Oh gawd, Thom Hartmann is interviewing Ron Paul's kid (10 reasons not to vote for him)

[NightWatcher]

Can we remind people what this crazy man really wants and where he stands....

Yes, the repukes are falling apart, but Hell Thom, can we stop talking about 'blimp boy'.

10 reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul!!

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.


2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392


3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720


4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary


5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936


6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”

Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154



7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.


8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47’s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of JFK, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.


9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!

Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?


10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.”1 Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.

So there you have it, my 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Please take the time to thoroughly review the records of the people running for office so you know where they really stand. Ron Paul has good rhetoric and he opposes the war but he’s not a good man in the human rights sense of the phrase. He is pretty much like every other Republican but more insidious

[GoneOffShore]

1. Excellent Rant!

May i send this on to people I know are wavering towards the Paultard?

[NightWatcher]

2. I got it from another friend....

it has made its way around the progressive blogsphere and myspace as well.

pass it around

[roguevalley]

31. So, if everyone in the world trade center had a gun that day, what?

They would have shot down the planes? He's a loon.

[riverdeep]

47. I think the idea is that people on planes would also be allowed guns.

And hence a shootout at 30,000 feet. De-pressurization I suppose is preferable to hitting a building.

[Recursion]

51. Certainly preferable for the people in the building nt

[roguevalley]

90. I think I would have shot myself if I was in the building and couldn't

get out. I feel so much for those people, god rest their souls.

[Naturyl]

3. Ron Paul is a complete disaster.

No Democrat or sane person of any type should be supporting him.

[fenriswolf]

4. i want to know what thom had to talk about with rons son

[Gold Metal Flake]

27. Why not just download the pod cast from whiterosesociety.org?

If you are a progressive, you will enjoy Thom's show. specially when he is spanking looneys like Rand Paul. Better get to know Rand Paul, as he is destined to take the Liebertarian wingnuttery into this new century.

[Richard Steele]

5. K&R

[Ian David]

6. Yes, that's all true. But shut-up about it until after the primary please.

We want The Paultards wasting time and money on their dead-end sure-failure candidate who's the only Repuke against the war, and needs money to keep his anti-war message in front of the Republickers.

In fact, we should encourage The Paultards to keep on keepin' on!

Go, Paultards, go!

When you meet a Republicker for the first time, lie to them and tell them, "I am a life-long Republican, and Ron Paul is the only candidate who makes sense."

Would you rather their crazy-wingnut dollars and volunteer hours go to someone like Insane McCain or Der Mittenfuhrer, who might actually win?

Heck, if Ron Paul decides to run as an Independent after the primary, I'll kick-in twenty bucks myself.

Support Your Local Paultards!

[Recursion]

7. Do you know what "semi-automatic" means?

just curious...

Frankly, there are lots of reasons to oppose Ron Paul but his position on the 2nd amendment isn't one of them...

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[Naturyl]

71. Ron Paul is not the only person promising to get us out

Kucinich made equally strong promises, and before you say he's "unelectable" or "not viable," be sure to have a reality check about the guy you're pimping.

[txaslftist]

81. Well, look at the support Kucinich draws.

I agree that he and Gravel have also supported immediate troop withdrawal. The fact that they've been brutally marginalized by both the media and their own party speaks volumes, doesn't it? Up until Iowa, I'd have said Ron Paul was still viable, I'm not so sure now. I never would have said Kucinich or Gravel were. I love them both, but they sank early and permanently.

I'm not a "party" guy anymore, in the sense that anything blue is okay with me. HRC has said "severe" questioning is okay in response to the torture question. What the hell is the difference between GWB saying "Amurka don't torture but aggressive questionin' is okay in extreme circumstances" and HRC saying "Under me America won't torture, but in extreme circumstances 'severe' questioning will be okay"?

What's the damned difference to the poor Afghani taxi driver whose romantic rival turned him over to the CIA for a $5000 reward? He's still being waterboarded either way.

What's the difference between Bush and Cheney eagerly bombing Iran for oil and to prop up the dollar versus HRC or Edwards or Obama "regretfully" bombing Iran because of the "danger" to Israel? Iran still gets bombed, don't they? To put a fine point on it, some poor momma's house and kids still get slagged by an incendiary made in Springfield with US tax dollars, right?

I'm gonna put my words and my money behind the guy who seems (to me) most likely to prevent that from happening. Right now it's Ron Paul, and I fully admit his chances are getting slimmer and slimmer.

Which is a damn shame.

As for the party, in 2006 I voted to end the war, and I voted straight ticket. Goddamn what a betrayal that was!

Goddamn!

[Naturyl]

97. So, I asked you why Ron Paul is better than Kucinich

And you responded by pointing out why everybody BUT Kucinich sucks. You acknowledge that Ron Paul is no longer viable. Why continue to support him, then? Why not throw your anti-war support to Kucinich? If Ron Paul can't win, what's stopping you?

[txaslftist]

82. whoops dupe

[unpossibles]

76. but it's not the "R" that bothers me

it's the blatant disregard for the Establishment Clause. We do not need another Creationist who is unsure about evolution, doesn't know what a Theory is, and thinks America is a Christian Nation.

We also do not need another President who wants to gut environmental and safety regulations, appoint more Conservative Christian judges to the SCOTUS or create a "States' Rights" situation like Paul wants.

Vote for who you want, but please stop fooling yourself that Paul won't have an effect on domestic issues, or that he'd be able to end the war immediately either.

[txaslftist]

84. "blatant disregard for the establishment clause"???

You don't know what you are talking about.

[unpossibles]

101. how so?

you're kidding right? Ron Paul has said more than once that we are a Christian Nation and that we have moved too far towards secularism.

I disagree highly on both counts, as did the founders.

[unpossibles]

115. you have yet to convince me that I am wrong

I've read things that he has personally written that say otherwise.

The last thing we need is a more religious government.

[txaslftist]

125. Ron Paul would likely agree with you:

"Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion – it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.

April 12, 2005

-Ron Paul

[unpossibles]

128. hell, the fact that he discusses "the war against religion" shows me he is nuts

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

December 30, 2003

He is simply wrong. Many of the founders have said in their writings that America is not intended to be a Christian nation. Many of the founder also owned people. I'd like to think that as we evolve as a nation, we can keep the good stuff and improve the bad.

The "war on religion" bullshit is akin to "state's rights" - either he is a theocratic racist or he is pandering to them. I don't see much middle ground on that. Sorry.

http://ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase "so help me God" or any requirement to swear on a bible (Art. II, Sec. 1, Clause 8). If we are a Christian nation, why doesn't our Constitution say so?
...
Do the words "separation of church and state" appear in the Constitution?
The phrase, "a wall of separation between church and state," was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a carefully crafted letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, when they had asked him to explain the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, and lower courts, have used Jefferson's phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. The exact words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution; neither do "separation of powers," "interstate commerce," "right to privacy," and other phrases describing well-established constitutional principles.

more:
http://dim.com/~randl/founders.htm

[calmblueocean]

8. Some of this stuff is so obvious, I can't figure out why the Internet has such a buzz for him.

Medicare, Social Security, OSHA, the FDA, the EPA, Workers Comp.,Unemployment Insurance, the FBI, the progressive income tax, and more would all be essentially deleted by a Ron Paul presidency. It would hurtle us back to the 19th century and destroy our economy. I've never seen so many "smart" people do something so incredibly dumb.

[pberq]

9. His anti-war stance trumps everything else for some people

[txaslftist]

50. I'm one of them.

And if you don't think our deliberately taking a million souls off of this Earth is a trump card, I don't understand you.

[Naturyl]

74. But that does NOT mean Ron Paul is the answer.

Kucinich is equally anti-war. What's wrong with Kucinich? What led you to believe that Ron Paul is a better option? It can't be the war, because there's nobody more anti-war than DK.

[txaslftist]

96. What are you going to do when Dennis calls it quits?

Just curious.

[Naturyl]

99. Support Edwards

The war isn't my number one priority. I want it to end, but poverty, health care, and economic justice are my primary concerns.

[txaslftist]

103. Well, then you and I are in agreement.

When Ron Paul quits I'll be supporting Edwards, too.

[Naturyl]

10. He taps into a certain demographic

Primarily young, paranoid people who hate government and hate taxes, and have little or no actual understanding of why either is necessary.

[Recursion]

12. I think that's simplistic

He taps into a group that thinks (not without reason) that government has spent the past few decades actively increasing corporations' power at the expense of the middle and lower classes. This is not simple "yay business" libertarianism -- it's "Oh my God corporations are writing their own laws and regulations and getting ridiculous tax perks and no-bid contracts and we need to make government weak enough that the gravy train stops" libertarianism.

Arguing about the important government oversite and regulation functions probably won't do much to dissuade his freeper base, but if you want to get the progressives/neoprogressives that are leaning towards I think it will take some very careful argument. He's getting a lot of the people who, say, protested in Seattle and DC against the IMF and WTO: for every good government regulation we point out they'll bring up one that simply handed everything to corporations (NAFTA, shock therapy foreign aid, big-box retailers keeping their income tax -- and local taxes too -- as "reinvestment"); in short, you'll need to address the fact that government has been a willing agent for the past 30 years in an unprecedented transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super-wealthy. What corporations have done simply would not have been possible without government help.

[Naturyl]

15. But how will giving big business a complete blank check help?

Libertarian policies give corporations free reign to do whatever they want. Sure, government has sold out in many cases and aided and abetted. But that problem isn't solved by removing government. It is solved by making government accountable and electing people of integrity who will put the people's interests first.

[Recursion]

19. You and I agree about that

Not everybody does. And honestly I think you may be underestimating the extent to which corporations depend on government for their power. Wal-Mart isn't simply under-regulated: lots of its competitive advantage against mom-and-pop retailers is coming from tax and trade policies that give it an unfair advantage -- tax and trade policies that Wal-Mart and companies like them wrote.

[calmblueocean]

35. That's not been my experience with them.

In my experience, Ron Paul supporters basically run into two major camps. The first is the "sound money" camp, who want to go back to the gold standard and eliminate the Federal Reserve and talk about "worthless Federal Reserve Notes" without end. They're not so much pro-business as they are conspiracy theorists.

The second major group of RP supporters seems to be to be people who simply like what they hear but haven't thought very deeply about it. His message about "a humble foreign policy, no nationbuilding, peace and trade with all" sounds great, as does saying that you are "pro-Constitution", but most of these people don't realize that Ron Paul wants to end the federal government as we know it, ultimately ending Social Security, Medicare, federal financial aid, workers comp, unemployment insurance, OSHA, etc. etc.

That's been my personal experience with them online at sites like Digg and Reddit -- I'm sure yours may vary, depending on where you interact with them.

[Recursion]

40. Yeah; he's been tailoring his message(s) to different audiences

I still keep up with some of the people I got tear gassed with in Seattle and DC, and some of them are only interested in Paul and Kucinich, and it's not really because of the war, or at least not remotely only because of the war. Admittedly, these guys kind of fall into the "conspiracy" types you mentioned (they see the Federal Reserve as part of the same monetary imperialism system as the IMF and WTO; frankly they may have a point though simply dissolving the reserve is not in my opinion the answer -- nationalizing it is).

[Naturyl]

43. You haven't seen the Alex Jones crowd of Rontards?

They are pretty hard to miss - they are the ones doing huge portions of the internet spamming on YouTube and other sites. They believe that everything is a conspiracy and they think that becoming Rontarded is the only answer.

EDIT: The ones I'm talking about aren't typical "light" conspiracy theorists (critics of the Fed and such), they are the heavy-duty ones who believe world leaders are practicing Satanists, the Viginia Tech shooter was a government agent, etc.

[riverdeep]

56. There's another group-

hardcore, straight-up racists. They are coming out full square for Paul. Check out the White Nationalist site Stormfront sometime. It's leader is a Paulie.

[Naturyl]

70. Nice. And some Democrats still find it okay to support this guy?

With the ringing endorsement of a place like Stormfront, what could go wrong? Ugh...

[unpossibles]

91. part of that is his clever use of code words like "states' rights"

interesting article about the inherent racism of the term "states' rights".

http://www.slate.com/id/2178379

Quote:
...
The bone of contention, as readers of "Chatterbox" know, is Ronald Reagan's 1980 endorsement of "states' rights" at the Neshoba County Fair in Mississippi, close to the site of the ruthless 1964 murder of three civil rights workers. This matters because Reagan's election to the presidency that year hinged on bringing into the GOP fold several new groups—including the rank and file of white Southerners, the bulk of whom, for generations after the Civil War, wouldn't dare check a Republican name on a national ballot. Ever since, Dixie, once "solidly" Democratic, has been more or less solidly Republican.
...

You have to understand that point ...
The key to the argument is that Reagan's success hinged on forging messages to Americans—not just Southern whites, incidentally, but also Catholic blue-collar workers and neoconservative intellectuals—that eschewed explicit racism while still tapping into sublimated resentments of blacks or anger at racially fraught policies like busing, welfare, and crime.

In its simplest form, this multitiered message relied on code words. No one who used the phrase "states' rights" in living memory of the massive resistance movement against forced desegregation could be unaware of the message of solidarity it sent to Southern whites about civil rights. (The phrase, of course, had been bound up with racism at least since John Calhoun championed it in his defense of slavery in the 1830s.) But because the term also connoted a general opposition to the growth of the federal government's role in economic life, nonracist whites could comfort themselves that politicians like Nixon and Reagan were using it innocently—and thus shrug off any guilt they might feel for being complicit in racist campaigning. It was a dog whistle to segregationists. In the same vein, Reagan's use of phrases linked to insidious racial stereotypes—his talk of Cadillac-driving welfare queens, or "young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps—pandered to bigots while making sure not to alienate voters whom starker language would have scared away.

[nxylas]

77. Paul doesn't have a "freeper base"

The Freepers hate him for the same reason some progressives like him - his stance on the war. For them, the candidate who promises to kill the most ay-rabs is the best candidate.

[zstowasser]

117. i agree

I agree with limiting government power rather than trying to
tinker with it and hope the corruption stops.  Our founding
fathers knew about the dangers of strong centralized power,
that is why they wanted the states to have most of the rights
and the federal government to have limited power .

[Naturyl]

118. If you're a Ron Paul supporter and new to DU

Take a hike.

[blondeatlast]

154. Agreed; this place is already to polluted with Paulbearer radical chic poseurs.

Take a hike, zstowasser.

[unpossibles]

120. you're obviously in the wrong place

The Constitution is a living document, which means it's meant to be "tinkered with" - much like how women and non-whites fought for the right to vote.

You seem to have missed that around 1860, the SCOTUS essentially voted against your States' Rights opinion. A state government is not inherently less or more corrupt, and in the case of things like slavery, this should be obvious.

I'll assume you're going to get yourself tombstoned before you answer.

I say if you're gungho on having no government, go buy yourself an island. Don't forget an extra pair of bootstraps in case yours break.

[calmblueocean]

22. That's one of the things I don't understand, though

Young people as grizzled tax protesters? Young people usually pay very little in taxes and get lots of money from the government in the form of Federal student aid grants and subsidized loans -- something else that a Ron Paul presidency would destroy. And young people are generally more optimistic and hopeful than older folks, but Ron Paul is almost entirely negative, the biggest doomsayer of all the presidential candidates.

[robbedvoter]

25. Some of his young supporters found him because of his anti-war stance

They are just too naive to find the saner alternative...I tried discussing with some kids in the street and they told me "sanity is overrated"

[Romulox]

28. I'm not sure how you decided that young people "pay very little in taxes"

But young people are taxed on their income at exactly the same rate as everyone else.

What I think you mean is young people have small incomes and thus have small tax liabilities. That's not exactly a winning talking point, however.

PS I think you massively overestimate the availability of government grants for secondary education.

[calmblueocean]

121. As far as federal financial aid goes...

...a quick Google shows that "undergraduates enrolled in 2003–04 were more likely to receive federal grants than grants from any other source. Twenty-eight percent of all undergraduates received federal grants (such as Federal Pell Grants or Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants)." And that doesn't count federal subsidized and unsubsidized student loan programs, like Perkins loans and Stafford loans, which enable young people who wouldn't otherwise qualify for a loan at a private lender to get one (at a reduced interest rate!) and attend college. All in all, about 10 million students each year use some form of Federal financial aid to help them get through school. Pretty substantial.

Whenever I have an online conversation with a Ron Paul supporter, one of the questions I ask them is whether they took advantage of federal financial aid when they were going to college. They almost always have. "I've become a lot more enlightened since then," one of them said to me.

"I don't think pulling the ladder up after yourself once you've been given the chance to succeed is enlightened at all," I told him. "Sounds like a form of denial to me."

As for my point about tax protesters, it's common on the internet to find young folks who are in high-school or still going to college and living with their parents who are rabid libertarians and anti-tax protesters, even anti-Federal Reserve types, and yeah, I do find that really surprising. They will gnash their teeth about "men with guns" who "force" individuals to pay taxes, when they often haven't even emerged into the adult taxpaying world yet. And many of those who have have availed themselves of far more in government aid and services than they've paid in, and have almost inevitably used those benefits to get to a place of success and growth that they wouldn't or couldn't have achieved without them. Given that they've used these government benefits, and that their lives are so tangibly better off, you'd think they'd see through the libertarian scaremongering easily, and yet they often don't. It's like this stuff is invisible until it's pointed out to them.

[Ignis]

61. That's the "South Park Libertarian" demographic.

Yes, they're woefully uninformed, but they still cling to this post-Reaganite, vaguely Libertarian ideology that the Almighty Free Market will correct everything...as long as they don't have to pay taxes.

They're worth trying to educate, but it's an uphill battle against indoctrination and self-imposed "free-thinker" status. You know, like fans of Ayn Rand....

:eyes:

[Naturyl]

111. Ah yes. Randroids.

That woman did a great deal of damage - maybe more than any other American in the 20th century. Her lasting influence on right-wing policies cannot be overestimated. Reagan's cabinet was full of her fans. Greenspan wrote a chapter in one of her books. It goes on and on.

[Mr_Monday]

150. Ah yes, "Free-thinking"

the antithesis of actual free thought.

[unpossibles]

32. also, the old, paranoid anti-tax crowd like my father in Florida

He's a Libertarian who actually voted straight Dem ticket last year (thanks, Dad!), even though he said he "held his nose" while doing it. He hates Bush and has for years, but he likes Ron Paul for his war stance and his anti-government one.

We argue (in a friendly manner generally) about politics. He feels that all taxes should be voluntary, to which I always ask, "ok, who will pay for things we need then?" to which he replies that people still would pay their taxes. I'm not sure what planet he's living on, or maybe he gets better smoke or something, but.... I just don't see that happening.

[Naturyl]

49. LOL... "voluntary taxes?" That's rich.

I would echo your question about what he is smoking with an idea like that. Can he pass some over here? It's gotta be good.

If taxes are made voluntary, we'd better get used to running the entire federal government on $3.50 a year.

[Recursion]

55. Our income tax is "voluntary" in the legal sense

IE, ultimately, we tell the IRS how much we made and pay the appropriate amount. I'm not sure if that's what he means or not.

[Naturyl]

62. Well, I don't think that's quite right.

We are obligated to give the IRS *accurate* figures and pay accordingly, and if we fail to do so we can be prosecuted. Audits exist to ensure compliance, and enforcement is ultimately at gunpoint (if necessary). I don't think that has much to do with anything "voluntary" in the usual sense.

[Recursion]

64. Yeah, "voluntary" is a legal/accounting term of art there

It means we "volunteer" the information rather than the IRS tracking all of our wages directly.

[FormerDittoHead]

83. I've seen this talk radio gibberish floating around for years. Here's what's voluntary...

FILING is voluntary. You're NOT required to file. YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PAY YOUR TAXES, HOWEVER...

If you owe no taxes, technically, you don't have to file a return.

Of course, if the IRS comes back and says that you owe them money, AFTER 3 years (the time limit for refiling), if you never filed, you can't claim any deductions / expenses off of that income... etc.

And unless you file, good luck in getting any refund!

Unless you file, you make no claim what is and ISN'T your income...

There is no statue of limitations on not paying taxes if you don't file. It's 7 years if you've already filed. That means that in 20 years, if you never filed for a year, they'll come back to you and for that $200 worth of taxes you owe, you will owe them $20,000 and they take your house if you don't pay it.

No, you don't have to file. You do, however, have to pay your taxes.

THAT'S the law. You HAVE to pay your taxes.

[Recursion]

110. Did you read my post?

"Voluntary" means the IRS doesn't directly track your wages. You volunteer the information to them.

[FormerDittoHead]

138. OK. Yeah. That's tricky.

Voluntary: (legal): Done deliberately; intentional.

[Recursion]

139. Right. It's an unfortunate term

It just means that there's no central database of wages; they only check if you are actively audited.

[unpossibles]

98. that was my feelings and when he said people would pay them

I had to ask what the difference was then?

I have a hard time believing people would pay for anything until the infrastructure got really, really shitty for a few years.

His stance on wanting to get rid of public education is scary as hell too. I don't have kids and don't plan on it, but I am a supporter of education because it benefits society - ie: it benefits me because I'd rather have an informed society. Sure, we need to repair and fix things, but not abandon them. I guess that's what I don't understand about the greed-head anti-tax crowd: I don't enjoy paying taxes, but I do so because I feel that it's the cost of living in a functioning society, and even one which is stable enough for me to be able to better myself, or at least try to.

Privatizing everything and removing the societal stability which so many have fought for over the past few generations is foolhardy. I have no desire to go back to feudalism or the Robber Baron era.

[Recursion]

11. Read "The Shock Doctrine"

Paul talks about ending the defense/security gravy train that is letting corporations get rich off taxpayer money and write regulations that aid themselves and hurt competition.

He is able to put his libertarianism in anti-corporate terms precisely because Government has been working for corporations for the past 7 years -- weakening government would weaken them at this point. Whether he's being disingenuous or not I don't know, but the buzz is because he's a conservative who talks about the danger of disaster capitalism and how corporations have been using the government to increase their own power.

[RufusTFirefly]

21. You're using "The Shock Doctrine" to DEFEND Ron Paul??!!

:wtf:

Perhaps you need to go back and re-read it.

The Shock Doctrine is fundamentally about efforts to destroy the social safety net and force privatization through the use of economic "shock therapy." Ron Paul is an opponent of the safety net and a champion of privatization. He is the polar opposite of the viewpoint underlying The Shock Doctrine. He wants to do almost exactly what The Shock Doctrine warns against.

[Recursion]

37. Defend? No. Explain? Yes.

Ron Paul is an opponent of the safety net and a champion of privatization.

Hmmm. What I got out of The Shock Doctrine is that "privatization" and "free trade" are deceitfully misnamed: both are actually examples of government actively transferring wealth from the poor and middle class to the rich. Russia, Latin America, etc. didn't get oligarchs because the government stopped doing anything; they got oligarchs because the government actively made them richer and more powerful by giving away public money and public property without any of the competitive pressures an actual market would bring.

[robbedvoter]

24. "he's a conservative" - that does it for me. This is supposed to be good - how?

he's the worst of both: wants corporate laissez faire and social restrictions (i.e - no civil liberties for you, the sky is the limit for the corporations) - a bad libertarian and a nasty conservative - both rolled into one.

[Recursion]

38. It's not good

I don't see why people keep thinking I'm saying Ron Paul is good. I'm saying he's dangerous because he has a much more sophisticated argument than stock pro-corporate libertarianism.

[Romulox]

29. I think the Ron Paul candidacy is GOOD for the Democratic party.

All the candidates are now scrambling to remake themselves as populists after the pro-corporate DLC has ruled the Democratic party for almost a generation. I really don't think that would've happened without populist campaigns from both the left and the right.

[Recursion]

39. Well obviously a lot of us hope he runs as an independent

And peels off some Republican support. And frankly it's refreshing to see new ideas on the right, even though I disagree with them, particularly if this represents a portion of the right moving against corporate welfare.

[progressivebydesign]

17. because people are trying to be hip and independent. without doing their research on him. n/t

[blondeatlast]

155. Radical chic poseurs. We had 'em when I was in college and

they never go away--and tend to get even more annoying with each generation.

(Or maybe I'm getting old :shrug:)

[riverdeep]

46. The internet is full of quasi libertarians.

'Quasi' because Paul is not a libertarian. He has no problem with government interference, or State interference (they like to use the term 'State' a lot), when it comes to things he personally finds objectionable.

[The Stranger]

13. It's about the war, stupid.

Hillary signed off on the Iraq occupation/war crime/massacre and signed off on the same thing for Iran. She thought she could slither out of it later, and, apparently, she is unable to do so.

The war is the A-Number-One-Most-Important-Issue, and Ron Paul will stop the war, and no one doubts this. There is a man named Obama who also no one doubts will stop the war, and he is leaving Hillary's war support in the dust.

It's about the war, stupid.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. Bingo!!

[Naturyl]

18. No one doubts that Obama will stop the war?

I must not exist, then.

At one of the debates, Obama could NOT promise to have all troops out by 2013. Hillary couldn't either. In fact, only Gravel and Kucinich said they would bring them home ASAP.

[The Stranger]

30. Okay, then everyone but you.

[Naturyl]

34. Pretty sure it ain't just me. (n/t)

[Recursion]

41. A DUer put it very powerfully

Though I can't find the post anymore (it was a while ago). The idea was that if losing our social safety net, etc., is the price we have to pay for letting this war happen, then that's the price, sad though that is. Like Lincoln said about every drop of blood drawn by the lash being having to be repaid in blood drawn by the sword: there is sometimes a harsh and unavoidable justice in the world, and America as we knew it and believed in it may not survive the ultimate butcher's bill for this war.

[The Stranger]

42. Well that is very well put right there.

What worries me is that those driving this express train to Hell also realize America won't survive the ultimate butcher's bill for this war. Theirs is a different future America altogether, and they aren't taking us there by accident or by detour.

Whether by some nefarious plot or plan, or whether by some bizarre extremist religious and political bent, they seek this unholy reckoning. And this, I believe, is a realization that has scared me existentially.

[Naturyl]

52. I don't intend to stand by and let that happen.

In fact, I'm going to get flamed for this, but I'd rather this war go on indefinitely than lose the entire social safety net. Tens of millions of grandparents, disabled people, and unemployed starving in the streets is too high a price to pay for anything.

And nobody even try to say anything stupid. I oppose this war completely. But for me, it's an issue of priorities.

[Recursion]

53. Exactly. Priorities.

I oppose this war completely. But for me, it's an issue of priorities.

Then if you want to convert former-progressive Ron Paul supporters, you need to make them change their priorities, not call them crazy.

[Naturyl]

58. I don't want to convert them, though.

In my view, any "former-progressive" who decides to support someone like Ron Paul is a person we are probably better off without, quite frankly.

[Recursion]

60. Wow, that's a winning strategy...

Just like we don't need the south, right?

[Naturyl]

65. I wouldn't say we don't need the south

But (thankfully), there really aren't surging hordes of progressives defecting to Ron Paul. It does happen here and there, but is it a major phenomenon? I've seen nothing to suggest that it is.

[txaslftist]

57. I'm thinking that may have been one of mine.

The war is a trump card. We've murdered a million people and instituted secret prisons, torture chambers and pre-emptive war as US policy. Ron Paul will put a stop to this, and no other candidate has promised that they will (although Obama is getting closer on these issues).

If we have to lose our safety net (not that I think a Ron Paul presidency endangers them realistically) to end these inhuman and illegal and immoral things, then so be it. Some things are more important than others.

[Naturyl]

78. Again, what's wrong with Kucinich?

There's nobody more anti-war than DK. What makes Ron Paul a better option? Don't tell me that DK can't win, because Ron Paul can't either. Give me good reasons why any Democrat should believe that Ron Paul, a Republican, is a better choice than Dennis Kucinich.

I apologize to all DUers if I'm breaking the rules by encouraging someone who supports a Republican candidate to post. But since it doesn't appear that this person is going to be tombstoned, I think this whole business needs to be confronted.

[txaslftist]

88. He doesn't have 20 million bucks.

And there's nothing wrong with Kucinich! He's a great candidate who would make a great president. Maybe if the Democratic Party had spent some time and energy making that clear to the rest of America, they wouldn't have people like me looking elsewhere.

[Naturyl]

104. No, he doesn't have $20M. But he does have progressive values

And Ron Paul does NOT have progressive values. Doesn't that matter to you? It matters to me a hell of a lot. I'd saw off a limb before I would support someone as blatantly regressive as Ron Paul. The man is endorsed by Stormfront and the John Birch Society, for heaven's sake. He isn't just a Republican, he is the most economically and socially regressive Republican out there! Doesn't that matter?

[unpossibles]

107. so it's ok to endanger the lives of people to end the war?

that's what a safety net does - save lives.

Don't get me wrong - I want the war to end along with the torture camps and other rights abuses, but I don't think it's smart to give away things people have fought and died for to get that end.

And as someone else said, what about Kucinich. Why are you shilling for a Republican on a Democratic site, especially one who is trying to establish a Christian Nation and wants to gut the government?

[txaslftist]

112. If we are being given essentially two choices,

retain our safety net as is and the war goes on versus put our safety net at minimal risk and the war ends, I choose the second.

And like I said, I like Dennis Kucinich. I've sent him money. And he's been sidelined by the party and media and everyone else in the process. I don't see him pulling any rabbits out of the hat, do you?

Which means the only peace candidate in the game is this crazy Republican.

[unpossibles]

124. ok, then I will say that no, I do not think it is worth it to destroy the rights that thousands

have fought and died for. It's not because the people in the Middle East are not American, so don't bother going there again. I want the war to end, but it's not worth throwing my country away to the vision Dr. Paul has for it. I'm not sorry about that.

I look at it this way: I am all for following the Constitution, and I am fine with trying to instill good changes into it through the proper channels, but I don't see any point in stepping backwards to some imagined "good old days" and although I am mainly a pacifist, I also do not always agree with extreme Isolationism.

The war trumps all for you - I can respect that. The First Amendment trumps all for me, and I don't want to see Paul piss all over it.

[txaslftist]

127. When is the First Amendment most likely threatened?

In conditions of peace or in conditions of war?

Not just the First Amendment, but the rest of the Bill of Rights, and habeas corpus, and our adherence to the Geneva Convention and Nuremburg laws have been under attack since 2001 precisely BECAUSE we're in a so-called "state of war".

[unpossibles]

129. only if We The People - the power of he people - allow it to be

I agree that war creates hurdles at the very least to civil rights, but does that mean we should abandon them?

Let me turn it around: what about when Paul magically ends the war, what do you do now that you sold your rights down the river?

[txaslftist]

131. After Paul "magically" ends the war,

the justification for threatening our rights ceases to exist. And which rights are you talking about, anyway, when you say "civil rights"? The rights threatened by the Patriot Act? Ron Paul voted against it. The rights threatened by the MCA? ditto. The rights threatened by the War on Drugs? Ron Paul has been against the War on Drugs for decades.

I don't know what rights I will have "sold down the river" with Ron Paul as a president.

[unpossibles]

133. my right to be a non-Christian American who is pro-choice and who is not anti-government

the right for desegregation, women's rights, the right to a clean and healthy environment (yes, not technically in the constitution per se, but important nonetheless).

I think deregulating everything and privatizing everything are two very bad ideas and would lead to more death and illness than the war. I reject the "States' Rights" argument - the civil war exposed that as not always feasible, and frankly the SCOTUS agreed with me. I reject the idea that America is a Christian Nation.

How many times do I need to repeat myself?

[Naturyl]

143. Ron Paul will try his best to take the food off my table

Literally. I'm on Social Security, which Ron Paul does not like. I know Paul won't get of rid of Social Security wholesale, but he will definitely do his best to bring it to its knees. If Ron Paul had his druthers, in his version of a perfect world, I'd be starving and homeless.

For me, that's one of many pretty good reasons to oppose Ron Paul.

[unpossibles]

151. an excellent reason

I honestly feel that the anti-tax crowd who wants to end all of these programs and more are heartless, and do not appreciate our society or its people. Is it worth it? Of course not.

Thank you for your answer.

[LeftishBrit]

148. But it isn't the price one has to pay!

Why not choose a liberal Democrat who would end the war *without* destroying everything else in sight? E.g. there were 23 senators who voted against the IWR - why not one of them if that's your criterion?

And before suggesting that the absolute loss of a social safety net is a price one can pay, perhaps you might read some accounts of poverty in England in the 19th century, or of the lives of Brazilian street children in quite recent times. We're talking here about KILLING people, basically. A war on the poor. And economic desperation tends to make war *more* likely in the long run; without the desperation and poverty in 1930s Germany, Hitler might not have risen to power. In the end, electing Paul would put the whole world at risk (so would electing any of the Republican candidates!)

Besides, Paul is to this day opposed to the Voting Rights Act. Can he really be trusted to preserve his country's democracy?

[LanternWaste]

102. rather myopic, one-issue voters...

I imagine there probably are a lot of rather myopic, one-issue voters out there. And the more they splinter the GOP, the better for us... regardless of which candidate eventually wins our primary.

[The Stranger]

106. But they are actually the ones that are NOT myopic because the war pervades and corrupts everything.

Those who see it as priority number one see it behind and pervading other issues.

[txaslftist]

114. And they sure as hell aren't all Republicans.

If Ron Paul runs an independent campaign, the Dems have a lot more to worry about than the Pukes.

[Naturyl]

144. I agree with you there

I'm one of the few who sees a Ron Paul independent run as a serious threat. I think it's even conceivable that Paul could win as an independent. Unlikely, but concievable. A lot of people drastically underestimate the support for these "conservatarian" ideas that is lurking out there, just waiting to be be tapped into.

Ooooh, I made up a new word. "Conservatarian." Sometimes I impress myself. :)

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

109. Whoa Nelly!

The war is certainly a very important issue, but not the sole one by far. As a woman, I am terrified that a person such as Ron Paul would deem it necessary to legislate what I can do with my reproductive choices. I would find it terrifying that he does not believe in a separation of church and state. While these issues are not atop my priority list, they certainly do matter to me. I don't vote for War President - I vote for President.

[The Stranger]

113. The war is driving the systematic dismantling of the very system which makes your choice possible.

The Neocon war project goes far beyond policy, be it reproductive or otherwise, and gets more to the question of whether there will be any system by which there can even be policy.

The war makes the Neocon project possible.

[unpossibles]

126. let me guess: you're another Ron Paul supporter

do you guys breed on some IRC and let each other know where you're showing up next? Just curious. Sorry if that crosses a line, but.... come on.

I agree the war is vastly important, and an issue which sadly needs to be addressed immediately. Throwing away our rights to do so, all the while creating some Dominionist/Creationist wet dream of a Theocracy is the worst way to go about it.

[The Stranger]

130. So that is how it works, huh?

Someone points out why Ron Paul is so popular with an expanding swath of the political landscape --essentially his correctly addressing one of (if not the) most important current issues that even some Democrats completely fuck up -- and then that person gets accused of being "a Ron Paul supporter."

Fucking fabulous.

YOU come on. You can certainly do better than that.

[txaslftist]

132. Of course that's how it works.

Why do you think the antiwar threads have become an endangered species here?

[unpossibles]

134. it's just that of every species of political supporter, the RP supporters are the most zealous

Personally, I think you're fighting a losing battle - both here and in general. I'm pretty sure there are rules here about supporting a Republican, but that's not my biggest problem with this. My biggest problem is that Paul stands for everything progressives and liberals have fought against for decades, other than the war.

Yes, you got the war issue all wrapped up tight. Great. I agree with that and have been saying a lot of these things about imperialism and whatnot for the past 15-20 years. Awesome.

But we are not just a war. We are a country. Sure, we need some work, but throwing away everything in oder to not pay taxes and end a war is just completely stupid, imo. I'm sorry. I do not think government is inherently more wasteful than business or less trustworthy, nor do I think businesses will regulate themselves.

Look at the recent events from imported Chinese goods which were later found to be unsafe. Do you seriously want that to happen for domestic goods as well? Do you want to worry about whether the food you buy is going to kill you because it's tainted with something? Sure, some day the market will prevail, but in the meantime you're dead.

Look at the way recalls happen in the auto industry - a lot of times it is more profitable for them to let people die and get sued than to recall a defective product. I wish that were a joke.

[The Stranger]

135. Holy shit, man -- did you read what I just posted?

You are still wrongfully accusing me of being a Ron Paul supporter, and now you try to deceitfully imply that I am violating the rules?

For the last time, I was pointing out why Ron Paul is popular. It is about the war, stupid. That I have the ability to point this out for people does not mean I support Ron Paul.

If I point out an issue and a particular stand that Ron Paul takes, I am not -- repeat not -- violating the rules. And your accusing me of that actually may be a violation.

Good day to you.

[Naturyl]

145. It is NOT all about the war.

It might be all about the war for Dems who switch to RP, but they are a small minority of his supporters. The majority are standard libertarian types who may or may not give a rat's ass about the war. Their main priorities are to get rid of taxes, drown government in the bathtub, and legalize weed. Yes, I'm oversimplifying, but not as much as those who insist that RP's support is all about ending the war.

[progressivebydesign]

16. Ron Paul is just to the right of John Birchers...

and it saddens me to see how many young people (mostly progressive males) are falling for his schtick, without reading WHY Ron Paul opposes the things he opposes. It's sadly part of that faddish thinking of trying to be "different" that is attracting otherwise rational people. They want to be on the cutting edge.... and think that Ron Paul is some sort of anti-hero, when in fact he's a libertarian racist mysogenist.

[YOY]

20. It's like I've gone back to Rapture all over again!

[robbedvoter]

23. Bookmarking for future on line encounters There's no GOP candidate that's not

insane and harmful - none of them!

[Gold Metal Flake]

26. I loved how Thom slapped him over public services.

When Rand (gag!) Paul went into that "do you want the goverment running your blah blah" and Thom slapped him with "I like my socialized police departemet that responds when I call, a fire department that does not take 23 percent of it's operating costs off the top and pay it's chief millions" etc. It's his usual anti-privatization rant but he laid it out as well and as fast as ever he has and Rand had no comeback. It was sweet!

[NightWatcher]

33. Thom is slapping down a Fred fan live

thom is creaming this guy, who is some state rep from New Hamp

[Johonny]

36. I had to suffer through a blow hard

this weekend that liked Ron Paul except his war position.

[txaslftist]

44. 1 reason to vote for him:

He's the only candidate willing to commit to an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, the ending of our ongoing war crime and genocide against that people.

Of course, they ain't Americans, so who gives a rat's right?

But let's don't call ourselves antiwar. The fact is, we're anti-Republican war, and that's about it.

[Naturyl]

54. I knew it!

Remember when you were trolling a few months ago and I pegged you as a Paul supporter playing games? You denied it, of course.

You were really good at it. What made you decide to come out?

[txaslftist]

59. LOL.

I got tired of people agreeing with me when I was trolling with outrageously ridiculous talking points, like "Ron Paul will eat our young"...

I decided sincerity would work better, even if some day it results in my banning. I've been here a very long time, and if my disagreement with the Democratic party over this one candidate means I need to be banned from this site, so be it.

[Naturyl]

67. But Ron Paul WILL eat our young!

:) Just kidding.

Personally, I like you. And as I said at the time, I thought your trolling was brilliant. Having said that, I think you should definitely be banned from this site for supporting a Republican candidate. It may be harsh, but them's the rules. I'm sure you know them better than I do.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Naturyl]

80. "Our guy?"

Sorry, but your guy is a Republican.

You don't get to claim the Democratic nominee, as far as I'm concerned. You may be right about DU banning policy. Having been here longer than me, you're in a position to know. But I still don't see why it should be tolerated. Supporting Republicans on DU? I've never seen it before and I never thought I would see it in a million years.

[txaslftist]

87. LOL.

Yeah, "our guy".

I've been a Democrat since before Reagan, Naturyl. I'm active in my local party, I currently hold an elective office as a Democrat.

I get to say "our guy". That's the way it works.

[Naturyl]

93. No, I don't think you do.

You may very well have been a Democrat since Moses came down from the mountain and read the commandments to Reagan. But this time around, you are supporting a Republican. That means your guy is not "our guy," and our guy is not yours.

Democrats are as Democrats do. And one thing Democrats don't do is support Republicans.

[riverdeep]

68. You mean the only candidate on the Republican side.

"He's the only candidate willing to commit to an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, the ending of our ongoing war crime and genocide against that people."



On the Dem side, Kucinich made the same proposal. And Gravel, I believe.

[txaslftist]

75. You are correct, sir.

And the reception they've recieved from Democratic voters and polltakers and donators has been discouraging, to say the least. But I stand corrected.

[Naturyl]

86. So, if our strongest anti-war candidates don't poll well...

We should just jump ship and support A REPUBLICAN who also has no chance of winning, and who is incredibly regressive economically on top of that?

Doesn't wash with me in the slightest.

[txaslftist]

92. It depends, I guess, on your own personal feelings.

Like I said, up until Ioway, that Republican looked like he did have a (very slim) chance at getting his party's nomination. For me, it's the war. We have to stop it. Congress' ratings are in the crapper because they've refused to stop it. For me what we've done there is a crime on par with Germany's invasion of Poland. Germany paid a very heavy price for that crime (and a bunch of other ones equally serious), and deservedly so.

I don't agree with a lot of Ron Paul's economic philosophy, but he's right on the war. Your mileage my vary.

[Naturyl]

95. That was a complete non-answer.

I asked you why Ron Paul is better than Kucinich and you gave me nothing. You just acknowledged that Paul can't win any more than Kucinich can, so what's the problem? Nobody is more anti-war than Dennis Kucinich. Why are you still supporting Ron Paul?

[txaslftist]

100. I like Dennis.

You and I seem to be a distinct minority in that position. And like I said before, he doesn't have 20 million bucks, a fanatic following with blimps or any crossover Republican appeal at all. Additionally, Dennis has been brutally sidelined by his own party, as well as by the media. This is also true of Ron Paul, but for some reason, the more the media and the GOP go after him, the more his polls go up and the more money he makes.

[Naturyl]

105. I can't understand why you think that is good enough

I guess I'm going to have to let it go. If you think it's acceptable to call yourself a Democrat while supporting someone as economically and socially regressive as Ron Paul, I guess that's your decision to make. I can't understand it and I'm doubtful that I ever will.

Thanks for staying civil even though I've been applying the blowtorch pretty hard. Not everyone can do that, and it's to your credit. :)

[Recursion]

119. He's "supporting" Kucinich, IIRC

At least, he's sending Kucinich money. He's also stating that he will vote for an anti-war Republican over a pro-war Democrat. I've voted for pro-choice Republicans over anti-choice Democrats. I don't think you have to be in a death-pact with the party and have no issues you won't compromise on for partisan reasons in order to be a "Democrat".

[Naturyl]

146. So, you think it's okay for Democrats to support Republicans too?

I guess you do, since that seems to be exactly what you said.

Would Republicans ever do this? Would they indirectly affirm and support the values and beliefs of the Democratic party by fighting for a Democrat? I don't think too many of them would. Republicans stick together, and that's why they win even when they outnumbered.

The theft in 2000 would not have been possible without the help of Democrats who defected to Nader. But at least Nader represented progressive values. How much more inexcusable is it for Democrats to undermine our candidates and our values by supporting someone as disastrously regressive as Ron Paul?

[Recursion]

152. You've already said why: priorities

You think some issues are more important than ending the war. He doesn't.

[orleans]

45. THANK YOU for putting this list together. i wanted to do something

like this last night--but it was too overwhelming for me.

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

63. That's a really good list

I would publish that list elsewhere. If you have a dailykos account, I would post it as a diary on dailykos. There are still some Dems who should know better who claim they like Ron Paul. Your list would help educate them.

K&R

[maxanne]

66. his Paullowers

are nuts. I wrote a critical piece on Ron Paul - 15 minutes after it hit my blog, I started getting emails from "anonymous". Anonymous has a BIG family. The next day, the anonymous clan started threatening me.

Paullowers are like zombies - impervious to logic - just blindly following their leader.......

[Naturyl]

69. I've gotten some remarkably ugly hate mail on YouTube

The nastiness and insanity of it caused me to stop commenting on all things related to Ron Paul.

[riverdeep]

72. The 'anonymous' losers are for Ron Paul too, huh?

Doesn't surprise me. Like I said in a previous post, the internet is full of quasi libertarians and the anonymous trolls (associated with sites like 4chan etc.) are the perfect examples. Those people are seriously disturbed.

[Naturyl]

89. November 5th was a HUGH fundraising day for Ron Paul

Mainly because all the juveniles and cellar-dwellers who think "V For Vendetta" is a serious guide to real-world politics (rather than art/entertainment) got together and made a shitload of donations.

That's a big part of what the "Ron Paul Revolution" is about. Everybody who is anybody at the local outpatient clinic is on board.

[Javaman]

79. K&R and Bookmark. nt

[riverdeep]

85. Looking at it from a pragmatic point of view,

I think the Ron Paul phenomenon is good, overall. I'm not talking about his ideas, but rather what he represents. Like how he gets the most hardcore establishment types to shake in their boots a little. The bigwigs in the Republican party hate Paul. It also legitimizes the idea that people way outside the mainstream might have something to say, something that can help our side break the DNC stranglehold.

And most pragmatically of all, it could split the vote if he goes independent or even write-in. The people who are gung-ho for Paul aren't going to transfer their support to, say, Mitt Romney. I just don't see that happening. Discouragement and angst and raising false hopes and infighting among Republicans. What's not to like?

[Kucinich4America]

94. Did anybody catch the kid's name? RAND Paul???

Ron Paul named his son after that fucking nazitarian lunatic Ayn Rand??

I wonder if Thom's token Randian nutcase will mention that when he does his weekly call-in?

[Naturyl]

108. OMG, you're kidding me...

In fairness, "Rand" could come from almost anywhere... but knowing Ron Paul's views, using Ayn Rand as a namesake wouldn't be at all surprising.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. No he is not kidding

[zstowasser]

116. misinterpreting

These are misinterpretations.  These arguments are similar to
those made about Iraq.  "The Democrats voted against
paying for the war, so the Democrats don't support the
troops!!!"  Be very careful when using this logic.  I
will do my best to explain.

Keep in mind that with all of Ron Paul's decisions he is for
restriction of the federal governments authority over the
states.  This is a fight that has been going on since the
birth of our nation.

Also, the biggest issue here that is being ignored is the
value of the dollar and inflation.  Without addressing these
core problems we will continue to see the middle class shrink
in size, the American economy will go deeper into a recession,
and we won't be able to fund our welfare programs OR the
military - even if we want to.  Do any of you know the history
of the Federal Reserve and its creation in 1913 and how
fractional-reserve banking allows money to be printed out of
thin Air?  How the dollar is worth $.04 today compared to
$1.00 in 1913?  How the income tax was created in 1913 to pay
the Federal Reserve interest on the dollars they create?

We are faced with the possible collapse of America as we know
it.  Dismissing Ron Paul and/or ignoring the monetary issue
would be a grave mistake.  Ron Paul is for liberty, freedom
and peace.

#1 - Ron Paul has strong libertarian views.  Libertarians
think that grouping individuals is racist, this is what
Affirmative Action does.  Libertarians view all humans as
individuals.  Black, White, Gay, Straight - all are
individuals.  The government shouldn't be able to group people
and then force other individuals to act based on those
groupings.  Ron Paul cleared this up in his latest interview
on PBS with Bill Moyers.

#2 - The issue of abortion is a distraction.  The debate
should focus on PREVENTION of PREGNANCY, not abortion.  This
issue divides us.  Abstinence simply doesn't work and its
unfortunate this is what most "pro-lifers" push.  We
need education and availability of condoms, birth control
pills, etc.  Socially we should be educating that Abortion
should be only used as a last resort.  Preventing pregnancies
reduces abortions, everyone wins.  Its time we all come to a
compromise on this issue.

#3 - Minimum Wage - yes it is sad that people are paid a
"minimum wage" that doesn't reflect a "living
wage".  Also frustrating that the minimum wage was frozen
while Reagan and Bush were in office while inflation kept
rising, so the poor essentially had a pay cut equal to
inflation over those years.  However, the issue here with Ron
Paul is against the Federal Government telling the market how
to operatte.  Ron Paul is strongly against price controls.  He
follows the Austrail School of Economics.  

Consider this possibility in the near future when we could
have DEFLATION.   Businesses could possibly be forced to pay a
"minimum wage" that is above what the market
desires.  Look at what happened with Argentina when their
economy collapsed - prices went into hyperinflation, then
collapsed and now things are dirt cheap.  The government
should get out of the way of price controls.  If businesses
aren't paying their workers enough, they should form unions or
strike.  Boycott the business.  Shun and shame them.  I
believe change should come from the grassroots and the
community, not from government force.  No one likes to be
forced to do anything.

#4 - How is removing the income tax unfair?  Please source
H.R. 5484 so I can debate this further.

#5 - Ron Paul supports allowing water and air to be considered
"private property" which would allow us to sue
someone who pollutes our water and air.  This would be a
positive for protecting the environment.   And face the fact
that without Oil, the United States and the world would come
to a screeching halt.  We must come together and do EVERYTHING
we can to make alternative energies a reality.  However,
without access to cheap energy, we may not have enough energy
to build the infrastructure necessary to create the
conversion.  We should discourage oil use and oil drilling in
environmentally sensitive areas, but it may come down to a
point where it is necessary for our survival.

Ron Paul is also against Government subsidies of Oil.  Let the
rich corporations take care of themselves, and allow
alternative energy companies a fair chance to compete. 

#6 is just plain wrong.  Ron Paul would immediately take our
navy out of the middle east and send a message to Iran that
they are not a threat.  He would then carefully take our
troops home and talk to the world and send a message of PEACE.
 How would that give the US a negative image?

Ron Paul is for strong national defense here at home but is
against American Empire.  The world is still a hostile place,
so its premature to dismantle our ICB missle system.  I agree
that we should move in that direction though.  In the
direction of worldwide disarmament.  Imagine seeing the last
nuclear weapon being dismantled!!

#7 - I agree that "marriage" should be left alone. 
Religious people feel strongly about that.  We should follow
in the footsteps of other nations and define this as civil
unions, and give civil unions the same rights as marriage. 
And sorry, H.R.7955 shows that he doesn't want federal funds
used for this.  Not explicitly the he is against the issue. 
See my original point.

#8 - I don't like the idea of semi automatic guns, and I am
strongly against violence.  But if people feel a need to hold
guns to protect themselves from theft OR to be a deterrent
against an oppressive government, they should be allowed to be
free and choose for themselves.  If we are to turn into a
Police State and no one has rights to guns, how will we be
able to fight back and protect ourselves against an oppressive
Tyranny?  The 2nd amendment puts a check against government
oppression.

#9 - I think our educational system is a joke.  Kids are not
prepared or educated when they leave.  It needs some serious
work.  If parents want to educate their own kids or send them
to private school they should have the option.  Their tax
dollars for Education that are not used should be credited
back.

I think the real issue with Health care is that it is being
done for profit.  This is wrong.  Either we have non-profit
organizations or government, but one way or another.  Health
care for profit needs to stop.  This encourages big pharma and
unnecessary procedures and discourages preventive medicine.

#10 - Your argument is baseless.  He no where says  He is
showing his frustration with relgion and "merry
christmas" being taken out of public view. He is entitled
to his opinion.  In no way is he advocating reversing the
separation of church and state.  He is supporting
"alternative views" - get it.  Teaching kids there
is another way of thinking other than the consensus.  What a
concept.  What if everyone thought the world was flat, and
this was taught in schools.  Wouldn't it be fair to propose an
"alternative view" that the earth was round?  Then
this would allow people to consider other options - EVEN IF
THEY ARENT TRUE.  If many believe something, it should be
talked about and DEBATED.  Not ignored and treated as if it
doesn't exist.

I personally believe there is something to the Mayan Calendar
and 2011/2012.  I trust my intuition and have beliefs that are
similar to the Buddhist philosophy of living in the moment and
not grasping.  My views aren't mainstream and many don't
believe it.  I think it would be fair for this to be mentioned
as an "alternative view" in school.

I have been posting and talking about the coming economic
collapse and dollar crisis along with sustainability, peak
oil, privacy, police state and other issues that are not
talked about in the mainstream media.  Check it out at
www.infopatriots.org

[riverdeep]

136. Welcome.

I think you'll find the issues you talk about are not so foreign to us. Especially the Federal Reserve shenanigans. There's some overlap between what you're talking about and stuff you'll find here. But also some disagreement. I don't have time to take things point by point right now, so here's some things that jumped out.

#1 Ron Paul has strong libertarian views: Doesn't jibe with #2- his views on abortion. There is nothing more coercive than compulsory pregnancy. This is what happens when abortion is outlawed by the State. Sure, we all want to end abortion, good luck with that. What you do in the meantime is what defines you.

#3- "He follows the Austrail School of Economics." -I sure hope you mean the Austrian School. Ludwig von Mises, Freedman etc.

#8 I'm planning on stockpiling Howitizers. Got any objection? I can afford it, and I just like collecting them. Sure, they're operable, but stay out of my business!!

#9 "I think the real issue with Health care is that it is being done for profit." - Huh?? Libertarian? Wha?

#10 There aren't any alternative views to evolution that still fall under the heading of science. If you want to allow creation into it, you would have to allow all the creation myths, hundreds of them. The place for doing so is in comparitive religion-not science.

[Naturyl]

147. "Ron Paul supports allowing water and air to be labeled private property"

I stopped reading right there.

Why is this being peddled on DU?

[Blue_Tires]

153. for starters, if air and water are private property,

then WHO owns/is responsible for it? and you can already sue someone for polluting...


in regard to #3, i can tell right off you've never had to put in long hours at $5.15/hr, which is what the wage was last time i had it (1998), and believe me, if my employer could have paid us less, they certainly would have...what minimum wage could EVER be ABOVE market? Unless of course, you play major league baseball...

#1 is funny to me, because the next libertarian i see condemn racial profiling by police will be the first---I've known and worked with several of your ilk, and to a man they have always been in favor of locking anyone up that isn't them...

you do of course realize that paul is the complete antithesis of your buddhist beliefs, right?

[Blue_Tires]

156. now i know why you can't answer...adieu

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. And in spite of all these VERY STRONG REASONS NOT TO VOTE for Dr Paul

he is the most rational of the Republicans.

That alone is scary as hell!

[Recursion]

141. Bingo

We (most of us) disagree with his worldview but he has a rational, well-thought-out, and principled worldview. That makes him dangerous.

I catch shit here for trying to remind DU that Paul is not the charicature we make him out to be. But I do it because I love the party.

[ismnotwasm]

137. He's a fucking nut

And what scares me, is people take him seriously. Evidently they only pay attention to the parts they want to hear. I've know about him for a long time, and I couldn't believe it when I started hearing his name on a regular basis, either here or nationally.


Excellent rant!

[Blue-Jay]

140. Reason #1,000,000: He's a douche.

Reason #1,000,001: His supporters are bigger douches.

[Naturyl]

142. Sadly, that's not always true

Things would be easier if all Paul's supporters were "douches." Tons of them are, but I've met a few that I actually like, such as "txaslftist." It's much harder to smack down people one suspects of actually being decent. And Ron Paul does have a few decent supporters.

[Mr_Monday]

149. Ron Paul is great.

He's tearing the repugs apart by grabbing all the crazy bigots and free traders.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

157. Aren't you preaching to the choir?

I don't think anyone on DU would seriously support Ron Paul for any other reason than the fact he seems to annoy the rankin file Rethugs as long as he's in the primary.