Skip to main content

Ron Paul has been attracting support from some unlikely quarters, mainly due to ignorance of his positions on anything much but Iraq. You may know the man is crazy, but convincing others is the task.

So, without further ado, here (greatly condensed from the definitive take-down at Orcinus) are some concrete positions he's taken to cite when you want to push back against your Paul-bot in-laws, co-workers, and assorted acquaintances:

This is just the tip of a very big, very crazy iceberg. See the rest at Orcinus.

(Update: Also see this post at Orcinus.)

Update 2: Ron Paul was one of 8 people to vote against the FTC being allowed to establish a do not call registry.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:15 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  He's crazy....and his supporters are too (22+ / 0-)

    But the diaries supporting him are a great place to get new pootie pics and recipes!

    Nice to see this take down of him on the FP!

    Memo to Congress: Put up or shut up ~ all talk and no action pisses me off.

    by SallyCat on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:17:16 AM PST

    •  He is huge... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SallyCat, SadTexan, boofdah, J M F

      Here in Colorado.  Stickers, posters, etc. are everywhere.

      "Frankly, you epitomize weak. Your every pore exudes feebleness. You *are* surrender monkeys." - Meteor Blades to Capitulation Dems

      by RichM on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:19:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Same in the Puget Sound. (7+ / 0-)

        Paul is an libertarian that is capitalizing on the disgust that most people have with both parties. I don't think he is going to get the GOP nomination, but he is going to screw both parties, and God knows who is going to get it worse.

        Let em eat jellybeans, Let em eat cake, Let em eat shit, cause they can't make it here anymore-James McMurtry

        by Mr Stagger Lee on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:22:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yah, there is a strong contrarian bloc here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SallyCat

          in Puget Sound that reflexively votes against whatever is perceived to be the prevailing opinion, even to the point of self-immolation.  They (and some of my friends are among them) live in a libertarian bubble reality of their own and seem to be barely reachable.

          "...we all of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."

          by beagledad on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:34:56 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  colorado has always had many (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SallyCat, boofdah, J M F

        independent voters.

      •  he is not huge (5+ / 0-)

        what your seeing is what i've posted before. You see a very small group of people who have spent every free moment planting signs.

        I have a guy in my platoon who is a big RP fan. Every weekend he and his five meet-up buddies go out and flyer cars, put up yard signs, and put stuff in doors. They have been doing this for five months and their group grew from four to five.

        How many of those posters are in peoples yards vs on the side of the street? How many stickers could you post on light polls in an hour of walking around down town?

        As people find out what he stands for they stop giving. He has a very large number of one time donors. His daily take has gone down from $150,000 a day to just under $30,000. He barely gets above the margin of error in polls.

        he's not huge. Just a small group of vocal "fans".

        Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

        by DrillSgtK on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:30:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wow...25% growth in five months! That's (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SallyCat, Time Bandit, kimoconnor

          pretty impressive...at this rate, he'll be up to SIX(6) people by April!

          Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

          by darthstar on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:34:17 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  The money is _increasing_ (0+ / 0-)

          Ron Paul has essentially doubled his fundraising each quarter.    He's already around 11 million for this quarter (which I believe puts him at the top of his party), and 30 million people have signed up to donate 100 dollars to him on Dec. 16th.

          The last time they did that was on November 5th, when only around 18,000 people had signed up, yet he raked in 4.3 million - beating every previous 1-day donation amount save for John Kerry, on the day he accepted the DP nomination. (Though Romney and Hillary both lied and suggested they had done better.)

          So if over 50% more registered donators are ready to go at it again, he could conceivably beat the all time 1-day record.

          Go Ron Paul!!

          •  keep saving your lunch money (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blksista, mcfly, gkn, jay w

            And yet, Huckabee, with a fraction of Paul's money has multiples of Paul's support within Republican ranks.

            Face it, your candidate cannot win, but he can grow this movement of sorts.

            A movement of rephrensible libertarian, racist and conspiratorial ideals that would only hurt america if ever implemented, but a movement nonetheless.

            Ron Paul is anti-progressive to the core and the opposite of what anyone here should want for America.

            •  Anti-progressive - and not libertarian, either. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jay w

              There is nothing libertarian about a man who authored (not just co-sponsored) legislation that could easily be used to outlaw all non-barrier contraceptives.

              All the Ron Paul supporters need to stop and think about whether they ever want to have sex without a condom again...or, conversely, support ten kids.

              Sorry, but if you can't keep your nose out of someone's bedroom, you're not a libertarian.  You're just a conservative too embarrassed to call yourself one.

              Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

              by gkn on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:50:52 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  I saw an 18 wheel semi on I-70 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SallyCat

        .......the other day. Probably an independant driver, he had "Ron Paul for President" in giant letters on each side of the trailer. They're out there. Probably more than we'd think.

        •  Silicon Valley is loaded with Paul stickers (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SallyCat, Hillbilly Dem, kimoconnor

          too...Redwood City, San Carlos, San Mateo...there are quite a few of them about.

          Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

          by darthstar on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:35:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then again... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blksista, SallyCat, darthstar

            ...I still see plenty of Bush/Cheney and W'04 stickers on cars. Talk about pent up road rage on this hillbilly's part. Gawd.

          •  So is my corner of hi-tech Texas. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SallyCat, ankey

            I assume that a lot of the Paul supporters aren't clear about what they're supporting (except a free-market guy who opposes the Iraq war).

            And there's no need to panic.  He's not going anywhere.

            But still, it's strange.

          •  I thought the Bay Area had more sense... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SallyCat, gkn

            Ron Paul has some pretty strange religious Reichwing advocates running with him.  Bill Maher and Jon Stewart fall all over him.  When are these people going to wake the f---k up and smell the coffee?  Are they so tripped out on the war that they'll vote just anyone in without looking at the other baggage they bring?

            An untypical Negro...since 1954.

            by blksista on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:46:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This San Francisco resident loves Ron Paul (0+ / 0-)

              Ron Paul's integrity and terrific platform go far beyond his opposition to the war.  Ron Paul would work to phase out the IRS and the Federal Reserve, and end the war on drugs.  These moves would radically improve the economy, and help the poor and middle-class (the inflation tax hurts them the most).  And think of all the non-violent offenders (especially minorities) who have their lives devastated by petty drug offenses, while corporate hucksters with high-priced lawyers destroy entire familys' lives, and get away with it.

              You've got to look more deeply at Ron Paul's message and his platform, and not merely dismiss him because he's a Republican, or proposes policies that sound revolutionary today, but would have seemed nothing but sensible in America's glory days.

              I want more liberty and justice for all.  I want us out of Iraq, immediately.  These primped and polished pandering panzies like Clinton and Edwards offer nothing but misguided say-anything-to-get-the-vote populism.  I could probably live with Obama or even Dodd.  But all things considered, the rest of the Democratic field is utterly clueless about our dire financial straits.  And they want us to squander our soldiers' lives, and our resources, staying in Iraq indefinitely.  No way Jose.  I want honesty and integrity, and common sense.  I want a candidate who is incorruptible, who lobbyists don't even bother to visit.

              I want my country back.

              I want Ron Paul.
              ====

              P.S.  Check out the great Ron Paul signs, hanging from a balcony on one of the world's steepest streets, at 22nd and Church, near Dolores Park.  Lots of bright and passionate Bay Area residents love this great man.

              •  Ummm (5+ / 0-)

                We did look more deeply. That's what this post is about: gold standard, latent racism, "libertarianism" when it suits him, right-wing repression the rest of the time, and so on.

                The thing about Paul is that he doesn't look crazy on the surface, just when you start digging beneath it.

                So the LAST think you Paultards want is for people digging into Paul's record.

          •  Geekdom has always had a lot of libertarians (6+ / 0-)

            and Ayn Rand fetishists.   I think the mindset is that people who aren't as smart as them shouldn't be able to tell them what to do.  Eric Raymond is a classic example.

            •  Geekdom has also always had alot of (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gkn, Scientician

              well-educated white males, and for some reason they always seem to flock to the libertarian, Independent side of things...Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, now Ron Paul.  

              The vast majority of thoughtful, well-educated people went through a Randian phase, but it ended when we were about twenty years old.  Objectivism, with it's "rational self-interest" is, in my opinion, selfish, or in Ayn's terms, "greedy".  

              Serious question...why is it that so many young, educated, "geeky" white males are so drawn to these types of candidates?

              •  we can read (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                J M F

                and do read political theory.  The constitution is just another API, after all.

                Nader is practically a socialist btw, making him the polar opposite to libertarian on pretty much every axis there is.

                Hacker culture has always been at odds with law enforcement.  As politicians pass laws on behalf of lobbyists but have no idea what they do, it becomes harder and harder to do the job you have to do to feed your family without breaking the law.  The fact that doing your job might be important to the proper function of something like air traffic control or the stock market is of secondary importance.  The bottom line is that when it comes to technology issues politicians are clueless and led around by the nose by corporate interests.

                Here's a good example:

                http://www.news.com/...

                That bill has the potential to crush accede mic computing environments.  On university campuses, freedom of access to computing resources has always been sacred.  This bill will pretty much kill free wireless on campuses and force universities to contract dorm connectivity out to comcast. A university might have a multimillion dollar computing setup, but students won't be able to access it from their dorm rooms because they might use it download the daily show.  This type of thing has broad bipartisan support.

                It's worse if you happen to be in Germany where any tools which can be used to exploit a network have been banned.  The problem is that if you work in network security you no long have any tools to use to test the network you're supposed to be securing.  The magistrate (or whatever they call them) responsible for the legislation didn't know what a web browser is.  That puts you in a tough spot if you happen to work for say, the German government.  

                That's the same kind of situation we have here though.  People who have never even used the internet are writing legislation to regulate it, be it to protect commercial interests or to win votes by protecting the children of America from MySpace.  If you're a normal internet user it can make stuff annoying but you don't quite know why.  If you're one of the professionals required to implement the bullshit, it's maddening.  

                To say that the current legal climate for many IT sectors is Kafkaesque is an understatement.

        •  Lots of o/o's (0+ / 0-)

          are loopy. Some of these guys live in their trucks 320+ days a year.. doing nothing but thinking. You think that wont make you nuts? You hear them on the CB occasionally trying to spread their freakiness. Trust me they dont represent the majority. Most truckers probably tend to be FDR/Jeffersonian democrats and of course extremely individualistic.

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

          by cdreid on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:44:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  They aren't numerous (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DrillSgtK

          But they are loud.

          And if their behavior on the internet is any indication, they are developing a fundamentalist persecution complex when they see that not everything written or said about him is pancakes and bunnies.

          It's not news until somebody sends you the link.

          by internik on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:17:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  That's no surprise (0+ / 0-)

        Seeing what type of state CO is.

    •  re: Memo to Congress tag (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SallyCat

      I've been thinking that every day lately, and it's half the conversation at lunch lately too.  

      In what strange world did we elect anti-Bush people in order to give in to Bush.

      Well, evidently, this world!

    •  He has some batshit insane ideas (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      glibfidget

      but calling his supporters crazy too is ignorant and stupid. At least some of his supporters are just sick of the two parties and the MSM narrative and want an out.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

      by cdreid on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:41:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was gonna apologize until I read his supporters (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cdreid, blksista, gkn

        comments in this thread. Oh boy....not quite there.

        I think I'll stick with my opinion and risk offending a few people today.

        Memo to Congress: Put up or shut up ~ all talk and no action pisses me off.

        by SallyCat on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:31:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Name one (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        feloneouscat, J M F

        I've been closely following his campaign for some time, and I can't think of a single position of his that is insane.  I'm more in favor of totally open borders, whereas he believes in immigration regulation, but no candidate will agree with you on 100% of things.  But taken on the whole, Ron Paul is just so vastly superior to all the other candidates, there's no comparison.

        And even if you don't agree with all his ideas, to think that any of them are "insane" tells me that you probably don't understand them as well as you think you do.  I mean, lots of people think it's "insane" to get rid of the IRS and the Federal Reserve, even though we did well without them, and a deep scientific look at the facts says such ideas aren't crazy or impractical at all.  On the contrary, I think not listening to Ron Paul's ideas is crazy.  Staying the course is crazy.  We need a radical return to our founding principles and Constitutional liberties.

        My email quote says all the rest that there really is to say:
        --
        If you think there would be a whole world of difference between what Hillary Clinton would accomplish in the Rome-of-the-Borgias down there on the Potomac, by comparison
        with what Rudy, or Fred, or Mitt would accomplish, you won’t be supporting Paul.

        If, however, you think that much of the underbrush that has grown up around our national institutions this past 40 years needs to by pulled up by the roots and burned, before it
        chokes the life out of our Republic, then Paul’s your man.

        - John Derbyshire

        •  Ron Paul (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          feloneouscat

          is a hardcore libertarian. Or really Neo-libertarian. The original Libertarian was Thomas Jefferson (my intellectual hero) and he was a democrat.

          Paul wants to eliminate government regulation. Period.
          He wants to go back to the gold standard. Interestng idea but would result in an immediate depression during the switch.
          Wants to eliminate the Fed. The fed needs reformed not eliminated. Its primary job is to ensure the stability of the american banking/monetary system. Permanently setting the prime rate via law would solve the problems with the fed.
          He wants elimination of gun legislation. I'm a hardcore gun nut who gets hysterical when some gun controller spouts their bull. But like anything there must be some regulation. No weapons for Violent felons anyone would agree on.

          Go to the libertarian website (google it). They're mostly far right wingers who simply hate the government rather than having some positive change agenda. If they werent the democratic party would be much smaller ..

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

          by cdreid on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:29:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not really a libertarian (0+ / 0-)

            I've known libertarians. Ron Paul is no libertarian. He is what he thinks a libertarian MIGHT BE... but in fact he is truly a Republican.

            And he is a hardcore gun nut. I've argued with him about it and he sees no problem that a gun can't solve.

            Mostly, he is an idiot.

            When war is considered to be more noble than peace - we have lost everything.

            by feloneouscat on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 07:27:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Oh and btw (0+ / 0-)

          I thought we were comparing Democrats to paul.. not Clinton to paul..

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

          by cdreid on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 03:45:30 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Here Is One BATSHIT CRAZY Idea of Ron Paul's (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          balancedscales

          Let's see he is against the "Death Tax" which only affects the very rich.

          He is against Universal Healthcare (because he is a physician he apparently knows more about it than anyone else harhar).

          He was a proponent of impeaching Prez. Clinton for lying about sex (high crime? I think not!)

          He was against "Partial Birth Abortion" (remember, he IS a physician).

          He is a big fan of Ronald Reagan

          "At the same time, I am very supportive of President Reagan's publicly stated view of limiting the federal government to it's proper and constitutional role. In fact, I was one of only four sitting members of the United States House of Representatives who endorsed Ronald Reagan's candidacy for President in 1976."

          He was against The Patients Bill of Rights.

          He was keen on using "Privateers" (mercenaries) to hunt down Bin Laden. We've seen how using this has put innocent people in Gitmo. I would argue it doesn't work very well. How about you?

          Oh, and he thinks that welfare is a BAD thing!

          Sorry, he is bat shit crazy.

          When war is considered to be more noble than peace - we have lost everything.

          by feloneouscat on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 07:25:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Bravo on both of your posts (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry i missed the rec time limit.

            Sadly he is what has become of the libertarian party. Libertarianism has its roots in the Democratic party, from our Founding Father, Jefferson. But these people just dont want to pay taxes. Hate every other race etc. Believe that in a survival of the fittest world they would "win" when in reality, having met many, the very very opposite is true. In that world they would be slaves. They give Jeffersons ideals a hideous face.

            I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

            by cdreid on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 07:47:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  But at least give Paul credit for consistency. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SallyCat, ShadowSD, echatwa

      Which is more than one can say about schmucks like Mitt Romney, with their movable views on most every issue!

    •  RP = only sane candidate (0+ / 0-)

      If you think respecting the Constitution and wanting a precipitous exit from this mindless seemingly endless Iraq fiasco is "crazy", well...okay.  Perhaps you'd like a nice "liberal" like Hillary Clinton, bought and paid for by corporate interests, who actually voted for the Flag Desecration Amendment.  And I hope you won't deem me a conspiracy theorist if I also mention her ties to the military industrial complex, and nefarious sorts like Rupert Murdoch. This is maybe an extreme case, but I don't see other Dems taking anything like Paul's stance on civil liberties.  More respectable sorts like Kucinich are unfortunately economically semi-socialist, and I just don't think that's a good economic model, and I think big government is fundamentally incompatible with liberty.  The captain's wheel of big government is a prize ripe for the plucking by evil characters like Dick Cheney.  A freer market and a smaller government has historically resulted in greater prosperity and freedom, across the world.  And the reluctance of most Dems to declare immediate withdrawal from Iraq is just sickening.  You'll vote for a Democrat instead of Paul because of some petty economic disagreements, and ignore the incomprehensible amount of money and lives we waste by staying over there?  Pathetic.

      As for social security, you can do better with a low-risk private investment that a much safer bet than anything the government can offer.  So why can't I opt out?  Ron Paul take the sane route, and says I can opt out, and make my own decision how to spend the fruit of my labor.  He actually respects my right to be an adult.  Imagine that.

      And the point about the Federal Reserve is downright oblivious to economic realities.  Ron Paul understands the inflation crisis even as mainstream candidates seem blissfully unaware of it.  He recently appeared on television going toe-to-toe with Ben Bernanke, and by most accounts winning.  That the Chairman of the Fed, who got a near perfect SAT score and should be able to defend his institution better than anyone, was so vigorously rebuked and unable to confidently defend himself, is a testament to Paul's intimate understanding of this issue.

      An experienced economist could go on and on exposing the economic naivety of those who relentless defend the minimum wage, and other "progressive" economic policies.  But the point is look away from these "hot button issues", and consider the net effect of Paul's policy, and how his interaction with Congress would play out.  Paul is a political oddity.  Essentially incorruptible, he would keep Congress more honest than they've been in ages.  He would work to restore our international image, fix our badly broken economy, and work to end the "inflation tax" and corporate welfare, and so many other aspects of government that hurt the poor and middle class, and trash the environment.

      Ron Paul has more votes than all other candidates combined on the site WhoWouldTheWorldElect.com.  Ron Paul is simply unparalleled by any other candidate from either party.

      Bottom line is, we're not the crazy ones.  We're the ones who have a grip on what's really happening to our country.  Look what those yellow-bellied Dems did when they got power back in Congress.  Nothing.  Pelosi has lied and made up excuses for why she hasn't done more.  What a lazy incompetent horde of self-interested panzies.  What does it take to get impeached in this country?!

      •  this (0+ / 0-)

        this...is what libertarians actually believe.

        •  Freedom = bad? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          J M F

          Well, not only do we believe it, but when it comes down to the facts, buried beneath the reflexive party patriotism, we can make some pretty solid arguments that support what we believe.

          Ron Paul can give a completely sensible rationale for every single one of his policies.  Socialists (I mean that in the most broad and general sense) generally dismiss them out of hand, without taking into consideration the complexities of various economic realities.  Dismantling the IRS, or Federal Reserve just sounds so intuitively...extreme, and maybe even kind of scary.

          But then you go watch Paul drilling a bumbling Mr. Bernanke, and you see that - gasp - he actually has a sound grasp on monetary policy, that completely escapes the mainstream "soundbite" politicians.  They don't realize there's a crisis, and he does.  So he's portrayed as being an impractical lunatic, and a lot of liberals and statist authoritarians take that on face value, without having the slightest clue how the world actually works.

          I'm a skeptic, in the vein of James Randi or Richard Dawkins, and I just don't believe what the mainstream candidates are saying.  It's not compelling.  It seems as if they are incapable of addressing the most important issues.  Watching the debates of either party, I shudder at how oblivious they all seem to be about our impending economic crisis.  I shudder at how whether to use torture is even a question.  I shudder to see that the Democratic front-runner is someone who voted for the Flag Desecration Amendment, and is nothing but a power-hungry shill for corporate interests.   It's disgusting.  All of it.  And I'll put honesty, competence, and integrity above some minor policy disagreements.  Ron Paul gets my vote.  As far as I see it, he's the only candidate running.

          •  Iraq is Ron Paul's ONLY selling point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            balancedscales

            For the most part he wants a dismantling of the government.

            He's an idiot who doesn't grasp that you can't do that for 300 million people.

            He loved Ronald Reagan and has that same simplistic view.

            He was my congressman and, for the most part, he was bad at what he did.

            When war is considered to be more noble than peace - we have lost everything.

            by feloneouscat on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 07:32:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

              The war on drugs. End it, end the black market for the stuff and put criminals out of business.

              Strengthen the dollar.

              Balance the budget... not balance it 5 years from now in some projected daydream of politicians well after their terms are up, but now. And primarily by ending our military presence all over the place.

              Diplomacy with Iran and Cuba.

              Do you disagree with all of these? If you do, I'll concede that Iraq is his only selling point.

          •  Stalin said... (0+ / 0-)

            Freedom is precious, that's why it's important to carefully ration it.

    •  The dying left is crazy. (0+ / 0-)

      face it. the democrats screwed you.  they won't end the war.

      Ron Paul will.

      The left, and dailykrazy is scared because he has conviction and they are trying to stop their support from leaving.

      Face facts the left is just as bad and help bush fight his wars and torture.

      If you support the left you support bush.

      Ron Paul is the alternative.

  •  A constitutional amendment to guarantee (14+ / 0-)

    the right to life.

    Hmmm.

    I guess that would make capital punishment unconstitutional.

    And how about my right to life without health care? I could assert my constitutional right to health care regardless of my ability to afford insurance.

    Sorry about that gate.

    by pucklady on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:17:33 AM PST

    •  Now you're getting picky.... (11+ / 0-)

      It's only right to life for the unborn. Once we take that first breath...we are s.o.l.

      Memo to Congress: Put up or shut up ~ all talk and no action pisses me off.

      by SallyCat on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:21:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not Even That. Sole Meaning is "No Abortion." (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gkn

        It still allows massive blastocyst & fetal injury and death from economic activity, stress, pollution, malnutrition, lack of prenatal health care, etc.

        Just so long as a woman doesn't choose specifically to abort.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:30:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  which may mean (0+ / 0-)

          that we get us some central american policies.  A pregnant woman suddenly isn't pregnant, so a state doctor inspects her to find out how the pregnancy ended.  

          If it looks intentional, she's going to prison.

          What fun a Ron Paul world would be, eh?

          "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln

          by Jerry 101 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:10:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but will the unborn be allowed (0+ / 0-)

        to have abortions?  Answer me that, Ron Paul!

        "...we all of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."

        by beagledad on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:37:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Nope. Theocratic Supreme Court Interprets It (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SallyCat

      for the coming quarter-century, so regardless of its wording or intent, it would actually be ruled to mean that preborn babies can't be aborted but from the moment of first breath they can be executed for crimes, and sent to die in war whenever the military will take them.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:28:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If life begins at conception - - (0+ / 0-)

      "the pill" is murder.

      Oprah? Nah, I'm voting however Jerry Springer tells me to.

      by Barry in MIA on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:51:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wouldn't be a citizen if he had his way (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cdreid, Rimjob, SallyCat, boofdah, echatwa

    My parents weren't citizens when I was born, nor did they owe "permanent allegiance."

    •  Serious question... (0+ / 0-)

      Should you be a citizen? First off, if your parents were legal residents at the time, I think you should be. This is clearly the intent, and a good one.

      If your parents were here illegally (even if they weren't, please suppose they were for a moment), should you be? Giving birth to an anchor baby seems like a cheat to get to stay here.

      Personally, I want real immigration reform. Illegals should be deported and prevented from returning illegally... but then, we only allow 50,000 a year in. We really need to up that to something closer than a million. I'd even be ok with letting those previously deported returning legally after some reasonable period, say, 18 months.

      But the current situation sucks, and neither party seems to want to do anything about it. I think they're afraid of losing cheap personal servants or something.

  •  Paul's wrong. Life begins at contraception. (8+ / 0-)

    No diapers, no high school busts, no college fees,

    In the United States, doing good has come to be, like patriotism, a favorite device of persons with something to sell. - Mencken

    by agnostic on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:19:00 AM PST

  •  Small price to pay (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glibfidget, SallyCat, jnhobbs, DrillSgtK

    for bringing our troops home.

    (um yes, that was snark)

    If Liberals hated America, we'd vote Republican.

    by ord avg guy on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:19:43 AM PST

  •  Who cares? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    duha

    Next a diary on why not to vote Biden or Gravel. Granted, Paul has more support than both, but he is probably just as likely to be the GOP nominee.  As in in snowballs chance in hell.  Why is it so important to convince his supporters otherwise?

  •  Also he wants telemarketers calling you (12+ / 0-)

    He's one of maybe 8 members of congress who voted against the do not call registry.

  •  Isn't he also opposed to the NAU project? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kimoconnor

    I don't even understand whether the NAU is real or just some tinfoil-laced nightmare that someone had.

    Oh, my friend, how have we come / to trade the fiddle for the drum?

    by Shaviv on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:21:37 AM PST

  •  Sounds like a centrist Republican to me n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat, duha

    We Changed The Course! Now we must hold their feet to the fire.

    by hcc in VA on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:21:56 AM PST

  •  What are we doing w/all that gold in Ft. Knox? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat, beagledad

    and why don't we sell some of it to pay for something?

    I sold some little worn gold jewelry last week for $820 a troy ounce -- good deal!

  •  "Life begins at conception." (9+ / 0-)

    Ron Paul has authored legislation saying that life begins at conception,

    Young Republicans, who are never the sharpest tools in the shed, should really take a moment to think about how extreme a position that is -- and how their own lives could be changed by the ultra-rightwing "as soon as the sperm does its thing, you got a baby" idea.

    Then again, young Republicans (and their brethren, Ron Paulites) always believe that the law doesn't actually apply to them.   Daddy will arrange a secret abortion, if and when that situation comes up.  Then after a little recovery time, they'll be back out there, denouncing Democrats as murderous anti-life zealots.

    IMPEACH Dick Cheney. "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." -- Abraham Lincoln

    by chumley on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:22:39 AM PST

  •  I think I'll go send another $25 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glibfidget, Time Bandit

    to the Ron Paul campaign.

    •  Yep (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      szilard

      What does it say that, assuming for purposes of argument that all of the charges levied against Dr. Paul above are correct (which is not, I think, the case), that I am still considering voting for him anyway as a protest vote?

      The Democratic field is just a disaster from end to end, top to bottom. Not a single candidate whom I consider truly credible. If pushed -- pushed as with a D9 Cat bulldozer at my back -- I would opt for Obama, but I can tell you that his having received an endorsement from the vacuous Oprah Winfrey has dropped my interest in him into the cellar.

      As for that idea that the gold standard would "destroy the economy", I have news for the original diarist: the economy has already been destroyed. The news simply hasn't propagated yet, nor have the consequences been truly felt.

      The big story of the next 30 years of American life is the coming collapse and contraction of America's formerly abundant wealth. The national pie which is divided up between all of us in various proportions is about to shrink by as much as one-half. And that is going to happen while the US population doubles by 2040 due to mass immigration, so with many extra mouths, the competition for what is left is going to become not just bruising but bloody. Imagine per capita income at 25% of what it is now. Imagine your household trying to make it under those conditions.

      Concepts like "the middle class" are going to seem as quaint and twentieth-century as buggy whips were in the 1950s. Instead of working to advance economically, people are going to very likely have to fight, physically, merely to not fall behind as quickly as do others. My grandfather remembered days when men in crowded employment lines would beat the weaker ones out of the queue.

      There are in fact many downsides to the gold standard. But here is one huge upside: quango functionaries like Helicopter Ben Bernanke, and his overrated predecessor, cannot with a gold standard simply conjure new fiat money out of the air.

      Looked at inflation lately? Actual inflation rather than what the government tells you it is? I mentioned in another comment thread that our household has modest, consistent buying habits of the same basic staple items year in and year out. And we save all of our receipts, enabling easy empirical comparisons of prices. By that metric, the inflation which the Fed says is at three percent is in truth between ten and fifteen percent. Per year!

      And that's not counting what the Fed calls the "volatile food and energy categories", which are through the roof, up as much as 100% versus last year in some categories.

      If you are, for instance, a retiree on a fixed income, the magic of compounding (which is dark magic when it's working against you) means that inflation even at the 3% level is incredibly damaging over a multidecadal time frame. At 10% plus, the same effect is catastrophic. Watch your real savings vanish before your eyes.

      I can tell you that a gold standard will probably sound awfully good not long from now. But the economic damage which a hard-money standard might have prevented, if well managed, will already have been done by that time, and it will all be too late.

      --

      •  absurd (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mcfly, gkn

        As for that idea that the gold standard would "destroy the economy", I have news for the original diarist: the economy has already been destroyed. The news simply hasn't propagated yet, nor have the consequences been truly felt.

        Seen any bread lines lately or are you just being hyperbolic?

        If America tried to go back to the gold standard, you would.

        Two problems:

        1. there isn't enough gold to cover all the money currently circulating so the economy would have to contract massively
        1. gold itself fluxuates in price, and thus your currency would just fluxuate based on the demand for gold
        •  Whistling past the graveyard (0+ / 0-)


          Seen any bread lines lately or are you just being hyperbolic?

          Not hyperbolic in the least.

          The American economy has hanging over it not just one, but many swords of Damocles, and I would aver that the threads are fraying quickly.

          We have in addition to the current mortgage and credit crisis, the depths of which are largely now unplumbed and which will get much worse, the following:

          (a) The end of the dollar as a global reserve currency,
          (b) The massive reduction in demand for dollars resulting from same,
          (c) The collapse of the dollar against other major currencies as a result of (b),
          (d) Peak oil,
          (e) Scarce fossil fuels made even more costly in real terms because their sellers won't want dollars,
          (f) Peak fresh water,
          (g) Exhaustion of agricultural soils,
          (h) Rapid and damaging climate change,
          (i) Enormous unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs (all of those retiring Boomers starting to draw Medicare),
          (j) Historically unprecedented levels of individual debt and corporate debt, much of it effectively unserviceable,
          and
          (k) An exploding US population due to mass immigration, further straining our diminishing resources just when we need them the most.

          I have travelled in countries where the government and the economy had effectively fallen apart. And I have also travelled in countries where the government and the economy were about to fall apart.

          It's amazing how often people living in the latter had no earthly idea that the million pound shithammer was about to descend and ruin their lives. You remind me of them.

          --

        •  Heh. (0+ / 0-)

          No, the bank runs come first. Bread lines show up 2 years later.

          there isn't enough gold to cover all the money currently circulating so the economy would have to contract massively

          We may be looking at a massive contraction no matter what. If you want to say this would only aggravate it, fine, I guess I can buy that. But to claim that we'll avoid it be keeping fiat money... that's so much bullshit.

          gold itself fluxuates in price, and thus your currency would just fluxuate based on the demand for gold

          Absent the dollar devaluation and its effects on the price of gold, the fluctuations seem minor. Unless there is suddenly some new industrial use or some huge gold strike occurs, how much do we have to worry about this? We're probably looking at sub-one-percent fluctuations.

  •  Thank YOU! (7+ / 0-)

    Now spread it far and wide. I'm sick of these uneducated Paulbots....

  •  Somehow that doesn't seem crazier (8+ / 0-)

    than killing a million people based on lies.

    But, that's just me.

  •  And yet.... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, duha, john07801, ankey

    as insane as he is.....

    In some ways he still seems the most rational and sanist of the bunch.

    /shudder

    It's like going through a sewer in a glass bottom boat. We're in this shit but clearly above it!

    by Kalakzak on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:24:37 AM PST

    •  I did enjoy him at the debate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      meowmissy

      when he said 9/11 happened because we've been asking for it.

      Rudy sputtered, "My cue, that's my cue!  Time to show my pony's trick!"

      (-7.75, -7.69) No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up - Lily Tomlin

      by john07801 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:36:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Vote Huckabee (0+ / 0-)

    The Iraq and Afghan wars have cost the average family more than $20,000.

    by NCJim on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:25:00 AM PST

  •  see the link in my sig (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    boofdah, Scientician, little liberal

    it lacks citations but it's a good rundown of why Ron Paul and the left should be oil and water.

  •  I can't believe you didn't mention his (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat, Scientician, kimoconnor

    New Year's resolution at yesterday's debate!

    He said that we had effectively protected ourselves against foreign enemeies but that now we needed to attack "the enemies domestic".

    LOOOONEY TOOONS!

  •  The problem with Paul is... (9+ / 0-)

    That about 30% of his positions actually make perfect sense and are absolutely correct (Iraq, civil liberties, no torture, opposition to NAFTA, no deficit spending, net neutrality, habeas corpus, anti-Patriot Act, anti-Nat'l ID card, anti-domestic surveillance, etc...)

    ...but the other 70% of his positions are either barking mad or simply way too extreme by any stretch of the imagination (as noted in the diary).

    If nothing else, he's certainly the most interesting candidate of either party (and I say that as a solid Dem who's supporting Edwards Obama).

    •  Actually, "barking mad" is inappropriate. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cdreid, meowmissy

      He's neither "nuts" nor "barking mad", but his positions on about 2/3 of the issues are simply WAY out there, enough to overwhelm the 1/3 of the issues that he's absolutely correct on, that's all.

      The more surreal thing is that for many of the issues I mentioned, his "position" isn't so much "good" as simply that of a HUMAN BEING. For instance, being "against torture" is SUPPOSED to be like declaring that you "like the Beatles"--hardly a bold statement. Tragically, in today's GOP, that's considered "controversial".

    •  So here's the one critical question: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brainwrap, Sparhawk, FunkyEntropy

      As president, would he have more ability to do the things he's absolutely right about than the things he's absolutely wrong about?

      And the clear answer is that he can almost immediately fix many of the things he's right about (Iraq, Iran, civil liberties, no torture, net neutrality, habias corpus, anti-Patriot act, etc) while he would have no chance, legislatively, to do the many things he's wrong about.

      I think this explains much of his appeal.

      To avoid starting dumb wars, punish the dumb people who vote for them.

      by joesig on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:55:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why not guns in school? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FutureNow

    My grades would probably have been much better had I been allowed a .50 machine gun in Geometry or Trig.
    Also, some wingers want it legal to carry in churches. That would make some ministers more careful about what they say in the pulpit.

    •  Seriously (0+ / 0-)

      Maybe it's because I grew up in Utah, but I don't see any problem with an adult having a gun in school.  My campus (University of Utah) tried to ban guns last year but that effort failed miserably.  Those wishing to do harm are not going to look at a "Gun Free Zone" sign and suddenly reconsider...

      •  Actually gun free zones are not for the ones (0+ / 0-)

        who plan but rather for the impulse shooter who may fire a weapon as a joke or in a sudden burst of anger.  Sorry but years ago working in a furniture plant, I became convinced some people should not even have nail guns.

    •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

      Yeah, but the cheerleader team would have been quite small if I'd had one.

      Love your user name.

      "Balance" does not mean giving the same weight to a lie as you do to the truth.

      by delphine on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:32:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  At one time (0+ / 0-)

      it wasnt even uncommon for rural kids to take their guns to show and tell. What you're voicing here is the divide between rural and urban. That divide has been mis-cast by the msm/dc crowd as north vs south. Its a divide this country has always had. That a few people like FDR have understood to be miscast and used to gain massive popularity and make hugely needed changes.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

      by cdreid on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:49:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I used to have a shotgun or rifle or pistol (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cdreid, balancedscales

        in the gunrack or trunk when I drove to school and usually had a pocketknife or two in my pocket (even a hawkbill) but those were other times and other sensibilities.  We can't afford that sort of luxury these days, sadly.

        •  Oh (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          balancedscales

          not saying we can or should. Or arguing for it. Strong second amendment advocate here .. who believes in the right to own automatic weapons. But does NOT believe in concealed carry permits (the 2nd doesnt provide for that btw) or having weapons anywhere around a school.

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever TJ

          by cdreid on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:07:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  That you characterize it a luxury... (0+ / 0-)

          Is sad.

          That's what they're always lying to us about. We can't afford this luxury or that... and people get hauled off to jail for bringing bookmarks to airports.

          We can't afford the luxury of protests, or of giving basic legal rights to detainees, we can't afford the luxury of letting people take photographs whereever they like. On and on and on.

          People are mostly pretty decent. The world isn't going to fall apart if you continue to keep a gun in your trunk. I trust you with a gun more than I trust the police, for crying out loud... you're less likely to shoot me for no reason.

  •  So Do You Support Ron Paul, Then? (0+ / 0-)

    This seems more negative, though...

    This is CLASS WAR, and the other side is winning.

    by Mr X on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:28:00 AM PST

  •  Withdraw from UNESCO? (0+ / 0-)

    But that's Ambassador Keyes' key qualification for President!

  •  Are "Paul Progressives" really that dumb? (13+ / 0-)

    Like many others, I've loved to see the panic in the ranks as Ron Paul got applause with anti-war rhetoric in the debates.

    But I've been absolutely shocked to see progressives suggest that his single positive statement merited support. Ron Paul is an ultra-right wing extremist, folks. He wants to get rid of social security. He's ok with state-mandated "womb searches," ladies. He thinks the government is the enemy and (like the Bushies) would appoint incompetents to downsize it, thus proving it was worthless after all.

    Even Paul's opposition to the war is coming from a different place. Most progressives believe the war was based on a lie, intended to secure oil interests and American hegemony. Paul believes we need to hunker into our shells and build a wall around the US. While both reasons end up with troops at home, the long-term implications are very, very different. (If you owe your grandchildren's inheritance to the Chinese, hunkering down isn't going to help.)

    •  Desperation and ignorance (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcfly, balancedscales, meowmissy, spencerh

      Can lead people down dark paths.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

      by eugene on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:30:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Read his statements (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joesig

      Maybe you should read Paul's statements about the Iraq war before you comment on them. Here is just one of his many writings/speeches on the war.

    •  Paul would do more than end the Iraq war (7+ / 0-)

      he would yank all our troops out of any place in the world. Think about that, all troops all over the world. That means no UN peace keeping or any thing to help in Darfur (sp?). He would pull us out of Kosovo, letting the serbs go back to their little genocide program.

      The military has a job to do. Iraq is not it, but KFOR is.

      Stupid question hour starts now and ends in five minutes.

      by DrillSgtK on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:42:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Serbs are ready to go (0+ / 0-)

        Bosnia's recent threat of declaring independence showed the Serbs' view of any separation.  Any sort of end of supervision may be a generation away or more.  

      •  Not our job! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quequeg, J M F

        It's not for government to tax me to pay for troops across the globe, protecting our country's values.  A free society gives you the right to donate to causes that help those people, but not to use our military  for it.  Our military is for defending our life and liberty, and nothing more.  It's not there for your conquests.  Your thinking is why Vietnam, Iraq, and lots of other undeclared wars have been fought.  For the stupid stupid notion that we can impose freedom and democracy by force.

      •  This is like chasing your tail. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Quequeg

        If we didn't have a military, we would never have gotten locked down in Kosovo in the first place.

        The Europeans cut a deal at Rambouillet, and Kosovo would have ended peaceably, but Albright's idiocy ruined it when she said to Colin Powell, "What good is your military if you're afraid to use it?"

        If we don't end these foreign excursions, we'll just be locked down in the future.

        As for Kosovo and genocide, if your definition stretches that far for a counter-insurgency against a known terrorist group, a counter-insurgency crackdown in which 1500 died in the span of 3 years, then what do you call our ally Turkey's crackdown on Kurds which has killed 35,000 Kurds?

        Look at these people! They suck each other! They eat each other's saliva and dirt! -- Tsonga people of southern Africa on Europeans kissing.

        by upstate NY on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:02:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, remember that 10% of any group is nuts. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nasarius, gkn, meowmissy

      The "Ron Paul progressives" remind me of the folks who evangelized frickin' Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of all people.    
         
      You got this guy who stands for the exact opposite of everything progressive, but because he opposes George Bush I have to put up with people pleading with me to "consider his ideas."  
           
      I guess you'll always have a knee-jerk fringe who will stand behind Darth Vader if he simply pushes this one button of criticizing the president.

    •  I think I know why (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gkn

      End the war in Iraq and end the war on drugs.  That's enough to sway some people regardless of other views.

      "Who cares if he wants to abolish the department of education and the FDA?  I want my pot!"

  •  I'd support withdrawl from UNESCO... (0+ / 0-)

    ...because UNESCO is a sick joke. I say that from personal experience. Their "archaeologists" are just vandals with fancy name tags.

    The rest of the stuff on the list though is poison.

    "Many things are true"--Dwight Eisenhower

    by Rex Manning on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:29:45 AM PST

  •  Thanks! (0+ / 0-)

    Crazy indeed...
    We need to get this out to people who think he's their saviour...

    Harry Taylor for Congress, Courage is Contagious

    by Fredly on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:30:16 AM PST

  •  Ron Paul's against the war? He's got my vote! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SallyCat, journalschism, DrillSgtK

    Oh, wait...we're not allowed to vote for Republicans in the California primary...I guess I'll have to stick with Kucinich or Edwards.

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:30:59 AM PST

  •  why do you have to demean Paul? (8+ / 0-)

    Do I agree with Paul on any of those issues above?  No.  Do I mistake him for being a progressive just because he is against the Iraq debacle?  No.  Is it legitimate to point out to liberals and progressives that he holds these very different positions?  Of course.

    But why does holding these positions automatically make him 'crazy.'  This is the same kind of language you hear from the right discussing people like Kucinich or  Dean or Russ Feingold.  Ron Paul - unlike Bush or most of the Republicans in DC today - is an actual, true believer in conservatism.  We may not agree with him on much, but I think he deserves credit for being ideologiclly consistent (something a lot of Democrats have been having problems with lately...ahem...Steny Hoyer).  So disagree with him if you like (as I do), but let's not label him crazy just for being true to his own beliefs...

    the ball is round, the game last 90 minutes. Everything else is theory.

    by Dont Tread on Me on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:31:04 AM PST

    •  Sorry, but (5+ / 0-)

      guns in schools is crazy.  So is complete elimination of government regulation of industrial operations.  So is returning economic and labor policy to 1900.

      "...we all of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."

      by beagledad on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:46:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually... (0+ / 0-)

        He talks about making it possible to sue polluters. No details, but he wants to level the playing field, so that corporate lawyers don't just get it tossed out.

        And he seems to understand that you can't leave things without recourse in the meantime, so regulations wouldn't be gone until such was in place.

        I look forward to the death of a thousand papercuts the corporations would receive.

        As for guns in school, they're already there. I think he means that we should let the non-crazies have them also.

  •  Ron Paul also wants to.... (12+ / 0-)

    ...restore Habeas Corpus.

    He also wants to end illegal wiretapping of American's phone calls.

    He also wants the government to stop torturing people.

    He also wants to enact the American Freedom Agenda Act.

    He also wants to enact cost-cutting deregulation of the health care industry.

    He also wants to eliminate corporate welfare.

    He also wants to end the insane war on drugs.

    Listen, MissLaura. We're not as stupid as you think we are. Those of us who support Paul are not supporting him out of ignorance. We know about all of the stuff that you list above. We also know about all of the stuff that I listed here. On balance, we like what we see.

    As much as you would like to think otherwise, your position is not the only intelligent one. Ron Paul is not stupid, and neither are his supporters.

    •  hmmm (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcfly, gkn, spencerh

      And what are your thoughts on Pauls "We the People Act" bills introduced through multiple congresses which revoke the ability of Federal courts to hear cases involving bill of rights violations by State or Local governments?

      He would essentially repeal the 14th amendment with that act.

      And "cost-cutting deregulation of the health care industry" is reprehensible too.  Yes, let's make life easier on the industry that practices murder-by-spreadsheet.  Health care is a right.

      •  Regarding the "We the People Act" (0+ / 0-)

        I don't agree with it, but as this guy pointed out in his post below, Paul takes a lot of stances on constitutional principle. This one is clearly aimed at the concept of substantive due process and the implied right to privacy, which even right to privacy advocates like myself must acknowledge is not based on the most solid legal ground. So no, I don't agree with him here, but I respect the position he has taken.

        Regarding cost cutting deregulation of the health care industry: On his website, Paul proposes these specific deregulations

        Making all medical expenses tax deductible.

        Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.

        Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.

        Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.

        Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

        What, exactly, are your objections?

        Yes health care is a right - a right that has become unaffordable to many Americans because the healthcare industry is the most over-regulated industry on the planet. The only reason it costs $300 for a months supply of pills is because of the regulation - it takes decades and costs millions and millions of dollars to bring pills to market, and even then the people who need them must run a whole procedural and regulatory obstacle course in order to get the legally mandated prescription for them. The pills themselves are not that expensive to produce.

        This is the fundamental problem with healthcare - its artificially inflated cost. Nationalizing it, or mandating it, is not going to address this, it will just change the way it is paid for. Only deregulation will address these runaway cost issues.

  •  Ron Paul is crazy on somethings but not on others (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cdreid, feloneouscat

    his views on the federal reserve for one.  

    you might like being a wage slave but for some of us the idea of freedom doesnt stop with the word but moves into not being controlled by banks and corporations.

    www.freedomtofascism.com is a good place to start

    and

    www.moneyasdebt.net is another one.

    •  Actually, Ron Paul IS crazy on most things (0+ / 0-)

      As a physician he is against needle exchange.

      Despite the fact that it has been PROVEN to slow HIV infection.

      He doesn't like it because it costs money.

      90% of Ron Paul is "how much does it cost and does it come out of my wallet".

      The other 10% is guns.

      When war is considered to be more noble than peace - we have lost everything.

      by feloneouscat on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 06:53:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well. (0+ / 0-)

        First off, he's worried that it comes out of our collective wallets. Often he'll offer to pay for things out of his wallet directly, rather than let the taxpayer foot the bill.

        Or hadn't you noticed.

        He's certainly against drug prohibition. If you feel strongly about this, buy $500 worth of needles and hand them out... Paul's the guy that will make sure you don't go to jail for supplying paraphenelia. Hell, tell me you're doing it and I'll chip in too. (Seriously. Changing the world comes from people like you and me actively doing something, not from finding a politician that is ideologically pure and voting for them.)

  •  Ron Paul (9+ / 0-)

    "I think everybody knew what that vote was about." --Senator Jim Webb on Kyl-Lieberman

    by journalschism on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:31:35 AM PST

  •  I'm most definitely NOT an RP supporter... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cdreid, szilard, howgroovy

    ...but the claim that dismantling the Federal Reserve would destroy the economy has not been proven to me.

    Does anybody here care to explain how that would be so?

    Because it sounds like BS to me.

    If class war is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning... - Warren Buffett

    by dj angst on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:31:42 AM PST

  •  Why the venom? (7+ / 0-)

    He's also the only Republican throwing down against the war, a tireless advocate for civil liberties and against the police state, a vehement critic of the administration's excesses...hell, he's the only Republican I can think of that's saying the GOP deserves to lose, and will deserve to lose in the general.  To REPUBLICAN audiences no less.  Hell, a lot of Democrats are unwilling to do that to DEMOCRATIC audiences.  He's hitting this stuff right where it counts.    

    Granted, there would be a lot of illiberal things going down under a Paul presidency, but...are you really that worried about there being a Paul presidency?

    I've no idea why so many liberals are so determined to push back against the guy.  We've been bitching for years about "where is a principled conservative raising objection to the excesses of his party?"  Well, you've got him, and he's going medieval on their asses.  He's going to raise more money this quarter than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, all of them.  As an anti-war Republican.    

    So why the venom?

    Of course he's not progressive all around, and liberals won't like him on a lot of things.  That's what makes him...well, not a principled liberal.  Of course you won't agree with him on a lot.  That's what makes you not libertarians or Goldwater conservatives.  

    But that doesn't mean he's the devil incarnate, or that there's not a heckuva lot to recommend him to anti-war civil libertarians, or that progressive shouldn't be cheering like hell for him to burn the modern GOP house down.

    Give it a rest.  

    What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

    by glibfidget on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:32:10 AM PST

    •  He is a sexist, racist homophobe. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcfly, beagledad, gkn, spencerh

      That's more than enough for me. Representative of all that is bad about Texas...

      Defend marriage. Make divorce illegal.

      by jarhead5536 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:38:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Being a sexist, (0+ / 0-)

        racist homophobe is pretty much par for the course as far as republicans go.  And this is what I can't understand about why so many people here are adamantly against anything Ron Paul related.  The point being, Ron Paul seems like the GOP candidate least likely to completely fuck us over should he win the presidency.

        The reason why I bring this up is because, for two presidential elections in a row, the GOP has won mainly through the use of nasty electoral shenanigans.  Shouldn't we at least try to hedge our bets by rooting for Ron Paul, the only GOP candidate who doesn't seem hell-bent on establishing a police state or a theocracy in the sorry case that the rules get bent yet a third time?

        The true measure of a mans character lies not in how he treats his friends, but in how he treats his enemies.

        by FunkyEntropy on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:20:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because he is intent on dismantling (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jay w

          much of the federal government, leaving the poorest of the poor to fend for themselves.  Leaving all of us, actually to fend for ourselves and capitalism to rule unfettered (see Gilded Age, Robber Barons, Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, etc.).  Nope, not for me, thanks...

          Defend marriage. Make divorce illegal.

          by jarhead5536 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 02:35:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You misunderstand me (0+ / 0-)

            The point is, how would that be any worse than what the other candidates in the GOP field would do?

            Each and every one of the Dem presidential candidates are miles above anything the GOP has to offer - we all know that, but that's not this is about.  All I'm saying is, despite his rather grievous flaws, Ron Paul would cause the least amount of harm to the US out of all the GOP candidates.

            Unless you're suggesting that there's another GOP candidate that you'd rather see installed by means both fair and foul?

            The true measure of a mans character lies not in how he treats his friends, but in how he treats his enemies.

            by FunkyEntropy on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 12:34:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Why would a sexist ever become... (0+ / 0-)

        A gynecologist/obstretician?

        The sexist republican is Huckabee who thinks that women should submit, or possibly Giuliani that thinks there's nothing wrong with trading them in like a used car.

        And as for being a homophobe, I seem to remember that he was booed off the stage at the value voters thing, for suggesting that it wasn't a sin but rather that there was some sort of biological basis for it.

    •  Well, because "medieval" is a pretty good (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nasarius, gkn, balancedscales

      characterization of much of Ron Paul's outlook.  Other than the purported lack of intellectual dishonesty, "principled conservatives" are just as unwelcome to me as a Mitt-style opportunists.

      "...we all of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."

      by beagledad on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:48:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Ron Paul is still helping us tie the GOP (4+ / 0-)

    frontrunners to Bush and the neocons, so we should be cheering him on.

    These attacks going on, and on, when Paul forces the GOP frontrunners to declare the NIE is worthless (Thompson just yesterday) to double Guantanamo (Romney), to not be in Iraq would be like helping Hitler (McCain, in panic mode at the Florida debate because Paul is cutting into his numbers in NH), is just ridiculous.

    As I wrote in this diary, this site is supposed to be about democrats winning.

    If it wasn't for Paul, the GOP frontrunners would have been tiptoeing away from Bush's foreign policy for MONTHS.  There would be no candidate on the right to cause people to lose their stomach for neoconservative foreign policy.  

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:32:32 AM PST

  •  Maybe if our own nominees... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    glibfidget, J M F

    ...were as anti-war, anti-deficit spending, and pro-Consitution as Ron Paul, Ron Paul wouldn't have so much support among Democrats.

    I don't like his gold-standard craziness and other positions, but he has several individual positions that are far superior to Hillary/Obama's positions on similar issues.

    As a package he's a bad deal, but if I were voting solely on the Iraq war I'd pull the lever for him in a heartbeat over any of our candidates. And that's sad.

  •  lol it's amusing to see the Kos Paulbots (8+ / 0-)

    out in force. bless their (pot-addled) hearts!

  •  Mr. Paul (senior) should have pulled out!!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    journalschism

    then we wouldn't be dealing with this loon.....

  •  how refreshing to see a front page diary (0+ / 0-)

    trashing a republican for a change, instead of the usual suspect.  The results in ohio and virginia doesn't show this cynical sceptic that dem bashing is doing anything much for the good of the party, but then i suppose that has retreated as a goal, electing dems, i mean.

    The entire internet seems to have become old very quickly. I believe it has peaked! and in the final analysis people get fed up really fast with a constant stream of invective. I can't believe half of what i read these days on the blogs, enough to drive one back into the arms of morpheus and read the boring old traditional newspapers.

    Thank god for CSPAN, at least you can hear the perpetrators ponificating themselves firsthand instead of second hand through partisan interpretation.  At this stage it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell whether so-called liberals think democrats will be any better in the long run than republicans.  They may just get what they are drivelling on about at this rate.

  •  on the plus side (0+ / 0-)

    he also wants to get rid of the IRS, I am in favor of that (but not him). I would love to be able to keep all of my hard earned money. The Government worked without an income tax until 1913, so I think it would be just fine...

    "Life has taught me to think, but thinking has not taught me how to live." ~Alexander Herzen

    by rickyscorpio on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:35:22 AM PST

    •  Are you serious? (6+ / 0-)

      You want to abolish income tax?  How are you going to fund the federal government day in and day out?  Do you want to eliminate the social security taxes as well?  Medicare?

      •  Sorry, but my property taxes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheSilence

        are high enough down here in Texas.  Eliminate the federal income tax?  Seriously?  Without federal money, the states would be overwhelmed with the cost of education...they are already.  Our children already get a sub-standard public education, especially here in the south.  I don't want that getting worse, but hey I think it's cool when kids can read...but that's just me.

        •  We already saw this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          balancedscales, kimoconnor

          with Reagan tax cuts.  When he cut taxes he forgot to mention he was cutting service as well.

          •  Absolutely... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gkn

            "Save your hard-earned dollars.  Vote for me and you'll keep everything you earn."  

            What they left out was the fact that your kids will sit in classes with a 35:1 student/teacher ratio.  They will have to share textbooks and be forced into a dog and pony show that is standardized testing, just to get the few scrap dollars that the fed is passing out.  

            I love his position on Iraq.  Everything else about him just makes me dismissive, but the idea that he would do that to our children makes me froth at the mouth.  It's dishonest and dishonorable.  

            •  Also fire stations closed (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gkn, balancedscales, spencerh

              unless volunteers could collect enough donations to buy equipment and keep going and police patrols were pulled from rural areas as the ratio of tax bite to tax advantage for rural land soared from about 10 to 6 to the stratosphere.

            •  "Our" children? (0+ / 0-)

              Worry about your own children. Even if public education is abolished, are you going to let them grow up feral?

              Mine won't be using public schools anyway. Nothing more than mass consumer indoctrination.

              My children will have me and my wife, they don't need you worrying about them, and they definitely don't need you using them as an excuse to cook up bullshit. They'll be adults someday too, so they need me to do what I can to protect their own liberties when the time comes.

              •  The VAST majority of people (0+ / 0-)

                use the public school system.  One of my sisters home schools and and two of them send their children to public schools.  You can keep your vitriol, and should probably channel in a positive way towards the Paul campaign, he'll need the help.

                Your children won't be in the world by themselves, so you do need to worry about other people's children, unless you're going to live in a cave and never interact with the public.  

                I'll keep worrying about my children and yours, you keep throwing angry words around.  

                •  Uh, yeh. (0+ / 0-)

                  Your children won't be in the world by themselves, so you do need to worry about other people's children, unless you're going to live in a cave and never interact with the public.  

                  Other people's children can't be helped. That other people are too busy worrying about how to buy a new car or whether their walmart jeans make them look as sexy as they did in the commercial, rather than their children pretty much dooms them. Public education can't fix this. No amount of money will ever fix it... whether it's a few tens of billions more, or tens of trillions. And even if there is some way for public education to work, it can't be made to do so until all of it is scrapped to the last bureaucrat and things are started anew.

                  If you love your children, homeschool them or find a good private school. Though, I doubt either of us could afford a truly good private school. Maybe you're wealthier than I am.

                  •  Of course they can. (0+ / 0-)

                    If you truly believe that other people's children can't be helped then everything else you've written about "change comes from people like you and me" is bullshit.  Which is it?  

                    Can you hand out syringes and make a change?  Can participating in conversations on this board make a difference?  I think it can, and from some of your other comments, it seems that you think it can.  

                    If so, then you can change the world around you, one child, one junkie, one neighbor at a time.

                    The thing that I just don't understand is that you are willing to completely trash our society.  Are you an anarchist?  This is a serious question, not a judgement.  

                    My mother, sister, wife and her mother are teachers.  They are good, dedicated, passionate people who care about children.  They work in schools where many of the children don't have both parents and the ones that do rarely see them because they're working just to survive.  Teachers sacrifice so much.  Is that all in vain?  

                    All these people who are so caught up in shopping for plastic shite at wal-mart...do you think they're going to do a decent job of homeschooling their children?  If they can't pick up a book themselves, what makes you think their children will improve?

                    I disagree that no amount of money will ever fix it.  Getting a good education stimulates curiosity, curiosity leads to learning, leads to travel, leads to understanding of other cultures, religions, histories.  These are good things, things that make society more civil, more tolerant.  

                    I agree with you that people are caught up with image, Paris Hilton, bullshit like that, but the public school systems aren't to blame.  Corporations, ad agencies, PARENTS who let their kids sit in front of the TV, the list goes on and on.  

                    If you have an issue with the public school system, and believe me, I have many, then you and I both need to take it up with our legislators, not throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Eliminating or even further defunding our public school systems would set us back more than 100 years, when only the rich got any education.  I realize that the rich get into the best schools today, but a simple, basic education is far better than none at all, imo.

                    And no, I am not wealthy by anyone in the western world's definition.  

                    Seriously though, would you classify yourself as a libertarian, anarchist???

          •  No. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            balancedscales

            The tax cuts only ever apply to the wealthy. Removing the IRS just means that the little people see theirs cut finally. So they're two very different things.

            Even if balancedscales is right, so what? The states increase their own taxes, and it all evens out. Is that so horrible?

      •  Medicare and Social Security (0+ / 0-)

        are payroll taxes, completly different from Income Taxes. Income Tax does NOT fund the federal government (and Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave if he knew we had an income tax), it just pays the interest on the National Debt. If we actually taxed the corporations properly there would be no need to have an income tax. Do you seriously feel that the government needs 30% of your income? You work almost 4 Months out of the year to pay income tax.

        Also I would much rather have a nation-wide sales tax of like 20% and cut income tax.

        "Life has taught me to think, but thinking has not taught me how to live." ~Alexander Herzen

        by rickyscorpio on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:21:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I recommend this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        J M F

        (take it with a grain of salt, of course, but overall it is an interesting "film", if you can see through the obvious propaganda)

        America: Freedom to Fascism

        "Life has taught me to think, but thinking has not taught me how to live." ~Alexander Herzen

        by rickyscorpio on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:59:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  He's not Nuts (7+ / 0-)

    Ron Paul is Still Nuts

    You and I may not agree with many of his positions, but I find it disrespectful to categorize him as "nuts." He happens to be a highly educated, bright, and articulate individual. He is not only better capable of supporting every one of his positions than any other candidate, but he is the most consistent in positions he takes as far fethched as we may see them.

    •  I agree (5+ / 0-)

      What's more, by ANYONE'S accounts, he is a decent, kind, honest, humble, and principled man.  I've meet him several times now, and he's one of the goddamn nicest and most genuine guys I've ever met, inside politics or out.  

      Hell, even Dennis Kucinich and his wife have a profound respect for the man, and aren't afraid to say so (Dennis even said he'd consider running with him on an independent ticket, or as a VP).  Of course, most Republicans call Kucinich nuts.  Maybe there's a lesson there?  

      I don't mind that people disagree with him.  Of course you will; again, he's not a progressive liberal (though he is on a lot of the most important issues of the day), and he's certainly not what a mainstream candidate normally sounds like.

      But I'm getting a little tired of all the smearing and personal invective.  

      What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

      by glibfidget on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:45:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ron Paul is nuts. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mcfly, nasarius

      He speaks with the certain voice of one who hears voices.

      If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

      by hestal on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:47:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I didn't see Amber Alert mentioned. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    balancedscales, meowmissy, kimoconnor

    He voted against the Amber Alert.  Who does that?

  •  In Vitro Fertilization would be abolished, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcfly, gkn, balancedscales

    if his standards were implimented. Thousands of frozen humans are destroyed on a daily basis (according to his "logic"). But, since that process is ignored by those who oppose stem cell research, I guess they can ignore it in this case, too. How about divorce? Jesus was opposed to divorce, unless a man's wife committed adultery. Would he push to outlaw that via a constitutional amendment? How far can this zealotry be taken?

    I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by kitebro on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:39:06 AM PST

  •  I have been amazed at the amount of Paul support (0+ / 0-)

    here in San Francisco. At least if you consider the mobs of Paul supporters at political or other events.

    I think you are right, many just look at his Iraq stance.

    Others may be anarchist Libertarians.

    Either way, they are nuts!

    01-20-09: THE END OF AN ERROR

    by kimoconnor on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:40:34 AM PST

    •  Anarchist Libertarian??? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kimoconnor

      "Anarchist Libertarian" is an oxymoron.  Anarchism is a completely different political theory.  It is fun, though, to listen to Libertarians talk about how well read they are in political theory and then have no clue what anarchism really is.  What libertarians advocate can't be called anarchism or even freedom, despite how much they like those words.  What libertarians advocate is more accurately called chaos.

  •  So why don't Democrats take his position on Iraq? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    balancedscales, spencerh

    That's seems the most simple answer.

    Fuck you, Mike Gravel 2008.

    Progressive through science.

    by Time Bandit on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:43:08 AM PST

    •  Dennis Kucinich: out in 3 months. (0+ / 0-)

      Bill Richardson: out in 6 months.

      •  Im voting Gravel. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        balancedscales

        I know, silly.

        But I have become a one issue voter, no more imperial wars. That will help lead to funding/oxygen for my other issues, which are mostly science based.

        And what better way to make that protest vote than a multi generational anti-war activist like Mike Gravel.

        He's done more for this is country than the rest of the lot combined, so I don't feel bad about "throwing away" my vote.

        In fact, I will be able to sleep at night.

        Progressive through science.

        by Time Bandit on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:53:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  You are so right. I live in Texas and have known (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nasarius, beagledad, balancedscales

    for a long time that Ron Paul is "nuts."  But over that period I have heard many otherwise smart people discover him.  At first they are attracted by something he has said and they tell me they like him.  I warn them, but they dig in their heels.  But usually they figure him out.  Because we can't vote for him our opinion doesn't make any difference.  

    But he truly is "nuts," and that is the secret of his charm.

    If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

    by hestal on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:43:32 AM PST

  •  He's like the Christoper Lloyd character,,, (0+ / 0-)

    ...in the Dream Team.  At the beginning, in the psychiatric hospital, you swear he's a doctor.  Then you realize he's a patient.

    •  Hey, googly eyed characters can be pretty smart (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dov12348

      They can even invent time travel.

      (Although they generally prefer to live in 1885 when given all the options)

      Do we really want Rudy, Romney, or Huckabee to be able to turn to our nominee in 2008 and say "you voted for this war and I didn't"? Think about it.

      by ShadowSD on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:56:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Instead of whining about a GOP fringe candidate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Seuss, Aaron Bonn

    who helps us by knocking down ridiculous positions of the GOP frontrunners and Bush, a more constructive post would be to take what is appealing about Paul, (anti-Iraq war, anti-Iran war, anti-torture, anti-Gitmo, anti-PATRIOT Act, anti-secret prisons, anti-domestic spying, pro-Constitutional rights, pro-habeas corups) and encourage the 3 Dem frontrunners to be more outspoken about these things.

    "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by duha on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:49:08 AM PST

    •  The GOP supporters that believe the (0+ / 0-)

      front-runners are not going to have their core ideals changed by Ron Paul or any Democrat.  His stance on the war IS going to take alot of Democrats and left-leaning independents towards the center, taking votes from Democrats.

      I don't want Hillary Clinton as a president, and I don't have much desire to see Barack Obama as prez either, but I would much rather have them as the president that to see another GOP member win.  I can't handle eight more years of this shite.

      •  No poll supports that at all (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        meowmissy

        if you are talking about Paul as a 3rd party candidate.

        And there are plenty of Republicans who are being changed by Ron Paul being out on the stump.  Why do you think he's gotten more money from the miliatry than any other GOP candidate?  Why do you think he is getting cheers in debates for stances against the war?  Anywhere from a 1/4 to a 1/3 of Republicans are against the war.  They are remembering that they hated the concept of 'nation-building' in the 90s.  Many Republicans now hate neocons.  Giuliani doesn't look so hot when they see his foreign policy team being all neocons.  "Neocon" is practically an epithet now, in conservative circles.  Saying Bush's foreign policy has been a disaster is not taboo in conservative circles anymore.

        "There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible. But in the end they always fall. Think of it. Always." -- Mahatma Gandhi

        by duha on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:10:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  It depends on the meaning of "support" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Seuss, balancedscales

    I sent the ronster $10 a few months ago. Am I ignorant of his positions? No. Do I support them? No. But there needs to be someone standing up and talking about the war in the GOP Defecates. I don't feel too worried that he's actually going to take us out of UNESCO or be able to put thru his radical fetus-first agenda.  

    Chuck Schumer: Traitor, Traitor, Bush Fellator.

    by Egypt Steve on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:50:14 AM PST

  •  Do any issues we care about get solved (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, FunkyEntropy, J M F

    while we keep troops in 130+ nations, execute and plan wars around the world, have secret agencies that are unaccountable in any way at all (CIA etc), and continue to run a large part of minority male populations through our jail-system for drugs?

    And the Federal Reserve: can you name which segments of the population benefit from their monetary policies, and which segments are seeing their cash turn into crap?

    All those stupid things you mentioned (and there's also a pretty good account of them at Some Reasons not to Vote for Ron Paul) are all in the hands of the Congress, and he cannot make them happen as President. So the question is would he faithfully carry out the will of the people through Congress or would he do Bush-type signing statements to make the laws disappear.

    Can you tell me the name of the top-tier candidates, Republican or Democrat, who has a plan to end the American War on All, end the spying on American citizens, and end the War to Consolidatie Dealing on Drugs.

    Not that I'm saying I'd vote for Paul, but the "he's crazy" meme doesn't mean that "sane" candidates who support and enable our literally lunatic foreign policy (Empire) are going to change the status quo, and are really worth voting for either.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:50:55 AM PST

  •  You're just mad that Hillary can't be trusted to (5+ / 0-)

    ...end the war.

    If Hillary could be trusted to end the war and roll back all of Bush's unitary executive nonsense, no progressives would be tempted to cross over and support Paul and he wouldn't be relevant to intra-Democratic-party discussion.

    It's not Paul's fault that when he says that he will end the war, restore habeus corpus, end wiretapping, close Guantanamo, not attack Iran, etc. people believe him.  They believe him because he obviously means it.  People don't believe Hillary because they don't believe she means it.  Whose fault is that?  

    All you have to do to make it impossible for Paul to siphon off "mistaken" progressive voters is find a way to make Hillary actually support ending the war and rolling back the Bush administration's abuses.  Wouldn't that be simpler?

  •  The only person worse than Paul is a moron (0+ / 0-)

    named George W Bush.

    However, having said that, there's plenty of room for dumb shits that worry about a guy named Ron Paul ever becoming President.

    Hmmmm, that's what I said about the moron George W Bush....

    Seems there are plenty of moron lovers in America.

    Single purpose usage belittles the search for true value.

    by 0hio on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 10:59:04 AM PST

  •  Ron Paul is an idiot. On the other hand... (0+ / 0-)

    ...his platform does abet violent overthrow of our government, and that may be a good thing.

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi

    by ezdidit on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:06:29 AM PST

  •  I won't be voting for Paul...but (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Seuss

    I won't be voting for Ron Paul because he's in the same party as the current president and the congress we had from 1994-2006. As such I can't in good conscience vote for him.

    But hold on a minute. Do we have to demonize anyone with views other than our own as "crazy?" Isn't that the same as when the right wing tars anyone to the left of Cheney as a "moonbat?"

    It's kind of like when that "screamer" Dr. Dean ran and had all sorts of ideas and folks were calling HIM crazy. And his supporters (Who would run you out of town on a rail if you didn't adhere to chapter and verse of how great Dr. Dean was from the very beginning) were called "crazy" too.

    Hmm. Interesting. Grassroots candidates with a rabid fanbase that turns off as many people as they recruit...who have all sorts of popularity on "the internet" but can't translate it into votes...get a pile of money and find a way to blow it...and they're both Doctors?

    Now THAT's Crazy!

  •  I like Ron Paul (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sparhawk, Dr Seuss, FunkyEntropy, Quequeg

    I don't agree with all his positions. i even admit some of them are crazy.

    But I am So disenchanted with the criminals in the administration now, and the cowards in the democratic party, that I'm all to happy to vote for insanity.

    (I like Kucinich, too, and would vote for him happily if he made it).

    •  He was my Congressman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      balancedscales

      There is PLENTY not to like.

      I like Kucinich and will vote for him in the primary. I would never think about Paul.

      Why?

      Because they are nothing alike.

      Paul is a very mean man who loved Reagan and thinks that a land of 300 million people and be treated like the Original Colonies. He is against everything that progressives are for. If you examine his positions, it all boils down to "how much money comes out of his pocket".

      The poor? Cut welfare.

      Needle exchanges? Doesn't like them, even though they cut HIV transmission.

      Guns? Put them everywhere.

      Roe v. Wade? What is this notion of Privacy? It's not in the Constitution (he apparently doesn't quite grasp the notion that everything that isn't in the Constitution IS INHERENTLY our right).

      Taxes? Eliminate them all! Now, how do you pay for government, he hasn't quite figured that one out...

      Calling him a simpleton is an insult to simpletons.

      When war is considered to be more noble than peace - we have lost everything.

      by feloneouscat on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 07:47:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  uh oh, you done it now... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcfly

    I'm gonna go find me somewhere nice to hunker down for a while, 'cuz I know this thread is gonna be besiged by angry, crazy-ass Paullians who are mad that you've spoken the truth about their lorrrrrrrd!

    There's gonna be crazycrap flyin' around like watermelon at a Gallagher show!  

    "I am a comedian and poet, so anything that doesn't get a laugh ... is a poem." - Bill Hicks

    by shadetree mortician on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:19:29 AM PST

    •  ron paul supporters... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dr Seuss, feloneouscat

      aren't all crazy.

      I think most of us- at least me- are just bat shit exhausted with the crooks, cowards, and liars in power right now- on both sides of the line.

      •  I think ya'll are hoodwinked, frankly... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        balancedscales, jay w

        I think a lot of Paul's supporters are hearing "he'll pull us out of Iraq" and then they're going "YES!" and they're not listening any further.   The man's got about two good ideas and the rest is fascistic, moronic, theocratic bullshit that, if he ever got a chance to enact it, would likely give us occasion to look back fondly on the days of George W. Bush...  and Paul might be the ONLY guy who could ever swing that.

        He's a charming loonietoon, that's all he is.  Don't be swayed by the one or two positives and just shrug off the eight billion negatives that come with it.  

        "I am a comedian and poet, so anything that doesn't get a laugh ... is a poem." - Bill Hicks

        by shadetree mortician on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:28:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ron Paul was my Congressman (0+ / 0-)

        Prior to 2003 you never heard of him.

        Why?

        Because he is bat shit crazy. I know. I've argued with him.

        He is no better than George Bush and in fact, many ways worse. He wants PERMANENT TAX cuts. Elimination of the IRS.

        Explain to me how that is a GOOD way to run a country of 300 million?

        When war is considered to be more noble than peace - we have lost everything.

        by feloneouscat on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 06:57:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What's crazy is sticking with the two parties (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    howgroovy, Quequeg, cynical82

    The best thing that could possibly happen to the electoral process is if Paul runs as a Libertarian and gets 20 percent or more of the vote. That would be a real wake up call and might convince the money men that third parties are viable and worthy of investment and development. Then we could have a chance at breaking the strangehold the two wing one party system has on our politics.
    Obviously his ideas are not mainstream, and most don't ever have a chance of being implemented. Given how far out his views are from what Congress would be willing to authorize, there is no risk that the US will be withdrawing from the UN or switching to the gold standard any time soon (unless forced to do so by the collapse of the currency). What is possible is a tremendous reduction in investment in the military industrial complex and the actual cessasation of American military aggression for a few years. All these developments are good.
    But realistically, there's no way Paul would be allowed to become President (hell, even McCain and Dean were too far out there) so we should support this development of a third party movement, who knows, perhaps the progressive movement will be the one to benefit with a Progressive Party. Mmm, progressive party.

    A pessimist is just a well-informed optimist.

    by Marcion on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:39:44 AM PST

  •  Ron Paul and the flag (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Quequeg, cynical82

    One of the complaints listed by Orincus in the post that MissLaura linked to was that, despite claiming to be a Republican, Ron Paul actually supports passing an amendment to criminalize flag burning.

    That canard was discredited by Glenn Greenwald here.

  •  he was also the ONLY one to vote against (0+ / 0-)

    resolution condemning the massacre at Srebrenica (Bosnia) ten years after the fact

  •  sorry (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    szilard, Mike Erwin, Dr Seuss, Quequeg, J M F

    he may be wrong about a lot of things, but he's dead-on right about the Fed.

    The Fed is an independent PRIVATE bank, which has zero accountability to the American people.  The Fed was created in 1913 and has taken a dollar that was stable for a century (except for briefly during the Civil War) and taken away 96% of it's value by printing money endlessly.  $1 in 1913 is worth $.04 today.  Great job.

    The idea that inflation is necessary, or that a little inflation is good for the economy is bunk.  Inflation is a TAX ON THE POOR.  Rich people don't suffer when food and housing prices rise, because only a tiny amount of their income is spent on them.  When food and housing are 60% of your expenses, a little inflation can break you.

    I HATE the Fed.  They are only there to insure that the banking industry operates in total freedom with no accountability.  Greenspan is directly responsible for our current banking crisis, the housing bubble, and the Tech-stock bubble.

    While returning to the gold standard would take away some flexibility in US money supply, it would also stabilize the currency and prevent the government from running up enormous deficits.  It would encourage savings by making dollars be worth something again.

    This is a subject worth investigating with some seriousness and not dismissed as "Crazy."

    Don't disappoint me MissLaura -- I don't mind if you are against Ron Paul or the gold standard, but please take the time to get all the facts.  It is vital that we as Americans broaden our debate to include Socialism, Libertarianism, Anarchism, etc.  We need to stop dismissing everything and EDUCATE ourselves.  I'm tired of discussing Democrat and Republican ideas in the tiny middle of the road frame of reference we use for all debates in this country.  We can do better.

    (P.S. I am not a Ron Paul supporter, I am an Obama supporter and a Progressive with a strong interest in economic and political theory)

  •  Yes, we're all crazy. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    szilard, Dr Seuss, Aaron Bonn, Quequeg, J M F

    Are you sure it's the Paul supporters who are crazy?

    The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    You guys just keep on voting for Democrats then, but don't be surprised when 20 years from now an old Glenn Greenwald is still blogging about our cowardly Dems, the Iraq War is still raging on, and DKos commenters love to vilify anyone who doesn't want to go along with them any longer (Nader voters(ego!), Paul supporters, etc).

    Also, you say:

    Ron Paul has been attracting support from some unlikely quarters, mainly due to ignorance of his positions on anything much but Iraq.

    You're absolutely wrong (and insulting).  Ron Paul supporters know more about their candidate than anyone else.  They just don't care that they disagree with him on a few things.

    Also, whenever you read "Ron Paul supports a Constitutional Amendment to .... <puppies, cookies and milk, etc>" just know that he isn't saying he supports X, but that it's the only Constitutional way to address the issue.

    In fact, you can't take Paul's positions and boil them down to a bullet list item and expect it to accurately reflect how he feels on an issue.  How he votes, and how he feels are two different things.  He votes on what he feels the role of federal government is, not his personal feelings and emotions.

    •  Libertarians are anti-progressive evil (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      spencerh

      Ron Paul's simplistic libertarianism is a rejection of all progressive ideals. He believes government is useless, and that the free market, already responsible for destroying the planet, can solve all problems.

      It is alarming that some people are fooled into supporting this loser just because a few of his positions happen to overlap with progressive goals, like getting out of Iraq.

      A government run by Ron Paul would be even worse than BushCo. He would dismantle the great experiment designed by the founders.

      We would need a new Dickens to describe the misery poor and powerless people would experience if this ridiculous philosophy took over our gov4ernment.

      My last sig was forced into retirement. The position is open.

      by MakeChessNotWar on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:31:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Paul is nutz but these are crazy times (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Seuss

    But people are so fed up with the two so called parties they're fishing around for someone else to vote 4. If Paul's positions on things like Choice got more coverage most of his following would disappear. He basically attracts 3 crowds. Young geeks who like his tax stand , RTLers that like that his anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-sex etc psoitions and the 3rd group that like his anti-Iraq war stance and want to ignore the rest.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

    by Blutodog on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:27:00 PM PST

  •  Paul is the least noxious Republican (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Seuss

    ..in the field. Which should tell you how toxic the field is.

    For people who feel like they'll lose their soul if they don't vote Republican, they should vote for Paul.

    For everyone else, voting for Paul should be roundly discouraged.

    I don't agree with calling him "crazy." It implies the other Republicans are somehow sane.

    How we know Daffy Duck is Republican: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --BiPM

    by rhetoricus on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 12:51:05 PM PST

  •  Guns in schools? Why not? (0+ / 0-)

    But by all means let's go further and allow guns in the Capitol building.  If guns are good for kids and teachers they're good for legislators too, right?

    Put on your jumping shoes, which are intellect and love--Meister Eckhart

    by smusher on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:03:53 PM PST

  •  Given up (0+ / 0-)

    Back in May when Ron Paul started to take off on YouTube and Digg I spent quite a bit of time trying to debunk his record and set the neo-libertarians strait on a few issues such as the gold standard and dissolving public education. I understand that many independents are cynical about Democrats at this point in time, and rightfully so, but the Paul camp is little more than a bizarre consortium of libertarians, 9/11 truthers, tax protesters, survivalist, white supremacist, ultra-orthodox Christians, assorted gadflies and most oddly, non-Americans. It's a lost cause, but I'm certain they won't go quietly after Paul drops out.

    They make a wasteland and call it peace -Tacitus

    by ZenFountain on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:09:48 PM PST

  •  He's also so crazy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    szilard, Dr Seuss, Quequeg

    that he wants to end the American Empire!

    I don't think I've heard one Democrat say that.

    Don't start a blog, build a community with SoapBlox - the NEW blog framework.

    by pacified on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 01:42:10 PM PST

  •  Freedom? (0+ / 0-)

    Paul pulls the same sleight-of-hand that all "states rights" proponents do: they trumpet how they're against the tyranny of the federal government.  What they don't say is that they're all for the states being as tyrannical as they want.

    For example, Paul is perfectly okay with states passing their own flag-burning laws.

    And like most states-rightsers, he's okay with the feds stepping in when the states don't vote his way. He's for the federal government limiting the control states have over private schools.

    And has anyone noticed that you can identify the pro-Paul comments by sorting by length?

  •  Everyone is nuts. Which is the nuttiest though? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Seuss, J M F

    I only voted once, at age 18. As much to claim that I had voted once, as for any other reason.

    This year I registered to vote.

    I don't believe that even in ideal conditions that even ideally free markets would be so perfect. A few will slip through the cracks, and I don't want those few to starve. I have no problem helping them. Even with tax money. That being the case, I think the federal government should probably butt out of such welfare, but that's more of a procedural thing... just seems less efficient.

    What I don't like, is the taxspending welfare extravaganza that most of the democrats seem to have a fetish for. Acknowledging that there should be a blend of libertarian and socialist principles is not the same as thinking it should be 1%/99% L/S. There are days though, I wonder, if any of the democrats (save Kucinich) think that the L-side should be even 1% though. Hillary can shove her village, my wife and I will raise our children by ourselves.

    But let's take a look at your issues.

    The UN: What's bad about leaving the UN? We'd still send diplomats to every nation... even those we don't do so now. Cuba, Iran, etc. We'd probably still have diplomats in an observer capacity, as the swiss did until recently. But then, the swiss are warmongering savages like the republicans, I suppose.

    Pro-choice/Pro-life: It's not absurd to think that a fetus might be a person. I'm not in favor of criminalizing abortion, as I have said in the past (it's counter-productive to the goal of reducing/eliminating abortion), but it's not difficult to understand how an obstretician might come to this conclusion, either.

    Minimum wage: I believe there should be a minimum wage. I even mentioned it in a diary, though people skimmed over that part of it. I don't think it should be federal... people in NYC need more to survive than someone who lives where they can rent a home for $300 a month. And employers in Iowa probably can't afford to give the $20+ an hour that someone in NYC needs. But only the federal government can possibly do this, eh? The states are an anachronism, best left to writing traffic tickets and zoning laws. And you wonder why the ronulans think there's an NAU in the work?!? It's because some people want only the biggest government they can, and sometimes a federal US government doesn't seem big enough.

    Guns in schools: This is a gross mischaracterization. I see no reason why someone who has a permit to carry a handgun shouldn't be able to take it with them in public. I don't think there's much chance of someone stopping a rampaging psychopath, but I fail to see how this situation will be improved by keeping the law-abiding responsible from having them.

    Birthright citizenship: Not sure whether I agree with it or not, but bypassing legal immigration by having anchor babies is sort of cheating in my opinion. I do want illegal immigration to stop, but I also favor opening up legal immigration to more than 50,000 a year, something we don't currently have. An ammendment won't happen, in any event.

    Gold standard: He's not for a gold standard and says as much. He just wants it to be backed by something. The quote I remember is that that it could be steel for all he cares. The commodity isn't important. As for the federal reserve, I find it strange that everyone is so in love with central banks, considering how it was created, and the depressions and recessions since.

    Crazy is electing democrats again, and expecting them to end the warmongering.

  •  Is Ron Paul really that "crazy"? (4+ / 0-)

    I read a great article at the Salon that picked apart the pro/con of Ron Paul positions:

    http://www.salon.com/...

    Quote from article "This whole concept of singling out and labeling as "weirdos" and "fruitcakes" political figures because they espouse views that are held only by a small number of people is nothing more than an attempt to discredit someone without having to do the work to engage their arguments. It's actually a tactic right out of the seventh grade cafeteria. It's just a slothful mechanism for enforcing norms."

    It makes you wonder though, if he right on about the war whereas the left and right are way off base, then why shouldn't we look a little deeper at the rest of his issues?

  •  So sad (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jay w

    From a previous post of mine:

    A grassroots movement to put in place a Libertarian, whose policies lead us further down the road to privatized tyranny. Just brilliant. The Kool-aid these people drink must be some serious stuff.

    Eliminate government institutions (goodbye FDA and what's left of FEMA)? Check.

    Eliminate social programs (no universal health care, higher education, social safety nets, or well, anything else). Check.

    Elimination of worker protection laws? Check.

    Elimination of environmental standards? Check.

    Privatize pension systems like Social Security? Check.

    Move further towards privatized disaster management services, police forces, and fire departments? Check.

    Eliminate minimum wage laws? Check.

    Shift risk further out to private citizens instead of across society, therefore hurting those who need help the most and can least afford it? Check.

    Put people even more at mercy of market forces? Check.

    Allow private companies to have even more control of
    the lives of individuals? Check.

    Toss progressive taxation out of the window, further cementing the position of the wealthy top 1%? Check.

    Help move us even closer to a confusing, choice-laden contract society? Check.

    Further neglect of infrastructure? Check.

    More sell offs of public land to private entities for their profit rather than the public good? Check.

    Help push us further towards a nickel-and-diming private tollbooth society (remember, public roads are like Socialism!)? Check.

    Just try to imagine what this Rothbardian fantasy land would look like. Think walled fortresses for the wealthy, destitute masses, severe pollution, no middle class to speak of, people dying left and right from contaminated food and dangerous products, and dizzying array of choices, branding on everything in sight, private tollbooths on the private roads - which would be all of them, and the domination of private industry of every aspect of society. Sounds like America today? Under a more "true" Economic Libertarian, it'd be even worse.

    What a freaking nightmare.

    ..but hey! At least he's like, against the war and empire building! Great. We'd trade empire abroad for privatized tyranny at home. What a trade!

    Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

    by spencerh on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 04:27:11 PM PST

  •  Hmmm.... (0+ / 0-)

    That proposed "birthright citizenship" law isn't going to be  retroactive, is it?

    Because that could get pretty intersting....

    Actually, now that I think about it, someone should suggest we make it retroactive, adn see what he says!

    It is no worse, because I write of it. It would be no better, if I stopped my most unwilling hand.

    by ChaosMouse on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 05:41:31 PM PST

  •  The 2 worst on this list (0+ / 0-)

    Are his opposition to abortion and his wanting to return to the gold standard. I am a lot more conservative than most of the posters here, but I realize that 2008 is just around the corner and these two views have outlived their usefulness.

    All of western society has successfully framed abortion as a woman's rights issue - I have finally converted to this view. It is immoral and will never get a majority to put the interests of a fetus above the rights of the mother. Trying to outlaw abortion negates him as a serious candidate.

    As my US$ are losing value daily over here in SE Asia, I am all for strong measures to stabilize the value of the greenback. But, using gold does not make sense as most of its value is due to its scarcity. Gold is mostly used for jewelry and some electrical connections, which means that its utility in a modern economy is really low. I hope there is a particularly hot spot in hell for Greenspan, but gold is not the way to make sure that Bernakke is any less destructive to the American (and global) economy. If he is going to use a commodity, opium, oil, or nuclear warheads make more sense. Better yet, don't use a commodity; there is none that meet all of the requirements for this role.

    •  Read up on him... (0+ / 0-)

      In the interview I saw, he said he didn't have a gold fetish, that he just wants a commodity-backed currency.

      I can't remember the quote, but he ended it with something like "it could be steel, that's not so important what it is".

      But it's easier to smear his views with "he wants to return to the 18th century with gold money!".

  •  This pretty much owns this entire rant post!SORRY (0+ / 0-)

    Take notes dailykrazy, this is how you right intelligent articles.....instead of the worthless slanted crap you call a blog.

    read more, rant less.

    http://www.antiwar.com/...

    The hypocrisy of the ISO attack on Paul is breathtaking.

    Like the neocons, Wolf attacks Paul for supposedly being one of those dreaded "isolationists." Does she realize that this is a code-word for anti-war and anti-imperialist? Of course she does, yet she cynically avers: "In the isolationist fashion of the nation's Pat Buchanans, he decries intervention in foreign nation's affairs and believes membership in the United Nations undermines U.S. sovereignty." Such a sentence, dripping with contempt for Paul's "no entangling alliances" keep-us-out-of-war stance, might easily have appeared in the Weekly Standard, or National Review. Out of the United Nations?! Oh, heavens-to-Betsy, then how would the Security Council enforce all those delightful sanctions against Iran, and threaten to unleash the armed might of the West if Tehran doesn't bow to the Council's demands? Of course, this is par for the course for the ISO, whose British predecessors, the Cliff-ite Socialist Review faction, refused to condemn the US invasion of Korea, which was sanctioned, you'll recall, by the UN and fought under "international" auspices.

    Well, isn't that just tough?! Both the orthodox "left" and the neoconservative "right" are intellectually and politically bankrupt: they have nothing to offer but empty slogans, stale dogma, and an outmoded paradigm that has kept us barreling down the road to tyranny and perpetual war, a process that seems to have accelerated ominously since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Rather than support the only antiwar, anti-authoritarian candidate on the ballot, the sectarians of the ISO would rather stand on the sidelines and stew in their own watery juices.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site