Ron Paul's views are scary.

[madfloridian]

He is way off base on life before Social Security. His pro-life, anti-abortion views are upsetting as well. I wonder how many people see his anti-war stance and fail to look at the rest of what he is about.

As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."

Actually there were such things happening, and most people did not have access to doctors. That is a very idealized picture he paints. I remember the tales of my grandparents about after the depression hit in 1929. Not only could they not afford medical care, many could not afford food on the table.

I have seen article after article this week comparing Ron Paul to Howard Dean...there just is no comparison. Ron Paul is not the "Howard Dean of 08". Their views on our taking care of each other are drastically different.

Dean on Social Security:

"Social Security is a moral value for people who have worked all their life. They deserve to retire with dignity. We ought not to turn our retirement programs over to the same people who gave us Enron."

...."You know the Social Security debate is not just about money. It's about whether we have responsibility for each other as a community, or not."

Ron Paul did not believe we should send aid to Katrina victims. This is why I am so angry when I see all the comparisons of him to people like Howard Dean...who said we are our brother's keeper.

Voted NO on sending aid to Katrina victims.

"Last year, Congress decided to send billions of dollars to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Guess how Ron Paul voted.

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?" he asks. "Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"

He'd rather say not

I do believe we must "bail out" each other. It is a terrifying thought that he is one who wants us to be on our own. Neighbor can not always help neighbor. When 3 hurricanes hit us, we were all shown our helpless side. When neighbors are down and out and struggling, they can not do much for each other. We were all so busy after the 3 storms in 6 weeks just getting ourselves off the floor emotionally, that a neighbor in great stress died alone before we knew to help him.

There must be a government program to help "bail" us out.

I am troubled also by Ron Paul's views on abortion.

"Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

He authored a bill that declared that life begins at conception, a view which is NOT conducive to some forms of birth control nor with stem cell research. His views disturb me.

Apparently it was dramatic enough to cause Paul to author H.R. 1094, a bill that declares that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception," a standard Christian Right viewpoint. While Paul has written, "I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena," this faith, in conjunction with his traumatic residency experience, seems to have left him deeply troubled by abortion in a way organizations like Focus on the Family would no doubt find familiar. "Many talk about being pro-life," Paul continued. "I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn."

Ron Paul's pro life rhetoric

Here is more about his view on stem-cell research. While he says he opposes it because it is a funding issue....it seems his staunch pro-life stance would cause him to be against it. Most who view life as beginning at conception do oppose stem cell research.

Stem Cell Research

Paul backed President Bush's veto of congressional legislation to expand federal funding for non-embryonic stem cell research, saying he doesn't oppose such research but objects to federal funding for it. The founding fathers, Paul also wrote, "intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washington's hands."

His views on health care go along with what he said about Social Security above. Every man for himself. That philosophy scares the hell out of me. That is a bare bones hands off approach that I find appalling.

Health Care

In 2006, Paul wrote that "the problems with our health care system are not the result of too little government intervention but, rather, too much." The solutions, he argued, lie in allowing individuals to deduct from their taxes all of their health care costs, as businesses do, and in promoting "true competition" in the market for health care provisions. Paul has also supported legislation permitting individuals to buy "negative outcome" insurance before major medical treatments in order to reduce "the burden of costly malpractice litigation."

Ron Paul on the issues

How does one have tax deductions when one is not working? That happens a lot to the best of people....being out of work.

I truly was alarmed at his statement about Social Security....I believe that really is the worst.

Here is a little bit about life after the 1929 depression and before FDR's formation of Social Security...Ron Paul is way off base on this .

The trauma for the elderly of that era can hardly be overstated. As W. Andrew Achenbaum, a historian at the University of Houston, put it, ''The Depression destroyed every mechanism that had existed for covering the vicissitudes of old-age dependency."

"Before the creation of Social Security, some Americans had private or state pensions, but most supported themselves into old age by working. The 1930 census, for example, found 58 percent of men over 65 still in the workforce; in contrast, by 2002, the figure was 18 percent.

The elderly also relied heavily on their families. ''Children, friends and relatives have borne and still carry the major cost of supporting the aged,'' the Committee on Economic Security, the Roosevelt administration panel that developed Social Security, reported in 1935. ''Several of the state surveys have disclosed that from 30 to 50 percent of the people over 65 years of age were being supported in this way.''

The Depression swept this world away. Many of the elderly could no longer find work. Those who had been lucky enough to have a pension or some savings saw them disappear. And many who relied on their children saw them buckle under the strain.

''I am in no position to do the right thing for my mother,'' one woman wrote to Roosevelt. "I thought as long as I lived there was no need to worry about her being taken care of, but I never dreamed of a depression like we have had."

The World: Life Before Social Security; 'A Great Calamity Has Come Upon Us'

And Michael Katz in the WP has some things to say about that.

"Where to begin with this one?" asks Michael Katz, a historian of poverty at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied charity case records from the early 20th century. "The stories just break your heart, the kind of suffering that people endured. . . . Stories of families that had literally no cash and had to kind of beg to get the most minimal forms of food, who lived in tiny, little rooms that were ill-heated and ill-ventilated, who were sick all the time, who had meager clothing . . ."

Congressman Paul's Legislative Strategy? He'd Rather Say Not.

His anti-war views are good, but I wonder if all the people making those huge donations this week are truly aware of the rest of his philosophy.

[Union Thug]

1. Of course they are - he's a Libertarian; the spoiled rotten 8 year olds of..

..the political world.

[rwheeler31]

6. Keep him in the mix as long as you can.

[cboy4]

2. He scares me less than every other single last

Republic candidate who just can't wait to shoot nuclear missiles at Iran.

Social security doesn't matter much if there's no world.

But that's just me.

[madfloridian]

4. Your statement scares me.

I don't think you see the big picture of our humanity.

[cboy4]

5. I hope you're not mistaking my comment as an

endorsement.

[madfloridian]

7. No, I'm not. He is just anti most things I strongly believe in.

Things that make us a great nation. I don't take it as an endorsement.

[txaslftist]

57. That wackos probably one of the "war blind"

People so blinded by the fact that we've murdered a few hundred thousand people or maybe a million that they think we have a moral imperative to do something about it. Maybe even take a risk that two congressional houses controlled by Democrats will cave in to a president Paul and do away with social security.

I think a few more hundred thousand dead is definitely worth not taking that risk. Any good Democrat should agree.

[LeftishBrit]

76. Are these the only alternatives?

Can't someone be anti-war AND liberal? Why not elect a liberal Dem?

I am a bit surprised that you can have any sympathy with Ron Paul, given your signature line, which perfectly describes the economic and social attitudes of people like Ron Paul.

[txaslftist]

77. Sympathy with Ron Paul?

You haven't been reading my posts, obviously. I'll support whomever the Democratic nominee is. I'm willing to stay in Iraq until 2013 and beyond if it means we get a Democrat in the White House. That's what's critical. People let the war cloud their vision and they lose sight of all other issues.

We desperately need our social security safety net, especially in the hard times we're experiencing. Doing away with the Federal Reserve? At a time when we need the banks to protect us from a worsening economy more than ever? Reducing the size of government just when we're going to need it the most? All just to save the lives of people in some distant country or save a few tax dollars? That's crazy!

If swallowing a continuing war or a widening war is what it takes to get a Democrat in the White House, that's a price we all should be able to accept.

[lvx35]

18. I agree, he is way less scary.

The FUNDAMENTAL THING is to preserve our constitution and liberties, because everything else depends on that. Yes he would mess up entitlement programs and all other kinds of things, but you can't bank on ANYTHING, including entitlements, when you've handed your government over to dictatorship, when the constitution is null and void. Ron Paul is the only republican aware of the risks of where we are at right now, and that puts him a head and shoulders above the rest.

[madfloridian]

20. Considering the field of Republicans, that is not such a great thing.

He wants to return to the days when grown children stayed home and took care of aging parents. I am sorry but that scenario does not fit today's conditions.

He doesn't believe in Medicare either, so let's see how much young people would love paying for their parents medical bills.

[lvx35]

21. Oh yeah, he's no temptation whatsoever.

Though I feel like some around here are worried that he is. The guy is almost an anarchist, he's a just a symbol really, of Conservative discontent with Bush's big totalitarian government, which is why he's fundamentally good for them. But he has nothing to do with us.

[cali]

46. He does not preserve the Constitution or are liberties

he's a revolting little man with a conception of the Constitution that is locked in the 18th century.

[lvx35]

48. Oh yes, that silly 1776 era constitution. Revolting.

I much prefer the post 9/11 constitution...Its so much less...provincial. (sniff)

[cali]

49. ignorance; it's so depressing.

the Constitution is not, thank the gods, a static document. Paul believes it is.

Let's provide some very basic information for you; it's clear you need it: There is no 1776 Constitution. The Constitution was adopted in 1787 in Philadelphia. The government didn't start operating under the Constitution until 1789. The Bill of Rights was added three years later.

Good as that document is, in many way, it's also largely a reflection of an 18th century Enlightenment mentality: It excluded far more people from its protections than it included. It was a document for wealthy white land owners. It's to their credit that the Founders recogninzed that they had created a document that would, of neccessity, require alteration. Ron Paul doesn't have their foresight.

The Constitution is not only an old piece of paper, it's Supreme Court case law. It truly is a living breathing document that should always be used to expand the rights of the people, not shrink them. And that's exactly what the not so good Dr., wants to do: Shrink the rights of the people.

[divinecommands]

99. Good point, Cali!

One of the most important parts of the Constitution Ron Paul and his supporters seem to want to ignore is the 14th Amendment. I came across a post on that (written by a libertarian, no less) the other day.

http://anonymouslibertarian.blogspot.com/2007/11/case-against-ron-paul.html

It seems fact based, but I'm not a lawyer or law student.

[lvx35]

132. Bush agrees with you.

the Constitution is not, thank the gods, a static document. Paul believes it is.

Bush: Heckuva comment, Cali!

Let's provide some very basic information for you; it's clear you need it: There is no 1776 Constitution. The Constitution was adopted in 1787 in Philadelphia. The government didn't start operating under the Constitution until 1789. The Bill of Rights was added three years later.

Bush: Hehehe. Got him on that one...He even knew it was an airror when he said it, that's why he said "1776 era". He's not even smart enough to spell "airror" right.

Good as that document is, in many way, it's also largely a reflection of an 18th century Enlightenment mentality: It excluded far more people from its protections than it included. It was a document for wealthy white land owners. It's to their credit that the Founders recogninzed that they had created a document that would, of neccessity, require alteration. Ron Paul doesn't have their foresight.

Bush: I hear them jewish people don't have foresights either, they cut em off when they're babies.

The Constitution is not only an old piece of paper, it's Supreme Court case law. It truly is a living breathing document that should always be used to expand the rights of the people, not shrink them. And that's exactly what the not so good Dr., wants to do: Shrink the rights of the people.

Bush: Tell me about it! Those constitutionalists want to shrink all my liberties...The liberty to torture, the liberty to come in people's homes without warrants, the liberty to Habeus corpus whatever that is...I'm glad you see this all as what it is, expansion of rights. Who would want to go back to that old document when we have rights like this!

[txaslftist]

58. Me too. 9-11 changed everything.

[ozone_man]

196. Sure he does.

Where have you been? Just a few weeks ago he introduced a bill into Congress to do exactly that.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h3835ih.txt.pdf

[Al Federfer]

25. Dems should WANT Ron Paul to be nominated...

Paul is by far the least offensive and scary of any Republican candidate.

[onenote]

149. so does David Duke scare you less than every other repub candidate?

After all, he's opposed to the war too.
http://www.davidduke.com/general/no-war-for-israel_4.html

[NoodleBoy]

3. kick for helping people know a dangerous radical when they see one.

[JeffR]

8. fellow floridian, I commend you as always for your diligence, hard

work and dedication to the truth. But I could have boiled this down a little for you:

Ron Paul is wind-in-the-riggings, flea-crap, angelus-bell, edge-of-a-flat-earth, threadbare, naked-as-a-jaybird fucking nuts. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be better informed.

His stance on Iraq? Great. Otherwise, please refer to the previous paragraph.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

14. and peak oil Jeff!

He used to give great late night lectures on peak oil on the House floor before he got too busy running for prez. :)

other than that... what you said.

[JeffR]

17. That's a nice amendment to my crude sentiments

yes, he's been right about other things. I wish I knew what kind of synapse failure one would have to be experiencing to be right on some things and so utterly wrong on so many others? Strange thing is that's as near to a classic definition of the typical Republican as I can imagine.

[madfloridian]

24. Chuckle.

That's called saying what you really think. :rant:

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. He's riight only on the war, but that has to do with the nativist impulse

and isolationist impulse of Libertarians

As to him being Howard Dean... only as far as gathering money on the web.. that is as far as it goes

Though he has a hell of a grasp of the Neocon movement... and his explanation on the floor, during special orders is a must see.

He was amazing that day.

[blondeatlast]

59. Exactly--he's correct oin the war for all the WRONG reasons. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. He's riight only on the war, but that has to do with the nativist impulse

and isolationist impulse of Libertarians

As to him being Howard Dean... only as far as gathering money on the web.. that is as far as it goes

Though he has a hell of a grasp of the Neocon movement... and his explanation on the floor, during special orders is a must see.

He was amazing that day.

[rwheeler31]

11. He is scary but right on the big stuff.

[madfloridian]

12. Clarify what you consider "the big stuff"....

:shrug:

[Disturbed]

15. Ron Paul doesn't talk much about his Libertarian views.

He only joined the Repug party so that he would be elected as a Rep from TX. He ran for Pres. before on the Libertarian ticket & got nowhere. He is a hard core Libertarian, ultra RWing.

[aquart]

13. Every dime he raises is a dime not in Giuliani's pocket.

If the Republicans have to waste their already diminished resources in going after him, YAYYY Ron Paul. Let them feel the attack from both sides for a change.

[Hoof Hearted]

16. boot-straps, rub some dirt on it, they just don't WANT to work

oh. Excuse me.

I think some short-sighted people support him because he:
1. Is against the war.
No big surprise here. Libertarians get this one right most of the time. Don't fight unless you're directly attacked. It leaves out WWI & WWII, but for many of our other wars, that would have been a good rule of thumb to follow.
2. Is against the drug war.
This appeals to the large contingent of MJ smokers, and those who understand the "war on drugs" is counterproductive (as least as far as a law enforcement/incarceration issue)
3. Is against property taxes to support schools. Now we are getting to the short-sighted portion of tonights illustration. I have seen many people on this site and others bemoan the taxes they pay to educate children because they are not "breeders" or they have chosen a childless lifestyle, or my personal favorite........ they're a college student with no children who bought a house to live in while they attend.
4. Is against SS. Many people, including myself, harbor deep suspicions that we will never again see the money being taken out of our checks for this program. The real difference here is whether or not one has the the maturity to set aside the very base impulse towards selfishness and understand that the elders of society need additional support and care. I grumble about it sometimes but really, when you get down to it, only a future Republican would stare down some 91 year old lady and tell her your pizza and beer money meant more than her medicine and ADL care.

type-oops.

[DeSwiss]

19. Madfloridian, you're absolutely right, the man's a flaming loon....

Ron Paul assuredly has a couple of position statements and policies that I could support. But the vast majority of his positions are so extreme as to be totally ludicrous.

Here are some of his nutty political positions obtained from his campaign website:

Ron Paul on Abortion
Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly *life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
*Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
*Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
*Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
*Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Budget & Economy
Can't legislate economic fairness; so make government small. (Sep 2007)
Prioritize spending based on Constitution--and lower it too. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Civil Rights
No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)
No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007)
*No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007)
*First Amendment was written for controversial speech. (Sep 2007)
Use power of presidency to restore habeas corpus. (Sep 2007)
*Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
*Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
*Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

Ron Paul on Corporations
*Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)

Ron Paul on Crime
*Opposes "hate crimes" legislation. (Sep 2007)

Ron Paul on Education
*Don't impeach judges for decisions on legislature prayers. (Sep 2007)
***Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)
*Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007)
***Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)
***Guarantee parity for home school diplomas. (Sep 2007)
*Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
***Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
***Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
***Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Ron Paul on Energy & Oil
Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)
Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
*Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
*Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
*Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
***Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
***Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
***Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)

Ron Paul on Environment
Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)
*Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
*Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)

Ron Paul on Families & Children
Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005)
*Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy
No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)
*Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)
Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007)
*Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007)
Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)
*Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
*Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Free Trade
No North American Union; no WTO; no UN. (Sep 2007)
***China trade not contingent on human rights & product safety. (Sep 2007)
Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
*No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)

Ron Paul on Government Reform
*DC voting representation should be determined by Amendment. (Sep 2007)
*Disallow lawsuits that stop public officials invoking God. (Sep 2007)
***Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
*Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)
***Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
***Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
********Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Gun Control
***Let airlines make rules about passenger guns to fight terror. (Sep 2007)
Opposes the DC Gun Ban; it's not just a "collective right". (Mar 2007)
Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
*Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996)

Ron Paul on Health Care
Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007)
Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. (Sep 2007)
*Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Homeland Security
Protect military chaplains' right to pray in preferred faith. (Sep 2007)
*Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)
***Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
***Federal duty to provide missile defense . (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Immigration
*No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)
*Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)
***Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
*Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

Ron Paul on Jobs
*Minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (Sep 2007)
*No "sexual orientation" in Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (Sep 2007)
***Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
***Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)

Ron Paul on Principles & Values
***Congress should write fewer laws regarding church & state. (Jun 2007)

Ron Paul on Social Security
Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one's future. (Sep 2007)
Federal government won't keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
***Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)

Ron Paul on Tax Reform
Get rid of the inflation tax with sound money. (May 2007)
*Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
***Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
*Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
*Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
*Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)
*Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Technology
******No Fairness Doctrine: no equal time if morally objectionable. (Sep 2007)
******Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)

Ron Paul on War & Peace
Preemptive war is against Christian doctrine of just war. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

Ron Paul on Welfare & Poverty
***Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm">LINK

K&R!!!

on edit: added link

[madfloridian]

56. Thanks for the links...I had not seen that.

Ron Paul on Health Care
"Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007)
Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. (Sep 2007)
*Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)"

Ron Paul on Social Security
Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one's future. (Sep 2007)
Federal government won't keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007)
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
***Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)

[Quixote1818]

22. Oh yes, I think he is worse than all the other Republicans accept on the war

His foreign policy ideas are ok but his domestic policy ideas are so incredibly insane!!!!

He scares the hell out of me! His domestic policies would be even more harmful than Bush's. Our country would be ruined under Paul.

[zforce]

27. That's weird..

I've met many Democrats in my community who are supporting Ron Paul because of his anti-war position(and sometimes because of his anti-Private Federal Reserve Corporation position) , even though they disagree with most of his domestic policies.

I think they understand that Paul really wouldn't have much effect on what we deem as to be important domestic policies, which makes sense in light of the fact that congress would still be made-up of the staus quo(Dems and Repubs).

Fact of the matter is, he would have full control of Foreign Policy(Military), and based on his track record we can know with certainty that Mr. Paul will do what he said he wwould do..bring the troops back immediately, and from EVERYWHERE.

I don't know, call me crazy..but if its not Paul, its "more war and more than likely, bankruptcy".

I hope some of you will reconsider.

Peace

[Naturyl]

42. So, is that an edorsement of a Republican?

These "Democrats" supporting Ron Paul are the biggest disappointment of the whole thing.

What part of "he is more Republican on economic issues than the Republican party itself" is so hard to understand?

As for stopping the war, have you heard of a guy named DENNIS KUCINICH?

[pinto]

45. Who we are:

Democratic Candidates and the Democratic Party

Constructive criticism of Democrats or the Democratic Party is permitted. When doing so, please keep in mind that most of our members come to this website in order to get a break from the constant attacks in the media against our candidates and our values. Highly inflammatory or divisive attacks that echo the tone or substance of our political opponents are not welcome here.

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[Naturyl]

47. Yeah, I alerted on the post.

As I will alert on all posts supporting Ron Paul.

I don't have a lost of posts here, but I've been lurking a long time.

[txaslftist]

63. Good for you!

Dissenters shouldn't be allowed to clutter up these boards with their wacko ideas.

[hiphopnation]

81. dissent is one thing, lunacy quite another n/t

[txaslftist]

82. Fortunately we have moderaters to keep us aware of the difference!

[hiphopnation]

84. the informed among us already know, mods just lock threads!

:hi:

[Al Federfer]

52. Well said. n/t

[blondeatlast]

60. He's correct on the war--for all the WRONG reasons.

And he's a scary, racist, misogynist, stupid, selfish fuck besides.

[txaslftist]

62. That's very disloyal of you.

To think of some other country first. We need to be worried about domestic issues, not what happens to a bunch of foreigners, and the most important thing is getting a Democrat into the White House, even if she's someone who won't rule out a nuclear first strike.

[hiphopnation]

80. "I don't know, call me crazy.."

you're crazy

happy to oblige! :hi:

[Hissyspit]

94. Reconsider what? He's running as a REPUBLICAN.

Fuck Republicans.

Also, he's a loon.

[hiphopnation]

110. and a bigot!!

:bounce:

[Andrewthedecent]

102. Dennis and Ron

Personally I would love to see a Dennis Kucinich V.S. Ron Paul
general election, even though I don't agree with these guys on
many of the issues.  They both sincerely believe they are
doing what is best for the American People, something it seems
none of the other candidates are interested in.  

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. 
[link:www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html|Click
here] to review the message board rules.

[nadinbrzezinski]

150. He is not a Republican, he is a Libertarian

and yes, there is a difference, and right wing libertarians can be AS scary as neocons

[femrap]

23. I'm hoping ron paul splits the right wing...

that would be sweet. He could be Perot II.

[gateley]

26. I attribute the fact that he's getting so many supporters as a result of what

we've had to endure during the Busco years. An election or two back there was a Libertarian candidate by the name of Harry Brown who wasn't as radical as Paul. Much more palatable to the masses. Granted, he wasn't a congressman but who the hell ever heard of Ron Paul before this campaign began?

When Harry Brown ran we weren't feeling as abandoned, stifled, betrayed as we do now. I think that the response to Paul is almost a knee-jerk reaction to the oppression. We're just so desperate!

Unfortunately those who are understandably drawn to him aren't looking beyond the relief he seemingly offers to our situation.

I'm fascinated to see what this will do to the Republican race.

[TimBean]

28. only if a small government is scary

I would of course prefer a bad government to an evil government. But a small government is of course the best thing.

[madfloridian]

31. You wanna drown it in a bathtub? Heh Heh

We of course very much disagree. Grover Norquist would love you.

[TimBean]

34. I hope you're enjoying the Patriot Act.

We'll have to agree to disagree about that one.

[Naturyl]

43. Government is NOT the problem.

Why am I having to tell Democrats this? "Small government" is a Reagan talking point, for heaven's sakes.

[Al Federfer]

51. If government isn't the problem, what is? n/t

[IronLionZion]

55. Greed

Corporate greed is going unchecked. In the case of Republicanism (fascism), it's the merger of corporation and government power that is helping to enrich a few greedy individuals at the expense of the rest of us. Take a look at the energy and defense companies.

[txaslftist]

64. Why the backhanded attack on Hillary?

So what if she has the backing of the energy and defense companies, now? That's no reason to criticize her on a Democratic discussion board.

[IronLionZion]

73. It is an interesting but undeniable fact

that I didn't mention Hillary. I didn't know who is backing her and I wasn't even thinking of her...obviously you were. And that says a lot about your candidate.

The energy and defense industries have made out like bandits during the Bush admin.

[txaslftist]

75. They are backing a winner. Hillary is going to win the nomination ...

...and the presidency. It's smart of the major industries to get behind her. When you go after those industries or after the folks they've backed as if that's some kind of indictment of the system, you are really going after her (and like I said, in a backhanded sort of way). Maybe once she's nominated this criticism of those industries will slow down a little here, huh?

[IronLionZion]

83. What's she going to do for them?

[txaslftist]

86. That's really up to her, isn't it?

At some point we have to trust that she'll put the interests of America over her personal or political ones. After all, that's her history.

[IronLionZion]

89. I wish it were up to the people

but that's too much to ask.

[txaslftist]

90. Defense contractors are people, too.

It's true that they depend on tax dollars, but we depend on them to keep us safe. If it were left to the "people", by which I assume you mean the common people on the street, not the leaders, we probably wouldn't be a superpower. It sounds like you are advocating that kind of thinking.

How is America going to be the greatest nation on Earth if we don't have the greatest military on Earth? Hillary understands this, and the contractors know that she does. That's why she gets money from them. She'll keep the nation strong.

[madfloridian]

92. Your views are acaring me.

I am hoping it is a form of satire.

:think:

[txaslftist]

93. Now, what kind of satire could I possibly intend?

I don't even understand what the point of it would be.

[Al Federfer]

112. Spoken like a true neocon. n/t

[txaslftist]

"neocon" that's just great.

People complain that when I used the term "Islamofascist" that it's a made up propaganda term used to demonize and distort the views of a vast and disparate group of Muslims from many cultures and with many ideas. Some of them are even more peaceful and have less crime than the US. And that's a valid criticism of the term "Islamofascist", but my motives for using the term were, I think, explicable.

And then you turn around and throw the term "neocon" at me. I'll have you know, "neocon" is ALSO a propaganda term, and it's been used in a broad manner to unfairly brush such disparate people as Richard Perle, Joe Lieberman and Dick Cheney. And now, because I'm an ardent fan of Hillary Clinton, you want to paint me with the same propaganda brush. Now it may be true that the so-called "neocons" are now either firmly in the camp of Giuliani or Hillary, and it may be true that the so-called military-industrial-complex has switched its backing to her candidacy, but that doesn't mean ALL of her supporters are "neocons"; any more than it means that everyone who wants America to be a kick-ass tough country with real leadership is a "neocon".

Maybe you need to exercise a little discernment and a little less vitriol.

[Al Federfer]

191. Now I know you're joking. n/t

[txaslftist]

207. I can't imagine how you came to that conclusion, sir.

[Selatius]

178. We don't need to be the greatest military power on earth to be a democracy.

That's where I disagree strongly with you. At the end of Washington's administration, he warned America in his farewell address to avoid foreign entanglements and alliances precisely to avoid the situations America finds itself in today. He urged friendliness and neutrality towards all nations. We have failed to live up to George Washington's advice, and we have paid a dear price for it.

[txaslftist]

208. Washingtons' Farewell Address?

How many times have I see Ron Paul's supporters pony up that old thing?

Here's something to consider. George Washington didn't live under the shadow of nuclear annihilation. Take a look at his farewell address, where he decries blind loyalty to parties, decries "entangling alliances", decries foreign interventions, and then ask yourself, how much of it would he have changed if he'd faced the end of the world from nuclear armed terrorists, sir?

We can't live in the kind of world our founders envisioned for America. The world has changed, and the blueprint they laid has become obsolete. We need to live in the modern world, and exercise leadership and control over it so that we can stay free.

[hiphopnation]

222. "the blueprint they laid has become obsolete..."

the blueprint is exactly the part that has NOT become obsolete, or ideally should not become so. to continue the metaphor, it's the *structure* that has changed, but the blueprint should ideally remain in tact, and I think that's what selatius is getting at here. you can draw a similar correlation to eisenhower's "military industrial complex" speech -- it's the only area that i come even remotely close to aligning myself with a libertarian, but ron paul takes the isolationist tack to extremes.

seems to me the truth lies somewhere between "we need to be outfitted with the most current and deadly weapons if we want to be the most powerful nation on earth" and "we need to pull out of every country and stop all foreign aide of any kind". See how they're kind of both extreme?

[txaslftist]

224. I don't.

"we need to be outfitted with the most current and deadly weapons if we want to be the most powerful nation on earth" simply describes reality.

"we need to pull out of every country and stop all foreign aide of any kind" describes defeat. I agree that THAT is an extreme view.

We need to engage the world so that they can become free and democratic, like us. We need to use our military to protect countries that are free like us, and to encourage other countries to be free.

Ron Paul's position, that we have no alliances, give no foreign aid and trade with anyone who shows up with money? That's the crazy position. Our military bases also give important economic boost to a lot of small countries where they are stationed. The idea of getting rid of them? Crazy. Most of the places where we have bases aren't even qualified to recognize a threat, much less deal with one militarily.

[hiphopnation]

225. ...

you're preaching to the choir regarding paul's stance, i concur fully.

it's your view that the path to a completely free, peaceful and democratic world must continue to come from the end of a weapon. it speaks of anti-progress. have the teachings of Gandhi and mlk taught us nothing?

as i said, it seems to me that the truth is somewhere between a continued arms race and the complete neglect of every country in the world, including those that genuinely need aid, like places in sub-saharan Africa. of course, the world won't get rid of its weapons tomorrow, but seems to me if we're talking real leadership, we lead by example and not by force which means beginning to adopt peaceful and diplomatic solutions, world wide. these are the qualities of adroit and adept politicians which we unfortunately do not currently have.

progress, to me, is an inching toward doing away with all violence. impossible?

[Al Federfer]

66. Greedy corporatists and government enable each other...

Greed is part of the human condition, I'm sorry to say, and we obviously can't eliminate it by changing which party controls Congress or the White House.

We find ourselves in a crisis today because we have an gigantic government, which is operated by people -- and people are almost universally corruptable. When government becomes as large and invasive as ours is now, the opportunities for corporatist influence are almost limitless. We must reduce the ability of the government to impliment corporatist plans, and that means nothing less than reducing the power, size, and influence of government. Rearranging the deck chairs so "our guys" are getting the goodies isn't going to keep this ship from going down.

[hiphopnation]

70. so you support paul then?

[Al Federfer]

97. I support him in that I hope he's the Republican nominee. I think all Dems should hope so. n/t

[hiphopnation]

98. because...

the dem will handily defeat paul?

[Al Federfer]

111. Because if the Dem doesn't win, there wouldn't be a neocon fascist in the White House again. n/t

[txaslftist]

127. Are you saying that if the Dem wins, there might be?

That's a pretty aggressive posture. Try to keep a civil tongue in your head.

[Al Federfer]

186. How do you get that out of what I said? n/t

[txaslftist]

219. It's the obvious inverse of your post.

Are you trying to be clever, sir?

Are you intimating that Hillary is some kind of fascist or tool of the military machine or neocons or AIPAC or something?

That's not very nice, and not very Democratic. She's running to WIN. If that means alliances with people that you "purists" don't like, that's tough. She's going to win, and you'd better get on board.

[hiphopnation]

138. lol

well let's just agree for different reasons -- i'd love for him to be the nom because any dem would clean his clock because he's racist nutcase who espouses completely anti-american ideas.

but i don't think that a smart default position to take is: any repub candidate=neocon fascist

another repuke admin would suck for different reasons

[Al Federfer]

187. I was thinking mainly about the fascist Guiliani. n/t

[Al Federfer]

188. I think "racist nutcases" exist on all sides...

And each side can call the others "anti-American", and probably be right!

[hiphopnation]

190. right...

the dem candidate who's a racist nutcase is....wait, who is that again?

[Al Federfer]

192. I was talking about "sides", as in the broader political debate. n/t

[hiphopnation]

194. i ask again

who's the racist in the dem field?

the "sides" you're referring to are not clear

[txaslftist]

216. He IS a racist.

That's what I keep saying, and then his defenders (who should be banned) keep bringing in all this apologetic stuff trying to debunk his racism.

He may have written a bunch of non-racist tolerant stuff, and it may be true that the racist things attributed to him weren't actually written by him, but he's an old white Republican guy. It shouldn't be up to us to prove he's a racist. Let him prove that he isn't.

[hiphopnation]

67. mismanagement thereof

[blondeatlast]

69. Precisely. If wal-Mart (as despicable as they are) were run like the government

we'd have nary a concern about them. They would cease to exist in short order.

Hmm--could someone get George, Dick, and Condi on their boards, please? SOON?!

[blondeatlast]

96. He can't hear you anymore, bless his wrong-turning on the info hiway soul... nt

[blondeatlast]

61. Apparently we won't. RIP. nt

[devilgrrl]

91. D'oh! Gone so soon?

[txaslftist]

87. I think maybe it's already drowning.

We need to pull it out of the tub and save it.

[LSK]

101. THE EU SAYS YOU ARE WRONG

Google euro survey. Read it. They like the EU.

:eyes:

[txaslftist]

128. I'm trying to think of a reason why we should emulate Europe...

still thinking...

[LSK]

135. ummm universal healthcare, much stronger euro, balanced budgets

No war, less working hours, labor unions, less crime, more efficient vehicles, less pollution...

But stay clueless....

:eyes:

[txaslftist]

157. Those are good ones.

You might also mention non interventionism, fiscal responsibility, non-aggression, not having a network of worldwide bases to maintain and respect for the Geneva Convention and Nuremburg laws.

But then you'd be making a case for Ron Paul, and that's a bad idea.

Better to limit it like you did.

[LSK]

164. Fiscal responsibility??? I guess you missed the headlines of Germany having a surplus

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=germany+budget+surplus&btnG=Google+Search

Respect for Geneva conventions?? HAVE YOU SEEN THE NEWS IN THE PAST 4 YEARS? LOL!!!!

PLEASE DONT ARGUE WHEN YOU DO NOT KNOW ANY FACTS!!!

[txaslftist]

210. That was the point I was making, sir.

In Europe it's true, they are more fiscally responsible and they honor treaties and Nuremburg and Geneva Conventions more than we do. Sure, their people are more prosperous and happy.

That doesn't make us Europeans. And just because Ron Paul also wants fiscal responsibility and a return to the principles of Nuremburg and Geneva and wants to eliminate torture and domestic spying, that doesn't make him a Democrat.

Stick to your party, sir. This is Democratic Underground, not "support-anyone-I-think-is-great Underground".

[Naturyl]

198. You are not for real, dude.

I'm on to you, whether anyone else is or not.

[txaslftist]

209. I'M NOT FOR REAL !?!?!? This board is being cluttered up with Ron Paul

Spambots, who are basically just ghosts of people living in their momma's basement spamming every site they can connect with and you say I'M not for real?

Believe me, sir. I'm completely real.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. He's a right-wing nut job

and anybody here who supports him is an idiot.

[txaslftist]

159. I agree. His support of the Patriot Act, the AUMF and torture proves it.

I'm for Hillary. She's against those things.

[Swamp Rat]

30. I support Ron Paul all the way!!!!!!

... in splitting the GOP in two. :D

[zforce]

32. and lets not forget the democratic party.n/t

[Swamp Rat]

33. huh?

[zforce]

35. In the sense..

that the democratic party is really no different than the republican party. Both need to be ripped apart and then rebuilt with a firm foundation in the American people's interest, not the corporate/global interests as they are now.

[Pachamama]

38. Ron Paul reminds me of Hillary Clinton - On the one hand, he can say some things that I identify w/

and even agree on. Then suddenely, their mouth opens and out come some things that don't represent me at all.

Personally, I hope we don't end up with either in the end as the candidates running against eachother.

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

41. Oi Pachamama!

:hug: Pachababies :hug:

Check out this awesome video by Oilwellian:

Pox Americana
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBcvPL27_b0

[Pachamama]

44. Oi Swamp'r! That is a great video by Oilwellian! Thanks for sharing!

:hug:

[eagler]

36. Not sure what history books he's reading but there was much

poverty and starvation at the turn of the century - more than churches and families could handle. Remember "The Jungle" by Sinclair, The Social Gospel,the Gilded Age, and,yes, the Great Depression?




As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."

[madfloridian]

54. That one statement by him should tell us what we need to know.

It is amazing the support he is getting.

[kineneb]

78. best example: How the Other Half Lives- Jacob Riis(1890)

This is the world of the inner city poor, and to which the libertarian policies would return us:

http://www.yale.edu/amstud/inforev/riis/title.html



slideshows of his photos:
http://www.masters-of-photography.com/R/riis/riis_mullens_alley_full.html
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma01/davis/photography/images/riisphotos/slide

[eagler]

134. thank you

[DeSwiss]

203. Those are great!

Thank you. :)

[Islander Expat]

37. Better hope Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination, he'll destroy Hillary Clinton

LOL

[blondeatlast]

68. Only if African-Americans, women, and gays don't vote.

Highly unlikely, that. I don't care for HRC at all, but I'll vote for her over a well-dressed KKK type any day of the week.

[DeepModem Mom]

39. K&R

[Naturyl]

40. Bravo, K&R. Ron Paul is a Social Darwinist.

Libertarian economic policies are social Darwinism. It's just that simple, and it would be a humanitarian disaster of monstrous proportions. The "Ron Paul Revolution" will not save America. On the contrary, it will destroy this nation, and all in the name of lower taxes and some mythical concept of "liberty" which won't exist after unregulated corporations install complete fascism. Company towns, anyone?

Libertarians = greed + weed. Lower taxes and individual freedom, and to hell with everyone else.

The Ron Paul movement is one of the most dangerous and misguided movements in the history of American politics. It would roll back the New Deal and take us back to the economic policies of Herbert Hoover. Just when we start to see the neocons being discredited, this starts taking off. When will we learn?

Dennis Kucinich will stop the war faster than Ron Paul will, he will legalize marijuana and protect other personal liberties (including abortion, which Ron Paul won't), and he will do it all without dismantling education, welfare, and vital human services. So, why support Ron Paul instead of Dennis Kucinich? There can be only one reason: GREED.

Kucinich '08. It's time for sanity.

[Perry Logan]

50. Paul's success emphasizes how incredibly far the Republican Party has fallen.

[bigwillq]

53. Then why the hell was Paul

my third "choice", after DK and Gravel, in that ABC candidate selector quiz????? :shrug: :mad: My views are nothing like Paul's. :mad:

[txaslftist]

65. Spambots.

They've figured out a way to rig those candidate selectors so that no matter if you're a good Democrat like me or some Republican whackjob, Ron Paul winds up in your top three.

I was Kucinich, Gravel and then ... no surprise, Mr. Spambot choice.

You can't trust the internet.

[Bright Eyes]

71. I can't believe that some people here actually support him

He's nuts!

[txaslftist]

88. Me neither!

People put ending the war over their party principles, and I think that's a shame.

[BornagainDUer]

72. He's a political albatross IMHO. Anybody that's really

against the war will vote for a dem on this. The Repug party is the party of the MIC.

He'll just serve to siphon off the anti-war votes that would have gone to Kucinich.

[LeftishBrit]

74. YOU BET!

I am horrified by his combination of hard-right economic libertarianism and social conservativism. I mean, I know such views aren't uncommon in Republicans, but I find it very surprising when progressives are drawn to such a person just because he's against the war. There are lots of better people who are also against the war!

[madfloridian]

79. "transition period for eradicating the Federal Reserve and for Social Security"

"He envisions a transition period for eradicating the Federal Reserve and for Social Security, to ensure that no one is cheated of the money they put in."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966_3.html

He actually advocates eradicating Social Security after a transition period.

[Naturyl]

166. And you can bet the disabled poor will be targeted first

He will use the rationale that those on SSI did not put in enough, so they need to be cut first.

Ron Paul = Homeless shelters on every corner.

[JVS]

85. Republicans are going to want an outsider who can claim not to be affiliated with *

[T.Ruth2power]

95. It's not just his views

It's the profoundly wicked underpinnings of his political and economic philosophies that make the guy so dangerous. People should look into this before they jump on the bandwagon.

[mconvente]

100. What's his appeal to voters (or at least, donors) then??

People have been comparing him to Ross Perot. I was too young to be involved in politics during Perot's 1992 run (I was 6), so does Paul indeed compare to Perot? We here know the truth that other than Iraq, Ron Paul is WAY off in his views compared to ours. But why is he so damn popular with young voters? We'll see if all that money he raised will make a difference. But make no question about it - Ron Paul would be VERY bad for America overall.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

104. How does that make sense to you?

How can he want the government to stay out of peoples lives when he's against the right to an abortion and gay marriage?

[mconvente]

105. Lol

"He’s an OBGYN! Does it make sense to you that he’s for keeping babies alive?"

That is true Republican logic right wing logic there. He's a doctor that deals with genital health, thus he's anti-abortion. LOL.

At least you can spell right and use proper grammar and seem fairly friendly. But this site is DEMOCRATIC Underground, and you obviously don't share our views. So enjoy your brief stay! :hi: LOL

[rove karl rove]

113. Ron Paul sucks

he wants to dismantle everything and go back to the gold standard, wtf?

Abortion doctors are ob/gyns, btw.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bleacher Creature]

106. "If you want to end up like Canada with huge waiting lines for health care, then vote for Hillary."

Here's a hint: it's idiotic right wing talking points like this that give you away.

Enjoy your (hopefully short) stay.

[r2thej]

116. Actually

I'm an independent, so I tend to vote based on the candidate and the issues, not the platform. I voted for Clinton twice. If that's idiotic then whatever.

From your comment I guess this site is the antithesis to redstate. Interestingly, a lot of them don't like Ron Paul either....

[rove karl rove]

120. well then...

you should vote for Clinton again to make it three and forget Dr. No.

[Lautremont]

123. It's idiotic, for example, to try and scare people with booga-booga statements

about long lines for heath care in Canada.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lautremont]

147. If health care was privatized,

the companies providing it will find a level for their prices that works for them and for the monied people who can afford them. Profits will be highest if they don't have to take care of everyone, you see, because providing care costs money. So prices will be such that those in the top 50% of the income bracket will be able to pay without going into significant debt. Not to mention that povery-related ailments are more common and probably more expensive to treat as a group than other kinds.

When the motivation is making money rather than maintaining a healthy society across the board, people, poor people overwhelmingly, are going to suffer. That's what you and Ron Paul are advocating.

You guys just don't recognize that there will always be people who need help no matter how much bootstrap-pulling goes on. And social programs are the best way to provide that help. They aren't all perfect, but they're sure doing good.

[Name removed]

162. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

108. Then I wish you good health, and good luck...cause you will sure need it.

And don't expect anyone to give you a hand when you are down and out. Just blame yourself, say God bless me.

His philosophy is a cold and uncaring one, and it would destroy our country.

[r2thej]

114. just wondering

how can you call letting us keep more of our money uncaring?

[KingFlorez]

119. You just don't get it

This country needs healthcare system that will help all, being against that is what is uncaring, plain and simple.

[madfloridian]

122. Ok, no more responses to you.

That just plain sounds nutty.

[Naturyl]

173. It's not "your money."

Money you are obligated to pay through taxation belongs to all the citizens of the United States, not just you. In order to ever make progress against this anti-tax crowd, we as progressives need to stop affirming the right-wing lie that taxes take "your money." They do not. Taxation is a legitimate obligation which you owe in exchange for the benefits you receive as an American citizen. It is a debt. Do you people complain that Visa takes too much of "your money" when they ask that you repay the $5000 you charged last month? Taxation works the same way. You get the benefits of American society, so you have to pay for American society. Only in America does this basic civics lesson have to be given.

[r2thej]

124. Can you please

elaborate on the “don't expect anyone to give me a hand?” From my thinking, wouldn't the opposite occur? If I wasn't sending all this money to the government via taxes, wouldn't I spend my money here in my state instead? Wouldn't my state then capitalize in the hugely increased tax revenue and immediately begin to expand those programs to help the homeless and others? Are you suggesting that if society itself had more money - instead of the government - we wouldn't help each other or create private charities to accomplish the same things, but more efficiently? Help me out here. I'm trying to understand.

And I’m not right wing, I would actually vote for Kucinich. Beleive it or not I actually clash with the right wing more than the left.

Truthfully, it’s all just another way to divide us. Two wings of the same bird headed in the wrong direction.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

154. Have you been paying attention to what's going on in the states?

They are cutting taxes like crazy in these here red states. Several states have passed horrible citizen's initiatives to amend the constitutions to forbid raising taxes above a certain level, no matter what the circumstances are. Groups led by your libertarian heroes are trying to get them passed in other states. That's why there are bridges collapsing and infrastructure in disrepair across the country. What do think, you're going to create private charities to build roads and bridges? Oh, I know, toll roads. :eyes: Schools are struggling to meet minimum standards and unfunded federal mandates. Meanwhile your libertarian buds are trying to pass voucher laws that will enable certain parents to use what tax payer dollars for their private schools.

States are begging for federal dollars to fund children's healthcare (whaddya think SCHIP was about?) and other programs because libertarian free-market assmunches have been much more successful persuading legislatures and citizens to screw themselves at the local level.

[blondeatlast]

158. THEN VOTE FOR KUCINICH. And quit spewing your RP MySpace bile all over this site. nt

[Naturyl]

176. In a word, no.

The idea that lower taxes inspire people to be charitable is not supported by any historical evidence whatsoever.

Lower taxes inspire people to buy bigger TV sets.

[hiphopnation]

109. *gurgle*

sorry...i just threw up a little in my mouth. welcome to du! :hi:

[r2thej]

141. please

and I'd like to know where you got the Ron Paul is a racist information?

[hiphopnation]

155. start with his voting record

then read between the lines of all of his nutcase ideas. if you're paying attention to the right stuff, it's there.

it's got nothing to do with saying the n-word or hanging nooses in trees

a bigot, a racist, and a nutcase.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

163. I got it from Ron Paul.

"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

-Ron Paul, on Washington D.C.

[hiphopnation]

169. LOL

or just quote him directly, it's really a matter of preference.

:rofl:

[KingFlorez]

118. In other words, he's a nut

You didn't have to make a long post just to describe what he is, you could have just said it.

[blondeatlast]

136. "I'm a Ron Paul Supporter and..." didn't bother to read the DU Rules. nt

[txaslftist]

146. Is this sarcasm or is it irony?

It sounds awful sincere.

[Naturyl]

168. You have NO PLACE at DU

DU is not for supporting REPUBLICANS. The rules are quite clear about this. Please leave this community.

[Naturyl]

179. Tombstoned! That was quick. Thanks, DU mods.

The "alert" button really does work wonders.

[Jim__]

107. Ron Paul - rated 100% on the John Birch Society conservative index - n/t

[KingFlorez]

115. I agree

His anti-war position might be commendable, but everything else on his record is horrible.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

121. He did not say "immediate" end to SS, just end it gradually. Just as bad.

And I have no tolerance with the view of life beginning at conception. That means a woman could not use the birth control bill, or the morning after pill because it would be like murder.

His view on Katrina alone should scare people to death.

But if it is ok to leave people on rooftops while the world watches, and then deny them care??? Then I really do have a problem with that.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madfloridian]

133. Wow....talk about spouting right wing stuff.

Bye.

[txaslftist]

143. If he intends to keep SS viable for people depending on it, where's the money?

Newly minted gold-standard coins from the pot at the end of the rainbow?

[Deep13]

125. His views are not really "hands off."

There is such a thing as a power vaccuum. His the government is hands-off, then that power vaccuum will be filled by rich, corporate interests and established religion. He welcomes the second and ignores the first. If people want any kind of freedom and to have anything of substance for their efforts then the government must stand between the ordinary person and the powerful interests who want to enslave them.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deep13]

137. Historically, the government, that is to say the nobility...

...controlled most of the wealth in the form of land holdings. Presently, most of the wealth is in the form of corporate interests.

The Feds. have never enslaved anyone. What they did was allow slave traders and plantation overseers to work without interference. It took a gigantic action by the government to end the practice.

[txaslftist]

145. Exactly. Taking half of what you earn isn't slavery. It's freedom.

We need the government to keep us free.

[Deep13]

202. Sorry, but it is true.

First of all, the Feds. do not take half of your pay and if your taxes from all authorities is half your pay, it means you are living pretty high on the hog. Considering most of the world sleeps on the floor and shits in a hole, you don't have much to complain about.

Your pay would not be possible without the infrastructure, law enforcement, stability, and currency regulation made possible by all levels of government.

Even if as Ron Paul suggests that the Feds are only for defending the border, that governmental action is still necessary to protect our freedom. In our case, however, that military budget represents more actual spending than the rest of the world put together. Obviously that is to maintain a global empire for funnelling resources to our ruling elite and secondarily to the middle class to keep us quiet.

[txaslftist]

144. Right on!

And just because the government needs 50% of what you earn to keep you free from economic slavery, that's no reason to complain!

[KamaAina]

140. No one's mentioned that he's a racist pig?

C'mon, people. You're slipping!

http://web.archive.org/web/20070512114222/http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."...

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote....

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said....

Oh, and lest you think he "only" hates black people:

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, "By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.

Can you honestly say you support this man for President?

Oddly, Paul's not the only racist pig who opposes the Iraq war. Pat Bukkkanan snaps to mind. Maybe the two of them should start a group called "Bigots for Peace"? :eyes:

edit: caps, and oh yeah, racist hate sites like Stormfront link to Paul's campaign site :scared:

[txaslftist]

142. That's what I said yesterday!

And people posted things they said supposedly DEBUNKED that stuff!

I can't believe there are people on DU that will go out of their way to find information to defend this LUNATIC.

If you're going to do research, you should do research that supports Democrats, not research that supports crazy people! If you find "evidence" that helps Republicans, keep it to yourself!

[onenote]

151. Yep, he's a true defender of the Constitution. Probably a big fan of the 3/5ths clause.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

153. You made the claim--you need to back it up. "...more black supporters..."

Dude--this isn't MySpace.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

171. Oh, riiight... Right off the "good doctor's" site.

Like I said, this ain't MySpace.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

177. Good, he's got 5 supporters that the other Republicans don't have.

And this site tends to take polls with a big, fat, grain of salt, no matter who they are for.

Has he asked Stormfront to shove their endorsement up their asses?

[blondeatlast]

174. All five of them; Alan Keyes is the Ron Paul African-American Issues chairman.

Wow.

Not.

[blondeatlast]

156. Has he asked Stormfront to remove their link to his site? nt

[txaslftist]

161. Why are you on this site?

This is not the place to post research and stuff that defends Ron Paul. He's a Republican, don't you get it?

If he's not a racist, he can prove it somewhere else!

On edit: Calling Ron Paul a racist helps Democrats. This site is for helping Democrats.

[r2thej]

167. you want to help Democrats

even if it means publishing lies about other candidates? Look, this turned into a defending Ron Paul stance. All I did was ask what are the better options? I've had some great exchanges with some of the posters here who have some excellent and valid points. What I don't like is when people lie to push their agenda.

Let's be clear. I think we ALL should be pushing Kucinich. He is a man for change! I would LOVE to see a unity ticket with Ron Paul and him!

[hiphopnation]

170. you are truly delusional

kucinich wouldn't get near a ron paul ticket with a three thousand foot poll, and if you were a democrat or liberal progressive, you would know this

[Naturyl]

183. I would NOT love to see that ticket

And you can bet Dennis would never allow it. Why on earth anybody thinks a man of principle and integrity like Dennis Kucinich would get involved with someone like Ron Paul is beyond me. And you can bet Ron Paul wants nothing to do with Dennis, either. Their economic policies are light-years apart.

DU does not allow you to support Republicans on this site, either.

[txaslftist]

211. Well, both Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich agree that they are good friends,

.. and both have indicated they share a lot of views. That said, Ron Paul is bad because he's a Republican, and Dennis is good.

[Naturyl]

228. They might be "good friends," but that means nothing

Good friends are sometimes political enemies.

[txaslftist]

212. Why not?

Haven't the Republicans been lying about us for the past twenty years? Fair is fair, especially on a Democratic board. It's a lot more important that we win than whether we're "honest" in your view of what that means.

And if Kucinich doesn't win the Democratic nomination, we have to support whomever does, even if it's someone who doesn't want to end the war and doesn't mind starting another one.

Wars are temporary. The Democratic Agenda is much more important.

[hiphopnation]

160. hey!

post #110!!

:hi:


edited to add: post #155

:bounce:

a bigot, a racist pig and a nutcase.

[Naturyl]

181. "Sensible Political Opinions?" Only in Oceania...

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,"Paul wrote....

Wow, faith-based market fundamentalism, greed, and racism all in one sentence. Nice job, Ron. The Gipper couldn't have said it better himself.

This kind of thing is why people are so appalled that some people on DU appear to be favorable toward him.

[blondeatlast]

148. This thread needs an exterminator. Baby flies EVERYWHERE.

:puke:

[blondeatlast]

172. Sex in the DU Lounge, now!

That should send the MySpace babies flying--and hopefully a Mod will follow...

[blondeatlast]

180. Bless you, you wonderful GD mods, you! Please see post 146 as well.

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2233813&mesg_id=2239714

[blondeatlast]

182. I never thought I'd dance on a grave but a shimmy in the on-duty Mods' direction!

[hiphopnation]

184. woot!

yeesh, the worst ones are the ones who are as inarticulate as they are batshit crazy.

:crazy:

i kept coming back to this thread hoping it bad been locked...LOL!

[blondeatlast]

185. Alas, another has spawned, but I've called on those wonderful Mods already.

My head was gonna explode--citing Ron Paul's own site to prove he isn't a racist? Yeegads.

[hiphopnation]

189. lol

i'm not a racist ... cuz i says i'm not.

[Naturyl]

193. He's worse than just a racist

He's also a classist. Libertarian economic policies are a right-wing war against the poor. Attacking the poor kills two birds with one stone, since racial minorities already suffer from disproportionately high poverty rates.

[hiphopnation]

195. yup

the lines between being a racist and a classist are sometimes blurred -- for people like paul, i have a feeling he's a racist BECAUSE he's a classist.

"fuck the rabble" is basically the view he espouses.

scum. of. the. earth.

[Naturyl]

200. Yes, As a doctor, Ron Paul refused to accept Medicaid

On "principle." What principle would that be, Ron? Your belief that the poor don't deserve health care? Well, congratulations on sticking to your principles, Ron. I wonder how many suffered because Ron refused them care?

As a person on Medicaid myself, this is a very personal issue for me. I've been turned away from health care before by "principled" doctors like Ron.

[blondeatlast]

214. My doctor is richer than God and she still sees the AHCCCS (AZ Medicaid)

patients she saw when she first started her practice, even if they are still on Medicaid.

I can't believe we even have to discuss this twit on DU, but as long as people come here and say they support him I'll keep my gloves on.

[ozone_man]

197. How about representing his good positions?

All I see are the bad ones he has. Here are some of the good ones I know about.

1) Introduces a bill to restore the Constitution (just several weeks ago).

"The American Freedom Agenda Act would bar the use of evidence obtained through torture; require that federal intelligence gathering is conducted in accordance with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA); create a mechanism for challenging presidential signing statements; repeal the Military Commissions Act, which, among other things, denies habeas corpus to certain detainees; prohibit kidnapping, detentions, and torture abroad; protect journalists who publish information received from the executive branch; and ensure that secret evidence is not used to designate individuals or organizations with a presence in the U.S. as foreign terrorists."

Ron Paul was the first of all the presidential candidates, red or blue, to step up in this way -- and all credit is due to him for getting there first. May the others of both parties race to follow his lead. These days, as we have seen from how reluctant some candidates have been -- even on the Democratic sign -- even to sign a mere pledge to uphold the Constitution, it takes some courage to stand fast against the assaults of this administration -- and their manipulations of the terms "patriotism" and "terror threat" -- and insist with legislation on the Founders' vision and on restoring democracy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/finally-action-ron-pau_b_69042.html

http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/storage/afagenda/documents/AFA%20Act%20text.pdf

2) Introduces a bill to abolish the Federal Reserve and re-establish the gold standard. We see the problems that the FED has created for us by devaluing our currency by 50% in the last five years.

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 10, 2002

ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to restore financial stability to America's economy by abolishing the Federal Reserve. I also ask unanimous consent to insert the attached article by Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, which explains the benefits of abolishing the Fed and restoring the gold standard, into the record.

Since the creation of the Federal Reserve, middle and working-class Americans have been victimized by a boom-and-bust monetary policy. In addition, most Americans have suffered a steadily eroding purchasing power because of the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. This represents a real, if hidden, tax imposed on the American people.

From the Great Depression, to the stagflation of the seventies, to the burst of the dotcom bubble last year, every economic downturn suffered by the country over the last 80 years can be traced to Federal Reserve policy. The Fed has followed a consistent policy of flooding the economy with easy money, leading to a misallocation of resources and an artificial "boom" followed by a recession or depression when the Fed-created bubble bursts.

With a stable currency, American exporters will no longer be held hostage to an erratic monetary policy. Stabilizing the currency will also give Americans new incentives to save as they will no longer have to fear inflation eroding their savings. Those members concerned about increasing America's exports or the low rate of savings should be enthusiastic supporters of this legislation.

Though the Federal Reserve policy harms the average American, it benefits those in a position to take advantage of the cycles in monetary policy. The main beneficiaries are those who receive access to artificially inflated money and/or credit before the inflationary effects of the policy impact the entire economy. Federal Reserve policies also benefit big spending politicians who use the inflated currency created by the Fed to hide the true costs of the welfare-warfare state. It is time for Congress to put the interests of the American people ahead of the special interests and their own appetite for big government.

Abolishing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy. The United States Constitution grants to Congress the authority to coin money and regulate the value of the currency. The Constitution does not give Congress the authority to delegate control over monetary policy to a central bank. Furthermore, the Constitution certainly does not empower the federal government to erode the American standard of living via an inflationary monetary policy.

In fact, Congress' constitutional mandate regarding monetary policy should only permit currency backed by stable commodities such as silver and gold to be used as legal tender. Therefore, abolishing the Federal Reserve and returning to a constitutional system will enable America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold. Such a monetary system is the basis of a true free-market economy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for working Americans by putting an end to the manipulation of the money supply which erodes Americans' standard of living, enlarges big government, and enriches well-connected elites, by cosponsoring my legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002b.htm

3) He is anti-Iraq war.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get a Democrat to support three of these initiatives. Heck, I'd settle for even two, as long as one of them was to get us out of Iraq. Now!

[Gman]

199. Make no mistake. Ron Paul is a loony as the day is long

He just so happens to be right on the war. After that, he's a complete, unmitigated outer thread wingnut. Even the wingnuts at FR think he's nuts, but that could be deceiving in a way that means he must be good. Fact is, he's too right wing for FR.

I'll tell my 80-something aunt who had it horribly tough in the Depression what he said about the Depression. She lives in his district. She already knows he's nuts.

[Faryn Balyncd]

201. I disagree with Ron Paul on many issues, but I feel that the issues of war, civil liberties, & . . .

the rule of law are the 3 biggest issues we now face.

I disagree with Ron Paul regarding privatizing Social Security (not to mention abolishing it), getting rid of the IRS, and many other issues.

I certainly believe these issues to be important.

But do they they do not rise to the level of the issues of unending war, the assault on civil liberties, and the substitution of "unitary executive" theory for constitutional governance?

By the way, Ron Paul is on the right side on a few other issues as well (besides the big 3). He consistentently opposes corporate welfare. Like Kucinich, he is one of those rare "conviction" polititians. And he practices what he preaches, returning to the Treasury unspent funds from his office budget.

It is no accident that Paul describes Kucinich as a friend.

Do you think we should refuse to acknowledge good where, & to the extent, we find it?

Can constitutional governance, moral foreign policy, and eroded civil liberties be restored without Americans can put aside partisan differences, and uniting in defense of these essential American values?

It it such a lock that moral foreign policy, civil liberties and the rule of law will be restrored that we can afford to repudiate allies in that fight?

. . . even as we tolerate a war-mongering, habeas corpus denying, "unitary executive" enabling Joe Lieberman within our midst?

[txaslftist]

213. Of course we should...

.. "refuse to acknowledge good where, and to the extent we find it..."

If we find it on THEIR side!

They are on the WRONG side. As for "restoring moral foreign policy, eroded civil liberties and constitutional governance", when did that stuff become more important that WINNING?

Let's WIN first, and worry about policy questions later, thanks. We're within one election cycle of winning the whole bag of marbles, and you want to get side tracked down some rabbit hole about "morals".

Sheesh. Get with the game plan.

[blondeatlast]

215. Then you should be supporting Kucinich. Last time I checked, Paul is runnung as a Republican,

even though he's a selfish, isolationist, racist, misogynist Libertarian.

Last time I checked, Dennis Kucinich was none of those, even though he's not close to my first choice.

[AX10]

204. And you better vote for Hillary, Obama, Edwards,

Biden, Dodd, Richardson, or Kucinich over anyone the GOP nominates including Paul. I assure you that the Democrats running are better than any of the Rethugs running.

[Luna_C_06]

205. If Ron Paul becomes the next

POTUS, I might as well die, 'cause there's no way in hell I'll be able to pay for all my medicine without help from medicaid and the government. I've been a type 1 diabetic since I was 3(18 years! Add neropathy and a tachycardia to the list as well!), so it's really not my fault (not like it's the fault of anyone who gets deathly ill).

[maxanne]

206. Ron Paul

Mr. "I support the Constitution" voted against impeachment. Que pasa?

[The Stranger]

217. You make the fallacious assumption that all issues are equally important.

When the nation's Constitutional processes are being destroyed, that is more important than how someone would vote to fund a specific agency one way or the other.

Operating on that fallacious assumption obliterates the notion that some view point on some minutiae is "scary," and therefore the candidate should be avoided.

[txaslftist]

220. But you forget, sir, he's a REPUBLICAN.

These "processes" you natter on about don't change that. 2008 is about winning and taking back America from the Republicans. It's not about some silly notion about the rule of the constitution or some backwards idea about not meddling in the affairs of other nations or wizards or whatever you silly Paultards go on about.

The constitution is important, but it has to take second place in our priorities when it comes to winning the White House.

[ozone_man]

227. Lol! Great sarcasm!

You had me going for a minute. Let's vote Democrat even if it will promote fascism!

[txaslftist]

230. Sarcasm? Oh, I get it. Another Paultard who thinks that if your not all

about "saving America" and "the Constitution" you're some kind of fascist.

Woo woo woo.

[ozone_man]

231. Isn't the Constitution what America is based on?

"The constitution is important, but it has to take second place in our priorities when it comes to winning the White House."

I thought for sure you were sarcastic when you said this.

[klutometis]

218. Liberty over Safety

Of course Ron Paul's views are scary: you've never been
introduced to liberty before, and you've never cut the
umbilical cord to your parents.  Chances are, you don't have
any kids; and prefer safety over liberty.

You're going to wake up in the Soviet Union (or worse) if
that's the case.

[txaslftist]

221. Oh sure, bring in Ben Franklin.

I'll go you one better. "Winning isn't everything, it's the ONLY thing."

And that's from a THREE TIME superbowl winner.

That's the Democratic motto this cycle, kluptomaniac, and it trumps your silly old mottos from the 1700s.

[blondeatlast]

223. Somehow you missed the gate, so I'll just "welcome" you with the DU Rules

and mention that MySpace is THAT way...

Discussion Forum Rules
These are the basic rules. For a detailed explanation of how we enforce these rules, please click here.

Last updated November 7, 2005.

1. This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.
2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.
3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.
4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.
5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.
6. Forum Administration: Respect the moderators and administrators, and respect their decisions. You can help make their job easier by clicking the "Alert" link on any post that might need moderator attention. Please understand that moderating errors and inconsistencies are inevitable on a large website like this. If you have a question about DU policies, or if you have a concern about an action a moderator has taken, please contact an admin privately.
7. More Information: For a detailed explanation of how we enforce these rules, please click here.

But, hey, thanks for stopping by!

[madfloridian]

226. LOL now that is so funny I laughed out loud. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[janx]

232. WOW.

:rofl:

MF, there's a Ron Paul poster in one of the buildings where I work. I'm dying to know who put it there. How've you been?

[Naturyl]

229. Outta here!!!

Alerted. Hope you enjoyed your short stay.