Ron Paul, Libertarianism and the U.N.

[Valley Oak]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[OrchardDweller]

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]

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]

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
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]

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.

[Dixon]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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

Ron Paul distortions and smears
https://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...aul/index.html

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

[OrchardDweller]

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]

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

Ron Paul distortions and smears
https://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...aul/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]

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]

[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]

cover

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

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

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

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

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


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

[d-cat]

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]

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]

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]

Mercola endorses Dr. Ron Paul

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...-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]

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/a...-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]

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]

{ 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




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]

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]

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]

>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