Regarding the poll for Ron Paul’s vice president.
I cannot prove that any Web site is innocent enough for heterochromatic, but DemoChoice has a pretty good reputation.  Try Googling it.
Anyway, I’m a bit naive about these things, so I thought if I mentioned the poll a few times, people would generally appreciate it.
Some haven’t, like heterochromatic and the owner of the Daily Paul, who suspended me for 2 weeks.
Anyway, I was not spamming by the Wiktionary definition.  Those spamming creeps do it for money and using an automated system, neither of which apply to me.
I will still mention it OCCASIONALLY and hope not to offend too many people:
Vote in ranked-ballot fun-poll for Ron Paul’s vice president
http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=PaulVP2012

By heterochromatic, February 14 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment

ardee—- are you interested in running as Ronny’s VP?

If you are, go for it!

Thanks Het, but Ill pass. Say Hi(GH) to Gracie for me, havent seen her since 1973.

I’ll also pass on the corkage as well. One should consider whether the “fun” intimated by our seemingly ready to pop Korky justifies polluting almost every forum with that link. Methinks there is more than “fun” at work here. Building mailing lists could be one such. Anyone going to that site might consider deleting a subsequent cookie presence also.

Korky,
I did your vote thing and found it interesting. Not all of the supposed candidates were in the same league as Ron Paul; I mean, his choice for potential VP in this poll represented quite a full spectrum of ideologies and even some mindless “vote for the celebrities” candidates. To even suggest that Condoleeza Rice was a viable choice, particularly after all the damage she helped cause, I guess that last part was to see how many people were actually paying attention.

Some candidates I thought were deserving were, in no particular order, Andrew Napolitano, Elizabeth Warren, Jesse Ventura, Karen Kwiatkowski, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and a few others. Nader and Kucinich were on my “secondary” list and I’m forgetting a couple more, but no matter what their particular personal political ideologies, ALL of these individuals, I think it’s safe to say, would hold the Constitution above whatever party they were in or, more importantly, the BANKS and offshore interests, something we haven’t seen in a LONG time.

I voted for Reagan both times, but looking back with a more educated eye I can see how his administration was the beginning of this last downward trend and every succeeding president has only served to put the public further in the dark as to what is REALLY happening in this country. Judge Napolitano lambasted the Federal Reserve last Thursday 2/8/12 and the very next day his show was cancelled. And if any president had enough testicles to do what JFK had done to bring this dark information to the light of day, they too would probably wind up in a box. It’s interesting how ALL of the anti-NAFTA candidates seem to get run off the debate stage by media nitwits like Rachael Maddow and Shepard Smith.

ardee—- are you interested in running as Ronny’s VP?

If you are, go for it!

I’m going run as VP for Grace Slick on the Orange
Sunshine ticket, but we can be together as friends
anyway and say “High” to each other!!!!

Hi, ardee!  I’m a Green like you, but want Ron Paul to win the Republican nomination.  With a Green running mate, it could be really interesting.  Or Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich.  The poll has 56 candidates.  The poll is also a more advanced ballot than US Americans are used to.  Have fun.  Vote in it.

One has to wonder why the execrable ‘Korky” pollutes this site with endless requests to vote in some sophomoric and basically meaningless poll?

Vote now in ranked-ballot fun-poll for Ron Paul’s vice president!
http://www.demochoice.org/dcballot.php?poll=PaulVP2012

D.R. Zing, January 22 at 12:08 pm

I can’t say that I fully understand exactly why you sought to refer to my “writing style” as “sophomoric”. That’s your prerogative, but as you then so contradictorily pointed out further into your reply, we seem to have a lot more in common than not.

Regarding Ron Paul, I believe it was the comment you made about the “loons” and the dismissing of candidates because of their opposition to NAFTA that offended me. When I read comments like that, I get the feeling that our country has so much more work to do to pull itself out of this hole we’re in. From what you later said, maybe we can just chalk it up to a misunderstanding.

BTW, I didn’t use the term “turbans”; ...... I had referred to “towelheads” ...... and that was only to point out the term that idiots in this country use to dehumanize even the innocent members of the population over there. Unfortunately, we still have people here who haven’t figured out how much of the terrorist problem actually originated in this country and that doesn’t even address the fact that their population is just as afraid of our political zealots as our population is of theirs. Meanwhile, and quite intentionally, both populations become victims of the flame fanning by both governments.

Anyway, I’m glad we’re on the same side of the fence.

“who despite being a piece of shit criminal is the best United States president from California.’

I don’t know about that. I think Nixon and Reagan are neck and neck in the shit criminal stakes. The only thing Reagan had that Nixon lacked was absolute self-belief. All the worst politicians have that. Nixon was paranoid and dysfunctional but Reagan was a sadistic monster. They both should have been pushed out to sea in a leaky boat and left to fight over food and water. That way they could live out the dog eat dog philosophy they loved so much.

Hi BR549,

Thank you for your post. 

You’re writing style is a bit sophomoric, but your points are good
and I appreciate them.  Here’s something you wrote that I like quite
a lot:

“...corporations had previously been required to show some evidence
of worthiness in order to have their charters renewed. J.D.
Rockefeller successfully broke that stipulation”

Worthiness requirements for charter renewal was a good thing and I
would agree they needs to be reinstated. I would also argue that
the laws for mergers and acquisitions should be much more rigorous. 
Mergers and acquisitions are the bane of our existence as consumers. 
Businesses merge, get into debt, lay customer service people off,
make shitty products, lay more people off and then go begging
government for help.

Stopping many mergers before they occur would be good for consumers
because it would help smaller business gain footholds in developing
markets. Smaller businesses provide better customer service.   

I like what you said and agree with your sentiments about the
military. It’s nothing new. I’ve said it here on this website as have
many others. You might want to take that into consideration as you’re
writing: People are not idiots just because they disagree with you on
certain points. In fact they may have more in common with you than
you think. 

From the broad point of view, I do believe you and I agree on a lot of
things. I would consider you an ally, not an enemy.  Likewise, it
would behoove progressives and libertarians to seek out areas where
they agree and build alliances from there. It’s preferable to trading
insults about what are sometimes minor differences.   

I like the point you made and I apologize for my facetious
categorization of Ron Paul as “pro-dope.”  Here’s what you said:

For anyone to even suggest that Paul is PRO- drug; that’s just
plain STUPID and only shows how people can draft an opinion without
doing any of the homework. What he is for is decriminalizing drugs so
that we can focus our attention on why so many people in our culture
have felt it necessary to flat give up and throw their lives away
instead of striving to become better citizens. The whole drug
industry has become fused with undercurrents within our government,
politicians, and law enforcement with investments in the prison
system becoming big business.

I am for the decriminalization of drugs as well.
Totally agree with what you said about the prison systems.
And, yes, the pharmaceutical drug industry is vile. 

Here’s something that I didn’t like.  People who wear turbans around
their heads are Sikhs; they are frequently from India. They are not
Muslims. Kids in American who are called the racist pejorative that
you threw out there often go home crying to their parents. Using a
racist pejorative in a serious discussion makes you appear to be
jackass, not an intellectual.

I’m with you and applaud Ron Paul for wanting to repeal the Patriot
Act. 

Again. I agree with you more than I disagree with you. We’re better
off joining together and fighting against Democrats and Republicans
than we are going at each other’s throats and weakening ourselves
while the corporate shills continue to run the place. 

All the best.

Zing

@ Heterochromatic

It is interesting that you would choose such a song.

“Stand Back” is exactly what I like about Ron Paul’s stance towards U.S. Imperialist world domination baloney as well as his additude towards bailing out “too big to fail” financial institutions.

Whipping Post performed by Zappa and employees/friends…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agNLWM4kz9k

p.s. also STAND BACK when it comes to the racist war on drugs supporting the prison industrial complex.

Outraged, January 22 at 9:31 am

It deserved to be said three times at least.

I did not post that three times just for the record. There must be a glitch.

Article quote: “In making such a choice, then, these voters are tacitly embracing the definition of unacceptable bigotry as only hate speech (Paul’s newsletters) and opposition to civil-rights laws (Paul’s odious position) but not also various forms of institutional bigotry that their favored candidates support and that Paul has fought to end.”

This is a strawman. Supposedly, if you don’t like Paul because he is an unabashed racist (publishing his conspiratorial racist newsletter at FIFTY PLUS YEARS OF AGE), that you then are completely okay with institutional racism or you think losing civil rights is unimportant. This is a ridiculous assertion. Is there some reason Mr. Sirota one cannot be against both? Is there some reason that you feel people are so incompetent that they cannot look at the man as a whole and come to the determination that he is a racist nut-job!?  Get out. I’m sick of the temerity of this accusation, void of reason and lacking of substance.

Way to get the racist Paulies’ rocks off, Mr. Sirota. I hope you enjoy their posts.

Article quote: “In making such a choice, then, these voters are tacitly embracing the definition of unacceptable bigotry as only hate speech (Paul’s newsletters) and opposition to civil-rights laws (Paul’s odious position) but not also various forms of institutional bigotry that their favored candidates support and that Paul has fought to end.”

This is a strawman. Supposedly, if you don’t like Paul because he is an unabashed racist (publishing his conspiratorial racist newsletter at FIFTY PLUS YEARS OF AGE), that you then are completely okay with institutional racism or you think losing civil rights is unimportant. This is a ridiculous assertion. Is there some reason Mr. Sirota one cannot be against both? Is there some reason that you feel people are so incompetent that they cannot look at the man as a whole and come to the determination that he is a racist nut-job!?  Get out. I’m sick of the temerity of this accusation, void of reason and lacking of substance.

Way to get the racist Paulies’ rocks off, Mr. Sirota. I hope you enjoy their posts.

Article quote: “In making such a choice, then, these voters are tacitly embracing the definition of unacceptable bigotry as only hate speech (Paul’s newsletters) and opposition to civil-rights laws (Paul’s odious position) but not also various forms of institutional bigotry that their favored candidates support and that Paul has fought to end.”

This is a strawman. Supposedly, if you don’t like Paul because he is an unabashed racist (publishing his conspiratorial racist newsletter at FIFTY PLUS YEARS OF AGE), that you then are completely okay with institutional racism or you think losing civil rights is unimportant. This is a ridiculous assertion. Is there some reason Mr. Sirota one cannot be against both? Is there some reason that you feel people are so incompetent that they cannot look at the man as a whole and come to the determination that he is a racist nut-job!?  Get out. I’m sick of the temerity of this accusation, void of reason and lacking of substance.

Way to get the racist Paulies’ rocks off, Mr. Sirota. I hope you enjoy their posts.

@ Heterochromatic

It is interesting that you would choose such a song.

“Stand Back” is exactly what I like about Ron Paul’s stance towards U.S. Imperialist world domination baloney as well as his additude towards bailing out “too big to fail” financial institutions.

Whipping Post performed by Zappa and employees/friends…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agNLWM4kz9k

EZ= al usual, a good one.
              we can let that Big O go, but for
all these birds flocking to Ron Paul, I gotta keep on
saying “Stand Back”.

http://youtu.be/UsmMZDYFb8o

@ heterochromatic

Fuck Obama and his wimpy attempt at singing “Lets Stay Together”.

Let us leave that all behind and feel the authentic warmth of the ties that truly bind us.

“For The Good Times” by Al Green

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZdik3r1gK8

and to D. Sirota…

Your boy C. Hayes has gone off the rails my close friend. He is suffering. Please do what you can to show him the way if at all possible.

Love 2 U and Love 4 all etc.

BR—- I understand the argument about Paul wanting to end all our treaties.c lose
all our overseas bases and return all our troops home. I have some sympathy for
it, and some misgivings.

But all the rest of Paul’s nonsense, is impossible to overlook.

That he has supporters advancing the notion that any politician speaking out
against NAFTA is destroyed by the media doesn’t do anything to make him sound
any less a loon.

dia=== outside of Romney, I don’t know of a single other republican hopeful that
measures up to Nixon. who despite being a piece of shit criminal is the best
United States president from California.

Hetero and Zingbat,
Well, Mike Gravel was considered just an “old man”, but at least he had the balls to help Ellsberg pull the plug on VietNam. Paul, more to the present, is the ONLY candidate in the running that is trying to do the same with our troops abroad. For candidates to merely pontificate that the troops should come home isn’t enough, because that whole trumped up war thing was required to suspend Posse
Comitatus and cannibalize the Constitution.

One of my good friends from the service was court martialled because he went AWOL as an intelligence officer, having grown sick, day after day, as he told me personally, of receiving one set of data over the intelligence wires from VietNam and being ordered to continually alter or flip the numbers. Then MacNamara, before he died, spilled the beans on our getting involved over there; ....... it was all staged and 58,000 of our troops (250,000-300,000 total) paid the price for our corporate/legislative corruption.

During the last three elections, every candidate who has opined against NAFTA has summarily been given their walking papers by the media, just as Ron Paul is being totally ignored today. While most everyone else in 2008 was choosing NAFTA, ALL of the non-NAFTA candidates were summarily ushered off the stage by the corporate owned media. For anyone to even suggest that Paul is PRO- drug; that’s just plain STUPID and only shows how people can draft an opinion without doing any of the homework. What he is for is decriminalizing drugs so that we can focus our attention on why so many people in our culture have felt it necessary to flat give up and throw their lives away instead of striving to become better citizens. The whole drug industry has become fused with undercurrents within our government, politicians, and law enforcement with investments in the prison system becoming big
business.

In case you two hadn’t realized, corporations had previously been required to show some evidence of worthiness in order to have their charters renewed. J.D. Rockefeller successfully broke that stipulation, ..... and look at what that family legacy has turned into. So, while the rest of the candidates on BOTH sides of the aisle have either had ties to Bilderberg or are still laboring under the misconception that “towelheads” are hiding in the woods near every US reservoir, the fact remains that our dysfunctional foreign policy has fanned the flames of hatred around the world and a complicit media has successfully duped our sports addicted, arm-chair public into thinking that our path has been a righteous one.

We are NOT supposed to have federal troops performing civilian law enforcement duties. If you had any sense of history, or the Constitution, you would know that, but I guess that’s why people are still thinking that those other candidates are still viable. Even Romney, scary as he is, who has been trying to get some mileage by merely mentioning the Constitution, had to defer to Ron Paul as the “Constitutional expert”, as he did in Iowa.

If some other candidate was demanding a repeal of the Patriot Act, steadfastly supporting the Constitution, and the restoration and recognition of state sovereignty, my loyalties might be torn, but there is no other candidate. Paul is it. You people really need to hit the books once in a while, .... really!

Try reading Judge Abel Upsher’s comment to Virginian Thomas Ritchie in the early 1830’s, when he stated that Virginia governor John Floyd would be right to call up the state’s militia to repel federal soldiers. Read that again. BTW, Upsher went on to become the Secretary of the Navy and then Secretary of State. Wrestle with that for a while and then ask yourself what the hell has gone so wrong such that corporations and banks would need the legislature to rewrite the loyalties of the National Guard in the Militia Act of 1903 to support the federal government instead of their respective states.

chip~~~  As for the Lunch counter thing Ron Paul compared it to you not having
to let every one into your house.
It’s a private property thing and nothing racist
——-

and it’s bullshit chip, because segregation was decreed by law at those lunch
counters in Birmingham

Birmingham Public Accomodation Segregation Laws

SECTION 369. SEPARATION OF RACES
It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place of the serving of food
in the city at which white and colored people are served in the same room,
unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid
partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher,
and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each
compartment.

——

Paul’s opposition to the Civil Rights Law is not worth defending. He’s an utter
ass.

Hey Diamond
We are talking about Ron Paul here.

Not Newt.

Newt Sux.

“that’s the least of the objections to this creepy poseur.”

I agree. But I don’t think the fact that this patriarchal dinosaur viciously pursued Bill Clinton over his Lewinsky entanglement and was so desperately keen to have him impeached while he himself was in the process of having an affair and leaving his first wife because she had cancer for his second wife who he left because she had MS - after trying to get her to agree to an ‘open’ marriage - can be ignored. The whole idea that someone who is so dishonest and unfeeling and with such obvious characteristics of a narcissistic psychopath could become president is terrifying. Wasn’t one Nixon enough? In fact, Gingrich is actually worse than Nixon because he’s a sex addict on top of all his other negative traits.

Ron Paul said “I would not end the CIA and the FBI I would prevent them from doing certain things. Like when the FBI investigated Martin Luther King and I would stop the CIA from torturing people”.

As for the Lunch counter thing Ron Paul compared it to you not having to let every one into your house.
It’s a private property thing and nothing racist

bob—- Paul is finished and will have zero influence
on Romney’s platform or anything else. he will have
nothing to say of any influence and never has.

in his 14 years in congress, Paul has sponsored 464
bills and never gotten any of them passed, but for a
single one that was both local and trivial—-

H.R. 2121: To authorize the Administrator of General
Services to convey a parcel of real property in
Galveston, Texas, to the Galveston Historical
Foundation.

he’s done nary a thing and he’s not going to
accomplish anything at the convention because his
candidacy was rejected and because he’ll now be
retiring…he’s a spent old man

and if you wanna say that Paul’s no worse a bigot
than you are, go right ahead. but please don’t make
that claim for the rest of us here.

Paul’s racism is no worse than any of ours. One does not sense that Paul hates
anyone. Anyway, he will get delegates and have the mojo to insert some relevant
improvements into the party platform, ultimately influencing policy.

Zing—-Paul would not only not let corporations
abolish the EPA, he would insist on abolishing it
himself and with attempting to see that it was never
possible to re-establish it or anything like it…...
just as he would do with most of federal agencies and
all the social programs.

eliminating income taxes AND (somehow) paying off the
national debt will see to it.

Hi Chip,

Apologies, but I just read your post, this one:

Here in KC I watched the EPA help sell off our contaminated
nuclear bomb plant. They told the folks wanting to buy it how to get
around the super fund law and now it is called a brown field instead.
The EPA hired a PR co. called “Skeo solutions” when it was the GSA
responsibility in the first place.

I too used to believe the EPA worked for the environment. It now
works for the money. Like the Dept of Forestry folks do

I agree with your assessment. The EPA is currently in a sorry state. 
But I do believe it’s sorry state is the result of Republicans and
Democrats who don’t believe in government. It also the result of
being in a state of perpetual war and not allocating the financial
and intellectual resources necessary to have an effective EPA. 

Make no mistake, however. If we abolish the EPA and let corporations
run wild, they will shit where we sleep, piss in our drinking water,
and vomit in our laps. With aplomb.   

Wow. Got a little carried away there, but my basic point is I
disagree with your logic. It’s like setting a house on fire (the EPA
under jackass and elephant rule the last thirty years) and then going
in after the fire and saying:  See, this house is unstable and it
stinks. Of course it does.  But it’s not the fault of the house; it’s
the fault of the politicians who set it on fire. 

In sum, I’d say Ron Paul would have my vote if he would moderate his
libertarian views. Sure. Stop the drug war. Stop the perpetual war
machine. But don’t be a corporate shill and abolish the EPA—that’s
exactly what multinational corporations want. They could then plunder
all our natural resources unimpeded.

If we keep the EPA and elect third-party politicians who actually
believe in benevolent governance, we could have an effective EPA. 

At any rate and as I’ve said before, I could be wrong. Time will
tell. I do enjoy your posts and appreciate what the supporters of Ron
Paul are doing.

All the best.

D.R. Zing

yeah, BR, it was too profound for me to fathom and I’ve
never read any of the sources from which your flotsam
was pulled.

Hi Chip,

I just wanted to say I really like your post below.

Here is your post again just ‘cause I think it’s cool:

Ron Paul is the only Anti war, Anti “support Israel”,
Anti Military industrial complex, anti prison industrial complex,
anti corporate industrial complex,
anti fed, candidate.
He even stole a quote from Sinclair Lewis,
referring to Huckaby standing in front of a book shelve that
resembled a cross saying “when fascism comes to America it will
come waving a flag and carrying a cross. He is also anti patriot
act and torture and surveillance.
As for Romney, up until 1978 the Mormon religion said the reason
black people were allowed to survive Noah’s flood was so Satin
would have representation on earth.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that says anything close to what the
left is asking for.
Watch the dude give a speech on c-span before you
vote for a “lesser evil” sell out.

All the best.

Zing

BR549:

Thank you for replying to my post. 

Thank you as well for the history lesson and the assessment of my
intellect.

You are correct. I am an idiot. 

When I get real big, I’m gonna read a book and learn to write. 

Hi madisolation,

I enjoy your posts. Why is being pro-dope and anti-war not enough to
vote for Ron Paul? 

The planet is about to wipe our ass.  We will need strong governments
at that time.  Read The Grapes of Wrath  to see what
corporations do when there is an environmental catastrophe.  They eat
people alive.  You need governments to regulate and reform corporations. 

I like Ron Paul like I would like a crazy old grandpa. Some of what he
says is funny, some of it makes sense, some of it is totally fucking
nuts. That would be cool if we were sitting on his front porch chewing the
fat. But the totally fucking nuts part does sit so well in The White
House. We could have had that with a McCain Palin presidency. 

At any rate, I could be wrong.  I respect the work Ron Paul supporters
are putting in. I appreciate the way Ron Paul rattles the cages of
baboons in charge of the Republican Party. And most importantly I
appreciate the way people like you and BR549 understand history and the
constitution.  I don’t disagree that we’ve buggered the constitution
and are heading down the wrong path.  I just have different ideas about
the solutions for the problems.

All the best.

D.R. Zing

Heterochromatic, so what you’re telling us, in your own unique little way, is that
you haven’t grasped a word I said.

yeah, BR, like fuck that 14th Amendment. it’s killing the planet and nobody ever
voted for it anyway. it was just pasted in there one night when all the decent folks
were abed.

I’m surprised you even signed the Constitution and didn’t realize from the get-go
that it was just a trick and unnecessary because the Articles of Confederation were
working out real well and the world was never going to change and the biggest
problem was whether the unlanded riff-raff, women and slaves might get to vote
and then join the other malefactors to destroy us all

madisolation,

You understand both men well, both Paul and that corporatist interloper, Obama.

Dr. Zingbat, here, and the majority of people haven’t got a single clue about how the banks and corporations have eroded this country, even from before our Civil War. We started out as sovereign citizens, from a collection of states which chose to align themselves through and empower the federal government with “limited powers”. Since then, through illegal assaults on our own Constitution from within, these flag waving chair warmers in Washington have made once sovereign citizens into bank chattel through vehicles such as the 14th amendment, the Federal Reserve, and Social Security. Forces, such as the British Crown, have been hell bent on saving face from the embarrassment of the Revolutionary War. And not much has changed since then, with the exception of a handful of truly honest politicians.

Meanwhile, someone like Ron Paul shows up on the scene and these Zingbats are so used to being abused by politicians that they couldn’t recognize an honest one if he walked in the front door. And their politicians are even providing the free Vaseline for these people. I had sold cars in the past and no matter how hard I tried to sell them honestly, I could never keep up with the shysters who always managed to attract a throng of dimwits willing to walk onto the sales floor ass first with their shorts down. The majority of Main Street America was willing to come back to the same salesman who had porked them the first time because taking the chance to find a NEW salesman and getting porked by someone new was more scary than giving in to the old abuse they were familiar with. That’s the way they viewed life, but don’t tell them that because they’d argue to the contrary.

The sad thing is that these “citizens” also vote.

chip~~~~ if you have any links to the bomb plant sell-off, would you be kind
enough to toss one to me?

dia- who the hell cares if Gingrich is a thrice married fucker?  that’s the least of
the objections to this creepy poseur.

Here in KC I watched the EPA help sell off our contaminated nuclear bomb plant. They told the folks wanting to buy it how to get around the super fund law and now it is called a brown field instead.
The EPA hired a PR co. called “Skeo solutions” when it was the GSA responsibility in the first place.

I too used to believe the EPA worked for the environment. It now works for the money. Like the Dept of Forestry folks do

A journalist called Mike Carlton has written the assessment of the Republican candidates that the US media should have written but hasn’t:

Mitt Romney: ‘...is the most worrying. If only because he’s likely to be the winner to go up against Barack Obama. He made his multimillions as a rip ‘n gouge venture capitalist…preying on the carcasses of struggling companies and turning fat profits by the traditional method of sacking half the workforce and flogging off the bare bones of what was left…Romney has an estimated $33 million stashed in the notorious tax haven of the Cayman Islands’.

Newt Gingrich: ‘...is the ultimate Washington insider, postures as an advocate of small government and family values but is a thrice married serial adulterer’.

Rick Santorum: ‘...a former senator from Pennsylvania and religious hardliner who frets incessantly about Darwinian evolution, abortion, sexual morality and euthanasia. Infamously, he once compared gay sex to ‘man on child, man on dog’‘.

Ron Paul: ‘But even Santorum pales against the maddest of the lot, the Texas Congressman, Ron Paul, who wants to chainsaw half of the government in Washington and return the US dollar to the gold standard, and who believes the UN is a vast global conspiracy to deprive America of God and guns. Inexplicably described as a Libertarian he is in fact another wacko moralizer infamous for pronouncing that “homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities”. On the economic troubles besetting the US Paul thinks only that “it’s amazing that people don’t understand that the more the market is involved and the smaller the government, the lower the price, the better the distribution, and the higher the quality”. Apparently he has never heard of Lehman Brothers’.

Carlton also thinks that the Republican candidates should collectively let us know when our next war is starting so we can be prepared. Harsh, but fair, I would say.

Thanks David for making the case that Paul’s bigotry
isn’t necessarily “unacceptable” bigotry…... we we
pretend real hard.

Of course all the other insane and absurd and stupid
stuff also might not be ” unacceptable” insane and
absurd and stupid stuff either…..

As far as Obama goes, the EPA doesn’t mean anything more to him than the Constitution. If nothing else, if Ron Paul can stop the ecological devastation caused by all these wars, he would be doing more than Obama and his EPA have done since the wars began.
Remember how the EPA acted during the Gulf Oil Disaster?
I think we have more of a chance to get a hearing with Paul than with Obama. Only corporations get a hearing with Obama, and we know corporations don’t give a flying crap about the environment.

“Ron Paul is anti-war and pro-dope.
That reason enough to like him.
But not enough to vote for him.”
R.R. Zing, why is that not enough to vote for him?

He wants to abolish the EPA, correct?
So you know
there is anti-war and pro-dope
which is good
and there’s abolishing the EPA
which is stupid.

We are facing an ecological meltdown in the next 40 years during
which population growth and a collapse of the ecosystem could
potentially result in hundreds of millions if not billions of people
dying from starvation and thirst. Wanting to abolish the
Environmental Protection Agency and not offering a viable alternative
as we face the worst ecological catastrophe in the history of
humanity is a leap into whacko land. 

I’m all for alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans.  Just
give me one who is not demented.

it’s the method that the corporate media and war machine use…

to try to hide their own bigotry…

by shining their spotlight elsewhere…

in hopes that folks won’t see all the prejudices…

that they (the corporate media and war machine) themselves have…

and like had said before…

most of those running this nation have strayed far away from our constitution…

ron paul’s work record shows his message…

and that’s more of a step towards correction than any other top contenders…

it’s gonna take a major overhaul of the whole system…

since the government’s operations are in such a massive mess…

and that mess is what needs to be corrected…

and to correct any mess means to be rid of the mess…

and the best tools we got are we-the-people as a whole!...

and as far as the most viable major individual tool in this presidential election goes…

the best tool this’un sees is ron paul!...

hence this ex-forty-year democrat who’s now a no-party-affiliation…

will no doubt re-register republican for the primary’s designation…

Sirota has an all too obvious case of optical rectitis; where the optic nerve gets
crossed with the anal sphincter and the victim develops a shitty outlook on life.
Who’s next on Sirota’s inquisition, Gandhi, Mother Teresa? How about Marie
Osmond or Dolly Parton?

Since Mr. Sirota has an obvious bias and no sense of objectivity, what the hell is
Scheer doing allowing this idiot to blather on with his perpetuation of distorted
falsehoods?

democratic socialism of all isms best protects the neediest and weakest
members of society.
social democrats are active in every european land and have proven that
they are best at looking out for working class.
libertarianism appears one of the worst in this regard. it advocates ever
greater individual ‘liberties’ and which would privatize warfare also.
and the rich people in usa already enjoy greater ‘liberties’ than any
elsewhere in the world.
in addition, all he’s doing is heaping ‘promises’. and all promises are lies!
thanks

On the one hand, 6 sentences that a man says he didn’t write, on the other hand hundreds, if not thousands of hours of videos, speeches, books, 6 million sentences that we know he wrote & spoke that have no racist undertones. Lets go with the 6 sentences….not.
Our other choice is the man who, when asked of Bush’s war crimes & treason said we should focus on the future & not the past. How quickly we forget that Bush stole his 1st and 2nd presidencies. But it’s all good with Obama, who won Best Marketing Campaign of 2008.
Mr. Sirota, you do this country a great disservice. If this article is a ploy to secure a job in mainstream/establishment media, you’re well on your way. Keep selling out and regurgitating misinformation and you will reach your goal.

Ron Paul is the only Anti war, Anti “support Israel”,
Anti Military industrial complex, anti prison industrial complex, anti corporate industrial complex,
anti fed, candidate.
He even stole a quote from Sinclair Lewis,
referring to Huckaby standing in front of a book shelve that resembled a cross saying “when fascism comes to America it will come waving a flag and carrying a cross. He is also anti patriot act and torture and surveillance.
As for Romney, up until 1978 the Mormon religion said the reason black people were allowed to survive Noah’s flood was so Satin would have representation on earth.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that says anything close to what the left is asking for.
Watch the dude give a speech on c-span before you
vote for a “lesser evil” sell out.

Ron Paul is anti-war and pro-dope.
That reason enough to like him.
But not enough to vote for him.

D.R. Zing

“In general your viewpoint is rather confused—it’s not clear whether you are endorsing Communism or Keynesianism.  A more realistic view would acknowledge that the powers a Keynesian would grant to the federal government DO create a potential for tyranny (eg states of emergency, endless war, corporate infiltration of the state, financing the desires of corporations through debt, etc) and that strong democratic institutions (eg citizen activism as well as a responsible separation and balance of powers) are required to oversee them.”

Do I have to endorse either? Naturally if I had to choose I would choose Keynes over Stalin any time. You completely misunderstand Keynes, who was essentially a pacifist who believed that the roots of war were economic. Only now in the 21st century do we really comprehend how right he was. He wrote a wonderful book after WWI on the Treaty of Versailles, ‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace’,pointing out that America, Britain and Europe had completely failed to defend the hard won peace and had instead put in place a Carthaginian peace in the form of the Treaty of Versailles that would create the economic circumstances for war in Germany and would lead to a war that would make WWI like a kindergarten outing. Of course, he was right and he was right about everything else too, and as time goes by it becomes more and more obvious how right he was.

‘And that strong democratic institutions (eg citizen activism as well as a responsible separation and balance of powers) are required to oversee them.”

Very true, but Ron Paul is a fundamentalist Christian who doesn’t even believe in the separation of powers. What he does believe is that the poor are sinners who must be punished lest they breed and take all the goodies off the rich. His sole interest is in dismantling social justice (such as it is)and the income tax system and abolishing the Federal Reserve. This is the kind of deceitful scapegoating that the right always goes in for. He poses as a pacifist but he completely lacks Keynes’ understanding of what causes wars because he would put in place a system so unjust that it would probably lead to riots and wholesale social unrest and generate more wars in foreign lands created by economic collapse.

It seems to me, in fact, that this is how the system works: create injustice and instability in foreign lands and at home so that there is always somewhere to invade and occupy and always working class recruits for the army. These constant foreign wars also keep Americans from looking at their own free market, socially unjust system and realizing how oppressed they are. Any power creates the POTENTIAL for tyranny, but the antidote is not the tyranny Ron Paul is proposing. Two wrongs don’t make a right, except when it’s Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.

@madisolation

Yes, I do agree that the Obama policies, a.k.a corporate america policies are despicable including the
wars that the conservatives especially want of an endless amount of. But what is also true is that 99% of
us don’t have to fight these corporate wars: that is the 1% of us in the military and even a smaller
amount (the army) who have to actually actually be in the ground to fight. So as far as I and most are
concerned, let those (the fighters) of these wars who actually see the futility of these corporate games
voice their opinions of the waste in these wars. What is the excuse of the people who have first hand
knowledge of these futile wars who voice no opinion and merely follow orders??? What is their civic
responsibility? What is it in them that they have to merely follow orders? Do they question for whom are
they following orders? Granted, that many servicemen and women are not highly educated to realize the
global game that the elites are playing but if they will not rise up who can actually claim to have to an
intimate knowledge of what’s going on in the ground, who can actually claim that they have a
legitimate and intimate claim for the lie in these wars?

Thank you, scott425, for the great comments.

“Paul’s followers in
general tend to be shallow thinkers that have NEVER pondered the implications of his social policies.”

Well, my, my. Aren’t you quite the intellectual? Who did you vote for in 2008? Obama? Did you ponder the implications of his social policies when he stuffed his cabinet with Rubin and Summers and all those wonderful “savvy businessmen?”
Hint: Social policies aren’t going to mean much if we don’t have the money to implement them, because our corporate politicians have spent the last of our dollars waging wars no one wants and/or have given every last cent to their corporate friends.

The major attacks against Ron Paul are coming from both the republican and democratic parties, both of which fear he will take votes from their chosen candidate. 

I am not a Ron Paul supporters, and under no circumstances would I vote for him.  But I want him to stay in the campaign, as a third party if necessary.  Everyone who is progressive should demand that all our politicians address the legitimate issues raised by Ron Paul:  shut down the foreign bases, end the wars, and bring the troops home.  Stop the quest for corporate empire which is being financed off the backs of America’s working people.

I was a little surprised to see the onslaught of “Paul is a Racist” attacks from all sides which began a few weeks ago.  How can the Republicans call anybody a racist, the party of the Willie Horton ads?  How can the democrats call anyone a racist?  Which presidential candidate was it (Bill Clinton) who took off time in the middle of his campaign to return to Arkansas and oversee the execution of a brain-dead black prisoner.  Come on.  Which party (both) have received millions in bribes and kick-backs to support the institutional enslavement of black and hispanic males in the prison system.  The lucrative prison system.  They have no standing to raise the issue of racism.

Then I started hearing the mantra that Ron Paul is an anti-semite.  So I did some research, trying to figure out the factual basis for that claim.  As best I could find, the rabid right-winger David Horowitz first made this allegation.  Credibility from that source?  I think not.  So I dug some more.  And it turns out that the objection to Ron Paul is that he favors cutting off the Four Billion Dollars per year that is sent to Israel, stolen out of the bank accounts of American working people.  He is suddenly an anti-semite because he opposes the criminal financial cartel which steals money from Americans, sends it to Israel, takes a big chunk off the top and launders it back into the U.S. where it is paid to our politicians in bribes and kick-backs.  Is there any rational person who does not oppose that criminal enterprise, other than those who profit from it.  Other than the opposition to Israel:  I could not find anything.

I would also note that I hope to live so long as to see a major political candidate attacked as being sexist, as all these candidates are.  Why don’t the democrats have a commitment to 50% women in the Senate and House, in the mayors and governor’s spot, in the professors and partners in law firms, in all our jobs in this country?  Why not?  Useless sympathy for women, backed up by nothing.  That’s the democrats. 

The Republicans are vicious in their hatred of women.  Rick “Call Me Jesus” Santorum wants to rip the birth control out of the hands of American women and send them to the bedroom to breed.  We all know about these moralistic prig Catholic men.  Our nation is littered with their victims.  Mitt Romney is a leader in a highly secret cult that orders women to be breeders and servants.  Newt Gingrich has so many ex-wives and girlfriends that nobody can keep count.  He doesn’t get rid of wives just because they’re old—he dumps them when they get sick.

So how about a little righteous indignation about the sexism of these candidates, the agreement to violate the rights of 1/2 the people in this country?  As for the charge of racism:  they’re all racist.  You know how to solve the problem of racism?  Affirmative action, which both parties oppose.  There you go.

Yeah, yeah Ron Paul has struck a chord with both sides of the ideological spectrum. Ok, so what??? And
his religious followers are very gung-ho!. Ok, so what again.?! He has managed to co-opt the non-ever-
politically involved, never-before-I’ve given-a-second-thought-about-the world-around-me, gee that
sounds enticing that I’m willing to follow a messiah because I don’t have too many purposes in life and
therefore give me a reason to cope with this consumer madness culture of ours. I will follow you to the
end of times. He has managed to tap into the souls into believing that greed is good if only unlimited
greed is allowed to flourish and that no harm can come in the end. Nice fantasy! Ron Paul’s followers in
general tend to be shallow thinkers that have NEVER pondered the implications of his social policies.
They simply want a one-size-fits-all, give me a simple bumper sticker of what’s wrong with this world in
black & white just like I see in my favorite Hollywood good versus bad films. And please, no nuance, it
spoils the plot!

To me the only surprise is that it took so long for ‘financialization’ to become an unregulated crime syndicate and for the unregulated global greedfest to destroy the economies of Britain, Europe and America. Dr. Paul lives in a fantasy world where you only need to put the perfect system in place and human frailty will be cured. Those who ran the Third Reich and the Soviet Union believed the same thing. But the truth is, if you don’t create a system for human beings you will be forced to attempt to create human beings for your system. This always, repeat always, leads to inhumane, totalitarian systems.

This is a really fantastical line of reasoning.  Dr. Paul is not embracing an idealistic form of government—on the contrary his is a radically fallibist view of government.  Namely, that once you concentrate power federally then those bureaucrats you enabled won’t want to give it up.  They will even create states of emergency and endless wars if they have to.  In short, from Paul’s perspective the USA’s path in the 30s and beyond hasn’t been all that different from that of the Soviet Union.
Equating Paul with totalitarian ideology is grossly mistaken.

In general your viewpoint is rather confused—it’s not clear whether you are endorsing Communism or Keynesianism.  A more realistic view would acknowledge that the powers a Keynesian would grant to the federal government DO create a potential for tyranny (eg states of emergency, endless war, corporate infiltration of the state, financing the desires of corporations through debt, etc) and that strong democratic institutions (eg citizen activism as well as a responsible separation and balance of powers) are required to oversee them.

“Dr. Paul is a student of Mises and Rothbard, not Keynes.”

And you say that as if it’s a good thing. Keynes was a man of practicality and good sense, the other two are spinmeisters and flim flam men of the first order and Ron Paul agrees with everything they’ve ever thought, said or written. No argument there.

It’s all so easy for ‘Dr. Paul’ to pretend that the mess America’s in is because the flawed and failed free market, economic rationalist doctrine he believes in has never been tried. The truth is, it has been tried - and tried and tried and tried. What do you think brought Chile to its knees when the Chicago university economists were let loose on that country? Why do you think there are abandoned factories all over America and millions unemployed if not that this failed doctrine has been rammed down everyone’s throats since Reagan and Margaret Thatcher got their hands on power? It was tried in the 1920s too and that caused the Great Depression. To me the only surprise is that it took so long for ‘financialization’ to become an unregulated crime syndicate and for the unregulated global greedfest to destroy the economies of Britain, Europe and America. Dr. Paul lives in a fantasy world where you only need to put the perfect system in place and human frailty will be cured. Those who ran the Third Reich and the Soviet Union believed the same thing. But the truth is, if you don’t create a system for human beings you will be forced to attempt to create human beings for your system. This always, repeat always, leads to inhumane, totalitarian systems.

Ron Paul is another in a long line of ‘process men’ who have blighted America’s political landscape. But the inescapable fact is, the economy should exist to serve the needs of human beings - what else could it possibly be for? If it exists only to be an exemplar of some economic doctrine then it has failed, even if a tiny elite makes huge amounts of money out of it. That’s where Keynes succeeded: he never separated the economy from human needs. He understood the idea of the social contract. He understood that the economy had to work for human beings, not the other way round. Ron Paul doesn’t understand this and it is a failing that makes him unfit for high political office.

What happened in Chile would have been a warning to anyone other than the free market zealots that infest the far right of American politics. What happened to Chile would also eventually happen to America under the free market mania of the neo cons:

‘...when foreign exporters began to flood Chile with mass-produced clothing from Korea, Hong Kong and other cheap labour areas, many Chilean manufacturers went out of business…Chile’s well-established textile industry all but collapsed and hundreds of smaller Chilean manufacturers went bankrupt. Thousands of workers found themselves out of jobs as the factories shut down’ (Chavkin, p. 241).
For those Chileans fortunate enough to still have a job, wages plunged to $180 a month which was scarcely enough to keep a family housed, clothed and fed and costs skyrocketed to such an extent that living in the cities of Chile soon cost more than living in Washington or Boston. Foreign companies made billions but the Chilean taxpayer had no benefit from their huge profits and their tax money went to the Junta which used it to oppress them. The new Chilean constitution gave the Junta nine years to implement its destruction of liberal democracy.’
(From ‘The Murder Of Chile’, Samuel Chavkin)

And, having destroyed the Chilean economy with the exact policies Ron Paul is espousing they went back to America and the Chilean taxpayers had to ‘bail’ the economy out. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

David Sirota worked for AIPAC.  This is a hit job by the Israeli lobby supporters. 

Look up his bio on wikipedia and you will see he was an employee of AIPAC and
they are trying to make Ron Paul supporters into racists since thats the only
defense they have against his message-now how is that for a real truth dig?

David Sirota’s worst nightmare:
  http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=frV

Diamond, here’s what he says about what passes for “capitalism” and the “free market” at present: “Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven’t had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It’s not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military-industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!”

In other words, what we live under now is a perversion of genuine, Austrian-style lassiez-faire capitalism. Dr. Paul is a student of Mises and Rothbard, not Keynes.

It’s really sad that after all the discourse on Paul over the last month there are still progressives out there who think Paul would “hand over the republic to the highest corporate bidder.”

If you’re going to disagree with Paul (and Lord knows I disagree with much of his program) then at least have enough respect for the man to object to what is objectionable, and not simply assume he’s another corporate friendly GOPer.

The reality is Paul’s contributions are mostly from ordinary people.  The program they expect from Paul is the following

1) Use the bully pulpit to critique the Fed and expose the role corporate power in government, and promote Constitutionalism.

2) Prosecute corporate criminals and war criminals to the fullest extent of the law.

3) Pardon non-violent drug offenders in federal prisons.

4) Bring home the troops and close bases.

and once that’s done

5) Minimize and streamline federal government as much as possible.  This does not include ending Social Security or Medicare, as Paul has specifically argued he would do what he can to preserve those programs, at least in his first term.

If you’re going to attack Paul, attack him on environmentalist grounds.  Attack him for potentially allowing abortion to be outlawed in the States, or potentially approving pro-life judges. 

What I mean is—attack him based on substance, and not based on stereotype.  In order to do that, you need to learn about what he stands for and critique it in good faith.  And in that process of learning, you might actually grow a little philosophically and escape from the left/right boxes we’ve been conditioned to rot in.

In any case, what Paul most certainly IS NOT is a friend of corporate governance, or corporate interference in our government and markets.

The problem with Ron Paul is simple. He claims he will end the wars but as a Libertarian wedded to the free market, economic rationalist claptrap that has created the wars he is making a promise he cannot keep. In this system the wars and occupations occur in the same morals-free zone as corporate takeovers. And Ron Paul will not harm a hair of that system’s pretty little head. It is a fact that many corporations benefited from the invasion of Iraq:

“October 2001 – February 2003
Fired up by 9/11 and their easy victory in Afghanistan the neo-cons draw up a counter plan, Plan B. This involves a year long occupation in order to turn Iraq into a free market poster child. The 101 page secret document becomes a grab bag of goodies for insider lobbyists who fill it with corporate benefits such as copyright protections for Microscoft and Sanyo at the same time as they draw up the CPP (Comprehensive Privatization Program) to sell off all Iraqi state assets,‘especially the oil’” (from ‘Armed Madhouse’, Greg Palast)).

And, of course, the arms corporations and the oil companies always make a killing whenever there’s a war. So of course they’re always planning the next war: their lives revolve around war and their livelihoods depend on it. Essentially the wars and occupations are America’s ‘business model’ and Ron Paul’s solution to it is to do away with income tax, social security and pensions as well as the Federal Reserve. He is saying to voters, ‘I’ll end the foreign wars but continue the war on the American working class even though capital won it long ago.’ Not so much a New Deal as a Faustian bargain.

It’s like claiming you’ll fix a pier and only fixing the walkway while the whole structure is held up by rotten wood. Ron Paul and his Libertarian beliefs are part of the system that produces endless war and so he cannot be the solution.

Sirota’s long-standing habit is to find racism under every rock, so this column shouldn’t be taken as a hit piece on Ron Paul. 
In Sirota’s defense, at least he acknowledges the man as a candidate.

On the Today show this morning, last night’s Repub debate in SC was covered without a single reference to Ron Paul.
No quote, no mention whatsoever. 
Except for a wide angle shot that included him behind the podium, it was as if Paul wasn’t even there.

The Mainstream Media’s bias against him is beyond palpable.

‘Bird & Paul_GA, take a look at Sirota’s article on Paul from two weeks ago. 
Wasn’t carried by TruthDig (why not?), but Salon had it here.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/what_makes_a_progressive_president/singleton/

i suggest one look for some evidence, some signs, etc., before one concludes not only that usa [and with or
without help from some arab and european lands] would invade iran, but also that the invasion would be
perped solely or largely on behalf of israel.

i think that evidence strongly suggests that it is by now mostly a shemitc pop of israel; i.e., nonashkenazic
peoples [iraqis, yemenis, ethiopeans, n. afrikans, lebanese] who are being used for at least 40 yrs by
ashkenazim, european and the two americas’ lands.
there was no way ashkenazim would have been able to establish a state of their own in a region that they had
had no connection with [save mosheism; i.e., a cultic one only] without the help of christians and even
communists.
i suggest that christians and communists have helped ashkenazim establish a state of their own where they
never belonged [and from which even now 90% stay away] not because they had any love for them [still less for
any shemites], but because fear/hate for muslims and because of oil.

and israel, i aver, is a very good policeman and beach head for the west.
btw? how/why ashkenazim have duped communisists, some other time!

BrooklynDame and ‘Big B’: You all really need to educate yourselves…

Ron Paul 2012!

BrooklynDame, change is always frightening, but frankly, I’d rather have the controlled change of Ron Paul than the catastrophic change of the warmongers and their “same, old same”.

Big B, what bizarre arguments you make: “Ron Paul wants to end wars for the wrong reasons!” “If he ended the wars, what’s the guarantee that he’d spend the money we’ve saved correctly?”
Meanwhile, Obama has no intention of ending any war—indeed he’s quite all right with ratcheting up a war with Iran for the sake of Israel, and Mitt’s right in lockstep. And you’re criticizing Ron Paul for what he might do with the money we’d have if he ended the Obama’s wars? That’s absurd.
Ron Paul does not think of war only in terms of money. Here is what he wrote in 2007:
“..the true nature of war must be laid bare, and the glorification must end. Instead of promoting war heroes with parades and medals for wars not fought in the true defense of our country, we should more honestly contemplate the real results of war: death, destruction, horrible wounds, civilian casualties, economic costs, and the loss of liberty at home.

“The neoconservative belief that war is inherently patriotic, beneficial, manly, and necessary for human progress must be debunked. These war promoters never send themselves or their own children off to fight. Their hero, Machiavelli, must be buried once and for all. “

And I hate to break it to you, Big B, the fate of America has already been handed over to multinational corporations: Clinton set the table, and then Bush and now Obama have allowed the corporations to take what was rightfully ours, from the fruits of our labor and now, with the NDAA, our freedom.

We’re saying the same thing. Personally, I think the amount of support that Ron
Paul has is frightening.

http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2012/01/ron-paul-is-trailing-in-
republican-primaries-should-we-be-happy/

Question for Sirota:  Why does Paul have more minority support than any other republican candidate?

My understanding, Big B, is that Dr. Paul wants to end the stupid wars both for moral and economic reasons; that they’re related. Read anything on the subject of war and the State by Murray Rothbard or Ludwig von Mises. And the story about his being “racist” ... I accept his claims that he neither wrote or approved the 1992 newsletter. Face facts—he’s the ONLY antiwar candidate. And ending the idiotic wars and the Empire is THE issue. Put Obama back in the White House, and you get warmonger-lite, who may or may not start WWIII to make the world safe for Israel; put any other Repub in the White House, and you get America vs. the world, with this country as the Evil Empire, definitely “making the world safe for Israel”. For me, the choice is clear.

And if Dr. Paul is not the Repub candidate, I’ll vote third-party. And damn the rest to Perdition, where they belong!

sirota employs yet another prestidigitation when he unduly and needlessly appears
over individualistical [instead of more or much more collectivistical] in blaming
obama, and a few others for “supporting bigoted civil-liberties atrocities”.
according to MSM columnists, it is always a prez, a congress, a few congress
people, a few policy makers and never all prezes; [most or ALL] congresspeople,
MSM columnists, policy makers, pentagons, ‘educators’, christians, judaists, et al
who are also responsible for spread of the racial divide, less freedoms, hatred
between american voelker and their angst of and hatred for the two herrenvoelker
in usa; ashkenazim and and anglos. thanks

i did not read Big B’s comment before posting mine. i thank him/her for saying
that paul does no say that killing innocent people is “morally reprehensible”. i also
add that usa [and, of course, not only usa] wars are also criminal. i expect Big B to
agree also with this evaluation or namecall/pigeoholing.
===
about ‘goodoldusa’? it had always been a hell for some and heaven for some
others! alas, to continue to be so for decades or even centuries!!!!
thanks

ron paul opposes usa wars or says he does. but does he think that these wars are often motivated by
islamophobia as does sirota?
as far as i know, ron paul does not oppose usa wars of aggression on any panhuman principle. he only gives
reasons why usa should not be warring so much.
we all know these reasons. the Left in usa also affirms them over and over and i do not think i need once
again to enumerate the reasons posited.
what to me is of greatest import is the fact that hardly anyone ever condemns on a rule or principle all wars
of aggression.
i am also islamophobic. but if i led a econo-militarily strong country i would never wage wars against
muslims and precisely because i am an islamophobe. [of course, i’d fear attacking russia, korea, or china
also]
and if had been as strongly asocialistic as paul, bush, obama i just might revisit vietnam and pay them back
from humiliating usa [but don’t discount that ron paul would do just that once surrounded by pentagon, cia,
fbi, bankers, congress, christians MSM, judiciary, ‘educators’, false flags operations, et al/etc]

and why does sirota speak of motivations for wars?  and not of causes for all wars and not just those of
onepercenter’s in the ‘goodoldusa’?
is it because it is quite MSMish to try to deceive americans who cannot perceive situation properly. such as?
that motivation is s’mthing quite different than a casus belli or the FIRTS CAUSE for all wars.
or do most americans know what i have just said, but either do not care or feel it in their bones that they
cannot do anything about it? thanks

I hate to break the news to you madisolation, but how do you think that any wars are going to end after pres Paul hands the keys of the white house over to the highest corporate bidder?

Besides, have you ever heard Ron Paul say that he wants to end the war because its morally reprehensible to kill people. No. He wants to end it for financial reasons. Think about that for a moment.

Would pres paul take the savings from not waging war and guarantee the long term health of social security and medicare? No. He has already said that the old, infirmed and handicapped are on their own.

If we did elect Ron Paul, and he did end the war, but at the same time handed the fate of america over to multinational corporations and the uber wealthy, we would then realize that we might as well end the wars because their would be nothing left back here in america to fight for.

Why is it progressive writers always have to end with the disclaimer: “To be clear: Noting this hypocrisy is not meant to urge a vote for Paul (I’m not a Paul supporter).” As if they want to make sure everyone understands: “I’m a peace-loving progressive, but I won’t support Ron Paul, even if it means an end to war and a restoration of our right not be assassinated on the whims of the president. No siree, not me. Twenty-year-old newsletters, you see. Why, I’d rather Obama bomb Iran to smithereens in 2013 than support Ron Paul. I’d rather be rounded up by the military than support Ron Paul. I’m a proud progressive, that’s my logic, and I’m sticking to it.”
Tribalism at its finest.
Progressives would do well to read John Walsh’s column at antiwar.com today. An excerpt:

“On a personal note going to NH this time was a dream deferred. In 1968 when others went “Clean for Gene,” I had a schedule that demanded I work every day, every other night and every other weekend. Never did I imagine that all these decades later the antiwar action would be on the Republican side. It appears that the “progressive” Left, not a genuine left or radical formation anyway, has lost a generation of activists with its subservience to Obama and its lack of spine. One begins to wonder about the entire Progressive movement. Perhaps when a genuine Left wing movement reemerges, it should give up on the very name “progressive”– or again to borrow a phrase from Lenin, “take off the soiled shirt.”

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2012/01/19/progressives-cover-themselves-with-shame-in-nh-2012-no-repeat-of-1968/