Ron Paul, Libertarianism and the U.N. [Archive]

OrchardDweller

08-21-2007, 10:39 PM

Ron Paul is against social service programs for illegal immigrants, as they work as an incentive for people to come over here. Our economy cannot afford it anymore. We're 9 trillion dollars in debt. We just cannot continue taxing people and printing money. The dollar and the economy are at near collapse. Tax payers are already paying nearly half of their income in over all taxes.

Ron Paul is not against foreign aid, but believes such efforts would better be organized by the more efficient private sector. He believes with the big overbloated government out of the way, this type of work can return back to churches and charities and other caring persons. With lower income taxes, Americans will not only have a stronger economy but more money and more time to donate to things they feel are important. Have you been satisfied with the way the government has been handling things?

Regarding Libertarians, I believe they stick to the Constitution, as elected officials are sworn to uphold, rather than be reactionary. I would not say that Ron Paul is reactionary. I think just the fact that he was one of the few people to have voted against the war and the Patriot Act is a good indication that he stands by his principals. His voting record is impecible. Ron Paul is a compassionate man but he votes against some social programs, because he doesn't believe the government should have a hand in it. As an OBGYN, he didn't accept Medicare, but provided care at reduced cost or for free to those who couldn't afford it. Ron Paul just believes government should be smaller, have less power, and should stay out of people's lives and pocketbooks as much as possible.

I've met one Libertarian, Bruce Baechler, in Texas, who is an outstandingly wonderful person and who would have my vote for any public office. However, i think he--and anyone who wants to raise the global ratio of happiness to suffering--is mistaken in thinking he can get around the Libertarian Party's basically reactionary agenda to do
his good work.
In case anyone reading this is not familiar with the LP, the word libertarian does not mean they are a variety of anarchists. In most ways, in fact, anarchists and libertarians are exact opposites. The LP is against social service programs for immigrants, against foreign aid (even the pathetic fraction of one percent that the US government gives) and in favor of wars that "benefit" the US. Watch the video whose link is given in Orchard Dweller's response, but also take a look at the Libertarian Party's site lp.org (https://lp.org).

alanora

08-21-2007, 10:53 PM

I have not researched the matter, however, I do remember hearing somewhere that Ron Paul has spoken in an antisemitic way on more than one occasion. Does any one know more about this? Thanks, Mindy

OrchardDweller

08-22-2007, 01:36 AM

I've read some unsourced alleged quotes, but from what I understand it was just a failed attempt to smear Dr. Paul. I think a racial comment would be very uncharacteristic of Dr. Paul and his philosophy of individual liberty, (vs. collectivism).Below is what came up on Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Alleged racial remarks
A 1996 article in the Houston Chronicle[62] alleges that Ron Paul made comments in a 1992 edition of his Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) which could be construed as racist, including disparaging remarks about fellow congressperson Barbara Jordan, and that this could help his political opponents.[63]

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility for the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"[64][7]

He further stated:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[7]

Texas Monthly wrote in 2001, at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[7]

In an April 2007 column on his official House of Representatives website,[65] Paul criticizes racism, saying:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."[65]

If you care to see another attempt to smear Dr. Paul, watch this entertaining video. It's also an interesting look at how corporate media works:
part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY-KlYg9UME
part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ht1bo5UhOs&mode=related

I've been following Dr. Paul for some time now and I've never heard him say anything racist or anti-semetic, nor have I ever read anything of the kind by him. You can find many of his writings here:
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

I have not researched the matter, however, I do remember hearing somewhere that Ron Paul has spoken in an antisemitic way on more than one occasion. Does any one know more about this? Thanks, Mindy

ThePhiant

08-22-2007, 07:50 AM

d-cat

09-02-2007, 11:24 PM

ThePhiant,

Ron Paul did indeed vote against the war. He was also one of the few to have voted against the Patriot Act. Watch this 3 minute video clip to hear his views on the war:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw

Also, I think you are putting words in Orchard Dweller's mouth. She never said 9 trillion went to Mexico. She said we are 9 trillion in debt. I doubt that you follow the subject but we are very close to an economic collapse. There is a lot I could respond to but I'm not sure I want to put the effort into it right now.

But don't be too quick to write off Dr. Paul (he is more a Libertarian than a Republican). Check him out - you might be pleasantly surprised. He really is a unique individual - a statesman rather than a politician. He's not a lawyer like the rest, he's a OB/GYN of 30 years who has delievered over 4,000 babies, as well as being a 10 term congressman. He has consistently been against the war and has never wavered, and I strongly believe that he is the only winnable candidate who will truly bring the troops home.

There are many videos about him on Youtube - just look to the right if you check out the video link I posted above.

Sonomamark

09-03-2007, 10:48 PM

Uh, d-cat?

Ron Paul is not "more a Libertarian than a Republican". Ron Paul is a flat-out right-wing theocratic nutcase.

He's ardently homophobic, supports withdrawal of the US from the UN, and was considered the best choice for President on the white-supremacist website Stormfront because, among other things, of his strident opposition to hate crime legislation, support for banishing all forms of governmental support for the poor, and their assessment that "Ron Paul is the least likely to support government crackdowns on Pro-White organizations, and the most likely to veto such measures".

The war is a big issue. It's a huge mess, and we have to get out of it. But that doesn't mean that everyone who opposes the war is someone to support. Ron Paul makes Dick Cheney look like a hippy. Unless you're a right-wing religious fundamentalist, there is no reason at all even to consider voting for him.

The beauty of the Internet, folks, is that if you dig, you find stuff. Making a decision about who to vote for based on what candidates say in speeches is, well, not such a great methodology. Find out their issue positions, what interests support them, where their money comes from and what they've stood for in the past, and you get a much better picture.

Mark

Here are some words of Ron Paul:
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.

ThePhiant,

Ron Paul did indeed vote against the war. He was also one of the few to have voted against the Patriot Act. Watch this 3 minute video clip to hear his views on the war:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw

Also, I think you are putting words in Orchard Dweller's mouth. She never said 9 trillion went to Mexico. She said we are 9 trillion in debt. I doubt that you follow the subject but we are very close to an economic collapse. There is a lot I could respond to but I'm not sure I want to put the effort into it right now.

But don't be too quick to write off Dr. Paul (he is more a Libertarian than a Republican). Check him out - you might be pleasantly surprised. He really is a unique individual - a statesman rather than a politician. He's not a lawyer like the rest, he's a OB/GYN of 30 years who has delievered over 4,000 babies, as well as being a 10 term congressman. He has consistently been against the war and has never wavered, and I strongly believe that he is the only winnable candidate who will truly bring the troops home.

There are many videos about him on Youtube - just look to the right if you check out the video link I posted above.

radio4progressives

09-04-2007, 02:17 PM

Most people who identify as Libertarians in this country, traditionally fall into the far Right of the U.S. political spectrum. However, most Leftists (who I associate with personally) have more in common with Libertarians than so called "moderates" in that Leftists (Socialist Libertarians) and Right wing Libertarians (Conservative Libertarians) share a deep abiding appreciation, and respect for the U.S. Constitution, and expect government to (above all else) adhere to it's principles in spirit, word and deed (as a whole) and most particularly the Bill of Rights (contained within the first Ten Amendments).

Those of us on the left who hold these shared common values, (not fully articulated or stipulated here in this post) are generally described as Socialists Libertarians -- (no, it isn't a contradiction in terms) .. which explains (what I think of as misplaced) admiration for Ron Paul.

I do respect Ron Paul for his courage of convictions and strong principles. And I agree with a number of his positions wrt to government keeping off our backs and out our bedrooms, but on foreign policy, in particular..

I have the opportunity to hear him speak on a number of issues on progressive and alternative media, such as Air America and elsewhere, but orcharddweller is right on this point: the Korporate M$M does not want the likes of Ron Paul, or Dennis Kucinich for that matter. (they work together on a number of legislative issues particularly de-funding and ending the war, as with other Constitional issues like domestic spying etc vis a vis the Patriot Act etc.) ..

But like with most Conservative Libertarians, we part company on fundelmental issues like strenghtening the infra-structure of our towns and communitues, particularly wrt access to healthcare & education for all which requires some form of taxation.

Ron Paul (like any good Libertarian) is against all social programs for ANYONE... citizens and undocumented-workers (and their families).

Libertarians are flat out against all domestic programs that serve to improve society. They would rather build prisons than schools. they would rather have an uneducated society, as long as their kids get what they need first.

Libertarians are not able to get the connection between an educated and healthy community/society, is a more stable, healthy and "secure" society.

So I could never VOTE for Ron Paul, (Kucinich would be my guy) but none the less I RESPECT him, and don't think of him as a "right wing nut job".

Again, I've listened to a number of interviews with him on Air America and alternative media. He's pretty open and honest about his positions, and I can only respect him for that and hold him in high esteem for fighting for his real beliefs.

Ron Paul is against social service programs for illegal immigrants, as they work as an incentive for people to come over here. Our economy cannot afford it anymore. We're 9 trillion dollars in debt. We just cannot continue taxing people and printing money. The dollar and the economy are at near collapse. Tax payers are already paying nearly half of their income in over all taxes.

Ron Paul is not against foreign aid, but believes such efforts would better be organized by the more efficient private sector. He believes with the big overbloated government out of the way, this type of work can return back to churches and charities and other caring persons. With lower income taxes, Americans will not only have a stronger economy but more money and more time to donate to things they feel are important. Have you been satisfied with the way the government has been handling things?

Regarding Libertarians, I believe they stick to the Constitution, as elected officials are sworn to uphold, rather than be reactionary. I would not say that Ron Paul is reactionary. I think just the fact that he was one of the few people to have voted against the war and the Patriot Act is a good indication that he stands by his principals. His voting record is impecible. Ron Paul is a compassionate man but he votes against some social programs, because he doesn't believe the government should have a hand in it. As an OBGYN, he didn't accept Medicare, but provided care at reduced cost or for free to those who couldn't afford it. Ron Paul just believes government should be smaller, have less power, and should stay out of people's lives and pocketbooks as much as possible.

d-cat

09-04-2007, 09:35 PM

Hi Sonomamark,

You're free to support whomever you want, and believe what you want to believe. All I suggested was that one should check him out because they might be pleasantly surprised. I'd suggest that to you as well, because a lot what you wrote about him is just plain wrong or misrepresented. I don't have the time now, but maybe I'll come back with some more info another time.

Also, you might do some research into what the UN is really all about, and look into the CFR which all the ambassadors are members of. They paint a pretty picture but there is much more below the surface. It was quite a shocker to me.

https://www.phnompenh.gov.kh/projects/PUPRs/images/UN-logo.GIF
UN

https://gmkfreelogos.com/logos/U/img/ussr.gif
USSR

Uh, d-cat?

Ron Paul is not "more a Libertarian than a Republican". Ron Paul is a flat-out right-wing theocratic nutcase.

He's ardently homophobic, ...

OrchardDweller

09-05-2007, 12:43 AM

Ron Paul is not "more a Libertarian than a Republican". Ron Paul is a flat-out right-wing theocratic nutcase
Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988, and many of his views are Libertarian, and he has strong support from Libertarians.

He's ardently homophobic,
If you are referring to his stance on same sex marriage, Ron Paul voted against 'Same Sex Marriage Resolution' (Vote to pass a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in the U.S. consists only of the union of a man and a woman, and federal and state constitutions can not be construed to require marriage or legal incidents of marriage be conferred in other unions)
https://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3878&can_id=296

Ron Paul believes that federal government power is not to be used to redefine marriage. He believes in individual rights, not group rights. He is a strict Constitutionalist and supports the idea that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I have researched Ron Paul, and read quite a lot of his writings, but have never come across anything about his personal views on homosexuality. But whatever they are, it doesn't matter as he believes very strongly that the government should stay out of people's private lives as much as possible.

Here is a video of his response when questioned about the 'don't ask don't tell' policy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4UAhbMRpQU

And here is one homosexual's opinion of Ron Paul:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2yIxMtQLZU

supports withdrawal of the US from the UN,

Do you realize that we are now at a point now where the UN laws can override the US Constitution? Do you not value the Constitution? Do you not believe in sovereignty?

and was considered the best choice for President on the white-supremacist website Stormfront because, among other things, of his strident opposition to hate crime legislation, support for banishing all forms of governmental support for the poor, and their assessment that "Ron Paul is the least likely to support government crackdowns on Pro-White organizations, and the most likely to veto such measures".

Just because some white-supremacists support Ron Paul does not mean that Ron Paul is a white-supremacist. African Americans support Ron Paul as well, but that doesn't mean Ron Paul is African American.

He voted against hate crime legislation because it is unconstitutional. It is against free speech. Who knows what the government will tell us not to talk about next?

Ron Paul votes according to the Constitution. It's what our elected officials swear to do when they take office.

Ron Paul makes Dick Cheney look like a hippy.

If you think someone who wants to decriminalize marijuana and drugs makes Cheney look like a hippy, then that's your logic.

The beauty of the Internet, folks, is that if you dig, you find stuff. Making a decision about who to vote for based on what candidates say in speeches is, well, not such a great methodology. Find out their issue positions,

Yes, and you can find out Ron Paul's positions right here:
www.ronpaullibrary.org

what interests support them,

Exactly! In the case of Ron Paul, it's not the corporate lobbyists. In fact, he is known to them as "Dr. No". It is well known that the lobbyists don't even bother knocking on his door anymore because he turns them down consistently. If you check out videos of his supporters, they often carry signs which read "Say Yes to Dr. No".

where their money comes from

Ron Paul has raised at least 6 million dollars in campaign funds so far, the average donation being under $100. Donations to his campaign come from average Americans, not from corporations, unlike other candidates.

and what they've stood for in the past, and you get a much better picture.

I agree, and Ron Paul has the most consistent voting record of any candidate. He votes according to the constitution so it's very simple.
Here is an interview with Dr. Paul from 1988 when he ran as a Libertarian. With the exception that he is now against the death penalty, you can see that he is the same man with exactly the same positions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

Here are some words of Ron Paul:
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.

Ron Paul is very well-read in history and is considered an expert on the Constitution and the founding fathers. So I would think that what he states here is true.
You can find the full text here:
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=337
It is actually written in defense of freedom of religion.

Well, after hearing your concerns, it would seem that you should like Ron Paul, but just don't know very much about him. Maybe you only hear about him from his opponents, which includes corporate media. I believe this is a do or die time for our freedoms and our Republic and I would encourage you to do a bit more research. You might have a look at this video for starters. It's about the CFR, which d-cat mentioned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM

https://kaligulawired.com/rp.jpg

Valley Oak

09-05-2007, 06:03 AM

Hey, "D-Cat," (what a 'hip' name. Reminds me of Jack Kerouac) everybody can see, from your posting those two symbols, how insidious the UN must be simply because there are some visual elements that are the same as the old USSR! OOOH, look out for the big, bad UN! It's going to invade and take over the USA and the entire world. AAAH! Be careful! The UN is like the old commies! UGH! We should declare war on the UN and kill everybody in it including that mustache jerk that Bush put there!

Edward

Sonomamark

09-05-2007, 11:51 PM

d-cat, now you have called me a liar, and I suggest that you are either deeply misinformed, or deliberately trying to misinform others.

Here is the link to the Ron Paul quote I provided earlier. People can check it out for themselves:

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

What he is saying here is that he believes the establishment clause should be thrown out the window, and the laws of the United States should be predicated on his idea of Christianity. Y'all like that?

Those who are interested can check his voting record with the League of Conservation Voters, NARAL, the AFL-CIO, ACLU, NAACP, NRA, Conservative Union, etc., to get a good picture of his execrable voting record.

I won't link to Stormfront because it's so revolting that I don't want to give them Google mojo, but you can look for it yourself. Why are white supremacists supporting Ron Paul? Doesn't that BOTHER you?

As for the UN...please. Maybe you should try to do some research somewhere other than the American Opinion Bookstore. The UN is a force for tremendous good in the world, bureaucratic and hamstrung (mostly by the US and China) as it is. Certainly it is a stronger force for good than the US is under the Bush Administration. I wish it were stronger. I'm not scared by your "Communism" boogeyman and I'm historically and politically well enough informed to know that you're just fear-mongering, either intentionally or just out of ignorance.

Tellya what. You get back to us and tell us all Ron Paul's positions on these five issues...
Abortion
The Endangered Species Act
Hate crime legislation
Affirmative action
Tort reform...and then explain to this progressive community why they should waste ten seconds thinking about supporting him. Good luck.

The good news, of course, is that Paul is the Republican Nader of 2008. He appeals to the right fringe, and he's peeling off support from candidates that actually have a chance of winning. On that score, I say, go Ron! I hope you campaign heavily in states where Republicans are fighting to hold Senate seats.

M

Hi Sonomamark,

You're free to support whomever you want, and believe what you want to believe. All I suggested was that one should check him out because they might be pleasantly surprised. I'd suggest that to you as well, because a lot what you wrote about him is just plain wrong or misrepresented. I don't have the time now, but maybe I'll come back with some more info another time.

Also, you might do some research into what the UN is really all about, and look into the CFR which all the ambassadors are members of. They paint a pretty picture but there is much more below the surface. It was quite a shocker to me.

https://www.phnompenh.gov.kh/projects/PUPRs/images/UN-logo.GIF
UN

https://gmkfreelogos.com/logos/U/img/ussr.gif
USSR

d-cat

09-06-2007, 08:45 AM

Edward (roble),

Here are some videos (and quotes) that I hope you and others will check out. I'm hoping it'll be just the start of your research into the subjects.

The CFR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKxWZP_hldI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pLRWiqNsnY

North American Union
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1355300745194023737

The Amero
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hiPrsc9g98

The New World Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeNRn3kEjYQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1VIhdpl4c

VeriChip
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2udoNmQkR4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKHtyuzuKUA

America: Freedom To Fascism
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

Who Controls the World
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3891535120990840079

The sooner we all become aware of what is happening, the better our chances of stopping it. We don't have too much time left. One more "emergency" and the Bush administration might implement NSPD 51 (https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824) and we will be living under martial law.

Here is Ron Paul talking about The New World Order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UydCZJeQPPQ

----------

"NAFTA is a major stepping stone to the New World Order."- Henry Kissinger

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years…. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” - David Rockefeller, Bilderberg Meeting, June 1991 Baden, Germany

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” - David Rockefeller

"The United Nations is the greatest fraud in all history. Its purpose is to destroy the United States."- John E. Rankin, U.S. Congressman.

“The Trilateral Commission is international…(and)…is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.” - Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator in his book “With No Apologies.”

“In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.” - Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State

“The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, the Trilateral Commission – founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller – and the Bilderberg Group have prepared for and now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years.” - Dr. Johannes Koeppl, former official of the German Ministry for Defense and adviser to NATO.

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government." - Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg Group, Evian, France, May 21, 1992

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." - James Paul Warburg, son of Paul Warburg, who was active in the United World Federalists for a World Government, stated before the U.S. Senate, February 17, 1950.

"What Boutros-Ghali proposes is closer than anyone on the planet should ever want to get to a transnational military force that could override and eventually abolish national sovereignty altogether and in the process set up the United Nations itself as the power apparatus of an unelected global elite."- Samuel Francis, Human Events, August 22, 1992.

Hey, "D-Cat," (what a 'hip' name. Reminds me of Jack Kerouac) everybody can see, from your posting those two symbols, how insidious the UN must be simply because there are some visual elements that are the same as the old USSR! OOOH, look out for the big, bad UN! It's going to invade and take over the USA and the entire world. AAAH! Be careful! The UN is like the old commies! UGH! We should declare war on the UN and kill everybody in it including that mustache jerk that Bush put there!

Edward

d-cat

09-06-2007, 09:25 AM

I just wanted to clarify that Libertarians are not against social programs to improve society - but rather against the government being involved.

Please watch this 8 minute video of a 1988 interview with Libertarian candidate Ron Paul, as he speaks on the subject and gives reasons for his view. As stated above in the post by Orchard Dweller, with the exception of the death penalty which he is now against, his positions in the interview are the same as they are now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anmlPvmd1Ew

Most people who identify as Libertarians in this country, traditionally fall into the far Right of the U.S. political spectrum. However, most Leftists (who I associate with personally) have more in common with Libertarians than so called "moderates" in that Leftists (Socialist Libertarians) and Right wing Libertarians (Conservative Libertarians) share a deep abiding appreciation, and respect for the U.S. Constitution, and expect government to (above all else) adhere to it's principles in spirit, word and deed (as a whole) and most particularly the Bill of Rights (contained within the first Ten Amendments).
...

Neshamah

09-06-2007, 04:06 PM

Well meaning people often grow the government into immense proportions. These super governments can accomplish amazing things, alleviate suffering, and make the world a better place, but sooner or later, someone comes along who will abuse that power.

Given our ever-expanding government, Bush or someone like him was inevitable, and unless we the people vote against all the front-runners, his successor might well be worse. I don't like all of Ron Paul's positions, but he is the only major candidate committed to shrinking the executive power.

Left to themselves, most who are established will take advantage of the environment and of those who are not yet established. Therefore the government does have a greater role than that envisioned by Libertarians. However, before we can grow a good government, we need to shrink the present one.

~ Neshamah

d-cat

09-06-2007, 10:14 PM

Sonomamark,

You are thinking within the system. Ron Paul wants to change that system.

Your concern for Affirmative Action is irrelevant when Ron Paul wants to dismantle the Department of Education. The quality of education here since the federal government has been involved has changed the US from producing the world's smartest people to now the most stupid in the industrialized world.

With the abolishment of the illegal Federal Reserve, we would no longer suffer the effects of inflation, and minorities would be more prosperous and more able to start businesses and hire locals. With the abolishment of the illegal income tax, minorities would have more money to support these businesses, as well as local private schools.

Under a Ron Paul presidency, issues would be dealt with more on a state and local level where we would have more effect on how we wish things to be. And the diversity in the ways that issues would be dealt with across the country would encourage further improvement. Having a centralized system is not as effective as a system with competition.

Ron Paul will end the war and put a stop to this country's imperialism. We are all concerned about the environment, but what about the depleted uranium in the bombs we are dropping that is poisoning both the environment and living things on an unfathomable scale. What do you think a nuke would do to the environment?

Do you think the Democratic candidates will do anything different? Did they impeach Bush and Cheney? Both parties have been bought out and are controlled by the ruling elite. That is, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich and Dr. Ron Paul. Gambling odd organizations (whose existence depends on being right) say that only Ron Paul can beat Hillary. Kucinich can't.

Maybe you think things might be better under a Hillary administration. Did you know that she is being supported (https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/18/politics/main1816866.shtml) by ultra right wing media mogal Rupert Murdoch, owner of FOX News? Have you heard Hillary's comments (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ulGiPp0LQ) of no option being off the table concerning Iran?

I'm beyond this fake left/right paradigm. It's a puppet show to make us think we have some choice in the matter. With the exception of a few, they are all members of the CFR. Hillary and Edwards attend Bilderberg meetings!

Ron Paul upholds The Constitution, as all elected officials are sworn to do, so his voting record on an issue will reflect first whether it is allowed by the Constitution or not, and whether the federal government should be involved. It does not necessarily reflect his personal views.

On Abortion, Ron Paul believes it is not an issue for the federal government to be involved in. He believes that this controversial issue should be left at the state, local or individual level. After a 30 year career as an OB/GYN (he has delivered over 4000 babies), his personal view is that of being against it. He does not believe that there should be a one-size-fits-all policy for everyone. The religious south can have it their way, as can liberal Sonoma County.

I have been pro-choice all my life. Dr. Paul is very intelligent, and he has much more knowledge on the subject than I do, and his stance has made me question my own long held view. Though I am not convinced either way, I know it's safe to vote for him in regard to this issue because his position is that the federal govt should stay out of it.

On Affirmative Action, Dr. Paul has voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race. He believes in individual rights, not rights derived from belonging to any group.

On Tort Reform (which the tobacco and asbestos industries promote), Dr. Paul has voted NO on capping damages in medical lawsuits, NO on prohibiting lawsuits against food providers, and YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits.

On Hate Crime Legislation, Dr. Paul believes it is an infringement on free speech, and that the govt should have no say in what people can or cannot say, as the First Amendment states.

I am not familiar with his stand on The Endangered Species Act, and was unable to find information on this on the web. His general view on environmental issues is that the environment is better protected in the hands of the private sector rather than in the hands of government, as it was in poor and socialist countries. He believes environmental decisions should generally be left at the state and local level. people should not be told what they can or can't do on their own property, unless what they do effects those around them in a negative way.

For me, there are more pressing issues. Repealing the Patriot Act. Restoring The Constitution. Nullifying NSPD 51. Restoring Habeas Corpus. Restoring Posse Comitatus. Ending warrantless searches. Ending warrantless wiretapping. Ending our imperialistic ventures. Because I believe unless these fundamental and perilous issues are not resolved, none of the other issues will really matter. If they are not resolved, we will in the end have nothing to say about any issues.

Ending the war, abolishing the illegal Federal Reserve, ending the unconstitutional income tax, returning to a sound monetary policy, stopping Codex Alimentarius, and being free from national ID cards and the VeriChip are other urgent issues for this country's future. Ron Paul is the only electable candidate who will take on these issues which threaten our freedom and our Republic. If these issues are not faced head on, this country and the world will continue to slide toward an abyss that we will not be able to climb out of.

You say Dr. Paul is the Republican Ralph Nader, appealing to the right fringe. Well he appeals to me (liberal), and these liberals (https://liberalsforronpaul.com/). He even appeals to this Green Party member (https://www.greencommons.org/node/630). Ron Paul is this famous liberal (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYDt7kC3Z0)'s hero. A recent poll on a popular Ron Paul message board with thousands of members showed that the majority there were Democrats. Ron Paul's message of freedom is uniting the people of this country, and is even bringing the people of the world together, and that is a very beautiful thing. Especially after all the divisiveness and hatred we have suffered for so long.

Regarding his appeal being fringe, look at the MSNBC poll (https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18963731/) results from last nights GOP debate (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BB3NrSpRGE) (video).

https://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc141/d-catfotos/msnbcpollfinal.jpg

So if you continue to feel so strongly against Ron Paul, you better start to worry. Because this man, who believes in individual liberty, and freedom, the Constitution, free speech, less taxes, less war, and less government in our lives, just might be the next president of the United States of America.

https://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc141/d-catfotos/bus.jpg

https://liberalsforronpaul.com/ https://www.democratsforronpaul.com/ https://www.libertarians4paul.com/ https://www.veteransforpaul.org/ https://www.demsforronpaul.org/ https://studentsforpaul.org/ https://christiansforronpaul.com/home.htm Hispanics For Ron Paul (https://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=210848352) Bikers For Ron Paul (https://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=201725545) https://catholicsforronpaul.blogspot.com/ https://www.grannywarriors.com/

https://www.canadiansforronpaul.com/ https://asia4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ https://europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ https://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ https://belgians4paul.blogspot.com/ https://ronpaulbrazil.wordpress.com/ https://bavaria-for-ron-paul.blogspot.com/ https://www.holland4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ https://ronpaulfr.blogspot.com/ https://indiansandpakistanisforronpaul.wordpress.com/ https://ronpaulish.blog.onet.pl/

Ron Paul Meetup Groups

Australia
Sidney: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/759
Perth: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/419
Brisbane: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/122

Canada
Toronto: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/99
Montreal: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/22
Vancouver: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/533
Calgary: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/487

Germany
Munich: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/719
Berlin: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/440

Iraq
Baghdad: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/690

Ireland
Athlone: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/515

Italy
Verona: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/686/

Japan
Tokyo: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/756
Niigata: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/436

New Zealand
Dunedin: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/452

Russia
Saratov: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/442

South Korea
Seoul: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/173

Slovakia
Bratislava: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/583*

Thailand
Bangkok: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/672

United Kingdom
London: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/362
Edinburg: https://ronpaul.meetup.com/82

and there are probably many more...

OrchardDweller

09-07-2007, 09:30 AM

Ron Paul upholds The Constitution, as all elected officials are sworn to do, so his voting record on an issue will reflect first whether it is allowed by the Constitution or not, and whether the federal government should be involved. It does not necessarily reflect his personal views.

Right. For example, he is against the federally run Medicaid and Medicare. But not because he doesn't care about people. As a physician he didn't accept Medicare/Medicaid, but helped those with limited funds free of charge or at a reduced rate.

H.R.194 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 with respect to the purchase of prescription drugs by individuals who have attained retirement age, and to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to the importation of prescription drugs and the sale of such drugs through Internet sites.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Energy and Commerce; House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 2/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

H.R.195 : To provide greater health care freedom for seniors.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: House Ways and Means; House Energy and Commerce
Latest Major Action: 2/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

H.R.1898 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow individuals a credit against income tax for medical expenses for dependents.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 4/17/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 4/17/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

H.R.3343 : To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make health care coverage more accessible and affordable.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 8/2/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Ways and Means
Latest Major Action: 8/2/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Comprehensive Health Care Reform Act
Ron Paul Speech to Congress
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=929

Ron Paul on lowering the cost of healthcare
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=474

Sonomamark

09-07-2007, 09:49 PM

I am not familiar with his stand on The Endangered Species Act, and was unable to find information on this on the web. His general view on environmental issues is that the environment is better protected in the hands of the private sector rather than in the hands of government, as it was in poor and socialist countries.

I rest my case.

d-cat, I hope you are enjoying the weather on Mars, and that the little messages from the Mothership continue to give comfort. Being fresh out of both Kool-aid and tinfoil hats, I fear I will not be able to communicate with you further.

M

Sonomamark

09-07-2007, 09:53 PM

Right. For example, he is against the federally run Medicaid and Medicare. But not because he doesn't care about people. As a physician he didn't accept Medicare/Medicaid, but helped those with limited funds free of charge or at a reduced rate.

So: your proposal for health care reform is that those who have no coverage should rely on doctors and hospitals to give services away out of charity?

Hmm. How...Victorian.

Not sure the shareholders of medical and pharmaceutical companies are going to like that much. Undermines shareholder value, you know. In fact, violates legal requirements to seek to maximize return for investors, if it affects the bottom line.

Oh, but--I'm sorry, I was talking about the real world. Never mind.

M

d-cat

09-08-2007, 10:29 AM

Ending the war should be a top priority to anyone with concerns for the environment.

The depleted uranium (DU) in the bombs we drop is very damaging to both the environment and all living things. It has a half life of 4.5 billion years (!) and using it around a gulf, or anywhere else, should be a major concern to both environmentalists and humanitarians alike.

There is no candidate who has been more consistently and vehemently against the war from the very start than Ron Paul.

A Post-War Disaster For Environment and Health
https://www.ratical.org/radiation/dhap/

Depleted Uranium - The Real Story
https://www.peaceworkmagazine.org/pwork/0102/010216.htm

Nothing Depleted About 'Depleted Uranium'
(warning: disturbing photos of children)
https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUL20060122&articleId=1777

Depleted Uranium Haunts Kosovo and Iraq
https://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PET20061105&articleId=3715

Depleted Uranium - The Perfect Monster Kills Quietly
https://www.rense.com/general72/ddu.htm

https://www.cuttingedge.org/1000-miles-bagdad-kabul.gif

d-cat

09-08-2007, 12:03 PM

https://www.wnd.com/images2/NC4%20(2).jpg

North American Union driver's license created
https://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57502

https://www.aamva.org/NR/rdonlyres/AF9F35F4-9745-4F16-B24A-8B815F6541CB/0/abtRegionMap_smaller.jpg

Regions and Jurisdictions
https://www.aamva.org/MembershipLeadership/Regions/

ThePhiant

09-08-2007, 12:04 PM

d-cat

09-08-2007, 12:06 PM

U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency
Bush's SPP power grab sets stage for military to manage flu threats
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57369

goodbye sovereignty, goodbye Posse Comitatus!

ThePhiant

09-08-2007, 12:18 PM

D cat

do you have a voting and attendance record on Ron Paul
sounds like he has a lot of slogans
but where are his deeds?????????????????

U.S. under U.N. law in health emergency
Bush's SPP power grab sets stage for military to manage flu threats
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57369

goodbye sovereignty, goodbye Posse comitatus!

d-cat

09-08-2007, 12:36 PM

as far as I know there was only one black woman who stood up against.
the rest was only thinking about their own career

WHERE WAS RON PAUL WHEN THE WAR STARTED?????
WHERE WAS RON PAUL BEFORE THE WAR STARTED?????

Are you still thinking that? I'm sure you can find the correct info using Google.
He had indeed voted against the war, and against the Patriot Act.

Here is some of what he was doing before and when the war started:

Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace - November 24, 1997
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=21

Bombing Iraq lacks support, common sense and constitutional base - February 2, 1998
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=31

US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq - February 16, 1998
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=33

Middle East peace: déjà vu all over again - November 2, 1998
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=70

Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes - December 21, 1998
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=77

Statement in Opposition to House Resolution on Iraq, Speech to Congress, December 19, 2001
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=734

Why Initiate War on Iraq? Speech to Congress, March 20, 2002
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=719

War in Iraq, War on the Rule of Law?
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=267

The Case against War in Iraq - September 9, 2002
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=269

for more go here
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=2
or here
https://www.house.gov/paul/

also, you can go to Youtube and GoogleVideo to see his speeches.

d-cat

09-08-2007, 02:30 PM

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

d-cat

09-08-2007, 03:05 PM

Reject Draft Slavery, Ron Paul Speech to Congress, October 5, 2004
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=587

Rethinking the Draft - November 27, 2006
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=488

Conscription-The Terrible Price of War, Ron Paul Speech to Congress, November 21, 2003
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=616

Conscription is Collectivism - January 13, 2003
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=287

Abolish Selective Service, Ron Paul Speech to Congress, January 30, 2003
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=659

Draft not needed for protection of liberty - August 23, 1999
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=111

for more info:
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=18

d-cat

09-11-2007, 11:31 AM

Political positions of Ron Paul
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

video:
https://img.youtube.com/vi/vcbfobiHTCE/default.jpg
Ron Paul - Then and Now (click link below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcbfobiHTCE

d-cat

09-13-2007, 08:56 AM

VIDEO: Ron Paul Speaks @ USC Sept 12 '07

this is a link to the 5 part playlist - you can watch them one after another automatically by clicking on "play all videos" on the right

https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=8F80FC586712FC47

d-cat

09-16-2007, 09:28 AM

VIDEO: Ron Paul in San Francisco (Sept 13)

https://vimeo.com/306606

"Mad" Miles

10-13-2007, 03:02 PM

https://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/10/a-maverick-but-not-the-good-kind/

This article, and the subsequent "discussion" following, are a pretty good debate as to what Ron Paul represents, and doesn't. Plenty of Paul defenders in the responses.

I just read it, thought I'd share it with Waccoland.

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

P.S. For the sake of full disclosure, I'm not sure, but I think the author of the article, Lance Selfa, is the same Lance I superficially knew in Chicago in the Left scene from 1985-1997. If it's the same guy, he was/is a partisan of the ISO, a Leninist-Trot organization with which I had/have fundamental disagreements, primarily because of their Leninism.

I don't care for authoritarian political philosphies that mask themselves as democratic and freedom enhancing. But that's a much longer, older, and tired-er debate that I long ago "Left Behind".

Speaking of which, check out the other recent articles published on DissidentVoice.org, I'm in the midst of doing the same. Overall it has some of the most articulate and interesting stuff around! And yes, I know it's founder, Sunil Sharma, but we don't hang out together or anything. Both too busy!

Neshamah

10-15-2007, 10:58 AM

That is a good article, though I hardly think the UN is above criticism. I'll want to explore both websites when I have more time.

Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate who is even remotely electable. At the very least, as a third party candidate he can prevent the election of Guiliani, perhaps the only current candidate who will be more abusive than Bush.

Ron Paul is a conservative, but there are a number of pragmatic reasons to support his candidacy, aside from draining support from Republicans in the general election. He will end the war and reduce our disastrous and aggressive foreign policy. He will likely be opposite a more empowered Democratic Congress which means his ability to roll back environmental protections or restrict abortion will be limited. Most importantly in my view, he will reduce the power of the executive branch to something resembling the job description in the Constitution. Rather than being yes-people for the President, the Legislative and Judicial Branches will be able to resume a real roll in government.

The government has taxed so heavily, and created so much debt which drives down the value of what all but the wealthiest can save, that most of us are dependent on the government for almost everything. This gives the government enormous power, and from time to time, people like Bush get into office and do as they please.

If we elect Paul and don't like him, we'll elect someone else in four years. Four years of Ron Paul will certainly reduce the scope of government, and his successor will have the opportunity to bring only the best parts back.

Four to eight years of Hillary Clinton might be better for many in the short term, but it will leave open the possibility of a future Bush III who just might take the final steps to dictatorship.

~ Neshamah

OrchardDweller

10-16-2007, 03:15 PM

OrchardDweller

10-17-2007, 08:52 AM

I would like to point out that it was Barry, the moderator, not me, who started this thread. It's a continuation of this thread https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?t=24928

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Ron Paul leads in Wacco Presidential poll!
This question led to many posts about Ron Paul, so I have them off into their own thread here:
Ron Paul, Libertarianism and the U.N.

Quote:
roble wrote:
US presidential hopeful, Ron Paul, is the leading favorite for the White House in the Wacco community!

I have just one question:

Who the hell is Ron Paul???
__________________
Founder & Moderator

Zeno Swijtink

10-17-2007, 11:14 PM

Some people seem to be concerned what a Paul presidency would mean for the environment. This interview will give you a great insight on his stances and ideas concerning the environment:
https://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

Paul sees no need for an EPA:

"What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?"

"You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government in to review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections."

But is it that simple? Does the analogy with libel law hold? [Note that Paul misuses the expression "prior restraint" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint but his intention is clear]

Don't we need an agency that sets the rules: how much arsenic is allowed in drinking water? As Robert Morris, author of "The Blue Death: Disease, Disaster and the Water We Drink" wrote in the NYT of Oct 3:

"From herbicides to arsenic, the Environmental Protection Agency has set standards for 80 different chemicals, specifying how much of each should be allowed in our drinking water."

<https://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntget=2007/10/03/opinion/03morris.html>https://select.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntget=2007/10/03/opinion/03morris.html

Morris's complaint is that there are many contaminants that remain unregulated. Paul seems to want to do away with all standards and have a private individual go to a judge and argue that he has been "harmed."

But how can the judge decide what level of contamination amounts to harm?

Moreover in many cases it is impossible to causally trace a particular harm to a particular cause. Evidence is often statistical, having to do with groups of people, not individual cases. Maybe an area where Paul's libertarianism, which only recognizes individuals, breaks down?

Paradox

10-21-2007, 02:41 AM

...and then explain to this progressive community why they should waste ten seconds thinking about supporting him. Good luck.For one, their efforts have inadvertently supported the creation of a fascist state (not a socialist utopia as you might have hoped). Corporations are closely aligned with politicians and the squeeze on our liberties is now in full effect (Fascism not Socialism/Communism). If Bush and Cheney were not so incompetent we may not be having this discussion.

Are you a warmonger? That is the question of the hour. If you are not then who else (other than Ron Paul) is there to vote for? And let's keep it real...someone that actually has a chance to win. There is little difference between Democrat and Republican these days. Take a look at your political options, you can vote for bad, worse or Ron Paul. We are on the verge of bankruptcy, your ideals have brought us to this point. Write another hot check if you must but I will fight to undo the damage done by the misguided babyboomer generation. What a bunch of ingrates.

Let me guess. You are one of them.

Neshamah

10-21-2007, 12:41 PM

If Bush and Cheney were not so incompetent we may not be having this discussion....
Bush and Cheney are deliberate, not incompetent. They are deliberately grabbing power. Guiliani will do the same. Clinton has better intentions domestically, but will still be grabbing power to see them realized. Unless we elect Clinton dictator for life, we may very well see her expanded power in the hands of another President in the mold of Bush or Guiliani.

(I do not by the way advocate electing anyone dictator for life.)

Clinton and Guiliani are both campaigning on fear. Guiliani basically says that if we do not sacrifice our freedoms and trust the government, terrorists will kill us. Clinton says if the government does not take care of us and make all our decisions, people will starve and die prematurely. There is certainly some truth to Clinton's claims, and I won't call anyone names for supporting her. However, if we depend only on the government and not on each other to solve these problems, the potential for deliberate abuse as we've seen with Bush and Cheney only gets worse.

~ Neshamah

radio4progressives

10-21-2007, 01:46 PM

Paradox,

You were essentially on the right track until you finalized your post with your mis-placed (and/or misdirected) anger with adhominem attack.

The state of fascism which we are collectively coming to terms with (and struggling against) was not created by the "babyboomer" generation..
Although I will grant you that the "baby boomer" generation were/are unwitting enablers (just as our parents were, and parents before them and so on) but I will assert that it is essentially because we were all born INTO a well developed and institutionalized FASCIST STATE which had begun nearly a century before boomers were born.

It's going to take a great deal of "de-programming" (if you will) to bring folks up on this fundemental struggle. But in order to accomplish this we will need to do this together.. Conservative Libertarians need to work with Progressive Libertarians on this dear and fragile common ground which we share absolutely. That is to say we hold a deep and abiding respect, love and passion for all that is contained (and enshrined) within the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

Pointing fingers and placing blame at the "babyboomer" generation and calling us "ingrates" is not going to work. This should be stating the obvious to someone who is essentially asserting a sense of superiority over those of us who see Ron Paul in a very different light than you do. And for all that, babyboomers have a lot of valid creds in pointing fingers and viscious name calling in the other direction. But that's what the Fascists want us to do, isn't it? Keep us distracted and divided instead of working together - keep in mind the old axiom, United We Stand - Divided We Fall - there is much more wisdom and truth in what may appear to be an old and tired cliche.

There seems to have been several junctures in our nation's early history, during the beginnings of our "democracy" where a bit of fascism creeped into our governance for instance.. But I believe it wasn't as brazen and/or rampant until the period following the Civil War.

Here's a quote from President Rutherford Hayes (1876) during the Reconstruction period when he made this statement :

"This is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations (Wasserman 1984, 291)."

But I think it wasn't until 1886, thanks to a collosol mistake in a court reporter's notes which inadvertantly set precident when Corporations were reported to have been granted "Personhood" rights in the case of Southern Pacific Railroad vs Santa Clara County..

You can read about this case in length in various places, but I recommend these two very good reads here, (https://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/santa_clara_vs_southern_pacific.html) and here, (https://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/HowCorpsPower_MA.html) as a staring point, if you haven't read about it already...

Whichever the case, I would like to encourage you to consider directing some of that passion and energy towards the effort towards reclaiming our democracy vis a vis the Abolish Corporate Personhood Movement (https://www.thomhartmann.com/restoredemocracy.shtml)and all efforts on this front.

Here's an excerpt from William H. Boyer's Myth America - Democracy vs. Capitalism (https://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/America/HowCorpsPower_MA.html) discussing the Southern Pacific Railroad vs Santa Clara County case:

(Source: Third World Traveler (https://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/index.html) )

THE SANTA CLARA CASE

This slackening of legal restraints on corporations culminated in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1886 known as Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad. It opened the floodgates for the accumulation and consolidation of corporate power. Without even any allowance for discussion or debate, the Supreme Court accepted the Santa Clara decision that corporations are "persons." Even though they are artificial entities, they were granted the same legal status as real human beings and were entitled to all the same Bill of Rights protections including freedom of speech.

In one fell swoop, essentially all pretense of meaningful control over corporations was abandoned for the corporations since they can use the First Amendment provision for "freedom of speech" as the basis for making contributions to political candidates. The result, as we know too well, has been to transfer the economic power of the corporation into control of the political system.

From 1886 onward, corporations have used their court-conferred wealth to overwhelm the democratic process. Having now the same rights as real people, they were allowed to participate in the political process. Their unlimited spending in elections permitted them to gain majorities in legislatures and eliminate all remaining troublesome language in state constitutions. Any attempts at control were defeated as "unconstitutional" infringements on their right to "free speech."

The Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to rationalize its decision by saying that it "forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws." (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886), available at www.tourolaw.edu/patch/santa (https://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/santa).) The logic was inescapable once the corporation was deemed a "person."

One final note:

Although the state of affairs in which we collectively find ourselves (wrt to the Fascist State in America) began long before fourty or sixty years ago, I'm of the opinion that so much was codified under Truman's administration when he established the National Security Act of 1947. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947)

Eisenhower sh/could have repealed or abolished it altogether given all that he had become aware during his administration to which he spoke of in his farewell address to the nation leaving us with the (then surreal) warning of the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex. Kennedy himself gave an extrordinary warning as to the dangers of Secret Societies and their institutions, which can be heard in an audio clip on this week's broadcast of Guns and Butter (Zeitgeist: The Myth of Religion, The Myth of 9/11, The Myth of War). ..

(Note: this week's edition of Guns and Butter (https://www.gunsandbutter.net/)is essentially audio excerpts from the film Zeitgeist: The Myth of Religion, The Myth of 9/11, The Myth of War - and Kennedy's audio clip can be heard 34 minutes and 22 seconds into the program.)

I do not see anyone in the race thus far, who I can cast my vote for except maybe Kucinich, or Edwards. But I'm not looking to anyone of these people for leadership or to save us and our nation from Fascism... Only we, the people can accomplish that. and it won't be through the "election system".

For one, their efforts have inadvertently supported the creation of a fascist state (not a socialist utopia as you might have hoped). Corporations are closely aligned with politicians and the squeeze on our liberties is now in full effect (Fascism not Socialism/Communism). If Bush and Cheney were not so incompetent we may not be having this discussion.

Are you a warmonger? That is the question of the hour. If you are not then who else (other than Ron Paul) is there to vote for? And let's keep it real...someone that actually has a chance to win. There is little difference between Democrat and Republican these days. Take a look at your political options, you can vote for bad, worse or Ron Paul. We are on the verge of bankruptcy, your ideals have brought us to this point. Write another hot check if you must but I will fight to undo the damage done by the misguided babyboomer generation. What a bunch of ingrates.

Let me guess. You are one of them.

purplepig

10-21-2007, 10:13 PM

[Anyone who still believes that their vote will be counted as anything more than an acknowledgement of ignorance will continue to get the government they deserve. America died some time ago. It's not coming back. I like Ron Paul. I also like Ward Cleaver. In a different world, that might count for something. Not this one. The power structure which brought us to this state has no intention of changing it back. To continue to look to it for solutions is only to perpetuate it. Go ahead. The bleeting of sheep makes their day.

amalia

10-22-2007, 06:43 AM

Neshamah

10-22-2007, 02:43 PM

I am stunned by the wave of support on Wacco and elsewere for Ron Paul.
Please delve further than just his anti-war views. He has voted against every social program including the recent SCHIP since being in office. Because of his staunch anti-choice views, imagine who he might put on the Supreme Court! I, too feel in a position of desperation with the current mess in Iraq and a potential one in Iran... but I WILL NOT vote for someone who does not share these equally core values!

(1) Please do not confuse opposition to government programs opposition to the programs themselves.
Ron Paul votes against the government providing these programs because it makes the government too powerful. Governments that become too powerful become unaccountable and make Presidencies like the present one inevitable. If the government stops providing services, other organizations, and if necessary, the states will step up to provide the services that are needed. They will be more local and better attuned to local conditions, and therefore more efficient.

(2) Concerning abortion, Ron Paul will leave it up to the states. Most states, including California will remain pro-choice. I personally believe even local governments are too clumsy to restrict abortion, but I cannot see all ends and do not think my values should be enforced on everyone in every other state. If you are convinced that free access to abortion should be a universal value, consider that the deaths and unhappiness resulting even from radical restrictions on abortion would still be far less than the lives that will be lost if our 'nation-building' efforts turn nucleur, something that neither Guiliani or Clinton has ruled out with respect to Iran.

A Ron Paul presidency will shake up the country, dramatically reduce the scope of the Federal government, and require people to do their own part to make this a better country for everyone. We need to do something big, and a Ron Paul presidency, or even a Ron Paul campaign that merely splits the Republican party, is the best possibility we have in the near term.

~ Neshamah

d-cat

10-22-2007, 08:06 PM

Paradox,
I do not see anyone in the race thus far, who I can cast my vote for except maybe Kucinich, or Edwards.

WARNING: Edwards is CFR
https://www.cfr.org/bios/9641/john_edwards.html

d-cat

10-22-2007, 08:33 PM

Ron Paul at PBS Debate 9-27-07
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5824525114672831244

excellent! answers on the subjects of racism, war on drugs, war in Iraq, prosperity, taxes, illegal immigration, national ID card...

Ron Paul at Fox News Debate - Florida 10-21-07
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjylvNNo7zc

Ron Paul in front of a selected FOX audience - booed but he wins the Fox post debate poll!

Ron Paul On Hannity & Colmes Fox Post Debate 10-21-07
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5824525114672831244

Ron Paul finally shuts Hannity up!

Paradox

10-22-2007, 11:03 PM

Liberty Alliance 2008 (https://libertyalliance2008.blogspot.com/2007/10/and-then-they-fight-us.html)

That's rather selfish. You are an American after all. We must get our priorities straight. Your goals will not be realized under a fascist corporatist police state. I simply see no other way out at the moment (shy of uniting behind Ron Paul)... if we cannot set our petty differences aside to save our freedom and liberty than we deserve the destruction that lies ahead. Set idealism aside for a moment and get real. We are under attack and the gloves are now off, if we lose you lose. Make no qualms about it.

Ron Paul will leave most things to the states and individuals, you live in California (Nor Cal at that), lighten up...if you support Ron Paul you are one of the good guys. Anyone else (I'm afraid) will drive the final nails into our coffin OR they have a snowballs chance in hell of winning. We need a winner, and we need one this time around.

I am stunned by the wave of support on Wacco and elsewere for Ron Paul.
Please delve further than just his anti-war views. He has voted against every social program including the recent SCHIP since being in office. Because of his staunch anti-choice views, imagine who he might put on the Supreme Court! I, too feel in a position of desperation with the current mess in Iraq and a potential one in Iran... but I WILL NOT vote for someone who does not share these equally core values!

Paradox

10-22-2007, 11:16 PM

Hi Purplepig,

You're wrong. The fog is lifting my friend. You are powerless no more. America, like the Pheonix is rising from the ashes and a new age is dawning. Do not give up hope, for in times like this hope is fuel for change. You are powerful, you are a mighty force who has been conned into thinking you cannot make a difference. I am here to say that you can and YOU ARE. We common folk are winning, the wind is at our back and the establishment is crumbling under the weight of our will.

Radio4progressives has made some very valid points which I will respond to when time permits. Edwards has a great personality and presence for a CFR henchman and Kucinich has no hope of winning . We cannot afford to waste votes here. Laws are now in place to imprison at will for no other reason other than thinking differently than our leaders...the stage is set. We are screwed without decisive and collective action. Our only hope at the moment is the Ron Paul revolution. It's that bad. After that, we can lick our wounds and press our state (which to date has been rather accommodating) for the reforms (beyond personal liberty and freedom) that are important to us.

We have slowed our free-fall into a military-industrial complex instituted fascist world order. We must seize the day.

I switched parties for this man because we are currently looking up from the depths of a seemingly insurmountable hole (which we have dug for ourselves). I honestly believe that Dr. Ron Paul can bring us home.

~Paradox

[Anyone who still believes that their vote will be counted as anything more than an acknowledgement of ignorance will continue to get the government they deserve. America died some time ago. It's not coming back. I like Ron Paul. I also like Ward Cleaver. In a different world, that might count for something. Not this one. The power structure which brought us to this state has no intention of changing it back. To continue to look to it for solutions is only to perpetuate it. Go ahead. The bleeting of sheep makes their day.

d-cat

10-22-2007, 11:45 PM

purplepig

10-23-2007, 12:24 AM

We already live in a fascist corporatist police state. Right now they let us feel as if we have a say because they still need us. Not for long. We cannot set our petty differences aside to save our freedom and liberty because we are a petty people. They depend on that. We passively stood by and watched our freedom go down the toilet. They know that. They tested us all along, each time a little more and we always looked to them for answers. They know that. They also know that voting makes us feel good. Important. That one has to really make them chuckle. How can they have any respect for us? Who's they? They is us. We deserve the destruction that lies ahead. We allowed the worst in us to take control. We stood by and watched this happen. We will pay the price. We brought it upon ourselves. Ron Paul dosn't stand a chance in Hell. The next puppet has already been picked. Enjoy what illusions of freedom you have left. In time, with the new definition of freedom given us, we will forget the old ideas. Our memories will die with us and only pass on as myth if not forbiden entirely as unpatriotic, which is very likely. You may even come to love the new world awaiting us. Might as well. It's almost here.

radio4progressives

10-23-2007, 11:04 AM

I understand your sentiments purple pig. I'm under no illusion about what all this is about. I do not think we can change the course we've been on vis a vis "elections", a system rigged to the nines and then some. The annointed ones are already chosen, and the "campaigns" is nothing but a multi-billion dollar stage production. However, there is value in "participating" in this theatrical production, if for no other reason than for the history books and the record that won't be in the public schools and classrooms in this country, but will be in Libraries and classrooms somewhere else in the world. The point is that even given most of what you and others have expressed is true, there has to be a record preserved somewhere to demonstrate that some of us at least tried to fight back in some way. We're not ALL sheep going off to slaughter.

[Anyone who still believes that their vote will be counted as anything more than an acknowledgement of ignorance will continue to get the government they deserve. America died some time ago. It's not coming back. I like Ron Paul. I also like Ward Cleaver. In a different world, that might count for something. Not this one. The power structure which brought us to this state has no intention of changing it back. To continue to look to it for solutions is only to perpetuate it. Go ahead. The bleeting of sheep makes their day.

radio4progressives

10-23-2007, 11:06 AM

btw... votes are counted accurately when we show up to monitor the vote counting process.

I understand your sentiments purple pig. I'm under no illusion about what all this is about. I do not think we can change the course we've been on vis a vis "elections", a system rigged to the nines and then some. The annointed ones are already chosen, and the "campaigns" is nothing but a multi-billion dollar stage production. However, there is value in "participating" in this theatrical production, if for no other reason than for the history books and the record that won't be in the public schools and classrooms in this country, but will be in Libraries and classrooms somewhere else in the world. The point is that even given most of what you and others have expressed is true, there has to be a record preserved somewhere to demonstrate that some of us at least tried to fight back in some way. We're not ALL sheep going off to slaughter.

OrchardDweller

10-31-2007, 05:47 PM

Ron Paul on Jay Leno 10/30/07:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1EFHgUXZaU

OrchardDweller

11-06-2007, 09:15 AM

I found this posted on another forum:

Small farmers should support Ron Paul
There are so few of us small farmers left in the country, that most of y'all probably have no idea how hard he works to protect our freedoms.

Dr. Paul has been a vocal opponent of NAIS--a federal program that would require registration of all farm animals with the federal government (big agribusiness loves this, but it is an expensive invasion of our rights and privacy), and a strong supporter of homeschooling (which is very popular among rural families).

As I'm sure y'all know he fights Big Pharma's control over health care, and supports homeopathy.

Yesterday he introduced a bill to legalize the interstate transportation of raw (unpasturized) milk. This is a big deal to those of us who favor the ability to sell and consume raw milk.

Just another reason to cheer Ron Paul.

Zeno Swijtink

11-06-2007, 10:48 AM

I found this posted on another forum:

Small farmers should support Ron Paul
There are so few of us small farmers left in the country, that most of y'all probably have no idea how hard he works to protect our freedoms.

/snip/

Just another reason to cheer Ron Paul.

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting discussion of the Ron Paul surge in Salon.com today.

https://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/index.html

OrchardDweller

11-06-2007, 11:49 AM

Glenn Greenwald has an interesting discussion of the Ron Paul surge in Salon.com today.

https://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/index.html

Good article, thanks, I'd missed that one. It fails to mention though that Ron Paul raised $4.3 million in a single day yesterday (there's a link in the article, but it doesn't work). This 'money bomb' was organized by grassroots and is indeed not getting much mainstream press.
This support proves that Ron Paul is for real and here to stay. The people have spoken.
https://gytimes.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-paul-raises-in-24-hours.html

OrchardDweller

11-10-2007, 04:38 PM

Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research (video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

complete interview (audio only - great interview):

Stream: https://69.65.26.137/~ronpaula/RonPaulNashuaTelegraphEditorialBoardNHQ&A.mp3

Mp3: https://69.65.26.137/~ronpaula/RonPaulNashuaTelegraphEditorialBoardNHQ&A.m3u

Valley Oak

11-10-2007, 05:20 PM

I watched the video and Ron Paul clearly states at the very beginning that he considers "...abortion to be an act of violence..."

I find Paul's position on abortion abhorrent and I very strongly oppose his candidacy for President of the United States! Paul would clearly be one of the worst possible choices for the White House.

The good news is that this extremist jerk, Paul, will never occupy the Oval Office. That's a fact.

All women have the right to have access to an abortion and must be able to legally keep that right forever.

Edward

Ron Paul on Abortion and Stem Cell Research (video)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

complete interview (audio only - great interview):

Stream: https://69.65.26.137/~ronpaula/RonPaulNashuaTelegraphEditorialBoardNHQ&A.mp3 (https://69.65.26.137/%7Eronpaula/RonPaulNashuaTelegraphEditorialBoardNHQ&A.mp3)

Mp3: https://69.65.26.137/~ronpaula/RonPaulNashuaTelegraphEditorialBoardNHQ&A.m3u (https://69.65.26.137/%7Eronpaula/RonPaulNashuaTelegraphEditorialBoardNHQ&A.m3u)

OrchardDweller

11-10-2007, 09:41 PM

Ron Paul on Marijuana (video)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2p_G9BPouCo

Valley Oak

11-11-2007, 11:11 AM

Please!

Abortion is an infinitely more vital issue than marijuana is, many times over.

Ron Paul's anti-choice stance on abortion makes him a pathetic choice for president.

Edward

Ron Paul on Marijuana (video)

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2p_G9BPouCo

OrchardDweller

11-11-2007, 02:18 PM

Here's the complete interview on video. It's an excellent interview, covering many different subjects including our right to take dietary supplements.

Ron Paul interview, Nashua NH Telegraph 11-07-07

Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx2vLUMmSiA

Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRJKbEs5HgE

Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsJkCx8sq1c

Part 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSvobOHNDVc

Part 5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVxRArH6vQw

Part 6 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oXGX5qJ95g

Neshamah

11-11-2007, 06:29 PM

Edward,

I consider the prospect of nuclear strikes, something that neither Clinton nor Guiliani has ruled out, to be a far more vital issue than abortion. While I agree with you that we should have access to abortion, I do not deny that it is a violent act, a sometimes justified act, but nonetheless a violent one. A Ron Paul Presidency will not affect abortion access in most states including California. Assuming he is not blocked by a Democratic Congress, it may mean restrictions in states like Kansas and Texas, but even the most draconian restrictions imaginable would still cause less harm than for the United States to continue making the world "safer" by bombing it into submission.

Ron Paul could end the killing of tens of thousands around the world (perhaps millions if Guiliani or Clinton strike Iran.) He also has far more support and more momentum than any other anti-war candidate.

There are also pragmatic reasons for even Democrats to support Ron Paul, especially if Democrats are likely to win California by a large margin. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination (unlikely, but a real possibility,) moderates will flock to the Democratic nominee. If he runs as a third party, he will attract conservative votes and ensure a Democrat in the White House. While Clinton is a neo-conservative on foreign policy, she is still less fascist than Guiliani, and probably less likely to order nuclear strikes on Iran.

Circumstances are dire. Worry about abortion in 2012. Most Americans agree with you anyway. Right now we need to stop the U.S. from making the world a worse place before we can worry about making it a better one.

~ Neshamah

zenekar

11-11-2007, 07:37 PM

Let's not be naive and fool ourselves into thinking there is genuine democracy in the US. The ruling class elite's dollars and influence, and their carefully controlled media, have already picked the front runners. Ron Paul is only a distraction. The primaries and next year's "election" are only staged to quiet the masses into thinking we actually have a vote. It's been this way since writing of the Constitution.

On a local level we may have some success in electing progressive members to city councils, perhaps even to Congress such persons with integrity as Barbara Lee or Kucinich. But there is too much at stake for the rulling class to let us decide who will be our figurehead in the White(man's) House.Attila---

Edward,

I consider the prospect of nuclear strikes, something that neither Clinton nor Guiliani has ruled out, to be a far more vital issue than abortion. While I agree with you that we should have access to abortion, I do not deny that it is a violent act, a sometimes justified act, but nonetheless a violent one. A Ron Paul Presidency will not affect abortion access in most states including California. Assuming he is not blocked by a Democratic Congress, it may mean restrictions in states like Kansas and Texas, but even the most draconian restrictions imaginable would still cause less harm than for the United States to continue making the world "safer" by bombing it into submission.

Ron Paul could end the killing of tens of thousands around the world (perhaps millions if Guiliani or Clinton strike Iran.) He also has far more support and more momentum than any other anti-war candidate.

There are also pragmatic reasons for even Democrats to support Ron Paul, especially if Democrats are likely to win California by a large margin. If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination (unlikely, but a real possibility,) moderates will flock to the Democratic nominee. If he runs as a third party, he will attract conservative votes and ensure a Democrat in the White House. While Clinton is a neo-conservative on foreign policy, she is still less fascist than Guiliani, and probably less likely to order nuclear strikes on Iran.

Circumstances are dire. Worry about abortion in 2012. Most Americans agree with you anyway. Right now we need to stop the U.S. from making the world a worse place before we can worry about making it a better one.

~ Neshamah

OrchardDweller

11-11-2007, 08:27 PM

It's true that the 'powers that be' do not want Ron Paul to succeed. I agree that the stage is set for a Hillary/Guiliani runoff. Their plans can only go forward with an uneducated and uncaring people. But that is changing. Ron Paul has the people on his side, a large and evergrowing group of people who are fed up with the system. People who are determined to be heard this time around. A peaceful revolution is taking place. There is hope.

Ron Paul: A New Hope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG2PUZoukfA

Tea Party '07
https://youtube.com/watch?v=DKZmIzEMUN8

Valley Oak

11-12-2007, 08:02 AM

OrchardDweller

11-12-2007, 09:23 AM

I am educated and I am a citizen and I am AGAINST Ron Paul!

O.D., I don't appreciate your insinuating that I'm uneducated because I don't support your reactionary candidate who is clearly against abortion. Ron Paul is NEVER going to be elected and you know this in your heart and so does everyone else. This fact is not a "powers that be" by-product; it is because Paul is a right wing extremist on too many issues, including abortion.

Ron Paul is simply another anti-abortion, right-wing jerk, much worse than Bush. We will be worse off than now with it as President.

Edward

What makes you think I was talking about you, Roble?

The subject was the ruling elite, and the power they have to influence government. "Uneducated" was a wrong choice of word by me; "Uninformed" is what I should have used. Heaven knows there are many considered "educated" who really haven't a clue about the political puppet show that is put in front of us.

Roble, I understand that abortion is an important subject to you. But is it more important than stopping the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, preventing another one with Iran (draft, anyone?), stopping the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, ending torture, getting our standing back in the world, doing something about the 9 trillion dollar debt and the collapsing dollar, abolishing the Federal Reserve and IRS, and restoring our lost liberties?

And besides, as a president, Ron Paul doesn't want to make abortion illegal. He wants to leave decisions up to the state and local level. So you don't have to be concerned about the personal thoughts and feelings of this intelligent and compassionate man, who developed his opinion on the subject from being an OB/GYN for 30 years and delivering over 4,000 babies. What would he know.

radio4progressives

11-12-2007, 12:09 PM

To describe Ron Paul as just another "anti-abortion right wing jerk" and "worse than Bush" is hyperbolie on steroids. I'm not particularly fond of Conservative Libertarian views on domestic issues, but for gawd sakes don't compare RP to the neo-con fascist occupying the white (man's) house .

please.

On the matter of "Right to Choose" for women on the question of abortions, that is all but lost thanks to Senate Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein (and others) who rolled over on filibuster option and enabled the seating of Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court.

In my view, any and all discussion of "abortion rights" (not my term) is something of a side show because it will matter absolutely not what the next president's views on abortion are. The Neo-Con's and the Theocratic fascists got what they want on the bench now. Yes it can be worse, but not by much anymore.

If we were really a genuine democracy of any kind, within the current Presidential contenders, the leading candidates would be Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul., imo (at this juncture) and we could then proceed to have a serious debate/discussion on matters of civil rights, war and peace, etc .. but it isn't what we have, and until the time arrives when we collectively see the forest past the trees, we'll never get to the position to "reclaim our democracy", or restoring the Constitution, so praising or critisizing Ron Paul is simply a waste of time and breath.

I am educated and I am a citizen and I am AGAINST Ron Paul!

O.D., I don't appreciate your insinuating that I'm uneducated because I don't support your reactionary candidate who is clearly against abortion. Ron Paul is NEVER going to be elected and you know this in your heart and so does everyone else. This fact is not a "powers that be" by-product; it is because Paul is a right wing extremist on too many issues, including abortion.

Ron Paul is simply another anti-abortion, right-wing jerk, much worse than Bush. We will be worse off than now with it as President.

Edward

radio4progressives

11-12-2007, 01:39 PM

OD: Just to put things with a sort of 'real world' perspective wrt fascist state, have a listen to this audio clip of two Project Censored award winners broadcast on Guns and Butter last week.

https://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=23168

Good question, and I'm glad you asked. He is, like you said, a presidential hopeful. He's a Libertarian candidate (he ran as such in '88) running as a Republican. He's a 10 term congressman and has practiced 30 years as an OB/GYN, delivering over 4000 babies.

He is the candidate they don't want you to know about! Mainstream media often either excludes him or lies about him. What they go out of their way not to show you is that his guy has some serious support from 'we the people'.
This short video will give you some idea of his popularity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ

The video is made by an individual grassroots supporter. His supporters are in no way led by the official campaign. All over this country, people from all across the political spectrum and of all ages have come together in support once they learn about Ron Paul. It's a revolution of sorts and it's very exciting. You can find many more great videos on www.youtube.com (https://www.youtube.com)
A few of my favorites:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8

And go here to find a wealth of Ron Paul's writings:
https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

[/b]

OrchardDweller

11-12-2007, 07:19 PM

To describe Ron Paul as just another "anti-abortion right wing jerk" and "worse than Bush" is hyperbolie on steroids. I'm not particularly fond of Conservative Libertarian views on domestic issues, but for gawd sakes don't compare RP to the neo-con fascist occupying the white (man's) house .

please.

On the matter of "Right to Choose" for women on the question of abortions, that is all but lost thanks to Senate Democrats such as Dianne Feinstein (and others) who rolled over on filibuster option and enabled the seating of Justices Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court.

In my view, any and all discussion of "abortion rights" (not my term) is something of a side show because it will matter absolutely not what the next president's views on abortion are. The Neo-Con's and the Theocratic fascists got what they want on the bench now. Yes it can be worse, but not by much anymore.

If we were really a genuine democracy of any kind, within the current Presidential contenders, the leading candidates would be Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul., imo (at this juncture) and we could then proceed to have a serious debate/discussion on matters of civil rights, war and peace, etc .. but it isn't what we have, and until the time arrives when we collectively see the forest past the trees, we'll never get to the position to "reclaim our democracy", or restoring the Constitution, so praising or critisizing Ron Paul is simply a waste of time and breath.

Concerns about the supreme court and abortion might be remedied by, as Ron Paul suggests, bringing jurisdiction to the state and local level.

I think this peaceful revolution is happening because many are "seeing the forest past the trees". And it's spreading like wildfire! Just check out this crowd of 5,000 at a recent Ron Paul rally in Philadelphia. He draws huge crowds everywhere.

Ron Paul Speech, Philly Rally Nov 10th part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6lQMM5AP2U

Anyway, I'm not ready to roll over and submit to tyranny just yet.

https://www.teaparty07.com/images/set2/RPBanner336x269.jpg

Dixon

11-12-2007, 07:34 PM

Please!
Abortion is an infinitely more vital issue than marijuana is, many times over.

Edward, tell that to the thousands of harmless people who are languishing in prison, getting raped and abused by real criminals, for marijuana "crimes".

Tell that to all of us taxpayers, who are footing the HUGE bill for the phony and repressive "war on drugs", which is really a war on freedom.

Tell that to the thousands of peasants in "3rd world" countries who are brutally repressed under the guise of the "war on drugs", much of this financed by our USAmerican tax dollars.

Tell that to all of us, whose civil rights are being eroded under the guise of the "war on drugs".

Edward, the Powers That Be control us by dividing us. If they can get the abortion rights supporters to oppose or disregard the drug rights supporters, or vice versa, they succeed in fucking us all.

And, importantly, we must not forget that the right to choose whether to have an abortion and the right to choose whether to use marijuana are essentially not even different rights. They are ONE AND THE SAME RIGHT--the right to self-determination, to do what we want as long as we're not violating someone.

Like you, I cannot support Ron "Magneto" Paul, largely because of the abortion issue. But that doesn't mean that I have to cavalierly minimize issues which he takes a more reasonable stand on, such as drug-choice rights.

Blessings on ya, Edward;

Dixon

Dixon

11-12-2007, 07:52 PM

...Ron Paul doesn't want to make abortion illegal. He wants to leave decisions up to the state and local level...

Hi, OrchardDweller;

Some of us care about the citizens of benighted states like Texas, Kansas, Georgia, etc., and thus are unwilling to elect Ron Paul, who at best would leave all those people to the tender mercies of their medieval state legislatures. If you think doing so is satisfactory as long as you and your friends here in California retain their abortion rights, you may want to take a hard look at your apparent self-centeredness.

Dixon

Neshamah

11-13-2007, 09:20 AM

Dixon,

I am not going to force my values on a state I do not live in. Texas, Kansas, and Georgia want to restrict abortion because that is what most of their citizens want. They value the future lives of unborn children just as much as the present lives of the parents and believe unwanted pregnancies are better prevented by responsible behaviour. We can disagree, but if we do not live there, we cannot make them do otherwise.

The right to privacy does not protect murderers or child molesters simply because they commit their acts in the privacy of their own home, but so far it does protect those who expose their children to secondhand smoke. Some at this site would advocate the government getting into people's homes to ban circumcision or ear piercings. These are complex issues. If some states want to draw the line on privacy at a different point, that is the right of their citizens.

If you think those in the minority should be able to live somewhere else, help them do so. We don't need papers or a national ID just to cross state lines. (Though we might if we allow the federal government to continue growing unchecked.)

~ Neshamah

OrchardDweller

11-13-2007, 12:45 PM

Hi, OrchardDweller;

Some of us care about the citizens of benighted states like Texas, Kansas, Georgia, etc., and thus are unwilling to elect Ron Paul, who at best would leave all those people to the tender mercies of their medieval state legislatures. If you think doing so is satisfactory as long as you and your friends here in California retain their abortion rights, you may want to take a hard look at your apparent self-centeredness.

Dixon

Dixon, I was merely responding to those here in California who feel it's important that abortion is kept legal. My personal opinion in this does not matter, neither does Ron Paul's. The point is that it will be much easier for people to have a say in matters like abortion (and many others, like marijuana) at the state and local level, rather than to leave it to a federal government that has already abused so many of our rights and will continue to do so if we don't act now.

It seems that the people in the southern states feel differently than you do, as Ron Paul has strong support there. The biggest Ron Paul meetup group for example is in Texas. Maybe they have less faith in the federal government and more faith in themselves to fight for what they want at the state and local level, where they have a greater chance of being heard.

Here are some straw polls he has won in southern (and many other) states:
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
1st in Gwinnett County GOP, Atlanta, Georgia, 9/30/2007, 36.2%
1st in DeKalb County, Georgia, 8/25/2007, 24.0%
1st in Jefferson County, Alabama Straw Poll, 10/13/2007, 57.8%
1st in West Alabama, 8/18/2007, 81.2%
1st in Gaston County, NC, 8/14/2007, 36.6%

And here are a couple of videos from another state you mentioned, Texas.

Ron Paul: Defending Liberty - San Antonio style
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAug46Rd_Bc

Let Freedom Ring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgCE53OxLAM

OrchardDweller

11-15-2007, 03:04 PM

OrchardDweller

11-15-2007, 05:35 PM

A video for America
part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-3UPv_Lo0U
part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xtow6rCj7rQ

This is a must watch for anyone who is serious about wanting to end the war in Iraq, and prevent future illegal, pre-emptive undeclared (nuclear) wars. Most of the other candidates want to continue this war mongering; even the Democratic "front runners" have said they want troops to stay in Iraq through 2013!

d-cat

11-16-2007, 06:00 PM

Here's another good article about Ron Paul on salon.com

Ron Paul distortions and smears
https://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html

Make sure to check out the video near the bottom of the page.

Nice video! Ron Paul also talks about Kucinich here:

Ron Paul Meets the Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d91a13Yr3oQ

OrchardDweller

11-21-2007, 09:07 PM

I am stunned by the wave of support on Wacco and elsewere for Ron Paul.
Please delve further than just his anti-war views. He has voted against every social program including the recent SCHIP since being in office.

Here's why he voted against SCHIP: https://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=955

If you feel uncomfortable with the way Ron Paul has voted on certain issues, www.ronpaullibrary.org is a good place to go to do some delving:):

Zeno Swijtink

11-21-2007, 10:15 PM

[B]Most of the other candidates want to continue this war mongering; even the Democratic "front runners" have said they want troops to stay in Iraq through 2013!

Demagoguery!

They said that they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/

OrchardDweller

11-22-2007, 01:42 PM

https://img103.imageshack.us/img103/1630/dsc00957bwq1.jpg
cover

page 2
https://img518.imageshack.us/my.php?image=health2jg2.jpg

page 3
https://img518.imageshack.us/my.php?image=health3bm9.jpg

page 4
https://img249.imageshack.us/my.php?image=health4hx5.jpg

page 5
https://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?image=health5lt8.jpg

page 6
https://img263.imageshack.us/my.php?image=health6dw4.jpg

The full article can be downloaded here as a pdf file: https://www.healthtruthrevealed.com/full-page.php?id=09483932411&&page=article

d-cat

11-22-2007, 08:58 PM

Demagoguery!

They said that they cannot guarantee to pull all U.S. combat troops from Iraq by the end of the next presidential term in 2013.

https://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/

They voted for the war, voted for additional funding for the war, voted for the troop surge, voted for more funding, and say they cannot guarantee a pullout by 2013. To me, what they're saying is they're gonna continue the war.

d-cat

11-23-2007, 11:43 AM

nice video + interesting world poll

Let Love Rule: Ron Paul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLwE6NkVaVo

Who Would The World Elect
https://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

OrchardDweller

11-25-2007, 08:30 PM

Let Love Rule: Ron Paul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLwE6NkVaVo

Wow, I love that video, watched it 5 times already! Thanks!
"We need to let love rule for a while". Couldn't agree more..

Also love that Lenny Kravitz song, hadn't heard that in a while.

OrchardDweller

11-29-2007, 08:52 AM

Mercola endorses Dr. Ron Paul

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/11/27/finally-ron-paul-makes-front-page-of-ny-times.aspx

Mercola.com is one of the most comprehensive Health web sites in the world dealing with everything from vaccines, to farming, and even Health Freedom.

Sonomamark

11-30-2007, 07:45 PM

Comprehensive, perhaps, but not exactly credible. I suggest people go read it for themselves. It's a flakefest of "alternative medicine" and conspiracy theory.

Honestly, OrchardDweller, I don't really know how you and D-cat even DARE to stand up and support Ron Paul in a forum overwhelmingly dominated by progressives. The man opposes all government programs except the military and policing. He opposes abortion. He opposes the national park system. He opposes taxes--when what we need are much HIGHER taxes on the top 10% of income earners, to balance our budget and pay for much needed social services like health care, Social Security, mental health services, parks and recreation, education and environmental protection--all of which types of programs Ron Paul completely opposes with such ridiculously clueless arguments as "free market economics will do a better job of providing these services". You only have to think for a moment about the state of air quality prior to the Clean Air Act and CAFE standards to recognize that Dr. Paul's zealot philosophy of the magical power of completely unregulated markets is...well, barking mad.

Around here, most of us think there is an appropriate role and positive role for government, to protect the common good against private greed and provide services that we deserve as a part of our social contract as a nation. The problem with our government isn't that it's "government"...it's that it's been taken over by evil f**kheads whose primary characteristic is that they, too, hate regulation, hate social programs, hate environmental protection, hate the expectation that people pay INTO the society they take value OUT of. In short, they agree with Ron Paul on nearly everything except the Iraq War. Taxes have been slashed so badly and budgets cut for so long that agencies like FEMA which used to do a very good job of helping us in times of emergency can no longer function. The problem isn't that "government can't get things done"--it's that anti-government jerks like Paul and Grover Norquist have succeeded in slashing government agencies' capacity to the point where they can't do what they should.

Just because Ron Paul opposes the war doesn't mean he's worthy of support. He's so profoundly wrong on EVERYTHING ELSE that it far outstrips any credit he might get for opposing the war.

I really don't know what's in it for you to keep pumping the candidacy of this loon, but it reflects poorly on your critical thinking skills and certainly isn't persuasive.

Mercola endorses Dr. Ron Paul

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/11/27/finally-ron-paul-makes-front-page-of-ny-times.aspx

Mercola.com is one of the most comprehensive Health web sites in the world dealing with everything from vaccines, to farming, and even Health Freedom.

d-cat

12-01-2007, 05:10 PM

Honestly, OrchardDweller, I don't really know how you and D-cat even DARE to stand up and support Ron Paul in a forum overwhelmingly dominated by progressives.

Mark,

This thread is actually a part of the 'Vote For President' poll here that Ron Paul won. Many liberals are supporting Ron Paul. People aren't buying into the left/right paradigm anymore. There's a revolution going on!

"Mad" Miles

12-01-2007, 05:55 PM

{ In WaccoBB.net, d-cat wrote:}

Honestly, OrchardDweller, I don't really know how you and D-cat even DARE to stand up and support Ron Paul in a forum overwhelmingly dominated by progressives.

Mark,

This thread is actually a part of the 'Vote For President' poll here that Ron Paul won. Many liberals are supporting Ron Paul. People aren't buying into the left/right paradigm anymore. There's a revolution going on!

d-cat,

Ron Paul "won" the Poll????

What was the tally exactly?

You actually base part of your argument on a waccobb.net "poll"?

Have you notice how many people are subscribed to this board?

Have you compared that number to the number of people who "vote" in these referenda?

Please, don't hurt your cause any more than you already have with such claims. You can surely argue better than that!

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Right Libertarians (who are the dominant forces in the Libertarian Party) are Ayn Rand style, Adam Smith / Milton Friedman style, Free Market Laissez Faire Capitalists. We've seen how feasible that plan for society is.

(Can you name a single instance of a truly "free market" in any place at any time in history? Without monopolies of various and numerous kinds, most of the history of Capitalism would not exist.)

If you want a world based on individual rapacious and solopsistic desire, without any notions of the collective good, the commons, public interest, social needs and ends, fine, that's your right. But be honest enough to admit that upfront. Don't try to hide it in rhetoric about Peace and preserving the Constitution.

And if you want to affirm avoiding the Left/Right paradigm, at least give credit where credit is due. It was the catch phrase, and strategy of Die Gruenen (sp?) ala Petra Kelly et al in West Germany in the late seventies on. Otherwise known as the origin of the Green Party movement.

Generally articulated as: Neither Left nor Right, but Forward.

And what are the chances of Ron Paul even getting the Repub nomination? If you're supporting him to screw with Guiliani, well, there might be something there. But actually claiming he has a shot? Has anyone investigating his handicapping in Las Vegas? What are the odds?

I haven't made the argument in the previous paragraph heretofore because I recall similar slams against Ralph in the 2000 election. So I have hesitated to use it in sympathy for fellow underdog supporters.

But the difference is that nobody I knew in the Green Party at the time thought Nader could win the Presidency, and we weren't trying to spoil it for Gore. We just wanted the 15% for Federal matching funds in future elections so we could start to build a real opposition to corporate domination of the American political process.

The only people who deluded themselves that Nader could actually get more votes then either Bush or Gore, and I worked with some people like that every day from April through early November of 2000, were basically, sorry to say, politically naive and not very well educated about the history and realities of American elections.

By the way, there is an example of a Third Party candidate influencing a modern election. H. Ross Perot helped Clinton win against Bush I in, when was that, 1992? I'll leave a discussion about how much better Clinton was than Shrub's father would have been, for another day.

Geez!

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

P.S. SonomaMark,

In spite of our partisan differences, You Da' Man!

(And by man I mean that in a totally non-gender-specific way which does not privilege the male over the female nor visa versa.

Language, what a bitch.

Ooops, did it again!?)

Sonomamark

12-01-2007, 06:22 PM

D-cat, none of what you write here is substantive to the points of my post. Moreover, whatever the outcome of a poll on WACCO, Paul is an also-ran. There is no "revolution"--just a handful of the uninformed or misguided (liberals supporting Ron Paul) joining a marginally larger handful of hard-right zealots (free-market Libertarians).

Romantic delusions of grandeur are one of the hallmarks of a cult.

M

Mark,

This thread is actually a part of the 'Vote For President' poll here that Ron Paul won. Many liberals are supporting Ron Paul. People aren't buying into the left/right paradigm anymore. There's a revolution going on!

Sonomamark

12-01-2007, 06:26 PM

Thanks, Miles. You, too--we have different analyses, but we both believe in analysis. To me, that speaks volumes.

SM

{ In WaccoBB.net, d-cat wrote:}

P.S. SonomaMark,

In spite of our partisan differences, You Da' Man!

(And by man I mean that in a totally non-gender-specific way which does not privilege the male over the female nor visa versa.

Language, what a bitch.

Ooops, did it again!?)

theindependenteye

12-01-2007, 06:50 PM

>People aren't buying into the left/right paradigm anymore.

I think that's probably true, or at least I hope it's true. And I see no reason why Ron Paul should be less worthy of discussion here than, say, vaccinations. I've followed this thread only occasionally — it's hard when this forum becomes something I'd only expect in mid-town Manhattan, where sweet West Countians can assert their god-given rights to rude aggression...

But I stray.

Here's my take on Ron Paul, for whatever it's worth. I've read some of his stuff, I've heard an extensive interview. And I have a couple of very progressive friends who are ardent Libertarians, so I sorta know the standard answers to the standard questions.

He seems to me like a nice, sincere guy who's (possibly) not in anybody's pocket. His views on specifics are certainly consistent with his broad philosophy. He's appealing on those issues where liberal views would be served by asking the federal government to go fuck itself, e.g. marijuana and the war. In the interview, he kept stressing that he understood the need for compromise, going slow on the "absolutes," all that, and didn't seem at all like the damn-the-torpedoes ideologue.

But while I'd often like to kick the Feds in the nuts, I'm not quite ready to bring out the de-baller. We live in a world of power struggles, like it or not (I don't), and I think the best we can do in terms of national politics is to balance one big motherfucker against another, and to elect people who can do that juggling act with the panache of the Flying Karamazovs.

I'm sorry to say that includes Clinton, it includes Edwards. It doesn't include Obama, who seems to me to be running on a "there are really no conflicts here" platform, nor Kucinich, whose ideas I agree with just about 100% but who I think would have no more skill in carrying them out than I would. I think I'm a very gifted theatre director, and yet if I had the chance to direct a Broadway show, I'd be dead meat — you have to know the system, be able to play it & speak it & horse-trade & compromise & bluff & all that Lyndon Johnson stuff. Otherwise, like Jesse Jackson, you just make speeches.

Ok, so, Ron Paul. Here's what I don't get about Libertarianism:

* You take away the federal government, what do you have? Faith in God. In every other arena, when there's a power vacuum, somebody steps in. Corporate power is vast; corporate responsibility is ... huh, whazzat? Bush has effectively crippled federal regulatory agencies, and we're reaping the "benefits." (And he's crippled them for the future with the vast war expenditures & budget deficits.) In the current Big Government destruction of Big Government, have we seen a renaissance? I don't think so. I think you could certainly chart the stupidities of the Feds into multiple volumes, but does that mean we spread our legs, gratis, for the corporations? I don't think so. And I haven't heard any arguments that make me think otherwise.

* My friends tell me, well, the Feds are basically bought out by the corporations. Yeh, I agree. So if you reduce federal power, you'll just lessen their hold? I don't buy that. There's still a struggle.

* There's the recurrent States vs. Feds issue. If it's civil rights, Liberals side with the Feds. If it's marijuana or energy issues, we tend to side with the States. Hamstringing one in favor of the other is just a tactical question, not a theological one. Again, it's a balance of power. To my mind, Paul's assertion of states' rights may mean, to look at it positively, that we'll allow a greater diversity and have greater self-determination. The shadow side is that state politicians can be bought off cheaper than US Senstors, as has been proven for centuries here. I have yet to talk seriously with a Libertarian who has a good grounding in the 19th Century, though they seem to idolize it.

So anyway, that's my two cents. But while obviously I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, I think it's a worthy subject of debate in this forum. I'd welcome personal response, but not just referral to a website.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

d-cat

12-01-2007, 07:50 PM

d-cat,

Ron Paul "won" the Poll????

well that's what the person who ran the poll/thread announced.

What was the tally exactly?

I don't remember. I think there were 7 who chose Ron Paul.

You actually base part of your argument on a waccobb.net "poll"?

I wasn't basing any part of any argument on the WaccoBB poll. I said this thread was originally part of the poll thread, which Ron Paul won.

[I]Have you notice how many people are subscribed to this board?

Have you compared that number to the number of people who "vote" in these referenda?

Please, don't hurt your cause any more than you already have with such claims. You can surely argue better than that!

Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Right Libertarians (who are the dominant forces in the Libertarian Party) are Ayn Rand style, Adam Smith / Milton Friedman style, Free Market Laissez Faire Capitalists. We've seen how feasible that plan for society is.

(Can you name a single instance of a truly "free market" in any place at any time in history? Without monopolies of various and numerous kinds, most of the history of Capitalism would not exist.)

If you want a world based on individual rapacious and solopsistic desire, without any notions of the collective good, the commons, public interest, social needs and ends, fine, that's your right. But be honest enough to admit that upfront. Don't try to hide it in rhetoric about Peace and preserving the Constitution.

And if you want to affirm avoiding the Left/Right paradigm, at least give credit where credit is due. It was the catch phrase, and strategy of Die Gruenen (sp?) ala Petra Kelly et al in West Germany in the late seventies on. Otherwise known as the origin of the Green Party movement.

Generally articulated as: Neither Left nor Right, but Forward.

And what are the chances of Ron Paul even getting the Repub nomination? If you're supporting him to screw with Guiliani, well, there might be something there. But actually claiming he has a shot? Has anyone investigating his handicapping in Las Vegas? What are the odds?

I haven't made the argument in the previous paragraph heretofore because I recall similar slams against Ralph in the 2000 election. So I have hesitated to use it in sympathy for fellow underdog supporters.

But the difference is that nobody I knew in the Green Party at the time thought Nader could win the Presidency, and we weren't trying to spoil it for Gore. We just wanted the 15% for Federal matching funds in future elections so we could start to build a real opposition to corporate domination of the American political process.

The only people who deluded themselves that Nader could actually get more votes then either Bush or Gore, and I worked with some people like that every day from April through early November of 2000, were basically, sorry to say, politically naive and not very well educated about the history and realities of American elections.

By the way, there is an example of a Third Party candidate influencing a modern election. H. Ross Perot helped Clinton win against Bush I in, when was that, 1992? I'll leave a discussion about how much better Clinton was than Shrub's father would have been, for another day.

Geez!

"Mad" Miles

:burngrnbounce:

P.S. SonomaMark,

In spite of our partisan differences, You Da' Man!

(And by man I mean that in a totally non-gender-specific way which does not privilege the male over the female nor visa versa.

Language, what a bitch.

Ooops, did it again!?)

d-cat

12-02-2007, 01:49 PM

IndyEye,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I'm glad to see all the points you bring up. Some are very complex issues.

Anyone considering Edwards or Clinton should be aware that they are members of the CFR, who support the North American Union and a centralized one world government (The European Union is part of this). Most candidates on both sides of the party line are CFR members (you can go to cfr.org and do a search). Dick Cheney was their director and it was started by David Rockefeller. When they say that both parties are controlled by the same people, it's the CFR (and powers above them) that they're talking about. It's home to the major corporations. There should be some links about the CFR and the North American Union somewhere on this thread. Here's one for convenience. https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=412617264635445048

I'm not so sure if there would be that vacuum you mention if states were allowed back their powers. It's the way it used to be and is actually the way it's still supposed to be. The Constitution called for very limited Federal power. We've strayed a bit.

I don't think an unregulated market necessarily means that corporations can run rampant. It's actually the corporations who lobby for regulation, according to Paul. In a free market, small businesses have a better chance. And we get a better choice and don't have to rely on the corporations for everything. It's corporatism that's the problem - when corporations team up with centralized power and get subsidized by the government. An example is the pharmaceutical industry. It's the federal regulations that enabled them to become so powerful. Now they want to take control of vitamin supplements and eliminate alternative medicine with more regulations.

In regard to whether it's cheaper to buy off state politicians, I don't think money is the issue. But I think it would be a lot harder to deal with 50 individual states than with something more centralized.

I can't really add anything to your Libertarian comments (I've been a Democrat all my life). Initially, some Libertarian views seemed extreme to me but I am seeing them in a increasingly favorable light as I gain a better understanding of them.

I think a lot of people who support Paul are those who really understand what is taking place in this country and are aware of the direction we are heading towards. That probably explains the passion Ron Paul supporters have. Solving everything isn't going to be easy or perfect. But there certainly is one amazing movement growing behind Paul, and it's made up of both Republicans and Democrats, working together as Americans. Americans who feel their freedoms are being lost. Americans who don't want imperialistic wars to continue in their name.

BTW people at the www.RonPaulForums.com often discuss topics such as the ones you bring up, if you care for a look. It's a real busy forum and a lot of exciting things go on there. There was a recent fundraiser started there (by a Democrat) that took in $4.3 million in a single day. Another one is planned for the 16th of December on the anniversary of The Boston Tea Party (which inspired a protest on the same day in Europe against the European Union). Full page ads are thought up, designed and paid for right there by the supporters. Now some are working on getting a Ron Paul blimp! There are even some celebrity members there. Lots of trolls and shills there too, acting as supporters and mussing things up.

>People aren't buying into the left/right paradigm anymore.

I think that's probably true, or at least I hope it's true. And I see no reason why Ron Paul should be less worthy of discussion here than, say, vaccinations. I've followed this thread only occasionally — it's hard when this forum becomes something I'd only expect in mid-town Manhattan, where sweet West Countians can assert their god-given rights to rude aggression...

But I stray.

Here's my take on Ron Paul, for whatever it's worth. I've read some of his stuff, I've heard an extensive interview. And I have a couple of very progressive friends who are ardent Libertarians, so I sorta know the standard answers to the standard questions.

He seems to me like a nice, sincere guy who's (possibly) not in anybody's pocket. His views on specifics are certainly consistent with his broad philosophy. He's appealing on those issues where liberal views would be served by asking the federal government to go fuck itself, e.g. marijuana and the war. In the interview, he kept stressing that he understood the need for compromise, going slow on the "absolutes," all that, and didn't seem at all like the damn-the-torpedoes ideologue.

But while I'd often like to kick the Feds in the nuts, I'm not quite ready to bring out the de-baller. We live in a world of power struggles, like it or not (I don't), and I think the best we can do in terms of national politics is to balance one big motherfucker against another, and to elect people who can do that juggling act with the panache of the Flying Karamazovs.

I'm sorry to say that includes Clinton, it includes Edwards. It doesn't include Obama, who seems to me to be running on a "there are really no conflicts here" platform, nor Kucinich, whose ideas I agree with just about 100% but who I think would have no more skill in carrying them out than I would. I think I'm a very gifted theatre director, and yet if I had the chance to direct a Broadway show, I'd be dead meat — you have to know the system, be able to play it & speak it & horse-trade & compromise & bluff & all that Lyndon Johnson stuff. Otherwise, like Jesse Jackson, you just make speeches.

Ok, so, Ron Paul. Here's what I don't get about Libertarianism:

* You take away the federal government, what do you have? Faith in God. In every other arena, when there's a power vacuum, somebody steps in. Corporate power is vast; corporate responsibility is ... huh, whazzat? Bush has effectively crippled federal regulatory agencies, and we're reaping the "benefits." (And he's crippled them for the future with the vast war expenditures & budget deficits.) In the current Big Government destruction of Big Government, have we seen a renaissance? I don't think so. I think you could certainly chart the stupidities of the Feds into multiple volumes, but does that mean we spread our legs, gratis, for the corporations? I don't think so. And I haven't heard any arguments that make me think otherwise.

* My friends tell me, well, the Feds are basically bought out by the corporations. Yeh, I agree. So if you reduce federal power, you'll just lessen their hold? I don't buy that. There's still a struggle.

* There's the recurrent States vs. Feds issue. If it's civil rights, Liberals side with the Feds. If it's marijuana or energy issues, we tend to side with the States. Hamstringing one in favor of the other is just a tactical question, not a theological one. Again, it's a balance of power. To my mind, Paul's assertion of states' rights may mean, to look at it positively, that we'll allow a greater diversity and have greater self-determination. The shadow side is that state politicians can be bought off cheaper than US Senstors, as has been proven for centuries here. I have yet to talk seriously with a Libertarian who has a good grounding in the 19th Century, though they seem to idolize it.

So anyway, that's my two cents. But while obviously I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, I think it's a worthy subject of debate in this forum. I'd welcome personal response, but not just referral to a website.

Peace & joy—
Conrad

Zeno Swijtink

12-02-2007, 06:48 PM

I don't think an unregulated market necessarily means that corporations can run rampant. It's actually the corporations who lobby for regulation, according to Paul. In a free market, small businesses have a better chance.

That corporations lobby for regulation does not mean that smaller businesses are necessarily always hurt by regulation. Small businesses simply do not have the resources to lobby for regulation. Corporations lobby for regulation that favors their sector, as in cable vs phone companies. "No regulation" would favor some sector also.

Is Paul opposed to all regulation? What about things like copyright protection for a limited time? Or is he for eternal copyright protection?

If you believe in "the common interest" (does Paul?) there seem to be thousands of cases where regulation is in the common interest. An interesting example I found in Why Not?: How to Use Everyday Ingenuity to Solve Problems Big and Small (https://books.google.com/books?id=IjP2N0C0TPQC&dq=nalebuff+why+not&pg=PP1&ots=blT4S9al24&sig=VsyaKHO7K3j-2fmr7zNmlrrg8U4&prev=https://www.google.com/search%3Fclient%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den-us%26q%3Dnalebuff%2Bwhy%2Bnot%253F%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail), by Barry Nalebuff and Ian Ayres. It regards ways to prevent car theft.

The Club (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Club_%28automotive%29), a device you put on your steering wheel to prevent car theft, has the effect that the thief goes to the next car. It has an negative externality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_externality).

Using a hidden devise such as the Lojack (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojack), a concealed car transmitter that allows the police to track a car after it is stolen, deters car theft in general. Since a thief cannot know whether a car has a Lojack knowing that there are quite a number of cars with this devise in an area deters car theft in general.

According to one analysis*, investing $400 in a Lojack reduces other people's expected car theft loss by more then $4000!

So the community has an interest in people using the Lojack system, rather than a Club.

In Massachusets the State regulated the car insurance industry by requiring a 25% discount for cars that use the Lojack system. This has led to increased use of the Lojack system and a drop in car theft of 50%!

A simple example of a prima facie beneficial regulation. But it presupposes that you believe in the common interest. Do you?

* Ayers & S Levitt, Measuring positive externalities from unobservable victim precaution: An empirical analysis of Lojack, 1997, National Bureau of Economic Research. Available at https://www.nber.org.

Neshamah

12-02-2007, 08:48 PM

Ron Paul's ideals go too far, but I am supporting him because after decades of growing the government at various rates, a 4-8 year dose of libertarianism is exactly what we need. We can always grow the government back in better form if we have to.

When we give the government the power to do good, we have also given it the power to do evil. We cannot have it both ways. If we continue to depend solely on the government simply because it can be more efficient (and it can be,) we may not be able to complain when a later administration uses that power for less enlightened purposes, such as reshaping 120 foreign countries to benefit the corporations that paid for the latest Congress. Who knows what will be done in our name and for our own good if the present course is allowed to continue.

If we are to succeed in the long term, smaller groups of good people are going to have to work together. It will not be as efficient as a benevolent dictatorship, but neither will it have so much inertia that individuals can no longer make a difference or have their voices heard.

I think we are less than a generation away from desperate and need to contemplate some difficult choices. Ending our present Imperialist foreign policy and reversing the power grabbing executive orders of the last sixty years will more than balance the harm of a few years of reduced government oversight. The choices in 2012 may be even tougher if we don't act now.

As for electability, those who aim higher land higher. Perot aimed to win and started the Reform Party. Ralph Nader aimed for 5% and got 3%. If Ron Paul does well, maybe a more moderate successor will win in 2012. Ron Paul will not do everything that progressives want, but he will do one thing very well, and he has momentum. Which other candidates are going to shift the discussion? Which other candidates are going to make a real difference in 2008?

~ Neshamah

OrchardDweller

12-03-2007, 07:40 PM

And what are the chances of Ron Paul even getting the Repub nomination? If you're supporting him to screw with Guiliani, well, there might be something there. But actually claiming he has a shot? Has anyone investigating his handicapping in Las Vegas? What are the odds?

Odds were 200 to 1 a few months ago, but here are some more recent odds:

https://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-100107.html
(odds 6/1 on sportsbook.com)

https://www.sportsbook.com/betting/Republican+Party-betting-odds-753.html
(odds slashed to 4/1 on sportsbook.com)

https://www.gambling911.com/Ron-Paul-111007B.html
(5/1 odds in Europe)

Here's the money he's taken in so far this quarter: https://www.ronpaul2008.com/.
Check it out on the 16th if you want to see history being made.

and here are some photos (he drew a crowd of 5,000 at a recent rally):

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2268/2003119384_f40eb26f4a.jpg

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2064/1972307404_f50b113b18.jpg

https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2102/2079990150_edcc7b2eaa.jpg

Zeno Swijtink

12-04-2007, 09:43 AM

In a free market, small businesses have a better chance. And we get a better choice and don't have to rely on the corporations for everything.

Paul Krugman wrote this piece, reprinted in the PD today, about current problems with credit and trust created by a freemarket ideology.

Absence of government=community regulation gave the big fish opportunity to get away with grand theft.

****
https://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20071204/NEWS/712040320/1043/OPINION01

Innovating our way to a financial crisis
The financial crisis that began late last summer, then took a brief vacation in September and October, is back with a vengeance.

How bad is it? Well, I've never seen financial insiders this spooked -- not even during the Asian crisis of 1997-98, when economic dominoes seemed to be falling all around the world.

This time, market players seem truly horrified -- because they've suddenly realized that they don't understand the complex financial system they created.

Before I get to that, however, let's talk about what's happening right now.

Credit -- lending between market players -- is to the financial markets what motor oil is to car engines. The ability to raise cash on short notice, which is what people mean when they talk about "liquidity," is an essential lubricant for the markets, and for the economy as a whole.

But liquidity has been drying up. Some credit markets have effectively closed up shop. Interest rates in other markets -- like the London market, in which banks lend to each other -- have risen even as interest rates on U.S. government debt, which is still considered safe, have plunged.

"What we are witnessing," says Bill Gross of the bond manager Pimco, "is essentially the breakdown of our modern-day banking system, a complex of leveraged lending so hard to understand that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke required a face-to-face refresher course from hedge fund managers in mid-August."

The freezing up of the financial markets will, if it goes on much longer, lead to a severe reduction in overall lending, causing business investment to go the way of home construction -- and that will mean a recession, possibly a nasty one.

Behind the disappearance of liquidity lies a collapse of trust: market players don't want to lend to each other, because they're not sure they'll be repaid.

In a direct sense, this collapse of trust has been caused by the bursting of the housing bubble. The run-up of home prices made even less sense than the dot-com bubble - I mean, there wasn't even a glamorous new technology to justify claims that old rules no longer applied -- but somehow financial markets accepted crazy home prices as the new normal. And when the bubble burst, a lot of investments that were labeled AAA turned out to be junk.

Thus, "super-senior" claims against subprime mortgages -- that is, investments that have first dibs on whatever mortgage payments borrowers make, and were therefore supposed to pay off in full even if a sizable fraction of these borrowers defaulted on their debts - have lost a third of their market value since July.

But what has really undermined trust is the fact that nobody knows where the financial toxic waste is buried. Citigroup wasn't supposed to have tens of billions of dollars in subprime exposure; it did. Florida's Local Government Investment Pool, which acts as a bank for the state's school districts, was supposed to be risk-free; it wasn't (and now schools don't have the money to pay teachers).

How did things get so opaque? The answer is "financial innovation" -- two words that should, from now on, strike fear into investors' hearts.

O.K., to be fair, some kinds of financial innovation are good. I don't want to go back to the days when checking accounts didn't pay interest and you couldn't withdraw cash on weekends.

But the innovations of recent years -- the alphabet soup of C.D.O.'s and S.I.V.'s, R.M.B.S. and A.B.C.P. -- were sold on false pretenses. They were promoted as ways to spread risk, making investment safer. What they did instead -- aside from making their creators a lot of money, which they didn't have to repay when it all went bust -- was to spread confusion, luring investors into taking on more risk than they realized.

Why was this allowed to happen? At a deep level, I believe that the problem was ideological: policy makers, committed to the view that the market is always right, simply ignored the warning signs. We know, in particular, that Alan Greenspan brushed aside warnings from Edward Gramlich, who was a member of the Federal Reserve Board, about a potential subprime crisis.

And free-market orthodoxy dies hard. Just a few weeks ago Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, admitted to Fortune magazine that financial innovation got ahead of regulation -- but added, "I don't think we'd want it the other way around." Is that your final answer, Mr. Secretary?

Now, Mr. Paulson's new proposal to help borrowers renegotiate their mortgage payments and avoid foreclosure sounds in principle like a good idea (although we have yet to hear any details). Realistically, however, it won't make more than a small dent in the subprime problem.

The bottom line is that policy makers left the financial industry free to innovate -- and what it did was to innovate itself, and the rest of us, into a big, nasty mess.

Paul Krugman is a columnist for the New York Times.

OrchardDweller

12-06-2007, 11:25 AM

I think a lot of people who support Paul are those who really understand what is taking place in this country and are aware of the direction we are heading towards. That probably explains the passion Ron Paul supporters have. Solving everything isn't going to be easy or perfect. But there certainly is one amazing movement growing behind Paul, and it's made up of both Republicans and Democrats, working together as Americans. Americans who feel their freedoms are being lost. Americans who don't want imperialistic wars to continue in their name.

Something's going on alright. Something big.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPjTAH8Y_L8

d-cat

12-10-2007, 09:56 AM

Hi Zeno.

The Press Democrat is owned by The New York Times, which is owned by, among others, The Carlyle Group, a big defense contractor with connections to the likes of Bush Sr and George Schultz. If I remember right, it was also this group that bought out all the small local papers along the Trans Texas Corridor (Nafta Superhighway) to influence opinion there. But this doesn't mean that everything in the Press Democrat is BS. I think it was Hitler's Josef Goebbels who said, "All good propaganda must be 90% truth". Or something to that effect. But ultimately, corporate media serves its owners, and not the public. If you want to trust everything that you read in The Press Democrat, do so at your own peril!

"The owners and managers of the press determine which person, which facts, which version of the facts, and which ideas shall reach the public."
- Commission On Freedom Of The Press

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
- William Colby (Former CIA Director)

On the subject of regulation, here is a real life example of one. I believe there was even a discussion about it here. They now want to regulate farm animals. So they're making it mandatory to have all livestock ID chipped (NAIS), at a cost per head with huge fines involved. This regulation is forcing small farmers to give up raising livestock. The big corporations of course can afford this. They don't even have to have the livestock individually chipped like the smaller farmers have to do. They get to buy group numbers because they deal with so many animals.

I had a chance to experience a "well regulated" market while living in Europe and the results I saw from it were that there were a lot of people working for the government, with a few owning small businesses, and the elite owning all businesses of importance. I've witnessed regulations there preventing people from starting businesses, and forcing others to shut down. There were a lot of regulations and it was one big pain in the butt for the little guy.

In reply to your question, Ron Paul is against federal regulation of the market, as the US Constitution mandates. And he is against NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, UN. What is often referred to as 'free trade' agreements are actually managed trade agreements, according to Paul.

It's probably better to refer to Dr. Paul's own words on any subject rather than mine as I'm no expert. A great source is www.ronpaullibrary.org (https://www.ronpaullibrary.org) Other links can be found at www.ronpaulportal.com (https://www.ronpaulportal.com) I hope you'll have a look into him. He's a very intelligent man.

And if you haven't ever seen it, have a look at this documentary. It may give you a whole new perspective on our financial system, and I think you'll see that issues like the ones discussed above seem almost insignificant compared to the issue of abolishing the Federal Reserve. Only four presidents have ever challenged these international bankers - McKinley (assassinated), Garfield (assassinated), Lincoln and JFK!

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936

"The beauty of the plan is that not one person in a thousand can figure it out is because it is hidden behind complex sounding economic jibberish".

Paul Krugman wrote this piece, reprinted in the PD today, about current problems with credit and trust created by a freemarket ideology.

...