Comments on We Told You Ron Paul Was Popular (and raising the money)
Still crazy though.
I really hope he gets the nomination. It would destroy the Republican Party forever. There would be four independent candidates on the center-right. The implosion would make people forget about Goldwater's famous loss.
I think it says more about McCain's campaign than Paul's, and about the GOP in general. I also think it says that the war is now so unpopular the the Dems will not be crippled by their gaffes, and despite their best efforts to choke at the last minute, will pull off a win.
Is Paul popular or has McCain joined the wacko brigade?
Fnarf, I'll play: care to tell me one "crazy" thing about Ron Paul? One, just one. Pick the best of the extremely wide range of crazy you perceive and we'll discuss it.
I happen to think Ron Paul's the least crazy candidate of either party. Huh.
Buckwheat,
One example of Ron Paul's craziness: he opposes the creation of a cabinet level Department of Jesus. And THAT'S why he will never, ever win the Republican primary.
He's a true believer, SStarr, but doesn't want government to push it. That's not a dealbreaker to win the GOP nomination. In fact, I sincerely believe he's going to win it and then crush Hillary in the general.
But enough of my prattling; what saith Fnarf?
Wow more money then WALNUTS. Finally McCain has found someone slightly less (more?) crazy then himself.
Buckwheat: Thats the funniest thing I have seen all day. Thanks!
Here some fun Ron Paul moments
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5
He also opposes the UN, wants to abolish the FDA, FEMA, and the EPA.
Oh and he looks like Ross Perot, except if its possible, smaller.
Actually I could probably delete everything above and just say "libertarian".
whenever i read or hear the name Ron Paul, for some reason i immediately think "that porn guy? he's running for president?!" then i quickly realize, no, that i'm thinking of course of Ron Jeremy. i think it's because they both are named Ron plus have last names that are usually first names. ha!
If Ron Paul gains real "legitimacy" in the public eye, he's going to start raising a LOT of money. If he wins the republican nomination, I would be shocked if he didn't obliterate records. Every corporation in the country will be drooling money at the thought of complete deregulation.
Giffy,
I said name one crazy thing, and you picked a racially offensive article written 15 years ago by a low-level Paul aide who was immediately fired. See Paul's wikipedia page for the story.
Your choice of "most crazy" thing about Paul is telling -- an ad hominem, not policy.
Buckwheat, no that was one thing, not the only thing. As I said above, he wants to abolish most governmental agencies. I say crazy to that.
He wants the US out of the UN and sees every trade agreement or treaty to be a monumentus attack on sovereignty. I say crazy to that.
Pretty much his only non crazy position is that he would get us out of Iraq. However he comes to that from bad reasoning. Sort of like how the crazy on the bus might hate Bush, but he does so because he believes Bush is controlling his thoughts through magic crickets.
Um, point of order, kids. He has more money on hand than McCain. McCain raised orders of magnitude more than Ron Paul, but he burns through it quickly. Paul raised $2.4 million this quarter and has that much on hand (he doesn't travel), McCain raised $11.2 million in the same time but has $2 million on hand.
Ron Paul's crazy ass is not more popular than John McCain.
Ron Paul wants to go off the Gold Standard. There's one.
He wants to pull the US out of the UN. That's two.
ron paul is a libertarian.
as SOCIAL libertarians, we're going to agree with SOME of his platform (the USA mind your own fucking business part), but disagree with others (the unrealistic free-market ideology).
I'm sorry, Friday afternoon brain fade: Paul wants to go BACK ON the Gold Standard, not go off it. This would of course cause every finance minister in the world to laugh hysterically while they cashed out of every dollar-denominated security they owned before our economy collapsed.
He's still Republican, but hides it on his placards in an effort to win Dem votes. That's three.
the abolition of the federal reserve. that is another crazy thing.
Paul having more than McCain just means that McCain is dead in the water.
Hell, even I have more money on hand than McCain.
@10,
I don't know about that. If Paul is a real libertarian, he opposes all corporate welfare. Corporations get more back from subsidies alone, not to mention special tax breaks and government pork, than they contribute to political campaigns. I doubt most corporate leaders embrace a true free market. Big government is just too lucrative.
@17 I don't know. Making the government hoard a shit load of gold sounds like fun. Think of all the harebrained schemes to steal it that one could concoct.
Not to mention that I could go to a bank and demand 1/400 an ounce of gold for my one US dollar.
@22 All the gold ever mined is worth only $3 trillion. If we wanted back on the gold standard, particularly with the gold reserves we have on hand, our economy would go fucking insane and our currency would be worthless.
@23, we'll have to make more gold then. Alchemy to the rescueueueueueue....
RON PAUL supports --
-- legalizing medicinal marijuana
-- legalizing industrial hemp
-- small government
-- no more Iraq war
-- no more pre-emptive war
-- abolishing the IRS
-- getting rid of the Federal Reserve
-- efficient use of taxpayer money
-- reduced inflation of the US dollar
-- I'm just getting started here people...
By Seattle standards, you would have to a complete nutcase to argue against Ron Paul. Which means most of the nutcases posting anti-Ron Paul material on this blog are not from Seattle.
If you are worried about not having the IRS or Federal Reserve anymore, all you need to know is that 100% of the income tax you pay out of your paycheck gets pocketed as pure profit by the private international bankers who comprise the "Federal" Reserve. None of it goes toward American services or infrastructure -- NOT ONE PENNY.
I am so peeved at the two parties right now I would vote for Pol Pot. Wouldn’t that be a hoot, Pol Pot Goes To Washington. Think of the neat monuments he could make out of our elected representatives! I voted for Kerry, now that was a wasted vote. I voted for the Dems in the last election, and we have more troops in Iraq then before. The Dems make me feel like a tard for wasting the stamps I slapped on that last ballot. As far as I can tell, Pol Pot is not going to run, so I guess it will have to be Ron Paul. He wants to abolish the CIA!
Hey Exposed, would those be the international JEW bankers Ron loves to talk about. Taxes pay for services. Yes its deposited in banks, were the fuck else would you put it. Oh ya in gold bullion, thats the low inflation part right.
Small government is a silly idea in a modern society. Name one were it has worked, just one. Personally I like government regulating things and providing services. Unlike Ron I don't believe that the "free market fairy" will solve everything.
Yah libertarians often have some nice social ideals, but they come to them from no-government nuttiness. Most Seattlites, myself included actually see a role for government in society.
I realize the following might not sound crazy to everyone, but it scares the shit outta me!!
The following is from Ron Paul's website, describing his stance on "the issues".
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.(ummm, Ron? Are you implying that abortion is never medically necessary, or just never was for any of your patients?)
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.(But Ron, how do we know when conception has taken place? Would you seek to ban the use of contraceptives that may inhibit implantation, such as the IUD, EC and birth control pills?)
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.(I'm actually speechless right now)
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”(so, no more family planning money, huh? That's fucking great Ron, I can't wait to have five more kids!!!)
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life. (Ain't that the truth...)
Really a link to his issue page is argument enough for his crazy http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
And beks, it scares me too. The guys a nut.
From Daily Kos a few weeks ago: "Yesterday the House passed landmark civil rights legislation, H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, by a vote of 422-2. The bill, sponsored by Representatives John Lewis (D-GA) and Kenny Hulshof (R-MO), would re-open hate crime cases during the Civil Rights Era, focusing on investigating and prosecuting murder cases occurring prior to 1970.
The two votes against? Georgia's Lynn Westmoreland and that darling of people who aren't paying close enough attention to reality, Ron Paul."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/21/22292/3158
Of course, I'm sure Paul makes a states'-rights argument. You know, like the Confederacy! And George Wallace! This guy should not be okay for any progressive.
Look at the Bush administration. Probably the single worst thing about it is not the cantalope-brained dude at the top, but the spectacularly low grade of people he has surrounded himself with, from Michael "heckuva job" Brown to Monica Goodling at the DoJ to the 24-year-old kid with no job experience who was supposed to create the Iraqi stock market. Look at the damage those people did. Now imagine the kind of people Ron Paul would put in those jobs.
Absolutely terrifying.
Giffy -- you mention some of the institutions Ron Paul wants to get rid of, and FEMA is one of them, as is the FDA. Neither of these is high on Paul's target list, but the libertarian arguments against these government branches are strong; for example, the FDA kills an unknown number of Americans each year by forbidding them from taking medicines the FDA hasn't approved. Often these medicines have been in use in Europe for years. But instead of getting rid of it, we keep the FDA because we're conditioned to think it's protecting us, when drug companies alone would do a better job. FEMA's failures are well-known as well, and private insurance would protect people better from natural catastrophe.
Anthow -- bringing up this Emmett Till bill the way you did is like when people say "Ron Paul voted against a Congressional Medal of Honor for Rosa Parks!"
They forget to mention that Ron Paul votes against every Congressional Medal of Honor proposed because he believes the constitution does not give him the authority to create one. He even voted against a CMoH for his friend Ronald Reagan -- talk about principle.
The Emmett Till bill would create a huge, 100 million dollar bureaucracy to help solve cold 60s'-era civil rights cases. If there are any leads to be followed up on, prosecutors already have that authority. This was just more unnecessary government, shepherded through with an emotion-packed name that anyone voting against can be labeled as racist. Typical big government corruption.
To the gold skeptics, read this speech Paul gave on the floor of the House five years ago. If you think the dollar's slide isn't coming, think again.
Buck thats nonsense. The FDA has saved considerably more. Some people die from appendectomies, but a lot more die without them. Might as well argue that water should be abolished because sometimes it kills people.
If you think the insurance companies do well in disasters I would only ask that you look to history. In no major disasters has there not been lawsuits bankruptcies and worse among the insurance companies. FEMA has failed from bad leadership and under funding, not from some systematic failures.
From a Blue state Seattle boy’s point of view, I think Ron’s idea of abolishing the IRS is a good idea, because it will Starve our Warmongering Federal government, and its two pro war/pro missile political parties. If this happens, what do you think the states of Washington, Oregon, and California are going to do with all the money we Send to DC? Mass Transit? Windpower? Low income housing? Education? Pay them school teachers what they deserve?
On abortion, I doubt Ron would outlaw it, just leave it to the states to decide, which is happening right now anyway, and with this conservative Surpream court approved by Dems and Repugs, it could be gone anyway. We might loose all the Federal agencies anyway, with our Trillion dollar deficient, but responsible states will pick up the slack.
The one thing I'll say in Ron Paul's favor is that he's ideologically consistent- he has a free market libertarian ideology and sticks to it. I'll give him that.
Problem is I hate virtually every economic position of American libertarianism, and not only do I hate their economic positions on an idealistic, pie in the sky level, but I also know they're impractical and stupid. And I may be one of the last remaining left wingers on the planet that believes that economic and large scale social policies are more important and have more impact than gays getting married or smoking weed openly or being a vegetarian.
I appreciate civil liberties, believe gays should be married, dope should be smoked, and freedom of speech exploited for fun and profit, but I'm not going to vote someone on a purely civil libertarian platform. Ron Paul would not be a good president because his economic and international policies would be a huge fucking disaster for this country as least on the same level as Bush.
Hats off to Ron Paul for honestly advertising his true blue conservatism, but I wouldn't touch him with a 12 foot pole to save his life.
And while we're on the subject of candidates with pie on the sky ideals and not chance in hell of winning the nomination for their respective party, I would love to vote for Mike Gravel. I disagree with some of his direct democracy claptrap and tax policy ideas, but at least he's a true blue old school (well, FDR-Johnson era) liberal, the left wing version of Ron Paul.
And before someone says something, I know that Johnson and FDR were not in the same era. "FDR-Johnson era" means 1933 to 1968 (FDR, Truman, Eisenhower [who would be considered somewhat liberal by today's standards], Kennedy, Johnson). I'm not talking about their wars or cold war policies, but their domestic outlook.
@33 -- Consistently applying an unorthodox ideology does not legitimize the actual effects of the policies. I am glad Paul's advocacy is philosophically predictable; it assures me that under no circumstance would I ever vote for him.
@32 The problem with the FDA right now isn't that it's not permissive enough. Quite the opposite. While in the past, there was a long deliberative process that meant things that were approved in Europe, like thalidomyde (flipper babies!), would not be approved as quickly in the US or not at all, the FDA now depends on the drug companies for their budget, and are willing to push through drugs like Fen-Phen and Vioxx that result in many deaths.
Now, regarding private insurance, I'm an insurance agent, and I follow my industry well, and let me tell you, there is no substitute for FEMA or the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Do you know why there's no private flood insurance? Cause no one is stupid enough to sell it. If you're in any flood zone but X, there has been a flood within the past century, and our industry's brilliant actuaries look at the odds and their eyes start bleeding. There are drawbacks to the flood insurance program in that it encourages some very rich people to build homes on sand bars and barrier islands. It also means though, that we can have a successful agricultural industry, since all those farms along the Missouri, Mississippi, and other rivers can recover from the periodic flooding that would otherwise wipe them out financially (unless you wanna move from wheat to rice as your primary staple).
I love my job, and I like my industry (the life, auto, business and homeowners parts; not health insurance), but I also know that it is a business and that no one will step in privately to fill the role that the Feds have. In Florida, insurers are moving to strip wind as one of the covered perils, which blows my mind, since it's one of the most basic perils to cover. It would be like removing fire. The only way homeowners can get insurance in Florida is to go to the state run insurer of last resort. Since if you have a mortgage, you have to have homeowners insurance, eliminating this vital government agency would essentially eliminate home ownership in Florida.
Additionally, FEMA does much more than rebuilding. They help make rebuilding possible by taking emergency measures that corporations certainly don't like, and any libertarian would find abhorrent, but those of us who actually give a damn about our fellow human beings find admirable. Number one, they can do preplacement of emergency supplies (and did in Florida, even under W, during major hurricanes. It's one of the perks of the governor of your state being the brother of the president) so they don't have to be trucked in, but can be accessed immediately.
They also provide shelter and evacuation to people too poor to do it themselves. I know, I know. Libertarians leave those people to be utterly fucked, and might shed a tear after someone finds the bodies, but I approve of government intervention.
Next, they commandeer the building supply industry and force them to ship construction materials to affected areas. That may mean that the sprawling subdivision in a suburb a thousand miles away has some delays or experiences and increase in cost, but it also means that the lumber industry can't say, "Gee, I'm sorry you're living under bridges, but I can make 7.5% more profit if I sell these 2x4s to Toll Brothers."
After Hurricane Katrina, they did none of these things well, but that's because the agency was neutered by the Bushies. Under Bill Clinton, FEMA was cabinet level and was headed by someone who'd spent his life in disaster response, not a crony, and the professionalism permeated the entire organization. Disaster response went well. When people gripe that government doesn't work, they seem to forget that if it's properly funded and staffed, it works quite well, and that if you staff it with incompetents and cronies and then slash their budgets, yes, it fails. The same is true of a corporation or small business.
online mortgage loans subprime
online mortgage loans subprime
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).