Can someone help me out on Ron Paul?

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

My brother the "Democrat for Bush" (twice over) has seen the light and realizes he got screwed. He's now going all rabid over Ron Paul.

I have not paid much attention to Paul as I think his chances of making it to the general election is nill.

I've read his website and listened to his followers, and much sounds good (my trigger issues are energy and environment) - but I also see that David Duke loves him - as do the Aryan nuts at Stormfront.org

Can anyone help fill in the blanks on this guy? Does anyone understand what Paul "REALLY" stands for? My guess is that even if, by the longest of long shots, he really did get elected - congress wouldn't do squat because his ideas seem so radical.

Anyone care to chime in? Thanks

ROC

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Paul is a libertarian, running on a Repub ticket. There were several stories released

about is racist's newsletters a couple of weeks ago. Go read what the Libertarians propose and crawl under the bed!

http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml

Updated link

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

4. I know about the Ron Paul letters, I actually

pointed that story out to Bro - he shot back that shit like that could be found about any candidate. I laughed...

[Hugabear]

2. You already know all you need to know

The fact that David Duke and the Aryan assholes love Ron Paul should tell you plenty. The man is a certifiable nutcase.

He wants to eliminate the Department of Education.

There's another reason for you.

[Mz Pip]

3. I think the reason

the RW whack jobs love him is that Paul doesn't want the government interferring in anything - even hate groups. He wants to phase out government programs like Social Security, the Dept. of Education, the IRS and end government regulations on corporations. He somehow believes that the free market can take care of pretty much everything.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

8. I didn't know about ending

regulatins on corporations. That will surely make our CAFO meat supply safer! "BSE: It's whats for dinner"

[Mz Pip]

12. Paul thinks

that regulations on corporations are part of the reason our economy is in the crapper. Free market will take care of the problem.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. He's very popular around here because of his stands on taxes

He would abolish the IRS and replace it with nothing. He would also get rid of Social Security and cut way back on all federal spending (which he'd have to do if no one pays taxes). He's for making abortion illegal as well.

[El Pinko]

10. Not nothing - he wants a flat tax

That translates into a huge tax savings for the rich, and a tax increase on poor and working-class people.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. that's Huckabee, not Paul n/t

[El Pinko]

23. Paul has made it abundantly clear that he'd love to replace the IRS with a flat or consumption tax.

He talks now about eliminating the IRS and is deliberately coy about how he would replace the lost revenue (but insists that most of it would be recouped by slashing all government services to near-nothing)

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/four_pinocchios_for_ron_paul.html

So how will Paul perform the miracle? Drum roll, please, for Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. Here is his full, unedited, response to my request for data to support the candidate's claims about abolishing the income tax:

"Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the personal income tax. Policy wonks can go back and forth arguing over budget specifics. The point Dr. Paul was making, during an interview on an entertainment program, is that we can eliminate the income tax and fund a level of government from the recent past. Whether that year is 1995, 1997 or 2000 is irrelevant. These levels are of course statically scored. Real world dynamic scoring would drive revenues substantially higher. A Paul administration would not be able to end the IRS on January 29th, 2009. President Paul would work with Congress to phase out the income tax and cut budgets to sensible, constitutional levels, focusing foremost on eliminating hundreds of billions of dollars of excessive overseas expenditures."


But in the past, he has repeatedly voiced his affinity for flat-tax or consumption tax "kill-the-poor" gimmicks.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul347.html

Many conservatives have touted the Fair Tax proposal as an issue in the upcoming election. A pure consumption tax like the Fair Tax would be better than the current system only if we truly did away with the income tax by repealing the 16th amendment. Otherwise, we could end up with both the income tax and a national sales tax. A consumption tax also provides more transparency and less complexity. But the real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform. In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that the federal government needs $2.7 trillion from us – and more each year – the only question left is from whom it will be collected. Until the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will remain a mirage.

I apply a very simple test to any proposal to overhaul the tax code: Does it reduce or eliminate an existing tax? If not, then it amounts to nothing more than a political shell game that pits taxpayers against each other in a lobbying scramble to make sure the other guy pays. True tax reform is as simple as cutting or eliminating taxes. No studies, panels, committees, or hearings are needed. When reform proposals seem complicated, they almost certainly don’t cut taxes. Congress should simply focus on cutting existing taxes and reducing spending, instead of complicated overhauls of the system.


Clearly he has no problem with a regressive flat tax or consumption tax and is openly hostile to progressive taxation. That alone is enough to ensure that I would NEVER, EVER cast a vote for Ron Paul, no matter what his positions on anything else.

I would never support a candidate that believes in taxing billionaires at the same rate as the working poor. PERIOD.

[LynneSin]

6. Look at it this way - Ron Paul ain't getting the nomination

unless it got down to just him and Rudy Giuliani, who ended up with 6 less delagates than Ron Paul's 8.

If your brother is a 'democrat for Bush' we have a name for that - REPUBLICAN. But I am glad that he has seen the light

[El Pinko]

7. RW, Anti-choice, wants to lower taxes on the rich & raise them on the poor, defund public schools

Wants to abolish the fed and go back on the gold standard. Would probably make every road in the US a privatized toll road.

Homophobic, etc. etc. etc.

Google is your friend.

[cgrindley]

9. He's a crazy, racist whack-a-nut (nt)

[Tarc]

11. Ron Paul is a true-blooded libertarian

which is a rarer species than a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican. He has an excellent grasp on the problems with the banking system, and how being off the gold standard has caused serious harm. After that though is where he starts to make everyone on all sides mad, as he pushes for a strict system of limited government. That hits the war hawks because of his non-intervention, liberals hate his no votes on virtually all government spending, the neocons loathe his opposition to the Patriot Act and unauthorized surveillance.

[Johonny]

20. hmm

We've only been off the gold standard some 75 years. I think it's safe to say it hasn't caused serious harm.

[Tarc]

27. As I understand it

we've only been off since 1971, when the Bretton Woods agreement collapsed. Economics rally isn't' my personal forte though, so correct of wrong.

[lurky]

28. The Cato Institute doesn't think so.

They have disowned him over his white supremacist, pro-confederacy, pro-slavery views. As much as Cato pisses me off with their economic ideas, I think they are pretty much the standard-bearers of Libertarianism

[lurky]

29. Oh, and the gold standard was a disaster.

Our entire economy was determined by the gold supply. If someone struck gold and opened a big mine, it would flood the market with gold and cause runaway inflation. When mines started running out and there was a shortage of gold, the economy would collapse causing depressions and bank panics. This is what was driving the gold rushes in California and Alaska. Do you really want us to be beholden to the gold-producing countries like South Africa for our national well-being?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. He's like Pat Buchanan: a clock that's right once a day

Just as Pat Buchanan (hard-right bigot) was the first candidate to point out the damage done to the American working class by "free" trade, Ron Paul has been consistently against the Iraq War. Good for him.

Then there's the rest of his platform:

He's anti-choice, even though Libertarians are supposed to be pro-choice
He wants to replace the income tax with a sales tax, which would hurt the poor more than anyone and would let the corporations off the hook
Like most Repubicans, he's against anything that helps the unfortunate, only more so.

Most of his supporters either don't know enough about him or they're so upset about the war that they're willing to use him as a protest vote.

[TexasObserver]

14. He ain't heavy. He's your brother.

What makes you think your brother is a Democrat? Voted twice for Bush? No. Even if you said he voted for Bush once, I'd have a hard time believing he's a Democrat. But twice? That's not a Democrat.

As for Ron Paul, he's anti-war, anti-drug war, and anti-military industrial. He's pro Bill of Rights. So tell your brother if he's really a Democrat, he can find several who fit those Ron Paul talking points. Doesn't sound like he's a Democrat, though. Sure smells like a big pile of elephant dung to me.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

17. You missed my point

HE claimed to be a democrat for Bush - because of Bush's "values" etc.

I, on the other know better.

[KharmaTrain]

15. He's Going Third Party

Your brother gonna go, too? That's fine with me.

Paul's been using the GOOP primaries to build up exposure, organization and a war chest to go back to his Libertarian party. Paul appeals to the anti-government types...and once you find one thing you like, you're sure to find another. I saw this in '88 when people thought Paul was cool because he was one of the first Presdiential candidates to favor decriminalizing marijuana...then saw he was for eliminating the IRS and soon it sounds like this guy is a populist. Then you look further and see his positions of exclusion include social segregation with some heavy racist overtones and a survivlist sttitude about how government works.

Nothing against your brother, but in my book there is no such animal as a "Democrat for booosh". That's kinda like being a Jew for Jesus....ya want the Channukah and Christmas presents. Anyone who voted for boooosh in '04 knowingly has blood on his/her hands and would look for any reason NOT to vote for a Democrat.

Paul doesn't stand a chance of winning the nomination or the election, but he sure can be a major distration.

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. Consider the meaning of the phrase "states' rights"

That, right there, is Paul's philosophy in a nut shell.

The phrase became part of American politics in the lead-up to the US Civil War, when it meant a state's (presumed) right to enslave people solely on the basis of the color of their skin. After the Civil War, it came to mean a state's right to enforce racial segregation and Jim Crow laws. So for more than a hundred and fifty years, "states' rights" has been strongly tied to racism.

Move forward to the late 1970s and early 80s. As the religious right begin to grow in power, the phrase "states' rights" was adopted by America's Talibangelicals to express opposition to Roe v. Wade and federal court rulings prohibiting the use of the public education system to indoctrinate children into religious beliefs. The argument went that, since the Constitution does not mention abortion or public education, neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court have any authority to mandate how the states should handle these situations; if a state wants to make abortion a capital offense or require that all children in state schools be taught Christian doctrine, then it was a state's right to do so.

Today, "states' rights" has gained added meaning with regards to gay human rights. If a state wishes to make "sodomy" a felony offense, the states' rights doctrine holds that they can. If a state wants to prohibit same-sex marriage, refuse to recognize same-sex marriages entered into in other states or even make it a felony for state residents to leave the state in order to enter into a same-sex marriage, they can. (The felony to leave the state bit is not just rhetoric: Virginia had exactly such a law with regards to interracial marriage. A challenge to that law led to the decision in Loving v. Virginia which struck down all anti-miscegenation laws in the country, a result decried by states' rightists to this day.)

Yes, there is something attractive to the movement for states' rights. If a state wants to decriminalize the use of pot, the doctrine of states' rights says they should be allowed to do so. On the other hand, the doctrine also holds that if a state wants to make drug posession a capital offense, they have that right too. Now look around the country: How many states would jump at the chance to declare that abortion was first degree murder? How many states would immediately make "sodomy" a felony? How many states would deem a thorough knowledge of Christian doctrine more important than science and mathematics?

Then consider that Paul has declared repeatedly that abortion is an "abomination" and has all but admitted that his support of states' rights is part-and-parcel with his desire to get as many states as possible to outlaw abortion. He has expressed equally strong opposition to equal marriage and support of sectarian religious education in public schools.

Also, Paul's opposition to the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan take on a whole new mean when viewed through his vociferous opposition to the United Nations and its goal of international communication and cooperation.

In short, he is a sugar-coated sham. That is why, as you point out, he is the darling of the David Duke and Aryan Nations wing of the country.

[High Plains]

24. The other side of states' rights...

Consider the issue of medical marijuana. 12 states have voted to legalize it, the federal government refuses to acknowledge that.

Some medical marijuana proponents now make states' rights-style arguments.

Hmmm, I don't know that states' rights is necessarily regressive or reactionary, though it has provided cover for racists and homophobes in the past. If it's the federal government that's being regressive, maybe states' rights provides for a more progressive option that allowed by Washington...

[TechBear_Seattle]

34. Give and take

The fact is that there are far more people who want to ban abortion, outlaw homosexuality and institute a Christian theocracy than want to decriminalize the use of marijuana.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

19. Thanks all - and especially to TechBear_Seattle

Google and I will take over from here and shake up his dark, paranoid world a tad (did I mention he's convinced "they" are coming to take his guns away? He's getting a tad scary
:scared:

Thanks all!
:yourock:

[whistle]

21. Your brother sounds like a hopeless case, stop feeding him meat!

:wft:

[theredpen]

22. Paul's policies would be disasterous

Paul is the perfect guy for TX-14, where many people consider him a liberal.

He's honest and idealistic and when he says that he doesn't agree with the things that were published under his name and that he doesn't endorse the politics of some of his big fans, he's telling the truth. But not controlling your message or distancing yourself from embarrassing "friends" is the kind of red flag that shows how divorced from reality Paul really is. In towns like Lake Jackson and Surfside, where Paul runs for office, people know him personally and they don't think he's a white supremacist just because white supremacists for for you (and if you don't get the white power vote in TX-14 you won't win the election).

His agenda, although well-meaning, is radical, and would probably destroy this country. His answers about the Iraq war are pleasing to anti-war people of all stripes, but are couched in an extreme isolationism we can't afford in the moder era.

To summarize: his small-town straight-talking charm makes him a great small-town politician, not President material. He should have built a time machine and gone back to run in 1908, not 2008.

[High Plains]

25. Delete--dupe

[High Plains]

26. Two Paul stands that appeal to some progressives:

1. Ending the war in Iraq
2. Ending the war on drugs

[NoPasaran]

30. Ron Paul = Zombie Millard Fillmore

[bunkerbuster1]

31. You already filled in the blanks. Racists love him.

That's all you need to know. The guy's a fascist scumbag; he'd enslave women, demolish all federally mandated social services and destroy this country.

Fuck Ron Paul.

[Chovexani]

32. He's a batshit insane anti-choice ultra conservative

Who happens to take libertarian positions on a few issues so that idiot college kids and dumbass Democrats who should know better swallow his koolaid.

[johnaries]

33. he SAYS he wants a return to the Constitution,

but he really wants to return to the failed Articles of Confederation. He wants to pretend that everything we learned over the past 200 years never happened. In fact, he's even been rewriting history a little.

For instance, he points out that we once did just fine without an income tax. But he fails to mention that it was because we had high protective tariffs. And he is against tariffs.

He wants to shrink government down to the size where it can be drowned in a sink - a bathtub is too big.