Adele M. Stan writes, there are "five reasons progressives should treat Ron Paul with extreme caution. He's anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that's just the start."
Ron Paul is more than just anti-war, he's the anti-Civil-Rights-Act Republican. (photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP)
Treat Ron Paul With Extreme Caution
27 August 11
'Cuddly' Libertarian has some very dark politics. He's anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality and anti-education, and that's just the start.
here are few things as maddening in a maddening political season as the warm and fuzzy feelings some progressives evince for Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the Republican presidential candidate. "The anti-war Republican," people say, as if that's good enough.
But Ron Paul is much, much more than that. He's the anti-Civil-Rights-Act Republican. He's an anti-reproductive-rights Republican. He's a gay-demonizing Republican. He's an anti-public education Republican and an anti-Social Security Republican. He's the John Birch Society's favorite congressman. And he's a booster of the Constitution Party, which has a Christian Reconstructionist platform. So, if you're a member of the anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-black, anti-senior-citizen, anti-equality, anti-education, pro-communist-witch-hunt wing of the progressive movement, I can see how he'd be your guy.
Paul first drew the attention of progressives with his vocal opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Coupled with the Texan's famous call to end the Federal Reserve, that somehow rendered him, in the eyes of the single-minded, the GOP's very own Dennis Kucinich. Throw in Paul's opposition to the drug war and his belief that marriage rights should be determined by the states, and Paul seemed suitable enough to an emotionally immature segment of the progressive movement, a wing populated by people with privilege adequate enough to insulate them from the nasty bits of the Paul agenda. (Tough on you, blacks! And you, women! And you, queers! And you, old people without money.)
Ron Paul's anti-war stance, you see, comes not from a cry for peace, but from the deeply held isolationism of the far right. Some may say that, when it comes to ending the slaughter of innocents, the ends justify the means. But, in the case of Ron Paul, the ends involve trading the rights and security of a great many Americans for the promise of non-intervention.
Here's a list - by no means comprehensive - of Ron Paul positions and associates that should explain, once and for all, why no self-respecting progressive could possibly sidle up to Paul.
1) Ron Paul on Race
Based on his religious adherence to his purportedly libertarian principles, Ron Paul opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Unlike his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ron Paul has not even tried to walk back from this position. In fact, he wears it proudly. Here's an excerpt from Ron Paul's 2004 floor speech about the Civil Rights Act, in which he explains why he voted against a House resolution honoring the 40th anniversary of the law:
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
He also said this: "[T]he forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty."
Ron Paul also occasionally appears at events sponsored by the John Birch Society, the segregationist right-wing organization that is closely aligned with the Christian Reconstructionist wing of the religious right.
In 2008, James Kirchick brought to light in the pages of the New Republic a number of newsletters with Paul's name in the title - Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Investment Letter - that contained baldly racist material, which Paul denied writing.
At NewsOne, Casey Gane-McCalla reported a number of these vitriolic diatribes, including this, on the L.A. riots after the Rodney King verdict: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.”
In a related piece, Jon C. Hopwood of Yahoo!'s Associated Content cites a Reuters report on Paul's response to the TNR story, which came in the form of a written statement:
The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.... I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.
2) Ron Paul on Reproductive Rights
The sponsor of a bill to overturn Roe v. Wade, Ron Paul's libertarianism does not apply to women, though it does apply to zygotes. His is a no-exceptions anti-abortion position, essentially empowering a rapist to sire a child with a woman of his choosing. Although Paul attributes his stance on abortion to his background as an ob-gyn physician, it should be noted that most ob-gyns are pro-choice, and that Paul's draconian position tracks exactly with that of his Christian Reconstructionist friends.
While mainstream media, when they're not busy ignoring his presidential campaign in favor of the badly trailing former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, invariably focus on Paul's economic libertarianism, Sarah Posner, writing for the Nation, noted that during his appearances leading up to the Iowa straw poll (in which Paul finished second only to Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minn., by a 200-vote margin), "launched into gruesome descriptions of abortion, a departure from his stump speech focused on cutting taxes, shutting down the Federal Reserve, getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan and repealing the Patriot Act."
3) Ron Paul on LGBT People
While it's true that Paul advocates leaving it to the states to determine whether same-sex marriages should be legally recognized, it's not because he's a friend to LGBT people. Paul's position on same-sex marriage stems from his beliefs about the limits of the federal government's role vis-a-vis his novel interpretation of the Constitution.
In fact, a newsletter called the Ron Paul Poltiical Report, unearthed by Kirchick, shows Paul on a rant against a range of foes and conspiracies, including "the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS," to which Paul parenthetically adds, "my training as a physician helps me see through this one." The passage, which also portends a "coming race war in our big cities," complains of the "perverted" and "pagan" annual romp for the rich and powerful known as Bohemian Grove, and takes aim at the "demonic" Skull and Bones Society at Yale, not to mention the "Israeli lobby," begins with the paranoid claim, "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me."
While Paul denied, in 2001, writing most of the scurrilous material that ran, without attribution, in newsletters that bore his name in the title, this passage, according to Jon Hopwood, bears Paul's byline.
4) Ron Paul Calls Social Security Unconstitutional, Compares It to Slavery
Earlier this year, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Paul declared both Social Security and Medicare to be unconstitutional, essentially saying they should be abolished for the great evil that they are - just like slavery. Here's the transcript, via ThinkProgress:
["FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS] WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
PAUL: Technically, they are.... There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn't say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause.... That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that's what we have to reverse - that very notion that you're presenting.
WALLACE: Congressman, it's not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal, too, and we had to reverse that.
5) Ron Paul, Christian Reconstructionists and the John Birch Society
The year 2008 was a telling one in the annals of Ron Paul's ideology. For starters, it was the year in which he delivered the keynote address [video] at the 50th anniversary gala of the John Birch Society, the famous anti-communist, anti-civil-rights organization hatched in the 1950s by North Carolina candy magnate Robert Welch, with the help of Fred Koch, founder of what is now Koch Industries, and a handful of well-heeled friends. The JBS is also remembered for its role in helping to launch the 1964 presidential candidacy of the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., and for later backing the segregationist Alabama Gov. George Wallace in his 1968 third-party presidential bid.
The semi-secular ideology of the John Birch Society - libertarian market and fiscal theory laced with flourishes of cultural supremacy - finds its religious counterpart, as Fred Clarkson noted, in the theonomy of Christian Reconstructionism, the right-wing religious-political school of thought founded by Rousas John Rushdoony. The ultimate goal of Christian Reconstructionists is to reconstitute the law of the Hebrew Bible - which calls for the execution of adulterers and men who have sex with other men - as the law of the land. The Constitution Party constitutes the political wing of Reconstructionism, and the CP has found a good friend in Ron Paul.
When Paul launched his second presidential quest in 2008, he won the endorsement of Rev. Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist pastor who travels in Christian Reconstructionist circles, though he is not precisely a Reconstructionist himself (for reasons having to do with his interpretation of how the end times will go down). When Paul dropped out of the race, instead of endorsing Republican nominee John McCain, or even Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Paul endorsed Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin (who promised, in his acceptance speech, to uphold the Constitution Party platform, which looks curiously similar to the Ron Paul agenda, right down to the no-exceptions abortion proscription and ending the Fed).
At his shadow rally that year in Minneapolis, held on the eve of the Republican National Convention, Paul invited Constitution Party founder Howard Phillips, a Christian Reconstructionist, to address the crowd of end-the-Fed-cheering post-pubescents. (In his early congressional career, Julie Ingersoll writes in Religion Dispatches, Paul hired as a staffer Gary North, a Christian Reconstructionist leader and Rushdoony's son-in-law.)
At a "Pastor's Forum" at Baldwin's Baptist church in Pensacola, Florida, Paul was asked by a congregant about his lack of support for Israel, which many right-wing Christians support because of the role Israel plays in what is known as premillennialist end-times theology. "Premillennialist" refers to the belief that after Jesus returns, according to conditions on the ground in Israel, the righteous will rule. But Christian Reconstructionists have a different view, believing the righteous must first rule for 1,000 years before Jesus will return.
They also believe, according to Clarkson, "that 'the Christians' are the 'new chosen people of God,' commanded to do what 'Adam in Eden and Israel in Canaan failed to do ... create the society that God requires.' Further, Jews, once the 'chosen people,' failed to live up to God's covenant and therefore are no longer God's chosen. Christians, of the correct sort, now are."
Responding to Baldwin's congregant, Paul explained, "I may see it slightly differently than others because I think of the Israeli government as different than what I read about in the Bible. I mean, the Israeli government doesn't happen to be reflecting God's views. Some of them are atheist, and their form of government is not what I would support ... And there are some people who interpret the chosen people as not being so narrowly defined as only the Jews - that maybe there's a broader definition of that."
At the John Birch Society 50th anniversary gala, Ron Paul spoke to another favorite theme of the Reconstructionists and others in the religious right: that of the "remnant" left behind after evil has swept the land. (Gary North's publication is called The Remnant Review.) In a dispatch on Paul's keynote address, The New American, the publication of the John Birch Society, explained, "He claimed that the important role the JBS has played was to nurture that remnant and added, 'The remnant holds the truth together, both the religious truth and the political truth.'"
Is there a progressive willing to join that fold?
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 15 June 2013
|
 14 June 2013
|
 14 June 2013
|
 15 June 2013
|
 15 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 16 June 2013
|
 14 June 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
I guess you are against women, a racist, against Social Security and Medicare, for segregation, for the Supreme Court that says "Corporations are people",.
What it all boils down to, is you are in the 30% of people who are against the 70% of American people. In other words you are a Repuiblican.
If you really want to see whether Ron Paul is in bed with Christian extremists, just look at how he voted on ending Don't Ask Don't Tell. He was one of only 15 Republicans who voted to end this discriminatory policy. If he was truly a religious nutjob like the others, there was his chance to pander to that voting base. But what did he do? He stood strong on the side of freedom and equality when it mattered the most. When it was time to vote on a law. To me that speaks volumes about who he is and what he really stands for.
Don't take my word for it... Google "Ron Paul vote DADT"
Please open your mind to the idea that you may have misunderstood,a nd you see prejudice where there is none because you have been taught to think of people as identified by "groups", such as women, gays, asians, whatever. The principle that Ron Paul believes in, as I do, is that each and every individual has equal rights just because of their humanity - NOT because of what group they are in. Therefore, to talk about "women's rights," rights of the over 65 years, or gay rights, etc. already assumes a mind-set that pits one group against another, and makes them subject to different rules, privileges,obli gations, etc. That kind of thinking creates and enables the very injustices that you likely want to avoid. Think about this - any law that violates one person's rights in order to give public money or special privilege to some group, is not just. It is not okay to violate some people in the name of some other group that is somehow deemed more worthy or special. For example - all of the medical needs of the elderly are somehow supposed to be endlessly provided at almost no cost to them, but instead added to the enormous credit card bill for their grandchildren (Medicare). This is fantasy-thinkin g - it cannot go on and is bankrupting us, morally and financially.
Now let's suppose it's 2041 and you're retired, but you forgot to save $2,000 out of every check for the past 30 years - especially since that's more than you ever made. How will you survive, now that your "group" (of people too old to work) is completely out of food?
Calling Social Security "unconstitution al" ALREADY pits one group against another. It pits people who can afford to pay for something NECESSARY to this country against those who can't.
I HOPE YOU'RE SAVING MORE THAN YOU PROBABLY MAKE.
First, Soc Security would be gradually replaced with private retirement. Those who have already paid in are owed payments on what they have contributed, with interest.
As for your question about medical bills, well who pays them now? Why do you assume that some people deserve to have others pay not only for themselves, by also for others? I don't see any logic here. I don't expect anyone else to pay for my medical bills - do you?
Yes, there is a place for charity, but there is no justice in some people getting for free what others must pay for, as well as paying for the others getting the free ride!
As for the 2041 argument, well I don't get your point. Obviously if you don't provide for yourself (gee, I forgot!) then you must either find some way to do it, or rely on your family/friends. charity of others. That is reality. What you suggest is to reward people for irresponsibilit y by then saying gee, you get to forcefully extract money from others to take care of you, on top of them taking care of themselves. No logic or morality here.
Let’s say you’re the median age: 37.
Let’s say you want to retire at 70. That’s 33 years from now.
The rate of inflation over the last 33 years makes things 3.38 times as expensive as they were 33 years ago (1978).
Let’s say the rate of inflation stays the same.
Let’s say the average senior’s yearly income including Social Security is about $30,000.
Let’s say you plan to never get sick and be hit by a bus on your 90th birthday.
You will need to save enough to pay for 20 years of $101,400 per year. That’s $2,028,000. You have 858 paychecks left to save for it, if you get paid every other week.
You will need to start setting aside $2,363.64 PER PAYCHECK starting RIGHT NOW, to meet that goal. Do you even make that much? Of course, if you’re older than 37, you better hurry and put aside MORE.
Why are you wasting time arguing with liberals about news articles? GET BACK TO WORK!
NOW!
CONT.
P.S. I forgot to add that, if you plan to live another 20 years after you're 70, naturally the cost of living will double AGAIN in that time. So, you can either save 2 million to live like you would on $30 thousand per year today and watch it dwindle to the equivalent of $15 thousand a year, OR, you can save $3 million first.
WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T GET SICK!!!
THAT is what your plan looks like when you actually calculate the math involved.
But I wouldn't worry about it.
SOYLENT GREEN TO THE RESCUE!!!
Inflation is the most regressive tax there is. It robs the value from seniors citizens who have saved all of their lives.
Let's do the calculations without inflation and just use the money that people already pay into social security.
12.4% for someone making $30,000/yr. is $310/month that's currently going to social security.
Invest that at 5%, what used to be a fair return before Bernanke messed with rates, and you get a nest egg of $311,673 after 33 years. Living off the interest, 5%, will then provide you with income of $26,760/yr. and you'll still have your nest egg to pass onto your heirs.
Keynes wrote about it in 1919.
"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some."
"Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose."
We can also go 200 years back. When 90% of the population lived in farms, have 10 children each and die at 50. Then you could count on family and friends to support you. We could also do as the Eskimos and many old cultures, when you cannot support yourself go and commit suicide. I still prefer to have our elders around and enjoy them and they with their grandchildren, even when they don’t have de money to take care of themselves
think of this especially with "Irene Hurricans that just devasted the east coast"
Ron Paul says Hurricane relief isn't the responsibility of the Government, and we should stop using Tax dollars to rescue people.
Apparantly we should go back to the 1900 year disaster policy which included watching 6,000 people die in a hurricane that hit Galvaston, Texas at that time.
I guess you also think it's alright for a business to tell someone coming in that he cannot come in because "I do not like your looks"
These are his beliefs and his sons. Well if you think he is a nice man, you can have him.
If you are addressing your comments to me, Glen, then you have just proved how complicated the two "parties" are, but those in true power and office adhere to the same agenda. Personally, I have never equated liberals with Democrats or vice verse. It is just semantics. Most folks, no matter how they categorize themselves, must vote either democrat or republican, or, futilely, vote third party.
The beat goes on, however, but few voters ever read documents of real import, such as the PNAC, Patriot Act, most bills passed, and so forth. They simply go with the television foofahrah of how candidates are presented in the never ending presidential races.
In office, there are only a handful of true liberals or conservatives left. If you are of any age, you will recognize that fact.
I apologize. I was addressing my remarks to bookemdano, not you. I should have made that clear or directly responded to his post, instead of your reply to it... sorry. I agree with what you have written. for all intents and purposes, Obama IS a Republican. No Republican President could have ever gotten away with voluntarily putting Social Security on the chopping block.
Our country and the politics are so complicated now it is no wonder citizens are dazed and confused. Communication is crumbling and the plan of dividing citizens is working.
"Democratic" and "liberal" don't mean the same thing. Most high school government classes teach that.
So who do you support? Obama? Hillary? Romney? Perry? THESE ARE THE MAIN CORPORATE SPECIAL INTEREST DONATION RECIPIENTS AND ADVOCATES.
Get your facts straight.
How much worse could it get?
If you believe the smears in this article and really think he is aligned with the religious far right nutjob wackos, you haven't been paying much attention to his voting record or the things he's been saying all along.
Go on YouTube and search "Ron Paul Explains Why It's OK To Legalize Heroin" and watch what he says in the debate, and then tell me you think he caters to the religious right. Utterly ridiculous.
His son would have opposed the Voting Rights Act. He said so openly. Maybe daddy paul disagrees with baby paul on this one.
Somehow, I doubt it.
There are plenty of people out there speaking truth to power, they just don't register Republican and are dismissed by the media as the left wing fringe giving Ron Paul undeserved prominence.
Obviously you have no clue. Reagan did not propose the bizarre spending increases, he opposed them, but Congress passed them, no SHRIEKINGLY INSISTED on MASSIVE increases in spending, all so they could blame it on Reagan. Reagan vetoed many such spending bills. Just not enough. He should have vetoed any and all such bills until the Dems shut the hell up and stopped lying. And Reagan did not raise taxes, at all much less "repeatedly", it was the Dem-controlled Congress.
To the media, overwhelmingly left wing, any reason or fact of reality is "right wing extremism" today.
But Paul will just point out the truth and the big-spenders will choke.
However, he bucks the system and agenda set forth in the PNAC that Obama, George W., and Clinton carried on and will never be a crowned head, approved of by the most powerful of the Bilderberg group, Wall Street, and so on. BUT he does need to keep talking and reminding all citizens of the crimes of the U.S. government, the corruption, and the underlying agenda that is destroying the U.S.
Obama had no vision. Paul is seeing visions.
That is hilarious and so sad at the same time. You hit that nail right on the head!
Vision? Yes, it is the Soviet "democracy"!
Paul is the only candidate in the crowd that sees anything other than fecal matter.
..........looks like the medias blacking him out!..........t hey { the shadow government } don,t like certain types getting to far !.......remembe r what they did to Howard dean !......well thats all moot anyway now after the U$ $upreme court gave us citizens united !.......the 2012 elections gonna look more like a P.B.S. auction then any thing that went before !
Please look more closely at Dr. Paul. You'll find he's the only candidate in the race who isn't bought and paid-for by the corporate-fasci st establishment.
RP isn't AGAINST anyone...he's FOR individuals.
It's the fed govts job to protect our individual liberty, not lump us together and buy us off with whatever they can steal from taxpayers!
RP doesn't want to separate us further by classifying us as members of a minority. He feels we are all equal under the law. That's why we pleadge our allegiance 'To the Republic!'
The fact that I'm black/white, male/female, over/under 65, employed/retire d, or any other group that further takes away my individuality is of no consequence to him, or me.
Once we get out of the mindset that we deserve something because we fit the description, whether its money, health-insuranc e, or a job--and realize that we are ONLY ENTITLED to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the "PURSUIT" OF HAPPINESS (no guarantees of happiness--only the freedom to pursue it!), we will see that RP is the ONLY viable candidate out there.
Ron Paul 2012
PS: With Soc Sec bankrupt, the national debt at it's highest in history, an entitlement tab exceeding $100 trillion, the wars we're involved in, states unable to pay for welfare programs, etc...how much longer do you think it will be before labels and groups will be a thing of the past?
My pursuit of happiness includes not bearing children I do not want, nor does it include living in constant fear that some man who wants a kid can simply rape me (and probably get by with it in court) to get one. If Dr. Paul was a real libertarian, he would unequivocally support protection for a woman's right to choose at the federal level. Of course he is not a real libertarian, but just the closest thing to one we will find in the "leadership" of the Republican party.
Frankly, anyone who votes for Ron Paul needs to stop listening to the propaganda and read up more about him.
"It Will ALWAYS Be Your Fault" By 'Barack Obama and the LibTards' is one of my favorites. I think it was their "57th" hit.
LMAO!
Ron Paul 2012
Cheesy pre-teen insults like "libtard" (what exactly is that, anyway?) and texting lingo like LMAO don't speak well for your ability to actually form an argument.
I think YOU AND get "real" are left-wing trolls trying to make all paul supporters look like "morans".
OK, back to Ron Paul. Granted, he's not perfect. In the past I've held my nose and voted for the lesser of two evils Democratic candidate solely on the basis of reproductive rights for women.
Ron Paul is totally against public funding of abortion, however, he is not in favor of illegalizing abortion like many of the lunatics on the right.
Granted, he is not in favor of federal laws supporting gay marraige and affirmative action. I can see the constitutional rational behind limiting the power of the federal government. And, let's face it, the current public school system is not only broken but is sliding down the fast track to oblivion. However, that doesn't make him anti-woman, anti-black, anti-gay or anti-education. You are twisting the truth.
Unfortunately, collapse is our only hope. And the sooner the better. The more we draw it out the more catastrophic the crisis will be when it finally hits the fan.
And, to address others' points that there are some good people in government. Sure, there are some, but they have little significant power to do good, and they absolutely know it. Our current system only works for those whose agenda is aligned with corporate interests, which are now virtually opposite of the people of this planet, at this point at which the old paradigm of growth is now impossible.
Ron Paul is the only candidate whose essential platform bucks that paradigm at a conprehensive level.
Of course, he'll never get elected. And if he did he would be assassinated as soon as he did anything threatening the status quo of the undead corporate zombie that feeds on us and our future generations.
It's not a pretty picture. Piecemeal solutions won't save us or our children.
I hope you're rich enough that you won't need the Social Security that he wants to take away from you.
Your "Constitutional " argument in support of paul would also be in STRONG support of SLAVERY.
Good luck finding young people willing to set aside over 2 million dollars NOW for their old age.
He wants to take AWAY the right to ask anything from OUR government besides providing a police state to keep us docile.
I ran for school board in San Francisco, and asked the district Superintendent, Carlos Garcia, for a list of the district's employees, by position and salary, and to put this information online for the public.
He said that was too difficult to do because there were too many employees, and there were too many other things staff needed to do! I volunteered to do the data entry myself -- he essentially blew me off.
If you don't believe PUBLIC schools are underfunded, ask one of those "overpaid" teachers.
But then again, can you "twist" the truth, if you do not know what the truth is?
Adele Stan lives in fantasy world - like the matrix - a separate reality from the real world. She's a pod person who does as she is told and does not question the reality that is given to her. It's like that Neocon guy, Michael ledeen who brags about his doctrine of "creative destruction" of creating their own truth - their own reality - and spoon feeding it to the ignorant sheeple.
the left has their own matrix, their own fantasy creating apparatus. Not sure which one ms. Stan subscribes to, but it doesn't matter. They're basically the same.
Have you heard of Alex Jones, Bill Still, or Stephen Zarlenga?
Ron Paul is against ANY funding whatsoever. Doesn't matter what the cause. Be it CDC, NASA or social programs. He would prefer a "National Sales Tax" which benefits the wealthy and penalizes the poor and middle class.
The differences between Ron Paul and the Tea Party are minute. They both want to see government limited - not just a bit but SEVERELY limited. Ron Paul's vision of the future is that there should be no disaster relief. Ron Paul's words are: “We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960.”
A man who looks backwards, not forwards.
I too have lived in Vermont and California, and have a very different interpretation of the voting records of my representatives . Barbara Boxer, for instance, has an excellent record as Senator. I doubt that you or Ron Paul would improve on that. Our local Congressman, Bob Filner, also has an impressive voting record. Could your emotions be coloring your research into "actual performance"? Could your "familiarity" be woefully incomplete as knowledge?
Or could it be that you want big government and don't trust people? Could it be that you like it that Boxer would shred the Constitution and its American Republic? Could it be that you have no clue, because you have swallowed the kool-aid? Could it be that your "complete knowlege" is naught more than propaganda by tyrants? Could it be that what "impresses" you is the destruction of Liberty?
Once again, I'm for people being allowed to VOTE for what they want, rather than having that right taken away from them under the guise of "liberty", for those who don't like the way the vote is going.
When people vote from the public trough it is theft. NONE of the problems you have cited anywhere here is the doing of Liberty. The problem is that you have ZERO concept of Liberty.
If you have a right to vote to loot anyone else, then anyone else has a right to vote to loot YOU. Your concept of democracy is that you have the former, but no one else has the latter. Clearly the existence of the former IS the existence of the latter, THEY ARE THE SAME. You think that you are protected by demographics, because you are dirt poor and someone else is rich, but the approach you approve of is exactly how G-S and CM got the legal power to ream you out.
Liberty does indeed insist that no one has the right to vote to loot you. In Liberty CM or G-S GET NO BAILOUTS or any other special favors. It is only ANY anti-Liberty system, including Democracy, that gives them these privileges.
I've always used a voting booth. It's cleaner than a trough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixiYZ9DPk8o
When he says the government should not spend tax money to help people when there is an earthquake or hurricane, that is not good.
In the 1900S there was a hurricane in Galveston, Texas that killed 6,000 with no help from the government that was not good. And that is what they want to go back to the 1900 where Government does not help people.
The rich surly do not need it they can jump on an airplane and leave and come back and easily build again. The middle and poor would be screwed. What would be their answer===Well they should have worked harder and saved their money.
Remember we are all not born with a silver spoon in our mouth.
http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=2528
With "friends" like these, who needs bogey men/women?
This is exactly the sort of drivel we would see written on right-wing sites about Obama's associations with Manning and Ayers. Embarrassing -- it's apparent that the author of this article is grasping at straws to support his foregone conclusions. Serious journalism this is not.
Oh wait... hair. It's been some years since Playdoh's Fuzzy Pumper Barber Shop - so, the hair nostalgia is warm. Fuzzy Pumper never opened it's mouth and spewed cherry pits like that weird lady on Witches of Eastwick though. They do.
If the big bankers were not buying our cheap politicians, we would have plenty of money to support ourselves and support our charities.
Please let us love and respect one another.
It prevents or delays ovulation
It blocks ovulation
It keeps a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus
Please note that last one, the fertilized egg.
I firmly believe that Dr. Paul does have a problem with the morning after pill.
Ain't life grand? (oops--sorry, I forgot you support baby killers).
Per your comment, are you suggesting that we taxpayers foot the bill for travel and expenses so pregnant women can have their defenseless babies vacuumed out of their wombs and tossed in the garbage? I'm just trying to be clear about how much you think I'm financially responsible to pay for someone else's irresponsibility.
Abortion--$1000
Condom--$5
Personal Responsibility--priceless
"What world do you live in?" you ask...the REAL one.
Ron Paul 2012
I support a government that keeps its nose out of the most difficult decision a woman may ever have to make. But wait! Doesn't Paul want government out of our business? Apparently not.
Ron Paul 1952
Then you asked what a woman should do if she's pregnant and want's an abortion but doesn't have a car or hotel money to travel to a state that provides them.
That led me to believe that you want federal involvement so it's legal in ALL 50 states (to keep it simple for abortion-seeker s), regardless of how the people in that state voted.
THEN you said you support a govt that keeps its nose out of personal decisions. (Apparently, logic isn't YOUR strong suit!)
So which is it? You either support a federal regulation that makes abortion laws uniform in all 50 states, or you support states rights to rule according to the will of the people.
Yes, I can read just fine...can you?
Ron Paul 2012
BTW: What part of my comment was 'pushing for back alley abortions?' I'm 100% "pro-choice" in that we all have a choice of using condoms, the pill, the 'depo' shot, the nuva-ring, voluntary sterilization, abstinence, and adoption--but NEVER murder. For real...who here thinks that abortion is a real option when all the others are readily available?
Ron Paul 1952
No the best thing is for all of you moralists to mind your own flippin' business and keep you nose out of my personal affairs. In spite of your implication, women are not asking you to pay for our abortions, just to mind your business and stay out of ours.
HE ABSOLUTELY DOES.
What do you make of the fact that people CHOOSE to support public schools and Social Security? Ron Paul would deny you that right.
HE ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT.
What he would like to do is remove mandates requiring everyone to pay for federal government created balgerdash. SS is insolvent.
Why don't people who feel the way you do go gather up volunteers to fund whatever you want to fund instead of believing that EVERYONE should fund EVERYTHING, not by choice, but because of mandate.
How far along are you in saving that 2 million dollars. If you don't want it to be required that we fund it, you better stop arguing and work a few extra jobs, so you can save the extra $2,ooo a paycheck you'll need to make that goal.
You make the choices right now that will affect the rest of your life. If you don't need Social Security yet, that will change and so will your mind.
It's AMAZING that, as much money has been stolen from it to fund other things, it's STILL solvent. One of the reasons for stealing from it was always to make it insolvent.
I guess this is why it's the most OVERWHELMINGLY POPULAR government program ever enacted.
Live and let live. That's what Ron Paul is about.
In a libertarian society, liberals can have their wealth-redistri bution programs, and conservatives can have their faith-based stuff and militarism -- but the difference is that EACH SIDE MUST PAY FOR THEIR OWN AGENDA, instead of using the power of government to force everybody else to subsidize it.
By ron paul's version of "live and let live", what you really mean is LIVE AND LET DIE.
In a modern society that wants to maintain a living standard above that of the 3rd world, EVERYONE is required to do, AND YES - PAY their fair share.
If you want "libertarianism " try living in a 3rd world country with a strong military and iron-fisted police force. THAT is libertarianism in action.
With 40% of the nation on food stamps, how's the whole 'EVERYONE-is-re quired-to-pay-t heir-fair-share ' thing working out for ya?
Ron Paul 2012
Then I'll have to ask how that whole "rugged individualism" thing is workin' out for ya? wink. wink.
My God lady do you not have any heart for these people who are hurting. Remember there but for the Grace of God go YOU.
Last time I looked majority wins.
Although you mention the people that CHOOSE to support public schools and Soc Sec, WHERE, EXACTLY, do you consider it a choice? Soc Sec is deducted from MY LABOR before I even get it; and if you don't pay property taxes for the schools (whether you have kids or not), the feds can take your property and kick you to the curb. But it was awfully sweet of you to church it up and call it a 'choice.' ;)
Ron Paul 2012
That is almost the yearly wage of two families in this time. You truly live in Disnyland.
If people are angry, they have good reason to be -- angry at the destruction of civil liberties and the economy by the establishment two-party cartel.
Do you think you're the only person reading and voting on a comment at any given time? If you do that's not a RSN tech problem, it's an ignorance problem.
Sorry boys, mama lied ... you're not the center of the omniverse.
He is a man of unwavering integrity and compassionate toleration.
His unshakable adherence to the Constititution and fidelity to first principles are exemplary. His shinning model as a statesman will be recorded in our history books for generations to come.
Because he speaks truth to power about the imperial welfare-warfare state, he is feared by the power elites of both parties and their shills in the mainstream media.
For decades he has fought against these establishment elites: against corporatism and special privilege; against the preemptive wars of aggression and the military-indust rial complex; against torture and rendition; against the CIA's nefarious covert actions which have had foreign policy 'blowback' and destructive consequences; against the neocon notions of the US as the world's policeman and the domestic police state at home; against the USA Patriot Act and the destruction of the Fourth Amendment.
Progressives do themselves a great disservice to give credence to mendacious lies and character assassination distortions of this champion of the people's liberties and rights.
the fact is that racism in america is a curse as ugly as it ever was and the liberal system-supporti ng programs of quota hiring and affirmative action (for some) negative action (for most) has done exactly as paul says: nothing...black s in american are still at the very bottom, perhaps more so than ever, even lower than some immigrants unable to speak the language and illegal at that...thank you liberal bleeding hearts?
in fact, his brand of "real" free market capitalism might help bring us closer to democratic socialism by speeding up the contradictions that liberals thrive on extending, in order to preserve the rule of corporate capital and the status quo while faking their credentials as humanitarians supporting wars all over the globe...at least with paul we'd have a brief period of less foreign slaughters and maybe concentrate more closely on what a farce this system is and he with it, though compared to the others he can seem almost sane...
fs
No public schools, no public services, no disaster relief...well that means everyone without that spare million will be ignorant within within a generation and living at risk as well.
Lest we forget, without regulation there will also be no minimum wage laws, no employment laws, no OSHA and very shortly no 40 hour work weeks, no benefits. The world of Ron Paul is a third world nation view. He would put all of us at risk, because he couldn't care less as long as his warped vision is fed.
While the current crop may be imperfect, I will take imperfect over frightening any day.
Do you really think Soc Sec is even going to be there when it's our turn to retire?? NOPE!
You make it sound like without Big Brother around, people couldn't find water if they fell out of a freakin boat! Do you honestly believe that before the US Fed Govt, there was no clean air or safe food? Gee...how did people ever survive prior to the last 220 years without big govt there? And just who do you think it was that screwed up our water and air in the first place?
By the way...bang up job the FDA is doing at protecting us from contaminated food! E.coli spinach anyone? How about some tainted peanut butter? No? Why not take a look at all the drugs that our FDA approved that kill more people every year than 'illegal' drugs do?
I'm not trying to make you crys, but if you bothered to look at the FDA you would see that they are the ones that block people from being able to sue the pharma cos when the govt was entertaining the idea of making H1N1 vaccines mandatory. Imagine that! A quickie-pandemi c-scare, a rush-job to pump out untested vaccines, our fed govt on-board with making them mandatory, leaving US citizens unable to sue for damages caused by the vaccines.
I'll take my 'chances' with Dr Paul. At least I know what I'll get--a Constitution & freedom-loving patriot.
Ron Paul 2012
Not if people like you get your way.
How's that whole saving 2 million dollars for retirement thing workin' out for ya?
Anybody else having trouble with the thumb's up and down buttons?
He is anti regulation of any sort, this means he doesn't care whether the car you buy, the water you drink or the air you breath is safe so long as the corporation is making profit you can hang. Further, he is anti union, which means the employee will be left with nothing, no benefits, no minimum wage; no protections.
He is anti public education, it will only take one generation before we tumble into ignorance as the majority will not be able to afford private education.
Done the research. He is all this list claims and far worse. With the exception of his stance on war and drugs, he is a nightmare.
Problem with that is that you have done it from a mindset that sees individual people as being dangerous, and big government, up to and including tyranny, as the answer to all problems, except war and drugs. The social "theories" you learned in govt approved education are wrong.
And you have a weird way of twisting the truth into the opposite, for instance, quotas and special group privileges are not "civil rights" despite whatever propaganda you have swallowed. And there is this gem: "one of his statements has been, repeatedly his desire to return to an earlier time when these groups had zero rights under the Constitution"
Are you opposed to the Constitution? Ron Paul has never stated that he wanted to turn back the clock. Perhaps you would prefer the Soviet "Constitution"?
The Constitution is about Individual Rights, despite the 3/5 person clause which existed ONLY because of those struggling for YOUR form of government, ie, government control of everything (except drugs as you state). But the 3/5 clause is not your concern, because you do believe in collectivistic group privileges, and never question it.
You have not done any research, because you wouldn't know what to do with a fact if it hit you in the face.
Did you drive to work today on a road you buildt for yourself? Do you drink safe drinking water? Did you go to school? Do you work for a company which has received no help from the federal government? Does your car come with a safety belt? Does the bank still have your savings, or has it been lost in a run on the banks? Who would you call if your house was burning down?
The problem with your argument is that you believe that individuals cannot function without being tyrannized. You believe that voluntary association is impossible and evil, that nothing could be done without tyranny.
Yet your ideal tyranny is made up of ... individuals! Yes, when given the power to destroy, individuals in your fantasy world suddenly become all-knowing, wise and virtuous.
"Did you drive to work today on a road you buildt [sic] for yourself?" This is insane. Is your education so defunct that you believe that this is freedom? Pull your head out!
If any of your absurd arguments had any validity AT ALL, the Soviet Union would have been a raging success and the USA would have been nothing but a pile of mud.
Most individuals can take care of themselves. They can do so without your police state. Obviously you cannot.
If the Soviet Union could afford roads and the U.S. couldn't the U.S. would NOT be very successful, would it.
Right now, the anti-tax rhetoric by people like you is forcing our country to get by with roads and bridges built by previous generations that actually loved our country.
If you're on an "unregulated" bridge and it collapses, tell your corpse to pull itself up by its bootstraps.
Ron Paul 2012
Do you drink safe drinking water? I try, but the water dept said it was above recommended guidelines in fluoride, so I drink it out of a bottle now that I pay extra for since I already pay for my tainted water at home.
Did I go to school? YEP--been there, done that! Grad HS 1987, college 1997 (and STILL paying off those student loans) don't even get me started on how our govt screwed us all on that!
(Continued)
Do you work for a co. that has rec'd no help from the fed govt? Do those even exist now? BTW: Ron Paul refused to take taxpayer funds as pmt for his medical services while practicing.
Does you car come with a safety belt? Try finding one that doesn't!! Ahh...remember the good old days when you could decide for yourself if you wanted to be strapped to your seat and potentially burn to death in an accident, or take your chances? Thank you for protecting me... FROM MYSELF!
Does the bank still have my savings? They better! Didn't the govt steal my tax dollars to make sure the banks were brimming with worthless fiat paper?
Who would you call if your house was burning down? My local VOLUNTEER firemen. Remember--chari ty starts AT HOME--not through forced 'donations.'
All of the points you attempted to make are issues that would be better handled on a state or local level. Why are you fighting so hard to give your local authority to the feds? Oh, that's right...because they're so good at "regulating" everything like social security, war, and welfarism.
Ron Paul 2012
They tried a VOLUNTEER fire department in NYC. Didn't work.
The bank has your money because the federal government insures it.
Try making your own seat belt.
Did you notice that the source of most of that bottle water is from municiple water supplies? I guess not.
The problem with that statement is that the size of our government is a direct result to people making choices about our government. To arbitrarily "shrink" the government would be to take away the right of voters to make their own decisions.
Libertarianism is, at heart, ANTI-DEMOCRATIC .
Democracy is, as you have so unconsciously alluded, the "right of the voters" to take away the choices, even the life, of the individual.
The choice to destroy choice - not a new concept, one that's been proposed by many a hater of human beings.
The choice to destroy choice - after that does anyone get the choice to reinstate his choices?
Perfect example was the fate of the "Father of Democracy", Socrates, who was literally voted to death.
More correctly, Democracy is, at heart, ANTI-LIBERTY.
Socrates drinks hemlock.
You've proven the point that libertarianism is anti-democratic . When people VOTE, hopefully they'll keep that in mind.
You have no clue.
Democracy is 2 wolves and sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
Liberty certainly has "elections", but how would you know that since you are totally lost. But they do not vote to violate rights, not that you know what a "right" is.
My argument is correct. No wonder, in your perverse world, that you see it as bad. To bad that you hate allowing other people to live their own lives - too difficult for you to understand.
In 'get reals' analogy, there were no cages...you're problem with 'all things being equal' is glaringly obvious.
IMHO, we're ALL in a cage, and the wolves are in Washington deciding which of us they will fleece next.
Ron Paul 2012
In the meantime, it is 'to the Republic for which I stand.'
Democracy = mob rule
Republic = the rule of law applies equally to EVERYONE
I guess I don't understand your beef with fairness.
Ron Paul 2012
Did you feel that? It's the tax burden of paying for all of Oblamers czars being lifted off our shoulders! It's the freedom of not being part of the UN, where we have NO elected officials to represent us. It's the lifting up of the dead-weight of beaureaucrats and red-tape that we've been buried under! YAY! I'm starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel!
Ron Paul 2012
If Paul were elected and he just got the wars stopped and US bases all over the world closed, he's be the greatest president in the last 100 years. But that is too big on an "if." No president runs US foreign or domestic policy. Presidents are just sock puppets. Like Obama, they get to pose for the cameras and be seen in a lot of presidential poses. But the are powerless and really keep in the dark about most of what is done by the USG. The real power is in the Pentagon, CIA, and corporate headquarders. They tell the president what to do, say, and think.
Oh, now it's clear, you mean that the MAJORITY has "the right" to trample the individual. I suspected that from your previous garbage, but now you have gone and said it explicitly.
Tell me, do you believe that the MAJORITY has the right to murder individuals?
Are you saving healthcare costs by cutting your medicine?
Social Security is theft by forcing people into a plan they may not see as viable.
Is single-payer murder? Not the question I was asking. Democracy is MOB RULE, NO PRINCIPLES, MAJORITY WILL OVER RIGHTS, NO RIGHTS TO BE CONSIDERED, ONLY THE MAJORITY VOTE.
Clearly, democracy claims the right to murder any individual. Just vote on it. In fact, not that you would have any awareness at all, but the "Father of Democracy", Socrates, DIED by honoring the WILL OF THE MAJORITY that he die by drinking hemlock.
Got that? THERE ARE NO RIGHTS IN A DEMOCRACY.
Back to your silly question. Is single-payer murder? Since collectivized ANYTHING does not work, single-payer is at least a death sentence. But you're not concerned about that - you just want a free ride.
But you, whose idea of choice is the destruction of the choices of all other people, will get no choice in the destination of your free ride - the morgue.
Poetic justice.
Ron Paul 2012
OK, now you've really done your research. Let's see now, use that technique learned back in the public indoctrination centers, where was it, oh, here it is: If (A equals A) doesn't suit your agenda, then just proclaim that (A does not equal A).
Problem here is that 71% of the people do not want Obamacare or any other form of government control over healthcare.
Of course maybe when you read that 71% of the people did not want Obamacare, you assumed that instead they wanted single payer, because that apparently is the only other possibility you could possibly conceive of. That's another stunt of the propaganda machine that you follow slavishly: limit all choices to false dichotomies.
The "propaganda machine" I follow is what the majority of American citizens want.
You've made it perfectly clear that you're don't care what the majority wants. You and paul are clearly on the same page. Are you on the same payroll?
If you're going to quote a statistic, at least get it right.
In MO, 70% of the VOTERS shot down Obamacare.
Ron Paul 2012
ron paul 1812 B.C.
We are not going to get anyone as president who opposes the US system of racial discrimination, just as we are not going to get anyone who values something in life other than money. Get over it. Paul has one or two good qualities. No other candidate has any good qualities.
You haven't done any work at all. If you did, you would know that everything that Paul stands for is the opposite of the labels you so casually pin on him. Nazism, racism, are COLLECTIVIST ideas. Ron Paul is about Individual Rights, the opposite of collectivism.
Just take comfort in the thoughts that as a collectivist who likes to be surrounded with lots of company of other sweaty, non-hygienic nondescript collectivists, that you have lots of company: Democrats, RINOs, Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Nazis, racists. Yes! Collectivists just like you! What a warm and fuzzy feeling that must be for you!
Don't look now, but there's another invisible black U.N. helicopter flying around your bed! Duck or it will zap you with it's collectivist ray and turn you into a U.S. citizen, rather than a cave dwelling "survivalist"!
It was a noble effort that you gave...I enjoyed reading your posts. It is a pleasure to stumble across a fellow patriot that gets it.
Just remember that for every 'billy bob' out there, there are 100 of us educating, informing, and promoting the ideas of individual liberty to others. Someday soon, billy bob will get a taste of his own medicine. The individuals for Ron Paul WILL BE the majority and he will have to figure out how to eat crow without Big Brother there to spoon-feed him...now THAT is poetic justice.
Keep fighting the fight Get Real...the survival of our Republic depends on it!
Ron Paul 2012
Geez! These people have no respect for any of us.
Hey, middle class Americans who vote Republican/tea/ or for the likes of Paul are Chickens for Col. Sanders.
Ron Paul certainly did vote against the Iraq War resolution. He was joined by five other Republicans.
Sorry, Paul voted against funding for the Iraq War. He also moved to have a vote on a legitimate Constitutional declaration of War, and got little support.
If you're correct, then paul voted to use force, but against money for the troops sent to actually do the "job".
Speaks volumes about his philosophy.
The fact that your side of the argument said paul was against funding the resulting war effort didn't need to be checked. I assumed that you wouldn't be lying about your own candidate, especially in such an unflattering light.
Are you saying that you lied about it?
The original poster stated that Lee was alone in opposing the Iraq war. This is false. Paul voted AGAINST H.J.Res. 114 authorizing military aggression against Iraq.
H.J.RES.64 was an authorization for the use of military force against the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks -- which Paul voted for, along with the entire House of Representatives , except for Barbara Lee.
This had nothing to do with war in Iraq.
Incidentally, I don't know that Lee's lone vote on the use of force against Al Qaeda is particularly flattering. Maybe she was among those who felt those people in the towers deserved it?
It was called, "Vote to adopt a joint resolution to authorize the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals"
That was already being used as a pretext to invade anyone bush saw fit to invade. Barbara Lee could see this. paul could too AND AGREED WITH IT.
That IS VERY FLATTERING that Barbara Lee could see the whole script of the fake "war on terror" playing out exactly as it did.
It isn't very flattering to paul, that he either "didn't know" what bush was up to, or agreed with it.
The first bill already made the second one redundant, as the original pretext for the Iraq colonization was 9-11, as much of a lie as that is.
except for the contradiction of pretending to give the right to make their own decisions while denying them the right to form a government that fits their priorities.
I guess I WANT our government to pursue BOTH of those things aggressively.
Get this. The rich write the rules. The rich will therefore never pay any taxes. When you scream to soak the rich, the result is that the middle class, who carries your lazy putard on their backs, get clobbered AGAIN.
But hey, once having approved of the principle of theft by class warfare, you have approved it when you get ripped off. And you therefore deserve it.
You do not have the right to impose your filthy tyranny on me. Get that straight.
Now if you want to live in a tyranny, there are many different flavors available - so move to one.
Your comments have gotten to a point where it is clear that you have no lofty goals, you simply want to destroy everyone elses' lives. Why not do it honestly as an outright criminal, instead of hiding behind legalized tyranny? What? You would have to face the possible consequences directly in a fight of your making?
By the way, if reading this thread is "DESTROYING YOUR LIFE" maybe you should turn your computer off and pick up a good book (e.g. NOT just "Atlas Shrugged").
I heard ayn rand also collected food stamps and Social Security as well.
This is a perfect example of what paul is really about.
John Stossel of ABC's 20/20 (now on Fox Business) had a terrific show about this.
Accusing libertarians of not caring about people, simply because they do not believe in BIG GOVERNMENT solutions, and understand that these solutions hurt people more than help them in the long run, is one of the oldest, most threadbare smears in the book.
In the case of Katrina, Bush's FEMA failed miserably. But the FEMA of today is run by competent people.
According to you, you're on your own if a hurricane, earthquake, tornado or any other natural disaster occurs. How sad.
Have you read anything on this entire thread before spouting braindead insults? You certainly haven't made any arguments, other than the one about democracy being the root of all evil.
Accusing libertarians of not caring about people simply because they'd rather let people starve than allow rich people's taxes to help them, is completely accurate.
Do you even know what the fed is?
Your comment here has reached the very bottom of incomprehensibi lity. No surprise, you're a "progressive", golly you'd do anything to fit in with those who imply the others (who carry the "progressives" on their backs) are regressive.
Name calling doesn't challenge what he said. Do you actually have an argument to make against the facts listed by tucker, or would you rather just waste time hurling ineffective insults?
True. You would prefer Hitler or Stalin, whose ideas you regurgitate without even knowing it.
Paul has a very unique opportunity to lead a 3rd party to the white house. He'll never get the republican nomination because the republican primaries are controlled by Fox News. They want one of their own nominated. If Paul runs on a 3rd party, he'll get a lot of the independent, libertarian, tea party, progressive, anarchist, and peace activist vote. All a 3rd party candidate will need to win in 34% in a 3 way race (assuming the other two split the rest evenly). That is very possible. If Paul chose a VP designed to appeal to a broad non-teaparty population, he would probably win. A coalition of prograssives, teapartiers, independent, libertarians -- who really do share a lot of issues -- who scare the beeejesus out of the ruling elites at the Pentagon and Wall Street who have been able via the two main parties to control the government for 150 years.
If paul chose a VP to appeal to a broad non-teaparty population he wouldn't be paul and we'd be living in another universe. His stance is very clear. He supports the tea-party 100% and they feel the same about him.
I wonder how much he really plans to cut the military and security agencies if elected with all that money he'll be saving by killing NPR and the USDA.
...that's not really true--you need to look a bit deeper if you want to know the reality, as opposed to the sound-bite.
Paul supports the Constitution. To the extent that the Tea Party does the same, they're in accord. But while the Tea Party have a libertarian wing with which Paul is in sympathy, they also have a more "conventional," more imperialist wing, with which Paul's views not in any special accord.
So much for the idea that you have any clue whatsoever.
Let me give you a hint: You have no clue what you are talking about. You simply hate the hand that feeds you. There now, go back into your little collectivist cage.
Here's a good article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/07/a-question-of-morality-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-challenge-to-the-left/
PAUL/KUCINICH 2012!!!!!
Kucinich supports Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, the USDA, the FAA, public broadcasting, public roads, public parks, public libraries, and the EPA.
paul is ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED to the VERY existence of any of those things.
paul / gingrich would be a lot more likely.
No chance, and this shows again that you have no clue. Gingrich is an insider along with the Dems and RINOs. He IS a RINO.
Sorry, I know this is too complicated for you, but let me explain: Ron Paul is a libertarian/con stitutional conservative true Republican. RINO is not Republican, but calls itself that. It means Republican In Name Only - get it? Not a Republican, but pretends to be? Got that?
I like Kucinich's being against the Fed. I like his gutsiness. Other than that he opposes everything that Paul stands for. Socialism is not in the Constitution.
Ever heard of the concept of "BAIT AND SWITCH"?
Dr. Paul's consistent direction and motivation is liberty. I met him in 1988 when he was running for president then as a libertarian candidate.
One might look into the latin derivation of liberty and see how the term liberal has the latin word liber,(free)and is common to the derivation of both words liberty and liberal. I consider myself a classical liberal a lover of freedom and liberty. Ron Paul is also a lover of freedom and liberty.
"Freedom" as he defines it, is the freedom of those in power to weild that power any way they see fit, and the freedom of those very people to make damn sure you don't stand in their way by trying to regulate them.
Bush and Obama are the same:
Endless Wars
Patriot Act
Banker Bailouts
Dr. Paul stands firmly against all these things -- and has consistently for decades.
THAT is ridiculous!
Ron Paul is trying to give us a more harmonious society based on bottom-up individual choice, not on top-down government coercion and control. That top-down model always ends up benefitting the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the poor and marginalized, even when it is *advertised* as doing exactly the opposite. A lie that unfortunately many people have bought into!
When do YOU think it is okay for government to commit aggression (i.e. initiate force or fraud) against people in the name of the majority?
"Top down" government is bad, but "top-down" economics are ok, right?
I have NO vote in how Goldman Sachs or Wal-Mart conduct their business. THAT is paul's top-down economy with ZERO accountability to the very "big" government that allows you to drink water without getting dysentery. You can "choose" to drink clean water all you like, but unless a government regulates the source of the water, you'd be better off just PRAYING it will be clean. You can't boil out lead.
True only if you have bought the absurd theories of Marx and Keynes. But you accepted them as fact, without a clue of what they meant or where they came from or what their purpose might be.
Hint: Big government IS the problem. But you accepted the absurd notions of Marx. Oh, BTW, your pro big govt beliefs would get a nod of approval from Hitler, too. Isn't that exciting!
Now, what's your factual argument against what I said? A little substance would be nice. You've made about 20 comments already and ALL of them have been nothing more than pre-adolescent youtube insults.
If you want to win a debate step up to the plate.
Now you have gone off into outright lying.
'"Freedom" as he defines it ...' is none of the lies you flush upon us. Freedom, as Ron Paul defines it is about the Individual, not the collective, and legally it comes from the Constitution. But you never read, much less understood, the Constitution.
Somehow in your tiny twisted ?brain?, freedom is, as you define it, the right of the MAJORITY to impose its will upon individuals. You have said this.
If you knew the first thing about Ron Paul, you would know that Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate (D, R) who opposes the power wielded by the establishment. And that power, as you have pointed out in your other bizarre posts, was provided by MAJORITY vote.
Somehow you don't get that the mercantilists are given the power, by the establishment politicians, as a result of MAJORITY vote, and deception as confused as your views.
Your socialist dream is exactly the crony pseudo-capitali sm you pretend to condemn.
I noticed you still haven't argued against the MATH I mentioned in my comment. You're not doing your side any good by just losing your temper while being to lazy to actually make an argument.
Or the freedom to be reamed out by taxes, or the freedom to have your business shut down arbitrarily, or the freedom to be groped at an airport, or the freedom to have a SWAT team descend upon your home (or in your case, your mammaw's basement) without warrant or cause.
Or the freedom to drink hemlock.
At least pay attention to who you're arguing with before you make your comments. It wasn't liberal "collectivist" "socialist" policy to grope people in airports. If you'd followed the threads on this web site before appearing out of the woodwork to defend paul you'd know that.
I'd hardly call billionaires paying a maximum of 35% in taxes "getting reamed".
I guess you just hate OUR country too much to pay your fair share.
Your command of historical fact is ZERO.
this is 99% of the USA crisis/problem.
Article is poor propaganda - out of context - like (Adele M. Stan: nasty bits of the Paul agenda. (Tough on you, blacks! And you, women! And you, queers! And you, old people without money.)
EXTREMELY POOR JOURNALISM
However, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., and the Patriot Act, while outrageous abuses of the public trust, are merely symptoms of a much deeper endemic problem - The adolescence of humanity. We are too easily influenced and controlled by those who have no compunction to do so for their own selfish reasons.
The most meaningful political distinction is not what most people think. It is not left or right, conservative or liberal, D or R, black or white, the only truly significant distinction is between those who wish to control others, and those who have no such interest, to roughly quote Robert Heinlein.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the foundational aspiration of the founding of our nation, is very difficult to pursue under the oppressive influence of our current financial aristocracy.
We no longer have a Republic, because we failed to keep it, as Ben Franklin tried to warn us. We have a democracy - tyranny of the masses, who are easily influenced, distracted, divided, and controlled.
it seems that everything is Controlled by the Money/Militaris tic Culture - common to both parties and White House.
so am I. Do they think that we are stupid?
I don't agree with every position Ron Paul takes, but his crusade is for _equality_ for _everyone_, not special privileges for arbitrary groups, which creates ugly and acrimonious competition for stolen table-scraps.
Ron Paul is the very definition of progressive. The author of this article is the very definition of dishonest.
He has never taken a government junket.
He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional Pension Program.
He returns a portion of his annual Congressional Office Budget every
year.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He voted no to the bankster bailout.
He voted no to raising the debt ceiling and warned us against
the “Super Congress” part of the legislation that resembles both
an “ Enabling Act” and a “Politburo.”
He has never voted to raise Congressional Pay.
He never voted to increase Executive Branch Power.
He will Reinstate The Constitution and Save The Republic
He will END the unconstitutiona l FED.
He will phase out the unconstitutiona l IRS beginning immediately
He will limit Big Government in your private affairs
He voted against regulating the Internet
He is the only candidate for President in 2012 who actually served his country.
He was a flight surgeon during Vietnam.
Ron Paul is the only major candidate from either party that
Will end these endless wars and bring our troops home
End the Patriot Act and support the Bill of Rights for all
Bring about banking reform and remove the tyrannical grip of the International Bankers (Federal Reserve, IMF and World Bank) upon the American economic system.
Find out what Ron Paul's real positions are at ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/.
You will discover that this piece is dis-information and there is much disinformation about Dr. Paul because the establishment knows his positions of liberty can unite us all.
Can't let the ants know there powerful, after all.
Congressman’s presidential campaign has received more money from U.S.
soldiers than any other candidate in the 2012 presidential race.
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/...
He voted against the Iraq War and warned us against going forward with
an undeclared war.“Let it not be said that no one cared, that
no one objected once it´s realized that our liberty and wealth are in
Jeopardy” July 10th, 2003
He voted against the unconstitutiona l and un-patriotic misnomered so called “Patriot Act”.
He supports a non-interventio nist foreign policy yet a strong defense
He will end the inflation tax
He is a true Classical Liberal
Because a true Classical Liberal and the original Conservative were hard to distinguish from a true libertarian. By now 2 have been co-opted, Classical Liberal by "progressive", original Conservative by "neo-con", and libertarian is starting to morph also.
We could have had a V8 instead of McCain´t or Obomb-a in 08
Ron Paul for President 2012
Because no one else can be trusted to say what he means and do what he says like Ron Paul does.
Ron Paul is the man of the hour. They used to laugh him for being way ahead
of the others in his thinking and his warnings. Now, they are not
laughing because what he predicted is coming to pass. Now, he is being called
a prophet for having warned us and still calmly suffered through the
barbs. "First they, ignore you, then they fight you, then you
When fascism goes to sleep it looks under the bed for Ron Paul.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republicans-an-idea-_b_897405.html
VOTE for Ron Paul in your State's Primaries in 2012!
Yes, he's against the whole modern world. But his stance on war and peace could at least buy us some time to solve other problems.
The phony multiculturalis m of the Democrats solves absolutely nothing.
He really doesn't believe in any part of the government EXCEPT for the military and police. Guess what kind of "democracy" this would represent if he got his way.
No democracy at all. Demo-cracy: Dictatorship of the MAJORITY. No individual rights.
Ron Paul advocates a Constitutionall y Limited (to Individual Rights) Republic.
Don't like? Go to your ideal: North Korea.
Actually, North Korea is a country ruled by a philosophy that is so rigid that it refuses to accept the wishes or needs of the majority of its citizens. Rather than a democracy, it's a place where PURISTS don't allow democratic thinking that would get in the way of following that philosophy.
Sound familiar?
The philosophy is different from yours, but the methods used to enforce universal cooperation with that philosophy are the EXACT SAME.
My philosophy BANS the used of coercion, not only by private citizens, but by the government also. You MAJORITY MOB RULE cannot function without govt coercion to FORCE the will of the MAJORITY on people who simply choose to live their own lives without bothering anyone.
You have got it all twisted backwards.
What is it that you have against people who refuse to conform to your wishes?
Dictatorship by the MAJORITY is DEMOCRACY.
I'd rather be ruled by the majority than by the guy with the most "individual" power.
You are welcome, libertarianism is about the same exact ***rights*** for each person. This will NEVER produce the same results for each person, because we are all different, even you, you poor little thing you.
Democracy is mob rule, rule by MAJORITY, nothing more than a fancy word for yet another form of tyranny. Democracy hates allowing anyone to not conform, as your posts demonstrate.
The 2 could not be much different. I chose to live my life - you choose to destroy the lives of everyone. I choose Liberty, you chose one peculiar form of tyranny.
"I've got a great idea...... all the folks who didn't like paying taxes, hated corporate regulations and personal restrictions, who liked carrying guns everywhere with impunity and favored imposing themselves onto the less fortunate; could go to their own personal Nirvana. Such a place already exists, it's called Somalia and there are lots of us who'd pony up for their one way fare to Mogadishu."
There is a huge difference between anarchy and Liberty. Somalia has no rule of law, it is anarchy fighting a imposed tyranny. Liberty is a legal structure that applies equally to each person. That, not tyranny, is the rule of law.
Tyranny, whether Marxism, Nazism, socialism or democracy, is rule by men not by law. So is anarchy.
Gooterama is an idiot.
Also, make a distinction between the RINO and the libertarian. The RINO is right there WITH YOU, wants all the same govt destuctions you want, just at a slower pace.
One side: Dems, RINOs, Nazis, Communists, socialist, anarchists, "democracy" advocates, YOU, etc, are all collectivists and work to destroy individualism.
Other side: libertarians of various stripes all support individual rights, which is the ONLY kind of rights there are. There are no "group rights" - this is an oxymoron.
In democracy, once people discover that they can vote themselves the public til, the outflow from the til steadily increases and the inflow to the til steadily decreases. In the resulting collapse, a tyranny always arises to "restore order and democracy[the original problem]". Democracy is a lame excuse typically masquerading as a form of freedom, in truth it is the gateway to tyranny.
Let's hope future generations are more responsible than ours, and let's hope they don't bother helping future old people who were against Social Security.
People should control their own retirement savings and medical records, not be forced into government dependency that robs them of dignity and choice.
Namely: "GOP's Debt Solution: Soak the Poor", and "Rick Perry: Social Security Is a 'Monstrous Lie' ".
It would be nice to see how you feel about these issues so we can see if your views are consistent.
I've noticed that any time paul's name pops up, an army of people you never hear about otherwise pops up with it. He is to political threads what Chuck Norris is to youtube.
Anthony Gregory's article on civil liberties in Obama's America is a good place to start -- http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=711
And if you haven't heard about Obama's attempt to claim the power to execute people, including U.S. citizens, he suspects of being terrorists (this hasn't been real well publicized yet), check this piece from the ACLU:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zone
I think Ron Paul beats Obama on the issues compassionate people on the left care about most.
I don't see how replacing him with ANOTHER conservative would fix this.
I'm being consistently against paul AND Obama. Are you consistently for paul AND perry or gingrich?
So called "social issues" are not the only ones on the table, and neither is the military. It's possible to disagree with conservative Democrats AND conservative repugnicans, while remaining a liberal. There is a KEY difference between liberals and paul. paul wants to end the ability of citizens to require our government to do exactly what we want, in favor of what he, personally sees as necessary. Naturally, millionaires like him have no problem saving enough money to live on after retirement. The other 99% of us will NOT be able to do that, no matter how much you think you're investing.
The math of making $40,000 a year while setting aside enough to live on $100,000 a year (due to inflation) in your old age just doesn't add up, no matter how much fairy dust you sprinkle on the calculator.
My problem with paul and his followers is essentially MATHEMATICAL in nature.
1) You lump paul and perry and newt together? Paul is a TRUE conservative, newt is a neo-con and perry is pretty damned close to being a progressive - perry was AL GORE's campaign manager in Texas in 2000. Newt and Perry are "establishment".
2) Obama a "conservative"? What the Hell are you talking about? Obama is such an Alinskyite it's unbelievable. He rammed Obamacare (SOCIALISM/MERC ANTILISM CRONY PSEUDO-CAPITALI SM!) thru Congress and when he cannot get it thru Congress, he dictates by executive order.
Obama is the IDEAL "progressive".
You really ought to redefine your entire lexicon, because you are a victim of the confusion of the governmental "education" standards you so swoon over.
Your entire lexicon is off on LSD.
I don't know if he thinks we should replace FEMA with a new system of telling people to **** themselves, like paul does, though.
Come to think of it, isn't that the crux of the anti-abortion, anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare, anti-Medicaid arguments as well?
If your problem lies in the math, please, PLEASE show me how social security is sustainable.
...I'll wait.
Ron Paul 2012
Now, explain your argument AGAINST my math. Show me your plan to replace Social Security.
...I'll wait.
ron paul mid-Cretaceous Period
Although he himself has conservative views on things like abortion, and I doubt he would be comfortable partying at a Pride event, my gut sense is that Ron Paul truly believes in personal freedom and a live-and-let-li ve approach.
If you look at his record, you may notice that he has not tried to legislate his personal beliefs, only to uphold the Constitution and get government back in the hands of the people.
Yes he wants to phase out Medicare and Social Security, but to help the poor and the elderly, not to hurt them. By letting young people opt out of these unconstitutiona l government programs, while maintaining benefits for older people already in the system who are relying on those programs and could be in trouble without the assistance. Ultimately they are unsustainable, and honest people acknowledge this.
Working people, especially those who are lower income, should not have Social Security taxes withheld from their paychecks. The politicians have been spending that money as fast as it's come in, and the money they are forced to pay is NOT being set aside for them in their retirement. It's a scam.
http://beer.weremight.com/forums/showthread.php?6910-Joe-McCarthy-Quotes:
"Paul's problem is that shared by isolationists generally - though while most isolationists don't understand the realities of foreign policy, I suspect Paul's motive is more along the lines of a libertarian disdain for government spending - even on defense. Nature abhors a vacuum and if we start pulling out everywhere, other, hostile elements will take our place, including China. Had we followed Paul's advice during the Cold War, the world would be Communist now. Indeed, even today isolationists like Paul and Buchanan want to concede East Asia to China. That's not going to happen though, thankfully. The Chinks won't be conceded an inch of territory."
Ron Paul’s comments on Libya make more sense than those on the Left claim.
The GOP is in fact a barrel full of rotten apples! In fact I dare say the whole congress is a barrel full of rotten apples. Just look at their standing in regards to people's trust.
And we have a choice?
Ron Paul and his followers like my self believe in the freedom for each of us to make their own choices.
The collectivist believe in the freedom to make choices for others.
No problem - now give us all back all of the tax money you have taken from us, without our consent and against our will.
And aren't you against the police, you condemn Ron Paul for saying that police (not the police state that your "democracy" will lead to) are one of the few legitimate govt functions?
Since you don't allow schools that don't suck the DOE indoctrination, why should we not use what our money paid for?
Sewers? Another govt created and enforced monopoly, the only kind that exists. All others are not allowed. In some areas septic is not allowed.
Etc. All your choices are phony. Now why don't you offer a real choice? Why don't we get rid of all the corporate welfare? Cuz your democrats get the bulk of their contributions and are their main support in Congress.
Why not get rid of all the various unconstitutiona l depts and bureaucracies? These are not only a waste but they stomp the productivity they feed from. This is what sends jobs to China.
How about closing 800 military bases in 130 other countries? Only Paul advocates this.
No one is stopping you from going to a private school if you can afford it. Talk about phony choices.
No one is against the existence of the police. Someone will need to police the hungry masses under your system of "liberty" without justice for all.
First thing, Adele should find out the truth rather than simply blast someone because someone else put a label on him. This is a classic example of collectivist "thinking", wherein people are grouped by some identifiable characteristic, then all members of that group deserve punishment as a group member per se, or deserve special privileges not available to non-members of the group.
The thing that is objectionable about racism, or hatred of LGBTs, etc, is exactly that these are a specific forms of collectivism. Note that Adele participates in class warfare, wherein she wants special privileges for certain groups, clearly the practice of collectivism; evidently she thinks that black people cannot fend for themselves without quotas.
Without understanding any of the issues, and no grasp of the facts about Ron Paul, all that Adele has done is engage in innuendo and name-calling.
All that Adele has done is too repeat the lies of people who wish to put us all into tyranny, and I give her the benefit of the doubt in that maybe she is a source. Adele is foolish to paint pictures without bothering to find out the facts, because the truth will win, and with it, the movement for Liberty inspired by Ron Paul.
Take the time to actually think through an issue rather than just looking at the surface and you will see that positions taken by progressives are usually the anti whatever positions.
It's time to treat the problems rather than the symptoms.
Ron Paul has the best interest of all people in mind, the interest of freedom to choose for yourself in life rather than slavery to a government that wants to tell everyone how to live from cradle to grave.
This is a classic smear campaign article, but those of us who do our homework will know that the writer's claims about Ron Paul are not factual.
Biased writing!
Why waste time? Take an informed look at the lunacy of know-nothing, "libertarian", ideology and it discredits itself. Of course, the word "liberty" has always been used to confuse fools...
1. Does the federal government have too much power?
2. Should the states take on more of that power?
3. If the federal government telling you what to do is an affront on your "liberty" and personal "freedom", WHAT DO YOU CALL IT WHEN THE STATES DO THE SAME THING?
www.zerohedge.com/news/ron-paul-asks-if-libya-indeed-mission-accomplished
"We already see grisly reprisals from the US-backed rebels against their political opponents. There are disturbing scenes of looting and lawlessness ...The tribal structure of Libyan society all but ensures that an ongoing civil war is on the agenda rather than the Swiss-style democracy that some intervention advocates suggest is around the corner.
What is next after such a victory? With the big Western scramble to grab Libya's oil reserves amid domestic political chaos and violence, does anyone doubt that NATO ground troops are not being prepared for yet another occupation?
NEO-conservatives continue to dominate our FOREIGN policy, regardless of the ADMINISTRATION in power. They do not care that we are bankrupt, as they are too blinded by their desire for empire and their affection for the entangling alliances we have been rightly counseled to avoid. They have set their sights next on Syria, where the US moves steadily toward intervention in another domestic conflict that has nothing to do with the US. Already the US president has called for "regime change" in Syria, while adding new sanctions against the Syrian regime. Are US bombers far behind?"
There are those of us who generally prefer to think without speaking than to speak without thinking.
The style of the article that angered some was to use paul's own words and voluntary affiliations against him. This poses a problem for those who only want to look at the aspects of his persona they choose to see and ignore the other side of him. The warm fuzzy feelings go away in the light of day.
If he gets in the White House the other side of him will raise its ugly head, whether people choose to look at it or not.
I remember when mccain, bush jr., dole, bush sr., and reagan all presented themselves as "moderates" or "if anything, kind of left wing" just to get elected. Then, once people got wind...
With some of them, people didn't get wind until they were already in office. Learning the whole truth about a candidate is better NOW than after the election is over.
Adele: "the Paul agenda. (Tough on you, blacks! And you, women! And you, queers! And you, old people without money.)"
seems to me more like Adele/AIPAC propaganda than Paul's own word.
1) Ron Paul is not anti-civil rights. There is a difference between civil rights and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - the latter of which contains property rights violations that are unconstitutiona l, which is why he opposes it. He has said many times he would have voted against the Jim Crow laws.
2) Ron Paul is not anti-education. "Parents should have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children." Once again, a clear difference between anti-education and anti-public education.
3) Ron Paul is not anti-women. Ron Paul is anti-abortion. If that means Ron Paul is anti-women, then it's only fair to call everyone that's pro-choice: anti-children.
4) Ron Paul is not anti-gay. "Can gays be allowed to marry? The state says we believe in this?" Paul: "Sure. They can do whatever they want and they can call it whatever they want, as long as they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me personally accept what they do but... gay couples can do whatever they want [...]"
5) Ron Paul is not anti-senior citizen. Ron Paul opposes social security because it's unconstitutiona l. He's said that he wouldn't get rid of it - he would make it solvent so they (politicians) can't spend the money (ss funds).
1) The slavery issue was about "property" rights as well. The property rights you're refering to are the rights of people to refuse service to blacks based on the color of their skin. To simply say that's about property rights is dishonest.
2) Nobody is really "anti-education " or they wouldn't pay so much sending their kids to expensve private schools. The trouble is that not everyone can afford that. paul is against PUBLIC education. He's not against you buying a solid gold house either. You don't need a solid gold house though.
3 & 4) paul is "anti-governmen t intrusion into your life" - UNLESS IT'S A STATE GOVERNMENT for some reason.
5) Over 80% of seniors need their Social Security just to get by. In the future, that will increase, as the last generation to enjoy guaranteed pensions dies. If it's not "constitutional " to provide for the general welfare of U.S. citizens (look it up), I wonder if the tent cities, soup kitchens, and bread lines, of the future paul invisions will be
I'm glad he plans to keep his hands off of Social Security though, regardless of his personal denial of reality. If he wants to "make it solvent" we should pay back what was borrowed from it.
1) The property rights violation gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. On the contrary, if you think this is strictly limited to "refusing service to blacks", that's "dishonest". Maybe you could try reading it first before you make completely inaccurate statements.
2) Ron Paul NEVER said he would dismantle the public schooling system so I have no idea why you're implying he wants to "force" people to make their children go to private schools. What are you talking about? "I have a bill that would give tax credits to the teachers to raise their salaries. We should encourage homeschooling & private schooling and let the individuals write that off. The parents have to get control of the education. It used to be parents had control of education through local school boards. Today it’s the judicial system and the executive branch of government, the bureaucracy, that controls things, and it would be predictable that the quality would go down. The money goes to the bureaucrats and not to the educational system"
2) Writing off homeschooling and private schooling is a great way to divert funding from public education. Money is being taken away from public schools, whether you can accept reality or not. paul is at the forefront of that movement.
5) The younger generation will never see the benefits from Social Security. It's been a complete disaster. The same people who support SS help put people into office that spent all of the money. If Social Security is a legitimate retirement/insu rance program as the politicians and the media claim, then what do taxes “to pay the debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States” have to do with the constitutionali ty of Social Security? The answer can be found in the opening clause of the Social Security Act of 1935. It is entitled as “an Act to Provide for the General Welfare.” Since the federal government lacked the constitutional authority to compel the people of the several States to participate in a federal retirement or insurance program, Roosevelt and his New Dealers had to structure Social Security as an excise tax under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. They inserted the general welfare verbiage to make it appear as if the federal government was exercising a legitimate constitutional power."
You're being a hypocrite and not arguing in good faith to say that when the federal government does something it's "anti-people", but when state governments do it the rules change. States are not people.
5) Social Security is providing for the general welfare. How is that not obvious to you?
If by "complete disaster" you mean:
the most overwhelmingly popular (supported by 89% of voters - as if that mattered to libertarians) government program in U.S. history,
and that it actually does what it set out to do, while having a trillion dollar surplus that would be over 3 trillion dollars if that money hadn't been used to fund other things...
if THAT'S what you mean by "disaster", then I agree completely!
RSS feed for comments to this post