HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Bon Vivant said:
HarveyCanal said:
Perhaps I am misreading Paul.
Plus in the article linked in the Salon article, we get...
Paul explained that while he supports the fact that the legislation repealed the notorious Jim Crow laws, which forced racial segregation,
Is there even a single quote from Paul in that article? It's all slanted conjecture. I don't know about yours, but that's what my comprehension pointed out.
Oh, so the part you highlighted about Paul supporting that the CRA repealed Jim Crow is also conjecture, right? Can't have it both ways.
That quote was from the article linked in the Salon article, not the Salon article itself, and it contradicts the point that the Salon article is trying to build.
What does any of this have to do with Ron Paul's BS ideology? Man up and discuss Paul, if you can.
Uhm, you must have missed it. Paul's BS ideology includes rule of law in places you seem to ignore (perhaps you don't care about brown people). Let's discuss how Paul would instantly put an end to the decapitating mobs running around Mexico supplying us with pot. Let's discuss how Paul would have dealt with Qaddafi. It doesn't include arming Libyan rebels. Then let's talk about his position on SOPA and the Internet, the reason so many of us are still employed. Let's talk about him opening up competing currencies, so we can be secure in our belongings in these changing global Internet times. Let's talk about how he feels about sanctions on developing nations and how it affects their poor. Let's talk about what he would do with the CIA, and their current war on Iranian scientists among other activities. Let's talk about the Fed. Let's talk about Occupy Wall Street. Let's talk about the tea party. I don't know where you got the idea I'm not willing to talk...
I got the idea that you weren't willing to talk about Paul by you repeated deflections of criticism of Paul's policies by pointing to the "other guy". I'm happy to be wrong about it.
How would Paul end the Mexican mobs? The POTUS can't unilaterally end the drug war. Congress makes the laws, not the President. Congressmen Paul was ablt to get passed summat like 4 bills he sponsored in 24 years in Congress, so which Congressman is going to follow him?
Paul wants the US to leave NATO and the UN, so it's safe to say he would have ignored Khaddafi's threats to massacrehis own people, and the Libyans pleas for international help. Paul must not care about brown people.
Paul's "end the Fed" idea would have resulted in total economic collapse in 2008. Great idea. Where's all the staggering inflation that Paul has been predicting for 25 years? He's a pussy doctor not an economist.
Paul wants to completely divest the US from the world, including ending sanctions yes, but it also means no foreign aid. WTF is that about? No sanctions on third world nations, but no aid either? Paul must not care about brown people.
Iran doesn't follow the rule of law. Perhaps they don't care about brown people.
Let's start here....and cut the crap about implying that I'm some sort of bigot/ don't care about brown people a-hole, please. Thanks.
He's also losing to Santorum. San-fucking-torum. San-man on dog-torum.
Its ok if Ronnie doesn't get the nomination, Paul supporters will always have his idiot son to root for...pretty sure he believes in the same bullshit.
I got the idea that you weren't willing to talk about Paul by you repeated deflections of criticism of Paul's policies by pointing to the "other guy". I'm happy to be wrong about it.
Paul is a protest vote. I've stated before saying that I "like" the guy would be a stretch. What is important to me are the issues we are discussing now, the crimes against humanity that the current administration is committing.
Bon Vivant said:
How would Paul end the Mexican mobs? The POTUS can't unilaterally end the drug war. Congress makes the laws, not the President. Congressmen Paul was ablt to get passed summat like 4 bills he sponsored in 24 years in Congress, so which Congressman is going to follow him?
Paul wants the US to leave NATO and the UN, so it's safe to say he would have ignored Khaddafi's threats to massacrehis own people, and the Libyans pleas for international help. Paul must not care about brown people.
Congress voted against going to war in Libya. Obama went far beyond the UN's resolution for military action. Clearly the US and NATO participated in a war of aggression here, the very crime NATO was set up to prevent. It is not safe to say Paul would have ignored him, unless you only know how to settle disputes by bombing airports and police stations. I think NATO as it stands is a joke, in it's half assed attempt at being a world government. Something which I am not in favor of either. Hey, we gave it an effort.
Bon Vivant said:
Paul's "end the Fed" idea would have resulted in total economic collapse in 2008. Great idea. Where's all the staggering inflation that Paul has been predicting for 25 years? He's a pussy doctor not an economist.
You are being over dramatic. The existence of a federal reserve bank has been debated in this country for 350 years. We are on our third attempt. Arguably twopresidents have been assassinated because of their beliefs on it. I am certainly against our current privately owned, shareholder accountable central bank. I would think any democrat would be. Our current meltdown is due in large part to it's policies. I am prepared to deal with a transition period, in fact I see it as essential to get back on the right track of publicly controlled monetary policy. I think the Paul sponsored audit of the Fed was one of the most important pieces of legislation in the last year. Paul was absolutely correct regarding the Feds low interest rates and easy money leading to our current crisis. That is obvious. And it is ongoing. Yes, he is a "pussy doctor." Which means he spends less time chasing it like most men and can focus on other things like monetary policy. The field of "experts" in economics couldn't be in a more laughable state currently and I'm not sure what the label of economist has do with our conversations.
Bon Vivant said:
Paul wants to completely divest the US from the world, including ending sanctions yes, but it also means no foreign aid. WTF is that about? No sanctions on third world nations, but no aid either? Paul must not care about brown people.
As a personal policy, I don't lend money I don't have. Call me crazy. Surely that philosophy wouldn't scale up. I believe in charity during times of surplus, not now.
Bon Vivant said:
Iran doesn't follow the rule of law. Perhaps they don't care about brown people.
You seem more concerned about Iran than America. You have a vote in this country. NDAA happened right here.
Bon Vivant said:
Let's start here....and cut the crap about implying that I'm some sort of bigot/ don't care about brown people a-hole, please. Thanks.
Ok, however if you support the drug war you are unarguably a racist.
Bon Vivant said:
He's also losing to Santorum. San-fucking-torum. San-man on dog-torum.
I have no illusions of him winning, but yeah that hurts.
Its ok if Ronnie doesn't get the nomination, Paul supporters will always have his idiot son to root for...pretty sure he believes in the same bullshit.
We have names, feel free to address me personally.
How do you feel about the NDAA
As an aside, how do you think it will effect minorities?
You do know that both Rand and Ron's lively hood depends on people understanding their viewpoints right? They aren't shy about them, you don't have to be pretty sure about anything. Look it up, or keep your fantasies to yourself.
I pretty much stopped listening to the chiropractor when he said the coal mining industry was burdened with too many safety regulations a few weeks after that mine blew up. So yeah, my assessment of "pretty sure" is where I stop, because i dont want to listen to him because Rand is an idiot.
PS you are not the only Ron supporter on here, so I don't feel the need to type all of your names in responding to you, hence my use of "supporters". Don't take it personally.
I'll use your words in regards to NDAA, "yeah that hurts"
I pretty much stopped listening to the chiropractor when he said the coal mining industry was burdened with too many safety regulations a few weeks after that mine blew up. So yeah, my assessment of "pretty sure" is where I stop, because i dont want to listen to him because Rand is an idiot.
PS you are not the only Ron supporter on here, so I don't feel the need to type all of your names in responding to you, hence my use of "supporters". Don't take it personally.
I'll use your words in regards to NDAA, "yeah that hurts"
This thread isn't about Rand. Ron's parenting abilities are definitely a strike against him in my book. But let me just get this straight, you agree with Rand's position on NDAA, a bill which eliminates due process, the cornerstone of any functioning legal system, which has almost unanimous support in congress. However it is his views on coal mining regulations which lead you to call him an idiot?
I pretty much stopped listening to the chiropractor when he said the coal mining industry was burdened with too many safety regulations a few weeks after that mine blew up. So yeah, my assessment of "pretty sure" is where I stop, because i dont want to listen to him because Rand is an idiot.
PS you are not the only Ron supporter on here, so I don't feel the need to type all of your names in responding to you, hence my use of "supporters". Don't take it personally.
I'll use your words in regards to NDAA, "yeah that hurts"
This thread isn't about Rand. Ron's parenting abilities are definitely a strike against him in my book. But let me just get this straight, you agree with Rand's position on NDAA, a bill which eliminates due process, the cornerstone of any functioning legal system, which has almost unanimous support in congress. However it is his views on coal mining regulations which lead you to call him an idiot.
Yes, because miners died, lots of them, lots of families are now fatherless and Rand feels a companies "right" to profits supersedes a companies responsibility to keep its employees safe and ALIVE. His views on this don't end at the mining industry. So yes, he is a dangerous idiot for thinking this way IMO. His opinion on NDAA does not erase the fact that he thinks "free enterprise" is more important than health and safety of citizens. To be honest I am more afraid of corporations interfering in my life and the lives of others and fucking this country up than I am of the government detaining me on suspicion of being a terrorist.
Yes, because miners died, lots of them, lots of families are now fatherless and Rand feels a companies "right" to profits supersedes a companies responsibility to keep its employees safe and ALIVE. His views on this don't end at the mining industry. So yes, he is a dangerous idiot for thinking this way IMO. His opinion on NDAA does not erase the fact that he thinks "free enterprise" is more important than health and safety of citizens. To be honest I am more afraid of corporations interfering in my life and the lives of others and fucking this country up than I am of the government detaining me on suspicion of being a terrorist.
However if you didn't hold such a wrong and simplistic view of libertarianism you'd realize you are fighting a boogeyman. He doesn't like regulation because he thinks it interferes and renders less effective the rule of law. He doesn't want to replace regulations with nothing. He wants to replace them with a legal system that works for everyone. Your assumption that he doesn't care about coal miners is one of bigotry.
I'm done, I can't believe I have spent my morning time before work arguing with someone on the intelligence and political savvy of a fake Doctor.
Don't kid yourself, you haven't done any arguing, just name calling.
You haven't argued, I have. I have talked about events that have formed my opinions and merely peppered it with name calling, because certain words like "idiot" paint a very understandable picture with economy. you have spent every post finger pointing, "look what the other guy did".
To be honest I am more afraid of corporations interfering in my life and the lives of others and fucking this country up than I am of the government detaining me on suspicion of being a terrorist.
This.
I will say that z illa is making good points wiht his past few posts, just nothing that persuades me personally.
Close. The law says the AG has the authority, not the POTUS, to remove scheduling classifications. I know, I know, "But the POTUS appoints the AG." Yes he does, but the AG has to be approved by the Senate. I don't think an AG that openly says they will repeal drug classifications will pass Senatorial muster. Especially if the Senate is controlled by the GOP, which some think will happen. Shiieeettt, good luck getting the Dems to agree too.
Further, Congress can rewrite that law at anytime, and I've seen no evidence that there isn't a veto proof number of Congressman that won't support the drug war.
Congress voted against going to war in Libya. Obama went far beyond the UN's resolution for military action. Clearly the US and NATO participated in a war of aggression here, the very crime NATO was set up to prevent. It is not safe to say Paul would have ignored him, unless you only know how to settle disputes by bombing airports and police stations. I think NATO as it stands is a joke, in it's half assed attempt at being a world government. Something which I am not in favor of either. Hey, we gave it an effort.
Kind of. The House did vote to not authorize the Libyan action, but let's be real, if it had been a Repub in the Oval Office, that shit would have passed, easily. Also, the fact that a resolution to defund the Libyan action failed speaks to Congressional hand-wringing, and a lack of serious intent to really be against it. Perhaps you see it differently.
As to Obama over-stepping, that's a personal opinion, and the UN (as of yet) does not share that view. I also don't: No soldiers on the ground, no soldiers lives lost, civilian casualites kept to a minimum (disagree on agreeing), low cost financially. President Paul may not have ignored him, but he's on record as being against sanctions. So, what would he have done? Asked nicely?
Let's be clear.
Paul is a Republican.
His beliefs fit comfortably into the mainstream of republicanism.
Less government. Less regulations. Less taxes.
Add to that:
Minorities and the poor are bad. Women should not have control of their bodies. Gays should not be allowed to marry.
He differs from Republican orthodoxy only on 2 issues.
He is an isolationist, a Republican position before the cold war.
He opposes having a central bank, and wants us to return to the good old days of boom and bust under the gold standard.
Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support someone like that is futile.
You should be asking the Sabas of the board to support Paul.
The existence of a federal reserve bank has been debated in this country for 350 years. We are on our third attempt. Arguably twopresidents have been assassinated because of their beliefs on it.
It's not surprising that someone who apparently gets their knowledge of American history by word of mouth from crackpots supports "Dr. Paul." It's also not surprising that such a person can't even come within a hundred years of guessing how long the debate about the existence of a central federal bank has been going on in this country.
People who lack a valid base of knowledge should not expect to be taken seriously in these arguments, but for some reason that doesn't stop many of them. The word "arguably" should mean something more than "some idiots who spend all day screaming about Jews think this." But apparently it means no more than that to Ron Paul's Legion Of Dumb.
Let's be clear.
Paul is a Republican.
His beliefs fit comfortably into the mainstream of republicanism.
Less government. Less regulations. Less taxes.
Add to that:
Minorities and the poor are bad. Women should not have control of their bodies. Gays should not be allowed to marry.
He differs from Republican orthodoxy only on 2 issues.
He is an isolationist, a Republican position before the cold war.
He opposes having a central bank, and wants us to return to the good old days of boom and bust under the gold standard.
Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support someone like that is futile.
You should be asking the Sabas of the board to support Paul.
Let's be really really clear. Everything you just said is completely wrong. Which forces me to keep repeating myself.
His beliefs do not fit comfortably into the mainstream of republicanism. His libertarian ideas are well documented, he has ran as a libertarian, he is clearly on the outside of mainstream republicanism. He believes in less government spending and control which includes the byproducts of less taxes and less regulation. He believes the government should not endorse the marriage of men and women, or any other combination. He believes women should not be able to murder what he considers life, a fetus (strongly disagree with him here). Calling him an isolationist is a lie, pure and simple. That isn't even possible in a post internet world. He doesn't believe in troops on foreign soil, that is all, that does not turn him into the cat lady. I can't tell if you are being serious with the poor and minorities statement but it certainly reflects poorly on you. He opposes our current version of a central bank as it sits. He DOES NOT want to return to the gold standard. He wants to open up competing currencies, including gold. He also realizes that boom and busts have been created by the fed as well as the lack of a fed. Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support the only anti war candidate SHOULD NOT BE futile.
He is the only candidate for president in 2012 (except Johnson on a few) who holds the following views:
PIPA/SOPA are wrong
Fraudulent mortgages should be prosecuted
Going to war without congress's approval is wrong
Aggressive wars are wrong
Torture is wrong
Indefinite detention is wrong
The states secret act is being abused
Our covert war with Iran is wrong
The drug war should end
Our blind support of Israel needs to be checked
NDAA is wrong
The patriot act is wrong
The collateral damage caused by drones is unacceptable
Bradley Manning is a hero.
Telecom immunity is a disgrace
Military commissions are an inappropriate way of dealing with accused terrorists
Propping up failed businesses and CEOs with tax dollars is wrong
I could go on all day. I value Paul's participation in this election precisely because he is the only one talking about this shit. And I'm not alone.
Our president has murdered, entered wars illegally, and on new years eve got rid of due process officially. Ron Paul is the only politician on the national stage that WE have speaking out about these things. His value in these areas is immeasurable and unique.
He is the only candidate for president in 2012 (except Johnson on a few) who holds the following views:
PIPA/SOPA are wrong
Fraudulent mortgages should be prosecuted
Going to war without congress's approval is wrong
Aggressive wars are wrong
Torture is wrong
Indefinite detention is wrong
The states secret act is being abused
Our covert war with Iran is wrong
The drug war should end
Our blind support of Israel needs to be checked
NDAA is wrong
The patriot act is wrong
The collateral damage caused by drones is unacceptable
Bradley Manning is a hero.
Telecom immunity is a disgrace
Military commissions are an inappropriate way of dealing with accused terrorists
Propping up failed businesses and CEOs with tax dollars is wrong
but but but i heard he's going to singlehandedly destroy (insert random scare theory) so there's no way i could vote for him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let's be clear.
Paul is a Republican.
His beliefs fit comfortably into the mainstream of republicanism.
Less government. Less regulations. Less taxes.
Add to that:
Minorities and the poor are bad. Women should not have control of their bodies. Gays should not be allowed to marry.
He differs from Republican orthodoxy only on 2 issues.
He is an isolationist, a Republican position before the cold war.
He opposes having a central bank, and wants us to return to the good old days of boom and bust under the gold standard.
Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support someone like that is futile.
You should be asking the Sabas of the board to support Paul.
Let's be really really clear. Everything you just said is completely wrong. Which forces me to keep repeating myself.
His beliefs do not fit comfortably into the mainstream of republicanism. His libertarian ideas are well documented, he has ran as a libertarian, he is clearly on the outside of mainstream republicanism. He believes in less government spending and control which includes the byproducts of less taxes and less regulation. He believes the government should not endorse the marriage of men and women, or any other combination. He believes women should not be able to murder what he considers life, a fetus (strongly disagree with him here). Calling him an isolationist is a lie, pure and simple. That isn't even possible in a post internet world. He doesn't believe in troops on foreign soil, that is all, that does not turn him into the cat lady. I can't tell if you are being serious with the poor and minorities statement but it certainly reflects poorly on you. He opposes our current version of a central bank as it sits. He DOES NOT want to return to the gold standard. He wants to open up competing currencies, including gold. He also realizes that boom and busts have been created by the fed as well as the lack of a fed. Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support the only anti war candidate SHOULD NOT BE futile.
He is the only candidate for president in 2012 (except Johnson on a few) who holds the following views:
PIPA/SOPA are wrong
Fraudulent mortgages should be prosecuted
Going to war without congress's approval is wrong
Aggressive wars are wrong
Torture is wrong
Indefinite detention is wrong
The states secret act is being abused
Our covert war with Iran is wrong
The drug war should end
Our blind support of Israel needs to be checked
NDAA is wrong
The patriot act is wrong
The collateral damage caused by drones is unacceptable
Bradley Manning is a hero.
Telecom immunity is a disgrace
Military commissions are an inappropriate way of dealing with accused terrorists
Propping up failed businesses and CEOs with tax dollars is wrong
I could go on all day. I value Paul's participation in this election precisely because he is the only one talking about this shit. And I'm not alone.
Our president has murdered, entered wars illegally, and on new years eve got rid of due process officially. Ron Paul is the only politician on the national stage that WE have speaking out about these things. His value in these areas is immeasurable and unique.
Thank you for the article. I read it before. It makes the case that Congressman Paul wants what progressives want.
In many cases that is true, such as civil liberties.
Many of the things that he says he is for is simply him saying he doesn't think the Federal government should be involved.
Lets take lgtb rights. He does not believe that the federal government should be involved in regulating marriages. He goes so far as to say that states should be less involved. Some people like to construe these stands as to mean he supports lgbt rights. He does not.
He never ever says that gays should have a right to marry, or a right to do anything else, like the right to work, to live where they want, to go where they want.
I have never heard Paul speak for lgbt rights.
I have heard speak against them.
He spoke in support of DOMA.
He sponsored a bill to prevent CONSTITUTIONAL legal challenges to DOMA. (But, but, but... he wants people's rights to be protected in the courts.)
He supports the right of Texas to outlaw private homosexual sex acts. He does not believe that the right to privacy extends to gays. So his support of civil liberties is limited.
This is just one topic. The point on the surface (the federal gov should not be involved in marriage or the lives of lgbt people) suggests he supports lgbt rights. But he does not. He has no problem with states limiting those rights and does not speak out against states limiting those rights.
This is why the Libertarian Party does not support Paul and he will not be their candidate.
It is why he is not a Democrat.
It is why he is a Republican and popular among Republican voters.
Which is why he was a close third (statistical second) in Iowa.
"He believes in less government spending and control which includes the byproducts of less taxes and less regulation."
I am glad we agree on this. I also think this puts him in the Republican mainstream.
"Calling him an isolationist is a lie, pure and simple."
Please explain how someone who is opposed to trade treaties and mutual defense treaties is not an isolationist.
You don't have to be a "cat lady" to be an isolationist. Many older Republicans are isolationists. It was central to Republicanism before Eisenhower.
"I can't tell if you are being serious with the poor and minorities statement but it certainly reflects poorly on you."
I am serious. I think it reflects poorly on Congressman Paul.
"Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support the only anti war candidate SHOULD NOT BE futile."
He is not anti-war. He said as president he would go to war with Iran IF congress declared war. His opposition is to undeclared wars.
"I value Paul's participation in this election precisely because he is the only one talking about this shit. And I'm not alone."
No, you are not alone. I also value Congressman Paul's participation and his talking about subjects that others are trying to avoid.
Thank you for the article. I read it before. It makes the case that Congressman Paul wants what progressives want.
In many cases that is true, such as civil liberties.
Many of the things that he says he is for is simply him saying he doesn't think the Federal government should be involved.
Lets take lgtb rights. He does not believe that the federal government should be involved in regulating marriages. He goes so far as to say that states should be less involved. Some people like to construe these stands as to mean he supports lgbt rights. He does not.
He never ever says that gays should have a right to marry, or a right to do anything else, like the right to work, to live where they want, to go where they want.
I have never heard Paul speak for lgbt rights.
I have heard speak against them.
He spoke in support of DOMA.
He sponsored a bill to prevent CONSTITUTIONAL legal challenges to DOMA. (But, but, but... he wants people's rights to be protected in the courts.)
He supports the right of Texas to outlaw private homosexual sex acts. He does not believe that the right to privacy extends to gays. So his support of civil liberties is limited.
This is just one topic. The point on the surface (the federal gov should not be involved in marriage or the lives of lgbt people) suggests he supports lgbt rights. But he does not. He has no problem with states limiting those rights and does not speak out against states limiting those rights.
This is why the Libertarian Party does not support Paul and he will not be their candidate.
It is why he is not a Democrat.
It is why he is a Republican and popular among Republican voters.
Which is why he was a close third (statistical second) in Iowa.
"He believes in less government spending and control which includes the byproducts of less taxes and less regulation."
I am glad we agree on this. I also think this puts him in the Republican mainstream.
"Calling him an isolationist is a lie, pure and simple."
Please explain how someone who is opposed to trade treaties and mutual defense treaties is not an isolationist.
You don't have to be a "cat lady" to be an isolationist. Many older Republicans are isolationists. It was central to Republicanism before Eisenhower.
"I can't tell if you are being serious with the poor and minorities statement but it certainly reflects poorly on you."
I am serious. I think it reflects poorly on Congressman Paul.
"Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support the only anti war candidate SHOULD NOT BE futile."
He is not anti-war. He said as president he would go to war with Iran IF congress declared war. His opposition is to undeclared wars.
"I value Paul's participation in this election precisely because he is the only one talking about this shit. And I'm not alone."
No, you are not alone. I also value Congressman Paul's participation and his talking about subjects that others are trying to avoid.
Read it before when? He just posted it this morning. Jeez dude, it's pretty obvious you aren't listening or comprehending my arguments but you don't need to shove it in my face.
Let's be clear.
Paul is a Republican.
His beliefs fit comfortably into the mainstream of republicanism.
Less government. Less regulations. Less taxes.
Add to that:
Minorities and the poor are bad. Women should not have control of their bodies. Gays should not be allowed to marry.
He differs from Republican orthodoxy only on 2 issues.
He is an isolationist, a Republican position before the cold war.
He opposes having a central bank, and wants us to return to the good old days of boom and bust under the gold standard.
Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support someone like that is futile.
You should be asking the Sabas of the board to support Paul.
Let's be really really clear. Everything you just said is completely wrong. Which forces me to keep repeating myself.
His beliefs do not fit comfortably into the mainstream of republicanism. His libertarian ideas are well documented, he has ran as a libertarian, he is clearly on the outside of mainstream republicanism. He believes in less government spending and control which includes the byproducts of less taxes and less regulation. He believes the government should not endorse the marriage of men and women, or any other combination. He believes women should not be able to murder what he considers life, a fetus (strongly disagree with him here). Calling him an isolationist is a lie, pure and simple. That isn't even possible in a post internet world. He doesn't believe in troops on foreign soil, that is all, that does not turn him into the cat lady. I can't tell if you are being serious with the poor and minorities statement but it certainly reflects poorly on you. He opposes our current version of a central bank as it sits. He DOES NOT want to return to the gold standard. He wants to open up competing currencies, including gold. He also realizes that boom and busts have been created by the fed as well as the lack of a fed. Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support the only anti war candidate SHOULD NOT BE futile.
He is the only candidate for president in 2012 (except Johnson on a few) who holds the following views:
PIPA/SOPA are wrong
Fraudulent mortgages should be prosecuted
Going to war without congress's approval is wrong
Aggressive wars are wrong
Torture is wrong
Indefinite detention is wrong
The states secret act is being abused
Our covert war with Iran is wrong
The drug war should end
Our blind support of Israel needs to be checked
NDAA is wrong
The patriot act is wrong
The collateral damage caused by drones is unacceptable
Bradley Manning is a hero.
Telecom immunity is a disgrace
Military commissions are an inappropriate way of dealing with accused terrorists
Propping up failed businesses and CEOs with tax dollars is wrong
I could go on all day. I value Paul's participation in this election precisely because he is the only one talking about this shit. And I'm not alone.
Our president has murdered, entered wars illegally, and on new years eve got rid of due process officially. Ron Paul is the only politician on the national stage that WE have speaking out about these things. His value in these areas is immeasurable and unique.
You like Paul's views on foreign policy and government's intrusion into our privacy, but those aren't the views that liberals are at odds with him about.
You could also say the following about Paul, he is the only candidate for Prez in 2012 who:
Is against the Children's Health Insurance Program or any government funding that helps give poor kids healthcare
Is against any form of federal welfare to the poor, disabled, sick, etc.
Is against any law that would give an individual the right to sue an employer for being discriminated against based on race, age, gender, sex or national origin (or any other reason)
Is against financial and baking regulation that (in hindsight) would have prevented the housing and banking collapse
Is and was against ANY of the "bailouts" that helped save us from a depression, including aid to consumers
This list could go on and on...just pick a regulation that helps consumers or government aid that helps the disadvantaged, and Ron Paul is against it.
Thank you for the article. I read it before. It makes the case that Congressman Paul wants what progressives want.
In many cases that is true, such as civil liberties.
Many of the things that he says he is for is simply him saying he doesn't think the Federal government should be involved.
Lets take lgtb rights. He does not believe that the federal government should be involved in regulating marriages. He goes so far as to say that states should be less involved. Some people like to construe these stands as to mean he supports lgbt rights. He does not.
He never ever says that gays should have a right to marry, or a right to do anything else, like the right to work, to live where they want, to go where they want.
I have never heard Paul speak for lgbt rights.
I have heard speak against them.
He spoke in support of DOMA.
He sponsored a bill to prevent CONSTITUTIONAL legal challenges to DOMA. (But, but, but... he wants people's rights to be protected in the courts.)
He supports the right of Texas to outlaw private homosexual sex acts. He does not believe that the right to privacy extends to gays. So his support of civil liberties is limited.
This is just one topic. The point on the surface (the federal gov should not be involved in marriage or the lives of lgbt people) suggests he supports lgbt rights. But he does not. He has no problem with states limiting those rights and does not speak out against states limiting those rights.
This is why the Libertarian Party does not support Paul and he will not be their candidate.
It is why he is not a Democrat.
It is why he is a Republican and popular among Republican voters.
Which is why he was a close third (statistical second) in Iowa.
"He believes in less government spending and control which includes the byproducts of less taxes and less regulation."
I am glad we agree on this. I also think this puts him in the Republican mainstream.
"Calling him an isolationist is a lie, pure and simple."
Please explain how someone who is opposed to trade treaties and mutual defense treaties is not an isolationist.
You don't have to be a "cat lady" to be an isolationist. Many older Republicans are isolationists. It was central to Republicanism before Eisenhower.
"I can't tell if you are being serious with the poor and minorities statement but it certainly reflects poorly on you."
I am serious. I think it reflects poorly on Congressman Paul.
"Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support the only anti war candidate SHOULD NOT BE futile."
He is not anti-war. He said as president he would go to war with Iran IF congress declared war. His opposition is to undeclared wars.
"I value Paul's participation in this election precisely because he is the only one talking about this shit. And I'm not alone."
No, you are not alone. I also value Congressman Paul's participation and his talking about subjects that others are trying to avoid.
Read it before when? He just posted it this morning. Jeez dude, it's pretty obvious you aren't listening or comprehending my arguments but you don't need to shove it in my face.
Damn man. When you said you "keep repeating myself" in a link to a Greenwald Salon article on why liberals should support Congressman Paul I thought it was the same Greenwald Salon article on why liberals should support Congressman Paul.
Just the same I have read enough about Congressman Paul to stand behind everything I said.
Because he comes to a few conclusions about some issues that match mine does not mean I will support someone whose world view is a complete opposite of mine.
I have listened to your comments, and responded civilly to them.
Comments
That quote was from the article linked in the Salon article, not the Salon article itself, and it contradicts the point that the Salon article is trying to build.
I got the idea that you weren't willing to talk about Paul by you repeated deflections of criticism of Paul's policies by pointing to the "other guy". I'm happy to be wrong about it.
How would Paul end the Mexican mobs? The POTUS can't unilaterally end the drug war. Congress makes the laws, not the President. Congressmen Paul was ablt to get passed summat like 4 bills he sponsored in 24 years in Congress, so which Congressman is going to follow him?
Paul wants the US to leave NATO and the UN, so it's safe to say he would have ignored Khaddafi's threats to massacrehis own people, and the Libyans pleas for international help. Paul must not care about brown people.
Paul's "end the Fed" idea would have resulted in total economic collapse in 2008. Great idea. Where's all the staggering inflation that Paul has been predicting for 25 years? He's a pussy doctor not an economist.
Paul wants to completely divest the US from the world, including ending sanctions yes, but it also means no foreign aid. WTF is that about? No sanctions on third world nations, but no aid either? Paul must not care about brown people.
Iran doesn't follow the rule of law. Perhaps they don't care about brown people.
Let's start here....and cut the crap about implying that I'm some sort of bigot/ don't care about brown people a-hole, please. Thanks.
He's also losing to Santorum. San-fucking-torum. San-man on dog-torum.
Paul is a protest vote. I've stated before saying that I "like" the guy would be a stretch. What is important to me are the issues we are discussing now, the crimes against humanity that the current administration is committing.
You are wrong on this.
Congress voted against going to war in Libya. Obama went far beyond the UN's resolution for military action. Clearly the US and NATO participated in a war of aggression here, the very crime NATO was set up to prevent. It is not safe to say Paul would have ignored him, unless you only know how to settle disputes by bombing airports and police stations. I think NATO as it stands is a joke, in it's half assed attempt at being a world government. Something which I am not in favor of either. Hey, we gave it an effort.
You are being over dramatic. The existence of a federal reserve bank has been debated in this country for 350 years. We are on our third attempt. Arguably two presidents have been assassinated because of their beliefs on it. I am certainly against our current privately owned, shareholder accountable central bank. I would think any democrat would be. Our current meltdown is due in large part to it's policies. I am prepared to deal with a transition period, in fact I see it as essential to get back on the right track of publicly controlled monetary policy. I think the Paul sponsored audit of the Fed was one of the most important pieces of legislation in the last year. Paul was absolutely correct regarding the Feds low interest rates and easy money leading to our current crisis. That is obvious. And it is ongoing. Yes, he is a "pussy doctor." Which means he spends less time chasing it like most men and can focus on other things like monetary policy. The field of "experts" in economics couldn't be in a more laughable state currently and I'm not sure what the label of economist has do with our conversations.
As a personal policy, I don't lend money I don't have. Call me crazy. Surely that philosophy wouldn't scale up. I believe in charity during times of surplus, not now.
You seem more concerned about Iran than America. You have a vote in this country. NDAA happened right here.
Ok, however if you support the drug war you are unarguably a racist.
I have no illusions of him winning, but yeah that hurts.
We have names, feel free to address me personally.
How do you feel about the NDAA
As an aside, how do you think it will effect minorities?
You do know that both Rand and Ron's lively hood depends on people understanding their viewpoints right? They aren't shy about them, you don't have to be pretty sure about anything. Look it up, or keep your fantasies to yourself.
PS you are not the only Ron supporter on here, so I don't feel the need to type all of your names in responding to you, hence my use of "supporters". Don't take it personally.
I'll use your words in regards to NDAA, "yeah that hurts"
This thread isn't about Rand. Ron's parenting abilities are definitely a strike against him in my book. But let me just get this straight, you agree with Rand's position on NDAA, a bill which eliminates due process, the cornerstone of any functioning legal system, which has almost unanimous support in congress. However it is his views on coal mining regulations which lead you to call him an idiot?
edit: here is a good article on Rand, if his words are too offensive to you.
Yes, because miners died, lots of them, lots of families are now fatherless and Rand feels a companies "right" to profits supersedes a companies responsibility to keep its employees safe and ALIVE. His views on this don't end at the mining industry. So yes, he is a dangerous idiot for thinking this way IMO. His opinion on NDAA does not erase the fact that he thinks "free enterprise" is more important than health and safety of citizens. To be honest I am more afraid of corporations interfering in my life and the lives of others and fucking this country up than I am of the government detaining me on suspicion of being a terrorist.
However if you didn't hold such a wrong and simplistic view of libertarianism you'd realize you are fighting a boogeyman. He doesn't like regulation because he thinks it interferes and renders less effective the rule of law. He doesn't want to replace regulations with nothing. He wants to replace them with a legal system that works for everyone. Your assumption that he doesn't care about coal miners is one of bigotry.
Don't kid yourself, you haven't done any arguing, just name calling.
You haven't argued, I have. I have talked about events that have formed my opinions and merely peppered it with name calling, because certain words like "idiot" paint a very understandable picture with economy. you have spent every post finger pointing, "look what the other guy did".
Bye, gotta go to work
This.
I will say that z illa is making good points wiht his past few posts, just nothing that persuades me personally.
Close. The law says the AG has the authority, not the POTUS, to remove scheduling classifications. I know, I know, "But the POTUS appoints the AG." Yes he does, but the AG has to be approved by the Senate. I don't think an AG that openly says they will repeal drug classifications will pass Senatorial muster. Especially if the Senate is controlled by the GOP, which some think will happen. Shiieeettt, good luck getting the Dems to agree too.
Further, Congress can rewrite that law at anytime, and I've seen no evidence that there isn't a veto proof number of Congressman that won't support the drug war.
Kind of. The House did vote to not authorize the Libyan action, but let's be real, if it had been a Repub in the Oval Office, that shit would have passed, easily. Also, the fact that a resolution to defund the Libyan action failed speaks to Congressional hand-wringing, and a lack of serious intent to really be against it. Perhaps you see it differently.
As to Obama over-stepping, that's a personal opinion, and the UN (as of yet) does not share that view. I also don't: No soldiers on the ground, no soldiers lives lost, civilian casualites kept to a minimum (disagree on agreeing), low cost financially. President Paul may not have ignored him, but he's on record as being against sanctions. So, what would he have done? Asked nicely?
Paul is a Republican.
His beliefs fit comfortably into the mainstream of republicanism.
Less government. Less regulations. Less taxes.
Add to that:
Minorities and the poor are bad. Women should not have control of their bodies. Gays should not be allowed to marry.
He differs from Republican orthodoxy only on 2 issues.
He is an isolationist, a Republican position before the cold war.
He opposes having a central bank, and wants us to return to the good old days of boom and bust under the gold standard.
Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support someone like that is futile.
You should be asking the Sabas of the board to support Paul.
Let's be really really clear. Everything you just said is completely wrong. Which forces me to keep repeating myself.
His beliefs do not fit comfortably into the mainstream of republicanism. His libertarian ideas are well documented, he has ran as a libertarian, he is clearly on the outside of mainstream republicanism. He believes in less government spending and control which includes the byproducts of less taxes and less regulation. He believes the government should not endorse the marriage of men and women, or any other combination. He believes women should not be able to murder what he considers life, a fetus (strongly disagree with him here). Calling him an isolationist is a lie, pure and simple. That isn't even possible in a post internet world. He doesn't believe in troops on foreign soil, that is all, that does not turn him into the cat lady. I can't tell if you are being serious with the poor and minorities statement but it certainly reflects poorly on you. He opposes our current version of a central bank as it sits. He DOES NOT want to return to the gold standard. He wants to open up competing currencies, including gold. He also realizes that boom and busts have been created by the fed as well as the lack of a fed. Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support the only anti war candidate SHOULD NOT BE futile.
He is the only candidate for president in 2012 (except Johnson on a few) who holds the following views:
PIPA/SOPA are wrong
Fraudulent mortgages should be prosecuted
Going to war without congress's approval is wrong
Aggressive wars are wrong
Torture is wrong
Indefinite detention is wrong
The states secret act is being abused
Our covert war with Iran is wrong
The drug war should end
Our blind support of Israel needs to be checked
NDAA is wrong
The patriot act is wrong
The collateral damage caused by drones is unacceptable
Bradley Manning is a hero.
Telecom immunity is a disgrace
Military commissions are an inappropriate way of dealing with accused terrorists
Propping up failed businesses and CEOs with tax dollars is wrong
I could go on all day. I value Paul's participation in this election precisely because he is the only one talking about this shit. And I'm not alone.
Our president has murdered, entered wars illegally, and on new years eve got rid of due process officially. Ron Paul is the only politician on the national stage that WE have speaking out about these things. His value in these areas is immeasurable and unique.
Thank you for the article. I read it before. It makes the case that Congressman Paul wants what progressives want.
In many cases that is true, such as civil liberties.
Many of the things that he says he is for is simply him saying he doesn't think the Federal government should be involved.
Lets take lgtb rights. He does not believe that the federal government should be involved in regulating marriages. He goes so far as to say that states should be less involved. Some people like to construe these stands as to mean he supports lgbt rights. He does not.
He never ever says that gays should have a right to marry, or a right to do anything else, like the right to work, to live where they want, to go where they want.
I have never heard Paul speak for lgbt rights.
I have heard speak against them.
He spoke in support of DOMA.
He sponsored a bill to prevent CONSTITUTIONAL legal challenges to DOMA. (But, but, but... he wants people's rights to be protected in the courts.)
He supports the right of Texas to outlaw private homosexual sex acts. He does not believe that the right to privacy extends to gays. So his support of civil liberties is limited.
This is just one topic. The point on the surface (the federal gov should not be involved in marriage or the lives of lgbt people) suggests he supports lgbt rights. But he does not. He has no problem with states limiting those rights and does not speak out against states limiting those rights.
This is why the Libertarian Party does not support Paul and he will not be their candidate.
It is why he is not a Democrat.
It is why he is a Republican and popular among Republican voters.
Which is why he was a close third (statistical second) in Iowa.
"He believes in less government spending and control which includes the byproducts of less taxes and less regulation."
I am glad we agree on this. I also think this puts him in the Republican mainstream.
"Calling him an isolationist is a lie, pure and simple."
Please explain how someone who is opposed to trade treaties and mutual defense treaties is not an isolationist.
You don't have to be a "cat lady" to be an isolationist. Many older Republicans are isolationists. It was central to Republicanism before Eisenhower.
"I can't tell if you are being serious with the poor and minorities statement but it certainly reflects poorly on you."
I am serious. I think it reflects poorly on Congressman Paul.
"Asking Democrats, liberals or progressives to support the only anti war candidate SHOULD NOT BE futile."
He is not anti-war. He said as president he would go to war with Iran IF congress declared war. His opposition is to undeclared wars.
"I value Paul's participation in this election precisely because he is the only one talking about this shit. And I'm not alone."
No, you are not alone. I also value Congressman Paul's participation and his talking about subjects that others are trying to avoid.
Read it before when? He just posted it this morning. Jeez dude, it's pretty obvious you aren't listening or comprehending my arguments but you don't need to shove it in my face.
You like Paul's views on foreign policy and government's intrusion into our privacy, but those aren't the views that liberals are at odds with him about.
You could also say the following about Paul, he is the only candidate for Prez in 2012 who:
Is against the Children's Health Insurance Program or any government funding that helps give poor kids healthcare
Is against any form of federal welfare to the poor, disabled, sick, etc.
Is against any law that would give an individual the right to sue an employer for being discriminated against based on race, age, gender, sex or national origin (or any other reason)
Is against financial and baking regulation that (in hindsight) would have prevented the housing and banking collapse
Is and was against ANY of the "bailouts" that helped save us from a depression, including aid to consumers
This list could go on and on...just pick a regulation that helps consumers or government aid that helps the disadvantaged, and Ron Paul is against it.
:walk_away_son:
Damn man. When you said you "keep repeating myself" in a link to a Greenwald Salon article on why liberals should support Congressman Paul I thought it was the same Greenwald Salon article on why liberals should support Congressman Paul.
Just the same I have read enough about Congressman Paul to stand behind everything I said.
Because he comes to a few conclusions about some issues that match mine does not mean I will support someone whose world view is a complete opposite of mine.
I have listened to your comments, and responded civilly to them.