Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« More on the Amazingly Good and... | Brokeback Passions »

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Ron Paul Rulz!!! Or Not.

posted by on May 16 at 14:26 PM

Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul is really cool, right? He, like, supports impeachment and getting out of the war and stuff. And he’s cool with pot and gay marriage. Dude, he’d make a totally awesome president!

Umm, yeah. He also:

Opposed federal aid to Katrina victims;

Opposed Congressional medals of honor for the people who died on board United Flight 93 on 9/11;

Wants the US to withdraw from the UN and NATO;

Supports outlawing the Department of Education, the CIA, the FDA (!!!), the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve (and bringing back the gold standard);

Opposed efforts to increase penalties for severe workplace safety violations after a deadly refinery explosion;

Once said that he lived in fear of being “bombed by the federal government in another
Waco. ”

Once claimed that 85 percent of black people are criminals (and 95 percent of black DC males)…

…and on and on and on. Don’t be fooled by his “live and let live” positions on social liberal issues. This guy was a nutjob in the Texas House, he’s still a nutjob in the US Congress, and he’ll remain a nutjob during his latest campaign for president.

RSS icon Comments


So what you're saying is...Ron Paul is a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian with a little bit of crazy mixed in? Stop the fucking presses! Call the White House! Alert NORAD! Wow! I can't fucking believe it!

Maybe one of these days you'll do a bit of actual reporting in addition to your standard repertoire of faux-outrage and anti-suburbanite screeds.

Posted by joykiller | May 16, 2007 2:46 PM

Thank ECB for the info. The only people I have heard supporting this guy are 9/11 conspiracy nut jobs. I fucking hate libertarians. They appeal to some left causes like opposition to the Iraq war and liberal views on drug policy but they have whacked-out and very conservative views on economic policy.

Posted by Chris | May 16, 2007 2:57 PM

Wow, Texas really is a national laboratory experiment for bad government.

We need you, Molly Ivins, now more than ever.

Posted by Original Andrew | May 16, 2007 3:17 PM


Please do not confuse 'Libertarians' with Dipshits and Anarcho-capitalists. Thank you.

Posted by Mr. Poe | May 16, 2007 3:29 PM

How the hell did this guy get elected?

Posted by Gomez | May 16, 2007 3:35 PM

Despite #1's obnoxiousness, this is a good thing to point out; recently (on other blogs) I've seen a few lefty-types saying stuff like "hey, Ron Paul seems pretty cool for a Republican" and such. Important to point out that though his ideas may overlap with some of those commonly held on the left, and though he's different from most mainstream Republicans, he's still way out on the right, and a Paul presidency would be baaad.

Posted by cdc | May 16, 2007 3:51 PM

The reason a Paul presidency would be baaad is only slightly because of his kook positions on the issues. None of those kook positions would be enacted. The problem is, he can't lead, and he doesn't have an organization. He can't run the government because he can't fill any of the important jobs, which is how government really works. The Republican machine would just eat him alive and take all his lunch money, and we'd be in a similar boat to the one we're in now.

Posted by Fnarf | May 16, 2007 4:58 PM

Yes, and Andrew Sullivan is already jacking off to him...

Posted by Andy Niable | May 16, 2007 5:22 PM

Sure he's a complete nutbag of the first order. What's really scary is that he sounded more rational then most of the rest of the Republican field during the debate last night. ?!?

Posted by SDA in SEA | May 16, 2007 6:07 PM

C'mon, you know damn well that if there's a little (R) next to the name, he's fucking insane.

Posted by Gitai | May 16, 2007 7:17 PM

to Gitai @ 10
and to ECB:
The little (R) is a con. Ron Paul IS a libertarian. The first poster is obnoxious, but totally accurate. None of the things listed here should be at all surprising. He ran for the presidency back in 1988 as a Libertarian and placed third in the popular vote. I agree that a little homework should have been done.

and to cdc @ 6
You can't be considered "way out on the right" when you support the kind of personal freedom issues that Paul supports. The very presence of libertarians in the political world basically debunks the theory that people's political beliefs can fit onto a simple left-to-right spectrum. It's just not an accurate gauge of how nuanced politics really are.

All that being said, I don't think Paul would make a very good president either. One other crazy thing he supports is building the massive wall and security build-up between the US and Mexico. I know that he is a Texan and has to deal directly with those issues, so I feel for him, but that is such a stupid reaction. Not very libertarian of him, since libertarians normally want to break down barriers to immigration...

Posted by Jamey | May 16, 2007 7:46 PM

Placing third in a presidential election is like watching a football game and then claiming you were the quarterback.

Posted by Giffy | May 16, 2007 8:29 PM

Hey Erica, could you or any other leftist dipshit please show me some evidence that the Department of Education has done jack fucking shit to improve education in America. Can you point to any evidence that massive federal intervention has done anything to make Americans better educated. While you're at it you might want to ask why so many prominent Democratic politicians (Bill and Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Ted Kennedy) send their children to private schools that are whiter than the average Klan rally. Oh, and the CIA. Hmmmmm, aren't they the government agency, or one of them anyways, that dropped the ball on 9/11, dropped the ball on Iraq and are running secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Aren't they the government agency helped put Pinochet in power, helped put the Shah back in power back in 1953. Wow, ineffective government bureaucracies and spy agencies that spy on Americans, torture foreigners and overthrow democratically elected foreign governments and help dictators into power often causing massive foreign policy blowback. Yeah, I guess being against that sort of thing is totally wacky.

How did you get your job? Was Savage sitting around the office one day and musing "we need someone like Joni Balter working for us. Someone who's dumber than a stump" when you walked in the door? Did you suck a dick? I mean really, it sure as Hell wasn't any journalistic perspicacity that got you your job at the Stranger.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | May 16, 2007 9:42 PM

Libertarians are cute when they're angry. :)

Posted by Giffy | May 17, 2007 8:16 AM

Ron Paul is the greatest hope for liberty in this upcoming race. Some of his ideas I disagree with, but hell, he didn't join competition in the last debate to prove who is most pro-torture. Mainstream tyrannical ideas need the jolt he provides. The IRS and the Fed Reserve SHOULD be disbanded.

Posted by Ryan | May 17, 2007 8:29 AM

"the greatest hope for liberty"
is the sad truth.
None of the other candidates, D or R, are interested in expanding your freedoms. But Paul is.

Giffy @ 12
No, placing third in a presidential election is just that-- placing third in a presidential election. He certainly still played in the game. It's the system that makes you think his efforts were worthless. Based on your comment I assume that you have no problems with the extreme unfairness of the two-party system? Not everyone agrees.

Posted by Jamey | May 17, 2007 8:55 AM

To change the two party system you need to radically alter the manner in which we structure government. That is not likely to happen in the near term, or to be honest long term.

The problem is not the two parties. They are just shells. The problem is the people. True change will not happen because some unbalanced nut (Paul), a guy in a bad suit(Nader), or a small elf (Perot) runs for office. It will come because people who are willing to put in the work will change the parties from the precinct on up.

This requires a lot more then appealing to the very small percentage of people who ever support third parties. It requires actually playing the game of politics and government and doing so in an effective way. Shockingly dicking around a protest march, waxing Marxist at a drum circle, or wearing an anti-flag t-shirt to college just doesn't cut it.

Posted by Giffy | May 17, 2007 9:12 AM

@13 - Why don't you take a poll of people who received a free public education. by far the majority of Americans, so yeah, take that away you retard, and we are left with a society where ONLY the Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc. children get to go to school. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Posted by longball | May 17, 2007 11:31 AM

ECB, I think the Flight 93 victims were considered for the Congressional Gold Medal, not the Congressional Medal of Honor. The MoH is only for the military whereas the Gold Medal is specifically for civilians.

Posted by investigatory journalist | May 17, 2007 1:20 PM
Posted by hyperlinker | May 17, 2007 2:06 PM

see also: Ron Paul RNC Participation Petition

To: Republican National Committee

Date: May 11, 2007

To the Republican National Committee,

WHEREAS, Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis has announced a petition of Republican National Committee members asking the Republican National Committee to bar Congressman Ron Paul from future debates due to Congressman Paul’s comments in the second Republican presidential debate that Mr. Anuzis characterizes as "off the wall and out of whack";

WHEREAS, the terrorist motivation comments made by Congressman Paul are, at minimum, supported by the following:

The 911 Commission Report: During the 9/11 Commission hearings, Vice Chair Lee Hamilton asked, "What motivated them to do it?" FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald answered, "I believe they feel a sense of outrage against the United States. They identify with the Palestinian problem, they identify with people who oppose repressive regimes, and I believe they tend to focus their anger on the United States." 9/11 Commission testimony June 16, 2004

One of the countless expert CIA statements: Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer has bluntly stated, "The politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live." Lou Dobbs CNN

Osama Bin Laden statement: In response to President George W. Bush’s statement in an Address to a Joint Session of Congress and to the American People, "They hate ... a democratically elected government. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other,”

Bin Laden in a video response stated, "The White House (is) hiding the truth ... the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries (Arabian Peninsula)."

WHEREAS, Congressman Paul’s statements concerning the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Education spoke to Congressman Paul’s position of reforming and streamlining both organizations to make them more efficient while lessening the expense burden on the U.S. taxpayer – a true conservative Republican position;

WHEREAS, Congressman Paul represents traditional, conservative republican values more so than any Republican candidate;

WHEREAS, the Republican party is losing membership to other parties due to the abandonment of the traditional, conservative republican platform;

WHEREAS, registered Republican voters and American citizens desire to hear Congressman Paul’s message on these issues and others in his bid for president;

BE IT DECLARED, that the undersigned request the Republican National Committee to support fair election procedures, as well as the views and desires of its members and American citizens, by allowing Congressman Ron Paul full participation in all future debates and election events as a Republican National Committee candidate.


The Undersigned

Posted by hyperlinker | May 17, 2007 2:10 PM

Giffy @ 17
I hear you. The people are ultimately responsible. But Americans don't generally like responsibility... Sigh.

hyperlinker: interesting stuff! thanks.

Posted by Jamey | May 17, 2007 3:26 PM

Seattle sucks, and you all are the reason why. You think being cool is gonna save you. You ain't shit. You're fucked, dipshits. You're fucked.

Where I come from (Sausalito, California) there's a little something called a heart. No, not something somebody breaks, you shitheads, something you get each time you GIVE UP.

This city keeps me on edge. You're cagy, Seattle. You're cagy. Too many bums, and you came from the suburbs, you don't know how to deal with it. You dis, Seattle. You dis.

This is the Land of the Dis, idjuts, and YOU'RE breaking my heart.

OK, listen to Somafm ( to Joanna Newsom, or Mickey Avalon ("your dick look like McCaulley Culkin") and put your upright grand piano up on Craigslist - cuz you don't give a shit.

That's what you've done to me.

But I heard ONE thing last year - and I better say it soon, before I say FUCK YOU, you better get your shit straight, Seattlites.

I'm the motherfucker that stole your homie's mic stands, cuz him and his bassist - which he actually followed like a chick he wants to fuck -- yeah, fuck you, motherfuckers! -- they got together and ganged up on me. You fed me too much licorice, and BBL, shit dude, you actually laughed at shit like that...

...and I coulda wrote 100 songs each one better than the last...

...if you'd a let me...

So fuck all y'all, pussywillows...

I'm so mad, I can't even talk.

Excuse me.

I'll try again later.

Posted by Jerit Adamson Fourman | May 17, 2007 7:19 PM

You're just mad he's smarter than all y'all.

Posted by ItsMeAgain | May 17, 2007 7:30 PM

If they take Ron Paul out of the debates, it's time for a revolution in this country

Posted by Spoonfeeder | May 17, 2007 10:46 PM

I'm disappointed you feel you have to stoop to this obvious smear campaign tactic on Dr. Paul. He speaks the truth, and I know that probably scares you.
The people on United 93 didn't deserve the Medal of Honor.

It's a medal for MILITARY you dumb ass! Ron Paul was one of two Congressman brave enough to stick by the definition of the medal. What the hell is wrong with you?

From 10 U.S.C. 3741:
"The President may award, and present in the name of Congress, a medal of honor of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances, to a person who while a member of the Army, distinguished himself conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty -

(1) while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United

(2) while engaged in military operations involving conflict
with an opposing foreign force; or

(3) while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.

I'm sure your other points are equally off the mark. Do some research next time.

Ron Paul speaks the truth and that scares you. I get it.

Posted by GoneResistance | May 18, 2007 2:07 PM

olvxfcwg mfgrsdezw sgaik msuvio yhgp hmui pdnlya

Posted by unwyifpz dpwrako | May 18, 2007 5:51 PM

The only thing on the list that I (as a centrist nutjob) find particularly damning is the last one about Paul's supposed racism. From what I've heard, that was written in Paul's newsletter 10 or 15 years ago by a staffer while Paul was campaigning, and the staffer was promptly fired after that.

I've also heard that the whole thing might have been made up on the internet, so I don't know. I'd like to hear about that one from Paul himself.

Posted by Miles | May 21, 2007 7:26 AM

Congressman Ron Paul is the greatest thing that happened to this country and I whole heartedly hope that he gets elected as President. It is really sad to see most people falling for the left/right paradime not able to see that all the Republican candidates (excluding Ron Paul) and most Democrats are pro war globalists who, with their policies, hope to completely destroy this country. Are most of you aware that the Federal Reserve is a private bank owned by elite families that prints money for the US Government and charges intrest on it that the American people mostly pay through the income tax, when the Constitiution specifically says that the Congress has the right to print money interest free? Ron Paul wants to shut down the Federal Reserve and give back that right to Congress. Do you understand what that means? It means that we would have less taxes to pay. Are you aware that the current government sold you the war on terror under false pretexts and screams about becoming more secure by implementting the police state and yet our borders are wide open and border patrol agents are imprisoned when they persue an illegal immigrant and accidentally hurt them? Ron Paul wants to seal our borders. Do you know that you will get fined when a cop pulls you over and you do not have car insurance or your license and an illegal immigrant is just let go, or when you want to get a bank account and have to show three forms of ID and an illegal doesn't have to show any? Do you know that they are trying to create a North American Union and get rid of national soveriegnty by building the NAFTA Super highway which will take thousands of acres of land from farm owners under eminent domain and build a Spanish owned highway on which those same people, who owned land there going back over a 100 years, will be forced to pay tolls? Ron Paul wants to stop the expansion of the North American Union. It should be liberty versus tyranny, not Republican versus Democrat. Hillary Clinton is supported by Rupert Murdoch did you know that? Do you know what that means? It means that she has corporate interests to take care of, not ours. Most of you people need to wake up and do your research because it is your ignorance that is killing this beautiful country. The Globalists are moving in to take away all your rights and enslave you and you are just sleeping and believing the propaganda that they feed you. WAKE UP!

Posted by Ula Trudnos | May 21, 2007 6:04 PM

A large part of why he is so popular on the internet is that a lot of people on the internet come from wealthy backgrounds. The people who support Ron Paul are more likely to be wealthy.

Coming from an Australian perspective, I certainly hope that Ron Paul does not get elected president in 2008. I don't get to vote in the US elections, but I am keen to watch them. US foriegn policy plays an important role in Australia (especially in the last 10 years).

Posted by huwbert | May 27, 2007 9:33 PM
A large part of why [Ron Paul] is so popular on the internet is that a lot of people on the internet come from wealthy backgrounds. The people who support Ron Paul are more likely to be wealthy.

Another large part of why Ron Paul "is so popular on the Internet" may that people who are "on the Internet" receive information about what happens in the United States from sources other than the handful of transnational conglomerates that own the bulk of United States' mass media. Think about how many Americans feel like they get a balanced view of things by watching both CNN and FOX News.

See: "Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007" from Project Censored at Sonoma State University. Why do our media ignore these issues? What else are they covering up?

Media analyst Robert McChesney states:

[There has been a] striking consolidation of the media from hundreds of firms to an industry dominated by less than ten enormous transnational conglomerates. The largest ten media firms own all US TV networks, most TV stations, all major film studios, all major music companies, nearly all cable TV channels, much of the book and magazine publishing [industry], and much, much more. Expensive investigative journalism—especially that which goes after national security or powerful corporate interests—is discouraged. Largely irrelevant human interest/tragedy stories get extensive coverage….A few weeks after the war began in Afghanistan, CNN president Isaacson authorized CNN to provide two different versions of the war: a more critical one for the global audience and a sugarcoated one for Americans….It is nearly impossible to conceive of a better world without some changes in the media status quo.
Posted by Phil M | May 28, 2007 1:45 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).