Ron Paul on the Daily Show; how do intelligent people take him seriously?

[pbrinton]

Ron Paul appeared on the Daily Show on Monday, and I have watched the interview several times in an effort to discover what people find so compelling about him. I am still wondering. Some comments:

I am a great admirer of Jon Stewart, but this was maybe the worst interview I have seen him do. Every question was a softball, and he asked very few follow-up questions at all, and accepted answers that seemed to me to be completely content-free.

He asked about the lack of media attention that Paul is receiving, and the reasons for it. Paul’s answer was that a) his message is a threat to the establishment, and b) nobody in the media understands economics or freedom or the need not to fight wars. One might think that this would be a good opportunity for him to explain these concepts in clear unambiguous terms, but no such explanation was forthcoming.

When Stewart suggested humorously that the key to success in the Republican debates seemed to be to change positions regularly, Paul answered as though the question was serious; he seems to lack anything that could be described as a sense of humor, which is a danger sign for me.

On the war on drugs (where I actually agree with his position, if not his articulation of it) he repeated word for word a response I have seen him give several times, which again failed entirely to discuss the matter in any substantive way or offer an alternative approach to the problem, simply saying that the present policy is “just one example of the attacks on our civil liberties” without any elaboration whatever.

This was one response that did draw a follow-up question, asking whether he would not keep any kind of controls on drugs like heroin. His answer was that there was a time when opiates were freely available, and none of his friends abused them, and that laws do not make people better people, and such laws are a waste of time. Again, a missed opportunity to provide a real solution.
Asked for examples of times when a free and unregulated market produced the results he claimed for it, he was unable to come up with any. He mentioned the railroads and the fact that they were given free land by the government, and then “got in bed” with the government, after which it all went wrong. I was completely unable to make any sense of this answer, as he simply made a series of assertions with no context or explanation.

He then asserted that a free market, along with strong property rights was the best defense against environmental pollution. He said that under his plan corporations would not be able to pollute because that would contravene other peoples’ property rights. He did not explain how this result would be achieved in the absence of any authority to enforce such rights.

He asked a couple of times if we wanted to put the rule-making power in the hands of the Post Office (huh?) the CIA and the TSA, and the budgeting to be done by the Pentagon! Words fail me. Do I really need to take this kind of this seriously enough to put up an argument against it? His solution is to trust “the people”. What does this mean?

I could go on to examine all of his responses, but really they were all along the same lines; slogans, emotional appeals to fine-sounding but completely meaningless ideals, and above all a complete absence of thoughtful analysis. What exactly is the attraction of this man?

Watch it for yourself and tell me what I missed in all this.

https://www.thedailyshow.com/extende...on_paul/397934

And then for a refreshing change, check out Elizabeth Warren, who in a few sentences manages to encapsulate the ethical argument for the opposite point of view.

https://www.youtube.com/user/pbrinto.../1/htX2usfqMEs

[someguy]

Ron Paul appeared on the Daily Show on Monday, and I have watched the interview several times in an effort to discover what people find so compelling about him. I am still wondering. Some comments:

I am a great admirer of Jon Stewart, but this was maybe the worst interview I have seen him do. Every question was a softball, and he asked very few follow-up questions at all, and accepted answers that seemed to me to be completely content-free.

He asked about the lack of media attention that Paul is receiving, and the reasons for it. Paul’s answer was that a) his message is a threat to the establishment, and b) nobody in the media understands economics or freedom or the need not to fight wars. One might think that this would be a good opportunity for him to explain these concepts in clear unambiguous terms, but no such explanation was forthcoming.

When Stewart suggested humorously that the key to success in the Republican debates seemed to be to change positions regularly, Paul answered as though the question was serious; he seems to lack anything that could be described as a sense of humor, which is a danger sign for me.

On the war on drugs (where I actually agree with his position, if not his articulation of it) he repeated word for word a response I have seen him give several times, which again failed entirely to discuss the matter in any substantive way or offer an alternative approach to the problem, simply saying that the present policy is “just one example of the attacks on our civil liberties” without any elaboration whatever.

This was one response that did draw a follow-up question, asking whether he would not keep any kind of controls on drugs like heroin. His answer was that there was a time when opiates were freely available, and none of his friends abused them, and that laws do not make people better people, and such laws are a waste of time. Again, a missed opportunity to provide a real solution.
Asked for examples of times when a free and unregulated market produced the results he claimed for it, he was unable to come up with any. He mentioned the railroads and the fact that they were given free land by the government, and then “got in bed” with the government, after which it all went wrong. I was completely unable to make any sense of this answer, as he simply made a series of assertions with no context or explanation.

He then asserted that a free market, along with strong property rights was the best defense against environmental pollution. He said that under his plan corporations would not be able to pollute because that would contravene other peoples’ property rights. He did not explain how this result would be achieved in the absence of any authority to enforce such rights.

He asked a couple of times if we wanted to put the rule-making power in the hands of the Post Office (huh?) the CIA and the TSA, and the budgeting to be done by the Pentagon! Words fail me. Do I really need to take this kind of this seriously enough to put up an argument against it? His solution is to trust “the people”. What does this mean?

I could go on to examine all of his responses, but really they were all along the same lines; slogans, emotional appeals to fine-sounding but completely meaningless ideals, and above all a complete absence of thoughtful analysis. What exactly is the attraction of this man?

Watch it for yourself and tell me what I missed in all this.

https://www.thedailyshow.com/extende...on_paul/397934

And then for a refreshing change, check out Elizabeth Warren, who in a few sentences manages to encapsulate the ethical argument for the opposite point of view.

https://www.youtube.com/user/pbrinto.../1/htX2usfqMEs

Its sad that were looking to a comedian to ask the tough questions...

["Mad" Miles]

Also saw the same interview. Also thought Jon took it pretty easy on Paul.

I've been fairly vociferous here about my objections to the rise of the new Conservative Libertarianism, so I won't belabor the details. When Paul trotted out the old shibboleth, "Socialism = Tyranny", it cinched the deal for me.

I think Stewart soft-balled him because his blind idiocy speaks for itself. It's a technique I've seen Stewart use with others who condemn themselves with their own words. No satire required, it comes with the package.

I also think that Stewart has made a calculation that if he's too hard on guests, it will backfire on him and he'll have trouble booking some of the wingnuts. I think he also makes a calculation that the less power a person has, the more gentle he is with them.

He's never really been a combative interviewer at all. He bends over backwards to let his guests have their say. He rarely challenges them. It's part of his shtick. He really does try and find something good that he admires, or at least agrees with, with each guest.

Once in a rare while he'll eviscerate someone with their own contradictions and his very able sarcasm. But it's usually someone that has such an egregious record, it demands it.

You'll notice O'Reilly doesn't appear on his show much anymore. I think McCain blackballed him after a couple of appearances. And I don't believe Palin has ever dared to appear (although I may wrong about that.) Certainly Glen Beck never deigned to appear, and for good reason.

Those who love Paul will not be deterred by the contradictions in his record and positions. And Paul's, "lovable uncle", act has some traction.

But I stand by my position that he's a marginal player. No matter what any polls say.

(And so far the polls being cited aren't the mainstream ones.

As for other cited sources supporting Paul, I wasted some time today trying to get a take on where Daily Bail was coming from and ran into one of those "daisy chains" of self-referentiality I referred to with regard to Chemtrails. I did find out that blogger gets linked on Prison Planet and other Alex Jones enterprises. That alone is sufficient to cause me to doubt the veracity of him as a source. But without additional evidence, I'll leave my speculations aside for now. There was no wiki for Daily Bail. An indication that he's flying under the radar of even alternative notice. Except of course, among the fringe participants in the self-perpetuating paranoia machine.)

As for Paul, I repeat, the Republicans aren't about to nominate him, and he's not going to run without them.

He's there for the entertainment value. Which as odious as I find his "Laissez Fairyland" economic and social theories, I admit he does deliver. He's a great content provider of seemingly serious intent, which when examined, demonstrates a central incoherence.

I read today that some of the "Occupy ..." protests have been dominated by Ron Paul Libertarian Conservatives who are making "Abolish The Fed" their central message / demand. That does not bode well.

But I give them credit. They're organized enough to do it (dominate some of the current protests).

And if those who want to focus on the ways our current system does not meet the needs of the many, with a critique that is reality based, don't do the organizing to the get that message across? Well, it's not the Paulist's fault. It's ours.

In case anyone is wondering what I mean by a critique that is reality based, here's an example of a good overview from a long lost friend of mine, someone I hadn't heard or seen from in fifteen years, but who just cropped up on one of the alternative sites I monitor: https://dissidentvoice.org/2011/10/h...sm/#more-37683

[ubaru]

Here's how intelligent people take him seriously (the first part of this video).

Bill Maher: "There's One Sane Man Left in The World"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7C9...eature=related

Libertarian is not synonymous with Conservative. There are LOT of Progressive Libertarians.
Liberty and Freedom have universal appeal, n' est-ce pas?

Let's not get hung up on the old paradigm of liberal/conservative, right/left. Wake Up!! It's Corporatism vs. the People.

Restore America Now
https://www.ronpaularmy.com/military4ronpaul/
www.RonPaul2012.com
www.dailypaul.com
www.RevolutionPAC.com/superbomb

[handy]

How do intelligent people take him seriously?

Simple, really.

They pay attention, they read, they listen, they learn. You know, like intelligent people usually do...

Intelligent people take him seriously.

[pbrinton]

How do intelligent people take him seriously?

Simple, really.

They pay attention, they read, they listen, they learn. You know, like intelligent people usually do...

Intelligent people take him seriously.

I guess I should have said "Why do intelligent people take him seriously?" I was actually hoping for a substantive response that addressed my concerns about him. I did ask what I might have missed after doing all of the things you mention. I paid attention, I read, I listened, and what I learned was that as far as I could see there is no substance here. I have heard empty slogans and simplistic phrases, but no clearly explained policy proposals.

I do agree with him about two subjects: the Fed and ending the wars. However I have grave doubts about his ability to deliver on his promises on either score. The part that makes me scratch my head in wonder is his contention that a completely unregulated market will somehow regulate itself. He says that strong property rights with an absence of government regulation will produce stricter rules than the system we have in place. This is crazy talk. How are rights to be enforced except by government regulation? I agree that the takeover of government by the corporatocracy needs to be reversed, but the answer is not to destroy the concept of government, as libertarians seem to think. That would be to throw out the baby and keep the bathwater. The idea of government regulation of industry was not created in a vacuum; it was instituted in response to horrendous abuses on the part of industry in the early days. Remember the robber barons?

Fine emotionally laden phrases are easy; governing is hard. Things are not simple, and competing interests have to be balanced. It is all very well to talk about freedom and liberty, but there are other values like compassion and the protection of the weak against the depredations of the strong that we must also consider. No single value can be elevated above all the rest.

Give me, as I say, well thought out and clearly explained policies. Again I cite Elizabeth Warren as a fine example. In fact I would love to hear a debate between her and Ron Paul.

Patrick Brinton

[pbrinton]

Here's how intelligent people take him seriously (the first part of this video).

Bill Maher: "There's One Sane Man Left in The World"

I see why you cite the first part of the video; Maher is not exactly complimentary to Ron Paul if you listen further.

Libertarian is not synonymous with Conservative. There are LOT of Progressive Libertarians.
Liberty and Freedom have universal appeal, n' est-ce pas?

Let's not get hung up on the old paradigm of liberal/conservative, right/left. Wake Up!! It's Corporatism vs. the People.

I have addressed the futility of elevating liberty and freedom over all other desirable values in another post.

Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform through governmental action. So what exactly would a progressive libertarian be?

Patrick Brinton

[handy]

I guess I should have said "Why do intelligent people take him seriously?" I was actually hoping for a substantive response that addressed my concerns about him. I did ask what I might have missed after doing all of the things you mention. I paid attention, I read, I listened, and what I learned was that as far as I could see there is no substance here. I have heard empty slogans and simplistic phrases, but no clearly explained policy proposals.

I recall a quote, but forget the source; "As long as we keep them asking the wrong questions, the answers don't matter."

I find that I have NEVER been able to answer a question beginning with "Why...?" Who, what, when, where and how can always be addressed with some reasonable specificity. Why? Not so much. Good luck with that.

That said, perhaps this will help:
Ron Paul at the National Press Club 10/5/11



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF02...layer_embedded

I do agree with him about two subjects: the Fed and ending the wars. However I have grave doubts about his ability to deliver on his promises on either score. The part that makes me scratch my head in wonder is his contention that a completely unregulated market will somehow regulate itself.

Glad to see you agree on the two largest issues. I think those are reason enough to give him a shot.

The power to repeal, the power to veto and the power to command the generals to begin withdrawal are powerful tools. I think much of the reason for your grave doubts is precisely because we have not seen in our lifetime a president willing to use them in this way.

Self organizing systems are also self regulating. You don't have to create an organization in order to be organized.

(I'd be happy to have a separate discussion regarding cybernetic laws, general systems, self error correcting negative feedback, positive feedback loops, runaway oscillation and the concept of 'control'.)

Give me, as I say, well thought out and clearly explained policies. Again I cite Elizabeth Warren as a fine example. In fact I would love to hear a debate between her and Ron Paul.

Patrick Brinton

I'd like to see that debate, as well. But please, do watch the National Press Club speech. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.

Best regards,

[pbrinton]

perhaps this will help:
Ron Paul at the National Press Club 10/5/11https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF02...layer_embedded

Glad to see you agree on the two largest issues. I think those are reason enough to give him a shot.

I did watch it, and it did not do anything to change my view. He was certainly eloquent on the topics I already agree with him on, but I disagree with you about these being enough to give him a shot. I think he is performing a valuable service by addressing them so forcefully, though.

The problem I have with him, and with Libertarianism in general, is in the area of corporate power. I have been reading Libertarian sites and blogs to determine their thinking on this, and although there are some who depart from the mainstream, it seems that most Libertarians would give corporations a free hand to operate as they will, and rely on the marketplace to regulate them by directing their purchasing power towards those who do good, and away from those who do harm. To me this is very naive thinking. It ignores the fact that the largest corporations are now supra-national and have achieved such a monopolistic position that they are immune to consumer pressure. We simply do not have realistic choices on who we buy from. Certainly much of this has been achieved with the help of governments that they have bought, but it seems to me that to take away the only force that comes close to rivaling them in scope and power is foolhardy in the extreme. Instead we need to take back the government, and use its power to curb that of the corporations.

A constitutional amendment to remove corporate personhood and overturn the idea that political contributions are protected free speech would be wonderful, but hard to achieve. But even short of that, there are laws already on the books that if properly enforced would do much to right the situation. Corporations are chartered, but their charters are not enforced. This, it seems to me, is a legitimate area for government to address, and Libertarians, including Paul, fail completely to address it. Given the nature and size of the enemy, it needs to be addressed at the federal if not the international level, as there will always be states that will shelter corporations, as is already done in the financial realm by North Dakota. Unless this issue is addressed, reducing the power of the federal government will only increase the power of the corporations.

The power to repeal, the power to veto and the power to command the generals to begin withdrawal are powerful tools. I think much of the reason for your grave doubts is precisely because we have not seen in our lifetime a president willing to use them in this way.

The president has no power to repeal. He can only veto what arrives on his desk, so he can prohibit, but not initiate laws. As for commanding the armed forces, it takes a very strong president indeed to go against the advice and wishes of the military, and he takes serious risks in doing so. It is very easy for the defense establishment to undermine any policy they disagree with without overt insubordination. I am not saying it cannot be done, but an "outsider" such as Paul (and Obama, for that matter) is limited in what he can achieve in the face of monumental forces determined to thwart his policies.

Self organizing systems are also self regulating. You don't have to create an organization in order to be organized.

(I'd be happy to have a separate discussion regarding cybernetic laws, general systems, self error correcting negative feedback, positive feedback loops, runaway oscillation and the concept of 'control'.)

Here you may have the advantage over me as I have only a layman's knowledge of these subjects. However I am suspicious of the modern tendency to treat social structures as if they were impersonal machines. Corporations are run my people who have made a study of how to use these systems for their own ends, which severely distorts what might otherwise be their natural functioning, in very much the same way we have managed to distort the natural functioning of evolution by our tinkerings.

I much appreciate the opportunity to debate these matters in an unheated manner.

Patrick Brinton

[someguy]

The problem I have with him, and with Libertarianism in general, is in the area of corporate power. I have been reading Libertarian sites and blogs to determine their thinking on this, and although there are some who depart from the mainstream, it seems that most Libertarians would give corporations a free hand to operate as they will, and rely on the marketplace to regulate them by directing their purchasing power towards those who do good, and away from those who do harm. To me this is very naive thinking. It ignores the fact that the largest corporations are now supra-national and have achieved such a monopolistic position that they are immune to consumer pressure. We simply do not have realistic choices on who we buy from. Certainly much of this has been achieved with the help of governments that they have bought, but it seems to me that to take away the only force that comes close to rivaling them in scope and power is foolhardy in the extreme. Instead we need to take back the government, and use its power to curb that of the corporations.

To me, this sums up the core reason why most liberals will not support Ron Paul. And most of those who support Ron Paul would politely argue that since the government has been tilting the playing field for big corporations for so long that it is naive to give the government more power in hopes that they will do the right thing. So how do we bridge this gap? We know for sure Obama is an establishment candidate who will continue pushing for the agenda of the machine, or status quo, which is, government in bed with mega corporations. So, why not give Ron Paul's ideas a try or better yet a vote? At least he is attempting to actually address the problem of corporations in collusion with government. At least he has the people's best interest at heart and is a genuine soul who would stand to do much good for our entire country. I certainly do not agree with the man on everything, but I do on core issues such as the war on arabs, the war on drugs, the war on same sex marriage, the patriot act, abolishing the FED, no bailouts for those that are too big to fail, following the constitution, and even his Austrian economic theories. I believe Ron Paul has a lot more to offer the liberal movement than Obama, and I hope more liberals would take that seriously instead of buying into the establishment media's spin.

[someguy]

To me, this sums up the core reason why most liberals will not support Ron Paul. And most of those who support Ron Paul would politely argue that since the government has been tilting the playing field for big corporations for so long that it is naive to give the government more power in hopes that they will do the right thing. So how do we bridge this gap? We know for sure Obama is an establishment candidate who will continue pushing for the agenda of the machine, or status quo, which is, government in bed with mega corporations. So, why not give Ron Paul's ideas a try or better yet a vote? At least he is attempting to actually address the problem of corporations in collusion with government. At least he has the people's best interest at heart and is a genuine soul who would stand to do much good for our entire country. I certainly do not agree with the man on everything, but I do on core issues such as the war on arabs, the war on drugs, the war on same sex marriage, the patriot act, abolishing the FED, no bailouts for those that are too big to fail, following the constitution, and even his Austrian economic theories. I believe Ron Paul has a lot more to offer the liberal movement than Obama, and I hope more liberals would take that seriously instead of buying into the establishment media's spin.

I wanted to make another point that I should have made in the above post so... I was thinking as I was walking my dog with my wife that there is no other presidential candidate within the Republican or Democratic party that will address of this epidemic of big government in bed with corporate interests in the way that most liberals want ie: tackling the unfair advantages of the mega corporations . And the only candidate to even want to do tackle this issue just happens to have a differing solution to the problem. Either way, the reform you want to see in our government will not happen with Obama, Paul, or any other Republican candidate. Its just not going to happen. So why not just consider that to be an issue of the future and gear your efforts toward voting for a candidate who will do so much good for our country. Ending the wars, ending the patriot act, ending cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries, allowing freedom of speech (Look up the Irvine 11 or Anwar Al Awlaki on the search engine of your choice), legalization of alternative medicine, ending the FDA's crazed raiding of small farms and food producers while protecting big Ag and Pharma, oh and ending the FED. These issues are so extremely important and we need not vote once again for a president who will stand idle while these issues I just mentioned are being unaddressed in any serious way.That is all for now, but I hope I will have at least cultivated some more empathy on your side of the debate.

[Hotspring 44]

I wanted to make another point that I should have made in the above post so... I was thinking as I was walking my dog with my wife that there is no other presidential candidate within the Republican or Democratic party that will address of this epidemic of big government in bed with corporate interests in the way that most liberals want ie: tackling the unfair advantages of the mega corporations . And the only candidate to even want to do tackle this issue just happens to have a differing solution to the problem. Either way, the reform you want to see in our government will not happen with Obama, Paul, or any other Republican candidate. Its just not going to happen. So why not just consider that to be an issue of the future and gear your efforts toward voting for a candidate who will do so much good for our country. Ending the wars, ending the patriot act, ending cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries, allowing freedom of speech (Look up the Irvine 11 or Anwar Al Awlaki on the search engine of your choice), legalization of alternative medicine, ending the FDA's crazed raiding of small farms and food producers while protecting big Ag and Pharma, oh and ending the FED. These issues are so extremely important and we need not vote once again for a president who will stand idle while these issues I just mentioned are being unaddressed in any serious way.That is all for now, but I hope I will have at least cultivated some more empathy on your side of the debate. [IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/sh/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

I was going to address your previous post and was already editing it when I needed to do some computer corrections and then restarted the computer and saw the one that I am replying to now. So I will just leave my reply to your previous post out for now because my reply to this post will be much simpler.

The plain, simple, obvious, in a nutshell reason I and I suspect other so-called “progressives” would not vote for Ron Paul in either a primary or general election is really quite simple. It is because he would work to take the safety net out from under millions of people here in this country, because he believes those safety nets are "unconstitutional"; which is one of the things that that Ron Paul Has stated that he believes are "unconstitutional" you did not mention.

[someguy]

I was going to address your previous post and was already editing it when I needed to do some computer corrections and then restarted the computer and saw the one that I am replying to now. So I will just leave my reply to your previous post out for now because my reply to this post will be much simpler.

The plain, simple, obvious, in a nutshell reason I and I suspect other so-called “progressives” would not vote for Ron Paul in either a primary or general election is really quite simple. It is because he would work to take the safety net out from under millions of people here in this country, because he believes those safety nets are "unconstitutional"; which is one of the things that that Ron Paul Has stated that he believes are "unconstitutional" you did not mention.

Thanks for that input. I can see that point of view, but I'm sorry to say that thought is a misconception. I've posted videos here on Wacco before showing Ron Paul in his own words talking about how he would not touch medicare and only try to amend SS so that people can opt out if they want to, while still honoring the contract between those who have paid into SS. I really don't find that to be an unreasonable position to have. But those two issues are totally not his priority issues as he has stated. He is much more focused on diminishing this military industrial complex of ours, combating the rise of fascism in our Federal Government, abolishing our fiat currency and fractional reserve system, and delivering economic freedom and wealth to the middle and lower class. I think those issues are way more important than maintaining SS exactly as it is right now. And like I said, his amendments to SS are not that radical at all.

[ubaru]

My on Ron Paul and Corporatism. Ron's eliminating corporate welfare will be a significant hindrance to corporations.

This just might have something to do with how much corporate media is not reporting on Ron Paul. Hmmm....

Because his policies take their WHOLE SYSTEM DOWN. End the Fed? End Wars? Those two are even international in scope. The Fed is an private banking cartel with international members.


I'm really happy to see you guys having a civil debate here!!

You Rock,
Liz


"An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." ~ Victor Hugo

[someguy]

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

This video has a lot to do with what we are talking about lately on this thread. Enjoy!

[Hotspring 44]

Thanks for that input. I can see that point of view, but I'm sorry to say that thought is a misconception. I've posted videos here on Wacco before showing Ron Paul in his own words talking about how he would not touch medicare and only try to amend SS so that people can opt out if they want to, while still honoring the contract between those who have paid into SS. I really don't find that to be an unreasonable position to have. But those two issues are totally not his priority issues as he has stated. He is much more focused on diminishing this military industrial complex of ours, combating the rise of fascism in our Federal Government, abolishing our fiat currency and fractional reserve system, and delivering economic freedom and wealth to the middle and lower class. I think those issues are way more important than maintaining SS exactly as it is right now. And like I said, his amendments to SS are not that radical at all.

The problem with amending Social Security by making it an opt out option is that would make it insolvent. We have had this discussion before (opt out versus raising the cap), so I won't elaborate on that here.

It is somewhat perplexing to me what he said about how unfair the economy has been on the poor and the middle class. But at the same time, he is against hiring a tax rate on the wealthy. Yet the wealthy still pay less of a tax rate than the middle class. What's up with that?
It's like he thinks that the government would be robbing them to have them pay the same tax rate as a middle-class to me that is just patently absurd.
And he also referred to the wealthy as “people” as if everything wealthy is a “person” (people) does that mean he believes in corporate personhood, what about corporate taxes? I never heard him mention anything about that. I don't listen to him that much he may have mentioned a lot about it but I haven't heard Ron Paul mentioning corporate tax, transaction taxes on Wall Street or anything about rescinding the Bush tax cuts during a time of war. Even though he's against the war/s or the fact the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq and so-called “war against terror” have been going on for10 years now.

I like his position on the antiwar situation I'm not so sure about his views on the hit on the alleged terrorist that was an American citizen on a foreign land, who was allegedly orchestrating the killing of Americans and or destroying American interests. It seems to me there may have been a need for the president Obama to address Congress with that before proceeding, but on the other hand, Congress gave George W Bush permissions and those same permissions were not taken away from the presidency just because another president was elected. So as appalling as it is to some, Newt Gingrich in that video you linked to may be technically correct.

The other issue is that if there were a controlling amount of Republicans in both the House and Senate and there were a so-called Social Security, welfare, so-called reform bills (in other words, “austerity”) were to come to his desk to sign; because that may be a priority with those Republicans in Congress at that time in the future; the question is would Ron Paul sign legislation like that?

Would Ron Paul cut taxes on everybody and cut so much spending to make up for it?... ... Could America even afford to do something like that without causing some kind of damage to the massive infrastructure systems that are already deteriorating in a lot of places?
Would there be a federal minimum-wage or labor unions?

The question really is could Ron Paul really deliver any better than Obama, under similar circumstances? What if there were a majority Democrats in the House like there is now majority of Republicans in the House, and they wouldn't even allow legislation like what Ron Paul has been talking about? Do you think that he really would get more substantial things done than Obama could?

It would be interesting to hear a real debate between Ron Paul and Obama if Ron Paul really did get elected in the primary, but I don't think Ron Paul has much of a chance of winning the Republican primary.
I'm sure by the time, the Republican primary comes to California with our open primary that Ron Paul would probably not have enough votes to win the primary even if He carried California.

[Barry]

Would one or more of you Ron Paul folks be interested in putting together an article that concisely argues why progressives should back Ron Paul? Much of that content has already been posted around the site, but in a more conversational format. It would be good to see it all clearly laid out, well formatted including some images and links, and address both the obviously appealing policies (end the wars, legalize drugs, etc.) and the more challenging ones (unfettered free market, etc.) and address the concerns. I'd be happy to post it in our articles section.

[handy]

Would one or more of you Ron Paul folks be interested in putting together an article that concisely argues why progressives should back Ron Paul? Much of that content has already been posted around the site, but in a more conversational format. It would be good to see it all clearly laid out, well formatted including some images and links, and address both the obviously appealing policies (end the wars, legalize drugs, etc.) and the more challenging ones (unfettered free market, etc.) and address the concerns. I'd be happy to post it in our articles section.

Hi Barry,
This should probably end up with it's own thread, but I'll leave that to you.

This short book was compiled from six speeches over a week's time at the University of Toronto in 1973. While the cybernetic arguments predate Dr. Paul activities by some decades, they hold true, and some basic consideration of cybernetic principles needs to be brought into what has otherwise been a partisan political argument.

This book has been part of my 'basic straining manual' for many years; I'd like very much to continue the discussion with those who will take the time to read it. (50 pages; you can do it...)

Designing Freedom by Stafford Beer

https://www.scribd.com/doc/959241/De...g-Freedom-Beer

Happy continuing education,
Best regards,