate, so at least on this score he is superior to the Democrats.

Report this
who'syourdebs's avatar

By who'syourdebs, December 29, 2011 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

I think Mr. Scheer goes a bit too far here. There’s no guarantee (in fact, it’s highly unlikely) that Ron Paul’s cutting the Federal budget by a third would mean slashing defense spending only. The libertarian philosophy (a la Ayn Rand), if it found a home in the White House, would most certainly attack the US social safety net as well, meager though it may be. Besides, as we know too well, all Republican lie unabashedly and seem proud of it, as evidenced by Paul’s openly racist past and his inability to own up to it. People don’t change their racist point of view as they grow older—not Haley Barbour, not Ron Paul—they just learn to conceal it. Returning to the gold standard? A bizarre idea, to say the least, that I thought died sometime early in the 20th Century. Abolishing the Federal Reserve? And replace it with a consortium of private banks, I suppose. Or just let the ecomony run amuck, even worse than the second Bush administration. There’s an idea. The guy’s a joke—I don’t care that he’s got reasonable ideas on defense, Israel, and civil rights (as long as you’re white, that is). Maybe you’ve been at this too long, Mr. Scheer. Step back and look again at what you’re saying.

Report this

By Deborah Emin, December 29, 2011 at 8:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am so sorry that we are all wasting our time on what is surely a bad article by Robert Scheer who is using praise of Ron Paul so he can cast aspersions on the NY Times (which last I checked isn’t running for president) and their take down of Paul’s ideas.

Paul is a racist, bigoted and limited government guy who has many ideas that are also similar to Dennis Kucinich’s. The difference there being that Kucinich is not racist, has voted against and spoken out against the militarization of this country and on and on and was considerably sidelined, marginalized by the press when he ran in 2004 and 2008.

The point here, to me, is this: when someone like Robert Scheer needs to overlook the looniness of a Ron Paul and his son in order to go after the NY Times, we are in need of some new voices to take charge of this site. This is just a blatantly awful article with the lack of insight that comes, in my opinion, from burn out.

Take a seat Mr. Scheer and let someone else take over for the time being. The perspective you present here is too misguided and too over course to serve anyone’s interests.

Report this

By tinkdnuos, December 29, 2011 at 8:22 am Link to this comment


“4. Healthcare. Paul opposes the corporate mandate; Obama and his colleagues are smitten with it.”

Paul opposes single-payer healthcare too. In fact, he opposes ANY curbs on the health insurance market. He thinks health insurance companies should be able to refuse coverage at will, drop covered patients when their expenses get too high, etc.

You seem like a typical Ron Paul shill: too smitten to understand the actual implications of his utopian ideas. Unable to think beyond your own immediate selfish needs.

Report this

By GoyToy, December 29, 2011 at 8:21 am Link to this comment

OK, so let’s say we don’t vote for Ron Paul, then who do we vote for—Obomber, the Grinch/Gingrich, Romney, etc….? Who, please tell me?

If Paul were to end the eternal wars, cut DoD budget, shut down foreign bases…I’d say he’s way ahead of the other suits in the race.

And before you jump on my ass for being a right-wingers, sorry, I’m the kind that has voted for Nader every time. But of the current pack of “viable” candidates, I could bring myself to vote for Paul.

Report this

By Steven Podvoll, December 29, 2011 at 8:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ron Paul carries on many American traditions, chiefly those which capitalize on
paranoia and mass hysteria. The tradition of vilifying central banking (to the
benefit of corporate interests), for example, goes all the way back to Aaron

In general, Dr. Paul promotes belief in covert conspiracies which don’t exist
while denying overt conspiracies which do.  In addition under a Paul presidency,
the party of Lincoln would become the party of Jefferson Davis.

IMO those who praise Dr. Paul’s “consistency” and “honesty” should consider
removing their rose-colored glasses. Ron Paul wears the pretense of
consistency typical of dogma-driven ideologues while earnestly appealing to
conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, gold standard regressives, ad
nauseam. That’s bad enough in and of itself, but in actuality Dr. Paul worships
at the alter of Ayn Rand sociopathy. He disavows the nutjobs who support him,
but still appreciates their patronage too much to condemn them outright.  And
Brutus was an honorable man.

Mr. Scheer once again, despite my agreeing with you on many policy issues, you
descend into the kind of puerile, jejune hyperbole which keeps me from taking
you seriously.

Report this

By balkas, December 29, 2011 at 8:17 am Link to this comment

but i still think electing a republican is lesser of two evils. i can say this
knowing u cannot ever prove me wrong. comments to this post are
closed to al the blogal warmers or debaters! tnx

Report this

By MK77, December 29, 2011 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

It’s funny that on the major issues of the day Ron Paul is to the LEFT of Obama:

1. Military spending. Paul favors huge cuts to the Pentagon while Obama wants to give the Pentagon more money each year than it itself requests.

2. Civil liberties. Paul is against the Patriot Act and Defense Authorization Act; Obama has signed on to both of them.

3. Wars. Paul believes the U.S. should get out of the business of empire. He’d end the wars and close military bases worldwide. Obama has used military force in Yemen, Libya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and is itching for a war against Iran.

4. Healthcare. Paul opposes the corporate mandate; Obama and his colleagues are smitten with it.

5. Banking. Paul is critical of the Federal Reserve and has expressed a desire to gut it. Obama oversaw a trillion-dollar bailout of some of the most corrupt Wall Street firms and believes the Fed should be left alone to do whatever the hell it wants.

CONCLUSION: Paul is clearly preferable to Obama, but those blinded by corporate ideology and identity politics will forever remain in denial over such an obvious fact.

Report this

By Michael Rivero, December 29, 2011 at 8:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Here we see the real reason the corporate media has been ordered to destroy Ron Paul. Dr. Paul refuses to go along with the “blame the people then drop the losses on them” attitude of Wall Street. The New York Times, which as I recall totally missed the reality that Saddam did not actually have any nuclear weapons, and therefore should not be considered an authority on anything, has also totally missed the Mortgage-Backed Securities fraud; the biggest financial swindle in history. Larger than the Great South Seas Company swindle of the 1720s and more devastating than Tulipmania, the collapse of the Mortgage-Backed Securities fraud is the single catalyst for all the suffering the world’s people have had to endure for the last several years. Then there are the Credit Default Swaps, originally intended as financial insurance to mitigate losses, CDS have mutated into Wall Street’s latest gambling binge, wholly unregulated, already destroying AIG and poised to wreck mo9st of the Wall Street banks unless Ben Bernanke keeps pouring more newly-printed dollars all over Europe to keep it from collapsing because they too also fell victim to the mortgage-backed securities fraud.

But the New York Times cannot see any of this, just as they did not see that Saddam did not actually have nuclear weapons, and the attitude of the New York Times’ presstitutes appears to be that if they are too stupid to see something, then it does not exist, and anyone that does claim to see the problems, is full of “claptrap.”

Sorry NYT, but in a comparison of credibility between NYT and Ron Paul, Ron Paul wins hands-down, and the New York Times is still struggling to get out of the starting gate.

Report this

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

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook