Comments on Ron Paul Supporters Drive Me Nuts
Hillary Clinton supports the flag-burning amendment. And John Edwards called for a complete withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq in 10 months.
On one hand he is opposed to my core beliefs, but on the other he supports pot? I guess he has my vote.
Richardson has called for the withdrawal of all troops by the end of his first year in office.
Oh, Erica, you are my hero.
Screw it all. I hope Ron Paul or Huckabee gets the White House with a supermajority in congress favoring the Republicans. THAT is what America really deserves.
And I would suggest killing ourselves by jumping off the Aurora Bridge as a group.
Ron Paul is a psycho. He either has no understanding of the office of President, or is doing the worst type of pandering imaginable.
Hey, this post has been up for ten minutes already and Ron Paul fans aren't here yet. Guess they're slacking, so I'll help out.
LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT RON PAUL RONPAUL2018.COM THE OLNY FREEDOM CANDIDATE VOTE PAUL FOR LOVE STOP THE NEOCON WAR VOTE VOTE VOTE FOR DR PAUL... THE StranGER is a FASCIST NEOCON tool BAN ERICA C BARNETT!
Why do the Paultards insist on slapping their crappy bumper stickers on every street sign in town?
Wow. Timid little Auntie Em has finally had enough of baking brownies and has jumped on her charger wielding a sword. I'm impressed. I'd be even more impressed if she got her facts straight, but it's a start....
#8, have you seen a lot of that? Time to call it in. A club would be fined massively for that, no reason his campaign shouldn't be.
Erica, the problem is that in calling him a neofascist instead of hitting him for the views he actually holds, you're helping him, not hurting him.
Dan@1: Hillary doesn't support a Constitional amendment to outlaw flag burning, she simply co-sponsored federal legislation making it a crime. Which is still lame. Just not at a Constitutional level.
He also says he "doesn't accept" the theory of evolution and kinda sorta maybe wants to abolish public schools. Sweet!
Hillary Clinton didn't even support making flag burning a crime, except on federal property and when used to "intimidate." That's still dumb, but hardly a deal breaker.
During the 107th congress (Edwards' last full term in the senate), the ACLU gave Edwards and Clinton the same rating.
The thing is Ron Paul is just crazy enough to be awesome. All of his really radical ideas would never get through, and he probably would help to reduce governmental involvement in our daily lives.
Aren't people sick of the government telling you what you can and can't do? Land of the free...what a joke.
Also, how exactly would a straight sales tax hurt the poor more than anyone else? Poor people buy far less things than the rich, and if you exempt food or grocery purchases then you've got no problem.
i don't think any of those comments were from people who think that ron paul is the ideal candidate.
it's that people think it's dumb to demonize a guy with blatantly false labels just because you don't like his politics.
it was another coulter moment. who cares if edwards or gore aren't gay, i can call them "fags" because i don't like them. same thing.
truth is erica has been on an anti-paul rabble-rousing kick and is a little miffed that everyone isn't blindly jumping on the bandwagon.
you seem incapable of making any distinction between paul and bush, and get all upset when we don't follow your lead. even when doing so would require that we call him a fascist. which is fucking dumb.
This is what I say when I want to make my point to Paul supporters (like my brother) without calling them total morons.
I admire the fact that Ron Paul has been consistent in his political beliefs and actions. That he has a clear philosophy about how he thinks the government should be run, and that his platform reflects that. He is not constantly changing his views about abortion or the war or whatever because that is what needs to be done in order to get elected.
However, while I think his libertarian philosophy is a not a ridiculous one, I do not agree with it. And, I think that if you apply that philosophy stringently (which he does) it leads to some policies that I vehemently disagree with (e.g., let the free market regulate the environment).
So, basically, sure, he's not as much of a slimy politician and he is against the war, but, his stances on the issues are crazy, in my opinion.
Supports amending the Constitution to ban flag-burning;
No he doesn't, Erica. He proposed that bill to dare his legislative colleagues to implement a ban in a constitutionally sound manner. He then voted against his own bill (in other words, he only did it to make a point).
OK, fine; maybe calling Paul a “fascist” was a bit much. How about “right-wing lunatic who believes in slashing government where it actually helps people, and dramatically increasing the size of government to restrict rights he doesn’t agree with”? Not as catchy, but more descriptive.
Yup. In other words, "libertarian". Which unfortunately isn't yet the pejorative it ought to be.
It is worth repeating what has been said on Slog before; "Arguing with Sloggers is like arguing with the mentally retarded". But at least you can kick the mentally retarded.
Libertarianism is the path to fascism. I think Erica should keep calling him a fascist, and I don't think it helps Ron Paul to call him a fascist. People should be told the truth about him.
The key is the way you think about power. Libertarians and fascists both believe that power naturally accrues to those who deserve it. They think if you lack power you deserve to be despised, and oppressed, and exploited. That is the core of fascism.
Everything else that guys like Paul say they believe is irrelevant. His "consistency" is not something to admire: it shows his fanaticism. This man will use any means to force the world to fit the image he has in his mind of how things should be. He does not believe in compromise. He's the real deal: a fascist.
Ron Paul is intriguing to me because there are many core elements of his political philosophy are both appealing to me and rarely get much attention in national politics.
On the other hand, many of his ideas are crazy, as Erica enumerates.
I'd like to think there's a non-crazy formulation for a less intrusive federal government, but Ron Paul isn't it.
As somebody who gave money to Paul, I am unhappy with his Xenophobic Immigration ad. I think Erica is inarticulate, but right. After Bush leaves office, we might experience what our grandparents’ did, a depression of biblical proportions. The last time Capitalism failed, FDR was elected to office, and corporal Hitler got a promotion. Paul is strangely following Hitler’s path with the scapegoating of immigrants. The question is, who is going to be the new FDR? I am thinking maybe Edwards, but I would not hold my breath, he is a democrat. Clinton is just beyond the pale, I would never vote for her, or trust her, even if I had a vagina.
This man will use any means to force the world to fit the image he has in his mind of how things should be. He does not believe in compromise.
Are you describing erica, or paul?
@23, REPEAL THE 22ND AMENDMENT AND BRING FDR BACK TO LIFE!!!!!! YEAH!!! That is what I am talking about!!
thank. you. erica.
AMEN.
There isn't another option for a less intrusive government.
Politician's entire well-being derives from the government. It's going to be a rare politician that wants to reduce their own influence.
It's like the old genie problem. The only way they could have freedom is if someone gave up a wish to make them free, but who wants to give up a wish? No on. Especially not politicians.
We, as the governed, should take any opportunity to reduce the size and power of the government.
i always thought his only appeal is that he isn't afraid to say whatever he thinks, no matter who he may alienate, and that his mere presence on the campaign trail has been instrumental in exposing the rest of the republican candidates' fanaticism.
in that sense, he's fucking awesome. but as an actual candidate, the guy is a nut job, and so are a lot of the people who actually want to elect him.
i totally see where you're coming from, but i don't think extreme political hyperbole [e.g. calling him a fascist] is going to get your point across.
Wow, thanks Erica. Just spent a week with the 'rents and the partner in hot sunny weather and we have not focused on the election in 2007 - it's been a bit too much premature ejaculation for all of us, but now that is '08 its we are ready to begin listening to the same bullshit songs from every candidate, but sung in different keys some hitting more major notes than others. The Rs have their song and the Ds theirs, you know the modified neneh cherry hit: Abortion Stance or the classic Europe hit The Final Countdown (to staying in or out of Iraq). All that to say, I love a good synopsis. Gets me fired up to learn more, plus I'm making checklists for the 'rents and the partner so we can keep score on who actually said what. You those candidates love nothing more than a short term memory. keep it coming.
tanks!
Is it true that the Ronbots are gonna kill us all in our sleep if he doesn't win the nomination??
I'm gonna be sleeping with my eyes taped open.
I'm with Julie, #17.
Yeah, it's nice that he actually sticks to what he says but...
Also, how exactly would a straight sales tax hurt the poor more than anyone else? Poor people buy far less things than the rich, and if you exempt food or grocery purchases then you've got no problem.
Most formulations of that tax don't exempt rent or house purchases, a major expenditure for the poor and middle class. Additionally, there are many things poor people have to purchase (clothes, school supplies, transportation) that also wouldn't be exempt. Despite the occasional moron rich person who spends everything he makes, and then some, most rich people spend only a small portion of their earnings. Meanwhile, poor people and increasing members of the middle class spend every penny they make.
Consequently, if a national sales tax of say 35 percent were imposed, poor people would pay about 35 percent of their income in taxes. Rich people would pay much, much less.
OK, fine; maybe calling Paul a “fascist” was a bit much.
Or completely inaccurate. :) The striking thing about your comment is that he is, in fact, the LEAST fascist of all Republican candidates. Fascism is very nearly the diametrical opposite of libertarianism. Fascism puts the state above the individual whereas libertarianism puts the individual above the collective. And that's where the left (those who believe collectivist policies are the best) ought to hit Paul.
How about “right-wing lunatic who believes in slashing government where it actually helps people, and dramatically increasing the size of government to restrict rights he doesn’t agree with”? Not as catchy, but more descriptive.
More descriptive but almost as inaccurate.
How would he increase the size of government to restrict rights? It isn't clear to me how your laundry list of opposes and supports, most of which looks fair and accurate, makes that case.
He does believe in slashing the bits of government that are Constitutionally questionable. And there's a good argument waiting to happen there, whether it is better to stick to strict interpretations of the Constitution or to deviate therefrom for the 'greater good'. That is, do we a tread a utilitarian path towards socialism -- not necessarily a bad thing, mind -- or do live by the Constitution and die by it?
Thanks for the fair follow-up, ECB. Glad to see you weren't just out trolling.
monkey @ 31,
In the US, it doesn't matter how scary, destructive and crazy a candidate's fanatical beliefs may be, but it's whether they really seem to believe them that's important (see future Preznit-elect Fuckabee).
@15: Poor people have to spend most every penny they bring in to survive and they pay sales tax on most of their purchase. Under a sales tax, rich folks are taxed only on the money they spend, not they money they save or invest. So, under a sales tax, the poor pay a far greater percentage of their earnings than do the rich.
@27: "We, as the governed, should take any opportunity to reduce the size and power of the government." That's a mindless statement. Which government programs and protections would you propose to eliminate?
@28 - I'm curious. Why do you consider him a "nut job?"
Also, abruptly ending our "foreign entanglements" as RP calls for would bring about world war III as Russia, China, NK and who ever else felt like it would start invading their neighbors.
That has happened every time a major empire falls apart unexpectedly.
The whole middle east mess right now is because the Ottoman Empire fell apart with no replacement.
elenchos @21 - I totally agree that his consistency isn't something to admire in isolation. That is sort of my point to my brother (can you tell we spent time talking about this over the holidays). Yes, he is consistent and believes what he says, but you have to care what it is he is being consistent about. You can't just advocate his consistency as a virtue...
Paul the nutjob, on the "War on Religion":
RE: your PS - you can't exactly call the "censorship" of paul a product of the free market. there are plenty of candidates who are not excommunicated from the GOP establishment simply because they're not "viable" [tancredo, RIP].
he's been excluded simply because they don't like what he has to say, and he makes their party look bad. it may not be censorship, but it's not the free market at work either.
@35: Do you really want a list? For starters, congressional staff should be severely limited. The BATFE should be entirely eliminated. The war on drugs and everyone it employs should be ended. All governmental advertising should be eliminated. Security for politicians should be limited (let them fly with the rest of us and stop them from using government money to finance re-election trips). Basically all government agencies should be gutted and either turned over to the private sector or some way to limit their horrific inefficiencies found. The military should be turned into more of a defensive force, instead of an offensive strike force, which would require about 10% of current spending.
I think that's a good start, but really if you go through the list of all 1177 governmental agencies I think you can find some areas to trim the fat.
I think that individuals such as Elenchos and tsm should be stripped of their right to vote. Seriously, tsm is obviously some kind of fascist or authoritarian because he thinks that libertarianism should be a pejorative, which is interesting, because what kind of person, other than a authoritarian fucktard objects to liberty? Elenchos is just plain fucking stupid, the kind of person who, if George W. Bush came out in support of single payer health care and mass transit and abortion would be standing in line to eat the shit directly from his asshole, regardless of how many foreign wars he might have us involved in, how much illegal domestic spying he might be allowing or how many people were being disappeared into Gitmo. Both of you dog fuckers are every bit as ignorant, stupid and intolerant as any Bush supporting, flag waving, KKKVI listening dipshit, despite your bullshit "liberal" or "progressive" pretensions.
I want an ammendment where we can legally chang someone else's name:
I second the nomination!
eric "coulter" barnett
slash that whip sister domme and try hanging with Matisse the Mastress!
g1 if not Great One @24, 16
Opposes legalization of gay marriage;
ron paul doesn't oppose gay marriage. he opposes federal definition of gay marriage.
Paul has said that federal officials changing the definition of marriage to allow same-sex marriage is "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[164] Paul stated that "Americans understandably fear" the nationwide legalization of same-sex marriage.[165] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[166] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[167][168] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[167]
Supports the death penalty;
He opposes the federal death penalty.
Paul stated in August 2007 that at the state level "capital punishment is a deserving penalty for those who commit crime", but he does not believe that the federal government should use it as a penalty.[151]In Tavis Smiley's All-American Forum debate at Morgan State in September 2007, Paul stated: "Over the years I've held pretty rigid to all my beliefs, but I've changed my opinion of the death penalty. For federal purposes I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty."[152]
Supports “don’t ask, don’t tell”;
He doesn't believe gays should be kicked out of the military just for being gay.
In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."[168]
Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge troops for being homosexual if their behavior was not disruptive.[167]
Opposes environmental regulations;
He doesn't like the EPA, but "believes that polluters are aggressors that should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability" and votes against federal subsidies for the oil and gas industry "saying that without government subsidies to the oil and gas industries, alternative fuels would be more competitive with oil and gas and would come to market on a competitive basis sooner.[14]"
Basically for most of his positions, he thinks that the states should decide. So California should be able to legalize pot if it wants, and texas should define marriage how it wants.
If you don't think that is less threatening than bush, romney, cheny, etc, then you're dumber than you seem.
I think that there are several important reasons to take his campaign somewhat seriously. It exposes widening faults in the (R) party. There is obvious discontent in the conservative grassroots that is manifested in the large number of small donations to Ron Paul. The (R) coalition of energized religious zealots, insecure white women, bitter white men, southern racists, and big business, that has managed to outvote educated city-folk for the last few national election cycles, is coming apart at the seams.
In some ways, Ron Paul is the Howard Dean of the right wingers. He won't win, but he could be a game changer, exposing the fractures and moving the debate. Elements of his message will find their way into other campaigns, in particular the Goldwater/Reagan-sounding small government stuff that has seemingly evaporated from the (R) platform.
As for the "lefty" attraction to the Paul campaign, I suppose that over the last few years I've become more fearful of the state's capacity for causing human suffering and less idealistic about the strong central government as a force for human progress. We've all seen the damage done by a powerful national government hijacked by zealots and cronies. Nearly every well intentioned policy/agency has been turned against the wider public interest, including education, health, environment, military, treasury etc...And I don't trust the American public to always pick the brightest or best intentioned leadership.
As for some of the issues mentioned...
If new abortion restrictions in some states are the price to pay for moving more power to the state governments, then I suppose that I'm willing to make the sacrifice. I'm no longer going to cross a candidate off-the-list based on this one issue. Besides, I think that the abortion issue has been exploited for decades by both parties to raise funds and drive turnout, and I'm tired of being manipulated. Abortion is a deplorable technology that should be made obsolete. A serious shakeup of the abortion laws might spur the technological and social changes necessary to make childbearing a political non-issue.
@41:
Do you have any real world examples of a nation with such limited government that you could point us to?
Then perhaps we could see if the idea of "almost-no-government" works.
Or not.
Thank you.
PS: my personal experience with such limited government is limited to Guatemala in the late 1970s...few paid taxes, little regulation, and great freedom to pay and arm bodies of men who also acted pretty freely, without much government regulation.
If this is not the model you have in mind, please point us to another example. Thanks.
"Also, how exactly would a straight sales tax hurt the poor more than anyone else? Poor people buy far less things than the rich, and if you exempt food or grocery purchases then you've got no problem."
Um, because if you make $100K/yr and buy a $10000 car with 10% sales tax, you've just spent 1% of your income on sales tax. If you make $50K/yr, you just spent 2%, etc. Plus, rich people DON'T spend as much of their incomes on taxable goods as poor people do. IE, they save it or move it offshore or whatever.
I think that individuals such as Elenchos and tsm should be stripped of their right to vote. Seriously, tsm is obviously some kind of fascist or authoritarian because he thinks that libertarianism should be a pejorative, which is interesting, because what kind of person, other than a authoritarian fucktard objects to liberty?
LOL at the irony in this passage here.
And of course, one could just as easily say "It's interesting you'd think that Marxist should be a pejorative, because what kind of person, other than a social Darwinist fucktard, objects to equality?"
Most of us here already understand why the notion that a state of liberty can be defined strictly by the government's inability to do anything with any effectiveness, ever, is so patently nutty, so I won't bother going into it. Just give due consideration to the sentiments in the non-libertarian FAQ.
@41: No Congressional staff? Wouldn't President Hillary Clinton take advantage of that situtation to boost HER power?
And here's another sweeping dumb statement: "Basically all government agencies should be gutted and either turned over to the private sector or some way to limit their horrific inefficiencies found." Really? Why would anyone think the private sector would do a better job? Because of the great job they did a few years back when they took over electricity production and distribution in California?
It doesn't matter what any of us think about Ron Paul. Because of the nutty, stacked primary system, residents of this state (and half the other states) will have zero input on who the nominees are.
Last portion of my post was cut off:
Also, consider moving to Somalia. It's a libertarian's paradise. No pesky big, powerful government to harass you there, at least not before the unchecked private militias and gangsters get to you first.
@35 man thats easy
DEA
ATF
CIA/FBI - Pick one and make it smaller
IRS ( flat tax )
Department of Homeland security
Air Force - ( redundant no one else has a dedicate air force that could outflank our navy marine and army air )
Farm subsidies -( all of them, unless they have to do with emergency surplus )
LLCs - provisions in the 15 amendment that allowed for corporate personho0d ( possible rewrite needed )
Government Employee heathcare - ( part of why private never gets addressed or fixed.
I could probably keep going, but thats just want comes to mind right this second.
Did everyone forget that he's also a racist?
@42
Perhaps the libertarian slogan should be "I can't believe it's not freedom!" Putting "liberty" in your name doesn't make it real liberty.
Thanks for the crack about taking away the voting rights of those you don't agree with. I couldn't have invented a better example of what libertarians really stand for.
Regarding the whole gay-marriage thing:
Sure, he says he's opposed to federally recognizing ANY marriage, and that's why he's blocked gay marriage. But what has he done to stop straight marriage? Well, nothing. He's just focussed on blocking the gay kind.
Convenient.
paul on gay marriage:
CAMERON: Why are those on stage who support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage wrong?
PAUL: OK. Well, if you believe in federalism, it's better that we allow these things to be left to the state. My personal belief is that marriage is a religious ceremony.
And it should be dealt with religiously. The state really shouldn't be involved. The state, both federal and state-wise, got involved mostly for health reasons 100 years or so ago.
But this should be a religious matter. All voluntary associations, whether they're economic or social, should be protected by the law. But to amend the Constitution is totally unnecessary to define something that's already in the dictionary.
We do know what marriage is about. We don't need a new definition or argue over a definition and have an amendment to the Constitution. To me, it just seems so unnecessary to do that. It's very simply that the states should be out of that business, and the states -- I mean, the states should be able to handle this. The federal government should be out of it.
There's no need for the federal government to be involved in this. You can accomplish this without waiting five or ten or 15 years. The authority can be put in the states by mere voting in the Congress.So if Washington or Mass or wherever wanted to legalize gay marriage, he wouldn't oppose that.
Meanie @52 sez: "LLCs - provisions in the 15 amendment that allowed for corporate personho0d ( possible rewrite needed )"
See, there's another example of wanting to destroy the economic system that has made us all rich. Goes hand in hand with bringing back the gold standard. It's idiocy, and it doesn't have a place in serious discussions of government policy.
If you turn over government to people who oppose government on principle, as Smegmalicious suggests, you'll get the government you deserve -- a free-fall robbery of the Treasury on a scale vastly outstripping the anti-government efforts of George Bush. Modern problems deserve modern solutions, not a return to a fantasy of pre-1911 life (when hardly anyone went to school, when hardly anyone had a career off the farm, when hardly anyone earned what we today would consider a living wage).
Look, most of the Ron Paulites are only half as loony as the man himself.
That said, they're all a bit out of it.
I think the problem with y'allses thinking is that cus he's a libertarian running on a constitutionalist platform for the office of the presidency. According to the constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Little known fact to fans of universal healthcare: Canada's system began in Seskatchewan. That shit-poor province in the middle of nowhere. If Seskatchewan could do it, anyone could. It's all about the states realizing that they need to get their act together, while currently they're all huddled waiting for the Feds to do it for them.
Finally, he's not gonna be able to eliminate the income tax. You would need a congressful of ron pauls to do that.
Cleve @ 46,
Thank you. That's the ultimate slap to this insane libertarian clap trap.
There is no functioning country in the world that follows that kind of extreme ideology, not even the right-wing US.
If there is, I'd love to hear about. Democratic socialism works: See Canada, Japan, every country in Western Europe, etc.
Fnarf @57. I read your "pre-1911" comment as "pre 9/11" and was thoroughly confused. Fuck, who knew being brainwashed would feel like this...
I used to be pretty Libertarian, and am not anymore (various reasons).
But I think the main thing that moved me away from that ideology is this:
The government programs that people want removed and replaced by "the market" are things that are not profitable.
Companies have to make money, that is what they do. How are you going to make education profitable? We have made Healthcare profitable, but at the detriment to our citizens that I am sure we will feel in the next 2 decades. There are so many things that cannot be profit driven, and areas the government has to have a hand in. Honestly how can a country and its companies prosper if there are no viable workers/tax payers for them?
And I am in total agreement with Fnarf. People want to idealize the time before many rights were in place and during a time of isolationism that we can never, ever go back to. Also, many Libertarians are not willing to give back all financial responsibility to the companies. As in, no bankruptcy protection.
But meh, Ron isn't going far, and I hope he runs as an independant. Then the GOP can get fucked from a 3rd party =)
The Ron Paul Revolution (my he's so dreamy!) seems to thrive solely on the fact that the average Hannah Montana audience member knows more facts about Miley Cyrus than the people backing Ron Paul merely as a "F*** the Republican Party Establishment" / "why won't anyone give him attention?" do.
And I would second the comments of Janeane Garafalo, made on the Anderson Cooper 360 Best and Worst of 2007 special. "I wouldn't want them to be like me. You know, when people say, you know, just plain folks, politicians, he's a guy or gal I have a beer with. I would hope not. I would hope that my president, whoever he or she may be, would be extraordinary."
The Ron Paul candidacy is a scam, and any liberals and moderates fooled by his act deserve to have him win. Put that in a cutesy blog ad.
John@59: Yes, it's better if the Feds stay out of state business! Just ask Bull Connor! Oh, wait...
As Ron Paul says - If your voting NO on something it also means your voting YES on the opposite....So lets see...
1) Wants to use state intervention to prevent women from having abortions;
ANS: This is your assumption. Ron Paul believes that the federal gov has no role in regulating abortion, just like it does not regulate murder - which is regulated by the states. Each state deals with murder under its own separate state laws. The fed only gets involved when it occurs on federal property or to a federal employee.
2) Opposes the UN;
ANS: And why not? Exactly what has the UN done that has been so successful over the years? Libya is now on the Security Council? The UN is rampant corruption and misuse of funds. It has been used to justify no less than 4 major undeclared wars - from Korea to Iraq.
3) Wants the US government to build a fence along the US-Mexico border;
ANS: And what is wrong with protecting our borders? Any country that can't control its borders is not able to control its economy or its national identity.
4) Thinks birthright citizenship should be abolished;
ANS: First off, Dr. Paul is right to question the current interpretation of birth right citizenship. The birth right is only for people under the jurisdiction of the US - which does not necessarily mean simply physically being in the US. The fact that the birth right as it has been interpreted was not a concern until we recently have had MILLIONS of people abusing it EVERY year.
5) Thinks the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and most of the Cabinet should be abolished;
ANS: Again, what is your argument against this? As if these entities were created by GOD on the seventh day. They didn't always exist, and a better system could be established without them. The number of reasons to get rid of the IRS and the FED and almost too numerous to count, but one only needs to look at the latest FED created crisis and the crash of the Dollar. By all accounts the FED, which was supposed to exist to create a stable economic system, has failed horribly - and at the expense of the people and never the top bankers.
6) Would eliminate all income taxes;
ANS: And this is bad because? As Dr. Paul states you can have the big government of 1997 without the income tax or the big government of today with the income tax. My choice is the latter.
7 )But would be fine with a national sales tax that would disproportionately impact the poor;
ANS: Your obviously not familiar with mathematics as a flat percentage on an person's income is not disproportional. Your response is purely based on your desire for the rich to pay a disproportionate amount.
8) Wants to return America to the gold standard;
ANS: First, Dr. Paul has talked about gold but has also talked about a mixed commodity backed currency. In any event, Alan Greenspan recently chided that the FED isn't necessarily needed, especially if the country was on a gold standard.
9) Thinks it’s OK to not pay taxes, comparing such refusal to nonviolent protests by Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.;
ANS: And your point is what? That people don't have a right to do as they wish if they are willing to deal with the consequences. I'm sure Stalin would love the lemmings that have been created in our society.
10) Prefers a fully privatized health care system (meaning: health care for the rich, but not for you and me);
ANS: No, it means people would have the money in their hands (i.e., no income tax) to pay for affordable healthcare. This is based on a multi-faceted approach that includes not requiring states to supply healthcare to illegal immigrants and stopping the HMO's and drug countries from artificially driving up health insurance costs.
11) Thinks it’s OK for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools;
ANS: You got me here. I would not be in favor of this.
12) Supports amending the Constitution to ban flag-burning;
ANS: I would not be in favor of this.
13) Opposes all forms of gun control, including on automatic weapons;
ANS: After 30+ years of gun control, we still have the highest gun deaths in the world (not related to war,etc.) I used to be pro-gun control, but now I see how useless it is and how it has been used to deny people the right to protect themselves. Look at what the national gaurd did during Katrina, that's what this country is coming to.
13) Supports a federal ban on embryonic stem-cell research;
ANS: This is a straw-man argument. He does not believe the federal government has a role here, as he does in many areas - based on the, yes, CONSTITUTION. If the federal government was the appropriate size, the states would be able to fully fund what they see fit: from medical research to education to healthcare.
14) Supports the death penalty;
ANS: Not so happy with this.
15) Opposes legalization of gay marriage;
ANS: Another straw-man argument. As Dr. Paul has stated that all people derived their rights as individuals, and not by being pinned into groups. He believes that marriage should be 100% a religious issue and 0% associated with the federal or state governments. Therefore the idea of "gay marriage" makes not sense in any legal framework. States only got into the marriage business 100 years ago due to "health concerns", which certainly is no longer the case today.
16)Supports “don’t ask, don’t tell”;
ANS: Again, straw-man. As with #15, he believes that this should apply to all people in the military. If a homosexual relationship is a problem it should be dealt with, just as if it was a heterosexual problem. He stated this position in one of the debates.
17) Opposes environmental regulations;
ANS: Again, straw-man. He believes that the property rights allow one to gain recourse for people polluting the environment. All too often environmental regulations are created based on politics, not based on protecting the environment.
18) Voted against renewing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
ANS: Ron Paul opposed the acts not because he was opposed to freedom (which he supports for ALL people), but because of they way they were proposed to be implemented. And as far as I know, Dr. Paul was not in Congress in 1964.
and
19) Opposes any restriction on campaign contributions, including those by corporations.
ANS: First, the idea that as an American I can only donate $2300 to Ron Paul for President during the primaries is beyond contempt. Talk about squashing my freedoms!!! But the fact is that if government was the "right" constitutional size, there would be a lot less need for corporations to be buying the servitude of our leaders.
No elenchos, I'm not in favor of taking away the voting rights of those I disagree with, I'm in favor of taking away the voting rights of people who are dumber than a box of rocks, i.e, you and tsm and everyone else who calls Paul a fascist, or who compares his supporters and his popularity to Hitler's rise in Germany because you're every bit as much of a stupid, intolerant, ignorant bumpkin as any red state Republican who ever drove down to his lcoal WalMart in a Hummer with a "support the troops" bumper sticker and a chinese made American flag to buy Ann Coulter's new book while listening to Michael Savage.
And for tsm, well I do believe that "Marxist" should be a pejorative just like "Nazi" is a pejorative and for the same reason, because they're the political ideologies of murderous, authoritarian thugs and stupid creeps and assholes. Marxism though is especially disgusting when compared to fascism because not only is the body count much higher also because of the creeps who keep defending it, insisting that Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot weren't true Marxists and that we've never had "true Marxism" (whatever the fuck that might be, and yes, I've read Marx and find his arguments about everything changing once the workers controlled the means of production to be roughly as convincing as say, Christianity or any other religion). It's depressing that despite it's history of mass murder, human sufferinng, authoritarianism and unbridled misery that Marxism still has adherents and those who describe themselves as Marxists aren't condemned as forcefully as those who describe themselves as "fascists" or "Nazis", I credit this to a combination of superior PR and gullibility.
Interestingly enough many libertarians, when confronted with historical abuses of unregulated markets such as child labor, fraud, lack of product safety or discrimination offer up an argument as ridiculous as that of the Marxists, claiming that these abuses aren't valid examples because they did not occur in a truly free market or under pure capitalism (I love the last because capitalism and free markets have nothing to do with each other and even Adam Smith recognized that capitalists often find it in their best interests to restrict competition and limit the freedom of the market). It's interesting that so many Marxists and so many libertarians, when confronted with these facts fall back on the same, lame argument (but of course the Marxists win when it comes down to sheer suffering and body counts, not only beating out every other political ideology but also winning out over various religious crusades and beating diseases such as polio and the black plague).
As for "Social Darwinist" well, yes, I think that that should be a pejorative term as well. Firstly because it's a total misunderstanding of Darwin's theories, attempting to apply a theory regarding biological selection to a social sphere in which it is completely inapplicable and secondly because so many of the people who believe that they're on top because of "survival of the fittest" are really just self-congratulatory wankers. In this their beliefs are no different than those prosperous Calvinists who assumed that their success in worldly manners was due to their being deemed worthy by God (and who were total, self-righteous assholes). Darwin himself had no truck with those who attempted to use his theories in the social sphere and felt that the more advanced and evolved a society was the more compassionate it would be. Of course "social darwinism", "social darwinist" and "fascist" are terms that to the left have become roughly as meaningful as the term "liberal" has to the right. They're pejoratives used to describe those you disagree with without ever examining their arguments or trying to find out what they actually believe in, convenient verbal shorthand designed to push emotional buttons while bypassing rational thought and whip people up to get them into the proper frame of mind for a good two minute hate.
I'm in favor of taking away the voting rights of people who are dumber than a box of rocks, i.e, you and tsm and everyone else who calls Paul a fascist,
I'm afraid you fail right there at reading comprehension, dear sir. Not only did I not call Paul a fascist, I argued in ECB's previous post he shouldn't be called one. And since you clearly can't be bothered to actually read what you respond to, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your post either. Nighty night.
Erica, as a few people mentioned here, what's REALLY worth noting is Ron Paul's uber-racist beliefs. A great journalistic exercise would be to track down some original copies of his journal with his notorious "black children are criminals" essays. At the very least, much better than your "I like Edwards, but then again the former chair of the DLC is a woman" story.
I wouldn't mind a sales tax so long as it applied to things like buying stocks and bonds.
What made you think I'm a lefty Ron Paul supporter? First of all, I'm German, so I cannot support Ron Paul. And second, I'm not a leftist, I'm a libertarian. You seem to think that "Fascism" is simply a term to describe your political opponents with; it isn't, it is a clearly defined political ideology which just doesn't fit Ron Paul's positions. Just read some Giovanni Gentile and you'll see what I mean.
I recently had a chance to visit a Mountain Top Removal site in West Virginia. It's horrific and heartbreaking - every bit as much as when I stood at rubble's edge at the WTC site in New York on Sept 14, 2001. I ask the Ron Paul supporters I meat whether they'd favor a ban on Mountain Top Removal and nearly all of them say. "No, that would mean having the government interfere with free enterprise".
I'm very familiar with the horrific damage "free trade" has done in Central America, Africa and the Caribbean, as well as in numerous American industrial centers. Whole communities have been destroyed and vast areas of forest have been cleared yet the host countries are prohibited from passing fair wage ordinances or environmental protection laws, which would be interpreted under the "free trade": treaties as "barriers to trade".
I ask Ron Paul supporters about the issue of "free trade". They all say that Paul opposes NAFTA and GATT and CAFTA, etc. (then why hasn't he explicitly pledged to repeal them immediately?). They must not be listening closely to their own candidate because what he is saying is that he wans to lift ALL restrictions and that NAFTA is bad because it's TOO restrictive.
How many jobs, communities, forests and mountains must be destroyed before these pseudo-progressive Paulists realize that their candidate represents the inerests of the controling class even more directly than the Neo-cons they claim to be fed up with?
So; thanks, Erica - and as for those who take issue with calling Paul a "fascist"; try pitching that semantic argument downstream of a rupturing coal slurry, or in a smoldering barren field that was a rainforest the day before, where, in both cases, the residents are forced to flea with no legal recourse and no compensation and under threat of violence. "Fascist" may not be technically appropriate, but it hardly seems important, as fascism is certainly pushing for a come-back and Ron Paul is certainly one of the minor pushers.
I thought Ron Paul was the shit (Awesome) when I first heard about him. I look for a Borders and Language and Borders Canidate Such as Michael Savage. I've listened to Talk Radio Religiously for the past, since 9-11. They've talked about Immigration and America's Sovereignty being sold out and the Politicians bein Hookers and Hoeing out this Nation, Beautiful Lady Liberty is Virgin Goddess. I was like yea fuckin yeah and he's from Texas too. I trust people of his Generation too. He grew up in The 1950s. But dam it, there is a War on Terror, He's needs to keep our Intelligence Agencies and Double and Triple them is we were to get out of a costly war. The Gold Standard Will not Work, Productivity, Resources, Land and other thangs make up money. Damn he knows he's not going to win. Who was invited to this year's Builder Meeting? Anyway I really don't give a Fuck, I'm votin for Mike Huck and Mitt Romney.
Could you possibly put in some links to voting records or statements from Paul relating to each of the above? I'd love to be able to point friends here, but Paulites will dismiss it all as "usubstantiated."
Most developed nations determine citizenship by jus sanguinis. There was no liberal outrage when the UK, NZ, Australia, Ireland and France moved toward this in the past decade. Interestingly, in the US, Native Americans were precluded from this birthright citizenship extended to recently freed slaves. It should be clarified that, tourists who happen to give birth in the US are not automatic Americans anymore. The country has changed since Emma Lazarus. Our government must be changed, or the benefits that were meant to sustain people in dire need will be bankrupt us when everyone in the world shows up for their free lunch. You can amend the Constitution, and that is legal.
From what I have seen, many Ron Paul supporters are going beyond supportive into being mentally insane. I know I am not the only one who feels this way. Its true. Its nice the guy has support but many of them seem to make him out more to be God than someone running for office and that is scary to me. The guy is a mere human being and nothing more.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).